It's time for a new party: The Constitutional Party

[Joe Williams]

I disagree. Having only two choices is only one choice away from having none...

Which, unless the Repubican Party reverses course and returns to the conservative base, is what we have now. Liberal government, two Dem candidates, just like in the '08 election

 

[No Time to Shoot]

I disagree. Having only two choices is only one choice away from having none...

We already have one party, we are no longer a 2 party system. This is why the republican party has no direction at the moment, they are doing and saying the same things as the democrats. How do you have a chance at winning an election when you differentiate yourself?

 

[No Time to Shoot]

Which, unless the Repubican Party reverses course and returns to the conservative base, is what we have now. Liberal government, two Dem candidates, just like in the '08 election

 

[4sarge]

Diluting the Vote with 3rd, 4th or 5th Parties insure a long line of Obama Democrats. Vote 3rd Party or stay at home and insure their continued victory. All Politics are local, Change what we have from the ground up. No Pork, Smaller Government, States Rights, Term Limits etc.

I disagree. Having only two choices is only one choice away from having none...

Did you miss Change what we have from the ground up. No Pork, Smaller Government, States Rights, Term Limits etc.
3rd party national voters insure a Democrat win and your vote wasted. Make the necessary Changes to insure that you have a voice in the party that can Win. If Changes (Not Promises) are not forthcoming then they deserve to lose

 

[leftsock]

3rd party national voters insure a Democrat win and your vote wasted.

I've always heard that too, but from the other direction, that 3rd parties will draw too many votes away from the democratic candidate and the evil republicans will win!

 

[El Cazador]

Agreed, but watch the movie I posted and you will see how much you vote really counts.

#1 IT AIN'T A DEMOCRACY

#2 Ok, I read the synopsis here:
HBO: Hacking Democracy - Synopsis

I'm not downloading an 81 minute "documentary" from HBO

What I got from the synopsis:
Diebold followed poor business practices, and got caught. Good. Then they fixed the glitches and the left out security protocol. Great. Election workers and officials are now more aware of possible errors and omissions. Fine. The lady who originated the investigation doesn't like e-voting. OK, neither do I, honestly. It's one day a year, for only an hour or so for most people. Get out and vote.

So you're not going to vote anymore because there might be a problem with e-voting elsewhere? Indiana doesn't use e-vote that I'm aware of, and if you are concerned, call your county election board and offer to become a certified election watcher. Protect those memory cards from possible hacking.

Right now though, were talking about re-taking the Republican party back and throwing out the fence-riding, splinter-collecting moderates (aka RINO's) who either are spineless cowards, closet socialists (Colin Powell ) or just out for themselves and not interesting in really serving as what they ran for. Or chucking it completely and starting from scratch.

 

[4sarge]

I've always heard that too, but from the other direction, that 3rd parties will draw too many votes away from the democratic candidate and the evil republicans will win!

That probably is totally 3rd party candidate dependent but if speaking of a Libertarian or Constitutional Party then the Republican vote would suffer and we can have Barack Forever or until he totally destroys what we had

 

[leftsock]

That probably is totally 3rd party candidate dependent but if speaking of a Libertarian or Constitutional Party then the Republican vote would suffer and we can have Barack Forever or until he totally destroys what we had

True, true. It is party/candidate specific.

I did some reading of the Democratic and Republican platforms recently, and they both want to do more with less money (somehow/not going to happen), make things economically "fair" (definition required), and throw around words like "national security" to scare us into giving up our rights.

We should create a portmanteau, perhaps Dempublican or Repubocrat, and start treating the two parties as though they were one, because they might as well be.

As long as either of these two parties wins, nothing is going to change.

 

[Glockster]

Holy thread resurrection, Batman!

 

[Glockster]

How so?

The very first line in their preamble:

"The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States."

 

[Glockster]

In what respect? Where in the First Amendment does it prohibit banning murder? Do we need to open the prison doors and set a bunch of people free?

Huh?

 

[Glockster]

We had a "Constitutional" party...it was called the Republican Party. We've just allowed the communists and others to re-define what "Republican" means, and few are fighting against the current to correct that. Everyone was so happy that Reagan ran the Republican Party and the White House as a conservatively valued ideology, and he did so well at it, I guess everyone figured it could never change. So then we helped elect the first Bush, who was "sorta" conservative (no, he wasn't), and the Party moved left; next came Willy, who wasn't much farther left than Bush 41, then Bush 43, who thought "compassionate conservatism" meant not saying no to anyone (ever try that at home with the kids? How well did that work?) and the Party kinda drifted left again.

Now here we are, with an Honest-to-God Socialist running the country, and the people who we let get entrenched in the Republican Party are wanting to take it left some more, to "make the big tent bigger". That's just nonsense. Reagan had a really "big tent" going by sticking to Conservative core values, and even dyed-in-the-wool Democrats voted for him.

There's still a constitutional party in there, we've just allowed it to be overrun by milquetoasts and comfortable old fat (figuratively, if not literally so) people who don't want to rock the boat and lose their cushy seat at the banquet table. I thought it was right that Steele got slapped pretty well when he tried marginalizing Limbaugh. Steele sure didn't change his tone because one guy on the radio told him to; it was the calls and e-mails his office got from all the listeners of Limbaugh, and all the other conservative-minded people who told Steele he was way off the mark.

I just don't think jumping off a perfectly good ship to start building another ship just because no one is steering the first one is a sound idea. Let's get some one in there that knows how to steer, and show the rest we know the way, and we'll have our ship back. That means we start talking "small government, less government, low taxes, personal responsibility, and doing what's right, not just what feels good" to everyone around us in our daily lives. I honestly think there are a lot of people out there who feel this way, but are not willing to stand up for fear of being singled out. It's just human nature for many to not want anything but positive attention. We have to make "Conservative Republican" the popular thing to be again, and that will be by confidently standing up for what we believe in, and saying it. Often. Almost to the point that we're making a nuisance of ourselves and people almost roll their eyes. But they have to hear it that so often it becomes normal and accepted again.

Big +1 El C. This may change, but like it or not, this is still a two party system. Third party votes are still wasted votes.

 

[Joe Williams]

Huh?

You said:

LOL, I thought I had an original idea there. How come no one has heard of this? Well, it took no more than a minute on their website to see why. Their first principle violates the First Amendment re: religion.

Of course, when I replied I hadn't noticed that you had written that back in March. For all I know, they've since changed the "first principle" on their website!

Now, I really wish I could quit typing in italics...

 

[Glockster]

From one of the so called "impotent Libertarians" please do some research before spouting off.
Remember, it is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought an idiot, rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt...

check out 1.6, I think anyone for Gun ownership can appreciate it.
Platform | Libertarian Party

Sorry if my comment offended you Ogre. However, I don't need to do any further research to believe in my description of the Libertarian Party as impotent. I go to the polls every year. I see the results. Nuff said.

 

[SavageEagle]

The very first line in their preamble:

"The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States."

If they are so much about the Constitution, why are they trying to destroy the Founders beliefs of Seperation of Church and State?

 

[No Time to Shoot]

#1 IT AIN'T A DEMOCRACY

#2 Ok, I read the synopsis here:
HBO: Hacking Democracy - Synopsis

I'm not downloading an 81 minute "documentary" from HBO

What I got from the synopsis:
Diebold followed poor business practices, and got caught. Good. Then they fixed the glitches and the left out security protocol. Great. Election workers and officials are now more aware of possible errors and omissions. Fine. The lady who originated the investigation doesn't like e-voting. OK, neither do I, honestly. It's one day a year, for only an hour or so for most people. Get out and vote.

So you're not going to vote anymore because there might be a problem with e-voting elsewhere? Indiana doesn't use e-vote that I'm aware of, and if you are concerned, call your county election board and offer to become a certified election watcher. Protect those memory cards from possible hacking.

Right now though, were talking about re-taking the Republican party back and throwing out the fence-riding, splinter-collecting moderates (aka RINO's) who either are spineless cowards, closet socialists (Colin Powell ) or just out for themselves and not interesting in really serving as what they ran for. Or chucking it completely and starting from scratch.

I agree with you on changing the Republican party but what the video shows is that Diebold and the government never changed their software and that politicians were buying votes. So change the party all you want but we need to change the voting equipment. You really need to watch the video and you don't have to down load it. It works just like you tube you just have to wait for it.

And the precinct I voted in does use either a Diebold machine or one very similar.

Your vote only counts if you vote for the person that paid to get elected.

 

[flightsimmer]

I disagree. Having only two choices is only one choice away from having none...

Well, your suppose to pick the best candidate during the primary but again that doesn't always work.
I wouldn't have voted at all if it hadn't been for Sarah Palin. Go Sarah! She would make a good Presidential candidate under the right circumstances.
I hoped Fred Thompson would have done better than he did.
But you see your still fighting the party's choice.

 

[CarmelHP]

The very first line in their preamble:

"The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States."

What part of "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" do you have a problem with?

 

[rcuhljr]

What part of "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" do you have a problem with?

Probably the part where it's been concluded that

government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.

in BoE vs. Grumet
Which is where it's pretty easy to see why a political party which picks one arbitrary religion to endorse would seem contradictory.

 

[CarmelHP]

Probably the part where it's been concluded that in BoE vs. Grumet
Which is where it's pretty easy to see why a political party which picks one arbitrary religion to endorse would seem contradictory.

Political parties are not government, they are private associations. Are you saying that it should be illegal for a private association to endorse religion or help members of that religion get elected? That would be a 1st Amendment violation, a private association preferring one religion is not a 1st Amendment violation. If you don't like their choice, you simply don't vote for them.