Slashdot Mirror

If he were elected, I'm not sure how much of his own agenda he'd be able to accomplish since he can only propose new legislation & veto things he disagrees with, but he could make it VERY difficult for Congress to pass things that there wasn't unanimous agreement about, and he wouldn't be giving the protection of the President's Office to those agents of the executive branch who are blatantly violating the Constitution.

The veto is anyone who wants to be president most powerful weapon. I'd love to see a president that would veto most of the bills passed by congress. In 2004 that's what Michael Badnarik promised. Congress can override vetoes but it isn't homogeneous enough to do it now. That would be a good sight to see, the federal government screeching to a halt.

Michael Badnarik.

I would love to have this in US.

Not the web based voting guide . . . parties to choose from. Where governments are actually representative of the people rather than the lesser of two evils. Sure the president would be one of the two major parties . . . however, the deadlock in congress would be great. None with a majority . . . that would be awesome. No, new laws. Most of the dumb laws all have sunset provisions on them such as NCLB, patriot act, and whole bunch more would just go bye-bye.

Someone mentioned the http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection I like this one thing it acuratly shows is the two dominat parties are both right (which I am) and authtorian. Of course they are. How would they not be.

After reading this I am going to have to check out http://www.badnarik.org/

Really, so the leaders of the american Libertarian party, the Reform party, the American Communist party, and others have been locked up for intending to alter the government? Wow, and I missed it.

Then perhaps you should start paying attention?
It's pretty hard to miss.

I voted for the candidate I like. It should NOT come down to preventing some bozo from getting elected, but rather makeing a choice of a qualified person for office.

Unfortunately I was one of those who voted that way in 2000, instead of voting for who I wanted I specifically voted against Bush. Gore wasn't good but he was less bad than Bush to me. In 2004 I voted for Michael Badnarik, and if I lived in the district he's running for in Texas I'd vote for him again. In a way I think that brings up one of the problems Libertarians have, they should run for more local and state offices to get more visibility.

I believe that there will come a time when the people finally fed up with the repression of local, state, and federal governments, will rise up and claim their freedom.

Some are working on just this, the Free State Project is trying to get enough people to move to New Hampshire to regain freedom and liberty and reduce the size of government.

Fully Informed Jurors Association

Ah, only if more people knew about jury nullification. Unfortunately I've heard of cases where people were kicked off juries because they knew about it, that prosecuters and some judges are disqualifying people if they know about it.

And did you vote for Michael Badnarik in 2004? Unfortunately I threw away my vote in 2000 by voting specifically against Bush instead of for whom I wanted. Last year my vote was for Badnarik.

I voted for Ron Paul the Libertarian presidential candidate in 1992. Again in 2004 I voted for the libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik. Unfortunately I didn't vote in 1996 or in 2000. In 1996 I was hit in an accident a few weeks before the election which put me in a coma, and in 2000 I wasn't registered to vote early enough to vote after moving so I could get therapy because of the accident. In both cases though I supported the libertarian candidate, I don't recall who in 1996 but Harry Brown in 2000.

Just keep the likes of Hillary out of office so I don't lose the freedom I have to choose which doctor I can take my family to. If she gets into office I will probably also loose the freedom I have to spend my own money for what I want since she seems to know better how to spend it than I do. For that matter most of the left would like to me to loose the freedom I have to spend my money and grow the economy. After all they vote against Tax cuts every time they can. They also vote against cutting Government programs that should have never been setup in the first place. If you want to stop "eroding civil rights" First you need to remove all government programs that are not part of the proper role of Government. I am afraid that the only way we will ever do that is by electing Independents into office, and I don't think that is going to happen any time soon.

Ooh, missed this. Hillary as president is indeed scary. As regards tax cuts, yes you can blame democrats for opposing them but you can't blame them for not cutting government programs and the cost of them, republicans share just as much blame for this. Two republican congressmen, House Transportation Committee Chairman Don Young and Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, both from Alaska and republican, pushed to spend $223 million for a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. Even Rush Limbaugh lamblasted it. Now this part I really liked, "First you need to remove all government programs that are not part of the proper role of Government." That's one reason I voted for Michael Badnarik for president. We need to abolish every agency, bureau, department, and office in the federal government that is not constitutionally mandated. This, a government that stays within constitutional contraints, is why when I can I vote for Libertarian Party candidates.

Did you vote for Michael Badnarik last year? He got my vote. I see he's running for congress in Texas. He can join Ron Paul.

It wouldn't entirely have surprised me.

On a similar note I actually made a bet with a friend that at least one Presidential candidate would be arrested during the election. I won, of course.

First, let me say *I* agree with most of that, and, for certain types of people, all of that (I don't know your opinions, so it is mathematically possible no canidate comes close to representing you).

However, there are so many people who don't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and vote for a candidate that *DOES* represent their beliefs come polling day that it makes me bow my head in shame. They think a vote for their canidate is a vote wasted to prevent the lesser of the (other) two (main) evils.

Arguably true, technically- but it does nothing to cure the problem of only two choices, neither of which are, as you say, remotely close. The last presidential election, our state's Libertarian candidate (And, yes, slashnazis, I know the linked site is not for the presidential election) actually put his views up for people to read! (GASP!) The other two "big" guys had sackless, neutered positions to appeal to a broad audience. I know not everyone would even come close to his opinions; there may be "green" or independent candidates that do though- and it is a shame that grown men and women can't manage the cojones (or, slashnazis, whatever you conceive the female equiv to be) to place a vote in line with their opinion when they *DO* find one.

It wasn't an obvious call by any means, and I'm not surprised that people were conflicted. Trying to pick between Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum isn't fun.

You did know that you had other choices, didn't you?

Voting for the lesser of two evils is 'doing something'. And if more Naderites had understood that in either of the last two elections, our country would be a loss less broke and a lot less screwed-up right now. Throwing-away your vote on some who has zero change of winning, that's not 'doing something'.

I "voted for the lesser of two 'bads'" in 2000 and threw away my vote. I had wanted to vote for Harry Brown the Libertarian candidate, but instead of voting for him I specifically voted against Bush. I vowed never to do that again, so in 2004 I voted for Michael Badnarik who's now running for congress in Texas.

I am a true conservative - an independant libertarian

If you were libertarian, ie believe in liberty and small government, then you're not conservative unless you mean fiscally conservative wherein government is kept within limits with low taxes and such. Those who believe in liberty and small government are Jeffersonian or Classical Liberals. Myself, when I can I generally vote LP, like in 2004 my vote went to Michael Badnarik, and if I lived in Texas I'd vote for him for congress just as I would Ron Paul. But I've also voted for Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. Whoever comes the closest to being for liberty I vote for.

That depends: Do you believe that the person you elect will change things for the better? If the new boss is the same as the old boss, it doesn't matter which party he represents. It's all a shell game. Americans are being similarly oppressed, yet many of the provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act were things the Clinton administration fought very hard to get, yet never managed to win. So am I now to believe that a vote for the Democrats is a vote against black bag searches? Of course it isn't. They both suck, so there's no point in voting for either of them. If the voter turnout is too low the election becomes illegitimate. The leadership looses its authority without popular consent.

The Democrats and Republicans weren't the only parties that had candidates running for offices, and I didn't vote for eithe Scary Kerry or Dubya Bush. My support went to Micheal Badnarik, the Libertarian Party candidate. He didn't win but he didn't get much media attention either, actually Dems and Reps did what they could to stop him from being at the debates and getting the message out. Both him and David Cobb, the Green Party candidate, were arrested when they tried to go to debates. This is a problem the LP has, getting the message out. What I'd like to see is something like the online activity for Dean in 2003/4.

And when you have a choice between Dictator 1 and Dictator 2 then voting just says, "hey, I agreee with your repression of me!"

I don't know where this came from, well in a sense I do as instead of voting for who I wanted to vote for in 2000 I instead specifically voted against Bush. I didn't fall into that trap in 2004 though, instead I voted for who I wanted, Michael Badnarik. There were a few others who ran as well. You can either speak up and vote or you can lay down and roll over. Personally I prefer fighting. Actually if I didn't fight I'd be dead, seeing as how the docs told my family it'd be a miracle if I lived after I was hit in an accident. A few of the therapists I saw said I lived because of stubbornness.

If you're sick of entitlements then why did you vote for someone who supports entitlements instead of voting for someone like Michael Badnarik who really would work to end entitlements?

If you don't like something go out and VOTE (how many of you did that?)

I tried to change things, I specifically supported Michael Badnarik for president who was excluded by republicans and democrats from participating in the presidential debates. Not only was he barred from them when he actually went to one he was arrested, all for trying to attend a public debate.

If you love freedom, liberty, and reason vote for Michael Badnarik! If he runs in 2008.

BTW, many of us disliked kerry almost as much, because we are libertarians, not democrats. Your guy won due to cheating.

Bravo! Too bad Michael Badnarik wasn't allowed to participate in the debates.

That's even more scary than Bush as president, and that's bad. I wasted my vote in 2000 by specifically voting against Bush instead of for who I wanted to vote for. This tyme, in 2004, I voted for who I wanted, Michael Badnarik

I won't tell you what my name is but I will tell you who I voted for.

• 1992, Ron Paul, Committee to reelect Ron Paul or Congressman Ron Paul
• 1996, unfortunately didn't vote, see below.
• 2000, against Bush
• 2004, Micheal Badnarik

Now some may be asking why I didn't vote in 1996. Just over a month before the election I had a bad accident that put me in a coma. Then about a month later I was moved to a rehab house for therapy. I planned on voting for Harry Brown though.

We have more than to parties in the U.S. as well.

We've got the Greens.

We've got the Libertarians.

We've go the Socialists.

We've got the Communists. (Who seem to have abandoned the hammer for a gear, but they're sticking to the sickle.)

We've got the Constitution Party.

Now, there is some collusion between the two entrenched parties and the media to create a de facto two-party system. Furthermore, plurality voting creates the environment for a two-party system.

Some are willing to fight it.

-Peter

Yes intentions count, but the clipper chip still isn't as bad as the PATRIOT Act. Or the new "Real ID Act". The current congress and admin are eroding liberty, states rights, and the seperation of power faster than Slick Willie did. And no I didn't vote for either Clinton or Bush, in 1992 I voted for Ron Paul, in 2000 for Harry Brown, and last year for Micheal Badnarik.I didn't list 1996 because I didn't vote that year as I was livng in a rehab house where I was undergoing therapy after an accident, but I had planned on voting for Harry Brown then too.

Here's one.
Here's another.

Or, if you feel those two links are from sites that are a bit too 'liberal', how about a link to the Slashdot story?

Aero

The link is to provide information. What good would it do to link to diebold.com?

My problem was that you linked to BlackBox with the text saying it was the home of the enemies of democracy, when it's Diebold and others who are the real enemies. Why, about a year ago when Ohio bought a bunch of Diebolt blackboxes the CEO of Diebolt had the balls to say on the news that Diebolt was ready to deliver to Bush Ohio's electoral college votes. Ohio ended up being the key state in Bush's win so he was right as regards his statement.

Fraud as far as I'm concerned!!! And no I didn't vote for Scary Kerry either, my vote was for Micheal Badnarik. He was the only one running that stood for the Constitution of the USA!!!

What good does voting in America do? Democrats are corrupt, Republicans are corrupt, and everyone else is ignored. I voted for Badnarik in the last election.

I always see people complaining about Washington and talking like "that's just the way it is" and fail to see that "we the people" are the ones supporting it in the end.

The problem isn't with the Reps or the Dems, it is with both. I believe they are both selling out on regular people and that's why I voted for Michael Badnarik and the Libertarian Party.

Wow that's classic you idiot mods. If my post is offtopic, the parent I'm referring to certainly is offtopic too. That's ok though, as I have mod points to burn, so play your little games. When I mod, I try to do so based on content rather than a post's agreement with my political affiliation. But hey, what do I know, I voted for freedom.

Unless of course computer geeks everywhere formed their own political party and marched on Washington.

Weeeellll.... We had a Computer Geek running for president in this last election. Unfortunately, as usual, most people didn't care. Or they used some other lame ass excuse like "this is such an important election" or "I don't want to waste my vote".

Heh, the sheep don't want salvation. They are happy being sheep. (let the flames begin for that comment, I can take it :)

I'd also like to throw in my two cents on what I believe is a related issue: copyrights and patents. I recognize the importance of copyrights and patents. However, I think we should stop referring to them as property. They are not property. Property, by definition, is scarce, in the same sense that economists use that word. Ideas are not scarce. Therefore, ideas are not property. The term "intellectual property" is a contradiction in terms.

The purpose of copyright and patent should be to reward those who innovate, not to award copyright holders control over the implementation of those ideas as if they were property.

Toward that end, I'd like to see a change in the LP's platform that reflects something along the following lines: Copyrights and patents should only reward the innovator. They are not property and should not be transferrable. Only the innovator should collect royalties. It makes no sense for a small-time programmer to invent DOS, only to have Bill Gates buy it for $50,000 and then make millions off because of his government-granted monopoly via copyright. Instead, the innovator should be considered the permanent holder of the copyright or patent (until it runs out under law), and anyone who wants to use it may do so provided they pay a royalty. No patent or copyright holder should be permitted to withhold the use of an idea from someone else who is willing to pay a royalty to use it or sell a product based on it.

I have no problem with the innovator collecting $50,000 from Bill Gates. I have no problem with Bill Gates making lots of money off it. But I do have a major problem with Bill Gates being able to exclude anyone else from selling DOS, when he didn't even invent DOS in the first place. That's not the legitimate purpose of copyright, in my opinion.

Free markets depend on people competing to deliver products to the marketplace. When copyrights and patents amount to being primarily government-sponsored monopolies, it's time to redraw the line.

Here's what Michael Badnarik himself posted in response to some comments in his blog:

I find the percentage of negative comments here somewhat surprising given the number of "please ask for a recount" messages that I've alread gotten. However, I'd like to clear up a serious misconception that many of you apparently have.

This demand for a recount is not expected to change the outcome. I may be "Quixotic", but I'm not crazy. David Cobb and I have no expectation that the results of the election will be changed in the slightest. What we ARE hoping to do is to find out just how corrupt the system really is. Why bother voting for anyone if the electronic machines are going to report a pre-determined outcome.

I saw a bumper sticker that expressed the idea very well. It said: DIEBOLD - MAKING MACHINES THAT VOTE SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

Comment by Michael Badnarik -- 11/11/2004 @ 6:23 pm

If you would prefer to donate the money via the Badnarik campaign instead, here's the link.

That would be this guy....

Even on the site that the image is linked from, it doesn't say what the heights represent.

I saw another poster suggest population, but that doesn't make sense because so much is flat.

I submit that it is based upon the sway of the vote. The higher the plateau, the farther away from 50% split the vote was, and the color indicates the higher sway of votes. It also explains the higher blue plateaus in the coastal/liberal areas.

FWIW, I don't appear on that map; I voted for Badnarik

As a "youth", I was well aware of what was going on and CHOSE not to waste my time. My state, California, was one of the first to be projected Democrat, the lesser of two evils. I could have gotten time off or ditched a class to vote Badnarik (again an informed choice because the state was wrapped up for Kerry, nothing more I could do to oppose Bush), but quite frankly, he's batshit insane too. Dissolve the Federal Reserve? http://badnarik.org/whybadnarik/why_reformparty.ph p

Instead, vote for one of the smaller parties - if they receive 5% of the vote, then their funding is increased, and they may be able to work on something good in your area.

Or, you could vote for someone with principles, who doesn't believe you should be forced to fund him (through tax dollars) if you don't agree with him, and will refuse to accept matching funds even if he should reach the 5% qualification limit. There are two such candidates for president this year.

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

Get your country back.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...Badnairk is badass...

For meaningful change, the only choice is Michael Badnarik!

His comment about blowing up the UN was not a "flippant remark" that I've seized upon, as the grandparent suggests. It was, in fact, a prominent proposal on his website prior to his winning the Libertarian Party nomination; its removal since then (and subsequent denials of it ever having been a serious position) likely being because even he realizes the idea is too insane for the general populace. His excuse for it previous to that was that it was a necessary action for showing the World that US policies had significantly changed.

In fact, minus the "and blow up the building" bit, the "Withdraw from the UN and evict them" proposal still appears on his official website. This is still enough to raise serious questions about Mr. Badnarik's apparently tenuous grasp on the scope of Presidential authority, because the US government does not own the UN land, which was donated by John D Rockefeler and which is considered to be international territory under the law. I don't know what magical powers Badnarik believes the President posesses, but a self-professed constitutional scholar should really know better than to believe that he can unilaterally seize extra-national territory.

But even if it was just some silly comment of his, I notice that you haven't bothered to attempt to refute any of the other serious concerns people have raised about Badnarik here: The "atrophy prisoner's muscles" plan in contravention of the 8th ammendment, the ludicruous notion of returning to a gold standard, the fact he does not seem to understand the powers granted by the 16th ammendment, the fact that he doesn't seem to understand the powers granted to the courts by Article III of the constitution, etc, etc. Badnarik, for all his claims to being a constitutional scholar, appears to understand very, very little of what powers the President does and does not have. How does he plan to "announce a special one-week session of congress in which all members of Congress would be forced to sit through him teaching a constitution class, followed by them swearing an oath stating that they will only exercise their powers as he sees them granted by the constitution??" The President lacks the ability to force the entirety of Congress to sit through a week-long anything, and his opinions on powers granted by the constitution are certainly not binding under law.

If I, as you assert, haven't a clue what I'm talking about, then it should be fairly easy for you to refute these troubling claims about Mr. Badnarik's beliefs and show us all how they are both sane and constitutional proposals.

Let's face it, you don't need bin-laden to tell you we've been screwed by both parties.

If you *REALLY* want to get technical, both campaings could, theororetically, be prosecuted under anti-trust laws for their debate agreement or even racketeering (RICO statutes) for all the legal manoeuvres before, during, and likely after the elections. (Intimidation, voter fraud, extortion [vote for me or else everyone gets it], rigging an election [Nader's woes]...)

Yeah, I know I'm in a "swing state," yada, yada, yada, but I look at it this way: What if? I'll be voting for someone that really does represent my views best, and, if elected, would cause repurcussions in D.C. that would be felt around the world.

Unlike Ralph Nader he is on the ballot in 49 states.

One thing I got from the bin-laden transcript the media seems to miss is he is telling us we --the voter-- have the power to steer our country but our apathy has led us down this road of conflict.

I've voted every year since I was 18. I don't think I've wasted any votes except in the last election.

I won't do it again.

(oh, god, i'm gonna get flamed aren't I?)

Realize that you can still do what you want under Badnarik.

Separate the idea of being "for something" with making your particular view law for all to follow.

I know you're probably trolling, but in case you've been living under a rock please check out Badnarik

"A war with two primary fronts, Iraq and Afghanistan, that's lasted for two years is hardly a continuous war."

1) Then when do we leave?
2) Then how do we stop picking targets? Syria, Iran, North Korea

Let me plant a little seed for you. It has nothing to do with terrorism. It has nothing to do with axis of evil or anything of that other bullshit. It has to do with imperialism. And, no I'm not voting Kerry. I'm voting Badnarik, and you should too.

I won't hold it against you if you vote for Badnarik but tell your friends you voted for Bush.

Wow. How exciting. Voting for someone on the basis that they could win. How principled. On second though, fuck that. I say....
1) Go, Detroit Tigers!
2) Go, Detroit Lions!
3) Go, Badnarik!

You obviously don't get it. Terrorists don't hate us "because we're free." They hate us mostly because we globe trot around the world and kick everyones ass and don't mind our own business. Think I'm wrong? Go ahead and actually read some things from Osama Bin Laden. 9/11 is the culmination of a problem brewing over the last 50 years. Vote for real change. Vote Badnarik. The blood isn't on my hands. It's on peoples' hands who vote Kerry or Bush.

But Badnarik is a bloody nutcase.

You sound like a Libertarian; congratulations. Vote Badnarik tomorrow. He supports you point of view.

Libertarians don't want the US military to be GloboCop.

• Bardnik
• Bush
• Cobb
• Kerry
• Nader

Regardless of how you try to justify your vote, a vote for a major candidate is a statement that you:

• Approve of that candidate
• Endorse that candidate's position(s)
• Want that candidate to be the next President of the United States!

As for myself, I will be voting for Michael Badnarik for President. What's that? I hear cries of:
"But, he doesnt have a chance to win!"
"This election is too important to risk electing the wrong person!"
These are both true statements, however I refuse to "waste my vote", or "throw my vote away" by voting for a candidate that I disagree with.

Hooptie