EXCLUSIVE: Exclusive ATSNN Interview With 2004 Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik.

Ah well, I got there too late. I'm sure he had some very good comments. He always does.

The LP will not accept government funding should they get 5% of the vote. It is apparent that this fact escapes those posters that keep repeating the 5% mantra.

Accepting government funding is very unLibertarian.
.

That's a very good point, df1. You may be right. It would be in their best interest to get into the debates and real campaigns any way they can, though. I would really love to see the LP have a chance to actually campaign and debate.

I've heard conflicting reports of that. Some people attest that it's necessary to use the system to fight it. If two people had guns and you had a knife would you not accept a gun, even if you don't believe in them? Taking that gun for the good of disarming the two is not a problem in my mind - as long as it's promised that all three guns will be dismantled pending the outcome (of course that's assuming you win).

Believe me, the idea that using federal funds isn't libertarian has kicked around my head for a long time.

The clear advantage the big two parties have would be greatly lessened. Although federal funds did nothing but lead to the downfall of the Reform Party.

If the 5% threshold is passed, the intra-party debate will no doubt be heated.


[edit on (10/20/0404 by PistolPete]

Originally posted by df1
The LP will not accept government funding should they get 5% of the vote. It is apparent that this fact escapes those posters that keep repeating the 5% mantra.
.

As Pete pointed out the party is pretty evenly split on this one. I say yes some times you have to fight fire with fire, others say no

I hope this becomes a problem in 08"

It seems to be a key "talking point" of the Democratic Party that a 3rd party candidate somehow "takes away" votes that would somehow naturally go to the Dems. I understand there is a lot of bitterness about Gore losing in 2000, but that has got to do with many more factors than Ralph Nader's candidacy.

I agree with Amuk. Voters likely to support a [Libertarian] restriction on the power of government and a strict interpretation of what the US Constitution actually says about the powers delegated to the federal government, are highly unlikely to have been aligned with the Democratic Party. It has the longest running history of any US organization of raiding taxpayers to pay off special interest groups, and of trying to use the government to promote societal change, usually violating the Constitution in the process. At least Republicans used to pretend to be in favor of a small government with constitutional limits.

Believe it or not, [before I fled to my secret lair in the fastness of Central Asia!] I was actually the vice-chairman of the Republican Party in my small town in NY State. I resigned in early 2000 rather than keep my seat and refuse to support the Party's presidential candidate.

And GW Bush has turned out to be much worse than even I thought he'd be! The point is that I will either not vote, or else will vote for Badnarik. As a real conservative Republican, I wouldn't support Bush in 2000. Four years later it is absolutely clear that the Republican Party has left all conservative values behind, and has substituted jingoism, Zionism, totalitarianism, war and bigotry.

There are no reasons to support Kerry, just because he isn't Bush. I don't see him disagreeing any any of Bush's insane policies. Everything he said in the televised debates indicates he too supports jingoism, Zionism, totalitarianism, and war, but substitutes mandatory multiculturalism in place of bigotry. He made clear that the difference between him and Bush is that Kerry claims he can do all these unconstitutional and internationally illegal things more effectively, with less international ill-will.

I suspect I'm not alone. The Bush campaign is likely to be very surprised at how little voting support he gets among real conservative Republicans. If all the people who voted Bush in 2000 but are staying home in 2004 were to vote Badnarik, it would be a major wake-up call to the Washington establishment. The so-called "neo-conservatives" that have captured the Party will be have contributed to destroying its only lock on the Executive & both houses of Congress since before FDR. But since Kerry vows to "stay the course" in Iraq and to support Israel no matter what, they'll be pretty satisfied with a Kerry victory.

I find it highly unlikely that legitimate democratic processes resulted in both major party candidates being Yale grads who were/are members of the same secret Satanist society [Skull & Bones]. The powers-that-be have the fix in and will be happy with either candidate winning, since both are their puppets. Both support US interventionism abroad, both refuse to enforce existing immigration law, both support increased federal control over every aspect of your life.

Since both of the two puppets nominated by the major parties are guaranteed to dance to the tune of the Corporate State establishment, it is abundantly clear to me that voting for either one of them is the REAL wasted vote!

NOTE:
Since Fu Manchu is plotting the overthrow of Western Civilization [from my remote hideaway on the other side of the world], in that persona I'd have to claim that a Kerry win would be preferable. His policies will still result in military defeat for the US, and will not be able to stave off a collapse of the economy, but the slow, quasi-reasonable approach he will use will keep most of the country behind him for longer. A Bush win is likely to result in a coup by patriotic generals who refuse to allow his cowboy approach to destroy the US Armed Forces, as he is currently very close to doing.

Once the political bull# is over, a US miltary junta will cease crazy military adventures and consolidate foreign policy on an nationalist, rather than the current Zionist basis. In the long run that will prevent the sort of social & economic collapse that will enable Fu Manchu to seize control of the world.

Remember. You read it here first. Mwahh-hahh-hahhhh!

There are no reasons to support Kerry, just because he isn't Bush. I don't see him disagreeing any any of Bush's insane policies. Everything he said in the televised debates indicates he too supports jingoism, Zionism, totalitarianism, and war, but substitutes mandatory multiculturalism in place of bigotry. He made clear that the difference between him and Bush is that Kerry claims he can do all these unconstitutional and internationally illegal things more effectively, with less international ill-will.

The problem is, if someone else doesn't win, he stays. Voting for Kerry is the only chance you have at removing Bush. If you think he's as dangerous as I do, you'll do what you have to do to remove him. Allowing Bush to stay in office is not an option. The man is a psychopathic moron, with daddy issues and an inferiority complex.

I heard Badnarik ask the following question which I thought was really great:

"If you were in prison and had a 50% chance of getting the electric chair, a 45% chance of getting lethal injection, or a 5% chance of escaping, which one would you pursue? Would you go for the electric chair just because it had a higher percentage of happening?"

Food for thought...

The problem is, if someone else doesn't win, he stays. Voting for Kerry is the only chance you have at removing Bush. If you think he's as dangerous as I do, you'll do what you have to do to remove him. Allowing Bush to stay in office is not an option. The man is a psychopathic moron, with daddy issues and an inferiority complex.

I agree with your assessment of Mr. Bush, but not the line of reasoning that precedes it.
1] If he wins, he doesn't stay. He will be removed from office non-electorally, the same way he was put in. Whether it will be some sort of "medical emergency," engineered liquidation or an above-ground military coup is difficult to guess just yet. Of course that's my opinion, which you don't buy.
2] Neither you nor I have any "chance at removing Bush." Elections have been rigged for some decades now, and the recent rush to electronic voting machines ensures there will never again be a free and fair national election.
3] I do think as you do about his being dangerous. But, no, I won't "do what I have to do to remove him." I don't have that power, and neither do you. But there are people who do have that power and they will use it.

The last point is my political analysis. Again, I don't necessarily expect you to take my word for it. However I believe I'm more realistic in that I don't believe that "politics" is primarily about elections every four years. More goes on.

Remember too, the curse about the Presidents elected in a year ending in zero. FDR didn't "go" until after he was re-elected in 1944. Since it's unlikely GW will choke on a pretzel between now and Tuesday, his joining the club might have to wait until his next term.

Originally posted by Fu Manchu
I agree with your assessment of Mr. Bush, but not the line of reasoning that precedes it.
1] If he wins, he doesn't stay. He will be removed from office non-electorally, the same way he was put in. Whether it will be some sort of "medical emergency," engineered liquidation or an above-ground military coup is difficult to guess just yet. Of course that's my opinion, which you don't buy.

Are you saying you think he'll be impeached? I truly doubt it. Not with so many people backing his stupid a$$.

2]Neither you nor I have any "chance at removing Bush." Elections have been rigged for some decades now, and the recent rush to electronic voting machines ensures there will never again be a free and fair national election.

I agree, but if the election really is rigged, there's no reason to vote for anyone at all. I do believe that, if it is rigged, we'll find out soon enough. Then, all hell will break loose in America. But,if I am going to vote (and I am), I'm going to vote as if it were really a fair election. What else can you do? Voting for a third party sure isn't going to do anything, if it is fixed.

I do think as you do about his being dangerous. But, no, I won't "do what I have to do to remove him." I don't have that power, and neither do you. But there are people who do have that power and they will use it.

Who? Where? Why don't they use it already???

The last point is my political analysis. Again, I don't necessarily expect you to take my word for it. However I believe I'm more realistic in that I don't believe that "politics" is primarily about elections every four years. More goes on.

Oh yes, I know that. Most of politics is diversionary tactics. Just like a magician, they distract people from the things they want to sneak by you.

Remember too, the curse about the Presidents elected in a year ending in zero. FDR didn't "go" until after he was re-elected in 1944. Since it's unlikely GW will choke on a pretzel between now and Tuesday, his joining the club might have to wait until his next term.

I hope he chokes on something, besides the presidency, his responsibilities, and everything else he's half attempted to do in his life. Someone should shoot him, before he causes any more damage. Do you suppose it'll happen?

[edit on 1-11-2004 by Damned]

Originally posted by Damned

Originally posted by Fu Manchu
I agree with your assessment of Mr. Bush, but not the line of reasoning that precedes it.
1] If he wins, he doesn't stay. He will be removed from office non-electorally, the same way he was put in. Whether it will be some sort of "medical emergency," engineered liquidation or an above-ground military coup is difficult to guess just yet. Of course that's my opinion, which you don't buy.

Are you saying you think he'll be impeached? I truly doubt it. Not with so many people backing his stupid a$$.
My thoughts as well. He still holds 49% or so.

2]Neither you nor I have any "chance at removing Bush." Elections have been rigged for some decades now, and the recent rush to electronic voting machines ensures there will never again be a free and fair national election.

I agree, but if the election really is rigged, there's no reason to vote for anyone at all. I do believe that, if it is rigged, we'll find out soon enough. Then, all hell will break loose in America. But,if I am going to vote (and I am), I'm going to vote as if it were really a fair election. What else can you do? Voting for a third party sure isn't going to do anything, if it is fixed.
I think you are completely correct in this assumption.
First, if it's "rigged" than the "international observers" should pick it up...no? (sorry, bit of humor or is it humour

?
Second, I doubt "all hell would break loose" over an election. People in this country have become far too compliant for such a thing.
Third, I'm not ready to accept that our election process has been completely stolen by the Demoncrats and Repugnants (sorry, had to).
Voting for a third party seems to be the most patriotic thing you could do tomorrow.

I do think as you do about his being dangerous. But, no, I won't "do what I have to do to remove him." I don't have that power, and neither do you. But there are people who do have that power and they will use it.

Who? Where? Why don't they use it already???
This is just un-called for. We have an election process to stop this barbaric thinking from ruling our society. You should be ashamed.

The last point is my political analysis. Again, I don't necessarily expect you to take my word for it. However I believe I'm more realistic in that I don't believe that "politics" is primarily about elections every four years. More goes on.

Oh yes, I know that. Most of politics is diversionary tactics. Just like a magician, they distract people from the things they want to sneak by you.
What, exactly, has changed in the history of human society?

Remember too, the curse about the Presidents elected in a year ending in zero. FDR didn't "go" until after he was re-elected in 1944. Since it's unlikely GW will choke on a pretzel between now and Tuesday, his joining the club might have to wait until his next term.

I hope he chokes on something, besides the presidency, his responsibilities, and everything else he's half attempted to do in his life.

Someone should shoot him, before he causes any more damage.
See above. You may not agree with the man but who are you to call for his DEATH?
Do you suppose it'll happen?
no
edit: bad copy and paste by me...


[edit on 1-11-2004 by Fry2]

Thanks for your comments, Damned & Fry2.

I'd say that there are a wide variety of possible outcomes here. I emphatically DO NOT believe that the opinions I am stating are the only possible ones. But IMHO they are the most likely. [authors note: my wife objects to my use of the "H" in "IMHO." She admits my opinions are often correct, but that they are rarely "humble."

Fu focus:

Are you saying you think he'll be impeached? I truly doubt it. Not with so many people backing his stupid a$$.

No. If a Republican House couldn't do a better job of impeaching Clinton, ther's no chance of a "Repugnant" House impeaching a "Repugnant" Prez. [good play on names, thanx Fry2!] I mean a non-constitutional event such as was used in the Kennedy removal, or else a "stroke" that makes him non compos mentis [No jokes! No jokes!] or a else flat out military coup. A coup would be prompted by loyal officers that realize the neo-conservative clique that captured Washington is destroying the US military's capability to defend the US by sending it on unwinnable foreign adventures with no legitimacy under international law. . .

Who? Where? Why don't they use it already???
This is just un-called for. We have an election process to stop this barbaric thinking from ruling our society. You should be ashamed.

I agree that it is barbaric to assassinate presidents, when there are legal means to remove them! BUT there are powerful people who consider it a legitimate option, as in the case of JFK and [almost] Reagan. The option of a military coup is so extreme that loyal officers would not attempt it unless there were "no other choice" in their minds. As far as the "involuntary medical retirement" option. . . well, it is a not very welll-kept secret that GW has a problem falling down and banging himself up to the extent that it can't be hid from the public. Various lame excuses have been forwarded by the White House press secretary as to why various facial injuries have happened. But history shows that "medical reasons" are rarely challenged when it is convenient to put an individual away. That goes double for a known coke-head who cant handle holding press conferences the way other presidents have.

Ashamed? I'm not ashamed! Friends, I'm not advocating it, I'm observing that it is likely to the point of near-certainty.

See above. You may not agree with the man but who are you to call for his DEATH?
Do you suppose it'll happen?
no

Damned & Fry2 can discuss this point further, but as for me, I've never called for the president's death. I'm merely opining that there are others that most likely would consider it a way to save the US military from destruction.

Personally, I tend to echo that idiot Rodney King, and wonder why "Can't we all just get along?" That's my personal feelings. But I'm realistic enuff to know there are plenty of powerful people who have more at stake making sure of certain outcomes.

Lest we forget, however, the point of this thread is Michael Badnarik, not GW Bush. If folx want to pursue the "GWB being removed from office before his time" theme, I suggest a separate thread.

This oft-repeated theme is something that's emerged around the time of every important election, as an excuse for not voting for a third party. Time after time, I hear from people who are "really on the side of truth and justice -- no, really -- but it's just that this year is an exception because it's so important/close."

Fine. All those who call a vote for Badnarik a wasted vote, please step into the booth later today and chalk yours up to Kerry or Bush. Mine will go to Badnarik. After all is said and done, and all the votes have been tallied, and a President elected, let's compare our impacts. I'll guarantee you as of right now that our votes will be equally "wasted."

Ah, but how to test that? Easy. Take away your vote altogether. Did that action change the outcome of the election? Take away mine -- how about now? I'm willing to bet that after either or both of these actions, the same man is President. Ergo, both were wasted votes: neither one made a bit of difference.

The old saw "but the last election was decided by 300 votes! Explain that!" doesn't work here. 300 votes is a slim margin, to be sure -- but it's not one vote. For your vote to not be wasted, that election had better come down to literally ONE vote (okay, two, counting the possibility of a tie), not 500 or 20 or 3. There is no "helping" Kerry to win -- you either put him over the top with your (singular) vote, or you don't. If Kerry wins by 1000 votes, yours one of them, you can fall asleep knowing that you didn't help anybody do anything.

Then again, I guess they weren't equally wasted after all -- I didn't vote for a man half of whose points I find repugnant and misguided. I voted my conscience. Forevermore, I will look back with confidence and reassurance at my voting record.

As the slogan goes, "I'd rather vote for what I want, and not get it, than vote for what I don't want, and get it."

All of this logically points to a question: If your single vote has so little chance of effecting a particular outcome, why vote? Three reasons: first, it's your moral responsibility as a citizen of this country; second, for the similar ethical motivation of living by Kant's categorical imperative of performing the action you would have everyone else perform; and third, to encourage others in practical reality to do the same, by setting a real-life example of your convictions.

By voting for someone whose principles you largely reject, and particularly someone whose values are orthogonal to the true tenets of American government (e.g. Senator Kerry), you fail in all three regards. (Voting against your principles is, I would argue, more reprehensible than not voting at all.)

Carry your pride with you to the ballot box. How many of Kerry's poor decisions will you tolerate when his excuse is that "I really feel that this is wrong to do, but it's just too important to make sure I keep this voting bloc behind me"?

-Prophasi

Originally posted by Fry2
Second, I doubt "all hell would break loose" over an election. People in this country have become far too compliant for such a thing.

I was speaking of, if they were caught red handed. But you're probably right. Even then, Americans would allow them to get away with it through media propaganda.

Third, I'm not ready to accept that our election process has been completely stolen by the Demoncrats and Repugnants (sorry, had to).

When will you accept it? In another 200 years or so? Will that be long enough?

This is just un-called for. We have an election process to stop this barbaric thinking from ruling our society. You should be ashamed.

Of what? He just said they "have that power ", didn't he? I don't believe I implied anything. In fact, no one implied assassination, except you, just now.

See above. You may not agree with the man but who are you to call for his DEATH?

I'm not calling for it, but it wouldn't hurt my feelings, one bit, if someone did take him out. In fact, if he wins, I hope someone does. He and his regime are the biggest "evil doers", IMO. It won't matter, though. America is stupid enough to replace him with a bigger idiot.

Originally posted by Prophasi
Ah, but how to test that? Easy. Take away your vote altogether. Did that action change the outcome of the election? Take away mine -- how about now? I'm willing to bet that after either or both of these actions, the same man is President. Ergo, both were wasted votes: neither one made a bit of difference.

Sure, but put all LP votes on Kerry, and you have made a difference that could easily decide the election. However, every single vote for the LP will add up to absolutely nothing, unfortunately. They won't even have to tally the LP votes to decide who won. I hope this changes in the future. Of course, we all learned, last election, that popular votes have nothing to do with winning an election.

[edit on 2-11-2004 by Damned]

In fact, no one implied assassination, except you, just now.

Really?

Someone should shoot him, before he causes any more damage.

Looks like it to me...

America is stupid enough to replace him with a bigger idiot.

Like John Kerry? Probably.

Originally posted by Fry2

In fact, no one implied assassination, except you, just now.

Really?

Someone should shoot him, before he causes any more damage.

Looks like it to me...

I meant at the time of that quote. That was later I said that, and of course I was joking, kind of. Kerry is not even close to as big of an idiot as GWB.
Dubya doesn't even have the spark of intelligence in his eye. Kerry does, at least. Dubya reminds me of that look you see in a really stupid dog's eyes...like the light are on, but no one's home.
No wait...sometimes he also looks like a mischievous kid who just did something wrong.

[edit on 2-11-2004 by Damned]

I agree with you. I'm no Bush fan any more than a Kerry follower. I thought that I made that clear with my earlier post. I feel the same about every President and, almost, every candidate for President in my lifetime.
My point is that someone has to take that first step to get us out of the 1...err um "2" party system we are dealing with now. You may "think" that I wasted my vote for electing Badnarik as the person I believe should be president. I'll sleep well tonight knowing that I didn't support a man I don't trust out of spite for another.

Sure, but put all LP votes on Kerry, and you have made a difference that could easily decide the election. However, every single vote for the LP will add up to absolutely nothing, unfortunately. They won't even have to tally the LP votes to decide who won. I hope this changes in the future. Of course, we all learned, last election, that popular votes have nothing to do with winning an election.

That's faulty logic, and it's something I hear every time I have this discussion with someone. I don't know how much clearer to make this, after so many times of trying.

You *cannot* logically group my vote with all other LP voters to say that if we all switched, it would sway the election. That goes without saying. But I *DO NOT* have control of all LP votes. I have control of ONE LP vote, and if I ditch it altogether or change it to Kerry, the election results will be the same. You can only consider your own vote when you go to the ballot box -- otherwise, you could justify any action at all by saying "But if all the million people voting for X went here, and half the people voting for Y changed to this..."

You have one vote. I have one vote. The other people don't matter when you check your box (or connect your arrow, or tap your screen, or punch your card).

However, every single vote statistically means much more to the LP than it does to the Dems or Reps, due to existing party sizes.

-Prophasi

Originally posted by Prophasi
However, every single vote statistically means much more to the LP than it does to the Dems or Reps, due to existing party sizes.

The LP vote didn't mean squat, as usual. The reason there was such a turn-out this election, is because more people voted against Bush, by voting for Kerry. If more people would have done the same, the monster wouldn't be in office for another term. Now, we're all screwed.

Ok...time to get my warning for the month.

Saying that voting LP takes votes away from Kerry is complete BULL# If Kerry deserved to win, he'd have more votes no matter how many people voted third party. Why? because if he was a better candidate to the third party voter, then they would have voted for him. Fact is, he wasn't as popular as Bush. Which says alot considering the majority of people who voted for Kerry were really voting against Bush. Imagine if people really liked Bush. He would have won in a landslide. Fact is, as much as so many people hated Bush, they felt even worse about Kerry, which must be alot.

So, next time you say that an LP vote was a stolen vote of Kerry's, STFU and face it. Kerry lost because he was less popular than one of the least popular presidents in history.