Rand Paul's people are trying to sabotage Ted Cruz already for 2016. Cruz had to renounce his dual Canadian citizenship. IT IS 2013 YOU IDIOTS. What petty, power-hungry weirdos.

God I hate Rand Paul.

i like one or two things about him and i dont even like how he arrives at those conclusions. it is absurd how much he's fooling all sorts of people (mostly young people who dont want to pay taxes or want to continue smoking their weed they already get no problem) into believing he's a serious person.

Rand Paul isn't really a libertarian, and anyone who falls for that doesn't understand the first thing about libertarianism. Libertarians oppose restrictions on immigration. This is central, because it makes your association with a government as close to voluntary as possible. Thus, if you don't like the government in one place, you should be able to leave that place and take up residency anywhere you'd like.

TenuredVulture wrote:Rand Paul isn't really a libertarian, and anyone who falls for that doesn't understand the first thing about libertarianism. Libertarians oppose restrictions on immigration. This is central, because it makes your association with a government as close to voluntary as possible. Thus, if you don't like the government in one place, you should be able to leave that place and take up residency anywhere you'd like.

Open borders cannot exist alongside a strong welfare state. I wonder if Rand would be more pro immigration if he could set government spending at a level he finds more appropriate. My guess would be yes.

pacino wrote:i like one or two things about him and i dont even like how he arrives at those conclusions. it is absurd how much he's fooling all sorts of people (mostly young people who dont want to pay taxes or want to continue smoking their weed they already get no problem) into believing he's a serious person.

Of course he's a serious person. He's not my favorite, but he's a smart guy and a savvy politician.

He doesn't need to agree with you on all the issues to qualify as a serious person.

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:i like one or two things about him and i dont even like how he arrives at those conclusions. it is absurd how much he's fooling all sorts of people (mostly young people who dont want to pay taxes or want to continue smoking their weed they already get no problem) into believing he's a serious person.

Of course he's a serious person. He's not my favorite, but he's a smart guy and a savvy politician.

He doesn't need to agree with you on all the issues to qualify as a serious person.

he would need to have non-contradictory issues and not feel so great about state control of government over federal control for no other reason than he simply likes it more. he's not a liberatarian, and describing himself as such makes him a fake. if he was serious, he wouldnt be ridiculous on the drone issue, but would instead realize there is nuance and police are not going to be sniping you at a cafe in seattle. if he was serious he wouldnt be a mumble-mouthed anecdote thrower regarding the ACA.

you last line is an unnecessary jab at me for no reason, as i never said he has to agree with me on all the issues. there are serious conservatives, i guess, but he's not one of 'em.

lol negros and other non--whites live in Newark!!! good one, Lonegan campaign!

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Rand Paul isn't really a libertarian, and anyone who falls for that doesn't understand the first thing about libertarianism. Libertarians oppose restrictions on immigration. This is central, because it makes your association with a government as close to voluntary as possible. Thus, if you don't like the government in one place, you should be able to leave that place and take up residency anywhere you'd like.

Open borders cannot exist alongside a strong welfare state. I wonder if Rand would be more pro immigration if he could set government spending at a level he finds more appropriate. My guess would be yes.

Sure you can. Then the welfare society collapses, and you have a libertarian paradise!

Again, Rand Paul is part of this weird neo-confederate states rights (including the right to own slaves) group that has sort of appropriated certain strands of libertarian thought by equating liberty with states rights. They're not really libertarians.

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:i like one or two things about him and i dont even like how he arrives at those conclusions. it is absurd how much he's fooling all sorts of people (mostly young people who dont want to pay taxes or want to continue smoking their weed they already get no problem) into believing he's a serious person.

Of course he's a serious person. He's not my favorite, but he's a smart guy and a savvy politician.

He doesn't need to agree with you on all the issues to qualify as a serious person.

he would need to have non-contradictory issues and not feel so great about state control of government over federal control for no other reason than he simply likes it more. he's not a liberatarian, and describing himself as such makes him a fake. if he was serious, he wouldnt be ridiculous on the drone issue, but would instead realize there is nuance and police are not going to be sniping you at a cafe in seattle. if he was serious he wouldnt be a mumble-mouthed anecdote thrower regarding the ACA.

you last line is an unnecessary jab at me for no reason, as i never said he has to agree with me on all the issues. there are serious conservatives, i guess, but he's not one of 'em.

More power residing with the states rather than the federal government allows for a greater diversity in how states are governed and would allow people to live in a place that operates in a manner they like. It's also what he views as the constitutionally correct form of government. Those would be the reasons he likes it more. He didn't just flip a coin.

He is a libertarian, or as near to a libertarian as has gotten elected to the US Senate in a long time. He's shown inclinations to buck the party on a variety of issues ranging from the use of military force/intervening in foreign affairs, surveillance, and the criminal justice system. He's not a pure ideologue like his father and is more of a politician, and doesn't check every box on the libertarian list, but almost no one elected to the US Senate has a political philosophy that can be summed up in one word they adhere to 100% of the time.

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Rand Paul isn't really a libertarian, and anyone who falls for that doesn't understand the first thing about libertarianism. Libertarians oppose restrictions on immigration. This is central, because it makes your association with a government as close to voluntary as possible. Thus, if you don't like the government in one place, you should be able to leave that place and take up residency anywhere you'd like.

Open borders cannot exist alongside a strong welfare state. I wonder if Rand would be more pro immigration if he could set government spending at a level he finds more appropriate. My guess would be yes.

Sure you can. Then the welfare society collapses, and you have a libertarian paradise!

Again, Rand Paul is part of this weird neo-confederate states rights (including the right to own slaves) group that has sort of appropriated certain strands of libertarian thought by equating liberty with states rights. They're not really libertarians.

I don't know what you're going for here. He's shown libertarian inclinations on a host of issues that go beyond a states rights reasoning. And he clearly doesn't believe in the right to own slaves.

rand paul has definitely expressed criticism of civil rights laws as impeding on liberty, though.

had to bail within 6 sentences, but here you go: http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/20/barac ... president/

pacino wrote:

That looks like a child's drawing of a stomach.

I think rand Paul is smug almost at an Amaro level, and his pseudo-libertarianism is typically impractical and woolly-headed. But I give him credit for having a bit more consistency and independence than most R senators, and think some of his big issues--the insane defense expenditures especially--are welcome additions to the discourse.

It's not yet clear to me whether he's more interested in grandstanding or legislating. I fear it's the former, but would like to be happily surprised.

dajafi wrote:I think rand Paul is smug almost at an Amaro level, and his pseudo-libertarianism is typically impractical and woolly-headed. But I give him credit for having a bit more consistency and independence than most R senators, and think some of his big issues--the insane defense expenditures especially--are welcome additions to the discourse.

He probably dismisses advanced statistics too.

td11 wrote:had to bail within 6 sentences, but here you go: http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/20/barac ... president/

an essay that takes its criteria from a book called Manvotationals

Been watching this NYC Dem Primary debate. This is probably how lefties felt during the 2012 GOP Primary debates.

Largely uninspiring and/or incompetent candidates descending into petty arguments and saying stupid shit.

jerseyhoya wrote:Been watching this NYC Dem Primary debate. This is probably how lefties felt during the 2012 GOP Primary debates.

Largely uninspiring and/or incompetent candidates descending into petty arguments and saying stupid shit.

those lefties may have felt a bit differently, inasmuch as one of the NYC Dem candidates is actually likely to assume the job they're campaigning for

I'm watching the re-air/highlights now. Admittedly I'm biased, but I think Quinn is coming off the best by far.

She's a weird politician. I've been in medium sized meetings/briefings with her, and she comes off as really smart and pretty warm. I think she's awful, just horrible, on the stump. And she seems to be a decent debater.