• Sen. Ted Cruz to announce a presidential bid on Monday
    76 replies, posted
[QUOTE=PolarEventide;47377953]As much as I appreciated the dumbs, my point was not that Cruz is better than Hillary. I sincerely doubt that Cruz will secure the nomination. Practically anyone but Cruz would be a better choice than Hillary. I support Martin O'Malley, personally.[/QUOTE] Why is Hillary a bad choice? What positions do you disagree with?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;47377964]Why is Hillary a bad choice? What positions do you disagree with?[/QUOTE] She supports the worst things about the past 2 Presidencies, she purposely hides evidence from the American people, she supports domestic surveillance, is a warmonger and so many other things wrong with her.
[QUOTE=Dempsey;47374106]The GOP may have the upper hand right now headed into 2016 but I feel like Clinton is the clear front runner of the entire race because of her notoriety. What would be really cool is if there was another democratic contender to go against Clinton, leveling the field. #Gore2016. Plus, Americans have a bad habit of informing themselves through "glass half empty" media sources which focus on the negative aspects of the last 8 years. I can really only hope the campaign trail forces to light the many accomplishments of the Obama administration. Instead of having an ideal candidate, all I really want is the public to be informed and involved.[/QUOTE] If republicans don't pass anything and sit on their asses the next two years, they can't really rally support saying they got shit done, the midterms (while even more partisan than general elections) they ran on a platform of getting shit done, now they either have to say they can't do stuff in Washington until they have complete control or they try to pin their shortcomings on Obama, but really the public is smart enough to get frustrated when a party with a majority in two chambers can't get anything done and they ask for more time, plus the 2016 election will definetly pin traditional republicans against the tea party, the presidency is big but even not knowing the number of seats up I can still say its going to be the congressional races that matter for the forseable future as it gets more and more toxic and dysfunctional [editline]23rd March 2015[/editline] Also I think after 8 years of being law and 4 of being in action, the republicans can't rally against Obama Care like they have been, the public just doesn't have that kind of attention span
Why was Obama's birth being disputed and so controversial, yet I've not heard once about Ted Cruz not being born in America.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;47372478]You want Hillary to win?[/QUOTE] It's not that black and white, in that they aren't the only two running. :rolleyes:
Sarah Palin for Prez! We gotta show those terrorists how real Americans baptise terrorists!
[QUOTE=The Haski;47378217]Why was Obama's birth being disputed and so controversial, yet I've not heard once about Ted Cruz not being born in America.[/QUOTE] Because everyone knows Ted Cruz was born in Canada. He never denied it. The Obama birther thing was an engineered smear campaign to try to destroy his running. Any attempt for Obama to deny it just made it stronger because people accused him of covering it up. It was only made better that he was black and had "Hussein" in his name. [editline]23rd March 2015[/editline] If it came down to Cruz as the Republican nominee, it would probably be a big target for people to try and discredit him.
Soon we Canadians shall control the Whitehouse as well. All according to plan...
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;47379299]Soon we Canadians shall control the Whitehouse as well. All according to plan...[/QUOTE] If we're trying to do that, we should probably send someone more qualified. Like.... [I]anyone[/I] else!
[QUOTE=darunner;47377977]She supports the worst things about the past 2 Presidencies, she purposely hides evidence from the American people, she supports domestic surveillance, is a warmonger and so many other things wrong with her.[/QUOTE] you think any other serious candidate isn't exactly the same? The republicans CREATED the domestic surveillance and the wars that you hate.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47372202]Ugh. There is literally nobody on the Republican side for next year that isn't a total fucking nightmare.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/rand-paul-2016.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;47379421][IMG]http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/rand-paul-2016.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul#Political_positions[/url] [quote]Paul describes himself as "100% pro life",[5] believing that legal personhood begins at fertilization[/quote] [quote]Rand opposes [b]all forms[/b] of gun control[/quote] [quote]He supports ... a balanced budget amendment[/quote] [quote]He has said that he favors some form of a flat tax[/quote] [quote]Paul does not believe in legalizing the recreational use of drugs like marijuana and cocaine[/quote] [quote][He introduce] ... the Defense of Environment and Property Act of 2012. Provisions of the bill include restricting the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency and other Federal agencies to "impinge upon states' power over land and water use."[/quote] [quote]Paul concedes a role for American armed forces abroad, including permanent foreign military bases[/quote] [quote]Paul suggested that states should not require parents to vaccinate their children because parents should have the freedom to make that decision for their children[/quote] He's just another republican motherfucker.
[quote=Rand Paul]Paul suggested that states should not require parents to vaccinate their children because parents should have the freedom to make that decision for their children[/quote] Does he seriously feel like pandering to the anti-vacc crowd to get some easy votes? That is a terrible decision.
[QUOTE=Fillmore;47379517]Does he seriously feel like pandering to the anti-vacc crowd to get some easy votes? That is a terrible decision.[/QUOTE] He's a staunch Libertarian.
@proboards He's strongly supportive of a "Plan B" pill. Very much for birth control. No way tramautic cases of conception don't get an option for abortion, too many people who sympathize with rape victims for a strict no abortion policy. If I recall correctly he even said while he believes that, he wouldn't force an unwanted pregnancy in rape situation to continue without the mothers consent. Your point? That may not be your viewpoint, but it is a viewpoint many people have. Personally not as familiar with this as you seem to be. Mind explaining? "Some form" Paul has said he'd leave it up to the states, even though he doesn't support it himself. What are you referring to? So basically what the UN can't do because they refuse to use military force? No major enough outbreaks of any virus currently to call for this. I bet he'd support it in the case of something major. Would this be the government paying for it out of tax money or would it be straight out of people's pockets?
[QUOTE=OvB;47379590]He's a staunch Libertarian.[/QUOTE] Even for a Libertarian, that is pretty rough...
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;47379727] No major enough outbreaks of any virus currently to call for this.[/QUOTE] There's a reason for this It's called vaccines. There's no reason not to, and anybody saying they oppose vaccines puts their own children and other children at risk of catching horrific diseases. This stance of his alone is enough for me to never consider voting for him, nevermind all of the other things he's said.
[QUOTE=Dalndox;47379818]There's a reason for this It's called vaccines. There's no reason not to, and anybody saying they oppose vaccines puts their own children and other children at risk of catching horrific diseases. This stance of his alone is enough for me to never consider voting for him, nevermind all of the other things he's said.[/QUOTE] I'm personally on the fence for this one. The argument would be "Who decides what vaccines are given?" It's a very difficult thing to determine what vaccines are necessary and what vaccines are not. Many people would find fault in the government enforcing that they put something into their own bodies, or their kids' bodies.
Can it kill you? Is there an effective vaccine for it? It'd probably be a good idea to start there. Rubella, mumps, measles, etc should all be mandatory
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;47379727]@proboards He's strongly supportive of a "Plan B" pill. Very much for birth control. No way tramautic cases of conception don't get an option for abortion, too many people who sympathize with rape victims for a strict no abortion policy. If I recall correctly he even said while he believes that, he wouldn't force an unwanted pregnancy in rape situation to continue without the mothers consent.[/quote] Abortion should be legal in all cases; regardless of circumstances. it's a woman's choice, not yours. [quote] Your point? That may not be your viewpoint, but it is a viewpoint many people have. [/quote] I know gun control is a serious issue here, but there should definitely be SOME kind of regulation: gun registration, background checks, felons can't own guns, etc. [quote] Personally not as familiar with this as you seem to be. Mind explaining?[/quote] Balanced budget amendment means government can never borrow money again; going against orthodox economics and forcing laissez-faire economic policies. [quote]"Some form"[/quote] A flat tax rate means that the person who makes $7,000 a year gets taxed at the same rate as the guy who makes $7,000,000 a year. Let's say that's 25%. 25% OF 7k is 1750. 1750 for someone making 7k per year is a HUGE chunk of money. 25% of $7,000,000 is 1.75 mil, which is also a huge chunk but still leaves the millionaire 5.25 million. It's totally divorced from the reality that lower class people need tax breaks more than the rich do. [quote] Paul has said he'd leave it up to the states, even though he doesn't support it himself.[/quote] That's true, BUT, opposing legalization of drugs goes against his so-called libertarian ideology of personal choice. [quote]What are you referring to?[/quote] I'm saying he wants to strip the EPA's ability to regulate the environment. [quote]So basically what the UN can't do because they refuse to use military force?[/quote] We don't need military bases in Japan. Permanent forces overseas in countries we have no wars with is stupid. It's bolstering the military-industrial complex which has ruined this country. [quote]No major enough outbreaks of any virus currently to call for this. I bet he'd support it in the case of something major. Would this be the government paying for it out of tax money or would it be straight out of people's pockets?[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.cdc.gov/measles/multi-state-outbreak.html[/url] yes taxes. Taxes are used to buy things to help us. This is a fact of life. [editline]23rd March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Chernobyl426;47379959]Many people would find fault in the government enforcing that they put something into their own bodies, or their kids' bodies.[/QUOTE] Many people are dumbasses
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;47379421][IMG]http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/rand-paul-2016.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] libertairan, even more of a nightmare than tea party [editline]23rd March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Fillmore;47379517]Does he seriously feel like pandering to the anti-vacc crowd to get some easy votes? That is a terrible decision.[/QUOTE] he literally did, then turned around and said "hey you other guys i'm pro vaccine too!"
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;47379421][IMG]http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/rand-paul-2016.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] The mere fact that you would submit Rand Paul as a more "reasonable" candidate is evidence of just how far the Republican party has lurched into ultra-right-wing insanity.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;47380106]Abortion should be legal in all cases; regardless of circumstances. it's a woman's choice, not yours. I know gun control is a serious issue here, but there should definitely be SOME kind of regulation: gun registration, background checks, felons can't own guns, etc. Balanced budget amendment means government can never borrow money again; going against orthodox economics and forcing laissez-faire economic policies. A flat tax rate means that the person who makes $7,000 a year gets taxed at the same rate as the guy who makes $7,000,000 a year. Let's say that's 25%. 25% OF 7k is 1750. 1750 for someone making 7k per year is a HUGE chunk of money. 25% of $7,000,000 is 1.75 mil, which is also a huge chunk but still leaves the millionaire 5.25 million. It's totally divorced from the reality that lower class people need tax breaks more than the rich do. That's true, BUT, opposing legalization of drugs goes against his so-called libertarian ideology of personal choice. I'm saying he wants to strip the EPA's ability to regulate the environment. We don't need military bases in Japan. Permanent forces overseas in countries we have no wars with is stupid. It's bolstering the military-industrial complex which has ruined this country. [url]http://www.cdc.gov/measles/multi-state-outbreak.html[/url] yes taxes. Taxes are used to buy things to help us. This is a fact of life. [editline]23rd March 2015[/editline] Many people are dumbasses[/QUOTE] I don't disagree. I'm pointing out that Rand is a very big advocate of preventing unwanted pregnancies through a viewpoint that he sees as moral. Plan B is just a less morally controversial version of "common" abortion. (Rape cases should still allow for abortion, obviously.) Problem with gun control is that it is very tough to monitor. It's very easy to get a handgun illegally, regardless of what the government does. The mass circulation of firearms in the US means we can't just say "No guns!" And hope our situation changes. Balanced budget... Eh. Our take on Orthodox economics has dug us into a trench of debt. What do you believe are the drawbacks to allowing more of a laissez-faire economic approach? I completely agree. Where I'm unsure of is the "some form" part. Until I know what exactly Paul proposes I can't defend or attack it. I'd say that arguing a party philosophy on top of Paul himself is not a valid argument. I'm looking at the personal views he has, not standard libertarian philosophy. But it would depend on the state, correct? Really it would just transfer control from a federal level to a state level. Would you care to explain what it would cause making the change? Bolstering the military-industrial complex that has ruined this country? What do you mean? I would agree that we don't need military bases in Japan, but I'm unsure if Paul is referring to bases in say, Japan, or if he is referring to bases in a place like Iraq. Then I would say it's a lot more understandable if it's through taxes. Does a lot less to anger the people. More about if it's justifiable to put something in someone's body that they don't want. Not arguing for either side of it, just pointing out the arguments that would be made. That's not a valid argument you can present to those people.
Vaccinating the public, including kids, is a public health and safety issue. It takes a very narrow view to see it as a personal freedom thing. For example, I have free speech, but it's limited by not being allowed to slander or libel someone. If we can prevent the spread of disease by mandating vaccinations, how is that different? Parents' freedom to choose is overridden by the public interest.
The argument I'm seeing is that it's in the best interest of others and therefore outweighs a personal choice. Couldn't that same argument be used to justify banning abortions?
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;47380881]The argument I'm seeing is that it's in the best interest of others and therefore outweighs a personal choice. Couldn't that same argument be used to justify banning abortions?[/QUOTE] Only if you were super douchy. Vaccines help the entire population, without seriously damaging anyone. By mandating vaccines for a population, you save lives, reduce disease, and lower medical bills for the population as a whole. No negatives, all pluses. If people are too stupid to see that, and try to use the "my body, my decision" argument, even though vaccines will do literally no negative things to them, they need to shut the fuck up. Abortions aren't mandated, and shouldn't be, because there are legitimate reasons to not want/want one that are equally valid in terms of health. The rational behind this decision is deeply personal and can be backed up by logic for both, but that isn't the case in vaccinations other than "I don't want it, fuck errybody."
Turns out those "students" (in the same way Liberty is a "university") were required to be there, and a whole lot of them weren't buying Cruz's shit: [URL]http://gawker.com/ted-cruzs-audience-thought-his-announcement-speech-was-1693131221[/URL] [IMG]http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--MnQ0wXTV--/iwlwrwjnabnk1padrbjx.jpg[/IMG]
Bernie 2016, real change. Not the mainstream candidates.
I'm going to vote as hard as possible to keep this Canuck fuck out of office.
Rand Paul is a wolf in sheepskin among Libertarians. He claims he's one but his beliefs are very much more like the regular GOP conservatives. Being for permanent foreign military bases and being against legalizing marijuana are just straight up against libertarian ideology.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.