Posted on 03/08/2014 2:52:54 PM PST by PaulCruz2016
Sen. Rand Paul demolished his competition in the 2014 Washington Times/CPAC presidential preference straw poll on Saturday, winning 31 percent of the vote -- nearly three times the total of second-place Sen. Ted Cruz.
Mr. Cruz's 11 percent was still a big improvement for the freshman senator, who won just 4 percent in last year's straw poll. Neurosurgeon Ben Carson was third with 9 percent and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was fourth with 8 percent in results that signal growing discontent with the GOP establishment in Washington.
Indeed, CPAC voters now have an unfavorable view of Republicans in Congress, with 51 percent saying they disapprove of the job the GOP is doing on Capitol Hill. Just last year the GOP had a 54 percent approval rating, and in 2012 they held a 70 percent approval rating.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.apnews.com ...
Of course Reagan was conservative, and what does any of this have to do with your anti-conservatism.
You want us to deliberately choose even more left people than the ones you are naming, and no Nixon, Bush, and Eisenhower were not the choice of the right, they were more the choice of moderates and the GOPe.
Now you are promoting that we relax even more and start supporting candidates who are even more left.
Wasn’t Romney pro-abortion enough for you?
Skip all the BS and just get to the point, you want conservatives to quit seeking true conservatives, and want them to move left and start voting for candidates who are openly liberal on social issues.
Not at all irrelevant. You or me or Jim or anyone else can be dead set against anyone a year or two before the election. A week before, things can change. I once swore I’d never vote for McCain, but I did.
I’m sorry, but Rand doesn’t do much more for me than his daddy does.
Nixon endorsed abortion as a kind of “population control” long before most other liberals had done so.
Yes, irrelevant, your out of the blue statement was irrelevant to whether JR is a “paid shill” paid to oppose libertarianism.
You didn’t follow the conversation back did you.
Me: [I]f you don't put freedom from government first whether you call yourself a Conservative or Donald Duck, you advance the socialist agenda, howbeit unwittingly. And THAT's an HISTORICAL fact Jack.
That’s the point. For some reason, you seem offended or upset by the idea of putting freedom first. You accuse me of all kinds of nasty things against conservatives which I have not said nor is true but you stubbornly hold to your conclusions anyway. There’s no explicit reason for doing so, but there may very well be some implicit reasons. It's hard to tell because you are either unable or unwilling to define what you mean by “conservative” and make no distinction between “conservative” and “social conservative.”
Nevertheless, I'm guessing that there may some kind of basic enmity between at least certain kinds of “conservatism” and the idea of freedom from government excess. Therefore, there’s stuff to these discussions that I find worth pursing, but I’m going to have to get back to it later (possibly months later) because I’ve got to get back to my main effort right now – studying for the State Bar (although in some respects, these discussions are more interesting to me).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3131111/posts?page=322#322
I’m bookmarking our thread and will get back to this later. Some bullet points I’m listing to remind myself what to look into and possibly discuss.
- I think we both have in common an abhorrence of the evils that are being perpetrated upon society. I think the difference between us is how we get to minimizing those evils (evil will never be completely gone until we have a new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21:1)).
- there’s a certain immaturity in “black-and-white” thinking
- grace vs. the law; redeemed vs. unredeemed society
- the possibility that some “conservatives” are afraid of freedom from government interference (as the Left is but for different reasons) because without government, more evil than ever might be unleashed upon our society.
- the problem with the above statement in light of the fact that although the rule of law (the U.S. Constitution) has protected us from the evils of the oppressive rule of man, government has gone increasingly outside its constitutional limits and threatens to increasingly rule by the whim of man.
- the fairly obvious parade of horribles and evils that has been perpetrated upon us unconstitutionally by government and more so as our government has illegally and unconstitutionally grown larger. A sampling of some of the evils big government sponsors:
***“sodomite rights” (a legal oxymoron) – forwarded by BIG GOVERNMENT;
***the infanticide of around 70 million unborn – state anti-abortion laws prevented by BIG GOVERNMENT
***sexual perversion taught to children as young as kindergarteners – forced upon them by BIG GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS
***throughout history, more people (hundreds of millions) have been murdered by their own GOVERNMENT than by any invading army
- the more subtle issue and seeming contradiction of the law – the rule of law (the Constitution) protects us from the rule of man and yet as the rule of law is put to one side, the rule of man perpetuates volumes and volumes of new laws, many of which are invalid and unconstitutional. Nevertheless, it’s possible that some “conservatives” are afraid that if we didn’t have all these laws, more evil would be perpetrated on our society although both theory and historical evidence suggest otherwise.
- So it’s possible the basic issue between you and me is that freedom may feel like a threat to you if it means the unleashing of a greater flood of evils than we already have even though historical and current evidence is just the opposite: the bigger government has grown and the more laws passed, the more evil has been promoted, framed by invalid laws and unconstitutional government.
Bye.
Didn't know that. But I think people generally viewed him as a "social conservative" (as opposed to "conservative") meaning he held to traditional values of family, belief in God, anti-gay rights, etc. just like GW Bush. Some say "social conservatism" is enough but look what W got us. I say that's not enough - we need a "social conservative" who is ardently against big government and taxes - a guy like Reagan or a gal like Palin.
People didn’t view Nixon as conservative, or socially conservative.
Contrary to your lengthy ramblings, conservatives don’t “fear freedom”, they gave us freedom and fight to preserve it today.
Libertarianism is a way to promote liberalism within the GOP and join with the GOPe and the openly left, in cutting off conservatism and God, and traditional America, and killing it, once and for all.
Were you around in 1968? Many did.
conservatives don’t “fear freedom”, they gave us freedom and fight to preserve it today
Yes but Reagan and his supporters, unlike you apparently, didn't object to putting freedom first.
No they didn’t, I told you earlier why I didn’t vote for Nixon.
Reagan was the choice of social conservatives, God knows he was no libertarian, in fact the strongest showing the libertarians have ever had, was when they tried to keep Reagan out of the White House in 1980.
I liked Reagan so much that I not only voted for him, but went back into the military to help him in his conservative goals.
Maybe you didn't but many did and thought he was at least a social conservative. In some ways he was but generally I thought he was a big disappointment especially when he forced wage and price controls, screwing up the economy.
No they didn’t think that, Reagan was the most conservative candidate in 1968, some thought that George Wallace was a conservative, even the democrat was not known as a social liberal.
Do you think that having a libertarian third party candidate on the ballot takes more votes away from Democrats, or from Republicans??
Generally republicans, at least in most races, while the democrat liberalism appeals to them, in most races the republican economics would draw more of them, if the race were only between democrat and republican.
I think most of us have the impression that the libertarians run candidates to defeat the republican.
Oh, you must have meant presidential elections, the best presidential election the libertarians ever had, was against 1980 Reagan.
I'm just praying we get somebody we can rally behind. We'll have to see what the dynamics shake out and do what we can to put pressure on the process of getting folks on the slate. I really want an across-the-board conservative but will vote for whoever isn't the Dem candidate in the end. I don't see how we withstand another Dem in the WH unless we have super-majorities in both Houses and even then the McPains might still hand them the agenda.
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.