How did Bandarek do?

[Ed]

I can't seem to find out how many votes he got. In any event it was less than Nader (300,000 or so) which was <.03%.

Very poor showing.

[HarryKeogh]

He came in 4th.

but in an alternate universe...he still came in 4th.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Ed
I can't seem to find out how many votes he got. In any event it was less than Nader (300,000 or so) which was <.03%.

Very poor showing.

LIAR!!!

Oops, sorry. I though I was Shane for a minute there.

[Lothian]

373,599 so far from here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/elections/2004/page/295001/)

George W. Bush * (R) 58,418,254 51%
John F. Kerry (D) 54,900,945 48%
Ralph Nader (I) 390,982 0%
Michael Badnarik (Lib.) 373,599 0%
Michael A. Peroutka (CST) 128,499 0%
David Cobb (Green) 103,965 0%
Leonard Peltier (PFP) 21,597 0%
Walter F. Brown (I) 10,194 0%
James Harris (SWP) 6,678 0%
Roger Calero (SWP) 5,255 0%
None of These Candidates (Una.) 3,379 0%
Thomas J. Harens (OTH) 2,339 0%
Bill Van Auken (I) 2,088 0%
Gene Amondson (Lib.) 1,895 0%
John Parker (LU) 1,159 0%
Charles Jay (PCH) 867 0%
Stanford "Andy" E. Andress (Una.) 716 0%
Earl F. Dodge (Phb.) 122 0%


Disappointed that None of These Candidates didn't do better.

[HarryKeogh]

I'm surprised Badnarik came in so close to Nader. If he had beat Nader maybe he could have gotten his face in the paper.

so does this show how impressive Badnarik was to 3rd party voters or everyone's disgust at Nader?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Lothian
Disappointed that None of These Candidates didn't do better.

Don't be.

Why?

Because you can't get there from here.

The "third parties" don't seem to understand that you really, really need to start from the bottom, just like you do in most businesses. The 'party-system' is here to stay and that system requires that the party Be Built one (small) election at a time. How many (specific) third-party house members? None. Senate? None. Governors? None. Mayors? I don't know but none that are big.

It's a pipe dream until you do the real ground work. Ground work is more than writing a book and buying enough copies to momentarily make it look like people are buying it.

[CFLarsen]

I had to do a count from the CBS site, because no news site found it worthwhile to find out just how many votes Badnarik got.

I can see why.

378,784 votes. That's all he got.

Sheeeesh.......

Do our resident Libertarians consider this a success?

[geni]

Originally posted by Lothian

Disappointed that None of These Candidates didn't do better.

To be fair it was only on the ballot in one state

[geni]

Still it is nice to see that the US has 128,499 wanabe taliban memebers

[Lothian]

Originally posted by geni
To be fair it was only on the ballot in one state I wouldn't have thought it was allowed anywhere. In the UK I am sure that offensive or confusing names are not allowed.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

badnarik tied with None of These Candidates, both with an embarassing 0% of the vote.

[geni]

Originally posted by Lothian
I wouldn't have thought it was allowed anywhere. In the UK I am sure that offensive or confusing names are not allowed.

It wasn't a cadidate. It was an option on the ballot.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by geni
It wasn't a cadidate. It was an option on the ballot. Oh, That's not much fun.

Mind you I regularly scrawl something across the ballot paper to spoil it. I don't think I would like it if it became an 'official' option.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ed
I can't seem to find out how many votes he got. In any event it was less than Nader (300,000 or so) which was <.03%.

Not by much; only about 20,000 votes, which is very telling considering the media refusal to cover him while keeping their tongue up Nader's butt despite his lack of campaigning or advertising. It's also more than Browne got in 2000.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
The "third parties" don't seem to understand that you really, really need to start from the bottom, just like you do in most businesses. The 'party-system' is here to stay and that system requires that the party Be Built one (small) election at a time. How many (specific) third-party house members? None. Senate? None. Governors? None. Mayors? I don't know but none that are big.

As of Nov. 1, there were over 600 Libertarians elected to local offices nationwide. I don't know yet how that number changed yesterday. But we are almost certainly working from the ground up. The Presidential candidate is there to get us media attention and credibility as a party. The vote totals for Libertarians ALWAYS go up the further you get down the ballot.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
378,784 votes. That's all he got.

Sheeeesh.......

Do our resident Libertarians consider this a success?

It's growth. Growth is improvement. And we're moving in the opposite direction from Nader.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ed
I can't seem to find out how many votes he got. In any event it was less than Nader (300,000 or so) which was <.03%.

Very poor showing.

Who?

[geni]

Originally posted by Lothian
Oh, That's not much fun.

Mind you I regularly scrawl something across the ballot paper to spoil it. I don't think I would like it if it became an 'official' option.

Problem is it may be a little tricky to spoil an electronic ballot (unless you go in with a very strong magent).

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
It's growth. Growth is improvement. And we're moving in the opposite direction from Nader.

"Growth"? How many more voters than last time?

Is the election a success for the LP?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
As of Nov. 1, there were over 600 Libertarians elected to local offices nationwide. I don't know yet how that number changed yesterday. But we are almost certainly working from the ground up. The Presidential candidate is there to get us media attention and credibility as a party. The vote totals for Libertarians ALWAYS go up the further you get down the ballot.


As per the 600 number readers should be aware that this includes a fair number of non-partisan elections. These elections are where each candidate is not identified by party. The LP claims these as "Libertarian" office holders even though the candidate did not run as a Libertarian.


Some data for 2002 elections, a state by state analysis of Libertarian candidates from their own website. (note that partisan unopposeds are included with partisan unopposed... only the opposed races are noted as partisan/non-partisan

I would say that only contested partisan races are relevant to the progress of the LP as a party, as non-partisan races are by definition not a matter of party, and uncontested races really tell us nothing in itself about popularity...

http://www.lp.org/campaigns/results/

(states not listed had no winning LP candidates - they went 0-56 in Alabama to pick an example)



California: 27 winners (345 results available)
14 non-partisan elections
13 unopposed
0 elected in partisan election

Mendocino County District Attorney
Moreno Valley City Council
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Board of Directors
Shandon Joint Unified School District San Luis Obispo County
Ready Springs Unified School District Nevada County
Cordova Recreation and Park District
Spring Valley Community Planning Area San Diego County
Orangevale Recreation and Park District
Manton Joint Union School District
San Dieguito Community Planning Area (listed as non-partisan, but close to unopposed as LP candidate was 8th in a 9 way race for 8 seats)
Southwest Health Care District Short Term, Kern County
West Side Community Health Care District
San Gorgiono Memorial Health Care District (3rd in 4 way race for 3 seats)
Tehachapi Valley Health Care District (3rd in 4way for 3 seats)
Sequoia Health Care District (only one non LP candidate lost in 9 way race for 3 seats - yes, the LP put up 6 candidates in a 3 seat race...)
Eden Township Hospital District Alameda County
Inyo Mono Resource Conservation District
Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District Santa Clara County
Independence Ranch Community Services District San Luis Obispo County
Los Alamos Community Services District Santa Barbara County
Majestic Pines Community Services District San Diego County
Oceano Community Services District San Luis Obispo County
Ophir Hill Fire District Board Nevada County
Timber Cove Fire Protection District
Valley Center Fire Protection District San Diego County
Santiago County Water District

Colorado: 2 winners (72 results available)

1 Unopposed
1 in 2 way partisan election (bolded below)

San Miguel County Sheriff
San Miguel County Coroner

Florida: 2 wins (77 results)

2 unopposed

Seminole County Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisor, Group 3
Seminole County Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisor, Group 4

Georgia: 1 win (17 results)

1 unopposed

Hoschton City Council

Indiana: 1 win (155 results)

1 unopposed

Needham Township Board

North Carolina: 6 wins (145 results)

6 unopposed/ no details

Harnett County Surveyor
Mecklenburg Soil and Water Commission
Durham County Soil and Water Commission
Cabarrus County Soil and Water Commission
Cabarrus County Soil and Water Commission
Chatham Soil and Water Commission

South Carolina: 2 wins (12 results)

1 non-partisan
1 unopposed

Charleston County Soil & Water Commission
Hardeeville City Council

Vermont: 3 wins (22 results)

Grand Isle Justice of the Peace
Poultney Justice of the Peace
Bridgport Justice of the Peace

3 unopposed


Thus in 2002, from the LP's own website, there is evidence for exactly one (1) candiate who won a partisan election, and that was a heads up race only with a Republican.

Hopefully the 2004 numbers will be posted in a similar format...

[Larspeart]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
LIAR!!!

Oops, sorry. I though I was Shane for a minute there.


you forgot 'strawman'.

[Larspeart]

He did... poorly.


I knew he would. Harry Browne was 1000% a better candidate, with brighter ideas, more marketability, and more savvy.

I hope that Nolan, or someone better, runs next time. MB pissed me off all year, and wrecked our rep as legitimate up-n-comers.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Larspeart
He did... poorly.


I knew he would. Harry Browne was 1000% a better candidate, with brighter ideas, more marketability, and more savvy.

I hope that Nolan, or someone better, runs next time. MB pissed me off all year, and wrecked our rep as legitimate up-n-comers.

Badnarik is so wacky that Ross Perot called him a loonie.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by corplinx
Badnarik is so wacky that Ross Perot called him a loonie.

Okay now, that was just mean.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Larspeart
He did... poorly.


I knew he would. Harry Browne was 1000% a better candidate, with brighter ideas, more marketability, and more savvy.

I hope that Nolan, or someone better, runs next time. MB pissed me off all year, and wrecked our rep as legitimate up-n-comers.

I'm not following you. I like Harry Browne, but Badnarik got more votes. Not clear how that makes Harry a better candidate.

[Otther]

Their votes does not really determine how good of a canidate they would have been in a given electin, because those totals were nabbed during different times. Browne might have beaten nader this year.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
"Growth"? How many more voters than last time?
In 1996 Browne got 485,798 votes (.5%), and in 2000 got 384,431 votes (.36%).

So far, Badnarik is at 378,225 votes or .33%.

Maybe "growth" means a fungus or something.

The LP hasn't broken 1% since 1980; but, hey, they've got a reputation as up-n-comers!!

[caseclosed]

I would hope shane already knows this but Badnarik beat out Nader!

Badnarik earns about 376,000 votes, tops third party competition

I don't know if someone already said this. But hey at least it's progress.

[caseclosed]

Nope, I am retarded...Nevermind

[Kevin_Lowe]

Speaking as an Aussie, these numbers are meaningless. Unless you find meaning in crowing over the results of a rigged game.

Since it really is true that voting for a third party candidate is throwing away your vote in your system, I'm sure many people who would otherwise give the Libertarians a punt choose to vote for a lesser evil from amongst the Big Two.

If you had preferential voting (which I believe you guys call "instant runoff" voting), then you might have gotten a realistic idea of the amount of support the Libertarians have.

They're still loonies, but the numbers you are dancing about don't really correspond to any actual level of support.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
In 1996 Browne got 485,798 votes (.5%), and in 2000 got 384,431 votes (.36%).

So far, Badnarik is at 378,225 votes or .33%.

That's what I was afraid of.

shanek,

How can you possibly explain this as "growth"? A drop is "growth"?

[Cain]

Nader wasn't on the ballot in many states due to the Democratic Party's gangster tactics.

I would've voted for him if he was on the ballot here in California. Instead I opted for Cobb.

[hammer4all]

Originally posted by Cain
Nader wasn't on the ballot in many states due to the Democratic Party's gangster tactics.

I would've voted for him if he was on the ballot here in California. Instead I opted for Cobb.
You could have written him in as I did. ;)

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Since it really is true that voting for a third party candidate is throwing away your vote in your system, I'm sure many people who would otherwise give the Libertarians a punt choose to vote for a lesser evil from amongst the Big Two.

Conversely, in many areas where the winner is a foregone conclusion, a third-party candidate might benefit from protest votes, from people who dislike the inevitable winner but know voting for the other of the Big Two is pointless anyway. In UK general elections, 'joke' candidates or parties such as the late David Sutch and his Monster Raving Loony Party always do best when standing in a constituency which would elect a coatstand if it wore the correct rosette.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
As of Nov. 1, there were over 600 Libertarians elected to local offices nationwide.


Yes, 600 dog catchers, county water commissioners, zoning board members, and mayors of towns with populations of 134 people. You keep forgetting to mention that. Why are we so not impressed?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
That's what I was afraid of.

shanek,

How can you possibly explain this as "growth"? A drop is "growth"?

In Shanek's loony toon world it is!

(how long until he starts calling everyone a LIAR?)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
In Shanek's loony toon world it is!

(how long until he starts calling everyone a LIAR?)

Dunno, probably not long. However, I am really interested in hearing shanek's explanation.

How can a drop be considered a "growth"?

[The Don]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Dunno, probably not long. However, I am really interested in hearing shanek's explanation.

How can a drop be considered a "growth"?

Well in 2001, 2002 and 2003 no-one voted for the Libertarian candidate in the presidential election. 2004 is a triumph by comparison.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
That's what I was afraid of.

shanek,

How can you possibly explain this as "growth"? A drop is "growth"?

The popular vote is bupkis in a Presidential election. We don't elect Presidents by popular vote. And at any rate, the purpose of running a Presidential candidate is the growth of the party. We now have more registered Libertarians; we now have more donations to the LP; we have higher and higher vote totals lower down the ballot. Our vote total is higher than the Constitution and Green parties combined. And it was only 17,000 less than Ralph Nader, who got a LOT more media attention than we did.

How is this NOT growth?

[shanek]

Oh, and let's also not forget that this election cycle the Demopublicans put more roadblocks in the way of our success than ever before.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
The popular vote is bupkis in a Presidential election. We don't elect Presidents by popular vote. And at any rate, the purpose of running a Presidential candidate is the growth of the party. We now have more registered Libertarians; we now have more donations to the LP; we have higher and higher vote totals lower down the ballot. Our vote total is higher than the Constitution and Green parties combined. And it was only 17,000 less than Ralph Nader, who got a LOT more media attention than we did.

How is this NOT growth?


Originally posted by shanek
Oh, and let's also not forget that this election cycle the Demopublicans put more roadblocks in the way of our success than ever before.

O......K. This is patently ridiculous.

Shanek, your candidate ran for President. He ran in the Presidential race, against others, who also wanted to be President. Badnarik wanted to be President.

To achieve that, he needed votes.

Sure, Americans don't elect their president by popular vote.

But if he never wanted to be President in the first place, then you are saying that the people who worked hard for Badnarik's Presidential campaign to make Badnarik President were exploited. The whole Presidential campaign was a sham from the start. These people were fooled. Cheated. Scammed.

They got screwed, and so did the people who voted for Badnarik.

Face it, shanek: The LP candidate has gotten less and less vote with each election. If you want to consider that "growth", then you are completely deluded.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Conversely, in many areas where the winner is a foregone conclusion, a third-party candidate might benefit from protest votes, from people who dislike the inevitable winner but know voting for the other of the Big Two is pointless anyway. In UK general elections, 'joke' candidates or parties such as the late David Sutch and his Monster Raving Loony Party always do best when standing in a constituency which would elect a coatstand if it wore the correct rosette. My congressman (okay, not mine but he represents the district I live in), Jim Moran (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/Aug1999/081799/criminalclass2-081799.htm) is a sleazeball in so many ways that the Washington Post refused to endorse him this year (he's had more escapades and shady dealings since the link above was posted in 1999). The Post would normally endorse a tuna salad sandwich if it had Moran's liberal voting record.

But they couldn't bring themselves to endorse his opponent, a conservative Republican.

And they ignored the independent candidate, James Hurysz, who, it seems, had many of the same political views as Moran, without the character issues. I told Mrs. BPSCG about Hurysz, because she can't stand Moran either, but won't vote for a conservative Republican, period (I did vote for her).

Moran won easily, to the surprise of nobody everywhere (you could swap the results of our district with the one that represents Upper West Side Manhattan and not see any difference), but Hurysz pulled 3%. It's not much, but it looks like there was a certain percentage of the voters who, like Mrs. BPSCG, wanted to say they did not approve of Moran, but wouldn't vote for the Republican.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by shanek
The popular vote is bupkis in a Presidential election. We don't elect Presidents by popular vote.

I want you to think hard about that sentence you just wrote. If the popular vote doesn't count then what does? Say it with me: Electoral Votes. Of which you once again got NONE.

Okay, you win the debate inasmuch as your support didn't shrink. It stayed exactly where it has always been: ZERO.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
The popular vote is bupkis in a Presidential election. We don't elect Presidents by popular vote. And at any rate, the purpose of running a Presidential candidate is the growth of the party. We now have more registered Libertarians; we now have more donations to the LP; we have higher and higher vote totals lower down the ballot. Our vote total is higher than the Constitution and Green parties combined. And it was only 17,000 less than Ralph Nader, who got a LOT more media attention than we did.

How is this NOT growth?

Wow. Bigger than the greens and the Constitution party.

So you are saying that you have grown because you have on the national scene gotten the same amoount of votes but for more money, but that there are other parties that you can beat?

That isn't growth, that is spin.



In state andlocal races, are we talking about people running as libertarians or are we including non-partisan races where one of the candidates happens to be a LP member? I did love where the California LP claimed six candidates in a three seat non-partisan race in 2002. Interesting strategy, putting 6 of the 9 candidates in a single race, yet only getting one of the seats.


Jack Hickey 12,333 14.46% Libertarian
Arthur J. Faro 16,776 19.66% Non-partisan
Gerald Shefren 16,403 19.23% Non-partisan
Warren C. Gibson 10,436 12.23% Libertarian
Sonya L. Sigler 9,841 11.53% Libertarian
David Rosner 7,366 8.63% Non-partisan
Harland Harrison 5,663 6.64% Libertarian
Arthur 'Art' Bates 4,120 4.83% Libertarian
Philip Brattain 2,377 2.79% Libertarian


http://www.lp.org/campaigns/results/index.php?rstate=CA&ohid=6860


I am curious about showings in partisan races that are contested. Have any data showing a marked increase in this from 2002? More than one win in these types of elections? What is meant by higher and higher?

I guess if you can find two that would be an improvement from 2002, but that ignores that there are usually a different number of races contested in a presidential year. Why split hairs though? Can you find two (2) LP candidates that won contested partisan elections in 2004?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
That isn't growth, that is spin.

No, it's not. It's objective, verifiable growth.

Comparing popular vote totals from 2000 to 2004 while ignoring the vast new roadblocks put in our way by the BCRA and numerous new state laws is the spin.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
No, it's not. It's objective, verifiable growth.

Huh? Pointing out that you beat two other hopeless third parties combined is verified growth over what? Not being able to do so? You haven't improved so much as the Greens got hammered by Nader's being on the ballot in a lot of states.

Comparing popular vote totals from 2000 to 2004 while ignoring the vast new roadblocks put in our way by the BCRA and numerous new state laws is the spin.

Gee. How blatant of me to just see if he got more of the vote in considering the progress of the party on a national level.

The closeness of the election was a much bigger factor as to why your party is still well behind the 1996 numbers. This trumps any of these restrictions and even the poor choice of the presidential candidate. The closer the race, the more careful people are with their votes, and are unlikely to just vote for someone just as a protest. Even then there are a lot more choices on the ballot when Nader, the Greens and the C.P. are figured in, so the LP gets less of a part of the clueless protest voter...

When was the last time the LP even took third in a Presidential election? 1988?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
No, it's not. It's objective, verifiable growth.

Comparing popular vote totals from 2000 to 2004 while ignoring the vast new roadblocks put in our way by the BCRA and numerous new state laws is the spin.

You are completely delusional. A true political fanatic.

Why did Badnarik run for President?

[Tony]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You are completely delusional. A true political fanatic.


And you're just a bigot.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Huh? Pointing out that you beat two other hopeless third parties combined is verified growth over what?[/b]

It's a direct comparison with other entities who were operating under the same restrictions as we were.

You haven't improved so much as the Greens got hammered by Nader's being on the ballot in a lot of states.

First of all, Cobb's the Green Party candidate, not Nader. Second, you've just proven my point: we were on the ballot in a LOT more states than the Green Party, even though we both faced the same restrictions doing so.

Gee. How blatant of me to just see if he got more of the vote in considering the progress of the party on a national level.

Yes, because again, you DELIBERATELY IGNORED the new roadblocks in the way of competing party candidates. You also DELIBERATELY IGNORED the fact that Nader's numbers are way lower than they were in 2000, whereas we held our own, and will most likely been shown to have surpassed Browne's 2000 figures once the ~10,000,000 ballots remaining to be counted have been applied.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by shanek
First of all, Cobb's the Green Party candidate, not Nader. Second, you've just proven my point: we were on the ballot in a LOT more states than the Green Party, even though we both faced the same restrictions doing so.

There were four parties on Virginia's ballot, both Green and Libertarian made the cut. I actually thought you of, shane, when I saw Badnarik listed. Because I don't know what he looks like my mental image for him is Linus van Pelt. I didn't vote for him, but at least I recognized the name thanks entirely to your efforts. Keep up the good fight!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Yes, because again, you DELIBERATELY IGNORED the new roadblocks in the way of competing party candidates. You also DELIBERATELY IGNORED the fact that Nader's numbers are way lower than they were in 2000, whereas we held our own, and will most likely been shown to have surpassed Browne's 2000 figures once the ~10,000,000 ballots remaining to be counted have been applied.

Uhoh. The CAPS ARE ON.

In about two seconds, it will be "LIAR".

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


First of all, Cobb's the Green Party candidate, not Nader. Second, you've just proven my point: we were on the ballot in a LOT more states than the Green Party, even though we both faced the same restrictions doing so.

1) I know Nader isn't the Green Party candidate. What I thought I clearly meant is that Nader's presence siphoned off a lot of the Green Party vote. "[t]he Greens got hammered by Nader's being on the ballot in a lot of states."

2) Your being on the ballot in more states makes the "we got more votes" claim of growth even less persuasive w/r/t to general support.



Yes, because again, you DELIBERATELY IGNORED the new roadblocks in the way of competing party candidates. You also DELIBERATELY IGNORED the fact that Nader's numbers are way lower than they were in 2000, whereas we held our own, and will most likely been shown to have surpassed Browne's 2000 figures once the ~10,000,000 ballots remaining to be counted have been applied.

I didn't ignore it. I just disregarded it as someone desperately spinning poor results. Maybe you should stick to the "the national vote is not important" line you had going, seeing that your totals are not going to get even near Browne's 1996 totals even if you surpass the 2000 numbers. His 2000 numbers were terrible by any yardstick, although I'm sure you can try to argue some type of positive case for those results. Claiming growth because you may just slip by the disaster of 2000 is a bit weak.

To quote a really deep art movie I once saw:

"Losers make excuses. Winners go home and (censored) the Prom Queen"

(I think this was right before Sean Connery blew something up or something)

[CFLarsen]

shanek,

Why did Badnarik run for President?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
1) I know Nader isn't the Green Party candidate. What I thought I clearly meant is that Nader's presence siphoned off a lot of the Green Party vote.

Even if we were to assume that every single Green party member would have voted for Nader had it not been for Cobb's presence on the ballots, adding the two together still isn't a fifth of what Nader did in 2000.

2) Your being on the ballot in more states makes the "we got more votes" claim of growth even less persuasive w/r/t to general support.

No, it doesn't, because you NEED support to get on the ballot. A LOT of support.

I didn't ignore it. I just disregarded it as someone desperately spinning poor results.

YOU made the claim that our popular vote numbers this year are a yardstick. YOU made the claim that it was valid to compare this to previous elections. YOU are the one who IGNORED the new roadblocks in our way when making such a comparison.

[callow movie reference deleted]

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
shanek,

Why did Badnarik run for President?

He's answered that question many, many times: because he couldn't in good conscience vote for Bush or Kerry, and because other people had asked him to.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
He's answered that question many, many times: because he couldn't in good conscience vote for Bush or Kerry, and because other people had asked him to.

But what did he strive to achieve?

He didn't mean to win?

How can he not have let down the people who worked hard to get him elected?

Why were these people not screwed?

He got fewer votes than in the past two (at least!) elections. How can this not be seen as a total failure?

At the very least, do you understand why people here think that it is a failure?

[Sushi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
But what did he strive to achieve?

He didn't mean to win?

How can he not have let down the people who worked hard to get him elected?

Why were these people not screwed?

He got fewer votes than in the past two (at least!) elections. How can this not be seen as a total failure?

At the very least, do you understand why people here think that it is a failure?

I've never seen someone so proficient at doublespeak and word twisting as you, Claus. I'm impressed.

[shanek]

Polls taken before Badnarik's nomination this year showed that only 20% of American voters had heard of the Libertarian Party. According to a Rasmussen poll on October 14, that had risen to 76%.

If you don't think that's progress, you're too much of a bigot to even deal with.

[geni]

Originally posted by shanek
Polls taken before Badnarik's nomination this year showed that only 20% of American voters had heard of the Libertarian Party. According to a Rasmussen poll on October 14, that had risen to 76%.

If you don't think that's progress, you're too much of a bigot to even deal with.

So to put in another way this time round even more of the votes knowingly rejected you. 76%? I would be somewhat suppriesed in there were many uk citerzens who couldn't name at least 4 political parties running for office. I feel your country may have a problem.

[Sushi]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/NC/P/00/county.003.html#37177

Badnarik actually beat Bush in that county by three votes.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
There were four parties on Virginia's ballot, both Green and Libertarian made the cut. I actually thought you of, shane, when I saw Badnarik listed. Because I don't know what he looks like my mental image for him is Linus van Pelt. I didn't vote for him, but at least I recognized the name thanks entirely to your efforts. Keep up the good fight!

I echo the sentiment. I wouldn't have known or cared who Badnarik is either.

BTW, he looks a little like a used car salesman.
See for yourself:

http://badnarik.org/

http://badnarik.org/images/voters/michaelbadnarik/photo.jpg

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Polls taken before Badnarik's nomination this year showed that only 20% of American voters had heard of the Libertarian Party. According to a Rasmussen poll on October 14, that had risen to 76%.

If you don't think that's progress, you're too much of a bigot to even deal with.

But despite of that, the number of votes went down.

The more people learned about the Libertarians, the less they liked it.

That's not progress, that's defeat.

[varwoche]

Badnarik results from Hawaii: 1,374 votes, 0%.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by shanek
Polls taken before Badnarik's nomination this year showed that only 20% of American voters had heard of the Libertarian Party. According to a Rasmussen poll on October 14, that had risen to 76%.

Almost four times as many people have heard of you, and yet your vote went down? Wow, that's progress! :D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Almost four times as many people have heard of you, and yet your vote went down? Wow, that's progress! :D

It sure puts an end to the claim that "if only people knew about us, they'd vote for us"...

Let's not forget that the turnout of voters was the highest since 1968. Plus, of course, that there are more voters than 4 years ago.

There is no way one can spin into "success" without being deluded.

It is a complete disaster for Libertarians.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
Oh, and let's also not forget that this election cycle the Demopublicans put more roadblocks in the way of our success than ever before.

We hear this tired whine every four years from the loonies.

:v:

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
Polls taken before Badnarik's nomination this year showed that only 20% of American voters had heard of the Libertarian Party. According to a Rasmussen poll on October 14, that had risen to 76%.

If you don't think that's progress, you're too much of a bigot to even deal with.

Too bad polls don't count. Only votes. :(

[CFLarsen]

On why the LP has so little support:
Originally posted by shanek
Coercive measurements stopping us from raising money and getting the word out.
Source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870260157&highlight=coercive)


Yet, shanek now tells us that Election 2004 meant "growth" for the LP, because almost 4 times as many heard of it. Yet, the number of votes went down.

shanek, do you understand why I call you a political demagogue as well as a fanatic?

[fsol]

Originally posted by Lothian
I wouldn't have thought it was allowed anywhere. In the UK I am sure that offensive or confusing names are not allowed.

There was a "Nun of the Above" party a couple of elections ago. I know some of the candidates. They even got a mention on Have I Got News For You. They didn't win any seats though. :)

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by fsol
There was a "Nun of the Above" party a couple of elections ago. I know some of the candidates. They even got a mention on Have I Got News For You. They didn't win any seats though. :)

On an episode of Blackadder, didn't one of the candidates belong to the "Standing in the Back Dressed Stupidly and Looking Stupid Party"? I recall the platform centered on the abolition of slavery and the compulsory eating of asparagus for breakfast.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
On an episode of Blackadder, didn't one of the candidates belong to the "Standing in the Back Dressed Stupidly and Looking Stupid Party"?

Actually, I think this sketch is a pretty good portrayal of TV coverage of elections:

http://www.holysmoke.org/wb/wb0198.htm

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
Even if we were to assume that every single Green party member would have voted for Nader had it not been for Cobb's presence on the ballots, adding the two together still isn't a fifth of what Nader did in 2000.
But that assumption also makes the Green Party your daddy. Which is my point.


No, it doesn't, because you NEED support to get on the ballot. A LOT of support.

Or a lot of people who sign petitions and people who will stand outside malls asking for signatures. The money to pay people to collect signatures, anyway.

Actually, I could point to the election results as proof that your above contention is not true and leave it at that.

0%





YOU made the claim that our popular vote numbers this year are a yardstick. YOU made the claim that it was valid to compare this to previous elections. YOU are the one who IGNORED the new roadblocks in our way when making such a comparison.

[callow movie reference deleted]

Like I said, disregarding them as hollow excuses seems different than ignoring them, seeing that regardless of all these "roadblocks" you are claiming that a much larger percentage of people know about your party then before.

Yet your vote total is way, way down from 1996, and not much different than 2000, a year that was, again, a huge disappointment.

How is this good? If people don't know about my resturant and don't eat there, I have a publicity problem. If they do know and don't eat there...

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
But despite of that, the number of votes went down.

Claus, I have told you TWICE that there are still ~10,000,000 votes to be counted, and if we assume Badnarik gets the same percentage out of those it'll be more than enough to put him ahead of our 2000 total. Cut it out.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
It sure puts an end to the claim that "if only people knew about us, they'd vote for us"...

Strawman and you know it. I've corrected you on this several times. But you're just such an anti-Libertarian bigot nothing will change your closed little mind.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Or a lot of people who sign petitions and people who will stand outside malls asking for signatures.

Which you can't get without support.

The money to pay people to collect signatures, anyway.

Which you still can't get without support. Neither the Greens nor the Naderites were able to get on the ballot in NC, in 2000 or 2004. If you think it's easy to get petition signatures, you're deluding yourself, which wouldn't surprise me.

Actually, I could point to the election results as proof that your above contention is not true and leave it at that.

No, you can't, for reasons I've already given.

Like I said, disregarding them as hollow excuses seems different than ignoring them, seeing that regardless of all these "roadblocks" you are claiming that a much larger percentage of people know about your party then before.

The roadblocks keep us from getting our message out, telling people what we stand for, presenting our arguments and convincing them. That takes a LOT more than just saying, "We exist."

How is this good? If people don't know about my resturant and don't eat there, I have a publicity problem. If they do know and don't eat there...

Even when the law a) effectively prohibits you from advertising your menu and b) allows your competition to not only advertise how wonderful their menu is but how terrible yours is?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Claus, I have told you TWICE that there are still ~10,000,000 votes to be counted, and if we assume Badnarik gets the same percentage out of those it'll be more than enough to put him ahead of our 2000 total. Cut it out.

Whoopdefriggindo. He gets almost 4 times the exposure in the media, and for what?

Why did he run for president? To win? No? Then, why would he only need to get in the debates?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Strawman and you know it. I've corrected you on this several times. But you're just such an anti-Libertarian bigot nothing will change your closed little mind.

No, shanek. I am going with what you told this board before the election. If only Badnarik could get in the debates (thereby getting media exposure), then he could win.

Right?

[Sushi]

It is completely impossible for some people to refuse to vote third party because they didn't want to see one of two people win in a close election.

It is also completely ridiculous to even think that someone wouldn't vote for a candidate they agree with because they perceive they have no chance of winning.

Why did he run for president? To win? No? Then, why would he only need to get in the debates?

Claus Larsen, the master of Weasel Words.

There are multiple reasons for running for president, and someone could have them-- get this --at the same time!

Badnarik wasn't running to win in the sense that even though he knew he would lose, he ran anyway. Had it been possible (in the sense of "very likely"), though, and won, he would gladly accept the presidency and help fix America.

Of course that concept is not likely to get through your thick skull.

One person said if they would've voted they would've voted for Nader. I asked them why, and they didn't give a very intelligible answer-- they didn't even know what Nader stands for. I told him about Badnarik and the general libertarian philosophy and he was interested. He hadn't heard of Badnarik previously.

I would like to see how much membership in the LP has risen since the campaign.

[Sushi]

Also, Badnarik HAS received more votes than Browne did.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Whoopdefriggindo. He gets almost 4 times the exposure in the media, and for what?

How do you come to the insane conclusion that Badnarik got 4 times the media exposure than Browne? Browne was much more visible in the media, both on television and radio, and Badnarik suddenly found those avenues closed to him.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No, shanek. I am going with what you told this board before the election. If only Badnarik could get in the debates (thereby getting media exposure), then he could win.

Right?

Right. That's NOT the same thing as saying people would vote Libertarian simple because they've heard of the party. In a debate, you get to make your case.

Thank you for admitting your dishonesty...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Sushi
I would like to see how much membership in the LP has risen since the campaign.

I only know the figures for NC, but here it rose 20%. As different states have different criteria for membership, I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of variance even if all other things were equal.

[shanek]

The small-mindedness here is just staggering.

First of all, it's telling that these people are NOT calling Democrats losers etc. even though their numbers at the polls have fallen quite a noticeable amount.

Second of all, there's the complete (and, it appears, willful) ignorance of how revolutions work.

George Washington lost almost EVERY battle of the Revolutionary War. He lost, then he lost again. He lost and lost and lost and lost and lost.

And then he won.

Thomas Edison made over 10,000 attempts to make the light bulb. He failed, but he kept trying. And he failed and failed and failed and failed and failed.

And then he succeeded.

Rosa Parks was arrested for not giving her seat up to a white person. She fought the arrest in court, and lost. Then she fought that decision, and lost again. She lost and lost and lost and lost and lost.

And then she won.

It doesn't matter if you lose a million times. You only have to win once.

[Sushi]

Originally posted by shanek

Thomas Edison made over 10,000 attempts to make the light bulb. He failed, but he kept trying. And he failed and failed and failed and failed and failed.

And then he succeeded.


This point isn't accurate. Edison improved the lightbulb, but he didn't invent it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightbulb

The meaning behind it still stands, of course.

First of all, it's telling that these people are NOT calling Democrats losers etc. even though their numbers at the polls have fallen quite a noticeable amount.

While Badnarik has already exceeded Browne in the amount of popular vote.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Sushi
This point isn't accurate. Edison improved the lightbulb, but he didn't invent it.

Good thing for me, then, that I said "make" and not "invent." :p

[geni]

Originally posted by shanek
The small-mindedness here is just staggering.

First of all, it's telling that these people are NOT calling Democrats losers etc. even though their numbers at the polls have fallen quite a noticeable amount.

Second of all, there's the complete (and, it appears, willful) ignorance of how revolutions work.

George Washington lost almost EVERY battle of the Revolutionary War. He lost, then he lost again. He lost and lost and lost and lost and lost.

And then he won.

Thomas Edison made over 10,000 attempts to make the light bulb. He failed, but he kept trying. And he failed and failed and failed and failed and failed.

And then he succeeded.

Rosa Parks was arrested for not giving her seat up to a white person. She fought the arrest in court, and lost. Then she fought that decision, and lost again. She lost and lost and lost and lost and lost.

And then she won.

It doesn't matter if you lose a million times. You only have to win once.


Tell that to the zulus. They did win once. Didn't help them much. What makes you think that your results from this time round support the hyposis that your "reverlution" will be one of those that in the end succeeds.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Sushi
While Badnarik has already exceeded Browne in the amount of popular vote.

Yep&mdash;396,171 according to this article (http://www.thetoccoarecord.com/articles/2004/11/05/news/top_stories/01tophistoriccounty.txt).

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Right. That's NOT the same thing as saying people would vote Libertarian simple because they've heard of the party. In a debate, you get to make your case.

OK, I'm confused.

How could Badnarik "win" without people voting for him?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Sushi
One person said if they would've voted they would've voted for Nader. I asked them why, and they didn't give a very intelligible answer-- they didn't even know what Nader stands for. I told him about Badnarik and the general libertarian philosophy and he was interested. He hadn't heard of Badnarik previously.

Odd. When I told people about the Libertarian Party (support of Hawaiian secession, personal nuclear devices, tax evasion, constitutional ignorance, etc..) their reaction generally was "What a bunch of loonies!!!".

Originally posted by Sushi

I would like to see how much membership in the LP has risen since the campaign.

My guess would be similar to their election results - 0%. Which, of course, shows incredible growth. (at least in Shaneks world)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
Right. That's NOT the same thing as saying people would vote Libertarian simple because they've heard of the party. In a debate, you get to make your case.


I think a case could be made that had he been allowed to participate in the debates, he would have actually received fewer votes!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
The small-mindedness here is just staggering.

First of all, it's telling that these people are NOT calling Democrats losers etc. even though their numbers at the polls have fallen quite a noticeable amount.


Democrats are losers. (BTW, political parties are for losers)

Originally posted by shanek

Second of all, there's the complete (and, it appears, willful) ignorance of how revolutions work.

I know exactly how they work. Do you have any questions? however, one requirement of a successful revolution is that people take you seriously. If they are laughing so hard at you that they are crying (badnarik, shanek, Jack "The Molestor" Stratton, etc...), you probably won't do so well...

Originally posted by shanek

George Washington lost almost EVERY battle of the Revolutionary War. He lost, then he lost again. He lost and lost and lost and lost and lost.

And then he won.

Thomas Edison made over 10,000 attempts to make the light bulb. He failed, but he kept trying. And he failed and failed and failed and failed and failed.

And then he succeeded.

Rosa Parks was arrested for not giving her seat up to a white person. She fought the arrest in court, and lost. Then she fought that decision, and lost again. She lost and lost and lost and lost and lost.

And then she won.

It doesn't matter if you lose a million times. You only have to win once.

Please don't compare loony toon Badnerik to George Washington, Thomas Edison and Rosa Parks. It is dishonest and disrespectful.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
The small-mindedness here is just staggering.

Your delusion and willingness to distort reality is simply mindblowing.

Originally posted by shanek
First of all, it's telling that these people are NOT calling Democrats losers etc. even though their numbers at the polls have fallen quite a noticeable amount.

Oh, I dunno, shanek....there are plenty of threads where people mock Democrats. Perhaps you need to get your head out of the sand?

Originally posted by shanek
Second of all, there's the complete (and, it appears, willful) ignorance of how revolutions work.

Revolution? What revolution? To have a revolution, you need support. Libertarians got zilch. They lost. They were flattened. The more people learned about Libertarians, the less they liked it.

Originally posted by shanek
George Washington lost almost EVERY battle of the Revolutionary War. He lost, then he lost again. He lost and lost and lost and lost and lost.

And then he won.

Gee, I wasn't aware that Washington won singlehandedly. Guess we can forget about all the other people, soldiers and the circumstances as well.

Originally posted by shanek
Thomas Edison made over 10,000 attempts to make the light bulb. He failed, but he kept trying. And he failed and failed and failed and failed and failed.

And then he succeeded.

Edison had no idea what he was doing. He was fumbling, not working from knowledge.

Locked in a war with Westinghouse over which of them would control the future of electric power, Edison worked to discredit his rival's alternating current with claims that it was unsafe — so unsafe that it could be used to kill people.
Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/science/edison.htm)

A real role-model, eh?

Originally posted by shanek
Rosa Parks was arrested for not giving her seat up to a white person. She fought the arrest in court, and lost. Then she fought that decision, and lost again. She lost and lost and lost and lost and lost.

And then she won.

Rosa Parks was battling racism. Badnarik is a loonie.

Originally posted by shanek
It doesn't matter if you lose a million times. You only have to win once.

Which is what you claimed Badnarik could do, if only he got in the debates - that is, got his message out to a lot of people. Well, he did reach almost 4 times as many as previously, yet he lost.

By pointing to these examples, you employ the exact same tactics as astrologers who point to Newton believing in astrology (false, though (http://www.skepticreport.com/astrology/newton.htm)) to support their superstitious beliefs.

You are a political fanatic. You are most certainly not a skeptic.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
OK, I'm confused.

How could Badnarik "win" without people voting for him?

Claus, it's truly amazing how your bigotry prevents you from following a simple sequence, resorting instead to yet another strawman.

Your claim was that I said: "if only people knew about us, they'd vote for us."

(Note that this says NOTHING about making our case to those people as well, only that they knew about us, heard of us.)

When I pointed out that was a strawman, you said:

"No, shanek. I am going with what you told this board before the election. If only Badnarik could get in the debates (thereby getting media exposure), then he could win."

And I pointed out:

"Right. That's NOT the same thing as saying people would vote Libertarian simple because they've heard of the party. In a debate, you get to make your case."

So now you're choosing yet again to compound your dishonesty instead of just admitting you made a strawman. Typical of what I've come to expect from you...

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Oh, I dunno, shanek....there are plenty of threads where people mock Democrats. Perhaps you need to get your head out of the sand?

I'm talking about you and the other anti-Libertarian bigots.

Revolution? What revolution? To have a revolution, you need support. Libertarians got zilch. They lost. They were flattened.

So was George Washington, as was my point.

The more people learned about Libertarians, the less they liked it.

Evidence?

Gee, I wasn't aware that Washington won singlehandedly. Guess we can forget about all the other people, soldiers and the circumstances as well.

Nice way to evade the point...Do you think the Libertarian movement is the result of just one person?

Edison had no idea what he was doing. He was fumbling, not working from knowledge.

Oh, beautiful...

A real role-model, eh?

And an ad hominem to boot! Once again, you show how you are no skeptic.

Rosa Parks was battling racism. Badnarik is a loonie.

You know, sooner or later you bigots are going to figure out what you've really been calling Badnarik and feel really, really, REALLY stupid...

Which is what you claimed Badnarik could do, if only he got in the debates

And since he DIDN'T get into the debates, this claim remains untested.

Well, he did reach almost 4 times as many as previously

Again, evidence?

[Claus's usual personal insults and ad hominems deleted]

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
I'm talking about you and the other anti-Libertarian bigots.

And some have criticized the Dems as well. But it's a distraction: Let's focus on how you try to spin this electoral defeat of yours...

Originally posted by shanek
So was George Washington, as was my point.

I see. And factors like the French fleet had nothing to do with it?

Originally posted by shanek
Evidence?

0%, shanek. Less votes than last election.

Originally posted by shanek
Nice way to evade the point...Do you think the Libertarian movement is the result of just one person?

When you run for President, yeah.

Originally posted by shanek
Oh, beautiful...

Yes, it is. Is it wrong?

Originally posted by shanek
And an ad hominem to boot! Once again, you show how you are no skeptic.

Oh, I think it shows that I am willing to look at the whole picture, instead of painting a rosy-colored picture.

Originally posted by shanek
You know, sooner or later you bigots are going to figure out what you've really been calling Badnarik and feel really, really, REALLY stupid...

Oh, do tell, shanek. Do make us feel really, REALLY stupid.

Originally posted by shanek
And since he DIDN'T get into the debates, this claim remains untested.

Ah, but what was the point of being in the debates, if not to get as many people as possible to listen to him?

Originally posted by shanek
Again, evidence?

I refer you to the election result. I also refer you to your own post (20% had heard about LP before, now 76%).

Originally posted by shanek
[Claus's usual personal insults and ad hominems deleted]

Not at all. By choosing to see this total defeat as "growth", and comparing it to Washington, Edison and Parks, you are employing tactics that only fanatics use.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
(referring to Shanek) You are a political fanatic. You are most certainly not a skeptic.

You got that right. He has that woo-woo/conspiracy believer mentality. "Only 'I' know the truth. Everyone else is wrong. Those who assail me with facts are liars"

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
0%, shanek.

0% what?

Less votes than last election.

It has already been shown to you that it isn't, liar.

When you run for President, yeah.

Then you show your great ignorance. I can tell you personally that just one person alone running a campaign for County Commissioner is tough enough; I can't even imagine how tough it would be to run a Presidential campaign all on one's own. Badnarik had a campaign manager, a co-campaign manager, a team of campaign workers, a Hollywood producer donating his time to make commercials, at least one campaign representative in every state, volunteer designers, I could go on and on and on. It is NOT just one person. Badnarik was just at the forefront, just as Washington was at the forefront of the American revolution.

Yes, it is. Is it wrong?

Yes; it's completely wrong. Edison knew perfectly well the theory behind how the light bulb would work. Sushi already pointed that out in this thread. According to his link, Edison had actually purchased the Canadian patent from Henry Woodward because Woodward couldn't get the funds to develop it.

Oh, I think it shows that I am willing to look at the whole picture, instead of painting a rosy-colored picture.

No, it shows that you are desperate to try and avoid a point whenever it's something you don't want to consider.

Oh, do tell, shanek. Do make us feel really, REALLY stupid.

Okay, fine:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=loonie

loon·ie
n. Informal

A Canadian coin worth one dollar.
2. The Canadian dollar.

Ah, but what was the point of being in the debates, if not to get as many people as possible to listen to him?

Again you're moving the goalposts. Your initial strawman was that people would vote Libertarian if they'd just know we EXIST. Debates are much more than that; as I've pointed out twice, you'd get to make your case and rebut the points made by the other participants.

I refer you to the election result. I also refer you to your own post (20% had heard about LP before, now 76%).

Then once again you prove yourself a liar. You use people who have "heard of" the party (even if it was from an attack ad by an anti-Libertarian) when it suits you, and you paint it as if these people a) heard about it because of Badnarik and b) actually heard our arguments and considedrfed our position.

[more of Claus's typical name-calling deleted]

[Sushi]

To illustrate shanek's point, I myself had not considered myself a Libertarian until I heard the arguments. I had already known the positions, and until I heard the arguments I was wary to identify myself as a libertarian.

Well before that I had heard of libertarians.

[varwoche]

Final Hawaii results:

Kerry 231,318
Bush 194,109
Cobb 1,730
Badnarik 1,374

[corplinx]

Originally posted by varwoche
Final Hawaii results:

Kerry 231,318
Bush 194,109
Cobb 1,730
Badnarik 1,374

Such misinformation. Badnarik knows Hawaii seceded.

[Sushi]

Originally posted by varwoche
Final Hawaii results:

Kerry 231,318
Bush 194,109
Cobb 1,730
Badnarik 1,374

Huh, they're pretty leftist. Too bad Badnarik was wrong about them seceding :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
0% what?

Of the votes, shanek.

Originally posted by shanek
It has already been shown to you that it isn't, liar.

Ah, I was waiting for that "liar"....

Originally posted by shanek
Then you show your great ignorance. I can tell you personally that just one person alone running a campaign for County Commissioner is tough enough; I can't even imagine how tough it would be to run a Presidential campaign all on one's own. Badnarik had a campaign manager, a co-campaign manager, a team of campaign workers, a Hollywood producer donating his time to make commercials, at least one campaign representative in every state, volunteer designers, I could go on and on and on. It is NOT just one person. Badnarik was just at the forefront, just as Washington was at the forefront of the American revolution.

But people didn't vote for the people behind Badnarik, they voted for him. Or, in most cases, preferred not to.

Originally posted by shanek
Yes; it's completely wrong. Edison knew perfectly well the theory behind how the light bulb would work. Sushi already pointed that out in this thread. According to his link, Edison had actually purchased the Canadian patent from Henry Woodward because Woodward couldn't get the funds to develop it.

Thanks for proving my point: Edison had no formal training, he did not understand any of the things he tried. Other people had done the work for him.

Originally posted by shanek
Okay, fine:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=loonie

Tsk, tsk...I misspelled "loony". I am so stupid.

Originally posted by shanek
Again you're moving the goalposts. Your initial strawman was that people would vote Libertarian if they'd just know we EXIST. Debates are much more than that; as I've pointed out twice, you'd get to make your case and rebut the points made by the other participants.

Oh, please! People know that Libertarians exist, but they don't know their politics? What does that say for the efficiency of the LP?

Oh, I forgot: It's this huge conspiracy between the media, the Republimocrats, the Pope and the Illuminati to suppress you....

Originally posted by shanek
Then once again you prove yourself a liar. You use people who have "heard of" the party (even if it was from an attack ad by an anti-Libertarian) when it suits you, and you paint it as if these people a) heard about it because of Badnarik and b) actually heard our arguments and considedrfed our position.

Your ability to spin is impressive, I give you that. It doesn't work, though.

Originally posted by shanek
[more of Claus's typical name-calling deleted]

Truth hurts, shanek.

What has Badnarik been doing throughout the election? You have three-quarters of the American voters "knowing" about the LP, resulting in less votes? Not one of these people with new knowledge took the time to learn more about the LP? Not one found the LP appealing?

What does that say for the LP?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Of the votes, shanek.

Then you're a liar. He would have to have gotten 0 votes to get 0% of the votes.

But people didn't vote for the people behind Badnarik, they voted for him. Or, in most cases, preferred not to.

More evasion from the pseudo-skeptic...

Thanks for proving my point: Edison had no formal training, he did not understand any of the things he tried. Other people had done the work for him.

Amazing, such a master of spin. You could compete with O'Reilly.

Oh, please! People know that Libertarians exist, but they don't know their politics?

Yes. You are living proof of that.

What does that say for the efficiency of the LP?

Nothing.

Oh, I forgot: It's this huge conspiracy between the media, the Republimocrats, the Pope and the Illuminati to suppress you....

You just love breaking out the cheap attacks when you've been proven wrong...

Your ability to spin is impressive, I give you that. It doesn't work, though.

IT'S NOT SPIN YOU LIAR!!!! IT'S YOUR OWN EXACT WORDS!!!

"[I]f only people knew about us, they'd vote for us."

THIS is the strawman you made! Now either support it with evidence OR RETRACT IT.

But you won't do either, because you're nothing but a lying pseudo-skeptical bigoted TROLL.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Then you're a liar. He would have to have gotten 0 votes to get 0% of the votes.

Then I am not a liar. He got 0%, shanek.

Bush got 59,459,765 votes. Kerry got 55,949,407. (CNN). That's 115,409,172 votes.

Badnarik should have gotten at least 1,000,000 votes to get above 0%.

How many did he get again? Care to calculate Badnarik's percentage yourself?

Originally posted by shanek
More evasion from the pseudo-skeptic...

Evasion? I am focusing on the result, shanek.

Originally posted by shanek
Amazing, such a master of spin. You could compete with O'Reilly.

Spin? I am pointing out that you proved my point for me.

Originally posted by shanek
Yes. You are living proof of that.

Really? It cannot be because Badnarik and the policies of the LP hasn't been discussed here.

Originally posted by shanek
Nothing.

Really? What has caused this non-turnout at the voting booth, then?

Originally posted by shanek
You just love breaking out the cheap attacks when you've been proven wrong...

Nope. I am merely trying to find some explanation to why it was such a disaster.

Originally posted by shanek
IT'S NOT SPIN YOU LIAR!!!! IT'S YOUR OWN EXACT WORDS!!!

"[I]f only people knew about us, they'd vote for us."

THIS is the strawman you made! Now either support it with evidence OR RETRACT IT.

But you won't do either, because you're nothing but a lying pseudo-skeptical bigoted TROLL.

Yet another hissy fit from you.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Then I am not a liar. He got 0%, shanek.

No he didn't! He could only get 0% by getting 0 votes. I don't know what kind of "special math" you're using...

Badnarik should have gotten at least 1,000,000 votes to get above 0%.

No, liar. Basic math. He only needs 1 vote to get above 0%.

How many did he get again? Care to calculate Badnarik's percentage yourself?

It's about .35%, which is greater than 0%.

Evasion? I am focusing on the result, shanek.

No, you aren't. You're taking a point that wasn't about the result and trying to make it about the result. That's called "lying," Claus.

Spin? I am pointing out that you proved my point for me.

No, I didn't! My point PROVES he had the understanding! Maybe you're using your "special math" again...

Really? It cannot be because Badnarik and the policies of the LP hasn't been discussed here.

Yet, in all our discussions, ALL of your claims about what Libertarians say are all strawman arguments, as I have shown time and time again.

Really? What has caused this non-turnout at the voting booth, then?

Already explained, many, many times. Stop whining about "hissy fits" when you can't even display the modicum of honesty needed to respond to a direct explanation.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
No he didn't! He could only get 0% by getting 0 votes. I don't know what kind of "special math" you're using...
...
No, liar. Basic math. He only needs 1 vote to get above 0%.
...
It's about .35%, which is greater than 0%.

Not rounded. Had I said "Badnarik got 0.00%" then you would have been right. But 0.35% is 0%.

Originally posted by shanek
No, you aren't. You're taking a point that wasn't about the result and trying to make it about the result. That's called "lying," Claus.

It's very much about the result. Would you call 0.35% a success?

Originally posted by shanek
No, I didn't! My point PROVES he had the understanding! Maybe you're using your "special math" again...

Not at all. He didn't understand what went on, he merely understood that it could be done.

Originally posted by shanek
Yet, in all our discussions, ALL of your claims about what Libertarians say are all strawman arguments, as I have shown time and time again.

You do this a lot, it seems: Complain that people just don't GET IT, that they are STUPID, etc. Could it be that you could be explaining it poorly, or that Libertarian politics simply is moronic? Perhaps even both?

Originally posted by shanek
Already explained, many, many times. Stop whining about "hissy fits" when you can't even display the modicum of honesty needed to respond to a direct explanation.

I am not "whining", I am pointing out that you seem to get frustrated when people don't see it your way. If they don't, you blow up.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Not rounded.

You didn't say you were rounding. You said it IS 0%. There's a difference.

But 0.35% is 0%.

No, it isn't. 0.00% is 0%. .35% IS NOT and NEVER WILL BE 0%.

Not at all. He didn't understand what went on, he merely understood that it could be done.

Claus, you make yourself out to be more moronic with every post. Edison knew perfectly well that an electrical charge through a carbon filter encased in a glass filled with a vacuum or inert gas could make a light bulb. He KNEW the theory. It was just a question of hitting the right combination of everything to obtain a long-lasting bulb. If he were just stabbing in the dark like you claim, he would NEVER have been able to do it. But each failure taught him something new about how it worked, and got him closer and closer to its goal.

You can deny it all you want; it's still true.

You do this a lot, it seems: Complain that people just don't GET IT, that they are STUPID, etc. Could it be that you could be explaining it poorly, or that Libertarian politics simply is moronic? Perhaps even both?

When you say something that is COMPLETELY CONTRARY to what I said, and when I quote myself directly and explain it further you STILL deny it, then the problem is YOURS, NOT mine. But you'r too egotistical to even admit that that's a possibility.

Or, can you point out where I said that merely hearing about the LP would be enough to get people to vote for us?

I am not "whining",

Yes, you are, because you REFUSE to take responsibility for your own words, just like you ALWAYS refuse to do. I pointed out your EXACT WORDS, which show how dishonest you're being, and you just called it a "hissy fit" rather than try and defend yourself, because you know you CAN'T.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
You didn't say you were rounding. You said it IS 0%. There's a difference.

...

No, it isn't. 0.00% is 0%. .35% IS NOT and NEVER WILL BE 0%.

Oh, brother..... When we do not include decimals, that means we have rounded. This is something children learn at a very early age.

Originally posted by shanek
Claus, you make yourself out to be more moronic with every post. Edison knew perfectly well that an electrical charge through a carbon filter encased in a glass filled with a vacuum or inert gas could make a light bulb. He KNEW the theory. It was just a question of hitting the right combination of everything to obtain a long-lasting bulb. If he were just stabbing in the dark like you claim, he would NEVER have been able to do it. But each failure taught him something new about how it worked, and got him closer and closer to its goal.

You can deny it all you want; it's still true.

Oh, brother..... He knew it, because other people had told him. But he didn't understand how it worked, or why. If he had understood it, he would not have had to try 10,000 times before he got it right.

Originally posted by shanek
When you say something that is COMPLETELY CONTRARY to what I said, and when I quote myself directly and explain it further you STILL deny it, then the problem is YOURS, NOT mine. But you'r too egotistical to even admit that that's a possibility.

Or, can you point out where I said that merely hearing about the LP would be enough to get people to vote for us?

Oh, brother..... You have already spun "lets get Badnarik into the debates, and then he could win" into meaning that it wouldn't mean that people would vote for him. You are basically arguing that Badnarik can win an election without people voting for him.

Originally posted by shanek
Yes, you are, because you REFUSE to take responsibility for your own words, just like you ALWAYS refuse to do. I pointed out your EXACT WORDS, which show how dishonest you're being, and you just called it a "hissy fit" rather than try and defend yourself, because you know you CAN'T.

Oh, brother..... When you PUT THINGS IN CAPS, it is because you are SHOUTING. When you SHOUT, you throw a HISSYFIT. And you do this quite often.

Would you call 0.35% a success? (Funny how you leave out the pertinent questions...)

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Oh, brother..... When we do not include decimals, that means we have rounded. This is something children learn at a very early age.

Then it's no wonder you've grown up so clueless.

You DO NOT have to say 0.00%. In fact, you've just made it impossible to truly say 0% as you'd have to say 0.0000000000000...% throughout infinity.

0% is 0%. If you don't specify that you've rounded, then it's 0%. Zilch. None. And it is ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE to say that .35% is 0%.

Oh, brother..... He knew it, because other people had told him. But he didn't understand how it worked, or why. If he had understood it, he would not have had to try 10,000 times before he got it right.

Support this.

Oh, brother..... You have already spun "lets get Badnarik into the debates, and then he could win" into meaning that it wouldn't mean that people would vote for him.

NO I'M NOT, YOU LIAR!!! Badnarik DIDN'T get into the debates AND YOU KNOW IT!!! You're responding to the poll that 76% had "heard of" the Libertarian Party.

SUPPORT IT or RETRACT IT, Mr. Pseudo-skeptic.

Oh, brother..... When you PUT THINGS IN CAPS, it is because you are SHOUTING.

We've been over this before, Claus. You are WRONG.

Now SUPPORT or RETRACT your claim.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by shanek
0% what?



It has already been shown to you that it isn't, liar.



Then you show your great ignorance. I can tell you personally that just one person alone running a campaign for County Commissioner is tough enough; I can't even imagine how tough it would be to run a Presidential campaign all on one's own. Badnarik had a campaign manager, a co-campaign manager, a team of campaign workers, a Hollywood producer donating his time to make commercials, at least one campaign representative in every state, volunteer designers, I could go on and on and on. It is NOT just one person. Badnarik was just at the forefront, just as Washington was at the forefront of the American revolution.



Yes; it's completely wrong. Edison knew perfectly well the theory behind how the light bulb would work. Sushi already pointed that out in this thread. According to his link, Edison had actually purchased the Canadian patent from Henry Woodward because Woodward couldn't get the funds to develop it.



No, it shows that you are desperate to try and avoid a point whenever it's something you don't want to consider.



Okay, fine:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=loonie





Again you're moving the goalposts. Your initial strawman was that people would vote Libertarian if they'd just know we EXIST. Debates are much more than that; as I've pointed out twice, you'd get to make your case and rebut the points made by the other participants.



Then once again you prove yourself a liar. You use people who have "heard of" the party (even if it was from an attack ad by an anti-Libertarian) when it suits you, and you paint it as if these people a) heard about it because of Badnarik and b) actually heard our arguments and considedrfed our position.

[more of Claus's typical name-calling deleted]

Shane, don't waste your breath. You know these people simply have an agenda which has nothing to do the pursuit of truth. They just enjoy baiting you and other libertarians. There is no point in arguing with people who have no interest in honest debate. I have no idea why these guys are so hell bent on discrediting libertarian or why they are willing to stoop to any level in order to "win". Let them have their threads and say whatever they want. They are clearing just trolling with a dishonest agenda. It is fruitless. Better to spend your energy debating with people who have some interest in civil discourse.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Then it's no wonder you've grown up so clueless.

A comment like this is why I call you a political fanatic. Your kind is dangerous, if you ever get in power. Good thing that you are not.

Although I don't like the American people vote for Bush, somehow I feel encouraged that they don't vote for a wacko like Badnarik.

Originally posted by shanek
You DO NOT have to say 0.00%. In fact, you've just made it impossible to truly say 0% as you'd have to say 0.0000000000000...% throughout infinity.

0% is 0%. If you don't specify that you've rounded, then it's 0%. Zilch. None. And it is ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE to say that .35% is 0%.

O........K.

When is 1% really 1%? Please explain how you round decimal numbers. Please explain how "0.35%" is not "0%" rounded.

Originally posted by shanek
Support this.

This is your own point, shanek!!!

Originally posted by shanek
NO I'M NOT, YOU LIAR!!! Badnarik DIDN'T get into the debates AND YOU KNOW IT!!! You're responding to the poll that 76% had "heard of" the Libertarian Party.

SUPPORT IT or RETRACT IT, Mr. Pseudo-skeptic.

Sometimes, I really feel like I am addressing a mentally challenged child....

You claimed that Badnarik could win if he only got into the debates. Right?

What is the purpose of the debates, if not stating your political goals, so people can vote for you?

How can Badnarik "win", if he does not get people to vote for him?

Originally posted by shanek
We've been over this before, Claus. You are WRONG.

Now SUPPORT or RETRACT your claim.

I am wrong, because you say so? On the Internet, SPEAKING IN CAPS MEANS YOU ARE SHOUTING!! Get some manners, you oaf.

Now....for the third time: Do you consider 0.35% a success?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by varwoche
Final Hawaii results:

Kerry 231,318
Bush 194,109
Cobb 1,730
Badnarik 1,374

How long until Shanek claims that Badnerik won Hawaii?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Oh, I forgot: It's this huge conspiracy between the media, the Republimocrats, the Pope and the Illuminati to suppress you....


Which ones are flying the black helicopters? :D

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
When is 1% really 1%? Please explain how you round decimal numbers. Please explain how "0.35%" is not "0%" rounded.

YOU DIDN'T SAY ROUNDED, LIAR!!!

And 1% = 1%. 1% does NOT equal 1.0000000001%, nor does it equal .99999999999%. You made a claim of 0% and didn't say ONE SINGLE WORD about rounding.

This is your own point, shanek!!!

NO IT ISN'T!!! Cut out the strawmen, and cut out putting words in my mouth.

The point is, you only need to win once; it doesn't matter how many times you lose. Of course, each time you lose, you get more data points; for example, this year the Badnarik team used a strategy of campaigning and advertising mainly in the battleground states. The purpose was to try and get a return that was greater than the vote difference between Bush and Kerry, and therefore gain media attention as a "spoiler." Of course, what actually happened was that no matter how many people they won over, since they were in a battleground state and the vote there would be so close they felt they had to choose the lesser of two evils. That was just to much to fight. We know now that that's the wrong tactic.

Just like in 2000 we learned that Browne's tactic of getting media attention by releasing a best-selling book didn't work.

If you knew the first thing about subjects you claim to know a lot about you would realize this. A computer program NEVER works right the first time. It just doesn't. Because there's a difference between theory and practice. That's why you need to debug the code. Edison was trying to take a theory and put it into practice, which was a difficult task since no one had made a successful light bulb before. He had to experiment with different ways of making carbon filaments so that it was thin enough to glow properly while not being so brittle it burned out too soon.

You claimed that Badnarik could win if he only got into the debates. Right?

That he COULD win, yes.

What is the purpose of the debates, if not stating your political goals, so people can vote for you?

This has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with your claim, Claus. Your claim, once again, was based on the poll that showed that 76% had "heard of" the Libertarian Party. Here's a hint, if you can get it through your thick skull, from another question in the same poll: Has the national media provided you with enough information about Libertarian candidate for president Michael Badnarik, for you to decide whether you agree with his views or not? 73% said NO.

I am wrong, because you say so? On the Internet, SPEAKING IN CAPS MEANS YOU ARE SHOUTING!! Get some manners, you oaf.

I have corrected you on this many times before. I was there when the rules of netiquette were being formed. I have pointed out to you several times that caps are an accepted form of emphasis. It's only shouting if you put the ENTIRE SENTENCE in caps.

But go on, ignore reality. It makes it a lot easier to discredit me without actually having to consider my arguments or take responsibility for your own words.

Now....for the third time: Do you consider 0.35% a success?

Why should I answer your questions, when you won't answer mine?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
And 1% = 1%. 1% does NOT equal 1.0000000001%, nor does it equal .99999999999%. You made a claim of 0% and didn't say ONE SINGLE WORD about rounding.

But you round as well, when you say "0.35%". You round it to the second decimal. I rounded it to a whole number.

Why is it OK for you to round, but not me? Is it because the "0%" looks awful?

And could you please round "0.35%"? What is it, "0%" or "1%"?

Originally posted by shanek
NO IT ISN'T!!! Cut out the strawmen, and cut out putting words in my mouth.

....sigh.....

Originally posted by shanek
The point is, you only need to win once; it doesn't matter how many times you lose. Of course, each time you lose, you get more data points; for example, this year the Badnarik team used a strategy of campaigning and advertising mainly in the battleground states. The purpose was to try and get a return that was greater than the vote difference between Bush and Kerry, and therefore gain media attention as a "spoiler." Of course, what actually happened was that no matter how many people they won over, since they were in a battleground state and the vote there would be so close they felt they had to choose the lesser of two evils. That was just to much to fight. We know now that that's the wrong tactic.

Just like in 2000 we learned that Browne's tactic of getting media attention by releasing a best-selling book didn't work.

So, you have a series of failures, and you still call that "growth"??

Originally posted by shanek
If you knew the first thing about subjects you claim to know a lot about you would realize this. A computer program NEVER works right the first time. It just doesn't. Because there's a difference between theory and practice. That's why you need to debug the code. Edison was trying to take a theory and put it into practice, which was a difficult task since no one had made a successful light bulb before. He had to experiment with different ways of making carbon filaments so that it was thin enough to glow properly while not being so brittle it burned out too soon.

To write a computer program, you need to understand how it works. Edison didn't know how, he only knew that it could be done. So, with your analogy, he wrote 10,000 lines of code, before he got "Hello, world" right.

Originally posted by shanek
That he COULD win, yes.

Yes. That's why he ran, wasn't it? But he lost, and still it is "growth"....

Originally posted by shanek
This has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with your claim, Claus. Your claim, once again, was based on the poll that showed that 76% had "heard of" the Libertarian Party. Here's a hint, if you can get it through your thick skull, from another question in the same poll: Has the national media provided you with enough information about Libertarian candidate for president Michael Badnarik, for you to decide whether you agree with his views or not? 73% said NO.

Another disaster for the party. Can I see the poll?

Originally posted by shanek
I have corrected you on this many times before. I was there when the rules of netiquette were being formed. I have pointed out to you several times that caps are an accepted form of emphasis. It's only shouting if you put the ENTIRE SENTENCE in caps.

You "were there"....you wrote them, too? If you really are so knowledgeable about netiquette, you would know that it does not have to be an entire sentence. Don't even try that ploy with me. And deflate your ego a bit, it's very unbecoming.


Originally posted by shanek
YOU DIDN'T SAY ROUNDED, LIAR!!!

Don't shout.

Originally posted by shanek
But go on, ignore reality. It makes it a lot easier to discredit me without actually having to consider my arguments or take responsibility for your own words.

You are being discredited, but by your own arguments. Not my problem.


Originally posted by shanek
Why should I answer your questions, when you won't answer mine?

I have replied to your posts. Don't play this childish game. Answer this (obviously tough) question:

Do you consider 0.35% a success?

Take it out for a spin.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek
YOU DIDN'T SAY ROUNDED, LIAR!!!

And 1% = 1%. 1% does NOT equal 1.0000000001%, nor does it equal .99999999999%. You made a claim of 0% and didn't say ONE SINGLE WORD about rounding.

That's just a matter of precision. "1%" is given with integer precision, and could be a representation of either 1.0000000001% or 0.99999999999% This is the reason why scientists and engineers makes a clear distinction between "5" and "5.000"

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
That's just a matter of precision. "1%" is given with integer precision, and could be a representation of either 1.0000000001% or 0.99999999999% This is the reason why scientists and engineers makes a clear distinction between "5" and "5.000"

Exactly. Shanek just has a problem with "0%". It looks terrible. So, he tries this pathetic maneuver.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Exactly. Shanek just has a problem with "0%". It looks terrible. So, he tries this pathetic maneuver.

In his defense the science education here is beyond abysmal, so this concept that may seem simple to others really isn't widely grasped here. I've seen people that were supposed to be scientists (although they were "forensic" scientists in the State Crimelab) screw this up when calculating DNA "coincidental match" figures...

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


If you think it's easy to get petition signatures, you're deluding yourself, which wouldn't surprise me.

So you are defining support based on the input of labor rather than results?

Now THAT is irony. A Libertarian using a marxist yardstick to justify abysmal results.



No, you can't, for reasons I've already given.
How's 0% for a piece of evidence? What you have is a small measure of public sympathy towards third parties being on the ballot, sympathy that you really wish was support, sympathy that you cling to because you lack the one objective means of measuring support, votes.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
But you round as well, when you say "0.35%". You round it to the second decimal. I rounded it to a whole number.

Why is it OK for you to round, but not me? Is it because the "0%" looks awful?

Claus, YOU ARE A LIAR!! I said, "It's about .35%!" "It's ABOUT .35%" I SAID I WAS ROUNDING; YOU DIDN'T!!!!!

To write a computer program, you need to understand how it works. Edison didn't know how,

I have already shown you that this is false. Your dishonesty is truly astounding.

he only knew that it could be done. So, with your analogy, he wrote 10,000 lines of code, before he got "Hello, world" right.

BS. A light bulb is many orders of magnitude more compled than a program printing "Hello, World."

[More of Claus's rampant dishonesty deleted]

I have replied to your posts. Don't play this childish game.

Claus, you are a BIGOT, you are a LIAR, and you are NO SKEPTIC. You whine and moan whenever someone takes you to task the way we take the woo-woos to task. You accuse me of being "foul-mouthed" when I have used no profanity. Worst of all: you are a HYPOCRITE, because you won't accept even a modicum of the responsibility for your words that you yourself demand of the woo-woos. You DEMAND repeatedly that I answer a question THAT I HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED, yet you yourself feel perfectly free to ignore repeated direct questions asked of YOU. Whenever a woo-woo won't answer your questions, he's refusing to answer and evading. Whenever YOU won't answer a question, you're "simply choosing not to participate in that part of the discussion" (or words to that effect).

Here are some questions that YOU WON'T ANSWER:

You're President. You are charged by the Constitution in Article II Section 3 with "tak Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." You have two laws before you. They are mutually exclusive, so contradictory that there's no way you can execute them both. It's one or the other. One of these is an act passed by Congress, and the other is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. Which one are you going to execute?
If Libertarians are such an easy targets, why would the Democrats and Republicans go to such great lengths to avoid debating them?
What does the poll showing that 68% want Badnarik to participate in the debates have anything to do with the point I was making about the polls required by the CPD?
Are you [i]ever going to respond to my logic showing that the 15% polling requirement of the CPD is unreasonable?
How does the act of selling a drug to a sick person, with the following qualification for someone who couldn't afford it:
Lots of things can be worked out. We could work out a payment schedule; I could decide in his case to be charitable; I could call up a local charity and see if they could lend some support; maybe we could contact family members and friends who could chip in; maybe a combination of things. Don't act as if there aren't alternatives when people in the free market exercise them every day.
constitute either "blackmail" (Defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as "Extortion of money or something else of value from a person by the threat of exposing a criminal act or discreditable information") or "pay or die"?
How was the second [corrected] set of information about airline hijackings "faked"? Are you ever going to look at all the raw numbers yourself (which I provided to you) and show us what the numbers really say?
Do you still deny that drugs in the US are tested for safety among the general population, not just those who would take the drugs for an illness, even after I pointed you to the FDA's website saying that this is the case?
How does saying that I can do whatever I want with the water on a stream on my property as long as I don't adversely affect the property values of others, mean that I can take all of the water and stop downstream neighbors from having a river, given that the loss of such water would adversely affect the property value?
How do Libertarians want to overthrow the Judicial system?
Why is it proper for you to compare the achievements of SpaceShipOne to the entire space shuttle system, and invalid of me to compare its achievements (since it is, in fact, a prototype) to the Enterprise, being the prototype Space Shuttle?
How can you justify killing someone merely because they have a gun, even if it's just in its holster and they aren't making any violent or threatening actions? How is "I'll kill the f*cker. On the spot. No questions asked. He's dead" not advocating murder?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
So you are defining support based on the input of labor rather than results?

Let me reiterate:

There are two ways to get petition signatures. One is through volunteers collecting them. The presence of those volunteers would constitute support, would it not? The other is through paid petitioners. In order to pay for the petitioners, you need money. The LP raises money through donations. Donors donating money constitutes support, does it not?

Now THAT is irony. A Libertarian using a marxist yardstick to justify abysmal results.

What's Marxist about it?

What you have is a small measure of public sympathy towards third parties being on the ballot, sympathy that you really wish was support, sympathy that you cling to because you lack the one objective means of measuring support, votes.

Suddenly, I have given tons of reasons for the lw vote total&mdash;objective, verifiable reasons. Do you not have a response to any of those?

[Suddenly]

Just for fun, the historical track record of Libertarian Party Presidential Candidates.

http://uselectionatlas.org/


2000: Harry Browne, 5th place, 384,516 votes: 0.36%

1996: Harry Browne, 5th place, 485,798 votes: 0.50%

1992: Andre Morrou, 4th place, 290,087 votes: 0.28%

1988: Ron Paul, 3rd place, 431,750 votes: 0.47%

1984: David Bergland, 3rd place, 228,111 votes: 0.25%

1980: Edward Clark, 4th place, 921,128 votes: 1.06%

1976: Roger MacBride, 4th place, 172,553 votes 0.21%

1972: John Hospers, 10th place*, 3,674 votes: 0.00% (.00472% for you rounding haters)

* Someone threw 'em an electorial vote, even though they got stomped like 6-1 by Gus Hall and the Communist Party in the popular vote, so they were 3rd by that yardstick in '72.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
Let me reiterate:

There are two ways to get petition signatures. One is through volunteers collecting them. The presence of those volunteers would constitute support, would it not? The other is through paid petitioners. In order to pay for the petitioners, you need money. The LP raises money through donations. Donors donating money constitutes support, does it not? If the debate is that you have any aupport whatsoever then there is no discussion here. You do.

What you have is the ability to pull 0.35%, give or take. Other than that, amount of money or willingness to work speaks to the nature of the support, not so much the degree of support which works out to a ratio of votes/people of 1:1, except in Chicago Ill. or Logan County, W.Va. where it varies.

The willingness to sign a petition is not a measure of support so much as it is a measure of sympathy for third parties in general.

You can claim greater ballot access, and name recognition and whatever. What you cannot claim is a pattern of statistical growth, seeing that your piece of the pie is about 1/3 the size it was in 1980, slightly smaller or equal to 4 years ago, and 70% or so of the size in 1996.



What's Marxist about it?
You say it is difficult to get on the ballot, and that refects a success. This is similar to a labor based theory of value in my opinion, in that it looks to the difficulty of the process rather than a result. Wealth does not arise from the difficulty of the labor, rather only from what people will exchange for the fruit of the labor.

Likewise, political support comes from votes, not noble struggle. One may lead to another, but this is not a necessary result.

(Just for you: I mean "necessary" to mean it is not logically mandatory)


Suddenly, I have given tons of reasons for the lw vote total&mdash;objective, verifiable reasons. Do you not have a response to any of those?

My response is that they are the type of excuses made by the losers, crying about the rules that may be the reason why they lost.

They don't change anything. Look at the scoreboard, then quit the garbage of claiming what are at best moral victories and complaints that the other teams have bigger players and the three-point line is too far.

Just like everything else in life, as long as you are more willing to look outward rather than inward for why you fail, you will continue to fail. Simple as that.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Claus, YOU ARE A LIAR!! I said, "It's about .35%!" "It's ABOUT .35%" I SAID I WAS ROUNDING; YOU DIDN'T!!!!!

When I say "0%" after mentioning that Badnarik actually got (a few) votes, how can this not be rounded? How can you possibly think that I meant that he didn't get a single vote? Are you that paranoid?

Originally posted by shanek
I have already shown you that this is false. Your dishonesty is truly astounding.

No dishonesty on my part.

Originally posted by shanek
BS. A light bulb is many orders of magnitude more compled than a program printing "Hello, World."

Not if you don't know how to do either.

Originally posted by shanek
[More of Claus's rampant dishonesty deleted]

Can I see the poll, shanek? Why do you always leave out the pertinent questions? Do you have a problem with your anger, so you focus on (imaginary) personal attacks, instead of the issues? Or is it just easier?

Originally posted by shanek
Claus, you are a BIGOT, you are a LIAR, and you are NO SKEPTIC. You whine and moan whenever someone takes you to task the way we take the woo-woos to task. You accuse me of being "foul-mouthed" when I have used no profanity. Worst of all: you are a HYPOCRITE, because you won't accept even a modicum of the responsibility for your words that you yourself demand of the woo-woos. You DEMAND repeatedly that I answer a question THAT I HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED, yet you yourself feel perfectly free to ignore repeated direct questions asked of YOU. Whenever a woo-woo won't answer your questions, he's refusing to answer and evading. Whenever YOU won't answer a question, you're "simply choosing not to participate in that part of the discussion" (or words to that effect).

Strange, because I welcome questions. As we can see, you avoid them.

Originally posted by shanek
Here are some questions that YOU WON'T ANSWER:

Wrong. I have replied to them. But it's easier to call me a liar than admit it.

Originally posted by shanek
You're President. You are charged by the Constitution in Article II Section 3 with "tak Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." You have two laws before you. They are mutually exclusive, so contradictory that there's no way you can execute them both. It's one or the other. One of these is an act passed by Congress, and the other is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. Which one are you going to execute?

Already replied to: It wasn't directed at me, and I don't give a flying f*ck anyway. Do you expect me to reply to each and every post you make?

Originally posted by shanek
If Libertarians are such an easy targets, why would the Democrats and Republicans go to such great lengths to avoid debating them?

Do they? That is your opinion, not mine.

Originally posted by shanek
What does the poll showing that 68% want Badnarik to participate in the debates have anything to do with the point I was making about the polls required by the CPD?

You are not the sole arbiter of what we can discuss and what we cannot.

Originally posted by shanek
Are you [i]ever going to respond to my logic showing that the 15% polling requirement of the CPD is unreasonable?

Why should I? Has your inflated self-importance reached such proportions that you think everything is about you?

Originally posted by shanek
How does the act of selling a drug to a sick person, with the following qualification for someone who couldn't afford it - constitute either "blackmail" (Defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as "Extortion of money or something else of value from a person by the threat of exposing a criminal act or discreditable information") or "pay or die"?

Already addressed.

Originally posted by shanek
How was the second [corrected] set of information about airline hijackings "faked"? Are you ever going to look at all the raw numbers yourself (which I provided to you) and show us what the numbers really say?

Already addressed.

Originally posted by shanek
Do you still deny that drugs in the US are tested for safety among the general population, not just those who would take the drugs for an illness, even after I pointed you to the FDA's website saying that this is the case?

I honestly can't recall that discussion. If you want to revive it, bump it and show me the relevant posts. Perhaps I care enough to participate.

Originally posted by shanek
How does saying that I can do whatever I want with the water on a stream on my property as long as I don't adversely affect the property values of others, mean that I can take all of the water and stop downstream neighbors from having a river, given that the loss of such water would adversely affect the property value?

Oh, man...you don't want to go there. I showed that you were willing to let people die, instead of compromising your ideals. Libertarianism is heartless and cruel.

Originally posted by shanek
How do Libertarians want to overthrow the Judicial system?

Huh?? Are you talking about Badnarik's crazy "1st day in office" promises?

Originally posted by shanek
Why is it proper for you to compare the achievements of SpaceShipOne to the entire space shuttle system, and invalid of me to compare its achievements (since it is, in fact, a prototype) to the Enterprise, being the prototype Space Shuttle?

Because you ignore the achievements made prior to Enterprise, necessary for it to be built. As usual, you select your data.

Originally posted by shanek
How can you justify killing someone merely because they have a gun, even if it's just in its holster and they aren't making any violent or threatening actions? How is "I'll kill the f*cker. On the spot. No questions asked. He's dead" not advocating murder?

After 9/11, I can - simply because I cannot know if he is a good guy or not. I don't have the time to find out. I lived in NY at the time, shanek, and I don't ever want anything like that to happen again, to anyone.

Now...Do you consider 0.35% a success?

[CFLarsen]

http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/libelecresults.gif

How is this "growth"?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/libelecresults.gif

How is this "growth"?

Actually, that does look a bit like small growth the way you have it formatted.

Looks like they are gaining approx .03% per election on average, and if that holds, we should be looking at constant 1% results in say, 80 years or so.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Actually, that does look a bit like small growth the way you have it formatted.

I should have put the actual numbers in, too. However, in the past two elections, the support has dropped.

Originally posted by Suddenly
Looks like they are gaining approx .03% per election on average, and if that holds, we should be looking at constant 1% results in say, 80 years or so.

"Growth", I believe it was called...

[KingMerv00]

I voted Badnarik. Oh he's a little crazy on certain issues but he was a friggin' pillar of sanity compared to the others.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by Sushi
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/NC/P/00/county.003.html#37177

Badnarik actually beat Bush in that county by three votes.
Hate to burst your bubble, but that figure is probably a typo. The county website (http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/enrs/resultsby_county_single.asp?EC=11xx02xx2004GENERAL 2004UTYRRELL&contest_name=PRESIDENT) lists Badnarik as getting 4 votes not 853.

[Sushi]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
Hate to burst your bubble, but that figure is probably a typo. The county website (http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/enrs/resultsby_county_single.asp?EC=11xx02xx2004GENERAL 2004UTYRRELL&contest_name=PRESIDENT) lists Badnarik as getting 4 votes not 853.

I stand corrected.

[crimresearch]

So what are the chances of the Libertarian Party actually realizing what the Democrats cannot, and the Republicans don't need to, namely that they lost big time, and need to make some drastic major changes?

This could be a golden opportunity to move into a power vacuum, but it would require a top to bottom revision of the party from a bunch of slogan spouting kooks like Badnarik, to an organization that actually applied libertarian principles in a thoughtful and honest manner.

I suspect that there are an awful lot of people out there who couldn't bring themselves to vote Democratic, but wish that there had been a viable alternative to Bush.

Get rid of Badnarik...

Beg Ron Paul to come back...

Get rid of all the things that create the *perception* of kookiness...loyalty oaths, cabins in Montana, de-abolitionists, blue skinned party moguls, self anointed 'Constitutional scholars'etc.

Get a working group who actually understands how government and politics and the Constitution work IN THE REAL WORLD to create a libertarian based Libertarian platform.

Create a grass roots movement to educate as many people as possible that there is a party out there that is a viable alternative to the current batch.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
If the debate is that you have any aupport whatsoever then there is no discussion here. You do.[/b]

The debate is about growing support. And since these requirements get bigger and bigger every election cycle, I don't see how anyone can disagree that we're growing in active supporters.

You're whining because we can only run at the same slow speed we've done before while ignoring that the Demopublicans just put another 100 lbs. of weight on our backs.

The willingness to sign a petition

has NOTHING to do with the argument. We're talking about the support needed to either get volunteers to go collect those signatures or the money to pay petitioners to do it.

What you cannot claim is a pattern of statistical growth,

I only have figures for NC, but here we grew 20% this past year to an all-time high, whereas Unaffiliated voters only grew 5% (although they're at an all-time high, too) and Demopublicans are at an all-time low.

We also added over 20 Libertarians to our roster of over 600 office holders nationwide.

By any objective measure that bears scrutiny, we are growing. You desperately cling to a bogus criteria as if it means anything, while deliberately ignoring the objective and obvious obstacles holding back that criteria. All so you can support your bigotry. Sad.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No dishonesty on my part.

You were shown to be wrong, and yet you persist in the claim without responding to the rebuttal. That's being dishonest, Claus.

Can I see the poll, shanek?

http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog/2004/10/16/new-national-polling-results/

Wrong. I have replied to them.

You have never answered them, Claus. In once case you spend several pages of a thread saying that you weren't "refusing" to answer it, while still not answering it.

Already replied to:

Where?

It wasn't directed at me,

It was asked in the VERY FIRST POST of a thread THAT MENTIONED YOUR NAME IN THE TITLE. IT WAS DIRECTED AT YOU.

and I don't give a flying f*ck anyway. Do you expect me to reply to each and every post you make?

You replied. And replied and replied and replied. But you NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTION.

1 down, liar.

Do they? That is your opinion, not mine.

No, that was an established argument in the thread&mdash;which you didn't bother rebutting. 0 for 2.

You are not the sole arbiter of what we can discuss and what we cannot.

That was a claim you made. Here you are, avoiding answering the question AGAIN. 0 for 3.

Why should I?

Because it rebutted a direct claim of yours. 0 for 4.

Already addressed.

Link to where. Until then, 0 for 5.

Already addressed.

Link to where. Until then, 0 for 6.

I honestly can't recall that discussion.

Ah, yes, the Ronald Reagan defense. Funny, since you've mentioned this discussion several times since then while bogusly trying to discredit me. This was based on your clonidine = homeopathy claim, remember? I'm like a homeopath because I (with a doctor's prescription) am giving my son a medicine for a condition that the FDA did not test for efficacy. This is part of your steadfast denial that the free market is perfectly capable of doing its own studies.

You whined on and on about how I can't know it's safe for him because it was only tested for safety on high blood pressure patients, since the FDA, according to you, only tests safety for that group.

The original thread was pruned, but the discussion was rehashed in this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46039

Now answer the question. Until then, 0 for 7.

Oh, man...you don't want to go there.

Yes, I do. YOU don't. 0 for 8.

Huh??

Funny that you can't even keep track of your own strawmen...

We were talking about laws and regulations that required interpretations. You pointed out:

The issue is government regulations that require interpretations.

And then followed up with a question. I answered:

Yes, if the interpretation is a reasonable one.

You asked:

What do you mean, "reasonable"?

I said that reasonable had been well-defined in the courts. Then you said:

I am just a bit surprised that you accept a legal term from a political body you disagree so strongly with.

I said that was a strawman, and then you said:

No, that is not a strawman. I asked for an answer, based on Libertarian politics, and you refer to a legal definition from a system the Libertarians want to overthrow. Very odd.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870538304

After that, numerous requests of you to show where Libertarians want to overthrow the judicial system have gone unanswered.

0 for 9.

Because you ignore the achievements made prior to Enterprise, necessary for it to be built.

This is no answer. And I suppose there were no such prior achievements with SpaceShipOne? Besides, you compared it to the entire shuttle program. 0 for 10.

"I welcome questions..." Sha, right, but you sure don;t answer them...

After 9/11, I can - simply because I cannot know if he is a good guy or not.

So, you can kill a guy just because you don't know if he's a good guy or not, and that's not murder? Geez, and you call me cruel...

I ask the lurker: who is the woo-woo here?

You've still got a LOT of questions to answer, Claus.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
You've still got a LOT of questions to answer, Claus.

What a complete fraud you are.

I have rarely seen such a load of bull. And only to avoid that darn question:

Do you consider 0.35% a success?

You have a lot of anger, and this election did nothing to diminish it.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Just for fun, the historical track record of Libertarian Party Presidential Candidates.

http://uselectionatlas.org/


2000: Harry Browne, 5th place, 384,516 votes: 0.36%

1996: Harry Browne, 5th place, 485,798 votes: 0.50%

1992: Andre Morrou, 4th place, 290,087 votes: 0.28%

1988: Ron Paul, 3rd place, 431,750 votes: 0.47%

1984: David Bergland, 3rd place, 228,111 votes: 0.25%

1980: Edward Clark, 4th place, 921,128 votes: 1.06%

1976: Roger MacBride, 4th place, 172,553 votes 0.21%

1972: John Hospers, 10th place*, 3,674 votes: 0.00% (.00472% for you rounding haters)

* Someone threw 'em an electorial vote, even though they got stomped like 6-1 by Gus Hall and the Communist Party in the popular vote, so they were 3rd by that yardstick in '72.

this really seems like the most objective yardstick to gauge the party's growth. They need better PR. If not for this message board I wouldnt know anything they stood for (and I'm assuming the average Joe isn't actively researching 3rd parties either)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
this really seems like the most objective yardstick to gauge the party's growth. They need better PR.

But that only makes it worse: They got more PR (shanek's "growth"), but fewer votes. Perhaps they should stop campaigning altogether, then maybe people will vote for them.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
The debate is about growing support. And since these requirements get bigger and bigger every election cycle, I don't see how anyone can disagree that we're growing in active supporters. Yes I can. The requirements are a floor, not a ceiling. If the requirement in year one is (X), and support is (Y), the fact that (X) increases but is still less than (Y) is no proof whatsoever that (Y) has increased.

So sorry, your "proof" is lacking.



You're whining because we can only run at the same slow speed we've done before while ignoring that the Demopublicans just put another 100 lbs. of weight on our backs.

You are the one whining about conditions. I'm the one mocking your whining by pointing at the scoreboard.


has NOTHING to do with the argument. We're talking about the support needed to either get volunteers to go collect those signatures or the money to pay petitioners to do it.
Not me. I don't think that is a significant show of support in that, besides the fact that increasing minimums do not prove growth, the number of people needed to organize a petition drive are not proportional to the numbers of singatures needed. Support in politics is represented by votes.


I only have figures for NC, but here we grew 20% this past year to an all-time high, whereas Unaffiliated voters only grew 5% (although they're at an all-time high, too) and Demopublicans are at an all-time low. Care to present a source on this? Actual numbers? What grew 20%?

We also added over 20 Libertarians to our roster of over 600 office holders nationwide.

1) As I understand it, you had (claimed) 600 (LP site says 580) at the start of the election cycle, and as I recall from the LP page it is claimed that 20 races were won. Any number of the officeholders who left office?

2) Do these 600 or so include those elected in non-partisan races, or those appointed? Any idea how many of them?

3) How do you justify counting non-partisan races as part of your party's growth when these people by definiton did not run as Libertarians?

4) As I have shown, the LP site lists more than 20 winners in 2002, 38 by a quick count. Is this another example of growth?



By any objective measure that bears scrutiny, we are growing.
Not that I can see. You have won less local races than two years ago patisan or not. Your national vote totals are stagnant. You offer nothing but vague claims of petition drives and what appears to be voter registrants, but no evidence of any significant increase in votes.





You desperately cling to a bogus criteria as if it means anything, while deliberately ignoring the objective and obvious obstacles holding back that criteria. All so you can support your bigotry. Sad.

Yeah. All I have are vote totals and the number of offices won. I should be ashamed at concentrating on such irrelevant data, and should instead look at petition drives and registrations.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Suddenly
What grew 20%?

Not the number of votes, that's for sure:


North Carolina, Libertarian votes
2004: 11,463 - 0.33%
2000: 12,307 - 0.42%
Source: uselectionatlas.org (http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/)

[CFLarsen]

Again, from uselectionatlas.org:

There were 11,412,082 more votes cast in 2004 than in 2000. Yet, the Libertarian Party got 4,230 fewer votes.

That's not "growth", that's abysmal failure.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What a complete fraud you are.

I have rarely seen such a load of bull. And only to avoid that darn question:

You avoided ten questions, Claus, and arguably the 11th as well. You are a hypocrite, and you are no skeptic.

Also, I have NOT avoided answering the question. I have said several times that I don't think the vote total itself is a metric of success given the problems I have repeatedly mentioned.

YOU are the one avoiding questions. You are the one LYING.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
[completely evading the issue and avoiding the arguments deleted]
What grew 20%?

Registered voters, duh.

[snip Suddenly laughably trying to argue that more is less]

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Also, I have NOT avoided answering the question. I have said several times that I don't think the vote total itself is a metric of success given the problems I have repeatedly mentioned.

:dl:

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
:dl:

Thank you for showing that you have no rebuttal whatsoever.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Thank you for showing that you have no rebuttal whatsoever.

If the LP had gotten more votes than in the previous election, would you have said the same? That you don't think the vote total itself is a metric of success?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
Registered voters, duh.

[snip Suddenly laughably trying to argue that more is less]

Actually I theorized as such later in my post. I am hesitent to put words in your mouth, as you are prone in my opinion to making a huge stink about small things in order to distract from the fact that you have no response.

Like you are doing now. Jump on your victories where you can, false as they might be...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
I only have figures for NC, but here we grew 20% this past year to an all-time high, whereas Unaffiliated voters only grew 5% (although they're at an all-time high, too) and Demopublicans are at an all-time low.

How do you explain, then, that the number of votes for the LP in NC fell?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
If the LP had gotten more votes than in the previous election, would you have said the same? That you don't think the vote total itself is a metric of success?

I'm saying, you have to look at it in context. If a guy runs 100 meters and you time him, then he runs it with a 100 lb. weight on his back, and he makes the same time, has he made progress? What if he runs faster?

And if he runs slower, can you really state that progress hasn't been made?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
I'm saying, you have to look at it in context. If a guy runs 100 meters and you time him, then he runs it with a 100 lb. weight on his back, and he makes the same time, has he made progress? What if he runs faster?

And if he runs slower, can you really state that progress hasn't been made?

There's no "context" to look at. Votes, shanek. We are talking about votes here. That's what counts in an election. That's why you run: To get votes, so you can win.

You emphasized the importance of winning, when you clamored for Badnarik to be in the debates. Now, it's not important after all?

Consistency, please.

So: If the LP had gotten more votes than in the previous election, would you have said the same? That you don't think the vote total itself is a metric of success?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek
I'm saying, you have to look at it in context. If a guy runs 100 meters and you time him, then he runs it with a 100 lb. weight on his back, and he makes the same time, has he made progress? What if he runs faster?

And if he runs slower, can you really state that progress hasn't been made?

No, he hasn't made progress - as progress would be to run faster. It might be someone elses fault that he hasn't made any progress, but that doesn't change the fact that he's still as slow as ever.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
I'm saying, you have to look at it in context. If a guy runs 100 meters and you time him, then he runs it with a 100 lb. weight on his back, and he makes the same time, has he made progress? What if he runs faster?

And if he runs slower, can you really state that progress hasn't been made?

We can sure as heck say that anyone that says he did make progress is just talking through his hat, seeing that nobody could tell.

Every campaign is different for every party. The LP has been going through this since 1972 and has had really one year of promise, 1980, followed by some sort of collapse.

So in 1980, with no internet, no access to debates, and a very strong third party candidate the LP got nearly 3 times as much of the vote on a percentage basis as this year.

Advantages and disadvatages come and go. You concentrate only on positive results, and remark only on what you see as negative circumstances.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
How do you explain, then, that the number of votes for the LP in NC fell?

While I don't have statewide totals for unique Libertarian votes, I can tell you from the totals I have seen they didn't. In my home county, 3&frac12; times as many people voted Libertarian in 2004 as in 2002, and 7 times as many as in 2000. And that's if you assume full overlap in people voting Libertarian in different races.

In the statewide totals I do have, we had 20% more votes for governor than in 2000, and the percent of the total votes for Governor rose from 14.5% in 2000 to 15.1%. Our votes for Senator rose 38% from 2002, and our percentage increased from 13.7% to 14.5%.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
While I don't have statewide totals for unique Libertarian votes, I can tell you from the totals I have seen they didn't. In my home county, 3&frac12; times as many people voted Libertarian in 2004 as in 2002, and 7 times as many as in 2000. And that's if you assume full overlap in people voting Libertarian in different races.

In the statewide totals I do have, we had 20% more votes for governor than in 2000, and the percent of the total votes for Governor rose from 14.5% in 2000 to 15.1%. Our votes for Senator rose 38% from 2002, and our percentage increased from 13.7% to 14.5%.

Consistency, please. We are not talking about the election for governor or senator. We are talking about VOTES FOR BADNARIK, THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.

Did the Libertarian Presidential Candidate get more votes or fewer votes in NC?

[corplinx]

I love it when Shanek and Claus get in a "last post" war.

[jj]

Originally posted by corplinx
I love it when Shanek and Claus get in a "last post" war.

Didn't!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by corplinx
I love it when Shanek and Claus get in a "last post" war.

I am trying to get shanek to stick to the subject: The Libertarian Presidential result.

Facts, that is.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by corplinx
I love it when Shanek and Claus get in a "last post" war.

I'm impressed by their post-formatting skills. I've yet to master the mulitple quotes in a single post function.

Also how they can ask the same questions of each other for several pages and get absolutely nowhere.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh

Also how they can ask the same questions of each other for several pages and get absolutely nowhere.

If I didn't know better, I would say they were married.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by corplinx
If I didn't know better, I would say they were married.

Nah...don't be ridiculous. They get along way too well!

[corplinx]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
Nah...don't be ridiculous. They get along way too well!

I would keep replying to your posts but I don't want to pull a ShLarsen (tm) on this thread.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Consistency, please. We are not talking about the election for governor or senator. We are talking about VOTES FOR BADNARIK, THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.

You liar&mdash;you specifically said "votes for the LP"! Stop moving the goalposts.

It's obviously impossible to try and have a reasonable conversation with you.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
I ask the lurker: who is the woo-woo here?


You are. We have already established that. Maybe you missed it?

[HarryKeogh]

CFLarsen, to answer your question:

Did the Libertarian Presidential Candidate get more votes or fewer votes in NC in 2004 than in 2000?

from what I gathered:

2000: 2,910,036 votes cast
12,307 cast for Browne (L)
.00422 of the total

2004: 3,408,318 votes cast
13,224 cast for Badnarik (L)
.003879 of the total

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
CFLarsen, to answer your question:

Did the Libertarian Presidential Candidate get more votes or fewer votes in NC in 2004 than in 2000?

from what I gathered:

2000: 2,910,036 votes cast
12,307 cast for Browne (L)
.00422 of the total

2004: 3,408,318 votes cast
13,224 cast for Badnarik (L)
.003879 of the total

So they did worse. Spin away shanek.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
So they did worse. Spin away shanek.

He's a libertarian, not a democrat. A democrat would see the raw numbers and say that support increased while ignoring the smaller percentage.

Its the same baffling logic democrats use to describe how rich people getting the smallest tax cut actually get the largest one.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
You liar&mdash;you specifically said "votes for the LP"! Stop moving the goalposts.

It's obviously impossible to try and have a reasonable conversation with you.

Shanek. Please.

Where have I been discussing elections for senators and governors? This is the subforum for the Presidential election. This thread is about how Badnarik did. He ran for president.

Stop these pathetic word games, and focus on the result. Of the Presidential election!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Shanek. Please.

Where have I been discussing elections for senators and governors? This is the subforum for the Presidential election. This thread is about how Badnarik did. He ran for president.

Stop these pathetic word games, and focus on the result. Of the Presidential election!

Shanek is offline at the moment, so I will post as his proxy:

/Start Hissy fit
LIAR. YOU ARE A BIGOT AND A LIAR AND A PSEUDO SKEPTIC!! THAT IS A STRAWMAN AND YOU KNOW IT! STOP TELLING LIES. THIS IS AN AD-HOMINUM ATTACK. NOW ANSWER MY QUESTIONS.
/End hissy fit

Thank you for your time.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Shanek. Please.

"Please" yourself. You really need to start taking responsibility for your own words. When you say votes "for the LP," that means unique Libertarian votes, and as I told you I only had the numbers for Lincoln County. It takes awhile to calculate all that. It was the end of November by the time the LP calculated the number for 2000; we'll have to wait a few weeks to get the national number of unique Libertarian votes.

Stop these pathetic word games

YOU are the one playing the pathetic word games. You move the goalposts whenever it's convenient for you and try to make it out to be the other person's fault when you're called on it. You are NOT HONEST and you are NO SKEPTIC.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
"Please" yourself. You really need to start taking responsibility for your own words. When you say votes "for the LP," that means unique Libertarian votes, and as I told you I only had the numbers for Lincoln County. It takes awhile to calculate all that. It was the end of November by the time the LP calculated the number for 2000; we'll have to wait a few weeks to get the national number of unique Libertarian votes.

How can you then claim that Libertarians got more? Are you now retracting that claim?

Originally posted by shanek
YOU are the one playing the pathetic word games. You move the goalposts whenever it's convenient for you and try to make it out to be the other person's fault when you're called on it. You are NOT HONEST and you are NO SKEPTIC.

Move the goalposts? This subforum is about the Presidential election. This thread is about Badnarik, the Presidential candidate, and how many votes he got.

When the harsh facts are on the table, we see with blinding clarity that your candidate lost. He lost the election, he lost support, he lost, period.

Very unskeptical of you for trying to spin that into a victory.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
How can you then claim that Libertarians got more? Are you now retracting that claim?

Show me where I ever made such a claim to begin with.

Move the goalposts? This subforum is about the Presidential election. This thread is about Badnarik, the Presidential candidate, and how many votes he got.

You asked a question. I answered it. Stop whining.

If you had misphrased the question, then the proper response would have been, "Sorry, I misspoke. I meant votes for the Presidential candidate, not for the LP itself." Instead, you frothed off at the mouth and tried to make it out to be my fault.

By your "logic," since this subforum is about the 2004 Presidential Election, then to be "consistent" you would really be asking to compare this year's return to this year's return.

I want you to support your contention that Badnarik "lost support."

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Show me where I ever made such a claim to begin with.

Why, certainly:

Originally posted by shanek
Claus, I have told you TWICE that there are still ~10,000,000 votes to be counted, and if we assume Badnarik gets the same percentage out of those it'll be more than enough to put him ahead of our 2000 total. Cut it out.

And later, you claim that Badnarik got:

Originally posted by shanek
Yep&mdash;396,171 according to this article (http://www.thetoccoarecord.com/articles/2004/11/05/news/top_stories/01tophistoriccounty.txt).

According to uselectionatlas.org, Harry Browne got 384,516 votes in 2000.

You stand corrected.

Originally posted by shanek
You asked a question. I answered it. Stop whining.

If you had misphrased the question, then the proper response would have been, "Sorry, I misspoke. I meant votes for the Presidential candidate, not for the LP itself." Instead, you frothed off at the mouth and tried to make it out to be my fault.

Where have I mentioned anything about LP senators or governors?

Originally posted by shanek
By your "logic," since this subforum is about the 2004 Presidential Election, then to be "consistent" you would really be asking to compare this year's return to this year's return.

That's what I am asking you to do: Compare the votes from 2000 and 2004.

Originally posted by shanek
I want you to support your contention that Badnarik "lost support."

Why, certainly:

Badnarik 2004: 384,072
Browne 2000: 384,516
Source: uselectionatlas.org

And remember that there were 11 million more votes this time. That emphasizes Badnarik's failure.

See how I answers questions? See how you dodge them?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why, certainly:

And later, you claim that Badnarik got:

According to uselectionatlas.org, Harry Browne got 384,516 votes in 2000.

You stand corrected.

You liar, your claim was: "How do you explain, then, that the number of votes for the LP in NC fell?"

Then I responded with the statewide data that I had. Then you dishonestly moved the goalposts to mean that you were only talking about Badnarik. You then made the claim that I said that Libertarians (meaning, presumably, the Libertarian Presidential candidate, since you jumped all over my @$$ the last time I didn't make that assumption) got more votes. I ask you where I made that claim, and you quote me giving NATIONAL figures, NOT figures for NC.

You are a LIAR. You have NO honor, NO integrity, and NO honesty in you.

Where have I mentioned anything about LP senators or governors?

You said "for the LP." NOT "for the LP's Presidential candidate. Those are two entirely different things.

That's what I am asking you to do: Compare the votes from 2000 and 2004.

I did. Then you jumped on my @$$.

Why, certainly:

Badnarik 2004: 384,072
Browne 2000: 384,516
Source: uselectionatlas.org

You're using outdated figures and you know it, liar. I've already posted a source showing Badnarik's figures updated at 396,171. And that's still with not all of the votes counted.

See how I answers questions? See how you dodge them?

I see how you're a dishonest LIAR.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

USAtoday (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/president.htm) lists 383,940 ("Updated: 11/10/2004 6:53:58 PM ET"). The Sacramento Bee (http://data.sacbee.com/elections/results/president/) lists the same number. SFGate.com (http://www.sfgate.com/election/2004/11/02/CA/c/p_president/p_0/g_general/c/united_states.shtml) lists 400,554 ("Updated 11/10 9:46AM "). The Bee is using numbers from the Associated Press--the "official" talliers for the news media. I don't know where SFgate is getting its numbers.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
USAtoday (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/president.htm) lists 383,940 ("Updated: 11/10/2004 6:53:58 PM ET"). The Sacramento Bee (http://data.sacbee.com/elections/results/president/) lists the same number. SFGate.com (http://www.sfgate.com/election/2004/11/02/CA/c/p_president/p_0/g_general/c/united_states.shtml) lists 400,554 ("Updated 11/10 9:46AM "). The Bee is using numbers from the Associated Press--the "official" talliers for the news media. I don't know where SFgate is getting its numbers.

So loony boy actually did worse than we gave him credit for!!! Somehow shanek will spin this as further "growth".

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
You liar, your claim was: "How do you explain, then, that the number of votes for the LP in NC fell?"

Then I responded with the statewide data that I had. Then you dishonestly moved the goalposts to mean that you were only talking about Badnarik. You then made the claim that I said that Libertarians (meaning, presumably, the Libertarian Presidential candidate, since you jumped all over my @$$ the last time I didn't make that assumption) got more votes. I ask you where I made that claim, and you quote me giving NATIONAL figures, NOT figures for NC.

You are a LIAR. You have NO honor, NO integrity, and NO honesty in you.

Spin away.

Originally posted by shanek
You said "for the LP." NOT "for the LP's Presidential candidate. Those are two entirely different things.

Spin away.

Originally posted by shanek
I did. Then you jumped on my @$$.

Spin away.

Originally posted by shanek
You're using outdated figures and you know it, liar. I've already posted a source showing Badnarik's figures updated at 396,171. And that's still with not all of the votes counted.

Why should we trust your source, and not the AP one? Because it has the highest number? You do realize that "The Toccoa Record" does not even bother to mention its sources?

Originally posted by shanek
I see how you're a dishonest LIAR.

Spin away.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Spin away.

You said "in NC," liar. That's NOT spin. That's what YOU said. You said "for the LP," liar. That's NOT spin. That's what YOU said.

[CFLarsen]

Again, you "omit" the pertinent question:

Why should we trust your source, and not the AP one? Because it has the highest number? You do realize that "The Toccoa Record" does not even bother to mention its sources?

Answer the friggin' questions, shanek, instead of spinning a victory that is not real.

[shanek]

I guess you missed the bit of text saying, "99% of precincts reporting," didn't you?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
I guess you missed the bit of text saying, "99% of precincts reporting," didn't you?

So, AP is wrong?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
I guess you missed the bit of text saying, "99% of precincts reporting," didn't you?

I guess you missed the bit of text saying, "Why should we trust your source, and not the AP one? Because it has the highest number? You do realize that "The Toccoa Record" does not even bother to mention its sources?"

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
I guess you missed the bit of text saying, "Why should we trust your source, and not the AP one? Because it has the highest number? You do realize that "The Toccoa Record" does not even bother to mention its sources?"

Why should shanek not "miss" it?

Why should shanek suddenly change strategy?

[CFLarsen]

Did we reach a conclusion here?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Did we reach a conclusion here?

Yes. ZERO % of the popular vote.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

The final official tally:

FEC 2004 Election Results (http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2004/2004presgenresults.pdf) (pdf file)

Badnarik got 397,234 votes, or .32% of the popular vote.

The results on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_%28United_States%29) are incorrect. Among Libertarian presidential candidates, Badnarik places 4th (5th if you go by percentage).
1980: Ed Clark 921,299 (1.1%)
1996: Harry Browne 485,798 (0.50%)
1988: Ron Paul 432,179 (0.47%)
2004: Michael Badnarik 397,234 (0.32%)
2000: Harry Browne 384,431 (0.36%)
1992: Andre Marrou 291,627 (0.28%)
1984: David Bergland 228,705 (0.25%)
1976: Roger MacBride 173,011 (0.21%)
1972: John Hospers 2,691 (0.003%)

[Ed]

and why is that, I wonder.

I personally think that while libertarianism sounds good, when you get deeper into the "hows" you hear things that are based on a belief system, whether in how humans will behave in certain circumstances or how a market based system will behave. I often, to me, does not ring true.

That said, my disgust with the republicans is so deep and abideing that I will shortly change my affiliation to libertairian. We gotta get some level headed guys like me in there.:D

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
Badnarik got 397,234 votes, or .32% of the popular vote. Here's are the last 3 elections in chronological order...

1996: Harry Browne 485,798 (0.50%)
2000: Harry Browne 384,431 (0.36%)
2004: Michael Badnarik 397,234 (0.32%)
Prior sub-debates about rounding notwithstanding, this is trending precipitously in the direction of an unrounded zero.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by varwoche
Here's are the last 3 elections in chronological order...

1996: Harry Browne 485,798 (0.50%)
2000: Harry Browne 384,431 (0.36%)
2004: Michael Badnarik 397,234 (0.32%)
Prior sub-debates about rounding notwithstanding, this is trending precipitously in the direction of an unrounded zero.

You must be a freedom hating pseudo-skeptic. Our enthusiastic Libertarian Party members have made it quite clear that the LP is doing better and better with each passing election.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Ed
and why is that, I wonder.

I personally think that while libertarianism sounds good, when you get deeper into the "hows" you hear things that are based on a belief system, whether in how humans will behave in certain circumstances or how a market based system will behave. I often, to me, does not ring true.

That said, my disgust with the republicans is so deep and abideing that I will shortly change my affiliation to libertairian. We gotta get some level headed guys like me in there.:D

Apparently that's what Ron Paul thought, and look how long he lasted with the LP.

[username]

Originally posted by Larspeart

I hope that Nolan, or someone better, runs next time. MB pissed me off all year, and wrecked our rep as legitimate up-n-comers.

Yup, I thought he was a nutjob. That he got the nomination was enough to convince me I wasn't really a libertarian and so my membership card expired.

Heck, I don't need to vote for a libertarian, just give me somebody honest who isn't in politics for personal gain and they can have my vote. anyone?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
You must be a freedom hating pseudo-skeptic. Our enthusiastic Libertarian Party members have made it quite clear that the LP is doing better and better with each passing election.

It's called "growth" in Libertopia.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
You must be a freedom hating pseudo-skeptic.
I have a confession to make:

I'm Badnarik!

[varwoche]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
You must be a freedom hating pseudo-skeptic. Our enthusiastic Libertarian Party members have made it quite clear that the LP is doing better and better with each passing election. Since it's not common to discuss such small numbers as pertaining to election results, it's easy to miss the forest for the trees (or the lawn for the blades of grass, as it were)...

The decline from .36% in 2000 to .32% in 2004 represents a 10% decline in popularity. (Rounded. ;) )

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by varwoche
Since it's not common to discuss such small numbers as pertaining to election results, it's easy to miss the forest for the trees (or the lawn for the blades of grass, as it were)...

The decline from .36% in 2000 to .32% in 2004 represents a 10% decline in popularity. (Rounded. ;) )

[Libertarian thinking cap ON]
THAT'S GROWTH, YOU FREEDOM-HATING BIGOT!!!
[Libertarian thinking cap OFF]