Group email from Chuck Moulton by way of Paulie at ATPR:
Libertarian leaders,
Some friends of mine I trust and vouch for have asked me to spread this information around. Please get it to state convention organizers.
CONVENTION AND EVENT ORGANIZERS SHOULD AVOID ALT-RIGHT SPEAKERS.
We had a fiasco in Pennsylvania recently with a “liberty festival” loosely associated with the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania state convention (festival on a Saturday, business session that Sunday, same hotel). The organizers invited Augustus Invictus, a controversial alt-right figure from Florida who sought (and lost) the Libertarian Party U.S. Senate nomination there, to debate immigration.
Because of this speaker a local ANTIFA (Anti-Fascist Action) group threatened the venue with violence. That led to the venue canceling the event contract and the event being last minute re-located. There were a lot of local news stories about this, which associated Libertarians with the alt-right and white supremacists.
It is something other states need to be aware of so they can avoid it.
A few lessons:
1) Even if the event is separate from the party convention and called something else, all of the media will say it was part of a Libertarian Party convention.
2) Even if a speaker is invited to debate a topic and let people “hear both sides”, all of the media will say Libertarians are alt-right and the speaker represents Libertarians.
3) ANTIFA groups regularly call venues and threaten violence to get events canceled.
4) When ANTIFA groups get events canceled, the media reports on it and ties the inviting group to the alt-right.
5) The last few times this has happened, it was not established ANTIFA groups that called in the threats. Instead, the groups had formed literally just a few days before.
6) It is entirely possible (perhaps even likely) that the alt-right is creating fake ANTIFA groups to get their own events canceled because it generates media.
7) Getting events shut down also allows the alt-right to play the victim and get sympathy from libertarians who value free speech.
8) When an event is canceled or moved or rescheduled, it can cause significant logistical headaches and financial hardship for the event organizer — or the state party.
9) The alt-right would rather have a bunch of free media associating Libertarians with the alt-right and getting them exposure than actually speak at any event.
10) Inviting an alt-right speaker to a Libertarian state convention or an event even remotely associated with a Libertarian state convention will probably lead to a lot of media associating Libertarians with the alt-right and white supremacists.
For those reasons, I want to get the word out to state Libertarian activists to be very cautious about the alt-right and avoid inviting them to Libertarian branded events.
WE ARE BEING PLAYED.
I’m a big supporter of the first amendment. I’m a believer in hearing all sides of an issue to be better informed. But just because it is good to learn other points of view, does not mean we have to give a platform to the alt-right and damage our brand by association with the alt-right and white supremacists. Let them find their own vehicles to spread their message.
Many low information voters will associate libertarianism and the Libertarian Party with the alt-right and white supremacists if we keep letting ourselves get played and giving them free media.
AVOID INVITING THE ALT-RIGHT TO LIBERTARIAN EVENTS.
Please spread this message to state convention organizers. Thank you.
Chuck Moulton
Chair, LP Judicial Committee
Former Vice-Chair (2006-2008), Libertarian National Committee
Former Chair (2014), LP Bylaws Committee
Former Chair (2006), Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania
Former Chair (2012-2014), Libertarian Party of Virginia
P.S. I know it sounds like a bit of a conspiracy theory to speculate the alt-right is creating fake ANTIFA groups to get their own events canceled and generate media. I have seen significant evidence to lend credence to this theory. But regardless of whether the alt-right is responsible for fake threats or actual anti-fascists are responsible for real threats, the outcome is the same: events get canceled and the alt-right gets a lot of free media associating libertarians with the alt-right.
Chuck Moulton makes good points here. These Alt Knight creeps need to be shown the door as soon as possible. Thankfully Invictus has already left on on his own and the rest of them can’t follow him out soon enough!
Well thank goodness that’s finally done with.
Chuck Moulton, Judicial Committee Chairman – “I don’t have my email handy, but to the best of my recollection I only sent the email to the people Paulie saw on the “to” field:
Nick Sarwark (LNC chair)
Bette Rose Ryan (convention committee chair)
Daniel Hayes (affiliate support committee chair)
George Phillies (LSLA chair)
Paulie (IPR contributor)
I don’t think there were more. If there were, it was at most 1-2 others. None in Florida to my knowledge.”
Well, that changes things, if your email didn’t even go to any state parties (and one of the recipients has confirmed your dist list). No one could have possibly got the wrong impression from an email they didn’t even see.
Thanks for your help in putting this matter to rest.
Those were the names on my copy. That indicates, as I suspected but could not know, that there was not another copy that was sent to a bunch of other people that I did not see. As I said I forwarded it to the IPR email list and don’t know who if anyone any of the other recipients forwarded it to.
George Dance wrote:
I don’t have my email handy, but to the best of my recollection I only sent the email to the people Paulie saw on the “to” field:
Nick Sarwark (LNC chair)
Bette Rose Ryan (convention committee chair)
Daniel Hayes (affiliate support committee chair)
George Phillies (LSLA chair)
Paulie (IPR contributor)
I don’t think there were more. If there were, it was at most 1-2 others. None in Florida to my knowledge.
There’s no indication that the letter went to anyone in Florida. I would guess that it did not, because if it had Invictus and Ramsey would be trumpeting that, given their penchant for crybullying and whining and exaggerating supposed threats and sleights against them. As mentioned several times quite a while ago, I have encountered no one except Mr. Dance in any forum anywhere who thinks Chuck was trying to create some kind of sense that he is throwing his authority around to make state parties follow his wishes out of a fear of consequences. If anyone knows of anyone else who has advanced such an interpretation anywhere please let us know. I said that quite a while ago and thus far no one has shown any examples.
Thanks, Tom.
“And the Judicial Committe has no power to do so, either?”
Nope.
Now, if the LNC decided to try to revoke a membership, that would be a violation of the bylaws that would appealable to the Judicial Committee. And if the member subjected to the illegal revocation attempt appealed to the Judicial Committee, and if that member was a person fitting the description in Mr. Moulton’s article, you’d be on solid ground in calling for him to recuse himself.
TK – If you read the bylaws, you’d see that no, the LNC could not revoke the membership of Mr. Invictus or anyone else.
And the Judicial Committe has no power to do so, either?
—–
Future cases are of course hypotheticals, but here’s one that looks plausible: The LNC could revoke the memberships of Mr. Invictus, or other members who have been identified as “alt.right”, and as I read the Bylaws this could be appealed to the Judicial Committee.
—–
If you read the bylaws, you’d see that no, the LNC could not revoke the membership of Mr. Invictus or anyone else.
Tom Knapp – “He didn’t give his right to have or express his opinions away when he was elected to the Judicial Committee. The only obligation he recurred in that regard is to recuse himself if his expression of opinion ends up being a factor in a case that comes before the committee.”
Future cases are of course hypotheticals, but here’s one that looks plausible: The LNC could revoke the memberships of Mr. Invictus, or other members who have been identified as “alt.right”, and as I read the Bylaws this could be appealed to the Judicial Committee.
In light of his public comments on Mr. Invictus, and the “alt.right” in general, I think it’s clear that the Chairman should recuse himself. Do you agree?
Chuck Moulton – “Raquel Okyay wrote (on Facebok, where I am apparently tagged)…. I haven’t been on Facebook for over 2 years, so I’ll reply here.
Hello, Mr. Chairman. I’m glad to see you posting here, if only to reply to discussions going on elsewehere. I hope you’ve had time to read the IPR thread as well.
If so, you may have noticed one question of mine, about your email in question, that no one else has been able to answer: To whom was it sent? In particular, to whom in the Libertarian Party of Florida was it sent? Of the two replies I’ve received to that question, one person had no idea; the other said that the copy sent to him contained no one in Florida; but of course he had no idea whether you sent other copies of the same letter.
Since only you can clear up who received your letter; and since, given your commitment to transparency on the part of LNC officials (expressed by your comments on the Bylaws committee), I expect you have no objections to doing so; I trust that you can and will make that information public without delay.
If the list is too lengthy to publish on IPR, you can email it to me at [email protected]
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your reply.
Thomas Knapp’s analytics above are very persuasive. His conclusions could be correct. Personally I don’t see Invictus as doing double agent hijinks.
Paulie’s recap above does detract from Augustus Sol Invictus.
Paul quoted Tom Knapp who said: “‘You seem to be having the same kind of meltdown over Chuck Moulton as Andy had over Sean Haugh — someone with no authority to give anyone an order said something you didn’t like, pursuant to which nothing was done, but it’s the end of the world. At least you’re not pretending it’s a crime. There’s that, I guess.’
It;s true that Haugh had no authority to order George Phillies and Carol McMahon to destroy ballot access petition signatures that voters signed because he did not like the petitioner who collected them. However, he was the national political director and national was paying for a chunk of the petition drive (as was George himself). Had the state party officers been someone else they may have in fact reasonably assumed that Haugh was in a position of authority to make such an order. Destroying valid ballot access petition signatures made by voters is in fact a crime, and trying to get other people to commit crimes is also a crime, but luckily George and Carol have more sense than to take such “orders” seriously.”
Paul is correct, and Tom must be forgetful, as he left out a lot of facts when he dredged up this controversy from ALMOST 9 YEARS AGO. The destruction of ballot access petition signatures on an active petition drive (as in the drive had not been completed, and it was not past the deadline), is a crime, and attempting to solicit others to commit a crime is a crime (which is known as Solicitation of a Crime). There was also a financial fraud aspect to this, as if these signatures had been set on fire, it would have either defrauded the Libertarian Party out of money (as in the party would have paid for signatures and then burned them, thus wasting donor money), or it would have defrauded the petition circulator out of money (if the petitioner had not been paid at the point that the signatures were burned).
I have worked on ballot access petition drives in 33 states over the last 17 years, and I have dealt with NUMEROUS people in many organizations, and this was the only time I have ever heard of anyone in a management capacity with any political party or any other kind of campaign organization (such as initiative or referendum or recall committees, or candidates, or campaign managers, or etc…), or any kind of petition coordinator, attempt to destroy, or call for the destruction of, any petition signatures on an active petition drive. Even in cases of suspected forgery, calling for the petition pages of an active petition (as in a petition drive that is in progress, and not past a deadline) IS NOT A STANDARD OR PROPER OPERATING PROCEDURE. The standard procedure for anyone with any sense is to EXAMINE THE SIGNATURES IN QUESTION (something Sean Haugh never did, since he was not even present in the state), and to RUN A VALIDITY CHECK ON THEM. If, after examining the signatures, and running a validity check, IF you believe that the validity is low (and there should have been a standard set for what constituted an acceptable rate of validity PRIOR to the petition drive, and every petition circulator who worked on the drive should have been informed of what that standard was, and agreed to these terms BEFORE they started to work on the drive), then that petition circualtor’s pay should have been docked for however far below the agreed up rate of acceptable validity was (let’s say that rate was agreed upon at 70%, and their validity was 55%, then their pay should be docked by 15%, or something like that). IF, after CHECKING the signatures (something Sean Haugh never did, since he never checked any signatures, and he was not even present in the state), it was determined that some, or all, or them were forged, then the proper response would have been to inform the petition circulator that you believe that the signatures that they turned in were forged, and that you are terminating your contract with them because they breached it by violating the law, and then informing them that you were going to turn the signatures over to the state election department for a criminal investigation, and that if the state election officials believe that the signatures are forged, that they will press criminal charges against them. Only a DERANGED LUNATIC IMBECILE like Sean Haugh would call for signatures that he had not even checked, and had ZERO evidence were of low validity and/or contained forgeries, to be burned, and note that he repeated this order to burn the signatures in both phone conversations and in an email (which shows that it was not done as a heat of the moment decision that he did not really mean). I have encountered a lot of slimeball petition coordinators, campaign staffers, and petition proponents, and I’ve encountered a lot of slimeball petition circulators, and I’ve even been in petition offices where some people did turned in forged signatures, yet nobody I’ve ever encountered, or even heard of, other than Sean Haugh, actually called for signatures to be burned, or destroyed in any other manner. I have even seen cases where there were people involved where there were personal grudges between the people involved, yet nobody called for petition signatures anyone else collected to be destroyed. This is an example of how BATSHIT CRAZY, MALEVOLENT, IRRATIONAL, and INCOMPETENT, that Sean Haugh was, and why he never should have been put in any position to do anything with the Libertarian Party.
Fortunately, George Phillies and the other members of the LP of Massachusetts who were involved with the petition drive were not as IRRATIONAL as Mr. Haugh, as they actually examined the signatures that had been submitted, and they ran a validity check on them, and they found that the validity was quite high, and that none of the signatures were forged. So if they had been foolish enough to carry out Sean Haugh’s CRIMINAL order, they’d have burned a high validity stack of petition signatures that the party needed to get on the ballot at the time, and it actually says on the petitions in Massachusetts that it is a criminal offense to destroy petition signatures, so given that they can read, they’d have knowingly broken the law if they had done what Mr. Haugh tried to solicit them to do.
Incidentally, during the same time frame that the above incident occurred, Sean Haugh was playing favorites with a mercenary petitioner in another state who had been handed a sweetheart deal where they were able to recruit a crew of mercenaries to work under them, and then take a cut of the money off of them (known as an override), on the LP petition drive in Pennsylvania, and during the course of this drive, the mercenary petition crew recruited by this favored mercenary had turned in large batches of thousands and thousands of signatures that were of a low validity rate (as in half or more of the signatures they turned in were not valid). This was reported to Sean Haugh by an LP of PA member who was checking their signatures, and I was told by this person that after he told Sean that this crew was turning in “garbage validity” that, “Sean acted like he did not give a shit, and he paid them in full anyway.”
Once again, I have worked on a lot of campaign all over this country (initiatives, referendums, recalls, other minor parties, independent candidates, etc…), and I’ve seen a lot a crazy shit, and I’ve encountered some slimey people. I have seen situations where there was real hatred between people, like a petition circulator and a coordinator hated each other, yet they still did not attempt to destroy, or call for the destruction of petition signatures. I have seen situations where petition circulators turned petition signatures where the validity rate was terrible (like 65% or 70% or 80% or more of the signatures were not valid), yet nobody attempted to destroy, or called for the destruction of petition signatures. I have seen cases where petition circulators turned in forged signatures, yet nobody attempted to destroy, or called for the destruction of the petition signatures (in these cases the petition signatures were handed over to state investigators, or the coordinator or proponent threatened to hand them over to state investigators, and the petition circulator, knowing that they’d been caught, took off).
I don’t want to spend much more time here rehashing OLD NEWS, but since Tom seems to have memory problems, I will end this by pointing out that the above controversy was one of MULTIPLE OFFENSES from Sean Haugh, including offenses that go back YEARS BEFORE the “Massachusetts (attempted) burning” incident happened. Even if the above incident had never happened, there were PLENTY of other things that this guy did that were malevolent, or just flat out grossly incompetent. This is why he ended up getting shtcanned by both the Libertarian Party, and later by Free and Equal (in the summer of 2010), and it is why he no longer works in politics and has been working as a pizza delivery guy for the last several years. Good riddance to him.
(snicker)
Taxation is Theft.
Oh, and Abolish Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, Obamacare, and government costumed revenue enhancers.
George,
It would not shock me either if Niskanen came out with “single-payer as a libertarian reform.” If I recall correctly, I’ve read a couple of their recent health care articles that mentioned it without ruling it out: not the best of signs.
Why not go the “G.I. Bill/voucher” route: propose health care policies where the government cuts a check to each person to spend on health insurance and health care expenses the way they want?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2013/01/23/david-goldhills-dream-for-universal-consumer-driven-health-care/#7a36eeb02ae4
Anthony – “On the other hand, our esteemed (insert sarcasm here) current Vice Chair recently put out one of his “open letters,” this one about fixing our health care situation in this country. Amongst his 8 or 9 point plan, some of them decent, if not necessarily novel ideas, one of them started out “End Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare, blah. blah, blah…”
That concerns me too. I understand we don’t have the resources to propose a detailed replacement; and the reluctance of some libertarians to lock ourselves into one specific alternative (“we don’t know what the market will do,” etc.), but I think we need something that looks fully workable as an alternative to both the current healthcare mess and single-payer. (Unlike SS, were we can point to IRA’s).
I mention the latter because, as I predicted back when Obamacare came through, single-payer is emerging as the low-cost, reasonable alternative to the patchwork of federal, state, and mandated health-care programs; in the same way UBI is being pushed as the alternative to the same patchwork of welfare programs. I think it’s only a matter of time before groups like the Niskanen Center start pushing single-payer as a libertarian reform.
Since I think that’s a horrible idea – not just because of the inevitable government failure, but because the solution that inevitably gets offered to fix any government failure is to spend more money on the the failing program – I really think the LP should be ready to propose something better.
Tony,
I think there are a lot of people like you and I in the party, and by that I mean moderate libertarians.
Unfortunately, what there is not a lot of is moderate libertarians who understand how damaging the purist stance is. How completely it eviscerates any chance of success we have. Typically, their disposition is to tell me that we have to play nice, because a lot of the purists are good “foot soldiers,” not realizing that one check from a libertarian-leaning, politically motivated billionaire can pretty much accomplish what these foot soldiers spend their whole lives doing, accomplishing nothing other than not getting the lights turned out permanently.
TK – “I see that Paulie has already answered your two questions. Which is good, since my answer to both is “I have no idea.”
Thanks for the reply; gives me an opportunity to make it clear those were general questions, meant for everyone; and while Paulie answered Q1, he couldn’t fully answer Q2. We don’t know who, if anyone, of the Florida LP exective or convention organizers got copies, and that’s the one loose end I’d liked to tie up before writing about it.
I do think that Chuck’s advice is sound, and that it should be listened to, and that there is no good reason why he should not offer it. He didn’t give his right to have or express his opinions away when he was elected to the Judicial Committee.
Well, the question of how far a JC or Ethics Committee member should involve himself in internal party politics concerns me, since I am an Ethics Committee chairman. At a minimum, I think a Committee member should not be make it look like he’s getting involved as a Committee member – meaning he shouldn’t be using his title. Notice that I haven’t used mine in any of my comments.
The only obligation he recurred in that regard is to recuse himself if his expression of opinion ends up being a factor in a case that comes before the committee.
Disagree. I think that if a Committee member gets involved in an internal campaign involving 2 factions, that’s a reason to call for him to recuse himself, or be recused, in any Committee hearings involving members of the opposing faction.
Fair enough, George.
Actually, of the three examples I gave, the “taxation is theft” mantra is the least problematic to me, although I still think its somewhat problematic.
On the other hand, our esteemed (insert sarcasm here) current Vice Chair recently put out one of his “open letters,” this one about fixing our health care situation in this country. Amongst his 8 or 9 point plan, some of them decent, if not necessarily novel ideas, one of them started out “End Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare, blah. blah, blah…”
Now, far be it from me to disagree with that idea in a philosophical sense, but too much of our party just doesn’t understand…or understands and just doesn’t care…that those 5 words, so far out of the mainstream of voter thinking and policymaker (even libertarian policymaker) ideas on how to fix things that they are, not only essentially strikes a fatal blow to our party’s chances to accomplish any reductions in state power, it makes us a cult ripe for wackadoodles to show up and put their nutty stamp on the party. And, as Paulie alluded to above, once these nuts are inside the circus tent, trying to get them out is pointless, because the damage is already done.
Anthony . . my frustration with the exact same thing you posted about grew and grew until I knew I didn’t belong. I tried to convince myself that I was a “moderate libertarian” and that there were many others in the LP like me, but I was wrong.
I am a democrat that leans very libertarian on a few issues.
As long as the LP wants to “abolish the IRS and replace it with nothing” they will remain at 1% in most elections.
Anthony Dlugos – “Now, I just wish he…and the whole party, frankly…understood its full implications when some party member blurts out “taxation is theft” or someone in a leadership position calls for an “end to medicare, medicaid, and social security,” or the platform tries to play cutesie with the language in order to not upset the anarchists, a coterie in this country too vanishingly small to worry about upsetting in the first place.”
Normally I agree with you Anthony, but I’d like to respectfully disagree here. As for “taxation is theft”, it’s becoming just a slogan people are getting inured to, and the more it gets used the more it becomes that. I see the danger you’re talking about – someone may think the LP is calling for the immediate repeal of all taxes – but if anyone challenges an LP spokesman on that, there’s an opportunity: to explain that’s why we want to lower taxes (unlike the GOP reasons), and that the collection of tax revenue and the threat of coercion are 2 different things, which it’s theoretically possible to split up.
As for Social Security, we should seize the opportunity to point out that we came up with a workable replacement program, which has been implemented and is a ringing success: IRA’s (or RRSPs, as we call them up here). Since those are one of the most successful Libertarian proposals ever, we should grab every opportunity to talk about them.
“Now, I just wish he…and the whole party, frankly…understood its full implications when some party member decides to talk truthfully about what we stand for instead of pretending we’re just a bunch of disgruntled Republicans who discovered pot.”
Then be prepared to have a permanently small, ineffectual party that regularly has to deal with wackadoodles who only have to pretend fealty to “principle” and who cover up their wackadoodle theories by saying they are “speaking the truth,” and who, while they are never gonna get enough support to matter, will always be nutty enough to scare away the significant portion of the American public that buys into “fiscally conservative and socially accepting,” qualified candidates with experience winning and holding office, and the heavyweight donors and political infrastructure we would need to actually accomplish anything.
Yes, that falls under multitasking, which was one of my guesses.
“Now, I just wish he…and the whole party, frankly…understood its full implications when some party member decides to talk truthfully about what we stand for instead of pretending we’re just a bunch of disgruntled Republicans who discovered pot.”
Fixed, no charge.
Tom Knapp – “George – You seem to be having the same kind of meltdown over Chuck Moulton as Andy had over Sean Haugh — someone with no authority to give anyone an order said something you didn’t like, pursuant to which nothing was done, but it’s the end of the world. At least you’re not pretending it’s a crime. There’s that, I guess.”
No meltdown, I can assure you. Maybe my use of all-caps in some of my comments made them like Andy-type comments; but those were verbatim quotes from the email.
paulie
May 23, 2017 at 08:15
“…we can see the extent of the disruption made by one short troll comment last night in this thread with all the responses that generated. What we don’t see is how many people stop participating in or even reading IPR comments at all the more this happens. The disruption was effective in getting everyone to talk about it and stop talking about anything else.
And this is why not inviting Invictus and other altreichers to speak at LP events – akin to a comment moderation policy at sites like IPR – is necessary.”
This Bastiatism may be the most perspicacious I think I’ve seen Paulie post since I’ve been coming around here.
Now, I just wish he…and the whole party, frankly…understood its full implications when some party member blurts out “taxation is theft” or someone in a leadership position calls for an “end to medicare, medicaid, and social security,” or the platform tries to play cutesie with the language in order to not upset the anarchists, a coterie in this country too vanishingly small to worry about upsetting in the first place.
Paulie – “Your questions were answered by me at 11:03.
Read and replied to; thank you again.
I presume you have a slow internet connection or are multitasking and did not see that reply before you posted yours at 11:11.”
Another possibility, which in fact turns out to be the correct one, is that I was reading other comments in the thread, and then writing a comment to Tom, during that time.
Since you pointed out that there may have been other mailings, I think my duplicate question 2 to Tom still is a good question. On the other hand, your answer to question 1 settles that; I was looking for the date, and it’s reasonable to think any other mailings went out on the same date.
George,
I see that Paulie has already answered your two questions. Which is good, since my answer to both is “I have no idea.”
I do think that Chuck’s advice is sound, and that it should be listened to, and that there is no good reason why he should not offer it. He didn’t give his right to have or express his opinions away when he was elected to the Judicial Committee. The only obligation he recurred in that regard is to recuse himself if his expression of opinion ends up being a factor in a case that comes before the committee.
Fair point. I will amend that and say that know one I know of or have seen talk about it shares that interpretation. If you or anyone else know of anyone else who does, please do let us know.
“Again, no one has suggested that any members be barred from attending conventions, and no one except you has suggested that anyone suggested any members be barred from attending conventions.
Huh? That’s like your earlier claim that no one but me saw any implied threat of unspecified consequences. But you just said you haven’t even been following all discussions of the e-mail, much less talked to the people who received it.
I’ve discussed it here and over email. The email was explicitly designed to be shared in as many places as possible so I don’t know where all it got forwarded to and what all discussions may have ensued there. I’ve read all or almost all comments in this thread, but I don’t know whether it has spawned other discussions on email lists, social media pages and other websites I don’t know about.
Paulie – As I read Chuck’s email, I did not see where he said anything different from what I said. And I don’t know that I am its main defender as I have no idea how many different places it has been discussed.
Oh. I got the impression from what you said eariler that you were on top of the discussions, and even that you’d had your own discussions with the people who received it.
“Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:45 AM is the timestamp on the email I got.”
Thanks.
“None of the people who were copied on the copy I got live in Florida. Their states of residence to the best of my knowledge are Louisiana, Massachusetts, Arizona, and in my case – Alabama is my homebase, but I travel full time and am currently working in Arkansas. I don’t know if other copies of the same email went at the same time or at other times to additional people. I know that I did forward a copy to the IPR email list that same day. Some of the people on that list do live in Florida, but none of them are in LPF leadership.”
Thank you again. There may have been other sendings, so my duplicate request to TK wasn’t a waste of time.
I appreciate the information, as I’m planning to write something about this on my blog; and I want it to keep the speculation and hypotheticals to a minimum.
Again, no one has suggested that any members be barred from attending conventions, and no one except you has suggested that anyone suggested any members be barred from attending conventions. That is purely a red herring here and nothing else.
Your questions were answered by me at 11:03. I presume you have a slow internet connection or are multitasking and did not see that reply before you posted yours at 11:11.
I’ll end it there for now on a point of agreement 🙂
It;s true that Haugh had no authority to order George Phillies and Carol McMahon to destroy ballot access petition signatures that voters signed because he did not like the petitioner who collected them. However, he was the national political director and national was paying for a chunk of the petition drive (as was George himself). Had the state party officers been someone else they may have in fact reasonably assumed that Haugh was in a position of authority to make such an order. Destroying valid ballot access petition signatures made by voters is in fact a crime, and trying to get other people to commit crimes is also a crime, but luckily George and Carol have more sense than to take such “orders” seriously.
I know of not one person in LPF that thought Chuck issued an order or attempted to do so. In fact I don’t know of one person anywhere in the US who thinks that. Does anyone here know anyone outside of Canada who thinks that?
I can’t figure out any way to plausibly construe Chuck’s letter as a threat. There’s no way to deliver. The Judicial Committee’s authority/jurisdiction is so narrow and explicit that there just doesn’t seem to be any way for a related issue to come before it.
But, one concession: If, somehow, a related issue DOES come before the Judicial Committee, I would hope (and I do expect) that Chuck would recuse himself from that issue.
Tom Knapp – “For example, if you are registered to vote LPF in Florida, you are a member of LPF, period, end of story, no matter what weird shit we come up with to help us pretend otherwise. Augustus Invictus is a member of LPF (and would have been even if the motion to suspend his membership had passed the executive committee), and state law requires that he not be prevented by the party organization from “meaningful participation” in party affairs.”
Indeed, though I’d say it’s not a matter just of ‘state law.’ I think that, even if there were no state laws, a state LP executive should not be excluding any of its members from attending its meetings.
As Paulie points out, the LP is ‘private property’, but it’s the property of the membership. The members elect an executive to administer their property; the control they retain over it being their ability to remove members in elections at their conventions. Giving the executive power to dictate which members may attend conventions obviously mucks up that control process.
Tom, can you help answer my two questions:
1) When was the e-mail sent? (So far all I have is that it’s before April 28).
2) Was it sent to anyone in the Libertarian Party of Florida; and, if so, to whom?
As I read Chuck’s email, I did not see where he said anything different from what I said. And I don’t know that I am its main defender as I have no idea how many different places it has been discussed.
Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:45 AM is the timestamp on the email I got.
None of the people who were copied on the copy I got live in Florida. Their states of residence to the best of my knowledge are Louisiana, Massachusetts, Arizona, and in my case – Alabama is my homebase, but I travel full time and am currently working in Arkansas. I don’t know if other copies of the same email went at the same time or at other times to additional people. I know that I did forward a copy to the IPR email list that same day. Some of the people on that list do live in Florida, but none of them are in LPF leadership.
Paulie,
Exactly. I don’t think the taxpayers should pay for pigeon shit removal. If the people who claim to care about the statue aren’t willing to, let it become a memorial to pigeon shit.
George,
You seem to be having the same kind of meltdown over Chuck Moulton as Andy had over Sean Haugh — someone with no authority to give anyone an order said something you didn’t like, pursuant to which nothing was done, but it’s the end of the world. At least you’re not pretending it’s a crime. There’s that, I guess.
I’m guessing they wipe the pigeon shit off every once in a while. One of my early memories, incidentally, is watching a pigeon take a shit on a statue of Lenin just as our teacher was explaining how great Lenin was. I can’t remember if I was able to keep my laughter quiet.
Paulie – “as I already said to George Dance or whomever else above, I am not suggesting that Invictus or Ramsey be prevented from attending their own state convention or that they shouldn’t be given the same speech rights as any other delegate who shows up.”
Irrelevant, since you’re not the author of the e-mail, only its main defender.
Two questions of information, if anyone can help:
1) When was the e-mail sent? (So far all I have is that it’s before April 28).
2) To whom in the Libertarian Party of Florida was it sent?
I’m unaware of any government money being spent on the statue in question, although I suppose it’s possible. It’s been there for a long time (I think since the 1890s). It was paid for with a private fundraising drive, and its maintenance should be paid for that way too, until and unless it can be removed to somewhere else willing to host it (proposals were initially made that it be donated to a museum that I think is privately funded, or that it be removed to a park that is dedicated to veterans in general; but those proposals were rejected on financial grounds).
The Sons of Confederate Veterans or United Daughters of the Confederacy should be willing to do any maintenance required if it stays. If not, let it corrode until there’s nothing left. Other than that, what maintenance is there other than the guy who mows making a couple of turns to go around it?
“I would expect any holocaust survivors and their descendents left in Germany today … to be rather upset if they saw Old Hans being maintained with government money in a public place today”
I assume that they are indeed upset, but that’s how it goes. The way I see it, if Ronald Reagan can lay a wreath on an SS grave, the holocaust survivors should be able to have their memorials too.
Well, we have a difference of opinion there. I would expect any holocaust survivors and their descendents left in Germany today, although admittedly there are few (unlike the descendents of slaves in Florida, of whom there are many), to be rather upset if they saw Old Hans being maintained with government money in a public place today. But I will agree with you that simply destroying him is not the best way to handle it either.
I would expect the German government to not accept it on to public property after it was financed through voluntary donations, then turn around and decide to throw it away because some idiots got their panties in a wad over it.
So if there is a monument to the ordinary Wehrmacht soldier – Old Hans – who fought bravely for the nazi government, perhaps against Stalinism, you would expect the current German government to maintain it in a public place or be accused of trying to erase history?
The motion to get rid of the statute in Gainesville is not to move it to a museum. It is not to move it to private property. It is just to get rid of it.
And no, it doesn’t commemorate slavery. It commemorates the ordinary men who fought and died in a war.
I’ll consider supporting the removal of Old Joe just as soon as I see that it is equally likely that the Lincoln Memorial will be similarly treated.
Again, I’m not for erasing history. As with confederate flags, there are places for confederate monuments: private property, and museums, even while museums are still government operated. But I also understand why statues of Lenin, Stalin, Ceausescu, Saddam, et al have been removed from public places in their countries. It’s not because anyone wants to erase or forget history. The history of those eras will continue to be taught in schools, preserved in museums, etc. There will be books about in the libraries and bookstores, websites about it on the web, movies and TV shows and songs etc. But, specifically, government maintaining monuments in public places now, just like government flying certain flags from government flagpoles at government buildings now is a statement about what the government believes now.
I expect there were probably statues of Hitler in Germany. No one is saying forget Hitler and the nazi era happened. But we would also not expect Germans to want to maintain statues of Hitler in public places or fly the nazi flag from government buildings “to preserve history.” Now, Germany goes too far in also banning the display of nazi symbols on private property and in privately organized protests held in public places, or on clothing and other items of personal expression. But even they are in no way trying to erase history – everyone in Germany knows that the nazi era happened, and no one is trying to make them forget it.
I prefer America to Airstrip One.
If they are history, move them to a museum. Leaving up monuments in public places, much like flying flags from government flag poles at government buildings, is a statement of what the government stands for.
I do support moving all monuments to private property.
All monuments, not just the ones I don’t like.
Until such time as that happens, the monuments built at great expense — mostly through funding drives by the widows and orphans of those they memorialize — shouldn’t be destroyed just to aggrandize the desire of some to erase history.
Exactly.
Historical monuments to slavery and slaveowner’s rebellion? I would say move them to private property. If they are already on private property and being destroyed despite property owner’s wishes, you are right to protest. Otherwise, yes they should come down, much like the statues of Lenin and Saddam did, and for the same sorts of reasons.
On the other hand, roll with things where there’s a common interest. For example, today I expect I will be hanging out with some nationalists on a cause we agree on (preventing the destruction of historical monuments).
Well, I certainly agree that the LP and the freedom movement should not act against its own interests and go out of its way to give these guys any aid or support they’re not entitled to.
For example, there was no particular reason that LPF had to accept Invictus’s “Revolutionary Conservative” publication as a convention sponsor. Sponsoring the convention is not linked to membership — you don’t have to be a member to be a sponsor, nor does being a member automatically entitle you to be a sponsor. It’s quite possible that if a member who ran a porn site had wanted to be a sponsor to promote the porn, he might have been turned down, or that if a non-member who ran a libertarianish PAC or whatever had wanted to be a sponsor to promote marijuana legalization she might have been accepted.
It can get complicated. But the first step is getting LP members and activists to understand that the nationalists are not our friends. They’re entryists/opportunists who are attempting to hijack our infrastructure for their own purposes.
Which is all I was saying, and all I took Tony’s comment to say. Again, as I already said to George Dance or whomever else above, I am not suggesting that Invictus or Ramsey be prevented from attending their own state convention or that they shouldn’t be given the same speech rights as any other delegate who shows up. It’s a different matter altogether if various state parties invite them specifically as speakers or panelists. And as we saw with MALF, that also extends to non-party movement events that are unofficially intertwined with official party events.
They same would be true if, say, a Maoist or Trotskyite Marxist cell in Florida decided to join the LP.
Paulie,
The LP is not “open to the public.” The LP is a state-affiliated public organization, by its own choice. If it doesn’t want to be one, the LNC should send the FEC notification that it is dissolving and the state parties should likewise inform their election authorities that they no longer want to be “political parties.”
Otherwise, there are rules and the LP is subject to those rules. For example, if you are registered to vote LPF in Florida, you are a member of LPF, period, end of story, no matter what weird shit we come up with to help us pretend otherwise. Augustus Invictus is a member of LPF (and would have been even if the motion to suspend his membership had passed the executive committee), and state law requires that he not be prevented by the party organization from “meaningful participation” in party affairs.
As it happens, I am unaware of any rule requiring the LP or its affiliates to hold open mic nights or anything resembling that.
We are open to the public as a voluntary association, but that includes and presumes the right to dissociate from those who we do not want to associate with us. By opening our rolls to those who want to sign the pledge and join we are not thereby obligating ourselves to turn every LP event into open mic night. And even open mic nights can yank people off stage if they are disruptive to the proceedings.
Yes, I do. And note that IPR is also a privately owned site. Free speech is not an entitlement to other people’s platforms, events or other resources. We should tell the fash: Go build your own, fash.
Tony,
Agree pretty much, except with the implication that the LP is a “private organization.”
Paulie: Nobody has a “free speech” right to speak to a private organization. The LP has no legal obligation to allow ANYONE to speak, no less someone as slimy as AI. Do you agree?
To lamely try to bring this back around to issues in Chuck’s article: we can see the extent of the disruption made by one short troll comment last night in this thread with all the responses that generated. What we don’t see is how many people stop participating in or even reading IPR comments at all the more this happens. The disruption was effective in getting everyone to talk about it and stop talking about anything else. That’s exactly what Chuck was saying happens as a result of inviting Invictus and having him or his friends false flag himself and getting the whole event cancelled as a result.
Invictus is essentially trolling us. As with the trolling at IPR there has been a lot of racially tinged material thrown around as part of this trolling operation. As with the trolling at IPR, there have been threats of violence, impersonation (the fake antifa group set up by pro-Invictus fascists and possibly Invictus himself), and suspicions that government provocateurs may be somehow involved.
And this is why not inviting Invictus and other altreichers to speak at LP events – akin to a comment moderation policy at sites like IPR – is necessary.
Invictus and his defenders will point to “free speech,” but Invictus and his friends don’t believe in free speech. They talk openly about physically attacking any opposition or protesters at their events. They talk about killing leftists when they come to power, and before that in a war.
When IPR published information that a former girlfriend accused Invictus of rape and domestic violence, Invictus responded by threatening myself and Warren with a lawsuit if we did not take the articles down (and depending on how you read his email, you could have inferred other types of threats in it as well). His pal Ryan Ramsey responded by publishing articles full of distortions and outright lies, not attributed to any source but made as statements of fact by himself, about me, Warren and others, and then threatening to leave them up unless we also took down our reporting about the allegations against Invictus. That was of course a false equivalence, since our articles did not make any allegations, but only reported that allegations had been made.
Ramsey also claimed he had contacted the Florida Department of Law Enforcement electronic crimes unit and was planning to meet with the FBI about our articles. Why? All because I republished an article previously published elsewhere that contained information about Ramsey that he considered to be a threat to himself and his family. And what was so terrible in the article that made it a threat? It contained social media posting by Ramsey and his friends and links to public contact information for them and their social media accounts. That, and Ramsey alleges counterfactually that I am a terrorist and a member of a terrorist group all because I said I am an antifascist. We did not fall for Ramsey’s threats and he took his articles down – I haven’t checked if he put them back up. Ours are still here.
But again, what threat? Ramsey from all appearances is well armed, well trained and in shape. He owns, practices with and carries weapons and studies martial arts. And yet he feels threatened by having his social media accounts and public contact info republished, enough so to run to his buddies in law enfarcement?
It’s a huge mistake to invite these kinds of attitudes and tactics into the LP, and that’s before we even get to their racist and otherwise bigoted associations and views. If we get bit by this snake we have only ourselves to blame; we knew it was a snake when we picked it up.
“Great ideas” is no longer welcome at IPR. The latest comment last night from GI was posted while I was sleeping. Now that I woke up, I deleted it.
dL:
According to the new policy, Andy @ 11:15 should be removed completely as well, not just be partially edited, correct? How about every other comment by everyone in this thread since then, including this one? However, everyone please answer this (and take all meta-discussion of comment moderation policy) to the commenting issues thread. Further pursuit of the tangents spawned from GI posting in this thread last night is not welcome in this thread; take it to comment policy thread if you want to pursue it. I will delete further discussion of comment moderation policy in this thread.
Andy: ” . . . .Just to be clear, everyone here who is involved with alternative political parties/movements, is likely on various government watch lists . . . ”
Nobody, including the government, gives a shit about you Andy. You’re not that important.
I thought IPR decided to stop the troll-blaming. Andy, why don’t you just go back to posting conspiracy theories . . . .
“I’m not hiding behind a fake name”
No, you’re hiding behind a partial common name, hypocrite.
Hey dL, I’m not hiding behind a fake name and an IP anonymizer, and I don’t know how long it has been since I last ate a Twinkie (certainly never part of my regular diet).
If anyone wants to confront me in person, or engage me in debate in person, bring it on.
Who the fuck is dL anyway? I have never heard of this guy until recently. Anyone know this character in person?
William Saturn said: “And who are you to decide what is SPAM and what is not? Calling someone a ‘government troll’ is not SPAM under the definition in Merriam Webster:”
BINGO!
“Deleting comments is one thing, but editing other people’s comments is beyond the pale.”
BINGO! (Especially considering that what I said was not SPAM, nor was it out of line, given all of the other facts that I presented above.)
Just to be clear, everyone here who is involved with alternative political parties/movements, is likely on various government watch lists. Just because you are own a government list, it does not automatically that anyone in government is going to put much time or resources into smearing or sabotaging you. I think that Paul and I are being targeted more than most because we are more active than most, and we are more effective than most.
Why would the government target me? Well, I’ve been involved in the Libertarian Party and movement for since 1996. I’ve worked on petition and voter registration drives all over the country, mostly for causes that the people who run the government do not like. I’ve posted political comments online for 20 years. I’ve gotten into confrontations with lots of government employees all over the country (mostly in the course of ballot access drives, but also while doing other political activism, both in person, and online). I’ve worn radical political t-shirts and have put radical political bumper stickers on my car. I’ve openly talked about abolishing the Federal Reserve System, the IRS and the income tax, eliminating gun control laws, calling off the War on Drugs, jury nullification of victimless crimes (I have informed thousands of people about jury nullification), and I’m generally anti-government. I’ve openly stated that there is moral justification for armed revolt against the government (I do not consider this to be the most preferable solution to the problem, nor do I think that there are currently enough people that have the balls to do it, but I think that there is moral justification for revolting against a government that routinely violates individual rights and does not follow its own Constitution). I’ve openly talked about “New World Order” so called “conspiracy theories,” as well as so called “conspiracy theories” that do not go along with the officially approved government conspiracy theories about 9/11, the OKC bombing, the Boston bombing, Sandy Hook, the Charleston Church shooting, the Aurora Batman shooting, the Las Vegas Joker shooting, the Waco Biker shooting, the Isle Vista shooting, the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting, the San Bernardino shooting. I have openly criticized numerous politicians from the Bushes, to the Clintons, to Obama, and etc…, I have openly talked about the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, The Order of Skull and Bones, the Bohemian Grove, etc… I have attended anti-war protests, tax protests, bank bailout protests, Federal Reserve protests, drug war protests, gun rights rallies, and 9/11 truth demonstrations.
So yeah, I’m somebody that a lot of people in government do not like.
The article below points out 72 types of Americans that the government does not like, and considers to be “potential terrorists.” These characteristics are taken out of official government documents. I do not fit into all 72 characteristics, but I do fit into a lot of them.
72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered “Potential Terrorists” In Official Government Documents
http://thetruthwins.com/archives/72-types-of-americans-that-are-considered-potential-terrorists-in-official-government-documents
“if you think “Nathan Norman” should have unfettered posting privileges and/or accusations of others impersonating others should go unmoderated, take it up w/ the boss man”
I’m not sure what one has to do with the other. You are clearly trying to obscure the matter. What you did tonight was not a removal of an impersonation from “Nathan Norman” but the removal of part of a comment from Andy responding to “Great Ideas.” And who are you to decide what is SPAM and what is not? Calling someone a “government troll” is not SPAM under the definition in Merriam Webster:
“e-mail that is not wanted : e-mail that is sent to large numbers of people and that consists mostly of advertising”
Expressing a white supremacist position (or any position for that matter) is not SPAM either.
Andy is understandably upset at being trolled by numerous individuals on this board including Tony from Long Island, Anthony Dlugos, Great Ideas, and yourself (all of whom may be the same person). It was completely idiotic for you to pour gasoline on the matter by “moderating” his comment.
Deleting comments is one thing, but editing other people’s comments is beyond the pale.
Yes, there are paid government trolls on social media, blogs, forums and websites
https://www.intellihub.com/yes-paid-government-trolls-social-media-blogs-forums-websites/
[Full text of article deleted. People can follow links if they want to read them. furthermore, take the meta-discussion to the comment moderation thread. dL, this is what I meant by subsequent comments not being so clean cut. As I understand the new comment policy *all* of these comments from last night should be deleted as they were spawned by GI posting and Andy responding … but would that extend to your comments, William’s etc? -paulie]
What the fuck, is IPR now a “safe space” for CHICKENSHITS who talk shit while hiding behind fake names and IP anonymizers? Oh. I may hurt the troll’s feelings by calling them a government troll. Well FUCK THEM, and FUCK dL, and FUCK YOUR “SAFE SPACE” FOR TROLL CODDLING BULLSHIT!
“(3) unsubstantiated accusations of others involved in impersonation spam
That’s it…”
If I call somebody a government troll, it is not an unsubstantiated claim. Paul and I have been harassed by these trolls for multiple years, and it has happened here on IPR, as well as on completely unrelated forums where nobody else from here even posts, and it has happened at all times of day (indicating more than one person is likely doing it, because one person doing it would have to have a lot of spare time on their hands, and an erratic sleeping schedule). We have reason to believe that they have listened in to our phone calls and hacked our emails. We have both also had death threats, and one of these pieces of shit sent a death threat that they falsely signed my name too, which landed me in jail while the police were trying to sort out where the death threat came from. The police claimed that they were going to release the results of their investigation about the email death threats, but they never did (which means they may have to be sued to release the information).
One of these pieces of shit also spent a lot of time finding email addresses from the world of ballot access, including email address for people I know for the mercenary petitioning circuit who have NEVER had anything to do with the Libertarian Party, and they sent out a mass email telling people to not hire me, and that I was a terrible person, and they also smeared a few other people who are Libertarians and who’ve done a lot of petitioning for the Libertarian Party, mostly in the past, and smearing them as well. Fortunately, nobody, at least nobody I really know, took the email smears seriously, especially since it was sent by some anonymous person using a fake name an an IP anonymizer, but still, the intent of the sender was to cut me out of working. Whoever did this spent a lot of time compiling this information, and the only way that they could have known that I know some of these people would be if I was under government surveillance. This tactic, as well as other tactics I’ve described about, are right out of the government troll playbook, as has been exposed by the likes of Edward Snowden.
If a poster pops up under a fake name, and using an IP anonymizer, and starts smearing people, and trying to create conflict, then yes, there is a very good chance that they are a government troll, especially considering that this is a political forum (if we were talking about sports or movies, or something like that, the government would not give shit), and even more so considering that the trolls have information (which they use to twist into smears and distortions) which indicates government surveillance, and access to government databases.
If a person accused of being a government troll wants to prove that they are not a government troll, then the CHICKENSHITS should come out from hiding behind fake names and IP anonymizers. Come out from hiding a face me like a man.
lol..quite the keyboard warrior, aren’t you
I’m pretty sure “Nathan Norman” predates me here…if you think “Nathan Norman” should have unfettered posting privileges and/or accusations of others impersonating others should go unmoderated, take it up w/ the boss man…But I’m finished discussing it w/ you.
“Accusations of others being government trolls, unsubstantiated personal attacks will be moderated. Frankly, a standard forum moderation policy.”
It is a documented fact that multiple government agencies, both in the USA and abroad, hire people to troll on the internet.
I have been attacked here for years, as has Paul, and the trolls have posted the motels and room numbers where Paul and I have been staying. When these incident occurred, I asked the motel desk clerks if they told anyone where I was staying, and which room I was in, and each time this happened, the motel desk clerks said that they do not give out guest information to anyone but law enforcement. There have been other strange things that have happened, such as an anonymous troll under a fake name reporting that I arrested in Jonesboro, AR, when nobody from the petition drive knew that this had happened, and things from phone private phone conversations popping up in IPR comments, or just moments where Paul and I were joking around in person (as in not on the phone, but we had cell phones on us, and it is an admitted fact that the government can spy on people through their phones even if one is not on a phone call) and the joking around got twisted into a smear by an anonymous IPR troll.
Here’s another example. Paul and I drove through Las Vegas back in 2011. We saw Debra Dedmon, aka-LG or Libertarian Girl, while we were there. Nobody else would have known about this happening from 6 years ago, yet in 2017, some troll using a fake name and an IP anonymizer pops up on IPR talking about this event. The only explanation for this is government surveillance.
So I’m going to continue to accuse those who post attacks under IP anonymizers and fake names as government trolls, and if dL does not like it, HE CAN GO FUCK HIMSELF.
Absolutely not…what is only removed is “impersonation accusation,” which falls under a category of “unsubstantiated personal attack.”
The things I moderate:
(1) alt-right nationalist, white supremacist spam
(2) impersonation spam
(3) unsubstantiated accusations of others involved in impersonation spam
That’s it…
“but the impersonation spam and impersonation accusation spam is going to be cleaned up when I see it going forward.”
Hmm . . . I don’t seem to remember this being such a problem until dL became a moderator.
dL is known to make many personal attacks himself. Perhaps Andy will now remove such comments from dL as “unsubstantiated personal attacks.”
whine all you want..but the impersonation spam and impersonation accusation spam is going to be cleaned up when I see it going forward.
When Andy says 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the US government are you also going to remove that as an “unsubstantiated personal attack”?
That’s idiotic. There’s no accountability. How do I know what you deleted is an “unsubstantiated personal attack”? Even if it is, what business is it of yours? We do not need you to sanitize people’s comments like this.
For those curious, Andy called “Great ideas” a paid government troll or something like that.
Refer to moderation policy at ” Commenting Issues”
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/05/commenting-issues-on-ipr/
(2) Delete the accusation spam.
Accusations of others being government trolls, unsubstantiated personal attacks will be moderated. Frankly, a standard forum moderation policy.
“comment removed by dL”
This is disgusting. We do not need someone policing comments like this.
“Great ideas
May 22, 2017 at 22:38
ASI II
‘Anthony, since you favor title worshiping over principles, why don’t you go to the Republican or Democratic parties?’
Andreas, since you favor fascist-worshipping and confuse it with libertarian principles, why don’t you and the original ASI both go the American Freedom’ Party?”
[comment removed by dL]
I favor libertarian principles, and I have a track record of activism that goes back to 1996 to prove it.
“Otherwise, we’re comparing apples to fantasyland musings.”
Yes, we are. And the apples are:
* Didn’t just grow government spending and government debt, but actually grew both faster than Barack Obama.
* Tried to get the legislature to let him kill 13-year-olds.
* Only governor of New Mexico to ever be held in contempt by the state Supreme Court. Reason: Trying to rule by decree when the legislature wouldn’t give him his way.
* Tried to fire university regents for not giving his company a construction contract.
And so on and so forth.
When trying to hire a baby-sitter, no qualifications at all are better than “former Manson family member.”
well, I guess we’d have to compare records in office at this point.
anyone have a link to a record of Kokesh’s record in office anywhere? We have to have some record of what Kokesh did while in public office when presented with a budget that wasn’t “GOVERNMENT IS HEREBY ABOLISHED, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY”
Otherwise, we’re comparing apples to fantasyland musings.
Presumably Kokesh, like Gary Johnson and William Weld, has never held an office where he demonstrated cutting spending, reducing size/scope of the government jurisdiction he was in charge of.
They are called resumes. There’s an actual job on the other side of that election.
What office has Kokesh held where he can demonstrate cutting spending, reducing size/scope of the government jurisdiction he was in charge of?
Anthony, since you favor title worshiping over principles, why don’t you go to the Republican or Democratic parties?
sounds like he’s putting together a real power team. Don’t sign any strange contracts involving massages.
“Maybe there should be an LNC By-Laws change for to increase the amount of time a person has to be a party member to be a delegate”
That would be a very unlikely change. The states are unlikely to tie their own hands.
I had lunch with Adam Kokesh after meeting him in the convention lobby at the Libertarian National Convention in Orlando.
A met him for a second time a few months later when he was in Phildelphia, PA during his “For The Love Of Freedom” Tour. I hung out with him and some other attendees before and after his speech. Later that night a few of us went to dinner with Adam at some bar/restaurant that was walking distance from the venue where the speech was held (it was held at some art center).
“I have spoken to Adam Kokesh, who has said that he is interested in seeking the LP’s presidential nomination in 2020…”
oh, yeah? Where’d this power lunch go down? The Capital Grille on Pennsylvania Ave…or the Denny’s on Martin Luther King Avenue?
“Maybe there should be an LNC By-Laws change for to increase the amount of time a person has to be a party member to be a delegate, and candidate too for that matter.”
lol. Maybe we should just avoid a Convention altogether and let Andy decide for us who the nominee should be?
Maybe there should be an LNC By-Laws change for to increase the amount of time a person has to be a party member to be a delegate, and candidate too for that matter.
Marc, I believe that the trend of nominating washed up Republicans who really are not that libertarian, if libertarian at all, for the presidential ticket, can change, IF there is more effort put into getting actual libertarians to show up as delegates to the Libertarian National Convention.
2020 is still a long way off, and if actual libertarian Libertarians want to put a stop to this trend, there is enough time before the convention to do it.
I have spoken to Adam Kokesh, who has said that he is interested in seeking the LP’s presidential nomination in 2020, and he does understand the delegate process, and he is already compiling lists of possible delegates.
not a necessary qualification to participate in “hollywood for the ugly”
Dlugos said:
There is no way a consistently principled, photogenic, and ethical Libertarian would even seek our nomination. The majority of the membership of the Libertarian Party is utterly hostile to just such a candidate, and anyone worth his salt would know this.
So we will keep ratcheting down the ladder towards people even worse than Barr, Root, Johnson, and Weld.
I do not see the trend stopping without a sea change in attitude on the part of LP members.
“The LPF knew that ASI planned to attend the convention”
Actually, the word circulating prior to the convention was that he had de facto moved to South Carolina and wasn’t expected to show. Whether that word was intentionally seeded to make his attendance a surprise, or whether it just turned out to be wrong, I don’t know.
Chuck did not imply any unspecified consequences. No one I know of except you has interpreted it that way, either.
What possible grounds could there be for a case being presented to the JC? No one is entitled to be a speaker at a LP event, so there would be no grounds for a would-be speaker to appeal if they are not invited. If someone wants to appeal that a speaker was invited, I have a hard time seeing them gather the bylaws required support to bring the case to the JC to begin with. If someone did bring such a case I don’t expect it will succeed. Inviting a speaker may be a bad idea, but I have seen no argument made that it would constitute a bylaws violation, nor does Chuck make any such argument here. Want to have David Duke speak at your next state convention? Hopefully, you will not be re-elected or re-appointed to a position where you get to decide who the speakers will be next year. But in and of itself, where would the bylaws violation be?
As far as I can tell the or else is entirely in your, and only your, imagination.
He named a list of past and present party titles, JC being just one of them. It’s hard to be heard and taken seriously no matter what you say. Titles help with that. We all get deluged with emails and other stuff to read so rising above the noise level is not easy even if your argument is great.
Where? I missed that. My impression was that the issue was broader than one individual.
Does anyone care if he attends? If he is given a platform to speak – that is, specifically invited to speak; not just to attend – outside of the general invitation sent to all members, and outside the same right to speak at his own state convention given to all members in attendance – that’s a separate issue.
Yes, him speaking on the same basis as any member of his own state party is not the issue either. Him being invited to various state conventions specifically to be a speaker or panelist is a different issue.
To date the motion for removal has been proposed by one member and and has failed to get the needed co-sponsors to even come up for a vote. Any denunciations of Arvin that have been made have all been informal. The resolution that looks like it is likely to pass is a nonbinding policy statement that does not even mention Arvin, iirc.
“I don’t think you should invite Joe Blow or any other Blow family member to help Blow up your convention, and here is why” is an opinion, not an order.
Paulie – “False equivalence. If a cop came to your door waving his badge and issuing what sounds like an order you would be forgiven for assuming that he was acting in his official capacity.
Not what I’d assume. I would assume that cop is telling me he’s someone with power, and if I don’t do what he says, there will be unspecified consequences.
If a member of an appeals court writes an op-ed and is identified as judge or justice so and so in the article blurb no one in his or her right mind is deceived that the op-ed is for that reason a court decision.
But many people will assume that, if the appeals court judge writes an op-ed on a political issue, people on the other side of the issue may not get a fair hearing before that court. That’s why there’s a code of conduct that restricts federal judges’ political activities.
Which is why I used the example of Ginsburg campaigning against Trump; SCOTUS judges, like the USLP JC, are not limited by a code of conduct. Which doesn’t mean the exact same problems the code of conduct is meant to del with won’t arise wrt them.
Chuck’s article is in no way, shape or form trying to create confusion in anyone’s mind that it is any kind of decree from the JC. Unlike a cop waving a badge and trying to create an impression that he is issuing an official police order.
Once again, I don’t think that’s the impression that the cop would be trying to create, or that the JC chair was trying to create.
And it came out later that, in the midst of that, the chairman (our quaint name for the chair) of the LPC Ethics Committee had sent a letter to the BCLP telling them that, because of the threat, they were not to allow Lauren to attend the convention.
I see nothing in Chuck’s letter that reads like a mandate. He’s not banging his metaphorical gavel or putting on his metaphorical robe and wig nor having the metaphorical bailiff say all rise;
No, he’s just saying pounding his fist and screaming (note the ALLCAP), saying in effect, “I’m the JC chair, and I say, don’t allow ASI into your convention or else,” while leaving the “or else” unspecified.
he is appealing to people’s reason, not their fear of authority or of being brought before the tribunal.
So he included some reasons. You yourself admitted that his reasons might not have been taken seriously, had he not flashed his JC badge.
Also, it may be stretching things to analogize that the Ethics Committee Head Rooster would opine that Ms. Southern not be allowed to attend the excellent gathering of BC LP Buds.
Admittedly, all the JC chair did was scream, “AVOID INVITING THE ALT.RIGHT,” while clarifying elsewhere in the letter that by “the Alt.right” he meant one LPF member; and the LPC EC chairman could have just sent a letter, as chairman, saying “AVOID INVITING THE ALT.RIGHT,” while singling out Lauren Southern; but that’s a distinction without a difference. The LPF knew that ASI planned to attend the convention; if they didn’t stop that, would the chair consider that an “invitation” or not.
The problem isn’t so much that Invictus shows up to events, it’s that he is given a platform to speak from.
If you let a state (or provincial party into the convention, you cannot be prevent him or her from speaking; as ASI demonstrated in Florida.
What I would consider it is an attempt by the EC chairman to misuse his office to interfere in a matter where he had absolutely no right to interfere, and I’d be in the forefront of the members calling for him or her to resign.
Chuck isn’t interfering. He is expressing his opinion and giving reasons for it. Not only is he not speaking for the JC, he is not creating or trying to create any confusion that that is what he is doing.
Sure, just like Vohra was just “expressing his opinion and giving reasons for it,” not claiming to speak for the LNC. I haven’t noticed him being given a pass on that account. (Imagine if Vohra had said, “DON’T INVITE VETERANS TO YOUR EVENTS.”)
As far as I can tell, it appears to be that anyone elected JC chair either gives up his or her right to express personal opinions
Depends on what the opinion is. There’s a big difference between telling someone, “I don’t like Joe Blow” , or even “I don’t think Joe Blow understands libertarianism,” and “DON’T INVITE JOE BLOW TO ANY OF YOUR EVENTS”. The last is an order, not an opinion.
or to mention that he or she has that title in the process of doing so,
Not using that title would have helped. Mentioning past offices is a lot less objectionable; it could still be interpreted as saying he’s someone with power in the LP, so people had better do what he says, but not so much.
lest it confuse someone into thinking those opinions are a JC decision
Wrong: lest it confuse someone into thinking that, if they fail to follow the order, there’ll be consequences (whether or not there’s any way to connect that failure to the consequences).
I call them as I see them. I have no problem saying Andy is full of shit when I think he is full of shit. I also have no problem defending him and pointing out the good things he does and the good ideas he has when I see those. He has no problem calling me on what he sees as my shit either. Yes, we do know each other in real life and yes, we have travelled and worked together, on and off for years. Whether anyone believes me is up to them but I know that Andy was not on the phone or computer when some of the troll posts were made. Whether anyone believes Andy or not is up to them, but he can vouch that I had no way of knowing or learning from anyone I would have known that he was in jail in Jonesboro when a troll comment saying that was posted here. And if anyone believes me more than they believe Andy, I will vouch that I have always found Andy to be honest to a fault. Whatever his other faults are, I’ve never found being a liar to be one of them in all the years I have known him.
Great Ideas: ” . . . .Andreas and Pauli are each other’s alibi? The two best friends and travel and work partners? . . . .”
Paulie calls out Andy all the time when he gets extremely wackadoodle
Andy: ” . . . .As much as I despise the likes of Bill Weld, if he wants to show up at an LP meeting an engage in a debate, I’d be fine with that, just so long as the audience gets to ask him questions, and I got the opportunity to tell him off to his face. . . . . ”
Stay classy Andy! Very professional of you to “tell someone off to his face” rather than try to convince him of what you think are philosophical errors on his part.
Open debate with people who believe in open debate is good. Open debate with people who want to kill those who disagree with them, start race wars, threaten to put people in the hospital if they get pranked, and create fake front groups to call bomb threats on themselves and get our events cancelled is not. All of the other open debates and all of the other speakers that would have been at the Mid Atlantic Liberty Festival were cancelled as a result of inviting this slimeball, we damaged our relationship with the venue and got bad publicity for us and good publicity for him. That’s not in our interest. We should dissociate from him and his racist friends like Ryan Ramsey completely and immediately, refund their dues if any, and never invite them to speak at any future LP or small-l events.
Bullshit. His calls for roundups and deportation of millions, eugenics (even with his waffling on the issue he repeats that position in his “letter to the peoples of Europe” and then posts again this year that it is still relevant), “fear of the Jews”… calls Ezra Pound “my fellow American fascist,” exhorts his followers to stick together like the fasces in Portland in 2015, threatens violence against his political enemies in 2017, discusses killing Muslims, Jews and leftists on the radio in 2017, gets a tattoo of the fasces across his back done by a prominent white nationalist in 2015, talks about how the jailed leader of the neo-nazi American Front gang is not only his client but also his great friend, speaks to the National Socialist Movement (of which he has been a member) and on too many other nazi, fascist and white power gatherings and podcasts to count, has people sieg heiling at his speeches on a regular basis, campaigns in front of RAC banners (despite the name, RAC is all about RACism, not about opposing communism – look up Rock Against Communism on wikipedia), names his new publication Revolutionary Conservative after an interwar fascist movement in Germany and cites a member of that movement, Carl Schmitt, who went on to join the Nazis, as a major influence; here is just one month of his neo-fascist and neo-nazi activities this year:
Yes, He is Still a Fascist
Let’s make things perfectly clear. Invictus indeed claims to have rejected the state eugenics policies he advocated in law school [archive]. This rejection is purely one of application. He has not abandoned eugenics because it is disgusting, immoral, depraved, racist and violent. Indeed, he still confirms as of March 24th that he believes the “strong and intelligent should breed – and the weak and stupid should not”. He simply no longer believes that government planned eugenics would be practical. Although his original paper disavowed any selection on the basis of race or ethnicity, when viewed in light of his repeat moaning about higher non-white immigrant birth rates, people he characterized as “parasites” in the above letter, some reading between the lines is not unreasonable.
As to his comments in favor of “state-sponsored murder”, the LFP’s excuse that this is ambiguous is laughable. We are talking about a man that proudly declares the solution to the radical Islam is a “Reconquista”. Who openly talks about murdering leftists one minute and then tries to play it off as an exaggeration the next. Who stated in 2013 [archive] that “I have prophesied for years that I was born for a Great War; that if I did not witness the coming of the Second American Civil War I would begin it myself”.
He still talks about this. His website, the Revolutionary Conservative, openly proclaims an intention to spark a right-wing insurrection, as he does again and again in his Fireside Chats and Guerrilla Radio podcasts. Aside from all that, Invictus supports a border wall, an escalation of ICE raids and travel bans to keep immigrants from freely moving about and living where they wish. He supports these policies both in the United States and in Europe as defense of a decaying Western civilization. The scale of violence needed to achieve this, and to remove the millions already living in these societies, is nothing short of state-sponsored ethnic cleansing.
Oh, and we seem to recall this beacon of free speech and civil debate issuing defamation lawsuits to people saying things about him he didn’t like. Not just toward the LPF, but also to the woman who broke the story alleging a history of domestic violence, rape and kidnapping. He has since descended into victim blaming conspiracy theories involving the victim, Paul Stanton, former LPF chair Adrian Wyllie, the FBI, and others.
….
Because so many of his defenders’ pleas hinge on framing these as relics of a distant past and no longer indicative of his present stances, here is a list of things he has done or been discovered to have done in the past month:
…
So a platform of eugenics, ethnic cleansing, race war, mass roundups and deportations, killing Muslims, Jews and leftists, etc., is “more libertarian” ? That’s fucking ridiculous.
Which is fine. When Bodenhausen and Rster ran the Birmingham meetings we used to have mainstream politicians from the establishment parties speak and answer questions at the monthly meetings fairly often. But the thing is – those speakers did not create fake opposition groups that got our events cancelled to generate publicity that benefits them and hurts us. If they did I would have been all in favor of not inviting them ever again.
Paulie, let me reiterate with emphasis: LEGITIMATE reason.
Sure there is. Civil service patronage jobs, favors to dole out to various special interest groups, campaign donations to rake in and disburse to various campaign contractors, money to make off said contracts, networking for business contacts in other fields, the fun and excitement of campaigns, meeting people…. of course joining the establishment parties is a better way of satisfying such goals but one can delude oneself that we are getting in on the ground floor of such opportunities here.
Anthony,
You write:
“I’ve had a theory for some time that every self-aggrandizing whackadoodle who joins the LP instinctively knows that a party with a substantial faction that would rather lose than give up a quixotic attachment to ‘principle’ has a major weakness that can be exploited.”
Your theory, while not necessarily incorrect, is irrelevant.
Absent a “quixotic attachment to principle,” there’s no legitimate reason for a political party to exist in the first place. Or at least no reason for anyone to identify with, or support the candidates of, one party rather than another party.
False equivalence. If a cop came to your door waving his badge and issuing what sounds like an order you would be forgiven for assuming that he was acting in his official capacity. If a member of an appeals court writes an op-ed and is identified as judge or justice so and so in the article blurb no one in his or her right mind is deceived that the op-ed is for that reason a court decision.
Chuck’s article is in no way, shape or form trying to create confusion in anyone’s mind that it is any kind of decree from the JC. Unlike a cop waving a badge and trying to create an impression that he is issuing an official police order.
I see nothing in Chuck’s letter that reads like a mandate. He’s not banging his metaphorical gavel or putting on his metaphorical robe and wig nor having the metaphorical bailiff say all rise; he is appealing to people’s reason, not their fear of authority or of being brought before the tribunal.
Also, it may be stretching things to analogize that the Ethics Committee Head Rooster would opine that Ms. Southern not be allowed to attend the excellent gathering of BC LP Buds. The problem isn’t so much that Invictus shows up to events, it’s that he is given a platform to speak from.
Chuck isn’t interfering. He is expressing his opinion and giving reasons for it. Not only is he not speaking for the JC, he is not creating or trying to create any confusion that that is what he is doing.
As far as I can tell, it appears to be that anyone elected JC chair either gives up his or her right to express personal opinions or to mention that he or she has that title in the process of doing so, lest it confuse someone into thinking those opinions are a JC decision even though no one has been so confused as far as we know, nor was there any effort to create any such confusion in the least.
Incidentally, Augustus Invictus participated in two debates of which I am aware, one against Walter Block, and the other against Adam Kokesh. I watched his debate against Walter Block, and it was pretty good. I only watched part of his debate against Adam Kokesh, not because it was not good, but rather because the audio was bad.
Chuck Moulton said: “In addition, we are a political party , not a debating society. The LP has no obligation to give a platform to those who fundamentally disagree with our philosophy so they can spread that fundamentally different philosophy with our members and try to convince our members to redefine the libertarian philosophy which has been enshrined into the SOP and platform for well over 40 years to be thair fundamentally different philosophy.”
The LP has regularly given a platform to people who don’t agree with libertarianism, and in fact, the party even put people like this on its last three presidential tickets.
As for Augustus Invictus, his campaign platform was a lot more libertarian than the platform of our 2016 presidential ticket.
Also, Augustus Invictus, a current, dues paying LP member, was going to the event in Pennsylvania with the purpose of DEBATING Will Coley, another current, dues paying LP member. Open debate is good for the party.
As much as I despise the likes of Bill Weld, if he wants to show up at an LP meeting an engage in a debate, I’d be fine with that, just so long as the audience gets to ask him questions, and I got the opportunity to tell him off to his face.
PaulieGD, expanding on my earlier remarks:
Also if it was a committee opinion there would have been a vote, which would have been reported, such as “4-3” or “5-2” or “7-0” with the names of the committee members who voted on each side listed.
I don’t know about Canada but in the US LP the chairman of the Judicial Committee does not get to issue solo opinions on behalf of the committee, and the committee can only act as a group –
Paulie, at no time did I suggest that the JC chair had either a mandate from either the Bylaws or the Committee to write his anti-Invictus letter. It was simply one JC member acting on his own.
Just as the cop in my scenario who showed his badge and ordered me to mow my lawn wouldn’t have either legal authority, or the backing of the police department to order me to mow it. It would be just one person in a position of authority figure going renegade and misusing his authority. That’s the point.
kind of like if a Supreme Court Justice wrote an op-ed, the newspaper would probably note that the writer is a Supreme Court justice, but that would not make it a decision of the court, nor would any reasonable and reasonably educated person mistake it for one.
Of course. When Ruth Bader Ginsberg intervened in the election campaign, no one thought she had either Constitutional authority or the backing of the Court to do so. It was perfectly clear it was just one Supreme Court justice using her position in a way she had no authority or mandate to use it. That’s what everyone from Paul Ryan to the NY Times were complaining about: she was using her position to advance an agenda when she had no right or privilege to do so.
You seem like a reasonable and reasonably educated person, so perhaps it’s a difference between how things are done in the US and Canada? Does the Canadian party have a judicial committee whose chair can issue diktats on matters not brought before the committee and without a committee vote, and would such diktats be considered to be binding by anyone if they are made?
Up in Canada, we call it the Ethics Committee; it was modelled after the USLP Judicial Committee, and it’s basically the same. One difference is that the Ethics Committee has the power to terminate memberships for SoP violations, so that may affect things.
Let me come up with a scenario like you’re suggesting. Suppose the BC LP had a convention, and Lauren Southern (a BCLP member and a former candidate) decided to attend; and an antifascist group – real or fake, we agree that’s not the issue, right? – announced they were shutting down the convention if she was allowed to attend. And it came out later that, in the midst of that, the chairman (our quaint name for the chair) of the LPC Ethics Committee had sent a letter to the BCLP telling them that, because of the threat, they were not to allow Lauren to attend the convention.
Would I consider that a decision of the EC? No. Would I consider it binding on anyone? No. What I would consider it is an attempt by the EC chairman to misuse his office to interfere in a matter where he had absolutely no right to interfere, and I’d be in the forefront of the members calling for him or her to resign.
And if the chairman’s only defence was: “Well, I had no authority to send a letter purporting to come from the committee, so that means it was just me giving advice as a party activist,” I’d call bullshit and double my demands that he resign – not just for misusing his office, but also for bullshitting about it after getting caught.
Now do you understand my point?
“The LP is not about what YOU think is best for society. It’s about acknowledging and accepting that we are individuals with individual thoughts and values.”
I’ve had a theory for some time that every self-aggrandizing whackadoodle who joins the LP instinctively knows that a party with a substantial faction that would rather lose than give up a quixotic attachment to “principle” has a major weakness that can be exploited.
Its why they always fall back to accusing us of not living up to our own principles. When a barely qualified internet troll manages to secure 20% of the delegates at our Convention, and a resume and qualifications for the office are not only not valued but frequently denigrated, attacking us for not living up to our principles or just saying, “yea, those are my principles too” are the most obvious petards for us to be hoisted upon.
Raquel Okyay wrote (on Facebok, where I am apparently tagged):
I haven’t been on Facebook for over 2 years, so I’ll reply here.
The Libertarian Party I know is the one with libertarian positions as articulated in the statement of principles and the platform. Libertarian positions are also championed by many libertarian think tanks, including The Cato Institute. The notion that someone can redefine libertarianism to be synonymous with fascism (which is antithetical to many of these policy positions) is ridiculous.
In addition, we are a political party , not a debating society. The LP has no obligation to give a platform to those who fundamentally disagree with our philosophy so they can spread that fundamentally different philosophy with our members and try to convince our members to redefine the libertarian philosophy which has been enshrined into the SOP and platform for well over 40 years to be thair fundamentally different philosophy.
And YES — to more directly address your allegation — I DO in fact think libertarianism is superior to fascism and libertarians have superior politics and common sense relative to fascists. Conversely, unlike Augustus Invictus and others, I DO NOT think whites are inherently superior to other races. I have many friends of all different races who I greatly respect.
Hope that helps clarify things.
Steve Scheetz wrote:
That it hurt us and helped him is exactly the problem.
Steve Scheetz wrote:
Steve,
I have been and remain your friend. Sorry I didn’t make it to the event, which for me was more a result of the event being canceled and moved around than objecting to a speaker. I don’t let a difference of opinion in politics or strategy get in the way of a friendship either, so please do not take my disagreement with your speaker invitation decision or my cautionary note to other event organizers as a personal attack on you — that was not my intention.
paulie wrote:
Yes. Speakers at events are completely outside of the JC’s jurisdiction — as it should be. I only listed titles so people would know I have a long background with the LP and be more likely to listen to me than someone with very little LP experience. i do not speak for the Judicial Committee on this issue and did not consult any other JC member.
I’m also on the bylaws committee right now, but I’m not suggesting a bylaw amendment in this topic either. All I’m asking is that event organizers who are supposed to be serving for the benefit of the LP self-reflect on the likely detrimental consequences of a decision to invite alt-righters to LP brandes or LP associated events.
This isn’t about free speech. Just because we believe in free speech doesn’t mean we are required to give a platform to our opponents by inviting fascists, socialists, neo-conservative warmongers, authoritarians, etc. to speak at our events.
As for the evidence, it’s not mine to share. I was clued in by someone I trust who prefers to remain anonymous. If you don’t want to believe it without seeing the evidence and talking to primary sources, I complely understand. However, whether or not the Antifa group was fake is completely irrelevant to the core argument that giving a platform to the alt-right is a horrendously bad idea which greatly damages the LP.
Indeed. I understand that Canadians such as Don Andrews are afraid that Invictus will take their jobs.
They probably don’t want to deal with the headaches, drama and bad publicity. The LP would be wise to do likewise.
The article needed to be kept to reasonable lengths, most of the thrust of the article would still be true even if Harrisburg Antifa had not been a fake antifa group set up by fascists, and besides the public source that I also saw I don’t know what Chuck’s sources are or how confidential they may or may not be. You could try asking him. If he doesn’t answer here, maybe try email. I would not blame him if he is no longer following the thread given how many off topic comments there were above.
If the fascists who set up the fake “Harrisburg Antifa” group caused the Harrisburg police – out of an overabundance of caution – to tell the original hotel in Harrisburg that they could not guarantee the safety of the event, that same intelligence was likely shared with the Gettysburg PD. For that to have happened there did not have to be any threat from Gettysburg Antifa or Central PA antifa. It really did not require anything except for someone to pick up a burner phone or payphone and make a phone call or two.
I should have been more specific. I am aware that the Berkeley riot happened. What I meant by dunno about those is whether the damage was done by actual antifa, fascists pretending to be antifa, government provocateurs pretending to be antifa, or some combination thereof. Harrisburg is where I know that the other antifa groups in the area said the Harrisburg antifa – the same group allegedly cited by Harrisburg PD in saying they could not guarantee the safety of the event – is a false front group run by fascists. I do not know whether the same type of thing happened in Berkeley or Vancouver or not.
Why is that relevant? Harrisburg and Gettysburg are less than 40 miles apart. Whoever was a potential security concern could have potentially hopped in their car and done whatever police feared they might do and been home by lunch. There need not have been any threat from Gettysburg Antifa per se, and in fact there need not have been a new separate threat at all – it could have easily just been routine intelligence sharing between nearby police departments.
Paulie – “On the other hand if we could get Invictus to Nunavut and somehow keep him from coming back I would consider that a huge plus. “
The problem with that is that Canadian border guards will not let Invictus into Canada; which should please Andy no end.
On the other hand, if the Canadian government is in on the ‘fake Antifa’ conspiracy, Invictus should be able to get them to change their minds.
<Paulie: You got me on that one. What happened it Middlebury?
Here’s the story:
Charles Murray attacked by mob at Middlebury
http://gdspoliticalanimal.blogspot.ca/2017/03/charles-murray-attacked-by-mob-at.html
Chuck said he had a lot of evidence for [the ‘fake antifa’ theory], I have seen some myself as well.
Then one would think the JC chair could show some of that, no?
The group that was the alleged source of concern to Harrisburg PD, Harrisburg Antifa, was denounced by a whole bunch of Antifa groups nearby as a fake front group for fascists.
But according to the organizer, the event was shut down by the Gettysburg PD – and Central PA Antifa has not denounced Gettysburg Antifa as a fake group; quite the opposite.
It’s pretty obvious what happened.
It may be, given the JC chair’s evidence which he hasn’t shared.
GD – “It would indeed be nice, for an anti-fascist like you (or me), to chalk the Berkeley riot up to Milo’s minions; or the similar riot we had in Vancouver, over an ASI speech that never happened, to ASI’s minions. But just because it’s nice to believe it, is not a good reason to believe it.
Paulie – Dunno about those.”
Here’s a story on the Berkeley riot:
Berkeley protests of Yiannopoulos caused $100,000 in damage
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/
And one on the Vancouver riot
Vancouver reporter soaked with bottle of urine at ‘anti-fascist’ rally
http://theprovince.com/news/vancouver-reporter-soaked-with-bottle-of-urine-at-anti-fascist-rally-with-video
Do know about Harrisburg for reasons stated above as well as earlier.
Nothing about Harrisburg. However, the event was shut down after being moved to Gettysburg; and I do know that Gettysburg Antifa is real enough.
“And everyone else calls it a bullshit excuse.”
haha. touché, sir.
I’ve never been a “best” type. I enjoy variety in all things. I usually have things I like and don’t like just about anywhere I go and the longer I stay there the more I notice the negatives and stop noticing the positives.
What area did you like the best?
Yes.
I’ve also been to every US state except Hawaii, every state in Mexico, every country in Central America, every major island and many minor islands in the Caribbean, a few landing strips in Colombia and Venezuela, Italy, Austria, Russia (where I was born and lived til age 7 in Siberia) and Ukraine.
The ones where I spent significant amounts of time were several months in Italy, a summer in Crimea, a couple of summers in Mexico and Central America, and 9 months in the Bahamas.
“Nunavut, incidentally, is the only part of Canada I never went to; it did not exist as an entity when I was in Canada but was part of NWT, iirc.”
really? You’ve been to the Yukon, and places like Prince Edward Island/Nova Scotia?
Meanwhile back at the ranch from an anonymous source:
I happen to agree.
BTW was Steve in a LPPA leadership position? I know he has been in the past and all but I would have to look it up as to whether he was last term or is this term.
On the other hand if we could get Invictus to Nunavut and somehow keep him from coming back I would consider that a huge plus. Nunavut, incidentally, is the only part of Canada I never went to; it did not exist as an entity when I was in Canada but was part of NWT, iirc.
And everyone else calls it a bullshit excuse.
Even if the CONTINUED (as I am sure you are aware, they were already enslaved, even if an actual decision in their particular case had not been made yet) enslavement of the bakers comes along with, say, the end of the drone wars, the end of marijuana Schedule I status, and a flat income tax?
Battlefield doctors call it triage.
“As you suggest, the tricky question is the first one.”
Well, of course.
But there’s simply no way for Johnson/Weld to plausibly get past that question. It’s impossible to make enslaving bakers and suppressing the right to keep and bear arms on the basis of inclusion on secret government enemies lists compatible with the Libertarian Party’s principles/platform. It can’t be done.
paulie,
“The Mid-Atlantic Liberty Festival that Steve was trying to put together was not strictly speaking an LP event.”
I’m not interested in strict definitions. Steve was “on the clock” as someone in leadership of the LPPA. He should be nowhere near any event where Goat Blood Boy is, and should definitely NOT be organizing any kind of event where the fascist will be, connected or not to the LPPA Convention, I don’t care if the meeting is in Iqaluit, Nunavut, Canada in the dead of winter.
You’re in a leadership position? Then you are on the clock 24/7. Don’t like it? Tough.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation-idUSBREA321Y320140403
Thomas,
I actually agree 100% with your post time-stamped May 19, 2017 at 08:56 regarding the flow chart.
As you suggest, the tricky question is the first one. And as you might expect, I disagree with you on what is “faithful to the party’s principles and platform.” My answer is significantly more expansive than yours, and a quite expected (and desired) effect of my preferred answer is to draw in (what will at first be) retired Republicans and Democrats then close to retiring Republicans and Democrats or others with little to lose, then existing Republican and Democratic office holders with A LOT to lose. (via free market principles, we know those with a lot to lose are just the most valuable market participants anyway, the ones most likely to win).
Any limiting answer to that tricky first question…especially answers that rely on the philosophical only…will do only two things well: keep out the qualified, and draw in the lunatics. Its very easy to just assert you are a libertarian, even if you are most obviously not, as we can see with Goat Blood Boy.
Any expansive answer that stays within the bounds of the libertarian quadrant of the Nolan Chart will overwhelm the likes of Goat Blood Boy via normal people voting for qualified candidates. If there are radicals/purists/anarchists that can’t accept such an expansive answer…well then I rather lose Goat Blood Boy and the Purist rather than keep Goat Blood Boy in order to keep the Purist.
Anthony,
Your remarks are somewhat misdirected. The Mid-Atlantic Liberty Festival that Steve was trying to put together was not strictly speaking an LP event. I think the original idea was to combine the LP convention with a three day “liberty movement”-palooza for the entire small l community as a way to help promote networking between big and small Ls. Due to a combination of logistical issues and altreich-related controversy, the two events were formally separated, but were still originally planned to be in the same hotel on the same weekend. After further soda can shitting as you have alluded to by a few deranged reich wing rats from Florida, maybe (or maybe not) with the help of a few more locally based Wehrmacht Fantasy League types posing as a fake antifa front, the whole non-party liberty festival side of the weekend unfortunately tanked. The party business convention as such, as far as I know, went off without a hitch.
As a postscript, and in reference to your “dilemma” regarding the fact that you had people objecting to Chair Sarwark speaking, Austin “Internet Troll” Petersen and ASI speaking…there is no dilemma. Given what I posted about what the mission of the libertarian party is, you are either on drugs or willfully ignorant no to know which of those three people should not be invited.
Let’s see…Pepsi has three test sodas they need to put on the market: a lemongrass flavored soda, a soda with a speaker/batteru on the can that can play Nikki Manaj songs for 20 minutes, or a soda a chemist shats in before it gets bottled. I wonder which one won’t get the Pepsi seal of approval to put into test markets? Hmmm…
“Of the two dozen people coming to speak, I was told to not invite Nick Sarwark, Austin Petersen, or ASI by one person. Nick, because he would speak about the positives brought about by the Johnson campaign, Austin because he is arrogant, and ASI because he is a goat blood drinking eugenicist (never mind that he is a member in good standing both nationally and with the LPF.) This lesson states that there will ALWAYS be a reason to dislike invited speakers and there is no pleasing some individuals.
“I invited ALL of these people. I ALSO invited a member of Antifa. That person did not get to speak as she was about to start driving and the second venue was canceled and there was not really any hope, at that point , that there would be a third. THIS one was a tragic irony.”
I invited ASI after I saw him in NYC during Liberty Fest. I invited him because he represents a group that is growing. He is articulate, and I really wanted him to answer questions about his beliefs and why he thought they belonged in the Libertarian Party.”
“ASI was going to have time for Q&A so that everyone present could ask why it was he felt that his message was Libertarian….”
Steve S,
Frankly, all these statements by you betray a decided lack of understanding of what the mission of the private entity known as the Libertarian Party SHOULD be.
Our job…as a party…is not to DEMONSTRATE a free market, a free exchange of ideas, free speech, or any other principle of libertarianism.
The job of the party is to get people elected to public office (that is done via elections, as you know), in order to enact and protect via public policy, the libertarian view of those rights.
To that end, our PRIVATE organization SHOULD BE discriminatory, prejudiced, and intolerant of anything that prevents…or might prevent us…from getting elected. That is all that matters.
That does nothing to demonstrate to the American people that we “don’t believe in free speech rights” because free speech rights do not apply here. Goat Blood Boy is a massive political liability. Only a fool would think otherwise. To suggest we have to hear him out and allow a self-aggrandizing farmer to get air time “whooping his ass in a debate” is like suggesting PepsiCo has to put some deranged chemists’ version of sody pop with rat droppings in it on the market with PepsiCo’s brand on it in order to let the market decide and in order to prove that Pepsi believes in the capitalist system.
This mission is not for everyone. Some people, for example, think we can call all service members “accessories to murder” in order to make a philosophical point about refusing to obey immoral orders, the public policy benefits of a scenario where 2 million service members in unison start refusing to obey immoral orders, and flights of fancy about how the free market could provide defense services.
Those people are stupid. Given that this party exists in the political arena, version of the libertarian message that costs or might cost more votes/support than it attracts must be dispensed with, regardless of how “right” the argument might be.
GD, expanding on my earlier remarks:
Also if it was a committee opinion there would have been a vote, which would have been reported, such as “4-3” or “5-2” or “7-0” with the names of the committee members who voted on each side listed. I don’t know about Canada but in the US LP the chairman of the Judicial Committee does not get to issue solo opinions on behalf of the committee, and the committee can only act as a group – kind of like if a Supreme Court Justice wrote an op-ed, the newspaper would probably note that the writer is a Supreme Court justice, but that would not make it a decision of the court, nor would any reasonable and reasonably educated person mistake it for one. You seem like a reasonable and reasonably educated person, so perhaps it’s a difference between how things are done in the US and Canada? Does the Canadian party have a judicial committee whose chair can issue diktats on matters not brought before the committee and without a committee vote, and would such diktats be considered to be binding by anyone if they are made?
“the controversy definitely helped [Augustus Invictus]. It hurt us, but it helped him.)”
Exactly. And that is where two relatively well-known analytical instruments come into play: Cui bono? and Occam’s Razor.
Cui bono: Who benefited? Augustus Invictus.
Occam’s razor: When unknown parties create a controversy, the conclusion which requires the fewest assumptions is that the unknown controversy creators were most likely those who benefited from causing the controversy.
Absent the controversy, the event would have made back its money and perhaps a small profit, and would have been noticed by a few people who wanted to see Will Coley whip Augustus Invictus’s ass in a debate.
With the controversy, Augustus Invictus got to raise his profile while playing the martyr, a modus operandi which he’s used a number of times and which has always served him well.
The tentative conclusion absent any credible conflicting evidence, therefore, should be either that “Harrisburg Antifa” and “Augustus Invictus” (and his small organization) are one and the same, or that the former was created by or on behalf of the latter.
Steve
Exactly. And as Chuck points out that is why inviting him was a mistake.
Dunno what you learned but I am still your friend, as much as we disagree about Invictus.
It shouldn’t have been.
I agree.
One of these things is not like the other.
You got me on that one. What happened at Middlebury?
Chuck said he had a lot of evidence for it, I have seen some myself as well. The group that was the alleged source of concern to Harrisburg PD, Harrisburg Antifa, was denounced by a whole bunch of Antifa groups nearby as a fake front group for fascists. It’s pretty obvious what happened.
Nope. It’s because the actual antifa groups all over PA and nearby said so.
Dunno about those. Do know about Harrisburg for reasons stated above as well as earlier.
Being on the judicial committee of the LP or even its chair is not the same as being a cop. The JC only has jurisdiction to rule on matters that are brought before it according to procedures laid out in the bylaws. Anything else is personal opinion. It’s not uncommon for party members to list their past and present titles when they are trying to get their opinion pieces considered by the largest possible intra-party audience.
There was a point of clarification posted earlier. It played very lose with the facts and reality.
Again, the Harrisburg Mayor’s office and the Harrisburg PD shut us down. The person posting the “clarification” praised this action as “the market speaking” (Unless he deleted it it is still a comment on one of the many threads I started about the subject on Facebook.)
If the market had spoken, nobody would have shown up to the event. As it was, we had payment from 95 people the day we were shut down. We managed to gain more when we found the second venue, including a group of people coming from Michigan, some people coming from New Mexico, and it was going to be a really awesome event before THAT was shut down by the Gettysburg PD due to security concerns over chest thumping on Facebook. This is very well documented, no need to go into further detail on that.
Lessons learned?
Of the two dozen people coming to speak, I was told to not invite Nick Sarwark, Austin Petersen, or ASI by one person. Nick, because he would speak about the positives brought about by the Johnson campaign, Austin because he is arrogant, and ASI because he is a goat blood drinking eugenicist (never mind that he is a member in good standing both nationally and with the LPF.) This lesson states that there will ALWAYS be a reason to dislike invited speakers and there is no pleasing some individuals.
I invited ALL of these people. I ALSO invited a member of Antifa. That person did not get to speak as she was about to start driving and the second venue was canceled and there was not really any hope, at that point , that there would be a third. THIS one was a tragic irony.
ASI spoke IN HARRISBURG, and hung out at the favorite watering hole of the local Antifa group. (His video received the highest number of views, of any of his videos, EVER…. the controversy definitely helped him. It hurt us, but it helped him.)
I learned who my friends were that day.
Larry Sharpe came. He helped make the event a success. Arvin Vohra invited me onto his radio show, he came, he spoke. Glenn Cripe came. I saw his presentation in AZ and… Well, he founded Language of Liberty, and he spoke about what he does. (He speaks the message of Liberty and Libertarianism to young adults and students in countries where one can be SHOT for doing that! Talk about a man who walks his talk? He came, he gave his presentation, and everyone who was in that room was as enthralled as I was. These three guys are friends. They came despite all of the drama surrounding the event and all of the ignorant facebook posts surrounding the event. They will always have my gratitude, and of course so will the folks who helped make the event happen, etc.
There were many folks who were going to be coming, Jury Nullification, Sex Workers, Government Over-Reach, classes on fund raising, running a meeting, lessons learned during the 2016 campaign, and OH YEAH, there was to be questions asked of ASI. Will Coley came up with the idea of the debate after some people started making public condemnations of me and of the event. (One of those people was holding a grudge after his bid for the 2015 LPPA convention was turned down by the board of which I happened to be chair…. But the market spoke, so all is well) The Chairman of the LP was coming, and the reality was that I had invited the personification of Dr Marc Allan’s speech to the convention. (the only ones missing were Gary Johnson and John McAffee.) Darryl was coming. Austin was coming, We had that Muslim Libertarian that Jew Libertarian, that Christian Athiest Hindu Libertarian… and yeah, I miss that guy….)
The theme was “Unity With Principle.” ASI was going to have time for Q&A so that everyone present could ask why it was he felt that his message was Libertarian…. On a side note, one of the condemnations used a letter posted by the LPF which was retracted days after the event. There is always a lot of supposition involved with threads like this one.
I lived it. I have my own lessons learned. I invited ASI after I saw him in NYC during Liberty Fest. I invited him because he represents a group that is growing. He is articulate, and I really wanted him to answer questions about his beliefs and why he thought they belonged in the Libertarian Party. Given that he spoke in NYC, and given that he debated Kokesh and Block without incident, all of the people who said that I should have seen “this coming” were just Monday morning quarterbacking. Certainly, given what I know now, I would not have invited him, but we really missed an awesome opportunity with the whole thing being canceled. Fear and Ignorance carried the day. Oh yeah, and the force of government… Precedent was set that government can say that due to security concerns they can shut down any free speech event in Harrisburg. THAT lesson was not lost.
Next lesson is that it does not matter which side someone happens to be on, all that matters is where the popular thought happens to be. Libertarianism is becoming less about the Principle, and more about popularity. I say this because of the current round of Libertarian drama… First we are supposed to hate the “Alt Right,” and now, we are supposed to hate the out spoken Anti-War Libertarian, though only if he happens to be on the LNC.
The lesson with this is that it has become popular for the Libertarian Party to implode. Which is amazing because one would have thought that in 2017, the LP would capitalize on some of the decisions being made within the DC Beltway. I guess I was wrong to assume this to be the case.
THIS Libertarian is working on a Free Market Solution to a government Program. The people I spoke with in FL at the LPF Convention know what it is about. Regardless, that is what I am working on now. Feel free to continue your arguments, but I, for one, would rather get some work done.
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
Paulie – “It has nothing to do with the JC. The JC adjudicates matters that are brought to it, not make suggestions. Chuck only mentioned he was chair of JC along with various past titles so as to give people reason to take his opinion more seriously.”
He can’t have it both ways. If a cop neighbor of mine wants me to mow my lawn, he might dress up in his uniform and show his badge before telling me to mow it so that I’ll take his opinion more seriously; but he can’t pretend at the same time that his being a cop had nothing to do with it.
Paulie – “I don’t think Weld or Murray is likely to create a fake antifa group to get LP events cancelled for planning to include them so they can get media attention and sympathy. Leave that to the likes of Invictus and Ramsey. The problem with Invictus and Ramsey isn’t that their ideas are so beyond the pale, it’s the unwelcome drama that they bring. “
I’m sure Charles Murray had nothing to do with planning what happened at Middlebury. Nevertheless, it happened, and the consequences were the same. Even the chair admits that the whole question of ‘fake antifa’ is irrelevant: “But regardless of whether the alt-right is responsible for fake threats or actual anti-fascists are responsible for real threats, the outcome is the same.”
“And given that they are creating the fake antifa groups such as Harrisburg Antifa themselves, it’s 100% their fault.”
Wow: how did that go from “a bit of a conspiracy theory”, that nevertheless is “entirely possible (perhaps even likely” to a “given”?
I can understand why you’d consider the ‘fake antifa’ theory a given: the same reason they’d have a motive for creating fake antifa groups: that gets them sympathy. Because you don’t think they should get any sympathy, you subscribe to the fake antifa theory.
It would indeed be nice, for an anti-fascist like you (or me), to chalk the Berkeley riot up to Milo’s minions; or the similar riot we had in Vancouver, over an ASI speech that never happened, to ASI’s minions. But just because it’s nice to believe it, is not a good reason to believe it.
Steve m, only if you consider being active is the struggle for more liberty to be easily stirred.
Andy,
Maybe being easily stirred is why you have been “harassed, slandered, threatened, and arrested”
I don’t think Weld or Murray is likely to create a fake antifa group to get LP events cancelled for planning to include them so they can get media attention and sympathy. Leave that to the likes of Invictus and Ramsey. The problem with Invictus and Ramsey isn’t that their ideas are so beyond the pale, it’s the unwelcome drama that they bring. And given that they are creating the fake antifa groups such as Harrisburg Antifa themselves, it’s 100% their fault.
steve m, if you had been harassed, slandered, threatened, and arrested on false charges twice, like I have, perhaps you be “easily stirred” too.
It has nothing to do with the JC. The JC adjudicates matters that are brought to it, not make suggestions. Chuck only mentioned he was chair of JC along with various past titles so as to give people reason to take his opinion more seriously.
Steve – I thought you were the one that wanted this thread to stay more on topic?
Great ideas – Yes, that’s why I keep bringing it back around to Invictus. You haven’t noticed?
But the topic isn’t really Invictus, and whether he’s a nice guy or a nasty piece of work. The topic is the Judicial Committee chair’s memo to the state parties telling them not to let him, and other people, speak, or maybe even attend, state party events.
Lots to discuss there. For one thing, is this just a suggestion from one guy, or something the JC chair thinks should be followed because someone with a badge (him) says so? From the way he signed his memo, obviously the latter.
But then the questions are: what could the JC do to ensure it’s followed? All the LP can do to a state party is disaffiliate, and that’s up to the LNC, not the JC? Will the JC be recommending disaffiliation of state parties that defy the Chair’s diktat? One already has, LP of Florida, so it’s not moot.
Another question is: how does the JC expect it to be followed, without coming up with an enemies list. So far that list has just one name – the original ASI – but that tells the state parties zip. Maybe it’s clear they shouldn’t, for example, allow Richard Spencer to state LP events; but it isn’t clear that they shouldn’t, for example, allow Charles Murrary. Some have even suggested they shouldn’t allow Bill Weld. Without an enemies list, this doesn’t resolve the potential problems; but with an enemies list, there’s the question of who should be on it.
You got it. Do let the door hit you.
Again, considering the source…thanks!
Andy,
I might very well naive but you are like weak coffee…. easily stirred.
Andreas and Pauli are each other’s alibi? The two best friends and travel and work partners? Well, that’s convenient. I guess the only logical conclusion is that they are both working together on the trolling. Whether they are government agents, mentally ill or both is yet to be determined, but it’s at least one or the other, obviously. There would be absolutely no point in having a government operation to target these losers as everyone reading this except the two of them finds the idea laughable on its face. ASI here sounds as nutty and paranoid as the other ASI (Invictus) and both should be equally unwelcome at party meetings and conventions, and for that matter on this website. I vote for physical removal.
This message, which I also posted earlier, brings the thread exactly back to the original topic posted by Chuck Moulton, while also addressing the gibberish being posted by Andreas Iacobus and his lapdog pauli.
“steve m
May 20, 2017 at 10:16
Great ideas,
I thought you were the one that wanted this thread to stay more on topic?”
If you believe that “Great Ideas” is anything other than a troll, whose sole purpose here is is to stir up trouble, then you are naive.
Yes, that’s why I keep bringing it back around to Invictus. You haven’t noticed?
Great ideas,
I thought you were the one that wanted this thread to stay more on topic?
“Also, I’m certainly not going to post messages slandering myself, and telling people to not hire me.”
You do it all the time Andreas…you just may not be aware that is what you are doing.
Or maybe you are. Maybe Andreas want to keep the calendar clear for some … other employment that isn’t petitioning. Whatever that may be.
I wonder if that is why he has so much affinity for the stated ideas of Invictus….maybe they work together in a professional capacity.
The local police department in Denver, Colorado, got caught spying on the Libertarian Party (and other activist groups) back in the early 2000’s. How many other police departments around the country are doing the same thing?
Denver Spy Files Target Libertarian Party
http://www.freecolorado.com/2002/09/spyfiles.html
Pennsylvania Homeland Security Employed Israeli Company to Suppress American Political Dissent 2/2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyTCtBRaT_M
The Department of Homeland Security and an Israeli company got caught spying on liberty activists and environmental activists in Pennsylvania a few years ago.
Pennsylvania Homeland Security Employed Israeli Company to Suppress American Political Dissent 1/2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbp_ZobZnos
Fusion Center Director: We Don’t Spy on All Americans, Just Anti-Government Americans
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zWPIWsVzNI
“Also, I’m certainly not going to post messages slandering myself, and telling people to not hire me.”
You do it all the time Andreas…you just may not be aware that is what you are doing. At least the other ASI most likely knows what he is doing, even though it’s something we should want no part of.
“Great ideas
May 20, 2017 at 09:51
Andreas and Pauli are each other’s alibi? ”
So says the person posting under a fake name and an IP anonymizer.
Notice how all of these attacks come in from people who are too chickenshit to come out from hiding?
Oh yeah… and a very, very unhappy birthday to pauli. LOL.
“dL
May 20, 2017 at 06:08
‘First , I dont know whats more ridiculous ,the idea Andy is a government plant or the idea that a government plant would stalk and target Andy. Either way it’d be the saddest gov plant mission ever.’
yes, ridiculous. There is no government agent trolling on this website. And to be honest, the back and forth accusation spam is more annoying/prevalent than the impersonation spam.”
It is not ridiculous at all. It is a documented fact that the US government, as well as other governments around the world, pay people to spy on and troll on the internet. The government has already been caught doing this (see the video link I posted above about the government spying on anti-war.com for one example).
‘Or Paulie could be the troll….:)’
“not likely…that would be an expensive vendetta, paying the monthly nut for two different mobile carriers”
I have not had internet on my phone for that long, as in this stuff has been going on for several years, and it started well before I ever had a phone that had internet on it, and even when I first got a phone that had internet, I did not like using it for typing messages because the screen was too small and it was a hassle to type. I have a phone with a larger screen now, so sometimes I do use it to post online, but like I said, the weird stuff that Paul and I are talking about has been going on for years BEFORE I had a phone that had internet.
Also, I’m certainly not going to post messages slandering myself, and telling people to not hire me.
Andreas and Pauli are each other’s alibi? The two best friends and travel and work partners? Well, that’s convenient. I guess the only logical conclusion is that they are both working together on the trolling. Whether they are government agents, mentally ill or both is yet to be determined, but it’s at least one or the other, obviously. There would be absolutely no point in having a government operation to target these losers as everyone reading this except the two of them finds the idea laughable on its face. ASI here sounds as nutty and paranoid as the other ASI (Invictus) and both should be equally unwelcome at party meetings and conventions, and for that matter on this website. I vote for physical removal.
“LG
May 20, 2017 at 04:27
First , I dont know whats more ridiculous ,the idea Andy is a government plant or the idea that a government plant would stalk and target Andy. Either way it’d be the saddest gov plant mission ever.”
It is not ridiculous at all when you consider that it is a known, and admitted fact that the government spies on political activists, and that they infiltrate and sabotage political organizations and movements.
Go back and check out all of the links that I posted above on this subject, and do some further research as on this subject.
If you are involved in the Libertarian Party, or any other alternative party or movement, then you are almost certainly on some kind of government watch list. The government does not focus on everyone on these lists at the same level, as many people may be involved in an alternative party or movement, but they are not that active, and even out of those that are active, there are different level of activity, and some are more effective than others.
I have been involved in the Libertarian Party and movement for almost 21 years now. I’ve been posting political comments online for a long time. I’ve been to a lot of Libertarian, and liberty movement meetings and events all over the country (although I’ve never held any internal party offices).
I started working on petition drives back in 2000, and I’ve worked in 33 states and on numerous campaigns. I’ve worked on many campaigns that lots of people in government did not like. I’ve also disseminated a lot of pro-liberty information to the public, via conversation, and/or by handing out pro-liberty flyers, pamphlets, VHS tapes, DVD’s, bumper stickers, etc….. I’ve also informed thousands of people about the right of jury nullification. There is a good chance that I’m the #1 pamphleteer in the history of the Libertarian Party (If anyone has done more of this, I’d like to know who this person is. I know who some of the other top contenders for doing this would be, but I think there’s a good chance that I may be at the top of this list.).
I’ve also had some nasty run ins with people in government while in the course of working on ballot access drives, or while doing volunteer public outreach, or while posting on message forums online. I’ve gotten into debates, some of which turned into nasty arguments, with numerous government officials, some in person, and some online.
“Andy ,is it possible that your being harassed by folks who DO know you that you may have had a falling out with, that list is long as Ive heard way too much about. another disgruntled petitioner maybe ?”
I do not believe so. Why? Because whoever is doing this would have to a) have a heck of a lot of spare time on their hands (this stuff has happened at all times during the day), and b) they’d have to be very tech savvy, and have access to all kind of surveillance stuff (like the ability to listen to phone calls, access to law enforcement databases, etc…).
I have long suspected that the Libertarian Party and movement is infiltrated, and I have openly speculated about this, which, if I’m correct, you can bet that those doing it do not like. It has already come out in three FOIA requests that I have heard about from some other long time LP members, that there were government infiltrators in the party back in the 1970’s, 1980’s, and early 1990’s, it is just that the names were redacted, and nobody did any follow up investigations to try to out any of these people. It has also come out that various government agencies have been caught spying on the Libertarian Party and movement, as well as other groups that the government does not like, such as peace groups, militia groups, etc…
It is rather naive to think that a government that has billions upon billions of dollars at their disposal, and all kind of agencies that have all kinds of spying equipment, are not going to use it, especially against members of the population who pose any kind of threat to the government’s game.
If you are involved in the Libertarian Party or movement, or any kind of alternative political party or movement, then yes, “they” have you on a list.
There has been other weird stuff that has happened over the years, and this stuff is not limited to IPR posts.
Mobile carriers are the least of it. Andy can eliminate me as a suspect because he knows I would have had no way to know that he had been arrested in Jonesboro; and that no one outside of Jonesboro knew about it. I can eliminate him as a suspect because I have been with him IRL at times when some of the comments were posted, when he was not on his computer or phone and could not have posted them. And anyone except me or him would not have had all the information that has been posted such as exactly where we were staying among other things. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
yes, ridiculous. There is no government agent trolling on this website. And to be honest, the back and forth accusation spam is more annoying/prevalent than the impersonation spam.
not likely…that would be an expensive vendetta, paying the monthly nut for two different mobile carriers
I did not know Andy was arrested in Jonesboro; I actually learned that from the troll comments. I was actually half a state away. Literally nobody knew that as Andy did not get a chance to call anyone at the time that comment was posted. Well, the arresting officers, jail staff, jail inmates and some witnesses at the college would know, but what are the chances they would read and comment at IPR? Or know what motel rooms we stayed at in Colorado on a different campaign? Among other things.
They know too much information that someone like that would not know, such as what motels and even room numbers we stay at among many other things.
Correct, some of the comments popped up at times when Andy was not online.
First , I dont know whats more ridiculous ,the idea Andy is a government plant or the idea that a government plant would stalk and target Andy. Either way it’d be the saddest gov plant mission ever.
Andy ,is it possible that your being harassed by folks who DO know you that you may have had a falling out with, that list is long as Ive heard way too much about. another disgruntled petitioner maybe ?
Or Paulie could be the troll….:)
Ah, once again the troll “Great Ideas” is back, spreading more bullshit while hiding behind a fake name and an IP anonymizer.
Here’s a great idea for you. Go grab a knife, and slit your wrists, and then bleed to death. You will be doing the world a favor.
If Andreas and Pauli are both government agents – or even just both full of shit – them vouching for each other means nothing. Speaking of suspected government plants, Augustus Invictus and Ryan Ramsey should be high on that list.
“Thomas L. Knapp
May 19, 2017 at 22:32
‘I’ll verify that I did not know Andy had been arrested at that point. He was in Jonesboro about 2 hours drive from where I was in Little Rock. The troll post was the first I learned of it and then checked the county jail website to confirm he was in jail. And yes there has been a lot of weird crap going on. But that has been rehashed here a lot of times in the past.’
Yes, but government agents who are making a show of being ‘in jail’ presumably have the capacity to impersonate someone named “Randy” while shooting the shit with their fellow government employees and soaking up sympathy/cred from the people they’re spying on.”
There are witnesses at the college who saw me being taken away in handcuffs, and if you really wanted to push the issue, you could probably find people who were in the cells that I was in when I was locked up. Go back to the post and see the exact time when the post popped up on IPR, and if you could probably find out where I was during that time frame.
There’s been a lot of other bizarre stuff that has happened. Like when Paul and I were in a motel in Colorado a few years ago, and a troll popped up online right here at IPR telling everyone which motel we were at, as well as the room number. Paul was there, and he can verify that I was not on a computer when that popped, nor would I go on a website telling everyone my motel and room number.
Oh, and there have also been the death threats, and the bizarre late night phone calls, and other stuff. Paul is the only person here that knows the full story, in large part, because Paul has been victimized by this harassment and spying as well. Jill knows some of this stuff. The rest of you have no idea how bad the problem is.
“I’ll verify that I did not know Andy had been arrested at that point. He was in Jonesboro about 2 hours drive from where I was in Little Rock. The troll post was the first I learned of it and then checked the county jail website to confirm he was in jail. And yes there has been a lot of weird crap going on. But that has been rehashed here a lot of times in the past.”
Yes, but government agents who are making a show of being “in jail” presumably have the capacity to impersonate someone named “Randy” while shooting the shit with their fellow government employees and soaking up sympathy/cred from the people they’re spying on.
Paulie – “I’ll verify that I did not know Andy had been arrested at that point. He was in Jonesboro about 2 hours drive from where I was in Little Rock. “
OK; that helps explain why you’re so protective of him; I wondered about that, but if you guys have some background I don’t, I can understand that.
I’ll verify that I did not know Andy had been arrested at that point. He was in Jonesboro about 2 hours drive from where I was in Little Rock. The troll post was the first I learned of it and then checked the county jail website to confirm he was in jail. And yes there has been a lot of weird crap going on. But that has been rehashed here a lot of times in the past.
Remember when I got arrested for petitioning in Arkansas back in 2015, and some troll using the fake name “Randy” popped up here (under an IP anonymizer of course) posting about me getting arrested. Nobody from the petition drive knew that I’d been arrested at that point, and there is documentation, which can be verified with witnesses, that I was locked up and had no internet access during that time frame, yet some troll popped up on IPR telling everyone that I’d been arrested.
This was after a troll had posted a motel where Paul and I were at and which rooms we were in, and after some other weird stuff happened, like lots of bizarre late night phone calls, etc…
“Thomas L. Knapp
May 19, 2017 at 13:5’If you are a regular reader of this site, and you can’t figure out what is going on with these trolls, open your freaking eyes.’
Agreed.
But the question remains: Is Andy is stalking and reporting on himself using anonymizers and fake identities because he’s a government troll, or is he stalking and reporting on himself using anonymizers and fake identities because he’s cuckoo for Coco Puffs?”
Neither. There is a lot of weird stuff that has gone on here, and with some related stuff. If you don’t believe me, ask Paul about it.
Darrel Castle: ” . . . . .“Libertarians should support me because I am more Libertarian than the two candidates of that Party. They are both CFR members, both open borders and both pro abortion. . . . .”
Hmm. Being open borders IS being libertarian. Being Pro-Choice IS being libertarian . . . and that CFR nonsense is just an Andy conspiracy theorist talking point,
So thanks, Mr. Castle for clearing up why I didn’t vote for you . . . (NOTE: I’m pretty sure he wasn’t on the ballot in New York)
Tony from LI
“For the Record, I have nothing negative to say about Paulie. I reserve my vitriol solely for Andrew the Deluded conspiracy theorist.
Also for the record, I make no attacks on Andy’s lifestyle or his sex life or looks, etc.. That goes beyond even what I am willing to attack this deluded paranoid nutcase on.
I only attack what he says. That’s bad enough and an easy enough target.”
Point taken, and I admire your restraint.
“But the question remains: Is Andy is stalking and reporting on himself using anonymizers and fake identities because he’s a government troll, or is he stalking and reporting on himself using anonymizers and fake identities because he’s cuckoo for Coco Puffs?”
Good question. I don’t necessarily see it is only one or the other.
For example, the white power bowel movement of which Invictus is a part (and note that Iacobus agrees with the issue positions of Invictus, but is jealous of the fake accent and questions if Invictus really means it or not) is crawling with certifiable nutjobs and government agents. It is highly likely that some of those are the same people, and perhaps Andreas Iacobus is one of them.
Paulie – “Not so much.”
Well, I didn’t really think you’d go for Breunig. Then again, you might be just a plain old libertarian.
BTW, here’s the “libertarian libertarian” quote from Darrell Castle, which Andy posted on IPR during the election:
“Libertarians should support me because I am more Libertarian than the two candidates of that Party. They are both CFR members, both open borders and both pro abortion. I am the opposite on those issues while holding Libertarian like views on many other issues.”
http://libertyhangout.org/2016/07/interview-with-darrell-castle-constitution-candidate/
I’ve got a “libertarian libertarian” quote from Evan McMormon, too; but I’ll be charitable.
dL – Well, the State violates Bruenig’s progressive social justice theory. Pointing that out doesn’t make me a “statist statist.”
Only if you also claim that you’re more statist than he is.
Government Internet Trolls Are Paid To Use Psychological Influencing On You
http://yournewswire.com/government-internet-trolls-are-paid-to-use-psychological-influencing-on-you/
Also for the record, I make no attacks on Andy’s lifestyle or his sex life or looks, etc.. That goes beyond even what I am willing to attack this deluded paranoid nutcase on.
I only attack what he says. That’s bad enough and an easy enough target.
Government trolls: CIA switches from undercover ops to catfishing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLo3HRZolYo
“If you are a regular reader of this site, and you can’t figure out what is going on with these trolls, open your freaking eyes.”
Agreed.
But the question remains: Is Andy is stalking and reporting on himself using anonymizers and fake identities because he’s a government troll, or is he stalking and reporting on himself using anonymizers and fake identities because he’s cuckoo for Coco Puffs?
Andreas Iacobus
“his (it is likely a male)”
Well if I do have testicles… they are not just for decoration. When was the last time yours were of any functional use, if ever? Perhaps this glaring lack in your life is what leads you to twist your mind around paranoid conspiracy theories, post so many long angry rants, delude yourself that you are some sort of grand threat to the establishment, and hold the twisted and bigoted positions that lead you to agree with the likes of Augustus Invictus so much.
Anti War Protesters Targets of Government Spying?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5dk0AuohoI
For the Record, I have nothing negative to say about Paulie. I reserve my vitriol solely for Andrew the Deluded conspiracy theorist.
Just in case some reading this don’t remember, or are not aware of the government having been caught spying on anti-war.com.
Anti-war website sues FBI for spying on them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VwMqLrL7WQ
“reat ideas
May 19, 2017 at 13:40
Andreas Iacobus
‘Paul and I are both being targeted, because we are two of the most active, and effective, Libertarian Party activists in the country. ‘
Sorry, I can’t stop laughing at that one. There’s you, basically the punchline to a joke, who is best known for the extreme nuttiness of your paranoid conspiracy theories and your insanely long winded, repetitive and angry rants.”
So says the troll who hides behind a fake name and an IP anonymizer.
“i don’t think that is what Chuck was suggesting. I suspect rather try to use good judgement.”
Yes, good judgment informed by the general accepted definition of fascist, naturally including professed fascists such as Invictus. And note that Iacobus agrees with Invictus’ fascist and racist issue positions. Fail Caesar!
Andreas Iacobus
“Paul and I are both being targeted, because we are two of the most active, and effective, Libertarian Party activists in the country. ”
Sorry, I can’t stop laughing at that one. There’s you, basically the punchline to a joke, who is best known for the extreme nuttiness of your paranoid conspiracy theories and your insanely long winded, repetitive and angry rants. And then there’s Paul, who is a convicted petition signature forger who somehow not only continues to work in that profession but gets elected to LP leadership positions, all while being morbidly obese, dressing and smelling like a bum and constantly begging people for rides, money and floors and couches to sleep on. That is, when he is not getting “free” care in hospital emergency rooms at taxpayer expense.
And you two bozos are “two of the most highly effective and active LP activists in the country”? If so, both the LP and the country are in very big trouble. Luckily, I highly doubt that is the case. Basically, you two are doing the sort of work we can hire barely employable semi-homeless street hustlers to do, except that you spend most of the time you should be doing that work posting your self-serving comments on the internet instead.
Andreas Iacobus, you are basically Augustus Invictus but without the entertaining accent, without thousands of followers on facebook, twitter and youtube, without a nice suit or telegenic appearance, without women who would want to have your children (or even date you), and without a relatively high profile in the diseased bowels of the white nationalism movement.
Chuck’s warning not to invite the likes of Invictus should be extended to include you, except that no one is inviting you to speak to begin with.
Great Ideas 8s a fuck8ng troll that hides behind a fake name and an IP anonymizer, and this same troll has likely played different characters here over the years.
You have got to be pretty dense to not see through this his (it is likely a male) bullshit.
Andy :
Sorry my deluded friend. You really aren’t that important. The government doesn’t give a shit about except whether you pay your taxes. Get over yourself.
I applaud your petitioning work and it is important to get as many candidates on ballots as possible, but that’s all you are – a petitioner (as well as a full blown nutcase).
Steve m, there has been stuff that has gone on here that you do not know about. The only ones who know besides me are Paul, and Jill knows some of the stuff as well. The situation is a lot more serious than you realize. There have been death threats and other bad stuff has happened.
Now as far as government going after people, I am still a relatively small fish. The government generally only kills or takes out people who have inside dirt they do not want revealed, or who are seriously threatening the power system, and even then, they don’t necessarily have to kill all of these people, as they will often just try to discredit them, or try to get people to ignore them. They also have to be careful who they kill, because if they took out somebody with a relatively large following, like say a Ron Paul or an Alex Jones, or whoever, they will turn that person into a martyr.
It is already a known fact that the government hires people to troll online and to spy on websites. The government even got caught doing this to anti-war.com a few years ago. IPR is not immune to this. I have been attacked by trolls other places, so it is not just happening here.
Andreas Iacobus (ASI)
Could you be any more textbook paranoid crazy? First of all I am not a troll. Second, I do not know where you are staying which is why I said something like “such as” or “like” Motel 6. Third, I mentioned Motel 6 because Frankel posted an April Fools Day article specifically mentioning the Motel 6 in North Little Rock. That’s some sophisticated electronic surveillance I conducted there, looney toon. Is that the kind of “research” you do to determine that no kids died in Sandy Hook or that I am these other people that you falsely claim I am ? I’m surprised that you haven’t “discovered” that the Jews are behind it all yet. Maybe it’s just a matter of time, or maybe you already have and just aren’t ready to talk about it yet.
BTW Steve M is correct: “if the government wanted to get you they would get you. A lawyer I was listening to stated that there are over 10 thousand federal laws punishable by felonies. There are so many that nobody knows them all. Law enforcement nowadays is all to often about figuring out who you want to prosecute and then picking a reason to prosecute them.”
Andy,
if the government wanted to get you they would get you. A lawyer I was listening to stated that there are over 10 thousand federal laws punishable by felonies. There are so many that nobody knows them all. Law enforcement nowadays is all to often about figuring out who you want to prosecute and then picking a reason to prosecute them.
the problem as I see it with consensus is that there is no way to measure consensus without a vote. Thus how do the organizers of an event who are seeking out speakers decide which speakers to invite and whom not to?
Should they submit a list of potential speakers to antifa? to the LNC judicial committee?
i don’t think that is what Chuck was suggesting. I suspect rather try to use good judgement. I certainly don’t want antifa to have any say in what we do.
Paul said: “It was an attempted dig at those of us who live in/work out of weekly rate motels as we travel around the country getting the LP, other alt parties and independents, and pro-freedom ballot initiatives on the ballot. It’s not a lifestyle that lends itself to staying at the Hilton, ”
No, the comment runs a lot deeper than that, and Paul knows it.
We are all under government surveillance, and this site is under attack by paid government internet trolls. This troll knows that Paul and I are currently staying at a Motel 6, because they have us under surveillance. Paul and I are both being targeted, because we are two of the most active, and effective, Libertarian Party activists in the country. We both interact with large numbers of people on a regular basis, and we both have posted political comments online for many years, and we are both very familiar with the inner workings of the Libertarian Party.
These trolls have popped up here telling people which motel I’m at, and even what my room number is, when NOBODY else had this information. I have talked to the front desk clerks at motels where this has happened, and they all have told me that they don’t give out guest information to anyone but law enforcement. So whoever is doing this, a) has a lot of spare time on their hands (which means that they are likely getting paid), and b) they have access to government data bases and surveillance equipment.
Notice how when somebody pops up here using a fake name and an IP anonymizer, they are usually attacking me, and if not me, they are attacking Paul, or they are doing something else to disrupt the group and/or create infighting? This is all out of the government troll playbook (see the Edward Snowden revelations).
If you are a regular reader of this site, and you can’t figure out what is going on with these trolls, open your freaking eyes.
Well, the State violates Bruenig’s progressive social justice theory. Pointing that out doesn’t make me a “statist statist.”
Not so much.
paulie – ““libertarian libertarian” message: (banning immigration and abortions)
“The most immediate goal of the LP should be to make sure that not one single person in the world could even begin to reasonably make the mistake of thinking that is a “libertarian libertarian” message.”
So you’re saying you wouldn’t vote for a”libertarian libertarian” like Darrell Castle or Lew Rockwell for LP POTUS candidate in 2020?
How about a “libertarian libertarian” like Matt Breunig, who accuses the LP of violating NAP by supporting private property? Would he be a good candidate?
The most immediate goal of the LP should be to make sure that not one single person in the world could even begin to reasonably make the mistake of thinking that is a “libertarian libertarian” message.
Andy – The same thing happened with Castle in 2016. If he and the CP had been better organized, Castle could have done a lot better, but even as disorganized as they were, their vote totals went up and Castle did better than most people expected him to do (and this was done on a shoe sting budget).
If Castle and the CP had their act together more, Castle could have done some real damage to Gary Johnson’s vote total.
Well, Jill Stein did “do some real damage to Gary Johnson’s vote total” – for one thing, her inclusion (along with GJ in the polls) kept his poll numbers from going up. As well, Hillary Clinton’s campaign did “some real damage to Gary Johnson’s vote total”, by campaigning against him in September and October.
Which leaves you with a and the other “libertarian libertarians” with a dilemma: on the one hand, Castle had the more “libertarian libertarian” message: (banning immigration and abortions); on the other hand, Stein did more to accomplish the “libertarian libertarian” goal in the campaign (damaging GJ’s vote total).
So: which one – Castle, Stein, or Clinton – would you pick for LP POTUS candidate in 2020?
Exactly.
I agree. The LP should make clear that we are not fertile ground for fascists, racists and bigots, in no uncertain terms. And we should cut out the conservative-fusionism which paves the way for that to be possible.
Correct. However, fascist does have a historical meaning, so hopefully the consensus will not stray too far from that.
I know Andy in real life. He’s the same person in real life as he is online. I don’t think he has it in him to have an alternate personality or a secret identity. I don’t believe that he is Nathan (regardless of whether Nathan is that person’s real name or not) who is the person who is impersonating him.
I would recommend talking to Warren about that. It would be nice to get this impersonator shit cut out once and for all.
Yeah, that sounds like it’s probably excessive for the scale of problem we have had so far.
It was an attempted dig at those of us who live in/work out of weekly rate motels as we travel around the country getting the LP, other alt parties and independents, and pro-freedom ballot initiatives on the ballot. It’s not a lifestyle that lends itself to staying at the Hilton, except for occasional party conferences and other such things. The work we do is necessary to alt parties; most ballot drives produce few volunteer signatures as a percentage of the overall total. Thus, the trolling fails in this case.
Exactly! Great point.
Actually the “bathroom” issue of whether private OR public facilities have the right to segregate their bathroom/changing room/etc spaces by sex – or any other criteria – is relevant to this whole thread. (Whether or not private or state facilities actually HAVE an argument for such segregation being a SEPARATE issue, which some allegedly libertarians individuals never seem to realize.)
Since the Libertarian Party may be a more private or a more public institution, depending on the state, it’s membership and convention rules may be effected.
Certainly demopublicans can keep out the KKK or Antifada or Teachers for Tripple Pay or Gun Owners for Mandatory Gun Ownership or whatever group they don’t like. So I assume LP and its convention have same right too.
Of course, some states do allow anyone to vote in a state’s primaries, which pretty much obviates whole purpose of party.
Anthony,
I see it as a sort of flow chart.
The FIRST question is “will this candidate advance the party’s purpose by campaigning in a way that is faithful to the party’s principles and platform?”
If the answer is no, we’re done here. Or at least we should be.
If the answer is yes, THEN subsequent questions come up. Does the candidate have a resume that voters might find attractive? Is there something in the candidate’s past, or in his or her personality, that’s likely to put voters off? Can the candidate raise enough money to get the message out effectively? Is the candidate quick on his or her feet to handle gotcha questions? Is the candidate “mediagenic” — that is, physically attractive with a voice that people like to hear, etc.?
But it has to START with the party’s purpose. We’re here for a reason, and that reason is not to just be the place old Republicans go when their party puts them out to pasture.
Of course, that first question is tricky, and Augustus Invictus is a prime example of why. If someone just went to his campaign web site and looked at his official platform, the answer to the first question would seemingly be “yes.” He checked off all the boxes there.
But I’d say that on looking at his statements outside his official campaign platform, the answer obviously becomes “no.” In on the ground action, his goal is clearly to promote his brand of nationalism, not the Libertarian Party’s principles or platform. We could dismiss him as a candidate without getting any further than the first question. And of course he completely craters on many of the secondary questions.
The nationalist entryists/opportunists are not our friends and shouldn’t be treated as our friends. Their purpose is not ours, and thus we can disqualify them as candidates/representatives with that first question. Sure, it’s more fun to yell about goat dismemberment or whatever, but we never had to get there.
We also never had to get to those subsequent questions with Johnson/Weld. We knew they were snakes when we picked them up.
Agreed, but right now we are in the rudimentary steps of bushwhacking the path betwixt the dinosaur parties and ours. Initially, we are not likely to draw the best of the best, and we are also likely to get people going back and forth between our party and their old one. That’s okay, I want the path well-worn.
One good way to ensure better qualified candidates stay away is to signal to them that their previous experience, resume, advanced degrees, etc, does not matter. That we will dump all that work for the first moron that parrots the NAP and SoP. Then, we are left with the loons only.
No matter how bad the players I get for my expansion NBA team, the answer is never to fill the roster with inexperienced fools who say, “I’ve never played before, but from my reading of basketball principles, I know all about how to beat LeBron James.
Tony “Wow. . . did I miss anything last night? Interesting reading
The ‘purge list’ idea has been expanded to include former Republicans. That’s about it.
Anthony,
So far, the “qualified talent” you speak of is guys who came to the LP because they were rejected by their own party.
Bill Weld wasn’t able to swing the GOP gubernatorial nomination in New York, even as a former two-term governor running against a former state legislator who had lost in his first run for higher office. He screwed the New York LP on that deal, then ten years later he’s after our VP nomination.
Gary Johnson wasn’t able to keep his head above 2% in the GOP primary polling, so he came over to the LP to rook us into paying his campaign debt (the amount of which he lied about going into the nominating convention).
Bob Barr had one of the highest profiles in Congress, but couldn’t beat a primary opponent when he got redistricted. Goodbye GOP, hello LP, goodbye LP, back to the GOP.
Your strategy is like trying to put together an NBA team by grabbing players off the other teams’ permanent injured list.
haha. Not exactly what I had in mind, Thomas.
Given that we have a decided lack of qualified talent in our party, I got no problem with carpetbaggers. We need them.
If you want to attract the nutbags of the political world, demand that who we attract to run for office have no connection to the dinosaur parties, no previous experience in office with those parties. You might as well put out the bat signal for conspiracy theory loons and assorted wingnuts.
At that point, suggesting such people need to be “principled” Libertarians is of no help, because its very easy for such a wing nut to say, “yea, I’m a Libertarian, too.” Thats exactly what Goat Blood Boy did.
I agree with Anthony. The LP has proven itself “fertile ground” for opportunists and carpet-baggers. That’s the problem we have to solve. Invictus and Johnson/Weld are just symptoms.
Wow. . . did I miss anything last night? Interesting reading 🙂
If anyone is “unsavory” on here it’s me!!
Bottom line: if a guy like Goat Blood Boy is seeking the nomination of your political party and your party is not in some way fascist, what to do about him if you are the leader of a state affiliate is far less important than WHY a guy like that considers your party fertile ground.
Steve M “so who gets to decide who is a fascist and who isn’t?”
The Judicial Committee, of course. The don’t-let-Invictus-speak warning didn’t come from the chairman of the Historical Committee did it?
“so who gets to decide who is a fascist and who isn’t?”
Everyone who’s interested. Just like everyone who’s interested gets to decide who’s a libertarian and who isn’t, or who’s a good musician and who isn’t, or who’s entertaining and who isn’t.
That’s how it’s always worked, and that’s how it will continue to work until the day everyone wakes up and realizes “hey, Tom Knapp is always right, I should just listen to him.”
The impersonation spam comes from two sources. T-Mobile cellular and OVH VPS. The circumstantial evidence is that the impersonator and the one often being impersonated both post from a T-mobile smartphone. Never the same IP address, but it is easy to simply turn off the phone to pick up a new IP. That in itself would only be a yellow flag. The red flag is that both identities share affinity for the same points of view, and the real one is the loudest accuser of others of being impersonators. The suspicion would perhaps be allayed if when the two appear to be communicating in near real-time in a thread, the “real one’ wasn’t opting to use a cable ISP and then taking the opportunity to accuse someone else of being the impersonator.
The other source, OVH VPS, is out of Quebec, Canada…and there isn’t anything to automatically link it to impersonation by a regular poster.
Memo the the impersonator. Probably not a good idea to call me an “incompetent faggot” in comments. It gets my attention. In all probability, I’m smarter than you are…not to mention that I can code in about 10 different languages and manage systems in 3 different cloud providers.
There is no need to have “live video debates” to confirm separate identities. All you need to do is modify the code base or install an applicable plugin to capture physical forensic device identification along w/ the IP to stop the amateur impersonation hour. To stop the pros(though I have seen no evidence of pros at work here), you would need something like 2-factor registration w/ sms text message code.
Great Ideas, you are not helping yourself w/ that kind of comment…
On this forum there is a Jacob’s Law at play:
“Any online topic thread that includes Andy Jacobs, the probability of a comparison involving William Weld approaches 1.”
However, Moulton’s original topic of “alt-right shunning” does lend itself to a tangential broaching of libertarian-conservative fusionism. Not in a sense of making amoral equivalence between the alt-right and William Weld(although when you go down the list to someone like Wayne Allyn Root, making such an equivalence is not all that preposterous). But rather in the sense that accommodating conservative fusionism keeps the door cracked open for the more unsavory conservative elements like the alt-right. My experience holds that those sympathetic to conservative fusionism generally(though not always) wouldn’t necessarily be all that bothered by Invictus if he used a dog whistle instead of speaking plainly.
so who gets to decide who is a fascist and who isn’t?
“It’s a one sided, parasitic relationship that is not beneficial to libertarians.”
Thanks for pointing out the additional similarities.
But as far as Chuck’s point it was not just that the fascist alt right entryists are unsavory, but that they are dishonest attention addicts who facilitate canceling our events over their participation. They get sympathy and attention and – because if their message reaches enough people even an infinitessimal percentage identifying with their message grows their ranks by leaps and bounds – recruits; we get tarred unfairly as fascist sympathizers and become unwelcome at various event venues. It’s a one sided, parasitic relationship that is not beneficial to libertarians.
Particularly unsavory? I would stick with the two ASIs and the two Nathans, as profiled above.
“I am sure that we can find someone to label us as unsavory.”
You, probably not. Me, no doubt about it.
Knapp stated….
“The general topic was Mr. Moulton’s plea that the LP refrain from particular unsavory associations.
That opens the door to discussion of claims that other associations are likewise unsavory.”
ad yet here we are Tom…. you and I… I am sure that we can find someone to label us as unsavory.
Re “on topic” vs. “off topic”
The general topic was Mr. Moulton’s plea that the LP refrain from particular unsavory associations.
That opens the door to discussion of claims that other associations are likewise unsavory.
My count of Great ideas is 12 off topic to 7 on topic and mot of the on topic ones you were just repeating the below question.
Great Ideas asked
“If someone such as Augustus Sol Invictus (ASI 1), Andreas Stevanus Iacobus (ASI 2), Nathan Larson (Nathan 1), or Nathan N*rm*n (Nathan 2) did seek the presidential nomination would you
1) Invite them to your state convention to speak or debate
2) Not invite them but let them speak or debate if they showed up
or
3) Have them physically removed if they showed up?
My Answer
I would say it should be up the delegates as whether they are allowed to speak. The National convention has some sort of token they give out to the delegates and these tokens are then given to the candidates. If a candidate gets enough of them then they are allowed to debate.
Individuals should only be ejected if they are being disruptive.
what I fear is that in order to limit someones ability to participate you use authoritarian methods which would be counter to libertarianism.
Well yes it would, but I have still posted more on topic comments on this article than the rest of you and have tried to steer the conversation back on topic several times, with no success so far. So yes, I will stand behind both of those comments. An occasional aside is one thing; beating the same exact dead horses on every discussion topic no matter the original subject is something else altogether.
Careful with the stone throwing after all it was
Great ideas
May 17, 2017 at 10:28
It would be great to see a public, videoed debate between Andy J and Nathan N; especially if it the first debate of candidates seeking the 2020 presidential nomination. Unfortunately Robert Milnes has declined participation, saying that he does not want to share a stage with Nathan. No word yet as to whether Robert would debate Andy one on one.
There’s about a thousand articles about Johnson/Weld on this site, right? So why are you all talking about them on THIS article? ASI (Andreas) has clearly stated that the only thing wrong with the other ASI is his fake accent and that he may possibly not really believe what he says about white genocide, fear of the Jews, etc.
For the rest of you what is your excuse for considering the issues Chuck Moulton brings up in his article to be so unimportant that the only thing to discuss here is the umpteen millionth rehashing of your opinions of Johnson/Weld?
Andreas Iacobus calls me a troll, yet he is the one who is constantly threadjacking. Hmmmmm.
The Green Party was also hurt when Ralph Nader left after the 2000. Nader ran for President in 2004 and 2008, and was able to overshadow the Green Party’s candidates for President those years, which means that most of the people who would have donated money or time to the Green Party, donated it to Nader’s independent runs instead. This contributed to the Green Party being in a weakened state by the time Gary Johnson came along as the LP’s candidate for President in 2012.
The Constitution Party also went through a lot of problems by the time that Gary Johnson came along in the LP, like having their state affiliate in California, the most populated state, hijacked by neo-cons in 2008, who have refused to put the CP’s presidential candidates on the ballot, and who disaffiliated from their national party.
Gary Johnson had no real competition from other minor party or independent candidates.
steve m said: “Then why didn’t Jill Stein do as well as Johnson in both 2012 and 2016?”
Jill Stein was lower profile, and the party under which she ran under was in worse shape than the LP. They had ballot access in less states, and the GP also suffers from internal dysfunction.
I could see the temptation to just forget that the party has a purpose and say “fuck purpose, we just want to be able to say we won whether it results in anything good or not” if what was at stake was actually winning.
But this …
“OMG! OMG! Oh! My! God! WE GOT THREE FUCKING PERCENT! WE DIDN’T COME CLOSE TO CARRYING A SINGLE STATE! And all we had to do to get that massive 3% and not come close to carrying a single state was nominate a couple of big-government Republicans to go out run against our platform, while pretty much forgetting we even exist once they got their grubby little hands on our ballot access and fundraising lists. Let’s do that AGAIN! Maybe next time we can get three and a HALF percent!”
… is like … like … I just don’t have the words for it.
The same thing happened with Castle in 2016. If he and the CP had been better organized, Castle could have done a lot better, but even as disorganized as they were, their vote totals went up and Castle did better than most people expected him to do (and this was done on a shoe sting budget).
If Castle and the CP had their act together more, Castle could have done some real damage to Gary Johnson’s vote total.
“… as the Boston Tea Party.” of 2006-2012. Obviously the original Boston Tea Party was historically significant, as was the Tea Party Movement more recently.
“Luke
May 18, 2017 at 15:27
‘The Ron Paul r3VOLution crowd was hungry for somebody that they could really get behind, and the Libertarian Party SCREWED up by presenting them with Bob Barr and then with Gary Johnson.’
So why didn’t they flock to Baldwin and Castle? I know they were not on the ballot in every state but they were on the ballot in quite a few states. Baldwin should have done at least as well as Barr if Andy was right.”
Because Baldwin and Castle were too disorganized. They jumped in the race too late, and they did not have ballot access in a lot of states, and by the time all of this stuff happened, it was too late for them to get on the ballot in a lot of states.
Baldwin did pick up a little bit of a spike in votes after the fiasco with Bob Barr that led to Ron Paul endorsing Baldwin, but this was too little too late in the game to have the much bigger effect that it could have had, had Baldwin, and the Constitution Party, been more prepared.
The Libertarian Party was in the best position to pick up a lot of votes from the Ron Paul r3VOLution, and the Libertarian Party FAILED to capitalize on this opportunity anywhere near to the extent that it could have.
Also, the LP almost died in the mid 1980s. From comments I have read here before the national chair literally drove what was left of the party’s property from Texas back to DC at one point, or it may have folded completely at that point.
“Frankly, this was inevitable from the very moment the party was formed”
I doubt that. If it was not for McBride’s faithless elector vote for Hospers , who had been on the ballot in two states, the LP would probably have been about as electorally successful and historically significant as the Boston Tea Party.
“steve m
May 18, 2017 at 15:15
Andy,
The comparison is just math.”
There is a lot more to the story than what you were indicating.
“But you are right in that the Libertarian Party was much weaker in 1980 then it is today. Ballot access is valuable. It saves millions of dollars and effort from having to fight to get on as many state ballots as possible.
This is why you can expect more crossovers from the Republican and Democratic Party seeking to use it.
I predict that there will be a Former Republican office holder seeking the 2020 Libertarian nomination. I also predict that a former Democratic Office holder will also be seeking it.”
Whoever this turns out to be from either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party should almost certainly be rejected by 2020 Libertarian National Convention delegates, and the party OUGHT TO nominate an actual libertarian Libertarian, like Adam Kokesh or Larry Sharpe, or anyone else who could reasonably be called an actual libertarian Libertarian.
I would strongly consider somebody like Andrew Napolitano if he decided to seek the LP’s presidential nomination in 2020, but other than a rare exception like him, I’d prefer to NOT have a candidate that had ever been closely associated with the major political parties (Kokesh ran a Ron Paul Republican style campaign for the US House nomination back in 2010, but he lost, and he’s had zero affiliation with the Republican Party since then, so I don’t consider him to be closely affiliated with the GOP).
Even if Rand Paul, or Justin Amash, or Tom Massie were to switch to the LP and seek the party’s presidential nomination, I’d lean against giving it to them. The LP needs to move away from nominating former Republicans, or else we will be branded as the Home for Washed Up Republicans Party, or the Republican Lite Party, or something like that. It is time to give this former Republican thing a break.
So why didn’t they flock to Baldwin and Castle? I know they were not on the ballot in every state but they were on the ballot in quite a few states. Baldwin should have done at least as well as Barr if Andy was right.
Andy stated
” It is not my opinion that Johnson ran in a day where there’s a thing called the internet that makes it a lot easier to reach people cheaply, and that more people were online than ever as compared to when past candidates ran, and candidates like Ed Clark ran before there was an internet.”
Then why didn’t Jill Stein do as well as Johnson in both 2012 and 2016?
I agree with your prediction of likely further crossovers, Steve M. I am quite sure that former officeholders, even some current ones perhaps, saw what two aging, retired ex-republican governors (who didn’t have the greatest deliveries) were able to accomplish and took note of it.
Frankly, this was inevitable from the very moment the party was formed, and makes all the raging against the night by the Purist set a total waste of time.
The added benefit is that it will further drive out the loons.
I’d bet that if Browne or Badnarik had run in 2008, 2012, and/or 2016, that they would have received WAY MORE votes than what they got when they did run. The Ron Paul r3VOLution crowd was hungry for somebody that they could really get behind, and the Libertarian Party SCREWED up by presenting them with Bob Barr and then with Gary Johnson.
steve m said: “Now I trust that you will agree that Jill had the same conditions facing her in 2012 and 2016 as Johnson did and used them to increase her vote total by about 3 times. My guess is that is what Browne would have been able to do under similar circumstances. But Browne tripping his vote count would have put him at 1% which would be weak compared to Johnson’s 3.25%”
We don’t know how many votes Browne would have received had he been alive and been running as the LP’s presidential candidate in the last two elections, but one thing that I believe can be said with certainty, and that is that Browne would have run under a far more libertarian message than what Johnson ran under.
2020 not 2010
Andy,
The comparison is just math.
But you are right in that the Libertarian Party was much weaker in 1980 then it is today. Ballot access is valuable. It saves millions of dollars and effort from having to fight to get on as many state ballots as possible.
This is why you can expect more crossovers from the Republican and Democratic Party seeking to use it.
I predict that there will be a Former Republican office holder seeking the 2010 Libertarian nomination. I also predict that a former Democratic Office holder will also be seeking it.
This becomes more likely if Trump runs for re-election and the Democrats run a socialist.
steve m said: “I am ignoring your subjective opinions that you can’t prove. And yelling about them doesn’t make them any more real.”
This is not a subjective opinion. It is not my opinion that Johnson came into an LP that was in much better shape ballot access wise than Clark (or other past candidates). It is not my opinion that Johnson did not have to contend with any higher profile minor or independent candidates like John Anderson, Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, or Pat Buchanan. It is not my opinion that surveys indicate that the word libertarian had much higher name recognition when Johnson ran as compared to when Clark, Browne, and Badnarik (and other LP candidates for President) ran. It is not my opinion that Johnson ran in a day where there’s a thing called the internet that makes it a lot easier to reach people cheaply, and that more people were online than ever as compared to when past candidates ran, and candidates like Ed Clark ran before there was an internet.
I am not just stating opinions (like it is my opinion that Johnson/Weld sucked), I am also stating facts, facts which make their performance look a lot less impressive than you are claiming it was.
sorry Jill Stein in 2012 and 2016
To Andy, the universe is a data-free personal fiefdom, where only purported anecdotes that confirm his preconceived notions count.
“steve m
May 18, 2017 at 14:57
Andy since you brought up Ed Clark. He and David Koch raised 3.5 million with 2 of that from David.
adjusting for inflation that 3.5 million becomes $9,879,947.37 in November 2016 dollars.
Ed Clark received 920,049 votes.
So the Clark 1980 campaign spent $10.74 per vote. Four times as much per vote as Johnson 2016 spent.”
Yes, and the Clark campaign also ran under FAR MORE DIFFICULT circumstances than the circumstances under which Johnson ran.
The word Libertarian was a lot less known in 1980 than in 2012 or 2016.
There was no internet back in 1980, and the internet is an effective way to reach a lot of people cheaply.
The Libertarian Party came into the 1980 election in much weaker shape in terms of ballot access, than it came into the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections. Some ballot access laws were recently made easier due to years of lobbying and lawsuits.
Ed Clark had to run against a higher profile independent candidate in John Anderson. Gary Johnson did not have to run against any higher profile minor party or independent candidates. His closest competitor was Jill Stein, and she was not a well known person, and she never qualified for as many ballots as did Johnson.
Your comparison here is not valid at all.
Andy claims,
“Once again, you are COMPLETELY IGNORING the FAR EASIER set of circumstances under which Johnson ran, as compared to when Browne and Badnarik ran. If Browne or Badnarik had been able to run when Johnson ran, they’d have both gotten a lot more votes than what they got when they did run.”
I am ignoring your subjective opinions that you can’t prove. And yelling about them doesn’t make them any more real.
But compare Jill Stein to Browne in 2008 Jill received 469,627 votes or about 0.36% in 2016 1,457,216 votes or 1.07% .
Now I trust that you will agree that Jill had the same conditions facing her in 2012 and 2016 as Johnson did and used them to increase her vote total by about 3 times. My guess is that is what Browne would have been able to do under similar circumstances. But Browne tripping his vote count would have put him at 1% which would be weak compared to Johnson’s 3.25%
steve m said: “Browne and Badnarik, couldn’t even get half a percent of the vote. Their messages reached almost no one outside the libertarian party. In my book that is weak.”
Not true. I still sometimes run into people who said that they became libertarians because of Harry Browne or Michael Badnarik.
When people tell me how they became a libertarian (which is a conversation I’ve had with I don’t even know how many people around the country, both in person, and online), they usually name a candidate for political office. The name that I hear by far the most is Ron Paul. What name do I hear the 2nd most? Harry Browne.
Andy since you brought up Ed Clark. He and David Koch raised 3.5 million with 2 of that from David.
adjusting for inflation that 3.5 million becomes $9,879,947.37 in November 2016 dollars.
Ed Clark received 920,049 votes.
So the Clark 1980 campaign spent $10.74 per vote. Four times as much per vote as Johnson 2016 spent.
So just so we are clear here; ASI the IPR commenter has no problem with the other ASI’s issue positions. The only problem is the accent, and whether he really means what he says or not. But what are those issue positions?
ASI the candidate calls for roundups and deportations of millions of people; considers “fear of the Jews” to be one of the major failings of the federal government; discusses killing Muslims, Jews and leftists with his fellow “sunshine fascists,” appears on stage and on the radio with numerous white power groups, gets the fasces tattooed on his back by a prominent white nationalist while running for Senate, starts a website magazine this year (2017) named after an interwar German fascist movement, rants about “white genocide” (in 2017), exhorts his supporters to stick together like the fasces (2015), calls Ezra Pound “my fellow American fascist” (2013)… we can go on, and on, and on.
I’m happy we have Andreas Iacobus on the record supporting these positions, in addition to his belief that feminism is part of a Marxist plot to destroy the family, immigrants are an invading army, no kids died at Sandy Hook and the school had been closed for years. Yes, this is the kind of “libertarian” we need more of. Totally.
steve m said: “in 2000 Browne had $1,217,198 and received 384,431 votes. Adjust for inflation and the 1.2 million becomes 1,687,388.79 as of Nov 2016. This works out to $4.39 per vote.
in 2016 Johnson had $11,410,313 with an additional $1,386,554 from outside groups and they together spent $11,619,451. Johnson received 4,489,221 votes. or $2.59 per vote.
So the spending efficiency of the Johnson Campaign was about 40% better then Browne
Browne and Badnarik, couldn’t even get half a percent of the vote. Their messages reached almost no one outside the libertarian party. In my book that is weak.”
Once again, you are COMPLETELY IGNORING the FAR EASIER set of circumstances under which Johnson ran, as compared to when Browne and Badnarik ran. If Browne or Badnarik had been able to run when Johnson ran, they’d have both gotten a lot more votes than what they got when they did run.
Also, you are COMPLETELY OVERLOOKING the message these candidates ran under. Browne and Badnarik ran under a MUCH STRONGER libertarian message than that of Johnson, and unlike Johnson, they did not run away from or down play the Libertarian Party label.
Watering down, and running against, the Libertarian Party’s platform to the extent that the Johnson campaigns did, DEFEATS THE PURPOSE of running as a Libertarian Party candidate.
Who cares how many votes a candidate gets if they are going to piss all over the platform of the party under which they are running (that is if your goal is to promote the party and the platform)?
What’s the point of getting votes if you are going to throw philosophy out the window?
“steve m
May 18, 2017 at 14:38
Andy,
You polling people on the street that are willing to talk to you is not a scientific polling method. Thus your polling data does not make your opinions non-subjective.”
I’m not really “polling” people on the street. I’m having people come up to me and give me this feedback without me prompting them, as in I ask them to sign a petition, but I do not ask them what their opinion of the Johnson/Weld campaign was, they offered up their opinion without me asking them about it.
The data I have gotten from talking to thousands of people on the streets in a few states is that many people were disappointed in Johnson/Weld, and in the Libertarian Party for having nominated them, and that a lot of the votes they got were protest votes, many came from low information voters who were just disgusted with the major party candidates. Even out of some of the higher information people who voted for them, a lot of them were not all that enthusiastic, as they just voted for them because they figured that they were less toxic than Clinton/Kaine and Trump/Pence. I have talked to several people who said that they, “think that they might have voted for Johnson.” These people are obviously low information voters who were just making a protest vote, so they just check the box for some “third party” candidate, and they weren’t even too sure which one it was for whom they cast their vote. That’s really dedication to a cause and a candidate….NOT!
“Thomas L. Knapp
May 18, 2017 at 14:25
Anthony,
Actually, Invictus’s officially published campaign platform was FAR more libertarian than the Johnson/Weld campaign web site issues section.”
I agree. I’m surprised that Tom is even acknowledging this. Good job, Tom.
“Thing is, out on the campaign trail, as bad as Johnson/Weld were, they weren’t as bad as Invictus, who spent his time preaching nationalism, praising terrorist murderers, etc.”
I think that Johnson/Weld were much worse on the campaign trail. They were uninspiring and boring. They did not sound very libertarian, if libertarian at all. Johnson came off as a bumbling boob, and Weld came off as a stuffy old fart.
The reaction I’ve heard from people who’ve watched Augustus speak on YouTube is that they think that he’s entertaining, and they even like a lot of what he says, but they think that his accent is fake. Some called him a drama queen, and some wondered if he was a government plant. The consensus was actually more positive than negative, but people had trust issues with him that he’d have to overcome to gain more support.
Andy,
You polling people on the street that are willing to talk to you is not a scientific polling method. Thus your polling data does not make your opinions non-subjective.
Now talking about how effective a candidate was at spending money…
in 2000 Browne had $1,217,198 and received 384,431 votes. Adjust for inflation and the 1.2 million becomes 1,687,388.79 as of Nov 2016. This works out to $4.39 per vote.
in 2016 Johnson had $11,410,313 with an additional $1,386,554 from outside groups and they together spent $11,619,451. Johnson received 4,489,221 votes. or $2.59 per vote.
So the spending efficiency of the Johnson Campaign was about 40% better then Browne
Browne and Badnarik, couldn’t even get half a percent of the vote. Their messages reached almost no one outside the libertarian party. In my book that is weak.
TLK
”
Johnson/Weld tried to hijack the Libertarian Party’s presidential/vice-presidential nominations and use its ballot access to run as the “independent” “moderate Republican” ticket.
Augustus Invictus tried to hijack the Libertarian Party’s nomination for US Senate from Florida and use its ballot access to run as the “nationalist” candidate.
The only important difference between Johnson/Weld and Augustus Invictus is that the Johnson/Weld hijacking attempt succeeded where Invictus’s hijacking attempt failed.
Or, to put it a different way, Invictus wasn’t able to do as much damage as Johnson/Weld did.”
You are so right. How could I forget headlines all last year such as “Johnson tortures goat to death, drinks its blood and marches around on stage wearing only jackboots and tight whities while doing the sieg heil salute” … “Weld gets “Roman” eagle and fasces tattooed on forehead” … “Johnson speaks at National Socialist Movement rally”… “Weld celebrates black mass, calls for mass roundups and deportations” …. “17 year old girlfriend accuses Johnson of beating and rape”… “Libertarian national convention shut down, bomb threats alleged” … “Group behind bomb threats that shut down LP national convention allegedly was a publicity stunt by Johnson, Weld; campaign staffers implicated” … “Weld threatens to put anyone who throws a pie at him in the hospital, then prosecute them” … “Johnson denied entry into Canada due to ties to white power skinheads, fascists” …”Johnson, Weld issue call for eugenics” …
Totally equivalent.
Welp, its all one package, as you know.
Your post, which I agree with, only points out the weakness behind “Party of Principle”
Anthony,
Actually, Invictus’s officially published campaign platform was FAR more libertarian than the Johnson/Weld campaign web site issues section.
Thing is, out on the campaign trail, as bad as Johnson/Weld were, they weren’t as bad as Invictus, who spent his time preaching nationalism, praising terrorist murderers, etc.
“Anthony Dlugos
May 18, 2017 at 14:20
‘The conspiracy theorists definitely need to be dropped.’
The more clearly that party platform and messaging demonstrates a pragmatic outlook on public policy change, the more likely the wackadoodles will simply self-select themselves out of the party.”
If the Libertarian Party ever gets dominated by people like Anthony Dlugos, then the party might as well shut down, because then it will be the LINO Party (Libertarian In Name Only).
Fortunately, there are still enough real libertarians left in the Libertarian Party that the party still has some hope.
“There may have been some problems with Invictus as a candidate if he had been nominated, but even so, going issue for issue against Johnson/Weld, Invictus had a more libertarian platform.”
…and that about tops of the Andy nuttery for one day! Good evening!
Thomas Knapp said: “The only important difference between Johnson/Weld and Augustus Invictus is that the Johnson/Weld hijacking attempt succeeded where Invictus’s hijacking attempt failed.
Or, to put it a different way, Invictus wasn’t able to do as much damage as Johnson/Weld did.”
There may have been some problems with Invictus as a candidate if he had been nominated, but even so, going issue for issue against Johnson/Weld, Invictus had a more libertarian platform.
I challenge anyone to put out a list of policy proposals from Johnson/Weld and from Invictus, and if you do this, it will be clearly apparent that his actual policy proposals were more libertarian than those of Johnson/Weld.
The conspiracy theorists definitely need to be dropped.
The more clearly that party platform and messaging demonstrates a pragmatic outlook on public policy change, the more likely the wackadoodles will simply self-select themselves out of the party.
steve m
May 18, 2017 at 13:46
Andy stated
‘basically, the Johnson/Weld campaign was very weak, and was a wasted opportunity’
A very subjective statement.”
No, this is the feedback I’ve gotten on the street from lots of people I’ve encountered while gathering petition signatures.
“The 2016 Johnson/Weld campaign received more votes, increased voter registration, retained ballot access and raised more money then any other Libertarian Presidential effort before.”
Getting votes is meaningless if you severely water down, and/or run against, the Libertarian Party’s and libertarian philosophy to the extent that Johnson/Weld did.
They actually under-performed in terms of what the vote potential was last year.
Voter registrations going up had little to do with anything they did.
Johnson/Weld only got the LP ballot access in a few states (most states the LP has ballot access in right now had NOTHING to do with the presidential vote total), and it is likely that just about anyone the party ran could have picked us up ballot access in a few states.
They did not raise that much more money than when Ed Clark had David Koch as his running mate, when adjusted for inflation, and the amount of money that they raised was WAY BELOW what their supporters claimed that they were going to raise at the national convention (as in nowhere near the ballpark of what they claimed that they would raise).
Also, I question the motives of some of their donors. Like did you know that Christy Walton, of the Walmart family, that controls Walmart, donated to Johnson/Weld. Christy Walton also donated the maximum amount of money to the LNC. If you know anything about the political leanings of Christy Walton, and the rest of the Walton family, you’d know that they are not even remotely libertarian. They actually donated money to the Top Two Primary campaign in Arizona a few years ago, which, if it would have passed, would have taken Libertarian Party candidates off of general election ballots in that state. Walmart is also one of the biggest, if not the biggest, corporate welfare recipients in the country. Walmart sends lobbyists to the federal government, and to local and state governments, to lobby for more tax payer handouts, and for land to be given to them via eminent domain, and for not cutting food stamps (Walmart is the biggest profiteer off of food stamps), and they are also big supports of the police state. Walmart also has a program where they send their employees to government welfare offices to sign up for food stamps and government healthcare and other programs (this way they don’t have to pay them as much, and they can pass their employment costs on to the taxpayers).
So given these facts, why would Christy Walton have donated money the Johnson/Weld, and to the LNC? Do you think that she really gives a rat’s ass about the Libertarian Party, or the libertarian philosophy? Do you think that maybe, she had an ulterior motive? Could it be that since Walmart is based out of Arkansas, that the Walmart family has long time connections to the Clinton family, and that she was hoping to aid the Hillary Clinton campaign by using Johnson/Weld to attack Donald Trump, but to “play nice” when it came to Hillary Clinton?
Another thing to look at is how did the Johnson/Weld campaign spend its money? Did they spend it on a strong, and inspiring Libertarian message, and did they pay their campaign staff reasonable salaries, or did they run on a weak message that could barely be considered libertarian, if at all, and did they have a grossly over-paid Republican campaign staff?
“If Johnson and Weld were weak and a wasted opportunity what does this say about Browne and Badnarik?”
Browne and Badnarik ran under far more difficult circumstances. Even so, they ran more inspiring libertarian campaigns as compared to those of Gary Johnson.
GI,
Johnson/Weld tried to hijack the Libertarian Party’s presidential/vice-presidential nominations and use its ballot access to run as the “independent” “moderate Republican” ticket.
Augustus Invictus tried to hijack the Libertarian Party’s nomination for US Senate from Florida and use its ballot access to run as the “nationalist” candidate.
The only important difference between Johnson/Weld and Augustus Invictus is that the Johnson/Weld hijacking attempt succeeded where Invictus’s hijacking attempt failed.
Or, to put it a different way, Invictus wasn’t able to do as much damage as Johnson/Weld did.
The party should drop the conspiracy theorists rather than the conspiracy theorists ceasing their nutbaggery.
Andy is incapable of rational thought. He will never stop advancing his Trooferism. HE is the exact type of nut that gives the LP a bad name . . . . well there was also the dancing fat guy on national TV . . . . *sigh*
oh, no. now your just gonna get him started with an endless serious of Troofer links.
sadly, what any normal person considers kooky is actually mainstream Andyism.
Andy,
“where they did NOT even mention the word Libertarian,”
This actually gets back to the topic of this post. A serious presidential candidate is going to minimize any baggage that detracts from their goal of winning the election. Having the Libertarian Party associated with what the public considers “kooks” or other groups such as white supremacists makes it less likely that a serious candidate will bring the brand name up.
You wan’t a serious candidate,then stop making the party look silly. Drop the conspiracy non-sense. Help find ways to keep the non-tolerant of others acting as a voice for the party.
Thomas L. Knapp
May 18, 2017 at 13:45
“Why are we even discussing Johnson and Weld in this thread at all?”
Because their campaign falls into the same “so, other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?” category as the alt-righters do.
So you see no difference between “Libertarians run milquetoast candidate” and “Libertarian candidate tortures and dismembers goats, close associate of white supremacists and fascists”? How about “Fascists form fake antifa group, get libertarian events cancelled…” is there an equivalent with crossover politicians?
I mean, I get how the debate over crossover candidates is an important one for Libertarians…but this is a completely separate question here and it seems to me that you are allowing the other ASI to deflect this discussion from its intended purpose and going along with the deflection.
Troofer is succinct and poetic way of describing the nuttery set.
jury nullification/ending the fed/ending the income tax and replacing it with NOTHING!!
This is a platform for the presidency? lol. more nuttery.
Tony From Long Island said: “Hey AD . . thanks for the term ‘troofer.’ I use it whenever necessary now.”
Sure you do. It is a mindless way to smear people, so I’d expect it to appeal to a low grade idiot and ignoramus like yourself.
“Remember those campaign adds”
Should read, “Remember those campaign ads…”
steve m said: “In what I claim to be the best way to non-subjectively measure performance Johnson did far superior to any other previous Libertarian presidential candidate.”
He also ran under the EASIEST set of circumstances under which the LP had ever fielded a presidential ticket, and he and his running mate spent their time on the campaign trail WATERING DOWN, or RUNNING AGAINST, the Libertarian Party’s platform, and they even ran away from the Libertarian Party label on multiple occasions.
Remember those campaign adds where they essentially proclaimed themselves as being the other Republican ticket in the race, and where they invoked Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower, and where they did NOT even mention the word Libertarian, and where they did not even mention any issues that made them sound like they were Libertarian Party candidates? If you don’t, I do.
” . . . . . .“Why are we even discussing Johnson and Weld in this thread at all?” . . . . . ”
Because it is one of Andy’s grand obsessions . . . . other than evil brown people and nutbag troofer conspiracy theories. He brings it up at every chance he gets.
Hey AD . . thanks for the term “troofer.” I use it whenever necessary now.
Andy stated
“basically, the Johnson/Weld campaign was very weak, and was a wasted opportunity”
A very subjective statement.
The 2016 Johnson/Weld campaign received more votes, increased voter registration, retained ballot access and raised more money then any other Libertarian Presidential effort before.
If Johnson and Weld were weak and a wasted opportunity what does this say about Browne and Badnarik?
“Why are we even discussing Johnson and Weld in this thread at all?”
Because their campaign falls into the same “so, other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?” category as the alt-righters do.
steve m said: “2) moving public policy in a libertarian direction by building a political party that elects
Libertarians to public office”
The Libertarian Party has been doing a pretty lousy job at this, especially considering that the party had over 600 people in government offices 14 years ago, and only a little over 145 today.
The LP currently has 3 state legislators, two in New Hampshire, and one in Nebraska (note that in Nebraska, their unicameral legislature is officially non-partisan), but NONE of them were elected as Libertarians, all three of them switched to Libertarian after being elected, two as Republicans, and one as a Democrat.
The LP has not elected anyone to a seat in a state legislature in 17 years, and it has been around 19-21 years since the LP elected anyone to a seat in a state legislature that actually served out their term as a Libertarian.
steve m,
I’m not going to presume to teach you to read English.
“GI: Yes, that’s why ASI said ‘in part.'”
It has more to do the growth of statism. Radical feminazis and the mass migration of welfare recipients and/or other people with hostile ideologies are symptoms of the problem, and are being used as tools for the destruction of what is left of having a semblance of a free (or at least somewhat free) society.
Why are we even discussing Johnson and Weld in this thread at all? It’s because ASI (Andreas, not Augustus) keeps drawing false equivalence between nutbags like Invictus who are rightfully treated as pariahs and toxic waste by not just most media but by most of the public at large and crossover politicians that are not fully libertarian on all issues.
It’s certainly valid to discuss whether or not such politicians deserve nomination for office as LP candidates, but no one is claiming that inviting them to speak causes LP conventions and conferences to be pilloried in the press as fascist gatherings or shut down with threats of violence, most likely by the fascists themselves in search of attention and sympathy.
You have to be as crazy as either or both of the ASIs to think there is any kind of equivalence there. People who are crazy and stupid enough to think these are the same sort of phenomenon are the same ones who tend to have other crazy views, such as that feminism is a commie plot, immigrants are an “invading army” and no kids died at Sandy Hook and the school had been closed years earlier…people like ASI here.
Thomas,
That is what the party is organized to do.
1) functioning as a libertarian political entity separate and distinct from all other political parties
or movements
2) moving public policy in a libertarian direction by building a political party that elects
Libertarians to public office
3) chartering affiliate parties throughout the United States and promoting their
growth and activities
4) nominating candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States, and
supporting Party and affiliate party candidates for political office
and
5) entering into public information activities
Notice under 4 it doesn’t explicitly tell candidates what they are supposed to do. Are these instructions later on in the bylaws. Because at best you can argue that their is an Implicit Job for candidates. Certainly not explicit.
I argue, the job of a candidate for an elected office is to win the election. To win an election you need to get votes. To get votes you need to have your likely voters registered.
So a candidate often engages explicitly in voter registration drives and in registered voter turn out on election day or earlier if there is early voting.
In what I claim to be the best way to non-subjectively measure performance Johnson did far superior to any other previous Libertarian presidential candidate.
“Thomas L. Knapp
May 18, 2017 at 13:25
It’s Article 2 of the bylaws. The party has purposes. Nominating/electing candidates to public office is one of the things it does pursuant to those purposes. The candidates’ job with respect to the party is to advance the party’s purposes:”
Yes. The purpose is not to get votes just for the sake of getting votes. The people who believe that we should be involved with this stuff just for the sake of getting votes, message be damned, ought to go to the Democratic or Republican parties.
ASI: ” . . .The decline of western civilization is in part because of radical feminazis. The feminist movement comes out of Marxism, and was in fact financed by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Central Intelligence Agency in order to weaken the family. Strong families are an obstacle to statism. . . . ”
Tony: I thought the downfall was because of brown people crossing the border . . .
GI: Yes, that’s why ASI said “in part.”
Tony to ASI: “Your post on abortion was some of the most confusing bloviating you have done. However, it would not surprise me one bit if you were a fervent pro-life supporter.”
Don’t get ASI wrong, Tony. He is completely for equal rights for women to be handmaids from A Handmaid’s Tale or Sister Wives, as long as they are of pure caucasian descent and know their place. If their skin is darker than ivory they will be deported so that they do not give birth to children who will vote for gun control or welfare, and they better not try to exercise ownership of their own bodies as that would be pure marxism.
ASI just like the other ASI, is not racist, bigoted or right wing. No siree. Not even one bit.
How many people did Johnson/Weld inform about jury nullification, and more specifically, the right of jurors to not prosecute people for victimless crimes? ZERO.
Did Johnson/Weld ever once mention eliminating the Federal Reserve System, and why this ought to be done? NOPE.
Did Johnson/Weld ever once talk about ending the income tax and replacing it with nothing, and how this would expand individual freedom, and boost the economy? NOPE.
Did Johnson/Weld give a strong defense to the right to keep and bear arms, and did they defend the private ownership of military style assault rifles? No, they called for government task forces to spy on people, and to put people on secret lists so they could be denied gun purchases, and Weld said that handguns are a problem, and he called for banning assault rifles.
Did Johnson/Weld put out a strong, anti-war on drugs message? Well, not really. They did call for the government to tax and regulate marijuana, but they said that the war on other drugs should continue, and they gave no indication of the war against other drugs ever ending, or even being a bad idea.
Did Johnson/Weld attack the political establishment, and the two party system? Well, they did attack Donald Trump, but they also praised Hillary Clinton, and they also said that they wanted to include some establishment lackeys like Mitt Romney to be a part of their administration if they were to get elected.
I could go on with more examples, but basically, the Johnson/Weld campaign was very weak, and was a wasted opportunity, which is the consensus that I’m hearing from a lot of the public who is aware of the Johnson/Weld campaign whom I have encountered while gathering petition signatures.
It’s Article 2 of the bylaws. The party has purposes. Nominating/electing candidates to public office is one of the things it does pursuant to those purposes. The candidates’ job with respect to the party is to advance the party’s purposes:
“The Party is organized to implement and give voice to the principles embodied in the Statement of Principles by: functioning as a libertarian political entity separate and distinct from all other political parties or movements; moving public policy in a libertarian direction by building a political party that elects Libertarians to public office; chartering affiliate parties throughout the United States and promoting their growth and activities; nominating candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States, and supporting Party and affiliate party candidates for political office”
Thomas stated
“No, Johnson’s job — the explicitly stated purpose of the party in nominating him — was to help the party give voice to and implement its Statement of Principles.”
I am sorry I can’t find that in the party bylaws would you mind pointing out to me where this explicitly stated purpose is explicitly stated?
“Thomas L. Knapp
May 18, 2017 at 13:00
‘Johnson job was to raise the number of party registrations and vote totals. ‘
No, Johnson’s job — the explicitly stated purpose of the party in nominating him — was to help the party give voice to and implement its Statement of Principles.
To the extent that his campaign rhetoric gave voice to the Statement of Principles, then increased vote totals and voter registrations might constitute evidence of how well he did so.
To the extent that his campaign rhetoric didn’t give voice to the Statement of Principles, increased vote totals and voter registrations are at best irrelevant and at worst damaging.”
I agree with Tom here.
From what I’ve heard, LP membership is already dropping from last year.
“George Phillies
May 17, 2017 at 20:30
The drop in membership finally by 22,000 happened in fair part in the early noughts. Under johnson-Welds, membership close to doubled.”
Libertarian Party dues paying membership more than doubled during the Harry Browne era, and that was when the party hit its all time peak in dues paying membership at around 33,000 and something. This was around 16-17 years ago. US population has increased since then, which makes current dues paying membership levels look even worse than it is.
Also, Harry Browne ran under a much more radical libertarian message, as compared to that of Gary Johnson (I’m not sure if the Johnson/Weld message should even really be labeled as having been libertarian). Yes, Harry Browne did not get as many votes as Johnson, but he also ran under far more difficult sets of circumstances, as he had to contend with higher profiled minor party or independent candidate competition in 1996 from Ross Perot and Ralph Nader, and in 2000 from Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan. The internet was not as big of a thing back when Harry Browne ran as it is now, and the word libertarian was not as well known then as it is now (the great increase in popularity of the word libertarian is mostly because of Ron Paul’s campaigns for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 and 2012). The closest minor party or independent candidate competition with whom Gary Johnson had to contend was Jill Stein, and she is not a well known person, and she never qualified for as many ballots as Johnson.
Another factor is the large increase of the marijuana legalization movement. Surveys indicate that a majority of the population now supports legalizing marijuana, which has been one of the flagship issues for the Libertarian Party since its inception. There were marijuana legalization initiatives on the ballot in multiple states in 2016, and Gary Johnson, simply by being known as a candidate who wants to legalize weed (his actual position was to tax and regulate it, but that was OK from the standpoint of getting votes, as that was what all of the ballot initiatives were for, as in they were various proposals to tax and regulate marijuana), was able to benefit from this trend when it came to getting votes. The Libertarian Party could have put up just about anyone who said they wanted to legalize marijuana, and that candidate would have gotten more votes that normal for an LP candidate.
The public discontent with Democrats and Republicans, and even more so, with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, is what made the biggest impact on increasing vote totals (and voter registrations) than anything else.
Another important point to consider is that Harry Browne inspired a lot of people to become hardcore libertarian activists, and many of those people are still active today. Gary Johnson ran on a watered down libertarian platform at best, and there are many instances of him actually RUNNING AGAINST the Libertarian Party’s platform, so I question how dedicated and how libertarian some of the people are who came in as a result of Gary Johnson. The data I’ve seen is that a lot of Gary Johnson votes were just PROTEST votes, as in they were not so much votes for Gary Johnson, or even for the Libertarian Party of philosophy, but rather they were votes against Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
Andy
I thought the downfall was because of brown people crossing the border . . .
Your post on abortion was some of the most confusing bloviating you have done. However, it would not surprise me one bit if you were a fervent pro-life supporter.
“Johnson job was to raise the number of party registrations and vote totals. ”
No, Johnson’s job — the explicitly stated purpose of the party in nominating him — was to help the party give voice to and implement its Statement of Principles.
To the extent that his campaign rhetoric gave voice to the Statement of Principles, then increased vote totals and voter registrations might constitute evidence of how well he did so.
To the extent that his campaign rhetoric didn’t give voice to the Statement of Principles, increased vote totals and voter registrations are at best irrelevant and at worst damaging.
“steve m
May 18, 2017 at 12:31
Andy,
Population growth for California? In the last year? It was at about 1%. But in 2000 and 2004 California was averaging 3% population growth? So if the Libertarian registration wasn’t impressive with a 1% population growth then the registrations under Browne and Badnarik at a 3% population growth was a disaster.”
There were other factors at play beyond anything that Gary Johnson or Bill Weld did (if anything, I’d wager that they had a negative effect on Libertarian Party voter registrations).
The biggest factor was the growing discontent with the Democrats and Republicans, and what may have been a record level of disgust with the major party candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
Other factors are that the word libertarian is more recognized, and more popular, than it has ever been, in large part because of people like Ron Paul, John Stossel, Andrew Napolitano, and a few other well known figures using the word, plus the fact that the Libertarian Party has now been around for almost 46 years. The growth of the internet has also led to more people hearing about libertarians.
If you take the 4 years of Johnson being associated with the Libertarian Presidential race… 2012 through 2016
Spring of 2012 you had 93,657 registered California libertarian voters and by Nov 2016 this had grown to 139,805 that is a 49% growth over those 4 years.
Johnson job was to raise the number of party registrations and vote totals. The parties job both State and National is to turn those registered voters into dues paying members.
Andy claimed…
“Back in the late 1990’s or early 2000’s, the Libertarian Party of California had something like 103,000 registered voters”
I already told you what the Libertarian voter registration was for the year 2000. It was 74 thousand in the spring and 84 thousand in the fall. Not 103 thousand not in 2000.
For February 1999 there were 82,339 registered California Libertarians.
Andreas Stevanus Iacobus (ASI): “The decline of western civilization is in part because of radical feminazis. The feminist movement comes out of Marxism, and was in fact financed by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Central Intelligence Agency in order to weaken the family. Strong families are an obstacle to statism.”
ASI… people here already know you are a tinfoil hat nutcase and a social reactionary …. you do not have to keep proving it.
I don’t understand why more people are not answering this question. Can one of you who is able to make new posts here make this a separate post/topic for a new comment thread?:
Andreas Iacobus, Tony 1 and Tony 2 already replied earlier but I would still like to get some other people’s opinions:
If someone such as Augustus Sol Invictus (ASI 1), Andreas Stevanus Iacobus (ASI 2), Nathan Larson (Nathan 1), or Nathan N*rm*n (Nathan 2) did seek the presidential nomination would you
1) Invite them to your state convention to speak or debate
2) Not invite them but let them speak or debate if they showed up
or
3) Have them physically removed if they showed up?
Andy,
Population growth for California? In the last year? It was at about 1%. But in 2000 and 2004 California was averaging 3% population growth? So if the Libertarian registration wasn’t impressive with a 1% population growth then the registrations under Browne and Badnarik at a 3% population growth was a disaster.
http://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/article69054977.html
“Last year marked the 11th in a row in which California’s population grew by less than 1 percent, according to a Sacramento Bee review of data from the state Department of Finance. Fifteen states grew faster than California last year, including every state along its border. The trend began around the time of the Great California Housing Bust and continued through the recession.”
“Net migration into the state has slowed to a trickle. During the last 11 years, California saw a net gain of 136,000 domestic and international migrants. During the prior 11 years, the state saw a net gain of more than 1 million. And from 1980 through 1990, net migration topped 3.5 million.
During the last 15 years, hundreds of thousands of California residents have left for places where it is cheaper to live, IRS data show. Immigration from Mexico, which previously drove much of California’s growth, has slowed markedly. In both cases, population growth has shifted disproportionately to Texas.”
“Carol Moore/Secession.net
May 18, 2017 at 11:31
Tony from Long Island, et al.
Being pro-life is fine. (Everyone is pro-life generally anyway.)
The problem is ABORTION PROHIBITION.
When someone says they are ‘pro-life’ ask if they want to OUTLAW abortion.”
If life begins at conception, something which Carol has never proven that it does not, there are already laws on the books against abortion (which are perfectly libertarian laws which would even exist in an ancap society), they are called murder laws. The fact that the state is sanctioning murder against babies in the womb does not mean that this is some kind of great pro-freedom issue, as the state once sanctioned chattel slavery.
Lots of slave owners rallied against the state no longer sanctioning chattel slavery, aka-slavery prohibition.
The decline of western civilization is in part because of radical feminazis. The feminist movement comes out of Marxism, and was in fact financed by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Central Intelligence Agency in order to weaken the family. Strong families are an obstacle to statism.
And before anyone pitches a fit, there is a big difference between saying that women should have equal rights (which I agree with), and being a radical feminazi.
The solution is to effectively follow through on moderation policy. If you don’t do that, it doesn’t matter what platform you use.
“steve m
May 18, 2017 at 12:01
Thomas,
Not only did Johnson/Weld significantly higher vote totals then any other pair in the history of the party but the party gained voter registrations by the droves. Then by getting voting percentages on a state dependent basis the Libertarian party has better ballot access for 2018 and 2020.
Take California for example, before the May primary Libertarian registration was 115,189 by the Nov 2016 election this had grown to 139,805 or over 20% growth. Then they received 478,500 votes.”
Back in the late 1990’s or early 2000’s, the Libertarian Party of California had something like 103,000 registered voters (the state party had way more dues paying members than it has now, and it had a much larger budget, and a lot more Libertarians elected to local offices). LP registrations started going down in California for several years, but then it started working its way up, especially after two things happened, 1) the word Libertarian started to become more popular, in large part because of Ron Paul, and lots of libertarians who had registered as Republicans started to switch their registrations to Libertarian after Ron Paul got screwed in the Republican primaries, and 2) California passed a new law that allowed people with California ID’s to register to vote online, and since the Libertarian Party and movement has a disproportionate number of internet geeks, this led to a disproportionate amount of people registering to vote as Libertarians.
The number of registered Libertarians you cite in California is really not that impressive, when you factor in the facts I cited, and even more so when you factor in population growth.
Steve M. – very well said.
Carol: ” . . . When someone says they are “pro-life” ask if they want to OUTLAW abortion. . . . ”
The answer usually YES.
That is why it is impossible to have a reasonable and rational discussion of the issue with someone who is pro-life. They just keep ranting about babies being murdered and people being “pro-abortion.”
I know nobody who is “pro-abortion” as in “lets have more abortions . . they are so fun . . . “
Thomas,
Not only did Johnson/Weld significantly higher vote totals then any other pair in the history of the party but the party gained voter registrations by the droves. Then by getting voting percentages on a state dependent basis the Libertarian party has better ballot access for 2018 and 2020.
Take California for example, before the May primary Libertarian registration was 115,189 by the Nov 2016 election this had grown to 139,805 or over 20% growth. Then they received 478,500 votes.
Now take a look at the 2004 election where Michael Badnarik received 50,165 votes. For the March Primary there were 87,183 registered libertarians. For the by the November general election this had grown to 89,617. Less then a 3% growth in registration and only 62% voted for him.
Or the the 2000 election where Harry Browne received 73,600 votes. For the March Primary there were 87,183 registered libertarians by the November general election this had grown to 94,900 registered voters. A 28% growth in registrations but they didn’t even turn out to vote.
So why was Johnson/Weld good for the party? because the grew the party and they helped it retain ballot access.
Since you asked should we run Clinton/Kaine in 2020?
We should run whom ever the party convention selects to run. I don’t think Hillary is going to be asking for the Libertarian Nomination in 2020, but somebody will be that has national exposure and has held elected office from one or the other of the dominant parties. If they are close enough to the libertarian philosophy to get enough delegates to vote for them then they will be running on our ballot access capabilities.
Tony from Long Island, et al.
Being pro-life is fine. (Everyone is pro-life generally anyway.)
The problem is ABORTION PROHIBITION.
When someone says they are “pro-life” ask if they want to OUTLAW abortion.
Tony from Long Island. Women in Britain started a database of crimes vs. women in women’s spaces. In the US women have been keeping lists in a number of places but info hasn’t been integrated into one database.
Data base:
http://womanmeanssomething.com/violencedatabase/
This Violence Database is comprised of incidents of sexual violence we have deemed of the highest relevance to sex-based segregation of safe spaces for women (showers, changerooms, bathrooms). The vast majority of incidents listed are not by transwomen. Our view is not that transwomen are a danger to women but that predatory males have and will continue to perpetrate sexual violence against women where there are greater opportunities.
While actual full-time transgenders may not be the main culprits – rather straight guys or guys posing as women – they still have similar crime rates to men who haven’t had medical alterations. Note that women to male trans increase their crime rates after pump selves up with testosterone.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885
“Female-to-males, but not male-to-females, had a higher risk for criminal convictions than their respective birth sex controls.”
There’s more info in that article on male-2-female crime rates don’t feel like looking for now. Check it out if you are interested.
Andy ” . . . . .he’s strongly pro-life, and the Libertarian Party refuses to take a strong position against abortion. . . . . ”
Good. The pro-life position is contrary to libertarianism.
Andy . . . . ” . . .Only the most uniformed people here . . . .”
We have uniformed people here? The only uniform you wear consists of a tin-foil hat.
Where was your ridiculous “should read . . .” post?
Perhaps if Andreas Stevanus Iacobus does not run for potus himself, and if the other ASI does not run, he will support Darrell Castle’s 2008 running mate, Chuck Baldwin, for the nomination. Or perhaps Michael Hoffman II, the guy whose book “Judaism’s Strange Gods” Baldwin has been pushing really hard lately.
Who is Michael Hoffman II?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Hoffman_II
“Michael Anthony Hoffman II (born 1957)[1] is an American conspiracy theorist[1][2] and Holocaust denier.[2]
…
He has worked on the projects of neo-Nazi Tom Metzger and of the Holocaust deniers Willis Carto, David Irving, Ernst Zündel, and Herman Otten.[3] He has served as Assistant Director of the Institute for Historical Review, a Holocaust denial organization.[4] He has also edited the work of alternative publisher Adam Parfrey.[5]
….
In 1995, Hoffman moved with his family to Idaho.[1] There, he hoped to establish a museum that would detail the “Communist holocaust against Christians” (i.e., the persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union), “the holocaust against the Germans”, (i.e., the bombing of Dresden and other major German cities in World War II), and the “Holocaust against Japan” (i.e., the incineration of Tokyo and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).[1]
Publications[edit]
Hoffman is the author of these books:
The Great Holocaust Trial: The Landmark Battle for the Right to Doubt the West’s Most Sacred Relic[6]
They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America
The Israeli Holocaust Against the Palestinians (with Moshe Lieberman)
Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare
Judaism’s Strange Gods
Judaism Discovered: A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit
Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not
A Candidate for the Order (a novel)
Hoffman has also written the introductions for modern reprints, which he also published, of:
The Traditions of the Jews by Johann Andreas Eisenmenger
The Talmud Tested by Alexander McCaul, D.D.”
Sounds like a guy Andreas and the other ASI could both happily and enthusiastically support.
“Only the most uniformed people here are going to believe this one, but this is of course to whom it is that you are trying to appeal.”
Only the most uninformed people here will fail to notice that ASI (Andreas Stevanus Iacobus) has produced exactly zero evidence that I have ever posted under any other screen name here. That’s because I haven’t, and he has no such evidence.
“It is obvious why you are saying this. What about other cell phone companies? How about Verizon? How about Metro? How about Sprint?”
That’s why I said…from what has been revealed by moderators here. They have let slip that both you and the person impersonating you (if in fact you are not one and the same) both use T-mobile phones to post here. Thus, if T-Mobile was banned, two of the biggest problems would be gone.
ASI: “I myself am the primary troll, and any other scumbag trolls that have posted here we have good reasons to believe are on a government payroll, just like me. ”
I made your statement more concise and truthful.
“these scumbag spooks”
Now you are just being racist ASI…kind of like the other ASI!
“Yeah, because it would eliminate jackasses like yourself from posting there.”
What I said for those who have attention deficit disorder:
Or that I have something to lose, unlike you (as posted earlier in the thread: “Congratulations, you have no shame and nothing to lose. You only date your right hand, and perhaps occasionally cheat on your right hand with your left hand. Your career such as it is does not involve any risk of you losing work as a result of things you may say online. Other people have marriages, kids, jobs that depend on not ticking off various bosses or clients, mortgages, car payments, potential dating partners who look them up online, etc. Andy doesn’t have any of those issues so he posts under his name, even though he doesn’t use his last name as part of his screen name so as to [NOT] keep his comments easy to compile across different websites.”)
Or that I don’t like internet stalkers.
Or that I don’t want to mar the discussion of my great ideas by subjecting them to ad hominem arguments, which seems to be the only way Andreas Iacobus can address them.
Or that I believe the right to privacy is important, and like to exercise my rights on general principle even if I don’t have any particular reason to need to.
Take your pick. Or you can believe the guy who thinks no kids died at Sandy Hook and the school had already been closed for years, and that immigrants are an invading army.
BTW Andreas Iacobus has been asked for this supposed evidence that I am these other people and he has none. His evidence is “he uses an anonymizer and a screen name” and “trust me, I know the hidden truth.”
“George Dance
May 18, 2017 at 10:46
Andy “Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine could join the Libertarian Party, and then they would be eligible to run, as according to our By-Laws.”
So could Darrell Castle, whose ‘libertarian libertarianism’ you praised all last year.
Does that mean the USLP run him in 2020?”
Darrell Castle is more libertarian than anyone who has been on the Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket since Michael Badnarik.
When I met Darrell Castle back in 2008, he told me that he considers himself to be a libertarian, and that main reason that he’s not in the Libertarian Party is because he’s strongly pro-life, and the Libertarian Party refuses to take a strong position against abortion.
I happened to listen to Darrell Castle’s most recent podcast last night, and during it, he quoted anarcho-capitalist libertarian investment guru, Doug Casey, whom he cited as a friend (I don’t know if he knows him in person, or if he has just communicated with him online). Castle has also said that he’s read some of the works of Murray Rothbard and that he agrees with most of what Murray said.
Andy “Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine could join the Libertarian Party, and then they would be eligible to run, as according to our By-Laws.”
So could Darrell Castle, whose “libertarian libertarianism” you praised all last year.
Does that mean the USLP run him in 2020?
“Great ideas
May 18, 2017 at 09:07
Good morning ladies, gentlemen and Andy Jacobs:
1) I am not impersonating Andy or anyone else. I do not condone anyone impersonating Andy or anyone else here. Whoever is doing that: please stop.”
Only the most uniformed people here are going to believe this one, but this is of course to whom it is that you are trying to appeal.
“2) I like the idea of banning comments made from T-Mobile phones. From what some of the moderators here have revealed, that would cut down on many of the worst comments that are causing problems here, such as comments by Andy Jacobs and people pretending to be Andy Jacobs.”
It is obvious why you are saying this. What about other cell phone companies? How about Verizon? How about Metro? How about Sprint?
“2A) For extra protection, you may want to also ban comments that are made from fleabag motels like Motel 6 which are notorious dens of crime, vice, infidelity, drug abuse, and the spreading of contagious diseases.”
This is obviously directed at Paul and myself, who are the two primary targets of this troll, and any other scumbag trolls that have posted here, who we have good reasons to believe are on a government payroll. Paul and I, as well as other libertarian activists, are under government surveillance, and since Paul and I are two of the most effective activists in the LP, we are targeted by these scumbag spooks who troll online.
“3) I don’t like the idea of banning comments made from IP anonymizers, for reasons stated earlier in the thread.”
Yeah, because it would eliminate jackasses like yourself from posting there.
“4) I have no problem with the idea of comment registration; bring it on and I will happily register.”
Registration does not really do any good if a person can register using IP anonymizers and fake names.
Disqus boards have much nastier crap than on here, but I don’t see any of the white supremacy nonsense that I sometimes see on there. I use disqus to comment on thehill.com articles.
There’s a lot venom, on both sides, but I’d say the venom is 80 to 20 in favor of right-wing nuts. There are very few libertarian voices commenting. Please feel free to.
Should read, “Augustus Sol Invictus (ASI 1), Andreas Stevanus Iacobus (ASI 2), Nathan 1 or Nathan 2”
Andreas Iacobus, Tony 1 and Tony 2 already replied earlier but I would still like to get some other people’s opinions:
If someone such as Augustus Invictus, Nathan Larson, Andy Jacobs or Nathan N*rm*n did seek the presidential nomination would you
1) Invite them to your state convention to speak or debate
2) Not invite them but let them speak or debate if they showed up
or
3) Have them physically removed if they showed up?
Should read, Andreas Iacobus.
Good morning ladies, gentlemen and Andy Jacobs:
1) I am not impersonating Andy or anyone else. I do not condone anyone impersonating Andy or anyone else here. Whoever is doing that: please stop.
2) I like the idea of banning comments made from T-Mobile phones. From what some of the moderators here have revealed, that would cut down on many of the worst comments that are causing problems here, such as comments by Andy Jacobs and people pretending to be Andy Jacobs.
2A) For extra protection, you may want to also ban comments that are made from fleabag motels like Motel 6 which are notorious dens of crime, vice, infidelity, drug abuse, and the spreading of contagious diseases.
3) I don’t like the idea of banning comments made from IP anonymizers, for reasons stated earlier in the thread.
4) I have no problem with the idea of comment registration; bring it on and I will happily register.
5) I don’t have an opinion on disqus vs wordpress comments.
You could always claim someone was impersonating you 🙂
Paulie . . . you make an excellent point! I think the “2”s and “3”s all blended together.
That wasn’t one of my posts to find any way to bash Andy. I was actually confused! Too early!!!
Can I plead temporary dyslexia?
Yes, I don’t like having a headache, but neither do I like the suggestion to stick my head in an oven.
Paulie,
Precisely. You don’t like the problem, but neither do you like the solution.
Tony, you must not be quite awake yet. 23:36 is 9 minutes later than 23:27.
TLK, I remain vehemently opposed to disqus for all the same reasons I have given in the past.
Andy said:
How can he say at 22:36 that a post made one minute LATER is not him? Seeing into the future?
——
An idea I have is to restrict comments to those with actual accounts on IPR.
We had that in 2008. Some people experienced difficulty in registering – in fact, I did the first time I tried – and some never came back, and some did not want to bother to register at all. I don’t know if it would drive more people away if we did that again.
—–
DISQUS, dammit.
The solution is there. We should adopt it or shut our bitching.
Carol:
My disappointment with seeing a right-wing talking point on here has nothing to do with “feminism.” It has to do with the nonsense that allowing trans people to use the restroom of their choice will allow ” any convicted rapist claiming to be a woman into women’s spaces and do nasty things in the stall or shower next to me” (your words).
Show me the prevalence of trans people committing rape or any other sexual offense. You are likely to find almost none. While you’re at it show me the recidivism statistics of sexual offenders. You will find that they are extremely low (I did my masters thesis on the history of sex offender registry laws, so recidivism was a major part of my research).
If people want to be against transgender rights for moral reasons, that’s fine. But the tired fear-mongering talking point about what might happen in bathroom is fear or a non-existent problem.
While in a bathroom, a trans person (just like everyone else) just wants to take a leak and get on with the day.
Yes, many times. Let’s try it again. Nathan, please leave and don’t come back. And please make sure your “friends” leave and don’t come back as well.
We had that in 2008. Some people experienced difficulty in registering – in fact, I did the first time I tried – and some never came back, and some did not want to bother to register at all. I don’t know if it would drive more people away if we did that again.
No, not even close. The number of non-dues paying members is also at an all time high.
Our policy is still to take them down; I only wanted Andy to be aware that Nathan wants a debate. Mission accomplished; please return to prior SOP.
Or nonymous scum like Invictus and his friends can pretend to be anonymous antifa and get more attention at our expense and get our events cancelled for inviting them, then hold their own events, just as Invictus did in Harrisburg.
Scumbags like Invictus and Ramsey also use these same type of tactics to intimidate publications into taking down articles that are critical of them, as Invictus and Ramsey tried to do with IPR. They emailed us with laughable threats, said they were running to law enforcements, posted articles full of lies about me and Warren among others, etc etc, all in an attempt to get us to take the articles down; fortunately Warren was not intimidated. They did get wordpress to take down the Libertarian United Against Fascism site. If you think that they believe in freedom of speech boy are you barking up the wrong tree. They believe in free speech about as much as Hitler and Mussolini did – that is, only when they are not in office (or power of whatever sort).
The hell with these people like Invictus and Ramsey and their lemmings!
I have been asked by e-mail to do something about this.
An idea I have is to restrict comments to those with actual accounts on IPR. This would not stop anyone from using anonymizers or changing IP addresses. One person could even have more than one account. The benefit is that it would prevent people from posting under the names of others.
It would impede outsiders from commenting and we can all agree that’s a negative. However the vast majority of comments come from those who are already here.
I don’t want to prevent the community from growing. But for now I’m more concerned about these bad comment practices driving people away.
Except that the best available evidence is that it’s actually Invictus and his friends pretending to be antifa that cast the fake heckler’s veto, because they get a lot more sympathy and attention that way than they do by actually speaking at the event. They can then go on to have their own speeches complete with sieg heiling (the fake “Roman salute” never actually used by the Romans but used by the nazis and fascists) as Invictus did in Harrisburg. All the longstanding PA antifascist groups say “Harrisburg Antifa” is a fake front set up by fascist friends of Invictus and that is the group allegedly cited by Harrisburg PD in telling the hotel they could not guarantee safety.
Notice how there was no shutdown in Florida, not even a protest? Ask yourself why that was.
Those are exactly the people we do NOT want mixing with Libertarians (and libertarians) or having (L)ibertarians tarred for mixing with. We need total and complete segregation from the people who would not show up to an LP event unless Invictus was there – today, tomorrow and forever.
Fascists such as Invictus have an ideology based on violence. They only use free speech and democracy against itself; once they infiltrate a party, scene, or the reins of political power, they always crush dissent. They utilize the threat of violence and invent fake threats against themselves, running crying to both the court of public opinion and to law enforcement over fake, imaginary, self-manufactured or vastly exaggerated threats. Notice how Ryan Ramsey falsely claimed I was in a terrorist group just because I said I am an antifascist (I am not in any such group) and ran to law enforcement and the web with phony claims that I and others threatened him and his wife just because I republished an article that included a link to his public contact info and his public social media posts.
Inviting these attention whores not only spreads their diseases to us and causes more legitimate people (not just media) to avoid us like the plague we welcome in, it may well cause people to question whether the LP itself isn’t in sympathy with these despicable groups such as Invictus and his friends and all the groups he regularly speaks to and networks with that are racist in nature and composition. How uninspiring is that concept to a potential member of the LP?
Of course, experience with everything from hardcore music scenes to political groups, movements and parties to entire countries, from all over the world and for nearly a century, amply illustrates that once fascists are allowed a toehold they work tirelessly to take over and intimidate everyone else into doing everything their way or leaving. Let them build their own movement and stay the fuck out of ours. Their ideology and ours are not fundamentally compatible.
“That I will vouch for. But banning anonymizers is neither necessary nor sufficient to address that problem, as Nathan’s impersonator comments which are not being done with an anonymizer illustrate.”
With respect to Nathan and his multiple impersonations, have you tried, um, asking him to leave? That worked at my blog.
No, he’s not hiding behind an IP anonymizer, and you have been told that repeatedly in person and in comments here. However, I will take them down. I only wanted to make sure you were aware that he accepted your debate challenge and you are obviously aware of it now. Other than that our policy remains to ban Nathan and ban impersonator comments.
But, if we were to ban him by IP, we would ban T-Mobile cell phone comments, which would be equally as effective and narrowly tailored to address the problem as banning IP anonymizers, and somewhat less of a technical/time consumption problem.
You also have the same email address? Nice try Nathan…LOL.
That would only be logical since Andy has repeatedly said he will debate anyone and even specifically said he will debate you. Time for Andy to back up his words.
The impersonator posts are not posted from an IP anonymizer. They are posted from a T-Mobile cellphone, same as many of your comments. If we banned IP anonymizers, which would disallow whistleblowers among many other things, it would not stop Nathan’s impersonation spree. I’ve already told you this before. It is possible that Nathan is also “Great Ideas,” posting from a cellphone without an anonymizer for one set of comments and and from an IP anonymizer for the other personality, but I have seen no evidence for that.
That I will vouch for. But banning anonymizers is neither necessary nor sufficient to address that problem, as Nathan’s impersonator comments which are not being done with an anonymizer illustrate. There have been other attack comments and articles from people posting under their own names such as Eric Dondero and Ryan Ramsey, who are both verifiable real people. Nathan Norman may or may not be a real name.
We have had repeated discussions of this among IPR editors and the conclusion each time has been that banning IP anonymizers would cause too much collateral damage against people who have legitimate privacy concerns. And, it would not be very effective, as there are many different IP anonymizing services someone could use, most of which have multiple IPs associated with the service. Someone would literally have to check every IP address people are posting from to see if it is from an anonymizer, which is more time than anyone wants to spend on it.
“The Libertarian Party of today has around 145 in elected offices. The Libertarian Party of 14 years ago had over 600 people in elected offices.”
Hmmmm, could that have to do with California maybe? Especially how their primary system and laws governing the minor parties were a lot different back then, and also because how a lot of the uncontested local nonpartisan races that the California LP used to run candidates for which they would win across the board -are no longer uncontested and are no longer under the same election laws now that they used to be under back in the 90’s.
The California LP has gradually lost their clout and amount of office holders because of such reprehensible election laws. But nevertheless the LP is gaining back their numbers of elected office holders in other states, and officially have a LP Caucus in the NH House of Representatives, and I see such accomplishments increasing from this point.
“The Libertarian Party of today has around 13,000 LESS dues paying members than it did 17 years ago…”
G.P. – “The drop in membership finally by 22,000 happened in fair part in the early noughts. Under johnson-Welds, membership close to doubled.”
There you go, and it will be going back to those levels 17 years ago.
Did the LP ever have half a million plus in terms of registered voters nationally as they do now?
Tom, we can do better than that
https://rulingclass.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/kasick3.jpg
Per Paulie’s recent post, I will let these comments remain. However, FYI, I will say it is unclear whether this is an impersonation or impersonation of an impersonation.
“Thane Eichenauer (@ilovegrover)
May 18, 2017 at 00:42
To hold an interesting event, or not, that is one of the questions. While I certainly understand some of the concerns above I would like to point out some drawbacks to allowing anonymous people and groups such as those that call themselves antifa to cast a hecker’s veto on speakers.”
I agree. Anonymous cowards can use the same tactic to prevent anyone from speaking This is the same type of crap that scumbags use to run petition circulators who are gathering signatures for the Libertarian Party to be on the ballot, or for other causes, out of locations that carry public foot traffic so they can’t get any signatures. The hell with these people!
To hold an interesting event, or not, that is one of the questions. While I certainly understand some of the concerns above I would like to point out some drawbacks to allowing anonymous people and groups such as those that call themselves antifa to cast a hecker’s veto on speakers. One is that people such as Augustus Sol Invictus are invited to events as a way to inspire people that would not otherwise attend an event to come and mix with Libertarians (and libertarians). If one gives a heckler’s veto to anonymous groups then you may well end up holding an event that isn’t interesting enough to inspire new attendees.
Several of the above items claim that inviting people such as Augustus Invictus will result in all of the media saying Libertarians are alt-right and the speaker represents Libertarians. This gives _all of the media_ a heckler’s veto against what might be an interesting speaker. In general _all of the media_ has been inspiring less and less people with their accurate and unbiased coverage. Should we be allowing this uninspiring group to decide who to invite to LP and LP adjacent events?
Further capitulating to demands by various and sundry anonymous groups that utilize the threat of violence for political gains (the antifa) may well cause people to question whether the LP itself isn’t in sympathy with these despicable groups. How uninspiring is that concept to a potential member of the LP?
“you are posting things under my name as a way to stir up trouble.”
No. It’s really the only way I can post because myself and all my imaginary “friends” have had their names permabanned. Sorry. AND btw, I am not using an anonymizer.
CODA: I don’t know how to take a “hint” and feel compelled to keep coming back here even though I keep saying IPR is “dying” and “sucks” and IPR-X is so much better but I have to keep coming back here like a herpes sore anyway, even though no one wants me and my imaginary “friends” here. You see, I am really quite sick in the head and can’t control my compulsion to post here. Jeez, if only I could take a “hint” and actually stay away once and for all.
“Somebody take any posts from this phony pretending to be me”
Should read, “Somebody take any posts down from this phony pretending to be me…”
“Andy
May 18, 2017 at 00:00
Just because we have the same name doesn’t mean I’m impersonating you. I like you.”
I think that you are a lying sack of shit, and yes, it should be clear to all that you are posting things under my name as a way to stir up trouble.
” wish you’d go to Scranton and debate my friend Nathan or go to Camden and debate my other friend Bob.”
If I am ever in those areas and they show up some place I’m at then I’ll debate them, just as I’ll debate anyone else when it comes to politics.
Somebody take any posts from this phony pretending to be me while hiding behind an IP anonymizer down. Thanks.
Just because we have the same name doesn’t mean I’m impersonating you. I like you. I wish you’d go to Scranton and debate my friend Nathan or go to Camden and debate my other friend Bob.
I did not post the comment from May 17th, at 23:27. Somebody please take it down as soon as possible. Thanks.
This is likely the work of the scumbag troll posting under the name “Great Ideas” as of late. The troll problem could probably be ended here if posts from IP anonymizers were no longer accepted. I don’t think that some of the posters here understand just how bad the problem with trolls is. This has gone way beyond just posting nasty or stupid comments.
Tony From Long Island wrote:
“I thought that baseless right wing talking points were beneath IPR posters. I guess I was wrong.”
Obviously you are not aware of the thousands of “gender critical” feminists and radical feminists writing against the concept of gender. Do a relevant internet search.
In the 1960s hippies, free thinkers and feminists were for transcending sex stereotypes, and supportive of lesbian and gays and transvestites and transsexuals, as we called them then.
In the intervening years the word “gender” became popular because people didn’t like saying the word “SEX” and phrases like “sex gap” obviously were embarrassing to some. So they started using gender. However, sex deals with physical reality. Gender with ideas in people’s heads. Today people who have all sorts of IDEAS about gender want to use the state to enforce them on people who reject them, in the name of “transgenderism”.
Some of the most obnoxious ideas are that any man who thinks he’s a woman IS a woman (or woman who thinks she’s a man), even if he intends to keep his balls and penis and even take advantage of being a male in work or other situations. Any one who disagrees with this and says so is attacked as a bigot and even can be fined in some cities should they do it at work.
And then there’s things like taking references to women’s bodies out of circulation because they OFFEND male to female transgender. Saying “breast feeding” or “abortion clinic” insults trans”women”. And of course women are more harassed and threatened about it than men. I wish the transmen would demand men not say PENIS any more since they only have strap ons. Then maybe some guys would get it.
Another big issue I made reference to is that the government wants to force private facilities to let ANY many who SAYS he’s a woman into women-only facilities. Including convicted sex offenders. I was just going straight to the punchline.
Transwomen have the same rate of criminal sex offense as straight guys so obviously women don’t want them it what are supposed to be safe spaces for women. Not only do women report less than half of all rapes, but barely 20% of fondling, grabbing, etc. If all women carried guns, weren’t afraid to use them, and got off easy any time they claimed self defense, it might be a different situation, of course. But that’s not reality. Unless Tony wants to start a movement, of course. 🙂
The drop in membership finally by 22,000 happened in fair part in the early noughts. Under johnson-Welds, membership close to doubled.
Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine could join the Libertarian Party, and then they would be eligible to run, as according to our By-Laws. Gary Johnson and Bill Weld have both gone on record on national TV praising Hillary Clinton, telling everyone how wonderful she is. I’m sure this endorsement from Johnson/Weld would go over well with a lot of LP delegates.
Tom Knapp: “Do you think that we should just go ahead and run Clinton/Kaine themselves in 2020? If not, why?”
For one thing, neither of them are eligible to run under the Bylaws; nor is there any indication they will be.
Andy – “The Libertarian Party of today has around 13,000 LESS dues paying members than it did 17 years ago. The Libertarian Party of today has around 145 in elected offices. The Libertarian Party of 14 years ago had over 600 people in elected offices.”
OK, but when did those drops happen? Just comparing 2 data points for 2 different variables doesn’t even show a correlation, much less causation.
“A lot of the ballot access victories Cody cites had little or nothing to do with Johnson/Weld. Some of those victories are from lawsuits or lobbying efforts that led to requirements being reduced. Some are from Libertarian Party voter registrations going up, which was happening before Johnson came along.”
I’m glad you understand the point: that it’s rather silly to credit or blame Johnson for things that happened “before Johnson came along.”
Steve,
OK, so, fair cop: Johnson/Weld got the biggest LP vote total ever by running as “the other Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine.”
Do you think that we should just go ahead and run Clinton/Kaine themselves in 2020? If not, why? Surely they’d do even better!
First, Chuck Moulton continues to be a voice worth listening too.
Second, Governor Gary Johnson received the highest vote total both in terms of votes and percentage of votes by far then any other libertarian presidential candidate. This doesn’t make Gary Johnson god but those that say he was bad for the party are wrong.
Those that complain about whom the party has run should be working on getting some one they like to run. November 2020 is just around the corner. To do better the Johnson/Weld credible candidates need to be building their national teams now and lining up political contributions now.
The past is the past what are we going to be doing in 2017, 2018 and 2020?
The Libertarian Party of today has around 13,000 LESS dues paying members than it did 17 years ago. The Libertarian Party of today has around 145 in elected offices. The Libertarian Party of 14 years ago had over 600 people in elected offices.
A lot of the ballot access victories Cody cites had little or nothing to do with Johnson/Weld. Some of those victories are from lawsuits or lobbying efforts that led to requirements being reduced. Some are from Libertarian Party voter registrations going up, which was happening before Johnson came along. Some are from candidates for Governor or other statewide offices meeting vote tests.
Johnson/Weld did meet vote tests to retain ballot access in a few states, but given the circumstances of the last election, almost anyone we ran could have done this in a few states.
Unlike most of you people, I am out on the streets almost every day talking to the public while gathering petition signatures, and I get negative comments (that are true) about Johnson/Weld on a frequent basis, including earlier today.
The brand damage is pretty significant. After three times in a row, we’re definitely type-casting ourselves as “the party that only nominates big-government Republicans who got publicly caught cheating on their wives and either got re-districted out of office or couldn’t top 2% in their own party’s presidential primaries.”
On the other hand, perhaps the all-out effort to get Trump elected by appealing to Clinton voters will bear fruit in terms of scaring away right-wingers and cargo cultists and giving the party’s libertarian wing a chance to set things right.
Gotta agree with both Cody and Thomas there.
“Also, surf the internet for comments about Johnson/Weld. There are plenty of the same type of negative, and true comments about them online, as I and other petition circulators have heard on the streets.”
Gee, I didn’t realize that repeated comments made by trolls, Trump-loving alt right supporters, Nathan N, and butt hurt HRC supporters count?
Btw, despite the “disastrous” fallout from the Johnson/Weld campaign, it appears that the LP continues to grow by leaps and bounds in terms of ballot access, publicity, and even gaining new office holders, especially in New Hampshire.
So much for Johnson & Weld damaging the LP, except for those like Andy.
Quoth Andy Jacobs:
“Unlike you, I don’t hide behind fake names and IP anonymizers.”
No, you hide behind using only your first name so that it’s difficult for people to see what you’re saying elsewhere.
You’re hiding your identity just as much as someone using a fake name/anonymizer. The only difference is that they aren’t pissing and moaning about you doing it, while pretending they aren’t doing it themselves.
The article is from before the Florida convention. I posted it to ATPR in April because we had complaints about too many Invictus-related stories at the time on IPR. I think we have had them a lot less frequently this month, so it was OK to republish here at this time, and it appears to still be relevant as it is generating active discussion, viewership and social media repostings.
Andy – “I don’t think that it is fair to cast Augustus Invictus as merely being some “alt-right” figure as if he has nothing to do with the Libertarian Party and was some kind of outside speaker, given that he’s a current dues paying member of the Libertarian Party.”
Not to make it sound like I’m agreeing with your every point, I did find it odd that the Judicial Committee chair did not even mention the state LP convention in Florida, where where the very person he singles out:
1) showed up and gained admittance, as he was entitled to do;
2) ran for office, as he was entitled to do;
3) addressed the convention, as he was entitled to do.
Andreas S. Iacobus (ASI),
“I know you are one of the people who has been trolling here for years”
On what basis do you “know” this fake fact, oh great oracle?
“and so do some of the other more intelligent and informed people here”
Name some.
“…won’t come from behind the fake screen name and the IP anonymizer? ”
Internet is full of nutballs and would-be stalkers. It’s just being prudently cautious.
“….This illustrates that this person has no credibility.”
Or that I have something to lose, unlike you (as posted earlier in the thread: “Congratulations, you have no shame and nothing to lose. You only date your right hand, and perhaps occasionally cheat on your right hand with your left hand. Your career such as it is does not involve any risk of you losing work as a result of things you may say online. Other people have marriages, kids, jobs that depend on not ticking off various bosses or clients, mortgages, car payments, potential dating partners who look them up online, etc. Andy doesn’t have any of those issues so he posts under his name, even though he doesn’t use his last name as part of his screen name so as to [NOT] keep his comments easy to compile across different websites.”)
Or that I don’t like internet stalkers.
Or that I don’t want to mar the discussion of my great ideas by subjecting them to ad hominem arguments, which seems to be the only way Andreas Iacobus can address them.
Or that I believe the right to privacy is important, and like to exercise my rights on general principle even if I don’t have any particular reason to need to.
Take your pick. Or you can believe the guy who thinks no kids died at Sandy Hook and the school had already been closed for years, and that immigrants are an invading army.
BTW Andreas Iacobus has been asked for this supposed evidence that I am these other people and he has none. His evidence is “he uses an anonymizer and a screen name” and “trust me, I know the hidden truth.”
Notice how Andreas Iacobus challenges everyone to debate him and has not said when he will be in Scranton to debate Nathan N*rm*n who has accepted his challenge? Hmmmmm… then again maybe they agree too much to have a debate. As Nathan puts it “…. we already agree on such major issues as illegal immigration, Moslems, and the preservation of the White race.
Let’s go Andy. Let’s work this out. When will you be near Scranton? Where would you like to hold the event?”
“Great ideas
May 17, 2017 at 14:15
Make that the two ASIs…Andreas Stevanus Iacobus and Augustus Sol Invictus…..”
You might have some of the stupid and/or less informed posters here fooled (which is obviously what you are trying to do), but I know you are one of the people who has been trolling here for years, and so do some of the other more intelligent and informed people here.
Notice how this clown won’t come from behind the fake screen name and the IP anonymizer? This illustrates that this person has no credibility.
“Anthony Dlugos
May 17, 2017 at 13:53
A) says you.
B) You in the minority.”
So only a minority of Libertarians believe in free speech, open discussion/debate, and fair elecions? If so, maybe it is time for the party to shut down. A
Andy: ” . . . . .If I were a State Chair, or on a state committiee, my policy would be that any candidate seeking the nomination for the party could speak. . . . . . ”
Thankfully that will never come to pass. No one associated with any branch of the LP would be so reckless as to put you anywhere near an important decision-making process.
Hey Andy . . . I bet your “any candidate . . . ” would change really quick if that candidate was BILL WELD!!!
“Now Andy will say that he is not necessarily a fan of Invictus but notice how anytime Invictus is mentioned Andy is johnny on the spot to either say how the jury is still out on Invictus…”
That’s right, Great Ideas. Andy has repeatedly parsed the words of a guy like Goat Blood Boy, while outright dismissing the likes of Governors Johnson and Weld.
Shows you what you are dealing with there.
James Babb wrote:
Great point, Jim. This was noted as an omission by several people who read my original letter and I intended to add it in any future revisions. The Harrisburg Hilton has been a wonderful venue for the LPPA over the years and it would be hugely detrimental for us to jeopardize that relationship. Burning bridges is a bad idea.
In that same vain, I hope you and Steve Scheetz bury the hatchet. You’re both great guys who have been friends for a decade. One event debacle shouldn’t end that friendship.
Make that the two ASIs…Andreas Stevanus Iacobus and Augustus Sol Invictus…..
“If someone such as Augustus Invictus, Nathan Larson, Andy Jacobs or Nathan N*rm*n did seek the presidential nomination would you
1) Invite them to your state convention to speak or debate
2) Not invite them but let them speak or debate if they showed up
or
3) Have them physically removed if they showed up?”
If we adopt Andreas Iacobus as the new name for Andy Jacobs, that could be “the two Nathans and the two AIs” for short.
Perhaps from now on Andy Jacobs should be known as Andreas Iacobus, in honor of Augustus Invictus. Now Andy will say that he is not necessarily a fan of Invictus but notice how anytime Invictus is mentioned Andy is johnny on the spot to either say how the jury is still out on Invictus, or how Invictus denies being a racist and a fascist, or to switch the conversation to Johnson and Weld…or all of the above.
Yes…the more I think about it the more I think he should be called Andreas Iacobus. What do you think?
A) says you.
B) You in the minority.
If I were a State Chair, or on a state committiee, my policy would be that any candidate seeking the nomination for the party could speak.
Saying that Johnson and Weld were really libertarians is dumbing down the meaning of the word libertarian so much that it loses its meaning.
Andy will choose #1 . . . I predict it.
#3
If someone such as Augustus Invictus, Nathan Larson, Andy Jacobs or Nathan N*rm*n did seek the presidential nomination would you
1) Invite them to your state convention to speak or debate
2) Not invite them but let them speak or debate if they showed up
or
3) Have them physically removed if they showed up?
Johnson and Weld were, in fact, Libertarians. Whether they were “libertarian enough” for any particular person, is, in fact, personal opinion.
“Also, surf the internet for comments about Johnson/Weld”
lol.
“Anthony Dlugos
May 17, 2017 at 12:05
‘The biggest part of being qualified to run for office as a Libertarian Party candidate is to actually understand, and believe in, and advocate for, the libertarian philosophy.’
A) Incorrect.
B) That’s personal opinion anyway, which makes it no final answer in and of itself.”
This post clearly illustrates what is wrong with Anthony Dlugos, and why nobody in the Libertarian Party or movement should take him seriously.
He does not think that the most important qualification to be a Libertarian Party candidate is that a candidate should actually be a libertarian.
Remember this post from Anthony.
“Anthony Dlugos
May 17, 2017 at 11:54
The damage you say Johnson-Weld did is all in your fevered imagination, Andy.”
It is not my imagination. If you stepped out of your little bubble world existence, you’d find out what I mean.
Remember, I’m frequently out on the streets, talking to thousands of people during the course of petition drives, and I, and other petition circulators to whom I have spoken to on this subject, have heard MANY negative comments about the Johnson/Weld ticket from members of the public. These are NOT negative comments about libertarianism, they are negative comments about Johnson/Weld NOT being principled libertarians, and about them having been poor representatives from the party.
Also, surf the internet for comments about Johnson/Weld. There are plenty of the same type of negative, and true comments about them online, as I and other petition circulators have heard on the streets.
“The biggest part of being qualified to run for office as a Libertarian Party candidate is to actually understand, and believe in, and advocate for, the libertarian philosophy.”
A) Incorrect.
B) That’s personal opinion anyway, which makes it no final answer in and of itself.
“Anthony Dlugos
May 17, 2017 at 11:51
As I have mentioned at this site repeatedly since even before the convention, commiserate with anyone I will that we did not have a QUALIFIED candidate in Orlando with a better command of the issues and less eccentric delivery than Johnson. But we did not.”
The biggest part of being qualified to run for office as a Libertarian Party candidate is to actually understand, and believe in, and advocate for, the libertarian philosophy. Gary Johnson and Bill Weld did NOT meet this important qualification.
So is Andy Jacobs ready to announce his candidacy for the 2020 Presidential nomination yet?
Carol
I thought that baseless right wing talking points were beneath IPR posters. I guess I was wrong.
The damage you say Johnson-Weld did is all in your fevered imagination, Andy. Or maybe its in 4chan threads among the alt-right set.
Anyone normal I talk to said they liked Governor Johnson and thought he had a good message. Of course, he didn’t rant about immigrant hordes and Troofer schemes, which is probably what makes him unqualified in your book.
As I have mentioned at this site repeatedly since even before the convention, commiserate with anyone I will that we did not have a QUALIFIED candidate in Orlando with a better command of the issues and less eccentric delivery than Johnson. But we did not.
Find a QUALIFIED candidate, not some loon without experience in office who’s gonna “dissolve” the federal government on Day One, presumably with his magic wand.
“Carol Moore/Secession.net
May 17, 2017 at 11:38
Don’t want to get Andy too mad but – Johnson/Weld still better than Barr.”
Both tickets sucked. I’d say that in certain aspects, Johnson/Weld ultimately did more damage, as they got a lot more publicity, which they used to urinate over the Libertarian Party platform, suck up to Hillary Clinton, and make fools out of themselves, and us, for being part of a party that nominated them.
I’m not defending Barr/Root, but at least they never got on TV and started gushing over their major party competition, at least not while on the campaign trail as candidates. They waited until the 2008 election was long over to start gushing over major party mainstream candidates again.
Don’t want to get Andy too mad but – Johnson/Weld still better than Barr.
At least they didn’t make us look like big right wingers! (Even if they did want to let any convicted rapist claiming to be a woman into women’s spaces and do nasty things in the stall or shower next to me.)
Would you believe DC makes you REPORT to police you own MACE for self-protection in ladies room. But oh, let the convicted rapists in, no problem. grrrrrr….
Andy:
“Translation: Anthony is too chicken to debate.”
But Nathan is not too chicken to debate you. He already said he wants to meet you in Scranton. When will you be there?
“Unlike you, I don’t hide behind fake names and IP anonymizers.”
Congratulations, you have no shame and nothing to lose. You only date your right hand, and perhaps occasionally cheat on your right hand with your left hand. Your career such as it is does not involve any risk of you losing work as a result of things you may say online. Other people have marriages, kids, jobs that depend on not ticking off various bosses or clients, mortgages, car payments, potential dating partners who look them up online, etc. Andy doesn’t have any of those issues so he posts under his name, even though he doesn’t use his last name as part of his screen name so as to keep his comments easy to compile across different websites.
James Babb:
Good points…thanks!
“A point of clarification, concerning the “Mid-Atlantic Liverty Festival”, Invictus was not initially invited to a debate. He was to be one of the featured speakers. The debate was added as damage control later.”
good point of clarification.
Great stuff Chuck!
Here’s another reason not to invite fascists, ethno-nationalists, white supremacists, eugenicists, or similar entryists to libertarian events. They are diametrically opposed to libertarianism. They are enemies of freedom, not unpopular allies.
A point of clarification, concerning the “Mid-Atlantic Liverty Festival”, Invictus was not initially invited to a debate. He was to be one of the featured speakers. The debate was added as damage control later.
Also, no threats of violence against the hotel were ever confirmed. After an organized phone campaign, the possible PR nightmare was the reason the hotel asked the event to go elsewhere.
Not only did this mess damage the image of the LPPa and the organizers, but the hotel lost significant income, and damaged the LPPa’s relationship with this highly valued venue.
I hope the “big-tent” LP people learned a lesson.
“Great ideas
May 17, 2017 at 10:34
Of course, Andy Jacobs and Nathan N may be the same person so that would make the debate even more interesting ?”
Unlike you, I don’t hide behind fake names and IP anonymizers.
“Anthony Dlugos
May 17, 2017 at 10:30
Can Andy debate himself? Could be fascinating.”
Translation: Anthony is too chicken to debate.
Come on Anthony, I will show up at whichever LP meeting is closest to wherever you live in Ohio. I will even bring a video camera.
Of course, Andy Jacobs and Nathan N may be the same person so that would make the debate even more interesting 🙂
Leave it to Andy to make another thread about Johnson / Weld. . . . He is obsessed with them even more than he is about undocumented immigrants. . . . .
As is often the case, we have to remind Andy that this thread is not about Johnson / Weld.
Can Andy debate himself? Could be fascinating.
It would be great to see a public, videoed debate between Andy J and Nathan N; especially if it the first debate of candidates seeking the 2020 presidential nomination. Unfortunately Robert Milnes has declined participation, saying that he does not want to share a stage with Nathan. No word yet as to whether Robert would debate Andy one on one.
Keep the LP Weird!
“Anthony Dlugos
May 17, 2017 at 09:44
Probably more important than getting rid of the alt-right element is to get rid of the element that makes a false equivalency between abhorrent creatures like Goat Blood Boy and legitimately qualified people like Johnson and Weld.”
Johnson and Weld are legitimately qualified for what? Neither were legitimately qualified to be Libertarian Party candidates.
“Once those unfortunate souls get chased away, we’ll no longer be seen by the lunatics as fertile ground.”
Perhaps you’d care to take me up on my public debate challenge. I should be able to make it to Ohio in the near future. We can have a public debate over whether or not Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are libertarians, and whether or not they were good representatives for the Libertarian Party. We could meet at an LP meeting in say Columbus, or maybe Cincinnati, or somewhere else in Ohio, and have the debate posted to YouTube. It would make a great article to have posted here at IPR.
Gotta agree with Chuck. Steer clear of these altreich wackos and assholes.
Johnson/weld were not perfect. I think most of us know that.
But complaining ad nauseam doesn’t help. Find someone better next time is solution. And refer to J/W largely when the next imperfect former elected official suddenly claims they are really libertarian.
And then there’s AUSTIN PETERSEN — bleeeeeh.
I think his people have taken over the LP Vets Caucus which is better than alt-right, anyway… I think???
Another reason our spies have to keep our eyes on what they are doing. (Just like their spies are keeping their eyes on us feisty pro-choicelibertarians!)
Probably more important than getting rid of the alt-right element is to get rid of the element that makes a false equivalency between abhorrent creatures like Goat Blood Boy and legitimately qualified people like Johnson and Weld.
Once those unfortunate souls get chased away, we’ll no longer be seen by the lunatics as fertile ground.
“Tony From Long Island
May 17, 2017 at 09:16
To maintain and build on the credibility the LP has gained in the last few years, they MUST avoid being associated with the Alt-Right.”
The party should also avoid being associated with people like Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. Johnson and Weld got all kinds of negative publicity for the party. I run into multiple people every week while gathering petition signatures who make negative comments about Johnson and Weld, and the sad thing is, all of the negative comments are true. If it was negative comments from people who don’t like libertarians that would be one thing, but this is not the case. The negative comments are about Johnson and Weld not being legitimate libertarians, or about Johnson being ill prepared/uninformed and making a fool of himself, or about Weld being an establishment lackey. I can only tell people that we had better candidates running for other offices, and that we will make an effort to nominate a better presidential ticket in 2020.
Update: I just noticed that the facebook page no longer has Ryan Ramsey as an administrator, which is the good news. https://www.facebook.com/groups/224257921287852/
The bad news it is no longer a public group and does not display its full members list. And it still has the same cover photo of a bunch of Army guys attacking and burning down the White House! (GREAT publicity for the LP. NOT!)
Hopefully a whistleblower or two will join and share with libertarians any further violent “joke” memes against govt officials/peaceniks/hippies/etc. in generals or LP members in particular. Most of us loud mouths are on Facebook.
“P.S. I know it sounds like a bit of a conspiracy theory to speculate the alt-right is creating fake ANTIFA groups to get their own events canceled and generate media. I have seen significant evidence to lend credence to this theory. But regardless of whether the alt-right is responsible for fake threats or actual anti-fascists are responsible for real threats, the outcome is the same: events get canceled and the alt-right gets a lot of free media associating libertarians with the alt-right.”
I think that it is also quite possible that the government has plants (and/or some other groups) in both the ANTIFA groups and the alt-right, and that they are playing both side against each other to create tension. It is already a known fact that George Soros donated money to the leftist ANTIFA groups, and that they utilized paid protesters (maybe not all were paid, but some were). It has since come to light that Donald Trump adviser, and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has business ties to George Soros.
I don’t think that it is fair to cast Augustus Invictus as merely being some “alt-right” figure as if he has nothing to do with the Libertarian Party and was some kind of outside speaker, given that he’s a current dues paying member of the Libertarian Party. I am NOT commenting on his merits or demerits, I’m just pointing out that he is a member of the party. All party members don’t have to like each other, and there are certainly disagreements within the party (as there are in all political parties). I would not like it if Bill Weld were booked to speak at an LP event, but whether I like it or not, Bill Weld did join the Libertarian Party (I don’t consider him to be a legitimate libertarian, but this is another issue), and his membership is still current as far as I know (I am not sure if his dues paying status has expired or not).
Thank you, Chuck!!
And don’t forget all the games these same alt-right individuals played with the Libertarian Party of Florida’s recent convention, which were covered in detail at this site.
What I have just discovered in the last few days is that:
*There is a “Libertarian Party Veterans Caucus”
*It is run by a best buddy of Augustus Invictus, Ryan Ramsey, who calls himself a “revolutionary conservative” and his personal postings obviously have alt-right themes
* “Libertarian Party Veterans Caucus” has a violent Facebook cover page and posts some violent and even threatening “joke” memes
* One of the “joke” memes threatened violence against an LP officer at the 2018 convention in New Orleans
*Most of the 150 odd veteran members either may not be libertarians or may not being paying attention to what is posted on the page
There are some good libertarian members, like Larry Sharpe, but they need to take hold of any such organization and not let it be used by alt-right extremists whose goal is publicity for a bigoted and fascistic NON-libertarian ideology.
To maintain and build on the credibility the LP has gained in the last few years, they MUST avoid being associated with the Alt-Right.
Excellent information/advice.