[US Election 2016] Republican Primary Megathread

[Dyakovo]

The constitution disagrees.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/08/the-h ... itutional/

You mean Erwin Chemerinsky disagrees.

No, I mean the constitution disagrees. If you read the article, you'll see that he spells out the constitutional justification for the PPACA.

[Geilinor]

Have you heard of Bleeding Heart Libertarians? (the site). Gary Johnson says he's one, he's definitely more liberal than the usual paleocon they get.

Also look up Mike Gravel.

Edit: You'll probably end up as a liberal or social democrat after being here long enough, if you support those positions already.

Mike Gravel's policy positions seem to be very interesting, though I have many disagreements (especially with that direct democracy).

I disagree with ending up as a social democrat. I believe in deregulating markets and oppose single payer, for instance.

I've seen libertarians become liberal conservatives in the past on this site, at least.

[Patridam]

In all fairness, he wasn't referring to your opinion in that post.

"Boo-hoo." <----------------- That's not legitimate and will open the door to criticism.

His prior post, he was whining about the fact that we have come in and voiced our opinions about the candidates. So, yes, "boo-hoo" is a legitimate (if unhelpful) response to his complaint.

Please explain how "I'm not supporting any of these candidates they all suck HILLARY FOR EVER" is a relevant or productive addition to a thread centered on discussing the relative merits of the republican candidates. It's akin to jumping in a thread where people are talking about their favorite breeds of cats and telling them cats are terrible, they are terrible people for liking them, and the only way they can redeem themselves is to get a golden retriever.

It's not as though I cannot handle opposing views - good lord, NS would have killed me long before with its wild socialist and socdem hordes - but this is not a productive place for them.

[Patridam]

Edit: And what happens if Rand Paul doesn't get the nomination? He has a better chance than his father, but he still has the likes of Bush to compete with.

Well if Rand Paul doesn't win the nomination - which I sincerely hope he does, but the neocon establishment will make it as difficult as possible - then would likely be correct (barring some other candidate's late entry) in your belief that Hillary best represents your views.

[Dyakovo]

His prior post, he was whining about the fact that we have come in and voiced our opinions about the candidates. So, yes, "boo-hoo" is a legitimate (if unhelpful) response to his complaint.

Please explain how "I'm not supporting any of these candidates they all suck HILLARY FOR EVER" is a relevant or productive addition to a thread centered on discussing the relative merits of the republican candidates.

Because that's all we've said...

It's not as though I cannot handle opposing viewsu - good lord, NS would have killed me long before with its wild socialist and socdem hordes - but this is not a productive place for them.

Evidence indicates otherwise.

[Dyakovo]

Edit: And what happens if Rand Paul doesn't get the nomination? He has a better chance than his father, but he still has the likes of Bush to compete with.

Well if Rand Paul doesn't win the nomination - which I sincerely hope he does, but the neocon establishment will make it as difficult as possible - then would likely be correct (barring some other candidate's late entry) in your belief that Hillary best represents your views.

See, we agree on something. I too am hopeful that he'll win the nomination. He'll do a great job of driving the independents to vote Democrat.

[Jefferson and Madison]

Edit: And what happens if Rand Paul doesn't get the nomination? He has a better chance than his father, but he still has the likes of Bush to compete with.

Well if Rand Paul doesn't win the nomination - which I sincerely hope he does, but the neocon establishment will make it as difficult as possible - then would likely be correct (barring some other candidate's late entry) in your belief that Hillary best represents your views.

Which proves my point exactly.

Don't get me wrong, I still think non-interventionism and capitalism are two frameworks for American success. And I have significant disagreements with Clinton on many of the issues (being a libertarian, that is only expected). But if it is Bush v. Clinton, or Cruz v. Clinton (oh heavens, anything but that), I will go for the Democrat.

[Patridam]

Please explain how "I'm not supporting any of these candidates they all suck HILLARY FOR EVER" is a relevant or productive addition to a thread centered on discussing the relative merits of the republican candidates.

Because that's all we've said...

Pretty much, yes. I'm generalizing, but it's oft been said all the candidates are bad, never including a suggestion of reasonable alternative candidates.

It's not as though I cannot handle opposing viewsu - good lord, NS would have killed me long before with its wild socialist and socdem hordes - but this is not a productive place for them.

Evidence indicates otherwise.

I argue against them all the time, usually maintaining a level of courtesy not afforded to me by the opposition. How is that not 'handling it'?

[Patridam]

See, we agree on something. I too am hopeful that he'll win the nomination. He'll do a great job of driving the independents to vote Democrat.

In what way? He may upset some of the neocon base, but those folks would never vote for Hillary even if Gary Johnson suddenly got the nomination for the GOP. Rand has actually reached out to a lot of swing groups and/or ones more traditionally associated with Democrats. Which of his positions do you believe will drive independent voters away?

Which proves my point exactly.

Don't get me wrong, I still think non-interventionism and capitalism are two frameworks for American success. And I have significant disagreements with Clinton on many of the issues (being a libertarian, that is only expected). But if it is Bush v. Clinton, or Cruz v. Clinton (oh heavens, anything but that), I will go for the Democrat.

I can understand that, but my concern was more with how you'd vote given Paul vs. Clinton.

I would still probably vote republican in nearly all of the possible outcomes - except for Michelle Bachman, holy crap (thank god it's not very likely) - but such a vote would be more of a vote against Hillary rather than for the republican candidate. With Rand I'd be voting for him rather than against her.

[Dyakovo]

Because that's all we've said...

Pretty much, yes. I'm generalizing, but it's oft been said all the candidates are bad, never including a suggestion of reasonable alternative candidates.

If the Republican party had any reasonable alternative candidates, we'd suggest them. Unfortunately, Colin Powell has stated that he will not ever run for President. He's really the only living possibility, and he isn't a possibility.

[Patridam]

Pretty much, yes. I'm generalizing, but it's oft been said all the candidates are bad, never including a suggestion of reasonable alternative candidates.

If the Republican party had any reasonable alternative candidates, we'd suggest them. Unfortunately, Colin Powell has stated that he will not ever run for President. He's really the only living possibility, and he isn't a possibility.

Am I correct in thinking you wouldn't vote for him even if he did run? That you'd probably never vote Republican, ever?

[Dyakovo]

See, we agree on something. I too am hopeful that he'll win the nomination. He'll do a great job of driving the independents to vote Democrat.

In what way? He may upset some of the neocon base, but those folks would never vote for Hillary even if Gary Johnson suddenly got the nomination for the GOP. Rand has actually reached out to a lot of swing groups and/or ones more traditionally associated with Democrats. Which of his positions do you believe will drive independent voters away?

He's a Tea Party nutjob.

[Patridam]

In what way? He may upset some of the neocon base, but those folks would never vote for Hillary even if Gary Johnson suddenly got the nomination for the GOP. Rand has actually reached out to a lot of swing groups and/or ones more traditionally associated with Democrats. Which of his positions do you believe will drive independent voters away?

He's a Tea Party nutjob.

Please try to be specific; 'nut job' is an insult, not a logical argument.

[Dyakovo]

If the Republican party had any reasonable alternative candidates, we'd suggest them. Unfortunately, Colin Powell has stated that he will not ever run for President. He's really the only living possibility, and he isn't a possibility.

Am I correct in thinking you wouldn't vote for him even if he did run? That you'd probably never vote Republican, ever?

No, you aren't. Whether or not I voted for him would depend on who he was running against. Against Hillary, I'd probably vote for Colin.

[Patridam]

Am I correct in thinking you wouldn't vote for him even if he did run? That you'd probably never vote Republican, ever?

No, you aren't. Whether or not I voted for him would depend on who he was running against. Against Hillary, I'd probably vote for Colin.

But, given the present choice of candidates you would vote for Hillary over all of them. In which case your opinion is rather irrelevant in regards to the point of this whole thread.

[Dyakovo]

He's a Tea Party nutjob.

Please try to be specific; 'nut job' is an insult, not a logical argument.

It's an accurate description of every Tea Party candidate. The Tea Party is leading the Republican party on the charge to the right and to increased social authoritarianism.

[Patridam]

Please try to be specific; 'nut job' is an insult, not a logical argument.

It's an accurate description of every Tea Party candidate. The Tea Party is leading the Republican party on the charge to the right and to increased social authoritarianism.

You still haven't laid out any specific positions or opinions he holds that make him so supposedly frightening to independents, which leads me to believe you're letting your bias cloud your predictions as to what opinions others might hold. Rand doesn't seem to hold many views that could be called socially authoritarian, especially in comparison to the other GOP candidates.

[Azi Altul]

I think they're all cretinous turds, to be honest, but I disagree strongly with the majority of conservative values.

[Salandriagado]

Gary Johnson?

My ideal candidate would support the Libertarian Party line, except that he would also support vouchers (in the fields of health care, housing, and education) to guarantee equal market access for individuals who are employed but low income.

That puts me closer to Democrats than to someone like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz. Even though I think we should decentralize schooling and voucherize Medicaid, I still support a universal health system of sorts.

Problem is that it is not in the business of Government to dictate anything relating to Health Care, or Health Insurance.

It is in the business of the government to do whatever is beneficial for its population.

[Grave_n_idle]

The only reason he got nominated is because everyone else was literally batshit.

Romney was a flip flopping fucking idiot. But compared to, say Santorum, he was a moderate. Thing is, the next time the GOP wins, it's gonna be with a libertarian or a Tea Partier.

Huntsman wasn't nuts. Probably the sanest of the entire bunch. Also, I wouldn't call Gingrich crazy either. I assume he knew exactly what he was doing, making him evil rather than stupid.

Huntsman was basically Romney-lite. That's not really an achievement.

[Grave_n_idle]

Have you heard of Bleeding Heart Libertarians? (the site). Gary Johnson says he's one, he's definitely more liberal than the usual paleocon they get.

Also look up Mike Gravel.

Edit: You'll probably end up as a liberal or social democrat after being here long enough, if you support those positions already.

Mike Gravel's policy positions seem to be very interesting...

He did great campaign ads, too.

[Grave_n_idle]

Fair enough. I think he's a fair sight to see than all the Ron Paul types. Russell Means too, was pretty good.

Trust me, I've seen it happen a fair bit here.

Ah...Ron Paul.

You have to admit, he is a very honest man.

I'm guessing you haven't been here very long. There are whole pages devoted to debunking that particular myth.

[Grave_n_idle]

Gary Johnson?

My ideal candidate would support the Libertarian Party line, except that he would also support vouchers (in the fields of health care, housing, and education) to guarantee equal market access for individuals who are employed but low income.

That puts me closer to Democrats than to someone like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz. Even though I think we should decentralize schooling and voucherize Medicaid, I still support a universal health system of sorts.

Problem is that it is not in the business of Government to dictate anything relating to Health Care, or Health Insurance.

Why? What's the alternative - health insurers making those decisions? They have a vested interest in you dying, so you don't make back what you spend on premiums.

Pharmacy companies making those decisions? They have a vested interest in you being sick - so you keep buying product.

Individual customers making those decisions? Terrible idea - they lack the specialised education to make informed decisions. Also, they lack bargaining power.

It's like Churchill's opinion of democracy - government dictating healthcare is not perfect, but it's better than absolutely everything else.

[Ashmoria]

Ah...Ron Paul.

You have to admit, he is a very honest man.

I'm guessing you haven't been here very long. There are whole pages devoted to debunking that particular myth.

and he has degenerated into making TV ads about the coming hard times and how you need to follow his (probably gold bug) advice in order to protect your family. its disgusting.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm guessing you haven't been here very long. There are whole pages devoted to debunking that particular myth.

and he has degenerated into making TV ads about the coming hard times and how you need to follow his (probably gold bug) advice in order to protect your family. its disgusting.

He was always a disgusting little man. A racist totalitarian on the state level isn't actually any better than a racist totalitarian on the national level.