And, Just Like That, He Lost Their Votes

[steveh_131]

The "drug war" just put 3 out of the 4 guys who broke into my house and stole my guns 6 months ago into the slammer when the evidence from the break in couldn't put them there. I'm developing a favorable view of it.

That is brilliant. What else can we prohibit, on the off chance of catching a few actual criminals while we are oppressing the populace? What a fantastic outlook. We could just go ahead and prohibit handguns. That would land all sorts of criminals in jail. Win win.

This is an issue about which I spent a lot of time arguing with evangelicals. But there's a difference. You are ALL issue voters. They are ONE issue voters. Both positions, especially since they will never hope to overturn R v W anyway, are losing propositions.

Stick to what is possible at the time and work your way up your priority list after you get the possible stuff accomplished. Of course you'd actually need to prioritize the list. Seems like a better strategy than beating your chests and claiming "principle".

I am a one-issue voter. Liberty

 

[jbombelli]

That's the problem, with you guys they're all major.

Look up in Webster's the word compromise. To accomplish anything in this life compromise is required. You may not like it (I know at times I don't) but is the reality we must live in.

None of the Founding Fathers got EVERYTHING they wanted, compromise is required to get most of what one wants. Then one builds on that percentage they got and moves forward.

The problem is simple: we're not compromising a bit at a time for what we want. Instead of gaining something with every compromise, we're compromising things AWAY (maybe YOU'RE not, but WE are). We're giving up less now so we can give up more later, the next time we are pushed to "compromise." THAT is the reality of what has been happening. It only took me a little more than 25 years to finally figure this out.

Where will we be after another 30 years of this sort of compromise?

I am a one-issue voter. Liberty

This.

 

[steveh_131]

Give me liberty or give me something maybe sorta kinda similar to liberty but with some reasonable restrictions!

- Patrick Henry

 

[tyrajam]

Even if a candidate is elected President he would not be able to just end the war on drugs. It is still something the majority of people, and their representatives, support. The war on drugs is something that will need to be ended slowly and incrementally. It is slowly breaking down, just look what's happened in that last decade. A candidate who would NOT sic the feds on medicinal marijuana growers, and who would not challenge states where possession is decriminalized, is the next step. Then not challenging states that legalize. But if you will only support someone who wants to repeal all drug laws, I fear you will always be backing a losing horse and we will never get that next baby step toward the goal.

 

[blamecharles]

The "drug war" just put 3 out of the 4 guys who broke into my house and stole my guns 6 months ago into the slammer when the evidence from the break in couldn't put them there. I'm developing a favorable view of it.

Going to have to ask you to show your work on this one. Do you mean criminals were criminals in your case? Or do you mean an otherwise law abbiding person smoked some pot and became a criminal?

 

[indybuell]

I'll let this particular issue slide for now. We have more important things to focus on know. The war on drugs will work itself out in my opinion. Eventually, we will need the tax money.

 

[MCgrease08]

I don't know how anyone can say they want to slash government spending but still be in favor of the war on drugs or the bloated industrial military complex we continue to create across all levels of law enforcement. This is some of the lowest hanging fruit out there.

That being said, it's also understandable if stopping the drug war isn't everyone's top priority.

 

[mrjarrell]

I am a one-issue voter. Liberty

^^This. The drug war has to be ended. It has destroyed the Constitution in so many ways and spawned hatred of the police in this country. The injurious laws it has spawned are almost too numerous to count. That Rand just wants to lessen some of the penalties to please the worst anti liberty group out there is telling. While we may have a lot of fish to fry, the drug war is a huge one and has done much more damage over time than many of the others. His unwillingness to even do anything sane about it, all to garner votes, tells me all I need to know anymore about him.

 

[mrjarrell]

I'll let this particular issue slide for now. We have more important things to focus on know. The war on drugs will work itself out in my opinion. Eventually, we will need the tax money.

Sounds like one of those hunters that doesn't give a rip about EBR's.

 

[HmDBrian]

Of course you won't. The biggest factor for you is the (R) after his name, not his honesty, nor his integrity, nor what he stands for.

The War on Drugs is a pretty big issue for a lot of us. It ranks right up there with gun rights. It's been the driving force behind a whole lot of bad legislation.

Well than, im glad you got me alll figured out. Atcually, more often than not I vote (D). Not for any reason particular, but because over all veiws of the person running. Key word is person, unlike most on this site, im not republican or democrat. I am for who the better candidate is, although, you never know, because neither party is honest. All im saying is its stupid to vote for someone or against someone for one reason. Like I tell my union brothers when they were trying to preach to me about voting obama because he was for unions, I laughed and called them idiots, you should not vote for someone for one reason, nor should you vote against for one reason.

 

[BogWalker]

The Dems lost my votes when they supported welfare and anti-gun legislation. If a politician has everybody on his side, he's either saying nothing at all or a bunch of lies. He's lost many by saying he won't stop the war, and he's gained others by that same token as well. Just as many other politicians lose and gain votes by their stance on firearms. Don't vote for him if you don't like it. Kind of how elections work. Wouldn't be so much of a problem if we could break down what practically amounts to a two party system. Would be nice for somebody else to have a shot at winning other than "Hillary" and "Republican running against Hillary" (assuming Hillary wins the Democratic primary).

If everybody liked him it would mean he didn't have a stance on anything at all.

 

[hornadylnl]

Well than, im glad you got me alll figured out. Atcually, more often than not I vote (D). Not for any reason particular, but because over all veiws of the person running. Key word is person, unlike most on this site, im not republican or democrat. I am for who the better candidate is, although, you never know, because neither party is honest. All im saying is its stupid to vote for someone or against someone for one reason. Like I tell my union brothers when they were trying to preach to me about voting obama because he was for unions, I laughed and called them idiots, you should not vote for someone for one reason, nor should you vote against for one reason.

I wouldn't not vote for someone for one reason unless that one reason is:

Gay Marriage
They want to end the drug war
They want to end the never ending global war
They don't want us to be Israel's front line defense
Abortion
Their religion is anything other than Christian
etc, etc, etc.

Funny that republicans can pick all these single issues as hills to die on but libertarians aren't allowed their uncompromising positions.

 

[jbombelli]

Well than, im glad you got me alll figured out. Atcually, more often than not I vote (D). Not for any reason particular, but because over all veiws of the person running. Key word is person, unlike most on this site, im not republican or democrat. I am for who the better candidate is, although, you never know, because neither party is honest. All im saying is its stupid to vote for someone or against someone for one reason. Like I tell my union brothers when they were trying to preach to me about voting obama because he was for unions, I laughed and called them idiots, you should not vote for someone for one reason, nor should you vote against for one reason.

So, if I understood your post, overall the Democrats are a better fit for you than any other party, even though they've declared war on gun ownership in this country. And you proudly proclaim that on a gun forum?

I vote for candidates, not against candidates; and my "one reason" for voting is liberty.

I guess that's not important enough for you.

 

[KG1]

Being extremely picky and looking for every reason to NOT vote for someone instead of reasons TO vote for them will find you more often then not on the losing end.

My personal philosophy is to look for a candidate with enough reasons TO vote for them without having to hold out for the perfect one that can't seem to get elected.

 

[hornadylnl]

Being extremely picky and looking for every reason to NOT vote for someone instead of reasons TO vote for them will find you more often then not on the losing end.

My personal philosophy is to look for a candidate with enough reasons TO vote for them without having to hold out for the perfect one that can't seem to get elected.

And Romney not spelling his last name O B A M A was reason enough to get most of the republican vote.

 

[Mgderf]

The nut doesn't fall far from the tree.

In this case, the tree is a nut, and I think the nut isn't far behind.

 

[mrjarrell]

Being extremely picky and looking for every reason to NOT vote for someone instead of reasons TO vote for them will find you more often then not on the losing end.

My personal philosophy is to look for a candidate with enough reasons TO vote for them without having to hold out for the perfect one that can't seem to get elected.

Well, with me he was trending in the direction of getting a vote, if he continued as he was. But, he decided to pander to the worst group of voters out there and threw his weight behind the war on drugs, instead of against it, as he should have done, if he were actually a liberty candidate. The war on drugs has destroyed the Constitution in this country and he apparently doesn't care very much, if he gets the evangelical vote. He can have 'em. Goldwater warned the gop about those people, but they wouldn't listen and now they're paying the price for it.

 

[tyrajam]

Well, with me he was trending in the direction of getting a vote, if he continued as he was. But, he decided to pander to the worst group of voters out there and threw his weight behind the war on drugs, instead of against it, as he should have done, if he were actually a liberty candidate. The war on drugs has destroyed the Constitution in this country and he apparently doesn't care very much, if he gets the evangelical vote. He can have 'em. Goldwater warned the gop about those people, but they wouldn't listen and now they're paying the price for it.

Wow. About 40% of Americans across the board identify as "born again or evangelical" Christians, with a low of 33% in 1988 and a high of 48% in 2005. You label this the worst group of voters out there? Worse than the gun grabbers? Generalize much?

Rand Paul might have lost your vote, and I don't think he is the "perfect" candidate. But if he safeguards the freedoms that we have AND moves us in the right direction, i.e. supporting states rights to decriminalize and legalize drugs, then that will be fantastic. A complete 180 degree change will not happen overnight. Look at how the other side does it, a little change here, a little change there, get people used to it and move in that direction. Once people see that Washington and Colorado aren't descending into drug induced chaos, more states will begin following suit. A candidate who comes out in favor of legalizing drugs outright will lose not just SOME of the evangelical vote, but he'll lose most of the soccer mom and retiree vote also. It's not about pandering. The drug war didn't start overnight, it wound up over a half a century, and it will take time to wind down.

 

[88GT]

Well, with me he was trending in the direction of getting a vote, if he continued as he was. But, he decided to pander to the worst group of voters out there and threw his weight behind the war on drugs, instead of against it, as he should have done, if he were actually a liberty candidate. The war on drugs has destroyed the Constitution in this country and he apparently doesn't care very much, if he gets the evangelical vote. He can have 'em. Goldwater warned the gop about those people, but they wouldn't listen and now they're paying the price for it.

 

[lucky4034]

I like Rand... I believe that this is pandering. I also know that there is no "perfect" candidate....

If he runs in 2016, I don't think this will make me not vote for him... but I definitely don't agree with his stance (or at least the stance he committed to these people).

The War on Drugs is a big issue for me and I don't expect it to change overnight... his solution to reduce the penalties is a start, but this stupid "war" needs to end.

I'll be honest with you.... If I could find a candidate that:

1. Genuinely seems to put the welfare of the nation ahead of his career
2. Acknowledges our impending economic collapse rather than pretending it isn't dire and can be fixed and then proposes ways to reverse or dampen the blow...

He will get my vote...

In my estimation this house is engulfed in flames... I want a President who is looking to put out the flames and start figuring out where we are going to live and how to rebuild the house better.

I don't give a **** if he isn't focused on turning off the pilot light on the stove at this point... its too late for that.