posted
Well, i think ive finally descided and just wanted to get some insight form you guys. This IS going to be my vote most likely, and im guessing some of you might not like it. But, whatever...
Honestly, i think he is the best candidate. Pretty middle of the road and straightforward on all of his issues. He may look pretty liberal at first, but read over his gun control policy (which i know is a big issue for you guys) and you will realize he is pretty logical.
-------------------- It doesn't get any more serious than a Rhinocerus about to charge your ass. Posts: 1053 | From: Apple Valley, MN | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gun control looks good, some good economic stuff but everything else is a train wreck.....
quote: The War in Iraq is a failure, and the U.S. government should never have waged it. As your president, one of my first tasks will be to begin the orderly process of bringing our troops home as quickly as can safely be accomplished.
quote:Crime can be prevented. If you elect me as your president, I will implement a system of restorative justice to rehabilitate offenders before they become career criminals. As part of my crime prevention program, I will veto any infringements on the Second Amendment to the Constitution, so that responsible citizens can protect themselves and their loved ones from thieves, murderers, and rapists.
quote:As a Libertarian, I reject a conception of national defense that keeps American troops overseas, meddling in the affairs of other nations
quote:The War in Iraq is a failure, and the U.S. government should never have waged it. As your president, one of my first tasks will be to begin the orderly process of bringing our troops home as quickly as can safely be accomplished.
Well, im not one that can say it was a success. I truely believe that there were other more immediate threats of terriorist involvement that served as better targets than the Iraq regime. Thuogh i dont doubt the fact that Saddam's Regime aided terrorism to some degree. But, read the latest official release on the investigation into Iraq's involvement in the creation of weapons of mass destruction and you will see that there was absolutely no "smoking gun" or "immediate threat" like the Bush administration claimed. Their involvement in weapons programs ceased completely after the first persian gulf war. Though it was determined that Saddam had the intention of restarting these weapons programs, it was never put into action.
After the Bush administration realized this, they immidiatly turned the focus of the reason for invading iraq to the need for a regime change. Fine, its true that Saddam is a bastard. But where does the defense of the country fit into that motive? Its a change for the well being of Iraq and its surrounding countries, not the US. And all Badnarik is saying is this:
quote:First, allow me to dispel a myth. People in the Middle East do not hate us for our freedom. They do not hate us for our lifestyle. They hate us because we have spent many years attempting to force them to emulate our lifestyle.
quote:The proper response would have been to present the evidence as to who committed the heinous act both to Congress and to the people, and have Congress authorize the president to track down the individuals actually responsible, doing everything possible to avoid inflicting harm on innocents.
This seems pretty reasonable to me. In order to effectively fight the war on terror, you cant fight it like its WWII and send the entire army stomping around all over the country. Why?? Because its an easy target. And that is pretty fucking obvious from what is going on in Iraq right now. Also, think about it this way: Its a hell of alot easier to gather intelligence about an enemy when they arent constantly in hiding due to a vast military presance. And intellegence is what is going to win this war given the strategy of the enemy, not brute and massive force. This is the type of strategy i think this candidate would put into effect.
quote:Crime can be prevented. If you elect me as your president, I will implement a system of restorative justice to rehabilitate offenders before they become career criminals. As part of my crime prevention program, I will veto any infringements on the Second Amendment to the Constitution, so that responsible citizens can protect themselves and their loved ones from thieves, murderers, and rapists.
Dont know why this is a problem. Its just him stating that he will not let the government infringe on the right to bare arms.
-------------------- It doesn't get any more serious than a Rhinocerus about to charge your ass. Posts: 1053 | From: Apple Valley, MN | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, im not one that can say it was a success. I truly believe that there were other more immediate threats of terrorist involvement that served as better targets than the Iraq regime. Though i dont doubt the fact that Saddam's Regime aided terrorism to some degree. But, read the latest official release on the investigation into Iraq's involvement in the creation of weapons of mass destruction and you will see that there was absolutely no "smoking gun" or "immediate threat" like the Bush administration claimed. Their involvement in weapons programs ceased completely after the first Persian gulf war. Though it was determined that Saddam had the intention of restarting these weapons programs, it was never put into action.
The main difference in the Bush admin and the Kerry “plan” (and what I think of this candidates plan) is that Bush is “Proactive” and Kerry wants to be “Reactive” to the threat of terrorism on the United States. This is the same with law enforcement. I am sorry to say but not everyone can be rehabilitated.
quote:After the Bush administration realized this, they immediately turned the focus of the reason for invading iraq to the need for a regime change. Fine, its true that Saddam is a bastard. But where does the defense of the country fit into that motive? Its a change for the well being of Iraq and its surrounding countries, not the US. And all Badnarik is saying is this:
It’s really easy to Monday morning quarterback the war in Iraq and say its bad now. Truth is that both Bush and Kerry thought the same thing about the war before during and after – up until recently……… Here are some quotes from Kerry
quote:KERRY: "[I]t is something that we know-for instance, Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and there is some evidence of their efforts to try to secure these kinds of weapons and even test them." (CBS’ "Face The Nation," 9/23/01)
KERRY: "[I] think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I’ve said that for a number of years, Bill. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off of the inspections, when Ambassador Butler was giving us strong evidence that we needed to continue. I think we need to put the pressure on, no matter what the evidence is about September 11 ..." (Fox News’ "The O’Reilly Factor," 12/11/01)
KERRY: "I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn’t end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It’s a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein." (CNN’s "Larry King Live," 12/14/01)
"I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq ..." - John Kerry, 7/29/02 Remarks at the 2002 DLC National Conversation, NY (Senator John Kerry, Speech To The 2002 DLC National Conversation, New York, NY, 7/29/02)
KERRY: "I would disagree with John McCain that it’s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it’s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that - that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." (CBS’ "Face The Nation," 9/15/02)
Anyway, I am just trying to say that a lot of people were for the war of ousting Saddam and believed he had weapons of mass destruction. Pretty much EVERYONE believed that – every intelligence agency in the free world believed it. So it was a surprise to everyone when none were found. But it’s still good that he is gone – I hope you don’t believe the world would be better if he was still in power…
The Libertarian view of isolationism just doesn’t work in the modern world. Remember all the attacks on the USA in the 1990’s (trade center, uss cole, cobalt towers) that the administration did nothing except throw some missiles into an aspirin factory. Didn’t work – we got attacked again on 9/11. Saddam was evil (mass graves – WMD) and removing him from power in and of itself was a enough for me. Libya saw the writing on the wall didn’t they……
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you make some good points. The strategy against terrorism definatly cant be to sit back and wait for them to make a move. And, Badnarik's ideals about being strictly defensive suggest this is his strategy to some degree. Though im sure some kind of proactive action would be taken when necessary. I just dont think it would be with the entire military force. And that really isnt needed, though if your going to completely change a country it is like in Iraq.
And i never said the world would be better with Saddam still in power. But, the question that should really be asked is if our country is safer? Its pretty obvious that in that reguard, there was a serious fuckup somewhere considering there was no immediate WMD threat.
Anyways, my choice is between Bush and Badnarik, not Bush and Kerry.
[ 10-18-2004, 16:23: Message edited by: Ender ]
-------------------- It doesn't get any more serious than a Rhinocerus about to charge your ass. Posts: 1053 | From: Apple Valley, MN | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, i do realize that Badnarik is a 3rd party candidate and has pretty much no chance of winning. But, screw that "vote for the lesser of two evils" bullshit. This country was founded on the idea of voting for the best candidate in your opinion, not between the two most likely candidates to win.
Honestly, i think our voting system is completely flawed and this election is evidence enough because many people dont want to vote for either Kerry or Bush. Two problems:
1) The party system. Realistically, it shouldnt even exist. NOWHERE in the constitution does it state that specific parties should be formed so citizens can have a better idea of who they should vote for. In fact, the idea of parties isnt mentioned at all. Sadly, this has cause a big problem because now people just descide if their more of a republican or democrat and vote across the board for candidates of those parties. I know this is exactly what my parents do, and i give them shit for it all the time.
2) Third parties dont have a chance. Why? They are never allowed to actively take part in the major debates and campaign events. The reason being, the government wants to keep the descision between two candidates in order to allow for a majority vote.
What i think should be done is have several parties actively run and be involved in the first few debates directly, then have some kind of a semi-final vote where the top two candidates (by majority) go on to a final campaign and debate between just them. Then, there is a final vote cast between these two, which will result in a official elected by majoraty vote.
This would at least allow 3rd parties to have a fighting chance rather than having them completely dismissed from the beginning.
-------------------- It doesn't get any more serious than a Rhinocerus about to charge your ass. Posts: 1053 | From: Apple Valley, MN | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You should listen to Savage - he is for about the exact same idea of many smaller parties.
I am glad you have taken up the idea of voting for a third party - but you realize in this election a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush and a vote for the Libratrian is a vote for Kerry Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Klaus: I am glad you have taken up the idea of voting for a third party - but you realize in this election a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush and a vote for the Libratrian is a vote for Kerry
Which is exactly the problem and evidence that the voting system is flawed. If it wasnt, this wouldnt be the case and i wouldnt feel like im throwing my vote away by placing it towards a 3rd party candidate even if i feel they're the best candidate in my opinion.
[ 10-18-2004, 17:33: Message edited by: Ender ]
-------------------- It doesn't get any more serious than a Rhinocerus about to charge your ass. Posts: 1053 | From: Apple Valley, MN | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very interesting Ender, thanks for the link. Unfortunately I don't agree with his free trade policy and view of outsourcing, but otherwise an interesting candidate. Also his views on policing is a little off to my estimation. The are no "victimless" crimes; I think he would be better served by stating such things as "non-violent" as he does later in the article. Two of his views seem to be at odds - the isolationism and the opening of immigration? I truly wish we did have more viable parties/candidates as I do feel the "lesser of two evils" syndrome. I think it would be very interesting if severeal of the big lobbies would back alternate candidates - I could easily see the NRA backing this guy for his views on gun control, add a few more big constituants and we have a legitimate third party... Oh well. I doubt we'll see it in our lifetime.
Posts: 559 | From: Blaine, MN | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cremator: I think it would be very interesting if severeal of the big lobbies would back alternate candidates - I could easily see the NRA backing this guy for his views on gun control, add a few more big constituants and we have a legitimate third party... Oh well. I doubt we'll see it in our lifetime.
Well, here is an interesting article on why the NRA chose to endorse Bush in the end....
-------------------- It doesn't get any more serious than a Rhinocerus about to charge your ass. Posts: 1053 | From: Apple Valley, MN | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Certainly have no quarels with the libritarian party. But I only vote republican because i DO NOT want democrats in office.
Posts: 2331 | From: Rosemount | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Luke I think you should vote for you're guy. I think I will too.
The more I have been soul searching over the last couple weeks the more I feal W needs to be fired. I cringe at the thought of john kerry being president. But i refuse to not excersize my right to vote. I will be voting (R) on EVERYTHING else to help ensure that kerry gets nothing radical done. Hopefully republicans will put forward a decent canidate next time like McCain.
posted
Soul search all you want... W will probably go down as the best president during your lifetime!
Posts: 486 | From: Eagan, MN | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- "Rarely has it been so clear how much we, the ordinary people of this country, are better than our rulers. I hope that lesson is not lost on anyone, of any political persuasion." Posts: 520 | From: Shakopee, MN USA | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'll likely end up voting for him only because I'm to scared of what joh kerry will do.
Posts: 2331 | From: Rosemount | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[shake]](graemlins/jpshakehead.gif)
