Badnarik: I will debate or be arrested

[varwoche]

We'd be more than happy with equal ballot access so we wouldn't have to spend $5-10 million every four years just to get on the ballot in every state (and then have some deny it to you anyway). Oh, and if the Demopublicans would quit spending tens of millions of taxpayer dollars for their campaigns and conventions.

OK, that's a different topic. What precisely are the obstacles for getting on the ballot, and who established them? Should any and everyone be allowed on the ballot?

If you left it to everyone who, under the Constitution, could win the electoral college, this year you'd only have six participants. There were that many in the Democratic primary debates.

By what criteria do you deem there to be 6 candidates who could win the electoral college?

 

[Suddenly]

Yes. If the ONLY reason they could stop this is the doctrine of laches, that's a clear victory. It means they couldn't win any other way.

Can you link to these decisions?

Just because a case was decided based on laches does not imply in any way that otherwise the case would be successful. It does not imply that it would not be successful either.

Usually if a court is going to toss a case on laches they just say so and do not waste their breath on the merits. In fact, if they went on to discuss the merits after determining that laches applied, they are arguably exceeding their jurisdictional grant of power.

 

[varwoche]

It was too much trolling for me to bother.

Gee whiz sushi, you've been a member for about 5 minutes and you're already getting defensive. I am making the legitimate point that Badnarik holds views (far!!) fom the mainstream, and that this is not the best way to gain broad support. If you wish to dismiss that as trolling, fine, but don't expect a free ride.

I take it from your response that you are in harmony with these facts about Badnarik, and that it is your view that if the public were better educated about him, that he would gain broad support?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

It is also worth mentioning, that the Libertarian party should be pushing for preferential voting, which allows independents to be elected to both houses of parliament in Australia, and compulsory voting, which also helps get independents elected.

I almost agree with this, except for the endless belly-aching that sub-moronic cavemen (I've only noticed the men, sorry to the ladies if I've underestimated your capacity to be a belly-aching sub-moronic Neanderthal) make in the line-ups. They can't seem to grasp the simple concept that whinging doesn't make the line go faster.

I think voting should be voluntary, but you get a tax deduction or something for voting. That way, I can address the dimwits in the election line thusly:

"C'mon! What's taking so long? I just want to get me name marked off..."
"IF YOU DON'T LIKE LINING UP THEN F*** OFF!"
"But I want the tax deduction!"
"THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE TO WAIT IN LINE LIKE THE REST OF US!"

 

[Larspeart]

Hey! You've gone from strawman to weasel!

 

[shanek]

But what was achieved?

One more data point for how to proceed next year. This was based on what had happened in 2000; we learned from that experience and applied it here. Now we can shore up the arguments for 2008 and when this happens again we can be sure to make the argument that invoking the doctrine of laches is irrational. It was thought that we wouldn't need to to this now because we only filed one say after the announcement was made. Now we know we need to get in there and make the direct argument against the doctrine of laches.

We busted down one door. Sure, there was another right behind it, but now we know we need to bust that one down, too.

Or are you so small-minded as to insist that it MUST have a benefit THIS YEAR to have achieved anything?

He made a fool of himself in the media.

No, he didn't. Mostly, the media ignored him. What media coverage there was covered him very well, and he got a LOT of people talking about what a sham the debates are.

The judge kicked him and his claims out of court.

No, he didn't. The judge said NOTHING about the claims. The doctrine of laches is a technicality. And that was the only way he could throw it out.

Where does it say that?

In their agreement with the FEC. It was (ostensibly) the whole reason for taking over the debates from the LWV to begin with.

The judge said it was not "fraud".

No, he didn't. The judge made NO FINDING AT ALL. He threw it out ON A TECHNICALITY.

Will Badnarik appeal?

They haven't said yet, only that they're reviewing their options.

No, you don't? You - a Libertarian - don't want to dictate a private company - the CPD - what it must do?

Rather than explain the point to you YET AGAIN, since it's obvious you're DELIBERATELY going to IGNORE it YET AGAIN, I'll just ask you: Are you saying that Libertarians don't want to hold private companies accountable when they BREAK A CONTRACT?

[More of Claus's typical ad hominems deleted]

 

[shanek]

OK, that's a different topic. What precisely are the obstacles for getting on the ballot, and who established them? Should any and everyone be allowed on the ballot?

They vary from state to state. It's the states that put the barriers in the way. And they're rife with fraud and abuse. Illinois and New Hampshire are two examples of this.

By what criteria do you deem there to be 6 candidates who could win the electoral college?

[sigh] How many times are you people going to make me explain this all over again???

There are ONLY SIX CANDIDATES—Bush, Kerry, Badnarik, Cobb, Nader, and Peroutka—who both:

1) Meet the requirements for holding the office of the President under Article II Section 1 Paragraph 5 of the Constitution, and:

2) Are on the ballot in enough states to obtain enough direct electoral votes as established by Amendment XII Clause 3, which is currently at 270.

 

[shanek]

Can you link to these decisions?

As of yesterday afternoon, they were still waiting for the written order.

Just because a case was decided based on laches does not imply in any way that otherwise the case would be successful.

But apparently there were no other reasons given. The point that the entire case was shut down on one technicality, a technicality that is clearly ludicrous in this case, seems relevant to me.

Usually if a court is going to toss a case on laches they just say so and do not waste their breath on the merits. In fact, if they went on to discuss the merits after determining that laches applied, they are arguably exceeding their jurisdictional grant of power.

And given how ludicrous invoking the doctrine of laches was in this case, that makes it even more clear that the judge was doing so in order to avoid ruling on the merits.

 

[CFLarsen]

One more data point for how to proceed next year. This was based on what had happened in 2000; we learned from that experience and applied it here. Now we can shore up the arguments for 2008 and when this happens again we can be sure to make the argument that invoking the doctrine of laches is irrational. It was thought that we wouldn't need to to this now because we only filed one say after the announcement was made. Now we know we need to get in there and make the direct argument against the doctrine of laches.

We busted down one door. Sure, there was another right behind it, but now we know we need to bust that one down, too.

Or are you so small-minded as to insist that it MUST have a benefit THIS YEAR to have achieved anything?

This is typical shanek: Minimize the failure, and try to make it look as if the other party is a fool.

No, I don't insist on that. But it doesn't look as if Libertarians are all that smart and knowledgable about how the system really works. You guys seem to fight a losing battle, and to be making fools out of yourselves in the process.

No, he didn't. Mostly, the media ignored him. What media coverage there was covered him very well, and he got a LOT of people talking about what a sham the debates are.

Shanek, listen..OK? When a presidential candidate gets arrested, that is per definition huge news - except if the candidate in question is a loonie, not even worth the time. He was not ignored because of this great conspiracy to keep him out, he was ignored because he is extremist fringe. He will not achieve anything as running for President - at most, he will make it as a running joke in the talkshows.

No, he didn't. The judge said NOTHING about the claims. The doctrine of laches is a technicality. And that was the only way he could throw it out.

Did Badnarik have a case? No. The judge threw it out. He lost. Or, perhaps the judge was crooked?

In their agreement with the FEC. It was (ostensibly) the whole reason for taking over the debates from the LWV to begin with.

Where, specifically?

No, he didn't. The judge made NO FINDING AT ALL. He threw it out ON A TECHNICALITY.

You can call it what you like. It was still a total failure by Badnarik. He tried the law to get what he wanted - thereby putting his faith in a legal decision - but lost.

They haven't said yet, only that they're reviewing their options.

Why haven't they instantly appealed, if they think they are right? Now Badnarik sounds like someone who merely wanted to test the law, not achieve anything about the debates.

Rather than explain the point to you YET AGAIN, since it's obvious you're DELIBERATELY going to IGNORE it YET AGAIN, I'll just ask you: Are you saying that Libertarians don't want to hold private companies accountable when they BREAK A CONTRACT?

It isn't a question of "breaking a contract", but to force a private company to do what a political party wants. It's that simple. You can spin it any way you want to - it doesn't change reality.

[More of Claus's typical ad hominems deleted]

Ignore reality, yes.

 

[Suddenly]

As of yesterday afternoon, they were still waiting for the written order.

As a court speaks through it's orders, perhaps you should wait for the decision to be handed down before pointing out how exactly it is wrong? Just a thought...

But apparently there were no other reasons given. The point that the entire case was shut down on one technicality, a technicality that is clearly ludicrous in this case, seems relevant to me.

Laches is not a technicality. It is a equitable doctrine, and one that is by definiton not rigidly applied as fairness concerns such as prejudice to the defendant and delay by the plaintiff are criteria for it's application. If it were a statute of limitations rule that was inflexibly applied, that would be a technicality. Laches is not a technical doctrine, as the court must find that the defense was prejudiced by a delay by the plaintiff. Claiming that the application in this case is "ludicrous" is somewhat curious given that the opinion has not been handed down, so the precise reasons are unknown at this time.

The concept you may be looking for is more that laches is a pleading defense in that it says nothing about the substance of a case. Which means that it says nothing. As in nada, non, zero, zip.

It is tempting to imply that these types of doctrines are used to avoid the question, however this misses the fact that if these doctrines do in fact apply the court has no business passing on the merits anyway. It is fodder for legal conspriacy theories, or at least those who want to spin, in that those with a strong opinion as to the merits are going to feel like they have been shortchanged or hoodwinked since there is no decision addressing the core matters of the case.

"We lost on a technicality!!" This implies that otherwise we would have won, but it is as if the team forefited the game for not bringing the right uniforms. They may have won, they may not have. We just don't know.

And given how ludicrous invoking the doctrine of laches was in this case, that makes it even more clear that the judge was doing so in order to avoid ruling on the merits.

Well, again, since the order or opinion has not been issued, claiming that we can imply the motive behind the judge's reasoning is beyond speculative. I'll wait until I see the opinion before I comment on your analysis re: laches.

 

[shanek]

Shanek, listen..OK? When a presidential candidate gets arrested, that is per definition huge news - except if the candidate in question is a loonie, not even worth the time.

OR if he's a member of a party they DON'T WANT TO COVER.

He was not ignored because of this great conspiracy to keep him out, he was ignored because he is extremist fringe.

Evidence?

Where, specifically?

That's the finding of a Federal judge.

It isn't a question of "breaking a contract"

Uh, yes, it is. That's EXACTLY what it is. YOU are the one ignoring reality.

 

[shanek]

Laches is not a technicality.

Not even when it's used against a case that was filed THE DAY AFTER an act occured?

Claiming that the application in this case is "ludicrous" is somewhat curious given that the opinion has not been handed down, so the precise reasons are unknown at this time.

What POSSIBLE justification can there be for laches when they only "waited" a SINGLE DAY to file the complaint?

The concept you may be looking for is more that laches is a pleading defense in that it says nothing about the substance of a case. Which means that it says nothing. As in nada, non, zero, zip.

Exactly. Now, explain that to Claus.

It is tempting to imply that these types of doctrines are used to avoid the question,

Especially when anyone can see that it's completely bogus. Why is ONE DAY such a terribly lengthy delay?

 

[CFLarsen]

OR if he's a member of a party they DON'T WANT TO COVER.

And why is that? The media is in on it too? Part of the Great Conspiracy to keep out the Libertarians?

Evidence?

That Badnarik is a loonie? Man, you really ask for it sometimes...

Can I own my own nuke, shanek? Just yes or no.

That's the finding of a Federal judge.

Where does it say that they promised to be non-partisan?

And even if they are partisan, why should a private organization be forced to include a specific political party?

Uh, yes, it is. That's EXACTLY what it is. YOU are the one ignoring reality.

Fine, fine. Carry on. Your political ideas have just been proved to be based on hypocricy.

 

[shanek]

That Badnarik is a loonie?

Once again, you resort to pathetic dishonest evasion. You made a comment about THE REASONS WHY THE PRESS DID SOMETHING. If you have evidence for that, present it. And a thread full of PROVEN LIES (e.g., the right-to-nukes thing) doesn't help you.

Where does it say that they promised to be non-partisan?

Follow it, Claus. The FEC had investigated them earlier this year and the DEFENSE was that they were nonpartisan. This judge is saying they aren't.

And even if they are partisan, why should a private organization be forced to include a specific political party?

They aren't forced to do so. They AGREED to do so in exchange for special dispensation from the government.

 

[Suddenly]

Not even when it's used against a case that was filed THE DAY AFTER an act occured?

It just isn't a technical doctrine. This is just a, umm, technical point.

What POSSIBLE justification can there be for laches when they only "waited" a SINGLE DAY to file the complaint?

I could speculate, but rather I would rather wait until I actually see what the court is talking about, like when they actually rule.

Exactly. Now, explain that to Claus.

Hey Claus!!! A dismissal for laches says absolutely nothing as to whether Badnarik has a legitimate beef!!!

Especially when anyone can see that it's completely bogus. Why is ONE DAY such a terribly lengthy delay?

Anyone can see? To your or my knowledge the decision hasn't been issued yet...

 

[CFLarsen]

Once again, you resort to pathetic dishonest evasion. You made a comment about THE REASONS WHY THE PRESS DID SOMETHING. If you have evidence for that, present it.

Trying to turn the tables again: I am not the one complaining that Badnarik is not covered by the press, you are. Why is he, shanek? Because of a great conspiracy?

And a thread full of PROVEN LIES (e.g., the right-to-nukes thing) doesn't help you.

O......K. Badnarik never said this?

Should I be lucky enough to actually WIN the election for President, my first official act will be to inform the agents of the entire executive branch of government that they will be dismissed from duty and prosecuted if they make any attempt to deprive anyone of any weapon, unless that person is in the process of committing a crime at that precise moment.

Just yes or no will do.

Follow it, Claus. The FEC had investigated them earlier this year and the DEFENSE was that they were nonpartisan. This judge is saying they aren't.

Whatever.

They aren't forced to do so. They AGREED to do so in exchange for special dispensation from the government.

But what does this have to do with their right to choose whoever they want to participate in the debates?

Can they choose whoever they want, yes or no?

 

[shanek]

It just isn't a technical doctrine. This is just a, umm, technical point.

Okay, technically it wasn't a technicallity. How about if I just say, "bogus"?

Hey Claus!!! A dismissal for laches says absolutely nothing as to whether Badnarik has a legitimate beef!!!

Thanks.

 

[shanek]

Trying to turn the tables again: I am not the one complaining that Badnarik is not covered by the press, you are.

YOU ARE MAKING A CLAIM. IT IS UP TO YOU TO BACK IT UP, Mr. Pseudo-skeptic.

Just yes or no will do.

It's an out-of-context quote. If you look at it IN CONTEXT, he was specifically talking about firearms when he said it. Badnarik, as I have pointed out MANY, MANY TIMES, has THIS to say about nukes:

http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/000080.html

I don’t know why everyone asks that. The 2nd amendment allows you to protect yourself. You have a right to keep and bear arms. You do not have a right to pull it out and point it at me. Even if you haven’t pulled the trigger, you present a clear and present danger. I am not required to wait until you put a bullet into my shoulder before I respond. So, a nuclear warhead constitutes a clear and present danger. It is the equivalent of you pointing a gun at me. That’s why we have the authority to prevent you from having a nuclear warhead.

I also asked Michael PERSONALLY about this issue and he confirmed it: You do NOT have the right to own nukes because they constitute a clear and present danger. And I posted that here.

In fact, from the VERY TEXT THAT QUOTE WAS PULLED FROM, he says:

You are not required to wait until another person shoots at you before you take action to defend your life or property. The line that has been crossed is known as a "clear and present danger", and it exists when there would be no opportunity to react if and when the person decides to pull the trigger.

IT IS A LIE, CLAUS. Nothing but a LIE. As many times as I've quoted Badnarik saying that ownership of nukes constitutes a clear and present danger, and therefore should not be allowed, the liars like varwoche and scrut still keep coming forward with it and the pseudo-skeptics like you keep falling for it.

Whatever.

Excellent rebuttal. Why don't you get it published?

But what does this have to do with their right to choose whoever they want to participate in the debates?

Because, under the terms of their agreement, they have to do so in a nonpartisan way. This judge has ruled that they haven't.

 

[Suddenly]

Okay, technically it wasn't a technicallity. How about if I just say, "bogus"?

Sure. Now all we need is a decision to be handed down so we can see the reasoning...

Thanks.

No problem.

However, you may be a wee bit overstating the impact of that federal court decision regarding the FEC. The court did use strong language to suggest that the CPD acted in a partisan manner, but all that decision did was make the FEC actually investigate the claim rather than dismiss it out of hand. The case was a review of a sort of summary dismissal by the FEC, and the court ruled the FEC was wrong to do so, ordering the FEC to go through the statutory investigation.

It could be that the FEC will come back after an investigation and rule that the CPD is non-partisan, which puts it back in the courts but with a different standard of review. The court seems to be hinting that anything less than a finding that the CPD is partisan will be unacceptable, but to actually say so would be a gross overextension of the court's power, so who knows.

The court does agree that the CPD acted in a partisan manner, in excluding third party presidential candidates (other than Nader) from the debate audiences without a subjective showing that these people were likely to disrupt the debate. It really doesn't touch on selection of those participating in the debate though...

 

[CFLarsen]

YOU ARE MAKING A CLAIM. IT IS UP TO YOU TO BACK IT UP, Mr. Pseudo-skeptic.

I am not the one complaining that Badnarik does not get media coverage.

It's an out-of-context quote. If you look at it IN CONTEXT, he was specifically talking about firearms when he said it. Badnarik, as I have pointed out MANY, MANY TIMES, has THIS to say about nukes:

http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/000080.html

So, a nuke is not a weapon? OK......

I also asked Michael PERSONALLY about this issue and he confirmed it: You do NOT have the right to own nukes because they constitute a clear and present danger. And I posted that here.

IT IS A LIE, CLAUS. Nothing but a LIE. As many times as I've quoted Badnarik saying that ownership of nukes constitutes a clear and present danger, and therefore should not be allowed, the liars like varwoche and scrut still keep coming forward with it and the pseudo-skeptics like you keep falling for it.

So, a nuke is not a weapon, but constitutes a clear and present danger? OK......

Because, under the terms of their agreement, they have to do so in a nonpartisan way. This judge has ruled that they haven't.

So, you are saying that the debates between Bush and Kerry are illegal, and that the law backs you on this - yet they are in full swing?

If one listened to you (without checking your claims or questioned them), one might think that there is no difference between a rogue state and the United States of America.

Is it really any wonder to you why people consider Libertarians fringe extremists?