Why are we Republicans?

[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.