Fiscal Conservative; Social Liberal

Jesse Ventura, conspiracy theorist extraodinaire does NOT have a chance.

I've no doubt that Paul could win the general in the current climate.
Have many doubts that the Reps will support a true limited govt Rep.

 

Listening to him talk foreign policy, he might as well be a far-left anti-war liberal. We need someone who doesn't buy into jihadist propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

 

Are you referring to Ventura or Paul?

 

Ron Paul simply believes the States should decide those issues, just like our Constitution says.

And if Ron Paul isn't close to a social liberal, then Obama is in a different universe.

 

Ron Paul is your man

 

Must be appealing to a few to simply put the blame on a group of people and label them evildoers rather than reflect on ones own actions... or the actions of their own Government for that matter. It's nothing but Blind Anger to follow down such a path and it has never worked in the History of Man...

 

So Al Qaeda isn't a group of evildoers? Are they your heroes? I wouldn't put it past you.

 

Once again, refer to this video.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuKBDHWDgBo&feature=feedf"]Ron Paul - Imagine - Kinetic Typography - YouTube[/ame]

It is not referring to Al Qaeda and he is not condoning their actions, but simply explaining how our interference was a factor in their decision making.

 

You didn't say; I'll assume you meant Paul.

I was amused at the Paul-Santorum catfight in the last debate. The truth is, both men were correct.

Anyone who believes that our bases in KSA had nothing to do with UBL and AQ has their head in the proverbial sand; anyone who believes it ends there is equally in da'nile.

As to Santorum's point that there is a clash of civilizations, this is also undeniable.

Their premise is not either/or -- but their responses are vastly different. Santorum is an unabashed Neo-Con. He's got his head planted up Reagan's Cold War strategy, apparently oblivious to the difference in nature of the two beasts, USSR and Islam. It will be, er, difficult to bag a bull with Ronnie's bait and tackle.

Paul is absolutely correct in stating that the US does not need 900+ foreign bases. And you can be sure that the reason for those bases has as much to do with cashola as it does with security. He is correct in stating we should close up shop in KSA and let the Royals protect themselves (if they can). They are no friend to us, the US or West; their socio-political system is anathema to all that is American...not to mention they are the embodiment of Goebbels!

Paul is correct in his assessment to withdraw immediately from Afg and Libya, these conflicts contribute nothing to our benefit and without doubt feed the Jihadists' Narrative. Iraq is another matter altogether; I would advise him differently, and I'm sure others would as well.

I do not believe either of these men have "bought into" jihadists's propaganda; multiculturalist/apologists' propaganda is far more pressing.
And I've no doubt that either man would respond with force to any act of war.

However, I also believe that only one of them would release the American people from the state of war that has settled over our nation since 9/11 -- you can read that as the PATRIOT Act, TSA groping/porn, warrant-less taps, putting gps trackers on citizens' vehicles, or political assassinations. In short, our current police state.

In fact, there is only one candidate in the race -- of either party -- who would act to restore American liberties.

 

nice find. I hadn't heard this speech before.
His reasoning is sound; but also narrow, I think.
I would love to meet with Paul and discuss Islam with him.
I've often wondered who advises him on this topic.

 

Define "fiscally conservative" and "socially liberal." I would personally have someone who is not "doubly ideological" but rather someone who is pragmatic, intelligent, and honest. Ideology forces bad decisions, imo.

 

Ah, I wouldn't past you to clearly say something of that Nature towards me or put words such as that in my mouth. Did I ever once say they weren't Evil in their actions? Maybe my own comment was too much for you to handle in understanding it completely so instead of debating what was said you try to slander me. It truly is easy to blind yourself to your own actions and blame others for the foul deeds that come in the future.

 

Honestly, I think Huntsman is probably too intelligent for the Republican electorate. That's basically the reason why Barry Goldwater never got anywhere in his bids for the presidency either.

You have to dumb things down to get the masses.

 

I have no doubt that Paul could win the general *IF* the deck wasn't so heavily stacked against him and *IF* he could get there. The Republican Party hates his guts, the Democratic Party hates his guts, and the media mostly ignores him.

My point is that if we're discussing candidates who actually have a chance, then none of them are socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

 

Well, then...obliviously I cannot disagree

I'm convinced that if he got the Rep nod -- their support (and I'm not even talking money) -- that Paul could win in the general.

Many self-declared Dems would vote for Paul. I know dozens who stand ready to do so if the Reps give him the nod. Some because of his pot (read judicial/penal/criminal/social) stance. Others are anti-war adherents who believe he would stop our current conflicts and roll back the military industrial complex to be in line with American defense not offense.

TEA partiers, fiscal conservatives and Inds would be swayed his way based on his intent to audit the Fed, and reattach our money to a commodity (gold).

Social Liberals can be swayed his way, not because he is in agreement with their lifestyles/stances, but rather because he defends their natural rights as individuals to have their lifestyles/stances.

Only those who are entrenched in the notion that power must be centralized/concentrated for the ultimate purpose of using it for social engineering find Paul utterly intolerable.
These are not fringe people in our society...however, in today's clime, I believe they would be shouted down by the others mentioned.

 

Not to be snarky, but I'm convinced that if my grandma was red and had wheels, she could be a Radio Flyer wagon.
Don't you see? The Republican Party *won't* support Paul. To the contrary, they will do whatever they can to destroy him, even if he does manage to win the primary. He is a threat to both party structures because they are so thoroughly corrupt. And the media will do whatever the parties tell them to.

I'm a huge Paul supporter. I know plenty of people of all political leanings who agree with him. *BUT* I don't know any partisans (Dem or GOP) who can tolerate him. Sadly, they're the ones who control everything.

 

^ And my point isn't even about Paul himself. My point is that "libertarian" and "viable" simply don't coexist in the current mobbed-up political system. If we're talking about "libertarian" candidates, then none of them stand a chance. If we're talking about "viable" candidates, then none of them are libertarian.
Therefore, as long as we're discussing Paul and Johnson (both fine guys), there's no reason why we can't talk about Ventura as well. We may have disagreements with him, but we can't simply dismiss him as "unelectable" if we're going to entertain the notion that the other 2 are.
See where I'm coming from?

 

That's not snarky -- that's just the way it is.

"Destroy" is harsh, but "marginalize"? oh hell yeah.
You say corrupt, I say Fascist.

I agree partisanship keeps a stranglehold on DC but would suggest it is the money-bundlers who control everything.

 

Why would that make for a promising candidate? What's so desirable about social liberalism? Social conservatism is actually considerably more libertarian. You have more government intervention and meddling in your personal life under social liberalism.

 

Yes, I see your point. However, I believe Jess has truly become unelectable. He has simply placed himself too far outside the political arena.

Further, he is not in this race.

And if he decided to make a run as an independent, it would be a miscalculation on his part.
He has too much baggage.
He has nothing new, different or superior to bring to the table.
The electorate is too inflamed this cycle; third party splits will not be acceptable to them.

This country is in deep fiscal doo-doo, and no one knows that better than "the little guy".
Millions of fiscal cons have repeatedly turned out for TEA parties for the past 2-3 yrs, the pulse of the populace is palpable (<- tongue twister, lol).

Those who are fearful and cannot comprehend facing the future without govt guarantees, will vote for O; those who are fearful and insist the govt respond to their concerns will vote whomever the Reps put forward -- what else can they do?

Only Romney could foul this up. Romney, Obama, what's the diff?
I truly believe that his nomination could cause many to stay home (or perhaps make a protest vote) but most will roll their dice with the Reps, prisoners to their own hopes.
A great many of those Inds and TEA partiers are more than a little familiar with third party splits and how Bubba won the WH.

 

No...that candidate is non-existent because of the times we live in. Right now the economy and jobs are all anyone really cares about. Social issues will take a back seat. If Obama pulls us out of this economic malaise (fat chance but you never know) he will go for another term.

If our economy continues to crash (or even if the media perception is an economic crash) look for the candidate with the most business/economic solid talking points to win.

Remember, it's politics so nothing is really real anyway. Except, of course, the money that those crooks take in taxes from US

 

It's the hot means cool, bad means good confusion.*

As we know, (capital SL) Social Liberalism is all about collectivism/collective rights.
And that is diametrically opposed to individual Liberalism (or Classic Liberalism).

While technically one can be a Social Liberal and desire sound fiscal policy...no SL entity has ever managed "fiscal conservatism", eh? Can we agree this is why Eu is in flames?

If your starting point is fiscal conservatism, and you have no desire to tell others how to live their lives, that makes you a Libertarian, agree?

Or more to the point, because the terms get so confused:
if you want fiscal conservatism at the federal level -and- support no social impositions on others, you are a Classic Liberal, agree?

This is why Paul's name always comes up when people ask "which candidate is a fiscal conservative/social liberal (no caps!).

*I'm always amazed at the number of Classic Liberals who spout off terms like Libturds; think they'd call Jefferson a Libturd to his face?

 

One CANNOT be both. Social liberalism costs TRILLIONS for nothing.

 

Well.. no. Social conservatism is where the government actively dictates how people should live their own lives (i.e. according to a rabid religious precept). Social liberalism is where people have the freedom to live in whatever way they see fit.
What you're thinking of is "social science", where the government uses force to promote "equality", "tolerance", group rights", etc.

The problem is that neither party recognizes the fundamental truth that "freedom" is the authority to dictate your own life, but that authority demands responsibility. Libertarian types (small l) understand that. We want people to control their own destiny, but they also have to accept the responsibility for the consequences of their own decisions. Live like you want to live. We *encourage* that. But don't come to us demanding a bailout if you screw it up.

Most people get that, but none of the Washington Elite subscribe to it.

 

Both parties respect freedom within reason for their constituents, if the rich fail the republicans and democrats will have to bail them out or else we all fail economically because they will bring us down with them. If the poor fail the democrats will bail them out with the help of good republicans or we as a society will fail morally.

Washington elites cannot subcribe to libertarianism because it allows the rich and poor the freedom to dig themselves into deep ditches to where it becomes impossible to climb out of and that is destructive to the country.