Why not Badnarik?
 

Bush scares me. Kerry scares me.

Badnarik could be a moron for all I know, but he does have new ideas I can support, even if I don't agree with him 100%.

I like these positions:

1) Fiscal responsibility - erase deficit spending
2) Troops in other countries - Bring home troops stationed in other countries (South Korea, Japan, Germany, etc.). I don't agree with Badnarik's proposal to bring home troops from Iraq.
3) Industrial hemp legalization.
4) Promotes armed citizens. Criminals pay restitution for their crimes. Police focus on violent crimes and prevention.
5) Promotes Health Savings Accounts. Wishes to address the issues causing spiraling health care costs, instead of simply passing the buck through the system.
6) Remove gun control laws

While I don't agree that removing government regulations is the answer to all problems, I'd rather see a lean government rather than an incompetent, bloated government.

So, am I smoking hemp, or am I just a visionary? ;)
Jürgen

Re: Why not Badnarik?
 

Both?

Badnarik is far from a moron.

Our system of states was intended to create competition of laws, practices, cultures between them. However, our federal level government continues to grow, and further eclispe state power.

The federal level shoves all sorts of nonsense down our throats under the guise of 'interstate commerce'. Sure the federal level needs to have some power over interstate commerce . . .but this is getting rediculous.

We need to start, at least, thinking about dialing back the federal govt sector . . .give some control back to the people at the state and local levels.

This is what Badnarik and the Libertarian party are pushing for.

Re: Why not Badnarik?
 

Because I've never heard of him. Kudos to Jurgen and the rest on the posters on this thread for bringing up his name. Hmmm...I'll have to look him up.

I never place blame on anyone other than myself for my own ignorance. But in this case, I'll make an exception, and lay ownership on the overtly myopic liberal media that plays here in L.A. I know of Nader - the media has talked about Nader - but only negatively as he was part of the reason the Democrats lost in '00. But Badnarik has never come up as an option. I haven't checked the papers lately, so maybe he's shown up there, but definitely not on the local or even national news.

Why not Badnarik? Because if you don't know there's a choice, there conceivably is no choice.

Re: Re: Why not Badnarik?
 

yes. it is the smoking that appears to be the cause of the visions :D

I don't want either of the other two guys, so Badnarik's getting my vote...

badnarik is awesome and i would vote for him if i didnt miss the registration deadline.

did you guys hear he was arrested at the second debate? i guess he debated with every other third party candidate but bush and kerry denied him the opportunity so he said he would do whatever it took to challenge them during the second debate. him and i think the green party candidate were busted for crossing the police line that was around the building the debate was being held in.

a politician with balls like that is just what this country needs.

Badnarik presents the best opportunity to guide America upwards. At best, Bush/Kerry will just let us skid sideways, or perhaps even drag us back down the hill.

Seriously, look up the guy.

He's got my vote. I was originally going to vote for Nader since I was unaware of the other candidates but I agree with a lot of Badnarik's domestic policy. Foreign policy I disagree with somewhat but I don't have to live in "foreign". :D

Might as well vote for Mickey Mouse.

No offense to the candidate, who may be the cat's meow for all I know, but I prefer actions that influence outcomes.

How will The USA look when Everyone south of the border heads north?
Gee 200,000 Chappas Indians that dont even speak Spanish now that will really help our economy.

This is BS if I have evey heard any:http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration.html

Studies also show that not only do immigrants not take jobs away from American workers, they also do not drive down wages. Numerous studies have demonstrated that increased immigration has little or no effect on the wages of most American workers, and may even increase wages at upper income levels.
Jobs Native Americans wont DO?
I have :
Bused Tables
Washed Dishes
Been a cook
Dug Ditches with a pick and Shovel
Been a Gardener
A custodian
Sanded a 120ft Ferry with a Hand sander
Worked at a gas station
Clerk at a liquor Store
Driven a Truck
Tree Trimmer
Washed cars
SO BS on that line.
FUCH THEM

Just ask about the Drywallers in LA.
It used to be mostly Blacks and they were paid fairly well with taxes taken.
Now it all illegales who are paid in cash.

This is the Problem I have with the Libertarian Party
The speak about the Constitution yet want to disregard the laws made thur the prucesses laid out inthe Constitution.

Yeah, your not alone. There are quite few people who want "vote for a winner."

. .. I suppose that means that you should be voting for Bush then. :D . .Why "throw-away" your vote for Kerry? I mean really! --no one is voting FOR Kerry. And what are the odds on Kerry winning? A vote for Kerry is just a vote for more of the same. More of the same growing of the federal govt sector. More of the same choice of twiddle-dee or twiddle-dumb.

A vote for a third-party influences the future. Just even having one of these guys in the mix of the debates . .. .they might even be interesting then. (remember Perot? . . .he didn't let the entrenched crap remain underground)

Ummmm, I think the polls are about neck-a-neck. Some suggest Kerry is leading.

A Libertarian candidate has been on the ballot for decades. That's old news. And there is a reason why that party has not, and will not, rise to a legitimate level of support.

So, one can imagine we are voting for Kerry or Bush because we want to jump on the bandwagon and vote for a winner. Or you can notice reality and the fact that a Libertarian vote is a vote wasted.

"Vote for a winner"? Yes, when I vote for someone it is usually because I think my vote can help them win.

"What are the odds on Kerry winning"? Well, you can read the polls too. It looks like about 50/50, +/- 5.

As for third-party candidates, we discussed this in a prior thread. I am generally opposed to third parties because I'd prefer each election to result in one clear and dominant victorious party (even if it is not the one I prefer) so that their ideas can get boldly adopted and thoroughly tested. I think third parties lead to coalition governments which, I feel, tend to be less decisive.

Maybe about 50/50, +/- 5. of the POPULAR VOTE. Just because California and NewYork are steeped in ABB, hardly means Kerry has a chance nationally.

Geez John, you live in the bay area of California. Your insisting that you need to vote for Kerry to "help him win" hardly passes the smell test. (seem that you just want to vote for the guy who will obviously win your state.)

Too many lazy bums happy sucking on the gov't tit?

Re: Why not Badnarik?
 

That sound pretty scary to me. Just looking at the way some peoples drives their cars, I wonder what they could do with a gun.

Re: Why not Badnarik?
 

Hey, I missed that part. Do I get a raise with that promotion?

I am the walrus
 

Some people are idiots, but we still let them reproduce.

Badnarik supports gun ownership for self defense, particularly in the home. Badnarik also supports responsbility for one's actions. If you commit a crime with a gun, you shall receive a severe punishment.

Point taken, but winning the popular vote counts for something.

popular vote counts for something.
 

Yeah it does.

Afterall, being with the popular .. .. it's a tough job, but someone has to do it. :cool:

Seriously, the point is not that Badanrik WILL get elected. The point is every vote, that the "mainstream" guys see that they miss-out on, sends a message.

But hey, why do that when you can be a POPULAR Mind-numbed robot? :rolleyes:

aside -- What's the name of that iffliction. . . where caged animals & people become so accustom to their cage, that even when a door is opened, they are too paralyzed to do anything other than just sit there?

...all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Declaration of Independence

Re: popular vote counts for something.
 

So are you inclined to vote for Badanrik then?

jyl -- d'ya think!?


. . uh. . I mean; I will if you will. ;)
------------------

bryanthompson -- Declaration of Independence

You really know how to drop an exclamation point. :D

Really, all of us should vote for the B-man. Republicans first!

Mark me for Badnarik. I am a rabid Republican, but I don't like the way things are going.

I went to his website and looked at his platform. I don't agree with most of his ideas, but but some are interesting. I've pasted in excerpts of his platform in case others are interested.

War In Iraq

"The War on Iraq has been a colossal failure—first under the guise of "an imminent threat" later found to be based on erroneous evidence, and subsequently "liberation" - a monumental bait-and-switch the American people have not forgotten about. . . . exit strategy to bring our troops home and prevent further imperialism . . . By promoting national defense rather than international offense, Badnarik would bring home our troops from the over 130 countries . . ."

I agree with his views on the Iraq War. I don't agree we can bring all overseas troops home. The world economy doesn't stop at our borders and we can't make it so. If N. Korea destabilizes Asia, a nuclear Iran threatens the Middle East oilfields, etc, we'll feel it here. As in, we'll lose our jobs.

Homeland Security

"Americans' civil liberties are in danger. . . through such legislation as the PATRIOT Act and the continuing wars on terror and drugs, the American people are once again at a crossroads in the fight to retain their very rights under the Constitution."

I might agree. Although the devil's in the details - how you balance civil liberties with fighting crime and terrorism. I get the sense he might lean too much to one extreme.

The Economy

". . . Republicans and Democrats think that larger, more elaborate government jobs programs are the solution to your problems. However, since these programs must be funded by taking money from the private sector, even more jobs are destroyed . . . The answer is too much regulation and too much government spending. More government regulation and spending translate to more unemployment and less wealth creation. . . "

I don't understand the belief that eliminating regulations will solve many large problems. There are surely lots of dumb regulations, but there are also surely many regulations that are desirable (prevent waste dumping into rivers, make cars protect occupants in crashes, restrict companies' ability to sell and use consumer's private data, require sanitary conditions in food production, etc etc). Has anyone actually studied what % of existing regulations and what % of the cost of regulations are for the dumb regulations versus for the desirable regulations? Or is this just a slogan?

I think this sounds like the standard claim that any budget can be magically balanced by "eliminating government fraud and waste". Ahnold used to say that, when he was running for governor - after he got into office, he found it wasn't true and his budgets have been just as full of smoke. mirrors, and red ink as his predecessor's.

Crime

" Yet robberies, rapes, and homicides go down when states permit civilians to carry concealed weapons. . . Michael also proposes a refreshing, but tested and proven way of ensuring justice is served—restitution"

I'm inclined to agree.

Health Care

". . . ending excess regulation of pharmaceuticals, health care providers, and insurance companies, while slashing costs across the board and saving taxpayers billions in the process".

Another claim that eliminating "excess regulation" cures all ills. Sounds like bullpuckey.

Immigration

" . . . immigration is not just beneficial to the American economy but indispensable to the goal of a nation of freedom and opportunity. . . supports the entry of peaceful immigrants at conveniently located Customs and Immigration stations, subject only to brief vetting to ensure that they are not terrorists or criminals. . . . eliminate the Border Patrol and treat border issues as what they are: defense issues coming under the mission and scope of the armed forces."

A healthy amount of immigration is important but I wouldn't want the borders thrown wide open. And I don't see why you need to use the very expensive high-tech military to patrol the borders.

Minorities

". . . empower minorities by championing the elimination of excess regulations and licensing laws . . . "

Give me a break with this "excess regulations" stuff.

Gay Marriage

"Should gay marriage be permitted?. . . you, and only you, have the freedom to choose your partner for life."

Okay.

War On Drugs

"Badnarik supports ending the insane "War on Drugs"—and drug prohibition entirely."

Gun Control

". . . In 1999, 824 people died from firearm accidents, while the defensive use of guns saved approximately 400,000 lives, in most cases without even wounding the aggressor. It's time we as Americans stand up for our right to arm ourselves . . . "

Basically agree. I'm all for civilian gun ownership, with appropriate controls (licensing, safety training, etc). Not sure about his statistics - I would like to see the evidence.

Anyway, I won't be voting for him but I did think it was interesting to read his platform.

War in Iraq
If we wish to restore this "world order" let the UN grow some balls. If N. Korea wants to paint the world red, let other countries taste the piss. Why should the US be the lone protector of the "world economy?"

The economy
Put the power back in local hands, where your dollars can be watched. Why focus on waste and corruption, when you can simply eliminate jobs period?

Social Security
What a massive cluster*****. Privatize the system.

I dislike the propensity for Democrats/Republicans to simply make the system bigger. Throw more money, and it shall be fixed.

Libertarians are apt to remove all artificial forces. I somewhat agree and disagree with this action. I believe there needs to be some degree of oversight. The question is how much.

Overall, I feel Badnarik has the will and ideas to enact meaningful changes. He's willing to take a stand. Badnarik not only has a plan, he's actually telling you that plan.

That's what isolationists said before WWI and WWII. Let Hitler do as he will, why should we get involved.

Well, back to the present. The US depends on a global economy. We need it to be protected. Neither the UN nor any other country can take the lead. So, as a practical matter, the US will often have to take the lead. That's just the way it is. Whether we like it or not, or think it fair or unfair, makes no difference.

So are you voting for Mr "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" anyway?

Well, jyl, please understand the historically, and at its base, the Libertarian movement is all about a dialing back federal level encroachment on States power. Let the states decide issues. Example; if all the Cinderella-story homo's want to move to California, and make gay marriage legal there, then fine; it's a state issue, Not a federal one.

Libertarians are more strict Constitutionalists. That is the appeal to me. As such, they recognize one of the few PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY of the fed-level is DEFENCE.

Obviously, the ones running feel the need to play "issues" to fit in. Personally, I would like to hear less of these campaign spins . .. as if we are electing an all-dictating king.:rolleyes:

We need to slowly take back our government of the people, by the people. That starts by giving control back to states.

Just consider how gas tax dollars work. the federal govt sucks huge amounts out of states, then makes conditions on states to get it back to build roads. Conditions like speed-limits (who want to do 55 thru eastern Montana?) Like drinking age. Like carpool lanes. THe list goes on and on and on and on (it gets annoying)

Competition between states is a good thing. Having federal politicians holding our tax $ hostage until the biggest state lips come to kiss their asses is a bad thing.

Are local/state governments more efficient than the federal government? I can think of plenty of instances of incompetence/waste at the local level - school districts going bankrupt, influence-peddling in city governments, counties raiding their pension funds, etc etc. All just anectodal, but my point is I've never seen any real evidence that your friendly local government is more efficient than federal government. It is a nice slogan, but is it any more than that?

Also, aren't there plenty of things that have to be dealt with at a national i.e. federal level? Defense (that's obvious). Industry/business (so much business is interstate, and anyway it is more efficient to have one set of national standards than 50 different sets). Environment (pollution crosses borders). Etc.

per www.lp.org -- "Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud."

That would mean military defence, and keeping businesses honest.

Ah, well, Saddam wasn't exactly conquering the world, was he? Let's see, how many other countries was he occupying? How big of a WMD arsenal did he have?

As for the Libertarian movement, Badanrik's platform seems to stray pretty far from what you're describing as the core Libertarian movement. I didn't see any particular emphasis on shifting power to the States. I saw (1) international isolationism, (2) eliminating regulations as the solution to all economic problems.

I told U Boyz about the "SYSTEM"...no canidate that doesn't have the Systems seal of approval will ever get elected to the Presidency...

The system is all about status quo....and the excuse the system uses is that the Presidency is too important of a job for an outsider to be allowed to have...

What can a President do...

He can steer the ship of state in the direction he and his party wants....appointing his own political soul mates to positions of power, implement his ideological programs aka known as allowing his patrons to feed at the trough...the downside to his power is that the shiip of state is slow to turn in the direction that he wants it to. Thus a Presidents policies may not come fruitiion, or as some might say home to roost during his term in office.

What can't the President do...

Very simply he can not rock the boat, by trying to change the system at it's fundlemental roots. There are vested interests that have no desire to change...sure you can change the top line but the bottom line remains the same...if the President trys such a foolish action or is incompetent in his execution of the Systems dictates he is effectivily removed or sidelined by the system...JFK, Nixon, Carter and Clinton...specifically Clinton was like a dog with a can tied to his tail..he was kept so busy deffending himself from allegations that he didn't have time to try any fundlemental changes to the system....his one attempt of changing the Health Care system came to naught and was enough for the System to sideline him effectivily....

We're just going to have to agree to disagree, jyl.

In my opinion, it's easier to watch over a small pie in your own backyard than a huge pie. Plus, if you don't like that small pie, you have a better shot at changing the ingredients. If you don't like that huge pie, you might be able to change the chief chef, but that's about it.

I never said we had to be isolationists, even though that's what Badnarik proposes. Do we really need constant presence in supposedly 130 countries? We have a fairly mobile armed services. Wouldn't it be cheaper to have the 230,000 troops stationed inside the US, where the dollars would be reintroduced into the local economy instead of paying for Gunter's Audi station wagon and bier.

Send the armies to woop ass when necessary, but let them party at home when they are not needed.

I'm probably going to vote for him...
It would be nice to get some federal funding for the smaller parties such as the Libs and Greens, mix up the boring choices we have for government. I think you have to get 5% of the popular vote to qualify.

JCM

concentric
 

The 2008 debates will be WAY more interesting with a third party, or two, in the mix.

Ditto.

"Mark me for Badnarik. I am a rabid Republican, but I don't like the way things are going."

My thoughts exactly!!