Chuck Baldwin/Ron Paul?

[wgadget]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c84pJ6E7BYg


May just snag in those "social conservatives" from Huckster and Romney, and win as a third party Constitution ticket.*

The Constitution is THE thing for Mormons, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them aren't already Constitution Party voters. The Huckster voters would probably prefer this combination to a McCain presidency, and they're also into the Fair Tax thing. We all know Ron Paul is pretty strong in the zero tax department.

What do you guys think?

*If Ron does NOT win the Republican nomination, that is....

[nate895]

Baldwin already has a VP, I don't know who it is.

[wgadget]

Ron Paul perhaps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c84pJ6E7BYg

[HabeusCorpus]

Personally, I like the idea of Ron Paul completing a Chuck Baldwin ticket. Just seeing Dr. Paul's name on the November ballot, even if it's for the VP spot, would be an easy decision for me to pull the lever.

[Kludge]

Ron won't run third party. Chuck is a theocrat anyways. No need for discussion on this.

You have McCain, Obama, (Barr, Ruwart, WAR or Kubby), Baldwin, or an even more worthless write-in. Take your pick.

[Shotdown1027]

Baldwin was one of Dr. Paul's biggest supporters, and still is. His VP is Darrell Castle--but Baldwin actually WANTED to playsecond fiddle to Ron Paul. Myself and a group of other CP delegates asked Paul if he'd accept a draft and he said no, but that "Chuck is a great friend of freedom. I'd be pleased to see him run a strong campaign".

I dont want to dissapoint the good Doctor.

[FrankRep]

I would vote for that!

[familydog]

Ron won't run third party. Chuck is a theocrat anyways. No need for discussion on this.

You have McCain, Obama, (Barr, Ruwart, WAR or Kubby), Baldwin, or an even more worthless write-in. Take your pick.

Baldwin is a theocrat? I wasn't aware. Can you please elaborate and give some examples?

[Jeremy]

Ron won't run third party. Chuck is a theocrat anyways. No need for discussion on this.

You have McCain, Obama, (Barr, Ruwart, WAR or Kubby), Baldwin, or an even more worthless write-in. Take your pick.

Wow, what a prejudice, collectivist thing to say!

[DeadtoSin]

Yeah, he is a pastor, so he must be a theocrat! He pretty much advocates the same exact thing as Ron Paul, but the dude was a pastor! What a stupid theocratic thing to do!

[nate895]

Yeah, he is a pastor, so he must be a theocrat! He pretty much advocates the same exact thing as Ron Paul, but the dude was a pastor! What a stupid theocratic thing to do!

Ron Paul's brothers are pastors.

And I do understand you said that in jest.

[Jeremy]

Yeah, he is a pastor, so he must be a theocrat! He pretty much advocates the same exact thing as Ron Paul, but the dude was a pastor! What a stupid theocratic thing to do!

Not everyone will realize that you're being sarcastic :p

[DeadtoSin]

Haha sorry! I can't help it I'm feeling a little bit mischievous tonight. :D

[rajibo]

Yeah, he is a pastor, so he must be a theocrat! He pretty much advocates the same exact thing as Ron Paul, but the dude was a pastor! What a stupid theocratic thing to do!

From what I can tell from it's platform, the Constitution Party would love it if we lived in a theocracy.

[Kludge]

Baldwin is a theocrat? I wasn't aware. Can you please elaborate and give some examples?


Wow, what a prejudice, collectivist thing to say!

I can't find a specific platform for Baldwin, so instead I'll assume he's running fairly close to the CP platform, which lists positions such as these:

"Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states."

"The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. We are opposed to amending the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage. We reject the notion that sexual offenders are deserving of legal favor or special protection, and affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior. We oppose all efforts to impose a new sexual legal order through the federal court system. We stand against so-called "sexual orientation" and "hate crime" statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression. We oppose government funding of "partner" benefits for unmarried individuals. Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions.
We recognize that parents have the fundamental right and responsibility to nurture, educate, and discipline their children. We oppose the assumption of any of these responsibilities by any governmental agency without the express delegation of the parents or legal due process. We affirm the value of the father and the mother in the home, and we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples.
We affirm both the authority and duty of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of state sodomy laws in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2."


"The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.
At the same time, we will take care to prevent violations of the Constitutional and civil rights of American citizens. Searches without probable cause and seizures without due process must be prohibited, and the presumption of innocence must be preserved."



"Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.
With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion. While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards."

[DeadtoSin]

Well, my parents used to have a saying about assumptions.

[Kludge]

Wow, what a prejudice, collectivist thing to say!

How so?

[familydog]

Well, my parents used to have a saying about assumptions.

You'll be an "ass," and the "ump" will "tion" you?

[tonyr1988]

I'm not a big fan of the CP, but I fell that some of these aren't necessarily contradictory to Paul's message.


"Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states."

What's wrong with getting rid of federal regulation that overrules state control of tribal casinos within their own states? It's federalism, baby.


"The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. We are opposed to amending the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage. We reject the notion that sexual offenders are deserving of legal favor or special protection, and affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior. We oppose all efforts to impose a new sexual legal order through the federal court system. We stand against so-called "sexual orientation" and "hate crime" statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression. We oppose government funding of "partner" benefits for unmarried individuals. Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions.

Again, it wreaks of federalism. They don't want to amend the Constitution to define marriage. However, the last sentence could be interpreted as against Paul's standard. On the other hand, I guarantee that >90% of CPers would love to get the govt out of marriage and make it solely lie with the church.


We recognize that parents have the fundamental right and responsibility to nurture, educate, and discipline their children. We oppose the assumption of any of these responsibilities by any governmental agency without the express delegation of the parents or legal due process. We affirm the value of the father and the mother in the home, and we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples.
We affirm both the authority and duty of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of state sodomy laws in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2."

1) The first part (govt shouldn't take the responsibilities of a parent) is definitely Paulian.

2) I think Paul would disagree with opposing efforts to legalize adoption by homosexuals - I don't see how he would think the government could usurp this power, so I do think they differ on that.

3) He agrees with their interpretation of Article III, Section 2, and even used that as the legal justification for the Sanctity of Life Act. With that said, I'm not sure if he would agree with their usage (overturning Sodomy decisions).


"The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.
At the same time, we will take care to prevent violations of the Constitutional and civil rights of American citizens. Searches without probable cause and seizures without due process must be prohibited, and the presumption of innocence must be preserved."

1) Paul agrees with #1 - states should have the right to ban drugs.

2) Paul disagrees with the second part (stopping the flow into our country).

3) Paul is completely on board with limiting searches w/o probable cause, and ensuring due process.


"Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.
With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion. While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards."

This is where my (and maybe Paul's) biggest disagreement with the CP lies. It seems pretty contradictory - they acknowledge that people should control themselves, but think the government should impose decency standards. If they're only talking about things like public nudity - that's cool, but I think they wish to go beyond that.

So, I don't think there is anything crazily theocratic (authoritarian) about their platform, although many elements aren't completely Paulian.

I do think Chuck Baldwin is more Paul-leaning than that, though, and probably disagrees with the official platform on a few small issues. I'm having a tough time deciding between Baldwin and the LP nominee (whoever it should be) myself, and would love to see more organization on Baldwin's part (he doesn't even have a website :D).

[DeadtoSin]

Instead of reading the Constitution Party platform, I'd read the writings of Chuck Baldwin. I'm really amazed you'd fall into a collectivist thinking over this. Are all GOP members the same? Does McCain's platform follow the GOP platform? I'd say it doesn't, though it does maintain the status quo.

Chuck Baldwin has a lot of writings, and he endorsed Ron Paul as well.

[Kludge]

I'm more bothered by the fact that they claim all rights are endowed unto Man by "the Creator". It's not possible for secularism to exist when separation of church and state does not exist.

It's nice that over half of their platform agrees with Paul's, but they argue that all rights are given by God, and any disrespectful action toward God must be outlawed - NOT why Dr. Paul has the platform he has. Dr. Paul argues in favor of liberty because it benefits PEOPLE, not God.

[Kludge]

Instead of reading the Constitution Party platform, I'd read the writings of Chuck Baldwin. I'm really amazed you'd fall into a collectivist thinking over this. Are all GOP members the same? Does McCain's platform follow the GOP platform? I'd say it doesn't, though it does maintain the status quo.

Chuck Baldwin has a lot of writings, and he endorsed Ron Paul as well.

The GOP has adhered to the "three-legged stool" mentality since Reagan, trying to compromise as much as they can to receive the most votes for anyone-but-a-Democrat. Third parties are specifically tailored to specific beliefs - for example, it'd be near impossible to be a Libertarian if you aren't a libertarian. In the same way, it'd be exceptionally difficult to label yourself a member of the CP without being a theocrat, libertarian or not.

[nate895]

I'm more bothered by the fact that they claim all rights are endowed unto Man by "the Creator". It's not possible for secularism to exist when separation of church and state does not exist.

It's nice that over half of their platform agrees with Paul's, but they argue that all rights are given by God, and any disrespectful action toward God must be outlawed - NOT why Dr. Paul has the platform he has. Dr. Paul argues in favor of liberty because it benefits PEOPLE, not God.

All rights are endowed by the Creator. To disagree would mean they are given by the Government, and that is dangerous territory to tread in.

[Kludge]

All rights are endowed by the Creator. To disagree would mean they are given by the Government, and that is dangerous territory to tread in.

Rights exist naturally, and are owned by people. Government has no right to steal any... rights.

[DeadtoSin]

And why can't he say that his rights are given to him by his Creator? That is his belief, and I'd think that it should be ok to say that. He has never said anything should be outlawed that I know of.

Here, I'll even give you a link to his writings. Then you'll see that he is a pretty good candidate. If you think that secularism should rule in society, and that a person's beliefs should have no place in a public square, then I think that is kind of silly. So a person is supposed to have two faces, one for public and one for private? No, I want to know a person's personal convictions, because that is what a person will follow in the end. If a person is an atheist, I want him to weigh in on his beliefs. If he is a Christian, he should weigh in as a Christian. If he is a Muslim, he should weigh in as a Muslim. If he is an agnostic, he should weigh in as an agnostic. That is of course assuming that whatever it is under discussion, is addressed somehow by their beliefs.

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwina.htm

[DeadtoSin]

Also, I'm not saying you SAID secularism should rule, that was really meant more as a question of whether you meant it like that or not.

[nate895]

Rights exist naturally, and are owned by people. Government has no right to steal any... rights.

True, but who creates nature? God. If God didn't create nature, there is nothing beyond the physicality that is nature and you can claim no "natural rights" because that would infer that somehow there came to be a spiritual realm in which this law came to be, which if there was a spiritual realm there would be a Creator of some variety.

[Kludge]

And why can't he say that his rights are given to him by his Creator? That is his belief, and I'd think that it should be ok to say that. He has never said anything should be outlawed that I know of.

Here, I'll even give you a link to his writings. Then you'll see that he is a pretty good candidate. If you think that secularism should rule in society, and that a person's beliefs should have no place in a public square, then I think that is kind of silly. So a person is supposed to have two faces, one for public and one for private? No, I want to know a person's personal convictions, because that is what a person will follow in the end. If a person is an atheist, I want him to weigh in on his beliefs. If he is a Christian, he should weigh in as a Christian. If he is a Muslim, he should weigh in as a Muslim. If he is an agnostic, he should weigh in as an agnostic. That is of course assuming that whatever it is under discussion, is addressed somehow by their beliefs.

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwina.htm

You cannot create laws in accordance with those of God or it IS a theocracy. I'm being called a collectivist while you insist people should weigh in as their religion dictates? The Bible offers guidance, not law.

[Yom]

Can we please stop confusing the CP platform with Baldwin's beliefs? He's significantly more libertarian-leaning than most members of the CP. I'd gladly vote for him, and I'm an atheist.

[Kludge]

True, but who creates nature? God. If God didn't create nature, there is nothing beyond the physicality that is nature and you can claim no "natural rights" because that would infer that somehow there came to be a spiritual realm in which this law came to be, which if there was a spiritual realm there would be a Creator of some variety.

Can you prove I exist?

The only law that may exist in society is that which outlaws aggression, because it impedes on natural rights endowed by Man.

Man is his own God. Man dictates truth and Man makes laws. Religion CANNOT exist in a free world. If you argue that I'm injecting Atheism into gov't, I'll just link you to 6-10 threads with a flame between Theocrat and Yongrel.

[nate895]

You cannot create laws in accordance with those of God or it IS a theocracy. I'm being called a collectivist while you insist people should weigh in as their religion dictates? The Bible offers guidance, not law.

In my belief, certain things proscribed are law the Bible lays down are law (i.e., no murder stealing, etc.) however, much of it is basis to live your life by. Also, if you went by Christian understanding of free will, you'd get a society that is very libertarian. It is when you get into Calvinist teachings of absolute morality in society that this becomes a problem. The vast majority of works on Natural come from Protestants (and not Reformed Protestants, i.e. Calvinists) who believed that there was morals you should abide by, but it was no business of the Government to tell you how to live your life, except when you use your freedom to infringe on another's.

[DeadtoSin]

You cannot create laws in accordance with those of God or it IS a theocracy. I'm being called a collectivist while you insist people should weigh in as their religion dictates? The Bible offers guidance, not law.

If you can't create laws according to what you believe at all unless you are without religion, then something is really screwed up with your thinking. I am sorry, but that is just how I see it. There is a difference between a theocracy, and voting along your beliefs.

[nate895]

Can you prove I exist?

The only law that may exist in society is that which outlaws aggression, because it impedes on natural rights endowed by Man.

Man is his own God. Man dictates truth and Man makes laws. Religion CANNOT exist in a free world. If you argue that I'm injecting Atheism into gov't, I'll just link you to 6-10 threads with a flame between Theocrat and Yongrel.

If man endows rights, man can take them away. And Freedom of Religion is a natural right, so how can you come about banning it if it is a natural right to practice it.

[nate895]

If you can't create laws according to what you believe at all unless you are without religion, then something is really screwed up with your thinking. I am sorry, but that is just how I see it. There is a difference between a theocracy, and voting along your beliefs.

The only time using Religion as a guide is if your Religion taught that some practice violates another's rights. The abortion issue is a prime example. I believe since it is infringing on the baby's right to life, it ought to be outlawed, and that is a Religious belief. It would be wrong of me to ban homosexuality merely because I believe it to be a perverse practice since it doesn't harm anyone's rights.

[Kludge]

If man endows rights, man can take them away.

???? I wasn't aware that Dubya was a God.


Freedom of Religion is a natural right, so how can you come about banning it if it is a natural right to practice it.

Religion is fine, so long as it doesn't further taint the purity of our government. Government is to be as non-invasive as possible, only protecting its citizens from aggression. It has no other function.

A pastor, bishop or other religious authority has control over his followers so long as they voluntarily follow and can impose religious laws on them, such as the banning of homosexual union or the viewing of pornography, but those laws of religious dictates CANNOT be allowed to rule over those who don't believe in that particular faith or we've become a theocracy.

[nate895]

???? I wasn't aware that Dubya was a God.



Religion is fine, so long as it doesn't further taint the purity of our government. Government is to be as non-invasive as possible, only protecting its citizens from aggression. It has no other function.

A pastor, bishop or other religious authority has control over his followers so long as they voluntarily follow and can impose religious laws on them, such as the banning of homosexual union or the viewing of pornography, but those laws of religious dictates CANNOT be allowed to rule over those who don't believe in that particular faith or we've become a theocracy.

Yes. I agree. If you read my above post, you will notice I believe that Religion can only be taken into account in government when a Religion believes someone's rights are being violated by a certain practice.

[Kludge]

If you can't create laws according to what you believe at all unless you are without religion, then something is really screwed up with your thinking. I am sorry, but that is just how I see it. There is a difference between a theocracy, and voting along your beliefs.

Which is why laws can only exist to protect against aggression, it's the only principle held as "moral" by all (less the insane).

[Kludge]

Yes. I agree. If you read my above post, you will notice I believe that Religion can only be taken into account in government when a Religion believes someone's rights are being violated by a certain practice.

But in what situation would this ever occur? Abortion is not a Religious vs. Secularist issue, but between people who feel life starts at conception and those who don't, when you use religion to justify your choice, then you're mixing religion with gov't in an unacceptable way.

[DeadtoSin]

So I can't say that I am a Christian, and that I believe it is against God's will in my eyes to do such a thing? I can't be opposed to abortion on those grounds? Sounds like libertarianism is useful as long as nobody disagrees with your particular beliefs. Maybe thats why the Libertarian party is so split.

[nate895]

So I can't say that I am a Christian, and that I believe it is against God's will in my eyes to do such a thing? I can't be opposed to abortion on those grounds? Sounds like libertarianism is useful as long as nobody disagrees with your particular beliefs. Maybe thats why the Libertarian party is so split.

No, it's merely true libertarianism showing. Libertarianism as it is commonly understood is fine, but true libertarianism is an enemy to conservatism. It is an irrational philosophy that demands the destruction of institutions that are traditional and important within culture. True libertarianism sees no greater objective than wealth for all and a perfect economic system, the only goal worthwhile in a truly libertarian society is that of producing capital. Since culture being secured may not mean more capital being produced, it is unjust. Borders ought be open since it is more economically expedient than to keep them closed and make people go through a screening process.

[Kludge]

Sounds like libertarianism is useful as long as nobody disagrees with your particular beliefs.

libertarianism is useful so long as you believe in full civil liberties for all - all religions I'm aware of conflict with that.

[Kludge]

No, it's merely true libertarianism showing. Libertarianism as it is commonly understood is fine, but true libertarianism is an enemy to conservatism. It is an irrational philosophy that demands the destruction of institutions that are traditional and important within culture. True libertarianism sees no greater objective than wealth for all and a perfect economic system, the only goal worthwhile in a truly libertarian society is that of producing capital. Since culture being secured may not mean more capital being produced, it is unjust. Borders ought be open since it is more economically expedient than to keep them closed and make people go through a screening process.

If one was truly libertarian, I'd assume them to decree borders an offense on liberty, as well as any other government function that serves any purpose other then protecting against and punishing aggressors.

Otherwise... You're pretty accurate in how you sum up pure libertarianism, though I fail to see it's irrationality.

[nate895]

If one was truly libertarian, I'd assume them to decree borders an offense on liberty, as well as any other government function that serves any purpose other then protecting against and punishing aggressors.

Otherwise... You're pretty accurate in how you sum up pure libertarianism, though I fail to see it's irrationality.

It's irrational in the same manner as communism. It relies on perfect execution on theory that never happens in practice. Pure libertarianism is essentially the flip side of true communism, both are equally relying on perfection and seek the same goal (prosperity) and yet go about it in totally different ways. While in communism you depend on the people to work jobs that may be harder than the average job for the same pay, in libertarianism you need to have an religious devotion that the market will work itself out to create a permanent prosperity. Both can be summed up as the political world's perpetual motion device.

[Kludge]

It's irrational in the same manner as communism. It relies on perfect execution on theory that never happens in practice. Pure libertarianism is essentially the flip side of true communism, both are equally relying on perfection and seek the same goal (prosperity) and yet go about it in totally different ways. While in communism you depend on the people to work jobs that may be harder than the average job for the same pay, in libertarianism you need to have an religious devotion that the market will work itself out to create a permanent prosperity. Both can be summed up as the political world's perpetual motion device.

*Shrug* It's pretty damned fragile, but it's the only system allowing maximum civil liberties. I still believe it can succeed (probably not in this State) if government is harshly regulated and religiously watched by it's people. Apathy is incompatible with pure libertarianism.

[nate895]

*Shrug* It's pretty damned fragile, but it's the only system allowing maximum civil liberties. I still believe it can succeed (probably not in this State) if government is harshly regulated and religiously watched by it's people. Apathy is incompatible with pure libertarianism.

Exactly why it is unattainable. We can severely limit government with apathy, but in order to end government is impossible. It could happen if we were a perfect being, but man is flawed and therefore it can't be done.

[Kludge]

Exactly why it is unattainable. We can severely limit government with apathy, but in order to end government is impossible. It could happen if we were a perfect being, but man is flawed and therefore it can't be done.

I believe we can perfect Man enough to make this work, but I'm hopelessly naive. Government must still exist, though voluntarily funded, and all of it's actions must follow in accordance only to punish (indirectly preventing) aggressors.

Even in a utopia, we'd live thru natural law in that there are no laws - that aggression is natural and acceptable in allowing only the strong to prosper. I'm not that insane... yet.

I'd argue we're in a Theocracy right now, and will do what I can to prevent the furthering of religious influence on government, even if it's short-term goals parallel my own.

[nate895]

I believe we can perfect Man enough to make this work, but I'm hopelessly naive. Government must still exist, though voluntarily funded, and all of it's actions must follow in accordance only to punish (indirectly preventing) aggressors.

Even in a utopia, we'd live thru natural law in that there are no laws - that aggression is natural and acceptable in allowing only the strong to prosper. I'm not that insane... yet.

I'd argue we're in a Theocracy right now, and will do what I can to prevent the furthering of religious influence on government, even if it's short-term goals parallel my own.

I'd argue we're in a fascism. If we're in a Theocracy, I sure want to know what cult is running it because it sure as hell isn't Christianity.

I'd say that aggressors should be the primary focus of legislation, it just depends on your definition of who is an aggressor.

[Kludge]

I'd argue we're in a fascism. If we're in a Theocracy, I sure want to know what cult is running it because it sure as hell isn't Christianity.

I'd say that aggressors should be the primary focus of legislation, it just depends on your definition of who is an aggressor.

Some elements of Fascism are in place but irrational religious laws are also in place (State recognition of marriage being the most offensive).

Victim-less crimes have no place in a free society, but everyone should recognize aggression. I'll accept Baldwin as "secular enough" if someone could show me where he's denounced marital recognition by The State.

[Christian Liberty]

The GOP has adhered to the "three-legged stool" mentality since Reagan, trying to compromise as much as they can to receive the most votes for anyone-but-a-Democrat. Third parties are specifically tailored to specific beliefs - for example, it'd be near impossible to be a Libertarian if you aren't a libertarian. In the same way, it'd be exceptionally difficult to label yourself a member of the CP without being a theocrat, libertarian or not.

I just saw this in this old thread and instantly had a thought on it, one that might be relevant to politics going forward.

To my understanding the three legs are "Fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and national security conservatives."

Now, whatever else, most of us are fiscal conservatives to some degree or another.

Most, although not all, of us are not really "social conservatives" in the traditional sense. Many of us are pro-life and some are pro-traditional marriage, but the social conservative message as it is typically understood goes beyond that. They generally want to ban prostitution, drugs, pornography, exc. A full on "Social conservative" looks far more like Pat Buchanan than it does like Ron Paul. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just pointing it out.

While there might be some who disagree, that's not the agenda most of us here support.

That said, I think its the "National-security" conservatives that we really need to force out of the GOP, not the social conservatives. I think we should work with the social conservatives to get the neo-cons out. I'd rather Rand Paul all but completely compromise on social policy than give one inch to the neo-cons...

What do you guys think is the best strategy in that regard?

[Brett85]

I agree, the neo-conservatives are the real enemy, not the social conservatives. The social conservatives just need to understand that most of the social issues should be handled by the states and not the federal government. You can be a social conservative and still understand the 10th amendment and the proper role of the federal government.

[Christian Liberty]

There's that as well, yeah. Most non-theocrat social conservatives could be made to agree with that.