Ron Paul Democrat? Wins nomination

[latkinson6]

http://www.590klbj.com/News/Story.aspx?ID=86315

[liberteebell]

That's interesting. He sure did get a lot of support for those wacko, fringe views. :rolleyes:

[berrybunches]

Thats awesome. Ron Paul crosses party lines. We often talk about how the republican party has lost its way....what about the democrats?!!!
The have too! Ron Paul is a statesman and there is plenty of room for debate in his views. You can have constitutional democrats and constitutional republicans!

We are republicans who do not believe in pre-empitive war
There are many democrats that are pro-gun! My husbands whole family is democrats and hunters.

[jmdrake]

That's great news! People should stop thinking this is about taking back the GOP. It's about taking back the country.

[Dorfsmith]

That's great news! People should stop thinking this is about taking back the GOP. It's about taking back the country.

I couldn't agree more :cool:

[slamhead]

We need to make sure this guy gets funding for his general election.

[speciallyblend]

plenty of conservative democrats ,thats how reagan won his election;)

[MRoCkEd]

good to hear!

[Peace&Freedom]

Excellent. What we need to get to eventually is a situation where in almost all races, there is a Ron Paul Republican running against a Ron Paul Democrat, Vs a Ron Paul third party candidate---so no matter what happens, we win the election. When we do so we will have truly replaced the CFR establishment.

[nbhadja]

Thats awesome. Ron Paul crosses party lines. We often talk about how the republican party has lost its way....what about the democrats?!!!
The have too! Ron Paul is a statesman and there is plenty of room for debate in his views. You can have constitutional democrats and constitutional republicans!

We are republicans who do not believe in pre-empitive war
There are many democrats that are pro-gun! My husbands whole family is democrats and hunters.

Well the difference is that the republicans were actually on their "way" along time ago.

The entire democratic philosophy is flawed, it never had a "way."

The constitution hates socialism.

[berrybunches]

Well the difference is that the republicans were actually on their "way" along time ago.

The entire democratic philosophy is flawed, it never had a "way."

The constitution hates socialism.

My father told me that there was always little difference between the parties and that both use to hold American Constitutional values high. The 60's split them up into pro-counter-culture vs anti-counter-culture.

Its really 2 completely different parties now. The ways of both, I think, are somewhat new and need to be stopped.

[Johncjackson]

He probably got help from all the Republicans who voted for Hillary. Since they were voting in the Dem primary anyway.

[Revolution9]

That's great news! People should stop thinking this is about taking back the GOP. It's about taking back the country.

One step at a time. First the GOP, then we boot the commies, neocons and Israel firsters from the Democratic party.

Best
Randy

[Richie]

Believe it or not - around the time of Lincoln, the Democratic Party had a very Constitutionalist platform.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29576


That the Federal Government is one of limited power, derived solely from the Constitution; and the grants of power made therein ought to be strictly construed by all the departments and agents of the government; and that it is inexpedient and dangerous to exercise doubtful constitutional powers.


That Congress has no power to charter a national bank; ...


That Congress has no power under the Constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the Constitution; that all efforts of the abolitionists, or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences; and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions.

The Republican Party also had these Constitutionalist principles in their platform, but with a little bit of Libertarianism mixed in.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29619

The problem with the Republican Party at the time was lack of understanding of the intent of the Constitution. The anti-slavery statements in their platform sound all good and dandy, but forcing the states to comply is just as tyrannical and evil as slavery itself. The Bill of Rights isn't protection for individuals from tyranny at the state level (the states had/have their own Bills of Rights), it's simply a list of restrictions on the federal government. Even though I am a capital-L Libertarian, I would probably be a Democrat had I lived in this era (I hope I don't regret saying that - I haven't studied the original Democratic Party in depth).

[Minlawc]

I think it's a good idea to try to depolarize the parties. Making them both line up with the Constitution.