185 votes

Open Thread: Free & Equal Third Party Debate

Vote for who you think won at FreeAndEqual.org.

Thank you to everyone who tuned in.

http://youtu.be/5EcaX12h46k (Thanks Maeve for the link)

Video & Book:

  • Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny - Including a letter of support by Ron Paul
  • Comment viewing options

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

    Bahhahahahaha

    Just like the republicans held George bush to the constitution. Yeah right!!
    There is no freedom in a dempublican system.

    Yay Ron Paul!!!!
    Freeeeeeedom calls!!

    Republicans, Neocons didn't

    Didn't you watch conservatives get arrested and acused of all kinds of crimes, and MSM made being a Republican a bad thing while the Neocons.. the Democrats who had infiltraited, set conservatives up and outted them.. There was no holding Clinton to the constitution when he signed Kyoto with was unconstitutional.. instead, we had Bob Barr sting Clinton on lying to a judge about what most considered a private matter.

    There was no Ron Paul rEVOLution when Clinton or Bush were president.

    You did not understand my

    You did not understand my question, or maybe I did not express myself clearly enough.

    As you have often written in DP that most did not follow RP's advice to join the GOP and many from your perspective let RP down for this reason. If this has been your constant and strong argument, then how can you not follow RP in this matter. Wouldn't it be with this same logic that you are actually letting down RP by voting Romney?

    "Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--

    How, specifically, would you do that?

    Suppose Romney wants to start an unconstitutional war with Iran, goaded and backed by the warmongering Republicans in Congress. How do you imagine that you might possibly hold him to the Constitution and prevent that? Suppose he wants to sign an unconstitutional executive order ... or sign unconstitutional legislation originating out of a Republican Congress ... how do you imagine that you might hold him to the Constitution?

    A Republican Congress *might* be convinced to impeach Obama. But there's no way a Republican Congress goes up against a Republican President for the kinds of unconstitutional actions that they themselves have been promoting for years.

    ConstitutionHugger's picture

    ok

    You took a loyalty oath to who? I took a loyalty oath to the Constitution, so I'm voting for the person who will honor it best. I don't believe a word out of Romney's mouth so it doesn't matter what he says. There's no way to control other people, much less a well connected sleaze ball politician.

    For all the Ron Paul folks who worked hard to get involved with the GOP, I believe it was a great idea and still very good for us, even if Obama is reelected. Because what happens at the local level is what matters. And if Johnson is miraculously elected there could be nothing better for Paul supporters outside of Paul himself getting elected. (And no doubt Johnson would give Paul any position in the administration he wanted.)

    So you're voting for Romney under the notion that you can get him to do what you want? That sounds even crazier than voting for Gary body surfing Johnson.

    I don't know if we'll get him to do it

    But maybe we can stop with the charade of holding people to the constitution.. eh?

    Michael Nystrom's picture

    Oaths are like the highway to hell.

    "Come hell or high water, I will do what you say."

    Loyalty oath. To a party.

    Frankly that is scary. Shades of the Soviet Union.

    To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

    I may be going to hell in a bucket

    Maybe one of the things we can do is end loyalty oaths? But unless you're in, how do you expect to change anything?

    Not the answer

    You must understand that "being in" is a matter of individual choice, not something you can promote. During the campaign, some people have "been in" and have had to walk away to preserve their own sense of reason. and dignity.
    You'r a stayer, you have a niche with other RP supporters there, that's fine, and power to you, give 'em hell.

    But you must understand, and respect, the views of others that don't see your path as the right path. or the only path.
    The logic in joining the status quo and electing mitt romney, so you can keep him to the constitution, to others may seem ludicrous, and repugnant, and some may see it simply as promoting votes for the Republican party.

    "Hell is empty, and all the devils are here" (Shakespeare)
    RP 2012~ Intellectual Revolution.

    repugnant? What's that agenda?

    Being in was not what I wanted to do, yet, if I wanted to be a delegate for Ron paul, I had no choice. So, there have been a lot of hard choices, like joining the GOP to help Ron Paul.

    It's a huge learning curve and worth it, and what makes this a good fight.

    Not everyone is expected to be willing, ready or able to join a major party and get involved.. but someone might be.. and for them I share my experience because it's something to think about, even if you find it repugnant.. I haven't heard any solutions or see a better way than this opportunity Ron Paul is giving us.

    ConstitutionHugger's picture

    What if the republicans offered up a chimp for you to vote for?

    I would feel uncomfortable breaking an oath too. It seems so manipulative to make you take one. Afterall, you're in the party because you believe in their values, why the heck would they need you to take an oath to vote for them? Unless, of course, they knew they were giving you chimps.

    The party lost it's way

    What they claim to be their values and what they do are two different things, so yeah, I;ll keep my oath, because I'm not a cheat or a crook or a liar.. and I'll vote Romney.. and I hope he wins, because i want to hold him to the loyalty oath he took to the constituion. What the hell?

    What I would like to know...

    Just HOW do you plan on holding Romney to his oath to the Constitution? You can say that you'll hold his feet to the fire and all that, but how?

    If he's president, what's stopping him from ignoring anyone who disagrees with his actions? What's stopping him from ignoring the party platform? Is it "If you do this then we won't nominate you for re-election", or are you talking about impeachment or what?

    Unless I'm mistaken, you seem to think you have far more power over Romney than you actually do. Please enlighten me as to what you think would actually be done if Romney broke his oath.

    By getting someone like Rand Paul

    to make a statement on MSM... to have petitions, inniatives, resolutions within the party objecting to Romney.. calling him roque..

    "Holding Romney to the Constitution" means ... name-calling?

    You keep talking about how being on that committee gives you some special power to hold Romney to the Constitution, and when you finally explain what that means ... it's "calling him rogue"? That will work just about as well as petitions and initiatives.

    And if Romney does the kinds of unconstitutional things he doesn't make any secret about supporting, how is Rand going to feign surprise and call for Romney's impeachment? Rand knows about those things right now, and he's trying to get Romney elected!

    The Republicans in Congress *might* be persuaded to impeach Obama, but the idea of getting them (the ones who, unlike your committee, actually do have the power to hold Romney to the Constitution) to go up against a sitting Republican President is absurd. The Republicans in Congress will be the ones passing the unconstitutional legislation that Romney will be signing. The Republicans in Congress will be the ones goading him into however many unconstitutional wars he gets us into. If Romney is elected, and the Republicans control Congress, Romney's unconstitutional actions will go completely unchecked.

    rouque is not name calling

    When I say rouque, I'm saying he becomes seperated from the party.. he becomes isolated, he begins looking like a dictator many fear he is.

    Rand is already standing up to Romney.. the rEVOLution is the GOP holding itse self accountable. The time has come. Enough is enough. That's why we're in the GOP, to restore America.

    Romney going rogue? Heh.

    Romney isn't going to be a "rogue" relative to Republicans in Congress. They'll be the ones passing the unconstitutional legislation that he signs, and goading him into reckless and unconstitutional wars. You can call him "rogue" or "scalawag" or whatever you want, they're not going to care.

    The "dictator many fear he is"? Huh? The fear is that Mitt as President, and a Republican Congress, will work together to wage unnecessary wars that create more enemies than they kill. They'll work together to spend money unconstitutionally, to blow up the debt (expect to hear "because we're at war" as a recurring excuse), and to make the banking system less accountable and more corrupt. They'll infringe on civil liberties in the name of "security."

    In other words, the fear is that their actions will be consistent with their words.

    With Obama, you might get a Republican Congress to impeach him. Maybe. And they would block a lot of what Obama wants to do. Gridlock can be good. With Romney, instead of gridlock they'll be greasing the skids, and they certainly won't impeach him for signing the legislation they pass, or waging the wars they goad him into starting.

    Rand could attack Obama in ways he can't attack Mitt, not without giving up that precious "political viability" he's sacrificed so much to achieve.

    Republicans like Rand and John Amish?

    Republicans like Chuck Baldwin who returned to the GOP, like GJ will?

    Don't underestimate the power of the prople in the GOP who have had wnough and are planning to restore the republic,

    No, the other 280 or so

    Come on, Granger. If Mitt is elected the Republicans in Congress will write and pass unconstitutional legislation and Mitt will sign it. The Republicans in Congress will goad Mitt into launching unnecessary wars that increase the numbers and resolve of our enemies. There will be a few dissenting voices but a few dissenting voices won't stop the process.

    If Obama then it won't just be a few Republicans opposing him, most of the Republicans who would *help* Mitt do unconstitutional things will try to *stop* Obama. If Obama is elected you *might* even see them start talking about impeachment. Gridlock can be a good thing.

    There is *zero* chance that a Republican Congress will use impeachment to stop Mitt. That's because the Republican Congress -- with a few dissenting voices -- will be working hand in hand with Mitt to do those unconstitutional things. First war, then "security" measures in response to rising anti-American sentiment, and budget idiocy that can't be helped because "don't you know we're at WAR??" and so on.

    My question still stands

    What if Romney doesn't care about public opinion and just does his own thing? What if he starts making a bunch of executive orders like Obama, etc?

    For someone determined to have their own way, I seriously doubt that a petition is going to change their mind. Rand could make all the speeches he wants. Nobody listened to the voices of reason before the election, so why would they after?

    Even if the GOP says that Romney has gone rogue, what could they possibly do to STOP him, assuming that he doesn't care what people think as long as he is in power?

    The above arguments could be used for ANY president who has turned their back on our Constitution. Look at Obama and all of the unconstitutional things that he has done. Nobody's done anything meaningful to stop him. I'm not talking about the election. I'm talking about someone standing up to the president and saying "No, you can't DO this. What you are doing is against our Constitution! You are no longer fit for duty, so pack up your things and get out." THAT is the kind of power that is required. A petition or even a formal reprimand is meaningless unless there is power to enforce it.

    Getting involved

    Including a mandated vote for mitt romney..no thanks.

    "Hell is empty, and all the devils are here" (Shakespeare)
    RP 2012~ Intellectual Revolution.

    Life

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

    "Life" -- hard to be a believer in the Constitution if you are not pro-Life.

    Give this some gentle

    Give this some gentle thought..

    www.180movie.com

    Everyone needs to go to

    Everyone needs to go to freeandequal.org and cast your vote for Gary Johnson, or whomever your top pick is. The next debate is on Oct 30th, and only the top two candidates in the poll get to debate next time. Voting is only open for a limited time, approximately 24 hours.

    "Where liberty is, there is my country." -Benjamin Franklin

    since all 4 candiadates

    agreed that they didn't like the run-off approach in primaries to narrow elections down to 2 candidates you would think that the debate committee would rethink this. Perhaps they should have all 4 debate again. It can only help get more ideas out to the general public. Who knows, maybe the general public will actually tune in this time after hearing about this one.

    I say this knowing I have a clear favorite and that person will likely be in it regardless.

    Before the debate, I wrote to

    Before the debate, I wrote to Free and Equal and told them I didn't like the runoff idea. I thought the idea is to get people to realize they have more choices, rather than perpetuate the idea of choosing between two.

    Maybe if more people also contacted them like I did, they will reconsider their plans.

    Horrible Debate

    The founders DESPISED DEMOCRACY.

    STOP SAYING DEMOCRACY!!!

    I was pretty upset at the

    I was pretty upset at the beginning of this debate when all the candidates kept saying 'democracy'. I wasn't too surprised when the left leaning ones said it, but then when they all did...

    At least the debate improved as it went.

    Agreed

    Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Mob rule can result in horrible consequences.

    10 bucks says

    10 bucks says both political parties pay to have the copies of this debate taking down.