d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Rand Paul Turning His Back On Libertarians?
Prev12
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 52,226
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Gold: 8,902.00
Nov 8 2019 11:53am
Quote (IceMage @ Nov 8 2019 11:47am)
Libertarians who treat Trump differently than any other Republican or Democratic president. Stefan Molyneux and Cambo qualify.


I treat Republican and Democrat presidents differently. Because on the whole, Democrats are worse than Republicans (on principles, not necessarily deeds).
Member
Posts: 28,884
Joined: Aug 11 2013
Gold: 10,712.00
Nov 8 2019 11:56am
Not sure how this is anti libertarian. It's been 3 years of 'anonymous sources said this' and it turned out to be largely biased political leaking. Wanting to know who the leaker is to examine his motives makes sense for people interested in the truth.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Nov 8 2019 11:58am
Member
Posts: 105,150
Joined: Apr 25 2006
Gold: 10,475.00
Nov 8 2019 12:05pm


I don't think RP is jumping on the Trump train or anything, but I DO think he's getting fed up with the Dems BS. I think he's doing the same as he always does... doing what he thinks is right.
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
Nov 8 2019 12:06pm
Quote (ofthevoid @ Nov 8 2019 09:56am)
Not sure how this is anti libertarian. It's been 3 years of 'anonymous sources said this' and it turned out to be largely biased political leaking. Wanting to know who the leaker is to examine his motives makes sense for people interested in the truth.


That would make sense if he was the only source...turns out, he's just someone who got the ball rolling and he really doesn't matter anymore.
Member
Posts: 28,884
Joined: Aug 11 2013
Gold: 10,712.00
Nov 8 2019 12:15pm
Quote (thundercock @ Nov 8 2019 01:06pm)
That would make sense if he was the only source...turns out, he's just someone who got the ball rolling and he really doesn't matter anymore.


If that's the case, from a legal point of view his information should be disregarded then no?

Shitty precedent to set where people can accuse someone of something and not have to be cross-examined.

Member
Posts: 32,103
Joined: Dec 29 2009
Gold: 0.00
Nov 8 2019 12:18pm
Quote (ofthevoid @ Nov 8 2019 12:15pm)
If that's the case, from a legal point of view his information should be disregarded then no?

Shitty precedent to set where people can accuse someone of something and not have to be cross-examined.


He can be cross-examined without being publicly outed.

FFS, Rand Paul has been honored by civil rights groups for his previous work in protecting whistleblowers.

https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/whistleblower-summit-for-civil-and-human-rights-returns-to-capitol-hill-2013-07-29
Member
Posts: 49,289
Joined: Jun 18 2006
Gold: 11.77
Nov 8 2019 12:19pm
Quote (ofthevoid @ Nov 8 2019 01:15pm)
If that's the case, from a legal point of view his information should be disregarded then no?

Shitty precedent to set where people can accuse someone of something and not have to be cross-examined.


It will be disregarded. The Democrats don't have to rely on any of the whistle blower's accusations.
Member
Posts: 53,368
Joined: Sep 2 2004
Gold: 57.00
Nov 8 2019 12:20pm
Rand is supposedly trying to out someone's name.. who was already outed in the released impeachment inquiry testimony? how does that work :wacko:
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
Nov 8 2019 12:21pm
Quote (ofthevoid @ Nov 8 2019 10:15am)
If that's the case, from a legal point of view his information should be disregarded then no?

Shitty precedent to set where people can accuse someone of something and not have to be cross-examined.


Why use second hand information when you can use first hand information? All the people questioned are DIRECTLY involved.
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Nov 8 2019 01:33pm
Quote (ofthevoid @ Nov 8 2019 12:15pm)
If that's the case, from a legal point of view his information should be disregarded then no?

Shitty precedent to set where people can accuse someone of something and not have to be cross-examined.


His testimony wouldn't be admissible in a court, it's hearsay. However, the level of scrutiny given to people reporting potential wrongdoing is much lower than the level of scrutiny given to somebody making a claim to prove the point in question, as it should be. To have it otherwise would basically require police to ignore somebody coming in saying "John admitted to me in confidence that he was the one who murdered Adam last week".
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev12
Add Reply New Topic New Poll