This Is Very Interesting!

[LibertyCzar]

AFAIK the Constitution party is the largest 'third' party in the U.S. and is substantially larger than the Libertarian party. It's most likely the place where the droves of compassionate conservatives have run to after the neocon takeover of the GOP. I think they'd probably be monsterously huge if it weren't for the heavy Christian bias in their platform... especially in these times of heavy two-party dissatisfaction.


Here's my question... if Paul is on more than one ticket, will votes for him in both tickets be lumped into one or will he be dividing his own votes??

If Ron Paul was the nominee for a regular party, and if he was the nominee for Unity 08, you would only be able to vote for one of the two tickets.

 

[PatriotOne]

Basically.

Ron Paul is awesome. He gets support from Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Constitution Party members, etc.

I think many of the minor parties (or at least their members) could easily support Ron Paul. I was with the American Heritage Party, myself.

Just goes to show how most people are the same when they hear just good old common sense. That whole party line is a farce IMO. It only serves to divide and conquer the voter's. I've never voted along party lines...it's just never made any sense to me to do so.

 

[LibertyCzar]

Sorry Tsoldrin, unless things have changed radically in the last couple of years, the LP is bigger that the CP. LP has more members, more elected officials, routinely gets ballot status in all 50 states. Now this year, the CP may eclipse the LP, but that is only because almost all the LP members are switching to GOP to support Ron Paul. If Ron Paul makes it to the general election, I would be surprised if the LP even runs anyone other than a presidential candidate. Actually in states where fusion candidates are allowed, I can see both the LP and CP nominating RP.

The big issue that divides the CP and LP is abortion. CP has a pro-life litmus test. LP is divided on Abortion, and allows both views in it's "big tent."

While the CP is against, pornography, gambling, drugs, etc. They feel it's not supposed to be a federal issue, so are against censorship, against the drug war, want an end to Roe v Wade, etc.

I will refer once again to my signature. There are three branches of government and there are three levels of government. The Feds can believe anything they want, as far as I'm concerned, as long as they advocate allowing the States to determine policy. The Constitution Party might sound too Christian to be broadly appealing. But I want to point out something. When we go to vote, we go to vote for people in the State and Local Governments too. So what if the Feds abolish everything you like and advocate everything you hate IF THEY ADVOCATE LEAVING IT TO THE STATES TO DECIDE SUCH MATTERS. That is the way it should be. So if we want a certain policy, we just have to vote in some at the STATE level. For me, the Constitution Party is perfect for the Federal Government. However, I would want a different party in control of State and Local government. The point is that we get to vote for all three. And all three levels of government have a different purpose.

 

[LibertyCzar]

Just goes to show how most people are the same when they hear just good old common sense. That whole party line is a farce IMO. It only serves to divide and conquer the voter's. I've never voted along party lines...it's just never made any sense to me to do so.

The first few sessions of Congress were divided into a Pro-Administration (Executive) Party and an opposition Anti-Administration Party. Then it split between the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans. At some point the Whig Party came in.

Parties, per se, are not bad, it's just the way they are split now is insane.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Am I right in thinking that the Constitution party is the Libertarian party for Christian zealots.

Well, they take a firm stance against illegal immigration, which the Libertarian party doesn't do. The Libertarian Party calling people xenophobes and advocating open borders sure turns me off, as I would imagine, a lot of other Americans. http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration.shtml

I just looked at the Libertarian Party website and it appears they now are against the managed trade deals we have, such as NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. In the past, I have heard several libertarians actually criticize Dr. Paul's position that the agreements we have now are not free trade agreements at all. Of course, we Dr. Paul supporters know he was right from the start.

By the way, calling the Constitution Party, "Christian zealots", is not exactly the way to get them to join hands with us in the campaign.

It might interest you to know that there are a lot of us who have supported Dr. Paul for many years who are not Libertarians. I personally am a traditional conservative and Ron Paul's principles are totally in line with my beliefs.