Presidential Debates

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by tpahl
Unless you are a democrat or republican, in which case you pay less to be on the ballots and take more money from the taxpayer.

Travis

Just saw your man today in Austin and he says he's not playing to win anyway--he just wants the rules to change so a future Libertarian has a better chance. I still think he's gotta play the game to change the election rules. Hoping for a mass uprising seems a bit futile.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by dilloduck
Just saw your man today in Austin and he says he's not playing to win anyway--he just wants the rules to change so a future Libertarian has a better chance. I still think he's gotta play the game to change the election rules. Hoping for a mass uprising seems a bit futile.

not running to win is just being realistic as a third party candidate. What he means by changing the rules I do not think he means a mass uprising... Just a change from the status quo (two parties that ignore the constution). An opening up of the system and getting the libertarian agenda being discussed.

Often the debate is between two options that are both totally unacceptable to the Libertarian. If he can make enough noise to actually get his agendaout there and being discussed, then the other parties either need to take the LP stance, or as he mentioned the Next LP guy has a btter shot because the national debate is on an issue that the LP can actually be heard more.

Travis

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by tpahl
No. If the Libertarian party was after free media coverage, they would take the millions of dollars of political welfare that they have qualified for in the past and again this year. Instead they turn it down because...

1. it is morally wrong to take other peoples money to be put to use for ones on speech
2. we beleive in small government (as opposed to just preaching it as some political parties do)
3. Government money always comes with strings.


The Democrats and Republicans however are going to have tax payer funded conventions again this year. Afterwards they are going to take 75 million tax payer dollars each and give it to their candidates for 'free' publicity'.



No it is not. And unfortunatly it costs the libertarians much more time, energy, and money to even get on the ballot in all 50 states. did you know that the requirement for the republicans and democrats to get on the ballot are generally require much LESS signatures, despite being the LARGER parties. I think after spending the money to be on the ballot in all 50 states as the Libertarian party has done the past 3 (at least) presidential elections, they should given a chance to speak to the american people at the debates. When polled most people want to hear more opinions.

Travis

Why not take and spend the money necessary to get your message out? After you win the election you can give it all back and be true to your cause.

 

[Annie]

Travis,
It's not the way to get popular support or media support.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by dilloduck
Why not take and spend the money necessary to get your message out? After you win the election you can give it all back and be true to your cause.

Because it is wrong to take other peoples money. Even if you plan to give it back. How would you feel if I were to break into your home and steal 100 bucks, to go play the lotto and then if I won pay you back?

Stealing is wrong whether it is done by an individual or a group, or by the government for the benifit of a group.

And also, where do you suggest the money used to pay the taxpayers back come from?

Travis

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Travis,
It's not the way to get popular support or media support.

I agree. I think he should stick to saying he can win it. But it is hard to blame the man for being realistic. It is still far more valuable to vote for him than for Bush if you cherish the freedoms that Badnarik promises.

Travis

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by tpahl
I agree. I think he should stick to saying he can win it. But it is hard to blame the man for being realistic. It is still far more valuable to vote for him than for Bush if you cherish the freedoms that Badnarik promises.

Travis

Oh sure--take a vote from Bush?

That'll help a lot

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by tpahl
I agree. I think he should stick to saying he can win it. But it is hard to blame the man for being realistic. It is still far more valuable to vote for him than for Bush if you cherish the freedoms that Badnarik promises.

Travis

Sorry not about to fall on my sword. Bush is better.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by dilloduck
Oh sure--take a vote from Bush?

That'll help a lot

Depends on what you are after. As I said, if you are after obtaining the things that Badnarik is promising, then yes it will help. Bush is not even pretending to offer most of what Badnarik is offering.

If however you are looking for 4 more years of growing government spending (at record rates), more renewals of gun regulations (while none are being repealed), More nation building, then yes, it is a bad idea to vote for Badnarik.

I am after smaller government so I am voting Badnarik.

Travis Pahl

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by dilloduck
Just saw your man today in Austin and he says he's not playing to win anyway--he just wants the rules to change so a future Libertarian has a better chance. I still think he's gotta play the game to change the election rules. Hoping for a mass uprising seems a bit futile.

I was just able to see the newscast you are refering to. He did not say he was not playing to win.

The clip can be downloaded at http://txliberty.dyndns.org/inetpub/wwwroot/webfiles/LP040610.wmv