Home | Yahoo Answers
Thanks for asking and being open minded enough to consider other perspectives.
Rand Paul has pros and cons. His pros are being libertarian. I'm all for liberty with one huge caveat, and this is the basis from whence most my political opinions arise: People who internalize the consequences of their bad decisions...
Best answer: Thanks for asking and being open minded enough to consider other perspectives.
Rand Paul has pros and cons. His pros are being libertarian. I'm all for liberty with one huge caveat, and this is the basis from whence most my political opinions arise: People who internalize the consequences of their bad decisions will change. Any psychologist will tell you that your personality is fixed from about age 21 to 23. The problem with the left is permanent makeup eyebrows they reward maladaptive behavior. Don't want to work, here's foodstamps. Another kid out of wedlock, here's more welfare. Not smart enough for college but took out student loans, let us forgive that for you, and so on ad nauseum. Addicting recipients to handouts is how they obtain power, and that's inherently evil.
Libertarian: If you want to smoke pot, I'd theoretically be fine with it, except that it reduces the once-a-week user's IQ 8 percentile points (and most don't have much to spare); it makes you unambitious and therefore uncompetitive in a capitalist economy; and three joints have the same carcinogens as a pack of tobacco cigarettes. So if the pot user had to internalize those consequences, he would wise up and change or be destitute. But I'm the one compelled to pay for his foodstamps, his healthcare, and drive on the road with him intoxicated. Same with motorcycle helmets or wearing seatbelts or eating twinkies. You pay for your emergency room bill when you crash or your obesity and I'm fine with it. Part of freedom is freedom to make poor decisions, but don't look at my wallet to solve the consequences you made.
His showstopper is foreign policy isolationism. The preeminent function of government is security: Ensure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense. When you disengage you have no influence. I completely agree with not being the world's policeman and only using force when legitimate vital national interests so demand. You can see what happens with weakness: Islamic radicalism is sweeping across continents, and two UN Security Council members, Russia and China, are routinely violating the UN Charter prohibition against aggressive warfare with Russia seizing land mass and China seizing islands.
Kasich showed success as an executive - Ohio governor - and federal level legislator, both of which are good. He's gets balanced budgets and improves economies. His problem is he's perceived as establishment. A principled conservative and a nickel will get you a gumball. They talk talk talk while campaigning, and do nothing upon election. Thirty years they've been talking about immigration and it keeps getting worse. Don't tell me about poverty or an income gap or increased carbon footprint when you let forty million unskilled illiterate immigrants in. He's talking about a pathway and that http://www.polyvore.com/beauty_products/shop?category_id=74 will lead to bipartisan compromise and that will lead to amnesty. The emerging consensus is that conservative politicians dump loyalty to voters and defect to the donor class upon election, and the donor class likes open borders and cheap labor, which depresses wages and increases crime. Trump doesn't need a donor class, so he'll do what he says.