Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

They had one?

_________________
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?

Third-party and independent candidates have come reasonably close to winning presidential elections in the past (See: Theodore Roosevelt, Progressive Party nominee in 1912, getting 27% of the popular vote, and Ross Perot, independent candidate in 1992 at 19%.), and may be making a comeback now with so much discontent with the current two-party system.

Also, even before Barr had formally announced his candidacy in the Libertarian party, he enjoyed a straw poll estimate of 7% of the popular vote. That'll inevitably exponentially increase in the coming months, considering he has now not only announced his candidacy, but has won the nomination, is campaigning actively, has received ballot access in 30 states already, and has appeared on national television and has had quite a bit of media attention lately.

So no, I'm not saying he has a shot at victory. I'm just saying that although the nomination of Barr rather than Gravel was a mistake on the part of the Party, the momentum the campaign has received already this election cycle is promising and a step in the right direction towards more open political discourse without, at least, total two-party domination.

While some might say that it's a waste of time for third party candidates to run if they have no chance of winning, I'd disagree on the grounds that the major parties, seeing losses of 10-20% of their potential votes to minor parties, will quietly shift their platform to more closely fit the ideals of the minority party with the most popularity, which likely will be the Libertarians this election cycle. That way, even if they can't get someone in office, they can at least in the future conceivably get someone that more closely will pander to their philosophies and represent them as constituents when wagering decisions.

I'd like to say more on the subject, but this post is already dangerously tl;dr-prone, so that's my two cents.

_________________

If this sounds like trolling, I'm sorry, but why do people care or pay attention to these guys? No one takes them seriously, or at least not enough to make a difference. The vast majority of the population, myself included, see them as extreme right-wing loonies.

Also, McBama? Really? Really?

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

so wait did you like not read any of that post I just typed up or what

_________________

nope

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

yeah alright ok because that's what it seemed like so yeah that makes sense

And Barr had a pretty unacceptably right-wing voting record while in Congress, but he's reiterated time and time again that he's left the Republican Party and will pursue more freedom for the general public and civil liberties.

Libertarians, although fiscally conservative, are extremely socially liberal due to their philosophical stance on the ability of everyone to control their own life. So your perceptions of them as "right-wing loonies" is misconstrued at best.

_________________

A lot of guys in congress who claim to be 'libertarians' (though they aren't in the party) do seem that way, though. They're often just right-wing guys who care more about fiscal freedom or left-wing guys who care more about social freedom. Like Mike Gravel, for example... unless he underwent some transformation when he left the Democratic party, he was never really fiscally conservative. I think the guys like Ron Paul are a lot better... he can definitely call himself a libertarian.

_________________

Paul isn't socially liberal though, and doesn't care as much about personal freedoms as a good libertarian should. Sure, he's a life member of the Libertarian Party (and was its presidential nominee in 1988), but when you really look at his voting record, he'd be the right-wing guy who cares more about fiscal freedom type.

Gravel did undergo a bit of adaptation when he switched parties, I think. However, his economic policies are so out-of-the-ordinary, you can't even really classify them into any party or political affiliation, which he outlines in Citizen Power, although he does support minimal taxes, a fiscally libertarian principle.

So I'd say in conclusion that while both politicians could be considered Libertarian with a capital L, only Gravel could pass as truly libertarian, small l.

_________________

Yeah, there are a couple issues like that, but he was against the Patriot Act, drug laws, and death penalty, right?

_________________

Yeah, but he's pro-life and voted against gay adoptions.

The Libertarian Party is awwwwright with both abortion and gay rights.

_________________

Well, yeah... My point was just that he isn't totally conservative on social issues.

_________________

Nonetheless, I think that's enough to counteract your assertion that he can "definitely call himself a libertarian".

_________________

wow, sorry for going back here, I just wanted to put in my two cents. In the overall sense, Libertarians are not really Socially liberal. In our country, it's conservative, ie.
to support civil liberties, to be against frivolous war, etc.

I don't disagree with your argument, but it's not altogether extremely liberal to support the constitution.

_________________

Well, you're right.

It's traditional conservatism, and what conservatism should be.

So while it's technically just what the Founding Fathers intended, in this day and age it's somehow perverted to have something that simple be perceived by the public as extremely liberal.

(By the way, I noticed you said in the other thread that you had just graduated high school. So will you be voting for Barr come November? Just curious.)

_________________

I'm voting for Barr because I agree with all his positions on things...except one: the war. Whether or not we went into Iraq under false pretenses, we made a commitment to get stuff done. We messed things up, so we should be the ones to clean up our mess. That's why I liked Mike Huckabee so much and donated to his campaign, and had I better known my state's election rules I would have caucused for him. But I'm not big on McCain, so Barr it is.

_________________

This is the kind of attitude that will ensure the election of Obama. People are not enthusiastic about McCain like they are for Obama, but there's not enough people willing to switch their votes to Barr to give him any kind of chance at winning, so they'll give Obama the White House by splitting the difference, just like Nader did for Bush in Florida in 2000.

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

You're forgetting the Hillary voters...

They can't get over themselves enough to vote for their party's candidate (and the candidate that's the most like them, politically), so they're going to vote for McCain.
If anything, I'd say it'll probably balance out.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

About 10 percent of them will do that, maybe less once they come to their senses. They'll realize that voting for someone who represents the opposite of their ideals is retarded.

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

Most of the non-McCain conservative people will probably do the same. Voting for anyone other than McCain is putting Obama in the White House. They don't want that.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

They'll vote for whoever best represents their ideals, and to hell with the consequences, just like with Nader.

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep