Think Rand Paul is an intellectual lightweight?

[Cryptic_Snow]

Link to video.

I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I believe there are millions of Americans that fall into that same category. For far too long though political parties and the media have been trying to push us into a convenient little box of Democrat and Republican. The spectrum goes from Joe Biden to Mitt Romney, you have to fit somewhere in there. If you deviate in any direction you're considered "extreme" and largely disenfranchised from voting, because this setup allows for very few outside-the-box type politicians to run successfully. Both parties collude to exclude third parties from actively participating in the process and debates.

With that said, I'm finally feeling hopeful about the future with politicians like Rand Paul, who not only buck the system, but their own party often, and where it like a badge of courage. There's finally a home for all those fiscally conservative/socially liberal voters. From the relatively short interview I posted, I have concluded Rand Paul has enormous political potential if he rides this wave. I like how he's an independent thinker and understands history.

Bold prediction: Rand Paul will be President someday.

 

[GhostWriter16]

For the most part I'm in the same boat. There are a few exceptions, but I tend to support the path of less government influence in both the fiscal and social spheres. I'm currenntly a huge Ron Paul supporter and while its certain he will never be President, perhaps his son will.

However, it is improbable since the establishment Republicans would throw a revolt. Mitt Romney is obviously much more of a change

 

[JollyRoger]

I don't think he is a lightweight. He is more of a flyweight, maybe a bantamweight on a good day.

 

[TheLastOne36]

I could see him being president one day as well.

 

[illram]

Fiscally conservative/socially liberal seems like a cop-out to me. If you want socially liberal policies, e.g., gay marriage, but you want it for the wrong reason, e.g., States rights, you are also going to compromise the ADA, Civil Rights Act, FLSA in the name of "state's rights," and you are going to compromise unemployment benefits, eliminating medicaid, and eliminating social security in the name of being a "fiscal conservative." You basically arrive back at square one--being a Republican. No thanks.

None of that is really courageous anyways. The fiscal conservative stuff is what brings in the big cash donors in industry anyways since they are the ones who benefit from it, and you can still keep all the crazy social conservatives in your fold by cloaking your ideals in "state's rights" rather than the ideals of equality or whatever, so you're not compromising anything. This whole Ron/Rand Paul thing has always been totally bogus. The Ron Paul debate quote where he says the sick person who does not have insurance should just die basically sums up the ultimate silliness of his world view when you boil it down. Those surface things these guys say like no more foreign wars or what have you, they are ultimately just as bad as the next guy because they are saying these things for all the wrong reasons.

edit: I should add that few Rand Paul dudes are pro-gay rights anyways so that's probably an outlandish example...

 

[Crezth]

"State's rights" is effectively incompatible with being socially liberal. State tyrants are no less so than federal tyrants.

 

[GhostWriter16]

If we tyrannically force people not to vote tyranny on themselves, are we any better?

(This is a question I would like to see answered, not necessarily a rhetorical one.)

 

[illram]

What is an example of "tyrannically forcing people not to vote tyranny on themselves"?

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I hope Rand Paul becomes President, he represents my state and I like his views.

 

[useless]

I wonder if he's any less bigoted, racist, misogynistic or homophobic than his father.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I don't think he is a lightweight. He is more of a flyweight, maybe a bantamweight on a good day.

Aren't lightweights supposed to be quick?

 

[Antilogic]

For far too long though political parties and the media have been trying to push us into a convenient little box of Democrat and Republican. The spectrum goes from Joe Biden to Mitt Romney, you have to fit somewhere in there. If you deviate in any direction you're considered "extreme" and largely disenfranchised from voting, because this setup allows for very few outside-the-box type politicians to run successfully. Both parties collude to exclude third parties from actively participating in the process and debates.

I'll agree with this.

If we tyrannically force people not to vote tyranny on themselves, are we any better?

(This is a question I would like to see answered, not necessarily a rhetorical one.)

Could you rephrase this? Not that I don't want to answer, but I am not sure of what you are actually trying to communicate.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Rand Paul is probably an intelligent libertarian, and coincidentally is in line for the world's tallest dwarf award.

 

[downtown]

Fiscally conservative/socially liberal seems like a cop-out to me. If you want socially liberal policies, e.g., gay marriage, but you want it for the wrong reason, e.g., States rights, you are also going to compromise the ADA, Civil Rights Act, FLSA in the name of "state's rights," and you are going to compromise unemployment benefits, eliminating medicaid, and eliminating social security in the name of being a "fiscal conservative." You basically arrive back at square one--being a Republican. No thanks.

None of that is really courageous anyways. The fiscal conservative stuff is what brings in the big cash donors in industry anyways since they are the ones who benefit from it, and you can still keep all the crazy social conservatives in your fold by cloaking your ideals in "state's rights" rather than the ideals of equality or whatever, so you're not compromising anything. This whole Ron/Rand Paul thing has always been totally bogus. The Ron Paul debate quote where he says the sick person who does not have insurance should just die basically sums up the ultimate silliness of his world view when you boil it down. Those surface things these guys say like no more foreign wars or what have you, they are ultimately just as bad as the next guy because they are saying these things for all the wrong reasons.

edit: I should add that few Rand Paul dudes are pro-gay rights anyways so that's probably an outlandish example...

Very well said.

I don't think Rand Paul is stupid. I do think that he is very politically out of step with important issues like Civil Rights and Taxes. The "Libertarian" position of Rand is really not functionally different from typical Republianism.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I'm afraid that, like so many Republicans, Rand Paul often seems to favor big business interests over the actual free market. If I recall correctly, one area where he and his father disagree is on liability caps. He was in favor of limiting the liability of oil companies, which creates a moral hazard and forces the tax payer to assume most of the responsibility for fixing environmental damage that private industry creates. Rand is better than the average politician, but not as principled as his father.

 

[Traitorfish]

If we tyrannically force people not to vote tyranny on themselves, are we any better?

Insufficient as my knowledge of American history is, I don't recall Southern whites imposing Jim Crow laws on themselves.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Insufficient as my knowledge of American history is, I don't recall Southern whites imposing Jim Crow laws on themselves.

Well, they did, at least in Louisiana, but that's another issue.

 

[Bootstoots]

One of my friends from college is an anarcho-capitalist who believes things (e.g. total privatization of the military) that even Rand Paul would think are too extreme. He's also a mathematical genius moving rapidly through a respected Ph. D. program in some branch of combinatorics. He has a deep understanding of history, most of the natural sciences, speaks several languages fluently, etc. I don't think the arguments against Rand Paul have anything to do with his intelligence.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Combinatorics is interesting, but not very useful. Do you really need to know how many people sitting next to each other (seated man/woman) can be able to shake each other's hands (except their own partners)?

 

[Bootstoots]

There are a fair number of applications of combinatorics to information theory, computer science, etc. But as a mathematician-in-training, usefulness isn't really his thing.

I've never really understood what some mathematicians and theoretical physicists have against usefulness, but there is a real bias against "applied" fields in some circles. But I digress...