Let's say Barack became ineligible because he's not a U.S. citizen, and John McCain dies of cancer and Sarah Palin gets killed by a Moose.
Who would you vote for?
Printable View
Let's say Barack became ineligible because he's not a U.S. citizen, and John McCain dies of cancer and Sarah Palin gets killed by a Moose.
Who would you vote for?
Bob Barr in a second.
Obama was born in Hawaii...
Barr.
Why isn't Nader up there?
He's not running, unless independently as a write in. I excluded write in candidates because there's already more than 10 3rd party candidates on the ticket.
If Obama is on the ticket and McCain does live up until voting day, I still want Bob Barr...
Bob Barr really isn't a great candidate.
He's no Ron Paul, that's for sure.
But you can actually trust that he will do all that he can to de-regulate and give the states soveriegnty.
I really don't believe he will.
This guy make a lot of points that I already agreed with before I read the article...
There is more, but that's the bulk of his "offenses".Quote:
Barr argues for intervention in both Iran and South America. He affirms the US as a "stakeholder" in Iranian political decisions, and supports sanctions. Regarding South America, he says that troops should be sent from Iraq to South America in order to stop the flow of illegal drugs. This demand makes sense on only two assumptions: that the war on drugs is right, and that the United States owns the world. He arrogantly refers to current American policy in the region as "benign neglect," under which the citizens allegedly "chafe." It is hard to know where to begin criticizing this claim – with the fact that benign neglect is a term applied to British imperial policy toward its colonies, that the colonies liked benign neglect and rebelled because it ended, or with the observation that, in fact, we already intervene plenty.
Barr calls for the use of foreign aid – money stolen from Americans – to achieve better drug enforcement – forcing Americans to pay in order to be foiled as consumers. He has praised Bush for the surge, which "is working," supported the use of military tribunals, and argued for reauthorization of the Patriot Act – an act for which he voted. He used his article to express his regret when crazed neocon John Bolton stepped down as US Ambassador to the UN, praising him for pushing for American security. No mention is made of the security of those nations which Bolton advocates invading.
Much is made about Barr’s libertarian voting record in the US Congress. Yet the man who claims to be for privacy, who runs the Privacy Watch List, voted for what was, at its time, the most egregious violation of privacy on the books. Even if he now says he regrets this vote, what does it say for his judgment, for the positions he will take in the future? Besides, to what extent can he truly regret voting for the Act, if as recently as 2005 he was advocating for its reauthorization? The Patriot Act was not a difficult decision, and he made the wrong call on it. As President, he will face more subtle and difficult decisions. He has given us little reason to trust him.
Ron Paul argued for the elimination of the income tax, to be replaced with nothing. Barr argues for the elimination of the income tax – to be replaced with a revenue-neutral national sales tax. Just a few years ago, the Republicans ran a candidate who promised "no new taxes." Are the Libertarians now to run one who promises to push for a new tax?
Barr is said to have the greatest name recognition, estimated at 36%, and is polling at 7%. Members of the House of Representatives do not earn 36% name recognition outside of their districts unless they are associated with a particular issue or event. Barr has both – he is known nation-wide as one of the strongest advocates of the war on drugs, and is associated with the Clinton impeachment. Will running a famous drug warrior build understanding of the libertarian message? It is true that Barr has repented this position. It is also true that he now advocates for medical marijuana – hardly a radical libertarian position. Consider his appearance on Fox news on April 10, 2008, in which he clarified that he would not support an outright legalization of all drug use. Do we wish to tell the world that this is the face of liberty?
im a libertarian and i hate bob barr.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elis D.
You bring up a good point about Barr's foriegn policy.
But all the candidates foriegn policies are meh, so I'm looking at domestic policy...
Who did this, who voted for the facist guy?!!!
Biden?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
Brian Moore, even though he's really more of a social democrat.
Edit: Why is he italicized?
I italicized all of the people I assumed you would vote for.
Ah, gotchya.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
At this point, Bob Barr. In fact, Obama threat aside, I would vote for Ron Paul (if he were running) now that I think the Middle East wars are about ready to be wrapped up.... if I didn't think national security needs demand that we have a president who doesn't talk like a whiney little girl.
I'd have thought you'd vote for Jackson Kurk Grimes.
Who wouldn't want to have a leader named President Grimes?
Definitely Chuck Baldwin. Compared to the rest of them, he is the only one i actually somewhat like. (I am the only vote for him btw)
Go constitutionalists!
Baldwin; notwithstanding my hatred of religion.