So what is compromising your principles?

[klamath]

This has come up a lot in the last couple of weeks as it did around the election last year.

Last year I was a lot more hard line than I am now.
In this last year many "liberty" candidates have been brought foward and you know what none have matched RP's issues to a T. Not even his own son. Something had to give or there would be no liberty candidates for me except reelecting RP>
I say RP because I agree with nearly all of his issues and personal characteristics.
Rand seems to support the Afgan war if it is declared. I do not agree with the war.
Schiff supports preemptive war and abortions which to me drops him into a lesser of two evils category. I could never get this pinned down but I suspect he also supports foreign aid to certain middle eastern counties.
Other candidates leave out issues on their issue pages that are very important to me so I am wondering if I might be supporting a pig in the poke.
Obviously every issue don't equal 1 point. Everyone weights the different issues their own way.
I know a lot of people took issue with me for hoping Brown would win and screamed that principles were being violated. But when I hear abortion called a red herring and a non issue it screams complete violation of principles to me.
I know people rate the right to smoke weed the top on their list but while I am am for the right I don't rate it as high as nation building wars or abortion.
I know many times people post polls on here and when I see the results I wonder why I don't just join dailykos, stromfront, or redstate as I might have more agreement but always stay around because all members did not vote and I continue to hope the the general revolving membership will reflect RP's principles.

So who on the forums is the judge of what "compromising principles" is?

[klamath]

I am still waiting for someone to tell me what compromising the principles of this place is.

[Andrew-Austin]

So who on the forums is the judge of what "compromising principles" is?

No one. There is hardly any official codex of principles that some collective has deemed holy.

What do you want? Some kind of rationalization? An explanation as to why its not the end of the world, and indeed unavoidable, that some liberty candidates don't agree with Paul 100%?


I know people rate the right to smoke weed the top on their list but while I am am for the right I don't rate it as high as nation building wars or abortion.

Who here lists the right to consume drugs as their primary concern? Maybe one or two dudes?



Rand seems to support the Afgan war if it is declared. I do not agree with the war.

Waaah. Do you think Rand all by himself would be able to swing the matter one way or another if elected?

[LittleLightShining]

This has come up a lot in the last couple of weeks as it did around the election last year.

Last year I was a lot more hard line than I am now.
In this last year many "liberty" candidates have been brought foward and you know what none have matched RP's issues to a T. Not even his own son. Something had to give or there would be no liberty candidates for me except reelecting RP>
I say RP because I agree with nearly all of his issues and personal characteristics.
Rand seems to support the Afgan war if it is declared. I do not agree with the war.
Schiff supports preemptive war and abortions which to me drops him into a lesser of two evils category. I could never get this pinned down but I suspect he also supports foreign aid to certain middle eastern counties.
Other candidates leave out issues on their issue pages that are very important to me so I am wondering if I might be supporting a pig in the poke.
Obviously every issue don't equal 1 point. Everyone weights the different issues their own way.
I know a lot of people took issue with me for hoping Brown would win and screamed that principles were being violated. But when I hear abortion called a red herring and a non issue it screams complete violation of principles to me.
I know people rate the right to smoke weed the top on their list but while I am am for the right I don't rate it as high as nation building wars or abortion.
I know many times people post polls on here and when I see the results I wonder why I don't just join dailykos, stromfront, or redstate as I might have more agreement but always stay around because all members did not vote and I continue to hope the the general revolving membership will reflect RP's principles.

So who on the forums is the judge of what "compromising principles" is?

I totally understand what you're saying. I'm one of those principles people. I've come to the point where I'm not going to vote in a particular race if there's no one running I trust.

I'm pro-life. I'm anti-war (unless it's retaliatory, then it should be swift and precise). I don't have a problem voting for someone who's pro-choice because ultimately that's a very personal decision between a woman and her Creator. I would never have one or advocate for any woman to have one but I'm not sure I could vote to make them illegal. People make choices and have to live with the consequences of their actions. I would however vote to take away non-profit status for abortion clinics and stop funding these places and doctors with tax dollars. My support of a pro-choice candidate may seem contradictory to my personal pro-life position but in my gut I don't think it is.

However, when faced with an election in which there are 2 big names, 2 more of the same candidates-- tax increases, more intervention in everything (foreign policy, citizens' daily lives, the economy, etc)-- and you vote for one or the other you're asking for more of the same. It doesn't matter who you vote for in this case. Either way you've compromised to such a degree that there's no justification for claiming to be an advocate of freedom and liberty. I've been here before, I've felt obliged to vote for one or the other. I'll never do it again.

On the other hand if there is a candidate on the ballot who is very closely aligned with my views in matters of intervention, even if there's an issue here or an issue there I disagree with, I will vote for that person. ESPECIALLY if that person is an underdog. (Sometimes if there is no one I agree with on the ballot but there is a 3rd party candidate I will vote just to keep that party active.) Every vote counts. It's "your voice, your vote." Why let the major parties and media tell you who to vote for?

Of course you may find a Democrat or a Republican you can support unabashedly, in which case do! But we are almost always going to be given the choice between the lesser of two evils until we show up on election day en force and say, "Enough!" and vote for the candidate who would actually best represent us.

Why let fear of one vampire compel you to vote for another when you can vote for the guy holding a revolver with 4 silver bullets in it?

[klamath]

I totally understand what you're saying. I'm one of those principles people. I've come to the point where I'm not going to vote in a particular race if there's no one running I trust.

I'm pro-life. I'm anti-war (unless it's retaliatory, then it should be swift and precise). I don't have a problem voting for someone who's pro-choice because ultimately that's a very personal decision between a woman and her Creator. I would never have one or advocate for any woman to have one but I'm not sure I could vote to make them illegal. People make choices and have to live with the consequences of their actions. I would however vote to take away non-profit status for abortion clinics and stop funding these places and doctors with tax dollars. My support of a pro-choice candidate may seem contradictory to my personal pro-life position but in my gut I don't think it is.

However, when faced with an election in which there are 2 big names, 2 more of the same candidates-- tax increases, more intervention in everything (foreign policy, citizens' daily lives, the economy, etc)-- and you vote for one or the other you're asking for more of the same. It doesn't matter who you vote for in this case. Either way you've compromised to such a degree that there's no justification for claiming to be an advocate of freedom and liberty. I've been here before, I've felt obliged to vote for one or the other. I'll never do it again.

On the other hand if there is a candidate on the ballot who is very closely aligned with my views in matters of intervention, even if there's an issue here or an issue there I disagree with, I will vote for that person. ESPECIALLY if that person is an underdog. (Sometimes if there is no one I agree with on the ballot but there is a 3rd party candidate I will vote just to keep that party active.) Every vote counts. It's "your voice, your vote." Why let the major parties and media tell you who to vote for?

Of course you may find a Democrat or a Republican you can support unabashedly, in which case do! But we are almost always going to be given the choice between the lesser of two evils until we show up on election day en force and say, "Enough!" and vote for the candidate who would actually best represent us.

Why let fear of one vampire compel you to vote for another when you can vote for the guy holding a revolver with 4 silver bullets in it?
I think my point is many times people are judged as compromising principles yet in reality there is no real principles to this forum only indviduals that believe they are doing the right thing. I myself am guilty of this when I see people support Alan Grayson or kucinich and have tried to say they don't fit our principles. I made the mistake in thinking that since RP stands by his principles, above all other politicians I know, those that hang out here would strongly follow his principles but they do not and I always get conflicted by this.
To use your example of abortion as how we differ. If I see prolife yet prochoice it would be like seeing someone that states they hate war with a passion yet once started will support it to the bitter end. I don't say this to start a abortion battle with you just to farther illustrate how every individual holds the weight of issues different. To each individual what are the lines of minor disagreement, more serious disagreement and evil. Nobody can say but that individual.

[LittleLightShining]

I think my point is many times people are judged as compromising principles yet in reality there is no real principles to this forum only indviduals that believe they are doing the right thing. I myself am guilty of this when I see people support Alan Grayson or kucinich and have tried to say they don't fit our principles. I made the mistake in thinking that since RP stands by his principles, above all other politicians I know, those that hang out here would strongly follow his principles but they do not and I always get conflicted by this.
To use your example of abortion as how we differ. If I see prolife yet prochoice it would be like seeing someone that states they hate war with a passion yet once started will support it to the bitter end. I don't say this to start a abortion battle with you just to farther illustrate how every individual holds the weight of issues different. To each individual what are the lines of minor disagreement, more serious disagreement and evil. Nobody can say but that individual.
Right. I wouldn't vote for a Grayson, but I will applaud him when he does something right. If given the choice between him and an Olympia Snowe I would stay home. If there was someone better, more in line with my principles I would vote for that person.

Individuals have individual principles. There are very few collective principles within the liberty movement because we believe in freedom to do and think as we choose so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (and even then there is some disagreement).

[constituent]

I think my point is many times people are judged as compromising principles yet in reality there is no real principles to this forum only indviduals that believe they are doing the right thing. I myself am guilty of this when I see people support Alan Grayson or kucinich and have tried to say they don't fit our principles. I made the mistake in thinking that since RP stands by his principles, above all other politicians I know, those that hang out here would strongly follow his principles but they do not and I always get conflicted by this.
To use your example of abortion as how we differ. If I see prolife yet prochoice it would be like seeing someone that states they hate war with a passion yet once started will support it to the bitter end. I don't say this to start a abortion battle with you just to farther illustrate how every individual holds the weight of issues different. To each individual what are the lines of minor disagreement, more serious disagreement and evil. Nobody can say but that individual.

Which is why individual liberty must be the struggle that unites us. As we continue to seek the primary affirmation of our efforts from the slobs in d.c., the local republican and democratic parties and fox news affiliates, expect the "which movement?" problem to continue.

[Annihilia]

What I find is that people use that term when describing individuals who consider supporting a candidate because it serves more of a strategic purpose (i.e. Grayson, Brown, etc) than actually agreeing with the majority of things they say or do. I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone here actually considers either of them to be in the liberty-minded camp.

Of course, there are those who charge people like Schiff and Rand Paul of heresy for having rhetoric that deviates slightly from Ron Paul.

[Ethek]

My Logic, principles are fine. After all you have the right to do whatever you would like. However, rights do not exist without the power to assert them.


What good do principles do you in this life if all they get you is on the other end of a gun? My two cents based on the extensive research of G. Edward Griffin.

http://gadsdenunion.ning.com/profiles/blogs/nominate-principled-candidates