Open Thread for October 2016

no-dems-or-gop
Here is our open thread for October. This is the place where anyone can post something that you think might interest the group. If you find an article or some information, or have a question that isn’t being discussed on another thread, leave a comment here. It should have something to do with our mission of covering independent and third party politics, but you’ll probably be all right to post anything here as long as it doesn’t violate someone’s copyright, or it doesn’t libel anyone.

406 thoughts on “Open Thread for October 2016

  1. Jordan Evans

    Hey all,

    I’ve been covering the Massachusetts Libertarian Party’s 2016 state convention since early in the AM. I’m still here now, covering the dinner session with Bruce Fenton and Adam Kokesh. I’ll be submitting a write-up article like always for sometime next week!

  2. Bondurant

    I yearn for the day when South Park was brilliant satire and not a horrid documentary of life in modern America.

  3. Be Rational

    “… hmmm, the emoticon didn’t show up.”

    Quick! Another conspiracy! Somebody call Andy!

  4. George Phillies

    The Libertarian Association of Massachusetts had its State Convention. I gave my report as State Chair and happily left. Thanks to Justin O’Donnell posting on Facebook, I can report that the new Association State Committee is:

    Cris Crawford – Chair
    David Blau – Treasurer
    Susan Ruiz – Recording Secretary
    Kristie Manning Moruzzi
    Ken Van Tassell
    Dan Fishman
    Thomas Simmons
    Justin O’Donnell
    Don Graham

    There are about ten officer positions, of which the State Committee has elected three as seen above, so eventually the remainder will be filled.

  5. JamesT

    Kinda funny how AM3P went from pro Castle propaganda site to anti. Lol. I see that Johnson is getting mad more and more. Good. Where’s that passion been for like 5 months.

  6. Cody Quirk

    That’s what happens when you’re too trusting of people that are bipolar & closet loose-cannons. Never again for ATPR.

  7. Nvg

    So is it big news that a Pac endorses Darrell Castle? https://www.facebook.com/CourageousConservativesPAC/posts/1588079281494317

    Endorsement text: COURAGEOUS is more than just a slogan at CCPAC. We are not going to compromise DECENCY for expediency.
    Nor are we going to ignore CONSERVATIVE principles in order to grovel with the servile (emphasis on the VILE!) politicians of the moment. Not one of these same political hacks will be remembered by history except as the wreckers of our REPUBLIC & the STATES THAT FOUNDED IT!
    So we defer to NO MERE POLITICIAN & their lickspittle band-wagon jumping…not Ted Cruz, not George H.W. Bush! We REJECT the false “binary choice” of PROGRESSIVE A vs. PROGRESSIVE B!
    COURAGEOUS CONSERVATIVE PAC ENDORSES the candidacy of Mr. Darrell Castle & Mr. Scott Bradley.
    We find only the CONSTITUTION PARTY candidates embrace the Conservative Principles & DECENCY that the other political parties & their candidates lack.
    Here is Darrell Castle’s debate response in case someone wanted to post it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAW77yW0x6Y

  8. Cody Quirk

    Never heard of this PAC, plus looking at the comment threads on their facebook page- I highly doubt that they are an influential, or even an official PAC.

  9. JamesT

    That his running mate voted for. Clinton apologist are so dumb it almost makes me want to vote for Trump. Almost.

  10. Andy

    “Be Rational
    October 4, 2016 at 12:51
    Ron Paul is purely pay-to-play. His endorsements are meaningless.”

    That’s funny, because I don’t recall Chuck Baldwin paying Ron Paul in 2008. I don’t recall Gary Johnson paying him in 2012 when he said that he thought that Gary Johnson was “wonderful”.

    It looks like the Gary Johnson fanboys are just butt hurt that Ron Paul won’t endorse Gary “TPP” Johnson and Bill “CFR” Weld this time.

  11. Anthony Dlugos

    Ron Paul, who’s know schlepping doomsday packaged food to the poor souls who deem him a libertarian demigod (rather than what he is, a paleocon, states’ rights, anti-choice soft core racist, does what’s best for Ron Paul and the Paul family.

    The sole reason Ron Paul is not endorsing Gary Johnson is that he wants his son to be the titular head of the libertarian movement.

  12. George Phillies

    From politicalwire.com

    Libertarian vice presidential candidate William Weld told the Boston Globe “that he plans to focus exclusively on blasting Donald Trump over the next five weeks, a strategic pivot aimed at denying Trump the White House and giving himself a key role in helping to rebuild the GOP.”

    “Weld’s comments in a Globe interview mark a major shift in his mission since he pledged at the Libertarian convention in May that he would remain a Libertarian for life and would do all he could to help elect his running mate, Gary Johnson, the former Republican governor of New Mexico.”

  13. Jim

    Weld commented about the Boston Globe article on twitter:

    “What ISN’T reported here is my assurance, to the reporter, that my “L” hat remains firmly in place.”

    That isn’t quite true as the BG article says:

    “He insisted he was not abandoning Johnson, although he signaled that bolting from the Libertarian Party might be a possibility in the future. “I’m certainly not going to drop them this year,” Weld said.”

  14. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    October 4, 2016 at 18:58
    Ron Paul, who’s know schlepping doomsday packaged food to the poor souls who deem him a libertarian demigod (rather than what he is, a paleocon, states’ rights, anti-choice soft core racist, does what’s best for Ron Paul and the Paul family.”

    Tell All Your Small Govt Libertarian Friends – Ron Paul Is An Anarchist!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcWPji8fXwU

  15. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    October 4, 2016 at 18:58
    Ron Paul, who’s know schlepping doomsday packaged food to the poor souls who deem him a libertarian demigod (rather than what he is, a paleocon, states’ rights, anti-choice soft core racist, does what’s best for Ron Paul and the Paul family.”

    The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4

  16. Andy

    Anthong Dlugos said: “The sole reason Ron Paul is not endorsing Gary Johnson is that he wants his son to be the titular head of the libertarian movement.”

    Ron Paul is not endorsing Gary Johnson because Gary Johnson sucks. Johnson sold out what little principles he claimed to have by bringing Bill “CFR” Weld on board and ridiculously proclaiming him as the “original libertarian”.

  17. Anthony Dlugos

    Ron Paul’s primary interest is Ron Paul. He did as much bad as he did good for the Libertarian Party.

  18. José C

    According to conservative talk show host Meghan McCain on her national radio talk show says that MSNBC is announcing Ron Paul has endorsed Green Party candidate Jill Stein for President. If this is true what a coup for Jill Stein.

  19. George Phillies

    Red State reports Paul said nice things about Stein, will not endorse Johnson or anyone else.

    However “nice things” might be better than a magic word.

  20. Anthony Dlugos

    I seriously, seriously doubt that’s gonna happen, or that Meghan McCain would even have that sort of information.

    And even if Ron does, it won’t make more than a fraction of a percentage blip in her numbers.

  21. George Phillies

    There was an actual Ron Paul statement. It was public. MSNBC apparently got it wrong by misunderstanding what they heard.

    A simple web search should find the Paul corrections to the misunderstanding. At least, my search found it.

  22. José C

    Speaking of Jill Stein has Gary Johnson accepted her invitation to participate in a presidential candidates debate with her? Gary Johnson should debate her. Since he has not been invited to participate in the main stage debates he has no choice but to accept Jill Stein’s invitation. His campaign should get together with her campaign and set up a presidential candidates debate. They can work to have CNN, C-SPAN, or some other national network televise the debate(s). They could possibly have three debates. Also the Vice-Presidential candidates could participate in a debate.

    Some of us in Los Angeles and Orange Counties were working on having a Gary Johnson and Jill Stein candidates debate viewing party fundraiser. Money raised would go to the Gary Johnson campaign and or to the Los Angeles and Orange county parties. But with no debate announced we have decided this is not doable. There would not be enough time to organize such an event.

    In 1980 Libertarian Presidential candidate Ed Clark debated Citizens Party presidential candidate Barry Commoner. Ed Clark had no choice and I will say neither does Gary Johnson.

  23. Jim

    Johnson won’t do a 3rd party debate until after he is officially excluded from the 3rd CPD debate because one of the prohibitions on getting into the CPD debates is that you can’t do other debates.

  24. langa

    Ron Paul is not endorsing Gary Johnson because Gary Johnson sucks. Johnson sold out what little principles he claimed to have by bringing Bill “CFR” Weld on board and ridiculously proclaiming him as the “original libertarian”.

    Exactly right. That statement was not only ridiculous, it was basically a direct slap in the face of Ron Paul, who actually deserves the “original libertarian” label, since he is the first (and only) philosophical libertarian who has ever been elected to any significant political office.

    Of course, he achieved that success by refusing to water down his message or his positions. That’s why all the pseudo-libertarian Johnson fanboys despise him.

  25. JamesT

    Yeah. I saw some people I respect criticizing this. Here’s my two cents. The president can’t actually do much about economics its really their foreign policy that has the most influence. Jill Stein has the best foreign policy. It’s fighting in the margins but I understand where he is coming from. She’s also actually anti-establishment. His friendship with Nader and Kucinich makes this not that hard to see some common ground there. Whereas there is no common ground with Weld. But it seems like Weld is checked out of the LP and the ticket. Too bad for Gary seems like, if incompetent and high, a nice guy.

  26. José C

    Meghan McCain later on her show mentioned that MSNBC was retracting their announcement that Ron Paul was endorsing Green Party candidate Jill Stein for President. MSNBC says they were in error and Ron Paul has not made an edorsment.

  27. José C

    Johnson won’t do a 3rd party debate until after he is officially excluded from the 3rd CPD debate because one of the prohibitions on getting into the CPD debates is that you can’t do other debates.

    The odds that Gary Johnson will be invited to the CPD debate is very slim. Maybe his campaign can work behind the scenes with the Jill Stein campaign to set up an alternative candidates Presidential debate. I think he has to do it. He should not pass up those types of opportunities.

    If Gary Johnson does not want to debate Jill Stein I would suggest she participate in a solo debate. She can have a moderator or moderators ask her questions. Would a solo debate work? If not maybe she should debate Darral Castle. I know he has not reached the magic Electoral College ballot access number but if the optics of a solo debate do not work she should debate Darrell Castle.

  28. Jim

    José C “The odds that Gary Johnson will be invited to the CPD debate is very slim. Maybe his campaign can work behind the scenes with the Jill Stein campaign to set up an alternative candidates Presidential debate. I think he has to do it. He should not pass up those types of opportunities.”

    Agreed. There is a chance this year that such a debate would be picked up by MSNBC or CNN.

    José C “If Gary Johnson does not want to debate Jill Stein I would suggest she participate in a solo debate.”

    It’s not that Johnson doesn’t want to debate Stein. And it’s certainly not, as Andy and a few others have said, that Johnson is afraid to do debates because he is bad at them. When Johnson was running for Governor the 2nd time he made his opponent do 27 debates (or some equally absurd number.) He’s more than willing to do them. The question is – would he consider it a waste of time because no one except those already committed to Johnson or Stein would be watching? If it were hosted by MSNBC or CNN, I am sure he would jump at it.

  29. Be Rational

    Andy, if you were to check with the groups and campaigns that Ron Paul has endorsed, signed letters for, assisted with fundraising, etc, you will find that he demands and receives several forms of compensation such as: a cash payment of six figures, lists of donor and volunteer names for his own commercial use, an office, a staff, a job for a family member etc.

    It’s always pay to play with Ron Paul.
    He always takes before he gives.
    Another man with feet of clay.

  30. George Phillies

    Be Rational is completely right on this.

    “would he consider it a waste of time because no one except those already committed to Johnson or Stein would be watching? ” Most Johnson Stein voters are *not* committed. 70% say they might change their mind. Firming up that vote would actually do something.

  31. George Phillies

    In other notes, I call you to the campaign of Thom Simmons Simmons4Congress.com. He is not paying me, but I did two days back generate $6900 for his effort.

    Thom has an unusual background, besides being a left Libertarian, a retiring college professor, and a gay male, and an excellent public speaker (some of you heard him twice in Atlanta), he ran a *successful* Congressional campaign for John LeBoutillier.

    John LeBoutillier ran against many-term incumbent Lester Wolff, in the mythical Archie Bunker’s home district in Queens, which was 3-1 Democratic. Democrat Wolff lost. LeBoutillie won. Key to the loss was LeBoutillier’s one TV Ad, a push-pin map of the globe with pins going in, showing where he had travelled, important world trouble spots like iirc Bora Bora. The pins were inserted by the narrator in the figure, described to me as a hot babe of limited years wearing a minimal bikini.

    It takes no great insight to see that the tactic might plausibly be reversed, and that production costs have already been covered, so that your money will be going directly into more viewing time.

    That’s Simmons4Congress.com. Please join me in giving a maximum donation.

    No one paid me for this statement, which was not approved by the candidate or any candidate committee.

  32. Andy

    “Be Rational
    October 6, 2016 at 13:24
    Andy, if you were to check with the groups and campaigns that Ron Paul has endorsed, signed letters for, assisted with fundraising, etc, you will find that he demands and receives several forms of compensation such as: a cash payment of six figures, lists of donor and volunteer names for his own commercial use, an office, a staff, a job for a family member etc.”

    Can you show some evidence that he received any of this from Chuck Baldwin?

  33. Nvg

    Apparently,Darrell Castle was invited to the Free and Equal Debate.This is a response from the Free and Equal Facebook page to a Castle Supporter:

    Connie, referencing our earlier discussion. Mr castle has been invited to participate at this debate. We are one of the few organizations that is actively trying to get the voices of alternative and independent candidates out there. We work tirelessly, as volunteers, to support this cause because we truly and passionately believe in the concept of liberty. Who are we free and equal for? We, the people.

    https://www.facebook.com/freeandequal/

  34. Be Rational

    Chuck Baldwin is such a non-entity that the Ron Paul endorsement would have had a very small pay-off. But there is a flip side to individuals who demand payment for support, that is the extortion demand backed up by revenge.

    If you don’t put me on your team as a paid advisor, I will denounce your campaign or endorse your opponent.

    Only an insider would know the facts of any particular case. There are posters here on IPR that have direct knowledge of some of these cases. They may be very unwilling to post their direct knowledge of payments to Ron Paul, although some of the payments may already be pubilc knowledge.

  35. Rye Zupancis

    Steve Nemerovski of Columbia University wrote an article recently about the lack of third party candidates in the presidential and vice-presidental debates.

    Read the entire article here: http://www.noneoftheabove.us/NOTAbles/articles/the-debate-debate

    “As a creation of the Republican/Democrat duopoly, the Commission on Presidential Debates has no interest in allowing a third party candidate to appear in debates, especially in a period of unprecedented dysfunction and polarization and in an election between the two most unpopular candidates in history. If you visit the Commission’s website, you will find a plausible explanation of the rationale for their current standards. But, you won’t find the real rationale – perpetuation of the two party system.”

  36. wolfefam

    I remember reading here that the Alaska Libertarian Party was going to nominate Joe Miller as their US Senate candidate. I just visited Miller’s website and found no mention of the LP. Did they make that nomination?

    http://joeforliberty.com/

  37. Nvg

    Confusing response on the official Castle campaign facebook page about the Free and Equal debate:

    There seems to be some confusion as to Darrell’s participation in upcoming debates. The next presidential debate is scheduled for Sunday October 9th. He has NOT be invited to participate in that debate. He will twitter his immediate reactions to the questions and is expected to follow up with a video response the next day or so. We can verify that that he has been invited to the United We Stand festival but the details of that debate have not been set and we do not know at this time if he will be there. We will let you know when or if that is confirmed.

    https://www.facebook.com/DarrellCastle2016/

  38. George Phillies

    In other news of the bizarre, wikileaks released a quote from Hillary Clinton to some audience, saying that she wanted open borders and free trade within the hemisphere. She stole our libertarian positions. See politicalwire dot com for more details.

    Trump was quoted as proposing, at least a decade ago, that he was entitled to molest women.
    This is news about an emerging American Third Party, the Republican Party.

    In good news, it is likely that in less than five weeks this nonsense will be over.

  39. Nvg

    This seems to be the new criteria to participate in the Free and Equal debate:

    We decided to invite candidates on the ballot in enough states to reach 10% of the electoral vote. 😉 #MoreVoicesMoreChoices

    https://www.facebook.com/freeandequal/

    According to that criteria their will be 7 candidates invited not including Trump and Hillary.From Wikipedia in descending electoral votes these candidates qualify:
    Gary Johnson,Jill Stein,Darrell Castle,Rocky De La Fuente,Gloria La Riva,Even McMullin,and Alyson Kennedy .

  40. Jim

    George Phillies “… wikileaks released a quote from Hillary Clinton to some audience, saying that she wanted open borders and free trade within the hemisphere. She stole our libertarian positions”

    And yet, as Senator she voted for the border fence currently in place and voted against a guest worker program, saying “I believe that in many parts of our country, because of employers who exploit undocumented workers and drive down wages, there are job losses.”

    I pointed that out to some Hillary supporter that I had been arguing with on a message board and he disappeared three days ago.

    But even the least informed Hillary supporters know she is all over the place on free trade.

  41. Rick Adams

    Even though I rarely comment here, I’ve been reading IPR articles and comment threads regularly for over three years now. Thank you IPR for giving a home to the politically homeless like myself who want to deal the two-party oligarchy a death blow in November!

  42. George Phillies

    Liberty for America
    October 2016

    Editorial Note
    Your editor’s computer was down for two weeks, and has still not recovered completely. The Windows 10 Anniversary Upgrade has a known bug that occasionally makes it impossible to start the machine and wrecks the disk drive organization. (See Forbes, mid-October) Alas, Microsoft is still distributing the turkey. Systems with multiple disks (I had a RAID system; I stress had) are apparently more vulnerable. In any event, on my machine the Windows upgrade jammed and would not complete or let the good technicians do anything. I ended up with a bare main drive (had to reload all my software; fortunately I had all the backup disks), a RAID system whose backup disk has data on it, but you can’t read it yet, and large stacks of CDs that let me recover *most* of my data, though not the most recent few months where I had short-term trusted the RAID configuration. Reloading all the CDs took quite some time, and I am still missing some things. Also, this is now a Windows 7 machine, and so it shall remain.

    Johnson Contract Has Happy Ending
    We have occasionally reported on the total lack of progress on signing a contract between the LNC and the Johnson campaign, a contract that would give the Libertarian National Committee a list of the Johnson donors and contacts and that would let the Johnson campaign do several mailings to LNC members. LNC Chair Nick Sarwark finally completed the contract with the campaign. At this point, there was a major issue. The terms of the contract guaranteed that the LNC would keep the terms of the contract secret in perpetuity. LNC members who wanted to see the contract, which they clearly needed to do in order to perform their duties as board members, were to be required to sign a non-disclosure agreement. The LNC transparency caucus, led by Caryn Ann Harlos, refused to sign the agreement. Harlos offered a motion to revoke the ability of the chair to sign the agreement without needing prior LNC approval.

    In the end, libertarian common sense prevailed. Chair Nick Sarwark persuaded the Johnson campaign to agree to a modified contract, in which some of the terms will be kept secret, but only for one year.

    A Candidate Worth Supporting
    Thom Simmons. He spoke twice at the National Convention. http://simmons4congress.com/
    Unlike many Libertarian candidates, Thom was at one time a Congressional candidate campaign manager. His candidate, John LeBouttilier, ran in a New York City District that was 3-1 Democratic (the district in which lived the mythical Archie Bunker of All in the Family) against a many-term incumbent who chaired a major House Committee. Thom’s campaign scheme worked. The campaign ran one TV ad, a map of the earth with push pins being stuck into tracking the incumbent’s trips to important world trouble spots like Bora Bora. The pins were inserted, one at a time, lovingly, by a person who I gather could be described as ‘a hot babe’ wearing ‘a minimal bikini’. (Well, it was 1980, in New York City).

    Now Thom is running against a many-term incumbent who was just redistricted. Outside polling found that no one in the incumbent’s new areas has a clue who he is; the polling number was in fact zero percent. The incumbent is viewed as living in DC and having little contact with his district.
    The incumbent has just been caught using campaign funds to pay for travel and hotel expenses for trips to Ireland. Readers will recall that Ireland is a foreign country that is not in the Massachusetts First Congressional District. The press is aware of this issue and is about to raise it. The incumbent has no visible campaign.

    Needless to say, these issues are being exploited, but Thom needs more money to get his message to the voters. Yes, there are TV ads, but production costs have already been covered.
    Disclosure: I am a maximum legal donor to the Simmons campaign. Please join me. http://Simmons4Congress.com

    State Conventions

    New Hampshire: Darryl Perry was elected State Chair. Recent immigrant from Arkansas (and former state chair there) Rodger Paxton was elected as LPNH Vice Chair. The LPNH has other officers, but I have not yet seen election results.

    Massachusetts: The new state Committee and its officers are: Cris Crawford – Chair, David Blau – Treasurer, Susan Ruiz – Recording Secretary, Kristie Manning Moruzzi, Ken Van Tassell, Dan Fishman, Thomas Simmons, Justin O’Donnell, and Don Graham. In Massachusetts, the Convention elects the State Committee, and the State Committee elects its own officers. A considerable number of officer positions will be filled soon.

    Johnson Campaign Finances

    Johnson 2016: For a positive change, in August most Johnson campaign spending was directed toward advertising, with major foci on social media ads, radio, and billboards. The Johnson 2016 campaign began August with $1,205,355 cash on hand. During the month, it raised $4,971,147, which is a Libertarian record going as far back as there are FEC reports, namely 1993. The campaign spent $3,683,598, leaving it at the end of the month with $2,492,904.

    There is also a Joint Fundraising Committee, which was going to exploit features of Federal Law to raise huge amounts of money from a few donors. The Committee is filing quarterly. Reports to date do not show much has been done.

    And where was the money spent?

    There was advertising.

    $251,347 went for Facebook ads. $12,020 went for Google ads. Website hosting came to $5045. NoizeTV, SlackSlack, and Snapchat received $3721. Twitter received $218.
    Signs came to $181,226.

    Printing cost $287,718. Promotional items, and production of campaign materials, came to $5123. Postage and shipping went for $3249.

    $1,804,431 went to Evan Twede, Inc for media/advertising. Evan Twede, Inc., has an identifiable national reputation, notably for radio and digital billboards. IVC Media was given $59,665 for media/advertising. $29,582 went City Creek Entertainment for media/advertising. Advertising/media included $6975 to Power & Industry, $1400 to No Monkey, and $1020 to Phoenix Media.

    There was travel. $29,380 went for air fares; $13,669 went to hotels. Political events and venues cost $20,025. $4071 went for AV equipment for events. $3572 went to event catering. Shipping cost $832. Travel insurance was $404.

    Handling money and data has costs. Merchant fees (credit cards and the like) came to $178,975. Accounting cost $ 14419.13. Software came to $25,010. Bank fees came to $607. Credit cards fees were $310. $30 to Wells Fargo for Wiring. $3266 for refunds are technically disbursements.

    Then there were consultants and other people doing things. $550,000 went to Liberty Consulting Service. Social media consulting to Robert Koski of Birmingham, Alabama received $181,226. A total of $107,456 went to a list of 27 people and firms for ‘campaign consulting’. Many of the payments were relatively modest, but among payments to individuals note $12,000 to Cliff Maloney, and $6000 to Jesse Ranney. Press relations went for $13,789, including $10,000 to Joseph Hunter. Legal and compliance services, legal consulting, and legal fees came to $9404.

    A mileage reimbursement of $1012 is, we are advised, for ballot access expenses. $19,500 was specified as going for ballot access.

    Other spending included $3433 for insurance, $326 for office supplies, and $258 to Dave’s Septic Service of Manchester, NH for utilities.

    Johnson 2012: Gary Johnson 2012 failed to pay debts of $1,538,118, not counting another third of a million dollars in dispute between the campaign and the FEC, and has yet to gain agreement of the FEC that they will never pay those debts. Back in the Florida Presidential debate, Johnson claimed that those debts were about to be written off; in fact there has been no FEC action since the Florida debate.

  43. Mr. Brown

    You can send letters and postcards of support to the CEO of backpage here. He is being held without bail.

    FERRER, CARL X-5094010 6W109A
    Sacramento County Main Jail
    651 “I” Street
    Sacramento, CA 95814

  44. José C

    We decided to invite candidates on the ballot in enough states to reach 10% of the electoral vote. ? #MoreVoicesMoreChoices

    If this is so I am not sure Gary Johnson should participate in this debate unless of course one of the two old establishment candidates participate. But on the other hand I could be convinced Gary Johnson should participate. Maybe he should participate and that many candidates should be invited. I just think those candidates who have done what it takes to get on the ballot in enough states that they could in theory win the Presidency via the Electoral College should be rewarded for their efforts.

    But maybe the system is so rigged we have to do the debate this way.

  45. José C

    Concerning the alternative party debate I have a feeling the Gary Johnson campaign might decline the invitation since there are going to be a lot of candidates.

  46. Anthony Dlugos

    It’s an absolute iron-clad guarantee that he’ll decline.

    If the duopoly party candidates are not on the stage, the LP candidate should not be either.

  47. Mr. Brown

    It’s essentially guaranteed that Johnson will not get to debate Clinton or Trump. He should debate Jill Stein. Maybe Castle. Certainly he won’t accept a debate with Gloria LaRiva and Egg McMuffin.

  48. Anthony Dlugos

    He almost certainly won’t get to debate the duopoly candidates. Refusing a bush league debate should be done to set the principle that the LP is not a consolation party.

    No Libertarian should ever appear in a presidential debate that does not include the major party candidates.

  49. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    The thing is that the media has convinced everyone that Gary is just a doofus. He needs to find some way to prove he isn’t.

    Now, the same people here will tear my sentence apart, but hopefully you get my point.

  50. Mr. Brown

    Anthony Dlugos

    That’s stupid, arrogant, and dense. The Green Party is on the ballot in 44 states and DC, they have a solid history and following, and ideas that are worth debating. And it will draw viewers who would not otherwise listen to the Libertarians, some of whom may be undecided about which third party candidate to vote for or open to changing their minds.

    On the other hand I do agree that Johnson has a completely legitimate reason to reject debating candidates that only a small fraction of the country will see on their ballots. But how much of a blatant hypocrite would he have to be to refuse debating a candidate that he ** sued the presidential debate commission ** to say should have been in the major party debates along with him? I think that alone would cost him votes right there.

  51. Andy

    “Mr. Brown
    October 10, 2016 at 22:56
    It’s essentially guaranteed that Johnson will not get to debate Clinton or Trump. He should debate Jill Stein. Maybe Castle. Certainly he won’t accept a debate with Gloria LaRiva and Egg McMuffin.”

    Gary Johnson should at the very least debate Jill Stein, since she obtained ballot access in enough states that represent more than enough electoral votes to have a theoretical chance at winning the election.

    I’d love to see Darrell Castle in a debate with Johnson and Stein, but I think that Castle may not be on enough state ballot to represent 270 electoral votes, so if he is not, I could see an argument for not debating him.

    The next in line after Darrell Castle should be Rocky de la Fuente.

    “Jill Pyeatt Post author
    October 10, 2016 at 23:09
    The thing is that the media has convinced everyone that Gary is just a doofus.”

    Gary doesn’t need the media to convince everyone that he is a doofus. He is doing a good job at doing this on his own.

  52. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I said: “The thing is that the media has convinced everyone that Gary is just a doofus.”

    Andy said: “Gary doesn’t need the media to convince everyone that he is a doofus. He is doing a good job at doing this on his own.”

    I knew you wouldn’t miss yet another opportunity to bash Gary for the one-millionth time.

  53. Matt

    Only 39% of voters (24 states) will have Castle on the ballot. 89% (44 plus DC) will have Stein. Stein and Johnson are the only two candidates that qualify under the standard they sued the CoPD under and they should debate.

  54. Andy

    Jill Pyeatt said: “I knew you wouldn’t miss yet another opportunity to bash Gary for the one-millionth time.”

    It is hard to resist doing it, and this campaign certainly deserves it.

  55. Andy

    “Matt
    October 11, 2016 at 00:22
    Only 39% of voters (24 states) will have Castle on the ballot. 89% (44 plus DC) will have Stein. Stein and Johnson are the only two candidates that qualify under the standard they sued the CoPD under and they should debate.”

    I agree.

    Castle could have easily gotten on the ballot in a few more states if the people running his ballot access had not botched things in several places.

  56. Andy

    Here is a video that I emailed to several IPR writers because I thought that it was newsworthy, but since nobody has posted it in an article here I might as well post it to the Open Thread.

    I am not a big Austin Petersen fan, although I do think that he would have been a better candidate than Gary Johnson.

    Having said this, here are Austin Petersen’s comments about Darryl W. Perry jumping back in the presidential race as a write in candidate.

    Disclosure: I voted for Darryl W. Perry at the national convention, and I support his efforts as a write in candidate (although I do not know if I am going to write him in or not if I vote, not because I am voting for Johnson, which I am NOT, but rather because the state where I will likely cast a vote does not consistently bother to count write in votes).

    Petersen criticizes Perry in the video for apparently not being willing to talk to him, and/or turning his back on him, at the national convention, when Petersen apparently approached Perry after the first round of voting, as Petersen thought that it was apparent that Perry was not going to win, and he wanted to see if Perry would endorse him and try to swing his delegates to voting for him. Petersen said he made the same appeal to John McAfee, and McAfee turned him down, but he appreciated the fact that McAfee at least spoke to him about it.

    I do not really know what all went on between Petersen and Perry, and I can see some reasons why Perry may not have wanted to endorse Petersen (I have three problems with Petersen myself), but on the flip side, Petersen appeared to have been a better candidate than Gary Johnson (as in more libertarian, a better speaker, and a better debater), so if the voting had gone on for more rounds and then gotten down to Petersen vs. Johnson vs. NOTA, I think that there would have been a decent argument to vote for Austin Petersen. I might have gone for NOTA at that point, but there is also a good chance that I’d have been willing to put my differences with Petersen aside to stop Gary Johnson.

    I’d be interested in hearing Darryl Perry’s side of this story.

    Austin Petersen on Darryl Perry’s Presidential Write-In Campaign

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeezOlUvP2A

  57. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I’d be interested in hearing Darryl Perry’s side of this story.”

    Maybe he’ll tell it, but in the meantime here’s the story of someone who was sitting about six feet from Darryl throughout the balloting and who Darryl mentioned this to at the time. Darryl’s explanation, as I recall it:

    1) There was no chance that Darryl was going to drop out and endorse anyone — he was committed to remaining in the race until he was nominated or eliminated from the balloting.

    2) He did not want to get any rumors started to the contrary of (1), therefore he was not going to be seen talking (or going off in a way that looked like he intended to talk) with Petersen (or any of the other candidates) between ballots.

    I’m unaware of any particular personal animosity between the two. Not saying there isn’t any, but I’ve not seen any indication that there is.

  58. JamesT

    Glenn Beck just endorsed Castle. I’m sure he’ll get a bump from that. Dunno how much. I suddenly like Castle less.

  59. Andy

    Tom, that sounds like a very reasonable explanation. Do you know if Darryl would have endorsed anyone if the voting had gone on for more rounds and if he had been eliminated, and if so, do you know who he would have endorsed? If the final choice had come down to Petersen vs. Johnson vs. NOTA, do you think that Perry would have endorsed Petersen?

    I am not saying that I think that Perry had to endorse anyone. If his attitude was once he was out, he was done, and he was not going to endorse anyone, that would have been fine by me, I am just wondering if he would have endorsed somebody.

    It sounds to me like Petersen may have misinterpreted Perry’s unwillingness to speak at that moment.

  60. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    I do not know if Darryl would have endorsed anyone if the balloting had continued.

    In the meantime, Anthony writes:

    “No Libertarian should ever appear in a presidential debate that does not include the major party candidates.”

    Dear GOD, the entries for “Dumbest Thing Tom Knapp Has Read This Week” are coming in fast today. This must be the sixth or seventh.

  61. Anthony Dlugos

    haha. I must have latched onto a good idea, then! Gonna pour myself three fingers of Laphroig tonight!

  62. José C

    Only 39% of voters (24 states) will have Castle on the ballot. 89% (44 plus DC) will have Stein. Stein and Johnson are the only two candidates that qualify under the standard they sued the CoPD under and they should debate.

    I agree with this statement. Gary Johnson should debate at least Jill Stein. Though he did not have to Ed Clark in 1980 debated Citizens Party candidate Barry Commoner. Barry Commoner was on the ballot in 29 states and The District of Columbia. I am not sure how many electoral votes that was. I tried Wikipedia but it does not have that information. Ed Clark could have said, “I am not going to be in the main stage debates so I will not debate Barry Commoner.” but he chose the wise choice. The debate even received media attention. There was an article written about the debate in the magazine Libertarian Review.

    It looks like the Free & Equal debate will be covered by one or more of the major cable networks such as CNN, Fox News, or C-SPAN. Wikipedia also mentions the Free & Equal Presidential debate. Gary Johnson should accept the invitation to debate Jill Stein.

  63. Pingback: Nathan Norman: The Corruption of Thomas L. Knapp – Site Title

  64. Matt

    Regarding Max Dickstein’s comment at the Grand Inquirer version of the pingbacked article, there are a lot of things one may legitimately find fault with Tom Knapp on, but being a “Johnson cocksucker” is hardly one of them.

  65. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Charming article. There are at least half a dozen things Norman said which I believe to be untrue, but it’s not worth bothering to correct him.

    But, hey, I’m the one who deletes most of Nathan’s comment. That’s kind of the only thing I’ve been doing at IPRthe past couple months–monitoring for troll comments and releasing pended comments. I try to use my OCD for useful purposes.

  66. JamesT

    I don’t agree with a lot of things Knapp says but that article is just childish. Also Don Gruddman is nuts.

  67. Mr. Brown

    So Knapp has his very own hater/stalker blog dedicated just to him now? I am so jealous.

  68. Matt

    Meanwhile, on MSNBC the latest revelation is that not only did Donald Trump creep around the womens dressing rooms at Miss Universe and Miss USA pageants, but he also crept around leering and getting his jollies in the dressing rooms of Miss Teen USA pageants ogling underage teen girls as they got naked. Very disturbing in light of charges that he also committed sexual assaults against underage girls as part of Jeffrey Epstein’s circle of power player perverts which also included Bill Clinton.

  69. Richard Winger

    In 1980, Barry Commoner was on the ballot in states containing a majority of the electoral college. The print issue of Ballot Access News, July 1 2007 issue, has a list of all the candidates who were on in states with a majority of the electoral college all the way back to 1856. Links to past print issues are at ballot-access.org, near the top on the right.

  70. Matt

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-rape-accusation-underage-girl-claim-what-happened-sexual-assault-allegation-a7354111.html

    https://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/trump-to-head-to-court-in-december-for-allegedly-tying-up-and-raping-a-13-year-old-girl-report/

    http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trump-accused-raping-13-year-old-girl-lawsuit-casey-anthony-attorney-allowed-2430441

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/30/the-billionaire-pedophile-who-could-bring-down-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton.html

  71. Thomas Knapp

    Mr. Brown,

    “So Knapp has his very own hater/stalker blog dedicated just to him now? I am so jealous.”

    I wouldn’t have even noticed the Norman/Dickstein stalker axis if it hadn’t been brought up in this thread. Feel free to try to get them after you if you like — they bore me too much for it to be worth going all the way over to a new site for a game of Fuck With The Trolls.

  72. Mr. Brown

    Thanks, but I was just joking. I find them boring as well, and wouldn’t have noticed if not for the pingback on this article and the prior IPR story about the ATPR saga.

  73. Mr. Brown

    Another woman is now stepping forward to report that Trump groped her without consent on an airplane. Will Trump be the next Bill Cosby?

  74. Thomas Knapp

    “Another woman is now stepping forward to report that Trump groped her without consent on an airplane. Will Trump be the next Bill Cosby?”

    Unlikely. As far as the election is concerned:

    Everyone knew what Trump was like before this latest round of stuff.

    The people who were voting him before this latest round of stuff are still voting for him. They didn’t care before, why would they suddenly start caring?

    The people who weren’t voting for him before this latest round of stuff still aren’t voting for him.

    One of the things about an election as polarizing as this one is that people are less likely to change their choices. They made up their minds early and their minds are mostly STAYING made up. That includes third party candidates probably holding on to at least a LITTLE more than their usual vote, although at the margins some Trump-haters may bail from Johnson/Stein at the last moment and go to Hillary on the whole “must stop Trump, can’t waste vote” thing.

  75. Matt

    You may be right. Maybe all of Trump’s supporters are OK with him ogling 14 and 15 year old girls naked like a creepy dirty old pedophile. Maybe even raping and beating 12 and 13 year old girls. I’d like to think not all of them are but I guess we will see.

  76. Jim

    The Marquette poll in Wisconsin has a day by day breakdown as the Trump “grab them…” tape spread.

    ………………Thur…….Fri…….Weekend
    Clinton……40……..44…………49
    Trump…….41……..38…………30
    Johnson…..9………..8………….9
    Stein………..3…………2………….5

    Trump was +1 Thursday, before the tape went public, and -19 by the weekend. I guess most of the 1,000 people that turned against Trump because of this happened to be in Wisconsin.

    It’s only going to get worse for Trump in the polls with the women coming forward. And you know there is at least one more big surprise coming, maybe two. They wouldn’t have released this stuff so early if this was all they had. Trump is going to get slaughtered on election day.

    https://law.marquette.edu/poll/category/poll-release/

  77. Thomas Knapp

    “And you know there is at least one more big surprise coming, maybe two. They wouldn’t have released this stuff so early if this was all they had.”

    There may be more coming, but let’s be clear on what’s actually happening here:

    The Clinton campaign needed things to distract attention from the content of the Podesta emails, so they came up with things to distract attention from the content of the Podesta emails.

    Whether or not the things they came up with are all true isn’t the point. The point is they work, because Trump has a well-earned reputation that makes them believable whether they’re true or not.

  78. Thomas Knapp

    Bob,

    I’m starting to think he may not. But lots of people keep thinking he won’t win, and he keeps on winning anyway. So I wouldn’t be placing any bets against him.

  79. Jim

    Thomas Knapp “The Clinton campaign needed things to distract attention from the content of the Podesta emails, so they came up with things to distract attention from the content of the Podesta emails.”

    This stuff was coming out at some point in October even if the Podesta thing never happened. The charges from one of those women were made in the 1990’s. That one was sure to be brought up again, and you know they were looking for others.

    The story that is potentially much more damaging to Clinton than anything I’ve seen from the Podesta emails so far is the Marc Turi arms dealer case. Supposedly Hillary approved an arms dealer to sell weapons to rebels in Libya to be sold through Qatar and the UAE to hide US involvement. Half of the weapons then ended up in Syria and the other half went to Libya. The DOJ – not realizing that this was the plan by another branch of the government – made the mistake of charging Marc Turi for selling arms knowing they were being diverted to an unauthorized buyer. Turi claimed he had proof it was under orders from Hillary. The DOJ dropped the charges against him. Fox ran the story on Wednesday. By Friday it was drowned out by Trump’s groping comments.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/05/doj-abruptly-drops-case-against-gun-runner-who-threatened-to-reveal-clintons-libya-dealings.html

    The stuff in the Podesta emails is just stuff that Republicans have been charging Hillary with for months. Nothing released so far would move any polls. Independents and Democrats don’t care about what’s been released from those emails so far. But the arms deal scandal could have wrecked havoc with the Democratic base, especially the Bernie supporters.

  80. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I have long heard that there’s much more to the Benghazi story, and it involves Hillary selling weapons. Apparently Christopher Stevens was supposed to sell the guns to a group in Libya, but instead sold them to a terrorist group in the US and pocketed the money. That was the reason Hillary allowed him to die.

    I just heard this again earlier this week, but I watched so many Youtube videos that I’m not sure where I heard this last. However, I believe Hillary’s misdeeds are enormous compared to sexual misconduct from Trump. I really wish people would pay attention to the Wikileaks releases.

    And just because I dislike Hillary with passion truly unprecedented in my life, I’m not a Trump lover. This country is doomed.

  81. Matt

    “And just because I dislike Hillary with passion truly unprecedented in my life, I’m not a Trump lover.”

    If you were to switch those names around I would agree fully.

    ” However, I believe Hillary’s misdeeds are enormous compared to sexual misconduct from Trump. ”

    Trump’s sexual misconduct is just the tip of the iceberg with him.

    http://socialspinwheel.com/10-scandals-that-could-destroy-donald-trumps-presidential-campaign/

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/donald-trump-scandals/474726/

    http://www.upvibes.com/22-trump-scandals-you-wont-believe/

    http://allday.com/post/5810-the-most-hilariously-awful-donald-trump-scandals-so-far/

  82. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Matt, I know Trump is awful. I’ve said from the beginning that Trump is a man of very bad character. The thing with Hillary is personal, though. She keeps saying she’s “advocated for women and children” when, in fact, she’s never done anything to make the lives better for women and children. In fact, she’s directly responsible for the death of thousands of women and children in other countries.

    Hillary and Trump are both horrible people who are unfit to be president.

    (I consider the people who only see two possibilities to be “two dimensional” people. However, We are all three dimensional people. There are far more than two choices for most situations. Hence, just because I can’t stand Hillary doesn’t equate to a fact that I like Trump. I’m surprised I have to explain that here.)

  83. Matt

    “Hillary and Trump are both horrible people who are unfit to be president.”

    Fully agreed!

    ” In fact, she’s directly responsible for the death of thousands of women and children in other countries.”

    Just give Trump a chance and he will kill billions with a b, and not only in other countries.

  84. Be Rational

    “Hillary and Trump are both horrible people who are unfit to be president.”

    100% agreed.

    No responsible person, no one who cares about other people, no one with any interest in the survival of the human race, no one with an ounce of humanity in their heart … no one should vote for either Trump or Clinton.

    Pick anyone, just don’t vote for Trump or Clinton.

    Be responsible, vote for a candidate on the ballot in enough states to win outright in the Electoral College.

    Be principled, vote for a candidate who is on the ballot in enough states to win outright in the Electoral College and who comes closest to matching your personal philosophy.

    But, whatever you do, don’t vote for Trump or Clinton.

  85. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Matt said: Just give Trump a chance and he will kill billions with a b, and not only in other countries.

    Again, the fact that I don’t like Hillary doesn’t mean I like Trump. He is a man of very bad character, who isn’t fit to be President.

    This really isn’t a tough concept. I surprised I have to keep saying this here.

  86. Matt

    You don’t. I agree completely with Be Rational, immediately above at 13:10. Very well said!

  87. Anthony Dlugos

    When I am doing outreach for J-W and get the question, I always say that with Hillary, I’m afraid nothing will change, and with Trump, I’m afraid something will.

  88. Be Rational

    This should be a meme.

    Anyone who makes videos, please consider doing this.
    Make a don’t vote for Trump or Clinton video.

    Make it short and concise.
    Make it honest, personal and sincere.

    Let’s see if the Internet can take it viral and save America.

  89. Joshua

    Christina Tobin posted this today on Facebook:

    “UPDATE: The People’s Presidential Debate at CU-Boulder on Oct. 25th: Darrell Castle of the The Constitution Party, Roque “Rocky” De La Fuente, Independent, of the Reform and American Delta Party, and Gloria La Riva of Party for Socialism and Liberation – PSL are confirmed. Independent Evan McMullin and Dr. Jill Stein will confirm if Gov. Gary Johnson confirms. Gov. Gary Johnson is concerned about participating because it may create a credibility issue with the media. Donald J. Trump Campaign asked for an invitation. Please reach out to these campaigns kindly asking them to participate! #MoreVoicesMoreChoices”

    So apparently, Gov. Gary Johnson and his campaign are keeping us from having a good third party debate to watch this year. Great job Gary.

  90. Be Rational

    “Trump Campaign asked for an invitation” – Joshua

    If Trump confirms then Johnson should go.

  91. Thomas L. Knapp

    Whether or not Johnson should go has nothing to do with Trump.

    If Johnson is serious about his campaign, Johnson will go. If Johnson isn’t serious about his campaign, Johnson won’t go.

    I suspect most of us know how the answer to that will play out.

  92. Anthony Dlugos

    Alright, Thomas check your pessimism about the best LP ticket in the history of the party. I bought a bottle of Buffalo Trace Kentucky straight bourbon. I’ll get you a full report later.

  93. Thomas L. Knapp

    Anthony,

    I look forward to the review — I’ve never tried Buffalo Trace.

    I’m not at all pessimistic about Harry Browne/Jo Jorgenson 1996. Why would you think I am?

  94. Anthony Dlugos

    lol.

    I bought this bottle because I read that it’s the driest KSB out there, besides being very good. ($26)

  95. Andy

    Tom, you think that Harry Browne / Jo Jorgensen was the best ticket in the history of the LP? I am surprised if you think this being that i recall you being negative toward Harry Browne (too negative in my opinion).

    I remember Jo Jorgensen, but I only started following the Libertarian Party in that election from the time that the national convention aired on C-SPAN until the November election, and i only recall seeing Jorgensen speak maybe on two occasions, and I do not know what became of her after the election. My memories of Jorgensen are positive, but I do not have enough data to say that she was the best LP VP nominee.

    Since I have been involved in the party (which goes back to the 1996 election), the best ticket, in my opinion, has been Harry Browne / Art Olivier.

  96. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    In 1996, I supported Rick Tompkins for the nomination, and enthusiastically supported Harry as the nominee.

    In 2000, I supported Don Gorman for the nomination, and enthusiastically supported Harry as the nominee.

    There were a lot of things I didn’t like about Harry’s campaigns (including but not limited to Perry Willis’s confessed hijacking of the nomination in 1996), but message-wise they were quite good. And I’m not just saying that because Harry was a friend.

    I suppose it’s POSSIBLE that some earlier ticket did a better job of spreading and popularizing a libertarian message than Browne’s campaigns. But I wasn’t around for earlier tickets and don’t know. I know that there hasn’t been as good a ticket since then. Badnarik worked his ass off but just wasn’t as skilled as Harry. And Barr’s and both of Johnson’s campaigns have been complete wastes of time and effort at best.

  97. Andy

    Tom, what about Jo Jorgensen? Do you think she was the best LP VP nominee since you have been in the LP?

    I liked Badnarik, but overall, I thought Harry Browne was better in most categories.

    Badnarik’s VP running mate, Richard Campanga, was weak from what I recall. I do not remember him as being bad on issues, but he BS’d his way on to the ticket by claiming that if he were nominated, that he already had $200,000, or $250,000, or something like that, in donations lined up. Many delegates naively voted for him based on this, and the money never materialized, and I do not recall Campanga doing much of anything to enhance the ticket. He also put out a goofy sounding press release where he claimed to be endorsed by Gandhi.

    I am surprised that you are now saying that you regarded Harry Browne as a friend. It seemed to have some hostility with him. I recall there having been some negative tension when you were a guest on Harry Browne’s radio show as a representative of the Aaron Russo campaign in 2004.

  98. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    I had real problems with the way Harry’s campaigns were run. At one point in the 1996 campaign, 40% of expenditures were payments to “consultants.” Sound familiar? I’m relatively certain that the reason Aaron claimed illness and asked me to stand in for him on Harry’s show was that he knew we got along.

    The first time we met was at, IIRC, the 1996 Missouri state convention. HE sought ME out because he’d read something I’d written about that consultant thing. He had a glass of wine, I had a beer, and we talked for a good 20 minutes. I was already committed to Tompkins but I was definitely impressed. In 1998, I picked him up at the airport and drove him to the state convention an hour away in Branson and we had another good talk. We emailed quite a bit for several years.

    In 2000, at the presidential debate in St. Louis, I was interviewed by two or three newspapers because I was the guy standing at the Nader rally with a Browne 2000 sign (unfortunately, that was another bad campaign decision IMO — instead of being out addressing 20,000 protesters, he was at a local hotel waiting for media calls; I hope and assume he got a few; anyway, the media at the protest who wanted Harry had to make do with me instead).

    In 2001, he asked if he could send out an essay I wrote (the day after 9/11) to his email list, and that ended up being the only time I remember that I got published at LewRockwell.com, back when it was the hottest site in the movement. I was always grateful for and flattered by that.

    The last time I saw him was at the 2004 convention in Atlanta. He was clearly not well. I bought his last book (Liberty A to Z: 872 Libertarian Soundbites You Can Use Right Now! — a pretty good Mary Ruwart/Advocates for Self Liberty-style kind of book) and got it autographed, and we talked for a few minutes.

    Was he a PERFECT candidate? No. But he was damn good, and as recently as 2011 or 2012 when someone asked me to recommend a book to learn about the LP, I instantly recommended his 1996 campaign book, Why Government Doesn’t Work. It still holds up damn well 20 years later. That counts for a lot with me. The bad things about his campaign were little venal sins that fade away. The good stuff is still fucking great. And I miss him.

  99. Andy

    Tom, what about LP VP nominees? Do you think that Jo Jorgensen was the best, and if so, why?

    I am more familiar with Art Olivier than I am with Jo Jorgensen, especially since I met Art in person a few times and have corresponded with him online. Art also had “shiny badge” credentials as a former elected Libertarian Mayor of Bellflower, California, a city of around 70,000 people, and he managed to do this without having the slimely baggage that comes along with a lot of former elected officials (like Barr, Johnson, Weld, etc…).

  100. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    I didn’t really know Jo Jorgenson, but I respected the fact that she ran an active campaign for the VP nod (I was new to the LP and had never heard of nominations really being separate before).

    In 2000, I voted for Steve Kubby for VP, but I thought Art did a good job. He actually hit the campaign trail, going to cities where local LPs were willing to set up events. My recollection is that we got a couple hundred people out for him in St. Louis.

    I’m prejudiced about Campagna for reasons you lay out above, but more so since his opponent for the nomination was my wife. For obvious reasons I have no use for Root (VP nominee in 2008). I personally like Jim Gray (I set up a poorly attended book signing for him in St. Louis and talked with him for awhile), but he was pretty wobbly on the issues from my viewpoint.

    For me, worst VP candidate is a tossup between Root and Weld. Fortunately, Campagna got completely ignored. Root got a little publicity, all of it bad for the party. Weld gets more publicity that’s probably as bad ideologically, but at least it’s not as … well, garishly bad. Root was the Harris Glenn Milstead of LP politics. By comparison, Weld is just a not very good WC Fields impersonator.

  101. Andy

    I think that Weld is actually worse than Root, not that I thought that Root was a good candidate for the LP, because he was not, but just because Weld is really that bad.

  102. Pingback: Why are Tom Knapp, Andy Jacobs, and Jill Pyeatt making these Moonman videos? – knappster blog

  103. Pingback: Trump: The Art of the Comeback and the Real October Surprise to Come! – knappster blog

  104. Bondurant

    For anyone involved with the layout of IPR:

    Would it be possible to return to the old comment format where each comment was numbered? It was much easier to issue replies and note where one left off reading the comments.

    I’m sitting here watching Little Big Man and for reasons unknown this just popped into my head while watching. The odd things that pop into your noggin at the most curious of times.

  105. José C

    We should have a seperate comments section on the upcoming Free & Equal presidential candidates’ debate.

  106. José C

    Gary Johnson should accept the invitation and should participate in the Free & Equal presidential candidates’ debate. Talk show host Megan McCain was discussing the Free & Equal presidential debate with a guest. She mentioned the only candidate who had so far not accepted the invitation to participate in the debate was Gary Johnson. She mentions she feels Gary Johnson should participate. She also said she would like to see this debate. After the debates with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton things cannot get any worse.

    Gary Johnson’s campaign seems to think his campaign will be diminished if he participates in the alternative presidential candidates’ debate. I disagree. The upside for Gary is the debate will be covered by one or more of the national (worldwide) cable networks, he will be seen by voters who tune in to see the debate (Who is going to watch the debate? Those who will be voting in November will watch the debate. Viewers will not be those who will not vote.), the Libertarian Party brand will get exposure in the United States and around the world, it will show Gary Johnson who is seeking the office once held by Washington, Lincoln, and Kennedy, and live in the house of Madison, Jackson, and of Wilson that he takes the quest for the office of President very seriously. Viewers will see a debate where issues are discussed which will be a contrast with the other two presidential debates where not much of substance was discussed and viewers will be reminded there are other candidates besides Trump and Clinton seeking the office of president and there are other political parties besides the Democratic and Republican parties. And finally the Libertarian Party of Colorado is one of the sponsors of this debate. I am assuming they will have a booth or table at the festival where the debate is being held. How will it look if the Libertarian Party of Colorado is participating at the festival and their candidate is a no show?

    If Gary Johnson’s campaign believes it is a mistake to participate in the alternative candidates debate because he is not debating the two major candidates than that would mean in 1980 Ed Clark made a mistake debating Barry Commoner. Obviously I disagree. Ed Clark did the right thing by debating Barry Commoner. In the 1976 California governors’ race PBS hosted and aired an alternative candidate’s governor’s debate. Debating were the candidates of the Peace & Freedom Party, American Independent Party and Ed Clark of the Libertarian Party. He used his opportunity to thank the hosts for hosting this debate but said he would have liked to debate Republican candidate Younger and Democrat candidate Governor Brown. Ed Clark made much of his opportunity.

    And there is another thought to consider. If Gary Johnson does not participate in this debate it will mean Gary Johnson will be the only candidate seeking the office of President who will not have participated in a presidential candidate’s debate this election cycle in 2016. Let me repeat that; If Gary Johnson does participate in this debate it will mean Gary Johnson will be the only candidate seeking the office of President who will not have participated in a presidential candidates debate this election cycle in 2016. The facts are clear Gary Johnson should participate in the Free & Equal presidential candidates’ debate. I ask everyone to contact the campaign and request Gary Johnson accept the invitation and participate in the Free & Equal candidates’ debate.

  107. José C

    Paragrah four, sentence three says, “If Gary Johnson does participate in this debate it will mean Gary Johnson will be the only candidate seeking the office of President who will not have participated in a presidential candidates debate this election cycle in 2016.” It should say, “If Gary Johnson does not participate in this debate . . .

  108. Thomas Knapp

    Jose,

    Last time I checked the FEC’s candidacy declarations page there were nearly 1,900 candidates for president. I doubt that Gary will be the only one to not participate in a debate.

  109. Anthony Dlugos

    No Duopoly party candidates at a particular debate, no Libertarian.

    If some 3rd party debate invites the LP candidate, the only response should be deafening silence, or perhaps a statement indicated a party on the ballot on all 50 states is not accepting a minor league debate invite.

  110. Thomas Knapp

    “or perhaps a statement indicated a party on the ballot on all 50 states is not accepting a minor league debate invite”

    Might as well make it briefer, more clear and more concise than that. Like this:

    “Sorry you thought we were serious.”

  111. Matt

    Every candidate on more than 15% of ballots except Gary Johnson and the duopolists, but the duopolists get to debate each other.

  112. José C

    If some 3rd party debate invites the LP candidate, the only response should be deafening silence, or perhaps a statement indicated a party on the ballot on all 50 states is not accepting a minor league debate invite.

    If this is so then you are saying Ed Clark was wrong to debate Barry Commoner in 1980 and he was wrong to debate the candidates of the Peace and Freedom Party and American Independent Party in 1976?

  113. Andy

    The LP ticket has not had 50 state plus DC ballot access since 1996, so it would highly hypocritical of our ticket to avoid debates based on this criteria.

  114. José C

    Last time I checked the FEC’s candidacy declarations page there were nearly 1,900 candidates for president. I doubt that Gary will be the only one to not participate in a debate.

    I knew someone would mention this. I assumed common sense says “candidates” refers to those seeking the office of presidency who are on the ballot in enough states that they could in theory win the Presidency via the Electoral College (Johnson, Stein, Clinton, Trump), is polling in double digits in various states and has a chance to win in one of those states (McMullin – has a chance to win in Utah), is on the ballot in more than 10 states and has Electoral College numbers more than 100 (Castle – 207, De La Fuente – 147, La Riva -112) and not a candidate who has not raised any money, is not on the ballot in any states, and so on (Zeppeli, Mario, etc., etc., etc.)

    I stand by what I said. If Gary Johnson does not participate in this debate it will mean Gary Johnson will be the only candidate seeking the office of President who will not have participated in a presidential candidate’s debate this election cycle in 2016.

  115. Thomas Knapp

    “those seeking the office of presidency who are on the ballot in enough states that they could in theory win the Presidency via the Electoral College”

    That’s an even bigger pool — the entire population of the United States who are natural-born citizens, 35 years of age or older, and have lived a cumulative total of 14 years or more in the US. If 270 electors suddenly get it into their heads to vote for Tom Knapp, I’ll have about six weeks to line up a U-Haul to take my stuff to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

  116. George Phillies

    You may be able to win, but you are not ‘on the ballot’ by the reasonable interpretation of ‘on the ballot’.

  117. Andy

    Geez Tom, he means people who jumped through the ballot access hoops necessary to qualify for the ballot in that many states should be enough to show that the candidate is serious and not just some fringe person who declared that they are running but did little or nothing beyond that.

  118. Anthony Dlugos

    Jose C,

    Totally different situation then. Most importantly, the CPD did not exist, and the duopoly parties were not so completely reviled.

    The LP has the upper hand here. Whoever wins in November, its going to be 4 years of polarization the likes of which we haven’t yet seen. There is zero reason, and I mean ZERO reason, to accept a debate virtually NO ONE is going to watch, especially this late in the campaign. All appearing in that second rate debate will do is allow the duopoly parties to argue the LP is still just a third party.

    This is not even a difficult decision. Even with Gary in the debate, not more than a few hundred thousand people would watch it. Furthermore, I wouldn’t want acceptance of the invitation to debate to be used by the duopoly in later lawsuits by arguing that the LP has debates they are voluntarily appearing in.

    This idea that Gary has to appear, otherwise he’ll be the only one who will have not participated in a presidential candidates debate won’t mean a thing in 4 weeks, let alone 4 years.

    Gary ain’t gonna do it, and if I could, instead of worrying about a platform plank that tries to prevent an LP candidate from accepting federal campaign funds, I would add a platform plank that says no Libertarian presidential candidate can ever accept a debate invite to a debate that the duopoly party candidates aren’t at.

    Its ridiculous, its a debate without an upside. There will be virtually no audience, and the only ones who do watch will be partisans of each candidate who have no intention of ever switching parties.

  119. José C

    Geez Tom, he means people who jumped through the ballot access hoops necessary to qualify for the ballot in that many states should be enough to show that the candidate is serious and not just some fringe person who declared that they are running but did little or nothing beyond that.

    Thank you Andy. That is exactly what I mean. No one is comparing Johnson’s candidacy to Zeppeli’s but they are comparing his campaign to Stien’s, McMullin’s, Castle’s, Trump’s, Clinton’s, and so on.

  120. José C

    There is zero reason, and I mean ZERO reason, to accept a debate virtually NO ONE is going to watch. . .

    I do not belive NO ONE is going to watch this debate. But say Gary Johnson does not participate in this debate. The Libertarian Party of Colorodo is a sponser of the debate, what do they say when asked “You are a sponser of this debate but your candidate is not participating. Why?”

    How does the Libertarian Party of Colorodo answer that question?

  121. Anthony Dlugos

    Well, if I was the LP of Colorado, I would say that “we made the invite, and he didn’t accept,” or something professional like that.

    Look, this isn’t just LP cockiness here. I wouldn’t accept if I was Jill Stein either.

  122. Anthony Dlugos

    No offense, but are any of the “candidates” who already accepted being included in any legitimate polling?Why should Governor Johnson do the dirty work of raising those people’s profiles? There’s a reason Floyd Mayweather doesn’t accept challenges to box from every dope who challenges him. They have to prove themselves worthy of fighting the champ.

    I’m not saying Johnson is the “champ,” but he is clearly at a higher political level than they are. If they want to debate him, perhaps they should go run a state for 8 years, then maybe Gary couldn’t afford to turn them down without looking bad?

  123. Matt

    So Anthony under your proposed bylaw, Johnson would be prohibited from debating Stein one on one, while they are co plaintiffs in a lawsuit that says that Trump and Clinton should have to debate them. Not only is that stupid, it’s not even logical.

  124. Thomas Knapp

    —–
    The Libertarian Party of Colorodo is a sponser of the debate, what do they say when asked “You are a sponser of this debate but your candidate is not participating. Why?”

    How does the Libertarian Party of Colorodo answer that question?
    —–

    “Thank God — dodged a bullet on that one. Fortunately our candidate is smart enough to run like hell from an ass-whipping by Jill Stein.”

  125. Anthony Dlugos

    Matt,

    What are you talking about? The lawsuit isn’t a suit trying to force Clinton and Trump to debate Johnson/Stein. The lawsuit was trying to force Johnson’s entry into the CPD debate. He’s under no obligation to debate Stein one-on-one.

    Honestly, I was just being tongue-in-cheek with regard to the platform plank. However, I was not being tongue-in-cheek about the comparison to professional boxing. I get how some people get into a frothy lather about a truly philosophical debate, especially when we get what we get out of the Duopoly, but a two-time governor is under no obligation to debate a doctor and a few screw-ups, none of whom have elected office experience, and certainly not to the Governor’s level.

    I will say this: I could see it being conceivable in the future…if the Duopoly parties get even less popular, that a one-on-one, Libertarian vs. Green candidate debate COULD, and I emphasize COULD, draw the sort of televised audience that might make it worth it.

    But bear in mind that would strictly be based on the size of the potential audience, not some sort of desire to see a purely philosophical debate. The blunt fact is that this “Free and Equal Debate” does itself no favors by inviting a bunch of losers. They might have had something (although I think not), if they would have attempted a one-on-one Stein vs. Johnson debate.

  126. Matt

    “What are you talking about? The lawsuit isn’t a suit trying to force Clinton and Trump to debate Johnson/Stein. The lawsuit was trying to force Johnson’s entry into the CPD debate.”

    You are confused, and in error. If the lawsuit succeeded both Johnson and Stein would have been in the debate.

  127. Anthony Dlugos

    Not exactly correct. The CPD would be forced to INVITE them. Either of them could refuse the invite, of course.

  128. Matt

    And how does that materially change anything I said? Oh yeah, it doesn’t. So the point still stands.

  129. Anthony Dlugos

    What exactly is your point? The lawsuit was an attempt to get into the CPD debates Clinton and Trump participated in. In no way does that obligate Johnson to debate Stein elsewhere. The lawsuit doesn’t obligate Johnson to debate ANYONE ANYWHERE, either morally or legally.

    The lawsuit has nothing to do with anything other than the CPD debates.

  130. Matt

    “What exactly is your point? The lawsuit was an attempt to get into the CPD debates Clinton and Trump participated in.”

    The point of the lawsuit was that any candidate who is listed on the ballot in enough states for 270 electoral votes should be invited to the debates, and that is both Johnson and Stein. And you don’t see the hypocrisy if Johnson doesn’t want to debate Stein when he is suing Trump and Clinton to say they need to debate her?

  131. Anthony Dlugos

    I don’t see any hypocrisy because there is none. Johnson is suing to essentially get an invite into the CPD debates. Once again, he would be free to decline.

    That argument in no way OBLIGATES Johnson to debate Stein anywhere, even at the CPD debates themselves, and certainly NOT elsewhere.

    This was a suit to get into the CPD debates, period.

  132. Andy

    It is very hypocritical, because for many years, Libertarian Party officials and candidates, including Gary Johnson himself in 2012, when he was on the ballot in 48 states plus DC (he did not make the ballot in Michigan and Oklahoma), have said that all candidates who qualify for the ballot in enough states to represent 270 electoral votes should be included in the debates.

    There is also the fact that participating in debates is a good way to for the candidates to introduce themselves, and their party and philosophy, to members of the public who may not be familiar with them, and they get to test their ideas and debate skills against other candidates.

    Here is an example of the importance of debates. I showed up at the Libertarian National Convention in Orlando not knowing who to vote for in the vice presidential race. After watching both debates at the convention, the two candidates who impressed me the most were Will Coley and Larry Sharpe. I had a tough decision deciding which one to vote for, but I decided to vote for Coley due to the way he put William Weld on the spot over the right to keep and bear arms. I did vote for Larry Sharpe on the second ballot after Coley dropped out and endorsed Sharpe (although I would have voted for Sharpe anyway after Coley dropped out even if he had not endorsed him).

  133. Jim

    Andy – I understand your point about the importance of debates. But it only applies to those who are undecided. The point someone else made further up the thread was: who is going to watch a debate between Johnson, Stein, McMullin, Castle, De La Fuente, and La Riva? The answer is, a few hundred thousand people who overwhelmingly have already decided to vote for Johnson, Stein, McMullin, Castle, De La Fuente, or La Riva. Even if they haven’t decided which candidate from that group to vote for, they likely already know it will be one of them and not Clump.

    Given that Johnson’s support is more than triple that of the others combined, he has everything to lose and virtually nothing to gain. Those other candidates, given the way the debate is currently set up, aren’t going to bring in an audience that Johnson can attempt to persuade. The debate is pointless for Johnson.

    That only changes if the audience changes. If the debate were to be picked up by CNN or MSNBC or FOX and Johnson could speak to a broader audience of undecideds or Clump supporters, then Johnson would have both something to lose, but also something to gain by doing this debate.

  134. Thomas Knapp

    “Given that Johnson’s support is more than triple that of the others combined, he has everything to lose and virtually nothing to gain.”

    Bzzt. You have it exactly backward. Try again.

    Johnson (and perhaps Stein) are the only ones who have anything whatsoever to gain in such a debate. It puts them in a position to gain some votes from an audience which is already predisposed to vote third party but most of whose chosen candidates aren’t even registering at the 1% level and aren’t going to pick up a single vote they don’t already have. In this arena, “wasted vote” benefits the Libertarian and Green candidates.

    They are also the only two who might say something in such a debate that results in some mainstream media notice. If Gloria La Riva and Darrell Castle douse each other in gasoline and set each other on fire, it won’t get 10 seconds on CNN or a column inch in the New York Times. If Johnson mentions Alpo it will get both; if Stein talks about vaccines causing modern art, it might get one or the other.

    It’s not a matter of time management or budget constraint — Gary has time to sit around tweeting when the big kids debate, and he’s probably raised more money than all of the other participants combined.

    The only plausible reason for Johnson to duck this debate is that he doesn’t want to be seen getting beat up in public by a woman.

  135. Jim

    Thomas Knapp – The audience is already predisposed to vote for 3rd party candidates, yes. But they are largely already committed to their candidate of choice. And those candidates aren’t going to bring in an equal audience. How many people are Castle or La Rivera or De La Fuente going to get to watch? How many of those can be persuaded to vote for Johnson? The answer is almost none and even fewer. They have few followers, but those they have are committed to them.

    Only Johnson and Stein can bring in a measurable audience, and the great majority of those will be Johnson. How can Johnson bring in new supporters when he is talking to an audience that is already composed of his supporters? All Johnson would be doing is giving the other candidates a platform to talk to HIS supporters – because, except for Stein, and McMullin in one or two states, the others don’t have any.

    Again, that changes IF the audience changes. But, if it’s just going to be like last time (RT, Al Jezeera, and C-SPAN2 for the first debate, RT only for the 2nd), then it’s pointless for Johnson.

  136. Thomas Knapp

    Jim,

    I feel like we’re kind of talking past each other, since you are replying to a comment which addressed the points you’re bringing up as if it didn’t address. Namely:

    – The “wasted vote” syndrome works FOR JOHNSON in this case. Two, and only two, non-major-party candidates have any chance whatsoever of affecting the outcome of this election: Johnson and Stein. That is part of the basis on which they can be sold to current supporters of Castle, La Riva, et al.

    – The REAL audience is the mainstream media, which covers Johnson and occasionally Stein when they give the mainstream media something to cover. An actual debate is something that might get them some press. Sitting there on “big kids’ debate night” tweeting? Not so much.

    So once again we’re back to Johnson’s only plausible excuse for ducking out: He knows Stein would spank him in public.

  137. Jim

    – The “wasted vote” syndrome works FOR JOHNSON in this case. Two, and only two, non-major-party candidates have any chance whatsoever of affecting the outcome of this election: Johnson and Stein. That is part of the basis on which they can be sold to current supporters of Castle, La Riva, et al.

    Castle, La Riva, etc. don’t have any supporters. That’s my point. Johnson won’t be talking to them because they don’t exist in any meaningful way. It would only work in reverse – Castle would be talking to Johnson’s supporters.

    You seem to be thinking this is a typical election year, where both the LP candidate is only polling at 0.4% and isn’t far off from the Constitution Party or the other 3rd parties.

    – The REAL audience is the mainstream media, which covers Johnson and occasionally Stein when they give the mainstream media something to cover. An actual debate is something that might get them some press. Sitting there on “big kids’ debate night” tweeting? Not so much.

    They should be working to get the MSM to cover their events, like this debate. If that happens then, yes, Johnson should do it. They do have Johnson on somewhat regularly, and I occasionally see Stein or McMullin on. So there is a chance they would pick up the debate.

    – So once again we’re back to Johnson’s only plausible excuse for ducking out: He knows Stein would spank him in public.

    Johnson debated Stein twice in 2012. I don’t remember them anymore, but I don’t remember thinking he got destroyed back then. Johnson has done somewhere around 40 – 50 debates between running for Governor and President. He may not win them, but to say that he’s scared to do them is absurd.

  138. Thomas Knapp

    “You seem to be thinking this is a typical election year, where both the LP candidate is only polling at 0.4% and isn’t far off from the Constitution Party or the other 3rd parties.”

    No, I don’t think this is a typical election year. It obviously isn’t, and the Libertarian and Green Party candidates are doing better than usual.

    But they’re not anywhere close to victory. They are still hunting votes.

    The Constitution Party’s usual ~100k votes (I expect them to do better this year as well, but probably not enough to stay within the same order of magnitude as the LP and GP) are not trivial numbers as a percentage of what Johnson is likely to do. Neither is McMullin’s 26% in Utah trivial versus Johnson’s ambitions in that state.

    Nor is La Riva’s likely level of support in California as the Peace and Freedom Party’s candidate trivial versus Stein’s ambitions there. In 2012, the combined Peace and Freedom and Green presidential votes rivaled the Libertarian vote. Stein could substantially increase her party’s national vote count profile by taking a greater share of that California progressive vote.

    “Johnson debated Stein twice in 2012. I don’t remember them anymore, but I don’t remember thinking he got destroyed back then. Johnson has done somewhere around 40 – 50 debates between running for Governor and President. He may not win them, but to say that he’s scared to do them is absurd.”

    Even he has to have noticed by now that his debate performances in 2016 versus 2012 make him look like he suffered a traumatic or oxygen-depriving brain injury of some type between the two election cycles. He was never a stellar debater, but in this cycle he has yet to enter a competitive forum environment without getting his ass whipped so badly that it’s difficult not to feel sorry and embarrassed for him.

  139. Anthony Dlugos

    Jim is right, Thomas is wrong. There won’t even beclose to enough potential voters watching that rinky dink debate to make it worth Johnson’s time. Given that Johnson has been gettbig media coverage anyway, there’s just no reason to show up at a debate with a set of unqualified candidates.

    He’s better off, and the LP is better off, with another MSM appearance where Johnson gets the stage by himself.

  140. Thomas Knapp

    “He’s better off, and the LP is better off, with another MSM appearance where Johnson gets the stage by himself.”

    The only extent to which that is an either/or proposition is that the MSM appearance might depend on him doing something newsworthy.

    Like, for example, embarrassing his party in public again in a debate.

  141. Anthony Dlugos

    As an aside, I will reiterate that whomever is running this debate does themselves no favors by including jokers like Castle and those other socialist yahoos on like, 20 ballots.

    If they wanted to roll the dice and take a chance at a well-covered debate, they should have limited the invites to Johnson and Stein ONLY.

    You don’t make a club cool by just letting anyone in the door.

  142. Thomas Knapp

    “You don’t make a club cool by just letting anyone in the door.”

    And that’s what you don’t understand about electoral politics. It’s about seeking exposure and grubbing for votes, not about being able to convince yourself that you’re spesssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhul.

  143. Be Rational

    A Johnson / Stein debate might be worthwhile for Gary and for the LP. Debating all those others is a waste of time, energy and resources that should go elsewhere. It might be differernt if this debate were to be carried in prime time on one or more major networks, nationwide. But that’s not happening.

  144. Matt

    Great points by Thomas Knapp. And I continue to be astounded how anyone would fail to see that Johnson, while suing (among other things) for Stein to be invited to the Clinton-Trump debates, would duck debating her himself. That’s just so blatantly hypocritical words can’t begin to describe it. Besides, any of the so-called logic used to say that Johnson should not have to “debate down” would also be used by Democrats and Republicans who don’t want to debate Libertarians. Think about that.

  145. Anthony Dlugos

    Thomas is wrong, Gary’s position not appearing in this low-rent debate is neither hypocritical nor a duck, any more than Floyd Mayweather refusing to box me would be hypocritical because he boxes other professional boxers, nor would any sane person argue that he was “ducking” me.

    Gary has no reason to debate anyone who has never held a veto pen in their hand, or at a minimum cast a vote as part of a legitimate federal or state house/senate.
    The idea that an ex-governor has to debate the likes of Castle….and even less qualified dopes is as dumb as the idea that the general manager of an NFL team has to “debate” my brother on how best to construct a football team because my brother won his fantasy football league two years running.

    What the hell do any of them outside of Johnson know about holding office? Nothing.

  146. Matt

    Your analogy is faulty. Gary Johnson is not the champ deciding who is worthy to fight him. He’s the guy who is just trying to get a shot at getting in the ring with the champ, so far without success. Now imagine if that guy refused to get in the ring with anyone at all, on the grounds that the champ is the only one who should be boxing him and if the champ won’t do it nobody else should get to either. Yeah, it’s like that.

  147. Anthony Dlugos

    No, it’s not like that at all.

    Fine, Gary’s not “the champ.” In this analogy, though, he is a professional boxer, and the others are amateurs. He’s a professional refusing to get in the ring with a bunch of amateurs, as any sane person would.

    Some decisions are hard, this one is easy.

  148. Anthony Dlugos

    Furthermore, I don’t care what the reasons are that Johnson is being blocked from the CPD debates, it doesn’t change two immutable facts:

    1)the “candidates” in this “debate” are wholly unqualified and will bring no decent sized audiences. The whole point this Free and Equal debate wants Johnson is that he’s the only one who can draw an audience. This will be proven when the size of the audience without Johnson is released.

    2) the demopublicans may be blocking Gary’s appearence in the CPD debates, but it’s certainly NOT because of a lack of qualifications.

  149. Matt

    “Gary has no reason to debate anyone who has never held a veto pen in their hand, or at a minimum cast a vote as part of a legitimate federal or state house/senate.”

    So this standard should also be applied to all the Libertarian candidates trying to get in debates down ticket, right, Anthony?

  150. José C

    Gary has no reason to debate anyone who has never held a veto pen in their hand, or at a minimum cast a vote as part of a legitimate federal or state house/senate. The idea that an ex-governor has to debate the likes of Castle….and even less qualified dopes. . .

    Using this definition 1980 Libertarian Presidential candidate Ed Clark was wrong for having sought the office of President and he had no right to debate Reagan, Anderson, or Carter because he never had a veto pen in his hand, cast a vote as part of a legitimate federal or state house/senate. And the idea that a President, Governor, and Congressman had to debate the likes of Clark…

  151. José C

    From Reason.com

    In a Washington Times interview yesterday, independent conservative presidential candidate Evan McMullin, who is having the best week of his campaign, took a potshot at his competitor from the Libertarian Party. “If Gary Johnson were a real libertarian,” he said, “I probably wouldn’t be doing this.” The paper cited Johnson’s positions on religious liberty and consumption taxes as reasons for McMullin’s skepticism. . .

  152. Matt

    “Gary has no reason to debate anyone who has never held a veto pen in their hand, or at a minimum cast a vote as part of a legitimate federal or state house/senate.”

    Better hope all the Rs and Ds who are running, or will in the future run against LP candidates for various offices who are trying to debate them don’t have the same attitude.

    “Fine, Gary’s not “the champ.” In this analogy, though, he is a professional boxer, and the others are amateurs. He’s a professional refusing to get in the ring with a bunch of amateurs, as any sane person would.”

    Not exactly. He’s a former pro who retired 13 years ago and is now making his second attempt at a comeback, appearing in smaller venues with little known fighters and fighting for smaller purses. But now he got himself a big head and doesn’t want to fight anyone unless he gets a shot at the title, and no one is giving him a shot at the title, so his comeback attempt is pretty much over.

  153. Anthony Dlugos

    Do I really have to continue explaining to you why Governor Johnson doesn’t have to debate someone named Gloria La Riva, a member of a communist party on the ballot in 8 states?

    Do I really have to explain to you why that would be a bad idea for an ex-governor?

    My god.

  154. Matt

    Maybe, maybe not. But you should certainly explain why a guy who hasn’t been invited to debate anyone any more popular than he is, and who may end the campaign by debating none of his opponents at all, would duck a debate with a Harvard MD who is on the ballot in 44 states and DC, and is his co-plaintiff in a case arguing that anyone on the ballot for 270 plus electoral votes (as both of them are and no one else) should be invited to the debates. Especially when no other debate offers have been made.

    For that matter, why shouldn’t the ex-governor debate a guy who, while he is not on the ballot in a whole lot of states, may very well become the first non-duopolist in nearly 50 years to win a state’s electoral votes, and who is all over the national TV news interview shows this past weekend.

    Really, who is he holding out for?

  155. langa

    While Johnson probably should debate, I hope he doesn’t. At this point, the less exposure he gets between now and the election, and the more quickly his abomination of a campaign is forgotten by the public, the better it will be for the LP.

  156. Jim

    Back when I used to work for a PAC and I was trying to figure out if an election was worth getting involved in, I would estimate a candidate’s support a number of different ways. Polling, obviously, but most races didn’t have polls. I could look at R/D party registration, but that wasn’t always available. I could look at historical election results, but some districts flip back and forth. Another, very predictive method was to look at donations. More specifically, the number of donors who lived in the district (out of district donors could make up a large part of the total, but out of district money was not predictive.)

    I’m not counting donors, but let’s look at total donations.

    7,937,608 Johnson (8/31)
    2,762,007 Stein (8/31)
    322,441 McMullin (8/31)
    29,623 La Riva (9/30)
    10,289 Castle (6/30)
    2,922 De La Fuente (8/31)

    We can use that as a rough proxy for their relative support. In percentage terms, that works out to:

    71.7% Johnson
    25.0% Stein
    2.9% McMullin
    0.4% Castle/La Riva/De La Fuente combined

    If Johnson joins this debate, he’s going to contact his supporters and say “come watch”. Stein is going to contact her supports to get them to watch. The others will do the same. And Christina Tobin will send out emails to her people, but most of them are already Libertarians and Greens. That’s it. That’s going to be the audience, unless it gets picked up by CNN or one of the others.

    I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that the contact lists and social media following of the candidates are approximately in proportion to their donations.

    The viewers of the debates are not going to be equally split at around 16 or 17 per candidate per 100 viewers. For every 100 viewers, Johnson is going to bring 72, Stein is going to bring 25, McMullin will have 3, and the other three will have 0-1.

    It is entirely irrational for Johnson to enter a contest where he has to hold 72 of his people when all he can get is 3 from McMullin or 1 from Castle. Castle and McMullin, on the other hand, would be jumping for joy at the opportunity to only risk 0 – 3 of their people for a chance to poach some of Johnson’s 72. It’s all upside for McMullin and Castle, but all downside for Johnson.

    I think it’s very likely that someone in Johnson’s campaign looked at the numbers in a similar way. That’s why he won’t do this debate – unless the audience changes. If the debate is picked up by CNN or one of the others, then he can talk to undecided voters or weak CLUMP supporters.

  157. Thomas L. Knapp

    “While Johnson probably should debate, I hope he doesn’t. At this point, the less exposure he gets between now and the election, and the more quickly his abomination of a campaign is forgotten by the public, the better it will be for the LP.”

    From your lips to God’s ears.

    But it sure is fun watching his supporters desperately try to spin his cowardice or arrogance or combination of the two into pragmatic realpolitik. Polishing the turd, polishing the turd.

  158. Matt

    “While Johnson probably should debate, I hope he doesn’t. At this point, the less exposure he gets between now and the election, and the more quickly his abomination of a campaign is forgotten by the public, the better it will be for the LP.”

    On the one hand you have an excellent point. On the other, it seems hard to imagine the LP going back to hardcore libertarianism after a decade plus of watered down platforms and Republican reject presidential candidates. So, if the party’s aim is to be popular even at the expense of sacrificing the ideals that caused it to form in the first place, at least it should actually try to increase its popularity. But then on the third hand, if we have indeed reached that point, what difference does it make? It becomes just another meaningless ballot label.

  159. Matt

    Jim,

    For starters, it would be absurd to project McMullin’s number from 8/31. He is just NOW starting to get his name recognition up. Secondly, we don’t know if CNN or some other larger outlet would pick up the Free and Equal debate. If they do, it will be because of which candidates agree to be in the debate, not the other way around. CNN has no reason to pick up a debate with Castle, De La Fuente and LaRiva, but it very well may make a last minute decision to pick up all or part of the debate if it includes Johnson, Stein and McMullin. Third, even if outlets such as CNN don’t show the full debate, they will probably show outtakes, which may lead any number of their viewers who haven’t yet done so to look up these other candidates.

    Fourth, even if outlets such as CNN completely ignore the debate, the debate as well as outtakes will be shared via social media, email and so on by various supporters with their other friends who are not necessarily supporters of any of the candidates in the debate. Some of those, in turn, may share some things they like from the debate even if they won’t vote for any of the candidates in that debate. Some of them may change their minds later, as well.

    Fifth, you are assuming that everyone who supports third party candidates knows which one. But that is not true. Even those of us who pay an extraordinary amount of attention to them are not necessarily decided. I am leaning towards Stein, but usually vote Libertarian. Despite his faults I have not ruled out voting for Johnson as maybe, possibly the least of the evils that are big enough to even be noticed at all. If I am not mistaken, Tom Knapp has said something similar within the last few days on his podcast or in a comment here. I am guessing we are not the only third party supporters who are undecided. But more importantly, there are a large number of voters who are considering voting for a third party for the first time and may not yet know what those options are at all. Not all of them will proactively seek information out, and the debate may be the best opportunity any such candidates would have of reaching them.

    I said I have not ruled Johnson out…. but I’ll be very tempted to do so if he really does not participate in a single debate against any other candidate in the general election this year.

  160. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I am leaning towards Stein, but usually vote Libertarian. Despite his faults I have not ruled out voting for Johnson as maybe, possibly the least of the evils that are big enough to even be noticed at all. If I am not mistaken, Tom Knapp has said something similar within the last few days on his podcast or in a comment here.”

    I’m pretty sure I’ve mentioned that in several places/formats.

    Florida won’t count a write-in vote for Perry, but I may cast that vote anyway.

    Or I may vote for Johnson if I can think of a compelling reason to do so (I’m hesitant to reward the LP for bad decisions, but I do prefer to be supportive of it; it’s a conundrum).

    Or I may become a single issue voter for this election and vote for the candidate I judge least warlike (probably Stein).

    Early voting starts soon, so I guess I’d better get my mind made up.

  161. Anthony Dlugos

    “I said I have not ruled Johnson out…. but I’ll be very tempted to do so if he really does not participate in a single debate against any other candidate in the general election this year.”

    Well, you better get to decidin’, because there is no damn way he is appearing in this clown show debate, and no matter how you want to spin it, it’s not remotely possible that governor Johnson will lose more than a couple hundred votes for skipping this.

  162. Thomas L. Knapp

    I doubt he’ll lose ANY votes for skipping it.

    On the other hand, there will be votes that he would have the possibility of getting that he now won’t. And he won’t be promoting the Libertarian Party to a receptive audience.

    Just like when he ducked the Democracy Now! event even though it was right in his vote-getting and party promotion wheelhouse.

    Oh well. I suppose if I was a lightweight and a coward I’d avoid that kind of stuff too.

  163. Matt

    “Well, you better get to decidin’, because there is no damn way he is appearing in this clown show debate, ”

    Are you the official campaign spokesperson? Is that a confirmed fact or just your theory?

  164. Matt

    So…you want me to hurry up and decide? Well here I go, at least part of the way. Anthony, if you can 100% guarantee that Johnson will not appear in this *or any other* debate between now and the election, I’ll rule out voting for him right now. Can you do that with an absolute guarantee right now?

  165. JamesT

    Lol Beck un-endorsed Castle and endorsed McMuffin. Lol he can’t even fake it anymore. Just pure neo-con. Guess orders came on high to try to get UT to vote McMuffin or Hillary. Also Castle’s credibility just doubled loosing that nut jobs supports.

  166. Matt

    He’ll probably change his mind again at least a couple of times. The man is unstable or faking being unstable, take your pick.

  167. Anthony Dlugos

    I’m in no official capacity with the campaign. But my work background is in debt collections and sales. You learn to avoid colossal wastes of time in those fields or you don’t pay rent. Most dopes in those fields spend forever chasing down a sale that won’t amount to jack sh*t then wonder why they can’t eat.

    Before the convention, Governor Johnson was ask what he would do differently if he won this time around. He responded by saying he’s an entrepreneur; as such, you learn to avoid lost causes and pie in the sky “might be’s” He mentioned spending an hour or two on libertarian podcasts in 2012 where he was promised the ability to reach millions of Libertarians, and it turns out it was a podcast in some kid’s basement that 100 people listened to.

    Unless the debate include Clump and/or was on an ACTUAL television network, there was no chance, none at all, that he was going.

  168. Matt

    So I know it’s not a scientific sample, but I just called the first 20 people alphabetically in my phone contacts. They were all over the map ideologically including committed Trump, Clinton, Johnson and Stein supporters and two admitted non-voters. 3 out of 20 were undecided. All 3 of those were interested in seeing a third party debate and all 3 said it may help make up their minds if they saw such a debate, and that they would be open to voting for one of the candidates participating in that debate if that person were to impress them. And of those 3 none had ruled out either Clinton or Trump, although one was leaning strongly against Clinton. Again, obviously not a statistically valid sample, but I had a pretty good cross-section of people in there in terms of age, race, gender, religion, income and so on. Aside from the amateur polling I caught up with some people I hadn’t talked to in months or even years. If your circle of acquaintances is as varied as mine you may want to try this yourself.

  169. Anthony Dlugos

    I don’t care what party a particular presidential candidate is in, if he/she is polling at 5-8 percent nationally with regular MSN coverage and endorsements from the likes of the Chicago Tribune just cannot under any circumstances appear in a debate with a 62-year old communist, a theocract, and who knows what else.

    You’re getting caught up in a theoretical philosophical battle and losing sight of the terrible optics that would demonstrate to the mainstream voters. Appearing in that debate would signal concession, and Johnson would lose far more votes than he would gain, someone’s 20-person friend “poll” notwithstanding.

    It does leave Johnson in an unusual netherworld of not high enough for the MSM debate but too high for a rinky-dink debate, but that’s the reality.

    One more time: He ain’t appearing in this debate.

    For that matter, is Stein?

  170. Matt

    Dunno, Stein may or may not skip if Johnson skips. McMullin will only go if Johnson goes. And stop fixating on this debate. If he won’t do this debate Johnson should find another venue and debate Stein. Otherwise we can rule out me or a couple of other semi-random people I spoke with today voting for him. But don’t worry, none of us will rule him out if the only problem he has is in debating LaRiva and Castle.

  171. Thomas Knapp

    “You’re getting caught up in a theoretical philosophical battle and losing sight of the terrible optics that would demonstrate to the mainstream voters.”

    No, it’s not about a theoretical philosophical battle. It’s about pragmatic nuts and bolts politics. If you’re a candidate for office, you take the opportunities that present themselves. At least that’s what you do if you give a rat’s ass about results.

    One minute it’s not worth doing because nobody would be watching except a handful of marginals. The next minute it would be terrible optics to mainstream voters. I’d tell you to make up your mind, but there’s really no way for you to do that because you are operating in a starry-eyed utopian daydream where all that matters is what’s on Gary’s resume and whether or not he picks out the right tie for the media coverage that he was getting but that’s rapidly fading on him.

  172. Anthony Dlugos

    Just so that we come to some agreement here, I will point out that I did previously say I COULD see how a one-on-one Stein v. Johnson debate may have gotten a mainstream network to bite, especially considering the circumstances of this campaign. For all we know, Johnson may have tried, because you wouldn’t want to set up the debate and THEN look for coverage. And without the MSM broadcast, it would be pointless.

    In any event, I don’t think any MSM network would bite on that hypothetical, and I think that would be because of Stein. But I could be wrong there.

    Now, had Nader run as a Green this time? Nader vs Johnson might have been picked up this year.

  173. Anthony Dlugos

    “One minute it’s not worth doing because nobody would be watching except a handful of marginals. The next minute it would be terrible optics to mainstream voters.”

    Precisely correct. No one would watch, and the extent that the great mass of people would know about it is that Johnson debated a 62-year old communist and he’d lose a million votes or so no matter what he said in the debate. Which is what makes it utterly pointless.

  174. Thomas Knapp

    “he’d lose a million votes or so no”

    In your imagination, perhaps. In reality, he might gain a few tens of thousands, or lose a few hundred (hundred, not hundred thousand) votes, both from the actual viewers. If he got any major media, it would be all gain.

    You are to practical politics what Norman Schwarzkopf said Saddam Hussein was to military operations.

  175. Anthony Dlugos

    Well, i might have exaggerated about the million, but it would be an almost certain no-win, that’s for sure. Which is why he’s getting nowhere near it.

  176. Thomas Knapp

    “Which is why he’s getting nowhere near it.”

    He’s getting nowhere near it for one or both of two reasons:

    1) He’s a pussy; and/or

    2) It doesn’t provide a good return on investment for his actual goal (generating maximum contributions for the care and feeding of Ron Nielson).

  177. Jim

    There is a slight possibility of a 4th debate with Trump and Hillary on national television. If Johnson is close to the difference between Trump and Hillary after the 3rd CPD debate, and Trump sees no other way of winning, he might challenge Johnson, McMullin, and Stein to a debate. He would hope to raise Stein’s profile to draw votes away from Hillary, and Trump would plan to unload on Johnson and McMullin. All four of them would want to attack Hillary. Hillary would then be forced to join the debate or risk being a punching bag by all four on national television.

    Castle, La Riva, and De La Fuente have nothing to offer, so they would not be invited.

    That’s assuming South Park is wrong and Trump doesn’t really want to throw the election to Hillary.

  178. langa

    It does leave Johnson in an unusual netherworld of not high enough for the MSM debate…

    Johnson has 99 problems, but not being “high enough” ain’t one… 😉

  179. José C

    Emerson College Polling Society poll:

    Utah – October 18

    McMullin (I) 31
    Trump (R) 27
    Clinton (D) 24
    Johnson (L) 8
    Stein (G) .8

    It looks like McMullin has a chance to win the state.

  180. José C

    As to the polling in Utah, McMullin has a chance to win in Utah but Gary Johnson is polling third in New Mexico and it looks as if he will not win it. Why?

  181. José C

    Anthony Dlugos, it seems you might be part of the Johnson/Weld campaign team. Whenever anyone has a negative comment concerning Gary Johnson or critiques his campaign you respond. Are you a state or regional coordinator for the Johnson/Weld campaign perhaps? In the Libertarian Party “primary season” whenever anyone made a negative comment or critiqued Gary Johnson in IPR or other political blogs someone responded ASAP defending Gary Johnson.

    If you are involved in Gary’s campaign maybe you know the answer to this question . . . What does the Johnson/Weld campaign want us (those who support him and his candidacy) to do these last few weeks of the campaign? We in California had a state coordinator but he has been dismissed so we have not had any direction as to what Johnson/Weld wants us to do. What does the campaign want us to do? How can we help the campaign?

  182. José C

    Well, you better get to decidin’, because there is no damn way he is appearing in this clown show debate, and no matter how you want to spin it, it’s not remotely possible that governor Johnson will lose more than a couple hundred votes for skipping this.

    It looks like Gary Johnson will not participate in the Free & Equal debate. Is his campaign discussing with the campaigns of Stein and McMullin to have a different alternative Presidential candidates debate and try and get a national cable network to cover it? He can not blow off Stein saying she is not worthy to debate. And he can’t seriously say McMullin is not a worthy candidate to debate since it looks like Mcmullin will win Utah.

    I am not saying Gary Johnson should do this. I feel he should be in the Free & Equal debate. But if he does not participate in the Free & Equal debate he should debate at least Stein and McMullin. What else can Gary Johnson do, debate himself?

  183. Jim

    José C “What does the Johnson/Weld campaign want us … to do these last few weeks of the campaign?”

    Start with talking to friends and family, then branch out. Writing a letter to the editor or calling a local radio station are free. If you have issue cards (does Gary Johnson have issue cards? The LP has them https://lpstore.org/product-category/literature/) you can often leave them in communal areas of college campuses. There was a table at the library of my college where literature could be left for others to take. Men under 40, regardless of race, are a big component of Johnson’s support, especially millennials, so a high turnout by college students will help him a lot. With permission, I’ve left them for other campaigns at shooting ranges and health food stores. If you have hundreds or thousands of cards remaining and you can get together with a couple of other people, you can put them on cars in parking lots. A team of 3 people can hit 400 cars per hour. You could also hand them out at events. You could go door to door handing stuff out and talking to people, but I’ve found that to be painfully slow. You could spend half a day and only get to 50 houses, and that’s if half of them aren’t home. Or you could help the Johnson phone bank. Neighborhood canvassing and phonbanking can be done through the Johnson web site https://www.johnsonweld.com/volunteer If you have lots of extra yard signs you could put them up on the side of highways, but in some areas they will just be taken down by the government in a few hours. You can also put them up around polling places as long as you are the required distance away from the entrance.

    “California had a state coordinator but he has been dismissed…”

    This guy’s tag on r/GaryJohnson says he’s the Volunteer Director, California. You could also probably ask the California state LP.

    https://www.reddit.com/user/hackajar/

  184. Jim

    José C “…he can’t seriously say McMullin is not a worthy candidate to debate since it looks like Mcmullin will win Utah.”

    It’s not that McMullin isn’t worthy. McMullin has as much of the Utah vote as he does because he’s Mormon. He has a pretty low profile in almost all of the other 10 states in which he’s on the ballot. Every poll I’ve seen of McMullin outside of Utah puts him at 0% – 3%. If Johnson debates him, he risks raising McMullin’s profile in those other 10 states and that would likely come directly at the expense of Johnson.

    What makes more sense than debating McMullin is for Johnson to run ads attacking McMullin in Utah and to hope the rest of the country continues to ignore him.

  185. Thomas Knapp

    “If Johnson debates him, he risks raising McMullin’s profile in those other 10 states and that would likely come directly at the expense of Johnson.”

    Just like if Trump and Clinton debate Johnson, they risk raising Johnson’s profile in the 50 states where he’s on the ballot and that would likely come directly at the expense of Trump and Clinton.

    Thanks for making the case for never, ever, ever actually engaging with one’s opponents.

  186. Jim

    Thomas Knapp “Just like if Trump and Clinton debate Johnson, they risk raising Johnson’s profile in the 50 states where he’s on the ballot and that would likely come directly at the expense of Trump and Clinton. Thanks for making the case for never, ever, ever actually engaging with one’s opponents.”

    Are you new? The leader in a race never wants to debate their opponent. They want to freeze the election as it is, with them in the lead. The candidate trailing has to put pressure on the leader to do a debate. That pressure comes in the form of “the leader is scared to debate me.” If the trailing candidate has a loud and effective voice, then it will start to hurt the leader in the polls and the leader will do the debate before too much damage is done.

    McMullin doesn’t have a loud and effective voice. He has nothing outside of Utah. He can be attacked in Utah directly, but it would probably be better to do it indirectly by making the case that Johnson is a better home for never-Trumpers than McMullin, although that’s a tough sell given McMullin’s Mormon status. But attacking McMullin in Utah alone is a smarter option than debating McMullin and raising his profile in all of the other states where he is on the ballot.

    Johnson’s position differs from McMullin in that Trump needs Johnson’s voters. Trump has an incentive to debate Johnson. Clinton does not have a reason to debate Johnson, unless a Trump-Johnson debate goes forward.

  187. William Saturn

    Today, 5 years ago, Col. Muammar Gaddafi was brutally, beaten, tortured, sodomized, and killed in Libya by US-backed rebels. As the news came out, Hillary Clinton, the then-Secretary of State boasted, with a smile on her face, “we came, we saw, he died.” This being the man who proudly proclaimed Barack Obama as “my son” and with whom Obama is photographed shaking hands. http://www.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2016-01/195894_5_.jpg Clinton pressured Obama into supporting the toppling of Gaddafi, even though it went against his instincts. It caused Minister Farrakhan, Obama’s brother Malik Obama (a Trump supporter), and other pan-African supporters to turn against the Obama regime. The power vacuum created by toppling Gaddafi left Libya unstable, resulting in the deaths of thousands including the four Americans in Benghazi on 9/11/12. Initially al-Qaeda (the US-backed rebels) and now ISIS have gained strongholds in the nation.

    The bottom line is that despite the lessons of Iraq (which Hillary voted for), she made the exact same mistake in Libya. This is because she is a neocon war-monger in the same mold as John McCain. This is why many in the GOP establishment are openly (or privately as in the case of George H. W. Bush) supporting her campaign for president. As president, she will likely continue to make the same mistakes and get us involved in more neocon wars.

    See https://www.rt.com/news/363454-timeline-gaddafi-death-anniversary/ for a timeline of some of the war crimes committed by Hillary Clinton, NATO, and Obama in Libya.

  188. Bondurant

    Except for the fact that in Clinton’s mind it wasn’t a mistake. I refuse to believe that politicians make the same mistakes over and over despite what they can see from history.

    The chaos that ensues and the disorder has to be to goal. This is what they want. They wreak havoc upon the world, kill untold millions to line their pockets and their only punishment is the possibility of losing an election.

  189. Jim

    Trump also supported overthrowing Qaddafi in 2011, and it wasn’t tepid support like he did with Iraq in 2003. He was all in. He didn’t turn against it until chaos ensued and ISIS took over.

  190. Chuck Moulton

    From today’s “buy Ron Nielson a yacht” fundraising email:

    If we get 5% of the popular vote, the Libertarian Party will have automatic ballot placement for future elections,

    Just in case you were wondering where the shiny badge caucus got the batshit crazy notion that 5% = nationwide ballot access, the answer is: from the top — the Gary Johnson campaign.

  191. George Phillies

    ” Trump has an incentive to debate Johnson. Clinton does not have a reason to debate Johnson, unless a Trump-Johnson debate goes forward.”

    Johnson takes more votes from Clinton than from Trump, in most polls.

  192. Andy

    Chuck, what is really sad about this, is now there are a bunch of Libertarian Party members who are going around repeating this innacurate statement.

  193. William Saturn

    “Trump also supported overthrowing Qaddafi in 2011, and it wasn’t tepid support like he did with Iraq in 2003. He was all in. He didn’t turn against it until chaos ensued and ISIS took over.”

    Your point? He wasn’t privy to the same intelligence reports as Clinton and others in government. He wasn’t in there actually making the decisions. His opinion didn’t result in the deaths of thousands.

  194. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Your point? He wasn’t privy to the same intelligence reports as Clinton and others in government.

    This is my answer to the weird protestations that Wikileaks exposes Clinton instead of Trump. Plus, why would Wikileaks have followed what Trump was saying and doing? He was just a businessman until his Presidential campaign started looking serious a year or so ago.

    There’s no excuse for what Clinton did while she was secretary of state. She really needs to go to prison.

    If anyone is unclear as to why I say this, read some of the links Wikileaks has provided.

  195. Thomas Knapp

    “He wasn’t privy to the same intelligence reports as Clinton and others in government.”

    Neither were the rest of us who knew it was another idiotic fuckarow as soon as Clinton and others in government started trying to sell it.

    “He wasn’t in there actually making the decisions.”

    A good thing, since he has spent his entire life proving over and over that he’s a piss-poor decision-maker 90% of the time and a worthless leech the other 10% of the time.

  196. Anthony Dlugos

    “Just in case you were wondering where the shiny badge caucus got the batshit crazy notion that 5% = nationwide ballot access, the answer is: from the top — the Gary Johnson campaign.”

    Stop the presses! An untrue/exaggerated statements in the world of fundraising!

  197. William Saturn

    “A good thing, since he has spent his entire life proving over and over that he’s a piss-poor decision-maker 90% of the time and a worthless leech the other 10% of the time.”

    His decisions (good and bad) led to a net worth of billions of dollars.

  198. Andy

    Is the Johnson campaign making inaccurate statements about 5% of the vote getting the Libertarian Party nationwide ballot access because they are ignorant of the many ballot access laws, or are they intentionally lying?

    Whatever the case may be, they should not up out false information like this.

  199. Thomas Knapp

    “His decisions (good and bad) led to a net worth of billions of dollars.”

    Only if by “His decisions (good and bad) led to a net worth of billions of dollars” you mean “he managed to keep enough scams in the air and suck down enough government handouts to take home a ton of loot despite being stump-stupid enough to go bankrupt four times even in a niche where he got government-granted monopolies AND a business model specifically rigged for profit.”

  200. Thomas Knapp

    William,

    How does it take competence to go bankrupt four times running casinos?

    How does it take competence to inherit a fortune made on government housing contracts and turn it into a bigger fortune based on eminent domain and other government favors?

  201. William Saturn

    Trump started on a million dollar loan from his father. His father did not want him to build in Manhattan but he did anyway. Through ups and downs he grew the organization into what it is today with buildings and other holdings throughout the world. I can’t fault him for what happened in Atlantic City, where legalized gambling was just a temporary band aid to a decline that had been ongoing since the 60’s. I can’t fault him for legally taking advantage of the government or paying as few taxes as possible. I can admire him for being able to use the system to his advantage.

  202. George Phillies

    Readers interested in states where Presidential vote percentage does something should see the latest issue of LP news. As usual their source on MA gives odd impressions. Just as the LNC estimated that MA Presidential Ballot Line acquisition would cost $25,000, I warned them that the number should be in the range $35-40 thousand, and it turned out to be $38,000+, this time they talk about signature requirements.

    LP News claims that if Johnson gets over 3% the number of signatures needed in Massachusetts will not change. That is true for the number of *valid* signatures. However, if “political party” status is obtained, people registered as Democratic, Republican, Green-Rainbow, or UIP cannot sign, and the number of raw signatures or voter contacts needed goes through the ceiling. If you just stop people and get them to sign, your validity rate falls from 80% to 30% (except in Boston, where 12% is more typical). Half the voters are unenrolled (independent), but they are in good part uninterested in politics and do not sign nominating papers. Yes, you get people who say they can question people and drive their validity rate up, but this approach is of negative value. Many people are wrong about their party registration. The time spent questioning a person is time lost, so you need to get the attention of even more voters than before.

  203. Don Wills

    Guess who just proposed this for his first 100 years in office. GJ? Nope.

    1. “A Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress.”
    2. “A hiring freeze on all federal employees.”
    3. “A requirement that for every new federal regulation, 2 existing regulations must be eliminated.”
    4. “A 5-year ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government.”
    5. “A lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.”
    6. “A complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.”

  204. Andy

    100 years? Did you mean days?

    I am going to take a wild guess and say Donald Trump.

    I agree with the proposals above, but I would go further than that.

    I would like to see a prohibition put on all government employees, government contractors, and welfare recipients, from voting, or donating to political campaigns.

    I would also favor a ban on all foreign lobbyists in general.

  205. José C

    Libertarian US Senate Canbdidate Lily Tang Williams is mentioned and has an article written about her in the Free & Equal website. The article includes a campaign photo and seems to have been written with her coperation.

    This is a mystake. Doesn’t she know shee should not associating with the likes of Darrel Castle, Jill Stien, and other alternative party candidates?

  206. George Phillies

    Johnson Campaign Fundraising Crashes!

    We now have the Johnson 2016 campaign finance disclosures covering September, the so-called ‘October’ report. For September 2016, the Johnson campaign raised $2,635,786, barely more than half of the campaign’s August fundraising of $4,971,147. We also have numbers for the Joint Fundraising Committee; it raised 2.3 million for the third quarter of 2016.

    Full details will be in the Late October Liberty For America, out soon.

  207. Be Rational

    Don Wills
    October 22, 2016 at 22:35
    Andy – Oops. Yes and yes. 100 days and DJT …

    *
    … will face one of the worst defeats in history …

    *
    Clinton will win overwhelmingly … possibly with over 400 electoral votes.

    Clinton 52%
    Trump 38%
    Johnson 6%
    Stein 2.5%
    McMullin 0.4%
    Others 1.1%

    Republicans lose the Senate, hang on narrowly in the House.

    (If I have time I’ll post a state by state W/L for Clinton/Trump/McMullin (Utah)

  208. Chuck Moulton

    Chuck Moulton wrote (10/21/2016 at 3:15 pm):

    From today’s “buy Ron Nielson a yacht” fundraising email:

    If we get 5% of the popular vote, the Libertarian Party will have automatic ballot placement for future elections,

    Just in case you were wondering where the shiny badge caucus got the batshit crazy notion that 5% = nationwide ballot access, the answer is: from the top — the Gary Johnson campaign.

    The outrageous lies continue in today’s (10/24/2016) “buy Ron Nielson a yacht” email:

    What the two major parties don’t want voters to know, is that for every vote we get over 5% comes major party status for the Libertarian party. It means automatic ballot access for Libertarian candidates.

  209. Andy

    It is possible that whoever is sending out these Johnson fundraising messages is not familiar with all of the ballot access laws, and is being this on misinformation they received, which would mean that they are not lying, they are just mistaken.

    There are some states where getting 5% of the vote for President would get ballot access for Libertarian Party candidates, but in some of those states, it would only be good for the 2018 election.

  210. Andy

    I did not post the link about Trump either. This piece of garbage is pretending to be me. That is fraud.

  211. Thomas Knapp

    Q: What kind of FUCKING IDIOT changes an important URL right at peak interest time in a campaign cycle?

    A: Whoever runs LP.org.

    I’ve been sending out emails encouraging people to support Libertarian candidates and pointing them to the candidate page at:

    http://www.lp.org/2016-libertarian-party-candidates

    But now that page isn’t there any more, so I guess anyone who waited to open and read my email is just shit out of luck, because all they get is a 404, no forwarding to the new version of the page, which is at:

    https://www.lp.org/2016-candidates/

    Although I had to hand-modify that URL to make it show as being LP.org. What people surfing to it from the LP.org web site see in their browser bar is:

    http://libparty.zocalodesign.com/2016-candidates/

    Which looks pretty damn unprofessional.

    But I don’t blame Zocalo Design. I blame whichever FUCKING IDIOT decided that two weeks before a presidential election was the time to change up a political party’s web site.

  212. Chuck Moulton

    Thomas L. Knapp wrote:

    Q: What kind of FUCKING IDIOT changes an important URL right at peak interest time in a campaign cycle?

    Staff and the LNC.

    Yes, they are idiots.

  213. Chuck Moulton

    I sent the LNC a strongly worded email about their botched website transition. IPR copied in case anyone is interested in posting it.

    I will note that in addition to all the stupid technical and strategic moves inherent in this transition, removing all of the LNC minutes before December 2015 is a clear bylaws violation.

  214. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I posted this to the LNC list:

    Everyone, I will chill out a few days as promised, but I want to get on the record that not having the LNC minutes and link to the LNC Business List on the website when it went live is a clear Bylaws violation. I am uninterested in whether or not a marketing firm thinks that is “autustic” or not. I look forward to this being put to head of the pile to correct. Whether or not anyone else thinks this should be a priority, our Bylaws say otherwise. The site should not have went live without this.

    The Secretary or a designee shall promptly post notice for each session of the National Committee; any National Committee proposed agendas; and approved minutes of each Convention and open National Committee session to a permanent archive section on the Party’s website. Any person may record the National Committee’s proceedings while in open session, or subscribe to a read-only email list on which LNC votes are recorded.

  215. Chuck Moulton

    I appreciate you looking into this issue, Caryn.

    I had already made my points in the original email, so I didn’t think my replying a lot would be useful. However, I have been taking some action behind the scenes to shed light on the extent of this problem.

    Btw, the extremely long load time for all lp.org pages continues. This is not at all typical for a website.

  216. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I am also having some behind the scenes discussions. I know some people think I am a royal pain in the patookey but the site should not have gone up without being bylaws-compliant.

  217. Thomas L. Knapp

    OK, so after a little Googling to find the threads here at IPR: The new LP site is by the same company that did that crappy arts site Mr. Ludlow was bragging on so much.

  218. José C

    I watched the Free & Equal Presidential candidates debate. The debate was well organized and the candidates La Fuente, Castle, and La Riva looked and sounded presidential. I wished I was in Colorado at the debate. Moderator, Ed Asner asked very thoughtful and probing questions. I heard more issues discussed in this debate than the four other presidential and vice-presidential debates combined.

    Who won the debate? They all handled themselves well. There were no name a foreign leader or Allepo moments. Obviously I do not agree with the views concerning economics expressed by La Fuente and La Riva. I do agree with many of La Riva’s views on foreign affairs. Castle had many views I support. Though I am voting for Gary Johnson if Castle were elected President he would be an improvement over Trump and Clinton and America would be better off for it.

    I was blogging in real time responding to the debate. I did not have much to say contrasting Gary Johnson’s views with those debating because he was not at the debate. I thought if I mentioned Johnson has better views on foreign affairs than La Fuente someone would ask, “Why isn’t Gary Johnson at the debate?” This came up as it was asked why Gary Johnson was not participating at the debate. It was mentioned maybe he was afraid to debate La Fuente, Castle, and La Riva.

    Free & Equal mentioned the Gary Johnson campaign offered to send a video statement from Gary Jonson to be played as the debate started but they declined his campaign’s offer.

    If there was a winner on the blogosphere I would say it was the supporter’s of Castle. His supporters made insightful comments during the debate. La Riva also had some commenting on her behalf. It seemed I was the only Libertarian (Gary Johnson) commentator but with Gary Johnson avoiding the debate how could I comment contrasting his views with the others. I commented on Libertarian viewpoints on the issues.

    I thank Christina Tobin for organizing “The People’s Presidential Debate”. The big winners at the debate were the American people. It is a shame the American people did not get a chance to hear all the presidential candidates.

  219. Chuck Moulton

    Wow!!!

    So today we see how truly duplicitous the Johnson campaign is yet again.

    The Johnson campaign sent the following today:

    If we get 5% of the popular vote, the Libertarian Party will have automatic ballot placement for future elections,

    Emphasis in original, though it was yellow highlighting rather than boldface. The Johnson campaign is doubling down on its lying.

    But it gets better…

    The Johnson campaign had the LNC send its email to the LP’s contacts.

    The LP email said the following:

    If we get 5% of the popular vote, the Libertarian Party will have automatic ballot placement in even more states for future elections,

    Note the difference. LP staff was unwilling to repeat the Johnson campaign’s outrageous falsehood, so they modified the email to make it correct.

    Seems simple to fix, right? But the Johnson campaign has a culture of deception, lying to donors to get more money for Ron Nielson.

  220. Anthony Dlugos

    “…Johnson campaign’s outrageous falsehood…”

    Outrageous falsehood? Dear god is fundraising literature.

    You’re outraged far too easily. I remember getting fundraising lit from Browne and Badnarik imploring me to donate because they could win.

  221. Be Rational

    How they EASILY Rigged the WTC Towers for Demolition (WATCH THIS)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3EQV223Y-M
    *

    It’s not possible to wire demoltion to knock out supports floor by floor, matching the actual cascading collapse of the floors as happened when each of the towers collapsed as clearly seen on all the videos.

    Demolition looks quite different from what the videos show.

    Go to engineering school and learn something. But, only structural engineers and civil engineers who sepcialize in structures study this.

    There are only 3 or 4 actual qualified engineers on your list Andy, so don’t bother to cite that stupid list again – and they just signed because they wanted further study – you see, the Towers had design weaknesses that are not repeated today and the building 7 design was engineering malpractice. Architects and landscape engineers, electrical and computer engineers, none of them have any expertise in this area. Nor do you.

  222. George Phillies

    This is the Libertarian Party.
    We have rules about fraud. Those other parties? Not so much.

  223. Chuck Moulton

    Anthony Dlugos wrote:

    You’re outraged far too easily. I remember getting fundraising lit from Browne and Badnarik imploring me to donate because they could win.

    There is a difference between saying something delusional and saying something demonstrably false.

  224. Anthony Dlugos

    I’ll concede your point that it’s a fib designed to raise money.

    Caveat emptor. Bigger fish to fry.

  225. Thomas Knapp

    Anthony,

    Well, it needs to be kept in mind under “lessons learned.”

    The Johnson campaign proved in 2012 that they are lying sacks of shit. They lie to their donors, they lie to the party and its donors, they lie to the public. They lie like rugs. They’re so crooked they have to screw their pants on in the morning.

    We either didn’t learn, or forgot, or didn’t care about, that lesson and made the same damn mistake again.

    Maybe next time we’ll limit bad actors to one opportunity.

  226. Andy

    Be Rational said: “Go to engineering school and learn something. But, only structural engineers and civil engineers who sepcialize in structures study this.

    There are only 3 or 4 actual qualified engineers on your list Andy, so don’t bother to cite that stupid list again – and they just signed because they wanted further study – you see, the Towers had design weaknesses that are not repeated today and the building 7 design was engineering malpractice. Architects and landscape engineers, electrical and computer engineers, none of them have any expertise in this area. Nor do you.”

    Here’s an interview with a Dutch guy who was renowned (I used past tense because unfortunately he is no longer living) as being an expert in the controlled demolition industry.

    Danny Jowenko on WTC 7 controlled demolition

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc

  227. Andy

    Check out Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization made up of Architects and Engineers who do not believe the official government story about 9/11.

    I think that Jill Pyeatt’s, husband, Alan, is a member.

    http://www.ae911truth.org/

  228. Andy

    Excellent video that debunks the claim that World Trade Center building 7, which was not hit by a plane, yet mysteriously collapsed, was engulfed in a blazing interno and sustained major damage from debris. REALITY was that WTC 7 sustained less damage than several other buidlings that were closer to WTC 1 & 2, yet did not collapse.

    100% Proof Media Lied About 9/11 Attacks(Redsilverj)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSZTSNsZz8c

  229. Thomas Knapp

    BR,

    For 15 years now, Andy has believed what he wants to believe because that’s what he wants to believe.

    Since the continuing complete absence of any evidence whatsoever for what he believes has yet to change his mind, it seems likely to me that it’s never going to change his mind. So really the only purpose in engaging him on this is to let casual followers of IPR know that not all libertarians are members of his strange cult.

  230. Anthony Dlugos

    Thomas,

    I use a points system to determine who I support, and the grade I give them post-campaign.

    Previous governing experience gets 100 points. MSM town halls gets 50 points each. 25 points for each newspaper endorsement. 10 points for each 1/2 percentage point in the final vote tally.

    I deduct 5 points for each fib in a fundraising letter, 1,000 points for mentioning the NAP, “legalize all drugs when I become president,” “taxation is theft,” or “I would not have signed the Civil Rights Act.”

  231. Thomas Knapp

    Anthony,

    That’s all well and good. I don’t really need to know the details of how you drum up scripture for your gibbering, utopian, cargo cult, chicken-entrail-reading fantasies. I’ll just keep hoping that some day you grow up and join the adults here in the real world.

  232. Be Rational

    “Check out Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization made up of Architects and Engineers who do not believe the official government story about 9/11. ”

    Almost no one on that list is qualified to discuss the issue. Neither are you.

    Only trained Structural Engineers and Civil Engineers with a structural engineering specialty are qualified. Going through the list shows about 4 actual, trained structural engineers. The rest – including architects and other types of engineers – do not have any expertise and might as well be manicurists or a swim coaches or whatever.

    The list itself, like the whole group of wackos, is a fraud. Your 9/11 group is consists mostly of wacko, conspiracy nuts in need of psychiatric care, and a handful of sick trolls who get their jollies by egging on the mentally ill population.

  233. NewFederalist

    Despite the fact that both the GOP and LP nominees are Republicans, this is just wrong. I have voted for the LP ticket every year since 1976 with only one exception until this year. Gov. Weld is the major reason I abandoned the ticket this year.

  234. Thomas Knapp

    NewFed,

    The Democratic nominee in Alaska is a Republican too (a former Republican legislature who claims to be a Bernie Bro now). There’s an independent who looks like a fairly run of the mill Democrat.

  235. robert capozzi

    Check the edit on the video. WW sez “I’m with Lisa Murkowski 100% ON THAT.”

    Was it an “endorsement”? It’s not clear. What’s “on that”? He has worked with her on issues certainly. But whether that’s an endorsement…dunno…maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t.

  236. Be Rational

    It was not an endorsement. Governor Weld was answering a question about energy development policy vs. restricting development for environmental reasons and he is 100% with Murkowski on that issue. It is reasonable to be able to discuss issues and who you agree with and disagree with without endorsing them or unendorsing them. The words were twisted by the TV station – not unusual as we all know.

  237. Anthony Dlugos

    lol. That’s no endorsement, other than an indication of agreement on some energy policy issue.

  238. robert capozzi

    tk: Yeah, some people tried that dodge on Facebook, too. Wasn’t any less laughable there than here.

    me: Ad hominem such as this is beneath you.

  239. robert capozzi

    tk, I notice that you COMPLETELY avoid the substance of the matter, simply labeling it a “dodge” and “laughable.” If you really wanted to advance truth, you would engage. What, f’instrance, does “on that” mean that the context of WW’s words mean?

  240. Be Rational

    In this case, TK can’t let facts cloud his firm commitment to his bias against Weld.

  241. Thomas Knapp

    Bob,

    “What, f’instrance, does ‘on that’ mean that the context of WW’s words mean?”

    The question was “who is the best Senator for Alaska?”

    The answer was “I’m 100% with Lisa Murkowski on that.”

    There’s just not a lot of room for interpretation there.

    BR,

    Yeah, I’m so biased against Weld that I went out yesterday and voted for him for vice-president of the United States.

  242. robert capozzi

    TK, re-viewed the vid. The audio “question” was during a cutaway and the audio sounds very “dropped in” to me. “…on that” makes me more skeptical that that was an endorsement.

    He may well have endorsed LM. She is a R, but was a write-in in 2010. She sought the L nomination that year, IIRC. The “L” candidate is Joe Miller, who was the R candidate in 2010, but is now running as an L.

    So, IF WW has actually endorsed LM, I’d say there are some pretty mitigating circumstances.

  243. Thomas L. Knapp

    —–
    TK, re-viewed the vid. The audio “question” was during a cutaway and the audio sounds very “dropped in” to me. “…on that” makes me more skeptical that that was an endorsement.
    —–

    And like I said, yes, I saw that dodge attempted on Facebook before I saw you attempting it.

    Ad hominem is an attack on the person. I’m not attacking you as a person. I’m just noticing that you’re attempting to dodge, as some other people have.

    I wouldn’t endorse the Libertarian Party’s nominee for US Senate, either — but then I’m not a Libertarian vice-presidential nominee who decided to go to Alaska, who decided to accept an interview in which I had to know I’d be asked about that, and who decided to endorse the Libertarian Party nominee’s opponent instead of coming out with some version of “no comment.”

  244. robert capozzi

    tk, there’s more than one def of ad hominem…

    “appealing to one’s prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one’s intellect or reason.”

    You may well be sincere that that vid sounds unedited to you. Surely, though, you’ve heard of times where the media edits footage to make an interviewee look bad, yes?

    As for whether WW sat down expecting to be asked about the Senate race, I again am not a mind reader. You may well be one, a highly skilled one at that! Gainesville to Anchorage is over 4600 miles!

  245. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    Yes, there’s more than one definition of ad hominem, but I’ve never see ad hominem defined as “piss and moan all you want, here’s the video.”

    Now there IS a case of ad hominem at play here — in the final paragraph of your previous response you imply that one would necessarily have to be a mind reader in order to figure out whether or not Bill Weld is a fucking idiot. I, on the other hand, assume that he isn’t a fucking idiot and knew exactly what the hell he was doing.

  246. robert capozzi

    tk, I have met with WW, and have read a fair amount about him, and to me he is quite obviously quite brilliant, almost certainly a genius.

    Geniuses, in my experience, are not omniscient, however. He may or may not have thought much about the AK senate race much prior to sitting down with the AK reporter. I would assume that he realizes that he has little influence in AK over state elections. I would assume he mostly wants to increase support for the J/W ticket in a fairly supportive state for a lessarchist ticket.

  247. Andy

    Thomas Knapp said: “Yeah, I’m so biased against Weld that I went out yesterday and voted for him for vice-president of the United States.”

    WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

    Tom, you mean to tell me that after all of your criticisms against these non-libertarian clowns, Johnson/Weld and their handlers, you actually went out and gave them what they wanted, as in your vote? Why in the hell would you do that? This is the stupidest and most irrational and destructive thing I have heard of you doing.

    You have been one of the biggest critics of Gary Johnson, and the Johnson/Weld campaign, that there is in the Libertarian Party, and I HAVE AGREED WITH YOU.

    You correctly called for the LNC to remove Johnson/Weld as candidates after they campaigned in favor of multiple violations of the Libertarian Party’s platform. You have correctly pointed out the many philosophical shortcomings of Johnson and Weld. You have correctly pointed out the times that they have lied. You have correctly pointed out their campaign finance irregularities. You have correctly pointed out their strategic flaws and their gaffes. You have correctly pointed out how nominating candidates like Johnson/Weld does long term damage to the Libertarian Party and movement.

    So after you spent all of this time and put in all of this effort to rightly criticize Johnson/Weld, YOU THEN WENT OUT AND REWARDED THEM BY VOTING FOR THEM.

    WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?????

    I know that a lot of other Libertarians are going to be voting for them, and some of them are otherwise good people, but they are either lacking the knowledge about all that is wrong with Johnson/Weld, or they know that their are problems, but they just do not understand just how bad those problems are, or they have bought into the lie that getting 5% of the vote gets the Libertarian Party national ballot access. Some of the other supporters of Johnson/Weld are Libertarian Lites who are showing their obviously philosophical flaws, and at least a few of them are likely outright saboteurs who are actively involved in hijacking and neutralizing the Libertarian Party.

    I know that you know better when it comes to Johnson/Weld, Tom.

    I see absolutely know upside to your decision to betray your rallying against Johnson/Weld by voting for them. Your vote is not going to help the Libertarian Party stay on the ballot in Florida because the Libertarian Party of Florida is in no jeopardy of losing ballot access, and presidential vote totals in Florida do not even determine ballot access. You have already said that you think that it would be a bad idea for the Libertarian Party to accept matching funds, as you pointed out that taking government money violates Libertarian principles, and that it will place limits on how much the Libertarian Party presidential ticket could potentially raise (which is why the Republican and Democratic party tickets have rejected matching funds), thus signalling that the Libertarian Party is not a serious party, and that it will also attract even more con-artists to the Libertarian Party who will look for ways to line their pockets with that money, and/or use it to promote their own agendas which have little or nothing to do with the Libertarian Party or cause.

    So what possible upside was their for you to vote for Johnson/Weld? Are you really naive enough to believe that these phonies somehow represent you, or their either of them actually lean libertarian? Are you really that naive to believe that these two clowns were the best candidates on your ballot, when they are both establishment shills who are here to sabotage the party and movement?

    I’d have more respect for you if you voted for Jill Stein or Rocky de la Fuente or Darrell Castle. I’d have more respect more respect for you if you had cast a write in vote for Darryl W. Perry, or if you wrote in None Of The Above, even if write in votes are not tallied in Florida. I’d have more respect for you if you left the presidential portion of your ballot blank. I’d have more respect for you if you if you didn’t even bother to vote at all.

    Your vote for Johnson/Weld sends the message of, “Keep up the great work guys.” to Johnson/Weld and all of their handlers and supporters. Your vote for Johnson/Weld says that you like to bend over and take all of their bullshit and then say, “Gimme more.” Your vote for Johnson/Weld will be used by the “Shiny Badge Caucus” and the Libertarian Lites in the Libertarian Party, the same people who brought us the abomination/train wreck that was Bob Barr/Wayne Root in 2008, to say, “See, look at the number of votes we got. We should nominate more candidates like this in the future.”

    Gary Johnson called William Weld the “original libertarian,” which is an absolutely absurd statement. It should be BLATANTLY apparent that Weld is an establishment shill. He’s an active member of the CFR, and a long time crony of the Bush family and the Clinton family and of Mitt Romney. He endorsed Jeb Bush for President in September of last year, and in February of this year, he endorsed John Kasich for President, Weld is clearly NOT a libertarian, and NEVER has been, and the fact that Johnson endorsed Weld for the VP nod, and frequently defers to him, tells you all you need to know about Gary Johnson, and what it says is not good.

    I’m really disappointed in you, Tom.

  248. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    October 30, 2016 at 05:43
    tk, I have met with WW, and have read a fair amount about him, and to me he is quite obviously quite brilliant, almost certainly a genius.”

    He might be, but this does NOT make him a libertarian. Bill Clinton is supposed to be a really smart guy, as is Dick Cheney, and neither of them are remotely libertarian either.

  249. robert capozzi

    aj: He might be, but this does NOT make [WW] a libertarian. Bill Clinton is supposed to be a really smart guy, as is Dick Cheney, and neither of them are remotely libertarian either.

    me: True. WW is certainly not a NAPster. He DID sign the LP’s pledge.

  250. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    October 30, 2016 at 06:34
    ‘aj: He might be, but this does NOT make [WW] a libertarian. Bill Clinton is supposed to be a really smart guy, as is Dick Cheney, and neither of them are remotely libertarian either.’

    me: True. WW is certainly not a NAPster. He DID sign the LP’s pledge.”

    So what if he signed the pledge. Are you really naive enough to believe that he was sincere?

    William Weld is a sociopath.

  251. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    I’m well aware of Johnson/Weld’s defects. I’ve given a few reasons elsewhere pertaining to why I was considering voting for him, and that’s ultimately what I decided to do. But since you ask, I’ll discuss it from another angle here that I haven’t really addressed before.

    I am a member of the Libertarian Party by choice.

    I attended the national convention as a delegate and within reason consider myself bound by that convention’s decisions.

    I got some of the things I wanted in those decisions — for example, the convention sustained the chair’s ruling against seating an impostor Oregon delegation, and we passed an anti-death-penalty platform plank, and we re-elected Nick Sarwark chair, and so on. Presumably other party members are abiding by those decisions whether or not they agreed with those decisions.

    I had the ability to ask the LNC to reconsider the nominations of Johnson and Weld in light of their subsequent actions, and did so with respect to Weld (I was less committal vis a vis Johnson). The LNC was not required to do that, and chose not to.

    I got my say — not my way, just my say — both within the party, and in public, in many ways. And at the end of it all, I was stuck with the decision to support the party’s decision at the ballot box, or not.

    If I had chosen not to do so, other party members would have been quite reasonable in concluding that I took the benefits of having a say within the party without assuming the responsibilities of having a say in the party and for that reason either ignore or discount any opinion I might express in the future (which has indeed been one result of my Boston Tea Party work in 2006 and 2008).

    So this time I took my medicine. I worked for a few hours at an LP booth at which Johnson/Weld were promoted, which is more campaigning than most LP members do in any given election year. And I cast my vote in accordance with the party’s nominating decision. I have no problem whatsoever with anyone who decided differently, of course. But that’s where I came down.

    I suppose I could have just quietly written in a non-counted vote for Darryl, or a counted vote for Zoltan Istvan, or that I could have just not voted, or that I could have left the presidential race blank, and no one would have been the wiser (I’d douse myself in gasoline and light a match before voting Constitution Party, and in my opinion Stein wasn’t close enough to Johnson on the issues for that to be a contest). None of that would have felt right. I wouldn’t have slept as well last night as I did.

    And I also wanted to violate Florida’s law against “ballot selfies” by way of civil disobedience, which meant that if I voted, I would necessarily be divulging who I voted for.

    After this election is done and over, I will likely have opinions and take actions regarding the party specifically and politics in general. I’m sure that some people will find reasons to not give those opinions weight, or to oppose those actions, and that’s fine. But one of those reasons will not be that I worked against the Libertarian Party this year. I did my best to get the party to do the right thing, and supported the party when it disagreed with me on what the right thing was. And now we move on to whatever comes next.

  252. Robert Capozzi

    AJ, again no mind reader me, but my guess is WW signed the Pledge under The Nolan interpretation, not the NAPSTER reading of those words. He strikes me as sane enough to recognize that there is no CotOS. He may have breezed over that crazy passage but we’ll probably never know what he feels about it.

    He’s done much to advance the cause of lessarchism and has damaged the NAPSTER brand.

  253. Thomas L. Knapp

    “He strikes me as sane enough to recognize that there is no CotOS.”

    Anyone who thinks there is no Cult of the Omnipotent State has either never thought about it or is barking mad. Consult your local library for whole shelves full of information on it. Good starting point: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

  254. robert capozzi

    tk, assuming that the Soviet Union rises to the level of a “cult” possessing “omnipotent” powers (a poor assumption, IMO), the handiwork of the 89 20-somethings who wrote and booby-trapped the SoP in 1971 didn’t make reference to PAST CotOS in foreign countries. This alleged “cult” didn’t exist in 1971 in the US, and it certainly doesn’t now. And yet the 89 didn’t have the foresight to write the language in such a way as to reflect current conditions, IOW.

    It might have to say: We…challenge the cult of the omnipotent state, whether one exists currently or not….or something.

  255. robert capozzi

    more….

    Of course, that language would be ridiculous, too, but at least it would be semi-accurate!

  256. Chuck Moulton

    Thomas L. Knapp wrote:

    I’m well aware of Johnson/Weld’s defects. I’ve given a few reasons elsewhere pertaining to why I was considering voting for him, and that’s ultimately what I decided to do. But since you ask, I’ll discuss it from another angle here that I haven’t really addressed before.

    I completely agree with Tom. I will be voting Johnson/Weld for these reasons and others I’ve stated before — in spite of all of the flaws of the candidates, all of the stupidity of the campaign, and all of the crazy rants of the Johnson sycophant shiny badge caucus in this forum.

    Fundamentally he’s the most libertarian choice on the ballot.

  257. Matt

    “Fundamentally he’s the most libertarian choice on the ballot.”

    Is he though? The “Fair Tax” plan. Weld’s support for Bush’s wars combined with Johnson’s support for “humanitarian” wars. They only want a 20% reduction in military spending – I’m pretty sure several other third party candidates want deeper cuts. Their website says they are against legalizing any drugs except marijuana, so much of the drug war would continue. Sure, it would be great to legalize marijuana, but we are already moving in that direction state by state. Johnson’s record on and continued defense of private prisons and his lack of pardons when he was in office is less than inspiring. Again, there are better candidates on those issues in the race. The drug war, which would continue under a Johnson/Weld administration (minus marijuana – if they have their way), along with the “war on terror” fuels police militarization and domestic espionage. While Johnson/Weld may be better than Clinton and Trump on this, they are worse than Stein, Castle, et al. Weld, as a former federal prosecutor, is proud of applying RICO laws and looks forward to using them in the war on terror, according to a CNN townhall answer (I believe. Definitely in one of his appearances, I think that one but I’m not sure). That’s just a few of the issues on which the Johnson/Weld ticket is not the most libertarian choice this year. Castle supporters could list a few others.

  258. Andy

    I disagree that Johnson is the most fundamentally libertarian candidate on your ballot, if you are in a state where Darrell Castle is on the ballot. I challenge anyone to go issue for issue between Castle and Johnson, and if anyone does a fair analysis of this, especially if they weight the issues, Castle will come out ahead.

    How do you know that Johnson/Weld are even telling the truth when it comes to areas where you agree, or even sort of agree, with them? They already have records of lying, and of dodging debates and questions, so why would you still consider them to be credible?

    If can’t bring yourself to fairly consider Castle, then just do not vote for President this year, or cast a write in vote for an actual libertarian that you like, or write in None Of The Above.

    The WORST thing you can do if you really want to clean up the Libertarian Party is to reward Johnson/Weld and their handlers and supporters by giving them your vote.

    The Battered Voter Syndrome and groupthink mentality has infected the Libertarian Party.

  259. Anthony Dlugos

    “They only want a 20% reduction in military spending – I’m pretty sure several other third party candidates want deeper cuts.”

    I’m sure there are. Who gives a sh*t? Vermin Supreme wants to give everyone in America a pony.

    It don’t take no skill to put your name on the ballot in a few states and demand a 100% cut in military spending.

  260. Andy

    Tom and Chuck, voting for Johnson/Weld is putting party before principle. I put principle before party, which is why I will not cast a vote for Johnson/Weld.

    Voting for Johnson/Weld is like those Democrats and Republicans who vote for their party’s nominees no matter how corrupt they are, and no matter how many of their own purported principles they betrayed.

    Voting for Johnson/Weld is like those jingoist who support their government no matter how many atrocities it commits, and who say things like, “My country right or wrong.”

  261. Matt

    “…no skill to put your name on the ballot in a few states and demand a 100% cut in military spending.”

    Nor to be on every state ballots and call for a 21st century level of military expenditures. Since we already have two parties with qualified, experienced executive candidates, lots of money and a much better chance of winning. What’s the point in having a third one come in with 2 or 3% and such uninspiringly small differences with the other two? But wait, they have lots of experience to qualify them for an office they will never get!

  262. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Tom and Chuck, voting for Johnson/Weld is putting party before principle. I put principle before party, which is why I will not cast a vote for Johnson/Weld.”

    It’s your vote. You’re free to cast it any way you like. But if you’re casting it on principle AND for Castle, your principles are FUBAR.

  263. robert capozzi

    aj: groupthink mentality has infected the Libertarian Party since 1971.

    me: Fixed.

  264. JamesT

    Johnson below 5 in most polls now. Lol thanks “pragmatist”, “moderate”, left wing of the LP. Sure has been worth it. Will Stein beat him? Also Trump up? This sure is a fun time to be alive. Even if we’re living the darkest timeline.

  265. Anthony Dlugos

    “Johnson below 5 in most polls now. Lol thanks “pragmatist”, “moderate”, left wing of the LP. ”

    lol, yea, we really skrewed up. Perry would be out at Home Depot picking which accelerant to use for setting the White House and Congress on fire.

    “Will Stein beat him?”

    Zero chance. I’ll bet you on that, for any stakes you want.

    The only reason we hear about Johnson’s drop in the polls and not Stein’s is that Stein never was high enough in the polls to even have a drop worth coverage by the MSM, and no one wondered about whether or not Stein could threaten the duopoly.

  266. Thomas L. Knapp

    JamesT,

    I’m about as far left as the LP gets, and I don’t think anyone is going to accuse me of being an architect of the Johnson/Weld debacle.

    The supposed “pragmatists” who have crashed and burned three presidential elections in a row now will of course forget all their predictions of glory and switch to trying to convince everyone that slight movement within the low single digit range, accomplished by taking a wire-wrapped baseball bat to the party’s brand, IS glory.

  267. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    October 31, 2016 at 12:00
    JamesT,

    I’m about as far left as the LP gets,”

    Tom, are you really that far left, or is that just an image you like to portray because you think it make you look cool? I recall you saying awhile ago that you were against abortion, which is a view that is usually associated with the right.

  268. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    I am not “against abortion” in any political sense. I simply don’t consider it a political issue for the Libertarian Party. There are legitimate libertarian arguments on both sides of it, it is reasonably settled law that is unlikely to change, and the two main sides are already well-represented by major parties. I think we make our haywhere significant constituencies do not have pro-liberty representation (for example, the pro-immigration-freedom plurality, the anti-war plurality and so forth). For the LP, abortion is a distraction at best.

    Libertarianism is the furthest point left on the left-right spectrum and has been since Comte and Dunoyer created libertarian class theory (which was stolen and re-framed by the first major right-deviationist, Karl Marx).

    A consistent libertarian is a leftist and a consistent leftist is a libertarian.

  269. Anthony Dlugos

    “The supposed “pragmatists” who have crashed and burned three presidential elections in a row now will of course forget all their predictions of glory and switch to trying to convince everyone that slight movement within the low single digit range, accomplished by taking a wire-wrapped baseball bat to the party’s brand IS glory.”

    What other standard is there that isn’t merely opinion? What is the party’s “brand?” You just pointed out a disagreeement on abortion within the party. There are others, as you know.

  270. Thomas L. Knapp

    “What other standard is there that isn’t merely opinion?”

    What do you have against opinion?

    IF the standard is vote totals, then the simple proven fact is that in the three elections in a row in which we have run presidential candidates who run against, rather than for, the party’s platform, we have come nowhere near winning.

    Saying that 3% is “closer” to winning than 1/2 of 1% is, strictly speaking, true. But it’s the equivalent of saying that if I have lived in Gainesville for three years and then move to Bronson, I am “closer” to Los Angeles as the crow flies. But I’m still nowhere near Los Angeles and I’ve actually moved further away from the highway I’d want to get on if I was actually going there instead of posturing about going there.

  271. paulie

    Excerpt from an email from Starchild to LNC:

    Halloween itself doesn’t seem so scary this year compared to the horror likely awaiting us next Tuesday, but since today is the traditional day for evil witches (apologies to the wiccans and other practitioners of the craft) and nasty things that go trump in the night, it seemed appropriate to share a foretaste of the possible horrors awaiting us on November 8 unless the American people miraculously come to their senses. For us Libertarians, it’s kind of like watching one of those horror movie scenes where the soon-to-be-victims can clearly see the shambling monster(s) approaching but just can’t seem to get their act together, and you’re gripping the arms of your chair and mentally screaming, “Run you fools!”

    The website WikiLeaks just keeps proving the value and importance of its new model of journalism. Below is a list of some recent material released by the website associated with international dissident Julian Assange from the hacked email account of John Podesta (Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign chair and former chief of staff to president Bill Clinton), courtesy of http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/new-leaks – perhaps a good site to visit regularly if you’d like to see some of the “most damaging” email leaks for yourself without the filtering of other media or the formidable task of wading through a ton of other WikiLeaks material. Some of the material seems relatively important/incriminating, other items not so much, but it’s all interesting reading… and these are just the highlights of two days worth of leaks! No doubt there’s much more there to be mined.

    My favorite here is the Clinton quote about how they shouldn’t have pushed for Palestinian elections without making an effort to shape their outcome. Both this and the item about Turkish donations are ironically noteworthy, given Clinton’s focus in the debates about alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election to benefit Donald Trump. And the revelation of an illegal joint Clinton/DNC account seems like it’s begging for a lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee by Bernie Sanders, or maybe by his supporters if he lacks the will.

    To balance out the material on Clinton, I’ll also share a nice compendium of Trump’s “greatest hits” by David A. Graham in The Atlantic. “The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet” runs the gamut from dishonest business dealings to the well-known abhorrent treatment of women, to bribery, stiffing workers on their paychecks, and more – http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/donald-trump-scandals/474726/ I’ve copied a few of them below in between the Oct. 28 and Oct. 29 WikiLeaks material. But there were evidently too many skeletons in the closet of the man who’s arguably the most temperamentally unfit candidate to ever be a serious contender for U.S. president, for even an experienced reporter to sort through all the bones, as Graham says nothing about Paul Manafort. In any normal year, this would be a pretty stunning omission. If you don’t know who Manafort is, that’s interesting reading too. His history dovetails very neatly with the complimentary things that the protofascist Trump has had to say about other countries’ dictators:

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

    But speaking of skeletons, I would of course be remiss myself not to mention the very literal skeletons that are rumored to abound in the Clintons’ boudoir, some more credibly than others, but in a disturbingly high totality:

    http://www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com/body-count/clinton-casualties/

    The latest five suspicious deaths have accumulated in just the past few weeks:

    http://www.anonews.co/clinton-body-count/

    If you’ve ever asked yourself – and in light of what Trump has said on the record about women, you really should – “Do I really believe all those women accusing him of assault and rape are just making it up?”, then you should ask yourself a similar question about the Clinton Body Count: “Do I really believe all those individuals close to the Clintons died coincidentally?”

    I was going to try to count them up and determine whether the sexual assault cases outnumber the skeletons or vice-versa, but decided it sounded like too much work. So, no matter which candidate your friends detest more, you can feel comfortable forwarding them this email for Halloween, since there’s something here to scare or revolt everyone. }:-P

    In all seriousness, Clinton and Trump really are the worst duopoly candidates in memory, bar none. Everything one can say about the nauseating quality of the 2-party cartel’s offerings in the 2016 U.S. presidential election feels like an understatement.

    Read more: http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2016/006853.html

  272. JamesT

    Bill Weld is attacking the FBI & defending Hillary. What a complete disgrace he and every delegate that supported him is. I’m just embarrassed to every have been a paying member and registered LP member. party hasn’t even won anything and it’s totally compromised and sold out. Amazing. Just imagine how bad they’d be if they actual won anything.

  273. Thomas L. Knapp

    Serendipity:

    Earlier today I tentatively predicted (better than 50% chance) that Bill Weld will appear on one or more Sunday morning TV news shows and endorse voting for Clinton “because Trump must be stopped.”

    I just had a chat with a friend who is political and who has business connections in Boston. She tells me that there are indeed rumors that he’s planning to do The Full Ginsburg (This Week on ABC, Fox News Sunday, Face the Nation on CBS, Meet the Press on NBC, and Late Edition on CNN), and nobody thinks he would be able to wangle invitations to all five unless he had a real bomb to drop.

  274. Chuck Moulton

    The Gary Johnson lie machine continues defrauding its donors:

    By getting 5% of the vote, the Libertarian Party will get automatic ballot access next election

    I find this repeated egregious deception to line Ron Nielson’s pockets reprehensible. Hopefully they will be punished somehow… perhaps a class action lawsuit from donors.

  275. Andy

    Chuck, you say that Gary Johnson has a lie machine (and I agree with you), but then you say that you intend to reward them by voting for them anyway (which I do not agree with).

    How do you ever intend to clean up the Libertarian Party if you will vote for Libertarian Party candidates no matter what they do?

    This reminds me of the term Yellow Dog Democrat, which is a Democrat who will vote for anyone on their ballot who has the Democrat label next to their name, even if the party were to run a yellow dog for office.

    It looks like we have Yellow Dog Libertarians in the Libertarian Party, and I do not see this as a good thing.

  276. Anthony Dlugos

    Not sure how Weld endorsing Clinton would be like the scorpion and the frog. That would only be appropo in Libertopia, where the LP has the option to grow perfect, sinless Libertarians in a field fertilized by Rothbard droppings, free of any apostasies and incapable of error.

    Of course, back here in the real world, we don’t have that option. I don’t know if Weld is gonna endorse Hillary or not. I CAN tell you that I voted for him in Orlando knowing we had a no better than 50/50 chance of keeping him if we missed the debates, which we did. I doubt very many pragmatics are gonna take the attitude that a Weld defection is fatal to the LP the way the scorpion’s sting was to the frog. Most, if not all of us, realize that defections from one party to the other are just part of the political world. They happen frequently. Deal with it.

    Would a Weld endorsement of Hillary and defection from the LP be disappointing at some level? Sure. Did we get something out of the Weld-LP short term affair? Without question. Not the least of which is a demonstration to libertarian leaning politicians that they aren’t torpedoing their career if they test the waters in the LP. Not to mention a demonstration to Democrats and Progressives that maybe there is something more to the LP than a bunch of right-wing Ron Paul soft core racist nut jobs.

  277. Thomas L. Knapp

    On today’s Jason Stapleton Program, the host has a lot of good stuff as usual. But that’s especially true at about the halfway point.

    At about 28 minutes and 30 seconds in he starts talking about whether or not the LP’s next ticket should take government funding if Johnson/Weld get 5%. He thinks they should (but he doesn’t think they’ll get the opportunity). I disagree that they should and agree that it probably won’t be something that comes up. The segment is worth listening to.

    After that, he makes some very good points about the damage Johnson and Weld are doing to the LP brand. Specifically, he talks about the meltdowns Johnson has been having as Election Day gets closer, where he starts acting like a rabid ape and shouting at reporters. It sort of snuck up on me just how much Gary is turning into the very model of all the “wild man who will scare people” the “pragmatists” kept warning us we would be getting if we chose anyone else.

    http://www.jasonstapleton.com/the-weiner-strikes-again/

  278. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    Actually, a yellow dog Democrat is not someone who would vote Democrat even if they ran a yellow dog. It’s a Democrat who would vote for a yellow dog before he would vote for a Republican. So a Libertarian who runs against a Republican when there is no Democrat in the race has a good shot at the yellow dog Democrat vote.

    As far as “rewarding” Johnson/Weld or the LP with a vote, the fact is that a single vote is a teardrop in a lake. It is not a significant “reward” at the retail level, only in big aggregates. So it really comes down not to its effect on the candidate or campaign, but to the voter’s own values.

    This year I had personal reasons to value the party enough that I was willing to stick with it even though it made a huge mistake. If there had been a libertarian alternative on my ballot or registered as a write-in, it would have been a really tough decision. But there wasn’t. Johnson/Weld were the best option I had, and I wanted to vote. So I did.

  279. NewFederalist

    Who are you voting for, Andy? You certainly don’t have to say because it IS a secret ballot after all.

  280. Chuck Moulton

    If anyone would be willing to publish regular Cliff’s Notes on Joshua Katz’s emails to the LNC business list, please let me know. I stop reading after the 50th rambling paragraph each email.

    He makes Andy Jacobs look concise. They both should get Twitter accounts.

  281. paulie

    If anyone would be willing to publish regular Cliff’s Notes on Joshua Katz’s emails to the LNC business list, please let me know.

    Depends on the pay.

  282. Andy

    I do not see how my post above asking Chuck why he intends to reward the Johnson/Weld campaign with his vote when he says that they have lied multiple times, and that they are bad on multiple issues, was so long that it does not merit an answer.

  283. Andy

    Tom, the best thing that can be done for the Libertarian Party right now is to NOT vote for Johnson/Weld. Let their campaign crash and burn to the point where all of their supporters look bad, and then remember this for the future, and nominate actual libertarian Libertarians next time instead of nominating pretenders.

  284. Andy

    The Johnson/Weld campaign deserves to crash and burn.

    Whatever vote total Johnson/Weld get I bet that it will be less than what the potential was this year.

  285. Andy

    IF I bother to vote this year, which I may or may not do, I will vote for all of the Libertarian Party candidates who are on my ballot in down ticket races.

    When it comes to the presidential part of my ballot, I will do one of the following:
    .
    1) Vote for Constitution Party candidate Darrell Castle.

    2) Write in Darryl W. Perry.

    3) Write in None Of The Above.

    4) Leave the presidential portion of the ballot blank.

    I have not decided which option I am going to take yet, and like I said, I might not even bother to vote this time.

  286. paulie

    Right now it’s on track to about 2%, which is a crash and burn compared with expectations. If Weld does in fact fully formally endorse Clinton on all the Sunday shows it may well be 1% or less and quite possibly less than Stein. What’s more, a Weld endorsement of Clinton may boomerang and help Trump more than Clinton.

  287. Anthony Dlugos

    wow. welp, the Pragmatic Caucus is gonna be on pins and needles until you reveal your decision!

  288. dL

    “more to the LP than a bunch of right-wing Ron Paul soft core racist nut jobs.”

    who in the LP are you accusing of being right-wing racists? Name names. I might be amused by ardent supports of REPUBLICAN carpetbagging throwing around terms like “right-wing” and “racist” to distract from their duplicitous chicanery…then again, I might not be.

  289. Anthony Dlugos

    “who in the LP are you accusing of being right-wing racists?”

    Actually, nobody. Although I know they exist.

    In this case, I was accusing Ron Paul. There was a little matter of some Newsletters.

  290. Matt

    Christopher Cantwell and David Macko come to mind, but I’m sure they aren’t the only ones.

  291. robert capozzi

    tk: The supposed “pragmatists” who have crashed and burned three presidential elections in a row now will of course forget all their predictions of glory and switch to trying to convince everyone that slight movement within the low single digit range, accomplished by taking a wire-wrapped baseball bat to the party’s brand, IS glory.

    me: In my case, I’ve not made predictions. Personally, I’m less concerned with J/W’s percentages in the vote. That the ticket has been taken seriously for much of the cycle has validated the lessarchist approach already. They have “had a say,” as you like to say.

  292. dL

    “Actually, nobody. Although I know they exist.”

    Name names or shut the fuck up with your dirtbag accusations…You said the LP…Ron Paul is a red herring. Last ran as a LP candidate in 1988(30 years ago). I doubt anyone currently in the LP subscribed to his early 90s newsletters, much less knew anything about them at the time. If you were actually concerned about the tinge of right-wing policy and racism infecting the LP TODAY, you wouldn’t be embracing GOP/Republican carpetbagging. That’s an automatic guilt-by-association pipeline.

  293. Andy

    Funny how people keep waving around this “racist” newsletter accusation from more than 20 years ago when it has already come out that the offending newsletter passages were written by a freelance writer named James B. Powell. Out of the total number of newsletters put out under Ron Paul’s name there were only a small handful of issues that contained the controversial remarks (and note that a grand total of ZERO pieces of legislation were ever put forth as a result of said comments) and there were people in the very same media outlets who KNEW that these comments were written by James B. Powell, and they purposely suppressed this information because their true purpose was to smear Ron Paul.

    James B. Powell – author of controversial Ron Paul newsletter

    http://mindbodypolitic.com/2012/01/06/james-b-powell-alleged-to-have-written-racist-paul-newsletter/

  294. dL

    “Christopher Cantwell and David Macko come to mind, but I’m sure they aren’t the only ones.”

    I know who the the first one is…never heard of the second guy. Cantwell, to the best of my knowledge, has never been associated w/ the LP. His association was w/ the Free State Project. He has for some time renounced libertarianism.

    The obvious name, if you want to name names, would be Augustus Invictus. My point–made in the comments many times previously–is that if the pragmaticrats actually succeeded in running off the radicals, the void would not be filled by like-minded pragmaticrats and lessanarchists from the GOP. It would be filled by the likes of the Sun God and the Trump spillover. LOL if anyone thinks they are going to fight off the Hoppebots w/ Gary Johnson and the Aleppo Defense Fund. It would be a rout. What you are seeing in Alaska now…Domino effect. Particularly if they get a sniff of any welfare money.

  295. dL

    “That the ticket has been taken seriously for much of the cycle has validated the lessarchist approach already. They have “had a say,” as you like to say.”

    Taken seriously by whom? The same people who are now claiming wikileaks is a KGB op?

  296. Thomas Knapp

    “Funny how people keep waving around this “racist” newsletter accusation from more than 20 years ago when it has already come out that the offending newsletter passages were written by a freelance writer named James B. Powell.”

    Funny how Ron Paul put the passages out under his own name at the time, cashed the checks of people who paid for them, continued to claim authorship and defend the content years later in 1996, and only started blaming a rogue ghost writer in 2007.

    It’s not that the passages prove Ron Paul is a racist. It’s that Ron Paul’s behavior in relation to the passages proves that Ron Paul is a lying politician.

  297. Andy

    “dL
    November 1, 2016 at 02:36
    ‘Christopher Cantwell and David Macko come to mind, but I’m sure they aren’t the only ones.’

    I know who the the first one is…never heard of the second guy. Cantwell, to the best of my knowledge, has never been associated w/ the LP.”

    Christopher Cantwell was a member of the Libertarian Party for a few years. He even attempted to get on the ballot as a Libertarian Party candidate in New York, either for US House or state legislature (can’t recall which off hand), but he did not get enough valid signatures so did not qualify for the ballot.

    He left the Libertarian Party, but then rejoined a few years later, in 2015, but I think that he only rejoined for one year and then did not renew his membership, so I do not think he is a party member at this point.

  298. Thomas Knapp

    “He left the Libertarian Party, but then rejoined a few years later, in 2015, but I think that he only rejoined for one year and then did not renew his membership, so I do not think he is a party member at this point.”

    If he ever signed the pledge and has not rescinded his signature, he’s been a party member the whole time. Paying $25 a year for a subscription to the LNC’s newsletter is not the criterion of party membership.

  299. robert capozzi

    dL: Taken seriously by whom? The same people who are now claiming wikileaks is a KGB op?

    me: I guess one of the benefits of posting pseudonymously is that non sequiturs and other absurdities won’t stick to you. I’ve not heard that WikiLeaks is a “KGB op,” but even if that were so, how that connects to the noise levels that the J/W have made should be kinda obvious to anyone paying attention.

    Even a vocal J/W critic like TK will acknowledge that TeamGov has gotten unprecedented levels of “earned media.” We even see hard news coverage often, which is REALLY unprecedented for the Ls. To my knowledge, no one accumulates this data, but certainly TeamGov were covered in all the major media in this cycle.

    That to me is to be taken seriously.

    I’m taking it that you travel to the beat of a very different drum, which is grand for you, but I wonder what “taken seriously” means in the mind of dL.

  300. paulie

    You all do realize there’s a November thread now, right? Just checking since I took some time to make one and change the time stamp on this one back to October 1. How about taking the followups over there?

  301. dL

    “Cantwell started off in the Ron Paul cult, but did spend some time as an LP member and candidate.”

    stand corrected..

Leave a Reply

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