A Vote for Badnarik = A Vote for Kerry

For all of you in favor of smaller government that have become disillusioned with the Republicans, be sure to remember that if you cast your vote for the Libertarian Michael Badnarik this fall, that your vote will really be cast for John Kerry!!!

Because let's all remember that there are really only two political parties in this country, and one of them has to 'own' your vote. Let's face it, there's no way that you're voting for Badnarik because you really don't want either Bush or Kerry. You're voting for Badnarik because the Republicans have made you a little mad, but deep down you know you want Bush to win. Come on - he's the lesser of two evils, right?




For the last time. Third Party voters actually believe in their candidate and are voting FOR them, not AGAINST someone else.

Dude, when are you going to realize that unless you get the amount of votes need to win. You are ensuring a republican win.

A lose/lose situation is a loss.

I see evil on both sides of this coin and will not toss my lot in with either of them. I am simply offended by anyone who says that my vote 'belongs' to either the Democrats or the Republicans. It assure you, it doesn't. I further assure you that my vote for Badnarik will not be a vote for either Bushie or sKerry. And I finally assure you that there are many, many others like me.

Get over it.

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
Dude, when are you going to realize that unless you get the amount of votes need to win. You are ensuring a republican win.

Dude...the question is, when are YOU going to realize some people like neither party? I agree with Hoonie, if we allow this 2 party rule any longer we are dooming ourselves, and some of us that have a conscious want to vote with it. I for one will vote for Nader, and my vote is not a wasted vote...my vote is a vote to show people that anyone can run for president and that the 2 party system cannot control that one aspect of our lives...our votes! If more people would grow a spine and vote for who they WANT and not for who they THINK will win, this country just might be able to repair all the damage that has been done by B O T H the Republicans and Democrats.

PS- Thanks for using Badnarik as a 3rd party reference for once as a wasted vote, instead of Nader.

Originally posted by Jazzerman
PS- Thanks for using Badnarik as a 3rd party reference for once as a wasted vote, instead of Nader.

Cheers Jazzy! I just thought that maybe a different reference might reveal the absurdity of their argument. Looks like I'm dreaming again.

I agree Hoonie. It really is an absurd argument that many of them use to try and justify voting for someone that does not fit even their own political ideologies. It beggars belief that one would vote for someone they have no confidence in, just so "the other guy doesn't win. I commend you for your convictions...well said!

If it weren't for a Libertarian candidate, I probably would have abstained for from voting this year. My vote was taken away from no one, and there are quite a few libertarians like this.

At least on election day third party voters can exit the voting booth with a clear conscience.

I would like nothing more than a third party. Its not going to happen this election. You got to get the VOTES. Go ahead vote third party. Come back in a litlle over 2 months. I bet Bush is in office. Take that to the bank.

Vote for the candidate you relate to most, PERIOD.

I'm suck of those "vote for blah is a vote for some dumbass" kind of threads, comments and statements.

If you don't vote for the person you think should be in the house, you are commiting FRAUD.

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
I would like nothing more than a third party. Its not going to happen this election. You got to get the VOTES. Go ahead vote third party. Come back in a litlle over 2 months. I bet Bush is in office. Take that to the bank.

If Bush is re-elected it won't be the fault of third parties. It will be the fault of the Democrats for failing to field a candidate that appeals to a plurality of the electorate. Look in the mirror before casting that stone.


ABDAR

Anybody But Democrats And Republicans


[edit on 9/3/2004 by HoonieSkoba]

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
Dude, when are you going to realize that unless you get the amount of votes need to win. You are ensuring a republican win.

What if I would not have voted for Kerry anyhow?

You have never heard me say vote for anyone.

"Look in the mirror before casting that stone."

What stones? Thust, Thee have none to cast, just a humble servant.

This stone:

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
Dude, when are you going to realize that unless you get the amount of votes need to win. You are ensuring a republican win.

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
You have never heard me say vote for anyone.

No, but you said that I am ensuring a republican, that is Bush, win. You have implied that my vote belongs to Kerry even if you did not explicitly say it.

For whatever it's worth, I have plenty of Republican friends that are telling me that if I vote for Badnarik, I'll ensure a Kerry victory.

You guys all crack me up.

The reason to vote for 3de party candidates:

Imagine this, Elections are over, everyone voted exactly for who they want to see in the house.
1st Party gets 40% of the votes, 2nd party gets 35% of the votes, and 3de party gets 20%, another takes 5%.

People who have been blind for ages or have been reluctant to even look into 3de party's, now all of the sudden notice a party they know litle about take away 20% of the votes.

By the election after that, they might have just simply read about that 3de party and noticed this party makes much sence to them.

The problem these days is that the 2 main party's only tolerate smaller party's if they have a gain by promoting them(in other ways, if they can assure some votes being taken from their oponent)

If this would stop that and 3de party's would become able to be fully covered by media, equaly well known party's as the republicans and democrats, you'll see a massive shift in the political balance.

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
I would like nothing more than a third party. Its not going to happen this election. You got to get the VOTES. Go ahead vote third party. Come back in a litlle over 2 months. I bet Bush is in office. Take that to the bank.

You know I just lost a friend of over 35 years who called me a tratior for voting for Badnarik. He said my vote would ensure a KERRY victory.

Everyone seems to think that you should ONLY vote for one of the two.

What if the sight of BOTH makes you want to puke?

Originally posted by Amuk
You know I just lost a friend of over 35 years who called me a tratior for voting for Badnarik. He said my vote would ensure a KERRY victory.
Everyone seems to think that you should ONLY vote for one of the two.
What if the sight of BOTH makes you want to puke?

Then don't do it... Thare are many people that have been softened with this kind of idea of the third party doesn't count.

It's going to be hard and it's going to take along time to break people of this spoonfed idea...

If they are on the ballot in 48states, I know badnarik is on it my state, so apparantly they do count..

It s just aload of crap.

Truelies

I will vote Libertarian no matter what my friend thanks, hell I would vote for Marlyon Chambers Party before Bush or Kerry.....LOL

I am just sad that the big two have brainwashed some people to the point they truely only see two people

I thought we were on in all 50 but I could be wrong.

Its funny Nader is mentioned all the time and he is just on in a handfull of states.

I am starting to think there is a conspericy to keep the Libertarians off the radar, mainly because if the word got out Bush would lose I am sure.

[edit on 4-9-2004 by Amuk]

Your stuck with the lesser of two evils? Is there a lesser evil? Evil is evil.

I dont believe a rep. would ever vote for a dem. or a lib. So I dont know how it would ensure kerry's win.


ALL I know is that if bush wins again. Thats 4 more years. Should we take that chance for 4 more, just too ensure he can no longer come back. Or do we take him out now?

It is simple math. The more people there are to vote for the less over all number each will get. If you know pretty much who is going to vote for who, you can see where the other votes will be missed.

[edit on 4-9-2004 by SpittinCobra]

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
I dont believe a rep. would ever vote for a dem. or a lib. So I dont know how it would ensure kerry's win.

[edit on 4-9-2004 by SpittinCobra]

Because most Libertarians are Conservitive.

So they would PROBIBLY vote Bush if they did not vote Badnarik.

It seems to me the Denmocrats would catch on to this and have Badnariks name EVERYWHERE like the Republicans did with Nader

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
I dont believe a rep. would ever vote for a dem. or a lib. So I dont know how it would ensure kerry's win.

That's an interesting take. Most Libertarians I know personally are disillusioned Republicans. Most Greens I know are disillusioned Democrats.

I'm sure that you have had some experiences to lead you to your belief that Republicans wouldn't turn Libertarian, and it's an interesting thought. I think I'll start a thread on it.
EDIT: Done! www.abovetopsecret.com...

But to your latter point about that you don't see how voting Libertarian would ensure a Kerry win, I agree with you. I sure don't see how it could ensure Kerry win, because the vote didn't belong to Bush. Just as I don't see how it would ensure a Bush win, as the vote didn't belong to Kerry. The vote belongs to the candidate that earned it and no one else - that was the original, albeit sarcastic, point of my post. Glad to see you've come around.


[edit on 9/4/2004 by HoonieSkoba]