PDA

View Full Version : Why the Republican Party?




ConCap
01-17-2012, 08:10 PM
Though I do not advocate or feel there should be any political parties on a federal level, why is it, no one on this site advocates the Constitution Party? Ron Paul is their ideal but not their man this time around.

So, my question is.
Do you, or do you not, advocate the Constitution Party and why?

Thanks

Okie RP fan
01-17-2012, 08:14 PM
I can only speak for myself, but I am under the notion that Ron Paul wants the Republican party to return to some normalcy and back to it's principles.

I am following that. And also because Oklahoma is closed primary, so I registered Republican, as that is the party of my family and closer to my views than the Democratic.

I really think we need to start a third party push after this election. This site needs to become the third party forums.

Mini-Me
01-17-2012, 08:18 PM
There are at least two reasons:

First: Third parties are at an IMMENSE disadvantage in the political process. The deck is so stacked against them that they have virtually no chance. I fully support voting third party in general elections when and if our liberty candidates do not win Republican nominations, and that strategy gradually increases their mindshare...but going all-out with third parties is just untenable so long as this rigged system persists. Retaking a major party for liberty is really the only political strategy that's likely to work.

I was pretty pessimistic a few years ago about whether political activism is a worthwhile pursuit at all...but I cannot ignore the massive inroads we have made both educationally and politically, and I've regained some faith that the country can actually be turned around with this strategy, so long as we continue educating as well. (I would say, advocate both libertarian and Constitutional principles, but focus on uncompromised Constitutional principles as a baseline...and at the very least, make sure that any and all compromise is forward movement across the board, rather than the "one step forward, two steps back" stuff that got us in this mess. As time goes on and we gain victories, we can shift the emphasis to stricter and stricter principles.)

Second: To make a meaningful dent, we would still need to unite both the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. The Constitution Party leans too far to the theocratic side of paleoconservatism for most libertarians, and the Libertarian Party leans too far to the "socially liberal at the federal level" side to appeal to most Christians. (Of course, the Libertarian Party is also in the middle of an identity crisis, and it threw its principled platform out the window a few years ago for a wishy-washy one.) Both Parties are too bullheaded in their own ways to permanently unite behind a common platform and rhetoric, when Ron Paul's platform and rhetoric - both this year and in 2008 - proved conclusively that it IS possible to unite the two voting bases.

trey4sports
01-17-2012, 08:20 PM
Pretty sure the LP is 3rd biggest.

nobody's_hero
01-17-2012, 08:20 PM
Voted for the Constitution Party in '08, i've never heard of the 'contention' party though.

Just poking fun.

Type 'Chuck Baldwin' up in that search box in the top-right corner of this page; there's plenty of support for the Constitution party here on the forums (although we had to separate the Baldwin and Barr supporters in 2008 'cause they practically wanted to kill each other on the forums; oh, but forget I said that, by-gones be by-gones). Chuck's running for Lt. Governor in Montana, as a Republican.

I completely agree with your sentiment about political parties. In fact, if I made the rules, I'd make it illegal to put any indication of a candidate's political party affiliation on a ballot, just so people would screw up and pick the wrong people because all they know is whether to vote democrat or republican, and don't actually know a thing about the candidates themselves. I think it would be funny to watch.

But, Ron Paul is running as a republican, so if I have to go fill out some paperwork at a courthouse to vote for him, then that's what I'll do. The 'old' republican platform is not all that bad, really. It's this neoconservative shit that makes me wonder if we really want to get involved, sometimes.

mport1
01-17-2012, 08:21 PM
Some of the party's platform is pretty disturbing and anti-liberty.

justinjj
01-17-2012, 08:22 PM
I'm 30 now, and I've voted straight Libertarian Party every election since I was 18 except to vote for Ron Paul. I don't dislike the Constitution Party, but the seem too theocratic for my taste.

Jtorsella
01-17-2012, 08:22 PM
The constitution party is pretty religious and has a problem with the separation of church and state. The LP is the third largest and fastest growing and is probably more aligned with most of us.

ConCap
01-17-2012, 08:22 PM
I can only speak for myself, but I am under the notion that Ron Paul wants the Republican party to return to some normalcy and back to it's principles.

I am following that. And also because Oklahoma is closed primary, so I registered Republican, as that is the party of my family and closer to my views than the Democratic.

I really think we need to start a third party push after this election. This site needs to become the third party forums.


Thanks

How do you feel about voting for someone just on how they represent the Constitution only?
The Constitution does not mention political parties.
The first few meetings of Congress were “A” political.

ryanmkeisling
01-17-2012, 08:23 PM
There are at least two reasons:

First, third parties are at an IMMENSE disadvantage in the political process. The deck is so stacked against them that they have virtually no chance. I fully support voting third party in general elections when and if our liberty candidates do not win Republican nominations, and that strategy gradually increases their mindshare...but going all-out with third parties is just untenable in this rigged system.

To make a meaningful dent, we would still need to unite both the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. The Constitution Party leans too far to the theocratic side of paleoconservatism for most libertarians, and the Libertarian Party leans too far to the "socially liberal at the federal level" side to appeal to most Christians. (Of course, the Libertarian Party is also in the middle of an identity crisis, and it threw its principled platform out the window a few years ago for a wishy-washy one.) Both Parties are too bullheaded in their own ways to permanently unite behind a common platform and rhetoric, when Ron Paul's platform and rhetoric - both this year and in 2008 - proved conclusively that it IS possible to unite the two voting bases.

This^^^

nobody's_hero
01-17-2012, 08:26 PM
People didn't wait long to split themselves into groups, unfortunately. Seems to be human nature. Heck, even before we agreed on the form of government we have today, there were federalists and anti-federalists.

But, like I said, just put candidates' names on a ballot without indicating whether they are republican or democrat and people would throw a fit because they'll have to actually know something about the people they're voting for.

ConCap
01-17-2012, 08:27 PM
Voted for the Constitution Party in '08, i've never heard of the 'contention' party though.

Just poking fun.

Type 'Chuck Baldwin' up in that search box in the top-right corner of this page; there's plenty of support for the Constitution party here on the forums (although we had to separate the Baldwin and Barr supporters in 2008 'cause they practically wanted to kill each other on the forums; oh, but forget I said that, by-gones be by-gones). Chuck's running for Lt. Governor in Montana, as a Republican.

I completely agree with your sentiment about political parties. In fact, if I made the rules, I'd make it illegal to put any indication of a candidate's political party affiliation on a ballot, just so people would screw up and pick the wrong people because all they know is whether to vote democrat or republican, and don't actually know a thing about the candidates themselves. I think it would be funny to watch.

But, Ron Paul is running as a republican, so if I have to go fill out some paperwork at a courthouse to vote for him, then that's what I'll do. The 'old' republican platform is not all that bad, really. It's this neoconservative shit that makes me wonder if we really want to get involved, sometimes.

Sorry, you are correct. I should of searched first. Just did not think about that.

JohnGalt1225
01-17-2012, 08:31 PM
I like some of the CP's stuff but I don't like their overtly Christian overtones. As a non-Christian I don't like their "acknowledgement of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior." You can never build a broad coalition of supporters with such a narrow platform.

As an aside I don't really like the LP either, they just rub me the wrong way. I'm a pretty conservative guy personally and I get a very liberal feel from the LP. I guess I just don't really like political parties in general. Normally they are just full of shit to be perfectly honest. A lot of LP'ers and CP'ers think their little parties are the answer because they are "anti-establishment." But if they ever did gain power they'd end up just as corrupt as the current mainstream parties in my opinion.

ConCap
01-17-2012, 08:37 PM
There are at least two reasons:

First: Third parties are at an IMMENSE disadvantage in the political process. The deck is so stacked against them that they have virtually no chance. I fully support voting third party in general elections when and if our liberty candidates do not win Republican nominations, and that strategy gradually increases their mindshare...but going all-out with third parties is just untenable so long as this rigged system persists. Retaking a major party for liberty is really the only political strategy that's likely to work.

I was pretty pessimistic a few years ago about whether political activism is a worthwhile pursuit at all...but I cannot ignore the massive inroads we have made both educationally and politically, and I've regained some faith that the country can actually be turned around with this strategy, so long as we continue educating as well. (I would say, advocate both libertarian and Constitutional principles, but focus on uncompromised Constitutional principles as a baseline...and at the very least, make sure that any and all compromise is forward movement across the board, rather than the "one step forward, two steps back" stuff that got us in this mess. As time goes on and we gain victories, we can shift the emphasis to stricter and stricter principles.)

Second: To make a meaningful dent, we would still need to unite both the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. The Constitution Party leans too far to the theocratic side of paleoconservatism for most libertarians, and the Libertarian Party leans too far to the "socially liberal at the federal level" side to appeal to most Christians. (Of course, the Libertarian Party is also in the middle of an identity crisis, and it threw its principled platform out the window a few years ago for a wishy-washy one.) Both Parties are too bullheaded in their own ways to permanently unite behind a common platform and rhetoric, when Ron Paul's platform and rhetoric - both this year and in 2008 - proved conclusively that it IS possible to unite the two voting bases.


Are you a Social Liberal or a Classical Liberal?
The way I understand it. When the Libertarian movement started these two split at the root.
Paul I’m sure is a Classical Liberal.

If most of you are Social Liberals, you have a point.
However, I don’t think it should be a problem with the Classical Liberals.

ConCap
01-17-2012, 08:39 PM
I'm 30 now, and I've voted straight Libertarian Party every election since I was 18 except to vote for Ron Paul. I don't dislike the Constitution Party, but the seem too theocratic for my taste.

Thanks

How do you feel about voting for someone just on how they represent the Constitution only?
The Constitution does not mention political parties.
The first few meetings of Congress were “A” political.

ConCap
01-17-2012, 08:44 PM
People didn't wait long to split themselves into groups, unfortunately. Seems to be human nature. Heck, even before we agreed on the form of government we have today, there were federalists and anti-federalists.

But, like I said, just put candidates' names on a ballot without indicating whether they are republican or democrat and people would throw a fit because they'll have to actually know something about the people they're voting for.

I see your point.
However, the Constitution is “A” political.
You are for it as written, or you are not.
If you are elected , and you bring in social issues, you are out.

ConCap
01-17-2012, 08:46 PM
I like some of the CP's stuff but I don't like their overtly Christian overtones. As a non-Christian I don't like their "acknowledgement of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior." You can never build a broad coalition of supporters with such a narrow platform.

As an aside I don't really like the LP either, they just rub me the wrong way. I'm a pretty conservative guy personally and I get a very liberal feel from the LP. I guess I just don't really like political parties in general. Normally they are just full of shit to be perfectly honest. A lot of LP'ers and CP'ers think their little parties are the answer because they are "anti-establishment." But if they ever did gain power they'd end up just as corrupt as the current mainstream parties in my opinion.

That was the very first thing that caught my attention.

Sola_Fide
01-17-2012, 08:46 PM
There are at least two reasons:

First: Third parties are at an IMMENSE disadvantage in the political process. The deck is so stacked against them that they have virtually no chance. I fully support voting third party in general elections when and if our liberty candidates do not win Republican nominations, and that strategy gradually increases their mindshare...but going all-out with third parties is just untenable so long as this rigged system persists. Retaking a major party for liberty is really the only political strategy that's likely to work.

I was pretty pessimistic a few years ago about whether political activism is a worthwhile pursuit at all...but I cannot ignore the massive inroads we have made both educationally and politically, and I've regained some faith that the country can actually be turned around with this strategy, so long as we continue educating as well. (I would say, advocate both libertarian and Constitutional principles, but focus on uncompromised Constitutional principles as a baseline...and at the very least, make sure that any and all compromise is forward movement across the board, rather than the "one step forward, two steps back" stuff that got us in this mess. As time goes on and we gain victories, we can shift the emphasis to stricter and stricter principles.)

Second: To make a meaningful dent, we would still need to unite both the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. The Constitution Party leans too far to the theocratic side of paleoconservatism for most libertarians, and the Libertarian Party leans too far to the "socially liberal at the federal level" side to appeal to most Christians. (Of course, the Libertarian Party is also in the middle of an identity crisis, and it threw its principled platform out the window a few years ago for a wishy-washy one.) Both Parties are too bullheaded in their own ways to permanently unite behind a common platform and rhetoric, when Ron Paul's platform and rhetoric - both this year and in 2008 - proved conclusively that it IS possible to unite the two voting bases.


Good post^^^

Jingles
01-17-2012, 08:51 PM
Basically, you don't really get too much of choice if you want to make an impact in national politics (or even local politics) All the laws are set against third parties. The point of the Republican party is the fact that they "claim" to be in flavor of limited government as opposed to the Democrats. Thus, we can actually speak to people who for whatever reason believe the Republican party actually stands for such, but really believe it unlike the good majority of Republican politicians.

Mini-Me
01-17-2012, 08:51 PM
Are you a Social Liberal or a Classical Liberal?
The way I understand it. When the Libertarian movement started these two split at the root.
Paul I’m sure is a Classical Liberal.

If most of you are Social Liberals, you have a point.
However, I don’t think it should be a problem with the Classical Liberals.

I'm definitely not a social liberal; I believe strongly in the free market, and I specifically have no problem with capitalism as a free market practice. (I do agree with left-libertarians that hierarchical relationships in companies have the potential to be degrading, but I do not feel that's necessarily the case, and I certainly recognize that it's totally impractical and unethical to prohibit them by force. It would be interesting to see if more democratically structured companies could serve customers as well as traditional hierarchical ones, and I'd love to see competition between varying models. Either way, I'd ultimately consider whichever voluntary model that most increases prosperity to be the best.)

I consider myself to be a pretty "center" libertarian, although professed left-libertarians would probably call me a right-libertarian, due to what I said above (and my locally pro-life stance, which I derive from libertarian principles). The lineage of libertarianism is tied very closely to the tradition of classical liberalism though, so I find a lot to like in classical liberalism. The Enlightenment thinkers speak to me, but Ron Paul speaks to me even more, especially when he's at his most libertarian. For instance, I believe in states' rights as a means to an end (smaller, more accountable government...vanishing into nothing ;)), but I do not believe state governments actually have the moral right to pass whatever restrictive laws they want. I dislike the LP's explicit pro-choice position (especially at the federal level!) and recent waffling, but I also dislike the CP's narrow religiosity and implicit moral endorsement of arbitrary repression at the state level. Most Ron Paul supporters probably feel somewhat alienated by one of those two parties, and I happen to feel a bit alienated by both. :p

Jingles
01-17-2012, 08:58 PM
I'm definitely not a social liberal. I consider myself to be a pretty "center" libertarian, although professed left-libertarians would probably call me a right-libertarian. The lineage of libertarianism is tied very closely to the tradition of classical liberalism though, so I find a lot to like in classical liberalism. The Enlightenment thinkers speak to me, but Ron Paul speaks to me even more, especially when he's at his most libertarian. For instance, I believe in states' rights as a means to an end (smaller, more accountable government...vanishing into nothing ;)), but I do not believe state governments actually have the moral right to pass whatever restrictive laws they want. I dislike the LP's explicit pro-choice position (especially at the federal level!) and recent waffling, but I also dislike the CP's narrow religiosity and implicit moral endorsement of arbitrary repression at the state level. Most Ron Paul supporters probably feel somewhat alienated by one of those two parties, and I happen to feel a bit alienated by both. :p

Dude, I'm exactly like you. I'm not really personally socially liberal, or socially conservative. I just want people to live their lives and be respectful to others around them. As long as associations are voluntary I really don't care (regardless if they make me feel personally uneasy if they happen to be a certain way or etc...)

YankeesJunkie
01-17-2012, 08:59 PM
I'm definitely not a social liberal; I believe strongly in the free market, and I specifically have no problem with capitalism as a free market practice. I consider myself to be a pretty "center" libertarian, although professed left-libertarians would probably call me a right-libertarian. The lineage of libertarianism is tied very closely to the tradition of classical liberalism though, so I find a lot to like in classical liberalism. The Enlightenment thinkers speak to me, but Ron Paul speaks to me even more, especially when he's at his most libertarian. For instance, I believe in states' rights as a means to an end (smaller, more accountable government...vanishing into nothing ;)), but I do not believe state governments actually have the moral right to pass whatever restrictive laws they want. I dislike the LP's explicit pro-choice position (especially at the federal level!) and recent waffling, but I also dislike the CP's narrow religiosity and implicit moral endorsement of arbitrary repression at the state level. Most Ron Paul supporters probably feel somewhat alienated by one of those two parties, and I happen to feel a bit alienated by both. :p

I agree with you that I feel more in the center libertarian rather than right or left. However, while I may disagree with Johsnon on abortion until viability, (something that should be discussed, but should never be a priority in a national election of any sort unless it is to repeal Roe v Wade), he stands with Ron Paul and the idea of the Constitution everywhere else. He has shown it as his time of being a successful governor and honestly just seems like a down to earth guy. While I like Ron Paul more, I will have a clear conscience here in Nebraska voting for Johnson knowing that I will be able to see my affect on the polls rather than writing in which sadly does not counted in a lot of states.

YankeesJunkie
01-17-2012, 09:00 PM
Dude, I'm exactly like you. I'm not really personally socially liberal, or socially conservative. I just want people to live their lives and be respectful to others around them. As long as associations are voluntary I really don't care (regardless if they make me feel personally uneasy if they happen to be a certain way or etc...)

This is what the Constitution is about, to protect those that we feel uneasy not the typical WASP.

tbone717
01-17-2012, 09:05 PM
I have voted for LP and CP candidates in the past, but have done so as a protest vote. Here is the problem as I see it with both parties. Other than what was stated above by Mini-Me about their policies my biggest issue with the two is that they have never won any election above a state house race.

In fact the past LP state house victory was nearly 10 years ago and it was hardly a victory for the LP. The situation was that a libertarian leaning Democrat ran and lost in the primary for state senate. In order to run for his house seat in the general election he had to run on the LP ticket. So that case was hardly a big win for the LP, and that was 10 years ago. Since then they have done nothing.

In my opinion, in order for either of the two parties (and for that matter any third party) to have credibility, they need to win some elections first. And those wins have to be for something more than dog catcher, mayor of a town of 2000 or a school board seat. They need representation in Congress, plain and simple. I was somewhat involved in the state CP for a while about 8 years ago and at the time suggested that they not focus on state wide races, but instead target one or two Congressional seats, pour all the resources they would spend on a state wide race into those seats and run to win, instead of running for the mere purpose of running.

Anyway, that's my feelings on third parties. In truth, I believe we have a third party in and of ourselves. It is this movement within the GOP that has won house seats, and now has for the first time in a long long time, a shot at winning the GOP nomination.

ConCap
01-17-2012, 09:09 PM
I'm definitely not a social liberal; I believe strongly in the free market, and I specifically have no problem with capitalism as a free market practice. (I do agree with left-libertarians that hierarchical relationships in companies have the potential to be degrading, but I do not feel that's necessarily the case, and I certainly recognize that it's totally impractical to prohibit them by force. It would be interesting to see if more democratically structured companies could serve customers as well as traditional hierarchical ones, and I'd love to see competition between varying models. Either way, I'd ultimately consider whichever model that most increases prosperity to be the best.)

I consider myself to be a pretty "center" libertarian, although professed left-libertarians would probably call me a right-libertarian, due to what I said above (and my pro-life stance). The lineage of libertarianism is tied very closely to the tradition of classical liberalism though, so I find a lot to like in classical liberalism. The Enlightenment thinkers speak to me, but Ron Paul speaks to me even more, especially when he's at his most libertarian. For instance, I believe in states' rights as a means to an end (smaller, more accountable government...vanishing into nothing ;)), but I do not believe state governments actually have the moral right to pass whatever restrictive laws they want. I dislike the LP's explicit pro-choice position (especially at the federal level!) and recent waffling, but I also dislike the CP's narrow religiosity and implicit moral endorsement of arbitrary repression at the state level. Most Ron Paul supporters probably feel somewhat alienated by one of those two parties, and I happen to feel a bit alienated by both. :p

Is it easier to drive to DC and protest, or drive to your state capital?

You said:
“I do not believe state governments actually have the moral right to pass whatever laws they want“.

There is no reason any state should be passing any law it’s people do not want as a whole.

You have way more power on a state level than you do on a federal, yet everyone wants to push social issues on a federal level where they have no control.

You are correct about states rights being a means to a smaller federal government.


In short. You have the power on the state level, use it.

Mini-Me
01-17-2012, 09:11 PM
Is it easier to drive to DC and protest, or drive to your state capital?

You said:
“I do not believe state governments actually have the moral right to pass whatever laws they want“.

There is no reason any state should be passing any law it’s people do not want as a whole.

You have way more power on a state level than you do on a federal, yet everyone wants to push social issues on a federal level where they have no control.

You are correct about states rights being a means to a smaller federal government.


In short. You have the power on the state level, use it.

I agree that locality increases accountability. That's why I believe in the states' rights mantra for limiting federal power. :) However, the Constitution Party seems to ENDORSE socially restrictive legislation at the state level, whereas I believe it should take a neutral stance at the very least, if not agitate for more personal liberty and autonomy at the state level as well.

For that reason, I have trouble associating myself with the CP. I sympathize with them in many ways, and I really like Chuck Baldwin as a person, but I can't jump onto a party that specifically wants to legislate Christian cultural mores, even at the state level.* I believe the law should be used exclusively to protect liberty from aggressive/coercive/violent infringement, not for social engineering. Ron Paul leaves open the possibility that states can and will do that, and he wisely points out that conservatives and liberals can each set up whatever separate tyrannies they like in each state...after all, people across America have too many differing political ideas for us to live harmoniously under a uniform centralized government, and 50 laboratories of experimentation will help us coexist far better. Nevertheless, Paul also personally warns against the moral and consequential ills of legislating [parochial] morality...which is why I love him so much. He honestly does not believe in imposing his cultural values on people by force, at any level of government.

*Note that the situation with the Republican Party is different: We're transparently trying to retake it in favor of Constitutional and libertarian principles, and we're using it as a politically effective vehicle. The Constitution Party is different, because it's not politically effective; joining it or promoting it actually implies agreeing with its platform.

lakefx
01-17-2012, 09:12 PM
What I would propose is a widely noticed, mass defection from the republican party to the Libertarian party, currently the 3rd largest, most organized 3rd party, with most name recognition.

Here's what I mean, Guys like Gary Johnson have already done this. Ron Paul has done this in the past. But what hasn't happened is a mass of socially liberal, fiscally conservative republicans, on the order of 10's or, perhaps 30 ore more of seated individuals switching over to the Libertarian Party en masse, both at the federal and national level

Possible defectors: Davis, Demint, Amash. Rand Paul. TEA party candidates. Fiscally conservative Democrats. And they need to be seated already in congress when this happens. Instant incumbent Libertarians.

They need a strong, identifiable leader: Ron Paul.

The 3rd Party's platform needs to be well defined, with strong arguments. (it is) It's members need to represent a spectrum of ideals within that party (like Repub and Dems do). What it lacks is patriotism and a sense that it is the NEW idea, the BETTER idea, not just the old one we lost before FDR.

It needs to be widely publicized and happen over the course of weeks. (No doubt in my mind that alone would cause near hysteria) It needs to happen during a presidential election year, with a strong, popular candidate for president defecting.

This new candidate needs to grab 15% of the popular vote or more to 'break in.' in the general. Ron Paul is the best positioned person to do this, probably in the last 100 years not counting the independent run of Ross Perot. With this 'break in' Even more members of the party get seated at all levels.

The idea is that the Republican Party, literally, goes the way of the 'Whigs'

I propose the RNC is the bargaining chip. Either the republican party becomes the Freedom Right, or it remains the Authoritarian Right and eventually disolves as our countries financial situation is eventually blamed on the one Party that ever pretended or tried to do something about it.

A STRONG 3rd party would make the U.S. more peaceful, more prosperous, and more free. And I don't know of a good counter argument than that. It would not only force compromise, it would force moderation of runaway government and runaway ideologies.

ConCap
01-17-2012, 09:26 PM
I agree that locality increases accountability. That's why I believe in the states' rights mantra for limiting federal power. :) However, the Constitution Party seems to ENDORSE socially restrictive legislation at the state level, whereas I believe it should take a neutral stance at the very least, if not agitate for more personal liberty and autonomy at the state level as well.

For that reason, I have trouble associating myself with the CP. I sympathize with them in many ways, and I really like Chuck Baldwin as a person, but I can't jump onto a party that specifically wants to legislate Christian cultural mores, even at the state level.* I believe the law should be used exclusively to protect liberty from aggressive/coercive/violent infringement, not for social engineering. Ron Paul leaves open the possibility that states can and will do that, and he wisely points out that conservatives and liberals can each set up whatever separate tyrannies they like in each state...after all, people across America have too many differing political ideas for us to live harmoniously under a uniform centralized government, and 50 laboratories of experimentation will help us coexist far better. Nevertheless, Paul also personally warns against the moral and consequential ills of legislating [parochial] morality...which is why I love him so much. He honestly does not believe in imposing his cultural values on people by force, at any level of government.

*Note that the situation with the Republican Party is different: We're transparently trying to retake it in favor of Constitutional and libertarian principles, and we're using it as a politically effective vehicle. The Constitution Party is different, because it's not politically effective; joining it or promoting it actually implies agreeing with its platform.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

You sound like someone who really has there stuff together.
Hang in there, we are all in for a bumpy ride.

tremendoustie
01-17-2012, 09:26 PM
Though I do not advocate or feel there should be any political parties on a federal level, why is it, no one on this site advocates the Constitution Party? Ron Paul is their ideal but not their man this time around.

So, my question is.
Do you, or do you not, advocate the Constitution Party and why?

Thanks

Do I favor most of their platform and candidates over most of the republican platform and candidates? Yes. Would I advocate getting involved in the constitution party and trying to use it to enact reform? No.

The reason is simple: The deck is stacked against 3rd parties. Reforming the republican party means gaining a real basis from which to advocate for liberty, and reduce the size and scope of the state.

Pragmatically speaking, using third parties is a losing proposition.

That said, if RP doesn't win the nomination, I probably will vote 3rd party as a protest vote, likely either the constitution or libertarian party, depending on who they nominate.

Mini-Me
01-17-2012, 09:29 PM
Sorry for the misunderstanding.

You sound like someone who really has there stuff together.
Hang in there, we are all in for a bumpy ride.

No apology necessary! We're all friends here...you know, mostly. ;)

YankeesJunkie
01-17-2012, 09:36 PM
It is just amazing the variety of liberals and conservatives that are attracted to Ron Paul. No other candidate does that. I am lucky enough to realize the truth of what the good doctor says and while we may disagree on some issues we all agree on the fundamentals of the Constitution which so many members of politics ignore. The Revolution will continue with or without Ron Paul he is just merely an advocate for us!

Karsten
01-17-2012, 09:37 PM
Why can't Ron Paul get BOTH the Libertarian and Constitution party nominations (and heck, I wonder if even the Green Party would nominate him too just to gain popularity)?

tbone717
01-17-2012, 09:43 PM
Why can't Ron Paul get BOTH the Libertarian and Constitution party nominations (and heck, I wonder if even the Green Party would nominate him too just to gain popularity)?

No reason to, we are in this to win it. If not then go home and work on 2016. A third party candidate, regardless of who it is, will not win in 2012.

Keith and stuff
01-17-2012, 09:48 PM
I don't know where you live (it doesn't say in your profile) but I live in New Hampshire. In NH, around 1/3 of the Republican State Reps are libertarians. The Republican Party is extremely welcoming to libertarians. So much so that in many of the special elections for State Rep, the only Republican running is a libertarian. There are libertarians in the leadership of the Young Republicans and the Republican Liberty Caucus (a libertarian organization, at least in NH) is pretty powerful. The House Republican Alliance, perhaps the most powerful group in the NH House, has a libertarian as one of the two co-chairs.

Peace&Freedom
01-17-2012, 10:05 PM
Why can't Ron Paul get BOTH the Libertarian and Constitution party nominations (and heck, I wonder if even the Green Party would nominate him too just to gain popularity)?

That's the aggressive option. After the race comes down to just Ron and Mitt in March, Paul could force the 'NOBP, or lose' issue on the GOP by announcing he was running for the Republican nomination to the bitter end, AND FOR THE LP AND CP NOMINATIONS AS WELL. Remember, 72% of delegates will not have been chosen until after Super Tuesday on March 6. Most rank and file Republicans could then choose between voting for Paul and winning in November, OR choosing Mitt and losing, with Paul running third party. Repeat, rank and file primary voters, not the GOP leadership, would decide for Paul on this basis---they will want to win.

ConCap
01-17-2012, 10:09 PM
That's the aggressive option. After the race comes down to just Ron and Mitt in March, Paul could force the 'NOBP, or lose' issue on the GOP by announcing he was running for the Republican nomination to the bitter end, AND FOR THE LP AND CP NOMINATIONS AS WELL. Remember, 72% of delegates will not have been chosen until after Super Tuesday on March 6. Most rank and file Republicans could then choose between voting for Paul and winning in November, OR choosing Mitt and losing, with Paul running third party. Repeat, rank and file primary voters, not the GOP leadership, would decide for Paul on this basis---they will want to win.

A small ray of light.

Mini-Me
01-17-2012, 10:16 PM
That's the aggressive option. After the race comes down to just Ron and Mitt in March, Paul could force the 'NOBP, or lose' issue on the GOP by announcing he was running for the Republican nomination to the bitter end, AND FOR THE LP AND CP NOMINATIONS AS WELL. Remember, 72% of delegates will not have been chosen until after Super Tuesday on March 6. Most rank and file Republicans could then choose between voting for Paul and winning in November, OR choosing Mitt and losing, with Paul running third party. Repeat, rank and file primary voters, not the GOP leadership, would decide for Paul on this basis---they will want to win.

I doubt he'll do that, because that would probably draw too much heat for Rand...and it also runs the danger that too many young civil libertarian types will switch from Obama to Paul, in which case Paul will accidentally be a spoiler for Obama instead of Romney. It's unlikely, but it could happen with all of this NDAA stuff, etc. Instead, I think Ron will play it more passive aggressively and mention, "You realize that if I'm not the nominee, my supporters will sit out, write me in, or vote third party, right? Romney simply cannot beat Obama without the help of my supporters, and even I couldn't convince them to vote for him." ;) In other words, it's important that the voters recognize that it has to do with our principles, rather than some diabolical plot that Ron Paul dreamt up to extort their votes from them.

Peace&Freedom
01-17-2012, 10:38 PM
I doubt he'll do that, because that would probably draw too much heat for Rand...and it also runs the danger that too many young civil libertarian types will switch from Obama to Paul, in which case Paul will accidentally be a spoiler for Obama instead of Romney. It's unlikely, but it could happen with all of this NDAA stuff, etc. Instead, I think Ron will play it more passive aggressively and mention, "You realize that if I'm not the nominee, my supporters will sit out, write me in, or vote third party, right? Romney simply cannot beat Obama without the help of my supporters, and even I couldn't convince them to vote for him." ;) In other words, it's important that the voters recognize that it has to do with our principles, rather than some diabolical plot that Ron Paul dreamt up to extort their votes from them.

The point is, we have the much better position to put heat on them, than they do to put heat on Rand. The 'extortion' plan does not violate Paul's principles---while compromising with pro-Fed, pro-war, pro-NDAA etc. Romney by not blocking his path to the nomination, WOULD be violating them. Nor is it extortion if most of the primary voters choose to vote for Paul once presented the 'NOBP or lose' options early in the primaries.

The scenario is unlikely IF Ron is not inclined to play hardball. But it makes for a much cleaner, stark choice to GOP voters, who really want to win, to make it a matter of going with Paul, or LOSING, period. The rank and file will not see this issue unless it is literally forced upon them, otherwise they will think Mitt will pull out a victory, "because the Paul supporters, after all, will come eventually around to Mitt."

We have to stop acting like we are more scared of being stomped on, and start stomping them. The movement/Paul has to clearly communicate, NO, we will not be 'biting hard, and holding our nose' anymore---it's THEIR turn to bite hard, and vote for US. The card has to be PLAYED, and not buffed at. And as well, from this point on, the establishment has to receive ACTUAL pain, not just the possibility of such, for crossing the liberty movement.

Mini-Me
01-17-2012, 11:09 PM
The point is, we have the much better position to put heat on them, than they do to put heat on Rand. The 'extortion' plan does not violate Paul's principles---while compromising with pro-Fed, pro-war, pro-NDAA etc. Romney by not blocking his path to the nomination, WOULD be violating them. Nor is it extortion if most of the primary voters choose to vote for Paul once presented the 'NOBP or lose' options early in the primaries.

The scenario is unlikely IF Ron is not inclined to play hardball. But it makes for a much cleaner, stark choice to GOP voters, who really want to win, to make it a matter of going with Paul, or LOSING, period. The rank and file will not see this issue unless it is literally forced upon them, otherwise they will think Mitt will pull out a victory, "because the Paul supporters, after all, will come eventually around to Mitt."

We have to stop acting like we are more scared of being stomped on, and start stomping them. The movement/Paul has to clearly communicate, NO, we will not be 'biting hard, and holding our nose' anymore---it's THEIR turn to bite hard, and vote for US. The card has to be PLAYED, and not buffed at. And as well, from this point on, the establishment has to receive ACTUAL pain, not just the possibility of such, for crossing the liberty movement.

I agree the card has to be played! It's our trump card. I'm just saying that WE should be the ones playing it, and Ron should merely loudly point out the card we're holding and emphasize what WE will do with it...as opposed to actually running third party himself. Actually running as third-party is not only completely unnecessary for denying Romney the Presidency...but it might even backfire and win the Presidency for Romney due to potentially massive levels of crossover protest voters.

The Rand issue is secondary, but all other things being equal, it's better not to leave him exposed. It doesn't matter whether the party hates us, but we don't want the voters themselves to feel extorted...instead, we simply want them to know that Romney WILL NOT win, because we won't support him under any circumstances (and they need our votes). That creates much less bad blood and leaves voters much more open to listening to us in the future.

Schiff_FTW
01-17-2012, 11:17 PM
Why can't Ron Paul get BOTH the Libertarian and Constitution party nominations (and heck, I wonder if even the Green Party would nominate him too just to gain popularity)?

A candidate is only allowed to be on one ballot line in most states.

As for why the Republican Party? Why, to piss Bill Kristol and the rest of the neocons off, of course.

Peace&Freedom
01-17-2012, 11:48 PM
It doesn't matter whether the party hates us, but we don't want the voters themselves to feel extorted...instead, we simply want them to know that Romney WILL NOT win, because we won't support him under any circumstances (and they need our votes). That creates much less bad blood and leaves voters much more open to listening to us in the future.

I guess we will disagree on this point, but the average Republican will absolutely NOT see that Romney will not win if nominated, without the third party obstacle already in place. Most of them think the election is already in the bag for the GOP due to the economy, period, and that Paul supporters 'will come home' and vote out Obama. If we do stay home, the signs are the GOP leadership is fully prepared to scapegoat the movement and create bad blood against us anyway, as a first step towards marginalizing and pistol-whipping Paulians into compliance with the establishment-appointed frontrunner come 2016.

We must toss the reactive "oh my, what will they do to us? let's not do anything that might backfire" mentality once and for all, and replace it with a "let's make their plans backfire" pro-activeness, or nothing will change, and another alternative movement gets smothered.

TomL
01-18-2012, 05:35 AM
Though I do not advocate or feel there should be any political parties on a federal level, why is it, no one on this site advocates the Constitution Party? Ron Paul is their ideal but not their man this time around.

So, my question is.
Do you, or do you not, advocate the Constitution Party and why?

Thanks

Once in my political career, being upset with the Republican Party over their choice of George HW Bush for President, I look into both the Libertarian and Constitution parties. I settled on the Constituion Party, and registered. I was in that party for about a year.

At that time, it seemed to me that the leadership was top-heavy. There was a select few with all the power. It seemed they didn't care about the rank and file of the party. The Constitution Party was formed from the top down, of, by and for a select few. Those few being the friends of Howard Phillips.

There was no support of local candidates from the national party. That was in 1988.

I would hope things have changed by now. I hope the Party is more inclusive of the grassroots. That is why I am a Republican. But I would like to be in the Constitution Party if the leadership recognizes the grassroots.

TomL
01-18-2012, 05:47 AM
I can only speak for myself, but I am under the notion that Ron Paul wants the Republican party to return to some normalcy and back to it's principles.

I am following that. And also because Oklahoma is closed primary, so I registered Republican, as that is the party of my family and closer to my views than the Democratic.

I really think we need to start a third party push after this election. This site needs to become the third party forums.

I think Ron Paul wants the country to return to the Constitution, and sees the Republican Party as the best way to do that as of now.

Keep in mind, Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican President, and he did not follow the Constitution. The Republican Party did not start with Constitutional principles.

I agree with you, we need a formidable third party. I'd like to see the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party merge.

TomL
01-18-2012, 05:52 AM
There are at least two reasons:
Second: To make a meaningful dent, we would still need to unite both the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. The Constitution Party leans too far to the theocratic side of paleoconservatism for most libertarians, and the Libertarian Party leans too far to the "socially liberal at the federal level" side to appeal to most Christians. (Of course, the Libertarian Party is also in the middle of an identity crisis, and it threw its principled platform out the window a few years ago for a wishy-washy one.) Both Parties are too bullheaded in their own ways to permanently unite behind a common platform and rhetoric, when Ron Paul's platform and rhetoric - both this year and in 2008 - proved conclusively that it IS possible to unite the two voting bases.

EXACTLY!

TomL
01-18-2012, 06:08 AM
I see your point.
However, the Constitution is “A” political.
You are for it as written, or you are not.
If you are elected , and you bring in social issues, you are out.

Then, would you agree with the Obama Administration that the "Defense Of Marriage Act" is unconstitutional? I do. Nowhere does the Constitution define marriage.

TomL
01-18-2012, 06:26 AM
I'm definitely not a social liberal; I believe strongly in the free market, and I specifically have no problem with capitalism as a free market practice. (I do agree with left-libertarians that hierarchical relationships in companies have the potential to be degrading, but I do not feel that's necessarily the case, and I certainly recognize that it's totally impractical and unethical to prohibit them by force. It would be interesting to see if more democratically structured companies could serve customers as well as traditional hierarchical ones, and I'd love to see competition between varying models. Either way, I'd ultimately consider whichever voluntary model that most increases prosperity to be the best.)

I consider myself to be a pretty "center" libertarian, although professed left-libertarians would probably call me a right-libertarian, due to what I said above (and my locally pro-life stance, which I derive from libertarian principles). The lineage of libertarianism is tied very closely to the tradition of classical liberalism though, so I find a lot to like in classical liberalism. The Enlightenment thinkers speak to me, but Ron Paul speaks to me even more, especially when he's at his most libertarian. For instance, I believe in states' rights as a means to an end (smaller, more accountable government...vanishing into nothing ;)), but I do not believe state governments actually have the moral right to pass whatever restrictive laws they want. I dislike the LP's explicit pro-choice position (especially at the federal level!) and recent waffling, but I also dislike the CP's narrow religiosity and implicit moral endorsement of arbitrary repression at the state level. Most Ron Paul supporters probably feel somewhat alienated by one of those two parties, and I happen to feel a bit alienated by both. :p

ABSOLUTELY GREAT POST!

TomL
01-18-2012, 06:49 AM
Originally Posted by Karsten
Why can't Ron Paul get BOTH the Libertarian and Constitution party nominations (and heck, I wonder if even the Green Party would nominate him too just to gain popularity)?
No reason to, we are in this to win it. If not then go home and work on 2016. A third party candidate, regardless of who it is, will not win in 2012.

But it wouldn't hurt for the CP & LP not run their own candidates and endorse Ron Paul. They don't need to nominate him as their party's candidate.

TomL
01-18-2012, 06:59 AM
What's the NOBP?

speciallyblend
01-18-2012, 07:04 AM
I would support the CP when it doesn't sound like a sunday morning sermon at their convention. I love Chuck Baldwin and voted for him but until the CP can open to the masses and stop their meetings from looking like sunday morning sermons. I don't see them gaining any traction. I have no problem with a person praying or believing in god but the cp reminds me of the right wing of the gop. I would love the cp to take the lp approach and build a bigger tent. The last 2 CP conventions i saw on tv looked more like a religious pandering event then a political party.

The LP had a chance to until lp delegates sold their party down the river with bob barr and got less votes then previously. I watched as the lp delegates made deals and squeezed mary ruwart out kinda like what i expect the gop to do to ron paul.

TomL
01-18-2012, 07:05 AM
I agree the card has to be played! It's our trump card. I'm just saying that WE should be the ones playing it, and Ron should merely loudly point out the card we're holding and emphasize what WE will do with it...as opposed to actually running third party himself. Actually running as third-party is not only completely unnecessary for denying Romney the Presidency...but it might even backfire and win the Presidency for Romney due to potentially massive levels of crossover protest voters.

The Rand issue is secondary, but all other things being equal, it's better not to leave him exposed. It doesn't matter whether the party hates us, but we don't want the voters themselves to feel extorted...instead, we simply want them to know that Romney WILL NOT win, because we won't support him under any circumstances (and they need our votes). That creates much less bad blood and leaves voters much more open to listening to us in the future.

It really doesn't much matter what Ron Paul does if he is not the nominee. Either Obama will get a second term, or a big-government Republican will get elected. Unless we can mount a large enough write-in campaign, we're screwed.

ConCap
01-21-2012, 04:09 PM
Then, would you agree with the Obama Administration that the "Defense Of Marriage Act" is unconstitutional? I do. Nowhere does the Constitution define marriage.

Artical 1 Section 8

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html