jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (70 posts)

Radical Republicans for Ron Paul?

  1. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    I just had to share this WTF? Ron Paul supporter moment.

    I was in a store called Sacred Space in Durango, CO the other afternoon.
    The proprietress is a seer/healer. Does readings. Sells crystals and tinctures/herbs and other assorted spiritual sundries.
    The decor is sort of neo-fairy, if you get my drift.

    In bursts a man of indeterminate age. At least 40 I'd say. Sort of street urchin charming.
    He says, "Are there any registered Republicans in here?"
    Speaking only for myself (and before I could stop myself) I retorted, "HELL no!"
    But this being Colorado, and me not being a native, I could easily have been mistaken in my assumption that traditional "Republicans" are likely not hanging out in stores called Sacred Space. It's not exactly a "Christian" epicenter.

    Turns out the man was drumming up support to attend a Ron Paul rally that evening (in about 1/2 hour). Of course my son (19) and his buddy (20) are all over Ron Paul. Neither of them is registered to vote, however.

    So the thought occurred to me that here is this hippie looking guy who looked straight out of 1968 protests central casting. But instead of McGovern, the candidate he's supporting is running on the GOP ticket.
    He's looking for the radical fringe element to support Ron Paul and actually looking in a radical fringe kind of gathering spot.
    But there's just one problem.
    The "registered Republican" part stopped me short. It just sounded all wrong to me.
    Like "What's wrong with this picture?"

    So my question here is would RP do better dissociating himself from the GOP?

    1. aguasilver profile image86
      aguasilverposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe he just told you a story when he realised there were no registered Republicans in the store, he could have had a gun and been ready to shoot any who confessed to being registered Republicans! smile

      1. Mighty Mom profile image89
        Mighty Momposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Good point!
        In that case I feel lucky to have escaped with my life -- plus a lovely book on angel numerology! lol

        1. profile image67
          logic,commonsenseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Didn't know that angels played the lottery MM! smile

          1. aguasilver profile image86
            aguasilverposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            They only need to play ONCE so we never notice them buying the tickets!

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image79
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Jeezus you people just won't stop.

      HE'S THE SECOND MOST POPULAR REPUBLICAN IN THE COUNTRY.

      NO - HE'S NOT GOING TO BE BETTER OFF AS A THIRD PARTY.

      However, if he DOES go to the Libertarian party (which might happen if the Republicans don't realize they need him to win against Obama), we'll finally have a federally funded 3rd party.

      Then haters gonna hate because "blah, Romney was too much of a douche, and so Obama won".

      1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        He's the second most popular Republican in the country?  By what measure?  If you look at the break down of voters in New Hampshire, the majority of Ron Paul's support was not from registered Republicans.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          The 2nd most popular Republican does not have to have the popularity come from Republicans.

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
            Jeff Berndtposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            lol That's absolutely right! But that's one reason why I think Paul probably won't get the nod and will have to run as a Libertarian, if at all.

            Somebody might offer him the VP seat, though....

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Paul can win by winning the open primary/caucus states. Luckily, the democratic states -- usually open -- have a massive number of delegates.

              California and New York are worth 20% of the vote, and Paul's home state is worth another 10%.

              He can win.

    3. Deni Edwards profile image87
      Deni Edwardsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I can't believe the GOP has not ousted Paul from the debates--chasing him off of the stage by threatening to scan him with the TSA equipment. 

      Ron Paul's libertarian views are more in line with the dems--especially on civil liberties and when it comes to the Patriot Act.  But even dems find Ron Paul to be over the top.  He doesn't belong in either category, and he will be looking to run under a different ticket sooner or later.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Actually, they pretty much have. He gets asked the dumbest questions:

        q1: "Are you SURE you're not a racist"
        q2: "Why aren't you a Libertarian"
        q3: "You are a Libertarian"
        q4: "Are you SURE you're not a racist"?

        And every pro-Republican news outlet constantly bashes him - they don't even bother to check their sources anymore.

        It's gotten to the point of absurdity, and, thanks to Ron Paul, my eyes have really been open to the Media, the political process, and more importantly: liberty.

        1. EmpressFelicity profile image78
          EmpressFelicityposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          You've had your "aha" moment about the media, I see. Mine occurred between the time of September 11th and the run-up to the Iraq war.

          I would definitely read the stuff that Noam Chomsky has to say about the Western press. I know, I know - he's a socialist. But if you put that aside, you will recognise that he's spot on when it comes to this particular subject.

          Whoever the mainstream media serves, it certainly isn't us peons.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Chomsky ain't bad, and socialism isn't so bad as long as it's ENTIRELY voluntary.

            1. EmpressFelicity profile image78
              EmpressFelicityposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              It's the "voluntary" bit that people fail to understand time and time again, I feel.

              So often you hear somebody saying "It would be great if people did this" and it's followed by "Yeah, the government should make it compulsory." Or "Wouldn't it be a good idea if we stopped doing X?" is followed by "Yeah, they should make X illegal!"

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Voluntarism is MUCH more important than the label of socialism or capitalism.

                Capitalism is inherently voluntary, however.

                1. Mighty Mom profile image89
                  Mighty Momposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Capitalism is not voluntary!
                  If I want to live in this country without living off the government, I have to participate in the capitalist system.
                  How is that voluntary???

                  1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
                    uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    So you are angry that you live in an economic system where in you cannot be a parasite on your fellow citizens?  Or is it the total accountability for your own decisions without the government stepping in to mitigate against stupidity that you find objectionable?

                  2. Evan G Rogers profile image79
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Is this really the level of daftness that has infiltrated our people? Jeezus.

                    Government is NOT voluntary because it gets its money through taxes; theft.

                    Capitalism is voluntary because you could just do nothing and starve to death. You own your property, and this is capitalism.

                    I'm utterly disgusted that this needs to be explained.

                2. Jeff Berndt profile image88
                  Jeff Berndtposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Capitalism can definitely be coercive. Sign, or my hired goons will do more than just flex their muscles and intimidate you.

                  And yes, I know that socialism can be coercive, too.

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image73
            Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            What you say about Chomsky on Iraq is true. He wasn't alone. Our great senior senator from Michigan, Carl Levin, had the good sense to vote against our foolish, costly, unnecessary adventure in Iraq.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              It isn't a war, there was no vote for war.

              And Ron Paul voted against military intervention as well!

      2. uncorrectedvision profile image60
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Don't forget Ron Paul is a pro-lifer and a states rights guy - those are also at odds with Democrats.

    4. secularist10 profile image89
      secularist10posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      My aunt, who is a lifelong liberal and straight Democratic voter, recently announced she is registering as a Republican so she can vote for Ron Paul.

      The funny thing is that although libertarians are often thought of as "conservative," they are actually more in line with Democratic policies than Republican ones: liberal on social issues, noninterventionist on foreign policy, and conservative on fiscal and economic policy. Libertarians are liberal on 2 out of the 3 main fields of government policy.

      However, they vote for Republicans because most of them are more interested in getting their taxes low than in the other stuff.

      1. kerryg profile image84
        kerrygposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Calling them liberal on social issues is a bit of an over-generalization. Some are and some aren't. The Pauls bother me because they value civil liberties that affect themselves as straight white men, but are pretty weak on those affecting women, minorities, and the LGBT community.

        1. secularist10 profile image89
          secularist10posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I don't really see Rand Paul as a libertarian. Ron Paul is pretty liberal on social issues, such as drugs. The one notable exception is abortion that I can think of.

          But anyway, I was referring to libertarianism as political ideology or philosophy, and the believers in it.

  2. Evan G Rogers profile image79
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    Well, you don't have to be radical to like Ron Paul:

    https://www.examiner.com/conservative-i … r-ron-paul

    1. Mighty Mom profile image89
      Mighty Momposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Looking forward to the day when that's not an act of charity, but the norm.
      When health care is a right guaranteed to our citizens, not the sword in the stone that only those with special powers (read: lucky enough to have jobs with benefits or independently wealthy) can access without taking a second mortgage on their home. Oops. Second mortgage? Ha ha.
      Home? What home?
      Silly me!

      But you've actually proved my point, Evan. These people are exactly the demo being courted by Ron Paul. The idealists who want the world to be a simpler, happier place. How in God's name does THAT fit under the GOP banner?
      There's the disconnect.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        The original Republicans were Ron Paul style

        1. Mighty Mom profile image89
          Mighty Momposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I believe you.
          The party has devolved dramatically, even since Reagan.
          But the Dems aren't what they used to be, either.
          Maybe it's the times we live in.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Actually, The Federalists (big government) were the first Political Party; then the Republicans came to limit them (they were called the Anti-Federalists by the Federalists). (The whigs existed for a while, but nothing too exciting).

            Gradually the Federalists collapsed, and then the big government cronyism infiltrated the Republicans. Lincoln was the pinnacle of corruption, as small government literally fought a war for independence to escape the big government Republicans.

            Then the Democrats were created to help limit government, which came crashing down during FDR's New Deal and Warfare.

            Then the Republicans came back around to small government, but the Cold War ended that. Reagan promised it, and then chickened out.

            And now, it seems, Ron Paul is taking the R's back to a time of limited government.

            AND WE'RE LOVING IT.

            1. steveamy profile image60
              steveamyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Sort of.  The Republicans you refer to were actually the Democratic-Republicans and were headed by Jefferson.  They actually have a connection to the modern Democratic party by way of Andrew Jackson.  The current Republican party was founded in 1854 by a group of Northern Whigs, some members of the No-Nothing party, Free Soilers and others.

              And the Civil was about far more that Big Gov. vs Small Gov. that is a canard designed to play into the "Lost Cause" ideology that  developed in the late 19th Century.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Right-o --- I was mostly trying to make the major points:

                1) The Republicans (anti-federalists) were originally for decentralization and state's rights.

                2) the political parties have been nothing but a fight over freedom and taxation.

                1. steveamy profile image60
                  steveamyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  It is just that you conflated today's Republicans and the Democratic-Republicans of 1800 -- mildly confusing.

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    The decentralization party of the signing of the Constitution was known as "the Anti-Federalists" by the Federalists, but to themselves, they were known as "Republicans".

                    So, no, I'm not.

              2. Jeff Berndt profile image88
                Jeff Berndtposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                "No-Nothing party"

                That's the Know-Nothing party. The seemingly pedantic distinction is important, both in understanding why the party was called that (the serious reason) and in my joke about how of course the GOP had its roots in a party called the Know-Nothings (the silly reason).

                1. Mighty Mom profile image89
                  Mighty Momposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Unfortunately, it's no longer a silly reason.
                  It's a serious (as a heart attack) reason.
                  For reference, see freshmen TP class of 2010.
                  sad

                  1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
                    Jeff Berndtposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    I was trying to be nice. smile

      2. Shadesbreath profile image85
        Shadesbreathposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        The loud-mouth Christian crusaders united under the banner of God to defend against what they collectively imagine threatens their absurd interpretations of the Bible.

        That's why registered Republicans like myself are almost ashamed to admit it. Those "good Christians" who are so organized and make so much noise make people think the GOP is a party of ignorant, crusading bigots. It's the same problem Democrats have in reverse, where unwashed dope smokers and welfare mothers with assembly line birth machines in their pants are made to represent all liberal ideas.

        You don't have to have a bible in your hand and hate homosexuals to be reasonable and thoughtful.

        1. Mighty Mom profile image89
          Mighty Momposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Party disillusionment by thinking people is rampant, I think.
          On both sides.
          Your descriptions of the stereotypes of both extremes is apt (and quite funny).
          The thing is, how many people do we really know who fit these stereotypes?
          Here on HP, there is quite a bit of ideological common ground on both economic and social issues.
          I can think of at least 5 people who fit this description! lol

  3. Roy Patterson profile image60
    Roy Pattersonposted 5 years ago

    Notice to all you Ron Paul Republicans. He is UN-ELECTABLE. I do like some of his ideas, but his foreign policy is unworkable. It's that simple, he can't win even if hell freezes over and it will not. The question is do you want Brack Obama, with his liberal, socialist and un-constitutional acts as president for 4 more years or are you willing to support someone who is hell lot better than Obama. I don't like any of the candiates running, but I will except Romney because he is not perfect, but 1000% better than Obama.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Good ol' Democracy! "This guy sucks, but I"m voting for him even though there's a better candidate!"

      PS - Ron Paul isn't going to give the election to Obama. If anything, the Republicans will just fail to give the public what it wants.

      There are SO MANY Democrats who hate Obama. Their feelings? Ron Paul is MUCH better than Obama, but Obama is better than Romney.

      The only way to beat Obama this year is for Paul to be the President or VP. It will be the Republicans' fault if he isn't in one of those slots.

      Paul doesn't even have to switch 3rd party to make this Happen. I'm writing Paul's name if he isn't on the ballot. Reagan lied, Bush Sr. Lied, Clinton Lied, Bush Jr. lied, Obama lied.... Ron Paul is the only one who's had a consistent record of TRUE LIMITED GOVERNMENT.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image73
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Very true that Ron Paul is unelectable, thank goodness. He's always been a Miniver Cheevy fringe character who wants to turn the clock back too far. His appeal is in his forthright and genial personality, not his policy positions which are nearly all extreme and unrealistic.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Blah blah blah - he's electable. He's the only one that can beat Obama. That's why you're knocking him down.

        Go start another union and make it impossible to hire good people.

  4. steveamy profile image60
    steveamyposted 5 years ago

    Radical Republicans .... Have Seward and Sumner risen from the dead?  Sorry could not resist the historical reference....

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      lol

  5. secularist10 profile image89
    secularist10posted 5 years ago

    I support a lot of Ron Paul's policies. (Rolling back the global American military empire is one of the easiest ways to bolster this country's future, for so many reasons.) But he does not have a shot. Definitely no chance in the Republican primaries, what with big government conservatives, the morality police, Islamophobia and Mitt Romney's all-American smile.

    And he would have no chance in a general election because his views, though just the kind of radical thinking this country needs right now, are just too far outside the voting public's imagination.

    There is only one way he could have a chance in a general election (which again is academic because he's not getting out of the Republicans). About half of eligible voters don't vote in presidential elections. Contained within that half are just the kinds of radicals, kooks, freethinkers, oddballs and assorted other motley crews that would support Paul. If he could somehow get them to turn out, he would have a shot. But of course that's not going to happen because these people just don't vote.

  6. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Much harder to do than you think. I know this because my son is attempting to do that right now. Extracting his inheritance from the system is a way bigger challenge than you would imagine. That could end up being a hub topic...
    Basically, it requires money to drop out.

    I did not say I didn't want to be part of the capitalist system.
    Heck, even the Chinese are loving (and reveling in) capitalism. I read recently how they are the new consumers of uber luxury goods. Way more than the Middle East.

    Anyway, I digress.
    I disagree somewhat with your definition of what capitalism punishes and rewards. Cheating is hardly punished. The capitalist system is not self-policing. The hardest working, most industrious person does not necessarily end up rewarded. Not at all.
    But that's an aside.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image73
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      "I disagree somewhat with your definition of what capitalism punishes and rewards. Cheating is hardly punished. The capitalist system is not self-policing. The hardest working, most industrious person does not necessarily end up rewarded."

      Very true, especially since Reagan during which time both parties have moved to the right so far as regulation of business is concerned. And there has been a huge redistribution of income and wealth from the middle class and poor to the 1%. The bursting of the housing bubble and the ensuing deep recession should be proof enough that Reaganite de-regulation has gone too far, especially in the banking industry. A certain amount of regulation is required to assure that free markets deliver honestly and fairly on their promise of efficient allocation of resources. The only argument is over which regulations are necessary and what they should be.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image89
        Mighty Momposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Excellent point, Ralph.
        The oversight is only as good as the people doing it. And the teeth/hammers they have to use to enforce the rules.

        I live in California.
        We have a TON of government oversight "boards" under the Department of Consumer Affairs (and other) that are a complete joke. Waste of taxpayer money. Provide zero protection to anyone but the government bureaucrats who work for them.
        roll

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image79
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Every time a corrupt person gets off scott-free, the government makes it possible.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
          Jeff Berndtposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          But...limited government? I thought a government without enough power to punish corrupt businessmen was a good thing?

    2. uncorrectedvision profile image60
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Perhaps a little reading in the operation of the price regulated free market might help.  Another tool useful for understanding how capitalism works is observation.  McDonald's, Wendy's Burger King;  your local grocery stores, K-mart, Walmart, Target; etc.... all compete and force waste and expense out of their systems as best they can.

        The more government regulation, pork, money and taxation is involved in a business the more poorly price regulated free market mechanism function.  Airlines, oil, automobiles, banks, stocks, etc... are all controlled, not by an organic system like capitalism, but by a halting and haphazard proto-socialist administrative state.

      Liberals seek to replace the billions(maybe trillions) of economic decisions made each year with a few hundred or a few thousand made by a political elite they believe to be so much wiser and able by virtue of winning a "beauty" contest.  The decision to buy or not to buy made by a hundred million consumers is a much more reliable means of determining efficiency, quality, safety, etc... than the regulations handed down by a few thousand bureaucrats.

      The problem with the price regulated free market is the same problem with conservatism - it doesn't place the greatest faith in the almighty government.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image89
        Mighty Momposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        No, no. I believe in a completely free free enterprise system.
        Mom and pop stores are obviously competitively unworthy.
        I would much rather buy everything from a single mega provider. Yessir, God bless Walmart and AT&T.
        Both have proved themselves the "fittest" of the retailers out there.

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          J.C. Penny was the largest retail chain in the world in the 1920s, what happened?  A&P was the largest grocery chain in the world until the 1950s, what happened?  IBM used to make typewriters, they were the most widely used electric typewriters in the world until the 1990s, what happened?  General Motors was the most successful car company in the world until the 2000s, what happened?

          Business models change to fit the demands of the free market, mom and pop shops change to fit the free market(didn't you just recount a tale of visiting such a boutique shop?).  Progress or lack there of undoes all kinds of businesses.  Do you think Walmart or AT&T could get as big as they are without the interference, involvement or regulatory excess of the government?

          How many times has local government decided that "eminent domain" means more taxes from wealthier businesses?  Once government decides it must create utopia what limit is there to the abuses of property(money is property)?  Walmart, The NFL, Subaru, etc... all promise more jobs, more taxes, more influence to local and state government and all the government has to do is hold the property of the citizen in contempt.

          Ultimately the enemy of freedom is government itself - the great irony or the great paradox.  How can an entity be both the guardian of and the greatest threat to freedom?  The founders had the answer - severe limitation.  These limitations are what liberals wish to strip away in the false notion that by freeing government it will behave properly.  Government is a wild beast - best to be kept on the chain - but liberals have set it loose among the flocks.

  7. Perspycacious profile image73
    Perspycaciousposted 5 years ago

    How about taxation without competent representation, or promised representation, or by only self-interested representation?  I agree with the view of many that 2012 is the time for Congress to be culled with judicious pink slips that teacht, as with a dog, there are certain things you don't do in the House or the Senate!  Throw the rascals out, and get some fresh American blood in our legislative veins!  Cronyism, nepotism, and haughty pride have walked those halls long enough!

  8. profile image58
    WhoBeYouBeposted 5 years ago

    If we, the republicans, nominate ron Paul, then we may as well all just vote for Obama.

    Paul cannot take the general.

 
working