You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
Caucus-based system magnifies populist political tides.
Ron Paul has not suspended his campaign.
Your facts are incorrect.
The statement was:
"Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted," Paul said in his statement. "Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have. I encourage all supporters of liberty to make sure you get to the polls and make your voices heard, particularly in the local, state and congressional elections, where so many defenders of freedom are fighting and need your support."
Wow! The MN GOP is really over run with kooks. Can they "sell" their candidates to voters in November?
Fact is, regardless whether the republican party leans more toward the libertarian or theocratic, the party can't afford a fractured base and will continue to maneuver to accommodate both sides, all the while speaking in a chronically contradictory voice and peddling a fool's message: get government out of people's lives while using government to enforce religious values and put God back in people's lives. It really is the worst of both worlds - there certainly is no liberty to be found in any of it. With this sort of governance in effect, we'll wind up in a plutocratic wasteland where the majority live in impoverishment, their social compliance enforced by religious code. More to the point, the republicans understand that late capitalism is failing - and they can't deal with it; they haven't the courage. Instead, their intent is to drag us back to the late 19th century, when modern capitalism was in triumphal emergence, and to recreate the social and economic relations that characterized the period.
Please keep publishing these facts. People need to really be aware of what they're voting for come November. It's pretty obvious the new GOP party wants to take this nation back to the 1800s but with Reagan era defense spending.
When Paulites and modern Republicans extol virtues of "liberty" and "freedom", it sounds so sweet and pleasant to the average listener. It sounds like nirvana to the primary targets of the real message: economic liberty, that is the freedom to spend your money however you like without any democratic curbs that limit polluting the environment, paying workers less than the minimum wage, defrauding consumers, spending unlimited money to buy political campaigns, and a host of other long-accepted notions of representative democracy. That's their true, radical message, folks. As to their "constitutional" claims, another fraud. They would throw out the core principle of "promote the general welfare." Buyer, beware.
In these early comments, what can we learn about those who oppose these libertarian ideas? 1) They believe that capitalism is failing. This economic system that has brought about the greatest prosperity and allows the greatest amount of freedom somehow is viewed as failing. What orpheus doesn't understand is that those areas where government has most intruded are the ones that are failing (health care, mortgages, education, welfare). 2) They believe that calls for freedom include eliminating all laws that are meant to protect people and the environment. The truth is that most libertarians understand the need for rules and regulations. They also believe that these rules were meant to be determined by State governments, with the Federal government having power only for those things agreed to in the Constitution.
Oh yes... where would we be if we didn't have elected officials offering to give our money to NJ billionaires to build a stadium that will allow them to charge more for their crummy product while real MN small businesses have to try to compete for the rest of the state's discretionary spending??? Those politicians should all be replaced!
Private- It amazes me how many people flat out don't understand the meaning of the phrase "promote the general welfare" the founders never meant that as some sort of mandate for state welfare... they meant that laws should be crafted and funds should be spent in a way that promotes the "general welfare" and not special interests. In relation to the stadium, clearly that is special interest state spending and that should be seen as unconstitutional. Anyone familiar with history would tell you that the founders would have been horrified by the prospect of a welfare state.
Maybe--I don't think so, but maybe---libertarian principles would have worked when the U.S. was a huge, thinly-populated land mass with a largely agrarian economy. (Since the Paul people revere the founding fathers, they should be aware that, in the argument over strong vs. weak central government, the supporters of a strong government, led by Alexander Hamilton, won the argument). But in a country of 300 million diverse people, it is simply unrealistic to think that everyone can do what they want when they want and a livable society will result. One person's actions---like pollution---affects others---what about THEIR freedom not breathe poisoned air? The whole libertarian dream strikes me as an adolescent fantasy, akin to a two-year-old's cry of "You're not the boss of me!"
my4cents, you are absolutely correct, but your obvious common sense will be view as extremist when looked at through the lens of marxism which is the ONLY view the left knows.
I take comfort in the fact that their narrow view will be their undoing.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks