So what happens if the Constitution Party nominates Dr. Paul on Saturday?

[nate895]

Amen brother! Keys turns into a ranting lunitic when he is questioned about the war in Iraq. He supports Bush's war 200%.

Just ask him.......Several members of the Houston meetup group did......they were in shock at his response.

Keyes is a brilliant debater, though. I listen to him debate sometimes before going to Speech and Debate competitions.

 

[G-Wohl]

Umm... Ron Paul's message does not fit with the religious zealotry platform that the Constitution Party upholds.

 

[american.swan]

remember you only need to win your electors in the 11 most populous states and you win the presidency. Of course not easy, but it's that simple.

 

[bucfish]

The LP and CP needs to come into agreement to TAKE BACK AMERICA! Them along with the former REFORM PARTY could make a dent in the 2 party system.

 

[hillbilly123069]

We'll dance.

 

[Stallion]

Umm... Ron Paul's message does not fit with the religious zealotry platform that the Constitution Party upholds.

Just out of curiosity, have you read the CP platform? It's pretty darn close to RP's views. I would venture to say that it is a better fit than the LP. Constitution Party members are Right Libertarians (pro-life), they are virtually one in the same and I would put Dr. Paul in the Right Libertarian category.

 

[mdh]

Didn't the LP try convincing him to be their nominee?

Shane Cory sent an open letter to Dr. Paul asking him to seek our nomination. He politely declined, and has said that he has no interest in running on any third party ticket nor as an independent.

Umm... Ron Paul's message does not fit with the religious zealotry platform that the Constitution Party upholds.

I don't know that it's that bad, but I definitly get your point and agree. Stuff like the porn ban violates free speech, though it may be that the CP only pushes that at the state level rather than violating the constitution by promoting it at the federal level. It could also be that they seek a porn ban amendment. Either way, it seems silly to me. The LP is 100% dedicated to libertarian ideals at every level of government from dog catchers to presidents.

The LP and CP needs to come into agreement to TAKE BACK AMERICA! Them along with the former REFORM PARTY could make a dent in the 2 party system.

I don't know anything about the reform party - does it even still exist? There's no state affiliate here. Anyways, it seems extraordinarily unlikely that the LP and CP would merge, but there's plenty we agree on and plenty of room for us to work together on issues where we agree.

Just out of curiosity, have you read the CP platform? It's pretty darn close to RP's views. I would venture to say that it is a better fit than the LP. Constitution Party members are Right Libertarians (pro-life), they are virtually one in the same and I would put Dr. Paul in the Right Libertarian category.

I would disagree that the CP is a better fit for Dr. Paul than the LP. Keep in mind that Dr. Paul is a life member of the Libertarian Party. Many LP members are Christians but realize that that has nothing to do with governance, while the CP leans more towards wanting to heavily involve their faith in the way they govern. Like those Christian Libertarians, Dr. Paul sees his faith as a deeply personal force, and one that is not something to be brought into politics to the extent that many CP members wish to.

 

[Stallion]

I would disagree that the CP is a better fit for Dr. Paul than the LP. Keep in mind that Dr. Paul is a life member of the Libertarian Party. Many LP members are Christians but realize that that has nothing to do with governance, while the CP leans more towards wanting to heavily involve their faith in the way they govern. Like those Christian Libertarians, Dr. Paul sees his faith as a deeply personal force, and one that is not something to be brought into politics to the extent that many CP members wish to.

I am a Christian, and I consider myself a libertarian. However, I am hesitant to affiliate myself with the Libertarian Party on the basis that they seem to refuse to take a stand on abortion. To me, straddling the fence on the issue and turning a blind eye is just as bad as being openly pro-choice. There are many pro-choice Libertarians that I respect as patriotic Americans, but unfortunately could never vote for.

Both the CP and LP have their flaws. The CP seeks to restrict the rights of individuals to view pornography. The LP (IMO) fails to explicitly advocate the protection of the rights of unborn babies to life. In the end, you have to decide for yourself which issue is more important to you. Honestly, I see these 2 issues as the major differences between the two parties. We all know Dr. Paul is a libertarian. I believe libertarians come in all shapes and sizes and I believe each and every one of us could be labeled "libertarian." The reason I believe the CP is a better fit for Dr. Paul is because I believe he would place more importance on the need to end abortion in this country than on the need to make sure pornography continues to exist. That is just my opinion, and I know some of you will disagree with me and that's fine.

 

[mdh]

I am a Christian, and I consider myself a libertarian. However, I am hesitant to affiliate myself with the Libertarian Party on the basis that they seem to refuse to take a stand on abortion. To me, straddling the fence on the issue and turning a blind eye is just as bad as being openly pro-choice. There are many pro-choice Libertarians that I respect as patriotic Americans, but unfortunately could never vote for.

This comes down to the fact that the party is just about split down the middle on the abortion issue. There are a lot of pro-life libertarians. There's a lot of intellectual debate on the subject, and without concensus, the party isn't going to take a stand either way. I believe this is the best thing that the LP can do.

Both the CP and LP have their flaws. The CP seeks to restrict the rights of individuals to view pornography. The LP (IMO) fails to explicitly advocate the protection of the rights of unborn babies to life. In the end, you have to decide for yourself which issue is more important to you. Honestly, I see these 2 issues as the major differences between the two parties. We all know Dr. Paul is a libertarian. I believe libertarians come in all shapes and sizes and I believe each and every one of us could be labeled "libertarian." The reason I believe the CP is a better fit for Dr. Paul is because I believe he would place more importance on the need to end abortion in this country than on the need to make sure pornography continues to exist. That is just my opinion, and I know some of you will disagree with me and that's fine.

Well, I think Dr. Paul has more or less spoken on this issue by being a member of the LP.

Fundamentally speaking, I think your wording is wrong though. I believe Dr. Paul would believe it more important not to advocate weakening free speech than to more explicitly advocate the unborn right to life. One of the planks of the CP platform is in direct opposition to one of his core values, while the LP simply fails to take a stand either way on another. Your analogy would only be correct if the LP somehow advocated keeping abortion legal, which isn't the case. The vast majority of libertarians, including pro-abortion libertarians, believe that Roe v Wade is a miscarriage of justice (what an awful pun.) In that, the vast majority of us agree with Dr. Paul's position, too, which goes further towards showing that the LP is better aligned with Dr. Paul.

 

[torchbearer]

I am a Christian, and I consider myself a libertarian. However, I am hesitant to affiliate myself with the Libertarian Party on the basis that they seem to refuse to take a stand on abortion. To me, straddling the fence on the issue and turning a blind eye is just as bad as being openly pro-choice. There are many pro-choice Libertarians that I respect as patriotic Americans, but unfortunately could never vote for.

Both the CP and LP have their flaws. The CP seeks to restrict the rights of individuals to view pornography. The LP (IMO) fails to explicitly advocate the protection of the rights of unborn babies to life. In the end, you have to decide for yourself which issue is more important to you. Honestly, I see these 2 issues as the major differences between the two parties. We all know Dr. Paul is a libertarian. I believe libertarians come in all shapes and sizes and I believe each and every one of us could be labeled "libertarian." The reason I believe the CP is a better fit for Dr. Paul is because I believe he would place more importance on the need to end abortion in this country than on the need to make sure pornography continues to exist. That is just my opinion, and I know some of you will disagree with me and that's fine.

There is no one in the LP who is for killing babies. The debate is and always has been when does one become a human.
And since no one has come up with the answer to that questions, there is no way a libertarian can subscribe to a blanket party platform taking a position either way.

 

[josephadel_3]

Ha, someone always has to play the abortion card. We all know Ron Paul is pro-life. Regardless of your stance on the issue, please continue to support him.

 

[mdh]

Ha, someone always has to play the abortion card. We all know Ron Paul is pro-life. Regardless of your stance on the issue, please continue to support him.

What?

You seem to have missed the whole context of this discussion...

 

[Captain America]

i am a party memeber and if they nom keys i am out for good. if they nom paul it will be a blessing

 

[Stallion]

From user Sean Scallon on thirdpartywatch.com:

Getting back to the convention, I was on a radio show with Texas CP Chairman Bryan Malatesta and he would love to draft Ron Paul and put him on the CP line. I would be curious to see what Paul’s reaction would if that happened. Would he acquiese in it? I’d doubt if he would campaign as the CP nominee in the fall, but he may very well shrug his shoulders and say “well, they wanted to nominate me that’s their right to do so.” And that’s all the CP would need. They’d pick one of their own as VP and get on as many state ballots as possible and the Ron Paul Revolution continues…

 

[Kludge]

Okay, point to yourself and read the quote in your signature, please.

???? I'm not owned by any party, nor do I agree fully with any party's platform (that I'm aware of).

There's a reason third parties fail to elect presidents, and that's because they try to elect presidents.

 

[BenMuldowney]

Amen brother! Keys turns into a ranting lunitic when he is questioned about the war in Iraq. He supports Bush's war 200%.

Just ask him.......Several members of the Houston meetup group did......they were in shock at his response.

what kind of screwball pretends to be a Constitutionalist and supports an illegal war crime? alan keyes is that kind of screwball. if the CP nominates him... yikes!!

 

[Stallion]

bump