>You've got the fringe parties who couldn't even get on most of the ballots, then you've got nader who has nothing but "Vote for me, I'm the one true independent".
Um, Michael Badnarik is on the ballot in 48 states and D.C. Nader's only on in 35 genious (ant NOT in OH, PA, TX, CA, MO and many "important states"). Badnarik is the only third party choice in a great number of larger states and therefore could have a "perot factor influence" if (especially the media) people were to only look.
Unless you think Oklahoma and New Hampshire are going to tip the election one way or the other, AMERICA still has a choice. Oh, check it out yourself - http://www.ballot-access.org
Yep. MS stinks. I'm a Mac user too. The mainstream is for tourists. (I'll admit I am lazy and just hate CLI)
Voting third party means never having to say you're sorry.
>That organization has opened the debate to ANY candidate, from ANY party that exhibits a sufficient level of public support to be considered a serious contender.
how exactly is a third party candidate supposed to garner 15% support if NONE of the major polling & media is mentioning, asking, or offering our candidates as actual CHOICES?
It's like going to the furniture store and they offer you a sofa or a loveseat, but NEVER tell you that there's recliners available. You can't ask because they'll just record that response as "refused the choice" and say you're not significant.
Any free-market model rests on demand of choices and variety. Would Dairy Queen stay in business if they only offered single vanilla cones? No, the lion's share of their revenue is the variety of Blizzards mixed with that crappy soft-serve.
But, politics are too complicated for lots of choices.
"The voters are free to ACCEPT us or REFUSE us, but to be ignorant to us is to believe the LIE that there are only two evil choices. The power of an American Revolution is still possible with the vote."
We do. The problem is that Bush, Kerry and the Repugnicrats are FORCING the taxpayers of Arizona to fund a partisan event, which is against their State Constitution and also against US IRS tax codes allowing tax-free status.
Libertarians would never refuse access to the Repugnicrats attending because htye provide so much fodder and entertainment to us.
In case you were unaware, the Libertarian Party is actually a RECOGNIZED party in many states. Not some write-in movement. Ignorance of the facts is simply your fault. This is why we've been on the ropes for so long.
Mike Bellman - MikeMac Specialist
Columbia, MO
"The voters are free to ACCEPT us or REFUSE us, but to be ignorant to us is to believe the LIE that there are only two evil choices. The power of an American Revolution is still possible with the vote."
>but the chance is 99% that a Democrat or Republican will control the White House for the next four years.
YES! Exactly. You get it. Only ONE of them has a chance of winning. The people who say that Libertarian Michael Badnarik has no chance of winning have forgotten that on November 3rd either Bush or Kerry will NOT be the elected President!
All the Repugnicrats are talking like it is their candidate who is going to win. Probably because if they don't they'll just complain about it for four years anyway. Hooray for the moderate party.
>Given their differing views on foreign policy, taxation, gay marriage, and abortion
Last time I checked, taxation is still legislated by Congress - Bush's tax relief had nothing to do with us paying the bills. It just made more debt for our kids.
Gay marriage is not federally regulated (except the union of Bush and Kerry)
In MY state we've defined marriage as the union between one man and one woman, but our State Constitution fails to define gender. (constitutional crisis, anyone?)
and the POTUSA hasn't had a THING to do with abortion laws since Roe vs. Wade. (Unless you count promoting more abortions by locking up access to various birth control drugs.)
Shouldn't the differences and debates between the candidates actually have something to do with the powers of the President and scope of the office? Many of the Debate Topics rank up there, PRESIDENTIALLY, with boxers vs. briefs and Coke vs. Pepsi.
I'm ready to put the Government on a DIET.
Mike Bellman - MikeMac Specialist Columbia, MO
"The voters are free to ACCEPT us or REFUSE us, but to be ignorant to us is to believe the LIE that there are only two evil choices. The power of an American Revolution is still possible with the vote."
We will continue to try to get our Libertarian Candidate in the Debates as long as there are debates. We had one in which even Bush and Kerry were invited. They didn't RSVP.
http://debatebadnarik.blogspot.com
Is one way to help us toward the goal.
As with o17 protests in 2000, there will be a huge rally, counter debates and appearances by third party hopefuls in St. Louis
http://www.stlo8.org
October 8th and 9th. I will also get to see him the day before in Columbia (my home town)
"The voters are free to ACCEPT us or REFUSE us, but to be ignorant to us is to believe the LIE that there are only two evil choices. The power of an American Revolution is still possible with the vote."
Slashdot Mirror
>You've got the fringe parties who couldn't even get on most of the ballots, then you've got nader who has nothing but "Vote for me, I'm the one true independent".
Um, Michael Badnarik is on the ballot in 48 states and D.C. Nader's only on in 35 genious (ant NOT in OH, PA, TX, CA, MO and many "important states"). Badnarik is the only third party choice in a great number of larger states and therefore could have a "perot factor influence" if (especially the media) people were to only look.
Unless you think Oklahoma and New Hampshire are going to tip the election one way or the other, AMERICA still has a choice. Oh, check it out yourself - http://www.ballot-access.org
Yep. MS stinks. I'm a Mac user too. The mainstream is for tourists. (I'll admit I am lazy and just hate CLI) Voting third party means never having to say you're sorry.
>That organization has opened the debate to ANY candidate, from ANY party that exhibits a sufficient level of public support to be considered a serious contender.
how exactly is a third party candidate supposed to garner 15% support if NONE of the major polling & media is mentioning, asking, or offering our candidates as actual CHOICES?
It's like going to the furniture store and they offer you a sofa or a loveseat, but NEVER tell you that there's recliners available. You can't ask because they'll just record that response as "refused the choice" and say you're not significant.
Any free-market model rests on demand of choices and variety. Would Dairy Queen stay in business if they only offered single vanilla cones? No, the lion's share of their revenue is the variety of Blizzards mixed with that crappy soft-serve.
But, politics are too complicated for lots of choices.
"The voters are free to ACCEPT us or REFUSE us, but to be ignorant to us is to believe the LIE that there are only two evil choices. The power of an American Revolution is still possible with the vote."
Sorry I forgot my html tags while foaming at the mouth.
We do. The problem is that Bush, Kerry and the Repugnicrats are FORCING the taxpayers of Arizona to fund a partisan event, which is against their State Constitution and also against US IRS tax codes allowing tax-free status. Libertarians would never refuse access to the Repugnicrats attending because htye provide so much fodder and entertainment to us. In case you were unaware, the Libertarian Party is actually a RECOGNIZED party in many states. Not some write-in movement. Ignorance of the facts is simply your fault. This is why we've been on the ropes for so long. Mike Bellman - MikeMac Specialist Columbia, MO "The voters are free to ACCEPT us or REFUSE us, but to be ignorant to us is to believe the LIE that there are only two evil choices. The power of an American Revolution is still possible with the vote."
>but the chance is 99% that a Democrat or Republican will control the White House for the next four years.
YES! Exactly. You get it. Only ONE of them has a chance of winning. The people who say that Libertarian Michael Badnarik has no chance of winning have forgotten that on November 3rd either Bush or Kerry will NOT be the elected President!
All the Repugnicrats are talking like it is their candidate who is going to win. Probably because if they don't they'll just complain about it for four years anyway. Hooray for the moderate party.
>Given their differing views on foreign policy, taxation, gay marriage, and abortion
Last time I checked, taxation is still legislated by Congress - Bush's tax relief had nothing to do with us paying the bills. It just made more debt for our kids.
Gay marriage is not federally regulated (except the union of Bush and Kerry)
In MY state we've defined marriage as the union between one man and one woman, but our State Constitution fails to define gender. (constitutional crisis, anyone?)
and the POTUSA hasn't had a THING to do with abortion laws since Roe vs. Wade. (Unless you count promoting more abortions by locking up access to various birth control drugs.)
Shouldn't the differences and debates between the candidates actually have something to do with the powers of the President and scope of the office? Many of the Debate Topics rank up there, PRESIDENTIALLY, with boxers vs. briefs and Coke vs. Pepsi.
I'm ready to put the Government on a DIET.
Mike Bellman - MikeMac Specialist
Columbia, MO
"The voters are free to ACCEPT us or REFUSE us, but to be ignorant to us is to believe the LIE that there are only two evil choices. The power of an American Revolution is still possible with the vote."
We will continue to try to get our Libertarian Candidate in the Debates as long as there are debates. We had one in which even Bush and Kerry were invited. They didn't RSVP. http://debatebadnarik.blogspot.com Is one way to help us toward the goal. As with o17 protests in 2000, there will be a huge rally, counter debates and appearances by third party hopefuls in St. Louis http://www.stlo8.org October 8th and 9th. I will also get to see him the day before in Columbia (my home town) "The voters are free to ACCEPT us or REFUSE us, but to be ignorant to us is to believe the LIE that there are only two evil choices. The power of an American Revolution is still possible with the vote."