Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A Republican who was a true small government, fiscal conservative but that supports treating gays like human beings and also keeping science in its rightful place.
Why is your question limited to "young" ppl? I think that there is a sizable part of the voting public that would poike their eyes out for such a candidate.
And the most attractive aspects of his message of liberty to young people: favoring legalization of drugs and opposing the Iraq War (he has recently turned against the Afghan war as well).
Many of Paul's ideas are closer to those of Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich than they are to the mainstream GOP. Other than Paul, what other Republican could be praised by Sean Penn (Penn made a speech at a university stating that Paul would have been his choice for US president if he'd ran in the general election and was criticized by Obama admirers for stating this)?
Well it is my assertion that the GOP has drifted away from its traditional conservative roots and moved towards the center and even embraced a liberal foreign policy.
There was a day when conservatives consisted of people who sought to keep government out of their bedrooms, not unquestioningly support something like the Patriot Act. There was a day when fiscal conservatism meant more than just yelling, lower taxes, as lowering taxes and not funding two wars is not a fiscally sound practice, its stupid. There was a day when conservatives opposed things like nation building, entangling foreign alliances, and wars not constitutionally declared. In fact there was a day when conservatives used to honor the constitution and did their best to work within the framework or by legally changing it, as opposed to recent revelations that the former administration sought to discard it as though it were burdensome.
I wouldn't say that people like Dennis Kucinich were like Ron Paul just because they were anti-war. As I don't think Ron Paul is necessarily anti-war as he is anti-unconstitutional war and anti-empire. Ralph Nader, while a champion for the little guy, sought to do much of this through further laws and regulations and the answer isn't always more laws as much as it is better laws.
Hmph. I wasn't able to vote yet in this past election, but I am considered Generation Y. That said, I'd have to disagree over the whole "70% voted for Obama because everyone else was." My guess is more like 40% of the young adults voted for him due to this. The remaining 60% did so because either they actually put faith in him, or because McCain was even less appealing.
I'm not all that young either I would, but not at a pressing time like this. cutting spending would do more harm than good right now. I know it sounds backwards but its true.
A Republican who was a true small government, fiscal conservative but that supports treating gays like human beings and also keeping science in its rightful place.
Always looking for such an individual regardless of party affiliation.
Absolutely. As long as in addition to being a fiscal conservative he realized that the government does have certain responsibilities that can't be skimped on.
But those types don't get very far ahead in the Republican Party.
I wonder why the ideal candidate has to fall into either the democratic or republican parties. It seems we would stand to benefit if we looked at people that made sense regardless of the party.
Republicans and small government just don't go hand in hand... when will people realize they say it but the actions don't coincide with the statements.
I think the biggest issue people have with democrats is this perception they want to tax the population to death and create massive welfare states. .... Seems to me both parties have done their share of taxing. I don't differentiate much in spending money for a weapon system vs welfare it is simply the guns or butter argument.
So how about a candidate that is for a decrease in government and its regulations, a reform of our welfare system, a reduction of taxes, then for $hits and grins lets ask them to have a high level of integrity that isn't for sale to large corporate desires and honesty. One that positions the US as an economic leader by policies that encourage investments at home, One that wants to position the US as independent from foreign oil, makes us strong not from war but our actions in the world. One that takes a solid position on the health of the environment as it is the right thing to do.
For extra measure lets keep them free of the 2 parties so theirs won't be to serve the interests of one over the other.
Finding this type of person would be better for us all and we could stop taking the actions that alienate us as groups. after all we are the UNITED States... seems we need to focus on the first part.
Well it is my assertion that the GOP has drifted away from its traditional conservative roots and moved towards the center and even embraced a liberal foreign policy.
There was a day when conservatives consisted of people who sought to keep government out of their bedrooms, not unquestioningly support something like the Patriot Act. There was a day when fiscal conservatism meant more than just yelling, lower taxes, as lowering taxes and not funding two wars is not a fiscally sound practice, its stupid. There was a day when conservatives opposed things like nation building, entangling foreign alliances, and wars not constitutionally declared. In fact there was a day when conservatives used to honor the constitution and did their best to work within the framework or by legally changing it, as opposed to recent revelations that the former administration sought to discard it as though it were burdensome.
I wouldn't say that people like Dennis Kucinich were like Ron Paul just because they were anti-war. As I don't think Ron Paul is necessarily anti-war as he is anti-unconstitutional war and anti-empire. Ralph Nader, while a champion for the little guy, sought to do much of this through further laws and regulations and the answer isn't always more laws as much as it is better laws.
This post sounds like you are describing the Southern Democrats of the 50s.
I wonder why the ideal candidate has to fall into either the democratic or republican parties. It seems we would stand to benefit if we looked at people that made sense regardless of the party.
Republicans and small government just don't go hand in hand... when will people realize they say it but the actions don't coincide with the statements.
I think the biggest issue people have with democrats is this perception they want to tax the population to death and create massive welfare states. .... Seems to me both parties have done their share of taxing. I don't differentiate much in spending money for a weapon system vs welfare it is simply the guns or butter argument.
So how about a candidate that is for a decrease in government and its regulations, a reform of our welfare system, a reduction of taxes, then for $hits and grins lets ask them to have a high level of integrity that isn't for sale to large corporate desires and honesty. One that positions the US as an economic leader by policies that encourage investments at home, One that wants to position the US as independent from foreign oil, makes us strong not from war but our actions in the world. One that takes a solid position on the health of the environment as it is the right thing to do.
For extra measure lets keep them free of the 2 parties so theirs won't be to serve the interests of one over the other.
Finding this type of person would be better for us all and we could stop taking the actions that alienate us as groups. after all we are the UNITED States... seems we need to focus on the first part.
I can get behind every single one of those sentiments 100% with exception of getting rid of regulation. That vague blanket statement is seriously to blame for the position we're in financially, and amounts to another credit card issued to idiots.
To claim no more "big gov't" but never specify where the cuts would happen (BTW, they simply got selective about law enforcement and strategically underfunding progressive sponsored agencies like EPA) leaves the door wide open for tricks. They turned what was a good idea into a destructive political tool. Now good luck selling the idea because it's been abused, and the GOP has no one to blame but themselves for being drunken on power. I don't blame the liberals one bit for their utter disgust because I share the sentiment.
Would the REAL GOP please stand up? How could it be that Clinton was the closest thing we've had to conservative for decades??? Why were liberals BEGGING the previous administration for conservative behavior??? Think about it folks! When kids are telling their own parents to grow up, there's a serious dysfunction going on in the family.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
