PDA

View Full Version : If RP ran on a Democratic ticket...




Starks
09-09-2007, 02:38 AM
Would his anti-war message fall upon deaf ears in a manner similar to that of Dennis Kucinich?

Richandler
09-09-2007, 02:40 AM
Yes.

Lord Xar
09-09-2007, 02:42 AM
Its impossible for him to be a democrate....

1. He WILL end the war, thus he will be ostracized as kucicnich is.
2. He is strong against illegal immigration
3. He wants to stop the NAU/SPP
4. He wants smaller government
5. He believes solicialism is the ending of liberty

DjLoTi
09-09-2007, 02:44 AM
It'd be way more harder because Barack and Hillary are big players. Also, his views of limited government intervention wouldn't resonate so well.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-09-2007, 03:14 AM
Its impossible for him to be a democrate....

1. He WILL end the war, thus he will be ostracized as kucicnich is.
2. He is strong against illegal immigration
3. He wants to stop the NAU/SPP
4. He wants smaller government
5. He believes solicialism is the ending of liberty

1. maybe
2. I never heard any democratic candidate say "yes, let's keep the borders open" He can word his policies differently.
3. NAU is on both sides of the political spectrum
4. well, he could try to say that he's a small government liberal lol
5. well, I doubt any of the candidates would openly praise socialism

I think he's better on the GOP, but I just wanted to defend the possibility.. I'm a libertarian, I'm hard core, I'd run as a democrat... but that's because I'm in a blue state. I have the luxury in doing so because I'm more socially liberal than any democrat, I'm probably too extreme for the democratic party, they probably wouldn't like my view that we shouldn't have driver licenses lol

I could say "I'm pro choice and I'll cut your taxes" that's the best of both worlds lol

but uh... GOP is better for Ron Paul, he has said too much pro-GOP stuff, he would be pounded if he switched sides.

I like parts of both parties to tell you the truth.. well, the positions anyway.

It's all about wording it different. He can justify his stance of illegal immigration by saying things like "I want to protect America's workers"
He can say he's pro-state's rights when it comes to abortion

It's like.. all it comes down to is how he words it. He could run on either side.

BUT... he's not running for the democratic nomination, he's running for the GOP nomination. He needs to lean right in order to get the votes he needs.

bottom line: the democratic party is not about being more socially liberal anyway. if they were about social liberalism, then they would be against gun control, they would be against drug laws, but they're not lol. they're moderate at best. The Libertarian Party is the party you want to go to if you're an extreme social liberal and a fiscal conservative. The democratic party believes in legislating every god damn thing and it believes in protecting everyone from everything. It's no better than the GOP's ridiculous and bigoted stances on things like gay rights

both parties has their own flaws in my opinion.

I kind of change my mind. Ron Paul would have a tough time with his views on gun control.... I give it 50/50 maybe the democratic base would ignore that lol

stevedasbach
09-09-2007, 04:33 AM
Paul has spent 10 terms in Congress as a Republican. He would have no credibility running as a Democrat -- probably wouldn't even be included in debates.

TheEvilDetector
09-09-2007, 04:48 AM
1. maybe
2. I never heard any democratic candidate say "yes, let's keep the borders open" He can word his policies differently.
3. NAU is on both sides of the political spectrum
4. well, he could try to say that he's a small government liberal lol
5. well, I doubt any of the candidates would openly praise socialism

I think he's better on the GOP, but I just wanted to defend the possibility.. I'm a libertarian, I'm hard core, I'd run as a democrat... but that's because I'm in a blue state. I have the luxury in doing so because I'm more socially liberal than any democrat, I'm probably too extreme for the democratic party, they probably wouldn't like my view that we shouldn't have driver licenses lol

I could say "I'm pro choice and I'll cut your taxes" that's the best of both worlds lol

but uh... GOP is better for Ron Paul, he has said too much pro-GOP stuff, he would be pounded if he switched sides.

I like parts of both parties to tell you the truth.. well, the positions anyway.

It's all about wording it different. He can justify his stance of illegal immigration by saying things like "I want to protect America's workers"
He can say he's pro-state's rights when it comes to abortion

It's like.. all it comes down to is how he words it. He could run on either side.

BUT... he's not running for the democratic nomination, he's running for the GOP nomination. He needs to lean right in order to get the votes he needs.

bottom line: the democratic party is not about being more socially liberal anyway. if they were about social liberalism, then they would be against gun control, they would be against drug laws, but they're not lol. they're moderate at best. The Libertarian Party is the party you want to go to if you're an extreme social liberal and a fiscal conservative. The democratic party believes in legislating every god damn thing and it believes in protecting everyone from everything. It's no better than the GOP's ridiculous and bigoted stances on things like gay rights

both parties has their own flaws in my opinion.

I kind of change my mind. Ron Paul would have a tough time with his views on gun control.... I give it 50/50 maybe the democratic base would ignore that lol

How can you be more socially liberal than any democrat and still be a libertarian?

I think you must be referring to classical liberalism which is essentially libertarianism.

Anyways, the Democrats have been hijacked by socialists it seems.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism

"Social liberalism, also called new liberalism[1][2] (as it was originally termed), radical liberalism,[3] modern liberalism,[4] is a development of liberalism stemming from the late 19th century; it forms the core of the somewhat wider movement of left-liberalism, with which it is often (if not usually) conflated. While the usage of the term social liberalism differs between Europe and the United States, Modern American liberalism and European social liberalism are highly similar with only few distinctions. In the U.S., however, the term social liberalism may be used as a synonym for social progressivism, while social liberalism in the European sense is simply referred to as "liberalism."

It has been a label used by progressive liberal parties in order to differentiate themselves from classical liberal parties, especially when there are two or more liberal parties in a country. Unlike classical liberalism which embraces a strictly laissez-faire philosophy, social liberalism sees a role for the State in providing positive liberty for individuals.

It is a political philosophy that emphasizes mutual collaboration through liberal institutions. Social liberalism, as a branch of liberalism, contends that society must protect liberty and opportunity for all citizens.

In the process, it accepts some restrictions in economic affairs, such as anti-trust laws to combat economic monopolies and regulatory bodies or minimum wage laws intending to secure economic opportunities for all. It also expects legitimate governments to provide a basic level of welfare or workfare, health and education, supported by taxation, intended to enable the best use of the talents of the population, prevent revolution, or simply for the perceived public good.

Rejecting both the most extreme forms of capitalism and the revolutionary elements from the socialist school, social liberalism emphasizes what it calls "positive liberty", seeking to enhance the "positive freedoms" of the poor and disadvantaged in society by means of government regulation.

Like all liberals, social liberals believe in individual freedom as a central objective. However, they are unique in comparison to other liberals in that they believe that lack of economic opportunity, education, health-care, and so on can be considered to be threats to liberty.[2] Social liberals are strong defenders of human rights and civil liberties. They support a mixed economy of mainly private enterprise with some state provided or guaranteed public services (ex: some social liberals defend obligatory universal health insurance, with the state paying a basic health insurance to the most poor of the society)."

The bolded portion implies a big taxation burden on all citizens to fund public education, health-care etc.

This should be left with the states or local governments or individuals where possible, because any mistakes on the federal level
can inflict alot of damage on the country due to "one size fits all" policies not fitting all. Not too mention it is unconstitutional
for the federal government to regulate these.

If left at the state level US would have 50 competing economies, and the education/health care consumers
can at least vote with their feet if not their moneys.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-09-2007, 11:04 AM
wow, ok. And I was thinking that social liberalism was stances based on gay rights, abortion, death penalty, etc not on ECONOMIC issues. What the fuck. Well, I'm definitely something.

Let's just put it this way. I'm pro choice, pro state's rights, pro constitution, anti death penalty, pro gay marriage, against drug laws, against gun control, believer in a strong defense, believer in the non-aggression principle, believer in legalizing prostitution, etc etc etc

BUT

I'm also fiscally conservative.... I think ending the Federal Reserve would be very beneficial, cutting taxes, eliminating corporate identity in America, eliminating the IRS, etc etc I'm a free marketeer

I was thinking this whole time that social liberalism equated to non-economic, social issues LOL wow... there's always a surprise around the corner. I have seen other libertarians say that they're "liberal on social issues" so that was my reasoning here.

I aint no damn neo liberal :D

fj45lvr
09-09-2007, 12:05 PM
Paul is the EXACT opposite of Democratic values.

No way. Liberty is incompatible with Democratic ideology.

quickmike
09-09-2007, 12:09 PM
Running as a democrat would be political suicide for him. First of all, you would lose all the republican voters, secondly, people would say he doesnt know what he stands for and is a flip flopper, and 3rd and most important, he doesnt agree with 90% of the democrat party platform.

Theres nothing about Ron Paul that makes him a good candidate for the democratic party. I could see him running under the Constitution party, or Libertarian, but no, not the democratic party.

LibertyBelle
09-09-2007, 12:28 PM
Paul is the EXACT opposite of Democratic values.

No way. Liberty is incompatible with Democratic ideology.

You hit the nail on the head, time for people to study history. Real history, not the schitt they sell on the History Channel and in the public schools.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-09-2007, 12:39 PM
well, he could just word his stances differently. Has there ever been a anti gun control dem? He's anti death penalty, he doesn't support a ban on gay marriage, he could say that we should leave abortion to states.... it might be tough, but I think he could. But why would he? He would be made fun of for switching!

LibertyBelle
09-09-2007, 01:02 PM
well, he could just word his stances differently. Has there ever been a anti gun control dem? He's anti death penalty, he doesn't support a ban on gay marriage, he could say that we should leave abortion to states.... it might be tough, but I think he could. But why would he? He would be made fun of for switching!

Huh? He's not going to word his stances differently in order to cater to certain people like other politicians. He's not a chameleon. He's a man of principle and integrity. As for the gay marriage thing, he doesn't support a federal ban on gay marriage, but is for state rights as in abortion. He knows these are not issues the Fed gov't is supposed to be involved in. The word Democracy and Democratic obviously have lots in common, and we know what the founders said and what the truth is about Democracies.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-09-2007, 01:06 PM
Huh? He's not going to word his stances differently in order to cater to certain people like other politicians. He's not a chameleon. He's a man of principle and integrity. As for the gay marriage thing, he doesn't support a federal ban on gay marriage, but is for state rights as in abortion. He knows these are not issues the Fed gov't is supposed to be involved in. The word Democracy and Democratic obvioulsy have lots in common, and we know what the founders said and what the truth is about Democracies.

You're not a flip flopper to word your stances differently in order to not to create disinterest among potential voters. You expect him to speak to social conservative bigots the same way that he would talk to NH GOP? NH is the most libertarian state btw. You need to word things differently to different people, it doesn't mean you're lying lol it's social skills 101

He was on a radio program with social conservative CP members before, he sounds differently when he's with them... a little uncomfortable

example: Ron Paul wants to tell social conservatives that he's pro life, he doesn't want to say that he believes in leaving it up to states

understand?

sorry.. I feel social conservatives are just plain bigoted. I don't let liberals off the hook, their Affirmative Action programs are racist. We should do away with them, we should also repeal all the anti-discrimination legislation.

RevolutionSD
09-09-2007, 01:22 PM
If he doesn't win the GOP nomination, he runs as an independent, and the Ron Paul Revolution continues.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-09-2007, 01:26 PM
I don't think he should run as a democrat lol... I was implying that Ron Paul is a uniter and not a divider, so he can really attract the base of both parties ;)

LibertyBelle
09-09-2007, 01:30 PM
You're not a flip flopper to word your stances differently in order to not to create disinterest among potential voters. You expect him to speak to social conservative bigots the same way that he would talk to NH GOP? NH is the most libertarian state btw. You need to word things differently to different people, it doesn't mean you're lying lol it's social skills 101

He was on a radio program with social conservative CP members before, he sounds differently when he's with them... a little uncomfortable

example: Ron Paul wants to tell social conservatives that he's pro life, he doesn't want to say that he believes in leaving it up to states

understand?

sorry.. I feel social conservatives are just plain bigoted. I don't let liberals off the hook, their Affirmative Action programs are racist. We should do away with them, we should also repeal all the anti-discrimination legislation.

Well, he didn't really say anything different, just didn't mention the state issue. On his slim jims it just says pro-life. I don't feel many social conservatives are bigoted, they just believe what they believe, as do social liberals believe what they believe. Two different belief systems. I get the impression that you are bigoted towards social conservatives. Is this true?

We should also be fighting against the 'group rights' crap that the ACLU for example is pushing along with the Hate Laws legislation. It's all collectivist natured. There are no 'gay rights' and no 'women's rights' just like RP said. There's only individual rights.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-09-2007, 01:48 PM
Well, he didn't really say anything different, just didn't mention the state issue. On his slim jims it just says pro-life. I don't feel many social conservatives are bigoted, they just believe what they believe, as do social liberals believe what they believe. Two different belief systems. I get the impression that you are bigoted towards social conservatives. Is this true?

We should also be fighting against the 'group rights' crap that the ACLU for example is pushing along with the Hate Laws legislation. It's all collectivist natured. There are no 'gay rights' and no 'women's rights' just like RP said. There's only individual rights.

I'm bigoted against people that want to tell other people how to live ;) welcome to libertarianism

communism is a political system, do we need to respect it? It's a miserable failure. Want to make abortion illegal? Fine. Do it within the states, but do you really believe that it will stop? lol. Social conservatives don't understand human nature. When you ban something, you create a black market for it, you don't eliminate it. pro-life libertarians are a minority, my friend

And why is government involved in the institution of marriage in the first place?

I may be pro choice, but me and Ron Paul hold the same belief that it should come down to state's rights.