Ron Paul and the Liberal Voters - Any Connection?

joshuainmn

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
11
I've considered myself a die-hard liberal ever since I started getting into politics and the things I held most important was all in the bill of rights. Whats odd is, for me and a large number of other young people like me, we have been raised that upholding freedoms is a liberal idea. This is, at least for me, because the idea of racism and discrimination has been heavily associated with the Republican party.

What Ron needs to do, more than he already has, is to get his message out to all those people out there like me that honestly have no idea what we're missing out on. I think there is such a huge liberal base out there that isn't happy with any of our options on the democratic side, and we need someone like Ron to lead this country.

Anyway, I'm not too familiar with the political process, but are people who aren't registered republicans allowed to vote in the primaries? If so, what do all of you feel needs to be done to steal votes away from the other party?
 
I've considered myself a die-hard liberal ever since I started getting into politics and the things I held most important was all in the bill of rights. Whats odd is, for me and a large number of other young people like me, we have been raised that upholding freedoms is a liberal idea. This is, at least for me, because the idea of racism and discrimination has been heavily associated with the Republican party.

What Ron needs to do, more than he already has, is to get his message out to all those people out there like me that honestly have no idea what we're missing out on. I think there is such a huge liberal base out there that isn't happy with any of our options on the democratic side, and we need someone like Ron to lead this country.

Anyway, I'm not too familiar with the political process, but are people who aren't registered republicans allowed to vote in the primaries? If so, what do all of you feel needs to be done to steal votes away from the other party?

Youlle have to check out your state laws for whether you'lle be able to vote Republican or not. You may have to register Republican and youll want to do it soon.
Ive always considered myself Independant. I will say i sympathize more with Dem's than Neo-Cons. Ive always been attracted to the way the Republican party was supposed to be. Limited government, personal freedom, personal responsibility, etc.
 
Ive always considered myself Independant. I will say i sympathize more with Dem's than Neo-Cons. Ive always been attracted to the way the Republican party was supposed to be. Limited government, personal freedom, personal responsibility, etc.

Yeah. I wish more dems/liberals would recognize that republicans =/= neo-cons. As Ron Paul has said, he's more republican than any of the other candidates, and he's right.
 
I've considered myself a die-hard liberal ever since I started getting into politics and the things I held most important was all in the bill of rights. Whats odd is, for me and a large number of other young people like me, we have been raised that upholding freedoms is a liberal idea. This is, at least for me, because the idea of racism and discrimination has been heavily associated with the Republican party.

What Ron needs to do, more than he already has, is to get his message out to all those people out there like me that honestly have no idea what we're missing out on. I think there is such a huge liberal base out there that isn't happy with any of our options on the democratic side, and we need someone like Ron to lead this country.

Anyway, I'm not too familiar with the political process, but are people who aren't registered republicans allowed to vote in the primaries? If so, what do all of you feel needs to be done to steal votes away from the other party?

Welcome, Josh!
 
let's not forget that there are many who are just now of voting age, and all they've seen since they have been old enough to think is a republican as president, and a crappy government. so they might just associate bush with what republicans do. getting the idea of conservatism out, and that bush is NOT a conservative, but the founding fathers were, is important.
 
Yeah. I wish more dems/liberals would recognize that republicans =/= neo-cons. As Ron Paul has said, he's more republican than any of the other candidates, and he's right.
I disagree.

Dr. Paul doesn't appease and capitulate to the left and play "go along to get along".
 
I've considered myself a die-hard liberal ever since I started getting into politics and the things I held most important was all in the bill of rights. Whats odd is, for me and a large number of other young people like me, we have been raised that upholding freedoms is a liberal idea. This is, at least for me, because the idea of racism and discrimination has been heavily associated with the Republican party.

The problem is most young people are classical liberals but align themselves with socialists because they think that's what a liberal is. Most people are socially liberal and don't know much about economics so they follow the democrats (in many cases socialists) because socially free is more important than economically free. That mindset needs to change... badly.

What Ron needs to do, more than he already has, is to get his message out to all those people out there like me that honestly have no idea what we're missing out on. I think there is such a huge liberal base out there that isn't happy with any of our options on the democratic side, and we need someone like Ron to lead this country.

Agreed but since Ron isn't getting much media attention it's up to us, as Americans, to spread the word. I agree with liberals but I think many of them just haven’t really thought about what the philosophy they support is all about.

Anyway, I'm not too familiar with the political process, but are people who aren't registered republicans allowed to vote in the primaries? If so, what do all of you feel needs to be done to steal votes away from the other party?

Some states are have open primaries and some you have to register republican in order to vote. Google your states voting code for the primaries to find out for sure about registration.

In my state we have open primaries. I've been telling the Obama or Clinton supporters that they should vote for Ron Paul in the primaries regardless of who they want to vote for in the general elections. That way they will have an anti-war candidate regardless of the party and they can still feel comfortable knowing they helped a good guy spread his message. It's a win / win situation for them.
 
Welcome, Joshua.

I think what draws people to Dr. Paul is that he offers something that everyone can relate to: the Liberty to be ourselves, and he relates to us without trying to frighten us. He seems to be the only one who treats us like adults.

Just remember, the true conservatism of a man like Dr. Paul is the desire to conserve for you your Liberty to think of yourself as a liberal. ;)

As for the question about the primaries, as MGS pointed out, it depends on your state. Interestingly, this time many of the states are changing the way they handle the primaries. My state, for example, is moving from an open primary, which they have done for years, to a closed convention made up of delegates from the county GOP committees. Makes you wonder, eh?

You can get the forms and info necessary to register as a Republican in your state by going here:
http://www.gop.com/RegisterToVote/

First, check with your state, though. You may be able to vote in an open primary.
 
You didn't suggest Dr. Paul did so, but the rank-and-file republicans are famous for their spinelessness.
 
As of a few days ago, I'm an independent...

(I should update my sig.)
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Ron Paul, as far as my understanding goes, is more of a "classical liberal" but refers to himself as a "conservative" because, if I had to guess, he knows how the terms "conservative" and "liberal" are used today in our media to describe "limited government" and "big government" respectively.

Of course, I'm still learning the ins and outs of all this. In my experience, my leanings toward social/global justice and environmental concerns make me "liberal." But I think most people, regardless of their political leanings, want to see injustices addressed. We don't want to see people stricken with poverty. We don't want to see our planet wrecked by pollution. No sane person would.

My significant other, who is really quite "liberal" even compared to me, has extreme reservations regarding Paul's presentation. She's a college professor who teaches humanities, ethics, religion, etc., so she's no slouch intellectually, and I have a hard time countering her on some very basic things. "How will Ron Paul deal with media concentration when there's no government regulation? Or keep the already horrendous onslaught of chemicals out of our food supply?" All I can say is "Uh... free market? Property rights?" because my attraction to Paul is based on his opposition to the war and threats to U.S. sovereignty (NAU) more than it is on his economic theory, which seems sound, but I am taking more or less on faith until I research more.

Her main complaint is that "free markets are his answer to everything." I can't really counter that, because, well... it is, by and large. She sees free markets as a free-for-all that allows so many injustices to go unchecked. So then, to respond to the OP, I think that Paul's presentation (and I've listened to hours and hours of it) could benefit from really fleshing out in greater detail the way in which free markets cure social injustices, and perhaps also by reminding people every single time he has a chance to speak that he is a COMPASSIONATE candidate... by emphasizing over and over that while he is not in favor of the people being coerced into helping each other, that doing so voluntarily is part of the moral fabric which makes a nation strong and that we SHOULD, when we can.
 
So many great replies... thanks everyone.

I'd like to reitterate something I read in this thread that I think is a great message to really hit home with a lot of democrats, whether they would be ron paul supporters in the end or not...

vote for paul in the primaries, so that no matter what, you get an antiwar candidate.

Thats some good thinking :)
 
Her main complaint is that "free markets are his answer to everything." I can't really counter that, because, well... it is, by and large. She sees free markets as a free-for-all that allows so many injustices to go unchecked. So then, to respond to the OP, I think that Paul's presentation (and I've listened to hours and hours of it) could benefit from really fleshing out in greater detail the way in which free markets cure social injustices, and perhaps also by reminding people every single time he has a chance to speak that he is a COMPASSIONATE candidate... by emphasizing over and over that while he is not in favor of the people being coerced into helping each other, that doing so voluntarily is part of the moral fabric which makes a nation strong and that we SHOULD, when we can.

The free-market is like a marketplace with the hand of God reaching down and weeding out the bad, and keeping the good companies. It's the consumers who are king, they choose who gets to be in business, and consumers choose with their money, what companies lose money and eventually fail.

When people are free to compete, monopolies will be very hard pressed to keep up with the satisfaction of the consumers. Once they fail to meet the consumers standards, they loose money and business. They open up themselves further to competitors (new or exsisting) looking to offer the consumers what the other business failed to provide. Without help from the government to protect their monopoly or subsidizing them, companies will lose and eventually end up bankrupt if they don't follow the demands of the consumer.

One thing is very clear, socialism does not work.

I'd recommend watching this video as a good introduction into liberty and economics. Ron Paul is in it, so enjoy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5658307639261829691
 
Last edited:
Does anyone know where one can find up-to-date information about open and closed primaries, and whether independents can vote in open primaries? I have previously been registered to vote in another state and am having a hard time finding information on the rules in my current state and in fact find conflicting information. I'm in Illinois and an independent but was previously registered in California.
 
So many great replies... thanks everyone.

I'd like to reitterate something I read in this thread that I think is a great message to really hit home with a lot of democrats, whether they would be ron paul supporters in the end or not...

vote for paul in the primaries, so that no matter what, you get an antiwar candidate.

Thats some good thinking :)

That's my thinking too. I'm in Illinois and of course Obama will get the votes in the Democratic primary, but the real fight will be for the Republican votes and that is why a vote for Dr. Paul is so important in this state.
 
Does anyone know where one can find up-to-date information about open and closed primaries, and whether independents can vote in open primaries? I have previously been registered to vote in another state and am having a hard time finding information on the rules in my current state and in fact find conflicting information. I'm in Illinois and an independent but was previously registered in California.

I believe you will need to register again with your current home state.

http://www.elections.il.gov/VotingInformation/welcome.aspx
 
When you hear about the horrors of the free market the industrial revolution’s robber barons is usually cited as the free market failure. When you look at history, you will see that the federal government made the robber barons. The railroads were paid so much a mile to lay tracks to California and given huge tracks of land in the west. Get a western national forest map (Shasta Trinity) and you will see what is called the checkerboard where every other section was given to Southern Pacific Railroad. The huge demand for steel rails and wooden crossties built the huge steel and timber industries. Had the Government stayed out and let the railroads finance their own rail building the robber barons would not have become so big and powerful. The government created the monsters then tried to correct the problems with the antitrust laws, which created huge union abuses such as getting laws passed that allowed murder if it was on the picket line. Since then the government’s involvement grew into every field and corner of American economy so that when one small segment of industry is somewhat deregulated and fails, people point and say "See the free market doesn't work."
I think that compassion and concern for the environment is shared by most people regardless of the party label, it is only the ideas on how to achieve those goals that comes into contention.
I live in a old growth forest and love these forests because I grew up in them. Last year l00,000 acres of this forest burned and mostly because of a horrible agressive policy of "Fire is natural". What is natural about lighting 12 miles of ridge with flares by the federal government? It is a policy so eintrenched in the federal government that it will take years to change even when most of the rank and file know it is wrong. In the mean time millions of acres of forest will have burned. I was talking to one of the rank in file firefighters and he told of his horror at torching Sugarpines larger than he had ever seem.
When I help someone in need I am giving someone dollar for dollar not the 5 cents on the dollar they get when I send that money to Washington. For Gods sake be compassionate don't make the feds make you be compassionate.
 
Back
Top