Libertarian national convention May 27–30 in Orlando (Official thread)

[69360]

The majority it seems. A gun grabber for VP? I mean really???

I think his credibility as a governor brings more to the ticket than one past policy you don't agree with. He's not going to be vpotus, we all know that, so the whole he's gonna take yer guns thing is a moot point.

I agree they missed the boat, but I don't get your sarcasm about Obama and Bush. We're going to get another ObamaBush even if the LP didn't field a candidate in 2016.

But maybe, 4 or 8 years from now we won't. A legitimate third party ticket is at least a step in the right direction.

[Matt Collins]

This fat guy has every right to strip at the convention.

No he doesn't... the most appalling thing about this is that Party leadership did not have the mic cut off and removed him from the stage immediately.

Every group of people have some that will pull a stunt like this. The LP's problem is that a large portion of their people don't understand basic human interaction and why this isn't a good idea. The even bigger problem is that the LP didn't have enough control over their convention to toss this guy.... I mean they even let him have the mic again when he was done.....


This is a private organization and it was well within their authority to toss him when he started this.

[cajuncocoa]

No he doesn't... the most appalling thing about this is that Party leadership did not have the mic cut off and removed him from the stage immediately.

Every group of people have some that will pull a stunt like this. The LP's problem is that a large portion of their people don't understand basic human interaction and why this isn't a good idea. The even bigger problem is that the LP didn't have enough control over their convention to toss this guy.... I mean they even let him have the mic again when he was done.....


This is a private organization and it was well within their authority to toss him when he started this.

Libertarians aren't stuffy like blue-haired Republicans. I'll bet most people in that room thought it was funny. Oh, wait...excuse me. Republican women would never dye their hair bright blue.

[cajuncocoa]

But maybe, 4 or 8 years from now we won't. A legitimate third party ticket is at least a step in the right direction.

That's what I'm hoping too.

[phill4paul]

I was quoting what a speaker said at the LP CONVENTION. If you don't like it, TOUGH! I have taken the time to listen; if all you can do is to insult me for doing it, then you can go to Hell.

Fine wit dat...Asking nothing, leave me be...

[phill4paul]

Amen. The people in that room have had the dedication to stay engaged. Those of us who tried to somehow meld into the Republican mob since 2007 can whine all we want to. But look now! - the LP actually means something and we kind of missed the boat.

Honestly, with a small amount of foresight we could have raised enough funds and awareness and Torchbearer could have been our presidential nominee.

[phill4paul]

If you didn't bother to participate in that process, and you are bitching about it, what does that make you?

She's not defending principles. She's defending her position for supporting Trump. Trying to antagonize you because she also chose a non-principled candidate. Non-principled candidates abound in this election cycle.

[phill4paul]

Will write in Ron Paul.

Again.

Looking more and more ^^^ THIS. At least one delegate in the first round had the balls to do so.

[opal]

This just in
copy/pasted from a FB post




Per Alicia Dearn:
"I learned that the poll companies and CPD stated that they wouldn't include libertarians without Weld. They've agreed to include us if he's the pick. No Weld, and we get shut out again.
The GJ campaign didn't ask me to quit or tell me that. I got that message directly from someone outside the party.
We can't fight for Liberty with our hands tied behind our backs. So I asked Weld to swear to me that he wouldn't screw us. And he did. He seemed sincere. I said real libertarians need a seat at the table and I got his, Gary's and Ron's word that we would not be shut out and that our principles would be protected.
I did it so that we can have ballot access and make gains for all down line libertarians.
It was force by non-libertarians but I took it so we can stop force and oppression going forward.
It was awful. I'm not bullish on Weld and I was honest about that. But we need to advance for the sake of liberty and the sake of our country. I'd like to add that I learned this over the lunch recess while I was working on my speech. I was fully prepared to move ahead and kick ass."


so.. stupidity AND blackmail

Gary.. get off the island!

[The Rebel Poet]

This just in
copy/pasted from a FB post




Per Alicia Dearn:
"I learned that the poll companies and CPD stated that they wouldn't include libertarians without Weld. They've agreed to include us if he's the pick. No Weld, and we get shut out again.
The GJ campaign didn't ask me to quit or tell me that. I got that message directly from someone outside the party.
We can't fight for Liberty with our hands tied behind our backs. So I asked Weld to swear to me that he wouldn't screw us. And he did. He seemed sincere. I said real libertarians need a seat at the table and I got his, Gary's and Ron's word that we would not be shut out and that our principles would be protected.
I did it so that we can have ballot access and make gains for all down line libertarians.
It was force by non-libertarians but I took it so we can stop force and oppression going forward.
It was awful. I'm not bullish on Weld and I was honest about that. But we need to advance for the sake of liberty and the sake of our country. I'd like to add that I learned this over the lunch recess while I was working on my speech. I was fully prepared to move ahead and kick ass."


so.. stupidity AND blackmail

Gary.. get off the island!

Oh, well if he gave his word.

[The Rebel Poet]

I agree they missed the boat, but I don't get your sarcasm about Obama and Bush. We're going to get another ObamaBush even if the LP didn't field a candidate in 2016.

Not sure what you mean, but my comment was about those on the thread who think getting into the debates is the only thing that matters, and is contingent on nominating non-libertarians. Johnson is still a little libertarian leaning compared to most politicians, and didn't get into the debates last time, so you guys are half-assing it. If the LP wants to trade its values for a debate stage then it should have gone all the way for maximum effect and picked George W. Bush in 2000 as the LP nominee, and Barack Obama in 2008 as the LP nominee. Hell, they should have nominated Trump this time around. If the LP doesn't nominate Hillary Clinton in 2020 we'll know they are losers who don't want a seat at the table.

[Matt Collins]

Libertarians aren't stuffy like blue-haired Republicans. I'll bet most people in that room thought it was funny. Oh, wait...excuse me. Republican women would never dye their hair bright blue.

Yes, I thought it was funny too.... but it was also damaging to the LP (as if they weren't already damaged goods)

[cajuncocoa]

Not sure what you mean, but my comment was about those on the thread who think getting into the debates is the only thing that matters, and is contingent on nominating non-libertarians. Johnson is still a little libertarian leaning compared to most politicians, and didn't get into the debates last time, so you guys are half-assing it. If the LP wants to trade its values for a debate stage then it should have gone all the way for maximum effect and picked George W. Bush in 2000 as the LP nominee, and Barack Obama in 2008 as the LP nominee. Hell, they should have nominated Trump this time around. If the LP doesn't nominate Hillary Clinton in 2020 we'll know they are losers who don't want a seat at the table.

Getting into the debates is very important, but not the only thing that matters. Nominating Romney, Bush, Obama, Clinton is not the only way to achieve name recognition.

[jkob]

That guy who stripped should of been thrown out the building, an embarrassment to the entire Libertarian Party who is desperate to be taken seriously.

[RJ Liberty]

That guy who stripped should of been thrown out the building, an embarrassment to the entire Libertarian Party who is desperate to be taken seriously.

I agree. Not only was it unprofessional, I'm not even sure what the point was.

[opal]

Getting into the debates is very important, but not the only thing that matters. Nominating Romney, Bush, Obama, Clinton is not the only way to achieve name recognition.

THIS^^^ Now with that in mind.. if any of the 50%ish that nominated Gary Whiner Johnson were not GOP plants - they would have voted for the best, most attention getting speaker.
AP is loud.. and speaks clearly but it's all meme speak.
Darryl Perry - while I think he's pretty great and I get it, he would reinforce the whole nut job perception of libertarianism.
McAfee is close to unflappable, speaks slowly with conviction and belly laughs when something is absurd. (picture that laugh - on stage - after Clinton answers anything techie)
He's also the only realist that said several times during the convention that anyone that thinks a libertarian is going to walk into the white house is delusional.. that kind of pissed people off.

[undergroundrr]

It wasn't a great field. Honestly, I think GJ was the best of the batch at this one.

I think if AP sees a therapist and sorts out his bipolar issues, he'll be great in 8 or 12 years.

McAfee honestly looked feeble to me at the convention. His voice quivered in his incoherent nomination speech like he was about to fall over (I also heard he had the flu or something). I think he's brilliant, but during the whole process, he has come across as somebody who's burned his brain a little with narcotics and is running out of physical energy. His clarity on not being in it to win it knocked him completely out of consideration. Any candidate has to go full steam and fight like hell, ESPECIALLY if it's an educational campaign.

I totally get what turns people off about Johnson here. To me, he's a libertarian, but with very different core beliefs than Ron Paul about where morality comes from. GJ is areligious politically and probably personally. He's not apocalyptic about government, he just kind of sneers at it as absurd and counterproductive. He's also an incrementalist. In the same way that RP didn't campaign on abolishing social security, GJ isn't going to be striking down anti-discrimination laws any time soon, although he clearly agrees in principal that they're wrongheaded. If you listen to his discussion of transgender bathrooms on the Joe Rogan show, you get the clear picture that he thinks both sides are ridiculous and making something out of nothing. He has no bigotry in his background and can pull massively from Hillary's support without selling the country to SJW's.

I'd be delighted to have Gary Johnson as POTUS. I really hope the American populace warms to him over the next few months. If he keeps it together and gets the exposure, he's going to look very sensible compared to trumplary. Worst case, he wins and gets assassinated LBJ/JFK-style by Weld.

[jct74]

Libertarian Party chair Nicholas Sarwark on MSNBC this morning



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeYbdP2CK-I

[RJ Liberty]

THIS^^^ Now with that in mind.. if any of the 50%ish that nominated Gary Whiner Johnson were not GOP plants - they would have voted for the best, most attention getting speaker.

They voted for the guy who led the party to a record number of voters last time, and who is currently polling ten times higher than that. The one who is garnering huge media attention like the LP has never seen.

AP is loud.. and speaks clearly but it's all meme speak.
Darryl Perry - while I think he's pretty great and I get it, he would reinforce the whole nut job perception of libertarianism.

No argument here. I'd just add that AP seemed very young, inexperienced, and a little weird.

McAfee is close to unflappable, speaks slowly with conviction and belly laughs when something is absurd. (picture that laugh - on stage - after Clinton answers anything techie)
He's also the only realist that said several times during the convention that anyone that thinks a libertarian is going to walk into the white house is delusional.. that kind of pissed people off.

No, I was more pissed off by McAfee repeatedly downplaying the LP's chances. If you want people to vote for you, your rally cry just shouldn't be "We can't possibly win! Now let's go out there and lose big time!" The fact that you don't do that is Leadership 101.

McAfee also has baggage that would prevent most people from voting for him, and from the media giving him a serious chance. We saw that already, with many stories referring to him as the candidate who is a "person of interest" in a murder in Belize.

[jct74]

ABC News coverage



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IawFHfqZI8

[opal]

My second biggest gripe with his nomination.. omg, his whining over the next few months will be very hard to take.

[RJ Liberty]

Johnson is still a little libertarian leaning compared to most politicians

Well... "A little libertarian leaning"? Johnson was vetted on this forum four years ago, and he has a solid libertarian record. Ontheissues.org, a non-partisan website, rates Johnson firmly in the Libertarian quadrant.

[helmuth_hubener]

Johnson was vetted on this forum four years ago

Right, and we determined that he is a weasel and a Fake.

He's also an incrementalist.

Incrementalism is OK, perhaps, if you are incrementing in the right direction! That's, umm, the bare minimum. But Government Growth Gary believes in Big Government and demonstrably increments in the wrong direction. Here is what you will get with Government Growth Gary:






Any questions?

[The Rebel Poet]

He's also an incrementalist. In the same way that RP didn't campaign on abolishing social security, GJ isn't going to be striking down anti-discrimination laws any time soon, although he clearly agrees in principal that they're wrongheaded.

No, he clearly agrees in principle that they are morally good and legally necessary; he couldn't be more clear on this. He has said on numerous occasions that the federal government needs to insert itself into such issues, and has also clearly laid out that government needs to enforce anti-discrimination laws. In but one example he said not only that Christian bakers should be forced by government to bake gay wedding cakes, but that Jews should be forced by government to bake Nazi cakes:

[undergroundrr]

No, he clearly agrees in principle that they are morally good and legally necessary; he couldn't be more clear on this. He has said on numerous occasions that the federal government needs to insert itself into such issues, and has also clearly laid out that government needs to enforce anti-discrimination laws. In but one example he said not only that Christian bakers should be forced by government to bake gay wedding cakes, but that Jews should be forced by government to bake Nazi cakes:

For context, his clarification -

[A]nti-discrimination laws do not, and cannot, abridge fundamental First Amendment rights. I know of no one who reasonably disagrees. In the highly unlikely event that a Nazi would demand that a Jewish baker decorate a cake with a Nazi symbol, the courts, common sense, and common decency — not to mention the First Amendment — all combine to protect that baker from having to do so. It’s not an issue, except when distorted for purposes of gotcha politics.

Does a public bakery have to sell a cake to a Nazi? Probably so. Does that bakery have to draw a swastika on it? Absolutely not. And that’s the way it should be.

Of course, we all know that this conversation is really “code” for the current, and far more real, conversation about society’s treatment of LGBT individuals. I have even heard some talk of a “right to discriminate.” And of course, we have states and municipalities today trying to create a real right to discriminate against the LGBT community on religious grounds — the same kinds of “religious” grounds that were used to defend racial segregation, forbid interracial marriages and, yes, defend discrimination against Jews by businesses. That is not a slope Libertarians want to go down.

Once again, my belief that discrimination on the basis of religion should not be allowed has been distorted by some to suggest that a legitimate church or its clergy should be “forced” to perform a same-sex marriage. That is absurd. The various ballot initiatives I supported across the country to repeal bans on same-sex marriage all had one provision in common: A specific provision making clear that no religious organization, priest or pastor could be required to perform any rite contrary to that organization’s or individual’s faith. That protection was supported almost universally by the LGBT community — even though most legal scholars agreed that such a protection already exists in the Constitution. We just wanted to leave no doubt.

I would agree with anybody who says that's not much of a clarification. And I disagree with GJ that religions need to be protected by discrimination at the federal level. But I also disagree with anybody who says GJ is crusading against constitutional free speech. Be honest - people on RPF by and large aren't that bothered by bigotry and have a live and let live attitude toward $#@!s. In the wider world, bigotry is hated intensely, even more than war or famine.

NO libertarian communicator has been able to challenge the bad parts of the 1964 CRA in a compassionate way that makes it clear that the world will be a less contentious and more inclusive place without that legislation. AP in that debate clip does the exact thing that gets INTJ paleocon fists pumping, but registers as Nazi to everybody else on Earth. And then AP walks it back with a "some of my best friends are gay" thing. Although I agree with AP and disagree with GJ, GJ actually won that one.

One of GJ's strengths is that he's not even going to get into a conversation about repealing non-discrimination laws. And the brief bit he does is palatable and decent to people who hate, hate, hate, hate bigotry. Meanwhile, he plows full steam ahead repealing drug laws, shrinking the MIC, auditing the Fed, etc. etc. etc.

Oh, and please don't be offended, but

MUH CAKES!!!

I've wanted to say that.

[RJ Liberty]

MUH CAKES!!!

Bwahahahahaha!

Seriously, all that worry over gay nazi cakes.

[devil21]

Wait....so after all this time, people still think votes, parties and elections matter?

Wake the hell up! The President has already been chosen! This whole gig is to make the sheep think that the selected President was the sheep's "choice". THIS LAND MASS IS A CORPORATION AND THE LEADERS ARE CHOSEN BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NOT YOU. Only once you accept this and stop playing their stupid game by consenting to the mind$#@! will there ever be a real chance to change anything. FFS! Just vote harder!?

The LP 'picks' retread GJ and a top CFR globalist and folks are convinced this is progress if that ticket garners 3%? Come on. smh The only way things will change for you is for you to opt out of the system.

[opal]

snip

Wake the hell up! The President has already been chosen! snip

wait.. when was the Bilderberg meeting?

[helmuth_hubener]

I have even heard some talk of a “right to discriminate.” And of course, we have states and municipalities today trying to create a real right to discriminate against the LGBT community on religious grounds — the same kinds of “religious” grounds that were used to defend racial segregation, forbid interracial marriages and, yes, defend discrimination against Jews by businesses. That is not a slope Libertarians want to go down.

That is precisely the slope I want to go down, along with the vast majority of principled Misesians and Rothbardians. And really, libertarians of all stripes -- minarchists and anarcho-capitalists alike. Also many, many millions of conservatives. Walter Williams would be all for repealing all the forced "integration" and affirmative action tyrannical diktats we suffer under. Government Growth Gary is far less of a libertarian than he.

This pervert-mafia pandering is only a problem because this is such a big issue to him. It's his big claim to libertarian cred. "Look at me, I love and embrace perversion! I want to force us all to bow down to and celebrate their madness! I must be libertarian!" Other than that, it's not that huge a deal to me, or the rest of his detractors. It's a huge deal to him. We're not the ones blowing gays out of proportion -- he is.

Here is what really is the big issue: I do not believe he stands for shrinking the government. I believe he stands for Government Growth. That's why he's Government Growth Gary. You say:

Meanwhile, he plows full steam ahead repealing drug laws, shrinking the MIC, auditing the Fed, etc. etc. etc.

And I guess my problem is I really don't believe that. Not for a minute. I don't see him doing that, were he to be President. Not at all. Why not? Because he sure as shootin' didn't do it as governor. Here is his record:





That's what Gary Johnson stands for. Government Growth. And that's what I cannot abide nor countenance. That is my sworn enemy.

[undergroundrr]

@helmuth_hubener I don't have huge disagreement with what you said, other than that GJ's quote about discrimination is misattributed to me. I understand your dismay, but I still think this is a choose-your-battle situation. He will continue to be taken to task about it by antagonistic ancaps and paleos. Normally, a libertarian could be expected to take votes from republicans. Because of his clear social liberalism and clear fiscal conservatism (at least in rhetoric), I think GJ will draw pretty equally from republicrats.

I've seen you post those charts a couple times. Why did you go up to 2010? I can understand looking at a couple years after he left office in 2003, but the sharp upturn in the ensuing years counters your point a little. I think to some extent we're looking at a fiscal conservative doing his damnedest in a very blue state with huge majority progressive legislators 180 degrees opposed to any fiscal restraint.

One other indicator that you might look at is overall welfare spending, which skyrocketed under his democrat predecessor and was kept pretty steady and even decreased in some years by GJ even given inflation and an almost 30% rise in population (and 10% of NM's population is foreign born from Mexico). This in spite of (as I understand it) being shot down constantly in his efforts to push through conservative welfare reform. It indicates that for anyone who wants to work toward an immigration solution by cutting off welfare opportunities rather than wall-building, GJ is a good option.