sbfriedman Wrote: With the obvious sea change in the GOP toward mainstreaming a more libertarian stance, could we seriously be looking at a Rand/Clinton showdown in our near future? For what it's worth, Rand is one of the few Republicans that I have any hope or interest in whatsoever. While I do not agree with a great many of his views, especially on anything that has to do with separating religion out of our government, I do find myself respecting the guy on many 'liberty' issues, such as national security or becoming less involved in war in general.
sbfriedman Wrote: What I think would generate a great deal of 'youth voting' would be a Elizabeth Warren/Rand Paul general election. For if we are to be stuck in the 2 party only choice yet again of this person or that, I think that would make the most compelling of choices. How do you fall on Rand's decision to run?
pr Wrote: Paul is a mindless, empty headed, very dangerous person and should be treated as such. He makes Bush the second look like a genius, and, dat ain't easy!
Schmidt Wrote: pgr -- I have to commend Rand Paul for putting out his 50 page vision of what his economic "freedom zones" would look like. I haven't read it, but trust Salon to have hit the meat of it...which is indeed scary as all hell. It should disqualify him from contention in a general election, but it sure meshes with the Koch brothers vision of privatization of the public sector. I saw right wing ads being run attacking Paul for agreeing with Obama on some issues. These crazies will knock out their own candidate for pandering to minorities.I don't expect any of the other candidates to put out a 50 page document of their vision for America. They know that that will hurt them down the line when they have to flip flop on issues like McCain and Romney did.
lonely bird Wrote: Economic freedom zones...Translation: arbeit macht frei.No, not in the holocaust sense. Rather in the "road to serfdom" sense. Von Hayek, Friedman and others of their ilk including both Pauls fail to understand that the economy, the POLITICAL economy, does not exist in a vacuum. John Galt was fiction, humans are not rational actors and political economic theory is philosophy unrelated to the real world. The road to serfdom is a multi-lane highway and political corporatism or rand-ism and libertarianism are simply lanes on that superhighway.
Schmidt Wrote: Dutch -- One of the things that people don't understand is that we have three branches of government, and all three are flexing their muscle right now...Congress, SCOTUS, and of course the President. It doesn't matter who is elected, if Congress is full of "no compromise" Tea Party idiots, then we will be in for another four years of polarization.
Schmidt Wrote: Politico has published this morning Rand Paul's views on a range of issues but surprisingly they make no mention of Paul's 50 page manifesto on "economic freedom zones", except that he wants a balanced budget as well as all the other candidates. As a student of CBB's economic Modern Monetary Theory, I will oppose anyone who demands a balanced budget, especially when it entails slashing social programs for the poor and middle class.
lonely bird Wrote: seem to recall that paul supports "sound money" whatever the hell that is.if he means gold then he is a buffoon.ALL currencies including gold are fiat currencies. gold only has value because humans decided that it does. beyond its engineering uses and the fact that it looks nice gold has no value whatsoever. rarity doesn't imply value arbitrarily. there are elements that are stable and more rare yet humans decided that gold was valuable. the amount of gold required to back the currency of the united states is more than the amount of gold that has been mined. plus any material that backs a currency must be fully convertible. if it isn't then there is no reason to use it. a country could lie about their reserves much like the reserve number of opec oil are closely guarded secrets.beyond that paul has no clue as to economics other than to spout nonsense that has been pushed by economists from the u. of chicago or elsewhere for years. when said theories fail, as they do, then the response is some external issue or something else caused their model to not work. hell, look at the criminal greenspan admitting to a "flaw" in his model. well, the flaw is humanity and the real world.i recall reading that economics suffers from hard science envy. physics, it ain't.
pr Wrote: I actually find Politico to be very biased, although in an extremely sneaky way. I do not trust them at all, in fact, I consider them to be Fox News Light.