RT America Hosting Green and Libertarian Presidential Debates

From RT America’s Facebook page:

RT America hosts third-party debates

Who says there are only two parties? Tune into RT America on Monday, May 9 for the Green Party debate, and Thursday, May 12 for the Libertarian Party debate, moderated by Tyrel Ventura and Tabetha Wallace. Have a question you want asked? Shoot it over in a message to Watching The Hawks and it might get asked in the debates.

24 thoughts on “RT America Hosting Green and Libertarian Presidential Debates

  1. Jill Pyeatt

    We need to start a petition and send it to RT, explaining that Ventura is not one of our candidates, and will not be eligible if he shows up at the convention.

    Yes, I know Tyrel Ventura is Jesse’s son.

    This really irks me!

  2. NewFederalist

    Why a petition? Just email them and let them know Gov. Ventura is not eligible. Be sure to quote the section in the bylaws that clearly states he is ineligible.

  3. steve m

    RT is Russia Today, no point getting worked up over their being confused.

  4. Jill Pyeatt

    NF, I said petition because I think if they hear this from more than one person it might mean something. I’m fairly certain Ventura has been told he can’t be our candidate, but continues to say he’s coming to the convention.

  5. Andy

    Jesse Venture could become a candidate for the LP if he officially joined the party prior to the nomination vote.

  6. Jeff Cottonwood

    “Jesse Venture could become a candidate for the LP if he officially joined the party prior to the nomination vote.”

    He already said he will not join the party.

  7. Jill Pyeatt

    You know, I was wrong and overreacted. The “Ventura” I saw was Tyrel. I wrote to them to ask which candidates from the LP would be there.

  8. Jeremy Siple Post author

    I’m trying to be nice and positive about our candidates, given all the recent attention we’re getting, but that post from McAfee is some of the dumbest shit I’ve ever seen.

  9. Jill Pyeatt

    Something seems to be up from McAfee. He really has been blowing off many events without good excuses. Is it possible the stress of the campaign is getting to him? Did he make a couple misjudgements (for example, Roomgate), and decide to cover his embarrassment by acting like he doesn’t care? Dunno.

    I admit to being disappointed. It seems unlikely to me that he’s on a course to win the nomination.

  10. Jill Pyeatt

    Did anyone see the hit piece on Austin that he used to be on the dating site “Sugar Daddies”? I’m not a fan of Austin’s, but the article is more pathetic than Roomgate. The nest three weeks can’t go by quickly enough. I’m ready for our presidential campaign to be done.

  11. Jeremy Siple Post author

    I didn’t read the Petersen hit piece. As soon as I saw the title I knew it couldn’t be anything good. We should be better than this mud slinging crap.

  12. Darryl W. Perry

    https://www.rt.com/usa/342090-3rd-party-primary-debates-preview/

    “Green Party candidates Jill Stein, Kent Mesplay and Sedinam Kinamo Christin Moyowasifza Curry will face off on Monday, while Libertarian Party candidates Darryl W. Perry, Austin Petersen and Marc Allan Feldman will debate next Thursday. Both debates will cover foreign policy, domestic issues, and electoral reform.”

    McAfee posted on Twitter why he wasn’t going; no word from Johnson why he’s not attending

  13. langa

    Far be it from me to defend Petersen, but this “Sugar Daddy” crap is ridiculous. Quoting from the article:

    The “sugar daddy/sugar baby” relationship is one which is comparable to prostitution, and any candidate who was found soliciting prostitutes would be immediately disqualified from the votes of the vast majority of people.

    Given that the LP platform supports legalized prostitution, I guess this idiot thinks whomever we nominate will be “disqualified” from “the vast majority” of voters. And the worst part is that the website that posted this crap is called “The Liberty Conservative” — yeah, right. Liberty, as long as it doesn’t involve people choosing who to have sex with, and for what reason, right? Give me a break!

  14. Bob Waller

    There’s a difference between wanting prostitution to be legal and approving of it morally. The same website also has had articles arguing that libertarian conservatives can and will disapprove of Gary Johnson’s admitted regular marijuana use, even if they want it to be legal. Personally I have no moral problem with either marijuana or prostitution, but I can understand the general idea. For example, I think that neonazi and neocommie marches should be legal, but I wouldn’t want to associate with those who participate in them, and certainly would not want them elected to anything. Perhaps these allegedly libertarian conservatives take the same sort of view of marijuana and/or prostitution.

    The article also says that Petersen’s profile said his net worth was between one and five million dollars. Is that actually true? If not, a libertarian could legitimately argue that it was misrepresentation, which is a kind of fraud. If Petersen is not actually a millionaire but pretended to be in order to defraud some women of services above and beyond what he paid for with a false lure of higher earnings down the road, would that be something libertarians have a problem with? I would think so, but perhaps your perspective is different?

  15. langa

    For example, I think that neonazi and neocommie marches should be legal, but I wouldn’t want to associate with those who participate in them, and certainly would not want them elected to anything.

    Neither would I, but that’s because an integral part of their message is advocating the use of aggression to achieve their goals. While I find those goals to be silly, I would not be opposed to either of those groups setting up voluntary communities with people who share their views. It is primarily their willingness to use violence that I have a problem with.

    As far as marijuana or prostitution, of course libertarians are free to have whatever opinions they want about those things, but it seems silly to me to automatically reject a candidate who is advocating the same policies you are, simply because there is some aspect of their personal life that you find unseemly.

    If Petersen is not actually a millionaire but pretended to be in order to defraud some women of services above and beyond what he paid for with a false lure of higher earnings down the road, would that be something libertarians have a problem with? I would think so, but perhaps your perspective is different?

    I would only consider it fraud if Petersen made an explicit offer, and then later reneged. I think some libertarians go a bit overboard with claims of fraud based on vague or implicit “guarantees” that could be interpreted in many ways. For example, if Petersen met a woman on that site, and she said, “I’m a girl who really appreciates the finer things in life, and I’d love to show you just how much I appreciate them”, or something to that effect, would that constitute some implicit contract? Well, maybe in some people’s minds it might, but would that mean that if Petersen then took her to a nice restaurant and maybe bought her an expensive piece of jewelry, she would then be obligated to have sex with him, and if she refused to do so, it would constitute “fraud” on her part? That seems like quite a stretch to me. I think in cases of fraud, the burden of proof should be on the accuser. “A wink and a nod” isn’t enough.

  16. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    You ask about Austin Petersen’s net worth and whether or not it really is $1-1.5 million. Obviously I don’t KNOW his net worth, but based on what little I do know of his biography, I could make a plausible case for that net worth on the basis of one thing: Property in land.

    His campaign bio notes that he was “raised on a farm in Peculiar, Missouri.” That farm is still there and still in his family. His mother is deceased, so there’s a VERY good chance that he is, at this point either a co-owner on the deed or set up to become owner via inheritance or deed in trust when his father dies.

    Last time I was in the Raymore/Peculiar area, it seemed to be a quickly suburbanizing part of the Kansas City metro area instead of the rural area it used to be. So a large farm parcel could well have an actual current sale value, or notional value if subdivided/developed, in the $1-$1.5 million range.

    He is also CEO of a media/consulting company, so he might value (plausibly or not) his stake in that company as being worth quite a bit.

  17. Thomas L. Knapp

    Concerning the RT debate, I’m seriously considering moving any candidate who was invited and declined to participate in that event below NOTA in my own voting intentions at the national convention.

  18. Bob Waller

    Thanks for your replies, langa and Thomas Knapp. You make good points.

Leave a Reply

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