Rand Paul front runner in Iowa New Hampshire

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
1

1still_waters

Guest
#1
Rand Paul, the Libertarian minded Republican is the front runner in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Poll: Rand Paul leads 2016 GOP field in Iowa, New Hampshire

I'm wondering if a candidate like him could get cross over votes from every political perspective in America.

Liberals/Progressives want the government "out of their bedroom", and they want government to let them have pot. Rand Paul's Libertarianism says, YES!

Conservatives want government out of their guns, out of their wallet, and out of their churches. Rand Paul's Libertarianism says, YES!

Liberals, Progressives, and Conservatives are both against the intrusive government functions like the NSA, and Patriot Act. Rand Paul's Libertarianism says, Get rid of the NSA and Patriot Act.

In a sense there is a lot of consensus to be had with the Libertarian candidate.

On the other hand, could his Libertarian principles be the end of him? Will conservatives want a Libertarian approach in EVERY area of life? Sure liberals/progressives want people out of their bedroom, and they want all the pot they can get. On the other hand, they want their grubby fingers in the wallets of everyone.

Paul could fail for one simple reason. Very few are intellectually consistent in the "Government hands off approach." People want the freedom to do what THEY want, but few grant that to others they disagree with. This aspect of human nature could lead to Paul's eventual failure.
 
Last edited:
1

1still_waters

Guest
#2
In other words, Libertarianism seems great, until someone does something you disagree with. There are very few intellectually consistent libertarians. Most people have an agenda, and most people want to impose that agenda on others.
 

skipp

Senior Member
Mar 6, 2014
654
7
0
#3
Young millennial conservatives seem to be really drawn to libertarianism. They don't care about social issues like gay marriage or abortion, and many of them are heavily atheist. As a result they have problems with current social conservatives, who have difficulty reaching them, but they find libertarianism to be very attractive. I do think in the future conservatives will probably be less interested in social conservative issues and have more of a heavily libertarian streak as a result of this. I've read some interesting articles stating that Millennials as a whole are drawn to various aspects of libertarianism, whether liberal or conservative, but I'm not sure how correct that truly is. I find aspects of libertarianism to be attractive but in the end I do think it's a bit like communism. An overly idealistic theory that would probably prove to be completely unworkable in real life.
 
Last edited:
1

1still_waters

Guest
#4
Young millennial conservatives seem to be really drawn to libertarianism. They don't care about social issues like gay marriage or abortion, and many of them are heavily atheist. As a result they have problems with current social conservatives, who have difficulty reaching them, but they find libertarianism to be very attractive. I do think in the future conservatives will probably be less interested in social conservative issues and have more of a heavily libertarian streak as a result of this. I've read some interesting articles stating that Millennials as a whole are drawn to various aspects of libertarianism, whether liberal or conservative, but I'm not sure how correct that truly is. I find aspects of libertarianism to be attractive but in the end I do think it's a bit like communism. An overly idealistic theory that would probably prove to be completely unworkable in real life.
Well at least they're flocking to the Libertarian perspective and not the Progressive one. At least under the Libertarian mentality there is still room to practice our religion and speak our mind to this depraved culture. Even if they don't care about implementing conservative social policies, at least there is still room for freedom of speech to change the hearts and minds of folks.

Everything has tradeoffs. The tradeoffs with Libertarianism are more leeway for freedom, but the cost is that those we disagree with are also given the same freedom. To me, in the big picture, may be a better trade off than trying to control everyone through the strong hand of government. Although to protect children an the unborn, there needs to be some sort of regulation against abortion and against same-sex marriage. Not very Libertarian of me. :p
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,704
3,649
113
#5
As the international affairs continue to deteriorate I'm not sure if a hands off approach will be that convincing by election time.
 

Nautilus

Senior Member
Jun 29, 2012
6,488
53
48
#6
I think a true libertarian would be great. Leave all those social issues up to individual states and within a few years everyone would learn which states they thought were worthwhile to live in. You'd probably see a mass exodus of people to states that fit their own political views and honestly there wouldnt be anything wrong with that.
 

gypsygirl

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2012
1,394
60
48
#7
I think a true libertarian would be great. Leave all those social issues up to individual states and within a few years everyone would learn which states they thought were worthwhile to live in. You'd probably see a mass exodus of people to states that fit their own political views and honestly there wouldnt be anything wrong with that.
so many yesses!
 

gypsygirl

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2012
1,394
60
48
#8
Paul could fail for one simple reason. Very few are intellectually consistent in the "Government hands off approach." People want the freedom to do what THEY want, but few grant that to others they disagree with. This aspect of human nature could lead to Paul's eventual failure.

i actually see a lot of this too.

but for me, so many of the issues that conservatives (and liberals) seem so eager to legislate are far better handled by the state, and adopting a hands-off approach by the one entity that seems to do more harm than good when it comes to their initiatives and expensive (and poorly run programs).

if it were me, they'd lose the DMV so fast (not to mention other agencies)... you know if that was privatized, we'd all be in and out in 15 minutes.

it is baffling to me why so many christians feel entitled to force/legislate the country to behave by the standards that we as christians are called to. while our country was founded on many christian principles, the ideals of religious freedoms were the motivating force, and what i consider the real headline.

as much as i hate to see our fallen world become less and less aligned with christian principles, we as christians will never effect good or change through legislating our values. we need to be prepared to offer the same respect and freedom that we demand and desire from others. while "tolerance" (for others) seems to be a buzzword for the liberals, i find it to be very consistent with what i read in my bible.

let the federal govt focus on security, the one thing they have historically had marginal success with.
 
Last edited:
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
#9
I like Rand Paul, he makes a lot of common sense and he is strong on the issue of US Civil Liberties, which is soemthing we need sorely after the mainstream GOP and Democrats have basically gutted our nation for the past 14 years. In terms of domestic issues, I think Rand Paul has a good approach, unlike the majority of the GOP.

The one flaw with Rand Paul in terms of being a Presidential Candidate is that his views will not work well in US foreign policy. While I like his peacenik message, sadly, for this time era of mass destruction and calamity, and for the scope of managing the American Empire, Rand Paul's foreign policy ideals will not work. While this is not such a bad thing if he retains his office of Senator, for the level of President, a President needs to have a strong foreign policy approach.

Other than that the only other flaw I can find in Rand Paul is he is relatively new to the US political scene. I like him as a politician though I have some disagreement for him. He represents the good-side of the new generation of political servants in that he clearly understands that he rules for the People, not above the People. I also like his all-American attitude of trying to at least keep the country united despite ideology and he is one of the few politicians of either Party that has made attempts to outreach to the many political factions. If it were up to me, I'd have Rand Paul remain a Senator for another term to maybe mature more into US politics, then have him consider a presidential run after gaining a little more experience.

And of course a 2016 run for Rand Paul is rather meaningless besides raising his political profile since Hillary Clinton deserves to be President if she decides to run.
 

skipp

Senior Member
Mar 6, 2014
654
7
0
#10
He supports abolishing the Department of Education. As a teacher I would be more than fine with that. Every time the federal government gets involved in education they screw things up.
 
S

Sirk

Guest
#11
I think a true libertarian would be great. Leave all those social issues up to individual states and within a few years everyone would learn which states they thought were worthwhile to live in. You'd probably see a mass exodus of people to states that fit their own political views and honestly there wouldnt be anything wrong with that.
I personally believe that this was the idea of the constitution....to specifically outline the functions of each branch of the federal govt...with everything else left to the states to decide for themselves. I'm glad you and I found some common ground.
 

Oncefallen

Idiot in Chief
Staff member
Jan 15, 2011
6,029
3,240
113
#12
I have always tended towards strict constitutionalism and I agree that it has it's upsides and downsides. The biggest problem that I see with Rand Paul, like others have said, is his foreign policy stances. Ever since WWII this nation has been involved in a huge way in international events and although I think we really need to step back from some things there is a balance between what is going on now and Rand Paul's concept of relative isolationism.

Although the younger generation is leaning more towards libertarianism, I'm really not sure a libertarian president would actually be able to get much done because instead of fighting one party he would be fighting both, but it would be interesting to see what happens.


With a strict constitutionalist government (of course the Supreme Court would have to fall in line) anything not specifically addressed in the Constitution would be considered a state's rights issue. Issues such as abortion, homosexual marriage, and others would be left to each individual state to determine it's own path. Want to be able to have an abortion? Move to a state that permits it. Want to marry someone of the same gender? Live in a state that permits it.

Strict constitutionalism would also begin to solve our national debt issue since huge amounts of the bureaucracy would be eliminated. Education, welfare, etc. would be up to each state operate as it was originally.
 
S

Sirk

Guest
#13
I have always tended towards strict constitutionalism and I agree that it has it's upsides and downsides. The biggest problem that I see with Rand Paul, like others have said, is his foreign policy stances. Ever since WWII this nation has been involved in a huge way in international events and although I think we really need to step back from some things there is a balance between what is going on now and Rand Paul's concept of relative isolationism.

Although the younger generation is leaning more towards libertarianism, I'm really not sure a libertarian president would actually be able to get much done because instead of fighting one party he would be fighting both, but it would be interesting to see what happens.


With a strict constitutionalist government (of course the Supreme Court would have to fall in line) anything not specifically addressed in the Constitution would be considered a state's rights issue. Issues such as abortion, homosexual marriage, and others would be left to each individual state to determine it's own path. Want to be able to have an abortion? Move to a state that permits it. Want to marry someone of the same gender? Live in a state that permits it.

Strict constitutionalism would also begin to solve our national debt issue since huge amounts of the bureaucracy would be eliminated. Education, welfare, etc. would be up to each state operate as it was originally.
I concur. There would also be a plethora of unintended consequences with going to a strict constitutional federal govt.......water wars between states being an immediate one. It's a very complicated and dangerous world we are faced with.
 

Oncefallen

Idiot in Chief
Staff member
Jan 15, 2011
6,029
3,240
113
#14
I concur. There would also be a plethora of unintended consequences with going to a strict constitutional federal govt.......water wars between states being an immediate one. It's a very complicated and dangerous world we are faced with.
There are some things that the Feds are involved in that I believe could be reasonable be maintained under the Commerce Clause. Interstate highway funding, water regulation (since water is a commodity, especially out west here, and most of those water ways travel through multiple states).
 
S

Sirk

Guest
#15
There are some things that the Feds are involved in that I believe could be reasonable be maintained under the Commerce Clause. Interstate highway funding, water regulation (since water is a commodity, especially out west here, and most of those water ways travel through multiple states).
I wonder if it would be possible to maintain fairness at the federal level as far those commodities are concerned. Wouldn't it be a real concern that the large population centers could easily sway the fed to institute policies favorable to them?
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
41,243
16,252
113
69
Tennessee
#16
Rand Paul, the Libertarian minded Republican is the front runner in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Poll: Rand Paul leads 2016 GOP field in Iowa, New Hampshire

I'm wondering if a candidate like him could get cross over votes from every political perspective in America.

Liberals/Progressives want the government "out of their bedroom", and they want government to let them have pot. Rand Paul's Libertarianism says, YES!

Conservatives want government out of their guns, out of their wallet, and out of their churches. Rand Paul's Libertarianism says, YES!

Liberals, Progressives, and Conservatives are both against the intrusive government functions like the NSA, and Patriot Act. Rand Paul's Libertarianism says, Get rid of the NSA and Patriot Act.

In a sense there is a lot of consensus to be had with the Libertarian candidate.

On the other hand, could his Libertarian principles be the end of him? Will conservatives want a Libertarian approach in EVERY area of life? Sure liberals/progressives want people out of their bedroom, and they want all the pot they can get. On the other hand, they want their grubby fingers in the wallets of everyone.

Paul could fail for one simple reason. Very few are intellectually consistent in the "Government hands off approach." People want the freedom to do what THEY want, but few grant that to others they disagree with. This aspect of human nature could lead to Paul's eventual failure.
I do not feel that he has much of a chance due to the majority of low-information voters. I am rooting for Jeb Bush as I believe that he has a wider appeal with the demographic population.
 

Oncefallen

Idiot in Chief
Staff member
Jan 15, 2011
6,029
3,240
113
#17
I wonder if it would be possible to maintain fairness at the federal level as far those commodities are concerned. Wouldn't it be a real concern that the large population centers could easily sway the fed to institute policies favorable to them?
As if this isn't a problem already? In reality this is even a problem on the state level.

Two of the states that I've lived in (CA & CO) have this problem and at different times both state's have had groups propose splitting the state into two as a solution to the inequity. Here in CO the bulk majority of the population lives on the east side of the state split between the Denver metro area and the Colorado Springs area. Laws that work for major metropolitan areas do not necessarily work for rural areas of which the majority of the state is. As a result you have politicians from metro areas shoving laws down the necks of rural residents instead of allowing certain issues to be decided at the local level.
 
S

Sirk

Guest
#18
As if this isn't a problem already? In reality this is even a problem on the state level.

Two of the states that I've lived in (CA & CO) have this problem and at different times both state's have had groups propose splitting the state into two as a solution to the inequity. Here in CO the bulk majority of the population lives on the east side of the state split between the Denver metro area and the Colorado Springs area. Laws that work for major metropolitan areas do not necessarily work for rural areas of which the majority of the state is. As a result you have politicians from metro areas shoving laws down the necks of rural residents instead of allowing certain issues to be decided at the local level.
We had the same thing here in Mt. during a recent drought. The Corp of Engineers dictated that Mt release more water even tho Ft Peck was perilously low. I believe Mt and Wyoming are locking horns over water as we speak. With the Colorado running dry and Las Vegas predicted to run out of water in the next 15 to 20 years....water is going to become a very big issue.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
#19
I do not feel that he has much of a chance due to the majority of low-information voters. I am rooting for Jeb Bush as I believe that he has a wider appeal with the demographic population.
I don't dislike Jeb, he certainly has a good domestic record as governor as well as foreign policy ties via his family. However, after the rule of W, most the people I know, especially around my age, would openly revolt if we get another Bush President. As the smartest Bush, Barbara Bush said, "I think we've had enough Bushes."

For the GOP Rand Paul is their best choice of the mainstream contenders thus far. Rubio might be an okay pick, but he is more of a follower than a leader and often blindly carries out the will of the Party over the good of the People. I'd like to see Colin Powell run, he'd be the best choice of any GOPer (and even the vast majority of Dems) in the nation, but I also think he just wants to enjoy retirement, and justifiably so. Apart from those three, the GOP hopefuls are either too corrupt or too hypocritical to be a viable President.

As for the Dems, they don't have many options this time around besides Lady Hillary, whom is the most logical choice out of both Parties due to her vast experience and loyalty. Bill Richardson would make a good second choice for the Democrats as he has good domestic record stats and fair amount of foreign policy experience. Apart from those two the other Democrat hopefuls are either too tainted, too inexperienced, or too partisan to be a viable President.
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
41,243
16,252
113
69
Tennessee
#20
I don't dislike Jeb, he certainly has a good domestic record as governor as well as foreign policy ties via his family. However, after the rule of W, most the people I know, especially around my age, would openly revolt if we get another Bush President. As the smartest Bush, Barbara Bush said, "I think we've had enough Bushes."

For the GOP Rand Paul is their best choice of the mainstream contenders thus far. Rubio might be an okay pick, but he is more of a follower than a leader and often blindly carries out the will of the Party over the good of the People. I'd like to see Colin Powell run, he'd be the best choice of any GOPer (and even the vast majority of Dems) in the nation, but I also think he just wants to enjoy retirement, and justifiably so. Apart from those three, the GOP hopefuls are either too corrupt or too hypocritical to be a viable President.

As for the Dems, they don't have many options this time around besides Lady Hillary, whom is the most logical choice out of both Parties due to her vast experience and loyalty. Bill Richardson would make a good second choice for the Democrats as he has good domestic record stats and fair amount of foreign policy experience. Apart from those two the other Democrat hopefuls are either too tainted, too inexperienced, or too partisan to be a viable President.
I am praying for a Republican president because if another Democrat is elected this country will never recover in our lifetime from the debt and shambles that this country is in. Hillary will probably run but hopefully her appeal will not translate into a victory in the general election. For myself, I am not asking the government to 'help' me but rather, not hurt me any further with the constant nonsense. The US foreign policy is non-existent and it would not surprise me if a major war broke out in the Middle East in the coming months.