American Independent Party Nominee Inaugurated as President

Credit: Getty Images

Today, Chief Justice John Roberts administered the presidential oath of office to businessman Donald Trump, the 2016 presidential nominee of the American Independent Party (AIP) (platform).  Trump was also the nominee of the Republican Party.

The AIP placed Trump on the ballot in California, where he received 4,483,810 votes (31.49%), his third largest statewide total after Texas and Florida.  This was an immense improvement over the party’s 2012 presidential nominee Tom Hoefling, who received 38,372 votes (0.29%).  The party’s previous high in California came from George Wallace who won 487,270 votes (6.72%) in 1968.

Although Trump did not qualify for any electoral votes in California, if he had, according to Richard Winger, Trump would not have been awarded any electoral votes due to clerical error.  Nevertheless, due to his popular vote margins in other states, Trump was able to gain enough electoral votes to win the election.

The AIP is not Trump’s only third party connection.  In 1999, he joined the Reform Party and briefly sought its presidential nomination.  Trump is the first person elected president to have previously been a member of a third party.  President Millard Fillmore was a member of the Anti-Masonic Party before becoming president, but he was not elected, taking office following the death of President Zachary Taylor.

82 thoughts on “American Independent Party Nominee Inaugurated as President

  1. ATBAFT

    Big, whoop; Johnson was actually president of the United States from 1865 to 1869 and again from 1963 to 1969.

  2. AMcCarrick

    Seriously? So should the Working Families Party be declaring victory every time a Democratic governor wins in NY?

  3. paulie

    The Conservative Party of New York also nominated Trump. Had Clinton won, you could have claimed victory for the nominee of the Working Families and Women’s Equality parties. The equivalent could be said in any other presidential year. Trump’s Reform Party connection from 2000 is more unique for US Presidents, however.

  4. William Saturn Post author

    The Working Families Party and the Conservative Party nominate the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees, respectively, in nearly every election. The AIP has never nominated the Republican presidential nominee before.

  5. paulie

    What’s your best guess regarding how many additional votes Trump got due to the AIP nomination that he would not have received if the AIP nominated someone else? My best guess is probably about the number of votes Hoefling got last time, at most, and probably even fewer than that (AIP types find him more to their liking than someone like a Bush, Romney or McCain, so there would have been less incentive for them to go for a third party candidate this year).

  6. paulie

    Or, suppose the Republicans had nominated someone else, but Trump accepted the AIP nomination anyway. I suspect he would have had a lot more votes than a typical AIP nominee, quite likely more votes than George Wallace got in California. However, I still expect he would have gotten a lot fewer votes in CA in that scenario than he actually got in reality.

  7. Deran

    I think considering Trump the victorious AIP candidate is very appropriate. Trump is really the ideological heir to Georgia Wallace.

    Has the AIP gotten any recognition from the crypto-fascist Brietbart or Spencer, Bannon etc?

  8. Andy

    So the American Independent Party latched itself on to Donald Trump, which was of no real benefit to Trump, and now they want to wave this around and act like it some kind of great accomplishment, when in reality, the American Independent Party has not done much of anything in several years. Pathetic.

  9. Andy

    “Curious
    January 22, 2017 at 10:53
    Time to report illegals. Cyberpig Frankel is an illegal, and you may know some others.”

    This is completely false. Paul is a naturalized American citizen. I have seen his Naturalization papers.

    The troll is back with more lies. Throw this bum out of here.

  10. paulie

    It’s not a press release by AIP, it’s an original article by William Saturn.

    Also, thanks for pointing out I’m naturalized, but it’s even better to just ignore the troll(s) completely and give the moderators a chance to catch them and deport them from IPR yet again. They are “illegal” here and we already have a deportation force 🙂

  11. George Dance

    Andy – “So the American Independent Party latched itself on to Donald Trump, which was of no real benefit to Trump, and now they want to wave this around and act like it some kind of great accomplishment, when in reality, the American Independent Party has not done much of anything in several years. Pathetic.”

    Is this the same party that claims everyone who’s registered “Independent” in California as a supporter?

  12. Just Some Random Guy

    I didn’t even know the party was still around. I thought it really only was a vehicle for George Wallace’s presidential run and it died off after that.

  13. paulie

    I didn’t even know the party was still around. I thought it really only was a vehicle for George Wallace’s presidential run and it died off after that.

    They are only in CA now.

    They got over a million votes for their 1972 presidential candidate, Congressman John Schmitz of CA. In 1976 they split into two parties, with the AIP running segregationist ex-governor Lester Maddox of Georgia and the American Party which ran TJ Anderson that year and other tickets which got fewer ballot lines and votes in subsequent years. In 1980 the AIP backed another segregationist, Congressman John Rarick of Louisiana.

    The AIP was briefly affiliated with the Populist Party in the 1980s. In 1992, they became affiliated with the Constitution Party (then called the US Taxpayers Party) and backed the Party’s founder Howard Phillips for president in 1992, 1996 and 2000 and Michael Peroutka in 2004. In 2008, there was a party split between a faction which backed Alan Keyes, which ended up with control of the state ballot line and continues to hold it today, and another faction that continues to support the Constitution Party. I may be wrong, but I think that other faction has given up any real efforts to retake the AIP.

    While the AIP was affiliated with the Constitution Party it allowed the CP to put out false propaganda, claiming to be the third largest national party due to the large number of people registering AIP by mistake in California. They can now no longer make that claim, and with their voter registration tallies as well as their presidential totals, number of ballot lines, etc, well behind the LP and Greens, they are at best the fifth largest party.

    As for the AIP, it continues to be ballot qualified in CA and does run some state and local candidates. However, due to the top two only system, as with all alt parties they rarely ever make it out of the primary anymore. Their 2010 candidate for Governor, anti-migrant activist Chelene Nightingale, got 166,312 votes – 1.65% of the total.

  14. Andy

    Chelene Nightingale’s campaign for Governor in 2010 was the last time the American Independent Party had an significant activity. The AIP has basically been an empty shell since then.

  15. Bruce Smith

    Paulie, you have your history of the AIP correct. I was involved with it briefly, before finding my true political home Libertarian Party in 1972.

  16. Tony From Long Island

    Someone (Billy Sats) wrote this with a straight face? Is this supposed to be taken seriously?

    Paulie: ” . . . Or, suppose the Republicans had nominated someone else, but Trump accepted the AIP nomination anyway. . . . ”

    He would have run as a independent. He would probably called the AIP “lightweights” and a “disaster” while gesticulating his tiny hands.

  17. paulie

    Chelene Nightingale’s campaign for Governor in 2010 was the last time the American Independent Party had an significant activity. The AIP has basically been an empty shell since then.

    There’s not much that any alt party can do electorally on the state and local level (or for that matter in federal races other than president) in CA under top two only. They could act as an endorsement club for non-partisan local candidates, as a political lobbying and pressure organization, as a voter initiative and referendum organization – but they don’t control any ballot line. In the case of the CA AIP, since they never built up any real infrastructure as a party, relying instead on their voter registration (most of which was either a holdover from the original Wallace push or people later checking their box by mistake when they meant to check decline to state a political party) and their resulting control of a ballot line. they wouldn’t be very effective at any of those other things either. The LP and Greens, having built some more party infrastructure in CA, are somewhat more effective at doing those other things but are also obviously hampered greatly by top two only in performing what would normally be their function.

    So, that leaves presidential races. The LP and Greens back their national ticket in the largest electoral state in the country, and having a ticket that is on in a lot of other states gives them a chance to be a part of something that a non-trivial number of people notice. The Peace and Freedom Party, another California holdover from a national party in the 1960s, has some power in determining whether to give its presidential line to the Green Party candidate or to one of several competing Marxist micro-parties. The AIP used to be in the same position as the LP and GP back when they allied with the CP, but not so since 2008. Running their own candidate that’s on the ballot in a trivial number of states, as in 2008 and 2012, and gets very, very little media attention as a result, even by alt party standards, obviously doesn’t do much for them.

    So what about cross-endorsing the Republican candidate? I don’t think that did much of anything for them as an organization either. As far as I know it gathered very little attention from the media. As far as I can remember, the biggest media attention that the AIP got recently was negative, in the form of the LA Times doing an investigation that proved what many of us knew for a long time, that the vast majority of the AIP’s multitude or registered voters in CA did not realize that they were affiliated with a party at all, did not agree with the AIP’s views and did not wish to be affiliated with the AIP.

    As far as I can tell the Trump endorsement did not do much for them, did not do much for Trump (ie, as I said above, he pretty much certainly would have had the vast majority of the votes he got in CA without them), and did not do anything to change the fact that unless Top Two Only is somehow overturned they are stuck dead in the water in CA politics. Furthermore, it is my understanding that what little active membership they have is mostly made up of elderly people, and that they are making no efforts to speak of, if any at all, to re-establish a national party or national affiliation with another party. There have been meetings and negotiations with the CP several times which went nowhere.

  18. paulie

    Paulie, you have your history of the AIP correct.

    I should mention that I refreshed my memory with wikipedia. I knew almost all of that already, but no, I did not have Nightingale’s exact vote count and percentage memorized, LOL.

  19. paulie

    Someone (Billy Sats) wrote this with a straight face? Is this supposed to be taken seriously?

    Maybe. At the very least it was meant to spark comments, which it has.

    He would have run as a independent

    That’s very expensive to qualify that way in CA and the deadline may have already been past at that point. Despite the image Trump likes to portray of himself as a gazillionaire with practically unlimited wealth, in reality he is not as wealthy as he makes out – most of his estimated net worth is literally his own assessment of the value of his name – and the vast majority of the rest is tied up in non-liquid assets. So, my guess is that if he had gone the non-duopoly route, he would have cut the costs by accepting the ballot lines of whatever state parties would offer it to him before going for the others by the easiest possible method in each state. As is typical of Trump’s treatment of other contractors over the years, there probably would have been a lot of petitioners and petition companies left being owed money.

  20. Andy

    The American Independent Party was not doing much even before Top Two Primary passed. The Libertarian and Green parties were more active in California.

    This does not mean that the AIP could not have done more in California. Even in lefty dominated California, there are still a lot of people who agree with their views, it is just that most people have no idea who the AIP is, or that they even exist, and the AIP has done a piss poor job of trying to reach people. They have chosen to sit back and coast on their over-inflated voter registration numbers, which has happened due to lots of people checking their box on the voter registration form, with these people thinking they are registering as independents.

    Severing ties with the Constitution Party has been bad for both the Constitution Party and the AIP, which is why I suspect that this was internal sabotage.

  21. paulie

    Severing ties with the Constitution Party has been bad for both the Constitution Party and the AIP,

    Absolute disaster for both.

  22. Antirevolutionary

    The American Solidarity Party in California is going to try to take advantage of the Top Two system by becoming the main opposition party in areas dominated by Republicans and also in areas dominated by Democrats. It will be a major effort, one that the AIP isis not equipped to take on.

  23. Richard Winger

    The California independent presidential petition deadline is in mid-August, so if Trump had run as an independent he could have got on. The number of signatures is very high, but Rocky De La Fuente has a strong lawsuit pending against that number of signatures. For 2020 it is between 180,000 and 190,000.

  24. paulie

    It’s certainly a non-trivial barrier. I remember Nader had problems with it when he ran as an independent. Also as far as the loss of CA being a disaster for the CP…while it is true that Castle got the party’s best ever raw numbers for president they still didn’t increase their results by as much of a factor as the LP and GP did. Given that alt parties all over the political map, and write-ins wherever allowed, were also way up in 2016, I would ascribe Castle’s out=performing past CP nominees to that. California is still a big problem for them.

  25. Andy

    Darrell Castle did way better than Rocky de la Fuente, and he did this with way less money than the amount that de la Fuente spent.

  26. paulie

    That’s because of the work the CP and its past candidates did over the past 25 years building up their name recognition as a party. As for Rocky, he was not someone a lot of people had heard of. He was running, depending on the state, as either an independent, an American Delta Party candidate (which sounds goofy and doesn’t communicate anything at all to most voters) or a Reform Party candidate. So his party label or lack thereof did not help really him at all. And while he did spend a lot of money, it was as far as I know all or almost all on ballot access, so it shouldn’t be surprising that Castle got significantly more votes than Rocky.

  27. Tony From Long Island

    Paulie: ” . . . .Trump likes to portray of himself as a gazillionaire with practically unlimited wealth, in reality he is not as wealthy as he makes out – most of his estimated net worth is literally his own assessment of the value of his name . . . . ”

    This is very likely true. Another reason (among many) he refuses to release his tax returns. Oh . . . they’re “under audit.” I forgot. He also doesn’t release the form letter you receive informing you that you are under audit. Or release his returns from . . . say . . . five years ago . . .

  28. Andy

    I bet that Donald Trump could easily get on the ballot in California as an independent. He could pay for the entire petition drive out of his own pocket, but he probably wouldn’t have to pay for 100% of it, because I bet that he’d get willing donors, and I’d bet that he’d get a fair number of volunteer signatures as well.

    Ralph Nader did not make the ballot in California for two reasons in 2004. 1) He waited too long to get started (by the time he started in California, the statewide initiatives were over, and there were just a few local initiatives going on, and by that point, most of the good petitioners had either left California for petition drives in others states), and 2) the anti-Nader hysteria that was going on at the time with the claim being made that Nader had cost Al Gore the election in 2000.

    The Nader campaign realized that they were not going to make it in California so they pulled the plug on it after a few weeks.

  29. Tony From Long Island

    [blockquote] ” . . . . independent, an American Delta Party candidate (which sounds goofy and doesn’t communicate anything at all to most voters) or a Reform Party candidate. So his party label or lack thereof did not help really him at all. . . . . [/blockquote]

    “Reform Party” doesn’t communicate anything either.

  30. paulie

    Ahhh . . . I messed up the quote thingie again

    Angle brackets (on the same keys as the comma and period, at least on this keyboard). AKA the less than/greater than symbols. Otherwise you did it right.

  31. paulie

    “Reform Party” doesn’t communicate anything either.

    Voters tend to skew older, so most voters probably still remember Perot, or learning about him later for those who are younger. But then, for those who really do remember (or study) that time, there’s the shit show the Reform Party turned into in 2000 with everyone from commies to Pat Buchanan to followers of the Maharishi and everyone in between, around, below and above fighting it out for the federal campaign money. So yeah, it doesn’t communicate very much either. Reform in which direction? What kind of reform? It tells me about as much about someone I never heard of’s policy views as “Delta” (an obscure way of saying change, ie Reform) and independent. He may as well have been the Different Party. Different how?

  32. paulie

    I bet that Donald Trump could easily get on the ballot in California as an independent. He could pay for the entire petition drive out of his own pocket, but he probably wouldn’t have to pay for 100% of it, because I bet that he’d get willing donors, and I’d bet that he’d get a fair number of volunteer signatures as well.

    Oh I am sure he could have paid for it, but would he have? He tends to be pretty cheap so my guess is no. He also has a long history of stiffing people, so I for one would have stayed far away from that one, and that’s before we even consider my personal feelings about the candidate…just from a business standpoint, it would have been a bad risk. And it would have had to pay well – not something Trump is known for – given all the people who hate Trump from both the left and the right as well as the ones who would be concerned about him splitting their votes. It would have been a real pain to work on, what with catching all the abuse from the public and wondering if you would get paid at all, and most likely a low rate that would not compensate for the job conditions or the risk. My guess is still that he would have taken the AIP and other such nominations and saved the money instead.

  33. Andy

    Paul said: “But then, for those who really do remember (or study) that time, there’s the shit show the Reform Party turned into in 2000 with everyone from commies to Pat Buchanan to followers of the Maharishi and everyone in between, around, below and above fighting it out for the federal campaign money.”

    This could be the future of the Libertarian Party if it accepts federal funding.

  34. Andy

    “and there were just a few local initiatives going on, and by that point, most of the good petitioners had either left California for petition drives in others states),”

    I neglected to add that out of the petition circulators who did not leave California for other states by the time the Ralph Nader independent presidential candidate petition came out in 2004, a lot of them were not that good of petition circulators, and/or they had other jobs, and since all of the other statewide petitions were over, some of them did not even want to work the Ralph Nader petition, especially since the public was burned out on petitions by that point, since there had been 12 statewide ballot initiative petition circulating earlier in 2004, not too long before the Nader petition came out. Factor the burn out factor with the anti-Nader hysteria that was going on at that time, and the Nader petition was difficult to get signed in California.

    I worked on the California ballot initiatives that year, but I left the state after the statewide initiative petitions ended, but even though I was not in the state at the time that the Nader petition came out in California, I still followed what was going on there, so I was aware that it was out, and I had heard that it was difficult to get signed.

    I remember going back to California later that year and being in the petition office that I worked out of at the time, which was run by a husband and wife duo. I remember a conversation that took place where the wife recounted what happened during the Ralph Nader petition, and how there weren’t that many petitioners working on it (as I said above, most of the good petitioners left the state after the statewide ballot initiative petitions ended to work on petition drives that were going on elsewhere prior to the Nader petition hitting the street in California), and how they were having a difficult time getting it signed. She said that Ralph Nader actually called her and asked her why the numbers were so weak and what they could do to increase the production. She said that she replied, “Mr. Nader, to be honest with you, I don’t think that the people of California want you to be on the ballot.” The Nader petition ended up shutting down in California not too long after this, as Ralph Nader realized that he was not going successfully obtain enough valid signatures to make the ballot by the deadline.

    The regional coordinator woman in California whom I mentioned above was a Democrat who was supporting John Kerry for President, so I wondered if her comment had anything to do with that. Even if it did, this played little role in the Nader petition failing in California, because there were other factors at play at the time which pretty much guaranteed that that petition drive was going to fail. Her husband was a Republican who was supporting the re-election of George W. Bush. However, like most people in the petition business, they were really mercenaries who’d work on pretty much anything for money, so party labels and philosophy mean little to most of these people. They told me that they only turned down two petitions in the many years that they’d been in the business, but they did not turn them down for philosophical reasons, but rather because they felt that the issues were too controversial, and that they could have led to problems, like petition circulators getting beaten up, or to at least getting into a much higher number of arguments in public than normal.

  35. Tony From Long Island

    Paul said: “But then, for those who really do remember (or study) that time, there’s the shit show the Reform Party turned into in 2000 with everyone from commies to Pat Buchanan to followers of the Maharishi and everyone in between, around, below and above fighting it out for the federal campaign money.”

    ANDY: This could be the future of the Libertarian Party if it accepts federal funding.

    Apples and oranges! The “reform” party meant nothing. I disagree a bit with Paulie here. With the “Libertarian” party, you at least know right away what the ideology of the party is. It isn’t based on one person or one previous candidacy. The LP is a long-established party.

    Andy apparently is content with the LP remaining a party that celebrates 4% in the vote. I would think most party members would not be as content. Money to expand the reach of a message would be an asset and not a liability.

  36. paulie

    With the “Libertarian” party, you at least know right away what the ideology of the party is. It isn’t based on one person or one previous candidacy. The LP is a long-established party.

    I don’t think we know right away what the ideology is. Everyone from Bill Clinton to Dubya to Mike Gravel to David Duke described themselves, or was described by others, as a libertarian at one time or another. Bob Barr got the LP nomination, and there is little evidence that his views changed from where he was a stereotypical conservative Republican before or after that. Wayne Root got the VP and might have had the presidential nomination if Johnson had not popped up, and his views are a lot like Trump’s. Mike Gravel came over from the far left of the Democratic Party, didn’t change one thing, and was a contender for the LP nomination. If Trump hadn’t secured the Republican nomination, could Roger Stone have gotten him the LP nomination? Quite likely yes. Bill Weld, basically a Bush/Romney type politically, got the VP nomination. Do you see it as implausible that he could get the presidential nomination next time if he wants it?

    Suppose a Romney or Bush show up themselves, or a Hillary Clinton if the Democrats take a sharp left turn. Does the LP have enough of a core to turn them down? I wouldn’t necessarily say so. They don’t care about the pledge or the platform that much, it’s just meaningless words on paper to them. They only need to sign a very small check to the LP, bring a few dozen supporters as delegates, bamboozle a few hundreds others with tall tales about permanent ballot access, massive donations, increased votes for downballot candidates, etc, etc. Maybe make a few vaguely nonspecific libertarianish noises from the stage. Cherrypick from their record. Maybe attend a few state conventions, maybe not even that. Have a few LP toadies going around asking whether we want to be a serious party and really win, and whether we want to be so purist as to exclude people who were not always libertarians and don’t always agree 100%. And voila, they have the nomination and save millions on ballot access.

    Just throw a few million dollars of federal welfare into the mix and watch what kind of rent-seekers the party attracts to seek that presidential nomination. I think it will look a lot like the Reform Party death race 2000, and I am not nearly as convinced as you are that the LP is built to withstand it.

    Andy apparently is content with the LP remaining a party that celebrates 4% in the vote. I would think most party members would not be as content. Money to expand the reach of a message would be an asset and not a liability.

    Well, yeah, but you seem to take “a message” as some sort of given, whereas I see it as a constant battle that keeps having to be fought and refought, and that we may not have the resources to fight if a few million dollars are dropped out of the sky to fight it out for.

  37. Andy

    Paul said: “Quite likely yes. Bill Weld, basically a Bush/Romney type politically, got the VP nomination. Do you see it as implausible that he could get the presidential nomination next time if he wants it?”

    If something like this happens in 2020, I think that it will probably be time to shut the Libertarian Party down.

    We’ve had three presidential elections in a row where our presidential tickets have not really been anything that resembles a strong philosophically libertarian Libertarian Party presidential ticket.

    Seriously, if we can’t nominate anyone for President and Vice President in 2020 that most libertarian activists would actually recognize as being at least fairly solid libertarian, there is a strong argument for the party to not continue to exist.

    Sure, we could continue to run real libertarian Libertarians for offices other than President, but the presidential ticket are our most high profile candidates, and most of the public identifies a political party by who they run for President, and I am sick and tired of the party running candidates for President and Vice President who I do not believe represent me, or accurately represent the party and the philosophy for which the party is SUPPOSED to stand.

    I’m not demanding perfection. The perfect candidate probably does not exist. I’m not demanding that a candidate has to agree with me on every detail of every issue. I just want somebody who I consider to be “libertarian enough” to represent the party and the philosophy to the public. I want somebody who I don’t have to make apologies for during and after the election.

    I enthusiastically supported the Libertarian Party presidential ticket in 1996, 2000, and 2004, but it has been down hill since then. I have not even voted for the Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket since 2004, but I don’t think that the Libertarian Party has even had a presidential ticket since 2004 that could even reasonably be called libertarian.

    So how about this, either the party nominate a philosophically stronger libertarian Libertarian Party presidential ticket in 2020, or the party just shut down?

    Thoughts?

  38. paulie

    Thoughts?

    The party is not going to shut down, at least not unless we get martial law, governmental collapse, human extinction, or something else that far-ranging. You can choose to be more or less involved in it, including not at all. You can stay and fight to make it as good as we can manage to make it or you can try starting a different party (previous experience with this shows it’s not likely to go well). You could go be a “Liberty Republican” or an independent.

    Alternatively, you can just pay less attention to it and channel your energies into other things. There are a lot of political groups and activities and ways of spreading your ideas besides political parties. You may want to pursue some of those more. Constantly going on about how terrible you believe the last few LP national tickets have been and how you are pissed off and disappointed in the party in all sorts of ways does not make you friends and influence people. On the contrary, it makes a lot of people in the party tune you out because you are so overwhelmingly negative (and long-winded) so much of the time. For some of them, it makes them want to not do business with you, even though you are an excellent petitioner.

    My other thought is that we’ll be lucky if we don’t get a presidential candidate in 2020 who is even less libertarian than Weld, but maybe I’m too pessimistic there. It may be all be irrelevant anyway (cycle back to start of comment).

  39. Andy

    “paulie
    January 25, 2017 at 14:23
    ‘Thoughts?’
    The party is not going to shut down, at least not unless we get martial law, governmental collapse, human extinction, or something else that far-ranging. You can choose to be more or less involved in it, including not at all.”

    Maybe a mechanism to shut the party down ought to be put in place, like either an actual libertarian Libertarian Party presidential ticket get nominated in 2020, or some kind of automatic shutdown process begins, which could be implemented via signed contracts prior to the convention.

    I understand that implementing this is far easier said than done, but really, what is the point of the party continuing to exist if it nominates another turd of a presidential ticket that does not even come close to representing the Libertarian Party platform and philosophy?

    We have had three presidential election cycles now where the party nominated presidential tickets that are not really that libertarian, if libertarian at all. Do we really want to do this for a fourth election cycle?

    “Alternatively, you can just pay less attention to it and channel your energies into other things. ”

    Here is the problem with this, and I discussed this with somebody recently who left the LP several years ago, because they saw the direction in which the party was headed and they did not like it, so they quit. That is that even if a person quits the Libertarian Party, if they are still involved with the libertarian movement, even as a non-voter, they can still be tarnished by what people in the Libertarian Party do. The word libertarian has gotten more popular, and more people know that it means, or at least have a basic understand that it means somebody who wants more freedom. If you are involved in the freedom movement in any way, lots of people will still consider you to be a libertarian, even if you use another word to describe yourself, be that word anarchist, anarcho-capitalist, voluntaryist, freedom fighter, etc…

    So unless one just quits being any kind of advocate for liberty, one is going to be affected by what happens in the Libertarian Party, especially when it comes to the Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket, since running a presidential ticket is the highest profile thing that the Libertarian Party does.

    I think that a hard line stance needs to be taken for the 2020 Libertarian National Convention. The party ABSOLUTELY MUST nominate a ticket that is at least reasonably solid philosophically libertarian in 2020. No more excuses. No more bullshit. No more Bob Barr/Wayne Root/Gary Johnson/Jim Gray/Bill Weld, or anyone like them.

    Take a hard line stance in 2020. Act as though it may be the final battle for liberty in the Libertarian Party. The battle starts right now, and the first big battle is going to be the “Battle for New Orleans” in 2018 (as in the 2018 National Convention), and those of us left in the party who still consider liberty to be a priority need to go to that convention prepared for war.

  40. paulie

    Maybe a mechanism to shut the party down ought to be put in place,

    I’d have to check the national bylaws again but I think it’s already in place. In fact, I remember we had a motion like that at one of the state conventions in Alabama a few years ago. Chances of it happening? I would bet heavily against. Of course, you must be referring to the national party, since many state parties would continue to exist with or without the LNC and would still have the ability to put a presidential candidate – either the same one or different ones in different states – on the ballot, with or without the LNC. And if the LNC did somehow shut down, they also could not stop other state parties in states that don’t already have a ballot qualified LP from forming and calling themselves Libertarian. Nor could a self-terminating LNC prevent those state parties from creating a new association. So, even if your fantasy somehow happened, which is extremely unlikely to say the least, it would still not achieve your stated goal here.

    Do we really want to do this for a fourth election cycle?

    That depends on what the meaning of “we” is.

    I think that a hard line stance needs to be taken for the 2020 Libertarian National Convention. The party ABSOLUTELY MUST nominate a ticket that is at least reasonably solid philosophically libertarian in 2020. No more excuses. No more bullshit. No more Bob Barr/Wayne Root/Gary Johnson/Jim Gray/Bill Weld, or anyone like them.

    Take a hard line stance in 2020. Act as though it may be the final battle for liberty in the Libertarian Party.

    OK so suppose you fight such a battle and lose. Not nearly as much of a stretch of the imagination as the party voting to create a mechanism to dissolve itself (and how, exactly, would such a mechanism gauge whether the 2020 nominees will be libertarian enough or not, even in theory? I’m already sorry I’m asking but I’ll ask anyway).

    So imagine, here you are, it’s 2020 and the party has nominated a ticket that you don’t find acceptable for a fourth time in a row. What the LP does still impacts the whole movement. Now what? What’s your next move? Because you can just as easily say 2016 was the make or break last battle, or 2024, or 2028. Seriously, what’s your plan B if you fight this battle and lose?

  41. Andy

    Paul said: “That depends on what the meaning of ‘we’ is.”

    “We” in this context represents a large group of people who are Libertarian Party members, or small “l” libertarians, who have been dissatisfied with the last three Libertarian Party presidential tickets.

    I think that most of us understand that perfect candidates do not exist, and I think that most of us are willing to support/vote for candidates who do not agree with us on every detail of every issue (such a candidate probably does not exist unless people run themselves).

    It should be apparent that there has been something wrong with our presidential tickets for the last three elections when the candidates who are on those tickets would be the least, or close to the least, libertarian people in the room at pretty much any Libertarian Party or libertarian movement meeting or convention.

    I have attended lots of Libertarian Party and libertarian movement meetings and conventions over the years, and I can say with certainty that the candidates we’ve had on our last three presidential tickets would be the least, or close to the least, philosophically libertarian people in the room, perhaps barring venue staff or other people there who are not part of the group that is there for the meeting/convention, at every Libertarian Party or libertarian movement meeting or convention which I have ever attended.

    So can we at least nominate a presidential ticket in 2020 that is as libertarian as the average Libertarian party or movement meeting/convention goer? Is this too much to ask?

  42. Andy

    Paul said: “OK so suppose you fight such a battle and lose. Not nearly as much of a stretch of the imagination as the party voting to create a mechanism to dissolve itself (and how, exactly, would such a mechanism gauge whether the 2020 nominees will be libertarian enough or not, even in theory? I’m already sorry I’m asking but I’ll ask anyway).”

    Lose should not be in our vocabulary right now. Top pro fighters and other professional athletes do not think about losing, they think about winning. One thing that causes them to lose is when they start thinking about losing, and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

    We are going to WIN in 2020. We are going to WIN because we are going to stack the 2020 national convention with more convention delegates. We are going to be more organized, and we are going to get more solid libertarian Libertarians to come to the convention. We are going to spend more time vetting candidates, and we are even going to recruit candidates who are more solid libertarian if we have to do so.

    Again, when I say “we.” I mean everyone out there who believes that the last three Libertarian Party presidential tickets have been too weak philosophically. “We” may not agree on everything, but I think that “we” can all agree on this.

    I doubt that a perfect candidate exists, and I doubt that “we” even agree on what a perfect candidate is, and I think that most of us are willing to support candidates who don’t agree with “us” on every detail of every issue, but I think that “we” can all agree that the Libertarian Party can and should do better.

    Do “we” all agree that Harry Browne and Michael Badnarik were more libertarian than all of the candidates who have been on the LP’s presidential ticket since then?

    I think that this is something that all of “us” can agree on, right?

  43. Luke

    “the candidates who are on those tickets would be the least, or close to the least, libertarian people in the room at pretty much any Libertarian Party or libertarian movement meeting or convention.”

    Are you sure? How comprehensively did you poll all the different people in all the different delegations regarding their views?

  44. Luke

    “We are going to WIN in 2020. We are going to WIN because we are going to stack the 2020 national convention with more convention delegates. We are going to be more organized, and we are going to get more solid libertarian Libertarians to come to the convention. We are going to spend more time vetting candidates, and we are even going to recruit candidates who are more solid libertarian if we have to do so.”

    I hear bluster, but I don’t hear a plan. I would be surprised if these are not all things you said in 2013. You haven’t explained how your hypothetical self-destruct mechanism would work as far as determining whether or not the next set of nominees are libertarian enough. You haven’t explained how you would keep state LPs from putting them on the ballot, or forming a new association to help them qualify in additional states, even if the current national association of state LPs dissolved itself using such a hypothetical mechanism. You haven’t explained how exactly you will go about changing who chooses to go, and/or is selected by various states to go, as delegates next time around. You have a lot of passion, but it takes a lot more than just passion to win political battles.

    You seem to be rhetorically painting yourself into a corner. That’s why you don’t have a plan for what you will do if you lose. Maybe you’ll go get involved with the Constitution Party or the American Freedom Party or something? Maybe you’ll finally cross that barrier between making excuses for Trump and fully supporting him. Maybe you’ll suffer so much cognitive dissonance that you will find yourself curled up in a fetal position, rocking back and forth and sucking your thumb, whenever the subject comes up or the issue crosses your mind. Which will be pretty much all the time. But, most likely of all, you’ll find yourself right here, or on some other similar forum, making the same kinds of comments about “THE REAL FINAL BATTLE FOR REAL THIS TIME !!!” about 2024.

  45. Andy

    Paul said: “And it would have had to pay well – not something Trump is known for – given all the people who hate Trump from both the left and the right as well as the ones who would be concerned about him splitting their votes. It would have been a real pain to work on, what with catching all the abuse from the public and wondering if you would get paid at all, and most likely a low rate that would not compensate for the job conditions or the risk. My guess is still that he would have taken the AIP and other such nominations and saved the money instead.”

    There are a few states where there are mandatory petition requirements for even the big major party presidential candidates. The Donald Trump campaign did hire paid petition circulators to gather signatures to get on the ballot in those states, well, they actually hired an established mercenary petition coordinator who then hired petition circulators to gather signatures to put Donald Trump on the ballot in the Republican primaries. I don’t know how much Trump paid to the mercenary petition coordinator, but my guess is that the coordinator likely pocketed a pretty nice override, but even so, it was still a pretty good deal for the petition circulators. I know that in some states the petition ciruclators for Trump were getting $3.50 per signature, plus all of their expenses were paid by the Trump campaign (motels, travel to and from state, rental cars, gas, tolls). I know that in one state there were a couple of districts that were more heavily Democratic, and they were having trouble qualifying in those districts, so they paid people $7 per signature to do door-to-door petition signature gathering with a walk list of registered voters in those districts. I recall hearing that they were paying something like $5 per signature plus expenses in a state where only registered Republicans could sign the petition.

    I only know of two petition circulators who got stiffed on any pay on the Donald Trump petitions, but Donald Trump and his campaign staff had absolutely nothing to do with this. I know what happened in each situation, and the petition circulators did nothing wrong in either situation, and both of them should have been paid in full (I know both of them, and I know they are both good), but without getting into the details of what happened, them getting shorted on pay had NOTHING to do with Donald Trump or his campaign staff (they probably do not even have any knowledge of the situations).

    Other petition circulators who worked on the Donald Trump petitions walked away happy.

    I heard that the Donald Trump campaign was hiring canvassers to go to Nevada to do get out the vote for Donald Trump. They were getting paid an hourly pay rate, I think it was like $18-$20 per hour, or something like that, to go knock on doors in neighborhoods and ask people if they were going to vote for Donald Trump, and to urge them to go to the polls to vote for him, and they were also hanging Donald Trump door hangers on people’s door knobs. I don’t think that these people were working directly for the Trump campaign, as I heard that there was another mercenary petition coordinator involved (different one than mentioned above), so I think that the Trump campaign contracted with this mercenary coordinator, and it was the mercenary coordinator who hired the canvassers. I heard that they paid for travel to and from Nevada, and that paid for motels and rentals cars, possibly gas as well. I later heard that people who came in from out of Nevada to work on this got to stay for free at the Trump hotel in Las Vegas. That would have been nice.

    I am not sure if the Trump campaign hired door-to-door get out the vote canvassers in any other states besides Nevada.

    I had a phone number to call if I wanted to go to Nevada to canvass for Trump, but since I was not on the Trump bandwagon, I did not call it. There was an unrelated statewide ballot initiative going on in Nevada at the same time as the Trump canvassing (it was for automatic voter registration for all who are eligible to vote and who have a Nevada drivers license or state ID card). I thought about going in for that, but I did not think that it was paying enough to merit traveling a long distance (I was a long way away from Nevada at that time), and then they raised the pay a little bit, but I was still leery of it, so I did not go. It was probably a good thing that I did not go, because I heard that a punch of people got ripped off at the end, and that petitioners were getting scammed out of money on validity. Early voting is big in Nevada, and I know three good petition circulators who worked there who exclusively worked early voting places after the early voting places opened, and they were all told that their validity was a lot lower than it should have been at an early voting place, and this was used as an excuse to dock their pay. I believe that these people got ripped off. Petitioners were told that their final pay is delayed, and it has been over 2 months since it ended, and last I heard, people are still owed on that final pay. Who knows if they will get it or not, and if they do get it, who knows if it will actually be for the right amount or not?

    I also heard that former New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, and his anti-gun rights group(s), Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and/or Every Town For Gun Safety, were hiring door-to-door get out the vote canvassers in Nevada. I’m not sure if they were paying canvassers directly through the campaign, or if this was through some mercenary coordinator. They were paying people to go door-to-door in neighborhoods to encourage people to vote yes on a gun control initiative that was being voted on in that election. I think that they were also paying canvassers something like $18-$20 per hour. There was NO WAY IN HELL I’d have any interest in working on something like this (note that I was in Nevada in 2014 when this initiative petition circulated, and I was one of the very few people who REFUSED to work on it, as there was a marijuana legalization initiative going on at the same time, which meant that because I stuck to principle, I earned about half as much money as I could have). I called up the campaign that was organized to vote encourage people to vote against the gun control measure to see if they wanted to hire door-to-door get out the vote canvassers, and unfortunately they said that they did not have the money (which is too bad, because their side lost by a narrow margin, although fortunately, I recently heard that the FBI has told them that they are unable to expend the resources to help them implement this new gun control law, so at least they are not getting any help from the FBI, at least for now).

  46. Andy

    “Luke
    January 25, 2017 at 16:08
    ‘the candidates who are on those tickets would be the least, or close to the least, libertarian people in the room at pretty much any Libertarian Party or libertarian movement meeting or convention.’

    Are you sure? How comprehensively did you poll all the different people in all the different delegations regarding their views?”

    I’ve attended a lot of Libertarian Party and libertarian movement meetings and conventions over the years, in a lot of states, and I’ve talked to a lot of people, so I feel very confident in sayings this, as I believe that my “sample” is more than large enough to make this statement.

  47. paulie

    Other petition circulators who worked on the Donald Trump petitions walked away happy.

    So they got lucky. So what? I still would not have considered it worth the risk, given how many people I have known over the years who have been ripped off doing various kinds of contract work for the Donald. Tremendous numbers of people, believe me. Huge. A lot of them got ripped off big league. A lot of people think I said bigly when I tell them how much all of these tremendous, huge numbers of people that have been left holding the bag after they did work for Mr. Trump got ripped off, but I am actually saying big league. Big league. Get it right, people!

    Anyways, when Paul said “…given all the people who hate Trump from both the left and the right as well as the ones who would be concerned about him splitting their votes. It would have been a real pain to work on, what with catching all the abuse from the public and wondering if you would get paid at all… My guess is still that he would have taken the AIP and other such nominations and saved the money instead” that was exactly what Paul meant. I just checked with Paul, and Paul continues to stand by that. Big league, hugely, tremendously and 1,000%. Not 998%, not 999%, but 1,000%.

  48. paulie

    I’ve attended a lot of Libertarian Party and libertarian movement meetings and conventions over the years, in a lot of states, and I’ve talked to a lot of people, so I feel very confident in sayings this, as I believe that my “sample” is more than large enough to make this statement.

    I’ve attended a lot of LP meetings and conventions and talked to a lot of people there too, and my sense is that a lot of them are really not all that libertarian, they just swept up in a temporary period of frustration with their regular party (most often the Republicans) before either going back there or moving past the LP into anti-electoral anarchism, single issue advocacy, or cynical non-activism.

  49. Andy

    Luke said: “You seem to be rhetorically painting yourself into a corner. That’s why you don’t have a plan for what you will do if you lose.”

    I have some plans and I ideas. This is too much typing to do write now. I have done more typing today than I really wanted to do already.

    Also, I don’t claim to have all of the answers. I hope that others will join me, and I welcome their input and help.

    “Maybe you’ll go get involved with the Constitution Party”

    I have toyed with the idea of getting involved with the Constitution Party before. Why haven’t I done it? The main reason is that I’m an anarcho-capitalist / voluntaryist at heart. I don’t really believe in any coercive government.

    I do think that if government is going to exist, that we’d be better off if the government actually followed the Constitution, so from this standpoint, you could sort of call me a constitutionalist, but I also recognize that the Constitution is a flawed document, as it has left big holes for abuses to take place, and that it is also not a valid contract, since nobody living today signed it, and even when it came out, the only people who signed it were those who attended the constitutional convention, and there is evidence that it was a coup to create a more centralized government.

    The Constitution Party does have a more libertarian wing, of which I am sympathetic, but they also have people who are too conservative for me. I’m for legalized drugs, porn, prostitution, and gambling, and I think that gays should be able to get married (although I don’t think they have a right to force businesses to sell them goods or services). I’m opposed to censorship. Even though I think that there’s lots of propaganda on TV and in movies, government censorship of the arts is not the answer. I consider the police and military to be thug enforcers for the state, which means the politicians and their handlers. I sometimes cuss and tell dirty jokes. I don’t take part in religion (unless you consider advocating for individual freedom to be a religion). I oppose government managed trade deals (like the TPP, etc…), but I am ultimately in favor of actual free trade.

    Another factor is that the Constitution Party is in worse shape, and even more dysfunctional than the LP.

    Is there any scenario that could see me getting involved in the Constitution Party? IF the Libertarian Party continues nominating unprincipled candidates for President, and IF somebody that I thought was really good ran for the Constitution Party’s nomination (and it would HAVE to be somebody who is a libertarian leaning constitutionalist), then yes, at that point I may do it, IF the right candidate emerged, just like I would not normally support somebody running as a Republican, but I strongly supported Ron Paul in the Republican primaries, or I would hypothetically support an independent candidate over the LP candidate, IF the LP nominated a crappy candidate, and IF there was an independent running that had strong libertarian views.

    “or the American Freedom Party or something?”

    This is a laughable question on multiple levels. Funny how it was asked by “Luke,” which is almost certainly a fake name and a possible troll.

    “Maybe you’ll finally cross that barrier between making excuses for Trump and fully supporting him. ”

    I don’t think that I’ve made any “excuses” for Trump. I make observations, some good, some bad, and most of my comments about Trump have been negative.

    If I thought Trump was really a good guy I’d have voted for him, and I’d have advocated that others do so, neither of which did.

    I am still a Trump skeptic. There are plenty of reasons to be leery of Trump, from things he’s done in the past, to some of the people he has appointed to his administration, and to some statements that he made.

    I actually hope that I’m wrong about Trump. It would be best for everybody if Trump turns out to be a good guy, or at least a not-so-bad guy.

    Just because Trump has already done a few good things as President, and just because I pointed them out, it does NOT mean that I think that his administration is going to be a positive thing, or even a net positive. I gave Barack Obama credit for (finally) releasing Chelsea Manning from prison, but this does not mean that I think that Obama was a good President, far from it (I’d call him among the worst ever). Donald Trump would have to do a heck of a lot more in the direction of liberty for there to be any possibility of me supporting him. Maybe he will surprise us, or maybe not, time will tell.

    There are people whom I consider to be allies who voted for Trump, and I’ve got other people I consider to be allies who voted for Gary Johnson. Should I disown all of them? I don’t automatically throw people under a bus for having a different opinion than me, or for pursing a different strategy than I am pursing.

  50. Luke

    “This is a laughable question on multiple levels. ”

    On the contrary it may just be the party for you. A lot of their rhetoric is paleo-libertarian in a Ron Paulish type of way. They are not as religious as the Constitution Party.

    It was you, Andy, who wrote “So are we just supposed to sit back and allow demographic shifts to take place that are DESTROYING the right to keep and bear arms, and pushing us into even more of a socialist state than we’ve already got?” but it could have been anyone from the American Freedom Party. They are very concerned with demographic shifts over there, and they don’t much like gun control, welfare or any type of socialism.

    I understand if you want to be all politically correct and rule the AFP out, but give it 3-4 more years and maybe you’ll evolve further. Regardless of whether it’s the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party or whatever, how about just running yourself? No one will represent your ideas as well as you will. You brag that you already have a large fundraising list and you already travel around the country. This will give you an excuse to focus your travels and your fundraising and to recruit delegates who agree with you to attend the convention, with enough time to get them involved in their state parties if they are not already. If you go for the Constitution Party, your candidacy could be the ticket for the libertarian wing of the party that you mention above.

    If you want things done right you may just have to do them yourself.

  51. Andy

    “Luke” is sounding more and more like a troll. The question remains as to whether or not “Luke” is one of the suspected government trolls that has been here for years, or somebody else trolling here, perhaps a regular poster, or maybe both.

    Yes, there can be and are problems associated with demographic shifts, but it is a complicated issue (like what about the big city liberal demographic, etc…), and i think that all of these problems could potentially be addressed by the Libertarian or Constututiion party platforms.

    I do not see the American Freedom Party going anywhere, nor do I endorse national socialism, nor am I a fan of identity politics.

  52. Andy

    You could cherry pick statements from anyone and transpose the cherry picked statements to different political parties.

  53. Luke

    ““Luke” is sounding more and more like a troll. The question remains as to whether or not “Luke” is one of the suspected government trolls that has been here for years, or somebody else trolling here, perhaps a regular poster, or maybe both.”

    The fact that people here know your last name, what you look like, at least one of the things you do for a living and have met you in person does not make you immune from suspicion, either. On the contrary, if you look at the history of government infiltrators, agents and informants, they are often people who are known to a lot of people in the group they are penetrating, and who do useful work for the group. Petitioning for ballot access could very easily be the kind of useful work that agents may sometimes do for the groups they infiltrate. Your work puts you in contact with a lot of people and organizations and gives you perfect cover for meetings with all kinds of different people. The tone of your comments online is demoralizing to the group, so that could be “trolling” or, your function could simply to be to waste people’s time with lengthy back and forth arguments.

    So you want to accuse me of trolling or being a plant or whatever? I have no way to disprove, and it’s impossible to prove a negative so why bother. I am not saying you are a troll or plant. But you could be. So could anyone else here. Or no one. Maybe no one cares about the banter here. I also don’t see a bunch of other people jumping forward saying they share your suspicions. Maybe it’s only you.

    Anyway, who cares? I am not interested in ad hominem arguments, I’m interested in discussing ideas. If I want to talk about who’s old, who’s fat, who’s ugly, who’s broke, who’s rich, who’s gay, who’s a cuckold, who was or wasn’t born where, who’s a 40 year old virgin living at the parental castle, who’s handicapped, or any of a million other things I don’t need to come here…I could go to the bar, the diner, the coffee shop, the barber shop, etc. You can accuse me of being a troll all you want. Honestly, I think it makes you look worse than it does me. A lot of people realize that when you point a finger four are pointing back at you and the wild way you fling these accusations at so many people really hurts your credibility more and more the more you do it.

    “I do not see the American Freedom Party going anywhere,”

    Probably not, but I guess we’ll see. Notice I did also suggest that you could work with the LP, the CP, the Republicans, even form your own party.

    “nor do I endorse national socialism, ”

    There are probably some national socialists in the AFP, but the party is not national socialist as a whole. Actually, their economic views are more libertarian than socialist. They don’t call for a dictatorship or genocide – at least, not officially. Their foreign policy is generally non-interventionist; there’s no talk of lebensraum or anything in that direction.

    “nor am I a fan of identity politics.”

    You’re a fan of Molyneux, Hoppe and Cantwell, who are all fans of identity politics. And you want government force to be used to prevent a demographic shift away from a White Christian majority. You say so explicitly at many past comments. In some of them you go on to talk about how the descendants of the white people who lived in the US in revolutionary war times are politically better than the people who have come here since then (and presumably also the descendants of the Indians, African-Americans and Mestizos who were here back then). And how government policies and government force can be justified as a way to “fix” this “problem” because of the way different demographic groups vote.

    In fact, you could use the same logic you used in those discussions to justify taking voting rights away from women, non-property owners, non-Christians, and 18-20 year olds. You could use it to reinstate Jim Crow era literacy tests and poll taxes. I haven’t seen you call for those exact policies but you could, just based on the same logic you used in those discussions. If you are so worried about demographic shifts, will you be calling for laws that dictate who can be allowed to have children and how many? Sounds pretty crazy, but it would be a natural conclusion of the same logic you use to demand immigration restrictions.

    As for whether that is identity politics…if it’s not, what is?

  54. AC

    I think paulie’s observation is correct that Trump’s connection to the Reform Party is a lot more noteworthy and unique. I think the Perot -> Trump angle on the whole has been under-reported. The story of his 2000 sort-of almost-campaign is weird and crazy in a lot of ways, and even moreso now in retrospect. And like every good crazy story, it features Jesse Ventura…. and David Duke! It even had the spectacle of future-President Don Juan condemning Pitchfork Pat for being too racially insensitive and hostile to minorities. The whole thing should be catnip for the media, and yet I bet very few Americans even know that 2016 is the second time Trump ran for President. So few, that references to it from the time like in a Simpsons episode, get touted as “predicting” something they ripped straight from the headlines.

  55. Andy

    “‘Luke’ said: “You’re a fan of Molyneux, Hoppe and Cantwell, who are all fans of identity politics.”

    First of all, it depends on how you define fan. Second of all, AS I HAVE STATED NUMEROUS TIMES, THERE IS NO PERSON WHO I AGREE WITH ON EVERY DETAIL OF EVERY ISSUE.

    Sure, I like some of the material put out by Molyneux and Hoppe, but it does not mean I agree with them on every detail of every issue. I have heard Molyneux say some things that made me cringe (he made some really ignorant comments about 9/11 Truth in one video). I don’t agree with everything Hoppe has ever said.

    Cantwell can be entertaining (kind of like a crash up derby), and he makes some good points sometimes, but I certainly do NOT endorse everything he says.

    There are lots of people who have put out work that I like. I like the work of Larken Rose, Adam Kokesh, Marc Stevens, Harry Browne, etc…

    ONCE AGAIN, IF I SITE SOMEBODY’S VIDEO, BOOK, SPEECH, INTERVIEW, ARTICLE, ETC…, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AGREE WITH THEM ON EVERY DETAIL OF EVERY ISSUE. MY VIEWS ARE MY OWN, AND I DOUBT THAT THERE IS ANYONE OUT THERE WHO I AGREE WITH ON EVERY DETAIL OF EVERY ISSUE.

    HOW MANY MORE TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS?

  56. Andy

    “In fact, you could use the same logic you used in those discussions to justify taking voting rights away from women, non-property owners, non-Christians, and 18-20 year olds. ”

    I would take voting “rights” away from anyone who is on welfare or who works for the government, or who contracts with government, or who collects a government pension. This is something that should have been put in the Constitution a long time ago. These people should not be able to donate to political campaigns either.

    I would also like to see a ban on foreign lobbyists. Foreign lobbyists should have no influence on the US government, as long as it exists (which I’d ideally like to see abolished).

    I would actually like to get rid of coercive government, therefore eliminating elections, unless of course participation in and the outcome of the elections were voluntary (as in elections held by voluntary associations which are only binding on those who voluntarily participate in said organization).

  57. Andy

    “Luke” said: “In some of them you go on to talk about how the descendants of the white people who lived in the US in revolutionary war times are politically better than the people who have come here since then (and presumably also the descendants of the Indians, African-Americans and Mestizos who were here back then). And how government policies and government force can be justified as a way to “fix” this “problem” because of the way different demographic groups vote.”

    Wow, you must read a lot of posts here, “Luke,” for a new poster. You don’t have the best reading comprehension skills. You also have some deficiencies in logic and reason.

    I NEVER said that everyone who has ancestors that go back to the American Revolution have great political views. You are obviously a very confused individual. What I said was that people who have ancestors who have been in this country for a long time, as in going back to the colonial, revolutionary, pioneer, and cowboy days, ARE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE PASSED DOWN THE PRO-GUN RIGHTS TRADITION THAN PEOPLE WHO DO NOT COME FROM THIS TRADITION.

    I focused primarily on ONE ISSUE, and I said MORE LIKELY.

    I was talking about how people come to support gun rights. There are gun rights TRADITIONALISTS, AND GUN RIGHTS RATIONALISTS.

    Most gun rights supporters are not rationalists, and most people in general are not rationalists. Most gun rights supporters are TRADITIONALISTS. Some are RATIONALISTS, but I would say that 80-90% are TRADITIONALISTS.

    How does one become a gun rights TRADITIONALIST? They were born into a family where somebody, usually the father or grandfather, passed gun rights down to them.

    RATIONALISTS become gun rights supporters, not because a family member passed it down, but because they studied crime statistics, or they studied history, or maybe they got mugged or threatened and then came to the rational conclusion that gun rights make sense.

    How is one going to be a gun rights TRADITIONALIST if they do not come from a family that passes gun rights down to them, or from a culture where it is common for families to pass down gun rights through the generations?

    Most people in general are not rational, so people who came to gun rights via RATIONAL thought, are in the minority. IF IT WERE NOT FOR GUN RIGHTS TRADITIONALISTS, THERE WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH GUN RIGHTS RATIONALIST TO KEEP GUN RIGHTS ALIVE.

    I NEVER said that all white people had good political ideas. Plenty of white people have plenty of stupid political views. I NEVER said that all white people who have families who have been in this country for many generations have good political ideas, and for that matter, I NEVER SAID THAT ALL BLACKS, ASIANS, HISPANICS, ETC…, HAD BAD POLITICAL IDEAS. I NEVER SAID THAT ALL IMMIGRANTS HAD BAD POLITICAL IDEAS (although statistics do indicate that a disturbingly high percentage of immigrants favor socialism and gun control at rates that are higher than the native population, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT WANTS THESE PEOPLE HERE, as they know that STATISTICALLY, a higher percentage of these people will vote for more socialism and more gun control, which is also what my anecdotal evidence indicates).

    I pointed out DEMOGRAPHICS and GUN RIGHTS. Why? Because gun rights is one of the most important issues, maybe even THE most important issue, and gun rights are under serious attack in this country.

    Are you capable of rational thought, or do you let emotions rule over facts and reason?

  58. Andy

    “‘Luke’ said: “Regardless of whether it’s the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party or whatever, how about just running yourself? No one will represent your ideas as well as you will. You brag that you already have a large fundraising list and you already travel around the country. This will give you an excuse to focus your travels and your fundraising and to recruit delegates who agree with you to attend the convention, with enough time to get them involved in their state parties if they are not already. If you go for the Constitution Party, your candidacy could be the ticket for the libertarian wing of the party that you mention above.

    If you want things done right you may just have to do them yourself.”

    I’d be more likely to run for office if I were in a better position in life. The biggest factor is money. I actually could have a lot more money right now if various things had not gone wrong for me over the course of life, some my fault, some outside of my control, and some a combination of factors.

    If I were to run for office, I’d want to do it right, and I’d want it to be as “real” a campaign as possible. If I ran for a low level office, I’d run to win. If I ran for a high level office, I would realize that winning may not be realistic, but if I could not win I’d run to reach as many people as possible with a strong pro-liberty message, and I’d try to enlighten people as to some things that they can implement in their regular lives to build a freer society that do not rely on anyone getting elected to office.

    If I were to run for office, I’d almost certainly run as a Libertarian.

    I think that I could potentially be a good candidate, but I’m not a “big name” and I don’t have lots of money to throw into a campaign, and I don’t have any fancy credentials to wave around.

    I think that I’m good at doing political outreach, and that I’ve got a good grasp on issues and philosophy (of course I’d still have to brush up on things and stay up to date on current events even more than I do now). I’m pretty good in political debates. Many years of petition signature gathering and debating people in person and online has made me pretty quick with responses (most of the time). I have not done a lot of formal public speaking, but the few times I have I think I’ve done pretty good. I had several people that I did not previously know at the national convention in Orlando say that they liked my impromptu speech for the LNC At Large race (and I was thrown off after some jerkoff got the speaking time cut to one minute, which threw me off). If I were running for office I’d obviously have to work more on public speaking, as well as everything else.

    I toyed with the idea of running for office when I was active in the LP of California back in the late 1990’s and early to mid 2000’s. I thought about running for the state legislature, or maybe US House, or for city council or for the county board of supervisors. If I would have run, I considered kicking in up to $10,000 out of my own pocket for the campaign. I also intended to do door-to-door canvassing at every home in my district. I would have made up some nice looking campaign literature to hand out at people’s doors, and I would have brought plenty of voter registration forms for people who were not registered to vote. It would have also been a great opportunity to hand out jury nullification information.

    If there had been any pro-liberty petition drives going on at the same time that I was theoretically running for office in California, perhaps I could have done some campaigning for office at the same time as I was gathering petition signatures.

    I never ended up running, due to money, and due to being too busy, and working and traveling.

    I have long thought about what I’d do if I were a candidate, or what I’d do if I was a campaign manager, but I don’t know if I will ever do either.

    IF I were to ever run for political office, I would have to either have a lot of my own money to spend on a campaign, or have the ability to raise a lot of money for my campaign, and I’d have to build my name up to have any chance of getting people to donate money for me to run for office. I’d also have to settle down somewhere, and I’ve been on the road pretty much full time for multiple years now, unless of course I was going to be one of those people who runs for US House who does not live in the district where I’m running, and who pledges to move their later.

    I don’t know if I will ever run for office. Probably not, but who knows?

  59. Tony From Long Island

    ANDY “Luke” is sounding more and more like a troll. The question remains as to whether or not “Luke” is one of the suspected government trolls that has been here for years, or somebody else trolling here, perhaps a regular poster, or maybe both.

    AHHHHHH!!!!!! Anyone who calls Andy out on his shit is a “government troll!?!?!?” Just stop! Step away from the keyboard – – – enter the therapist’s office!!!!

    ANDY ” . . .I think that I could potentially be a good candidate, but I’m not a “big name” and I don’t have lots of money to throw into a campaign, and I don’t have any fancy credentials to wave around. . . . ”

    Well, we already “elected” one conspiracy theorist so I guess you would fit right in.

  60. Luke

    ““‘Luke’ said:”

    Thank you, I always thought my name deserved its own “quotes.” Or maybe even (((echoes))). How about from now on you call me (((Luke)))?

    “First of all, it depends on how you define fan. Second of all, AS I HAVE STATED NUMEROUS TIMES, THERE IS NO PERSON WHO I AGREE WITH ON EVERY DETAIL OF EVERY ISSUE.”

    That’s entirely reasonable. I am not saying you should go the American Freedom Party route, but if you did, there is no reason you should have to agree with their National Socialist members. You could represent the libertarian wing of the AFP.

    “HOW MANY MORE TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS?”

    I don’t know. I guess you’ll have to keep saying it, over and over again, in all caps. Maybe you should add a bunch of extra exclamation points too. Then write it a thousand times on a chalkboard.

    “I would take voting “rights” away from anyone who is on welfare or who works for the government, or who contracts with government, or who collects a government pension. This is something that should have been put in the Constitution a long time ago. These people should not be able to donate to political campaigns either.

    I would also like to see a ban on foreign lobbyists. Foreign lobbyists should have no influence on the US government, as long as it exists (which I’d ideally like to see abolished).”

    Hey, that’s a good start. But why stop there? If your demographic concerns were correct, you would also be justified in limiting the vote to white Christian property owning men over 21 (or perhaps even older) who pass a literacy test and pay a poll tax. If not, why not? And if your demographic electoral concerns justify immigration limits, why don’t they also justify government limitations on who can have children and how many?

    “I would actually like to get rid of coercive government, therefore eliminating elections, unless of course participation in and the outcome of the elections were voluntary”

    All good and lofty, but in the meantime you want authoritarian big government enforced immigration control measures, again supposedly justified by your concerns over demographic changes and what they will do to election results over time. So why don’t the same demographic concerns also justify the other hypothetical measures I mentioned? I think there’s a reason you want to avoid those questions and dance around them.

  61. Luke

    “Wow, you must read a lot of posts here, “Luke,” for a new poster.”

    How do you know how long I’ve been lurking before I jumped in? And what does it matter if I have read a lot of old posts? I like to read.

    “You don’t have the best reading comprehension skills. ”

    Once again, when you point with one finger…

    “I NEVER said that everyone who has ancestors that go back to the American Revolution have great political views. You are obviously a very confused individual. What I said was that people who have ancestors who have been in this country for a long time, as in going back to the colonial, revolutionary, pioneer, and cowboy days, ARE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE PASSED DOWN THE PRO-GUN RIGHTS TRADITION THAN PEOPLE WHO DO NOT COME FROM THIS TRADITION.”

    Presumably, you also never said that every single person who does not have ancestors who have been in the country for a long time has a bad voting record on gun rights. But, you did say exactly what I said you said, when it comes to averages. And, indeed, you just said it again. You are saying that people who have ancestors that have ancestors who have been in this country for a long time, as in going back to the colonial, revolutionary, pioneer, and cowboy days, are more likely to vote for gun rights. Therefore, you believe that we need government policies that prevent their vote from being diluted our outvoted by other people.

    Additionally, many African-Americans, Latino-Americans, American Indians, and some Jews have ancestors that have been in the country just as long (depending on how you define the country; i take it you mean the present territory of the United States, but even if you don’t, that still leaves all but the Latinos). Their average voting record on gun rights is not great either. Again, we are talking only in terms of averages here, as we are in this whole discussion, so let’s just say that we have both stipulated to that and dispense with discussions of exceptions.

    Therefore, as I said earlier, you want white people with ancestors who have been in the US for a long time to have a larger share of the vote. We can quibble here, but it would be pretty easy to find statistics that would indicate that based on the same logic you would want men to have a larger share of the vote vis a vis women, and so on.

    In fact, this is so important to you that you are willing to back restrictive immigration policies, and perhaps roundups and deportations of millions of people who are already in the US, and believe that this is justified by the effect that continuing immigration has on the makeup of the electorate. So, once again, why don’t you support the other policies I suggested which are based on exactly the same concerns? For example if we need mass immigration controls to keep out people whose children will be citizens and may eventually vote for gun control, why not mass sterilization of women whose children are statistically more likely to vote for gun control once they become old enough to vote, based on their race, religion or ethnicity? Why not the other restrictions on who should be allowed to vote that I mentioned earlier, again based on that same exact pretext?

  62. Luke

    “I NEVER SAID THAT ALL IMMIGRANTS HAD BAD POLITICAL IDEAS (although statistics do indicate that a disturbingly high percentage of immigrants favor socialism and gun control at rates that are higher than the native population, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT WANTS THESE PEOPLE HERE, as they know that STATISTICALLY, a higher percentage of these people will vote for more socialism and more gun control, which is also what my anecdotal evidence indicates).”

    Speaking of reading comprehension, I did not say that you said ALL immigrants have bad political ideas. However, need I explain that all would-be immigrants, and many people who have already immigrated as well as their US-born family members, will be impacted by immigration restrictions, regardless of how they personally feel about any political issue? Since your short term policy prescriptions are based on the voting patterns of averages, my questions for you still stand.

  63. Luke

    “Are you capable of rational thought, or do you let emotions rule over facts and reason?”

    Readers are free to chime in as to which of us sounds more rational. As far as I know, I am following your train of thought and logically asking you why, if certain government policies are justified for the reasons you state, at least so long as government exists at something like its present size, some other policies which are based on the same exact reasons are not also justified. These questions seem to be rational to me, but perhaps you are letting emotions overcome you, which doesn’t let you deal with those questions in a straightforward, logical way. So far, you are the one who is questioning my motivations, yelling in ALL CAPS and doing anything and everything else but answering the questions using facts and logic, so who is being more emotional and who is being more rational here again?

  64. Luke

    “I’d be more likely to run for office if I were in a better position in life. The biggest factor is money.”

    You have a fundraising list. Why not use it?

    “I think that I could potentially be a good candidate, but I’m not a “big name” and I don’t have lots of money to throw into a campaign, and I don’t have any fancy credentials to wave around.”

    You have several years to build your name and finances. If you start raising money and publicizing your campaign now, by 2020 you may have a big name and plenty of money.

    “I think that I’m good at doing political outreach, and that I’ve got a good grasp on issues and philosophy (of course I’d still have to brush up on things and stay up to date on current events even more than I do now). I’m pretty good in political debates. Many years of petition signature gathering and debating people in person and online has made me pretty quick with responses (most of the time). I have not done a lot of formal public speaking, but the few times I have I think I’ve done pretty good. I had several people that I did not previously know at the national convention in Orlando say that they liked my impromptu speech for the LNC At Large race (and I was thrown off after some jerkoff got the speaking time cut to one minute, which threw me off). If I were running for office I’d obviously have to work more on public speaking, as well as everything else.”

    Sounds like you have a pretty good foundation, plenty of time to practice and improve and build your base and following and finances. So what’s the problem?

    “IF I were to ever run for political office, I would have to either have a lot of my own money to spend on a campaign, or have the ability to raise a lot of money for my campaign, ”

    You have that ability now. Fundraising is not magic. Work your list, tell them what you want the money for, then follow through, deliver what you promised, and ask again. Rinse, lather, repeat. The fact that you travel is a plus, not a minus for a presidential campaign. In fact, willingness and ability to travel are the biggest impediments to many other people who think about running. You’re obviously not shy in talking to people one on one. You got up on the national stage in Orlando, so you are not shy in front of crowds. I’ve seen at least one video with you in it so you are willing to do videos. You have been interviewed by the press, and you say you are good at in person debating. So no problems there. You can hand out plenty of jury nullification information in a presidential campaign.

    So, it sounds like Andy for President is the way to go. Or are you all talk and no action?

    “I’d have to build my name up to have any chance of getting people to donate money for me to run for office”

    What better way to build your name up than by running? Put up a website, make some videos, start calling all the people on your lists. It may be slow at first but you have almost 4 years to build your momentum if you start now, and if that’s not enough, run again next time.

  65. Tony From Long Island

    ANDY the heartless: ” . . . . .I would take voting “rights” away from anyone who is on welfare . . . . .. These people should not be able to donate to political campaigns either. . . . ”

    Why not just take away their citizenship too? Wait . . we can send them to Elephant Island and let them fend for themselves. You truly are warped man. Do you even know how “welfare” works??

    I was on public assistance for 2 and a half years when I got out of prison. It helped me get back on my feet, just like it does for almost all of the people who use it.

    I also donated to campaigns and my college during those years. I know. . . . I’m a terrible person.

    You really have no idea what you are talking about . . . #tinFoilHat

  66. Tony From Long Island

    Luke. . . Obi Wan didn’t tell you what happened to your father . . . I am your father!!!

    – Darth Trump

  67. Tony From Long Island

    Yeah, I’d be pissed too if I found out Trump was my father . . . though he could toss me a few dollars to pay my student loans.

  68. Luke

    It’s just not possible. Believe me. I have huuuuge hands and I’m not the least bit orange. Believe me.

  69. Tony From Long Island

    Search your feelings Luke…… I need you to build a wall to keep Andy from spreading conspiracy theories. Han Solo is going to pay for it. . . . we all know how good he is at paying his debts.

  70. dL

    I would take voting “rights” away from anyone who is on welfare . . . . .. These people should not be able to donate to political campaigns either. . . . ”

    Well, ditto RE: anyone who voted for Trump. 20% import taxes has a direct welfare cost externalized directly to me, to everyone. Vote for Trump, lose your voting rights.Society cannot afford to subsidize these goonballs voting.

  71. Luke

    It’s a secret ballot, and besides, all the different candidates (including as Andy is so quick to point out Johnson) were for some kind of rights violations. But, Andy says that some issues are more important than others so it’s important that we not have voting demographics swinging towards the Democrats, because their rights violations are worse. Without getting into whether the Republicans or Democrats are bigger rights violators, or which issues are most important, or how political views of various ethnic groups shift over successive generations in the US: even if we grant Andy’s premises on all that, my questions for him still stand, and IMO remain valid questions. If you disagree that they are, please explain why.

  72. dL

    It’s a secret ballot, and besides, all the different candidates (including as Andy is so quick to point out Johnson) were for some kind of rights violations.

    of course it’s a secret ballot. The privacy rights violations, the consequences of enforcing that would be the same for enforcing excluding voting rights for other groups. That was my point i was trying to make obvious.

    how political views of various ethnic groups shift over successive generations in the US

    I view (christian) socially conservative, ethnically white as the single biggest threat to liberty. So that’s the group I would want to exclude from having political rights. Now see how this plays out. That which is done to them you fear will be done to you. So then you support whatever authoritarian goonball that shows up with the justification of “self-defense.” And that’s how a libertarian can go to putrid authoritarianism in one easy step playing cultural identity politics.

    Conclusion: Whatever negative consequences you might think the welfare state have, any solutions that practice selective exclusion to it have consequences that are far worse than the problem itself.

  73. Tylor Reinhardt

    Congrats to you guys! I’ve been telling people about his past connection to the Reform Party all though the election.

    My main worry was that he might be a personal opportunist. (Clinton too) That’s something I’ve been thinking about since when he was involved in the Reform Party.

    I consider myself somewhere in the political middle but I am also the most critical of people from there.

    For instance I never supported Top-Two, and took the opposite stance.

Leave a Reply

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