Kinda like the crowd that says: "you don't need no technology to hunt!"
"Crazy" would be continuing to move leftward while bemoaning the fact that we are no closer to being a really conservative country. First step in getting out of a hole..... stop digging!
But each to their own I suppose.
The Rock
Oh.....and you DON'T "need" technology to hunt. In theory all you "need" is your wits and your senses. But everyone uses technology of some sort and everyone's "need" and use of it varies.
I've been a Libertarian for quite a few years now, with conservative Republican leanings held over from the Goldwater campaign of my youth.
I prefer a candidate who proposes to follow the principle of a smaller and less obtrusive government, lower taxes, and less involvement in foreign affairs that drag us into winless wars.
If that candidate has actual experience in running a government at the state level, and following those principles while doing so, he even ranks ahead of a taller, louder, and richer candidate who promises more free stuff, at least in my eyes!
I even voted for Johnson in the general, after "Aleppo", on general purposes and because a Trump victory here in IN was as sure a thing as there is in politics when the election was drawing near. I certainly would agree that anything but Hillary was the goal, but the second goal was to cast one more vote for a truly conservative government led by a man who had actually run a government rather than just his mouth and a real estate business started with daddy's money.
Wouldn't you agree?
His positions on some social issues such as pot, are obviously less aligned with the official stance of the GOP, which apparently still believes we may win the War on Drugs someday if we continue to spend enough and arrest enough, and ignore the fact that the only thing accomplished by it in the first seventy years or so has been the creation of a very lucrative black market, as is the norm for the creation of a "banned substance".
His stance on most issues is pretty much the exact opposite of the big-government, gun-grabbing, liberal idiots on the other side of the political fence, and his record during his administrations as governor were consistent with his pro-2A, smaller government, reduced spending, positions he has consistently held both as a candidate for office as a Republican and as a Libertarian. I also thought he had the best one-liner of the debates when he said that his neighbors two large dogs had created more "shovel-ready jobs" in his yard than were created by the Obama administration.
I would agree that he lacks the PhD in BS that is apparently a requirement to get the nomination now, and certainly is one to win the election, but I'll keep voting for the occasion loony Libertarian that gives it a shot.
Don't let the first five letters of the labels fool you, LIBERtarian and LIBERal are really two very different animals, with the exception of a few social issues.
HA/KS's Link
By my reckoning, "conservative" meant smaller government, less intrusive government, more personal liberty, and generally less entanglement in foreign affairs. So does Libertarian.
The definition over the last few decades seems to have shifted in some quarters to center on more social issues, that I would consider being defined by the "neo-cons".
I was a teenager taking his first hard look at politics during the 1960 campaign, although I had some mild interest in it earlier. My first chilling realization that even the brightest and "best" candidates would say anything to get elected was when I watched JFK on TV telling a cheering crowd that the national debt didn't matter, as "we only owe it to ourselves"! Hmmm......at 15, I was certainly no economist, but THAT sounded fishy.
Started paying more attention, and by the 1964 campaign I was a firm Goldwater fan, although still too young to vote for him. He was quoted as being in favor of gays in the military, saying that in his opinion, a soldier didn't need to BE straight, just to SHOOT straight. That didn't make him a Liberal by definition, nor did William F. Buckley's opinion on the War on Drugs make him one, even though both were closer to the modern liberal stance on those issues at first glance.
I do agree with Rand Paul on the quote you cite. I am not a Trump-ette, but he was the better choice of the last two standing, by a mile. But is he Libertarian? Not so I've noticed! I may have missed that day, as I don't keep abreast of his stance changes when the lawn needs mowed or there are fish that need caught. 8^)
