Not Kerry vs Bush, but Badnarik?

Kerry has invited Bush to weekly debates, which Bush&Co turned down. The democrats are pissed because Nader gets a ton of funding from Bush&Co. Well, to turn it around without being the scumbags that Bush&Co are, have weekly debates between Kerry and Badnarik. This way Badnarik will be on tv, and instead of just giving millions to Badnarik like the republicans do with Nader, it will be a non-corrupt way to get a third party candidate noticed.

So, Kerry fans, why not send letters or something to Kerry and tell about debates with Badnarik? Would this not be a great way for Kerry to look like he believes in more then just Dems vs Reps?

oh sweet sweet revenge!! Enable badnarik, turn the tables, a screw the neo cons! oh that would be smart...

It's only fair...... They took votes away from the left, then the left should take votes away from the right...

I'm waiting for a backfire... Can't wait to see bush and co's faces light up!!

lefties unite! start emailing the sr kerry advisor...

This would be GREAT! You won't find Bush on the same stage with Badnarik, or even Nader for that matter.

We need to have debates that include all candidates. Last time round the BS excuse for not having Nader was that he didn't have high enough polling results. Don't be surprised folks if the "media" doesn't try to nix this idea for the same stupid reason!

Originally posted by phreak_of_nature
This would be GREAT! You won't find Bush on the same stage with Badnarik, or even Nader for that matter.

He won't even debate against the second largest party who could potentially win the presidency!

Somebody's not confident enough in themselves.....I don't think it would hurt your brain that much from thinking during a debate with kerry of all people...I can understand feeling threatened by Badnarik, but Kerry?! There is just no excuse... I say let Kerry and Badnarik play together, Kerry can help Badnarik get votes away from the pnac club....

I'd love to see a Kerry v. Badnarik debate, for several reasons.

1) I despise Kerry, and would love to see his policies debunked (and dare I say humiliated) by Libertarian common sense.

2) I despise the two-party system, and would love to see a third party given the media attention it deserves.

3) It would inform a number of conservatives that there are other options besides Bush... all Badnarik needs is the exposure and legitimacy that this debate would give him.

Originally posted by Odd
I'd love to see a Kerry v. Badnarik debate, for several reasons.

1) I despise Kerry, and would love to see his policies debunked (and dare I say humiliated) by Libertarian common sense.

2) I despise the two-party system, and would love to see a third party given the media attention it deserves.

3) It would inform a number of conservatives that there are other options besides Bush... all Badnarik needs is the exposure and legitimacy that this debate would give him.

You know what? I was thinking the exact same thing. Badnarik is not quite a politican as he is a teacher. He would literally school Kerry all over the place. I'd give it 2 or 3 weeks before Kerry calls it off and looks like a fool.

Then Bush would win. Sounds just what the Republicans want.

Well, Kerry may be "schooled" but it would mean that the conservatives have a guy they can vote for that can actually humiliate the Democrats, instead of getting humiliated by Democrats.

And of course Bush wouldn't be on the same stage as Nader or Badnarik, he won't be on the same stage with KERRY!

Truelies, it isn't taking votes from the right, for they are still right votes, they are just putting them in a different place.

Hmmm, I figured that the real Kerry supporters would have thought this a great idea. Maybe they afraid of Badnarik. I am voting Kerry, but I don't support Kerry, I support anyone but Bush who has a chance to win.

And Bush supporters, why didn't Bush take up on Kerry's offer? One guy on another post said "Only losers want to debate". This is wrong, for right now the race is to close for anyone to be a loser. That and if it was Bush asking Kerry and Kerry refusing the guy would have said "Only losers don't want to debate" for he is a Bush supporter, and well, they can twist, lie, and deny as well as Bush&Co.

Hell, why not Nader fans? Is everyone so afraid of a Kerry vs Badnarik debate? Or is it that Badnarik might actually get some states? Hell, that would be cool, when was the last time a third party actually won more then 1-3 states?

James,
I don't mean this as an insult in any way...

What the hell are you thinking!?!?!?

If you don't support Kerry then don't vote for him!
Cast your vote for someone who represents your beliefs.
I'm getting so sick of the typical brainwashed American response "If I vote for a third party it would be a wasted vote". That is complete and utter Bull#!
How much longer before we end up with a one party system with thinking like that?

Scary thought, and it could happen...

Honestly, if all the people that wanted to vote for a third party but were afraid of 'wasting' their vote just did so regardless, then not one single vote would go to waste.

If the populace at large doesn't realize this within a generation or so, we will pass the event horizon of screwedness.

you might as well waste your vote for a third party since by your logic "its not going to matter anyways" . so if your vote aint going to change # anyways then why not vote 3rd party?

plus since your candidate isnt going to win, you get to bitch about the elections either way:bnghd:

a vote for your beliefs are better than a real wasted vote

Neither major party will debate Badnarik...because right now he's severly marginalized, if you give him a stage next to your canidate, youve given him credibillity. Neither party would be that stupid. Noone wants to look like they cant debate with the leaders of the pack, but instead be caught debating a 3rd rate, not a chance to win candidate.

As far as casting your vote for a third party...good luck to you and i hope that one day, one of them will get enough votes to really scare both major parties into waking up and getting back to the interests of their constituants. A third party candidate will never win (the Presidency) in my lifetime.

Lets say that one did....he/she, would have their hands soo tied from congress, almost nothing would get done for those 4 years. Is that in the best interests of America, a lameduck President?

I'm all for it, but it would almost have to be rigged. They'd have to tag team on Bush, and I'm not saying that because Badnarik would "school" Kerry.

It would be in Kerry's interests to make the LP look viable. If it were a real heated debate, he could sink them with any of a number of concepts.

Handguns in bars and on airplanes. Legalized drugs. Hookers.

Pick one. Any will do. I know there are good sound logical reasons for LP positions on those things, but you've got to face up to the fact these aren't mainstream attractors. You'll send moderate Reps and Dems both screaming from LP for life.

This is a soundbyte society. Rapid fire questions.

Yes or no, Mr. Badnarik are you for prostitution? Debate over.

Can you imagine? Brutal. But Kerry hopefully wouldn't take that tact. He'd try to make LP seem reasonable (assuming they let him) and agree with Badnarik where Bush is no conservative, and debate differences in approach to solving the real problems saying "we just respectfully disagree" on the ideological issues that so forcefully drive libertarianism out of consideration for the vast majority of Americans.

But Bush? Oh yes. He'd sink and humiliate Badnarik first chance he got. I'm sorry to say, Bush would win that debate. Because he'd never let it be about economics. I mean if they called Gore a boy scout, what do you think Bush would call A BOY SCOUT!

That's just how things work sadly.

Does anyone remember the election of 1992?
There were 3, count'em, 3 horses in that race.

Clinton got 43.4%
Bush got 37.7%
And Perot got 19.0%

Perot entered the race late. He had a huge ground swell behind him before he did, but not enough to overtake the big 2 before the election.

Through out our history there have been numerous elections with multiple candidates. The 2 candidate standard evolved in the 20th century. We need to back away from that because it is not representative of our populace. People have more then just 1 of 2 opinions.

www.multied.com...

Caz? Who is this nobody? This guy is already on several state ballots. He is a libertarian candidate for president. He may have very well affected the US if Bush&Co hadn't banned him from being on TV or anyone from saying his name on TV.

Man Caz, he is like Nader, except the republicans fund Nader to take votes from Kerry.

You say why would Kerry debate him? BECAUSE BUSH ALREADY TURNED HIM DOWN! Bush won't debate Kerry, so who is left from the right side? Badnarik.