Skip to comments.Rand Paul: GOP must ‘evolve and adapt’
Posted on 01/20/2013 2:01:28 PM PST by JohnPDuncan
Sen. Rand Paul said on Sunday that he will make a decision on a 2016 presidential run within two years and plans to be a force in the refashioning the Republican party regardless of whether he seeks the Oval Office.
We will continue to pursue and, you know, try to make that decision over the next two years or so, the Kentucky Republican told WABC Radios Aaron Klein when asked about a potential White House bid.
In the meantime, Paul said, he will try to be part of the national debate and added that he hopes to play a major role in directing the future of the Republican Party.
Paul added that there are major areas of concern for the party, noting we are not popular and we have not been competitive out in California, on the West Coast, or in New England.
And his particular brand of conservatism could play well in those regions and with other voters who may not currently identify with the Republican Party, Paul said.
So we think a little more of a libertarian Republican, someone who is a strict Constitutionalist, but also believes in a strong, defensive military but not necessarily in an overly aggressive or bellicose lets get involved in everybodys civil war military, I think that has more appeal to independents and some people who have given up in the Republican Party, Paul said.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Took your test, we seem to agree on 83% of the issues. As the old saying goes, if someone agrees with you 80% of the time, he is your friend and not too far apart in what you want. You’ll never have 100% agreement and there are times compromise is needed. It does not say you need to bend until you break but the need is there although I’d never compromise with the Democrats we have now.
Um, this is not England dipshit, THIS IS THE USA
Stuff your common law bs up your limey azz.
“Still unless we amend the Constitution, under our system, this issue should be kicked back to the States to decide. Roe V. Wade is bad law.”
The 14th amendment doesn’t permit this. Either one is a person in all 50, or one is not. You can’t be a person in New York City and not a person in Nebraska.
“As to government they should stay out of it altogether and let the people themselves decide with their religious bodies, if any”
Marriage is one of the enumerated powers of civil authority predating the Constitution of the United States. Ergo - the state does have the authority to solemnize and perform marriages. To change this to what you want would require a constitutional amendment. Marriage isn’t a private statement - marriage is public. You are required to have witnesses at your wedding, you are required to notify the state of your spouse, you aren’t allowed to get married to someone who is too close to you in blood, etc. This is the problem with the argument, “the state should butt out of marriage”, when the state has the authority and the powers to conduct them.
Bite me euroweenie.
“Took your test, we seem to agree on 83% of the issues. As the old saying goes, if someone agrees with you 80% of the time, he is your friend and not too far apart in what you want. Youll never have 100% agreement and there are times compromise is needed. It does not say you need to bend until you break but the need is there although Id never compromise with the Democrats we have now.”
Did I say this was the extent of my political philosophy? No. But I do believe it to be the core issues of conservativism. Your argument is that the core should mould around you and your beliefs. I am arguing something entirely different.
Someone who is willing to work with conservatives, has to be willing to uphold all of these conservative principles, even if they do not personally agree with them - that goes for you, for me, this is a non-negotiable.
“Um, this is not England dipshit, THIS IS THE USA”
And this is American Jurisprudence.
Again - trial by Jury, habeaus corpus and the definition of marriage as one man and one woman are all a part of American jurisprudence.
For someone who claims to be American, you have a poor understanding of American law. Most of American law comes from the English Common law originally, save Louisiana.
I recommend Henry Hazlitt’s “Economics in one lesson” for a very good and easy to understand guide on free market economics.
Trial by jury is covered in Article 3, and habeus corpus in Article 1. Where is the definition of marriage?
You don't know your ass from a whole in the ground.
Trial by jury is a Constitutional Amendment, habeaus corpus is a privilege enjoyed among Free men, according to the Constitution, and there is no definition of marriage in the US Constitution.
Cite it troll.
Again, you haven’t shown, or demonstrated any evidence for your case. Nothing. I’m still waiting. You said it’s ‘up to the states now’. So show me.
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
Article IV section 1.
Too late Rand Paul. The GOP is dead because they have no principles and believe in nothing. Just like Dems.
And, I promise, you Mr. Paul won’t be any different.
“Trial by jury is a Constitutional Amendment, habeaus corpus is a privilege enjoyed among Free men, according to the Constitution, and there is no definition of marriage in the US Constitution.”
Article IV section 1 accords to the federal government the power to regulate marriage, (among other things) as a ‘public act’. Given Reynolds, and other decisions, which confirm this to be the case - the answer is pretty clear. Also, ‘uniform naturalization’ also applies here. Insofar as the US grants spousal visas, then it is up to the federal government, and not the states, to define who qualifies as a spouse.
Oh great. I'm so thrilled that we'll still be sending our young men and women overseas to prop up dictatorships and support more theocracies by the time I'm an old man. I'm sure the Founders envisioned perpetual foreign wars.
I'm sure there's an ideology to describe perpetual war on foreign shores, but it sure as sh*t ain't conservatism.
Still waiting for evidence to support your claim that ‘marriage is a state issue’. No, it’s not.
Moron, read some history.
I’m still not seeing marriage definition there. From a practical standpoint, if the FedGov were the sole authority in defining marriage, then it would also have to be the sole authority to define divorce. It does not, the states do; that’s because its a state issue. Visas and passports are issued by the federal government; marriage certificates are issued by the state.
Go back to DU moron.
Marriage is a public act. Why does it require witnesses?
It doesn't, Marriage is an act of union between a man and a woman, it is witnessed for purposes of human commitment, only.
Otherwise, it is a State issue, not your beloved Federal Governments.
“Im still not seeing marriage definition there.”
Again, the Constitution runs on top of the Common Law. The Common Law definition of Marriage has been the law in the United States since well before the Constitution was even enacted. Arguing that “if the Constitution doesn’t mention it renders the existing marriage laws at the time invalid” doesn’t fly.
“From a practical standpoint, if the FedGov were the sole authority in defining marriage”
It’s not. The Federal government doesn’t even have the authority to *define* marriage. It has the power to enforce the definition as one man and one woman. Enforce!= Define.
“then it would also have to be the sole authority to define divorce.”
The need for a uniform standard of marriage doesn’t apply to the laws for dissolving one.
“Visas and passports are issued by the federal government; marriage certificates are issued by the state.”
Yes, and if the federal government issues spousal visas, then it has the authority to define whom constitutes a spouse. This is right in the first article. “Uniform standard of naturalization”, direcly precludes different standards for different states.
Having multiple marriage definitions, simple doesn’t work. The Full Faith and Credit clause renders the states that have passed gay marriage as a legal fiction. They own a document that purports to be something that is not. Now it is possible for a state to attempt to defy federal law, but this is no different from any other occurance.
Legally, marriage requires witnesses in ordered to be considered a marriage. Without witnesses, there is no marriage. People may claim they are married to someone else but without witnesses their claims are false.
If you are a non-constructionist, you could argue that it has the power to define marriage without a Constitutional Amendment. But the enumerated powers do not mention defining the terms of marriage contracts. Even DOMA did not forbid states from setting their own terms, but only establishing the standard that states are required to acknowledge with respect to the FedGov and between the states.
The top down approach won't accomplish your goals. They will simply be circumvented at the federal level even if you can make strides; a swap in the party leadership will swap everything back and forth. Central planning at that level fails.
“No, the Constituion is the Supreme Law of the Land. It does not run on top of colonial law, the Articles of Confederation, or anything else.”
It runs on ‘plenty of other stuff’. Not all of American Jurisprudence is contained within the constitution. There are plenty of American laws which exist that have their origins in the colonial period, and others even earlier. Just looking at the constitution and reading through - this is readily apparent.
“If you are a non-constructionist”.
I am a constructionist. what is contrary to constructionist by obtaining information on the origin of the opinions of the founding fathers and similarities between the US constitutions and other legal systems at the time? In order to properly understand the constitution and the motivation behind it requires this background.
Your thesis that ‘gay marriage is not contrary to the constitution requires evidence that the founders rejected the Common Law definition of marriage. I have plenty of information that shows this is just not true.
“Even DOMA did not forbid states from setting their own terms, but only establishing the standard that states are required to acknowledge with respect to the FedGov and between the states.”
DOMA explicitly cites the FF+C clause as the requirement for a uniform standard across the US with respect to the definition of marriage. States are permitted to set things like age laws, etc, but they cannot change the definition.
“The top down approach won’t accomplish your goals.”
The law is the law. Ignorance of the law doesn’t change anything. I am arguing that, in accordance to the constitution - the power to enforce the definition of marriage across the US rests with the federal government at present. I have provided substantial evidence in favour of this argument whereas you’ve provided nothing.
“They will simply be circumvented”
Then no marriage exists in contravention to the federal laws in the United States.
“Central planning at that level fails.”
On the contrary - having a uniform requirement on marriage is the only system that works. If every state has different marriage laws, and each state fails to recognise marriage in every other state - then there really is no marriage whatsoever. There can be only one. States can try to defy this but again - it has no standing in court, nor force of law backing it up. People are free to call their relationships whatever they want, even ‘marriage’, but it doesn’t change the legal requirements.
This is a fascinating argument. I have to give you points for creativity. Can you give me another example of a law that I am legally required to abide by that predates the Constitution, but is not contained therein?
Your thesis that gay marriage is not contrary to the constitution requires evidence that the founders rejected the Common Law definition of marriage. I have plenty of information that shows this is just not true.
It's likely they did accept the definition, however since they left it out of the Constitution entirely, it looks like it falls under many of the vast powers under the 9th and 10th Amendment.
DOMA explicitly cites the FF+C clause as the requirement for a uniform standard across the US with respect to the definition of marriage. States are permitted to set things like age laws, etc, but they cannot change the definition.
Bingo. It sets the standard by which the FedGov itself will recognize marriage, and what definition the various states will be required to recognize with respect to each other. It DOES NOT make requirements on the individual states on how they recognize a marital contract within. So yes, they can change the definition, it just may not be recognized by other states or the federal government itself (which really only applies to tax and immigration purposes, since, as I stated before, it is largely a state matter). But those can change with the power balance, so even if you get your standards in place, they will likely change election to election. Once again, federal control gets you next to nothing.
If every state has different marriage laws, and each state fails to recognise marriage in every other state - then there really is no marriage whatsoever.
Oh really? So we need state permission and endorsement for marriage? Wow, this is conservatism?
There's no marriage unless Daddy Government says so?
People are free to call their relationships whatever they want, even marriage, but it doesn't change the legal requirements.
There you go. Now you're onto something.
I couldn't give a rat's ass what the Federal Government says about marriage, or any other politician or bureaucrat. If we had a true Constitutional Republic, it wouldn't matter whether you were married or not as the laws, regulations, and statutes in this country would be limited; exemptions, tax credits, subsidies, and other marriage benefits wouldn't be needed since the laws that they exempt people from wouldn't exist.
The best idea is to keep the government as far away from marriage as possible. The ideal role would extend to honoring a contract and setting terms for dissolving it, and that's it.
I know most people in the United States simply can not grasp that simple fact. The ideology describing opposition to “foreign Wars” is Libertarianism and Liberalism. Conservatism puts the survival of the nation first recognizing if we lose the war after being attacked nothing else matters.
The Libertarians may be able to take over the GOP and call themselves conservatives but they will be Republicans not conservatives like much of the GOP today. I could care less as I'm not a Republican, I'm a Conservative.
But if this nation is to survive and eventually win this war it will be on the backs of clear eyed Conservatives who see the world as it is and not how they wish it to be...
OK, so can you explain to me why we’re still in Afghanistan?
I simply don't suffer fools..ask someone else to educate you if you really care to know the answer...
Your non-response is more than telling. You really couldn't come up with anything better than, "If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you."?
You'd think after 10 years you'd have a response by now.
Perpetual war on behalf of kleptocrats like Karzai is not conservatism.
I'm pretty sure the Founders would look at our decade long wars overseas as the ill-conceived adventures they are.
There was a time when your reasoning made sense. People rallied year after year behind this fight-em-there-not-here banner. Those days are over. It's time to admit that we've been sold out. Bush seemed to mean well, but he failed. Obama never cared in the first place. 10 years and trillions of dollars and all we have to show for it is a soon to be nuclear Iran, Islamist governments spreading across the region and America withdrawing. Politically speaking, once we pull out of Afghanistan in 2014, within a year no sign will remain that we were ever there.
The average American has zero interest in anything more than kinder, gentler wars with ironclad ROEs. Glorified terrorist-hunting safaris, not wars. Our current model of warfare absolutely cannot stop Islamic militancy or Islamist political ascendancy. We can't change that fact, because the American people don't want real war. All we can do in this political climate is throw money and lives away in the name of 'doing something'.
Even that will soon prove to be politically unpalatable. Republican support for these pretend wars helped destroy the party and hand Obama both terms. So long as the GOP appears eager for more Iraqs and Afghanistans, it will remain out of power.
That's the hard truth. It's time to get clear eyed about it.
Americans and American companies are targets of Radical Islam through out the world. They are going to kill us and the nation will perish or we are going to kill them and the nation will survive. I can tell you for a fact that the countries of the world are picking sides and they are not picking the USA...
You did in 2012.
Only liberals vote for liberals. Thank heavens there were more voters in America who reject liberalism, and Romney lost.
I feared Romney was going to win in a landslide because I underestimated the number of conservative (not necessarily Republican) Americans who felt the same way I did about Romney. I believe also that if votes had been tallied honestly, he would be our president today. He LOST, because most of the most sensible FReepers here were correct: He was a loser, with zero chance of winning against the stacked deck of vote manipulation and fraud. We Americans and conservatives have a better chance of gaining ground toward recovering freedom with Obama in office. Romney would have done more damage than Obama in the long run.
God is on our side.
Oh my, Leni,
You seem to think (#70) that the GOP should get out of their
bubble, cancel their joint cruises, forget the country club
and become Conservatives? What are you drinking these daze?
You know how easy it is to just go-along (re-elected) to get stuff,don’t you? s/
Ahahaahaahaa!!! Yeah, good luck with that! I'm sure ObamaCare will be repealed first thing in 2017. Ahaha!
I am one of those “Libertarian Republicans” that many of you think is all evil and want to rid the GOP of “real” conservatives. That is bunk, and I will do my best to explain why.
First, I am a Navy vet so the last thing I am is soft on defense. Ron Paul is crazier than a rat in a tin $hit house when it comes to defense. I realize that we must protect our interests globally, this is not 1820.
What is a “real” conservative? The last time I checked a “real” conservative would have a huge problem with the government running people’s lives. This is why gay marriage and abortion are such issues. I am not in favor of either, but I damn sure am not in favor of the Feds dictating the actions of people either. Leave those issues to the states and locals.
On this site many complain about how the liberals claim that paying taxes to support the “needy” is a form of charity and as Christians we should not be so loathe to do so. Conservatives correctly argue that it is not charity if one is forced to give by the barrel of a gun. The same applies to legislating morality. Are we being moral by not performing or favoring gay marriage or abortion because the federal government does not allow it? The same principle applies, so no we are not being moral. The GOP is seen as being hypocritical by many in the electorate because of this. we all know those things are wrong, but what matters is what is in a person’s heart, and that cannot be legislated on any level, so why compromise our limited government principles trying?
So, when it proposed that the GOP let social issues go on a national level, think again as to why this may be a palatable idea. As of right now, cultural issues are not winning over voters. There are many reasons for this. But, if we want to fix the GOP brand I am of the belief that what we need to do is declare that the GOP still opposes these issues, but is not interested in having the federal government do so. That they should be left to the states. The GOP should truly push a very limited government at the federal level and encourage voters to handle social issues at local levels.
An example of how correct you are -- the homosexual agenda, which I as a Christian abhor and consider depraved, though I have over the years had and loved dearly many homosexual friends of both sexes. Right now, the government deems it "moral" to force everyone to embrace open homosexuality by PUNISHING THEM if they simply, peacefully, lovingly, turn away and tell the open homosexual to go somewhere else for this job, this service, this apartment to rent, this adoption of a child, this homosexual-propagandizing program aimed at children in public schools. Social conservatives are STUPID to think the Federal government should do anything BUT protect the God-given right of Americans to peacefully reject and discriminate against open homosexuality in their personal, business, social, and community life.
Instead, what do "social conservatives" want to do -- use hamfisted Federal government just as stupidly in the other direction, to punish openly homosexual people? For what? For sinning? That's not the government's job. That's GOD's job and that is the job of moral, free individuals in the societies where those homosexuals live. Those moral, free individuals promote moral societies by ostracizing -- peacefully, even lovingly -- the sinner's behavior in their communities.
The Federal government has zero business in overseeing the morality of Americans. If it instead made its business to protect the rights of Americans to LIVE MORALLY, social conservatives would see much more success in the creation of a more moral culture in America.
Nonsense. I have never heard a social conservative want to use the Federal Government to “punish” homos. What we do not want is the goverment rewarding them for their sexual deviance.
Exactly, what “punishment” have you seen being called for.
“This is a fascinating argument. I have to give you points for creativity. Can you give me another example of a law that I am legally required to abide by that predates the Constitution, but is not contained therein?”
That’s a good question. Contracts and property law, stuff like that. We’re talking some of the more basic principles that are usually taken for granted because ‘they’ve always been there’. Well, they aren’t ‘always there’. Consanginuity laws, that’s another.
“It’s likely they did accept the definition, however since they left it out of the Constitution entirely, it looks like it falls under many of the vast powers under the 9th and 10th Amendment.”
Then why didn’t Reynolds make that argument? Reynolds didn’t make that argument. Reynolds goes back and explicitly cites the English Common law, establishing the definition of marriage within the United States, and then goes and makes the jurisdictional argument, that the United States federal government has an obligation to protect the Common law. It then goes and explicitly negates the argument that Utah can set up their own law to change the definition of marriage.
See, that’s the thing. To understand how law was understood to work back then - you look at the arguments! You look at what Reynolds said, and why - the statutes that Reynolds cites, the previous examples, and all of them are from the English common law. Every single one. That to me indicates that they believed this was the basis of this law in the United States, and that they believed these arguments were compelling.
“It DOES NOT make requirements on the individual states on how they recognize a marital contract within.”
Within the definition, it does. It explicitly bars changes in that definition away from one man and one woman, barring both polygamy (as in Reynolds), and gay marriage. You’re right that states do issue marriage licenses, and the federal government recognizes them insofar as the licenses meet the requirements of the law. If they fall outside - then they aren’t legally recognized marriages and no entity is required to treat them as such. States may attempt to impose these requirements on people as we are seeing now, but they are illegal and contrary to federal law.
“So yes, they can change the definition, it just may not be recognized by other states or the federal government itself”
Which means that it’s not a legal marriage. If it were a legal marriage, everyone within the US would be bound to recognise it per the FF+C clause.
“Once again, federal control gets you next to nothing.”
Why is it relevant, “what the law gets me?” What is relevant is what the law is. And the federal government has the authority to enforce the law - they do not have the authority to redefine the law. Nor do the states. Nor does anyone. That’s the point. Any redefinition is contrary to the Common Law, and unless you want to go away from that model (IE, sharia), it’s a non-starter.
This is why I state that progressives have the exact same goal as sharia, to remove the underpinnings of American jurisprudence. The sooner conservatives recognise this, the better off we will be in understanding what their goals are and why. The left sees this stuff quite well- they also believe that nobody else does, which is why they can push it with impunity and get what they want. And they are mostly correct.
“Oh really? So we need state permission and endorsement for marriage? Wow, this is conservatism?”
Yes, you do. If all are recognised than none, effectively are. There needs to be a federal standard of marriage.
“There’s no marriage unless Daddy Government says so?”
No, there isn’t. Again - this goes back to the crux of it. Marriage is a public good. Always has been. It’s not a private affair. You don’t get married in private - legally it requires witnesses. It requires a public record and anyone can find out whether or not you were married, to whom and to when. There is not ‘expectation of privacy’ with respect to marriage - it just doesn’t work that way.
“I couldn’t give a rat’s ass what the Federal Government says about marriage”
The law cares. Are conservatives against respect for the law?
“If we had a true Constitutional Republic, it wouldn’t matter whether you were married”
It should matter, otherwise, what purpose is there to getting married? The law should recognise marriage, and the laws are there for a reason.
“The best idea is to keep the government as far away from marriage as possible. The ideal role would extend to honoring a contract and setting terms for dissolving it, and that’s it.”
But you’re insisting that the government step in to enforce a contract when it is convenient to you, and leave you alone when it does not. If you expect the government to enforce the marriage contract with respect to divorce laws, then you have no argument anymore.
Again, you are free to call your relationships whatever you want - you can argue you are married. You are free to set up whatever contract you desire privately - but you cannot insist on state enforcement of your private contract wrt marriage along with the divorce laws.
Not even the mighty British Empire could “destroy” America, what makes you think idiots in mountains with AK’s can? Are you really that scared of them?
Let me guess, dope supporter, gay marriage supporter, abortion supporter.
How is support for abortion libertarian? Youre killing people who would otherwise exist.
I assumed you were talking about me. If so, you were wrong.
“Not even the mighty British Empire could destroy America, what makes you think idiots in mountains with AKs can?”
The “Mighty British” are the ones who were destroyed... by the “idiots” in the mountains with weapons!
If you doubt me, ask the North Vietnamese, or the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan if it can be done.
First, thank you for your service. I’ll take these one at a time...
“First, I am a Navy vet so the last thing I am is soft on defense. Ron Paul is crazier than a rat in a tin $hit house when it comes to defense. I realize that we must protect our interests globally, this is not 1820.”
I agree on Paul and on defense.
“What is a real conservative? The last time I checked a real conservative would have a huge problem with the government running peoples lives. This is why gay marriage and abortion are such issues. I am not in favor of either, but I damn sure am not in favor of the Feds dictating the actions of people either. Leave those issues to the states and locals.”
All well and good. But as soon as you abandon this on the fed level, the Dems are then fully in control of WANTING to dictate fed policy to force their version of reality. The end result is codified homosexuality. Fed law is then used to trump state law. See immigration/border control for the result of ceding federal ground to libs. See also the hell that was wrought to the west and many parts of the east over landuse issues. The problem is that libs do not follow any rules.laws but their own. The refusal to accept that is perhaps the primary reason why our side loses.
In a perfect world, I agree with you. But we are not in that world. If one wants to hasten lib takeover, one need simply give an inch. Then another. Then another ad infinitum.
And I would say a ‘real conservative’ stands for the ‘life’ portion of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ first and foremost. Abortion is about life. State, fed, county and local. A pregnant woman is 2 people. The child cannot speak for or defend him/herself. a ‘real conservative’ does not believe that killing a baby in one state is acceptable if the people vote it so. The Constitution enshrines the right to life.
As for the homosexuals, this became an issue on the fed level when libs started pushing the idea of sex practice as ‘legal right’ and with legal benefit. I’d go as far as to say that in a vacuum, the majority of conservatives really don’t care who is zoomin’ who or how they are doing it. But we are not in a vacuum. Again, the problem becomes federal because of the interstate legalities. And again, this goes back to Dems codifying something that makes no sense to begin with.
This argument that ‘it’s not a fed issue’ has all the hallmarks of a political party that wants to go along with the lib line, but wants to have it both ways. They are tired of the facade that they oppose abortion and homomarriage but don’t want to give up the votes of the conservative base.
The 12 election proved what happens to Republicans who go lib. But they will keep doing it until enough of us ‘old guard’ (and I’m only 47) die off and get their way by attrition. Problem is that they just can’t wait. So their argument then appeals to our sense of constitutionality. Too bad that ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’, along with numerous amendments directly counter the rationale for caving on abortion and other ‘social issues best left to the states’.
The Constitution itself IS a social issue.
If life itself, the ultimate reason for a constitution to begin with, is best left to the states, why even HAVE a federal govt?
“...but what matters is what is in a persons heart, and that cannot be legislated on any level, so why compromise our limited government principles trying?”
Why then legislatively ban pedophillia? Murder? Beastiality?
“So, when it proposed that the GOP let social issues go on a national level, think again as to why this may be a palatable idea. As of right now, cultural issues are not winning over voters.”
So your entire argument, as others here have done, comes down to ...
“Be abandoning what we believe in as conservatives, our very principles, to ‘win’”.
Give up on abortion to get votes and ‘win’
Give up gay marriage to get votes and ‘win’
Because when you reduce your argument to it’s core, that is EXACTLY what it means. And if you consider that a conservative POV, then your mindset is every bit the problem conservatism is currently facing.
“idiots in mountains with AKs”
You are uninformed as to the threat, which is not unusual as most in the country cannot grasp what is going on in the rest of the world...
The only adaption they need is the one where the testicles drop into a sack. A1
Many live under the fantasy that someone can simply snap their fingers and Politi-Christ will appear to transition the country back to a rational course. They expect it to be pain-free and at no personal cost to themselves.
We see it in ‘businessmen’ who are willing to cater to illegals while bitching about border control. We see it with ‘pro-lifers’ willing to abandon the national fight for votes. We see it in ‘conservatives’ willing to trash conservatives in order to ‘win’ with a moderate.
People, over decades created this mess by voting for ‘moderates’ in the GOP. Extraction is going to hurt. A lot. And putting starting the process by defending/continuing the method by which we got here guarantees one thing.
Edit: Putting -OFF- starting the process...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.