Open Thread for June 2019

Every month we post a space for news or information that doesn’t fit into another thread. If you have something you’d like to share with the group here, this is the place to put it. Please be careful not to libel anyone, and you’ll probably be all right.

336 thoughts on “Open Thread for June 2019

  1. Mario Mariotti

    I’m calling for unity and cooperation among alternative parties and those which have respect and desire for constitutional law abiding governance. The Constitutionist oriented voter is fractured between a myriad of parties, and the result of that; is an ineffective movement to get done, what needs to be done, to combat the corruption within the 2 ‘establishment’ parties. I am calling for a unity of purpose and determination, …. A mutual cooperation among all parties to work together and accomplish goals within areas of common ground. Together; we CAN & WILL succeed, but only if you actually care, & actively participate to make such a progress happen.

    Are you a leader or manager within your party? Do you desire a mutually beneficial cooperation, which will result in success?

    Contact me, and let’s begin it, once and for all.

  2. paulie

    Response to Capozzi from prior month’s thread:

    Are you THAT hyper-partisan?

    With very rare exceptions, yes. Phillies makes a good point that each vote counts, in a sense, twice: once for the candidate, once for his or her party. Each vote for someone with a particular party ballot label adds in some way to building that party ballot label.

    Additionally, I don’t see any hardcore libertarians actually running as establishment party candidates. It happens every once in a while but has never happened anywhere I lived as far as I can remember.

  3. paulie

    Response to Phillies from prior month’s thread:

    The Constitution also forbids compacts between the states without permission of Congress. THe NPV vote thing claims to be a “Compact”.

    See the wikipedia article on NPV for why this line of argument is unlikely to prevail in court.

  4. paulie

    Phillies:

    On the other hand, it also seems to be running out of blue states that might ratify it.

    Not yet, and it is starting to win in some purple states as well. Red states may eventually join, either because what almost happened in 2004 actually happens or because someone figures out that it can be approved through ballot initiative – even in red states it still polls above water.

    At some point, there may be repeal drives in some states.

    There already is at least one. I doubt any of those will succeed, at least not until the electoral college works out to the Democrats’ benefit – in which case some very well may, but then Republican-leaning states are more likely to join in.

  5. paulie

    With very rare exceptions, yes.

    I should clarify, I’m less hyperpartisan when it comes to other alt parties than when it comes to Ds and Rs. I help get a bunch of alt parties on the ballot, and help a bunch of them get news coverage through our efforts here. And I did at least consider supporting Cynthia McKinney in 2008 (she talked me out of it).

    Also, I did do some volunteering as well as paid ballot access for Ron Paul in the primaries but in more recent years have moved away from the Ron Paul cult. It’s not that I was not already aware of the negative associations of the paleo movement, I was, but I sort of ignored that (way too much) as the Paleo crowd seemed to be moving towards another left-leaning alliance much as Rothbard worked on in the late 60s/early 70s. But, that has been replaced by another hard right turn with them, and with the emergence of the alt right and “libertarians for Trump” I have really soured on the Rockwell axis quite a bit.

  6. robert capozzi

    pf: …each vote counts, in a sense, twice: once for the candidate, once for his or her party. Each vote for someone with a particular party ballot label adds in some way to building that party ballot label.

    me: Got it. That holds together. I view voting as mostly a nuisance and a waste of time. I do vote L occasionally, mostly as a symbolic act, despite my profound disappointment that the LP is devoted to NAPism, perhaps irrevocably so. I don’t vote L to build the party; it’s simply my support for a more peaceful social order.

  7. Jared

    If there is a Libertarian on the ballot, then I will vote L (like Robert, mostly as a symbolic act) if only to back the party, unless the candidate in question has given me strong reasons to withhold my support. I used to vote Green if I wasn’t able to vote L, but considering their hard-left socialist faction now dominates the party, my conscience will no longer permit it. Any D or R would have to be exceptional in a libertarian way to win me over.

  8. dL

    think we know where this is heading. (Bob Barr, Mike Gravel, and Gary Johnson)

    No, Chafee is not running for anything. He’s just a voter now. Chalk this one up to the more the merrier department.

  9. robert capozzi

    pf,

    Wow, that was my first reaction, too. Amash/Chaffee would be strong, in concept.

    Note that he does say he’s on “sabbatical.”

  10. Jared

    Unless his positions have changed, Chafee is about as libertarian as Bill Weld–barely even a moderate. I’m pleased he decided to join the LP (that is, until he switches parties again), as long as he doesn’t get any ideas about a second presidential run.

  11. NewFederalist

    RC- I found the most interesting part of the article not the fact that he has now been registered in three different political parties as well as an independent but that as a resident of the smallest state in terms of area he now has purchased property in the smallest state in terms of population. Is he trying to be the least he can be? 😉

  12. paulie

    Note that he does say he’s on “sabbatical.”

    Which could mean until next year. I don’t think many people will care that he said that in an interview in 2019 if he decides his sabbatical should end in 2020.

  13. robert capozzi

    pf,

    Right. Sabbaticals are IIRC about a year long. He’s clearly saying he may run for office next year.

  14. paulie

    Exactly. Code for don’t waste my time with this (likely/probable/possible) campaign until next year. Totally understandable from the candidate’s perspective – relatively few people are paying attention before next year and you still have all the opposition research, crap talk from opponents, unfriendly interviews and articles, crap from your establishment friends, travel costs if you do campaign related travel, staff costs if you hire staff, and so on.

    Not so good from the LP’s perspective – no candidates building their own and the party’s brand and lists until close to nomination time, plus it’s likely to leave the LP once again leaving the impression that we are a shadow Republican playground with the same battle between the moderate (Weld, Chaffee, Johnson) and tea party (Barr, Root, maybe Amash) wings that the Republican Party has with the only difference that some of the first group (Weld, Chaffee) sometimes also lean towards/endorse/identify as Democrats as well. I’m not sure what the point of having a separate party is at that point. It’s clearly not the LP that was envisioned by those who started it and built it over the years and I don’t believe it’s ever likely to become a major party, or anything close to it, or even to sustain the momentum it has already built.

  15. dL

    Exactly. Code for don’t waste my time with this (likely/probable/possible) campaign

    I think it is merely wishful thinking from lessarchist republicrats. But, hey, if you are going to dream big vis a vis republican has been castoff tickets, Dick Armey and Trent Lott are available, too

  16. paulie

    I’m not sure the LP has the immunity system to withstand any Republicrat who has ever held an office above small town city councilman who actually agrees to seek the LP nomination, regardless of ideology. It’s sad to see but that’s my assessment at this time unless and until proven wrong. The only limiting factors are if there are more of those running than positions for them to be nominated to, or if they just can’t be convinced to run/accept the nomination. I honestly don’t think I’m being too cynical here given the last three cycles as cases in point.

  17. paulie

    Correction, *maybe* it has the immunity to withstand a Democrat. After all Root, who has never actually been elected to anything as far as I know, was Barr’s running mate, not Gravel. But as for Republicans…I will believe we have what it takes to tell them no when I see it and not before.

  18. dL

    I’m not sure the LP has the immunity system to withstand any Republicrat

    All we know is that Chafee moved Wyoming and registered as a Libertarian voter. Add him to the rolls; the more the merrier. Anything beyond that is empty speculation. If he starts pooping up flapping his lips about “true libertarianism” or “relevant libertarianism,” or if he begins maneuvering to seek the LP nomination, well, then that’s another matter. But until that day, it is exercise in self-defeat to be ganging up like hyenas on people who register as Libertarian.

  19. Jim

    From google searches, at least 6 of the 10 LP Presidential candidates were former Republicans (McBride, Clark, Paul, Marrou, Barr, Johnson). And I can’t definitively rule it out for the other 4 (Hospers, Bergland, Browne, Badnarik).

    Hospers, McBride, Paul, and Barr affiliated with the Republicans sometime after being the LP Presidential nominee.

    That leaves 3 of 10 – Bergland, Browne, and Badnarik – who, maybe, had no connection to the Republican party. It’s way too late to be worried about appearing too close to them.

  20. NewFederalist

    Perhaps it’s time the Libertarian Party applied the NAP to anyone who wasn’t born a Libertarian. If it’s not on their birth certificate (from Kenya or Hawai’i or Panama) they are disenfranchised. Howse ’bout that? 🙂

  21. paulie

    Who said anything about being born a Libertarian? There’s a big gulf between that on the one hand and having three Presidential and 2 of their 3 VP candidates in a row parachute directly from the Republican Party to the LP presidential ticket and in most cases parachute right back to the Republicans. Maybe try exploring the vast space in between those two extremes?

  22. paulie

    From google searches, at least 6 of the 10 LP Presidential candidates were former Republicans (McBride, Clark, Paul, Marrou, Barr, Johnson). And I can’t definitively rule it out for the other 4 (Hospers, Bergland, Browne, Badnarik).

    Hospers had definitely been a Republican before and after, but I think he was in the LP for quite a while. I could be wrong but that’s what I seem to remember. Bergland (RIP, recently – article coming up) was always a Libertarian after he became one. I don’t remember at the moment if I ever knew what he was earlier in life, but he was an LP member and activist since at least 1975 when the convention took place which nominated him for the 1976 presidential ticket. I don’t know how long before that, but he probably did have a party affiliation before the LP and it’s more likely to have been Republican than any other, although again I don’t know for sure.

    Browne was as far as I know a long time anti-voting advocate before joining the LP and also passed away as an LP member (again as far as I know). It’s possible he was a Democrat or Republican sometime much earlier in his life, but if he ever had been, it was long before his presidential runs. At that point he had been advocating against voting or political participation for at least a couple of decades, I think probably longer.

    I have heard that Badnarik had been a Republican at one point. I don’t remember where nor whether my source was reliable or not.

    Most of the former and future Republicans, though, had not served in office as Republicans and most either never went back to them or only did so much later. Ron Paul and Bob Barr were the only ones on the list who I know had been elected as Republicans before (if you want to count McBride, he was a pledged Nixon elector who ended up actually casting his electoral vote for Hospers). Paul and Barr were also the only ones I know sought office as Republicans after – one successfully, one not. Neither one took a full decade between first coming to the LP before seeking office as a Republican again.

    If you want to count VPs Root and Weld both also made it back to the Republicans in short order. I’d have to do some thinking, remembering and research regarding any others.

    Johnson is still to my knowledge in the LP, 8 years after rejoining (he had briefly paid dues in the 1980s and briefly again in the 1990s and remained a LP pledge signer even while serving as a Republican governor). He has run as a LP candidate for president twice and US Senate once, although he keeps saying he is done with seeking office. He didn’t leave the Republicans without looking back though – in between presidential runs I attended an event where I heard him tell a RLC representative that he was considering going back and running as a Republican. He hasn’t, at least not yet. I don’t know if he has ruled it out yet or not.

  23. paulie

    I’m not sure the LP has the immunity system to withstand any Republicrat

    All we know is that Chafee

    My statement, later corrected to reflect that we can and do turn away Democrats but not yet to my knowledge Republicans, was not necessarily about Chafee nor did it mention him. Regardless of whether he ever runs for anything again – I stand by the general statement. I sure hope the party proves me wrong, and I hope it does so sooner rather than later. Unless and until that happens I eagerly await evidence that I’m wrong. Unfortunately I keep seeing none and more and more evidence that I’m right, especially at the presidential level.

  24. dL

    From google searches, at least 6 of the 10 LP Presidential candidates were former Republicans

    There is a distinct difference between merely being a formerly registered voter for a different party and a partisan politico from a different party renting out a temporary room at the LP nomination. NewFederalist’s satire was essentially correct: very few are born with “libertarian” stamped on their birth certificate. That being said, the LP has run 3 straight republicrats. It doesn’t need a fourth. Otherwise, the old quip may need to be revised: a libertarian is just an exiled republican looking for 50 state ballot access.

  25. paulie

    There is a distinct difference between merely being a formerly registered voter for a different party and a partisan politico from a different party renting out a temporary room at the LP nomination

    Yep.

    NewFederalist’s satire was essentially correct: very few are born with “libertarian” stamped on their birth certificate.

    I thought that was in response to the very next thing you point out:

    That being said, the LP has run 3 straight republicrats. It doesn’t need a fourth. Otherwise, the old quip may need to be revised: a libertarian is just an exiled republican looking for 50 state ballot access.

    Exactly.

  26. robert capozzi

    pf,

    It all depends on the options AT THE TIME. Maybe ideally, it would be better to nominate a No-Name NAPist Who’s Not a Former Shiny Badge R over after 3 Shiny Badge Former Rs, all else equal. But let’s make it real. Vohra vs Amash in May….whom do you prefer on the last ballot?

    From what I’ve seen of AV’s peculiar brand of NAPism, NOTA would be the better choice. Although, in my case, maybe AV could literally destroy the LP, and perhaps that’s the only way for a viable lesserarchist party to emerge, so maybe for the long term, AV would be the preference.

  27. paulie

    Vohra vs Amash in May….whom do you prefer on the last ballot?

    I might go find something else to do. I’ve never found any shortage of things to do at a convention outside of the convention hall. On second thought I’d probably stay there and cover it and maybe vote NOTA or write in.

  28. paulie

    And on the third hand I can’t even rent a motel room in my own name now that I lost my long expired ID so if I don’t manage to get that replaced by then I may just not go. My road petitioning and national convention days may now be over after a couple of decades.

  29. robert capozzi

    PF,

    Sorry to make it personal. I didn’t think you’d take the question literally.

    So, to be more precisely, your preference is NOTA when the final two are Vohra and Amash, yes? From your institution-building perspective, do you believe that Amash is SO damaging to the institution that the LP should not field a candidate at all?

  30. George Phillies

    There appears to be no point to having a political party that spends its time running Republican rejects for President.

  31. paulie

    I’m not a fan of NOTA. If it looks like NOTA might actually win, I may change my mind. But most likely I would just be casting a protest vote against a fourth straight election of running someone for president fresh off the Republican boat on the one hand and the pedo/alt right/whatever axis of wackjobbery on the other.

  32. robert capozzi

    pf,

    Again, I’m not asking how you’d vote. Net net, do you think it would be better for cause of lessarchy and the LP to nominate Amash, Vohra, or have no one on the ballot?

    You personally could vote your conscience for NOTA and still recognize that Amash or Vohra would be preferable to NOTA prevailing, for ex. Or…you could strongly believe that NOTA is the best option for you personally AND for the cause of liberty, in the case where either breathing biped would be SO bad — optically and/or ideologically — would be unacceptable and profoundly damaging to the L brand.

  33. paulie

    do you think it would be better for cause of lessarchy and the LP to nominate Amash, Vohra, or have no one on the ballot?

    No.

  34. paulie

    OK, you convinced me. Thanks. I won’t vote NOTA. I’ll write in. I’m not a fan of lesser evil scenarios. I’m not sure what I will end up seeing as the lesser evil in the moment if I am a delegate and faced with that vote. For example, in 2012 I studied the candidates carefully well ahead of time going into the 2012 and did not decide how I would vote for the presidential nomination until I was at the convention itself. I think that was the only time out of five presidential nominations that I wasn’t decided well before the convention. But it did happen, and could happen again next year.

  35. robert capozzi

    pf,

    I’m not trying to convince you. I’m suggesting you consider taking a big-picture perspective. Personally, I don’t find Vohra to be “evil,” just seriously misguided. I’m sure there are areas where JA is misguided as well, but he’s on balance a lessarchist, has a Shiny Badge, has built himself a national brand, and near as I can tell he doesn’t have the Hate Affinities that RP1 had.

    Now, it’s entirely possible that you think AV and JA would both be catastrophic mistakes, and neither have net upsides for lessarchism or the LP as an institution.

    Is that your view?

    How you’d personally vote in convention is only slightly interesting to me and probably most. But 1 of 1500 or so is unlikely to sway the outcome.

  36. paulie

    I don’t consider either one to be evil. I served on LNC with Arvin and we always hung out during the social parts of the meetings, as well as being friends online. We worked together on LP social media for years. I’ve been a guest at his house. We’ve never had a falling out and the last time I saw him in person it was friendly. However, I think his thoughts have veered off the edge and I would not want them associated with the presidential candidacy of the LP. Currently he is a non-starter for me for the nomination.

    I don’t know Justin Amash personally, and have not paid very close attention to his votes and public statements, but my overall impression of all that is positive, at least in comparison to other members of congress. I have no reason to believe that his intentions are anything but good. On the other hand, he is at this very moment still a Republican. I consider the optics of nominating yet another recent Republican politician to be a deal breaker on the heels of the last three cycles. If that hadn’t happened Amash would not be as bad of a choice but the past can’t just be ignored and won’t be, either by our opponents or by potential Libertarians. His abortion position would also be a major strike against him even if the other thing was not pretty much disqualifying in my view.

    I’ve spelled out why I think NOTA is a really bad idea for the presidential nomination in past discussions.

    I don’t see Arvin making the top two in reality though.

  37. robert capozzi

    pf,

    You make sense here. I chose AV because he’s the most wacko NAPist, and JA because his badge is shiniest of possible candidates. I’m trying to isolate your objectives.

    I can imagine that JA — if he wants to seek the L nomination — would re-register as a L, making him the first L MC. That move, if he did so, might significantly temper the negative “retread R” association that you cite. The move was not plausibly open to BB or GJ while in office. Despite being a back-bencher, his profile over the past few weeks has suddenly become A-lister.

    Given what you know of them, do you think you’d vote for either AV or JA should either receive the L nomination? I would vote for JA, not AV, fwiw.

    I am pro-choice with Roe limits, so I share your concern on that issue, but I am not a single issue voter. He’d need to have a snappy positioning on the issue.

  38. paulie

    If I was still allowed to vote, and felt it was the best use of my time (I usually find that being outside the election place, usually not mine, is the best use of my time on election day, not inside) I would probably vote for just about any LP nominee in the general election, including Amash or Vohra. The last time I would have been seriously tempted to not vote for was Bob Barr, but I don’t think McKinney was even on the Alabama ballot, and even if I am not remembering that right, I still probably would not have voted for her – she talked me out of supporting her at the Green convention which nominated her when I asked her to make a case to Libertarians who were unhappy with the Barr-Root ticket why they should vote for her instead and all she could manage was to gush about how great Bob Barr was like a schoolgirl with a crush; the same Bob Barr who said he could not be seen on stage with “people like” Cynthia McKinney, whatever that means.

    As far as *actually* voting in the general election, I only voted for Marrou and Browne the first time. Before that, I unfortunately chose to cast my mom’s absentee ballot which she let me fill out at age 16 in 1988 for Dukakis, the candidate I believed at the time to be the lesser evil. By 2000, I was on the road full time and didn’t know where to send an absentee ballot to because I was moving too often even for that. Subsequently, I found out I could have voted at the California polling place I was working outside of had I wanted to, with just the bottom tear off tab of a voter registration form which I had plenty of as part of my job. Since 2004 I have been disqualified by felony, although there are any number of states I could have registered in as I went all over the country and not been disqualified and could have voted in one of those if I really wanted to. Since 2008 I have been additionally disqualified by expired ID. Starting next year, unless I somehow figure out how to get one, make that NO state ID.

    My dad did tell me that he voted for Browne in 2000 out of sympathy for me having been unable to vote but I don’t think he told me the truth, he would have voted for either Nader or Gore in reality, but who knows. The ones after that… I did not regret being unable to vote nearly as much.

  39. robert capozzi

    pf,

    Got it.

    And were JA to re-affiliate as a L in, say, December, remaining in Congress as the first L MC, does that change your view of him as the L nominee?

    Alternatively, if one of the Shiny Badge-less NAPists get the nomination, would that — in your mind — cleanse the R retread negative association for you?

    Say, for ex., JA leaves Congress in 20 still an R, going back to MI to practice law. Could he run in 24 as the L standard-bearer after, say, AK gets the 20 nod and, say, underperforms Bergland? Or would you require several cycles of non-retread Shiny Badge candidates? How many?

  40. Chuck Moulton

    I’m similarly concerned about the optics of 4 Republican retreads in a row, but I would still support Amash.

    Amash seems pretty solid on the issues to me. The only thing he seems crazy on is abortion — please correct me if I’m wrong and being my attention to any additional problems.

    I know abortion is a single issue non-starter for some. Although I am pro-choice, abortion is very low on my priority list among issues. Johnson’s crackpot “fair” tax, Weld’s secret no due process spying list, and the pro-war militaryism of some other candidates are all orders of magnitude more important to me than abortion. Granted: I’m not a woman. Still, I don’t think if I were the other gender it would alter my priorities. Anyway, it’s the Supreme Court that decided Roe v. Wade, not the legislative or executive branches (although the president appoints U.S. Supreme Court justices, it’s not like the Libertarian candidate will win anyway). We’ve run many pro-life presidential camdidates in the past without the sky falling.

    I hope Amash runs, I hope the LP nominates him, and I hope the delegates ask the campaign not to highlight the abortion issue like they did with Ron Paul in 1988.

  41. paulie

    And were JA to re-affiliate as a L in, say, December, remaining in Congress as the first L MC, does that change your view of him as the L nominee?

    That would make it easier for him (or more likely his supporters) to convince me, but it’s still unlikely they would. Being the first L in Congress, albeit not elected that way, is a big deal, but the switch would still be just in time for the presidential race, he’d still be identified primarily as a Republican, and he’d still be a hardcore anti-abortion politician at a time when abortion is again becoming a leading issue. I’m glad he has come out for impeachment though. There are definitely things I like about him.

    Say, for ex., JA leaves Congress in 20 still an R, going back to MI to practice law. Could he run in 24 as the L standard-bearer after, say, AK gets the 20 nod and, say, underperforms Bergland? Or would you require several cycles of non-retread Shiny Badge candidates? How many?

    I don’t know that it’s quantifiable. I’d like to see a ticket some time which is neither right-leaning nor composed of recent Republican politicians. If I could get more than one of those back to back I’d be even happier. I’m not giving up on the party but every time a right-L / NSGOP ticket gets nominated I just don’t volunteer for the presidential campaign beyond ballot access and IPR reporting, in other words the same things I do for other alt parties and independents. Despite my misgivings, I was a Barr elector because the state party asked me, and I would still volunteer to help downticket candidates and the state and county parties regardless of who the nominee is. And I won’t actually be voting in the real world government election regardless.

    Who I would consider supporting in 2024 would depend on any number of things ranging from how whoever gets nominated in 2020 does, to who all is running for the nomination and the quality of their campaigns in 2024, how my own views evolve between now and then, how Amash’s views evolve between now and then if he seeks the LP nomination, whether he becomes involved in the LP at various levels and/or runs for some other office as an LP candidate before seeking the presidential nomination, and so on.

    I’ve not always automatically rejected any LP nominee who had previously been a Republican politician. In 2012 my last minute decision was to vote for Johnson for the nomination and Wrights for VP. Post nomination I was an active volunteer for the campaign. I was less enthusiastic about Johnson by 2016 and did not support him for the nomination, and especially not his running mate that time. Nevertheless, I probably would have still voted for them in the general election but with a lot more misgivings than in 2012.

    I definitely did not support either Barr or Root for any part of the ticket in 2008, and with them being the ticket, I most likely would not have voted or would have left the presidential race blank in 2008. Or maybe I would have reluctantly voted for Barr-Root despite my misgivings. I don’t think I would have voted for Nader or Baldwin, I believe McKinney was not on my ballot and had as I explained earlier convinced me I shouldn’t consider supporting her even if she had been. That was one election I’m not sad in the least I was not allowed to vote in.

    My non-support isn’t always only for recent Republican politicians, though. In 2004 I did not support Badnarik for the nomination; my choice was Russo and I think also ranked Nolan ahead of Badnarik. I thought the party shot itself in the foot with his nomination and did not get actively involved with the campaign. But in retrospect his campaign went a lot better than I feared it would (and in fact his congressional race two years later was the sort of disaster I thought his presidential race would be but wasn’t).

    I supported Browne before and after the nomination in both 1996 and 2000. I supported Marrou in the general election in 1992 but was neither an LP member nor going to any county or state meetings or events then, and I hadn’t picked up my online political debate habit til maybe 3 years after that, so my support for the LP was limited to attending a college booth at my university and the college group organizing meeting afterwards (it did not take off despite good attendance at that meeting as we failed to find a faculty sponsor) and some letters to the editor published in my college and city newspapers. During the 92 primaries I was still a Democrat, supporting Jerry Brown, but was already scoring 100 personal/80 economic on the quiz (minimum wage was my last holdout no on that one).

  42. paulie

    Anyway, it’s the Supreme Court that decided Roe v. Wade, not the legislative or executive branches (although the president appoints U.S. Supreme Court justices, it’s not like the Libertarian candidate will win anyway). We’ve run many pro-life presidential camdidates in the past without the sky falling.

    That’s true. But it’s a more important issue right now due to the fact that the Republicans are on the cusp of possibly overturning Roe, and will be for sure if they appoint another justice or two or three before Democrats do, and in the meantime are chipping away at it much more than before at the state level. The LP nominee’s views on this issue are a big signal of who we want to join the LP and who we preclude or discourage from joining. I think that at this juncture it’s more important than in past cycles that the LP not have a nominee who deviates from the platform on this issue because of the issue dynamics of the larger political world right now. The long term effect of having an anti-abortion extremist nominee will be to push the LP in a more rightward and Republican-leaning direction, which is exactly what I don’t want (I think we are already leaning too much that way as it is) and the push will be harder this time because the issue is “hot” right now.

  43. paulie

    I hope Amash runs, I hope the LP nominates him, and I hope the delegates ask the campaign not to highlight the abortion issue like they did with Ron Paul in 1988.

    I don’t think the delegates are either nearly as unanimous on the issue OR nearly as dogmatically libertarian (or insistent that their nominee be) as when Paul was nominated. Also, if Amash runs for the nomination, expect him to recruit more anti-abortion delegates to show up. It’s not outside the realm of possibility they could change or delete the abortion plank if he’s successful enough at that. Even if not, it’s a lot less likely the party would extract any such promise from him as was the case 30-some years ago.

  44. paulie

    I’m actually not all that extremely dogmatic on abortion myself. My thoughts on it have meandered with a lot of ambivalence over the years. At one time I considered myself a pro-life libertarian, but more recently have evolved back in a pro-choice direction. When I was a teen I had a girlfriend who had one and felt really bad about it afterwards, and decided she would never do that again. I know what a difficult choice it was both when she decided to have an abortion and the second one when she decided to become a teen mom, so even when I have taken one position or the other it has always been with some doubts and caveats.

    The reason I’m pretty adamant about not wanting a hardcore anti-abortion nominee, especially right now, or a plank deletion, is that I see it as a gateway to bringing in a larger contingents of right wingers who will further tilt the left-right balance of the party on other issues as well, in exactly the wrong way.

  45. NewFederalist

    Paulie – in 2008 I actually preferred Baldwin to Barr but living in PA at the time the choice was made for me. To this day I still believe he was more libertarian than Barr. Like you I was fairly enthusiastic about Johnson in 2012 (I lived in NM for most of the time he was governor and thought he had done a good job) but I didn’t vote for him in 2016 primarily because of Weld but also because of his being current events and geography challenged. If Amash switches parties NOW I would enthusiastically support him for the nomination. His abortion stand is of little consequence to me. I truly believe people of good conscience and conviction can differ on the issue. I would like to see the ticket balanced with a truly hardcore libertarian as the Veep choice. Just my $0.02 worth.

  46. paulie

    I’m aware that Baldwin had some libertarian leanings but I don’t think he was nearly as libertarian as some RonPaulitarians wishbelieve themselves into thinking, and he also did not do much if anything at all to point which issues he disagreed with the CP platform on; if anything quite the opposite. I think I have said enough about why Amash’s abortion position and long standing affiliation with the Republican Party make me not want him to be our nominee, especially in 2020. That does not mean he’s irredeemable or anything.

    I won’t consider it to be the end of the LP or my involvement in it if he is the nominee, absent a bunch of other things happening to alienate me at the same time. I’m unlikely to volunteer for the presidential campaign if he is the nominee, but if I am doing ballot access work next year I will still help them get on ballots, and if I am posting articles on alt parties and independents here or anywhere else I will cover them in the same sort of way I have and do other campaigns. If I table for my state/county/local party during the general election campaign and the presidential campaign has materials there I will make them available and will answer any questions without inserting any negative views about the ticket. Regardless of who we nominate, it’s still unlikely I will either be allowed to vote in the government election or consider it the best use of the time it would take to do so.

    TL;DR not a whole lot will change as far as my involvement goes if Amash is the nominee. The best case scenario, if the LP nominates a ticket I am enthusiastic about and if I have the time and transportation to volunteer much during the general election campaign, I will be a more enthusiastic volunteer. But that’s about it. I’m highly unlikely to support Amash for the nomination for the reasons I stated, but I expect he would win it anyway if he seeks it, and it’s very unlikely my vote would be the deciding one. And that’s if I can even still be a delegate – see above.

  47. NewFederalist

    Paulie – I guess Jacob Hornberger falls into the same category as Justin Amash as far as the abortion issue is concerned. How about a Hornberger/Vohra (or vice versa) ticket? That should be enough to dispel any GOP minor league affiliate crappola! I find Vohra’s view of veterans a bit “edgy” ( I am retired Navy with 33 years service) but I am also a real no shit libertarian. I wish we could find another Harry Browne or David Bergland but if they’re out there I don’t know who they are. What say you?

  48. robert capozzi

    pf: I’d like to see a ticket some time which is neither right-leaning nor composed of recent Republican politicians. If I could get more than one of those back to back I’d be even happier.

    me: Got it. But what constitutes “right-leaning” is of course subjective. To me, all L prez candidates have been “right-leaning,” at least the way most understand “right” to mean “smaller government.” In some ways, GJ was the least “right-leaning,” given that he’s pro-choice and in the weed industry.

    Is there a prominent person who you’d like to see get the nomination who is neither “right-leaning” (from the public’s perspective) nor a R retread?

  49. paulie

    Right leaning does NOT mean smaller government. Don’t have time to get into details but Nolan Quiz/Chart is a good start. There are many prominent people who are not politicians and lots of them are libertarian but just not that open about their politics. many are not right leaning at all. Our nominee does not absolutely have to be prominent prior to running. It may also be a good time to run a “joke” candidate with a serious point about what a bad joke mainstream politics are, or a long time libertarian and or LP activist type of candidate. It would not be the end of the world, Marrou, Browne and Badnarik left the party overall better off not worse, so now we had GOP imports for three cycles so may be a good time to switch back to LP member for a cycle or three. Wouldn’t be the end of the world at all.

  50. paulie

    As far as I know Hornberger is less extreme than Amash on abortion. I’ll have to look into it more. Even if he is, yes that is a strike against him, and there may be others I am not thinking of right now, but he has not been a Republican politician in office, and as far as I know has not been a Republican at all, certainly not any time recently, so that is at least one way in which he is better than Amash.

    I will not support Arvin for any part of the ticket next year unless something very dramatic happens. Even if I did I don’t expect many other delegates would. He got single digits for another term as Vice Chair, as the sitting vice chair seeking a third (iirc) term. That alone should tell you something. Nothing against Arvin, I believe he is well intentioned and would have a meal and discussion with him any time, but his ideas have gone way way way off the deep end, albeit I can see the logic train that led him to where he is … I do not want it to misrepresent the party, sorry.

    I wish we could find another Harry Browne or David Bergland but if they’re out there I don’t know who they are. What say you?

    Dunno. Kim Ruff? Hornberger? Jo Jorgensen? Someone else not talked about yet? Maybe a Vermin middle finger is what our larger political system needs and deserves at this juncture. Way too early to know who will seek or accept the nomination just because a few people are already running for it.

  51. r

    pf: Right leaning does NOT mean smaller government.

    me: There is MUCH denial in our society, but I suspect vast majorities who those who ID as “right-leaning” also ID as wanting “smaller government.”

    pf: There are many prominent people who are not politicians and lots of them are libertarian but just not that open about their politics.

    me: Yep, that’s why I post on IPR. Unfortunately, the LP doesn’t represent them. Rather, it represent fealty to the NAP, which is a very rigid, unworkable construct that is protected by the Bylaws. Your microscopic analysis of the LP’s strength post-Shiny-Badge candidates is probably true as far as it goes, but the party remains tiny and politically ineffectual.

  52. Jim

    If you don’t want a Right-Libertarian candidate, Libertarian Socialist Caucus member Benjamin Dryke is your guy, with Jeff Wood for VP.

    If it came down to Arvin Vohra, Vermin Supreme, or the Libertarian Socialist Caucus candidate… that would make me look for a different party.

  53. paulie

    There is MUCH denial in our society, but I suspect vast majorities who those who ID as “right-leaning” also ID as wanting “smaller government.”

    They may, but that’s because they just don’t see the smaller government positions on military-industrial, police-prison-industrial, espionage state (external and external), foreign policy, foreign wars, drug law enforcement, sexual morals mandates, policing wombs, or many other issues to be important parts of what is or isn’t smaller government. Most of them also largely ignore corporate welfare, agribusiness welfare, cheer on the massive border enforcement police state and seek to expand it regularly. Also, most of them would oppose any significant cuts or changes to middle class entitlement programs. Their idea of “smaller government” revolves pretty much exclusively around government activities which supposedly help poor and/or nonwhite folks, the environment, and other things which most of today’s left incorrectly believe government helps with the programs branded as such.

    In reality, though, government redistribution of wealth is primarily upwards, not downwards as most people on both the left and right presume. Big business and wealthy individuals who own large shares of stock, as well as those with larger incomes during their working lives who reap a larger per capita share of government retirement and medical spending, get much more out of the government than those who spend most or all of their lives being poor. Big business benefits a lot more from government than small business. The net effect of government red tape is to cut down on social mobility, reduce entrepreneurship, keep new business from getting off the ground and staying afloat…

    Right wingers are increasingly also turning to trade protectionism. Many of them embrace neomercantalism. And even before that happened, the record of recent Republicans, both in Congress and white houses, has been to increase spending and debt even faster than Democrats do.

    So if rightwingers take a narrow slice of issues on which they want less government than left wingers do and conclude that makes them overall for “smaller government” they are really not seeing the bigger picture at all.

    Rather, it represent fealty to the NAP, which is a very rigid, unworkable construct that is protected by the Bylaws.

    I don’t think so. For one thing it doesn’t represent any such fealty as far as candidates go. The vast majority of LP candidates do not show any such fealty, including recent presidential tickets. If one of the folks I allude to wanted to run as a Libertarian for president I don’t think any NAP fealty would prevent their nomination. If at any point it would, and I would need examples of this happening in reality and not just theory, they would have to be pretty far from even moderately libertarian much less NAP before that outweighed celebrity in delegates’ minds.

    What’s lacking here is lack of effective ongoing celebrity outreach, far more so than any nonexistent ideological rigidity. That is it exists in no real meaningful way when it comes to vetting candidates.

    I also don’t think NAP is an unworkable construct but I have no interest in debating that since it’s largely beside the point in view of the other factors above.

  54. paulie

    but the party remains tiny and politically ineffectual.

    That depends on compared to what.

    It’s the most sustained success of any non-duopoly party in nearly a century. Some have come and gone with a big splash usually around a celebrity, rogue politician or billionaire of some sort. They are a flash in the pan and fade quickly. Some linger on in much diminished form many decades after their peak. Some run only in one or a few states, frequently involving fusion, and don’t contest the presidential race other than to endorse a candidate primarily identified as a Democrat or Republican. But the last time any party of any ideology had as much sustained success over several decades as the LP has already had was before monderate ballot access barriers, before modern nationwide mass communications (radio was around, but in most cases much more locally and regionally focused), and before modern levels of campaign spending by the duopoly.

    The LP is not nearly as ineffectual as you presume. I’ve made my case before so don’t really feel like repeating myself yet again. We have a much larger ripple effect impact than our direct easily observable effect alone.

  55. paulie

    If you don’t want a Right-Libertarian candidate, Libertarian Socialist Caucus member Benjamin Dryke is your guy, with Jeff Wood for VP.

    Nope, they are most definitely not “my guys.”

    If it came down to Arvin Vohra, Vermin Supreme, or the Libertarian Socialist Caucus candidate…

    In that scenario, Vermin, easily. It would not be a hard decision. However, while it’s possible that Vermin could end up on the last ballot, it’s far less likely that Arvin or Dryke (is he still running? May have endorsed Vermin iirc?) would, other than in the scenario where there is only one ballot with lots of candidates on it – and even then I’m not sure they will get enough tokens to be formally nominated.

  56. Tony From Long Island

    Sorry Paulie, but if the Party wants to retain any shred of credibility, it will have nothing to do with anyone named ‘Vermin Supreme,” regardless of any of his positions.

    In fact, I won’t even bother to listen to a word the man says simply because of that ridiculous moniker (unless you can show me that it is his actual birth name).

    Maybe he can get that fat guy to do a strip tease while he’s giving a speech.

    Nothing says “laugh at us” more than hearing ” . . .. Today the Libertarian Party nominated someone calling themselves Vermin Supreme for President of The United States . . . ”

    Its about credibility.

  57. paulie

    To each their own. There’s room for theater of the absurd in politics. Satirists have actually been elected, all over the world and at many levels, including in the US. One has recently been elected president of Ukraine. In many other cases they have had a much bigger impact on many elections than serious but vastly underfunded alt party candidates. Shock value is a good way to get noticed, like it or not, and provides an opportunity to make a point – whether straightforwardly or through satire – about how absurd the process and leading candidates themselves are. No, not everyone will listen and not everyone will get it, but that will be true whether we run an LP or movement activist, a crossover politician or a guy with a boot on his head. Different people in each case but there’s no way around it. We just don’t have the billions to achieve message reach parity with the duopoly.

  58. Jim

    paulie “… Dryke (is he still running? May have endorsed Vermin iirc?)”

    Close. He endorsed Bernie Sanders. I don’t know if that means he’s given up on the LP nomination, though. He could be attempting the same thing Sam Seder talked about doing – getting the LP nomination and then supporting the Democratic candidate.

  59. paulie

    Yeah. No. Not supporting any of that in any way shape or form. When I say left leaning I mean culturally and socially and in terms of expressing libertarian views on economics in terms which appeal to those coming from or drawn to the left, but I still mean actually having free market libertarian or market-inclusive economic views. Social welfare democrats, Eurosocialists and the “property is theft” folks, not so much.

  60. Jared

    I wonder what kind of market exists in the LP for a radical centrist caucus to occupy the Libertarian middle ground between libsocs and LvMI types on the one hand, and propertarian absolutists and wishy-washy moderates on the other. I suspect many rank and file members (and prospective members) within the broader libertarian movement are more politically serious than the dogmatic NAPist or anarcho-purist faction and more ideologically serious than the “economically conservative, socially progressive” sort of accidental policy libertarian.

    Bleeding-heart libertarians fill this niche pretty well. They’re a submovement with a lot of intellectual firepower, but I’m not sure what impact, if any, they have had within the party.

  61. paulie

    Jared,

    That would be me pretty much exactly, but not sure there’s enough people or motivation within this custom niche there for a caucus. Caucus works best at some end of things or affinity group or another. Shorter than 5 foot or taller than 7 foot, as an example, although most likely not. Right leaning, left leaning, radical, moderate, gay, black, Jewish, Muslim…any of these could be a caucus. “Mostly secular, open-minded/seeking, mostly straight but with a few gay experiences and fantasies here and there, between 5 and 7 foot tall”…well not so much. Yes, some people fit that description, but what motivates them to engage in caucus activity?

    I’ve been very active in caucus activity for a decade plus and affiliate with a bunch of them to one extent or another but have pulled back my level of caucus activity quite a bit lately. The party itself is hard enough to get any daylight and breathing room for; trying to influence its direction has had very limited effect, at least for me.

  62. robert capozzi

    pf,

    There’s no doubt that self-described rightists are hypocrites, generally speaking. I do think that they are not as bad on “crony capitalism” as you seem to believe they are. If Amash doesn’t run, and no one sane steps forward, I would like to see Vermin get the nod. He’s a goof and he’s not a NAPist, near as I can tell, and so I will enjoy his theater-of-the-absurd act, I suspect.

    I, however, would not want to see him win, because I see no reason to believe he can do the job. For me, that ‘s the first filter. That’s why I voted GJ and rooted HRC. While DJT was also unqualified, he’s more qualified than VS. When I say “qualified,” I don’t mean 35+ and native born. I mean being an executive over a massive bureaucracy.

    Why do you think that some many “retread” Rs become prominent L candidates, but no Ds (except maybe Gravel) do?

    My hypothesis is that they are reasonably sincere that the Rs were their best vehicle for political expression in that they at least pay lip service to personal economic liberty, which the Ds do not. The Ds are just as blood thirsty as the Rs, although they maybe slightly “better” on civil liberties, they are hardly true civil libertarians, generally.

  63. paulie

    I do think that they are not as bad on “crony capitalism” as you seem to believe they are.

    They’ve had no problem rallying around the Cheeto Benito, and he’s all about that.

    I, however, would not want to see him win

    LOL. As concerns go, that one is up there with being smacked in the head by a golf ball sized meteor fragment. I would not spend a lot of time worrying about it, honestly.

    While DJT was also unqualified, he’s more qualified than VS. When I say “qualified,” I don’t mean 35+ and native born. I mean being an executive over a massive bureaucracy.

    The Trump organization isn’t a massive company. Recently I saw a report that it’s actually about 25 people. It’s essentially a small business which sells its own name/image/brand to large developers to slap on to their projects. Mango Mussolini’s “billionaire” status is based solely on his own highly stilted evaluation of what his name is worth, and very little else. As an executive, his record is terrible. Every venture he has been involved in was and is in constant chaos. He’s dealt with repeated bankruptcies, business and personal, and got rescued repeatedly by his father and by organized crime/espionage syndicates. Contractors and clients have been ripped off left and right, for decades.

    Even with all of that his investments haven’t beaten the stock market index fund. His family foundation has been shut down for massive fraud and pretty much everything he has been involved in since college – Trump Organization, Trump Campaign, Trump Transition, Trump Administration – is facing multiple ongoing investigations, state and federal alike, with increasing numbers of associates beginning to be indicted and going to prison. The special counsel has all but said that the only reason he has not yet been indicted himself is because of a Department of Justice internal rule that sitting presidents can not be indicted.

    It took a decade to finish sending 69 people involved in Watergate and coverup thereof to prison. The Trump scandals look to be much bigger.

  64. paulie

    Why do you think that some many “retread” Rs become prominent L candidates, but no Ds (except maybe Gravel) do?

    My hypothesis is that they are reasonably sincere that the Rs were their best vehicle for political expression in that they at least pay lip service to personal economic liberty, which the Ds do not.

    It’s due to a century of conservatarian fusionism, but all libertarians get is lip service out of that, and only on economic issues. The economic reality, however, is that spending and debt grow faster in recent decades until NSGOP presidents and under NSGOP congresses alike than under Democrats in either branch.

    On Eland’s Peace, Freedom and Prosperity scale, recent Democrats in office are bad and recent Republicans are even worse.

    The faster we cut the ties of conservatarian fusionism, once and for all and with the ground dynamited, the better off we will be. It’s preventing us from more effectively reaching a more available audience where the low hanging fruit is still mostly on the tree. Under Agent Orange von Bonespur it seems conservatives are taking care of that for us, for example: trade wars, among many other ways the Trump era right is moving quickly towards the authoritarian and worse side of things.

    The Ds are just as blood thirsty as the Rs, although they maybe slightly “better” on civil liberties, they are hardly true civil libertarians, generally.

    Well yeah, but they pay lip service to the more libertarian side of things vis a vis NSGOP on those issues so if that’s good enough for cons/NSGOP on other issues why are Demos so anathema? Probably because we have bent libertarian ideology backwards, forwards and through to accomodate the right and its temporarily disgruntled constituents, in the process doing the opposite to the left.

  65. dL

    My hypothesis is that they are reasonably sincere that the Rs were their best vehicle for political expression in that they at least pay lip service to personal economic liberty, which the Ds do not.

    laugh out loud. The only positive thing about Trump is that he has finally exposed the BS that conservatism ever had anything to do with free markets. No one believes it anymore(even Cato is now trashing conservative fusionism). And the GOP has dropped the lip service pretense. The objective, undeniable fact is that if you are a capitalist, you are aligned with the establishment democrats. The democratic party is a center-right, capitalist party. The Republicans are a far-right, anti-capitalist(AND anti-free market) party.

  66. robert capozzi

    pf,

    While I share many of your concerns, I look at these matters differently. Having shrugged off NAPism now for at least a decade, I see “fusionism” as what lessarchists should seek. However, what that means to me is that lessarchists should look to build bridges to both conservatives and progressive liberals. We should persuade them that the way of peace in all things is the optimal path. I welcome conservatarianism and liberaltrarianism as bridges out of the coercive chaos we find ourselves in.

    Sanctimonious NAPism is — for me — a failure, as it attempts to bludgeon non-believers into submission.

    I must not have put my point about qualification well, so let me try again. In 16, GJ was more qualified than DJT and less qualified than HRC. I agreed with GJ perhaps 85% of the time, DJT perhaps 40%, and HRC maybe 20%. A BIG part of running for an office is: Can the candidate do the job? That’s why I voted GJ and rooted HRC. I probably agreed with DJT more than HRC, but I had graver reservations about DJT than HRC. Presented with an awful choice, I made my call.

    In 20, DJT is certainly qualified, since he’d have done the job for nearly 4 years. While I often disagree with him, he hasn’t been quite as dysfunctional as I feared he might. To run against him, JA is at least qualified (but less than DJT), and I agree with him perhaps 85% of the time. Vermin and the NAPist wanna-bes are jokes in the qualification department, making them non-serious contenders. Heck, Andrew Yang and even Marianne Williamson are more qualified than the declared candidates…a lot more, actually, in my estimation.

    Yes, DJT was severely under-qualified in 16, but this modern-day PT Barnum snookered the electorate. (Scott Adams would say he’s a master persuader with an impressive talent stack, which strikes me as over-stated but somewhat true. )

    Looked at through a NAPist frame, “qualifications” and “relevance” are at best minor considerations. To the NAPist, Bergland was the penultimate candidate, and, hey, he was a lawyer, too! This points to a weird little model of political change; that somehow the soapbox lunatic will bend history in the long run through some kind of subterranean movement that some day will reach critical mass and bring forth a Golden Age of near-anarchic Nirvana.

    This is 19th century thinking, IMO. The world has changed.

  67. paulie

    However, what that means to me is that lessarchists should look to build bridges to both conservatives and progressive liberals

    I was referring specifically to conservatarian fusionism. If we were starting from scratch I would agree with you. That’s not where we are. In the real world we’ve built too many poorly designed bridges to the right, which are dragging us down with the right as it shifts more toward authoritarianism, and in the process making it harder to build bridges to the left where the passageway is more productive and sustainable.

    Sanctimonious NAPism is — for me — a failure, as it attempts to bludgeon non-believers into submission.

    Mine is more directional, as discussed in past threads, and perhaps earlier in this one (don’t remember, not scrolling).

    I probably agreed with DJT more than HRC

    I rarely agree or agreed with either of them, but Drumpf is orders of magnitude more odious and disgusting even than the highly stomach churning and corrupt former SOS, Senator and First Lady. Johnson wasn’t and isn’t as bad as either of those, but far from an ideal libertarian or candidate and the second time around dragged down by that Weld anchor.

    In 20, DJT is certainly qualified, since he’d have done the job for nearly 4 years.

    I don’t think so. I think that the only thing that has qualified him for is impeachment, removal, criminal indictment, conviction and imprisonment. If that fails, hopefully it has qualified him for being soundly rejected by the voters for another term, followed by the aforementioned prosecution, conviction and imprisonment. Hopefully, he can be dislodged from office without a constitutional crisis or civil war; I can easily see him reject the election results if he loses. If he doesn’t get removed and does win another term, I expect things to get remarkably and increasingly worse in an ever more rapid fashion as institutions which have prevented him from doing much more damage up until now give way like overburdened old levees. At that point, my own increasingly shrinking hope is that any life on earth besides cockroaches and things of that nature will survive his time in office.

    To the NAPist, Bergland was the penultimate candidate

    Great writer – he convinced me of the logical consistency of libertarianism and his recommendations for further reading laid a great foundation of information that supported that with a great deal of history, economics, logic, facts and philosophy, theory as well as real world examples aplenty. Terrible campaigner – his late night infomercials were the best cure for this then (pre)teen cocaine addict experiencing frequent bouts of insomnia, long before I came to agree with a lot of things he was saying.

    This points to a weird little model of political change; that somehow the soapbox lunatic will bend history in the long run through some kind of subterranean movement that some day will reach critical mass

    You mean like Marxists, fascists, feminists, and many other movements have done in the past, all over the world, whether for good or bad?

    The world has changed.

    For the last time? I don’t think so.

  68. paulie

    The democratic party is a center-right, capitalist party.

    Parts of it are. But, it’s also the party of AOC, Bernie, et al. Republicans had a fairly large center-right/capitalist wing; its ready susceptibility to near-unanimous and enthusiastic backing for Dear Leader proves how Potemkinesque the veneer of lip service to free markets always has been on that side.

  69. Chuck Moulton

    I look forward to the day when researchers can discover a cure for Trump derangement syndrome and rescue Paulie from this horrible disease.

    Trump was, is, and will remain a populist with authoritarian leanings who does some good things and mostly bad things policy-wise. The sky will not fall if Trump remains in office or gets re-elected. Yet somehow even in the face of overwhelming exonerating evidence, some people still hang their hats on the Russian collusion canard and other debunked conspiracy theories.

  70. Jim

    dL “The objective, undeniable fact is that if you are a capitalist, you are aligned with the establishment democrats.”

    Establishment Democrats meaning who?

  71. dL

    I look forward to the day when researchers can discover a cure for Trump derangement syndrome and rescue Paulie from this horrible disease.

    I look forward to the day american libertarianism sheds its insufferable leftist derangement syndrome.

  72. dL

    Establishment Democrats meaning who?

    Meaning pretty much every establishment democrat–sans the dixiecrats–going back to FDR. The democrats did Bretton Woods, the post WW II capitalist trade order. Carter/Kennedy started the late 70s deregulation shift, and it was Carter who appointed Paul Volcker and initiated the shift to the Washington consensus. Clinton did NAFTA, WTO and abolished Glass Steagall. Obama tried to do TPP, and Hillary Clinton assuredly would have re-tried. Biden, if elected, will retry a Trans Pacific Free Trade Agreement.

  73. robert capozzi

    pf: In the real world we’ve built too many poorly designed bridges to the right, which are dragging us down with the right as it shifts more toward authoritarianism, and in the process making it harder to build bridges to the left where the passageway is more productive and sustainable.

    me: Consider the possibility that you may be too close to the situation. As an unaffiliated lessarchist, I don’t see the “right” “dragging down” the LP. I’m seeing JA gaining traction and respect for calling out DJT for “impeachable offenses,” and some MSM buzz that he might run for prez as an L.

    In a sense, I see Ls as having nothing to lose. They hold no offices of consequence; maintaining ballot access is the party’s procedural struggle — perennially drowning, gasping for breath.

    Yes, former NAPist L candidates like Cantwell gained some notoriety for his turn to the very dark side in Chartlottesville, but I don’t see that hurting the LP much if at all, mostly again because they have nothing left to lose.

    Yes, BB, WAR, and WW went back to the Rs. Newsflash: No one cares aside from LP insiders. WW did it to poke DJT, so that should be pretty forgivable from a trans-partisan perspective.

    One mistake that NAPists (both directional and destinational) make is they believe the narratives they construct to make sense of the world to themselves. Ideas CAN have consequences, but the world is mostly random and scattered. People are highly impressionable, and politics is all about dealing with numerous non-linear cross currents of thought and emotion.

    This is why the NAPist sounds like a disconnected robot in the public square, irrelevant. Shiny Badge-less NAPists come across as curiosities at best.

  74. paulie

    I look forward to the day when researchers can discover a cure for Trump derangement syndrome and rescue Paulie from this horrible disease.

    I don’t look forward to day that you realize I have been correct about him all along because by that time we’ll all be severely screwed. Why hasn’t he done more damage already? The president is not a dictator, and there are other institutions which prevent him from being one. But that resistance is wearing thin the longer he stays in power. He is packing the courts at record speed and replacing the bureaucracy, at the top and intermediate levels especially, slowly but surely with his people. His appointees are figuring out how to legally implement what he wants or how to get around blatantly violating the law and getting away with it. Congress and the courts are already increasingly rolling over and will do so more and more as time goes on. He can more or less ignore any opposing media since his voters don’t believe anything but what he himself and the media outlets which fawn over him no matter what he says or does claim, and with time he’ll get his dictatorial wishes of silencing opposing media in the same ways dictators have done in former democracies turned dictatorships.

    Yet somehow even in the face of overwhelming exonerating evidence

    LOL. That’s just absurd.

    Russian collusion canard

    Canard? Trump has been deeply linked with Russian crime and intelligence for decades. Contrary to his lies he was negotiating a major deal in Moscow before and during the campaign. It has now come out that Russians offered to help his campaign with dirt on his leading opponent, and that multiple high placed members of the Trump campaign and family met with them. Trump publicly asked for their help. The dirt, which we are now supposed to believe came from some mysterious other source, did come out. It played a large role in helping decide a close election, along with other tactics which Russian intel has used in several other countries.

    Multiple members of the Trump campaign, transition, administration and family have multiple connections with Russian organized crime and government-connected business with intel ties. Several of them have already been indicted and have gone to prison for it including the former campaign chair. Others are under investigation and likely to be indicted soon. Trump has covered up and lied about these things repeatedly and fired people who would not help him with the coverup. Each time some of these lies are revealed he comes up with new ones which then get exposed as lies further down the road.

    Putin and many other around him, and all Putin-controlled media, publicly cheered for and then celebrated Trump’s election. Trump has had many unprecedented meetings with Putin and Putin agents and insisted on not having staffers present and even having translators destroy notes. Both in person and on the phone. He has refused to implement sanctions passed by congress, has never had anything bad to say about Putin, and has said he believes that if Putin denies something he must be telling the truth. More recently, Trump spokespeople have changed their propaganda line from “there was no collusion” to “there’s nothing illegal or wrong about it.” Trump has let it slip in some tweets and statements that it happened. Kushner not only admitted it happened, but in a recent public interview said they welcome it happening again.

    Mueller’s report showed numerous examples of Trump and those around him doing things which would be indictable obstruction, then refused to conclude that there was obstruction because it would not be fair to make that accusation since DOJ rules say a sitting president can’t be charged. It also talks about the necessity of preserving evidence, presumably so he can be indicted once he leaves office. A thousand prosecutors read the report and concluded he committed obstruction, and that if he was not president he would have been indicted by now.

    The current attorney general, the same one who muffled the Iran-Contra scandal in the end by getting Bush to pardon everyone involved and in effect indirectly pre-pardon himself, auditioned for the job by writing an unsolicited letter about how the Mueller investigation should not have existed and should be shut down. After pushing the investigation to a premature end, AG Barr publicly mischaracterized the conclusion of the report. Ever since, the administration has committed multiple instances of obstruction after the fact by ordering multiple current and former members of the administration to illegally ignore congressional subpoenas for testimony and documents.

    This is just the tip of the iceberg. If you really want a more complete picture, spend a few months digging into Deutsche bank and the various roles it has played in Trump’s projects over the years, its involvement in laundering Eastern bloc dirty money, the different players involved and how they moved money around the world over the years, laundered it through real estate, and so on. Dig into the Panama papers. Look at Russian government interference with elections all over Eastern, Central and Western Europe, Venezuela, and other places.

    debunked conspiracy theories.

    ROFL. A lot of this isn’t even a conspiracy theory, it’s done right out in the open. And as for the rest just how much evidence do you need?

    The above is barely even scratching the surface. I literally would never have enough time to tell you everything else but you can find it all on your own if you only care to look.

  75. paulie

    Consider the possibility that you may be too close to the situation. As an unaffiliated lessarchist, I don’t see the “right” “dragging down” the LP.

    I’ve considered it for 30 years. In great detail. Laid out many reasons why I believe what I do in many threads here over the years. If you don’t agree with me, that’s OK. You don’t have to, and if everything I have said all those times has not convinced you nothing I say now will. I stand by my opinion though, and all the many reasons I have given for holding it over the years. I don’t want to repeat myself yet again and see little to be gained by doing so.

    I’m seeing JA gaining traction and respect for calling out DJT for “impeachable offenses,” and some MSM buzz that he might run for prez as an L.

    I already told you I like that part, and dislike some other things.

    In a sense, I see Ls as having nothing to lose.

    We’ve been over that one too. I disagree, and have explained why enough times before. Got anything new?

    Yes, BB, WAR, and WW went back to the Rs. Newsflash: No one cares aside from LP insiders.

    Au contraire, many L-leaning people coming from Democrats/Greens/left can and do notice and this includes many former LP members and supporters and many more would be possible members and supporters driven away by LP perpetually playing NSGOP Jr, playing into the libertarian to alt right pipeline, swimming in a polluted sea of conservatarian fusionism, and so on. It’s hurting us a lot more than you seem capable or willing to dare imagine.

    Ideas CAN have consequences, but the world is mostly random and scattered. People are highly impressionable, and politics is all about dealing with numerous non-linear cross currents of thought and emotion.

    Agreed with the second sentence but not the first. Indeed, the second sentence is why the first sentence is incorrect.

  76. robert capozzi

    pf: many L-leaning people coming from Democrats/Greens/left can and do notice and this includes many former LP members and supporters and many more would be possible members and supporters driven away by LP perpetually playing NSGOP Jr,

    me: Anything’s possible, but I suspect this is a tiny sliver of the population.

  77. paulie

    I suspect you are wrong, and I’ve explained why too many times to feel like repeating myself on that part either.

  78. robert capozzi

    pf,

    So, let’s assume you are 100% correct. Conservatarian fusionism is the single biggest obstacle to liberty and is the single biggest reason why dthe LP electorally ineffectual.

    How do you propose to rid the LP and LM of these dastardly interlopers?

  79. dL

    While DJT was also unqualified, he’s more qualified than VS. When I say “qualified,” I don’t mean 35+ and native born. I mean being an executive over a massive bureaucracy.

    How does one square this with advocacy for Justin Amash? Amash clearly thinks Trump is a criminal and ought to be impeached.

  80. dL

    Conservatarian fusionism is the single biggest obstacle to liberty and is the single biggest reason why dthe LP electorally ineffectual.

    Fusionism is the single biggest obstacle for libertarianism to be taken seriously as a path to liberty. Obviously, the single biggest obstacle for LP electoral viability is money. And the winner take all voting system is the single biggest reason why a 3rd party will never have any.

  81. Jim

    dL “Meaning pretty much every establishment democrat–sans the dixiecrats–going back to FDR. The democrats did Bretton Woods, the post WW II capitalist trade order. Carter/Kennedy started the late 70s deregulation shift, and it was Carter who appointed Paul Volcker and initiated the shift to the Washington consensus. Clinton did NAFTA, WTO and abolished Glass Steagall. Obama tried to do TPP, and Hillary Clinton assuredly would have re-tried. Biden, if elected, will retry a Trans Pacific Free Trade Agreement.”

    Yeah, that’s more or less who I consider establishment Democrats, also, although I don’t think the Dixiecrats or their descendants could be could be considered establishment Democrats at any time in the post-FDR years. But since you’re excluding them, it doesn’t matter.

    So then my follow up question would be, what makes the Republicans an anti-capitalist, anti-free market party?

    Because many of the establishment Democrats – Truman, LBJ, Hillary Clinton – those are just what I refer to as Progressive Hawk Democrats. There is essentially no difference between them and the NeoConservative Republicans, except on cultural issues. The NeoCons are more comfortable around Social Conservatives and the Progressive Hawks are more comfortable around the New Left culturally progressive Democrats.

    Bush 1 signed NAFTA, not Clinton, although Clinton supported it. Clinton signed the WTO, but the negotiations that led up to that agreement started under Reagan and continued through Bush 1. Bush 2 signed CAFTA. The 4th round of GATT negotiations happened under Eisenhower, and a Republican Eisenhower appointee, who landed a job in the Kennedy Administration, proposed the 5th round of GATT negotiations. Reagan accelerated the oil deregulation that began under Carter.

    Then we can get into the flip side. Trump supports tariffs. So did Obama and Bush 2. Obama put a 35% tariff on Chinese tires, a 47% tariff on Chinese solar panels, and a 522% (not a typo) tariff on Chinese steel. Bush put a 30% tariff on steel from all countries except Canada, Mexico, Jordan, and Israel. Bush 2 signed those awful bailouts in 2008… but they were also supported by Hillary Clinton and Obama. Bush 2 did a massive expansion of government into the healthcare sector with Medicare Part D, while Obama and Hillary supported a massive expansion of government into the healthcare sector with Obamacare. Eisenhower proposed Medicare, it was signed into law by LBJ. That deregulation of the oil industry that Carter dragged his feet on and Reagan accelerated – that came after Carter imposed a windfall profits tax on the oil industry and made the whole situation worse.

    I’m just not seeing a big difference.

  82. paulie

    So, let’s assume you are 100% correct. Conservatarian fusionism is the single biggest obstacle to liberty and is the single biggest reason why dthe LP electorally ineffectual.

    How do you propose to rid the LP and LM of these dastardly interlopers?

    I don’t know if I can. The disease may be terminal. I’ve seen some signs of hope but many signs of regression and worse. It will have to be a long struggle of cultural and generational change not just in the party but also the larger movement from which it came and which it helped grow, probably over decades. Success is far from assured, but may not yet be impossible. I don’t think I will play any significant role in it if it ends up happening, if that’s your question, and I don’t have any brilliant strategy for making it happen.

  83. paulie

    Fusionism is the single biggest obstacle for libertarianism to be taken seriously as a path to liberty. Obviously, the single biggest obstacle for LP electoral viability is money. And the winner take all voting system is the single biggest reason why a 3rd party will never have any.

    One flows from the other. You are entirely correct about the first part. Money follows being taken seriously.Viability follows more money, and also attracts yet more money. Winner take all is an impediment, but one that can be overcome as some other countries and certain US states at certain times have shown.

  84. paulie

    I don’t know if I can. The disease may be terminal. I’ve seen some signs of hope but many signs of regression and worse. It will have to be a long struggle of cultural and generational change not just in the party but also the larger movement from which it came and which it helped grow, probably over decades. Success is far from assured, but may not yet be impossible. I don’t think I will play any significant role in it if it ends up happening, if that’s your question, and I don’t have any brilliant strategy for making it happen.

    The other thing is that it may come from external sources. The right is becoming more and more authoritarian, and will be harder and harder for conservatarian fusionists to defend as any kind of ally as that becomes more pronounced in time. Steve Bannon said he wants to make the NSGOP a “working people’s party” in several years, meaning using government force to curtail markets in order to appeal to working class populism mixed with nationalism and authoritarianism, which is pretty much exactly fascism. I may be wrong, but it’s going to be pretty hard for libertarian-conservative fusionists to defend an alliance with fascists, even if the Democrats take a hard left turn of the Sanders-Warren-AOC sort.

  85. dL

    I’m just not seeing a big difference.

    Between Reagan/Bush GOP and Clinton/Obama Dems, I would agree.

    Bush 1 signed NAFTA, not Clinton, although Clinton supported it

    Reagan was the impetus, but Clinton was the one who signed it. I do recall that Gore vs Perot CNN NAFTA debate where Gore more or less ate Perot’s lunch.

  86. robert capozzi

    A generic person can be “qualified” (having the background seen as a necessary prerequisite for doing a job) and also having done acts that should be cause for dismissal. I’ve known many over the years.

  87. paulie

    Yet somehow even in the face of overwhelming exonerating evidence

    Such as? Mueller never exonerated anyone, he just couldn’t find legally provable evidence of conspiracy because he was stymied too much in his investigation, or perhaps refused to say that he had because he was concerned about the fallout. He all but said he had enough to indict for obstruction. The only reason he did not was DOJ policy of not indicting sitting presidents, and it’s for that same reason he has not said he would if he could.

    Lots of people think the Steele dossier is absurd because they are only familiar with the most lurid claims contained therein. Yet nothing in the dossier has been proven false, and more and more things in it keep being proven true after Trump and those surrounding him denied them. Whether it be various people in his campaign going to Europe to meet with people from the Russian government or connected to it, or what have you. Trump’s claims about not having spent the night at the Moscow hotel, or not having had visitors, or not having made repeated trips there – all now proven false.

    So… try actually reading that dossier and the full public version of the Mueller report for starters….exonerated? I don’t think so.

    Again those things are just the tip of the iceberg. Just because there have been investigation that doesn’t mean they uncovered everything there is to uncover. There’s evidence that multiple election departments in multiple states were hacked into. For what purpose? While no evidence of electronic manipulation of the vote count has been proven, that does not mean it did not happen.

    There were all kinds of games played to scare people into thinking they would be arrested if they went to vote if they had warrants or if someone in their family or household is undocumented. There were people who were misled to believe they could vote in the actual election through online or phone text polls and “skip the election day lines” to wait to vote. We are now very used to Trump and his corner calling mainstream media fake news, but what about the role played by actual national enquirer style fake news accounts amplifying the message which could also be found in official Kremlin linked news sources through US social media? I saw plenty of it in action myself. I’ve read a lot about these same methods being used to manipulate elections in other countries. Lots has come out about how Russian agencies, the Trump campaign, and certain US and UK companies worked together to get, compile and manipulate data to target these underhanded tactics most precisely.

    I mean 80,000 votes in three states to sway the electoral vote in an election the other side won by 3 million votes nationally. This is Trump’s “mandate” and “landslide” .

    What role did Comey play? He announced with a lot of fanfare that he was reopening an investigation into Clinton just in time to sway the polls at a crucial juncture very late in the campaign. Then announced they were closing it again, but literally too late for the news to reach a lot of voters in time before they voted or made up their minds which way they would vote. Then he refused to pledge personal allegiance to Trump and got fired. Mueller is a friend and ally of his, so I get the sense that their role is more complicated than what can be seen on the surface. Maybe they want Trump and his junta in office but certain concessions for themselves and their friends to ensure they will maintain some level of power and/or immunity for past deeds?

    With a win as narrow as it was, there are many factors each of which can separately explain Trump’s win, collusion in fact being one, and Clinton’s own arrogance in the way she ran her campaign being another, but Comey also separately probably swayed it more than enough to make the difference. Then played a very different sort of role afterwards. Mueller’s report has likewise been used first by one side then the other. Something is definitely going on there but what? If they were an anti-Trump conspiracy they wouldn’t have facilitated him coming to power to start with.

    No one has been exonerated, and even if they had been, that wouldn’t make Trump any less of an existential threat to the economy, world peace, and life on earth above cockroach level. He’s still the same loose cannon he would be even if this exonerating evidence existed, rather than as is the case the opposite being true.

  88. paulie

    It eases remaining on the ballot and helps Greens in the short run because they were already knocked off in Texas and this gets them back on, but in the long run it hurts all other parties because of the filing fees for candidates. As I mentioned in your comments I don’t see much likelihood that CP or SP will get on in Texas.

  89. dL

  90. paulie

    It’s more their friend than small business is, at least if you consider who their policies really benefit.

  91. dL

    A generic person can be “qualified” (having the background seen as a necessary prerequisite for doing a job) and also having done acts that should be cause for dismissal. I’ve known many over the years.

    I haven’t known many who openly prefer qualified over criminality after the fact.

  92. paulie

    Still want to know what made Trump qualified.

    Was it the bone spur deferment? Ripping off employees, contractors, and would be and actual business partners left and right? Repeated history of rental discrimination even after being found guilty of it? Lying about his net worth? Long standing history of financial fraud? Pathological lying about all sorts of things? Multiple allegations of sexual assault up to and including forcible rape? Long history of laundering money for organized crime? Multiple divorces and infedilities? Constant lawsuits and threats thereof? Many failing businesses, bailed out by his father over and over and criminal elements after that? Ridiculous birther bullshit and other racist crap like having black employees moved off the casino floor when he toured the property?

    Is it the many activities that make him highly susceptible to blackmail, bribes and flattery, the traditional tools of foreign intelligence operations? The constant bragging and one upmanship hot temper? The obvious childish feelings of inadequacy and need to constantly overcompensate? The short attention span? The dislike of reading? The open admiration for and often expressed desire to have the powers of foreign dictators, alive as well as dead?

    Maybe it’s the many past friends and associates who ended up in prison. Perhaps it’s the long history of partnering with dictators, mobsters and conmen all over the world to cheat people when marketing condos, hotel rooms and vacation stays. Or perhaps all the slave labor and ripoffs employed in those businesses? The demagoguery used to get elected?

    As I think about the sum total of everything Drumpf has done in life I’m still wondering what made him “qualified.”

    He’s not a billionaire, and never has been. The only thing that makes him a “billionaire” is his own estimate of what his “brand” is worth. He has run every real business he has owned into the ground, and has been bailed out repeatedly in his small family owned licensing company. Even his reality show was tanking before he decided to make running for the presidency his new gig.

    His investments have not kept up with the stock market index fund. Literally, he would have been better off taking that loan from his father and putting it into an index fund, as far as his personal or family wealth.

    All of his past and present ventures since college – foundation, organization/business, transition, campaign, administration – are under multiple criminal investigations as we speak, state and federal. The Trump name on his buildings in NYC and quite a few countries has a negative value, tanking in price in the middle of a real estate boom only due to being associated with him. Many key associates are starting to be indicted and going to prison, with many more to come.

    He has benefited from a combination of continuing momentum from the Obama recovery and many US business owners and relatively well off investors and consumers buying into the false narrative of him as a great businessman and deal maker. That house of cards is going to fall apart as his deals tank. His trade wars are already causing a global economic slowdown, and while it hasn’t hit the US first, its shockwaves will end up causing major economic damage here. As confidence collapses the image of him as a great deal maker for the country will too, and at that point the economy will get whacked really hard.

    As his popularity falters, he will no doubt gin up a war, or several, to try to give it a short term boost. Especially if tanks before the election.

    Worst president ever won’t even be the relevant standard. At that question the relevant standard will be worst leader of any country at any time in history. And that’s a very concerning thing given today’s technology and a president with the temper of a two year old child.

  93. robert capozzi

    pf,

    Surely you recall that I don’t support Trump. Still, in 20 he will be “qualified” because he’d have been prez 3.5 years.

    In 16, his qualifications were not standard by any means. He was a TV celebrity and a well-known business person. Much of his reputation was pumped up and exaggerated, of course.

    He will be far more qualified in the common understanding of what that means in 20 vs Vermin or the NAPists. He was less qualified than GJ in 16.

    You may be overthinking this one….

  94. robert capozzi

    pf,

    As for whether DJT will be the worst prez ever, he certainly has that potential. However, if he resigned today (we can hope!), I can think of many who were more damaging to domestic and world tranquility. He’s governed “better” than I expected, but poorly. Importantly, I fear that his poor stewardship of the budget might have doomed us to economic cataclysm. I hope not.

  95. dL

    Qualified is nowhere near a statement of preference.

    Except when you make it it one like you did above in stating a preference for Trump over VS because Trump is more “qualified.”

  96. George Phillies

    Some readers would suggest that Buchanan and the men who came immediately before him were as bad as you can get. There was this Civil War, for which they, not to mention Stephen Douglas and the Kansas-Nebraska act get some blame. It has been argued that if President Taylor had not died he would have caused the Civil War, a decade early, over the Western border of Texas.

  97. robert capozzi

    Again, I did not state a preference for Trump. He’s more “qualified” than Vermin and the NAPists by any conventional meaning of the term. I will not vote for Trump; I might vote for Vermin as a goof, but when I voted for GJ I both supported him AND I believed him to be more qualified for the job. HRC was even MORE qualified than GJ, but I did not support her, either.

  98. paulie

    Still, in 20 he will be “qualified” because he’d have been prez 3.5 years.

    You mean, he because he hasn’t been removed for high crimes and misdemeanors, removed for mental incompetence, got himself assassinated, stroked out from an overdose of ire while tweeting on the toilet or watching faux news, didn’t start a nuclear war, and didn’t die of natural causes? Well, it remains to be seen, there’s still over a year to go. But even if he does manage to avoid all those things for the entire four years I’m not going to concede that winning the prior election automatically makes him more qualified than he was before. I realize that a lot of people do so I understand what you are saying. I’m just not one of them.

  99. paulie

    As for whether DJT will be the worst prez ever, he certainly has that potential. However, if he resigned today (we can hope!), I can think of many who were more damaging to domestic and world tranquility.

    I agree, thus far his incompetence and some good luck has prevented him from doing much more damage, and if he strokes out on aforementioned toilet at 4 am tomorrow he is not yet among the worst presidents in terms of his actual achievements. He is in intent, but it’s taking him some time to find the “right” people to actually have both the willingness and ability to carry out his malevolent and disgusting plans, get enough judges on enough courts to make it all “legal,” etc.

    He’s governed “better” than I expected, but poorly. Importantly, I fear that his poor stewardship of the budget might have doomed us to economic cataclysm. I hope not.

    Agreed, again. I would only add that it’s not for lack of trying, and he’s getting better at it over time so I would not let the lack of world class catastrophe to date lull us into a false complacency. The danger is getting worse, not better, as he is in there longer.

  100. robert capozzi

    pf: I’m not going to concede that winning the prior election automatically makes him more qualified than he was before.

    me: Thanks, I’ll take that amendment. Generally, when someone has relevant experience, they can be deemed “qualified,” although, of course, not necessarily the best candidate. But, sure, if DJT has a stroke and he can barely speak from that malady, most would say he’s not qualified for reasons of health . If he was taped throwing Baron off a White House balcony, that too would be disqualifying, I suspect, even among his supporters. If he’s impeached and convicted by the Congress, that would be complete destruction of his qualifications.

  101. robert capozzi

    pf: The danger is getting worse, not better, as he is in there longer.

    me: Tend to agree, although Pence is no walk in the park. He does seem very measured to me, which is generally a virtue.

  102. Jim

    I was trying to figure out how much the Texas filing fee would be if the Texas LP ran the same candidates that it did in 2018. If the filing fee schedule listed here https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/EL/htm/EL.172.htm in Sec. 172.024 is what is used, then:

    US Senate 1 x $5,000
    US House 31 x $3,125
    Statewide Office 9 x $3,750
    State Senate 8 x $1,250
    State Representative 27 x $750
    State Board of Education 2 x $300
    County Judge more than 1.5 M population 3 x $2,500
    County Judge less than 1.5 M population 1 x $1,500
    County official more than 200 T population 6 x $1,250
    County official less than 200 T population 1 x $750
    Justice of the Peace more than 200 T population 11 x $1,000

    That’s 100 candidates and $194,725.

    2018 wasn’t even a big year for the Texas LP. By my count, back in 2006 it had 171 candidates that would have qualified for these fees.

  103. Losty

    Paulie,

    You are right about the Great Orange… (I can’t think of a word to go here usable in mixed company).

    That is why Amash intrigues me as a candidate.

    When the Senate is abdicating its role in just about anything, when The Attorney General is Roy Cohn with authority, and when the Judiciary is hanging by a thread, and I’m not sure about that…

    We must see what they are doing under cover of law. History doesn’t repeat, but it damn sure rhymes.

    When fascism is on be ballot, you must do anything to vote against it, and work against it. Assuming the Judiciary isn’t completely gone by then. If so, Get your passport ready… (Didn’t anyone think that the Wall wasn’t to keep ‘them” out, But to keep “Us” in?) And as far as the ballot? remember: There was a vote to Annex Austria.

    Amash is not a Libertarian. Nope. But there have been non-libertarian candidates before, and at no more important of a time than now.

    Name Recognition: there is no more name recognition as someone who is being attacked by Drumpf. If he is a candidate do you not think they will attack him every day? Maybe even more than the Democrat? Think what would happen if he were to announce that he was leaving the RP and serving as an LP… Heck, For all his questionable views, History will be kind to him, and maybe the party as a whole.

    I expect He will receive Financial backing to run a race.

    I would not say a competitive race for the Presidency, But then again Johnson didn’t pack his bags for Washington. Neither did Badnarik, Marrou, or anyone else for that matter. If you are looking for 270 it is not coming. If you are looking for 1 I am not sure either. But if he loses 5-10% of Republicans,(2-4 in the right states) and the Independents break for the D, The Election is over today. More than that, it’s a Landslide, and may have down-ticket ramifications if the party (Or Him if he recommends folks) can get people to run for Senate to do the same thing in the South and other selected Senate races…

    Will he be elected? No he will not.

    I don’t remember a President Gary Johnson, Barr, Marrou, or any other LP candidate either. That is not a consideration.

    The Libertarian party believes in the Constitution and the Rule of law. There are major issues I have with it, and with any party, but that is what it says. Saving the Republic would be a big help to constitutional governance. And Saving the republic would be something the Libertarian party could play a role in that will be remembered even if none of it’s candidates are elected.

    The Enemy of my Enemy is my friend, and the Enemy may just be everything held dear…

  104. dL

  105. dL

    When fascism is on be ballot, you must do anything to vote against it

    Well, vote for Joe Biden, then. I eludes me how that is supposedly an argument to run a 4th straight exiled Republican for the libertarian ticket.

  106. dL

    Again, I did not state a preference for Trump. He’s more “qualified” than Vermin and the NAPists by any conventional meaning of the term.

    Bob, the conventional meaning of the term includes criminality as a disqualifying factor. By the Justin Amash standard, any reasonably honest person aged >=35 who can read and write is more qualified for POTUS than Trump.

  107. robert capozzi

    Being accused of a crime — informally, in this case — isn’t “criminality.” 101.

  108. Jared

    dL: “By the Justin Amash standard, any reasonably honest person aged >=35 who can read and write is more qualified for POTUS than Trump.”

    I’m pretty sure the Justin Amash standard also includes a law degree, over a decade of state and federal legislative experience, and a proven regard for Constitutional constraints. Trump is… well, over 35.

  109. dL

    Being accused of a crime — informally, in this case — isn’t “criminality.” 101.

    The due process clause does not apply to impeachment, nor is there any unanimity requirement in the jury of peers(the legislature) to impeach or convict. Simple majority. It is manifestly evident that Amash would vote to impeach. As I specified, the Justin Amash standard. Assertion stands.

  110. dL

    I’m pretty sure the Justin Amash standard also includes a law degree, over a decade of state and federal legislative experience, and a proven regard for Constitutional constraints. Trump is… well, over 35.

    “The Amash standard” simply refers to the fact Amash thinks Trump should be impeached for criminal behavior. I only bring it up because Bob is simultaneously pimping Amash for the LP ticket while also claiming Trump is more qualified as POTUS than any run of the mill principled libertarian candidate. In my neck of the woods, that’s called cognitive dissonance.

  111. Chuck Moulton

    Paulie,

    “Obstruction” is what the government goes after people for and convicts them for when the underlying charge was complete bullshit. There is “no there there” to the Russian collusion canard. The Muller report completely exonerates Trump and his associates on that. You are moving the goal posts because you have Trump derangement syndrome.

    Muller went well beyond his investigative mandate, not short of it. He relentlessly attacked people and brought them up on all sorts of miscellaneous charges to try to turn them against Trump. Even with all of that abuse of power, he came up with nothing. All of the media and liberals whining about Russian collusion for over a year have been shown to be off their rockers. And you’re one of them. It is on par with the birther conspiracy theory — or worse.

    Did some of Trump’s associates or Trunp himself engage in “obstruction”, while amnoyed at the the baseless witchhunt? Maybe. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the underlying Russian collusion canard of which you drank the Kool Aid.

    As always, I am not a fan of Trump. Please stop being batshit crazy so I don’t have to defend him against your baseless Andy level conspiracy theory rumor-mongering.

  112. dL

    “Obstruction” is what the government goes after people for and convicts them for when the underlying charge was complete bullshit.

    True. Libertarians generally should have little regard for crimes against the FBI. So that just means that in this instance crimes against humanity and the treasury will just have to do.

  113. dL

    Muller went well beyond his investigative mandate, not short of it. He relentlessly attacked people and brought them up on all sorts of miscellaneous charges to try to turn them against Trump. Even with all of that abuse of power, he came up with nothing.

    Why in the fuck then Chuck are you pimping Justin “Read the Mueller report” Amash?

  114. SocraticGadfly

    Robert Capozzi:

    Was James Buchanan “qualified” after being president 3.5 years? Andy Johnson?

    ==

    Phillies:

    No, Southern fire-eaters would have caused a war in 1850, had Taylor lived, not Taylor. Just as they did in 1860-61.

    Of course, it was pure racism against “dirty Mezzicans” that kept New Mexico from being a state LONG after it met the population requirement. Hell, TR said he’d admit it IF it rejoined Arizona and they came in as one state.

  115. SocraticGadfly

    Jim:

    Candidates in Texas have the option of petition signatures rather than filing fees.

    And, those standards are lower than they are for a party to get statewide ballot access.

    As I noted in the piece, I don’t like the requirement, and Springer had pimped the original version of the bill, without the lowered ballot access, for the two previous Legislatures. But, from the Green POV, it’s better than nothing, especially with the signatures option.

  116. paulie

    If he is a candidate do you not think they will attack him every day?

    Probably not. The Democrats and Republicans will be far too busy attacking each other to waste a lot of time on anyone else. Amash has a flurry of publicity now because he is the first Republican congressman to come out in public and say he favors impeachment. That publicity is unlikely to last. Even with that publicity I would venture his name recognition is probably still well below water. If you have time and inclination to see whether this is true, I am interested. You would have to poll an at least somewhat representative sample of the electorate. And even if I am wrong and most people have actually heard of him now and remember the name and who he is (it won’t help us if they are trying to remember whether he’s a hockey player or straight-to-video film actor) will they remember in a year or more?

    I expect He will receive Financial backing to run a race.

    It could happen, I guess. It’s more likely it would not to a greater extent than previously, and especially not at game changing levels.

    But if he loses 5-10% of Republicans,(2-4 in the right states)

    Republicans are more solidly for Trump than they have been for their past presidents or Democrats for theirs. As a result, Amash is unlikely to peel off a lot of Republican votes. He may actually pick up more votes from those who would have otherwise voted for the Democrats, as counterintuitive as that may seem. But that’s what at least one poll shows him doing right now if he ran as a LP candidate. I saw the news story and don’t remember where and don’t feel like looking for it again. Feel free to see if you can find it, of course.

    down-ticket ramifications

    For whom, Libertarians? Seems rather unlikely, if that’s what you meant.

    The Enemy of my Enemy is my friend,

    That’s the thought process the duopoly uses to herd as many people as possible to vote for them. I don’t think it helps the LP or anyone outside the duopoly. If the enemy of my enemy is my friend we can have only two sides, enemy and friend. One side gets half of the planet and the other gets the rest, with no room for anyone else. Or they take turns to rule and misrule all of it. No one gets to leave, nor anywhere to go. It’s not what I want and hopefully you don’t either.

  117. paulie

    Being accused of a crime — informally, in this case — isn’t “criminality.”

    The standards for judging someone likely enough to have committed crimes to not vote them in for another presidential term are a good deal less stringent than they are (or ought to be) for deeming that they should be criminally convicted and deprived of life, liberty or property.

  118. robert capozzi

    I presume that Amash is correct, that “impeachable offenses” have been committed. However, unless and until the impeachment and conviction process is completed, DJT is “qualified,” more qualified in 20 than in 16. If he’s convicted by the Senate, then DJT is not qualified for ANY office.

    To be “qualified” is above and beyond from the constitutional standard of natural-born citizens over 35. It’s my sense of the overwhelming and widely held subjective standard. My sense is that 99% of voters would say that Vermin and the NAPists are NOT qualified, although some might support them and their views. My guess is that on both counts, their support would be less than 1%.

    My sense is that — in a blind test — a sitting Congressman, Senator, and an incumbent President would all be considered “qualified” broadly. Someone who has never been elected to anything and who has never been covered by the national news for anything would be considered “unqualified” EVEN IF s/he was a 35yo citizen.

    There are MANY reasons not to vote for DJT in 20. In my case, I can’t think of one reason to vote for him. The Mueller report’s findings don’t change MY PERSONAL assessment; I would like to see the House begin impeachment inquiries. But that would not change my vote, since it’s already a big, fat NO WAY.

    SG,

    Yes, Buchanan and Johnson would have been considered “qualified” at the time, IIRC.

    All,

    It should be clear: to be viewed as “qualified” is not the same as “supportable.” HRC was the most qualified in 16, but I would not vote for her. I’m frankly stunned that there’s any confusion on the matter.

  119. dL

    I presume that Amash is correct, that “impeachable offenses” have been committed. However, unless and until the impeachment and conviction process is completed, DJT is “qualified,” more qualified in 20 than in 16. If he’s convicted by the Senate, then DJT is not qualified for ANY office.

    This is politics, not a criminal trial. If you thought Trump should be impeached or presumed he should be impeached, you don’t need a vote in the congress or senate to know you wouldn’t vote for the guy as dog catcher. But if it makes you feel better, Bob, Chuck surged past you in capturing the cognitive dissonance mantle in this thread. Trump is the victim of a scandalous witch hunt by Mueller and the Dems, but Chuck nonetheless is just fine with the “Read the Mueller Report” guy partisan dems are crediting for swinging public opinion for impeachment heading the LP ticket.

  120. paulie

    “Obstruction” is what the government goes after people for and convicts them for when the underlying charge was complete bullshit.

    Incorrect. Obstruction is often what it settles for because it’s easier to prove than the underlying charge. It is, legitimately, a separate and distinct crime. It may or may not be circumstantial evidence that the underlying charge could be true even when there is not enough evidence to prove the underlying charge in court. Why exactly would people who know better engage in obstruction if the underlying charge is bullshit? Either it isn’t, or they have some other reason for playing those games. Perhaps there’s some other criminal behavior they are trying to keep from coming to light. Maybe they are just so used to covering up crimes that it’s second nature to them. Whatever the case may be, there’s a good reason why obstruction is its own separate crime. That reason isn’t just to rack up convictions or fill more beds in jails and prisons. It’s because obstruction undermines the legal system, especially when practiced by those who are supposed to ensure the laws are faithfully executed (and not in the sense of being put to death).

    There is “no there there” to the Russian collusion canard.

    Baloney. I detailed just a few of the many reasons why I believe not only that there is plenty of there there but that it should be pretty obvious, at least in layman’s terms. You ignored all those points and there is plenty more where they came from. I may or may not find time to list additional ones.

    The Muller report completely exonerates Trump and his associates on that.

    Yet more baloney. The report does no such thing. It just does not find enough evidence to show a conspiracy in a court of law. That’s far from proving no conspiracy existed. There are many, many reasons to believe it did, and quite probably still does. Why couldn’t Mueller prove it? Perhaps the evidence was well enough obstructed that he could not find enough to make a solid legal case. Perhaps he is really covering up at least to some extent for Trump, maybe not quite as much as Trump would like. As I mentioned earlier he and Comey have played a rather strange role in the 2016 campaign and subsequent investigations; I’m not sure what their endgame is but it is not necessarily to help Democrats or even to be neutral. Perhaps it’s to strengthen their own hand, and that of the intel agencies and certain factions therein, in the power struggles to come.

    Comey played a not insignificant role in making it possible for Trump to be elected, then was fired early in the new administration for not pledging personal loyalty to the Mango Mussolini. The investigation of that firing yielded the Mueller report, headed up by his friend and ally, and likewise split things down the middle in a way not entirely satisfactory to either Democrats or Republicans. There may be some kind of ulterior motives to all this, or not. I know only that I don’t know.

    Another possibility is that the report was the most Mueller could say under directives from the new AG. Barr was nominated after he auditioned unsolicited with what amounted to a promise to curtail that investigation. He could only do so much without making it too obvious and drawing heat on himself, but it’s likely he exerted pressure to finish the investigation and write a report faster than would have happened otherwise and may have forbidden or not allowed enough time for investigators to follow additional leads which would have changed the conclusions. He may have also demanded that the conclusions not exceed certain parameters if it was to see the light of day at all.

    Mueller and his team put in a huge amount of time and effort into their investigation, so it would be understandable if they accepted a compromise of ending the investigation early and drawing limited conclusions rather than having it shut down without being allowed to summarize or make public any conclusions at all.

    We know that after the report Barr publicly mischaracterized its findings, which is not the first time he has done something like that. He did something similar when he served in the same role in the Bush administration. He has engaged in other obstruction after the fact and continues to do so. It seems pretty easy to believe he may have obstructed the investigation or curtailed its findings in some way, even supposing Mueller didn’t constrain them himself for reasons that remain unknown to me but which would seem consistent with the strange role his buddy Comey has played in the sum total of these matters.

    You are moving the goal posts because you have Trump derangement syndrome.

    I’ve not moved any goalposts at all. I believe there was and still is conspiracy/collusion, and likely ongoing espionage, blackmail and/or bribery, quite likely all of these and most likely ongoing. Trump, Barr et al are still ignoring congressional subpoenas and withholding documents and witnesses even now. What are they hiding if there were never any crimes committed? Just since we began this conversation a few days ago, Trump has joined several of his aides and family members in saying he would welcome additional foreign interference on his behalf in the 2020 campaign. He would welcome dirt on his opponents from foreign governments, he said. If they have dirt on his opponents are we supposed to believe they have none on him? Why would any president say something like that? Why would anyone seeking the presidency, much less a second term, ask foreign governments to spy on American politicians and interfere in the US election? What’s he going to say if foreign governments interfere against him being elected again, or against a future Republican seeking the presidency?

    You have Trump denial syndrome, or Trump Stockholm Syndrome. Or maybe it’s Trump Pyongyang Syndrome. Whatever the hell it is it’s not healthy and I hope an antidote is discovered soon before we lose the freedom to even talk about it without fear of being carted off to the prison and death camps at any moment.

    Muller went well beyond his investigative mandate, not short of it.

    Bullshit.

    He relentlessly attacked people and brought them up on all sorts of miscellaneous charges to try to turn them against Trump.

    He discovered evidence of crimes and used it to collect further evidence for the crimes he was charged with investigating. That’s standard detective procedure. Watergate prosecutors and Ken Starr went a lot further.

    Even with all of that abuse of power, he came up with nothing.

    He came up with evidence that has already resulted in several convictions and prison terms, including for the campaign chair and personal lawyer and decades long fixer for the Trump gang. Other indictments are already happening or likely to happen. The Watergate investigation ended up with 69 people going to prison, the last of whom were not charged until a decade later. This mess is a lot bigger than Watergate and likely to result in even more indictments and convictions, and perhaps longer to unpack. The investigations are starting, not ending. Information and leads uncovered by the Mueller team are being investigated by multiple prosecutors, both state and federal, executive branch, judicial and congressional alike. More evidence and leads being uncovered every day. Sooner or later it will intersect with more evidence being uncovered by other governments. Trump and Barr can’t pardon people convicted by state courts nor can they shut down all those investigations. I don’t see a way for them to contain all of it short of complete martial law. And even then the evidence is coming out more and more internationally. Can the US effectively quarantine its citizens from foreign information better than the Soviet Union could?

    All of the media and liberals whining about Russian collusion for over a year have been shown to be off their rockers.

    By whom, and how? You have not even attempted to address all the evidence that it actually happened. Not even the small parts of it I referred to. You go from misinterpreting the alleged lack of finding enough evidence to bring indictments to proof positive it did not happen. That’s absurd and you should know better. With your legal training I would find it hard to believe that you don’t. I don’t know why you would make such obviously absurd claims other than out of some kind of denial or dissonance over extent of the clear and present danger. Maybe you hope to not join me in the death camps if you deny what’s happening because you were on the winning side which says it isn’t. Or maybe you just don’t want to admit to yourself or anyone else how close we are getting to that. I have no idea.

    And you’re one of them.

    I’m one of what? “Liberals” as the term has come to be understood in the US? I would dismantle every last bit of the big government programs they have built and attack people daily for even suggesting slowing down the growth rate of. Media? I barely even post articles to IPR anymore. Shown to be off my rocker? Perhaps, if you think you have conclusive proof of something. I have not seen such alleged proof. Neither has anyone else that I know of. At best you can say one investigation, which you seem to be so confident found everything it could find (why?), failed to find enough evidence to draw those conclusions. You should know better that to claim this is proof positive of any kind of exoneration. Or to think everyone else would believe that without actual exonerating evidence. If you have any, what is it?

    It is on par with the birther conspiracy theory — or worse.

    Let’s not forget Trump was the biggest proponent of that one in public. How is it on par or worse? To accept the premise or birtherism we would have to believe that a teenage girl in 1960 flew across the Atlantic and back without anyone remembering her being on the flights pregnant in one direction and not the other. There would have to be all sorts of document concealing and forging going on. Why would anyone bother? What was so unique about Obama that someone who actually was born in the US couldn’t have been tapped if he had that issue threatening to dislodge him at any time? It’s pretty obvious that birtherism was fueled by racism and other types of bigotry.

    On the other hand there is nothing about collusion between Trump, his campaign and Putin and his friends that contradicts known evidence or their patterns of behavior in other situations. There was clear cui bono motive. There was obvious opportunity. There’s been rolling denials/revelations and ongoing, obvious attempt to stymie investigations, withhold evidence, lie about what happened, change stories repeatedly, order, bribe and threaten witnesses – every element of evidence is there. Why would Trump insist on repeated private meetings with Putin and his agents and order no aides present, even order interprters to destroy notes and swear to secrecy? Why so many meetings between so many in the Trump family and campaign and so many government connected Russians followed by so many lies told so many times about those meetings by so many people? It just goes and on and on from there.

    Seems pretty damn obvious there was in fact a there there. Why was Mueller unable or unwilling to prove it? Beats me. But there is no way shape or form it amounts to exoneration of any kind. And you should know better.

    Did some of Trump’s associates or Trunp himself engage in “obstruction”,

    Yes, lots of them, yes, himself included, no, it should not be in quotes, and yes, it’s still going on. If you somehow fail or just refuse to consider all the evidence that we already have in the public domain that a conspiracy did and still does exist which includes elements of the present US and Russian governments, you should at least seriously consider what it is that they covering up so dilligently and why.

    “amnoyed at the the baseless witchhunt? ”

    LOL. It was neither, although baseless whitewash is not out of the question. I suspected it might be long before the report came out. I think I said as much at times …not sure if here.

    But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the underlying Russian collusion canard of which you drank the Kool Aid.

    It isn’t a canard, lots of all kinds of evidence for it and more coming out every single day. If anyone has drunk kool aid here it’s you. So many people have put themselves in criminal jeopardy, as well as jeopardized their professional licenses, reputation and future employment because they were “annoyed”? I don’t believe that for a second, and if you think about it at all I don’t believe you do either. It’s just not realistic. It would have been far easier to cooperate fully, disclose every last bit of evidence asked for and then some, tell the truth and stick to it, never waiver in the facts being disclosed, and a “baseless witchhunt” would have gone nowhere. That is the opposite of how the Trump team handled it. Ask yourself why. Why so many lies and rolling disclosures and changing stories and attempts to hide what happened if nothing bad happened to begin with?

    As always, I am not a fan of Trump.

    That’s good. But you are also unwilling to admit that he is the massive unprecedented disaster and threat that he is or that he is an ever growing danger the longer he stays in office. I can see how those possibilities would be unpleasant to face. It threatens your world perspective in some way to imagine I may be correct here. Maybe it’s something as simple as not wanting either of the duopoly parties to be much worse than the other. I agree, they are both terrible and we should not give in to support either one merely for fear and hate of the other. I still say that with Trump being one of the choices. Maybe you have been immunized enough by repeated catastrophizing not yielding the warned of hazards – after a while it becomes hard to believe that this time there really could be a wolf. Maybe you don’t want to believe that something this bad is happening in this country now. I don’t know what reasons you have.

    Please stop being batshit crazy so I don’t have to defend him against your baseless Andy level conspiracy theory rumor-mongering.

    Oh please. What have I said that’s as hard to believe as school shootings have been faked as in the kids never died there? Or the school had been closed before that happened? Are there whole towns and all sorts of visitors that would have to be in on the conspiracy? Were major US news networks flouting birtherism and “Sandy Hook faked” and white genocide BS non-stop for a year or two? I mean maybe, if you consider Infowars to be a major news network.

    I’ve mentioned a variety of evidence that collusion happened. Your response is a bunch of name calling, hand waving and denial supported by…strength of denial. Kind of like how Trump always says is the reason we should believe e.g. Putin or MBS when they deny something “he denied it strongly. You can’t dispute he denied it strongly.” Not evidence, not facts, just strength of conviction, insults, and concluding that failure to indict or draw legal conclusions is the same thing as exoneration when you, I and just about anyone else obviously know better.

    Way too much time spent on this and I will try not to keep doing it. Just keep watching and see what else comes out. I hope it does not take you too long to see what is happening to be even able to try to do anything about it. Or maybe we are already there and my craziness is in being one of the few here to not realize it yet.

  121. paulie

    True. Libertarians generally should have little regard for crimes against the FBI.

    In cases where they are investigating regular people, agreed. In cases when they are investigating criminal actions by those in high positions in government and their associates I would have to disagree.

  122. paulie

    Candidates in Texas have the option of petition signatures rather than filing fees.

    And, those standards are lower than they are for a party to get statewide ballot access.

    When you say lower, what numbers are you using for comparison?

    But, from the Green POV, it’s better than nothing, especially with the signatures option.

    True in the short term – they would have been unlikely to get on the 2020 ballot otherwise – but is that really true in the long term, even for the Greens?

  123. dL

    Why exactly would people who know better engage in obstruction if the underlying charge is bullshit?

    Lots of reasons. See Martha Stewart circa 2001.

    Whatever the case may be, there’s a good reason why obstruction is its own separate crime.

    Yes, to preserve the validity of the statement “every American is guilty of committing 3 felonies a day.” If the FBI can’t actually find three, then they they can just tag you with 3 counts of OoJ.

  124. paulie

    Yes, to preserve the validity of the statement “every American is guilty of committing 3 felonies a day.” If the FBI can’t actually find three, then they they can just tag you with 3 counts of OoJ.

    You and others here should be able to distinguish when they investigate the rest of us and when they investigate those who hold government power or aid and abet others in getting to wield it. If obstruction wasn’t a crime in itself the incentives would all be to hide, destroy and mangle evidence. Do we want government officials to be even more above the law with even less opportunity to ever catch them in the act and hold them accountable no matter what they do?

  125. robert capozzi

    Correct, I would not vote for DJT for anything. At the moment, he is qualified and eligible for several offices.

  126. paulie

    My sense is that — in a blind test — a sitting Congressman, Senator, and an incumbent President would all be considered “qualified” broadly.

    In the real world there are no such blind tests. Until Trump all presidents as far back as I am thinking, and certainly in recent decades, were previously elected government officials or military officers who served in war and led military forces. Many had been both, and runners up, VPs and VP runners up were generally in these categories as well. By those standards he was not qualified.

    If he’s convicted by the Senate, then DJT is not qualified for ANY office.

    What if he pardons himself or gets pardoned by Pence and the Supreme Court votes 5-4 that’s OK? What if he is in fact convicted and removed, yet runs for another term? There’s nothing that would bar him from running. Not even anything allowing a state to keep him off the ballot or refuse to count his votes or refuse to sit his electors. People have run from prison quite a few times. What if he is in prison or on trial in a criminal procedure following removal by the Senate yet runs again – qualified or not?

    My sense is that 99% of voters would say that Vermin and the NAPists are NOT qualified, although some might support them and their views. My guess is that on both counts, their support would be less than 1%.

    Dunno. There’s never been a “NAPist” with the funding and/or fame to give it a true test. What if one wins the LP nomination and gets a wealthy person who doesn’t have a lot of time to campaign but is willing to make a huge donation to be on the ticket as VP? Or suppose we discover a megacelebrity who comes out of the closet as a “NAPist” and decides on a whim to campaign for president? Not likely, but likelier than it was four years ago IMO. What do you think? Is it an absolute fact that a hardcore ideological extreme libertarian could never get more than 1% no matter what? My sense of general election voters is that many of them would not care what craziness a candidate spews if they like them, and some just don’t pay enough attention to notice. Maybe even a lot more people than you think would start nodding their heads, or at least admire the honesty and bravery of taking such positions, which they never heard before because the people who were taking them didn’t have money or fame and got very little coverage. Maybe you are correct, but it’s far from being obviously true.

    Satire/joke candidates have done well in elections all over the world and in parts of the US, even won. One is President of Ukraine now. None has been elected president of the US yet, but there could be a first. Every president has been a first in some way or another. But there’s a lot of room between 1% and plurality. Vermin is not all that obscure; many people have at least heard of him. He is interesting enough that many more would if he got a nomination that carries ballot access in all or a large majority of states for the general election. If the choices are Trump and Biden or Trump and Sanders or any number of other combinations I can see a lot of people saying screw you to the process and its leading choices by voting for him. That may or may not happen but can you really say for sure it would not with certainty?

    There are MANY reasons not to vote for DJT in 20. In my case, I can’t think of one reason to vote for him. The Mueller report’s findings don’t change MY PERSONAL assessment; I would like to see the House begin impeachment inquiries. But that would not change my vote, since it’s already a big, fat NO WAY.

    Agreed.

    HRC was the most qualified in 16,

    She was most qualified to assume she would win and act in an entitled and arrogant manner which made her loss possible, among other factors.

  127. robert capozzi

    PF,

    One does not qualify for arrogance. Yes, she WAS arrogant, and also highly qualified. At least how those words are commonly used.

  128. robert capozzi

    More…

    Yes, it’s not impossible that a NAPist could catch fire. Odds are highly against that outcome, though.

  129. George Phillies

    Do not confuse impeachment and conviction with a criminal trial. If Trump is impeached and convicted, the Senate decides the penalty, which is in general removal from office, and then could include being rendered ineligible for any further office. Pardon does not refer to impeachment, because impeachemtn does not require a crime. Trump could also be subject to criminal trial, state or Federal.

  130. dL

    You and others here should be able to distinguish when they investigate the rest of us and when they investigate those who hold government power or aid and abet others in getting to wield it

    Given how they do investigate the rest of us, the FBI the American KGB should be abolished. Whatever they may or may not do vis a vis the political class–and whatever that whatever is, it is a quite discretionary exercise–is moot.

  131. robert capozzi

    pf: By those standards [DJT] was not qualified.

    me: Oh, I don’t disagree! DJT broke the mold. It’s not surprising that the first to do so was a well-known person, a celebrity.

    pf: There’s nothing that would bar him from running.

    Constitution: 7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law

  132. paulie

    One does not qualify for arrogance. Yes, she WAS arrogant, and also highly qualified. At least how those words are commonly used.

    That is correct. But part of political competence, even if you are in fact highly confident in your abilities and in being the most qualified, is to at least appear humble, gracious and not assured of winning. Hillary Clinton isn’t good at creating any of those impressions, if she even tries. I think she does at least try, somewhat, since she has high priced consultants to tell her these things and coach her on coming off correctly. If so, I don’t guess she is naturally suited for it, nor a very good actress.

    Of course Trump did not seem humble either, but he was the underdog, so he did not need to as much. This time it may be more of a problem for him to hold some of those folks who gave him a shot as an agent of change now that he will be the incumbent. I don’t get the sense he has picked up, or is even trying to pick up, much of anything in the way of supporters he did not already have. If that continues to be the case and especially if the economy tanks and investigations continue to bear more and more fruit, both of which I see as likely, I expect he will work hard to gin up a war, maybe even more than one. Will that be enough to give him a quick popularity artificial high long enough for a second term? That remains to be seen. It could be.

  133. paulie

    Yes, it’s not impossible that a NAPist could catch fire. Odds are highly against that outcome, though.

    Probably still pretty high against in any one cycle, but IMO getting better with time and eventually sooner or later if we keep at it we will either get lucky or achieve critical mass. Will it happen? Can’t say for sure, but eventually. It may or may not involve winning the presidency per se. Probably won’t, but I think we will get close enough to get a lot of people to consider our ideas separately, work to implement them through various means that don’t require a plurality, while putting enough pressure on the duopoly to move incrementally in our direction to get the ball rolling that way and once it starts rolling it will roll faster and faster, perhaps in a punctuated equilibrium type of graph, perhaps less quickly but either way I expect a monopoly government to either be replaced by voluntary solutions or at least largely irrelevant in most people’s lives before too long – this century, probably not past the mid century mark, my best guess. Maybe sooner.

    Will there be a political win as such? Likely some, most likely not at the very top level, and almost certainly not before governors, mayors of big cities, members of congress… but a lucky strike at the top is not impossible and becomes less implausible with successive attempts at a rate that slopes in our favor.

    My best guess.

  134. paulie

    Do not confuse impeachment and conviction with a criminal trial. If Trump is impeached and convicted, the Senate decides the penalty, which is in general removal from office, and then could include being rendered ineligible for any further office. Pardon does not refer to impeachment, because impeachemtn does not require a crime. Trump could also be subject to criminal trial, state or Federal.

    I don’t confuse impeachment with criminal trial, but I don’t know if it could conceivably be subject to presidential pardon, by Trump himself before a new president is sworn in or by his successor if it is Pence. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that a pardon can be issued before a conviction or even before an indictment. Correct me if that is not the case. I also understand there is controversy over what limits if any exist on pardon power. Apparently Trump believes that he has the power to pardon himself and has already said so. It’s not clear if that will hold up in court but I guess if he gets to pack the courts enough first it would should it come to that. Can the Senate make a person ineligible when they are otherwise eligible? Is that explicitly stated? If not, that may not hold up either.

    However, as I understand it he is in fact still subject to state trial and can’t pardon himself or be pardoned by his successor there. But then if everything needed to determine guilt is classified, maybe he could skate there too. Dunno. It may ultimately be decided by his appointees to the courts. Or maybe not.

  135. paulie

    American KGB should be abolished. Whatever they may or may not do vis a vis the political class–and whatever that whatever is, it is a quite discretionary exercise–is moot.

    What would be the remedy you would recommend if Trump was guilty of everything he has been accused of? Just let him keep damaging the country and pack the courts til he get engineer a second term by hook or by crook, or hell, call off the election or refuse to accept the vote as valid if he loses? No one would be empowered to investigate him as Mueller did? I’m not clear what you are suggesting. What if Hillary Clinton won? Think of some of the other people who ran over the years or served in that office. Should they have faced more investigation or less? Do we need an even more imperial and untouchable, above the law president, congress and/or judiciary?

  136. paulie

    Constitution: 7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law

    OK thanks …so that is explicitly in there. That helps. But can it be subject to pardon just like criminal cases? Can the president or the successor he picked self-pardon or self-pardon in effect? How would we know?

  137. dL

    What would be the remedy you would recommend if Trump was guilty of everything he has been accused of?

    Obviously, impeachment. I think he should be impeached for a laundry list of high crimes and misdemeanors besides lying to Bob Mueller. There was no FBI when Article II was drawn up.

  138. paulie

    There were not a lot of things we have today we didn’t have then either. I’d like to understand how congress would get to impeachment in real life today with no Mueller investigation. As it stands even that is just beginning to nudge them there.

  139. robert capozzi

    pf,

    All untested, but IF a prez is impeached and convicted by the Senate, he’s open to be charged criminally as well. He probably COULD pardon himself at 11:59 from criminal prosecution as he was being removed from office. He’d probably pardon his family, too.

    A boy can dream!

    Should this happen, I’d want a JA as the L prez candidate. He’d be a hero!

    Vermin’s hilarious, but those would not be times for a clown. You may WANT one of the NAPists to catch fire, but in such a scenario, I really just don’t see it.

  140. paulie

    Vermin’s hilarious, but those would not be times for a clown

    Are you sure? May be just what we need right now. Comedy is a traditional way to deal with real life tragedy. Gallows humor exists for a reason, for instance. Ukraine has gone through some heavy shit in recent years, far worse than the US and just elected a comedian/satirist as their president.

  141. dL

    I’d like to understand how congress would get to impeachment in real life today with no Mueller investigation. As it stands even that is just beginning to nudge them there.

    Well, first you can try to explain how you get to it WITH Mueller . You know, beyond wishful thinking. Meanwhile, the Hoover KGB boys go after journalists, anti-war activists, whistle blowers, political activists, etc, etc…

  142. robert capozzi

    pf,

    While anything’s possible, my guess is the US would not want one clown to replace another.

    And, c’mon, Vermin with the codes? Really?

    A sober and youthful congressman who called DJT on his bullshit? That’s compelling.

  143. paulie

    Well, first you can try to explain how you get to it WITH Mueller . You know, beyond wishful thinking.

    That’s easy enough. Reading the Mueller report is why many members of Congress, including committee chairs, are for impeachment, and why Amash is now for it. Barr’s mischaracterization of the report, refusal to produce documents and witnesses under congressional subpoena, etc is swinging more in that direction. So far the leadership is keeping it under wraps but even they admit it’s likely to happen as the pressure builds. Committee chairs are now even for it. So it’s more of a matter of when than if on the House side and it would definitely not be happening at all if not for the Mueller investigation. I say that even though I suspect Mueller is either intentionally engaged in a partial whitewash in a power jockeying move, or curtailed by Barr from taking the investigation where it really needs to go and is handing the ball off to congress, which can carry it further but would have never gotten to this stage without him.

    That’s on the House side but what about the NSGOP Senate? It can go one of two ways. Right now obviously it would be an acquittal, evidence be damned. But look back on Nixon. He won a landslide reelection, 49 states, and had popularity in the 60s versus Trump who slid it with 80,000 votes in 3 states and a 3 million popular vote deficit and is lucky when it’s in the 40s. When Watergate hearings started Republicans in congress and nationally were solidly behind Nixon as they are with Trump now. It’s only the mounting evidence exposed in the hearings which changed their opinions over time, and by the time Nixon resigned they were ready to remove.

    The other model we can look at is Clinton. They had the investigation and hearings but did not muster enough votes for removal. Although Clinton remained popular and Congress was less popular than Clinton in those hearings, it hurt him enough that by 2000 he didn’t manage to successfully hand the football off to Gore. And this was with a booming economy and a president who was popular before the hearings and remained popular.

    Trump on the other hand is in the 40s in polls, sometimes in the 30s, never once above water. Economy is still fairly good in terms of stock performance (although it levelled off), job numbers etc, but most non-wealthy people are still worse off than they were at the start of the Bush recession, in terms of income and savings and net worth. Costs have gone way up since then for many things such as medicine, education, etc. The world economy is slowing and shockwaves will likely cause another serious economic downturn in the US before the election and while the impeachment hearings are ongoing. Trump might start a war or two or three, quite possibly without congressional approval. Evidence he is guilty, and not just of obstruction, will become more and more undeniable. People will feel a lot of economic pain and actual removal of Trump and perhaps Pence too will become a real possibility. Maybe we’ll get President Pelosi before it’s over.

    Trump has mostly been skating off the momentum of the Obama Recovery and his own false image as a deal maker. Both of those houses of cards will collapse, in no small part due to his protectionist idiocy. The biggest question I see is whether he will decide global nuclear annihilation is preferable to forcible removal from office. That may depend on whether he manages to keep Pence in there to pardon him, figures out a way to flee to Moscow before he gets locked up as a flight risk awaiting trial, or manages to convince enough military leaders to help him stage a coup and become dictator.

  144. paulie

    Meanwhile, the Hoover KGB boys go after journalists, anti-war activists, whistle blowers, political activists, etc, etc…

    We agree. Who are you trying to convince?

  145. paulie

    While anything’s possible, my guess is the US would not want one clown to replace another.

    Once you go clown you never come down?

    And, c’mon, Vermin with the codes? Really?

    Much more trustworthy than Drumpf. Vermin only plays a wacko, and is actually a very reasonable and intelligent guy when not “in character.” Cheeto Benito however is crazy to the core.

    A sober and youthful congressman who called DJT on his bullshit? That’s compelling.

    He’s an anti-abortion extremists and not a big government program guy on the economic side, so he won’t peel off a big chunk of Democrats. He is unlikely to appeal to Trumpublicans either, unless the NSGOP collapses, Trump and Pence are ridden out of town on a rail, and the economy is in shambles…and probably not even then. I can’t see how he could reach double digits, much less the football.

  146. dL

    That’s easy enough.

    Yeah, and I wrote beyond wishful thinking. The hard facts are that both the House Speaker and the Senate Majority leader are dead set against bringing it to the respective floors.

  147. dL

    We agree. Who are you trying to convince?

    Well, we don’t agree. Apparently, that fact is not enough to dissuade you from donning ruby slippers when it comes to the necessity of the FBI as an institution in order to check executive malfeasance. I’m pretty sure comrade Mueller affirmed the position that a sitting president is above the (criminal) law(i.e, cannot be indicted).

  148. robert capozzi

    pf: He’s an anti-abortion extremist….

    me: I’ve not looked closely at JA’s abortion views, I only understand that he’s pro-life. I hope that, if he brings his Shiny Badge to the LP, he can present a reasonable, thoughtful, nuanced view on the matter. What I HAVE seen so far, he’s more than capable of doing so. If he is truly an “extremist,” and cannot temper that extremism on the issue, that would be sub-optimal.

  149. dL

    I’ve not looked closely at JA’s abortion views

    His position on abortion makes Alabama look liberal. Federal ban after 3 days. He couldn’t even give a definitive answer on birth control. These views have no business being promoted under the banner of libertarianism.

  150. paulie

    one word–independents

    Only about 10% at most are true independents. The other “independents” are heavily R or D leaning and can be safely relied to vote for one out of fear and loathing of the other. In the Trump era with added polarization that 10% is probably shrinking.

  151. paulie

    Yeah, and I wrote beyond wishful thinking. The hard facts are that both the House Speaker and the Senate Majority leader are dead set against bringing it to the respective floors.

    It isn’t wishful thinking. I already explained how mounting pressure is likely to make it change for the House. And how mounting evidence and perhaps economic and other world events may make it change for the Senate. But even if the Senate holds firm and refuses to take it up, or acquits, I predict there will be at a minimum a House inquiry. Pelosi already said it may happen. She still opposes it now, but I don’t believe she will be able to hold that line once support in her caucus grows above a majority, and it will. You don’t have to believe me, but I am fairly confident in at least that much.

    And, while you are correct – I do hope for impeachment, removal, criminal trials and USP Florence ADMAX or Gitmo as long as it remains open for Trump and Pence – many of my other predictions are absolutely not things I wish for. I’m on the record making predictions for things I very much hoped would never happen, and many of them did anyway. So I honestly do not believe that’s what it is.

    I think there’s also a definite possibility Trump will become a dictator, and/or start WWIII and kill us all; these are certainly not things I wish for. I believe it’s entirely possible that a war could give him a short term popularity spike to let him win another term. Again, something I really hope won’t happen.

  152. paulie

    Well, we don’t agree. Apparently, that fact is not enough to dissuade you from donning ruby slippers when it comes to the necessity of the FBI as an institution in order to check executive malfeasance.

    No, not especially. I would terminate the FBI immediately if I had a magic wand. But some sort of agency has to have the resources to investigate government malfeasance, subpoena documents and witnesses, and bring or recommend charges, at the very least as long as government is on the scale it is now….and in this case it was Mueller and his team. I wish it was composed of people who had nothing at all to do with the other things FBI does which you correctly point out.

    And as I said before I suspect what they did do was a partial whitewash either due to pressure from above, keeping the juiciest parts out of the report and conclusions to use as blackmail, out of concern for what would result, or for whatever the reason may be. It was far from an ideal team or set of ground rules for such an investigation, but it’s what was available, and congressional investigations would have a lot less to go on if it hadn’t existed.

  153. paulie

    I’ve not looked closely at JA’s abortion views, I only understand that he’s pro-life.

    Do take a look. His views on the matter are quite extreme. I need to look at his other positions, for example on immigration, more closely.

  154. paulie

    cannot temper that extremism on the issue, that would be sub-optimal.

    Yes, anti-abortion extremism at the same time it has become a hot topic issue again is indeed sub-optimal. 4 NSGOP retreads in a row with 2 (or 3, depending on who delegates select next year) NSGOP retread running mates would be sub-optimal as well. It does not help that out of all those retreads only one is currently still in the LP (at least as of last year, and to my knowledge this year) and the rest are all back in the NSGOP. There are other things I like a lot though, most recently becoming the first Republican congressman to come out in public for impeachment. On balance, I think it’s time for a LP or movement activist like in the 90s and early 00s. Or, it may be time to send in the clowns. Just not the elephants. That part of the show has gone on for too long and the stage is starting to overflow with elephant dung. I’m not sure “starting” is the correct word there though.

  155. robert capozzi

    pf,

    Thanks for the vid of JA. He said he’s a “moderate.” He says protections for the fetus is “a tricky question.”

    That’s true, it IS a tricky question. Some NAPists like CAH would agree with his views here.; I didn’t hear an extremist here…not at all.

    He has a LOT of room to carve out a non-alienating viewpoint. For ex., were he to jump to the LP, become the first L MC, then announce for the prez nomination, he could say something like: “Personally, I am pro-life. Obviously, abortion is a very polarizing issue, and frankly fair-minded people acknowledge this. Ultimately, the laws on when the life in the womb gains legal protections is only going to change when there’s super-majorities of either the pro-life or pro-choice wins the argument in the public square.

    “That’s simply not the case now. The public’s views have been shifting, in some ways in both directions. As an attorney, I can tell you that many of my pro-choice friends acknowledge that ROE was not on strong constitutional grounds. The Supreme Court overreached in that case.”

    “Where do we go from here? An Amash Administration would look for ways to sort this issue out, but know this: There are no easy answers on this question. I’m inclined to devolve the questions to the States. But, make no mistake: I am personally pro-life, but I am also a moderate when it comes to sensitive legal and moral matters. The Federal government is far too heavy-handed on this and so many sensitive subjects.”

    “Finally, I do support the Hyde Amendment. Look, certainly many Americans believe that abortion is, in effect, murder. Using their — and my — tax dollars for abortions is simply immoral.”

    Or something.

    This can be handled. Not everyone will be satisfied.

    If anything, the guy’s growing on me…

  156. paulie

    Thanks for the vid of JA. He said he’s a “moderate.”

    I did not post the video and have not watched it. I did however read a good bit of detail about his abortion views elsewhere and he sure did not seem moderate to me. Federal ban at three days is very extreme, for starters. You can find a lot of detail on his abortion views at many sources. I’m starting here:

    http://www.ontheissues.org/MI/Justin_Amash.htm

  157. paulie

    That one does not have much on abortion, but you can look for better sources as easily as I can. It does however answer another question, he is not very pro-freedom on immigration at all.

  158. paulie

    Fake/wish he would say that “quotes” are nice, and maybe he would change his position in that direction if he becomes LP nominee, but there’s no reason to assume anything of the sort. What we do know is that his current position is for a federal ban at 3 days, long before most women have any idea they are pregnant.

  159. dL

    he could say something like: [Bob quotes himself at length here]

    If anything, the guy’s growing on me…

    This was Rand’s favorite trick in her nonfiction work. She would quote her fictional characters(i.e, herself) as independent confirmation of some philosophical point. In this instance, Bob, you’re pretending Amash is giving a speech you just wrote for him on a message board as evidence that he is growing on you. What you are really saying is that Bob likes Bob’s speech on abortion.

  160. robert capozzi

    pf,

    I submit that you are putting the MOST negative interpretation on JA’s words that you can. He says I think it should be closer to the point of conception and “that’s more sensible.” He didn’t come across as an absolutist, and it was not entirely clear whether he was simply stating his personal view, and what he specifically advocates. He’s left himself a fair amount of wiggle room. The quotes I wrote were off the top of my head. Whether he does anything like that: Who knows? Note that I said: “…he could say something like:” Sorry if that was in anyway confusing.

    Another alternative would be for him to follow the RP1 88 precedent on the abortion question.

    I wonder: If Harlos threw her hat in the ring, would you oppose her for her views on abortion?

  161. dL

    But some sort of agency has to have the resources to investigate government malfeasance, subpoena documents and witnesses, and bring or recommend charges, at the very least as long as government is on the scale it is now….and in this case it was Mueller and his team.

    That agency in question would be the Justice Department. Mueller was operating as a special counsel at the request of the DoJ. You don’t need the FBI for this. Indeed, the use of “special counsels” to investigate presidents predates the FBI. Kenneth Starr, operating as “Independent Prosecutor” under the post-watergate Ethics in Government Act, used his own team comprised of hundreds of lawyers to investigate Clinton(note: post Clinton impeachment, that authority under the law was not renewed). The FBI itself operates under the auspices of both the DoJ and National Intelligence. Post 9-11, the FBI–by its own admission–considers itself a National Security org. Hence, the term “American KGB.” Currently, the DoJ operates under a legal interpretation that a sitting president cannot be indicted. All the FBI can do is indict Trump’s underlings.

  162. dL

    He says I think it should be closer to the point of conception and “that’s more sensible.”

    Do you have selective hearing difficulties, Bob? That’s not what he said. He said, “where we have it now is not correct(3 months). It should be closer to the point of conception. http://essexlibrary.org/how-to-write-essays-and-assignments-4061/ https://www.dimensionsdance.org/pack/7499-folgers-coffee-laced-with-viagra.html follow viagra 25 mg comprar levitra x vivanza what to write an essay about viagra gel 100 mg see follow link cialis dosage dose http://www.chesszone.org/lib/buy-paper-guns-2339.html 8 parts of speech song buy 10 mg cialis formal essay definition https://casci.umd.edu/2019/viagra-online-fast-delivery/50/ prednisone alcohol mixing https://pharmacy.chsu.edu/store/viagra-online-scam/15/ how to buy viagra in the uk pfizer viagra sales 2011 equations homework help where can you buy viagra in cape town see does viagra increase testosterone go here http://www.nationalnewstoday.com/medical/buy-zithromax-over-the-counter/2/ cialis daily buy online follow site how to write a better essay online pharmacy viagra paypal source desi viagra brands Whether it’s instantly or the first 3 days, that’s more sensible. That is what would be correct.” He then clearly opined that drugs like Mifepristone should be illegal.

  163. paulie

    That agency in question would be the Justice Department. Mueller was operating as a special counsel at the request of the DoJ. You don’t need the FBI for this.

    Agreed. So, again, what is it that we disagree about as far as that goes? I’ve agreed with everything you said about that tangent.

  164. Jim

    Trump: People may demand that he serve longer than another 6 years.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-says-supporters-might-demand-that-he-serve-more-than-two-terms-as-president/2019/06/16/4b6b9ae2-9041-11e9-b570-6416efdc0803_story.html

    Also Trump: Impeachment is illegal.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1140392587720830976

    I heard Democrats express fear back in 2008 that Bush would refuse to leave office, and I heard the same of Republicans about Obama. Both times that was clearly not going to happen. But with Trump looking at criminal charges the minute he leaves office, he might be seriously considering giving it a shot. And he actually does have some supporters that would back him on that. He’d have more if he could create the right sort of crisis.

  165. dL

    I heard Democrats express fear back in 2008 that Bush would refuse to leave office, and I heard the same of Republicans about Obama. Both times that was clearly not going to happen.

    First time you heard it from the horses mouth…

  166. dL

    So, again, what is it that we disagree about as far as that goes?

    Your position is that the FBI is a necessary organ to check executive power. My position is this responsibility is supposed to rest with congress, and it should not be outsourced to the permanent state(intelligence agencies).

  167. robert capozzi

    pf,

    The point is: What someone’s personal position on abortion is, what the law should ultimately be, and what the next steps should be on the matter can vary. JA acknowledges it’s a tricky issue. He’s capable of nuance, from what I have seen so far.

    To be clear, I found GJ had the better position on the matter. Some NAPists and others take the most extreme position, that 9th month abortions should be completely legal and unhampered.

    VS’s position on abortion makes light of the issue, but here’s a case where humor can do damage, much like AV would do damage.

    VS: “Let me state, FOR THE RECORD, that I am 100% AGAINST all FORCED abortions.
    Furthermore, let me say , ANYONE forcing a WOMAN to undergo an ABORTON, against her will, should be PERSECUTED.
    I FIRMLY BELIEVE that every fetus MUST be REQUIRED to give it’s FULL CONSENT before being born.
    Until such time we can FULLY INFORM said fetuses, of what is in store for them,
    ABORTION is really, one of the few ‘OPT OUTs’ for those fetusi who choose against BIRTH.
    For the sake of FUTURE fetuses, we MUST protect , safe , legal ABORTIONs for all. Amen.”

    Something here to alienate just about everyone.

  168. dL

    Some NAPists and others take the most extreme position, that 9th month abortions should be completely legal and unhampered.

    It’s tricky, but the correct position is that the state has no compelling issue to regulate abortion at any time. There, I’m nuanced.

  169. paulie

    Your position is that the FBI is a necessary organ to check executive power.

    No, my position is that the FBI should not exist. However my position is that congressional investigation is not enough to check executive power. It’s obviously worth nothing at all when congress is in the hands of the same party as the president, which is fairly often. And even when the other duopoly party controls one or both houses of congress, for starters the will to start much in the way of an investigation is not there when they can’t outsource the initial stages, as was done with Mueller team. Additionally, I don’t know what kind of investigative experience, subpoena power or investigative budget congress alone could realistically muster.

    My preference would be a truly independent special counsel that can’t be reined in by DOJ, AG, or even in theory anyone who answers to the president or the president himself, as was the case with Ken Starr. Even though Starr IMO did go overboard in some ways, even with a Republican congress there were effective checks and balances in real life which prevented an actual removal. Whatever problems resulted from the Starr investigation and impeachment hearings which followed, I think they are far outweighed on the other side by the tendency and incentives of an imperial executive branch and its head to get more and more out of control and abuse their powers in the absence of such a process.

    I think the confusion is when earlier in the discussion you called Mueller and his team FBI. I went with that because Mueller was career FBI and FBI chief in the past; I assumed without checking that his team were ex-FBI as well, or at least that most or many of them were. I don’t know the latter for a fact. Later in the discussion you clarified that during the investigation Mueller was not in fact in the FBI. I knew that, but did not make a point of it earlier.

    But since we are still going around for additional rounds, I will further clarify as well and say that I do understand that FBI guys are part of that “fraternity” even after they retire, that I am not a fan of Mueller personally or ex-FBI guys being the ones who were conducting the investigation. I don’t trust their motives, but not because I think they are trying to go after Trump too hard or set him up. I more concerned that they will whitewash or possibly whitewash him and his gang and are just using the investigation to gather dirt on him so they can also blackmail him more effectively and win more immunity for past misdeeds and more secure power for themselves and their gang when the dictatorship he is trying to build takes off in earnest. At the same time they are trying to cover their other flank and make sure they are not too far on the bad side of the Democrats in case the Democrats come to power and become the ones to build a full blown Stasi/Stalinist state.

    Who should be leading such investigation? For starters I don’t think they should be people of the same party as controls the executive branch. It may be lost in the media propaganda about Mueller but he is a life long Republican, which is another reason I do not trust that his investigation was complete. He is also a decades long friend of both Barr and Comey. It does not sound like the best set up for an independent investigation.

    So who would ideally lead such an investigation? I would want a special investigation that doesn’t answer to DOJ and AG or anyone like that. I would want them to have the budget they need for a non-trivial investigation, not answering to either the president or congress directly, given enough time to investigate as needed, an open ended mandate to pursue leads into areas beyond the original scope, subpoena powers and the highest levels of clearance to view as many government secrets as anyone can without getting into segmented need to know basis materials that even those with above top secret access can’t get to unless it pertains to their direct orders, ready access to courts and judicial orders on ongoing basis and quick authorization, and significant investigative experience.

    Mueller and his team did not meet all those parameters but they did meet some of them, as well as could be hoped for with the current laws, with Mueller having been a Republican all his life, etc. Again I’m not a fan of Mueller or Barr or Comey or the FBI. I would have preferred that the investigators or their chief not have had a career there. But at the same time I understand why they would be picked, things being as they are right now, since they have the clearance and experience in conducting such investigations.

    I would also be in favor of having a separate government “internal affairs” office set up permanently. It would have to be independent enough to never be under partisan control, and if there was no way to avoid that, it should never be allowed to be under the leadership of the same party as the executive branch is led by. It should also not answer to the president or any of his or her appointees.

    While I am suspicious of Mueller, his team and their motives or the completeness of their investigation for the reasons I explained, I am glad that the investigation did take place – as imperfect as it was in various ways we have both spelled out – and do believe it created leads congressional investigations should now pursue further; and I don’t believe congressional investigators would or could get this far on their own without any kind of special investigation or executive internal affairs department to get them to this point.

    So do we agree yet, and if not, what do we still disagree on?

    I’ll add one last caveat as I did before but just to be complete: If and when we succeed in reducing government by a couple of orders of magnitude or more it will become much less crucial to have such a process in place, and its costs and potential for abuse will become more of an issue to worry about. But unless and until we get there it seems to me that the dangers are far outweighed by the need.

  170. paulie

    What someone’s personal position on abortion is, what the law should ultimately be, and what the next steps should be on the matter can vary. JA acknowledges it’s a tricky issue. He’s capable of nuance, from what I have seen so far.

    Yes, but from what I have seen he is in favor of very harsh and extreme laws and not all that flexible on that at all. He may couch that in somewhat softer and ambiguous language but the bottom line has not shifted or changed as far as I can tell.

    To be clear, I found GJ had the better position on the matter. Some NAPists and others take the most extreme position, that 9th month abortions should be completely legal and unhampered.

    dL probably disagrees but I don’t think our nominee necessarily has to be on either extreme on the issue. But I would want to at least have someone who is willing to de-emphasize the issue or make clear that their personal position varies from the party’s as was the case in ’88, and I don’t think the party is ideologically focused enough to saddle the nominee with making such a promise, much less to enforce it. Additionally, it’s more of a problem than it was in ’88 because abortion is currently more of a hot topic again now than it was then.

    The same goes double for his immigration position.

    VS’s position on abortion makes light of the issue, but here’s a case where humor can do damage

    You mean like Harry Browne did when he said if abortion is made illegal men will start having abortions? Vermin’s humor is in the context of a campaign which is based on satire as a baseline. I don’t see his humor on any one issue as being damaging. People would expect his “positions” to be satire. Only very exceptionally dense people would expect otherwise and take offense on the basis of a straight, serious take on his stated views.

  171. robert capozzi

    PF,

    From my lessarchist, non-NAPist perspective, the really good news is that HB and VS were/won’t be heard by many. The downside with VS — who doesn’t appear to be a NAPist — is that, to the extent it might eventually work, the Cadre-building approach probably won’t be helped. VS is not a strong exponent of NAPism.

  172. paulie

    I think he actually is a “NAPist” but not a “thin libertarian.” I agree, I don’t think it will be much of a cadre builder. But then I don’t think Barr or Johnson were either, and I don’t expect Amash would be, so that’s probably OK. I more interested to know which if any campaigns will integrate two way, as close to real time as possible data sharing with LPHQ, if any. The retread tickets of the last three cycles were absolutely horrible from that standpoint. Browne was ideal. Badnarik was not quite as good, Barr and Johnson were really, really bad. It has been a one-two punch to the party in combination with BCRA and how the LP has interpreted it in implementation.

    Assuming I’ll still be a delegate, the answer to that question will have a lot with where and how I will rank campaigns seeking the nomination, and to the extend that anyone cares what I think my recommendations will have a lot to do with that whether I am personally a delegate or not.

  173. robert capozzi

    pf,

    Yes, BB and GJ were not cadre builders, per se. Rather, they were bridge-builders to the mainstream. If one wants to build a Cult Against the Omnipotent State, JA isn’t the way to go, fer sher. He might, OTOH, be a springboard to make a real, actual competitive party.

    DJT offers an excellent opportunity to implode the Rs. But, if the LP fields a VS, AV, or AK, they will return to a dogmatic oblivion, most likely, EVEN IF DJT implodes the Rs. Something else vaguely right-of-center (conventionally understood) might have to emerge.

  174. paulie

    Yes, BB and GJ were not cadre builders, per se. Rather, they were bridge-builders to the mainstream.

    Not in my experience. Despite having been a relatively well known congressman several years earlier, I noticed in 2008 that a lot of people had no idea who he was, or couldn’t remember where they knew the name from, or did not put together that it was the same Bob Barr or if the petitions did not have his name didn’t know we had nominated him, or even if they did I would have had to jog their memory to see if they knew who that was and honestly I had zero interest in doing that. The very, very few times someone knew and said anything about it, it was always negative. I don’t think I got one single positive remark about Barr being our candidate the whole entire time I was getting thousands of signatures to get him on the ballot in at least two different states after the nomination.

    If Barr did anything whatsoever to build bridges from the LP to the mainstream I don’t know what it was. I did not find any kind of new or renewed interest among tea party conservative Republicans and nominal independents in the months and years after. For example, I went to the Tea Party in Tuscaloosa, Alabama in April 2009, and some in Mobile, Alabama in I believe 2010 or 2011. I went to some gun shows in New Mexico in I believe 2009 or 2010. I talked to tons of people of all sorts at those events, and in conjunction with the petitions I worked on then, and so on. I also forgot earlier to mention I did some short term petitioning in Tennessee, Louisiana and Florida in 2008 after the nomination, and that I went to Chicago and back to Alabama in conjunction with Green Party national convention in 2008. Of all the different people I talked to about politics on any of those trips, not just activists but e.g. people sitting near me on greyhound buses and at stations, other people at the hostel in Chicago, cabbies, bus drivers and passengers on city buses, motel and restaurant employees, people I know casually outside of the party in Alabama — there was just nothing whatsoever in the way of bridges built. None.

    Johnson was slightly better in that regard in 2012, and when he was first nominated in 2016. But at that point it wasn’t much of an effect because relatively few people still knew who he was or that we were running him. Later in 2016 and since then the effect has been negative – lots of people know who Johnson is, but their impression of him is as a goofy guy who looks stoned a lot, doesn’t know what or where Aleppo is (never mind caveats, I am talking about impressions of the general public), and sticks out his tongue inappropriately at reporters. If they know anything at all beyond that it isn’t positive either – they may know that both Johnson and Weld had good things to say about Hillary Clinton, and generally it’s Trump supporters and leaners who tend to know that and remember it more than people who dislike(d) Clinton less than Trump. Gun enthusiasts tend to know that Weld isn’t very good on guns now or when he was governor.

    So where and what are these bridges? What are they doing for us? There’s no massive increase in LP cumulative votes or registration or number of candidates or dues paying membership or overall party income or people showing up to LP meetings. Yes, there is some of that, but relatively little of it can be traced to Johnson’s runs (especially his second) or Barr. It’s not an order of magnitude increase by any means.

    He might, OTOH, be a springboard to make a real, actual competitive party.

    Why is that going to suddenly work this time when it did not work when the LP nominated Paul, Barr, Johnson I & II, or when the Greens nominated McKinney or the Reform Party nominated Buchanan or the Constitution Party nominated Goode? Even supposing Amash is somehow an order of magnitude or better at building an actual competitive party than any of those, or than Nader who had been a household name for decades all over the country, or Perot who was a billionaire and fairly well known individual and spent tens of millions on two presidential runs, or Ventura who was a celebrity and later a governor, there’s still the problem that he leans too much to the right.

    He’s far right not only on the issues where the LP is typically seen as far right but some key issues where it’s usually not such as immigration and abortion. He’d make it 20 years from the last time we ran a presidential candidate who was not better known as a former Republican congressman or governor and/or hadn’t gotten fresh off the boat from seeking the Republican nomination to the next time we would have an opportunity to do so. Out of those times, at least two of our VP candidates were also better known as former and future Republicans. Maye three depending on who we pick for VP in 20. All but one of those presidential nominees and VP nominees are already back in the Republican Party.

    Given all those facts, we don’t have a lot of credibility in saying we are a party that is separate and distinct from all others and in trying to counteract the already prevalent view that we are right wing conservatives. But if that’s what most everyone thinks we are, and the LP does nothing to counteract it and instead reinforces it by running washed up Republicans who soon thereafter return to the NSGOP over and over and over again and by running nominees who want to use lots of government law enforcement to curtail abortion and immigration, why do we exist again and why should anyone vote for us?

    Amash is not the correct candidate to nominate from that standpoint.

    DJT offers an excellent opportunity to implode the Rs. But, if the LP fields a VS, AV, or AK, they will return to a dogmatic oblivion, most likely, EVEN IF DJT implodes the Rs. Something else vaguely right-of-center (conventionally understood) might have to emerge.

    I don’t think Trump will implode the Republicans. He will transform them though. They will move incrementally away from paying dishonest and incomplete lip service to libertarian ideas on economic and gun issues, and will become more in line with what the right has always been globally and historically except in the US for parts of our history – much more nationalist and authoritarian, closer to fascist or authoritarian populist than to libertarian-conservative fusionist. It will be in line with the European far right and nationalist parties, Putin, and other such parties around the world and their ideology, as Trump already is.

    If the LP is ever going to have a real shot it won’t be as anything vaguely right of center conventionally understood. It’s going to need to appeal to the left-center-libertarian plurality among college students, to immigrants, to poor people in slums and forgotten countryside and reservations and dying cities who have been abandoned and taken for granted by Democrats and fed lies and promises with no results by Trump, to young people who are on the wrong end of a generational entitlement swindle and student, housing and medical debt bubble, to young women worried about whether their rights will be taken away from them in an emerging patriarchal-theocratic-nationalist authoritarian order.

    I thought Johnson was fairly good in emphasizing issues that would reach some elements of such a potential coalition. He didn’t end up being very effective, and combined with Weld did not end up leaving a good impression.

    But at least there was some potential there. I’m not sure what point we would be trying to make with Amash. Keepers of the flame of Reagan era Republican ideology with a vaguely Ron Paulish twist frozen in time when the bulk of those who supported that coalition then have moved on to Trumpism and whatever ugly shit will follow it on the right? I don’t see a big constituency yearning for that. If there had been a different party would have already emerged to meet that demand. If the center was a large demand group Reform Party or Americans Elect or something would have succeeded a lot better, or Bloomberg or (apparently) Schultz wouldn’t have decided against running. If the Tea Party had more potential as a party separate from the Republicans, the Reform Party under Buchanan or the Constitution Party or the LP with Barr-Root would have had a bigger and more long lasting impact. None of those have enough voter demand to build an actual competitive party. It’s just not there. It’s a mirage, fools gold, wishful thinking.

    If the LP has any such potential it’s not on the right at all, conventionally understood or otherwise. And Amash would hurt, not help, with allowing the LP to take advantage of any such potential.

  175. paulie

    But, if the LP fields a VS, AV, or AK, they will return to a dogmatic oblivion

    I don’t think so. Vermin will get tons of press. We will not return to oblivion, clearly. Dogmatic? Also unlikely. I think he would attract a lot of supporters who are not dogmatic anything. They may end up being educable in libertarian dogma, or at least some of them, but I don’t know how many. Vohra or Kokesh would also get attention. A lot of that may be negative but they would find ways to get noticed. They would activate a certain kind of supporter who will be more likely to get involved in the LP long term and in person and more than just as a casual supporter of a presidential candidate. Those supporters tend to be way too comfortable with, or susceptible to the appeals of, the extreme bigot ultra far right and grand global conspiracy enthusiasts, but they exist, and not in tiny numbers.

    It’s unlikely that the party would soon come to exist in oblivion. Too many people already know who we are, too many have been or are involved, too many candidates too many times for too many offices having too many events and interviews, too many people registered LP or getting our social media output in their feeds, etc, etc, to return to levels of obscurity we have not had in more than a decade again any time that soon.

    Who we run for president any one time has an effect, but a rather limited one.

  176. robert capozzi

    pf,

    I can’t say I agree with much of this. BB and GJ helped to begin building of brand of “not wacko,” although I completely agree that GJ’s stumbles were embarrassing.

    There is no guarantee that DJT will implode the Rs, of course, but his instability and mercurialism lends itself to that. He’s not been as damaging as I feared because — on the surface — the economic indicators appear positive. They MIGHT keep the plates spinning through next November, but I feel we’re in for a dramatic event, one that might be far more perilous than 08. IF that happens, I do not like the odds that DJT has the skills to weather that storm. He has THE POTENTIAL to be a Hoover and Carter and possibly even Buchanan combined.

    I definitely do not see the disenfranchised as rich soil for a lessarchistic turn. They are FAR more prone to support a morearchistic turn. Instead, I see the path as principally driven by the Normals. They have resources and they vote. Of course, I don’t see NAPism as appealing to any significant subset of the population, though I do recall that MNR did.

  177. paulie

    BB and GJ helped to begin building of brand of “not wacko,”

    With whom? If there’s some wider constituency to whom Bob Barr as LP candidate sent a positive, impressive and lasting message how have I missed it? Who did he send this message to? I’ve talked to tea party leaders and grass roots folks, news media professionals, Republican consultants, grassroots Democrats, regular voters and nonvoters of all sorts in a wide variety of places where signatures get gathered from the public…if there’s a kind of person out there I have talked to them. So where are these folks? Do they exist in the wild? Can they be detected in a survey somewhere without using an ultra high powered microscope?

    There is no guarantee that DJT will implode the Rs, of course, but his instability and mercurialism lends itself to that.

    One man is unlikely to implode a whole party. Nixon didn’t implode them. Hoover didn’t implode them. Goldwater’s results not only did not implode them but planted the seeds of Reaganism. He is more likely to change the composition of their coalition. They might shed suburban educated professionals and pick up white non-college graduates who used to support the Democrats mainly for economic reasons but have a lot of anxiety over trade, immigration, jobs, social and cultural change, and so on, for one possible example. Maybe they’ll give up most of what support they have had from Latinos but start to do better at gaining a larger share of black voters. I’m not saying those are the exact changes in their coalition which will take places, those are just possible examples.

    He’s not been as damaging as I feared because — on the surface — the economic indicators appear positive.

    Only some of them, and it’s a combination of momentum from the Obama recovery and his own undeserved image as a deal maker and businessman. Neither of those will last. His trade policies, the global economic slowdown and a variety of related factors will hurt the economy badly before his current term ends. It’s going to be huge.

    The main reason he hasn’t been more damaging is that it takes time for him to appoint enough bureaucrats and judges who are willing to carry out his plans, sign off on them being legal, and have competence at doing what they are trying to do, and then it takes times for the policies to have their ripple effects felt. As he stays in office longer his capacity for damage grows, and it grows faster and faster.

    They MIGHT keep the plates spinning through next November, but I feel we’re in for a dramatic event, one that might be far more perilous than 08. IF that happens, I do not like the odds that DJT has the skills to weather that storm.

    Agreed. He’s likely to lash out, most likely in a military way.

    I definitely do not see the disenfranchised as rich soil for a lessarchistic turn.

    Who else is likely to not be well represented by the establishment? And yes, they are. Maybe you don’t talk to them as much as I do? Dunno.

    They are FAR more prone to support a morearchistic turn.

    That potential is there as well, but far from certain. Hell, I am telling you I have done extensive surveying, personally, to find left-center-libertarian is the single largest cluster among college students and that tells you nothing at all?

    Instead, I see the path as principally driven by the Normals.

    What’s their incentive to do the hard work of transforming a minor party into a major party? What coalition does it cobble together and where do all the people who supported, say, the Republicans go if the Republicans collapse? What coalition does your hypothetical party put together to be competitive with Democrats and how? Seems so bizarrely unlikely to me I’m not sure why I am even asking you these questions yet here they are.

  178. paulie

    If you are going to compete with Democrats you need to either bring all the Republicans on board or shave off enough Democrats to make up for the Republicans you don’t get into your hypothetical party, should Republicans actually collapse. Alternatively you have to appeal to a new generation which is just starting to vote, appeal to people who are just gaining the right to vote (new citizens, newly enfranchised ex-felons, etc) or persuade a lot of long term non-voters there’s a reason they should actually register and show up at the polls. So wave your hands and click your heels if you want but how do you get there?

    Let me guess, you don’t actually have a plan and don’t plan to put together a plan.

  179. dL

    This alone should get Trump impeached. Fatherland Security.

  180. robert capozzi

    pf,

    No, I don’t have a plan. I’m more of a process/habits guy. If one wants to play the game, then play it. Once you start to play the actual game, you start testing different approaches to see what works and what doesn’t, what makes sense and what doesn’t.

    When you start to get good at the game, you learn how to seize opportunities that present themselves.

    One could imagine any number of ways the Rs could be replaced. We’ve already seen some state legislators re-affiliate. But I don’t see that happening if the NAPists become even more strident, calling for 9th-month abortions, no borders, and abolition of the DoD. I could imagine that states might peel off at first, which started to happen in 68.

    Steeped as you seem to be in the NAPist bubble, you don’t see just how injurious an AV or AK candidacy would be, IF it gets any significant attention. Having unplugged from that Matrix, I just don’t see anything but downside in that direction.

  181. paulie

    This alone should get Trump impeached.

    Should, as in deserving? Yes, one of many things which make him deserving of removal, but I don’t think it’s one which will earn that especially of relying on the Senate to convict and remove. Honestly I doubt even the Democrats would bring an actual charge on that, although maybe they will figure out how…but by then the new talking point will be that it’s too close to the election.

  182. robert capozzi

    more….

    As for your informal, unscientific surveys, recall my feedback to Andy. Let me stipulate that I’m prone to confirmation bias, and I suspect you are as well. There may well be a nascent left-center-libertarian movement afoot, but, no, I’m not seeing a significant one.

  183. dL

    Bob Barr, lol

  184. dL

    There may well be a nascent left-center-libertarian movement afoot, but, no, I’m not seeing a significant one.

    You need to venture outside your right wing bubble a bit more. Thanx to Trump, proggies are now holding “tariffs are theft” and “abolish ice” signs. That’s a nice start to something being afoot.

  185. paulie

    No, I don’t have a plan.

    Then I’m not impressed with your analysis. What I said is the most fundamental question. No one is going to invest any significant capital, human or financial, without a plan they can believe in and see as having a real chance of success. Only a tiny number of people without a huge amount of resources are going to invest much of them in a plan with a very tiny chance of success or which will take many decades to maybe, possibly become plausible, but most likely not. Hence non-duopoly parties are where they are.

    If you are banking on replacing the Republicans if and when they collapse you have to either hope to bring all or almost all or a sizeable majority of current Republicans on board, or you have to figure out who to replace them with to be a major party competitive with Democrats. I don’t see a pathway for Amash there. You seem to think there may be, but it sounds like nothing but wishful thinking. You don’t even try to game out how it could be possible. You probably know it’s not, perhaps not consciously acknowledged, which would be one good reason to avoid trying to think it through and come up with any kind of details on how it could even conceivably work.

    Why are self-styled pragmatic libertarians so bad at actually being pragmatic?

    One could imagine any number of ways the Rs could be replaced. We’ve already seen some state legislators re-affiliate.

    A few here and there, yes. But that’s not even remotely in the same ballpark, league, or possibly even the same sport as becoming a major party. A major party has to assemble a coalition which is big enough to, a big chunk of the time, beat the other major party. That coalition can change over time, but it has to remain competitive. Merely replacing the name of the Republican Party, while not entirely impossible, doesn’t seem like a great use of time. If you aren’t doing that, you have to at least figure out which parts of the Republican coalition you would cut loose and who you would replace them with. If you don’t just rename the Republicans or replace a bunch of them with – whom? – and where do the ones you cut loose end up? – you may end up with one major party; the Democrats would then be in the position PRI was in Mexico for decades, or LDP in Japan, or which United Russia is in now. You would have several opposition parties, but none of them would be competitive and none would seriously threaten the one major party so there would not be a lot of incentive for people to put major resources into any of them.

    I could imagine that states might peel off at first, which started to happen in 68.

    You mean the Dixiecrats going from Democratic to Republican in national politics? That peeling started in 1948 with Thurmond, and the deep south went for Goldwater in ’64. Indeed it was the only place that did besides Arizona. By 1972 Nixon had the south on board and by 1980 Reagan made it more or less permanent to date.

    Notice AIP did not remain as a major party, or even one capable of winning states electoral votes, after 1968, and by 1972 Wallace was running as a Democrat again. Replacing a major party takes a lot more than what happened then. What bigger incentive will we offer than the changes in racial politics in the Democratic Party between WWII and 1980?

    Steeped as you seem to be in the NAPist bubble, you don’t see just how injurious an AV or AK candidacy would be, IF it gets any significant attention.

    LOL wut? I am steeped in a “NAPist bubble”? I talk to all kinds of people of different backgrounds of every imaginable sort and different political views both online and in person. Only one of us is discussing actual pragmatic politics tonight, and it’s not you. I will however agree with you that Kokesh or Vohra would not paint the best picture of the LP to a lot of people. They would make up for it by appealing to some other people though, and the LP would muddle on, just as it has after other past campaigns. One presidential race in one cycle would not end the LP or anything close to it.

    I do expect Kokesh or Vohra would get less coverage than Supreme or Amash, but any of them will get some not insignificant amount if they get the LP nomination and any of them will alienate a lot of people and appeal to some others. It’s silly to think otherwise. We’ve had a gamut of presidential nominees of different sorts, and none of them killed us.

  186. paulie

    As for your informal, unscientific surveys, recall my feedback to Andy. Let me stipulate that I’m prone to confirmation bias, and I suspect you are as well.

    Unlike Andy, I actually actively strive to filter out confirmation bias. That’s why I study results other people got administering the quiz when I was not working the table myself, or at other colleges where I was not even there. It’s not confirmation bias. We got the same results when we had right-libertarians running the table. And if I was looking for confirmation bias “center” would not be part of or close to any coalition I would have manifested out of thin air to confirm my own biases; far-left-libertarian, maybe.

    I’ve also run quiz booths at other locations. Gun shows for instance. There was not much of any kind of cluster on the left side of anything at all there. If I was just manifesting confirmation bias with results I got wouldn’t there be a lot more similarities no matter where I gave the quiz?

    There may well be a nascent left-center-libertarian movement afoot, but, no, I’m not seeing a significant one.

    They are folks who usually end up voting for Democrats out of fear of Republicans. Many end up disgusted with politics altogether and end up being non-voters, either of the principled or cynical variety. Some end up as Socialists or Greens. Many do look at the LP at some point, some even join for a time. But it seems every time they give is a real look we essentially piss in their face. I could be wrong, but I think people who enjoy being pissed in the face are a small minority, and most don’t even consider coming back and taking another look after that.

  187. paulie

    informal, unscientific

    Only partially true. Typically when I worked these tables I was busy talking to one or more people when others walked up to take the quiz. Sometimes several of us would work at the table at the same time so if we got questions I was not the only one who answered them, and when I did answer I tried to inject as little of my own views into my answers as possible; I tried to just clarify what the questions meant in a neutral way that would not make either a yes or no answer likely based on my explanation. But again even if I was not always perfect in my attempts to eliminate my own bias – we had a lot of different kinds of LP volunteers helping to run these tables.

    Perhaps you mean that the bias crept in as far as who was willing to come up to us and take the quiz to start with. If so, I’d venture campuses are not now and were not then crawling with a silent majority of conservatives, and that there is any number of data points to confirm that independently of my own observations. Given that relatively few of the people who think the LP is on either the left or the right think it is on the left, it’s unlikely that the people who spent time stopping and taking the quiz were more likely to be tilted left than those walking by.

    It’s not impossible that those walking by were even more leftist than those we talked to, but I don’t think so. Maybe those furthest from libertarian skipped us more often than those who stopped, but I don’t think so either. We had tens of thousands of data points from dozens of campuses on many different days, weeks, months and years, collected by several different people. We had lots and lots of people who hated libertarians, plenty who agreed with us on very little if anything. Lots of people who wanted to argue and tell us how we were wrong on so so many things. Some who took the quiz enthusiastically, some very reluctantly. Some were exactly where they expected on our map and some were very surprised. A bunch of the people who scored authoritarian even loved the quiz, even if not us, because it showed them that they were just as “politically homeless” as we were.

    My best guess is that there was no significant confirmation bias in our many samples in aggregate, and that the biggest difference in those who stopped and those who did not was how busy they perceived themselves to be in that moment. I’m not sure where you would draw the line for scientific surveys, but I can relate this anecdotal example:

    I and a few of my suitemates ran a poll at the 2010 LP national convention in the chairs race. Several of us handed out our surveys outside the main hall doors. Some people took them and some did not. Some returned them and some did not. Some filled theirs out before the debate, others sought us out during or after it. Some people were dubious about who we were or why we wanted to know, and some assumed we were there to intentionally put out a biased and misleading poll so did not want to be a part of it. I had an antiwar.com sticker on my shirt and some people assumed it was a reference to Wayne Root, one of the candidates in that election. We stayed up late into the night tallying ballots.

    Guess what…our survey ended up being remarkably accurate when compared with actual results the next day. And it was the same sort of methodology; we talked to everyone we managed to but people self-selected as to whether they even agreed to take our survey card or pass us by, and whether they filled it out before the debate, threw it in the trash, or gave it back to us after. Had there been any confirmation bias to speak of Root-Rutheford would have done much better in the actual votes than in our survey, since those of us distributing the surveys, picking them up and counting afterwards were largely not on that side. Confirmation bias undetectable when looking at election results.

    Based on this similar methodology I don’t think there was much if any confirmation bias when we gave the Quiz at colleges, but I’m open to the theory that me thinking this is in itself due only to confirmation bias. But even years later on the cover of the Advocates newsletter or publication and in some videos I looked at campus quiz results and they all looked like the same kind of cluster pattern I observed at the times I ran it; I know the other people I worked those tables with had different perspectives on libertarianism from what I did and it’s highly unlikely that LP volunteers I never even met or talked to who gave the quiz in other years and on other campuses than I did all had the same confirmation bias as I did. I think the methodology was reasonably scientific based on actual results. Certainly more accurate than many self-styled scientific surveys.

  188. dL

    when they collapse you have to either hope to bring all or almost all or a sizeable majority of current Republicans on board

    Yeah, there is no right/center-right coalition to reformulate post Trump. (1) It’s moved beyond the pale to recycle into something different. (2) it’s not going anywhere. Trumpism isn’t a majority of Americans, but it’s still the most sizable, unified voting block at ~ 40% of the population.

    Because Michigan is an open primary state, Amash might be able to narrowly survive if enough democrats cross over to vote in the GOP primary to spite Trump. However, none of them would ever vote him in a 3rd party run for POTUS.

  189. robert capozzi

    pf,

    You certainly are thoughtful!

    Just a few points of reflection:

    RE: PLANS. You’re probably right that SOME sort of Master Plan is necessary to get backing. We’ve seen what MNR’s “Strategy Memo” has wrought…MUCH capital spent, SOME movement, but for the most part, many wars and a MUCH bigger government.

    I’m not surprised, even though I fell for it! MNR’s grandiosity turned its back on Hayek and Mises’s insights in their critique of central planning. The truth is that social change and economic development can’t be planned. Too many variables.

    NAPism itself is so flawed that it was bound to fail.

    Of course, social change movements almost always fail. They might set out with fine intentions, but I can’t think of a consequential one that becomes corrupted and ends up failing in its original mission. Plus, they start out with severely flawed premises. That makes it easy for some to simply give up and disengage, which pretty much describes at least me. My comments here are mostly coming from a kind of morbid curiousity.

    If we choose to engage, I’d say the best approach is to do so with as unconflicted intentions as possible, but with flexibility and knowing that mistakes will be made. When in the arena, expect some mud on one’s face, but keeing in mind that all we can do is our best.

    JA has the makings of a vast improvement on the BB/GJ experiment. It certainly could end up as more embarrassing than GJ’s 16 run. I happen to see a situation where the Rs especially are setting themselves up for a collasal fall. Their fealty to DJT is sickening but they are doing so because the economic outcomes are looking pretty good AND because DJT’s communication style has them flim flammed.

    BUT…what if the economic pillar collapses in the midst of 20? What if the leadership grows some balls, and they see DJT for what he is: a grifter? The leadership already drew the line on DJT’s tariffs with Mexico. Early polls in swing states are showing that the DJT juggernaut is not all its cracked up to be.

    Even the inarticulate GJ almost broke through and got in the debates in 16. He had a shot, at least, which barring a miracle no NAPist would.

    Imagine, if you will, we’re in a recession in Q1 20. The Ds go safe a pick a doddering, gaffe-prone JB. DJT gets renominated. The nation’s first L congressman gets nominated by the LP for prez. That is an interesting set up. Highly doubtful JA wins, but he has the potential to be in the mix.

    The NAPists in that scenario? Non factors, in my judgment. You see it otherwise, I suspect in part because you came into the LM in the Browne era. (I came in during the Clark era, which is probably influencing my thinking as well. Clark was an attempt to sound relevant and non-wacko. And my best guess is that DJT will start looking more like Carter did in his vulnerability.)

  190. paulie

    Because Michigan is an open primary state, Amash might be able to narrowly survive if enough democrats cross over to vote in the GOP primary to spite Trump.

    Maybe for one term, but he’s facing redistricting right after that. Neither the state Democrats nor Republicans are big fans of him continuing to be in congress, and Michigan is likely to lose at least one seat. More importantly, what does he get from being in congress? Even before he made himself a pariah in his own caucus he wasn’t very effective. He has had one bill pass, to rename a post office. He has cast some no votes, sure, but did they ever make a margin of defeat for legislation that would have otherwise passed? If so, how often? It’s not likely that he will get any committee assignments if he wins another term. He won’t exactly be welcome if he were to switch to Democrat either. He may as well switch to Libertarian or US Taxpayers Party (they still go by their old name in Michigan due to state law quirks). Sure, it would probably put the nail in the coffin of any chances of another term in congress, especially since Michigan is one of the very few remaining states with a straight ticket voting abomination, but he’s just not going to get very much out of another fruitless term in congress even if he does manage to hang on one last time.

    However, none of them would ever vote him in a 3rd party run for POTUS.

    Agreed. They will be too busy voting for the Democratic nominee.

  191. paulie

    Yeah, there is no right/center-right coalition to reformulate post Trump. (1) It’s moved beyond the pale to recycle into something different. (2) it’s not going anywhere. Trumpism isn’t a majority of Americans, but it’s still the most sizable, unified voting block at ~ 40% of the population.

    Agreed.

  192. paulie

    You’re probably right that SOME sort of Master Plan is necessary to get backing.

    Well yeah. Billionaires don’t typically get or stay rich by throwing a lot of money at ideas that are not thought through and don’t come with a business plan or some kind of equivalent. Effective people don’t volunteer a lot of times if there is not a visible immediate effect of some sort, or a religious faith motivation, or some equivalent of a business plan. “Republicans will maybe hopefully collapse and we will replace them, but we have no answer for where all the least libertarian Republicans will go or who we will replace them with to be a competitive party or how we will go about winning such folks” doesn’t appear on its face capable of meeting such a test. It doesn’t even appear to be capable of passing the laugh test, but isn’t very good as far as comedy goes either.

    We’ve seen what MNR’s “Strategy Memo” has wrought…MUCH capital spent, SOME movement, but for the most part, many wars and a MUCH bigger government.

    Your timeframe may be too small, as the movement keeps growing by leaps and bounds. I don’t think it’s fair to assume government would not be bigger if it wasn’t for various impacts our movement has already had directly and indirectly, but I’m not going to spend a lot of time trying to prove disparate, secondary, tertiary and often unknowable ripple effects.

    I’m not surprised, even though I fell for it! MNR’s grandiosity turned its back on Hayek and Mises’s insights in their critique of central planning. The truth is that social change and economic development can’t be planned. Too many variables.

    I’m with Mises and Hayek on this one. Neo-stalinist organizational models for opening the door to a soft landing for the coercion-based monopoly state seem counterintuitive to me. Perhaps they have some place in the larger ecosystem of libertarian movement organizations, but there is room for many other models to compete and coexist in that ecosystem.

    Your butthurt at having fallen for Rothbardian crankery decades ago is far too overblown. I fell for it too, more recently, and have gradually backed away. I’m not nearly as sore about it though.

    NAPism itself is so flawed that it was bound to fail.

    That in itself is the sort of grandiosity which you still have not quite separated yourself from in trying to separate yourself from it too hard. More later.

  193. dL

    Billionaires don’t typically get or stay rich by throwing a lot of money at ideas that are not thought through and don’t come with a business plan or some kind of equivalent.

    Billionaires, libertarian or not, do not need the Libertarian Party. And I’m pretty sure that anyone who was ready to spend 10 figures on a campaign would insist on selecting their own running mate.

  194. dL

    We’ve seen what MNR’s “Strategy Memo” has wrought…MUCH capital spent, SOME movement, but for the most part, many wars and a MUCH bigger government.

    Rothbard’s strategy memo is not why we have big government. Complete nonsense.

  195. paulie

    Billionaires, libertarian or not, do not need the Libertarian Party. And I’m pretty sure that anyone who was ready to spend 10 figures on a campaign would insist on selecting their own running mate.

    Yes, but RC is talking about a hypothetical party which he thinks would replace the Republicans if and when they collapse as a party, which he thinks may be imminent. I don’t see it as highly likely, because major parties tend to change and adapt and reconstitute their ideology and support base and recover from huge hits, even if it takes decades. But even if it happened you’d still have to address the questions I asked. Dealing with the legacy of the LP having once been actually libertarian and not too interested in becoming the party of Jeb and Mitt, and older voters continuing to associate the name with something other than late 20th century Republicanism brought back from the grave through unnatural means, would be another impediment for this hypothetical new party.

  196. paulie

    Rothbard’s strategy memo is not why we have big government. Complete nonsense.

    Capozzi believes it’s why the LP has not been able to stop it. I rather doubt that’s the case, but that is the argument.

  197. robert capozzi

    pf,

    2 reflections back:

    1) Money will flow to horses that stand a chance to win. Should momentum build toward a center of gravity in the LP that the NAPism should be either exised or severely downplayed in partisan races, the more likely that support will grow. Amash in the environment forming up for 20 creates more opportunities for support. An R delegation in a state defecting to the Ls creates more supportability as well. Garnering billionaire support is nice, but getting support from a broad swathe of the population is better.

    2) I could imagine the political landscape schisming between between the right and left authorianians on the one hand, and lessarchists on the other. Warren and Bannon might make an uneasy alliance, but I’d say they have more in common than we might think. A lessarchist L party would be principally a suburban party, with sane Rs and Ds coming together along with sane Ls. The knuckledragging right and the “progressive” left might not see eye-to-eye on social issues, but parties do have wings. Left-leaning Ls might want, say, UBI, and are pro-choice, and right-leaning ones might want lower taxes and school choice.

  198. robert capozzi

    more…

    Oh, yes, are you a mindreader? I assure you I’m not “butt hurt” at all about being gullible to MNR’s ravings. It’s simply my reasonably dispassionate analysis of why the LP has not lived up to its potential.

  199. robert capozzi

    pf,

    Right, we have Bigger Government because morearchists want it, and for Public Choice reasons. We have far too few lessarchists because that impulse was hijacked by NAPists. What’s done is done, of course, but I do suggest a fairly significant course correction, a shrugging off of unworkable NAPism for a more flexible, more coherent lessarchist approach.

  200. paulie

    I assure you I’m not “butt hurt” at all about being gullible to MNR’s ravings. It’s simply my reasonably dispassionate analysis of why the LP has not lived up to its potential.

    It’s entirely believable you honestly believe it is dispassionate analysis, but from the outside it looks like rather obvious, severe and very persistent and long lasting butthurt.

  201. paulie

    We have far too few lessarchists because that impulse was hijacked by NAPists.

    I don’t think that is true. I’ve yet to see any data-supported evidence that shows this, and what data I have in fact seen indicates there are more, not fewer “lesserchists” because of the efforts of “NAPists.”

  202. dL

    Right, we have Bigger Government because morearchists want it, and for Public Choice reasons.

    Public choice has nothing to do with “big government” per se. It is a microeconomic analysis of collective action based on an assumption of methodological individualism(rational self-interest) applied to political actors. And there are competing frameworks how that plays out. Chicago school(Gary Becker), the legislature, even a corrupt one, is an efficient market with no sunk costs. Virginia School(Tullock), rent-seeking is riddled with sunk costs(e.g, players spend a dollar to get 75 cents of rent). In the standard Virginia model, politicians get paid not to do anything(that old Eddie Murphy movie, The Distinguished Gentlemen, was actually pretty accurate). In the Chicago model, politicians do not get rich from rent-seeking. That public choice doesn’t actually explain why you end up with big government is why Bryan Caplan formulated an alternative microeconomic model, rational irrationality(which I don’t think is right, either).

    We have far too few lessarchists because that impulse was hijacked by NAPists.

    In other words, libertarianism is the reason for the dearth of “sensible small government sentiment.” Easily falsifiable. You can’t explain why countries that have no real libertarian tradition nonetheless have big government. Why is that? Political ideologies that do have a strain of libertarian tradition, e.g, modern American conservatism, that are self-consciously purging said strain are not moving toward “sensible small government sentiment.” Instead they are moving toward outright authoritarianism.

  203. paulie

    Should momentum build toward a center of gravity in the LP that the NAPism should be either exised or severely downplayed in partisan races, the more likely that support will grow.

    More assertions I would like to see some proof or evidence for. I’ve seen the opposite over nearly 30 years in and around the party. You can dismiss those as small changes, sure, but what better actual data do we have?

    Money will flow to horses that stand a chance to win.

    And have a solid plan to do so. Fluke winners may get rewarded, but many serious donors approach it like an investment, which in a way it is, and want to see something akin to a business plan. Unless and until you have one, there is someone ahead of you in line for their money who does.

    Garnering billionaire support is nice, but getting support from a broad swathe of the population is better.

    Agreed, and it typically takes a lot of money to even catch the attention of that many small donors. That is why campaigns typically seek seed capital and large investors up front before even going public.

    A lessarchist L party would be principally a suburban party

    That’s not a great plan for long term success. Suburbs, far from being a spontaneous market phenomenon, were engineered by government policies designed to boost the profits of petroleum companies and retailers, automotive manufacturers and related industries, construction and real estate developers, road builders, power companies, big box retailers, etc. As they age, the money for infrastucture upkeep may not keep up with demand, and perhaps at some point petroleum may become more scarce, or too many people will lose patience with long commutes.

    There’s already a move by well off people to reclaim and gentrify urban neighborhoods well underway. In the future, I can easily envision US suburbs turn into the new slums, as is already the more prevalent pattern globally, or turn into abandoned ghost towns and squatter camps, or even be torn down and replaced by farmland, parks, and forests.

  204. dL

    Money will flow to horses that stand a chance to win.

    Based on the previous campaign war chests of Bob Barr, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, the public is laying sucker odds on republican horses wearing LP colors. Talk is cheap.

  205. Jim

    dL “Trumpism isn’t a majority of Americans, but it’s still the most sizable, unified voting block at ~ 40% of the population.”

    Trumpsters are around 20% of the population. The other 20% of those are just party loyalists. Not that it makes a difference in a general election.

  206. dL

    Yes, but RC is talking about a hypothetical party which he thinks would replace the Republicans if and when they collapse as a party, which he thinks may be imminent.

    There is no imminent GOP collapse. GOP holds POTUS, the Senate, SCOTUS majority and a majority of governorships. Complete nonsense. There, are however, two places where the GOP has collapsed: Cali and NY. What inroads have the LP made in those two places? I can tell how NOT to make any inroads in California or New York, and that is to be the party of white picket-fenced suburbia.

  207. dL

    Trumpsters are around 20% of the population. The other 20% of those are just party loyalists. Not that it makes a difference in a general election.

    Maybe. But when dog shit uniformly polls the same 40% against [insert any other candidate with a pulse here] , I have to assume 40% of the population has a strong affinity for dog shit.

  208. paulie

    Of course, social change movements almost always fail. They might set out with fine intentions, but I can’t think of a consequential one that becomes corrupted and ends up failing in its original mission. Plus, they start out with severely flawed premises. That makes it easy for some to simply give up and disengage, which pretty much describes at least me. My comments here are mostly coming from a kind of morbid curiousity.

    You’re right, social change movements almost always fail. That’s why chattel slavery and Jim Crow are still legal, the status of women and LGBT folks has not changed in centuries, prohibition remains an untried experiment, the world is still in the hands of absolute monarchs, feudal lords and priests, and fascism and socialism are still just academic concepts with no record of having ever been tried anywhere, among other things.

    If we choose to engage, I’d say the best approach is to do so with as unconflicted intentions as possible, but with flexibility and knowing that mistakes will be made. When in the arena, expect some mud on one’s face, but keeing in mind that all we can do is our best.

    I’m tempted to ask whether that is a selection from Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy, but I’m just about positive it’s not.

    ” It certainly could end up as more embarrassing than GJ’s 16 run.”

    Surprised but….Agreed!

    BUT…what if the economic pillar collapses in the midst of 20? What if the leadership grows some balls, and they see DJT for what he is: a grifter? The leadership already drew the line on DJT’s tariffs with Mexico. Early polls in swing states are showing that the DJT juggernaut is not all its cracked up to be.

    We’ll see. I do not see that helping LP or the latter benefitting from that, with or without Amash.

    Even the inarticulate GJ almost broke through and got in the debates in 16. He had a shot, at least, which barring a miracle no NAPist would.

    No, Johnson was not close to debates. He had a momentary increase and decrease. Lawsuits failed. His average in the polls needed to get in was on average half the minimum, and that was at the peak. It declined from there. A couple of outlier polls in double digits isn’t the same as almost making the debates.

    Imagine, if you will, we’re in a recession in Q1 20. The Ds go safe a pick a doddering, gaffe-prone JB. DJT gets renominated. The nation’s first L congressman gets nominated by the LP for prez. That is an interesting set up. Highly doubtful JA wins, but he has the potential to be in the mix.

    That’s a lot of levels of conjecture stacked on top of each other.

    The NAPists in that scenario? Non factors, in my judgment. You see it otherwise, I suspect in part because you came into the LM in the Browne era.

    Actually a bit earlier. I think I had libertarian instincts the whole time I identified as a Democrat or leftist in the 80s and early 90s. In retrospect they manifested when I was a little kind in Russia in the 70s long before I thought about politics or even saw the US. I came to identify as a Democrat at age 8, in opposition to the other kids on my school bus and in agreement with my dad and my teacher. I’m not sure if I read or heard of Clark that year but I definitely did before the Bergland nomination. I actually watched Bergland infomercials, more for sleep aid purposes than content, but the content may have absorbed somewhat. By the time the LP ran Ron Paul I was still a leftist I thought, but had lived a whirlwind outlaw life in the meantime and worked side by side with LP members on pot legalization rallies in NYC.

    I continued to identify as a Democrat and work on Democratic campaigns through the primaries in ’92. But by that point I was already scoring 100/80 on the LP quiz, attending LP meetings, submitting an item to LP News, After the primaries I switched to LP, not because I was fully sold, and not because of anything Marrou said or did, but because he was on the Alabama ballot and the only other three presidential candidates who were all supported the drug war among some other things.

    That and Bergland’s book sent out by Marc Montoni in his capacity as LPHQ employee (we did not know or know of each other until many years later), plus the other books listed in its further reading appendix, was what brought me into the party and movement.

    (I came in during the Clark era, which is probably influencing my thinking as well. Clark was an attempt to sound relevant and non-wacko.

    I like Clark, in retrospect. Much for the same reasons I liked Johnson in ’12: Clark was a “low tax liberal.” He made a concerted attempt to build campus audiences and volunteer base. He made good inroads with the left-center-libertarian youth sweet spot. I read Rothbard’s venomous raving about Clark before I read Clark himself, so when I finally read Clark’s campaign book about 30 years after the fact I was surprised how good it was. Logical, libertarian, well laid our arguments that stood the test of time very well for the most part.

    And my best guess is that DJT will start looking more like Carter did in his vulnerability.)

    I think he’ll come off as more of a mix of Hoover and Mussolini than Carter, but maybe that’s just me.

  209. dL

    And my best guess is that DJT will start looking more like Carter did in his vulnerability.

    William Weld ain’t Ted Kennedy…

  210. dL

    I think he’ll come off as more of a mix of Hoover and Mussolini than Carter, but maybe that’s just me.

    In retrospect, Carter is generally graded as the most “libertarian” president post WW II. Granted, it’s a low bar…

  211. Jim

    Finding a coalition from pieces of the Rs and Ds isn’t hard. We can cross off most of the factions.

    On the Republican side

    If we wanted to, we could theoretically get the PaleoConservatives if we went full anti-immigrant in a different election, but in 2020 they are fully on board with Trump.

    The Social Conservatives want nothing to do with us, ever.

    The NeoConservatives have looked at libertarian ideas and rejected them, but not with spite, like the Social Conservatives. They really don’t like Trump’s PaleoConservative and might vote for a libertarian candidate in an emergency, but we won’t win them over ideologically.

    That leaves the Buckeyites – kind of a domestically libertarian-ish, pro-war faction. Pre-Trump Presidency Ted Cruz is what I had in mind in describing this faction. If we wanted them we would have to start promising to bomb Middle Easterners. That would help bring in the NeoCons, also.

    And the Modern Liberals (sometimes called Fiscal Conservatives or Business Conservatives.) They don’t care about regulating social issues. They favor porous, but not open borders. They don’t really care about all the foreign wars and massive defense spending, although they usually go along with it just to keep the political coalition viable. Mostly they just care about low taxes and regulations. This is the low hanging fruit in the Republican Party. Most libertarians who come over from the Republicans come from this faction. But they are only 15% – 20% of the population. They alone aren’t enough to win.

    On the Democratic side

    The Blue Dogs are almost extinct, having mostly joined the Republicans. Same with the Modern Liberal Democrats. There are a few left, but they are inconsequential.

    There is the Democratic equivalent of the NeoConservatives, which I guess can be called Progressive Internationalists. Hillary Clinton type Democrats. Like the NeoCons, they have rejected our ideas, but might vote for us in an extreme emergency if they think the other candidates are more dangerous, especially if we get aggressive on foreign policy.

    There are the Democratic Socialists. That’s the far left, Sanders wing. And they have a closely allied a cultural faction. These people are as unreachable as Social Conservatives.

    And there are the Social Democrats, which is more the… I haven’t followed the Dem Presidential candidates much. Beto O’Rourke, I guess. Kind of culturally libertarian-ish sometimes, and are capitalists, but are supportive of substantial social safety nets. Some, but not all, go as far as Universal Healthcare. Which means relatively high taxes, if not as high as the Democratic Socialists would like. They are the most similar to libertarians, but I can’t think of anything that might cause them to leave the Democratic Party in large numbers. The more moderate ones might if the Dems went too far left and nominated Sanders or Warren.

    Here’s the problem – if we were building a Modern Liberal coalition party (because it could hardly be called Libertarian at this point), the two groups would have to be the Modern Liberal (fiscally conservative) Republicans and the the more moderate Social Democrats in the Democratic Party. But it’s hard to build a coalition between a group of fiscal conservatives and a group calling for a large social safety nets. They may agree on foreign policy and cultural issues like porous borders or support for gay marriage or relaxed abortion laws, but their primary focuses are at odds. I don’t see how that gap can be bridged.

  212. robert capozzi

    pf: More assertions I would like to see some proof or evidence for. I’ve seen the opposite over nearly 30 years in and around the party. You can dismiss those as small changes, sure, but what better actual data do we have?

    me: I assiduously avoid the sample-size bias. My observation is that sometimes no data is better than a little data. A little data may give one confidence about one’s analytical conclusions, but because the data is woefully incomplete, the data leads one in a very wrong direction. You may not. Data can be useful indeed in decision making, but I’ve seen it fail too many times, in politics and in business.

    On the suburbs, yes, over time the demographics can and probably will shift again. It would be interesting to see whether more moderate congresspeople tend to come from the suburbs and more extreme congresspeople come from cities and rural areas. That’s my sense of things CURRENTLY, and that’s what I point to.

    My sense of things is that we are about to see a market meltup, followed by a meltdown, possibly worse than 08. Some of this is gut, and some of this is technical. I can’t put a percentage on it, and it probably won’t happen that way, not exactly. What I do see are several economic storm clouds on the horizon. They line up very badly for DJT’s re-election.

    It feels to me like a massive missed opportunity if the LP doesn’t put up a plausible candidate. You seem to prefer a more “underground” approach, given that was your personal path to NAPism. Rothbardian cadre-ism worked for you, although now you seem to advocate Longite cadre-ism.

    And I can say that historians 200 years from now would say, “Thank God for Roderick! We are now living in a blissed-out plentitude of nonarchic peace and harmony due to his intellectual heft! He vanquished both the Cosmotarians and the Rothbardians!”

    Neither of us will be there to see that Glorious Day, but we can dream….

  213. paulie

    In retrospect, Carter is generally graded as the most “libertarian” president post WW II. Granted, it’s a low bar…

    I actually liked him, both then and in retrospect. I was only in the US the last year of his presidency, but if I had been old enough and a US citizen I would have voted for him to have another term. In retrospect I would have voted for Clark, but if there had been ranked choice or if Clark had not been an option I would not have a hard time ranking Carter ahead of Reagan. Ivan Eland agrees in his “peace, freedom and prosperity” ranking of presidents (see his book Recarving Mt. Rushmore). Carter was dealt a bad hand, but made relatively good decisions given the hand he was dealt.

  214. paulie

    William Weld ain’t Ted Kennedy…

    He’s not even Pat Buchanan. Hell he’s barely John Ashbrook or Pete McCloskey.

  215. paulie

    Finding a coalition from pieces of the Rs and Ds isn’t hard. We can cross off most of the factions.

    Are you presuming we can just pick and choose which ever factions of any establishment parties we want? That’s not reality. First the party they already have would have to either collapse or do something major to alienate and drive them away or we would have to give them some extremely compelling reason to switch. Getting several groups to do so all at once is more than tricky. Capozzi’s scenario is the Republicans collapsing. I don’t see it as likely at all, but let’s say they did. So now what? The Republicans collapsing does not in and of itself cause any Democrats to abandon the Democrats, at least not as whole elements of their coalition. I can see a lot of Democrats not bothering to vote if they don’t have to worry about losing to Republicans, but having whole large segments of their coalition move to a long existing third party with a long history and history of having an ideology they are not in line with is a lot less plausible. And then you still have the question of why whichever Republicans we don’t want would join the Democrats or where else they would go. Then imagining on top of all that we would have the luxury to pick and choose which parts of both the Democratic and Republican parties we scavenge and Frankenstein into a “libertarianish” party built from the shell of the LP seems even less plausible.

    On the Republican side

    If we wanted to, we could theoretically get the PaleoConservatives if we went full anti-immigrant in a different election, but in 2020 they are fully on board with Trump.

    The Social Conservatives want nothing to do with us, ever.

    The NeoConservatives have looked at libertarian ideas and rejected them, but not with spite, like the Social Conservatives. They really don’t like Trump’s PaleoConservative and might vote for a libertarian candidate in an emergency, but we won’t win them over ideologically.

    That leaves the Buckeyites – kind of a domestically libertarian-ish, pro-war faction. Pre-Trump Presidency Ted Cruz is what I had in mind in describing this faction. If we wanted them we would have to start promising to bomb Middle Easterners. That would help bring in the NeoCons, also.

    Yeah, I’m not hearing anyone I would want in my party, so far. But where else would they go and how could we keep them out if we want a winning coalition?

    And the Modern Liberals (sometimes called Fiscal Conservatives or Business Conservatives.) They don’t care about regulating social issues. They favor porous, but not open borders. They don’t really care about all the foreign wars and massive defense spending, although they usually go along with it just to keep the political coalition viable. Mostly they just care about low taxes and regulations. This is the low hanging fruit in the Republican Party. Most libertarians who come over from the Republicans come from this faction. But they are only 15% – 20% of the population. They alone aren’t enough to win.

    I’m not going to investigate the numbers. Let’s just take them as given. So if the NSGOP does somehow collapse, we are left with several pieces that we don’t want at all, and no reason for them to go anywhere else (unless we want them to cobble together a different kind of coalition with someone else that excludes us). So we still need to get the bulk of the voters we would need to be competitive from the Democrats. And why exactly would they leave them unless their party collapses at the exact same time?

    On the Democratic side

    The Blue Dogs are almost extinct, having mostly joined the Republicans. Same with the Modern Liberal Democrats. There are a few left, but they are inconsequential.

    There is the Democratic equivalent of the NeoConservatives, which I guess can be called Progressive Internationalists. Hillary Clinton type Democrats. Like the NeoCons, they have rejected our ideas, but might vote for us in an extreme emergency if they think the other candidates are more dangerous, especially if we get aggressive on foreign policy.

    There are the Democratic Socialists. That’s the far left, Sanders wing. And they have a closely allied a cultural faction. These people are as unreachable as Social Conservatives.

    And there are the Social Democrats, which is more the… I haven’t followed the Dem Presidential candidates much. Beto O’Rourke, I guess. Kind of culturally libertarian-ish sometimes, and are capitalists, but are supportive of substantial social safety nets. Some, but not all, go as far as Universal Healthcare. Which means relatively high taxes, if not as high as the Democratic Socialists would like. They are the most similar to libertarians, but I can’t think of anything that might cause them to leave the Democratic Party in large numbers. The more moderate ones might if the Dems went too far left and nominated Sanders or Warren.

    Yeah, nothing that sounds very appealing there even if we had the luxury to pick and choose. Even if we accept the last group we are still far short of a winning coalition.

    Here’s the problem – if we were building a Modern Liberal coalition party (because it could hardly be called Libertarian at this point), the two groups would have to be the Modern Liberal (fiscally conservative) Republicans and the the more moderate Social Democrats in the Democratic Party. But it’s hard to build a coalition between a group of fiscal conservatives and a group calling for a large social safety nets. They may agree on foreign policy and cultural issues like porous borders or support for gay marriage or relaxed abortion laws, but their primary focuses are at odds. I don’t see how that gap can be bridged.

    Agreed. And what’s more the incentive just isn’t there because you are still far short of a winning coalition even if they set their differences aside. Plus if we don’t call it Libertarian why even use the shell of the old party? It’s nothing but a drag on your efforts at that point. Ballot access is not trivial, but it is when compared with what it takes to become a major party. And if you do call it Libertarian how many would refuse to accept the label because of its past history and be driven away by that alone, no matter how much we bend our ideology and platform in knots to try to win them over?

    So what do we get if the NSGOP does collapse? A small sliver of Republicans, far short of a major party, and very little if any incentive for many Democrats to join them, and even if they did still not a winning coalition. In other words exactly what I said before. There’s no there there. Not even potentially.

  216. paulie

    I assiduously avoid the sample-size bias. My observation is that sometimes no data is better than a little data. A little data may give one confidence about one’s analytical conclusions, but because the data is woefully incomplete, the data leads one in a very wrong direction. You may not. Data can be useful indeed in decision making, but I’ve seen it fail too many times, in politics and in business.

    I disagree with your characterization. There’s plenty of data if you are willing to look at it on its own scale. You insist at looking at it on a projected much larger scale and comparing to something with no data at all, just wishful thinking and conjecture. There have been times when the LP was less libertarian in its messaging than at other times, and the incremental changes were the opposite of what your model predicts. Thus, there is actually less than zero reason to believe that if the LP followed the course you recommend the payoff you promise would then occur actually would.

    My sense of things is that we are about to see a market meltup, followed by a meltdown, possibly worse than 08. Some of this is gut, and some of this is technical. I can’t put a percentage on it, and it probably won’t happen that way, not exactly. What I do see are several economic storm clouds on the horizon. They line up very badly for DJT’s re-election.

    Agreed.

    But that’s why I think Trump is ginning up a war or two or three. After all it gave pappy Bush a big popularity boost when his economy tanked. He just has to time it better than Pappy so he does not come right back down and have to face the economic music before the election happens. He can probably manage to do that; what sunk Pappy was his foresight that occupying Iraq would be a huge mess he wanted no part of. The war was over in a hundred hours of “fighting”, but that was his choice; had he gone on to Baghdad he likely would have had a second term, but later faced the lagging popularity Shrub ended up with as the occupation dragged on. Trump will probably opt for the latter option, and if anything expand the war(s) or start new ones.

    He is also probably going to start mass deportations in earnest.

    I could be wrong, but I don’t think he has enough unanimous support in intelligence agencies to pull off a false flag terrorist event within the US, unless it’s as a pretext for a foreign war those factions of the intel community who are not big fans of his otherwise want anyway. Overseas false flag is a different story though, I can easily see that and in fact it looks to me like the supposed Iranian attacks in the gulf already were exactly that.

    It feels to me like a massive missed opportunity if the LP doesn’t put up a plausible candidate. You seem to prefer a more “underground” approach, given that was your personal path to NAPism. Rothbardian cadre-ism worked for you, although now you seem to advocate Longite cadre-ism.

    No, not especially. I like Clark 80 in retrospect. I liked a lot of things about Johnson 12. Vermin isn’t Longite cadre-ism exactly, and I like him. In 2004 I backed Aaron Russo, not exactly the cadre candidate. I’m not wedded to an “underground” approach. I would have a lot less of a problem with Amash being the nominee if it wasn’t on the heels of so many Republican retread tickets back to back and if abortion and immigration were not front and center issues this cycle.

    Neither of us will be there to see that Glorious Day, but we can dream….

    You forgot about the Frankel Singularity, apparently.

  217. robert capozzi

    pf,

    A few reflections:

    * I only brought up Carter because he was a one-termer. I hear you on his relative not-badness.

    * It sounds as if you’re feeling aggrieved that the last 3 cycles have had the Ls nominated a Shiny Badged former R, and you are concerned that the thousands of future potential-Paulie’s will be repelled by a 4th, as they pay attention to such minutiae. I’m sure there are some, but they are few. It’s true that I don’t petition, of course, but it does seem true that we find what we seek.

    * Yes, war seems to have been used to distract the public from an otherwise poorly performing president. Whether that was ever an explicit motive…we don’t know for certain. I suspect that was not ever explicitly stated but may have factored into the calculus. I suspect it’s more a wink-and-nod kinda thing. Expecting that sort of candor in politics — especially regarding warring — is fairly rare.

    * In my experience, at least, conjecture is always a factor. The old saw: “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure,” seems all too apropos. Empiricism in politics is especially dependent on hidden agendas and flawed assumptions. Counter-factuals are not produce-able. Look at the conversation about NATO in recent years. “NATO has kept the peace in Europe for 70 years,” some apologists say. Trump seemed to have some good-ish instincts there, but the status quo-ists seem to me to miss the point. The data largely “proves” the “benefits” of NATO, but that’s not the right question.

    * Decision-making is far more complex than just assessing a set of numbers. It’s far more of an iterative process of hypothesizing, testing, analyzing, and then re-assessing, along with building up a special knowledge of time and place. NAPists (I’d say to their detriment) just seem more about analyzing based on the NAP, rejecting the need for developing a feel for time and place (ripeness) or the importance of having power, even if the goal is to undo power itself.

    * And thank you for the chuckle about the Frankel Singularity! Could happen….anything’s possible.

  218. paulie

    I’m sure there are some, but they are few.

    And I’m sure you are way, way wrong, and not just because I petition. I have given you many reasons why too many times to count so another repetition won’t help anything. Note also that 4th retread in a row was only one of several factors I listed.

    Expecting that sort of candor in politics — especially regarding warring — is fairly rare.

    Well yeah, not even Trump is likely to blurt out that this is why he is stirring up a war, although if anyone would it would probably be him, but I was not even thinking in those terms at all.

    Decision-making is far more complex than just assessing a set of numbers. It’s far more of an iterative process of hypothesizing, testing, analyzing, and then re-assessing

    Agreed, and I do that. All of that to me indicates that your theory of what would happen with an ideologically watered down party is not only way off but directionally off. You don’t consider the evidence to be evidence at all because in your mind the numbers are too small to matter. You take your hypothesis as likely because it feels right to you and you want it to be true. I acknowledge the data is limited but at least it exists. It’s not too insignificant to count. I’ll go with that over purely unproven and unbacked with evidence of any kind at all in any way shape or form wishful thinking. That’s all I ever see from you regarding the direction you wish the party would go in.

    NAPists (I’d say to their detriment) just seem more about analyzing based on the NAP

    The analysis we are talking about here is what direction makes the party show relatively more signs of life and growth and which dampens those indicators. It has nothing in itself to do with whether the party’s ideology, whether taken uncut or watered down, is right, wrong, or whatever mix thereof. Those are two separate questions.

  219. robert capozzi

    pf,

    It’s not “wishful thinking.” IIRC, polling pretty consistently shows that roughly 20% of people are lessarchists, but only about 1% are NAPists.

    You did say you’d like JA more if he were not 4th former R in a row. Of course, we can’t prove the counterfactual of how you might feel if BB and GJ never happened, and the choice was Vermin, AK, or JA.

  220. paulie

    That was one of the things I said. And polling is not consistent, nor is the definition of “lessarchist,” or how accurately polling can or does reflect that. But even if none of those issues existed, that tells you nothing about whether or how much they would be willing to be involved with a party that is going to lose. What drives such parties is not merely how many people agree with them but how many they can persuade to abandon the duopoly, yet still vote. How many can they motivate to donate, run for office, talk to other people, gather ballot access signatures, attend meetings, organize meetings, and so on?

    For example there are plenty of centrists, broadly speaking. There have also been lots of attempts to organize centrist parties. Yet none of them have turned into a party that is bigger than the LP for very long. Many have fizzled altogether. Some have been fairly successful in a single state, often through fusion and generally not in federal races. The Reform Party was briefly bigger than the LP in a number of aspects but fizzled quickly.

    So even assuming there are 20% lesserchists among all voters it tells you pretty much nothing about what luck they would have in creating a party bigger than the LP and not a flash in the pan, had the LP not existed or if they could take over the shell of the LP. We’ve been over this how many times, and yet you have not understood this one simple thing, or pretend you have not.

  221. robert capozzi

    pf,

    I’m sorry I’ve not made it clear to you that this is NOT one simple thing. Given my subtle and nuanced approach, I’da thunk that would be apparent. Yes, it’s a conceptual longshot that a lessarchist party could break through, compete, and even take partial control of the Leviathan. There’s virtually NO shot that a NAPist party can do so, given the virtual impossibility of applying NAPism to the real world.

    This NAPist party is at best a vanguard for attempting to introduce fringe ideas into the political sphere. That it has some longevity is somewhat impressive, somewhere less than what the LDS Church has carved out a place in the pantheon of churches. Even the LDS has been able to de-fringe its public image, though, and similarly so has the LP.

    With the possible exceptions of weed and gay marriage, the rest of the LP’s fringe agenda has virtually no impact of the political direction of the country.

    Just because the depth charges were put in place by the 88 20-somethings does NOT mean that their creation is the optimal political means to advance peace and freedom, right?

    While I don’t have my finger on the pulse of potential LP convention-goers, I suspect that were JA to re-affiliate L in the coming months and then seeks the nomination, he takes the nomination in a cakewalk. Certainly the Cosmotarians dig the idea. I suspect the Paulistas will like JA a lot more than GJ. The “Radical” Caucus might pitch a fit, although I wonder about CAH. She might dig his pro-life stance, and semi-constitutionalist mentality.

  222. robert capozzi

    clarifying…..

    I’d say the LDS has made more progress in de-fringing itself than has the LP. There were points in 16 where I thought the LP’s public image was becoming respectable, but then the 1-2 punches of Aleppo and the tongue threw most of that away.

  223. dL

    It’s not “wishful thinking.” IIRC, polling pretty consistently shows that roughly 20% of people are lessarchists, but only about 1% are NAPists.

    If those exact terms were used In a scientific survey, something that sounds like people who like naps would easily beat something that sounds like people who like to wear black masks and smash storefronts.

  224. Aiden James

    Just throwing this out there. For 2020 candidates, I do web and logo design. I’m doing a discount code for candidates. If anybody’s interested see http://www.aspyrdesigns.com

    The codes are Liberty2020 and GreenDeal2020.

    If anybody wants to share, be my guest.

  225. paulie

    Just throwing this out there. For 2020 candidates, I do web and logo design.

    If I could persuade the site owner to get rid of google ads and do banner ads instead do you want one and how much would you be willing to pay? I think he said he needs about $100 a month to cover site costs.

  226. paulie

    If those exact terms were used In a scientific survey, something that sounds like people who like naps would easily beat something that sounds like people who like to wear black masks and smash storefronts.

    LOL

  227. paulie

    There’s virtually NO shot that a NAPist party can do so, given the virtual impossibility of applying NAPism to the real world.

    We disagree on that, as you know. If there is any new ground in the rest of this part of your comment I missed it.

    That is unless your last paragraph. We probably covered that already too, perhaps on this thread somewhere above, but just in case:

    While I don’t have my finger on the pulse of potential LP convention-goers, I suspect that were JA to re-affiliate L in the coming months and then seeks the nomination, he takes the nomination in a cakewalk.

    Agreed, that’s the likely truth. I explained why I would be part of the dissenting minority.

  228. robert capozzi

    pf,

    OK, so we agree that JA pretty much can have the L nom if he seeks it.

    What’s wrong, from your perspective, with the rank-and-file of the LP? Are they not NAPist? Are they gullible? Do they have an some kind of blind spot for Shiny Badges?

  229. robert capozzi

    PF,

    A recent Reason podcast with Gillespie and David French echoed an earlier point I made here. They see the possibility of the “liberal right” and “liberal left” becoming allied against the “illiberal right” and “illiberal left.” That could be a path forward, and the Ls could be crucial in bringing together the liberals. NAPists, however, are ill-equipped to serve as such a bridge, in my estimation, given their stylistic Marxist tendencies.

  230. paulie

    OK, so we agree that JA pretty much can have the L nom if he seeks it.

    Given the current field, known likely possible candidates, probable composition of delegates as we can best predict it at this time, and what is publicly known about Amash as of right now, I would say you are correct. Any of those things could change, but odds are against them changing significantly enough to change that if-then prediction is my best guess.

    What’s wrong, from your perspective, with the rank-and-file of the LP?

    Where to start…

    Are they not NAPist?

    Not educated enough in the history and ideas of different libertarian perspectives, nor in nuts and bolts pragmatic politics either would be more accurate IMO.

    Are they gullible?

    To a disturbing extent yes, but disproportionately so when it comes to fresh off the boat partial converts from NSGOP, particularly since many of them fit that mold themselves and even if they have been in the party for years or in some cases decades too many retain far too much NSGOP and/or right wing lean/affinity.

    Do they have an some kind of blind spot for Shiny Badges?

    To some extent, but also for right wingers and Republican revolving door types as well; all three seems to be a combination most delegates have yet to show an ability to turn down.

    It’s not a problem I know how to solve. I tried a few times and didn’t make any kind of observable dent. If anything I gave in myself and voted for Johnson for the nomination in 2012, for reasons I have explained before. However it was a last minute decision made at the convention itself, I did not support or vote for him for the nomination the second time and did not support the winning VP nominee either time. I didn’t support the winning presidential or VP nominees in 2004 or 2008 either, nor the winning VP nominee in 2000, so I’m 0 of 5 on voting with the majority for VP nominee and 2 of5 on presidential nominees, or overall 20% agreement with plurality/majority of delegates on those two positions at five conventions.

  231. paulie

    But actually an even bigger problem with LP delegates and members in general is the mostly passive recruiting model. That and covering top level races and large area and population territories from the top down as opposed to active in person recruiting from the smallest possible most local areas and for the lowest level races to start, and realizing there is more low hanging fruit, more natural affinity and more open mindedness on our left flank than on our right. Those would be the biggest ones I can think of.

  232. dL

    A recent Reason podcast with Gillespie and David French echoed an earlier point I made here. They see the possibility of the “liberal right” and “liberal left” becoming allied against the “illiberal right” and “illiberal left.”

    https://reason.com/podcast/why-libertarians-should-care-about-the-illiberal-right-as-much-as-the-illiberal-left/

    That doesn’t make your case, Bob. The fact that Gillespie’s “libertarian leaning, libertarian flavored libertarian moment” turned out to be, um, theocracy, and Gillespie’s new political coalition, this so-called “Frenchism liberal right,” which Gillespie conveniently defines for us:

    French’s conservative bona fides are sterling: He’s a devout evangelical Christian who writes about how religion is central to living a flourishing life. He’s written critically of high levels of immigration. He’s resolutely anti-abortion and pro-military intervention and even served during the Iraq War. He believes that young men today are being stripped of their traditional masculine identities by feminism and he’s written critically of trans people.

    is nothing but the old reactionary, Pre-Trump right wing social conservatism that the “libertarian moment” was supposed to leave in the dust. Farcical. Don’t expect me to take Nick Gillespie as a political prognosticator seriously. And it only highlights the direction “directional liberty” flows in: authoritarian and reactionary.

  233. paulie

    NAPists, however, are ill-equipped to serve as such a bridge, in my estimation, given their stylistic Marxist tendencies.

    You still need to define your terms better. Either it’s a group that includes me or it is stylistically Marxist. It isn’t both.

  234. robert capozzi

    pf,

    Actually, with politics and style especially, things are more fluid than that. And, words, after all, are not all that precise in their definitions.. They are symbols of symbols.

    By all indications, you are a NAPist, but you’re a soft-landing NAPist, not the most strident abolitionist NAPist. As such, you seem to recognize shades of gray and seem a bit more tolerant of deviations than the most hard-core NAPists.

  235. paulie

    OK, so you think I have stylistically Marxist tendencies then? If so, how so? Or only that some other “NAPists” do?

  236. paulie

    I’m 0 of 5 on voting with the majority for VP nominee and 2 of5 on presidential nominees, or overall 20% agreement with plurality/majority of delegates on those two positions at five conventions.

    OTOH I am not always out of step with the plurality of delegates. Off the top of my head I voted for the winning chair candidates in 2018, 2016, 2014 and 2010; I can’t remember the other years. I believe I initially supported a second term for Hinkle in ’12 and I don’t remember how I voted after the new candidates post-NOTA. I don’t think I was on the winning side for chair in 2008 and I don’t think I knew or cared very much about LNC races in 2004 or 2000. I did vote for many winning officer and at large positions in some years and was pretty happy overall with platform changes and resolutions in 2018, although not always in past years. I seem more out of step on presidential nominations and, for whatever odd reason, even more so VP nominations.

    Maybe the delegates have some special desire for a breakthrough in the top of ticket selection which blinds them to perspective and reality and makes them gullible to laughable claims, denials, promises and expectations from the candidates who promise next level results. Most delegates keep falling for that same okey doke time and again, and in thinking about it I think the problem is more in terms of lack of adequate personal knowledge and experience with nuts and bolts politics to have a better grasp of what’s realistic and what’s believable and what is total BS, at least in the case of many. If the problem was primarily ideological I would expect I’d be just as out of step on all that other stuff as on the P/VP ticket selections.

  237. paulie

    And another thought: vote counts are higher in the P/VP noms than LNC races, platform votes and so on. So perhaps the problem isn’t even that I am out of step with the plurality of delegates but that the presidential tickets attract some extra delegates with little or no party history or knowledge who are there strictly because they bought into the hype of the presidential nomination seekers or are political operatives playing some angle or as some have alleged paid to attend just to vote in the presidential nomination. I have not seen hard evidence of much of that if any but the rumors always persist. But for the delegates who stick around to vote on a lot of other things besides the presidential nomination I’m a lot less out of step with them, at least most years.

  238. robert capozzi

    pf.

    I don’t know you well enough to say how stylistically Marxist you are or are not. If I’ve gathered correctly, you were once far more stylistically Marxist in your NAPism. It could be that you filter your NAPist reflexes, realizing just how offputting that approach can be to non-NAPists. Or you could have transformed your understanding of what NAPism is for you. I’m sure there are other possibilities as well. For instance, you could be playing the “conciliator” role for the NAPists, where you are sent to soften up the Non True Believers while secretly holding true to the Creed.

  239. paulie

    I don’t know you well enough to say how stylistically Marxist you are or are not. If I’ve gathered correctly, you were once far more stylistically Marxist in your NAPism.

    I don’t think so. I was much more tolerant of “paleo” arguments and at times echoed them, even though I always thought our left flank hold more opportunity. My degree of tolerance for candidate and party deviations from hardcore libertarian extremist dogma was always situational, and dependent on a wide variety of factors. That has not changed. My core principles have remained the same. I’ve reevaluated the wisdom of some tactical alliances. In what sense do you think I was ever stylistically Marxist? Explain what you mean by that term, please. Maybe there’s something I am not getting?

  240. robert capozzi

    pf,

    Stylistically Marxist = dogmatic, strident, and completely close-minded. Like many Marxists, many NAPists simply cannot imagine that their worldview is perfectly derived and without flaw.

    iirc, MNR thought himself a man of the left in the 70s and 80s.

  241. paulie

    Stylistically Marxist = dogmatic, strident, and completely close-minded. Like many Marxists, many NAPists simply cannot imagine that their worldview is [not] perfectly derived and without flaw.

    Yeah, I was never those things. We talked for probably at least a decade now; I don’t know how much you remember but the archives are available if you or anyone wants to look.

    iirc, MNR thought himself a man of the left in the 70s and 80s.

    Probably more late 60s, early 70s. Prior to that he was pretty stridently contrarian rightist, at one point having been perhaps the only Jew in NYC to vote for Strom Thurmond, intentionally, and brag about it afterwards. There may have been some residual effect but by mid 70s he soured on Marxist and New Left alliances, concluding they were doomed to fail. For the following decade plus Rothbard was in the LP and a pretty plumbline extreme libertarian (even if he had to say so himself, more or less nonstop), with a gradual rightward drift back to where he started half a century earlier – the grotesque partial birth abortion known illogically and ahistorically as “paleolibertarianism”, the infamous newsletters, praise for David Duke and Pat Buchanan, and so on.

    Then he died, leaving some of his most strident supporters twisting in a frozen hell of hatred growing on itself in darkness and isolation and gathering strength. There it grew ever uglier, ever more twisted and hateful, despite a brief renaissence of drifting back to the light in the era of opposition to Shrub and his wars, Ron Paul’s latter campaigns and their extensive outreach and appeal to the antiwar movement, young folks, alternative and sub and counter cultural rebellious types of all sorts. That brief hope ended with the coming of the Obama years as Rothbardian-Rockwellism took another hard right turn, and that has only intensified in the Drumpf era as it has twisted into the frequently open racism, fascism and nationalism of the extreme “alt” right.

    Combined with Rothbard’s lifelong penchant for contrarianism, stridency, vehemence, venomousness, and trolling – the one constant through all his ideological and alliance shifts – it fit perfectly with the angst of primarily young, white, male, mostly well off internet geeks, faced with uncertainty over their previously assumed economic safety and position of social privilege, the shifting cultural, ethnic, religious, gender role and gender identity mix, and their frequent difficulties in getting laid – distrust for establishment narratives and the easy means to spread outrage, propaganda and hate in online fora pseudo-anonymously, and the well financed efforts of Putinists to stroke the fires of global fascist, pan-nationalist, authoritarian populist, theocratic, neo-feudalist, reactionary, etc movement or intersecting movements. A “perfect storm” of sewer pipes to the alt right hellhole fed in no small part by the Paul/Rothbard/Rockwell twist on libertarianism, and an on ramp to Trump-Putin-Eurofascist global dictatorship in early stages of construction at present.

  242. Jim

    Yeah, ask Hawkins if he believes population growth is a consideration when attempting to limit climate change, and if so, does he support any policies that would help to limit population growth?

  243. dL

    Stylistically Marxist = dogmatic, strident, and completely close-minded.

    I never heard “close-mindedness,” which can describe anyone, hitherto referred to as “marxist.” Shit, dogmatic epistemic closure is a good description of the Fox News viewers, but I wouldn’t call them marxist(commie, maybe, but not marxist). Marx, himself, of course, had none of these qualities, although he could be quite acerbic in his criticisms of contemporaries.

    many NAPists simply cannot imagine that their worldview is perfectly derived and without flaw.

    Seems to me you are conflating Randoids with libertarians and cult of personality with certitude. It is also my humble opinion that you are using this forum to essentially attack your former views while accusing anyone who doesn’t think like you now as thinking like your former self. But I’m not sure how many people here have, or ever had, a marxist reverence for Ayn Rand.

  244. robert capozzi

    Comparing what I refer to as NAPists to “Marxists” or “fundamentalists” is not my original idea. But, for me, these labels resonate. The level of stridency and close-mindedness seems especially pronounced among NAPists. Randroids founded the LP, and they put the depth charges in place. Modern-day non-Randroids NAPists seem honor the handiwork of the 88 20-something founders for inexplicable reasons.

  245. C. Al Currier

    “..questions for Howie Hawkins interview” …paulie
    Some questions about U.S. National Debt ( 22 zillion + ) and some carefully structured questions about AUSTERITY ( like in Greece ).

  246. Andrew

    Did anybody know this even exists? …. “Voice of America”. An actual flat out US Government propaganda arm aimed at the international audience.

  247. paulie

    “..questions for Howie Hawkins interview” …paulie
    Some questions about U.S. National Debt ( 22 zillion + ) and some carefully structured questions about AUSTERITY ( like in Greece ).

    I don’t know if there will be time for you to do so, and me to see it and pass it along, before the questions are submitted, but if you want any chance of an answer you should at least try putting it in the form of a question.

  248. paulie

    Did anybody know this even exists? …. “Voice of America”. An actual flat out US Government propaganda arm aimed at the international audience.

    LOL yes, I did. And in fact I was once part of that international audience, although I listened to it in English, or more precisely overheard my father listening to it when I was young kid in what was then Soviet Russia, along with BBC. I did not understand English at that time, but he did. It was illegal in Soviet Russia to listen to such broadcasts, but not uncommon. It’s common for governments to have such broadcast services aimed at people in other countries. RT is a similar international propaganda broadcast service on behalf of Putin’s government in Russia now, for example.

    More authoritarian and totalitarian governments also have such broadcast services for propaganda to their own domestic audience. This has recently become authorized in the US and Trump also moved to make it a politically controlled arm that would be under the direction of the party in power, in this case himself, with a beefed up budget. Apparently, having unofficial Trump-Putinist propaganda networks such as RT, Breitbart, Fox, and One America News isn’t good enough; we also need a tax-funded, government owned one as well.

  249. C. Al Currier

    “..question for Howie Hawkins interview” …paulie
    What are your opinions about the magnitude and consequences of the US National Debt?

  250. dL

    Randroids founded the LP

    Ed Crane, Roy Childs and Murray Rothbard were not Randroids. A bit of research turns up that Ayn Rand ex-communicated Hospers because he rejected Objectivist epistemology. So, he too wasn’t a Randroid. Now, there was an old saying “it usually begins with Ayn Rand” that might have been true at one time(although that’s not the same as saying it begins and ends with Rand), but it is no longer true. Libertarianism has a wide swath of historical intellectual influences that have come back into the light thanks to internet publishing. The days of the mall bookstore, the local library or the 3-station TV being the primary sources of information(the days when Rand or Friedman were the predominant gateways to libertarianism) are long gone.

  251. C. Al Currier

    “it usually begins with Ayn Rand” …dL
    I got barred from the Libertarian Party in (winter of ’72-73′) in Denver, CO. I was an extreme anti-Amtrak Democrat showing up at a libertarian meeting. I didn’t know anything about the Rand novels. The Randoids seemed to not know anything about nationalizations of the rails (Amtrak) or the government socialization project called the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, (greatest public-works-project in the history of the human race). Wow! Dwight D. Eisenhower! The most socialistic President ever!
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
    I got barred but ordered to show up again at the next meeting! ‘Purges’ in the LP is fun-and-games, part of the tradition and something of the ‘rites-of-passage’. When you deal with a cult, that’s what you deal with.
    Reason Magazine still carries the libertarian movement. It began with Rand (substantially) but Reason Magazine is about all that’s left (or reasonable).

  252. paulie

    Randroids founded the LP

    Ed Crane, Roy Childs and Murray Rothbard were not Randroids.

    Crane and Rothbard were not among LP founders, and I’m fairly sure neither one was at the first convention. They did come in within a couple of years of that but Capozzi is correct that Randians were the original organizers. They must have been at least somewhat heretical Randians, I am guessing, since Rand herself, still alive at the time, was supporting Nixon and dissociating from the term Libertarian.

  253. paulie

    Reason Magazine still carries the libertarian movement. It began with Rand (substantially) but Reason Magazine is about all that’s left (or reasonable).

    LOL

  254. Jared

    dL: “[T]he days when Rand or Friedman were the predominant gateways to libertarianism are long gone.”

    As a disaffected conservative, I became interested in libertarianism by seeing Hoover Institution interviews with Thomas Sowell and YouTube uploads of Milton Friedman, then the later Ron Paul campaigns. I’ve since moved away from a libertarian conservative/RLC orientation to a more radically centrist sort of libertarianism, but I do believe Friedman and Rand can continue to inspire open-minded people on the center-right to take a closer look at libertarian policies and philosophy. Prior to Sowell and Friedman, my impression was that libertarians were self-indulgent, atomic individualists with zero interest in community or effectively helping the poor and disadvantaged. The altruistic case for free markets drew me in.

  255. C. Al Currier

    LOL …Paulie
    Reason Magazine has an audience.
    Who wants to listen to the Republicans-in-Training (Bob Barr and Gary Johnson folks).

  256. robert capozzi

    pf: …Capozzi is correct that Randians were the original organizers.

    me: Thanks for confirming this. Since I spent much time with Crane and Childs, I know they both knew AR’s work very well indeed. MNR attended AR’s salons, but I don’t he could quite be considered a Randroid, but he was certainly in the same orbit for an extended time. Hospers WAS a Randroid at the LP’s founding, which is all that is relevant to this discussion. I’m pretty sure The Nolan was a Randroid as well, at least in the early 70s.

    My sense is the median NAPist today is non-Randroid. Many of them recognize the fundamental flaws of Objectivism and the sociopathic tendencies that Objectivists display. And, yet, when I challenge the wisdom of the depth charges embedded in the LP’s foundational documents by these Randroids, most NAPists defend them, which to me is kinda bizarre.

    If they were more forthcoming, couldn’t the non-Randroid NAPists simply acknowledge that the Randroid founders may have gotten carried away with their absolutist dogmatism, but suggest that there’s nothing that can plausibly done to build in some flexibility into the organization’s rules. Such a stance would be more credible, I submit.

  257. paulie

    Reason Magazine has an audience.

    Did someone say it doesn’t? Your claim was far different: ” Reason Magazine still carries the libertarian movement….Reason Magazine is about all that’s left (or reasonable).” That’s just silly. There are hundreds of think tanks, lobbying groups, educational foundations, publications, broadcasts, discussion fora, and all manner of other organizations which make up the libertarian movement. That’s why the LOL.

    Who wants to listen to the Republicans-in-Training (Bob Barr and Gary Johnson folks).

    Non-sequitur. The libertarian movement and the LP as such both have a mix of folks, some Republican-leaning, some not. Reason magazine also has a variety of writers and readers with a variety of opinion about the Republicans (and for that matter about the LP).

    It’s true that the (in my experience very few) people attracted to the movement or party by Barr tended to be more conservative, but there were exceptions, and most of them had been Republicans to begin with. Barr himself made virtually no splash in the movement and for that matter relatively little long term impact on the party as far as I can see; he was back in the Republican party by the following presidential election.

    The same has not been nearly as true of Johnson “folks”; Johnson himself is still in the LP, having run with us for President in 2012 and 2016 and Senate in 2018, and many new people that came in thanks to Johnson are still around and active in the party – and many of those are not Republican-leaning. Even though Johnson had been a Republican governor, he put a lot of his emphasis on issues where Libertarians tend to be more aligned with the left.

    In any case – there’s way more to the movement as a whole than the sum total of what you mentioned.

  258. William Saturn

    Justin Raimondo has succumbed to lung cancer at age 67. Rest in peace.

  259. Gene Berkman

    I was at the Denver Convention in 1972. Ed Crane was there and was very active at the convention, and then
    in the Hospers campaign that year. And Ed Crane in an article he wrote for Reason mentioned how much Ayn Rand influenced him.

    Most people at the Denver convention were fans of Ayn Rand at least, and a few were very committed to their own version of Objectivism. One of the founders of the Committee to Organize The Libertarian Party told me that the best response to direct mail promotion for the LP came when they mailed to the National Branden Institute mailing list.

    I have also been told that when Reason magazine was getting off the ground, their best response came when they mailed to the NBI list. The split between Ayn Rand and Nathanial Branden was crucial in the founding of the modern libertarian movement.

  260. paulie

    My mistake on Crane. But I still think they were heretical Randians, not orthodox lockstep Randroids. I’ll stand by Rothbard not being an LP founder unless you remember otherwise; I’m pretty confident I have not mangled what I remember reading ^that^ badly.

  261. Gene Berkman

    Paulie – you are totally correct that Murray Rothbard was not a founder of The Libertarian Party. He was not at Denver, and he was dismissive of the Dave Nolan effort in several pieces in The Libertarian Forum.

    He actually had a rational thought – he suggested that Dave Nolan and his friends should form a Libertarian Party in Colorado, and run someone for Senate and we could see how it goes. But by 1973 Rothbard was gung ho for The Libertarian Party, and remained so til after the Ron Paul campaign in 1988.

  262. Gene Berkman

    I could only watch a few minutes of the Democrat debate on Wednesday night. All the candidates want way too much government. I had planned to watch to see Rep Tulsi Gabbard make her case against Interventionist foreign policy. Lucky for me, someone else excerpted at least one segment where Tulsi Gabbard attacked interventionism – in response to Rep. Tim Ryan. You can watch it yourself here, with
    commentary by the poster https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnT_eWgXyzc

  263. paulie

    Paulie – you are totally correct that Murray Rothbard was not a founder of The Libertarian Party. He was not at Denver, and he was dismissive of the Dave Nolan effort in several pieces in The Libertarian Forum.

    He actually had a rational thought – he suggested that Dave Nolan and his friends should form a Libertarian Party in Colorado, and run someone for Senate and we could see how it goes. But by 1973 Rothbard was gung ho for The Libertarian Party, and remained so til after the Ron Paul campaign in 1988.

    Thank you, that exactly matches what I remember reading. Of course, you have the advantage of having actually been around and involved at the time.

  264. paulie

    I could only watch a few minutes of the Democrat debate on Wednesday night.

    I missed yesterday, but am listening today. Had no plans to, but my state exec com was moved to Monday due to personal issues of the chair and vice chair at the last minute and my roommate wanted to hear it.

    Unfortunately, as someone who greatly dislikes the current president, I have to agree with NY Post that these debates are good news for Team Trump. These candidates are way overboard in big government extremist rhetoric. As much as I am scared for what will happen in a second Trump term, I am also scared of what will happen if and when one of these bozos gets elected. I do however realize that most of this is empty, dishonest rhetoric for Democratic primary voters, so overall I still think they’ll probably be the lesser evil, as horrible as they will be.

    But none of them will have a chance in hell of winning if they don’t tone this stuff way down in the general campaign. Fortunately for them we live in an attention deficit era, so it will be relatively easy for them to do that.

  265. robert capozzi

    pf,

    I’d not heard the distinction between Randians and Randroids previously. I thought they were synonyms, with ‘droids perhaps being a bit more pejorative or dismissive.

    And, yes, iirc, MNR has written explicitly that he wasn’t an LP founder. But he came rushing to the rescue (in his mind) in the next year or two, inserting crypto-anarchist or, at least, anarchist-friendly or anarchist-inclusive language into the foundational documents.

  266. paulie

    synonyms, with ‘droids perhaps being a bit more pejorative or dismissive.

    That’s correct. I call people who at least show some independence of thought while being inspired by Rand “Randians”, and those who march in total lemming-like lockstep (ironically in the name of individualism) by the pejorative, Randroids. While I have major differences with that whole thought system, I have a lot more respect for those who at least demonstrate the ability to examine it critically rather than as received wisdom.

    And, yes, iirc, MNR has written explicitly that he wasn’t an LP founder. But he came rushing to the rescue (in his mind) in the next year or two, inserting crypto-anarchist or, at least, anarchist-friendly or anarchist-inclusive language into the foundational documents.

    Can’t say I am mad at him for that. I’m much less enamored with the “paleo,” venom-spewing trolling and flaming, Marxist cult alliance and foreign dictator whitewashing parts of his legacy, or the dishonest propaganda tactics, character assassination and “ends justify the means” rationale for them which he and his followers frequently employed.

  267. Jared

    Thanks for the post link, paulie. Perhaps I’ll compose a more detailed account of my “conversion” story if your 4+ year old offer still stands.

  268. paulie

    Thanks for the post link, paulie. Perhaps I’ll compose a more detailed account of my “conversion” story if your 4+ year old offer still stands.

    It does.

  269. dL

    the Committee to Organize The Libertarian Party

    I looked that up that group before my previous comment, but, sans Nolan, I’ve never heard of the members. So I took it an iteration or two beyond Nolan’s living room vis a vis “founders.”

  270. paulie

    So did I. I think it’s reasonable to say that not involved at the time of the first national convention and first round of electoral campaigns = not founders.

  271. dL

    Most people at the Denver convention were fans of Ayn Rand at least

    Oh, I’m sure they were. But there is difference between being a fan and being a Randroid. Roderick Long and Chris Sciabarra can attest to that. Frankly, it’s bit absurd for Bob to think that a libertarian party in 1971 should not have have had some connection to her. Who else could it have been in 1971? But Bob’s Rand to Marx comparison to explain why the LP hasn’t come to power fails for a much more obvious reason than debunking these extraneous dogmatism claims: the marxists have actually come to power in quite a few places. duh!

  272. paulie

    And could plausibly in the US; Sanders beats Trump in head to head polls and was only kept out of the Democratic nomination last time by dirty tricks and party powerbrokers.

    It’s also thick headed to think that the reason the LP hasn’t come to power is because of ideology; in the time since the LP was founded there have been all sorts of attempts to create non-duopoly parties in the US of all sorts of ideologies, far left, far right, centist, radical libertarian, moderate libertarian – you name it. They all fizzled, or soared and just as quickly fell, or confined themselves to one or a small number of states and won mostly through fusion while avoiding the presidential race and generally avoiding most federal races. No national “third” party of any ideology, even ideologies much more popular than libertarian, has had any more sustained success than the LP – even when they had candidates who were billionaires and/or household names, tens of millions in campaign funds, far more media mentions than we get, etc, etc.

    None of that has translated into sustained national party success above LP levels in the last nearly century of modern campaign budgets, mass communications and ballot access barriers. So it’s highly unrealistic to expect that a moderate libertarian party would have become a major party, or would now.

  273. robert capozzi

    I used the term “stylistic Marxism” as an alternative to “dogmatic and strident.”

    It’s also NOT that I could imagine that the LP could have been founded by Randians. My point is that their depth charges are profoundly dysfunctional and arrogant. It’d be nice if a NAPist could agree with that obvious fact, but instead they avoid the issue, in my experience.

    In an alternate timeline where the depth charges were NOT set by the 20-something Randians, I submit it’s possible that the LP could be a serious force in American politics. With the depth charges, the NAPist Swiss Guards have enough power to assure that the LP is virtually politically irrelevant, positioned way out on the fringes.

  274. dL

    As a disaffected conservative, I became interested in libertarianism by seeing Hoover Institution interviews with Thomas Sowell and YouTube uploads of Milton Friedman

    Sowell is a fraud. I read Friedman’s books, “Free to Choose” and “Capitalism and Freedom” as a teenager and studied Chicago school academic papers from the university library while in college. Ayn Rand, too. Read her stuff as a teenager. And some of it was actually required reading. I sort laugh when libertarians claim the public school system ==socialist indoctrination. The only political indoctrination I was subjected to was that from my 10th grade sociology teacher who was a hard core objectivist. Spent an entire semester on Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged. The other strain of influence was cypherpunk, which was the prevailing ideology that ruled the early online world.

  275. paulie

    My point is that their depth charges are profoundly dysfunctional and arrogant.

    I disagree. I think they are why the LP has remained at least somewhat cohesive and at least somewhat pointed in the general direction they intended.

    In an alternate timeline where the depth charges were NOT set by the 20-something Randians, I submit it’s possible that the LP could be a serious force in American politics.

    You keep submitting that but have no evidence, other than opinion polls which reveal nothing about the willingness to vote for a party espousing those ideas in the real world when faced with “spoiler” charges and “lesser evil” miscalculations, much less to do the hard work of actually building a party in the face of that year in and year out. I keep submitting evidence to the contrary, yet you repeat the same old stuff yet again. It’s almost as if you were the dogmatist, unwilling to examine your assumptions in the face of evidence and logic.

    the LP is virtually politically irrelevant,

    I disagree, as you know. I think we have a much larger impact than you or most people realize, or which can be readily apparent, proven or quantified.

    How many more times do we both need to repeat this same conversation? I admit I’m being irrational and not using my time well by responding yet again to the same old same old.

  276. dL

    That’s correct. I call people who at least show some independence of thought while being inspired by Rand “Randians”, and those who march in total lemming-like lockstep (ironically in the name of individualism) by the pejorative, Randroids.

    Rand despised libertarianism because it ‘s agnostic on epistemology, metaphysics and ethics. So it’s conclusions or presumptions regarding political liberty are derived from what she would call “hippie mysticism.” Her notions of political and economic liberty, which would be in line with minarchism, could only rationally be derived from Objectivist epistemology, Objectivist metaphysics and so on. She demonstrated this inescapable logic in her nonfiction work by largely quoting herself. She would make a point and then quote her fictional characters like John Galt to support said point. That’s sort of like someone creating multiple identities on a message board to concur with oneself in an argument.

  277. dL

    In an alternate timeline where the depth charges were NOT set by the 20-something Randians, I submit it’s possible that the LP could be a serious force in American politics.

    Given that you can’t point any 3rd party becoming a major force in American politics for the past 160 years, I would submit “these Randian depth charges” you speak of are not the actual reason. Indeed, I would submit that a Nixon-lite LP would never have been formed in the first place. And if it had been formed, it wouldn’t have lasted very long. Unlike your contention, which has no substantiating examples, mine does.

  278. Jim

    Andrew Yang mentioned appealing to libertarians in his closing statement:

    “The right candidate to beat Donald Trump will be solving the problems that got Donald Trump elected and will have a vision of a trickle up economy that is already drawing thousands of disaffected Trump voters, conservatives, independents, and libertarians, as well as Democrats and Progressives. I am that candidate. I can build a much broader coalition to beat Donald Trump.”

    I know libertarians have been mentioned a few times in Republican debates, but that was the first time I can ever remember hearing it in a Democratic debate. I know his “Yang Gang” has been actively promoting him on libertarian forums, as has supporters of Tulsi Gabbard. I have also seen Democratic activist groups inquiring about the libertarian position on abortion.

    My initial take on that is that the libertarian aversion to Trump and the current crop of Republicans is perceived to be strong enough that Democrats believe they can pick up voters, and that libertarians are perceived as a large enough voting block that Democrats would bother attempting to do so.

  279. Darcy G Richardson

    “What are your opinions about the magnitude and consequences of the US National Debt?” — C. Al Currier

    That’s a great question. If included, it’ll be interesting to see how the Hawkins campaign responds.

    Though rarely discussed by the Left, the staggering $22.4 trillion national debt represents the greatest transfer of wealth from working-class and middle income Americans to the investor class in world history.

    What this country needs is a presidential candidate who understands that troubling yet indisputable fact. Clearly none of the current Democratic candidates for president understand that dynamic.

  280. paulie

    That’s a great question. If included, it’ll be interesting to see how the Hawkins campaign responds.

    It may not be included this time, but Kevin Zeese mentioned there may be more than one round of questions and answers.

    Though rarely discussed by the Left, the staggering $22.4 trillion national debt represents the greatest transfer of wealth from working-class and middle income Americans to the investor class in world history.

    What this country needs is a presidential candidate who understands that troubling yet indisputable fact. Clearly none of the current Democratic candidates for president understand that dynamic.

    Absolutely agreed. Debt is a hidden tax on the poor and a transfer of wealth in bond service to bondholders. It’s also a much less honest way to tax and a higher tax rate for anything actually achieved other than that wealth transfer. It’s no wonder that Republicans always rail against it when not in office, and always hike it faster than Democrats when in office.

  281. robert capozzi

    pf,

    Yes, you and I cover the same waterfront, but others may not have heard the arguments.

    I actually agree that the depth charges COULD be a reason for the LP’s longevity, as say as a tiny, irrelevant force, you as a behind-the-scenes major influence on the zeitgeist.

    What we I hope would both agree to is that had the LP not been quite as inflexible what might have happened. Surely neither of us know. It might have been more like the Conservative Party in NYS, rarely electing people but basically exercising veto power on the Rs. It might have taken the place of the Rs, uniting the liberal right and left. It might have fallen apart. It might have had a few Perot-like impacts on some races while remaining somewhat true to lessarchism, broadly defined.

    Still, I’d think it’s non-controversial that it is possible to be a lessarchist and yet not a NAPist. Putting NAPism at the core of the LP does effectively exclude non-NAPist lessarchists from the party.

    Certainly you can admit that there are many non-NAPist Ls who’ve left the LP, frustrated with the dogmatism that the depth charges enforce. You may believe that’s a good thing. Lessarchists are not “real” Ls, so the LP doesn’t need them in this subterranean jihad you’re engaged in.

    On UBI, yes, I’m an L who could support a well-structured UBI for reasons different than Yang’s. Not only does it appeal to me for reasons similar to Hayek, Friedman, and Paine’s, but I mostly like the idea because private property requires a just rule of law. Unfortunately, a legal system has not been devised to offer anything near perfect justice. The barriers to entry (e.g., legal fees and highly imperfect discovery methodology) means that the haves have a built-in advantage. Who’s to say who REALLY, legitimately mixed their labor with the soil? And yet NAPist Ls seem to just assume that the answer is knowable, with precision.

    I’d say they are just not paying attention to hold that view.

    UBI replacing the welfare-state levels the jurisprudential playing field. Further, who’s to say that unclaimed “soil” is unowned vs owned by the commonwealth, or something else? NAPists take it for granted that property is unowned.

    (In fact, either owned or unowned is simply an unverifiable assertion, actually. Either is a construct.)

  282. paulie

    It might have been more like the Conservative Party in NYS, rarely electing people but basically exercising veto power on the Rs.

    Highly unlikely. The CPNYS has this role only because of fusion. While there have been some state parties in several states, to my knowledge all fusion states, that serve this role, there have been none at the national level, probably because there is no fusion in most states or in presidential elections effectively. If there was room on the national stage for the equivalent of Conservative and Liberal parties of NYS they would already be there.

    It might have taken the place of the Rs, uniting the liberal right and left.

    Also highly unlikely for reasons explored above. Republicans survived other times when people thought they were finished, like after Hoover, Goldwater and Nixon. Democrats have to, for example after McGovern and Mondale. They adjust their coalitions and issue stances to remain roughly balanced, even if it takes a couple of decades, as it did the Republicans after Hoover. Uniting the liberal left and right would require not just the Republicans to collapse, but the Democrats to collapse as well, otherwise there’s very little incentive for the liberal left to leave the Democrats. Even if the libertarian left and right united, if everyone else was united in the other major party, that party would be long term and overwhelmingly dominant right now. The last time a major party collapsed it was due to an intractable, dominant single issue which also led to an attempted secession of multiple states and a bloody war. I know of no such issue on the horizon now, and the slavery issue took many decades to reach that point. There was also a much different world back then, with not even an official government printed ballot, much less modern government or campaign budget, modern mass communications or travel methods. The Whigs had been an institution at the time they collapsed for not nearly as long as the Republicans have been now. And if the Republicans did collapse, where would all the least libertarian Republicans go, and why?

    It might have fallen apart.

    That seems highly likely.

    It might have had a few Perot-like impacts on some races while remaining somewhat true to lessarchism, broadly defined.

    Have there been any examples of anything like that from any ideology? All the examples I know of of any such thing involve one well known, well off and/or highly charismatic individual – Ross Perot, George Wallace, etc. It’s never translated into a party that has repeat such peaks, at least certainly not any time recently. Regardless of ideology. If you can think of an example let me know.

  283. paulie

    Still, I’d think it’s non-controversial that it is possible to be a lessarchist and yet not a NAPist. Putting NAPism at the core of the LP does effectively exclude non-NAPist lessarchists from the party.

    Not from what I have seen in practice. And if it did, they could start their own, especially if they really did have more untapped resources.

  284. paulie

    Certainly you can admit that there are many non-NAPist Ls who’ve left the LP, frustrated with the dogmatism that the depth charges enforce.

    Lots of people have left the LP for lots of reasons. Some have left because we are not hardcore enough. Some because we are too extreme. Some because they think we are too right leaning or too left leaning. Some just got tired of not winning and spinning their wheels. Some decided that one of the other parties was too dangerous to vote for the lesser evil. Some saw internal corruption, or exaggerated stories about it. Some did not like the infighting. Some took part in it, and left with a bad taste. Some had job, family and other life changes that precluded further involvement. Some evolved in a different ideological direction. Some got tired of seeing a social and debate club which did not engage in real world political action, others left at the first whiff of the later. And so on.

  285. robert capozzi

    pf,

    In many ways, George Wallace won. His crew and general worldview took over the Rs.

    And, yes, there are non-NAPists in the LP, I’m sure. They are essentially in violation of the NAPist cause and creed, however. A tenuous setup, I submit.

  286. paulie

    In many ways, George Wallace won. His crew and general worldview took over the Rs.

    Yes, and he rose to power as a Democrat with overwhelming support in this state and surrounding states. What would prevent a small l libertarian lite from following a similar trajectory if libertarian lite ever came to be regionally dominant as the dixiecrats were? Wallace’s one time only alt party run secured ballot access within one cycle, so that is not an overwhelming impediment. Perot did the same in ’92, Nader in 2004 (no carryover states from 2000 due to lack of Green nomination), etc. Nor would LP nomination be out of the question, or even unlikely, if we had such a figure. Just at look at who all we have been nominating on presidential tickets lately.

    And, yes, there are non-NAPists in the LP, I’m sure. They are essentially in violation of the NAPist cause and creed, however. A tenuous setup, I submit.

    Not so tenuous since they are overwhelmingly dominant in the party. The little bit of “depth charge” you keep going on about may well be the only things which keeps us from drifting all the way off in the way the Reform Party did.

  287. paulie

    Before your time, so you may not have heard of…

    I study these things so of course I have, and Lindsay etc. One example here and there doesn’t negate that the fusion-based NY parties owe most of their existence to fusion, and anything else they do exists against that background. I stand by my observation that there’s nothing like it among national parties because most states don’t have fusion.

  288. robert capozzi

    pf,

    First, your term “L lite” is inaccurate. Montoni, for ex., is not “L heavy” and I “L lite.” Both represent different strains of lessarchism, that’s all. My views are not “superior” or “inferior” to his, they are just different. Mine are more calibrated to appeal to more people, his are more designed to attract a vanguard.

    A centrist L approach need not replicate Wallace’s regional model. I rather point to a systems approach whereby political lessarchists calibrate their positions based on a desire to advance lessarchy in palatable ways, rather than spinning out NAP-derived stances.

    Yes, the CP in NY benefits from fusionism. There are, however, several one-party states where perhaps a sane, centrist L could gain a toe-hold, build a base from which to challenge the CotOS!

    Or, we could look to AK in the early 80s. It almost happened there, where 3 state legislators were L. The NAPists threw the LP into tailspin over things like the “low-tax liberal” quip of Clark’s and other heresies, and thereby destroyed the momentum that was being built..

    NAPists, in my experience, are paranoid. They fear experimentation, and are consumed by what-ifs. Face it. Mistakes along the path of lessarchy will be made. These are mild compared with the uber mistake of applied NAPism.

  289. C. Al Currier

    “Yeah, ask Hawkins if he believes population growth is a consideration when attempting to limit climate change, and if so, does he support any policies that would help to limit population growth?” …Jim

    Great question!
    It’s been my experience that ‘limits-to-population-growth’ is a taboo subject (along with US National Debt) at Green-Party events. Taboo, also, is mentioning Japan and their success a reducing population growth. Japan used methods of reducing certain portions of the welfare-state, which happens to in direct conflict with many of the popular goals of the Green Party.
    (Best I can tell, once we nationalize the railroads and factories and make them green, we can use a system of volunteerism to produce Soylent Green!)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green

  290. paulie

    First, your term “L lite” is inaccurate

    Whatever, it was shorthand. Use whatever name you want, I don’t care. It doesn’t change the point I was actually making.

  291. paulie

    Let’s call them Capozziviks for now. I don’t care.

    Yes, and Wallace rose to power as a Democrat and ran for president with overwhelming support in this state and surrounding states. What would prevent a Capozzivik from following a similar trajectory if Capozziviks ever came to be regionally dominant as the dixiecrats were?

    Gov. Capozzivik, lifelong Republican, could lead a regional Capozzivik tendency among governors in the non-coastal West and northern New England, for instance. In 2068 Gov Capozzivik leads the Capozzivik Party to gain the electoral votes of those states. In 2072 Gov Capozzivik returns to run in the Republican presidential primary and is on track to win when he is crippled by a would-be assassin. He retires from presidential politics and goes back to running for governor later. Also in 2072, the Democratic president adopts a Western Strategy to bring Capozzivik states into the Democratic fold. By 2080 that strategy becomes more or less permanently successful in presidential politics, although it takes Capozziviks longer to become Democrats in local elections. By 2120 however Capozziviks take a leading role in the Democratic Party.

    Why not?

  292. paulie

    A centrist L approach need not replicate Wallace’s regional model.

    No, but Wallace’s regional strength was why Nixon was drawn to a Southern strategy; he wanted those electoral votes. Perot did not get electoral votes, so there was no equal desire to win his voters by one of the duopoly parties. If Wallace votes were as scattered as Perot votes, Dixiecrats would not have the strong position they have in the Republican Party now.

    I rather point to a systems approach whereby political lessarchists calibrate their positions based on a desire to advance lessarchy in palatable ways, rather than spinning out NAP-derived stances.

    Sounds kinky, but that has nothing to do with actual real world political impact. Perot spent tens of millions of dollars, got lots of media coverage, got a lot of votes but none electoral. He had fairly minimal impact, perhaps getting Democrats more focused on deficit elimination for a few years, and giving Republicans an endless and false excuse why Pappy Bush didn’t get a second term. Pat Buchanan had iirc ten million or more in federal election welfare and a household name, plenty of media and barely beat Browne. Ed Clark had a billionaire running mate who spent what was then a lot of money for a presidential campaign, running on a Capozzivik theme (sort of) and got about a million votes. Maybe it would have been 10 million or a hundred million if not for the “depth charges,” but I doubt it.

    Nader, a household name for decades, got iirc about 3 million votes, running on many of the same themes as Sanders, who almost got the Democratic nomination and beat Trump in head to head polls then and now. In subsequent runs Nader got less. Johnson – sort of Capozzivik – got about a million one time, and adding a second Capozzivik governor got him 3 million. Surely it would have been at least 30 if not for “depth charges”…

    Of all these Wallace was the one who in the long run transformed a party he never belonged to. Why? It was his regional bloc of electoral votes which gave him that pull.

  293. paulie

    Yes, the CP in NY benefits from fusionism. There are, however, several one-party states where perhaps a sane, centrist L could gain a toe-hold, build a base from which to challenge the CotOS!

    1) Perhaps, shmerhaps. Give me evidence based reasons to believe. There are evidence based reasons why some parties and candidates succeed more: fusion, regional electoral blocs, etc.

    2) Sane, centrist? And you object to lite? Lite may imply I’m heavy – I prefer fat – but does sane imply those of us who are not centrist are not sane?

    3) How do they challenge CotOS? Do they have a principle which puts an absolute limit on government power in the long run? If so, what is it?

    Or, we could look to AK in the early 80s. It almost happened there, where 3 state legislators were L.

    OK, that’s evidence. Lowest population state at the time and quite unique, more than it is now. Maybe if the Yukon leaves Canada and joins the US?

    fear experimentation

    I love experimentation. But I don’t see the LP as the end all and be all. Want to build a better party? Go ahead. LP will hardly be an issue if you really have the kind of appeal you think. The resources for ballot access are trivial at that point. A party capable of competing with the majors would no more be impeded by the LP than the duopoly is now.

    The LP can be held back by “depth charges” or stand in the way of a Greater Lesserarchistan, but not both.

    and are consumed by what-ifs.

    LOL, seriously? If anyone here is consumed by what ifs I nominate you first and foremost. What if no “depth charges”? LOL.

    Face it. Mistakes along the path of lessarchy will be made. These are mild compared with the uber mistake of applied NAPism.

    The words “face it” don’t prove your thesis. You have to have actual evidence.

  294. robert capozzi

    pf,

    Thanks for the thoughtful feedback. Ususally, the first step is hypothesis based on observations of patterns, then experimentation. The NAPism approach has been tried for decades now. Yes, that’s probably garnered some growth in the vanguard of NAPists, from perhaps tens of thousands of NAPists to a few million. There are probably something like multiple ten-fold numbers of socialists in the US today.

    I do grant that it’s possible, though highly unlikely, that the growth of NAPism could continue at the same rate of change (vs nominal increases), and at some tipping point (perhaps the Frankel singularity) where the forces of anarchy/minarchy spring into action and the state is rapidly whithered away.

    From what I’ve perceived, though, this is not how The Normals change their minds. Instead, they change their minds only through years of gradual demonstration. To get into a position to demonstrate the benefits of lessarchism, first there’s a need for a Shiny Badge to add credibility to the case. J/W had credibility (and poor opponents (by R and D standards), and that’s why they did so well at the polls, despite Aleppo and the tongue.

    Should JA run as an L for prez as a sitting L MC, he’d arguably have even MORE credibility.

    In a way, Sanders is even more a model worth replicating, in part. First, a mayor, then MC, then senator, then presidential candidate. He has moved the Ds into a nearly explicitly socialist party. Almost all the D hopefuls want “single payer” health insurance now, for ex. He’s been more effective than Perot and Nader in many ways, mostly, I’d submit, because he’s earned his Shiny Badge. He has a brand.

    To gain a brand, voters must be attracted to where the candidate stands.

    NAPism has been tested over and over again, and it more repels than attracts, far more.

  295. robert capozzi

    re: “face it”

    The best laid plans of mice and men…it almost never goes as planned, yes?

  296. robert capozzi

    re: depth charges

    Harlos — a true blue NAPist — calls them that. Do you have a better, more accurate, term?

  297. robert capozzi

    re: evidence

    First, evidence is not proof, it’s data. Polling indicates that ~20% of the Normals are fiscally conservative yet socially liberal. Sounds like a base to me.

    And, you know about scientism, I’m sure.

  298. dL

    In a way, Sanders is even more a model worth replicating

    Please. 20 years ago, you would have called him a fringe candidate, the archetype(literally, the stylistic Marxist) of what to avoid. Now you are trying to take credit for him. He is where he is today because what was fringe 20 years ago is no longer fringe, and he has retained enough consistency through the years to have credibility now for those ideas that were once fringe that are no longer fringe. Of course, it also helps that he is running in Vermont, and the Democratic Party tolerates his fluid party identification.

  299. dL

    First, evidence is not proof, it’s data. Polling indicates that ~20% of the Normals are fiscally conservative yet socially liberal. Sounds like a base to me.

    What is “the Normals,” old white heterosexual male? That’s what it sounds like to me. And polling, schmolling. We have clear, irrefutable election data on the max cap of “fiscally conservative yet socially liberal.” 3%. And that’s under the most ideal conditions. Former governors from blue states, polarizing candidates with high negatives from the two major parties

  300. Chuck Moulton

    Jim wrote:

    The Libertarian Party of Florida is reportedly having some money problems after losing $41,000 on their 2019 convention.

    WTF?!!!

    Most of those expenses seem utterly ridiculous! The speaker lineup alone is wildly extravagant; they don’t need that many speakers or that quality of speakers to do party business. Why can’t libertarians be models of the fiscal conservatism we supposedly advocate for government?

  301. robert capozzi

    My point about Sanders is that he has increased the size of his Shiny Badge through the decades. He built his brand. While it seems wise to get the Shiniest Badge possible for the LP’s prez nominee, I’d rather see a lessarchist start at the local level, work up to Congress, etc. Explicit NAPists are unelectable at all levels of government.

  302. dL

    My point about Sanders is that he has increased the size of his Shiny Badge through the decades. He built his brand. While it seems wise to get the Shiniest Badge possible for the LP’s prez nominee, I’d rather see a lessarchist start at the local level, work up to Congress, etc. Explicit NAPists are unelectable at all levels of government.

    Yeah, well, just manage to find some elections where the one of the two major parties don’t run a candidate. That’s how Sanders got elected every time. When he got elected Mayor, the democrats didn’t run a candidate. The first time he ran for congress, he lost in a 3 way race. The second time he ran, the Dems didn’t field a candidate, and he won. Up until 2006, Sanders was a marginal figure. Even more marginal than Ron Paul. That changed in 2006 when Jim Jeffords, the Republican defector turned democratic caucusing independent, retired from the senate. Again the dems did not run a candidate against Sanders, and Sanders won. Then the TARP bailouts happened, and suddenly the long standing fringe anti-capitalist is politically relevant on a national stage. In the 1990s, Sanders was viewed as a comedic dinosaur(Sanders has more or less looked 70 years old his entire adult life) woefully out of step with the times.

    Sanders didn’t slowly build any brand awareness over time. He just took advantage of the fact the democrats default accepted him as their candidate whenever Jim Jeffords made a move. Something that would never had happened if Sanders had been a member of national 3rd party instead of being a democratic caucusing independent that he was.

  303. dL

    Too literal for me.

    So, “increased the size of his Shiny Badge” is a metaphor. A metaphor for what, exactly? What are we really talking about, here, brah? Has the subtext of this thread really been about, I dunno, the male anatomy? Because I know what we apparently are not literally talking about. Namely, how to replicate the Sanders brand as a model for political relevance.

  304. Eric Sundwall

    “NAPists, in my experience, are paranoid. They fear experimentation, and are consumed by what-ifs. Face it. Mistakes along the path of lessarchy will be made. These are mild compared with the uber mistake of applied NAPism.”

    PFFFT and Bwaaah moment wondering if the July thread started yet. As if a certain “lesserchist” doesn’t suffer from complete paranoia and and constant reference to an imaginary enemy.

    Start another damn party if this fluffy centrism works so well RC. Politics is divisive, bare knuckles BS against your fellow man. The Trumps, Putins & “Bibbi’s” abound in this world and have enough delusional fodder to propagate them.

    Looking for my July chuckle as my every day experiment continues, my what-ifs include “what if I had enough time to solve my own problems”. A one trick pony invents an imaginary Unicorn to spread a little angst in a backwater blog.

    The American System necessitates a third Party of Protest. Who cares if it’s about conscience if the delegates show up and pay for themselves?

    I might not be waving a flag this July 4th, but I’ll have a beer during the fireworks. I will take no steps on a path called lessarchy and still take deep breathes watching the Universe of Possibility in the vast night sky.

    Let’s get July up . . . I might come play.

Leave a Reply

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