How Penn Jillette and Michael Shermer are voting

[shanek]

Among others, but those two are probably of the biggest interest to this crowd. These answers were "as of late August," so allow room for skeptical mind-changing. Here they are, for whatever you think they might be worth:

http://www.reason.com/0411/fe.dc.whos.shtml

First, Penn Jillette:

2004 vote: I’m undecided (always the stupidest position). I might do the moral thing and not vote at all, or do the sensible thing and vote Libertarian (Badnarik, right?), or I might make 100 bucks from my buddy Tony and vote for Bush. (I told Tony that Bush and Kerry were exactly the same, and he bet me 100 bucks that I didn’t believe that enough to really truly vote for Bush.) But if you want to be pragmatic, I’m in Nevada, so who cares?

2000 vote: Harry Browne!

Most embarrassing vote: I must have voted Republicrat at least once, but voting is secret -- the Founding Fathers didn’t want us to be embarrassed by our evil pasts.

Favorite president: Teller (he’s president of Buggs and Rudy Discount Productions [Penn & Teller’s company]), because he can lie without saying a word.

And Michael Shermer:

2004 vote: John Kerry. I’m a libertarian, but in 2000 I voted my conscience under the assumption that it probably didn’t matter who won between Bush and Gore (Tweedledee and Tweedledum when compared to Browne), and I was wrong. It did matter. The world situation is too precarious and too dangerous to flip a coin, the Libertarian candidate cannot win, Bush’s foreign policy is making the world more dangerous and more precarious rather than less, and Kerry has a good chance to win and an even better chance to improve our situation. Most important, he’s a serious cyclist who wears the yellow "LiveStrong" bracelet in support of Lance Armstrong’s cancer foundation and Tour de France win.

2000 vote: Harry Browne, because like the Naderites on the other end of the spectrum I voted my conscience.

Most embarrassing vote: Richard Nixon, 1972, my first presidential vote cast, just out of high school. My poli-sci profs the next several years of college regaled us with daily updates about Watergate. Ooops...

Favorite president: Thomas Jefferson, because 1) he was a champion of liberty, 2) he applied scientific thinking to the political, economic, and social spheres, and 3) when he dined alone at the White House there was more intelligence in that room than when John F. Kennedy hosted a dinner there for a roomful of Nobel laureates.

Some of the best lines from some of the others:

"Quit pretending that it matters, would you? Can you vote for all the nefarious cabals that really run the world? No. So f*** it." —Drew Carey

"Most embarrassing vote: Is it considered embarrassing to cast a vote out of principle for someone you know doesn’t have a snowball’s chance of winning? Oh, OK. Then they’re all embarrassing." —Drew Carey

"Those who vote have no right to complain." —Brian Doherty

"I live in Florida. My votes are randomly assigned based on the interaction of our voting machines, the Miami-Dade Election Commission, and passing UFOs." —Glenn Garvin

"I always vote Republican because Republicans have fewer ideas. Although, in the case of George W., not fewer enough." —P.J. O'Rourke

"I’m increasingly inclined to write in Elmer Fudd." —Jesse Walker

"Favorite president: It would have to be one of those practically powerless presidents who served under the Articles of Confederation -- maybe the anti-federalist Richard Henry Lee, chief of the Continental Congress from 1784 to 1785, who helped launch the American Revolution, tried to ban the importation of slaves, fought to include a Bill of Rights in the Constitution, and sang the goofiest song in 1776." —Jesse Walker

 

[HarryKeogh]

I knew I admired Shermer for a reason.

 

[Tony]

This has inspired me to make a new thread.

 

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by Penn
I told Tony that Bush and Kerry were exactly the same

wow, I thought Penn had a brain, I guess not.

Originally posted by Michael Shermer
2004 vote: John Kerry. I’m a libertarian, but in 2000 I voted my conscience under the assumption that it probably didn’t matter who won between Bush and Gore (Tweedledee and Tweedledum when compared to Browne), and I was wrong. It did matter. The world situation is too precarious and too dangerous to flip a coin, the Libertarian candidate cannot win, Bush’s foreign policy is making the world more dangerous and more precarious rather than less, and Kerry has a good chance to win and an even better chance to improve our situation. Most important, he’s a serious cyclist who wears the yellow "LiveStrong" bracelet in support of Lance Armstrong’s cancer foundation and Tour de France win.

Pragmatic and sensible

 

[Suddenly]

wow, I thought Penn had a brain, I guess not.

He's just talking out of his butt and hasn't really looked into it and I see his comments more about apathy than his being a complete idiot. Consider this comment:

or do the sensible thing and vote Libertarian (Badnarik, right?)

He's saying he is going to be sensible by voting for a party's candidate when he apparently is not sure who that candidate is, much less that candidates specific claims and promises. Isn't blind allegence to party the sort of thing that third partyites tend to whine about?

Penn's comments kind of illustrate why I have developed a much darker opinion w/r/t those that vote third party for any reason other than agreement with the specific candidates (send a message, protest vote, etc.). I have already posted that it seemed to be a sort of cowardice to avoid making a choice in order to preserve the claim that "it isn't my fault 'cause I voted for someone else." Perhaps it is also crutch to excuse one's own apathy as well.

 

[DavidJames]

Penn's comments kind of illustrate why I have developed a much darker opinion w/r/t those that vote third party for any reason other than agreement with the specific candidates (send a message, protest vote, etc.). I have already posted that it seemed to be a sort of cowardice to avoid making a choice in order to preserve the claim that "it isn't my fault 'cause I voted for someone else." Perhaps it is also crutch to excuse one's own apathy as well.

I agree with these comments.

I've heard shanek make the same comment as Penn and I can't believe any reasonable person can say Bush and Kerry are "exactly the same." and yes, that was a straight line

 

[HarryKeogh]

I agree with these comments.

I've heard shanek make the same comment as Penn and I can't believe any reasonable person can say Bush and Kerry are "exactly the same." and yes, that was a straight line

hell, Cheney and Bush aren't exactly the same.

If only they could say something like "I find the majority of Kerry and Bush's platforms very similar and cannot, in good conscience support either"

but no, they're ''exactly the same"

nonsense.

 

[Tony]

hell, Cheney and Bush aren't exactly the same.

If only they could say something like "I find the majority of Kerry and Bush's platforms very similar and cannot, in good conscience support either"

but no, they're ''exactly the same"

nonsense.

They may have different positions on things, but fundamentally, they are both elitists who support the status quo and seek to restrict personal freedoms.

 

[shanek]

He's saying he is going to be sensible by voting for a party's candidate when he apparently is not sure who that candidate is, much less that candidates specific claims and promises. Isn't blind allegence to party the sort of thing that third partyites tend to whine about?

Um, Penn spoke directly at a Badnarik rally and publicly endorsed him.

You have to remember that Penn is a comedian. His parenthetical comment was probably just a flippant joke.

 

[HarryKeogh]

They may have different positions on things, but fundamentally, they are both elitists who support the status quo and seek to restrict personal freedoms.

those are some pretty vague generalizations, no? I guess we can also say they are both men.

 

[Tony]

those are some pretty vague generalizations, no?

I'd say somewhat vague, but true nonetheless.

I guess we can also say they are both men.

That would be extremely vague.

 

[DavidJames]

If only they could say something like "I find the majority of Kerry and Bush's platforms very similar

I don't find Bush and Kerry's position "very similar" on hardly any of the major issues.

Bush and Kerry are exactly the same in the sense that neither of them support many(any?) Libertarian positions, on that I will agree.

I wish they could say something like "I find the majority of Kerry and Bush's platforms different then Libertarian platforms "

 

[Suddenly]

Um, Penn spoke directly at a Badnarik rally and publicly endorsed him.

You have to remember that Penn is a comedian. His parenthetical comment was probably just a flippant joke.

OK, so Penn is knowingly endorsing a wildly underqualified crackpot for the nation's highest office.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Actually all you have to back this claim of his speaking "directly" is a picture of him and the "candidate," but hey, since I don't care a whole bunch about celeberty endorsements I'll just believe you, even though the above statement is a far from certain indication of Penn's vote, seeing that he thinks the "moral" thing to do is not vote and he might vote for Bush just to win a c-note.

Yeah, stirring endorsement.


(Although I suspect that Penn really didn't remember Badnariks name and knows nothing about his ideas outside of which party he is nominated by)

 

[Rob Lister]

You have to remember that Penn is a comedian. His parenthetical comment was probably just a flippant joke.

Badnarik is funnier.

 

[Tony]

OK, so Penn is knowingly endorsing a wildly underqualified crackpot for the nation's highest office.

When did Penn endorse Bush?

 

[Tony]

I don't find Bush and Kerry's position "very similar" on hardly any of the major issues.

They are exactly the same when it comes to the most fundamental and American issue. The issue of whether the state has the right to interfere in your private life. Both Bush and Kerry are clear on this issue. To them, yes, the state can interfere in your private life.

 

[varwoche]

That Penn is a retard is: a) boring and irrelevent, b) only worth mentioning because he claims to be a skeptic yet is backing a bonafide nutcase, and c) serves to remind us that it's generally unwise to treat admiration as transferable between subject matters.

 

[Suddenly]

When did Penn endorse Bush?

As much as I hate to say it, Badnarik makes Bush look like Teddy Freaking Roosevelt

 

[Tony]

As much as I hate to say it, Badnarik makes Bush look like Teddy Freaking Roosevelt

How?

 

[Suddenly]

How?

Not physically or anything....

Badnarik lists on his website (or at least at one time listed) that he was elected vice president of his dorm (I'm sorry, that was EXECUTIVE vice president). This was his biggest political triumph, I guess, but he did mention that he "became a BMOC ('big man on campus') known for getting things done."


As far as qualifications goes, I suspect you are more qualified to be president than Badnarik (but maybe not as qualified as that RCC fellow).

http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=716&highlight=badnarik+qualified

As for being a crackpot, lets start with the UN. Bolding by me.

The United Nations HAS no authority over our national sovereignty, and I would demonstrate that to the world in a dramatic and unmistakable way. The day I enter the Oval Office, I will give notice to the United Nations. Member nations would have one week to evacuate their offices in the UN building in New York. They would have seven days to box up their computers, their paper work, and family photos. At noon on the eighth day, after ensuring that the building was empty, I would personally detonate the explosive charges that would reduce the building to rubble. The same type of rubble we had to clean up after September 11th. I want to send a message around the world that United States foreign policy had changed dramatically, and unmistakably.

JFK:

I am not a forensic scientist, but I understand the concept of cause and effect. Logic is the only reliable barometer of truth. Living in Texas I've had several opportunities to visit Daley Plaza to examine the scene for myself. The conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin conflicts with the facts as I know them.


....

Why would Lee Harvey Oswald wait until JFK was moving horizontally away from him, supposedly shooting the president at the least convenient time for an assassin? Why would the Warren Commision insist that Kennedy was shot from behind, when the McGruder film CLEARLY shows that he was shot from the front? Why do people accept the proposed “magic bullet theory” that defies the laws of physics in every way imaginable? THINK dammit! We may not know precisely why JFK was killed, but we DO know that the government's version of the story is not the truth.

From his book:

Page 14: If you pay cash for your car (and obtain the Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin): It is perfectly legal not to register (your) car with the state and it is perfectly legal to drive it without using license plates.

all referenced from this thread with (at least when posted) documenting links...

http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=122