Rand Paul - Potential 2016 Presidential Bid

Fair enough then. I'm a statist. Now compare my statist tyranny to what you have today. The only statist position I have would be the one to prevent the potential for that liberty to be extinguished.

In an anarchist position, there is some degree of freeloading in regards to defense, anyway. Why is it okay for Americans who did not financially support the military reap it's benefits? Why can they freeload in that case?

And you just called Newt Gingrich the hope of the future. That sounds like a hell of an endorsement to me.

 

Okay, let's talk about that, because statism is clearly at odds with libertarian philosophy.

By stealing people's money to finance a government army?

Because if they are not infringing on anyone's liberty, then they should be left alone, which is what libertarian non-aggression is all about.

I have over 17,000 posts.

 

All libertarians believe in a defense based on donation? That's news to me.

Stealing? Nah, we don't need to steal. It can be voluntary. However, those who do not pay should not be able to reap the benefits.

With no military, the country would be taken over in a matter of hours. This is totally common sense. Those who do not fund the military would be freeloading off of those who support it in that case. It's a form of theft, comparably to piracy.

You literally just endorsed Newt today.

What's your deal anyway? You've always fiercely defended the same principles I do, for the most part, yet here you are calling me a statist, when you're a bigger statist than I am. Makes no sense.

 

Libertarians believe in the non-aggression principle. If you support taxation as a means of financing a government army, then you are violating the non-aggression principle.

Like a donation, then?

So they should be ejected from the country?

How are they stealing!? Have they taken someone's property?

Take a random sample of my posts and then infer from that what my political philosophy entails.

You just answered your own question.

 

Well, I suppose most libertarians don't adhere to that, seeing as how most don't believe in voluntary funding. Not all libertarians are anarchists.

You cannot just sit back and freeload off those who finance the military. Without them, there would be no defense. In a society where only those who did not want to fund the military existed, they would be slaves to whoever conquered them. As it would be, they would be nothing more than leeches to those who pay. That isn't acceptable. And yes, it is a form of theft, just like piracy, is a form of theft, like creating counterfeit money is a form of theft.

If you don't support Newt, then what was the point of that thread? Trolling?

Answered my own question? You're not an anarchist. Where do you differ on the issues?

 

Honestly, I could vote for any of those except Biden, Gillibrand, and Villaraigosa.

 

He is going to be selling the same "cut the taxed!!!! & De regulate everything!!!!!!!" that lost them the last two 4 years cycles? lol Its your funeral bro.

 

Really? I was kinda looking forward seening a Hillary lead ticket with either Booker or Villaraigosa behind it.

But I think we all agree that Hillary would probably mopp the floor with all of the current GOP hopefuls save Christie. And seeing how the Right Wing nuts are blaming the fact that he was doing his job for the reason Romney lost (The party of Self-Responsibility eh?) I doubt he ever gets out the primary.

 

Rand Paul is addressing a serious problem with the Republican Party but he's not going nearly far enough. It's acceptable to say we need to reduce the need for welfare, for example, but simply threatening to cut off government assistance to those in need does not address the problem which is the need.

He is correct to address the marijuana laws but doesn't go far enough because this is an issue of civil liberties. The government should not have laws based upon the social engineering of society which is what the marijuana prohibition laws are all about. It is NOT a dangerous drug meeting the Schedule 1 definition because it has no toxic level. But to oppose social engineering he also has to reverse the Republican position on same-sex marriage and abortion as well and he's not doing that. Government should not be involved in the social engineering of the American People with authoritarian laws. He cannot oppose increasing federal tax revenues when we have a $16 trillion debt. Not only do we need to balance the budget but if we were to reduce the national debt down to $5 trillion in the same time period that it took to increase it from $5 trillion to $16 trillion we would require over $1 trillion more in revenue above what a balanced budget requires. That would require roughly a two trillion dollar increase in federal revenues every year less actual reductions in spending. We've had minor reductions to limited budgetary expendatures but federal spending continues to rise. Rand Paul also has to come out against unfair tax laws such as the Capital Gains tax loophole. A businessman with a $100,000 net income shouldn't be paying roughly twice what someone else pays on $100,000 in annual income from invesstments. The small businessman creates 70%-80% of the jobs in American and the investor created virtually no jobs. Rand Paul needs to oppose unfair tax laws such as the Capital Gains tax loophole. Income is income regardless of source.

Rand Paul, and the Republican Party, have to dramatically change if they ever hope to be relevant in the future. They need to abandon the ill-conceived and impractical Tea Party budgetary policies and the authoritarian social conservative agenda to become relevant to American politics today.

 

Really? I was kinda looking forward seening a Hillary lead ticket with either Booker or Villaraigosa behind it.

But I think we all agree that Hillary would probably mopp the floor with all of the current GOP hopefuls save Christie. And seeing how the Right Wing nuts are blaming the fact that he was doing his job for the reason Romney lost (The party of Self-Responsibility eh?) I doubt he ever gets out the primary.

 

I think after 8 years of Obama Rand Paul will look very viable....

 

You keep underestimating how good of a President Obama really is...

I was told by one of the greatest high school coaches in the history of Texas that you "Respect all, fear none".

If you don't respect your opponent (especially when he is stronger, and better then you) then you will never defeat him/them.

 

Not as long as he keeps his same positions on the issues. He needs to go much further in addressing the needs and civil liberties of Americans. He needs to address the national debt which mandates increases in federal revenues. He has to abandon the "government is for the wealthy" agenda of the Republican Party and address all Americans and not just the top 5% in income. He's not done that yet and I doubt he will. The Republican Party is failing because it fails to address all Americans.

 

If the dem nomination is in the bag I'll probably vote for him. It'll be nice to have a real principled moderate Republican running for president. Though to be fair, I thought Romney and McCain were moderates before they ran. The republican party is just way too far out of touch for a moderate to win on their principles. They have to swing FAR to the right just to convince the crazies then they have to change all their positions within a few months to please the general electorate. It's no wonder republicans are having such trouble winning the white house.

 

No i think i have Obama judged pretty fairly....

 

If he goes to fast he will have zero chance of being nominated by the GoP. We saw this part primaries the lengths they will go to to keep someone out....

 

You are correct. Which is why he will continue to be your President after beating the best the GOP had to offer twice.

 

Not really. You're underestimating how partisan you are. You see him through shades of "Democrat" and "liberal". To those of us who saw the inner tool in both Romney and Obama, this is apparent. Partisanship is strong in you.

Good thing a lot of independents would have voted Ron Paul which makes me hopeful that if a socially liberal (or at least not socially draconian), but fiscally conservative candidate is put in he or she would have a shot.

 

I don't mind Villaraigosa as VP, I just think he needs a bigger resumé than just mayor (even if it is mayor of America's second largest city) if I'm going to vote him President.

 

Since calling a spade a spade is an insult now that warrants deleting an entire post rather than just editing the "offensive" phrasing, let me rephrase.

You have untruthfully mischaracterized Rand Paul's positions.

1) Tax cuts should be supported by all Americans (to an extent).
2) Paul has never said we need to "deregulate everything." Quite the contrary in fact, he supports regulation.
3) The GOP has not lost two elections in a row because of tax cuts and deregulation.

 

Not correct at all. He didnt beat Ron Paul twice.

 

As long as Rand isn't as extremist as his father, while still separating himself from the wealth worship and social conservative platform of the Republicans, I could see myself considering him. The elder Paul's views were just too radical and, if you ask me, a bit misguided and naive, for him to have ever earned my support, no matter how much I might sympathize and to a certain extent, agree with, his views on the over-extension of government. Hopefully Rand is able to strike a balance between the two because I'm honestly tired of extremists.

 

You call me partisan and you think Ron Paul had a legitimate shot at the Presidency? Are you kidding me?

I can think a man is competent and not agree with him on policy. That is possible ya'know.

 

Obama would have wiped the floor with Ron Paul. How do I know this? Because Obama dominated the people that dominated Ron Paul.

(Of course there are several other reasons for this but that is simple enough for anyone to understand).

 

Yep. That's what I'm calling you based on your posts and your ad hom isn't a response.

It is possible but you just seem like an apologist. *shrugs* maybe I'm wrong...