Badnarik in debates

Discussion in 'Politics' started by tpahl, Jul 27, 2004.

  1. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
  2. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    68% of what people?
     
  3. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Of 'likely voters?' or even 'registered voters?'
     
  4. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    People eligible to vote. too often polls exclude people who identify themselves as not likely to vote. Most people who do not support the Republicans and democrats are the people that are not likely to vote. Which makes sense. If you see little difference between the two parties why would you waste your time voting? Including all americans is much more meaningful.
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    'Meaningful' in the 'feeling' category, but not 'action' category. That's the problem. What are the libertarians going to do to energize? Not with this candidate.

    Trust me, you've got to find a candidate that will appeal to me, someone who naturally flows with your message.
     
  6. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    It is meaningful in more than the feelings category. The point of the poll is that there is a large segment of society that would like to see Badnarik in the debate. Regardless of whether they decide to vote or not is not important. Elections and debates are for the benifit of all eligible voters not just the ones that chose to go to the polls. If Badnarik is not in the debates, then obviously far less people will go vote on election day because they willl have not heard of a candidate that they find worth voting for.

    As for you not being excited by Badnarik. I am not really sure what that has to do with whether he be included in the debates.
     
  7. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Truly, I'm beside the point, to anyone but myself. Anyone over the age of 18 is not the point and feelings should not be considered. It really comes down to who votes! You can be all 'idealistic' you want, but don't expect the dems or reps to back your take! You should have a resonating message, find the candidate!
     
  8. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    It is not about feelings. It is about how likely voters is a relative term. If people see badnarik in the debate they become a likely voter.

    That is not being idealistic. it is being realistic. Realistically people are more likely to vote for a candidate when they are included in the debates. Currently the debate rules say that candidates are included if they poll at a certain level in some select polls. These polls then do not even ask about certain candidates 9despite being on the ballot in all 50 states) AND they ask for likely voters when most non republicans and non democrats are not likely voters (unless they hear about other candidates).

    In other words the Rs and Ds have a system set up to be a self fulfilling prophecy. And on top of that as this poll shows, it is a system that most people are not happy with.

    As for Badnarik not having an issue that resonates with you, that is too bad. He is however strogly in favor of the 2nd amendment (unlike bush and kerry). he is for greatly reducing spending (unlike bush and kerry). He is for ending the drug war (unlike bush and kerry). He is for ending the war in Iraq (unlike bush and kerry). I am curious what issue would excite you enough to vote for a libertarian candidate. It seems that just offering such an alternative even if it did not excite would still be a good idea in the presidential debates.
     
  9. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770

    Sorry to disagree with you. The Libertarian Party is this close to having many GOP in their hand. They fail election after election to close the deal. Nader has a better chance! And that is sad, as he has no real message. Those that are not voting now, will not vote. You are fighting a losing battle. For god's sake man, the country is at war! If not now, when?
     
  10. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    Nader is not even on the ballot in more than few states. Badnarik will be on the ballot in all 50.


    What are you basing this on? Are you seriously proposing that people are not more likely to vote when they are informed of more choices? That defies experience and logic.

    What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that we should not have third partys during war time? Or are you just upset that Badnarik is against using troops in nation building exercises?

    Travis
     

Share This Page