Attn: Stallion and Very Elegant (and anyone else who might know), where do Ron Paul and Bob Barr differ on foreign policy as well as domestically?
honestly i am pretty skeptical of Bob Barr. i think he has taken the Ron Paul language and momentum and is using it for a less than dazzling agenda.
voted for Iraq, now against.
voted for Patriot Act, now against.
was for drug war, now against...
he has a good message but he hasn't practice what he preaches...
i think Octo is a fan of Bob Barr...maybe he could nuance my Barr caricature...
-V
The stated policy differences between Barr and Paul are not very significant according to the info I've seen.
http://www.thirdpartywatch.com/BarrAndPaulOnTheIssues.htm
I've also been skeptical of Barr for the same reasons Stallion listed above, but then again if my voting record were public it would look a hell of a lot like Barr's. There was a time in my life when I was pretty much a full-on Republican party nuthugger. Suffice it to say that the events of the last several years have cured me of that particular ailment. I see no reason why Barr couldn't have arrived at his current views the same way I did.
Bottom line, I think either one of these guys would be a huge upgrade over what the Republicans or Democrats are offering. If I had to choose between Barr and Paul in a vacuum I'd go with Paul just because he's been talking the talk for much longer. But I'm not choosing in a vacuum and as far as I'm aware, Ron Paul is not actually on the ballot in any state. Bob Barr is on the ballot in every state except CT, DC, LA, ME, OK and WV, and he may still get on in a few more of those before election day.
Serious question here. And this is coming from a guy who is all for shaking up Washington if it were actually possible. Let's say Ron Paul or Ralph Nader or Bob Barr (or whoever else) were elected president. What do you realistically think they'd be able to accomplish seeing as how they'd still have to deal with a democratic or republican majority at every other level? Don't you think it would be more productive to build up the support at lower levels of government before focusing on the White House?
The reasons I don't vote for 3rd party candidates are:
1) There hasn't been a candidate who stood a snowballs chance in hell of making it so I'd basically be letting other people choose between the remaining 2 for me.
2) Even if they somehow won, they would probably be a lame duck out of the gates because dem's and repub's would stonewall them on the very issues that made them attractive because it would be a threat to their power.
Seems like these issues need to be addressed before a 3rd party candidate would stand a real chance.
Anytime I've voted 3rd party (and I have, believe it or not) its been to send a message to the Republicans that they've lost their way. The trouble this go around is I'm afraid a vote for a guy like Barr sends the message "I'm pissed about the war" which I'm not. What I don't dig is the huge deficit, the illegal immigration issue that nobody wants to look at and the freakin' bailout which is really pissing me off. Mix in some Patriot Act and some wiretapping and I'm not happy. But I like the idea of an experienced, military guy for President to deal with Russia and Iran and I like the fact that they selected a pro-life, Christian to put on the ticket...
Very perplexing.
G.G.: Anytime I've voted 3rd party (and I have, believe it or not) its been to send a message to the Republicans that they've lost their way. The trouble this go around is I'm afraid a vote for a guy like Barr sends the message "I'm pissed about the war" which I'm not. What I don't dig is the huge deficit, the illegal immigration issue that nobody wants to look at and the freakin' bailout which is really pissing me off. Mix in some Patriot Act and some wiretapping and I'm not happy. But I like the idea of an experienced, military guy for President to deal with Russia and Iran and I like the fact that they selected a pro-life, Christian to put on the ticket... Very perplexing.
On that note... I'm wondering whether or not it's against the law to wear a blindfold in the voting booth.
Hmm...
Llama Master: Serious question here. And this is coming from a guy who is all for shaking up Washington if it were actually possible. Let's say Ron Paul or Ralph Nader or Bob Barr (or whoever else) were elected president. What do you realistically think they'd be able to accomplish seeing as how they'd still have to deal with a democratic or republican majority at every other level? Don't you think it would be more productive to build up the support at lower levels of government before focusing on the White House?
A 3rd party president wouldn't be able to implement very much of his agenda at all. But he would be able to veto the worst of the crap that congress sends his way, and that's a start. He would also be able to make significant reforms within the executive branch without the backing of a sympathetic congress.
I do think it makes a ton of sense for a 3rd party to build from the ground up, and that's exactly what they're trying to do. There's a Libertarian candidate for mayor of Columbia Heights, for example. But I'd bet that the vast majority of my fellow heights residents don't know anything about the Libertarian party or what this particular candidate stands for. Most people don't pay attention past what the television is saying about the candidates at the top of the ballot. If any 3rd party is ever going to be in a position to start making serious inroads at the local/state level, they will need to make themselves newsworthy. Playing "spoiler" to one of the major party candidates in a national race may just be the most effective way a 3rd party has to make headlines these days. So I guess its sort a chicken/egg thing. 3rd party candidates won't be able to realistically do anything nationally without broad support at the lower levels of government, but they won't be able to put their people in the lower levels of government without making at least a few waves nationally first.
Llama Master: The reasons I don't vote for 3rd party candidates are: 1) There hasn't been a candidate who stood a snowballs chance in hell of making it so I'd basically be letting other people choose between the remaining 2 for me.
If you're not looking past the current election cycle, sure. I've used this same rationale in elections past. But this time around I'm finding both McCain's and Obama's positions so counter to my own that I really don't care which of the two wins.
I'm not voting for Barr because I think he actually has a chance. I'm not that delusional. But a vote for Barr does accomplish 2 things:
1) Builds support for the Libertarian party such that they will field more candidates at the state and local levels and actually get some media coverage, debate invites, etc. next time around.
2) This is a pipe dream, but I'm still holding out some hope... maybe if enough people like me jump ship and vote Libertarian it will convince one of the major parties (up until recently I would have said the Republicans, but in today's political bizarro world who knows) to throw the brakes on the big government train and actually implement some meaningful reform.
Llama Master: 2) Even if they somehow won, they would probably be a lame duck out of the gates because dem's and repub's would stonewall them on the very issues that made them attractive because it would be a threat to their power. Seems like these issues need to be addressed before a 3rd party candidate would stand a real chance.
Meh. The stonewalling would go both ways. I'd personally rather have a divided government bickering amongst themselves than uniting to figure out new ways to chip away at my freedom.
llama i am not trying to isolate your perspective as ridiculous or worthy of scorn, but rather your attitude reflects the general attitude toward third party candidates and i plan to attack it head-on when i eventually get off my lazy, excuse-ridden ass and launch noMoreRepublicrats.com...
Llama Master: Serious question here. And this is coming from a guy who is all for shaking up Washington if it were actually possible.
Serious question here. And this is coming from a guy who is all for shaking up Washington if it were actually possible.
"to know and not to do is not to know"
if you really wanted to shake up Washington you would work to do so. admit it - you are ok with the system as it is...
Llama Master: Let's say Ron Paul or Ralph Nader or Bob Barr (or whoever else) were elected president. What do you realistically think they'd be able to accomplish seeing as how they'd still have to deal with a democratic or republican majority at every other level? Don't you think it would be more productive to build up the support at lower levels of government before focusing on the White House?
Let's say Ron Paul or Ralph Nader or Bob Barr (or whoever else) were elected president. What do you realistically think they'd be able to accomplish seeing as how they'd still have to deal with a democratic or republican majority at every other level? Don't you think it would be more productive to build up the support at lower levels of government before focusing on the White House?
they would be able to cast a spotlight on the other branches, the lobbyists and the constitutionality of our system. the democrats could have ended the war by cutting off the funds. but they didn't because they are chicken shite. their 41 seats could have blocked funding.
an anti-war president obviously could bring the troops home as all three of these guys would do, but in situations in which the congress is failing to do its job (or doing things outside its job) an outsider President could expose that. Paul has said that most of his changes, aside from bringing the troops home, could not happen overnight and would require the people behind him.
spending freezes and then cuts would also ensue. that would help the economy and ultimately all of us. bubye corporate handouts and subsidies...
politics is not like a horserace. you don't win by picking the winner. you win by electing good candidates.
before reversing the titanic we have to slow it. choosing dem/rep is like picking the slowest of two speed demon captains...
thestallion: before reversing the titanic we have to slow it. choosing dem/rep is like picking the slowest of two speed demon captains...
The Bilderbergs are steering this ship into the rocks regardless though aren't they, V.?
G.G.:The Bilderbergs are steering this ship into the rocks regardless though aren't they, V.?
it doesn't matter GG...JC is going to fly in on a magic carpet and end death. he better hurry before Amero is implemented!
in the US we are close to nationalizing some banks...
in world news, the IMF has suggested the world is in trouble...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7665515.stm
and the result is that European countries are bailing out and starting to nationalize banks...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/business/14markets.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
that one world order stuff is so far fetched!
I found this site very informative.
http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm
There are much scarier candidates out there than B.O. and McCain
There are also much better candidates too.
If Chuck Baldwin wasn't so damn religious in his political practice, I'd probably vote for him. But a Candidate's/President's religion should has to stay out of gov't to make them equall and appealing to all americans. But Chuck is just a little to on the preachy side for me as he uses the word God in just about every other sentence. I know its because he's a preecher as well. He's got great ideas that are not so far fetched as some of the other 3rd party candidates.. Plus he's got the endorsement of Ron Paul.
That Charles Jay guy kind of freaks me out. This guy would turn America into one big casino, boxing ring, and horse track.
Seems like I saw a ton of Gloria LaRiva types protesting at the RNC. This woman is Nuckin Futz!.
I just wish that a 3rd choice (which ever one) would get at least 1/2 the attention of what the Republocrats get. I think having 3 or 4 different parties in our gov't would lead to bigger and better opportunities and stablization of our country. A 3 party system would be great because it would eliminate a lot of stupid BS.
not that the Banking issue has to do with Bob Barr, but here's a pretty good article explaining why buying up banks is no better than buying up bad assets...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/14/miron.banks/index.html
1)it doesn't necessarily create the transparency needed to reassure investors
2)if banks wanted cash they could sell stocks in the private sector
3)if banks are owned by the gov't then they will further benefit the politically connected, OR further push lending to people who should not be lent to. total market inneficiency
and inefficiency too!
I would say that buying up banks is substantially worse than buying up bad assets. The mortgage backed securities would eventually come to maturity and get wiped off of the books. Equity stakes in banks are potentially forever. I know they're throwing the word 'temporary' around alot, but is anyone really buying that?