In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Back To The Basics
Wagon Wheel
Member Posts: 633 ✭✭✭✭
As a long time advocate of "Vote the BUMS OUT" and butting heads with Ya'll, I may have something you may agree with me on, and possibly Support. Some of you may be familiar with this, some may not. I hope that you would at least indulge me and look.
I am intrigued by the CP, http://constitutionparty.com probably because I am so disgusted with the present two party system. I am a registered voter and by my own admission proudly admit that I have never voted for a democrat in my life. Not that ALL democrats are bad, some ARE better than others, it just remains, they are still democrats. Admittedly the Republicans have not served US well either. In the same breath, I will say; I support Bush, in most cases, but still have my problems with him. I do not think Americans should have to continue to choose between the "Lesser Of Two Evils" when we go to the polls. I STILL believe we should vote even though our Political machinery/system is thoroughly corrupted. Ultimately the politicians decide who we will vote for to further THEIR agendas. Enough Is Enough.
I urge you to please evaluate: http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Preamble
I cannot embrace the entire agenda (It is a bit to isolationist on the surface.) but, I would like to see MOST of it applied ASAP. I like their platform on gun control and a return to the basics as far as upholding the Constitution.
I think the Founding Fathers would agree it is about time!!!
Do you think there are enough traditionalists left in this country that will buy into this CP platform and actually give it a fighting chance? The party seems to be in its infancy but is growing rapidly. I have been following it for about a year now. Do you think the CP could field a viable candidate for the '08 elections?
Would you assist in supporting their agenda? I do believe the rest of this country is as feed up as I am. Neither party (GOP/Dems) has even, to date, suggested a Nominee I would cast my ballot in favor of for our next president. Libertarians have yet to field anyone with a real chance of being elected president. Is the country ready to buy into this CP platform? What do you think? Looking forward to reading your comments (pro/con) if you should feel this is important enough.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Preamble
www.constitutionparty.com
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
I am not sure these links work here. Won't allow a preview before posting. You may have to Cut and Paste.
I am intrigued by the CP, http://constitutionparty.com probably because I am so disgusted with the present two party system. I am a registered voter and by my own admission proudly admit that I have never voted for a democrat in my life. Not that ALL democrats are bad, some ARE better than others, it just remains, they are still democrats. Admittedly the Republicans have not served US well either. In the same breath, I will say; I support Bush, in most cases, but still have my problems with him. I do not think Americans should have to continue to choose between the "Lesser Of Two Evils" when we go to the polls. I STILL believe we should vote even though our Political machinery/system is thoroughly corrupted. Ultimately the politicians decide who we will vote for to further THEIR agendas. Enough Is Enough.
I urge you to please evaluate: http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Preamble
I cannot embrace the entire agenda (It is a bit to isolationist on the surface.) but, I would like to see MOST of it applied ASAP. I like their platform on gun control and a return to the basics as far as upholding the Constitution.
I think the Founding Fathers would agree it is about time!!!
Do you think there are enough traditionalists left in this country that will buy into this CP platform and actually give it a fighting chance? The party seems to be in its infancy but is growing rapidly. I have been following it for about a year now. Do you think the CP could field a viable candidate for the '08 elections?
Would you assist in supporting their agenda? I do believe the rest of this country is as feed up as I am. Neither party (GOP/Dems) has even, to date, suggested a Nominee I would cast my ballot in favor of for our next president. Libertarians have yet to field anyone with a real chance of being elected president. Is the country ready to buy into this CP platform? What do you think? Looking forward to reading your comments (pro/con) if you should feel this is important enough.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Preamble
www.constitutionparty.com
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
I am not sure these links work here. Won't allow a preview before posting. You may have to Cut and Paste.
Comments
That having been said, I don't agree with their stance on pornography, victimless crimes, drug laws, gambling and the like. I agree with the Libertarian party about 98% of the time, but I don't think I could vote for a party that supports abortion. If there was a good pro-life Libertarian, I would most definitely vote for him/her.
Guess we'll never get a perfect party.
As I said; I do not embrace everything as proposed. I do not believe the religious right should take over government. I do believe its time to return to our roots as a faith based nation ("IN GOD WE TRUST") and end this war on Christianity.
As for Pornography; they call for local, state and federal governments to uphold 1st amendment rights and enforce LAWS against obscenity, while calling upon individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves. A call for the Representative body of Government to maintain a higher level of decency ain't a bad thing. Thank GOD I don't have any kids at home. Parents today have to deal with a sex-saturated society where nothing remains untainted. Compare 50's TV with what we are barraged with today. This country is rotting from the inside; we, as a nation, have lost our MORAL and Religious compass. Any student of history will tell you, when that happens, It is the beginning of the end.
Their platform does call on the Federal Government to stop its involvement in gambling. It calls for an end to government subsidization/sponsorship, involvement in and promotion of gambling. They also call for repeal of Federal Legislation that usurps (Usurp-To seize and hold by force and without legal right or authority.) state and local authority and regulation of tribal casinos in the states.
I believe in a free society and do Not believe the Federal Government should be dictating my morality or religious (what I have) beliefs. Think about it, what have liberals and far left been doing in the last few years?
"Guess we'll never get a perfect party."
Agreed. But something needs to change and soon.
BTW, I am very interested in seeing some good third party to take back government from the worthless Reps and Dems.
I too do not agree with some of their platform, but I have much more in common with them than my own Republican Party. In the Primary I did what I could to vote for conservative Republicans, but in the General Election I found myself frequently voting for Independent American candidates for state office.
http://www.iapn.org/
I normally don't like to legislate morality, but I wouldn't vote for someone who is pro-abortion, because I see abortion to be the same as murder. If abortion wasn't an issue, and it wasn't going to be legalized, I'd love to vote for the libertarians.
The Libertarian position on abortion is "Keep the government OUT of it" Why do you feel they "support" it?
A quote from their site..
quote:Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
We oppose government actions that either compel or prohibit abortion, sterilization or any other form of birth control.
I believe the government should have NO SAY in this issue. Isn't that the Libertarian platform? To give us back the responsibility for our own actions, rather than the government telling us when, and how high to jump?
Oh, as to the topic of this thread. The Libertarian party comes closest to what I believe. NOT 100% mind you, but I don't think there will ever be any one party that makes everyone happy ALL the time.
The Libertarian party is the third largest political party, holding more "elected" positions than all of the other (3rd) parties combined.
Granted,[red] I agree with the CP's gun rights stance, as well as the Libertarian's. ]I like the pro-life stance of the CP, but don't like their stance on pornography, drug laws, victimless crimes, gambling, etc.[/red
I normally don't like to legislate morality, but I wouldn't vote for someone who is pro-abortion, because I see abortion to be the same as murder. If abortion wasn't an issue, and it wasn't going to be legalized, I'd love to vote for the libertarians.
Sounds like you have some public support for an organization that you don't have total agreement with.
dsmith,
The Libertarian position on abortion is "Keep the government OUT of it" Why do you feel they "support" it?
A quote from their site..
quote:Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
We oppose government actions that either compel or prohibit abortion, sterilization or any other form of birth control.
I believe the government should have NO SAY in this issue. Isn't that the Libertarian platform? To give us back the responsibility for our own actions, rather than the government telling us when, and how high to jump?
Oh, as to the topic of this thread. The Libertarian party comes closest to what I believe. NOT 100% mind you, but I don't think there will ever be any one party that makes everyone happy ALL the time.
The Libertarian party is the third largest political party, holding more "elected" positions than all of the other (3rd) parties combined.
As, yes. As does the NRA. For me.
Highball--- Peace-Truce. I can/will/do apologize for any bad blood from the past. We can start over here. I'd rather not butt heads but, if you must, take the first shot. I would like to know what you think about the CP. I am awaiting your Opinion.
Now let me speak. What I have read on this forum, for over a year, has been a desire to uphold and defend the Constitution. Particularly the 2nd amendment. The impression I get from the prior posts (on this thread) is that a return to our basic principles (The Original Foundation/Ideal/Intent of the Constitution) could be acceptably corrupted by avoiding a faith based government AND legalizing the use of drugs. IS LEGALIZING CHILD Pornography, Rape/Molesting of minors and A Standard of Moral Depravity Next. God knows the Courts are working on that!!! (ie Vermont) My level of frustration grows on a daily basis. The moral corruption in this country is appalling. I don't know how much more of this Politically Correct (A Basically Liberal Manta.) BULL SCAT that I can stand!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As tr fox wrote This is the problem any 3rd party faces. PROVE TO THE MAJORITY FIRST, then maybe we will support you. I think that is what the CP has been/is trying to do on the local levels where they have fielded candidates. Even being ALLOWED to run (other than as write ins) has been a major obstacle. My understanding is that where they ran, they have received much, but not enough, (in most cases) support, and have seated candidates in a number of positions nation wide. They have done well in Utah. What do these folks know that we, the people, have yet to accept? As WW stated support in Nevada is substantial for the 3rd party CP (Independent American Party) candidates.
Some estimates place the number of voters registered with the party nationwide at more than 350,000, making it the third largest party in the United States. Its platform is rooted in deeply conservative values and pushes for limited government based on the U.S. Constitution. The party, founded in 1992 and originally called the U.S. Taxpayers Party, urges bans on same-sex marriage and the elimination of Social Security, welfare and federal income, payroll and estate taxes.
Both major parties have now embraced socialism. Socialism is evil. It destroys individuals, it destroys communities and it destroys nations.
There is a proper role of government and the improper role of government.
The purpose of government is not to provide things for people.
A focus on promoting a government that honors God, defending the traditional family and restoring the republic cannot be bad. Actually it reflects the original values of the GOP.
In general, at the least, the real weight of a third-party vote is the message it sends to the two major parties. What they (third parties) are trying to do is to get a message across to the other major parties and saying, "If you don't do something about these issues, we're going in another direction."
I do believe that with ENOUGH backing Nation Wide, We Could take back the country and OUR Government.
Where will YOU stand On this Issue???
The only way a third party will ever prosper, grow, survive and finally overcome is if the voting laws/rules/procedures are changed from "one man, one vote" to "one man, one ballot". Meaning that in a presidential race, just for one example, you could vote for a ballot that had more than one candidate. That way you could vote for either the Republican or Democratic candidate of your choice, but you could still vote for a third party candidate. And as is now, whichever candidate got the most votes would of course will the election.
This would solve the problem that third party candidates presently have in getting votes. Sadly, even most voters who want to vote for the third party feel pretty strongly that third party is going to lose. So rather than "waste" their one vote by voting for the third party, most voters will instead throw their one vote to their second choice (Reps or Dems) knowing that either the Reps or Dems is most likely to win.
quote:Originally posted by dsmith
Granted,[red] I agree with the CP's gun rights stance, as well as the Libertarian's. ]I like the pro-life stance of the CP, but don't like their stance on pornography, drug laws, victimless crimes, gambling, etc.[/red
I normally don't like to legislate morality, but I wouldn't vote for someone who is pro-abortion, because I see abortion to be the same as murder. If abortion wasn't an issue, and it wasn't going to be legalized, I'd love to vote for the libertarians.
Sounds like you have some public support for an organization that you don't have total agreement with.
Yes, tr. You do have me there. I would like to see the CP or LP become more powerful. I would definitely (begrudgingly) vote for the CP because of their pro-gun stance, however I do have a problem with some of their other issues to force morality on the public.
I probably wouldn't vote for the LP even though I generally agree with them simply because I would feel guilty voting for a pro-abortion candidate.
You could say that my support of imperfect third parties is hypocritical if I oppose the NRA for the same reason. However the reason I don't support the NRA is because of their policies of supporting anti-gun bills.
I was indeed avoiding the thread. Not because of any conflict between us...that has nothing to do with a good idea.
I instead....struggle with the death of hope..the hope that by some miracle enough citizens of this country wake up soon enough to prevent terrible disaster...
I have been monitoring the thread, and pondering what to say, frankly.
The core of my being wants to see such a party come to power. The part of me that thinks says 'snowballs chance in hell'...
I think it entirely too late for political salvation...the power structure is so corrupted that there is no way to salvage it.
Now you can grasp why I did not respond...those of you that can still dream perhaps still need to...and ALL attempts to retify the sewage that Washington has become NEEDS to be tried....
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
The Libertarian party comes closest to what I believe. NOT 100% mind you, but I don't think there will ever be any one party that makes everyone happy ALL the time.
As, yes. As does the NRA. For me.
At your insistence of re-hashing this topic again. Any differences I may have with the Libertarian Party, are more philosophical, rather than constitutional. I don't find the Libertarian Party actively seeking to abridge any of my constitutional rights. UNLIKE the NRA which I have, on more than one occasion, provided information showing them to be (at times) walking hand in hand with those trying to take away our 2nd amendment rights. BIG difference there.
As to the topic of this thread.
Wagon Wheel, you asked, "Do you think the CP could field a viable candidate for the '08 elections?" Sadly my answer would have to be, NO. Following that line, I do not believe ANY third party would be able to. While there are a few 3rd parties that are growing, they have a LONG way to go, to be able to present a viable candidate for the presidency.
Consider, more than 20 million votes were cast for third party candidates in 1992, 10 million in 1996, and nearly 4 million in 2000, just over 1 million votes (less than 1 percent) were cast for candidates outside of the two major parties in 2004. We are going the wrong way. I have a feeling that many of these voters have "dropped out" of the elections.
Too many people still have a roof over their heads, a big screen TV, food on the table, an SUV in the drive, a cell phone, and 2.3 kids. They see no reason for any "extreme" measures to be taken. Until living conditions are reminiscent of the great depression, APATHY will continue to run RAMPANT.
I agree with Highball. I hate to say it, but I too think the political system that is in place, is FAR to corrupt to be salvageable. They will NOT let it be changed peacefully, and the aftermath of a non-peaceful change "could" be worse than what we have. What is a person to do?
At one time the GOP was the 3rd party. They did not get to where they are by accepting the status quo. AND, as a matter of fact the first Republican President (Lincoln) Won in a 3 way race. The real solution to getting a fair shake is to return to the "Paper Ballot". I have read enough to be thoroughly convinced that electronic vote manipulation is possible and in use by both major parties. This practice only enhances their "Illusion" of the fair election.
dsmith:
The government cannot dictate your morality. They can only encourage what they deem as an acceptable level of morality. Under the present leadership that standard has been lowered to an overall unacceptable point. I think the CP platform is designed to let Americans raise the bar. Not to dictate policy.
Highball:
Glad to see you weigh in. I feel your pain, but I guess I am still capable of dreaming. I hope that it's not "TOO LATE" for decent people to take back the political infrastructure but it will never happen if decent Americans don't step forward, speak-up, and support a cause they really believe in. We can't call in the "Roto- Rooter" Man to clean up this mess. It will take dedicated "American Voters" to stand up and vote for what THEY believe in. Quit letting the major parties decide whom we vote for and then making a choice of the "LESSER of TWO EVILS". My only concern with the CP is can "THE MAJORITY" embrace the platform or would they consider it too far to the right?
pickenup:
I tend to disagree with you on '08. Neither major party has proposed a candidate that has a clear lead and no skeletons. Hillary; plagued with scandals, and is finally facing the possibility of doing 5 years but I don't think she'll ever serve a day. Obama is even farther left than Kennedy and has scandal problems. Edwards? Yeh. That's all we need a trial lawyer in the White House. The Clinton's should have been enough proof that that's not a good idea. Giuliani; to liberal, anti gun, pro abortion.etc.. McCain: supports gun control (has even introduced his own Bills), and I don't think he is either mentally stable or fit for the job. Romney; waffles too much. Good luck nailing down where he stands (a student of Clinton polling). Shall I continue????
How could the time be better?
As far as the party voter participation; your numbers do indeed reflect a decline. We are both in agreement that government corruption is rampant. Is this decline reflected by or due to;
1)The introduction of electronic voting.
2)A disenfranchised voting populace that truly believes no 3rd party candidate can win and returning to the main stream so as not to "Waste His or her Vote".
3)Just plain old "I give up" Apathy. As you suggest, they quit voting.
4)Party Candidate or platform policies that do not reflect their values? (I, personally, consider Libertarians to be too liberal.) (The Green party is just plain "out there" with a single agenda.)...
5)Does not fit here as a reason for 3rd party voter decline; but, I must throw this out. I know people who refuse to register to vote solely on the grounds that registered voters get called for jury duty. They still express disfavor with the government yet do nothing themselves. Ain't that some Scit????
Sheeple was the buzzword last year. I believe it still applies. APATHY, MOST CERTAINTLY. Americans have become (on the whole) a nation of OSTRICHES. By ignoring anything that does not directly impact them TODAY, (self adsorbed in their own problems and ambitions/life style) they will accept nearly anything imposed upon them until it is too late to do anything about it, then they accept it as the norm. Political Correctness is a curse. What ever happened to our image of "The Arrogant, Rude Americans"? Not that that was a banner I embraced but I by far prefer it to wuss, sheeple or ostrich. At least it indicates a level of self-confidence, unity and pride in nationality that the world recognized but, could not identify with. We have lost that respect worldwide. Now we are seen as a nation of immoral, over indulgent, perverted imperialists out to conquer the world. Liberalism HAS taken it's toll on our image worldwide. Socialism has reduced the population to sheeple status with no need or desire to fend for ones self. Sorry , getting off topic. Just frustrated.
Illegal immigration and the cost incurred by law abiding tax payers is a problem addressed in the CP platform. Personally, No Amnesty!!
Like it or not the threat of terrorism IS real. The CP Platform lays out their stance on Terrorism and Personal Liberty. I like it, however I don't know how effective the results would be. I think we should expect some realistic compromise here. I have a major concern as far as the next President is concerned. Will he have the cahunas to actually stand up to the terrorist threat or will he Carterize us and try to negotiate?? Trust me, there is NO Future in negotiating with terrorists, PERIOD.
You and Highball may have a valid point.(the political system that is in place, is FAR to corrupt to be salvageable). I hope not. But, I dare to dream.
You wrote: "They will NOT let it be changed peacefully, and the aftermath of a non-peaceful change "could" be worse than what we have." Let us hope not. If history repeats, immediately after the 1st 3rd party victory we found ourselves engulfed in a 4 year Civil War. Do we dare repeat history? Could there possible be an upside to that? NOT.
dsmith:
The government cannot dictate your morality. They can only encourage what they deem as an acceptable level of morality. Under the present leadership that standard has been lowered to an overall unacceptable point. I think the CP platform is designed to let Americans raise the bar. Not to dictate policy.
Right, but I do have problems with laws against gambling, and other victimless crimes that the CP has problems with. It is ok to be opposed to gambling, etc., but not ok to try and outlaw it.
I have not done a lot of detailed research on Rep. Tancredo's record, but I have been loosely monitoring his media appearances for about the last 4 years. He is not a perfect candidate, but he is probably the best I have seen from the Republican Party in recent years.
I was very surprised to hear that he was considering a run for president. Frankly, he has a snowball's chance in hell. However, if he makes a decent showing in the primaries, it could force the Republicans to acknowledge his conservative base and possibly offer him a cabinet position or maybe even a VP slot. I believe this would be one of the few opportunities for a true conservative to ascend to a position of power in the executive branch.
Nevada's primary will be held in January of 2008, second after Iowa. At this point, I will be voting for Tom Tancredo for president (assuming he runs) in hope to steer the Republican Party towards a platform that may somewhat acknowledge conservative values. I encourage all of you to look into Tancredo's record and please tell me if you find any reason NOT to support him among other Republican candidates. However, if you like what you see, then I suggest voting for him in your state's primary election. If you are not Republican, then perhaps consider re-registering before your primary so that perhaps we can salvage something from the wreckage of what was once a conservative party.
-Wolf
For a few years, I have been advocating Ron Paul with Tom running as VP. Ron for the constitutional issues, and Tom for the immigration issues. I do have a problem with Tom's constitutional voting record (sorry WW) but I believe the immigration issues is a SERIOUS issue that NEEDS to be dealt with, and Tom is the man for that job. Not that I believe that issue will be dealt with, mind you, no matter who gets into office.
One of the reasons for this is, even if we elected GOOD candidate(s) into the presidential and VP position, they needs to have "at least part" of the rest of the representatives that would be willing to work with them. Throwing ALL the bums out is the only way that anything would be accomplished. You know that isn't going to happen. A stalemate is the best we could hope for otherwise, with basically nothing being accomplished, good or bad.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by dsmith
Granted,[red] I agree with the CP's gun rights stance, as well as the Libertarian's. ]I like the pro-life stance of the CP, but don't like their stance on pornography, drug laws, victimless crimes, gambling, etc.[/red
I normally don't like to legislate morality, but I wouldn't vote for someone who is pro-abortion, because I see abortion to be the same as murder. If abortion wasn't an issue, and it wasn't going to be legalized, I'd love to vote for the libertarians.
Sounds like you have some public support for an organization that you don't have total agreement with.
Yes, tr. You do have me there. I would like to see the CP or LP become more powerful. I would definitely (begrudgingly) vote for the CP because of their pro-gun stance, however I do have a problem with some of their other issues to force morality on the public.
I probably wouldn't vote for the LP even though I generally agree with them simply because I would feel guilty voting for a pro-abortion candidate.
You could say that my support of imperfect third parties is hypocritical if I oppose the NRA for the same reason. However the reason I don't support the NRA is because of their policies of supporting anti-gun bills.
I see quibbling there. You have expressed your opinion that the NRA does do some good. It just doesn't do enough of the good you want done, or do it in the way you want it done. Bottom line, the NRA is an imperfect organization. Yet you usually totally condemn the NRA (an imperfect organization) yet voice public support for a political organization that you admit is imperfect.
And of course you can offer a defense about the NRA and gun laws. Struggling against gun laws is the mission of the NRA so of course you must mention gun laws when mentioning the NRA. And of course, just as with any person or organization, (you, me, GB.com, NRA, GOA, etc) nothing and no one is every perfect.
But bottom line, you have voiced support for one imperfect organization while always voicing no support (and worse, urging others to withdraw their support) for another imperfect organization.
It is still a conflict in behavior. You are basically saying that for you to be able to support the NRA, it must be perfect in your eyes. Yet you go on to voice support for another organization that is not perfect in your eyes. In order to see a conflict in that, it matters not that one organization is in the business of politics and the other is in the business of gun laws.
tr fox:
At one time the GOP was the 3rd party. They did not get to where they are by accepting the status quo. AND, as a matter of fact the first Republican President (Lincoln) Won in a 3 way race. The real solution to getting a fair shake is to return to the "Paper Ballot". I have read enough to be thoroughly convinced that electronic vote manipulation is possible and in use by both major parties. This practice only enhances their "Illusion" of the fair election.
You miss a very critical difference when you mention Lincoln and his three way race and mention that at one time the GOP was the third party. Back then policital outcomes would often swing widely and unpredicatiably between various parties and canididates. You rarely see such wild or unpredicatable swings now.
And even more importantly, back then at least three of the parties were of fairly equal size and power (please someone check me on this). That meant when a voter entered the voting booth, he could chose from one of three parties and know that his vote could very easily end up helping elect the canididate of his choice. In comparison, now you have only two parties of nearly equal size and strength. Any third (4th, etc) parties are small and weak. Any sensible voter knows (sadly) that if he spends his vote on a third party he will have failed in two ways.
Way #1. He will have wasted his vote because his third party canididate is sure to lose.
Way #2. By failing to spend his vote for his second choice, having spent it on his first choice of a 3rd party, he will in effect have just voted AGAINST his second choice and now will have made it more likely that the canididate that he LEAST WANTED TO WIN, now has a better chance of winning.
For the forseeable future, the only way to level the playing field, and give an actual chance for a 3rd party to win, is to change the way votes are placed and/or counted. We of couse would still have "one man, one vote" but we could make changes that would help level the playing field.
Many countries in Europe have done something like this long ago.
In regards to your opinion that changing back to a paper ballot is one of the only solutions, I have some agreement in that I do not trust the outcome of elections to computer programmers or to a flow of invisible electrons. However, at present that is a minor problem in regards to electing a third party or in cleaning up our cess pool of a political situation.
Don't be offended/encouraged by the following. I do extensive research on anyone I may consider voting for. I saw Tom Tancredo on Fox last week and started looking at him as a possibility. To tell you the truth Ron Paul is an interesting individual but, I have not considered him to be a viable candidate. The intent here is neither an endorsement of nor a designed to debunk either of these men. We know where they stand on immigration (at least somewhat). What about Taxes, Big government, Energy independence, Ethics in government and Flag burning. Is a B+ rating on Gun Control acceptable? I no longer let myself be swayed by Political rhetoric when they will say (and this goes for ANY politician) whatever it takes to get elected. I want to see History. Hold them accountable for; and make my decision based on a record of performance. Their VOTING record.
I agree with WW when he stated neither of these men have a "Snowballs Chance". Tancredo has 0 clout with the GOP. Even in his home district he is losing support. His failure to live up to "Campaign" promises will be his ultimate demise. As for Ron Paul, good bedside manner. I'll leave it there. I think his association with Alex Jones will hurt him and his voting record may be a burden as well. As for myself, I could not support either of them for President or V.P.
H R 5970 Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act --- passage of the bill would have pleased anti-tax conservatives. Both voted NO.
H RES 653 This bill cut nearly $40 billion over five years from the federal budget. The bill was an attempt to slow the runaway growth of entitlement programs. Tancredo - yes/ Paul-- no.
HR 6 Energy Policy Act of 2005 Written to find innovative ways to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil, conserve resources and reduce pollution. It included no provision to open ANWAR for drilling. Tancredo voted yes - Ron Paul voted NO
H J RES 10 This vote approved a proposed constitutional amendment that would have given Congress the authority to ban desecration of the American flag. Tancredo voted yes - Ron Paul voted NO. "The House measure passed 286 to 130. Republicans were almost entirely for it, 209 to 12. Democrats were not as united in their opposition, with 117 against the measure and 77 for it.". I might add here that Hillary also voted No in the Senate. Other Presidential Hopefuls voting NO include; Obama, Biden, and Kerry. Where do you stand???
H R 2862 This vote would temporarily stopped federal law enforcement officials from being able to easily seize library and bookstore records without a traditional warrant. Tancredo- Yes / Paul- No.
H RES 5 Would you really call this an Ethics reform Bill? In January of 2005, the House passed this resolution instituting a number of changes in the ethics rules that govern the conduct of individual members of Congress. Many of the changes were seen by opponents as being designed to specifically protect then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who faced various ethical and legal questions. Amid a flurry of complaints, the House rescinded some of the changes within days. One of the rule changes that they let stand, at least for a time, said that an ethics complaint against a member would be dismissed after 45 days unless the House Ethics Committee had decided to investigate. Under the old rule, the committee could have continued deliberating. Later in the year, amid further complaints, Republicans retreated from this position and repealed the 45-day rule change. Overwhelmingly supported by the GOP side with Both Tancredo and Paul voting YES.
Here is a point to ponder. If we are to believe the MSM and Conservative Republicans jumped ship (I do NOT accept that as fact) to vote for a democrat, what would happen if a majority of fed up voters jumped ship. I am encouraged by a CP news article http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=366 that reflects that possibility.
pickenup; We as a population will never agree on everything. Demographics, personal agendas, cultural and societal influences, religious and moral values, as well as education and indoctrination in our public schools are all at the heart of the problem. I do agree with you that the government (with the aid of the MSM) has divided and conquered the country. I for one am not ready to throw in the towel and surrender. I Refuse to proclaim all as lost. Uphill battle, YES. Dare to dream.
trfox; All good points. But I stand by my desire to return to paper ballots. OBTW-Lincoln won because the ruling class was caught up in a power struggle.
Your rundown of the voting records for these two, kind of makes my point about having a problem with Tom's voting record. While Tom's are not, Ron's votes are "almost" always from a constitutional viewpoint. Sometimes you have to look up "why" they voted the way they did.
The reason Ron has a B+ rating from the NRA, is because he voted against an NRA supported gun control measure, which in his opinion (and mine) was unconstitutional. Because he dared to oppose them, they dropped his rating, and endorsed his opponent in the last election. An opponent with basically no track record. Hmmmmm.
There are also some local issues with Ron's (as well as Tom`s) voting record, that I do not agree with. I do not think that either of these parties, either separate, or as a team, stand a chance. But for the time being, all I can say is, who is a better choice?
The names that are being bantered around at this time, well, frankly they scare me. Until candidates are named by each party, I will reserve judgment. But even then, as your link alludes to. It DOES take BIG bucks to win a presidential run for the white house. It's not the same as a smaller congressional race, and the smaller parties don't have that kind of money. All Tom Kovach could muster was a little over ONE thousand dollars? And he was running on a Republican ticket. While he did GOOD with that amount, that isn't going to make a dent in a presidential race. The last number I heard was that a candidate had to have AT LEAST 100 million dollars, as a bare minimum, just to start a presidential campaign.
Follow the Ted Nugent thread over on General ? We were actually reaching people..people that normally do not respond to gun rights threads.
Unwilling to allow this to continue...it was showing effectively the NRA in a bad light...the censorship of those in power zapped it.
In other words...a 'gun owner'..that believes in gun control..throttled those that actually believe in the Second Amendment...instead of merely giving it lip service.
Why I continue to hear invectives hurled at Shumer/Kennedy/Fiendstein by gun owners is beyond me.....they are HONEST in their hatred of freedom...
Gun owners themselves...many of them...are the REAL threat, people...
We agree to agree, except on one point. You wrote "Until candidates are named by each party, I will reserve judgment." Am I to believe it acceptable to allow THEM to decide for whom I vote? That is the entire purpose of this thread. Break that ideology. The primaries are less than a year away. I would like a say in who ends up on the '08 ticket and will have an "informed" opinion long before that. I will also use the power of (and free) advertising provided by e-mail to spread that opinion in hopes of gaining like support.
America needs a president who is willing to stand up against the entrenched socialists, elitists and globalists who presently have a stranglehold on American political power. It's clear that both major parties are committed to enforcing economic, military and social policies that are antithetical to the interests of the people of America. Today's Democratic party is not the party of our fathers and grandfathers. If you do not believe the Democratic Party promotes socialism and the socialist agenda, explain to me why the "Communist Party USA" throws everything it has behind the Democrats?? I don't make this stuff up... http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/769/1/135/
Here is their homepage, Communist Party USA Website: (know your enemy.)
http://www.cpusa.org/
So far these are the 3rd party candidates I am aware of:
Third party candidates: Amondson (Prohib.) Gilchrist (Const.) Koch Kubby (Lib.) Imperato Phillies (Lib.) Stanhope (Lib.)
In 2004, the Constitution Party nominated Michael Peroutka as its presidential candidate and Chuck Baldwin as his vice-presidential running mate. He may run again in'08 but, has yet to announce.
I'm not ready to endorse any particular one of them at this point and hope the list will grow. I merely present it as hope that the two party system CAN be effectively challenged in'08. I am still a Republican on paper but the GOP ain't getting the job done either. I could easily be convinced to jump ship for a 3rd party candidate IF, as you said, the support was there as not to waste my vote. That's the challenging part.
Now that Richardson has thrown in his hat, I once again must look at his background. I believe of the 9 choices so far I would rate his qualifications (on paper) as very good. He did not get those high dollar gigs from the Clinton's based on his conservative values. If you don't provide something politically enhancing for them they have no use for you. To make the short-list with both Kerry and Gore as their VP candidate speaks loudly as well. A political risk taker he cut ties with Washington, I believe, to run for governor simply because of the propensity for voters to elect State Governors to the White House. It's an easier route to take. Although I consider him tainted goods I will research him.
Highball:
Ditto. But, I believe those boards have been/are dominated by the FAR LEFT and I got the impression that some, if not most, posters ain't even Americans. I tried posting comments on the Politics Board (they can be a nasty bunch) and if anyone found someone who agreed with them and posted back, the threads got poofed. Very frustrating. A true reflection of left wing politics. If you can't support your views with undeniable facts, deny the opposition that chance to express a difference of opinion. Watch any news program with a Democrat and a Republican being interviewed together. It is an embarrassment and I personally consider it a disgusting display by an elected official. What more do you expect from someone who voted for them? I quit reading anything on GB other than this Topic. I found myself asking "What Planet Are These People From"? There are some individuals over there that (in my opinion) just do not have a real grasp on reality. The majority are decent and tolerant people, well informed and provide opportunity for civilized debate. The "Few" are just so narrow-minded/brainwashed they can only name call and ridicule others. God help those with the patience to continue trying to debate them.
You said you would reserve judgement until the candidates were named. Well, Candidates have been named and a poll is in progress to determine who the nominee will be. Neither big party has fronted a candidate that I can support. So, I feel obligated to insure a 3rd Party candidate gets exposure thru any means I have available.
2008 Presidential Poll Results: Out of 2941 surveys taken.
**** Presidential Preference Poll ****
First Choice
Tom Tancredo 22%
Ron Paul 44%
Alan Keyes 12%
Roy Moore 7%
Chuck Baldwin 3%
Jim Gilchrist 2%
Jerome Corsi 0%
Duncan Hunter 5%
Howard Phillips 4%
Rick Jore 1%
Second Choice
Tom Tancredo 26%
Ron Paul 19%
Alan Keyes 16%
Roy Moore 9%
Chuck Baldwin 7%
Jim Gilchrist 6%
Jerome Corsi 1%
Duncan Hunter 7%
Howard Phillips 5%
Rick Jore 3%
Third Choice
Tom Tancredo 14%
Ron Paul 15%
Alan Keyes 16%
Roy Moore 11%
Chuck Baldwin 11%
Jim Gilchrist 9%
Jerome Corsi 3%
Duncan Hunter 9%
Howard Phillips 8%
Rick Jore 5%
Website: www.constitutionparty.org.
23 North Lime Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
(800)2-VETO-IRS
contactus@constitutionparty.org
both are at the top of the list(s). [:D]
Must not be the only folks that feel they would do a better job.
NOT that I hold out any hope. [:(]