Anyone else switiching parties this election?

[Penrod]

The only time i havent voted Libertarian was the two times I voted for Reagan. This is the most important election since then so Im going to have to vote republican once more. Ive never voted Democrat.

[obumazombie]

Someone voted for Ross the Boss Perot.

[BigTex]

Im not sure why anyone would vote for someone other than the main candidates for the presidential ticket, especially since 3rd party voters could have changed the outcomes of all the close elections.

[DumbAss Tanker]

While I have a lot of Libertarian beliefs, half the things the party stands for are pure fruitcake material.  A third party vote is pretty much a vote down the toilet in the elections for national office, it basically helps the person you want the least from the two major party coalitions get elected.

[Bad Dog]

Been thinking about switching.  Is Ralph Nader running this year?

[Penrod]

Im not sure why anyone would vote for someone other than the main candidates for the presidential ticket, especially since 3rd party voters could have changed the outcomes of all the close elections.

I live in NY so my vote for president is pretty useless anyway. So I vote my conscious. This time it says vote Romney just to make a statement. I doubt he will win NY lol

[Penrod]

While I have a lot of Libertarian beliefs, half the things the party stands for are pure fruitcake material.

Being libertarians few of us follow any party lines .  Not even the libertarian party.

[BigTex]

I live in NY so my vote for president is pretty useless anyway. So I vote my conscious. This time it says vote Romney just to make a statement. I doubt he will win NY lol

A lot of people have that type of mentality and a reason why we need a national vote and not an electoral college vote

Also I believe its conscience, voting your conscious would be voting that you were awake.

[BlueStateSaint]

Being libertarians few of us follow any party lines .  Not even the libertarian party.

Where in NY?

My almost-five-year-old daughter told me, as I was driving her to day care this morning, that Barack Obama had been President long enough, and she liked Mitt Romney.  I was rather proud of her. (Though, in the primaries, I was for Cain, then anybody but Romney.  He's the guy that won, so he's the guy.)

[Eupher]

While I have a lot of Libertarian beliefs, half the things the party stands for are pure fruitcake material.  A third party vote is pretty much a vote down the toilet in the elections for national office, it basically helps the person you want the least from the two major party coalitions get elected.

That's the political reality. While I personally hate the two-party system and would LOVE for the Constitutional Party to reign supreme (most of the platform I agree with, but not all of it), that ain't gonna happen.

I'm probably gonna derail the thread a little bit with this, but oh, well. 

A couple of planks from the Constitutional Party platform:

These United States is properly a free and sovereign republic which should strive to live in peace with all nations, without interfering in their internal affairs, and without permitting their interference in ours. We are, therefore, unalterably opposed to entangling alliances - via treaties, or any other form of commitment - which compromise our national sovereignty, or commit us to intervention in foreign wars. We are opposed to the negotiation or ratification of any treaty, agreement, or partnership that would deprive United States citizens of their rights protected by the United States Constitution. We are also opposed to any union whether political or economic, of these United States, Mexico, and Canada (NAU).

Under no circumstances should we have unilaterally surrendered our military base rights in Panama. The sovereign right of these United States to the United States territory of the Canal Zone has been jeopardized by treaties between these United States and Panama. Inasmuch as these United States bought both the sovereignty and the grant ownership of the ten-mile-wide Canal Zone, we propose that the government of these United States restore and protect its sovereign right and exclusive jurisdiction of the Canal Zone in perpetuity, and renegotiate the treaties with Panama by which the ownership of the canal was surrendered to Panama.

The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. We are opposed to amending the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage.

We reject the notion that sexual offenders are deserving of legal favor or special protection, and affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior. We oppose all efforts to impose a new sexual legal order through the federal court system. We stand against so-called "sexual orientation" and "hate crime" statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression. We oppose government funding of "partner" benefits for unmarried individuals. Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions.

We recognize that parents have the fundamental right and responsibility to nurture, educate, and discipline their children. We oppose the assumption of any of these responsibilities by any governmental agency without the express delegation of the parents or legal due process. We affirm the value of the father and the mother in the home, and we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php/documents/2008CPPlatform.pdf

So I gotta go with Plan B.

That means throwing my lot in with the Republicans. 

[txradioguy]

The only time i havent voted Libertarian was the two times I voted for Reagan. This is the most important election since then so Im going to have to vote republican once more. Ive never voted Democrat.

You realize you're asking that rather silly question on a Conservative/Republican website right?

Who the hell would we switch party affiliation to?

[Penrod]

You realize you're asking that rather silly question on a Conservative/Republican website right?

Who the hell would we switch party affiliation to

I dont think its silly at all. Are there no other libertarians here? Hannity was infested with Libs:) Do you ban them here?

[Penrod]

A lot of people have that type of mentality and a reason why we need a national vote and not an electoral college vote

Also I believe its conscience, voting your conscious would be voting that you were awake.

No we dont need to go by the popular vote. All the major population centers are invested with libs:) Ill go by what the founders put in place.

[BigTex]

That's the political reality. While I personally hate the two-party system and would LOVE for the Constitutional Party to reign supreme (most of the platform I agree with, but not all of it), that ain't gonna happen.

I'm probably gonna derail the thread a little bit with this, but oh, well. 

A couple of planks from the Constitutional Party platform:

So I gotta go with Plan B.

That means throwing my lot in with the Republicans. 

The constitutional party is a bunch of nut jobs who want to amend the hell out of constitution. If you can repeal or amend the constitution on a whim any sort of radical position can be "constitutional"

[Penrod]

Where in NY?

Ronkonkoma on Long Island.

[Eupher]

The constitutional party is a bunch of nut jobs who want to amend the hell out of constitution. If you can repeal or amend the constitution on a whim any sort of radical position can be "constitutional"

Care to point out in their platform where they make such claims?

I might've missed it when I read the platform. Did you read it too? 

[BigTex]

No we dont need to go by the popular vote. All the major population centers are invested with libs:) Ill go by what the founders put in place.

The founders thought the average voter was too ignorant to know enough about the issues to make a real vote. That was the case back then but it is no longer the case and because of more and more polarizing of the states plenty of people are feeling disenfranchised.

[BigTex]

Care to point out in their platform where they make such claims?

I might've missed it when I read the platform. Did you read it too?  

They claim the 16th amendment was illegally ratified and want it repealed, they want to repeal the 17th amendment and they wanted to add an amendment I dont remember what it was its been a few months since I read their platform.

[Eupher]

They claim the 16th amendment was illegally ratified and want it repealed, they want to repeal the 17th amendment and they wanted to add an anointment I dont remember what it was its been a few months since I read their platform.

Okay, so you're saying that they want to REPEAL the 17th Amendment by any other process other than the prescribed one? And they're claiming that the 16th Amendment was illegally ratified and they want to throw that out too? Presumably in the crapper? Without going through the constitutional process to review, ratify, or repeal? Is that what you're saying?

[txradioguy]

I dont think its silly at all. Are there no other libertarians here?

There are people who are of the Neal Boortz brand of Libertarian.

Most of us are just plain old Reagan conservatives.

Hannity was infested with Libs:) Do you ban them here?

If they are the Ron Paul brand of cultist Liberaltarian they are not tolerated.

The reason CC was founded was due to an infestation/invasion of assholes from ronpaul.com at our old home.

Therefore followers of Dr. Nutz are given a VERY short leash.

[BigTex]

Okay, so you're saying that they want to REPEAL the 17th Amendment by any other process other than the prescribed one? And they're claiming that the 16th Amendment was illegally ratified and they want to throw that out too? Presumably in the crapper? Without going through the constitutional process to review, ratify, or repeal? Is that what you're saying?

Im not sure how they want to do the 16th but they want to do the 17th the prescribed way. Sure its within the limits of the constitution but thats the point. If I wanted to repeal the 1st amendment and make a new one that makes it illegal to say anything against the government it could be "constitutional" but I would be still be a fringe nutjob

[Eupher]

Im not sure how they want to do the 16th but they want to do the 17th the prescribed way. Sure its within the limits of the constitution but thats the point. If I wanted to repeal the 1st amendment and make a new one that makes it illegal to say anything against the government it could be "constitutional" but I would be still be a fringe nutjob

Using your rather twisted logic, if I, as a member of the Constitution Party, said that I wanted to scrap the 1st Amendment and substitute some other type of "free speech" kind of amendment or revision to it, just how far do you actually think that would go? That's a rhetorical question, btw.

Answer: Nowhere. There are lots of people who want to do lots of different things, but that doesn't make them "fringe nutjobs" necessarily. As long as they're working within the framework of COTUS, let 'em have at it. They're pissing in the wind, frankly, but it's their right and duty to try and affect government the way they see fit.

If they can actually pull it off, of course.

[Penrod]

There are people who are of the Neal Boortz brand of Libertarian.

Most of us are just plain old Reagan conservatives.


If they are the Ron Paul brand of cultist Liberaltarian they are not tolerated.

The reason CC was founded was due to an infestation/invasion of assholes from ronpaul.com at our old home.

Therefore followers of Dr. Nutz are given a VERY short leash.

Well I love Boortz but Im also definitely a Reagan conservative. I also like Ron Paul. At least I now know where things stand on this forum. Ill have to restrain my libertarian ideas here it seems Conservatism first before any man or party. Though my conservatism may be far different from yours. So once more are liberals banned here? Oh and im no Ron Paul cultist thats for sure.

[BigTex]

Using your rather twisted logic, if I, as a member of the Constitution Party, said that I wanted to scrap the 1st Amendment and substitute some other type of "free speech" kind of amendment or revision to it, just how far do you actually think that would go? That's a rhetorical question, btw.

Answer: Nowhere. There are lots of people who want to do lots of different things, but that doesn't make them "fringe nutjobs" necessarily. As long as they're working within the framework of COTUS, let 'em have at it. They're pissing in the wind, frankly, but it's their right and duty to try and affect government the way they see fit.

If they can actually pull it off, of course.

Which is why I have no fear of the "constitution" party but when people say thing like:

would LOVE for the Constitutional Party to reign supreme

Its like when all the Paultards claim how much better the US would be if we would just elect Ron Paul.

It has no chance of happening but I just feel compelled to point out the crazies.

[Penrod]

Quote
would LOVE for the Constitutional Party to reign supreme

Quote
would LOVE for the Constitution to reign supreme

There all fixed

But that will be the day. I just heard Bob Beckel on the 5 say that the constitution banned women from voting when 1st written. I wanted to throw something at the tv lol And no one challenged him.

How can these clowns swear to uphold it and pull the crap they do?