Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Powder Miner]

Two flags I'm not a fan of seeing together.

I agree, I am not comfortable with the political aspects of the pope's visit in the slightest. I'm a strong proponent of at least near-total separation of church and state, and having this direct representation of undeniably church interests right there directly affecting the US political process? It rubs me the wrong way.

Edit: FOX's poll puts Christie above Paul, uuuuuuuugh.

[mainiac]

Edit: FOX's poll puts Christie above Paul, uuuuuuuugh.

I thought you were supposed to be a libertarian?  Shouldn't you be glad that the politician who is far to the left of social issues is polling better, if you care at all about two marginal candidates?

[Powder Miner]

Christie's the one directly against information privacy, wants to force larger continuation of the nation's drug policies (which are a disaster).

Christie is the much more consistently authoritarian of the two, whereas Paul is essentially a libertarian himself (championed movement against PATRIOT Act, fought against the drug laws, NOT for direct ground military intervention in Syria in the ways the others are pressing for, that one five-ring graph puts him as the only one in the libertarian ring).

Christie's a far far cry from libertarian views, and Paul is not, since libertarian views are much much different than just being Republicans with socially Democrat views.

[Bauglir]

Thing is, the Vatican is a sovereign nation, and I don't really expect us to be turning away the rulers of any nation that doesn't share every value we have. You'd get less fanfare in most cases, but the Pope happens to be an incredibly popular leader. Maybe the reason for that is religious, but this particular behavior by the United States government doesn't exactly seem religiously motivated.

Full disclosure: I'm not even Christian and I think the Pope is a pretty cool dude, as far as political figures go.

[Powder Miner]

The Vatican is technically a sovereign nation but has absolutely zero sovereign political power. Practically no population, no economy, obviously no military of any sort whatsoever. It's not even a full city. Vatican Neighborhood more like. The Vatican is made up of clergy and only exists in the first place as a vehicle for the head if the Catholic Church.

I'm not saying he should have been turned away, but things like inviting him to speak before Congress make me extremely uncomfortable.

[Descan]

Pope IS also the sovereign ruler of a state. A very time one with an almost-entirely religious character, but... Well, the Queen is head of state and head of the Church of England, should we be mad at her for visits?

Ninja'd but whatever.

[smjjames]

It also looks like Graham didn't get the boost it looked like he had gotten from the debate.

@powder miner: Aside from the clear top three or four and the bottom 4 (not including Gilmore, who's campaign is nonexistent), everybodys numbers have been all over the place.

Also, I wonder if it has ever happened before that a candidate completely forgot they were even a candidate and let their campaign run on? I mean, unless there was a PAC that was fiercely loyal to Gilmore or something, all of his donors would have packed their bags by now.

[Frumple]

... sovereign political power, no, but political power overall... well, yeah. Vatican kinda' has just a titch of influence over the whole, y'know, catholic thing. Which is something approaching a seventh of the world's population. Like it or not, even if you're not giving nods to the religious aspect, treating with the political power involved with that is kinda' something congress would probably be well behooved to do. When someone fairly directly representing a substantial amount of the interests of a global population three times the size of the US comes to talk, probably a good idea to at least listen.

[mainiac]

Christie's the one directly against information privacy, wants to force larger continuation of the nation's drug policies (which are a disaster).

Paul talks.  Christie actually made a change in the right direction when he allowed release without bail for non-violent offenders.  I'll take that over empty talk by Paul every day of the year.

Christie's a far far cry from libertarian views, and Paul is not, since libertarian views are much much different than just being Republicans with socially Democrat views.

Ah yes the libertarian paradise where stem-cell research is murder, gay marriage is outlawed and we tear down the horrible separation of church and state.  But hey, at least the NSA gets fired!

Call it libertarian if you want, but it's far, far to the left of Christ Christie on social issues and Christ Christie is not what I would consider left wing on social issues.

[Powder Miner]

The Queen at least has symbolic importance for England and the UK, this large and important country with close relations with the US. When the Queen makes a political visit or statement in the US it's not as the head of the Church of England but as the Queen of England.

The Pope is the Pope. When he makes a political statement, it is as the head of the Catholic Church he does so, rarely even as the sovereign ruler of the Vatican.

And in the end, it's not religious leaders visiting the US I have issues with, it's when religious leaders or organizations push themselves into US politics with a religious intent that I have issues, and even then my only response is grumbling because I'm nit aiming to have him turned away.

[smjjames]

There are some in congress who aren't happy that the pope is giving a speech to congress, so, theres that at least.

[Powder Miner]

Paul talks.  Christie actually made a change in the right direction when he allowed release without bail for non-violent offenders.  I'll take that over empty talk by Paul every day of the year.

Paul also votes in the Senate, and that in and of itself constitutes a pretty hefty contribution to the country, especially considering he HAS been extremely and directly active on issues like the PATRIOT Act in particular.

Plus, Paul is a senator and Christie is a governor-- Christie can act far more unilaterally than Paul can. I WILL give Christie props for the release bit there, but I'll also note he's pretty pro-imprisonment otherwise.

Ah yes the libertarian paradise where stem-cell research is murder, gay marriage is outlawed and we tear down the horrible separation of church and state.  But hey, at least the NSA gets fired!

Call it libertarian if you want, but it's far, far to the left of Christ Christie on social issues and Christ Christie is not what I would consider left wing on social issues.

I'll admit I had a lot of difficulty parsing that last bit, but I assume you wanted to draw contrast between the Christian Right views and the Libertarian views.

And while Paul DOES hold personal views that align with the Christian Right (often trumping what would be considered personal libertarian views), this is a far cry from being a Christian Right candidate. Paul sure isn't going to go on a crusade to knock gay marriage out or something like that, nor will he be the type to actually ever ENFORCE much of the Religious Right stuff you're complaining about anyway, preferring very much to hand that to the states, which is just as or more important than his beliefs.

[mainiac]

this is a far cry from being a Christian Right candidate.

It is?

Paul sure isn't going to go on a crusade to knock gay marriage out or something like that, nor will he be the type to actually ever ENFORCE much of the Religious Right stuff you're complaining about anyway

Crusade?  Nah.  Actively vote against and campaign against?  He's already done that.

[RedKing]

Christie's the one directly against information privacy, wants to force larger continuation of the nation's drug policies (which are a disaster).

Paul talks.  Christie actually made a change in the right direction when he allowed release without bail for non-violent offenders.  I'll take that over empty talk by Paul every day of the year.

Christie's a far far cry from libertarian views, and Paul is not, since libertarian views are much much different than just being Republicans with socially Democrat views.

Ah yes the libertarian paradise where stem-cell research is murder, gay marriage is outlawed and we tear down the horrible separation of church and state.  But hey, at least the NSA gets fired!

Call it libertarian if you want, but it's far, far to the left of Christ Christie on social issues and Christ Christie is not what I would consider left wing on social issues.

To what maniac's talking about:

Spoiler: Courtesy of noted wizard Nate Silver. (click to show/hide)

What you find is that Rand Paul talks well to the left of most Republican notables, but votes far, far to the right of them. When you have someone that votes further to the right than Santorum and Bachmann, that's not just not-Libertarian, that's not-sane.

[Bauglir]

jesus christ look at that spread