←  Political Discussion

Talk Radio Sucks -- Smart Politics

»

Rand Paul Wants Bigger GOP: ‘You Go to a R...

D. C. Sessions's Photo D. C. Sessions 26 April 2014 - 07:09 AM

That's a very good idea, Rand. Just one problem: a large portion (perhaps a majority) of your Base is heavily motivated by exclusion. They're all about keeping their own privileges, and if you stop offering them those exclusionary policies, you're going to lose a lot of them to someone who makes them a better offer. For instance, a deck stacked less for the rich and multinational corporations and more tilted to average (and poor) people like them.

If you succeed, the Republican Party will be just like the Democratic Party, except with a pure plutocratic agenda. You're sure to do very well with the top 5%, but that's about it.
Quote

Practical Girl's Photo Practical Girl 26 April 2014 - 09:00 AM

GOPers are mostly white? Cue the sun. Hahahaha! Rand Paul wants to be President, and he'll say whatever it takes to position himself.
Quote

AnBr's Photo AnBr 26 April 2014 - 11:12 AM

I think pappy had a talk with him to tell him to quit catering so much to the baggers and to be more libertarian.
Quote

D. C. Sessions's Photo D. C. Sessions 26 April 2014 - 05:33 PM

View PostAnBr, on 26 April 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

I think pappy had a talk with him to tell him to quit catering so much to the baggers and to be more libertarian.

The Pauls aren't really libertarian in any but the current partisan sense. They're all for intrusive government, just as long as it's not Federal.

If you had to label them, the most accurate term would probably be "Confederate."
Quote

cmk's Photo cmk 26 April 2014 - 07:34 PM

View PostD. C. Sessions, on 26 April 2014 - 05:33 PM, said:

The Pauls aren't really libertarian in any but the current partisan sense. They're all for intrusive government, just as long as it's not Federal.

If you had to label them, the most accurate term would probably be "Confederate."

There's plenty to criticize with respect to both Pauls, but that's going way overboard and is pretty much obvious nonsense.
Quote

D. C. Sessions's Photo D. C. Sessions 26 April 2014 - 09:45 PM

View Postcmk, on 26 April 2014 - 07:34 PM, said:

There's plenty to criticize with respect to both Pauls, but that's going way overboard and is pretty much obvious nonsense.

How so? They're both on record as being perfectly fine with a long list of things as long as they're strictly at the State level -- including the whole of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.

Which, as far as I can tell, puts them squarely in the "Confederate" camp as opposed to the "Federalist" camp. "States' Rights über alles" and all that.
Quote

J-CA's Photo J-CA 26 April 2014 - 10:24 PM

I think the "perfectly fine" in this case is quibbling about jurisdiction, not policy. Libertarianism is a matter of policy, entirely orthogonal to particular feelings about the legal relationship between the federal government and the states.
Quote

D. C. Sessions's Photo D. C. Sessions 27 April 2014 - 08:07 AM

Precisely my point, J-CA. The Pauls don't object to the power of the State, they just have preferences regarding which State exercises them.
Quote

dsp's Photo dsp 27 April 2014 - 09:02 AM

View PostD. C. Sessions, on 26 April 2014 - 05:33 PM, said:

The Pauls aren't really libertarian in any but the current partisan sense. They're all for intrusive government, just as long as it's not Federal.

If you had to label them, the most accurate term would probably be "Confederate."

No, what they believe in (the elder Paul anyway) is the federalist paradigm and states rights.

The potential "intrusiveness" there or lack of it cuts both ways under that paradigm not in one direction only.

If Texas, Utah and Alabama pass strong restrictions on abortion, fewer restrictions on gun rights and don't recognize SSM, under the federalist paradigm properly understood, California, Massachusetts or Connecticut can do the exact opposite. There is no evidence I am aware of either Paul would oppose that.
Quote

Sinan's Photo Sinan 27 April 2014 - 09:05 AM

States rights will always be a cover for southern states and red states to do what they want regardless of the times. Every hear a lefty Dem in Sacramento make a big case based on the 10th amendment? Nope. Given how cheap and easy it is to buy a state's elections, this is just a way for special interests and rabid minority groups to get what they want locally when they can't get it done nationally. Personally, I am for a complete overhaul of federalism myself. Let's start with the Electoral College and then districting....check this out.

http://www.slate.com..._50_states.html

A vote in Wyoming is the most powerful vote in the nation for POTUS. Go figure.
Quote

cmk's Photo cmk 27 April 2014 - 09:53 AM

The Pauls are on record as being opposed to more government of more types than pretty much any other mainstream politicians. They are far from perfect, but portraying them as "all for intrusive government" is nonsensical.

View PostSinan, on 27 April 2014 - 09:05 AM, said:

States rights will always be a cover for southern states and red states to do what they want regardless of the times. Every hear a lefty Dem in Sacramento make a big case based on the 10th amendment? Nope.

A rather warped (and typically biased) view of reality. Whole categories of left-wing pet social projects and causes have gotten their starts solely on the basis of being able to pass laws at the state level. Do you think gay rights would be where they are today if not for states' rights? Environment protection? Labor laws? Even the abolition of slavery arguably traces back to state action.

ETA: Obamacare, thanks to Romneycare. Impetus for raising the minimum wage. Legalization of marijuana. Women's suffrage began at the state and local level. Etc. etc.
Quote

D. C. Sessions's Photo D. C. Sessions 27 April 2014 - 12:20 PM

View Postcmk, on 27 April 2014 - 09:53 AM, said:

The Pauls are on record as being opposed to more government of more types than pretty much any other mainstream politicians. They are far from perfect, but portraying them as "all for intrusive government" is nonsensical.

They're both on record in favor States' ability to enforce Jim Crow laws. Perhaps you could point us to some kind of government power they oppose?

Don't get me wrong; I'm sure that there are government powers they oppose right on down to the municipal level -- we all have those. But their main focus is on opposition to Federal laws, not because the Government shouldn't have those powers but because the Federal government should be weaker than the States. Which, historically, is a "confederate" position as distinct from a "federalist" position.
Quote

cmk's Photo cmk 27 April 2014 - 12:25 PM

Come on, DC. The Pauls' positions are well-documented all over the place.

As just one example off the top of my head, did Rand Paul not lead a filibuster over the use of aerial drones against Americans?

If you really care about this topic, as opposed to just taking pot shots at the Pauls/libertarianism, you can quite easily find all this information.

Quote

Paul opposes the USA PATRIOT Act, including warrantless searches and breach of individual privacy.[13] He has also proposed that the TSA be eliminated[14] and opposes the extrajudicial killing of American citizens in the United States who are terrorism suspects.[15] He did however express support for domestic use of armed drones for law enforcement to use.[16]
Quote

AnBr's Photo AnBr 27 April 2014 - 01:10 PM

View Postcmk, on 27 April 2014 - 09:53 AM, said:

The Pauls are on record as being opposed to more government of more types than pretty much any other mainstream politicians. They are far from perfect, but portraying them as "all for intrusive government" is nonsensical.

I'll agree with you that the Pauls, at least Ron are more Libertarian than the baggers, but I do not see them as purely Libertarian.

View Postcmk, on 27 April 2014 - 09:53 AM, said:

A rather warped (and typically biased) view of reality. Whole categories of left-wing pet social projects and causes have gotten their starts solely on the basis of being able to pass laws at the state level. Do you think gay rights would be where they are today if not for states' rights? Environment protection? Labor laws? Even the abolition of slavery arguably traces back to state action.

ETA: Obamacare, thanks to Romneycare. Impetus for raising the minimum wage. Legalization of marijuana. Women's suffrage began at the state and local level. Etc. etc.

There is a difference between implementing something new at a local/state level and using the 10th as justification for nullification to try to undo federal law..
Quote