bounty44
Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hot4bondage quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote:
ORIGINAL: hot4bondage I didn't know much about Florina before this debate, but now I think she is one of the scariest candidates. She seems to like big government just fine as long as Republicans are in charge. She would have us at war with women, potheads, Russia, and half of the Middle East before the midterm. ...And she'd probably sing the praises of limited government every step of the way... I didn't watch the entire show, and I cannot even say otherwise that carly Fiorina is not a big government republican, but neither do I recall anything in particular to lead me to believe that she is. which is a really roundabout way of saying, what's making you think she's "big government?" She wants to expand the world's largest military and use it in ways that might easily draw us into yet another prolonged conflict in the Middle East, another cold war, another Cuban missile crisis. I'm not saying we shouldn't carry the big stick, but she's using reckless language and misleading us about our relative strength and readiness. She wants to outlaw abortions after 20 weeks. How could a law like that be enforced without investigating miscarriages? That would require a huge expansion in the size and scope of law enforcement. In the debate, she invoked her step-daughter's alcohol and pill-related death as a reason not to legalize marijuana. I guess that's understandable, but it's not rational. To her credit, she did say that she wouldn't interfere with states that have defied federal prohibition, but what about the rest of the world? As I'm sure you know, the war on drugs has been the antithesis of limited government. I didn't watch the whole show, either. A good word for it, by the way. Seemed like more of a reality show than a debate. But i did see enough to be convinced that Florina is a socially conservative interventionist. Granted her version of big government would be a lot different than, say, Bernie Sanders' version, but to me it's just another type of statism. I typically don't see the military and law enforcement included under the rubric of "big government." maybe they are to liberals? when people use that phrase, its been my experience they are talking about entitlements, tax codes, regulations, redundant services/agencies and the government taking the place of things people could be and should be doing themselves, or at a state and local level and just overall getting in the way of peoples freedom and abrogating their responsibility. i don't disagree that an argument could be made there for the "war on drugs" having a big government component to it, but that doesn't seem to typify carly Fiorina. in any event though---i don't see any platform coming forth from her that is consistent with the "state controlling economic and social policy"--which is a brief description of statism.
< Message edited by bounty44 -- 9/20/2015 4:01:33 AM >
|