Libertarians at FreedomFest, Johnson, Weld; plus Barr and past VPs Gray and Root

FreedomFest  CAM01048-1

(Photo: Las Vegas: Sarwark, Weld, Johnson, Gillespie)
2016 Libertarian nominees Governors Johnson and Weld, as well as past LP POTUS candidate Barr (2008) and past LP VPOTUS candidates Gray (2012) and Root (2008) are scheduled to appear at this week’s FREEDOMFEST convention in Las Vegas. Live streaming video of many of the large room sessions can be found HERE.  Registration is required (email address and name) but is otherwise free.  Archived audio ($5) and video ($10) can be purchased HERE.

Tomorrow, Friday July 15, Governors Johnson and Weld are scheduled to present the discussion “Can Liberty win the White House?” moderated by LNC Chair Nicholas Sarwark.  The event is expected to be streamed at the above link from 3:30 to 4:20PM Pacific Time (6:30 to 7:20 Eastern).

Other scheduled speakers include George Foreman, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Senator Rand Paul, Grover Norquist, Steve Forbes, John Mackey, Lawrence Reed, Austin Peterson, Angela Keaton, Brett Pjonis, John McAfee, Alicia Dearn, and John Allison.

FreedomFest promotes itself as, “an annual festival where free minds meet to celebrate “great books, great ideas, and great thinkers” in an open-minded society. It is independent, non-partisan, and not affiliated with any organization or think tank. Founded and produced by Mark Skousen since 2002, FreedomFest invites the “best and the brightest” from around the world to talk, strategize, socialize, and celebrate liberty. FreedomFest is open to all and is purely egalitarian, where speakers, attendees, and exhibitors are treated as equals.”

 

66 thoughts on “Libertarians at FreedomFest, Johnson, Weld; plus Barr and past VPs Gray and Root

  1. Andy

    Hey everybody, gather together for a group picture. We can call it “The Republicans Who Duped Naive Libertarians Into Giving Us Their Presidential And Vice Presidential Nominations.” Silly Libertarians. Politics are for Democrats and Republicans. Hahahaha!

  2. Rebel Alliance

    FreedomFest has become FINO-fest (freedom in name only) by the LP’s Republi-cons.

  3. dL

    Well, there a couple of bona fide libertarians there. A few tokens. Anything bearing the designation of “Freedom” should automatically be considered a conservative event. Freedom after all is a particularly favored word by fascists.

  4. Thane Eichenauer

    Thomas Knapp seems to have a different opinion as to the value of the event as well as the composition of the speakers at FreedomFest.

    http://knappster.blogspot.com/2016/06/if-i-had-hammer.html

    “I can’t afford to attend FreedomFest 2016, but if I could afford it I’d have great fun checking out talks by Angela Keaton of Antiwar.com, Jeffrey Tucker of Liberty.me, Will Coley of Muslims 4 Liberty, Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation, Doug Casey, John McAfee, Andrew P. Napolitano, and bunches and bunches of other pro-liberty, pro-peace types.”

  5. Tony From Long Island

    Why would Bob Barr or Trump-Lover Wayne Root be at anything with the word “freedom” associated with it?

  6. langa

    Last year, Trump spoke at “Freedom” Fest, so the presence of non-libertarians shouldn’t be surprising.

    What I do find surprising is that Johnson and Weld’s buddy Frank Gaffney didn’t warn them about being “associated” with (according to Gaffney) the “Muslim Brotherhood secret agent” Grover Norquist!

  7. Bondurant

    Did anyone raise the issue of Weld being a gun grabber or supporter of eminent domain or being a Hillary supporter?

  8. Tony From Long Island

    How is he a Hillary supporter if he’s running against her? Just because he doesn’t want to bash her does not make him a “supporter.”

  9. George Dance

    Tony: The theory is that, by not bashing HIllary, Johnson and Weld are getting people to vote for her to elect her. Whereas, if they were bashing her, the theory would be that they were trying to take votes from Trump, and elect her.

    See how easy it is?

  10. Andy

    How about bashing both Hillary and Trump equally, and encouraging people to vote Libertarian?

  11. Be Rational

    Sometimes, Andy, it’s better not to bash people. Always be nice to crazy people.

    By treating Hillary with kid gloves, they make it easier for some people NOT to support or vote for her.

    “Shhh, we won’t say anything bad about poor Hillary. She’s a friend, a good kid. Sure she’s had some trouble with honesty, and taking bribes, and handling secrets, and her interventionist foreign policy, but really she’s nice, she can’t help it. ”

    Handling Hillary very gently makes people think that we have to tip-toe around Hillary because of her mental issues, anger problems, maybe she’s unballanced. It will have a very subtile effect on her non-borg supporters, getting them to look at GJ/WW.

    Trump, OTOH, is a bully. So, it’s more effective to recognize that reality and be bit tougher on him. His less-than-committed supporters can see that he’s a bully, mean, and insulting, so saying so won’t make GJ/WW look like they’re attacking. They look like they’re handling him gently as well.

  12. Bondurant

    My point exactly, Andy. Weld is not aiming to promote the party or his philosophy. He compliments Hillary at every opportunity. No criticism despite the fact that she is not qualified and is probably the greatest example of an establishment & DC insider candidate in a long time (if not ever).

  13. Andy

    That is a bunch of crap. Hillary Clinton is a lying, staist, criminal bitch. We should have candidates who are not afraid to call a piece of garbage a piece of garbage.

  14. Bondurant

    The truth is that they don’t even have to bash Hillary. Johnson/Weld can simply state the facts that her long record has to offer. Neither is willing to do that. To me that is both telling and disturbing and it’s a major reason (aside from Weld’s own record) that I cannot support the LP ticket in November.

  15. Be Rational

    “Hillary Clinton is a lying, staist, criminal bitch …”

    Saying that, even if true, will drive more people to support her.

    You have to have some strategy and tactics if you want to build the LP. Screaming, ranting, hot-head outbursts … these will drive people away, just like Trump has driven people away from the Republican Party.

    The LP is too small to keep driving members and supporters away with rabid, Trumpian outbursts, loony conspiracy delusions, and anti-science dogma. We should let these things to destroy the Republican party.

  16. Andy

    Saying that will get a big “Right on!” from all of the people who do not like Hillary, and it will make them want to check out the Libertarian Party, especially if combined with some Trump bashing.

  17. Andy

    People who like Hillary are generally not good prospects for the Libertarian Party.

  18. Robert Capozzi

    I expect a pivot from the HRC kid gloves approach.

    But it will not be shrill as AJ seems to want.

  19. dL

    Jeffrey Tucker says he was physically threatened by the pro-Trump junta at Fascist Fest.

    “I’ve never felt physically threatened before following a public speech but I did yesterday. After a panel at FreedomFest on the topic of fascism, I was surrounded by a micro-junta of what I presume were white supremacists and they were physically intimidating me and yelling and I had to back out of the room with my hand up, and I found myself watching my back the rest of the day. Trump has unleashed some thuggish elements out there.”

    https://www.facebook.com/jeffreytucker.official/posts/1160705897301715

  20. robert capozzi

    AJ, I note that you often cite Alex Jones’s stuff, and Jones is a Trump supporter. I wonder if that influence is affecting your judgment.

    Personally, I think HRC represents more of the same, but it’s a survivable event, as a WSJ editor said recently. Trump, OTOH, represents almost no upside potential, as I see it, and much downside.

    D leaners might vote GJ if he remains the gentleman, and they vote GJ as a protest. R leaners might vote GJ if it becomes clear just how big a threat he is to liberty. A starker contrast seems called for.

  21. Andy

    I am not on the Donald Trump bandwagon. I strongly disliked Hillary Clinton long before Trump was on the political scene.

    FYI, Alex Jones is supporting Trump, but he has said that he does not agree with him on everything, and that he still has reservations about him. He is supporting Trump because he sees him as being anti-establishment, and the lesser evil as compared to Hillary Clinton.

  22. robert capozzi

    Yes, AJ, HRC’s political ideas are not in alignment with mine, either.

    It’s no surprise that Jones acknowledges the obvious (that his views are not 100% lined up with DJT), since 100% agreement is highly rare. I’ll be voting GJ in Nov., but I don’t agree with him on all the issues, either.

    Have you ever voted for someone you agreed with 100%?

  23. Thane Eichenauer

    dL,
    Do you or anyone know what the content of his speech was? Was it his prior written posts about Trump that got the Trump Train riled up? It would be nice if Jeffery Tucker gave additional details though I grant that personal safety scores above details.

  24. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Jeffrey Tucker: “After a panel at FreedomFest on the topic of fascism, I was surrounded by a micro-junta of what I presume were white supremacists and they were physically intimidating me and yelling and I had to back out of the room with my hand up, and I found myself watching my back the rest of the day. Trump has unleashed some thuggish elements out there.”

    I don’t find this entirely credible. Much vagueness.

    * HOW were they “physically intimidating” Tucker”? Did they wave guns? Knives? Fists? Did they wag a finger? Details, please.

    * Was their “yelling” objectively intimidating, or just the heated, angry discussions I’ve seen at many LP conventions.

    * If they were “physically intimidating” Tucker, why was security not called? Presumably, had their actions been objectively intimidating — guns, knives, specific threats to Tucker’s safety — security would have ejected them. So why did this not happen?

    * Tucker “presumes they were white supremacists.” Based on what? Did they wear swastikas? Did they use terms such as “white race”? If Tucker must “presume,” that indicates to me there was no clear evidence, but rather, Tucker is assuming based on subjective impressions.

    * Tucker calls this group a “micro-junta.” Yet he neither defines this term, nor explains why this group meets the criteria. If any small group of yelling guys qualifies, then political groups across the spectrum are infested with micro-juntas.

  25. William Saturn

    Supporting Castle or Johnson in the presidential election is not going to prevent Hillary Clinton’s election. I’m not going to say a vote for either is a vote for Clinton, because it’s not. I oppose that line of think. However, if you vote Castle or Johnson, whatever help you think that provides the third party movement, you must be willing to accept the inevitable outcome, i.e. President Hillary Clinton on January 20, 2017.

    As I’ve said, I see Johnson-Weld as an establishment ticket, a la Romney-Ryan ’12. The plan is to run a clean campaign, hoping against hope for a win, then watching as the other establishment ticket is elected. On the other hand, even though there is an R beside his name, Trump is the true outsider; a candidate we haven’t had the option of voting for on the general election ballot since Ralph Nader, Harry Browne, or Ross Perot. A vote for Trump is a vote against a President Hillary Clinton on January 20, 2017. A vote for Trump is a vote to throw out the corrupt establishment controlled by lobbyists, who impose crippling regulations, unconstitutional gun control, illegal searches, and drug prohibition. A vote for Trump is a vote to sweep out the neocon establishment that takes an internationalist approach, getting us involved in stupid wars and awful “free trade” agreements, while allowing unfettered immigration. A vote for Trump is a vote to prevent an establishment lackey like Merrick Garland from sitting on the Supreme Court and instead placing a true outsider like Andrew Napolitano on the Court. To me, there is a clear choice. Alex Jones, Walter Block, Justin Raimondo, Chris Cantwell, and many others all understand this. This is the best chance we have of actual change for freedom’s sake, taking power away from the special interests and career politicians.

    The current situation reminds me of downticket elections. I love it when these races feature a third option. On the ballot, there’s two polished career politicians, and then there’s a third, either a Libertarian or a Green, sometimes both. They don’t have a spiffy campaign website or the kind of “experience” the establishment loves to flaunt. Instead, they are nothing more than concerned citizens; often small business owners, who use a wordpress blog as a campaign website. There’s some good ideas on the site, maybe some not-so-good ideas, but you get the feeling this is just a regular person like you or me. Unlike the two polished career politicians, this person is easily accessible, answering questions himself rather than through some staffer. You ask him a question, and he answers it honestly, without the filter of special interests and political correctness. This is how I see Donald Trump. He’s not a polished politician like Clinton or Johnson. He’s not protected from the media (remember he actually sat down for an interview with Ali G). He’s a real person. He’s not perfect, but he’s certainly not a part of the system that has been working against us for so long. I love that I finally have the option of voting for such a candidate on the presidential ballot. The last such person elected to Congress was Kerry Bentivolio and look at the job he did and how the establishment responded.

    Trump is a major opportunity for the anti-establishment movement. It is not dog catcher or Congressman, it is for President. Please, let’s not squander this opportunity.

  26. dL

    “Tucker calls this group a “micro-junta.” Yet he neither defines this term, nor explains why this group meets the criteria. If any small group of yelling guys qualifies, then political groups across the spectrum are infested with micro-juntas.”

    Read the comments to his facebook post if you want to know what a racist fascist micro-juntas looks like.

  27. dL

    “Do you or anyone know what the content of his speech was? Was it his prior written posts about Trump that got the Trump Train riled up? It would be nice if Jeffery Tucker gave additional details though I grant that personal safety scores above details.”

    From 3rd party twitter accounts, he called Trump a brown shirt fascist. Apparently, it elicited a very visceral response from the attendance. Apparently, Gillespie was also pillaged for being a “biased moderator.”

    I don’t know Tucker, I’m not online buddy-buddy with him either. But he is a known critic of Trump. But I have seen the degree of hate response he has gotten. It’s skinhead nazi. If I was him, I would have to start carrying a gun, frankly.

  28. robert capozzi

    ws: Trump is the true outsider

    me: Assuming that’s true (I have my doubts), Charlie Sheen or Charles Manson are “outsiders,” too.

    For me, all unsupportable as candidates to get the code to the nuclear football.

    Of course, not crazy about HRC getting them, either. But she’s less likely IMO of doing something rash.

  29. William Saturn

    Those celebrities listed do not fit within the parameters set above, largely because they aren’t on the ballot. Still, they’d probably do a much better job than the current crop of criminals in the government.

    “she’s less likely IMO of doing something rash.”

    Not sure how you came to that conclusion based on the judgment she has shown previously. Sounds irrational to me, probably a reflection of a pro-establishment bias on your part.

  30. robert capozzi

    ws, OK, if you don’t see the string of outrageous and hate-filled statements DJT has made during this campaign as disqualifying, then you don’t. He comes across regularly as an unstable individual, with no filter.

    Perhaps you find his lack of a filter to be virtuous. I note that positioning oneself as “anti-establishment” is interesting and somewhat attractive, but then so is Vermin Supreme!

    VS amuses me, but I sure as shit don’t want him in the Oval. Ditto DJT.

  31. robert capozzi

    more…

    You really think Charlie Sheen would be a better prez than say BHO? Seriously?

    To refresh your memory:

  32. Thane Eichenauer

    robert capozzi> Of course, not crazy about HRC getting them, either. But she’s less likely IMO of doing something rash.

    It may be naive of me but given past experience I think that nuclear bombs are unlikely to be used in the next 8 years by the US government. I would worry more about Hillary Clinton continuing with the wasteful and immoral military campaigns of the last 12+ years.

  33. Thane Eichenauer

    RTAA> Tucker, why was security not called?

    I’ll offer a guess. Getting away from a source of angry people beats calling a third party when it is your safety at risk. When seconds could even hotel security is only minutes away.

  34. langa

    Langa’s Law states that every President is worse than the one before. The last exception was probably Carter (or Ford, depending on who you consider Nixon’s successor). I don’t see this year breaking the trend, as I expect either Hillary or Trump to be worse than Obama.

  35. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    RTAA: Tucker, why was security not called?

    Thane Eichenauer: I’ll offer a guess. Getting away from a source of angry people beats calling a third party when it is your safety at risk. When seconds could even hotel security is only minutes away.

    That doesn’t explain why security wasn’t called after Tucker got away. He said he spent the rest of the day watching his back. Why didn’t he find security, seek and identify the men, and press charges?

    Tucker’s story sounds exaggerated.

  36. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    I’ve heard criticisms that Trump appeals to Nazis. If so, they’ll be sorely disappointed in a Trump presidency. Trump has Jewish in-laws, and has expressed support for “America’s “100% commitment to defend Israel.” Trump also has vocal black supporters, and has done business with people of every ethnic background.

    Trump is playing on fears of Mexican immigration and Muslim terrorism. But I doubt he’ll do much if elected.

    Trump is no libertarian. But neither is he a Nazi skinhead.

  37. William Saturn

    RC,

    Actions speak louder than words. Hillary Clinton committed criminal acts as Secretary of State, perjury afterwards. She thinks she’s above the law, setting up several personal servers and deleting thousands of e-mails to avoid scrutiny. She pushed for military intervention at every opportunity, leading to thousands of deaths, particularly in Libya. In the lead up to the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, she negligently ignored calls for greater security. She likely used the Clinton foundation as a money laundering scheme to grant favors to nations in exchange for donations. As for her temperament and stability, read the book “Crisis of Character” by former Secret Service agent Gary Byrne https://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Character-Discloses-Firsthand-Experience/dp/1455568872?ie=UTF8&tag=vglnkc7179-20 As First Lady, she apparently had violent episodes, committed spousal abuse, and exhibited other unstable, anti-social behavior.

    That’s probably just the tip of the iceberg. If you can ignore all that and still be comfortable with her as president, then more power to you, you are a true believer.

  38. Jill Pyeatt

    I can understand why Tucker didn’t call hotel security. They would have asked for concrete examples of what had happened. It’s possible that Tucker’s intimidation was nothing more than several people standing way too close, speaking loudly and insisting on eye contact. That’s a message an individual definitely gets, but it’s difficult to explain that to someone else. We all have that inner voice that tells us when we’re in danger.

  39. dL

    “I’ve heard criticisms that Trump appeals to Nazis. If so, they’ll be sorely disappointed in a Trump presidency. Trump has Jewish in-laws, and has expressed support for “America’s “100% commitment to defend Israel.”

    Well, Nazi folk nationalism is not merely limited to scapegoating jews. The undesirables list certainly includes muslims, hispanics, asians, etc.

    Now, of course, the 21st century United States is not 1930s Germany. There is not a 1-1 mapping of the US to Nazi Germany folk nationalism. But if we substitute “muslim” for “jew,” the parallels are certainly there. The rhetoric from the Christian right base is now pretty much on order with the type despicable crap we saw come out of 1930s Germany. It is not there yet from the establishment politicos, but it is getting closer. Although the United States is not engaging in an internal systematic extermination of the muslims like the germans did with the jews. in absolute numbers, the United States govt has killed and displaced more muslims than the Germans did vis a vis the jews. Now It is a point of debate whether or not the Germans were fully aware of what was going on inside the concentration camps. But there is no debate that americans are aware of the consequences of US foreign policy/wars. They simply don’t care or feel that military occupation/mass murder is self-defense. Or worse, it constitutes a main form of entertainment for them.

    Now there is some debate re: Trump. Whether he merely he represents a mere rhetorical deviation from what would a continuation of the status quo. Some even think the rhetorical deviation is a good thing(as in it cracks the orwellian oligarchy of the ruling class). But I have no doubts about most of those who support him, particularly the GOP christian right base. I absolutely make a moral equivalence between them and the citizenry of nazi Germany.

    That’s not to say American politics has become an existential struggle between fascists and liberals. Clinton represents Mussolini. And while progressives might be offended by politically incorrect references to muslims, they are not all that offended by the mass murder/displacement of them. And both sides demonstrate a perverse fancy to use the security state apparatus to violently crack down on their political opponents.

    The argument for Trump usually points back to the absolute evil of Hillary and vice versa. Literally, Hitler vs Stalin. An exaggeration. perhaps. But the internal security police force they would have at their disposal is comparable to both Hitler and Stalin. And that is not an exaggeration.

  40. William Saturn

    “Nazi folk nationalism is not merely limited to scapegoating jews. The undesirables list certainly includes muslims, hispanics, asians, etc.”

    I bet that’s a surprise to the Muslims in North Africa who aligned with Nazi Germany, to the Japanese who also aligned with Nazi Germany, to the Spanish who embraced fascism under Franco and secretly supported Nazi Germany, and to the Argentinians who allowed Nazis to take refuge in their country after WWII while they themselves embracing quasi fascism under Peron.

    “United States govt has killed and displaced more muslims than the Germans did vis a vis the jews.”

    Your point? This has nothing at all to do with Trump. He is not and has not been a part of the US government. This statement says more about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton than anyone else right now.

    ” I absolutely make a moral equivalence between them and the citizenry of nazi Germany.”

    Hyperbolic BS with no factual basis.

    “The argument for Trump usually points back to the absolute evil of Hillary and vice versa.”

    Hillary represents the corrupt, neocon establishment that has ruled this country for many years now. Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney and their minions Johnson-Weld represent the same establishment. Trump represents the anti-establishment. An absolute break from politics as usual.

  41. langa

    …while progressives might be offended by politically incorrect references to muslims, they are not all that offended by the mass murder/displacement of them.

    This phenomenon represents one of the most repugnant manifestations of political correctness. For example, referring to an Arab or Muslim as a “camel jockey” or “raghead” or some similarly derogatory epithet is considered to be completely unacceptable. Meanwhile, advocating the mass murder of these same people is considered to be a perfectly respectable political position, and while not everyone supports such a position, it is almost never met with the kind of moral outrage that the above slurs often provoke.

    The underlying message is as obvious as it is perverse: In our society, it is now literally considered worse to call people names than to kill them.

  42. natural born citizen

    So did this chickenshit just say he “felt” physically threatened?

    Or is he alleging that someone actually threatened to hurt him?

  43. William Saturn

    “it is now literally considered worse to call people names than to kill them.”

    You’re 100% correct. That is the perfect illustration of the point I’ve been making for years.

  44. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    natural born citizen: So did this chickenshit just say he “felt” physically threatened? Or is he alleging that someone actually threatened to hurt him?

    There are many political and legal benefits to “feeling” threatened.

    If a cop shoots someone, the cop’s magic “Get Out of Jail” words are “I was in fear for my life.”

    If a woman has an argument with a boyfriend or husband, all she has to do is say, “I was in fear for my safety” and the cops must give her the benefit of the doubt and arrest the man.

    If some ethnic, feminist, or leftist political activist has a confrontation with an opponent, all he/she need do is say, “I was in fear for my life/safety, etc.” and a sympathetic media will portray the opponent as thugs.

    So whenever someone says they were “in fear for their safety/felt threatened, etc.” — I don’t buy it, not unless some objective evidence is presented showing that a reasonable person in a similar situation would have felt similarly threatened.

    Could be Tucker is exaggerating his tale for some political sympathy.

  45. dL

    “I bet that’s a surprise to the Muslims in North Africa who aligned with Nazi Germany, to the Japanese who also aligned with Nazi Germany, to the Spanish who embraced fascism under Franco and secretly supported Nazi Germany, and to the Argentinians who allowed Nazis to take refuge in their country after WWII while they themselves embracing quasi fascism under Peron.”

    Well, it wouldn’t be a surprise to the non jews who went to the concentrations camps, including gypsies, homosexuals, poles,serbs,greeks,ukrainians,yugoslavians…etc. Jews made up around 50% of the total holocaust deaths, although as a percentage relative to population percentage, it was a systematic extermination for them.

    Nor it would it be a surprise to anyone who has read Mein Kampf, to anyone who is aware of the Ayran racial hierarchy, that muslims were considered to be racial semites, occupying a place somewhere just above the jews and gypsies. The external alliances you mentioned were a statement of immediate political expediency and not a statement regarding any type of racial tolerance.

    Nor does “Nazi folk Nationalism” merely refer to 1930s nazi germany. It also refers to the subculture that has lived on, both in europe and in the United States, a subculture that has now come out of the shadows with the ascendency of Donald Trump.

    “Your point? This has nothing at all to do with Trump. He is not and has not been a part of the US government. This statement says more about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton than anyone else right now.”

    Actually, it would refer to Bush I and Bush II more so than Obama. Clinton ,being mere secretary of state, would below those three and below a host of others centering around Cheney’s office of vice-presidency.

    “Hyperbolic BS with no factual basis.”

    So, what is the percentage of Repub voters that support banning muslim immigration? That support forced deportation of muslims? That view the Christian West in a clash of civilizations with Islam? That view occupation of muslim countries, whole mass murder and displacement of muslim populations as justifiable self-defense? This despite the United States has been occupying muslim countries going on 25 years now. Are there any prominent conservative opinion who have expressed any of those opinions above? Are there any prominent cable/news satellite TV news channels that have commentators that have those opinions, that feature guests that have expressed those opinions? Has there been any calls for wholesale extermination of muslims in order to win the war on terror? If you polled the GOP base and asked if the use of nuclear weapons dropped on muslim populations would be justified to win on terror, what would be the percentage that would support it?

    Hyperbolic BS with no factual basis? Oh, I suppose if you are inclined to find Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh to be intellectual authorities, that might be the case. If your primary source of news and information is the right wing noise machine, that may be the case. Other than that, most independent observers would probably concur that the GOP base is batshit sociopathic.

    “Hillary represents the corrupt, neocon establishment that has ruled this country for many years now. Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney and their minions Johnson-Weld represent the same establishment. Trump represents the anti-establishment. An absolute break from politics as usual.”

    Clinton may indeed represent that, but Trump represents an egomaniacal cult of personality exploiting a population sample that has moved on from Trotsky to an even more extreme form of political sociopathy. Rhetorically he is a departure from the politics as usual in the same way that “sieg heil at political rallies” would be a departure from politics as usual. Trump merely demonstrates the utter rot of conservatism, the complete nihilistic and moral relativism that underlies christian social conservatism. He is a demonstration that conservatism is the bottom of the barrel when it comes to political sociopathy.

  46. dL

    “it is now literally considered worse to call people names than to kill them.”

    “You’re 100% correct. That is the perfect illustration of the point I’ve been making for years.”

    That is true. The status quo of American politics is to give lip service to X and then to actively contravene X in action. However, it does not hold that matching rhetoric to deed necessarily is an improvement. If you have been killing people under the language of flowery rhetoric but now employ a harsh rhetoric to match the same killing, I don’t think that’s much of an improvement on things. Nor does the previous hypocrisy grant a pass on the use of a more honest rhetoric. True, if the rhetoric was harsh but the stick soft, one might say that is an objectively better thing. But there is no reason to think that the stick would be soft.

  47. robert capozzi

    rtaa: “in fear for their safety/felt threatened, etc.” — I don’t buy it, not unless some objective evidence is presented showing that a reasonable person in a similar situation would have felt similarly threatened.

    me: Can you be more specific about what the Teeth Standard might be?

    Please address what you mean by “objective evidence.” And how you would propose to establish what a “reasonable person” would be determined, and what constitutes a “similar situation.”

  48. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    AS usual, Capozzi, you’re being disingenuous, feigning confusion when you know better.

    No, I’m not a “mind reader.” I can deduce the above because you’d have to be retarded to ask such a silly question, and I assume you’re not retarded. So your confusion is a pretense.

    Objective evidence? C’mon, you know better. You need examples? How about an actual verbal threat (i.e., “I’m going to punch your face in.”) Or the brandishing of a knife or gun? Tucker alleges none of those. In fact, he alleges nothing save his feelings.

    As for reasonable persons — the Reasonable Person Standard is an objective standard applied to assessing evidence, including testimonial evidence, used by courts across the U.S. I’m sure you must have heard of it. Yet you blink with the feigned surprise of a newborn baby.

    I’m not going to give you a free law school education. But you can start here: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+person+standard

  49. robert capozzi

    rtaa, charming.

    I know of the reasonable man standard, thanks. How that is “objective” seems — sorry — ridiculous to me. It’s quite obviously SUBjective. It’s extremely so, since it requires a subjective assessment of the vast majority’s collective views.

    Yes?

  50. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Capozzi, typically dishonest, as always.

    You asked:

    Can you be more specific about what the Teeth Standard might be? Please address what you mean by “objective evidence.” And how you would propose to establish what a “reasonable person” would be determined, and what constitutes a “similar situation.”

    I answered.

    The “Teeth Standard” would be the same standard as that used by American courts.

    Capozzi: I know of the reasonable man standard, thanks. How that is “objective” seems … ridiculous … blah, blah, blah …

    Okay, Capozzi. Your turn at bat. Answer some questions instead of snarking from the sidelines.

    Please offer a different standard for assessing Tucker’s allegations. What would the “Capozzi Standard” be for assessing Tucker’s allegations?

    Or do you suggest that everyone simply believe Tucker because he said so?

    Or that everyone have no opinion on the matter — or on any matter — because we weren’t there and none of us are mind readers?

  51. William Saturn

    “Nor does “Nazi folk Nationalism” merely refer to 1930s nazi germany. It also refers to the subculture that has lived on, both in europe and in the United States, a subculture that has now come out of the shadows with the ascendency of Donald Trump.”

    Okay. I see now. It’s nonsense you made up without any basis in reality, much like the rest of the drivel you’ve left on this page. Nice try trying to connect Trump to neocons, but his foreign policy is anything but. Clinton and Johnson-Weld are the true neocons in the race.

  52. dL

    “Okay. I see now. It’s nonsense you made up without any basis in reality,.”

    If you deny the existence of working class white aryan subcultures…up to the 1990s, one might have used the term skinheads to describe it, then in the 90s, neo-nazi, and now in the 21st century, “alt-right,” you either:

    (i) need to get out more…or (ii) you sympathize with it. or (iii) ascribe to some necessity of cognitive dissonance to fight/defeat the Trotskyites, i.e, cherry-picker

    Don’t know who you are. Looked at your blog, it appears you are a Trump supporter/sympathizer anchored in a sundry milieu of 3rd party politics w/ a subtle marination of white identity victim politics. So, maybe a bit of (i), mostly (iii).

    You are picking cherries while I am looking at the field,orchards,the fertilizer and the rotten fruit.

  53. William Saturn

    If you think “white aryan subcultures” have or had any prominence or substantial influence from the 1990s to today then you are living in fantasy land.

  54. langa

    If you have been killing people under the language of flowery rhetoric but now employ a harsh rhetoric to match the same killing, I don’t think that’s much of an improvement on things.

    I don’t think anyone here is advocating such a course of action. I certainly am not. What I am advocating is a return to the old “sticks and stones” standard that was generally accepted, even as recently as 20 years ago. Say whatever you want, as long as you aren’t calling for violence. Of course, this is also compatible with the NAP, and is therefore the libertarian position. The PC standard, on the other hand, seems to be, “Unkind words can get on your nerves, but no one can worry your head, as long as they’re dead.” Of course, I’m sure some SJW-type has just been “triggered” by the mere mention of the “sticks and stones” rule, and is now curled up in a fetal position in front of their computer.

  55. Robert Capozzi

    RTAA, if he felt threatened, I take at his word, of course. How could someone possibly question how someone feels. There’s no legal matter at hand that I can see.

  56. dL

    “If you think “white aryan subcultures” have or had any prominence or substantial influence from the 1990s to today then you are living in fantasy land.”

    Of course, I didn’t write that. I wrote:

    “Nor does “Nazi folk Nationalism” merely refer to 1930s nazi germany. It also refers to the subculture that has lived on, both in europe and in the United States, a subculture that has now come out of the shadows with the ascendency of Donald Trump.”

    To which you originally replied:

    “Okay. I see now. It’s nonsense you made up without any basis in reality…”

    My replay to that:

    “If you deny the existence of working class white aryan subcultures…up to the 1990s, one might have used the term skinheads to describe it, then in the 90s, neo-nazi, and now in the 21st century, “alt-right,” you either…”

    The problem with playing the “cognitive dissonance” card–that is, just making crap up–is that not everyone plays along with you self-induced amnesia.

  57. dL

    “I don’t think anyone here is advocating such a course of action.”

    The context : People excusing Trump’s rhetoric by pointing to actions/policies that are killing. The reference to the policies is accurate. But it doesn’t excuse the rhetoric.

    Re: political correctness. It is a standard practice by both the left and the right. The right goes as far as to claim that the history of the organization of political power in the United States has been for the suppression of white people and christianity. A real, real hoot…

  58. langa

    People excusing Trump’s rhetoric by pointing to actions/policies that are killing. The reference to the policies is accurate. But it doesn’t excuse the rhetoric.

    The reason we should constantly point to the killing is not to “excuse” the rhetoric. It’s because the rhetoric, ultimately, is harmless (sticks and stones), while the killing is far from harmless. Therefore, wasting time criticizing people for their rhetoric, while these same people (and many others) are also advocating mass murder, would be like Bugliosi wasting time criticizing Manson for his fashion sense.

    Re: political correctness. It is a standard practice by both the left and the right.

    True, but that doesn’t mean we should bow to it, and thus lend credence to the myths propagated by either side. Rather, we should simply speak the truth, no matter who may be offended by hearing it.

  59. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Robert Capozzi: RTAA, if he felt threatened, I take at his word, of course. How could someone possibly question how someone feels.

    Really? People never lie about how they feel? You believe everyone? You believe every cop who, after shooting an unarmed person, says, “I felt in fear for my life.”

    You are a slippery fellow. I wasn’t even questioning how Tucker felt. I don’t care. I was questioning whether he was, in fact threatened. A question which you, naturally, ignore.

    Tucker wasn’t just sharing his feelings with us. He alleged that these men were in fact threatening him. Yet his failure to provide specifics, or to call security, implies otherwise. That this “threat” was exaggerated for political gain.

    Capozzi: There’s no legal matter at hand that I can see.

    Actually, there is. Threatening someone — an actual threat — is the crime of assault: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/AssaultAt Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

    But mine is not a legal question. It’s a factual question. Was Tucker, objectively, in fact, justified in feeling threatened? I apply the legal standard to seek a factual answer.

    I ask you again. If not the legal standard, please offer a different standard for assessing Tucker’s allegations. What is the “Capozzi Standard” for assessing the truth behind Tucker’s allegations? Not that he felt threatened, but that he had objective, justifiable reason, to feel threatened.

  60. robert capozzi

    JT: “I’ve never felt physically threatened before following a public speech but I did yesterday.”

    RTAA, I thought we were talking about this quote. Are we?

    RTAA: People never lie about how they feel? You believe everyone?

    Me: Yes, near as I can tell, everyone is a liar. As for believing everyone, it’s my practice to believe everyone unless I find it important to question what I’m being told. So, for ex., whether JT actually felt threatened or not is not important to me, so I assume that is how he felt.

    RTAA: You believe every cop who, after shooting an unarmed person, says, “I felt in fear for my life.”

    Me: Sure. But I support investigating police shootings.

    RTAA: You are a slippery fellow. I wasn’t even questioning how Tucker felt. I don’t care. I was questioning whether he was, in fact threatened. A question which you, naturally, ignore.

    Me: Actually, I just read the JT’s words and fed back my reaction to those words. I have been in situations where I “felt threatened,” but not in the legal sense of the term. Haven’t you? Based on JT’s passage, there is nothing there to indicate that he was THREATENED in the legal sense of the word.

    RTAA: Tucker wasn’t just sharing his feelings with us. He alleged that these men were in fact threatening him.

    Me: Is there a different passage from JT that you are referring to? It says “felt physically threatened.” For ex., I recall once where a very large scowling dude approached me for money on the street. I generally don’t give money to beggars, but I would say I felt physically threatened by said dude, so I gave him a buck. Did he legally threaten me? I would say no.

    RTAA: Yet his failure to provide specifics, or to call security, implies otherwise. That this “threat” was exaggerated for political gain.

    Me: Again, are we talking about the same JT passage? Is it possible you are over-reacting to the word “threatened,” which can mean many things?

    RTAA: I ask you again. If not the legal standard, please offer a different standard for assessing Tucker’s allegations. What is the “Capozzi Standard” for assessing the truth behind Tucker’s allegations? Not that he felt threatened, but that he had objective, justifiable reason, to feel threatened.

    Me: Hopefully my beggar example suffices. I don’t see Tucker as making an “allegation,” but more an “observation.” If there were skinheads or Hells Angels or New Black Panthers in a room, for ex., many people would feel threatened by their very presence. Such a group might cause anyone’s heart beat to rise, and to perhaps start sweating.

    If you need me to derive a legal standard, I’d probably defer to the common-law standards already established…things like fighting words, surrounding a person, coming too close, menacing gestures, etc. I would suggest these are not “objective” standards, but they are commonly agree upon subjective standards.

    Coming too close could be a threat, or it could be an expression of friendship or even a romantic overture. It depends on the situation, and on the individuals involved, and their personal perceptions and motives.

    Teeth, can I clear anything else up for you?

  61. robert capozzi

    L: Rather, we should simply speak the truth, no matter who may be offended by hearing it.

    me: Absolutely yes, on one level. Totally misses the point on another.

    For ex., I was watching a Molyneux or Jones podcast recently. They were referring to Bell Curve-type IQ studies, stating that blacks on average have lower IQs than whites and Asians.

    This might be “true” as far as the studies go. It’s also true that I would not use this data in public discourse. Why? Because I have not verified this data to my satisfaction. Because I have known many black people who seemed smarter to me than many white people. Because I prefer wisdom to intellect, though both can be useful in my experience. Because I — when sharing ideas and hoping to persuade others — find it unhelpful and in fact hurtful to even give the appearance of racism. Because I suspect that Hillary has a higher IQ than GJ, but I think GJ would be the better prez. Because I don’t see the point in shocking people (except, sometimes, anarchists who claim to be “radical” but who seem trapped in their preconceived notions and closed minds;) ? ) Because I seek peace, and find peaceful language is my preferred path to truth.

  62. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Capozzi: Teeth, can I clear anything else up for you?

    You didn’t clear up anything. You never do.

    Capozzi: are we talking about the same JT passage? Is it possible you are over-reacting to the word “threatened,” which can mean many things?

    As Thomas Knapp said to you on another thread, You’re not an idiot. Please don’t play one on the Internet.

    But you do enjoy playing dumber than you are. You enjoy going in circles, raising issues that have already been answered. You enjoy playing whack-a-mole. Whenever I respond to X, you pop up and raise issue Y. So I respond to Y, and out you pop from another hole, saying the issue is really Z. I answer it, and you pop up from the X hole again. At that point, I can either ignore you or repeat myself. And I hate repeating myself.

  63. langa

    I was watching a Molyneux or Jones podcast recently. They were referring to Bell Curve-type IQ studies, stating that blacks on average have lower IQs than whites and Asians.

    This might be “true” as far as the studies go. It’s also true that I would not use this data in public discourse.

    I agree that libertarian candidates should not bring this up, but the reason why they shouldn’t bring it up has nothing to do with whether it’s true or not (I don’t know, or care), nor does it have anything to do with whether anyone might find it offensive (I suspect some would, as many people are easily offended).

    Rather, the reason it shouldn’t be brought up by libertarian candidates is because it has nothing to do with libertarianism. The average IQ of any demographic group has absolutely no bearing on whether one policy or another should be adopted. In short, it is an issue that is politically irrelevant.

    On the other hand, when I say we should not bow to political correctness, I’m talking about, for example, the bakery slavery issue. Many self-proclaimed “libertarians” argue that on issues like this, we should downplay or, even worse, fully repudiate the libertarian position (and in doing so, bedrock libertarian principles like property rights and freedom of association) simply to avoiding offending anyone. It is this sort of intellectually dishonest pandering that I so strongly oppose.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *