The fusion of libertarianism and the Republican base.

[Incorruptible]

I could see Rand Paul having a strong shot at the WH in 2016 if he keeps it up. He still runs as (R) but he's got libertarian leanings that I could get behind. Better than standard old GOP platform. . .

Definitely. I think there is a good chance that he will run and he has some good ideas that would be able to attract new voters.

 

[soulcougher73]

Libertarian is fine for now. If the GOP base moves in though its over. The religious right will want to take control and tell people what to do and how to live.

Best thing for the libertarian movement is to distance itself from GOP.

 

[TechBoyJK]

This is also where the country is headed demographically. Younger generations are much more fiscally conservative and socially liberal than the older generations... and this change isn't at all thwarted by the influx of Hispanic people, like some social conservatives hoped.

I'm finding more and more people aren't comfortable with either sides of the isle.

They like some republican ideas, and some democrat ideas.

They also equally hate some ideas from both sides, sometimes making it difficult to vote for either.

The libertarian movement seems to be where my most educated and politically insightful friends are headed.

Basically, stay smart with money, but don't infringe on personal liberties.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I could see Rand Paul having a strong shot at the WH in 2016 if he keeps it up. He still runs as (R) but he's got libertarian leanings that I could get behind. Better than standard old GOP platform. . .

But this is the entire problem. In order to have a shot at the White House, he has to get through the Republican primary process. And that means he'll have the same problem his father did -- most of the GOP base doesn't share his policy views in any of the areas where they diverge from the Republican status quo. This makes him easy to attack and even marginalize.

No matter how much cross-party appeal he may have, the GOP base of hard-right knuckledraggers is an obstacle he won't likely be able to overcome.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

The Republican party is trying to use the Libertarian message of Constitutional freedom to revive their party so they don't have to move towards a liberal social stance or actually reduce spending in the government (which is their big lie they sell people on but never actually do). Welcome to your "representation".

 

[nextJin]

But this is the entire problem. In order to have a shot at the White House, he has to get through the Republican primary process. And that means he'll have the same problem his father did -- most of the GOP base doesn't share his policy views in any of the areas where they diverge from the Republican status quo. This makes him easy to attack and even marginalize.

No matter how much cross-party appeal he may have, the GOP base of hard-right knuckledraggers is an obstacle he won't likely be able to overcome.

You keep saying this as if they are the same person, Ron Paul was slammed mainly for saying we caused 911 and his stance on gold, fema and once he became a threat his newsletters.

None of which Rand affiliates himself with, when you have Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Charles Krauthammer and others saying they love Paul for 90% of his stances but the other 10% are so extreme they just can't support him then look at Rand it's pretty clear he will be accepted.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Um, if Limbaugh, Hannity and Krauthammer support Rand Paul, that demonstrates his libertarian "non-bona-fides" better than I ever could.

 

[nextJin]

Um, if Limbaugh, Hannity and Krauthammer support Rand Paul, that demonstrates his libertarian "non-bona-fides" better than I ever could.

This thread is not saying strict libertarians are going to take over the Republican party, it's saying it is taking the good and replacing the bad.

Notice none of those 3 are saying we need to legalize all drugs either which is another big libertarian issue. Ron suggested that idea too and was again slammed.

I hate all 3 of those pundits, but they cater to the larger Republican base so I very much doubt Rand will share Rons fate and be accepted in the party.

Will he win in the primaries I have no idea but he actually has a shot as opposed to his dad.

 

[Moonbeam]

+Charles Kozierok: No, my comment shows that I would like to understand what you say,

M: Good to hear

CK: but I've pretty much given up on it since it's clear at this point that you don't really want that to happen.

M: I am not consciously aware of any such intention.

CK: You can try to turn this around on me,

M: The inevitable result, I suppose, of not being consciously aware of such an intention on my part

CK: but you, and I, and everyone here knows that many, many people feel the same way about your posts.

M: I know that too...

CK: They're deliberately cryptic,

M: Like I said, if you could just be specific and ask me what I mean if you don't understand something that would help a lot. I am not cryptic by intention. I know exactly what I mean. I may not be good at saying things or I may be saying things that can't be understood with words or you man not have the capacity to understand because you lack the proper experience. There are likely other alternative things that could be going on.

CK: because you are apparently more interested in sounding "profound" than actually communicating with people.

M: I know that I am profound. I don't have to pretend to sound profound. It is a completely irrelevant issue to me. I know that I am a person who has deep knowledge that almost no ordinary person can understand. Big fucking whoopee. I've been that way for years and I got that way because I don't have or need the kind of ego that needs to be profound. I know I am profound. I also know that my profundity sounds like idiocy to most people. I can't tell you how used to all this I am. I say what I say and the chips fall where they fall. I would like others to be profound too.

We live in a world where people compete at every level including at being profound. It becomes just another thing people want to be. It satisfies the ego. If you want to be real profound, die to you ego. Is that one of the things I say to pretend to be profound? Is that one of my cryptic remarks? Who would know what I mean by die to your ego if one hasn't died to ones ego. Myself, I think I have some idea.

A thought experiment that comes to mind would be how could a three dimensional being explain three dimensions to a cartoon figure?

PS: A cartoon figure means a 2 dimensional being and nothing more, in case your mind wondered off in some other direction.

 

[Lithium381]

This thread is not saying strict libertarians are going to take over the Republican party, it's saying it is taking the good and replacing the bad.

Notice none of those 3 are saying we need to legalize all drugs either which is another big libertarian issue. Ron suggested that idea too and was again slammed.

I hate all 3 of those pundits, but they cater to the larger Republican base so I very much doubt Rand will share Rons fate and be accepted in the party.

Will he win in the primaries I have no idea but he actually has a shot as opposed to his dad.

it's a long way to go to 2016

 

[nextJin]

it's a long way to go to 2016

Yea and we know that all 3 will be running what's your point? Do you expect a more Santorum than Santorum figure making a splash and winning it all?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

M: I know that I am profound. I don't have to pretend to sound profound. It is a completely irrelevant issue to me. I know that I am a person who has deep knowledge that almost no ordinary person can understand. Big fucking whoopee. I've been that way for years and I got that way because I don't have or need the kind of ego that needs to be profound. I know I am profound. I also know that my profundity sounds like idiocy to most people. I can't tell you how used to all this I am. I say what I say and the chips fall where they fall. I would like others to be profound too.

Your post are deep... deep, like a well-used latrine.

nextJin, I understand what you're saying. I guess I'd summarize my point as follows: to the extent that Rand Paul is accepted by people like Rush Limbaugh and Charles Krauthammer, he is not a libertarian. And to the extent that he actually behaves as a libertarian, he will not be accepted by those people. We'll see in a few years if I'm right or you are, I guess.

 

[NoStateofMind]

the "Stand with Rand" slogan has already started. Wonder if it will be around in 4yrs?

 

[Moonbeam]

the "Stand with Rand" slogan has already started. Wonder if it will be around in 4yrs?

I expect we'd also see a lot of "Fall with Paul" to match it.

 

[nextJin]

the "Stand with Rand" slogan has already started. Wonder if it will be around in 4yrs?

It may be but I wouldn't think it would be a campaign slogan.

 

[Moonbeam]

Your post are deep... deep, like a well-used latrine.

I'm not sure which part of my total disinterest in the deep thing you missed, but I'd be hard pressed to think of a more shallow response. It seems you're more interested in a pissing contest as evidenced by the latrine thingi than in any clarification of what I mean. The question is why, of course. I believe if the roles were reversed I would do all I can to clarify for you what I don't understand and especially so had you reached out like I did and asked me to. But anyway.

I would be loathed to measure the depth of your well used latrine but I suspect the results would be very much like the last pissing contest I got into with a tourist from Texas walking, as I was, across the Golden Gate one night last year. He proposed that we piss off the bridge and as we did so told me the water was very cold. But because such matters are irrelevant to me, I didn't have the heart to tell him that while the water was cold, the bay wasn't very deep. So while I don't have your expertise and personal experience with your well used latrine, I suspect the results would be the same.

A word to the wise. If you don't want to come up short in your estimation of things, don't measure them with your dick.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I expect we'd also see a lot of "Fall with Paul" to match it.

Gotta give you props there -- that was well played.