Rand Paul wins republican primary Watch

Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#21
Report 8 years ago
#21
(Original post by CandyFlipper)
Is there a libertarian republican running in Florida then?
The teaparty backed candidate is Marco Rubio in Florida. He is pretty libertarian on economic issues and a better choice than the Obama stimulus loving Charlie Crist as far as spending is concerned. On social issues and foreign policy he is more of a modern mainstream republican.

What the US doesn't have many of is libertarian-across-the-board politicians. Most of our small government, low tax politicians are social conservatives. Ron Paul and his son are unique because they want the government off people's backs in terms of foreign policy, social issues, and foreign policy. That's fine if you want to be a congressman, but if you want to be president and have any chance or winning a national election, you need to be strong on foreign policy and national security, support the social issues that are important to many religious Americans, and be for low taxes and smaller government. This is why a candidate like Ron Paul will never be president. He just doesn't have enough mainstream appeal because of his ideas on foreign policy and social issues and will always be a fringe politician.
0
reply
Barden
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#22
Report 8 years ago
#22
sorry, but when ever i hear about anything related to Ron Paul, all i think about is RuPaul:

0
reply
tw68
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#23
Report 8 years ago
#23
(Original post by CandyFlipper)
Well in Kentucky, as was probably expected based on polls, Rand Paul has won the primary, and yes he is the son of Ron Paul. He has been a huge supporter of the tea party movement right from the start (not somebody hopping on a bandwagon like Sarah Palin), and I find this quite exciting.

The republican party clearly did not want Rand to win this, the other candidate was the institutional candidate that represented everything that is wrong with the republican party. But the grassroots supporters of the tea party have come out and supported somebody who is far more libertarian than many republicans e.g. Rand opposes the war in Iraq, he only believes in war when its declared by congress, he would abolish the federal reserve etc.

Is this a step towards the republican party becoming more libertarian?
It depends what you mean by libertarian. If you are talking about social issues then there is no way they are going to change their views on gay rights, abortion etc..

Although I don't agree with libertarian economic policies, if the Republicans had any sense then they would try to find more fiscal conservatives and libertarians who could use the current political climate to get elected. If instead they continue to pander to the religious right with wackos like Palin then I cannot see much success.

By the way if you want to know if Ron Paul is for or against gay rights you should just watch the scene of Bruno when Bruno interviews him!!
0
reply
CandyFlipper
Badges: 13
#24
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#24
(Original post by tw68)
It depends what you mean by libertarian. If you are talking about social issues then there is no way they are going to change their views on gay rights, abortion etc..

Although I don't agree with libertarian economic policies, if the Republicans had any sense then they would try to find more fiscal conservatives and libertarians who could use the current political climate to get elected. If instead they continue to pander to the religious right with wackos like Palin then I cannot see much success.

By the way if you want to know if Ron Paul is for or against gay rights you should just watch the scene of Bruno when Bruno interviews him!!
I do wish they would change their views on social issues. Maybe there's hope if young people are more libertarian. Ron Paul does keep saying that its talking to college campuses that makes him the most optimistic about his message getting through to people. I think athiesm is rising in the USA for example, so hopefully religion will have less and less of a hold over the republican party.

I agree that whilst libertarians are less popular within the republican party, Ron Paul would do better overall then Sarah Palin because independents and democrats definitely prefer him! He should definitely run in 2012.

And I don't think it makes you homophobic to call someone queer when they've just sat you down on a bed and then walked in wearing little speedos, lol - thats fair enough really.
reply
tw68
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#25
Report 8 years ago
#25
(Original post by CandyFlipper)
I do wish they would change their views on social issues. Maybe there's hope if young people are more libertarian. Ron Paul does keep saying that its talking to college campuses that makes him the most optimistic about his message getting through to people. I think athiesm is rising in the USA for example, so hopefully religion will have less and less of a hold over the republican party.

I agree that whilst libertarians are less popular within the republican party, Ron Paul would do better overall then Sarah Palin because independents and democrats definitely prefer him! He should definitely run in 2012.

And I don't think it makes you homophobic to call someone queer when they've just sat you down on a bed and then walked in wearing little speedos, lol - thats fair enough really.
There is no way he could win in a presidential election. Firstly, he would not have the support of the Republican establishment which is fine if you are running for congress, but in a presidential election if you don't have the RNC raising money for you then you are not going to win.

Secondly, he is too much of a dove on foreign policy. It may well be that his approach may work better. But he would get hammered by the media, other candidates and especially 527 groups - labelling him as 'weak'.

Finally, the Religious Right makes up a considerable proportion of an already depleted Republican Party. So if you cannot get their votes then you going to struggle to get the nomination never mind get elected.

The Bruno point was more of a joke by the way, I just found that scene quite funny.
0
reply
DrunkHamster
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#26
Report 8 years ago
#26
(Original post by opaltiger)
The Tea Party movement loses 99% of its credibility when you realise US taxes are the lowest they've been for decades.
FWIW, this is simply nonsense:
0
reply
CandyFlipper
Badges: 13
#27
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#27
(Original post by DrunkHamster)
FWIW, this is simply nonsense:
DH comes to save my ass once again.

I thought it was weird that taxes could be at an all time low with the wars and the bailouts, and its not like general publicn services have been cut too much ... I figured though that it might be true as long as the govt is printing and borrowing more, and in the case the tea party movement still has grounds to complain. I'm sure in reality its doing all three of these things quite a lot.
reply
tw68
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#28
Report 8 years ago
#28
(Original post by CandyFlipper)
DH comes to save my ass once again.

I thought it was weird that taxes could be at an all time low with the wars and the bailouts, and its not like general publicn services have been cut too much ... I figured though that it might be true as long as the govt is printing and borrowing more, and in the case the tea party movement still has grounds to complain. I'm sure in reality its doing all three of these things quite a lot.
How has he saved you? He has produced a graph that shows government expenditure as a share of national income, not taxes.

In reality, Reagan was at 20% for capital gains and 28% for dividends. Obama is at 20% for capital gains and 20% for dividends.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...x?post=1662557
0
reply
a.posteriori
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#29
Report 8 years ago
#29

Historic tax rates for lowest and highest tax brackets.



Breaking down the tax brackets a bit more.
0
reply
DrunkHamster
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#30
Report 8 years ago
#30
(Original post by tw68)
How has he saved you? He has produced a graph that shows government expenditure as a share of national income, not taxes.

In reality, Reagan was at 20% for capital gains and 28% for dividends. Obama is at 20% for capital gains and 20% for dividends.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...x?post=1662557
Uhh, where do you think government expenditure comes from? As a matter of necessity, it comes from taxation or deferred taxation (possibly including debasement of the currency).

But even if you ignore the future repayment of current government debt (which, by the way, one shouldn't do), it's just intellectually dishonest to talk about one or two taxes and infer that the total tax burden is less than before. The link saying that the tax burden is something like 9% is just absolutely ridiculous.
0
reply
tw68
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#31
Report 8 years ago
#31
(Original post by DrunkHamster)
Uhh, where do you think government expenditure comes from? As a matter of necessity, it comes from taxation or deferred taxation (possibly including debasement of the currency).

But even if you ignore the future repayment of current government debt (which, by the way, one shouldn't do), it's just intellectually dishonest to talk about one or two taxes and infer that the total tax burden is less than before. The link saying that the tax burden is something like 9% is just absolutely ridiculous.
The graph you cited refers to the 'US government's expenditure as a share of the national income'. Some of the government expenditure is unaccounted for, hence why there is a massive budget deficit.

It is okay criticising the sources as ridiculous, why don't you produce a source that actually shows the tax burden increasing?
0
reply
DrunkHamster
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#32
Report 8 years ago
#32
(Original post by tw68)
It is okay criticising the sources as ridiculous, why don't you produce a source that actually shows the tax burden increasing?
I never said that the tax burden had increased (although it certainly will in the future) - but that is not to say that the source isn't ridiculous. Anyone who honestly believes that "Including state, federal and local taxes, the average tax bill came out to 9.2 percent of personal income in 2009" - as the source claims - is either completely deluded or incredibly dishonest.

The question is whether the Tea Partiers have a legitimate complaint about the size of government. Someone tried to claim that they don't, since taxation is the lowest it's been in decades. But that doesn't follow: the fact that spending is so out of control (and will continue to get much, much worse) means that there is a legitimate complaint about the future increases in taxation that will inevitably have to occur as a result. That is why expenditure is interesting.
0
reply
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#33
Report 8 years ago
#33
(Original post by icn06)
Hmm I could see the Republican Party making a bit of shift...Even the entire Tea Party movement was pretty radical and out of character. They're due for a bit of a facelift after losing the election anyways. I like it.
What is so radical about smaller government, less taxes, and eliminating wasteful spending? :confused:
0
reply
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#34
Report 8 years ago
#34
(Original post by Mahyor)
By the way, isn't Rand Paul anti-gay rights, anti-choice and anti-immigration? If so, how exactly is he libertarian? Unless, I'm totally confused about what libertarianism entails.

He sounds far more socially conservative than his dad.
I have no idea what Paul's position is on gay rights or abortion, but he probably thinks it's a decision best left up to the states to decide upon. As for him being anti-immigration, yes, you are totally confused, because there is no US mainstream politician who is anti-immigration. Anti-ILLEGAL immigration, yes, but no US politician is opposed to legal immigration. Do you think we should just have open borders and let anyone walk into the country? I'm not aware of any country that has a policy like that.
0
reply
CandyFlipper
Badges: 13
#35
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#35
(Original post by Made in the USA)
I have no idea what Paul's position is on gay rights or abortion, but he probably thinks it's a decision best left up to the states to decide upon. As for him being anti-immigration, yes, you are totally confused, because there is no US mainstream politician who is anti-immigration. Anti-ILLEGAL immigration, yes, but no US politician is opposed to legal immigration. Do you think we should just have open borders and let anyone walk into the country? I'm not aware of any country that has a policy like that.
EU states have that with EU states, which a lot of people here dislike but I guess to flag that up makes you a "bigot" according to our ex prime minister.
reply
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#36
Report 8 years ago
#36
(Original post by CandyFlipper)
EU states have that with EU states, which a lot of people here dislike but I guess to flag that up makes you a "bigot" according to our ex prime minister.
Maybe in Europe you can be anti-immigration, but here, in a nation of immigrants, you would get laughed at if you took a position like that. The only immigration we are against is the illegal variety.

I saw Brown make that comment. Do you think that's part of the reason why he is no longer the PM?
0
reply
CandyFlipper
Badges: 13
#37
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#37
(Original post by Made in the USA)
Maybe in Europe you can be anti-immigration, but here, in a nation of immigrants, you would get laughed at if you took a position like that. The only immigration we are against is the illegal variety.

I saw Brown make that comment. Do you think that's part of the reason why he is no longer the PM?
Not really, labour seats tend to be so securely labour that even if he lost a few percent of the votes because of that it wouldn't effect them. Labour are mostly out because its been 13 years and people get sick of any government after that long, especially if a massive recession happened under their leadership. Its a real testament of how much we still hate the conservatives in this country that they couldn't even get a majority, this election was handed to them on a silver platter.

And if you're anti immigration here, usually you're working class. Obviously a generalisation but that seems to be how it is, a lot of us are tolerant of immigration though!
reply
icn06
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#38
Report 8 years ago
#38
(Original post by Made in the USA)
What is so radical about smaller government, less taxes, and eliminating wasteful spending? :confused:
Nothing. But actually seeing so many people stand up for it across the country, and in a way that brought together so many seemingly different kinds of people, was new. Basically, I was surprised by the popularity of it. There were tea parties at my university in Florida completely run by young people. And I went to one in New Jersey that was packed with all age groups and demographics.
0
reply
opaltiger
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#39
Report 8 years ago
#39
(Original post by Made in the USA)
Maybe in Europe you can be anti-immigration, but here, in a nation of immigrants, you would get laughed at if you took a position like that. The only immigration we are against is the illegal variety.
You seriously think there isn't a significant portion of the population - including quite a few politicians - who would like nothing more than for all those dirty Mexicans to go back to Mexico and never return?

The question is whether the Tea Partiers have a legitimate complaint about the size of government. Someone tried to claim that they don't, since taxation is the lowest it's been in decades.
I was referring more to the Tea Party's quite insistent claims that taxes are currently extremely high. No matter how you look at it, that's not true. Perhaps taxes will rise in the future, and perhaps they have ground to stand on, but the rhetoric they're using to convince people is based on deliberately misleading statements. That's intellectually dishonest.
0
reply
Ministerdonut
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#40
Report 8 years ago
#40
(Original post by CandyFlipper)
Well in Kentucky, as was probably expected based on polls, Rand Paul has won the primary, and yes he is the son of Ron Paul. He has been a huge supporter of the tea party movement right from the start (not somebody hopping on a bandwagon like Sarah Palin), and I find this quite exciting.

The republican party clearly did not want Rand to win this, the other candidate was the institutional candidate that represented everything that is wrong with the republican party. But the grassroots supporters of the tea party have come out and supported somebody who is far more libertarian than many republicans e.g. Rand opposes the war in Iraq, he only believes in war when its declared by congress, he would abolish the federal reserve etc.

Is this a step towards the republican party becoming more libertarian?
Are you forgetting ,in your bile you spew about Palin that she endorsed him unlike many in the Republican party?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you chained to your phone?

Yes (101)
19.77%
Yes, but I'm trying to cut back (208)
40.7%
Nope, not that interesting (202)
39.53%

Watched Threads

View All