# Start Here > Ron Paul Forum >  Why are we Republicans?

## TrishW

Can anyone tell me?  Is it merely because Ron Paul is a Republican?  Is it because we see the Republican Party as more willing to bend to our demand of personal freedoms? Is it merely an alignment with a party that is against Obama?

Why are we concentrating all our efforts on the Republican Party? Or am I wrong, is it possible to vote for a Democrat that supports our cause?  

If the worse comes to pass and Ron Paul is shut out.. do we stay strictly Republicans?

----------


## LostNFoundNTx

Of the two parties that have a realistic chance of winning under our plurality voting system, the views of the Republican Party (though sometimes just on paper) are closest to what the majority of us stand for. I don't think the Democrat Party stands for anything we stand for.

----------


## matt0611

Well we can't be democrats, that much is certain, they are basically straight up socialist. Not that republicans are much better but at least they are *supposed* to be for republicanism, conservative in their view of the Constitution and government, for free(er) markets and low taxes and spending. 

Its rigged to be a two party system, there's not much hope in getting around it. Its easier to change / takeover the republicans than it would be the democrats.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Can anyone tell me?  Is it merely because Ron Paul is a Republican?  Is it because we see the Republican Party as more willing to bend to our demand of personal freedoms? Is it merely an alignment with a party that is against Obama?
> 
> Why are we concentrating all our efforts on the Republican Party? Or am I wrong, is it possible to vote for a Democrat that supports our cause?  
> 
> If the worse comes to pass and Ron Paul is shot out.. do we stay strictly Republicans?


I have yet to see a Democrat that supports our cause.  Sure, they may align from time to time, but they are so far out when it comes to economics, if anyone tried to preach economic liberty, the party would crush them.

The same thing happens in the GOP, but to a lesser extent.  There's a big chunk of GOP voters that care primarily about economic issues and they can look past our social or geo-political stances if they agree with our economics.

It's a small difference, but that's why this movement can grow more efficiently in the GOP than elsewhere.  Add to that, that many of the GOP's heros have preach libertarianism in the past.  Even while they haven't followed it, it sounds more pleasing to their ears.

Finally, we have made some pretty impressive gains in the GOP.  We are getting closer and closer.  If you find a democrat that is on our side, I'd say support him.  But let's not give up what we've worked so hard to obtain.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

The average republican and nearly all conservatives align relatively close to our brand of constitutional conservatism but are corralled by Fox and the radio mafia. So, we just need to be the leaders in the national, state and local parties as much as possible to control the message and decide who gets endorsements and what not. So-called conservatives would rather be dead than support democrats, so if we're in control we'll win by default.
In addition, we'll be able to educate the involved local conservatives to better understand things from a constitutional perspective than how the media is framing things. At this point, the media can either shape up or kiss our asses.

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

> Can anyone tell me?  Is it merely because Ron Paul is a Republican?  Is it because we see the Republican Party as more willing to bend to our demand of personal freedoms? Is it merely an alignment with a party that is against Obama?
> 
> Why are we concentrating all our efforts on the Republican Party? Or am I wrong, is it possible to vote for a Democrat that supports our cause?  
> 
> If the worse comes to pass and Ron Paul is shot out.. do we stay strictly Republicans?


Why vote party?  Vote candidate..  Party names mean nothing...  Both current Republicans and Democrats parties started as the Democratic-Republican party under Jefferson...  then split to eventually what we have today...

----------


## tfurrh

Black and Blue
And who knows which is which and who is who
Up and Down
And in the end it's only round and round and round
Haven't you heard it's a battle of words
The poster bearer cried
Listen son, said the man with the gun
There's room for you inside

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I have yet to see a Democrat that supports our cause.


...that has won office. There have been a few Ron Paul Democrats that have run. If you look at our list of candidates for Congress, there were at least two of them this cycle.

----------


## TrishW

Thank you guys so much for answering my questions.  I have always thought of myself as a Democrat. I grew up thinking the Republicans were for the rich, and the Democrats for the poor.  I was not rich. 

Somehow though, I voted for Bush twice.  I live in Mo where you do not have to vote with a party affiliation. My main interest in all of you here, is to end the unconstitution wars and meddling, and to stop the attack on our liberties.  911 changed everything.  I am tired of livinging its aftermath.  I want America renewed.

So if its through the Republican, I am now a Republican!  Except.... I'm not voting for Romney.   Is that wrong?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Well we can't be democrats, that much is certain, they are basically straight up socialist. Not that republicans are much better but at least they are *supposed* to be for republicanism, conservative in their view of the Constitution and government, for free(er) markets and low taxes and spending. 
> 
> Its rigged to be a two party system, there's not much hope in getting around it. Its easier to change / takeover the republicans than it would be the democrats.


^That. Hard to be anti-socialism and be a Democrat.

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

> Thank you guys so much for answering my questions.  I have always thought of myself as a Democrat. I grew up thinking the Republicans were for the rich, and the Democrats for the poor.  I was not rich. 
> 
> Somehow though, I voted for Bush twice.  I live in Mo where you do not have to vote with a party affiliation. My main interest in all of you here, is to end the unconstitution wars and meddling, and to stop the attack on our liberties.  911 changed everything.  I am tired of livinging its aftermath.  I want America renewed.
> 
> So if its through the Republican, I am now a Republican!  Except.... I'm not voting for Romney.   Is that wrong?


I will only speak for myself, but I see Romney and Obama working for the same party and that party has nothing to do with the best interest of America or its citizens..

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

Democrats ONLY care about redistributing wealth.  Peace, civil liberties, and ending the drug war only get paid lip service too and often times dems are openly hostile to them.

----------


## fisharmor

> Can anyone tell me?


Because it's the only thing to try that doesn't involve shooting?
(ETA: or getting shot)

----------


## parocks

We are Republicans because the Limited Constitutional Government candidates have always been Republicans going back 72 years.

Robert Taft
Barry Goldwater
Ronald Reagan
Ron Paul

The Democrats have never had a Limited Constitutional Government Candidate in that time frame.  Perhaps Andrew Jackson close to 200 years ago.

We're the Libertarian / Constitutionalist Conservative Wing of the Republican Party.  We were enthusiastic in 2012 (and in 2008), because we have a candidate to support.  In 2000 and 2004, we really didn't.  I liked Buchanan in 1996.

----------


## surf

i'm an elected r pco primarily for Ron, but the other reason is that the libertarian party has been effectively outlawed in my state - only the top 2 advance to general election.

edit: answering one of your questions, i would definitely support (vote for) a pro-pot (civil liberties) and pro-peace democrat over the opposite republican

----------


## r3volution

im not voting for romney either unless there is an extremely unlikely situation where Ron would get a high cabinet position other than VP (like fed chair , head of DOJ , treasury ect.. ) something like that .

----------


## specsaregood

> ^That. Hard to be anti-socialism and be a Democrat.


Hell, remember when bob conley won the democrat senate primary as a liberty candidate and the state dnc pretty much backed Sen. Graham instead of their own candidate?

----------


## gerryb

> ...that has won office. There have been a few Ron Paul Democrats that have run. If you look at our list of candidates for Congress, there were at least two of them this cycle.


Larry McDonald was the original Dr. No .  Democrat from Georgia - his district was later won by Newt Gingrich.

----------


## Lightweis

I think our people should run as democrats if you live in a heavy populated democrat area. Or else stick to the plan and follow doctor Paul's lead

----------


## Origanalist

> Thank you guys so much for answering my questions.  I have always thought of myself as a Democrat. I grew up thinking the Republicans were for the rich, and the Democrats for the poor.  I was not rich. 
> 
> Somehow though, I voted for Bush twice.  I live in Mo where you do not have to vote with a party affiliation. My main interest in all of you here, is to end the unconstitution wars and meddling, and to stop the attack on our liberties.  911 changed everything.  I am tired of livinging its aftermath.  I want America renewed.
> 
> So if its through the Republican, I am now a Republican!  Except.... I'm not voting for Romney.  * Is that wrong?*


Except for the voting twice for Bush part, you are in the majority here. Mitt Romney was the final slap in the face from the GOP for me. I won't vote for him, but, a liberty candidate has 0 chance in the democrat party.

----------


## gte811i

> Larry McDonald was the original Dr. No .  Democrat from Georgia - his district was later won by Newt Gingrich.


Right on.  Of course in order to figure that out you really have to go into the history.  After the Civil war the south despised Republicans and for basically over 100 years voted straight up Democrat . . . Southern Democrat to be specific, which was probably the closest we've had to a real 3rd party for that time period and Southern Democrats were different than any other democrat.  This has really only changed in the last 15-20 years.  Shoot, Zill Miller (D) headlined one of GWB's national conventions . . . Zig Zag Zill was definitely a southern democrat.

----------


## specsaregood

> , but, a liberty candidate has 0 chance in the democrat party.


I disagree.  The correct smart liberty candidate that is able to stay on message with a specific limited message has a puncher's chance in the democrat party.

----------


## parocks

> Thank you guys so much for answering my questions.  I have always thought of myself as a Democrat. I grew up thinking the Republicans were for the rich, and the Democrats for the poor.  I was not rich. 
> 
> Somehow though, I voted for Bush twice.  I live in Mo where you do not have to vote with a party affiliation. My main interest in all of you here, is to end the unconstitution wars and meddling, and to stop the attack on our liberties.  911 changed everything.  I am tired of livinging its aftermath.  I want America renewed.
> 
> So if its through the Republican, I am now a Republican!  Except.... I'm not voting for Romney.   Is that wrong?


I think a lot of Conservative Republicans like yourself, people in the tradition of Taft, Goldwater and Reagan will not be voting for Romney.  They want, first and foremost, a Conservative like Gary Johnson or Virgil Goode.  

When the Republican is not Conservative enough, you get judges like John Roberts.

----------


## parocks

> Hell, remember when bob conley won the democrat senate primary as a liberty candidate and the state dnc pretty much backed Sen. Graham instead of their own candidate?


If we have control of the state party in a state, couldn't we be backing (pretty much) Johnson or Goode instead of Romney?

----------


## TrishW

> Democrats ONLY care about redistributing wealth.  Peace, civil liberties, and ending the drug war only get paid lip service too and often times dems are openly hostile to them.


With me, its not about the money. I have managed to gain a fair amount of financial success ... irregardless of the party in power. I have no problem helping those less fortunate.  I do *not* mind paying my taxes.  I do not care if drugs remain illegal. 

I do care if my taxes are used to support killing. I do not want my money going over-seas when people need help right here at home. I do not want to be spied upon, nor be terrorized by our government in the name of safety.  

 I cannot see turning my back on the same programs that helped to lift me out of poverty.  So who am I? 
A Democratic-Republican or a Republican-Democrat. 

I think there are a lot of me.  

But you do not have to answer these questions, as long as my kind is welcome within your fold.

----------


## parocks

> Well we can't be democrats, that much is certain, they are basically straight up socialist. Not that republicans are much better but at least they are *supposed* to be for republicanism, conservative in their view of the Constitution and government, for free(er) markets and low taxes and spending. 
> 
> Its rigged to be a two party system, there's not much hope in getting around it. Its easier to change / takeover the republicans than it would be the democrats.


We've been a minority in the Republican Party since Taft if not longer.  What we are is the Libertarian / Constitutionalist Conservative Wing of the Republican Party.

Occasionally, we have a candidate to support, and when we get a good one, we get all enthusiastic because it's so rare to see.  (See: Ron Paul)

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

> We've been a minority in the Republican Party since Taft if not longer.  What we are is the Libertarian / Constitutionalist Conservative Wing of the Republican Party.
> 
> Occasionally, we have a candidate to support, and when we get a good one, we get all enthusiastic because it's so rare to see.  (See: Ron Paul)


so do you always vote Repub or are you open to the option of voting Democrat if a like-minded candidate came along?

----------


## gerryb

> If we have control of the state party in a state, couldn't we be backing (pretty much) Johnson or Goode instead of Romney?


Not worth the political capital, but we could utilize resources instead to focus on state house/senate and local races.  That's the advantage of winning party leadership.

----------


## specsaregood

> If we have control of the state party in a state, couldn't we be backing (pretty much) Johnson or Goode instead of Romney?


I don't think that would be good for us at this stage in the game.  But I guess in theory... i guess that is sorta what romney expects in places such as NV where he had his own apparatus setup.

----------


## parocks

> With me, its not about the money. I have managed to gain a fair amount of financial success ... irregardless of the party in power. I have no problem helping those less fortunate.  I do *not* mind paying my taxes.  I do not care if drugs remain illegal. 
> 
> I do care if my taxes are used to support killing. I do not want my money going over-seas when people need help right here at home. I do not want to be spied upon, nor be terrorized by our government in the name of safety.  
> 
>  I cannot see turning my back on the same programs that helped to lift me out of poverty.  So who am I? 
> A Democratic-Republican or a Republican-Democrat. 
> 
> I think there are a lot of me.  
> 
> But you do not have to answer these questions, as long as my kind is welcome within your fold.


Maybe, maybe not.  You might be an Antiwar Democrat.  And our future is not built with a coalition that includes too many antiwar Democrats.   

You might very well be happy when the Antiwar protests start up again as soon as a Republican becomes President again.

Government is the enemy of the people.

Government vs People.

----------


## CaptUSA

> With me, its not about the money. I have managed to gain a fair amount of financial success ... irregardless of the party in power. I have no problem helping those less fortunate.  I do *not* mind paying my taxes.  I do not care if drugs remain illegal. 
> 
> I do care if my taxes are used to support killing. I do not want my money going over-seas when people need help right here at home. I do not want to be spied upon, nor be terrorized by our government in the name of safety.  
> 
>  I cannot see turning my back on the same programs that helped to lift me out of poverty.  So who am I? 
> A Democratic-Republican or a Republican-Democrat. 
> 
> I think there are a lot of me.  
> 
> But you do not have to answer these questions, as long as my kind is welcome within your fold.


Hell yeah, you're welcome!  Don't worry about how someone else classifies you - you are an individual.  Period.

You may need to brush up on economics a little to fully understand how those programs end up hurting more than they help, but you are in the right place.  

I understand you may not care about each and every freedom issue - each one of us cares about different issues to different degrees.  But as long as we work together on the ones that lead to more freedom, and you don't actively pursue taking someone else's freedom away on other issues, I think you'll be comfortable.

----------


## parocks

> I don't think that would be good for us at this stage in the game.  But I guess in theory... i guess that is sorta what romney expects in places such as NV where he had his own apparatus setup.


Well, yeah.  I'm not saying "that is what we should do".  I guess I'm saying "boy, wouldn't it be pretty easy to leave Romney off of all the lit, and if we go door to door, we could drop off our Johnson slim jim and our "vote for these terrible RINOs for US Senate and US Rep" on another piece of lit.  And another piece of lit if our State Senate /Rep candidates are any good.  Not saying should.  Saying easy.

Romney is having a heck of a time getting people to show up at conventions.  Will it be easier for him to GOTV at county committee meetings?

----------


## Origanalist

> Originally Posted by Origanalist
> 
> , but, a liberty candidate has 0 chance in the democrat party.






> I disagree.  The correct smart liberty candidate that is able to stay on message with a specific limited message has a puncher's chance in the democrat party.


I guess you are correct, it depends on what part of the country they are in. I sure can't see anyone who proposes a liberty agenda winning in my State.

----------


## parocks

> so do you always vote Repub or are you open to the option of voting Democrat if a like-minded candidate came along?


It's been a long, long time since I've voted for a Democrat.  It wasn't this century.  But I have voted 3rd Party more recently than that.  Can't remember the details.  Might've been "oh, state treasurer, I have no idea, oh look, a Libertarian, why not?"  

I was considering voting for Democrat in November against Olympia Snowe.  She's out now, so there's no need for that.  I'm a Conservative Republican.  Ron Paul is a Conservative Republican.

----------


## Origanalist

> With me, its not about the money. I have managed to gain a fair amount of financial success ... irregardless of the party in power. I have no problem helping those less fortunate.  I do *not* mind paying my taxes.  I do not care if drugs remain illegal. 
> 
> I do care if my taxes are used to support killing. I do not want my money going over-seas when people need help right here at home. I do not want to be spied upon, nor be terrorized by our government in the name of safety.  
> 
>  I cannot see turning my back on the same programs that helped to lift me out of poverty.  So who am I? 
> A Democratic-Republican or a Republican-Democrat. 
> 
> I think there are a lot of me.  
> 
> But you do not have to answer these questions, as long as my kind is welcome within your fold.


You are more than welcome, but I think you know that. It seems to me that to everyone here some issues are more importent than others. We'll just argue about the rest.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I will only speak for myself, but I see Romney and Obama working for the same party and that party has nothing to do with the best interest of America or its citizens..


*You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to SilenceDewgooder again.*

----------


## TrishW

> Maybe, maybe not.  You might be an Antiwar Democrat.  And our future is not built with a coalition that includes too many antiwar Democrats.   
> 
> You might very well be happy when the Antiwar protests start up again as soon as a Republican becomes President again.
> 
> Government is the enemy of the people.
> 
> Government vs People.


You would be right, if I was only anti-war when it involved another country. But I am also against the war our government has declared on our personal freedoms.  

Are you saying that I should not be able to pick and choose my fight?  Government intrusion in our life is bad, even if its good.  Is that right?  

OK.. I don't want to do this. The fact is you have me, whether you like it or not. LOL The same way the Republican Party has us.  So I have a few warts, maybe you do too.

----------


## specsaregood

> I guess you are correct, it depends on what part of the country they are in. I sure can't see anyone who proposes a liberty agenda winning in my State.


if one is smart and has the funds they have a chance in either party if they just pick the 80% issues and run on those and stick to them and don't get pigeon-holed or off message.

----------


## AJ Antimony

If Ron Paul was a Democrat, then we'd be trying to reform the Democratic party.

But generally, the GOP is more likely to welcome the liberty issues than the Democrats.

Think of it this way: It's easier to convince a GOP voter that gay marriage is acceptable than to convince a Dem voter that free markets are acceptable.

----------


## Origanalist

> if one is smart and has the funds they have a chance in either party if they just pick the 80% issues and run on those and stick to them and don't get pigeon-holed or off message.


Well, if you run across any real liberty candidates running as a dem who needs support, let me know. I'm not a bigot, I hate both parties.

----------


## donnay



----------


## parocks

> You would be right, if I was only anti-war when it involved another country. But I am also against the war our government has declared on our personal freedoms.  
> 
> Are you saying that I should not be able to pick and choose my fight?  Government intrusion in our life is bad, even if its good.  Is that right?  
> 
> OK.. I don't want to do this. The fact is you have me, whether you like it or not. LOL The same way the Republican Party has us.  So I have a few warts, maybe you do too.


Well, I'm not trying to go out of my way to piss you off.  You seem sincere.  And I'm not in disagreement with what others have been telling you.

Government is the enemy of the people.  I don't get that "even when it's good" part.  What do you mean by that?  Welfare causes poverty for example.  Personally, I don't want to get into arguments about the merits of FedGov with someone who likes FedGov.  I'm not interested in watering down that core message.  We were too welcoming of Antiwar Democrats in 2007 (and still are).  When there's a Republican President, and the wars don't stop, and there's a new one, expect the Dems to rile up their antiwar base with the protests and the whatnot.  That might be very appealing to you.  "Wow" you might say "these guys are antiwar, and they want to spend my money to "help" the poor.  Perfect."   You are not alone in your way of thinking.  The problem is that you and people like you can be predicted to bolt when something that is likely to happen does in fact happen.

I'm not trying to attack you.  But I'm interested in finding areas of commonality with antiwar Dems.  I knew they were toxic in 2007, and remain so.  They're the ones who always want to march here or there for reasons that I never understood, except that they're antiwar protesters, and that's what antiwar protesters do.  

The Libertarians / Constitutionalists are Conservatives, and Conservatives have been a part of the Republican Party for many many years, and Ron Paul is awfully similar to Robert Taft.

----------


## parocks

> If Ron Paul was a Democrat, then we'd be trying to reform the Democratic party.
> 
> But generally, the GOP is more likely to welcome the liberty issues than the Democrats.
> 
> Think of it this way: It's easier to convince a GOP voter that gay marriage is acceptable than to convince a Dem voter that free markets are acceptable.


But Ron Paul was not a Democrat.  He never was a Democrat.  He supported Ronald Reagan way back in 1976.  What Ron Paul is and always has been is a Conservative, and in 1988, he got pissed off (or something) and ran as a Libertarian.  For most of his political life he was a Conservative Republican, solidly in the tradition of other Conservative Republicans.  There is no Conservative Democrat tradition that Ron Paul was a part of.

Agree with the other stuff.

----------


## matt0611

The democrats don't care about civil liberties either (at least the vast majority). Obama and other democrats were against the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention etc before they got elected. They didn't really object to it on principle, they only objected to that they were not the one administering it.

Same goes for any military action anywhere to "make the world safe for democracy" (a term coined by a democrat (Wilson) by the way).

They don't care about freedom of speech when they disagree with it (see hate crime laws, fairness doctrine, war against christian beliefs etc).

They don't care about people's right to defend themselves.

They want to increase taxes and spending and care nothing of sound money. They don't care about corporatism (see Solyndra, General Motors, bank bailouts, expanding government programs ,etc)

Their knowledge of economics is atrocious. 

And they certainly don't care about the 10th amendment and the people of the states to self govern themselves or hold any view of the Constitution that is anywhere close to what the founders and ratifiers believed.

----------


## July

> If Ron Paul was a Democrat, then we'd be trying to reform the Democratic party.
> 
> But generally, the GOP is more likely to welcome the liberty issues than the Democrats.
> 
> Think of it this way: It's easier to convince a GOP voter that gay marriage is acceptable than to convince a Dem voter that free markets are acceptable.


I agree...if Ron Paul had been a Democrat, talking about reforming liberalism and returning back to constitutional and _classical liberal_ roots, and if there were a like minded wing growing within the party that agreed, etc...then I suppose I would have joined the Democrats. But it happened the opposite way. 

I agree that is due to the issue of free markets/economics. The proper role of government in relation to the individual flows out from there. That's why just because someone might be anti war (for example), it is sometimes more difficult to build a coalition if the economics issue is standing in the way.

Now the Republicans are pretty terrible on economics too. But at least (on paper) language like "free market" and "capitalism" (etc) are still acceptable. The Democrats have, on the other hand, adopted a very different language.

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

Only thing democrats remotely believe in that RP believes in is civil liberties and peace (both of which has been gutted and disgarded recently)

----------


## mport1

I've never been and will never be a Republican. I do think we need to concentrate more on converting liberals. I find it to be much easier than conservatives since they just need a better understanding of economics. Conservatives are typically warmongers and believe they have the right to control the lives of others.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

because republicans at the very least support gun ownership without being treated like a criminal.

----------


## truthspeaker

To Topic:

The Texas GOP platform used to be very aligned with Paul's views. Not all, but a significant start.

----------


## mport1

> because republicans at the very least support gun ownership without being treated like a criminal.


I'd venture to guess though that the vast majority of them support weapon bans for convicted felons. They don't truly support your right to defend yourself.

----------


## JK/SEA

i'm not seeing any of our 'resident' social conservatives chiming in.......

----------


## JellyRev

Democrats think about the world in groups while Republicans think about the world in individuals. 

Democrats always feel the need to help a group who is statistically below the majority by using govt, usually making the situation worse or destroying liberty in the process. 

The anti-liberty side of republicans the theocrats usually are anti-liberty to "protect the children" from some imaginary threat(drugs, porn, becoming gay, etc.) 

I am also surprised no one has said anything about Kucinich. I would hope in the future, elections would be ron paul republicans vs kucinich democrats, Theyd agree on some issues (Fed) and disagree on others but it would be a real debate and goldman sachs wouldnt be invited.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Democrats think about the world in groups while Republicans think about the world in individuals. 
> 
> Democrats always feel the need to help a group who is statistically below the majority by using govt, usually making the situation worse or destroying liberty in the process. 
> 
> The anti-liberty side of republicans the theocrats usually are anti-liberty to "protect the children" from some imaginary threat(drugs, porn, becoming gay, etc.) 
> 
> I am also surprised no one has said anything about Kucinich. I would hope in the future, elections would be ron paul republicans vs kucinich democrats, Theyd agree on some issues (Fed) and disagree on others but it would be a real debate and goldman sachs wouldnt be invited.


The irony of this post astounds me!

----------


## BuddyRey

I am *only* registered Republican out of a desire to make the optimal impact on the Ron Paul movement.  I despise what the Republican Party has become and I don't hold any misplaced trust in them, nor do I believe they are even *marginally* better than the Democrats.  It's just a choice between Sucky Party A and Sucky Party B....spin the wheel and take a chance.

----------


## Crystallas

I'm not loyal to either party. So when you say "we", speak for yourself.

----------


## gerryb

> I'm not loyal to either party. So when you say "we", speak for yourself.


Looks like you're loyal to the throw away party.

Ya know, Iowa has 30k registered LP members.  RP came in 3rd with ~22K votes(from mostly the Republican base).  The LP people couldn't be bothered to come out to an open caucus to give the best libertarian candidate since the LP's inception a majority at the caucus?

----------


## Elwar

There is no "we".

I joined the Republican Party but do not consider myself a "Republican".

Joining the Republican Party is merely a means to an end, a strategy.

The the duopoly parties can be seen as a corporation which has taken over the election process in the United States. Sure, you can stand outside of the corporate building and shake your fists and scream all you want. In the end you have two choices, join the corporation and try to change it from within. Or try to avoid the corporation.

Imagine the Republican and Democrat parties like McDonalds and Burger King, both being the only sources of food. They both suck, they are both bad for you but if you want to eat, you go to them. They own all of the farms, they have all of the supply lines and distribution tied up. You can try to open your own restaurant but you will have to buy your own land, raise your own food, make your own tools, build your own building, etc. And when it comes time to open, the burgers may taste better and be better for you but you have to charge $50 for a burger and will have a hard time getting customers. And your customers will give up most of their livelyhood just to support your establishment.

I have tried the LP route, it has been going for 40 years. Not so much as one Congressman, Senator or President. Ron Paul is a libertarian and a member of the LP. He was elected as a Republican.

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

The left and right political philosophies are separated by numerous characteristics. However, one of the most noticeable characteristics that distinguish the two, is collectivism and individualism. Leftist political philosophies are primarily centered around the collective (society, community, etc.). Often you will hear people that embrace leftist political philosophies, talking about the "common good." Right-of-Center political philosophies, are more heavily rooted in Individualism. Hence why the founder's forewarned of Democracy, and this is one primary reason they founded the country as a Republic. Libertarianism is rooted in Individualism, in order to grasp the concept of Individual Rights.

----------


## QWDC

Because political parties only reflect the view of those in them. The party doesn't HAVE to be a socialist statist paradise if enough people switch over/are convinced to change their values towards liberty. Doesn't even have to be a majority. Heck 1/3 appears to be good enough to win a lot of presidential primaries. 


Of course, if you think the GOP takeover is pointless and impossible you could just go back to the old alternative:

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Ya know, Iowa has 30k registered LP members.  RP came in 3rd with ~22K votes(from mostly the Republican base).  The LP people couldn't be bothered to come out to an open caucus to give the best libertarian candidate since the LP's inception a majority at the caucus?


That is why I've become overtly vocal in my grudge against many of the holier than thou folks in the LP and to a lesser extent the CP and besides voting them as a protest is all I'll do. By not helping out in the many caucuses/conventions throughout the states in order to play their strict libertarian cult game, they let us down and they know who they are. It's like, maybe they thought if they sat on the sidelines then the restore the GOP plan would go bust and many of us would come crawling back w/ our money (they need it bad) and our time. Screw them for not helping and screw the neocons for nipping at our heels ad nauseum. That's why all my energy is and will be put to reclaiming the GOP to liberty. No offense to the good people in the third parties that had our backs.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> But Ron Paul was not a Democrat.  He never was a Democrat.  He supported Ronald Reagan way back in 1976.  What Ron Paul is and always has been is a Conservative, and in 1988, he got pissed off (or something) and ran as a Libertarian.  For most of his political life he was a Conservative Republican, solidly in the tradition of other Conservative Republicans.  There is no Conservative Democrat tradition that Ron Paul was a part of.
> 
> Agree with the other stuff.


Ron also endorsed Michelle Bachman during her congressional run.  Ron is a long-time libertarian, and has said so numerous times in public.  He just uses the GOP and a conservative facade to advance the libertarian agenda.  The closest to "conservative" you could connect RP to is the Old Right-a vast minority in the modern GOP and very libertarian.  Laissez-faire and anti-war positions are traditionally "left".  If you examine the epistemology of RP's thought, it is clearly very classically liberal.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Because political parties only reflect the view of those in them.* The party doesn't HAVE to be a socialist statist paradise if enough people switch over/are convinced to change their values towards liberty. Doesn't even have to be a majority. Heck 1/3 appears to be good enough to win a lot of presidential primaries. 
> 
> 
> Of course, if you think the GOP takeover is pointless and impossible you could just go back to the old alternative:


The strings of power and influence in any party are controlled by the financiers and apparatus.  IOW, not the common folk.

----------


## Carlybee

You make a lot of assumptions FSP. Not all non Republican RP supporters are LP and while many may not be manning the convention booths, many have contributed a lot of money that has allowed the liberty movement to grow.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I've never been and will never be a Republican. I do think we need to concentrate more on converting liberals. I find it to be much easier than conservatives since they just need a better understanding of economics. Conservatives are typically warmongers and believe they have the right to control the lives of others.


Actually, it was the Democrats who were always the warmongers.  I think conservatives were swayed to war because the neocons (ex-Trotskyite Democrats) took over the conservative movement within the Republican Party.   

I'm not seeing many Democrats denouncing Obama's warmongering.  Are you?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Ron also endorsed Michelle Bachman during her congressional run.  Ron is a long-time libertarian, and has said so numerous times in public.  He just uses the GOP and a conservative facade to advance the libertarian agenda.  *The closest to "conservative" you could connect RP to is the Old Right-a vast minority in the modern GOP and very libertarian.*  Laissez-faire and anti-war positions are traditionally "left".  If you examine the epistemology of RP's thought, it is clearly very classically liberal.


Those are the traditional conservatives.  Do remember that Dr. Paul called a conservative Democrat and good friend, Larry McDonald, when he was first thinking about running for Congress.

Ron Paul's beliefs are totally aligned with traditional conservative principles.  Which is probably why he's the poster boy for JBS.

----------


## Carlybee

> Actually, it was the Democrats who were always the warmongers.  I think conservatives were swayed to war because the neocons (ex-Trotskyite Democrats) took over the conservative movement within the Republican Party.   
> 
> I'm not seeing many Democrats denouncing Obama's warmongering.  Are you?


Hell no....they are proud of it!  Look how Obama wears his so called victories like a crown.  There are still some anti-war liberals out there...many became Blue Republicans and have supported Ron Paul.  It's the Progressives who are the worst at justifying every sorry thing Obama has done...just like the neocons justified every sorry thing Bush and Cheney did.  They got a bee in their bonnets when the Bushies made them look weak on defense and now it's like they do everything in their power to prove them wrong.

----------


## dirtdigger

> Can anyone tell me?  Is it merely because Ron Paul is a Republican?  Is it because we see the Republican Party as more willing to bend to our demand of personal freedoms? Is it merely an alignment with a party that is against Obama?
> 
> Why are we concentrating all our efforts on the Republican Party? Or am I wrong, is it possible to vote for a Democrat that supports our cause?  
> 
> If the worse comes to pass and Ron Paul is shot out.. do we stay strictly Republicans?


Republican Party is a diluted form of libertarian ideas. Democrat Party is a diluted form of Communism. So out best bet is to retake the Republican Party. Sure, the Republicans have betrayed those who love freedom, but trying to weaken the control of the betrayers is the point of the Tea Party.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Hell no....they are proud of it!  Look how Obama wears his so called victories like a crown.  There are still some anti-war liberals out there...many became Blue Republicans and have supported Ron Paul.  It's the Progressives who are the worst at justifying every sorry thing Obama has done...just like the neocons justified every sorry thing Bush and Cheney did.


The neocons are pretty happy with Obama too, as far as war is concerned.

----------


## Carlybee

> Those are the traditional conservatives.  Do remember that Dr. Paul called a conservative Democrat and good friend, Larry McDonald, when he was first thinking about running for Congress.
> 
> Ron Paul's beliefs are totally aligned with traditional conservative principles.  Which is probably why he's the poster boy for JBS.


His economic beliefs are traditional conservative...he does have many traditional libertarian social positions.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> His economic beliefs are traditional conservative...he does have many traditional libertarian social positions.


There is less difference between the two than you think.

----------


## Carlybee

> The neocons are pretty happy with Obama too, as far as war is concerned.


That's because they are two sides of the same coin. Follow the money trail and see which ones have investments in War, Inc.  When Bush went to Iraq, Limbaugh was on his show encouraging people to invest in the Dinar. Now he owns a company that makes tea bags.  I would be willing to bet many wealthy Dems have tangled investments in War, Inc. as well.  Of course they want to keep them happy.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> That's because they are two sides of the same coin. Follow the money trail and see which ones have investments in War, Inc.  When Bush went to Iraq, Limbaugh was on his show encouraging people to invest in the Dinar. Now he owns a company that makes tea bags.  I would be willing to bet many wealthy Dems have tangled investments in War, Inc. as well.  Of course they want to keep them happy.


Yes, I realize all that.

----------


## Pauls' Revere

> Black and Blue
> And who knows which is which and who is who
> Up and Down
> And in the end it's only round and round and round
> Haven't you heard it's a battle of words
> The poster bearer cried
> Listen son, said the man with the gun
> There's room for you inside



Us and Them - Pink Floyd

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

----------


## LibertyEagle

> That's because they are two sides of the same coin. Follow the money trail and see which ones have investments in War, Inc.  When Bush went to Iraq, Limbaugh was on his show encouraging people to invest in the Dinar. Now he owns a company that makes tea bags.  I would be willing to bet many wealthy Dems have tangled investments in War, Inc. as well.  Of course they want to keep them happy.


Yes, I realize all that.

----------


## Carlybee

> There is less difference between the two than you think.


Yes but Libertarian by definition also shares ideology with Classic Liberalism. It's been a LONG time since any Republican in power could claim any sort of Traditional Conservative label.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Yes but Libertarian by definition also shares ideology with Classic Liberalism. It's been a LONG time since any Republican in power could claim any sort of Traditional Conservative label.


Walter Jones seems to have been doing a pretty good job of it of late.  And traditional conservatism is all about classical liberalism too.  Traditional conservatives are also referred to as libertarian-conservatives.

The problem is that traditional conservatives forgot their principles.  I blame FOX a lot for that.  They were presented with a neocon, going under the label of "conservative", and then someone like Hillary Clinton.  I remember people saying that they didn't like the neocon choice and FOX saying, well, your choice is that, or someone like Hillary.  Nothing else.  It was a real mind screw.  One thing Ron Paul has done for many is to remind them of what they used to believe.  Although, I don't think a number of them were able to really hear what Ron Paul was saying.   It got lost somewhere between the talk about heroin, quoting Osama bin Laden and ending Social Security overnight.  lol.  That is one of the reasons I have stood by Rand.  Because I think he will be more successful at putting the message in terms they will be able to hear.  I have seen him do it.

----------


## July

> Walter Jones seems to have been doing a pretty good job of it of late.  And traditional conservatism is all about classical liberalism too.  Traditional conservatives are also referred to as libertarian-conservatives.


There is overlap, and I think it ultimately stems from the belief in natural law versus law of man. That is to say, there is some kind of universal and fixed human nature and moral law...whether it comes from God, a creator, nature. The idea is that the state doesn't fundamentally exist to mold or change human nature, but to enforce order and the rule of law. Churches, family, society, or culture,  has the role of shaping and guiding moral behavior, not the state. Classical republicans, traditional conservatives, classical liberals, and libertarians tend to share this sort of worldview. Whereas social liberals, progressives, socialists, Marxists, etc...tend to take a philosophical view of moral relativity, human nature as being something more changeable, that is constantly evolving, and the state has a role on behalf of social change/progress. 

There are a lot of other nuances, but when you boil it down, that seems to be one of the most basic things in common.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Can anyone tell me?  Is it merely because Ron Paul is a Republican?  Is it because we see the Republican Party as more willing to bend to our demand of personal freedoms? Is it merely an alignment with a party that is against Obama?


It isn't about Ron Paul at all, at least for me.  It is because a lot of Republicans, including party leadership and elected folks are pro-liberty.  They write pro-liberty bills.  They pass pro-liberty bills.  They cut taxes.  They reduce the size of government.  If the Republicans stopped doing that, I'd think about joining a different party.  Sure, there are some pro-liberty Democrats where I live but most of them aren't in positions of power so they have almost no influence on the Democratic Party.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> but, a liberty candidate has 0 chance in the democrat party.


Maybe you are talking about Presidential politics.  If so, I apologizes.  Otherwise, I disagree.  Joel Winters, who is likely as good as Rand Paul (maybe that means he isn't a pro-liberty Democrat) won 3 Democratic primaries in a row in NH and won the general election 2 of those times.  The 3rd time, he came just short of becoming a state rep but did do better than any of the other Democrats in that multi-rep state rep district in the largest city in NH.  His campaign volunteers included both Democrats and Republicans.  No Democrat bothered to challenge him in his primary this year and he is expected to win in the general election.  I know another pro-liberty state rep (currently a Republican) who was elected in the 1990s as a Democrat in Manchester, NH.  There are other pro-liberty Democrats running for state rep in NH this year and I expect at least 2-3 to make it through their primary.  There are also some pro-liberty Democrats that win local elections in NH.

----------


## parocks

> Ron also endorsed Michelle Bachman during her congressional run.  Ron is a long-time libertarian, and has said so numerous times in public.  He just uses the GOP and a conservative facade to advance the libertarian agenda.  The closest to "conservative" you could connect RP to is the Old Right-a vast minority in the modern GOP and very libertarian.  Laissez-faire and anti-war positions are traditionally "left".  If you examine the epistemology of RP's thought, it is clearly very classically liberal.


The Old Right.  That is correct.  Robert Taft.  Robert Taft was not a Democrat.  That is the Conservative Tradition.  True Conservative.  That's what we are, that's the tradition.  And also Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan.  The Conservatives vs the Eastern Establishment.  Over and over and over.  Ron Paul might not sound the same as Pat Buchanan, but he appeals to many of the same people.

----------


## parocks

> Actually, it was the Democrats who were always the warmongers.  I think conservatives were swayed to war because the neocons (ex-Trotskyite Democrats) took over the conservative movement within the Republican Party.   
> 
> I'm not seeing many Democrats denouncing Obama's warmongering.  Are you?


right on.  Irving Kristol in 1972 said he wasn't supporting McGovern, and Socialist Michael Harrington called Irving Kristol a "neoconservative" because of it.  I don't think that Irving Kristol changed his philosophies much since he was on the Hubert Humphrey task force in 1968.  The neocons are the interlopers, not the true conservatives like Ron Paul.  The Eastern Establishment has no great love for the neocon foreign policy.  They could be "realists".

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Because it's the only thing to try that doesn't involve shooting?
> (ETA: or getting shot)


Thread winner.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> The Eastern Establishment has no great love for the neocon foreign policy.  They could be "realists".


Wut?

They *invented* it.




> The moderate Eastern Republicans were led by New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey, the party's presidential nominee in 1944 and 1948. The moderates tended to be interventionists who felt that America needed to fight the Cold War overseas and resist Soviet aggression in Europe and Asia; they were also willing to accept most aspects of the social welfare state created by the New Deal in the 1930s. The moderates were also concerned with ending the GOP's losing streak in presidential elections; they felt that the personally popular Eisenhower had the best chance of beating the Democrats.


*They* torpedoed Taft, and then got CIA man Buckley to purge the *real* right from the GOP in the early 60s, leaving room for the neo-cons to fully take over.

And here we are today.

----------


## parocks

No no no.

Irving Kristol is not Eastern Establishment.

Neocon came from the Democrat party.  Kristol was on a Hubert Humphrey task force in 1968, in 1972 he supported Nixon, and in 1973 the socialist Michael Harrington called him a neoconservative.

You're talking about something other than neocon.  Neocon is the specific "spread democracy by force" doctrine, which I think translates to "we can attack anybody we want for any reason or no reason at all.  Bush called it a Wilsonian policy.   This was not Dewey.

Yes, it is absolutely true that the "moderate Eastern Republicans" or "Eastern Establishment" has not liked Conservatives.  That's the story of the last 72 years, yes.  But Dewey wasn't a neocon.  No doubt that the Eastern Establishment, Country Club Republicans, RINOs, GOP-E, Rockefeller Republicans have been opposed to the Conservatives - Taft, Goldwater, Reagan, Paul.  That's the story.  But neocon is distinct from realist as a foreign policy.  Dewey doesn't sound all that different from Reagan, and Bush most certainly was different from Reagan.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

From my experience and interactions, democrat voters vote democrat because they want to "help" everyone - make sure everyone gets a chance.  I think spreading the libertarian message would be a positive message if spread to democrats, where with the republicans it is hell.  Instead of saying "we must stop doing this", it is "what the government can do we can do better".  Tell a nurse that "cutting regulations can mean freedom from an employer, the ability to negotiate wages, and the ability to work at their leisure" and I bet we could get that nurse to see why libertarianism is more humane and just than their previously favored "welfare state".  Most(some?) D's are already practically social libertarians, it really is just economic philosophy where we differ I believe.  And the freedom of the thought of government-necessity is really a gift that can be appreciated while learning.  I vote to either co-opt the D's or target them specifically with a positive message from a L candidate- not that my vote matters.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No no no.
> 
> Irving Kristol is not Eastern Establishment.
> 
> Neocon came from the Democrat party.  Kristol was on a Hubert Humphrey task force in 1968, in 1972 he supported Nixon, and in 1973 the socialist Michael Harrington called him a neoconservative.
> 
> You're talking about something other than neocon.  Neocon is the specific "spread democracy by force" doctrine, which I think translates to "we can attack anybody we want for any reason or no reason at all.  Bush called it a Wilsonian policy.   This was not Dewey.
> 
> Yes, it is absolutely true that the "moderate Eastern Republicans" or "Eastern Establishment" has not liked Conservatives.  That's the story of the last 72 years, yes.  But Dewey wasn't a neocon.  No doubt that the Eastern Establishment, Country Club Republicans, RINOs, GOP-E, Rockefeller Republicans have been opposed to the Conservatives - Taft, Goldwater, Reagan, Paul.  That's the story.  But neocon is distinct from realist as a foreign policy.  Dewey doesn't sound all that different from Reagan, and Bush most certainly was different from Reagan.


Neocons are Trotskyites.  It's never been a "party" thing.  It was more convenient to take over the GOP at the time, but would have taken over the Dems if it had worked out that way.  

Among other things, they believe in "perpetual war for perpetual peace".  RP explains it quite well:



The partisan stuff is smoke and mirrors. /end ramble

----------


## Southerner

I had thought about posting a similar query, because so few plan for voting for the GOP nominee, if that nominee is not Ron Paul.

There are VERY RARE exceptions where a Democrat is closer to US than the GOP candidate, but Bob Conley comes to mind. 




http://southernavenger.ccpblogs.com/...paul-democrat/

Unfortunately these rare exceptions ever get the media coverage that brings them to our attention, and sadly so many people still vote straight party ticket in the general election.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> From my experience and interactions, democrat voters vote democrat because they want to "help" everyone - make sure everyone gets a chance.  I think spreading the libertarian message would be a positive message if spread to democrats, where with the republicans it is hell.  Instead of saying "we must stop doing this", it is "what the government can do we can do better".  Tell a nurse that "cutting regulations can mean freedom from an employer, the ability to negotiate wages, and the ability to work at their leisure" and I bet we could get that nurse to see why libertarianism is more humane and just than their previously favored "welfare state".  Most(some?) D's are already practically social libertarians, it really is just economic philosophy where we differ I believe.  And the freedom of the thought of government-necessity is really a gift that can be appreciated while learning.  I vote to either co-opt the D's or target them specifically with a positive message from a L candidate- not that my vote matters.


FWIW, it's always been easier for me to persuade left-liberal democrats to consider RP's platform than "right wing" republicans.

----------


## July

So is Romney Eastern Establishment (and not neocon) then?

----------


## Southerner

> So is Romney Eastern Establishment (and not neocon) then?


"Using Congressional Budget Office estimates for future GDP, Romney's plan would boost core defense spending to about $945 billion in 2021 — about 53% more than the $618 billion proposed in Obama's defense plan for that year."   http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...6596765.column

Smells NEOCON to me.

----------


## July

> "Using Congressional Budget Office estimates for future GDP, Romney's plan would boost core defense spending to about $945 billion in 2021 — about 53% more than the $618 billion proposed in Obama's defense plan for that year."   http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...6596765.column
> 
> Smells NEOCON to me.


$945 billion....*faint*

His father was though, from the Eastern Establishment, is that true?

----------


## AuH20

> The Old Right.  That is correct.  Robert Taft.  Robert Taft was not a Democrat.  That is the Conservative Tradition.  True Conservative.  That's what we are, that's the tradition.  And also Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan.  The Conservatives vs the Eastern Establishment.  Over and over and over.  Ron Paul might not sound the same as Pat Buchanan, but he appeals to many of the same people.


I'd say right now I'm pretty content with 25% of the GOP. The other 75% can tie an anchor to their feet and jump in the Potomac. But I think you bring up a valid point. I'm a republican largely because of the notable individuals you brought up. Goldwater, Pat Buchanan, Howard Buffet, J.Bracken Lee. Real 'no compromise' trailblazers who epitomized what it was to be a republican back in the day.

----------


## AuH20

> Walter Jones seems to have been doing a pretty good job of it of late.  And traditional conservatism is all about classical liberalism too.  Traditional conservatives are also referred to as libertarian-conservatives.
> 
> The problem is that traditional conservatives forgot their principles.  I blame FOX a lot for that.  They were presented with a neocon, going under the label of "conservative", and then someone like Hillary Clinton.  I remember people saying that they didn't like the neocon choice and FOX saying, well, your choice is that, or someone like Hillary.  Nothing else.  It was a real mind screw.  One thing Ron Paul has done for many is to remind them of what they used to believe.  Although, I don't think a number of them were able to really hear what Ron Paul was saying.   It got lost somewhere between the talk about heroin, quoting Osama bin Laden and ending Social Security overnight.  lol.  That is one of the reasons I have stood by Rand.  Because I think he will be more successful at putting the message in terms they will be able to hear.  I have seen him do it.


I don't think it's that. When you have the rapidly advancing buzzsaw of the Democratic Party at your back, you're more likely to make certain concessions. That's the unfortunate conclusion most the of the republican voters fall prey to and it's an understandable argument. It's a catch 22. Succumb to the Borg like persistence of the the Left or make temporary alliances with faux conservatives who will address some of your issues.

----------


## MJU1983

This video should sum it up.

----------


## Southerner

> This video should sum it up.


Great video, thanks!

----------


## EBounding

Marketing wise, I think the Republican party does a better job of claiming the mantle of the Constitution (even though they don't follow it).  Democrats make it pretty clear that they don't really care for the Constitution and that it's a "living document".  The fact that most of us like the Constitution as it's written gives us common ground with other Republicans to get them to actually listen.

I've always been a Republican.  I got suckered early by the neo-con message though.  I voted for Bush because I thought the world would end if Kerry was elected.  I also thought that with control of all the federal branches, we could actually get conservative legislation through (we know how that story ends).  Paul's message (or the libertarian message) simply resonates better with Republicans because we can just refer back to the Constitution.

It's up to the grassroots to frame these issues correctly though since most conservatives are in the neo-con paradigm.  As fun as it may be too call them stupid or sleeping-sheeple, they're still real people with real concerns.

----------


## Crystallas

> Looks like you're loyal to the throw away party.
> 
> Ya know, Iowa has 30k registered LP members.  RP came in 3rd with ~22K votes(from mostly the Republican base).  The LP people couldn't be bothered to come out to an open caucus to give the best libertarian candidate since the LP's inception a majority at the caucus?


Looks like you make judgments off assumptions. Have fun, but you're far from the truth as far as pegging me down.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Wut?
> 
> They *invented* it.
> 
> *They* torpedoed Taft, and then got CIA man Buckley to purge the *real* right from the GOP in the early 60s, leaving room for the neo-cons to fully take over.
> 
> And here we are today.


No.  There are 2 big government groups in the Republican Party.  The "Rockefeller Republicans" and the neoconservatives.  The Rockefeller Republicans are the eastern establishment repubs.  If you watch, you will notice that they will speak out against the neoconservative foreign policy.  Oh, they want global government, but they don't agree with how the neoconservatives are going about it.

The third group were the Goldwater-Republicans, which were the limited government folks.  These were the traditional conservatives.

----------


## Hospitaller

I refuse to give patronage to either side of this false democracy. To support any side is to support a corrupt immoral system.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I refuse to give patronage to either side of this false democracy. To support any side is to support a corrupt immoral system.


Who said anything about _supporting_ them?   That's not what we are doing.

----------


## AJ Antimony

> But Ron Paul was not a Democrat.  He never was a Democrat.  He supported Ronald Reagan way back in 1976.  What Ron Paul is and always has been is a Conservative, and in 1988, he got pissed off (or something) and ran as a Libertarian.  For most of his political life he was a Conservative Republican, solidly in the tradition of other Conservative Republicans.  There is no Conservative Democrat tradition that Ron Paul was a part of.
> 
> Agree with the other stuff.


I wasn't claiming he was a Democrat. You're right, he never was.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Democrats think about the world in groups while Republicans think about the world in individuals. 
> 
> Democrats always feel the need to help a group who is statistically below the majority by using govt, usually making the situation worse or destroying liberty in the process. 
> 
> The anti-liberty side of republicans the theocrats usually are anti-liberty to "protect the children" from some imaginary threat(drugs, porn, becoming gay, etc.) 
> 
> I am also surprised no one has said anything about Kucinich. I would hope in the future, elections would be ron paul republicans vs kucinich democrats, Theyd agree on some issues (Fed) and disagree on others but it would be a real debate and goldman sachs wouldnt be invited.


Well stated.  I prefer Glen Greenwald democrats to all others.

----------


## Anti Federalist

I understand what you are saying, but me, personally, I fail to see any difference.

In either case, regardless of name assigned, they are:

1 - Generally in favor of increasing the power and scope of government.

2 - Are comfortable with the concept of world government.

3 - Are in favor of using US military power unilaterally to foster "regime change".

4 - Are generally supportive of or "comfortable" with the welfare state.

They are "neo" conservatives. meaning the "new" conservatives.

Buckley and his ilk purged the "old" conservatives decades ago, and we've been out in the wilderness and still very much unwelcome, since then.





> No no no.
> 
> Irving Kristol is not Eastern Establishment.
> 
> Neocon came from the Democrat party.  Kristol was on a Hubert Humphrey task force in 1968, in 1972 he supported Nixon, and in 1973 the socialist Michael Harrington called him a neoconservative.
> 
> You're talking about something other than neocon.  Neocon is the specific "spread democracy by force" doctrine, which I think translates to "we can attack anybody we want for any reason or no reason at all.  Bush called it a Wilsonian policy.   This was not Dewey.
> 
> Yes, it is absolutely true that the "moderate Eastern Republicans" or "Eastern Establishment" has not liked Conservatives.  That's the story of the last 72 years, yes.  But Dewey wasn't a neocon.  No doubt that the Eastern Establishment, Country Club Republicans, RINOs, GOP-E, Rockefeller Republicans have been opposed to the Conservatives - Taft, Goldwater, Reagan, Paul.  That's the story.  But neocon is distinct from realist as a foreign policy.  Dewey doesn't sound all that different from Reagan, and Bush most certainly was different from Reagan.





> No.  There are 2 big government groups in the Republican Party.  The "Rockefeller Republicans" and the neoconservatives.  The Rockefeller Republicans are the eastern establishment repubs.  If you watch, you will notice that they will speak out against the neoconservative foreign policy.  Oh, they want global government, but they don't agree with how the neoconservatives are going about it.
> 
> The third group were the Goldwater-Republicans, which were the limited government folks.  These were the traditional conservatives.

----------


## pcosmar

*Why are we Republicans?* 

I am Independent.
Though I have often voted "R",, I have been grossly disappointed each and every time.
They have never kept a campaign promise on any issues that concern me. Often doing the exact opposite.

Ron chose to run in the party as a vehicle. That is fine, but I have no loyalty to the party at all.
I am voting for the man.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Can anyone tell me?  Is it merely because Ron Paul is a Republican?  Is it because we see the Republican Party as more willing to bend to our demand of personal freedoms? Is it merely an alignment with a party that is against Obama?
> 
> Why are we concentrating all our efforts on the Republican Party? Or am I wrong, is it possible to vote for a Democrat that supports our cause?  
> 
> If the worse comes to pass and Ron Paul is shut out.. do we stay strictly Republicans?


I like what John Dennis said when he was asked in 2010 why he said he was running as a Republican.  He said he did it because the Republican platform had at least the thought of liberty in it, whereas the Democratic platform didn't.  I wish I could find the exact quote...it was good.

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

not trying to bump but this shirt is my answer for the post:

----------


## sailingaway

> not trying to bump but this shirt is my answer for the post:


is that for sale?

I guess I could make one on zazzle...

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

$7.99 - 10% off today with free shipping

http://www.tanga.com/deals/88c73f0fd...-voter-t-shirt

----------


## sailingaway

> $7.99 - 10% off today with free shipping
> 
> http://www.tanga.com/deals/88c73f0fd...-voter-t-shirt


thank you!

----------


## georgiaboy

> This video should sum it up.


indeed.

----------


## CaseyCBenn

That video....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=WrnGnwuqOA8

.... is testament to how horrible the left is at keeping any of their axioms straight in even the same conversation.

Sachs and co. sit and use Europe as some gold standard when they reference why the USA needs to copy their healthcare system. He states "Other countries have better and cheaper healthcare coverage and more government so why does the USA want to go the other way?".

Then with a straight face around 5-6 minutes.... he says plainly.... "Europe is a mess right now".

Is there no correlation between the fact that the Euro (currency) is failing because of these large governments and their overreaching health care and social programs are killing the currency because they have to keep making/printing more to try and cover the budget shortfalls?

Its amazing to me that Dr Paul has already made an example of that here and no one is connecting the Euro failure to the large govts and socialist programs in precisely the same manner.

----------


## specsaregood

> Why are we Republicans?


Today, despite being the majority party in the house, every single republican congressman except 1 voted for the complete fed audit bill.

----------

