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

[Mickey_Finn]

Liberal Catholic disagree with GOP policies on the poor. Conservative Catholics disagree with Democrat policies on abortion. But here is the difference: The GOP policies are not morally evil, but a different take on how to help the poor. (there’s a nice spin)Contrast that with abortion: Democrats are for the legalized killing of the unborn. They are.

I hope you can see the difference between someone falsely accusing the GOP of “destroying schools and starving the poor” and correctly pointing out that Democrat policies make killing the unborn an easy thing to do. ( again, an interesting spin. while your are right in the following when you say that the two are not equivelant. You insist on offering one up by way of comparison with the other.)The two are not equivalent. But the Democrat Catholic must falsely portray the straw man in order to justify voting for Democrats. I’m sorry, which one is the straw man again?

Vote any way you wish, Mickey. Just don’t vote for pro-abortion candidates. Sounds like good advice.

Ishii

 

[Skadi]

cbsnews.com/news/rand-paul-without-change-gop-will-not-win-again-in-my-lifetime/

Is this true or is he just trying to make libertarian principles more appealing to the Republican party?

He is entirely right. Republicans and social conservatives may be loath to accept it, but it is the truth. Libertarianism is the only viable route forward, otherwise issues like Gay marraige and drug legalization will drag the republicans into the political abyss, and take fiscal sanity and gun rights with them. Every year Gay marraige and Marijuanah become more accepted and if the republicans don’t atleast agree to pass it on to the states, well, they will fall further behind with each passing cycle.

 

[RC_Sojourner]

Nice stats, but they sdon’t address the effect 3rd party candidates can have on the regular party candidates. Don’t look at the national totals, look at the states. For example, take a state in which the election was really, really, close. What if half of Ralph Nader’s votes had gone to Al Gore in Florida in 2000? My guess is it would have won him the election.
Ishii

Florida was the closest state in 2012. Obama won by less than 100,000 votes.

Obama got 4,237,756 votes.
Romney got 4,163,447 votes.

All 3rd parties combined got 72,976 votes. Obama won by a margin of 74,309 votes.
Also, a lot of those votes would have gone to Obama, as the parties were more liberal than the Democrats. So, firstly, you can’t prove that 3rd party voting doesn’t take away equally from both parties. Secondly, you can’t disprove that 100% of 3rd party voters would have stayed home, if they didn’t find a 3rd party that represented them, causing them to vote for the first time in their lives, perhaps. [That describes plenty of 3rd party voters].

Thirdly, its a lie. Its mathematically impossible what you people are arguing. You’re taking a political attack, and it is untrue. Even in the closest state in 2012, it is DEMONSTRABLY UNTRUE, to say that all the 3rd party votes could have pushed Romney over the top.

Shall I go through the math in all the battleground states? Because I will if I have to.
**
This attack is demonstrably untrue, by the math. And I will demonstrate it, if you will not admit it.
**
Florida was the closest state, shall I go through Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and Pennsylvania? The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th closest states?

At least your not calling my vote a sin, because its not. It was the expression of my conscience.

ssancho:

Please, please:

Can’t we just agree to disagree? Everyone here, regardless of whether they voted Mitt Romney, Gary Johnson, Virgil Goode, Joe Schriner, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, or anybody else, is voting their informed conscience. That’s all the Church asks us to do. There’s no need to come to blows over this.

That is all the Church asks us to do. So, I appreciate you, Ishii, not accusing me of supporting abortion. But Ridgerunner did, and that accusation violates the Church’s teaching that all human beings have dignity.

** My dignity is not being respected. I followed my conscience, and I was condemned by a fellow Catholic for it. **Who is the sinner? Who has a plank in their own eye?

 

[ishii]

Florida was the closest state in 2012. Obama won by less than 100,000 votes.

Obama got 4,237,756 votes.
Romney got 4,163,447 votes.

All 3rd parties combined got 72,976 votes. Obama won by a margin of 74,309 votes.
Also, a lot of those votes would have gone to Obama, as the parties were more liberal than the Democrats. So, firstly, you can’t prove that 3rd party voting doesn’t take away equally from both parties. Secondly, you can’t disprove that 100% of 3rd party voters would have stayed home, if they didn’t find a 3rd party that represented them, causing them to vote for the first time in their lives, perhaps. [That describes plenty of 3rd party voters].

Thirdly, its a lie. Its mathematically impossible what you people are arguing. You’re taking a political attack, and it is untrue. Even in the closest state in 2012, it is DEMONSTRABLY UNTRUE, to say that all the 3rd party votes could have pushed Romney over the top.

Shall I go through the math in all the battleground states? Because I will if I have to.
**
This attack is demonstrably untrue, by the math. And I will demonstrate it, if you will not admit it.
**
Florida was the closest state, shall I go through Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and Pennsylvania? The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th closest states?

At least your not calling my vote a sin, because its not. It was the expression of my conscience.

That is all the Church asks us to do. So, I appreciate you, Ishii, not accusing me of supporting abortion. But Ridgerunner did, and that accusation violates the Church’s teaching that all human beings have dignity.

** My dignity is not being respected. I followed my conscience, and I was condemned by a fellow Catholic for it. **Who is the sinner? Who has a plank in their own eye?

I think you’re protesting just a bit much, RC Sojourner. When did I say that 3rd party voters could have elected Romney? If you go back to my original post, I point out that in 2000, a small portion of Nader voters could have thrown the election for Gore, instead of Bush:

**“In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes, which led to claims that he was responsible for Gore’s defeat. Nader, both in his book Crashing the Party and on his website, states: “In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all.”[18] (which would net a 13%, 12,665 votes, advantage for Gore over Bush.)” **

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2000

In other words, 3rd party candidates CAN have an effect on the outcome of an election. Do you have a crystal ball RC Sojourner? Can you say with certainty that in 2016 there won’t be a state that is so close that the votes of a 3rd party candidate might have an effect if they went to one of the major candidates? I didn’t think so.

What this all means, RC Sojourner, is that in 2016, Catholics ought to do the right thing and not eschew the good candidate out of an unreasonable obsession with ideological purity. I would much prefer having a good president than having a terrible president. Even if it means that I don’t vote for the “perfect” guy.

Ishii

 

[Skadi]

I think the people on here debating third parties need to step back and look at how the Two party system is not only almost exclusive to the US, but is extreamly ineficient compaired to a multiparty system. If the US was to have say a 4 party system (let’s say a libertarian and a socialist party) our system would require compromise and defeat the current ideological gridlock in our government. Even if both these new party’s held only say 15% each of congressional seats, with the republicans and democrats fighting for the remaining 70% then it would be near impossible for one party to gain a majority, forcing compromise and coalition building.

The current two parties hate this idea which is why they have structured the election system the way it is, making third party’s lives extreamly difficult.

 

[JimG]

I think the people on here debating third parties need to step back and look at how the Two party system is not only almost exclusive to the US, but is extreamly ineficient compaired to a multiparty system. If the US was to have say a 4 party system (let’s say a libertarian and a socialist party) our system would require compromise and defeat the current ideological gridlock in our government. Even if both these new party’s held only say 15% each of congressional seats, with the republicans and democrats fighting for the remaining 70% then it would be near impossible for one party to gain a majority, forcing compromise and coalition building.

The current two parties hate this idea which is why they have structured the election system the way it is, making third party’s lives extreamly difficult.

Actually, with the two party system, negotiation and compromise is supposed to take place within the party. Typically this was accomplished by personal meetings at party events and caucuses.

In my opinion, that system worked well and overall gave us better candidates from both parties. But it was essentially rendered impotent by the rise of primaries instead of party caucuses, thereby turning the power over to the money brokers who could raise money for TV commercials.

Look at the 2012 Republican primary, where, instead of party faithful selecting electable candidates at caucuses, the candidates were allowed to destroy each other in public television debates, emptying their personal treasuries and assuring the election of the other party.

Primary elections are a poor way to select candidates. And why should someone who is not a member of a party be allowed to vote in the party’s primary?

 

[Skadi]

Actually, with the two party system, negotiation and compromise is supposed to take place within the party. Typically this was accomplished by personal meetings at party events and caucuses.

In my opinion, that system worked well and overall gave us better candidates from both parties. But it was essentially rendered impotent by the rise of primaries instead of party caucuses, thereby turning the power over to the money brokers who could raise money for TV commercials.

Look at the 2012 Republican primary, where, instead of party faithful selecting electable candidates at caucuses, the candidates were allowed to destroy each other in public television debates, emptying their personal treasuries and assuring the election of the other party.

Primary elections are a poor way to select candidates. And why should someone who is not a member of a party be allowed to vote in the party’s primary?

I agree that led to the eventual defeat of the Republican Party in the last election (as well as the selection of a poor canidate) however political parties were nevercintended under the US constitution and were explicitly warned against by the founders.

Further, a two party system leads to a dichotomy, dividing the country and leading to gridlock by giving only two options. In European parliments while there are generally only 2-4 major parties, there are numorous other parties who aquire seats. This makes it extreamly difficult for a single party to achieve majority and forces the creation of coalitions.

I must disagree that the preferable method for compromising is to do it within two existing parties, as it esentialy forces the losers of compromise to then vote for politicians they do not fully support. I am an ardent libertarian and advocate of fiscal responsibility, but I am esentialy forced by the current system to support the Republican Party. Even though I strongly disagree with the republican platform on Gay Marraige, the war on drugs, and the patriot act supporting the republicans is the only alternative to the fiscal insanity of the democrats.

If the current electoral system, which gives millions in taxpayer money and automatic ballot presence to only the Republicans and Democrats, were recinded and equal treatment under the law given to all parties, I would be able to support a libertarian canidate who shares my values and let him do the compromising in congress, rather than compromising myself before I even vote, and give my endorsement to a canidate I do not fully support.

Our current system is structured to perpetuate the republicans and the democrats, by giving huge sums of tax payer dollars to party’s which finish above 5% in presidential elections, which then turn around and use that money to bury smaller parties. By doing this the two major parties efectively trap persons into voting for their canidates. Sense the Socialist party cannot possibly compete with the Dems and GOP monitarily sense both get nearly 100 million from the government, socialists are forced to chose the lesser of two evils by voting democrat, the same goes for libertarians and the republicans. This then snowballs, creating a cultural effect where by the two party system becomes ingrained and votes and donations to “third parties” are considered wasteful.

Because of this system I am forced every election to give my endorsement to a party controlled through as you said, the primary system, by a Neo-conservative alliance of oligarchs and evangelical christians, because the only other alternative is a move towards socialism.

I don’t understand why it is better for me to pick the lesser of two evils. After the failure of Romney I have officially severed my ties to the republicans. If Rand Paul does not win their nomination then I will dedicate my time and my vote to helping the libertarian party reach 5% so it can receive government money on par with the republicans and democrats.

 

[ishii]

I don’t understand why it is better for me to pick the lesser of two evils. After the failure of Romney I have officially severed my ties to the republicans. If Rand Paul does not win their nomination then I will dedicate my time and my vote to helping the libertarian party reach 5% so it can receive government money on par with the republicans and democrats.

Why just Rand Paul? Aren’t there any other Republicans worthy of support? Ted Cruz? Bobby Jindal? On what issue(s) does Paul differ from those two?

Ishii

 

[Skadi]

Why just Rand Paul? Aren’t there any other Republicans worthy of support? Ted Cruz? Bobby Jindal? On what issue(s) does Paul differ from those two?

Ishii

Even Paul is extreamly a stretch for me, as I consider him a sellout libertarian who has compromised himself for political Capitol with the GOP establishment. I would have to look at Ted more seriously before I considered him.

In all, I am absolutely crushed that Ron Paul will not be running again. His momentum from last election could have carried him to the nomination, and he is not just a libertarian but a STRONG libertarian, lying somewhere between Clasical Liberal and Minarchist. I much prefer him to his son. I honestly believe he could have been a Mt. Rushmore quality president.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I can understand deciding to vote for whatever warm body the Republicans decide to nominate. Just don’t be surprised when all the Republicans give you is a warm body who is slightly better than Hillary.

“Slightly better”??? Only Venezuela’s Maduro would be “slightly worse”, and maybe not even that. Hillary Clinton would be worse than obama.

 

[Skadi]

“Slightly better”??? Only Venezuela’s Maduro would be “slightly worse”, and maybe not even that. Hillary Clinton would be worse than obama.

I think only because he has paved the way for her. If she had been elected in 2008 I think she would have been (slightly) better. Atleast she wouldn’t let china push us around.

 

[Ridgerunner]

At least your not calling my vote a sin, because its not. It was the expression of my conscience.

That is all the Church asks us to do. So, I appreciate you, Ishii, not accusing me of supporting abortion. But Ridgerunner did, and that accusation violates the Church’s teaching that all human beings have dignity.

** My dignity is not being respected. I followed my conscience, and I was condemned by a fellow Catholic for it. **Who is the sinner? Who has a plank in their own eye?

If you’ll check back, you’ll see that I did not call you a “sinner”. I said you supported abortion by failing to oppose evil when you could have. “Sin” is an objective thought or action, but it requires knowledge and a subjective intent as well. No man can know for sure than another man sinned, subjectively. But doing something objectively wrong is still wrong.

Informing another that his act is/was objectively wrong is not a violation of human dignity. On the contrary, it is precisely supportive of human dignity if we attempt to inform our brother of the wrongfulness of his action when he doesn’t realize it or rationalizes it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with telling a person the truth.

And “following one’s conscience” is not sufficient. That’s protestantism, in which every man is a church unto himself. We are also obligated to learn the objective truth and examine our actions in light of that learning.

 

[Just_Lurking]

“Slightly better”??? Only Venezuela’s Maduro would be “slightly worse”, and maybe not even that. Hillary Clinton would be worse than obama.

I’m sure Kathy Hawken will be glad to hear that she’s got your vote locked up should she ever run for president.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m sure Kathy Hawken will be glad to hear that she’s got your vote locked up should she ever run for president.

Improbable on all counts.

I’ll grant that there are some “pro choice” (meaning pro-abortion) Repubs. Both NARAL and NRL identified something like six of them in congress. In similar manner, both identified about six or so prolife Dems.

Pro abortion Repub politicians are a tiny minority, just as prolife Dems are.

But regardless, I check out every candidate in every election. I’ll admit, some purely local candidates’ positions are difficult to determine; the county surveyor, the coroner, that sort of thing.

But, to actually address your assertion. I would do everything I could to defeat Kathy Hawken in the primary. I would then look at both her and her opponent in the general. If there was a discernible difference between the two, I would probably act on it. One difference that would be there, of course, is that in the utterly unlikely event Hawken was nominated as the Repubs’ presidential candidate (my county surveyor probably has a better shot) she would be so unpopular with such a huge segment of the Repub party that she would have a lot of difficulty being able to accomplish anything.

 

[meltzerboy]

Even Paul is extreamly a stretch for me, as I consider him a sellout libertarian who has compromised himself for political Capitol with the GOP establishment. I would have to look at Ted more seriously before I considered him.

In all, I am absolutely crushed that Ron Paul will not be running again. His momentum from last election could have carried him to the nomination, and he is not just a libertarian but a STRONG libertarian, lying somewhere between Clasical Liberal and Minarchist. I much prefer him to his son. I honestly believe he could have been a Mt. Rushmore quality president.

Ron Paul is presently 78 years old. For an ordinary job, that may not be considered so old these days, but for the job of President I think it may be. Even if Paul is in good health, I think some voters might think twice about voting for him based solely on his age, apart from his libertarian views.

 

[ishii]

Even Paul is extreamly a stretch for me, as I consider him a sellout libertarian who has compromised himself for political Capitol with the GOP establishment. I would have to look at Ted more seriously before I considered him.

In all, I am absolutely crushed that Ron Paul will not be running again. His momentum from last election could have carried him to the nomination, and he is not just a libertarian but a STRONG libertarian, lying somewhere between Clasical Liberal and Minarchist. I much prefer him to his son. I honestly believe he could have been a Mt. Rushmore quality president.

You do realize that Ron Paul would turn 81 before election day 2016? And you think he’d have a chance at the nomination? I agree with some of his stands but I’ve never had a whole lot of respect for Mr. Paul. I mean, he’s like a rock star among the “true believers” but what has he really accomplished except run for office unsuccessfully? It must be nice to be able to stick to your principles if you have no realistic chance of winning. I have more respect for those who put together coalitions of somewhat like-minded people in order to get elected and get something done. Reagan did that. Paul has not, because he’d rather be able to say “I stuck to 100% libertarianism” than say, " I got elected president and was able to implement some libertarian style reforms." Rand Paul understands that to have a chance, you have to appeal to more than just the 3% of true believing libertarians. But as I can see from your post above, in trying to appeal to a wider audience, he might gain some non-libertarian support but lose the doctrinaire libertarians like yourself. Hopefully he realizes that the former is much more important than the latter. With wider support, Rand Paul might actually accomplish something.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Ron Paul is presently 78 years old. For an ordinary job, that may not be considered so old these days, but for the job of President I think it may be. Even if Paul is in good health, I think some voters might think twice about voting for him based solely on his age, apart from his libertarian views.

He would be 81 in 2016. To suggest that he could remotely be a viable candidate for the nomination is a joke, as was his 2012 campaign, imo.

Ishii

 

[Skadi]

You do realize that Ron Paul would turn 81 before election day 2016? And you think he’d have a chance at the nomination? I agree with some of his stands but I’ve never had a whole lot of respect for Mr. Paul. I mean, he’s like a rock star among the “true believers” but what has he really accomplished except run for office unsuccessfully? It must be nice to be able to stick to your principles if you have no realistic chance of winning. I have more respect for those who put together coalitions of somewhat like-minded people in order to get elected and get something done. Reagan did that. Paul has not, because he’d rather be able to say “I stuck to 100% libertarianism” than say, " I got elected president and was able to implement some libertarian style reforms." Rand Paul understands that to have a chance, you have to appeal to more than just the 3% of true believing libertarians. But as I can see from your post above, in trying to appeal to a wider audience, he might gain some non-libertarian support but lose the doctrinaire libertarians like yourself. Hopefully he realizes that the former is much more important than the latter. With wider support, Rand Paul might actually accomplish something.

Ishii

This may sound crazy to you but even Ron Paul is a compromise for me. I am a “Right Anarchist”. I believe that involentary government (I.e. any government you have not explicitly signed a physical contract with) is inherantly Imoral. I advocate a free society in which people can chose which government to be a citizen of or chose to be a citizen of none at all, and where all services are provided in a highly competetive free market. There are very detaile descriptions of how things like law and national defense would be handled in such a system but that’s not what we are talking about.

My dream of a free and stateless society based on the non-Agression principal will never be achieved in my lifetime. I have accepted this. Libertarianism and minarchism is my compromise, to move the country in the right direction by fighting for liberty individual rights, so that some day in the future the people may see what government is, unnecisary evil.

I understand that sometimes compromise is necisary, but I have absolutely no respect for a person who compromises his ideals in one area to advance another. This is why I am done with the republicans. They modestly advance fiscal liberty at the cost of some Individual rights.

Also you arbitrary 3% is inaccurate. 10% of Americans identify as libertarian in recent polls and when that is expanded to “economically conservative and socially liberal/tolerant” that can reach as high as 40%.

 

[Skadi]

He would be 81 in 2016. To suggest that he could remotely be a viable candidate for the nomination is a joke, as was his 2012 campaign, imo.

Ishii

The man is indeed old, but if you have ever seen him speek he is a vigorous 78 year old. And his 2012 campaign was far from a joke, slowly but surely his wing of the party is winning. How many “republicans” could get 8000 students to a rally at UC-Berkley? The Ron Paul Revolution goes on in spite of his absence from the election, and I have all confidence we will win eventually.

 

[seaton2005]

First, what does “extremely conservative” mean? Does it mean “belief in the Costitutional principles of God-given individual rights which no government can eviscerate”? If so, I am one, and you oughta be as well.
Second, I do hope that when you call Mrs. Clinton an “exceptional SoS”, your tongue was firmly implanted in your cheek. “We came, we saw, he (Ghadafi) died.” That was what Hillary bleated, before the terrorists who took over killed four of our people, including Amb Chris Stephens. You remember, the fellow who asked for assistance which Hillary denied. Moreover, I am sure that you recall that Hillary lied about a goofy video triggering the attack. Please open your eyes and educate yourself. She has been an utter failure at everything in her life except her self-promotional PR campaign. :sad_yes: Rob

I don’t believe there are any facts to back up the allegations you make. Actually, SOS Hillary Clinton performed very well. She would probably make a good chief executive.