0 votes

Constitution Party: A Natural Choice for Ron Paulers?

Three parties are on enough state ballots to theoretically win: Grens, Libertarians, and Constitution Party. As strict constitutionalists the Constitution Party would seem a natural choice in states where you can't write in Ron Paul and have it officially counted.

Discussion here please on their platform, pros and cons. They stand about as much chance of winning as the Libertarians, meaning none, but why should we not give them Ron Paul votes?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It was in 2008 but now I'm not sure.

Their candidate seems like a Neo-Con to me.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

I think the Constitution Party is an easier 'sell' than the LP

simply because of the name. People today are (fortunately or unfortunately) more impressed by a name than substance.

Not that substance is the issue here with either the LP or the CP. Just perhaps maybe the Libertarian Party would be even more successful today if it had originally called itself the Constitution Party.

Or not. Either way, it's a name with even more positive connotations and fewer negative ones than the LP.

Gettin' me?

It was probably the pandas.

nether LP nor CP can win

so perhaps, in states where Ron Paul write-ins won't be counted, a bump in "Constitution Party" will get people thinking about the Constitution. It's not as if anyone bothers to check out the platforms.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

I voted Constitution Party in 96 and 04.

I am writing in Ron Paul this year because it seems to me that if you are going to vote for someone who is NOT going to win, vote for the best man out there....and that is Ron Paul.

BUT, I think a vote for the LP or the CP would be a decent vote as well. Don't forget, Dr Paul endorsed CP candidate Baldwin in 08....oh, and look what happened to the 08 LP candidate (Bob Barr) did this go-around...did he not endorse Newt???

The Constitution and Libertarian Parties have good platforms but

the people that run at the national level are not always the right people.
If more liberty minded people joined these parties we would get better candidates and more adherence to the principles in their platforms

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

My Liberty is too important to me to vote a party.

I vote message. Neither GJ, Romney, Obama nor Virgil carry the message I want in office.

I'm looking for strict adherence to the Founding Fathers intent in those that I believe are truthful. Only one has that this time around. Maybe in 2016...

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

I was a fan at one time

But there are to many nutters that run in the Constitution Party.

Sue4theBillofrights is also the user that posted and twisted...

the quote of Johnson in another thread.

What do you suppose this user's motives are by - now - posting a thread supporting another third party?

Could the new strategy of the Republican Party be to smear the Ron Paul vote over several third parties thereby diluting any "above average" performance of any one third party candidate?

It's an old tactic folks. Divide & Conquer.

Let's show them that we are smarter than they look. We CAN come together. Don't let them make us look weak by falling for the tactics that would otherwise spread our dissent as thin as butter.

By the way, Virgil Goode - the Constitution Party's nominee - voted against a resolution in 2007 that would have reduced the number of our troops in Iraq... Yeah, 2007. Plus, he's used demagoguery in the past in favor of the wars to pander to the religious right.

Not a fan

From their own platform - They want to legislate morality by letting us know that porn is bad. They want to keep all drugs illegal and use the federal government to do so. They call homosexuals "sexual offenders" and vow to keep states from letting them have civil unions or partner benefits.

Just another party that wants to legislate morality and are only for state rights when it fits their bill. This is not a party I could support.

Sounds like what you would expect from the Republican...


A Natural Choice for Ron Paulers?

Yes, many RP supporters will vote for Virgil Goode since he has repented of voting for the Iraq war and the Patriot Act. Also, he is supporting harsher drug laws than Obama, in an effort to make America a more righteous country (isidewith.com).


Should seriously be considered by RP supporters imo.

There are tons of issues RP peoples would be inclined or be in total line with.



Here's a Party

AMERICAN PATRIOT PARTY - The APP, established in 2003, was "founded on the basic principals set forth by our founding fathers, that the federal government should only have the powers set forth in the framework of the Constitution and all other power to be delegated back to the states. Although everyone has thier own opinions on all issues, we believe it is up to the states to decide what should and should not be mandated, banned or regulated." The APP supports a crackdown on illegal immigration, making English fluency a requirement of US citizenship, abolishing the IRS and repealing the federal income tax, imposing steeper taxes and tariffs on imported goods, abolition of the centralized Federal Reserve System, withdrawing the US from the Untied Nations, imposing a foreign policy of non-interventionism, and ending federal involvement in education. No candidates fielded to date, but the APP have formed party chapters in several states -- with the Oregon state party group taking the lead in attempting to organize a national effort. The APP vows that their candidates will be "statesmen, not politicians." They endorsed Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) for President in 2008, but did not nominate a candidate.

Now you're pushing another party, Granger???

I thought you were die hard, go-along-to-get-along, keep the party bosses happy by openly voting for Mitt Romney while openly deposing all other candidates from other parties? How did you put it - "It's against the by-laws."

I guess the agenda for the Republican Party now that it knows that Dr. Paul's supporters won't vote for there candidate is to push these other third parties to smear the support sufficiently in order to marginalize any one third party candidate.

Sound about right?

I'm sure you're party bosses are very satisfied with your compliance. Maybe they'll give you a treat next time you see them.

I'm not pushing another party

I was sharing information on a party that endorsed Ron Paul. I can not force anyone to join MY party, the RepubliCAN Party.

To be fair to Granger

I think Grangers post was merely educational. She will support Romney to the end. She has to, she's counting on another free sub :-)

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

There is no free sub

Just MSM BS.

If you want another sandwich...

"If you want another sandwich, there are more back there."


"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul


I love it when you get mad at me :-)

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

No. Paul has his personal

No. Paul has his personal beliefs, but doesn't believe it's his right to push them on anyone else. The constitution party is completely for pushing their morals on the rest of the country through laws based on a misconstrued and overly religious INTERPRETATION of the constitution.

The constitution party's policies would be ANTI-libertarian... regardless of what they claim to uphold.

Porn would be banned for instance because it being "morally" destructive to so many.


Doesn't sound like liberty to me... especially not the fun kind.


Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Could you document where they say they would ban porn?

The Johnson troll swarm is spreading all kinds of lies and so we have to be strict. If a Johnson supporter said it I'd be inclined not to believe it. They are crude, rude, and unattractive. I would never vote for Johnson now as a result of of this horrid experience with them.

Release the Sandy Hook video.



"we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards."

He's the very opposite of libertarian as he wants to make laws that push his personal Baptist beliefs onto others.


"When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran." -Virgil Goode

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

No that doesn't make a libertarian

A position that you can't have local communities is not a libertarian position. Voluntary consent is the position.

A libertarian position is that the communities have to be voluntary, you can't force someone to be in a government they don't want to be in.

But saying that the boy scouts can't choose who they want to be members, a private business can't hire who they want, AND A TOWN can't voluntary form their own town and keep drug dealers out is not libertarian. It's fascism.

People can organize anyway they want to as long as its voluntary consent. You can't force them to accept members they don't want and you can't prevent them from organizing.

This bothers libertarians who really aren't, because they understand that a lot of America was founded voluntary as religious communities and likely would be again if people had choice. Sure, they'd be hedonist cities too, but the mere fact there might even be one religious community is too much. It must not be allowed! And that is fascism.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

in theory yes, in reality not so much

i agree with you in theory but let's look at the reality of the situation.

in a perfect voluntary society here is what your Utopian constitutional party town would look like...
so lets say i was a multi multi millionaire and wanted to start my own perfect constitutional party town with no drugs, no porn, no gays, no gambling etc etc. first i would buy some property and set about building houses and infrastructure. once fully complete i would start selling houses and store front property etc. in order to buy or lease this property you would have to sign a contract that prohibited you from looking at porn, buying, selling or using drugs etc etc. you would agree that if you broke the contract you would be kicked out. in order to make sure you honored your contract i would need to be able to control your internet connection centrally to block all prohibited activity's. we would also need to have mandatory random drug testing just like goode voted for in congress. we would need checkpoints at all entrances and exits to check for prohibited items, gays, etc.
now that is not what i call freedom but more like a Islamic fundamentalist society.
maybe i could be less restrictive but then i don't see how i could live up to my part of the contract in keeping the town safe from gay's, weeds and poker games. seems i could be sued for breach of contract.

taking over an existing town would not work because of property rights. unless you bought the whole town which would put you right back to what i described before. without buying the whole town and "controlling it" you would have private property owners who may voluntary go along at first but then may decide to sell his/her property in the middle of town for a million dollars to the billionaire gay porn shop owner. now you have a million dollar gay porn shop in the middle of your otherwise perfect little religious fundamentalist town.

"a lot of America was founded voluntary as religious communities and likely would be again if people had choice"
lots has changed since the slave days and i think very few would choose to live in a voluntary constitutional party town like i just described.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms

This is word for word from their platform

Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.

With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion. While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.


they're going to uphold the First Amendment by banning pornography?

I agree

Constitution party has 5 times the membership here as the LP, and the few members who came into the GOP, like Ron paul came into the GOP from the LP are a HUGE asset. We really need them in the GOP to hold these guys to the constitution.

Besides RP and RP GOP who were formerally LP, LP don't bother, are more interesed in marijuana than the constitution. I'm not knocking it, it's just the way I see it..

Where does the CP stand on the separation of church

and state? I don't mind all the religious stuff in the preamble so much as long as they've got this straight.

Release the Sandy Hook video.