Rachel Maddow Show 11/1/16 One-On-One With Bill Weld About Trump Vs Clinton Race
Among other things, Weld revealed that the campaign statement on the FBI’s probe into Clinton being reactivated does not speak for him, although it uses both his picture and Gary Johnson, and that he disagrees with it.
Weld said good things about Clinton and specifically refused to say that a voter in a swing state should vote for the LP ticket over Clinton when Maddow pressed him on that point. He also mentioned that he has influenced Johnson towards his foreign policy views, which he characterized as “engagement” with the world.
Austin,
Yes, you are correct. Weld’s wife, Leslie Marshall, used to be married to Dino Bradlee (son of late Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee), a vice president at the Trump Organization.
Am I correct in thinking that Weld’s current wife was previously married to an executive with the Trump organization? Feel like I read that somewhere.
I wonder if she’s in his ear about this.
Weld has just peeled off another vote for the LP ticket. My wife and I voted absentee ballot over a week ago. Then Weld began his odyssey. In PA you can show up at the polls and tell them you’ve already voted absentee but now wish to vote in person. Don’t ask me how but they somehow pull your mailed in ballot and let the vote count that is cast at the polling station. She plans to change her vote from Johnson/Weld to some other ticket. She is very unhappy with the LP vice presidential nominee.
Also, yeah, sometimes I don’t want hundreds of new comment notifications jamming up my email inbox. That’s a pain too. Yeah, to hell with disqus. The only upside would be forcing me to stay away from here. Kind of like stomach stapling surgery. Maybe I should have that too.
Yeah, I have that for facebook. It works terribly and breaks up the whole flow of commenting. I rarely discuss anything on facebook anymore as a result. The email notifications don’t come in real time and everything is all jumbled and out of order. Just the load time alone each time comments refresh makes it a pain and a chore. Disqus sucks. I really can’t stand it.
Maybe it will be a good thing if it will remove the temptation of coming back here and engaging in these comments again like I’m doing now. It’s already helped me stay off facebook a lot more.
Paulie,
The easy way to keep track of whether or not there are new comments in a comment thread is to check the “Notify me of follow-up comments by email” box in WordPress — or to hit the “subscribe” button in Disqus.
It’s what happens AFTER that that matters. Disqus organizes the comments rationally, WordPress just piles them up like wadded pieces of paper being thrown at a wastebasket.
Relative to comments in favor of nested/threaded comments.
I prefer Discus or other threaded comments but I certainly understand and to some small extent sympathize with those folks that prefer linear comments.
Yeah, we don’t have all that on wordpress. I want to stick with native wordpress comment system, but within that if someone knows good plugins for that stuff let us know.
Software that lets the user choose threaded or time-ordered might keep everyone happy. Perhaps even more radical would be comment numbering.
Bullshit. I have no interest in scrolling up and down repeatedly looking to see if new comments got posted. I fucking hate nested comments. We have had this argument before on past threads and on the IPR list. Disqus also has slower load times and other things I don’t like.
The first link I posted was the entire interview and then some. It was taken down, so I switched it out to the one Warren suggested. If anyone finds a better one and wants to swap it out again, feel free.
dL: Something like: important people will say nice things about you(yaaaayyy!!!) with the understanding that in the end you will endorse one of the two major party candidates.
me: Are you OK? How did you get to these bizarre conclusions? I assure you I am not concerned with “important people,” and as far as I’m concerned, everyone is “important.”
And I have endorsed and supported the L ticket of J/W.
You may not find my lessarchism/morearchism analysis useful for you, but your post careens into a really strange place.
Non-nested commenting is the equivalent of using Middle English in Comic Sans over a 1200 baud modem.
It’s 2016, for fuck’s sake. Put away the VIC 20 and join the 21st century.
The link in the post isn’t to the entire interview.
You can scroll past comments you do not want to read.
The ones that should be deleted are people pretending to be other people and false criminal accusations.
Comment nesting sucks. It’s ruined facebook, for example.
tk: So far as I can tell, the next time Gary Johnson or William Weld produces less government will be the first time Gary Johnson or William Weld produces less government. Sure, they TALK a good game about producing less government. So does every Republican in every legislature and governor’s mansion in the country. And when Johnson and Weld actually governed, government got bigger, not smaller, in their fiefdoms.
me: Actually, for me lessarchism also involves ADVOCATING less government on an across-the-board basis. This to me means enhancing civil liberties and reducing foreign adventurism. Most if not all Rs fail on these fronts. “Producing less government” is another matter. I consider RP1 a lessarchist (and probably a NAPster), but in his time in Congress, morearchism was the outcome. Do I hold RP1 responsible for the wrong direction of the government? No.
Similarly, I’m convinced GJ and WW wanted as guvs and want as P/VP less government. They — I believe — did the best they could in bending the curve in their states. I don’t hold them responsible for the bends being more modest than were their druthers.
You’ve been a lessarchist, NAPster, and anarchist for 20 years or so, and your advocacy has not been all that successful, either. Yet, I still consider you a lessarchist.
“Now if only we could find someone to write a WordPress plugin that could do that, and expand the idea so that any user can choose which commenters to omit.”
Well, there is certainly a WordPress plugin that does the latter. It’s free and it takes about five minutes to set up — it’s the WordPress plugin for Disqus. Any commenter can block any other commenter, too.
Unlike IPR’s native WordPress commenting, it also has other basic modern features like comment nesting. But some people here prefer to chisel their shit onto tablets and so forth.
“IPR should sell Andy-free memberships for 99 cents a month.”
Now if only we could find someone to write a WordPress plugin that could do that, and expand the idea so that any user can choose which commenters to omit. I don’t think we can get all that done and still make money on 99 cents/month though.
I just signed a petition I found on Facebook to recall Weld as our vp candidate. I’ll post a link here if anyone else wants to sign it.
I am NOT saying that Tom is not libertarian enough, I am saying that Tom made a misguided strategy decision by voting for Johnson/Weld.
Anthony,
Andy isn’t attacking me as not libertarian enough.
He’s attacking for not reaching the same conclusion he reached as to which candidate a libertarian should — or at least could — support, and why.
The disagreement isn’t unreasonable, and libertarians SHOULD hold the Libertarian Party and its candidates to a higher standard than we would expect an authoritarian theocratic party to meet.
If I could have justified supporting Castle, I would have supported Castle. I find him likable. He’s a former Marine (turns out that rather than being the first Marine to appear on a ballot for VP, I’m tied with him for that title — unless an earlier one that I haven’t discovered shows up). He’s better on some issues than Johnson.
But he’s also worse than some issues on Johnson, and I find the idea of supporting the party he affiliates with physically sickening.
Johnson was, in my opinion, my best available option. Nobody else has to like that, because it was nobody else’s decision to make.
Castle wants to abolish the income tax, and unlike Johnson, he does not want to replace it with a scheme that is worse. Gary Johnson’s stumping for the Fair Tax is enough to give Darrell Castle a lot of advantage points over Johnson on the libertarian scale.
Funny how Tom Knapp voted for Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, even though he is one of their biggest critics, yet in 2008 Tom voted for Green Party candidate for President, Cynthia McKinney, over the Barr/Root ticket.
Given how bad the Barr/Root ticket was for the Libertarian Party, I do not think him voting for McKinney was a bad thing (and McKinney was more libertarian than most Greens), I am just pointing out what Tom did in 2008 compared to what he has done this time.
I have more respect for what Tom did in the 2008 election, or in the 2012 election, when he did not vote at all, than what he did this time.
Now Andy is attacking Tom as not libertarian enough?
lol dear god this guy is nuts.
Tom is right, and Andy is wrong.
But I’m still leaning Stein. I need to finish watching the Smiley debate before I nail that down.
“even though he’s anti-abortion which does not fit in with being a leftist”
You really should limit yourself to one howler of an error per sentence.
“Do an issue by issue analysis.”
I have.
“Darrell Castle clearly comes out ahead of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, and it is not even close.”
That may be true for the issues that you care about and the weight you give those issues.
I’m not you.
Here are some issues I care about, with the candidate answers, from iSideWith:
Should gay couples have the same adoption rights as straight couples?
Gary Johnson’s answer: Yes
Darrell Castle’s answer: No, and gay couples should not be able to adopt children
Johnson’s right. Castle’s wrong.
Should terminally ill patients be allowed to end their lives via assisted suicide?
Gary Johnson’s answer: Yes, but only after a psychological examination to show they fully understand this choice
Darrell Castle’s answer: No
Johnson’s half-wrong. Castle’s completely wrong.
Should the military allow women to serve in combat roles?
Gary Johnson’s answer: Yes, as long as they can pass the same physical tests as men
Darrell Castle’s answer: No
Johnson’s right. Castle’s wrong.
Should Muslim immigrants be banned from entering the country until the government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists?
Gary Johnson’s answer: No, banning immigrants based on their religion is unconstitutional
Darrell Castle’s answer: Yes
Johnson’s right, Castle’s wrong.
Should the U.S. increase restrictions on its current border security policy?
Gary Johnson’s answer: No, make it easier for immigrants to access temporary work visas
Darrell Castle’s answer: Yes
Johnson’s closer to being right than Castle, who is completely wrong.
Should children of illegal immigrants [sic] be granted legal citizenship?
Gary Johnson’s answer: Yes, if they were born here
Darrell Castle’s answer: No
Oddly worded question. If they are born here they aren’t “granted” citizenship, they’re citizens. Given the weird wording of the question, Johnson appears to have tried to answer it and to have done so correctly. Castle, on the other hand, blew it completely.
Should local law enforcement be allowed to detain illegal immigrants for minor crimes and transfer them to federal immigration authorities?
Gary Johnson’s answer: No, only if they are convicted of a violent crime
Darrell Castle’s answer: Yes
Another oddly worded question. The real question is should local law enforcement have an unfunded mandate to enforce federal law, fund the costs of housing prisoners for the feds, etc. And the answer is clearly no. So once again, Johnson is closer to being right than Castle.
Should working illegal immigrants be given temporary amnesty?
Gary Johnson’s answer: Yes, create a simple path to citizenship for immigrants with no criminal record
Darrell Castle’s answer: No
Johnson is partly right (citizenship shouldn’t be part of the equation, but traveling should not be treated as a crime). Castle is completely wrong.
Should the government increase or decrease the amount of temporary work visas given to high-skilled immigrant workers?
Gary Johnson’s answer: Increase, our economy relies on businesses hiring the highest skilled workers at the lowest cost
Darrell Castle’s answer: Decrease
Visas shouldn’t be required, period, end of story. So Johnson is kind of wrong and Castle is completely wrong.
Johnson is right and Castle is wrong on “net neutrality.”
Johnson is right and Castle is wrong on campaign finance.
Johnson is right and Castle is wrong on Social Security.
Johnson is right and Castle is wrong on eminent domain.
Johnson is right and Castle is wrong on voter ID.
Both of them are imperfect candidates.
Both of them are wrong on a number of issues; both of them are occasionally right when the other one is wrong.
In my opinion, Johnson is more libertarian on more issues. There are a couple of issues I care about where Castle is closer to being right than Johnson (gun rights — which don’t matter politically because if the politicians try to take away our guns there will be lots of dead politicians — and freedom of association), but not on nearly enough issues to outweigh Castle’s deficits. He is the candidate of an authoritarian theocratic party and it shows.
“able to decided for themselves ”
Should read, “able to decide for themselves…”
Thomas Knapp said: “In your opinion.
In my opinion, your opinion on that is evidence that you’re out of your goddamn mind.”
Do an issue by issue analysis. Darrell Castle clearly comes out ahead of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, and it is not even close.
It is blatantly apparent that Tom’s judgement is clouded when it comes to Castle because Tom likes to market himself as a cool, leftist hipster Libertarian (even though he’s anti-abortion which does not fit in with being a leftist), and as such he thinks that everyone in the Constitution Party is some kind of religious fuddy duddy conservative stick in the mud type, like that Riley Hood guy, or Don Grundmann.
What Tom fails to recognize is that every political party has different wings (including the Libertarian Party), and that there is in fact a more libertarian wing of the Constitution Party, and that is from where Darrell Castle comes. I know and have met a lot of Constitution Party people over they years, including Darrell Castle, and some (not all clearly) of them do have strong libertarian leanings, and I would even label some of them as being minarchist libertarians (I have had some of them tell me that the main reason that are not in the LP is because of the party’s refusal to take a strong anti-abortion stance).
Tom is clearly displaying a preference for STYLE over substance here. I really don’t see how anyone could do an analysis of all of the issues, particularly if you weight the issues (like I’d weight the right to keep and bear arms with a 10 on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the most important, and 1 being the least important, and Castle clearly comes out ahead of Johnson and Weld on this issue, from a libertarian perspective), and not have Castle come out ahead of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld on a libertarian scale.
If you wanted to argue that Darryl W. Perry was more libertarian than Darrell Castle, you’d have a good point, but we are not talking about how Darryl W. Perry compares to Darrell Castle, we are talking about how Gary Johnson and Bill Weld compare to Darrell Castle.
Castle is better than Johnson/Weld on a bunch of issues, like taxes, the Federal Reserve System, the right to bear arms, the war on drugs (Castle is actually MORE anti-drug war than Johnson/Weld are, as Johnson/Weld only want to tax and regulate marijuana, while Castle wants to call off the entire war on drugs), the United Nations, the TPP, etc…
Castle even comes down on the right side of the TRUE libertarian position on gay marriage, as although he personally disagrees with gay marriage, he also does not believe that the government should be involved in the licensing of marriage at all. Castle also comes down on the right side of the “cake wars” controversy, that is that he thinks that private businesses ought to be able to decided for themselves as to whether or not they want to provide goods or services for people, while Gary Johnson takes the “politically correct” leftist anti-libertarian “Social Justice Warrior” stance that private businesses ought to be fined if they do not wish to provide goods or services to gays (or whatever other victim group the leftists are pushing on any particular day).
So yeah, Darrell Castle IS more libertarian than either Gary Johnson or Bill Weld.
Hell, Jill Stein might even be more libertarian than Gary Johnson or Bill Weld, if you weight the issues, and if you consider the amount of lying and flip-flopping that Johnson and Weld have done.
These boards are sometimes interesting, and Be Rational and Tom Knapp make a lot of good points above, but I need a browser plugin that hides posts by this Andy guy.
IPR should sell Andy-free memberships for 99 cents a month.
—–
“Gary Jonson is still the most libertarian candidate in the race.”
Out of ballot qualified candidates, this title would go to Constitution Party candidate, Darrell Castle.
—-
In your opinion.
In my opinion, your opinion on that is evidence that you’re out of your goddamn mind.
Funny how people can have completely different opinions without the world ending, isn’t it?
Be Rational said: “Gary Johnson is still the best and most qualified choice.”
I do not believe that he or Weld are qualified to be President.
“Gary Johnson is the only candidate honest and open enough to be President.”
He’s already been caught lying multiple times.
“Gary Jonson is still the most libertarian candidate in the race.”
Out of ballot qualified candidates, this title would go to Constitution Party candidate, Darrell Castle.
If you include write in candidates, this title would go to Darryl W. Perry.
“A vote for Johnson is still good for America and the LP.”
I don’t think that it is good for either, especially the Libertarian Party.
“LP POTUS and VP candidates should agree to run their campaigns within the LP’s own party direct committee staffed and managed by Libertarians.”
Well, your post is well thought out, but no legitimate candidate would agree to that.
“Be Rational
November 2, 2016 at 16:36
Johnson brought credibility to the LP ticket, because he was an elected governor.”
Having held elected office is not necessarily something that has credibility attached to it, nor does it mean that an elected office holder is a good fit for the Libertarian Party.
There are plenty of Democrats and Republicans out there who have held elected office before. Would you suggest that all of them would make good candidates for the Libertarian Party?
If we had a candidate who had held office before who actually had pretty solid libertarian records while in office, this could be nice, but if you closely examine the records of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, you’d find that their libertarian credentials were over-hyped, especially with Weld.
I am quite surprised that so many Libertarian Party members have succumbed to “shiny badge worship” (as in having admiration for people just because they held some position in government) that they hold this as being more important than all of the other criteria that a Libertarian Party candidate ought to have, of which the most important should be that the candidate is actually a philosophical libertarian.
Johnson brought credibility to the LP ticket, because he was an elected governor. None of the other candidates seeking the nomination had any credibility and at least one has the same mental issues as Trump. The only other choice, a good man who at least appeared presidential was the late Dr. from Ohio.
Weld also brought credibility and he is libertarian enough to move the country in a better direction than either Clinton or Trump and is better than their VP nominees.
Nominating Larry Sharpe or Jim Gray for President might have been a better option – but Sharpe was running for VP. Sharp could actually have been presentable in public as a candidate, none of the others seeking the Presidential nomination could even be considered, although Feldman at least wouldn’t have been an embarrassment. Jim Gray wasn’t seeking any spot on the ticket, although he might have been interested without Weld.
The first goal of getting in the debates was a good one. The pubilc announcement of that as an essential step was NOT. Running the campaign to raise public support in time to get to 15% doesn’t mean that you have to declare that goal. It’s a stupid thing to do, because failure undermines the rest of the campaign. This was another failure of the campaign management team.
To reach 15% by the beginning of September requires running advertising – real advertising on Major Network Broadcast TV in at least 7 small affordable target states – beginning no later than the week following the nomination in May. However, an organized campaign should begin at least a week before the nomination. The LP should have a 4 year plan, however, and targeting in the initial 7 steps should begin 4 years before the election. Campaign 2020 is already underway even if the LP doesn’t know it. The Johnson campaign management team proved their total incompetence by not running almost no real advertising.
The Johnson campaign team wasted millions of dollars on radio ads, and worse, on billboards and social media. The whole scheme failed miserably, unless, of course, the plan was to spend a lot of money with certain vendors without regard to results.
The Johnson campaign team made huge payments to itself. Another tragedy. The National LP should set up its own LP Presidential Campaign Committee. LP POTUS and VP candidates should agree to run their campaigns within the LP’s own party direct committee staffed and managed by Libertarians. Ballot drives should also be managed and staffed by LP’s own members and known libertarians.
The campaign management team had 4 years to get ready and to prepare their candidate. They did nothing. But having credible candidates this year meant exposure that Johnson wasn’t prepared for.
Then came the moment that turned the table against Gary. The moment that the totally incompetent Nielson set him up for. The moment that ended the chance that momentum alone without advertising could maybe get Gary to 15% ….
ALEPPO
Gary thought he heard … ” a lepo” or “A.L.E.P.O.”
He thought that because that’s how Mike Barnicle said it on Morning Joe. He brought up the topic out of context, and in a well planned and rehearsed attempt to trip up Johnson, he actually said, “a lepo” instead of “Aleppo.”
So, Johson asked, “What is a lepo?”
… and the campaign ended that day.
This was political hardball and a dirty trick. But, politics is war, and the Morning Joe team wanted to knock Johnson out of the race to help their preferred damaged duopoly candidate.
It worked like a dream, because Johnson was totally clueless and unprepared thanks to his incompetent campaign team and his own personal failure to read a newspaper or watch the news. At least he owned the gaff – but it was more than a gaff – it displayed a kind of ignorance that is unacceptable to most people. This was reinforced by his name a leader brain freeze. Then he made the foolish reference to his “Aleppo moment” and the downward slide was inevitable.
Johnson should have been familiar enough with the news to recognize that “a lepo” was really “Aleppo.”
Had Gary had a competent campaign team, this never would have happened despite Gary’s lack of personal preparation.
The campaign team has an obligation to the candidate to digest daily events and news and present them in summarized form with very specific details as needed each day: at morning wake up, breaking news during the day, evening, late night before turning in. Nielson is a total incompetent and failed this function.
Running TV spots in the target states is also essential in keeping the candidate’s message out front, to prevent such targeted attacks as we saw on Morning Joe. Johnson had no message, so he was fair game to attack from any direction and he had no fall-back message to turn to. Another Nielson failure.
The slide in the polls and fundraising was inevitable since “a lepo” and “name your favorite foreign leader” made their appearance. Gary’s failure on that one was a matter of his own natural-but-affable-until-it’s-not slow wittedness.”
Recent events since those gaffs have seen Gary blowing up in angry outbursts several times. His “I am not a dummy,” rant tells us that someone very close to him has actually been telling him to his face that he’s stupid or a dummy or not smart enough to be President which has hurt Gary deeply. This could have been a loved one, someone on his own campaign staff, even Bill Weld. Gary’s reactions since tell us someone close has hurt him and he’s suffering from that personal betrayal.
Now, Weld is correct about Trump being more dangerous than Clinton. Trump is mentally ill and in need of psychiatric care. He is unfit to be President and Americans have a duty to vote for someone other than Trump or not vote.
However, Weld is wrong about Hillary Clinton. Perhaps his friendship is clouding his judgement. She is totally corrupt and power mad. She and Bill have collected or steered to beneficial organizations billions of dollars in bribes that they have been exchanged for political favors. The latest FBI dump of info is old news but it’s just another example: the Marc Rich pardon by Bill Clinton was a payoff for millions of dollars in bribes paid the Clinton groups and the DNC.
Weld’s failure to strongly support his own ticket will cost votes for Johnson/Weld from those who decide to vote for Hillary against the evil Trump, of course, but some never Clinton voters may choose to vote for Trump if they think the election is close. All the latest news revelations about Clinton make the election closer, so Gary will lose votes to both.
This peeling off of votes wouldn’t be a problem without the gaffs and if the campaign had properly targeted Clinton voters on TV first, which would have made the anti-Trump but never Clinton voters feel safe enough to come to Johnson. Then, a total assault on TV against Trump to drive him down to his 18% core and create a two-candidate race between Johnson and Clinton. However, serious political strategy is beyond the ken of Nielson.
The LP will be lucky if GJ can finish above 4% at this point.
Clinton is still way ahead, but as more damaging Wikileaks and FBI news comes out … Who knows? We could still end up with a mentally ill, maniacal, narcissitic, egotistical, ignorant, mysogynist in the White House.
Never Trump. Never Clinton.
Gary Johnson is still the best and most qualified choice.
Gary Johnson is the only candidate honest and open enough to be President.
Gary Jonson is still the most libertarian candidate in the race.
A vote for Johnson is still good for America and the LP.
Doug Casey for President!
Darn it. Last night we almost didn’t have to go through with this election.
Surprise! Newfound Asteroid 2016 VA Gives Earth a Close Shave
http://www.space.com/34598-asteroid-earth-flyby-2016va.html
Doug Casey is great.
Back on topic…
Here is Doug Casey’s opinion on Johnson/Weld (its an excerpt from the Casey Research International Man Communique newsletter that was distributed today):
Nick Giambruno: What about voting for the Libertarian Party?
Doug Casey: The Libertarian Party once had a claim to being the party of principle, back in the days when people like John Hospers, Harry Browne and Ron Paul were their candidates. Then they for some reason put forward the empty suit Bob Barr, an ex-Congressman.
It appears that the Libertarian Party has been captured by the Republicans, which is surprisingly clever on the Republicans’ part. Now they have two parties that are registered in all 50 states. It’s kind of a backup system to the regular Republican Party. They’ll need a backup, since the old GOP is a dead duck.
Regarding Gary Johnson, I don’t know what his philosophical beliefs, if any, are. I suspect neither does he. The only thing we really know is that he wants to see pot legalized on a national scale. Well, bravo. I’m all for that, even though I’m not a toker. It’s a step in the right direction toward dismantling the insane War on Some Drugs. But does he have any other libertarian tendencies? He doesn’t seem to even have a grasp of the basic principles… although he seems better than the average politician. But that’s not saying much.
I’m especially concerned about his running mate, William Weld, who’s an actual neocon. He’s an overt statist, an active promoter of warfare, welfare, taxes and regulations. He has no libertarian tendencies at all that I’m aware of. He’s a pure Deep State guy.
TLK @ 2:57 pm, exactly.
“The chances our candidate gets elected has zilch to do with what the voters are looking for in a President.”
And what the voters are looking for in a president has nearly zilch to do with the job description of “presidential or vice-presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party.”
Our candidates are not in a position to win the presidency and vice-presidency.
Our candidates WON’T ever be in a position to win the presidency and vice-presidency until and unless we convince a plurality of voters that our ideas are better.
Therefore the job description of our presidential and vice-presidential nominees is to convince people that our ideas are better.
Everything else comes after that and is secondary to that.
Not putting everything after that and secondary to that isn’t politics, its public masturbation.
I don’t need to watch our candidates masturbate in public. If I want to watch people masturbate in public, there are multiple porn sites with free videos of people much better looking than Gary Johnson and Bill Weld doing that.
“The job he was actually applying for was candidate and salesman for the party on talk shows and social media, since no one in their right mind thought that whoever the LP nominated would be even remotely likely to actually be elected president.”
Incorrect.
The chances our candidate gets elected has zilch to do with what the voters are looking for in a President.
(Pretending to) change the job description…I say pretending to because that’s up to the voters, not the LP…to chief marketer for the libertarian philosophy makes as much sense as a certain 35-year old blogger without executive experience explaining to McDonald’s that the primary purpose of their newly available CEO position will be henceforth solely to promote meat eating in general.
While I’m sure McDonlald’s would prefer to have someone in charge who can extol the virtues of being a carnivore, that’s just a side job. I can DEFINITELY assure you their primary focus is finding someone qualified for the actual position.
Furthermore, it’s quite likely that the peeps at McDonald’s would see through this blogger’s ruse, and understand the primary reason HE is turning the job discription into meat promotion was the pure opportunism of knowing that he has no qualifications for the ACTUAL job they are trying to fill.
My only question to you is, when will our party mature enough to the point where we can tell bloggers, angry anarchists, anesthesiologist, murder suspects, and sundry motleys to go prove in some lower jurisdiction that they can do what they say they are going to do, and until then stop wasting our motherf*cking time, because part of convincing voters to buy into the application of our philosophy to the issues that concern them is some level of previous experience in implementation said philosophy, not just the reverie of a blogger with a degree in song and dance.
“Sorry he didn’t answer it the way you wanted him to, but he didn’t say Hillary would be a better President than Johnson.”
Actually, he’s said that before too (“I don’t think there’s ANYONE more qualified to be president than Hillary Clinton”).
But even leaving that aside, “vice presidential nominee” is not a short way of saying “guy who won’t QUITE come out and say to vote against his party’s ticket.”
Tony,
The Benghazi “investigations” are a case in point. The Republicans keep coming back over and over even when there’s no “there” there and even when Clinton isn’t in an office that they could kick her out of.
If she’s elected and takes office, she’s in an office they can kick her out of and they’ve got at least two issues on which there’s actual evidence (incontrovertible proof in the case of Servergate, damning initial evidence in the case of pay to play routed through the Clinton Foundation for favors from the Secretary of State).
Warren, I don’t seem to recall him saying “no.” In that answer he praised Gov. Johnson quite nicely.
Sorry he didn’t answer it the way you wanted him to, but he didn’t say Hillary would be a better President than Johnson.
About 5 minutes into the video she asks him if he honestly believes Gary Johnson would be a better president than Hillary Clinton.
You’re supposed to say YES you f’ing traitor!
Didn’t mean to imply that you didn’t.
Thomas, I don’t think they are capable. Why else would they have 9 investigations into Benghazi that all pretty much say the same thing — and it isn’t want they WANT it to say.
Why would they fail to do their Constitutional duty by having a vote on Merrick Garland?
Both unpopular decisions by most Americans.
“All right Gary, I appreciate you, I like you, I believe in you, but please keep Bill Weld away from the Libertarian Party.” — Kennedy, on Fox Business, 11/01/16 (final seconds of this interview)
“Thomas, you know that impeachment and removal are two different things.”
Have I ever said, or even implied, differently?
“if I recall correctly, after their complete waste of taxpayer money, they lost seats in the next election.”
You recall correctly. Your problem here is that you seem to be under the misimpression that Republicans are capable of learning from experience.
“I have seen nothing to suggest Mrs. Clinton has broken any law”
So is your vision really, really bad or are you just intentionally keeping your eyes screwed shut because you don’t want to look?
There is no reasonable doubt whatsoever that Clinton broke several laws relating to the handling of classified information. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Bupkes. Whether she did so intentionally or due to extraordinarily gross negligence is an open question, but the law classifies both possibilities as crimes.
Thomas, you know that impeachment and removal are two different things.
if I recall correctly, after their complete waste of taxpayer money, they lost seats in the next election. The people don’t like frivolousness.
History does not look back at them fondly.
Correct. That’s why I said impeachment *or* special prosecutor. She could get a special prosecutor even if she is not elected.
Even if “misdemeanors” referred only to actual crimes (in the constitutional usage it does not appear to pertain to statutory violations but rather to perceived serious misbehavior in office, criminal or not), it would still remain the case that the US House of Representatives has the sole privilege of deciding whether or not to impeach for allegations of same.
Do you think for a minute that the House Republican majority has not already made its decision on that point? The RNC has probably had a gaggle of lawyers earning out their retainers working on every conceivable variation of Articles of Impeachment since the day after it became clear that Clinton would be the Democratic nominee.
Paulie . . yes, anything is indictable. I know this. Plenty of the charges in my indictment didn’t happen (most did, though).
President Andrew Johnson and President Bill Clinton both actually broke some sort of law and neither was removed from office. I have seen nothing to suggest Mrs. Clinton has broken any law, no less clear enough that members of her own party would vote to convict.
Correct. And if Clinton does not get elected, a special prosecutor seems likely to be in her future. She may be able to avoid both if Democrats control both houses of Congress, but that’s a low probability scenario.
That remains to be seen, and the poll average is against them. But then there are also special prosecutors which is why I mentioned that as well. And the House passes articles of impeachment so even if Democrats control the Senate they would still need to have the trial.
A crime has to be committed for prosecution to occur? Now I *know* you’re trolling. You’ve been through the “justice” system and worked as a paralegal so obviously you know better.
And you know this… how?
But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. In order to be impeached, she would first be elected and take office. A lot of things can happen between now and next January 20.
One scenario:
1) On November 8, she wins the first half of the presidential election (a popular vote in which electors are chosen, a win being more than 270 electors pledged to her);
2) Some time between November 8 and the second half of the presidential election on December 19, something really bad happens. Perhaps some new item is added to the mountain of overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence of her criminally negligent handling of classified information or her public corruption as Secretary of State, and she is either formally indicted or it becomes clear that she’s going to be.
3) President Barack Obama and interim Democratic National Committee chair Donna Brazile meet with Clinton and present her with the carrot and the stick: If she releases her electors and urges them to vote for Joe Biden, she receives a presidential pardon. If she doesn’t, release her electors and urge them to vote for Joe Biden, they vote for Joe Biden anyway and she gets a quarter to call her tailor with measurements for her personalized orange coveralls.
I don’t consider any of those three elements, let alone all of them in conjunction, to be particularly likely. But then, I didn’t think Donald Trump had a chance in hell at the Republican nomination either.
George, Please go read the section on impeachment in the Constitution again then look up the definition of “misdemeanor.” I gave you a handy dandy link to it yesterday. A misdemeanor is a CRIME. If all it took was doing something some people didn’t like we’d have impeachments every year.
Unnecessary, of course, since it’s not applicable here.
I don’t “propose” that Democrats control the senate. Well, I do “propose” it, but what I propose really carries no weight. I tend to believe 538.
If “getting into the debates” is NOT a campaign goal, then what is? Remaining at 1% in vote total? That seems to be YOUR goal, George.
Claims that impeachment requires a crime are wrong.
Proposals that the Democrats will control the Senate remain to be seen.
Pence? Pence realized that being Trump’s VP is his best shot ever at becoming President and putting his social reactionary policies into effect.
Get into the debates? No sensible person thought there was any likelihood of our candidate getting into a debate other than with Stein (or some of the 4th party candidates), or that debating Clinton/Trump would increase the likelihood of winning the election.
INdeed one of our major challenges is dealing not with our radical wing or our moderate wing but with our stupid wing, the people who want us to run Republican rejects and make “get into the debates” the major campaign objective.
If Austin Petersen has been nominated I would have lost what little faith I still had in the LP to make rational decisions. Most of that was lost in 2008. I will be voting for Gov. Johnson, but under no circumstances would I vote for Petersen . . . wait . . . if it were him against Trump.
Paulie – Beat the rap? The democrats will be controlling the Senate. Plus, there has to have been some crime committed. There was none . . . and no . . I don’t know better than that. I am not just some fool behind a keyboard. I do have a bit of edj-uh-muh-cay-shun. I also don’t confuse carelessness and convenience for criminality.
If the Republicans maintain control of Congress and Clinton is elected and subsequently actually takes office, it seems unlikely that she won’t be impeached.
That’s not about whether or not she has committed crimes. It’s about the fact that they are Republicans and her last name is Clinton.
The job he was actually applying for was candidate and salesman for the party on talk shows and social media, since no one in their right mind thought that whoever the LP nominated would be even remotely likely to actually be elected president.
“There must have been a lot of people like that there since a big deal was made of asking Weld about that and him promising from the stage that he would be a Libertarian for life and never, ever betray the party.”
I agree, there were a lot of people like that, and the question was stupid and the answer meant zip to me, because I believe everyone is self-interested, and will leave for greener pastures if and when they can. Weld has extensive experience, including governor. There was zero reason to believe he would stay if we missed the debates.
More importantly, I don’t buy this even worse delusion that we had potential nominees who were “principled” Libertarians who would eschew greener pastures. What we had were potential nominees with sh*tty resumes and no greener pastures to turn to. Don’t tell me the only naive people in Orlando were Weld supporters. We have a surfeit of members buying the con man act of the catastrophically unqualified. AWP, a 35-year old blogger with tin man at FAO Scwartz on his resume got, what, 20% of the delegate votes for the nomination to the most powerful executive office on the planet.
How do you know? I mean, it’s possible she might beat the rap, but I don’t have a crystal ball and don’t pretend to know whether she will or not.
LOL. I know you know better.
There must have been a lot of people like that there since a big deal was made of asking Weld about that and him promising from the stage that he would be a Libertarian for life and never, ever betray the party. In all fairness though, I hate to say it because I am talking about some people I am on good terms with, but I have to agree with you; we should have known he was a snake when we picked him up. There was ample evidence from LPNY in 2006.
Paulie ” . . . .working together as part of a legal team in a congressional impeachment or special prosecutor case, except this time for the defense rather than the prosecution. . . . ”
Why? Will some other public official be impeached? Certainly it won’t be Hillary. There has to be some sort of offense committed I believe . . . but then again, an impeachment is just an indictment . . . we know how those work. This would be an exercise in futility, just like the late 90’s.
“The term “lessarchism” has not been widely adopted”
widely? not even minimally…its a term used by no one other than the crackpot who concocted it, namely Robert Capozzi. Best I can ascertain it is a low self-esteem, participation-trophy psychobabble restatement of the lesser of 2 evils argument. Something like: important people will say nice things about you(yaaaayyy!!!) with the understanding that in the end you will endorse one of the two major party candidates. Failure to endorse would be viewed as unreasonable and obstinate leading to important people saying bad things about you(ewwww!!!!!!!!!!!). Obviously that we would be a reversal of the lessarchism imperative.
should read “…a distinct possibility Weld could do what he is doing…”
In no way, shape or form, especially if – as I think he is – he’s smart enough to realize that his actions are actually helping Trump, not Clinton. Weld is a really smart guy, so I think he does realize it. .
Agreed.
I think he’ll be done with the LP on election day if not sooner.
By this time next year Weld is most likely to either be an ambassador to some country with nice beaches or back where he and Hillary Rodham started their lifelong friendship – working together as part of a legal team in a congressional impeachment or special prosecutor case, except this time for the defense rather than the prosecution.
Anyone in Orlando who didn’t think there was a distinct possibility Weld could what he is doing if the ticket missed the debates is really quite dim.
I guess I disagree. I think what Weld is doing is honorable. The person who really has no honor or shame is Mike Pence. I would never ever support a social conservative under any circumstances especially someone as homophobic as Pence, but what happened to all those conservative principles? Guess he can’t put country before party. Sad.
For all those on here who constantly complain about Johnson / Weld, they seem to care a lot about this particular matter.
If he does get appointed to something, I hope he (and President Clinton) make it clear that he is a Libertarian. She will probably name a moderate Republican to something too. (Go ahead purists and say something negative and repetitive). I am a Democrat, but I’ve made it clear I don’t like the 2-party duopoly, so appointing people from other parties is a good thing.
We’ve met before, but we’re not on speaking terms these days. For that matter I don’t think I’ll get through to Weld, either.
I think Trump is dangerous, too. But unlike Trump, Weld of all people should know how to control himself and consider the real consequences of his actions rather than act on impulse and emotion. I think Weld’s smart enough to do that, so the only logical explanation for his actions is that he hopes to get a quid pro quo appointment if Clinton wins and doesn’t care all that much if she loses.
Thanks for clarifying that. Can you let Trump know?
I agree that Weld should be focused solely on soliciting votes for Johnson / Weld, but I can not really fault him. He’s right. Trump is the most dangerous major party candidate in our nation’s history.
I can’t think of one as unqualified ill-suited since maybe Zachary Taylor – and at least he was a General!
Found it.
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/putin-did-not-call-trump-a-genius/
To what the translators said I would only add that yarkii can also mean hot tempered in addition to colorful. It certainly does not mean genius.
Any number of other Clinton surrogates or NeverTrump Republicans can be brought on the talk shows to make that case. Weld’s specific appeal is to those who are planning to vote for Johnson/Weld but see Trump as worse than Clinton. I think it’s pretty obvious what he is trying to do and how the Clinton campaign is trying to use him, but I think it will backfire, not only against the LP but also against Clinton as well.
Weld’s statement come across to me as appealing to people who wouldn’t vote for a third-party at all no matter what. He wants to stress to those people just how bad a President Trump would be.
From what I understand (and I may be misremembering) Putin referred to Trump as “Brilliant,” which he regularly brags about . . but from what I understand and saw a native Russian explaining, the exact word Putin used translated to bright – in terms of illumination, not intelligence. Please feel free to elaborate if you are able Paulie.
It was in the other thread, so here you go again:
In addition to doing a great deal to destroy the long term brand of the LP, that would probably help Trump more than Clinton. The people choosing between Johnson and Clinton have for the most part already drifted back to Clinton or are well on their way to doing so. Now Weld is working on getting about half or so of the remaining 2% that would still vote for Johnson if Weld doesn’t go further down this path to vote for Trump rather than Johnson, since they will come to see Johnson/Weld as Clinton shills. It’s true that a few have already done so, but Weld is only helping to greatly accelerate that process.
LOL yeah, I know. And she’ll probably appoint him to something, too.
Although, see above, or on the other thread (I forgot which since I am commenting from the dashboard) about why I think Weld’s shilling is actually helping Trump more than it is helping Clinton.
Yes, he’s an attorney and politician. But c’mon, it was pretty obvious what he meant. Just watch his answer about what voters in NC should do again.
Huh? Russian word “brilliant” means diamond in English. But I don’t think Putin called him a diamond. Can you tell me more about this? I was aware that Putin is manipulating Trump with flattery, possible back room financial dealings, and possible blackmail, but the thing about translation is new. Let me know if you have a link on that, I’d like to take a look at that since I’m conversational in Russian (born there).
Yeah . . . serious journalism . . . a meme.
Weld’s “vouching” for Mrs. Clinton has nothing to do with the Ambassador nomination. He’s known Hillary much longer than he’s known Bill.
key word “basically.” I watched the Rachel Maddow interview closely. He was very careful with his words.
At the same time, there is a clear and obvious difference between Mrs. Clinton and Trump.
Like it or not, one of those two people will be our next president. One has no idea what he is doing and one has ethical challenges but knows how the job works and how legislation actually gets passed. hmm…
One refers to himself as “The Donald.” One exhibits just about every trait the DSM-V lists for Narcissism. One doesn’t realize that he is getting played by Vladamir Putin and doesn’t realize that the word “brilliant” does not translate to “smart” from Russian to English.
One doesn’t condemn white nationalists . . . because he want’s their vote. (Generic campaign statements notwithstanding)
One has the vocabulary and temperament of an 8th grader (Yes, this matters)
One has a 50 year history of treating women like objects
One has a 50 year history of bad business decisions.
One lost a racial discrimination lawsuit and then continued to do the same thing and has to be sued again.
One is currently being sued for sexually assaulting a teenage girl http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html
Look, one can write hundreds of these same lines. It’s difficult to think of even one person I would prefer Trump over. . . well OK, I would choose Trump over both Andy and Darryl Perry.
Washington Post headline: Libertarian Party VP nominee Bill Weld basically just endorsed Hillary Clinton
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/02/libertarian-party-vp-nominee-bill-weld-basically-just-endorsed-hillary-clinton/
Don, even I won’t touch that one. Enough people on here already are not very fond of me.
“The term ‘lessarchism’ has not been widely adopted, true, but functionally it describes MANY high-profile people who I.D as Ls – GJ and WW, for example.”
So far as I can tell, the next time Gary Johnson or William Weld produces less government will be the first time Gary Johnson or William Weld produces less government. Sure, they TALK a good game about producing less government. So does every Republican in every legislature and governor’s mansion in the country. And when Johnson and Weld actually governed, government got bigger, not smaller, in their fiefdoms.
So if you’re going to conflate lessarchism with libertarianism, you might want to actually cite some real lessarchists instead of hanging lessarchist plaques around the necks of morearchists.
TK, great feedback, but I’m not persuaded. The term “lessarchism” has not been widely adopted, true, but functionally it describes MANY high-profile people who I.D as Ls – GJ and WW, for example. Pledge-signing members of the Cult of 89 NAPSTERS nominated them. I suspect many in the LP are themselves non-NAPSTER Ls as well, despite the words in the SOP.
I would say that most of the Orange Line Mafia are not knee-jerk NAPSTERS, either.
You?
This thread is another reminder of how deep the divide is between the two factions in the LP. Those of you who accept the divide, believing it is only a minor issue that doesn’t hamper the fight for freedom, are truly stupid. The divide is fundamental, negatively affecting everything the party touches.
Today’s LP isn’t a political party – it’s a debating club with ballot access composed primarily of GOP losers with some anarchists hanging around. It doesn’t accomplish the goals that Andy writes about – outreach, education, promotion of the ideas of liberty. It doesn’t accomplish the goals of influencing public policy of a real political party. In it’s current state, the LP is a meaningless exercise in futility. Absent a major break up followed by rebuilding, the LP will remain impotent.
Those of you who don’t want the LP to break up because you are fearful that what’s left would be even smaller are putting self-preservation above principle. Shame on you. Have some courage – take a chance – engage in a battle for control of the party – declare the winners and banish the losers.
Andy,
I don’t HAVE to justify my fucking vote to anyone except myself. It’s MY vote, not yours. Don’t like it? Too bad.
As far as how my vote is “interpreted,” the fact is that it ISN’T interpreted unless I disclose it. If I had just cast it and kept my mouth shut, it would have sent no message at all because nobody except me would have known how I voted.
In disclosing it, I sent the message that I wanted to send. Not that many more people will get that message (a handful) than would have gotten any message from an undisclosed vote (zero).
“Now maybe your vote to you meant something else, but whether you like it or not, what I said above is how your votes are going to be interpreted by other people.”
I suspect that other people can speak for themselves, and that if they do what they will say will be what they think, not what you decided they had to think.
“Thomas Knapp
November 2, 2016 at 08:08
“Voting for Johnson, who is bad enough on his own, with Weld as his VP, means whatever the person doing it means by it.”
There, fixed that for ya.
I didn’t vote for Johnson with any intention of putting him in the White House or Weld in the Naval Observatory. It never occurred to me that there is any chance whatsoever of that outcome, for the very good reason that there isn’t.
You vote the way you vote for your own reasons.”
Tom, you are just trying to justify your irrational decision to vote for these clowns.
Here’s what your vote for them did:
1) It sent them message of, “Keep up the great work guys.” and it will be no doubt used by the Johnson/Weld supporters to push to nominate more candidates like them in the future. Every vote they will get gives the Johnson/Weld supporters another vote to brag about and they will use those votes to push for the LP to nominate more candidates of this ilk in future elections.
2) It says that you want Johnson/Weld to be elected. Whether you do or not, this is how your vote is interpreted. Even for those who are operating under the delusion that Gary Johnson is really some kind of libertarian that really cares about us, William Weld being the Vice President means that he will be a heartbeat away from the presidency, meaning that if they were elected, and something happened to Johnson, Weld would be President, but even if nothing happened to Johnson, Johnson is already deferring to Weld on issues anyway, so he’d just continue to defer to Weld on issues if they were to be elected.
Now maybe your vote to you meant something else, but whether you like it or not, what I said above is how your votes are going to be interpreted by other people.
“Voting for Johnson, who is bad enough on his own, with Weld as his VP, means whatever the person doing it means by it.”
There, fixed that for ya.
I didn’t vote for Johnson with any intention of putting him in the White House or Weld in the Naval Observatory. It never occurred to me that there is any chance whatsoever of that outcome, for the very good reason that there isn’t.
You vote the way you vote for your own reasons.
So does everyone else.
“did not release on person from jail or prison ”
Should read, “did not release one person from jail or prison…”
Self professed NAPSTERS supporting Trump is really no worse that self professed NAPSTERS supporting Johnson/Weld.
Forget Johnson’s “Libertarian” image. It is a sham. Johnson is an empty shell who INCREASED the size of government in New Mexico (massive debt, increased spending), endorsed George W. Bush for President in 2000, did not release on person from jail or prison who was being held for a victimless crime, stumps for the Fair Tax (which does NOT decrease the size of government), and who stumped for putting CFR establishment shill William Weld on our presidential ticket, and who disingenuously called Weld, “the original libertarian”.
Weld is a CFR gun grabbing. pro war, pro-Patriot Act, pro-United Nations, pro-TPP, Bush loving, Romney loving, Clinton loving, New World Order shill.
Voting for Johnson, who is bad enough on his own, with Weld as his VP, means that you want to put William Weld a heartbeat away from the presidency. This means that you want Weld to be like Lyndon Johnson was to JFK or Dick Cheney was to George W. Bush.
Just in the last three presidential elections, Libertarians rallied against George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. Well guess what? Now we have a guy who is cut from they same cloth in William Weld.
Lol. Man it hurts being so right all the time. If Castle is on your ballot vote for him instead but still vote down ticket LP. God what a travesty. Makes me miss Bob Barr. . It’s not like people were warning about this in may or something…
I’m shilling for Castle cause I kinda like him. But if you’re uncomfortable with him I would recommend writing in Darryl Perry. It’s certainty something I considered but I don’t trust them to count in write ins. And if I’m gonna write someone in might as well be Jim Hedges for the lols.
Bob,
Re-labeling libertarianism “NAPSTERism” and pretending that “lessarchism” is libertarianism would be a neat trick if anyone but you bought it.
But no one does.
Tk, that’s comforting news. But have you, for example, come around on the NAP? That is, it’s a nice sentiment but an unworkable concept as stated in
the LP’s platform. Are you advocating deleting the SoP, for example, as it’s a vestige of old school NAPSTERism?
Bob,
There’s no such thing as the NAPSTER set except in your fevered imagination, nor does any significant bloc (pun intended) within that imaginary set support Trump.
My sense is that many in the right NAPSTER set, such as Block, support DJT, TK. True?
“Come on now,tighten up the message, Hystericals. Is this ticket a plant to help get Hillary elected, or is it the other republican ticket?”
If it was one, it would almost necessarily be the other as well. That’s how it works. See 1860 for an example.
“I am abso-fucking-lutely shocked that NAPsters are supporting DJT.”
“I would be abso-fucking-lutely shocked if I fell into an alternate universe where NAPsters are supporting DJT.”
Fixed, no charge.
Andy: ” . . . . This SHOULD have been obvious to all considering that William Weld is an active member of the Council on Foreign Relations. . . . ”
Yawn . . . as I watched Rachel Maddow last night, I knew right away that Andy would repeat his same old meaningless conspiracy crap.
Andy: ” . . . . Larry Sharpe would have been a much better salesman for the Libertarian Party and message than William Weld. . . . .”
Larry Sharpe wouldn’t have had any ears to listen.
Austin: ” . . . but I guess this is essentially the price of making a run at the debates this year.” . . . ”
Yeah!!! Who wants to actually have their candidate seen and heard by millions??? Let’s just keep getting 1%!!! #defeatestdrones
“Steven Wilson
November 2, 2016 at 07:11
The LP convention goers deserve what they get. They chose a carpet bagger sequel that ‘begged’ for this VP selection. ”
I was a delegate at that convention and I am among those who tried to PREVENT this TRAVESTY from taking place. Unfortunately, not enough people listened.
I wish that more real Libertarians would have shown up in Orlando so we could have been successful in denying Johnson/Weld the nomination.
“Anthony Dlugos
November 2, 2016 at 06:50
‘Supporting Trump is no more misguided a strategy than supporting Johnson/Weld is.’
And the Hysterical Caucus moves into the penultimate stage of their campaign
Guarantee that the final step will come over the weekend, when they announce, that, after much deliberation, they’ve concluded the best move for Libertarians is to vote for Trump.”
I have not advocated that anyone vote for Donald Trump. I am not on the Trump bandwagon.
My point was exactly what I said, and that is that voting for Johnson/Weld is a misguided strategy, and is no better than voting for Trump, or voting for Hillary for that matter.
“Come on now,tighten up the message, Hystericals. Is this ticket a plant to help get Hillary elected, or is it the other republican ticket?”
It doesn’t really fucking matter because the bottom line is that Johnson/Weld are NOT libertarians, and they SUCK. Voting for Johnson/Weld is more than just a waste of time, it is actually destructive to the Libertarian Party and movement.
Vote for the real Libertarians who are on your ballot in down ticket races, but don’t vote for the clowns Johnson/Weld.
The LP convention goers deserve what they get. They chose a carpet bagger sequel that “begged” for this VP selection. To blame an external variable is to trivialize the ineptitude and vanity of the current LP ticket. This will have a long term effect on the morale of current and future LP candidates down ticket.
There are not many fan clubs for Judas or Benedict Arnold.
AJ, since I agree with most of GJ’s positions and he seems FAR more humble and sane than DJT, whom I agree with very little, I’m sticking with Team Gov.
But thanks for your input.
“Supporting Trump is no more misguided a strategy than supporting Johnson/Weld is.”
And the Hysterical Caucus moves into the penultimate stage of their campaign
Guarantee that the final step will come over the weekend, when they announce, that, after much deliberation, they’ve concluded the best move for Libertarians is to vote for Trump.
“Johnson/Weld are NOT a Libertarian ticket, they are the “other” Republican ticket.”
Come on now,tighten up the message, Hystericals. Is this ticket a plant to help get Hillary elected, or is it the other republican ticket?
Robert said” “I am abso-fucking-lutely shocked that NAPsters are supporting DJT.”
Supporting Trump is no more misguided a strategy than supporting Johnson/Weld is.
If you think that this is a radical or “crazy” statement, then you need to stop drinking the Johnson/Weld Kool-Aid and see them for what they really are.
Supporting Johnson/Weld is about the equivalent of voting for Mitt Romney in 2012.
Johnson/Weld are NOT a Libertarian ticket, they are the “other” Republican ticket this year that happened to hijack the Libertarian Party’s ballot access by flooding the convention with delegates and duping naive Libertarians.
I would think NAPsters would appreciate this. One often hears them exclaim “principle over party.”
Were I a WW adviser, I would not have counseled this interview. It’s — to me — bad form. In some ways, I personally appreciate that they don’t agree on everything, and on taxes, WW has the preferred position compared with GJ. Still, this interview doesn’t sit well with me.
I definitely agree with WW about DJT. As for HRC, he seems to overlook a LOT of shit.
I am abso-fucking-lutely shocked that NAPsters are supporting DJT. Stunning, actually, that such “principled” souls cannot seem to see what a disaster and how emotionally unhinged the dude is. Then again NAPsterism is such an incomplete and simplistic thought system, I really shouldn’t be surprised.
“Steven Berson
November 2, 2016 at 04:28
Andy –
As has been noted about a gazillion times here before – McAfee, Petersen and Perry all had serious downsides as well to their candidacies, and as bad as you think GJ has done”
Yes, all of the candidates had problems, but out of the main candidates for the nomination for President, the problems with Gary Johnson were WORSE than the problems with the other candidates.
“all evidence presented to me before and after the convention by the other nominees has me convinced all of those would have done as bad or even worse as far as getting a libertarian message out to those not already supportive of those ideals”
Then you did not do a good job of doing any homework on the candidates before you voted, because it SHOULD HAVE BEEN BLATANTLY APPARENT THAT GARY JOHNSON AND WILLIAM WERE WERE BOTH UNACCEPTABLE AS CANDIDATES.
The Johnson/Weld campaign has been a disaster, just like I predicted.
Andy –
As has been noted about a gazillion times here before – McAfee, Petersen and Perry all had serious downsides as well to their candidacies, and as bad as you think GJ has done – all evidence presented to me before and after the convention by the other nominees has me convinced all of those would have done as bad or even worse as far as getting a libertarian message out to those not already supportive of those ideals. I’m sure you will disagree with me on that assessment – but it’s already well known to anyone who reads these boards where you stand on GJ 😉
“Steven Berson
November 2, 2016 at 03:25
Wow. Oh well – this interview has shown to me without a doubt that both Gary Johnson and the delegates at the Convention made an enormous mistake in nominating Weld for the VP seat. ”
Nominating Gary Johnson was a big mistake as well.
Wow. Oh well – this interview has shown to me without a doubt that both Gary Johnson and the delegates at the Convention made an enormous mistake in nominating Weld for the VP seat. While it is true that Judge Jim Gray received almost zero mainstream media interviews in 2012 – that would have been preferable to Weld undermining both the ticket he is on and the Libertarian Party as a whole by reiterating the “lesser of two evils” and “wasted vote / spoiler” fallacies. Sad to see that play out but will be relieved to see Weld obviously no longer working within the LP after this election.
Andy,
Woulda-coulda-shoulda. I wish you and Larry Sharpe the best in your future endeavors to expand freedom on planet Earth.
“Austin Cassidy
November 2, 2016 at 00:13
They made a play to get into the debates with Weld. Nominating Larry Sharpe”
Larry Sharpe would have been a much better salesman for the Libertarian Party and message than William Weld.
Reminds me of Gift of the Magi.
They made a play to get into the debates with Weld. Nominating Larry Sharpe or Jim Gray wouldn’t have given the ticket the media bump needed to come as close as they did.
Once J/W missed the debates, the campaign was going to begin bleeding support by the day. The only hope was that they clock ran out before they bled below 5%. Didn’t happen.
Unforced errors and negative campaigning have drained away most of the benefit of having Bill Weld on the ticket. I suspect that whatever vote Johnson/Weld winds up capturing — probably between 1.5%-3.5% — is close to what a Johnson/Gray ticket might have won.
I don’t think making a run at the debates was the wrong move this year, but I am still deeply disappointed as I watch Bill Weld do this.
Hopefully 2018 will bring a wave of new energy as the LP keeps growing and seriously contests more and more local and state races.
For 2020, total destruction of the deeply bogus “Commission on Presidential Debates” must continue to be a top priority… and reforming the Electoral College.
“Watching this whole thing unravel is a bit depressing, but I guess this is essentially the price of making a run at the debates this year.”
Correct.
“When Weld was nominated in May in Orlando, it was still not certain that Trump would be the Republican nominee.” — Richard Winger
Oh, give me a break. Talk about a completely false and distorted interpretation of the immediate past. Trump had virtually locked up the GOP nomination several weeks before the Libertarian Party convention and had already surpassed the 1,237-delegate threshold several days before the LP convention in Orlando.
And as Andy noted, what difference would it have made who the Republican nominee was going to be? Gary Johnson would still have been desperately begging the LP delegates to nominate Weld. This is entirely on Johnson.
Weld sounds like a guy giving a rain dance for the lobbying firm ML strategies in re: to doing prospective business with the Clinton Administration. Pretty obvious at this point. Trickle-down public choice. Apparently, some in the LP are still holding out hope that they are going to get a govt welfare check out of Weld’s rainmaking efforts.
I fail to see what difference it would have made who the Republican nominee was going to be. The Libertarian Party should NEVER nominate somebody like William Weld for anything.
When Weld was nominated in May in Orlando, it was still not certain that Trump would be the Republican nominee. In May and June, there was lots of talk about how Trump could be deprived of the Republican nomination.
This SHOULD have been obvious to all considering that William Weld is an active member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Gary is such a fucking rube and the LP was hoodwinked. I’d be curious who was the broker that brought Weld to the table and set this debacle. It’s clear now it was his plan all alone to stump for Hillary.
Disgraceful.
Watching this whole thing unravel is a bit depressing, but I guess this is essentially the price of making a run at the debates this year.
Weld brought media attention and “juice” that helped the ticket poll in low double-digits for a bit. If they’d made it into the debates, who knows what might have been…
As it stands now, there have been too many gaffes and too much outside money spent beating up the LP ticket for them to have a real shot at 5% or winning any states. I’m still hopeful they out-poll Nader 2000 and make it past 10% in at least one or two states… but I guess we’ll see.
So anyone at the campaign want to take responsibility for writing a press release under Governor Weld’s name that HE DID NOT AUTHORIZE/APPROVE?
That’s a rather damnable claim the Governor has made here, yes?