Qunnipiac excludes Rand from 2016 poll!!!

[Xenliad]

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/colorado/release-detail?ReleaseID=1942

They have included Rand in the past.


2016 White House Race

Colorado keeps its status as a swing state in the 2016 presidential election as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ties New Jersey Gov. Christopher Christie 42 - 43 percent.

Clinton gets 45 percent to 42 percent for U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, too close to call.

Vice President Joseph Biden trails Gov. Christie 50 - 33 percent and falls behind Sen. Cruz 45 - 39 percent.

The former first lady has 51 - 44 percent favorability rating. Christie has lower negatives as he scores a 50 - 22 percent favorability. Cruz gets a 26 - 16 percent score as 58 percent of voters say they don't know enough about him to form an opinion. Biden gets a negative 40 - 50 percent favorability.

[fr33]

TownHall did too. http://pages.townhall.com/campaign/th-2016-presidential-straw-poll

[ManOfSteel]

lol, this is awesome, I feel even better about Ohio now. Quinnipiac's decision not to poll Rand against Hillary (but instead to poll TED CRUZ, who isn't even a lock to run like Paul is and has a much weaker standing in the polls) suggests that they're unwilling to do the sort of dirty stuff PPP did to fabricate a picture of Hillary as electoral juggernaut, but they're still biased against Rand and would rather not report good news about him. Colorado is a very libertarian state (compared to most states), and Rand could reasonably be expected to do well here. They were scared of the answer, so they didn't ask the question.

#winning

[ManOfSteel]

Also, a big fat LOL @ "former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton TIES New Jersey Gov. Christopher Christie 42 - 43 percent." I wonder what they'd have said if it was 43-42 the other way?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

olorado keeps its status as a swing state in the 2016 presidential election as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ties New Jersey Gov. Christopher Christie 42 - 43 percent.

Clinton gets 45 percent to 42 percent for U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, too close to call.

42% don't even know who Cruz is. This poll is a joke.

[Christian Liberty]

Also, a big fat LOL @ "former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton TIES New Jersey Gov. Christopher Christie 42 - 43 percent." I wonder what they'd have said if it was 43-42 the other way?

Who the crap cares? Christie is just as bad as Hillary. In fact, probably even worse because there are some idiots who think Christie is a conservative. The same cannot be said for Hillary. (Actually, that's not completely true, there are some ultra-progressives who think that, but their numbers are WAY smaller than "Team R is team conservative" type people.)

[Christian Liberty]

42% don't even know who Cruz is. This poll is a joke.

42% would vote for Cruz just because he has an "R" next to his name. Or at least close to 42%.

(Not attacking Cruz here, I'd have said the same thing no matter who it was.)

[ManOfSteel]

Who the crap cares?

Obviously me, at the very least. I didn't realize Quinnipiac was this already this deep in the bag for Hillary this far out from the 2016 cycle. It's good to know so we can keep an eye on them when the important polling starts.


Christie is just as bad as Hillary.

Virtually nobody agrees with you, and with good reason. Christie and Clinton are different people with at least marginally different views on policy. Where they disagree, Christie takes the more conservative position and Clinton takes the more progressive. Because the office of the Presidency is imbued with so much power, even minor deviations can result in enormously different consequences for people on the ground. To say that "Christie is just as bad as Hillary" is just monumentally stupid. Now, I'm not saying you're a monumentally stupid person - you're definitely not. You're obviously a pretty smart person, even. But because you are so ideologically "out there" and extreme, you are blind to the differences of people who disagree with you. You seem to wield this blindness as a badge of pride, castigating people like Senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz for not agreeing with you enough, but it is not something to be proud of. Instead, you should be ashamed of your hard head and simple-mindedness.

Grow up, son. I mean that sincerely, not in a dismissive way. You're a bright kid, and the world needs more bright, productive people.


In fact, probably even worse because there are some idiots who think Christie is a conservative.

Christie is a conservative. What you mean to say is that he's not a libertarian.

[Michael Landon]

Christie is a conservative. What you mean to say is that he's not a libertarian.

Ha! If Christie is really a conservative then I'm really Michael Landon. Christie's not even close to being Republican, let alone a conservative.

- ML

[Christian Liberty]

Obviously me, at the very least. I didn't realize Quinnipiac was this already this deep in the bag for Hillary this far out from the 2016 cycle. It's good to know so we can keep an eye on them when the important polling starts.


Fair enough.



Virtually nobody agrees with you, and with good reason. Christie and Clinton are different people with at least marginally different views on policy. Where they disagree, Christie takes the more conservative position and Clinton takes the more progressive. Because the office of the Presidency is imbued with so much power, even minor deviations can result in enormously different consequences for people on the ground. To say that "Christie is just as bad as Hillary" is just monumentally stupid. Now, I'm not saying you're a monumentally stupid person - you're definitely not. You're obviously a pretty smart person, even. But because you are so ideologically "out there" and extreme, you are blind to the differences of people who disagree with you. You seem to wield this blindness as a badge of pride, castigating people like Senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz for not agreeing with you enough, but it is not something to be proud of. Instead, you should be ashamed of your hard head and simple-mindedness.


I like Rand Paul at all, I try to hold his feet to the fire, but at the end of the day, I'm going to vote for him and will encourage others to do the same. Now, of course, that could change if Rand were to seriously deviate from the positions he holds today, but right now, I do indeed stand with Rand.

I don't really trust Ted Cruz, he's already hawkish on Syria and Iran, and he's very new to the senate, so I suspect that he's going to get even worse. I also strongly believe he's going to try to run for President, which makes me trust him even less. If he were really "Rand-lite" I don't see why he just wouldn't endorse Rand.

That said, I would consider both Rand Paul and Ted Cruz to be genuine conservatives. Ted Cruz is a little too hawkish for me to actually support him. I don't think I could vote for him unless he toned down on some of that. Especially not in New York where it certainly wouldn't matter anyway. But I'd definitely prefer a President Ted Cruz over a President Hillary Clinton. Let alone a President Rand Paul. I may criticize Rand on some issues, but as I said, I like him a lot.


Grow up, son. I mean that sincerely, not in a dismissive way. You're a bright kid, and the world needs more bright, productive people.


I'll assume that comment was made in good faith, but I don't really know how to respond to that, other than to read my rebuttal.



Christie is a conservative. What you mean to say is that he's not a libertarian.

When I think "conservative" I think of people like Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Justin Amash (Although he might pass the threshold for being libertarian, depending on how strictly we grade), Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater (Although he might also be more libertarian, I don't know the details on him), Calvin Coolidge... people like that.

When I think "libertarian" I think of something that is close to conservatism, not something that's very distant from it, but I do see distinctions. For the most part, conservatives I would say support a limited government, but one that to some extent supports traditional values. A libertarian, on the other hand, may or may not support traditional values (I know I do) but they are ideologically consistent to a great or possibly even absolute degree regarding keeping government out of our lives. I think of people like Ron Paul, Tom Woods, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Lew Rockwell, exc.

Although I don't really view him as libertarian (At least not publicly), I would agree with what Rand Paul says, that saying libertarians and conservatives are distinct ideologies is like saying that communism and socialism are distinct. There are differences, but the goals are similar.

I don't really believe there's such a thing as a "big government conservative." People who would fall under that brand would be either neoconservatives or liberals, neither of which are conservative.

Now, I'm not hugely knowledgeable about Christie, but I would not consider someone who supports Orwellian surveilance, constantly uses "For the children" type arguments to justify it, is clearly very much a hawk, is strongly anti-gun, and is a strong proponent of price gouging legislation to be "conservative."

Now, I'm open to being talked out of that. As I said, I don't know THAT much about Christie. I'm willing to be educated in that regard. But everything I know about him screams progressive and or neoconservative.

[Christian Liberty]

Ha! If Christie is really a conservative then I'm really Michael Landon. Christie's not even close to being Republican, let alone a conservative.

- ML

Well, technically he IS a Republican, even if in name only. That said, it seems like most Republicans are RINOs these days. It might be more accurate to call the good ones "RINOs" although that would make us look bad:)

[Bastiat's The Law]

Hillary and Christie tie so often because they're virtually the same candidate.

[Sola_Fide]

The establishment WANTS Ted Cruz at all costs.

This should tell you something.

[supermario21]

It's amazing how Quinnipiac and PPP produce such different numbers. Quinnipiac also doesn't push a democrat agenda with its poll q's.

[speciallyblend]

as is rand will not win colorado, kiss the election goodbye. No intentions of supporting rand or hillary. I will be voting outside of the failed gop.

[ManOfSteel]

Ha! If Christie is really a conservative then I'm really Michael Landon. Christie's not even close to being Republican, let alone a conservative.

- ML

Hi Michael.

[FSP-Rebel]

as is rand will not win colorado, kiss the election goodbye. No intentions of supporting rand or hillary. I will be voting outside of the failed gop.
That was liberating I bet but you immediately put yourself in foul ball territory by mentioning those two in the same sentence w/o at minimum delineating the vast differences between the two: one being for liberty, the other being for tyranny. Voting for a self defense loser against a likely self defense supporting winner makes no sense. Again, I've only seen you chime in about marijuana and breathing flames against Rand w/o ever stopping by any of the litany of threads of where he's fighting and winning for liberty. I can't believe how ungrateful you are for all that he's done and is doing to stick it to all forms of statists.

[Christian Liberty]

The establishment WANTS Ted Cruz at all costs.

This should tell you something.

I don't think they want Cruz. I think they'll take Cruz if they have to, but I think they'd much rather have Rubio, Jeb Bush, or Christie if they can pull it off.

But at the end of the day, I do believe Rand Paul terrifies them. Ted Cruz does not.

[mosquitobite]

The establishment WANTS Ted Cruz at all costs.

This should tell you something.

This is what I'm noticing as well. Like someone else said, if Cruz was a seriously independent libertarian leaning republican - then he would just stand behind Rand and go for his wing man spot. The way the establishment seems to be latching onto him makes me question him. Big time. The way they are almost PUSHING him to run against Rand, well for him to do it means he only craves power - not real change. :(

[Christian Liberty]

That was liberating I bet but you immediately put yourself in foul ball territory by mentioning those two in the same sentence w/o at minimum delineating the vast differences between the two: one being for liberty, the other being for tyranny. Voting for a self defense loser against a likely self defense supporting winner makes no sense. Again, I've only seen you chime in about marijuana and breathing flames against Rand w/o ever stopping by any of the litany of threads of where he's fighting and winning for liberty. I can't believe how ungrateful you are for all that he's done and is doing to stick it to all forms of statists.

Yeah, I completely agree with you here. I've been more critical of Rand than some, but to mention him in the same sentence as Hillary as if they were the same is a total joke. Even during my anti-Rand phases I would never have gone that far. Rand is a libertarian leaning conservative who occasionally does something I don't like. Hillary is just plain evil. There's no comparison at all.

Heck, I wouldn't even compare Ted Cruz to Hillary. Cruz is at least good on domestic policy issues, even though he sucks on foreign policy issues.

[JCDenton0451]

I don't think they want Cruz. I think they'll take Cruz if they have to, but I think they'd much rather have Rubio, Jeb Bush, or Christie if they can pull it off.

But at the end of the day, I do believe Rand Paul terrifies them. Ted Cruz does not.

They want to use Cruz as a spoiler for Rand in primaries, so that Christie could win the nomination. That's all there is to it.

[fr33]

Virtually nobody agrees with you, and with good reason. Christie and Clinton are different people with at least marginally different views on policy.

I guess I better change my name to Virtually Nobody.

[ManOfSteel]

I like Rand Paul at all, I try to hold his feet to the fire, but at the end of the day, I'm going to vote for him and will encourage others to do the same. Now, of course, that could change if Rand were to seriously deviate from the positions he holds today, but right now, I do indeed stand with Rand.

How seriously would he need to deviate before you wouldn't vote for him and encourage others to do the same?


I don't really trust Ted Cruz, he's already hawkish on Syria and Iran, and he's very new to the senate, so I suspect that he's going to get even worse. I also strongly believe he's going to try to run for President, which makes me trust him even less. If he were really "Rand-lite" I don't see why he just wouldn't endorse Rand.

He definitely isn't "Rand-lite," he's Ted Cruz. He's out for himself, he is going to run for President, he's more conservative/hawkish than Rand, and that is all okay. He is better than almost every other Senator on almost every other issue. Castigating him for being a bit more worried about terrorism/national security than you are makes no sense. It's fine to disagree, but quit acting/thinking like he's evil. People aren't evil. Everyone is the hero of his or her own story.


That said, I would consider both Rand Paul and Ted Cruz to be genuine conservatives.

I actually think Rand is more of a libertarian at heart, but he's staking out a lot of conservative positions in order to win the Republican nomination in 2016. He's Ron Paul in a closet. Either that or he's doing a fantastic job of sending out false dog-whistles. But I'm pretty sure it's simply the case that he's saying lots of stuff that doesn't sit well with him because he wants to win. And I am completely fine with that.

To be honest, I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find that Ted Cruz was much more libertarian at heart than he lets on. The guy is extremely bright, and there simply aren't that many extremely bright conservatives; extremely bright libertarians are much more common. Also, I remember reading a comment from one of his professors at law school who said that he remembered Ted being much more of a libertarian than a conservative. It's possibly he simply aged out of it, of course.


Ted Cruz is a little too hawkish for me to actually support him. I don't think I could vote for him unless he toned down on some of that. Especially not in New York where it certainly wouldn't matter anyway. But I'd definitely prefer a President Ted Cruz over a President Hillary Clinton. Let alone a President Rand Paul. I may criticize Rand on some issues, but as I said, I like him a lot.

Your vote almost certainly won't matter regardless of where you are. Donating time and money is much more important than voting.

It's fine to say that you don't perceive a large enough difference between Christie and Clinton for voting or donating to be worth it, but to say that there's no difference is simply wrong.


I'll assume that comment was made in good faith, but I don't really know how to respond to that, other than to read my rebuttal.

After reading your rebuttal, I still feel the same way. You should be more humble. Intellectual humility is a difficult trait to locate in teenage males, but you should strive to cultivate it. You're bright, but there are plenty of people much smarter than you who have reached almost precisely the opposite conclusions that you have on a number of important issues. To simply dismiss them would be a giant mistake.


When I think "conservative" I think of people like Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Justin Amash (Although he might pass the threshold for being libertarian, depending on how strictly we grade), Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater (Although he might also be more libertarian, I don't know the details on him), Calvin Coolidge... people like that.

When I think "libertarian" I think of something that is close to conservatism, not something that's very distant from it, but I do see distinctions. For the most part, conservatives I would say support a limited government, but one that to some extent supports traditional values. A libertarian, on the other hand, may or may not support traditional values (I know I do) but they are ideologically consistent to a great or possibly even absolute degree regarding keeping government out of our lives. I think of people like Ron Paul, Tom Woods, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Lew Rockwell, exc.

These aren't definitions, they're heuristics. You associate modern political personalities with one label or another and then assume their positions are representative of the label you've given them. I hope you can see how this might lead to problems.


Although I don't really view him as libertarian (At least not publicly), I would agree with what Rand Paul says, that saying libertarians and conservatives are distinct ideologies is like saying that communism and socialism are distinct. There are differences, but the goals are similar.

When Rand says this, he's trying to convince conservatives to vote for him. Conservatism and libertarianism do share some similar goals, but they are also very much at odds in many ways.


I don't really believe there's such a thing as a "big government conservative." People who would fall under that brand would be either neoconservatives or liberals, neither of which are conservative.

We've been over this before. "Conservative" does not simply mean "whatever FreedomFanatic likes." There is such a thing as a "big government conservative." See: George W. Bush, Rick Santorum, etc. Neoconservatives are not the same as regular conservatives, but they have more in common with conservatives than with liberals, and they rightly belong in the conservative party (Team R).


Now, I'm not hugely knowledgeable about Christie, but I would not consider someone who supports Orwellian surveilance, constantly uses "For the children" type arguments to justify it, is clearly very much a hawk, is strongly anti-gun, and is a strong proponent of price gouging legislation to be "conservative."

Compared to who? He's a Rockefeller Republican. That means he's more conservative than basically every Democrat in the country but less conservative than most Republicans. The word "conservative" does not have some sort of fixed, immutable meaning whereby one can clearly identify who belongs in the box and who doesn't. It's a spectrum.


Now, I'm open to being talked out of that. As I said, I don't know THAT much about Christie. I'm willing to be educated in that regard. But everything I know about him screams progressive and or neoconservative.

He is definitely not a progressive. He may be a neoconservative. He hasn't built a national campaign yet and so hasn't been forced to take a stand on too many issues outside of New Jersey. But it wouldn't surprise me if he turned out to be one. I think the "Rockefeller Republican" label is a better fit though.

[krugminator]

No one - not one person - in the establishment WANTS Ted Cruz at all.

This should be obvious, but some people are barely literate so I will post it .

I think this is what was actually meant.

[ManOfSteel]

as is rand will not win colorado, kiss the election goodbye. No intentions of supporting rand or hillary. I will be voting outside of the failed gop.

Go away.

[JCDenton0451]

I think this is what was actually meant.

But the right-wing media shower him with the kind of positive coverage, which they never give to Rand. Clearly, there seems to be an effort behind the scenes to encourage Cruz to run in 2016.

[ManOfSteel]

But the right-wing media shower him with the kind of positive coverage, which they never give to Rand. Clearly, there seems to be an effort behind the scenes to encourage Cruz to run in 2016.

A lot of people prefer Cruz because he's more conservative/hawkish than Rand, who is more libertarian/dovish. The base of the Republican party is much more conservative than libertarian. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that plenty of people would prefer Cruz to run and win than Rand.

I think you're simply wrong to say that right-wing media doesn't give positive coverage to Rand, though. He's a right-wing rock-star. Have you looked at the map (http://oi42.tinypic.com/ms0w9v.jpg)?

http://oi42.tinypic.com/ms0w9v.jpg

[krugminator]

But the right-wing media shower him with the kind of positive coverage, which they never give to Rand. Clearly, there seems to be an effort behind the scenes to encourage Cruz to run in 2016.

Limbaugh,Levin,Red State,National Review, etc seem to prefer Cruz to Paul, but they aren't the establishment.

And right wing media is pretty darn positive toward Rand. I would agree they are ebullient toward Cruz though.

[Christian Liberty]

How seriously would he need to deviate before you wouldn't vote for him and encourage others to do the same?

To personally not vote for him: If he took more of a Ted Cruz type stance on the foreign policy issues. I'm still on the fence with Mike Lee after his comment on Snowden, but I'm absolutely certain that Ted Cruz is too much of a hawk for me to ever be able to justify supporting him.

That doesn't necessarily mean I'd actively try to convince people not to vote for him though. If Ted Cruz was running against Hillary Clinton, I probably wouldn't waste my time trying to convince people NOT to vote for Cruz, seeing as he's still better than Clinton. But I still wouldn't vote for him.

I DID try to convince people not to vote for Romney against Obama though, and I'd do that again if it came to it.

On economic issues, I don't really know. I have a little more patience there than with foreign policy issues. I've already put up with the politically necessary but morally bankrupt "Save the entitlements" crap. But if Rand got up there and started talking about how we need a Federal Reserve and fiat money, I couldn't vote for him.

The 2nd amendment, if he advocated any gun control at the Federal level, I'd have to separate from him.

Abortion, I couldn't vote for a flat out advocate of Roe v Wade except possibly under the most extreme of circumstances, but I'd be willing to bet a million dollars that Rand won't ever do that. (And I don't have nearly that much:p)

The drug issue isn't one I'm really going to get caught up in. I'm a strong advocate for legalization of everything, but I think Rand is doing pretty well there considering what he's running for. Ultimately I'd love for him to outright say that he takes a pure 10th amendment stance on the issue, but I'm not actually expecting that either. But, unless he's totally got everyone fooled, I somehow don't see Rand standing behind Federal drug raids either. So unless it got REALLY ridiculous I wouldn't really factor this in too much.

He's pretty much got civil liberties issues, like the Patriot Act, NDAA (2012 specifically), TSA, exc. under control. If he reversed his positions too seriously on those, I'd have to stop supporting him, but its hard to pinpoint exactly "How much" if you know what I'm saying. I'll simply say that Rand had best not push his luck, and instead he should keep doing what he's doing.

"Gay marriage" I really don't give a crap at all, unless getting government entirely out of the issue were actually on the table. And while it realistically isn't, Rand has hinted that he supports this anyway. This issue is hardly a dot on the radar for me, but I'm pretty sure Rand agrees with me anyway.

I may have missed something important, if so, feel free to ask specifically.




He definitely isn't "Rand-lite," he's Ted Cruz. He's out for himself, he is going to run for President, he's more conservative/hawkish than Rand, and that is all okay. He is better than almost every other Senator on almost every other issue. Castigating him for being a bit more worried about terrorism/national security than you are makes no sense. It's fine to disagree, but quit acting/thinking like he's evil. People aren't evil. Everyone is the hero of his or her own story.


I do believe he's evil, because I believe murder to be evil. I've honestly got very little patience to this one. Heck, some of Rand Paul's rhetoric with regards to the issue bugs me too, although its not nearly as bad from Rand Paul as it is for Ted Cruz. I've got no patience for people who shill for wars with Iran and Syria. Now, am I denying that he's better on the economy and even civil liberties than most other Republicans? No, I'm not denying that at all. But ultimately, I've got no tolerance for supporters of murder no matter what else they support. Sorry if you don't like that or think that's closed minded, but that's where I draw my line in the sand.



I actually think Rand is more of a libertarian at heart, but he's staking out a lot of conservative positions in order to win the Republican nomination in 2016. He's Ron Paul in a closet. Either that or he's doing a fantastic job of sending out false dog-whistles. But I'm pretty sure it's simply the case that he's saying lots of stuff that doesn't sit well with him because he wants to win. And I am completely fine with that.


I'm not going to argue with that, but the reality is, his platform, and therefore, his actions, aren't going to be any more libertarian than what he's advocating now. He may secretly agree with Ron on everything, but I need to go by what he says.


To be honest, I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find that Ted Cruz was much more libertarian at heart than he lets on. The guy is extremely bright, and there simply aren't that many extremely bright conservatives; extremely bright libertarians are much more common. Also, I remember reading a comment from one of his professors at law school who said that he remembered Ted being much more of a libertarian than a conservative. It's possibly he simply aged out of it, of course.


Its VERY possible that Ted aged out of it. In Cruz's case, I don't really care. I'm not saying its impossible, but I have to assume that it isn't the case. As for bright conservatives, I believe there are some, but we don't exactly define conservative the same way.



Your vote almost certainly won't matter regardless of where you are. Donating time and money is much more important than voting.


I know it won't actually come down to one vote, but in NY, it REALLY doesn't matter if you know what I'm saying. When it comes to 538 in Florida (Assuming no foul play) it kind of does matter.

Turnout, in general, actually matters in swing states.

If I thought there was a chance, even if extremely remote, that my vote could put Ted Cruz over the edge VS Hillary Clinton, I might hold my nose and do it. Heck, I'd probably hold my nose and have voted for Obama to keep Romney out of office if it was sufficiently close (Although Romney was better fiscally and possibly even on personal freedom, his foreign policy was even worse and that was what mattered most to me, not to mention an Obama victory wouldn't block Rand in 2016 like a Romney victoy would). But that doesn't mean I actually like Ted Cruz, or Barack Obama (Note: I do believe Ted Cruz is a lot less evil than Obama, to be clear. Obama is bad on every issue, Ted Cruz is solid on fiscal issues and some domestic issues.)


It's fine to say that you don't perceive a large enough difference between Christie and Clinton for voting or donating to be worth it, but to say that there's no difference is simply wrong.


I can't honestly think of any differences off the top of my head. I'm not saying there literally isn't any difference, but I do believe the difference to be miniscule.


After reading your rebuttal, I still feel the same way. You should be more humble. Intellectual humility is a difficult trait to locate in teenage males, but you should strive to cultivate it. You're bright, but there are plenty of people much smarter than you who have reached almost precisely the opposite conclusions that you have on a number of important issues. To simply dismiss them would be a giant mistake.


I'm not dismissing what you're saying, for the record. And certainly not without consideration.



These aren't definitions, they're heuristics. You associate modern political personalities with one label or another and then assume their positions are representative of the label you've given them. I hope you can see how this might lead to problems.


I agree with that, there are certainly different degrees of everything. But when you look at all of US history, and not just the relatively recent, big government, post New Deal period, most Republicans start to look rather liberal and rather statist.



When Rand says this, he's trying to convince conservatives to vote for him. Conservatism and libertarianism do share some similar goals, but they are also very much at odds in many ways.


I don't think they are as much so as you do, because we don't agree on what a "conservative" is.



We've been over this before. "Conservative" does not simply mean "whatever FreedomFanatic likes." There is such a thing as a "big government conservative." See: George W. Bush, Rick Santorum, etc. Neoconservatives are not the same as regular conservatives, but they have more in common with conservatives than with liberals, and they rightly belong in the conservative party (Team R).


They're in the right party, alright. We're not. Both parties are fundamentally big government and progressive. Real conservatives belong in the Constitution Party, while real libertarians belong in either the Libertarian Party or a new party entirely (If "ISideWith" interprets the LP platform correctly, it is surprisingly liberal, albeit far less so than the GOP or the Dems.)

Now, when I say that, I'm not saying we shouldn't be in the Republican Party. We should be. That's tactically smart. But we are, ultimately infiltraitors. The GOP is mostly run by big government neocons at this point.



Compared to who? He's a Rockefeller Republican. That means he's more conservative than basically every Democrat in the country but less conservative than most Republicans. The word "conservative" does not have some sort of fixed, immutable meaning whereby one can clearly identify who belongs in the box and who doesn't. It's a spectrum.


I'd prefer to say that Chris Christie is less liberal than every Democrat in the country, not "more conservative."

Its like if you separate US Presidents through history by how hawkish or dovish they are, and then say "Well, James Polk was more of a Dove than Woodrow Wilson." It would be technically true, but it would be more appropriate to say "James Polk was less of a hawk than Woodrow Wilson" seeing as both were far more characterized by being warmongers than by being peaceniks.


He is definitely not a progressive. He may be a neoconservative. He hasn't built a national campaign yet and so hasn't been forced to take a stand on too many issues outside of New Jersey. But it wouldn't surprise me if he turned out to be one. I think the "Rockefeller Republican" label is a better fit though.[/QUOTE]

I maintain that neocons are progressives, as Ron Paul correctly points out.

[Cleaner44]

Two things come to mind.

Who commissioned this poll and did they require that Rand be left out?

If Qunnipiac did this on their own, time show their credibility to be very low, as they fail to include an obvious Republican front runner.

[JCDenton0451]

A lot of people prefer Cruz because he's more conservative/hawkish than Rand, who is more libertarian/dovish. The base of the Republican party is much more conservative than libertarian. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that plenty of people would prefer Cruz to run and win than Rand.

I think you're simply wrong to say that right-wing media doesn't give positive coverage to Rand, though. He's a right-wing rock-star.

I think you don't understand or pretend not to understand the way the media in this country work. The media don't reflect the public opinion, it is used as a tool to shape the public opinon. The masters of right-wing media want the Base to love Cruz, this is why he is presented as the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Earlier in the year they tried to prop up Rubio in a similar fashion.

The reason they mention Paul at all is because they can't afford to ignore him. Praise for Rand is always subdued, tempered, "balanced" with criticism from the neoconservative camp.

[Cleaner44]

Christie is a conservative. What you mean to say is that he's not a libertarian.

Christie is a conservative... a BIG GOVT, east coast liberal conservative that cares nothing about smaller and limited government. It is exactly the Christie type conservative and the voters that endorse these BIG GOVT progressive conservatives that are the problem. In fact one could argue that they are worse than the Democrats because some foolish voters believe they are not progressives and allow the government and debt to grow because they are only concerned with stopping Democrats.

This is the problem with modern day conservatives... they ignore the Constitution and ignore freedom, all while being cheered by idiot voters that are happy to wrap themselves in the meaningless label of being... conservative.

[JCDenton0451]

Limbaugh,Levin,Red State,National Review, etc seem to prefer Cruz to Paul, but they aren't the establishment.

And right wing media is pretty darn positive toward Rand. I would agree they are ebullient toward Cruz though.
Mark Levin,Red State,National Review and Breitbart are all neoconservative outlets. While not synonymous with the establishment, neocons are a major (perhaps dominant) faction within the Republican establishment.

Limbaugh is a more complicated case, I'm still trying to figure him out. But he was shilling for Rubio during the push for immigration reform, and he called Ron Paul supporters kooks, and he once said that people who use the word "neocon" are anti-Semites (although he later used the word himself!). All of this makes him very much a part of the establishment/neoconservative media network.

[supermario21]

I don't even think Christie is a Rockefeller Republican. To be honest, Rockefeller Republicans are all Democrats now. They're outright progressives. Christie is just a plain old moderate really. He's much more conservative than Christie Todd Whitman for example. She's a Rockefeller Republican. Christie is going to probably be the moderate "reform type" candidate that folks like Josh Barro and Reihan Salam will be gushing over. I hate that Sam's Club socialism that they parrot but it's out there, yet still more conservative than the Rockefeller types.

[supermario21]

Mark Levin,Red State,National Review and Breitbart are all neoconservative outlets. While not synonymous with the establishment, neocons are a major (perhaps dominant) faction within the Republican establishment.

Limbaugh is a more complicated case, I'm still trying to figure him out. But he was shilling for Rubio during the push for immigration reform, and he called Ron Paul supporters kooks, and he once said that people who use the word "neocon" are anti-Semites (although he later used the word himself!). All of this makes him very much a part of the establishment/neoconservative media network.

Hannity might be the biggest establishment/Team GOP mouthpiece.

[krugminator]

Mark Levin,Red State,National Review and Breitbart are all neoconservative outlets. While not synonymous with the establishment, neocons are a major (perhaps dominant) faction within the Republican establishment.

Limbaugh is a more complicated case, I'm still trying to figure him out. But he was shilling for Rubio during the push for immigration reform, and he called Ron Paul supporters kooks, and he once said that people who use the word "neocon" are anti-Semites (although he later used the word himself!). All of this makes him very much a part of the establishment/neoconservative media network.

AEI, Commentary, Jennifer Rubin, and The Weekly Standard are actual neoconservative outlets, not what I listed. The world isn't just divided into neoconseratives and libertarians.

[JCDenton0451]

AEI, Commentary, Jennifer Rubin, and The Weekly Standard are actual neoconservative outlets, not what I listed. The world isn't just divided into neoconseratives and libertarians.

Commentary and Weekly Standard are small, niche outlets, meant for like-minded people. Fox News and National Review are the true mass media meant to brainwash the masses. But it's pretty much the same kind of people that run both the Commentary and National Review. They share the same worldview. Right-wing media is overwhelmingly neoconservative.

[Brian4Liberty]

It's simple. Ted Cruz is assumed to be more pro-Israel on foreign policy than Rand, thus they will push Ted more than Rand. Bottom line.

[JCDenton0451]

It's simple. Ted Cruz is assumed to be more pro-Israel on foreign policy than Rand, thus they will push Ted more than Rand. Bottom line.

I think they see Ted Cruz as someone they could successfully mold and control: an attractive and very ambitious politician with no foreign policy ideas of his own. That's the way the neocons operate. I posted a good article on this topic (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?423701-Jennifer-Rubin-has-a-new-toy-Chris-Christie).

[speciallyblend]

That was liberating I bet but you immediately put yourself in foul ball territory by mentioning those two in the same sentence w/o at minimum delineating the vast differences between the two: one being for liberty, the other being for tyranny. Voting for a self defense loser against a likely self defense supporting winner makes no sense. Again, I've only seen you chime in about marijuana and breathing flames against Rand w/o ever stopping by any of the litany of threads of where he's fighting and winning for liberty. I can't believe how ungrateful you are for all that he's done and is doing to stick it to all forms of statists.

at the basic level rand supports state/fed over individual rights a complete 100% failure on rands part. I will not support rand. time to move on for me on the bs rand says. Rand lost me, i am sure some pro drug war right winger nut will step up to be rand a delegate.

I am grateful rand exposed his position on state over individual rights. He lost any support i had as a gop delegate for 8 years.

[eduardo89]

at the basic level rand supports state/fed over individual rights a complete 100% failure on rands part. I will not support rand. time to move on for me on the bs rand says. Rand lost me, i am sure some pro drug war right winger nut will step up to be rand a delegate.

I am grateful rand exposed his position on state over individual rights. He lost any support i had as a gop delegate for 8 years.

From reading your posts, the only issue you care about is pot. And Rand wants to leave it to the states, which your state has decided that it doesn't want to criminalize it...

[compromise]

From reading your posts, the only issue you care about is pot. And Rand wants to leave it to the states, which your state has decided that it doesn't want to criminalize it...

That guy is a stereotypical Gary Johnson supporter.

[Pisces]

I think immigration is more important than foreign policy as a reason for why Ted Cruz is getting to get more love from tea party types than Rand right now. Fox news and the Republican establishment want amnesty and greatly increased legal immigration, the Republican base, for the most part, emphatically does not. This is the only issue where Rand seems to take the side of the elites over the people. It's made some a little wary of Rand. He didn't vote for the Gang of 8 bill, or lie about it the way Rubio did, so he hasn't suffered for it the way Rubio has, but I think it dampened some of the enthusiasm for Rand on the right.

[ManOfSteel]

I do believe he's evil, because I believe murder to be evil. I've honestly got very little patience to this one. Heck, some of Rand Paul's rhetoric with regards to the issue bugs me too, although its not nearly as bad from Rand Paul as it is for Ted Cruz. I've got no patience for people who shill for wars with Iran and Syria. Now, am I denying that he's better on the economy and even civil liberties than most other Republicans? No, I'm not denying that at all. But ultimately, I've got no tolerance for supporters of murder no matter what else they support. Sorry if you don't like that or think that's closed minded, but that's where I draw my line in the sand.

You think you've said something meaningful here, but you haven't. What is "murder?" Every definition I'm familiar with agrees that it involves the killing of a living thing, but beyond that the similarities end. Some people believe that "meat is murder," others don't. Some people believe that abortion is murder, others don't. Some people believe that failing to send all of your spare money to save starving children in Africa is murder, others don't. Some people believe soldiers killing one another on a battlefield is murder, others don't. Some people believe capital punishment is murder, others don't.

My point being is that what you say here raises more questions than it answers. So you've drawn a line in the sand - very nice. Why did you draw it there, rather than someplace else?


I'm not going to argue with that, but the reality is, his platform, and therefore, his actions, aren't going to be any more libertarian than what he's advocating now.

I think you'll be surprised by his general election campaign if he manages to win the nomination. Nominees from both parties tack to the left/right in order to win the primary and then run hard to the center for the general; Rand will be no different, except that I expect him to do so primarily by focusing on his libertarian positions on foreign policy and civil liberties, which tend to sit well with moderates/independents/Democrats.


I can't honestly think of any differences off the top of my head. I'm not saying there literally isn't any difference, but I do believe the difference to be miniscule.

Christie busted up the teachers' union and fought to keep taxes down as much as he could. He vetoed gay marriage legislation, some (not all) gun control legislation, and legislation that would have forced state taxpayers to fund Planned Parenthood/abortion. Hillary Clinton would not have done any of these things.

If it were possible to run a simulation where we put each of them in the White House and let it run for four years, you would see radically different results for an awful lot of people. Believing that you wouldn't is a form of blindness/stupidity.


I agree with that, there are certainly different degrees of everything. But when you look at all of US history, and not just the relatively recent, big government, post New Deal period, most Republicans start to look rather liberal and rather statist.

I'll link you to this again: A gentle introduction to Unqualified Reservations (http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/01/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified.html)

Key quote: "Cthulhu may swim slowly. But he only swims left. Isn't that interesting?"


I don't think they are as much so as you do, because we don't agree on what a "conservative" is.

I claim that this is because you have read much less than me. I believe I understand why you think what you do and why you are mistaken. But let's agree to disagree, because the length of our exchanges is getting out of hand.


They're in the right party, alright. We're not. Both parties are fundamentally big government and progressive. Real conservatives belong in the Constitution Party, while real libertarians belong in either the Libertarian Party or a new party entirely (If "ISideWith" interprets the LP platform correctly, it is surprisingly liberal, albeit far less so than the GOP or the Dems.)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-N1C0YOnHvPk/UMAGf2PcCiI/AAAAAAAAFjI/DdsdOEs0XFk/s320/Annoyed-facepalm-picard-l.png

Everyone should be in either the Republican or Democratic parties. Given the way our elections work, third parties are a mistake, and no one should belong to or vote for them.


I'd prefer to say that Chris Christie is less liberal than every Democrat in the country, not "more conservative."

And you actually think that would mean something different? The left-right spectrum is a spectrum. Saying that someone is less to the left is the same as saying that they are more to the right.


Its like if you separate US Presidents through history by how hawkish or dovish they are, and then say "Well, James Polk was more of a Dove than Woodrow Wilson." It would be technically true, but it would be more appropriate to say "James Polk was less of a hawk than Woodrow Wilson" seeing as both were far more characterized by being warmongers than by being peaceniks.

I simply disagree. It seems to me that you're saying the same thing in two different ways. I understand why it might seem/feel different, but it really isn't.


I maintain that neocons are progressives, as Ron Paul correctly points out.

Well, you're both wrong then.

[ManOfSteel]

I think you don't understand or pretend not to understand the way the media in this country work. The media don't reflect the public opinion, it is used as a tool to shape the public opinon.

I agree with half of this statement. The media is used as a tool to shape public opinion, but it is also forced to reflect public opinion to at least some extent. There is a limit to the amount of wiggle room the media elites/establishment have.


The masters of right-wing media want the Base to love Cruz, this is why he is presented as the second coming of Jesus Christ.

You speak of "right-wing media" as if it were a single cohesive unit. But it is not. There are lots of different conservative media outlets, and they have different opinions and support different politicians. Those members of the media propping up Cruz are mostly doing so for the simple reason that they actually do love Cruz themselves.


Earlier in the year they tried to prop up Rubio in a similar fashion.

And why did they stop? Because he took a position on immigration that they didn't like, and so they stopped liking him so much. This isn't true of them all, of course - I'm sure Hannity still loves him, in addition to all the neocons, but a bunch of right-wing media figures simply had a change of heart.


The reason they mention Paul at all is because they can't afford to ignore him. Praise for Rand is always subdued, tempered, "balanced" with criticism from the neoconservative camp.

This simply isn't true. Check The Blaze for an obvious counterexample where the bias is in favor of Rand and against the neocons/Rubio.

[ManOfSteel]

AEI, Commentary, Jennifer Rubin, and The Weekly Standard are actual neoconservative outlets, not what I listed. The world isn't just divided into neoconseratives and libertarians.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to krugminator again.

[ManOfSteel]

at the basic level rand supports state/fed over individual rights a complete 100% failure on rands part. I will not support rand. time to move on for me on the bs rand says. Rand lost me, i am sure some pro drug war right winger nut will step up to be rand a delegate.

I am grateful rand exposed his position on state over individual rights. He lost any support i had as a gop delegate for 8 years.

Go away.

[Christian Liberty]

You think you've said something meaningful here, but you haven't. What is "murder?" Every definition I'm familiar with agrees that it involves the killing of a living thing, but beyond that the similarities end. Some people believe that "meat is murder," others don't. Some people believe that abortion is murder, others don't. Some people believe that failing to send all of your spare money to save starving children in Africa is murder, others don't. Some people believe soldiers killing one another on a battlefield is murder, others don't. Some people believe capital punishment is murder, others don't.

Murder is to deliberately kill an innocent person.

Specifically, in this case, I was talking about foreign interventionism. I'm not really willing to compromise much at all there. To me that's a far bigger issue than the economy, even if there is a relation between peace and free market.


My point being is that what you say here raises more questions than it answers. So you've drawn a line in the sand - very nice. Why did you draw it there, rather than someplace else?


Because war leads to all kinds of other tyranny, and it kills tons of innocents by itself.


I think you'll be surprised by his general election campaign if he manages to win the nomination. Nominees from both parties tack to the left/right in order to win the primary and then run hard to the center for the general; Rand will be no different, except that I expect him to do so primarily by focusing on his libertarian positions on foreign policy and civil liberties, which tend to sit well with moderates/independents/Democrats.


I hope so.



Christie busted up the teachers' union and fought to keep taxes down as much as he could. He vetoed gay marriage legislation, some (not all) gun control legislation, and legislation that would have forced state taxpayers to fund Planned Parenthood/abortion. Hillary Clinton would not have done any of these things.


OK, fair enough.

If it were possible to run a simulation where we put each of them in the White House and let it run for four years, you would see radically different results for an awful lot of people. Believing that you wouldn't is a form of blindness/stupidity.


I'm not saying there would be no differences whatsoever, but both of them would dramatically grow the size of the government.




I claim that this is because you have read much less than me. I believe I understand why you think what you do and why you are mistaken. But let's agree to disagree, because the length of our exchanges is getting out of hand.


OK.



http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-N1C0YOnHvPk/UMAGf2PcCiI/AAAAAAAAFjI/DdsdOEs0XFk/s320/Annoyed-facepalm-picard-l.png

Everyone should be in either the Republican or Democratic parties.

Sure, why not, but we still don't really "Belong" there, ideologically speaking, if that makes sense.


Given the way our elections work, third parties are a mistake, and no one should belong to or vote for them.

Do you believe we should just vote for the "Lesser of two evils?" I don't.




And you actually think that would mean something different? The left-right spectrum is a spectrum. Saying that someone is less to the left is the same as saying that they are more to the right.


Well, true. But I'm saying that Christie is still a leftist and a progressive. Perhaps not as much so as Hillary, but still fundamentally progressive.

[Carlybee]

They used to leave Ron out of polls too

[ManOfSteel]

Murder is to deliberately kill an innocent person.

Which raises the questions of what it means to "deliberately" do something, what it means to kill, what it means to be innocent, and what it means to be a person.

Are you noticing a pattern yet? Every question you answer raises two more. Philosophy is like a hydra; it's not nearly so simple as you believe.


Specifically, in this case, I was talking about foreign interventionism. I'm not really willing to compromise much at all there.

Right. You said that you believe Ted Cruz is evil, because you believe murder is evil. Does that imply that you believe Ted Cruz is a murderer?


Because war leads to all kinds of other tyranny, and it kills tons of innocents by itself.

Are you sure that war always leads to all kinds of other tyranny? What if the war is being fought against a nation that wants to impose an even greater tyranny - say, the Soviet Union, for example. Is war still wrong then? Is it always wrong to take an action that will kill tons of innocents, regardless of any other consequences it might have?


I'm not saying there would be no differences whatsoever, but both of them would dramatically grow the size of the government.

How are you defining "dramatically" here?


Sure, why not, but we still don't really "Belong" there, ideologically speaking, if that makes sense.

It seems like you're saying that libertarians are not the same as conservatives, in which case I agree. But two-party systems always necessarily produce coalitions of people who don't agree on a great many issues; it is still reasonable to say that a group or person "belongs" in one party or the other.


Do you believe we should just vote for the "Lesser of two evils?" I don't.

It depends. There are some cases where doing so makes sense and others where it doesn't. "Yes" and "no" are both wrong answers.


Well, true. But I'm saying that Christie is still a leftist and a progressive. Perhaps not as much so as Hillary, but still fundamentally progressive.

The key question you're ignoring here is, "Compared to who?" Like "conservative," "leftist" and "progressive" do not have fixed, immutable definitions. You can't simply say that Christie is "fundamentally progressive" and act like you've said something meaningful. If forced to make a blanket statement like that, I'd make the exact opposite claim - that Christie is "fundamentally conservative." And if we debated the issue in front of a large number of people, I would destroy you. You are just being extremely silly here and should stop.

[Christian Liberty]

Right. You said that you believe Ted Cruz is evil, because you believe murder is evil. Does that imply that you believe Ted Cruz is a murderer?


I believe he advocates for it considering he wants to invade Syria.


Are you sure that war always leads to all kinds of other tyranny? What if the war is being fought against a nation that wants to impose an even greater tyranny - say, the Soviet Union, for example. Is war still wrong then? Is it always wrong to take an action that will kill tons of innocents, regardless of any other consequences it might have?


The answer to the last question is certainly "Yes."

I'm not sure how to answer your other questions, it depends whether we're talking about defense or offense.

As for how to define "dramatically", I'm not sure.





It depends. There are some cases where doing so makes sense and others where it doesn't. "Yes" and "no" are both wrong answers.

Who was the lesser of two evils in 2012, and who did you vote for? What about in 2008?

[ManOfSteel]

I believe he advocates for it considering he wants to invade Syria.

So you believe that anyone who advocates for murder is evil?


The answer to the last question is certainly "Yes."

Even if the alternative will result in more deaths? That seems perverse to me. How can it be wrong to take an action that will result in fewer deaths, and right to take an action that will result in more deaths?


I'm not sure how to answer your other questions, it depends whether we're talking about defense or offense.

You are under the mistaken impression, then, that notions like "offense" and "defense" have clear-cut meanings and that it is always easy or at least possible to identify who is on one side or the other?


Who was the lesser of two evils in 2012, and who did you vote for? What about in 2008?

Romney, Ron Paul, McCain, Ron Paul.

[Christian Liberty]

So you believe that anyone who advocates for murder is evil?



If they do so knowingly, yes.


Even if the alternative will result in more deaths? That seems perverse to me. How can it be wrong to take an action that will result in fewer deaths, and right to take an action that will result in more deaths?


The ends do not justify the means.

Note that I do not accept your premise that intervention leads to less deaths, I'm simply saying it doesn't matter.


You are under the mistaken impression, then, that notions like "offense" and "defense" have clear-cut meanings and that it is always easy or at least possible to identify who is on one side or the other?


Its always possible. Its easy in most cases.


Romney, Ron Paul, McCain, Ron Paul.

Obama was definitely less bad than McCain. McCain would have had us go to war with Russia over Snowden.

Romney was a loose cannon so it was hard to tell.

[ManOfSteel]

If they do so knowingly, yes.

How do you respond to the Trolley Problem, and what is the reasoning behind your decision?


The ends do not justify the means.

Strongly disagree. Please read this: http://www.raikoth.net/consequentialism.html


Note that I do not accept your premise that intervention leads to less deaths

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning


Its always possible. Its easy in most cases.

I agree that it's always possible to arbitrarily call one side "offense" and the other "defense," but if as I suspect you mean to say it is objectively true that one side is "offense" and the other "defense," then you are simply mistaken. Your brain is broken and this has led you to hold a warped view of the way things are.


Obama was definitely less bad than McCain.

Your hubris would be astonishing if I weren't so used to dealing with humans. Suffice it to say that you are radically overconfident in your analytical and reasoning abilities. You are not as smart as you think you are and should be more humble. I say this not because it is definitely true that McCain was less bad than Obama, but because any use of the word "definitely" in this context is unwarranted.


McCain would have had us go to war with Russia over Snowden.

pics or it's not true


Romney was a loose cannon so it was hard to tell.

http://www.lolwut.com/layout/lolwut.jpg

Romney was one of the most in-control men that has run for President in recent memory. People made fun of him for it throughout the entire election cycle, calling him fake, phony, etc.

Here's what confuses me. You KNOW that you have Asperger's. You KNOW that your brain doesn't function properly. Why do you not take this handicap into account when making judgments about the world and other people? I wouldn't presume to tell LeBron James that his shooting form is wrong, for example. Why are you so hilariously, outrageously, unjustifiably confident in your judgments of smarter and wiser men than yourself?

[PaulConventionWV]

Obviously me, at the very least. I didn't realize Quinnipiac was this already this deep in the bag for Hillary this far out from the 2016 cycle. It's good to know so we can keep an eye on them when the important polling starts.



Virtually nobody agrees with you, and with good reason. Christie and Clinton are different people with at least marginally different views on policy. Where they disagree, Christie takes the more conservative position and Clinton takes the more progressive. Because the office of the Presidency is imbued with so much power, even minor deviations can result in enormously different consequences for people on the ground. To say that "Christie is just as bad as Hillary" is just monumentally stupid. Now, I'm not saying you're a monumentally stupid person - you're definitely not. You're obviously a pretty smart person, even. But because you are so ideologically "out there" and extreme, you are blind to the differences of people who disagree with you. You seem to wield this blindness as a badge of pride, castigating people like Senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz for not agreeing with you enough, but it is not something to be proud of. Instead, you should be ashamed of your hard head and simple-mindedness.

Grow up, son. I mean that sincerely, not in a dismissive way. You're a bright kid, and the world needs more bright, productive people.



Christie is a conservative. What you mean to say is that he's not a libertarian.

I don't think "virtually nobody" agrees with him on that issue. Many here would view a Christie presidency as the same as a Clinton presidency, despite their rhetoric. What they say and what happens are two completely different things, and I happen to think nothing would change just because of whether the president is a Democrat, Republican, conservative, or liberal. They're not the ones in control. They're just following orders.

[ManOfSteel]

I don't think "virtually nobody" agrees with him on that issue. Many here would view a Christie presidency as the same as a Clinton presidency, despite their rhetoric.

Virtually nobody posts here, and those who do are very far from a representative sample of the country.


What they say and what happens are two completely different things, and I happen to think nothing would change just because of whether the president is a Democrat, Republican, conservative, or liberal. They're not the ones in control. They're just following orders.

You are only able to continue holding such a monumentally absurd belief because we can't observe alternate histories where an election swung one way or the other. Even lacking that ability, though, it is often the case that we can predict a President's decision very accurately solely on the basis of his party affiliation.

Do you think it matters whether a state's governor is a Democrat, Republican, conservative, or liberal? So if I were to claim, for example, that I could make good predictions about gubernatorial decisions solely on the basis of their party ID, would you be willing to bet significant amounts of money against me?

[JCDenton0451]

...

[Brett85]

at the basic level rand supports state/fed over individual rights a complete 100% failure on rands part. I will not support rand. time to move on for me on the bs rand says. Rand lost me, i am sure some pro drug war right winger nut will step up to be rand a delegate.

I am grateful rand exposed his position on state over individual rights. He lost any support i had as a gop delegate for 8 years.

Why did you ever support Ron Paul? Ron Paul never believed that it was unconstitutional for a state government to ban drugs.

[Brett85]

Christie is a conservative. What you mean to say is that he's not a libertarian.

No, he's not a conservative either. He just signed a bill that criminalizes speech between a child and a counselor if the child has same sex attractions. Chris Christie is adamently opposed to freedom of religion, which is a main tenent of conservatism.

[Christian Liberty]

Virtually nobody posts here, and those who do are very far from a representative sample of the country.



You are only able to continue holding such a monumentally absurd belief because we can't observe alternate histories where an election swung one way or the other. Even lacking that ability, though, it is often the case that we can predict a President's decision very accurately solely on the basis of his party affiliation.

Do you think it matters whether a state's governor is a Democrat, Republican, conservative, or liberal? So if I were to claim, for example, that I could make good predictions about gubernatorial decisions solely on the basis of their party ID, would you be willing to bet significant amounts of money against me?

I'd say it matters more at the state level than the Federal level.

[Christian Liberty]

Why did you ever support Ron Paul? Ron Paul never believed that it was unconstitutional for a state government to ban drugs.

Ron Paul was asked about marijuana during his AMA on Reddit:

He said:


My position on marijuana has not changed for a long time, but the position has always been that it should be legal and there should be no criminal penalties at all for the use of it. When people do things that may harm themselves, the government should not be involved, therefore I do not believe in any drug laws. If there is going to be any regulation at all, it should be at the state level. The federal government should not be engaging in a war against drugs.
Fortunately, the people are waking up and the states are rebelling, and I think that at some point in the near future there will not be much enforcement of the federal laws against marijuana


So Ron clearly does support the state's right to regulate under the 10th amendment, but he's also clearly opposed to drug laws.

The difference between him and Rand on the issue, while Rand has stated that he would allow a state to legalize pot (Not necessarily harder drugs, he hasn't mentioned that, although I'd agree it really doesn't matter anyway at this point) he seems clearly opposed to legalization at a personal level, at least publicly. Which does actually matter a little bit, a President Ron Paul could be a bully pulpit for legislation, while a Rand Paul Presidency probably wouldn't be. That said, this really isn't that big of an issue for me, and Rand is worlds better on the issue than anyone else that has a shot, not to mention being better on basically every other issue than anyone else that has a shot.

[JCDenton0451]

I agree with half of this statement. The media is used as a tool to shape public opinion, but it is also forced to reflect public opinion to at least some extent. There is a limit to the amount of wiggle room the media elites/establishment have.In a situation when most Republicans have yet to make up their mind about 2016, the media have a great amount of wiggle room to push the narrative. Ted Cruz had close to zero support as a presidential candidate in January 2013. He has accomplished nothing since then. The fact that he is polling in high single digits is entirely due to the positive media coverage he had.


You speak of "right-wing media" as if it were a single cohesive unit. But it is not. There are lots of different conservative media outlets, and they have different opinions and support different politicians. Those members of the media propping up Cruz are mostly doing so for the simple reason that they actually do love Cruz themselves.This is simply not factual. "conservative media outlets having different opinions and supporting different politicians" - that's just about the most ridiculous thing I have heard this week.

Earlier in the year they tried to prop up Rubio in a similar fashion.

And why did they stop? Because he took a position on immigration that they didn't like, and so they stopped liking him so much. No, they stopped because Rubio was exposed as fraud, the Base rejected him, which means they have no use for Rubio now.

Hannity's personal opinion on Rubio is irrelevant, because Hannity does not shape the editorial policy at Fox News, Rupert Murdoch does. Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes tell Sean Hannity what to say and whom to support. That's the media in this country (including the right-wing media) operate.


This simply isn't true. Check The Blaze for an obvious counterexample where the bias is in favor of Rand and against the neocons/Rubio.Ridiculous example. The Blaze was part of the campaign to derail Chuck Hagel nomination, campaign orchestrated by the neocons. When Rand voted to confirm Hagel, Beck criticised him and asked him to "explain" his vote. In general you would be hard-pressed to find a media figure more committed to the security of Israel than Glenn Beck. I'm not sure what his motivations are, but someone who indoctrinates his audience to worship Israel can't be seen as inimical to the neoconservative agenda.

[Brett85]

The difference between him and Rand on the issue, while Rand has stated that he would allow a state to legalize pot (Not necessarily harder drugs, he hasn't mentioned that, although I'd agree it really doesn't matter anyway at this point) he seems clearly opposed to legalization at a personal level, at least publicly. Which does actually matter a little bit, a President Ron Paul could be a bully pulpit for legislation, while a Rand Paul Presidency probably wouldn't be. That said, this really isn't that big of an issue for me, and Rand is worlds better on the issue than anyone else that has a shot, not to mention being better on basically every other issue than anyone else that has a shot.

I've criticized Rand's public position on this issue, but in reality I think that Rand is just a lot more political than Ron and thinks he has to take a more watered down position on this issue. Before he ever ran for the Senate, he made public statements about how things that are "non violent" shouldn't be against the law. I think he just realizes now that as a public figure who wants to be seen as a legitimate Presidential candidate, he can't say all of the exact same things he would say as a private citizen.

[JCDenton0451]

No, he's not a conservative either. He just signed a bill that criminalizes speech between a child and a counselor if the child has same sex attractions. You're deliberately lying about what NJ ban on "gay conversion therapy" for minors does. Shame on you. Shouldn't there be a commandment against this or somehting?

[Brett85]

You're deliberately lying about what NJ ban on "gay conversion therapy" for minors does. Shame on you. Shouldn't there be a commandment against this or somehting?

No, I'm not lying. That's what the bill does. That's why the courts have issued a "stay" of the California law that is exactly the same as the New Jersey law. It's being challenged on 1st amendment grounds.

http://gawker.com/5970786/court-stops-ban-on-gay-conversion-therapy

[Brett85]

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/08/nj_gay_conversion_therapy_ban_for_kids_challenged_ by_therapist_groups.html

[JCDenton0451]

No, I'm not lying. That's what the bill does. That's why the courts have issued a "stay" of the California law that is exactly the same as the New Jersey law. It's being challenged on 1st amendment grounds.

Religious organisations have a right to challenge the laws they don't like. Abortion providers do the same with every single pro-life bill. California law will stand when all said and done.

The fact that you have to resort to lies to gain sympathy for your case just shows that you can't win the argument on merit. "speech between a child and a counselor if the child has same sex attractions" will not be treated as a felony in New Jersey, and the new law does not prohibit such speech as such.

[Brett85]

The fact that you have to resort to lies to gain sympathy for your case just shows that you can't win the argument on merit. "speech between a child and a counselor if the child has same sex attractions" will not be treated as a felony in New Jersey, and the new law does not prohibit such speech as such.

The new law does in fact prohibit such speech, but I probably should've used the word "banned" rather than "criminalized." Apparently a licenced counselor or therapist who talks to a child about their same sex attractions will simply lose their license rather than being imprisoned, but I still view that as being a violation of free speech, as do many other organizations. The bill still bans speech between a gay child and a licensed therapist who discuss the child's same sex attractions.

[CPUd]

They may be leaving candidates out of polls to see which other candidates fill the void, compared to previous or future polls. It's still very early, but this is one of the ways people who study polls will know which primary candidate(s) would benefit from another dropping out.

I doubt the ones who call the shots are settled on who they like for the primary; they have a good 2 years to look at numbers.

[ManOfSteel]

No, he's not a conservative either. He just signed a bill that criminalizes speech between a child and a counselor if the child has same sex attractions. Chris Christie is adamently opposed to freedom of religion, which is a main tenent of conservatism.

I disagree. I don't think signing this bill is indicative of adamant opposition to freedom of religion any more than conservatives supporting bans on veiling in Europe is. People in general are not very supportive of other peoples' freedom to do things that make them uncomfortable. That doesn't mean they hate freedom, it just means they're not libertarians.

I think it's silly and overblown to claim that signing this bill is enough evidence to claim that he's not a conservative. If he's not a conservative, then what is he? Are you trying to shrink the number of people who can be conservatives until there are so few that they never win a single election ever again?

[ManOfSteel]

I'd say it matters more at the state level than the Federal level.

Why would you say that? Whatever the reason, you'd be mistaken. There's actually more variance in voting behavior within the parties at the state level than at the federal level.

[Brett85]

I disagree. I don't think signing this bill is indicative of adamant opposition to freedom of religion any more than conservatives supporting bans on veiling in Europe is. People in general are not very supportive of other peoples' freedom to do things that make them uncomfortable. That doesn't mean they hate freedom, it just means they're not libertarians.

I think it's silly and overblown to claim that signing this bill is enough evidence to claim that he's not a conservative. If he's not a conservative, then what is he? Are you trying to shrink the number of people who can be conservatives until there are so few that they never win a single election ever again?

How exactly do you define the word "conservative?" He also supports gun control, increased federal involvement in education, pushed for a Hurricane Relief bill full of pork in which some of the money went to his reelection campaign, supports the Gang of Eight immigration bill, and supports absolutely no limits on government surveillance at all, although I imagine you consider that to be a "conservative" position.

He's a big government Republican, a moderate, an establishment Republican, or whatever label you want to give him. He's certainly nothing close to being a conservative.

[Christian Liberty]

I guess it depends on what you want "Conservative" to be. Some people, like ManofSteel, believe it is a big government ideology and so reject it for that reason, others define it in a more paleoconish manner.

That said, I'm so sick of the "Tone down the rhetoric" stuff. Our freedom is being destroyed by murderous thugs, we should be opposing them with everything we've got. I'm not going to tone it down to make the politically correct happy.

[JCDenton0451]

The new law does in fact prohibit such speech, but I probably should've used the word "banned" rather than "criminalized." Apparently a licenced counselor or therapist who talks to a child about their same sex attractions will simply lose their license rather than being imprisoned, but I still view that as being a violation of free speech, as do many other organizations. The bill still bans speech between a gay child and a licensed therapist who discuss the child's same sex attractions. The bill mandates that a person must meet certain criteria to qualify for a government license for certain medical professions, such as not engaging in the non-scientific, widely discredited practice of "gay conversion therapy". This is both legal and reasonable. The authors of the bill even took trouble to explicitly state that their law does not apply to clerics, so jmdrake can GTFO.

[Brett85]

The bill mandates that a person must meet certain criteria to qualify for a government license for certain medical professions, such as not engaging in the non-scientific, widely discredited practice of "gay conversion therapy". This is both legal and reasonable. The authors of the bill even took trouble to explicitly state that their law does not apply to clerics, so jmdrake can GTFO.

Then I guess that's just another example of how almost all government licenses are just a complete joke. Perhaps counselors and therapists who believe in liberty and free speech should simply boycott the whole "government licensing" fraud and just operate their practice without a license.

[ManOfSteel]

In a situation when most Republicans have yet to make up their mind about 2016, the media have a great amount of wiggle room to push the narrative.

Then why aren't they still pushing Rubio? I argue that it's because they don't have enough wiggle room to continue doing so without losing credibility with their customers.


Ted Cruz had close to zero support as a presidential candidate in January 2013. He has accomplished nothing since then.

This is clearly false for at least certain definitions of "accomplished." Rand Paul had very little support as a presidential candidate not too terribly long ago; he only started gaining steam after the filibuster, which many would argue "accomplished nothing." All he really did was talk a bunch and provoke a response. The thing is, in conservative circles these days, that's enough - that's important. Conservatives want someone who will "fight" by talking a good game and saying things they want to hear. Ted Cruz does a fantastic job of this.


The fact that he is polling in high single digits is entirely due to the positive media coverage he had.

Any conservative media outlet that failed to give Ted Cruz positive coverage would not be doing its job - giving consumers what they want. Ted Cruz's antics make good fodder for the conservative base. So while I agree that there is a sense in which positive media coverage is responsible for Cruz's polling surge, it is not the root cause - the root cause is Cruz's savvy.


This is simply not factual. "conservative media outlets having different opinions and supporting different politicians" - that's just about the most ridiculous thing I have heard this week.

I think you have a pretty twisted perception of reality then. Not only do you perceive there to be a vast behind-the-scenes conspiracy to coordinate media coverage, but you think it's so obvious that such a conspiracy exists, only a ridiculous person could fail to see it.

Similarities between the various conservative media outlets are attributable to the fact that conservatives themselves are often pretty similar. So there is no need to posit an underground conspiracy to explain the fact that they were encouraging people to vote for Romney in 2012. But they are not identical. So Glenn Beck, Eric Bolling, Neil Cavuto, Sean Hannity, and Andrea Tantaros, for example, have been much more positive towards Rand than, say, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Bill O'Reilly, and Jennifer Rubin.


No, they stopped because Rubio was exposed as fraud, the Base rejected him, which means they have no use for Rubio now.

Hannity's personal opinion on Rubio is irrelevant, because Hannity does not shape the editorial policy at Fox News, Rupert Murdoch does. Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes tell Sean Hannity what to say and whom to support. That's the media in this country (including the right-wing media) operate.

Okay, if you want to focus on Hannity specifically, it becomes a little more clear why you think what you think. Hannity really is the epitome of an establishment mouthpiece. And I agree that there are many pundits for whom what you said about Rubio is true. But I maintain that there are many others for whom what I said is true. In other words, I claim (again) that different conservative media outlets have different opinions and support different politicians.


Ridiculous example. The Blaze was part of the campaign to derail Chuck Hagel nomination, campaign orchestrated by the neocons. When Rand voted to confirm Hagel, Beck criticised him and asked him to "explain" his vote. In general you would be hard-pressed to find a media figure more committed to the security of Israel than Glenn Beck. I'm not sure what his motivations are, but someone who indoctrinates his audience to worship Israel can't be seen as inimical to the neoconservative agenda.

Glenn Beck is a Mormon. Plenty of Christians believe that the security of Israel is extremely important for religious reasons having nothing to do with neoconservatism. The idea that anyone who believes in the importance of our alliance with Israel is a neocon is absurd. There are very few true neocons. There are a TON of conservatives/Christians who <3 Israel. That's why Rand has been able to have so much success pushing what is basically Ron Paul's foreign policy with a giant footnote saying "BUT WE SRSLY <3 ISRAEL OK?"

[ManOfSteel]

How exactly do you define the word "conservative?"

Something like "on the right side of the political spectrum." If you could somehow magically take every person in America and place them in a line from most conservative to most liberal, I think Christie would be in the top 40% of most conservative people and maybe be in the top 30%. As a general rule, it is very rare for someone to be a Republican who is not, in my mind, a conservative or a libertarian. There are plenty of Republicans who are less conservative or libertarian than others, and Christie is certainly one of those, but I don't think he should have his card revoked.


He also supports gun control, increased federal involvement in education, pushed for a Hurricane Relief bill full of pork in which some of the money went to his reelection campaign, supports the Gang of Eight immigration bill, and supports absolutely no limits on government surveillance at all, although I imagine you consider that to be a "conservative" position.

The sort of gun control he supports is also supported by a vast majority of Americans - even self-described conservatives, Republicans, gun owners, and NRA members - never mind his constituents, who are mostly Democrats. He actually has vetoed some gun control laws, so I think it's unfair to say that he "supports gun control" in the same way that, for example, Dianne Feinstein does.

I do think that opposition to civil liberties and privacy are distinctly conservative positions, and I believe the voting record on the Amash Amendment supports that. The record of Republicans and Democrats during the GWB administration is also relevant to my judgment here.

The rest of the stuff is definitely not conservative, and Christie is correspondingly less conservative as a result. I simply don't think it's enough to say he is somethingother than a conservative.


He's a big government Republican, a moderate, an establishment Republican, or whatever label you want to give him. He's certainly nothing close to being a conservative.

I agree with the first sentence but not the second. I think the reason you don't want to call him a conservative is that the word "conservative" is an applause light (http://lesswrong.com/lw/jb/applause_lights/) (click the link, it's interesting) for you, and you don't like Chris Christie, so you don't want the two to be associated. If you didn't consider yourself a conservative, or if you liked Chris Christie, I think you would agree that Chris Christie is a conservative.

[ManOfSteel]

The bill mandates that a person must meet certain criteria to qualify for a government license for certain medical professions, such as not engaging in the non-scientific, widely discredited practice of "gay conversion therapy". This is both legal and reasonable.

You support medical licensing laws? I feel like Milton Friedman made a pretty knock-down case against them many decades ago.