J. R. Myers: ‘Yes, I am a 2020 POTUS candidate’

J.R.Myers, Chairman of the newly formed Life & Liberty Party, has announced his intentions to run for President of the United States in 2020. J.R. had sought the Constitution Party POTUS nomination in 2016. He appeared on the California American Independent Party primary ballot, winning three counties. He also came in second place in the Constitution Party of Idaho primary that year, ending up on the General Election ballot as the Vice Presidential running mate of CPIS POTUS nominee, Scott Copeland.

Initially, J.R.Myers will be seeking the American Independent Party ballot line in California, the Constitution Party of Idaho ballot line and the Life and Liberty Party ballot line in Arkansas. He is also seeking ballot access and write-in status in several other states. He hopes to be on the ballot in enough states to meed the theoretical threshold of victory at 270 Electoral Votes.

Read more at J.R.’s website blog:  http://johnrichardmyers.com

16 thoughts on “J. R. Myers: ‘Yes, I am a 2020 POTUS candidate’

  1. paulie

    It was posted as an image, not as an article. The correct format is standard, not image. Also, the headline was in all caps, which should not be the case.

  2. FW Whitley

    “Stop trying to take votes away from Libertarians.” I was unaware that Libertarians “owned” or were “entitled” to votes.

    I was also unaware that Libertarians were attempting to suppress participation in the political marketplace of ideas. When did Libertarians “morph” into the Minnie Me of oligarchic duopoly?

    For that matter, when did Libertarians say that all the mom & pop restaurants need to stand down just because they’re “taking away” sales at McDonald’s clonal eatery? Ketchup with your plastic, sir?

  3. paulie

    I wasn’t aware of that either. And I’ve been active in the LP for over a quarter century, with plenty of titles on the local, state and national levels I won’t bother listing here. Then again the author of that comment claimed I lie about something or another in a FB comment, didn’t provide a single example when pressed and blocked me on there. Still waiting for any examples of anything I lied about.

  4. Jake Leonard

    @FW Whitley if you weren’t aware: it was the Green Party who kept the Libertarian Party of Illinois from attaining major party status in 2016 in the U.S. Senate race involving Mark Kirk and Tammy Duckworth (LIB: Kenton McMillen, GRN ran a joke of a candidate in Scott Summers), just like former state Sen. Sam McCann’s fake “Conservative Party of Illinois” kept the same from reaching the same status in 2018 in the gubernatorial race.

    Like it matters anyway, Myers’ fake party won’t get on the ballot anyway.

  5. paulie

    it was the Green Party who kept the Libertarian Party of Illinois from attaining major party status in 2016 in the U.S. Senate race involving Mark Kirk and Tammy Duckworth

    Are you presuming Green votes would have gone to Libertarians? Seems highly dubious.

    Like it matters anyway, Myers’ fake party won’t get on the ballot anyway.

    They have presidential ballot access in Arkansas already and probably will in some other states.

    Yet to be seen if you can show evidence I lied about something here as you alleged before blocking me on FB or an apology from you for the false accusation.

  6. FW Whitley

    @Jake Leonard. How is any of that you just wrote germane to my comment? Non sequitur much?

    Far be it from me to agree with paulie, but he is correct in this instance….Life & Liberty Party is already on the Arkansas general ballot.

    You’ve attempted to declare a claim patent (on votes) but have yet to even ride through the territory itself, much less drive a stake. I just don’t believe your claim holds.

  7. paulie

    I wasn’t aware that we always disagreed. I’m sure there are any number of issues we would agree on. See recent comments in open thread.

  8. FW Whitley

    ” you sought him out for your primary.” Hmmm. “Sought out” is a bit strong.

    Initially, at least in my take of the situation, the L&L Party was in conception. The Reform Party of Florida (like CP-Idaho) were ballot qualified guests in the early efforts (some of them anyhow) to build a network. Personality issues arose; due to which, both Reform-Florida and CP-Idaho were put on hold.

    While in that condition, communications continued between Florida and Idaho. As a result of that, Mr. Richardson was invited to listen in to our 3Q 2019 state party conference call.

    Please note, however. Mr. Richardson had already been put forward as a candidate for consideration by the L&L Party by the Florida chair in the L&L organizational discussions. So, Richardson would have been under consideration by CP-Idaho whether in the L&L Party context or whether currently under our own independent state party.

    Because of Richardson’s clarity of speech, his interests in such matters as controlling the federal debt (long a topic of extreme importance to CP-Idaho, as any review of our website article archives would demonstrate) and controlling unrestrained immigration and so on, it was the consensus opinion of the state central committee that Mr. Richardson would do well in the primary here in Idaho.

    For his part, Mr. Richardson was somewhat similarly surprised by the CP-Idaho central committee attendees, as we cycled through the call agenda material. For example, discussing future legislative runs, or REE development in Idaho. Bottom line–mutual respect.

    Now that Darcy Richardson has declared his intent to seek our primary nomination, he has my full professional support, as does Mr. J.R. Myers who has only more recently declared. I should append here that this would be true, professionally, for any other CP-Idaho declared candidates as well.

    In any case, the idea of entrenched dogma (which over the past five decades has paralyzed forward objective movement nationally) is way too dilapidated to be of use anymore, and far too exclusionary to be able to forge a majority. CP-Idaho opts for movement, over the static trenches filled with mud which have already wasted so much leadership potential that we are nearing a national genetic inflection point–downward.

    Jez sayin’

  9. paulie

    Interesting. I was not aware Darcy holds that position on immigration. You are correct, you may have more in common with him on some issues.

    But I think all of us actually have quite a bit in common on many issues which is being overlooked on some of the sniping about social/wedge issues which goes on here. In case you missed it on the open thread:

    Darcy:

    I’ve always been willing to work with people across the political spectrum, Left and Right alike, in battling the increasingly corrupt Wall Street-controlled major parties. It’s about fighting the financial oligarchy’s stranglehold on our body politic.

    The CP of Idaho leadership — they’re good folks — recently invited me to enter their binding March 10th presidential primary, which is open not only to the state’s 3,100 or so registered Constitution Party members, but also the state’s unaffiliated voters, a bloc of roughly 130,000-140,000 voters.

    Fernando:

    It seems very off to have someone who ran a Left-Wing primary against Obama, go to saying Andrew Gillum is too far left, then runs with a party that’s Far-Right.

    Call me crazy, but that doesn’t sound right…

    Me:

    “Left” and “right” don’t describe the sum total of politics. For example there’s elitist versus bottom up, libertarian versus authoritarian, and other dimensions to politics.

    Fernando:

    They explain the basics, mostly economic views.

    Darcy:

    Well said, Paulie.

    Unfortunately, that’s something a lot of people don’t understand since they’re so mired in the Left vs. Right paradigm, a phenomenon that’s virtually paralyzed our politics to the delight of the financial elites — the same folks who, funding Democrats and Republican lawmakers alike, have methodically destroyed the middle class while amassing a staggering $22.4 trillion national debt and turning the United States into something resembling a third world country over the past four decades.

    Fernando:

    If only it were Left v Right. It’s Democrat V Republican. The Left in the US is not really represented by either major party, at most you get 10 Democrats actually fighting for Left-Wing Principles at a time. The Mainstream Democratic Party Politician Espouses the Clinton version of Third Way New Democrat Centrism, which is just being a Republican with a D next to your name. And that opened the doors for financial elites to start funneling money to the Democrats

    Knapp:

    I’ll vote for Darcy on any ticket he cares to run on. But I do find the Constitution Party a strange one for him

    Me:

    They explain the basics, mostly economic views.

    Not very well. In practice they are used as a wedge to herd a lot of people who are not authoritarian elitists into an artificial, constrained and false choice between authoritarian elitist right and authoritarian elitist left, whereupon a bunch of authoritarian elitists with little or no regard for “left” or “right” outside of rhetoric used to bamboozle voters and donors gather together like a mafia commission to divide up their territories and haggle over their cut of the profits behind closed doors as well as put on an entertaining donkey and elephant puppet theatre in public.

    Me:

    While I’ve moved away from the Cult of Ron Paul in the decade plus since, I think the 2008 “we agree” platform that Bob Barr famously screwed up in snubgate is a good place to start. There was a four point platform of agreement:

    Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

    Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

    The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

    The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.

    As many of you will recall this was a shared platform between Ron Paul, the Constitution Party, LP, Greens and independent Ralph Nader. The LP Barr-Root ticket screwed it up by demanding a unilateral endorsement from Paul instead, and by Barr refusing to appear on a stage with “people like” Cynthia McKinney, however you may choose to interpret that. Paul ended up quasi-endorsing Baldwin instead.

    But that platform is still there, and still represent the basis for a coalition which cuts across the left and right and stands in strong opposition to the decrepit and corrupt DnR establishment.

  10. FW Whitley

    Well, thank you, because I did miss all of that. I do have a correction, however, to Darcy Richardson’s statement “but also the state’s unaffiliated voters, a bloc of roughly 130,000-140,000 voters.”

    Actually…the Unaffiliated “block” of voters in Idaho is 300,000, more than twice as many. So, this 2020 primary, I believe, is going to BE a big deal.

    In 2016, with a smaller registered CP-Idaho base than current totals, in a closed primary we turned out about 21%. This was in the historical range for primary turnout in Idaho, but we were hoping for 24% to 25% at a minimum.

    In any case, assuming the 24% targeted turnout, that “should” translate into about 80,000 primary votes. So again, for third party affairs that reach across state lines (national candidates), the 2020 CP-Idaho primary is perhaps a key event.

  11. Jim

    paulie “Are you presuming Green votes would have gone to Libertarians? Seems highly dubious. ”

    I don’t know what might have happened in that specific election, but I did look at all of the elections in the 21 year period between 1/1/1998 and 12/31/2018 for state legislature and US House and the Greens do take some votes away from Libertarians.

    What I did was find the average Libertarian election result in races that were only between Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians (ignoring write-in candidates). I did that separately for state legislature and US House. I used those numbers as a baseline. And then I found the average Libertarian election result for elections with an R-D-L-G.

    In that 21 year period, there were 46 R-D-L-G elections for state legislature and 144 for US House. The Libertarian election result in those R-D-L-G elections was 27% below the R-D-L baseline for state legislature and 33% below the R-D-L baseline for US House.

    Some of that appears to be because Libertarians are the 2nd choice of some Green voters. Some of it is just a randomly distributed protest vote. It is almost certainly not ENTIRELY a randomly distributed protest vote, because we tend to lose much less to parties further left (like anything with “socialist” in its name) and slightly more to parties to the right, like the Constitution Party (we lose about 35% to the CP.) But either way, Libertarian candidates, on average, lose about 30% of their vote total when the Greens are on the ballot with them against both major parties relative to not having them on the ballot and facing both major parties.

    3rd chart down: https://i.imgur.com/MIQxQPz.png

Leave a Reply

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