Skip to comments.Rand Paul: Republicans Need to Soften on Social Issues
Posted on 03/15/2014 12:24:23 PM PDT by TitansAFC
click here to read article
Umm... that was sort of my point.
Like Paul, each day is a struggle for me. Some things you don’t cave on. Life and other “so-called” social issues is something I’m not taking a dive on.
Like Paul, each day is a struggle for me. Some things you don’t cave on. Life and other “so-called” social issues is something I’m not taking a dive on.
How about a candidate that actually attacks and addresses the damage that liberalism and the Democrat party are currently doing to this country.
Instead we get people like Rand talking about what is wrong with the Republican grass roots instead. Or Paul Ryan groveling for forgiveness for speaking the truth about the inner city.
Ball-less wonders, all of them.
We are precisely in the trouble we are as a party and country because of the moral corruptness and bankruptcy of our current society. This translates into the fiscal matter of an out of control government that tries to mitigate all the consequences of this society’s behavior.
The politics of appeasement DOES NOT WIN.
I totally agree.
So ... your point is?
Should we all fold now because some polls suggest compromise on issues of morality, homosexual marriage, and transexuals in the military?
We've lost the country as a whole. Even among Republicans, there is a disturbing percentage who favor allowing gay marriage. Which of the states now allowing it will reverse course? Which court case, if it goes to SCOTUS, will result in our favor?
All of that means that yes, we have largely lost the war over gay marriage. To admit it is not a "slippery slope", it's reality. And unless we want to start losing any of the other battles you mention, we will need to start acknowledging reality.
I can understand why you feel that way, living in California. I used to live there, too, and its depressing as hell because it's like living in a sensory deprivation chamber. But that chamber -- where everyone is repeating the same thing whether you overhear them at the coffee shop or hear it on the news or in the movies you watch -- is not how it is in the rest of the country. It's like that old Saul Alinsky technique of placing 4 people in a diamond pattern within a crowd and getting those 4 people to get up and speak their script...and soon, everyone in the crowd thinks, "Wow...everyone must think like that! Maybe I should keep quiet, because I'm surrounded!" No, it's only 4 people with pre-written scripts in a crowd of 100. But now they've got you questioning yourself.
Consider what you just wrote there: Which court case, if it goes to SCOTUS, will result in our favor? and ask yourself this: Did the Founders EVER intend for 9 court justices to possess that sort of absolute power? Did the Founders intend for corrupt politicians to remain in their offices until they were over 100 years old and propped up by assistants (read: puppet masters) to sign bills that they cant even see, much less comprehend? No.
So I say that we have not lost the people (although coastal California is lost. It is beyond lost.), but we have lost the government. And there are only two remedies to turn things around. 1) Civil War, which no one recommends because just. No. (and some would say that is exactly what they want) or 2) Article V of the Constitution: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution (yeah, right, as if Congress would ever want to abolish its current abuses of power), or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions of three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by Congress This process has been spelled out in Mark Levins Liberty Amendments and it has already been put into motion.
What is there to gain by continuing to vote for people who tell you one thing and then get into office and turn their coats; or when you finally do get a good one (Reagan) and he puts his guy on the Supreme Court, then THAT guy turns his coat... it's like banging your head against a wall. The only solution is to take the power back from the Federal Leviathan and give it back to the States, as originally intended.
Or there's that Civil War option. Which would you rather try?
....but there are core values I hope to never compromise on.....
.. life, and the protection of the unborn....or the covenant of marriage....etc.
I’m with you too!
You have me confused with somebody else. I do not live in California.
Not that it has anything to do with it because yes, we’ve lost the country. Even in most “red” states, support for/opposition to gay marriage is break even. We learned in the last election how dangerous it is to believe that the polls lie.
An Amendment? Which of the dates currently allowing gay marriage would ratify such an Amendment?
As for civil war... well, that presumes that there’s an overwhelming majority in a number of states that agree with us. And now we’re back to that nationwide support thing. No, even if it was a good idea the numbers make it a non-starter.
Better we face reality and admit our mistakes, to make sure we don’t end up repeating them.
I find it curious that people who want a limited gov’t think there ought to be laws regulating sexual acts between consenting adults.
It isn’t about regulating their queer acts. But you can’t re-define depravity as a “marriage”.
I'm quite socially conservative in my own life, but I think that politicians who thump on "social conservatism" and moral issues often sound like fools.
Imagine a Presidential candidate running on a campaign where he promises to fight adultery in the United States. You don't have to approve of adultery in the slightest to recognize that such a politician is a fool and a half, because it simply isn't the job of a President or any elected official to enforce marital fidelity. My eyes glaze over in much the same way when I hear some politician obsess over homosexuality or pot smokers. I don't "approve" of dope-heads or sodomy any more than I approve of adultery, but I also recognize that most of the time people thump on these issues as distractions from the sorts of things elected officials do and should have power over.
Ted Cruz - 2016!
...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]
"There's room in the Republican Party for moderates, like Chris Christie. They seem to be the only ones that are winning in the Northeast... The other thing that might happen in the Northeast if we had a little more libertarian-leaning Republicans, they would have a chance in the Northeast. But there's room for moderates, like Chris Christie, and he's got a place in the party."[Posted on 11/06/2013 4:19:17 PM PST by Olog-hai]
Ron/Rand Paul - emphasizing the “LIB” part of liberTopianism.
“I’m quite socially conservative in my own life, but I think that politicians who thump on “social conservatism” and moral issues often sound like fools.”
IF you really think a “social/moral conservative” politician sounds like a “fool.” Then you ARE NOT a social/morale conservative and you should STOP calling yourself one. You are “ashamed” of what you claim you hold true.
The nonsense you spout is what I have been hearing on the abortion issue for years and it makes me sick to my stomach. I.E. “I am pesonally “pro-life” but I don’t think I should force this on others.” That is NOT being pro-life. Pro-life means you think abortion is MURDER...thus one cannot take a “well this only applies to me” attitude and be trully pro-life.
The same is true about homosexuality (and adultery for that matter). You cannot straddle a fench and say you are conservative. IF it is really wrong...then it is wrong for all. While we may want to use a little restraint and not become draconian. Taking a “let’s do what we can to discourage adultery and homosexuality.” One way to discourage adultery is to make the adulterer to come out badly in a divorce proceeding. A unfaithful spouse needs to pay dearly when a marriage dissolves as a result of this. In regards to homosexuality, we need to make it “uncomfortable” to be one. Definitely they should in no way be a “recognized and protected” group. They should NEVER be recognized by ANY level of government as a legitimate “couple.” It is NOT too late to reverse this downward slide on this issue.
IF you are NOT a social/moral conservative first, then the others “forms” on conservatism are useless. Get the social/morale issue right and the rest WILL fall into place.
I fully believe (know actually) that 95% of the fiscal problems of this country come from liberal views on the social/morale issues that result in bad fiscal policy.
A world where drug addicts or AIDS-infected homosexuals have to deal with the consequences of their decisions without a welfare state to bail them out will do much more to deal with these issues than the trillions we've wasted on the "war on drugs" and all the tub-thumping about gays on both sides of the aisle would ever accomplish.
IF you really think a social/moral conservative politician sounds like a fool. Then you ARE NOT a social/morale conservative and you should STOP calling yourself one. You are ashamed of what you claim you hold true.
There's a world of difference between finding something distasteful and wanting government, especially the Federal government, to pass laws outlawing it. I find most of the idiocy that's on TV nauseating. My solution to this problem is not to watch it, rather than to push for Federal laws curtailing free speech.
I am pesonally pro-life but I dont think I should force this on others. That is NOT being pro-life. Pro-life means you think abortion is MURDER...thus one cannot take a well this only applies to me attitude and be trully pro-life.
The abortion issue is not like the drug use or homosexuality issue. Laws against drug use or sodomy laws are there to protect people from themselves. I disagree with such laws, and they would be redundant in a world where people were financially responsible for their actions. Women who have abortions are in a different category because their actions harm another party. The right way to deal with this issue is to work to appoint SCOTUS justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade, which should have never passed regardless of what one feels about abortion because it violates the 10th amendment.
Politicians like Obama who think government is in the business of promoting and subsidizing 'LOVE" as long as it's the right kind of love, the politically correct love like homosexual sex premised love but not sexually void sibling love or multi sex partner premised polygamy? What about the politicians in black robes who proclaim that government has no rational basis to exclude procreatively null homosexual sex premised unions from the same societal recognition, privilege, & benefits of heterosexual sex premised unions?
Social conservatism is all about limiting government from imposing upon society. The Constitution limits government fiscally & socially e.g. the 2nd Ammendment is not a fiscal issue.
In many cases, you are correct, in others, allegedly conservative social policy means the expansion of government (i.e. law enforcement/surveillance) power over citizens. One glaring counterexample, is the War on Drugs, which many (not all, but many) Republicans continue to support in the name of social conservatism and morality. You would think that advocates of limited government and constitutional liberties would see the WoD for the huge waste of resources and frequent violation of personal liberties that it is.
Now, you can argue that as long as the rest of us have to foot the bill for other people's healthcare, it makes sense to outlaw illicit drugs. The same argument could be applied to sugary snacks, cigarettes, and alcohol, the regulation of which most conservatives by the likes of Bloomberg (rightly) oppose. A much more sound and consistent argument should be made for a war against Medicaid and socialized medicine, instead of the current misguided and unwinnable criminalization of illicit drugs.
The same argument could be applied to sugary snacks, cigarettes, and alcohol, the regulation of which by the likes of Bloomberg most conservatives (rightly) oppose.
In my opinion, the legitimate premise underlying the war on drugs, and on what basis the federal government has built it's war on drugs empire upon, is maintaining social order.
Some argue that maintaining social order is irrelevant, others like myself argue that maintaining social order is what make society civil.
Looking at the social order issue I see a great divide between Libertarians (Social Anarchy) & Conservatives (Social Order) that entails on the one hand Libertarians promoting and celebrating federal government imposed social disorder/social anarchy and on the other hand Conservatives seeking to get federal government out of the business of defining social order and simply in the business of enforcing it WHILE at the same time NOT encroaching upon or violating individual unalienable rights
“Laws against drug use or sodomy laws are there to protect people from themselves. I disagree with such laws, and they would be redundant in a world where people were financially responsible for their actions.”
That is Libertarian idiocy and why Libertarians like Rand Paul SHOULD NOT call themselves “conservative” or “republican.” Besides, laws against “illicit drugs & sodomy” are NOT just to protect people from themselves...but to protect society from those people.
You are ENTIRELY wrong about placing fiscal matters ahead of morale concerns....and you are COMPLETELY wrong if you think fixing fiscal issues will promote morale behavior. No, fixing “fiscal” issues without first addressing moral behavior may at best produce some momentary prosperity...which in of itself NEVER produces a moral society.
Please stop screwing up the Republican Party with Libertarian (Libertine) lawlessness. Stay in your OWN party. The GOP belongs first to its social/morale conservative base.
No, fixing fiscal issues without first addressing moral behavior may at best produce some momentary prosperity...which in of itself NEVER produces a moral society
I pointed out that it's a lot easier to be a long-term drug addict (or a drunk) in a society with a welfare state such as ours than in a society without one. That's a clear-cut example of how fiscal conservatism can correct anti-social behavior in people by creating a very strong disincentive against engaging in such behavior. Will this eliminate vice entirely? Of course not. Neither has "the war on drugs," nor did Prohibition. The difference is that the solution I propose doesn't require a bloated law-enforcement bureaucracy and a penal system that incarcerates people at a higher rate than China in order to be implemented.
Incidentally, I'm not a (capital L) Libertarian. They lost me by advocating open borders, as did Rand Paul. That doesn't mean that they don't have good arguments on other issues.
I pretty much agree with you, but the danger of the civil union thing is that, at least here in the People's Marxist Republic of Illinois, that won't satisfy the other side. The next year they'll be demanding (and getting) gay marriage, unfortunately.
“I fail to see the difference between your “we need a war on drugs to protect society from drug addicts” is any different from “we need to bring back Prohibition to protect society from alcoholics and drunks.” We tried that a century ago, how did that work out for us?”
That is because you are obtuse. Illicit drugs have NEVER had wide spread social acceptance. Whereas, the use of alcohol was a long standing accepted practice.
Besides, I am more concerned about his other LIBERAL stands than just drugs. He is NOT a CONSERVATIVE. He needs to be silenced and or destroyed politically and forced to go third party if he wants to run. Those fools like you ARE NOT CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS you are LIBERTARIAN INSURGENTS THAT NEED TO GO AWAY. We do NOT need you!
I care a lot more about what medical science has to say than "social acceptance." The bottom line is that alcohol addiction is as damaging as addiction to many illicit drugs, if not more so, so the double-standard on the issue reflects raw emotion (as evidenced by your childish ALL CAPS) rather than reason or facts. Much the same way as liberals think.
Besides, I am more concerned about his other LIBERAL stands than just drugs. He is NOT a CONSERVATIVE. He needs to be silenced and or destroyed politically and forced to go third party if he wants to run. Those fools like you ARE NOT CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS you are LIBERTARIAN INSURGENTS THAT NEED TO GO AWAY. We do NOT need you
You ought to be a speechwriter for your candidate of choice, i.e. "Unless you agree with me on every single issue, don't vote for me. If you agree with some of my policies, that's not good enough! You'd better agree with everyword I say or else I don't want your vote!" You're guaranteed to be a winning ticket there.
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.