ok, so who do you vote for?
Ron Paul endorses Chuck Baldwin so now we know who to get behind
- Thread starter Hamer
- Start date
ok, so who do you vote for?
not any more! Barr's boner cost him that 'lead'. Most of the Paulites will trust his judgement and go with Baldwin. There are far more of us Paulites than strict Libertarians.
V3n
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2008
- Messages
- 3,864
I'm against Baldwin's view on amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, but since there's no way he'll win, and no way the amendment would pass if he did...
...If I can't vote for Ron Paul, I can at least vote for the person he has endorsed.
Chuck it is.
...If I can't vote for Ron Paul, I can at least vote for the person he has endorsed.
Chuck it is.
Josh_LA
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2007
- Messages
- 5,686
quite true, however, some states don't have Baldwin on the ballot, especially the BIG state like California.
Brassmouth
Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,220
If by "Libertarians" you mean "libertarians" then you are horribly mistaken. Most of the strict libertarians you speak of lost interest in Dr. Paul when he foolishly decided not to run as an independent or third-party. The majority of the remaining "Paulites" you see on this forum screaming for Baldwin 08 are either former neocons who still can't get the idea of L-I-B-E-R-T-Y down, or Christians who don't mind forgetting about freedom if they think an invisible man tells them to.
this is one of the true tragedies of Barr's boner. Makes it seem like he planned it that way to splinter the Ron Paul Revolution
former neocons? This is soooo off base!
As many of you know (and those that don't my signature shows who I support).
I support Ron Paul in his decision whatever it may be. It does not mean I will be supporting his chosen candidate though.
Ron Paul hasn't shown much in the way of "principle" when endorsing candidates. One look at the list of candidates on his Liberty PAC page will reveal at least 4 neo-con war mongers representing the furthest thing from Ron Paul's foreign policy of non-intervention as you can get.
So, I will vote for Bob Barr. The reason is that he is as closest to me on the issues. I could care less about a perceived pissing match between Paul and Barr. If you remove your Ron Paul colored glasses you may realize that Barr's campaign was actually more principled with the snub (even though it truly rubbed me the wrong way making me feel bad for RP).
I care about the policy positions of the 2008 campaign, and for me Barr edges out Baldwin on a few issues so that is who I will be voting for in November.
Enjoy.
I support Ron Paul in his decision whatever it may be. It does not mean I will be supporting his chosen candidate though.
Ron Paul hasn't shown much in the way of "principle" when endorsing candidates. One look at the list of candidates on his Liberty PAC page will reveal at least 4 neo-con war mongers representing the furthest thing from Ron Paul's foreign policy of non-intervention as you can get.
So, I will vote for Bob Barr. The reason is that he is as closest to me on the issues. I could care less about a perceived pissing match between Paul and Barr. If you remove your Ron Paul colored glasses you may realize that Barr's campaign was actually more principled with the snub (even though it truly rubbed me the wrong way making me feel bad for RP).
I care about the policy positions of the 2008 campaign, and for me Barr edges out Baldwin on a few issues so that is who I will be voting for in November.
Enjoy.
Damn straight! But I would support a theocrat. Chuck Baldwin is the best of the bunch by far, but he just doesn't have a chance. So I guess I will have to vote for McCain/Palin.
Brassmouth
Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,220
Hahaha!! Oh boy, this is just too funny. Thanks for the laugh.
literatim
Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,854
...says the person with 40 posts who registered in February.
the neocons were the mccain, huck, romney, guiliani trolls stirring up trouble on this this site
Brassmouth
Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,220
....replies the fool who assumes one must be registered to view the forum. Honestly my low post count and recent registration only indicate that until recently I agreed with the consensus on these forums, and saw no point in posting. It wasn't until the press conference that I was motivated to actively participate in discussion, because in my view the movement is going off on a destructive tangent.
Make no mistake, I've been a part of this movement since Dr. Paul first gained popularity in the beginning of his presidential bid. He introduced the philosophy of freedom to me, and for that I am eternally grateful.
boethius27
Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 408
He is so god-oriented that it is tough for me to back him. I'm still debating it. The constitution party platform seems more concerned with extolling the greatness of christiandom than anything else. So many Baldwin views are good, but he is so self-righteous... sigh... I'm going to hate this election. I wish Dr. Paul would have ran...
V3n
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2008
- Messages
- 3,864
Thank you.. I just heard an interview on YouTube confirming what you have written. The interview went on to say that he does endorse the Defense of Marriage Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_marriage_act
Still too much Federal control for my tastes... still holding my nose and voting for the lesser of six evils...
...but since voting Ron Paul is off the table, and voting "other" is all I really care about for 2008, he's still got my vote.
It's virtually impossible to find a candidate you agree with 100% (Ron Paul excluded). If I have to concede a bit in this area to boost "other" just by one vote, I will do it and hope for a better candidate in 2012.
Please cite a reference in which Chuck Baldwin says he supports uninhibited free trade. He is on record on numerous occasions saying that we need tariff policies that "protect American jobs," as a previous poster cited. While he is on the record here saying he supports "free and fair trade" with Russia (http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin396.htm), he also says he wants "safety protections" on imports. Furthermore, if you read this link (http://baldwin08.com/Issue-Jobs.cfm), you'll see that not only does he support a "tariff policy that protects American jobs," but also gives the Constitution Party's stance of reimposing tariffs on imported products, implying that he approves of it.
You can't be for free and uninhibited trade and hold a view that there should be a regulation of trade and tariffs on imports. It's pretty clear to me that Baldwin is a protectionist.
Baldwin also openly advocates for protection of "traditional marriage" between a man and a woman (http://baldwin08.com/Pro-Traditional-Marriage.cfm), and discusses how "social experiments" shouldn't be conducted in the associations in which children are raised. In other words, this is code for being against individual rights of LGBTers to form domestic partnership contracts that are enforced by the state and to raise children in such associations. Rejecting this right of freedom of association is about as un-libertarian as it gets. He has also made a number of disparaging comments about "homosexualists," and de facto blamed our acceptance of individuals' rights to pursue "aberrant, sexual behavior." This is a hugely un-libertarian stance.
He also seems to have some problems with taking liberties with the Constitution. (http://www.independentpoliticalrepo...e-voters-at-odds-with-constitutional-experts/) In other words, he thinks that the Commerce Clause is a valid one to establish federal regulation of abortion.
He's against online gaming, having been given an F by the Poker Player's Alliance (http://www.libertymaven.com/2008/07/15/the-ron-paul-paul-o-meter-chuck-baldwin-is-up/1276/) and dodged the question in a recent interview. (http://www.independentpoliticalrepo...n-makes-his-case-to-disgruntled-libertarians/) This is hugely un-libertarian.
He also calls for punishment of businesses who employ immigrants who've come here illegally. (http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080502.html) This is an interference in private contracts and a severe government intervention in the economy. This is hugely un-libertarian.
And while Ron Paul takes a stand against illegal immigration, his is downright moderate to Chuck Baldwin's, which is to "seal" our borders from illegal immigration. This is code for "border fence." That's hugely un-libertarian.
Furthermore, he suggests that "sealing our borders" is the best way to deal with a drug "problem." (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=94) This is far from the libertarian stance on drugs, which is that every individual has the right to consume what he or she wants to consume. This also Ron Paul's stance on the issue, which he has stated numerous times.
Ron Paul is a LIBERTARIAN. You can say what you want about Chuck Baldwin, but it cannot be denied that he's NOT a libertarian. Period. Therefore, I will not support him. I understand Dr. Paul's reason for doing so (he's a friend, he trusts him, and he is angry at Bob Barr), but I'm not going to go with him on this. I'm a libertarian and a member of the Libertarian Party, and while I have suspicions of Bob Barr, I agree with his stated positions much more than I agree with Baldwin's, and I view him as much more of a libertarian than Baldwin. Therefore, I will support the Libertarian Party's nominee, who is Bob Barr.
You can call me what you want. You're not the authority over the Revolution. Ron Paul is my hero, but that doesn't mean I have to do what he says. He would agree with this.
Similar threads
