4 ms·

Alright, two things.. (1) It seems you are just dismissing him and his father have similar ideas, which aren't necessarily any crazier than every other politic

Alright, two things.. (1) It seems you are just dismissing him and his father have similar ideas, which aren't necessarily any crazier than every other politician ever (i.e. social security is so awesome). Rand and Ron Paul both supported STATES rights, which lets be honest, makes it possible to move between states and have different taxes, laws, and unique experiences. This leads me to my second point... (2) "His religious agenda" he's made it clear he doesn't have a agenda, he's not going to push any religious agenda because he seems (at least) to support the constitution. This means that, (2a) Rand seems to support the President, Senate, House, and Supreme court all being separate. Constitutionally, the president doesn't control a state religion, abortion, marriage, etc. (2b) Supporting the policy of letting the states determine their laws seems probably the most American thing to do. If you don't like it, you just move to a different state where people are like minded. It's actually pretty awesome if you ask me, we can work together to defend our country, but live the way we want. That is the American dream.

morgante 12y ago
> Constitutionally, the president doesn't control a state religion, abortion, marriage, etc. The Establishment Clause is pretty clear that states should not and cannot enact state religions, and its up to the federal government to enforce that. The fact that Rand Paul is clearly biased by his religion makes him distinctly un-libertarian.
- joshuapants 12y ago
  It seems like you're grasping at straws. Good luck finding a single human anywhere that isn't biased in some way. I'm also not aware of any Libertarian Cabal documents stating that nobody with vaguely libertarian views can have a religion, or that in having a religion one is so tainted as to be unable to compartmentalize one's personal and professional lives.
  - morgante 12y ago
    I never said libertarians can't be religious. Rather, it's a fundamental tenant of libertarianism that you should not use the organ of government to enforce your religious views on others. On numerous occasions, Paul has referenced religious motivations for creating social policies. For example, he is opposed to same-sex marriage because it "offends him." Paul is not a libertarian. He's just a standard anti-Federalist Republican.
    - joshuapants 12y ago
      Do please show me where he's proposed banning same-sex marriage and not simply stated his personal distaste for it.
      - morgante 12y ago
        Here's one source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/28/rand-ditches-federalism-for-fundamentalism-on-gay-marriage.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/28/rand-ditche... My favorite quote from that (showing how intellectually dishonest Paul really is): "The First Amendment says keep government out of religion, not religion out of government."
        joshuapants 12y ago
        I'm sorry, you must have misunderstood me. I wanted to see an example of him proposing a policy that would proscribe same-sex marriage in contrast with his statements that he is personally uncomfortable with it. You have offered only the latter.
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      "I believe in old-fashioned traditional marriage but I don't really think the government needs to be too involved in this..." http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/219672-rand-paul-shrugs-when-asked-if-he-could-rethink-gay http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/21967... "Senator Paul believes marriage is an issue that should be dealt with at the state level,” political adviser Doug Stafford told The Daily Beast. “Nothing about his position has changed." Stafford later added: "Senator Paul does not want his guns or his marriage registered in Washington. He has said this repeatedly and consistently. Marriage is not a federal issue. It is an issue for state and local governments to deal with." http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/28/rand-ditches-federalism-for-fundamentalism-on-gay-marriage.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/28/rand-ditche... According to the second quote, Paul is also opposed to federal opposite-sex marriage. That's pretty much a standard libertarian position.
- lettergram 12y ago
  I think pretty much everyone (including Paul) would agree that the federal government needs to keep a state religion from forming in a state. Laws related to abolition, marriage, etc. is not necessarily religious, so claiming the states should make their own decisions seems fair. Also, he's a Republican (for better or worse), he'll almost certainly get a large portion of Libertarian vote though (which accounts for 2 - 5% of the population per state).
  - discardorama 12y ago
    > Laws related to abolition, marriage, etc. is not necessarily religious Pray tell me what non-religious arguments you have against same-sex marriage and abortion (I assume you meant "abortion" instead of "abolition").
    - nesicus 12y ago
      you say that as if you can't imagine that there are any or something. so silly. um, okay: government has no business in marriage. abortion is arbitrarily deciding you have autonomy over the life of another possibly intelligent being for political reasons. I'm in favor of self-ownership and property rights--I don't know about you. none of these things have anything to do with religion. (hint: I am not religious.)
      - unprepare 12y ago
        >government has no business in marriage I see this rhetoric a lot and would love an actual explanation. Do you propose that tax benefits for couples should be abolished? How do you propose to handle Estate planning? Health and other insurance benefits? Managing the custody of children of divorce? How exactly do you imagine the government not being involved in marriage? Because as it stands today, the government is inextricably a part of the concept of marriage; the government must recognize a marriage in order for the benefits of marriage to work.
        maratd 12y ago
- researcher88 12y ago
  I think it makes him a politician more than anything. The guy has an MD from Duke; I doubt he is as religious as he seems. The reality is, there is little upside in a Republican primary for saying he thinks gays should marry or for promoting a nuanced view on abortion. Just like his dance on saying he will increase defense spending after first proposing to cut it.
  - juletide 12y ago
    "The guy has an MD from Duke; I doubt he is as religious as he seems" I don't understand what you're saying here—are you implying that MDs are somehow unlikely to be religious?
    - researcher88 12y ago
      No, just highly educated. I meant that he is less likely to use religion to define his beliefs. He is a critical thinker and a smart guy, so he surely recognizes the contradictions and problems with religion. He can call himself a Christian, like many secular people do, but he is not religious like Santorum or Huckabee. Rand and his father rarely talk about it. And he certainly has a strong belief in its separation from government.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- viggity 12y ago
  Actually, the Establishment clause does not make it clear, and in fact, only prevented the US Congress (not the states) from establishing an official religion. It wasn't until the supreme court Incorporated the establishment clause in 1947 that states were prevented from establishing an official state religion. In fact, at least six states had official religions at the time of the founding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause#Incorporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause#Incorporat... The second paragraph in the Incorporation clause discusses my points above.
  - morgante 12y ago
    Yes, it's true that the Establishment Clause did not originally apply to the states. However, since incorporation via the Fourteenth Amendment, the majority of precent applies it to the states as well. (I've written dozens of papers on the Establishment Clause.)
    - tzs 12y ago
      Ron Paul tried to effectively reverse that, three times, by introducing legislation that prohibited the Supreme Court and any other Federal court from hearing cases involving it and the laws, policies, or regulations of any state. That would work because aside from a small number of case types the Constitution explicitly says the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over, it is Congress that decides the bounds of Federal jurisdiction. Here was one of Ron Paul's bills on this: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.958.IH:/ http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.958.IH:/
- chucksmart 12y ago
  The Establishment Clause prohibits the Federal Congress from establishing a national religion; the 14th Amendment on the other hand has been interpreted to establish a universal standard of morality for the nation as decreed by the Supreme Court. One might say the 14th Amendment and the Establishment clause directly conflict. And the 14th Amendment has won.
  - morgante 12y ago
    Most contemporary opinion, including the vast majority of applicable precedent, holds that the 14th Amendment made the Establishment Clause applicable to the states.
  - chucksmart 12y ago
    Power vacuums are always filled. Prior to the 14th amendment; the states filled the power vacuum of 'police power & moral standards' which was intentionally denied the Fed. With the 14th amendment; the power to establish 'moral standards' was taken from the states; and filled by the Supreme Caliphate. If the Supreme Caliphate applies the moral standards of Congress to moral issues like abortion and marriage it is 'problematically' over-riding the Establishment Clause. If it applies solely its own 'moral standards'; then the Supreme Caliphate is consistent with the Establishment Clause. Language usually gives lip service to latter path.
intopieces 12y ago
"I understand that you disagree with everything my candidate has ever voted on or stated he believes, but he is still a good candidate for your vote because as President he won't do anything." Please don't use the term "American Dream" from now on. I'm not trying to be mean/sarcastic, but that term is too... it's dead. It's dead of any real meaning, and it makes candidates and their supporters sound like parodies of themselves.
mkautzm 12y ago
That's the American dream if you were born into the means of achieving the American dream. Libertarians seem to universally believe that everyone is just born with wealth, or that if you bootstraps hard enough, you are just bound to trip over wealth.
- hueving 12y ago
  That strawman is just about the same as saying, 'liberals seem to universally believe that nobody could be incompetent and every personal outcome is controlled by everyone else instead of personal decisions.'
  - mkautzm 12y ago
    Close, but more something like: "Liberals seem to universally believe that the status you are born into will probably be the status you stay in your entire life." The important distinction here is that competence isn't a factor and that the above statement is true in every measurable way.
    - hueving 12y ago
      It might be true that some people hold the belief but the belief is not true in "every measurable way". Otherwise you would never have stories of poor people becoming rich.
aagha 12y ago
> (2b) Supporting the policy of letting the states determine their laws seems probably the most American thing to do. If you don't like it, you just move to a different state where people are like minded. Ugh. This is the kind of elitist self-righteous perspective that keeps me from wanting to have anything to do with the far right. "Just move to a different state"?! You probably have the means to do so. MOST people do not. Even you are probably unlikely to say, oh, I think this state sucks, I'm going to pick-up and leave tomorrow. People have families, jobs (and new jobs to get), kids, commitments, ailing parents, etc. Get off your high horse and stop thinking the rest of the world is just like you.

morgante 12y ago

> Constitutionally, the president doesn't control a state religion, abortion, marriage, etc. The Establishment Clause is pretty clear that states should not and cannot enact state religions, and its up to the federal government to enforce that. The fact that Rand Paul is clearly biased by his religion makes him distinctly un-libertarian.

joshuapants 12y ago
It seems like you're grasping at straws. Good luck finding a single human anywhere that isn't biased in some way. I'm also not aware of any Libertarian Cabal documents stating that nobody with vaguely libertarian views can have a religion, or that in having a religion one is so tainted as to be unable to compartmentalize one's personal and professional lives.
- morgante 12y ago
  I never said libertarians can't be religious. Rather, it's a fundamental tenant of libertarianism that you should not use the organ of government to enforce your religious views on others. On numerous occasions, Paul has referenced religious motivations for creating social policies. For example, he is opposed to same-sex marriage because it "offends him." Paul is not a libertarian. He's just a standard anti-Federalist Republican.
  - joshuapants 12y ago
    Do please show me where he's proposed banning same-sex marriage and not simply stated his personal distaste for it.
    - morgante 12y ago
      Here's one source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/28/rand-ditches-federalism-for-fundamentalism-on-gay-marriage.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/28/rand-ditche... My favorite quote from that (showing how intellectually dishonest Paul really is): "The First Amendment says keep government out of religion, not religion out of government."
      - joshuapants 12y ago
        I'm sorry, you must have misunderstood me. I wanted to see an example of him proposing a policy that would proscribe same-sex marriage in contrast with his statements that he is personally uncomfortable with it. You have offered only the latter.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    "I believe in old-fashioned traditional marriage but I don't really think the government needs to be too involved in this..." http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/219672-rand-paul-shrugs-when-asked-if-he-could-rethink-gay http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/21967... "Senator Paul believes marriage is an issue that should be dealt with at the state level,” political adviser Doug Stafford told The Daily Beast. “Nothing about his position has changed." Stafford later added: "Senator Paul does not want his guns or his marriage registered in Washington. He has said this repeatedly and consistently. Marriage is not a federal issue. It is an issue for state and local governments to deal with." http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/28/rand-ditches-federalism-for-fundamentalism-on-gay-marriage.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/28/rand-ditche... According to the second quote, Paul is also opposed to federal opposite-sex marriage. That's pretty much a standard libertarian position.
lettergram 12y ago
I think pretty much everyone (including Paul) would agree that the federal government needs to keep a state religion from forming in a state. Laws related to abolition, marriage, etc. is not necessarily religious, so claiming the states should make their own decisions seems fair. Also, he's a Republican (for better or worse), he'll almost certainly get a large portion of Libertarian vote though (which accounts for 2 - 5% of the population per state).
- discardorama 12y ago
  > Laws related to abolition, marriage, etc. is not necessarily religious Pray tell me what non-religious arguments you have against same-sex marriage and abortion (I assume you meant "abortion" instead of "abolition").
  - nesicus 12y ago
    you say that as if you can't imagine that there are any or something. so silly. um, okay: government has no business in marriage. abortion is arbitrarily deciding you have autonomy over the life of another possibly intelligent being for political reasons. I'm in favor of self-ownership and property rights--I don't know about you. none of these things have anything to do with religion. (hint: I am not religious.)
    - unprepare 12y ago
      >government has no business in marriage I see this rhetoric a lot and would love an actual explanation. Do you propose that tax benefits for couples should be abolished? How do you propose to handle Estate planning? Health and other insurance benefits? Managing the custody of children of divorce? How exactly do you imagine the government not being involved in marriage? Because as it stands today, the government is inextricably a part of the concept of marriage; the government must recognize a marriage in order for the benefits of marriage to work.
      - maratd 12y ago
researcher88 12y ago
I think it makes him a politician more than anything. The guy has an MD from Duke; I doubt he is as religious as he seems. The reality is, there is little upside in a Republican primary for saying he thinks gays should marry or for promoting a nuanced view on abortion. Just like his dance on saying he will increase defense spending after first proposing to cut it.
- juletide 12y ago
  "The guy has an MD from Duke; I doubt he is as religious as he seems" I don't understand what you're saying here—are you implying that MDs are somehow unlikely to be religious?
  - researcher88 12y ago
    No, just highly educated. I meant that he is less likely to use religion to define his beliefs. He is a critical thinker and a smart guy, so he surely recognizes the contradictions and problems with religion. He can call himself a Christian, like many secular people do, but he is not religious like Santorum or Huckabee. Rand and his father rarely talk about it. And he certainly has a strong belief in its separation from government.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
viggity 12y ago
Actually, the Establishment clause does not make it clear, and in fact, only prevented the US Congress (not the states) from establishing an official religion. It wasn't until the supreme court Incorporated the establishment clause in 1947 that states were prevented from establishing an official state religion. In fact, at least six states had official religions at the time of the founding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause#Incorporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause#Incorporat... The second paragraph in the Incorporation clause discusses my points above.
- morgante 12y ago
  Yes, it's true that the Establishment Clause did not originally apply to the states. However, since incorporation via the Fourteenth Amendment, the majority of precent applies it to the states as well. (I've written dozens of papers on the Establishment Clause.)
  - tzs 12y ago
    Ron Paul tried to effectively reverse that, three times, by introducing legislation that prohibited the Supreme Court and any other Federal court from hearing cases involving it and the laws, policies, or regulations of any state. That would work because aside from a small number of case types the Constitution explicitly says the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over, it is Congress that decides the bounds of Federal jurisdiction. Here was one of Ron Paul's bills on this: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.958.IH:/ http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.958.IH:/
chucksmart 12y ago
The Establishment Clause prohibits the Federal Congress from establishing a national religion; the 14th Amendment on the other hand has been interpreted to establish a universal standard of morality for the nation as decreed by the Supreme Court. One might say the 14th Amendment and the Establishment clause directly conflict. And the 14th Amendment has won.
- morgante 12y ago
  Most contemporary opinion, including the vast majority of applicable precedent, holds that the 14th Amendment made the Establishment Clause applicable to the states.
- chucksmart 12y ago
  Power vacuums are always filled. Prior to the 14th amendment; the states filled the power vacuum of 'police power & moral standards' which was intentionally denied the Fed. With the 14th amendment; the power to establish 'moral standards' was taken from the states; and filled by the Supreme Caliphate. If the Supreme Caliphate applies the moral standards of Congress to moral issues like abortion and marriage it is 'problematically' over-riding the Establishment Clause. If it applies solely its own 'moral standards'; then the Supreme Caliphate is consistent with the Establishment Clause. Language usually gives lip service to latter path.

intopieces 12y ago

"I understand that you disagree with everything my candidate has ever voted on or stated he believes, but he is still a good candidate for your vote because as President he won't do anything." Please don't use the term "American Dream" from now on. I'm not trying to be mean/sarcastic, but that term is too... it's dead. It's dead of any real meaning, and it makes candidates and their supporters sound like parodies of themselves.

mkautzm 12y ago

That's the American dream if you were born into the means of achieving the American dream. Libertarians seem to universally believe that everyone is just born with wealth, or that if you bootstraps hard enough, you are just bound to trip over wealth.

hueving 12y ago
That strawman is just about the same as saying, 'liberals seem to universally believe that nobody could be incompetent and every personal outcome is controlled by everyone else instead of personal decisions.'
- mkautzm 12y ago
  Close, but more something like: "Liberals seem to universally believe that the status you are born into will probably be the status you stay in your entire life." The important distinction here is that competence isn't a factor and that the above statement is true in every measurable way.
  - hueving 12y ago
    It might be true that some people hold the belief but the belief is not true in "every measurable way". Otherwise you would never have stories of poor people becoming rich.

aagha 12y ago

> (2b) Supporting the policy of letting the states determine their laws seems probably the most American thing to do. If you don't like it, you just move to a different state where people are like minded. Ugh. This is the kind of elitist self-righteous perspective that keeps me from wanting to have anything to do with the far right. "Just move to a different state"?! You probably have the means to do so. MOST people do not. Even you are probably unlikely to say, oh, I think this state sucks, I'm going to pick-up and leave tomorrow. People have families, jobs (and new jobs to get), kids, commitments, ailing parents, etc. Get off your high horse and stop thinking the rest of the world is just like you.