Am I the only one who is disappointed with Dr. Paul?

[Brassmouth]

Chuck Baldwin, regardless of his former profession, has the exact same platform as Ron Paul, and the exact same policies as Ron Paul, pretty much word for word, and letter for letter.


How frelling hard is it to see that their platforms are identical? The only differences between the two, really, is age and job.

These are outright lies and you know it. Dr. Paul's platform included a sound understanding of economics and a consistent devotion to the principles of liberty. A single glance at the CP platform and what Baldwin has been saying will relieve any rational person of the notion you spew as truth.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Quad Erat Demonstratum. I have no problems with atheists at all, but I have a problem with bigots of any sort. I have as much of an issue with pro-Christian bigots as I do with anti-Christian bigots.

QED. Indeed.

+1...bigotry of any sort does not jive with TRUE Libertarian values or RP values.

 

[Brassmouth]

Absolutely. These people are as small-minded and pathetic as the MSM and the mainstream parties they supposedly detest. Who knew we had this level of ignorance in our ranks, or such an inability to see the larger issues at stake? He's antiwar, pro-Fed, pro-Constitution, and pro-states' rights. Who else in this race is? Good grief!

He's also anti-self-ownership (supports the ban of prostitution), anti-separation-of church-and-state, and ignorant to the principles of economics professed by Dr. Paul.

 

[Deborah K]

He's also anti-self-ownership (supports the ban of prostitution), anti-separation-of church-and-state, and ignorant to the principles of economics professed by Dr. Paul.

Separation of church and state? What is your understanding SOCS, if I may ask.

 

[mitty]

I really don’t know how to feel about this news. If it’s true, I’ll never regard Ron Paul with quite the same degree of admiration that I did before.

No one has shown more disrespect for Ron Paul than his own party. Yet, Dr. Paul continues to say that he will not abandon the GOP. Bob Barr makes a decision not to participate in a dog and pony press conference that few legitimate politicians would have attended, and that now leads Ron Paul to endorse Chuck Baldwin in a clearly vindictive manner? It's both childish and reckless.

I fully support the idea of lining up behind a single candidate and I’ve been pushing for that all along. But any adult who has even the slightest grasp of politics can recognize that Chuck Baldwin is a foolish choice. He might be a fine man, but he’s a religious fundamentalist who will only splinter this once diverse coalition. I think once the novelty of this idea wears off, there’s going to be a huge case of buyer’s remorse in this movement—Ron Paul’s endorsement or not.

For all our sakes, I hope I'm wrong.

upset because paul didn't pick your boy? get over it. we've admired paul all this time for being an independent thinker, then when it goes against something you like you get mad. nice.

people here are ridiculous. we say we need forget about the popular choices and go with who is going to be best for the country. thats bullshit. people only mean that as long as everyone gets behind their candidate.paul isn't the one being foolish.

 

[Brassmouth]

Separation of church and state? What is your understanding SOCS, if I may ask.

The motivations behind his deviations with libertarianism and even the constitution are obvious. The man is a former pastor (not that being a pastor is a bad thing), so it is exceedingly simple to see where the foundations of his beliefs lie. His opposition to gay marriage and prostitution alone call into question the genuineness of his loyalty to the constitution and to individual liberty.

 

[JaylieWoW]

For what it's worth...

I'd suspected all along Dr. Paul was going to vote for Baldwin. Just because he made his choice public certainly does not obligate any of us to vote for Baldwin.

Possibly that was the point of the third party "unity" press conference.

Doesn't change a thing for me. Actually, given his own faith, I believe Baldwin was a natural (and probably easy choice) for Dr. Paul.

Furthermore, I can honestly say I would have been disappointed if he'd thrown his support to Barr. I know Barr is better known than the rest of the "third party" candidates, but does better known equate to better. Or, more correctly, more constitutional. Barr's past record is going to take some time for some people (including myself) to forgive.

And, I wouldn't really call Dr. Paul a "cult of personality" so much as I would say that those of us who have really been looking (and waiting) for the candidate with the PERFECT (or as near as it gets) voting record found what we were looking for in Dr. Paul. We knew we could trust him because he spent TWENTY + years PROVING he could be trusted. Let that sink in a little bit before you allow yourself to become too disappointed. Yes, it would seem a once in a lifetime chance for most of us.

For myself, I'd been leaning towards Baldwin. There are other writings by him I'd run across even before I first ran across Dr. Paul (back in November of 2006). Even though I'm not religious, I respect that he is a man of faith.

I did, however, make a promise to write in Ron Paul (more to myself than anything else). Someone had posted something about filing suit for having my vote thrown away (not counted) and it was actually something I'd considered before seeing it presented on these forums. It shouldn't matter if I don't vote for the candidates I'm presented with, my vote should STILL be counted. I think if we all wanted to show how strong we are united, this would be the way to do it AND get some people thinking about it. Just a thought...

 

[GunnyFreedom]

These are outright lies and you know it. Dr. Paul's platform included a sound understanding of economics and a consistent devotion to the principles of liberty. A single glance at the CP platform and what Baldwin has been saying will relieve any rational person of the notion you spew as truth.

And the GOP platform continues to claim honor an respect for the US Constitution, we see how well party platforms jibe with candidate platforms, no?

Calling the truth 'a lie' simply does not make it so, any more than the M$M calling RP a 'kook' makes THAT so.

Of course, we all know that in today's world it's impossible to have a candidate that is at odds with his party.

Fact is that Chuck Baldwin's personal platform is word for word and letter for letter identical to RP's platform, and CB is in large part responsible for forcing the CP platform to reject gov't regulation of marriage.

Plus, CB worked some odd 80 hrs a week or more to help RP get elected, working single-handedly to dissuade the religious right away from the Huckster. Not that it had much effect against the Pat Robertsons etc.

But it is clear that you either bought the crap hook line and sinker, that CB is some kind of Theocrat, or are a fully cognizant perveyor of the agitprop agenda... In either case, you are a part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

 

[DeadheadForPaul]

I'm disappointed in Dr. Paul for not recognizing that the LP candidate is the most realistic shot at making a statement to the mainstream press/the American people about our dissatisfaction with the 2 parties. The LP always surpasses the CP in votes

 

[Bman]

I really don’t know how to feel about this news. If it’s true, I’ll never regard Ron Paul with quite the same degree of admiration that I did before.

No one has shown more disrespect for Ron Paul than his own party. Yet, Dr. Paul continues to say that he will not abandon the GOP. Bob Barr makes a decision not to participate in a dog and pony press conference that few legitimate politicians would have attended, and that now leads Ron Paul to endorse Chuck Baldwin in a clearly vindictive manner? It's both childish and reckless.

I fully support the idea of lining up behind a single candidate and I’ve been pushing for that all along. But any adult who has even the slightest grasp of politics can recognize that Chuck Baldwin is a foolish choice. He might be a fine man, but he’s a religious fundamentalist who will only splinter this once diverse coalition. I think once the novelty of this idea wears off, there’s going to be a huge case of buyer’s remorse in this movement—Ron Paul’s endorsement or not.

For all our sakes, I hope I'm wrong.

Don't get your panties too much in a bunch. If he decides to personally support Chuck thats quite fine. Now is he asks us to use Chuck as the flag bearer for this movement then we have another situation all together. Plus lets wait to hear the man actually speak on the subject rather than listening to a post made by Jesse Benton. Who I've felt a little weirded out about since the whole Barr thing.

 

[AlexMerced]

get the rest of the story in this thread
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=157258

To expound on my thoughts on the Chuck Baldwin endorsement

It's smart considering the implied goal on Ron Paul, to make more headway on the powerful group, the evagenlicals. Whether you like them or not, he evangelicals are a powerful and almost mandatory group to have to have a winning coalition, Chuck Baldwin is the candidate to bring them into the fold.

Remember focus on the common ground which unites, not on the differences which divide, or this movement will fail.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

The motivations behind his deviations with libertarianism and even the constitution are obvious. The man is a former pastor (not that being a pastor is a bad thing), so it is exceedingly simple to see where the foundations of his beliefs lie. His opposition to gay marriage and prostitution alone call into question the genuineness of his loyalty to the constitution and to individual liberty.

Actually, the CP platform REJECTS any gov't regulation of marriage whatsoever, stating that it is a matter of Church, and NOT State. And furthermore, CB has never said ANY such thing as outlawing gay marriage or pornography. You are either repeating libellous propaganda, or creating it yourself.

 

[Brassmouth]

Actually, the CP platform REJECTS any gov't regulation of marriage whatsoever, stating that it is a matter of Church, and NOT State. And furthermore, CB has never said ANY such thing as outlawing gay marriage or pornography. You are either repeating libellous propaganda, or creating it yourself.

You're twisting everything I say. And stop with the smiley face, you're just revealing your immaturity. I NEVER said anything referring to the CP platform's stance on gay marriage. I remarked upon Baldwin's opposition to gay marriage. And, like you so arrogantly stated, Baldwin does not align with his party in this respect.

Furthermore, just because you falsely state that Baldwin's beliefs and positions align letter-to-letter with Dr. Paul's does not make it so. If it was, I never would've supported Dr. Paul in the first place. Baldwin's inconsistent devotion to liberty shows he only believes in freedom when it is convenient for him to do so (ie, when it aligns with his belief in an invisible man).

I commend Baldwin for his efforts during the Paul campaign, but simply put, Baldwin himself is tarnishing the movement with his thinly veiled attempts to impose his religion on others, under the banner of libertarianism.

 

[AlexMerced]

You're twisting everything I say. And stop with the smiley face, you're just revealing your immaturity. I NEVER said anything referring to the CP platform's stance on gay marriage. I remarked upon Baldwin's opposition to gay marriage. And, like you so arrogantly stated, Baldwin does not align with his party in this respect.

Furthermore, just because you falsely state that Baldwin's beliefs and positions align letter-to-letter with Dr. Paul's does not make it so. If it was, I never would've supported Dr. Paul in the first place. Baldwin's inconsistent devotion to liberty shows he only believes in freedom when it is convenient for him to do so (ie, when it aligns with his belief in an invisible man).

I commend Baldwin for his efforts during the Paul campaign, but simply put, Baldwin himself is tarnishing the movement with his thinly veiled attempts to impose his religion on others, under the banner of libertarianism.

your missing the point, read Ron Paul letter very carefully and read between the lies, it's quite clever.

 

[RickyJ]

Bob Barr makes a decision not to participate in a dog and pony press conference

It is easy to see you were never a real supporter of Dr. Ron Paul.

Ron Paul's press conference was an historic attack on the elite controlled two party system in America!

 

[Paulitical Correctness]

"Again, you can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life."

Whichever way our dots end up connected is irrelevant, important thing is we are moving forward. Forget the POTUS, forget Ron Paul, forget Baldwin or any particular individual for that matter.

 

[Brassmouth]

your missing the point, read Ron Paul letter very carefully and read between the lies, it's quite clever.

Either your calling Dr. Paul a liar, or you cant type. Regardless, I'm not missing the point. The principles of individual liberty persist in my mind and in the minds of all true libertarians regardless of an inconsequential pastor trying to ride Paul's coattails. One can only hope this movement wakes back up and resumes it's path to restoring freedom to America, before it's too late...

 

[Dorfsmith]

This movement is so much bigger than Ron Paul. Who cares if he's supporting Chuck Baldwin? He's not giving us marching orders telling us to go out and wave Chuck Baldwin signs. Support the liberty candidate of your choice and encourage your friends to check into all the third party candidates. We're bigger than this. Why are we getting bogged down in this stuff again? I'm guilty of it too but from now on I'm going to try to focus on the big picture.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

You're twisting everything I say. And stop with the smiley face, you're just revealing your immaturity. I NEVER said anything referring to the CP platform's stance on gay marriage. I remarked upon Baldwin's opposition to gay marriage. And, like you so arrogantly stated, Baldwin does not align with his party in this respect.

So CB, as a Christian, personally believes gay marriage is wrong, yet believes that the gov't has no business regulating marriage, gay, straight, or otherwise; and therefore would not support any sort of ban or regulation of gay marriage.

Likewise, Ron Paul, as a doctor, personally believes that drug use is wrong. Yet, he believes that the gov't has no business regulating what people can and can not consume, and therefore would not support any sort of ban or regulation of drugs whatsoever.

The only difference between RP, whom you love, and CB, whom you hate, is the fact that CB was a pastor, and RP was a doctor.

Your hatred of him has NOTHING to do with his policies, platform, or positions--you hate him because he is an adamant, open, and professing Christian.

That's called 'bigotry.'

Furthermore, just because you falsely state that Baldwin's beliefs and positions align letter-to-letter with Dr. Paul's does not make it so. If it was, I never would've supported Dr. Paul in the first place. Baldwin's inconsistent devotion to liberty shows he only believes in freedom when it is convenient for him to do so (ie, when it aligns with his belief in an invisible man).

So...you say that if Baldwin has the same platform as RP, then the mere fact that Baldwin is a devout Christian and former Pastor means that as a result you would hate Ron Paul???

Sounds like the very definition of bigotry to me. In much the same way, ignorant racists during segregation not only hated black people, but likewise those who tolerated black people eating in their white cafeterias.

I commend Baldwin for his efforts during the Paul campaign, but simply put, Baldwin himself is tarnishing the movement with his thinly veiled attempts to impose his religion on others, under the banner of libertarianism.

Sounds like a paranoid fantasy to me.

 

[BLuegreengrey]

Your alone, Paul's record speaks for itself, few can.