Can Rand Paul beat Hillary?

[Joan Rangers]

No.

[Joan Rangers]

If companies are now people; shouldn't states be people?

...No? A government is very different from a corporation, even if you only look at the legal aspect of it.

I think that might be his point.

[Ifreann]

It doesn't matter that some states would go in a good direction, only that some states would go in a bad direction.

Exactly. The fact that the Pauls both represent states that have attempted to, and probably would, go in that bad direction, again, shows where their priorities really lie.

And there's another issue; let's assume that the states would overturn these laws; if so, then what's the point of taking away federal courts' powers?

The only possible change is if they do not overturn these laws. Which not only can happen, but DOES happen, and happens in matters of privacy.

Again; the only possible change that stems removing federal protections is a reversal of the policies those protections have brought. And those protections that the SCOTUS have provided include but are not limited to overturning state laws on basic civil freedoms, including 4th amendment protections and bans on ownership of firearms.

"State's rights" is an argument perpetuated solely by proponents of big government authoritarianism. And has been since the mid-1800s.

It's pretty hard to sell people on the idea of a righteous struggle against those bastards in Washington to get more power for your state governments.

[Jinwoy]

Exactly. The fact that the Pauls both represent states that have attempted to, and probably would, go in that bad direction, again, shows where their priorities really lie.

And there's another issue; let's assume that the states would overturn these laws; if so, then what's the point of taking away federal courts' powers?

The only possible change is if they do not overturn these laws. Which not only can happen, but DOES happen, and happens in matters of privacy.

Again; the only possible change that stems removing federal protections is a reversal of the policies those protections have brought. And those protections that the SCOTUS have provided include but are not limited to overturning state laws on basic civil freedoms, including 4th amendment protections and bans on ownership of firearms.

"State's rights" is an argument perpetuated solely by proponents of big government authoritarianism. And has been since the mid-1800s.

It's pretty hard to sell people on the idea of a righteous struggle against those bastards in Washington to get more power for your state governments.

Until you cry "Mur Freederms" and start a terror campaign against big government. I can already think of some examples they might use, like PRISM and PATRIOT.

[Alien Space Bats]

No it was give everyone more money, and we would be better off. The 80s had tax cuts for everyone, rich and poor alike. The reason why there is inequality is because of the rich having a higher rate of wage growth when compared to the poor. During the 1980s, wages did grow for all, but the rich had more wage growth, resulting in what seems to be inequality, but in reality it is just a larger pie for all people. Furthermore, a lot of regulation had been re instilled in the Bush administration, so we are effectively not under a Neo-Liberal economic policy anymore.

The problem with this analysis is that wages have essentially been flat for decades. This is in spite of increasing improvements in productivity, so the claim cannot be made that wages have remained flat because the value of labor hasn't changed; it very clearly has.

Indeed, in the years I cite, productivity gains were more or less evenly divided between labor and capital; this is why both business owners and workers prospered. Of late, however, virtually all productivity gains have gone to capital; thus business owners have done extremely well, while workers have languished in the doldrums (or even experienced real wage erosion in the lower quintiles).

So neoliberal policy has NOT given EVERYBODY more wealth; it has pretty much only rewarded the upper tiers of society, while leaving the rest behind.

[Jinwoy]

No it was give everyone more money, and we would be better off. The 80s had tax cuts for everyone, rich and poor alike. The reason why there is inequality is because of the rich having a higher rate of wage growth when compared to the poor. During the 1980s, wages did grow for all, but the rich had more wage growth, resulting in what seems to be inequality, but in reality it is just a larger pie for all people. Furthermore, a lot of regulation had been re instilled in the Bush administration, so we are effectively not under a Neo-Liberal economic policy anymore.

The problem with this analysis is that wages have essentially been flat for decades. This is in spite of increasing improvements in productivity, so the claim cannot be made that wages have remained flat because the value of labor hasn't changed; it very clearly has.

Indeed, in the years I cite, productivity gains were more or less evenly divided between labor and capital; this is why both business owners and workers prospered. Of late, however, virtually all productivity gains have gone to capital; thus business owners have done extremely well, while workers have languished in the doldrums (or even experienced real wage erosion in the lower quintiles).

So neoliberal policy has NOT given EVERYBODY more wealth; it has pretty much only rewarded the upper tiers of society, while leaving the rest behind.

I say "this" far too often...
but This post nails it.

[Dyakovo]

a tea party member doesn't appeal to liberals on social issues in general, though.

I understand, but Rand Paul doesn't hold the same religious right views as some Tea Partiers do. He supports more civil liberties, has been very vocal in his opposition to racism, opposes the drug war, and wants to end foreign interventionism. If he can expose the Democratic Party supporting the drug war, less civil liberties and NeoConservatism, he will be able to get some crossover vote from social liberals like how the elder Paul got some crossover vote from the Occupy Wall Street guys.

Seeing as that Rand isn't at all socially liberal, that isn't going to happen.

[Hindenburgia]

...No? A government is very different from a corporation, even if you only look at the legal aspect of it.

I think that might be his point.

He was taking issue with my statement that states are administrative constructs, not people, and therefore have powers rather than rights.