Ron Paul endorses Chuck Baldwin so now we know who to get behind

[Hamer]

Then why do yo always call people names when they attack protectionist Baldwin's flawed beliefs?

Joe stop beating the dead horse argument.

Ron Paul endorsed Baldwin deal with it

 

[notsure]

OP, you should ditch the slanted Reason article and link straight to the CFL piece http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=582#more-582 or somewhere that has Paul's entire statement. The Reason article wreaks of spin. Paul's decision is much more logical than what the Reason would have you believe.

 

[Hamer]

OP, you should ditch the slanted Reason article and link straight to the CFL piece http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=582#more-582 or somewhere that has Paul's entire statement. The Reason article wreaks of spin. Paul's decision is much more logical than what the Reason would have you believe.

Thanks will do

 

[Hamer]

Chuck Baldwin on Facebook: http://www.new.facebook.com/group.php?gid=16165934622

DIGG the announcement: http://digg.com/business_finance/A_New_Alliance_By_Dr_Ron_Paul_2

VOTEmotion: http://www.votemotion.com/links/3573/

Face book really?

 

[Falseflagop]

WOW, nice RP screw BOB BARR (imho a true phony) I think that is what RP was telling you, his true colors shined. Nice RON proud of you man !

 

[Eric21ND]

I will flip a coin between Baldwin and Nader considering they actually showed up for RP press conference.

 

[alaric]

What Paulites are you referring to?

I'm an actual conservative that dedicated a great deal of time, talent, and treasure to this campaign.

You are merely an individual with a singular opinion, stop pretending like you are in tune with the 1.2 million people that supported Ron Paul in the primaries season.

WRONG! I've been with Paul since before the 88 campaign and donated a lot of time and money to the present campaign, so don't try to speak for me. A hell of a lot more than 1.2 million voted for him, they just didn't count the votes! Most conservatives nowadays are merely neocons. They have been suckered in by this phony war and are biting at the hook. Real or paleo-conservatives are rare nowadays and that's who Paul represents, along with most libertarians.

 

[libertarian4321]

A vote for Baldwin means you are, in fact, a protectionist. It's like joining the KKK and telling everyone that you're not a racist.

Dr. Paul's endorsement of Baldwin will convince some to vote for Baldwin.

But in reality, it has more of an effect on Barr- it will convince even more people that Barr simply isn't worthy of a vote.

Barr lost my vote the day he pulled his stunt at the press conference- frankly, my support of Barr was half hearted even at the beginning (his Libertarian credentials are weak, at best). For others, Dr. Paul coming out and essentially smacking Barr upside the head will be the final straw.

I don't know who I will vote for, but it won't be Bob Barr.

 

[BuddyRey]

Ron Paul can support and vote for Chuck Baldwin if he wants. It doesn't mean I have to vote for him.

That's the great thing about liberty!

 

[phoobaar]

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.

Great post. Baldwin sucks. He's anti-libertarian and his party ought never be mentioned without being followed by "[sic]" or having the word "Constitution" wrapped in quotes; in personal conversation, Chris Farley-style air quotes, annoying as they are, become acceptable and even necessary when discussing that mockery of a party.

To those who say Baldwin's views are in line with Paul's: Stop. One could produce reams of evidence against that farcical notion, if one were so inclined, but let's just start with the so-called "Drug War." Here's Ron Paul, in 1988, getting into a literal shouting match (yes, our Ron Paul) on national TV in defense of legalizing drugs:

1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHB2I83_N_k
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGGDVm4mmTo
3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo

Now I dare somebody to suggest that Chuck Baldwin would do that. He'd sooner argue the other side.

 

[RickyJ]

I will flip a coin between Baldwin and Nader considering they actually showed up for RP press conference.

No need to flip a coin. Dr. Paul knows them all and he is supporting Baldwin. Barr is Libertarian in name only. Chuck is not Libertarian, but he never claimed he was. He did however support and campaign for Ron Paul when he was running for president, something Bob Barr did not do.

 

[speciallyblend]

No need to flip a coin. Dr. Paul knows them all and he is supporting Baldwin. Barr is Libertarian in name only. Chuck is not Libertarian, but he never claimed he was. He did however support and campaign for Ron Paul when he was running for president, something Bob Barr did not do.

+1

 

[ceakins]

You obviously have not heard him at all because he is far from any theocrat.


www.buckforchuck.com

This is where you get owned:

Chuck Baldwin Interview on the new american, things I would like to point out, in his own words:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/351-countering-for-the-constitution

The New American: Let's begin with a very basic question: why are you running for president?
Chuck Baldwin: I was asked to put my name in nomination by members of the Constitution Party and after a lot of thought and prayer, I decided to do that. At the convention, the delegates selected me by 74 percent to 24 percent over Dr. Alan Keyes and so, obviously, I believe that I am here by the providence of God.
TNA: By what or whose providence, then, are the other candidates in the race?
Baldwin: Well, I'll let them decide that for themselves.

TNA: Should we pull out of all the countries where we have troops stationed? I believe the number is 130.
Baldwin: For the most part, yes, though I would hesitate to say absolutely every place. I would need to analyze all those places, but the vast majority of our foreign bases where American troops are stationed, I would close and bring the troops home.

TNA: How would you secure the border?
Baldwin: I would use whatever force is necessary. Our Border Patrol and Customs people are severely outgunned, outmanned, and outequipped. I was shocked when I was on the border to discover that our Border Patrol people do not even have night-vision equipment. They don't have GPS equipment. They're under constant attack from drug traffickers, gang members, and drug dealers who are often equipped with fully automatic weapons. However bad you think it is on the border, it's 10 times worse than that. And George W. Bush takes National Guard troops from America, and he sends them to Iraq and asks them to guard the borders of Iraq. And he leaves American borders wide open. That is absolutely insane as far as I'm concerned.

The Reason I point this one out is because I don't disagree but because they have started suspicionless checkpoints well with in my state, in fact 40 miles from my house, and if they are so out manned maybe they should actually be patrolling the border instead of setting up checkpoints to stop all law abiding citizens.


TNA: Where do you stand on the war on drugs?
Baldwin: I believe that as president, I would have the responsibility to keep drugs from crossing the borders, and I would do everthing in my power to keep drugs out of America. Once they come into the country, drug enforcement falls under the rubric of law enforcement, and the Constitution gives no authority to the federal government for domestic law enforcement. That is the responsibility of the state and local communities. So I believe that the drug war has been used by the federal government many times excessively, to the point where individual rights have been abridged and abrogated. I think the propensity for overreach is too great.

TNA: As I understand it, U.S. planes are going over and bombing poppy fields and whatever in Colombia and other places. Should we be doing that?
Baldwin: If the government of that country were to ask for the assistance of the United States, in particular where the vested interest of the United States is at stake, then I think that there is consideration there. But if it's a matter of the United States arbitrarily taking upon itself to invade the air space and the sovereign territory of another country to do whatever it wants to do unilaterally, then no. Absolutely not.

TNA: Do you find that philosophically, you differ a great deal from the Libertarian Party?
Baldwin: Yes, I do. That's why I'm not a libertarian. Historically, libertarians believe in open borders. Historically, the Libertarian Party believes in free access to drugs of all sorts, and I don't subscribe to that. They take no position on abortion. They take no position on "gay" marriage. And I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I support DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party presidential nominee, has supported the Patriot Act. Of course, he's said he has serious problems with that now. I opposed it from the beginning and I would seek to eliminate the Patriot Act if I were president.





So if you want a presidential candidate that would cram his personal beliefs down your throat then Baldwin is your man. Had Ron Paul had this same philosophy I would have never supported him.

 

[ceakins]

Neither will I, that's why I am voting for Chuck Baldwin.

If he's ok for Ron Paul, he's ok for me.

So if RP told you to jump off a bridge you would?

 

[NoPants]

I wonder if the media will start ignoring Dr. Paul again. He has had a lot of appearances recently because of the economy situation. Even though they ask about the economy and what he suggests doing to fix it, I think in some way they invite him so they can ask if he'll support McCain. They enjoy the free publicity (from us) when he is on. Now that he's come out in support of Chuck Baldwin they'll stop asking who he plans to vote for, and IF they ask you can expect a, "but you realize he can't win?", comment to follow.

 

[spacehabitats]

So now we see what the problem is...

TNA: Do you find that philosophically, you differ a great deal from the Libertarian Party?
Baldwin: Yes, I do. That's why I'm not a libertarian. Historically, libertarians believe in open borders. Historically, the Libertarian Party believes in free access to drugs of all sorts, and I don't subscribe to that. They take no position on abortion. They take no position on "gay" marriage. And I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I support DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party presidential nominee, has supported the Patriot Act. Of course, he's said he has serious problems with that now. I opposed it from the beginning and I would seek to eliminate the Patriot Act if I were president.

These are the deal breakers?

Do you really want to side with the NWO open borders crap that much?

This theocracy scare is a paper tiger.

If Bush, Jerry Falwell, and all of their evangelical buddies couldn't cram religion down your throat, what makes you think Chuck Baldwin could?

Besides, I think our country could survive another four years without gay marriage.

Come on guys.

 

[ceakins]

These are the deal breakers?

Do you really want to side with the NWO open borders crap that much?

This theocracy scare is a paper tiger.

If Bush, Jerry Falwell, and all of their evangelical buddies couldn't cram religion down your throat, what makes you think Chuck Baldwin could?

Besides, I think our country could survive another four years without gay marriage.

Come on guys.

Are you just retarded? Where did I say I'm for NWO and open borders? Come on quote me on that please.

Patiently waiting for you to come up with the quote that doesn't exist.

 

[Shotdown1027]

Chuck Baldwin has obvious problems, but they are FAR smaller than Barr's, McCain's, Nader's, or Obama's.

 

[NoPants]

So if you want a presidential candidate that would cram his personal beliefs down your throat then Baldwin is your man. Had Ron Paul had this same philosophy I would have never supported him.

I didn't see the part where he says, "This is what I believe and you should too." He's obviously not afraid to say how he feels personally about a subject but where does he say YOU have to agree? Yes, he's not a Libertarian, but everyone already knows that.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Are you just retarded? Where did I say I'm for NWO and open borders? Come on quote me on that please.

Patiently waiting for you to come up with the quote that doesn't exist.

It's because of what you chose to highlight in the interview with Baldwin. Your highlighting gave the appearance that you took issue with those parts of the interview. For example...

"I would use whatever force is necessary. Our Border Patrol and Customs people are severely outgunned, outmanned, and outequipped."

Specifically, what gives you heartburn about the above statement?

A legitimate Constitutional function of our government is to protect our borders.