Why Don't The LP and CP merge together?

[SevenEyedJeff]

If we are to show any solidarity behind a candidate who believes as we do, why don't the Constitution and Libertarian parties merge, as they have very similar platforms? If our votes are divided between the CP, LP, and Ron Paul, we won't show up very high.

Also, wouldn't it be nice if before the election Ron Paul would endorse one of these candidates to make it easy for us? As much as I love Ron Paul, I do want a candidate on the ballot.

[electronicmaji]

because the CP holds unconstitutional ideals of christianity being inserted into the constitution as one of their party platforms.

[Alex Libman]

Because the LP follows a rational philosophy of individual sovereignty (which is sometimes watered down by candidates like Bob Barr, but, hey, we'll do better in 2012). A libertarian is just as likely to be a member of a church as a member of ACLU or NAMBLA.

The CP, on the other hand, are a bunch of Theocrats who think America is a Christian nation (even though its Founding Fathers were as close to being atheists as you could come in those days) and want to shove the Bible down everyone's throat. While bring back the Spanish Inquisition isn't on their stated agenda, that is the logical extension of their position.

See the difference?

[CUnknown]

I agree though, we should merge as a coalition, even if we don't merge actual parties. The Constitution and Libertarian parties are closer than some others. I actually think that all 3rd parties should merge and form a temporary coalition until the 2-party system has been smashed and the unfair laws against 3rd parties removed.

[Alex Libman]

There will always be 10th and 20th parties out there, but I think we should fight for the interests of the Libertarian Party and make it into a viable big-tent organization for all people who are more libertarian than the two parties currently in control.

People who support the Constitution Party want their party to also be a church... Why? Maybe they'd also like to turn it into a dance academy and a knitting club as well, maybe start an NFL team... You get the idea. Your religion, your profession, or you hobbies, shouldn't be a defining principle of a political party.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Frankly, I'd rather live in a mildly theocratic constitutionalist nation than the kind of country that either the dems or the gop would lead us to

[Imperial]

I think that a unity ticket would be the way to go for this election, being barr/baldwin.

The only problem? Left-wingers would be deterred like wildfire. Right-wingers would probably fall in in higher numbers though.

Simply put, they are two different parties. Varying platform. A unity ticket is different than a merge, which requires a compromise of ideals from both parties.

[sophocles07]

mildly theocratic constitutionalist nation

This is a contradiction in terminology.

[Pepsi]

One idea is that members of the Libertarian and Constitution party's , and anybody else , should become Ron Paul Republican's and even Ron Paul Democrates and chang the two major party's, slowly over a period of time, from the bottom up to support Ron Paul's views on how America should be. First starting at the local level, than county, and state and than finally at the Federal level

[familydog]

Because the CP thinks they can make inroads in the political system. They don't want the LP infecting and ruining their chances at that.

[Brent H]

because the CP holds unconstitutional ideals of christianity being inserted into the constitution as one of their party platforms.

It is Constitutional to amend the Constitution.

[AmericaFyeah92]

This is a contradiction in terminology.

lots of countries have religion written into their constitution.

But if you are talking about USA, ur right.

Frankly, i think we should accept all the help we can get. How did the two major parties come to power? Through deals, alliances, etc.

[Mesogen]

The problem with running for president is the electoral college.

I think the way to break the 2 party stranglehold on the presidency is to use the electoral college system. If no candidate reaches a majority in the electoral college, then the vote goes to the House.

A 3rd party really needs to have nationwide support for lower offices, but for president, they need to concentrate on one or two big states and really try to win those electoral votes. In the past few elections the electoral counts have been really close. A 3rd party that picks up one or two states and over 50 electoral votes could swing the election to where there is no winner.

I know the House is controlled by the D and R parties, but at least this would make the idiotic public out there realize that there is more to US politics that D and R, and that a third party is a REAL choice, not a "wasted" vote.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Because the LP follows a rational philosophy of individual sovereignty (which is sometimes watered down by candidates like Bob Barr, but, hey, we'll do better in 2012). A libertarian is just as likely to be a member of a church as a member of ACLU or NAMBLA.

The CP, on the other hand, are a bunch of Theocrats who think America is a Christian nation (even though its Founding Fathers were as close to being atheists as you could come in those days) and want to shove the Bible down everyone's throat. While bring back the Spanish Inquisition isn't on their stated agenda, that is the logical extension of their position.

See the difference?

China is an atheist nation. Try moving there while pretending that you have traded up for a better girlfriend. You will be greatly disappointed.
The movement to revise world history so as to show that atheism has had a long tradition is getting way out of hand. While the Greek culture that went into the development of our heritage was piously reverent, it was our secularized Christian culture which added the ideas of liberty.
Just consider the concept of natural rights developed by John Locke and how it helped our founding fathers develop the self evident and inalienable truths in the Declaration of Independence. These concepts were developed out from the early science of Aristotle who wasn't even introduced into Western Europe until the 13th century BCE. The sovereignty of these self evident and inalienable truths superceded the authority of a corrupt king who according to the book of Romans held God's authority.
Likewise, the idea of our "positive" government originated from Socrates and wasn't fully realized until Jean Rousseau was enlightened by the concept when reading Plato's dialogues in the 18th century BCE.
As has already been pointed out, the idea of liberty was secularized into our culture by the Protestant Catholic / Puritan movements that broke away from the authority of the Pope and authority of the King of England respectively. Consider that the poor translation of the history of Christ in the bible couldn't even be read by Christians unless it was written in Latin. This means that before the time of Martin Luther in the 16th century BCE, most Catholic Christians had to worship not the Word of God but the rituals established by the Pope as God's authority. So, because the renaissance of Christ's history as it was written in the bible didn't begin until after the 16th Century BCE, one would expect our founding fathers to be limited in their knowledge of Christ relative to modern day Christians.
Put together, all of this combines to prove that our founding fathers weren't just atheistic terrorists equipped with the pagan ideas of Western European barbarians.

[BillyDkid]

For one thing - a major part of the Constitution party involves instituting "Christian Principles" as part of their governing philosophy. Now, I have not problem with Christian principles (at list, as I understand them), but if I wanted to live in a theocracy I would move to Iran.

[newyearsrevolution08]

For one thing - a major part of the Constitution party involves instituting "Christian Principles" as part of their governing philosophy. Now, I have not problem with Christian principles (at list, as I understand them), but if I wanted to live in a theocracy I would move to Iran.

damn good point that I missed seeing myself actually.....

[LibertyOfOne]

China is an atheist nation. Try moving there while pretending that you have traded up for a better girlfriend. You will be greatly disappointed.
The movement to revise world history so as to show that atheism has had a long tradition is getting way out of hand.

China also has a free market sector, therefor the free market concept must be bad. Stop it with the guilt by association logical fallacies. I just committed one above to illustrate the point.

[mediahasyou]

abortion.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

China also has a free market sector, therefor the free market concept must be bad. Stop it with the guilt by association logical fallacies. I just committed one above to illustrate the point.

China does not have a master class. It is against the law for that nation to have a master class and, besides, the leaders wear the garments of the peasants. So, there is no reason to bind the 60 million communist party to have to sit with the rest of the nation at the same dinner table. Go try living in this system. Experience it firsthand.
The American system does not pretend to sit all American citizens at the same table as a classless society. We ideally sit the king at the same table as the untouchable. When the untouchable is made to thirst, then the king is not a king but a tyrant.

[AlexMerced]

abortion.

yeah, from what I can tell this is the major dividing line between the two parties, the christian criticisms of the CP usally stem from that issue...

even in a 3rd party that tries to say they have a broader platform are still divided by abortion... damn... that issue is really starting to get on my nerves it's preventing progress in pretty much every single other issue...

For the record I'm with Ron Paul on the issue where i'ma gainst it, but it should be left up to the states and localities to handle

I rather be focused on monetary and foriegn olicy up in D.C.

[smtwngrl]

I think that a unity ticket would be the way to go for this election, being barr/baldwin.

The only problem? Left-wingers would be deterred like wildfire. Right-wingers would probably fall in in higher numbers though.

Simply put, they are two different parties. Varying platform. A unity ticket is different than a merge, which requires a compromise of ideals from both parties.

I agree! We need to unite the votes of those who are for freedom/the constitution. This has been one thing about RP's candidacy. He had support of both LP and CP members (as well as Reps and Dems). Divided, we are weaker. We need to have enough support to weaken the stranglehold of the Democrat and Republican parties.

[Peace&Freedom]

I agree! We need to unite the votes of those who are for freedom/the constitution. This has been one thing about RP's candidacy. He had support of both LP and CP members (as well as Reps and Dems). Divided, we are weaker. We need to have enough support to weaken the stranglehold of the Democrat and Republican parties.

Agreed, Paul was proof that the two parties could get behind a single person. If the CP comes off to some as too Christian, the LP strikes many CPers as implicitly hostile to faith (and oblivious to the heavily Christian background of the founding fathers). We see divisive squabbling between 'the left leg and right leg' of the liberty movement on this board, with Mises/Rockwell folks browbeating the Alex Jones patriot folks, when both sides should be working together. IF such division continues without mutual tolerance, it might spell the self-defeat of the revolution.