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.
Among the Republicans running for POTUS there is definitly a difference between them. Here is how I would categorize them.
Tea Party Candidates - Small govt., small taxes, states rights Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann
Neo-Cons - Basically George Bush - Big govt., Pro Intervention (Wars everywhere) - Unapologetic Israel supporters and Christian Fundamentalists. Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich
Libertarian - Ron Paul - You know what they believe
Ron Paul
Establishment - More of Paleo variety before George Bush - more like Reagan
Jon Huntsman, Mitt romney
Of the four. I would say Neo Cons are the worst. We have had enough war havn't we?
I am a combination of establishment and libertarian I guess. I reject the libertarian philosophy of almost no government. Government is necessary and, as much as not having government appeals to a certain segment of voters, one only has to look at failed states and what life is like under "warlords" to see that is something not for us. But I also reject government intrusion into business or into the lives of citizens except in instances of protecting the rights, health and safety of others. Although I am generally Republican, I cannot accept candidates that think they should force women to have babies, jail people for marijuana or enforce laws that favor one religion over others (such as banning beer sales on Sunday). I also reject government regulation of private property or business for anything except public safety, health or to protect the rights of others from being encroached upon. I also reject any public subsidies or bailouts of business. Business should sink or swim by competing in an open free enterprise market. That includes banks and mortgage companies. I also believe that you have an absolute right to own, possess and, if trained and certified on the range, carry a firearm.
Rick Santelli is largely credited with starting the tea party.
A little bit of both probably, the tea party emerged as part of Paul's 2008 campaign... however, there are some youtube videos from 2007 in which Ron Paul supporters call themselves "tea party"
I believe Santelli said what he said after the financial crisis in 2009
It doesn't matter who started it really-- what is sad is that it was hijacked by fox news pundits and neocons
I am a combination of establishment and libertarian I guess. I reject the libertarian philosophy of almost no government. Government is necessary and, as much as not having government appeals to a certain segment of voters, one only has to look at failed states and what life is like under "warlords" to see that is something not for us. But I also reject government intrusion into business or into the lives of citizens except in instances of protecting the rights, health and safety of others. Although I am generally Republican, I cannot accept candidates that think they should force women to have babies, jail people for marijuana or enforce laws that favor one religion over others (such as banning beer sales on Sunday). I also reject government regulation of private property or business for anything except public safety, health or to protect the rights of others from being encroached upon. I also reject any public subsidies or bailouts of business. Business should sink or swim by competing in an open free enterprise market. That includes banks and mortgage companies. I also believe that you have an absolute right to own, possess and, if trained and certified on the range, carry a firearm.
People confuse Anarchism with Libertarianism often, they even confuse Libertarianism and libertarianism. Anarchism is absolute minimal government. Libertarianism, in the case of Ron Paul, would be smaller government at the federal level.
In the age of soundbite campaigns, many people confuse his intellectual arguments with that of his policies. He asks a question, or answers questions to explain theoreticals and proof on concepts, because the media likes these kinds of questions. They are just honest answers without trying to read into the questions at hand. But when you look at his actual policy ideas, you'll notice he is not a full blown libertarian. In fact, many hardcore libertarians, true anarchists(ideology, not the spun word for chaotic), minarchists, mutualists, and some volunteerists, Ron Paul doesn't go far enough for them. Although those groups might rather vote for Ron Paul, doesn't mean he is the ideal candidate for Libertarians. For example, and ignorant person would say Ron Paul will legalize all drugs, prostitution, get rid of entitlements, and end the federal reserve. The key word being will. When in fact, he would ideally support those ideas, and save our entitlements and limit the fed/support means of phasing them out, but he will not abuse his power and force such legislation.
People confuse Anarchism with Libertarianism often, they even confuse Libertarianism and libertarianism. Anarchism is absolute minimal government. Libertarianism, in the case of Ron Paul, would be smaller government at the federal level.
In the age of soundbite campaigns, many people confuse his intellectual arguments with that of his policies. He asks a question, or answers questions to explain theoreticals and proof on concepts, because the media likes these kinds of questions. They are just honest answers without trying to read into the questions at hand. But when you look at his actual policy ideas, you'll notice he is not a full blown libertarian. In fact, many hardcore libertarians, true anarchists(ideology, not the spun word for chaotic), minarchists, mutualists, and some volunteerists, Ron Paul doesn't go far enough for them. Although those groups might rather vote for Ron Paul, doesn't mean he is the ideal candidate for Libertarians. For example, and ignorant person would say Ron Paul will legalize all drugs, prostitution, get rid of entitlements, and end the federal reserve. The key word being will. When in fact, he would ideally support those ideas, and save our entitlements and limit the fed/support means of phasing them out, but he will not abuse his power and force such legislation.
It is amazing how little those that support Ron Paul actually know about Ron Paul. He is very simple. He believes that drugs, prostitution, abortion, gay marriage etc. are all decisions to be made by the states and not the Federal Govt. You don't have to read anything into it. This is what he has said.
Among the Republicans running for POTUS there is definitly a difference between them. Here is how I would categorize them.
Tea Party Candidates - Small govt., small taxes, states rights Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann
Neo-Cons - Basically George Bush - Big govt., Pro Intervention (Wars everywhere) - Unapologetic Israel supporters and Christian Fundamentalists. Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich
Libertarian - Ron Paul - You know what they believe
Ron Paul
Establishment - More of Paleo variety before George Bush - more like Reagan
Jon Huntsman, Mitt romney
Of the four. I would say Neo Cons are the worst. We have had enough war havn't we?
Of course you realize you have defined the above as you see the groups, but not necessarily like everyone does: For me, it is a toss up between Tea Party and libertarian. (BTW, Reagan, had it been a different time would have probably been a libertarinan)
Besides Paul, The republicans and especially the tea party are nothing put corporatist puppets on the side of big government, big spending, anti-middle class, anti-seniors and hellbent on leading the country into fascism.
Was that the question by the OP or did he ask how some of us would be voting?
"You can see this in the conservative news media treating Perry like he is, as I keep calling him, the Second Coming of Reagan being dragged into the hectic race and playing the reluctant hero."
Well said! He barely made it official and already all polls are claiming Perry is #1 by a comfortable margin. I have a hard time believing any true conservative would back Perry knowing any of his history.
Republicans voted for Reagan knowing he was once a liberal democrat, and one time pres of the Screen Actors Guild "Union"...
So what's your point?
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.
