JSchwartz Posted October 28, 2008 Report Share Posted October 28, 2008 Forget about McCain and Obama for a second. There are other political parties. I am curious to see everyone's views and opinions on the constitution party candidate Chuck Baldwin. He has his own personal and religous beliefs, but is extremely pro personal freedom. He is a fiscal conservative. He wants to dissolve the federal reserve, eliminate income and sales tax, and demolish the department of education. As well he wants to secure the border, which is something the other candidates fear. Currently, Ron Paul has told his supporters to vote for Chuck Baldwin. To me, he seems like the perfect candidate, and I am voting for him. I am not wasting my vote, just in case any of you want to bring that up, because the big two candidates don't fit the original tenets of the constitution. I also believe the two big parties represent the same man behind the curtain, so logically I will vote for Baldwin. Anyways, feel free to debate and converse about this presidential candidate. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 28, 2008 Report Share Posted October 28, 2008 The Constitution Party is a religion-based organization. In essence, the party is to the GOP what the Green party is to the Dems. That is to say: a fair number of GOP die-hards on the Christian side would love to vote for the Constitution Party, but won;t because they don't want to waste their vote. Some samplings from their platform: Support the "Sanctity of Life" "The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman..." "All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith." Environment: "It is our responsibility to be prudent, productive, and efficient stewards of God's natural resources. In that role, we are commanded to be fruitful and multiply,..." "Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. " "We favor a moratorium on immigration to these United States, except in extreme hardship cases ..." The few of their members I have heard talk over the years have been unapologetic Christians. It is true that they support "free economy" when if comes to health-care, and everything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted October 28, 2008 Report Share Posted October 28, 2008 I don't know if I'd rather vote Green Party or Constitution party, but it's a sad state when the third parties are even worse than the major ones. softwareNerd is correct. The party is a bastion of the most extreme Christian Conservatives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mammon Posted October 28, 2008 Report Share Posted October 28, 2008 Despite being a theocrat, Baldwin is also a racist. Christian? Racist? No surprise there. Seriously, check out the Wiki on him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Baldwin The more guys like this come on to the intellectual world stage, the harded it is for Objectivism. Some similiar things we say will get pyschologically packaged with there people with horribly mixed premises. They hurt us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mammon Posted October 28, 2008 Report Share Posted October 28, 2008 (edited) It bothers me even more to oppose Baldwin because he is one of the only politicians that favors a gold standard. It's like watching something amazing being ripped apart by a parasite. Like being offered a bountiful meal with cyanide laced in all the food. Edited October 28, 2008 by Mammon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted October 28, 2008 Report Share Posted October 28, 2008 A good analogy with the food laced with cyanide, Mammon. It is hard to see a politician like Ron Paul advocate for a return to the gold standard and an end to a totally false fiat empire, and then totally shoot himself in the foot with other inane religious and protectionist babble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSchwartz Posted October 29, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 Wow, I didn't know all religous people were evil. Thanks for the info. (sarcasm) Baldwin has stood up for religous freedom and freedom from religon many times. Holding the fact that someone is christian against them sounds pretty close-minded to me. He also has stood up against the extreme far religous right numerous times. Another thing, I didn't know criticizing Dr. King made you a racist, pretty quick to judge aren't we? Anyways, no offense, but you guys don't really sound too objective to me. I listened to what you said and read the wiki on him, and I am still voting for him. Also, you can't believe everything on wikipedia. I'm going to stick to being an individual, and go with what I think is right, because you all sounded like you were regurgitating the same dribble. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Focus Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 (edited) Wow, I didn't know all religous people were evil. Thanks for the info. (sarcasm) Baldwin has stood up for religous freedom and freedom from religon many times. Holding the fact that someone is christian against them sounds pretty close-minded to me. He also has stood up against the extreme far religous right numerous times. Another thing, I didn't know criticizing Dr. King made you a racist, pretty quick to judge aren't we? Anyways, no offense, but you guys don't really sound too objective to me. I listened to what you said and read the wiki on him, and I am still voting for him. Also, you can't believe everything on wikipedia. I'm going to stick to being an individual, and go with what I think is right, because you all sounded like you were regurgitating the same dribble. Thanks. Objectivists would prefer a president who made rational judgment. If he is religious, then his judgments probably aren't going to be that rational unless he pushes religion away to the side. They made arguments saying that the constitutional party is still very religious, and he will probably support religious legislation, which is immoral. Edited October 29, 2008 by Focus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 Wow, I didn't know all religous people were evil. Thanks for the info. (sarcasm) Baldwin has stood up for religous freedom and freedom from religon many times. Holding the fact that someone is christian against them sounds pretty close-minded to me. He also has stood up against the extreme far religous right numerous times. Another thing, I didn't know criticizing Dr. King made you a racist, pretty quick to judge aren't we? Anyways, no offense, but you guys don't really sound too objective to me. I listened to what you said and read the wiki on him, and I am still voting for him. Also, you can't believe everything on wikipedia. I'm going to stick to being an individual, and go with what I think is right, because you all sounded like you were regurgitating the same dribble. Thanks. His arguments are made from an explicitly religious standpoint. I won't vote against someone for their religion, but only based on their political philosophy. The Constitution party is openly a party of theocrats who want to ban abortion and gay marriage. Their constituents are made up of people who don't think the Republicans have gone far Right enough on social issues and southern secessionists/racist scumbags. They are xenophobic, fear mongers as far as the border issue goes. They are anti-free trade, protectionist/isolationists. Sorry, but the Republican party is already too much of a Religious-Nationalist party. I don't want to go vote for someone who represents the most despicable parts of the worst party in America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 Also, you can't believe everything on wikipedia.I agree, so I decided to look at his official web page. I couldn't find a reason to support him -- was there anything in particular that you thought made him less unacceptable that his competitors? He adheres to a protectionist theory of economics, would legally impose his religious views regarding the nature of "man" on the nation; his foreign policy is unarticulated but taking his word at face value, he apparently advocates Paul-style pacificism. His policy on property and individual rights is appalling as judged from his immigration stand. Because he's willing to cast aside the First Amendment, I would want to see strong evidence in the other direction that shows that he isn't yet another Robertson / Reed / Palin / Huckabee candidate. A candidate who repudiates the very foundation of man's nature can't be trusted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinDW78 Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 but you guys don't really sound too objective to me. lol is that a joke? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.