77% of Latino voters favor tax hikes= Rand's amnesty plan

Traditional Conservative said:
Well, the word "Republican" is connected to the policies of George W. Bush. When people think of "Republican policies" they think of people who want to cut funding for children's health care programs in order to spend more money on a war against some country that never posed any threat to us. A lot of these people don't support libertarian or limited government principles, because they've never seen an example of those principles being implemented and succeeding.
Click to expand...

George W. Bush never cut anything. Lol
 
Open boarder fantasy cannot work in a welfare state.

Get rid of the welfare (free education, heathcare, foodstamps, anchor baby citizenship,etc) and the illegal immigration crisis will subside.
 
brushfire said:
Open boarder fantasy cannot work in a welfare state.

Get rid of the welfare (free education, heathcare, foodstamps, anchor baby citizenship,etc) and the illegal immigration crisis will subside.
Click to expand...

I agree. The issue is though, that even if we were able to wave a magic wand and have a "Ron Paul" in every state legislature seat, governorship, House, Senate and the White House tomorrow - it would take many, many years to unravel the welfare state. We are a faced with a welfare state that has taken 50 years to get to where it is at, in order to get rid of it we have to make provisions to protect those who are dependent on it currently and transition them to work and/or a charity based system to care for their needs.

Also at issue, and this pisses off some of the left libertarians I am sure, is that we do need a restoration of the family in our society. While I am not a social conservative in the sense that I want the gov't to legislate morality, I am socially conservative in the sense that we need to repair the foundation that made this country great in the first place. When I was a kid it was very common for family members to support those who were in need within their family. There was little divorce, the family structure was sound, and because of that people had a safety net if they should need it. When that safety net was not able to provide, then charity took up the slack. But today, with the family in shambles, people don't turn to their parents, aunts & uncles, siblings, or cousins when they are in need - they turn to the government instead.
 
CaptLouAlbano said:
Also at issue, and this pisses off some of the left libertarians I am sure, is that we do need a restoration of the family in our society. While I am not a social conservative in the sense that I want the gov't to legislate morality, I am socially conservative in the sense that we need to repair the foundation that made this country great in the first place. When I was a kid it was very common for family members to support those who were in need within their family. There was little divorce, the family structure was sound, and because of that people had a safety net if they should need it. When that safety net was not able to provide, then charity took up the slack. But today, with the family in shambles, people don't turn to their parents, aunts & uncles, siblings, or cousins when they are in need - they turn to the government instead.
Click to expand...

This is what social cons need to figure out. I don't think this idea can be sold by force or reactionsim, because it places it in an anti-freedom context, while the state is offering liberation. That's a losing battle. People actually do want freedom, I don't buy the idea that they don't...they are just convinced the state is delivering it. When social conservatives can show how the family offers both freedom and security, they will get somewhere. Right now they are mostly just reacting to Democrats, and asking the state to define what a family is....which makes it easy for Democrats to sell the idea that they just hate women, gays, etc....

And by the way..both Latinos and Asian immigrants come from cultures where there is still a sense of family value, that we have otherwise lost...they should be welcomed by so-cons.
 
Last edited:
July said:
This is what social cons need to figure out. I don't think this idea can be sold by force or reactionsim, because it places it in an anti-freedom context, while the state is offering liberation. That's a losing battle. People actually do want freedom, I don't buy the idea that they don't...they are just convinced the state is delivering it. When social conservatives can show how the family offers both freedom and security, they will get somewhere. Right now they are mostly just reacting to Democrats, and asking the state to define what a family is....which makes it easy for Democrats to sell the idea that they just hate women, gays, etc....
Click to expand...

Agreed. The social-conservative wing rose as a reaction to the social-liberal wing of the Dems. Engel v Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp gave rise to the school prayer movement, Roe v Wade gave rise to the pro-life cause, and so on. The left has used the gov't to legislate their version of morality, and in that sense the social cons react trying to use the govt to turn things back to the way they used to be.

Paleo-cons like myself have a different tactic, as we seek to advance the issue through education rather than legislation.
 
AuH20 said:
George W. Bush never cut anything. Lol
Click to expand...

I think his second veto was SCHIP, the children's health insurance program. I don't support a program like that, but I was just pointing out that it makes no sense to be fiscally conservative on something like children's health insurance but then just throw trillions of dollars into completely unnecessary wars. I think part of the problem that the Republican Party has not only with Latinio voters but with the American people as a whole is that they aren't seen as consistently supporting limited government. They're seen as hypocritical.
 
Traditional Conservative said:
I think his second veto was SCHIP, the children's health insurance program. I don't support a program like that, but I was just pointing out that it makes no sense to be fiscally conservative on something like children's health insurance but then just throw trillions of dollars into completely unnecessary wars. I think part of the problem that the Republican Party has not only with Latinio voters but with the American people as a whole is that they aren't seen as consistently supporting limited government. They're seen as hypocritical.
Click to expand...

But the newly proposed SCHIP requirements far exceeded the deemed level of poverty. That's what was so outrageous about that particular proposal.
 
CaptLouAlbano said:
Agreed. The social-conservative wing rose as a reaction to the social-liberal wing of the Dems. Engel v Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp gave rise to the school prayer movement, Roe v Wade gave rise to the pro-life cause, and so on. The left has used the gov't to legislate their version of morality, and in that sense the social cons react trying to use the govt to turn things back to the way they used to be.
Click to expand...

Yep. I think this system of back and forth is what is shrinking the conservative movement. The progressives have positioned themselves as the visionaries and forward thinkers, and people associate the future with more freedom and the past with less... Not enough people want to vote to go "backwards" as they see it.

Conservatives are going to have to turn the tables, or there will be no conservative movement left in America eventually. I think paleocons get it, that's why they are more and more aligning with libertarians.
 
Last edited:
AuH20 said:
But the newly proposed SCHIP requirements far exceeded the deemed level of poverty. That's what was so outrageous about that particular proposal.
Click to expand...

Right, and I don't support any government involvement in healthcare whatsoever. I was just pointing out that when you support spending trillions of dollars on pre-emptive wars overseas and then decide to be fiscally conservative on something like children's health care, it just makes you look like some hypocritical person who doesn't actually believe in fiscal responsibility, but just opposes programs for the poor.
 
Traditional Conservative said:
Right, and I don't support any government involvement in healthcare whatsoever. I was just pointing out that when you support spending trillions of dollars on pre-emptive wars overseas and then decide to be fiscally conservative on something like children's health care, it just makes you look like some hypocritical person who doesn't actually believe in fiscal responsibility, but just opposes programs for the poor.
Click to expand...

As much as I agree with you and would like to believe you that this is how Hispanics vote Democratic, I just think you're giving them too much credit. Anything we do to reduce the welfare state, even immigration reform in exchange for slashing the welfare state, will be used against us and Hispanics will not vote for us. It's either "compassionate conservatism" or bust to them.
 
I don't understand this fevered pitch to turn the U.S. more like the outside world which is a festering pit of corruption, out-of-control central planning and all around chaos. The republic of the U.S. was intentionally created as a sanctuary as opposed to a democratized hotel of stratified ethnic blocs and state-mandated social justice. In other words, our constitutional guidelines dictate to the newcomers not the other way around. To think any other way is madness. Just imagine Americans going to another locale and demanding certain privileges from the native born citizens. I can't.
 
Last edited:
it's true that changes in the US demography through immigration will make it into a more of a European/socialist/south American state.

You can see it's already happening with Obamacare and the fact that the Judge's are going along with it means the direction of America is set and it's going to get even worse.

These people always want more government. They elect people like Chavez, outright communists.

The only saving grace is the amount of Cubans who have lived under Castro and reject socialism in the US but even they're now voting Democrat.
 
Last edited:
itshappening said:
it's true that changes in the US demography through immigration will make it into a more of a European/socialist/south American state.

You can see it's already happening with Obamacare and the fact that the Judge's are going along with it means the direction of America is set and it's going to get even worse.

These people always want more government. They elect people like Chavez, outright communists.

The only saving grace is the amount of Cubans who have lived under Castro and reject socialism in the US but even they're now voting Democrat.
Click to expand...

Our only hope is a worldwide crash in which the central governments become so emaciated and weak, that regional control reappears. Seriously. A dose of anarchy will sort this out. Give me a cataclysmic crash anyday over this George Orwell inspired nightmare that is sweeping the land.
 
Last edited:
supermario21 said:
As much as I agree with you and would like to believe you that this is how Hispanics vote Democratic, I just think you're giving them too much credit. Anything we do to reduce the welfare state, even immigration reform in exchange for slashing the welfare state, will be used against us and Hispanics will not vote for us. It's either "compassionate conservatism" or bust to them.
Click to expand...

Compassionate conseervatism is basically a reimagined twist of progressive policies. That's why the RINOs were so adamant in cloaking their intentions as such.
 
itshappening said:
it's true that changes in the US demography through immigration will make it into a more of a European/socialist/south American state.

You can see it's already happening with Obamacare and the fact that the Judge's are going along with it means the direction of America is set and it's going to get even worse.
Click to expand...

So we should just give up?
 
Personally the anti-Rand trolling just makes me want to support him even more. You don't have to agree with him but stop with the trolling.

If you don't know what trolling means:
Trolling is an Internet slang term used to describe any Internet user behavior that is meant to intentionally anger or frustrate someone else. It is often associated with online discussions where users are subjected to offensive or superfluous posts and messages in order to provoke a response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Swordsmyth
POLL: Hispanics Support Big Government Across The Board
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
enhanced_deficit
E
Swordsmyth
Guess How Much of the Latino Vote Republicans Got In 2018
Replies
6
Views
596
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
Anti Federalist
Bernie Sanders Estate tax plan - 77%
Replies
8
Views
588
Anti Federalist
Anti Federalist
Swordsmyth
Republicans Captured A Higher Percentage Of Hispanic Voters In Midterms Than Trump Did In 2016
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
5K
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
Demographics and the American Prospect
Replies
0
Views
521
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
Back
Top