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

[RC_Sojourner]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Shame my location is so far away.

Well, I don’t want to pry your location out of you. But, the reasoning behind this ‘Redoubt’ is that the entire East of the Untied States is basically way too populated. I too, live nowhere near this. But, I would consider moving to somewhere like this when I’m older.

Have you heard of the “Catholic Land Movement”? If not, I would google them. There are some books I want to get about them, but I haven’t yet.

Anyways, there’s no reason why Catholics can’t start being preppers wherever they are. I mean, watch the film: For Greater Glory, less than 100 years ago, in Mexico, the survival of the Catholic Church depended on faithful Catholics retreating to the mountains, and forming guerilla bands.

Read the history of the English Wars of Religion. Catholics were in hiding, and their situation was far worse in areas where they didn’t have a strong presence, like Scotland, Ireland, and Wales.

And, I do feel that this is relevant to the thread. If the GOP can’t ever win again (which I, and other posters have agreed with), then our country is basically doomed to collapse. The political process can no longer save us. Our country has been irreversibly altered, and the ideology which has altered it will persecute the Catholic Church. Its only a matter of time, perhaps in our lifetimes (I’m in my 20s).

 

[ProVobis]

Interesting observation. The same is true of health insurance companies. And when the return on investment is low, there’s no place to go but to raise premiums.

Which the Fed little counts in the CPI numbers, so that they can continue to hold interest rates low and continue the absurdity.

 

[RACJ]

Like welfare parasites?

Corporate raiders, IMO, are common criminals who do their stealing within the confines of loopholes in law. Usually, welfare “parasites” are usually people who choose the path of least resistance. Liberals (for the purpose of accruing power for themselves) have created a perverse situation wherein it is often more profitable to stay home than it is to work most entry level jobs. Rob

 

[ssancho]

And, I do feel that this is relevant to the thread. If the GOP can’t ever win again (which I, and other posters have agreed with), then our country is basically doomed to collapse. The political process can no longer save us. Our country has been irreversibly altered, and the ideology which has altered it will persecute the Catholic Church. Its only a matter of time, perhaps in our lifetimes (I’m in my 20s).

I wouldn’t be so sure. I cite history as an example of why the collapse of the GOP (if it were to happen) wouldn’t spell the end of the country.

Before the Civil War, the country was divided over the issue of slavery. The only major party that even mildly opposed slavery was the Whig Party. The Whigs had some anti-slavery members, but mostly they were a party of wealth and militarism with little focus on issues (just like the modern GOP). That party fell apart.

However, a new opposition party, the Republicans, rose to the occasion and firmly opposed slavery with the intent of banning it. That party got elected to power.

Granted, it took a civil war to finally end the practice of slavery, but it ended and stayed ended thanks to the Civil War-era Republican Party.

I mention all this because I believe that abortion is dividing the country now as slavery did then. I hope to God it doesn’t take a second civil war to end that.

 

[Geist]

Corporate raiders, IMO, are common criminals who do their stealing within the confines of loopholes in law. Usually, welfare “parasites” are usually people who choose the path of least resistance. Liberals (for the purpose of accruing power for themselves) have created a perverse situation wherein it is often more profitable to stay home than it is to work most entry level jobs. Rob

No disagreements from me there.

 

[Hobbes42]

I should’ve expected the preppers and tin foil brigade to storm a thread like this…

 

[Geist]

Well, I don’t want to pry your location out of you. But, the reasoning behind this ‘Redoubt’ is that the entire East of the Untied States is basically way too populated. I too, live nowhere near this. But, I would consider moving to somewhere like this when I’m older.

I live near a small to mid sized city in Virginia, nothing to pry.

Have you heard of the “Catholic Land Movement”? If not, I would google them. There are some books I want to get about them, but I haven’t yet.

No, I haven’t.

Anyways, there’s no reason why Catholics can’t start being preppers wherever they are. I mean, watch the film: For Greater Glory, less than 100 years ago, in Mexico, the survival of the Catholic Church depended on faithful Catholics retreating to the mountains, and forming guerilla bands.

I have some prep done, but I live in a pretty solid locality so even if the Feds collapse I don’t anticipate much more than an initial shock and settling. Shame our new governor is a statist though courtesy of only a few heavily populated blue areas; the fate of the nation it seems.

And, I do feel that this is relevant to the thread. If the GOP can’t ever win again (which I, and other posters have agreed with), then our country is basically doomed to collapse. The political process can no longer save us. Our country has been irreversibly altered, and the ideology which has altered it will persecute the Catholic Church. Its only a matter of time, perhaps in our lifetimes (I’m in my 20s).

I’m not a Republican, but they’d make poor saviors indeed. They love spending and expanding government power just as much as the Dems do.

 

[RC_Sojourner]

I have some prep done, but I live in a pretty solid locality so even if the Feds collapse I don’t anticipate much more than an initial shock and settling. Shame our new governor is a statist though courtesy of only a few heavily populated blue areas; the fate of the nation it seems.

Yes, I think to some extent, that’s what the Catholic Land Movement, and others such as G.K. Chesterton were reacting to: urbanization. Yes, the Church will always be there, but the Church is now in societies that it is entirely unfamiliar with. Sure, there was Rome, etc. But, no civilization has been this heavily urbanized. Sorry if I’m ranting, but if our society can murder 55 million of its own children, we should question everything else that society does… like have cities, and large commercial farms. We are dependant on other people to grow our own food (yup, sry, still ranting )

Geist:

I’m not a Republican, but they’d make poor saviors indeed. They love spending and expanding government power just as much as the Dems do.

Well, full disclosure, last election, I voted for a 3rd party. The Constitution Party. I voted in the Republican primaries, but since we nominated neither Gingrich, or Santorum, or Ron Paul, I simply had to vote 3rd party.

 

[RC_Sojourner]

I wouldn’t be so sure. I cite history as an example of why the collapse of the GOP (if it were to happen) wouldn’t spell the end of the country.

Before the Civil War, the country was divided over the issue of slavery. The only major party that even mildly opposed slavery was the Whig Party. The Whigs had some anti-slavery members, but mostly they were a party of wealth and militarism with little focus on issues (just like the modern GOP). That party fell apart.

However, a new opposition party, the Republicans, rose to the occasion and firmly opposed slavery with the intent of banning it. That party got elected to power.

Granted, it took a civil war to finally end the practice of slavery, but it ended and stayed ended thanks to the Civil War-era Republican Party.

I mention all this because I believe that abortion is dividing the country now as slavery did then. I hope to God it doesn’t take a second civil war to end that.

On your last point, even if a second civil war was 10x as bloody as the first civil war, that would be a small price to pay compared to the scourge of violence now taking place. 55 million lives. That’s about as bad as WWII, if my memory serves… and that was a WORLD war, these are the abortions in just ONE country… :nope:

Also, the Republican-Democrat duopoly, or paradigm, or whatever you want to call it has lasted for longer than 1776-1861. So, idk, I just think pointing to the Republican party replacing the Whig party is not relevant to the state of things currently.

Also, I don’t think abortion is the big issue in our nation today. I really think that the “us vs. them” is no longer relevant. Read Pat Buchanan’s book “Suicide of a Superpower”. The old conservative vs. liberal paradigm is basically over. The liberals have won. They invaded public education, and they propagandaized most of my generation.

In a nutshell, the “religious right” is dead. If a new party rose up, our political system would look like that of the United Kingdom.

They have a conservative party, a labour party, and a liberal-democrat party.
Their positions are “conservative”, socialist/ centre-left, socalist/ far-left.

All 3 parties support gay marriage, except a token minority of the conservaive party (the remainder of the old guard that hasn’t died off yet).

So yeah, America might get a new political party, but both parties are going to be socialist and liberal, its just a degree of how much.

 

[ishii]

I would agree that the U.S. is not morally bankrupt. I mean, look at some of the nations in Europe. They’re still extent, and they’re way more morally bankrupt than we are.

Also, as my above post suggests, in the event of a collapse of the U.S., we would not have 50 separate states become 50 separate nations. Many say that the South will stay together (though Florida and the peripheral South are up for grabs). The Northeast will likely stay together. The Midwest perhaps. And some of the Rocky Mountain states.
You’d probably have an independent Mormon nation in Utah and the surrounds, a successor to the state of Deseret.

And, as for California, Hawaii, Alaska, New Mexico, Arizona, etc. We can’t rule out that other nations will acquire these territories: China, Canada, Mexico, etc.

I’m not saying this will definitely happen in my lifetime. But, from what I’ve read, it wouldn’t surprise me either. And, it isn’t daunting for my Catholic faith either.

Nations rise and fall, the Church outlives them all.

(ooh, that rhymed rather pleasantly )

Yes, who knows what the future will hold. Be ready for anything, I guess - including a re-birth of freedom and reformation (it could happen). Or the other stuff - breakup of the country, societal collapse, etc. A good time to get out of debt, imo.

Ishii

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well, full disclosure, last election, I voted for a 3rd party. The Constitution Party. I voted in the Republican primaries, but since we nominated neither Gingrich, or Santorum, or Ron Paul, I simply had to vote 3rd party.

Following, unwittingly no doubt, the Party of Death’s game plan. But you weren’t alone. Apparently this practice guaranteed Obama’s election, and was much encouraged by Dem operatives. It will put Hillary Clinton (worse than Obama) into the White House in 2016 unless those who oppose evil actually oppose it instead of sitting on the sidelines because the opposing candidate is not perfect in their eyes.

It was not my purpose in saying the above to offend you, but hopefully to draw your attention to the fact that you’re following the Dem game plan. Romney was not my first choice or my second, either. But I was not about to give Obama my tacit support by sitting it out.

 

[Geist]

Well, full disclosure, last election, I voted for a 3rd party. The Constitution Party. I voted in the Republican primaries, but since we nominated neither Gingrich, or Santorum, or Ron Paul, I simply had to vote 3rd party.

I voted Libertarian. I do occasionally vote R, but the candidate has to really impress me to do so.

The increasing irrelevancy of the GOP will ideally make it’s saner members (the so-called Tea Party) split off so the GOP can die it’s death in obscurity a little faster. It’s demographically doomed anyway to never hold anything but very safe House districts or safe state legislatures.

In the very near future the choice will come down to statism or freedom, and the GOP is a fence-sitter at best in that choice.

 

[Geist]

Following, unwittingly no doubt, the Party of Death’s game plan. But you weren’t alone. Apparently this practice guaranteed Obama’s election, and was much encouraged by Dem operatives. It will put Hillary Clinton (worse than Obama) into the White House in 2016 unless those who oppose evil actually oppose it instead of sitting on the sidelines because the opposing candidate is not perfect in their eyes.

It was not my purpose in saying the above to offend you, but hopefully to draw your attention to the fact that you’re following the Dem game plan. Romney was not my first choice or my second, either. But I was not about to give Obama my tacit support by sitting it out.

Obamas re-election was guaranteed. You will never see another heterosexual white male in the WH again.

Look at electoral map superimposed over a census demographic map to see why.

 

[ssancho]

Obamas re-election was guaranteed. You will never see another heterosexual white male in the WH again.

Look at electoral map superimposed over a census demographic map to see why.

Even if that’s true, it doesn’t mean that social conservatives are doomed. Both the mainstream Republicans and the Tea Party have a notable share of Hispanic politicians. The mainstream has Marco Rubio and George P. Bush; the Tea Party faction has Ted Cruz, Susana Martinez, and Brian Sandoval (that I can name off the top of my head). The Republicans also have two Asian governors, Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley, both of whom are Christian.

In the 2012 election, I held my nose and voted Romney. I considered Virgil Goode and Joe Schriner (not Gary Johnson; I’m a former Libertarian who knows that that party isn’t that pro-life in practice), but I figured that Romney was the closest thing to a viable pro-life candidate. Even if he personally wasn’t that pro-life, he at least would have been less hostile to pro-lifers than a Democrat President (although I was disturbed to find out after the election that the Mormons don’t officially condemn abortion).

 

[Geist]

Even if that’s true, it doesn’t mean that social conservatives are doomed. Both the mainstream Republicans and the Tea Party have a notable share of Hispanic politicians. The mainstream has Marco Rubio and George P. Bush; the Tea Party faction has Ted Cruz, Susana Martinez, and Brian Sandoval (that I can name off the top of my head). The Republicans also have two Asian governors, Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley, both of whom are Christian.

They will always be dismissed as “tokens” or “sell-outs”. The Dems own he narrative lock, stock, and barrel.

Ask Allen West or Clarence Thomas.

 

[gnjsdad]

When libertarians like Rand Paul talk about economic freedom, what they really end up endorsing is greater concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands.

The fact that 90% of the wealth in this country is controlled by 5% of the population doesn’t seem to register with them.

As far as changing the GOP, Paul’s remedy is better PR and going back to Reagan, in other words, going back to the policies that got us where we are today.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Obamas re-election was guaranteed. You will never see another heterosexual white male in the WH again.

Look at electoral map superimposed over a census demographic map to see why.

Never despair, my friend.

Had as large a percentage of conservatives voted for Romney as voted for George Bush, Romney would have won. Too many stayed home or voted frivolously because Romney was not “pure” enough to suit them. Conservatives, in effect, elected Obama.

And at least some polls show that Obama would not get half the Hispanic vote today and a much reduced percentage of the black vote.

Sometimes it is reasonable to expect that economic and social self-interest can mean more than ethnicity. After all, a substantial number of whites, including white males, voted for Obama too.

 

[Ridgerunner]

When libertarians like Rand Paul talk about economic freedom, what they really end up endorsing is greater concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands.

The fact that 90% of the wealth in this country is controlled by 5% of the population doesn’t seem to register with them.

As far as changing the GOP, Paul’s remedy is better PR and going back to Reagan, in other words, going back to the policies that got us where we are today.

I could be corrected on this, but I believe back in the 19th Century more than 5% of the national wealth was owned by one man alone.

I doubt there were many periods in history when 90% of the wealth was NOT owned by 5% of the population. But that’s not the real issue. Most people have little actual “wealth” in terms of unencumbered assets, and most never did, other than in a few periods in history. (Interestingly including the American colonies in 1776, which were the wealthiest people per capita on earth at the time)

It matters a great deal more that the great majority have a reasonable standard of living for their place and time. And I say that as a believer in the principles of the Social Encyclicals, which strongly encourage the widespread ownership of productive assets.

Part of the trouble in the U.S. presently is that people so often opt for consumer goods instead of productive assets.

 

[Cricket2]

When libertarians like Rand Paul talk about economic freedom, what they really end up endorsing is greater concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands.

The fact that 90% of the wealth in this country is controlled by 5% of the population doesn’t seem to register with them.

As far as changing the GOP, Paul’s remedy is better PR and going back to Reagan, in other words, going back to the policies that got us where we are today.

Very few people get this, and apparently don’t want too. By early 1983 is was easy to see that wages were stagnating and were going to continue to do so, down sizing was becoming rather popular as a way of getting rid of people ready to retire and costs were certainly on the rise. The middle class was starting to disappear and the small farmer was systematically being eliminated.

I had the good fortune of being at a city wide meeting that was intended to address the ruin of the small farmer as well as cuts to health care for the disabled shortly after the arrival of now Cardinal Stafford to Denver. There we learned that deliberate efforts where put forth to ruin small farmers and eliminate them in favor of corporate farms. We also learned that cuts to care for the mentally ill would be so significant that at least 1/3 would land up on the street. Some of those who fell under these cuts were actually developmentally disabled adults who could not care for themselves or ever work.

That is the stuff that started to go on under Reagan’s administration. Just if anyone wanted to know.

 

[ProVobis]

Had as large a percentage of conservatives voted for Romney as voted for George Bush, Romney would have won. Too many stayed home or voted frivolously because Romney was not “pure” enough to suit them. Conservatives, in effect, elected Obama.

In retrospect, Bush got reelected because of the Hispanic vote et ceteris paribus. Apparently his position on immigration was much more lenient than those of other Republicans. Just an observation on my part.