Third Party Candidates

Anna Gregoline | October 21, 2004
A more appropriate area for talking about the third party people.

I'll get you started.

Amy Austin | October 21, 2004
I'm curious... why do you guys think Badnarik is -- what was it... "a bona fide weirdo"???

Anna Gregoline | October 21, 2004
All drugs legalized? No gun control?

Those are enough for me.

Scott Hardie | October 21, 2004
I have no idea how sane or insane Michael Badnarik is. I do know that when it comes to his positions on the issues, I agree with him on virtually every point; it's just a matter of priorities. (He makes gun control a central issue, while I'd rate the war as more important.) Aren't "priorities" what political differences really boil down to anyway? It's not like liberals want higher taxes, and it's not like conversatives want more war; in both cases it's just a question of what's more important than those things. Todd was right when he said that in a certain sense, there's just a single American Party; we have much more in common with each other than not. Because we focus so much on the candidates as iconic representatives than we do on the issues, it's easy to miss the forest for the trees.

Incidentally, if we ever wind up having that mock election of Mike vs. Anna, I hope Amy runs on a third-party ticket.

Amy Austin | October 21, 2004
Scott, you flatter me! (I don't know what else to say -- imagine that!)

Scott Hardie | October 21, 2004
Well, considering you wouldn't show up on the ballot on some computers and you'd be excluded from Mike & Anna's debates and possibly even arrested by the TC police for protesting outside, maybe it's not such a compliment. ;-)

Amy Austin | October 21, 2004
HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Scott Horowitz | October 21, 2004
I agree with what I believe it was what Kris said, that third party candidates need to start on the small scale before trying to run for president. Some have valid stances, other run on one lobby and have no business becoming president of the US. I wouldn't say that voting for a 3rd party candidate is a waste of a vote, but it can hurt a candidate who a person would be more likely to vote for if the 3rd party candidate wasn't there. I will admit that when this election started, I was with the "anyone is better than Bush" vote. I did not like that about myself, I felt I was better than that mentality. I went to each candidates website (including the 3rd parties) and read what they stood for. I can honestly say that I am now voting for John Kerry and not against Bush. While it may seem the same to some of you,in my mind there is a significant difference.

Anna Gregoline | October 21, 2004
I feel the same way as you, Scott. I was originally against Bush but now I do feel I am also for Kerry. I think he would do a good job.

Scott Horowitz | October 21, 2004
Here's something I just found. A way to trade your vote

Jackie Mason | October 21, 2004
[hidden by request]

John E Gunter | October 21, 2004
My only issue with trading your vote is you are not really being true to who you want to vote for! I was originally looking to vote for the lesser of two evils, but I've continued to look around for a candidate I would approve of and even if the guy only gets 2 votes, mine will be one of those two, and I'll be voting for WHO I want to, not voting against someone.

Which is what we are supposed to do in this country!

John

Scott Horowitz | October 21, 2004
I'm voting for Kodos!

John E Gunter | October 21, 2004
At least you are voting for something, and not against just because! ;-)

John

Scott Horowitz | October 21, 2004
Well, it was tough between him and Kang. But if Kang wins, we'll have to build a giant laser to destroy a planet no one has ever heard of. If I vote for Kodos, nobody can blame me.

Steve Dunn | October 21, 2004
I agree with most parts of the Libertarian Party platform, and Badnarik is now advocating what most people consider "mainstream libertarianism" (to such extent that is not an oxymoron). However, before he was thrust into the national spotlight, Badnarik was a bona fide weirdo.

Kris Weberg | October 21, 2004
I strongly disagree with Libertarianism, though I do believe that our system is in desperate need of reform.

Libertarianism, though, seems liek the absolute worst way to do things in human history.

Like the idea of privatizing the army and the police? Check out the only countries where that's ever been done by vacationing in delightful Sierra Leone or beautiful Liberia.

Enjoy tollbooths on major highways? Libertarianism offers you a world where ALL roads are private!

Think cellphone plans are complicated and deceitful? Imagine a world where everything is based upon private contracts!

My favorite part is the bit aboutending the government's policy of "taking money from the private sector" to fight outsourcing. Y'know what? Good! Screw the private sector!

Comapnies don't outsource because they aren't turning a profit, or even because they're not making progressively greater profits. They do it because any means of increasing profits is not only acceptable, but, thanks to court decisions over the years, their sole legal responsibility that isn't to the government.

Corporatiopns are responsible to their shareholders, which means they must consistently act to maximize shareholder value. They are not responsible to communities, to you or I if we don't hold stock in them, nor to anyone...except the government. Heck, even if you hold stock in a company, you generally have to be into it for several million dollars to own enough shares to have a voice.

Of course they're going to outsource, until American wages drop down to the level of wages in developing countries, at which point outsouricing will cease being profitable. Outsourcing has NOTHING TO DO WITH REGULATION OR GOVERNMENT SPENDING, with the exception of government wage regulations.

Look at the countries in the world today that have the fewest regulations on business -- it's a wonderland of places like Indonesia, where a tiny proportion of the population tend to control over 90% of the wealth while children sew shoes for pennies a day.

I love this "business knows what it's doing, and it's good for us" nonsense. Hell no, business isn't good for you. Did everyone forget about the Gilded Age?

You know, that was the era of the 1890s, before things like antitrust regulations, the FDA, OSHA, and minimum wage.

It was a glorious era of unsurpassed political corruption, rotten meat sold as fresh, child labor in heavy machinery factories, the 10-hour workday for barely enough to eat dinner on, and monopolistic robber barons who make BIll Gates look like an amateur at squashing competition and innovation.

I mean, seriously, does anybody really think that regulations are passed for no damn reason whatsoever? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, they're passed because, before they existed, we got the grossest abuses of big business imaginable? Did every Libertarian sleep through the days in Econ 101 when they talked about startup financing, scarcity as a driving principle, and the idea of natural monopolies?

Shit, at leats when the government fucks up with my money, I can vote against someone. When ConEd jacks up my rate, I either pay up or live in the 19th century.

Amy Austin | October 21, 2004
Now *that's* the kind of opposing argument I like to see, Kris!!! Not, "oh, he's evil" or "oh, he's a weirdo" (no offense, Anna & Steve... you've made other valid points, too -- just saying)

BTW, I remember my civics/eco classes well enough -- not sleeping. I also disagreed with the disbanding of the AT&T monopoly... for one thing, there wouldn't be half as many irritating telemarketers calling me on my home phone. But, AT&T was about more than just charging you to make phone calls -- they were the whole infrastructure: they are the reason for much of the phone lines in existence, and the money they collected went to expansion and upkeep of all that network and equipment.

Bottom line: there's at least two sides to every story, and people should be aware of both before they "jump on the bandwagon", so to speak.

And the second moral of the story is this: when people malcontent and looking to make a change, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. *IF* Bush gets elected out of office, and Kerry wins, it certainly doesn't mean that everything will be fine & dandy. And that's not to say that a 3rd party candidate will make it so, either -- I just want people to *really* start thinking for themselves.

Erik Bates | October 22, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | October 22, 2004
Amy, I gave my reasons.

Erik - can I ask you a question? I don't understand this sentence, I'm not trying to start anything. "I am pro-life except for in the case of the horrific practice of partial-birth abortion." ????

You are pro-life but you'd be pro-choice in the instances where partial-birth abortion is to be used? I think maybe you made a typo? Help!

Amy Austin | October 22, 2004
I was noticing that myself...

Erik Bates | October 22, 2004
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | October 22, 2004
I knew what you meant, Erik, and was pretty sure that others would also -- but it's always good to be clear...

Erik Bates | October 22, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | October 22, 2004
I know what you mean Erik. I am a registered Democrat because I feel that the party better represents me. However, I vote for candidates instead of the party. And I got a good chuckle out of your abortion quote, it's my "quote of the day" :)