August 2018 Open Thread

Here it is, our usual monthly open thread for all matters that don’t fit into another thread. In theory, it should involve discussion of third parties and/or independents, but as long as you avoid plagiarizing or libeling someone, you should be fine.

103 thoughts on “August 2018 Open Thread

  1. Anthony Dlugos

    Hmmm….methinks the LP/libertarian movement could use some of that $400 million dollars:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/29/charles-koch-republicans-shouldnt-take-financial-support-granted/858986002/

    “Charles Koch and top officials in the powerful network aligned with him warned Sunday that Republicans should no longer take their financial support for granted – as Koch-aligned groups work to dramatically expand their free-market message to more parts of American society.“

    “The network launched by the Kansas billionaire 15 years ago is poised to spend as much as $400 million on policy and politics in the current two-year election cycle. “

    What’s just as good is the tact the putative leader of the Trump Party is taking in going after the Koch network, which can further sort/separate the LP from the hard right-paleo-Ron Paul nastiness:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/08/03/trump-republican-national-committee-stop-donating-koch-brothers/896654002/

    “On Twitter, Trump denounced “the globalist Koch Brothers” for criticizing his trade and immigration policies.”

  2. Stewart Flood

    Here’s one you should be following. I’m surprised that IPR didn’t post it yet.

    As most of you are aware, a half-dozen or so states allow fusion candidates. Late Thursday afternoon, the nominee of the Democratic Party for the office of Governor of South Carolina filed with the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, and the Working Families Party.

    Needless to say, this was somewhat of a surprise to the Libertarian Party, as well as the Green Party. The Working Families Party — which almost always nominates ANYONE running as a Democrat — was aware he was going to file with them.

    Late Friday afternoon, the candidate realized the enormity of his mistake and attempted to withdraw his filing with the Libertarian Party. Later that night (long after the election commission closed), he decided to withdraw all three of them.

    By a vote of 16-0 (the chair not voting since it was not a tie), NOTA defeated the candidate. By State Law, he must now be removed from the ballot as the candidate of the Democratic Party. This will be a huge battle, most likely ending up in court, since the Election Commission seems to be under the impression that they can break the law and allow him to legally file one day, illegally withdraw the next, and not suffer the consequences of his actions.

    Lots of stuff on this in papers throughout SC. Have fun reading!

  3. Stewart Flood

    Yup. Even more fun living through it. We’re selling t-shirts with my quote from the paper on them. Not sure if they’ll let me post the link here.

  4. Stewart Flood

    The risk is that under state election law you must win the nomination of ALL of the parties you file with. The Green Party (note that the quote is from Mike Stewart not me, Stewart Flood) filed suit eight years ago over the removal of a candidate who failed to get a nomination. There have been several fusion candidates since, including one of our’s this year, who were removed for failing to win all the party nominations they filed for.

    The word “potential” was used because he could not say for certain whether our party — or his — would nominate Mr Smith this weekend. The Working Families Party representative actually stated they would grant a nomination, which you really shouldn’t do before you let your committee vote on it.

    State committees had to act, rather than recalled conventions, because the recalling of a convention takes at least two weeks to arrange and the reporting deadline is the 15th of this month. State election law allows for this contingency.

  5. Anthony Dlugos

    “The Green Party (note that the quote is from Mike Stewart not me, Stewart Flood) filed suit eight years ago over the removal of a candidate who failed to get a nomination.”

    ahh, I thought that was you.

  6. Andy

    I have 4 news articles that have been stucking in “pending” status for a long time, some for a good 2-3 weeks or so, that have yet to post here, and this is really pissing me off.

    My news posting status was downgraded last year, for a completely bogus reason that does not stand up to intellectual scrutiny. It had to do with me posting a video of Austin Petersen, who is a well known fugure from Libertarian Party circles, as he was the first runner up for the LP’s presidential nomination in 2016, where he was being interviewed about hus run for US Senate in the Missouri Republican primaries. I was chastised for posting this, as I was accused of posting something off topic, even though 1 minute and 43 seconds into the video Austin talked about his time in the LP and why he switched. I pointed this out, yet I was told that i had to post a note about why it was on topic for IPR, which I ended up doing a few days later, even though this should not have been necessary as it was clearly apparent why it was on topic for IPR. It took me a few days to get around to posting the note, because i was busy working at the time, as i explained. So for this “offense,” my article posting stauts was downgraded, even though I am the only person here to do any original journalism over the last 10 months, and even though I have been a member of the IPR community since the beginning, plus I was a community member of the three websites that preceded IPR, plus I know, or have at least met or seen, several other IPR community members in person. This is disgracel and an insult, and my previous status should be restored immediately.

  7. George Phillies

    Readers may recall that for some time Swedish Newspapers refused to sell ad space to the Sweden Democrats party, and in part as a result the Sweden Democrats are now one of the largest political parties in the country. Now with Mr Jones and his crank ideas we are seeing the same thing here.

    Bad deal.

  8. Paul

    “Proud American Nationalist” Petersen is a Republican who couldn’t even win his own state’s libertarian primary and barely got 21%. There is a lot of crossbreeding between the two parties though, so I can understand the confusion.

    That being said, I might be completely off base here, but maybe people don’t appreciate the racist videos you post in the comments? Or maybe you’re just making unreasonable demands about someone else’s property under the guise of “fairness”?

  9. Anthony Dlugos

    Andy racism doesn’t help buy him any sympathy, but there is zero reason to post an interview with a Republican on a website called “Independent Political Report.”

    A lot of people in the political world are “well known fugure [sic] from Libertarian Party circles…”

    Basically, that means everyone in any party, including the Democrats and Republicans. Why should we care about someone running in a Republican primary, especially someone who is called a MAGA Republican?

    https://www.businessinsider.com/austin-petersen-missouri-senate-claire-mccaskill-trump-ar-15-2017-10

    But let’s be real here, Andy thinks an interview with dingbat Petersen is worthwhile specifically because of Petersen’s hard right sympathies (or, at least his public pronouncements thereof. My guess is Petersen will say whatever it takes to get press coverage.)

  10. Libertydave

    So Andy is refusing to take responsibility for his actions again and blaming everybody but himself for all the bad things that keep happening to him.

    Andy posts a video about the Republican primaries without anything explaining why a video of republicans is on a third party news website. When asked to add some text to the video explaining why he posted a republican video he instead tries to explain why he shouldn’t have to in the comments. After repeated attempt to get him to do what he was suppose to do in the first place he finally got around to more than a week later.

    While Andy was to busy working to fix his post he managed to comment and post to this website quite often and now he wonders why he was downgraded.

  11. Bondurant

    @ George Phillies

    The obvious collusion between the companies banning Jones from their platforms is startling. This is only the beginning. It does, however, provide other companies to step up to the plate and provide an alternative. I’ve seen a lot of anger over this due to the slippery slope but many won’t break away from Facebook or YouTube.

  12. Anthony Dlugos

    “When asked to add some text to the video explaining why he posted a republican video he instead tries to explain why he shouldn’t have to in the comments.”

    Boy, talk about his personality in a nutshell.

    Andy has no real affinity for the benefits to the individual that reducing the size and scope of government entails. Libertarianism is just coincidental to his actual predisposition, which was landing on a political philosophy that nurtures in him his constant antagonism to everyone.

    The whole world is in conspiracy against Andy. In essence, he tries to post an interview with a republican on an independent political news website in part because he knows the response it will get from the site administration, which allows him another data point confirming the mechanisms of the universe are arrayed against him.

  13. Jill Pyeatt

    Andy, I’ve told you several times why I rarely come here anymore, yet you refuse to work with me or follow the many other requests from others to stop your constant rants about immigration. I realize that picking up social cues isn’t your strong suit, but you have a BRAIN. Get it into your BRAIN that you might be more effective here if you’ll accept that the thousands of rants you’ve already posted here is enough, and maybe people will start working with you again.

  14. William Saturn

    Andy’s personal views should have no bearing on whether his articles are posted. This has nothing to do with the amount of times he posts because I rarely post comments and yet my status was degraded as well. This was a political purge.

  15. Libertydave

    William Saturn,

    I don’t know why you were downgraded but Andy caused his own troubles. This is obvious just reading Andy’s comment complaining about being downgraded. It had nothing to do with a political purge.

  16. Richard Winger

    Getting around to the South Carolina story, the State Election Commission spokesperson said the Democrat is in no danger because the Libertarian Party doesn’t have its own nominee for Governor. That is a strained interpretation of the law, but entirely predictable. The state is not going to remove the Democratic nominee for Governor from the November ballot, especially after he won a 3-way Democratic primary with 62% of the vote.

    Another excuse is that the Libertarian Party meeting that rejected Smith was not a convention, just a meeting of the state committee.

  17. Andy

    “Libertydave
    August 7, 2018 at 19:33
    William Saturn,

    I don’t know why you were downgraded but Andy caused his own troubles. This is obvious just reading Andy’s comment complaining about being downgraded. It had nothing to do with a political purge.”

    I have not caused any troubles. This is a political discussion forum, focusing on minor party and independent candidates, and this is exactly what I have done here since the inception of IPR in May of 2008, and it was exactly what I did on the three websites that preceded IPR (as in where some of the people who came to IPR, or used to come to IPR, used to “hang out” and discuss these issues), in Third Party Watch, Last Free Voice, and the old Hammer of Truth.

    Scroll back through the archives of the news article threads I posted. There is nothing off topic or inappropriate. Also, I went to a lot of effort to post original interviews here, something nobody else has done in a long time.

  18. Andy

    Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern: The New Zealand TV Interview They Wouldn’t Show You!

  19. Cody Quirk

    Well its official; Austin Petersen got his ass handed to him in the GOP primary tonight; he’s coming in at a distant 3rd place with little over 90% of the votes counted right now.

    This further proves the idea for libertarians to stick with the GOP and change it from within is a lost cause. (l)ibertarians need to stop drinking the kool-aid and join the LP; the GOP is beyond saving, as is the twin-party system.

  20. Andy

    “William Saturn
    August 7, 2018 at 18:47
    Andy’s personal views should have no bearing on whether his articles are posted. This has nothing to do with the amount of times he posts because I rarely post comments and yet my status was degraded as well. This was a political purge.”

    Yep, this is much like the censorship with Alex Jones being kicked off of several internet platforms, and Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern getting banned from speaking in New Zealand. There is a real attack against free speech, and sadly, it has infected IPR.

  21. Andy

    “Cody Quirk
    August 7, 2018 at 22:28
    Well its official; Austin Petersen got his ass handed to him in the GOP primary tonight; he’s coming in at a distant 3rd place with little over 90% of the votes counted right now.

    This further proves the idea for libertarians to stick with the GOP and change it from within is a lost cause. (l)ibertarians need to stop drinking the kool-aid and join the LP; the GOP is beyond saving, as is the twin-party system.”

    This was a predictable result. The cost of running and winning a US Senate race in Missouri, even just a primary, is far more money than Austin Petersen can raise.

    I agree that the Republican Party is a corrupt organization, and the prospects of libertarians taking it over is slim to none, but having said this, I do think that it is possible for libertarian, or libertarian leaning, people to get elected as Republicans, if they target a race that they are actually capable of winning, and run a smart campaign. Austin Petersen would have had a better chance running for US House, or even better, running for a seat in the Missouri State Legislature, or for a county or city office, than had running for US Senate.

  22. Andy

    First They Came For Infowars and Alex Jones… | Infowars Banned from YouTube, Facebook and Apple

  23. Cody Quirk

    Andy Jacobs, despite you and me not seeing eye-to-eye on certain political matters; the invitation to join ATPR is still on the table; you may post anything political on our site and you’ll never have to ask for our approval to post it 😉
    The only 2 rules we have for posting on ATPR is that it must be relevant to third parties or independents, AND the posts have to be ‘R-rated’ at a maximum in terms of language & content.
    Besides that -you can say whatever you want on ATPR.

    William Saturn, you’re still welcome to rejoin ATPR as well.

  24. Cody Quirk

    “Austin Petersen would have had a better chance running for US House, or even better, running for a seat in the Missouri State Legislature, or for a county or city office, than had running for US Senate.”

    Hmmm, you might have been right. However once he moved up into the big leagues (running for a statewide or federal office) -he still likely would lose if he had to face off against an establishment GOP candidate with better funding and more backing.

  25. Andy

    “Cody Quirk
    August 7, 2018 at 22:44
    Andy Jacobs, despite you and me not seeing eye-to-eye on certain political matters; the invitation to join ATPR is still on the table; you may post anything political on our site and you’ll never have to ask for our approval to post it ?
    The only 2 rules we have for posting on ATPR is that it must be relevant to third parties or independents, AND the posts have to be ‘R-rated’ at a maximum in terms of language & content.
    Besides that -you can say whatever you want on ATPR.

    William Saturn, you’re still welcome to rejoin ATPR as well.”

    I appreciate the offer, but how many people actually read American Third Party Report? I will certainly consider your offer, but I’d like to post at a site that actually has an audience, and I think that IPR probably has a lot more readers that ATPR. Perhaps ATPR’s readership would grow if more people post articles there.

  26. Andy

    This video was posted by Alex Jones before his channel was taken down. Fortunately, somebody has re-uploaded it.

    Alex Jones Statement On Alex Jones Youtube Channel Shut Down – Infowars Youtube Channel Shut Down

  27. Andy

    “When asked to add some text to the video explaining why he posted a republican video he instead tries to explain why he shouldn’t have to in the comments.”

    Idiotic comment. Austin Petersen was mentioned in multiple IPR articles, so it is not as though he was unknown to IPR readers. He worked at the Libertarian Party National office while IPR was in existence, and he was the first runner up for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination in 2016. Also, like I pointed out multiple times, 1 minute and 43 seconds into the video, Austin’s time in the Libertarian Party was discussed. So given these facts, why the video was posted here should have been self explanatory.

    Also, even though it was completely unnecessary, I did in fact come back a few days later and post a note as to why the video was relevant to IPR. So even after posting the (unnecessary) note, I was still “demoted” here at IPR.

  28. Andy

    I just did a search through IPR archives and I found that Austin Petersen was mentioned in the title of 60 articles, going as far back as 2008. He was also mentioned in other articles and in numerous discussion threads. So acting as though he was some unknown figure on IPR or in minor party circles, or just some Republican with no connection to minor parties, is not intellectually honest.

  29. Cody Quirk

    “I appreciate the offer, but how many people actually read American Third Party Report? I will certainly consider your offer, but I’d like to post at a site that actually has an audience, and I think that IPR probably has a lot more readers that ATPR. Perhaps ATPR’s readership would grow if more people post articles there.”

    Fortunately we’re starting to gain an audience thanks to several people that have come on board, including one that posts his own articles and does interviews with candidates on ATPR’s behalf often. We’ve had a few articles that have gained 70 to over 100 viewings in a single day. Still, at least we’re quite lenient on the rules for posting articles, regardless of how controversial they may be.
    However I think you alone could help put ATPR further on the map with your articles.

    BTW, rest assured, any articles bashing Gary Johnson or Bill Weld are welcome on ATPR.

  30. Anthony Dlugos

    “Well its official; Austin Petersen got his ass handed to him in the GOP primary tonight; he’s coming in at a distant 3rd place with little over 90% of the votes counted right now.

    This further proves the idea for libertarians to stick with the GOP and change it from within is a lost cause. (l)ibertarians need to stop drinking the kool-aid and join the LP; the GOP is beyond saving, as is the twin-party system.”

    I heard he spent half a million. Half a million dollars to finish a very underwhelming 3rd. He’s essentially 0 for his life in terms of winning electoral contests, including losing his home state primary in the 2016 presidential race.

    Not the stuff political success is made of. Not to mention the questionable wisdom of making your first two runs for office the Presidency, then the U.S. Senate (in that order).

    On the other hand, he has demonstrated that he might have a dimwitted following willing to donate to his lost cause races. If such followers are impervious to reality, he might make a nice living running over and over again for high-profile offices he has no chance of winning.

    While I agree that libertarians trying to change the GOP is useless, I wouldn’t necessarily deem Petersen’s result from last night a data point backing up that theory. He always fit better in the GOP anyway.

  31. robert capozzi

    AP’s approach of just showing up as an R seemed to me doomed from the get-go.

    OTOH, I note that the only real headway Ls make electorally at the federal level involves the GOP — RP1, RP2, BB, GJ, WW, and I’d add Amash and Massie to the mix. Given the depth charges in the Great Tablets that formed the LP, the only way I can see a scenario where the Ls break through politically would involve renegade Rs.

    Say, for ex., that DJT is proven to be in bed with Russia, and that leads to the GOP getting pounded. It might lead to a severe crisis for the more sane elements in the GOP. The LP might be the only safe harbor available to them.

    Generally, Ls who run as Rs like AP are successful if they run in a sober manner. The court jester approach seems unlikely to work.

  32. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    “I note that the only real headway Ls make electorally at the federal level involves the GOP — RP1, RP2, BB, GJ, WW, and I’d add Amash and Massie to the mix. Given the depth charges in the Great Tablets that formed the LP, the only way I can see a scenario where the Ls break through politically would involve renegade Rs.”

    As you might agree, this might be a symptom of the problem (dogmatic adherence to the theoretical construct of the NAP has the real world effect of just making us extreme versions of Republicans), rather than something to be view as the “natural course of things.”

    Just like welfare reform had to come from a Democrat (Bill Clinton), its possible the breakthrough for an L will come from a renegade Democrat. Which also could demonstrate why “liberal republicans” have better crossover appeal/higher ceiling than Rand, or Amash or Massie.

    “Generally, Ls who run as Rs like AP are successful if they run in a sober manner. The court jester approach seems unlikely to work.”

    If success is determined by legislative success, by a desire to put together a solid public office career.

    A strong case can be made that AP is a court jester by design. Some have argued that has been his objective from Day One. IMHO, that’s the most plausible explanation for a 35-year old theater major making his first run for office the Presidency, and his 2nd run for office the U.S. Senate. Winning might be nice, but besides the point. He’s either angling for a “talking head” job, perhaps on Faux News, or a Ron Paul style newsletter that he uses as a pretext to solicit money for his D list celebrity lifestyle.

  33. Anthony Dlugos

    As an aside, of the three libertarian-leaning conservatives, Amash is by far the best, in my opinion. Only his stance on abortion is problematic for me. On the other hand, I don’t think he is a Napolitano style zealot on the issue.

  34. ATBAFT

    Because most LP candidates have departed from NAP in their campaigns (some more than others; Bergland was pretty faithful and his low vote results may have shown it) one may conclude that only a handful of LP members actually expect adherence to it. I doubt the voters do; thus a Jeffersonian “principled pragmatism” may be more useful and NAP be left to languish in obscurity since it would be difficult to amend or remove it.

  35. Andy

    David Bergland’s low vote total had more to do with a) lack of money, b) him not qualifying for the ballot in several states, c) no internet back in 1984, which made it harder for non-establishment candidates to get their message out, and d) the word libertarian having less recognition among the public back in 1984 than it does today.

    Yes, I know that Ed Clark got a lot more votes in 1980, but he had a wealthy running mate in David Koch who put several million dollars of his own money in the race, and he qualified for the ballot in all 50 states plus DC.

    Ed Clark had also run for Governor of California in 1978, so had at least some name recognition from that, and was therefore more known than David Bergland.

    There are lots of factors involved in vote outcomes that go beyond how close one adheres to the NAP.

  36. Andy

    Cody, I am thinking about taking you up on your offer. It would not hurt to be on another platform. If I do, it does not mean i abandon IPR. I would do both.

    I recall Cody being at the now defunct Third Party Watch. Third Party Watch went downhill because of censorship. The site got taken over by a Bob Barr supporter who was taking down articles that were critical of Barr, or contained other topics the Barr supporters did not want to be discussed. IPR formed as a result of the censorship at Third Party Watch, which makes the censorship issues going on here now pretty ironic and sad.

  37. ATBAFT

    Andy, in the tv ads paid for by David Koch, Ed Clark came off as a professional, educated, responsible, thoughtful, non-radical Libertarian who had reasonable solutions. Had he insisted on coming off as a NAPster, I don’t believe the ads would have been effective and there would have been no “goodwill” toward the Libertarian name. Immediately after the campaign, the criticism of Clark’s “lite libertarian” views eventually drove Ed Crane and the CATO crowd out of the LP. It would be another 42 years before an LP candidate for president materially exceeded the Clark vote, and he, too, has been roundly criticized for his departures from NAP and the Platform. The LP needs to decide if electoral success is more important than NAPster purity. Maybe the time is approaching when the LP will split into several parties – as have the various socialist ones – or just live with NAP while most candidates pay mere lip service to it.

  38. Andy

    Gary Johnson’s vote totals had more to do with the circumstances surrounding the elections than anything else, and given the favorable circumstances under which he ran, Johnson underperformed in getting votes.

    I believe that your analysis is flawed because you are not taking all of the data into considerations.

    What if Harry Browne had been alive in 2016, and had been the LP’s presidential nominee? When Browne ran in 1996 and in 2000, he ran in races where there were two higher profile minor party candidates in each race, and the word libertarian was not as well known as it was in 2012 and 2016, plus there were less people online back then as compared to 2012 and 2016.

  39. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Yes, liberal Rs are in many ways a better fit for the development of an effective LP. I suspect GJ and WW are the last of that breed, however. L has enough heft in the marketplace that more Rs ID as libertarian R.

    There may be a lessarchist D that I’m unaware of, but — while I’d like to see one emerge — I’m skeptical that one will any time soon.

  40. Jim

    Andy “Gary Johnson’s vote totals had more to do with the circumstances surrounding the elections than anything else, and given the favorable circumstances under which he ran, Johnson underperformed in getting votes.”

    In 2016 the Constitution Party bested their previous vote record by a mere 3,300 votes and actually under performed both their 2008 and 1996 percentages.

    The Green Party finished far below their 2000 candidate in both total votes and percentage.

    Only the Libertarian Party posted exceptional results in 2016. Even looking at the change from 2012, Stein’s 1.06% in 2016 was 194% better than her 0.36% in 2012 while Johnson’s 3.27% in 2016 was 230% better than his 0.99% in 2012. Darrell Castle’s 0.15% was only 67% better than Virgil Goode’s 0.09%.

    And it isn’t like leftists votes weren’t up for Stein to grab – Hillary got fewer votes than Obama both in 2008 and 2012, while Trump set the Republican party vote total record.

    Andy “I believe that your analysis is flawed because you are not taking all of the data into considerations.”

    You have no data. You only have your feelings that someone else could have done better.

  41. Cody Quirk

    “Cody, I am thinking about taking you up on your offer. It would not hurt to be on another platform. If I do, it does not mean i abandon IPR. I would do both.”

    Sure. If you simply want to republish your IPR articles on ATPR, I wouldn’t mind one bit.

    “I recall Cody being at the now defunct Third Party Watch. Third Party Watch went downhill because of censorship. The site got taken over by a Bob Barr supporter who was taking down articles that were critical of Barr, or contained other topics the Barr supporters did not want to be discussed. IPR formed as a result of the censorship at Third Party Watch, which makes the censorship issues going on here now pretty ironic and sad.”

    Yup. It was such a sad shame what happened with TPW -the exact person that pulled the plug on that website can go sodomize himself with a steel cactus.

    I might be opinionated and an asshole at times about it, but I oppose censorship, even on those I may spar with online. The only exceptions I might make to that are posts/comments that are outright spam or porn. Plus I’m not as hyper-partisan as I used to be. Today, if people like Don Grundmann, Riley Hood or someone from the Workers World Party wanted to be a contributor on there -then I would offer it to them.

    However, Nathan Norman & Chris Lesiak are permanently banned after what they did to the old website and the older posts; I can’t forgive that, though me and Chris have settled a few things.

  42. Andy

    Comparing Jill Stein to Ralph Nader is not a vaild comparison. Stein had nowhere near the name recognition as Nader. Even so, Jill Stein got over 1.4 million votes in 2016, which was the best non-Ralph Nader as their presidential candidate ever vote showing. Also, keep in mind that Jill Stein did not qualify for the 2016 ballot in North Carolina, Georgia, Indiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Nevada.

    Evan McMullin only made the ballot in 10 states and he got over 716,000 votes.

    Darrel Castle only made the ballot in 24 states, which was less that past Constitution Party candidates, and he got over 203,000 votes, which was a raw vote record for CP candidates for President.

    The fact that votes were up in general for “third party” candidates in 2016 further proves my point. The LP could have put just about anyone on its 2016 presidential ticket and that ticket would have received more votes than usual for the LP.

    When it comes to growing the LP, and spreading an actual libertarian message, Johnson/Weld failed miserably.

    Johnson/Weld got a lot (relatively speaking) of protest votes in an election where voter discontent with the major party candidates was unusually high, which resulted in votes increases for most third party candidates.

  43. Anthony Dlugos

    “Johnson/Weld got a lot (relatively speaking) of protest votes…”

    Unless you are some kind of mind reader, you have no clue why anyone voted/votes the way they do.

    “The LP could have put just about anyone on its 2016 presidential ticket and that ticket would have received more votes than usual for the LP.”

    Unless you have a brain able to view alternate realities, you have no idea what any other Libertarian candidate would have done. On the other hand, we have strong circumstantial evidence, given the results of the Libertarian convention, that any other candidate would have done much worse. Unless you are going to make the idiotic argument that the general population is more radically “libertarian” than a libertarian convention is.

    All we know are the facts, and the facts are what Jim reports. You have feelings backed up with no evidence.

  44. Jim

    Johnson beat Stein in every state where they were both on the ballot. There’s no reason to believe that anything else would have happened had Stein been on the ballot in the last few. And why didn’t Stein have the name recognition of Nader (or Johnson)? It wasn’t her first Presidential election and the Green Party is hardly unknown – Nader ran with it. Her lack of name recognition, relative to Johnson and Nader, is a failing of her candidacy.

    If there was such demand for the Constitution Party, why didn’t they get on the ballot in more states? Why didn’t Stein have 50+1 ballot access? Why did Johnson and the LNC raise so much more money than the other two (not counting Stein’s post-election sketchiness.)

    You put a Mormon on the ballot in Utah and watch him get a lot of votes. Wow. That’s where 1/3rd of McMullin’s votes came from. What’s the state with the next highest population of Mormons? That would be Idaho – McMullin’s 2nd best state. What a shock.

    And those are the only 2 states where McMullin picked up more votes than Johnson. Johnson beat McMullin in the other 9 states where they were both on the ballot: New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota, Iowa, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Virginia, and South Carolina. And, of course, the 22 states where McMullin only had write-in status.

    Throw out New Mexico and Utah and that leaves 9 states where Johnson and McMullin went head to head. Johnson won 8 of them.

    Even Jill Stein beat McMullin in New Mexico, Colorado, and Louisiana.

    McMullin was basically a one state candidate and that wouldn’t have changed had he been on in more.

  45. Andy

    “Jim
    August 10, 2018 at 17:07
    Johnson beat Stein in every state where they were both on the ballot. There’s no reason to believe that anything else would have happened had Stein been on the ballot in the last few. And why didn’t Stein have the name recognition of Nader (or Johnson)? It wasn’t her first Presidential election and the Green Party is hardly unknown – Nader ran with it. Her lack of name recognition, relative to Johnson and Nader, is a failing of her candidacy.”

    Jill Stein is not a well known person, nor did she have a large campaign budget. Given her lack of money, lack of name recognition, and the fact that she was not on the ballot in 6 states, including 3 high population states (North Carolina, Georgia, and Indiana), her 1.4 million plus votes is just a impressive, and perhaps even more impressive, than Johnson’s vote total.

    “If there was such demand for the Constitution Party, why didn’t they get on the ballot in more states?”

    The same reasons that the LP has not gotten on the ballot in all 50 states plus DC in every election. It is difficult. Johnson did not get on the ballot in all 50 states in 2012.

    Also, the Constitution Party has been sabotaged. Their ballot access was basically hijacked in California by a rogue faction.

    “Why didn’t Stein have 50+1 ballot access?”

    Once again, the LP has had a lot of elections where the party did not get on the ballot in all 50 states plus DC.

    Also, the Libertarian Party came close to not getting all 50 states plus DC in 2016. There were several states where ballot access drives came close to failing, and the LP was aided in part by ballot access lawsuits that went our way. If the courts had ruled differently in some states, the LP would not have had ballot access in all 50 states plus DC in 2016.

    “Why did Johnson and the LNC raise so much more money than the other two (not counting Stein’s post-election sketchiness.)”

    A good number of people who donated to Johnson/Weld were not even Libertarians. I know two people who did fundraising off of the Johnson/Weld donor list, and they both said that a lot of names that they called told them that they had no interest in the Libertarian Party, or in libertarianism, and that they only donated because they wanted to influence the outcome of the presidential election.

    One donor to both Johnson/Weld and the LNC in 2016 was Christy Walton, or the Walton Walmart family fortune. She is far from being a libertarian.

    “You put a Mormon on the ballot in Utah and watch him get a lot of votes. Wow. That’s where 1/3rd of McMullin’s votes came from. What’s the state with the next highest population of Mormons? That would be Idaho – McMullin’s 2nd best state. What a shock.

    And those are the only 2 states where McMullin picked up more votes than Johnson. Johnson beat McMullin in the other 9 states where they were both on the ballot: New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota, Iowa, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Virginia, and South Carolina. And, of course, the 22 states where McMullin only had write-in status.

    Throw out New Mexico and Utah and that leaves 9 states where Johnson and McMullin went head to head. Johnson won 8 of them.

    Even Jill Stein beat McMullin in New Mexico, Colorado, and Louisiana.

    McMullin was basically a one state candidate and that wouldn’t have changed had he been on in more.”

    McMullin was also a no name guy who jumped into the race very late. The fact that he got over 716,000 votes further proves my point that in 2016, voter discontent with the major party candidates for President was very high, and this had more to do with Johnson’s vote total than anything else. The fact of the matter is that Johnson/Weld did little to nothing to grow the LP, and they were lousy messengers for the party.

  46. robert capozzi

    AJ: The fact that he got over 716,000 votes further proves my point that in 2016, voter discontent with the major party candidates for President was very high, and this had more to do with Johnson’s vote total than anything else.

    Me: Yes on the first assertion, no on the second. Actually, “proof” requires a VERY high bar…surely you know that, AJ?

  47. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    August 10, 2018 at 19:18
    AJ: ‘The fact that he got over 716,000 votes further proves my point that in 2016, voter discontent with the major party candidates for President was very high, and this had more to do with Johnson’s vote total than anything else.’

    Me: Yes on the first assertion, no on the second. Actually, “proof” requires a VERY high bar…surely you know that, AJ?”

    Robert, as I mentioned before, I have been on the ground gathering petition signatures in multiple states both prior to Johnson/Weld winning the nomination, during their campaign, and since their campaign ended. This has put me in touch with tens of thousands of people in multiple states. The general feedback that I have gotten from the public is that the Libertarian Party screwed up by nominating Johnson/Weld, due to their lack of principles, and/or due to them coming off as goofy and unprepared, and that most of the people who voted for them only did so as a protest vote because they really did not like Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. I have gotten the same feedback from several other petition circulators.

  48. Just Some Random Guy

    So, question. I asked about this before, but I might as well ask again, see if things have changed. Are there any Libertarians (or third party people in general) who are running for election in 2018 that seem like they have a real shot at winning, or at least doing reasonably well? I’d like to try go give some support to such candidates, but there’s so many I can’t really tell who might have a shot at either winning or at least doing well enough to get noticed.

  49. Andy

    “Just Some Random Guy
    August 11, 2018 at 00:03
    So, question. I asked about this before, but I might as well ask again, see if things have changed. Are there any Libertarians (or third party people in general) who are running for election in 2018 that seem like they have a real shot at winning, or at least doing reasonably well? I’d like to try go give some support to such candidates, but there’s so many I can’t really tell who might have a shot at either winning or at least doing well enough to get noticed.”

    There are the 4 state legislators, one in Nebraska, who is a former Republican, and 3 in New Hampshire, one who was a Democrat, and two who were Republicans, who switched to Libertarian while in office, who are all running for reelection this year.

    Libertarian Lou Jasikoff is in a two way race for a seat in the state legislature in Pennsylvania. I’m not sure if he is running against a Republican or a Democrat, but one of the major parties is not fielding a candidate.

    I’m sure that there are others, but I’d have to do more research to find out who they are.

  50. Andy

    This is Mark Passio’s speech from Anarchapulco 2018.

    Mark Passio – Anarchy & The Occult

  51. robert capozzi

    AJ,

    I suggest you read up on basic statistics. And the concept of “confirmation bias.”

  52. Jim

    Andy “McMullin was also a no name guy who jumped into the race very late. The fact that he got over 716,000 votes further proves my point that in 2016, voter discontent with the major party candidates for President was very high, and this had more to do with Johnson’s vote total than anything else. The fact of the matter is that Johnson/Weld did little to nothing to grow the LP, and they were lousy messengers for the party.”

    You can’t simultaneously claim that the 3rd party candidates had no name recognition while also touting the high vote total as evidence that they were just a protest vote. Because if that were the case, and people really didn’t recognize their names and were they were just voting for anyone not named Clinton or Trump, then the votes would have been randomly distributed.

    But the votes clearly weren’t randomly distributed. Johnson beat McMullin in 9 of the 11 states where they were both on the ballot. Johnson beat Stein in every state where they were both on the ballot. Stein beat Castle in every state where they were both on the ballot.

    And you still aren’t answering why Johnson had better name recognition than Stein.

    You can’t just say Stein had lower name recognition and that caused lower fund raising and she had lower fund raising which caused less name recognition. Johnson broke that loop to a degree that Stein did not.

    More people signed the Libertarian Pledge in 2016 than in 2012 and 2008 combined. 100,000 people registered to vote as Libertarians in 2016 – more than any previous year, by a lot. Even if you think the donations and votes were one time events, signing the pledge and changing party voter registration is a sign of a longer term commitment.

  53. Anthony Dlugos

    ‘I suggest you read up on basic statistics. And the concept of “confirmation bias.”’

    hold on there, RC! I’m not sure I want Andy becoming self-aware about his confirmation bias. His lack thereof is probably what permits his drive to continue gathering signatures for the LP. haha

  54. Jim

    I just threw this together fast –

    Gary Johnson was the first Libertarian candidate to pick up more than 50% of the Non-Republican / Non-Democratic vote. He did that in both 2012 and 2016, getting about 54% of the non-major party vote both times. Ron Paul was the next highest with 48%. All others were less than 40%.

    https://i.imgur.com/2sJeyNE.png

    The LP in 2012 – 2016 became the first minor party to pick up more than 50% of the non-major party vote for more than one election since the American Independent Party in 1968 – 1972, depending on whether or not you want to count Ross Perot’s 1992 run with the Reform Party.

  55. Andy

    Well, well, well. look what just happened in Charlottesville, and also in Washington DC. Antifa did a demonstration in Charlottesville, because it was the one year anniversary of the Charlottesville Riot, and nobody from Unite the Right was even there this time, yet Antifa rioted anyway, as they engaged in multiple acts of violence and destruction.

    Unite the Right did have an event in Washington DC, but only 25 people from Unite the Right showed up, and they ended up leaving early, There was zero violence or property destruction from Unite the Right, yet once again, Antifa engaged in acts of violence and property destruction.

    It should be blatantly apparent to all that Antifa are violent Marxist goons who receive funding from globalists like George Soros. They are modern day Bolsheviks.

    Remember that I pointed this out last year right here on IPR, and I was attacked for saying it, and once again, I have been proven right.

    Once again, I am in no way endorsing everyone who makes up the Unite the Right coalition. There were people involved in Unite the Right with whom I have strong disagreements. This issue is about the right to engage in free speech activities without having these activities being shut down by violent goons who create disturbances in order to shut down speech that they don’t like. This is a Heckler’s Veto practice.

    I do not support Nazis, but I do not support communists either. These Antifa Marxist scumbags need to be called out for this bullshit.

    CNN and Media Silent as Antifa Attacks Police and Journalists?

  56. Andy

    Walter Williams hits the nail on the head here.

    Prof. Walter E. Williams on the Left destroying American values on college campuses

  57. Tylor Reinhardt

    Hi,

    I listen to a lot of podcasts, but I was wondering if someone had any recommendations on a Constitutionalist/Independent American podcast. I have some ideas, but wanted to run it by someone to see if there was anything I might be missing.

    Andy, I started listening to The LAVAFlow on your recommendation. 🙂 Thanks.

  58. Tylor Reinhardt

    On the video by Prof. Walter E. Williams, the WSWS (Socialist Equility Party), which is about as leftist that you can get, don’t seem to fit that description. Just listen to their July, 4th 2018 podcast. So among other groups on the left, I don’t think It’s the whole left that is taking these positions he is pointing out.

    Also, that Military guy that has “Communism will win,” on his hat, has started a podcast called, “eyes left” so I think if you want to really know what he thinks or whatnot, that might be the way to go. I learned of it on Media Roots Radio podcast that has dual co-hosts including Abby Martin from “Breaking the Set” that used to air on RT.

    I listen to A LOT of podcasts. 🙂

  59. Andy

    “Tylor Reinhardt
    August 14, 2018 at 12:55
    Hi,

    I listen to a lot of podcasts, but I was wondering if someone had any recommendations on a Constitutionalist/Independent American podcast. I have some ideas, but wanted to run it by someone to see if there was anything I might be missing.”

    Check out Darrell Castle’s The Castle Report. Darrell Castle was the Constitution Party’s 2008 candidate for Vice President, and their 2016 candidate for President.

    https://www.castlereport.us/

    “Andy, I started listening to The LAVAFlow on your recommendation. ? Thanks.”

    You are welcome. I’m sure that Rodger Paxton, the guy who does The LAVA Flow podcast, is happy to get another listener.

  60. Andy

    This whole movement to tear down statues/monuments/memorials/historic sites from the Confederate States of America, and from the Founding Fathers of this country, is a Marxist tactic to erase American history so they can get more people to accept ditching the US Constitution in favor of Marxism and global government.

    I am posting this as a tribute to those who do not want to tear down history and flush it down the Memory Hole.

    “The Last Rebel” by Lynyrd Skynyrd Confederate Memories

  61. Paul

    I guess there’s nothing more Libertarian than government owned and maintained statues venerating politicians who supported a slave empire.

    Seems legit.

  62. Tylor Reinhardt

    Thanks Andy! I didn’t realize he had started a podcast again. I followed it on podbean.

    I wish Austin Petersen wasn’t running for office. He had one of the best podcasts ever!

  63. Anthony Dlugos

    What office is the insufferable prick Petersen running for? Last I heard, he got obliterated in the Missouri GOP primary.

  64. Tylor Reinhardt

    Ok, maybe he isn’t running for office, that is news to me. I only know him from what he used to talk about on his podcast. Made me think a lot.

  65. Tylor Reinhardt

    Yeah, I hadn’t read the whole thread yet when I wrote that. I listen to Jason Stapleton everyday and figured he would have said something but that is an assumption that was wrong. Except I probably should have known since he laid on the Missouri jokes slightly more than he’s been doing lately. 😛

  66. Andy

    “Peaceful people crossing borders, dude!”

    Sweden Is Burning: Migrant Gangs Unleash Coordinated Fire-Bomb Rampage Across Multiple Cities

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/08/tyler-durden/sweden-is-burning-migrant-gangs-unleash-coordinated-fire-bomb-rampage-across-multiple-cities/

    From the article: “Many Swedes were horrified in early 2017 when U.S. President Donald Trump linked immigration to rising crime in Sweden, but an increasing number now agree with him.

    Amid soaring crime rates, gang violence, complaints about education, and pregnant mothers even being turned away from maternity wards due to a lack of capacity, resentment in Sweden has built over the influx of more than 600,000 immigrants over the past five years.

    And tonight is one of the worst night for violence in recent history as police report multiple gangs of masked youths rampaging across three major Swedish cities, setting cars on fire in what seems like a coordinated action.”

  67. DJ

    Today’s crimes, lunacies, and decays are too many, profitable, and intractable. We are racing out of control toward some as yet dimly limned catastrophe. Hang on and take the ride.
    ……………

    Congressmen are commodities and Washington a Coke machine: insert your coins, choose your law, and pull the lever. Voila.
    …………….

    We know the foregoing, many of us. The takeaway is that none of it is preventable. We careen toward whatever epochal demise awaits us. Slow motion or all at once, it will be a doozy.

    https://fredoneverything.org/decline-in-the-fall-or-late-summer-anyway-by-fred-gibbon/

  68. Andy

    Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern: “Do you have any questions which aren’t race-baiting?”

  69. Andy

    Anyone who thinks that this migrant situation in Sweden has anything to do with libertarianism, or is in any way a desirable thing to happen in the country where you live, is not a true libertarian.

    Sweden Under Assault: Waves of Middle Eastern Migrants Cause Surge in Crime

  70. Andy

    “Paul
    August 14, 2018 at 15:42
    I guess there’s nothing more Libertarian than government owned and maintained statues venerating politicians who supported a slave empire.

    Seems legit.”

    We don’t live in a private property anarcho-capitalist society. It has become a tradition, not just in this country, but in every other country in the world, to have statues, monuments, historic markers, and historic sites, on public (ie-government owned and managed) property.

    The people who want to tear down statues/monuments/historic sites connected to the Confederate States of America and the Founding Fathers of this country are not going after all statues/monuments/historic sites, as if something like this fits in with their leftist agenda, like say the Vladimir Lenin (who was not even an American citizen, and who I don’t think ever set foot in this country) statues in Seattle and New York City, or the statue of a gun with the barrel twisted, which is supposed to promote gun control, in front of the United Nations building in New York City. They are not trying to tear anything down connected to say Franklin Roosevelt or Lyndon Johnson or Bill Clinton. They are not trying to tear down anything connected to Martin Luther King Jr, who was connected to Marxist groups, and who plagiarized his doctoral thesis, and who had numerous affairs, all while claiming to be a Reverend (and note that he also made comments about gays that would be considered to be homophobic today).

    It is pretty clear that these people are not targeting all statues, and this is not really about enforcing some kind of pristine moral code, nor is it about privatizing public property. This is about tearing down American history, and destroying people’s connection early American history, so they can get more people on board with completely ditching the US Constitution in favor of Marxism and globalism.

  71. Andy

    Jim, that is up to the people in that country. Should the Aztec statues in Mexico be torn down since the Aztecs engaged in human sacrifice and they oppressed other tribes? Should the Julius Ceasar statue be torn down in Rome, Italy? Should statues of British Monarchs be torn down in London? How about the pyramids of Egypt, which apparently were built using slave labor?

    The attacks against things from the Confederate States of America and the Founding Fathers of this country have nothing to do with maintaining pristine ethics, it is about radical Marxists and globalists trying to destroy this country.

  72. Jim

    Why is it up to the Kurds whether or not to tear down statues of Saddam Hussein, but not up to black Americans to tear down statues of Confederate defenders of slavery?

  73. Anthony Dlugos

    “The attacks against things from the Confederate States of America….is about radical Marxists and globalists trying to destroy this country.”

    lol. Drug-induced delusion.

  74. Andy

    “Jim
    August 16, 2018 at 16:44
    Why is it up to the Kurds whether or not to tear down statues of Saddam Hussein, but not up to black Americans to tear down statues of Confederate defenders of slavery?”

    It is not just up to black Americans. it is also up to white Americans. Surveys indicate that the majority of white Americans want to keep the statues up. There are also black Americans who favor keeping the statues up, or who don’t really care about the issue.

    You have an overly simplified view of history that says, “White people evil and are responsible for all that is bad in the world.” How about the fact that blacks in Africa captured and sold other blacks into slavery? How about the fact that Jews and Muslims were heavily involved in the slave trade? How about the fact that there were blacks in the USA who had been set free, who went on to become slave owners themselves?

    This issue is not really about slavery, and I’ve already debunked the claim that this is about ethical purity for statues/monuments/memorials/historic sites, because one could find plenty of things wrong with other statues/monuments/memorials/historic sites that are up that are not being attacked by these leftist lunatics, and some of them are even honored by these leftist lunatics.

    If these leftists are really so concerned about ethical purity, why don’t they go after Bill Clinton, who is still alive today, and can be held accountable for his crimes, and why don’t they tear down his presidential library in Little Rock, and the street that is named after him in Little Rock, and anything else with his name or likeness on it?

    These leftists don’t really give a shit about ethics, or slavery for that matter, because the economic system they support, is a slave system. Once again, this is about tearing down American history, and getting more people on board with completely scrapping the US Constitution in favor of Marxism and globalism.

  75. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: “lol. Drug-induced delusion.”

    It is not a delusion at all. This is a Marxist tactic. Why in the hell do you think that Antifa, a radical Marxist group, is leading the charge on this? Some of these people even wave freaking communist flags at their rallies/protests/counter-demonstrations.

  76. Jim

    Andy “You have an overly simplified view of history that says, ‘White people evil and are responsible for all that is bad in the world.’”

    Nope. I do think defenders of slavery were evil. And I don’t think it is a coincidence that the vast majority of the statues glorifying the Confederacy were erected between the 1890s and the 1950s with the majority of those coming in the 1910s and 1920s – the peak years of the KKK.

    No one is trying to erase history. They are trying to end the glorification of certain parts of it.

    Your polls are junk. How people answer those surveys strongly depends on how the question is worded.

    A Marist/PBS survey asked “Do you think statues honoring leaders of the Confederacy should: Remain as a historical symbol / Be removed because they are offensive to some people?

    The response: 62% keep monuments, 27% remove them.

    A PPP survey asked “Would you support or oppose relocating monuments honoring the Confederacy from government property and moving them to museums or other historical sites where they can be viewed in proper historical context?”

    The response: 26% keep monuments where they are, 58% move them to museums, cemeteries, etc.

    Which shows that people don’t want them destroyed (they don’t want to erase history), but they also don’t want them in a place where they can be seen as a tribute to a justified defense of slavery – which is the only way they can be viewed where they currently are.

    But all of those polls are irrelevant and you know it. We’re libertarians. We take unpopular positions all the time because it’s the right thing to do.

    I do find this to be a weird position coming from you, though. I can sort of see your justification for not wanting immigration until after the government is dismantled to a certain point. I don’t agree with it, but I understand where it’s coming from. But there is no excuse for this. There is no hang-up for the immediate removal of government statues glorifying the Confederate defense of slavery except… you don’t want them moved.

Leave a Reply

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