Badnarik: I will debate or be arrested

[Rob Lister]

You're a poor excuse for a troll.



It's non-partisan. They either must ditch their tax break or comply with the nonpartisan status.

It has yet to be demonstrated that they are not a nonpartisan organization. Shank tried but, in my eyes at least, failed terribly (and I'm a fairly easy sell because, as i've already stated in this thread, a third party would help the candidate I currently support)

Perhaps you could try and tell me how the 5/15% rule proves they are partisan.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You're a poor excuse for a troll.

Since I am not a troll, then I wouldn't expect that I would be very good at it. So thanks for the compliment.

It's non-partisan. They either must ditch their tax break or comply with the nonpartisan status.

There is no "non-partisan status" to comply with. Or not comply with.

 

[shanek]

Now you want it both ways: You want to point to the poll, but also say that polls are invalid.

No, I don't, and you know it. I have expained this to you three times already, so this can only be a lie.

Man doesn't live by the constitution alone.

Just what the tyrant says...

 

[shanek]

As the man once said, déjà vu all over again...

Just like in 2000, the judge ruled on a basis of the doctrine of laches[/i], essentially throwing out the complaint because October 7 was too late to file. Never mind the fact that the CPD didn't exclude Badnarik until October 6. The EXACT SAME ARGUMENT as for the Massachusetts ruling in 2000.

This is how they rig the system. They wait until two weeks before the debates to announce who is in and who is excluded; until then, you don't have cause to bring a case forward because you aren't excluded yet. But the date is so close to the debates that even if you file immediately after it happened the judge says, "Nope, sorry, too late!"

The judge also laughably ruled that the public purpose was being served, necessary for the continued justification of the CPD's existance. What public purpose can there be in not letting candidates have their say in open debates? I guess Saddam exercised the same "public purpose" when he kept all of his competitors off the ballot...

The defense actually argued that the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause doesn't apply to Libertarians because we're not a "protected class." You have to be a member of a "protected class" to get EQUAL protection???

The judge did, however, allow the LP to seek damages. Bush and Kerry are getting millions of dollars worth of airtime and PR value out of this; it's only right that the LP be compensated from their coffers.

 

[Sushi]

As the man once said, déjà vu all over again...

Just like in 2000, the judge ruled on a basis of the doctrine of laches[/i], essentially throwing out the complaint because October 7 was too late to file. Never mind the fact that the CPD didn't exclude Badnarik until October 6. The EXACT SAME ARGUMENT as for the Massachusetts ruling in 2000.

This is how they rig the system. They wait until two weeks before the debates to announce who is in and who is excluded; until then, you don't have cause to bring a case forward because you aren't excluded yet. But the date is so close to the debates that even if you file immediately after it happened the judge says, "Nope, sorry, too late!"

The judge also laughably ruled that the public purpose was being served, necessary for the continued justification of the CPD's existance. What public purpose can there be in not letting candidates have their say in open debates? I guess Saddam exercised the same "public purpose" when he kept all of his competitors off the ballot...

The defense actually argued that the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause doesn't apply to Libertarians because we're not a "protected class." You have to be a member of a "protected class" to get EQUAL protection???

The judge did, however, allow the LP to seek damages. Bush and Kerry are getting millions of dollars worth of airtime and PR value out of this; it's only right that the LP be compensated from their coffers. http://www.lectlaw.com/def/l056.htm

Yeah, it was disappointing, but not unsurprising. And strangely, the media didn't pay this any attention.

 

[varwoche]

It takes megabucks to run for president, that we both agree. However, maximum amount for campaign contributions ( Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, Bipartison is not non-partison) are limited ($2,000), making it near impossible for third-parties to be able to spread their message unless the person running spends millions of their own money.

Unless you think that people will suddenly snap their fingers and become a member of a particular party without hearing about it.

Either we have only the rich who are allowed to run for president and spend their own money (in the millions) on televised ads, already have a large following (which is impossible because the message needs to heard first), or those who already have the backing of the status quo they belong to.

So what's the solution? The 2 main parties have bases that contribute money. Should the LP be given a taxpayer-funded boost to catch up?

Or should everyone be allowed to debate? Sort of like the CA governer's race times a hundred. The debate would consist of a 7 second soundbite from each candidate, though even then it may have to be scheduled over several days.

Also, you neglected to respond to my comment that one way for 3rd parties to gain support is by nominating candidates who aren't nutcases extraordinaire. What a concept.

 

[shanek]

So what's the solution? The 2 main parties have bases that contribute money. Should the LP be given a taxpayer-funded boost to catch up?

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.

Or should everyone be allowed to debate?

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.

 

[Sushi]

So what's the solution? The 2 main parties have bases that contribute money. Should the LP be given a taxpayer-funded boost to catch up?

No party should be given taxpayer money. The LP certainly won't accept any.

Or should everyone be allowed to debate? Sort of like the CA governer's race times a hundred. The debate would consist of a 7 second soundbite from each candidate, though even then it may have to be scheduled over several days.

I don't know what the best criteria should be, but it certainly shouldn't be what it is now.

edit: As it stands now, I think Shane's criteria is probably the best.

Also, you neglected to respond to my comment that one way for 3rd parties to gain support is by nominating candidates who aren't nutcases extraordinaire. What a concept.

It was too much trolling for me to bother.

I disagree with Bush/Kerry, Nader, Cobb, Peroutka, and Brown. I don't think any of them are nutcases, with the slight exception of Brown-- I think old age is affecting the guy.

It doesn't matter if a person agrees with a candidates' principles or not. Most people simply don't hear about the third-party candidates. Hell, I was going to urge people not to vote this election until I came across Badnarik and learned more about the LP, who by far came the closest to my views. And I'm hardly a normal case-- I'm the kind of person to educates himself on these things with the help of the internet.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

edit: As it stands now, I think Shane's criteria is probably the best.

FANTASTIC!!! So we have our solution - Sushi and Shanek will form their own not-for-profit organization for the purposes of organizing debates among candidates for the presidency of the United States. They may invite or not invite whomever they wish. They will shop these debates to the TV networks. This seems to me to be the perfect libertarian solution!!!

Gee, I wonder why no one ever thought of this before?

Most people simply don't hear about the third-party candidates.

Most people simply don't hear about the 87th rated TV show. Are you suggesting that the 87th rated TV show should get a government advertising subsidy so more people hear about it? Do you think perhaps there is a reason it is ranked #87 and no one has ever heard of it?

 

[a_unique_person]

So what's the solution? The 2 main parties have bases that contribute money. Should the LP be given a taxpayer-funded boost to catch up?

Or should everyone be allowed to debate? Sort of like the CA governer's race times a hundred. The debate would consist of a 7 second soundbite from each candidate, though even then it may have to be scheduled over several days.

Also, you neglected to respond to my comment that one way for 3rd parties to gain support is by nominating candidates who aren't nutcases extraordinaire. What a concept.

In Australia, if you run for election and a certain number of votes, you get something like $1.40 for every vote. If you can get enough votes on pure notoriety or some popular issue, it can be a nice little earner.

 

[a_unique_person]

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.

 

[shanek]

It is also worth mentioning, that the Libertarian party should be pushing for preferential voting,

We are.

and compulsory voting,

That is antithetical to the ideals of a free land. It's your right to vote, so it's your right not to vote.

 

[shanek]

No party should be given taxpayer money. The LP certainly won't accept any.

In fact, Harry Browne became the first Presidential candidate in US History to turn down Federal funds for his campaign.

edit: As it stands now, I think Shane's criteria is probably the best.

It's not my criteria; it's the Constitution's. And it's identical to the first two of the CPD's criteria anyway.

I disagree with Bush/Kerry, Nader, Cobb, Peroutka, and Brown. I don't think any of them are nutcases, with the slight exception of Brown-- I think old age is affecting the guy.

The only time I ever saw Brown was in last week's debate which was broadcast on C-SPAN Sunday, but yeah, he did seem to be a few letters shy of an alphabet.

 

[Sushi]

The only time I ever saw Brown was in last week's debate which was broadcast on C-SPAN Sunday, but yeah, he did seem to be a few letters shy of an alphabet.

Same here.

Say, I wonder which is older: Walt Brown, or his website's design?

http://www.waltbrownforpresident.org/

 

[CFLarsen]

When a libertarian usually says "private", they usually don't mean "is given special government priviledges under the current system". You have to account for additional conditions.

Listen, I don't think it serves any purpose to invent special interpretations of otherwise commonly accepted terms. If we need to waste time "translating" what - in this case - Libertarians really mean, then we are not working towards better understanding of each other.

So, which is it? Are Libertarians interested in clarifying what their political goals are, or do they merely want to obfuscate the issues by using what seems to be ad-hoc re-interpretations of commonly known terms?

As for the arguments presented by Cleon above, I really don't know. I'm no expert in that area, and I could be wrong either way. But even regardless of tax status and benefits, something does seem wrong about the way the system is working.

Could be. But is it illegal? And I mean "illegal" in the commonly accepted form, not "something Libertarians don't like".

 

[CFLarsen]

It's non-partisan. They either must ditch their tax break or comply with the nonpartisan status.

Must they? Where does it say that? What nonpartisan status are you referring to?

 

[CFLarsen]

No, I don't, and you know it. I have expained this to you three times already, so this can only be a lie.

I'm sorry, but then I simply don't understand what your purpose of opening a thread, where you quote Badnarik this way. Perhaps you discovered that he was wrong, and that you realized you had painted yourself into a corner (again)?

Just what the tyrant says...

That may be so, but it is also the reality you live in. Now, answer the question:

Is it illegal to exclude Badnarik from the debates?

 

[CFLarsen]

shanek,

How did the hearing go?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

shanek,

How did the hearing go?

Plus, he and Sushi are forming their own debate commission. I also wonder how that is going?

 

[shanek]

Listen, I don't think it serves any purpose to invent special interpretations of otherwise commonly accepted terms. If we need to waste time "translating" what - in this case - Libertarians really mean, then we are not working towards better understanding of each other.

Well, as one of the things we want is equal protection under the law, and therefore an end to government giving special privileges, you can hardly worm your way out of it that way.

Sorry, but if you get special privileges from the government, you can hardly claim to be an equal player in the private market.