Constitution-Libertarian Coalition

[The Rebel Poet]

In spite of the differences between the Constitution and Libertarian Parties, they have - from a what-is-the-job-description point of view - enough in common that they could find a single candidate for any federal office 99% of the time (Ron Paul is a real example). Since both groups are too principled to merge the parties, if they could operate as one party nationally and remain separate locally we could get farther. If that wouldn't be legally possible, perhaps they could be officially two parties, but nominate the same candidate, they could even alternate states to save resources and money (i.e. Constitution Party would work to get ballot access in South Dakota and Libertarian Party would work to get ballot access in New Mexico: thus one candidate is on two state ballots by each party getting on one ballot).

[Smart3]

I'm going to be really rude.

Why would America's third largest and only principled freedom party merge with those idiots? The LP motto is "Pro-choice on everything"... do you think we came up with that out of nowhere? No, it was because of the AIP/Wallace Party and now the other Christian parties. The LP lost tons of people to the CP when it was formed.

LIBERTY not RELIGION!

[paulbot24]

Welcome to the forums! We call it herding cats around here. There's something enormously difficult about getting a group of people that reject groups and the entire concept of collectivism to agree on the correct principle of politics. So far, only Ron Paul has ever succeeded in this crucible, probably because he easily slays the reptilian-based central planning elitist overlords who seek to enslave us all using his truth-bombs of logic, reason, common sense and sound policies that short-circuit their greedy control power-obsessed agendas of world domination. Damn, I need to stop taking so much of this cough syrup and go to bed.:eek: Just wanted to say welcome.:D

[FrankRep]

I'm going to be really rude.

Why would America's third largest and only principled freedom party merge with those idiots? The LP motto is "Pro-choice on everything"... do you think we came up with that out of nowhere? No, it was because of the AIP/Wallace Party and now the other Christian parties. The LP lost tons of people to the CP when it was formed.

LIBERTY not RELIGION!

Yes, that is VERY rude. Thank you for reminding me why I don't support the Libertarian party.


PS: The LP only scored 1% of the vote so chill out with the ego.

[gwax23]

What difference does it make. This is a 2 party duopoly, any other parties have no chance. We need to end the two party system then we can talk about party mergers.

[jmdrake]

I'm going to be really rude.

Why would America's third largest and only principled freedom party merge with those idiots? The LP motto is "Pro-choice on everything"... do you think we came up with that out of nowhere? No, it was because of the AIP/Wallace Party and now the other Christian parties. The LP lost tons of people to the CP when it was formed.

LIBERTY not RELIGION!

:rolleyes: In 2008, the "principled" libertarian party nominated Bob Barr while the Constitutionalist party endorsed Chuck Baldwin. Who did Ron Paul ultimately endorse? And who in the long run turned out to be a more faithful defender of liberty? (Hint, it wasn't Bob "I support gun grabber Eric Holder for Attorney General" Barr).

[jmdrake]

In spite of the differences between the Constitution and Libertarian Parties, they have - from a what-is-the-job-description point of view - enough in common that they could find a single candidate for any federal office 99% of the time (Ron Paul is a real example). Since both groups are too principled to merge the parties, if they could operate as one party nationally and remain separate locally we could get farther. If that wouldn't be legally possible, perhaps they could be officially two parties, but nominate the same candidate, they could even alternate states to save resources and money (i.e. Constitution Party would work to get ballot access in South Dakota and Libertarian Party would work to get ballot access in New Mexico: thus one candidate is on two state ballots by each party getting on one ballot).

The two groups cannot merge because they are too different. However I think all third parties should work together for ballot access. I wouldn't even mind helping the Greens get ballot access, if they were willing to help with ballot access for candidates I support.

[CaptUSA]

You be you and I'll be me
and the world will be free.

It's not about which party you join, it's about demonstrating through your actions to each and every individual that liberty brings the best result.
I've come to understand that the political system in this country is a two-party system. You cannot build a third party to break that. The only thing that may break it is if one of the parties breaks apart (which could be very likely if the neocons don't adapt.) I endorse each individual deciding who they want to vote for or which party they want to join. Forced alliances have a way of going sour.

[FSP-Rebel]

Or, people can stop wasting their time in these third parties and engage in Ron's plan to restore the GOP. We're actually getting libertarian-leaning folks elected in many places and are becoming quite influential in certain state and local party apparatuses as delegates and getting libertarians on state and district committees. If these parties were ever going to catch on and amount to anything, they would have done so by now. I spent my ten years as a dues-paying LP member and then I moved on when Ron caught fire. These parties started as protest votes and clearly that's all they remain as.

[CaptUSA]

I spent my ten years as a dues-paying LP member and then I moved on when Ron caught fire.
I think I spent closer to 15. Then I spent several years as an apathetic (while very informed) independent. Then Ron Paul happened and shook me loose again. If anyboyd wants a credible third party, you will see one form after the liberty movement swells in the GOP. The neocons will form a well-funded third party in no time. And this third party will have no problem with ballot access.

[compromise]

I prefer the Republican Party.

[The Rebel Poet]

The two groups cannot merge because they are too different. However I think all third parties should work together for ballot access. I wouldn't even mind helping the Greens get ballot access, if they were willing to help with ballot access for candidates I support.
I here you, but I'm not talking about a merger; I'm talking about two separate parties supporting one candidate.

[FrankRep]

I here you, but I'm not talking about a merger; I'm talking about two separate parties supporting one candidate.
Our Freedoms are being completely destroyed and the Libertarian and Constitution Party still refuse to work together.

Ugh.

[The Rebel Poet]

I'm going to be really rude.

Why would America's third largest and only principled freedom party merge with those idiots? The LP motto is "Pro-choice on everything"... do you think we came up with that out of nowhere? No, it was because of the AIP/Wallace Party and now the other Christian parties. The LP lost tons of people to the CP when it was formed.

LIBERTY not RELIGION!


I did not say merger; I said support a joint candidate. Do I take it you wouldn't support Ron Paul? Or are you trying to create a false dilemma by implying that people who believe in religion - no matter how they would or wouldn't apply that belief to their jobs - are antithetical to liberty?

[The Rebel Poet]

Or, people can stop wasting their time in these third parties and engage in Ron's plan to restore the GOP. We're actually getting libertarian-leaning folks elected in many places and are becoming quite influential in certain state and local party apparatuses as delegates and getting libertarians on state and district committees. If these parties were ever going to catch on and amount to anything, they would have done so by now. I spent my ten years as a dues-paying LP member and then I moved on when Ron caught fire. These parties started as protest votes and clearly that's all they remain as.
I agree about the libertizing the republican party (and that should be our primary focus), but I think we should engage in all out warfare from ALL sides. Flank and swarm the bastards! I can see why some want to focus like a laser, but I think guerrilla warfare works better; keep em guessing where we'll be popping up next. I think we should take back the Democratic Party too.

[Smart3]

I did not say merger; I said support a joint candidate. Do I take it you wouldn't support Ron Paul? Or are you trying to create a false dilemma by implying that people who believe in religion - no matter how they would or wouldn't apply that belief to their jobs - are antithetical to liberty?

Ron Paul is a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party. I support him as a fellow LP member not as a Red dog.


:rolleyes: In 2008, the "principled" libertarian party nominated Bob Barr while the Constitutionalist party endorsed Chuck Baldwin. Who did Ron Paul ultimately endorse? And who in the long run turned out to be a more faithful defender of liberty? (Hint, it wasn't Bob "I support gun grabber Eric Holder for Attorney General" Barr).
and who helped get Ron Paul write-in status in California in 2008?

I would never have voted for Barr.

[The Rebel Poet]

Ron Paul is a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party. I support him as a fellow LP member not as a Red dog.

What is a "Red dog"?

[Uriah]

Welcome to the forums! We call it herding cats around here. There's something enormously difficult about getting a group of people that reject groups and the entire concept of collectivism to agree on the correct principle of politics. So far, only Ron Paul has ever succeeded in this crucible, probably because he easily slays the reptilian-based central planning elitist overlords who seek to enslave us all using his truth-bombs of logic, reason, common sense and sound policies that short-circuit their greedy control power-obsessed agendas of world domination. Damn, I need to stop taking so much of this cough syrup and go to bed.:eek: Just wanted to say welcome.:D

+rep :D

[parocks]

The two groups cannot merge because they are too different. However I think all third parties should work together for ballot access. I wouldn't even mind helping the Greens get ballot access, if they were willing to help with ballot access for candidates I support.

Helping the Greens get ballot access is often a good idea, especially when you want the GOP to win. People might be deciding between a Green who won't win and a Democrat who might.

[TaftFan]

We need to set up a system where these two parties bow out if a liberty candidate runs as a Republican.

[Liberty74]

What difference does it make. This is a 2 party duopoly, any other parties have no chance. We need to end the two party system then we can talk about party mergers.

We live with a one party criminal system set up by design to conquer and divide Americans thinking there are two paths yet really only one. So technically, there isn't even a second party.

[heavenlyboy34]

I think I spent closer to 15. Then I spent several years as an apathetic (while very informed) independent. Then Ron Paul happened and shook me loose again. If anyboyd wants a credible third party, you will see one form after the liberty movement swells in the GOP. The neocons will form a well-funded third party in no time. And this third party will have no problem with ballot access.
This^^ And that is why relying solely on elections is lose-lose in the long term.

[libertariantexas]

We need to set up a system where these two parties bow out if a liberty candidate runs as a Republican.

You mean if a liberty candidate actually gets the nomination, I assume.

If a liberty candidate runs, and the GOP chooses a McCain or Romney, we need a party like the Libertarian Party to give people an alternative.

[libertariantexas]

I don't think you'll ever see the Bible, er, Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party work together like that.

Libertarians want liberty, not a theocracy. It seems that the CP just wants a small government theocracy.

[FrankRep]

I don't think you'll ever see the Bible, er, Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party work together like that.

Libertarians want liberty, not a theocracy. It seems that the CP just wants a small government theocracy.

The Constitution Party doesn't want Theocracy either, they support the --- Constitution.


Only moral countries are able to live under a Constitution vs. a Government dictatorship, however.


This is true:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
- John Adams

[compromise]

I don't think you'll ever see the Bible, er, Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party work together like that.

Libertarians want liberty, not a theocracy. It seems that the CP just wants a small government theocracy.
They do not want theocracy. They obviously not support the separation of church and state, but most countries in the world do not have the separation of church and state. Only 2, Iran and the Vatican, are theocracies.

[FrankRep]

They do not want theocracy. They obviously not support the separation of church and state, but most countries in the world do not have the separation of church and state. Only 2, Iran and the Vatican, are theocracies.

"separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.

It only says "Congress shall make no law ..." That's something different.

[Origanalist]

Bump, just curious how people here react to this idea now.

[Ender]

Bump, just curious how people here react to this idea now.

Well, I certainly agree with this:


@Liberty74: We live with a one party criminal system set up by design to conquer and divide Americans thinking there are two paths yet really only one. So technically, there isn't even a second party.

And this:


@FrankRep: "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.

It only says "Congress shall make no law ..." That's something different.

;)

[RJ Liberty]

Great question.

I wish the CP well, and applaud any third party candidate or independent for attempting to buck the two-party system. It's tilting at windmills and the work rarely bears fruit, but it's important work.

That said, the CP are too biblical for me, and although some of their platforms overlap, I can't see a coalition working too well. Not that the CP is entirely at fault: the LP is like a group of cats: difficult to herd, difficult to stay on message. Just last month, a portion of the LP wanted to nominate for president a man wanted in Belize, suspected of murder. It's that sort of thing that the media portrays as whack-a-doodle (http://nypost.com/2016/05/29/meet-this-years-crop-of-crazy-libertarian-party-hopefuls/), and which makes the LP look bad. (Luckily, the LP came to its senses and selected what the media is calling the strongest ticket the LP has ever fielded.)

The LP was strained almost to the breaking point during the convention; I can't imagine trying to collaborate with another, albeit smaller, party would go down too well. Besides, Third Parties have a long history of breaking off from each other, splintering into smaller and smaller factions, rather than coming together.

[Jesse James]

The parties should get together and run a Ron Paul - Rand Paul - Amash - Massie - TMOT type guy for every local and national election. Only way we will ever get Liberty. Either that, or continue you to run as republicans

[Origanalist]

The parties should get together and run a Ron Paul - Rand Paul - Amash - Massie - TMOT type guy for every local and national election. Only way we will ever get Liberty. Either that, or continue you to run as republicans

I agree with this.

[Ronin Truth]

A statist is a statist is a statist is a statist is a statist, etc., etc. etc.. :p :mad: :rolleyes: