Libertarian Last Antiwar Candidate Left Standing

[tpahl]

Those hoping for a Bush victory might want to start promoting Badnarik to their antiwar freinds that are planning on voting Kerry. Taking away votes from Kerry helps Bush get elected.

http://www.badnarik.org/PressRoom/archive.php?p=777

Albuquerque, NM - It's hard to pin John Kerry down. He might add troops. Or he might bring troops out. Or maybe he'd put together a bigger alliance to keep the troop level steady. John Kerry might do a lot of things about Iraq, but on Monday he made his one unequivocal statement on the issue: Had he been president, he'd have taken the US to war in Iraq too.

"When John Kerry takes a firm position, I'm willing to take him at his word," says Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik. "Such a rare occurrence commands that much respect.

"So here's another question for John Kerry," Badnarik continues. "Why should the majority of Americans who now believe that the war was a tragic mistake vote for him?"

travis

 

[Avatar4321]

Not really. Nader is antiwar and he has a far better chance of winning then whats his name.

Regardless it doesnt matter because we have had war declared on us. until we finish the enemy we will continue to be at war. the only question is do we fight back or not. i say we fight back.

 

[tpahl]

Not really. Nader is antiwar and he has a far better chance of winning then whats his name.

Actually Nader wants to hand things over to the UN. He is critical of the US being in Iraq, but is a strong supporter of the UN and would have no problems with US troops in Iraq under UN command.

But really that does not matter because Nader is not really a candidate this election despite the media pretending he is a big third party candidate this year. They are just still obsessed with his 2000 run. When you look at the number of states he is actually on the ballot for this year, it becomes appearant that he is getting way more media than he deserves.

As of July, he was on the ballot in 3 states compared to badnariks 28. Nader can not even mathematically win the election even if everyone who saw his name on the ballot voted for him.

Regardless it doesnt matter because we have had war declared on us. until we finish the enemy we will continue to be at war.

Actually we never did declare war. We have not done so since WWII. Instead the congress unconstitutionally ignored the seperation of powers and gave the president the power to execute war without a formal decleration.

the only question is do we fight back or not. i say we fight back

That is a very important question. Unfortunately between the two major party candidates it is not questioned. I understand that you think we should fight back, but you should also understand that a large portion of the country disagrees. These people have been misled into beleiving that Kerry is a peace candidate when in fact most peoples only choice for peace on the ballot will be Badnarik. It would be nice to see the Peace candidate in the debates. Whether you agree with the war or not, i think we all can agree it should be debated and the president should have to answer to his actions in the presidential debates.

Travis


Travis

 

[5stringJeff]

Actually Nader wants to hand things over to the UN. He is critical of the US being in Iraq, but is a strong supporter of the UN and would have no problems with US troops in Iraq under UN command.

But really that does not matter because Nader is not really a candidate this election despite the media pretending he is a big third party candidate this year. They are just still obsessed with his 2000 run. When you look at the number of states he is actually on the ballot for this year, it becomes appearant that he is getting way more media than he deserves.

Ten bucks says Nader gets more votes nationwide than Badnarik.