Paul has endorsed Baldwin

I find this dissapointing.

First Paul endorses all the 3rd party candidates (after they agreed to his 4 point platform requirements), and now he's dissing three of those candidates in order to endorse Baldwin alone? Seems very unfair to Nader and McKinney to me.

And Barr, geez, he really screwed the pooch with that non-attendance thing. What an idiot.
 
Last edited:
SeanEdwards said:
I find this dissapointing.

First Paul endorses all the 3rd party candidates (after they agreed to his 4 point platform requirrments), and now he's dissing three of those candidates in order to endorse Baldwin alone? Seems very unfair to Nader and McKinney to me.

And Barr, geez, he really screwed the pooch with that non-attendance thing. What an idiot.
Click to expand...

Didn't he though? I am just sick. I was so looking forward to the Libertarians breaking out this time. I used to be a member, but let my membership lapse when I decided they were not serious about getting people elected. I thought they had finally turned the corner and now this.

However, I think any third party candidate is a valid choice even if none stand a chance of being elected. If the vote total is more than the spread between the two major parties, the message will have been sent. I see no substantive difference between the two, so it does not matter to me which gets elected.
 
Last edited:
SeanEdwards said:
I find this dissapointing.

First Paul endorses all the 3rd party candidates (after they agreed to his 4 point platform requirrments), and now he's dissing three of those candidates in order to endorse Baldwin alone? Seems very unfair to Nader and McKinney to me.

And Barr, geez, he really screwed the pooch with that non-attendance thing. What an idiot.
Click to expand...

It was posted by Benton...I have a feeling Ron didn't write that.
 
I was going to remain silent. However, since Ron has endorsed Chuck, I'll state the obvious.

Some supporters of Ron Paul won't support Chuck for various reasons, One of the primary excuses is Chuck being a "theocrat" which is false. Yes, Chuck is a pastor which is why you, the voter, should vote for him. Because Chuck is a principled man with a history of supporting our Constitution, he just might keep his word to adhere to the US Constitution as POTUS. Bob Barr is not a principled man which is why he pulls the shenanigans that he does and he really can't be trusted to adhere to the US Constitution. Ironically, these supporters of Ron who won't vote for Chuck for being a "theocrat" are actually saying that they really want a man of principle like Chuck, but they don't want him to talk about his faith so much .... they just might be convicted of something ... ;) One can see clearly how Bob Barr has let them down, but what did they really expect from an unprincipled man? I think of the fallout from the presidency of Bill Clinton. Wasn't the electorate ready for a change? Well, the only change was different set of smooth talking lips...

Anyway, if you just can't bring yourself to vote for Chuck, please vote 3rd party as Ron has encouraged us to do. For liberty's sake ...
 
tpreitzel said:
I was going to remain silent. However, since Ron has endorsed Chuck, I'll state the obvious.

Some supporters of Ron Paul won't support Chuck for various reasons, One of the primary excuses is Chuck being a "theocrat" which is false. Yes, Chuck is a pastor which is why you, the voter, should vote for him. Because Chuck is a principled man, he just might keep his word to adhere to the US Constitution. Bob Barr is not a principled man which is why he pulls the shenanigans that he does and he really can't be trusted to adhere to the US Constitution. Ironically, these supporters of Ron who won't vote for Chuck for being a "theocrat" are actually saying that they really want a man of principle like Chuck, but they don't want him to talk about his faith so much .... they just might be convicted of something ... ;) One can see clearly how Bob Barr has let them down, but what did they really expect from an unprincipled man? I think of the fallout from the presidency of Bill Clinton. Wasn't the electorate ready for a change? Well, the only change was different set of smooth talking lips...

Anyway, if you just can't bring yourself to vote for Chuck, please vote 3rd party as Ron has encouraged us to do. For liberty's sake ...
Click to expand...

Please, cut the nonsense. You've never met Bob, you don't know his morals, and you certainly don't have the grounds to say he pulls shenanigans.

Like I said, I will get behind Baldwin if I hear Paul say it, but I don't trust ANYTHING posted by Benton. Not to mention, the letter doesn't sound like something Paul wrote.

Benton is a sly fox. If you want to talk about "unprincipled" you shouldn't leave Benton out of the sentence.
 
rockandrollsouls said:
Please, cut the nonsense. You've never met Bob, you don't know his morals, and you certainly don't have the grounds to say he pulls shenanigans.

Like I said, I will get behind Baldwin if I hear Paul say it, but I don't trust ANYTHING posted by Benton. Not to mention, the letter doesn't sound like something Paul wrote.

Benton is a sly fox. If you want to talk about "unprincipled" you shouldn't leave Benton out of the sentence.
Click to expand...

Wrong. We all have a very recent event. Furthermore, we have a more detailed history of Bob's past shenanigans. Many of them have been listed on these forums. Last, what does Benton have to do with voting for a presidential candidate? Yes, you may be right about Benton, but that particular person isn't running for POTUS.
 
Does this look like the face of a man who engages in shenanigans...?

ap_bob_barr_080405_mn.jpg
 
Kludge,

Absolutely, yes, and his past indicates as much on issues of constitutional liberty... ;) Like I just said, however. If you can't vote for Baldwin, vote for a 3rd party candidate. Personally, I don't really care which one. Good luck, folks. We need it!
 
Last edited:
Someone had to pull all of us together or there is NO CHANCE a third party could win. Quit your efin bickering. How can you not see that divided you will always lose.

This is the last chance election for our very lives. This is the one time in so much crisis that a third party candidate can win...............please listen to Dr. Paul.
 
My 2 cents:

1. Notice Ron doesn't use the word "endorse." All he says is that he "supports" Baldwin.

2. I'm pretty sure Ron is supporting Baldwin and Baldwin alone. I really don't think Paul is supporting the Constitution Party and it's overly religious platform. Just Baldwin.
 
Should be a good day for you minarchists out there.

I know you probably didn't expect this but it is the only logical conclusion. MR Barr isn't even close to Ron Paul. Even now he isn't saying all of the right things.

MR Baldwin is as close to Ron Paul as it gets. So for those who still support slavery (read support government), you have your candidate.
 
AJ Antimony said:
My 2 cents:

1. Notice Ron doesn't use the word "endorse." All he says is that he "supports" Baldwin.

2. I'm pretty sure Ron is supporting Baldwin and Baldwin alone. I really don't think Paul is supporting the Constitution Party and it's overly religious platform. Just Baldwin.
Click to expand...

How do you even know Ron wrote that? It was posted by Benton.
 
Maybe from this endorsement the Baldwin campaign can get a better website!

Man, the current site sucks!
 
svf said:
that really sucks. Especially considering chuck's ballot access woes, homophobic writings, and the constitution party's theocratic, unlibertarian platform.

For the first time i regret voting for ron paul and donating hundreds of my hard-earned dollars to him.

Shiiiiiiiiiit.
Click to expand...

qft
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jct74
Libertarian Party of New Hampshire Endorses Trump: ‘Best Candidate for Libertarians’
Replies
8
Views
813
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
PAF
No Matter Who Wins the November Election, Zionists Will Control the White House
Replies
2
Views
304
unknown
unknown
PAF
America Has Only Two Religions: Democrat and Republican
Replies
0
Views
493
PAF
PAF
Occam's Banana
The "Giuliani Moment"
Replies
6
Views
1K
Intrepid
Intrepid
Matt Collins
Why they wanted him dead before the convention:
Replies
12
Views
1K
acptulsa
acptulsa
Back
Top