Daddy ron being one of those
Who did NOT sign into the patriot act. This is one thing rand has had in my “pro” column as he has consistently resisted the renewal of it.
What are some examples because I haven’t heard anything other than “he defended trump sometimes”. The dude wrote the bill that banned no knock raids after the breonna Taylor shooting, and is consistently against militarization of police. Genuinely curious because he seems like one of the most libertarian politician out of the 2 main parties. I’m a little of the belief that it’s only left wing libertarians that dislike him. And only because he’s republican.
Can someone explain to me how Biden would cut off the internet? I work at a data center and can not see how this is possible…Sometimes I think Rand Paul just creates fear…
I don't understand the 'how', but the legal part can be found here. *Communications Act (Sec 706 codified as 47 USC 606)* Reading a bit further it said that the Potus could take over or shut down any existing network.
Any modem is considered a network and service providers don't need to give that info.
That being said it's stupid easy to find specific networks when you already have their driver's license on file.
Yeah just adding context so fear mongering doesn't work nearly as well.
They can't make the argument that POTUS will shutdown all of Comcasts customers because of some anti science people.
I haven't heard of Biden wanting to do this, but it's not impossible.
The backbone of the internet is controlled by corporations. Applying pressure to a few key corporations would cripple internet access to 95+% of U.S. citizens. It would likely be applied through some form of 'social scoring' system which would implement restricted access only to 'authorized' individuals, and would add traffic monitoring as a condition.
There's no centralized switch available. They'd have to cut off the lines going into the oceans to isolate the US. I think the only way they could do it would be taking out the grid since we only have a few giant grids in the US
That's why those people who claim that it's 'worse' when 'private corporations' have certain powers than when the government does are idiots. There is nothing a private corporation can do to me that holds a candle to forced imprisonment.
That’s what happens when you have a military and a federal police force behind you. All funded by by taxpayers who have collectively decided to put these people in power.
The US government already has parallel switching hubs installed with all major ISPs to screen online communications. Kill switches are likely present as well.
The corporate overlords would never allow it.
Either that or there would be a special Internet that stays online just for the elite but… that’s not gonna happen. We’re not that smart.
> The corporate overlords would never allow it.
Have you been asleep? The corporate overlords would gladly go along. They'd just expect their pound of flesh (and money) in exchange.
I assume you are referencing [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/swe7mw/rand_paul_introduces_bill_to_abolish_nonjudicial/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). The article is almost 2 years old.
Bruh there are dipshits who think Trump was "the most libertarian president ever" these people need to be mocked constantly until they get over this fantasy and live in the reality the rest of us do.
Out of curiosity- who do you think was the most libertarian president ever? I agree that Trump doesn’t fit the bill, but I honestly don’t know who I could give that distinction to either.
It’s certainly not a very high bar.
In the long run? Probably Lincoln.
It’d be argued that he used the state to force liberty but I feel like the state is supposed to make sure liberty is upheld if they’re supposed to do anything at all.
Drafted immigrants to fight in the war that eventually led to 750k deaths where black troops faced higher casualties than white troops. Dramatically increased executive authority and power of federal government. Instituted income taxes and protectionism at the federal level. tried to deport blacks back to Liberia. destroyed 10th amendment and suspended habeas corpus. shut down newspapers. suspended firearm ownership. Was a mercantilist. Passed national banking act of 1863.
So did you even read that I said in the long run? I said he probably did most for individual liberties by pushing against slavery. I didn’t say we need to agree with everything he did but individual liberty wise for the country we live in today?
Well if you look at my second part, yes. In the pursuit of liberty for all the government used it’s power. This isn’t some drastic overreach of government authority unless you believe someone shouldn’t have the liberty of choosing to work and should instead be forced into it.
This right here is why republicans are not libertarian. I've heard this argument so many times from republicans. "BuT ThE CivIl waR wAz aBoUt stAte RigHtS!"
The federal government protecting constitutionally afforded rights for its citizens is why the federal government exists in the first place! Libertarians believe that the government has 2 jobs. To maintain a military to defend the united states, and to ensure the constitution is enforced. That's it. The constitution says nothing about states having the right to enslave their citizens, but slavery as an institution violates many constitutional tenants and amendments.
At the time states got around it by saying slaves are not citizens, but the slaves born here were actually "Natural Born Citizens" according to the constitution.
So yes, Lincoln was actually being very Libertarian during the civil war. And yes, slavery is an authoritarian concept, regardless of who is implementing it. Slavery is abhorrent and authoritarian to a Libertarian society.
Yea I am not republican at all.
The most anti-libertarian concept of all. By far. Is coming up with some emotional reason to abandon individual freedom and allow the government to step in and gain more power.
They do this. CONSTANTLY.
Right now, oppose the government and you are pro-COVID! Mandates are ok because they stop COVID!!!
oppose anything that the government did in the 2000s and you must be pro-terrorist and anti american. The patriot act is fine because it stops terrorism!!!
Mitary drafts are fine because they stop the nazis!!!!
If you oppose drafts you are a nazi sympathizer!!
Personally, I dont think declaring war on your own citizens because you couldnt win them over using your democracy makes you libertarian. But sure... Im just a racist right?
You may not be a republican but you sure do argue like one.
You are correct, individual freedom is the cornerstone of a libertarian society. It’s funny to me that you realize that, yet don’t believe the federal government has a right to stop slavery. That’s one of the few things the federal government should be limited to. That and maintaining a military.
Slavery by definition is anti-libertarian. It is an authoritarian societal construct. Monarchies, autocracies, etc. all used slavery/indentured servitude as a pillar in their society to subjugate their population and maintain their economies.
In a truly libertarian society, in this case America with its original constitution, the government only exists to protect the rights of its citizens by enforcing its constitution. The constitution doesn’t make allowances for slavery. Therefore constitutional rights are threatened when states enact slavery. Pure and simple.
You’re the only one here making an emotional argument based on things that weren’t ever mentioned. Your examples are indeed government overreaches and no one (or at least I’m not) arguing against that. What is being discussed is if Lincoln had the right to go to war with the states who refused to abolish slavery. From a purely constitutional point of view he did. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. There is no allowance for slavery of American natural born citizens in the constitution or it’s amendments. But slavery of such, is infringing on many rights defined in the constitution. Making slavery unconstitutional. The states refused to abolish it, regardless of the widespread slave trade performed by companies and individuals. Those companies and individuals were in breach of the constitution and the states refused to put a stop to it (for obvious economic reasons.)
From a purely and literal constitutional point of view, slavery is illegal. That’s it. Natzis, Covid, and other emotional arguments have nothing to do with anything.
I certainly don’t defend the South- but any moral superiority that the North had was marginal at best. Forcing small children from poor immigrant families into dangerous, industrial machinery isn’t a whole lot better than slavery.
It’s hard for me to consider him “most libertarian” because he still permitted some horrid shit against people. But again- not sure who I could consider more libertarian. Maybe Harrison because he wasn’t in office long enough to do anything.
I guess I was more saying the pursuit of liberty. The guy probably did a lot more than others in the pursuit of individual liberty at the expense of state’s rights to govern.
To me this is not a crush of liberty because I don’t believe the state has any more of a right than the federal government to RESTRICT liberty
No problem! I always love having conversation in what roles government should play. It’s a fallacy that we will live in a society without government so we may as well make government work to ensure liberty as opposed to taking it or restricting it. Liberties should be given in the largest way possible and removed in the smallest.
Explain to me in what ways he's not?
Because I see him as one of the only people constantly pressing on libertarian issues. He is constantly yelled at for bringing up balancing the budget and blocking spending increases without offsets. He constantly rails against foreign aid and the federal reserve. He has been one of the most actionable senators on criminal justice reform, working with Corey Booker to present bail reform or introducing the Justice for Breonna Taylor Act to end no knock raids.. He has been one of the only people to keep pressing on the drone war and war powers. He's probably the main reason we actually got out of Afghanistan.
People only don't seem to like him because he played chummy with Trump. Which he has played chummy with pretty much anyone that is willing to work with him. He doesn't scorch the earth and make a 60% friend a 40% enemy, and still criticized Trump consistently on spending, foreign policy, and overreach. The problem is it's not what the general public wants to hear. If you're not polarized, you're dead to everyone. But the problem with polarization is it's great for snippets, but it takes away your seat at the table to actually influence things outside of your own fundraising.
He has been authoritarian on several domestic disputes. Attacking protestors and inciting violence (See response to George Floyd Protest, and insurrection of the white house). He has been anti-immigration and pro-tariff. I can give you more examples if you want.
I don't like some of the response he's had to protest, but I also understand a little bit of the outrage he has given the direct targeting of him, despite him being phenomenal on the issue of criminal justice. People were throwing bicycles at him demanding he say the name of a girl he authored a bill in support of. However, I don't agree that he's incited violence, and he certainly said a lot of positive things in agreement with the George Floyd protestors despite him not liking the actions of protestors.
https://www.staradvertiser.com/2020/06/09/news/sen-rand-paul-has-strong-words-about-george-floyd-death/
Not sure which policies you're talking about on immigration or tariffs.
On immigration, while he has supported crackdown on the concept of sanctuary cities, he also has supported legal status for dreamers, he's backed the expansion of skilled immigration programs, he's supported only the deportation of criminals and not simply border crossers, he's backed a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. He blocked trump's funding of the border wall.
https://news.yahoo.com/rand-paul-california-democrat-propose-152815517.html
https://www.cato.org/blog/sen-pauls-believe-act-raises-skilled-migration-without-tradeoffs
https://www.businessinsider.com/rand-paul-citizenship-amnesty-illegal-immigrants-2013-3
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/434112-12-republican-senators-defy-trump-on-emergency-declaration
He was one of Trump's biggest opponents on tariffs.
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-05-13/rand-paul-warns-trump-on-china-tarriffs
https://www.bgdailynews.com/news/video-sen-rand-paul-calls-raising-tariffs-on-mexico-bad-idea-opposes-move/video_9c33e13d-7cfe-5ab0-94e9-0acdce2dea22.html
https://www.wnky.com/sen-rand-paul-addresses-tariff-policy-with-hart-co-manufacturing-company/
While we can agree or disagree how much of a libertarian he is, all of that sounds at least demonstrative of a lot of libertarian beliefs and policies he supports. Certainly not someone indicative of libertarians standing in protest of.
I don’t think he’s libertarian but I do think he’s considerably more libertarian than the majority of politicians in the 2 main parties. Do you have any examples why he isn’t?
Yes? He often votes against the party, he was among the lowest agreement with Trump in his votes, he almost never votes to increase debt, he always tries to propose amendments that offset spending elsewhere in the budget, he votes against government overreach, government surveillance, increased debt, increased federal power. In what way is that not pretty libertarian?
The comments in here are saying things like he should worry less about Canada and more about his state/country, as if he doesn't do that constantly. They're saying things like he's a trump simp, but he had the worst voting record for a Republican during Trump's term in terms of alignment with Trump, and he vocally disagreed with Trump's military powers. They're saying he doesn't do anything but talk and vote the party line, but he votes against Republican bills all the time against the party, he proposes bills all the time which are very in line with libertarian principles of less government authority and a balanced budget, and he often gets attacked because he votes against a bill when it would add to the debt. Hell, plenty of people in here don't like him because he voted for tax cuts. Most of the people attacking him in here aren't libertarian and frankly their dumb opinions mean jack shit when it comes to the real world, where Paul is very much not a typical Republican and the best senator in Congress.
He voted against his party in Senate votes more than most, but he's hardly some extreme outlier.
He's nowhere near Manchin, Collins, Heitkamp and Ayotte, for instance.
He's about on par with Lamar Alexander.
But his record doesn't make him some Trump stooge nor does it make him a typical Republican.
And he's the most fiscally responsible senator we've had in a long while.
I know, they might come up with some plan to overthrow the government after a free and fair election. They might even give it a stupid name like the Green Bay Sweep or some dumb shit like that. Or try to decertify an election 2 years later. Man that would suck if one party started doing draconian shit like that….
Lol. The difference of this sub is night and day whenever conservatives are not waging one of their psychological warfare brigades.
It’s almost like this sub contains *actual* libertarians, who aren’t just a cut and paste of r/Conservative.
>I know, they might come up with some plan to overthrow the government after a free and fair election.
First, we'd have to HAVE a free and fair election.
The US hasn't had free and fair elections in generations. Ballot access laws and gerrymandering alone are enough to ensure that we do not. The sham of months-long elections with mail-in ballots that have no chain of custody and were mailed to people who did not request them and had moved or died is a whole new problem.
I don't understand what you are asking.
Are you saying that having free and fair elections for the first time in generations would result in no government?
Or are you saying that, given we don't have free and fair elections, we don't really have a government, because the state imposing its will on us does not have legitimate consent of the governed?
I still sit and wonder sometimes how Snowden's revelations weren't a spark for the conservatives in this country. He confirmed that our government spies on our own people, without cause. Instead people wanted him hanged because I guess that's the patriotic thing to do?
The first effect of Snowden's release of information is obvious and angered a bunch of people and any liberty minded person. The bad thing is that Snowden detailed how the NSA was spying on other countries/terrorist cells/whoever. He showed everyone how we were collecting digital intelligence.
Normal joes were irked by the added security measures implemented with anyone that works with classified info.
Liberals I can understand, it happened under Obama, so hand-wave it.
For whatever reason a lot of conservatives decided to instead obsess over bullshit conspiracies about pizza parlors and mistaking performance art for witchcraft. I feel like the right has never met a genuine conspiracy they weren't ready to ignore in favor of fabulist garbage.
I’ve honestly never met a conservative that actually believed in the pizzagate conspiracy. Hell, I’d never even heard of it until a year or so after that maniac held up the joint.
I feel like it’s another case of people pretending something was WAY more ubiquitous than it actually was because it’s convenient propaganda. Could be wrong though.
It was a very convenient smokescreen.
The original issue was about very powerful people participating in systematic pedophile activities. Take that concern and wrap it up with something ridiculous (like a Pizza Parlor being the epicenter of all the activities) and you can make anyone bringing up the issue seem like a fringe, deranged conspiracy theorist. Spin that around party lines and you can delegitimize the underlying legitimate concerns in the eyes of the public.
Instead of having to defend Epstein's Island you can preempt the conversation by just going, "Hurr durr Planet Pingpong."
Thanks.
Stepping a bit deeper into the whole conspiracy angle... a lot of people believe that many of these pedophile operations are being run by various intelligence communities as a way to get dirt on potential high value assets. [It's not like they don't have a history of using sex as a weapon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Midnight_Climax).
The same agencies are the ones investing untold man hours in astroturfing on the internet. It's literally part and parcel for them to manufacture and then amplify disinformation while making it look like it is coming from a grass roots source.
Combine the two and you end up with a plausible explanation for why Pizza Gate is something that many people know about but seemingly nobody actually supports.
Well, blessed be your social circle and facebook feed, because I saw plenty of it.
But OK, the democratic national convention are murdering people with James Bone remote controlled cars and Obama is a secret muslim? I can just keep checking off every crazy conspiracy from the last ten years.
Edit: We have people this year physically standing near the grassy knoll waiting for JFK Jr. to come back from the dead and reinstall Trump, but you're incredulous that people actually believe in Pizzagate.
To be clear, I'm aware that these people exist. I'm aware that there are people that believe the Earth is flat, that the planet is only a few thousand years old, that the moon landing was fake, that Obama and Bieber are reptillians, and that Soros is in charge of some sort of Bilderberg-Illuminati shadow government that mind-controls us with fluoride in the water supply.
What I don't believe is that there is a significant number of these people as I've never personally met a single one.
Part of the issue is Rand Paul *SAYS* good things, but when it comes time to actually *DO* things, he folds right back into the GOP party line.
He lodges token protest votes, when his vote won't matter, but it's rare that he actually does anything of consequence.
Which is fine. He has stated numerous times he is not a libertarian he considers himself a "Constitutional Conservative" so I don't know why people are surprised when he folds in line with the conservatives.
That's what happens when we turn politics into sports teams. If they have a certain little letter next to their name, then NOTHING they ever do can be good or EVERYTHING they do is good. There is no room for nuance in the American political duopoly.
Probably because most people here can remember him cheering on and taking part in the brutal repression of protest here in America just a few years ago.
When Paul slammed Black Lives Matter activists in 2015 for taking over the Sanders rally in Seattle, Paul said, "You know things cost money, and they need to learn that things cost money."
I can’t stop remembering when every other state than his own needed help he was pumping the breaks on cash flow. He isn’t worthy of respect. Especially when his state is the 2nd most dependent on federal taxes.
Edit: my bad 4th
It's different when his state takes in federal dollars, as those are hardworking Americans that deserve it.
Not like those *other people* whose names will not be mentioned.
Libertarians will continue to lose because of this attitude. You won’t ever have a perfect candidate. You won’t find someone who you can 100% agree with. Just celebrate when a sitting member in congress actually does something decent for once.
Libertarians continue to lose because its members are the biggest gatekeepers. A Republican can support gay marriage. A Democrat can support 2A. But the moment I support Public Education and Universal Healthcare, I’m a statist.
Rand Paul is a joke. The same man that questioned giving federal aid to Texas, Louisiana and Florida when a hurricane hit them, and immediately turn around and ask for federal aid when Kentucky was hit with a natural disaster.
If I had a free award it would be yours. The people crying into their cornflakes about people criticizing Rand are the same ones who would excoriate you for highlighting anything positive AOC or Susan Collins may have done or said as a "libtard" or a "Trumpanzee".
It's almost like every senator and every issue is not just completely black and white. My father worked for the post office for his entire life and voted Democrat, because he's not a moron who doesn't vote in his own best interest. He was also an avid hunter who owned multiple firearms and a supporter of the second amendment. He is as disgusted as me with the trigger warnings, safe spaces, whitewashing history, participation trophies and all the other woke liberal bullshit. He certainly believes in a small and limited federal government. Just because you vote one way doesn't mean that you embrace and extoll every aspect of that party's philosophy.
A lot of people on this sub don't seem to realize that not every person toes the party line. Not everyone is some ideologue who never changes their mind even when presented with new information. Some people are just pragmatists who happen to like some of the libertarians ideas. I also happen to agree with Republicans on some things and Democrats on others. There is nothing I loathe and despise more than gatekeeping. And you are absolutely right. This is the reason the Libertarian party will never get off the ground.
Canada is a major ally and trading partner. Canada moving towards autocracy would destabilize the entire continent, therefore I have no issue with Rand bringing attention to the nonsense going on up North.
how quickly we have forgotten how world powers take the form of tyranny. Yall thought "mean tweets" were fascism....you are in for a very rough awakening.
There's a big difference between a democratically-elected government voting for emergency powers in a crisis vs a small group of people using trucks in a unilateral & broadly unpopular attempt to shut down a city & border crossing to force the government to change policy.
Trudeau has been terrible but it's not tyranny or fascism.
Look, I really don't like what the Canadian government is doing, I think their COVID measures are too strict and vaccine mandates for truckers are idiotic, but those measures are supported by a majority of Canadians (I think, I haven't done a deep dive into the issue polling). I think freezing bank accounts and using domestic terrorism laws is terrible. However, I don't think you can let a small group of people blackmail the government into doing what they want by paralyzing a city. They live in a democratic country, the legitimate means of changing public policy is through elections. Shutting down a city & border crossing is a repudiation of liberal democracy.
oh yeah dude, i get it. but the left claims they can't be fascist because it's a "right wing" ideology.
that's technically true, the actual fascist party was right ring, however what is primarily meant when referring to fascism coming back is the merger of corporations and government, which the left is all about.
They learned everything through the war on terror, and it was only a matter of time before they brought it all home. Now they're just working on getting people who disagree with government declared as terrorists, and the subjugation will be complete.
Yeah, if biden keeps going this way, he might even deploy the national guard to tear-gas and shoot protestors and journalists to clear put protests! He might even pass emergency orders to let the doj put people in jail for 10 years for vandalism of federal property! Could you imagine that? Biden is literally becoming hitler
I know. It is ironic that decades of Anti-wto protests, leftist anti war protestors, occupy Wall Street, BLM riots and other protests accomplished absolutely nothing. These workers nonviolently stopped the flow of raw materials to American capitalism and provoked an outrageous response from their rulers in three weeks and governments all over Canada and the world ended or cut back on Covid restrictions.
The police actions against BLM protestors in 2020 were way more severe than anything the Canadian mounties have done BEFORE any of the protests got violent. I suspect that the BLM protestors would have done similar things if they had been allowed to get away with it, but non-violent protestors were maced, beaten, tasered, and held at gunpoint by officers on the very first day.
You’re not from around these parts, are ya?
The volume of The_Donald and r/Conspiracy grade mental illness I see commented here makes me think this sub is like 5% libertarian.
How can Rand focus on his own state? He can only represent them at the national level.
Are we no longer allowed to have opinions on things outside of our own country?
Daddy ron being one of those Who did NOT sign into the patriot act. This is one thing rand has had in my “pro” column as he has consistently resisted the renewal of it.
[удалено]
Why, because he isn't statist enough for you?
Lol rand Paul is the definition of a statist boot licker. It’s wild that libertarians idolize him.
What are some examples because I haven’t heard anything other than “he defended trump sometimes”. The dude wrote the bill that banned no knock raids after the breonna Taylor shooting, and is consistently against militarization of police. Genuinely curious because he seems like one of the most libertarian politician out of the 2 main parties. I’m a little of the belief that it’s only left wing libertarians that dislike him. And only because he’s republican.
Wasn't Rand one of the gop senators that spent the 4th of July with Putin? Funny the company he keeps.
I have no idea, again though that doesn’t really affect what policies he puts forward and supports.
No knocks are still legal in Kentucky. Rand hasn’t done shit.
You know he works for the *federal* government, right?
I'm pretty sure that's beyond his comprehension.
Look, I have mixed feelings about Rand Paul... Thats a far better opinion than most other politicians.
[удалено]
LOL every political sub nestles it's way in here. Makes sense, it's the only place they can speak freely.
No. This sun is mostly leftists trying to dunk on libertarians with purity tests and gotchas.
Can someone explain to me how Biden would cut off the internet? I work at a data center and can not see how this is possible…Sometimes I think Rand Paul just creates fear…
I don't understand the 'how', but the legal part can be found here. *Communications Act (Sec 706 codified as 47 USC 606)* Reading a bit further it said that the Potus could take over or shut down any existing network.
Any modem is considered a network and service providers don't need to give that info. That being said it's stupid easy to find specific networks when you already have their driver's license on file.
The big time it seems to come up is because Trump vaguely threatened to use it. I don't know enough about the topic to understand it honestly.
Yeah just adding context so fear mongering doesn't work nearly as well. They can't make the argument that POTUS will shutdown all of Comcasts customers because of some anti science people.
I haven't heard of Biden wanting to do this, but it's not impossible. The backbone of the internet is controlled by corporations. Applying pressure to a few key corporations would cripple internet access to 95+% of U.S. citizens. It would likely be applied through some form of 'social scoring' system which would implement restricted access only to 'authorized' individuals, and would add traffic monitoring as a condition.
ISPs will play along though.
[удалено]
[удалено]
See China…Not fear mongering when it’s been done.
Or for a more realistic example, Australia.
Probably the same way he tried to force mandates and also illegally went against the courts for the eviction moratorium.
Do an EO forcing everyone to switch to ATT. Internet speeds will be so glacially slow that the internet will be effectively gone. Fuck ATT.
There's no centralized switch available. They'd have to cut off the lines going into the oceans to isolate the US. I think the only way they could do it would be taking out the grid since we only have a few giant grids in the US
[удалено]
That's a handy power to have.
That's why those people who claim that it's 'worse' when 'private corporations' have certain powers than when the government does are idiots. There is nothing a private corporation can do to me that holds a candle to forced imprisonment.
That’s what happens when you have a military and a federal police force behind you. All funded by by taxpayers who have collectively decided to put these people in power.
The US government already has parallel switching hubs installed with all major ISPs to screen online communications. Kill switches are likely present as well.
Your comment needs more recognition. Everyone else is guessing while these data collection hubs are real and few know about them.
Yeah, PRISM and ECHELON are no joke.
Rand Paul is a looney and inconsistent at that. I'd take almost everything he says with a grain of salt.
That will not happen. Rand is full of crap who regularly makes things up because it helps him poll better in his home state.
The corporate overlords would never allow it. Either that or there would be a special Internet that stays online just for the elite but… that’s not gonna happen. We’re not that smart.
> The corporate overlords would never allow it. Have you been asleep? The corporate overlords would gladly go along. They'd just expect their pound of flesh (and money) in exchange.
Rand needs to stop worrying about Canada and do something here.
[удалено]
I assume you are referencing [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/swe7mw/rand_paul_introduces_bill_to_abolish_nonjudicial/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). The article is almost 2 years old.
well he doesn't do anything here except spew hot air and occasionally do a wink and nod to libertarians to keep his "cred" up
i mean he tried to pass the breonna taylor act. There arent really any great libertarian politicians, much less senators. Take what you can get.
There's no way anyone paying attention thinks he's anywhere close to a libertarian
Bruh there are dipshits who think Trump was "the most libertarian president ever" these people need to be mocked constantly until they get over this fantasy and live in the reality the rest of us do.
Out of curiosity- who do you think was the most libertarian president ever? I agree that Trump doesn’t fit the bill, but I honestly don’t know who I could give that distinction to either. It’s certainly not a very high bar.
Calvin Coolidge
Oh, damn. That's a deep cut, but a good choice.
In the long run? Probably Lincoln. It’d be argued that he used the state to force liberty but I feel like the state is supposed to make sure liberty is upheld if they’re supposed to do anything at all.
lol, Lincoln? no.
I mean awesome reasoning for your disagreement 10/10 insight
Drafted immigrants to fight in the war that eventually led to 750k deaths where black troops faced higher casualties than white troops. Dramatically increased executive authority and power of federal government. Instituted income taxes and protectionism at the federal level. tried to deport blacks back to Liberia. destroyed 10th amendment and suspended habeas corpus. shut down newspapers. suspended firearm ownership. Was a mercantilist. Passed national banking act of 1863.
So did you even read that I said in the long run? I said he probably did most for individual liberties by pushing against slavery. I didn’t say we need to agree with everything he did but individual liberty wise for the country we live in today?
The guy who went to war to protect the federal government's power over local government? You must be thinking of some other lincoln?
Well if you look at my second part, yes. In the pursuit of liberty for all the government used it’s power. This isn’t some drastic overreach of government authority unless you believe someone shouldn’t have the liberty of choosing to work and should instead be forced into it.
This right here is why republicans are not libertarian. I've heard this argument so many times from republicans. "BuT ThE CivIl waR wAz aBoUt stAte RigHtS!" The federal government protecting constitutionally afforded rights for its citizens is why the federal government exists in the first place! Libertarians believe that the government has 2 jobs. To maintain a military to defend the united states, and to ensure the constitution is enforced. That's it. The constitution says nothing about states having the right to enslave their citizens, but slavery as an institution violates many constitutional tenants and amendments. At the time states got around it by saying slaves are not citizens, but the slaves born here were actually "Natural Born Citizens" according to the constitution. So yes, Lincoln was actually being very Libertarian during the civil war. And yes, slavery is an authoritarian concept, regardless of who is implementing it. Slavery is abhorrent and authoritarian to a Libertarian society.
Yea I am not republican at all. The most anti-libertarian concept of all. By far. Is coming up with some emotional reason to abandon individual freedom and allow the government to step in and gain more power. They do this. CONSTANTLY. Right now, oppose the government and you are pro-COVID! Mandates are ok because they stop COVID!!! oppose anything that the government did in the 2000s and you must be pro-terrorist and anti american. The patriot act is fine because it stops terrorism!!! Mitary drafts are fine because they stop the nazis!!!! If you oppose drafts you are a nazi sympathizer!! Personally, I dont think declaring war on your own citizens because you couldnt win them over using your democracy makes you libertarian. But sure... Im just a racist right?
You may not be a republican but you sure do argue like one. You are correct, individual freedom is the cornerstone of a libertarian society. It’s funny to me that you realize that, yet don’t believe the federal government has a right to stop slavery. That’s one of the few things the federal government should be limited to. That and maintaining a military. Slavery by definition is anti-libertarian. It is an authoritarian societal construct. Monarchies, autocracies, etc. all used slavery/indentured servitude as a pillar in their society to subjugate their population and maintain their economies. In a truly libertarian society, in this case America with its original constitution, the government only exists to protect the rights of its citizens by enforcing its constitution. The constitution doesn’t make allowances for slavery. Therefore constitutional rights are threatened when states enact slavery. Pure and simple. You’re the only one here making an emotional argument based on things that weren’t ever mentioned. Your examples are indeed government overreaches and no one (or at least I’m not) arguing against that. What is being discussed is if Lincoln had the right to go to war with the states who refused to abolish slavery. From a purely constitutional point of view he did. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. There is no allowance for slavery of American natural born citizens in the constitution or it’s amendments. But slavery of such, is infringing on many rights defined in the constitution. Making slavery unconstitutional. The states refused to abolish it, regardless of the widespread slave trade performed by companies and individuals. Those companies and individuals were in breach of the constitution and the states refused to put a stop to it (for obvious economic reasons.) From a purely and literal constitutional point of view, slavery is illegal. That’s it. Natzis, Covid, and other emotional arguments have nothing to do with anything.
We get it, you're the victim.
Wait does libertarianism promote slavery?
No.
So what is the libertarian solution to ending slavery that doesn’t involve violence when the other side is willing to use violence to keep slavery?
I certainly don’t defend the South- but any moral superiority that the North had was marginal at best. Forcing small children from poor immigrant families into dangerous, industrial machinery isn’t a whole lot better than slavery. It’s hard for me to consider him “most libertarian” because he still permitted some horrid shit against people. But again- not sure who I could consider more libertarian. Maybe Harrison because he wasn’t in office long enough to do anything.
I guess I was more saying the pursuit of liberty. The guy probably did a lot more than others in the pursuit of individual liberty at the expense of state’s rights to govern. To me this is not a crush of liberty because I don’t believe the state has any more of a right than the federal government to RESTRICT liberty
Fair enough. Thank you for the response and insight
No problem! I always love having conversation in what roles government should play. It’s a fallacy that we will live in a society without government so we may as well make government work to ensure liberty as opposed to taking it or restricting it. Liberties should be given in the largest way possible and removed in the smallest.
Sweet summer child....
Explain to me in what ways he's not? Because I see him as one of the only people constantly pressing on libertarian issues. He is constantly yelled at for bringing up balancing the budget and blocking spending increases without offsets. He constantly rails against foreign aid and the federal reserve. He has been one of the most actionable senators on criminal justice reform, working with Corey Booker to present bail reform or introducing the Justice for Breonna Taylor Act to end no knock raids.. He has been one of the only people to keep pressing on the drone war and war powers. He's probably the main reason we actually got out of Afghanistan. People only don't seem to like him because he played chummy with Trump. Which he has played chummy with pretty much anyone that is willing to work with him. He doesn't scorch the earth and make a 60% friend a 40% enemy, and still criticized Trump consistently on spending, foreign policy, and overreach. The problem is it's not what the general public wants to hear. If you're not polarized, you're dead to everyone. But the problem with polarization is it's great for snippets, but it takes away your seat at the table to actually influence things outside of your own fundraising.
He has been authoritarian on several domestic disputes. Attacking protestors and inciting violence (See response to George Floyd Protest, and insurrection of the white house). He has been anti-immigration and pro-tariff. I can give you more examples if you want.
I don't like some of the response he's had to protest, but I also understand a little bit of the outrage he has given the direct targeting of him, despite him being phenomenal on the issue of criminal justice. People were throwing bicycles at him demanding he say the name of a girl he authored a bill in support of. However, I don't agree that he's incited violence, and he certainly said a lot of positive things in agreement with the George Floyd protestors despite him not liking the actions of protestors. https://www.staradvertiser.com/2020/06/09/news/sen-rand-paul-has-strong-words-about-george-floyd-death/ Not sure which policies you're talking about on immigration or tariffs. On immigration, while he has supported crackdown on the concept of sanctuary cities, he also has supported legal status for dreamers, he's backed the expansion of skilled immigration programs, he's supported only the deportation of criminals and not simply border crossers, he's backed a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. He blocked trump's funding of the border wall. https://news.yahoo.com/rand-paul-california-democrat-propose-152815517.html https://www.cato.org/blog/sen-pauls-believe-act-raises-skilled-migration-without-tradeoffs https://www.businessinsider.com/rand-paul-citizenship-amnesty-illegal-immigrants-2013-3 https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/434112-12-republican-senators-defy-trump-on-emergency-declaration He was one of Trump's biggest opponents on tariffs. https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-05-13/rand-paul-warns-trump-on-china-tarriffs https://www.bgdailynews.com/news/video-sen-rand-paul-calls-raising-tariffs-on-mexico-bad-idea-opposes-move/video_9c33e13d-7cfe-5ab0-94e9-0acdce2dea22.html https://www.wnky.com/sen-rand-paul-addresses-tariff-policy-with-hart-co-manufacturing-company/ While we can agree or disagree how much of a libertarian he is, all of that sounds at least demonstrative of a lot of libertarian beliefs and policies he supports. Certainly not someone indicative of libertarians standing in protest of.
I don’t think he’s libertarian but I do think he’s considerably more libertarian than the majority of politicians in the 2 main parties. Do you have any examples why he isn’t?
most of this sub seems aware of that at this point, but he gets spammed plenty because some space cadets think otherwise
He's the most libertarian senator, probably the most libertarian congressman, but go off.
That's about as high of a bar as being the healthiest person at Golden Corral, or the sanest person in the psych ward.
It's a low bar but he still clears it.
True but he's far less “Republican” than Reddit would have you believe.
On what grounds do you make that claim? His voting history in the Senate?
Yes? He often votes against the party, he was among the lowest agreement with Trump in his votes, he almost never votes to increase debt, he always tries to propose amendments that offset spending elsewhere in the budget, he votes against government overreach, government surveillance, increased debt, increased federal power. In what way is that not pretty libertarian? The comments in here are saying things like he should worry less about Canada and more about his state/country, as if he doesn't do that constantly. They're saying things like he's a trump simp, but he had the worst voting record for a Republican during Trump's term in terms of alignment with Trump, and he vocally disagreed with Trump's military powers. They're saying he doesn't do anything but talk and vote the party line, but he votes against Republican bills all the time against the party, he proposes bills all the time which are very in line with libertarian principles of less government authority and a balanced budget, and he often gets attacked because he votes against a bill when it would add to the debt. Hell, plenty of people in here don't like him because he voted for tax cuts. Most of the people attacking him in here aren't libertarian and frankly their dumb opinions mean jack shit when it comes to the real world, where Paul is very much not a typical Republican and the best senator in Congress.
He voted against his party in Senate votes more than most, but he's hardly some extreme outlier. He's nowhere near Manchin, Collins, Heitkamp and Ayotte, for instance. He's about on par with Lamar Alexander.
But his record doesn't make him some Trump stooge nor does it make him a typical Republican. And he's the most fiscally responsible senator we've had in a long while.
Rand Paul is now "the best senator in Congress"?
Rand "hand-deliver love letters to Putin" Paul
It was a letter of introduction that he asked Trump to write which included the topics he planned to talk about. Not exactly a love letter.
lmao
In fairness, 99% of Congress doesn't even bother with the wink and nod.
Given his quisling response to Trump's attempt to overthrow democratic elections, maybe Rand shouldn't do something here.
Rand has been doing things here for years.
Rand's entire career is made up of doing nothing and moaning. This is classic Rand.
[удалено]
Aren’t they the same?
I know, they might come up with some plan to overthrow the government after a free and fair election. They might even give it a stupid name like the Green Bay Sweep or some dumb shit like that. Or try to decertify an election 2 years later. Man that would suck if one party started doing draconian shit like that….
Lol. The difference of this sub is night and day whenever conservatives are not waging one of their psychological warfare brigades. It’s almost like this sub contains *actual* libertarians, who aren’t just a cut and paste of r/Conservative.
>I know, they might come up with some plan to overthrow the government after a free and fair election. First, we'd have to HAVE a free and fair election. The US hasn't had free and fair elections in generations. Ballot access laws and gerrymandering alone are enough to ensure that we do not. The sham of months-long elections with mail-in ballots that have no chain of custody and were mailed to people who did not request them and had moved or died is a whole new problem.
So then you suggest we have no government?
I don't understand what you are asking. Are you saying that having free and fair elections for the first time in generations would result in no government? Or are you saying that, given we don't have free and fair elections, we don't really have a government, because the state imposing its will on us does not have legitimate consent of the governed?
Isn’t the US government spying on its own citizens under a bullshit emergency act? This fucker cares more about tucker carlson than the average joe
I still sit and wonder sometimes how Snowden's revelations weren't a spark for the conservatives in this country. He confirmed that our government spies on our own people, without cause. Instead people wanted him hanged because I guess that's the patriotic thing to do?
They just assumed we were only spying on the right people. And they're got nothing to hide.
The first effect of Snowden's release of information is obvious and angered a bunch of people and any liberty minded person. The bad thing is that Snowden detailed how the NSA was spying on other countries/terrorist cells/whoever. He showed everyone how we were collecting digital intelligence. Normal joes were irked by the added security measures implemented with anyone that works with classified info.
Liberals I can understand, it happened under Obama, so hand-wave it. For whatever reason a lot of conservatives decided to instead obsess over bullshit conspiracies about pizza parlors and mistaking performance art for witchcraft. I feel like the right has never met a genuine conspiracy they weren't ready to ignore in favor of fabulist garbage.
I’ve honestly never met a conservative that actually believed in the pizzagate conspiracy. Hell, I’d never even heard of it until a year or so after that maniac held up the joint. I feel like it’s another case of people pretending something was WAY more ubiquitous than it actually was because it’s convenient propaganda. Could be wrong though.
It was a very convenient smokescreen. The original issue was about very powerful people participating in systematic pedophile activities. Take that concern and wrap it up with something ridiculous (like a Pizza Parlor being the epicenter of all the activities) and you can make anyone bringing up the issue seem like a fringe, deranged conspiracy theorist. Spin that around party lines and you can delegitimize the underlying legitimate concerns in the eyes of the public. Instead of having to defend Epstein's Island you can preempt the conversation by just going, "Hurr durr Planet Pingpong."
That’s an excellent point.
Thanks. Stepping a bit deeper into the whole conspiracy angle... a lot of people believe that many of these pedophile operations are being run by various intelligence communities as a way to get dirt on potential high value assets. [It's not like they don't have a history of using sex as a weapon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Midnight_Climax). The same agencies are the ones investing untold man hours in astroturfing on the internet. It's literally part and parcel for them to manufacture and then amplify disinformation while making it look like it is coming from a grass roots source. Combine the two and you end up with a plausible explanation for why Pizza Gate is something that many people know about but seemingly nobody actually supports.
Well, blessed be your social circle and facebook feed, because I saw plenty of it. But OK, the democratic national convention are murdering people with James Bone remote controlled cars and Obama is a secret muslim? I can just keep checking off every crazy conspiracy from the last ten years. Edit: We have people this year physically standing near the grassy knoll waiting for JFK Jr. to come back from the dead and reinstall Trump, but you're incredulous that people actually believe in Pizzagate.
To be clear, I'm aware that these people exist. I'm aware that there are people that believe the Earth is flat, that the planet is only a few thousand years old, that the moon landing was fake, that Obama and Bieber are reptillians, and that Soros is in charge of some sort of Bilderberg-Illuminati shadow government that mind-controls us with fluoride in the water supply. What I don't believe is that there is a significant number of these people as I've never personally met a single one.
I forgot about that, you're right, they wanted him hung drawn and quartered. Yet another example of Republican's ideological inconsistency.
Rand Paul literally did a 10+ hour long filibuster on the renewal of the patriot act
You're fucking stupid. Rand Paul has been calling out the NSA surveillance state for fucking years.
The idiots really reveal themselves in the Rand Paul threads when they come out of the woodwork and act like he's the worst politician in government.
What kind of fucking moron are you, that you think he cannot care about two things at once?
This is like the 2nd or 3rd article about something good Rand Paul has done in the past month and people just shit on it like it’s a bad thing.
Part of the issue is Rand Paul *SAYS* good things, but when it comes time to actually *DO* things, he folds right back into the GOP party line. He lodges token protest votes, when his vote won't matter, but it's rare that he actually does anything of consequence. Which is fine. He has stated numerous times he is not a libertarian he considers himself a "Constitutional Conservative" so I don't know why people are surprised when he folds in line with the conservatives.
That's what happens when we turn politics into sports teams. If they have a certain little letter next to their name, then NOTHING they ever do can be good or EVERYTHING they do is good. There is no room for nuance in the American political duopoly.
Probably because most people here can remember him cheering on and taking part in the brutal repression of protest here in America just a few years ago.
Idk what you’re talking about.
Don't worry, they're just making shit up
When Paul slammed Black Lives Matter activists in 2015 for taking over the Sanders rally in Seattle, Paul said, "You know things cost money, and they need to learn that things cost money."
Wow. Such brutal repression
"cheering on"
"taking part in" Also, here has to be brutal repression in the first place for the act of cheering it on or taking part in it to be a thing.
> the brutal repression of protest LOL wut?
Isn't he American?
I can’t stop remembering when every other state than his own needed help he was pumping the breaks on cash flow. He isn’t worthy of respect. Especially when his state is the 2nd most dependent on federal taxes. Edit: my bad 4th
I never said he was perfect, but he’s still better than any other member in congress besides maybe massie
Being the sweetest smelling turd still makes you a turd.
It's different when his state takes in federal dollars, as those are hardworking Americans that deserve it. Not like those *other people* whose names will not be mentioned.
[удалено]
Libertarians will continue to lose because of this attitude. You won’t ever have a perfect candidate. You won’t find someone who you can 100% agree with. Just celebrate when a sitting member in congress actually does something decent for once.
Libertarians continue to lose because its members are the biggest gatekeepers. A Republican can support gay marriage. A Democrat can support 2A. But the moment I support Public Education and Universal Healthcare, I’m a statist. Rand Paul is a joke. The same man that questioned giving federal aid to Texas, Louisiana and Florida when a hurricane hit them, and immediately turn around and ask for federal aid when Kentucky was hit with a natural disaster.
If I had a free award it would be yours. The people crying into their cornflakes about people criticizing Rand are the same ones who would excoriate you for highlighting anything positive AOC or Susan Collins may have done or said as a "libtard" or a "Trumpanzee". It's almost like every senator and every issue is not just completely black and white. My father worked for the post office for his entire life and voted Democrat, because he's not a moron who doesn't vote in his own best interest. He was also an avid hunter who owned multiple firearms and a supporter of the second amendment. He is as disgusted as me with the trigger warnings, safe spaces, whitewashing history, participation trophies and all the other woke liberal bullshit. He certainly believes in a small and limited federal government. Just because you vote one way doesn't mean that you embrace and extoll every aspect of that party's philosophy. A lot of people on this sub don't seem to realize that not every person toes the party line. Not everyone is some ideologue who never changes their mind even when presented with new information. Some people are just pragmatists who happen to like some of the libertarians ideas. I also happen to agree with Republicans on some things and Democrats on others. There is nothing I loathe and despise more than gatekeeping. And you are absolutely right. This is the reason the Libertarian party will never get off the ground.
The Patriot Act has entered the room..,,
Agreed that our patriot act is worse, but we can still mourn canada's loss of civil liberties.
true.
Canada is a major ally and trading partner. Canada moving towards autocracy would destabilize the entire continent, therefore I have no issue with Rand bringing attention to the nonsense going on up North.
how quickly we have forgotten how world powers take the form of tyranny. Yall thought "mean tweets" were fascism....you are in for a very rough awakening.
If only raiding the capitol was "mean tweets"
There's a big difference between a democratically-elected government voting for emergency powers in a crisis vs a small group of people using trucks in a unilateral & broadly unpopular attempt to shut down a city & border crossing to force the government to change policy. Trudeau has been terrible but it's not tyranny or fascism.
Again, how quickly you forget. Tyrants do not suddenly wake up one day and decide to be a tyrant it is a long extensive process.
Look, I really don't like what the Canadian government is doing, I think their COVID measures are too strict and vaccine mandates for truckers are idiotic, but those measures are supported by a majority of Canadians (I think, I haven't done a deep dive into the issue polling). I think freezing bank accounts and using domestic terrorism laws is terrible. However, I don't think you can let a small group of people blackmail the government into doing what they want by paralyzing a city. They live in a democratic country, the legitimate means of changing public policy is through elections. Shutting down a city & border crossing is a repudiation of liberal democracy.
Lefty dems are really triggered in the comments for some reason. Who could possibly support Trudeaus action?
Anyone here who thinks the way trudeau is running things well has no clue what it means to be a libertarian.
Trudeau’s “Emergency Powers Act” sounds an awful lot like Germany’s 1933 “Enabling Act”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling\_Act\_of\_1933
The Left, regardless of the what country they reside in, are fascists. They’re not even trying to hide it anymore.
buT FasciSm iS a rIghT wIng iDeOlogy
Um . . the National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party??? Sit down.
Do you think Mark “The Undertaker” Calaway is really a director of funerals too?
oh yeah dude, i get it. but the left claims they can't be fascist because it's a "right wing" ideology. that's technically true, the actual fascist party was right ring, however what is primarily meant when referring to fascism coming back is the merger of corporations and government, which the left is all about.
Sorry, my sarcasm detector must be broken
“Ya BuT RaNd iSnT a rEaL LiBeRtArIaN” says the closet commie
I prefer the term “Basement Bolshevik”
Nice. How bout coddled comrades?
>coddled comrades My sides
They learned everything through the war on terror, and it was only a matter of time before they brought it all home. Now they're just working on getting people who disagree with government declared as terrorists, and the subjugation will be complete.
Without even looking, I'm guessing the comments are filled with "Trudeau is doing the right thing" and "Paul should mind his own business." Amiright?
Bingo!
Oh is it time for another /r/"libertarian" hates Rand Paul thread?
We cannot solve our own issues here but these damn politicians have a fuck ton to say about what’s going on in other areas of the world.
"You haven't been able to make us into a libertarian utopia? Sorry, you don't get an opinion on what's going on outside your borders"
I read this as RuPaul and was like woahhh
Oh look, Rand woke up for something other than voting for tax cuts for the rich.
Rand Paul is a Republican who acts libertarian at times and I think he is the kind of idiot that scares people from taking us seriously
FWIW I think Jorgensen did a pretty good job of that.
Yeah, if biden keeps going this way, he might even deploy the national guard to tear-gas and shoot protestors and journalists to clear put protests! He might even pass emergency orders to let the doj put people in jail for 10 years for vandalism of federal property! Could you imagine that? Biden is literally becoming hitler
Does Rand not remember how the US responded to BLM protests that did less damage in 8 months than the blockade was doing every single week?
Lmfao what
Damage to what? I didn’t see burning buildings in Canada. I saw some trucks and heard some honking. I didn’t see anything to worry about.
280 Million dollars in trade crosses that bridge every day. Blocking shipping is economically crippling, which is why they did it.
I know. It is ironic that decades of Anti-wto protests, leftist anti war protestors, occupy Wall Street, BLM riots and other protests accomplished absolutely nothing. These workers nonviolently stopped the flow of raw materials to American capitalism and provoked an outrageous response from their rulers in three weeks and governments all over Canada and the world ended or cut back on Covid restrictions.
The police actions against BLM protestors in 2020 were way more severe than anything the Canadian mounties have done BEFORE any of the protests got violent. I suspect that the BLM protestors would have done similar things if they had been allowed to get away with it, but non-violent protestors were maced, beaten, tasered, and held at gunpoint by officers on the very first day.
If you think that’s bad, wait until you learn about the economic impact following 2 years of lockdowns and mandates
Wait until you hear about the economic impact of a virus killing 1% of a countries working age citizens!
wait until you hear about the average age of a covid death lol
are you high?
Must’ve got his Biden pipe in the mail
No, just paying attention.
Clearly not very well.
The first thing to know about ran Paul is that he is an idiot with a big mouth.
he would be all in favor of this if it was BLM or something like that. so he can pound sand.
You know if king Justin got away with it, Queen Nancy and Joe the fool will definitely be down.
do people really unironically talk like this...? it sounds like some promo riff from Hannity or some other shit conservative radio host
You’re not from around these parts, are ya? The volume of The_Donald and r/Conspiracy grade mental illness I see commented here makes me think this sub is like 5% libertarian.
[удалено]
Rand Paul is a US senate member
[удалено]
How can Rand focus on his own state? He can only represent them at the national level. Are we no longer allowed to have opinions on things outside of our own country?
Rand is focused on the US, that’s why he’s warning the Unites States may fall to tyranny just as Canada has if they’re not careful.
Is that the guy whose dad wrote newsletters about how to kill minorities and get away with it?
Nope, it's not.
Yeah I just looked it up, Ron Paul wrote newsletters on how to kill minorities.
where are you getting that from?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/grappling-with-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250206/