Why are libertarians not more pumped about Rand Paul?

[weso1]

I guess he's not literally stating exactly the libertarian philosophy, but this is about as close as the libertarians will get to an actual chance to win an election. Look you have to think that maybe Paul is just trying to win an election and when elected he'll do the best of his ability to get some libertarian things through. I think that's an amazing risk for the libertarians to take. If you're wrong then it's just the same old same old.

I feel like this is a perfect example of the ultimate detriment to the libertarian party. They get a guy in there that best suits their interest with an actual chance to win, but in the end they aren't willing to vote for him, because he's not exactly what they want. In the end they will just stand on the side lines telling all of us why they are right and we are all wrong.

[Oklahomahawk]

I guess he's not literally stating exactly the libertarian philosophy, but this is about as close as the libertarians will get to an actual chance to win an election. Look you have to think that maybe Paul is just trying to win an election and when elected he'll do the best of his ability to get some libertarian things through. I think that's an amazing risk for the libertarians to take. If you're wrong then it's just the same old same old.

I feel like this is a perfect example of the ultimate detriment to the libertarian party. They get a guy in there that best suits their interest with an actual chance to win, but in the end they aren't willing to vote for him, because he's not exactly what they want. In the end they will just stand on the side lines telling all of us why they are right and we are all wrong.

Because he's about as much of a real Libertarian as I am for $100 Alex?

[weso1]

Because he's about as much of a real Libertarian as I am for $100 Alex?

I disagree with you Hawk. And I know that's not a shock to you. I think he's a libertarian at heart, but I think he knows what it takes to get elected. I'll put it this way. This is the closest the libertarians will ever have to getting elected.

[Oklahomahawk]

I disagree with you Hawk. And I know that's not a shock to you. I think he's a libertarian at heart, but I think he knows what it takes to get elected. I'll put it this way. This is the closest the libertarians will ever have to getting elected.

He may have been a Libertarian at some point in his life, but I think that ship sailed a long time ago. I think he is a true politician, someone who tries to be whatever he needs to be depending on present company. I actually like his dad, though I don't agree with him on politics very much. I think he's a decent guy at heart.

Oh and it's OK to disagree isn't it? We don't insult each other do we? Agreeing or disagreeing is nothing to feel bad about for either of us, at least not in my opinion.

[weso1]

He may have been a Libertarian at some point in his life, but I think that ship sailed a long time ago. I think he is a true politician, someone who tries to be whatever he needs to be depending on present company. I actually like his dad, though I don't agree with him on politics very much. I think he's a decent guy at heart.

Oh and it's OK to disagree isn't it? We don't insult each other do we? Agreeing or disagreeing is nothing to feel bad about for either of us, at least not in my opinion.

I think sometimes we do insult each other, and for that I apologize to my debating friends on this board. But with that in mind I always enjoy the opposing opinion. Now with that in mind I still disagree with OHawk as I actually believe that Paul is a born and bread libertarian with a mindset on what it takes to get elected. Now, will he choose libertarianism over politician? I think that's a risk libertarians should take.

[Oklahomahawk]

I think sometimes we do insult each other, and for that I apologize to my debating friends on this board. But with that in mind I always enjoy the opposing opinion. Now with that in mind I still disagree with OHawk as I actually believe that Paul is a born and bread libertarian with a mindset on what it takes to get elected. Now, will he choose libertarianism over politician? I think that's a risk libertarians should take.

Right back at you!!! :icon_biggrin:

[AerchAngel]

He is but there is a few things he needs to let go to actually have a chance and that is what going to doom him.

Of all the candidates, I would vote for him. But he has some issues that scares me.

[sturg33]

Because he's gone very far to the neocon side - especially when it comes to foreign policy. And he frankly isn't nearly as smart on the economics side of things as his father was. He also just seems so much less principled and will go which ever the wind takes him.

If he runs, I'll be conflicted because I have a sliver of hope that he is "playing the game"... but I'd have a hard time voting for him over someone like Gary Johnson.

[AerchAngel]

Because he's gone very far to the neocon side - especially when it comes to foreign policy. And he frankly isn't nearly as smart on the economics side of things as his father was. He also just seems so much less principled and will go which ever the wind takes him.

If he runs, I'll be conflicted because I have a sliver of hope that he is "playing the game"... but I'd have a hard time voting for him over someone like Gary Johnson.

Baby steps. Break a few eggs to make a omelet.

Think about it.

[acesfull86]

I'm registered as a republican so I can vote for him in the primary. I hope he wins the nomination, then I'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

Other than him, I'm not seeing much to like on the rep team.

[zitothebrave]

Because he's gone very far to the neocon side - especially when it comes to foreign policy. And he frankly isn't nearly as smart on the economics side of things as his father was. He also just seems so much less principled and will go which ever the wind takes him.

If he runs, I'll be conflicted because I have a sliver of hope that he is "playing the game"... but I'd have a hard time voting for him over someone like Gary Johnson.

You shouldn't. He may be "playing the game" but I'm pretty sure he's like most politicians, in it for the money. He won't get the rep nod anyway. It will be another Romney type. It's been a Romney type for most of the R nominations. Only kind of exception to that was Dubya, but he still wasn't that far out to the right running.

Huckabee and Paul will generate interest and be in it until the end, but they won't win.

[cajunrevenge]

Because **** the republican party. I hope they lose every election until they are non existent. They were handed a golden goose the last presidential election and they chose to run a loser with no chance to win. I dont even think they wanted to win. Theres always the hope he is just playing the game to get elected but after seeing them move heaven and earth to keep the nomination away from Ron I thinkthey would just assassinate Rand if he tried to end the insanity that is our current foreign policy.

[Metaphysicist]

Is Rand Paul really considered electable? That seems strange to me.

[cajunrevenge]

Romney was considered "electable", so the word is really meaningless.

[Hawk]

Because **** the republican party. I hope they lose every election until they are non existent. They were handed a golden goose the last presidential election and they chose to run a loser with no chance to win. I dont even think they wanted to win. Theres always the hope he is just playing the game to get elected but after seeing them move heaven and earth to keep the nomination away from Ron I thinkthey would just assassinate Rand if he tried to end the insanity that is our current foreign policy.

I agree that if the Republicans had really rallied behind (Ron) Paul a few years ago he stood a decent chance of becoming a legitimate candidate. He had some powerful, revolutionary ideas.

But .... do you have any idea what Rand Paul's foreign policy actually is? He's toed the party line on virtually every major issue that has confronted the country in the past year. Iran, Syria, Russia, etc.

Unless you are one of those that are buying into the wolf in sheep's clothing thing.

[57Brave]

Romney was considered "electable", so the word is really meaningless.

He was more electable than say Rick Perry -Rick Santorum - Michelle Bachmann - Ron Paul -
Howard Cane - Donald Trump
See what I mean?

Not only is (R) bereft of electable candidates they are non existent with electable ideas. Sure a handfull on a baseball message board will agree with the Paul's but outside of that-- not so much. For instance, after Hurricane Sandy does any one with a working knowledge of current events think Ron Paul would have stood a chance with a platform of deal with it on your own ?


Remember in the past two election cycles (D) has outdrawn (R) for vote. Yet (R) secured the two houses of the legislature. Don't let the mirage of ReDistricting cloud your political vision.

(R) doesn't stand for anything people outside of Dumbphuckistan will vote for. Romney came as close to the mainstream and for lords sake, Jeb seems to this cycle

[sturg33]

He was more electable than say Rick Perry -Rick Santorum - Michelle Bachmann - Ron Paul -
Howard Cane - Donald Trump
See what I mean?

Not only is (R) bereft of electable candidates they are non existent with electable ideas. Sure a handfull on a baseball message board will agree with the Paul's but outside of that-- not so much. For instance, after Hurricane Sandy does any one with a working knowledge of current events think Ron Paul would have stood a chance with a platform of deal with it on your own ?


Remember in the past two election cycles (D) has outdrawn (R) for vote. Yet (R) secured the two houses of the legislature. Don't let the mirage of ReDistricting cloud your political vision.

(R) doesn't stand for anything people outside of Dumbphuckistan will vote for. Romney came as close to the mainstream and for lords sake, Jeb seems to this cycle

57 - just curious?

Do you think that the US eventually winding down the debt is important? If yes, do you think the democrats (or republicans for that matter), are the people to do it?

[57Brave]

I don't give either any thought.

We will always have debt - levels depending on circumstances.

[sturg33]

I don't give either any thought.

We will always have debt - levels depending on circumstances.

So I imagine you don't think it's important at all, then.

[57Brave]

No never said it isn't important ,

I think it very complicated and don't have the time to understand it to a degree where I feel comfortable having/discussing an opinion

[sturg33]

No never said it isn't important ,

I think it very complicated and don't have the time to understand it to a degree where I feel comfortable having/discussing an opinion

Well you're very concerned about the minimum wage but not at all concerned about the long term viability of the US economy.

So I presume you don't think it is important.

[57Brave]

Not sure the ties between the National Debt and minimum wage.

I do know the difference between the debt and the deficit. Correct me if I am wrong here, but wouldn't a federal minimum wage would be more of a deficit issue.
As to public sector min wage I don't see any ties

[sturg33]

Not sure the ties between the National Debt and minimum wage.

I do know the difference between the debt and the deficit. Correct me if I am wrong here, but wouldn't a federal minimum wage would be more of a deficit issue.
As to public sector min wage I don't see any ties

You missed the point.

You said you haven't taken the time to understand the national debt issue. I pointed out that you have taken tons of time to try to understand the minimum wage "issue" because that is important to you... So I surmised that the national debt isn't important to you.

Keep voting (D)

[57Brave]

The issue of the debt is far more complicated than whether one votes (D) or (R). Or subject for in depth conversation on a baseball message board

Perhaps you will tell me the connection of minimum wage and national debt.
Yes, I miss your point


I have a working understanding of Baroque Music. That doesn't necessarily mean I get Elizabeth Browning poetry
/////////////////

Taken tons of time to understand he minimum wage issue -- not really.
Basic supply and demand.
Basic "high tide lifts all boats"
Basic "if you want to live like a (R) vote for a (D)" - Harry Truman

[sturg33]

The problem with candidates like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson is that they have real, and potentially painful solutions to reducing the deficit and debt...

These are "unelectable" views in the eyes of the majority of voters.

What was Obama's budget proposal? $4 trillion? LOL ok

[57Brave]

Explain -- Yes I get the sticker shock of $4 T - but, what is in it what is not in it what are the short term vs long term advantages vs disadvantages .

The problem with candidates like that are people haven't the foggiest notion of what they are saying.

What I know about Ron Paul is he is a politician will to cut off his nose to spite his face - and he published bigotry
- the former we could argue. The latter in my eyes disqualifies him from catching dogs

[sturg33]

Explain -- Yes I get the sticker shock of $4 T - but, what is in it what is not in it what are the short term vs long term advantages vs disadvantages .

The problem with candidates like that are people haven't the foggiest notion of what they are saying.

What I know about Ron Paul is he is a politician will to cut off his nose to spite his face - and he published bigotry
- the former we could argue. The latter in my eyes disqualifies him from catching dogs

I don't know 57, what is in it? I couldn't possible understan how $4 trillion could even be spent... What is the deficit on the $4T? Would you ever support that deficit? I can't believe you are so heartless to our children and grandchildren that you could ever support these debts and deficits.

[sturg33]

In 2005 the federal budget was around $2.4T... and 10 years later we're proposing 71% higher... Amazing

[57Brave]

In 2005 the iPhone had yet to be introduced

what are you getting at? Spit it out --

here is context - what does this mean. I am a woodworker-ball coach-guitar player with a voters knowledge of current events. Not an Economist.
Capital E -- conomist

https://www.google.com/search?q=national+debt+1980&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=PskRVYKjOIKXgwTHmoKIAw&ved=0CDcQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=608

hoping to rely on you to interpret the data provided

[sturg33]

In 2005 the iPhone had yet to be introduced

what are you getting at? Spit it out --

here is context - what does this mean. I am a woodworker-ball coach-guitar player with a voters knowledge of current events. Not an Economist.
Capital E -- conomist

https://www.google.com/search?q=national+debt+1980&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=PskRVYKjOIKXgwTHmoKIAw&ved=0CDcQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=608

hoping to rely on you to interpret the data provided

I'm not sure what you're babbling on about.

My entire point was that people who propose real solutions to reduce deficits are labeled as unelectable

I then pointed out that federal spending has increased over 70% in just 10 years. Has our economy grown by that much?

with the 2006 federal budget, we could have had a 0% personal income tax last year and not had a single dollar more in deficits than we actually did. That's how much we've increased our spending.

Where has that gotten us?

[57Brave]

why didnt you just say that ?

People that "propose real solutioons " are buried in think tanks because the issue is too complicated to turn into a sound byte. people study economics for years formulating sound opinions before they can even get to "solutions".
Economics is a science -- International Economics is voodoo and debt is far more complicated than good vs bad

That is a global issue not exclusive to the US

like I said 2006 like 2005 was another time and era

It has gotten us to here. I have no idea what it means or where it is going. Any one that says they do is "unelectable" because they are a fraud and 79% of the people see through them. That is about right -- Paul polled at 21% head to head at one point.
Wow, that magic number follows you around :)

[sturg33]

why didnt you just say that ?

People that "propose real solutioons " are buried in think tanks because the issue is too complicated to turn into a sound byte. people study economics for years formulating sound opinions before they can even get to "solutions".
Economics is a science -- International Economics is voodoo and debt is far more complicated than good vs bad

That is a global issue not exclusive to the US

like I said 2006 like 2005 was another time and era

It has gotten us to here. I have no idea what it means or where it is going. Any one that says they do is "unelectable" because they are a fraud

Ron Paul's economic policies were not sound bites. They were too complex for the average idiot voter to understand

[57Brave]

We just said the same thing. The issue of the national debt is far too complicated for a compact answer.

Which is why I am unwilling to agree with one policy over another. I don't know (macro) if Paul knew what he was talking about.
Apparently not alone there. People much smarter than me don't get into that squabble.


I will say this -- Paul's solution in real life (micro) was this. His district in Galveston was hit by a hurricane. He voted against funds for recovery. (I think I have that story right)
That is being a strict ideologue bordering on stupid - not complicated.
That goes back to the 2012 election when Sandy hit. Paul and his notions would have gotten crushed.
I've referred to Paul as a niche candidate. That is what he was.
People vote for politicians to fill the pot holes. don't care how they do it -- just fix the street



Again Sturg ---- I don't know

[57Brave]

Here is the story:




August 26, 2011 3:50 PM
Ron Paul rejects FEMA role in hurricane response
By Steve Benen



And to think, Ron Paul struggles to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate.

After a lunch speech today, Ron Paul slammed the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, and said that no national response to Hurricane Irene is necessary.

“We should be like 1900; we should be like 1940, 1950, 1960,” Paul said. “I live on the gulf coast, we deal with hurricanes all the time. Galveston is in my district.

“There’s no magic about FEMA. They’re a great contribution to deficit financing and quite frankly they don’t have a penny in the bank. We should be coordinated but coordinated voluntarily with the states,” Paul told NBC News. “A state can decide. We don’t need somebody in Washington.”

To be sure, this isn’t exactly surprising. It’s consistent with everything we know about Ron Paul and his ideology.

But for the record, let’s take a moment to note just how misguided his worldview really is.

As a factual matter, natural disasters hit American communities in 1900, and in time, they’d recover. But “in time” is the key part of that sentence — families and communities would struggle for a very long time to get back on their feet before federal agencies played a role in disaster response. FEMA isn’t “magic,” but so long as we overlook 2001 to 2008, it is an efficient, effective agency that’s proven itself very capable of providing much-needed assistance to hard-hit areas. If Galveston is ever hit again by hurricane, I suspect Ron Paul’s constituents will be very glad to see FEMA on the scene.

What’s more, voluntary coordination among states is a recipe for one outcome: failure. Cash-strapped states barely have the resources for schools and law enforcement; the notion that they’ll be able to prepare and respond to a natural disaster, and rebuild in its wake, without any federal role whatsoever, is ridiculous.

If Mississippi, which is not at all a wealthy state, gets hits by a hurricane, will it have the financial wherewithal to provide for the affected areas? For that matter, would Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana — none of which is wealthy — be able to effectively put together a “voluntary coordination” plan in the event of a natural disaster?

As Jay Bookman explained a few months ago, “A state suffering destruction on such a scale cannot be told to suck it up and pull itself up by its own bootstraps. After all, it is moments such as these that put the ‘United’ in the United States. We are not self-contained human units each out to maximize individual wealth and consumption; we are Americans, and we help each other out.”

On the list of things Americans can and should expect from the federal government, “disaster relief” should be one of the few responsibilities that the left and right can endorse enthusiastically. It’s something people can’t do for themselves; it’s something states can’t afford to do; and struggling communities can’t wait for the invisible hand of the free market to lift them up, especially since it’s a market private enterprise isn’t eager to enter.

“We should be like 1900”? No thanks.

[sturg33]

Funny how that crazy guy kept getting elected from all of those people he was supposedly screwing over.

[57Brave]

Not really - Texas -

[acesfull86]

Taken tons of time to understand he minimum wage issue -- not really.
Basic supply and demand.


Basic supply & demand tells you that as the price of something (labor) raises, demand is going to remain constant, or increase?

[50PoundHead]

Basic supply & demand tells you that as the price of something (labor) raises, demand is going to remain constant, or increase?

Depends on the elasticity of demand for any given commodity.

[57Brave]

You are only seeing one side of supply AND demand.

Rule #1 -- There has to be capital to spend on that demand. Henry Ford figured that out. If he paid his workers more they would buy Fords.

Rule #2 -- The more you sell the less you have to charge.

Basic math --- 25% of $100 is $25 --- correct
25% of $200 is $50 --- correct

So if business man A has a profit margin of 25% would he rather sell $200 worth of goods or $100 ??
That was the genius of Henry Ford -- he saw that buy giving back some of that 25% of $200 he was still coming out better than when he sold $100

////////////////////

What do y'all think people will do with that added income -- horde it for a rainy day ?? No,
They Will Spend It

..............

I think I explained it right

[zitothebrave]

That's not true abotu Ford. He realized there were residual perks, but he paid people more because he was having high turnover and realized he needed to incentivize people with money to keep them around and do the highly monotonous job of assembly line work.

[acesfull86]

Depends on the elasticity of demand for any given commodity.

It would have to be perfectly inelastic for quantity demanded to not decrease by some level (except for rare instances/products). And low-skilled labor is going to be a heck of a lot more elastic than high-skilled labor.

[Oklahomahawk]

That's not true abotu Ford. He realized there were residual perks, but he paid people more because he was having high turnover and realized he needed to incentivize people with money to keep them around and do the highly monotonous job of assembly line work.

You know back in my younger days, when I first started college (1977) I took the first Principles of Management course and right there in chapter 1 it said "If you take care of your people, your people will take care of you". Then from the 1980's until now it became "F*ck your people, use them until the are of no value to you any more, pay them the absolute lowest penny you can, fire them or outsource their jobs to India so that you can make a few more bucks, but whatever you do remember to pay upper management and especially your CEOs and CFOs top dollar, even more than top dollar, but treat your people like sh*t and pay them accordingly and believe every BS story that comes along about how "I would have paid my people better and treated them better, but I was afraid for my $25Million/year job with a buttload of stock options and other perks. I REALLY hope those asshats try that lame assed line come judgement day and I hope I"m lucky enough to see it. I know I"m going to have a lot to answer for too, but I think a bunch of those guys might need asbestos underwear more than I do someday.

[57Brave]

That's not true abotu Ford. He realized there were residual perks, but he paid people more because he was having high turnover and realized he needed to incentivize people with money to keep them around and do the highly monotonous job of assembly line work.


That on a legal pad with two columns is 3 wins and one loss.

Do the math - .750 wins in any sport at any level

[Oklahomahawk]

We should also remember that even though Ford was a genius and visionary for his time, the fact that (and the reason behind it) he almost bankrupted his own company because of bigotry.

[Julio3000]

It would have to be perfectly inelastic for quantity demanded to not decrease by some level (except for rare instances/products). And low-skilled labor is going to be a heck of a lot more elastic than high-skilled labor.

http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff511/poinsett/tumblr_ljt6hviGNO1qiguseo1_500_zps21ytnaef.jpg

[Metaphysicist]

Funny how that crazy guy kept getting elected from all of those people he was supposedly screwing over.

I'm sure you would agree that there are plenty of insane/moronic/corrupt/evil/worthless Congressmen whose constituents continually elect them year after year. This is not that big a feather in Paul's cap.

[sturg33]

I'm sure you would agree that there are plenty of insane/moronic/corrupt/evil/worthless Congressmen whose constituents continually elect them year after year. This is not that big a feather in Paul's cap.

I would agree for most congressmen. But I'm always told that Paul is terrible because he won't vote for any goodies to his people. They could have easily given him the boot for someone more compassionate.

[Metaphysicist]

But I'm always told that Paul is terrible because he won't vote for any goodies to his people.

I really doubt this is something people are always telling you. Why would anyone say makes him terrible? "Earmarks" is red meat that everyone hates. And just because he doesn't "vote" for any goodies for his people, doesn't mean he doesn't get them. He inserts them into bills he can safely vote against, knowing full well the bill will still pass.

I have no problem with Paul's position and actions on earmarks, but your statement is bizarrely misinformed for someone who considers Paul his dream girlfriend.

[sturg33]

I really doubt this is something people are always telling you. Why would anyone say makes him terrible? "Earmarks" is red meat that everyone hates. And just because he doesn't "vote" for any goodies for his people, doesn't mean he doesn't get them. He inserts them into bills he can safely vote against, knowing full well the bill will still pass.

I have no problem with Paul's position and actions on earmarks, but your statement is bizarrely misinformed for someone who considers Paul his dream girlfriend.

What are you talking about? 57 was just ranting how Paul would vote against hurricane relief... that directly impacts the people he represents. I'm just saying, if it was such a huge deal to those people, why keep voting for him?

[Metaphysicist]

What are you talking about? 57 was just ranting how Paul would vote against hurricane relief... that directly impacts the people he represents. I'm just saying, if it was such a huge deal to those people, why keep voting for him?

57 isn't "people." He is one person, who says things that may or may not have any bearing on reality. And this certainly isn't something he is always telling you.

Ron Paul requests and gets plenty of earmarks for his constituents, including hurricane relief. Your question makes no sense. Paul attaches the requests to bills he knows will pass even if he votes against them, so he can brag about voting against earmarks while still getting them for his district.

[sturg33]

57 isn't "people." He is one person, who says things that may or may not have any bearing on reality. And this certainly isn't something he is always telling you.

Ron Paul requests and gets plenty of earmarks for his constituents, including hurricane relief. Your question makes no sense. Paul attaches the requests to bills he knows will pass even if he votes against them, so he can brag about voting against earmarks while still getting them for his district.

It is the congress' duty to appropriate the funds via earmarks. That doesn't mean it should be approved

[sturg33]

Here is an example of why Rand has fallen out of favor with libertarians.

Link (http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/26/rand-paul-goes-hawkish-propose-massive-d)

[acesfull86]

You are only seeing one side of supply AND demand.

Rule #1 -- There has to be capital to spend on that demand. Henry Ford figured that out. If he paid his workers more they would buy Fords.

I think I explained it right

I think it's asinine, to be brutally honest. I believe Zito explained it correctly...Ford was factoring in high turnover as a cost of labor...paying his employees more actually reduced his labor costs because it stemmed turnover.

I believe the quote above is a good example of the arrogance we see from the left. Even if it was true in a particular situation, isn't an individual business in a hell of a lot better position to determine whether paying its employees more makes sense for its bottom line than a bunch of politicians in Washington essentially saying "trust us, this is for your own good?" The left should stick to pulling at heartstrings (of the ignorant) and bemoan folks not being paid a "living wage." Not try to convince us of the ridiculous claim that a legislated minimum price will somehow lead to MORE profits because those new costs will all somehow be funneled back into their businesses.

[cajunrevenge]

He was more electable than say Rick Perry -Rick Santorum - Michelle Bachmann - Ron Paul -
Howard Cane - Donald Trump
See what I mean?

Not only is (R) bereft of electable candidates they are non existent with electable ideas. Sure a handfull on a baseball message board will agree with the Paul's but outside of that-- not so much. For instance, after Hurricane Sandy does any one with a working knowledge of current events think Ron Paul would have stood a chance with a platform of deal with it on your own ?


Remember in the past two election cycles (D) has outdrawn (R) for vote. Yet (R) secured the two houses of the legislature. Don't let the mirage of ReDistricting cloud your political vision.

(R) doesn't stand for anything people outside of Dumbphuckistan will vote for. Romney came as close to the mainstream and for lords sake, Jeb seems to this cycle

Ron had much better support from independents and would have siphoned off some disgruntled democrat voters. The only way he gets less votes than Romney got is if a lot of republican voters refused to vote for him and given the Republican voters seething hatred of Obama I doubt that would have happened. The FEMA thing wouldnt have lost him many votes if at all. I think people would rather a candidate who is straight forward and tells you what he believes regardless of whats the polls say than another shady politician who tells people what they want to hear and tries to give a PC answer to every question. Plus he would have eviscerated Obama in any debate. Anyways 0% is no worse than the 0% Romney had. Maybe it wasnt 0%, theres always the off chance Obama got caught with a dead girl or live boy in his bed,

[50PoundHead]

Here is an example of why Rand has fallen out of favor with libertarians.

Link (http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/26/rand-paul-goes-hawkish-propose-massive-d)

Hadn't seen that. Thanks for posting. I think 2016 is going to be the election when both sides up the ante on scaring the living bejesus out of the population.

[50PoundHead]

Ron had much better support from independents and would have siphoned off some disgruntled democrat voters. The only way he gets less votes than Romney got is if a lot of republican voters refused to vote for him and given the Republican voters seething hatred of Obama I doubt that would have happened. The FEMA thing wouldnt have lost him many votes if at all. I think people would rather a candidate who is straight forward and tells you what he believes regardless of whats the polls say than another shady politician who tells people what they want to hear and tries to give a PC answer to every question. Plus he would have eviscerated Obama in any debate. Anyways 0% is no worse than the 0% Romney had. Maybe it wasnt 0%, theres always the off chance Obama got caught with a dead girl or live boy in his bed,

Having spent a lifetime in politics, I wish this were the case but increasingly it isn't. Not to say it doesn't happen, but it usually happens in local or statewide races. Paul Wellstone won twice in Minnesota (and was on his way to winning again when he died in a plane crash) and he was way to the left of the state on a ton of issues. Somehow the Presidency is different. I was a big Paul Tsongas fan, but his Presidential bid evaporated into the ether when he was honest about the budget situation.

[sturg33]

Ron had much better support from independents and would have siphoned off some disgruntled democrat voters. The only way he gets less votes than Romney got is if a lot of republican voters refused to vote for him and given the Republican voters seething hatred of Obama I doubt that would have happened. The FEMA thing wouldnt have lost him many votes if at all. I think people would rather a candidate who is straight forward and tells you what he believes regardless of whats the polls say than another shady politician who tells people what they want to hear and tries to give a PC answer to every question. Plus he would have eviscerated Obama in any debate. Anyways 0% is no worse than the 0% Romney had. Maybe it wasnt 0%, theres always the off chance Obama got caught with a dead girl or live boy in his bed,

Agreed - I think he gets basically all of the republican vote, plus a heck of a lot more independents, democrats, and especially young voters. Romney had no chance from the get go

[yeezus]

Here is an example of why Rand has fallen out of favor with libertarians.

Link (http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/26/rand-paul-goes-hawkish-propose-massive-d)

Rand would have to branch out from his real views to win any republican primary, much the same way Romney did. I don't think it's a stretch to say Romney was a lot more "in the middle" than he appeared, because you won't win a republican primary being more moderate: you have to appeal to your voters. Romney would've fared better in the real election, IMO, if he didn't have to dumb himself down for primaries beforehand.

I guess I'm saying, Rand probably still holds beliefs and ideas that are closer to libertarian than he's letting on. But he ain't winning the republican nomination with those.

[Krgrecw]

Agreed - I think he gets basically all of the republican vote, plus a heck of a lot more independents, democrats, and especially young voters. Romney had no chance from the get go



His foreign policy would scare off a lot of republican voters.

[Julio3000]

Hadn't seen that. Thanks for posting. I think 2016 is going to be the election when both sides up the ante on scaring the living bejesus out of the population.

Yeah, get used to it. The Republican primary is going to be a contest to see who can propose the biggest defense increases. Everyone is going to pile on Randy there.

The general is going to be a competition between an R promising that if you elect the D, ISIS/Iran/Generic Enemy of the Week is going to come to the US and behead the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders on national TV. Meanwhile, the D is going to be working hard to convince the electorate that s/he is slightly more bloodthirsty than Vlad the Impaler.

[Hawk]

I think 2016 is going to be the election when both sides up the ante on scaring the living bejesus out of the population.

Reminds me of one of my favorite campaign ads of all time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbIfVEboAzg

"THESE ARE THE STAKES [...] WE MUST EITHER LOVE EACH OTHER, OR WE MUST DIE."

[weso1]

I just think if libertarians don't throw their full support at Rand Paul then they have no hope in winning an election ever. Gary Johnson is literally one of the worst presidential candidates I've ever seen in my life. Rand Paul seems to at least have some presidential potential in him. Even though he's clearly leaned more to the center, he's still pretty close to the libertarian side. I just think that the libertarians lack of support for Rand shows me that the idea of libertarianism is more of a fiction than it is a reality. I mean they back this idea that they and their ideas are the best thing since sliced bread, but they don't ever actually face any scrutiny because they vote for candidates that have no chance of winning anything ever. They live in a very comfortable world. It's such a cop out to me. And then they have a chance to vote for Rand Paul who is clearly more on their side then isn't on their side, yet they choose to stay in this window of invincibility.

I get voting for Gary Johnson when your choice was either he or Romney. But voting for Gary Johnson over Rand Paul just strikes me as cowardice. I feel if you stake that claim then in reality you just don't want to face the scrutiny.

[jpx7]

"THESE ARE THE STAKES [...] WE MUST EITHER LOVE EACH OTHER, OR WE MUST DIE."


http://youtu.be/NpwdcmjBgNA

I prefer this, because of how it wonderfully undercuts its own fear-mongering right at the end.

"Isn't it smart to be as strong as the bear ... if there is a bear?"

[Krgrecw]

I just think if libertarians don't throw their full support at Rand Paul then they have no hope in winning an election ever. Gary Johnson is literally one of the worst presidential candidates I've ever seen in my life. Rand Paul seems to at least have some presidential potential in him. Even though he's clearly leaned more to the center, he's still pretty close to the libertarian side. I just think that the libertarians lack of support for Rand shows me that the idea of libertarianism is more of a fiction than it is a reality. I mean they back this idea that they and their ideas are the best thing since sliced bread, but they don't ever actually face any scrutiny because they vote for candidates that have no chance of winning anything ever. They live in a very comfortable world. It's such a cop out to me. And then they have a chance to vote for Rand Paul who is clearly more on their side then isn't on their side, yet they choose to stay in this window of invincibility.

I get voting for Gary Johnson when your choice was either he or Romney. But voting for Gary Johnson over Rand Paul just strikes me as cowardice. I feel if you stake that claim then in reality you just don't want to face the scrutiny.



Can't I turn that around and say that every vote going to a Rand Paul, Gary Johnson etc really does nothing but keeps the liberals in office?


What's more important? voting for a guy that has no chance of winning or voting for the guy who has the best chance to slow down big government and stop the entitlement system?


I just wish the libertarians (who are more conservative than they are liberal) realize that it's more important to stop this country from going into the ****ter than it is to waste a vote.

[Runnin]

Voting infringes on my Liberty.

[sturg33]

I just think if libertarians don't throw their full support at Rand Paul then they have no hope in winning an election ever. Gary Johnson is literally one of the worst presidential candidates I've ever seen in my life. Rand Paul seems to at least have some presidential potential in him. Even though he's clearly leaned more to the center, he's still pretty close to the libertarian side. I just think that the libertarians lack of support for Rand shows me that the idea of libertarianism is more of a fiction than it is a reality. I mean they back this idea that they and their ideas are the best thing since sliced bread, but they don't ever actually face any scrutiny because they vote for candidates that have no chance of winning anything ever. They live in a very comfortable world. It's such a cop out to me. And then they have a chance to vote for Rand Paul who is clearly more on their side then isn't on their side, yet they choose to stay in this window of invincibility.

I get voting for Gary Johnson when your choice was either he or Romney. But voting for Gary Johnson over Rand Paul just strikes me as cowardice. I feel if you stake that claim then in reality you just don't want to face the scrutiny.

That's ridiculous. Voting for who you want to be President is what voting is all about, no? Or are we only allowed to vote for who everyone says to?

Rand has gone so far to the left that I simply don't trust him. I will vote for the guy who I believe espouses my values and that is Gary Johnson.

[sturg33]

Can't I turn that around and say that every vote going to a Rand Paul, Gary Johnson etc really does nothing but keeps the liberals in office?


What's more important? voting for a guy that has no chance of winning or voting for the guy who has the best chance to slow down big government and stop the entitlement system?


I just wish the libertarians (who are more conservative than they are liberal) realize that it's more important to stop this country from going into the ****ter than it is to waste a vote.

If anyone the right put would actually slow down government you'd have a point. but they won't, so you don't. Anything that an R might cut, they will throw into defense and that is just as wasteful.

But boy, I love a good "lesser of two evils argument"

[acesfull86]

Can't I turn that around and say that every vote going to a Rand Paul, Gary Johnson etc really does nothing but keeps the liberals in office?


What's more important? voting for a guy that has no chance of winning or voting for the guy who has the best chance to slow down big government and stop the entitlement system?


I just wish the libertarians (who are more conservative than they are liberal) realize that it's more important to stop this country from going into the ****ter than it is to waste a vote.

I might agree with you if conservatives elected to office actually governed like conservatives. Instead, we have a GOP House and a Dem executive branch proposing $3.8T and $4.0T budgets, respectively. Just look at polls of tea party members who say they are taxed too damn much and spending is too damn high......but they don't want to touch defense/military, SS, or Medicare. At the end of the day, I think most Reps are frauds. I'm not expecting them to be true libertarians (they're not and they don't have to be), but I'm not convinced that the difference between them and the Dems is large enough to justify abandoning principles.

I probably would vote for Rand Paul. I think it would depend on his agenda. There are certain issues I feel stronger about that others.

[zitothebrave]

Correct aces. We've got essentially 35 years of the same politician in office. There's been no major changes from the executive since at least Reagan took office, you could argue since JFK was shot.