A corrupted Rand Paul would be better than all the other Republicans, unless he's ridiculously corrupted.

This statement needs context.

He is definitely not conservative. He wants to legalise so many things, and to lower government control...this is libertarian. Conservatism wants right and more government control/laws.

What does legalize so many things mean?

Lower government control is a hallmark of conservative and libertarian principles. Almost all conservatives call for a smaller federal government and less government regulation, although some are less honest about actually doing this than others.

Democrats and liberals favor more government control and laws. You have it opposite.

Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Right_(United_States)

The Old Right is the textbook (and in my opinion) true meaning of conservatism in the United States. Rand Paul is closer to the Old Right than most of the politicians in the GOP.

Excuse-me, but that's bullshit.

Being a liberal doesn't make you supportive of big government, and being a conservative doesn't make you a defender of small government. There's no co-relation there. Just a stupid alliance of ideals because of a stupid political system that favours the two-party hegemony.

Just to point out, the republican party was the party of big government, and the democratic party was the party of small government. They only really switched of positions with the New Deal.

Edited 3/14/2016 21:32:53

No that's not bs. It's their own stated political philosophies. Liberal Democrats on average favor greater government regulation, spending, and control while conservatives advocate for limited and smaller government.

The proof is in the polling: http://www.people-press.org/2011/02/10/section-3-the-deficit-and-government-spending/

Go through all the charts. You'll see that on average, Democratic voters favor increases in government spending on a variety of sectors. That's not to say that some Republicans and Conservatives don't favor increased spending (war hawks like bigger military budgets for example), but on average they have a vastly different philosophy on the size and role of the government.

I support big government spending in education and healthcare. I do however oppose waste of money in subsidies and deficits in the budget.

The first because you shouldn't give taxpayers money to profitable corporations, plus it rigs the economy.

The second because it's not responsible for the government to be in huge debt, because it's not a good example for the citizens, because it will fall on the next generations and because it might also rig the economy.


I see that that people evolved towards cutting the spending, the economy already recovered a little at that time. Now that the spending has been made to restart the economy, the government should cut hard on his spending until there's a surplus, starting on subsidies, of course.

Edited 3/14/2016 22:43:13

I do however oppose waste of money in subsidies and deficits in the budget.

Yeah this is huge. I don't think the government should pick winners and losers in the economy, because sometimes they pick wrong (see farm subsidies and solyndra). The problem is Washington DC is that each party wants subsidies for different things. But even for non-profitable corporations there should be no subsidies. For example, the US has subsidized Elon Musk's companies at about $4.9 billion even though they're not profitable (its essentially throwing tax payer money into the garbage since there's no guarantee he'll ever become profitable).

The second because it's not responsible for the government to be in huge debt, because it's not a good example for the citizens, because it will fall on the next generations and because it might also rig the economy.

Totally agree! Wow...we've agree a lot lately...its weird.

Now that the spending has been made to restart the economy, the government should cut hard on his spending until there's a surplus, starting on subsidies, of course.

Things that should be easy in my opinion - corporate welfare and subsidies, military spending, foreign aid, and space exploration. In general I think that government should have budgetary surpluses unless there is some emergency situation. Until the New Deal it was actually considered an obligation of Congress to produce surpluses.

Lower government control is a hallmark of conservative and libertarian principles.

No...libertarian and conservatism are just opposite in this outlook; libertarians want more things legalised, and less government spending of all kinds, while conserves want more things illegalised, and more government spending - as long as it's not public spending. That is the politic compass meaning of them, there are also more specific meanings, but they don't contradict this - just put conservatism and libertarianism in more meant places about how much they want to spend/lower spending and legalise/illegalise.

Almost all conservatives call for a smaller federal government and less government regulation, although some are less honest about actually doing this than others.

They wouldn't be conserves, then. Also, regulation is not part of it, nor is really decentralisation. That, conserves and libertarians can go wherever they want, it's not part of the economic-authoritarian spectrum.

Liberal Democrats on average favor greater government regulation, spending, and control while conservatives advocate for limited and smaller government.

Don't let a proper name of a politic party fool you. I mean, you have the Republican and Democratic parties in America, even though a republic and democracy is the same thing? Just if they say they are doesn't mean they are - just look at the Liberal Democrats in Russia (TeamGuns would probably hate them more than Trump). No politic party today, even if they are, will say they are fascist, or national socialist. There are just bad things associated with some things, and good things that get (dumb) voters in others.

You'll see that on average, Democratic voters favor increases in government spending on a variety of sectors.

Yeah, they want public spending and regulate some things, which is axiomatically left. However, they (or Sanders, at least) wants to lower government control in other things, such as military, which is why I think he is the best candidate for America (with good luck, he'll send its economy in shambles).

Isn't this an anti hilary meme thread...

^They always derail hahaha. But it's good to have conversations about politics with a few memes in them.



Edited 3/14/2016 23:20:05

No...libertarian and conservatism are just opposite in this outlook; libertarians want more things legalised, and less government spending of all kinds, while conserves want more things illegalised, and more government spending - as long as it's not public spending. That is the politic compass meaning of them, there are also more specific meanings, but they don't contradict this - just put conservatism and libertarianism in more meant places about how much they want to spend/lower spending and legalise/illegalise.

I still don't understand what you mean by "legalize things". What things are you referring to example wise?

I think you forget that Fiscal Conservatism is a major tenant/plank of the Republican Party:

Fiscal conservatism is the economic and political policy that advocates restraint of governmental taxation and expenditures. Fiscal conservatives since the 19th century have argued that debt is a device to corrupt politics; they argue that big spending ruins the morals of the people, and that a national debt creates a dangerous class of speculators. A political strategy employed by conservatives to achieve a smaller government is known as starve the beast. Activist Grover Norquist is a well-known proponent of the strategy and has famously said, "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." The argument in favor of balanced budgets is often coupled with a belief that government welfare programs should be narrowly tailored and that tax rates should be low, which implies relatively small government institutions.

This belief in small government combines with fiscal conservatism to produce a broader economic liberalism, which wishes to minimize government intervention in the economy or implement laissez-faire policies. This economic liberalism borrows from two schools of thought: the classical liberals' pragmatism and the libertarian's notion of "rights." The classical liberal maintains that free markets work best, while the libertarian contends that free markets are the only ethical markets.

Edited 3/14/2016 23:22:56

@[AOE] JaiBharat909

I agree that governments should have reserves, and not just mass debt that can't be paid in 100 years. Even though I'm a liberal (nothing to do with economics btw), and pro-social state intervention in many areas, I don't think government should manage it's finances like a teenager that always asks for more money when he's spent everything he had in his wallet.

Edited 3/14/2016 23:23:28

https://youtu.be/Rm3d43HLyTI

I'm sure Hillary Clinton watches this video each time before the debates.

The 2nd Democratic nomination debate was simply hillarious.

"Mrs. Hillary Clinton. Why do you recieve so many funds from high corporate wall street banks?"

H. Clinton: "9 11 was bad"

* crowd cheers *

I still don't understand what you mean by "legalize things". What things are you referring to example wise?

Well, there's the big ones like drugs and abortion; lowering punishments for crimes is also part of it (death penalty is un-libertarian in America), but also allowing women to fight in combat roles (come on, this shouldn't even be a debate today - of course they should), regulating carbon outputs (un-libertarian, too, but I support this), requiring businesses to label GMOs (un-libertarian, but I support this), national parks (un-libertarian), and more, but I think you get the gist.

Fiscal conservatism is the economic and political policy that advocates restraint of governmental taxation and expenditures. Fiscal conservatives since the 19th century have argued that debt is a device to corrupt politics; they argue that big spending ruins the morals of the people, and that a national debt creates a dangerous class of speculators. A political strategy employed by conservatives to achieve a smaller government is known as starve the beast. Activist Grover Norquist is a well-known proponent of the strategy and has famously said, "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." The argument in favor of balanced budgets is often coupled with a belief that government welfare programs should be narrowly tailored and that tax rates should be low, which implies relatively small government institutions.

This belief in small government combines with fiscal conservatism to produce a broader economic liberalism, which wishes to minimize government intervention in the economy or implement laissez-faire policies. This economic liberalism borrows from two schools of thought: the classical liberals' pragmatism and the libertarian's notion of "rights." The classical liberal maintains that free markets work best, while the libertarian contends that free markets are the only ethical markets.

From what it sounds like, sounds good, and it does sound like the right. It doesn't sound particularly like conserves nor libertarians, but just to the right, of which deregulation is a big part of. Libertarianism wants less other kinds of government spending, too. And Republican candidates just don't really want to do that. Trump is the only one who wants to cut space travel spending, but he wants to build some expensive wall and spend loads continually on border security, which is worse; Cruz and Rubio want to grow military spending and the death penalty, and Kasich wants longer prison sentences and death penalty (which in America, costs even more than imprisonment); and these are just some of these policies.

I agree that governments should have reserves, and not just mass debt that can't be paid in 100 years. Even though I'm a liberal (nothing to do with economics btw), and pro-social state intervention in many areas

How can you be liberal (which has a great deal to do with economy) and not support spending money you don't have? Public spending is spending money you don't have if you're over 100% debt.

Edited 3/14/2016 23:54:17

I'm liberal in moral views. This doesn't influence my views in economy. What does is me leanning towards a social welfare state. You can be libertarian and liberal for instance. Defending capitalism and abortion isn't opposed and yet one is libertarian and the other liberal. If libertarianism and liberalism were the opposed, it wouldn't be that easy to accept both huh?

You know, just a frain to Americans - why is Clinton disponsible for some small-scale attack on a country that was wrecked into chaos in 2011 (with great support in America)?

Because a) she wrecked t in the first place (like TeamGuns said) and b) she refused to send in aid, despite having ample time to do so

Edited 3/15/2016 01:48:42

This doesn't influence my views in economy. What does is me leanning towards a social welfare state.

A social welfare state is a form of economy. It seems like it does, that liberalist is an accurate word to describe you, since you want less government/laws but more public spending/taxes.

You can be libertarian and liberal for instance. Defending capitalism and abortion isn't opposed and yet one is libertarian and the other liberal.

Well, if you defend capitalism, you'll be Libertarian. You are for social democracy, to the left, you want high socialism. If you shield both capitalism and abortion, you'll be libertarian. If you shield capitalism but not abortion, you're conservative. If you shield abortion, but not capitalism, you're liberal. If you shield neither abortion neither capitalism, you're low socialist.

Because a) she wrecked t in the first place (like TeamGuns said) and b) she refused to send in aid, despite having ample time to do so

Ok, more frains:

Obama was president, why isn't it his fault? What is specifically her post that makes her disponsible for that? and b) I mean, logically thinking, why wouldn't she send in aid, despite having ample time to do so? Don't say it's since she's a mad hatter.

Obama was president, why isn't it his fault? What is specifically her post that makes her disponsible for that?

Oh, Obama isn't innocent when it comes to social and foreign affairs. It's just that this isn't his thread.

At least Obama isn't a Douche. And I'm not even sure of that

Clinton is too far central for my liking.
However, I would still take her over anyone else in the field outside Sanders (mostly because going 3rd party is futile, if third parties were actually practical I would support Stein after Sanders)
Generally Clinton supporters are center-left, or people who don't think Sanders will win(that's why you don't really see anyone defending her, as the center-left is dead).