Of course he would vote for Clinton. That's an easy question.

Yea, clinton for sure, but that's pretty much because of the alternative... Against Cruz or Rubio I'd probably just not vote. Against Kasich I'd definetly vote for kasich.

Edited 3/14/2016 20:06:11

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgttkWQj6D0

Stand with Rand and stand anti-Clinton!

Edited 3/14/2016 20:16:28

You know, just a frain to Americans - why is Clinton disponsible for some small-scale attack on a country that was wrecked into chaos in 2011 (with great support in America)?

Because Democrats?

Edited 3/14/2016 20:19:22

@{BM}-Paugers

We'll have one soon, as I said. Let's just avoid getting ahead of ourselves and forget about hillary.


@Belgian Gentleman

Rand is a smart guy. I happen to disagree with him in many issues (climate change being the bigger one), but he has good arguments to defend his libertarian views. And I'd rather spend one hour discussing issues with libertarians, then 5 minutes with hardline conservatives. I just can't support those.


@Жұқтыру

She's responsible for wrecking that country on the first place...

Edited 3/14/2016 20:21:10

Rand may be a good candidate but he got little support.

Edited 3/14/2016 20:22:58

One of the few smart republicans I have to say. The problem is that he's not conservative enough, good thing he hasn't corrupted himself to get nominated.

Edited 3/14/2016 20:22:05

Stand with Rand and stand anti-Clinton!

+1. My man.

I may just write in Rand Paul during the primary and general election.

The problem is that he's not conservative enough, good thing he hasn't corrupted himself to get nominated.

I actually think he's the real definition of conservatism. Any conservative who says we should grow the military is actually just a neoconservative, something that only came into existence during the tail end of the cold war.

Edited 3/14/2016 20:24:42

One of the few smart republicans I have to say. The problem is that he's not conservative enough, good thing he hasn't corrupted himself to get nominated.

A corrupted Rand Paul would be better than all the other Republicans, unless he's ridiculously corrupted.

I actually think he's the real definition of conservatism. Any conservative who says we should grow the military is actually just a neoconservative, something that only came into existence during the tail end of the cold war.

He is definitely not conservative. He wants to legalise so many things, and to lower government control...this is libertarian. Conservatism wants right and more government control/laws.

A corrupted Rand Paul would be better than all the other Republicans, unless he's ridiculously corrupted.

This statement needs context.

He is definitely not conservative. He wants to legalise so many things, and to lower government control...this is libertarian. Conservatism wants right and more government control/laws.

What does legalize so many things mean?

Lower government control is a hallmark of conservative and libertarian principles. Almost all conservatives call for a smaller federal government and less government regulation, although some are less honest about actually doing this than others.

Democrats and liberals favor more government control and laws. You have it opposite.

Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Right_(United_States)

The Old Right is the textbook (and in my opinion) true meaning of conservatism in the United States. Rand Paul is closer to the Old Right than most of the politicians in the GOP.

Excuse-me, but that's bullshit.

Being a liberal doesn't make you supportive of big government, and being a conservative doesn't make you a defender of small government. There's no co-relation there. Just a stupid alliance of ideals because of a stupid political system that favours the two-party hegemony.

Just to point out, the republican party was the party of big government, and the democratic party was the party of small government. They only really switched of positions with the New Deal.

Edited 3/14/2016 21:32:53

No that's not bs. It's their own stated political philosophies. Liberal Democrats on average favor greater government regulation, spending, and control while conservatives advocate for limited and smaller government.

The proof is in the polling: http://www.people-press.org/2011/02/10/section-3-the-deficit-and-government-spending/

Go through all the charts. You'll see that on average, Democratic voters favor increases in government spending on a variety of sectors. That's not to say that some Republicans and Conservatives don't favor increased spending (war hawks like bigger military budgets for example), but on average they have a vastly different philosophy on the size and role of the government.

I support big government spending in education and healthcare. I do however oppose waste of money in subsidies and deficits in the budget.

The first because you shouldn't give taxpayers money to profitable corporations, plus it rigs the economy.

The second because it's not responsible for the government to be in huge debt, because it's not a good example for the citizens, because it will fall on the next generations and because it might also rig the economy.


I see that that people evolved towards cutting the spending, the economy already recovered a little at that time. Now that the spending has been made to restart the economy, the government should cut hard on his spending until there's a surplus, starting on subsidies, of course.

Edited 3/14/2016 22:43:13

I do however oppose waste of money in subsidies and deficits in the budget.

Yeah this is huge. I don't think the government should pick winners and losers in the economy, because sometimes they pick wrong (see farm subsidies and solyndra). The problem is Washington DC is that each party wants subsidies for different things. But even for non-profitable corporations there should be no subsidies. For example, the US has subsidized Elon Musk's companies at about $4.9 billion even though they're not profitable (its essentially throwing tax payer money into the garbage since there's no guarantee he'll ever become profitable).

The second because it's not responsible for the government to be in huge debt, because it's not a good example for the citizens, because it will fall on the next generations and because it might also rig the economy.

Totally agree! Wow...we've agree a lot lately...its weird.

Now that the spending has been made to restart the economy, the government should cut hard on his spending until there's a surplus, starting on subsidies, of course.

Things that should be easy in my opinion - corporate welfare and subsidies, military spending, foreign aid, and space exploration. In general I think that government should have budgetary surpluses unless there is some emergency situation. Until the New Deal it was actually considered an obligation of Congress to produce surpluses.

Lower government control is a hallmark of conservative and libertarian principles.

No...libertarian and conservatism are just opposite in this outlook; libertarians want more things legalised, and less government spending of all kinds, while conserves want more things illegalised, and more government spending - as long as it's not public spending. That is the politic compass meaning of them, there are also more specific meanings, but they don't contradict this - just put conservatism and libertarianism in more meant places about how much they want to spend/lower spending and legalise/illegalise.

Almost all conservatives call for a smaller federal government and less government regulation, although some are less honest about actually doing this than others.

They wouldn't be conserves, then. Also, regulation is not part of it, nor is really decentralisation. That, conserves and libertarians can go wherever they want, it's not part of the economic-authoritarian spectrum.

Liberal Democrats on average favor greater government regulation, spending, and control while conservatives advocate for limited and smaller government.

Don't let a proper name of a politic party fool you. I mean, you have the Republican and Democratic parties in America, even though a republic and democracy is the same thing? Just if they say they are doesn't mean they are - just look at the Liberal Democrats in Russia (TeamGuns would probably hate them more than Trump). No politic party today, even if they are, will say they are fascist, or national socialist. There are just bad things associated with some things, and good things that get (dumb) voters in others.

You'll see that on average, Democratic voters favor increases in government spending on a variety of sectors.

Yeah, they want public spending and regulate some things, which is axiomatically left. However, they (or Sanders, at least) wants to lower government control in other things, such as military, which is why I think he is the best candidate for America (with good luck, he'll send its economy in shambles).

Isn't this an anti hilary meme thread...

^They always derail hahaha. But it's good to have conversations about politics with a few memes in them.



Edited 3/14/2016 23:20:05

No...libertarian and conservatism are just opposite in this outlook; libertarians want more things legalised, and less government spending of all kinds, while conserves want more things illegalised, and more government spending - as long as it's not public spending. That is the politic compass meaning of them, there are also more specific meanings, but they don't contradict this - just put conservatism and libertarianism in more meant places about how much they want to spend/lower spending and legalise/illegalise.

I still don't understand what you mean by "legalize things". What things are you referring to example wise?

I think you forget that Fiscal Conservatism is a major tenant/plank of the Republican Party:

Fiscal conservatism is the economic and political policy that advocates restraint of governmental taxation and expenditures. Fiscal conservatives since the 19th century have argued that debt is a device to corrupt politics; they argue that big spending ruins the morals of the people, and that a national debt creates a dangerous class of speculators. A political strategy employed by conservatives to achieve a smaller government is known as starve the beast. Activist Grover Norquist is a well-known proponent of the strategy and has famously said, "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." The argument in favor of balanced budgets is often coupled with a belief that government welfare programs should be narrowly tailored and that tax rates should be low, which implies relatively small government institutions.

This belief in small government combines with fiscal conservatism to produce a broader economic liberalism, which wishes to minimize government intervention in the economy or implement laissez-faire policies. This economic liberalism borrows from two schools of thought: the classical liberals' pragmatism and the libertarian's notion of "rights." The classical liberal maintains that free markets work best, while the libertarian contends that free markets are the only ethical markets.

Edited 3/14/2016 23:22:56