Why is Paul Running as a Republican?

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]

Heh, the Green Party says the exact same thing. We hold the ideals that the people of this country agree with...they just don't pay attention.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didnt realize the Greens actually claimed that. In that case, my stance is that their claim is wrong. My basic understanding of the Green Party is that they care a lot about the environment and fiscal equality, and that they support the use of government force to the achieve those ends. Or do they just talk about it a lot and say "this is what people should care about"? Im not really sure.

Im sure it has more consistency to it than the Democratic Party, but I think youre way off if you think most people at their core stand for the things that the Green Party stands for.

For example, pacifism (which is the Green position) is a lot different than non-interventionism. And I really think youre just way, way wrong if you think the Greens can rightfully claim that this sort of view is in line with our natural core values. I dont know many people who dont feel a desire to protect themselves and to fight back if theyre under attack.

I would say the Greens sincerely mean well, but I think theyre just confused as to what human nature actually is and their approach just becomes naive and disfunctional. I think it's pretty clear that most people do not fundamentally value the things the Greens preach, and that this gives them a mountain to climb to gain political support. Theres a difference between thinking people *should* value something and hearing them say "I value this" but then watching them vote for something different.

My apostrophe key is not working. Hence my typos.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul and his supporters (at least his supporters here) are much more likely to see that there is precisely one answer to every political problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

This from one of the guys who thinks violence solves all problems.

[SleeperHE]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
You talk is if there is some rule that says no one is allowed to seek the nomination of a certain political party if you are not exactly in line with the game of politics and how that party is presently perceived.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's more a question of how best to achieve his goals without sacrificing his integrity. I think this is better served by running as a third-party candidate.
[ QUOTE ]



So please adequately explain why you believe he is sacrificing his integrity by running as a republican?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul and his supporters (at least his supporters here) are much more likely to see that there is precisely one answer to every political problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

This from one of the guys who thinks violence solves all problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]

I didnt realize the Greens actually claimed that. In that case, my stance is that their claim is wrong. My basic understanding of the Green Party is that they care a lot about the environment and fiscal equality, and that they support the use of government force to the achieve those ends. Or do they just talk about it a lot and say "this is what people should care about"? Im not really sure.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's understandable that you and most of the people on this board would disagree with the greens. We support green initiatives which tons of people care about today we support universal health care which a lot of people care about in today's society. Although our ideas differ greatly from the ways the two main parties approach them, we feel like Americans would agree more with the path we would take. We feel like this because whenever we discuss our ideals with everyday people we get the same old "Yeah those are all great ideas...but I don't want to waste my vote" Obviously there are people who fundamentally disagree with us, but they are fewer than you would imagine.

[ QUOTE ]
Im sure it has more consistency to it than the Democratic Party, but I think youre way off if you think most people at their core stand for the things that the Green Party stands for.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, I think you would be surprised, perhaps when I have the time I will make a thread and dedicate it to the showing the green party to people on this board. I doubt it will be received well by this group, but it may end up being fun.

[ QUOTE ]
For example, pacifism (which is the Green position) is a lot different than non-interventionism. And I really think youre just way, way wrong if you think the Greens can rightfully claim that this sort of view is in line with our natural core values. I dont know many people who dont feel a desire to protect themselves and to fight back if theyre under attack.

[/ QUOTE ]
The Green Party is based upon the 10 key values. The key value you are addressing is "Non-Violence" which is different than pacifism. Here is a something from the Green Party website:
[ QUOTE ]
4. NON-VIOLENCE
It is essential that we develop effective alternatives to society’s current patterns of violence. We will work to demilitarize, and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other governments. We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in helpless situations. We promote non-violent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting personal, community and global peace.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://gp.org/tenkey.shtml Check out that website if you're interested in reading about the other key values of the Green Party.

[ QUOTE ]

I would say the Greens sincerely mean well, but I think theyre just confused as to what human nature actually is and their approach just becomes naive and disfunctional. I think it's pretty clear that most people do not fundamentally value the things the Greens preach, and that this gives them a mountain to climb to gain political support. Theres a difference between thinking people *should* value something and hearing them say "I value this" but then watching them vote for something different.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you have a picture in your head of what the Green Party is and I think that picture is different than what the Green Party is in reality. We are much more pragmatic than you think...probably not as pragmatic as you would like though. We still retain a very strong sense of idealism, which is something you need to be a member of a third party and continue to fight for every election.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]

Give me a break.

Ron Paul and his supporters (at least his supporters here) are much more likely to see that there is precisely one answer to every political problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yikes.

Nice misconception there, first of all. Ron Paul supporters believe there are endlessly many unique answers to endlessly many problems. Hence our "political" that the best approach is to not force unilateral decisions on property owners.

Obviously the views a person chooses to defend can be seen as "one" answer, if that's how you want to look at it, but sheesh, that's not at all what I was getting at and you know it.

Your OP asked why he was running as a Republican. My response was that by seemingly limiting what you expect out of a "Republican" to be only the run of the mill present day norm, you are expecting the Republican party to offer merely one position, and thus you are expecting the system as a whole to offer 2 positions. So, what I meant is, WTF is it odd when someone who does not meet the status quo gets involved? Try to stay on topic.

[SleeperHE]

Elwood-

From your OP-

[ QUOTE ]
Serious question ---

What are the benefits of running as a Republican? I think by running as a Republican (versus a third-party) he's representing himself as something he's not in a couple of ways: 1) he's not really a neoconservative (IMO), 2) he represents himself as the sort of person who will sell short his ideals for political gain.

Any thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]



1) elwood I FYOP. The neocons are not the full representation of the Republican Party.
2) You say Ron Paul represents himself as the sort of person who will sell short his ideas for political gain. On what basis do you say this?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Your OP asked why he was running as a Republican. My response was that by seemingly limiting what you expect out of a "Republican" to be only the run of the mill present day norm, you are expecting the Republican party to offer merely one position

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see why you think that. I guess the best way to describe it is that at some point when your core views diverge more and more from the views of the group you really shouldn't consider yourself a part of the group any more. I think Paul fits this description.

It's funny that people (Borodog, I'm talking to you here) take such great offense at this "bold" assertion when it is one of the reasons that people here support him in the first place.

[Borodog]

My problem is with your calling Dr. Paul names because he doesn't conform to your private political labeling.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
we feel like Americans would agree

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the big difference I'm trying to drive home though. You feel like they would or should agree if they understood where you were coming from or whatever. We HEAR people and SEE people support the things we stand for, and then see them rally behind a religious zealot who stands for none of those things but throws the words into his speeches.

I didn't mean to get overly critical of the Green Party, since like you said this thread is not meant to discuss it, but I think there is a big difference between the political viability between the Green's platform and between the platform a majority of the voting members of a major political party expressly claim to stand for and that which is supported by our own Constitution!

The pacifism thing is something I dug up on Wiki. It seems pretty clear that the Green position is one of pacifism. That thing you quoted about "recognizing the need of self-defense" is pretty vague. Do Greens actually allow me to defend myself? They can *say* they "recognize some need" but if they don't actually hold the position that addresses that need then it's just rhetoric.

Greens support pacifism. Wikipedia sums up their views as follows:

[ QUOTE ]
Green platforms draw terminology from the science of ecology, and policy from Environmentalism, Ecosophy, Eco-socialism, Progressivism, Feminism, Pacifism, Centrism, libertarian socialism, Social Ecology and even sometimes libertarian survivalists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean I'm sure that is very generalized and Greens don't necessarily embrace literal pacifism. But my point is that this collection of views seems way less politically viable than individual liberty, self-reliance, and respect for the Constitution.