How to convince a Christian to vote 3rd party?

[KenH]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I suspect ballot access laws are designed to reserve the process to serious electable candidates.

So do you join your Demopublican brethren and support restricting ballot access? Do you want only Demopublicans on the ballot?

You badmouth second party candidates as not being serious but now you sound like you don't want them to have a fair chance at getting on the ballot and that you want them to spend a lot of money to even get on the ballot while all a Demopublican has to do is show up.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Actually,

Ken,

If you will read that article in the DemGaz, you will find that one of those Republicans is supporting the CP's fight on this issue. I also will support the CP on this. Let's be careful with the generalizations here.

BTW, where can I sign the petition?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
BTW, where can I sign the petition?

Try reaching the Arkansas State chairman, Mark Moore, at blackhawk7@centurytel.net .

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Thanks Ken,

I just e-mailed him.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
If you want to truly effect long term change, you don't start at the top at the national level. You start by electing people at the grassroots state level and by building support within the states. If the Constitution Party would do that, I would support them and do everything I could to help them become a viable national third party. It might take patience and a little bit of frustration and time, but in the long run, it would be worth it.

Joseph Botwinick

I think this is a political strategy that would bring more success to the CP. I wonder if there are any other Bush supporters besides myself who also support such a strategy. While I will vote for Bush in the national election, I will vote for CP candidates at the local level who share my beliefs and try to help build the party at the local state level so that it will build more support over time at the national level and become a viable 3rd party that we could vote for without helping to elect a slimeball like Kerry. It would seem to me that if we really want to send a message to Washington, it will be done through the local elections this year and on untill we build the party into a national, viable party that is electable.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Gina B]

I wonder what everyone who thinks Kerry would be so horrible is so afraid of when it comes to the abortion issue.
What is he going to change about abortion?
Nothing that counts. The number of abortions haven't gone down under Bush, nothing has been done to stop abortion, so what will change if Kerry comes in? Perhaps late terms will be aborted more quickly than they're allowed to be under the current laws, is that a loss or a gain for pro-lifers?
Gina

 

[dianetavegia]

I wonder what everyone who thinks Peroutka would be so wonderful is so ecstatic about when it comes to the abortion issue. What is he going to change about abortion? Nothing that counts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Unless we change the Supreme Court and elect pro-life Congressmen, Senators and local officials, nothing will change enough to stop all abortions.

Let's face it, the Supreme Court rules our land and the liberals have done their best to block conservative appointments to the bench. The liberals on the court are the ones who supported Roe v Wade and neither Bushs, as Presidents, had anything to do with that! NO PRESIDENT can recind anything the Supreme Court decides and you will never get anti abortion legislation through a Congress permeated with pro abort and pro choice believers.

If you don't understand how our government works, you'll never understand how Roe v Wade came to pass.

This is NOT a Presidental issue! It's a Supreme Court issue. Do you not remember all the fuss the liberals made over the nominations of Bork and Thomas?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by dianetavegia:
This is NOT a Presidental issue! It's a Supreme Court issue.

It doesn't have to be.

From Article III, Section 2 of the federal constitution:

In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Republicans control the House.

The Republicans control the Senate.

The Republicans control the White House.

The Republicans stand guilty of not even trying to use the provisions of the federal constitution at their disposal to stop abortion by removing it from the jurisdiction of the federal courts. When are you people going to start holding the Republicans accountable?

Just how much power do you think the Republicans need to be held accountable? They control all three branches of government as 7 of the 9 federal Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans. There's nothing left for them to control to be held accountable. Buck it up, conservatives, buck it up!

 

[KenH]

Below is an excerpt from the Constitution Party's platform. If you Bush supporters are serious about you belief that the Republican Party is the vehicle to stop abortion, why don't ya'll try to get this language inserted into the Republican Party platform this year and get President Bush to include this language in his acceptance speech at the convention in New York City? Will you try? Will you?

The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God’s image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born.

To that end, the Constitution of the United States was ordained and established for "ourselves and our posterity." Under no circumstances may the federal government fund or otherwise support any state or local government or any organization or entity, foreign or domestic, which advocates, encourages or participates in the practice of abortion...

In addition, Article IV of the Constitution guarantees to each state a republican form of government. In a republic, the taking of innocent life, including the life of the pre-born, may not be declared lawful by any institution of state or local government — legislative, judicial or executive. The right to life should not be made dependent upon a vote of a majority of any legislative body.

Moreover, this right should never depend upon a majority of justices on any court, including the United States Supreme Court. Therefore, although a Supreme Court opinion is binding on the parties to the controversy as to the particulars of the case, it is not a political rule for the nation. Roe v Wade is illegitimate, contrary to the law of the nation’s Charter and Constitution. It must be resisted by all civil government officials, federal, state, and local, and by all branches of the government — legislative, executive, and judicial.

 

[Hyperspace]

CP

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

To the original question of the thread, I think much of it comes down to walking by faith, noth by sight.

Noah built the ark when it was "obviously" a foolhardy effort.

Marching around the walls and blowing trumpets to bring them down? Yeah right!

A young boy going to battle against a giant feared by the strongest soldiers? He didn't hava a chance.

Too bad we have pastors who preach these things but have not the faith to practice what they preach. Shame on them.

 

[JGrubbs]

Originally posted by NetPublicist:
You can find out more and follow the ballot access battle online at http://www.ballot-access.org/

Here is an article I found online that talks about how hard it is to get on the ballot in the state of Texas:

Libertarians presented about 75,000 signatures Monday to the Secretary of State's office in Austin. Election officials must validate 45,540 signatures for the Libertarians to make the November ballot. The signatures must be from registered voters who did not vote in this year's Democratic or Republican primaries.

Benedict of the Libertarian Party said the party could not have gotten its signatures this year without spending $150,000 to hire professionals to help with the petition drive. That included $45,000 from the national party, he said.

Benedict said petition collectors were told they could not gather signatures at many public places, such as libraries or college campuses

SOURCE

 

[KenH]

The Demopublicans have rigged it in some States where it costs a great deal of money to get on the ballot.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I suspect ballot access laws are designed to reserve the process to serious electable candidates.

So do you join your Demopublican brethren and support restricting ballot access? </font>[/QUOTE]First, I don't have any "demopublican" brethren. I don't belong to any party, much less a non-existent one.

Do you want only Demopublicans on the ballot?

I don't really care. Peroutka's problem is not getting ont eh ballot. It is getting votes. He can be on the ballot in every state and it won't help because you will have to get 40million+ votes to be president. He will not even get a million, most likely.

You badmouth second party candidates as not being serious but now you sound like you don't want them to have a fair chance at getting on the ballot and that you want them to spend a lot of money to even get on the ballot while all a Demopublican has to do is show up.

I haven't badmouthed anyone. I said he wasn't a serious candidate, because he is not well known enough to be serious candidate. I don't care whether or not anyone is on the ballot, really. But simply logistics limits the number of people who can be on a national ballot. Remember the CA recall ballot with some 200 people on it (as I recall though I dont' remember the exact number). It was a joke. Out of all those people, there were less than 1/2 dozen who were serious candidates. It makes common sense to have a standard to be on the ballot.

But you gotta get this point: Peroutka's (and every other third party candidate) is not suffering from a lack of ballot access. They are suffering from a lack of getting their name out to enough people who agree with them to make them a serious candidate. If Peroutka needs my signature to get on the Michigan ballot I will gladly sign.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by Pennsylvania Jim:
To the original question of the thread, I think much of it comes down to walking by faith, noth by sight.

Noah built the ark when it was "obviously" a foolhardy effort.

Marching around the walls and blowing trumpets to bring them down? Yeah right!

A young boy going to battle against a giant feared by the strongest soldiers? He didn't hava a chance.

Too bad we have pastors who preach these things but have not the faith to practice what they preach. Shame on them.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Peroutka's (and every other third party candidate) is not suffering from a lack of ballot access. They are suffering from a lack of getting their name out to enough people who agree with them to make them a serious candidate.

You cannot honestly deny that the money spent to obtain ballot access, a burden that the Demopublicans do not have, is money taken away from the effort of "getting their name out".

 

[Hardsheller]

Remember Perot?

He had name recognition
He had big Money
He had a viable candidacy
He got 19% of the Popular vote.
He Lost.

Or more correctly said, he insured the defeat of George Bush I. and gave the election to Bill Clinton.

Now look at where the Reform Party is today. NOWHERESVILLE......They recently have endorsed Ralph Nader!!

Peroutka and the CP will not even come close to achieving what Ross Perot and the Reform Party of 1992 achieved.

No Thanks, I will pass on Peroutka.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

The Reform Party was not built on any cohesive philosophy. They pretty much just said "the other parties are bad" and then proposed solutions that did not differ too greatly overall from the DemoPublicans. Not so with the CP.

You can "go with the winner" if you like, I'll stand by what I believe.

 

[Hardsheller]

Originally posted by Pennsylvania Jim:
The Reform Party was not built on any cohesive philosophy. They pretty much just said "the other parties are bad" and then proposed solutions that did not differ too greatly overall from the DemoPublicans. Not so with the CP.

You can "go with the winner" if you like, I'll stand by what I believe.

Which is - That John Kerry will be the Next President of the USA.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

No. Which is...

That we should govern by the constitution, and follow godly principles in our lives, churches, society, and government to the best of our imperfect ability.