Posted on 03/15/2014 12:24:23 PM PDT by TitansAFC
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is warning Republicans that if they expect to be relevant in the future and grow the party they will have to soften on social issues.
In an interview with vocativ.com, Paul said he had "sort of a Jeffersonian belief in unity, peace and commerce with all" and that the best way to build the GOP for the future is to include people with whom they don't agree on every issue.
"I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues," Paul advised. "The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by those issues......"
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Umm... that was sort of my point.
Like Paul, each day is a struggle for me. Some things you don’t cave on. Life and other “so-called” social issues is something I’m not taking a dive on.
Thank you!
Like Paul, each day is a struggle for me. Some things you don’t cave on. Life and other “so-called” social issues is something I’m not taking a dive on.
Thank you!
How about a candidate that actually attacks and addresses the damage that liberalism and the Democrat party are currently doing to this country.
Instead we get people like Rand talking about what is wrong with the Republican grass roots instead. Or Paul Ryan groveling for forgiveness for speaking the truth about the inner city.
Ball-less wonders, all of them.
We are precisely in the trouble we are as a party and country because of the moral corruptness and bankruptcy of our current society. This translates into the fiscal matter of an out of control government that tries to mitigate all the consequences of this society’s behavior.
The politics of appeasement DOES NOT WIN.
I totally agree.
So ... your point is?
Should we all fold now because some polls suggest compromise on issues of morality, homosexual marriage, and transexuals in the military?
Thanks vox_freedom...
We've lost the country as a whole. Even among Republicans, there is a disturbing percentage who favor allowing gay marriage. Which of the states now allowing it will reverse course? Which court case, if it goes to SCOTUS, will result in our favor?
All of that means that yes, we have largely lost the war over gay marriage. To admit it is not a "slippery slope", it's reality. And unless we want to start losing any of the other battles you mention, we will need to start acknowledging reality.
I can understand why you feel that way, living in California. I used to live there, too, and it’s depressing as hell because it's like living in a sensory deprivation chamber. But that chamber -- where everyone is repeating the same thing whether you overhear them at the coffee shop or hear it on the news or in the movies you watch -- is not how it is in the rest of the country. It's like that old Saul Alinsky technique of placing 4 people in a diamond pattern within a crowd and getting those 4 people to get up and speak their script...and soon, everyone in the crowd thinks, "Wow...everyone must think like that! Maybe I should keep quiet, because I'm surrounded!" No, it's only 4 people with pre-written scripts in a crowd of 100. But now they've got you questioning yourself.
Consider what you just wrote there: ”Which court case, if it goes to SCOTUS, will result in our favor?” and ask yourself this: Did the Founders EVER intend for 9 court justices to possess that sort of absolute power? Did the Founders intend for corrupt politicians to remain in their offices until they were over 100 years old and propped up by “assistants” (read: “puppet masters”) to “sign” bills that they can’t even see, much less comprehend? No.
So I say that we have not lost the people (although coastal California is lost. It is beyond lost.), but we have lost the government. And there are only two remedies to “turn things around.” 1) Civil War, which no one recommends because… just. No. (and some would say that is exactly what they want) or 2) Article V of the Constitution: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution (yeah, right, as if Congress would ever want to abolish its current abuses of power), or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions of three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by Congress…” This process has been spelled out in Mark Levin’s “Liberty Amendments” and it has already been put into motion.
What is there to gain by continuing to vote for people who tell you one thing and then get into office and turn their coats; or when you finally do get a good one (Reagan) and he puts his guy on the Supreme Court, then THAT guy turns his coat... it's like banging your head against a wall. The only solution is to take the power back from the Federal Leviathan and give it back to the States, as originally intended.
Or there's that Civil War option. Which would you rather try?
....but there are core values I hope to never compromise on.....
.. life, and the protection of the unborn....or the covenant of marriage....etc.
LOLOL
Same here...
Thank you.
I’m with you too!
You have me confused with somebody else. I do not live in California.
Not that it has anything to do with it because yes, we’ve lost the country. Even in most “red” states, support for/opposition to gay marriage is break even. We learned in the last election how dangerous it is to believe that the polls lie.
An Amendment? Which of the dates currently allowing gay marriage would ratify such an Amendment?
As for civil war... well, that presumes that there’s an overwhelming majority in a number of states that agree with us. And now we’re back to that nationwide support thing. No, even if it was a good idea the numbers make it a non-starter.
Better we face reality and admit our mistakes, to make sure we don’t end up repeating them.
I find it curious that people who want a limited gov’t think there ought to be laws regulating sexual acts between consenting adults.
It isn’t about regulating their queer acts. But you can’t re-define depravity as a “marriage”.
I'm quite socially conservative in my own life, but I think that politicians who thump on "social conservatism" and moral issues often sound like fools.
Imagine a Presidential candidate running on a campaign where he promises to fight adultery in the United States. You don't have to approve of adultery in the slightest to recognize that such a politician is a fool and a half, because it simply isn't the job of a President or any elected official to enforce marital fidelity. My eyes glaze over in much the same way when I hear some politician obsess over homosexuality or pot smokers. I don't "approve" of dope-heads or sodomy any more than I approve of adultery, but I also recognize that most of the time people thump on these issues as distractions from the sorts of things elected officials do and should have power over.
Ted Cruz - 2016!
...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]
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.