He's not going for New Hampshire?!
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/03/politics/rand-paul-dropping-out-of-presidential-race/
http://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/rand-paul-dropping-out-of-white-house-race-218675&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjK2rfwod3KAhXJWBQKHTZzBJ0QqQIIGTAB&sig2=qIiumygpZFeoeoE02SJ2vA&usg=AFQjCNFUEJTyTSAOFCA3u32B7CLPHCQSdA
Sad loss. He was my go to candidate.
I hate the rest of the Republican frontrunners but I guess I'll have to support them to keep the dems out of office
>>21085
You're welcome to support Bernie.
>>21086
Mr "break up banks too big to fail, but big government is a-ok" Sanders.
>>21086
Sorry, but I can't support a man who wants government expansion and fails at economics, and I especially can't support a man who outright says he's a socialist.
>>21087
He just wants to break them up so they can get out of our hair... Good intentions abound!
>>21100
I think you missed my point.
>>21087
"the system is corrupt so let's grow it and make it run everything from health to education"
>>21100
How is breaking up banks going to fix anything other that destroy the world economy?
>>21100
btw, it's not even a big bank problem. in 2007 it was a "systemic crisis"
Lehman Brothers was a very small bank, but it almost killed the global economy.
what the fuck is this 4chan shit?
>>21087
Wow, someone who wants to be president who actually likes the idea of a government and wants it to do more. As opposed to your republifriends who chat a good game about small government, get elected, reduce social programs, and increase the defense budget. The government balloons in size under Republicans.
>>21171
It balloons in a way easily reversed in the future. Once you take the economy under the government's wing, good luck freeing it to the markets.
>>21069
>heir to the Ron Paul legacy
That's an insult to Ron Paul.
>>21086
>Voting for an open borders socialist
Because Sweden is doing so well now
>>21190
>It balloons in a way easily reversed in the future.
>Completely disregarding the TSA / DHS / ONID (not easily reversed)
How come nobody has?
>>21218
We haven't elected anyone who wants to. But I'm confident that should we ever want to retire those branches of government, we could do so fairly painlessly.
A socialist system of redistribution however, is extremely painful to ever end once it has started. (see:USSR, Social Security)
>>21226
>90s child detected
Central planning in the USSR worked very well.
Social Security is a very well done, functional system that provides the core for a lot of people's twilight years. What would we do without it?
>>21190
there isn't anything inherently good or better about the economy being at the mercy of the markets either
>>21240
Social Security is a ponzi scheme that is finally running out of steam. Within our lifetimes the trust fund will run out of money. And the USSR did not have any sustainable economic plan.
>>21241
With markets you can at least have the possibility of competition (in a perfect world). It doesn't always happen, but central planning is always a monopoly.
>>21245
>Within our lifetimes the trust fund will run out of money.
Republicans in Congress set it up to fail this way by taking funds earmarked for the trust fund and spending them on wars and tax cuts.
>>21247
Ponzi schemes are never sustainable. Unfortunately it only shows when it is too late, when there are less people putting in than taking out, as is happening right now. And the gap will only grow.
I'd also appreciate a source for this alleged taking money away from the trust fund. Unless you mean that the money is being spent and then turned into debt owed back to the trust fund, in which case there isn't a difference in the money the trust fund has.
Bump for Rand. I find it ironic that this reCaptcha is 2020 and he's an eye doctor.
>>21204
Bernie is actually pretty critical on illegal immigration, since he believes the only way for the wages of workers to increase is to reduce an exploitable pool of labor which can be relatively undercharged.
Mind you, I am pretty sure most Republicans, many more than Democrats in general, also support this argument, even if they think workers should be more competitive. Its perfectly in line with the capitalistic interpretation of supply and demand. However, most elected officials do not persecute or counter illegal immigration because the same industries (especially construction) which profit from these workers collectively lobby to prevent their curtailment.
Also, illegal immigrants serve as a great counter to unions, which for reasons which I find both legitimate and illegitimate, are countered by the Republican establishment and the grassroot. Even though American unions are generally inefficient and often-times work against the best interests of the employees, they still provide a means of affordable collectivization which these illegal immigrants are intentionally denied in exchange for being paid for their services.
In short, while illegal immigrants are often protected by the left for humanitarian reasons, Sanders in general rejects them for reasons which fit into an economical context.
>>21253
>Unfortunately it only shows when it is too late, when there are less people putting in than taking out
Well, to be technical, what if more people always put in than those who took out indefinitely?
Capitalistic Growth, for instance, depends upon a greater collective productivity and efficiency with each transaction at a macroeconomic level, but people usually do not call this out because the alternative to not feeding into the cycle of growth is much, much worse than the short-term sacrifices.
>>21085
Vote Gary Johnson
