I’m a libertarian first I believe in limits on executive power and in always cautious about executive overreach. That said 90% of the time I find myself on the side of Republicans, the modern democrat party has just shifted so far towards socialism it’s hard to find much common ground with them.

There’s certain republican senators and representatives I pay close attention to, they like myself tend to lean more libertarian than out right conservative or republican.

One by one in finding them all at odds with the administration and it’s giving me pause.

Justin Amish is at odds with the administration for over reach

Mike Lee is now at odds with the administration over the security briefing and the handling of the Iran situation

Rand Paul isn’t actively making any noise but he certainly has made his objections clear and voiced his uncertainty 

Ron Paul is openly speaking out against our recent actions in Iran

That’s just off the top of my head. Again it’s not enough to chase me into the arms of Bernie but I’m concerned some of the canaries in the mine are chirping louder today.

---

The false narrative to which you're falling prey is that to move away from Republicans is a move to Bernie's Socialism. That's just Trump's red meat for MAGA rallies. If you're worried about Executive Branch overreach, and you should, check into AG Barr's recent remarks.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

I’m not as confident In Trump as I was a year ago I’ll give you that

---

It's still a lesser of two evils. Overreach has become the norm, unfortunately. Unless you get a candidate that will abide by the Constitution of their own free will, you're gonna have to pick the candidate who will abuse it the least. I still think that's Trump, if only because he will be scrutinized much more heavily than a democrat.

---

I’m not as confident In Trump as I was a year ago I’ll give you that

You'll be fine.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It's still a lesser of two evils. Overreach has become the norm, unfortunately. Unless you get a candidate that will abide by the Constitution of their own free will, you're gonna have to pick the candidate who will abuse it the least. I still think that's Trump, if only because he will be scrutinized much more heavily than a democrat.

I hate that argument the lesser of two evils. Not saying you’re wrong I just hate that argument. I voted third party before when the lesser of two evils was just to much to stomach for me.

Factor in the ridiculous spending under this administration I’m not slam dunk sold on voting for Trump again at the end of the year.

---

Contrary to popular belief, Donald Trump is not "far right" or really even "on the right" on the political spectrum.  He is actually closer to the center than most believe.  The problem with liberals is that somebody near the center of the political spectrum is viewed as being "far right".  I would almost wager that had Trump ran as a democrat he would have won anyway in 2016.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Contrary to popular belief, Donald Trump is not "far right" or really even "on the right" on the political spectrum.  He is actually closer to the center than most believe.  The problem with liberals is that somebody near the center of the political spectrum is viewed as being "far right".  I would almost wager that had Trump ran as a democrat he would have won anyway in 2016.

I agree 100% I don’t see him as a conservative in most cases at all, to me his to big into spending and I’m starting to wonder if he is going to end up being another interventionist after running on non-intervention policies. That leaves me to wonder if he is worth supporting again?

---

Contrary to popular belief, Donald Trump is not "far right" or really even "on the right" on the political spectrum.  He is actually closer to the center than most believe.  The problem with liberals is that somebody near the center of the political spectrum is viewed as being "far right".  I would almost wager that had Trump ran as a democrat he would have won anyway in 2016.

I agree 100% I don’t see him as a conservative in most cases at all, to me his to big into spending and I’m starting to wonder if he is going to end up being another interventionist after running on non-intervention policies. That leaves me to wonder if he is worth supporting again?

There is a difference between defending and intervening.

---

Contrary to popular belief, Donald Trump is not "far right" or really even "on the right" on the political spectrum.  He is actually closer to the center than most believe.  The problem with liberals is that somebody near the center of the political spectrum is viewed as being "far right".  I would almost wager that had Trump ran as a democrat he would have won anyway in 2016.

One problem with liberals is that most of them understand the political spectrum only in terms of the intensity of their own emotions. They think the fact that Trump upsets them more (and we know he does it on purpose) means that he must be further right.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Contrary to popular belief, Donald Trump is not "far right" or really even "on the right" on the political spectrum.  He is actually closer to the center than most believe.  The problem with liberals is that somebody near the center of the political spectrum is viewed as being "far right".  I would almost wager that had Trump ran as a democrat he would have won anyway in 2016.

I agree 100% I don’t see him as a conservative in most cases at all, to me his to big into spending and I’m starting to wonder if he is going to end up being another interventionist after running on non-intervention policies. That leaves me to wonder if he is worth supporting again?

Budgets don't really seem to be Trump's thing.  He hasn't really tried to cut them or boost them. It's really the Republicans in Congress that were the big spenders while Ryan was speaker.  Now that Pelosi is speaker again the tempo of spending hasn't changed much.  But you expect her to be a big spender.  More surprising when Ryan was one.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It's still a lesser of two evils. Overreach has become the norm, unfortunately. Unless you get a candidate that will abide by the Constitution of their own free will, you're gonna have to pick the candidate who will abuse it the least. I still think that's Trump, if only because he will be scrutinized much more heavily than a democrat.

I hate that argument the lesser of two evils. Not saying you’re wrong I just hate that argument. I voted third party before when the lesser of two evils was just to much to stomach for me.

Factor in the ridiculous spending under this administration I’m not slam dunk sold on voting for Trump again at the end of the year.

You can only avoid lesser of two evils if you send a clear message. There is not enough of a collective outrage about the overreach of the executive branch from either party. Until that changes, it will always be a lesser of two evils. I support your conviction, but your concern won't be abated by voting Democrat for two reasons: They will also overreach, and Republicans won't get the message.

---

I’m a libertarian first I believe in limits on executive power and in always cautious about executive overreach. That said 90% of the time I find myself on the side of Republicans, the modern democrat party has just shifted so far towards socialism it’s hard to find much common ground with them.

There’s certain republican senators and representatives I pay close attention to, they like myself tend to lean more libertarian than out right conservative or republican.

One by one in finding them all at odds with the administration and it’s giving me pause.

Justin Amish is at odds with the administration for over reach

Mike Lee is now at odds with the administration over the security briefing and the handling of the Iran situation

Rand Paul isn’t actively making any noise but he certainly has made his objections clear and voiced his uncertainty 

Ron Paul is openly speaking out against our recent actions in Iran

That’s just off the top of my head. Again it’s not enough to chase me into the arms of Bernie but I’m concerned some of the canaries in the mine are chirping louder today.

I think Mike Lee and Rand Paul were mad because at the security briefing they asked, "At what point would a President need to get approval from Congress to start a war or assassinate a foreign leader?"  and the briefers didn't want to give an answer.  "Can the President decide on his own to assassinate the leader of a foreign country?"  No answer.   The response they got was, "Run along now, support the President, shut up." 

If a President can use our military in any way he wants, without any check on that power, including attacking or invading a foreign country,  or assassinating a foreign leader, or killing anyone he wants to anywhere in the world in the name of national security, then do we have a dictator?  

What about the Constitution, which says that war powers reside in Congress?  

I know every President for the last 80 years has done the same thing, so responding "Well, Obama did it." is not an answer.  

How much power should we give one single person?

Personally, I don't see why any libertarian would vote for Bernie Sanders.  He's about as far from libertarian as one can get.

---

I’m a libertarian first I believe in limits on executive power and in always cautious about executive overreach. That said 90% of the time I find myself on the side of Republicans, the modern democrat party has just shifted so far towards socialism it’s hard to find much common ground with them.

There’s certain republican senators and representatives I pay close attention to, they like myself tend to lean more libertarian than out right conservative or republican.

One by one in finding them all at odds with the administration and it’s giving me pause.

Justin Amish is at odds with the administration for over reach

Mike Lee is now at odds with the administration over the security briefing and the handling of the Iran situation

Rand Paul isn’t actively making any noise but he certainly has made his objections clear and voiced his uncertainty 

Ron Paul is openly speaking out against our recent actions in Iran

That’s just off the top of my head. Again it’s not enough to chase me into the arms of Bernie but I’m concerned some of the canaries in the mine are chirping louder today.

I think Mike Lee and Rand Paul were mad because at the security briefing they asked, "At what point would a President need to get approval from Congress to start a war or assassinate a foreign leader?"  and the briefers didn't want to give an answer.  "Can the President decide on his own to assassinate the leader of a foreign country?"  No answer.   The response they got was, "Run along now, support the President, shut up." 

If a President can use our military in any way he wants, without any check on that power, including attacking or invading a foreign country,  or assassinating a foreign leader, or killing anyone he wants to anywhere in the world in the name of national security, then do we have a dictator?  

What about the Constitution, which says that war powers reside in Congress?  

I know every President for the last 80 years has done the same thing, so responding "Well, Obama did it." is not an answer.  

How much power should we give one single person?

Personally, I don't see why any libertarian would vote for Bernie Sanders.  He's about as far from libertarian as one can get.

The answer they got, correctly so, was, "We can't answer the hypothetical." You should read the War Powers Act, it might clear some of this up for you. To give you the Cliff Notes, an attack on the US means the President can respond with notification of Congress required within 48 hours AFTER committing the Forces to battle. They can then continue for not more than 60 days without Congressional approval. So, no, we don't have a dictator, we have a responsible US President fulfilling his Congressional approved duties. The same as the Ukraine Hoax. And the same blah blah response by the Do Nothing Legislature.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I think Mike Lee and Rand Paul were mad because at the security briefing they asked, "At what point would a President need to get approval from Congress to start a war or assassinate a foreign leader?"  and the briefers didn't want to give an answer.  "Can the President decide on his own to assassinate the leader of a foreign country?"  No answer.   The response they got was, "Run along now, support the President, shut up." 

If a President can use our military in any way he wants, without any check on that power, including attacking or invading a foreign country,  or assassinating a foreign leader, or killing anyone he wants to anywhere in the world in the name of national security, then do we have a dictator?  

What about the Constitution, which says that war powers reside in Congress?  

I know every President for the last 80 years has done the same thing, so responding "Well, Obama did it." is not an answer.  

How much power should we give one single person?

Personally, I don't see why any libertarian would vote for Bernie Sanders.  He's about as far from libertarian as one can get.

The answer they got, correctly so, was, "We can't answer the hypothetical." You should read the War Powers Act, it might clear some of this up for you. To give you the Cliff Notes, an attack on the US means the President can respond with notification of Congress required within 48 hours AFTER committing the Forces to battle. They can then continue for not more than 60 days without Congressional approval. So, no, we don't have a dictator, we have a responsible US President fulfilling his Congressional approved duties. The same as the Ukraine Hoax. And the same blah blah response by the Do Nothing Legislature.

I haven't read the war powers act lately, but I'm pretty sure the Persian dude was not traveling in an armored vehicle, nor was he traveling with any heavy weapons.  So while he may have been planning an attack, he was not an obvious threat at that moment.  That doesn't mean it was wrong to kill him. But a better explanation of why it was important to kill him at exactly that moment is owed.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The answer they got, correctly so, was, "We can't answer the hypothetical." You should read the War Powers Act, it might clear some of this up for you. To give you the Cliff Notes, an attack on the US means the President can respond with notification of Congress required within 48 hours AFTER committing the Forces to battle. They can then continue for not more than 60 days without Congressional approval. So, no, we don't have a dictator, we have a responsible US President fulfilling his Congressional approved duties. The same as the Ukraine Hoax. And the same blah blah response by the Do Nothing Legislature.

I haven't read the war powers act lately, but I'm pretty sure the Persian dude was not traveling in an armored vehicle, nor was he traveling with any heavy weapons.  So while he may have been planning an attack, he was not an obvious threat at that moment.  That doesn't mean it was wrong to kill him. But a better explanation of why it was important to kill him at exactly that moment is owed.

It was a response to an attack on the US. A response to an attack that had already occurred. 

What part of the word "response" confuses you?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I haven't read the war powers act lately, but I'm pretty sure the Persian dude was not traveling in an armored vehicle, nor was he traveling with any heavy weapons.  So while he may have been planning an attack, he was not an obvious threat at that moment.  That doesn't mean it was wrong to kill him. But a better explanation of why it was important to kill him at exactly that moment is owed.

It was a response to an attack on the US. A response to an attack that had already occurred. 

What part of the word "response" confuses you?

Beware, incoming 8,000 word dissertation on the word "response."

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The answer they got, correctly so, was, "We can't answer the hypothetical." You should read the War Powers Act, it might clear some of this up for you. To give you the Cliff Notes, an attack on the US means the President can respond with notification of Congress required within 48 hours AFTER committing the Forces to battle. They can then continue for not more than 60 days without Congressional approval. So, no, we don't have a dictator, we have a responsible US President fulfilling his Congressional approved duties. The same as the Ukraine Hoax. And the same blah blah response by the Do Nothing Legislature.

I haven't read the war powers act lately, but I'm pretty sure the Persian dude was not traveling in an armored vehicle, nor was he traveling with any heavy weapons.  So while he may have been planning an attack, he was not an obvious threat at that moment.  That doesn't mean it was wrong to kill him. But a better explanation of why it was important to kill him at exactly that moment is owed.

He killed americans.  End of chat.

---

I haven't read the war powers act lately, but I'm pretty sure the Persian dude was not traveling in an armored vehicle, nor was he traveling with any heavy weapons.  So while he may have been planning an attack, he was not an obvious threat at that moment.  That doesn't mean it was wrong to kill him. But a better explanation of why it was important to kill him at exactly that moment is owed.

It was a response to an attack on the US. A response to an attack that had already occurred. 

What part of the word "response" confuses you?

The MSM is leaving out the attack on the US embassy that precipitated the attack and the 600 plus soldiers the guy killed, so obviously it's going to take mike a few days to catch up.

---

Rearrange your worldview a bit and Trump begins to make sense:

https://orientalreview.org/2019/11/15/about-trump/

---

I haven't read the war powers act lately, but I'm pretty sure the Persian dude was not traveling in an armored vehicle, nor was he traveling with any heavy weapons.  So while he may have been planning an attack, he was not an obvious threat at that moment.  That doesn't mean it was wrong to kill him. But a better explanation of why it was important to kill him at exactly that moment is owed.

It was a response to an attack on the US. A response to an attack that had already occurred. 

What part of the word "response" confuses you?

He did not carry out any attack.  He may have directed an attack.  But in that case, is it okay to kill the Ayatollah?   We have to assume he approved the attack, too.  Is it okay to assassinate the leadership of any country that we say supports terrorism?  And who makes that determination?  The President?   So the President is authorized to kill any foreign leader without anyone stopping him, as long as he claims the guy approved an act that killed Americans?  

If we can do this, I assume it's okay for other countries to do this.  We've sent arms to Ukraine, arms which were used to kill Russians.  Can Putin have Trump assassinated, would that be okay under this standard? 

I think Mike Lee just wanted to know, what's the rule?   Are there any limits on this?

---