Posted on 01/31/2012 12:00:06 PM PST by presidio9
The first primaries of 2012 are complete, but the fight over the proper role of government continues. The question before GOP primary voters is who best reflects their own answer to that question, and then, who is best suited to make that case to the American people?
A clear winner has yet to emerge, but there is little question about who has captured the loyalty of young Republican voters on this issue. Although finishing fourth overall, Ron Paul once again won the youth vote in South Carolina, winning 31% of ages 18-29, compared to Newt Gingrich who won 28%. Paul’s appeal, or more accurately, the appeal of Paul’s limited government message, is a key story to emerge from the Republican primaries.
There’s no mistaking the trend.
Mitt Romney won the New Hampshire primary, getting approximately 39% of the total vote. Ron Paul finished second with 23%, Jon Huntsman finished third with 17%, and Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum each won about 9% of the vote.
Yet young voters would have picked a different winner. According to Fox News exit polls, in New Hampshire, Paul won nearly half (46%) of the votes of people ages 18-29, while Romney won second place with just 26%.
Paul also won the youth vote in Iowa. In the Hawkeye State almost half (48%) of the Republican caucus goers ages 18-29 supported Paul, compared to 23% for the otherwise victorious Santorum, and 14% for Romney.
What is so appealing about Paul to young voters? One answer is that Paul has been the most outspoken candidate defending the importance of free enterprise and the limited role of government. And he has had a
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Yes, altogether too easy to paint ALL young Paul supporters with that brush (though I expect it's true of SOME young Paul supporters).
Where do you stand on the relegalization of drugs?
Why does an individual have a "responsibility" to not ingest certain substances or engage in certain consensual adult sexual behavior? Those acts violate no other individual's rights. They may affect other individuals - but that's far too broad a standard for governmental action, as almost everything anyone does "affects" someone else in some way.
There is too much money to be made in keeping them illegal. There is a very short transmission belt from street level proceeds to the hands of authorities. Very short. Not all authorities, but many.
I would add that I saw not a single drug abuser’s life improved by drug abusers, but a system where violent offenders are rolled out of prison to make room for some simple possession charge is broken in many ways and at many levels. Sounds good during elections though. “Zero tolerance!” Really? Then take away prosecutorial discretion, judicial discretion, pardons, paroles and ‘good time’. Won’t happen will it? ‘Zero tolerance’ is Purina sheep chow for the credulous reactionary.
Bitter? Damn right I am. And I was on the -enforcement- end!
Again I say, I -detest- drug abuse, but the ‘lock ‘em up and throw away the key’ is an utter fail, and has been for decades. Follow the money. It is meant to fail.
You are a idiot
You’ve already been explained why drug legalization and Prohibition are not compatible. But, fools will stick with their postion, facts be damned.
Nearly all my comments regarding R-U-N Paul were on threads about politics. No need to worry about being de-friended. ;-)
Nooooottttt exactly the same thing as pulling out of the ME. Reagan also ordered the attack against Libya. I have no doubt in my mind that were the 9/11/01 attacks to have occurred during Reagan's tenure, the U.S. would have jumped into the ME with both feet - possibly quicker than we did under Bush.
Congrats...
LOL...
Discussing 20th and 21st century military and defensive tactics to a Paulitard is like explaining particle physics to Pygmies...
It is exactly the same thing as pulling out because that is exactly what Reagan did. The entirely place is a mess and not worth American blood or treasure.
Yup, he wants to regulate stuff he doesn’t like but is incapable of realizing that those very same regulations and arguments will be used against him and stuff he does not want regulated. Even with a mountain of evidence starring him in the face, idiot.
Oh it is...
So what is the way out, no regulations?
Funny, there are some I like, such as those that guarantee a 100,000 lb interstate overpass can truly take 100,000 lbs, that airliners have inspections so engines don't fall off and hit a school, or that the Tylnol I take isn't laced with poison or is even not effective.
You argument is over simplified to the point of adorable but hardly viable in reality.
At the federal level? I see no need for the federal government to regulate what an adult American eats, drinks or smokes. Which is what this discussion is about. And Oh I do not use illegals drugs. So I don't have an agenda other then defending personal liberty with was I thought, an important part of being a conservative.
If you're referring to post #63, I already rebutted that in post #104.
You mean prohibit.
dangerous addictive drugs that not only kill the body, but destroy families and institutions
Except when we don't - as in the case of alcohol. We were wise enough to see that prohibiting that drug did little good and much harm, and we should be similarly wise with regard to other drugs.
Funny, there are some I like, such as those that guarantee a 100,000 lb interstate overpass can truly take 100,000 lbs, that airliners have inspections so engines don't fall off and hit a school, or that the Tylnol I take isn't laced with poison or is even not effective.
So let's regulate recreational drugs like we regulate Tylenol - no claiming effects it doesn't have, and no poisonous impurities. (And don't bother coming back with "recreational drugs are poisons" - too much Tylenol is also a poison.)
So it is just about eating drinking and smoking, I see...
So what about FDA regs on poisons in the food chain...
Remember that many food items are transported over state lines...
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.