NationStates Jolt Archive

Michael Badnarik will almost certainly be on the ballot in all fifty states plus the District of Columbia. The socialist Nader will not.

Even if he doesn't get on the ballot in all fifty states, Michael Badnarik is already on the ballot in enough states to stand a mathematical chance of winning the election. The socialist Nader is not.

So why does the socialist Nader receive so much more attention? Is it because he's a shameless attention whore? Is it because the media tends to lean socialist, and so it's promoting a candidate that shares its views? Is it because the media is afraid of Badnarik's message of liberty and individualism? Are members of the media in fact supporters of the socialist Bush and so are propping up the socialist Nader in an effort to help defeat the socialist Kerry? Or are they simply stupid?

Kerry = Socialist????

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

I never even heard of the dude :confused:

Badnarik.... Libertarian I gather?

I see. You're just a head-up-your-ass libertarian. It common and natural to see magnified whatever it is you not like.

Nader isn't even purely "socialist".

Dude...stop embarrassing our party...please. You're calling Bush a socialist....and then you're expressing bitterness and desperation over the fact that the allegedly left-leaning [hillarious!] media is not showcasing Badnarik...as if it SHOULD. You sound like some moralist liberal or conservative...please. Stop it. If you're gonna be a libertarian..don't be stupid and excessively angry. If Badnarik deserves the love, he will receive it. If not, he won't.

Kerry = Socialist????

Exactly. Until I see Kerry or Nader giving workers control of the means of production, I will not consider them socialist.

Dude...stop embarrassing our party...please. You're calling Bush a socialist....and then you're expressing bitterness and desperation over the fact that the allegedly left-leaning [hillarious!] media is not showcasing Badnarik...as if it SHOULD.


I, myself, am no Libertarian. However, I will tack on a few points of my own here...

1 -- Yes, left-leaning media. I don't find it hilarious, I find it sad. It's disgusting to think of how liberally bias the US media is....

2 -- While I'm not sure far I would in calling the current President a socialist, I will say that he's definitely no conservative. Granting amnesty to illegal aliens is not conservatism, for example....

3 -- Badnarik (or any of the other party canidates, including my dear Constituion Party) is not getting the press that Nader is simply because that Nader is Nader. He's a watermelon (green on the outside, red on the inside), but more importantly, he's a famous watermelon. No matter who he is, so long as he's not a conservative, our unfair and unbalanced liberal media will cover him.....

Me!

I'm not sure what the original argument is, other than that the American media are anti-Libertarian - which they in fact are. So far, only C-Span has carried extensive coverage of Badnarik, giving him equal air time, roughly, with Charles Kennedy, leader of Britain's Liberal Democrats. Such, I suppose, is the fate of legitimate third parties.

As it is, Badnarik is not considered much of a threat to Democratic victory in the fall. Quite the contrary, those of the media who align themselves on the American political left - which I know looks pretty conservative, still, by European standards - probably think Badnarik will do a bit od damage to Bush. Being not a matter of concern, they don't air stories about his threat to Kerry's election.

Nader, on the other hand, "stole" the election in 2000, as if Republican operatives in Florida (according to more than one conspiracy theory) didn't. Since he's running again, it doesn't matter if he's on the ballot in only one state, and Badnarik in fifty. Nader sticks in Democrats' minds as a thief and crook, second only to Bush.

1 -- Yes, left-leaning media. I don't find it hilarious, I find it sad. It's disgusting to think of how liberally bias the US media is....


Ah yes, the ol' liberal bias argument. First off, virtually all media in this country is controlled by four or five large conglomerates which own every television channel and radio station in the country. Basically, that means that if media is "liberally biased" it's only because their corporate masters are too stupid to tell them not to be. I watch the news all the time, and listen to the radio on a daily basis (these being the significant targets of the bias idea, with TV news being controlled by liberals and the radio being controlled by conservatives), but I have never noticed a significant bias in either direction, no matter how much American news I watch.

Oh, and it's largely because Michael Badnarik and the libertarians are nutcases. They're too extreme even for many conservatives. If they had their way, we'd have no minimum wage or government restrictions on business of any kind, and we'd all be back to working twelve hour days in factories like back at the turn of the century.

Ha...liberal media. Thats why they give so much attention to Nader, just to take votes away from Kerry.

Oh, it could be because Badnarik is reading zip at the polls, and Nader is sitting around 2-7%

Ah yes, the ol' liberal bias argument. First off, virtually all media in this country is controlled by four or five large conglomerates which own every television channel and radio station in the country. Basically, that means that if media is "liberally biased" it's only because their corporate masters are too stupid to tell them not to be. I watch the news all the time, and listen to the radio on a daily basis (these being the significant targets of the bias idea, with TV news being controlled by liberals and the radio being controlled by conservatives), but I have never noticed a significant bias in either direction, no matter how much American news I watch.

That would explain how over 80% of all newscastors are registered liberals, huh?

Can you honestly tell me that CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, The New York Times, LA Times, et al, are not bias?

Me!

That would explain how over 80% of all newscastors are registered liberals, huh?

Can you honestly tell me that CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, The New York Times, LA Times, et al, are not bias?

Me!

That would explain why 80% of the editers are registered conservatives right?

Oh, and it's largely because Michael Badnarik and the libertarians are nutcases. They're too extreme even for many conservatives. If they had their way, we'd have no minimum wage or government restrictions on business of any kind, and we'd all be back to working twelve hour days in factories like back at the turn of the century.

And there's a problem with no minimum wage and no gov't restrictions on business how exactly? And your third claim is exactly that...a claim...

Me!

That would explain why 80% of the editers are registered conservatives right?

Such as?

Oh, it could be because Badnarik is reading zip at the polls, and Nader is sitting around 2-7%

Perhaps you're reversing cause and effect?

None of this means a thing to me. :confused: :eek:

Perhaps you're reversing cause and effect?


No, he's been there for quite some time.

Such as?
Just saying that the editorial staff tends to be far more conservative then the general population, and acts as a counterbalance for the reporters. Guess who decides the editorial polices for the station though?

Okay--think about your whole scenario for a minute. In the election run between Kerry and Bush, who is Nader most likely to pull votes from--Bush or Kerry? (Kerry, in case you're having trouble)

Second question--who is Badnarik more likely to pull votes from? (Bush, in case you don't realize that the Libertarian party is closer to the Republicans than Democrats)

Now do you see how utterly retarded your supposition is that the media is liberal because they talk about Nader? If anything, the fact that Nader gets so much play could be considered proof that the media is conservative--they're trying to get Bush re-elected by attacking Kerry on two fronts.

Truth is, as I have said many times, the media doesn't have an ideology other than profit--right now the Republicans are their best friends because of issues like media consolidation, so they lean right.

And Colerica, you really ought to stop quoting statistics from John Gibson of Fox News.

Okay--think about your whole scenario for a minute. In the election run between Kerry and Bush, who is Nader most likely to pull votes from--Bush or Kerry? (Kerry, in case you're having trouble)

Not sure if this was directed at me or not, but if it was:

If you would actually READ MY POST, you will find that I brought up both possibilities.

Not sure if this was directed at me or not, but if it was:

If you would actually READ MY POST, you will find that I brought up both possibilities.
You also called Bush a socialist--I wasn't even sure you had the mental capacity to walk in a straight line.

While I like Libertarians in theory, I've discovered that every single one of them is an asshole, and those that understand their platforms well enough to explain them 90% of the time make them sound like they would destroy civilization.

And if you think the media's conservative, then either you think TV news is the media, or you're irreparibly biased (such as is evidenced by asking us to provide a cite for what is, in essence, your own claim, while failing to provide one yourself).

You also called Bush a socialist--I wasn't even sure you had the mental capacity to walk in a straight line.


He IS a socialist.

He supports Americorps. He has instituted protectionist measures in the past. His opposition to outright socialist policies is not principled ("they're morally wrong") but merely pragmatic ("they're nice ideas, but they won't work"). At the core, he believes that the individual is subordinate to the collective. So yes, he is a socialist, whether you choose to recognize it or not.

To me libertarianism looks like it is so close to anarchy. Anarchy is traditionally associated with the left wing isn't it?

To me libertarianism looks like it is so close to anarchy. Anarchy is traditionally associated with the left wing isn't it?
No

He IS a socialist.

He supports Americorps. He has instituted protectionist measures in the past. His opposition to outright socialist policies is not principled ("they're morally wrong") but merely pragmatic ("they're nice ideas, but they won't work"). At the core, he believes that the individual is subordinate to the collective. So yes, he is a socialist, whether you choose to recognize it or not.He's only a socialist if you're coming from some psychotic, Randian point of view. He's a corporatist more than anything else--he pushes for big business and the wealthy over anything and anyone else.

No
I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

He IS a socialist.

He supports Americorps. He has instituted protectionist measures in the past. His opposition to outright socialist policies is not principled ("they're morally wrong") but merely pragmatic ("they're nice ideas, but they won't work"). At the core, he believes that the individual is subordinate to the collective. So yes, he is a socialist, whether you choose to recognize it or not.


I thought Pro-Capitalism, Pro-Government people were called "Fascist."

I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I'll get right on it.

Pure anarchism is right-wing.

Michael Badnarik will almost certainly be on the ballot in all fifty states plus the District of Columbia. The socialist Nader will not.

Even if he doesn't get on the ballot in all fifty states, Michael Badnarik is already on the ballot in enough states to stand a mathematical chance of winning the election. The socialist Nader is not.

So why does the socialist Nader receive so much more attention? Is it because he's a shameless attention whore? Is it because the media tends to lean socialist, and so it's promoting a candidate that shares its views? Is it because the media is afraid of Badnarik's message of liberty and individualism? Are members of the media in fact supporters of the socialist Bush and so are propping up the socialist Nader in an effort to help defeat the socialist Kerry? Or are they simply stupid?

The positive coverage that actually adresses the issues they are bringing to the table is equal among them, that being for both close to zero.

Nearly all of the coverage of Nader has been about Nader being a "spoiler" for Kerry. He would have gotten this much coverage if Gores victory had been acknowledged in 2000.

1 -- Yes, left-leaning media. I don't find it hilarious, I find it sad. It's disgusting to think of how liberally bias the US media is....


hahahahahahaha. man, you guys have such a conservative media it isn't funny. i have to wonder what you'd think if you travelled outside your bubble and watched something in another place in the world. you'd probably die from shock.

hahahahahahaha. man, you guys have such a conservative media it isn't funny. i have to wonder what you'd think if you travelled outside your bubble and watched something in another place in the world. you'd probably die from shock.

You're not from America. Please don't comment about our media when you're not a citizen of this nation....

And I have seen plenty of foreign media.....

Me!

You're not from America. Please don't comment about our media when you're not a citizen of this nation....

What precisely has Dakini's nationality got to do with the issues? Apart from anything else, if you don't want people to comment, campaign against the beaming of American media around the world. I believe this is known as "playing the man, not the ball" and is, IMNSHO, an extremely dubious and intellectually bankrupt debating tactic.