3rd Party Debates

Discuss principles, issues, news and candidates related to upcoming elections and voting.
joseph
captain of 100
Posts: 316
Location: Uintah Basin

3rd Party Debates

Post by joseph »

Anyone watch the 3rd party debates? Only Chuck Baldwin and Ralph Nader Showed. Baldwin presented himself well. Nader was Nader.

Bob Barr did not show up, again.

jeremy.ashton
captain of 50
Posts: 51

Re: 3rd Party Debates

Post by jeremy.ashton »

I watched the debate off and on. From what I saw, I thought Baldwin was pretty good on most issues and enjoyed the part where he discussed his relationship with the Latter-day Saints. However, he clearly is not Ron Paul.

Captain Moroni
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1260

Re: 3rd Party Debates

Post by Captain Moroni »

Barr is consistent in that he feels such debates are mere window dressing and provide false hopes to people. When the MSM is criticized for excluding candidates, they can point to this debate to "justify" their position.

Barr's position is to go where the audiences really are rather than mostly talking to the choir. He and I are opposed to Ron Paul's initial asking for people to vote for ANY 3rd party candidate NO matter where they stood on issues other than the four all agreed to including BTW Barr.

Soory to rain on some peoples parade. :shock:

User avatar
ldsff
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1924

Re: 3rd Party Debates

Post by ldsff »

C-SPAN:Third Party Debate Nader & Baldwin Pt1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8s04LHH6-I

C-SPAN:Third Party Debate Nader & Baldwin Pt2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBBOrQqkvKI

C-SPAN:Third Party Debate Nader & Baldwin Pt3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeHB8Pi5U8c

C-SPAN:Third Party Debate Nader & Baldwin Pt4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SHCPC5fYW8

C-SPAN:Third Party Debate Nader & Baldwin Pt5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHqT8loJFJ8

C-SPAN:Third Party Debate Nader & Baldwin Pt6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTP0P001sNI

C-SPAN:Third Party Debate Nader & Baldwin Pt7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pz7djASZIc

C-SPAN:Third Party Debate Nader & Baldwin Pt8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKW15GBSbho

C-SPAN:Third Party Debate Nader & Baldwin Pt9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f0ig-9kJ2o

Proud 2b Peculiar
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5560
Location: American Fork, Utah

Re: 3rd Party Debates

Post by Proud 2b Peculiar »

I listened to it online, and I truly appreciated what I heard. nader could not win me over, but Baldwin definitely still gets my vote. I wondered why Barr and Sylvia were not there.

I think that many people tuned in online and will yet see it, and I think that the latter two missed out on opportunity.

joseph
captain of 100
Posts: 316
Location: Uintah Basin

Re: 3rd Party Debates

Post by joseph »

I can not vote for Barr for one primary reason: he is running on a party's ticket that endorses gay marriage and abortion. I feel that his reasons for not attending the debate (as stated by Capt Moroni) are a bit disingenuous. I do believe that his metamorphosis from a card carrying Republican to a Constitutionalist is sincere. He needs to find a better way to voice his Constitutional beliefs. To me, running as a Libertarian sends mixed messages.

The only thing that the Libertarians have going for them is better "brand recognition". Libertarian principles are not Christian Conservative principles (IMHO).

Captain Moroni
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1260

Re: 3rd Party Debates

Post by Captain Moroni »

Fellow Rebel :D , Barr has clearly stated on his campaign website and everywhere he speaks that he is now opposed to a Federal Marriage amendment which he voted for when a Congresscritter but would help states to get Marriage amendments passed using the moral suasion of his office as President. He says the issue is a states rights one. This stand by Barr is making trouble for him in some circles of the LP, some even trying to get him pulled from the LP ticket. So Barr is couregous and supports moral issues but at the state level whereas Baldwin wishes to give m orilty over to the central government, That is a big error!!!

I don't think my explanation is strained to anyone who has actually run for office and knows his time is best used where many people will hear his issues. The web broadcast does NOT IMO meet that criteria. It was mostly heard by the choir. Now if you show me that the MSM gave it major coverage (C=Span has a very small audience), I will "eat my hat". Any takers? I will suplly the hat. :D

Now... a poll. How many feel centralizing a Marriage Amednement is a great idea even though it places even more power into the central govt';s hands. VS,,, encouarging Marriage amendments with ecah state's constituion?

User avatar
ldsff
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1924

Re: 3rd Party Debates

Post by ldsff »

Captain Moroni wrote: Now... a poll. How many feel centralizing a Marriage Amednement is a great idea even though it places even more power into the central govt';s hands. VS,,, encouarging Marriage amendments with ecah state's constituion?
I think doing what I am asked by my priesthood leaders is the best course for me. And so I voted on amending the state constitution. I wished men worshiped Christ.I wish government would not continue their destroying agency through more laws and regulations. Our government is a totalitarian government. This is a cursed land and will be until Christ comes again and men worship Him freely.

Captain Moroni
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1260

Re: 3rd Party Debates

Post by Captain Moroni »

Ldsff, good for you as it is up to the state to make such a decision NOT the federal government. FWIW, I voted for the NC Amendment defining marraige as between people of the opposite Sex but would vote against any ayyempt to amend the US Constitution.

joseph
captain of 100
Posts: 316
Location: Uintah Basin

Re: 3rd Party Debates

Post by joseph »

Marriage is a state's rights issue. A federal law on marriage would be a curse to this nation. It would give Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and Barney Frank power to oppress us with their corrupt standards.

Captain Moroni
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1260

Re: 3rd Party Debates

Post by Captain Moroni »

Fellow Rebel, than why are you supporting Baldwin and The CP who is FOR anational constitutional amendment? I'm confused my friend.

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: 3rd Party Debates

Post by lundbaek »

I do not like the idea of an amendment to the US Constitution defining marriage, as I consider it a states rights matter. However, the First Presidency asked, in a letter that was read in our ward at least, that members contact their congressional representatives and urge them to vote for an amendment to the US Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

To clarify, we were asked by the First Presidency to support an amendment to the Constitution that would define marriage as between one man and one woman.

It appears Chuck Baldwin is on the same page with the First Presidency on this one, and I have had to accept something I disagreed with in principle.

joseph
captain of 100
Posts: 316
Location: Uintah Basin

Re: 3rd Party Debates

Post by joseph »

Capt.

Oh joy! Again I find myself immersed in the dark waters of ignorance (but I am use to these murky waters as I find myself swimming at this water hole quite frequently :mrgreen: ). I did not know that Baldwin supported such an amendment. I was unaware that the GAs had ask for a national decree. You and Ludbaek are always honest in your arguments, so I will take this to be true.

Even though I believe that a wiser course is to allow the states to retain control, as the Constitution explicitly states, I will support the Prophet and the Apostles. And, I guess, even Chuck Baldwin.

As someone who is very keen to his Southern ancestral history, I have deep, deep emotions on the rights of local governments to be protected from an oppressive federal government. Unchecked federalism is destroying this nation.
I saw in States’ rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy…. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization, and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.-Lord Acton, in a letter to Robert E Lee right after the war

Captain Moroni
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1260

Re: 3rd Party Debates

Post by Captain Moroni »

Sorry I will NOT follow the GAs on this one: it is wrong and most important to do so is highly unconstitutional. I'm stunned that the GAs ask us to violate the INSPIRED Constitution. Joseph Smith must be turning over in his grave. I rarely go against counsel but I don't believe that anyone is infallible: only Jesus Christ.

I know I'm an apostate. :(

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: 3rd Party Debates

Post by lundbaek »

Right or wrong, my understanding of D&C 98:7 is that anything added to or stricken from the US Constitution after the 12th, or maybe the 10th Amendment, or subsequent to 6 August 1833, "cometh of evil." It seems to me that the subsequent amendments themselves either introduced an evil or were an attempt to prevent an evil practice. For example, it seems the 15th, 18th,& 24th Amendments were intended to put a stop to certain evils. Since the Constitution was written only for a moral people, and Americans haven't always done all that great when it comes to morality, these amendments, like the proposed amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman, were considered necessary to put right certain wrongs. I consider it unfortunate that the Lord apparently had to condone yet another amendment to our Constitution, which, BTW, like the 18th Amendment, could be repealed by yet another amendment.

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: 3rd Party Debates

Post by lundbaek »

Speaking of following the GAs on a controversial issue, there are mulitple instances of members ignoring or defying recommendations of the Church First Presidency. Just look at the record of LDSs in Congress , and consider how they have stayed in Congress.

User avatar
ldsff
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1924

Re: 3rd Party Debates

Post by ldsff »

I feel Heavenly Father understands we all have our opinions on a variety of matters, but this is not the point of this life. It is my understanding that we are here to prove to Him that we will follow His will in all we do. It is my understanding to follow our priesthood leaders is obeying the Lord’s will and that trumps all when it comes to proving myself to the Him. (Thank goodness for mercy because I do not measure up at times.)

Captain Moroni
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1260

Re: 3rd Party Debates

Post by Captain Moroni »

ldsff, IF such an order came from the GAs to turn in my guns, I would consider these GAs using rightious dominion whose result is loss of the Priesthood therefore they would be in apostacy. It's happened before in the Restored Church. Now if Jesus told me through the HG turn in my guns, I would do it. There are too many wolves in sheeps clothing. I know that the HG would NEVER mislead me or lie to me. Enough said on this matter. :!:

Captain Moroni
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1260

Re: 3rd Party Debates

Post by Captain Moroni »

Make that unrighteous dominion...

User avatar
Mark
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6929

Re: 3rd Party Debates

Post by Mark »

ldsff, IF such an order came from the GAs to turn in my guns, I would consider these GAs using (un)rightious dominion whose result is loss of the Priesthood therefore they would be in apostacy.

Boy Cap I would think long and hard about that if I were you. If the united voice of the prophets asked me to do something who is it that I am rejecting if I tell them to kiss off? Whether by My voice or the voice of my servants..

User avatar
ChelC
The Law
Posts: 5982
Location: Utah

Re: 3rd Party Debates

Post by ChelC »

I wonder how the course of history would have been changed had Abraham refused to bring Isaac to the alter because he knew better. Sometimes we need to realize that our wisdom may fail us, and that is where faith picks up the ball. If questions remain in your mind about the counsel of church leadership then you need to take that to the Lord, not publicly declare it as false.

Captain Moroni
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1260

Re: 3rd Party Debates

Post by Captain Moroni »

ChelC, read my post closely. I'm NOT claiming that the GAs are false??? Mark's criteria would have to occur before I would do it and then ONLY after 100% confirmation by the HG. Without guns, there is no hope to save our Constitution unless there was direct intervention by God. That intervention could occur but IMO the HG would let me know that was the reason for the gun turnin command.

User avatar
ChelC
The Law
Posts: 5982
Location: Utah

Re: 3rd Party Debates

Post by ChelC »

I was referring not to your conversation with Mark, but to this:
Sorry I will NOT follow the GAs on this one: it is wrong and most important to do so is highly unconstitutional. I'm stunned that the GAs ask us to violate the INSPIRED Constitution.

Captain Moroni
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1260

Re: 3rd Party Debates

Post by Captain Moroni »

ChelC, I beleive my answer to Mark also clarifies my strong words you quoted. IF not, let me know?

User avatar
ChelC
The Law
Posts: 5982
Location: Utah

Re: 3rd Party Debates

Post by ChelC »

It's possible I'm missing something, but no, I'm not seeing the clarification.

Post Reply