Stein (Clinton and Trump) Answer ScienceDebate.org Questions; Johnson Passes

A news release issued earlier today by Sciencedebate.org, reports:

“On August 10, a blue-ribbon coalition of fifty-six leading U.S. nonpartisan organizations, representing more than 10 million scientists and engineers, called on U.S. Presidential candidates to address the questions, and encouraged journalists and voters to press the candidates on them during the 2016 U.S. Presidential election season.


“Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Jill Stein had all responded as of press time, and the group was awaiting responses from Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson.”
. . .

“Ideally, the people seeking to govern a first-world country would have a basic understanding of everything from sustainable energy to environmental threats to evidence-based medicine,” observed the Des Moines Register in a recent editorial. “They would talk about these things… Imagine if the public — and debate moderators — pressured presidential candidates to talk about the country’s electrical grid or emerging disease threats instead of abortion and transgender bathrooms. Political discourse would be smarter. And the individuals who seek the highest office in the land might learn a few things, too.”

The full Press Release can be found HERE.

Dr. Stein’s answers are reproduced below.  The responses from Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump (as well as Dr. Stein’s and the blank spaces for Governor Johnson’s) can be found HERE.

1. Innovation
Science and engineering have been responsible for over half of the growth of the U.S. economy since WWII. But some reports question America’s continued leadership in these areas. What policies will best ensure that America remains at the forefront of innovation?

Dr. Stein: Virtually every component of our 2016 Platform contains elements likely to have positive effects on innovation. These include our climate action plan, our free public education and cancellation of student debt proposals, and our Medicare for All plank. Vast resources will be freed for investment in public R&D by reduced Pentagon spending. Millions of people currently hobbled by poverty and underperforming schools will be able for the first time in American history to bring their talents to bear on the problems of the 21st century. A just economy, with living wages and paid sick leave, can be far more innovative than one where innovation is determined by a relative handful of corporate executives and Pentagon planners.

2. Research
Many scientific advances require long-term investment to fund research over a period of longer than the two, four, or six year terms that govern political cycles. In the current climate of budgetary constraints, what are your science and engineering research priorities and how will you balance short-term versus long-term funding?

Dr. Stein: The greatest challenge currently before us is climate change. We will place innovative breakthroughs in the science and technology associated with mitigation of greenhouse gases and the building of a resilient society that can withstand current and future climate change at the very top of our research priorities.

Presidents are able to affect long term R&D priorities by creating institutions focused on research like the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health that are to some extent insulated from short-term political cycles. We will revisit these institutions–their charge, focus, and operations–to ensure that they’re performing as expected. We will look for opportunities and mechanisms whereby science policy can be made more democratic, and more responsive to the preferences and needs of average citizens.

3. Climate Change
The Earth’s climate is changing and political discussion has become divided over both the science and the best response. What are your views on climate change, and how would your administration act on those views?

Dr. Stein: Climate change is the greatest existential threat that humanity has ever faced. Here is how we will act to address it:

Enact an emergency Green New Deal to turn the tide on climate change, revive the economy and make wars for oil obsolete. Initiate a WWII-scale national mobilization to halt climate change, the greatest threat to humanity in our history. Create 20 million jobs by transitioning to 100% clean renewable energy by 2030, and investing in public transit, sustainable agriculture, conservation and restoration of critical infrastructure, including ecosystems.

• Implement a Just Transition that empowers those communities and workers most impacted by climate change and the transition to a green economy. Ensure that any worker displaced by the shift away from fossil fuels will receive full income and benefits as they transition to alternative work.

• Enact energy democracy based on public, community and worker ownership of our energy system. Treat energy as a human right.

Redirect research funds from fossil fuels into renewable energy and conservation. Build a nationwide smart electricity grid that can pool and store power from a diversity of renewable sources, giving the nation clean, democratically-controlled, energy.

• End destructive energy extraction and associated infrastructure: fracking, tar sands, offshore drilling, oil trains, mountaintop removal, natural gas pipelines, and uranium mines. Halt any investment in fossil fuel infrastructure, including natural gas, and phase out all fossil fuel power plants. Phase out nuclear power and end nuclear subsidies. End all subsidies for fossil fuels and impose a greenhouse gas fee / tax to charge polluters for the damage they have created.

• Support a strong enforceable global climate treaty that limits global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius and provides just financial compensation to developing countries.

• Support organic and regenerative agriculture, permaculture, and sustainable forestry.

• Enact stronger environmental justice laws and measures to ensure that low-income and communities of color are not disproportionately impacted.

4. Biodiversity
Biological diversity provides food, fiber, medicines, clean water and many other products and services on which we depend every day. Scientists are finding that the variety and variability of life is diminishing at an alarming rate as a result of human activity. What steps will you take to protect biological diversity?

Dr. Stein: Protecting biodiversity is an extremely important and often overlooked priority. Here is how we will act to protect biodiversity:

• Protect our public lands, water supplies, biological diversity, parks, and pollinators. Ban neonicotinoids and other pesticides that threaten the survival of bees, butterflies, and other pollinators.

• Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on new GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe.

• Support organic and regenerative agriculture, permaculture, and sustainable forestry.

• Protect the rights of future generations. Adopt the Precautionary Principle. When an activity poses threats of harm to human health or the environment, in the absence of objective scientific consensus that it is safe, precautionary measures should be taken. The proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof.

• Invest in clean air, water, food and soil for everyone.

• Enact stronger environmental justice laws and measures to ensure that low-income and communities of color are not disproportionately impacted by harmful pollution and other negative environmental and health effects.

• Support conversion to sustainable, nontoxic materials and the use of closed-loop, zero waste processes.

5. The Internet
The Internet has become a foundation of economic, social, law enforcement, and military activity. What steps will you take to protect vulnerable infrastructure and institutions from cyber attack, and to provide for national security while protecting personal privacy on electronic devices and the internet?

Dr. Stein: The Internet and the access to information it provides is an extremely important resource for the entire world. Here is how we will protect and improve the Internet:

• Protect the free Internet. Oppose the Online Piracy Act and all other legislation that would undermine freedom and equality on the Internet.

• Vigorously defend net neutrality.

• Support public broadband Internet.

• Negotiate international treaty banning cyberwarfare; create a new UN agency tasked with identifying the sources of cyber attacks.

6. Mental Health
Mental illness is among the most painful and stigmatized diseases, and the National Institute of Mental Health estimates it costs America more than $300 billion per year. What will you do to reduce the human and economic costs of mental illness?

Dr. Stein: As part of a Medicare for All universal health care system we need a mental health care system that safeguards human dignity, respects individual autonomy, and protects informed consent. In addition to full funding for mental health care, this means making it easier for the chronically mentally ill to apply for and receive Supplemental Security Income, and funding programs to increase public awareness of and sensitivity to the needs of the mentally ill and differently abled.

We must ensure that the government takes all steps necessary to fully diagnose and treat the mental health conditions resulting from service in combat zones, including post-traumatic stress disorder.

We will also release prisoners with diagnosed mental disorders to secure mental health treatment centers, and ensure psychological and medical care and rehabilitation services for mentally ill prisoners.

7. Energy
Strategic management of the US energy portfolio can have powerful economic, environmental, and foreign policy impacts. How do you see the energy landscape evolving over the next 4 to 8 years, and, as President, what will your energy strategy be?

Dr. Stein: Our Green New Deal plan prioritizes a rapid transition to 100% clean renewable energy. Our energy strategy will also include:

• Enact energy democracy based on public, community and worker ownership of our energy system. Treat energy as a human right.

• Redirect research funds from fossil fuels into renewable energy and conservation. Build a nationwide smart electricity grid that can pool and store power from a diversity of renewable sources, giving the nation clean, democratically-controlled energy.

• End destructive energy extraction and associated infrastructure: fracking, tar sands, offshore drilling, oil trains, mountaintop removal, natural gas pipelines, and uranium mines. Halt any investment in fossil fuel infrastructure, including natural gas, and phase out all fossil fuel power plants. Phase out nuclear power and end nuclear subsidies. End all subsidies for fossil fuels and impose a greenhouse gas fee / tax to charge polluters for the damage they have created.

8. Education
American students have fallen in many international rankings of science and math performance, and the public in general is being faced with an expanding array of major policy challenges that are heavily influenced by complex science. How would your administration work to ensure all students including women and minorities are prepared to address 21st century challenges and, further, that the public has an adequate level of STEM literacy in an age dominated by complex science and technology?

Dr. Stein: Education is critically important to the future of our world. Here is how we will ensure that our students receive the best education possible:

• Guarantee tuition-free, world-class public education from pre-school through university.

• Abolish student debt to free a generation of Americans from debt servitude and eliminate economic barriers to higher education.

• Protect our public school systems from privatization.

• Replace Common Core with curriculum developed by educators, not corporations, with input from parents and communities.

• Restore arts, music and recreation to school curriculums.

• Ensure racially inclusive, sensitive and relevant curriculums.

• Recognize poverty as the key obstacle to learning. Ensure that kids come to school ready to learn: healthy, nourished, secure and free from violence.

• Increase federal funding of public schools to equalize public school funding.

9. Public Health
Public health efforts like smoking cessation, drunk driving laws, vaccination, and water fluoridation have improved health and productivity and save millions of lives. How would you improve federal research and our public health system to better protect Americans from emerging diseases and other public health threats, such as antibiotic resistant superbugs?

Dr. Stein: A Medicare For All single payer healthcare system would place health as the bottom line rather than industry profits, which is fundamental for improving public health.

A Medicare For All system would:

allow health data to be aggregated on a population-wide scale (much of it is currently held in secret as proprietary information by private companies like health insurers) so that trends and outbreaks could be monitored.
permit assessment of the health needs of the entire population to be determined so that priorities could be set based on areas of need and funds could be given to institutions that would focus on solutions to priority areas.
drive public policy to pursue a greater public health and preventative approach because having a healthier population would save money.
cover every person living in the United States and would remove financial barriers to care. This means that people with infectious diseases and other conditions that impact the population would have access to care when they need it.

10. Water
The long-term security of fresh water supplies is threatened by a dizzying array of aging infrastructure, aquifer depletion, pollution, and climate variability. Some American communities have lost access to water, affecting their viability and destroying home values. If you are elected, what steps will you take to ensure access to clean water for all Americans?

Dr. Stein: We need a national comprehensive water plan.

Clean water is a human right. The Green New Deal’s focus on infrastructure will help prevent future poisoned drinking water crises like that in Flint, Michigan.

Rejuvenating the federal Superfund program will help clean up the polluted drinking water of millions of Americans.

11. Nuclear Power
Nuclear power can meet electricity demand without producing greenhouse gases, but it raises national security and environmental concerns. What is your plan for the use, expansion, or phasing out of nuclear power, and what steps will you take to monitor, manage and secure nuclear materials over their life cycle?

Dr. Stein: Nuclear fission technology is unsafe, expensive, and dirty from the mining of uranium to the disposal of spent fuel. As such we will end subsidies to the nuclear industry immediately and phase out nuclear power over a 10 year timeline. Existing nuclear waste will be handled with onsite dry cask storage of high-level waste into perpetuity. No transport of nuclear waste.

12. Food
Agriculture involves a complex balance of land and energy use, worker health and safety, water use and quality, and access to healthy and affordable food, all of which have inputs of objective knowledge from science. How would you manage the US agricultural enterprise to our highest benefit in the most sustainable way?

Dr. Stein: We need a food system that is healthy and sustainable. To this end, we will:

• Invest in clean air, water, food and soil for everyone.

• Ban neonicotinoids and other pesticides that threaten the survival of bees, butterflies, and other pollinators.

• Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe.

• Support organic and regenerative agriculture, permaculture, and sustainable forestry.

• Protect the rights of future generations. Adopt the Precautionary Principle. When an activity poses threats of harm to human health or the environment, in the absence of objective scientific consensus that it is safe, precautionary measures should be taken. The proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof.

• Redirect the Dept of Agriculture to meet the needs of small farmers to realize these goals.

13. Global Challenges
We now live in a global economy with a large and growing human population. These factors create economic, public health, and environmental challenges that do not respect national borders. How would your administration balance national interests with global cooperation when tackling threats made clear by science, such as pandemic diseases and climate change, that cross national borders?

Dr. Stein: We need a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law and respect for human rights. By strengthening international institutions, we lay the groundwork for greater cooperation on critical challenges such as climate change and pandemic diseases.

14. Regulations
Science is essential to many of the laws and policies that keep Americans safe and secure. How would science inform your administration’s decisions to add, modify, or remove federal regulations, and how would you encourage a thriving business sector while protecting Americans vulnerable to public health and environmental threats?

Dr. Stein: We will rely on evidence-based approaches to regulation. Science advisors will play a central role in our administration. We will appoint scientific review panels and committees.

Some guiding principles for our approach to regulation:

• Protect the rights of future generations. Adopt the Precautionary Principle. When an activity poses threats of harm to human health or the environment, in the absence of objective scientific consensus that it is safe, precautionary measures should be taken. The proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof.

• Redirect research funds from fossil fuels into renewable energy and conservation, as well as other technologies that promote the transition to a sustainable civilization.

• Enact stronger environmental justice laws and measures to ensure that low-income and communities of color are not disproportionately impacted by harmful pollution and other negative environmental and health effects.

15. Vaccination
Public health officials warn that we need to take more steps to prevent international epidemics from viruses such as Ebola and Zika. Meanwhile, measles is resurgent due to decreasing vaccination rates. How will your administration support vaccine science?

Dr. Stein: Vaccines are a critical part of our public health system. Vaccines prevent serious epidemics that would cause harm to many people and that is why they are a foundation to a strong public health system. Polio is an important example. So is H Flu – a bacteria that caused serious illness, including meningitis, in 20,000 children a year in the US, before development of the H flu vaccine. We need universal health care as a right to ensure that everyone has access to critical vaccines.

Experts like Douglas Diekema, MD MPH say that the best way to overcome resistance to vaccination is to acknowledge and address concerns and build trust with hesitant parents. To reverse the problem of declining vaccination rates, we need to increase trust in our public health authorities and all scientific agencies. We can do that by removing corporate influence from our regulatory agencies to eliminate apparent conflicts of interest and show skeptics, in this case vaccine-resistant parents, that the motive behind vaccination is protecting their children’s health, not increasing profits for pharmaceutical companies.

16. Space
There is a political debate over America’s national approach to space exploration and use. What should America’s national goals be for space exploration and earth observation from space, and what steps would your administration take to achieve them?

Dr. Stein:  We recognize the inspiration provided by space exploration and so we support:

1. the peaceful exploration of space

2. space-based systems to monitor environmental conditions on Earth

3. measures to ensure that space technology benefits all the people of Earth

Space exploration and science are international scientific endeavours requiring cooperation between many nations and peoples across borders. The peaceful exploration of space provides inspiration, education, and valuable scientific knowledge. Cooperation on space science and exploration is a promising path to peace. The US has an opportunity to continue leading in space science while ending space militarization. The US can lead international collaboration in space science and exploration without privatizing outer space or turning over space science and exploration efforts to corporations.

Climate science, including the study of other planets in our solar system and beyond, is essential for understanding how to address climate change on Earth. Space science, exploration, and Earth observation provide tools, technologies, and science to help address not only climate change but flooding, drought, storms, famine, and other crises. By focusing US space efforts away from corporate and military interests, we can work to create peace here on Earth and in space, prevent the deployment of space weapons and instead focus on technologies to solve problems on Earth, not create new ones.

Here are steps we will take to advance space exploration and science:

– Funding STEM education and forgiving student debt of STEM scholars so they can focus on science and research.

– signing of the International Treaty for the Demilitarization of Space.

– Ensuring scientists, not corporate or military interests, are driving the space exploration and science agenda

– Ensure funding of pure research, for the benefit of all humanity and our planet.

– Work closely with the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) on ensuring the peaceful exploration of space.

17. Opioids
There is a growing opioid problem in the United States, with tragic costs to lives, families and society. How would your administration enlist researchers, medical doctors and pharmaceutical companies in addressing this issue?

Dr. Stein: We will end the “war on drugs” and redirect funds presently budgeted for the “war on drugs” toward expanded research, education, counseling and treatment.

18. Ocean Health
There is growing concern over the decline of fisheries and the overall health of the ocean: scientists estimate that 90% of stocks are fished at or beyond sustainable limits, habitats like coral reefs are threatened by ocean acidification, and large areas of ocean and coastlines are polluted. What efforts would your administration make to improve the health of our ocean and coastlines and increase the long-term sustainability of ocean fisheries?

Dr. Stein: Our climate action and environmental protection plans will work to conserve fish stocks and coral reefs. Rapid response to climate change is the centerpiece of the Stein administration. From plastic trash to ocean acidification, we will move smartly to address ocean health with or without Congress.

19. Immigration
There is much current political discussion about immigration policy and border controls. Would you support any changes in immigration policy regarding scientists and engineers who receive their graduate degree at an American university? Conversely, what is your opinion of recent controversy over employment and the H1-B Visa program?

Dr. Stein: We support the H1-B Visa program. However, we must look at it in the context of overall immigration policy, trade, economic and military policies. In the big picture, we are concerned about a global economy in which people have to leave their home countries to find decent jobs. We support more just international development and demilitarization, so that people don’t have to go half way around the world to find just employment.

20. Scientific Integrity
Evidence from science is the surest basis for fair and just public policy, but that is predicated on the integrity of that evidence and of the scientific process used to produce it, which must be both transparent and free from political bias and pressure. How will you foster a culture of scientific transparency and accountability in government, while protecting scientists and federal agencies from political interference in their work?

Dr. Stein: It is a major concern that many Americans don’t trust our scientific and regulatory agencies, and extremely unfortunate that there are valid reasons for this declining trust that must be addressed.

For example, the current FDA commissioner appointed by President Obama was a highly paid consultant for big pharmaceutical corporations, as Senator Sanders pointed out in opposing his nomination. In the case of Vioxx, the FDA approved a profitable pain reliever that caused up to 140,000 cases of heart disease, and even tried to silence its own scientists who discovered this deadly side effect.

The CDC actually accepts huge amounts of money from big pharmaceutical corporations, as an investigation by the British Medical Journal revealed. So many scientists, doctors and watchdog groups have flagged these clear conflicts of interest in the FDA, CDC and other federal agencies.

As President I would stop the revolving door and clean up these agencies so that the American people can trust that they’re putting people over profits, and science over lobbying interests.

171 thoughts on “Stein (Clinton and Trump) Answer ScienceDebate.org Questions; Johnson Passes

  1. Tony From Long Island

    No, he left it blank, just like the list of federal regulations should be . . . or the number of federal laws there should be . . . he’s just trying to show his libertarian bona fides!!! 😛

  2. Joseph Buchman Post author

    Tony From Long Island @ September 13, 2016 at 11:20,

    You’re not suppose to reveal the consultant’s million dollar secret on how to “win” the campaign!

  3. Thomas Knapp

    Looks like Johnson and Stein took went in on division of labor vis a vis the old Lincoln quote (possibly apocryphal).

    Johnson took the “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool” part.

    Stein took the “than to speak and remove all doubt” part.

  4. Anthony Dlugos

    Mr. Knapp,

    Stein had nothing to lose anyway.

    She might as well say the world is flat and hope it gets some media attention.

  5. Tony From Long Island

    ” . . . She might as well say the world is flat and hope it gets some media attention. . . . ”

    She tacitly does that when she does not denounce the Anti-Vaxxers

  6. Anthony Dlugos

    True, Tony.

    Which elective office did she hold previous to running for president, Thomas?

    In any case, I’ll give her credit for staying slim and fit. I would have liked to run into her 20 years ago.

  7. Tony From Long Island

    You may not like Gov. Johnson, Thomas, but he is a CREDIBLE candidate (Aleppo notwithstanding)

    Credible does not mean great or even good. It just means Credible.

  8. Thomas Knapp

    “Which elective office did she hold previous to running for president, Thomas?”

    You’re right. I spoke to soon.

    She’s never grown government spending and government debt faster than Barack Obama like Gary Johnson has.

    She’s never been held in contempt by the New Mexico Supreme Court for attempting to rule by decree like Gary Johnson has.

    She’s never got caught trying to fire New Mexico Tech regents for choosing a construction company other than his for government contracts like Gary Johnson has.

    Her lack of a record is FAR more credible than Johnson’s ACTUAL record.

  9. Wes Wagner

    “She’s never got caught trying to fire New Mexico Tech regents for choosing a construction company other than his for government contracts like Gary Johnson has.”

    Citation?

  10. Thomas Knapp

    “Citation?”

    I have no information regarding Johnson’s relationship, if any, to the first American racehorse to rack up more than a million dollars in winnings.

  11. Thomas Knapp

    Oh, I get it — you were wanting a citation regarding Johnson’s attempt to punish New Mexico Tech regents for not contracting with Big J.

    “Non-politician Johnson playing politics again,” Santa Fe New Mexican, 09/30/95, p. A7

    Excerpt:

    “Now the governor is trying to undo appointments made by his predecessor, Democrat Bruce King, to the Board of Regents of New Mexico Tech. That’s partisan politics at its most basic — but it gets worse: The governor’s decision to run off regents Diane Denish and Michael Kelly came just after the Silver City school turned down half a million dollars’ worth of business with Johnson’s construction company.”

    “The Heartbreak of Rejection Letters II,” Albuquerque Journal, 09/26/95, p. 17

    “But Johnson, too or at least his Big J Enterprises has known the heartbreak of the insensitive rejection letter. Consider the one on April 10 informing Big J that the regents of New Mexico Tech had decided not to award a contract based on Big J’s bid for a ‘general contractor services’ contract worth about $500,000. ‘This office acknowledges and appreciates your efforts in participating in the proposal process. I regret that the regents’ decision was not more favorable. If you have any questions, please contact me,’ concluded Tech purchasing director Gerald Burghaus. The very next day, Kay Shollenbarger of the Governor’s Office asked Tech for a list of regents and their terms. And within three weeks regent Diane Denish, who had argued the contract should go to a Socorro firm as opposed to the Albuquerque-based Big J, got her own harsh letter. It said former Gov. Bruce King made a mistake, that her term ended last January, not in January 1997. It thanked her and said her replacement, Randall Horn of Albuquerque, was on the way. Denish, an Albuquerque Democrat who ran unsuccessfully for lieutenant governor in the primary election last year, decided to fight.”

  12. Andy

    Tom, that is the kind of information about Gary Johnson that needed to be floating around at all of the state LP conventions prior to the national convention (both this one, and the one in 2012), and that should have been posted to various websites that Libertarians frequent.

    The reason that we have Johnson/Weld right now is because those of us who knew better did not work hard enough to stop them, nor did we give enough support to any other candidates for the nomination. So ultimately, we have ourselves to blame in large part.

  13. Thomas Knapp

    Andy,

    I busted my ass getting that information out both before and at the national convention.

    The delegates who didn’t know what Johnson is didn’t know because they didn’t want to know.

  14. Thomas Knapp

    Home Stretch Questions for Gary Johnson, #3
    April 27, 2016 (a full month before the nomination)
    http://knappster.blogspot.com/2016/04/home-stretch-questions-for-gary-johnson_27.html

    Governor Johnson,

    Most governors and other high public officials with significant wealth put that wealth in “blind trust” while in office. This involves liquidating known assets and having a trustee invest and manage wealth without the official knowing the details.

    Your “blind trust” was a little different: It involved retaining ownership of your construction company, Big J, turning putative management of that company over to your campaign treasurer, allowing the company to bid on state projects run by your administration while claiming that it didn’t, attempting to remove two New Mexico Tech regents who had the gall and temerity to choose another contractor over Big J for a state-funded project, and hiring Big J’s former president on a no-bid contract under which he was paid $20,000 to write a ten-page report suggesting that you be more “bold” and “dramatic” as governor.

    That record, combined with your 2012 presidential campaign’s dishonest finance reporting, its outstanding debt of between $1.5 million and $1.9 million, and its tendency to function more as an instrument for the care and feeding of “political consultants” than as an actual campaign, raises two questions:

    First, was your problem from 1995-2012 that you were ethically challenged, or that you were not a very competent executive, or both?

    Second, is there any reason to believe that you’ve become more honest and/or more competent since 2012, especially given that your current campaign is once again spending the bulk of its money on the same “political consultants,” operating from the same address, only under a new company name?

  15. Jim

    Those New Mexico newspaper articles don’t appear to be online, but the court case is.

    New Mexico has 5 regents. They serve 6 year terms, staggered so that only one new regent takes office in any year.

    Two of the regents resigned in 1991. Then Governor Bruce King installed replacements. He should have appointed them only to complete the terms of the two regents who resigned to preserve the staggered service of the regents. Instead, for uncertain reasons, instructed them to serve 5.5 year terms, which would have resulted in 4 terms expiring in one year (a later created student regent position wasn’t constitutionally required to be staggered.)

    When Gary Johnson became Governor he waited until the terms of the people who resigned in 1991 were up and then sent letters to the regents who should have been serving partial terms that their terms were up and he had appointed replacements. Apparently by coincidence, this happened coincided with the contract loss.

    The two sued, claiming that there was no constitutional obligation to preserve the staggered terms and that they should serve full 6 year terms.

    The court ruled that the terms of the two regents had expired, although the process by which Johnson tried to replace them was incorrect. Johnson tried to replace them as if they had vacated their position, rather than that the terms had expired.

    The state Senate had been in recess when Johnson tried to appoint temporary replacements, to begin immediately, until the Senate could confirm them. That was the process for a vacated position. The court ruled that because the terms had expired, the two regents should continue to serve until the Senate was back in session and confirmed the new appointments.

    The bottom line is, the court ruled that Johnson was right to appoint new regents. They just said he had to wait until the Senate was in session.

    You can read it here: http://law.justia.com/cases/new-mexico/supreme-court/1996/23182-0.html

  16. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Apparently by coincidence, this happened coincided with the contract loss.”

    Yes, apparently. To people who look up when you tell them the word “gullible” is written on the ceiling, anyway.

    To anyone else, it looks exactly like what it was — “someone find a way for me to get revenge on bureaucrats who refuse to line my pockets.”

  17. Jim

    No comment on the courts ruling that the terms were constitutionally required to be staggered and that Johnson was right that their terms had expired?

    The fact is, the courts ruled that Kelly’s term was up Jan 1, 1993 and Denish’s term was up Jan 1, 1995. Gary Johnson took office on Jan. 1 1995 and by May, 1995 he had written saying that he had appointed a replacement.

    Johnson would have been in violation of the state constitution if he tried to have four regents appointed in 1997, when Kelly and Denish claimed they were supposed to be replaced.

    Did you not read about that part, or did you just ignore it because it didn’t fit your corruption narrative?

  18. Thomas L. Knapp

    Jim,

    What’s important to me is not that, as the court held, he improperly tried to replace them — which is EXACTLY what the court ruled, that he didn’t get to replace them without the Senate confirming the replacements as he tried to do.

    What’s important to me is that there’s no question in the mind of anyone who’s not a fucking idiot that the REASON he tried to replace them in an illegal manner was that they didn’t play ball with his company — which, if he had displayed the basic decent morals expected of anyone in public office, he would not have continued to own in any case.

  19. Thomas L. Knapp

    Anthony,

    My point is that Johnson has no credibility. Zero. None. Zilch. Nada. Bupkus.

    The LP layered about 50 pounds of lipstick on the pig, but it’s still a pig.

  20. Jim

    Thomas L. Knapp “What’s important to me is not that, as the court held, he improperly tried to replace them — which is EXACTLY what the court ruled, that he didn’t get to replace them without the Senate confirming the replacements as he tried to do.”

    The court ruled the procedure was incorrect, not that he was incorrect to replace them. All he was required to do was wait for the Senate to come back.

    Thomas L. Knapp “What’s important to me is that there’s no question in the mind of anyone who’s not a fucking idiot that the REASON he tried to replace them in an illegal manner was that they didn’t play ball with his company — which, if he had displayed the basic decent morals expected of anyone in public office, he would not have continued to own in any case.”

    And yet, no one charged him with corruption. Perhaps you ought to consider that your emotions are interfering in your judgement.

    You cannot get around the fact that those people’s terms were up and Johnson acted fairly early in his administration to correct them. All you’ve got is that he did it in May of his first year instead of in the first three months of his first year. That’s easily explained by it being important, but not urgent.

  21. Andy

    “Thomas Knapp
    September 13, 2016 at 14:25
    Andy,

    I busted my ass getting that information out both before and at the national convention.

    The delegates who didn’t know what Johnson is didn’t know because they didn’t want to know.”

    Tom, this is true, but only to an extent. I talked to some of the delegates in Orlando, and there were people there who never heard any of the negative stuff about Johnson. I’d be willing to bet that if you took a survey, that this would be new information to a lot of Libertarians.

    I do agree that some of the people who were Johnson delegates either willing refused to look into any of this information, or they knew about it (either all of it, or some of it), and voted for Johnson/Weld anyway.

    I think that you are overlooking the big picture here though. The Johnson campaign STACKED that convention with delegates. They were working on recruiting delegates months before the convention, and they were actively counting and recruiting more delegates right up until the convention.

    The other candidates for the nomination were either doing less delegate recruiting and counting than the Johnson campaign, or they were not counting or recruiting delegates at all.

    You and I both ended up supporting the same candidate for the presidential nomination, Darryl W. Perry. You jumped on the Perry bandwagon a bit earlier than I did, but you were talking about voting for None Of The Above for President for a while, and then even after you endorsed Perry, you were talking about voting for John McAfee after Perry got eliminated, which showed that even as one of Perry’s most ardent supporters did not think that he’d win the nomination. You did a little bit to promote Perry, but you could have done a lot more, and you were one of his biggest supporters.

    I decided to endorse Perry about 3 or 4 weeks before the convention. I was originally leaning towards a write in vote or NOTA myself as a protest vote. I decided to get behind Perry because I’d prefer to vote for somebody who is actually running, rather than casting a write in vote of voting for NOTA, and I could not come up with any good reasons to not vote for Darryl W. Perry. Does this mean that I agreed with Perry on every detail of every issue (including strategy issues)? No, but I probably don’t agree with anyone 100% on every little detail of everything, and I figured that I was closer to Perry on the issues than any of the other candidates in the race. My other reasons for supporting for Perry was that I saw problems with all of the candidates (including Perry), but I figured that I had less issues against Perry than I had with the other candidates.

    Out of the candidates for the nomination who were not Gary Johnson, the ones who I considered to be credible contenders were Austin Petersen, John McAfee, Darryl W. Perry, and Marc Feldman.

    My problems with Petersen were as follows:

    1) His rejection of the Non-Aggression Principle or NAP. I do think that Petersen’s platform was still pretty libertarian in spite of this, but I consider the NAP to be the guiding principle of the party/movement. I think that we can debate how to apply the NAP or what is the best course for getting to a NAP based society, or at least as close to one as possible, but I did not like the way Petersen dismissed the concept.

    2) His attacking people who talk about people in government engaging in “conspiracy theories,” and him saying that Libertarians should not talk about these things. Anyone who knows me or has followed me online knows why I strongly disagree with Petersen on this issue. I think that Petersen is wrong here, not just because he’s wrong about whether or not people in government regularly engage in conspiracies (which they do), people who are distrustful of government and who talk about government engaging in conspiracies are also more likely to be open to the Libertarian Party than are people who have the opposite view (those people are more likely to be die hard Democrats or die hard Republicans).

    3) His troll like behavior online. I don’t know Austin Petersen. I have never spoken to him, and I’ve never had any form of communication with him, and I had never seen him in person before prior to the national convention. I’ve heard mixed things about what he’s really like as a person. Some of the things I’ve seen from him online seemed to cross the line from getting into a debate with somebody, even a heated one that erupts into name calling, into trolling material. I do not know if Austin was intending to troll or not, but it seemed like that was what he was doing to a lot of people.

    Other than these three things, Austin seemed to have some things going for himself as a candidate. His public speaking was good. He was actually inspiring some people to get active. If not for the 3 things above, I might have voted for him.

    John McAfee became my second choice at the convention (as in that is who I was going to vote for if Perry had been eliminated). Here are my problems with McAfee:

    1) He joined the Libertarian Party only after announcing that he was running as the Cyber Party candidate, and after a few months of not going anywhere with that, and realizing how difficult it would be to get on the ballot as the Cyber Party candidate, or as an independent, did he finally switch to LP. I know that there were at least two people who are Libertarian Party members that talked to John McAfee for a few months prior to him joining the LP that actively encouraging him to seek the LP nomination. So I know that he knew about it months before he actually made the switch (I mean that I know that he knew about it in the summer of last year).

    2) He flip flopped on some issues from when he was running as the Cyber Party candidate to when he started running for the LP nomination. I think that he was mostly libertarian from the beginning, but he was way off the “libertarian reservation” (so to speak on a few issues), like government make work programs to create jobs. After he changed his position on these issues, was the change for real, or was he just telling Libertarians what they wanted to hear so he could get nominated? I don’t know.

    3) I never found a record of him being a long time small “l” libertarian activist prior to running for President. I found a record of him supporting liberty on a few issues, namely internet privacy, and that was great, but not enough to where I could call him a long time small “l” libertarian activist.

    4) His legal and financial problems. There were several accusations made against him, and even if they were not true, which I think that some of them are most likely not true (I looked into the murder accusation, and I doubt that he’s guilty), they could have been used to smear him during the campaign. It is true that he lost most of his former $100 million net worth, and that does not look good either.

    If not for these problems, I might have voted for McAfee on the first ballot, but as things stood, I decided to vote for McAfee after Perry got eliminated, because I felt like my issues against McAfee were smaller than my issues against the other candidates (outside of Perry), which did not end up happening.

    I was skeptical of Marc Allan Feldman at first, but I grew to like him over the course of the campaign. My main problem with Feldman was him wanting to limit campaign contributions to $5. While this is honorable in spirit, I just do not think that it was a realistic plan at all. It takes money to run a campaign and to reach people, and that is just reality. His campaign financing plan was even more unrealistic than Darryl Perry’s plan about only accepting contributions in cryptocurrencies or precious metals, as at least Perry did not put a cap on donations. Now it is true that for both Perry and Feldman that separate PACs or Super PACs could have been set up for them (which is probably what should have happened), and that money could have been spent through the LNC and/or through state parties to benefit their campaigns, but this is another issue. I think that Feldman was pretty good on the issues, but I do recall not agreeing with him on one or two other things, but even so, he was pretty libertarian, and was certainly more libertarian than Gary Johnson.

    My problems with Perry were mainly just his lack of organization and funding, and some strategy issues. Perry was a good speaker, and he was strong on issues and philosophy, plus he had a 10 year plus track record of solid libertarian activism behind him. I’ve interacted with him a few times, and he appears to be a good fellow, and I had not heard anything about him that led me to believe otherwise.

    My point here is that those of us who saw major problems with Gary Johnson, and then with Bill Weld after he entered the race, did not do enough to stop them. This includes those of us who went to the convention as delegates, and it also includes all of the people who are not happy with Johnson/Weld and who did not attend the convention as delegates. I am including myself in this, and I was a convention delegate. I endorsed Perry maybe 4 weeks or so before the convention, but other than saying a few positive comments about him, I really didn’t do much for his campaign. I never donated any money to him (and yeah, I could have sent him cryptocurrencies or precious metals, I just never bothered to do it). I had the idea about setting up a PAC or Super PAC for him, but I never did it. I never volunteered for him campaign. I tried to talk a few delegates into voting for him, but I never recruited any delegates to come to the convention and vote for him.

    Here is a reality check for everybody: If you don’t get involved, and you do not actively support a candidate for a nomination (either via financial donations, or volunteer hours, or both), and you do not attend a convention as a delegate, then do not be overly surprised if a candidate who you wanted as a nominee does not win the nomination, and if a candidate that you do not like ends up getting nominated, then keep in mind that you did little or nothing to stop them.

    It should be obvious that the key to winning the presidential and vice presidential nomination is delegate stacking. I’d like to see a more solid libertarian get nominated in 2020, but to ensure that this happens, whoever this candidate ends up being has to get enough delegates to the convention to win the nomination.

  22. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Tom, this is true, but only to an extent. I talked to some of the delegates in Orlando, and there were people there who never heard any of the negative stuff about Johnson. I’d be willing to bet that if you took a survey, that this would be new information to a lot of Libertarians.”

    All they had to do was look at any wall in the convention center, or on the delegate tables, and either type in the URL they saw or scan it with their cell phones to reach whynotgaryjohnson.com, which explained why not Gary Johnson.

    It’s not my fault that delegates don’t do their homework and go insane whenever anyone comes in claiming to be famous.

  23. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    September 13, 2016 at 17:53
    “Perry was a good speaker.”

    wow”

    I stand by my statement about Perry’s public speaking ability. I even spoke to Johnson delegates at the convention who admitted that Perry was a good speaker. Some of them even said that he was a better speaker than Johnson. Their criticisms had more to do with his fashion sense and lack of money than it had to do with his ability as a speaker.

  24. Andy

    Thomas Knapp said: “All they had to do was look at any wall in the convention center, or on the delegate tables, and either type in the URL they saw or scan it with their cell phones to reach whynotgaryjohnson.com, which explained why not Gary Johnson.

    It’s not my fault that delegates don’t do their homework and go insane whenever anyone comes in claiming to be famous.”

    A lot of delegates do not even look at any of that stuff. You’ve got to keep in mind that when people attend these conventions they are getting hit with a lot of information in short period of time, plus there are lots of distractions, so just putting out a flyer is not going to get this information to sink in with a lot of people, and a lot people will never even look at the information.

    I thought that Chuck Moulton’s anti-Gary Johnson flyer was good (although Chuck was probably too nice in the flyer if anything), but it was too little too late at that point. Chuck’s flyer would have been far more effective had it been release months before the convention, and if there had been people with that flyer at every state convention, and if people would have confronted Johnson over the content in that flyer (along with all of the other negative issues surrounding Johnson that people like yourself have brought up), every time Johnson showed up at a state convention or at any other events.

    Really, by the time the convention started it was really too late to stop Johnson/Weld. The time to stop them was in the weeks and months before the national convention.

    The Johnson campaign spent something like 10 times as much money as all of the other candidates for the nomination combined, and even then, they still barely won. If there had been more organized opposition to them in the weeks and months prior to the convention, I think that they would have lost.

  25. Jim

    Thomas L. Knapp “I quoted two newspaper editorials charging him with corruption.”

    No, they implied it. And the first one, just in the small section you quoted, has an obvious bias. Just look at that first sentence:

    “Now the governor is trying to undo appointments made by his predecessor, Democrat Bruce King, to the Board of Regents of New Mexico Tech.”

    That’s either wrong or a lie. Your articles are very suspect. Post them in full. I can’t find them online.

    And I was talking about legally charging him with corruption. It doesn’t appear to have been alleged in the court case.

  26. Jim

    Perry usually made good points when he spoke, but he was far too angry. And he needed a haircut if he wanted anyone to take him seriously.

  27. Anthony Dlugos

    lol, Thomas. He’s one of the most frightening “politicians” I’ve ever come across. He’d scare away anyone not ready to begin shooting and reverting to the barter system.

    Look, Andy, you’re going to be disappointed in 2020. Its a metaphysical certitude. Thomas is well aware of what is coming; he and I agree on that. We just disagree on whether this is good news or bad news.

    The U.S.S. LP Purity ship has done sailed, and there’s no going back. Delegate stacking is not your problem. Your problem is that there are NEVER, and I mean NEVER, gonna be enough people willing to throw their delegates votes away on “activists,” anarchists, educational missions, 35-year olds asshats, or anyone else that’s guaranteed to result in .5% of the vote. So very people think like you; take it as a compliment. But to walk into Orlando and think that there was even a discussion to be had about who the most qualified candidates are, tells me that you are forever going to be on the fringes. No offense.

    I can assure you that there are people who currently hold office, libertarian-leaning elected office holders, who are right now seeing what Johnson, a fair-at-best public speaker, who hasn’t been in office for close to 15 years, is doing poll-wise, and realizing that 2020 may be their shot. I don’t care who shows up in 2020, there’s no going back to the days of considering nominees with zero elective office experience as potential candidates. No amount of preparation by the Fringe Caucus can change that. The wheels were set in motion the day the party was formed.

  28. Andy

    Thomas Knapp said: “whynotgaryjohnson.com, which explained why not Gary Johnson.”

    I follow this stuff pretty closely, and I attended the convention, and I was in the anti-Johnson/Weld camp, and even I did not know that this website existed until now.

    So given that even I did not know about this website until now, I’d wager that lots of convention delegates, and lots of Libertarians in general, did not know about this website.

  29. Andy

    “Jim
    September 13, 2016 at 18:19
    Perry usually made good points when he spoke, but he was far too angry. And he needed a haircut if he wanted anyone to take him seriously.”

    What you saw as anger I saw as passion, which was a good thing, in my opinion.

    It would have been helpful if Perry had gone to a fashion consultant as I heard multiple people make critical comments about his fashion sense. Ideally, this should not matter, but unfortunately, it does to some people. If more Libertarians who supported Perry had gotten involved with his campaign, we could have hired an image consult for him, or maybe we’d have found a campaign volunteer who was good at image consulting who would have helped him for free.

  30. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    September 13, 2016 at 18:20
    lol, Thomas. He’s one of the most frightening “politicians” I’ve ever come across. He’d scare away anyone not ready to begin shooting and reverting to the barter system.

    Look, Andy, you’re going to be disappointed in 2020. Its a metaphysical certitude. Thomas is well aware of what is coming; he and I agree on that. We just disagree on whether this is good news or bad news.”

    The 2020 election is a long way away. Right now the only person I know of who has declared as a candidate is Adam Kokesh, and I will probably end up supporting him for the nomination.

    If the Libertarian Party nominates another Bob Barr or Gary Johnson type of candidate for President, then the party might as well shut down at that point. It is absolutely vital that we get a more solid Libertarian presidential ticket in 2020.

  31. Jim

    You shouldn’t need an image consultant to know that a Presidential candidate won’t be taken seriously when he hasn’t had a haircut in three years. There’s some leeway with fashion choices. You can probably even get away with jeans and sneakers in a lot of settings. But at some point you cross the line. Someone wearing a stained tank top and ripped shorts is never going to be taken seriously.

  32. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: ” But to walk into Orlando and think that there was even a discussion to be had about who the most qualified candidates are, tells me that you are forever going to be on the fringes. No offense.”

    I walked into the convention in Orlando EXPECTING the worse possible outcome in the presidential and vice presidential nomination was going to happen, which was nominating Johnson and Weld. I tried to stop it from happening, but my efforts were obviously not enough. I had hoped that even if Johnson got nominated again, that at least we’d be able to stop Weld, who I figured was so blatantly bad that even some of the Johnson Kool-Aid would reject him, but he ended up being nominated anyway, in spite of his obvious major flaws.

    Once again, Johnson/Weld won for one reason, and it is because they STACKED the convention with the most delegates. It is as simple as that.

    I disagree with you that Johnson/Weld were the most qualified candidates. I have different criteria for who is qualified and who is not. Going by how I qualify candidates, Johnson and Weld were the LEAST qualified candidates at the convention.

  33. Anthony Dlugos

    Adam Kokesh as zero chance at the nomination. Zero.

    Let me just break it down to brass tacks: Once a party gets to a sufficient size, nominating people without previous elective office experience becomes impossible. This is why presidential nominees who have an actual shot at winning the presidency almost always have significant elective office experience. The people who end up growing the party are not going to be looking for an Adam Kokesh. They are already in the party or they are the type who are never going to join.

    This idea that the LP was going to nominate principled candidates (using your definition of principled in this case) in perpetuity was an illusion based on the fact the the people who were going to make the LP of an effective size just hadn’t show up yet.

    There’s nothing to worry about, however. Being an activist like Kokesh is fine and dandy. But it was always going to be “statist” who take apart the state. Just like it was slave-holding white men who ushered in the regime of “freedom and justice for all.”

  34. Anthony Dlugos

    I agree; you do have different criteria for who is qualified and who is not. Your position is a minority position, and always will be. That’s my point.

    Take it as a compliment. But the people with jobs, 401(k)’s, children in school, mortgages, car payments, and so on, you know, the salt of the earth people…the people who are coming to balloon the size of the LP, are not coming to support Adam Kokesh. Besides, the job of president would bore him.

  35. Andy

    “Jim
    September 13, 2016 at 18:35
    You shouldn’t need an image consultant to know that a Presidential candidate won’t be taken seriously when he hasn’t had a haircut in three years. ”

    Oh come off it, Perry’s hair was not so long that he had not had it cut in three years. You sound like some old fuddy duddy square from the 1960’s or 1970’s ranting the hippies. I don’t think that his hair length was so much an issue as was his style.

    “There’s some leeway with fashion choices. You can probably even get away with jeans and sneakers in a lot of settings. But at some point you cross the line. Someone wearing a stained tank top and ripped shorts is never going to be taken seriously.”

    Whatever style a person has, it has got to look good to people. This does not mean that the person has to look like a model themselves, but however they are dressed should look good for who they are.

    I think that Perry would have benefited from having an image consultant.

  36. Anthony Dlugos

    I don’t know how strenuously I can implore you to realize that not having an image consultant was the least of Perry’s problems.

  37. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    I saw ZERO evidence of “stacking,” and I’ve never seen you present any either.

    Attributing the Johnson/Weld nomination to “stacking” misses the point and absolves the responsible people.

    At least a plurality, and probably a majority, of delegates simply do not take their responsibilities seriously. They act like they’re nominating a prom queen, not a presidential candidate, and so we end up with puffball crap like Johnson/Weld instead of serious/credible candidates.

    The LP will continue to fail until it starts doing real politics. This feelgood social club crap, as exemplified by Johnson/Weld, has to end if the party is to be worth even trying to save.

  38. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    September 13, 2016 at 18:47
    I agree; you do have different criteria for who is qualified and who is not. Your position is a minority position, and always will be. That’s my point.

    Take it as a compliment. But the people with jobs, 401(k)’s, children in school, mortgages, car payments, and so on, you know, the salt of the earth people…the people who are coming to balloon the size of the LP, are not coming to support Adam Kokesh. Besides, the job of president would bore him.”

    First of all, the Libertarian Party is not likely to elect anyone President in 2020 no matter who we nominate.

    Second of all, the people who are impressed by having fancy titles nest to one’s name like Governor, or Senator, or etc…, are also people who are less likely to vote for Libertarians (or any other minor party or independent candidate), and are also less likely to ever be libertarians.

    It has been Democrat and Republican politicians with fancy titles next to their names that have created most of the problems that we have today. If you are unhappy with the status quo, why would you want to elect more people like that to office?

    If the right candidate who actually had some solid libertarian credentials behind them came along who had been elected to some kind office came along that would be nice, but having a fancy title next to one’s name should not be a criteria for running for political office.

    When I first found out about the Libertarian Party, Harry Browne was the candidate for President, and I did not give a rat’s behind that he’d never held office before. If anything, I saw him not having held office to be more of a positive than a negative.

  39. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    September 13, 2016 at 18:52
    Andy,

    I saw ZERO evidence of ‘stacking,’ and I’ve never seen you present any either.”

    So are you suggesting that the Johnson campaign did not do any counting and recruiting of delegates? If so, I believe that you are wrong.

  40. Andy

    If another candidate, say Darryl W. Perry, or whoever, had done more prior to the convention, in terms of fundraising, campaign activity, and delegate recruiting and counting they could have beaten Johnson.

    The fact of the matter is that nobody did enough.

  41. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    Counting and recruiting of candidates isn’t “stacking.” Every candidate did both of those things and any candidate who didn’t do those things should not have bothered running for the nomination, because the word for those things is “campaigning.”

  42. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    September 13, 2016 at 18:49
    I don’t know how strenuously I can implore you to realize that not having an image consultant was the least of Perry’s problems.”

    Perry’s biggest problem was lack of money, followed by lack of organization.

  43. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    September 13, 2016 at 19:00
    Andy,

    Counting and recruiting of candidates isn’t ‘stacking.’ Every candidate did both of those things and any candidate who didn’t do those things should not have bothered running for the nomination, because the word for those things is ‘campaigning.’”

    Than what would you label is stacking?

    What you call recruiting and counting delegates I labeled as stacking.

    None of the other candidates did as much delegate counting and recruiting as the Johnson campaign did.

    I think that the Petersen and McAfee campaigns were the only ones who did any of this besides the Johnson campaign, but their efforts in this regard was too little too late.

  44. Anthony Dlugos

    No, Perry’s biggest problem is that he is horrifically unqualified for the position he was applying for. The stuff you are talking about are merely symptoms of that.

    The fact that you came in when Harry Browne was the nominee only tells me that you’re an early adopter. You’re an outlier by definition. Just like me. The people coming won’t be.They may not want the status quo, but they’re going to demand experience in office.

  45. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: “This idea that the LP was going to nominate principled candidates (using your definition of principled in this case) in perpetuity was an illusion based on the fact the the people who were going to make the LP of an effective size just hadn’t show up yet.”

    The Libertarian Party hit its peak in terms of dues paying membership back during the Harry Browne era. The LP also had a lot more people elected to office back then as well.

    “This is why presidential nominees who have an actual shot at winning the presidency almost always have significant elective office experience. ”

    Try telling this to Donald Trump.

  46. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    September 13, 2016 at 19:06
    No, Perry’s biggest problem is that he is horrifically unqualified for the position he was applying for. The stuff you are talking about are merely symptoms of that.”

    Being horribly unqualified did not stop Gary Johnson and Bill Weld from running.

  47. Anthony Dlugos

    The LP’s peak of dues paying members is a blip compared to whats coming. The Harry Browne era, both in terms of membership and in terms of elected officials is hardly the ultimate potential of the party. If you think that 15,000 or 20,000 members is the maximum the party can accomplish, then go right ahead and nominate Kokesh and Perry types. You might as well nominate Big Bird, it really won’t matter; a party of 15,000 isn’t accomplishing anything.

    If 20,000,000 members is your goal, you’re going to leave those types of candidates behind.

    Donald Trump is likely to get his ass kicked. Even if he doesn’t, if you can find a libertarian-leaning CEO of a billion-dollar company, please do. I’ll be happy to support him or her. I can assure you, however, that anyone that gets to that level of leadership is going to disappoint you from a “purity” angle.

    Johnson and Weld are qualified from the perspective of the typical voter, both this year and in history. Donald Trump is even an outlier. Are you not cognizant of the typical resume of a President? Or is this when you revert back to the LP being different, so you can sidestep the realization as to what sort of resume the American people generally demand for President, and it looks NOTHING like Kokesh’s or Perry’s.

  48. Thomas L. Knapp

    “What would you label as stacking?”

    Busing in newly minted delegates to fill slots held for them by subverted delegation chairs would be the classic stacking technique.

    One way that stacking was used against Ron Paul in his Republican runs was by getting pet state convention rules to just throw the rulebook out and pick whichever delegates the McCain and then Romney machines wanted.

    THOSE things are stacking. Counting and recruiting delegates is politics.

    Frankly, the best operation of that type that I saw this time around was Petersen’s. He even had some kind of housing co-op stuff going for his delegates, getting bunches of them together to rent Airbnb houses, etc.

  49. Anthony Dlugos

    yea, I guess governors getting elected president is kooky talk. Past history tells us Americans generally vote for 35-year old asshats.

  50. Jim

    Anthony Dlugos “The people coming … they’re going to demand experience in office.”

    That’s going to be a problem. The LP has a rather thin bench at every level and effectively zero at the statewide and federal levels outside of a handful of libertarian-Republicans like Thomas Massie. If none of them want to come over, we’ve got no one remotely qualified to be President.

    That’s why we might as well experiment with Johnson/Weld while we have the chance. It’s not going to come around again for a long time. By 2020 we’re going to be back with what we were doing pre-Bob Barr just because there isn’t anybody else in the lineup with any governing experience.

  51. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    September 13, 2016 at 19:23
    The LP’s peak of dues paying members is a blip compared to whats coming. The Harry Browne era, both in terms of membership and in terms of elected officials is hardly the ultimate potential of the party. If you think that 15,000 or 20,000 members is the maximum the party can accomplish, then go right ahead and nominate Kokesh and Perry types. You might as well nominate Big Bird, it really won’t matter; a party of 15,000 isn’t accomplishing anything.”

    Party membership during the Harry Browne era hit its peak at 33,000 dues paying members. The party also hit its peak around 2000 or 2002 or so in the number of elected Libertarians at around 650.

    I do think that the Libertarian Party has much higher potential like that, and if the party had maintained the growth curve that it was on back during the Harry Browne era, the party would be much larger than 33,000 dues paying members, which is more than double the size that the party is now.

    The problem was that the party got thrown off course with internal dysfunction, and then big opportunities were blown by nominating Bob Barr and then Gary Johnson, among other big opportunities that the party blew.

  52. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    September 13, 2016 at 19:27
    yea, I guess governors getting elected president is kooky talk. Past history tells us Americans generally vote for 35-year old asshats.”

    Past history tells us that a majority of Americans who vote, vote for asshats. So given that this is the case, why should we emulate that? We are SUPPOSED to be trying to change things.

    I think that this notion of, “Let’s nominate a presidential ticket that shows the mainstream voters that our candidates are just like the candidates for whom they typically vote.” is a terrible idea.

  53. Jim

    Andy “… the party would be much larger than 33,000 dues paying members, which is more than double the size that the party is now. ”

    The end of August report was 19,304, so it would need to grow by 70% to hit 33,000. If the July and August growth rate is maintained (+1,425 / month) through November and then it’s flat in December, they’ll finish the year around 23,500 – almost exactly double the year end 2015 number of 11,693.This would be the first time that the number of donors grew by 12,000 in a single year. 1996 was the second best year, adding 8,000 donors. 23,500 would be the most donors since 2002. In terms of dollars, the LNC is on pace for its second best year, behind only 2000.

  54. Andy

    Are you taking inflation and population growth into account when comparing the Libertarian Party in 2000 and the Libertarian Party today?

  55. Anthony Dlugos

    Jim,

    I agree with you on Johnson-Weld, of course.

    Don’t worry about the bench. The reality of the matter is that if the LP ever threatened major party status. the overwhelming majority of elected Libertarians are just gonna be conversions from the existing dinosaur parties, with one of them (probably the GOP), going extinct. if the American people actually started demanding smaller government, who best to take advantage of that change of heart? Obviously the people holding office now.

    To believe the Purists, every election is a battle of philosophies when they almost never are. Since the purist sees Social Security, for example, as a moral issue, they just assume anyone supporting social security must believe in the program’s morality when the reality is they just defend it pragmatically; as a way of staying in office. If the libertarian education mission ever started working en masse, those elected officials are gonna be the first ones to realize it and they’ll be the first ones to jump ship. That’s what they’re good at; seeing which way the wind blows and saying they believed that all along. That’s why they’re in office NOW. Today’s defender of social security will be tomorrow’s dismantler.

    Fully formed major parties don’t just rise ex nihilo. Here in the US or anywhere. The institutional knowledge that sitting politicians have is far more valuable than the Fantasyland Caucus believes, and that reality doesn’t change AT ALL if that institutional knowledge is going to be used to reign in or reduce the size of said institution. In fact, its probably more important.

    Elective office is not a place for philosophers. And don’t give me the Ron Paul bullsh*t. He’s an outlier.

  56. Jim

    No. And that would set the numbers back some.

    The LP had far more candidates, the LNC raised more money, and the LNC had more donors in 2000 than today. No denying that.

    But there are a couple of measures by which the LP today outperforms the party in 2000.

    Voter registration is higher today. Not just the raw total (which has gone from 225,000 to 411,000), but the share of registered voters is higher. The LP had 0.26% of all registered voters in 2000 and 0.40% in February this year.

    Vote percentages are higher, at least at the federal level:
    2000 Brown got 0.37%. Johnson is set to blow that away even if he doesn’t get in the debates.
    US Senate candidates in 2000 averaged 1.70%. In 2014 they averaged 2.43%.
    US Congressional candidates averaged 2.92% in 2000. In 2014 they averaged 4.25%.

    And Presidential fundraising. A few days ago Johnson’s moneybomb literally raised more in a single day than Browne did for all of 1996.

    So call fundraising a wash. More goes to the Presidential candidate and less to the LNC. There were more candidates in 2000, but they got a greater percentage of the vote in 2014 – another wash. But voter registration is greater today than it was then, despite Massachusetts best efforts to counter that trend. All together, I’d have to say the LP is in a slightly better position now than it was in 2000.

  57. Jim

    Anthony Dlugos “Today’s defender of social security will be tomorrow’s dismantler.”

    I haven’t checked the platform, but the libertarian position on SS ought not to be dismantling it, just making it voluntary.

    For the rest, we’ll just have to wait and see.

  58. Andy

    “Jim
    September 13, 2016 at 22:06
    No. And that would set the numbers back some.

    The LP had far more candidates, the LNC raised more money, and the LNC had more donors in 2000 than today. No denying that.”

    This just proves my point. Harry Browne ran twice on a hardcore libertarian platform, and the party was more successful then than it is now.

    “But there are a couple of measures by which the LP today outperforms the party in 2000.

    Voter registration is higher today. Not just the raw total (which has gone from 225,000 to 411,000), but the share of registered voters is higher. The LP had 0.26% of all registered voters in 2000 and 0.40% in February this year.”

    First of all, the population is higher today than it was 16 years. Also, I know that we’ve had some legal victories since then where some states were not even tallying our voter registrations (or at the very least, they were not publicly announcing how many registrations we had). Also, a lot of these registrations have nothing to do with what Gary Johnson or anyone currently active in the Libertarian Party did, but rather, they had more to do with people like Ron Paul, Andrew Napolitano, and John Stossel making th word libertarian more popular.

    “Vote percentages are higher, at least at the federal level:
    2000 Brown got 0.37%. Johnson is set to blow that away even if he doesn’t get in the debates.
    US Senate candidates in 2000 averaged 1.70%. In 2014 they averaged 2.43%.
    US Congressional candidates averaged 2.92% in 2000. In 2014 they averaged 4.25%.”

    Harry Browne also run in much more difficult elections, where he had to contend with two higher profile minor party candidates, in Ross Perot and Ralph Nader in 1996, and Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan in 2000, plus the races between the D’s and R’s was considered to be very close those years, especially in 2000, so lots of people succumbed to the wasted vote syndrome.

    Another factor is the internet. The internet is accessed by far more people today than it was back during Harry Browne’s runs, plus the quality of the internet has improved since then with the ability to watch videos online being one such improvement.

    Gary Johnson is running under much easier conditions than Harry Browne did.

    “And Presidential fundraising. A few days ago Johnson’s moneybomb literally raised more in a single day than Browne did for all of 1996.”

    It is one thing to raise money, and another to spend it effectively. What kind of track record does the Johnson campaign have when it comes to how they spend their money?

    Also, I’ve got to wonder how many of these donors are principled libertarians, and how many of them are “Never Trump” Republicans who want to swing the election to Hillary Clinton, and/or knowingly want to promote a Libertarian ticket which is misrepresenting the party/philosophy to the public.

  59. dL

    “Take it as a compliment. But the people with jobs, 401(k)’s, children in school, mortgages, car payments, and so on, you know, the salt of the earth people…the people who are coming to balloon the size of the LP, are not coming to support Adam Kokesh. Besides, the job of president would bore him.”

    The very people who are vested(bribed) heavily in the status quo. The real welfare state. The middle class welfare state. Wrong target audience. Who do you think would be a better target? The person worried about being deported? The “freak” worried about their favorite medicine being banned by the DEA/FDA? Or the “salt of the earth” worried about their 401K not being bailed out?

  60. Anthony Dlugos

    The salt of the earth people. That’s who you have to convince. There just aren’t enough of the freaks out there who vote.

    Look who’s elected to public office in this country, at all levels. Do you see anarchists getting elected? Freaks promising an end to the drug war? Kokesh-style activists who’ve spent time in prison? I don’t see that.

    This isn’t niche marketing; its first past the post elections. We have no choice but to market to the middle class with stuff to lose.

  61. Joseph Buchman Post author

    “ScienceDebate.org is a coalition of 56 science organizations and 10 million voters collectively, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences.”

  62. Thomas Knapp

    Joseph,

    You write:

    “Another missed opportunity (perhaps a spotted Leppo climbed down from a tree and ate his homework?)”

    There are a couple of possibilities.

    One, of course, is that the survey got lost in the mill of mail and campaign communications and that not completing was just one of those oversights that does occasionally happen in any campaign.

    The other is that someone (not necessarily Johnson) made a conscious decision that the survey should not be responded to.

    If the latter, I would say that it was a good decision. There was no “opportunity” — or at least no positive opportunity — here.

    So far as I know, Johnson is not a scientist. That’s not meant as a condemnation (I’m not a scientist either).

    If the survey was filled out, it would have to be filled out by an advisor who was a scientist, or at least conversant with the scientific questions involved.

    Then, Johnson would then have to be prepped with good answers for all the questions he might get from journalists who noticed the survey and his answers to it — unless the goal was to hang him out there as “let’s make this guy look like an idiot” bait.

    My impression is that prep for interviews, debates, etc. is not one of the Johnson campaign’s strong points (I have no idea whether he’s temperamentally unsuited to prep “taking,” or whether his campaign just doesn’t provide it).

    It’s also fairly obvious, based on the composition of the group involved and the way the questions were asked, that the only acceptable answer is some form of “your particular concerns are the most important concerns EVAH, and I for one think that the federal government should throw money at you as fast as humanly possible to investigate those concerns.” Which, hopefully, would not be the answer he would give.

  63. Jim

    Libertarian state parties that INCREASED their share of voter registration:
    2000…….2016
    1.45%….1.46% Alaska
    0.58%….0.82% Arizona
    0.60%….0.70% California
    0.15%….0.84% Colorado
    0.03%….0.09% Connecticut
    0.15%….0.18% Delaware
    0.11%….0.19% Florida
    0.61%….0.78% Kansas
    0.04%….0.41% Louisiana
    0.15%….0.45% Maryland
    0.16%….0.61% Nebraska
    0.54%….0.81% Nevada
    0.13%….0.43% North Carolina
    0.72%….0.79% Oregon
    0.39%….0.59% Pennsylvania
    0.23%….0.27% South Dakota
    0.09%….0.23% West Virginia
    0.11%….0.50% Wyoming

    Libertarian state parties that DECREASED their share of voter registration:
    2000…….2016
    0.40%….0.20% Massachusetts
    0.39%….0.26% New Mexico

    States that counted Libertarian voter registration in 2016, but did not Libertarians in 2000, although they did count total voter registration in 2000:
    2000…….2016
    ———….0.20% D.C.
    ———….0.30% Iowa
    ———….0.16% Kentucky
    ———….0.46% Maine
    ———….0.05% New Jersey
    ———….0.05% New York

    States that counted Libertarian voter registration in 2000, did not count Libertarians in 2016, but still count total voter registration in 2016:
    2000…….2016
    0.03%….——— Oklahoma

    States that counted total voter registration in both 2000 and 2016, but did not count Libertarian registrations in either year:
    2000…….2016
    ———….——— New Hampshire

    States that did not count voter registration at all in 2000, did count it in 2016, and do count LP registration:
    2000…….2016
    xxxxxxx….0.63% Idaho
    xxxxxxx….0.62% Utah

    States that did not count voter registration at all in 2000, did count it in 2016, but do not count LP registration:
    2000…….2016
    xxxxxxx….——— Rhode Island

    We can do an apples to apples comparison and focus only on the 20 states listed in the first 2 categories. That will take into account 99% of registered Libertarians in 2000 and 91% of registered Libertarians in 2016. In those 20 states, 0.35% of voters were registered Libertarian in 2000 and 0.51% of voters are registered Libertarian in 2016. That 0.16% spread is larger than the 0.14% spread I posted the first time. You would have been better off not arguing the point rather than forcing me to type all this shit out.

    Andy “Harry Browne ran twice on a hardcore libertarian platform, and the party was more successful then than it is now.”

    If your definition of more successful includes a lower percentage of the vote and lower share of voter registration. I say its mixed, but leans towards being more successful now.

    Andy “a lot of these registrations have nothing to do with what Gary Johnson or anyone currently active in the Libertarian Party

    I never claimed otherwise. The trend was in place before Johnson came along. Although he certainly accelerated it this year.

    Andy “Harry Browne also run in much more difficult elections, where he had to contend with two higher profile minor party candidates

    Uh huh. Watch this. Here is Harry Browne’s (and Badnarik’s) effect on Libertarian US Congressional candidates:

    Average vote for all Libertarians running for US Congress:
    4.25% 2014
    3.51% 2012
    3.23% 2010
    3.20% 2008
    3.07% 2006
    2.76% 2004 (There has been an increase every year since 2004, straight through Barr and Johnson.)
    3.21% 2002
    2.92% 2000 (Browne election lower than surrounding years.)
    3.59% 1998
    1.95% 1996 (Browne election lower than surrounding years.)
    3.11% 1994
    3.19% 1992

    Andy “What kind of track record does the Johnson campaign have when it comes to how they spend their money?

    The results of that will be judged by the election results. We’ll know in two months.

    Andy “I’ve got to wonder how many of these donors are principled libertarians, and how many of them are “Never Trump” Republicans who want to swing the election to Hillary Clinton”

    If they wanted to give the election to Hillary they could just… donate to Hillary.

    Andy “or knowingly want to promote a Libertarian ticket which is misrepresenting the party/philosophy to the public.”

    Why would they change strategy? Painting the LP as total anarchists and conspiracy theorists was working pretty well at keeping the LP irrelevant, especially at the Presidential level.

  64. Thomas Knapp

    “If they wanted to give the election to Hillary they could just… donate to Hillary.”

    Setting aside the obvious question (what makes you think they haven’t), you apparently don’t understand how this works.

    I am a never-Trumper. I want to swing the election to Hillary Clinton. Who do I donate to?

    Well, sure, maybe Hillary Clinton.

    And to other candidates who I think can get significant numbers of votes from people who, if those other candidates didn’t reach them, would vote for Donald Trump.

  65. Thomas Knapp

    “Painting the LP as total anarchists and conspiracy theorists was working pretty well at keeping the LP irrelevant, especially at the Presidential level.”

    How did something that wasn’t done “work pretty well?”

  66. Andy

    “If your definition of more successful includes a lower percentage of the vote and lower share of voter registration. I say its mixed, but leans towards being more successful now.”

    Harry Browne ran in 1996 and 2000, 20 and 16 years ago. He ran in more competitive elections, having to compete with two higher profile minor party candidates in Ross Perot and Ralph Nader in 1996, and Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan in 2000. He also ran while the internet was still in its infancy, and BEFORE the Ron Paul r3VOLution which GREATLY expanded the popularity of libertarianism.

    The increase in Libertarian Party voter registrations has a lot more to do with Ron Paul and Andrew Napolitano and Johns Stossel than it has anything to do with what Gary Johnson has done.

  67. Jim

    Thomas Knapp “Setting aside the obvious question (what makes you think they haven’t), you apparently don’t understand how this works.”

    Unlike yourself, I understand that almost every poll shows Johnson is taking slightly more votes from Clinton than he is from Trump. If you’re a never-Trumper who donates to Johnson expecting Johnson to do more damage to Trump, you’re shooting yourself in the foot.

    Thomas Knapp “How did something that wasn’t done ‘work pretty well?’”

    Are you really going to pretend that Republicans, and especially Democrats, haven’t tried to push libertarians into the ‘anarchists and conspiracy theorists’ corner in the past? Because they have.

  68. Jim

    Andy “Harry Browne ran in 1996 and 2000, 20 and 16 years ago. He ran in more competitive elections, having to compete with two higher profile minor party candidates in Ross Perot and Ralph Nader in 1996, and Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan in 2000. He also ran while the internet was still in its infancy, and BEFORE the Ron Paul r3VOLution which GREATLY expanded the popularity of libertarianism.”

    Yes, but Browne’s effect on US House races is obvious. Ross Perot did not have a party behind him running for Congress. So why did US House races fall, if not for Browne at the top of the ticket? It has nothing to do with the internet because the surrounding years, when Browne was not running, were all higher.

    Andy “The increase in Libertarian Party voter registrations has a lot more to do with Ron Paul and Andrew Napolitano and Johns Stossel than it has anything to do with what Gary Johnson has done.”

    That’s the second time you’ve tried that straw man. As I pointed out earlier, I have not attributed the increase in voter registration to Johnson. The trend was in place before he came along. Ron Paul had something to do with it. Stossel less so, and Napolitano even less.

    The biggest contributor to the increase in LP voter registration in recent years is actually Barack Obama. Libertarian voter registrations tend to shoot higher under Democratic Presidents and trend sideways under Republican Presidents.

  69. Andy

    Jim said: “Are you really going to pretend that Republicans, and especially Democrats, haven’t tried to push libertarians into the ‘anarchists and conspiracy theorists’ corner in the past? Because they have.”

    Who cares what Republicans and Democrats think? Also, they do not like constitutionalists either. They in fact freak out over anyone who wants to cut any of their pet government programs, and some of them even freak out over the suggestion of cutting the size of government in general.

    It is a huge mistake for Libertarians to cater to people who are never likely to support us no matter what we do The attitude should be, “THE HELL WITH THESE PEOPLE!” We will have more success if we focus on the people who are actually open to our message. There are enough of those people out there to where if we could even rally a small percentage of them to our side, say 20% of them for example, we could really shake things up in this country, which would be a good thing. We will NEVER do that by kowtowing to the political establishment.

  70. Andy

    Jim said: “Yes, but Browne’s effect on US House races is obvious. Ross Perot did not have a party behind him running for Congress. So why did US House races fall, if not for Browne at the top of the ticket? It has nothing to do with the internet because the surrounding years, when Browne was not running, were all higher.”

    A lot of people only focus on the presidential race, and these people tend to vote for the same party for US House that they do for President. Also, by 1996, the Reform Party was an established party in a lot of states, and I’m pretty sure that they did have candidates for other offices, and I know that the Reform Party had candidates for other offices in 2000, maybe not as many as the LP, but they did have them.

    It also should be pointed out that the Libertarian Party had around 650 people elected to various offices around 2000 and/or 2002, and that back in the 1990’s the Libertarian Party at one point had f=4 state legislators in New Hampshire (and of course back in the 1980’s, the Libertarian Party actually had 4 people elected to the state legislature in Alaska at one time).

    Another thing that should not be ignored is that Harry Browne helped to create a lot of new libertarian activists (myself included), and that these people became hardcore libertarians, and many of them are still active in the party and/or movement today.

    Just going by my own anecdotal evidence, which includes talking to thousands of people in person and online, the two names I hear most frequently after asking how somebody became a libertarian are Ron Paul (by far #1) and Harry Browne.

  71. Thomas Knapp

    “Are you really going to pretend that Republicans, and especially Democrats, haven’t tried to push libertarians into the ‘anarchists and conspiracy theorists’ corner in the past?”

    Of course not.

    Are you really going to pretend that them doing so has had any impact whatsoever on Libertarian Party presidential performance?

    Republicans and Democrats have always marginalized Libertarian Party presidential candidates by ignoring them.

  72. Jim

    I agree that Browne helped expand the party.

    Number of candidates and number of donors to the LNC aside, I don’t agree that the party reached its zenith under Browne. There is a lot of support for the claim that the LP is more successful now, even if it has fewer candidates.

  73. Andy

    Thomas Knapp said: “Republicans and Democrats have always marginalized Libertarian Party presidential candidates by ignoring them.”

    Republicans and Democrats try to marginalize anyone who is not running as a Republican or Democrat.

  74. Jim

    Thomas Knapp “Republicans and Democrats have always marginalized Libertarian Party presidential candidates by ignoring them.”

    Yes, they ignore us when possible. Occasionally it isn’t possible. And then they get independent voters to ignore us by describing us as dangerous extremists who therefore deserve to be ignored.

    Even your friend Darcy Richardson did this just 10 days ago when talking about Johson:

    Darcy G Richardson “I can see it now. House Democrats tripping all over themselves to vote for an austerity monger who, only four years ago, called for an immediate $1.4 trillion, 43 percent across-the-board cut in federal spending — a draconian proposal that would have had catastrophic consequences for America’s most vulnerable citizens while wreaking havoc on the U.S. and global economies.”

  75. Thomas Knapp

    Yes, because a progressive arguing that a suggested level of cuts is “draconian” is saying that the candidate is an “anarchist and conspiracy theorist.”

  76. Jim

    They obviously can’t do the anarchist argument with Johnson the way they normally would because Johnson was actually elected and proved he wasn’t an anarchist. Johnson has been upgraded from “anarchist” to “draconian”. The intent is the same: dangerous extremists who therefore deserve to be ignored.

  77. Thomas Knapp

    Jim,

    Well, make up your mind already. Either they do what you said they do, or they don’t. When I said they don’t, you said yeah they do, provided an example of them not doing it, and then changed your mind about what it was they do.

  78. Jim

    Jim “Are you really going to pretend that Republicans, and especially Democrats, haven’t tried to push libertarians into the ‘anarchists and conspiracy theorists’ corner in the past?”

    Thomas Knapp “Of course not.”

    As I read it, you’ve already conceded that point.

  79. Thomas Knapp

    Jim,

    I’m not the one who specified “at the presidential level.”

    You are.

    And you were just flat wrong.

    But if you think differently, feel free to produce a quote from any Republican or Democratic presidential nominee referring to a Libertarian presidential nominee as an anarchist or conspiracty theorist. No hurry, I’ll wait.

  80. Jim

    I have never said an R or D presidential nominee referred to a Libertarian Presidential nominee as an anarchist or conspiracy theorist.

    I said painting the **the libertarian party** as full of anarchists and conspiracy theorists was working pretty well at keeping **the libertarian party** irrelevant, especially at the Presidential level.

    The libertarian party has been irrelevant at the Presidential level for its entire history.

    And there are plenty of quotes like this from which to choose:

    “Although Libertarians believe government is incompetent, many of them subscribe to the most fringe conspiracy theories imaginable. Airplanes are poisoning America with chemicals (chemtrails) or the moon landings were faked. Nothing was too far out. A great many of them really think that 9-11 was an inside job.”

    http://www.salon.com/2013/12/28/why_i_fled_libertarianism_and_became_a_liberal/

  81. Thomas Knapp

    “The libertarian party has been irrelevant at the Presidential level for its entire history.”

    Agreed. Maybe someday we’ll figure out how not to be.

  82. Andy

    Jim said: ““Although Libertarians believe government is incompetent”

    The view that government is just made up of incompetent people is naive, and just flat our wrong. Yes, there are some incompetent people in government, but they are mostly at the lower levels. The ones who are running the show are not incompetent. Some of these people are highly competent., The problem is that they are evil.

    If everyone in government was really so incompetent and libertarians were all so much smarter than they are, libertarians would have found a way to defeat them by now and we’d be living in a libertarian society.

  83. dL

    “And he needed a haircut if he wanted anyone to take him seriously.”

    nah, just needs to let it grow out to one length…not fan of “politics in the front, party in the back” look…But that’s just me 🙂

  84. dL

    “Although Libertarians believe government is incompetent, many of them subscribe to the most fringe conspiracy theories imaginable. Airplanes are poisoning America with chemicals (chemtrails) or the moon landings were faked. Nothing was too far out. A great many of them really think that 9-11 was an inside job.”

    Who? Name names…If it is “many,” then you should be able to make quite a list. Post it if you are going to engage in that kind of nonsense C&P from salon.com. And I will concede the dude who turned blue. OK. But I find it contemptible that a libertarian would more embarrassed by someone showing up blue in public than their own public display of fretting about what people who think mass murder is perfectly respectable opine about. By my moral standards, respectable political opinion in America is war criminal extremist. And that’s not even a libertarian moral foundation. Thats’a any human with a shred of decency and empathy moral foundation.

  85. dL

    “The view that government is just made up of incompetent people is naive, and just flat our wrong. Yes, there are some incompetent people in government, but they are mostly at the lower levels. The ones who are running the show are not incompetent. Some of these people are highly competent., The problem is that they are evil.”

    Yeah, I don’t buy government is incompetent crap(quite a bit of that originates with Milton Friedman). Government is in the business of social control and expanding it own discretionary power… and it is quite efficient at it.

  86. dL

    “Are you really going to pretend that Republicans, and especially Democrats, haven’t tried to push libertarians into the ‘anarchists and conspiracy theorists’ corner in the past? Because they have.”

    I’m aware of Democrats calling Republicans “anarchists and conspiracy theorists.” I’m aware of republicans returning the favor, although socialist/communist is usually the preferred accusation over anarchist. The treatment of both sides toward libertarian candidates is to completely ignore them. There is no pushing going on at all.

    Of course, the fact that Dems call Repubs anarchists illustrates the utter stupidity of playing “respectability politics.” Partisan politics is usually rife w/ doubleThink. Dems would call anyone an anarchist. Then 5 minutes later call the same person a fascist.

    Respectability politics tries to appease the current narrative defined by the 2 establishment parties. Anyone worth a hoot in political thinking knows the best strategy to counter that is to change the narrative. Change the narrative. Not easy. But not impossible, particularly w/ candidates like Clinton and Trump. Heck, Sanders managed to do it in the Dem primary. Instead the LP threw up Republican lite respectability politics. Brain dead. Opportunity missed.

  87. robert capozzi

    dL: Heck, Sanders managed to do it in the Dem primary.

    me: Please expand.

    While Sanders was a phenom for a time, I don’t see his campaign as being a paradigm shifter. It was just more of the same free-shit stuff, provided more explicitly by an explicit democratic socialist.

    Had there been a bigger field on the D side, I’m not sure that Sanders would have broken through like he did. All except O’Malley were scared off by the recognition that it’s HRC’s turn.

    It’s surely a matter of discernment and conjecture, but had any of the other L candidates been nominated, none of them would be getting even Stein-level traction, I submit. Possibly McAfee would have gotten some freakier-than-Trump coverage, but that’s about it.

  88. Thomas Knapp

    If the LP had nominated a baked potato and a worn-out shoe this year, the ticket would have received more free media, and be set to knock down more votes, than any LP slate in history. Just because you do a rain dance, that doesn’t mean you created the thunderstorm.

  89. robert capozzi

    tk, perhaps. But the potato, Petersen, Perry, McAfee, etc., would have gotten less than Stein is, I believe. And was my point.

  90. Thomas Knapp

    RC,

    I asserted that any LP presidential slate this year would have received more free media than any past LP presidential slate.

    Stein is not getting more free media than any past LP presidential slate. She’s not getting more free media than Johnson 2012 or, probably, Browne 1996/2000. She may not even be getting more free media than Barr 2008.

    Therefore I am asserting that your point is incorrect.

  91. Thomas Knapp

    “We’re both guessing, of course.”

    Guessing is all you can do from limited data in a situation that can’t be re-run with different factors/controls.

    However, among the limited data we have to work from is the datum that Gary Johnson ran in 2012 with a much better setup from his end (having been in the Republican race and in at least one Republican debate) and yet did not get nearly as much free media then as he is getting now. That’s an indicator that it is not Johnson himself driving this year’s free media but rather some external factor or factors.

  92. Anthony Dlugos

    Bernie Sanders had 16 years in the US House, 9 years in the US Senate, and 8 years as mayor of Burlington, VT.

    Any comparison between him and the LP’s roster of screwballs that showed up in Orlando…other than Johnson…is ludicrous. If you want to use analogies, they better be apt.

    If you’re telling me his previous elective office experience was at no level a prerequisite/precondition to his success this year, you’re gonna have to show me an example of someone with the complete lack of experience we had in the Screwball Caucus that showed up in Orlando earning the sort of free media coverage Johnson got, or something close to it, Mr. Knapp’s ecstasy-induced delusions notwithstanding.

    Please don’t waste my time with a reference to Trump, a man with decades of experience in charge of a billion-dollar company and essentially 100% name recognition.

  93. Anthony Dlugos

    We’re not guessing about the sort of minimum requirements the American people demand out of legitimate presidential candidates. We actually have a pretty good idea about it if we just look at past presidential election history.

  94. Thomas Knapp

    “Please don’t waste my time with any facts that contradict my pom-pom-waving, wishful-thinking delusional belief that Gary Johnson is SPESHHHHHHHHHHHHUL.”

  95. Anthony Dlugos

    I have a standing offer to commiserate over whiskey with any Libertarian about the lack of options we had in Orlando.

    I concede we would not have to consider perfection or one of the heavenly hosts in order to conceive of a candidate better than Johnson.

    You’re nuts if you think that person was in Orlando.

  96. Thomas L. Knapp

    “We’re not guessing about the sort of minimum requirements the American people demand out of legitimate presidential candidates. We actually have a pretty good idea about it if we just look at past presidential election history.”

    You’re trying to surreptitiously replace “presidents” with “presidential candidates.”

    Yes, the American people ELECT prominent officeholders or generals, but getting ELECTED was never a plausible outcome for the LP’s candidate this year.

    It was not going to happen.

    Not if we nominated Gary Johnson.

    Not if we nominated that guy in the cavalry uniform.

    Not. Period. And anyone who thought or thinks otherwise is living in a utopian fantasy world.

    When it comes to presidential CANDIDATES:

    Eugene Debs, who had never held elected office higher than state legislator and was in prison at the time, got three times the vote percentage in 1920 that Gary Johnson got in 2012.

    Norman Thomas, who had never held elected office, period — he was just a Presbyterian minister and “minor party frequent candidate” — got twice the vote percentage in 1928 that Gary Johnson got in 2012.

    So Gary Johnson has some executive experience in a polity the size of an average city (and whenever his actions in that position are criticized, his cheerleaders inform us that the his failures are due to the position really not being that important, the legislature drives everything — only his SUCCESSES should be attributed to him).

    The opinion of the American voter on that experience, in one word: Whoop-de-fucking-doo. Or is that four words?

  97. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Did the socialists turn down governors in favor of those chumps?”

    It would be interesting if they HAD made the right decision even with former governors trying to get them to make the wrong one. Then we would have a great example of how the LP really didn’t have to fuck up so massively this time.

  98. langa

    Yeah, I don’t buy government is incompetent crap(quite a bit of that originates with Milton Friedman). Government is in the business of social control and expanding it own discretionary power… and it is quite efficient at it.

    Well, government is “incompetent” in the sense of being completely unable to make good on its promises to solve our problems. Of course, those promises are made simply as a pretext to allow the government to pursue its real goal of expanding its size and power, and allowing its employees and corporate partners to live at the expense of the everyone else.

  99. robert capozzi

    tk: That’s an indicator that it is not Johnson himself driving this year’s free media but rather some external factor or factors.

    me: No, I don’t buy it. I would agree that it’s a factor, probably a big factor. HRC/DJT are substantially less attractive candidates than BHO/MR were. Another factor is that GJ has WW as his running mate, adding enormously to the 16 ticket’s credibility vs. the 12 ticket. And GJ was far more prepared to run this time as a L than he was in 12.

    This only shows how a reasonably qualified candidate for a third party might do vs. a substantially more vs less attractive candidates.

    UN-qualified candidates like Perry would be better compared with similarly UN-qualified candidates. Perry’d probably do better in 16 than Badnarik did in 04.

    Dismiss NM guv-ship all you want, but the media coverage seems to buy the pitch that GJ/WW are 2 former R guvs in blue states who were re-elected by wide margins.

    Now, I understand that those are, if anything, DISqualifying backgrounds from the anarchist perspective, since you hate the State and all things associated with the State. Former guvs = enablers or worse.

    You have your work cut out for you to convince 99.8% of the population of such a stance!

  100. Thomas L. Knapp

    “the media coverage seems to buy the pitch that GJ/WW are 2 former R guvs in blue states who were re-elected by wide margins.”

    Close. In order to stop being close and get exact, remove the word “former.” But of course doing that acknowledges that they are in fact the other Republican ticket and that there is no Libertarian ticket this year. And we mustn’t do that.

  101. Joseph Buchman Post author

    Nicholas Sarwark @ September 15, 2016 at 00:00

    “I am told that the campaign is working on responses to these questions.”

    THANKS for asking Nick. Seems they could cut and paste answers from the LP Platform for most of these and/or that would have been a perfect job for their advisory group.

    It also seems to me that they should be prepared for these SAME questions (or something similar) should they get into the CPD debates, or from other reporters, etc.

    Also seems to me that of all the political parties, the LP should have the best, and should be immediately prepared to respond, to all science-oriented questions. If we are not the collation of geeks and nerds, I’d like to know where they are!

    (Missing the days the property rights of Lagrangian Points were explicated in our Platform.)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point

    Thanks again for checking in with the campaign about this. Glad they are turning in their homework, even if late. Hopefully the penalty for that won’t be too severe.

    The politics of science should be something the LP is better at than any other party — part of our brand. I think we are, be nice to see the campaign articulate that fully too.

    (And the politics of EVERYTHING is something we are best at, IMO.)

    Joe

  102. Andy

    “Thomas Knapp
    September 15, 2016 at 04:56
    If the LP had nominated a baked potato and a worn-out shoe this year, the ticket would have received more free media, and be set to knock down more votes, than any LP slate in history.”

    LOL! A baked potato and a worn-out shoe (reminds me of Weld) would have been better candidates and more libertarian than Johnson and Weld.

    “Just because you do a rain dance, that doesn’t mean you created the thunderstorm.”

    This reminds me of those people back in the 1990’s who claimed that Bill Clinton was doing a good job managing the economy (as if that was something that the President does).

  103. Andy

    Thomas L. Knapp said: “But of course doing that acknowledges that they are in fact the other Republican ticket and that there is no Libertarian ticket this year. And we mustn’t do that.”

    Yep.

  104. Anthony Dlugos

    Johnson and Weld both switched parties. That makes them Libertarians, not Republicans. By definition.

    The alternative, I guess, is to let Andy tell us who is and isn’t a Libertarian, irrespective of what party they are actually members of. I’ll pass on that, lol.

  105. robert capozzi

    tk, your word games have been diagnosed perfectly by AD. They are the L nominees. Get over at least THAT. Why not just leave it that you don’t care for their take on what it means to be L? Just as I’d say DWP is not my kind of L.

    Overplaying your hand with transparent histrionics is beneath you.

  106. Thomas L. Knapp

    I saw the first campaign commercial.

    “Hi, I’m Gary Johnson, Republican governor of New Mexico.”

    “Hi, I’m Bill Weld, Republican governor of Massachusetts.”

    You are what you run as, and while I have seen Johnson and Weld run as Republicans and as Independents, I haven’t noticed them running as Libertarians. Not to say that they might not do that now and again, just that I haven’t seen it. So I’m going to assume that they are what I’ve heard them say they are, rather than what you want them to be.

  107. robert capozzi

    tk: I haven’t noticed them running as Libertarians.

    me: Then, dear Knappster, you are simply not paying attention. The L word is getting more play than it did during RP1.1 and RP1.2 in 08 and 12. You haven’t watched the speeches and rallies.

    You instead are observing with highly selective perception, one that supports your THEY ARE NOT Ls narrative.

  108. Anthony Dlugos

    As an aside, as an ex-debt collector with a radar for bullsh*t stories, I have long been of the belief that the purists/radicals who typically run for the LP prez/vp nominations are self-deluded nitwits that no one would put in charge of a pizza joint let alone an executive level government office, and they are typically cut from a worse cloth than the Libertarians who actually support them.

    For the most part, these unfortunate souls, who probably don’t have a pot to piss in, aren’t philosophical anarchists in the truest sense (why run for office if you are?), they are merely bullsh*t artists who at some point realized they not only have an audience predisposed to tolerance and thus willing to listen to their blathering, but they can actually lock down a faction of support by merely standing up and reciting some Rothbard and “shut down the gubment!” memes.

    Imagine you’re the sort of screwup who’s resume shows zero ececutive experience and no public office, and you hear of a party that not only welcomes you to run for the highest office in the land, but has long-term, hardworking members who flat out admit they not only don’t care about your c.v., they actually PREFER people without a c.v.

    I mean, this is like putting a pinned post on your Facebook page…”WILLING TO FALL FOR NIGERIAN LOTTERY SCAM!”

  109. Thomas L. Knapp

    Anthony,

    I’m not sure what you mean by “when I get to Cato.” Have they hired you for something? If so, good luck.

    Advisory: Working at Cato requires a much stronger grasp of logic, reason, rhetoric and writing ability than you’ve displayed here. Let me know if you need any help brushing up.

  110. Anthony Dlugos

    Nah, I don’t need any training. IPR is my version of open mic night.

    I save the good stuff for my YouPorn comments.

  111. Joseph Buchman Post author

    Thomas L. Knapp @ September 15, 2016 at 10:29

    Wrote: “I saw the first campaign commercial. “Hi, I’m Gary Johnson, Republican governor of New Mexico. Hi, I’m Bill Weld, Republican governor of Massachusetts.”

    Do you have the original or a link to it? It seems either that first version is gone from the Internet, or you misremembered. I went looking for it, and what I found instead was:

    “I’m Governor Gary Johnson; I’m Governor Bill Weld. I”m running for President; I’m running with him. As the Governor of New Mexico . . . As a Republican I was re-elected by my Democrat (sic) state in a landslide. Ditto.”

    There is this from Americans Deserve Better (which may have been using that earlier video you remember):

    “I served as a two-term governor of New Mexico. Bill Weld served as a two-term Republican governor . . .

  112. Thomas L. Knapp

    Joseph,

    No, I don’t have original or a link. I think it was posted in an open thread here at IPR. Of course, I could be wrong. There’s a first time for everything, after all.

  113. Joseph Buchman Post author

    Thomas,

    I’m still looking for it. The basic accusation that they are running away from significant portions (at least) of the LP Platform and trying to appeal to anti-Trump as “The Republicans you are looking for” is, in my experience, a fair characterization.

    I just wish I could find that first commercial as you remember it (always like to provide citations for everything, part of the damage done to me while earning a PhD and chasing (and catching, and then letting go of/resigning) tenure.

    🙂

    joe

  114. Anthony Dlugos

    None of this matters.

    Whitman just publicly endorsed Johnson getting into the debates.

    He’s getting in.

  115. Joseph Buchman Post author

    “He’s getting in.”

    Doubtful. CBS poll just released has Johnson at 8 and his Real Clear Politics poll is now back down to 8.3.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

    I suppose it’s possible they will let Johnson/Weld into the first POTUS and VPOTUS debates, with the condition that to get into a second POTUS debate the polls need to be clearly above 15 percent.

    But that would be an act of charity, and not based on the pre-established criteria.

  116. Andy

    “Joseph Buchman Post author
    September 15, 2016 at 11:29
    Thomas,

    I’m still looking for it. The basic accusation that they are running away from significant portions (at least) of the LP Platform and trying to appeal to anti-Trump as ‘The Republicans you are looking for’ is, in my experience, a fair characterization.”

    This is exactly what they are doing, and it does NOTHING to promote the Libertarian cause, and it is just one of the reasons why they should not have been given the nomination.

  117. Anthony Dlugos

    Joe,

    I personally never thought this ticket was getting in via the pre-established criteria . I always thought it was going to be something closing in on the 15% plus public pressure via politicians/newspaper endorsements.

    This is part of the reason why I was for Weld as the v.p. nominee. I didn’t want any excuse, any “out” as to why they should not be allowed to debate. And nominating an unqualified v.p. would be just that sort of excuse.

    The pressure is only gonna get stronger.

    I’ll take bets starting right now. Johnson will be in at least one debate.

  118. Joseph Buchman Post author

    Anthony,

    “I’ll take bets starting right now. Johnson will be in at least one debate.”

    I’m tempted to take that bet, but I wouldn’t want to put my house on it.

    “The CPD’s third criterion requires that the candidate have a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five national public opinion polling organizations selected by CPD, using the average of those organizations’ most recent publicly-reported results at the time of the determination.”

    If they violate that rule, there could be hell to pay from both the Republican and Democratic Parties. Only if BOTH the old party campaigns agree would, I think, an invitation go out short of the 15 percent for Johnson/Weld.

    So . . . I’d reluctantly take that bet.

    How about this, though. I’ll bet if Gary Johnson does get into the debate, there will be an “unprepared stoner” moment worse than the ALEPPO flub that will do more long-term damage to (what is left of) the Libertarian brand, than any good he has done so far.

    Wanna take that bet?

    🙂

    Joe

    (Weld, on the other hand, would clean the floor with the two old party candidates and be, at least somewhat more libertarian than either of those old-party calcified VP options.)

  119. Joseph Buchman Post author

    “I’ll just start off (the debate) with the fact that he is a pussy.”

    On second thought, maybe Clinton and Trump will want Johnson/Weld in the debates thinking they can kill the Libertarian Party permanently.

    We seem to have given them enough ammunition. Add in the Weeks strip and it’ll be a home run.

    And, I’m wondering, is there even a remote change that Johnson/Weld have been investing significant time over the past couple of weeks (at least) preparing for what Clinton and Trump might throw at them?

    If it’s just Joe Hunter and the echo-chamber of their campaign team that’s done the prep, God help them.

    Anyone else thinking/fearing that the best thing for the LP would be if they DO NOT get into the CPD debate?

  120. Andy

    “Joseph Buchman Post author
    September 15, 2016 at 12:26
    ‘I’ll just start off (the debate) with the fact that he is a pussy.’

    On second thought, maybe Clinton and Trump will want Johnson/Weld in the debates thinkin they can kill the Libertarian Party permanently.

    We seem to have given them enough ammunition.”

    Check out this video where a left leaning (Green Party type) reporter rips on Johnson/Weld’s performance on the CNN Town Hall. The sad thing here is that the left leaning reporter is correct on most of his points, and even where he is not correct (from a libertarian perspective), Johnson/Weld did such a lousy job of presenting the issues that they gave this guy plenty of ammo to criticize them.

    Why The Libertarian Town Hall Was SO Bad!

  121. Andy

    Joseph Buchman said: “Anyone else thinking/fearing that the best thing for the LP would be if they DO NOT get into the CPD debate?”

    I agree. I usually am a strong supporter of Libertarian Party candidates being included in debates, but in this instance, for the good of the party and the movement, it would be best if Johnson/Weld were not in the debates, being that they are such lousy representatives of the party.

    Heck, Johnson/Weld were the worst debaters that were on stage at the two debates held at the LP National Convention where they got nominated. Remember Gary Johnson’s meltdowns that happened at a couple of state conventions before the national convention? Do you really want these guys representing the Libertarian Party and cause to millions of people? Throwing Gary Johnson in with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton would be like throwing him into a shark tank. Trump and Hillary will play dirty, and they will have their staff prepping them on ways to attack Johnson. Johnson could easily be in over his head, and I would not trust Weld in the debate either.

  122. robert capozzi

    aj, or they might well just ignore GJ. Notice too that he’s been campaigning hard for months now, and his presentations have markedly improved.

  123. Anthony Dlugos

    Just for the record, Andy has already admitted to supporting Kokesh, anarchist and felon, for the 2020 LP nomination.

    Regardless of what one thinks of Kokesh, we can all agree what Andy thinks is a good debater and a good debate performance and what the average American voter thinks of the same is completely, utterly different.

  124. Anthony Dlugos

    Joseph,

    I agree that I would be concerned about another Aleppo gaffe.

    On the other hand, I’m not real worried about any permanent damage to the LP brand name. Johnson has a better debate presence than the Losertarian Caucus gives him credit for. For the Losertarians, debates are philosophical, veering on literal cage matches, where one candidate beats the hell out of the other ones, drawing blood if necessary.

    The reality is that the American people more or less latch onto the candidate they like the best, with nary a consideration for philosophy.

    This is why the duopoly candidates want no part of letting Gary in the debates; they have very little idea WHAT the American people are gonna latch onto in a debate situation as to what they want. They may completely buy into Gary’s humble approach. There were people among the Losertarians who argued Aleppogate would be the death of Gary’s campaign, and it did nothing of the sort.

  125. Thomas L. Knapp

    Whether or not Johnson/Weld are “good libertarians” and whether or not Johnson/Weld are “good debaters” are two different questions.

    They’re not good debaters.

    And in terms of debate performance, an additional factor is that the Republicans and Democrats generally prepare their candidates for debate. I suppose it’s possible that Trump will just wing it, but Clinton will come loaded for bear.

    It’s kind of presumptive that the debate questions will be formatted for Clinton to showcase herself.

    To the extent that she’s Obama 2.0, she is the “fiscal conservative” candidate compared to Trump (outside analyses of their plans have Trump growing spending and debt far more than her), Johnson (who grew government spending and debt faster as governor of New Mexico than Obama has as POTUS), and Stein (who seems to think that as president she could buy everyone anything they might happen to want because REASONS).

    Death penalty? Clinton’s for it. So is Trump. If Johnson claims to be against it, she’ll point out that that’s bullshit — as governor of New Mexico, he could have continued the 40-year gubernatorial tradition of not signing off on executions, but he decided to be the governor to break that streak — and to be the only person on the debate stage who has ever signed a death warrant — instead. Talk is cheap.

    I doubt that the goal of having Johnson in the debates is to destroy the LP as Joseph thinks might be the case. Johnson/Weld are proof that the LP is doing a standup job of destroying itself.

    If Johnson is allowed into the debate, it will be for one reason and one reason only: Because the debate organizers will have concluded that Johnson will hurt Trump and help Clinton.

  126. Thomas L. Knapp

    “For the [people who exist only in my fevered imagination], debates are philosophical, veering on literal cage matches, where one candidate beats the hell out of the other ones, drawing blood if necessary.”

    It’s not about philosophy. It’s about not turning into a shambling, stammering wreck any time you happen to get surprised.

    So far, Johnson has proven himself incapable of mastering that weakness.

    Maybe his campaign team has found a way to help him stop looking like a fucking idiot on stage. But if so they haven’t unveiled it yet.

  127. Anthony Dlugos

    Like I said, I concede Johnson would need some debate preparation, but he’s nowhere near as far off as the Losertarians argue he is.

    On the other hand, anyone with a pulse knows we wouldn’t even be having this conversation if any other candidate would have been our nominee. We probably would not be having this conversation if the Losertarians had gotten their way and pushed through a nomination for anyone but Weld.

  128. Andy

    Thomas Knapp said: ” I suppose it’s possible that Trump will just wing it, but Clinton will come loaded for bear.”

    I could see Donald Trump just “winging it” and still tearing Gary Johnson and new asshole.

  129. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    September 15, 2016 at 12:57
    Just for the record, Andy has already admitted to supporting Kokesh, anarchist and felon, for the 2020 LP nomination.

    Regardless of what one thinks of Kokesh, we can all agree what Andy thinks is a good debater and a good debate performance and what the average American voter thinks of the same is completely, utterly different.”

    I’d be willing to bet that Adam Kokesh would destroy Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and Gary Johnson and Bill Weld too for that matter, in a debate.

    Really, lots of Libertarians, including some of the regular posters here at IPR who are Libertarians, would do a better job of representing the Libertarian Party in a debate or an interview than Johnson and Weld have done.

  130. Anthony Dlugos

    I want nothing more than for Gary to make the debates and for Trump to try “tearing Gary Johnson a new asshole.”

    Trump will be down to the racists, sexists, and hysterical Kokesh-Rockwell paleos. lol

  131. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: “Andy has already admitted to supporting Kokesh, anarchist and felon, for the 2020 LP nomination.”

    Adam was arrested for a completely victimless, and unconstitutional “crime,” as in for something that no libertarian should take seriously, He was arrested for loading a shotgun while standing in Washington DC for a video that he posted on YouTube. This was clearly a 2nd amendment protected activity, 1st amendment too for that matter. There was no victim or damages, therefore he did not commit a crime.

    Anthony, you sure do not sound like much of a libertarian, if you are any kind of libertarian at all.

  132. Andy

    Bernie Sanders is dodging a debate challenge against Adam Kokesh, even with Roger Ver offering to donate $250,000 to the charity of Bernie’s choice if Bernie accepts this debate challenge.

    $250k Debate Challenge, Socialism VS Libertarianism, Bernie Sanders VS Adam Kokesh

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WbNY2U8yi0

  133. Anthony Dlugos

    “Adam’s was arrested for a completely victimless, and unconstitutional “crime,” as in for something that no libertarian should take seriously, He was arrested for loading a shotgun while standing in Washington DC for a video that he posted on YouTube. This was clearly a 2nd amendment protected activity, 1st amendment too for that matter. There was no victim or damages, therefore he did not commit a crime.”

    That’s beautiful, man. Makes him an admirable activist, All voters will see is a convicted felon. Rightly or wrongly, that’s all they’ll see. He’ll be speaking to no one but the already converted.

    The only thing a Kokesh nomination in 2020 will ensure is another felony conviction for Adam, this time when he tries to “bust his way” into debates he wasn’t invited to, where he sureiy would have “CRUSHED” his competition.

    Goddamn! Love this Bromance Libertarianism! Gimme an empty beer can so I can crush it against my head!

  134. Andy

    Thomas Knapp said: “I doubt that the goal of having Johnson in the debates is to destroy the LP as Joseph thinks might be the case. Johnson/Weld are proof that the LP is doing a standup job of destroying itself.

    If Johnson is allowed into the debate, it will be for one reason and one reason only: Because the debate organizers will have concluded that Johnson will hurt Trump and help Clinton.”

    I would not be surprised at all if this IS a part of a COINTELPRO sabotage operation against the Libertarian Party and movement. William Weld is CFR (Council on Foreign Relations). He’s a long time associate of the Bush family (remember, George HW Bush was the former director of the CIA, and he was also a member of the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderberg Group, plus he and his sons are all members of The Order of Skull and Bones, and The Bohemian Grove). Weld is also buddies with Mitt Romney, who is a member of the CFR and has been to Bilderberg Group meetings. Weld is also long time friends with the Clintons, and Bill and Hillary are both CFR and Bilderberg Group, and it has come out that Bill Clinton spied on anti-war activists for the Central Intelligence Agency back in the 1960’s. Oh, and let’s not forget that Weld has heaped praise on Barrack Obama, and it has come out that Barrack’s mother and grandparents (on his mother’s side) worked for the CIA, and his wife Michelle is CFR. Weld is a political establishment guy, and he’s about as establishment as you can get.

    Now rewind the clock back to 2008. Who were are candidates? Bob Barr, former (?) CIA and former government prosecutor, and Wayne Allan Root, Republican activist (and neo-con/Zionist), who admired Ronald Reagan, and who went on to openly campaign for Mitt Romney while sitting on the Libertarian National Committee in 2012 (which led to his resignation).

    It is a known fact that the government spies on political activists, particularly if their activism is against one or more government policies. It is already an admitted fact that the government spies on libertarians. It is also known that the government sends plants into political activist groups to infiltrate them, so they can spy on and sabotage political activist groups from the inside. There were FOIA requests done in the 1970’s. 1980’s, and early 1990’s where it came out that there were in fact government plants posing as Libertarians at Libertarian Party meetings. Their names were redacted, so it has never been proven as to who those people were, but the fact of the matter is that there were people at these Libertarian Party meetings who were undercover government agents.

    Given all of these facts, it would not surprise me at all if there has been a concerted effort to hijack the Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket and insert government plants in as candidates, in order to ensure that a real libertarian movement in this country does not get too big. This is likely being orchestrated by operators outside the party, and inside the party.

    I am NOT saying that everyone who supports Johnson/Weld is a government plant. Some of them are likely just naive and/or uniformed, or are just milquetoast moderates, but I suspect that at least some of them are plants.

    It would sure be interesting to do a FOIA request on everyone who was present at the Libertarian National Convention in Orlando.

  135. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: “That’s beautiful, man. Makes him an admirable activist, All voters will see is a convicted felon. Rightly or wrongly, that’s all they’ll see. He’ll be speaking to no one but the already converted.”

    There are still lots of people in this country who support gun rights and or free speech, and they would all be sympathetic to Adam, as would anyone who has been arrested for a victimless crime, which is a lot of people. So if anything, I think that Adam’s arrest would help his campaign.

    “The only thing a Kokesh nomination in 2020 will ensure is another felony conviction for Adam, this time when he tries to ‘bust his way’ into debates he wasn’t invited to, where he sureiy would have ‘CRUSHED’ his competition.”

    That would be great if he did that. If he is our candidate, and they shut him out of the debates, he should show up wearing a hidden camera, along with lots of his supporters, who should all have cameras themselves, and they should try to crash the debates. His campaign should invited the alternative media and the foreign media since the American mainstream media will likely try to bury the story (like they did when Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik and Green Party candidate David Cobb did this back in 2004). These videos would blow up on YouTube and create lots of good publicity for the Kokesh campaign, and lots of negative publicity for the D and R candidates. If Adam becomes the candidate, and he agrees to do this, I’d go with him and take part in this if I am able to make.

  136. dL

    Bernie Sanders had 16 years in the US House, 9 years in the US Senate, and 8 years as mayor of Burlington, VT.

    Any comparison between him and the LP’s roster of screwballs that showed up in Orlando…other than Johnson…is ludicrous. If you want to use analogies, they better be apt.

    If you’re telling me his previous elective office experience was at no level a prerequisite/precondition to his success this year, you’re gonna have to show me an example of someone with the complete lack of experience we had in the Screwball Caucus that showed up in Orlando earning the sort of free media coverage Johnson got, or something close to it, Mr. Knapp’s ecstasy-induced delusions notwithstanding.”

    Sanders started out at 2%. Finished basically tied w/ Clinton, might have won if not for the DNC subterfuge that has since been exposed by Wikileaks. A “fix” that was so blatant that Clinton is more or less willing to restart a second cold war as a distraction. That is what apparently defines the standard for American “mainstream respectability politics.”

    Sanders previous experience had little to do w/ his rise other than providing a backdrop of (relative) consistency of message that lent credibility to his critique. He wasn’t a johnny-come-lately. His previous experience didn’t provide him w/ any real “name recognition/.” I doubt many had even heard of him prior to his run. His (relative) consistency of message over the years did however make him somewhat immune to opposition research.

    The “screwballs” at the LP convention were the dipshits that put William Weld on the ticket. Frankly, I never really been impressed by the LP presidential tickets since the 90s.So I’m not going to argue that the LP couldn’t field a better slate. Indeed, I think the LP has long targeted the wrong audience. It acts much too like a GOP adjunct for my tastes. Too many LPers think that libertarians and conservatives are close cousins. And that’s a serious error IMO. That being said, the 2016 slate was certainly adequate.

    McAfee/Sharpe ticket would have been a far preferable ticket. A ticket that I think would have certainly out performed TeamGov. The idea that Gary Johnson is some sort of free media rock star is ludicrous to anyone but a groupie to the hollywood for the ugly(pssst. there aren’t that many of you).

    Lastly, once again to address this claptrap of “purity.” The LP wouldn’t last 30 seconds w/o the radicals. The radicals are the only line of defense against the paleolithic right takeover(much like we are seeing in the Alaska LP). In my dealings with them, they are quite adept at tossing around the “purity accusation.” This tripe of mainstream major party status is that: tripe. Collective action is dominated by the minority(try reading some political science texts occasionally). If the radicals were to leave the party en masse, contra to the grand delusion of that being a precursor to some glorious mainstream status as a party of moderate republicanism, the consequence would be exposing the LP as a sitting duck for the vile paleolithic right, And then the pragmaticrats would find themselves at the other end of the “purity accusation.” And it would be a rout.

  137. Andy

    Here is further proof of what I talked about above in regard to William Weld being an establishment hack, and how the Libertarian Party ticket has been hijacked by the establishment.

    Colin Powell’s email was recently hacked, and one of the revelations is that a lot of Bohemian Grove members are not going to vote for Donald Trump, and some of them are going to vote third party this year. The Bohemian Grove is private all male club in a wooded area of northern California where lots of elite politicians, bankers, and other establishment types are members. They have a gathering every summer where they engage in bizarre occult rituals. Other members of the Bohemian Grove include the Bush family (George HW, George W., Jeb, Marvin, and probably some other male members of the family), Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Newt Gingrich, Alan Greenspan, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney, to name just a few.

    Note that Colin Powell is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

    Anyway, here’s the article:

    http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/09/14/hacked-colin-powell-email-bohemian-grove-attendees/

    From the article:

    “Here is Powell’s full July 24, 2016 email, which was hacked by DCLeaks and accessed by Breitbart News via a password provided to this reporter by the hacking group:

    ‘Peter, I am back from the Bohemian Grove. Surprise, surprise, I sat next
    to Stephen Harper a couple of times and had a nice discussion. Grove
    attendees know that Trump is a disaster. Most will vote against, but quite
    a few will not vote for Hillary and will vote for a third party candidate.
    Strange doings down here. Otherwise all is well with the Powells. We’ll
    sneak away for a few days in August. Of course I’d love to see you. Let me
    know your dates. I told Stephen that you seemed quite content in your new
    place in life.

    All the best, Colin'”

  138. Anthony Dlugos

    Anyone who thinks an LP ticket of McAfee/Sharpe would have outperformed the current ticket,

    A) has no data to back this up
    B) needs to stay of the psychotropics.

    Anyone who thinks McAfee/Sharpe would have been a preferable ticket really has no interest in getting a libertarian message to the voters. Considering the fact that McAfee’s drug/strippers/handgun video about uninstalling his antivirus software would be front and center if the media ever did talk about the LP ticket, the only message such a person is interested in sending is a giant “F You” to everyone.

    In any case, I know the current ticket is onto something when the Losertarian Caucus can’t get their story straight as to whether or not Johnson-Weld is a Trojan Horse for Republicans or Democrats.

  139. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    September 15, 2016 at 19:34
    Anyone who thinks an LP ticket of McAfee/Sharpe would have outperformed the current ticket,”

    Nobody knows for sure how they’d do in terms of number of votes received in November. We do not even know at this time how many votes that Johnson/Weld will get.

    What we do know is that Johnson/Weld are doing a shitty job at disseminating a libertarian message, and it should be clearly apparent that McAfee and Sharpe would have done a better job at that (as would several other candidates for the nomination in Orlando).

  140. Andy

    So the question is what third party ticket will these Bohemian Grover members cast their votes? I’d say that there are only two possibilities:

    1) Gary Johnson & Bill “CFR” Weld,

    or

    2) Evan “CIA” McMullin & Nathan Johnson.

    Considering that the McMullin/Johnson ticket is only going to be on the ballot in a small handful of states, I doubt they will get very many votes, or even be on the ballot in states where most of the Bohemian Grove members are registered to vote.

    So this leaves Gary Johnson and Bill “CFR” Weld.

    Now these establishment types are the kind of people who would not even consider voting for Libertarian Party candidates under normal circumstances, but these are not normal circumstances. The fact that establishment types are even considering voting for the Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket should tell everyone something, and what it says is not good if you are actually a libertarian, and that is that these establishment folks have to be confident that the Libertarian Party presidential ticket has been co-opted, and that the Libertarian Party has become controlled opposition, at least for the most part. They have to know that Johnson/Weld are really “with them” (as in that they are not a real threat to the status quo, or more accurately, statist quo), and that they have operatives in place in the campaign and in the Libertarian Party.

    The establishment knows that they can’t control all Libertarians. They will never control me, and I know that there are still lots of good people in the Libertarian Party that they will never control, but this does not matter. They only need a small number of people to sabotage the Libertarian Party, and they have already hijacked the thing that we do which garners us the most publicity, and that is our presidential campaigns. The establishment has successfully hijacked our presidential tickets since 2008.

    The establishment is scared shitless of the idea of a an effective Libertarian Party, because an effective Libertarian Party could actually lead to the downfall of the establishment. This is not likely to ever happen by the Libertarian Party electing someone as President, but rather by spreading the ideas, and by encouraging actions outside of electoral politics like jury nullification, alternative currencies, tax resistance, gun ownership, home schooling, etc… Also, if libertarians ever got organized enough to focus on taking over low population towns and/or counties (as if enough libertarians moved into these type of places, or even set up 2nd residences in some place like this so they could register to vote there), libertarians actually could start taking over local governments in these places, and if they were to take over the Sheriffs department, by electing a libertarian Sheriff, they could implement the Deputize ‘Em plan. That is that the libertarian Sheriff appoints libertarian deputies. The libertarian Sheriff could actually get rid of the existing Sheriff’s department deputies and replace them with libertarian deputies. The libertarian Sheriff could appoint as many deputies as they wanted (they could pay them $1 a year, or maybe they could agree to not accept any pay), and the deputies do not even have to live in the county. Can you imagine a county with a balls out libertarian Sheriff, with a bunch of assault rifle carrying libertarian deputies?

    The chances of a Libertarian Party candidate getting elected President or Governor are so slim that it is not likely to happen any time soon, if ever. Not only is the deck stack against us with the election laws and mainstream media bias (big media has been in bed with big government in this country for a long time), there is also vote rigging that we’d have to overcome, and in the case of presidential elections, if the vote is close, Congress gets to pick the President, and given that we do not have any Libertarians elected to Congress, that vote is not likely to go our way.

    Barring mass changes in our society, anyone who thinks that Libertarians can win the White House are delusional. So winning the election is not the point of the Libertarian Party’s presidential campaign. The point of the campaign is to spread the Libertarian message, and to build the party and the movement.

    Libertarians will not “control” anything unless we start moving out of wherever we live and start congregating together in the same areas (a low population town or county). If you are unwilling to relocate, or set up a second address, in a low population town or county with other libertarians, then keep in mind that you stand close to ZERO chance of ever taking over your local government. Look at the numbers. Consider the number of people who work for the government, contract with government, work in a government protected occupation, receive welfare (including corporate fat cats who get corporate welfare), receive government pensions, receive pensions from companies who contract with the government, or who want to use government to control personal behavior (be they right wing social controllers or left wing social justice warriors), and you will see that the numbers do not look good for libertarians. Now factor in all of the people who are apathetic and who are tuned out to politics. Sure, there are people out there who support us, and more who would supports us if they knew who we are, but we are still talking about a minority of the population, and the cost and effort that it would take to reach the number of people we’d have to reach to even have a shot at winning any election is high. Even if we win a seat on some local government board, it makes little difference, because if the rest of the board is dominated by Democrats or Republicans we will just be outvoted on everything, so we have little impact. If you want to take over that local government board, keep in mind that the demographics make it highly unlikely to happen. You’d be lucky to even get one libertarian on the local government board, but getting a majority, so you can control the local government board, is not likely to happen.

    So if you are unwilling to move, or set up a second residence in a low population town/county with other libertarians, the only other thing that you can realistically do to move where you live in the direction of more freedom is to disseminate information about jury nullification, alternative currencies, home schooling, etc…, and hope that you can get enough people to start engaging in these activities to where it starts to make a difference. Other than that, you are pretty much screwed.

    It should be clearly apparent that nominating a presidential ticket that is not really libertarian, and is actively trying to curry favor with the ruling establishment, is 1) NOT disseminating a real libertarian message to the public, and therefore not really building the party and movement in the manner in which it needs to be built in order to one day be successful, and 2) it STILL does not mean that the Libertarian Party is going to win the White House.

    Reality is that it has made the Libertarian Party look like a bunch of sell outs to a lot of observers, and since the party still has close to ZERO chance of winning the White House, the party sold out its principles for NOTHING.

    Sucking up to the political establishment is not the path to success for the Libertarian Party. Trying to show the public that “we are just like them” (as in that we can nominate “credible” candidates that the establishment will accept) is not a path to freedom. We, as Libertarians, are NOT like “them” (as in the ruling establishment). We should not want to be like them, and we damn sure should not try to suck up to them. We should not be involved with this stuff so we can kiss the rear ends of the establishment. We are here to give the establishment the middle finger.

  141. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    September 15, 2016 at 19:34
    Anyone who thinks an LP ticket of McAfee/Sharpe would have outperformed the current ticket,”

    Getting votes is meaningless if you piss all over the Libertarian message to do it. I bet that the Libertarian Party ticket would be getting a lot more money, attention, and votes, if we had Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders as candidates, but doing so would also be flushing our message down the toilet, much like we are with Johnson/Weld.

  142. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Considering the fact that McAfee’s drug/strippers/handgun video about uninstalling his antivirus software would be front and center if the media ever did talk about the LP ticket”

    That video would have been good for AT LEAST half a million votes, more likely five times that.

  143. langa

    In any case, I know the current ticket is onto something when the Losertarian Caucus can’t get their story straight as to whether or not Johnson-Weld is a Trojan Horse for Republicans or Democrats.

    It’s almost impossible to tell, because there are almost no significant differences between the two major parties. They are like Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr. — two different names for the same product.

  144. dL

    “As an aside, as an ex-debt collector…”

    Let’s see, a professional category even more despised than the DMV. The only professional category with a less favorability rating w/ the public might be IRS agent. And you are pretending to advise the LP on mass appeal? The only advisory service you could offer the LP would be George Costanza’s “The Opposite.” You know, take what you say and do the opposite…

  145. dL

    “Anyone who thinks McAfee/Sharpe would have been a preferable ticket really has no interest in getting a libertarian message to the voters.”

    The LP should target the people you used to harass, mr. debt collector. Your clients got bailed out. The people you harassed didn’t. Oh, I think the common joe can understand that. Not a hard sell.

Leave a Reply

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