Mission Accomplished

[Yonivore]

Having a chance to win does not cons ute "running." Candidates run for office every year with very little chance of unseating in bents. They are still running. If you are mobilizing a significant base of people, you are running.

I didn't say "very little chance." Bednarak has absolutely zero chance of winning. None, zilch, zero, nada, niet, nien...pick your ing language.

Either you vote for the candidate you believe in or you're too scared to vote for the candidate you believe in.

You use your vote to elect the person you believe will most represent your views in the office sought. It has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with understanding political realities.

Voting for a particular candidate just so another candidate will lose is a poor use of your vote.

Not if the person against whom you're voting would do irrepairable harm in the office and certainly not if your vote acheives the desired result.

I want fiscal responsibility. Bush hasn't delivered and Kerry certainly won't deliver. I'm not about to vote for a candidate who doesn't support my positions.

Not even if your vote stands the chance of causing the election of someone that is at the complete opposite end of the spectrum from you?

If you really want fiscal conservatism you don't have to be afraid. All it takes is a little guts.

I think you're confusing guts with naivette... A vote for Bednarak is worse than wasted...it's dangerous.

[Brodels]

problem is brodels, not enough people are there to destroy the "two party" system.

There are too many polarized peopel on each side to end it.

It's people like you that are the problem. Everyone with an at ude like yours is responsible for ensuring that we'll never break out of the two party system.

The only way to get enough support to destroy the system is to get people to understand why other options most match their views and getting them to stand up and vote for other candidates. If just 100,000 more people like you stand up and vote to destroy the system, it will make a difference next time around. You have to start somewhere.

I really feel that people are polarized because they feel the need to identify with something and they either think that there are only two options or they find strength in supporting a popular party. At least some of the polarization you see is a front. There are many republicans who choose to be hardcore republicans because they hate what democrats stand for and vice versa. Those people don't understand that you don't have to be republican just because you hate democrats.

[Yonivore]

It increases your base. And if that can be increased again in the next election, you've really gained something and you're working towards busting up the two-party system.

I voted libertarian because I believe in protecting personal freedoms, keeping more of my money, decreasing government spending, eliminating federal deficits, and some other things.

Either you vote for what you believe in or you're too scared to do it.

This is a prime example of a person who believes elections have no real consequences.

A Kerry Presidency would do two very dangerous things...

1) It will place, in the White House, a party that would spend the next 4 years working hard to ensure their continued occupancy of that office. And, judging by the campaign this year, they're willing to do almost anything in that regard.

2) It will place, in the position of Commander-in-Chief, a person that in all likelihood will lose the war on terror thereby raising the spectre of a very different political landscape in 2008 and beyond where Libertarian "fiscal responsibility" will be very low on the totem pole of priorities.

I would suggest that to keep Libertarian ideals at the forefront you need to elect a party that, at the very least, isn't an hetical to your ideals...and, friend, that ain't the Demoncratic Party.

[IcemanCometh]

A Kerry Presidency would do two very dangerous things...

1) It will place, in the White House, a party that would spend the next 4 years working hard to ensure their continued occupancy of that office. And, judging by the campaign this year, they're willing to do almost anything in that regard.

2) It will place, in the position of Commander-in-Chief, a person that in all likelihood will lose the war on terror thereby raising the spectre of a very different political landscape in 2008 and beyond where Libertarian "fiscal responsibility" will be very low on the totem pole of priorities.

how is that any different than what we have had the past 4 years?

[Brodels]

I didn't say "very little chance." Bednarak has absolutely zero chance of winning. None, zilch, zero, nada, niet, nien...pick your ing language.

Every candidate had some chance coming into today. His chances may have been almost nothing, but they weren't zero.

You use your vote to elect the person you believe will most represent your views in the office sought. It has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with understanding political realities.

It does have to do with fear if people fail to vote for the person most closely matching their views and instead go with the next best thing. Some people are afraid to vote for Badnarik because they are afraid of what might happen when Kerry wins. That's fear. But you still need to stand up and vote for what you believe in if you ever, ever, ever want there to be a chance of a candidate getting elected that actually matches your views. Bush and Kerry aren't fiscally conservative. They aren't for increasing personal freedoms. They support deficit spending. Why would I vote for either if they don't match my views?

Not if the person against whom you're voting would do irrepairable harm in the office and certainly not if your vote acheives the desired result.

See above.

Not even if your vote stands the chance of causing the election of someone that is at the complete opposite end of the spectrum from you?

I don't take spectrums into consideration. Either you match my beliefs somewhat closely or you don't. Bush and Kerry both support spending more money, deficit spending, war, and other things things I don't agree with. It's as simple as that.

I think you're confusing guts with naivette... A vote for Bednarak is worse than wasted...it's dangerous.

A vote for Badnarik is a vote for someone that agrees with my views on most (but not all) issues. There is only one key area where I'm not with the libertarians. I disagree with Bush and Kerry on many issues. A vote for Bush isn't a vote against Kerry any more than a vote for Badnarik is. From my point of view, a vote for Bush is a vote for principles that I don't believe in.

[Brodels]

This is a prime example of a person who believes elections have no real consequences.

So I should vote for a person who doesn't come close to believing in what I believe? That makes no sense.

A Kerry Presidency would do two very dangerous things...

1) It will place, in the White House, a party that would spend the next 4 years working hard to ensure their continued occupancy of that office. And, judging by the campaign this year, they're willing to do almost anything in that regard.

And Bush will spend the next four years working hard to make sure that his party remains in control. He'll spend the next four years trying to ensure a positive legacy. That's an issue with both republicans and democrats. It's not going to make a difference who is there.

2) It will place, in the position of Commander-in-Chief, a person that in all likelihood will lose the war on terror thereby raising the spectre of a very different political landscape in 2008 and beyond where Libertarian "fiscal responsibility" will be very low on the totem pole of priorities.

Fiscal responsibility is always most important. You can't fight a war when your country is bankrupt. And you won't get popular support for a war when quality of life begins to rapidly decrease. Fiscal responsibility is one of the greatest weapons we have against terror. Unfortunately, we haven't used it.

This isn't a thread on war, but it's true that we view the war on terror differently.

I would suggest that to keep Libertarian ideals at the forefront you need to elect a party that, at the very least, isn't an hetical to your ideals...and, friend, that ain't the Demoncratic Party.

Both parties have proven to be an hetical to my ideas.

[Yonivore]

So I should vote for a person who doesn't come close to believing in what I believe? That makes no sense.

How 'bout you just don't vote if your vote stands the chance of doing more harm than good -- by your own admission.

And Bush will spend the next four years working hard to make sure that his party remains in control. He'll spend the next four years trying to ensure a positive legacy. That's an issue with both republicans and democrats. It's not going to make a difference who is there.

Let's just say, I think you're going to see a more "Libertarian" fiscal policy out of President Bush's second term.

Fiscal responsibility is always most important.

Security is paramount.

You can't fight a war when your country is bankrupt.

Really? What was our financial position going into World War II?

And you won't get popular support for a war when quality of life begins to rapidly decrease.

Dead people don't make good voters either...well, for Republicans anyway. They've come out in droves for Demoncrats before.

Fiscal responsibility is one of the greatest weapons we have against terror. Unfortunately, we haven't used it.

President Reagan spent Communism into oblivion. It wasn't fiscally responsible and he caught a lot of heat for it...but, it worked.

This isn't a thread on war, but it's true that we view the war on terror differently.

Obviously...

Both parties have proven to be an hetical to my ideas.

I still suggest a person in your position shouldn't vote at all then.

[Spurminator]

You can vote Libertarian and not jeopardize Bush in the race. Particularly if you're in a state like Texas.

[Brodels]

How 'bout you just don't vote if your vote stands the chance of doing more harm than good -- by your own admission.

I feel that my party has the best policies for the nation. I believe that they only way to truly get an accurate picture of what the nation wants, fraud aside, is to encourage everyone to vote.

Let's just say, I think you're going to see a more "Libertarian" fiscal policy out of President Bush's second term.

I hope you're right. But he hasn't done anything to this point to suggest that we can expect that.

Really? What was our financial position going into World War II?

We didn't have the debt that we have now. You can only spend what you don't have for so long before it catches up with you. Question: do you think we should spend what we don't have forever? When do you propose that we stop?

Dead people don't make good voters either...well, for Republicans anyway. They've come out in droves for Demoncrats before.

I'm not going to debate the war in this thread, but our foray into Iraq isn't going to do anything to prevent more terrorist-induced deaths.

President Reagan spent Communism into oblivion. It wasn't fiscally responsible and he caught a lot of heat for it...but, it worked.

And it worked. But it can't work forever. You can live on credit for a period of time, but you can't do it forever. I'd rather not find out where the limit is.

I still suggest a person in your position shouldn't vote at all then.

It's disappointing that you wish to discourage others from voting. I actually thought that you would encourage people to vote. I guess I was wrong.

[Spurminator]

For better or for worse, third party candidates do have an effect on the major parties. Is it a coincidence that most of the Democratic Primary candidates represented the Far Left side of the Democratic Party after Nader had such an effect on the vote in 2000?

The Libertarian Party may never have a legitimate shot at winning elected positions in government, but it may influence the Republican Party to change for the better if enough people are attracted to their platform.

[Yonivore]

I feel that my party has the best policies for the nation. I believe that they only way to truly get an accurate picture of what the nation wants, fraud aside, is to encourage everyone to vote.

I agree with you. It's just that your party hasn't put forward an electable candidate since its inception.

I hope you're right. But he hasn't done anything to this point to suggest that we can expect that.

Well, gee...wars cost money.

We didn't have the debt that we have now. You can only spend what you don't have for so long before it catches up with you. Question: do you think we should spend what we don't have forever? When do you propose that we stop?

Please, the rest of the world is so far behind economically and so indebted to us financially...

Seriously though, exactly what is in jeopardy? Social programs? Egad!!! Being the good Libertarian you are, you really shouldn't be mourning the possible demise of socialist programs -- because, if we get in a financial bind, those will be the first out the window. And, frankly, I say good riddance!

I'm not going to debate the war in this thread, but our foray into Iraq isn't going to do anything to prevent more terrorist-induced deaths.

I don't think the world has any idea the benefits the war in Iraq is reaping. One notable example is the dismantling of Libya's nuclear program -- of which we weren't even aware!

And, given there have been no further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil -- in spite of bin Laden's promises to the contrary (remember the "American blood will be running in the streets" threat after September 11?). No, instead, bin Laden has been reduced to issuing a once-quadannually missive about the good ol' days of al Qaeda in a thinly guised campaign ad for John Kerry.

And it worked. But it can't work forever. You can live on credit for a period of time, but you can't do it forever. I'd rather not find out where the limit is.

And, we eliminated the deficit last time...just as we will this time, when the threat is passed.

It's disappointing that you wish to discourage others from voting. I actually thought that you would encourage people to vote. I guess I was wrong.

Voting is a privelege not a right, (you only have a right not to be discriminated against by voting laws that are enacted -- and only on the basis of belonging to a protected class as defined in the Civil Rights Act of 1964). Stupid people who refuse to acquaint themselves with the important questions of any election should be stopped at the polling place door and turned away.

[Brodels]

I agree with you. It's just that your party hasn't put forward an electable candidate since its inception.

I agree. The party needs to run a more electable candidate. Badnarik is somewhat of a nutjob. But he's still better than the alternatives.

Well, gee...wars cost money.

They do. But if you fight them without the money to pay for them, you need to pay for them someday. When is someday?

Seriously though, exactly what is in jeopardy? Social programs? Egad!!! Being the good Libertarian you are, you really shouldn't be mourning the possible demise of socialist programs -- because, if we get in a financial bind, those will be the first out the window. And, frankly, I say good riddance!

I don't care about the loss of social programs. I'm worried about the severe economic downturn that will occur when we aren't able to pay back what we owe.

I don't think the world has any idea the benefits the war in Iraq is reaping. One notable example is the dismantling of Libya's nuclear program -- of which we weren't even aware!

I don't consider the dismantling of Libya's nuclear program to be worth the cost.

And, given there have been no further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil -- in spite of bin Laden's promises to the contrary (remember the "American blood will be running in the streets" threat after September 11?). No, instead, bin Laden has been reduced to issuing a once-quadannually missive about the good ol' days of al Qaeda in a thinly guised campaign ad for John Kerry.

Our journey into Iraq hasn't prevented those attacks. It's our vigilance at home. And that's one area where Bush has been pretty strong.

And, we eliminated the deficit last time...just as we will this time, when the threat is passed.

When? And we need to do more than eliminate the deficit anyway. We need to eliminate the debt. How do you propose that we do that when we continue to spend our nation into oblivion?

Voting is a privelege not a right, (you only have a right not to be discriminated against by voting laws that are enacted -- and only on the basis of belonging to a protected class as defined in the Civil Rights Act of 1964).

Stupid people who refuse to acquaint themselves with the important questions of any election should be stopped at the polling place door and turned away.

I don't think you're in any position to measure my intelligence. What means are you using to do so?

I am very familiar with the questions of the election. I've spent countless hours learning all I need to know about all of the issues. I've been invited to write about them for a local newspaper. I'm very aware.

I know this is a shocker to you, but those who disagree with you aren't necessarily stupid and they don't necessarily have a poor grip on the issues. That's a pretty simplistic way to look at it.

[Yonivore]

Okay, I'll skip all the preliminary stuff and jump to the end...because, quite frankly, we disagree on what this election is about. You say money, I say security.

I don't think you're in any position to measure my intelligence. What means are you using to do so?

I never pretended to evaluate your intelligence. I was talking about voters in general...I can't help if you decided I was referring to you.

I am very familiar with the questions of the election. I've spent countless hours learning all I need to know about all of the issues. I've been invited to write about them for a local newspaper. I'm very aware.

Yeah, well, there are idiots writing for the New York Times too. Being invited -- or paid even -- to write for a newspaper doesn't automatically confer any special le that infers enlightenment.

I know this is a shocker to you, but those who disagree with you aren't necessarily stupid and they don't necessarily have a poor grip on the issues. That's a pretty simplistic way to look at it.

I don't think John Kerry is stupid and, I can't think of anyone with whom I disagree more right now.

[IcemanCometh]

[Guru of Nothing]

I think you're confusing guts with naivette... A vote for Bednarak is worse than wasted...it's dangerous.

Damn those voters with convictions!

The only good voter is a voter who is easily manipulated.