Dr. Paul's unity conference has left me more confused than ever

MY, opinion on ABORTION. TO me, there is not a legal problem for a person to choose an abortion. RATHER is it a preffered practice of human society to promote abortion as a means of birth control. If a man & woman are that sloppy to get themselves in trouble should society bail them out ? SOCIETY in nature calls for the propagation of the human race, (except in CHINA). THIS is natural & there are LOTS of couples crying to have Babies, that can not. CHOICE is one thing as long as it does not promote the WRONG ideas in society. FORGIVE ME but it's in me: , CHRIST said to his believers"ALL things are now become LAWFULL but not all things are expediant. SO that to is my stance on abortion.
Love Ya,
says

I was really impressed with the interview. RON was superb..
I would like to share in your opinions & give some insigt that may help .
PARTY platforms are just that ,A basis of what they beleive is "IDEAL".
NO PARTY ever gets to have their "IDEAL", put in to place because of the checks & balances of other parties & elections. VOTE on issues , this is a more up to date, TODAY, way to vote. HOT ISSUES. IF you see & like a candidate who promotes the ideas, on issues, that align with your's, he's your guy. HIS/HER party will never accomplish a total PLATFOM implimentation, anyway. . Surely BALDWINS Christian platfom ideals will not get implimented in todays world. REALITY.
SO .you have to wheigh the pro's & con's of all PARTYs & vote (YOUR) reasoning & own vision. RON's call for 3rd party voting has more to do with the promotion of LIBERTY, than winning an election or a candidate's victory. HE is promoting what HE has not been given a chance to fight for as a PRESIDENT ELECT would have. A very selfless but genuine move.
YOURS, GO RON GO
says

bump

I wasn't overwhelmed by the press conference. I do see what he was trying to do but I thought it was an odd departure from what he *had* been doing - targeting the Republican party.

I am with Baldwin - even though I too hate the unconstitutional Christian parts of their platform, know that the CP is a dead-end while they keep the Christianity there. ( I do think abortion is wrong but it should be decided at state level - if lots and lots of people want to kill their kids and they make their own laws, I don't think you can interfere with it - just as I wouldn't have started a war to free slaves - you do what you can short of coercion to stop these things - what the British did worked pretty well re slaves and they didn't start a war )

I do think that RP is right - voting third party is better than not voting but I am almost with Phoobaar thinking Obama would be just as good as Baldwin in many ways from a tactical point of view. I can't help thinking the present CP prevents the emergence of a REAL Constitution Party - minus the social conservatism (which is unnecessary for social conservatives anyway!). And I am not dissing Chuck Baldwin, who is clearly an excellent guy.

As to Bob Barr, wow, what a tool he turned out to be.

"What does conservatism today stand for? It stands for war. It stands for power. It stands for spying, jailing without trial, torture, counterfeiting without limit, and lying from morning to night."
Lew Rockwell

The message from Paul is to send a message. Consider that if you choose any of these people that the message is sent. What if one of them won? Do you think much could happen in congress with Nader? Of course not, there would be gridlock in Government. That would be good for the next four years. I believe all of the third party candidates other than Barr would bring home our soldiers(good). Even assuming that some domestic agenda items could get passed. Do you really think any of them could do worse than what we have right now? Just by ending the war we would have a budget improvement of 500 billion per year. Bringing home our forces from around the world would save another 800 billion. So go ahead and vote third party, feel good and stop looking for perfection.

Sincerely,

Roger Hermann
Chicago, IL

----------
"We will never give up. We will never give in." - Dr. Ron Paul

It is perfectly COOL to vote for Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution party whether your atheist, muslim, jew, christian or whatever!

Baldwin makes it VERY CLEAR he is for FREEDOM of religion. So stop lying about this!

The proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTXDq8Qc4hk
Forward to 1:33 minutes.

-- Chuck Baldwin is closest to RP's message. --

JUST a note government was not mans' idea . IT was instituted by GOD, (if you believe he exist). After HE allowed mankind to rule; BY man's own concience, which did not work out so well, for obvious reasons. ORDER of PROGRESSION. from the begining of man time.
My belief is that Christ is & was GOD in the flesh & actually created everthing that exists. He came to his own & his own received him NOT. (IN more avenues than 1.) for those who are with me. HE created from nothing all that exists. Without getting into a discussion on reiigion I would like to remind those who would seperate Christianity from our Government that the principles that are contained WITHIN the U.S. CONSTITUTION ,Life Liberty, Persuite of Happiness, the Rule by Law,
Health ,Wealth & Prosperity ,all come from GOD or at the very least parallel my understanding of what GOD intended for MANKIND. THIS FACT, from my understanding, did exist in the Garden of Eden. I will not go there in detail you're probably already fuming. These principles WILL be reestablished when Christ comes back as KING of KING after the phony anti- christ does his thing. Chirst' & his true beleivers DO follow & promote these principles, without CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. " MY sheep DO hear MY voice & they DO follow ME. GOD's TRUE unadulterated LAW parallels the CONSTITUTION except for spiritual references thet HE deems as a prerequisit to TRUE obeydience &
equall application of HIS law . CHRIST in other words gives you the ability to perform the LAW, inspite of self interest, and you will have the LAW written in you central being, that patr of man HE calls the HEART... OK. to my point .
Chritianity & What WE are fighting for go HAND in HAND, unless someone has perverted that CHRISTIANITY. I do not claim an arguement & am only trying to clarify for you're information . I'm not looking to troll or offend. or take over this site. I will let it in you're hands. I love the debate.
The name JESUS the CHRIST, can be substituted by these names: THE WORD of GOD, THE CREATOR, THE SAVIOR ,KING of KINGS , LORD of LORDS,
SON of DAVID, FIRST MAN, SON of MAN , SON of GOD, HOLY ONE,
JUDGE of the NATIONs, HE SHALL set YOU FREE, stop NOW
ALL things were created for his pleasure & you're goodness.You get to share in his creation & who am I to stop you. ENJOY BY the way, WAR will be practiced NO MORE
SINCERLY
says

i suppose a good question to ask is this.

if we elect john mccain to crusade around the world with his big stick and have it cost us trillions of dollars we dont have will that be any better off for our economy? how about plunging us into war with russia. i dont think thats going to help our eroding economy.

If we elect barrack obama and he continues with this misguided war into what he feels would be more guided (attacking afghanistan and the enemies of israel), still costing us hundres of billions, all while promising universal healthcare which i believe is just a mandatory healthcare, making people pay that money out of pocket by force if they dont already have coverage? all while decreasing the taxes of 95% of americans (anyone else but me not seeing that add up as usual?)

i can agree with you about not voting for the constitution party on principle alone. kindof the same reason John McCain wont be endorsed by Ron Paul.

I can agree that bob barr feels more like a snake in the grass thinking he already had us all tapped before he was even nominated by his party, and that his past speaks loud enough for itself.

I share your sentiment about Ralph Nader.

Im also torn on who to vote for.

But i think youre missing the call to action RP had instructed to all the disenfranchised of the country. he hates all the choices too, but he wants you , me and everyone else to stop sucking up snot all day and pretty much grit our teeth and vote on our principles and on a candidate of a third party that fits BEST with our own interests.

By doing this, yeah he may be splitting that voting base up into pieces, but i wouldnt have it any other way. by doing so hes encouraging us to choose. and when we finally begin to show the nation that we CAN in fact choose, not just between dem and reps, then our cause will be emboldened, more powerful and we will all be better off and it will encourage in future elections that more candidates with better principles run for the big office!

If RP got up on the podium an honestly said 'all of us rally behind bob barr' hed know that wed all have the right to laugh in his face. of course most of us would probably do just that, but if that were to kickstart a third party into the foray, would things really be any different in future elections? if the LP took over the spotlight from the Reps and it was Libertarian party vs Dem Party or even if it were a three way split with equal numbers of support. how would that be any less damaging and false than it currently is, wed wind up having 3 infiltrated parties instead of two and wed have a 3rd candidate to constantly hold our noses up to come vote time.

id say just go with your gut and vote for the best 3rd party candidate that you can. giving them the numers is a chance to show the country and world that we're serious about some direction of real change. im considering the 3rd party vote (and not a write in) to be an actual viable form of a protest vote. write ins wont be counted or reported, and even if they were we dont have the numbers to swing behind rp to give him any meaningful statistical presence in the electoral foray to make anyone notice.

I share many of, if not all, the same sentiments as you have posted here.

However, I have seriously been going back and forth between Baldwin and Nader - with exactly the same reservations. I tend to lean more as a Libertarian in my views, but that doesn't mean my vote necessarily goes to the Libertarian Party, and I was greatly taken back by their nomination. More importantly, I despise the party system - always have and always will. This is part of what has gotten us into the mess we face today.

I like the fact that Nader is running as an independent. Because of this, he has no party loyalty. He is a smart man, you cannot deny this and by separating himself from a party he is free to choose his executive branch, free of party pressure - assuming of course he gets elected.

Has anyone even considered the possibility that if elected, Nader may ask Paul to be part of the executive branch. This may seem optimistic but it is certainly possible...

I don't believe Nader will trash the economy - let's face it, it already is a mess. What I do believe is that he'll pick smart people to work with him - and that is the key "work with him" to fix the country, even if that means getting assistance from those in other parties.

Nader isn't new - he has name recognition and has been fighting the fight a long time. Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily trying to promote Nader, I am still very much on the fence regarding my vote. However this is something I am weighing in my decision.

Yes this election sucks, but I felt this way ever since I was first able to vote many years ago - the party system, in particular the two party system, is the problem and it sucks...

Ron Paul's message to us is:

You can choose to vote or not vote.

It would be better if you did choose to vote.

If you choose to vote, consider voting for one of the three candidates who have agreed with Ron Paul on the four principles; Foreign Policy, Privacy, the National Debt, and the Federal Reserve.

Ron Paul would prefer that you not write in his name. Instead vote for Baldwin, McKineny or Nader--your choice.

Talk with those individuals who are thinking about voting for McCain or Obama only because they think they have to choose between the lesser of two evils. Explain to them that they do have other choices--the three candidates that agree on the four principles.The object is to draw these voters away from the Republican and Democrat candidates and make a statement that there is a majority of voters who do not agree with the Republican or Democratic monoply. Your vote and one more vote doubles the number of votes for the cause of liberty.

It is not critical for Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, or Ralph Nader to win the election, although it is possible. This may be hard for many of us to accept. It is more important that all of us NOT vote for a Republican or Democratic candidate because we think that we do not have a choice.

Ron Paul is not going to tell you who to vote for in this election.

Let's start talking to those around us who think they do not have a choice. The Republican and Democratic machines would like you to think otherwise.

What do you choose to do?

"This election sucks."

Ron Paul said himself on Wolf Blitzer's, CNN, that the reason he wants people to vote third party, is because he does not want Obama to be elected. If change is going to happen, it's not going to happen this time around, plain and simple. I'm just trying to figure out why my hero, Dr. Paul, would rather have McCain as our next President as opposed to Obama. I mean he could have said he is trying to help McCain lose votes. Maybe he said it that way because he wants to keep his seat in the Republican House. What do you guys think?

No need to be confused... Our job isn't to vote for someone... Our one and only task is to spread our message of freedom to as many people as possible and eventually change the thinking of this country.

I hate to say it but, with the media's ass kissing of the two main candidates and the electronic voting that will probably be rigged, our third party candidates will most likely not become president.

So, If you don't want to vote for anyone, then don't vote for anyone... But never stop spreading the message.

Even if Ron Paul was elected for President, we'd be slightly better off but our country would still be screwed... We need to change the way America thinks... then we win. I hope I helped.

---------------------------------------
Do you know someone who cares a lot about Israel? Send them this link that explains why Ron Paul's message is better for Israel, America, and the world. www.AmericansForIsrael.com

STICK with RON & the Campaign for Liberty AS this is a NEW hope.
says

I'm 59 yrs and been voting since 21. I vote on current agendas & issues because, that rules the day . LONG after elections are over, you're left with plans from party platforms, which plans, may or may not get adopted.PLATFORMS are double checked, thus far by each others votes & corresponding Party Patforms & agendas of the elected Parties . Hopefully we'll end up with more influence from other parties, after the Campaign for Liberty hits home. One tactic I have used in past elections, was to split my ticket, in order to elect or effect some type of check & balance. Keep the parties fighting each other, in order to stop stupid projects & programs. IT has become less & less effective as the two parties come closer on issues. I'm still having problems with the HEALTHCARE issue. I NEVER have seen anyone turned away from treatment at a care facility. My daughter works at a fairly large HOSPITAL that handles LOTS of uninsured people. AS a patient OR as a TAXpayer I will be forced to pay this cost. SO where is the problem ? Someone wants a cut of something or simply CONTROL of something, & I smell $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. I am voting against anyone who promotes (ANY more) social agendas, as this form of GOV'T administration will most certainly take over the RULE of LAW ,which is ? you know it....... I sypothise with you're delemna, I'm in the same boat, NOW. I'm looking forward to 2012, RON.
YOURS
says

You have expressed my exact sediment on the issue. I have no idea what to do either.

I only want RP as my next POTUS.

Phoobaar, I'm with you and understand completely what you are saying because I've had a similar thought process. I believe in a higher power, but not as portrayed by the Christian religion. At present, I am voting for the party platform, which means I'm voting Libertarian with the hope that this will make ballot access easier next election cycle. There is no way I can support mixing religion into politics.

“The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion.”

1797 - The Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President Washington, and approved by the Senate of the United States

We have alot of agreement with certain candidates, but some planks are less acceptable to us than others.

One option is to write in Dr. Paul, which I can respect, but you know that isn't going to do much, since even he doesn't want that now.

Then it comes down to a check-off list of pros and cons of the candidates, with a "weighting scale" based on your preferences.

I agree, Nader and McKinney are far too left for what I can support, because I cannot support the statism of socialism.
Certainly, Obama and McCain were never in the picture.
Barr has proven himself a traitor, not only to the movement, but to the LP itself, and to the country(Patriot Act).
Baldwin has the questions about his religious beliefs, which may or may not affect governing decisions. And most(maybe all) governing decisions that could affect religion cannot be made by the President alone. So, he says he won't do that, and in practice he cannot really do it alone, and I think that's a decent level of protection in place to ensure that it won't happen.

My assessment is that if you add it up, there isn't really any question about it.
Baldwin has questions surrounding him, and "maybe he might do this, etc".
All the rest have proven very serious faults.
In an analysis, it's clear.
For me, it's either Baldwin, or a RP write-in, and Baldwin is on the ballot in my state, and Dr. Paul has suggested not to write him in.
So, my course is clear.

You put too much pressure on yourself if you vote as if your vote will be the deciding vote, whether because it wins the election for someone, or because it is the vote that sends "the message."

You have to vote for reasons that allow you to sleep at night.

I've never voted for any elected president nor any member of congress who was elected, but I did vote for one of their opponents.

That allows me to sleep knowing that I did not vote for this mess, and I did my best to be counted for another approach.

Of course, my conscience won't let me rest if voting is the only thing I do, which is why I am involved in the LP and I walked precincts for Dr. Paul. Keep in mind all the smears there have been against Ron Paul and admit that there may be some against Barr and the others. Look deeper.

I'm voting for Barr because I want to send a message that joining the LP is not a mistake; I truly believe that if Dr. Paul had not done so in 1988, we would not be here, today. I also am 100% supportive of the LP Statement of Principles.

Barr is not perfect, but I believe he did not join the LP for the power. Duh. I met him in person and believe he's sincere. His positions have changed along with his actions, unlike the dominant party candidates who do one thing and say another.

The fact that candidates are all flawed (yes, even Dr. Paul) is the whole reason we have a Constitution and limited government. This is why I am sovreign over my own life and not yours.

The bottom line is to find something you can vote for. Finding reasons not to vote leads to paralysis.

IMissLiberty

Nader refused to be a civil servant because he didn't want to take federal welfare. Nader is very independent. The problem Nader has is getting the government off his back and to stop taking his ideas and corrupting them. Nader would prefer to have thiousands of EPAs competing for a better Environment than one big fat do nothing good for anyone EPA. No one has sued the feds more than Nader and I LOVE him for that. Nader would have Ron Paul's suggestion for an economic position, I'm sure. MSM has lied about NAder for decades, as you saw them do with Ron Paul. Help the Let Nader Debate team. You know what that feels like when your candidate can't debate. And let me remind you, Pat Buchannon gave Nader the Reform party last election, put Nader on the ballot in seven states, allot of Libertarians voted for Nader last election to beat the duoploy.

McKinney was Democrat. Barr was Democrat Baldwain was GOP.. Nader has NEVER been either. he told me to register "Decline to state party" in 1992, and I've been ever since.. I knew what was going to happen to Ron Paul. Seen it for three elections with my own eyes. Saw it again.

I agree with the following point, but have a nit to pick with it:

Baldwin: As an atheist, a vote for the Constitution Party is unthinkable, due to their platform

I think it's better to say, "As a non-Christian, ..." The point is that Baldwin's CP platform alienates not only atheists and agnostics, but also anyone who has faith in some myth that is not Christian (Jews, Muslims, Mormon's even, etc.). A vote for Baldwin (or any CP candidate) is a vote registering support for the idea of the U.S. becoming more of a Christian nation just as a vote for any LP candidate is a vote registering support for the idea of the U.S. becoming more of libertarian nation.

But this is the only element where I lost you:

Then Dr. Paul held his unity conference, and Barr revealed himself as an obvious fraud. Not only had his conversion claims been bogus, but he doubly insulted Dr. Paul on top of it -- by not showing up for the conference, and by his condescending offer of the VP slot.

So, I've now taken Barr off the table.

I agree that Barr insulted Dr. Paul, twice. But I don't see how Barr's statements or actions revealed him to be an obvious fraud, nor how they indicate that his conversion claims are bogus.

Did Barr's actions reveal him to be overly rash? Yes. Politically inept? Obviously. So focused on his immediate goals that he can't see the big picture? Absolutely. And all that's very bad, and it explains why he insulted Dr. Paul, but I'm not sure it's enough to take him off the table, given that he has no chance of actually becoming president.

By my analysis, voting for Barr -- nauseating as the prospect of doing so may be -- remains the only way to place a vote that registers support for the idea of the U.S. becoming more of a libertarian nation. And isn't that what spreading the message of liberty is all about?

"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."
Minarchism
track

My vote is going to Chuck Baldwin

www.buckforchuck.com

www.whokilledtheconstitution.com

www.revolutionbroadcasting.com

Dr. Steve Parent

He was the last one to depart the table!