Open Thread for September 2016

please don't feed b

It’s time again for a new Open Thread. You all know the drill–it’s here for anyone to post something that might interest the group. If there’s an article, or something that’s newsworthy that doesn’t fit into another thread–well, here’s the place for it.

And the good news is that the election will be over with in ten weeks! Yay! Then, we can all go back to our regular lives.

Here’s a video that seems oddly appropriate:

And another:

234 thoughts on “Open Thread for September 2016

  1. Richard Winger

    Green Party Watch hasn’t put up a new blog post since May. Do you suppose it is defunct?

  2. Krzysztof Lesiak

    I’ve noticed that, Richard, and I assumed that GPW’s owners must be working for Stein and putting the site on hiatus. Of course, it could very well be defunct; I think Josh Fauver might know, possibly.

  3. George Phillies

    There is finally a Fox Poll. Johnson is at 9%. This is one of the polling firms that counts.

  4. Be Rational

    “There is finally a Fox Poll. Johnson is at 9%. This is one of the polling firms that counts.”

    It takes advertising – real advertising – not just appearances and social media …
    … no advertising … no victory …

    Maybe they’ll get lucky; maybe the CPD will include them based on polls that show 50 or 60% of Americans want to see them in the debates. That shows 15% support in the polls – just not based on intended voting.

  5. JamesT

    Would it be far to call Gary Johnson a “low tax sjw?” I literally could care less about immigration but did anyone see his townhall interview? He gets triggered and literally has a temper tantrum cause the interviewer say “illegal” immigrant. Remember when libertarians were survivalist not people who need safe spaces? Seriously. Just say the immigration laws are dumb don’t flip out for 2 minutes about how saying “illegal” might hurt somebodies feelings. God forbid he get that incensed about war, police state, the fed or idk something like the abolish of freedom of association. Oh wait he supports that. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/08/31/exclusive-gary-johnson-objects-to-term-illegal-immigrant-defends-obamas-executive-amnesty-n2212297?platform=hootsuite

  6. Krzysztof Lesiak

    Establishment media endorsing an Establishment candidate. No surprise here. CFR Weld still isn’t bringing in tens of millions of dollars, and even Johnson says there’s only a 50/50 chance he and CFR Weld make the debates. I imagine their actual chances are fairly close to zero.

    It’s time to get ready for 2-3% in November.

  7. Krzysztof Lesiak

    Johnson’s speeches are terrible. He literally repeats the same script word for word at his each new rally. And the last two rallies, Des Moines and Milwaukee, he seemingly has ditched CFR Weld.

    And I swear….if Johnson repeats his moronic and unfunny Mexican pole vault joke one more time…I’m done. People aren’t even bothering to politely laugh anymore. If I heart it one more time, I’m going to exclusively look for Constitution Party news to dig up, as hard as that is to do.

    Scary Gary in Des Moines, September 3rd

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV3VdaFdKy8

  8. Jim

    Krzysztof Lesiak “Establishment media endorsing an Establishment candidate. No surprise here.”

    You’re saying he’s establishment here, Darcy Richardson is over at BAN whining about Gary Johnson wanting an immediate $1.4 Trillion spending cut that would wreck havoc on the economy…

    Get on the same page, people. Gary Johnson cannot be establishment if he wants to take a chainsaw to the federal budget.

  9. Krzysztof Lesiak

    Jill, I’ve seen that article floating around, but I believe it was the same Santa Monica Observer that erroneously reported that Romney and the Bush crime family were going to endorse Gary Johnson. As far as I am aware, the above news is not corroborated by any other media outlet, so I would view it with a grain of salt.

  10. adwatch

    “Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson plans to roll out television ads in some states this week as part of a post-Labor Day blitz aimed at ensuring the former New Mexico governor has strong enough poll numbers to be invited to the presidential debates.”

    “The Libertarian campaign has poured $3.8 million into the television ads set to run this week, as well as radio ads that have been airing in 15 states and on nationally syndicated talk radio.”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/4/gary-johnson-ads-push-libertarian-in-debates/

  11. steve m

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/50-state-poll/

    A Washington Post-SurveyMonkey poll of all 50 states indicates the 2016 campaign could flip several red and blue states from their longtime loyalties. The poll, conducted Aug. 9 through Sept. 1, asked more than 74,000 registered voters who they currently support for president.

    Johnson averages 12% but is at or above 15% in 15 states

    New Mexico 25%
    Utah 23%
    Alaska, Idaho, South Dakota 19%

  12. Tylor Reinhardt

    I saw a huge billboard sign yesterday with Gary Johnson on it in Renton, WA. It was one of the electronic ones that switch between ads. Couldn’t miss it.

  13. Jim

    Wait… I thought it was the Republicans that had seized control of the Libertarian Party? Get on the same page, people.

  14. Curt Boyd

    Q: “And what is Aleppo?”
    A: The end of one’s political career.

    I’m pretty sure it was Tom Knapp or Darcy Richardson who said that Jill Stein had a chance of finishing third this election cycle. This might nail it down.

    Now the Johnson haters will really come out.

  15. Be Rational

    Q: “And what is Aleppo?”

    I think Gary heard this question as, “What are you going to do about a Leppo?”

    So, he clearly asked: “What is a Leppo? thinking that “leppo” is some kind of person or thing.

    Maybe it’s like a Leprechaun.

  16. JamesT

    Schwarzenegger posted on his FB #teamgov should be the debates. I’m uncomfortable with so man establishment people calling for this but really they ought to be included. Plus Arnold has a large non-political following so it’s good coverage for them.

  17. Dave

    Interestingly enough, Donald Trump might be off the Minnesota ballot:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-minnesota-ballot_us_57d2301de4b00642712ce14f

    I believe the GOP could still replace him with someone else, but the obvious effect of this sort of thing would seem to benefit third parties. I could imagine a lot of Trump supporters not sticking with the new guy and voting third party. Or not vote in general, which would give greater weight to third party votes in general.

  18. Nvg

    Cool news about Donald Trump.Darrell Castle could get the conservative vote and Gary Johnson could get the other part of the vote.I think it’s amazing how a major political party with huge resources could mess something like that up.

  19. Be Rational

    “If a pollster calls you, tell them you’re for Johnson/Weld. You can always change your mind after the debates.” – Smerconish

  20. steve m

    A second important southern news paper has endorsed Gary Johnson and William Weld for President.

    “We’ve surprised even ourselves with this endorsement, our first for a Libertarian for president. But the timing has never been better for this particular Libertarian, Gary Johnson of New Mexico. He is everything the presidential candidates for the two major parties are not, thank God.”

    http://www.journalnow.com/opinion/editorials/decision-gary-johnson-for-president/article_7351cdb6-327e-5cf0-b0d2-9bff7ab6d874.html

  21. Be Rational

    Johnson/Weld to run ad (full page?) in NY Times urging debate inclusion.

    Normally, newspaper ads are a waste of money for a national POTUS campaign. This one, however, targeting a specific group and problem, and if it’s a full page and not too expensive, is a good gambit. It can, like other well done targeted advertising, set off a snowball of free media far exceeding the cost of the ad. It’s called leverage. Now we’ll see.

    https://gallery.mailchimp.com/7950131d6fef31d276b1efbe8/files/Johnson_Weld_Open_Letter.pdf

  22. Jim

    Johnson finally hit 13% in a national poll (Qunnipiac.) Johnson has 29% of those 18-34, compared to Hillary’s 31%, Trump’s 26%, and Stein’s 15%. Stein has 4% overall.

  23. Nvg

    In some recent interviews,like the one above, Mr.Castle said that the party was on the ballet in 25 states.As far as I know it’s 24.
    Can someone tell me where he is getting that number?

  24. George Phillies

    Johnson today also hit 5% in an economist/yougov poll. The average is still around 9%.

    Given current polling data, expect Republicans to start calling for the inclusion of Johnson, namely he is pulling appreciably more votes from Clinton than from Trump and they think debating will help him. At some point, the Democrats may conclude that they have to get Johnson into a debate so that Clinton can stomp Johnson into the ground, this being the point at which she must destroy Johnson or she will lose.

  25. Jim

    The Quinnipiac poll had a margin of error of 3.2%, so they’re 95% sure that Johnson is between 9.8% and 16.2%.

    The Economist poll had a margin of error of 3.9%, so they’re 95% sure that Johnson is between 1.1% and 8.9%.

    The differences:
    The Qunnipiac poll was 6 days and the Economist poll was 4 days, both concluding on the same day.
    Qunnipiac polled Likely Voters and the Economist polled Registered Voters.

  26. George Phillies

    “The Quinnipiac poll had a margin of error of 3.2%, so they’re 95% sure that Johnson is between 9.8% and 16.2%.

    The Economist poll had a margin of error of 3.9%, so they’re 95% sure that Johnson is between 1.1% and 8.9%. ”

    As is usually not pointed out, those are the margins of error for a candidate polling 50% of the vote.

    For a candidate polling less of a percent, the margins of error shrink. For example, if a thousand people are polled, and a candidate is at ten percent of the vote (100 supporters in the poll), the statistical error is around square root of 100 people, 10 people, or 1% of the vote.

  27. Thomas L. Knapp

    Why has Cody’s piece on the CP’s “white supremacist baggage” disappeared from IPR? It was being read and discussed, then it just got yanked for some reason.

  28. Kareem Caliente

    [Fake comment by fake troll commenter, fake modified with fake attribution of modification to Thomas L. Knapp, deleted]

  29. Krzysztof Lesiak

    Thomas,

    I took it down – I saved all the comments as screenshots, and sent it to the trash bin, so I’m pretty sure an admin can retrieve the whole thing if they need to.

    I didn’t make the decision to post and then delete lightly – but I will just say that Trent Hill debunked Josh Fauver’s January 2014 article pretty well – which also made the same claims about Peter Gemma. I believe it was unpfroffesional of me and unfair to publish the article without at least letting Peter know in advance – it was very poor journalism on my part. Also, Peter has been an IPR editor when I was still going to middle school, and it was quite in poor taste to publish it. I do not trust organization like SPLC or Right Wing Watch to deliver fair, balanced opinions on anything – after all, they have attacked libertarians too, not just those on the paleoconservative right. I did feel it was out of bounds to post on IPR – and I will use better discretion in the future. IPR is very important to me, it’s just I have extreme difficulty being able to calmly articulate myself and ensure the site does not turn into a gossip rag –

    Back during the LPF stories and LPPA stories, there were more than a few complaints about the stories I was posting. I believe these complaints were warranted, in retrospect. I need to adhere to the highest standards possible.

    Cody’s article is still up on ATPR – same title, same everything, no editions whatsoever. ATPR functions to provide an avenue for publishing content that may be, well, – not well suited for IPR.

    Cody is a good person, I like him- but he is taking a Herculean task by trying to paint the CP as having some ties to white nationalists, even loose ones. Much can be said about the CP, but I think a fair discription of them is the only viable paleoconservative party in the United States that has elements of Christian nationalism here and there – and of course, every party – from the LP, Greens, to the CP and the rest – have people in the party involved or at some point in its history involved who do not represent the mainstream of the party. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect that the CP – or any party for that matter – be expected to adminster a rigorous vetting process to each member. What I’ve noticed with third party activists is that more often then not, they are principled and very happy to bring about new people – and people live busy lives, I don’t think any party would convene a “politburo” (for lack of a better term this morning) to individually screeen each new member who joins the party.

    Also, I said that I would pull the article if at least one factual accuracy was pointed out. There are several – more on that later, I will be working on an article and asking Peter to respond to Cody’s extremely serious allegations – I may also reach out to others featured in the article, possibly – anyway, Darcy commented that the part in the article which says the CP was named after a segregationist party in the 1950s may have been the most ridiculous thing he read on IPR. That is quite a statement indicating this part in Cody’s article was not based on the facts. Darcy Richardson has a lot of stature, credibility, and as far as I know, at least 16 books relating to third party directly or indirectly under his belt. What he said, I take seriously – he’s an elite third party historian and likely – I would think- one of just a handfew in the country, really specializing in this subject area that we on IPR are all interested in.

    American Third Party Report exists as an uncensored forum – at least it won’t be censored by me. An article about Johnson polling number with over 1,600 views and counting was deleted off the site – that was something I was very unhappy about at the time. Personal aninomosity needs to be put the side to the furthest possible extent and proffefsionalism should always take precedence – I realize this is laughable coming from me, but I am trying to turn a new leaf:

    IPR is my favorite site, a major component in my life, and I am not going to turn myself into the gossip rag contributor on here. I’ve had more than a few meltdowns on here in the past, and yet the IPR team/readership has extended the olive branch and been willing to give me chances to redeem myself. Let me be clear – contributing for IPR is a privelage, one I take seriously even if it hasn’t seemed like it many times – and it is one I do not want to lose at any costs. I really enjoy reading others’ thoughts here, even if I strongly disagree with them, IPR is really a special corner of the Internet – and my wish is to be on here for as long as a I possibly can.

    I think it sets bad practice to publish articles that contained unstabstatied and extremely serious claims against others – and especially fellow contributors. IPR has that community feel, after all, that makes it unique. The site does not need a large Facebook following, it has already earned its Alexa rank through people like Peter Gemma, Paulie, Jill Pyeatt, Jeremy Siple, Andy Craig, Caryn Ann Harlos, Dr. Joe Buchmann, Gene Berkman, as well as you, Thomas – if I forgot someone’s name, I apologize sincerely, I am after an all nighter. Also keep in mind I joined IPR in January 2013, and was only a sporadic reader before that time, so I likely missed many names from the old IPR days.

    To summarize – Trent Hill debunked Josh’s article – I like Josh too, if it weren’t for him, ATPR would not exist at all – but he did not utilize his writing talent in his January 2014 article on the CP. In fact, his writing came off as bizarrely amateurish and childish – not at ALL something I would have expected from him, I’ve read a few of Josh’s columns and article before. That’s what happens when someone has an agenda going into an article – it will demur the meaningfulness, potential impact and of course, credibility of their article. Like I said, I am inquiring for new information from Peter so I can get HIS response to the article – and I will spend much of later today, after church, clicking on all the links in the ATPR article and trying to figure out what is true, what is slightly, moderately or greatly exxagerrated, and what does not hold in accord with the cold hard facts. I admit:

    I did not click on 90% of the links in Cody’s article before publishing it on IPR – I read the whole thing – but I clicked on a mere handful of links. That’s bad journalism. My goal is to earn some sort of living of writing and blogging in the future. I need to set higher standards for myself.

    No one is perfect, I’m sure each of us has things in our past we don’t want to share – sometimes one can get caught up in the wrong place at the wrong time, for example, or associate with people they later regret associating with – as Cody mentioned about Bill Shearer and the Populist Party of the 1980s. However, emotions need not get in the way of facts, reason and logic – emotions help form political opinions, but they do not write quality articles – especially investigative pieces. Balance and fairness ( no, not the Faux “News” kind) but real fairness and balance, leaving your opinions at the door while using your outlook on the world or subject matter to help you in your investigative research – I feel that is the key.

    In conclusion: Cody’s article was well written and organized, he is a good writer in my opinion – but it did not have the factual accuracy, and did make extremely serious accusations against a longtime and well respected CP activist, political staffer and third party activist and most importantly – fellow IPR contributor. We all saw how the comments section was not going in a positive direction to say the least – of course, I played my part in the mess.

    I’m turning over a new leaf over at IPR. The change process began yesterday. The first step was correcting a mistake, which was publish the “Racist Baggage” article. I will from now one use much more discretion in what I publish. It is really a testament – could say miracle – but I’ll stick with testament – to the character and empathy exhibited by everyone on here – a special thank you to Warren, who’s been very understanding and tolerant and willing to offer second chances – and of course, Paulie as well, who signed me up for IPR nearly four years ago and who I hope will be making a glorious return to IPR very soon. I look forward to strong, critical, possibly intense even – debate and dialogue with him, should he choose to come back – of course, his legacy is in the IPR hall of fame and it’s all up to him – he does do almost all of the forwarding in the IPR email list.

    New day, fresh start – I will be critically examining Cody’s article later in the day – first, I have some photos and updates from the Illinois for Gary Johnson Victory Center to post. I think IPR members will enjoy the pictures, they are cool.

  30. Krzysztof Lesiak

    Quick anology (hypothetical 😉 )

    Let’s say I once had a friend who I’d smoke a somewhat fair amount of cannabis with and drink a less fair amount liquor with as well. The friend could be a member of a big Hispanic street gang, and could have spent a year in prison a decade ago in his life. For very fair amount of time, I was associating myself actively with this friend. He wasn’t even active in this gang, let’s say, just in it technically, but no longer active- wanted to turn his life around. I spent time with him, learned some things, and we became pretty good friends.

    Now:

    Does that mean I am guilty by association – that I am a gang member, because this friend may have been one at some point, still is in fact, but is not active and has not had major law enforcement issues for a decade? He has good attributes – does that mean I disqualify him just because he may have some “sketchy” aspects of his past? Does that mean though – that I am automatically a gang member or former gang member and that I served a felony myself, and that I should be prosecuted or examined by police because something my friend did a decade ago and made mistakes in the past? Does that mean I should go through the same gehenna my friend did, which is prison?

    Look – that is what Cody does in his CP attack articles – he pulls the guilt by association schtik so much that it makes people not take his work – yes, I consider his latest article to be work, he spent a good while finding the links and organizing and writing it – but the whole guilt by association thing:

    One time, in 2000, we had a candidate in Delaware who happened to take a picture with David Duke, sure, he might personally know him too, and by default, the Constitutution Party has “racist baggage”. Just because someone on the WN scene was associated in some way with a candidate SIXTEEN years ago in a state the size of a small French city population wise, the whole party suddenlty has “issues” with racism.

    This is a mental prison and a tactic of leftists like the SPLC and Right Wing Watch – smear those who think critically – think differently – by using the guilt by association schtik ad nauseum , and finding links WHERE THERRE ARENT ANY THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Connect dots that aren’t there, misreprsent, and exaggerate and also………past………focus on the past…..if you look at Cody’s article………..almost every name mentioned is a person that hasn’t been involved in the CP in many years. Take Michael Peroutka for example. He was elected as a GOP candidate to the Anne Arundel (sp?) city council not too long ago…he’s not even CP anymore, and the CP doesn’t share anything by him.

    And we come back to my Hispanic friend. He did something bad a decade ago (hypothetically…../) spent a year in prison, got out, and made an effort to change his life around while still maintaing some contacts with old friends who may have been bad influences – but genuinely trying to get his act together.

    The CP is in a much better boat – they stick to their principles, don’t nominate pro TTIP and CFR approved candidates, and they actually learn their mistakes wayyyyyy better than my hypothethical (….) friend…they realized Goode wasn’t a good choice, and in 2016, they nominated to very seasoned and dedicated party activists with impeccable character and values.

    None of us is perfect. We all have associations from the past we regret, and this includes even loose or negligible associations and we have all made mistakes and said things we regret – be it political or non political.. we are all imperfect creatures.

    Cody, you’re better than this. Focus on what matters, not on looking in the ashtry for that one cigarrette butt that is almost entirely filter but maybe has one half drag you can take and that scream in glee that you got that smoke you needed after a long stressfull day when we all know a cigarrette short is nothing at all and quite frankly is repelling….come on Cody. You can do much better. I read your article on Scottish independence, I know what you’re capable of. Bury the hatchet with the CP, run for LP Nevada officer or even run for office. Focus your energy on your new party.

    So that’s that.

  31. Karl T. Knight

    Does anyone know if the states of Missouri and Kentucky publish their certified write-in candidates online anywhere?

  32. Jim

    Hillary is panicking about Johnson’s numbers with millenials. Aside from spreading rumors Weld will drop out and endorse her she’s sending both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders to Ohio to win over millennials and she is giving a speech on Monday in Philadelphia aimed at millennials.

    And then there’s this:

    “The principal “super PAC” supporting Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy, Priorities USA Action, has concluded from its polling and other research that the reluctance to embrace the Democratic nominee among those who intensely dislike Mr. Trump is not going away and must be confronted.

    “We’ll be launching a multimillion-dollar digital campaign that talks about what’s at stake and how a vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for Donald Trump, who is against everything these voters stand for,” said Justin Barasky, a strategist for Priorities USA.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/16/us/politics/hillary-clinton-presidential-race.html

  33. George Phillies

    I saw a Johnson for President ad on CNN News, today around 2PM. I could see, but not hear. The graphics were fine. The absence of mention of our party in the graphics was prominent, making the ad rather pointless for the future of our party.

  34. Be Rational

    Good luck convincing those millennials …

    “A recent NBC News poll found that just 11 percent of Americans say Clinton is honest and trustworthy. To put that in perspective, 14 percent of American voters believe in Bigfoot. In other words, more Americans believe that a large, hairy, hominoid creature inhabits the forest of North America than believe that Hillary Clinton tells the truth.”

  35. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Be Rational: LOL about more people believing in Bigfoot than Hillary’s honesty.

    I’m convinced that having her elected as president is the fastest route to the total destruction of what liberty we have left in this country.

    Trump is not much better, but I think there’s a possibility he could at least slow down things a bit. I wouldn’t put money on that, though.

  36. Tony From Long Island

    Jill ” . . . . I’m convinced that having her elected as president is the fastest route to the total destruction of what liberty we have left in this country.

    Trump is not much better, but I think there’s a possibility he could at least slow down things a bit. I wouldn’t put money on that, though. . . . . ”

    Really? The guy who said yesterday that African-Americans have “never had it worse” in this country? That guy? He would be worse than Hillary? The guy who seems to forget about slavery and lynchings and the struggles of the 50’s and 60’s . . . That guy?

    The guy who says that every time he is sued he wins and that he NEVER settles . . . but then it’s exposed that when he actually does settle, he uses money other people give to his fake charity to take care of the settlement (p.s. that is illegal). That guy?

    The guy who just recently said that Hillary started a vicious smear (birtherism – which isn’t true) but himself perpetuated that “vicious smear” for YEARS? That guy? The guy who continued to make the most disgusting false accusation against a U.S. President in our history? Disgusting racist garbage. That guy?

    The guy whose secret plan to defeat ISIS is to ask “the generals” for ideas within 30 days . . . (but I thought he knew more about ISIS than the generals). . . . wait isn’t that what all presidents do?

    The guy who attacks us as weak on terrorism even though the NYPD (and FBI) just caught the most recent guy within 24 hours?

    The guy who thinks that a U.S. Citizen is getting great treatment and “room service” in the hospital. The guy is handcuffed and shackled to a hospital bed. Then he’ll be stuck in a 8 by 10 box for 23 hours a day and eventually in the Supermax in Colorado where he will never have human contact again. Having spent years in such an 8 x 10 box, it isn’t the glorious treatment this buffoon talks of. This payaso thinks that Constitutional rights should only be afforded some of the time . . .

    The man who all but praised the autocratic ruler of Egypt yesterday . . . that guy . . . I could go on

    But he’s the better option . . . OK

  37. Be Rational

    Tony,

    Everything you said about Trump is true … and you are understating just how evil, unpredictable and dangerous he is. But, even so, nobody knows the future and Clinton is so corrupt, dangerous and evil on her own account that, as unlikely as it seems, she could, in fact, be worse.

    Our best but even more unlikely hope is that we never have to find out just how bad either one of them is.

  38. Tony From Long Island

    Clinton is a very high-baggage candidate. You are correct – but the list of truly awful things about Trump is endless and eternally longer than any list that you could make about Clinton (as long as you use actual truth – not that alt-right shit).

    I did not vote for Clinton in the primary and I am not voting for her in November, but I have no fear for the future of our nation if she is elected (and thankfully she almost certainly will be).

    Trump on the other hand is a clueless buffon who has a great talent for bullshitting his way through everything. He has no idea what he is talking about 90% of the time.

    He won his primary because there were 16 others. If it was 4 or 5 credible candidates and the Trumpster Fire he would not have won. Most of the early primaries were won by him with less than 30 or 25% . .

    He is just the worst and least qualified candidate for the presidency since Warran Harding – and at least Harding was a sitting senator.

  39. Be Rational

    Everything you say about Trump is true. He is surely more risky and dangerous than Clinton. However, Clinton is still too corrupt, evil and dangerous to be allowed in the White House, even as a visitor.

    Warren Harding was probably, and unfortunately, one of our better presidents.

  40. Tony From Long Island

    Rational ” . . . Warren Harding was probably, and unfortunately, one of our better presidents. . .. ”

    That might one of the least rational of your comments. What do you base that on?

  41. Be Rational

    After WWI, in 1920, due to the inflation and expansion of the monetary base and bank credit under Wilson by the Federal Reserve to finance the war and expanding government, the US went into a depression wose than the depression that began in 1929.

    Fortunately, Harding did little, so the depression ended quickly. It was over by 1921.

    The 1929 depression was turned into the Great Depression by Hoover and Roosevelt which, with its ups and downs, many economists now show didn’t finally end until at least 1943.

    Yes, he had affairs while in office and there was corruption during his administration – sounds like Bill Clinton – but not making the economy worse and allowing it to cure himself puts him ahead of almost every president since, without looking at wars, failed social programs, government growth and massive tax increses that most can lay claim to.

  42. Tony From Long Island

    Rational, Harding took office in March of 1921, so I’m not sure he really had anything to do with it.

    Your statement that “Harding did little…” was pretty accurate. He did pretty much nothing except get played by his handlers during his short tenure.

  43. Thomas L. Knapp

    Well, he did get as far as possible (within the United States as it then existed) from Washington, DC and then keel over dead. That should be good for at least SOME “best president” points.

  44. Be Rational

    Rational, Harding took office in March of 1921, so I’m not sure he really had anything to do with it.

    The recession ended – meaning the economy hit bottom – later in 1921. By doing nothing, he allowed the economy to right itself and begin growing again.

    He’d certainly be better than either Clinton or Trump if elected today – alive or dead, he would be better.

  45. George Phillies

    Harding did several important things.

    First, he ended (in a legal sense) our war in Europe.
    Second, when Teapot Dome erupted, he confronted one of the malefactors “I took him by the collar, and shook him like the rat he was”. Within a few months, some of the malefactors had been tried and convicted, and others had patriotically saved the government money by committing suicide.
    Third, and most important, he freed all of Wilson’s political prisoners.

  46. Tony From Long Island

    George: ” . . . Harding did several important things.

    First, he ended (in a legal sense) our war in Europe. . . . ”

    Wow, that’s really grasping for straws. Giving Harding credit for ending WWI is like giving Bill Clinton credit for ending the cold war.

    Your other two comments were accurate

  47. Shane

    So not a peep on IPR about Johnson’s major gaffe this week?

    The Aleppo thing is an understandable mistake, but to not even realize that people were seriously injured in the terror attacks in both NYC and St. Cloud was a bonehead statement.

    Johnson is turning into a caricature of a pot head running for president.

  48. Krzysztof Lesiak

    I’ve stopped following the Johnson campaign out of respect to Johnson’s supporters on IPR.

    People need to wake up and realize Jweld is a NWO shill co-op operation.

    I’m not going to post any Johnson articles on here anymore.

    I’m taking a break from IPR. We’ll see what happens.

  49. Anthony Dlugos

    That’s because it wasn’t a gaffe, Shane. He referred to “responders” in the statement, meaning he probably meant to say that he was thankful no one got killed, not hurt. Obviously responders show up when people are injured.

    But again, no one cares. That’s why it’s not a story. Keep trying, though.

  50. Anthony Dlugos

    Loosen up the tinfoil hat, Mr. Lesiak.

    You think the best the NWO/grey alien/illuminati cabal can do is get behind 3rd party candidate who’s budget the duopoly party candidates probably spend on swizzle sticks and cocktail weenies?

  51. Shane

    Anthony, no need to be an apologist for a dipshit. He wasn’t referring to responders, the dude admitted he misspoke.

    Admission or no, it clearly shows he’s not fit for the main stage. Major gaffe. Covered by everyone from NBC to NY Daily News. And you say “no story”? Seriously?

    He really needs to lay off of the weed and his supporters should lay off the delusion.

  52. Shane

    KL, I don’t know about the NWO shill thing but they are running to pull votes from Hillary.

    I haven’t seen coverage of Purple PAC that has dropped a million on Johnson to target progressive voters. Purple PAC is why the LP gubernatorial candidate in VA did so well a few years back. Ed Crane’s operation.

    Crane has spend more money directly appealing to voters than Johnson appears to have spent — and the intent is to defeat Hillary.

    Whether Johnson and Weld are complicit, who knows.

  53. Krzysztof Lesiak

    Anthony,

    The are two forces in the world.

    God vs evil Satan (New World Order).

    I choose to dedicate my life to God.

    Look at the big picture. And by big picture – really look at the big picture.

  54. Anthony Dlugos

    Exactly, he misspoke. So what? That hardly makes him unqualified for the position, and it DEFINITELY does not make him less qualified than the other options.

    The story has no legs, except among Losertarians. But keep trying.

  55. Tony From Long island

    ” . . . .He really needs to lay off of the weed and his supporters should lay off the delusion. . . . ”

    Weed has nothing to do with it. The man is just not a great speaker and not as informed as he should be.

  56. Jim

    Mistakenly saying “just grateful that nobody got hurt” instead of “just grateful that nobody got killed” is a non-event to anyone who isn’t already biased against Johnson.

  57. Tony From Long Island

    SHANE: ” . . . .I don’t know about the NWO shill thing but they are running to pull votes from Hillary. . . . ”

    First off, they both DESPISE Trump. Why help elect him. Second, Gary isn’t smart enough to even conceive of such a plan. Gov. Weld has been friends with Hillary for over 40 years. Why help defeat her? It’s just ridiculous.

    Originally, they should have taken more Trump votes. But Gov. Johnson kept talking about how much he had in common with Bernie . . . In the end it will probably be equal in terms of who he takes votes from.

    Sometimes the NWO / CFR stuff gets too “Andy” conspiracy crazy . . . take a step back and try to be rational.

  58. Anthony Dlugos

    As someone (I forget who) associated with the campaign said after the kerfuffle regarding Johnson’s answer on the Civil Rights Act question at the Saturday night debate in Orlando: the campaign was going to lose the people who got upset about that anyway; they were going to find SOMETHING to get upset about and start the inquisition. We have people at this very site excoriating Johnson for something he said offhandedly while walking down a street in Cleveland. It would be suicidal for the campaign to try and appease people who will never be appeased.

    Considering the fact that Weld did a decent job as the governor of Massachusetts, it was probably worth it to nominate him just so that the Unappeasable Caucus would write the ticket off of their own volition, freeing the ticket to reciprocate.

  59. langa

    We have people at this very site excoriating Johnson for something he said offhandedly while walking down a street in Cleveland.

    Come on. The manner and venue in which he said it have nothing to do with anything. Are you really telling me that if he had said, “I just don’t think most black people are that smart” while walking down the street in Cleveland, or if he had said, “Most women who get raped are asking for it by dressing like sluts” while walking down the street in Cleveland, that you would say those statements are no big deal? The reason you don’t mind what he said isn’t because of where he was when he said it. It’s because you agree with it, or at least don’t strongly disagree with it.

  60. Jim

    The August numbers, looking only at contributions from individuals and excluding the candidate’s own money, loans, PAC and other committee transfers, and federal funds:

    $26,894,744 Clinton
    $18,345,831 Trump
    $4,971,147 Johnson
    $654,649 Stein

    As a share of the total:

    52.9% Hillary
    36.1% Trump
    9.8% Johnson
    1.3% Stein

  61. Anthony Dlugos

    langa,

    Frankly speaking, I just don’t equate the comment that Johnson made with the hypothetical examples you gave. Those are so inflammatory, so off-the-wall, you are right that it wouldn’t make a difference where it was said. On the other hand, as the thread in question demonstrates, some case could be made that secondhand smoke is a pollutant.

    In any case, while the smoking comment is not a position I agree with, since he is not making it part of his campaign platform, and since I know he knows we have bigger problems, and since Governor Johnson has been nothing if not a Pragmatic since he started campaigning this cycle, I know damn well he is not going to waste precious time on the issue if by some miracle he got elected.

    As I pointed out previously, I read Governor Johnson’s smoking comment and…while in disagreement on philosophical level, I started imagining what would happen if we had nominated a purist and that comment had been posed to him/her: the campaign would have ground to a halt until said Purist had convinced the entire nation of the righteousness of Rothbardian property rights, which is to say that the campaign would have ground to a halt PERMANENTLY, because…well, when a Purist finds a tertiary issue that the public is wrong about, their natural disposition is to dig in for the battle, no matter how long it takes. It’s very World War I appropriate.

    But I guess that thought process is what makes me a pragmatic.

  62. Thomas L. Knapp

    “it was probably worth it to nominate him just so that the Realist Caucus would write the ticket off of their own volition, freeing the ticket to reciprocate.”

    Fixed, no charge.

  63. Anthony Dlugos

    haha, Mr. Knapp, but didn’t you know? We’ve already been through the hard times! You were there in Orlando when the Suicidal Caucus tried to dump everyone outside of McCarthy…and I mean Melissa McCarthy on the ticket in order to keep the clubhouse neat and tidy, void of growth.

  64. Thomas L. Knapp

    Anthony,

    Yes, I was in Orlando when the Realist Caucus tried to save the party from starry-eyed utopian gullibles like you.

    Maybe there will be enough left to rebuild something worthwhile from the wreckage.

  65. Anthony Dlugos

    Well, okay, but count me out if that gets started past 2025. I’m retiring to Uruguay then.

  66. George Dance

    Shane:

    “Crane has spend more money directly appealing to voters than Johnson appears to have spent”

    Not true. Purple Pac’s spent about $1 million on ads – J/W’s spent more than 3 times that.

    “— and the intent is to defeat Hillary.”

    And last month we were being told the ‘intent’ was to elect Hillary.

    Is the idea that people run for and support third parties because they don’t want to elect either of the two larger party candidates so hard to grasp?

  67. langa

    …some case could be made that secondhand smoke is a pollutant.

    Perhaps so. But that was not the statement that he agreed with. The statement that he agreed with was, “There is a good libertarian case for banning cigarettes.” The latter is completely different than, and in no way follows from, the former. And, as I explained on the other thread, the fact that Johnson would agree with the latter statement, given how far removed it is from the principles he is supposed to be promoting, as well as the other positions that he often takes, demonstrates a serious lack of judgment on his part. It is this lack of judgment (or, to put it another way, this lack of libertarian “instincts”) that worries me, far more than the specific statement (though I do find that troubling, too).

  68. langa

    Is the idea that people run for and support third parties because they don’t want to elect either of the two larger party candidates so hard to grasp?

    Not really. I just wish someone would have explained that to Weld before giving him the VP nomination.

  69. George Dance

    [GD]: “Is the idea that people run for and support third parties because they don’t want to elect either of the two larger party candidates so hard to grasp?

    langa: “Not really. I just wish someone would have explained that to Weld before giving him the VP nomination.”

    So now the rumor that Weld is dropping out to endorse Clinton has become proven fact in your mind as well?

    Maybe I should start a rumor that Johnson and Weld are dining on human embryos during the campaign, just to see how fast and far you guys circulate that one.

  70. Jim

    langa “‘some case could be made that secondhand smoke is a pollutant.’ Perhaps so. But that was not the statement that he agreed with. The statement that he agreed with was, “There is a good libertarian case for banning cigarettes.” The latter is completely different than, and in no way follows from, the former.”

    Second hand smoke was what prompted the comment. They were following a smoker walking down the street. It’s entirely possible that Johnson was referring to public places.

  71. George Dance

    Jim – “Second hand smoke was what prompted the comment. They were following a smoker walking down the street. It’s entirely possible that Johnson was referring to public places.”

    Jim, there’s no sense reasoning with an anti-Libertarian: someone who’s here only to trash the ticket.

    I gave that up over a month ago when they were pushing the story that Johnson and Weld secretly support the War on Drugs.

    Try to answer it, or leave it alone; it will make absolutely no difference.

  72. Shane

    George, I think you missed the nuance. $1m spent ON ADS.

    Johnson has spent $3m on his campaign. Now more with the latest numbers. Ask Phillies how much has been spent on direct advertising.

    And as far as concepts to grasp, get that a lot goes on outside of the tiny little world of Libertarians. Smart people see that Johnson pulls from Hillary and in a very cost effective way. If you could only see the media plans developed to spend gobs of money to pull votes from Hillary to Johnson, you may finally get it.

    You can’t convince a Hillary supporter to switch to Trump (reasonably), but it’s an easy sell to get a soft democrat to jump to Johnson.

    Money is being spent on this and it’s the best way for Trump to win as he can’t do it straight up in the electoral college.

    That’s the real world buddy.

  73. Anthony Dlugos

    langa,

    Fair enough, that’s a good point.

    Governor Johnson is wrong about that. and I frankly don’t care. Not being a jerk, that’s my honest opinion. Its got almost nothing to do with the job he wants.

    I don’t expect him to “promote libertarian philosophy.” He’s just a guy running for a job, he wasn’t nominated to be libertarian philosophy spokesperson. If I thought that was the job, I would definitely NOT have supported him. All I want him to do is BEGIN cutting down the size and reach of the federal government. He doesn’t need to be a Rothbardian purist to do that. In fact, its better if he isn’t.

    The advantage of being a pragmatist is that he’s not going to be caught up in tertiary concerns. The statement about banning cigarettes bothered you, but I’ll bet governor Johnson did not even give it a second thought. I’ll bet he zippity do-dahs right past the inconsistencies in his libertarianism. That’s okay. I’m not reading Gary Johnson articles to further burnish my libertarian principles.

  74. Thomas L. Knapp

    “All I want him to do is BEGIN cutting down the size and reach of the federal government.”

    Which is what makes you a starry-eyed utopian fantasist.

    He is not going to be elected president.

    He never WAS going to be elected president.

    There was never a better than one in one thousand chance — being extra-optimistic — that he was going to get so much as a single earned electoral vote.

    The purpose of a Libertarian Party presidential campaign — the only purpose of a Libertarian Party presidential campaign — is to build a party that might someday be able to aspire to implementing the party’s platform. Anything else is crack-pipe daydreaming.

  75. Anthony Dlugos

    I mean “he” in the generic sense as well. I mean any Libertarian candidate for president. Or any office, for that matter.

    The utopian is the person who attempts to turn a campaign for president into an educational mission or a party-building project. That’s not the job. Not sure why you keep insisting it is. Not sure how an LP candidate for president is going to party build when no one in the media bothers to cover someone who is turning the campaign into something it isn’t or never will be.

    You want to build the party, nominate someone qualified for the position. As a side benefit, the party will be built.

  76. William Saturn

    For a libertarian perspective on the Harding presidency, read Reassessing the Presidency.

    Excerpt from p. 9–10:

    While Harding’s administration was mired in scandals, they appear to be modest relative to those of the Clinton era. Moreover, taxes were slashed, and industrial production during Harding’s tragically short tenure rose over 60 percent. Furthermore, Harding let markets work to end the 1920-1921 depression. Playing golf and poker and drinking whiskey, Harding allowed the price mechanism to lower unemployment from double-digit levels when he assumed office to less than 4 percent when he died.

  77. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I mean ‘he’ in the generic sense as well. I mean any Libertarian candidate for president. Or any office, for that matter.”

    Thinking it can be generic is utopian as well. Johnson has a record vis a vis growing or shrinking government, and that record is that he grows government faster than inflation, faster than population growth, and faster than Barack Obama. So expecting him to shrink it even if he COULD get elected is counter-intuitive.

  78. Jim

    Johnson has raised $7.9 million through August. LP Presidential candidates in the years 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012 combined brought in $7.2 million.

    The LNC passed the $2 million mark for the first time since 2004 and could possibly hit $3 million for only its second time in history. There’s an outside chance of breaking the $3.3 million record set in 2000.

    Stein is up to $2.8 million, more than double the $1.2 million she raised in 2012.

    The Green national party has only raised $261,000?

  79. Andy

    It is a shame all of that money is being used to promote such lame candidates as Johnson/Weld.

    How much of this money is coming from libertarians, and how much is coming from “Never Trump” Republicans who are not libertarian at all?

    They are still behind the Ed Clark/David Koch campaign from 1980 when you adjust the amount of money the campaigns have for inflation.

  80. Jim

    Andy “How much of this money is coming from libertarians, and how much is coming from “Never Trump” Republicans who are not libertarian at all?”

    As long as it’s green…

    Andy “They are still behind the Ed Clark/David Koch campaign from 1980 when you adjust the amount of money the campaigns have for inflation.”

    How about we account for inflation and strip out the money David Koch contributed? I can’t find official sources, but looking at an old post-election letter from David Koch, it looks like the 1980 campaign raised somewhere around $3.5 million. But more than $2 million of that came from David Koch and about $1.5 million from other sources. I’ll assume that $1.5 million came entirely from individuals.

    $1.5 million in 1980, adjusted for inflation, is $4.4 million in 2016.

    Even if we go with the larger number of $3.5 million, that’s $10.2 million in 2016. Johnson’s campaign passed that mark this month.

  81. Andy

    I totally disagree with your “as long as it is green” comment. “Never Trump” Republicans are not interested in libertarianism, or the Libertarian Party. They are using us. These are people who are not likely to stick around the party long term, and if they do, they will have a corrupting influence on the party, like they are now.

    Also, look at the crappy, weak message that Johnson/Weld are promoting. They are not promoting a bold, inspirational libertarian message. They are promoting watered down, and in more than a few cases, anti-liberty crap.

    I’d also be curious to know how efficiently this money is being spent, and how much of it is ending up in the pockets of Johnson’s handlers, and what they are doing to justify the amounts they are getting paid.

    I find it pretty sad how many so called “Libertarians” have thrown their principles away and are supporting this garbage.

  82. Jim

    I’m guessing that a lot of them will stick around. A lot of it will depend on other factors: If Hillary wins and continues to be a crony capitalist war monger; if Trump wins and continues to be a crony capitalist bigot with an erratic foreign policy; if Trump loses, but he and his supporters stick around and fight for control of the GOP… The odds of at least one of those happening are pretty good, I think.

    Presidential elections always have higher activity than the surrounding years, but I don’t think we’re going back to 2015 levels. I think the LNC will finish 2017 with at least 5,000 more donors than the LNC finished with in 2015. That’s assuming this contract shit is straightened out and the LNC gets access to Johnson’s contact list.

    But I’m even more confident that Darcy Richardson’s prediction that Stein will beat Johnson and Krzysztof Lesiak’s prediction that Johnson will only get 2% are both wrong. Johnson has passed the point where high polling 3rd party candidates begin to fade, and he hasn’t.

  83. Andy

    The “Never Trump” Republicans are just as bad as Hillary Clinton, and they a no better than Trump, maybe even worse, but certainly not better. People like this joining the Libertarian Party will ruin the Libertarian Party if there are too many of them.

  84. Anthony Dlugos

    “How much of this money is coming from libertarians, and how much is coming from “Never Trump” Republicans who are not libertarian at all?”

    Holy mother of god that statement oughta be tattooed on the forehead of every Losertarian so we can disregard their votes at the Conventions.

    Sort of like a Libertarian Mark of the Beast.

  85. Anthony Dlugos

    I’ve always wanted to get the Four Horsemen of the Apocalpyse tattooed on my arm, but the cost estimates when I went to decent artists has been more than I wanted to pay.

  86. Andy

    Do you think that these Republicans are donating because Johnson/Weld have a great libertarian message and these donors really care about the party and the cause?

  87. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Do you think that these Republicans are donating because”

    Is there some particular reason that I should care why they are donating?

    The campaign is either a good campaign or it isn’t.

    If it isn’t, good donors won’t make it good.

    It if is, bad donors won’t make it bad.

  88. Andy

    Tom, these donors are donating because it is a bad campaign from a libertarian perspective, which to them is a good thing.

    The reason to be concerned is that people of this ilk essentially bought the Libertarian Party presidential ticket, and they are using it for their own nefarious purposes, which has nothing to do with promoting the cause of liberty.

    The “Party of Principle” has sold out. Maybe it is time to replace that motto.

  89. Anthony Dlugos

    It might be a bad campaign from an unrealistic purist perspective. It’s a good campaign from a realistic libertarian perspective.

    Furthermore, you don’t have the option to consider what an Andy-approved Unrealistic Caucus nominee could have done with the money Johnson-Weld has raised. Lose this ticket, you lose the funding. Lose the funding, you lose any ability to educate 120 million+ voters spread across 3.8 million square miles. Simple as that. That equation is never gonna change.

  90. Jim

    Andy “The “Never Trump” Republicans are just as bad as Hillary Clinton, and they a no better than Trump, maybe even worse, but certainly not better.”

    Don’t lump them all together. There are different varieties of Never Trump Republicans, and they’re going towards different candidates. Those who believe Trump’s foreign policy isn’t aggressive enough are going to Hillary. The social conservatives and Israel First Republicans are going to McMullin, when available. I don’t know where the rest are going, but Johnson is too pro-choice to be picking up much of their support. If they do support Johnson/the LP, it will only be for this election as a protest.

    A lot of the Never Trump Republicans that are coming to Johnson are doing so because Trump doesn’t even pay lip service to limited government unless he’s forced to read a speech written by others. Trump wants big government, he just wants us to believe he can make it better. So the free traders terrified by Trump, the fiscal conservatives, they’re coming to Johnson. Those Republicans have always considered libertarianism to be political pornography. It’s not that they don’t want to cut entire departments or eliminate the income tax, it’s that they think it’s a fantasy that can’t happen in the real world. But Trump and Hillary are real world fiscal nightmare’s, so they’re moving to fantasy land because they no longer have anything to lose. And if Trump’s influence on the GOP continues beyond November, they’ll stay here.

    Andy “People like this joining the Libertarian Party will ruin the Libertarian Party if there are too many of them.”

    That would be a failure on our part. They won’t be instantaneous conversions, but they ought to be a relatively easy sell.

  91. Thomas L. Knapp

    “It might be a bad campaign from a realistic purist perspective. It’s a good campaign from an unrealistic libertarian perspective.”

    Fixed.

    A “Libertarian” presidential campaign which gets lots of publicity and uses that publicity to tell people that “Libertarians” support the opposite of what Libertarians actually support is only “good” to those whose goals are the opposite of the Libertarian Party’s goals.

    So Johnson/Weld might get 1/50th of the vote instead of 1/200th of the vote. Whoop de fucking doo. That 1/200th of the vote, if it was achieved by actually advocating for the LP and its platform, was not just worth more, it was a positive while a Johnson/Weld 1/50th is a negative.

  92. Anthony Dlugos

    Obviously, I disagree with your last paragraph entirely.

    From the perspective of where we as a country are now, Weld’s statement of “strong air and naval power projection” with no boots on the ground, no regime change and support for TPP is pretty damn libertarian. Commiserate over whisky with you I will that that is the reality we currently live in.

  93. Thomas L. Knapp

    “From the perspective of where we as a country are now, Weld’s statement of ‘strong air and naval power projection’ with no boots on the ground, no regime change and support for TPP is pretty damn libertarian.”

    The Libertarian Party has a platform.

    The purpose of the Libertarian Party is to implement that platform, not to get 1/50th of the way toward implementing whatever Anthony Dlugos thinks is “pretty damn libertarian.”

    The former might take longer and be harder, but it’s the actual goal. The latter might be quick and easy. So is hitting my hand with a hammer. Doesn’t mean that’s what I’m interested in doing.

  94. Chuck Moulton

    A Massachusetts candidate named Simmons is asking the LNC for money to fund his TV advertisements. The storyboards look awful!!! I hope the LNC doesn’t spend money like drunken sailors flushing it down the drain by sending it to this candidate.

    First, he is asking for $12k even though there is a $5k legal limit.

    Second, he looks pretty sloppy in those photos. Appearance matters in TV advertising.

    Third (most importantly), see this line from his storyboard:
    http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/attachments/20160923/7ac5574f/attachment-0005.pdf

    Shot 1:Do you know what your voting for? Do you want a candidate that…

    Anyone who doesn’t know the difference between “your” and “you’re” and puts that egregious mistake in a pitch for money from an external organization doesn’t deserve a dime.

  95. Andy

    Support for the TPP is pretty damn libertarian?!?!?!? WTF?!?!?!?

    LP Chairman Nicholas Sarwark put out a press release last year condemning the TPP, and he was correct.

    Politicians often dress anti-liberty bills up with pro-liberty, or other flowery language, to dupe people into thinking the legislation is good, and/or does the opposite of what they claim. The TPP is an example of this, as is The Patriot Act, and The Affordable Care Act, and etc….

  96. Andy

    Keep in mind that Bill Weld supported the war in Iraq and that he is a long time supporter of the Bush family.

  97. Jim

    This paper presents a chapter-by-chapter analysis of the TPP from a free trader’s perspective.1 Brief summaries, assessments, scores on a scale of 0 (protectionist) to 10 (free trade), and scoring rationales are provided for each evaluated chapter. Of the 22 chapters analyzed, we found 15 to be liberalizing (scores above 5), 5 to be protectionist (scores below 5), and 2 to be neutral (scores of 5). Considered as a whole, the terms of the TPP are net liberalizing.

    http://www.cato.org/publications/working-paper/should-free-traders-support-trans-pacific-partnership-assessment-americas

  98. Thomas Knapp

    “Considered as a whole, the terms of the TPP are net liberalizing.”

    Sigh. It would be one thing if they said “there are some things we like, some things we don’t like, but overall we think it’s OK.” I’d disagree, but it would at least be honest.

    But no, they had to start in with the calculation voodoo and try to disguise their hocus pocus as some kind of objective analysis.

  99. Deran

    Alright, I’m confused. What the heck happened to American Third Party Reporter? Did I miss something big? This evening when I go there it redirects to a Nathan Norman site ?

    First that well written article by Cody Quirk disappeared off IPR, the Lesiak stopped posting on IPR and now ATPR redirects to a Nathan Norman site. Did I miss something? Have I entered the Twilight Zone?

  100. Deran

    I have some sympathy for Norman, he’s onviously pretty seriously mentally ill, but by allowing him to post his infantile sexual innuendo and tantrums … it just encourages him. I’m sure his psychiatrist wouldn’t approve.

  101. langa

    From the perspective of where we as a country are now, Weld’s statement of “strong air and naval power projection” with no boots on the ground, no regime change and support for TPP is pretty damn libertarian. Commiserate over whisky with you I will that that is the reality we currently live in.

    I can’t imagine how much whisky you would have to drink to make Weld’s shtick seem “libertarian”…

  102. langa

    First that well written article by Cody Quirk disappeared off IPR…

    Well written? You’ve got to be kidding. I admit I didn’t read the whole thing (I’m not a masochist, after all), but from what little I did read, it seemed to be along the lines of, “About 20 years ago, this guy came to a CP meeting, and I heard that his third cousin’s wife used to be friends with a woman whose parents once said some nice things about Hitler. So, obviously, the CP is full of racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic neo-Nazis!”

  103. Deran

    langa: First, homophobic. You teally can’t argue that point. Antisemitic, that’s intereesting because if you accept the Christianist nature of George Wallace’s campaign, the USTPP and the CP it’s technically difficult to argue against that eitherAnd considering your statements here on IPR re Black Lives Matter, and your claims that the fact that African American men being killed by police at a much higher rate than their percentage of the US population should not be spoken of, I can understand you wanting to obfuscate re racism and specifically the racism of the CP. I really can’t speak to the neo-nazi statement.

    I know you, langa, like to present yourself as a libertarian capitalist, even a Libertarian. But don’t you think you would be honest w/ yourself to openly hold allegiance to the so-called American Freedom Party? Or even the Trump campaign?

    Side note: If it hasn’t already been done, I would suggest IPR delete all linkage to the former ATPR as long as that url redirects to Norman’s website.

  104. Be Rational

    LIstening to Gary Johnson, he’s really hard to follow. Some candidates talk too long – it’s boring and they don’t get media coverage. So, they have to learn to talk in “sound bites” that make the news …

    but, Gary Johnson talks in brain bites. It gives me a headache.

  105. George Phillies

    I have not posted on Johnson’s August financials because my normal computer isin the shop. To post, I broke out my 15 year old UNIX machine, which somewhat to my surprise turned on when powered up,after a fair number of years of no operation.

  106. Jim

    GreenDemSoc – Cold is historically associated with mass extinctions. Heat is associated with thriving biodiversity. All previous mass extinctions were the result of super volcanoes or meteors spewing particles into the atmosphere which blocked out the sun and caused a significant drop in temperature.

  107. langa

    Langa, why don’t you just stop pretending to be a libertarian; you’re not fooling anyone, especially me.

    Why don’t you stop pretending to be anything other than an anti-CP troll? You exhibit all the classic signs of a troll: All your posts are about the same thing, you constantly hijack threads that bear only a tangential relationship to your vendetta, and you continue to repeat your stupid propaganda, no matter how often it is debunked. You’re really no different than Nathan Norman.

  108. langa

    …I can understand you wanting to obfuscate re racism…

    No, the only thing I want to “obfuscate” is the obsession with identity politics that the Establishment propagates in order to distract and divide any opposition to its tyrannical policies.

    I know you, langa, like to present yourself as a libertarian capitalist, even a Libertarian. But don’t you think you would be honest w/ yourself to openly hold allegiance to the so-called American Freedom Party? Or even the Trump campaign?

    No, I have no interest in any party or campaign that advocates the use of violence to achieve its goals. On the other hand, a self-proclaimed “socialist” such as yourself obviously has no problem with spilling as much blood as necessary to achieve your economically illiterate utopian fantasies. In fact, it was your bonehead ideology that gave us the likes of Stalin and Mao, who between them, were responsible for murdering somewhere around 70 million people. I’m certainly no fan of Trump, but he couldn’t possibly be any worse than the butchers that you idolize.

  109. Mr. Brown

    langa,

    “..the likes of Stalin and Mao, who between them, were responsible for murdering somewhere around 70 million people. I’m certainly no fan of Trump, but he couldn’t possibly be any worse ..”

    He can, and quite likely will be. Neither Stalin nor Mao had the nuclear arsenal and intercontinental ballistic missile capacity to wipe out all human life, and neither had twitter. As has been presciently observed elsewhere, Trump will get in a twitter war over which other world leaders are fat and ugly that will escalate and lead to a real war, with nuclear weapons. We would be very lucky indeed if any form of life on this planet higher than a cockroach survives a Trump administration. Personally, I don’t see us being so lucky.

  110. Cody Quirk

    No langa, I actually post comments under my real name and I don’t physically threaten people and their loved ones or constantly insult their loved ones without provocation. So your “description” is quite obsturd.
    But what is not obsturd is the CP’s authoritarian baggage and clear abuse of the title ‘constitutionalist’, and someone needs to point that out when it’s called for.

    Do me a favor- read the entire CP national platform for once, and then get a clue before you try to tell people that the CP is more libertarian then the L.P. ok?

  111. Andy

    The Constitution Party is not more libertarian than the Libertarian Party, but the Constitution Party’s presidential ticket this year, as well as in 2008, is more libertarian than the Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket.

    Sad but true.

  112. Thomas L. Knapp

    Castle’s campaign web site has a section labeled “platform” and a section labeled “issues.” Neither of them is very informative. So it’s hard to tell what he stands for from that

    And since he’s been caught lying and reversing himself at least once in this cycle (saying he’s more libertarian than Johnson, then denying he said that), I’m not sure I’d take any given statement from him on this or that issue as dispositive. I’d want to see him saying the same thing over and over instead of just hoping that he isn’t saying X today and Y tomorrow and Z next week.

    In the absence of any clear, definitive, believable statement from Castle, it seems to me that the only thing to judge him by is his party’s platform, which is about as libertarian as the average Kim Jon Un tirade.

  113. Nvg

    What really needs to be discussed is the media blackout of the Castle campaign.He’s on more state ballots than McNeocon and McNeocon still gets more media coverage.Mr.Castle is even excluded from all national polls which makes it impossible to make any debates.

  114. Anthony Dlugos

    Is he on enough ballots to theoretically win the White House? And I mean listed on the ballot, not as a write-in?

  115. Thomas L. Knapp

    My very quick count from their official map:

    On the ballot for states disposing of 193 electoral votes.

    Registered write-in for states disposing of 94 electoral votes.

    Write-in status pending for states disposing of 223 electoral votes.

    Not sure what you have against write-in votes. Every president prior to 1884 was elected entirely on write-ins.

  116. Anthony Dlugos

    Nothing in particular against write-ins.

    If allowing write-ins means we might end up with 25 people on stage at a presidential debate, then I might have an issue.

    If all it would do is create the possibility of 5, maybe 6 candidates, then I wouldn’t care.

  117. Andy

    I disagree with Tom Knapp’s analysis of Castle, and it should be apparent that Tom is basing it on his clouded personal biases instead of facts.

    I challenge anyone to go issue by issue with Darrell Castle as compared to Johnson/Weld, and you will find that Castle is more libertarian.

    Castle is also more libertarian than any other candidate in the race right now who is on the ballot anywhere.

  118. Thomas L. Knapp

    Here’s the thing about televised debates:

    They are entertainment.

    Ceteris paribus, if the networks think that having two candidates on stage will get the best ratings, there will be two candidates on stage.

    Ceteris paribus, if the networks think that having 20 candidates on stage will get the best ratings, there will be 20 candidates on stage.

    But ceteris are not paribus. Just as with any other form of entertainment, star power matters. If you want Robert Downey, Jr. and Sofia Vargara on the stage and they say OK, but they won’t work with Mariska Hargitay and David Boreanaz, then Mariska and David are free to make other plans for that night.

    The 15% thresholds, ballot access numbers, etc. are all fun to carp about, but the bottom line is that in order for someone like Johnson, Stein, Castle et. al to get into the debates, the stars have to be willing to share the stage with them and the networks have to think it will boost ratings.

  119. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I disagree with Tom Knapp’s analysis of Castle”

    There’s no “analysis” to disagree with. I pointed out that an “analysis” is impossible since Castle is a liar and doesn’t make his alleged positions easily accessible.

    To the extent that I have an idea where Castle is on the issues, I suspect he’s closer to being a libertarian on some of them than Johnson is. I’d be interested in knowing for sure, though. Too bad he makes it so difficult to know.

  120. Mike Blessing

    It’s been alleged that Weld donated to Chris Sununu, Republican running for governor of New Hampshire, but NOT to Max Abramson, the Libertarian running for the same office, AFTER accepting the LP’s VP nomination:

    http://wmur.com/politics/new-hampshire-primary-source-massive-outside-spending-still-ramping-up-in-us-senate-race/41772282

    https://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/09/22/libertarian-for-life-donates-gop-candidate/24GPl5Aaa0AOXWpQeFeKgI/story.html

    https://twitter.com/jdistaso/status/779328481360547840

  121. Andy

    “Mike Blessing

    September 26, 2016 at 13:37

    It’s been alleged that Weld donated to Chris Sununu, Republican running for governor of New Hampshire, but NOT to Max Abramson, the Libertarian running for the same office, AFTER accepting the LP’s VP nomination:”

    We should keep an eye on this to see if we can confirm it in the campaign finance reports.

    This reminds me of when Bob Barr, as a sitting member of the Libertarian National Committee, was raising more money for, and donating more money to, Republican Party candidates (most of whom were big government Republicans), than he was to Libertarian Party candidates.

    This was known by at least some people prior to the Libertarian National Convention in 2008, but it did not stop Bob Barr from winning the LP nomination anyway.

  122. Jim

    The John McAfee documentary was more interesting than I though it would be.

    They cleared up the rumors that he was manufacturing drugs in Belize. He actually was funding a woman’s research into antibiotics. On the other hand, that biologist eventually accused McAfee of drugging and raping her when she told him she was returning to the US because of all the crazy shit that was happening at McAfee’s house.

    They made a decent case that McAfee might have been involved with the murder in Belize. The neighbor had poisoned McAfee’s dogs the day before and McAfee seemed to only hire off duty cops and violent criminal gang members for his security team. There was a claim that McAfee paid one of his security gang members $5,000 at the time of the murder and the guy was seen in the area of the victim’s house the night of the murder. After police found a fingernail in the victim’s hair and sent it to the US for DNA analysis, the guy fled Belize.

    There were accusations that McAfee was involved with the death of another person in Belize, too. Some guy who had robbed his house was supposedly beaten and tasered by McAfee’s cop/gang security so badly that he died at the hospital a few days later.

    After getting some kidnapping threats, McAfee supposedly had his cop/gang security team enforce an 8 PM curfew in the town with the threat of death for anyone caught out past 9 PM.

    Three women in McAfee’s Belize harem claimed he never had sex with any of them. He just liked to have them shit in his mouth.

    Also, Andy might be interested in the photo of McAfee wearing a Baphomet mask.

    So, to review the top 5 LP Presidential candidates, we had:

    John McAfee (see above)

    Marc Feldman – Found dead in a low budget motel 20 miles from home.

    Darryl Perry – Anger management issues, couldn’t even bother to get a haircut when running for President, has minimal professional or political accomplishments, and didn’t fair particularly well in the one interview I watched where he was challenged by someone who wasn’t a libertarian (Sam Seder). But, he is principled, even if he can’t always calmly articulate those principles.

    Austin Petersen – compared Ron Paul to a Soviet apologist who hates America for advocating a non-interventionist foreign policy and then proceeded to argue that the US could intervene militarily against terrorists who attacked France and were based anywhere in the world, which sounds rather neo-conish. He also made a number of vulgar, personal attacks while campaigning that far exceeded anything similar said by Trump. But, he’s professional and well spoken when he wants to be.

    Gary Johnson – An intellectual lightweight with a running mate who barely qualifies as libertarian using the broadest possible definition. But he has a lot of professional and political accomplishments which lend credibility to his campaign and brings the LP a lot of attention.

    … I still think they made the right choice at the convention. But it’s too bad we can’t combine Petersen’s presentation skills, McAfee’s balls, Johnson’s accomplishments, and Perry’s principles.

  123. Anthony Dlugos

    Jim,

    Good post.

    Sadly, not only is previous relevant executive experience irrelevant to some Libertarians, to some it’s an explicit negative.

    Apparently, these poor souls think we are electing a dictator who gets a blank slate federal government.

  124. Andy

    There were problems with all of the candidates, but I still think Johnson was the worst choice. I am still glad that I voted for Darryl W. Perry, and I wish that the party had gotten behind him because I believe that he’d be doing a better job of representing us to the public than Johnson is.

  125. Anthony Dlugos

    As I previously noted, the American public ilooks for a qualified candidate for the office, not the “best” representatives of various political philosophies.

    Presenting the perfect libertarian without elective office experience ensures the person will be ignored. In this presidential election or any presidential election.

  126. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Presenting the perfect libertarian without elective office experience ensures the person will be ignored.”

    And presenting a candidate with elective office experience who doesn’t represent what we’re trying to accomplish gets us two for one — he mostly gets ignored, and when he isn’t ignored he’s selling the opposite of what we want sold.

  127. Anthony Dlugos

    You think this is “being ignored?”

    Come on, man! You’ve been in the party longer than that!

    Ignored is the periodic “voice mail updates” from the Badnarik campaign telling us of yet another 2,000 watt radio station in west Texas cancelling an interview.

  128. Thomas L. Knapp

    Anthony,

    Badnarik was ignored a little more than Johnson is being ignored. But they’re both definitely in the same ballpark of being-ignoredness. And at least when Badnarik got any attention he wasn’t telling America “vote Libertarian — we’re a bunch of goddamn dumbasses.”

  129. Joseph Buchman

    I listened on a radio while doing other more productive activities (cleaning our basement – seemed mucking out dirt was an appropriate coincident activity). More dirt in the airwaves than in the basement.

    Seemed to me that HRC won, but all the polls I’m seeing online right now suggest Trump. Did he, like Nixon, look better on TV or is this an artifact of his more ardent, online, supporters?

  130. langa

    Do me a favor- read the entire CP national platform for once, and then get a clue before you try to tell people that the CP is more libertarian then the L.P. ok?

    I have never said that the CP platform was more libertarian than the LP platform. Not once. It is completely “obsturd” for you to erect such an obvious straw man.

  131. langa

    In the absence of any clear, definitive, believable statement from Castle, it seems to me that the only thing to judge him by is his party’s platform, which is about as libertarian as the average Kim Jon Un tirade.

    Why would you judge Castle by the CP’s platform? You obviously don’t judge Johnson/Weld by the LP’s platform (nor should you).

  132. langa

    We would be very lucky indeed if any form of life on this planet higher than a cockroach survives a Trump administration.

    Sure, Trump could start a nuclear war. But I don’t think he’s all that much more likely to do so than any other President in my lifetime. Hillary, for example, seems rather determined to pick a fight with Russia, and Putin doesn’t seem like the type to back down easily.

    The sad reality is that, while Clinton and Trump may not be that much worse than the usual duopoly candidates, they are still awfully bad, and unlike a lot of years, much of the electorate seems to realize how bad they are. Of course, that just makes it even more disappointing that the LP nominated such a lemon of a ticket.

  133. Be Rational

    “We would be very lucky indeed if any form of life on this planet higher than a cockroach survives a Trump administration.”

    Now, now, don’t be so pessimistic. Electing Trump, even after his nuclear holocost, won’t be the end of all higher life forms … some of them will still be smarter than Clinton and Trump …

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gb4eZ7Z5yk8

  134. Cody Quirk

    “Why would you judge Castle by the CP’s platform?”

    Oh I don’t know. Maybe because he served on the platform committee at the CP’s last national convention and therefore shares part of that responsibility for the CP platform being the way it is. DER!

  135. Cody Quirk

    “I have never said that the CP platform was more libertarian than the LP platform. Not once.”

    I never made that specific claim about you, langa; however you do claim repeatedly that the CP is libertarian and more liberty-oriented then the CP; a very false fact that you like to proclaim as “truth”.

  136. Deran

    I think it is unfortunate that Gary Johnson did not participate in the opportunity Democracy Now presented him and Jill Stein.

    I also think it’s unfortunate that IPR posted some orittle prattle abt purist/anarchocapitalist shennanigans in New Hampshire to the exclusion of posting this mornings Democracy Now where they gave Jill Stein the opportunity to answer the same questions put to Clinton and Trump.

    Did Johnson do a similar thing with a libertarian capitalist media outlet?

    http://m.democracynow.org/stories/16659

  137. Thomas L. Knapp

    I wrote:

    “In the absence of any clear, definitive, believable statement from Castle, it seems to me that the only thing to judge him by is his party’s platform, which is about as libertarian as the average Kim Jon Un tirade.”

    Which langa cited, but apparently didn’t read, before responding:

    “Why would you judge Castle by the CP’s platform? You obviously don’t judge Johnson/Weld by the LP’s platform (nor should you).”

    I was quite clear on why I have to judge Castle by the CP’s platform. His own public issues communications are an undecipherable mess even when he’s not lying about them, which he’s been caught doing at least once.

    Johnson/Weld suck by comparison to the LP platform, but at least it’s mostly possible to tell what the hell they stand for.

  138. Anthony Dlugos

    Governor Johnson has no reason to appear in an event no one in his target audience is gonna watch. That’s just a waste of time.

  139. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I don’t agree with you, Anthony, that people who might tune-in to the Democracy Now! event would not fit with Johnson’s target audience. I believe many past Bernie supporters would tune-in, and, last I heard, Johnson was courting that group (if he isn’t, he should be).

    A friend of mine who was a Bernie supporter (and would NEVER vote for Clinton or Trump) let me know about the upcoming event.

  140. Thomas L. Knapp

    His target audience has so far appeared to be progressives who either won’t vote for, or are iffy about voting for, Hillary Clinton. Democracy Now! is right in his wheelhouse.

    Won’t you be glad when November gets here and you can stop making excuses for Gary Johnson?

  141. Deran

    I wanted Leftie friends of mine to be able to look and listen to Johnson and Stein side by side so they could see Governor Johnson was worth their vote. Stein comes of by a Mondale Democrat. And I think more socialists, who are concerned abt breaking the political duopoly.

  142. Anthony Dlugos

    Its about audience size.

    Johnson is somewhere between 8-10% nationally.

    A Democracy Now event just would not offer someone at 8-10% a big enough audience to make it worth their while.

    Stein is at 1-3%. She also has a lower ceiling and so essentially nothing to lose and nothing better to do. I can assure you if Stein was at 8-10%, she also would not be wasting her time with a Democracy Now event, or getting escorted off private property, or spray painting bulldozers.

  143. Thomas L. Knapp

    “A Democracy Now event just would not offer someone at 8-10% a big enough audience to make it worth their while.”

    It may not be THE biggest audience he’s addressed. But pretty close. Bigger than Stossel by a damn sight.

  144. Anthony Dlugos

    Perhaps. But there’s a time factor involved too.

    Regardless of what you thought of his chances to get into the debates, from his perspective, he’s running out of chances to make the debates. I heard he’ll be on Hardball with Chris Matthews tomorrow. Unless its major cable or network, I wouldn’t be wasting my time if I were him.

  145. Thomas L. Knapp

    He’s running out of chances to make the debates, so yeah, why would he want to be on a ginormous show that hits his target demographic dead center? The obvious good strategy is to go on Chris Matthews instead, that way he can talk entirely to people who:

    1) Are already voting for him; or

    2) Wouldn’t consider voting for him in a million years.

    Because that’s how you get the ol’ poll numbers up.

  146. George Phillies

    “Johnson is somewhere between 8-10% nationally. ”

    The attention for leaders is called to the RealClearPolitics.com poll aggregator (RCP does not do its own polling) for four-way Presdiential polls and recent changes in polling outcomes.

  147. Jim

    Thomas L. Knapp “…Because that’s how you get the ol’ poll numbers up.”

    You got 2.31% and 1.07% in your two runs for US Congress with the Libertarian Party and 0.0018% as the Vice Presidential candidate of the Boston Tea Party.

    Gary Johnson and William Weld have been elected Governor 4 times between them. Weld beat his second opponent 70.85% to 28.26%.

    I have no doubt that you know things that Johnson and Weld don’t. But, I’m going to defer to Johnson and Weld about how to move poll numbers.

    Someone suggested that perhaps the reason Johnson’s campaign has been treading water instead of experiencing the summer/fall fade typical of high polling 3rd parties is due to the two Governor’s effectiveness at moving poll numbers. Stein has gone from 4.8% in June to 2.4% in September. That’s a normal trend. Nader peaked in June in 2000. Perot peaked in May 1996. Perot peaked in June 1992. Anderson peaked in June 1980.

    Johnson, although down in recent days, had his peak in the RCP average just two weeks ago.

  148. langa

    I never made that specific claim about you, langa; however you do claim repeatedly that the CP is libertarian and more liberty-oriented then the CP; a very false fact that you like to proclaim as “truth”.

    Nope, I’ve never said that, either. In fact, I’ve never even said that the CP is more libertarian than the LP (let alone more libertarian than itself). What I have said, and continue to say, is that the 2016 CP Presidential ticket is more libertarian than the 2016 LP Presidential ticket. For the record, I would also say the 2008 CP ticket (Baldwin/Castle) was more libertarian than the 2008 LP ticket (Barr/Root).

  149. langa

    Johnson/Weld suck by comparison to the LP platform, but at least it’s mostly possible to tell what the hell they stand for.

    It is? Let’s see. Johnson has “walked back” more things than I can count: the burqa ban, support for mandatory vaccinations, support for a carbon tax, just to name a few. And there’s also his constantly changing position on drugs — sometimes, he wants to legalize weed as a “gateway” to legalize all other drugs, while at other times, he’s screaming how he wants to, “Keep the drugs illegal!” And then there’s Weld, who was for gun control, before he was against it, before he was for it again. And we remember what he did to the NY LP, right? I’d say if honesty is the criteria, Castle beats “TeamGov” hands down.

  150. Andy

    langa said: “Nope, I’ve never said that, either. In fact, I’ve never even said that the CP is more libertarian than the LP (let alone more libertarian than itself). What I have said, and continue to say, is that the 2016 CP Presidential ticket is more libertarian than the 2016 LP Presidential ticket. For the record, I would also say the 2008 CP ticket (Baldwin/Castle) was more libertarian than the 2008 LP ticket (Barr/Root).”

    This has been my point as well.

  151. Cody Quirk

    “Castle beats “TeamGov” hands down.”

    You mean the guy that first claimed he was more libertarian then GJ and then claimed the opposite in another interview, whom also help “re-word” the national platform of the CP to the way it is now, despite how it still has the dogmatic language on same-sex relations, pornography, and abortion, along with write a anti-same sex marriage press release for the notorious Wisconsin affiliate of the CP?

    Yeah, at least the candidate I’m backing doesn’t support the Personhood Amendment or believe that we need to return “biblical law” to America. Plus unlike Darrell, GJ is on in all 50 states; NOT 24 states, but all 50 of them.

  152. Cody Quirk

    “Nope, I’ve never said that, either. In fact, I’ve never even said that the CP is more libertarian than the LP (let alone more libertarian than itself). What I have said, and continue to say, is that the 2016 CP Presidential ticket is more libertarian than the 2016 LP Presidential ticket. For the record, I would also say the 2008 CP ticket (Baldwin/Castle) was more libertarian than the 2008 LP ticket (Barr/Root).”

    Should I dig up your previous comments on IPR?

    Darrell is not more libertarian then Gary, and at least Darrell himself finally is admitting it now; unlike that LH interview he did with Matthew Carr…

    http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/09/darrell-castle-ive-never-said-i-was-more-libertarian-than-gary-johnson/

  153. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I’d say if honesty is the criteria, Castle beats ‘TeamGov’ hands down.”

    And I’d say you’re almost certainly right. But that’s not the point.

    Yes, Johnson/Weld are lying sacks of shit. Yes, they’ve gone back and forth on this issue and that issue. I use a simple rule of thumb for their issues whiplash: I assume that they actually support the worst position they’ve said they support.

    Castle, on the other hand, may not lie as much (although it’s indisputable that he lies), but it’s hard to find out what he even PRETENDS to think about anything. Part of that is not his fault (he doesn’t get as much media as TeamDipshit), but part of it is. He COULD have a platform/issues page that actually lists issues and says where he stands on them, instead of platform/issues pages that link to mostly non-specific stemwinders. He CHOOSES to be vague on where he stands.

  154. Thomas Knapp

    Anthony,

    You write:

    “Democracy Now crowd is the Johnson-Weld target audience?”

    And then you answer your own question with a Hill article about how the Clinton campaign is having to fight Johnson/Weld for the Democracy Now crowd.

  155. JamesT

    Makes sense cause his support seems to almost entirely come from bitter liberals, bernie bros, and low tax sjws.

    She does worse in polling with him included than Trump. Of course they are gonna go after him now. Just like they spread disinfo about Stein.

  156. Cody Quirk

    “He CHOOSES to be vague on where he stands.”

    And he has good reason to (hint: ‘platform’)

  157. Anthony Dlugos

    Knapp,

    You think the Democracy Now crowd is the easiest to convert? Come on, man! That crowd is too small and far too partisan.

    Campaigns compete at the margins. I’m trying to maximize vote totals by going after the least apt to support Clinton because they are nonpartisan voters with no left-wing philosophical axe to grind with Clinton. You’re suggesting going after the most principled opponents of Clinton on the left. I’m not wasting my time with those malcontents.

    This is the problem when you turn elections into educational missions and thus philosophical wars between competing visions of how the world should be.

  158. Thomas Knapp

    Anthony,

    As you’ve pointed out yourself, campaigns are not about “converting.” They’re about getting votes.

    When Johnson goes on MSNBC, he is talking to committed Clinton voters, and to any Johnson voters who feel like tuning in to cheerlead.

    If Johnson goes on Democracy Now, he is talking to people who will consider voting third party.

    This is the problem with people who think that respectability politics is “campaigning.”

  159. Anthony Dlugos

    Knapp,

    Well, one thing is for sure: your position on this particular issue is not surprising considering the fact that you were “anyone but Johnson-Weld” in Orlando, and likewise why no one else outside of those two were acceptable to me.

    If I’m Johnson, I’m not talking to any news organization with the word “Now” and/or an exclamation point in their name.

  160. Anthony Dlugos

    Revision: at a maximum, I’d make one appearance on a network like Now!, and it would be early on in the campaign.

    Beyond that you’re wasting time.

  161. Thomas Knapp

    Anthony,

    I agree: Unsurprising. I’m interested in doing real politics. You’re interested in fantasizing that you’re doing real politics. Therefore we will reach very different conclusions.

  162. Anthony Dlugos

    Pshaw!!!

    I’m interested in politics. You’re interested in intellectual warfare/activism.

    Now, I have a rabble rousing group of socialists here in Ohio for you to take down with libertarian aplomb. Once more unto the breech you go!

  163. JamesT

    Yeah I saw that Cody. The whole thing was crazy. I just wish we could get some less biased 3rd party news. Hopefully politically neutral. Save for hatred of the duopoly.

  164. Nvg

    Mr.Quirk that link still goes to the Inquirer.I liked American Third Party Support better than the Grand Inquirer,bar the attack articles on Mr.Castle.They had good interviews and coverage.There is something weird about the Grand Enquirer that I don’t like even though I should be happy that i’ts pro-Castle.

  165. Jim

    The Detroit News endorsed Gary Johnson.
    http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/editorials/2016/09/28/endorse-johnson-president/91254412/

    By daily circulation, that’s Johnson’s biggest newspaper endorsement so far.

    The newspaper/magazine endorsement count so far:

    15 Hillary
    5 Johnson
    0 Trump
    0 Stein

    Johnson’s five:

    The Detroit News (Michigan)
    Richmond Times-Dispatch (Virginia)
    Winston-Salem Journal (North Carolina)
    New Hampshire Union Leader (New Hampshire)
    The Caledonian-Record (Vermont)

    Johnson received two newspaper endorsements in 2012, neither of which have given an endorsement, yet. They were:

    Chattanooga Times Free Press (Tennessee)
    Saint Joseph Telegraph (Missouri)

    Stein also got two in 2012, which were:

    Maui Time Weekly (Hawaii)
    The Georgetown Voice (D.C., Georgetown University)

    I couldn’t find any 3rd party endorsements for 2008 or 2004.

  166. Thomas Knapp

    The St. Joseph, Missouri Telegraph was owned by Libertarian Party activist Mike Bozarth. Mike died last year.

    There’s still a web site for the newspaper, but it doesn’t seem to have any content. Not sure if it went out of business with Mike’s death or if the new owner hasn’t got a web presence up.

Leave a Reply

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