Vote third party

Status
Not open for further replies.
The only way GWB could get me on his bandwagon is to have Keyes as a running mate. That said, this year I will vote for Bush and take a swig of maalox.
This election is about the supreme court.
I don't like it, but I face reality.
If you want a viable independent candidate, you have to build a viable party first. The closest we've come in a long time is, of course, the Perot crowd and it was more of an coalition of undefined principles than anything else...Vote for me ! I'm against Wash. politics.

It seems to me that the best chance we have is to either:
1) Join to the Rep. party en masse and attempt to take it over or
2)Start a grassroots effort for true open primaries in every State and then turn said grassroots political structure into a Party.

Without a foundation of a strong political party under him, a candidate is at most a spoiler to the election.
AT PRESENT, THERE ARE NO STRONG 3rd PARTIES

A 3rd party vote is a vote for gore because the Dems won't splinter.

Rant over..
 
BE CAREFULL, IF WE DON'T UNITE BEHIND THE BETTER OF THE TWO EVIL'S (BUSH IN MY BOOK), WE WILL DO NOTHING MORE THAN LIKE THE LAST ELECTION WHERE PEROT UNDERCUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND GOT KOMRAD KLINTON RE-ELECTED. IT WAS THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY THE WINNER DID NOT HAVE THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULAR VOTE, HE JUST HAD ENOUGH BECAUSE A PAID POLITICAL ALLY OF THE DEMOCRATS STOLE VOTES FROM DOLE!

------------------
I thought I'd seen it all, until a 22WMR spun a bunny 2 1/4 times in the air!
 
416Rigby, I agree with your "another 8 years" theme. But add, I don't want another 4 years either with a republican leading the charge on our freedoms. We've had a republican majority Congress for 6 years, they've only enacted more anti-citizen and unconstitutional legislation.
 
The third party is a great idea...but there must be a solid foundation first.
Which 3rd party?
Are you ready to legalize drugs? Is society...? There's a hell of a lot of money in the "Drug War", legal (what do you think happened to the military-industrial complex?) as well as the underground economy.
Abortion? Not government business in libertarian philosophy...
Public education? Not government business in libertarian philosophy...

These issues will not be dealt with at the national level until there are 3rd party candidates at local levels. That's 20, 30 years down the road...

However, you can elect local representatives that will abide by the 9th and 10th Amendments (refusing to recognize federal law infringing on the Bill of Rights).
This, to me, is doable. I think we'd need about ½ of the states to force the feds to retreat.

But for this election, we need GWB in office for the Supreme Court (as someone posted previously).
 
Ezeckial, I am glad you noticed I have not endorsed any third party candidate. I sorta believe a knowledge (constitution) citizenry can decide which candidate will honor the oath of office and which candidates won't. That is if they can be moved out of the rut of politics.

What about the war on drugs? Do you agree with such unconstitutional activity?

Do you agree with Abortion? I do not find it mentioned in the Constitution, do you? All the powers granted to the federal government are articulated in the Constitution.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
* delegated (given; granted)
* reserved (kept back or set aside)
* respectively (individually)

1.. Demands that any power not given to the central or federal government, within this Constitution, and any power not expressly prohibited to the State governments by this Constitution are kept back, or set aside (permanently) to the States or to the people.
2.. There is no constitutional mandate as to which powers belong to the individuals and which to the State, (except those declared within the Constitution, including this Bill of Rights) because this document does not pretend to declare the States or the people to be under its jurisdiction, except in the specified matters listed within this Constitution.
3.. NOTE: Remember, the people are granting rights (powers) to a governing body with this Constitution. The governing body does not yet exist, and so is incapable of granting rights.
4.. The first 8 Articles of Amendment attempt to preserve specific rights of the people. The last two Articles of Amendment attempt to clarify the fact that these are not rights that ever belonged to the (any) United States government, and therefore are not under that government's jurisdiction.

"Public education? Not government business in libertarian philosophy..."

Education is not federal government business or purpose. If it is post where such is granted in the Constitution.

"These issues will not be dealt with at the national level until there are 3rd party candidates at local levels. That's 20, 30 years down the road..."

I disagree, they should have been dealt 20, 30, or 40 years ago. A knowledgeable (constitution) citizenry would not have condoned so much usurpations by a corrupt federal government.

I see no evidence that GWB will do any differently than past history of republicans.

My vote will not be wasted on anyone I feel will not honor the oath of office for any office, regardless of political party.
 
Allan,
I AM a Libertarian! I AM PROUD to be a Libertarian! I proclaim Liberty to all I come in contact with. I have swayed others to Libertarian thinking. I supported and voted for Harry Browne in ‘96. I supported and voted for Murray Sabrin for NJ Governor in ‘97. I am supporting and will vote for Murray Sabrin as NJ's US Senator in 2000.

BUT, I am voting for GW. The Supreme Court is THE ISSUE, of the next Presidency. IF GW keeps his word, and only appoints Justices that hold a narrow interpretation of the Constitution, my vote for him will do far more for Liberty, then if I appease my conscience, and vote for Harry Browne.

We have seen what a Supreme Court that ignores the Constitution has done to our liberties. Likewise, a Supreme Court that upholds the Constitution can restore these liberties. It will only take ONE Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd Amendment to either restore all of the rights lost over the last 30 plus years, or to remove firearms from the hands of US Citizens Forever.

Yes, I will hold my nose, and vote for GW this fall, as a Gore Presidency may very well result in my murder, and the murder of many fellow patriots, at the hands of a totalitarian, and all supreme, fascist government
 
Gusgus,

I am an American and proud of it. Many on this board have expressed their fear of Supreme Court appointments and are presently determined to vote according to their fear. I believe fear based rationale is a very wrong method to use in making such an important decision as voting. Then guessing who a President (who isn't President yet) will appoint to anything is down right silly. All presidential appointments have to be approved by Congress. Constitutionally, the President cannot appoint (sit) a Supreme Court Judge on his own initiative. Furthermore, the Supreme Court, nor any court, can enact law, any law. So fear of the Supreme Court is based on another incorrect idea. You don't suppose politicos have anything to do with mind control fear by introducing incorrect/inaccurate information do you?

I'll say again and hope it soaks in on someone. The only vote NOT wasted is one of good conscience for the Candidate the voter feels will honor the oath of office. In this Republic honoring the oath of office is the reason we elect citizens to office. The oath of office is what the elected, by law required, swear, or affirm, to Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution. They are elected to office for no other reason in this Republic.

I'll not hold my nose and waste my vote.
 
Sounds like an avoidance of the inevitable strategy to me. Let me get this straight...if Gore gets in, we'll end up in a civil war, and if Bush gets in, everyone holds their breath, takes their Maalox, and prays that he appoints pro-freedom Supreme Court Justices? The latter will somehow reverse the trend towards a one world government, and everyone lives happily ever after? God save us!

This armchair political strategy is exactly what Americans have been manipulated into believing, and it is a DOOMED strategy. Whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not, George W. Bush WILL be our next president regardless of how we vote. Yes, regardless of how we vote! Our political system is no longer legitimate, no longer legal, no longer based on a Constitution, or our votes! Our political system has long since been corrupted by those who actually run our government, and each one of the political candidates are chosen for us by them. Many of you are in complete denial over these facts. George W. Bush is no more presidential material than any other NWO candidate (Gore included). But that's not the point. The point is to have a president that loyally carries out the orders from those controlling the progress of the NEW WORLD ORDER. And George is the guy who will be MOST obedient.

So everybody just calm down, relax, and take another sip of your Maalox...George is already in. He will disappoint all of us! That is, unless you like the idea of a centralized government, a world bank, and a world army for your kids to look forward to.
 
Hi Allan, it's me again.

I read through all the pro-3rd party post on this thread. I feel inspired and motivated to vote with my heart and choose a good candidate. However, all that is said in all these post comes down to one point. In order for these votes to benefit our country the one voted for has to WIN.

Even if he did win he would be alone. A president has very limited power without support from his constituants.

Pro constitutional candidates need to be voted in at the grass root levels. They need to be Mayor's, Governer's, Representatives, and Senator's before we stand a chance at having an effective President.

As uncomfortable as it feels, this country is a ship that needs to be turned around. The problem is you can only turn so fast in a big ship. With liberals being the waves, if we try to turn to fast the rudder will snap and we will be left at the mercy of the waves.

This is what I think not voting for GW will do. No matter how many times you read the constitution, no matter how many times you quote our great patriots, and no matter how badly you want this country to make a full reversal the final product wil be...
WHO WINS THE ELECTION.

There is simply not enough time, money, and support for a third party candidate to win.

This year we need to vote not for who is best but what is best for our country. A Republican winner is better then a 3rd party presence with a Democrat winner.

Sorry Allan, as much as I agree with your principle's I can't sacrifice the entire country to prove my political courage.

Let's build the pool and fill it with water before we try out the diving board. I think in 4 or 8 yrs the diving board will be ready.

------------------
"It is easier to get out of jail then it is a morgue"
Live long and defend yourself!
John 3:16

[This message has been edited by leedesert (edited May 02, 2000).]
 
It is so evident that there is no third party candidate who has even a very slim chance of winning the Presidency. There are only two men who have a chance to win. They are Bush and Gore. The winner will also coattail some winners in the congress. QUESTION; Do you want the next four to eight years with Gore and leaders in the Congress like Shummer, Kennedy, Fienstein, and the like as committee chairmen? Or would you have Bush and leaders in Congress like JC Watts and the Republicans? The answer is so obvious that you can't miss it. The Republican Congress has been a real dissapointment, but it is better than the Democrats. You might reply, "Yes, but if we all got together and supported a third party candidate we could win." I don't believe that. Look at the numbers of us in these forums and we aren't a drop in the bucket. Most gun owners are not even members of a RKBA group, and seem to believe it won't happen to them. A large percentage aren't very interested. The only way we can make a difference is to throw our votes to the best candidate who has a chance to win. It just might be the vote that puts him in the White House. Failure to do that may very well be the lack of a vote that gets Gore in. That boils down to choosing between Bush and Gore. Does anyone on this forum really believe Pat or another third party candidate could win? I sure don't and that forces me to vote for Bush as the lesser of the two evils. I don't question anyone else's patriotism or intelligence, but I do question your judgement in this case. Regards, Jerry
 
leedesert, thank you for responding and I apologize if my posts offended you, I'll assure you that was/is not my intention. I see government as a two sided issue, citizens and government and I am on the side of citizens. Fight we may individually, but together we must be/stand on the same side to preserve this Republic.

Politics is a nasty business and I address the problems as best I can. I agree that you see some of our problems correctly, except I disagree with your solution/remedy. I firmly believe we best take the bull by the horns now, not 4 years later. The way things are going we may not have even the vote 4 years from now and I am not at all that sure we have it now. I think we've already waited too long.

You said it correctly about the powers of a President, they are limited, he cannot do much without the aid of Congress and that is all the more reason, not less, to elect a third party candidate. I will assure you I wish the federal government do a great deal less. Particularly a great deal less outside its constitutionally granted powers.

Nor do I agree that electing a third party President will abruptly change anything in America or our daily lives. I do not believe a political party is America, but it is the helping hand of/in America's downfall. If for no other reason than they divide us, citizens.

Although I believe electing a third party president would be a giant step in the right direction it is not absolutely necessary. Electing third party candidates to other offices across this Republic would certainly send a mini giant step message to the benefit of everyone.

And I maintain the legitimate reason citizens of this Republic vote is to preserve the Republic. That may be a bitter pill to swallow for some citizens, but I can prove my position with/in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers.
 
Jerry,

I agree with what you say. I spend a good deal of time trying to persuade people not to vote for a third party candidate here at TFL and on the various forums that I moderate. Sometimes I can get through to them using your logic and sometimes it just falls on deaf ears.

A lot of people who will vote third party this year would sooner vote for a Democrat than a Republican. It's not because they like what the Democrats stand for, it's because they want this country to fall into the mire of tyranny and socialism as fast as possible. That way the people will supposedly be shocked to their senses and all look to a new party as a savior to bring this country back to it's roots.

They believe that when the pain for gun owners and others gets bad enough that we will revolt from the two party system and bring back the Founding Father's Constitutional government. In theory it may sound like a good idea, but in practice I don't believe it will work. Take a look at the UK where handguns have been banned and they are talking about knife registration and then take a look at Aussie where all semi auto and pump action rifles and shotguns (including the tiny 22 rimfire) have been confiscated, even though the pain of living in those countries must be unbearable, they still have not made a stand for their rights in any meaningful way.

When it comes down to it, the people like a certain amount of security in their lives, they like the prospect of receiving social security checks when they retire among other things. People have families to feed and bills to pay and credit ratings to guard, and I believe that for the most part people will accept what ever heinous gun control comes along without too much of a fight. Of course there is the patriot movement, but they don't have the numbers or the hearts and minds of the people on their side.

So, what it comes down to is this. A vote for a third party candidate who has no chance of winning is a vote for Al Gore and the gun grabbers. Once your firearms are registered, it is only a matter of time before the government will confiscate them. Like it or not, most of the people in this country will go along to get along. There will be no mass revolt by the people to any third party.

It is only by shining the light of truth on the very biased news media and the propaganda that they spew out in this country will we make any headway. As long as the people are using the mainstream press as their only outlet for the news we are doomed. We have to get our message out. We have to be heard. Thank God for the Internet!

Joe

http://www.second.amendment.homepage.com
 
nralife, is there any possibility that your thinking could be in error? I mean I can easily point out in your last statement a couple of possibilities. For instance do you really believe you know what other people are thinking? I for one do not think or believe a third party candidate is the savior of anything. But, in my opinion neither is bush a savior of anything because, if nothing else, of the record of the political party he belongs to. If we want to argue over saviors then it flies in the face of common sense that the candidate from the political party with the worse record is the best choice.

Your judgement is also in error as to where people get their information. All citizen supporting third parties do not get their main information from TV. I for one get my information on the purpose of government from the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Then I look at the track of politicians and their political parties.

Then are you sure you are doing the correct thing telling people to vote for a winner? Picking a winner is guessing isn't it? Sounds to me like guessing is a very poor method of doing anything of importance. I certainly am not a gambler and avoid guessing when I can. In voting I can do better than guessing.

Again I suggest gather information on the purpose of government from the Constitution and the Federalist Papers and weigh that information against candidates, their position, or track record, and the position or track of their political party.

However, I do agree that TV and the major news media are very bad places to get proper political information. It is reported that political news paper reporters vote a very high percentage democrat.
 
Allan, I promised myself I wasn't going to get into this closed-loop argument again. But last night I was going over the tape "Banned," an NRA tape on the Brit and Aussie gun bans. One member of a now non-shooting club said, "do everything you can, because once the guns are gone they aren't coming back." Gore has _promised_ that he would ban handguns and register long guns. I admire your principles and agree with them in most every aspect. (Actually, I can't think of anywhere I disagree). However, I would rather try to buy time with Bush in office and work on the non-committed gun owners, than try to get a ban and registration scheme repealed four years from now. Call it pragmatism, or call it cowardice if you like. Whichever, it is what I believe is the best route. I just hope that you have a sudden change of heart just before you pull the lever.

Dick
 
Monkeyleg, I agree you have noble ideas but I see no assurances that any republican is going to do anything different that republicans of the past. Republicans are not as outspoken on gun control as democrats but both are gun grabbers. Since they have had a majority in Congress republicans could have stopped all unconstitutional gun laws from passing and they did not. BTW all federal gun laws restricting citizens from keeping and bearing are unconstitutional. And I believe such laws go back as least to FDR, why haven't republicans repealed those instead of helping pass more?

How soon and easily we forget Ruby Ridge was under republican rule from the White House and its use of an illegal federal police force. That illegal federal police force is still in operation and even expanded with approval of a majority republican Congress. In good conscience I can't vote for another republican.

I certainly agree with not electing gore, but then I don't see that electing bush will be any better. Perhaps things will come to a head quicker under gore. The conscience are we'll either fight or keep on running.

Today there is only one republican in Congress I have any real confidence in (Paul). I wish you success in holding this Republic and hope for the best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top