Rand Paul

[RobinReborn]

Anybody got a strong opinion on this guy? I've barely done any homework on him, but I am inclined to support him more than Donald Trump.

What are your thoughts?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Go for it.

I like Rand.

Some libertarian and Objectivist purists can't stand him.

I, myself, would vote for him in a heartbeat over Hillary.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Go for it.

I like Rand.

Some libertarian and Objectivist purists can't stand him.

I, myself, would vote for him in a heartbeat over Hillary.

Michael

Hillary? I'd vote for her if she were running against Hitler.

--Brant

I think

[RobinReborn]

Looks like Donald Trump is beating Rand Paul in terms of discussion here...

Let's see if a video can help that:

I'm not sure how plausible this tax cut is. And I don't think he's passionate.

[Peter]

It is tough getting press and rising in the polls due to his good ideas when people like The Donald and America's Dad, Bill Cosby are filling up the airways.

[Selene]

It is tough getting press and rising in the polls due to his good ideas when people like The Donald and America's Dad, Bill Cosby are filling up the airways.

And this is why the Libertarian Party has never gotten any traction.

It whines about access instead of getting it's hands "dirty" and getting involved politically, on a grass roots neighbor level.

Objectivists are worse and refuse to even whine about political campaigning because they are too effete to get down to earth with the regular folks "...who do most of the living and dieing in the community.₁"

A...

1 Jimmy Stewart in Its A Wonderful Life

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peter,

LOL...

Lumping Trump with Cosby?

I love it...

Here's a way Rand could easily get the word out for his message--he should join forces with Trump and take advantage of the megaphone.

I predict he will do just that.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

It is tough getting press and rising in the polls due to his good ideas when people like The Donald and America's Dad, Bill Cosby are filling up the airways.

And this is why the Libertarian Party has never gotten any traction.

It whines about access instead of getting it's hands "dirty" and getting involved politically, on a grass roots neighbor level.

Objectivists are worse and refuse to even whine about political campaigning because they are too effete to get down to earth with the regular folks "...who do most of the living and dieing in the community.₁"

A...

1 Jimmy Stewart in Its A Wonderful Life

This may be true about libertarians but they fell off the political horse decades ago. Another, more substantive issue, is why conservatives have allowed the country to be taken over by the left? Look at the re-elected fool in the White House. How did that happen?

Objectivism made itself so exclusive, even unto those who wanted to be Objectivists who were studying it, it blew off philosophically inclined libertarians and conservatives too. So the anarchists got the libertarians and the religionists got the conservatives and Rand and Peikoff were all that was left worthy of the Objectivist title (plus a few outliers like Binswanger).

Rand had no problem hobnobbing with conservative businessmen of note in California or people who made movies or elite publishers who had no problem being nice to her to publish and promote her novel--and she to them--but it became more and more her way or the highway and "it's earlier than you think." It's always earlier than you think but that's because you lack imagination to do something about it. This is universal for the natural human default is acceptance of what seems to be and maintaining the status quo even if it's actually a dynamic one going in the wrong direction. John Galt didn't work except on a personal level. We need other John Galts with additional approaches. We need to bust out of the Objectivist egg and make an Objectivist omelet you don't have to be an Objectivist to feed on.

--Brant

that's the template or schematic

[Selene]

It. we need to bust out of the Objectivist egg and make an Objectivist omelet you don't have to be an Objectivist to feed on.

--Brant

that's the template or schematic

Precisely.

A...

Post Script: I do not know why it has Brant's words under Peter's handle...not my intention Brant.

[william.scherk]

It. we need to bust out of the Objectivist egg and make an Objectivist omelet you don't have to be an Objectivist to feed on.

[...]

--Brant

that's the template or schematic

Precisely.

A...

Post Script: I do not know why it has Brant's words under Peter's handle...not my intention Brant.

-- that used to make me crazy when it happened to me. The solution is to switch into BB Code in your edit window. You can then just remove the wrong quoting mark ups as well as the text you don't care about. BB code is just a set of simple conventions for marking up text to insert or format images, bolding, URLs and other stuff like lists and spoilers and on and on.

Here is the basic BB code for the incorrectly-headed quote from Brant:

 [quote name="Peter Taylor"]blah blah blah[/quote]

The actual code also shows the unique posting number and the time-stamp of its publication.

You have probably hit the BB Code button in the editing window if only by accident: it's the top left one. The BB Code conventions are always of this form, in matching couplets: opening and closing mark ups: [ yadda ] test test test [/ yadda ]

Here's a couple of snaps while Out and In the BB Code window:

-- the mistakes I make in longer post quotes are usually when the opening and closing markups do not match. When responding to an already deep quoted comment, the cut and pasting overwhelms the scripts and it just makes a best guess what you are trying to do.

In this case, you would have stripped out the internal Peter Taylor quote pairs where you wanted only Brant's words. It is hard to cut out sections of multiply-quoted text and keep the attributions right in the WYSIWYG text editing window.

And behind it all, every scrap of BB Code is translated into HTML. If you really want to go crazy, check that checkmark and see hell come to life on your screen.

[Brant Gaede]

It. we need to bust out of the Objectivist egg and make an Objectivist omelet you don't have to be an Objectivist to feed on.

--Brant

that's the template or schematic

Precisely.

A...

Post Script: I do not know why it has Brant's words under Peter's handle...not my intention Brant.

You're evul.

--Brant

cleaned it up--but not for your sake, for "I swear by my life and my love of it. . . ."

[Peter]

From The Federalist, The Not Trump Not Bush Republican Primary by Robert Tracinski, September 11, 2015. . . . Lets put it this way. If you want the Republican Party to stand for something, and not for someone, who is your candidate? Lets run down the possibilities.

. . . . Rand Paul: Man of the (Previous) Moment

Rand Paul is the candidate of the libertarian moment in Republican politics. He is a product of the Obama eras rapprochement between conservatives and libertarians, an alliance forged in the Tea Party movement, where both wings found they could make common cause against bank bailouts and socialized medicine.

But the Trump phenomenon, while it probably wont make Yuge Leader the nominee, has re-opened the gap between conservatives and libertarians. It gave the paleo-conservative wing of the right a small taste of what its like to have a candidate who would speak openly in their voice and promise them their fondest wishes, and that makes them less willing to accept compromises and overlook deviations.

Rand Paul is looking like the man of a moment that has passed.

This has left Rand Paul looking like the man of a moment that has passed. The opportunity for Rand Paul, though, is to reorient himself to the new environment and establish himself as the champion for the libertarian wing of the right. I dont think he should go negative, because thats Trumps preferred territory: nobody can beat him at insulting and berating his opponents, and they shouldnt try. But next time around, Paul should spend less time sparring with Chris Christie over surveillance and more time correcting Trump, with a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger tone, about issues like immigration and protectionism. His goal should be to salvage what he can of that libertarian moment.

Moreover, after the 2012 election, there was a strong consensus among Republican leaders that they needed to do more outreach to black and Hispanic voters, and Rand Paul was in the forefront. He didnt always get a friendly reception, but he showed up and made his case, which is the first step. He has been particularly strong where the concerns of racial minoritiessuch as police abuses and excessive incarcerationhave overlapped with Pauls libertarian concerns about excessive state power.

But by coming out unapologetically as the voice of angry blue-collar whites, Donald Trump has rejected this whole approachand in the process, he is playing right into the hands of the Democrats, whose long-term electoral strategy is to heighten racial divisions in an attempt to maintain a death grip on the minority vote. Paul should be calling Trump out on this and reminding Republicans that you dont win elections by broadcasting your contempt for whole categories of voters.