From The Libertarian Vindicator
June 15, 2016
In a historic move the cable news network CNN will be hosting a town hall for the Libertarian Party ticket of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld on June 22nd.
From the Politico:
CNN will host a primetime town hall with Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson and vice presidential candidate William Weld, the cable news channel announced Wednesday.
CNN anchor Chris Cuomo will moderate the town hall, which will air Wednesday, June 22 at 9 p.m. It will be held at CNN’s headquarters in New York’s Time Warner Center, with Johnson and Weld being asked questions by voters.
CNN has held 10 town halls so far this election cycle, with most of the Republican and Democratic candidates. Libertarian candidates have generally not had the same media exposure that their Republican and Democratic counterparts have. Fox Business Network held a two part Libertarian party debate back in April, but primetime on CNN is a more high-profile venue for the party.
The article can be found here
My source was from screen shots I had taken of surveys a while back. They were only for personal quick references, so I didn’t include the source. But here’s something showing Democrats crossing the 50% mark first around 2008, then Independents in 2010, and Republicans going from 30% in 2012 to 45% in 2014. It shows overall support crossing 50% between 2011 and 2013.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/06/same-sex-marriage-_n_6815488.html
And here’s one that shows the difference in generational views, although it still puts the Baby Boomers at only 46% (the Silent Generation is at 38%). It also has a breakdown by political party, and has similar results to the other one for Democrats and Independents, but unlike the other one, it has the Republicans at 33% instead of 45%. It shows the same, recent jump, though. According to this one, Republicans went from 17% – 22% support from 2001 – 2009 to 29% – 33% support from 2013 – 2016.
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
Apropos of the earlier discussion, here’s an example of how the Constitution “protects” us:
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2016/05/take-fifth-and-face-life-imprisonment.html
jim, interesting. Source?
Support for same sex marriage crossed the 50% threshold in 2012/2013, mostly due to a sudden shift in attitude towards it among Republicans following the 2012 election. Democrats crossed the 50% mark in 2008 and Independents in 2010. By the time of the Supreme Court decision in 2015, the only age group still against it was the Silent Generation (those older than the Baby Boomers.)
ac: Name one reason why he would get it when Stein isn’t.
me: L’s media bias probably explains some of the reason. Another is that Johnson/Weld are actually qualified for the jobs, and Stein is not. Johnson/Weld can’t be ignored as wacko third party wanna be’s.
L: So, what changed? Not the Constitution.
me: No, the words in the Constitution haven’t changed. The language and commonly accepted concepts DO change. Common and case law changes as well. The reasonable man’s attitude changes. Judicial restraint tends to exclude radical change to the status quo.
But you know all this.
Name one reason why he would get it when Stein isn’t.
Because the media (correctly) believes Stein will take more votes from Clinton than from Trump, while they (incorrectly) believe Johnson will take more votes from Trump than from Clinton. It’s really quite obvious.
“Oh, baloney.”
Name one reason why he would get it when Stein isn’t.
Yes, Trump v. Clinton created a bigger-than-usual opportunity. That doesn’t mean the Libertarian Party was guaranteed to successfully take any advantage of it. It certainly doesn’t mean that whoever you want to posit instead would automatically be getting the degree of coverage and support in the polls that Johnson/Weld are.
I don’t care to re-argue the nomination however, that’s done and over. I’m just objecting to the habitual denial of any credit to the actual candidates; the idea that our choice of nominees has nothing to do with getting this sort of opportunity for the Libertarian Party.
And that goes for Hillary Clinton, too.
L, yes, I can buy your and MC’s below 50% but significant-minority standard.
“Say what you will about Austin Petersen….”
I’ll say this: there is no way in hell he would getting this sort of opportunity, so how well he would or wouldn’t perform in it is irrelevant. ”
Oh, baloney. The Libertarian outcome is primarily being determined by the heroic achievements of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
The correct answer on spoiling the Republican’s chances is “Yes, Donald Trump should stop stealing our votes.”
Many of the watershed cases, the Supremes were ahead of public opinion. Brown v Board, Roe v. Wade, marriage equality.
I tend to agree with Matt. You have to change minds before you can change policies. Also, it’s not always necessary to have 50%+ of the public on your side. You just have to have enough of them to make your opinion seem reasonable.
For example, I’m old enough to remember when gay marriage, and homosexuality in general, was viewed much more unfavorably by the general public than it is now. Even today, if you had done a national referendum on whether to legalize gay marriage, it might have lost, but it would have been close — say, maybe 55-45 against. But back in the ’80s, or probably even the ’90s, it would’ve been a landslide — probably something like 80-20 against. If the Court had issued a ruling like Obergefell back then, there would have been a tremendous public backlash. In fact, I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say there would’ve been rioting in the streets. So, what changed? Not the Constitution.
He could control a conversation and debate policy, though. Johnson just sits there and stammers.
“Say what you will about Austin Petersen….”
I’ll say this: there is no way in hell he would getting this sort of opportunity, so how well he would or wouldn’t perform in it is irrelevant.
I’ll also say this: the only impression he would give to a broader audience, is how Samantha Bee described him: “a 35-year-old sentient smirk.”
In case it isn’t obvious, my opinion of Mr. Petersen has not changed or improved since the convention. 😉
When Johnson is inevitably asked about being a spoiler he should respond:
“Whenever any third-party candidate is interviewed by the press, we are asked 9 questions about being a spoiler and perhaps 1 question about actual policy. So I will answer the question about being a spoiler just one time, but after that I would ask that we move on to the issues.”
Of course, since Johnson do poorly debating the issues, perhaps he is better off having the interview be about nonsense.
Johnson had better *seriously* prepare for this, as his previous interviews have all been softball questions. All of his proposals are about to be put under a microscope and I can’t see him doing well without extensive coaching before the event.
Say what you will about Austin Petersen, but he was far more ready for prime time. Johnson is utterly inept at controlling a conversation, which is going to be a liability in a more feisty setting.
I’m not sure how we would measure this. But, my thinking is that the court seems to lag behind public opinion in most cases, but runs ahead of legistlative opinion (for lack of a better way to put it) fairly often. In other words, legal changes often come out of the court because legislators haven’t changed laws to keep up with public opinion.
mc, IIRC, those were not majority-popular-opinion issues at the time when those rulings were handed down. They later gained acceptance.
RC, Where do you get the idea that the court acted against the general public opinion in those cases.
L: Once they have that on their side, the Supreme Court can be counted on, like clockwork, to give its rubber stamp.
me: Seems not true to me. Many of the watershed cases, the Supremes were ahead of public opinion. Brown v Board, Roe v. Wade, marriage equality.
What has the Constitution ever protected us from? The only real check on tyranny is public opinion. Once they have that on their side, the Supreme Court can be counted on, like clockwork, to give its rubber stamp.
If libertarians want to use the Constitution as a rhetorical device to get people to listen to actual libertarian arguments (like Ron Paul often did), that’s fine. But as for the actual document, I consider it worthless. In fact, it’s worse than worthless, since some people will accept tyrannical laws they might otherwise not, as long as some black-robed sophist gives them the Constitutional seal of approval.
“As far as I’m concerned, fuck the Constitution” – langa
I really hope you don’t mean that. As imperfect as it may be it is still our greatest protection against runaway government destruction of our liberties.
Cheer up, Tony:
http://kdvr.com/2016/06/14/gun-sales-surge-after-orlando-shooting/
Whether or not something is authorized by the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is libertarian. The Constitution used to authorize slavery. It currently authorizes taxation, eminent domain, and many other authoritarian concepts. As far as I’m concerned, fuck the Constitution.
http://www.freedomforallseasons.org/TaxFreedomEmail/LysanderSpoonerNoTreason.pdf
Generally in my experience, Andy will forget tomorrow.
At least he admits there are limits on a constitutional right. That was my goal for today.
aj, it’s speech, yes, speech that is NOT protected by 1A.
I’m not sure that giving nuclear codes to a government is “speech,” though. I favor that being illegal. I’m not sure that Rothbard would, though. States and all their property are illegitimate in the Rothbardian thought system, so taking from the illegitimate was, IIRC, OK with him. One of the many reasons why I escaped that worldview, as its oversimplification cannot reasonably address much of the world as it is.
That old Rothbard talking point about shouting fire in a crowded theater happens to be correct.
How about if I tell the police that Robert Capozzi and Tony From Long Island are child molesters, and let’s say that both of them get arrested and put in jail or prison, or at the very least, have to endure an investigation. Is this free speech?
How about is somebody who knows the nuclear missile launch codes gives them away to a hostile foreign government. Is this free speech?
I would say no on both counts.
more…
OTOH, I do think that Rothbard made a fine distinction…free speech is bounded by property rights. I have the right to publish what I want, but I don’t have the right to be published by the New York Times.
That insight helped me develop my view of arms carrying. Yes, we have the right to own a gun on our own property, but we don’t have the right to carry it onto others property, or public property.
Yes, Robert, that is frustrating, but my real issue was his stance that mass shootings have been a hoax. I can’t let myself get worked up from one conspiracy theorist. That’s not my personality, but this issue does bring out some passion in me.
Tony, Andy is just repeating the old-school, Rothbardian talking point about free speech not including shouting fire in a theater.
As you say, it’s a distinction without a difference.
There are other ways in which speech is not free, iirc: fighting words, inciting others to riot, etc. NAPster Ls can get quite wrapped-around-their-axles trying to defend untenable absolutes. Psychologically, it seems to validate their stature as being “principled” while the rest of the world is deeply corrupt. They seem to luxuriate in this victim status.
It can be exhausting to onlookers.
Thanks Jill. I don’t want to cause any problems. I am generally a very easy-going and passive guy. Maybe that explains my gun issue stance partially. I enjoy logical debates whether I win or lose, but with someone who is really that deep in conspiracies it is difficult.
I think the CNN event is an excellent opportunity, and I hope Gary and William do well. Perhaps if they do there will be a greater likelihood of being included in a debate or two.
Tony, your comment stuck in the spam filter. I have no idea why, but I just released it.
I wish the other writers would keep an eye on the “pended comments” area better. All you need to do is go into the comments, find the shaded one, and either approve it or mark it as spam.
Thanks.
I have to take a Time Out from Andy. They didn’t allow my last post.
Unnecessary stress.
Tony, yes, Ls tend to be a tough crowd. I don’t believe Darcy IDs as a L, however.
You truly are a sick and twisted individual not worthy of my (or anyone else’s) time.
Speech that results on a charge of fraud is, therefore, ILLEGAL SPEECH. Would a defense of “but what about my free speech rights?” work in court? No.
I am giving myself a time-out from responding to you because you are beneath the dignity of a normal citizen. You should seek help, bro.
Oh, you mean the New Town parents who were exposed as being actors, and who received millions of dollars in payouts from the government and from their charity scams?
That is a ridiculous statement. Yelling fire in a crowded theater where a fire was actually happening would be a heroic act. Yelling fire when there was no fire would be fraud.
I’m not justifying anything. Only pointing out legal restrictions on rights.
So, when law enforcement officers legally entere a home with a lawful warrant, but during that legal search found clearly incriminating items in plain view which were not listed on the warrant, they should not have been able to seize them? Come on!!!
Andy, yelling FIRE is a free speech issue! Even if you say it’s a fraud issue, it’s still illegal speech. Plus, debating with you is a completely waste of time because you are a paranoid nut – Yes, people were shot last weekend – AND in New Town Connecticut. Ask the parents of those children if it was a government hoax.
You’ve done yourself a disservice by justifying illegal deeds the government & courts have committed under the belief that our guaranteed rights are not absolute. Your list of grievances should not be happening to anyone. Period.
Yelling fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire is fraud, and this has nothing to do with free speech.
Libel could just be spouting a negative opinion about somebody, but if one falsely claims that another committed a crime, that gets into fraud territory. Prayer in public schools is fine so long as students are not coerced into praying by teachers or administrators.
That should read “objects NOT on a warrant are legally seized”
I agree with you only on the Electoral College needing to be changed. There is no mainstream media. Media is media. Some is just seen or heard or read by more people. Who is Fox News supporting? They are the highest rated TV media source.
Jill Stein isn’t afforded the same opportunities for the same reason no other LP candidate until 2016 hasn’t.
Johnson’s 2nd Amendment stance will LOSE him many, many votes. No Constitutional right is absolute. Here is a list of some. You may or may not agree with them, but they clearly are not absolute:
First Amendment: Speech is limited – you can’t yell fire in a theater, you can’t libel someone Expression of religion is limited – you can’t have prayer in a public school
Fourth Amendment – Warrants for searches – There are regularly seizures conducted where objects on a warrant are legally seized. It’s called the PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE. I know this personally
Fifth Amendment – “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeapordy.” There are several loopholes that allow such.
Sixth Amendment – “The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial.” Tell that to the thousands waiting years in county jails (legally) for their trial
Eighth Amendment – “Excessive bail shall not be required” On a regular basis people await trial with no bail or bail set at millions of dollars (again, I know this personally)
Fifteenth Amendment – “the right . . .to vote shall not be abridged on account of . . . previous condition of servitude . . .” In 49 states there is some form of voting restriction on convicted felons.
So don’t tell me that the Second Amendment is absolute. It isn’t. No right is. Military style weapons that discharge hundreds of rounds a minute should never be available to the public
Libertarians are not going to get elected President this year, or anytime soon, if ever. So LP presidential campaigns SHOULD be about getting a strong libertarian message out, inspiring more people to become libertarians, therefore building the party and movement.
@ Tony from Long Island
It’s no secret which candidate the mainstream media is backing. There’s a reason Jill Stein isn’t afforded the same opportunity and it has nothing to do with poll numbers. The media led the crusade against Ralph Nader after the 2000 election and crammed the spoiler nonsense down everyone’s throat. The good thing is, poll numbers in some races have indicated that the LP candidate can pull significant votes away from the Democratic candidate at a greater clip (most notably in Virginia). Maybe this sudden “interest” in the LP will backfire and Johnson will throw a significant wrench into the election in many states.
I’m hoping for electoral chaos and a vote that goes to the House. Perhaps this election can get the gears moving to do away with the electoral college or move toward a more sensible voting method like rank choice.
I’ll give Johnson credit for sticking by the Second Amendment despite Weld on his ticket.
Well said Tony.
It’s amazing how Libertarians will complain about ANYTHING! This is a positive for the party and for libertarianism, yet we get people complaining that CNN is only doing it because they “believe in the spoiler fallacy” (with no actual proof of that claim) or that maybe they won’t have to “submit to pressure to include [Gary] in the debates” (even though CNN has absolutely no control or influence of the Commission on Presidential Debates).
Then Darcy wants to talk about Gov. Johnson’s speaking skills, which we all know are not top-notch. Gov. Weld is a much better public speaker.
When you ask “what about their freedom….” referring to the victims of the massacre (yes, Andy, they are actual victims who died needlessly). Well, what about their freedom to be free from senseless violence committed by someone possessing an military grade weapon?
The only thing holding me back from voting for Governor Johnson is that he spouts the party line about how more guns make people more safe . . .
This is a really positive development, a chance for the American public to finally see how flaky and ill-prepared the former governor of New Mexico really is in a nationally-televised setting consisting of more than just his usual talking points repeated ad nauseam in interview after interview.
If we’re lucky, maybe Johnson will be asked why he vetoed hate crimes legislation while he was governor and why he believes such a law would have taken “a little bite out of freedom,” presumably the freedom to harbor evil thoughts. He seemed to completely miss the point that individuals are often victimized precisely because of their identity.
It seems like a fair and timely question, especially since Johnson, another run-of-the-mill Republican posing as a Libertarian while conspicuously trying to be all things to all people, was recently nominated for the presidency in a city where an entire group was specifically targeted — apparently after considerable thought by the perpetrator — in one of the most horrific hate crimes in modern American history.
What about their freedom?
C’mon, Gary, enlighten us.
Even twin-party loving Politico reported on it-
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/06/cnn-to-host-town-hall-with-libertarian-candidates-224387
Regardless, it’s a win-win situation for us; never before has a LP presidential ticket garnered this much publicity, ever, and this is only the beginning 🙂
We are going to do way better this year then 2012.
Either that, or maybe they think if they do this they won’t have to submit to pressure to include Gary in any debates.
Good for the LP. Too bad, though, CNN is only giving this exposure because they believe in the spoiler fallacy.