PDA

View Full Version : Paul/Baldwin connection




Jay778x
05-09-2008, 09:13 AM
Does anyone here believe that we may see a tacit endorsement of Baldwin from Paul, at least at the close of the R national convention?

airborne373
05-09-2008, 09:46 AM
Is it important for Paul to endorse Baldwin? I am not sure, as they both can stand alone without the other. There is nothing wrong or unproductive of having people with similar views on a parallel course. In fact there is advantage to it.

To kill the plutocracy we will need "death by a million cuts."

Highland
05-09-2008, 09:59 AM
bump

RonPaulVolunteer
05-09-2008, 10:15 AM
Baldwin has consistently supported Ron Paul and very publicly endorsed him. I would like to see Paul return the favor if he loses the nomination.

Bradley in DC
05-09-2008, 10:20 AM
Baldwin has consistently supported Ron Paul and very publicly endorsed him. I would like to see Paul return the favor if he loses the nomination.

So if some KKK idiot had been supportive and endorsed, Dr. Paul would be obligated to support the racist as well? (I am NOT equating Baldwin with being a racist, just pointing out the logical absurdity of the argument.)

RonPaulVolunteer
05-09-2008, 10:22 AM
So if some KKK idiot had been supportive and endorsed, Dr. Paul would be obligated to support the racist as well? (I am NOT equating Baldwin with being a racist, just pointing out the logical absurdity of the argument.)

It wasn't an argument based on logic.

/Fail

JosephTheLibertarian
05-09-2008, 11:20 AM
It wasn't an argument based on logic.

/Fail

Ron Paul is more libertarian than Baldwin

/Fail

Endorse the LP nominee. The CP is not as big as the LP in the first place.

crazyfingers
05-09-2008, 11:28 AM
Ron Paul isn't going to endorse anyone. If he is going to do that, he might as well just run third party himself. Instead he's chosen to work within the GOP.

WRellim
05-09-2008, 11:28 AM
So if some KKK idiot had been supportive and endorsed, Dr. Paul would be obligated to support the racist as well? (I am NOT equating Baldwin with being a racist, just pointing out the logical absurdity of the argument.)

On this one Brad, I call *FOUL*!

While your logic is technically correct -- you are being trollish and disingenuous, because you certainly ARE aware that Chuck Baldwin did not merely "support" or distantly "endorse" Ron's candidacy -- but that he actively campaigned ALONGSIDE Ron... introducing Ron in speeches immediately prior to and following Ron speaking to a "Baldwin-type" gathering -- therefore Ron *actively* and both IMPLICITLY and EXPLICITLY accepted Baldwin's endorsement and support.


Now if you want to TRULY equate the two, it would be like saying (theoretically) that Ron *actively* campaigned alongside a theoretical "KKK-idiot" and accepted the idiot's endorsement and let him make an "introductory speech" prior to Ron himself speaking at one of the (theoretical) "KKK-idiot" gatherings...


And I'm fairly certain that you are NOT making THAT kind of comparison.

Are you?


And quite frankly, if Ron does NOT both implicitly and explicitly endorse Baldwin... well, I can't say it would "surprise" me, but it would definitely DISAPPOINT me. (And would add just one more piece of evidence that RP is NOT the man of "spotless" high character that he (and many others) imagine him to be... in short, he will have FAILED at the testing).

Bradley in DC
05-09-2008, 11:46 AM
While your logic is technically correct -- you are being trollish and disingenuous, because you certainly ARE aware that Chuck Baldwin did not merely "support" or distantly "endorse" Ron's candidacy -- but that he actively campaigned ALONGSIDE Ron... introducing Ron in speeches immediately prior to and following Ron speaking to a "Baldwin-type" gathering -- therefore Ron *actively* and both IMPLICITLY and EXPLICITLY accepted Baldwin's endorsement and support.

And quite frankly, if Ron does NOT both implicitly and explicitly endorse Baldwin... well, I can't say it would "surprise" me, but it would definitely DISAPPOINT me.

I'm saying that there are lots of us who have supported Dr. Paul, and it's fallacious to think that he is then obligated to support all of us. That's it. It doesn't work that way...and yes, politics is usually disappointing. There's nothing "trollish" about it.

And, no, neither Baldwin nor anyone else has a monopoly moral claim on Dr. Paul's endorsement. Talk about imperial hubris! :p

JosephTheLibertarian
05-09-2008, 11:50 AM
Why would RP endorse a CP candidate over a LP candidate? LP is much bigger.

Bradley in DC
05-09-2008, 11:51 AM
It wasn't an argument based on logic.

/Fail

:)

tonyr1988
05-09-2008, 11:57 AM
Ron Paul isn't going to endorse anyone. If he is going to do that, he might as well just run third party himself. Instead he's chosen to work within the GOP.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. If he feels strongly enough, he may endorse a 3rd party.

Working within the party == Changing the party != Endorsing/Voting for/Supporting John McCain

He doesn't have to endorse anyone; however, it would be interesting to see how much power his endorsement would hold - it would be great to see record-breaking LP (or CP) numbers because of it...

crazyfingers
05-09-2008, 12:09 PM
I wouldn't be so sure about that. If he feels strongly enough, he may endorse a 3rd party.

Working within the party == Changing the party != Endorsing/Voting for/Supporting John McCain

He doesn't have to endorse anyone; however, it would be interesting to see how much power his endorsement would hold - it would be great to see record-breaking LP (or CP) numbers because of it...

I just don't see it happening. First of all, it'd basically be an insult to everyone who has been working within the GOP under the 'Ron Paul' banner. Not only the candidates but everyone else who has been trying to take back the party infrastructure. It'd reinforce the notion that we are "outsiders", and would certainly make any real progress much more difficult.

Second an endorsement would destroy the coalition of limited government activists of all stripes that Paul has somehow managed to bring together. We all agree on Ron Paul and not much else. I know I won't be voting CP, even with a Paul endorsement. There's just too much in the platform that I disagree with.

revolutionary8
05-09-2008, 12:21 PM
I just don't see it happening. First of all, it'd basically be an insult to everyone who has been working within the GOP under the 'Ron Paul' banner. Not only the candidates but everyone else who has been trying to take back the party infrastructure. It'd reinforce the notion that we are "outsiders", and would certainly make any real progress much more difficult.

Second an endorsement would destroy the coalition of limited government activists of all stripes that Paul has somehow managed to bring together. We all agree on Ron Paul and not much else. I know I won't be voting CP, even with a Paul endorsement. There's just too much in the platform that I disagree with.
How would refusing to endorse criminals like McPain or Romney or Huckabee or Rudy be insulting to the GOP? They are an insult to US, not the other way around.
I would LOVE to see Ron Paul endorse a Liberty loving candidate, no matter WHAT party they are. It would speak volumes to other sissy pantsers who endorse people in their own party as a lesser of evils.

Originally Posted by Bradley in DC:

So if some KKK idiot had been supportive and endorsed, Dr. Paul would be obligated to support the racist as well? (I am NOT equating Baldwin with being a racist, just pointing out the logical absurdity of the argument.)
brutal.

crazyfingers
05-09-2008, 12:28 PM
How would refusing to endorse criminals like McPain or Romney or Huckabee or Rudy be insulting to the GOP? They are an insult to US, not the other way around.
I would LOVE to see Ron Paul endorse a Liberty loving candidate, no matter WHAT party they are. It would speak volumes to other sissy pantsers who endorse people in their own party as a lesser of evils.



Which is why I don't expect Paul to officially endorse anyone. But enough speculation, here he is in his own words (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126429.html).


I saw Ron Paul on Wednesday, at a signing event for The Revolution, and he told me he won’t endorse Baldwin or Barr. He’ll kinda-sorta endorse both. He won’t stop them from using photos of him or talking about his campaign.

“Chuck was in my office today to say hello,” Paul said. “but I haven’t said anything about supporting either one of them. I support both of them in what they’re doing, and I encourage them, but that’s all.”

“Maybe you’ll endorse McCain and surprise everybody,” asked one of the people walking out of the event with us. “That would surprise me, too!” said Paul.

Justinjj1
05-09-2008, 12:34 PM
I only had to read the Constitution Party's platform once to know that Im never supporting any of their candidates ever. So I dont care how hard Baldwin campaigned for or supported Ron Paul, until he disassociates himself with these religious whackos he's not getting my support.

"The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States"

"The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations"

"This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ." -------Oh really


"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."


"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."





Apparently the Constitution they read and the Constution I read are totally different. I must not have read the one about how the founding fathers set up a christian theocracy that should impose religious morals on the whole country. I can see the Huckabee supporters flocking to this party.

revolutionary8
05-09-2008, 12:36 PM
He’ll kinda-sorta endorse both
Perfect.

I think that party lines should be irrelevant, as there is no substantial difference between the republicrats.

The GOP is an insult to US, and until people realize that, it will be an uphill battle. The gloves need to come off.

tonyr1988
05-09-2008, 12:38 PM
I just don't see it happening. First of all, it'd basically be an insult to everyone who has been working within the GOP under the 'Ron Paul' banner. Not only the candidates but everyone else who has been trying to take back the party infrastructure. It'd reinforce the notion that we are "outsiders", and would certainly make any real progress much more difficult.

Second an endorsement would destroy the coalition of limited government activists of all stripes that Paul has somehow managed to bring together. We all agree on Ron Paul and not much else. I know I won't be voting CP, even with a Paul endorsement. There's just too much in the platform that I disagree with.

I don't see Paul endorsing anyone, either, but for different reasons.

I don't see how it would be an insult to everyone working within the GOP. I am 100% certain that Ron Paul will not vote for John McCain in November - does that mean that he's abandoning his beliefs?

What is possibly contradictory about "We should work to change the Republican Party to bring it back, but since they won't nominate a true Republican, I endorse _____ instead."

In fact, I think it would be a HUGE insult for him to try and change the Republican Party, but go ahead and endorse McCain (of course, that won't happen).

revolutionary8
05-09-2008, 12:39 PM
I only had to read the Constitution Party's platform once to know that Im never supporting any of their candidates ever. So I dont care how hard Baldwin campaigned for or supported Ron Paul, until he disassociates himself with these religious whackos he's not getting my support.

"The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States"

"The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations"

"This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ." -------Oh really


"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."


"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."





Apparently the Constitution they read and the Constution I read are totally different. I must not have read the one about how the founding fathers set up a christian theocracy that should impose religious morals on the whole country. I can see the Huckabee supporters flocking to this party.

I would like to see a merge of the CP and the LP. One party is too anal, the other, too liberal, I think they would balance each other out perfectly. lol.

JosephTheLibertarian
05-09-2008, 12:53 PM
I would like to see a merge of the CP and the LP. One party is too anal, the other, too liberal, I think they would balance each other out perfectly. lol.

Is that so? I guess freedom is a bit too liberal for ya. If you want thr CP joining the LP, then I want to see the GP join the LP. They could promote free market environmentalism and drop their socialism on economic issues, of course

revolutionary8
05-09-2008, 12:54 PM
Is that so? I guess freedom is a bit too liberal for ya

No, amnesty is.
And I forgot abortion. How is abortion "freedom" for the unborn?

JosephTheLibertarian
05-09-2008, 12:59 PM
No, amnesty is.
And I forgot abortion. How is abortion "freedom" for the unborn?

How is what other people do with their bodies your business? I don't wish to impose my will on strangers

revolutionary8
05-09-2008, 01:04 PM
How is what other people do with their bodies your business? I don't wish to impose my will on strangers
But it is okay for "feel good" people like Planned Parenthood to impose their will on others, particularly blacks?

Again, IMO one party is too liberal for my taste, the other too anal, it is MO, that they would balance each other out, as common ground- ie LIBERTY should be the ultimate goal, regardless of the path.

Honest debate with the right intention is a good thing.

literatim
05-09-2008, 01:50 PM
How is what other people do with their bodies your business? I don't wish to impose my will on strangers

The child is an individual as well.


To conceive and then abort one's child — even by mere eviction — is to turn conception into a deadly trap for the child. It is to set her up in a vulnerable position that is virtually certain to lead to her death. Conception followed by eviction from the womb could be compared to capturing someone, placing her on one's airplane, and then shoving her out in mid-flight without a parachute. The child in the womb is like a captive; she is in the situation involuntarily, and she cannot fend for herself. A captive is not trespassing on the captor's property, by definition. (Evicting or abandoning one's child cannot be regarded as releasing her from captivity, because this does not terminate childhood inability.)

http://www.l4l.org/library/abor-rts.html

RonPaulVolunteer
05-09-2008, 02:22 PM
The child is an individual as well.



http://www.l4l.org/library/abor-rts.html

That's excellent....