Sticking to principals vs. compromising

[Paulfan05]

We all love RP because he sticks to he guns, but is this a weakness? Some say he is too extreme because of this and it took away some votes. Think about the founding fathers, they didn't agree on everything but they compromised and made the constitution. So should Ron Paul or any similar candidates compromise to get votes? Where do you draw the line between principals/compromising/pandering?

[tonesforjonesbones]

I think Ron Paul did compromise because originally he was not for the fence and he was for open borders...he changed his stance on that. TONES

[Truth Warrior]

My first sig quote speaks for itself.<IMHO> :)

[jmdrake]

And what exactly should he have "compromised" on? The war in Iraq? Being against big government? Those two positions meant that he had no natural constituency in both major parties. The Republicans are WEDDED now to the idea of Bush's preemptive war as a way to fight "terrorism" and the Democrats are WEDDED to big government as a way to solve all social ills. If Ron Paul had changed his position on preemptive war he would have immediately lost at least half of his support. Had he changed his position on fiscal responsibility and started stumping for universal healthcare and a lot of other big government programs he would have lost the other half. And in the end would he have won? Don't forget that we did better than the Tancredo campaign or the either Thomson campaign (Fred or Tommy) or the Ghouliani campaign. I don't think totally selling out would have been worth the price.

We could have won the nomination if we had received ALL of the votes of the 30% of republicans who are against the Iraq war. But the media blackout (along with campaign missteps) made that difficult.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[jmdrake]

I think Ron Paul did compromise because originally he was not for the fence and he was for open borders...he changed his stance on that. TONES

I wouldn't call that a compromise but rather a change of view. He was saying LONG before he announced a run for the presidency that it didn't make sense to be restricting the liberties of U.S. citizens in the name of fighting terrorism while leaving the borders wide open. Also his position still is that the key to fighting illegal immigration is to "demagnetize" the country by ending welfare. I agree that making this a centerpiece of his campaign was a mistake. Why we thought Tom Tancredo's 2% would make a difference is beyond me.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[familydog]

Paul talks about compromises all the time. He speaks of a "transition" period and "phasing out" federal government programs that people have become dependent on rather than wanting to eliminate them right away.

[asgardshill]

The OP's school principal would be crying if she could see how the principle of spelling words correctly was being disregarded :D

[Paulfan05]

The OP's school principal would be crying if she could see how the principle of spelling words correctly was being disregarded :D

Good old public edumacation

[Printo]

Its not compromise to repackage his message in future candidates in moderation in order to make baby steps towards what we ultimately hope to accomplish.

[Truth Warrior]

The OP's school principal would be crying if she could see how the principle of spelling words correctly was being disregarded :D
Gud ol gubmnt skoolin!

[acptulsa]

Compromise is good if it means you have to get a bigger tent for your movement. This is why all politicians flop so much these days. It's all about seeing which group is bigger. They get votes but no enthusiasm that way. Works for them.

Meanwhile, a troll showed up here yesterday arguing that Dr. Paul voted against a commemorative medallion for Rosa Parks because he's racist. You and I both know that ain't it. I argued that the Congress ripped Rosa Parks off because if private enterprise had issued that medallion they'd have had to pay her for the use of her image and good name. In other words, their "honor" was actually pandering and piracy, and no honor at all.

Now, we all know that those bills are hundreds of pages long, and come fast and furious during the legislative season. This was obviously not the most earth-shattering bill introduced during that session. In all likelihood, Dr. Paul didn't think that one through too far. But because he stood on principle, I can say he was trying to keep Rosa Parks from being deprived of money her image and good name could have netted her by a thievous Congress. And I'm right about it.

Doing what is right pays unforeseen dividends.

Principle or compromise? Well, we've been compromising our principles for some time now. I think the main compromise we need to get these days is, can't we do that on the state level instead of the federal level? No principles lost there, really.

Hopefully we can turn it around and encourage people to make the compromises that will restore their principles!

[CUnknown]

Ron Paul is still not for the border fence, right? He wants to take away the incentives for them to move here (citizenship, welfare) as well as remove the driving force behind their coming here in large numbers (NAFTA). A border fence is unnecessary and.. well.. downright unwelcoming. I don't think freedom lovers like us should want our country to turn into a land of walls, fences, and restriction.

[weslinder]

We cannot compromise on issues where we do not have real choice. When the debate is whether to invade Iran with ground troops or just bomb selected targets in Iran, compromise is not an option. When the debate is whether to expand the budget to $4 Trillion or $ 3.5 Trillion, compromise is not an option. When the debate is whether to increase the size of the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security by 20% or 40%, compromise is not an option. When the debate is whether to spy on American citizens without a warrant for domestic phone calls or international phone calls, compromise is not an option.

When we can get non-interventionism, fiscal restraint, and restoration of liberties as debate topics, then we will have to compromise to get things done. There will be some time, if we remain committed to fighting this revolution in effective ways, where getting rid of the DHS or DOEd is on the table for discussion, and we compromise by partially defunding it and leaving some functions. That is an acceptable compromise. Compromise between false choices is unacceptable.

[Feenix566]

I don't think we, as libertarians, need to compromise our principles to get things done. We just have to take things one step at a time. We win by convincing the rest of America that we're right. We can start with the easy issues, and then move towards the more difficult ones.

For example, it would be a steep uphill battle right now to convince a majority of American voters that ending the War on Drugs is a good idea. On the other hand, it may be a lot easier to convince them that getting rid of the federal Department of Education is a good idea. So we should focus on that as our main goal, and leave the harder issues on the back burner for after the easier issues are dealt with.

What I'm saying is that we shouldn't expect complete victory overnight. The world just doesn't work like that. Progress takes time, and any step in the right direction is a victory. There's no need to change our principles, but we do need to keep our expectations reasonable.

[Conza88]

“Perfect wisdom has four parts, viz., wisdom, the principle of doing things aright; justice, the principle of doing things equally in public and private; fortitude, the principle of not flying danger, but meeting it; and temperance, the principle of subduing desires and living moderately.”
~ Plato

Hmmm... Plato must have known Ron Paul. ;)

[qaxn]

there are far too many here who would, say, reject the help of Orwell until he renounces his socialisms and revises Goldstein's book to have it explain how all rights derive from property and how rational self interest ought to be a moral imperative.
nobody's asking you to join the communist party. just put down the guns.

[Truth Warrior]

there are far too many here who would, say, reject the help of Orwell until he renounces his socialisms and revises Goldstein's book to have it explain how all rights derive from property and how rational self interest ought to be a moral imperative.
nobody's asking you to join the communist party. just put down the guns. :p

Yeah, right! :rolleyes:

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/Socialism_by_miniamericanflags.jpg

[qaxn]

:p

Yeah, right! :rolleyes:

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/Socialism_by_miniamericanflags.jpg

you would accept the yoke of true totalitarianism, not this pussy-footing of corporatists with imperial ambitions, in order to make a principled stand on whatever bizarre minutae make up your nicene creed, and frankly you deserve it.

[Truth Warrior]

you would accept the yoke of true totalitarianism, not this pussy-footing of corporatists with imperial ambitions, in order to make a principled stand on whatever bizarre minutae make up your nicene creed, and frankly you deserve it.
Not at all, or even close, for that matter. :rolleyes:

BTW, that, times a bazillion, goes for your Marxist-Leninist-Maoist BS also. :p It's more than painfully obvious whose "property" flock YOU are.

Marx was just another "bought and paid for", hired stooge of the Rothschilds. ;)

"By their SHEPHERDS, ye shall know them."

[qaxn]

Not at all, or even close, for that matter. :rolleyes:

BTW, that, times a bazillion, goes for your Marxist-Leninist-Maoist BS also. :p It's more than painfully obvious whose "property" flock YOU are.

Marx was just another "bought and paid for", hired stooge of the Rothschilds. ;)

"By their SHEPHERDS, ye shall know them."

the signature's for trolling purposes, and again, you would stand alone when standing alone ensures that you and your ideas would never ever ever become relevant.

[Truth Warrior]

the signature's for trolling purposes, and again, you would stand alone when standing alone ensures that you and your ideas would never ever ever become relevant. When all is said and done, we ALL stand alone.

Unlike your's, tried repeatedly, tested repeatedly, failed repeatedly.

"By their "body count", ye shall know them."

"What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven."

[qaxn]

When all is said and done, we ALL stand alone.

Unlike your's, tried repeatedly, tested repeatedly, failed repeatedly.

"By their "body count", ye shall know them."

"What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven."

Are you simple?
For trolling purposes, i.e. not any representation of my sincerely held political opinions.
I'm arguing the futility of exclusivism in politics, you're responding back to me with "COMMUNISM COMMUNISM COMMUNISM."
That has nothing to do with anything. Read each word of this post carefully and try to respond to the points raised in it.

[Truth Warrior]

Are you simple?
For trolling purposes, i.e. not any representation of my sincerely held political opinions.
I'm arguing the futility of exclusivism in politics, you're responding back to me with "COMMUNISM COMMUNISM COMMUNISM."
That has nothing to do with anything. Read each word of this post carefully and try to respond to the points raised in it.
Well, I'd say that it's pretty obvious that you're the simpleton. Hey, it's your self chosen ID label.

How about adding, "NOTE: Just kidding, not any representation of my sincerely held political opinions, and arguing the futility of exclusivism in politics! Just for trolling purposes ONLY!"? :D

By their sig quotes, ye shall know them. :p Trolling purposes. :rolleyes: It's very well known that the Commies just lie in order to further their agendas.

"The end justifies the means." -- Karl Marx :p

So what's right, the quote or the post? :rolleyes:

More importantly why should I now believe ANYTHING you now have to say about ANYTHING?

[idiom]

The problem now is, the more you stick to your guns, the more you have to stick to your guns.

Any little thing the media can get on RP gets blown out all proportion because its the only thing can get on him.

[Matt Collins]

Compromising on things outside of Constitutional issues is fine. However the Constitution is NOT to be Compromised; EVER!

[Truth Warrior]

Compromising on things outside of Constitutional issues is fine. However the Constitution is NOT to be Compromised; EVER! Tell that one to the US Federal government. They could probably ALL really use the laughs. ;)

[TastyWheat]

Policies and platforms may change over time, but principles should always remain steady. In the case of something like, I don't know, social security, you'd want to get rid of it but you wouldn't want to screw anybody. So a bill that increases social security benefits is unacceptable but a bill that decreases them (in a fair way) can be acceptable. Compromise is fine when you're still heading in the right direction. Democrats [supposedly] want out of the war so they compromise by passing every appropriations bill and not including any restrictions? Republicans [supposedly] want less government, so they compromise by voting only on the unnecessary bills that are "well intentioned." Do you see where I'm going with this? Sometimes it's okay to give up a little ground, but make sure you have a line clearly drawn and stand fast whenever it's crossed.


"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." — John Quincy Adams

[Mini-Me]

Policies and platforms may change over time, but principles should always remain steady. In the case of something like, I don't know, social security, you'd want to get rid of it but you wouldn't want to screw anybody. So a bill that increases social security benefits is unacceptable but a bill that decreases them (in a fair way) can be acceptable. Compromise is fine when you're still heading in the right direction. Democrats [supposedly] want out of the war so they compromise by passing every appropriations bill and not including any restrictions? Republicans [supposedly] want less government, so they compromise by voting only on the unnecessary bills that are "well intentioned." Do you see where I'm going with this? Sometimes it's okay to give up a little ground, but make sure you have a line clearly drawn and stand fast whenever it's crossed.

Good post! I think you illustrated the difference between "good compromise" and "bad compromise" very nicely. :)