Bill Weld on CNN’s State of the Union 5/22/2016

30 thoughts on “Bill Weld on CNN’s State of the Union 5/22/2016

  1. George Phillies

    Moderator: Let’s talk about guns. Back in 1993 you proposed some of the strictest
    gun control laws in the country including a statewide ban on some forms of semi automatic rifles, a waiting period to buy handguns, a version of warriors to the United States prohibition against gun ownership for anyone under 21. Do your positions on strict gun control fit in with a libertarian party platform that opposes (platform quote).

    Weld: Well, I’m a lifelong hunter and gun owner and I don’t think those proposals were out of the mainstream. At all, I distinguish between you know, hunting guns and guns that really don’t seem to have any hunting purpose or potential purpose so that was the distinction I was drawing there. But that’s an area where I think Gary and I can find common ground. I’m not worried about that issue.

  2. Jim Polichak from Long Island

    I RECENTLY SENT THIS TO THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR>>>
    How about more coverage of the two minor parties that will probably be on the ballot in all fifty states?
    The two major parties are about to nominate the two most disliked candidates in polling history. Many people will go to the polls in November trying to chose between the lesser of two evils.
    A Libertarian ticket of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld {two former GOP governors} has more executive experience than Trump and Clinton has together and Jill Stein of the Green Party speaks to the most important issue of this century. What good is a tax cut if your home is underwater {Literally, not figuratively}.
    The American vote has a right to know more about how their presidential options extend beyond the two major parties.
    The presidential debate commission run by the two parties since the League of Woman Voters gave up trying to run fair debates have set an almost impossible standard for minor party candidates to achieve for a podium at the debates – 15% in five different national polls to be chosen by the debate commission.
    Most news organizations have gone along with this standard as an excuse not to give a reasonable amount of coverage to minor party candidate thereby assuring that it is all but impossible to achieve that polling number.
    Two former governors challenging a reality TV star for the presidency is certainly a story that should be covered by the media on at least a weekly basis.
    And a champion of the environment and foe of global warming has to be at least as newsworthy as the obstructionist and naysayers who declare that the jury is still out on global warming.
    I URGE EVERY READER OF IPR TO SEND SIMILAR NOTES TO EVERY MEDIA SITE THAT THEY FREQUENT.

  3. Be Rational

    Bill Weld will have to better than this in supporting the 2nd Amendment or both he and Gary Johnson will be cast aside in Orlando.

    It’s not a problem if he opposes private nukes, private ownership of weapons of mass destruction of all kinds, but he has to somehow admit and renounce his prior position. He can do that while still appearing to be reasonable and open to solving the problem of murder, violence and even gun violence in order to explain the caring intent of his previous stand. People do learn, grow and shift their positions while trying to get a grip on a problem that still exists through time. Doing just that, and shifting one’s position accordingly is a positive thing. Just swallow hard and own it.

  4. Andy

    I am astounded that anyone is even considering this guy as a candidate for the Libertarian Party.

  5. Stewart Flood

    Prince John[son] has designated him Sheriff of Nottingham. How can you oppose a direct order of your ruler?!

    Just curious…am I the first to call him Prince John[son]? We need t-shirts…

  6. Bondurant

    @ Jim from Long Island

    I will send similar e-mails but I will tout those that promote freedom and liberty like Perry, McAfee, Feldman, etc.

    I won’t wast my precious time promoting Weld and those seeking to hijack the LP.

  7. Dave Terry

    Bill Weld should NEVER be considered as a Libertarian candidate for ANYTHING!!!

    Our second amendment rights have NOTHING whatsoever to do with any hobbies
    that we may have. I for one have NEVER been hunting in my life. The ONLY 4 legged
    animal I have ever killed was a dog with rabies almost 60 years ago. I am NOT at
    liberty to discuss how many 2 legged animals I may have killed in Vietnam!

    Mr. Weld states; ” I distinguish between you know, hunting guns and guns that really
    don’t seem to have any hunting purpose or potential purpose so that was the distinction
    I was drawing there.”

    THAT is NOT the distinction that our founders had in mind when they wrote the SECOND
    AMENDMENT! In FACT, THERE WAS NO DISTINCTION!!!

    The same weapons that they carried to put food our their tables and to protect their
    families from predatory (4 legged) animals were THE EXACT SAME WEAPONS THAT THEY
    CARRIED T0 Lexington, Concord, Bunker Hill, Fort Ticonderoga, The Battle of White Plains,
    The Battle of Fort Washington, The Battle of Trenton, The Battle of Princeton, The Battle of
    Oriskany, N.Y. The Battle of Bennington, Pennsylvania, The Battle of Saratoga (Freeman’s Farm)
    The Battle of Germantown, The 2nd Battle of Saratoga (Bemis Heights), The Battle of Monmouth New Jersey, The Capture of Savannah, Georgia, The Siege of Charleston, The Battle of Camden S.C.
    and a DOZEN OTHER LOCATIONS.

    IF A STATE TROOPER can carry an M-16, I can carry an M-16. IF AN American National Guardsman
    can carry an AK-47. I CAN ALSO CARRY AN AK-47!

    THAT IS WHAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT MEANS!
    IF Mr. Weld does NOT understand this, He has NO REASON to serve in ANY capacity in our government!

    “NOT ON OUR WATCH”
    “molon labe”

  8. robert capozzi

    This is what a prime time L looks like. Easy, crisp answers, spinning without sounding like spinning.

    A+ performance. On a major Sunday morning talk show!!!

    It sounds like the commentariat agrees that government can define what “arms” are. This is helpful. I understand that some Ls have a knee-jerk reaction to any government defining what’s protected under 2A, even though some seem OK with banning private nukes, bazookas, tanks. Maybe it’s a deal breaker…dunno. But it does seem the most ardent contradict themselves: Willing to allow a definition of what is protected and what is not, but claiming a monopoly interpretation on where the line is drawn.

    WW may need to think this issue through a bit more. He might need to steal a page from RP1 ’88, where he agreed to exclaim that his pro-life position is not the LP’s platform.

    He might say:

    I understand and respect that the L platform takes the broadest interpretation of the Second Amendment. I am also a strong proponent and defender of 2A, although I do have a record of excluding high-powered, multi-round weapons from those protections when I was Guv of MA.

    I may not be 100% aligned with the LP platform on this issue, but rest assured that I am a strong defender of maintaining and supporting gun rights in America. I may be at 95%, and I am strongly so, speaking as a lifelong hunter and gun owner. I want to keep the government out of your wallet, bedroom, and gun locker!

    As the VP candidate, I will defer to Gary Johnson’s positions on guns during the campaign, which could be characterized as 99 to 100% aligned with the platform.

  9. Dave Terry

    robert capozzi,

    He might say:

    “I understand and respect that the L platform takes the broadest interpretation of the Second Amendment. I am also a strong proponent and defender of 2A, although I do have a record of
    excluding high-powered, multi-round weapons from those protections when I was Guv of MA.

    Sorry, It won’t fly, as is.
    It would HAVE to include a complete and total repudiation of that position. and include the proviso,
    “AND if I were to become President of the U.S. I WOULD NOT RESURRECT MY PREVIOUS ERROR!

  10. langa

    It sounds like the commentariat agrees that government can define what “arms” are. This is helpful. I understand that some Ls have a knee-jerk reaction to any government defining what’s protected under 2A, even though some seem OK with banning private nukes, bazookas, tanks. Maybe it’s a deal breaker…dunno. But it does seem the most ardent contradict themselves: Willing to allow a definition of what is protected and what is not, but claiming a monopoly interpretation on where the line is drawn.

    The reason why nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and other “weapons of mass destruction” should be forbidden is that such weapons cannot possibly be used in a way that does not involve aggression. Any weapon that can be used without violating the NAP should be allowed. There is no contradiction in that position, because that position has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, except to the extent that the 2nd Amendment happens to agree with the NAP. In other words, that position is based on libertarianism, not Constitutional fetishism.

  11. Mike B.

    On the political spectrum, William Weld is really a liberal Republican, which in essence means he’s fiscally conservative and socially liberal but that still doesn’t translate to being philosophically libertarian. Where does he stand on:

    Social Security….Is he for the separation of retirement and state
    The war on drugs
    Foreign Aid
    Militarism
    Health Care….is for the separation of medicine and state
    Education….is for the separation of education and state
    Corporatism
    EPA

    Just to name a few off the top of my head.

  12. Dave Terry,

    Langa, May 22, 2016 wrote;

    The reason why nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and other “weapons of mass destruction” should be forbidden is that such weapons cannot possibly be used in a way that does not involve aggression.

    Wrong! The reason why weapons of ‘mass destruction’ are banned is not because they are necessarily
    aggressive, but because of their nature. UNINTENDED victims are inherent.

    Ironically, so are many other weapons, for example the fatalities of the Atomic Bombs dropped on
    Hiroshima & Nagasaki are:
    TABLE A: Estimates of Casualties Hiroshima Nagasaki
    Pre-raid population 255,000 195,000
    Dead 66,000 39,000
    Injured 69,000 25,000
    Total Casualties 135,000 64,000

    By comparison, the low level B-29 carpet bombing of Tokyo on the night of
    March 9-10, 1945. A force of 334 B-29s was unleashed – each plane stripped
    of ammunition for its machine guns to allow it to carry more fire-bombs.
    The lead attackers arrived over the city just after dark and were followed by
    a procession of death that lasted until dawn. The fires started by the initial
    raiders could be seen from 150 miles away. The results were devastating:
    almost 17 square miles of the city were reduced to ashes. Estimates of the
    number killed range between 80,000 and 200,000, a higher death toll than
    that produced by the dropping of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima or Nagasaki
    six months later.

    I spent 26 months in Japan in 1961-63 – I met many wonderful people there,
    I almost married one, They were the most gracious people I have ever met
    yet there was one subject that virtually no one was able to discuss.

  13. Andy

    The right to keep and bear arms is one of the most important issues. I would put it in the top 4, maybe even #1. Weld not getting it right on this issue should be automatically disqualify him for consideration as a candidate.

  14. langa

    On the political spectrum, William Weld is really a liberal Republican, which in essence means he’s fiscally conservative and socially liberal but that still doesn’t translate to being philosophically libertarian.

    Yeah, if you use the “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” definition, you end up thinking Bloomberg is a libertarian, when in reality, he’s basically the exact opposite.

  15. robert capozzi

    L: The reason why nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and other “weapons of mass destruction” should be forbidden is that such weapons cannot possibly be used in a way that does not involve aggression.

    Me: Yes, I’ve read Walter “Ls for Trump” Block’s paper on the subject. Nice try, I’d say, but: 1) ownership is not NAP violating, only use is; 2) what entity would be empowered to do the “forbidding”?; 3) WMD already exist, so the cat’s out of the bag. 4) From a NAP perspective, if an individual seceded from the state and chose to protect him- or her-self from WMD-possessing states, I would think the NAPster perspective would have to be that it’s OK to possess them as deterrence. Certainly the seceding individual cannot be trespassed on by a WMD-possessing state to seize his or her private nukes.

    The NAPster tries to oversimplify the complicated, unsatisfactorily. NAPsterism goes to absurd places.

    I take it that your non-Constitutional-fetishist perspective is that there shall be no laws governing the private ownership of bazookas?

    If WW had HRC’s view on guns, I’d say that would make him inappropriate for the LP’s ticket. I’d say he’s in the 90-95% range on guns, and that SHOULD be sufficient. I understand that some may require a 100% plumbliner on the subject.

    There is a 100% plumbline on all issues candidate in the race, so it’s an option. Not the optimal one, from my perspective.

  16. langa

    I don’t know why I humor idiots like you, but here goes:

    1) ownership is not NAP violating, only use is;

    Production and possession would be illegal, for the same reason it’s illegal to produce or possess, for example, technology that clandestinely scans credit cards. If an item can only be used for criminal purposes, that item should not exist, and possession of it should be treated the same as, for example, receipt of stolen goods. Your position is analogous to arguing that mere possession of child pornography should not be illegal.

    2) what entity would be empowered to do the “forbidding”?;

    Whatever entity was empowered to enforce any other legitimate law, e.g. laws against murder, rape, etc.

    3) WMD already exist, so the cat’s out of the bag.

    So what? See the above analogy to technology that empowers identity theft.

    4) From a NAP perspective, if an individual seceded from the state and chose to protect him- or her-self from WMD-possessing states, I would think the NAPster perspective would have to be that it’s OK to possess them as deterrence.

    Then, as usual, you’d think wrong. There is no right to make threats against innocent third parties. If I am having a dispute with my neighbor, and he threatens to key my car, I can’t respond by threatening to kidnap and torture his 6-year-old son.

    All these stupid arguments you make have been anticipated and preempted literally decades ago. Don’t you ever get tired of making a fool of yourself?

  17. robert capozzi

    TE, I’m curious…from your perspective, does GJ hold a “consistent position on gun control”?

  18. robert capozzi

    L: technology that clandestinely scans credit cards.

    Me: Is there technology that can solely be used for such purposes? Emphasis on “solely”? Even if there were, who does the enforcing? (More on this later.)

    L:Your position is analogous to arguing that mere possession of child pornography should not be illegal.

    Me: An icky subject, surely. But, I dunno, would think the NAPster position would be “not illegal,” although maybe it’s addressed somewhere in “the literature,” as Woods likes to say. I’ve frankly never thought about it, and the matter would be low on my list for re-consideration, but it’s not obvious to me that mere possession should be a crime.

    L: Whatever entity was empowered to enforce any other legitimate law, e.g. laws against murder, rape, etc.

    Me: You may find this amorphous answer satisfactory, but “whatever entity” has for me oh so many holes in it!

    L: So what? See the above analogy to technology that empowers identity theft.

    Me: So what, huh? Are you afraid that your theoretical construct falls apart when faced with reality? Assuming away reality doesn’t make reality go away, now does it? If there’s an embedded base of WMD, saying “their existence is immoral” does nothing by itself to abolishing them. Abolition is of course attractive to me, but executing such abolition is the more relevant matter at hand.

    L: There is no right to make threats against innocent third parties. If I am having a dispute with my neighbor, and he threatens to key my car, I can’t respond by threatening to kidnap and torture his 6-year-old son.

    Me: I can track with the idea that WMD are “inherent threats.” But I seem to recall that RP1, for ex., felt that interfering with Iran’s nuclear development program was inappropriate. I take it you disagree with him?

    L: Don’t you ever get tired of making a fool of yourself?

    Me: Apparently not! 😉 It’s the human condition!

    I note that there is no objective measure for “foolishness.” But if you and I had a list of our issues and it was put to a vote for “biggest fool,” I suspect it is you who would win, ADR. Do you doubt that?

  19. langa

    If there’s an embedded base of WMD, saying “their existence is immoral” does nothing by itself to abolishing them.

    Saying that “rape is immoral” does nothing, by itself, to stop rape. But it is a true statement, and I have no respect for anyone who disagrees with it. Do you?

    I seem to recall that RP1, for ex., felt that interfering with Iran’s nuclear development program was inappropriate. I take it you disagree with him?

    It depends on what exactly he said. If he said that Iran has a “right” to possess a nuclear weapon, then yes, I disagree. But I have never heard him say that. I have heard him say that it is hypocritical for the U.S. to forbid Iran from possessing nuclear weapons, unless they relinquish their own, and I agree.

    …if you and I had a list of our issues and it was put to a vote for “biggest fool,” I suspect it is you who would win…

    Only if the people voting were themselves fools.

  20. robert capozzi

    L: Saying that “rape is immoral” does nothing, by itself, to stop rape. But it is a true statement, and I have no respect for anyone who disagrees with it. Do you?

    Me: Yes, rape is a particularly grievous form of assault, although there are many gray areas around the charge of rape. Date rape, statutory rape where the “rapist” is only slightly older than the victim, etc. Law’s purpose is to signal what behaviors are unacceptable, surely.

    Rape is a specifc act, and the law is designed to dissuade it. That’s quite different than the fact that WMD have existed for decades. The ongoing existence of them might be “immoral” on some level, but a law banning them would likely have no effect on abolishing them.

    L: Only if the people voting were themselves fools.

    Me: There’s some confidence for ya! The vast, vast majority of the pop who are non-NAPsters may well all be fools from your perspective. Or, perhaps, they simply see things differently than you do.

    It seems plain enough that you have your work cut out for you to convert all these fools to your way of thinking!

  21. Thomas L. Knapp

    “If an item can only be used for criminal purposes, that item should not exist, and possession of it should be treated the same as, for example, receipt of stolen goods.”

    Wow. That’s wrong as a football bat, if for no other reason that that no such items exist.

    The reason nukes should be illegal is not that they could only be used for criminal purposes (there are several non-criminal uses they might be put to, including large-scale excavation and powering spacecraft), but rather that possession of them in most places (pretty much any place other than space) is the equivalent of driving recklessly. By having a nuke in my area, you are inherently negligently threatening me with fatal assault.

  22. Stewart Flood

    This is so sad. We are going to waste hours and hours of time with this three ring circus. We will probably have to break for the presidential banquet, then come BACK to the floor to decide which one it will be!

  23. robert capozzi

    tk, I agree nukes are inherently reckless. States have had them for decades, and so a kind of relative recklessness game is on.

    Langa seems to feel that the existence of nukes is something like rape, to which I say God bless him or her for finding his or her metaphor enlightening.

Leave a Reply

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