Johnson's running mate, Weld, is CFR scum

[CPUd]

It doesn't make Weld a great guy, people are posting Trump's CFR connection to point out the irony of a Trump booster using CFR connections in attacking another politician, a politician almost nobody on this website supports.

The Trump supporters know the LP will be splitting votes from the GOP even more so this cycle, thus the LP is a threat.

 

[Suzanimal]

the last time that happened:
[TABLE="class: wikitable"]
[TR]
[TD]Michael Badnarik[/TD]
[TD]Libertarian[/TD]
[TD]Texas[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]397,265[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.32%[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

perhaps Ron's idea of coalition building is better than a purity test.

You can build coalitions AND remain pure - like Ron Paul.

There are 4 parts to Tom Woods talk but this is the part that I thought was the best. Especially the second half of the fist video and the second video, which is only a few minutes long. If you don't have time, just watch the second video (part 4).

"if people can't get a straight answer out of the Libertarian Party, we might as well close up shop" Tom Woods

The talk is about Libertarian branding.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Yeah, I can't stand him. Is he a member of the CFR, or did he just present there? Honestly, I don't know. But, there is a huge difference. Regardless, I agree that Christie is a piece of crap.

Kinda like how Rand Paul met with Bill Kristol, but Rand isn't a neocon.

How is it that you think this somehow magically makes Weld a great guy? This thread is about Weld, by the way. If you want to start your 300th Trump thread, go do it. But, this thread isn't the place for it. Thanks.

Rand also took at least one separate foreign policy briefing from Dan Senor before joining his committee in the Senate, and holds the same position as Haass with regards to the Kurds.

Rand isn't a neocon, but he's not in direct opposition with them, either.

 

[LibertyEagle]

The Trump supporters know the LP will be splitting votes from the GOP even more so this cycle, thus the LP is a threat.

Not with Gary's pro-death stance on abortion, "humanitarian" wars and open borders unlimited immigration BS. But, you might pull some lefties and associated world government fellow travelers.

 

[William Tell]

Ron probably would have voted for Constitution Party candidate no matter who VP was. He's been far more friendly with the CP than the LP in recent years.

He certainly would agree with Castle on more things than he would Johnson.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

He certainly would agree with Castle on more things than he would Johnson.

The Constitution Party platform calls for protectionism, drug prohibition, gambling prohibition, and obscenity laws.

 

[William Tell]

The Constitution Party platform calls for protectionism, drug prohibition, gambling prohibition, and obscenity laws.

So what? There are factions in every party, Ron Paul endorsed and voted for Baldwin/Castle in 2008. The LP platform was pro gun last I knew and they just nominated a gun banner. Parties are just vehicles for politicians. Please show me how Johnson holds better views than Castle.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

So what?

So those deviations (esp. protectionism and drug prohibition) are much more serious than Gary's.

There are factions in every party, Castle seems to be from the Baldwin/Paul faction. The LP platform was pro gun last I knew and they just nominated a gun banner. Parties are just vehicles for politicians. Please show me how Johnson holds better views than Castle.

I have no idea what Castle's views are personally.

He opposes the protectionism and drug prohibition advocated in the party's platform?

 

[cajuncocoa]

The Constitution Party platform calls for protectionism, drug prohibition, gambling prohibition, and obscenity laws.

If you look closely, it should be called The Bible Party, not The Constitution Party.

 

[LibertyEagle]

If you look closely, it should be called The Bible Party, not The Constitution Party.

How so?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

How so?

They're obviously very socially conservative: anti-gambling, anti-drugs, etc.

And in some cases, they prioritize social conservatism over constitutionalism, as in calling for federal obscenity laws.

...bizarrely enough, they do this in the name of the 1st amendment.

That said, my main complaint against the CP is their lack of ballot access.

I'd vote for them if they were the more viable third party, compared to the LP.

 

[Sujan]

The Constitution Party is authoritarian, under the banner of 'religious freedom'. Sounds like a party that will do well in Iran. No thanks.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

And a gun control Nazi lol. WTF "Libertarian" party lmao this is worse than the shit-stack Majors.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

The Constitution Party is authoritarian, under the banner of 'religious freedom'. Sounds like a party that will do well in Iran. No thanks.

Most people are a bit too authoritarian. Is there something about religious freedom you don't like? All of the people I have ever worked with in the CP around NC have wanted to obey the Constitution. Chuck Baldwin, the CP Nom for President in 2008 may be a pastor, but he's as much a strict Constitutionalist as Ron Paul. Some of the CP people I have met are a little misled, but none of them in authority that I have met were theocratic. I have, however, encountered plenty of knee-jerk revulsion over the appearance of mixing church and state, just because a given candidate happens to talk about his faith a lot. The kneejerk is largely justified, of course, because for most politicians it's all fake. God as propaganda. Eventually you become inured and assume that any of them who mention 'God' must be scumbags.

 

[Origanalist]

The Constitution Party platform calls for protectionism, drug prohibition, gambling prohibition, and obscenity laws.

No it doesn't, not at the federal level.

 

[William Tell]

No it doesn't, not at the federal level.

President Johnson will likely call for 75,000 troops to invade the bible belt and bring true liberty so everyone can be bookers and stuff.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

No it doesn't, not at the federal level.

It calls for federal enforcement of obscenity laws.

Otherwise, yes, they only want those unlibertarian policies at the state level.

...though that's not much consolation for a libertarian.

 

[Origanalist]

It calls for federal enforcement of obscenity laws.

Otherwise, yes, they only want those unlibertarian policies at the state level.

...though that's not much consolation for a libertarian.

Upholding States rights and opposing unconstitutional federal mandates, that is something I can get behind. If leviathan isn't neutered how do you hope for any kind of liberty?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Upholding States rights and opposing unconstitutional federal mandates, that is something I can get behind. If leviathan isn't neutered how do you hope for any kind of liberty?

He doesn't get it. It's the #1 issue because until you disempower the beast then everything else is just rearranging deck chairs on the titanic. Until you disempower the beast you can end the Fed, it will be replaced by the Zed. You can stop Libya, it will get replaced by Syria. He's all scrabbling at surface symptoms, and he appears to hate anyone focused on the root causes.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

unconstitutional federal mandates

I say again, the CP proposes federal enforcement of obscenity laws.

Find me in Article I Sec. 8 the federal power to ban dirty words.

Go ahead.

...and when you're done not finding said power, then come back and tell me how I'm arguing against liberty.

(am I taking crazy pills or WTF is this shit?)