Heeyyy…wait a minute…I’ve heard this before!
I’m not particularly original. Rothbard also sketched the same history. In other cases, Spencer and Rothbard both wrote it out much better than I did, but I made it shorter.
I was just joshing. It’s hard to be a good stylist. It takes a lot of practice.
I depends if you value social freedoms or economic freedoms more.
Hardly the case. To republicans, economic freedom is ‘You can buy anything that is American except that which offends our sensibilities.’
I don’t know about this tbh. Haven’t seen this meme.
Economic freedom. But I think that with economic freedom comes social freedom. Maybe it’s the the other way around or maybe they’re not mutually dependent. But yeah, economic freedom is more important to me. Second is political freedom. Then social freedom. I just don’t see how you’re going to get oppressive social policy if there is lots of economic and political freedom. Just my way of thinking about things though.
Sean Hannity says it at least once a week to buy American auto. The Republican party has a history of protectionism and tariffs going back to Lincoln.
Sean Hannity is not the Republican Party anymore than Keith Olbermann is the Democratic Party. Not only that but what if he just happens to prefer American cars and wants to plug them on his show? Also, as far as I understand it, the Republican Party has gone through many iterations. As of now, I think they’re mostly a free trade party. If, at one point, they were more mercantilist, I really don’t see how that’s relevant to today.
The biggest flaw with the modern Republican Party, as I see it, is that our base is the Christian Right.
He along with Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and Mike Reagan are the talking heads of the Republican party in the private sphere. They aren’t politicians but in many respects weld more power then them.
Apparently only ‘great Americans’ buy American cars.
Ok, then where is the free trade voices? Where are the individuals who are saying that China isn’t a economic threat to the US and that China holding our debt isn’t a security risk?
Meh, I think you give too much weight to punditry. I don’t listen to any of it, I still vote Republican.
Whatever, who cares what he says?
Who said that China was a security risk because they hold our debt? I think the position is that they just kinda own us now because they have trillions of dollars in reserves and we owe them tons more. Didn’t W fight pretty hard to maintain NAFTA? But I mean, let’s be honest, are you really ever going to consider anything “free trade” unless they’re advocating the abolition of the state? How free trade does someone have to be to satisfy your criteria?
It has to be an improvement over the present condition. NAFTA is clearly not, hence why Paul abhors it.
You really haven’t said much here, and just because RP doesn’t like it doesn’t mean anything. “Improvement over the present condition?”
It means less tariffs, regulations and embargoes. That’s what free international trade is about. So for someone who claims to vote republican because you prefer freer trade, you come off as ignorant about free trade. 
But look, let’s be honest, the libertarians hurt themselves in the political arena. Especially the radical ones who aren’t really open to incremental changes. RP has been saying the same damn things for what…30 years or something lol? How many of his ideas has he really been able to get to mainstream thought? Maybe the end the fed thing? I mean I love RP but he’s never going to win the presidency. America is just not geared towards radical libertarianism or really libertarianism at all. I truly believe that we live in a mostly center-right nation.
How many less?
At least one or more. If we have 50, 49 is an improvement, and so is 10 and so is 0.
Basically what I’m saying is that you cannot blame the Republican Party for the Libertarian Party’s failures.
All true.
Also, crime will never be eradicated, so let’s stop fighting crime.
And how much influence have you had, political strategy genius?