Milnes seeks aid for 2012 presidential campaign

The following message was received from presidential hopeful Robert Milnes:

Please forward to possibly interested persons or groups. I have declared my candidacy for President of the UNITED STATES in 2012. That is 100 years from Teddy Roosevelt’s run in 1912 which was the best since for a third party or independent candidate. He received 27% of the vote second place on the newly formed Progressive Party which he founded. I hope to be in a very similar position as Ralph Nader in 2008 with an Independent candidacy — as there is presently no Progressive party — on over 40 ballots. However, unlike Nader, the Progressive Libertarian Alliance Independent ticket will be a fusion ticket with a progressive and a libertarian. Also, unlike Nader, I hope to coordinate the leftist progressive (Green party) vote and the libertarian (Libertarian party) vote by endorsing one Green or Libertarian on every downticket ballot. This is because it would do an Independent candidate little good to win the Presidency only to have a Congress composed of Democrats and Republicans. The President’s legislation and policies would get stopped; vetoes overriden. If you are interested in helping me with this campaign please go to and fill out the campaign assistance form. Note that there is presently no campaign contributions button. This is because I am seeking a progressive or libertarian webmaster and/or host for an upgraded website. The campaign contributions are processed pursuant to FEC regulations for a fee. I would like to see the hosting and processing fees go to such a webmaster and/or host. Also you can go to and click the Donations button. This is to donate to me personally for various expenses associated with my recovery from the house fire and loss of the house and about 1/2 of my possessions. I had no renters insurance or legal assistance or assistance from the City or County of Camden or the State of New Jersey. Thank you for your interest and kind assistance. I am looking forward to the campaign. WE ARE IN TO WIN! RWM.

37 thoughts on “Milnes seeks aid for 2012 presidential campaign

  1. Catholic Trotskyist

    Despite some serious political differences, the Catholic Trotskyist Party of America may be holding a fundraiser for Milnes at some point. No further information is known at this time, but adequate notice will be posted on this website when plans for this event are underway. There have been attempts to contact the Protestant Stalinist Party and the British Reform Sectarian Party to colaborate on this event, but no response is yet forthcoming.

  2. Mike Gillis

    No attempt to contact Lyndon LaRouche, the Maoist Scientology Party or Dan Imperato?

    You could get a good collection on lunacy at that fundraiser.

    I predict a turn out of One person at that fundraiser. Two if you pay for Milnes’ plane ticket.

  3. JimDavidson

    There is something to be said for a unified opposition. However, all the things that there are to say for it were said in September, by Ron Paul, at his press conference. At that event, Baldwin, Nader, McKinney, and Ron stood together for four points on liberty. They were subsequently joined by Charles Jay and the Boston Tea Party which adopted the four points. Bob Barr is reported to have agreed to the points, though not to actually show up at the event.

    So, if Robert Milnes is serious about working for a unified opposition party strategy, it might be well to look at the agreement already in place on the four points of the Campaign for Liberty program. See for details.

    As a courtesy to him when he was applying for the nomination of the Boston Tea Party back in June, I read what Milnes had written for his campaign proposals. I found much to suggest he wasn’t a credible candidate. Maybe he could replace all that stuff with the Campaign for Liberty program for his run in 2012.

    If he, in the mean time, got himself elected to some public office, somewhere in the country, at some city, county, or state level, or to Congress or the Senate, that would give him some credibility to run for president. If not, he has very little.

  4. Trent Hill

    “that would give him some credibility to run for president. If not, he has very little.”

    It isnt as if Charles Jay had been elected,right?

  5. cyrano3000

    For a supposed advocate of libertarian policies to state ” I had no renters insurance or legal assistance or assistance from the City or County of Camden or the State of New Jersey.” which implies that Milnes should have received assistance from the City of Camden or the State of New Jersey makes me wonder what kind of libertarian Mr. Milnes is.

    Loosing one’s house due to fire is an unfortunate occurrence but I do not find it a good reason to contribute the Mr. Milnes political campaign.

  6. JimDavidson

    @4 I would say that Charles Jay has no credibility from ever having been elected to any office. Correct. Charles Jay has considerable credibility from having consistent libertarian principles. Charles has credibility, with me, for having adopted the Campaign for Liberty four point program shortly after it was announced.

    Charles has credibility as a business professional. He has credibility as a candidate who obtained significant national media attention, including a report on Fox News and several reports on network affiliates in various major cities. He has credibility as a sincere voice for freedom in each of the presidential debates he attended this year. He has credibility as a candidate for national office on the ballot in three states in 2008 and one state in 2004, which is four more states than Milnes. He has credibility as a friend of Marilyn Chambers, who has done important work in film and in free speech advocacy.

    I don’t know which states they were, but I believe Charles when he says that he was registered as a write-in candidate in ten states this year. I don’t know of a single state where that is true of Milnes.

    Didja wanna go toe to toe on any of that, Trent?

  7. Trent Hill

    You are awfully confrontational,arent you?

    I essentially agree with you, my point was that bringing elective office into it was a faulty point–since the party eventually nominated someone of similar electile dysfunction. In all other ways, including mental stability, Charles Jay was clearly more qualified and the BTP made the right choice.

  8. Trent Hill

    Although I would argue that Charles Jay didnt get as many votes as I would’ve thought considering the amount of media he got. Then again, Brian Moore (the Socialists) got on the Colbert Report, FoxNews, and a number of other media outlets and didnt achieve much more.

    The conclusion i’ll draw from this is that single appearances probably dont help all that much.

  9. JimDavidson

    No, bringing elective office into it is a valid way for old Milnes to show some credibility. He has none of the other things going for him that Jay has. Milnes could get taken seriously if he could get elected to some lesser office. He’s not God’s gift to America, so what makes anyone want to vote for him for president?

    I don’t expect Milnes to pay any attention to anyone. He never does. He’ll be running for president as many times as Harold Stassen.

    I would argue that Charles Jay got more votes for president than you or me. For someone who had four months and a week to get from nomination by his party to the election, he did pretty well.

    The conclusion I draw from this stuff is that there isn’t any meaningful conclusions to draw from either of the two runs Charles has had.

    As for confrontational, punk, your question in 4 above is confrontational. You don’t like confrontations? Don’t ask confrontational questions.

    Yes, I’m confrontational. What are you going to do about it?

  10. Trent Hill

    I could just delete your posts, handle, and ban your IP. Instead–im going to be the adult and allow you to spew filth wherever you want. Freemarket of ideas and all that.

    But seriously, there is no need for all the vitriol. My question was meant in a mostly joking fashion and simply to point out that the eventual nominee didnt have a leg up on Milnes in that particular regard, though he far surpassed him in most others.

  11. G.E.

    The difference between “qualifications” or fitness to do the job that exist between Charles Jay and Ron Paul are slimmer than between Charles Jay and Robert Milnes (or Robert Milnes and a chair).

  12. Mike Gillis

    A choice between Robert Milnes and a chair, GE?

    Most chairs are far more stable than Milnes.

  13. Catholic Trotskyist

    Mike, yes I am also contacting the people you mentioned, although I am a bit hesitant about LaRouche because he is a traitor to Trotskyism, a movement to which he once belonged. Milnes is definitely one of God’s gifts to America, and is too more qualified than a chair. Amen.

  14. Trent Hill

    “Trent – Come on, now. Robert Milnes makes Charles Jay look EXTREMELY qualified by comparison.”

    GE–no one here, least of all me, has suggested that Robert Milnes was anywhere near as qualified as Charles Jay. My point, which was supposed to be a mere observation, was that neither Robert Milnes nor the eventual nominee had ever held office–so it was an odd thing to hold against Milnes.

  15. Thomas L. Knapp


    You write:

    “it was an odd thing to hold against Milnes.”

    Well, it would have been an odd thing to hold against Milnes, if it had been held against Milnes. However, it wasn’t held against Milnes — or at least it wasn’t held against Milnes by Davidson.

    Suggesting that X is a way to improve one’s image as a candidate is not the same as saying that not-X is a detriment to one’s image as a candidate.

    Tom Knapp

  16. Trent Hill


    Suggesting that X would make Candidate A more credible, when one helped to elect and campaign for Candidate B, who lacked X, seems backwards.
    However, not-X IS a detriment to one’s image as a candidate, especially for President.

  17. Robert Milnes

    The deck is so unfairly stacked against third party/independents that it is unfair to hold it (not having elected office) against or conversely require it from as prerequesite for any.

  18. Robert Milnes

    Charlesd Jay I believe has stated that he is not going to run for office anymore. So all investment in him/his name recognition is lost. He also to the best of my knowledge did not pursue the progressive alliance or endorse it or even had an opinion about it. i.e. was clueless as to how to possibly actually win.

  19. Mike Gillis

    As “clueless” as you claim he is, Robert, he has far more verified supporters than you do.

    Seriously, stop doing this to yourself. If there is to be any sort of fusion ticket, it won’t be one with your name on it. You’re just embarassing yourself by keeping this up.

  20. Robert Milnes

    “If there is to be any sort of fusion ticket…”. If not, the libs & greens will continue to lose. If there is, well already losing ticket Kucinich/Ron Paul has been suggested. The closest thing last cycle that almost happened by accident was Gravel/Ruwart which I could have endorsed. I’d have to be deeply involved or it will surely fail. You people are really clueless.

  21. JimDavidson

    @10 Don’t make threats. If you want to delete my posts and handle, do it. I don’t care. It doesn’t matter to me if IPR wants to follow the path of censorship. If you wanted the free exercise of free expression you wouldn’t make brainless threats. Threatening me doesn’t intimidate me, it simply enrages me. If you want a confrontation, I’m eager to have a confrontation.

  22. JimDavidson

    @22 I’m not holding it against you nor requiring it of you. I’m saying you could run for dog catcher and use that as a qualification for seeking higher office. You have not impressed me with any qualifications for the office of president, other than the minimal constitutional obligations – being 35+, being natural born, being resident 14+ years.

    What you bring to the table is a lot of weird ideas. These are not qualifications. They are a lot of weird ideas. Not all of them are on their face alarming, but some of them are.

    You also bring to the table an eagerness for a female running mate. This approach has seemed at times creepy and at times smarmy. It is creepy in that it seems like the way you want to relate to women who have ideas different from yours. It is smarmy in that you seem to think that the only thing a woman is good for is to be the running mate of a man. It would seem a tad less sexist if you were to assume the vice presidential position from time to time.

  23. JimDavidson

    @25 concur.

    There’s really no reason to suppose that this fusion ticket concept is valid. It would be mildly amusing to see Robert and “woman from party A or B” run, just to see how few votes they got. Hard to see what would be in it for the woman, though.

  24. Trent Hill

    Mr. Davidson,

    No threat intended—in fact I explicitly stated that I WASNT going to do any of those things. You can read,right?

    I also explicitly stated my belief in the “free market of ideas,and all that”. So…..where were the threats Jim?

    You really have a few screws loose pal. You’re more than welcome to continue shuffling your feet around here–but making assinine statements will only confirm what people already suspect about you. Nevertheless, you’re more than free to MAKE those statements–but i’m going to correct them whenever I feel like it. And this whole “free coverage of the BTP” thing is going to stop. When the BTP does something newsworthy,it’ll get coverage here at IPR. But an explosive growth of 15 BTP members in 4 weeks isnt going to be posted here any longer. Make real news, and you’ll get real coverage. That isnt a threat, it’s a basic statement about our policy. That same policy applies to the ModernWhigs, American Heritage Party, etc.

  25. Trent Hill

    I missed a few days…on quote of the day. So i’ll award that to both Jim and Jeremy–for the assist.

  26. JimDavidson

    @33 I’ve never asked for coverage of the membership growth numbers. They seem to be insignificant to many people in the party, including BTP national committee at large rep Trinward. I post about them on the BTP site because I think the numbers are significant to BTP members.

    I honestly don’t care what you report at IPR. It isn’t my property. I enjoy reading IPR because of the things y’all choose to report, and on which I choose to comment. As soon as it stops amusing me to post here, I’ll stop.

    If you have these powers and don’t intend to threaten or intimidate, then simply use the powers you have. Mentioning all these terrible things you could do to me is threatening to use them. All your “I said I won’t” means is, “I could change my mind.”

    Which is great. It encourages me to be more outrageous. Throw me in the brier patch, Br’er Bear.

Leave a Reply

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