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.
Progressives have a history of infiltration and marginalization. They did it to the Democrats, at the turn of the last century. They are entwined with the Republican party(McCain, Graham...) 2010 got a lot of them out, but not all and they have tried like hell to stand and say they are tea party supporters, when some of their ideology is very Progressive.
The masks come off, when the end justifies the means.
Progressives, (of the right and left variety), do have a long history in the Republic. While they can't beat the two-party system, they do often shift the debate by proposing a platform that is so popular that one of the two parties realizes it should adopt it in order to get elected. I think the progressives are much more active in the conservatives ranks than in the liberal ones. The Democrats have their Kucinech and Sanders, but these guys don't have much traction with the American people.
For whatever reason, there seems to be a significant minority (slim majority?) of Americans who want to experiment with a greatly reduced federal government. These guys are not a new phenomona. They have been around for as long as I can remember ... I was born in 1976, and my political memory goes back to 1983 or so.
In my opinion, the Republican party has been shifting closer to its progressive wing for decades now. However, when it gets a chance to lead, it shows its true inclinations. The power of the federal goverment exploded in size under Bush. Besides the large-scale, two-front unconstitutional war, and the Patriot Act, he also did things like increase Medicare entitlements. Those in his administration clearly were not really interested in shrinking government.
If you all can't get what you want done under Bush (who is presumably about the most conservative person you're going to find under mainline Republican channels), now what?
I don't hear the same frustration in Democratic circles, but you can make a similar case about Obama. Obama could have at least closed Gitmo and ended the Patriot Act. But nope. So now what?
Interesting post that raises a lot of questions and things to think about.
No president can do everything he wants to-- he is of course constrained by what congress will allow him to do... or is he? The abuse of executive orders is spinning out of control and now we have an executive branch that is unbalanced, a branch that can set us on the path of war without so much as consulting with the legislature. A branch that can order states not enforce their own illegal immigration laws (thinking Arizona here). A branch that can cause its executive bodies to punish states for not agreeing with it (EPA, Department of Energy, Department of Education...etc). Basically, a branch with FAR too much power.
My favorite thing about Paul is that he will drastically scale back the power of the executive branch by disbanding whole units of executive powers (like Department of Education, Energy, Homeland Security). He also won't get us tangled up in wars that we can't win. He will definitely save this country money, which will help to reduce our bloated debt of 14 trillion. Sound economic policies may return to America-- wouldn't that be nice?
I agree with you that the executive has grown so large that it threatens our foundational principle of balance of power. For me, it's something I have been aware of for years because I received a good higher education, but it hasn't been something that has concerned me all that much.
I am curious at this point to see what a Ron Paul presidency would look like. I suspect that as he scaled back the federal government, state governments would grow more powerful to fill the void. As the federal government backed away from public education, state governments would have to step forward.
At the end of the day, if people didn't like the changes Paul made, they could go back. Four years is not an eternity.
I don't really support much of Ron Paul's agenda, but I know a lot of people do. I guess I'm growing increasingly annoyed with those people who really want Paul, but they are going to vote for Romney or someone like him. A vote for Romney is most definitely a vote for the status quo. People are honestly saying that they don't think the nation can survive another Obama term. (I don't believe this at all, by the way.) If you truly feel that way, you should not vote for Romney at all... because the factors you think are so dangerous they are threatening our very survival as a nation are barely going to change under Romney.
Middle of the road that leans to the left. No I'm not joking.
Go look at Joe's voting record and go look at Ron's voting record. The facts are presented to you on a platter. Will you take a bite?
Joe voted with the Progressive Democrats 85% of the time.
Paul has been right down the Constitutional line. Article 1, section 8
I don't disagree with anything you've said here ^^^
except Lieberman is not a Libertarian Are you sure
you know who he is...Just in case, here's a reminder:
No he is not! He is an American. A Constitutionalist.
He has nothing in common with Joe Liberman, a middle of the road Libertarian, that votes with the Progressives 85% of the time.
He is a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and he ran for President as a Libertarian in 1988. At a Libertarian Party convention I asked him about this, he is a libertarian.
He is a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and he ran for President as a Libertarian in 1988. At a Libertarian Party convention I asked him about this, he is a libertarian.
Liberman has never claimed to be a libertarian.
Lol also considering one of his intellectual heroes is Murray Rothbard I would say it is safe to say Ron Paul is pretty libertarian.
Keep in mind too that he supports a very limited presidency (by modern standards). It would be interesting, because he'd be the first president in our history to work to empower the Congress. I don't think any historian or political scientist would disagree with him when he states that the modern president has way more power than the Constitution originally intended. By trying to govern strictly through Constitutional channels, he'd be one of the weakest presidents in the past 150 years. I'm not quite sure how he'd proceed from there. How does a person who advocates radical change achieve those ends with minimal power?
By returning the power to the source it was intended to be vested in - the Citizens.
The Democrats have their Kucinech and Sanders, but these guys don't have much traction with the American people.
If you all can't get what you want done under Bush (who is presumably about the most conservative person you're going to find under mainline Republican channels), now what?
I don't hear the same frustration in Democratic circles, but you can make a similar case about Obama. Obama could have at least closed Gitmo and ended the Patriot Act. But nope. So now what?
I like both Kucinich and Sanders I am NOT surprised we don't here more frustration from democrats on CD
but in the real world, it's going on.
Obama has continued so many of the Bush policies ...
In my opinion, the Republican party has been shifting closer to its progressive wing for decades now. However, when it gets a chance to lead, it shows its true inclinations. The power of the federal goverment exploded in size under Bush. Besides the large-scale, two-front unconstitutional war, and the Patriot Act, he also did things like increase Medicare entitlements. Those in his administration clearly were not really interested in shrinking government.
If you all can't get what you want done under Bush (who is presumably about the most conservative person you're going to find under mainline Republican channels), now what?
I don't hear the same frustration in Democratic circles, but you can make a similar case about Obama. Obama could have at least closed Gitmo and ended the Patriot Act. But nope. So now what?
True. Both Dems and Reps love big government and will never really make an effort to downsize.
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.
Are you sure
