What about the Constitution Party?

[Eire4RonPaul]

I thought Ron had a strong chance of getting nominated by the floor, but the RNC corruption prevented that. I am done with the G.O.P. because of this. They are tyrants! If Ron doesn't run third party, what do you guys think about the Constitution Party?

You're not right-wing. You're left-wing. Ron Paul is left-wing.

Bastiat sat on the left side of the floor. Technically, Laissez-faire'ers are left-wing.

 

[pcosmar]

Absolutely - so long as your skin didn't happen to be black.

As I said, The Founding Fathers were not perfect. They didn't even construct a perfect Constitution. But they had the right idea (minus the slavery bit) and that was one with a small government.

Many did oppose slavery,, But at the time it was still widely practiced worldwide.. Many accepted it simply Status Quo.
And it had nothing to do with race of skin color,, There were white slaves,, and several ethnic backgrounds.

It was on it's way out,, but was retained at the time simply because it was accepted and common throughout the known world.

Several states had their own laws,, and some did oppose it,,, Long before the civil war.

 

[pcosmar]

yes this is true, but the reality is freedom has a better chance under de-centralized control which requires States rights. So if one bad apple within the country decides to outlaw gay marriage, then it is better that 1 states does it as opposed to all 50 states. what Christians need to watch out for and is going to happen soon is gay civil rights mandates across all 50 states which will violate the rights of Christians. It has already happened in Europe and the UK

What a load of confusion.
States have no rights.. Individuals have rights. Groups have NO Rights. Be it state or corporate.
States have Sovereignty. NOT RIGHTS.

And Marriage should have nothing to do with Government.. Government should have nothing to do,,or to say about marriage.
Gay, Straight or polygamous. Nothing at all ever. At any level.

That is the private choices of individuals. and no business of government.

 

[Brett85]

I can't understand why an individual that backs Ron Paul who (I'm assuming considers oneself a Libertarian) would defend these religious cretins.

Lol. Ron Paul endorsed the Constitution Party's nominee in the last election.

 

[Eire4RonPaul]

Lol. Ron Paul endorsed the Constitution Party's nominee in the last election.

In case it went over your head, that statement was aimed at you - not Ron Paul.

So who would you endorse in 2008? Chuck or Barr (the guy that fawned all over Gingrich, some Libertarian he was).

 

[freedomordeath]

Many did oppose slavery,, But at the time it was still widely practiced worldwide.. Many accepted it simply Status Quo.
And it had nothing to do with race of skin color,, There were white slaves,, and several ethnic backgrounds.

It was on it's way out,, but was retained at the time simply because it was accepted and common throughout the known world.

Several states had their own laws,, and some did oppose it,,, Long before the civil war.

this is true, infact slavery still exists today, or if you can't pay some of your debts in 3rd world. Just because one group had white skins does not mean this is a white problem. Blacks would have done it (as they are already doing it in some African countries) if they had the power, its tribal and the one stonger tribe happened to have white skins.

Who knows, we might be slaves to China soon.

 

[freedomordeath]

What a load of confusion.
States have no rights.. Individuals have rights. Groups have NO Rights. Be it state or corporate.
States have Sovereignty. NOT RIGHTS.

And Marriage should have nothing to do with Government.. Government should have nothing to do,,or to say about marriage.
Gay, Straight or polygamous. Nothing at all ever. At any level.

That is the private choices of individuals. and no business of government.

I agree with everything you say, but if you had to design a system where individual rights had the best chance, then it is under de-centralized control. Call it whatever you want, but de-centralized control is best chance we have. some elected sherrif somewhere is probably causing havpc somewhere in America, but what do we do throw the whole system out because of a couple bad apples.

 

[Eire4RonPaul]

this is true, infact slavery still exists today, or if you can't pay some of your debts in 3rd world. Just because one group had white skins does not mean this is a white problem. Blacks would have done it (as they are already doing it in some African countries) if they had the power, its tribal and the one stonger tribe happened to have white skins.

Who knows, we might be slaves to China soon.

You're already a slave to China.

China could destroy America tomorrow morning if it decided to f*ck you over and call in it's debts. It's got nothing to do with military might if your competitor has a hand in every energy source on Earth. Money talks...

 

[Brett85]

In case it went over your head, that statement was aimed at you - not Ron Paul.

So who would you endorse in 2008? Chuck or Barr (the guy that fawned all over Gingrich, some Libertarian he was).

I would've endorsed Baldwin, but I agree with most of Baldwin's views. It's just that if Ron were a hardcore liberal on social issues like many here, he never would've endorsed Baldwin for President. He would've chosen not to endorse anyone. But, Ron is socially conservative since he's spoken out in favor of prayer in schools, in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act and the sanctity of life act, etc.

 

[erowe1]

You've completely lost the plot if you think bringing religion into politics has any place in a free society.

Perhaps I've lost the plot. Or perhaps you're just wrong about that. As far as I'm aware, there is no such thing as politics, in any society, no matter how free, that is not religious.

 

[Maltheus]

Hmmm, I thought RP just gave a general kind of 3rd party endorsement in '08. In any case, I did vote for Baldwin. The religious angle of the CP gave me pause, but in reading a few of his articles, I did feel pretty comfortable that his primary focus would be on restoring the Constitution and promoting states' rights. Certainly made a lot more sense then Patriot Act Barr.

This time, there isn't so much of a division. Johnson is pretty good on most things, and perhaps coming around on some of the others. When I was still a liberal, in the mid 90s, there were two conservatives, who opened my eyes to what conservatism could be. The first was, of course, Ron Paul, with his fascinating congressional speeches. The other was Gary Johnson. He's the only other guy out there with the track record for me.

 

[erowe1]

Hmmm, I thought RP just gave a general kind of 3rd party endorsement in '08.

He gave a press conference with the 3rd party candidates where they all agreed to certain key issues, and he did not endorse anyone. Barr refused to show up and said RP needed to endorse one and only one. So RP replied with an explicit, definite endorsement of Baldwin and only Baldwin. It was on the CFL website, 4 years ago, but it's not there any more. I'm sure you can find copies of it on the web somewhere.

 

[Kurt Evans]

--

 

[truthspeaker]

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

Here is their platform.

They always reminded me of the Religious Right of the RNC. Chuck Baldwin was a good candidate for President last time.

I will say this--when I spoke with the top of the CP in 2008, they were willing to merge with the Libertarians. When I asked the Libertarians, they were "NO WAY". Libertarian philosophy isn't bad. They way they run politics can be. I understand their hard lining on their ideals, but they missed a big opportunity with this one.

 

[Sola_Fide]

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

Here is their platform.

They always reminded me of the Religious Right of the RNC. Chuck Baldwin was a good candidate for President last time.

I will say this--when I spoke with the top of the CP in 2008, they were willing to merge with the Libertarians. When I asked the Libertarians, they were "NO WAY". Libertarian philosophy isn't bad. They way they run politics can be. I understand their hard lining on their ideals, but they missed a big opportunity with this one.

I could see why. A bunch of Ayn Rand-worshipping abortion-loving femmes couldn't ever make nice with the Constitution.

 

[jmdrake]

Hmmm, I thought RP just gave a general kind of 3rd party endorsement in '08. In any case, I did vote for Baldwin.

He gave a joint 3rd party endorsement at first, then Bob Barr starting being a jackass about it, so Ron came out and directly endorsed Baldwin in part to spite Barr. Seeing how Barr eventually endorsed Newt Gingrich in 2012, Ron's choice of Baldwin over Barr was well founded. I wish Baldwin was running this time instead of Virgil Goode.

 

[Shotdown1027]

This is Virgil Goode's pitch to Ron Paul supporters. It's an interview by a Ron Paul supporter where Goode is asked to answer question specifically that a RPFer would care about, basically.

Topics they didn't touch include Jury nullification, which he's in favor of.

 

[Kurt Evans]

--

 

[erowe1]

I think if social conservatives (like me) would give up on broad attempts at micromanaging people's lives and forcing non-Christians to act like Christians, that would probably make it easier for many non-Christians to listen to our reasoning regarding the role of government in protecting the right to life.

I don't really see social conservatives doing very much of that. Do you have something specific in mind?

 

[Kurt Evans]

--