in order to be called a "liberty candidate" i fell..

[garrettwombat]

you must run on "the platform"
and not a similar platform... or one like it...
the same platform that will be outlined in The Revolution: A Manifesto

all true ron paul supporters already know the platform.

[daniroyer]

I don't believe it's in the spirit of "liberty" to have everyone run on the exact same thing. Obviously these values must make up the core, but we're all individuals with different life expirence and ideas. It's when we put all these ideas together that we get the beauty of a democracy.

I've very much inline with nearly all of Dr. Paul's ideas. I differ when it comes to abortion. I believe during the first trimester, the woman's rights supercedes. Also to that effect, the woman also the responisbility not to get pregnant (really, it's not that hard). In short, women have the right not to be pregnant and the responisibility to keep themselves from being pregnant.

I do, however, believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the exact limits on abortion left up to the states.

[garrettwombat]

economically we can not stray from the platform...
constitutionally we can not stray from the platform...


see the reason ron paul votes the way he does is because of Austrian economics and the constitution...

Austrian economics has given him the justification to vote against ALL tax increases... and ALL wasteful spending... not just some or the majority of it... ALL... these are very strict libertarian principles... and they are the only principles that make any sense. for all other ways will lead to the destruction of our dollar and our economy.

the constitution part is easy... make sure you understand it well and watch for tricky bills that may try to sneak there way in... and never vote for anything you do not read.

everything always needs to be debated between congress and discussed with everyone...

there should never be so many bills trying to pass through at once there is not enough time to debate everything.

after realizing these things, there is very little the house should ever disagree on if we stick to the founding fathers principles... and responsible economics.


i refuse to vote for anyone who will not uphold austrian economics as their core beliefs... as this is the driving force behind everything ron paul...

i will refuse to vote for a candidate not on the official platform... liberty candidate or not...

i mean i guess a liberty candidate is better than nothing, but not running on the platform they are certainly no "ron paul"

abortion aside, as it is one of the things i think we could disagree on.

[JohnnyWrath]

I am pro-choice personally, but I would expect any candidate I am voting for to be against government spending on any pro-choice agendas or programs.

I am also for stem cell research, but 100% against government funding of this research.

I almost don't care what a candidate stands for as long as they are for government out of my life, and out of my pockets, and not asking me to pay for programs against my will that they are for...be for whatever you want as long as I am not forced against my will to pay for it with my freedom, my liberty, or my hard earned money..

[beachmaster]

On abortion it's really very simple. The federal government has no authority to decide. It is left to the states. If you are running for a state office, abortion is something you can decide independent of the Ron Paul platform as regarding the constitution. Everyone on a Ron Paul platform would have to agree that the right to life is a basic right however (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc.). Moral questions of when life begins is something you as a state legislator would have to decide. But I don't see how anyone can agree that a life (once defined in your state) can be arbitrarily snuffed out due to economic, social or other reasons.

[daniroyer]

On abortion it's really very simple. The federal government has no authority to decide. It is left to the states. If you are running for a state office, abortion is something you can decide independent of the Ron Paul platform as regarding the constitution. Everyone on a Ron Paul platform would have to agree that the right to life is a basic right however (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc.). Moral questions of when life begins is something you as a state legislator would have to decide. But I don't see how anyone can agree that a life (once defined in your state) can be arbitrarily snuffed out due to economic, social or other reasons.

Exactly. We need to define the point where the woman's right cedes to the fetus' rights and once that line is crossed, abortion cannot happen w/o extreme cause. If you put the point at conception, it could easily backslide to make birth control illegal. If you put it at birth, it allows for late term abortion. The first one takes away women's rights and the second takes away the fetus' rights and neither is acceptable.

Like everything in a democracy, it's about finding the middle ground that it most moral and satisifies most people. The problem with such an emotional issue is it's hard to get either side to give anything up to reach a good agreement.

I personally think the point is at the end of the first trimester. Many pregnancies (my midwife told me anywhere from 15-30%) don't make it past this time naturally and it can't be used as grounds to make birth control illegal.

We need to end abortion, but just legislating it won't work. Just like with Ron Paul fixing our tax system, you can just eliminate the IRS without first eliminating the overspending that caused the IRS to be there in the first place.