Dang...I Think We Need THIS Guy! (Badnarik)

Status
Not open for further replies.
We keep doin' what we done, we'll keep gettin' what we got.

Too many voters that don't get to pay for what they elect.

We need to go back to the days where you hadda be a property owner before you could vote.

.gov employees, welfare recipiants don't deserve the vote.

Let the people who pay the bills vote on the pay raises.

I'm so fed up with the cowardice of the electorate that next time, instead of Libertarian, I may just vote for Hillary. Help to hurry up the collapse.......or the revolution.
 
:O

Don't....SAY that! Just...sit back, take a breath, relax...somebody give this man a drink, stat!!
 
Daniel T said:
And yet the party continues to grow and gain more votes, year after year,
Click to expand...

Well of course they gain more votes every year, every year the electorate grows larger. But what happens when we look at the percentage share of votes the Libertarian Party receives?

The Libertarian's first Presidential election is in 1972. They can only get on the ballot in two states and as a result receive only 3,672 votes out of 77 million. However it still represents the highpoint of their progress as a political party as they receive the first and only electoral vote they will ever get from a Nixon Delegate named Roger MacBride.

1976: 0.21% of 81 million votes
1980: 1.1% of 86 million votes
1984: 0.3% of 92 million votes
1988: 0.5% of 91 million votes
1992: 0.28% of 104 million votes
1996: 0.5% of 96 million votes
2000: 0.36% of 111 million votes
2004: 0.31% of 122 million votes

Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/U.S._presidential_election,_2004/Election_results

So, while the Libertarian party is growing, it certainly can't afford to continue "growing" like that if it ever wants to hold power.

despite the panicked screams from Republicans that somehow feel the LP is "leaching" votes from them.
Click to expand...

Question: What do the following Libertarian candidates have in common? The 1988 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, the California LP Chairman and co-founder of Canadian LP party, the 2002 LP candidate for Congressman from MA, the 1997 LP Gubernatorial candidate for NJ, the former LP National Secretary and former LP Treasurer?

Answer: They are all part of the Republican Party now.

Combined with the shrinking votes in the LP, I would be surprised if there were any Republicans who were even making a serious claim that the LP was cutting into their traditional voters, let alone that there were any who were "panicked" about it.

I would like to see libertarian ideas advanced; but the current LP, and in particular Badarnik, are not the people who are going to do it - they are the same people who have been failing to do it for years now. Reason magazine has done more to promote libertarian ideas than the LP has.
 
Bart,

But what happens when we look at the percentage share of votes the Libertarian Party receives?
Click to expand...

Well, I can't argue with that. Growth in total numbers is still growth, even if the per capita doesn't grow. The LP would not get as much funding from running a candidate for local dog-catcher as they do from a Presidential bid.

Answer: They are all part of the Republican Party now.
Click to expand...

True, but I would like to point out that Ron Paul was a Republican before he was a Libertarian before he was a Republican again. :)

Combined with the shrinking votes in the LP, I would be surprised if there were any Republicans who were even making a serious claim that the LP was cutting into their traditional voters, let alone that there were any who were "panicked" about it.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't know it from some of the posters on this board.
 
Hmmm . . . I have my reservations about the LP as I stated earlier, specifically with regard to border security . . . but what if the two major parties give us, say, Giuliani (or McCain) and Hillary as our choices? :what:

With this nightmare scenario, the LP, even with their faults, may not look so bad . . .
 
Lupinus said:
Two- The president has little power when it comes to really making changes. Getting senators in there effects much more ability to pass and introduce law that actually changes something. A libertarian president and a house and senate with no libertarians in it will effect very little change other then scaring the two major parties.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree. The President can disband the ATF, instruct the FBI/CIA not to go after waepons-related cases, and recall all of those stupid executive orders that are anathema to freedom. Heck, he caneven start veoting those pesky gunlaws that we hate so very very much...

He's the #1 cop, yall!
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
One who is a little more clear that the powers of the executive office do not include being able to force members of Congress to attend classes on "his version of the Constitution" would be a good start.

I'm always a little leery when someone who seems to have a tenuous grasp on the charter document of our government suggests that all government officials will be held to his understanding of that document (complete with a taxes and paper money are unconstitutional interpretation).

Primarily, I would like an executive who embarks on a modest program to:
A) Make people more responsible for their own individual well-being
B) Reduce government's ability to both control and bribe people with tax money

At this point, using a Badarnik style coup by executive action to change government would just result in that executive being successfully impeached by Congress. In addition, it would be every bit as cruel to half the citizens of the United States as taking domesticated animals and turning them loose in the wild to fend for themselves. If you are going to spend several generations breeding personal responsibility out of people, feeding them to Darwin in a massive political change doesn't seem any different from Mao's "Great Leap Forward."
Click to expand...


That was my take on him when I met him as well. Between that, and his idea that he wanted to keep prisoners strapped to a bed for a set time so their muscles would atrophy.
 
"paper money [is] unconstitutional interpretation" -Badnarik means that a private cartel of banks called Federal Reserve does NOT have the power to print paper money as fast as the printing presses can work.
Link: The Gold Standard Gets No Respect http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/mayer1.html

Catch-22: LP doesn't have much money, so they cannot afford to pay for prime-time TV advertisements on MSM, the ones that cost half a million $ for 10 seconds. 200 million sheeple don't even know LP exists, so LP gets few votes, doesn't win any elections. Then people bitch that LP doesn't stand a chance, is a waste of votes, so, they don't contribute money to the party, so, we're back to the lack of money starting point. IF -big IF- everyone who bitches about lack of choice, about how LP is not a serious choice, if everybody dissatisfied with Demopublicans and Republicrats will join and contribute money and effort to the LP, next decade libertarians will sweep every election. Sitting on one's complacent behind is not a solution.
 
Last edited:
IF -big IF- everyone who bitches about lack of choice, about how LP is not a serious choice, if everybody dissatisfied with Demopublicans and Republicrats will join and contribute money and effort to the LP, next decade libertarians will sweep every election. Sitting on one's complacent behind is not a solution
Click to expand...

In 2000, about 34% of gun owners voted for a guy who was promising to license them and register their guns in addition to other restrictions.

In 2004, about 33% voted for a guy who had JUST voted to ban almost all hunting ammo, ban almost all self-loading firearms, voted to kill CMP, and whose mentor was Ted Kennedy.

So even on a single issue within a smaller subset of the electorate, it is pretty much impossible to get voters with similar interests to vote as a bloc. Yet here you suggest that all we need to do to solve LPs intractable problem is unite a bunch of people of even more diverse views (i.e. people might be dissatisified with Democrats and Republicans for very different reasons, not all of which the LP can satisfy). Not only will they need to vote for LP, they'll need to donate money as well. Color me skeptical of solutions that start with "Well IF a Christmas miracle would just happen, we would all be OK and jolly."

Further, your statement would imply that the problem isn't with the guy wearing a tricorner hat and M16 for a public photo declaring his presidential aspirations in between his taxes and paper money are unconsitutional speech; but with the people who are too complacent to be inspired by this. Isn't it just possible that a large share of people who with libertarian ideas simply don't trust such people with their votes or money?

Every political change in this country since the revolution was accomplished by incrementalism... sometimes creeping, sometimes in bigger leaps; but always incremental changes that required people to compromise on their ultimate goals. I am not going to be sending money to any party who triumphs the purity of their no-compromise ideology because that party has self-limited its size to a number that is never going to be significant in our political system and will have no impact except to MAYBE play a spoiler in very close races.
 
Every political change in this country since the revolution was accomplished by incrementalism... sometimes creeping, sometimes in bigger leaps; but always incremental changes that required people to compromise on their ultimate goals. I am not going to be sending money to any party who triumphs the purity of their no-compromise ideology because that party has self-limited its size to a number that is never going to be significant in our political system and will have no impact except to MAYBE play a spoiler in very close races.
Click to expand...

This is it in a nutshell.

A constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives is a sausage factory not a utopia.
 
"So even on a single issue within a smaller subset of the electorate, it is pretty much impossible to get voters with similar interests to vote as a bloc. Yet here you suggest that all we need to do to solve LPs intractable problem is unite a bunch of people of even more diverse views (i.e. people might be dissatisified with Democrats and Republicans for very different reasons, not all of which the LP can satisfy). Not only will they need to vote for LP, they'll need to donate money as well. Color me skeptical of solutions that start with "Well IF a Christmas miracle would just happen, we would all be OK and jolly."
I gave you a solution to a problem. If voting for, and donating money to a political cause that you associate yourself with, is too much, well, I rest my case.
"Further, your statement would imply that the problem isn't with the guy wearing a tricorner hat and M16 for a public photo declaring his presidential aspirations in between his taxes and paper money are unconsitutional speech; but with the people who are too complacent to be inspired by this. Isn't it just possible that a large share of people who with libertarian ideas simply don't trust such people with their votes or money?"
My problem is with the people who are dissatisfied with the two faces of the party in power, AND who do not support and vote for the most viable alternative -because LP doesn't have a chance! The "Lesser of two evils" crowd. 'Cause they still vote for evil, they know it, but keep finding excuses, instead of doing something to address the issue.
Is LP perfect? No. Do I agree with everything they say? No. But it's the political doctrine and party closest representing my views. To me, it seems much easier to change LP's platform on the few issues one disagrees with, or pick another candidate for president, than change the Demopublican monolith.
What good things have Republicrats "incrementally" given us? Taxes, regulations, limits, taking shoes off to travel, more control, 20,000+ gun laws (that no Republican dares to repeal), permits and licenses for everything. Incremental steps towards totalitarianism, thank you very much.
 
RomanKnight said:
If voting for, and donating money to a political cause that you associate yourself with, is too much, well, I rest my case.
Click to expand...

I support libertarian ideas. I don't necessarily find those ideas served well by the Libertarian Party.

My problem is with the people who are dissatisfied with the two faces of the party in power, AND who do not support and vote for the most viable alternative -because LP doesn't have a chance! The "Lesser of two evils" crowd. 'Cause they still vote for evil, they know it, but keep finding excuses, instead of doing something to address the issue.
Click to expand...

Obviously I don't agree with the LP rhetoric that there are no differences between the parties. The LP sees it that way because they are looking at it from a purist standpoint of all or nothing. They aren't taking a long-term view of incremental change. If all you are satisfied with is moving the posts 50yds at a time, then there doesn't appear to be much difference between two groups arguing which direction to move the posts two yards. The difference is even less obvious if you don't believe that the posts will ever move your way unless you can get the 50yd move. However, if you don't believe those things, then each small 2yd battle becomes a difference of greater importance and losing 2yds to the other side for a slim probability of gaining 50yds becomes a bet that people are less willing to make.

Is LP perfect? No. Do I agree with everything they say? No. But it's the political doctrine and party closest representing my views. To me, it seems much easier to change LP's platform on the few issues one disagrees with, or pick another candidate for president, than change the Demopublican monolith.
Click to expand...

So you are willing to compromise your ideals; but only for the party that will never be in a position to implement them? Why not form your own party and be 100% in agreement with its platform? As a bonus, you won't even have to give up any power in the national political dialogue.

Taxes, regulations, limits, taking shoes off to travel, more control, 20,000+ gun laws (that no Republican dares to repeal), permits and licenses for everything. Incremental steps towards totalitarianism, thank you very much.
Click to expand...

Yes, incrementally over 200 years a lot has changed hasn't it? This is where LP members consistently get disoriented. If all you are comparing is time periods separated by 200+ years, you miss a lot of small and seemingly irrelevant stuff that was critical in making those changes. The party is irrelevant in the long run. If libertarian ideas are going to gain any ground, it will have to be by personal example of individuals - person to person until they become so many people that party affiliation is irrelevant because the majority of both parties (because we will remain a two-party system as long as we keep this form of government) are libertarians.
 
Sindawe said:
Ah yes, the old "Throwing your vote away" argument. Sorry, I'm still not buying it. If I cast a ballot for candidate A, it does not work out to a vote for candidate B no matter how you want to dress it up and make it dance. It is STILL a vote for candidate A. Dude, I ALWAYS vote the person I really want to win. Usually its a Libertarian, occasionally it will be a Republican, once in a great while it will be a Democrat.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but if you want to follow the "throwing your vote away" argument logically, it doesn't matter who you vote for, since the electoral college negates your vote anyway. For instance, in 2004 all registered voters in California voted for Kerry whether they wanted to or not.

Vote for the best candidate, not the least worst who is most likely.
 
I voted for him, too, in 2004.

I don't buy the "throwing your vote away" spin.

At one time, the Republican and Democratic parties were third parties.

They grew.

You gotta start somewhere.

If you don't, you'll just get the same old "same old."
 
TamThompson said:
At one time, the Republican and Democratic parties were third parties.

They grew.
Click to expand...

The Democrats were never a third party. The Republicans were; but won 56 seats in their first election, won their second Presidential election and continued to grow (as opposed to say, winning no election and never increasing their share of the vote beyond 1.1% in 30+ years).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
NRA Endorses Bush, Badnarik Not Surprised
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
The Rabbi
T
F
  • Locked
Libertarian and Green Party Candidates Arrested
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Evil_Ed
E
M
  • Locked
Michael Badnarik 2004 Libertarian Candidate
Replies
4
Views
360
Jim March
J
N
  • Locked
Badnarik Arrested Along with Green Party Candidate
Replies
3
Views
523
Bartholomew Roberts
B
N
  • Locked
Bill O'Reilly Chickens Out
Replies
19
Views
1K
WonderNine
W
Back
Top