6 ms·

I'm as liberal as they come but I will be voting for Rand Paul if he ends up with the Republican nomination. This is one issue where I will be a one issue voter

I'm as liberal as they come but I will be voting for Rand Paul if he ends up with the Republican nomination. This is one issue where I will be a one issue voter. Bernie Sanders seems like a great candidate, but I fear he is too reasonable and conciliatory to do what is necessary to properly reign in the entrenched interests of the military/intelligence industrial complex. At this point it seems like nothing short of a campaign of slash-and-burn against these agencies will get the job done, and it's going to take someone as "nutty" as a Paul to do it.

enupten 11y ago
Bernie Sanders does appear much more consistent than Hillary; and he unlike Hillary has talked of dismantling the NSA. I'm afraid he won't make the Democratic nomination. The other republicans seem like a bunch of idiots. It's likely that Hillary will come to power. She does seem to have the money for it.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- hackinthebochs 11y ago
  As far as I know he is pro-states rights when it comes to abortion and gay marriage. That is, he supports a weak federal government and the right of states to make these decisions. But either way, the issue of unconstitutional surveillance, and the entrenched interests in favor of it, is by far the single most important issue facing this country. I will be casting my vote with this fact in mind. It is absurd to judge someone's commitment to liberal ideals by how they weigh the relative importance of issues.
  - MCRed 11y ago
    I agree. Libertarians are the original Gay Rights and Abortion Rights supporters, going back to the 1970s. When Obama and Hillary were still anti gay-marriage (in 2013, before it became something they couldn't ignore) and when Bill Clinton was signing the "Defense of Marriage Act" along with 3/4 of Congressional Democrats approval... and for two decades even prior to that, Libertarians were in favor of getting the government out of marriage. Notice the Libertarian position is not the same as the mainstream "Gay Marriage" position. Libertarians would legalize Poly marriage as well, while I've had Gay Marriage Advocates give me a list of reasons why that shouldn't be legal. While some Libertarian candidates are personally against abortion, they would be laughed out of the movement if they advocated actually passing laws at the federal level to restrict it. Hey, I'm even personally not a fan of it (though I paid for one once) but that is completely different from being willing to support their bans, and I wouldn't support someone who wanted to ban them. (And yet I work for the Michael Badnarik campaign for a little while and he was "anti-abortion") Rand is going to have a tough time getting the republican nomination because that party hasn't quite realized that it's being to conservative and not responsible enough. So I don't mind that he's not taking a stand on these things. In fact, if we were in a climate where gay rights were being restricted (increased restrictions) or abortion were being fought (at the federal level) then I might be more worried about it. But we are not. W ran on a strong anti-abortion platform and nothing really happened during his term. He didn't even try. He knew it was a wedge issue, more than anything. Only at the state level are Abortions at risk. The real crime of our time is the out of control federal spying, adventurism and rights violations. (this is not a rebuttal to hackinthebochs who said nothing I disagree with.) EDIT: My statements are historical fact and consistent with what's known about libertarians: They want the state out of these kinds of decisions. Yet I'm downvoted. Is it because I'm pointing out that the Democrats don't really support gay rights? Sorry, but it's true. When clinton signed DoMA with broad democrat support, I was out. Sure the republicans were worse at that time, but I'm not going to compromise the idea that I don't have a right to get married! Even in the 1990s the Libertarians were the only party that was clearly pro gay rights and so I joined them. The past 20 years have proven me right. I take down votes (without comments or rebuttals) as merely an admission of the frustration at this truth.
    - dmix 11y ago
      Just because people downvote you doesn't mean they disagree with you, or what you said is not factual. Hyper-political comments tend to get downvoted on HN in general because of the type of toxic comment threads they breed. Having libertarianism vs democrats categorization, gay rights, and abortion in one thread fits that category quite well.
      - MCRed 11y ago
        I'm being brigaded. It's not just this one comment, it's comments on other threads, non-political and non-controversial ones as well.
    - jbrown 11y ago
      Gay Marriage Advocates tend to be skittish of embracing poly marriage because that would make them look more extreme. If they can show that their position is not the most extreme one out there, then they have a better chance of seeing their agenda actually become reality. The funny thing is that while poly marriage advocates might not like that right now, in the long run it might actually help them because it will probably speed up the necessary changes.
      - sjwright 11y ago
        The broadest possible reading of the essence of marriage is a single relationship entered into exclusively, voluntarily and with full awareness. An arranged marriage fails the voluntary test. A union involving a young child fails the awareness test. A unions that includes a non-human entity fails the voluntary and awareness tests. A union of three or more entities fails the exclusivity test. (Between two people there is just one relationship. Between three people there are three relationships.) I have no problem with the idea in theory, but it will require a lot of structural change of law to implement and is therefore sufficiently different to warrant a different technical term in law.
        jbrown 11y ago
        How is exclusivity crucial to marriage in the maximal broadness sense? It might be crucial in the current legal landscape, but that's not what we're talking about here. I tend to think that in the broadest possible sense marriage is just a contract and there's nothing preventing it from including more than two parties. Or, even if you do create a compelling argument for it being a contract between only two people, why should that preclude me from making another similar contract with a different party?
  - hackuser 11y ago
    > he is pro-states rights when it comes to abortion and gay marriage I don't know about Rand Paul, and certainly many state's rights supporters are sincere, but be aware that state's rights has long been adopted by those who simply didn't like national law on a particular issue, for example on racial segregation. I'm always suspicious when I hear the term used like a philosphical principle.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > As far as I know he is pro-states rights when it comes to abortion and gay marriage. Presumably, this refers to a different Senator Rand Paul than the one that sponsored the Life at Conception Act with the explicitly stated motivation to ban abortion federally. [0] [0] http://www.rawstory.com/2013/03/sen-rand-paul-introduces-fetal-personhood-bill-to-outlaw-abortion/ http://www.rawstory.com/2013/03/sen-rand-paul-introduces-fet...
    - zxcvcxz 11y ago
      Personally if I had to choose between banning abortions or a government that completely ignores the 4th amendment I'd have to choose to ban abortions. Luckily this is just a distraction issue and even if Paul did manage to get his legislation passed it would never stick. I know the leftists would really like everyone to think that he'll appoint supreme court justices that are literally immortal, but those guys die all the time.
    - hackinthebochs 11y ago
      That is unfortunate. But that is a bitter pill I'm willing to swallow for someone I believe will actually reign in surveillance. Backsliding on social issues can be corrected in the future. But there comes a point where the surveillance state is so ubiquitous and their grip on the country so strong, that there's no dialing it back. The direction we're headed with surveillance presents a clear and present danger to America as we know it.
adamnemecek 11y ago
are you aware that rand paul compared public health care to slavery https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUXwDMqjC-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUXwDMqjC-A ?
- zxcvcxz 11y ago
  I'd still vote for him. The only other option is Sanders and he seems to just want to concentrate all power at a federal level, like the USSR did. The left claims to want a more European style governance model but fail to accept that the EU does not have one healthcare system, does not have one schooling system, and does not have one college system. When you concentrate all power into a small point it makes manipulating that power much easier for the elites. No longer do they have to bribe politicians in each state, just the ones in Washington DC. The founding fathers knew this (they experienced this with the British Monarchy) and that's why they intended on having a very limited federal government that had little control over social programs and whose main purpose was to see that states take it upon themselves to enforce rights provided by the constitution. Remember when we integrated schools? The left would like you to believe the DOE is some kind of federal schooling system when in fact all it really does is issue pell grants. The federal government did not take over the schooling sector. The only thing the federal government did was step in when a state refused to integrate. I urge leftists to reconsider their position. I'm in favor of social programs like single payer healthcare, but having the federal government do it is just asinine. The federal government needs to pass a bill that makes healthcare a right, then leave it up to the states to implement free healthcare. Those that don't will be forced to, just like we did when some schools refused to integrate. If you hate too big to fail companies, then why allow one entity to monopolize a whole sector of the economy? As soon as one of these huge social programs fails, down goes the whole economy. It happened in the USSR and it could happen here. Just let the states handle it like they do in the EU. That way, when one states social programs fail it doesn't bring down the whole economy. Notice that this is a compromise. The left still gets it's healthcare while the right still gets a small federal government. It's a win-win. Unfortunately both the left and right would like you to believe that any compromise is giving into the other side, they must perpetuate the idea that you only have one right choice and that if you're not with them you're completely against them.
hackuser 11y ago
> This is one issue where I will be a one issue voter. Consider all the other issues. For example, with Rand Paul as President, the GOP would certainly control the White House, and House of Representatives, very likely have a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court within a few years (depending on Justice Ginsberg) ... they'd need only the Senate for one-party rule. Many, many other things would happen that you probably would not like.
- zxcvcxz 11y ago
  It seems the choice is between an Authoritarian left or a small-government right. I'll take small government over monolithic Authoritarianism any day.
  - mikeyouse 11y ago
    Just a reminder, the small government right led by Rand Paul would dramatically expand military spending.. Http://time.com/3759378/rand-paul-defense-spending/
    - zxcvcxz 11y ago
      But what president won't?
      - mikeyouse 11y ago
        Many wouldn't but in the context of this discussion, Bernie Sanders is probably a good example.
- pauleastlund 11y ago
  When you become an utterly dependable one-party voter you really diminish your say in what your party stands for. More than that, though, if Rand Paul actually got the nomination -- which he almost certainly won't -- and went on to win the general election, that would potentially be a lot bigger than one minor victory in the constant right-vs-left tug-of-war over American government. It would be a political realignment, because the coalition Rand Paul would build and the platform he would run on are not the traditional Republican coalition and platform. It could be the start of America actually having a pro-liberty party. That tradeoff might be worth it even for folks on the left who lean libertarian.

enupten 11y ago

Bernie Sanders does appear much more consistent than Hillary; and he unlike Hillary has talked of dismantling the NSA. I'm afraid he won't make the Democratic nomination. The other republicans seem like a bunch of idiots. It's likely that Hillary will come to power. She does seem to have the money for it.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

hackinthebochs 11y ago
As far as I know he is pro-states rights when it comes to abortion and gay marriage. That is, he supports a weak federal government and the right of states to make these decisions. But either way, the issue of unconstitutional surveillance, and the entrenched interests in favor of it, is by far the single most important issue facing this country. I will be casting my vote with this fact in mind. It is absurd to judge someone's commitment to liberal ideals by how they weigh the relative importance of issues.
- MCRed 11y ago
  I agree. Libertarians are the original Gay Rights and Abortion Rights supporters, going back to the 1970s. When Obama and Hillary were still anti gay-marriage (in 2013, before it became something they couldn't ignore) and when Bill Clinton was signing the "Defense of Marriage Act" along with 3/4 of Congressional Democrats approval... and for two decades even prior to that, Libertarians were in favor of getting the government out of marriage. Notice the Libertarian position is not the same as the mainstream "Gay Marriage" position. Libertarians would legalize Poly marriage as well, while I've had Gay Marriage Advocates give me a list of reasons why that shouldn't be legal. While some Libertarian candidates are personally against abortion, they would be laughed out of the movement if they advocated actually passing laws at the federal level to restrict it. Hey, I'm even personally not a fan of it (though I paid for one once) but that is completely different from being willing to support their bans, and I wouldn't support someone who wanted to ban them. (And yet I work for the Michael Badnarik campaign for a little while and he was "anti-abortion") Rand is going to have a tough time getting the republican nomination because that party hasn't quite realized that it's being to conservative and not responsible enough. So I don't mind that he's not taking a stand on these things. In fact, if we were in a climate where gay rights were being restricted (increased restrictions) or abortion were being fought (at the federal level) then I might be more worried about it. But we are not. W ran on a strong anti-abortion platform and nothing really happened during his term. He didn't even try. He knew it was a wedge issue, more than anything. Only at the state level are Abortions at risk. The real crime of our time is the out of control federal spying, adventurism and rights violations. (this is not a rebuttal to hackinthebochs who said nothing I disagree with.) EDIT: My statements are historical fact and consistent with what's known about libertarians: They want the state out of these kinds of decisions. Yet I'm downvoted. Is it because I'm pointing out that the Democrats don't really support gay rights? Sorry, but it's true. When clinton signed DoMA with broad democrat support, I was out. Sure the republicans were worse at that time, but I'm not going to compromise the idea that I don't have a right to get married! Even in the 1990s the Libertarians were the only party that was clearly pro gay rights and so I joined them. The past 20 years have proven me right. I take down votes (without comments or rebuttals) as merely an admission of the frustration at this truth.
  - dmix 11y ago
    Just because people downvote you doesn't mean they disagree with you, or what you said is not factual. Hyper-political comments tend to get downvoted on HN in general because of the type of toxic comment threads they breed. Having libertarianism vs democrats categorization, gay rights, and abortion in one thread fits that category quite well.
    - MCRed 11y ago
      I'm being brigaded. It's not just this one comment, it's comments on other threads, non-political and non-controversial ones as well.
  - jbrown 11y ago
    Gay Marriage Advocates tend to be skittish of embracing poly marriage because that would make them look more extreme. If they can show that their position is not the most extreme one out there, then they have a better chance of seeing their agenda actually become reality. The funny thing is that while poly marriage advocates might not like that right now, in the long run it might actually help them because it will probably speed up the necessary changes.
    - sjwright 11y ago
      The broadest possible reading of the essence of marriage is a single relationship entered into exclusively, voluntarily and with full awareness. An arranged marriage fails the voluntary test. A union involving a young child fails the awareness test. A unions that includes a non-human entity fails the voluntary and awareness tests. A union of three or more entities fails the exclusivity test. (Between two people there is just one relationship. Between three people there are three relationships.) I have no problem with the idea in theory, but it will require a lot of structural change of law to implement and is therefore sufficiently different to warrant a different technical term in law.
      - jbrown 11y ago
        How is exclusivity crucial to marriage in the maximal broadness sense? It might be crucial in the current legal landscape, but that's not what we're talking about here. I tend to think that in the broadest possible sense marriage is just a contract and there's nothing preventing it from including more than two parties. Or, even if you do create a compelling argument for it being a contract between only two people, why should that preclude me from making another similar contract with a different party?
- hackuser 11y ago
  > he is pro-states rights when it comes to abortion and gay marriage I don't know about Rand Paul, and certainly many state's rights supporters are sincere, but be aware that state's rights has long been adopted by those who simply didn't like national law on a particular issue, for example on racial segregation. I'm always suspicious when I hear the term used like a philosphical principle.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > As far as I know he is pro-states rights when it comes to abortion and gay marriage. Presumably, this refers to a different Senator Rand Paul than the one that sponsored the Life at Conception Act with the explicitly stated motivation to ban abortion federally. [0] [0] http://www.rawstory.com/2013/03/sen-rand-paul-introduces-fetal-personhood-bill-to-outlaw-abortion/ http://www.rawstory.com/2013/03/sen-rand-paul-introduces-fet...
  - zxcvcxz 11y ago
    Personally if I had to choose between banning abortions or a government that completely ignores the 4th amendment I'd have to choose to ban abortions. Luckily this is just a distraction issue and even if Paul did manage to get his legislation passed it would never stick. I know the leftists would really like everyone to think that he'll appoint supreme court justices that are literally immortal, but those guys die all the time.
  - hackinthebochs 11y ago
    That is unfortunate. But that is a bitter pill I'm willing to swallow for someone I believe will actually reign in surveillance. Backsliding on social issues can be corrected in the future. But there comes a point where the surveillance state is so ubiquitous and their grip on the country so strong, that there's no dialing it back. The direction we're headed with surveillance presents a clear and present danger to America as we know it.

adamnemecek 11y ago

are you aware that rand paul compared public health care to slavery https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUXwDMqjC-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUXwDMqjC-A ?

zxcvcxz 11y ago
I'd still vote for him. The only other option is Sanders and he seems to just want to concentrate all power at a federal level, like the USSR did. The left claims to want a more European style governance model but fail to accept that the EU does not have one healthcare system, does not have one schooling system, and does not have one college system. When you concentrate all power into a small point it makes manipulating that power much easier for the elites. No longer do they have to bribe politicians in each state, just the ones in Washington DC. The founding fathers knew this (they experienced this with the British Monarchy) and that's why they intended on having a very limited federal government that had little control over social programs and whose main purpose was to see that states take it upon themselves to enforce rights provided by the constitution. Remember when we integrated schools? The left would like you to believe the DOE is some kind of federal schooling system when in fact all it really does is issue pell grants. The federal government did not take over the schooling sector. The only thing the federal government did was step in when a state refused to integrate. I urge leftists to reconsider their position. I'm in favor of social programs like single payer healthcare, but having the federal government do it is just asinine. The federal government needs to pass a bill that makes healthcare a right, then leave it up to the states to implement free healthcare. Those that don't will be forced to, just like we did when some schools refused to integrate. If you hate too big to fail companies, then why allow one entity to monopolize a whole sector of the economy? As soon as one of these huge social programs fails, down goes the whole economy. It happened in the USSR and it could happen here. Just let the states handle it like they do in the EU. That way, when one states social programs fail it doesn't bring down the whole economy. Notice that this is a compromise. The left still gets it's healthcare while the right still gets a small federal government. It's a win-win. Unfortunately both the left and right would like you to believe that any compromise is giving into the other side, they must perpetuate the idea that you only have one right choice and that if you're not with them you're completely against them.

hackuser 11y ago

> This is one issue where I will be a one issue voter. Consider all the other issues. For example, with Rand Paul as President, the GOP would certainly control the White House, and House of Representatives, very likely have a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court within a few years (depending on Justice Ginsberg) ... they'd need only the Senate for one-party rule. Many, many other things would happen that you probably would not like.

zxcvcxz 11y ago
It seems the choice is between an Authoritarian left or a small-government right. I'll take small government over monolithic Authoritarianism any day.
- mikeyouse 11y ago
  Just a reminder, the small government right led by Rand Paul would dramatically expand military spending.. Http://time.com/3759378/rand-paul-defense-spending/
  - zxcvcxz 11y ago
    But what president won't?
    - mikeyouse 11y ago
      Many wouldn't but in the context of this discussion, Bernie Sanders is probably a good example.
pauleastlund 11y ago
When you become an utterly dependable one-party voter you really diminish your say in what your party stands for. More than that, though, if Rand Paul actually got the nomination -- which he almost certainly won't -- and went on to win the general election, that would potentially be a lot bigger than one minor victory in the constant right-vs-left tug-of-war over American government. It would be a political realignment, because the coalition Rand Paul would build and the platform he would run on are not the traditional Republican coalition and platform. It could be the start of America actually having a pro-liberty party. That tradeoff might be worth it even for folks on the left who lean libertarian.