• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I miss Ron Paul Supporters

ModerateGOP said:
What throws that theory out of the water is Obama. Gather your own army up to enough people and the party establishment will sway your way. Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders weren't able to do that. Obama did.
Click to expand...

I mean on some front, aggregate support and there isn’t too much that can be done, less you completely rig your primaries, lol. But that being said, I don’t think Obama was really some “outsider”. He was a Chicago politician looking for name and power. A status quo Republocrat, he was never going to rock the boat. I don’t think the DNC really moved in any way to hamper him the likes they did with Sanders or the RNC did with Paul. The difference is that, while Ron and Bernie are on opposite ends, they had ideologies. A true political platform, they weren’t all Party Power. They had ideals they wanted to move towards and accomplish.

I don’t think the same was true of Obama, he was Republocrat, he was Party Power, he was Status Quo. And because he was a Chicago politician, he could be bought, he would play ball. Anyone coming out of Chicago is corrupt as all hell. So I don’t see Obama as even needing to sway the party establishment as he was part of that establishment. In fact, here he was an articulate black man that would toe the party line, it was all sorts of benefits for the DNC there.

He was popular, he did generate a lot of support, but I also don’t think the DNC threw much in the way of roadblocks his way. They were fine with him getting through. They wouldn’t have wanted a Bernie anymore than the RNC would have wanted a Ron. So for those two, there was a massive campaign to undermine them and prevent them from gaining traction.
 
ModerateGOP said:
What throws that theory out of the water is Obama. Gather your own army up to enough people and the party establishment will sway your way. Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders weren't able to do that. Obama did.
Click to expand...

You would have had a better point if you had said Trump. Obama had support from the DNC and was put forth by them. It wasn't a movement similar to Paul, Bernie, or Trump.
 
ModerateGOP said:
Thoughts? What do you think happened to the Paulbots? Did they become Trump supporters or did they become bernie supporters?
Click to expand...
I could see how they would get to be Bernie supports, although I hope they didn’t as it’d be purely reactionary; however, there was a lot of disillusionment from the enthusiastic campaign till now. Ron couldn’t pivot to bring in more political factions(or fully consolidate his base) to more Libertarian roots and move away from the conspiracy narratives that are great at making you think and challenging your political sacred cows but horrible beleifs to hold onto when trying to form coherent alternatives and practical policy platforms to combat a “Big and Growing Government”. I still find his “Liberty reports” an interesting take and have a deep respect for him. Ron movement though was not pragmatic and as such could never be anything more than a faction within larger political animals and thus I'd say you’ll see his “paulbots” spread and make homes in all the political tents from democratic, republican to libertarian based on their own personal disagreements with Ron.

Personally, as one who was influenced politically by his movement — I approved of the more traditional and optimistic Rand, and pretty much continue to cheer on his attempts at small and gradual reform and respect for the other republican factions. Although, he likely already been in politics too long and hence gaining its own set of issues. I still see him as representing real and practical policies for scaling back government that can appel to the bigger base and don’t rush into rapid reform.

As for Trump, once the field was narrowed to Kasich, Cruz and Trump I think they all had their cases to make. Trump supporters made a stronger case to me despite Cruz being more ideology aligned with Rand exactly because of the failures of Ron Paul to build those bridges one needs for good governance. Trump had the possibility of overcoming the ideological barriers to get real policy in palce.So if anyone of them are like me - they support Trump as a stepping stone between a government addicted populous and Ron Paul style small government dream.
 
I think most of them split up between Rand Paul and the Libertarian Party. I wouldn't be too surprised if a decent amount of them voted for Trump because of his anti war, pro business message. Bernie would be very unlikely. Democratic Socialism is much closer to the other end of the political spectrum.
 
ModerateGOP said:
I tend to agree, the policies are one and the same. Every far right policy Trump wants is something Paul once campaigned for.
Click to expand...

Those are not far right policies. Those are 100% mainstream common sense policies that a huge number of us out here in fly over country sincerely want our government to adopt.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Why wouldn't Ron Paul supporters support Trump's agenda?

Lower taxes? Check
Less regulation? Check
Less foreign intervention and meddling? Check
Fair trade? Check
Replace Obamacare? Check
Enforce immigration laws? Check
Balanced budget? Check
Get people off welfare and back to work? Check
Click to expand...


Less foreign intervention? Trumps on pace to exceed Obama in that department
Fair Trade? What has Trump done except shut down TPP? Its the same it has always been...We've seen words on twitter, great...
Replace Obamacare - With what? Every plan has been a failure and I don't expect this secret plan that is being conjured up in some back room to be any different....
Immigration Laws were already being enforced....
Balanced Budget? That revenue neutral tax plan is not going to work, and breaking campaign promises putting the sick and elderly at risk is hardly a good budget plan. .And I can't wait to see what Trump racks up constantly traveling to his resorts. He loves government, it pays for his trips....
 
LunaRose said:
Less foreign intervention? Trumps on pace to exceed Obama in that department
Fair Trade? What has Trump done except shut down TPP? Its the same it has always been...We've seen words on twitter, great...
Replace Obamacare - With what? Every plan has been a failure and I don't expect this secret plan that is being conjured up in some back room to be any different....
Immigration Laws were already being enforced....
Balanced Budget? That revenue neutral tax plan is not going to work, and breaking campaign promises putting the sick and elderly at risk is hardly a good budget plan. .And I can't wait to see what Trump racks up constantly traveling to his resorts. He loves government, it pays for his trips....
Click to expand...

The man has been in office for five months. You may be right that the haters, foot draggers, partisan whiners, and obstructionists will prevent him from succeeding. But there are millions and millions of us out here who hope he will succeed in accomplishing as much of the agenda he outlined as possible.
 
MrPeanut said:
I think most of them split up between Rand Paul and the Libertarian Party. I wouldn't be too surprised if a decent amount of them voted for Trump because of his anti war, pro business message. Bernie would be very unlikely. Democratic Socialism is much closer to the other end of the political spectrum.
Click to expand...

I won't lie Trump almost had me with the anti-war stuff, and I was correct that his opinion would change once in office. Every President campaigns on less foreign intervention but quickly adopts the status quo once in office. It is pretty much the one campaign promise you can simply ignore from any candidate.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Why wouldn't Ron Paul supporters support Trump's agenda?

Lower taxes? Check
Less regulation? Check
Less foreign intervention and meddling? Check
Fair trade? Check
Replace Obamacare? Check
Enforce immigration laws? Check
Balanced budget? Check
Get people off welfare and back to work? Check
Click to expand...

Increase Military spending, and bomb Syria.. OOPS.. That is a deal breaker for many libertarians.
 
RAMOSS said:
Increase Military spending, and bomb Syria.. OOPS.. That is a deal breaker for many libertarians.
Click to expand...

I rather think all Ron Paul supporters are not single issue people. If they can get 90% or better of their agenda from somebody, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't completely write off that somebody. If they are single issue people, then sure. They will condemn somebody for not agreeing with THEM on a single issue.

I have had a LOT of Presidents now and so far not a single one of them has not disappointed me on at least something or maybe a lot of somethings. But if I had it to do over, I would vote for the ones I voted for again.
 
Last edited:
RAMOSS said:
Increase Military spending, and bomb Syria.. OOPS.. That is a deal breaker for many libertarians.
Click to expand...

I think the key items that many Libertarians would disagree with:

Fair trade instead of Free trade
"Replace" instead of "Repeal" ACA
Increase in Drug war effort
The wall

There are more but those are just issues off the top of my head that would trouble Libertarians about Trumps agenda.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I rather think all Ron Paul supporters are not single issue people. If they can get 90% or better of their agenda from somebody, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't completely write off that somebody. If they are single issue people, then sure. They will condemn somebody for not agreeing with THEM on a single issue.

I have had a LOT of Presidents now and so far not a single one of them has not disappointed me on at least something or maybe a lot of somethings. But if I had it to do over, I would vote for the ones I voted for again.
Click to expand...

Its hard to overlook that issue though. The US has become a tyrant on the world stage that has violated the sovereignty of other countries pretending as if we are the knower of all that is good and pure with the right to put in place our views where ever we please. It's very hard to overlook the issue of someone supporting that position or promoting the tools that make it possible.
 
Nap said:
I think the key items that many Libertarians would disagree with:

Fair trade instead of Free trade
"Replace" instead of "Repeal" ACA
Increase in Drug war effort
The wall

There are more but those are just issues off the top of my head that would trouble Libertarians about Trumps agenda.
Click to expand...

Hum. Trumps 'fair trade' is not fair.

I think the sections that democrats and libertarians have in common are the 'fair trade', "Drug war effort" and 'The Wall"

 
RAMOSS said:
Hum. Trumps 'fair trade' is not fair.

I think the sections that democrats and libertarians have in common are the 'fair trade', "Drug war effort" and 'The Wall"

Click to expand...


Nope. Democrats want to heavily regulate and tax things like pot, while libertarians don't. Libertarians want to actually set pot free, while democrats just want to change how the government is controlling it.
 
RAMOSS said:
Hum. Trumps 'fair trade' is not fair.

I think the sections that democrats and libertarians have in common are the 'fair trade', "Drug war effort" and 'The Wall"

Click to expand...


Democrats tend to fall more on the authoritarian side so even if there are some common ground issues ultimately supporting them would be counter productive. If the small government conservatives could take over the Republican party there could be some room to work with. As it stands there is no party for Libertarians or classical Liberals.
 
Henrin said:
Its hard to overlook that issue though. The US has become a tyrant on the world stage that has violated the sovereignty of other countries pretending as if we are the knower of all that is good and pure with the right to put in place our views where ever we please. It's very hard to overlook the issue of someone supporting that position or promoting the tools that make it possible.
Click to expand...

The bombing in Syria was not acting as a tyrant. It was retaliation against a vicious attack in the most cruel and inhumane manner on a civilian population. It was a one time strike to emphasize that we as a people will not tolerate that. It was similar to Reagan's one time bombing of Lybia in retaliation of a terrorist attack that killed many innocents including Americans. Reagan had given fair warning we would not tolerate that and we didn't hear a peep out of Gaddafi for decades after that.

And Assad hasn't used any more chemical weapons on civilians since he now knows that won't be tolerated. The only thing that will give him motivation to do that now will be people who refuse to support our President in that action and who make him think Trump will be too timid to respond again under all that drum beat of negativity.

And I am a strong believer that a strong military capable of putting down any threat anywhere is the best deterrent against war that exists. Certainly timidity and appeasement has not accomplished anything good in that regard.

And you don't get any more libertarian than I am.
 
Cisero said:
Do you read the news ?
Click to expand...

Who have we meddled with? Foreign negotiations, soliciting support against a common enemy, and demanding an honest and fair deal for America is not 'meddling'. It is what I think informed and intelligent people expect our government to do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom