IOWA: Rand Paul is GOP's best candidate for 2016

[jtstellar]

The bottomline is Democrats are the Smart party. Evil, but damn smart.

huh? about what? guess you missed vids of people handing microphone around at democratic rallies for global warming, gun control and all the rest--they don't know jack shit about what's going on.

smart? if you're referring to the biggest public relation firms and public strategists money can buy, ya, democrats have some of the best in the game, precisely because there are so many stupids supporting them in finance. why do you think the darkest shadow is always cast where the light is brightest? it's because the dimmest population allows the corrupted to thrive.

the fact the democrat top has so many money makers drawn to them speaks to how stupid in fact the entire group is. republicans don't have a lot of smart strategists--because there's not nearly as much money to make in a small government rhetoric, but in terms of constituents, the average is much better, many constituents are much smarter than the politicians even. but for democrats, even the dimmest politician of their bunch might still be night and day smarter than their average voter

 

[compromise]

BTW 'health of the mother' is one hell of a loophole. It effectively allows abortion on demand. That way you can get smart pro-choice people to vote for you, while still getting the support of the naive pro-lifers, who actually think you're against abortion.

The bottomline is Democrats are the Smart party. Evil, but damn smart.

Democrats aren't smart at all. Sure, there's the middle class hipster liberals, but there's also many dumbass valley girls and working class Hispanics, blacks and union members of far lower intellect. Similarly, the GOP may have a bunch of rednecks, but it also has successful, middle class people with good jobs that just want to pay less income tax, that are generally of above average intelligence.

 

[Christian Liberty]

My cousin has debated this issue before and at length because he was worried about the absolutist position but he was assured by members like JMdrake it wouldn't be much of an issue and im leaning towards that. Once the primary is over all Rand needs to do is shut up about abortion and the less it comes up the better although sending coded signals to the base will help drive GOP turnout which is important.

You mean itshappening?

Why? If you say that life begins at conception it seems inconsistent to say that it should be legal to kill the unborn if they were conceived in a certain way. If life begins at conception, then the only valid pro life position is to support a complete ban on abortion, with perhaps an exception for the life of the mother.

I suppose one could argue that in a case of consensual sex a woman consents to the risk of being impregnated, but that that is not the case in rape, therefore the tresspassing/bodily freedom argument.

That's not my own position, but a libertarian could probably work it that way. That said, the vast majority of people who hold that view are NOT libertarians; they really just hold it because their gut tells them to or some such. Anyone who holds that kind of position but does NOT support the bodily freedom to use crack, heroin, and meth is a total hypocrite.

And as someone who supports the right to use all of those things, I do NOT support the right to abortion in the case of rape, because its still killing an innocent person. The baby didn't choose to tresspass, the rapist did, and he should have to pay some sort of lawsuit for the woman having to put up with having her bodily freedom compromised for nine months (In addition to the criminal penalty, of course) but the woman should not be allowed to kill an innocent child.

Then again, my particular variation of libertarianism doesn't strictly apply the NAP to children, so I can see why hardline Rothbardians might come to different answers than me on that kind of an issue.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Democrats aren't smart at all. Sure, there's the middle class hipster liberals, but there's also many dumbass valley girls and working class Hispanics, blacks and union members of far lower intellect. Similarly, the GOP may have a bunch of rednecks, but it also has successful, middle class people with good jobs that just want to pay less income tax, that are generally of above average intelligence.

Wouldn't this sort of depend on the Democrat? My rule of thumb is that independents and third party candidates are usually smarter than the mainstream of any party, and those in the liberty movement (Whether Republican, third party, whatever) are smarter than any non-liberty movement third partier.

 

[compromise]

Wouldn't this sort of depend on the Democrat? My rule of thumb is that independents and third party candidates are usually smarter than the mainstream of any party, and those in the liberty movement (Whether Republican, third party, whatever) are smarter than any non-liberty movement third partier.

I was talking about Democrat vs. Republican. Democrats aren't smarter than Republicans. They both average out to be roughly the same.

It has been found through a number of studies that libertarians are significantly smarter on average than other groups.
http://inductivist.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/libertarians-are-smartest.html
http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/more_intelligen.html

There was also a study a while back that showed correlation between Aspergers syndrome (condition which makes people smart) and libertarianism, but I can't seem to find it at the moment.

 

[moostraks]

Damn dude, you need to hide your seething inner rage at pro-lifers a little, or eventually you're going to be labeled a troll.

169 posts, and it feels like a third of them are about how much you dislike the pro-life movement.

Give about another third of those for government controls for education and restricting the right of curriculum choices unless one has the proper permission from the government agencies. IIRC the case was made for an FDA for education because that agency is doing such a bang up job for food safety and we need to be protected from those who stray off of certain teachings JC finds acceptable. Yep, they're a troll...

 

[erowe1]

Give about another third of those for government controls for education and restricting the right of curriculum choices unless one has the proper permission from the government agencies. IIRC the case was made for an FDA for education because that agency is doing such a bang up job for food safety and we need to be protected from those who stray off of certain teachings JC finds acceptable. Yep, they're a troll...

Is that the same person?

Yeah, IIRC, the main argument for an FDA for education was how great the FDA for food is, and how ridiculous it is for anyone to disagree.