“JT” is the troll (aka Vernon, Wake Up, Ancient Aryan Astronaut, etc, etc). He is also apparently an impersonator using the screen name and email address of someone who actually did participate in the comments here regularly a long time ago. The real JT has not commented here in years. I actually know who that was, although he chose not to make it public. IPR editors, please remove his comments when you catch them in the future. I’m leaving them up for now, with those note, because other people responded to his “points” before I caught it, and for no other reason.
Dave Terry
October 12, 2015
JT Oct12,
“Translation: he wants to hypocritically duck debating those who are running against him for the Libertarian Nomination such as Nathan Norman and Cecil Ince,”
WHO the H… are these guys? Where and when did he say that he wouldn’t debate other “pretenders” to the LP nomination?
“while at the same time trying to use the force of the government to force his major party opponents to debate him.”
Do seriously believe that one should NOT “use the force of government” to correct this violation of the rights of the LP and Green Parties?
Steve M
October 12, 2015
JT,
Your spouting nonsense. There is no party rule that says any candidate has debate any other candidate and there is no rule that a debate organizer can’t invite whomever they like. So, if you are hosting a debate then invite Gary and the others and if you can get enough of an audience then you might have an argument. But until then its all hypothetical.
As for myself I am happy that Gary is running around the country making appearances and engaging in challenging the two party duopoly.
As far as the law suite goes. Them that made the rules should have to live up to the rules they made. The democon/republicrats wrote the corporate tax laws that allow donations to non-partisan educational events. They wrote the anti-trust laws. They then conspired to limit the debates to only their candidates. I say that if I have to follow the laws, well then those that wrote the laws should have to follow them as well.
Andy
October 12, 2015
“Wake Up
October 12, 2015 at 5:28 pm
Oh, sorry. If I said Black Lives it wouldn’t be trolling but since I said White Lives it is. Right?”
It’s Joe Wendt, right?
JT
October 12, 2015
” not debating people no one has heard of.”
Isn’t that what the Democrats and Republicans say about him and Jill Stein? What percentage name recognition of the general populous do either of them have?
Mark Axinn
October 12, 2015
>What is he doing to address the growing ____ ____Matter movement?
ALERT: Troll presence detected.
Mark Axinn
October 12, 2015
>Translation: he wants to hypocritically duck debating those who are running against him for the Libertarian Nomination such as Nathan Norman and Cecil Ince,
Incorrect.
I am sure it has a lot more to do with not having to make any FEC disclosures at this time and a lot less to do with not debating people no one has heard of.
Caryn Ann Harlos
October 12, 2015
commenting to subscribe
JT
October 12, 2015
Translation: he wants to hypocritically duck debating those who are running against him for the Libertarian Nomination such as Nathan Norman and Cecil Ince, while at the same time trying to use the force of the government to force his major party opponents to debate him.
Mark Axinn
October 12, 2015
Jill–I met with Gary in a much more intimate setting Thursday night.
My belief is that he is running for President and does not see any particular advantage to announcing yet.
Andy CraigPost author | October 12, 2015
Yes, he does mention it briefly, but nothing new. He talks about the Fair Debates lawsuit at some length, that segment cut out and edited would probably make a good promo for that.
Of possible interest: he does also address some criticisms about private prisons in NM, Sharia law, and tax reform, and answers a question criticizing the use of antitrust law against the Commission on Presidential Debates. Other than that, mostly the usual stump speech about his background, time as Gov., and the usual rundown of issues like the budget and marijuana legalization and non-interventionist foreign policy. I thought he did well though, better delivery than usual.
The audio isn’t the greatest during the intro, and towards the end of the Q and A, when there was a lot of background noise. But most of the rest of the time it’s good enough to be usable.
Jill Pyeatt
October 12, 2015
Has anyone listened to this? Does he say anything about running for President?
Thanks!
I was on the fence, but if you say so. I’ll post it.
That should probably be its own article…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xaq5Wkmw-4
“JT” is the troll (aka Vernon, Wake Up, Ancient Aryan Astronaut, etc, etc). He is also apparently an impersonator using the screen name and email address of someone who actually did participate in the comments here regularly a long time ago. The real JT has not commented here in years. I actually know who that was, although he chose not to make it public. IPR editors, please remove his comments when you catch them in the future. I’m leaving them up for now, with those note, because other people responded to his “points” before I caught it, and for no other reason.
JT Oct12,
“Translation: he wants to hypocritically duck debating those who are running against him for the Libertarian Nomination such as Nathan Norman and Cecil Ince,”
WHO the H… are these guys? Where and when did he say that he wouldn’t debate other “pretenders” to the LP nomination?
“while at the same time trying to use the force of the government to force his major party opponents to debate him.”
Do seriously believe that one should NOT “use the force of government” to correct this violation of the rights of the LP and Green Parties?
JT,
Your spouting nonsense. There is no party rule that says any candidate has debate any other candidate and there is no rule that a debate organizer can’t invite whomever they like. So, if you are hosting a debate then invite Gary and the others and if you can get enough of an audience then you might have an argument. But until then its all hypothetical.
As for myself I am happy that Gary is running around the country making appearances and engaging in challenging the two party duopoly.
As far as the law suite goes. Them that made the rules should have to live up to the rules they made. The democon/republicrats wrote the corporate tax laws that allow donations to non-partisan educational events. They wrote the anti-trust laws. They then conspired to limit the debates to only their candidates. I say that if I have to follow the laws, well then those that wrote the laws should have to follow them as well.
“Wake Up
October 12, 2015 at 5:28 pm
Oh, sorry. If I said Black Lives it wouldn’t be trolling but since I said White Lives it is. Right?”
It’s Joe Wendt, right?
” not debating people no one has heard of.”
Isn’t that what the Democrats and Republicans say about him and Jill Stein? What percentage name recognition of the general populous do either of them have?
>What is he doing to address the growing ____ ____Matter movement?
ALERT: Troll presence detected.
>Translation: he wants to hypocritically duck debating those who are running against him for the Libertarian Nomination such as Nathan Norman and Cecil Ince,
Incorrect.
I am sure it has a lot more to do with not having to make any FEC disclosures at this time and a lot less to do with not debating people no one has heard of.
commenting to subscribe
Translation: he wants to hypocritically duck debating those who are running against him for the Libertarian Nomination such as Nathan Norman and Cecil Ince, while at the same time trying to use the force of the government to force his major party opponents to debate him.
Jill–I met with Gary in a much more intimate setting Thursday night.
My belief is that he is running for President and does not see any particular advantage to announcing yet.
Yes, he does mention it briefly, but nothing new. He talks about the Fair Debates lawsuit at some length, that segment cut out and edited would probably make a good promo for that.
Of possible interest: he does also address some criticisms about private prisons in NM, Sharia law, and tax reform, and answers a question criticizing the use of antitrust law against the Commission on Presidential Debates. Other than that, mostly the usual stump speech about his background, time as Gov., and the usual rundown of issues like the budget and marijuana legalization and non-interventionist foreign policy. I thought he did well though, better delivery than usual.
The audio isn’t the greatest during the intro, and towards the end of the Q and A, when there was a lot of background noise. But most of the rest of the time it’s good enough to be usable.
Has anyone listened to this? Does he say anything about running for President?