We could start our own party here on RPFs. It will be known as The Party of the Shirtless Bastards, open to straight men and post-op F->M transsexuals. On election day, the candidates will not wear shirts (so we know which ones to vote for). Convention delegates would also not wear shirts.
“I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul
The CP is irrelevant.Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom
The LP got about 1% of the vote last time. The CP got less than 1/10th of 1%.
The LP will have ballot access in all states, or all but a few. The CP will have ballot access in less than half of the states.
I have no problem with the CP ideologically, or with any of their members personally, just being realistic.
And I'd be saying the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot, if it were the CP with a better shot.
But, this year, if you want a third party to make an impact, the LP is it.
The parties have so much more in common than they have differences, and the differences are relatively trivial.
Gay marriage versus the bankrupting of the country....should be obvious which takes priority.
I hope they join us.
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 05-04-2016 at 10:08 PM.
I won't ally with anyone who thinks gay marriage is a "Constitutional Right" either.
These days being right in politics makes you irrelevant, so I 'm leaning towards voting for the best candidate. The being relevant argument would have me voting for Trump.
"The Patriarch"
This is why we can't have nice things.
We can't have nice things because I want to obey the Constitution?
If that's what makes us not have nice things then tough noogies, we'll just have to not have nice things.
I'm not backing off of Constitutional Compliance for you, Trump, Johnson, Cruz, or anyone.
http://glenbradley.net/share/aleksan...nitsyn_4-t.gif “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
No, it's because people have skewed priorities.
Anyone who thinks fighting gay marriage is more important than fighting socialism or the warfare state, for instance, has very skewed priorities.
Guess so..If that's what makes us not have nice things then tough noogies, we'll just have to not have nice things.
Your strategy will result in a more rapid erosion of the Constitution.I'm not backing off of Constitutional Compliance for you, Trump, Johnson, Cruz, or anyone.
If you want to pull in disaffected Sanders supporters to a LP candidate, talk to them about the LP's support of the libertarian principles Bernie's running on: reining in the NSA, demilitarizing local law enforcement units, ending for-profit prisons, etc.
A good portion of Bernie folks will never vote for Clinton or Trump. How many? No idea. But enough to give the LP a big boost.
There is no law saying it should be banned either.
The reason it was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution was because Gay marriage was unpopular and not a fore front issue.
Personally I'm a Christian and I absolutely detest Gay Marriage. That being said I am content with them having the right to marry so long as they do not limit ones right to discrimination and refusal of services.
Anyway, Gay Marriage is a minor issue when you look at all the problems we have now.
Right. My strategy of "only electing people who will obey the Constitution" "will result in a more rapid erosion of the Constitution."
I think the Trumpaloompas have infected you with something.
I am a Constitutionalist. whatever position on gay marriage I may have or not have is irrelevant. It's NOT in the Constitution. That's what's relevant to me. If someone is going to just run around inventing new Constitutional rights out of thin air, then they are not now nor will they ever be the guy for me. I want someone who will obey the Constitution, not further destroy it.
If you are looking for someone to help further erode the Constitution, then do not look at me. I will not be helping that effort.
Please explain how this is going to happen.
"The Patriarch"
So is the constitution a perfect document and anything it does not specifically mention should not be addressed? What about topics such as Drug legalization? The Constitution makes no specific command against paper money and the superiority of the gold standard. Should issues like this be ignored?
There are more unconstitutional laws than those pertaining to gay marriage.
There's, well, just about everything the federal government does.
In order to keep fighting against one unconstitutional law, you're sacrificing an opportunity to up the fight against all the others.
= epic triage failure
Technically the Constitution says nothing about marriage between one man and one woman.
Should we make straight marriage illegal just because the Constitution does not mention it?
Absolutely not.
That is vaguely correct. And powers which the Constitution does not delegate to the federal government belong tot he STates, or the People respectively.and anything it does not specifically mention should not be addressed?
The Constitution does not give the federal government the power to make drugs illegal in the first place.What about topics such as Drug legalization?
Section. 10.The Constitution makes no specific command against paper money
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Perhaps we are reading different Constitutions?and the superiority of the gold standard. Should issues like this be ignored?
You are getting a lot closer to the truth here. The government has no role in marriage whatsoever. The Constitution recognizes no role in marriage for government. The fact that governments would licence marriage in the first place is a violation of the 1st Amendment.
I agree there should be no involvement.
My point is you still have to protect the RIGHT to be married, be it gay or straight.
A good showing by the LP will result in the growth of the liberty movement.
The more growth in the liberty movement, the more likely we are to prevent/eliminate the unconstitutional practices of the federal government.
To act in a way that does not help give the LP a good showing (as by voting CP), is to forgo those benefits.
So, to vote CP instead of LP causes the odds of preserving/restoring the constitution to be lower than they otherwise would have been.
If you want to vote for someone who strictly believes in the constitution, vote CP.
If you want to up the odds of actually preserving/restoring the Constitution, vote LP.
On what authority? Just because it feels good? America is where we are today from doing unconstitutional stuff that 'feels good.'
If the LP wants my vote then they will nominate someone who does not actively pervert the US Constitution.
CP won't even be on my ballot.
People need to have their rights protected. Is that not the true purpose of government? Is protecting a right unconstitutional?
You realize this all sounds depressingly familiar? So, to be clear, to preserve the Constitution vote for the Libertarian Party that doesn't really base it's platform on the Constitution. Not the Constitution Party. Because that "causes the odds of preserving/restoring the constitution to be lower than they otherwise would have been".
"The Patriarch"
Is marriage a right?
"The Patriarch"
Suppose that there were two candidates running, Bob and Jones.If the LP wants my vote then they will nominate someone who does not actively pervert the US Constitution.
Bob is a strict Constitutionalist, except on gay marriage. He will repeal all unconstitutional laws if he wins, except those pertaining to gay marriage.
Jones is a strict Constitutionalist, no exceptions. If he wins, he will repeal all unconstitutional laws, including those pertaining to gay marriage.
If you vote for Bob, he will win, and all unconstitutional laws will be repealed, except those pertaining to gay marriage.
If you vote for Jones, he will lose, and no unconstitutional laws will be repealed.
For whom will you vote?
The War on Drugs is an unconstitutional thing that felt good.
If I am okay with someone perverting the intent of the Constitution to make up new rights out of thin air, then how can I justify my own opposition to the War on Drugs inasmuch as it's against the Constitution?
I cannot morally and with integrity be in favor of enforcing the Constitution against my pet peeves, while then opposing the enforcement of the Constitution on my pet issues. We either obey the Constitution or we don't. If I'm going to demand that someone else's want is superseded by the Constitution then you are damn tooting that my own wants will also be superseded by the Constitution.
If I pick and choose which parts to obey and ignore, then I am no better than the idiot elected monster hose beasts who brought us to this point in the first place, since they too brought us to this point by picking and choosing which parts to obey and ignore.
Government has no business in marriage. It became part of marriage in the US to prevent interracial marriages.
As long as others are not forced into unwanted situations, what 2 consenting adults do is between them and should be no one else's business.
There is no spoon.
WHo decides what is a right? Barack Obama thinks we all have a right to health care.
How about McAfee?If the LP wants my vote then they will nominate someone who does not actively pervert the US Constitution.
CP won't even be on my ballot.
Depressing or not, it's true.
The LP does not base its platform on the Constitution, but virtually all of what it wants to do amounts to the repealing of unconstitutional laws.
And it's much more able to make an impact than the CP, for size, ballot access, media attention, etc.
So, if you want to increase the odds of actually repealing unconstitutional laws, yea, vote LP, not CP.
Let's make the distinction more crisp...
Suppose the the GOP vanished and the LP took its place. The LP candidate is getting ~50% of the vote in polls against Hillary.
The CP is still getting 0.1%.
If you want to repeal unconstitutional laws, which should you support?
...no brainer, right?
Well, the difference between that and the reality right now is just the scale: the extent of the advantage of the LP over the CP.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us