VoteCPNC | Indy Week

Member since Oct 9, 2008

Richmond County



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “No longer BFFs: Chuck Baldwin and Ron Paul

I'm sorry to hear that this will be your last comment on this article.

The post on the triangle group was asking for help to meet signature requirements, not a post about the failure of the signature drive for Chuck Baldwin. It's true that anyone can sign up and post to that site, but this message was posted on August 14th well before your article was written.

You made no mention of the abstract vote total which you overlooked in your research. Actually, you were probably fed bad information by the SBOE which seems to be a common practice. That's the same reason we missed our deadline for Baldwin's write in signatures.

To those looking on, I hope you will take a chance to research the CPNC and make a decision for yourself. These days there are more and more media outlets telling us what we should think rather than suggesting making your own choice. If you believe in principles and a moral government then you may be interested in the CPNC. If you have any questions for the CPNC they will be more than happy to answer them through their website.

Mr. Saldana, Thank you for your interest in the CPNC and for writing this article. Some of the details are inaccurate, but it gave people a venue for discussion and the seed has been planted. We hope in the future you will use your talent to promote a free election for all citizens and all parties in North Carolina.

Posted by VoteCPNC on 10/10/2008 at 11:07 PM

Re: “No longer BFFs: Chuck Baldwin and Ron Paul

No reply?

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by VoteCPNC on 10/10/2008 at 5:17 PM

Re: “No longer BFFs: Chuck Baldwin and Ron Paul

Matt said:

"Baldwin's name is conspicuously absent from the Meetup site of the Triangle Campaign for Liberty, the local chapter of Paul's national network of supporters."

"You're referring to an e-mail you wrote me earlier today, but since you're accusing me of publishing "misinformation" here, I feel compelled to respond here."


The link below is to a post about Chuck Baldwin and the write-in signature drive on the triangle campaign for liberty meetup group. I will agree that his name probably isn't mentioned more than this, but it isn't "conspicuously absent".

Matt Said:

"According to the Constitution Party's platform, Social Security is "a form of individual welfare not authorized by the Constitution." In other words, it must be eliminated."


What is inaccurate about that statement? Is Social security a constitutional program? I realize that citizens can invest for their retirement privately, but that doesn't opt them out of paying into social security. Social security has been tapped out and we are working to pay in to the system to keep it going. It is a never ending cycle that will eventually collapse when the work force doesn't meet retirement benefit demands.

Matt Said:

"WRONG the Constitution Party says this" The Constitution grants no authority to the federal government to administrate a Social Security system. The Constitution Party advocates phasing out the entire Social Security program, while continuing to meet the obligations already incurred under the system."


What exactly was wrong with his statement? It says clearly in the platform that the system would be phased out while meeting current obligations. Wouldn't that mean eliminating the funding for social security in order to phase it out?

Posted by VoteCPNC on 10/09/2008 at 10:29 PM

Re: “No longer BFFs: Chuck Baldwin and Ron Paul

In the above post Matt said, "You are correct that the rest of the ballot will not be destroyed, when voting for a non-qualified write-in candidate. However, your vote for a non-qualified write-in candidate, such as Baldwin, will not count toward his election, nor will it be recorded." Actually the votes will be recorded, but will not go towards the official vote tally. Instead they will be filed with the Secretary of State's division of publications as part of the abstract vote total. This information is available to the public on request. Seeing that these votes are recorded this information can be used in several different ways to help return the NC election system back to one that is Constitutional legal. Article I Sect. 10 of the NC Constitution says that all elections shall be free. Those that wrote this passage didn't mean there wouldn't be a door charge. Our current election system in North Carolina is not free and limits the choice North Carolinian's have by putting heavy restrictions on gaining ballot access. Chuck Baldwin would have been on the NC ballot if the SBOE would have given accurate information for the deadline when the petition drive was first started. I would like to propose a question to you Matt. Do you think that North Carolina should relax it's restrictions on ballot access and allow North Carolinian's to make their own choices? At one time there where several political parties in NC. Now there are three, but one may be removed after the election if they don't meet the vote total requirements.

Posted by VoteCPNC on 10/09/2008 at 7:59 PM

Extra Extra!

Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.

  • Weekly Newsletter (Wednesday) - The stories in this week's issue
  • Weekly Events Newsletter - Our picks for your weekend and beyond

Login to choose
your subscriptions!

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

© 2018 Indy Week • 320 E. Chapel Hill St., Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation