Rand Paul "Freedom Speech" at Berkeley.

[Ashmoria]

a majority of those who self-define as republican are pro-gay marriage according to polls ive heard about. they aren't the lunatic base who the elected republicans have to pander to. THOSE are the people who go ape-shit when a republican wants modest changes in immigration, gun control, abortion rights (in the positive direction), and gay marriage.

Yeah, well, it's just stupid. If the Republicans would officially change their stance on abortion and gay marriage then I would self-define as a Republican, too.

yeah but its part of the jam they have gotten themselves into with an over-identification with tea party cranks and being more-or-less run by the conservative radio talk show hosts who only care about their own ratings.

[Blasveck]

Having a dude like Huntsman speak would've been vastly better.

[Viritica]

Yeah, well, it's just stupid. If the Republicans would officially change their stance on abortion and gay marriage then I would self-define as a Republican, too.

yeah but its part of the jam they have gotten themselves into with an over-identification with tea party cranks and being more-or-less run by the conservative radio talk show hosts who only care about their own ratings.

They're not really cracks. They're just a bunch of conservatives and libertarians who want the government to back off.

[Kevin Keyser]

Reich got it right. Young people may like some of Paul's positions, but I doubt he's won any votes.

Paul opposes same-sex marriage, and he believes the issue should be left to the states to decide.
Which essentially isn't bad. The Government shouldn't be taking States rights.

I don't necessarily disagree with Rand Paul's belief that homosexuality and other matters should be left for the states to decide on. I agree that things would be ran much more smoothly if the states were able to control their own matters, especially when it comes to laws dealing with social policy (e.g. homosexuality, marijuana, prostitution). However, I think a lot of people misunderstand the 6th and 10th amendments. The 10th amendment does not give preference to state authority over federal authority. On the contrary, the 10th amendment states that whatever the federal government does not decide to rule on will be "reserved for the states," while the federal government's laws are as the 6th amendment puts it, the "supreme law of the land." If the federal government were a bunch of people eating at the table, the states are the dogs who get the scraps left over. Whatever the people don't want is left for the dogs to feed from. Having said that, I think that it ought to be the opposite way around. The states should have the supreme authority, but whatever the states do not decide on (e.g. interstate commerce, foreign intelligence/diplomacy) should be "reserved" for the federal government.

[Ifreann]

"small government" is an attractive concept. the problems come in when defining what that means. especially in a country of more than 300million people.

A government that backs off and gives the states their rights while at the same time retaining control over the country as a whole.

States don't have rights. People have rights.

[Ashmoria]

"small government" is an attractive concept. the problems come in when defining what that means. especially in a country of more than 300million people.

A government that backs off and gives the states their rights while at the same time retaining control over the country as a whole.

that doesn't mean small. that means more decentralized. all you have to do is look at the Medicaid expansion problem to see that it really sucks to let states decide some things when politics trumps fiscal responsibility.

[Viritica]

A government that backs off and gives the states their rights while at the same time retaining control over the country as a whole.

States don't have rights. People have rights.

They have the right to govern themselves on issues that the federal government hasn't ruled on.

[Viritica]

A government that backs off and gives the states their rights while at the same time retaining control over the country as a whole.

that doesn't mean small. that means more decentralized. all you have to do is look at the Medicaid expansion problem to see that it really sucks to let states decide some things when politics trumps fiscal responsibility.

This is why we have a federal government. To rule on issues that states can't handle.

[Ashmoria]

yeah but its part of the jam they have gotten themselves into with an over-identification with tea party cranks and being more-or-less run by the conservative radio talk show hosts who only care about their own ratings.

They're not really cracks. They're just a bunch of conservatives and libertarians who want the government to back off.

they are a big problem when they insist on the nomination of candidates so bad that they lose a very winnable senate seat.

[ShadowDragons]

I like him, policies that he encourages are the future of the republican party. Hopefully the republicans follow his lead and become more libertarian.

[Pilotto]

A government that backs off and gives the states their rights while at the same time retaining control over the country as a whole.

States don't have rights. People have rights.

Try reading the Constitution sometime before you comment on American politics.

[Blasveck]

Paul opposes same-sex marriage, and he believes the issue should be left to the states to decide.
Which essentially isn't bad. The Government shouldn't be taking States rights.

I don't necessarily disagree with Rand Paul's belief that homosexuality and other matters should be left for the states to decide on. I agree that things would be ran much more smoothly if the states were able to control their own matters, especially when it comes to laws dealing with social policy (e.g. homosexuality, marijuana, prostitution). However, I think a lot of people misunderstand the 6th and 10th amendments. The 10th amendment does not give preference to state authority over federal authority. On the contrary, the 10th amendment states that whatever the federal government does not decide to rule on will be "reserved for the states," while the federal government's laws are as the 6th amendment puts it, the "supreme law of the land." If the federal government were a bunch of people eating at the table, the states are the dogs who get the scraps left over. Whatever the people don't want is left for the dogs to feed from. Having said that, I think that it ought to be the opposite way around. The states should have the supreme authority, but whatever the states do not decide on (e.g. interstate commerce, foreign intelligence/diplomacy) should be "reserved" for the federal government.

It really shouldn't be hard to understand why leaving 'supreme authority' in the hands of the states is a horrible idea. From the restriction of voting rights from African Americans, to women, to legislated discrimination, to restriction of bodily sovereignty, to unrestricted discrimination of LGBT folks, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody that that is a bad idea.

[Viritica]

They're not really cracks. They're just a bunch of conservatives and libertarians who want the government to back off.

they are a big problem when they insist on the nomination of candidates so bad that they lose a very winnable senate seat.

They're persistent.

[Ashmoria]

that doesn't mean small. that means more decentralized. all you have to do is look at the Medicaid expansion problem to see that it really sucks to let states decide some things when politics trumps fiscal responsibility.

This is why we have a federal government. To rule on issues that states can't handle.

yeah. and that's why "states rights" can be very problematical.

[Valica]

tl;dr libertarians are just as blind as communists when it comes to real-world scenarios.

[Viritica]

This is why we have a federal government. To rule on issues that states can't handle.

yeah. and that's why "states rights" can be very problematical.

As I said, they only have the right to rule on issues that the federal government hasn't ruled on yet. States are subordinate to the federal government and towns and cities are subordinate to the state.

[Ashmoria]

I like him, policies that he encourages are the future of the republican party. Hopefully the republicans follow his lead and become more libertarian.

but libertarians get no where and most libertarian policies are unpopular with the voting public.

[Ashmoria]

yeah. and that's why "states rights" can be very problematical.

As I said, they only have the right to rule on issues that the federal government hasn't ruled on yet. States are subordinate to the federal government and towns and cities are subordinate to the state.

yes but you also had it as your central idea of what "small government" might be.

[Viritica]

As I said, they only have the right to rule on issues that the federal government hasn't ruled on yet. States are subordinate to the federal government and towns and cities are subordinate to the state.

yes but you also had it as your central idea of what "small government" might be.

What would you consider a small government to be?

[Gallup]

Having a dude like Huntsman speak would've been vastly better.

Huntsman 2016!

I can believe.

[ShadowDragons]

I like him, policies that he encourages are the future of the republican party. Hopefully the republicans follow his lead and become more libertarian.

but libertarians get no where and most libertarian policies are unpopular with the voting public.

Largest third party in America. And their social policies are popular with the young people, which is the main set back for republicans.

[Ashmoria]

yes but you also had it as your central idea of what "small government" might be.

What would you consider a small government to be?

one that I might support?.... maybe cutting the military budget it half and stopping all the research into bigger and better ways of killing people. cutting back on foreign military bases. maybe cutting back on some of the social engineering and instead consolidating all of our safety net spending into one or two income support programs, trusting recipients to run their own lives.

[Pilotto]

What would you consider a small government to be?

one that I might support?.... maybe cutting the military budget it half and stopping all the research into bigger and better ways of killing people. cutting back on foreign military bases. maybe cutting back on some of the social engineering and instead consolidating all of our safety net spending into one or two income support programs, trusting recipients to run their own lives.

So basically isolationism?

[Ashmoria]

but libertarians get no where and most libertarian policies are unpopular with the voting public.

Largest third party in America. And their social policies are popular with the young people, which is the main set back for republicans.

the young people who want marijuana legalized. once that's done, whats left?

I would very much like mr rand to push through a bill that would get the feds out of the regulation of marijuana and leave that to the individual states like they do with alcohol.

[Ifreann]

States don't have rights. People have rights.

They have the right to govern themselves on issues that the federal government hasn't ruled on.

And where is that written?

---

States don't have rights. People have rights.

Try reading the Constitution sometime before you comment on American politics.

Do please enlighten me.