Posted on 11/06/2012 9:24:31 PM PST by TheArizona
A) You don’t elect a president and have his stance on abortion become law.
B) If you really oppose abortion, the smart thing to do is crawl to the polls to vote for Romney.
C) Leaving the army when your general has some views you don’t agree with loses wars. You feel principled but your cause is defeated.
All the reasons for not supporting the winner in the primary against our enemy, I see as really stupid politically. Maybe naive or easily distracted in addition to stupid.
It wasn’t judicial review that was considered and rejected. I think you’re thinking of judicial veto. That’s different, as you can veto whatever law you want for any reason, whereas review only allows you to strike down laws that conflict with higher law.
As for strict construction, admittedly “judicial review” is not mentioned in the Constitution at all, and surely not specified under “due process.” However, nothing is specified under due process. To understand what they meant we must seek how they understood the term when amendments 5 and 14 were ratified. I haven’t done such research myself, or at least not extensively, but have been led to believe judicial review was among the processes due to whomever is owed due process.
The only people I've heard make that statement are those who don't know how those in authority in the party are selected - the political ignorant, uneducated or inexperienced. Someone who has never fought in the longterm local, county and state battles.
-- Given both of these facts I'd be surprised anyone with serious constitutional/libertarian/limited-government "could win" the GOP primary.
If they can't, then they can't win nationally. And they darn sure can't win on their own if they can't attract the majority of folks voting in GOP primaries.
They can win around their kitchen table maybe, but they are MIA in the real battles for America.
No, the president doesn't make laws... however his stance certainly could stop what law you wanted from being enacted. (Ex: Congress passes a law recognizing abortions as murder; the president vetos it because he thinks there should be exceptions in the case of rape and incest.)
B) If you really oppose abortion, the smart thing to do is crawl to the polls to vote for Romney.
No. That only normalizes the "pro-life" label to include those who support the exceptions for rape, incest and "the mother's safety." Those three exceptions taken together are insidious, the "rape/incest" exception is socially rooted in emotion, generating automatic knee-jerk responses, while the "mother's health/safety" is realistically held to be so broad as to be meaningless (ie at-will).
C) Leaving the army when your general has some views you don’t agree with loses wars. You feel principled but your cause is defeated.
I was in the army. I left because I was tired of being lied to (1) regarding promotions [actually political], and (2) regarding defending the constitution [see the oath of enlistment].
All the reasons for not supporting the winner in the primary against our enemy, I see as really stupid politically. Maybe naive or easily distracted in addition to stupid.
How is it sensible to support someone whose philosophy is that of your enemy, when that enemy is your enemy because of his philosophy?
Mitt Romney is a socialist and a statist, I will not vote for either.
it’s not our fault our enemies hats us”
So that’s it, is it? Not his policies but his psychoanalysis of the enemy. Sort of like voting against Obama because of his apology tour instead of because he’s a socialist.
Militarists themselves admit the existence if what they call “blowback.” We make ourselves responsible for what our enemies, if they really are such, think of us. Even if they are totally irrational they are predictably irrational, at least to an extent. It could benefit us to plan our foreign policy around their insanity. The alternative is to be content with our righteousness while digging ourselves deeper and deeper in the muck.
Not much is required to trace how intervention begets intervention and war war. WWI gave us WWII, and we crushed the Nazi only for the whack-a-mole Soviets to pop up. The Middle East now is Britain’s fault from WWI, but also ours since WWII, especially as regards Israel. Everyone knows how one man’s war with Iraq led to his son’s war with Iraq.
You can paint whomever we happen to oppose as the bad guys, and that’s easy with the Nazis, commues, and terrorists. But you can’t say we’re exactly defending ourselves, and haven’t been clearly doing so since at least 1812. National security is something more nebulous, and national interest altogether indefinable. Maybe at some point we’ll try again not pushing our interests without regard for what our enemies or potential enemies think, however evil they are. Because even if they’re wrong and we are good guys, it does matter what they think.
Realizing that you will have enemies through no fault of your own (even because of your strengths) is the first requirement.
The second requirement is to realize that the best strategy for preventing war is a very strong defense to not invite attack and a strong defense policy that when attacked you annihilate your attacker to stop him and discourage others.
Paul, and many libertarians fail on these requirements. The result of their philosophy is more war and less freedom - in the long run suffering and servitude.
Mitt Romney is a socialist and a statist, I will not vote for either.
When someone has to distort reality so much to make their views reasonable, I don't think much of their views.
I'm not feeling too graceful right now and not too charitable towards anyone who didn't fight to win this battle. Even if they had some wonderful intentions.
Romney is not the cause of the failure to win. That lies with the GOP leadership that is more willing to suck DNC Donkey dick as long as they get to continue enjoying the perks & prestige of high office, regardless of what happens to the rest of the country.
Also a deliberately undereducated & socialist indoctrinated American public are to blame .
We have a great seal of work ahead of us ladies & gentlemen & it will have to be by necessity be a form of insurgency within the GOP anyone like a cup of TEA?
I can’t count the number of young people I have had conversations with who belittle the Republican Party for its overemphasis on moral values and its close association with religion. There is plenty of support for little-l libertarian principles in college students and other young persons. Most younger folks don’t seem to have a need to mix politics and religion. Republicans might reorganize around a more narrow platform of fiscal responsibility and preservation of individual rights, period. I think such a platform might be more appealing to younger voters.
Thanks for the clarification, I misunderstood your first reply.
Yes, I blame cheaters and women and I am right.
2008
Barack Obama 69,498,516 52.93%
John McCain 59,948,323 45.65%
Total 129,446,839
2012
Barack Obama 54,773,837 50.48%
Mitt Romney 53,716,689 49.52%
Total 108,490,526
Notes:
1. 6,231,634 less Republican votes in 2012
2. 20,956,313 fewer Americans voted in 2012
That would be six million Republicans who stayed home.
Actually, I am a former Libertarian, long time ago. But culture warriors who supported two unnecessary wars and drug wars and then proceed to whine that Libertarians ‘gave the election to Obama’ disgust me. Libertarians WOULD vote Republican if they simply stopped doing things government has no business doing and stopped trying to be the world’s policeman; most people don’t give a fig about Benghazi and are quite aware that no one on the 9-11 planes was from Iraq or Afghanistan, and the insistence that a fertilized egg is a human being is as far off the hook in one direction as partial birth abortion is in the other, to a lot of people.
The Libertarians had an effect in this election, but what cost us in this election were the people who four years ago trumpeted the tired notion of “I’m staying home and if enough of us do so, Uhbamuh will win, things will get really bad, and we will roll to the Presidency with OUR guy in four years”. The notion has been put forth here countless times over the many years that I have enjoyed reading and posting here. That notion has ALWAYS been wrong.
Lots of people chose to stay home four years ago or vote for goofball candidates to send a message. In the end, if this was your thinking, the message was sent to yourself and that message is “How could I be such a dumbass”.
Stating your pro-abortion position answered my question.
My question was “”How about abandoning your radical leftism of partial birth abortion, abortion, open borders, homosexual marriage, heroin advertising etc?””
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.