• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rand Paul "Fingers Crossed" on Cover of New Republic:

Henrin said:
Pragmatism is overrated and extremely dangerous to any small government platform.
Click to expand...

Pragmatism is needed to be able to be in a position to ultimately lead the nation on whatever platform you have.

There's reasons why, despite all the talking and despite all the adoration of his loyal fans and despite all the "money bombs", Ron Paul was a joke of a factor in 08 and wasn't truly much of a factor in '12. A large part of that was the man had next to no pragmatism in him, and a distinct inability in any way to deal with things in a realistic way within the world as it is today.

Lack of Pragmatism is fine and good for talking on a radio show, teaching in a university, writing a book, or even running for local elections at times. For running for the Presidency and winning a nation wide election, a death sentence. You're not just trying to get the votes of ideologues, political junkies, policy wonks, and others like that. You're going after joe average, and seemingly outlandish, extreme, radical seeming stances, timetables, and policies aren't appealing.
 
Zyphlin said:
Pragmatism is needed to be able to be in a position to ultimately lead the nation on whatever platform you have.

There's reasons why, despite all the talking and despite all the adoration of his loyal fans and despite all the "money bombs", Ron Paul was a joke of a factor in 08 and wasn't truly much of a factor in '12. A large part of that was the man had next to no pragmatism in him, and a distinct inability in any way to deal with things in a realistic way within the world as it is today.

Lack of Pragmatism is fine and good for talking on a radio show, teaching in a university, writing a book, or even running for local elections at times. For running for the Presidency and winning a nation wide election, a death sentence. You're not just trying to get the votes of ideologues, political junkies, policy wonks, and others like that. You're going after joe average, and seemingly outlandish, extreme, radical seeming stances, timetables, and policies aren't appealing.
Click to expand...


The fact is pragmatism is a cancer to the liberty of the people and even the constitution a document people held up as a grand compromise is a wonderful example of this. The more you give in the more you leave behind and the more you find yourself fighting for. If anything this should have been the lesson of the last 100 years taught to small government types and I'm personally glad some people have realized this very cold truth. While government should pass laws, those laws have to be focused on liberty, but liberals have a tendency to lose track of this and I feel anyone that says we should seriously consider when and where we work with them is right on the money. Not every issue is open debate and not every issue deserves respect when liberals bring it up. For example, this immigration bill I would love to hear one liberal or conservative for that matter tell me where exactly the federal government has the authority to pass an immigration law? Immigration policy was meant for the states, NOT the federal government. That issue is entirely NOT open to debate as no such power exists.

As for the general population, they simply want what they always want, which is almost entirely unreasonable. They want privacy, but they want protection. They want to made safe, but don't want to be watched. They want others to pay taxes, but they themselves do not desire to pay them. I almost entirely don't care of them anymore until they get some sense about them. You can't win over a population that doesn't understand the fundamentals and finds themselves in constant contradiction. Until the people understand exactly what they are doing the country will never get better.

What the country NEEDS is someone to educate them on the important things and Ron Paul while he might have not been electable did that.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
The question still remains. Why must we buy low flow toilets? Why can't we buy the type of toilet the market supports?
Click to expand...

why must we all buy them? no shortage of water exists in my area. one of the few perks of living in a place prone to flooding is we should have incredible water pressure

but liberals have to make a one size fit all policy that we all fight over. that will make America strong, fighting over all the minutia. liberal logic!
 
ARealConservative said:
why must we all buy them? no shortage of water exists in my area. one of the few perks of living in a place prone to flooding is we should have incredible water pressure

but liberals have to make a one size fit all policy that we all fight over. that will make America strong, fighting over all the minutia. liberal logic!
Click to expand...

Like I say, Paul has wrapped up the anti-low-flow-toilet vote. It's a perfect issue for him to run his campaign on. I have confidence he'll get the nomination.
 
Henrin said:
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 is still in place if I'm not mistaken. The fact is that the market responded to complaints soon after about the toilets inadequacies, but the market was really unable to resolve the problem completely due to the restrictions the act put in place.
Click to expand...

i dont even think most people know the federal government has power over our toilets and shower heads.
 
head of joaquin said:
Like I say, Paul has wrapped up the anti-low-flow-toilet vote. It's a perfect issue for him to run his campaign on. I have confidence he'll get the nomination.
Click to expand...

when you have consistent views, you can apply them to all facets of life. toilets. light bulbs. taxes. drug wars, and so on.

an honest ideological debate between Rand Paul and whatever propped up crony capitalistic politician, be it Hillary, Biden, or whatever, would be fascinating.

he would eat their lunch over the patriot act, the drug war, drones, and on and on.
 
ModerateGOP said:
1. So that's not deeply complex, personal and philosophical? How exactly do you arrive at your decision then? Do you just blindly follow what sounds good?
2. That is the very definition of trust lolz!
3. So that's not deeply complex, personal and philosophical? How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Click to expand...

Oh Jeez.

You call your voting priorities as 'deeply complex, personal and philosophical'?

Fine.

I call them tiny issues in my life.

I care far more about life, health, love, family, friends, work, etc..


As for the effort I put on politics:

I want the budget balanced, all the troops/drones home, less taxes/regulations and a government that doesn't spy on me without a warrant.

That is 'deeply complex, personal and philosophical' to you?

It took me all of 10 seconds to come up with and it seems like common sense to me.

Those that are for that - I will vote for.

Those that are against it - I won't.

If no one is for that - I don't vote.


You wanna take your politics ultra-seriously - go ahead...I really don't care much.


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
What seems utterly ridiculous is that the cover caption does not match the article's title nor the information or tone of the title. It's just ****ty editorializing from a ****ty magazine editor.
 
ernst barkmann said:
i dont even think most people know the federal government has power over our toilets and shower heads.
Click to expand...

Yeah, why should the federal government care about something as trivial as water?
 
ernst barkmann said:
where is the authority in the constitution which gives government, powers over our toilets and shower heads?.........OR WATER!
Click to expand...

Let me predict and translate the answer into something that actually parses: "Constitution schmonstitution."
 
ernst barkmann said:
where is the authority in the constitution which gives government, powers over our toilets and shower heads?.........OR WATER!
Click to expand...

Must be the same provision that deals with bazookas and wiretaps and sushi. Are they mentioned in the Constitution?
 
ARealConservative said:
how does limiting the flow of water in Minnesota or Iowa toilets improve things?
Click to expand...

You don't think water is an interstate issue? Interesting.

If a Missouri wants to damn the Mississippi and take all the water, is that OK with you?
 
ernst barkmann said:
empty response ?....please carry on with your normal activity.
Click to expand...

An empty question. But I'm glad the discussion of Paul has taken this turn. He breeds weirdness and marginality. He's a perfect tea party candidate.
 
Shock, the guy deliberately taking things off-topic "likes where the discussion is going."
 
head of joaquin said:
You don't think water is an interstate issue? Interesting.

If a Missouri wants to damn the Mississippi and take all the water, is that OK with you?
Click to expand...

this a really bad response, such a case, would be a dispute between two states, and the federal government would have authority.........however the water in my toilet bowl, is no business of the federal government.
 
JayDubya said:
Shock, the guy deliberately taking things off-topic "likes where the discussion is going."
Click to expand...

I'm trying to keep it on topic: Rand's losing positions. But if you want to talk about abstract water policies like Ernst, go ahead.
 
head of joaquin said:
You don't think water is an interstate issue? Interesting.

If a Missouri wants to damn the Mississippi and take all the water, is that OK with you?
Click to expand...

I want Missouri to damn up the Mississippi about as much as I want them to blow up the interstate.

anyway. Can you answer my question. What benefit does the nation get by forcing Iowans to install low flow toilets?
 
ernst barkmann said:
this a really bad response, such a case, would be a dispute between two states, and the federal government would have authority.........however the water in my toilet bowl, is no business of the federal government.
Click to expand...

I see the connection. It doesn't surprise me you don't.

Still, while I'd love to discuss water policy in the abstract with you, I prefer sticking to the topic, which is the way Paul attracts marginal and freakish tea party obsessions like this one. By all means, Ernst, encourage Paul to run on the low flow toilet issue. It's a real winner!
 
ARealConservative said:
I want Missouri to damn up the Mississippi about as much as I want them to blow up the interstate.

anyway. Can you answer my question. What benefit does the nation get by forcing Iowans to install low flow toilets?
Click to expand...

Pssst: same principle. If you don't understand that, read the Constitution about interstate commerce and think "water."
 
head of joaquin said:
I'm trying to keep it on topic: Rand's losing positions. But if you want to talk about abstract water policies like Ernst, go ahead.
Click to expand...

you need to go back a few post, i was quoting another person, and you JUMPED IN ON MY POST, about toilets and showers.......
 
head of joaquin said:
Pssst: same principle. If you don't understand that, read the Constitution about interstate commerce and think "water."
Click to expand...

that reply makes absolutely no sense.

What benefit does the nation get by forcing Iowans to install low flow toilets?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom