Rand Paul: Without change, GOP will "not win again in my lifetime"

  • Thread starter Thread starter saintjohnxxiii
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Republican Party started in the 1850’s as a third party, it was the anti-slave alternative to the pro-slave Democrats and Whigs. By taking on most of the Whigs economic positions but becoming the antislavery party the republicans managed to win total control of the government in less than a decade (although this did trigger the “great democrat revolt” also known as the civil war) and within another decade had entirely destroyed and absorbed the Whigs.

So, by adopting a strong position which neither party supports (in today’s age that’s individual rights) and with proper campaign strategy it is possible. The problem they must overcome, obviously, is the media-political complex of party aligned major news outlets who refuse to cover them. But the Internet and the visibility of the Paul’s has helped greatly, as has the Koch brothers expanding media empire.

The goal, the tipping point, is 5% of the vote in a presidential election. At that point under US law the libertarian party would be recognized as an official party and be eligible for full public campaign funding. It would also make it near impossible for the media to ignore us. The process would snowball from there. As I said before a much larger portion of Americans is or agrees with libertarians than they get votes for, and if they were recognized as a viable party these people would likely flock to them. At 1% for Gary Johnson last cycle the libertarian vote was up 200% from 2008, and sense it is becoming clear that libertarianism is growing, particularly among young people, I would expect an even higher number next cycle for the libertarian candidate, particularly if this is a low turnout election. I personally believe we will hit 5% in the next 10-14 years if the republicans do no nominate a libertarian themselves. The more Romneys and Santorums they nominate, the more votes will slip through their fingers.
I like the idea of libertarians influencing both parties. I think it would be a good influence overall, although I’m not a libertarian. I agree with much of what they stand for. I have to wonder, though, what the attraction of libertarianism is to young people - could it be that they like the social liberalism aspect of it? The legalization of marijuana, etc. ? Then, consider that people change their views over time - as they take on more responsibilities and have children, etc. Their values change and perhaps libertarianism loses its attraction? Just a thought.

Ishii
 
Thanks for the reply. The allegations you mention are quite serious. With that said, if what you write is actually factual, I’m most sure there would have been indictments, and there have been none. I really don’t believe that there are facts to back up these allegations. I just saw a poll today that has her (SOS Clinton) winning by a large margin in 2016 is she chooses to run. I hope we can agree on this, let’s hope she does decide to run. You have to admit, the 1990s in the USA were pretty good under President Bill Clinton.
You have no idea how gutless the GOP is, apparently. Obama himself is getting away with countless scandals, including IRSS-gate, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, Solyndra, stimulus cash laundering, and many more. The problem is that virtually all Republicans in leadership would rather sip martinis and receive occasional accolades from the Washington house organ press than do their jobs, and save America from impending collapse. Tragic, but true. :doh2: Rob

P.S. Clinton was beneficiary of two things, probably never to be repeated. We had the dot.com boom, which turned bust during his final year in office. Also, gutsy Republicans won control of the House in 1995, and Newt Gingrich, while I am not a fan, reigned in spending somewhat with the help of other GOP officials. I don’t know, BTW, how anyone can forgive Bubba his unpardonable sin of granting military technology to the Chinese for campaign contributions. 😦
 
The only good thing that the GOP could have on it’s political plate is the AHA. What a disaster. I am not a conservative, but by staying home they cement a democratic victory.

The pundits are right, the GOP is in disarray. They just try to put out fires. Until such time that they can find a true leader, they need to make their platform as simple and straightforward as possible.

-Come up with a realistic alternative to the AHA. People it really isn’t that hard to do. They lobbyists are the problem here.

-There are over a 100 tax reform plans the GOP is considering. Come up with a few winning proposals, and tax reform could be the poster child for a viable GOP platform.

-The GOP is simply ill-suited to take any kind of stance on gay issues. Everyone is sick of dealing with it on both sides of the fence. My strategy would be to throw it to the states. They are going to do what they want anyway, and this issue has been beaten to death.

-Pro Life. The GOP IS SUITED to take on this issue. Truly this is the most important moral issue anyway.

-Contraception - excuse me, but elective surgeries aren’t covered by most insurance companies, and contraception is as about as elective as it gets.

-KEEP the automatic budget cuts in place, the ones that were never supposed to happen.
-No more bailouts of any kind. Not ever. I don’t care who it is.
 
I like the idea of libertarians influencing both parties. I think it would be a good influence overall, although I’m not a libertarian. I agree with much of what they stand for. I have to wonder, though, what the attraction of libertarianism is to young people - could it be that they like the social liberalism aspect of it? The legalization of marijuana, etc. ? Then, consider that people change their views over time - as they take on more responsibilities and have children, etc. Their values change and perhaps libertarianism loses its attraction? Just a thought.

Ishii
I believe this is part of it, polls and research show that almost every generation is more socially liberal than the one before, and this is the absolute most important reason I think the GOP needs change. The millennials are overwhelmingly for gay marriage, ect. And the support will rise with each ensuing generation. The republicans will fall further behind with each passin cycle if they don’t atleast start saying its a “states rights” issue. Similarly marijuana legalization now polls at over 50% aproval across the country and that something NEITHER party wants to talk about nationally.

On the other hand the surge of Fiscal liberalism of the 20th century has leveled off, and there are many fiscally conservate young people who are hesitant about the republicans because of the evangelical-Dixiecrat portion of the party.

And most importantly in my oppinion, the children of 9-11 as I call them, have very little serious memory’s of the time before 9-11, I myself am one. All we have REALY known in our lives is a never ending series of overseas wars and conflicts by our government, while at home government has grown steadily regardless of elections. We have watched a republican in Bush and a democrat in Obama pursue the same forgien policy of playing world police while at home our debt skyrockets and our rights are striped away. We have seen no iconic golden ages for either party, and Obama in particular has disappointed many young people. (I never liked him)

I would encourage you to go on Youtube and watch the John Stosel episode “Rise of the libertarians”, it talks about “students for liberty” the Libertarian Student union who’s attendance has blown past republican and democrat student organizations, as well as going into detail about why this is happening and includes a traditional republican (Neo-Conservative) response.
 
The only good thing that the GOP could have on it’s political plate is the AHA. What a disaster. I am not a conservative, but by staying home they cement a democratic victory.

The pundits are right, the GOP is in disarray. They just try to put out fires. Until such time that they can find a true leader, they need to make their platform as simple and straightforward as possible.

-Come up with a realistic alternative to the AHA. People it really isn’t that hard to do. They lobbyists are the problem here.

-There are over a 100 tax reform plans the GOP is considering. Come up with a few winning proposals, and tax reform could be the poster child for a viable GOP platform.

-The GOP is simply ill-suited to take any kind of stance on gay issues. Everyone is sick of dealing with it on both sides of the fence. My strategy would be to throw it to the states. They are going to do what they want anyway, and this issue has been beaten to death.

-Pro Life. The GOP IS SUITED to take on this issue. Truly this is the most important moral issue anyway.

-Contraception - excuse me, but elective surgeries aren’t covered by most insurance companies, and contraception is as about as elective as it gets.

-KEEP the automatic budget cuts in place, the ones that were never supposed to happen.
-No more bailouts of any kind. Not ever. I don’t care who it is.
Yes. They need to come up with a specific plan or plans for what they want to do. Being against everything is not enough. We need an alternative to Obamacare. Tax reform. The economy/jobs have been dismal the entire Obama presidency. They could run well on a growth platform. Sanctity of life - etc. If Hillary runs and they get accused of a war on women - just remind everyone of Bill Clinton. Hopefully it isn’t too late to turn things around.

Ishii
 
I believe this is part of it, polls and research show that almost every generation is more socially liberal than the one before, and this is the absolute most important reason I think the GOP needs change. The millennials are overwhelmingly for gay marriage, ect. And the support will rise with each ensuing generation. The republicans will fall further behind with each passin cycle if they don’t atleast start saying its a “states rights” issue. Similarly marijuana legalization now polls at over 50% aproval across the country and that something NEITHER party wants to talk about nationally.

On the other hand the surge of Fiscal liberalism of the 20th century has leveled off, and there are many fiscally conservate young people who are hesitant about the republicans because of the evangelical-Dixiecrat portion of the party.

And most importantly in my oppinion, the children of 9-11 as I call them, have very little serious memory’s of the time before 9-11, I myself am one. All we have REALY known in our lives is a never ending series of overseas wars and conflicts by our government, while at home government has grown steadily regardless of elections. We have watched a republican in Bush and a democrat in Obama pursue the same forgien policy of playing world police while at home our debt skyrockets and our rights are striped away. We have seen no iconic golden ages for either party, and Obama in particular has disappointed many young people. (I never liked him)

I would encourage you to go on Youtube and watch the John Stosel episode “Rise of the libertarians”, it talks about “students for liberty” the Libertarian Student union who’s attendance has blown past republican and democrat student organizations, as well as going into detail about why this is happening and includes a traditional republican (Neo-Conservative) response.
Sound interesting - I will check out the youtube video and get back to you.
 
I have to wonder, though, what the attraction of libertarianism is to young people - could it be that they like the social liberalism aspect of it?
The line between libertarianism and libertinism is a thin one when it comes to personal vices. Young people are rebellious against constraints, particularly sexual constraints, and probably have been since the dawn of humanity. It is only when people mature that most realize social constraints (like morals generally) are soundly based and best for humanity.

Some, of course, never grow out of adolescent attitudes.
 
The line between libertarianism and libertinism is a thin one when it comes to personal vices. Young people are rebellious against constraints, particularly sexual constraints, and probably have been since the dawn of humanity. It is only when people mature that most realize social constraints (like morals generally) are soundly based and best for humanity.

Some, of course, never grow out of adolescent attitudes.
But the question is, do people have a right to enforce their values on others in the area of victimless crime? Does a person have the right to ban something they find morally objectionable if it does not harm others?

Your arguement is the most common one used by social conservatives against libertarianism but you are looking at this entirely from a different prospective. Libertarianism does not endorse the use of drugs or other socially unaccounted activitys, it simply states that it is not the right of one person or group to stop an action which does not harm others, regardless of how moraly unjustifyable that act is.

Why is it in your oppinion acceptable for a person using a substance, even ones as bad as meth or heroin, to be taken at gunpoint to a prison where they live for years amongst violent criminals, and then spend the rest of their life as a felon?
 
But the question is, do people have a right to enforce their values on others in the area of victimless crime? Does a person have the right to ban something they find morally objectionable if it does not harm others?

Your arguement is the most common one used by social conservatives against libertarianism but you are looking at this entirely from a different prospective. Libertarianism does not endorse the use of drugs or other socially unaccounted activitys, it simply states that it is not the right of one person or group to stop an action which does not harm others, regardless of how moraly unjustifyable that act is.

Why is it in your oppinion acceptable for a person using a substance, even ones as bad as meth or heroin, to be taken at gunpoint to a prison where they live for years amongst violent criminals, and then spend the rest of their life as a felon?
Ever watch the movie or read the book “Winter’s Bone”? If not, you should. That was placed very near to where I live. While, certainly, the whole area is not like that, anybody who knows anything at all about meth knows how terribly destructive of lives it is. First time, or even second time meth possessors do not go to prison at all, let alone for life. But it is a terrible scourge to those who use it, those who cook it, the children and families of users and makers and sometimes unfortunate people who simply come into contact with it willy-nilly. It makes homes or apartments dangerous for those who follow a meth-using tenant and a place where meth has been cooked is so contaminated the only remedy is for it to be torn down. If later tenants occupy it and don’t know, then they are contaminated with terrible chemicals. It is a horrible social evil.

heroin, is, if anything, worse, just different.

The problem with a lot of libertarian theory is that it’s only theoretical. The reality of “private drug use” is that it’s not private. It affects all kinds of people and often very seriously.

I think sometimes that many people do not realize how “socially impacting” all kinds of “private” evils really are. When you really dig into it, virtually every sin has an impact on others in some way, and mostly they’re sins because of that impact. Unfortunately, even those who are of a religious persuasion often do not realize this.
 
The line between libertarianism and libertinism is a thin one when it comes to personal vices. Young people are rebellious against constraints, particularly sexual constraints, and probably have been since the dawn of humanity. It is only when people mature that most realize social constraints (like morals generally) are soundly based and best for humanity.

Some, of course, never grow out of adolescent attitudes.
A lot of the libertarian appeal to youth centres on marijuana and drug laws.

Hopefully, most young people indeed will outgrow the idea that smoking dope is actually exciting and worthwhile, but hang on to the deeper libertarian philosophy that our life is ideally and ultimately our own responsibility, and not government’s to decide for us where the good life lies.
 
A lot of the libertarian appeal to youth centres on marijuana and drug laws.

Hopefully, most young people indeed will outgrow the idea that smoking dope is actually exciting and worthwhile, but hang on to the deeper libertarian philosophy that our life is ideally and ultimately our own responsibility, and not government’s to decide for us where the good life lies.
Yep, the older I get the more libertarian I get.

As for drugs, i’m quite passionate about the legalization of drugs because I hate that their criminalization has allowed so much encroachment on our freedoms.

I’ve never smoked, snorted, or injected anything, and I will continue to fight the good fight on this front because freedom is worth it.
 
You have no idea how gutless the GOP is, apparently. Obama himself is getting away with countless scandals, including IRSS-gate, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, Solyndra, stimulus cash laundering, and many more. The problem is that virtually all Republicans in leadership would rather sip martinis and receive occasional accolades from the Washington house organ press than do their jobs, and save America from impending collapse. Tragic, but true. :doh2: Rob

P.S. Clinton was beneficiary of two things, probably never to be repeated. We had the dot.com boom, which turned bust during his final year in office. Also, gutsy Republicans won control of the House in 1995, and Newt Gingrich, while I am not a fan, reigned in spending somewhat with the help of other GOP officials. I don’t know, BTW, how anyone can forgive Bubba his unpardonable sin of granting military technology to the Chinese for campaign contributions. 😦
That’s funny, I see this the exact opposite from your view. I believe President Obama is putting the country back on track. If you look through an objective lens it’s clear what he’s done and trying to do. Health care reform is a big one in my mind. Ensuring that every American can have access to affordable health care sounds like a major accomplishment to me.
 
That’s funny, I see this the exact opposite from your view. I believe President Obama is putting the country back on track. If you look through an objective lens it’s clear what he’s done and trying to do. Health care reform is a big one in my mind. Ensuring that every American can have access to affordable health care sounds like a major accomplishment to me.
Respectfully, I would say that you should fine tune your objectivity. When you speak of “affordable” health care, what is actually happening all over the country, is the exact opposite of what you’re giving Obama credit for accomplishing.
 
That’s funny, I see this the exact opposite from your view. I believe President Obama is putting the country back on track. If you look through an objective lens it’s clear what he’s done and trying to do. Health care reform is a big one in my mind. Ensuring that every American can have access to affordable health care sounds like a major accomplishment to me.
You do know having access to treatment and getting treatment are two wholly different animals right?
 
That’s funny, I see this the exact opposite from your view. I believe President Obama is putting the country back on track. If you look through an objective lens it’s clear what he’s done and trying to do. Health care reform is a big one in my mind. Ensuring that every American can have access to affordable health care sounds like a major accomplishment to me.
Its funny, seaton2005. Your posts read like Democrat talking points. :hmmm: So far since you’ve been posting, I haven’t read anything from you that is critical of Obama, yet you claim you’re being objective. You’ll find that the more conservative members here have much to criticize of Republicans, Bush, etc. They seem more objective than you.

As a Catholic, do you find nothing Obama does that is worthy of criticism? How about his promise to America - said many times - that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” and “if you like your doctor, you can keep them” etc. He knew it wasn’t true when he said it. How about all the people who were kicked off their insurance plans? Or the concerns about medical decisions and supply decided by a abortion promoting federal bureaucrat such as Kathleen Sebelius? Speaking of abortion, are you concerned as a Catholic that the president you praise is committed to keeping abortion mills/planned parenthood thriving? Doesn’t that bother you? :hmmm:
 
No, they haven’t done a good job of it. The biggest problem, though, that I have seen in both parties is (even if it’s not completely true, it sure appears that way) the insistence on not compromising on ANYTHING. There are non-negotiable items (most especially abortion), but there also should be items that should be able to be negotiated (such as the tax code, immigration, etc.). For the fringes of both parties (which seem to control the primary process), the insistence is that nothing is up for negotiation.

I used to frequent a political forum. It allowed people of all stripes, but most of the posters were quite leftist. According to many of the posters there, the Dems have gotten too conservative. According to many of the posters here, the GOP has gotten too liberal. Let’s just step back a little bit.

The truth is, the elected officials of both parties actually have gotten more “conservative” since the 1960s on many economic matters. ObamaCare is actually more conservative than HillaryCare, which itself was more conservative than NixonCare. Bill Clinton favored NAFTA and deregulation. The primary reason Obama decided to increase regulation was due to the economic collapse - which convinced him that deregulation went too far - but his economic policies, just like GW Bush’s before him, have primarily helped Wall Street executives and megacorporations. Obama is also willing to make changes to Medicaid and Social Security that his base is infuriated with (they want no changes at all - not even to the retirement age), yet they are changes that do not go far enough for the GOP base, which supported them until Obama did, and then insited that they weren’t enough.

On the other hand, both parties have become more “liberal” on social issues, especially same-sex “marriage” and the reluctance of some GOP governors to endorse pro-life legislation due to fear of blowback.

Regardless, though, the GOPs problem with Hispanics has a lot to do with the fact that many Hispanics who are either legal residents in the United States or US citizens have family members who are undocumented. These people are fighting for their family members, especially if said family members are their own parents and/or siblings. And then, they get told that the 14th amendment shouldn’t apply to them, either, because their parents weren’t US citizens, and that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to make sure that former slaves would have the same rights. In other words, they’re pretty much told by the GOP that “We don’t want you here, even though you agree with us on pretty much everything but immigration”. So, they get accepted by the Dems with open arms, with the intent of brainwashing them to their point of view.

The problem the GOP has with African Americans has to do with the Dixiecrats leaving the Dem party for the GOP after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed and Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”. Remember, before the 1960s, most Blacks were Republicans due to Lincoln, and due to the GOP being formed as the anti-slavery party.

Women have always been a Democratic party constituency. The feminist movement embraced the Democratic Party, and used the Dem party to push forth its goals, namely, women’s suffrage. Honestly, for decades, many leaders in the feminist movement and in the NAACP were at odds, and believed that only one of the two groups would receive rights.

The reason why the Catholic Church was a solidly Democratic constituency for decades goes back to the Civil War, where working Catholics in the North were afraid that freed slaves would take their jobs. This partnership held together the until the 1980 election campaign, when Reagan railed against Roe v. Wade 6 years after the case had been decided. Still, up through the 1990s, there were many pro-life Catholic Democrats in elected positions at both state and national levels (they became a slowly dying breed after the 1992 Democratic National Convention, though, and are now nearly non-existent).

Regardless, the GOP has to find a way to mend bridges with the constituencies that they have all but pushed into the Dem party base. Get people like Alveeda King to explain to Blacks how PP has destroyed their race, not in a preachy way, but in a way that gently opens their eyes. Find a way to improve the immigration system that is both just and merciful, and don’t rail against people who were brought over as little children, were raised in the US, and, quite frankly, might not even know that they’re not US citizens until they try to apply for a job or for college.

And… finally, GOPers, stop being callous delta bravos when discussing issues such as abortion - it really plays into the Dems “War on Women” meme. Instead of Akin’s “legitimate rape” comment, say something like, “I know that it’s quite an ordeal when a woman becomes pregnant due to rape. It’s relatively uncommon, but it happens. It’s also understandable that women in this situation want help, real help. Unfortunately, for many women in this situation, the only advice they get is to abort their children. Relatively few get actual help that would allow them to carry their children - who have done nothing wrong other than the manner they were conceived - to term, which has been shown to help in the healing process. Most women who conceive children through rape and decided to keep their children do so in the face of rampant opposition. Maybe, though, if abortion were made illegal again, these women would be able to receive some real help.”
One more thing, the environment. Republicans have always favored business concerns over environmental protection. They’re not big on accepting our responsibility as stewards of God’s creation - gets in the way of profit. When Sean Hannity starts in about fracking I think I am going to jump out the window. And I’m committed to voting Republican!
 
Respectfully, I would say that you should fine tune your objectivity. When you speak of “affordable” health care, what is actually happening all over the country, is the exact opposite of what you’re giving Obama credit for accomplishing.
True. The actuarial math of introducing the sickest individuals into any health plan alone makes it more expensive for most covered under that same health plan. Just saying.
 
That’s funny, I see this the exact opposite from your view. I believe President Obama is putting the country back on track. If you look through an objective lens it’s clear what he’s done and trying to do. Health care reform is a big one in my mind. Ensuring that every American can have access to affordable health care sounds like a major accomplishment to me.
Pardon my cynicism, but I don’t believe a Catholic could write this! I don’t think even the most liberal Catholics I know would talk like this! 😉 Uh, the HHS mandate thing… Nuns getting sued ? …
 
Pardon my cynicism, but I don’t believe a Catholic could write this! I don’t think even the most liberal Catholics I know would talk like this! 😉 Uh, the HHS mandate thing… Nuns getting sued ? …
Me neither. Strange, isn’t it?

Ishii
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top