Discussion of Working inside the GOP

[LibertyEagle]

Don't forget that Reagan was shot by Hinckley, a Bush family friend. It's very possible that being shot was a "wake up call".

He also promised paleocons that he would not choose an insider as his VP. He did.

Reagan wasn't a naive man. If he wasn't willing to do what he needed to do to be true to his word, he should have never run.

 

[IDefendThePlatform]

None. Though I believe that a troop withdraw and base closures should probably be done incrementally, as opposed to all at once. Perhaps over the course of a year or two, so that the impact of the troops coming home and reassigned to domestic bases, can be done efficiently. Personally, I would begin with the hot spots and then end with the bases in places like Greenland, etc. But other than that (and that is really minor), I do not take issue at all with his policies, which is why I was one of folks encouraging the draft movement in 07.



I suppose it depends on your definition of a "non-Ron Paul Republican", even Amash does not vote with him all the time. Nonetheless, as I have stated if I agree with a candidate/elected official on 90% or more of the key issues I consider them an ally.



From the conversation, I assumed he was referring to candidates that I had mentioned earlier in this thread. Nonetheless, I do not have a problem defending the RLC guys/girls because they pledge to a set of principles in which the statement bxm042 quoted from Paul is very similar to the one the RLC principles contain.



I honestly do not care.

I could rehash all the anti-campaign, "give up now while we still can" and the "I might actually vote for the GOP nominee for the first time ever" bs but I'll just link 2 past threads because its gotten really old and I don't want you to keep trying to avoid your past statements whenever it suits you.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?378900-Why-was-tbone717-banned&p=4460732&viewfull=1#post4460732


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...Latest-Piece&p=4428884&viewfull=1#post4428884

 

[tbone717]

I could rehash all the anti-campaign, "give up now while we still can" and the "I might actually vote for the GOP nominee for the first time ever" bs but I'll just link 2 past threads because its gotten really old and I don't want you to keep trying to avoid your past statements whenever it suits you.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?378900-Why-was-tbone717-banned&p=4460732&viewfull=1#post4460732


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...Latest-Piece&p=4428884&viewfull=1#post4428884

I did say that I may possibly vote for the nominee, Rand's endorsement has given me reason to consider it. I am still undecided at this point. I have no plans to do any sort of volunteer work for any candidate this fall however.

As far as my desire for people to shift gears mid-campaign, it was because there were many other races that were taking place that needed help as well. Take Gunny for example. When it became apparent that winning the nomination was not possible, I felt it was necessary to focus on other races, while still working on the delegate process for those that were directly involved in that. I guess though, multitasking is a foreign concept for some.

I have no problem with the positions I hold, you do. And like I said earlier, I honestly do not care.

 

[IDefendThePlatform]

I did say that I may possibly vote for the nominee, Rand's endorsement has given me reason to consider it. I am still undecided at this point. I have no plans to do any sort of volunteer work for any candidate this fall however.

As far as my desire for people to shift gears mid-campaign, it was because there were many other races that were taking place that needed help as well. Take Gunny for example. When it became apparent that winning the nomination was not possible, I felt it was necessary to focus on other races, while still working on the delegate process for those that were directly involved in that. I guess though, multitasking is a foreign concept for some.

I have no problem with the positions I hold, you do. And like I said earlier, I honestly do not care.

It was the Ron Paul campaign's stated goal to try to win in a brokered convention, and you were on here repeatedly telling people to give it up. That's enough for me to not trust you.

You repeatedly claim that non-libertarians are libertarians in a hannity-esque attempt to coopt labels.


Back to the original point that bxm042 made: Ron Paul has stated that we should
1) work within the GOP
2) fight for bedrock principles

You clearly agree with #1 and not #2, but rather than fess up and address this head on in your response you try to obfuscate, ignore your earlier posts and make me write 5 different responses trying to pin you down on where you stand. Consequently I'll continue to take everything you post with a very large grain of salt.

 

[tbone717]

It was the Ron Paul campaign's stated goal to try to win in a brokered convention, and you were on here repeatedly telling people to give it up. That's enough for me to not trust you.

The chance for a brokered convention was extremely low all along, but when Santorum dropped out the chance of it became virtually impossible. Again, are you unable to mutitask?

You repeatedly claim that non-libertarians are libertarians in a hannity-esque attempt to coopt labels.

I intentionally, use the term libertarian-conservative, because that is descriptive of the overall Liberty Movement. Particularly the RLC candidates and elected officials. This includes Ron, Rand, Massie, Amash as well as DeMint, Lee, Flake and others. While I do not agree with every person that makes up the group of Liberty Republicans on every single issue, they pass that 90% threshold on key issues that I look for.

Back to the original point that bxm042 made: Ron Paul has stated that we should
1) work within the GOP
2) fight for bedrock principles

You clearly agree with #1 and not #2, but rather than fess up and address this head on in your response you try to obfuscate, ignore your earlier posts and make me write 5 different responses trying to pin you down on where you stand. Consequently I'll continue to take everything you post with a very large grain of salt.

I will post the larger preamble to the RLC statement of principles then for your information:

"The Republican Liberty Caucus supports individual rights, limited government and free enterprise.

We believe every human being is endowed by nature with inherent rights to life, liberty and property that are properly secured by law. We support a strict construction of the Bill of Rights as a defense against tyranny; the expansion of those rights to all voluntary consensual conduct under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments; and the requirements of equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

We support the Constitutional restrictions on federal government powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8 as an absolute limit on all government functions and programs. We oppose the adoption of broad and vague powers under the guise of general welfare or interstate commerce.

We oppose all restrictions on the voluntary and honest exchange of value in a free market. We favor minimal, equitable, and fair taxation for the essential functions of government. We oppose all legislation that concedes Congressional power to any regulatory agency, executive department, or international body.

We support the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, the republican form of government it requires, and the right of all citizens to fair and equitable representation.

We believe these are also the proper positions of the Republican Party."

You can read the rest if you desire to here.

That is a good summation of what I stand for, and I have no issue agreeing to their statement of principles. If you have a problem with candidates that pledge to adhere to those principles then that is your issue to deal with.

 

[IDefendThePlatform]

The chance for a brokered convention was extremely low all along, but when Santorum dropped out the chance of it became virtually impossible. Again, are you unable to mutitask?

This was before Santorum dropped out. It's very hard for me to believe your just being forgetful this often.

That is a good summation of what I stand for, and I have no issue agreeing to their statement of principles. If you have a problem with candidates that pledge to adhere to those principles then that is your issue to deal with.

And when candidates do something to contradict those principles (such as anti-liberty votes or endorsements) it needs to be called out and addressed, not excused like you've done repeatedly.

 

[tbone717]

This was before Santorum dropped out. It's very hard for me to believe your just being forgetful this often.

Apparently though, you recall everything I have every posted, so I'll check in with you if I have a question. Thanks for paying attention. No offense, but I really don't recall much if anything of what you have posted. I have a lot more going on in my life to worry about than what some anonymous person on a internet forum posted 3 months ago.

And when candidates do something to contradict those principles (such as anti-liberty votes or endorsements) it needs to be called out and addressed, not excused like you've done repeatedly.

If they vote in a way that I disagree with, then I send them an email, or whatever I can do from my end to let them know I disagree with the vote. But just because someone votes contrary to my views on one of two issues, I don't write them off as "anti-liberty". Are you suggesting that Rand is now "anti-liberty" because of the Romney endorsement?

Perhaps you should view Jack Hunter's new video. In it he mentions that folks who vote our way 90% of the time, are our strong allies. He goes on to name a lot of the people that you seem to have issue with including DeMint and Lee. It is on this thread http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...NTER-quot-Appreciate-how-far-we-ve-come!-quot

 

[IDefendThePlatform]

Apparently though, you recall everything I have every posted, so I'll check in with you if I have a question. Thanks for paying attention. No offense, but I really don't recall much if anything of what you have posted. I have a lot more going on in my life to worry about than what some anonymous person on a internet forum posted 3 months ago.



If they vote in a way that I disagree with, then I send them an email, or whatever I can do from my end to let them know I disagree with the vote. But just because someone votes contrary to my views on one of two issues, I don't write them off as "anti-liberty". Are you suggesting that Rand is now "anti-liberty" because of the Romney endorsement?

Perhaps you should view Jack Hunter's new video. In it he mentions that folks who vote our way 90% of the time, are our strong allies. He goes on to name a lot of the people that you seem to have issue with including DeMint and Lee. It is on this thread http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...NTER-quot-Appreciate-how-far-we-ve-come!-quot

When I see people on an anonymous Internet forum who claim to be supporers and then actively try to undermine the campaign, yes, I make note of that. That's why I remember you.

 

[LibertyEagle]

The things is tbone, we don't want another Reagan. Reagan was not at all what he professed to be. He drastically increased the size and scope of government. So no, that would be a failure.

Maybe you were meaning what Reagan professed to be... What I want is someone who will do what he only talked about.

Well nasonex, you are free to have your own opinions, but a lot of us are moving in one direction. You are free to do whatever you choose. I know it is disappointing but Ron Paul will not be the nominee, nor will he be President. But as Jack Hunter says in his piece, Paul could very well be the Goldwater to this generation's Reagan.

As far as DeMint goes, did he vote for the Patriot Act and NDAA? How about the others?

See, I have a congressman that many believe is conservative, but I see him as a go along to get along, spineless little man. He voted for the above, even when he had people pointing out to him what was in those bills. And he has not apologized for doing so. So, while he is a good little Republican in that he votes with the herd, if he would vote for legislation that is unconstitutional to its very core, he is in no way shape or form, a conservative, but is a traitor, in my book.

People grow and change, so if someone denounces their previous actions and starts voting with the Constitution, then I will forgive them. But, unless they do, they aren't anything that I would support. It's not enough that they vote against bills put forth by the Democrats.

 

[tbone717]

When I see people on an anonymous Internet forum who claim to be supporers and then actively try to undermine the campaign, yes, I make note of that. That's why I remember you.

Yes, I am single-handedly responsible for Paul's loss.

Sadly, it was folks like Gunny that suffered from people's inability to multi-task.

 

[tbone717]

The things is tbone, we don't want another Reagan. Reagan was not at all what he professed to be. He drastically increased the size and scope of government. So no, that would be a failure.

Maybe you were meaning what Reagan professed to be... What I want is someone who will do what he only talked about.

I believe what Hunter meant in that statement is that Goldwater laid the groundwork, and Reagan secured the victory. Yeah, I am well aware that Reagan did not govern like he campaigned.

 

[sailingaway]

I believe what Hunter meant in that statement is that Goldwater laid the groundwork, and Reagan secured the victory. Yeah, I am well aware that Reagan did not govern like he campaigned.

yeah, but there are people who win now, they just aren't people we want.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Note: Non Republicans are sick to death of how MANY here have acted like "REPUBLICAN" is God's gift to the world and no one else is worthy. It has been bullshit, right from the time Ron Paul elected to cling to Party over Principle. Not to mention, but you did so I will too, it has been obnoxious, pompous and deluded. Do you realize how many people YOU personally chased off?

Amen.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Amen.

I don't think everyone has to do what Ron Paul suggested. Not at all. But, I don't think it is constructive for some to spend all their efforts denouncing his strategy. Do what you want to do. Whatever it is. And let those of us who want to continue with Ron Paul's strategy, do so without being constantly derided.

And I don't think anyone here has ever claimed that Republicans are God's gift to anything.

 

[Ivash]

Tbone did repeatedly state that the odds for a brokered convention were long, even when Santorum was running, which is probably the reason why he advocated not trying for it. I actually remember that because he was the only person that agreed with me on this subject- I always believed that the odds of such a convention were less than 1%. In the current primary system brokered conventions, by design, do not occur.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Amen.

Formerly, I'd be considered a non republican but have now embraced the term because this is how I see myself having a positive affect going forward. I've played the LP for ten years yet I'm seeing the successes by us in the GOP and want to keep the ball rolling. ~50% of people will vote one way or the other, so restoring one of those ways to liberty becomes a win. The vast majority of republicans champion most of our issues and can likely take on more of the foreign policy/civil liberties stances when the RP name is not immediately involved so the media and radio mafia can drag it through the mud.

 

[tbone717]

Formerly, I'd be considered a non republican but have now embraced the term because this is how I see myself having a positive affect going forward. I've played the LP for ten years yet I'm seeing the successes by us in the GOP and want to keep the ball rolling. ~50% of people will vote one way or the other, so restoring one of those ways to liberty becomes a win. The vast majority of republicans champion most of our issues and can likely take on more of the foreign policy/civil liberties stances when the RP name is not immediately involved so the media and radio mafia can drag it through the mud.

The fact that there are Liberty Republicans winning races, advocating a non-interventionist FP and civil liberties is a testament to that. The more voices we have in the House and Senate, I feel we will have less resistance to our FP and CL stances come 2016 or 2020.

 

[EBounding]

Formerly, I'd be considered a non republican but have now embraced the term because this is how I see myself having a positive affect going forward. I've played the LP for ten years yet I'm seeing the successes by us in the GOP and want to keep the ball rolling.

That's a good point. People who think it's futile to work within the Republican party should ask themselves "What if the Libertarian party had the same successes as those liberty candidates in the Republican party?" It'd be considered a huge accomplishment.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

That's a good point. People who think it's futile to work within the Republican party should ask themselves "What if the Libertarian party had the same successes as those liberty candidates in the Republican party?" It'd be considered a huge accomplishment.

Yep, I go where the successes go. Not the bullpuss. Own the #2 area, then win it over and swing for the fences.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

That's a good point. People who think it's futile to work within the Republican party should ask themselves "What if the Libertarian party had the same successes as those liberty candidates in the Republican party?" It'd be considered a huge accomplishment.

Here, here! There's been no official Libertarian elected to House or Senate in their history. We've elected several Liberty candidates to both House and Senate and are poised to do it again. Results speak for themselves.