Hacker News Reader

Comment by hackinthebochs | Hacker News Reader

I'm as liberal as they come but I will be voting for Rand Paul if he ends up with the Republican nomination. This is one issue where I will be a one issue voter.

Bernie Sanders seems like a great candidate, but I fear he is too reasonable and conciliatory to do what is necessary to properly reign in the entrenched interests of the military/intelligence industrial complex. At this point it seems like nothing short of a campaign of slash-and-burn against these agencies will get the job done, and it's going to take someone as "nutty" as a Paul to do it.

View on HN

> This is one issue where I will be a one issue voter.

Consider all the other issues. For example, with Rand Paul as President, the GOP would certainly control the White House, and House of Representatives, very likely have a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court within a few years (depending on Justice Ginsberg) ... they'd need only the Senate for one-party rule.

Many, many other things would happen that you probably would not like.

It seems the choice is between an Authoritarian left or a small-government right.

I'll take small government over monolithic Authoritarianism any day.

Just a reminder, the small government right led by Rand Paul would dramatically expand military spending..

Http://time.com/3759378/rand-paul-defense-spending/

But what president won't?

Many wouldn't but in the context of this discussion, Bernie Sanders is probably a good example.

When you become an utterly dependable one-party voter you really diminish your say in what your party stands for.

More than that, though, if Rand Paul actually got the nomination -- which he almost certainly won't -- and went on to win the general election, that would potentially be a lot bigger than one minor victory in the constant right-vs-left tug-of-war over American government. It would be a political realignment, because the coalition Rand Paul would build and the platform he would run on are not the traditional Republican coalition and platform.

It could be the start of America actually having a pro-liberty party. That tradeoff might be worth it even for folks on the left who lean libertarian.

are you aware that rand paul compared public health care to slavery https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUXwDMqjC-A ?

I'd still vote for him.

The only other option is Sanders and he seems to just want to concentrate all power at a federal level, like the USSR did. The left claims to want a more European style governance model but fail to accept that the EU does not have one healthcare system, does not have one schooling system, and does not have one college system.

When you concentrate all power into a small point it makes manipulating that power much easier for the elites. No longer do they have to bribe politicians in each state, just the ones in Washington DC. The founding fathers knew this (they experienced this with the British Monarchy) and that's why they intended on having a very limited federal government that had little control over social programs and whose main purpose was to see that states take it upon themselves to enforce rights provided by the constitution.

Remember when we integrated schools? The left would like you to believe the DOE is some kind of federal schooling system when in fact all it really does is issue pell grants. The federal government did not take over the schooling sector. The only thing the federal government did was step in when a state refused to integrate.

I urge leftists to reconsider their position. I'm in favor of social programs like single payer healthcare, but having the federal government do it is just asinine. The federal government needs to pass a bill that makes healthcare a right, then leave it up to the states to implement free healthcare. Those that don't will be forced to, just like we did when some schools refused to integrate.

If you hate too big to fail companies, then why allow one entity to monopolize a whole sector of the economy? As soon as one of these huge social programs fails, down goes the whole economy. It happened in the USSR and it could happen here. Just let the states handle it like they do in the EU. That way, when one states social programs fail it doesn't bring down the whole economy. Notice that this is a compromise. The left still gets it's healthcare while the right still gets a small federal government. It's a win-win. Unfortunately both the left and right would like you to believe that any compromise is giving into the other side, they must perpetuate the idea that you only have one right choice and that if you're not with them you're completely against them.

I've read your comment. I might have responded if it weren't for the stuff such as "like the USSR did". Sentences like that make it obvious that any discourse would be futile.

It wouldn't be fair to compare the US to socialized countries like individual European nations because most European nations aren't world powers policing the globe and have much more economic and political stability. Most socialized European nations aren't experiencing social unrest or widespread disagreement about social policies.

The US on the other hand has much more disagreement. The USSR consisted of many countries dominated by the Soviets who didn't agree with many policies of the government. While the US isn't taking over other countries and making more US states, the states are already similar to small countries.

As we concentrate power more and more at a federal level we take away sovereignty from the individual states. This, in my opinion is very similar to what lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union. They spread themselves thin and forced everyone to assimilate under one political ideology. This only works when a large portion of the country agrees with said policies.

While the US will probably never suffer the same fate as the USSR, I could easily see us spreading our selves to thin across the globe, mismanaging money, and pissing everyone off, thus leading to economic decline and loss of faith in the political system as a whole (this is already happening).

America won't be able to handle socialism. We want too many things.

It seems to me you don't really have a counter argument to make at all. You're just looking to delegitimize my opinion by not even considering it.

Yeah I've seen that before, and it's obviously false and slightly nutty (as long as there are people voluntarily willing to provide care--and there will be--there is no force involved). But going up against the entrenched interests to reign in defense and spying is going to take someone slightly nutty. So at least on this particular issue its a virtue.

I'm aware that his politics comes with some, possibly many unsavory views, but I fully believe unchecked surveillance presents an existential crisis to America as we know it. Backsliding on marriage or abortion can be corrected in the future. There comes a point where there's no turning back the clock on ubiquitous surveillance.

> Yeah I've seen that before, and it's obviously false and slightly nutty

It's not "false and nutty", it's either malicious or outright idiotic.

Just fyi, Bernie Sanders' stance on NSA spying is very similar to Rand Paul's.

If it came down to Sanders and Paul, it would be a tough decision to make and I'd probably lean Sanders out of concern for all the other issues. But at this point Paul is more likely to get the nomination for his party than Sanders so it seems like a moot discussion.

But the fact that I haven't heard Sanders make surveillance the forefront of his campaign is a bit concerning. Also the fact that he didn't make an appearance at Paul's "filibuster" says quite a bit. Say what you want about how useless the filibuster was, lack of awareness of the facts around the surveillance issue is the biggest factor in the government's favor. Making a very loud and public stand against surveillance has tangible benefits. I was disappointed that he didn't take advantage of that opportunity.

> If it came down to Sanders and Paul, it would be a tough decision to make and I'd probably lean Sanders out of concern for all the other issues. But at this point Paul is more likely to get the nomination for his party than Sanders so it seems like a moot discussion.

Not that you can tell much about who is likely to win the nomination this far out from the first primary (basically, what you can tell now is name recognition prior to significant campaigning, which would mislead as to the winner of the nomination in most elections where there isn't an incumbent President or Vice President in the primary.)

Bernie Sanders does appear much more consistent than Hillary; and he unlike Hillary has talked of dismantling the NSA. I'm afraid he won't make the Democratic nomination.

The other republicans seem like a bunch of idiots. It's likely that Hillary will come to power. She does seem to have the money for it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com