It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chuck Baldwin: Platform and Stance on Issues

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Now that Ron Paul has endorsed Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution Party, I know many are going to want to know what this guy is all about, and more about the party, the platform, and their stance on issues.

So first, here is the link to the Constitution Party's website:

www.constitutionparty.com...

Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:

1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;
3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
4. Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;
6. States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government is reserved for the state and local jurisdictions;
7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

Constitution Party Mission Statement

The mission of the Constitution Party is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity through the election, at all levels of government, of Constitution Party candidates who will uphold the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. It is our goal to limit the federal government to its delegated, enumerated, Constitutional functions and to restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations.

A full index of links on their platform is here:

www.constitutionparty.com...

For this thread, I will provide only the issues which I feel are critical at the moment, judging from the current state of world affairs:

On Energy


Energy

James Madison said: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." (Federalist Papers #45) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution , nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (Amendment X).

We call attention to the continuing need of these United States for a sufficient supply of energy for national security and for the immediate adoption of a policy of free market solutions to achieve energy independence for these United States. We call for abolishing the Department of Energy.

Private property rights should be respected, and the federal government should not interfere with the development of potential energy sources, including natural gas, hydroelectric power, solar energy, wind generators, and nuclear energy.


On The Environment


James Madison said: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." (Federalist Papers #45) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (Amendment X).

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, and to replenish the earth and develop it (e.g., to turn deserts into farms and wastelands into groves). This requires a proper and continuing dynamic balance between development and conservation, between use and preservation.

In keeping with this requirement, we wholeheartedly support realistic efforts to preserve the environment and reduce pollution - air, water, and land. We reject, however, the argument of the perceived threat of man-made global warming which has been refuted by a large number of scientists. The globalists are using the global warming threat to gain more control via worldwide sustainable development.

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution limits the federal power of eminent domain solely to the purchase of private property with just compensation for public use, such as military reservations and government office buildings - not for public ownership, such as urban renewal, environmental protection, or historic preservation. Under no circumstances may the federal government take private property, by means of rules and regulations which preclude or substantially reduce the productive use of the property, even with just compensation.

We call for a return to the states and to the people all lands which are held by the federal government without authorization by the Constitution.

We also call for repeal of federal wetlands legislation and the federal Endangered Species Act. Moreover, we oppose any attempt to designate private or public property as United Nations World Heritage sites or Biosphere reserves. We call for an end to this United States participation in UN programs such as UNESCO, Man and the Biosphere, and the UN Council on Sustainable Development. We oppose environmental treaties and conventions such as the Biodiversity Treaty, the Convention on Climate Control, and Agenda 21, which destroy our sovereignty and right to private property.


On Executive Orders


Executive Orders

Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution clearly restricts the power to make laws: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States".

Presidential Executive Orders are clearly "legislative powers".

We oppose the use of Presidential executive orders that make law or otherwise usurp the Constitutional authority and responsibilities of the legislative and judicial branches. This Constitutionally subversive practice must be stopped by Congress. All unconstitutional executive orders must be repealed.


On Foreign Policy


"Europe has a set of primary interests, which have to us none, or very remote relation. Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collusions of her friendships or enmities. "Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?" (George Washington's Farewell Address)

"I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one] which ought to shape its administration,…peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Thomas Jefferson-First Inaugural Address. Bergh 3:321. (1801.)

"America has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings....She goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." (John Quincy Adams, Speech Delivered in Washington DC 04 July 1821)

"In the wars of European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do....Our policy in regard to Europe...is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers..." (James Monroe, Monroe Doctrine)

National Sovereignty:

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).

To this end, we shall:

* steadfastly oppose American participation in any form of world government organization, including any world court under United Nations auspices;
* call upon the President, and Congress, to terminate United States membership in the United Nations, and its subsidiary organizations, and terminate U.S. participation in all so-called U.N. peace keeping operations;
* bar the United Nations, and its subsidiaries, from further operation, including raising of funds, on United States territory; and
* propose that the Constitution be obeyed to prohibit the United States government from entering any treaty, or other agreement, which makes any commitment of American military forces or tax money, compromises the sovereignty of the United States, or accomplishes a purpose properly the subject of domestic law. In this connection we specifically denounce the agreement establishing the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and any other such trade agreements, either bi-lateral or regional in nature. All treaties must be subordinate to the Constitution, since the Constitution is the only instrument which empowers and limits the federal government.

American troops must serve only under American commanders, not those of the United Nations or foreign countries.


There is more at their site on this, and on many other topics, so please visit and check it out.

In general, the platform aligns close enough with my views where I could see myself voting for Chuck. Ron Paul's endorsement of him will surely bring much support and needed funds to the party. I will bring more specific info on him soon.




posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Chuck Baldwin's website is here:

www.baldwin08.com...

On Border Security and Illegal Immigration


“Illegal immigration stops the day we take the White House!" --Chuck Baldwin



"There will be no "path to citizenship" given to any illegal alien. That means no amnesty. Not in any shape, manner, or form. I would not allow tax dollars to be used to pay for illegal aliens' education, social services, or medical care. As President, I would end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. There would be no "anchor babies" during my administration.


On 9/11
What Really Happened on 9/11?
Only One Presidential Candidate Asks...

Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin is the only candidate from a FEC- recognized party to challenge the official story of the tragedy of 9-11.
Representing the largest and fastest-growing third party based on voter registration (Ballot Access news), Baldwin joins the growing list of military, scientific and other well-credentialed experts who agree,'the government's account of what happened that day simply does not pass the smell test'.

Baldwin, poised to attract voters who will not cast their votes for either 'Big Box' party candidate in November said, 'All across America voters are telling me, ''I am afraid of Obama and I don't trust McCain'.

Baldwin added, 'More and more people want answers . They want to know about government corruption, our loss of liberties and yes, what really happened on September 11th. The heartache this country endured won't be cured, but it will give us answers to some basic questions about why our security, intelligence and civil defense measures failed and why so many aspects of the government's version have been shown to be lies'.

On the United Nations
The United Nations Will Have To Find A New Address!
"When I am President of these United States all funding for the United Nations stops!"
---Chuck Baldwin




I strongly oppose American participation in any form of world government organization, including any world court.

As President I will terminate United States membership in the United Nations, and its subsidiary organizations, and terminate U.S. participation in all so-called U.N. peace keeping operations and I would bar the United Nations, and its subsidiaries, from further operation, including raising of funds, on United States territory.

American troops must serve only under American commanders, and as long as I am President American forces will never serve under the flag of the United Nations or any foreign country.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   
EDITED Being funny isnt allowed apparently.

[edit on 9/22/2008 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Constitution party sounds good.

and after reading his points I can see why Dr Ron Paul endorsed him.

S&F



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Grey, thanks bud. And yep if RP endorsed him, you know he's gotta be solid.

Thich, lol, I just meant the part about the video links, they always worked, your humor was fine. Jeez man. But thanks for editing that. Now put back your other comment! lol...

[edit on 22-9-2008 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Well, he's got no chance of winning specifically because of these:

"1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;"

This alienates the pro-choice left and his affiliation with the 9/11 truth movement alienates himself from the right.

"3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;"

This alienates himself from the gay/lesbian voters.

"4. Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;"

And how does he plan to bypass the Supreme Court's ruling on Imminent Domain?

"5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;"

Just a question - does this mean that every amendment added to the constitution becomes null and void? If so, he's going to alienate the black and female voters.

"6. States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government is reserved for the state and local jurisdictions; "

That one I agree with. It's a mantra for conservatives - more power to the states!

"7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances."

And there he goes alienating the evangelical vote - those who believe that the U.S. must be allied with Israel as the Bible states the enemies of Israel will fall in the last days.

Hate to tell Chuck Baldwin this, but without foreign alliances, the United States would have been crushed during WWI and WWII. The way he has it worded it sounds like he wants the U.S. to retreat to minding itself, neither helping nor taking help from others. Countries like that get conquered because they have one to turn to for help.

I can't see this guy standing on solid ground at all. It sounds like his policies have the best of intentions, but would get us all killed, or worse, enslaved.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
Well, he's got no chance of winning specifically because of these:

"1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;"

This alienates the pro-choice left and his affiliation with the 9/11 truth movement alienates himself from the right.


I hardly see them them overturning RoevWade. It'd take some changes on the Supreme Court, and they'd have to be confirmed by an unreceptive, evenly split senate. No easy task and most unlikely, imo.

With respect to the 9/11 truth movement, I am surprised you would even put that in the same sentence with abortion. And then worse, insinuate by the statement that somehow a 9/11 truther is automatically, just by virtue of being one, going to use the sole 911 issue as a basis by which to vote on. Or that somehow there are not also right wingers who have witnessed the joke that the 911 Commission Report was, and want a new investigation too.

Well sorry. I have more faith in them to be able to make those decisions than I do in the words of a person who would make such an insinuation.

In fact, you are really saying that same thing across all the issues, and with all people. You're saying they're going to base their votes on sole issues. Some might. I agree there. But to what degree is the real question.


"3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;"

This alienates himself from the gay/lesbian voters.


Actually CB was opposed to amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage, and feels it is a state issue. Making it such automatically gives people options.

But if homosexuals want all the states to have uniform laws on that issue, I think they are going to have a long uphill battle. They will need to fight that battle state by state, and rightly so, imo, because it is really not an issue the federal government needs to direct. Participate in, maybe, to the extent of coordinating interstate necessities in some cases.


"4. Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;"

And how does he plan to bypass the Supreme Court's ruling on Imminent Domain?


I don't believe he'll seek that. But he does oppose eminent domain abuse.


"5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;"

Just a question - does this mean that every amendment added to the constitution becomes null and void? If so, he's going to alienate the black and female voters.


lol, somehow I doubt that. What I am thinking they are meaning by that is every illegal action taken by rogue government against stricter interpretations of the Constitution will be prime targets on their list.

Like free-for-all wiretapping domestic calls. And observing Congress's right to declare war. And like not letting a President tell you he's going to consult further with the UN and then based on manufactured evidence devastate a country with death and destruction for M.I.C. interests masquerading as Freedom. Those kinds of things. Unconstitutional things.


"6. States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government is reserved for the state and local jurisdictions; "

That one I agree with. It's a mantra for conservatives - more power to the states!


Well great. Maybe that might help you find some validity to the argument on states rights for the gay issue above.


"7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances."

And there he goes alienating the evangelical vote - those who believe that the U.S. must be allied with Israel as the Bible states the enemies of Israel will fall in the last days.


Not necessarily at all. "Not entangled in foreign alliances" interpreted strictly, does not mean "Don't have any foreign alliances" but rather, "Don't get entangled in any." It means keep your nose out of other people's business, and don't police the world. It is a more conservative stance which would have kept us, our troops, and the untold number of civilians out of harms way, had those critical words been heeded correctly.


I can't see this guy standing on solid ground at all. It sounds like his policies have the best of intentions, but would get us all killed, or worse, enslaved.


Well to say that then is to say that standing on a stricter interpretation of the Constitution is to stand on fatal ground. And right there, we gotta part ways.

[edit on 24-9-2008 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Oh, I totally agree that the decision to ban/allow gay marriage should be an issue for the states and should not be a blanket policy imposed by federal law. But that sentence on #3 confuses me in how it's worded:

"3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;"

I take that to mean:

Husband = man
Wife = woman
as divinely instituted = as God intended

Do you see how I'm confused by the wording and how it could look to be insulting to the gay/lesbian community?

As far as the sole issue argument, I think that boils down more to a common event in human psychology - the fact that people are far more willing to remember someone for something negative than for something positive.

So let's say Joe Candidate meets almost all of my expectations as a candidate, yet I find out that he has displayed some behavior that I believe shows him to be mentally unbalanced, I'm going to remember him for that and it could very well be a deal-breaker in casting my vote for him.

There was an episode of 'Frasier' that illustrated this point very nicely - a man running for office who seemed very sound and very well rounded on the issues, and Frasier ended up endorsing the guy. However that was before the guy told him that he believed he was abducted by aliens and taken into a spaceship. That really unsettled Frasier, and he accidentally let it slip on his radio show. The story got out and it basically ruined the guy's political career.

Now I know that was just a story, but look at the light in which Dennis Kucinich is cast just for saying he SAW a UFO. I think that's what a lot of people remember him for, now for the things he's done in office.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   
www.constitutionparty.com...

Chuck Baldwin on the Bailout:


“Our entire financial system is based on an illusion, with a foundation built on quicksand. We spend more than we earn, we consume more than we produce, we borrow more than we save – and we cling to the fantasy that this can go on forever. The glue that holds this crumbling scheme together is a fiat currency called the Federal Reserve Note, created out of thin air by an international banking cartel called the Federal Reserve. Since a ‘note’ is a debt, this leaves us with an obvious problem

"That deer in the headlights look on the faces of Obama/Biden/McCain/Palin when discussing this crisis should tell Americans everything they need to know about these candidates. Not one of them is letting on they know what’s really happening, much less how to fix it!

"In the last three years, the Federal Reserve has created over $4 trillion in new money out of absolutely nothing. As these huge new piles of phony money flood the banking system, the phony money already in circulation becomes worth even less, which leads to higher prices. We accept the vague term ‘inflation’ to describe this giant rip off, as if some immutable force of nature is the cause of our shrinking paychecks. But, make no mistake –This meltdown will ultimately spell disaster for every American.

"The roller coaster ride began in earnest with the $60 billion Bear Stearns bailout, followed quickly by the $300 billion bailout of government’s big mortgage/banker buddies last month. September started with the massive Freddie/Fannie bailout that will end up costing taxpayers somewhere between $500 billion to $1 trillion. On Monday, the fed brokered the Bank of America buyout of Merrill Lynch. Then just the other night, the fed announced the $85 billion bailout of AIG insurance, an enormous global entity with over $1.1 trillion in assets.

"So far, the only solution being talked about is more of the same failed monetary policies that got us into this mess in the first place – more fake money, more debt, more usury. It is time to demand a return to sound money. None of the other “Big Box” candidates is even talking about the most obvious place to begin the road to recovery, which is a return to the constitutional principal of sound money."


The entire amount in default according to news sources is roughly $200 Billion. So where is the other $500 Billion going? Same place all the billions missing in Iraq and at the Pentagon are going I bet.

Why don't they distribute that amount to the homeowners, renegotiate principals and or interest, and give all these people in default another chance? In a very difficult scenario such as what we face currently, they ought to be looking at even forgiving partial amounts of the principal to homeowners, seeing as it was the Fed through its practices of printing unbacked money that caused this mess of extreme inflation to begin with.

But no, instead they want the taxpayer to not only pay for their bad investments, but rehire the same firms to manage (with no oversight) the new portfolios.


So they made insane amounts of money on the inflated market, and when the bubble broke, they expect the tax payers to foot the bill, and expect to get hired back to manage the new portfolio, making more money in that process too?

Man oh man. Yeah outrage.

[edit on 26-9-2008 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
I did not realize that Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin until I just happened onto Chucks website just before finding this thread. It is surprising that Ron didn't endorse Bob Barr. Now I have to consider voting for Chuck.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blueracer
It is surprising that Ron didn't endorse Bob Barr.


Well, if you have been following RP for any length of time and know about Barr's history with RP, and the fact that he couldn't even show up at the recent RP press conference, it is not as surprising to some of us. What was surprising is that he endorsed anyone at all.

From what I read, apparently Barr or his staff convinced him that the movement would be better served if RP endorsed one of the 3rd party candidates. So RP finally agreed, and turned right around and endorsed CB!



Now I have to consider voting for Chuck.


Yep, would be a great idea, and is exactly why I put up this thread. I hope it is helpful. Although I guess it wasn't "scholarly" enough, cause I never did get the 10,000 points which SO promised in the Call to Action thread.


I was thinking that the real analysis would occur as the discussion proceeded, and I thought sos37's and my posts were on the right track, with some good points on each side of the issues being made. But alas, very little attention on this thread. But hey, ye know the risks of posting.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Chuck Baldwin has my vote. He is for the American people and there rights.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Ok that all sounds great ....but is there enough votes for this guy to actually win ?I dont think so ...mainly because I said in another post ...the Two Party system seems to be the only places where people actually toss a vote to .
And with the voteing system the way it is ...even that cant be trusted .


I believe like another poster said ..even if more people voted for a third party than for either of the other two ...one of the two would win anyway ..due to the power behind the electoral votes ...and of course the one with the most money and clout wins anyway ...


Thanks OP >..I had no idea someone like this was running ...and I sure didnt know what he was all about ....maybe I will get into this even deeper next election and I will be looking forward to more info from someone like you who spent some time digging to keep us informed ..

Appreciate it very much ...



[edit on 3-11-2008 by Simplynoone]



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   
the bottom line with Chuck is this: he's the only one on the ballot willing to support an independent and transparent investigation into 911 -- the only one demanding an overhaul of the federal reserve system and the IRS -- he's also the only one with the guts to talk out against the New World Order (the term that daddy Bush used during his state of the union address, and no one batted an eye) --

..at this stage, everything else is pointless..

I've not heard or read anything from the Baldwin camp opposing gay rights; constitution party is all about civil liberties, and that includes everyone; it may be on their platform list, but I'm telling you, it's all about the constitution; Baldwin has also explained clearly that it would be foolish for a religious man like himself to be anti-separation-of-church-and-state and pro-theocracy; he doesn't want anyone telling him how to run his spiritual life, and he wouldn't impose upon anyone else; therefore, it would be my understanding that under his principles, denying anyone the ability to marry anyone else would be unconstitutional; besides, he could be pursuaded on certain issues..

what's really important right now is 911 and the Federal Reserve, because these 2 things can pull the house of cards down from it's base; nothing else can do it..

we've got to go with Baldwin !! I'm not a Christian, and I am definitely pro-choice, pro-gay-rights and women's-rights, etc. but I'm backing Baldwin..

the 2-party system has to be overthrown... I know he can't win this time around, but we've got to make a statement !!!

our country is going down the toilet; we've got to take it back..



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Chuck Baldwin's stance on homosexuals is absolutely unacceptable to someone who supposedly believes in Equality.

This was a response someone received from the Constitution Party when asking for their stance on homosexuals. Please keep in mind with the conservative 1% of the Populace equals 3,000,000 people. With the more realistic 10% we get 30,000,000 US Citizens.


Thank you for your interest in the Chuck Baldwin Campaign. You believe in many of the pro-freedom positions of our party which are necessary to save our constitutional republic.

In response to your question asking if Chuck Baldwin is anti-gay, I can speak for the Constitution Party as I am also a Born-Again Christian. Our party takes a stand against the sin of homosexuality - not the sinner. Thus our party platform prohibits legalized homosexual unions and partner benefits such as social security. All other rights would be protected as any other citizen.

Many Baptist and non-denominational churches have programs which counsel homosexuals and allow them to make 180 turns to become men and women of God. The chuch I attend, Southeast Christian Church (Southeastchristian.com), in Louisville, KY, is one which has such a program. About a year ago there was a testimonial sermon where former homosexuals gave testimonies of how they have been transformed. You would benefit from such a program at a church near you.

May the Lord Bless and Keep You,

Jim Hurd, 9th District Chairman
The Constitution Party of Indiana


Now let's compare this with

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - United States Declaration of Independence.

Here this is even better. This was written by Baldwin himself. Clearly he is anti-gay. Clearly he does not believe in Equality. He believes in the radical homosexual agenda.
www.newswithviews.com...



[edit on 3-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   
I gotta say, I like the Constitution Party (CP) compared to all other options out there. I like the views of Chuck Baldwin. I just don't think he has the experience to take on the office of President of the USA. For the office of President, where I like to see some brass tacks experience, foreign policy experience, military experience and are experience fiscally. I don't get that from Dr. Baldwin. For National and State level Senators and Congressmen, I will vote for CP candidates. I would like to see more CP candidates take Senate and Congressional positions, thus adding to their experience to make them better Presidential candidates in the future.

I think that voting is an offensive weapon of the people to control the government. This election for me is purely defensive. McCain is not 'my' guy, but due to the two party system, I have to put my vote where it has a greater chance of stopping Obama. However, with this there is still only a small chance he (McCain) can pull off a win.

I actually believe Obama will win, as I have said in numerous threads, because the PTB need/want him to win.

I disagree with a two party system. I disagree with parties all together. The fact is it is rare to find someone who agrees with every single aspect of a given party, let alone a vast number of people. Candidates should run on their beliefs, policies and experiences. Having parties only offers people the opportunity to not have to research a candidate but jump on a bandwagon. Is is good that parties only provide the opportunity to sign up lazy people? I don't think so.

[edit on 3-11-2008 by Wolf321]



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join