Which candidate should be the Republican nominee?

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

I think these are great discussion points. There is no example of libertarian government anywhere in the world so we can't know how it would work in a real world scenario. But I do think both parties would do well to take some of the ideas and try to apply them. The Dems could take some of the fiscal issues of governing at a minimum (drug laws are easy but I think there are some bureaucracies that could be eliminated without causing the sky to fall) and Reps could take some of the social ideals (get the government out of the bedroom in all its permutations, for instance) and they'd steal independents, non-believers and the wishy-washy for their own. I don't think Ron Paul can win, probably not even the primaries, but I think if he plays his cards right he could impact the way some people look at government. And that has to be good.

I don't think there is any single party that has it right, not by a longshot. I also don't think that something espoused by one candidate means that it is really representative of the entire party. If nothing else, Ron Paul (who, I know, is not even a big-L Libertarian) gets people talking, but the guy stood up and said that you should let people die if they show up to the emergency room with no insurance. I often wonder if he is even serious, or just, well, trolling.

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

The debt-paying of the deceased still does not require government intercession, unless the next of kin refuse to pay. You're confusing lack of government regulations and interference with lack of law. As to next-of-kin, if government stayed out of marriages, you would have to have a will/legal document declaring your spouse as next-of-kin, otherwise it would default to your closest blood relation (most likely). So, the next-of-kin would pay the debts, and would be sued if they refused, but that goes back to the "dispute over who gets what" that I mentioned above.

And what happens when debts exceed the value of the estate? The next of kin is stuck either paying them off him/herself or being slapped with multiple lawsuits?

My original point was that the spousal relationship grants certain specific rights that are not granted elsewhere, and that eliminating them brings up tons of other questions. Maybe there is a way to address all of those questions, item by item (marriage grants about 1500 rights, depending on your state), but it is complex and takes time.

I'm not arguing your philosophy (though I think we'd differ on many points), I'm arguing that Ron Paul can't just take government out of marriage and go on his merry way without addressing hundreds, if not thousands, of other issues.

[AlphaFrog]

^^^I actually have no idea under our current laws what does happen to someone, married or not, who had more debt than assets upon death. I couldn't speak to that.

My overall counterpoint to yours about marriage was that many of the "rights" granted by marriage wouldn't be necessary under a libertarian government. They would be a non-issue.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

I used to be a Libertarian, but a lot of the Libertarian positions just don't make sense. What happens if the government gets out of marriage? Spouses are denied the ~1500 rights that are currently granted to them? Some number of these can be arranged individually by legal contract, but the others just disappear? For example, I can make Mr. DBB my beneficiary without the government's help, but I can't give him the right to visit me in the hospital. I guess Ron Paul would say I should choose a different hospital?

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Okay, let me give you a different example. One of the rights of marriage granted by most (all?) states is that you can own property together so that, upon death, full ownership passes directly to the surviving spouse without having to go through probate. AFAIK, marriage is the only legal arrangement that allows this. If you eliminate the government's involvement with marriage, that right would disappear. So, the Libertarians want everything to go through the courts when someone dies? Isn't that actually advocating for more government?

I'm just saying that I think a lot of Libertarian "solutions" look simple on the surface, but then you are down the rabbit hole when you try to figure out the details.

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

You keep missing the "government not involved" part of Libertarianism. When someone dies, the next of kin would go claim the deceased's possessions and go about their business. The only time a 3rd party would get involved would be in a case where there was a dispute of who got what.

Admittedly, Libertarian is really not a practical form of government, because it more or less requires people to police themselves, which people obviously are incapable of doing. It doesn't mean that I don't agree with them more than any other party, though.

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

The debt-paying of the deceased still does not require government intercession, unless the next of kin refuse to pay. You're confusing lack of government regulations and interference with lack of law. As to next-of-kin, if government stayed out of marriages, you would have to have a will/legal document declaring your spouse as next-of-kin, otherwise it would default to your closest blood relation (most likely). So, the next-of-kin would pay the debts, and would be sued if they refused, but that goes back to the "dispute over who gets what" that I mentioned above.

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

^^^I actually have no idea under our current laws what does happen to someone, married or not, who had more debt than assets upon death. I couldn't speak to that.

My overall counterpoint to yours about marriage was that many of the "rights" granted by marriage wouldn't be necessary under a libertarian government. They would be a non-issue.

I don't see how those rights would be a non-issue. Community property is only afforded through a legal marriage, not through a domestic partnership. Your "next of kin", without legal marriage, would have to be a blood relative. You can't just designate a "next of kin". So your kids could come and take your half of a house that you purchased with a domestic partner? That just wouldn't work. Your kids would get your retirement, investments, savings, etc. If a couple had a joint savings account, how do you determine how much of it goes to the next of kin and how much of it goes to the co-signer on the account? Health insurance benefits, retirement funds, joint property... it would all be totally messed up. There would ALWAYS be a dispute about who gets what. Isn't that why marriages were created in the first place?

I see absolutely no reason for marriage in any form if it doesn't give you some legal rights. What would be the point?

ETA: Most unsecured debts are erased on death. I know someone whose father took out parent student loans and they were erased when he passed away, even though the child was perfectly capable of paying them off. All debts that were in his name alone were simply erased. His spouse did not have to take responsibility for them. My mom had no debt when she passed away so I don't know how that would have been handled given her other assets. And probate was a nightmare. It is just now being closed because it took 4 years to sell her condo. What a nightmare.

[amIblue?]

I'm surprised no one has brought up this little nugget of Newtonian genius:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...ZdP_story.html

It's as if he just woke up yesterday and decided to go into politics.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I don't see how those rights would be a non-issue. Community property is only afforded through a legal marriage, not through a domestic partnership. Your "next of kin", without legal marriage, would have to be a blood relative. You can't just designate a "next of kin". So your kids could come and take your half of a house that you purchased with a domestic partner? That just wouldn't work. Your kids would get your retirement, investments, savings, etc. If a couple had a joint savings account, how do you determine how much of it goes to the next of kin and how much of it goes to the co-signer on the account? Health insurance benefits, retirement funds, joint property... it would all be totally messed up. There would ALWAYS be a dispute about who gets what. Isn't that why marriages were created in the first place?

I see absolutely no reason for marriage in any form if it doesn't give you some legal rights. What would be the point?

ETA: Most unsecured debts are erased on death. I know someone whose father took out parent student loans and they were erased when he passed away, even though the child was perfectly capable of paying them off. All debts that were in his name alone were simply erased. His spouse did not have to take responsibility for them. My mom had no debt when she passed away so I don't know how that would have been handled given her other assets. And probate was a nightmare. It is just now being closed because it took 4 years to sell her condo. What a nightmare.

First of all, most Christians would say that marriage was created by God in the Garden of Eden before any laws existed (well, except that pesky one about eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge) with the point being joining the man and the woman as one flesh in partnership. Oh yeah, that.

Legal documents would have to be drawn up on joint property, but it could be done.

An alternate solution is that we become like many European and Central American countries and recognize a civil union that is separate from a religious marriage.

[AGDee]

Man and woman can be joined as one flesh in partnership without any legal or religious backing.

In our country, marriage is a civil union. That's what he wants to do away with.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by AGDee

And probate was a nightmare. It is just now being closed because it took 4 years to sell her condo. What a nightmare.

Oh, that's another good point. Indivisible assets, such as one house, with many heirs.

[AnchorAlum]

Originally Posted by steveg

Sad to say, the GOP has no real winner running.

Mitt, is a hot air balloon. No substance.
Newt, to much bagage.
Ron Paul, to old and to far out.
Perry, should hang it up.
Bachman, well, she is gone.
Santorum, to smiley and meely mouth. Talks a lot and says nothing.
Huntsman, gone.

Possibles?

Christie, size will kill him.
Jeb Busch, a Busch, country not ready for another one. He could be a good one. Hope he is sane enough to stay retired and live like a human being.
Trump, well he is The Donald.

GOP is in trouble, no new Ronald Reagan to come forward on his white horse. Heck, the whole country is in trouble!

I had no idea that size was a requirement for winning or losing elected office. Summoning ghost of William Howard Taft....

Are you intentionally spelling 41 and 43's name wrong?

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

There's a quote going around the FB-osphere that alleges to be from Barry Goldwater warning the GOP about what could happen if the religious fringe got a hold of the party. If it's actually a quote, it was prescient.

I haven't seen it yet but if it's smart and on the money, I have no doubt that it's a real quote.

Goldwater had so much more going for him than what LBJ painted him as (i.e. the nutjob who would push the nuke button at the drop of a hat). We would have probably been out of Vietnam a hell of a lot earlier had he won, and no, not because he would have nuked them. Arrrrgh, can't start thinking about this stuff or it just makes me upset.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by AnchorAlum

Are you intentionally spelling 41 and 43's name wrong?

It's Tom.

[YesNoMaybe]

Obama will probably win the election again. More than likely, Romney will end up being the nominee even though it seems that people cannot connect with him that well. I also think that Ron Paul will run as a third-party candidate (he implied he would if he doesn't receive the nomination) and that some of the votes that may have gone Romney's way will be "spoiled" towards Ron Paul. Personally, I actually really support Ron Paul out of the GOP. He is the only one up there that I feel is trying to become President for reasons other than just becoming President.

[knight_shadow]

Candidate Match Game

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ate-match-game

I got Obama, Perry, and Huntsman #Interesting

[WhiteRose1912]

Man oh man. Huntsman's comments here made me see him in a whole new (positive) light. Probably impossible for him to get the nomination but he won my respect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZq7DN4g3Ro

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by WhiteRose1912

Man oh man. Huntsman's comments here made me see him in a whole new (positive) light. Probably impossible for him to get the nomination but he won my respect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZq7DN4g3Ro

I've been pulling for Huntsman to win.. but I just don't feel as though he's been in the spotlight as much as the other candidates. Maybe it's because he's not a whack job? Who knows.

If Huntsman doesn't pull through, I'll be rooting for Romney.. especially if he selects Christie as his Vice Presidential running-mate, should he make it that far.

[PiKA2001]

Yeah I predict a Romney/Christie ticket come November.