- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
As far as I'm concerned, all the real conservatives should walk off the debates if he is here.
If you don't like someone like him or Ron Paul, I have no idea why you would be here. Did you take a wrong turn somewhere?
*Real conservative* Aside from Ron Paul, the last one I can recall was Barry Goldwater.
Conservatives aren't responsible for the demise of the country, except in the sense that they tried to compromise.
As for the last republican, I think Ronald Reagan was a pretty fair president. Both Bushes were disappointing, but compare even then to BO????? I'd take Bush I over BO.
I expect Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, perhaps Alan West and a few others to be lining up soon. We have plenty of time for this to work out, but this Johnson clod is a joke who is just like BO. He'll tell you what you want to hear while campaigning, then after the election he'll have amnesia.
It's called math. 1+1=2 1-1=0 so your vote for johnson takes away one vote from "?" or "gives" another vote to Hillary.
If you want to elect a socialistic dictator, vote third party, but KNOW what you are doing. And know you did it. In the past election, had Romney gotten 1/2 of the third party votes wasted, he would have beaten BO.
Think, don't just act.
:
http://therightscoop.com/report-2004-tur...
Libertarians want to see the rep platform move their direction. The only way to do that is to run candidates in elections to gain visability and get elected officials to pay attention. It moves the platform forward. If you think Romney would have gotten rid of obamacare- well youd be wrong. He would have been Bush lite and the same big govt policies would continue. Voting for a candidate simply as the lesser of evils isn't going to move the country forward. That's reason.
*******************
I was pulling for Romney to win as much as the next guy. He may have turned out to be more of a squish like many Republicans in the House and Senate today, but it would have been a squish in the right direction.
However, note that the report says the 2012 drop-off to 58% was “concentrated among GOP-leaning white voters”. To me, this is just more proof that moderate squish candidates who lack the conviction of a true conservative candidate just isn’t going to cut it. We can’t win with a Romney because not enough of us will vote for a Romney. But we can win with a solid conservative candidate.
We need to keep this in mind in 2016 when we elect our primary candidate. Almost anyone would be better than Obama as president, but that is setting the bar too low. We need a good communicator and someone with strong core principles and appeal. I don’t know who that will be in 2016, but I can think of several candidates who I’d like to see in that spot.
But what I do know is we don’t need to pander to a bunch of ‘minority groups’ like we have in the past. We do need better outreach though to minority groups and the message needs to be universal, the message needs to be conservatism. It’s time to bring this country back together and a good conservative communicator can help begin the process.
********************
I don't disagree with anything the author said. Please tell me where he advised us that voting third party improved our odds of NOT electing Obama, or his successor?
Give me a guy who agrees with me on the fiscal side and a percentage of social issues and I'm going to anything in my power to get him elected over a socialist who wants to fundamentally transform our nation.
I, personally, have done this compromise voting since I could vote on presidential elections. It hasn't worked. Millions of self proscribed Libertarians have done this compromise as well. I think we have been wrong. The only way to change the party platform so the establishment will listen is to leave it or not vote for it. This, of course, from the Libertarian perspective. A conservative's perspective is less compromised by voting for the mainstream rep candidate..There is nothing wrong with more parties in a race. In fact, Perot's success had a dramatic effect on Clinton's first term. (although it didn't last). We had the contract with america and enjoyed prosperity until Bush II came in and set policies in motion that began to unravel the economy. A Libertarian does not tolerate big government and policies that limit personal freedom. I have listened to you guys every political cycle and not been morally objective in such a personal and important right. My vote. If you gladly live with the compromise-fine, I respect your reasoning. But my reasoning is thoughtful and has merit as well. Maybe there would be fewer scandals (the NSA and IRS scandals would still be happening). Maybe an Ambassador and his team would be alive today and we'd actually have a department of justice. But not much else would have changed in the right direction-the cronyism and the spending into oblivion.
I fail to see how the "little general" "helped" us.
Im just worried candidates will call themselves the tea party candidate and not really be. That happened with themayor in my city. Ran on that and has turned out to be the usual tax and spender.
If a person running agrees with 75% f what you support and the other guy agrees with you on 10%, and you are going to protest your vote by writing in a third party, you lose.
Not only do you throw away your vote on guy who will not be elected, but you just may cause the guy who opposes your core beliefs and you give him the power to make them illegal.
Dumb..
Do you guys really want to destroy this nation THAT badly?
Is marijuana a harmful substance? Most likely, yes. But is it more harmful than the overbearing police state and rampant crime which inevitably arises when it's made illegal? I doubt it...
For what it's worth, I personally have no problem with police. Not saying they are flawless because they are humans, but I haven't even had a ticket in 32 years. It is possible to have a life without police interaction - you don't break laws.
First to ban abortion. I cannot understand the problem with this since the most fundamental civil right is life. And life includes unborn, teens, adults and old people. The notion that killing a unborn person just because they can't object is no different than saying it's ok to kill a person who's 70 because they really can't "live a full life". If you want consistency, this is required.
The second most protested "moral" objection is legalization of drugs. Think about all these idiots on the road who can't concentrate on driving because of a text message being stoned and behind the wheel and getting a text message. It just may be self correcting as they kill themselves. The problem is all the innocent they will be taking with them. You'll reply that it should be their choice and that they will know better. You may be willing to roll those dice, but I won't be getting on the road with them.
Apart from those what "moral" issue do you have? I promise I won't be forcing you to go to church (and neither will any Christian I know).
Anything?
:
According to your argument, we should reinstate prohibition against alcohol because some people drive while drunk. Yet we've seen how that goes - under prohibition, crime becomes worse and the police state must enlarge itself in order to counter the increased crime that inherently goes along with it.
There are always trade-offs, but if your goal is to increase the overall safety of society and promote individual freedom, then the ending the war on drugs (i.e. prohibition) is only logical.
I don't like the man, because of his willingness to accept the more radical, but he has become more solid in his libertarian views, lately. But he's a bit of a moron when it comes to clearly expressing the application of his ideas and as far as a public debate, forget it.
Conservatives, IMHO, need to have a skivvy check and recognize their own brown streaks before I could ever think about voting for another one, even the least worst choice.
The failure to win the war on them is what cost, not the war itself. It is not the fight against them that makes our situation worse, but the tacit acceptance of them in the media, academia and politics.
The abstrract: "The war on drugs costs the government more than the Commerce, Interior, and State departments combined. The drug war clogs the courts to the point of breakdown. It keeps more Americans in Federal prison for drug crimes than were in for all crimes put together in 1980. It criminalizes a generation of African-American men; this is the main reason a third of all black males in their 20s are under correctional control -- jail, prison, probation, or parole."
It goes on to say, despite all of this, drugs are more easily obtainable than ever.
Seal the border.
Propagandize against drugs (it worked against tobacco)
Seal the border.
Stop dishing out long prison sentences; only politicians like them, because it gets criminals off the street for long periods, making the politician able to claim that he has a "good" crime record.
I favor more variety in punishment, and a greater understanding of the meaning of 'cruel and unusual'.
it's not that waging a war on mind-stealing substances is A Bad Thing, it's that we're waging it so poorly.
I've got some hopes pinned on Rand Paul, but he's going to have to get a lot busier over the next two years to even have a chance for the nomination. But the rest of the pool, at this point, are worrisome. The establishment Repubs, though have lost me completely. They're really digging in their heals against the Tea Party and libertarian ideas. I think they're ringing in their own death knells.
"but it's ultimately up to the individual, what to do with his life and body. "
That's the error most people have the luxury of making. They like to think that they are "typical" and most people act and react as they do; share the same basic values, are reasonable and rational, or at least would be if given the opportunity.
I don't have that luxury.