you guys _DO_ realize...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not a Libertarian, Ironbarr, but I'll take a shot.............

Presidents have enormous power in the form of cabinet and judicial appointments and the "bully pulpit" President Libert Arian is not a member of either dominant Congressional party, so cannot be accused of "partisanship". On the contrary, he will use his position to spotlight the petty partisan bickering to which we have become accustomed. Issues will have to be debated on merit, and the value (or lack thereof) to the American people. Each party's pro forma ideology may then become subject to the harsh light of scrutiny.

Think it through. It could be a good thing.
 
If someone waved a magic wand and placed a 100% Libertarian government in power, we could experience more freedom than we have ever known...for a very short period of time until we are either conquered by a foreign power or overrun with voters from socialist countries who would promptly vote the Libertarian government out of power.
Click to expand...

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
--Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

Besides the obvious foolishness of the "conquered by a foreign power" statement, are you honestly advocating that we should prefer a oppressive government because it's more secure rather than a free government which is (arguably) less secure?

If you are, the implications and logical conclusion of that position are truly frightening.
 
Now what?
Click to expand...
Easy. First of all, issue orders that no federal legislation is to be enforced, by the executive branch, that clearly and obviously violates the Constitution. Second, veto all unconstitutional legislation. Third, explain to the American people why you are doing these things. Become an educator of the American people as to what America stands for, and the great principles on which it was founded. Fourth, announce to the rest of the world that America no longer intends to be the policeman of the world. Over a four year period, gradually reduce our forces all over the world, maintaining the best navy, airforce and special forces in the world, while cutting the army down only to the size necessary to defend our boarders from foreign invasion and illegal immigration. That's just for starters. All of this can be done without the cooperation of Congress, in full accord with the Constitution.

Note, within just a couple of years, the deficit will disappear, and the federal budget will be overflowing with funds. I would encourage the American people to contact their legislators and demand that they eliminate the Federal income tax (along with the IRS), and perhaps repeal the 16th Amendment. Only a small percentage of the Federal Governments funds come from Federal Income tax anyway. If we function within Constitutional limits, we will still have an excess of funds, even after repealing the 16th Amendment.
 
Well, in my opinion, the dems are far more likely to cause me harm than are the republicans. Hence, I'm voting against them. Should I vote against BOTH dems and republicans, I'd worry that it'd be more likely that a Democrat would become president.

Remember that it's not just about guns - it's about the concept of the "rich." And that we've got darn near 51% of the population that would dearly like to see the "rich" support them.

Of course, when the "rich" means darn near anyone with a job that pays better than flippin' burgers...

I have been more and more worried about a 2nd civil war, only this time along the lines of urban vs. rural, but given a case where welfare recipients can literally vote themselves added "benefits," I could also see a situation where their money supply literally dries up (vis a vis Atlas Shrugged), which could then cause a significant deal of civil unrest. I think that the republicans are less likely (not "not likely" but "less likely") to try to tap the working man's wallet as much as the dems would like...

Guys, it's not a black and white issue - there's shades of grey. And if we allow rabble rousers from the democratic underground, etc., to sway even a small portion of the population as a whole, eight years from now we may be FAR worse off...
 
Has there ever been a viable third party or third party candidate? Anybody that actually came close for the senate or even for the presidency?
Click to expand...

In the Senate, no, But in the House, basically, yes. You might remember a guy named Ron Paul, Representative from Texas? He's a RINO, really... and previously a Libertarian candidate for President.

See also the others listed here: http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities.html
 
Ironbarr's scenario:

Gridlock at best. Both major parties agreeing that the most important thing for the next 4 years is to make the Libertarian look as bad as possible. With a LOT of help from the press. They will have enough votes to override the vetos of most bills so the statist agenda will hit a speed bump at best. No chance of any Libertarian bills getting out of committee.

For a Libertarian president to accomplish anything he will need at least 30% of the seats in both houses and that might not be enough.

Most Libertarians consider Executive Orders to be of questionable Constitutional authority so that will be a test of principle over ideology.

I wish that wasn't my view because I am a libertarian. Contary to the opinions of some, you can be pragmatic and still be a libertarian.:neener:

An observation on this debate(or blunt force trauma applied to deceased equines); both sides are right and both sides are wrong. Abandonning principle is usually the first step on the road to ----. But, there's no doubt that the Dems are worse on most issues that I care about. Kerry in the White house scares me s-------.

Both parties want power above all. They will use any means they can get away with to attain and keep it. That means they will bribe you if they can. Lie to you if they can. Convince you with facts if they have to. They will use force also. That is why the 2nd is so important. As long as they can't get away with force we will have a stable society. Not necessarily a free society because of the steady erosion of other rights already discussed above.

This is a reminder that probably isn't too necessary on this board but an armed citizenry is the only guarantee we have of a peaceful transfer of power. Some might say the illusion of transfer of power.

This is a very cynical observation but I think one of the reasons the liberals want us disarmed is so we can do away with this messy election stuff and just let them run things.
 
And when urban and rural housing projects explode, what do you do?
Click to expand...
What are you talking about. Liberty is what makes for prosperity. Socialism is a downward spiral, man. Get the federal government out of the Socialism business, and watch the economy explode with activity. There will be less need for housing projects, not more. This is a red herring. Liberty works. Always has, always will.
 
Okayfine - are you volunteering to be in Central St. Louis when folks hear that their welfare checks, food stamps, etc., aren't gonna arrive?
Click to expand...
Much of this is a state matter, not federal. I would recommend that the states gradually phase that stuff out, but as president, I couldn't order them to do anything. If the people of any state want to stay socialist, or increase their level of socialism, they can do that through their state legislators. I would attempt to persuade them otherwise, however.
 
Lets fantasize, shall we.

In this fantasy world, the Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik wins the election in a stunning upset.

OK. So what? What does anyone really think would change?

Drugs would not suddenly be legal. Although President Badnarik could order certain agencies to be less aggressive in certain instances, but law enforcement officers take oaths too and part of their job is law enforcement, so until the laws are changed, I wouldn't expect much to change.

The borders would not suddenly be wide open (oh, that's right, they already are). Ah, nevermind about this one.

As for bringing all troops back from overseas over a four year period, that may or may not work. I think President Badnarik would realize that it would take more than four years or else many people would suffer too greatly. And maybe Congress could declare war in order to keep troops in certain places around the globe. Hmm? That would be interesting: a President who does not want to wage a war, but a Congress which declares war; what would a President do? Congress cannot order troops anywhere, can they?

President Badnarik could reverse any and all executive orders he so deemed to be unconstitutional, frivolous, meaningless, and/or harmful. Then again, he could reverse/cancel all executive orders. But again, upon careful consideration, I'm sure some would require some other actions to prepare for their reversal/cancelation.

President Badnarik could appoint Libertarian Supreme Court Justices, if the opportunity arose. But you know what? He wouldn't be able to unless the nominee was agreeable to the R or D controlled Congress. So he may still have to choose a D or R to appoint.

Welfare? Medicaid? Medicare? Income Tax? Not much he could really do here either. Sure, he could speak on the matter to Congress and to the People, but other than that, nothing would change any time quick.

Do you all get my point here? Even in a dreamland where a Libertarian becomes President, not much will change! There will not suddenly be chaos and disorder. The terrible mess our country is in will take many years of Libertarian controlled Congress and State Congresses before the "utopian" libertarian dream would ever be realized. So, even if there were a Libertarian President, it would be a short-lived anomally. It may help usher the Libertarian Party to more seats in State Houses and even Congress, but it would still take a long time.

It's a moot point right now. But anything that ever starts, starts somewhere.

So, even though I am going to vote for the Libertarian candidate for President (regardless of who it is), it will not change anything. Someone here pointed out that we should all be focussing on the local level most. This is critical! Besides, in a population of, say 5 million voters in a State, what is your vote for President really worth? And this is only for your State's delegates which go up against or with other State's delegates. Or how about 1 vote in 5 million for Governor? Or 1 vote in 2 million for Senator? Or 1 vote in 1 million for Congressman? How about 1 vote in 500,000 for State Senator? Or 1 vote in 200,000 for State Representative? Or how about 1 vote in 100,000 for County Executive Officer? Or 1 vote in 40,000 for City Mayor and multiple Councilpersons and Clerk and Treasurer?

Right now, there is a candidate in my district running for a Michigan State House of Representative seat. His prior experience? He was on a City Council two years ago. He'll probably win. He's a Democrat. Where do you think he will go from there? State Senator? Governor? See how this works?

All this attention to which way a single vote goes for President, to me any ways, is frivilous when compared to the impact each of our individual votes has in our Cities, then our Counties, then our States.
 
Hawkeye, no disrespect intended

I think we were typing at the same time as your post wasn't up when I hit the submit button.

Unfortunately, I still don't see a Libertarian Pres without a lot of support in Congress doing much.

Refusing to enforce the laws the way Congress wants could easily be ginned up into an impeachment trial. If the vote that elected him was 50/50 there wouldn' be much to stop it , short of marching on Washington.
 
Drugs would not suddenly be legal. Although President Badnarik could order certain agencies to be less aggressive in certain instances, but law enforcement officers take oaths too and part of their job is law enforcement, so until the laws are changed, I wouldn't expect much to change.
Click to expand...

If the President pardoned everyone convicted of a consensual crime--which would include the drug ones--I imagine that would count as de facto legalization for as long as he's in office. I imagine that would put a severe damper on the wasteful efforts of the DEA and the like.
 
You guys are on drugs. Most small time drug offenders are in prison because of the STATE, not the feds. So the President could only pardon interstate traffickers and drug king-pins. Pablo Escobar walks and Mr. "I had a baggie in my car" still rots. You have a really distorted view of state's rights and the power of the executive.



I have a question. How is it that all the liberatarians want the top spot? Are there even any Libs in Congress? Even Ron Paul is a republican. Have any libs won state legislative seats? The LP claims that they have X number of people running in X number of races in X number of locations, but no data concerning the number of seats that are occupied by libs. :confused:

The LP has been around since 1972. 32 years. Third parties have made it in the US historically. I wish them success. But, for God's sake, can we get a track record somewhere before the lemmings jump off the cliff?

We are in a two front war, both involving culture. The terrorists and the left.
 
Changes can be made

The process may be painfully slow. There are other choices availble. The two main parties in power are not likely to conced opening the gates to those candidates more popular than them.

Other alternative voting methods may fit America better than what is currently in use. Cheaper also.
One of these is called aproval voting. Your state elections would not require a primary no matter how many candidates are running from one party.
I could go to the poll and vote for the GOP LP and Ralf Nader. The one candidate who gets the highest popular vote would be the winner. And kerry would not get a vote. Ralf would not be spoiling the election. People would maybe see the LP get a real showing; even taken seriously in the future.
I do not like to vote for the lesser of 2 or least of many evils. I have never considered this or anything so basic until I read about this and other voting methods on a candidates site. Some may be familiar with a shift like this. The vast majority of people never think of it or consider it from lack of information. Powers in office do not want to loss thier power to the common folk.
This kind of change may be impossible in many places. Some states may require severe consitutional reform. The biggest opponent argument may be for those people ignorant of changes and the stupid people will never figure it out. It would require wide public notice.
Give people a reason to reaserch all the candidates they are voting for in Nov.

Just a few ideas I've collected.
 
Here's a question for the "he's not as bad as the other guy" voters. How bad would he have to be before you voted against both bad guys? I'm serious, this isn't just a defensive knee jerk.

Don't forget Jessie Ventura when it comes to 3rd party no chance canidates. The polls said he couldn't win. Were those voters throwing their vote away?

Anyway that brings me to the main point of this post.

I hereby nominate fellow High Roader PAX for the Constitutional party canidate for president of the Untited States of America. She has read the constitution, understands it, AND ACTUALLY BELIEVES IT MEANS WHAT IT SAYS. She has enough sense to arm herself. I suspect that would carry over into defence of the nation. That's all I need to be convinced. Any seconds?
 
You guys are on drugs. Most small time drug offenders are in prison because of the STATE, not the feds. So the President could only pardon interstate traffickers and drug king-pins. Pablo Escobar walks and Mr. "I had a baggie in my car" still rots. You have a really distorted view of state's rights and the power of the executive.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm aware of that... it seems like I didn't make that clear at all in my previous post, unfortunately. I was referring to the federal side of things--hence my mention of the DEA.

Mea culpa.
 
Republicans in Congress fight the liberals harder when a Dem is the president. Look how much liberty we've lost under Bush. If a Dem president had tried to take that many liberties away in such a short time span, the Repubs in Congress would have fought him tooth and nail, and would have had massive support for doing so. They'd be scared not to fight for our liberties.
Click to expand...
Just like they fought in 1994 against the AWB.

With that said, it's a tough decision. Do you bite your nose off to spite your face?

I will vote Bush to prevent Kerry from being elected but I would love to see Sen. McClintock (R-CA) run.

Anyone else heard of Jesse Ventura's considering presidental bid in 2008?
 
I suppose everyone who reads drudge daily knows about Ventura. :)

What do I get if I vote for Bush? Someone please explain it to me.

I get Father Ashcroft and his porn crusade. I get Fuhrer Ridge, Fuhrer Mineta, and a bunch of other idiots who have no interest in making the United States a free country. I get a rapidly ballooning federal debt, and I'm unimpressed with the the meager amounts I may get in yearly tax refunds.

I get a bunch of religiocrats who would love to ban government-funded stem cell research and 1-week post-conception abortions, and who would declare a psywar on Islam if they could get away with it. I get a president who thinks it's unimportant to use correct words and pronunciation.

The only good results of a Bush victory in November would be that Dr. Rice would almost certainly remain in the administration, there'd be a few less federal socialist policies for the next four years, and the war on terror if not the war in Iraq would continue unflagged.
 
Three and a half pages added since my post....

I'm gonna have to stay up late AND stay home on weekends to keep up on this issue.:D


tyme:
************************************************************
"....and a bunch of other idiots who have no interest in making the United States a free country. I get a rapidly ballooning federal debt, and I'm unimpressed with the the meager amounts I may get in yearly tax refunds."
************************************************************

So, how is this gonna change if you vote L. (or not at all), and Kerry wins?

No tax refunds, perhaps.

The difference will be significant with respect to RKBA


Moparmike:

We're agreed on the concept of voting your principle, so long as it doesn't put Kerry in power;) .

I did put in a disclaimer with my post:

************************************************************
"IF voting Libertarian, or staying home on election day allows Kerry to be elected, your actions will have injured the cause of RKBA rather than
helped it."
************************************************************

My view is that this election is far too important to RKBA to throw away the control of the Whitehouse in order to promote the nonsense of "teach 'em a lesson".

The likely outcome of such an approach, I feel, would be to see the Republicans move away from supporting RKBA (loosely, I know) to the Democrats position, since it wasn't a "winner" for them.:eek:

The Libertarian Party will not win...
(I've got Tamara's quote memorized now, Mopar:), I just don't think it applies in this situation).

Vote your principles, that's important.

I believe that's what I'm doing in voting for "Dubya", because RKBA is so important to me.

But PLEASE don't do it where there's a likelyhood of a close contest between J.F. Ketchup and "Dubya".

Kerry is sooo much NOT our friend on RKBA.:barf:


St. John's:

Sorry I'm late here, but I believe the only presidential race in the 20th century where a third party candidate came in second place was the 1912 election, where Theodore Roosevelt (the good Roosevelt) split the Republican vote with his "Bull Moose Party" and allowed Woodrow Wilson the victory.
 
Just doin' my job FB ;).

But PLEASE don't do it where there's a likelyhood of a close contest between J.F. Ketchup and "Dubya".
Click to expand...
Actually, that is my plan. If Kerry & Bush are w/in 5 points, I will vote Bush while holding my nose. And wearing gloves. And take a shower afterwards. (Why wont it come off?!?! :uhoh: ) ;)

But, if there is more than 10% between them either way, I will vote LP.
 
Now there's a plan.....

Moparmike.:)


************************************************************
"If Kerry & Bush are w/in 5 points, I will vote Bush while holding my nose. And wearing gloves. And take a shower afterwards. (Why wont it come off?!?! )
************************************************************

I have to send in an overseas absentee ballot, so I reckon that'll protect me some from the aftereffects of ticking the "Dubya" box.:D


************************************************************
"But, if there is more than 10% between them either way, I will vote LP."
************************************************************

It's gonna be close again in Florida this year. :uhoh:

But if I was voting in a state where I knew the difference was that high, and the LP was running a candidate that I like, I'd do it!:what:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
(The lies get bigger) Kerry Sharpens Aim on Gun Vote in Red States
Replies
21
Views
1K
Legal
charby
C
T
  • Locked
Start Now - Spreading The Word
Replies
46
Views
1K
Legal
turtle
T
T
  • Locked
John F. Kerry the most anti-gun Presidential nominee Ever
Replies
7
Views
556
Legal
Roon
R
F
  • Locked
Hunting for votes
Replies
0
Views
307
Legal
FRIZ
F
S
  • Locked
Kerry faces opposition from NRA members
Replies
24
Views
1K
Legal
Standing Wolf
S
Top Bottom
Back