A plea to those voting 3rd party


PDA






MagKnightX
November 2, 2004, 09:59 AM
This is especially aimed at those in states that are in the balance, but it applies to all of you.

This November 2nd, ask yourself a question. Are you prepared to deal with john kerry as president? Are you prepared to have a socialist in office? Are you prepared to, at a moment's notice, either give up your guns, or lie to law enforcement, or fight in the streets? Are you willing to accept UN sovereignty over our country? Are you willing to accept the increase in taxes that comes with socialized medicine? Are you willing to accept someone who would open our borders? Are you willing to see a traitor sit in the Oval Office and defile our country and rape our constitution?

I realize that Bush has his problems. I know he supported the AWB. I know that he has done nothing to close our borders. I know that he is not very fiscally competent.

But I also know that this election is close. It is not in the bag. It is not guaranteed either way.

However, one thing that is guaranteed, is that this year, we will not have a Libertarian or Constitution president.

"One vote won't make a difference," you may say. But realize, thousands of others say that as well. Thousands of votes do make a difference.

Go ahead and vote third party congressional and local candidates. Lord knows we need more third party officials, and some of those seats could be won.

But for the sake of this country and its future, please vote Bush. I don't agree with him either, but I know that he is infinitely better than kerry. You know it too. We cannot afford to lose.

And remember, if you disagree with him, you may think that voting against him is punishing him, but it's really punishing this nation.

(Note: if this looks familiar, that is because it is a ctrl-c ctrl-v off my post on ARFCOM)

If you enjoyed reading about "A plea to those voting 3rd party" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jamz
November 2, 2004, 10:37 AM
I think this only applies to states in which the battles will be close, or matched. Then, you really should (in this man's humble opinion) chose the slightly lesser of two evils. If you are in a solidly red or blue state, then it really won't matter that much.

I'm in Massachusetts, and I'm trying to get everyone I know to vote 3rd party. Can you see Massachusetts, in this year above all years, being affected by this? I don't.

-James

StephenT
November 2, 2004, 10:51 AM
Don't trust those polls. Just play it safe and vote Bush, whether you're in swing state or not. Keep Kerry out of the presidency! Get off your butts and go vote! I've done my duty already.

CannibalCrowley
November 2, 2004, 11:26 AM
"One vote won't make a difference," you may say. But realize, thousands of others say that as well. Thousands of votes do make a difference.Even if I knew ahead of time that my vote would be the deciding one between Bush and Kerry, I'd still vote for Badnarik.But for the sake of this country and its future, please vote Bush. I don't agree with him either, but I know that he is infinitely better than kerry. You know it too. We cannot afford to lose.That's your opinion, personally I see them as being equally worse. They differ on which parts of the Constitution they want to destroy and what agencies they'll use to submit the public, but deep down they're different cuts from the same cloth.
And remember, if you disagree with him, you may think that voting against him is punishing him, but it's really punishing this nation. Either one of the major candidates is a punishment to the nation. If one disagrees with Bush so much, then what sense does it make to vote for him? You're just enforcing the idea that they can do whatever they want and you'll still vote for them.

rick_reno
November 2, 2004, 12:36 PM
I'm voting for Badnarik - he's the best choice I can make. Voting for either Bush or Kerry would require I take an air sickness bag into the booth with me, and I'm not going to do that. I voted for Bush last time, I'm not making that mistake twice.

cropcirclewalker
November 2, 2004, 12:48 PM
I will be voting for Badnarik. :p

One of the only candidates that will have nobody voting AGAINST him. That's worth something.

StephenT
November 2, 2004, 12:54 PM
Vote Kerry! After all, he went geese hunting last week in Ohio, so he must be a hunter, right? A vote for Badnarik is a vote for Kerry.

geekWithA.45
November 2, 2004, 01:16 PM
MagKnightX:

I think your appeal is well intentioned, and more than a few folks who've been paying attention have already decided that voting strategically is the right move.

Don't be put off by the ideologians who always swarm these posts, replete in their ethical purity.

In an Ideal world, I'd still be a big L Libertarian.

The world, however, is not ideal, it is real.

It is a dirty place, and you can be reasonably certain that they guys standing around without any mud on their hands have contrived to avoid contributing to making anything worthwhile happen.

corncob
November 2, 2004, 01:36 PM
Every four years an election occurs that is "the most important election of our generation." If you take the long view, whether any particular four-year period has a Democrat or a Republican in the White House doesn't really matter. We still end up with a 150-year period of two-party system. No good news there--vote Libertarian.

rick_reno
November 2, 2004, 01:49 PM
A vote for Badnarik is a vote for Kerry.

This reasoning is ridiculous. A vote for x is a vote for x - nothing more, nothing less. I just got back from voting for Badnarik, I managed to keep my breakfast down.

RKCheung
November 2, 2004, 01:51 PM
Already voted straight Lib ticket.

Standing Wolf
November 2, 2004, 01:57 PM
I voted for Badnarik this morning.

I live in Colorado, which isn't likely to hand its electoral votes to that Kerry creature. If I lived in a state that stood a chance of turning out for that shameless leftist extreme leftist, I proably would have held my nose and voted for Bush.

He did the wrong thing when he signed the so-called "campaign finance reform" law. He did the wrong thing by advocating amnesty for illegal aliens. He did the wrong thing by sending thousands upon thousands of American young people to fight yet another land war in Asia instead of winning the war against Islamic terrorist savagry the same way we defeated the Japanese in August, 1945. He did the wrong thing by failing to defend our nation's borders. He did the wrong thing by stating his willingness to sign a so-called "assault weapons ban" that reestablishes the principle that some guns look too military for commoners to be trusted with.

Badnarik isn't my idea of an ideal candidate, either, to be sure, but he at least has principles.

I predict Bush will win by at least five points, which won't, however, prevent that Kerry creature from unleashing his assault lawyers to try to muck up the election. I predict the Republican party will pick up additional seats in both houses of Congress, and will continue to roll over and play dead whenever representatives of the Democratic (sic) party threaten to express their displeasure. I predict we'll continue to sacrifice precious American lives on the ground in Iraq instead of winning World War III.

Sindawe
November 2, 2004, 02:04 PM
As I said else where, voted straignt Libertarian 'cept for one where it was R or D, went with the R.

Could not vote for George, as I have to look at myself in mirror each mornining. No slam on those who did vote for Bush, Kerry, or any of the three :what: outright Socialists on the ticket. Vote your beliefs.

ProGlock
November 2, 2004, 02:08 PM
I voted for Badnarik last week during early voting and was proud to do it. I also voted for other libertarians running for various state offices wherever they appeared on my ballot.

Silent Bob
November 2, 2004, 02:20 PM
Kerry appreciates and wishes to thank the Badnarik voters in the house.

misANTHrope
November 2, 2004, 02:55 PM
"One vote won't make a difference," you may say. But realize, thousands of others say that as well. Thousands of votes do make a difference.

Which is exactly why one should vote their conscience. The primary reason the there are no viable third-party candidates is because of opinions like yours. "A Libertarian will not be elected!" Logically, the reason for this is that not enough citizens will vote for the Lib. So, the reasoning is to convince people not to vote Lib because they won't win. It's a nasty sort of circular logic.

If it's any consolation, I was really torn between voting for Badnarik or Bush.

mtnbkr
November 2, 2004, 02:57 PM
I agree completely with Standing Wolf on this one.

Chris

Third_Rail
November 2, 2004, 02:58 PM
jamz, you and I are in the same boat. I've been fairly good so far at convincing people to vote third party, and it seems that "my generation" if you will is more open to voting like that.


Hopefull within 20 years we'll see some real changes in attitude.

wasrjoe
November 2, 2004, 02:59 PM
Damnit, just let everyone vote for who they want to vote for. We're all informed. We're all on the same side. Quit guilt-tripping each other. Meh.

Augustwest
November 2, 2004, 03:06 PM
For all those who are spouting the "a vote for Badnarik is a vote for Kerry" nonsense :

There's no way in blue blazes I could have brought myself to vote for Bush. So if I hadn't had a choice to vote for Badnarik, I would not have voted at all.

So no, it's not a vote for Kerry. It's a vote for Badnarik. For liberty. For my being able to sleep at night knowing that I didn't help foist another four years of statism and diminishing freedoms upon my countrymen.

stevelyn
November 2, 2004, 03:09 PM
Voting Badnarik here. Alaska's 3 electoral votes are going to Bush. Those in other non-contested states should consider third party. Here's why, if a third party candidate can get 5% of the popular vote then their party qualifies for federal campaign funds during the next election and would probably be included in the debates. Something to think about.
And that little box on your income tax return........ I've been checking NO for the last three years. I grew tired of partially financing the Two-Peas-in-a Pod No Choice Party.
I am however also voting for our current Republican congressional delegation.

boofus
November 2, 2004, 03:21 PM
I voted Libertarian... on all the local races. W and Tom Delay got the other votes. Even the co-founder of the Libertarian party endorses Bush, because the alternative is so bad. Plus Delay and W did let the AWB go away. They do me a solid and I will return the favor.

If the Libertarian movement is going to grow I think it needs to happen at the local level first. No 3rd party is going to take DC by storm overnight.

Igloodude
November 2, 2004, 03:23 PM
If Bush had been remotely interested in getting the libertarian vote he should have adjusted his policies accordingly in the last four years. Don't blame me for voting according to my political principles, blame Bush for failing to push more libertarian policies if he wants to get the libertarian vote.

Gusgus
November 2, 2004, 03:24 PM
Mag, this Libertarian, and his entire family voted Bush this morning. I can live with four more years of Bush, but I could not handle four or more years of Kerry.

I was gung hoe for Badnarik in the early going, but the more I saw of the man, and heard him speak, the more I realized that he was a babbling idiot. I proudly voted for Browne and many other Libertarians in the past, but I'm not drinking Koolaid and pulling the party lever, when the man we have running is a nut case. How the heck we ever nominated Badnarik is beyond me.

Fastlane
November 2, 2004, 03:52 PM
Ohio is a swing state, voted for Bush he is not my idea pick for president but he is far superior to Kerry in regards to the 2A.

BeLikeTrey
November 2, 2004, 04:13 PM
Finally someone agrees with me that the party must grow from the bottom up. There is a small but consolidated effort to get libertarians and constitutionalists into local offices which I think is THE way to go. Once they are more mainstream (by this I mean platform well known and defined) then these "ethical" votes will count. For the really important votes stick with the two party system to protect out rights for now. One day if we act like good strategists these third parties will have a greater chance of a nationwide election. get them in local offices to prove the party's platform then move up through the offices. It's the way the system works.
my .02$

BeLikeTrey
November 2, 2004, 04:14 PM
sorry double tap deleted post see above....:D

halvey
November 2, 2004, 04:17 PM
If I lived in a state that stood a chance of turning out for that shameless leftist extreme leftist, I proably would have held my nose and voted for Bush. Good man!!

If I wanted to throw my vote away, I'd vote the Constitution party over those goofy Libertarians anyway.

cropcirclewalker
November 2, 2004, 04:25 PM
Voted for Badnarik here.

Youse guys sucked into the 2 party thing don't need to worry though. I hear MO is going Bush.

O'course if I couldn't have voted for principle I would probably have written Ozzie Osbourne like a friend of mine always does.

My friend is not a libertarian but he gets the picture.

Kaylee
November 2, 2004, 04:27 PM
When I was at the polls this morning, I'll have to admit -- the Democrat get-out-the-vote drive has been VERY strong, and looking around and sizing up folks best I could in line was more effective than I expected. :uhoh:

Folks, in a normal year I'd have pushed the button for Badnarik with the rest of y'all. Today.. I couldn't, not in good conscience. :(


-K

halvey
November 2, 2004, 04:31 PM
Look, Kerry or Bush will be our next president. Not Nader, Badnarik or whoever else.

Kerry wins and say hello to a permanant AWB, restrictions on barrel lenghts and other "Canadian style" gun controls. He'll dust off Clinton's old playbook for this one.

Notice how passionately Kerry talked about the AWB in the last debate? He wants it back bad.

Sure GWB said he'd sign a AWB, but smartly left the house to kill it, making a non-issue in the election. Now all we had to argue to people is if Kerry is a real hunter or not, not about some silly ban like we had to with Gore.

So go ahead, vote 3rd party, and solve absoutely nothing.

CannibalCrowley
November 2, 2004, 04:48 PM
halvey Sorry, I don't want the ****** bag or the turd sandwich (gotta love South Park). Given the choice between the two only, I wouldn't vote.

StephenT
November 2, 2004, 05:19 PM
Annoy Michael Moore. Vote Bush!

corncob
November 2, 2004, 05:31 PM
It's funny how so many people who would love to see a third party become a viable option so they could vote for them in national elections would prefer it if it were brought about by not voting for third party candidates in national elections.

R.H. Lee
November 2, 2004, 05:34 PM
That would be true, corncob, if there were a 3rd party worth voting for. The LP is so far out with it's immigration and drug policies alone as not to be considered seriously. Give me a decent 3rd party option and I'll vote 3rd party.

Lobotomy Boy
November 2, 2004, 05:37 PM
I've already voted, and how I voted is my business, but I do know that a third party candidate can surprise people. I live in Minnesota and have seen first hand that a third party can win a major election. I agree it won't be this time, but we have to start somewhere.

I intend to get involved with the Minnesota Libertarian Party before the next election cycle. I don't have a lot of money to donate, but I can donate some elbow grease.

cropcirclewalker
November 2, 2004, 05:38 PM
Before a decent third party, what we REALLY need is a

SECOND party.

corncob
November 2, 2004, 05:39 PM
Sounds like you might like the Constitution Party: you get to spend your money on what you want, but The Man still gets to tell you how to have a good time. Oh yeah, and keep out the Mexicans. They taking our jobs!!

R.H. Lee
November 2, 2004, 05:54 PM
No, I don't think the Mexicans are "taking our jobs". I do think they are changing our language and culture and draining our private and public resources. Neither party will stop illegal immigration, though. The Repubs need illegals to work in their factories and fields, and the Dems need them for votes. Everything is in at least two, usually more languages, and our "public officials" bend over and grab their ankles for illegals while handing them our money.

I want a Nationalist Party. Restore America's borders, language, culture and heritage. America is for Americans, not mulitculturally diverse parasites. Theodore Roosevelt said: There is no place for the hyphen in our citizenship... We are a nation, not a hodge-podge of foreign nationalities. We are a people, and not a polyglot boarding house.

Standing Wolf
November 2, 2004, 06:07 PM
Before a decent third party, what we REALLY need is a
SECOND party.

Well said!

I believe we need a minimum of five or six fiercely competitive political parties. We've got more than three automobile manufacturers to choose from, don't we?

RKCheung
November 2, 2004, 06:16 PM
I want a Nationalist Party. Restore America's borders, language, culture and heritage. America is for Americans, not mulitculturally diverse parasites.

Better kick everyone out except for the Native Americans then. Or you could start learning how to speak Navajo.

corncob
November 2, 2004, 06:21 PM
Wow, Riley, I was just kidding. The Libertarian Party can espouse open borders because they espouse the total distruction of the welfare state. As long as they are coming here to work, we need them. The problem is with the current scope of the government handouts in this country, not with the free market.

As far as America being for "Americans", you might ask yourself what an "American" looks and talks like.

Hint: not white, speaks a language not also heard in any European country.


Psssst. We're all immigrants.

R.H. Lee
November 2, 2004, 06:25 PM
Better kick everyone out except for the Native Americans then. Or you could start learning how to speak Navajo. I feel your pain. Those evil northern europeons came here and stole a great civilization. Thank you for reinforcing my point.

R.H. Lee
November 2, 2004, 06:27 PM
Psssst. We're all immigrants.
Psssst. My ancestors came here legally. They became Americans, learned the language, and fought in wars for this country. They did not demand handouts. See the difference? Apparently not.

White Horseradish
November 2, 2004, 06:28 PM
I want a Nationalist Party. Restore America's borders, language, culture and heritage. America is for Americans, not mulitculturally diverse parasites. Theodore Roosevelt said:

Hey, IIRC, we got at least two Natives here somewhere. Mr. Ojibweindian, I believe that's your cue. RileyMc wants out.

mountainclmbr
November 2, 2004, 06:28 PM
I am a Libertarian with some Native American ancestry who voted for Bush! Kerry is too scairy. Takes your property and doesn't even give you beads!

rock jock
November 2, 2004, 06:43 PM
People who voted for Perot in '92 gave us eight years of Clinton. Fortunately, Badnarik is enough of a nut-job that he won't garner even nod. The LP is actually very lucky more attention was not given to Badnarik; it saved them from losing even more votes than they will receive as it is.

RKCheung
November 2, 2004, 06:46 PM
Psssst. My ancestors came here legally. They became Americans, learned the language, and fought in wars for this country. They did not demand handouts. See the difference? Apparently not

They learned Navajo? Or Chickasaw? Yakima?

R.H. Lee
November 2, 2004, 06:48 PM
They learned Navajo? Or Chickasaw? Yakima? No. There was a war. The cowboys won and the indians lost. The cowboys spoke English. Get over it.

cropcirclewalker
November 2, 2004, 06:53 PM
Hi, ho,

My wife is 1/8 Cherokee so that means I qualify as an American by marriage.

I would be reluctant to call it a war between cowboys and Indians. More like

ethnic cleansing

:mad:

Sometimes the truth hurts, Mr. Riley

RKCheung
November 2, 2004, 07:16 PM
I want a Nationalist Party. Restore America's borders, language, culture and heritage. America is for Americans, not mulitculturally diverse parasites.

No. There was a war. The cowboys won and the indians lost. The cowboys spoke English. Get over it.

So, I guess in your analogy, the cowboys would be the parasites?

R.H. Lee
November 2, 2004, 07:39 PM
In any war, the spoils go to the victor. Cultures change, languages change. We are in the cultural and economic phase of a war right now. John Kerry represents (or should represent) the face of those who would replace what has been the American culture for the last 200 years. His contituency is comprised of socialists, globalists, elitists who are followed and supported by teeming throngs of parasites looking for free goodies. I'll quote Theodore Roosevelt again:
The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, the love of soft living and the get rich quick theory of life.
and again:
Quack remedies of the universal cure-all type are generally as noxious to the body politic as to the body corporal.
and again:
Nothing in the world is worth having or worth doing unless it means effort, pain, difficulty... I have never in my life envied a human being who led an easy life. I have envied a great many people who led diffcult lives and led them well.
Now, if you deny that a distinct American culture exists, one that has provided the greatest prosperity and freedom in the history of the world, not only to its own people, but to many other nations as well, I think you are far out of touch with reality. In that, you are not alone. You have many other victims of revisionist history with whom to commiserate.

RKCheung
November 2, 2004, 07:47 PM
My country values people of all cultures and would not advocate a singular "language, culture and heritage" as you do.

My country values individual freedom to do as we please, associate with who we want, speak how we want to speak, and practice the culture, religion, or lack thereof we wish.

The country you want would be ruled as an authoritarian tyranny. This country was founded by people who desired escape from the same type of idealogy you advocate.

R.H. Lee
November 2, 2004, 07:58 PM
Relax. Your 'authoritarian tyranny' is on its way-just as soon as the multiculturalists have imposed enough 'diversity' to destroy the host organism. The squalid non-producing masses will then be ripe for bondage.

hnm201
November 2, 2004, 08:04 PM
I voted for Badnarik this morning and I am proud to say it. John Kerry can thank me all he wants to you but the credit goes to George Bush. He gave me plenty of reasons to NOT vote for him.

Gordon Fink
November 2, 2004, 08:07 PM
Finally someone agrees with me that the party must grow from the bottom up. There is a small but consolidated effort to get libertarians and constitutionalists into local offices which I think is THE way to go.

I think we all agree here, but this thread is discussing the Presidential election.

Now, if you want to talk about why the Libertarian Party hasn’t put up a candidate for the 56th California Assembly District, we can do that elsewhere. It concerns me too.

~G. Fink

RKCheung
November 2, 2004, 08:14 PM
Relax. Your 'authoritarian tyranny' is on its way-just as soon as the multiculturalists have imposed enough 'diversity' to destroy the host organism. The squalid non-producing masses will then be ripe for bondage.

So, you have a problem with others seemingly imposing this evil "diversity" on you, yet you have no problem at all with imposing an imaginary, singular culture on others?

How is that freedom?

psyopspec
November 2, 2004, 08:24 PM
With all due respect, I have principles that I value more than any of the firearms in my collection, and despite your sheepish call, I cannot simply abondon those principles and bed with the rest of the flock.

Kaylee
November 2, 2004, 08:44 PM
keep it nice, folks. :)

If you enjoyed reading about "A plea to those voting 3rd party" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!