Rand Paul sets Tuesday for Presidential Launch.

[Daelak]

He is a Tea Party Republican, I don't know why people keep saying this stupid shit. Hes basically almost as bad as Ted Cruz.

You are talking to a person who's avatar is Alex Jones, so there's that.

[Orbitus]

Not being world police and interfering in everyone else's business whether they want it or not != isolationism.

FWIW I fully supported Ron Paul both times. I'm not sure if I'll support Rand because I wonder if he really sold out or if he's trying to fight fire with fire.

This is about the only thing I would support. The rest of it? Yeah no. Wanting gay marriage banned, legislating away women's rights, voter ID bullshit, trying to get people on welfare off of it by cutting it? Yeah that doesn't work. That just kills people. Which is why I will NEVER vote for a Republican.

- - - Updated - - -

You are talking to a person who's avatar is Alex Jones, so there's that.

Yeah I know. Some people think that guy is a genius.

[Deleted]

There was a graphic posted in another thread, plotting the various potential Republican presidential candidates on what they said during campaigns compared to their actual voting record (where applicable). For most of the candidates, the two dots were roughly in the same area. For Rand Paul, you could fit a decent 40-man raid group in between the gap.

The man is good at preaching popular libertarian talking points to the choir, just like his father. We'll have to wait and see if he can follow suit when it comes to running the campaign con.

[Nobleshield]

This is about the only thing I would support. The rest of it? Yeah no. Wanting gay marriage banned, legislating away women's rights, voter ID bullshit, trying to get people on welfare off of it by cutting it? Yeah that doesn't work. That just kills people. Which is why I will NEVER vote for a Republican.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah I know. Some people think that guy is a genius.

I must have missed where he said that, because I recall that his view on things like abortion and gay marriage was basically "leave it up to the states" because it's a state issue and the Constitution doesn't give the federal government power over that. One of the biggest things I liked about Ron Paul was that he didn't let personal beliefs get in the way. He's a very religious man, for example, but he didn't want to make federal decisions for everybody else based on his personal beliefs on a particular subject.

[NYC17]

Cant we have Ron Paul instead?

Is he nuts? Kinda.

I disagree with him on the Fed reserve, but He wants to stop the crazy foreign policy shit soooooo

Unfortunately for him, and I guess you, the party he's trying to seek the nomination from is exactly where he'll find the opposition to his foreign policy.

He doesn't have a chance.

[Redwyrm]

I must have missed where he said that, because I recall that his view on things like abortion and gay marriage was basically "leave it up to the states" because it's a state issue and the Constitution doesn't give the federal government power over that. One of the biggest things I liked about Ron Paul was that he didn't let personal beliefs get in the way. He's a very religious man, for example, but he didn't want to make federal decisions for everybody else based on his personal beliefs on a particular subject.

Unfortunately, you can't leave gay marriage up to the States to decide. Cause if you get married in a state that allows it and then move to a state that doesn't acknowledge the marriage, what happens? It eventually ends up in the Supreme Court in the long run.

[Kujako]

I must have missed where he said that, because I recall that his view on things like abortion and gay marriage was basically "leave it up to the states" because it's a state issue and the Constitution doesn't give the federal government power over that. One of the biggest things I liked about Ron Paul was that he didn't let personal beliefs get in the way. He's a very religious man, for example, but he didn't want to make federal decisions for everybody else based on his personal beliefs on a particular subject.

Yea... the problem with "leave it up to the states" is that historically some states have proven willing to treat a sub-group of the populace rather poorly. "leave it up to the states" would have kept slavery in the US. "leave it up to the states" is basically saying that government institutionalized bigotry is AOK.

[ringpriest]

I must have missed where he said that, because I recall that his view on things like abortion and gay marriage was basically "leave it up to the states" because it's a state issue and the Constitution doesn't give the federal government power over that. One of the biggest things I liked about Ron Paul was that he didn't let personal beliefs get in the way. He's a very religious man, for example, but he didn't want to make federal decisions for everybody else based on his personal beliefs on a particular subject.

It can't practically be left up to the states (even if we leave aside all the ethical implications) - there's this leetle thing called the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" in the Constitution. Now, the modern Supreme Court really likes to stay away from FF&C, because it opens up a massive nest of vipers. But if there isn't a definitive pro-same-sex marriage ruling coming from the Federal government, then, inevitably, the FF&C clause is going to get dragged in, because some States have fully official same-sex marriage on the books. If other states refuse to recognize those marriages, it will eventually end up in front of the Supreme Court, at which point the Court has about three options: 1) refuse to hear such a case, 2) rule in favor, or 3) rule against.

Option #1 gives the Court a massive PR black eye (something that Chief Justice Roberts, to his credit, has generally tried to avoid), and simply creates a mess of conflicting Circuit Court rulings while kicking the can down the road for an eventual future Court. Option #2 creates de jure Federally recognized same-sex marriage, while Option #3 is an even worse disaster than option #1, as it takes the aforementioned nest of vipers, riles it up, and then throws it right in the middle of interstate commerce. (Are corporations chartered in certain notoriously lax states considered legally valid in other states? What's to stop a far-left state from deciding that all marriages (and potentially all legal contracts) issues by a strongly conservative state are null and void? "You're not honoring the 'he public acts, records, and judicial proceedings' of our state, why should we honor yours? The Supreme Court says we don't have to!")

Claiming "it's a state issue" is increasingly ludicrous - politicians only say it, because it's dog-whistling - it's just Rand Paul trying to get the bigot vote without paying the price for it.

Edited to add: And that's all without touching the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth.

[Masark]

the Court has about three options: 1) refuse to hear such a case, 2) rule in favor, or 3) rule against.

Option 1 is already out. Arguments in DeBoer v. Snyder will be heard on the 28th.

[Elegiac]

I must have missed where he said that, because I recall that his view on things like abortion and gay marriage was basically "leave it up to the states" because it's a state issue and the Constitution doesn't give the federal government power over that.

Arguable.

One of the biggest things I liked about Ron Paul was that he didn't let personal beliefs get in the way. He's a very religious man, for example, but he didn't want to make federal decisions for everybody else based on his personal beliefs on a particular subject.

His ridiculous policies concerning finance regulation and central banking make him equally as disastrous as an overreligious candidate.

[Stormdash]

About the only thing that can coalesce sufficient support against the creeping statism of the left is a political marriage between American conservatives and libertarians, and I don't think that can happen without a Paul on the ticket, top or bottom. The two sides would just have to agree to keep each other honest on the biggest issues of contention and raise the flag of federalism by agreeing that it is for the state legislatures to argue about issues of public morals.

[Elegiac]

About the only thing that can coalesce sufficient support against the creeping statism of the left is a political marriage between American conservatives and libertarians, and I don't think that can happen without a Paul on the ticket, top or bottom. The two sides would just have to agree to keep each other honest on the biggest issues of contention and raise the flag of federalism by agreeing that it is for the state legislatures to argue about issues of public morals.

'Creeping statism of the left'.

Implying that a) right wingers can't be statist (demonstrably untrue since it is the right wing introducing all these regulations to uteruses and surrounding marriage and shit) and b) that the left wing has anything resembling political power considering most Democrats are center right.

[ringpriest]

About the only thing that can coalesce sufficient support against the creeping statism of the left is a political marriage between American conservatives and libertarians, and I don't think that can happen without a Paul on the ticket, top or bottom. The two sides would just have to agree to keep each other honest on the biggest issues of contention and raise the flag of federalism by agreeing that it is for the state legislatures to argue about issues of public morals.

How about you stop buying into the Party System and its efforts to divide Americans, and conservatives, libertarians, and liberals alike can ally against creeping statism, period. (Although the idea of "conservatives against statism" makes me giggle. )

[Elegiac]

How about you stop buying into the Party System and its efforts to divide Americans, and conservatives, libertarians, and liberals alike can ally against creeping statism, period. (Although the idea of "conservatives against statism" makes me giggle. )

Ain't nothing wrong with statism.

[Stormdash]

'Creeping statism of the left'.

Implying that a) right wingers can't be statist (demonstrably untrue since it is the right wing introducing all these regulations to uteruses and surrounding marriage and shit) and b) that the left wing has anything resembling political power considering most Democrats are center right.

Pretty sure you'd chart Mao or Che as centrist, or maybe *slightly* left of center. Your parallax is not my problem nor one I can fix for you.

Ain't nothing wrong with statism.

As long as you are cool with trading individual personal and economic liberty/autonomy/convenience for government run schemes that inevitably fail outright or show comically poor ROI.

Whether it saddens you to understand, you are wa-a-a-a-ay out to the left of the median and mode of American political philosophy. Whatever you call center is not, y'know, center in practice or common understanding in American politics. So while libertarians and conservatives, who agree far more than they disagree, certainly once American liberalism joins the conversation, are alien to you, they have between them the ability to form a popular mandate of '72, '80, '84, '88 proportions.

[Endus]

Claiming "it's a state issue" is increasingly ludicrous - politicians only say it, because it's dog-whistling - it's just Rand Paul trying to get the bigot vote without paying the price for it.

I find it particularly galling from someone claiming to be a Libertarian in any way whatsoever.

Leaving it to the State rather than the Federal government is in no way a reduction of governance. It's just a change in the commonality of the law throughout the nation.

There's definitely reason for some things to be State-level, and indeed for others to be municipal-level. Some policies need that kind of regional focus. But things like civil rights issues are not those kinds of things. There is no regional context that necessitates a different approach. State-level government is for things like coastal waters protection policies, where Kansas might not have any cause to care, but Hawaii or Florida have a serious interest, but even their interests likely differ significantly since they're in entirely different oceans and with entirely different contexts.

In short, if your goal is to reduce federal government by handing things off to the States, you're not a libertarian. You're just a fringe extremist who recognizes that their fringe beliefs can no longer fly on the national scale, due to widespread opposition, so you're hoping to hack out a State-level niche where you can engage in that extremism in that smaller scale. And generally, that's not a good principle for anything.

[Kujako]

As long as you are cool with trading individual personal and economic liberty/autonomy/convenience for government run schemes that inevitably fail outright or show comically poor ROI.

You sure you're not describing the 'right'?

[Endus]

Pretty sure you'd chart Mao or Che as centrist, or maybe *slightly* left of center. Your parallax is not my problem nor one I can fix for you.

Most of us wouldn't rely that rigidly on narrow axes in the first place, because political ideologies really can't be mapped that easily along single lines.

Republicans have more in common with Mao than I do, ideologically speaking (in terms of authoritarianism, if not economics). And yet, people like you insist that my views are somehow right next to Mao's, because I'm relatively left-wing, despite the complete opposition in my actual views, and Mao's system of government.

As long as you are cool with trading individual personal and economic liberty/autonomy/convenience for government run schemes that inevitably fail outright or show comically poor ROI.

Yeah, that simply isn't true. Government programs are often more cost-effective than private systems. See literally any universal health care system in the world, compared to the USA's for-profit system, in terms of medical expenses per capita. The USA pays twice as much or more for their care, and it isn't significantly better for most patients, and in many respects, is significantly worse. The ACA might start some changes in that regard, but it's still early in that process.

As for the "trading personal liberty" nonsense, that's what government is. You're perfectly willing to accept all kinds of those tradeoffs. Don't pretend otherwise.

[Elegiac]

Whether it saddens you to understand, you are wa-a-a-a-ay out to the left of the median and mode of American political philosophy. Whatever you call center is not, y'know, center in practice or common understanding in American politics.

What 'common understanding' is in American politics fundamentally doesn't matter considering left and right have objective definitions. This is what happens when you get a Congress full of lawyers and businessmen and not social scientists.

So while libertarians and conservatives, who agree far more than they disagree, certainly once American liberalism joins the conversation, are alien to you, they have between them the ability to form a popular mandate of '72, '80, '84, '88 proportions.

'Popular mandate' doesn't exist in an environment where the executive is not popularly elected and gerrymandering exists in ridiculous proportions in the House.

[Rukentuts]

About the only thing that can coalesce sufficient support against the creeping statism of the left is a political marriage between American conservatives and libertarians, and I don't think that can happen without a Paul on the ticket, top or bottom. The two sides would just have to agree to keep each other honest on the biggest issues of contention and raise the flag of federalism by agreeing that it is for the state legislatures to argue about issues of public morals.

How can they be "politically married" when conservative politicians, Rand Paul included, are more authoritarian?

- - - Updated - - -

So while libertarians and conservatives, who agree far more than they disagree

Ah yes, the Ayn Rand types that don't give a shit about personal freedom.