Maybe us Libertarians should vote for Bush? by CrevanReaver

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Maybe us Libertarians should vote for Bush?

POSTED BY: CREVANREAVER
UPDATED: Monday, August 5, 2024 15:49
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7039
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, October 28, 2004 8:14 AM

As a pretty defiant libertarian I have been really pissed off at many of President Bush's policies and until a few days ago had made up my mind to vote for Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party's candidate. However, over the past couple of days I've been really thinking about the issues and where Bush and Kerry stand in comparison to my own political views and I realized something. I'm Anybody But Kerry. John Kerry is a big government near-socialist. If he were elected he would push the federal government on the American people. He would create various programs with the taxpayers' money and continuously spend, spend, spend and do some more spending. And of course he has talked about expanding the military budget even more.

With all of this, Kerry's entire plan to pay for it is by simply raising taxes on the "rich". That socialistic idea wouldn't even work. Not that many people even make more than 200 grand a year anyway. Eventually he would have to raise taxes on the middle class.

I've already posted other problems I have with Kerry on another thread.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=7603

Bush may have failed on many things, but he is not all bad. I think the war in Iraq was a big mistake, however I am not one of those people that think he lied. The president had numerous sources telling him there were WMDs: George Tenet's CIA, Vladimir Putin, British Intelligence, the UN, Bill Clinton, and Saddam Hussein's suspicious behavior. If you read Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack, you'll learn that Bush was actually really reticient about going to war, however Tenet said to him about Iraq possessing WMDs, "It's a slam dunk."

As I've written before, after so much pressure, he had to believe that Iraq was an imminent threat.

Kerry says he still would have voted to go to war with Iraq in October of 2002 even if he knew everything he knows now, proving him to be an enormous panderer.

Bush economic policy is actually rather smart. After the monstrous attack on America the economy could have took such a nose-dive to take us in a second Depression. But that didn't happen, and it was because of the Bush tax cuts. Many people who received money back because of the tax cuts went out and create businesses and hired people, therefore creating new jobs. People also feel safer if they have more of their own hard earned money. I know the socialists and communists don't like to hear it, but the wealthy are the ones driving the economy.

One million jobs were lost in America within three months of September 11 and many more within the following twelve months. Yet Bush has gotten most of those back. We talk about jobs being lost during Bush's first three year, but imagine how low the unemployment rate would be if 911 never happened. I think the president did an impressive job with that.

It seems like almost everyone is saying this is the most important election in our lives and that maybe right. With so much at stake I don't know if I could risk a Kerry Administration. So I'm giving a lot of thought about voting for Bush.

Once thing is certain though, I definately won't vote for John Kerry.

If someone could come up with reasons for me to stay in the Badnarik camp, please post them on this thread. And if you have any good reasons a libertarian should vote for President Bush post those as well.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 28, 2004 9:27 AM

SHUTE2KILL

Normally I prefer to stay out of political debates. I'm registered as an independant voter, as both of the major parties and a few of the minor ones all have positions that I support, so for the most part I keep my nose out of political discussions. But I felt I needed to respond to CrevanReaver for some reason.

You asked for a reason to vote for either Badnarik or Bush. Your primary concern seem to be taxes and big government. I would like to point out that the president has very little to do with either of those things. Yes, he can champion his own agenda, and yes it is the president who finally signs the bill, but it is CONGRESS, not the president, who has the power to raise/lower taxes and control the size of government.

Right now, the congress is controlled by conservative republicans. Based on the polls I've seen, that is not likely to change on Tuesday. Even if a liberal candidate like Kerry or Nader is elected, they will be greatly restrained by a conservative congress.

One thing that the president CAN do is influence world opinion of the US. At this Bush has failed in my opinion. Even before 9-11, he pulled the US out of global treaties and upset several of our key allies. On 9-12 the entire world (even Iran and Lybia) expressed their support for America. Today that good will is gone because of Bush's policies.

I agree with your statements about the wealthy driving the American economy, but America is also deeply embedded in the global economy. Our economy depends on the demand for our goods and services overseas. When the whole world is snubbing us, our economy suffers.

CrevanReaver, when you go to the polls on Tuesday to vote for people who will affect your world, make sure you consider the power of the offices you are electing. The president alone can not affect your taxes or the size of government. Know who your representatives and senators are, and what they stand for. Vote accordingly.

As for the office of the president, it seems to me that one of his most important jobs will be restoring the stature of the US in the eyes of the world. If you think that Bush can do this, vote for him. Otherwise, vote for the man you really support. Even if Kerry wins because of your vote, the economy will probably still be controled by conservatives for at least two more years. And a vote for Badnarik gives the libertarians that much more leverage in 08.

In closing, I realize that I have greatly simplified several issues for the sake of brevity. Well, like I said, I don't like to get involved in these kinds of debates.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 28, 2004 9:40 AM

BEENWITHAWARRIORWOMAN

Reasons not to vote Bush if you're a libertarian:
Patriot Act and Patriot II (which, by the way, has no "expiration date."
Liberal bias aside (weed out at your discretion), there is this: http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

It's a bit sensationalist, but it's accurate - there is truth to this. If you love your freedoms, Bush is not the man for the job.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 28, 2004 10:00 AM

GHOULMAN

... I've no idea why a Libertarian would vote for Bush. Frankly, I can't believe one would. Reasons.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 28, 2004 11:52 AM

BIKISDAD

I already did as you are suggesting and voted for Bush (by absentee ballot). However, as usual, that was just a choice of the lesser of two evils that the two main parties always seem to give us. Let's face it, we Libertarians are always screwed no matter which party is in power. The Demoncrats always take away our economic freedoms (taxes, taxes, and more taxes) and the Republicans take away our civil rights (see Patriot Act reference, above).

As long as these two parties are in power, we will continue to lose our various freedoms.

Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 28, 2004 12:41 PM

HEB

I know which I'd prefer to lose. At least you know part of the taxes are going to help people.

Quote:
Originally posted by bikisdad:
I already did as you are suggesting and voted for Bush (by absentee ballot). However, as usual, that was just a choice of the lesser of two evils that the two main parties always seem to give us. Let's face it, we Libertarians are always screwed no matter which party is in power. The Demoncrats always take away our economic freedoms (taxes, taxes, and more taxes) and the Republicans take away our civil rights (see Patriot Act reference, above).

As long as these two parties are in power, we will continue to lose our various freedoms.

Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.

...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 28, 2004 1:12 PM

RANGRBOB

I may be looking at this all the wrong way but here is my opinion. I have a good reason for a Libertarian to vote for Kerry. Just as was said in a few posts above the President can screem till he is blue in the face but nothing will happen unless he controls the votes in congress. Personally I believe that both main parties are big government, big spending, and big jerks. The only time I've ever seen progress made in this country is when the parties are kept at each others throats. If you look back at the past decade the best time we had when was Clinton was president and the republicans had control of congress. During that time they were focusing on each other and leaving us alone. So vote for Kerry but keep Republicans in congress.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 28, 2004 1:34 PM

CREVANREAVER

Quote:
Originally posted by rangrbob:
If you look back at the past decade the best time we had when was Clinton was president...

Bullshit, Clinton murdered innocent people in Waco and overall he had no respect for the second amendment.

P.S. Fuck Janet Reno!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 28, 2004 1:51 PM

TIGER

Don't give in to the pressure; don't let the overwhelming odds against libertarians get you down. Libertarians won't win this election - or the next, or the next. But what if everyone who believes in libertarian values actually voted for the Libertarian? He/she might get 5-6% of the vote. Suddenly they would garner national attention. Big ticket interviews, high profile stories on major news outlets, they may even be allowed into the debates (which would be huge). The message would get out to more people, and the more who know about the libertarians, the more will vote for them. Maybe in the election after that, they'd get 10-15%, then 20% the next etc. etc. It's even possible the two major parties would start to adopt libertarian positions to keep voters. That can only be good.

There is no "lesser of two evils" in this election. Both Kerry and Bush voted for/authorized war in Iraq. Both have said they will stay there if elected. Both talk about tax cuts for the middle class, but I doubt either will really come through. Even the $600 we got from Bush was just a token of the tens of thousands we all pay each year. Both spent/authorized MASSIVE dollars in gov't healthcare programs, military expansion, and law enforcement expansion, including the Patriot Act. Both have voted for/authorized huge, intrusive and expensive new regulations on business. Both have voted for/authorized stifling international free trade. They differ only on small issues like whether the gov't should spend X dollars on stem cell research or X +10 dollars.

My plan is to always vote Libertarian and be patient. Even if we don't get more liberty in my lifetime, I'll sleep a little more soundly knowing that I didn't add to the evils of the world.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 28, 2004 1:54 PM

JASONZZZ

None of this matters with the electoral college system. Only a very few states actually split their electoral college votes, the greater majority are all winner take all.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 28, 2004 1:58 PM

RANGRBOB

And Bush murdered thousands of inoccent people in Iraq. He has also had no respect for the first amendment. Besides personaly I can't say that I believe the U.S. is better off now than it was during Clintons second term where both parties kept each other in check. It was just a personal opinion if you don't agree and think things are better now good. I'm sure there are many other things that could be brought up here and there about what both presidents have done to the rights of US citizens but I'm saying that I think having gridlock and checks between the two heavyweight parties can be and usually is good.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 28, 2004 2:05 PM

TIGER

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
None of this matters with the electoral college system. Only a very few states actually split their electoral college votes, the greater majority are all winner take all.

ALL of this matters, whether we use the electoral college, direct elections, instant-runoff voting, or elect the party who can scream the loudest. The point is what to do with your vote - give it to the lesser of two evils or vote your conscience. My post above states my position.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 28, 2004 2:19 PM

BIKISDAD

Quote:
Originally posted by rangrbob:
....I'm saying that I think having gridlock and checks between the two heavyweight parties can and usually is good.

That's actually a very good point. If there's a Demoncrat President to veto a Republican Congress' bills, or vice versa, then "We the People..." are safer from all the bad bills that would be passed otherwise. Too bad I already voted. I think I'd adopt a new campaign slogan - "Gridlock is Good."

Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 28, 2004 2:20 PM

SPOOKYJESUS

I've kinda settled on a Bush is gonna win kind of thing - sort of cause I'm hoping God will prove me wrong as he so often does but mostly because I want to be emotionaly ready for the bad shit.....

But one thing is helping me look on the sunny side of life -

I'm not an American and while I'll feel bad for all the really nice Americans that Bush Inc. will really fuck over in the next four years ('cause he doesn't have to run again and Chaney's to old to run - they'll do what ever they want!) the American Economy will get worse which means more cheap DVD's on Amazon for the Spookyjesus!

I mean American money's gonna be like toilet paper in 3 years if he gets back in. Hell, the amount of Region 1 disks I've picked up in the last 2 years is unreal! It's like getting stuff from Japan but with English boxes. I've the Seinfeld box set and a load of Angel and Buffy stuff due to ship after the election. I'm getting them for a nice prive now - Bush gets back in - I'll be getting them a whole lot cheaper.

So Vote Bush - so your crappy economy benefits me - the foreign consumer :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 28, 2004 2:37 PM

JASONZZZ

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
None of this matters with the electoral college system. Only a very few states actually split their electoral college votes, the greater majority are all winner take all.
ALL of this matters, whether we use the electoral college, direct elections, instant-runoff voting, or elect the party who can scream the loudest. The point is what to do with your vote - give it to the lesser of two evils or vote your conscience. My post above states my position.

hmmm.. the problem is that to garner enough votes to overwhelm the votes in an entire state to get any one state's entire set of electoral votes (except for the states where they allow splits. maybe that's where a good start would be). No one will pay any attention unless you do that, but to do that, you will have to get someone's attention. It's a chicken-or-the-egg thing. You can't get the votes unless you get enough attention and you can't get enough attention unless you get enough votes. Without gaining the electoral votes, it really doesn't matter what percentage of the votes you get (yeah, some debates and press will only qualify you when your party get certain percentages, but that's not going to happen without the attention in the first place)...

Look, the whole point is that the electoral college system makes it pretty unlikely if not impossible, where as it would probably be easier to actually make a change in the voting system and that will by itself change the 2 party system.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 28, 2004 2:54 PM

TIGER

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
hmmm.. the problem is that to garner enough votes to overwhelm the votes in an entire state to get any one state's entire set of electoral votes

A third party candidate doesn't need to win an entire state to get lots of attention. We've all seen the OVERALL percentages from previous elections, and if in a future election that list reads something like this:

Democrat - 45%
Republican - 44%
Libertarian - 10%
Other - 1%

all the political pundits will take notice, mainstream journalists will do stories, there will be lots of talk about "spoiler" candidtates, and MORE PEOPLE WILL HEAR ABOUT LIBERTARIANISM AND LOOK INTO IT ON THEIR OWN. That means a few more votes for the next election. And that means more attention which means more votes, and so on.

The issue for Libertarians right now is to get attention in other ways to find voters. They're doing a pretty good job. The biggest problem any third party candidate faces is his supporters voting for one of the big two, just because "we can't win anyway, so I'll vote for the guy who's kinda' not as bad". What these people don't seem to realize is that they've just gone from a one in million chance of getting what they want to absolutely zero chance of getting what they want.

Vote your conscience!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 28, 2004 3:27 PM

ROCKETJOCK

"Maybe us Libertarians should vote for Bush?"

Hmm. Let me think about it.

No.

Hell no.

Christ no.

Jesus H. Tap Dancing Christ on a motorbike, No!

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. NEIN! NON! NEGATORY GOOD BUDDY!

Bush isn't in favor of Free Enterprise pal; he's in favor of big business. Specifically, he's in favor of big business getting disproportionate breaks from the Federal Government, not because he believes in Capitalism, but because they're where the money and power are. If he could find a similar source of funds and power in Communism, he'd be selling the little red book on the street corner.

I'm no fan of Kerry either, but breaking the momentum of Bush's particular flavor of abusive behavior seems more important to me than the damage Kerry might or might not do.

Captialism -- true capitalism -- has survived liberal regiemes before; another term of Bush's brand of "help" might just kill any chance free enterprise has in this country.

If you can't stand the idea of Kerry, then by all means vote Libertarian, but with friends like Bush, America doesn't need enemies.

"You can't enslave a free man. The most you can do is kill him." -- Robert A. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 28, 2004 3:48 PM

KIRIKOLI

A lot of people have suggested that voting for the Libertarian candidate for president is the way to get attention and up your chances. Now I don't agree with anything Libertarian, but I do think that many people, such as the people who would have a Libertarian prez, are not being represented in government. Two parties do not accurately represent the people of the United States.

But voting for the Libertarian candidate at this time is not the way to go about it and it is throwing your vote away.

Many democracies worldwide have a system called proportional representation. Now I dunno how unknown this is, but I just found out about myself (I'm in college) and was so suprised that I thought I would spread it around. Proportional representation is a simple concept which promotes third and fourth parties and a wider spread of idealogies.

There are 435 Representatives in the House. This means there are 435 districts in which the winner takes all...if 51% vote Republican, the Republican wins and 49% of the people aren't represented. In a proportional representation system we could, for example, reduce the number of districts to 87 and elect 5 representatives per district by percentage of votes won...if 51% percent vote Republican, the Republicans get half of the seats in that district. The rest of the seat are dolled out according to the percentages the other parties recieved. That way, if a Libertarian got a small amount of votes, the party would still have a chance at a seat here and there and that would get attention.

Maybe this is old news to people but I think it's a good system and that would be where you would have to start to get your party noticed. You can't start with the presidency. So...if people really don't know about this, spread it around. It's time for a revolution. ;)

lol. Since I've only had a day or so to think about this new (to me) system, I'm unaware of any flaws it might have. Plus, my brain has been fried by studying for physics, which is why this post reads like a 14 year old wrote it. So nobody hurt me with their reply. :D

On another note...vote Kerry 2004. :D

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 28, 2004 5:28 PM

JAYNEZTOWN

The words Bush , Smart and Economics shouldn't really be put together

Got this one on another debate

QUOTE

The IMF warned that increased federal debt from the deficits would make funding social security and healthcare more difficult.Robert Rubin, former treasury secretary under Bill Clinton, along with other senior economists, published a report warning that the Bush administration's record deficits will have "severe adverse consequences" for all Americans and is unsustainable. Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) is sounded a note of caution
"Cost estimates for the new programs range from $550 billion to $1 trillion," said CAGW President Tom Schatz. "Until the federal government brings the record deficit back down to Earth, it should not launch expensive new space programs of questionable scientific value."

but there's more

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the federal budget deficit would swell to $477 billion this year, a record in terms of the sheer number of dollars involved
Bush hasn't offered any more specifics for cutting the deficit, and -- according to some analysts -- what plans he has proposed seem more likely to grow the deficit, including:
What's more, spending on Social Security and Medicare -- "mandatory" budget expenditures -- will skyrocket by the end of the decade, as millions of baby boomers begin to retire, de Rugy and other analysts say.

"This is like running up a credit card debt and asking our kids to pay for it in the future -- it's fiscal child abuse," de Rugy said.

http://home.socal.rr.com/bootbush/images/Budget%20Deficit%20JPEG.JPG

how Bush almost Destroyed the Dollar !!

Massive rise on health and medi care costs, a huge mess in Iraq, the pension system starting to strain, industrial output dropping, the President breaking new records by being the only leader since the Great Depression to lose jobs, huge cost of security, North Korea is pronouncing the word nuclear better than Bush. There are jobs being sent over seas to China which grows rapidly while the Euro has become a strong alternetive for investors unsure about the unsteady dollar, big scandals Worldcom, Halliburton, Enron another massive rise in Oil prices , by any standard, going from +6 trillion to -1 trillion is abysmal. Enron would be proud. and unemployement figures don't look so good and the USA's debts goin up to astronomical levels.

A huge loss of 1.6 million jobs and Medicare premiums that are up by a record 17
percent. Spiraling deficits could prove a thorny reelection issue for both men, who will be able to stop this weak economic performance and the massive rise in the US debts. As Senator Bob Graham said "George Bush is managing this economy the way his friend Ken Lay managed Enron," "Whoever wins the 2004 election will have to take these deficits seriously," said Robert Bixby.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 28, 2004 6:07 PM

CROWFLYY

Point:

Lesser of two evils,
If someone takes away your civil liberties,
Then they can take away your economic liberties as they please, when they please.

Crow

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 28, 2004 6:58 PM

JASONZZZ

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
hmmm.. the problem is that to garner enough votes to overwhelm the votes in an entire state to get any one state's entire set of electoral votes
A third party candidate doesn't need to win an entire state to get lots of attention. We've all seen the OVERALL percentages from previous elections, and if in a future election that list reads something like this:

Democrat - 45%
Republican - 44%
Libertarian - 10%
Other - 1%

all the political pundits will take notice, mainstream journalists will do stories, there will be lots of talk about "spoiler" candidtates, and MORE PEOPLE WILL HEAR ABOUT LIBERTARIANISM AND LOOK INTO IT ON THEIR OWN. That means a few more votes for the next election. And that means more attention which means more votes, and so on.

The issue for Libertarians right now is to get attention in other ways to find voters. They're doing a pretty good job. The biggest problem any third party candidate faces is his supporters voting for one of the big two, just because "we can't win anyway, so I'll vote for the guy who's kinda' not as bad". What these people don't seem to realize is that they've just gone from a one in million chance of getting what they want to absolutely zero chance of getting what they want.

Vote your conscience!

Here's the real reason why any one of the third parties will never see anything like that (outside of flukes like the progressive and the reform party with Perot). The two major parties R & D act as huge issue vacuum cleaners. They run on an entire running lists of issues and platforms as compared to the 3rd parties which are usually serves a singular core interest. And I am not saying at all that these interests are not valued or well thought out - they usually are intensive worthwhile issues. Nor am I saying that the 3rd parties are not or can not be multi-faceted - it's just that 3rd parties are really usually formed to deal with a particular singular idea. And here's the real deal - whenever a 3rd party comes up with a real viable worthwhile issue that steals any amount of hearts and minds, one or both of the R & D parties would end up stealing it as a part of their platform. By the time it's time to hit the polls, not only do they have a worthwhile response that satisfies some centris majority of the voters who thought they might swing, but the 3rd party issues is starting to look stale, duplicate, or just sort of fringe extremist like.

How about this? What if there's electoral shedding and McCain ends up being President?
http://techcentralstation.com/101404A.html

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 29, 2004 6:10 AM

SGTGUMP

"Maybe us Libertarians should vote for Bush?"

I don't think I could sleep at night if I did something like that. Sorry man.

Check this out - http://www.somethingawful.com

www.lp.org
www.badnarik.org
Vote Libertarian.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 29, 2004 7:27 AM

JASONZZZ

Holy Smokes, all of these Kerry conspiracies getting spun in media...

Kerry's Cousin Stored Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle at his house:
http://www.nypost.com/gossip/32910.htm

Kerry is a big Commie and he direly helped spearhead the Vietnamese Regime (Viet Cong and North Vietnamese) in carrying out their agenda in the Paris peace talks... Apparently Hanoi Kerry is his new name...
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41142

This one is fun too.
http://www.fingertime.com/bushdressup.php

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 29, 2004 7:49 AM

DIEGO

The two major parties R & D act as huge issue vacuum cleaners. They run on an entire running lists of issues and platforms as compared to the 3rd parties which are usually serves a singular core interest.

Don't forget that the Republican party was originally a peripheral, single-issue party concerned mainly with limiting the spread of slavery to new states. I'm just pointing this out as a reminder that things are fluid and parties can change and there is hope for third parties.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 29, 2004 8:17 AM

JASONZZZ

Quote:
Originally posted by Diego:

That was a very different party that happen to have the same name though. And the conditions that allow those sort of changes aren't present in this climate. It could happen, but not that same way and prolly not thru slow build up of momentum.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 29, 2004 9:38 AM

ODDNESS2HER

The best reason for anyone to vote for Kerry:
checks and balances. Right now Republicans control White House, both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court (assuming Rehnquist survives a little longer). One-sided government is not healthy for democracy, no matter who is in charge.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 5, 2024 3:49 PM

JAYNEZTOWN

Forget about the lies of Iraq, RFK is killing Bears and making them ride Bikes in NYC

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE