How to avoid hearing "President Kerry" in January, 2005!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Look guys. You can talk about GWB and his statement on the AWB until the cows come home. You can even bring up his daddy's executive orders. If you succeed in tearing down Bush, we get Kerry! Period. Your libertarian fantasies are just that, fantasies. Meanwhile the AWB sunsets and Bush gets no credit because he didn't actively DO anything to help it, keeping in mind that he doesn't have to DO anything other than shut up about it, which he has wisely done. If Kerry gets elected, he might DO something...like sign an executive order establishing an AWB of his very own. The SC we have right now will not accept the case challenging it, so in all your infinite libertarian wisdom you will have succeeded in extending the AWB. But at least you'll have a clean conscience. :rolleyes:
 
Here's the thing I don't get. I've seen this quote numerous times on this and other boards. "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." So as Libertarians and just wanting to be left alone, aren't you in effect doing nothing, enabling evil to triumph? I thought I was a Libertarian, but I'm not because of a few key issues. I feel all men have a duty to fight evil instead of just looking our for themselves.
 
I'm not sure if I see the point in voting for a Libertarian Presidential candidate. At present, the Libertarian Party has little if any representation at the State and local level, and none at the national level. Given that, what point would there be to a Libertarian Presidency? Any Libertarian President would have almost no chance of seeing his or her platform enacted absent some serious log rolling that would dilute the Libertarian message to the point of irrelevance.

I am not philosophically averse to voting Libertarian. However they won't get my vote until they stop trying to take a shortcut to the White House and buckle down to some serious efforts at local party building, and show some results in State legislative, gubernatorial, and Congressional elections as well. Success in these lower level elections are the indicator that a vote for a Libertarian Presidential candidate has some practical worth. As of now it doesn't.
 
HBK,

Great quote, and quite applicable too.

"Doing nothing" might be the insane continuation of doing things you've always done, and expecting to get some different result than you've always gotten.

"Doing nothing" might be simply throwing up your hands and saying, "Well, I'd rather vote for a bad candidate than for the guy who's gonna lose."

"Doing nothing" might be cynically refusing to believe that your vote could make any difference at all in the long run. It might be refusing to give your vote to the candidate you really want in office, because you're too negative and discouraged to believe that things could change, if enough good men voted for change.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for enough good people to vote for the lesser of two evils (which is, of course, still evil).

pax

How fortunate it is for the government that the people do not think. -- Adolf Hitler
 
Bush supporters, please justify this:

Bush say he thinks the Campaign Finance Reform bill is un-Constitutional.

Bush signs Campaign Finance Reform bill into law.


Please explain how a man sworn to uphold the Constitution can sign a law that he thinks is un-Constitutional.

No Republican has been able to explain this. I suspect no Bush supporter here can eitehr, but I would love to see some of you try!

I have asked this question on this board a few times now, and so far no one wants to tackle the answer.

How can you vote for Bush knowing you just voted for a man that passed a law which limits free political speech?
 
AS long as only 50% of the people vote this country will be in a mess. Kerry is as good as bush nothing will change. How long have they been talking about health care and education?? If they are able to fix these problems what will they talk about. One thing I liked about Clinton was I made lots of money in the stock market. Check out your 401k now.
 
Over at infowars.com Alex Jones has a very troubling video clip in which he explores the fact that Bush and Kerry are both admitted members of the elite Skull and Bones club at Yale. Apparently, this is a VERY small club--only inducts 15 members a year. What are the odds that both Bush and Kerry would belong to it?

Also troubling: Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, and Bush Sr. all went to Yale, too, and Bush Sr. also belongs to this Skull and Bones.

Jones also says that Reuters News Service reported that a genealogy expert claims that Kerry and Bush Jr. are third cousins.

Yeah, I can hear it already: tinfoil hats, etc. But I'm serious: the news media really needs to do more looking into this Yale/Skull and Bones connection. I'd like to hear more about how this little tiny club has managed to field two presidents and both the 2004 candidates.

And if you really want to scare yourself silly, play Jones' video on the Bohemian Grove.

On another note: the Second Amendment may become a moot point to people whose jobs are shipped overseas and who have no money anymore for ammo, reloading supplies, or guns.
 
How can you vote for Bush knowing you just voted for a man that passed a law which limits free political speech?

Because the alternative is a man who voted to pass the same law + he voted against the ban on partial birth abortion + he has voted for every gun control measure + he plans to raise my taxes + he believes we are subject to UN rule + etcetera etcetera. Like I said before, clinging to this libertarian fantasy will get Kerry elected. I can't justify MANY of Bush's policies. I don't think I can justify ANY of Kerry's.
 
If the Libertarian candidate has no chance of winning, what good does it do to vote for him?

I'm not trying to make a point, I'm asking a serious question. It seems to me you can vote for the lesser of two evils and still be a footsoldier for the LP.
 
Lone_ Gunman this is just like the AWB deal. He said he would sign it if it hit his desk. Campaign Finance Reform was very popular. He says he thinks its unconstitutional and signs it thinking the Supreme Court would throw it out. They didn't and now he along with everyone else that voted for it are hung with it. Prime example of passing the responsibility on coming back to bite you.
 
The Supreme Court nominations issue is a red herring.

Rehnquist - Nixon (Republican)
Stevens - Ford (Republican)
Kennedy - Reagan (Republican)
O'connor - Reagan (Republican)
Scalia - Reagan (Republican)
Thomas - G.W.H. Bush (Republican)
Souter - G.W.H. Bush (Republican)
Ginsberg - Clinton (Democrat)
Breyer - Clinton (Democrat)

As you can see, the vote should be 7-2 if it really mattered wether or not a SCJ was nominated by a Republican or Democrat. We all know this is not the case.

I'm sure someone will argue about "extenuating circumstances" with this one or that one, etc. blah, blah, blah. The end result is the same.

So as far as the Supreme Court Nominations (non)issue goes, for me, IT DOES NOT MATTER one iota at this point in determining who I vote for President.

I'm still voting Libertarian.

editted: I had Souter as a Clinton nominee and I had the "should-be" vote tally at 6-3 instead of 7-2. Makes it even worse than I had figured. (Thanks to Greg Bell for correcting me on this.)
 
Last edited:
Michigander,

"As you can see, the vote should be 6-3 if it really mattered wether or not a SCJ was nominated by a Republican or Democrat. We all know this is not the case."

Are you serious about this, or is this just third party pabulum?

The SC tends to vote 5-4 because Stevens and Souter turned out to be stealth liberals. Stevens was Ford (a Rockefeller Republican who was never elected) and Souter was GHWB (not Clinton) nominee who was pushed because he was Chief of Staff Sunnunu's friend (with a very even-handed record). Souter, who had no real ideological record, was also the product of all the Supreme Court nomination scandals of the 80's (Bork, Kennedy, etc). To take these mistakes (like Earl Warren and Brennen being nominated by Ike) as a reason why the President who picks the nomination is irellevant, is going too far.
 
Greg Bell,

The SC tends to vote 5-4 because Stevens and Souter turned out to be stealth liberals. Stevens was Ford (a Rockefeller Republican who was never elected) and Souter was GHWB (not Clinton) nominee who was pushed because he was Chief of Staff Sunnunu's friend (with a very even-handed record). Souter, who had no real ideological record, was also the product of all the Supreme Court nomination scandals of the 80's (Bork, Kennedy, etc). To take these mistakes (like Earl Warren and Brennen being nominated by Ike) as a reason why the President who picks the nomination is irellevant, is going too far.

And as I said,

I'm sure someone will argue about "extenuating circumstances" with this one or that one, etc. blah, blah, blah. The end result is the same.

So I ask you Greg, what's to prevent the same kind of thing happening again? Scandals, stealths, etc.? NOTHING!

And thanks for correcting me about Souter. That makes it even worse. Should be 7-2 IF IT MATTERED!
 
I have voted libertarian (Instead of Bush Sr 1st time he ran). I had to confront voting for the lesser "evil" when Clinton ran. I voted for Bush Sr. I could have been smug in my superior integrity by voting my conscience (Libertarian), but what good or what profit is there in being right on that one vote when so much is at stake? Politics is as much pragmatism as it is convictions. I also agree that the Libertarians need to get some grass roots movement started. To just go for the highest office(s) shows that there is no real groundswell of support.
 
Mich,

It just shows, you never know. What would stop a Libertarian from making the same mistake? Oh yeah, there never will be a Libertarian President! :D :D
 
You miss my point, pax. I don't see how voting Republican can be seen as doing nothing. My point was that the whole "I don't care what happens to anyone else as long as I'm left alone" attitude IS doing nothing.
 
...I also agree that the Libertarians need to get some grass roots movement started. To just go for the highest office(s) shows that there is no real groundswell of support.

Which explains the following how?:

The Libertarian Party is the third largest party in the United States by most objective measures, including the following:

•The Libertarian Party is the only third party organized in all fifty states.
•In the 2002 elections, Libertarian candidates for state House of Representatives received more than a million votes -- more than twice the votes received by all other minor parties combined.
•In the 2000 elections, the party ran about 1,430 candidates at the local, state, and federal level. More than 1,600 Libertarians ran for office in the 2002 mid-term election. Both numbers are more candidates than all other third parties combined ran in these elections.
•Following the 2002 elections, more than 300 Libertarians hold elected state and local offices. This is more than twice that of all other third parties combined.
•In 2000, 256 candidates ran for seats in the House of Representatives. In 2002, 219 candidates ran for House seats. These are the only two times in over 80 years that any third party has contested a majority of House seats.
•In 2000, Libertarian candidates for U.S. House won 1.73 million votes. This count is more than any other third party in U.S. history by raw vote totals, although not by proportion of the electorate.
•In 2000, Massachusetts U.S. Senate candidate Carla Howell won a record 11.9% of the vote. Then in 2002, Michael Cloud won 19% of the vote for the other Massachusetts seat in the U.S. Senate. (In the latter case, the Republican candidate failed to meet ballot access requirements.)
•In 2002, Ed Thompson won 11% of the vote for governor of Wisconsin despite being excluded from the debates. As a result, one of the eight members of the Wisconsin Election Board is a Libertarian. No other third party holds a seat on the Election Board of any state.
•The Libertarian Party has run in all 50 states in four elections: 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2000. No other third party in U.S. history has managed to run a presidential candidate in all 50 states more than once. 50 state ballot access is so difficult that only the Democrats, Libertarians, and Republicans are even attempting it in 2004.
•Libertarian candidates have finished third in a presidential election twice, in 1984 and 1988. No other current third party has ever finished third in a presidential election more than once.
 
Oh Lord, a true believer!:uhoh: :scrutiny:

Wow, a couple of folks got 11% after four decades of running in elections.
:D
 
I have voted libertarian, I have called and asked to be put on a mailing list so I could stay up to date on candidates and the like. They never followed through on anything. Philosophically I am a libertarian in most areas. But until I see viable candidates with an organization that can compete... I vote Republican.
 
Greg Bell,
Oh Lord, a true believer!

Wow, a couple of folks got 11% after four decades of running elections.

I'm hardly a "true believer."

My post was in response to:
...I also agree that the Libertarians need to get some grass roots movement started. To just go for the highest office(s) shows that there is no real groundswell of support.

Sorry if facts are not pertinent.
:rolleyes:
 
My experience has been that I am like a stranger in a strange land when it comes to libertarian political/economic philosophy. Most people I talk to about current events or politics couldn't even tell you what the Libertarian Party stands for, hell, they don't even know the difference between capitalism and socialism!
 
Greg, it seems to me that your "Anti-libertarian" posts are posted for the purposes of pushing libertarians' buttons and getting your jollies. I for one would appreciate it if you stuck to the facts, and quit deriding others for their beliefs and political stances.

If you want to pursuade someone to vote Republican, please do so. If your purpose is to insult the libertarians as "Head-In-The-Clouds morons" (to paraphrase the general feelings conveyed by your posts) who will do nothing but get Kerry elected, then I would be most happy to welcome you to my 'Ignore' list.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top