Rand Paul - Potential 2016 Presidential Bid

Like, categorically, or just taxpayer-subsidized?

Sounds like big government stuff.

It's not the employer's responsibility to enforce Federal immigration law.

Rand Paul supports securing the border.

Waste of money.

Need an Amendment.

 

Incremental progress is better than no progress or regression.

 

Everything, though I wouldn't expect hospitals to deny treatment.

Which is fine by me in this case.

Should they get away with violating the law by hiring an illegal immigrant?

+1 for him.

Money well spent!

Yep.

 

I guess you gotta do what you gotta do. But I can't support either party. Does the Republican party look like a party that represents libertarians, or wants anything to do with them in general? I gave playing ball with the Republican party a shot, but the way they treated Ron did it for me. The only conservative in the race got demonized and disrespected, and when they weren't doing either of those things, they were ignoring him. They played libertarianism off as kookiness, because they're nothing more than big government progressives. Let's not even get into the massive fraud involved in the primary.

 

I see no signs of assimilation. Out here on the coast of California I'm the one learning to speak Spanish so I can cope with daily life.

 

I'm looking forward to seeing a more detailed explanation of his plan, because amnesty is practically an impossible pill for me to swallow.

It's unbelievable that both political parties are now having to pander to a demographic who's by and large of illegal origin, simply to win elections... and their proposals only lead to empowering that same demographic. It's pure insanity.

 

It's reality when you're talking in terms of cost. It would be a massive undertaking to deport them--which, I believe should happen because they broke the law. To round them all up... *shakes head* we'd be in debt to China for the next 200 years to pay off that bill.

Its called reality, something Republicans tried to "remind" the Paul supporters of all the time with their progressive centrist vision of a nomination.

 

As far as illegal immigrants themselves are concerned I like the policy of the Burmese regarding Bengalese Rohingya immigrants. Zero tolerance.

As far as the children of illegal immigrants are concerned I sort of like the policy of the Malaysians which constitutionally provides special rights for the native majority.

None of this will happen...so I'm pretty much through with the United States.

 

Unabashedly remove the things which serve as incentives, and much of the work is already done, thereby reducing the number which need to be forcibly removed.

I don't believe Ron supported amnesty though.

 

I am not supporting either party. Ron Paul is not even an anarchist, why do you support him?

 

I agree that this will have some effect, but you'd be surprised how many are out there working, not getting entitlements.

 

I'm not an anarchist, I'm a minarchist.

 

So you are a statist.

 

That's true, but I also support denying illegal immigrants employment, as it's certainly one of the major incentives. Immigration, both legal and illegal, is becoming problematic as far as jobs are concerned.

 

I believe in a strong defense. No liberty without a strong defense.

And what might you be?

 

Why can't the private sector provide for the national defense?

I'm a neoconservative.

 

How would that even be organized under the private sector? If it could be organized competently, I'd be all for it.

I'm sorry to hear that.

 

The same way we would privatize everything else.

What makes you think it cannot be?

I'm sure.

 

National defense seems like it could be more complicated than your ordinary business. Not just that, it seems like there could be the potential for underfunding.

 

What is "ordinary business"? If something is "complicated", does that mean it cannot be privatized? If individuals voluntarily finance the military, on what basis would you say it is "underfunded"?

 

Massive underfunding at any juncture could mean the end of the nation. Boom goes everyones liberty at that point.

It seems like you're playing a game with me here.

 

I am not playing any games. If you are not an anarchist, then you are statist who supports the coercive use of central government to achieve your subjective moral ends, in this case, fielding a massive army.

 

I've never once called myself an anarchist. Feel free to try and dig up my posts to prove me wrong.

I am, however, about as close to anarchist as one gets without being one. If that makes me a statist in your book, so be it.

But let's be clear. There are many degrees of statism. I'm not endorsing a man who wants to execute marijuana possessors.

 

I never said you said you were an anarchist. I accept your claim that you are a minarchist.

How would you not be a statist if you supported the existence of a state that confiscates money from people to pay for a big ass army? Do explain.

Yup, there are degrees of statism, just like there are degrees of tyranny. You only support a little tyranny.

Me neither.

 

He is the son of a presidential candidate that endorsed Romney and had a voice in the msm and infowars(is new- or neo-msm), only politicians that are pro-system get a voice in the system's media.
They are all pro-establishment, all system politicians (the Pauls, Obama, Romney, Johnson, etc, it doesn't matter who you vote for, they are only after the votes of the people/masses, after power and try to dominate over the US people/country) Voting leads to (real) empire.
Knowledge of history is freedom (voting for freedom or a 'liberate' via a liberty movement (a revolutionary movements are historically against freedom) do the opposite of freedom, totalitarianism)
This historical era is (again) about the system/establishment (historically 'the North' for the USA) and the people (system is doing everything to get control over the people, using the same psywar, propaganda, politics, economics, capitalism, tactics and strategies as seen in last century)