Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 65

Thread: Bill Kristol admits Ron (and Rand) Paul supporters are the future of the GOP

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Bill Kristol admits Ron (and Rand) Paul supporters are the future of the GOP




  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    He didn't quite "admit it" but it's clear they understand now they aren't going anywhere without us.

    The battle for the party has just started, and I think ultimately Rand's presentation is going to attract a lot of the mainstream voters that these NeoCons have taken for granted.
    It's just an opinion... man...

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by NoOneButPaul View Post
    The battle for the party has just started, and I think ultimately Rand's presentation is going to attract a lot of the mainstream voters that these NeoCons have taken for granted.
    Rand is also going to win over a lot of people that knew Ron was right but were emotionally invested in being opposed to him.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    Rand is also going to win over a lot of people that knew Ron was right but were emotionally invested in being opposed to him.
    Yes the "I like Ron Paul's domestic policy, but his foreign policy is scary" and "Rand is great, but his father is crazy" crowd.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    Rand is also going to win over a lot of people that knew Ron was right but were emotionally invested in being opposed to him.
    This is a great point. There were far too many people - GOP primary voters - who absorbed the lies about Ron Paul being a "racist anti-Semite who hates our troops" and never bothered to discover the truth of the matter. Rand is starting without that handicap, since they've been hearing guys like Shamity praising him for all these years.
    “Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?” - Oxenstiern

    Violence will not save us. Let us love one another, for love is from God.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Inkblots View Post
    This is a great point. There were far too many people - GOP primary voters - who absorbed the lies about Ron Paul being a "racist anti-Semite who hates our troops" and never bothered to discover the truth of the matter. Rand is starting without that handicap, since they've been hearing guys like Shamity praising him for all these years.
    And with the likely direction of this economy, there will be increasing buyer's remorse for not having selected Ron Paul, or at least his policy platform. The "he was right" mantra will accrue to Rand.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by anaconda View Post
    And with the likely direction of this economy, there will be increasing buyer's remorse for not having selected Ron Paul, or at least his policy platform. The "he was right" mantra will accrue to Rand.
    All of it, including the warmongering. 'Peace and prosperity' may be an antiquated notion. But a lot of Republicans are pretty antiquated, too. So, they will remember.

    Let's just hope that this 'buyer's remorse' leads them to turn off Fox. It would help if we were to start up something to compete with it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  9. #8
    The most significant thing about the Tea Party is it's leaderless? Rand Paul is more respectable than his father? Republicans should be concerned that Bill Kristol 'won't like' peace? Something about imperialism is working so well that we should be concerned that peace is '...the old Republican way'?

    The neocons seem to be feeling the Reaper. Thank God.

    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    Rand is also going to win over a lot of people that knew Ron was right but were emotionally invested in being opposed to him.
    And the majority of these are going to be independents and disaffected Democrats. The more Rand makes the right noises to win over Republicans, the more everyone else is going to have a knee jerk reaction against him. But you can't have a huge federal government and destroy corporatism. That handwriting is on the wall. I don't know what more proof an anti-corporatist could possibly need than what we have before us that Thomas Jefferson was right when he said that a strong central U.S. government would be, '...the most corrupt government on the face of the Earth.'

    Quote Originally Posted by Inkblots View Post
    Nonsense; the GOP has always been in favor of war with Eastasia
    And thank God some of us will deny the Memory Hole version of events to our dying breaths.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 11-12-2012 at 03:18 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Interesting. My mother called me and told me she heard a similar conversation on the radio. (Republicans saying "Maybe we compromise on social issues like abortion" and saying "Ron Paul" in the same breath.) Here's the irony. Ron Paul is rock solid on conservative social issues! It's harder to get more "pro life" than Ron Paul without going crazy like Santorum. It's the wars stupid! (I'm glad someone brought up the foreign policy issue). It's also civil liberties. Does who can marry who even resonate in a country where American citizens can be detained without trial or even extra-judicially killed? Does your marital status even matter if you are illegally detained or on a kill list?
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Interesting. My mother called me and told me she heard a similar conversation on the radio. (Republicans saying "Maybe we compromise on social issues like abortion" and saying "Ron Paul" in the same breath.) Here's the irony. Ron Paul is rock solid on conservative social issues! It's harder to get more "pro life" than Ron Paul without going crazy like Santorum. It's the wars stupid! (I'm glad someone brought up the foreign policy issue). It's also civil liberties. Does who can marry who even resonate in a country where American citizens can be detained without trial or even extra-judicially killed? Does your marital status even matter if you are illegally detained or on a kill list?
    On the other hand I gather Ron is the type of person who would allow social issues to be dealt with on the state level...

    You don't have to be pro-life or pro-choice to recognize that each state should be allowed to deal with those types of issues in their own way.

    This is why I never bother arguing about social positions on these boards... if we just followed the 10th amendment and allowed the states the right to choose none of us would we have a right to complain or argue about anything outside the state level.
    It's just an opinion... man...

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by NoOneButPaul View Post
    On the other hand I gather Ron is the type of person who would allow social issues to be dealt with on the state level...

    You don't have to be pro-life or pro-choice to recognize that each state should be allowed to deal with those types of issues in their own way.

    This is why I never bother arguing about social positions on these boards... if we just followed the 10th amendment and allowed the states the right to choose none of us would we have a right to complain or argue about anything outside the state level.
    This works for me. I think there are a lot of republicans who sort-of woke up after Colorado and Washington de-criminalized marijuana. It was as if these republicans had forgotten that states could do that. In name, anyway, a republican should be able to understand a 10th-amendment approach more than democrats, but in this day and age, everyone is fighting over who gets to beat up the other guy at the federal level. We need more states to assert themselves with social issues and I think republicans will realize that the concept of state and local governance hasn't died.

    I've been sharing links to www.tenthamendmentcenter.com because I think it is the future in terms of getting republicans to once again understand what the word "republic" means.
    Last edited by nobody's_hero; 11-12-2012 at 07:44 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    This is getting silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It started silly.
    T.S. Eliot's The Hollow Men

    "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato

    We Are Running Out of Time - Mini Me

    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm
    I part ways with "libertarianism" when it transitions from ideology grounded in logic into self-defeating autism for the sake of ideological purity.

  14. #12
    +Rep

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Interesting. My mother called me and told me she heard a similar conversation on the radio. (Republicans saying "Maybe we compromise on social issues like abortion" and saying "Ron Paul" in the same breath.) Here's the irony. Ron Paul is rock solid on conservative social issues! It's harder to get more "pro life" than Ron Paul without going crazy like Santorum. It's the wars stupid! (I'm glad someone brought up the foreign policy issue). It's also civil liberties. Does who can marry who even resonate in a country where American citizens can be detained without trial or even extra-judicially killed? Does your marital status even matter if you are illegally detained or on a kill list?

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Interesting. My mother called me and told me she heard a similar conversation on the radio. (Republicans saying "Maybe we compromise on social issues like abortion" and saying "Ron Paul" in the same breath.) Here's the irony. Ron Paul is rock solid on conservative social issues! It's harder to get more "pro life" than Ron Paul without going crazy like Santorum. It's the wars stupid! (I'm glad someone brought up the foreign policy issue). It's also civil liberties. Does who can marry who even resonate in a country where American citizens can be detained without trial or even extra-judicially killed? Does your marital status even matter if you are illegally detained or on a kill list?
    Exactly right. The GOP esbalishment thinks they have to now take pro choice and pro gay marriage positions in order to win future elections, when in reality it's their foreign policy and their support of the police state that has hurt their popularity.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Interesting. My mother called me and told me she heard a similar conversation on the radio. (Republicans saying "Maybe we compromise on social issues like abortion" and saying "Ron Paul" in the same breath.) Here's the irony. Ron Paul is rock solid on conservative social issues! It's harder to get more "pro life" than Ron Paul without going crazy like Santorum. It's the wars stupid! (I'm glad someone brought up the foreign policy issue). It's also civil liberties. Does who can marry who even resonate in a country where American citizens can be detained without trial or even extra-judicially killed? Does your marital status even matter if you are illegally detained or on a kill list?
    I think Fox purposely tries to insinuate that the Paul's are social liberals because they know that will hurt them within the party. I generally prefer a 10th amendment policy on social issues, except abortion, but I don't think they're the millstone many people think they are. Bush got more votes in 2004 than Obama did in 2012 and a lot of that was because of social issues. The religious right actually brought voters to the party that were not necessarily all that interested in economic policy. The problem with Bush was the wars and the police state, not his relatively mild social conservatism. Of course, you can't be an idiot like Akin or Mourdock about rape and abortion.

  17. #15
    Kristol also wants amnesty and tax raises.

  18. #16
    "They also are not fond of occupying war, and they are in support of the old Republican way of less foreign entanglement."

    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucille View Post
    "They also are not fond of occupying war, and they are in support of the old Republican way of less foreign entanglement."

    Nonsense; the GOP has always been in favor of war with Eastasia
    “Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?” - Oxenstiern

    Violence will not save us. Let us love one another, for love is from God.

  21. #18
    Rand is the future. They know it. They can't stop it.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Rand is the future. They know it. They can't stop it.
    The last week was spent in the 6 stages of grief...

    They're closing in on acceptance.
    It's just an opinion... man...

  23. #20
    These people just don't understand. To them it's a game to be won. Victory means power. What they are really not getting is the fact that they have been rendered obsolete. The Republican Party isn't licking it's wounds. The Republican Party is dead and these guys killed it with their Neo-Conservative agenda. In other words, Communists infiltrated the Democratic Party decades ago, and now they infiltrated and suicided the Republican Party. And we are left with a one party system.

    When there is only one faction to vote for, how can you resist tyranny by voting? I'm just finding it harder and harder to buy into the whole concept of political action. Politics is always decades behind the people, so why not be on the front lines? Ron Paul didn't change the world by voting 'no' time and again. He changed it by talking with people and debating people. But as we saw approaching the end of the 2012 campaign, that pulpit can be silenced.

    Someone please convince me that I am wrong and that the world can be changed through casting a vote. After 236 years of voting, we are all on the brink of disaster.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Nate-ForLiberty View Post
    These people just don't understand. To them it's a game to be won. Victory means power. What they are really not getting is the fact that they have been rendered obsolete. The Republican Party isn't licking it's wounds. The Republican Party is dead and these guys killed it with their Neo-Conservative agenda. In other words, Communists infiltrated the Democratic Party decades ago, and now they infiltrated and suicided the Republican Party. And we are left with a one party system.

    When there is only one faction to vote for, how can you resist tyranny by voting? I'm just finding it harder and harder to buy into the whole concept of political action. Politics is always decades behind the people, so why not be on the front lines? Ron Paul didn't change the world by voting 'no' time and again. He changed it by talking with people and debating people. But as we saw approaching the end of the 2012 campaign, that pulpit can be silenced.

    Someone please convince me that I am wrong and that the world can be changed through casting a vote. After 236 years of voting, we are all on the brink of disaster.
    My response to that would be... true conservatism is due for a win.

    Now is not the time to stop.
    It's just an opinion... man...

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by NoOneButPaul View Post
    My response to that would be... true conservatism is due for a win.

    Now is not the time to stop.
    I understand. But I would argue that true conservatism can't win all of the time, and has only won a very small number of times. And when it did win, it still wasn't even close to being enough. Also, I didn't say 'stop'. What I mean to say is to 'change tactics'. To reiterate, politics follows public opinion, not the other way around. We've seen politicians in the last 4 years change what they say and on the very rare occasion, what they do. Wouldn't it be prudent and more efficient to change tactics?

  26. #23
    FOX News -We Report Somethings Sometimes -and You Decide. Sometimes We Report Somethings After You Decide.

    EDIT: I'm sharing that vid with all of the surprised Romney voters who liked to repeat the Fox "strategies" and who are looking to place blame. Playing up the fact that Fox news reports the libertatian influence AFTER Romney lost. Thanks for the vid + rep.
    Last edited by bunklocoempire; 11-12-2012 at 04:01 PM.
    Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe. Proverbs 29:25
    "I think the propaganda machine is the biggest problem that we face today in trying to get the truth out to people."
    Ron Paul

    Please watch, subscribe, like, & share, Ron Paul Liberty Report
    BITCHUTE IS A LIBERTY MINDED ALTERNATIVE TO GOOGLE SUBSIDIARY YOUTUBE

  27. #24
    My only concern is the people who pay just enough attention to be complete idiots. The ones that will hear "Rand Paul" and 'think' (I use that term loosely) it's "Ron Paul" again. These are the same morons that thought we were talking about "RuPaul" in 2008 whenever Ron was mentioned. If only Rand's name was "Andrew Paul" or something distinctly different to ensure no possible confusion. This probably sounds crazy but from a marketing perspective it concerns me.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by NoPants View Post
    My only concern is the people who pay just enough attention to be complete idiots. The ones that will hear "Rand Paul" and 'think' (I use that term loosely) it's "Ron Paul" again. These are the same morons that thought we were talking about "RuPaul" in 2008 whenever Ron was mentioned. If only Rand's name was "Andrew Paul" or something distinctly different to ensure no possible confusion. This probably sounds crazy but from a marketing perspective it concerns me.
    Thats why we go with 'RAND 2016' with regards to marketing. Everyone who likes Ron already knows who Rand is, while those uninformed idiots turned off by Ron will be spared the last name (at least in the most superficial form of marketing) and therefore the confusion. After a few debates this should all disappear though, as everyone gets to know Rand. I only see the confusion you're talking about possibly skewing early polling.

  30. #26
    Looking at how some conservatives stand on social issues, especially the religious right, I have to say from the perspective of someone from Great Britain it's not something I'm used to or am comfortable with. In this country we've gotten over religion in a way I think I great many Americans haven't. There's a strain of Christian religious fundamentalists active in American politics that I find a little bit scary. People who believe that the earth was literally made in seven days and Charles Darwin should have been strung up from a lamp-post for his theory of evolution. I'd prefer it if religion and politics were kept far apart, as they are here, it causes nothing but trouble and bad feeling. The fact that Rick Santorum did so well in the republican primaries scared the living daylights out of me, and doubtless most moderate Christians who progressed further religiously than the dark ages.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Britannia View Post
    Looking at how some conservatives stand on social issues, especially the religious right, I have to say from the perspective of someone from Great Britain it's not something I'm used to or am comfortable with. In this country we've gotten over religion in a way I think I great many Americans haven't. There's a strain of Christian religious fundamentalists active in American politics that I find a little bit scary. People who believe that the earth was literally made in seven days and Charles Darwin should have been strung up from a lamp-post for his theory of evolution. I'd prefer it if religion and politics were kept far apart, as they are here, it causes nothing but trouble and bad feeling. The fact that Rick Santorum did so well in the republican primaries scared the living daylights out of me, and doubtless most moderate Christians who progressed further religiously than the dark ages.
    No offense, but I think from Great Britain all you are seeing is a caricature. Not many Christians think Charles Darwin should be strung up from a lamp-post even if they don't believe in evolution. If Santorum had his way on all his social positions, that would probably just mean an America that looks like it did in the 1950's or 1960's- hardly a theocracy. I actually think people were happier back then because families and local communities were stronger. But to me it's like Humpty Dumpty. If society loses it's sense of right and wrong, all the king's horses and all the king's men (government) can't put it back together again.
    Last edited by Pisces; 11-12-2012 at 07:44 PM.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Pisces View Post
    No offense, but I think from Great Britain all you are seeing is a caricature. Not many Christians think Charles Darwin should be strung up from a lamp-post even if they don't believe in evolution. If Santorum had his way on all his social positions, that would probably just mean an America that looks like it did in the 1950's or 1960's- hardly a theocracy. I actually think people were happier back then because families and local communities were stronger. But to me it's like Humpty Dumpty. If society loses it's sense of right and wrong, all the king's horses and all the king's men (government) can't put it back together again.
    No offence taken and none intended I can assure you. I was trying to mix some humour in along with some more serious observations, something may have been lost in the translation.

    I certainly don't view all religious US conservatives in those terms but it's undeniable that such people do exist in quite large numbers and they do exert what I would describe as an undue influence during the primary process, forcing candidates, some of whom may not share their views, to adopt hardline positions on certain social issues that a majority of Americans find deeply unattractive. Mitt Romney was and is pro-choice but he was forced to adopt a pro-life position he didn't believe in in order to placate these people and to convince them he was "severely conservative". The clue is in the word severe. Most women find other people trying to dictate what they can and cannot do with their own bodies completely unacceptable, and that is why Obama won the female vote by a very large margin. And as I said the abortion issue is settled and it's highly unlikely that is going to change so it seems pointless and counter-productive of conservatives to keep bringing the subject up as a major issue during the primary process, it turns voters off in droves. Now, I'm pro-life, and I agree it's a moral issue, but if you believe you can improve peoples' morals by force, I'm sorry I don't believe that will work. You change peoples' morals by setting a good example and putting forward your argument to try and change their minds. If the current thinking of the majority of people continues to prevail then I'm afraid that's hard cheese. Forcing people to adopt my beliefs, however well intentioned they are, is completely against everything I stand for.

    As for your comments re the 1950's, I'm sure some people were very happy when such schools of thought prevailed, white straight men in particular. However an awful lot of black people, gay people and women weren't treated very well at all during that time. Racism was rampant, gay people were forced to lead secret lives and when exposed were not treated well at all and the majority of women were expected to stay home cooking, cleaning and raising the children. If conservatives want to suggest restoring that as a social model for the country, while still constantly thumping on about abortion and immigration every primary season, they'd better look forward to a good long while in opposition.
    Last edited by Britannia; 11-12-2012 at 11:03 PM.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Britannia View Post
    No offence taken and none intended I can assure you. I was trying to mix some humour in along with some more serious observations, something may have been lost in the translation.

    I certainly don't view all religious US conservatives in those terms but it's undeniable that such people do exist in quite large numbers and they do exert what I would describe as an undue influence during the primary process, forcing candidates to adopt hardline positions on certain social issues that a majority of Americans find deeply unattractive. Mitt Romney was and is pro-choice but he was forced to adopt a pro-life position he didn't believe in to placate these people to convince them he was "severaly conservative". Most women find other people trying to dictate what they can and cannot do with their own bodies completely unacceptable, and that is why Obama won the female vote by a very large margin. And as I said the abortion issue is settled and it's highly unlikely that is going to change so it seems pointless and counter-productive of conservatives to keep bringing the subject up as a major issue during the primary process, it turns voters off in droves. Now, I'm pro-life, and I agree it's a moral issue but if you believe you can improve peoples' morals by force, I'm sorry I don't believe that will work. You change peoples' morals by setting a good example and putting forward your argument to try and change their minds. If the current thinking of the majority of people continues to prevail then I'm afraid that's hard cheese. Forcing people to adopt my beliefs, however well intentioned they are, is completely against everything I stand for.

    As for your comments re the 1950's, I'm sure some people were very happy when such schools of thought prevailed, white straight men in particular. However an awful lot of black people, gay people and women weren't treated very well at all during that time. Racism was rampant, gay people were forced to lead secret lives and when exposed were not treated well at all and the majority of women were expected to stay home cooking, cleaning and raising the children. If conservatives want to suggest restoring that as a social model for the country, while still constantly thumping on about abortion and immigration every primary season, they'd better look forward to a good long while in opposition.
    Have you ever been to the U.S.? Have you met and spoken with "such people", the people that you believe would lynch Charles Darwin if given the chance? Of do you base this just on what you've seen on the BBC?

    As for the 1950's, I didn't mean to make a blanket statement agreeing with everything that went on during that decade. I just believe people on the whole were happier then. If you could go back in time and get rid of the racism, that would have been an ideal time. I think the break-up of families has hurt people a great deal in this country. You only have to read the stories that some of the men have posted on this forum to see how their lives and the lives of their children are affected by divorce. I also believe that the decline in the family has led to more child abuse and molestation as children are more often left without the protection of one or more of their parents. I didn't always feel this way but I have a teenage daughter and it is very sad seeing all the kids that have practically been abandoned by their parents. Many of them have no clue how to get along in the world.

    I don't know if I made this clear earlier, but I don't really see that government can do anything to change this. I still have to say that I believe people were happier (and better educated) 50 or 60 years ago. Anyway, I don't want to derail this thread so I'll leave it at that.

  34. #30
    Admits?? Is Bill Kristol known for accurate predictions?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Bill Kristol admits he's 'liberal', urges Rubio to walk away
    By Warlord in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-21-2013, 04:56 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-03-2012, 07:40 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-03-2012, 07:40 PM
  4. Bill Kristol talks about Rand Paul . . .
    By haaaylee in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 05-27-2010, 08:26 PM
  5. BILL KRISTOL admits that Israel's war is "our war!"
    By max in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 12-25-2007, 02:46 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •