The official third party candidate thread

thrustbucket

CAGiversary!
Feedback
7 (100%)
I think it's time we have a thread for discussion on candidates that are not Obama or McCain.

I'd prefer this thread not devolve into a "you're wasting your vote then" thread. But if you have valid points about that, fine.

I especially need this. I sure as hell am not voting for McCain or Obama. So those of you that are voting for someone else, please post who and why.

I would also love to create a list in the OP of third party candidates, perhaps with links to their websites.

So far, I am considering just writing in Ron Paul's name. But that especially feels wasteful since he isn't even officially running. Who else is there?
--------------------------------
Below is a starting list of third party candidates (special thanks to Mykevermin, level1online, and BigT)

Cynthia Mckinney (Green Party)
Bob Barr (Libertarian)
Brian Moore (Socialist)
Ralph Nader (Independent)
Alan Keyes (American Independent)
Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party)
David Jon Sponheim (Americas Third Party)
Gene Amondson (Prohibition Party)
Gloria La Riva (Party for Socialism and Liberation)
--------------------------------------
Found a great site that lists all candidates there are to vote for:
http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My brother wrote me in last time and I encourage you to do so as well. It's spelled Speed Rodriguez Racer.

I don't think it's fair to say that someone is wasting their vote, but seems to me that the talent outside the main pool just isn't anywhere near presidential grade. If looking outside the dichotomy, I would think that a reasonable expectation is that there should be a better candidate than is what's being offered inside the duopoly. That may be the case some years, but I just don't find Nader, Barr, or what's-her-name-crazy-person viable in any regards relative to McCain and/or Obama.

Just my .02. Quite interested in what others think.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']

So far, I am considering just writing in Ron Paul's name[/QUOTE]

That's what I'm planning on doing at this point as well.
 
[quote name='speedracer']
I don't think it's fair to say that someone is wasting their vote, but seems to me that the talent outside the main pool just isn't anywhere near presidential grade. If looking outside the dichotomy, I would think that a reasonable expectation is that there should be a better candidate than is what's being offered inside the duopoly. That may be the case some years, but I just don't find Nader, Barr, or what's-her-name-crazy-person viable in any regards relative to McCain and/or Obama.

Just my .02. Quite interested in what others think.[/QUOTE]

I guess that all leads to another discussion about just what "qualifications" are for a President.

When it comes to a Republican or Democratic presidency, I don't think a lot of qualifications are necessary, to be honest. Just strength of character and charisma. This is because each of those party's will provide dozens of advisors and consultation from every corner of necessary experience. This is also part of why I hate each party so much. Because you really are not voting for the candidate, you are voting for the party.

Or, maybe what you are referring to as "viable" is simply someone that won't rock the boat too much. If that's the case, then it makes sense why you would think no third party candidate is viable, since many of them would.

I happen to think that rocking the boat too much is exactly what we need, though.
 
It's tough. I can't really discern any major thread that runs through what I would consider stellar presidencies. I mean shit, I don't think I would have voted for Lincoln* or Roosevelt. And the "good" guys often have god awful presidencies, like Carter, Bush I, and Johnson**. When it's really distilled down, I look for someone that is a capable leader. That was always my beef with Kucinich. Decent enough fellow, love his politics, but that guy couldn't lead a high school band.

And I get kind of salty when someone uses a third party to further their own agenda, thereby leaving the party worse then when they got it. Nader and Barr (soon enough) are majorly guilty of that.

I too think a solid boat rock is what we need. I just happen to believe that it's available inside the duopoly this time around. I hope I'm not wrong.

If I'm pulling this thread in the wrong direction, let me know and I'll delete these posts. I just realized I'm probably not going where you were hoping to with this thread.

*Dear reader, I don't care what you think about him. I happen to like him.
**Not exactly the optimal way to be president, but you get my meaning.
 
Alan Keyes and A.I.P FTW...

How can you say no to that smile?


http://g.imageshack.us/img233/alankeyesou9.jpg/1/
my.php
 
[quote name='speedracer']It's tough. I can't really discern any major thread that runs through what I would consider stellar presidencies. I mean shit, I don't think I would have voted for Lincoln* or Roosevelt. And the "good" guys often have god awful presidencies, like Carter, Bush I, and Johnson**. When it's really distilled down, I look for someone that is a capable leader. That was always my beef with Kucinich. Decent enough fellow, love his politics, but that guy couldn't lead a high school band.

And I get kind of salty when someone uses a third party to further their own agenda, thereby leaving the party worse then when they got it. Nader and Barr (soon enough) are majorly guilty of that.

I too think a solid boat rock is what we need. I just happen to believe that it's available inside the duopoly this time around. I hope I'm not wrong.

If I'm pulling this thread in the wrong direction, let me know and I'll delete these posts. I just realized I'm probably not going where you were hoping to with this thread.

*Dear reader, I don't care what you think about him. I happen to like him.
**Not exactly the optimal way to be president, but you get my meaning.[/quote] I agree on Kucinich. I really dont think he could lead a horse to water, but i think he is a smart guy just not a leader. Nader just seems like he likes the spot light. I really haven't seen his views on anything important. If im wrong thats fine its just my opinion of the man.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']So far, I am considering just writing in Ron Paul's name. But that especially feels wasteful since he isn't even officially running. Who else is there?[/QUOTE]


I've considered this myself, but mostly to make a statement more than anything.

I don't consider myself republican or democratic but vote for whoever I feel can best represent me. 90% of the time that has been republican, but I have voted democratic several times because I was either angry at a current incumbent or felt the democratic candidate would better represent me.

I never was a big fan of McCain and nothing he has done either in past or now really convinces me otherwise. I have several objections about Obama as well, so I can not justify giving him a vote either.

As far as anyone else is concerned, they don't really stand a chance against the mainstream candidates, but I will feel much more justified in my vote by voting for the person who I feel would best represent me, is that not how it is really supposed to work?
 
[quote name='BigT']Alan Keyes and A.I.P FTW...

How can you say no to that smile?


http://g.imageshack.us/img233/alankeyesou9.jpg/1/
my.php
[/QUOTE]

Pretty bloody easily. REALLY bloody easily, in fact. The man's a fascist.

[godwin]Do you know else used to smile? HITLER.[/godwin]

Kidding. Except when I'm not.

I voted yesterday, actually (and made a few votes that would stun some o' you motherfuckers, no joke). Ohio's ballot has about seven possible choices for President total, so your typical two plus:

Bob Barr/Wayne Allan Root (Libertarian)
Richard Duncan/Ricky Johnson (no party listed?)
Cynthia McKinney/Rosa Clemente (Green)
Brian Moore/Stewart Alexander (Socialist)
Ralph Nader/Matt Gonzalez (no party listed)
 
To expand on speedracer's thought earlier in the thread: Sometimes it's better to have an asshole President because he won't care if the President of some small country gets offended. He's not trying to make friends and line up future book deals, he's about getting shit done.

Back on topic, getting a third party in power won't work unless it's a centrist party. A good Socialist or Green party just pulls Democratic votes and allows the Republican Party to rule forever. The same applies for a conservative third party.
 
If the third party candidates were on a major ticket they'd have even less authentic* support.

Our two candidates are actually pretty damn good. Seriously. Of course no one's perfect after two years under the spotlight and hundreds of millions spent on defamation... but this year both major parties have really good nominees.


*excludes party voters
 
I'm voting straight ticket Libertarian. Sure they're not gonna win...but it's the only way I can protest both HUGE government parties and their monstrous spending programs.

Voting Libertarian gives you a little sense of pride...kinda like a mouse giving the finger to a pouncing cat.
;)
 
[quote name='speedracer']what's-her-name-crazy-person[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Sc4rfac3']Well you have Cynthia Mckinney http://votetruth08.com/[/QUOTE]
That was her.
[quote name='Capitalizt']Voting Libertarian gives you a little sense of pride...kinda like a mouse giving the finger to a pouncing cat.
;)[/QUOTE]
128692692231306962.jpg
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Pretty bloody easily. REALLY bloody easily, in fact. The man's a fascist.[/quote]
What's wrong with being a fascist?

[godwin]Do you know else used to smile? HITLER.[/godwin]

Kidding. Except when I'm not.

I voted yesterday, actually (and made a few votes that would stun some o' you motherfuckers, no joke). Ohio's ballot has about seven possible choices for President total, so your typical two plus:

Bob Barr/Wayne Allan Root (Libertarian)
Richard Duncan/Ricky Johnson (no party listed?)
Cynthia McKinney/Rosa Clemente (Green)
Brian Moore/Stewart Alexander (Socialist)
Ralph Nader/Matt Gonzalez (no party listed)

Hmm... you guys didn't have Alan Keyes/Wiley S. Drake Sr. on the ballot, so I guess you realistically couldn't have been expected to vote for himm ;).

Here in Schwarzenegger Land, we had:
Bob Barr/Wayne Allan Root (Libertarian)
Cynthia McKinney/Rosa Clemente (Green)
Ralph Nader/Matt Gonzalez (no party listed)
Alan Keyes/Wiley S. Drake, Sr. (American Independent)

I also made sure to vote against all of our asinine propositions that called for more spending for stuff like "Children's hospitals," "Drug offender rehabilitation programs," "Renewable energy generation," "Transportation improvements," "and "Alternative fuels." -all that stuff sounds good, but all that happens is that either our moron governor and the rest of the idiots in Sacramento, just find a way to pocket the cash...
 
Nader was a nutbag when I saw him on Real Time with Bill Maher.

I'd prefer to vote Libertarian, but they don't even make an effort.

Third parties MUST start locally and gain power through the grassroots (city councils, state legislature, Congress) to be viable.
 
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20081010.html

A Wasted Vote
by Chuck Baldwin
October 10, 2008

When asked why they will not vote for a third party candidate, many people will respond by saying something like, "He cannot win." Or, "I don't want to waste my vote." It is true: America has not elected a third party candidate since 1860. Does that automatically mean, however, that every vote cast for one of the two major party candidates is not a wasted vote? I don't think so.

In the first place, a wasted vote is a vote for someone you know does not represent your own beliefs and principles. A wasted vote is a vote for someone you know will not lead the country in the way it should go. A wasted vote is a vote for the "lesser of two evils." Or, in the case of John McCain and Barack Obama, what we have is a choice between the "evil of two lessers."

Albert Einstein is credited with saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. For years now, Republicans and Democrats have been leading the country in the same basic direction: toward bigger and bigger government; more and more socialism, globalism, corporatism, and foreign interventionism; and the dismantling of constitutional liberties. Yet, voters continue to think that they are voting for "change" when they vote for a Republican or Democrat. This is truly insane!

Take a look at the recent $700 billion Wall Street bailout: both John McCain and Barack Obama endorsed and lobbied for it. Both McCain and Obama will continue to bail out these international banksters on the backs of the American taxpayers. Both McCain and Obama support giving illegal aliens amnesty and a path to citizenship. In the debate this past Tuesday night, both McCain and Obama expressed support for sending U.S. forces around the world for "peacekeeping" purposes. They also expressed support for sending combat forces against foreign countries even if those countries do not pose a threat to the United States. Neither Obama nor McCain will do anything to stem the tide of a burgeoning police state or a mushrooming New World Order. Both Obama and McCain support NAFTA and similar "free trade" deals. Neither candidate will do anything to rid America of the Federal Reserve, or work to eliminate the personal income tax, or disband the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Both Obama and McCain support the United Nations. So, pray tell, how is a vote for either McCain or Obama not a wasted vote?

But, back to the "he cannot win" argument: to vote for John McCain is to vote for a man who cannot win. Yes, I am saying it here and now: John McCain cannot win this election. The handwriting is on the wall. The Fat Lady is singing. It is all over. Finished. John McCain cannot win.

With only three weeks before the election, Barack Obama is pulling away. McCain has already pulled his campaign out of Michigan. In other key battleground states, McCain is slipping fast. He was ahead in Missouri; now it is a toss-up or leaning to Obama. A couple of weeks ago, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida were all leaning towards McCain, or at least toss-up states. Now, they are all leaning to Obama. Even the longtime GOP bellwether state of Indiana is moving toward Obama. In addition, new voter registrations are at an all-time high, and few of them are registering as Republicans. In fact, the Republican Party now claims only around 25% of the electorate, and Independents are increasingly leaning toward Obama.

Ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama is headed for an electoral landslide victory over John McCain. John McCain can no more beat Barack Obama than Bob Dole could beat Bill Clinton.

I ask, therefore, Are not conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain guilty of the same thing that they accuse people who vote for third party candidates of doing? Are they not voting for someone who cannot win? Indeed, they are. In fact, conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain are not only voting for a man who cannot win, they are voting for a man who does not share their own beliefs and principles. If this is not insanity, nothing is!

So, why not (for once in your life, perhaps) cast a vote purely for principle! Vote for someone who is truly pro-life. Someone who would quickly secure our nation's borders, and end the invasion of our country by illegal aliens. Someone who would, on his first day in office, release Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean and fire U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton. Someone who would immediately, upon assuming office, begin leading the charge to dismantle the Federal Reserve, overturn the 16th Amendment, expunge the IRS, and return America to sound money principles. Someone who would get the US out of the UN. Someone who would stop spending billions and trillions of dollars for foreign aid. Someone who would prosecute the Wall Street bankers who defrauded the American people out of billions of dollars. Someone who would work to repeal NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, the WTO, and stop the NAFTA superhighway. Someone who would say a resounding "No" to the New World Order. Someone who would stop using our brave men and women in uniform as global cops for the United Nations. Someone who would stop America's global adventurism and interventionism. Someone who would steadfastly support and defend the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

"Who is this person?" you ask. Go here to find out:

http://www.baldwin08.com/

As John Quincy Adams said, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

*Disclaimer: I am currently a candidate for President of the United States on the Constitution Party ticket. My official campaign web site is located at:
http://www.baldwin08.com/ © Chuck Baldwin
 
It's hard to call the president a figure head, especially after how Bush/Cheney expanded the power of the executive branch.
 
I thought you were educated, FoC? To say such a thing... I was surprised but not shocked when Thrust said it, but from you it's shocking. What the hell are you guys smoking these days?

The president is, by a very large margin, the single most powerful person in American government, period. I really have no idea where you're coming from to claim otherwise...
 
Personally I like Ralph Nader out of all of the third party candidates since he seems to not want to throw me out of this country (Born in the U.S but parents were illegal) and I really do not want to go to Mexico. Some how deportation to a country I have never been to sounds really unpleasant. As for Brian Moore, it's fun to live in fantasy land. The rest want to get rid of me and Baldwin is a racist Christian.

The President is not the most powerful person in the country, his staff is.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']So far, I am considering just writing in Ron Paul's name. But that especially feels wasteful since he isn't even officially running. Who else is there?[/quote]

That is most likely who I am writing in as well. Just reading about him, he seems more centrist than everyone else.

[quote name='BlueLobstah']I've considered this myself, but mostly to make a statement more than anything.

I don't consider myself republican or democratic but vote for whoever I feel can best represent me.

As far as anyone else is concerned, they don't really stand a chance against the mainstream candidates, but I will feel much more justified in my vote by voting for the person who I feel would best represent me, is that not how it is really supposed to work?[/quote]

I agree with that.

[quote name='Capitalizt']I'm voting straight ticket Libertarian. Sure they're not gonna win...but it's the only way I can protest both HUGE government parties and their monstrous spending programs.[/quote]

I agree with that as well. The spending is absurd.
 
[quote name='Koggit']I thought you were educated, FoC? To say such a thing... I was surprised but not shocked when Thrust said it, but from you it's shocking. What the hell are you guys smoking these days?

The president is, by a very large margin, the single most powerful person in American government, period. I really have no idea where you're coming from to claim otherwise...[/quote]

Bush got where he did by exploiting 9/11, Democrats, "the opposition", not standing up to him and having a majority in Congress for most of the first six years. Pelosi could have every troop and contractor home from Iraq, Afghanistan, Qatar, South Korea, Germany, Guam or Gitmo any time she wanted. She chose to let the war go on to score more points in this election. It's working.

Clinton had a great time implementing "the largest tax increase in history" and pushing health care reform. And after 1994? He survived an impeachment. That's it.

How did Bush the First do? Let's see ... he continued the Reagan years by raising taxes, promising to not nuke an ailing USSR and losing to a sex crazed hillbilly.

Reagan? He got us out of a recession by expanding the military with the help of a Republican Senate and deficit spending. His last four years were spent going senile, presiding over the largest one day percentage drop in the stock market in living history, learning to stop playing chicken with the USSR and raising taxes through simplification.

Carter? With the help of both Houses of Congress, he fucked things up so bad that he made Reagan look great to us in the same way Bush the Current will make Obama look great to the next generation.

Ford? He pardoned Nixon and lost to a hick peanut farmer.

Nixon? He lost Vietnam so the Republicans could stem the loss of seats and had to resort to burglary to survive to a partial second term. I think he flew to China, too.

Want to go further back?

A president from a third party facing a Congress composed of rabid opponents would be powerless. The Congress would serve him (or her :lol:) heaping piles of crap legislation that would oppose the third party's agenda.

The president is a big dog that barks all day long. The Congress is either a broken plastic leash or 5 ton electrified titanium chain wrapped around the dog's neck, leg and body.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']The President is not the most powerful person in the country, his staff is.[/QUOTE]

Wait, so his staff is a person?

The president is by far the most powerful person in the country. That's it -- it's a factual statement.

Edit: Damn you FoC! I'll reply this evening... late for school
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK'] he seems more centrist than everyone else. [/quote]

:shock:

You have got to be fucking kidding me.
 
[quote name='evanft']:shock:

You have got to be fucking kidding me.[/quote]

From what I have read so far? No I'm not.

My vote isn't set in stone, but I will not vote Obama or McCain. Ideally I would like to vote for someone is neither D or R though.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Wait, so his staff is a person?

The president is by far the most powerful person in the country. That's it -- it's a factual statement.
[/QUOTE]
Depends heavily on how you define "most powerful" I guess.

I suppose the president does have the ability to knee-jerk more emergency policies than anyone else. I suppose he can veto anything congress does, which makes him more powerful than any single member of congress.

However, the reason I say he has no real power has more to do with the fact that I firmly believe it is impossible for a president to "go off the ranch" so-to-speak. I firmly believe it's impossible for a president to do very many things not in the grand plan of the people that put him in power.

It's like this: If all the most powerful and rich people in the world made you king of earth, as long as you did what they say - sure you would be the most powerful guy on earth, but you aren't going to do anything unplanned or against those that put you in power. If you tried, you'd be removed rather quickly. So where is the real power located?

This is also why someone like Ron Paul would never be president. But I feel it's time we start sending messages by trying.

[quote name='evanft']:shock:

You have got to be fucking kidding me.[/QUOTE]
I am curious to what guilewas has to say about why he sees Ron Paul as centrist. Although, the term 'centrist' might be relative.

What he might mean is simply that Ron Paul seems to adhere closest to the constitution and intent of the foundation of this country, which I agree with, and I guess you could say makes him 'centrist' and the R and D's extreme.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Depends heavily on how you define "most powerful" I guess.

I suppose the president does have the ability to knee-jerk more emergency policies than anyone else. I suppose he can veto anything congress does, which makes him more powerful than any single member of congress.

However, the reason I say he has no real power has more to do with the fact that I firmly believe it is impossible for a president to "go off the ranch" so-to-speak. I firmly believe it's impossible for a president to do very many things not in the grand plan of the people that put him in power.

It's like this: If all the most powerful and rich people in the world made you king of earth, as long as you did what they say - sure you would be the most powerful guy on earth, but you aren't going to do anything unplanned or against those that put you in power. If you tried, you'd be removed rather quickly. So where is the real power located?

This is also why someone like Ron Paul would never be president. But I feel it's time we start sending messages by trying.


I am curious to what guilewas has to say about why he sees Ron Paul as centrist. Although, the term 'centrist' might be relative.

What he might mean is simply that Ron Paul seems to adhere closest to the constitution and intent of the foundation of this country, which I agree with, and I guess you could say makes him 'centrist' and the R and D's extreme.[/quote]


This.
 
OP is updated with a list of third party candidates and links to their websites.

I found that there are zillions of them though, so I tried to stick with those that are more prominent.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Bush got where he did by exploiting 9/11, Democrats, "the opposition", not standing up to him and having a majority in Congress for most of the first six years. Pelosi could have every troop and contractor home from Iraq, Afghanistan, Qatar, South Korea, Germany, Guam or Gitmo any time she wanted. She chose to let the war go on to score more points in this election. It's working.

Clinton had a great time implementing "the largest tax increase in history" and pushing health care reform. And after 1994? He survived an impeachment. That's it.

How did Bush the First do? Let's see ... he continued the Reagan years by raising taxes, promising to not nuke an ailing USSR and losing to a sex crazed hillbilly.

Reagan? He got us out of a recession by expanding the military with the help of a Republican Senate and deficit spending. His last four years were spent going senile, presiding over the largest one day percentage drop in the stock market in living history, learning to stop playing chicken with the USSR and raising taxes through simplification.

Carter? With the help of both Houses of Congress, he fucked things up so bad that he made Reagan look great to us in the same way Bush the Current will make Obama look great to the next generation.

Ford? He pardoned Nixon and lost to a hick peanut farmer.

Nixon? He lost Vietnam so the Republicans could stem the loss of seats and had to resort to burglary to survive to a partial second term. I think he flew to China, too.

Want to go further back?

A president from a third party facing a Congress composed of rabid opponents would be powerless. The Congress would serve him (or her :lol:) heaping piles of crap legislation that would oppose the third party's agenda.

The president is a big dog that barks all day long. The Congress is either a broken plastic leash or 5 ton electrified titanium chain wrapped around the dog's neck, leg and body.[/QUOTE]

Nothing in your post supports your original point, which was that our president is just a figurehead.

A better analogy to your dog/chain would be that the pres is the CEO & majority share holder while congress is the board of directors (and SCOTUS is the police department).

Your argument is, at best, "no single person in government is powerful"...
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I wonder how the socialists feel about people calling Obama a socialist.[/QUOTE]

Click on his link. There is lots of lamenting about that.
 
A few months back Glenn Beck was inviting all these third party candidates on to his radio show to "convince him" to vote for them (since he can't stand McCain). He eventually had Gene from the Prohibition party on, he was the most entertaining.

Amazing that someone thinks they can run on really only one issue. Besides, I'm not sure I could vote for anyone who's eyes can't be seen, it's too creepy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6LKDIQDvFY
 
bread's done
Back
Top