NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136114,00.html

If I weren't worried about the potential for a radical liberal to take office I would consider voting libertarian.

Oh yea I forgot "Liberal" is supposed to be a dirty word. :rolleyes:

It isn't dirty, just wrong.

I agree with the article up until the final conclusion. If you can't bring yourself to vote for either establishment party candidate, surely a vote for a third-party candidate you agree with is at least marginally better than leaving the top line blank.

Yes, skip the vote so your opinion isn't counted, then bitch about how the president, or bill or whatever you are complaining about isn't right, because you would have that right after not voting, correct?

I would consider voting libertarian.
Vote Badnarik!

Vote Badnarik!

Who? Oh yea that guy that was arrested trying to get into the debates.....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136114,00.html

If I weren't worried about the potential for a radical liberal to take office I would consider voting libertarian.
I don't see how Bush is any closer to the Libertarian agenda.

Seeing as how usually 50% vote at the elections in the US, if those who didn't vote, had voted third party, the third party candidate would sweep the other 25% Democrat & 25% Republican. So if you don't vote because you feel it makes no difference, vote third party by the reasoning that; if everyone else so disillusioned voted so, a third party would get in.

I really hope we start getting some major tri/quad-partistain action going on here in the next few elections. Or we could always just -> :headbang:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136114,00.html

If I weren't worried about the potential for a radical liberal to take office I would consider voting libertarian.
If your definition of a radical liberal is Kerry, what do you call people like Jessie Jackson and Michel Moore? And don't say "insane" or "terrorists" or any other blatantly false, ad hominem attack.

Jesus. People these days.

Seeing as how usually 50% vote at the elections in the US, if those who didn't vote, had voted third party, the third party candidate would sweep the other 25% Democrat & 25% Republican. So if you don't vote because you feel it makes no difference, vote third party by the reasoning that; if everyone else so disillusioned voted so, a third party would get in.

Yes but some people just don't vote because the local party machine is so powerful they are totally disenfranchised. I mean what if you are a republican in NYC, quite often there is not even any republican challenger for some offices, and where there is there is no hope of them winning so why waste the effort, just to make a point. Not worth it.

why wouldnt a libertarian vote for the libertarian candidate if they found the other guys just too wrong to vote for?

it was an interesting analysis but what a stupid conclusion when there IS a libertarian candidate running.

Voting is an important role that each individual should do if giving the chance. Its foolish not to exercise that right that many individuals do not have. Like M Bison had mentioned, don't bitch about the choosen candidates or bills if you didn't vote when given the opportunity!

I feel bad for Libertarians, as bad as this government is, and for all the bitching I do about the present administration, I don't have it near as bad as Libertarians.

I don't necessarily agree with all of their views but I at least respect them, but they have no power and very little chance of gaining it.

Meanwhile, I have absolutely no respect for neocon policies, yet they have most of the power and are unlikely to lose it.

Yes but some people just don't vote because the local party machine is so powerful they are totally disenfranchised. I mean what if you are a republican in NYC, quite often there is not even any republican challenger for some offices, and where there is there is no hope of them winning so why waste the effort, just to make a point. Not worth it.

I'm meaning specifically the office of President. There are always plenty of large third parties vying for that position, and with the internet you can find just about all of them. If, for example, in an election Libertarians got 25% and the Green got 25% also, I'm sure some who voted for Republican or Democrats would see a chance after all, and change their vote in the next election. Changing the particular 'consensus by compromise' by pushing it one objective way or the other.

why wouldnt a libertarian vote for the libertarian candidate if they found the other guys just too wrong to vote for?

it was an interesting analysis but what a stupid conclusion when there IS a libertarian candidate running.

I was a bit confused too, though he did mention he was a "small 'l' libertarian" meaning not the proper tense party "Libertarian." I suppose for whatever reason he doesn't believe a third party has a chance, so probably always votes for the most socially liberal Republican when running or the most fiscally conservative Democrat, instead of going Libertarian. Either that or he thinks the Libertarians as a party are somehow corrupt.

I'm meaning specifically the office of President. There are always plenty of large third parties vying for that position, and with the internet you can find just about all of them. If, for example, in an election Libertarians got 25% and the Green got 25% also, I'm sure some who voted for Republican or Democrats would see a chance after all, and change their vote in the next election. Changing the particular 'consensus by compromise' by pushing it one objective way or the other.

Well more people do turn out for the presidential elections anyway. But I think the fact that so many area's in this country are so tightly under the control of political machines, there is just a culture of apathy about voting in general. If you live in the bronx why bother voting, its not like there is a choice our it will ever effect the outcome. You just get the candidates that the local democratic party has selected for you, and you know they're going o win.

So after a while people just give up, because they know that it doesn't mean anything anyway and they don't even bother with the presidential elections.

I feel bad for Libertarians, as bad as this government is, and for all the bitching I do about the present administration, I don't have it near as bad as Libertarians.

I don't necessarily agree with all of their views but I at least respect them, but they have no power and very little chance of gaining it.

Meanwhile, I have absolutely no respect for neocon policies, yet they have most of the power and are unlikely to lose it.

Well I don't know if I feel bad for them as they do to themselves. All too often the argument is that you are some kind of freeloader if you argue for social programs.

Or, you are basically stupid and or insane if you vote Republican or Democrat. I heard ol' Bardy make that claim.

Ol' Bardy is fond of saying "Voting for the lessor of two evils is still evil" Well Bardy, in the case of the Liberts, it could very well be that voting for the lessor of three evils is still evil.

Not many people belive in the pancea that free markets and privatization will solve all the ills of society. Ol' Bardy thinks privatization of the police force is a good idea.

Liberts don't seem to know how to talk to people over political issues.

Presenting the image that you are stupid or misguided because you don't belive in their agenda will not win many converts.

Hmmm...this is interesting.

An article ftom FoxNews, that encourages people to vote either third party, or for Bush.

Coincidence?

Also, I formally accuse the author of this thread, of not knowing what a "liberal" really is, or a dangerous one if he saw one.

If your definition of a radical liberal is Kerry, what do you call people like Jessie Jackson and Michel Moore? And don't say "insane" or "terrorists" or any other blatantly false, ad hominem attack.

Jesus. People these days.

Kerry is among the most liberal of major elected office holders. Moore is a socialist, not a liberal, Jackson is a high-profile extortionist and opportunist and not much more.