Good man!
Posted on 10/07/2004 5:27:21 AM PDT by Commie Basher
Actually, my guess is that most of the Libertarian vote comes from people who vote 3rd party regardless of what the 3rd party is. That's the statistic that's coming out about Nader. When Nader is taken off of the polls, Bush actually does better. It's because Nader is simply the protest vote. Badnarik serves the same role.
Darn those Libertarians, voting their conscience and all. They must be stopped!
The Libertarians I know are voting for Bush.
Their dope got stronger.
Notice how the democrats used NAZI tactics and faught Nader off ballots and the republics didn't do it to the other guy.
The new Libertarian joke is "Why couldn't we have gotten the Goodnarik?"
I agree. However, recent polls among rank and file Libertarians are showing a turnabout on the issue, especially after 9/11. The latest Libertarian argument against open immigration is based on the definition of private property. The US, being the private property of its citizens, has every right to prohibit trespassers.
Sarcasm aside, if you know of anybody preventing a single Libertarian from casting their ballot, you should immediately contact the FEC. Because that's illegal.
Ridicule, however, is still quite legal.
See post #27.
Republicans to Libertarians = "Good Luck"
Democrats to Ralph Nader = "Die Trator"
-"...a man whose name most voters have never heard."-
This they call a spoiler? Wishful thinking.
If he's referring to the Libertarian candidate for Congress in South Dakota, I know the guy (he's a friend of mine and at one time was my high school math teacher.) He stepped out of the contest with a few weeks to go and asked his supporters to vote for John Thune. Not his fault that people voted for him anyway.
Good man!
"The libertarians however are even WORSE than Bush regarding the illegal immigrant problem."
This is true, but I think something needs to be mentioned. Until the last few years, the issue with illegal immigrants has had little to do with national security. Before 2001, people were less concerned with terrorists crossing the border. The arguments were almost exclusively about illegals being a drain on taxpayer resources.
To be fair to Libertarians, those who believe in open borders also agree with eliminating the government hand-outs which make crossing the border so enticing for layabouts. The situation we have now is akin to the government leaving out a free chocolate cake, being shocked that people want to eat it for nothing, and then as a solution, deciding to place armed guards and barbed wire around the chocolate cake. It simply makes more sense to take the chocolate cake away instead of paying even more to put a fence around it. That's basically the libertarian position, and I find it very easy to be sympathetic to that idea before 9/11.
On the other hand, I don't think there is some kind of constitutional problem with limiting immigration. If the government wants to do that, it has the constitutional authority to do so. I don't think anyone arguing the opposite is on firm ground.
Of course, it was a pre 9-11 vote. But in reality, it was a pre-2000 Florida recount vote. That experience is what made me a partisan Republican. The LP vote was a protest vote against big government. Pointless in the end, but for some reason I couldn't see that until I'd actually done it. And then to see the recount mess, and the lengths the dems would go to, and it made me close ranks. Then 9-11. We have to choose one of these two men to be our president.
Walk away from the war on terror and open the boarders even wider?
I don't think so!
I don't know. I've voted straight libertarian for quite some time now, and I avidly follow the Libertarian Party, and I think Badnarik is running a better campaign than Browne did.
Badnarik is a realist, and he knows that he won't win the Presidency, and he has focused his campaign in "battleground" states in which the population is massed in a small number of areas. New Mexico is a a great example; 85% of New Mexico's population is in three cities, and the libertarians can run tv ads in those cities and, perhaps, swing the outcome of the Presidential election.
Only time will tell as to how he does nationally, but I think he's running a fairly clever campaign.
That is a scary word to a lot of people. Some people want Big Government to micromanage every part of their lives--that way, when they fail, they can rationalize.
Too true.
Ah, the comfort of having someone else to blame.
Isn't that the very essence of a herd-mentality?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.