But I can't be a fiscal conservative if I'm not a social conservative. You said so yourself D. And you are not the only one.
It has nothing to do with pot. Although the pogrom on pot users is a huge waste of money. On the order of $100 bn a year direct costs - state, federal local. Not to mention the families it throws on welfare. And the kids who grow up without fathers. And the racist enforcement of the laws.
But that is minor. Unless you count the majority now favoring legalization. Or the 70% to 80% favoring med pot.
I suppose it is a good idea to drive those voters away. I'm sure you can figure out how to win with a minority of the votes.
But I digress. For me that is a minor obstacle. Proof? I supported Republicans in 2002, 2004 (except for Alan Keyes), 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012 (except for Romney and since I live in Illinois my vote didn't matter - nice way to register a protest though).
What I object to is being told I can't be a fiscal conservative if I'm not a social conservative. And I'm not the only one who objects to that.
If that is the way you feel (as you have so expressed) I'm in favor of letting things get worse. Until you WANT me as an ally. And not just you. There is a whole swath of social conservatives with your opinion.
Perhaps you might care to educate them as well. Or not.
You want allies in the fight? Attract them.
I'm not getting through. Firstly, It is TOO LATE for political allies to make a difference.
Secondly Libertarian ideas are unsustainable in the long term. They are exactly like Medicare and Social security. Seemingly workable when they are first proposed, but containing within them their own seed of destruction, and of which their proponents seemingly remain oblivious.
Libertarian ideas will kill us, just as surely as Liberal Fiscal ideas will kill us. Adding poison to the soup is a non starter.
I can work with the socialists. Can you?
And I regard that as one of the most delusional statements ever. A lot of people throughout history thought they could work with Socialists. It did not turn out well.
Let me explain politics to you in our system. Party policy is made by those least attracted to the Party - until you have enough to win elections. Winning is done on the margins. Driving away marginal voters is how losers play. You want to be a loser? I will be glad to help.
Again, we aren't likely to win (in this current system) ever again, and were we to "win" by adopting Libertarian ideas, we would still be screwed. You do not realize that you are merely offering a Hobson's choice, but with the added paradigm of having to reject principles and common sense in order to "lose" anyway.
There is no upside to your idea.
Personally I do not believe the stupid party is capable of changing their ways enough to win presidential elections. So far you have not proven me wrong.
How much pain can you stand before you feel it is wise to attract people to your flag? I'm betting I can stand more than you can.
I'm betting you can't. All I have to do to get along is shut up and don't stir up trouble. (Probably too late now anyway.) You are going to have to deal with the civil unrest in your Urban Environment. Elections have consequences. Collapsing the dollar will translate directly into human misery.
Your core issue seems to be economics. If that situation is so dire perhaps giving up on the other issues at least temporarily might be wise. In order to win enough votes consistently enough to change the course.
Romney was such a compromise. None of the Pro-lifers believed he would be a true supporter. None of the Social Conservatives believed he would promote any of their goals. The SoCons DID NOT WANT HIM, but they supported him because they thought the economic situation was simply too dire. (I think not all supported him, and that's one reason for his loss.)
I have yet to persuade someone who hold's your opinion that changes should be made. Fine. Perhaps taking my vote and support elsewhere will have an effect. Or not.
I have reached the "screw you" stage. After over 10 years of being a pretty reliable Republican vote. And as I said. I hear similar things from others who are the object of the stupid party's vituperation. It is not just me.
You might want to meditate on this particular vote:http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... -bush.html
It might provide a clue.
Nothing I didn't already know. The main fallacy you have in your critique is the notion that Keyes ran as a "theocon." His opinions are pretty much in the mainstream of the Black Community's thinking on the social/religious issues. Where he differs significantly from the Black mainstream is on economic issues. Why did Keyes get painted as a religious nut while the Reverend Jesse Jackson Jr. was not?
The Press regards Keyes as an enemy, while they regard the Reverend Al Sharpton, and the Reverend Jesse Jackson as allies. You've been played, and you don't even realize it yet.