Decius wrote:
Stefanie wrote:
Then again, I typically disagree with the Libertarian Party candidates on a couple of key issues, too. Point is, I wouldn't dismiss any candidate just for being imperfect.
I'm starting to get very critical of Paul. The language he uses is attractive to a lot of my friends and I don't think they should be supporting him. I think that they want to beleive that there is this person who is principled and beleives in individual freedom, but I don't think he actually shares the values that many of his supporters have.
He doesn't beleive the things that his supporters say he beleives.
People say that he is not anti-immigration, he is only against illegal immigration, but he has sponsored bills in the house this year that are targetted at legal immigrants and create substantial financial barriers for them.
He says he beleives in individual freedom, but his positions support the absolute power of state and local governments to impinge on Constitutionally protected rights.
In reality he is not a libertarian, he is a paleo-conservative. He wants to undo the financial structures created in response to the great depression, he wants to undo the international relationships that were created in response to the first and second world wars, and he wants to undo the civil liberties advances that were the product of the civil war. He wants to go back to the way things were in the 1830's wholesale, completely ignoring any and all hard lessons that we've learned along the way, and resurrecting numerous extremely evil systems in the process.
This is not just "imperfect" and I'm tired of hearing from apologists that we won't have the power to implement his entire agenda. His campaign is dangerous.
Maybe. But do you think that his gaining support will force other candidates to moderate their stances? Much like earlier dark horse candidates (Perot, Forbes, etc), their real value might be in raising consciousness and/or forcing particular issues. I'm not sure that he's as much of a snake as you purport, but even if he's disingenuous (likely, he's a politician), his rhetoric cannot be simply cast aside any longer.
