# The end of the Republican party



## lancestar2 (Jul 8, 2013)

You know at times I get so flipping sick of this debate about illgeal immergartion (I was going to post a comment in another thread but thought this topic needed it's own thread)

The real reason why Democrats and Republicans are so passionate about this issue (not the citizens but the politicians, and media) is because this massive population of illegals if were given citizenship would mostly become mostly Democrats and vote for Democrats in office greatly helping the party! Republicans know this and that's why they are fighting tooth and nail to prevent this. Sure Republicans such as George W Bush never got serious on enforcing the boarder because he didn't want to push to hard making him loose the Latino vote of the ones that were here legally! It's because the republican party has been forced to walk a thin line between securing the boarder completely (causing the latino vote to completely leave the party) and full out support of legalization of them all (upsetting the core of the party) it's there inability to act that is causing the party to loose it's control.

The republican party is to indecisive and failed to make the tough choices that was needed to ensure the future of the party. If Bush had secured the boarder costing tons of money but actually got it done then the republican party would have been able to ensure it's future. Perhaps animosity will never happen so other plans may try to help republicans gain ground in the power struggle (such as spliting California into 6 states! Making it possible for a republican canidate to gain some delegates from CA where none could have existed before)

It's about the power of the party, and the longer they take to keep the party together the longer they will not be able to gain in power. Honestly the Republican/Democrat model is done! it's over.

The republican party needs to split up and divide and conquer Libertarians, and the Tea Party should be the main two parties that should start working towards gaining seats in the senate and house. The presidency would surly be out of reach for a while but Libertarians takes vote from Democrats too! I mean honestly do you think the republican party can survive in the next 10 or 20 years in this climate?

The republicans screwed the party by never securing the boarder and by now it's to late unless all the illgeals can be rounded up and deported but honestly they keep on coming back and the cost is just so great! If there is any hope for the future we need the republican party to split (and the democratic party to split too into Democrats AND Libertarians) Democrats won't do anything to help the boarder because they know that's just more money and more votes comming in for them! :grin: Republicans won't do anything because they already are walking a tight rope to please there base and to try not to alienate the Latino vote.

illgegal aliens are good for the Democrats and the worst thing possible for the republican party and it's what is about to cause there doom... The party needs to split off so it can grow younger people better identify with the Libertarian or Democratic party than the Republican party. I'm sorry to say it but that's just they way it is.. As the older generations fade the younger generations always change things... Do you honestly think the Republican party can exist in 20 years??

More and more young people don't identify themselves as religious, they are supportive of gay marriage, are ok with legalization of pot and taxazation, and in general agree with fiscal responsibility. What they don't agree with is social conservatism. I don't see how the justification that the party will still exist is made..

I also don't see why people get so caught up in the illegal alien issues. Yea we know it's bad and illegal aliens cause crime and are importing drugs and are taking jobs that big busineses want to give them so they get cheap labor legal or not it happens. *Can we take a step back and focus on what is really going on and what will happen in the future? Many of the people here are much older and more experienced in life.. Can you provide any insights or realistic suggestions at how the future generations should proceed?* The republican party members tend to be older and have more wealth as the middle class shrinks creating more republicans seem to become harder and harder. What is your opinion on a Socially Liberal/Fiscally Conservative movement to replace a portion of the republican party and expand it's base by drawing in democrats too.

thoughts?


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Sounds like an ad campaign for democrats. That was how we got Obama 1 and 2 and will get Hilary or a close copy.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Nah! He'll declare a crisis, suspend ellections indefinitely and continue to rule as The first American Dictator


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

lancestar2 said:


> You know at times I get so flipping sick of this debate about illgeal immergartion (I was going to post a comment in another thread but thought this topic needed it's own thread)
> 
> The real reason why Democrats and Republicans are so passionate about this issue (not the citizens but the politicians, and media) is because this massive population of illegals if were given citizenship would mostly become mostly Democrats and vote for Democrats in office greatly helping the party! Republicans know this and that's why they are fighting tooth and nail to prevent this. Sure Republicans such as George W Bush never got serious on enforcing the boarder because he didn't want to push to hard making him loose the Latino vote of the ones that were here legally! It's because the republican party has been forced to walk a thin line between securing the boarder completely (causing the latino vote to completely leave the party) and full out support of legalization of them all (upsetting the core of the party) it's there inability to act that is causing the party to loose it's control.
> 
> ...


It has been decreed.


----------



## lancestar2 (Jul 8, 2013)

Smitty901 said:


> Sounds like an ad campaign for democrats. That was how we got Obama 1 and 2 and will get Hilary or a close copy.


well, if the republican part was socially liberal while ACTUALLY being fiscally Conservative then the republican party would be able to stand a chance against Hilary in 2016. The republican party policies tend to be more Socially conservative and Fiscally Liberal. Republicans have done nothing but posturing and beating around the bush when it comes to the budget. A costly military budget, tax cuts for the wealthy, desires for expensive boarder control, and continuing the costly war on drugs.

I would give the republican party a second change if they came up with a realistic solution to balance the budget and start paying down the debt. Not a play of deception while they create policies that only are in the best interest of the people funding there multi-million dollar campaign.

The current model of a Socially conservative and Fiscally Liberal. Republican party is not popular and if it continues surly we will see Hillary in office 2016. Plus if Hillary is elected into office it's very likely she will be in there for two terms and 16 years under democratic rule... sure might make some light red states become more blue leaning states. Heck even the last election FOX News was so stupid to even claim that Minnesota was a "swing state" :lol: ...look up the last time Minnesota voted for a Republican President it's way before I was born! back in 1972!

Republican party has policies that don't seem to connect with the younger generation. Which basic math means the Republican party is moving in a direction of decay. So is there anything that can/should be done to prevent a one party government? Or is it time to just give up and or deny it exists? Maybe that's a to harsh maybe you guys just wanna check out play golf and let the younger generation figure it out lol...


----------



## mwhartman (Jun 26, 2012)

You are giving too much credit to both parties. Neither want to solve this issue. It is part of the plan to destroy the Republic. Additionally, securing the border could reduce or restrict the flow of drugs. There is too much money involved so the drugs continue to pour into America. 

Allowing these illegals to remain in America will strain the already damaged system. The bigger threat is the disease that these illegals are bringing with them. The gangs that are crossing into America are increasing. While not as large as the Hispanic illegals there is a large group of Middle Eastern crossing via the Southern border. 

Be thankful that you have taken steps to protect your families. The next several months have the potential to create a lot of damage to our way of life.


Just my two cents.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Historically, both parties have trampled the constitution, stolen our freedoms and restricted our rights.

My vote is to re-establish the constitutional limits placed on the federal government. My vote is for freedom for every individual lawfully in the United States. My vote is for the release of the stranglehold on our rights. My vote is for a clear conscience.

*My vote is Libertarian*


----------



## Piratesailor (Nov 9, 2012)

There is no such thing as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Impossible. You have to pay for your liberal programs and that requires money. I hate when people use that term. You're one or the other but not both.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

PaulS said:


> Historically, both parties have trampled the constitution, stolen our freedoms and restricted our rights.
> 
> My vote is to re-establish the constitutional limits placed on the federal government. My vote is for freedom for every individual lawfully in the United States. My vote is for the release of the stranglehold on our rights. My vote is for a clear conscience.
> 
> *My vote is Libertarian*


And, I can respect that. What I cannot respect is Ron Paul and folks of his ilk. He ran as a Libertarian; found he could not get elected as a Libertarian then switched back to the Republican Party only to make trouble. It is the Paul followers that are RINOs. The Republican Parity has had its liberal and conservative branches as long as I can remember.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

This is how I would proceed with the illegal children problem:

State governors should accept those destined to their state. They should have the older children 12 and above checked for criminal activity other than entering the US illegally. Those with a history of illegal participation should be accompanied back to their home by relatives and law enforcement officers of the state.

The parents and relatives of the remaining children should be declared of child endangerment and all children from those family's taken into state custody. The governors should ask churches to sponsor a child or children that are siblings. These children should be kept in church sponsored care or put up for adoption.

Do this one time and this crap would stop!


----------



## Titan6 (May 19, 2013)

I dont agree with either party for the simple fact they are human and lawyers which they stacked the deck for themselves and long forgot about the people they are suppose to represent look at the personal wealth of every politician before they came into power and now and during their reign this will verify what i am saying.. I am a Liberal conservative which by my definition you can pretty much what you want yourself but when it goes outside you and affects others then you have crossed the line...In the end we all will be judge for what we have done with our lives let the almighty do the judging I have other thing to worry about other then someone else making mistakes!! I do vote but not by party but by how close the candidate and their record is to my beliefs. Its all we can do!!


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

PaulS said:


> Historically, both parties have trampled the constitution, stolen our freedoms and restricted our rights.
> 
> My vote is to re-establish the constitutional limits placed on the federal government. My vote is for freedom for every individual lawfully in the United States. My vote is for the release of the stranglehold on our rights. My vote is for a clear conscience.
> 
> *My vote is Libertarian*


 100% your right to do so. And will without a doubt means 4 more years of the same old thing we have had of the last two terms.
I am not a republican never have been. I am a conservative big difference.


----------



## shootbrownelk (Jul 9, 2014)

Smitty901 said:


> Sounds like an ad campaign for democrats. That was how we got Obama 1 and 2 and will get Hilary or a close copy.


 You mean that "Native American" Elizabeth Warren?? And yeah Smitty, O'Bummer really IS #2!


----------



## lancestar2 (Jul 8, 2013)

Piratesailor said:


> There is no such thing as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Impossible. You have to pay for your liberal programs and that requires money. I hate when people use that term. You're one or the other but not both.


Well, Libertarian views are liberal as long as they are free  such as A women right to choose, same sex marriage, pot legalization, Religious freedoms (for ALL religions not just the popular ones) to name the ones off the top of my head. Other issues such as welfare programs, tax payer funded condoms or birth control, and other issues that cost the state funds that would be a *NO!*

I would also include the right to bear arms and less interference with gun rights as a social issue too thought it's branded by the media as a "republican issue"



Smitty901 said:


> 100% your right to do so. And will without a doubt means 4 more years of the same old thing we have had of the last two terms.
> I am not a republican never have been. I am a conservative big difference.


Not really if your supporting the Republican canidate on the Presidential ticket. Perhaps in your local government there is a bigger difference but for the federal government eyes if your voting for the (R) your an (R)

I would also agree with ya PalmettoTree that Ron Paul should not have went back to the Republican party and should have ran 3rd party. His belief was that a 3rd party canidate didn't have a chance to win. I am hopeful in the next several years we will see more and more Republicans and Democrats branching off into the already established Libertarian party I mean it's already the 3rd largest political party! 

Rand Paul is following in his dad's footsteps trying to change the party within though he is a more "watered down libertarian" I still think that is a wrong direction and with the internet and the new media a 3rd party candidate should still have a shot at victory! Though I think it needs to be a much more grass roots movement in establishing Libertarian congressional districts, and senate seats on both state and federal levels. People with Libertarian views tend to cling to the republican party which I think prevents success of the movement because there progress and message gets washed down by the Republican party.

I think if they divided then they BOTH would have the opportunity to figure out there own parties clear message they can agree. Which would make the democrats look out of touch and left holding a unclear message and with no clear direction.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

I wish we could vote none of the above and make both parties find new candidates.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

SARGE7402 said:


> Nah! He'll declare a crisis, suspend elections indefinitely and continue to rule as The first American Dictator


Like hell he will...


----------



## lancestar2 (Jul 8, 2013)

dsdmmat said:


> I wish we could vote none of the above and make both parties find new candidates.


haha I would agree, however I feel like some sick joke Romney and Hillary would just keep comming back like a Ipod shuffel stuck on the same song and you just can't skip to the next one because every time you hit next it just starts the song over from the beginning and you just gotta keep listening to that song! :shock:


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Rand Paul Has some sanity to him he has not lost his mind. He also does not agree with a lot of his fathers rants.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

I think Rand Paul political position might be best described as Conservatarian. :lol:


----------



## LunaticFringeInc (Nov 20, 2012)

Its hard to argue against you pretty well thought out post and its pretty on target. However where I disagree with you is on the mind set of the 20 something voter and splitting the republican party.

The 20 something voter is what I often feel like falls into the category of a Low Information Voter. Most don't really understand the issues and the uninteneded consequences that come with positions they often favor. They generally lean Fiscally Liberal and they are definitely hardcore Socially Liberal. This makes them easy targets for the Democrat Party. Some like my 24 year old nephew get it but most don't have a clue about responsibility and how the "real world" works.

Instead of the Republican Party splitting I think there is more to be gained by pushing hard and supporting canadiates that are Tea Party Conservatives or at least more Libertarian leaning Conservatives. I think its easier to high jack the current inept Republican Party than it is to split it and end up with three parties that cant possibly pose a serious threat to the Democrats power anytime in the next 20 years under the best of circumstances, I don't think we have 8 years to play with much less that long for either group to become a force to be reckoned with. Obviously the Republican party in its current format is a lost cause and couldn't win if they were running against a convicted child rapist and murderer. Most of the Republicans serving are too piss poor to be considered anything more than Democrat Lite at best!


----------



## pharmer14 (Oct 27, 2012)

LunaticFringeInc said:


> Its hard to argue against you pretty well thought out post and its pretty on target. However where I disagree with you is on the mind set of the 20 something voter and splitting the republican party.
> 
> The 20 something voter is what I often feel like falls into the category of a Low Information Voter. Most don't really understand the issues and the uninteneded consequences that come with positions they often favor. They generally lean Fiscally Liberal and they are definitely hardcore Socially Liberal. This makes them easy targets for the Democrat Party. Some like my 24 year old nephew get it but most don't have a clue about responsibility and how the "real world" works.


As a 20-something, I couldn't disagree more. I just pray it's not wishful thinking.

I hope my generation sees the failed fiscal paths of both Republicans and Democrats on a national level and their parents on a family/local level. We are a society DROWNING in debt from the household to the White House.

I tell you one thing, as soon as I'm done paying off my school loans, I am DONE with debt PERIOD... at least on the personal level... now if we could just get the con(gress)men and other politicians in DC to figure that out...


----------



## pharmer14 (Oct 27, 2012)

Seneca said:


> I think Rand Paul political position might be best described as Conservatarian. :lol:


Rand is currently a political flirt... something his father was unwilling to do... maybe a lesson learned?

I tend to echo the sentiments of Glenn Beck here. I don't care how you define yourself politically. It's about 10-20% of the country that has their collective panties in a twist. The rest of us are everyday average Joes who just want to be left alone.

To really activate that 80-90%, Rand has to engage multiple camps. It's why you see him taking his message to places like Detroit and Silicone Valley.

I hope it works...


----------



## lancestar2 (Jul 8, 2013)

LunaticFringeInc said:


> Its hard to argue against you pretty well thought out post and its pretty on target. However where I disagree with you is on the mind set of the 20 something voter and splitting the republican party.
> 
> The 20 something voter is what I often feel like falls into the category of a Low Information Voter. Most don't really understand the issues and the uninteneded consequences that come with positions they often favor. They generally lean Fiscally Liberal and they are definitely hardcore Socially Liberal. This makes them easy targets for the Democrat Party. Some like my 24 year old nephew get it but most don't have a clue about responsibility and how the "real world" works.
> 
> Instead of the Republican Party splitting I think there is more to be gained by pushing hard and supporting canadiates that are Tea Party Conservatives or at least more Libertarian leaning Conservatives. I think its easier to high jack the current inept Republican Party than it is to split it and end up with three parties that cant possibly pose a serious threat to the Democrats power anytime in the next 20 years under the best of circumstances, I don't think we have 8 years to play with much less that long for either group to become a force to be reckoned with. Obviously the Republican party in its current format is a lost cause and couldn't win if they were running against a convicted child rapist and murderer. Most of the Republicans serving are too piss poor to be considered anything more than Democrat Lite at best!


I do see your logic as splitting the party would ensure a democratic leadership for another 8 years at least. However, honestly how do you think that tea party candidates will attract more younger voters? You said so it yourself many younger people have not yet learned how to be fiscally responsible yet and if the tea party leans socially conservation (against gay marriage, aborting rights, pot legalization) How is the party going to get the young vote to ensure they will get a president elected?

Democrates have the "welfare population" or whatever you want to call them the people on welfare programs won't suddenly vote for less ability to collect welfare so it's a dangerous cycle of ensuring lifetime democrats. With younger people starting off as leaning towards democrats (socially liberal fiscally liberal) What in the world can the Republican party offer them? Tea Party leaning candidates?

Tea Party canidates who are socially conservative will not be gaining ground in recruiting younger people as the younger generation are much more socially liberal. Libertarian leaning candidates I think can help rally the party but belonging to a party that is against many of the policies they stand for seems confusing.

Republican party stands for keeping pot illegal, controlling abortions and more regulations, against same sex marriage, and Libertarians are on the complete other side of the issue. Having a republican party that has canidates on both side of the issues for several major key social issues really may not allow a clear message to encourage more people to join the party.

Of course there is the issue of Republicans not really doing anything to help be fiscally conservative and balance the budget, although if we work hard to restore fiscal conservatism would it be in vain? Would the younger voters flock to the party to replace older voters? hmm... not likely I think but your thoughts?



pharmer14 said:


> As a 20-something, I couldn't disagree more. I just pray it's not wishful thinking.
> 
> I hope my generation sees the failed fiscal paths of both Republicans and Democrats on a national level and their parents on a family/local level. We are a society DROWNING in debt from the household to the White House.
> 
> I tell you one thing, as soon as I'm done paying off my school loans, I am DONE with debt PERIOD... at least on the personal level... now if we could just get the con(gress)men and other politicians in DC to figure that out...


I do think there is many people who are waking up and realizing our parents are a bit crazy as they own a 2,500 sq ft. house a boat, 2 cars, and countless other toys. I think the recession was a wake up call for many mostly me. I know once I graduate from college I will be working my butt off working full time and working on my own business on the side to pay off my loans and work towards buying my own home! I will make sure it's a small house so the utilities bill is also small! In return I should be able to work towards getting off the grid living on low energy consumption (low costs) and won't own a car but a lovely bike maybe a scooter too once I got a few more nickles to rub together. It's a whole new breed of people that are realizing that while our incomes are shrinking and costs are going up we can restore our "middle class" status simply by adjusting what we define as middle class. I have had a car for many years now and when it broke down I said so what didn't fix it and got rid of it! It only costs me more and more!

Same thing with government we need to cut the policies that just cost us over and over again pot enforcement is one of them welfare programs is another, corporate loopholes (like Walgreens becoming a swiss company to save in taxes is wrong) I am optimsitic that my generation has some very smart people... then again we have a large population of welfare people who are not looking to rise above and take pride in themselves so the future is 50/50 how many people can wake up and how many sink into the welfare cycle.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." Cicero - 55 BC 

Those who fail to learn from history are bound to repeat it!

A socially liberal person believes that the rights and freedoms of the individual should not be mandated by the majority - it's called a republic for a reason. 
A fiscal conservative believes that the government should not spend taxes unless it is good for all the population. I believe those two concepts fit in very nicely with the constitutionally controlled republic in which we live!


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Union email came today. Libertarian and green party votes will weaken the conservative vote and swing Wisconsin back to liberal control this election cycle. Urges members not to engage or offend Libertarian and green party members .
A brief and limited control of the state was taken by conservatives and a 3 billion dollar deficit was turned into a 1 billion dollar surplus in 2 years. Most of the surplus was returned to the tax payers. And not once has property taxes gone up sense Walker took office.
Be fore him they went up every year.
UW systems was caught hiding 1 billion dollars in student tuition funds for their own use. While trying to raise Tuition claiming to be broke.
So it the union is correct it will be right back to same old sh..
Libertarian and green party was the reason we had Doyle for all those years.


----------



## tango (Apr 12, 2013)

The end of the Republican party started a long time ago, they are Demo light.
The only hope for conservative's is the Tea Party


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

The Libertarians are tied more closely to the constitution than the Tea Party. The Tea party wants the federal government to make mandates that are just as unconstitutional as what is going on now - just on the opposite side if the bird. 

I don't need or want the federal government to tell me what I can or can't do - no matter how conservative they are. I want the freedoms and rights that are my birthright. I want a constitutionally limited federal government that protects my freedoms and my rights to make individual choices for myself. 

My vote is for the constitution. My vote is for individual liberty. My vote is for my conscience. My vote is Libertarian!


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Libertarian vote is just a back door liberal vote. An excuse to say I did not vote for Obama but still got him elected. It will work the same way for Hilary or her copy.


----------



## lancestar2 (Jul 8, 2013)

Smitty901 said:


> Union email came today. Libertarian and green party votes will weaken the conservative vote and swing Wisconsin back to liberal control this election cycle. Urges members not to engage or offend Libertarian and green party members .
> A brief and limited control of the state was taken by conservatives and a 3 billion dollar deficit was turned into a 1 billion dollar surplus in 2 years. Most of the surplus was returned to the tax payers. And not once has property taxes gone up sense Walker took office.
> Be fore him they went up every year.
> UW systems was caught hiding 1 billion dollars in student tuition funds for their own use. While trying to raise Tuition claiming to be broke.
> ...


The Libertarian party also weakens the Democratic party (I think the green party greatly hurts the Democratic party than the Republican party) Like I said before, I used to be a democratic. I even voted for Obama back in 2008 but was disappointed when the hope and change was nothing but a lie. I later switched to Gary Johnson in 2012 and I now vote 3rd party whenever I can.

I don't understand why people are so fearful of voting for who they believe would do the best job. Instead they want to vote for one of the two parties because they think they only have a shot. Well I got news for ya the unthinkable can happen and you should vote for who you think would do the best job. Maybe it's because I'm from Minnesota where we "shocked the world" back in 1998

Minnesota gubernatorial election, 1998 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He won with 37% so in a 3 way or a 4 way race the amount of votes you need to win gets smaller and smaller. When that happens you can have bigger grass roots movements because you can affect more change because you don't need as much effort (AKA Money)


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

If, in your mind, voting for the constitution is a "back door liberal vote" then what is voting for a party that gave you the first semi-auto weapons ban, the Patriot Act, and DHS?

I vote for the constitution while you want to promote a slow loss of our rights and freedoms... and you call what I did liberal? Hahahaha! Smitty, voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.


----------



## LunaticFringeInc (Nov 20, 2012)

The biggest problem the Republicans have is sticking to their principals instead of capitulating to what ever push poll they have going out there that day on a topic that they think makes them look PC. They are too busy looking like they care for anything that could be considered Constitutional or conservative while acting quiet the opposite when its time to cast their vote on a bill. Republicans cant get the yonger crowd, they have been indoctrinated in the bastion of liberism called public education and until they put forth a true conservative candidate that can articulate a true conservative message it doesn't matter who the canadate is they don't have a chance. As long as 50 plus percent of Americans are on welfare in some form or another Republicans are never gonna win an election that matters Why do you think democrats keep expanding the programs and why do you think they refuse to have borders in this country...only so many dead people can vote in elections. But with no proof of citizen ship and no voter id laws, illegals can show up and vote and vote often. Staes that issue them drivers licenses only enlarge the problem of determining whos legal and whos not.

Lets face it, we are headed to 3rd world status and will be as corrupt as the Tijuana Police and as broke as Argentina. That's this countries future!


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

PaulS said:


> If, in your mind, voting for the constitution is a "back door liberal vote" then what is voting for a party that gave you the first semi-auto weapons ban, the Patriot Act, and DHS?
> 
> I vote for the constitution while you want to promote a slow loss of our rights and freedoms... and you call what I did liberal? Hahahaha! Smitty, voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.


His point is sound. You did not vote with the intention of electing Obama, but by splitting votes away from the only opponent with a chance, your vote didn't help to keep him out of office.
Yes, you can feel good about your vote, and you should, but you have to understand how it affected the outcome.
Liberals will contiue to beat conservatives at the ballot box because they know to not spit their forces. Conservatives, however, vote our conscience and end up splintering ourselves apart.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

The libertarian party is about equally made up of conservative and liberals alike. (party statistics)

On the other hand, if all those who vote for what they themselves consider the lesser of two evils voted Libertarian, then the libertarians would be the biggest party in the USA.

That is exactly what happened the year Lincoln was elected.


The republican party has no principals! They gave us the first "assault weapons" ban, the DHS, and the TSA. They have stripped our first, second, fourth and fifth amendment rights at least as often as the democrats. Look at the history of the party! 

If you want to save America you will have to vote Libertarian because the "other two guys" are just going to continue to trample on the constitution.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

How about, instead of picking the candidate with the least likely shot to win, we focus on FIXING the one that can?
Sitting back on one's laurels will ensure this country fails. We need to right the fight in the big dog, not throw support behind a chihuahua.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> How about, instead of picking the candidate with the least likely shot to win, we focus on FIXING the one that can?
> Sitting back on one's laurels will ensure this country fails. We need to right the fight in the big dog, not throw support behind a chihuahua.


Yeah but what's gonna happen is some will vote Libertarian, some won't vote because the perfect candidate won't be out there and some will vote Constitutional Party. These people will assure that the king will get his third term or hillary gets elected.

Say what you will about the Dems but they will fully back their candidate. They are also smart enough to know that splitting the conservative vote will help them with a win. That's why they will fund the Libertarian Candidate. This was proven in Virginia.

Until conservatives figure this out, the left will stay in power AND may regain both houses in Congress.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

So by living in a dream world of prefect constitutional rule. With the likes of a nut named Ron Pual and pot every where we instead get. a New King. One that has all but wiped out the constitution as we knew it. And are doomed to another 4 years of the same thing. No wonder our union chancels cash to the party to help get Dems in office it works. Smoke on at least you will to stoned to know what is going on around you .
Give me my POT above all else.
If Ron Pual had his way there would be no America it would be over run and he would do nothing to stop it.


----------



## lancestar2 (Jul 8, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> How about, instead of picking the candidate with the least likely shot to win, we focus on FIXING the one that can?
> Sitting back on one's laurels will ensure this country fails. We need to right the fight in the big dog, not throw support behind a chihuahua.


hmm... it does sound like a good idea in theory however, how will that task be achieved? When a candidate is running for elected office they usually have there minds made up on the issues (based on personal opinion and polling numbers) what incentive will they have by changing there views? Just considering Romney was against many social issue he clearly would not be drawing support from people of Socially liberal views. Also with no clear set plan on the budget, he wouldn't be making waves in changes to help the country balance it's budget... So how can we change or fix the candidates on the issues when they are already running for office?


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

How do we, as voters, fix the corruption of the political system by voting for the "lesser" corrupt individual or party?

This is a systemic problem that is beyond our control. We have no way to prosecute the individuals who take money to enact legislation on behalf of corporate kingpins. 
We have no way to remove or punish individuals who operate beyond the purview of the constitution. 

We can't even call for a constitutional convention without the support of the very criminals we want to stop. I am sure that this is not the free republic that the founders had in mind when the constitution was ratified.

There has to be a revolt among the voters to get people of good character and knowledge of the constitution in office.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

First are you happy with what we have today? Probably not. Everyone that did not vote for Romney helped to put this fool in office. 

Second, do you want more of the same? Just go ahead and vote like you all did in 2008 & 2012 and you can be assured of the outcome.

Third, you want to change things? Then the time to start is right now with the elections coming up in November.

Fourth Just cause you think they are criminals, doesn't make them so. If they are breaking a law, then you're right. However, if what they are doing is within the scope of current laws branding them as criminals is no different than what Hitler did to the Jews after he came to power.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

PaulS said:


> How do we, as voters, fix the corruption of the political system by voting for the "lesser" corrupt individual or party?
> 
> This is a systemic problem that is beyond our control. We have no way to prosecute the individuals who take money to enact legislation on behalf of corporate kingpins.
> We have no way to remove or punish individuals who operate beyond the purview of the constitution.
> ...


I have an answer for you:

The American electorate has got to become people of integrity and people of their word. Practice what you preach and never forget that you reap what you sow. If you have bad politicians, it's because you planted bad seeds with unworthy deeds. The politicians are bad because the people, as a whole, are representative of the leadership they've chosen.

If we want better leaders, we have to set an example for good people to follow.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Resister,
I did not select any but one of the "representatives" that occupy Washington, D.C., yet I have to live with what the majority of the voting public puts in place.
The politicians are "bad" because they learn very quickly that they can make a lot of money by pandering to special interests and ignoring their own vow and conscience.
How does the ignorant voter know what the virtues of a candidate are? Let's face it politics in this country is, for the most part, a popularity contest and not a matter of choosing reputable men and women to represent us.

Saying that a population needs to change to elect good candidates is like saying the oceans would be bigger if there was less land. How would you go about changing a population that doesn't want change?

The system is inherently corrupt. It would be easier to change the system than to change the people.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

PaulS said:


> We can't even call for a constitutional convention without the support of the very criminals we want to stop. I am sure that this is not the free republic that the founders had in mind when the constitution was ratified.
> 
> There has to be a revolt among the voters to get people of good character and knowledge of the constitution in office.


Actually, there is a method for citizens and state legislatures to amend the constitution without consent from congress or the president. We have the power, stated in the constitutuon, to do this as part of the amendment process.
That's a start.
If the thugs in D.C. won't listen, we'll have an easier time getting our state reps to fall in line.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

You are suggesting that we could convince at least 2/3 of the state representative of at least 2/3 of the states to pass the corrections to the constitution without screwing up...

You have a great deal more faith in state governments than I.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

PaulS said:


> You are suggesting that we could convince at least 2/3 of the state representative of at least 2/3 of the states to pass the corrections to the constitution without screwing up...
> 
> You have a great deal more faith in state governments than I.


My faith ONLY lies with the STATE government.
Where is yours?


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

My faith is in the Creator - the others have to show me evidence.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

PaulS said:


> Resister,
> I did not select any but one of the "representatives" that occupy Washington, D.C., yet I have to live with what the majority of the voting public puts in place.
> The politicians are "bad" because they learn very quickly that they can make a lot of money by pandering to special interests and ignoring their own vow and conscience.
> How does the ignorant voter know what the virtues of a candidate are? Let's face it politics in this country is, for the most part, a popularity contest and not a matter of choosing reputable men and women to represent us.
> ...


why not at article 48 from the Wiemar Constitution (Article 48 (Weimar Constitution) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

Then what the boyo at 1600 PaAVE is doing would be constitutional


----------



## AquaHull (Jun 10, 2012)

mwhartman said:


> You are giving too much credit to both parties. Neither want to solve this issue. It is part of the plan to destroy the Republic. Additionally, securing the border could reduce or restrict the flow of drugs. There is too much money involved so the drugs continue to pour into America.
> 
> Allowing these illegals to remain in America will strain the already damaged system. The bigger threat is the disease that these illegals are bringing with them. The gangs that are crossing into America are increasing. While not as large as the Hispanic illegals there is a large group of Middle Eastern crossing via the Southern border.
> 
> ...


And that is it in a nutshell folks.::clapping::


----------



## AquaHull (Jun 10, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Actually, there is a method for citizens and state legislatures to amend the constitution without consent from congress or the president. We have the power, stated in the constitutuon, to do this as part of the amendment process.
> That's a start.
> If the thugs in D.C. won't listen, we'll have an easier time getting our state reps to fall in line.


Once the Constitution is opened up,there will go your 1st and 2nd amendments.
Those 2 are amendments you know and can be voted out like the 14th was.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

AquaHull said:


> Once the Constitution is opened up,there will go your 1st and 2nd amendments.
> Those 2 are amendments you know and can be voted out like the 14th was.


Doing away with the entire Bill of Rights would not affect our rights in the least. Our rights existed before there was a constitution and they will exist without one. The constitution does not provide our rights, It just tells the federal government that they are supposed to protect them.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> My faith ONLY lies with the STATE government.
> Where is yours?


God I have little faith in man


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

The only constitution you have is the one 5 or 9 justices say you have. They are appointed by the president to a life long office.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

PaulS said:


> Doing away with the entire Bill of Rights would not affect our rights in the least. Our rights existed before there was a constitution and they will exist without one. The constitution does not provide our rights, It just tells the federal government that they are supposed to protect them.


When the govt is through, those rights will still exist but you will have no access to them. Many govt's have made it their goal to limit individual rights. That's called power and this is what politicians live for.



Smitty901 said:


> God I have little faith in man


And even less faith in politicians.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

AquaHull said:


> Once the Constitution is opened up,there will go your 1st and 2nd amendments.
> Those 2 are amendments you know and can be voted out like the 14th was.


Conventions to propose amendments are not the same as constitutional conventions. They don't allow for a rewrite of the document, only amendments to it. Also, they are controlled by the people, so there would be little chance that our current protections would be altered much.

And like Paul said, a complete wipe of the constitution does not remove your natural rights. It just wouldn't explicitly recognize them, but that's only formality really. They need not be recognized nor protected by a governmental entity to still be valid and exercisable.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Conventions to propose amendments are not the same as constitutional conventions. They don't allow for a rewrite of the document, only amendments to it. Also, they are controlled by the people, so there would be little chance that our current protections would be altered much.
> 
> And like Paul said, a complete wipe of the constitution does not remove your natural rights. It just wouldn't explicitly recognize them, but that's only formality really. They need not be recognized nor protected by a governmental entity to still be valid and exercisable.


All meaningless. What the constitution says and means in the end is decided by 5 of the 9.
As for any other way you except to enjoy any right good luck


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Smitty901 said:


> All meaningless. What the constitution says and means in the end is decided by 5 of the 9.
> As for any other way you except to enjoy any right good luck


You are wholly incorrect. 
We the people decide what it means, and when those we've placed in authority deem otherwise, we the people reserve the God given right to revolt and form a new government. Don't sound so defeated. It is better to die for what is right than to live as a slave under what is wrong.

You hold the power, but *they* work tirelessly to convince you otherwise.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

The Bill of Rights is not for establishing rights but for protecting them. There are rights like property rights that you have but unprotected they are abused. An example of your abused rights are income taxes and property taxes.

Paul completely misunderstands the purpose of the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Wallimiyama (Oct 18, 2012)

Piratesailor said:


> There is no such thing as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Impossible. You have to pay for your liberal programs and that requires money. I hate when people use that term. You're one or the other but not both.


Of course there is... I don't care if two men want to marry each other...just don't ask me to pay for it. I don't care if you want to have 17 kids by different fathers...just don't ask me to pay for it. I don't care if you want an abortion, just don't ask me to pay for it.

The list goes on and on. There are many socially liberal, fiscal conservatives out here. I'm a small "L" libertarian. The party is goofy at times, so I'm not talking about them, but the concept of judging all legislation and governmental policy by how it affects my personal freedom is sound.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

The constitution was written to limit the federal powers to what was granted in the constitution. Nowhere in the constitution does it give any branches of the government the power to restrict or modify our rights. The bill of rights was added to insure the federal government's protection of those rights. See the ninth amendment:

9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

PalmettoTree said:


> Paul completely misunderstands the purpose of the Bill of Rights.


Surely you're not talking about Paul with an 'S' on the end.
His understanding of the constitution is as sound as the ones who wrote it.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> You are wholly incorrect.
> We the people decide what it means, and when those we've placed in authority deem otherwise, we the people reserve the God given right to revolt and form a new government. Don't sound so defeated. It is better to die for what is right than to live as a slave under what is wrong.
> 
> You hold the power, but *they* work tirelessly to convince you otherwise.


 That may all sound good but has nothing to do with the real world. The only say we have is who we elect. The Supreme Court rules on any dispute or challenge to the Constitution it takes on. They Tell us what it says and what it means and that is law until we can change the court and get a new ruling. Not easy to do. So when 5 of the 9 tell you the 2nd does not apply to private citizens own or having fire arms that is the law and no congress or president can change that.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Smitty,
The only difference between what is and what should be is one individual standing up. If the supreme court were to say that the 2nd amendment no longer exists there would be at least 150 million of the 300 million gun owners that would put in place a new court.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Smitty901 said:


> So when 5 of the 9 tell you the 2nd does not apply to private citizens own or having fire arms that is the law and no congress or president can change that.


You're right.
It becomes the job of the *citizen* to correct them.
We The People are the last line of defense in protecting our rights.
They cannot be taken away unless we allow it through passiveness.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> You're right.
> It becomes the job of the *citizen* to correct them.
> We The People are the last line of defense in protecting our rights.
> They cannot be taken away unless we allow it through passiveness.


Are you going to rush the Supreme Court with rifle blazing?
I'll hold your coat.
For all the chest thumping I read on forums I frequent, there will never be an uprising of the citizenry in armed revolution. And that is one of the few, if not only, avenues remaining at this point.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

I firmly believe that there will be an armed resistance at some point, maybe even a civil war. I would rather solve the issue peacefully but whatever it takes we will keep our rights and our republic.


----------



## mwhartman (Jun 26, 2012)

PaulS said:


> I firmly believe that there will be an armed resistance at some point, maybe even a civil war. I would rather solve the issue peacefully but whatever it takes we will keep our rights and our republic.


I'm optimistic but I fear the groundwork has been laid that will take us down the path you of an internal conflict!


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

I don't know, Paul. The liberal/progressive/socialists love the direction the country is headed.
The constitutionalist/conservative/libertarians can't even decide on cantidates to run for office. I don't think "they" could come up with even a local resistance unit, let alone a mass organization.
Tim McVeigh and his buddies thought they could start a popular uprising. How did that work out?
Yeah, maybe I'm just pessimistic, but seeing what this country has become in just my lifetime had a lot to do with that.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Are you going to rush the Supreme Court with rifle blazing?
> I'll hold your coat.
> For all the chest thumping I read on forums I frequent, there will never be an uprising of the citizenry in armed revolution. And that is one of the few, if not only, avenues remaining at this point.


There actually was one in 1946. Battle of Athens (1946) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Yes, the "battle of Athens" was a revolt that took the towns people 3 years of obvious corruption to end. In the end the corrupt were jailed and the militia was never charged with breaking any laws.
They did suffer some casualties but none very serious. The question is, how long would it take people to stand up against a corrupt federal government - and just how corrupt must it get?


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

SARGE7402 said:


> There actually was one in 1946. Battle of Athens (1946) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Look up the Bonus March.
See what happened to a group of WWI veterans.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

But in that one the citizens were unarmed and forcibly removed from their Encampment by Dug Out Doug.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

An armed resistance is inevitable.
It always is.
Down to the lowliest of peasants, with little to no hope of victory, armed revolt still blossoms.
In the end, it comes down to desperation. The masses have had enough of being treated in such a way, and decide that possible death for a cause is more appealing that continued destitution.

Will it be me that storms the steps of the Supreme Court?
Not likely.
But I'm a student of history, and history always repeats. (monarchy->oligarchy->anarchy->monarchy)
Do some digging into the fall of Rome. The parallels to our country's current path, and the one those Romans took, are astonishing.
Armed revolt ensued, quickly followed by a dictatorial iron fist being brought down to control it, and then the parade of Caesars.
We will repeat the same. I only hope we are collected enough in our efforts that we forgo the monarchy phase.

Humans will change their conditions, and we have proven throughout history that we can make great sacrifices for a cause we deem just.
When it comes to our current situation, we exhibit a much greater degree of passivity to our current state of affairs. Our recent ancestors would have labeled us traitors and called for our imprisonment by now, while they burned the capitol and hung the tyrants.
We'll reach that point eventually. History always repeats.

tl:dr - Basically, kick the cage long enough, the beast breaks loose.


----------

