-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Constitution Party National Convention Nominates Virgil Goode!!!
- Thread starter Thundar
- Start date
grylnsmn
Regular Member
Here are a few numbers for reference here:
Constitution Party
| Seats in the Senate | 0 / 100 |
| Seats in the House | 0 / 435 |
| Governorships | 0 / 50 |
| State Upper Houses | 0 / 1,921 |
| State Lower Houses | 0 / 5,410 |
Libertarian Party
| Seats in the Senate | 0 / 100 |
| Seats in the House | 0 / 435 |
| Governorships | 0 / 50 |
| State Upper Houses | 0 / 1,921 |
| State Lower Houses | 1 / 5,410 |
For the record, the one member of a State Lower House is Daniel P. Gordon, a member of the Rhode Island House of Representatives. And even then, he wasn't elected as a Libertarian, but changed his affiliation from Republican after he was elected. There are a total of 157 Libertarians holding elected office nationwide, all of which are on the local level and 119 of them are from non-partisan races.
Out of almost 8000 (7917, including the Presidency) elected state and federal offices, the Libertarian and Constitution Parties together hold a grand total of 1 office, which comes from the office holder changing affiliation after election. How many of those races even had a Libertarian or Constitutionalist on the ballot?
In the entire history of both parties, neither has been able to win even one electoral vote. (The Libertarian Party did receive one electoral vote in 1972, but that was from a faithless elector, not because they won the elector in the election.)
To date, there is no evidence that either party, nor even both of them put together, has the support and ability to win even one state, let alone enough states to get to 270 electoral votes. Even if (by some miracle) that were to happen, without other party members to provide support in Congress, there would be no way to get any part of their platform accomplished.
Voting for a third party that lacks sufficient nationwide support to either win the Presidency nor even elect a single member of Congress is a wasted vote, because it cannot affect any real change.
Politics has often been called the art of compromise. You are never going to get someone who agrees with you 100%, nor are you ever going to get 100% of your desired platform passed. The rational choice is therefore to vote for the option that has a reasonable chance to win and would accomplish the most of what you want.
If that means that only Obama and Romney can potentially win (due to the makeup of the Electoral College), then you vote for which one of them you agree with the most. To do otherwise is to indicate that you are unable to compromise and therefore will never get anything that you want.
Last edited:
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
FWIW I don't personally vote for any certain party. I vote for people. I know of at least one Libertarian and one Republican I am voting for in the next election.
The best of the Bad.
At closing time. when all the women left are ugly, you either go home alone or pick the least ugly one. (That's humorous country philosophy ) :uhoh:
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
I would agree with you. In somethings I will compromise readily. In other things I just won't.
Last edited:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
I think something that gets overlooked is the disaster of either major party maintaining power. This being overlooked not from bias or failure of logic, but perhaps from simply needing more info on the subject.
I can't possibly supply all that info here, so I won't try. I will though highlight a few points as a gentle invitation to further examination and consideration.
I'll start by restating my premise: it is a disaster when either major party wins. The disaster has been occurring for years, decades.
The trick is to know what constitutes a disaster. What are the things that make it a disaster? In this case, its not the stuff we easily see; instead its the systemic problems. Or, more precisely the business-as-usual methods of the politicians, regardless of party affiliation, and the resulting consequences.
Its not the "issues" of the day. Those are too often manufactured by the media and government as distractions and wedges to keep us arguing among ourselves and to set up selling points so one politicriminal can selling himself as being "right" on the issue. Regardless of party affiliation, almost all politicians do it.
The real issues are the ones they dodge or pretend don't exist. For example, Roe v Wade and abortion rights was a sidegame distraction. Far more important at roughly the same time was Nixon closing the gold window; meaning he closed the door to foreign governments redeeming US dollars in gold. Far more important was Nixon closing the gold window, and its results, both short and long term. Short term, it sent a shock through the international monetary system. Long term it meant the US government and the Federal Reserve could print money at will since the money no longer had to be backed by gold even for foreign banks and governments. Meaning it could drive the US debt to the moon and all the newly printed money reduced the value of already-existing money and caused big economic problems here at home. Remember the stagnant economy under Gerald Ford? Remember the inflation of the Carter years? Why did Nixon close the gold window? Deficit spending for the Vietnam war and domestic programs had created far more paper and electronic dollars than there was gold to back it up. (Deficit spending is code for borrowing meaning go into debt to get the money to spend.) Foreign interests started redeeming dollars for gold. Nixon was a republican. Who jacked up the spending for Vietnam and the domestic programs? Johnson, a democrat (Who remembers his "Great Society" or his guns-and-butter programs?) Who was in congress? Democrats and Republicans.
I'll toss in a little history. We're taught, more or less correctly, that the Roman Republic died and the empire began with the first emporer, Octavianus Caesar, legal heir to Julius Caesar. Julius was assasinated. After some infighting and civil wars, Julius' legal heir, Octavianus aka Octavian, became the first emporer, renaming himself Augustus.
But, what made it possible for Julius to get away with trying to maintain so much power that about 15 senators decided he had to be killed? And, having won the infighting and civil wars, why didn't Octavian just set the government back on the Roman constitution? It was because the Roman Republic had been falling apart for perhaps 150 years before the assasination. The republican system wasn't working. Enough of the wrong people were dissastisfied with the system, and wanted more for themselves, so they were willing and did play political games at the expense of fairness and good economics. The Roman constitution was in complete tatters already in Julius's youth. (Google a Roman dictator named Sulla). It just went downhill, each departure from the constitution and willingness to screw the other guy for political and economic advantage setting up the next departure and attempt at political and economic advantage.
Here's the chilling part. Reading the political history of the final 40 years or so of the Roman Republic is like reading the political history of the US from WWII to now. Class vs class, interest vs interest. You only need to swap the Latin names for the modern ones. And, notice how the constitution was steadily subverted, each subversion causing more or new tensions, thus setting the stage for the next subversion.
The big issues, the real ones, include: politicians encouraging us to hate the other guy (class warfare and political division), unlimited government spending, government and banking control of the economy, etc., etc. etc.
Don't fall much for the side stuff. Guns are important. But, remember, while we're busy keeping our gun rights, the politicians are wrecking the place. We need to learn about how they're wrecking the place, what makes it possible, and work against that. For example, this is why you see me write from time to time that I refuse to be angry with half the people I share this continent with just because they're democrats. I'm not going to fall for it.
So, we're already in a disaster. Both major parties are the main agents. If either one wins any given future election, they're just going to continue the disaster.
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
Thanks for the great post. It really puts together some of my inarticulate thoughts.
Our debt has gotten so great that it's beyond the comprehension of most. The concept and repercussions aren't tangible for people but it will be (I believe) quick & catastrophic.
But is that what I see on the news? Nope. Mainly how terrible one side is because they want to encourage people to quit their jobs and collect welfare, and the other side hates women who get pregnant through rape and wants the government to force them to have the rape-baby.
Our country needs real salvation and it won't come from Romney or Obama.
Thundar
Regular Member
Peter,
I would not drink the seawater any more than I would drink the 2 party kool-aid!
What I like about this discussion is that it has not devolved into childish name calling.
Romney and Obama are both gun grabbers. I could never vote for either of them. If others here believe that they can sacrifice gun rights for something more important, then I guess they will vote for a gun grabber.
He doesn't have a chance but I'
You haven't been active enough lately Thundar...That's all done in PM now:lol:
I happen to agree on the two party system and I haven't decided if I'll vote for Virgil yet.
He doesn't have a prayer but I also don't think the spread will be close enough for the votes he gets to matter.
It's too early to tell.
You haven't been active enough lately Thundar...That's all done in PM now:lol:
I happen to agree on the two party system and I haven't decided if I'll vote for Virgil yet.
He doesn't have a prayer but I also don't think the spread will be close enough for the votes he gets to matter.
It's too early to tell.
67GT390FB
Regular Member
please tell me when Virgil Goode ran for a state office as the member of a Party that was something other than a Democrat or a Republican and won. I'll be waiting a long time for that reply. Sometimes no matter how many times you close your eyes and click your heels wishes and fairytales just don't come true.
The closest thing we have had to a third party that has been a winner is the TEA party that wonder of wonders knew they had no shot at going it alone and have inserted themselves into the Republican party to swing it back to being fiscally responsible or at least that's what they are running on.
TFred
Regular Member
And what all the third party candidates are choosing to ignore is the fact that we have a two party system, and until someone plans to overthrow the government, that is what we are going to always have.
There are simply not enough people who follow the issues closely enough to enable an expansion to a viable three party system.
Everything else is just words that mean nothing.
At the end of the day, Obama or Romney will be the president and you can either vote for the best one, or abandon your chance to contribute to that decision and leave it solely to the idiots who are unable to take facts they can easily learn and make up their mind.
TFred
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Huh!?! Who says we are always going to have a two party system? Parties have come and gone in American history. The Federalists--the freaking founders--shot themselves in the foot with the Alien and Sedition Acts and started to disappear at the next executive election. I don't recall hearing much out of the Whig party lately, either.
If one adopts the idea that we are always going to have the current two parties, he won't bother to work to change it.
Lots more people today, especially young people, are finding out about freedom via Ron Paul's campaign. Way more than even four years ago. Its the vested interests and media who conspired to suppress him and his supporters. The establishment thought they saw an opportunity and tried to steal his message. Witness Rick Perry and his campaign-ending gaffe about getting rid of three cabinet departments when he couldn't remember the name of the third. Witness a few republicans now giving a little lip-service to controlling the Federal Reserve. Witness the recent discussion about a gold commission to investigate putting us back on a sound currency. Of course, these latter ideas are at the moment probably just some lying pandering to gather some votes. But, the main point is that the issues are being raised, they are gathering momentum with the internet, and the main two parties are going to have to pay attention.
Its really just a matter of spreading the word. Over, through, and around the lamestream media. Fortunately, the internet is coming on strong, and the mainstream media is suffering. Newspapers are in decline.
Beyond voting for Romney or Obama, there are two other choices.
1) Vote your conscience. If a person decides the Constitution Party has the correct platform, I won't fault him (much) for voting that way.
2) Withhold your consent and don't vote at all. This is my favorite. The first person responsible for the looting expropriator's actions is the looting expropriator himself. If Obama retains office and disasters the place, he's the first one responsible for his own actions. Not me. Not you. Him. And, no amount of twisting by anybody else can make me responsible for his actions. Same for Romney, the pandering big-government bankster lackey. I will not sic one of these bloodsuckers on my fellow Americans. I can't prevent all my fellow Americans from siccing one or the other on me, but I sure as hell won't do it to somebody else.
kimbercarrier
Campaign Veteran
So by not voting for third party candidates we can get them elected. In the 2020 election when the republocrats run Hillary Clinton and tell us how conservative she is compared to the demorat I guess you'll vote for her. I have to vote my conscience as I expect you do. But I'm tired of voting for the evil of two lessors because the 2 parties refuse to run someone I can vote for. I'll be voting for Gary Johnson.
Last edited:
The presidential election is a little more difficult to put in perspective because of the electoral college, but lets look at Virginia Politics.
Tim Kaine was probably the worst thing to ever happen to Virginia.
In 01 Kaine ran for Lt Governor. Same old story...pick the best of the bad between Kaine and Katzen. It was a close race. Reams ran on the Libertarian ticket and had no chance of winning.
Katzen got a little over 48%, Reams got a little over 1.5% and Kaine got a little over 50%.
Without Reams splitting the vote, Katzen may or may not have won but it was so close I wouldn't want to call it.
Next Kaine ran for Governor against Kilgore. Kilgore was fairly popular.
There is a lot of political figuring over Kaines win and his taking traditional Republican areas but here is one fact that can't be ignored.
Kilgore's spokesman, who now is a key member of McDonnell's administration, insulted VCDL and Philip Van Cleave.
Many of us wrote Philip in and others just left the spot blank. Kaine won by about the same number of votes as there are VCDL members (Including alerts)
Sometimes voting your conscience is suicidal.
va_tazdad
Regular Member
EVERY vote counts
Even if your candidate doesn’t win.
If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain because you just didn’t care enough to voice your opinion via the polls.
I was taught that voting isn’t just a right, it is a duty!
Even if your candidate doesn’t win.
If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain because you just didn’t care enough to voice your opinion via the polls.
I was taught that voting isn’t just a right, it is a duty!
grylnsmn
Regular Member
The electoral college makes it different when talking about the Presidential elections. For one thing, unless the candidate is on enough state ballots to win 270 electoral votes, he cannot win, and so any votes for him are completely useless (unless you are counting on faithless electors).
What I am saying is that to get success with any 3rd party, you need to start local, not national. Focus on winning some seats in state legislatures, because that's where many of the candidates for Congress come from. After you do that, focus on winning some seats in Congress, and when opportunities like the McCaskill/Akin race come up, run a decent candidate for the Senate. Those sort of actions build national support. Once you start to get that national support, you have an actual shot at running a Presidential candidate. Without that support, any Presidential campaign is hopeless.
Local campaigns help you build up your ground game, which is an essential part of any national race. The Walker recall election in Wisconsin was a great benefit to Romney, because it set up a lot of people on the ground for a GOTV effort, who easily transitioned from Walker's campaign to Romney's.
Local campaigns also give you a large supply of surrogates to campaign independently for you. The country is too big for one person (or even two) to campaign everywhere solo. You need a large number of major players in your campaign who are well-known on a regional or national level to help in pressing the flesh.
Without these sort of resources, no third party candidate can win the Presidency, and so until a party shows that it can build these resources, I can't give them my vote for President. I can (and have) voted third party in state and local elections, but the Presidency is a different matter. I cannot just throw my vote away.
Last edited:
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
Ha this is my biggest problem. I honestly don't have a problem with people voting for Obama or Romney if they honestly believe that person is the BEST choice of all the candidates. What bothers me is the people who are going to vote their letter (R or D) no...matter...what.
These are the people who say "Romney won't do to America what he did to MA. It's different." HA!
BTW if Johnson doesn't win I'm blaming the Republican kool-aid drinkers for stealing votes from him!
Last edited:
TFred
Regular Member
This is an entirely different subject, and has nothing to do with the OP. I don't object that you posted it, I'm just saying, it's a completely different subject altogether.
I agree with you, voting is a responsibility that requires substantial effort. Many people do not understand that and vote based on many wrong reasons.
TFred
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
Sorry. To be honest I didn't even remember what the OP was, I just posted a reactive post to someone else's post.
Agreed about voting based on the wrong reasons. Man I wish I could find this video I watched before. I think it was Leno, they took statements from Palin, and Obama and quoted them to people on the street, but told them they were said by the other person. It was hilarious (and sickening) watching people agree whole heartily with statements Palin said because they were told Obama said them.
Repeater
Regular Member
Mandatory Runoffs
Mandatory Runoffs would solve a lot of these problems being discussed. That would end so-called "spoilers" ruining things.
Mandatory Runoffs would solve a lot of these problems being discussed. That would end so-called "spoilers" ruining things.