LP Convention - Day 1 Observations

The day leading up to the LP national convention is already eventful, with a few issues to key an eye on for this weekend, particularly in the presidential race.

Four LP candidates (no, I’m not naming names) have privately indicated that they are not certain they will get enough tokens to qualify for the “C-SPAN debate” because the current rules require the number of tokens to equal at least 10% of the number of delegates.

Right now, it appears that this convention’s attendance will be significantly lower than it was in 2004. The end result is likely to be fewer tokens will be available to a large number of candidates. Several will not get time for nominating speeches and will not make it into the televised debate.

As I type this, there’s no word on specific totals collected to date, but at least two of the upper tier candidates have expressed some concern about getting enough tokens.

Some of my observations and items of interest I’ve noticed so far:

·Anti-Barr campaign buttons (a basic design with “Barr” under the red slash)
·Daniel Imperato wearing some collection of award medals on his suit coat on Thursday.
·A strategically placed campaign sticker placed on Imperato’s banner - covering up the word “Independent”.
·Several media outlets covering the event. So far, many are alternative outlets like online radio shows but a few TV crews were getting footage - including MTV news.
·John Finan’s vendor booth for his campaign featured a motorcycle.
·“Kane” (the wrestler) was there and was VERY easy to pick out…he’s HUGE. He is very personable and chatted with several people. I spoke with him for several minutes and there is no doubt in my mind that he’s a sincere and well informed Libertarian.

I also attended part of the Libertarians for Justice event. I was late in getting there because I needed to be at a Missouri delegation meeting. I arrived around 9:00 pm and left about 9:40. One of the organizers indicated that the event would likely go on until around midnight.

It appeared to be a raucous event with people in the audience occasionally being vocal about disagreements with the candidates. In the 40 or so minutes I was there, two people were physically walked out the door.

I arrived just as LP Presidential hopeful John Finan was declining to sign the 9/11 petition the group is circulating, saying he will not sign anything under pressure.

He was told to leave by the organizers after some sort of argument and was eventually semi-pushed out by at least three people. They weren’t dragging him by any means but they kept their hands on him at least until he was out of the ballroom. Finan walked out on his own power but he was surrounded by people who made it very clear that he was leaving one way or the other.

After the event, Finan told me that he was “assaulted”, had already called his attorney and has legal grounds to sue the people individually who were involved in physically pushing him towards the door. He also said he is refraining from doing that out of respect for the LP.

The other candidates who participated were Mary Ruwart, Steve Kubby, Mike Jingozian, Mike Gravel and Alden Link.

The questions and answers I heard (paraphrased unless in quotes):

Have you researched 9/11 and do you support the call for another/further investigation into what happened?

Ruwart: she’s done a lot of reading on the topic, watched a number of videos on it as well and wants more investigation.

Jingozian: he’s tried to keep up with the theories, but isn’t as well versed on them as most of the people in the room. “We need to find out the truth…”. Said President Bush has ties to Saudi oil and that’s a fact of note.

Kubby: “This isn’t the first time that the Bush family has profited from War.” Said we need the truth and supports the call for more investigation.

Gravel: Has met with some of the 9/11 rescue workers and many of those involved with the 9/11 continuing research. Said he’s not an expert and doesn’t pretend to be. He would appoint a commission of those who are better versed on the issue to conduct further research and reply on their expertise.

Link: “We all saw the plane fly into the building, so we know what happened.” The important thing, he said, is to be prepared and not let it happen again. He then said something about fighting back against the terrorists by cutting off the money. He doesn’t feel another investigation will do any good, but he signed the petition anyway.

Starchild asked if the candidates support the non-aggression principle (all raised their hand). He then asked if there are any circumstances where the candidates feel government is necessary and, if so, how do they ethically reconcile that belief with the non-aggression principle?

Gravel: Government is necessary, funding some things is OK. Says his national initiative proposal lets the people decide if they want government funding for services or not. The exchange between Starchild and Gravel got a bit testy at times.

Kubby: “There is no ethical argument to support government’s use of force”. Short, to the point.

Ruwart: No ethical conflict between the non-aggression principle and the few things she says she wants government to do (she didn’t specify what those things are - but she was not asked to specify). “We’ve lost the recollection that, at one time, we had a voluntary society [in the US] and were the most literate people on earth.”

Jingozian: No justification for violence or coercion on behalf of government.

Link: A country cannot function without educated people. Right now, we have to being in skilled and educated people from China. Education cannot be left to the private sector.

That last comment, you may not be surprised to learn, didn’t go over so hot with the audience and the Libertarian event.

During this part of the event, an audience member walked to the front and appeared to argue one of the points. I could not hear what he was saying, but it ticked off the moderator (Jim Deunsing) and he unsuccessfully ordered the guy back to his seat. He then repeated a number of times “Don’t make me come down there!” The guy kept arguing after Jim warned him again not to “…make [him] come down there!”

He went down there.

The two then had a stare-down while arguing. The crowd was getting energetic at this point. Tony Ryan (of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) led the guy to the back. When he wouldn’t leave, he was forced out.

The next question was related to the impact 9/11 has had on the value of US currency.

Kubby: referred to his time in Canada and said he witnessed the drop in the dollar’s value first-hand. He blames Bush in general, not just 9/11.

Ruwart: Agrees with Kubby - look at the price at the gas pumps as proof.

Jingozian: Cost of everything is up - that’s directly related to the value of the dollar. The public blames the major parties, which is why we need an independent/third party President. We’re not going to get that, though, as long as we continue to present our views on controversial issues in a manner that stops them from listening to the rest of our views.

Gravel: Libertarians haven’t made any changes since the party was founded. We can’t continue to live in utopian principles, get 1% of the vote and expect to make a difference. We have to be more practical in order to enact change.

Ruwart grabbed the mic again: Our victories are hidden, we have made a difference. We’re responsible for moving drug legalization efforts to a position where the issue is being seriously debated.

Also, libertarians led the fight to stop the 1990’s universal health care proposal, even though we didn’t get credit for killing it. We’ll stop the new proposals this time, too. “We’ve changed the hearts and minds of the American people.” Says the heart and soul of the LP is at stake in this convention and we should not become too mainstream.

Gravel: Argued with the audience. “Mary’s principles are not my principles, but I’m just as much of a Libertarian as she is.” The audience showered him with laughs and other signs of disrespect. Gravel held his ground, saying the LP has to grow up. “You have to get power so you can make change, not just talk about change.”

At that point, I left the event. The was very little structure to it overall. There were questions and responses before and after my time there, so I’m sure I’m missing other aspects of the event.

###

118 Responses to “LP Convention - Day 1 Observations”

  1. Mike Gillis Says:

    How many tokens are required to get 10% of the total?

    Has anyone gotten enough tokens to qualify yet?

  2. Kenny Says:

    Why will this year’s attendance be significantly lower? The LNC should provide some answers.

  3. Craig Says:

    10% is a pretty high hurdle for a party that complains about its candidates being excluded from debates when polling under 5%!

    With 14 candidates, and a lot of undecided delegates, 5% would seem to be a more reasonable criterion. Or how about an opening round, where each candidate gets 10 minutes to state their case?

  4. johncjackson Says:

    When Link said that we all saw the planes crash and know that really happened, did “troofers” boo and say it was all staged?

  5. Mike Gillis Says:

    Any wagers on the candidates struggling to make it to 10%?

    Of the top tier, I suspect it may be Ruwart and Gravel.

  6. Bill Wood Says:

    Kenny, are you at the Convention? If not why not? You have probably answered your own question. Reasons for less people at the Convention, cost airfare, hotel etc, Time 5 days is a long time to be away from work home etc, Ron Paul libertarians have switched to the republicans to try to help him win that party’s nomination, illness, death etc.

    The LNC is not forcing people to stay away.

  7. johncjackson Says:

    Well, we cant give time to all 14..10% seems reasonable enough to get the top 5 or 6. People who really care to hear a debate should give their tokens to 2nd tier guys and not their favorite frontrunner.

  8. Stefan Says:

    Thanks a lot for the update. Yes Kane is a big guy and huge Ron Paul supporter, joined the Free State Project and moved to NH.

    I agree 5% hurdle is better than 10%. Maybe they less candidates to talk and discuss longer time and more in detail? Somehow I think Milnes will not make it to 10% or 5 % in absentia… Perhaps CSPAN also had something to do with the current rules?

    What, Imperato does not have a campaign button with the Pope’s pic or Vatican symbol on it? I am shocked :-)

    Those that criticize Barr about DOMA, Ron Paul was/is also for it. Here is an interesting historical article about Barr and Paul:
    http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13262

  9. Balph Says:

    Bummer about the 10%. The blind John Bircher doing his Dr. Strangelove imitation and going off about “Liberty is not about being deviants!” was the high point of the 2004 convention.

  10. Deran Says:

    All this is interesting. But I have to go back to the issue of this being Third Party Watch, and not Libertarian Party Watch. Like, why no reports on Cindy Sheehan’s attempt to get on the ballot against House Speaker Pelosi?

  11. Morgan Wick Says:

    Ruwart “Says the heart and soul of the LP is at stake in this convention and we should not become too mainstream”??!? What the Libertarian Party wants to BE apparently is at stake in the convention. Do they want to keep being a tiny party getting only 1% of the vote or do they actually want to enact real change and actually challenge the two major parties? If the former, maybe they should stop pretending the latter.

    Or do they subscribe to the delusion that evvvverybody would hop right on board the Libertarian Hope Train if only they knew what being a Libertarian was? If Barr gets nominated and starts looking like this year’s Nader that could put the lie to that nonsense if Barr becomes irrelevant again as people realize what he’s really about. Look at it this way: People don’t like anarchism. But the Libs are associated with, if not anarchism, at least virtual anarchism. Libertarians need to convince people they actually believe in MORE government than their reputation says… which might be seen as sort of moderating their position!

    Seriously, maybe Ruwart should read http://www.quiz2d.com/essays/plan (which I wouldn’t be surprised to find Gravel might have done!). Carl Milsted presents a convincing argument for what a third party needs to do to really make a dent in the two major parties and savages the LP (circa-2007) in the process. Unless, again, Ruwart doesn’t actually want the LP to win real races and institute real change.

  12. BillTx Says:

    “Daniel Imperato wearing some collection of award medals on his suit coat on Thursday…”

    LOL! Can we get Kane to chokeslam Impewacko?

  13. NewFederalist Says:

    Other sites are suggesting the feeling on the floor is that Barr has this thing all but locked up and that the “reformers” outnumber the “purists” by 2 to 1. Any confirmation? I find that ratio surprising.

  14. John Says:

    Any chance of George Clooney making a last minute pitch for his buddy Daniel Imperato?

  15. Major Reformist Mocker Says:

    why aren’t these reformists reforming the republican party with ron paul? Who is really paying their way? CIA FBI MOSSAD??

  16. Roscoe Says:

    Smaller attendence? Isn’t the Adams Mark a 1000 room hotel? It was sold out weeks ago: some delegates are staying at neighborhood hotels.

  17. JT Says:

    I think it’s a great idea to have a tough standard for inclusion in the C-SPAN debate. If you’re a serious presidential candidate with significant delegate support, 10% is not an impossible hurdle for you. Some Libertarians think that it’s a compromise of principle for the party to have any exclusionary rules whatsoever. But the LP really needs to keep the weirdos out of the public eye and give each of the main contenders enough time to make his or her case onstage.

    But I have to go back to the issue of this being Third Party Watch, and not Libertarian Party Watch.

    It’s not surprising that this site is focusing primarily on the Libertarian Party right now since the LP is the largest third party, it has a hotly contested presidential race, and its convention is this weekend. Get over it.

  18. JT Says:

    I meant to attribute the above quote to Dearan: “But I have to go back to the issue of this being Third Party Watch, and not Libertarian Party Watch.”

  19. citizen1 Says:

    what if no one gets 10% or just on person?

  20. disinter Says:

    When Link said that we all saw the planes crash and know that really happened, did “troofers” boo and say it was all staged?

    Ahh, so you bought into the hoax? Good little brainwashed boy….

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html

  21. disinter Says:

    Like, why no reports on Cindy Sheehan’s attempt to get on the ballot against House Speaker Pelosi?

    Because this site has been bought by another Barr staffer and opportunist. This site has nothing to do with 3rd parties in general.

  22. disinter Says:

    Unless, again, Ruwart doesn’t actually want the LP to win real races and institute real change.

    You retard caucus nuts can “want” to win all you want, but it isn’t going to happen. Even if you succeed in deforming the platform to be identical to the Republicrat’s, you still won’t see electoral success. Keep dreaming though.

  23. Eric Dondero Says:

    LP delegates need to ask themselves one question:

    What incentive would a moderate or mainstream libertarian have after this convention, for voting for a Radical Anarchist like Mary Ruwart or Steve Kubby?

    None.

    So, where does that leave the LP, if they can’t even win over the entire libertarian vote out there. If even mainstream libertarians can’t support their radical ticket, how can they expect to reach out to other American voters?

    Answer:

    They can’t.

    With Ruwart or Kubby a guaranteed 250,000 to 300,000 vote total, and no more.

  24. disinter Says:

    With Ruwart or Kubby a guaranteed 250,000 to 300,000 vote total, and no more.

    And Barr could get a few more than that. Big deal. He isn’t going to win shit and he isn’t going to turn the party into anything remotely resembling anything that could possible affect change - other than destroying the LP by turning it into a mini-Repug party.

  25. Gene Trosper Says:

    # citizen1 Says:
    May 23rd, 2008 at 3:11 pm

    what if no one gets 10% or just on person?

    It would probably make the person who gives the speech for None Of The Above very happy. Is Steve Trinward attending this year and will he give the NOTA speech?

  26. TROOFERS/NAMBLA for MARY '08 Says:

    WE CAN’T WAIT FOR MARY TO BE NOMINATED! SOON AFTERWARDS OUR MOTHERSHIP, DISPATCHED MONTHS AGO FROM THE PLANET XERXES, WILL LAND…. FULL OF YOUNG BOYS! YIPPPEEEEEEEEE! WE WANT MARY! WE WANT MARY! WE WANT MARY!

  27. Mark Smith Says:

    This “mainstream Libertarian” stuff cracks me up. We’re talking about a party (every presidential nominee of which I’ve supported since 1980) that’s never won more than 1% of the vote in a national election. “Mainstream Libertarian” is an oxymoron. If you’re really a Libertarian, you are, by definition, radical—not mainstream. Conversely, if you’re mainstream, you ain’t Libertarian.

  28. disinter Says:

    Conversely, if you’re mainstream, you ain’t Libertarian.

    And never will be.

  29. Sobriquet Says:

    “disinter Says:
    May 23rd, 2008 at 3:55 pm
    Conversely, if you’re mainstream, you ain’t Libertarian.
    And never will be.”

    So, what you’re saying is Libertarians will never convince enough people that they’re right to be considered mainstream?

    That sucks.

  30. Clark Says:

    ...if/when some stoooooooooopid republican/crat fucks in denver nominate a phony republican piece of shit like boob barf (and oh goody!, i hear the loud, republican/crat peckerhead, glen beck, likes barf!) i can hear the excuses now for his MISERABLE general election vote total!..

    ...i predict the dickheaded boob barf cheerleaders will wail, ‘but, but he got no support from the party’..

    ..well,...OF COURSE NOT, you stoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopid republican/crat fucks!...

  31. disinter Says:

    So, what you’re saying is Libertarians will never convince enough people that they’re right to be considered mainstream?

    Libertarianism is not compatible with the establishment - which controls this hoax referred to as “elections” and/or “democracy”.

  32. John Says:

    Dondero,

    Michael Badnarik got almost 400,000 votes in 2004. And he’s so crazy that he wants to abolish zip codes and refuses to get a Texas driver license because he doesn’t want to provide a Social Security number. So it’s not like nomination another crazy is going to lead to voters turning away from the Libertarian Party.

  33. Orlando Says:

    The monicker Losertarian comes to mind.

    I thought the point of elections was to win. To win you need votes. To win votes you need to sell the American people.

    It seems like Libertarians are more concerned about proving to each other who’s more libertarian rather than drawing in disenfranchised Dems, Reps, Indys, etc.

    Looking at polls, one would think there was never a better time to get legit third party representation.

    The LP party should heed Mr.Gravel’s advice on “growing up”.

  34. titaniumgirl Says:

    If it takes giving up my principles “to win” then I would gladly lose.

  35. Gene Trosper Says:

    # disinter Says:
    May 23rd, 2008 at 4:09 pm

    Libertarianism is not compatible with the establishment - which controls this hoax referred to as “elections” and/or “democracy”.

    No offense, but if that’s your view, then why even bother if failure is assured?

    I feel it’s my personal responsibility to stand up for liberty and do what I believe is necessary to do so, even if it’s to take part in the electoral process. No kool aid drinking here.

  36. Chris Miller Says:

    Great report.

    Thank You!

    Sounds like the same healthy real rough and tumble, rumble of Green Party conventions with the Alpha Females, we all love. HHH howling at the moon of earthly debate delights.

    Gravel taking on the crowd. Wow. At 78 years old give the old boy his due. He’s got big ones.

    The question is clearly will it be enough to win him enough respect for the number two spot on the ticket.

    Barr/Gravel….means Libertarian Party growth and attention, and a relatively significant measure of crediability….

  37. disinter Says:

    and a relatively significant measure of crediability….

    Ain’t nothin like nominatin a couple of Republicrats to gain some that there credibility… We gonna be credible now, you just see. Why, if we become just like thems, they’ll shirley vote fer us.

  38. Amber Says:

    You realize Gravel was a Democrat, right?

  39. disinter Says:

    You realize Gravel was a Democrat, right?

    You don’t say? Who would have ever guessed.

  40. DrGonzo Says:

    Barr/Gravel….means Libertarian Party growth and attention, and a relatively significant measure of crediability….

    It would be a great ticket, but Gravel said he will never run as the VP. So hopefully a Barr/Ruwart campaign is formed. It will unite the two sides, and attract many different people.

  41. disinter Says:

    It will unite the two sides, and attract many different people.

    Yea, then they wuld raise hunrens of trillion dolars and win this thing fer good by god. They be in the debates and everythin. That there be the tickit.

  42. DrGonzo Says:

    Yea, then they wuld raise hunrens of trillion dolars and win this thing fer good by god. They be in the debates and everythin. That there be the tickit.

    I don’t understand what talking like a retard had to do with my post.

    But yea, it actually would be a good ticket. That way the ‘04 platform people will be happy we have someone who endorses child prostitution on there.

  43. timothy west Says:

    after the LP’s VP candidate in 2004, Gravel is about 10 times of order of magnitude better. A candidate ( Campangna -SIC)) that claims they can raise 200K and raise nothing is a fraud. The best picture he could provide the LP was his christmas pictures. Actually the entire LP is a fraud to the 2004 point.

    Can a political party be the subject of a class action suit on behalf of all former members who thought they joined a political party? The LP revolving door since 1980 is now quite large.

    Interesting question. Misrepresenting a business to commit fraud on investors is a crime. if the LP is not a political party, then they have to be something else.

    More statements by Nolan and others suggesting that the primary purpose of the LP never was to elect candidates as the primary goal of the party might be a problem. I guess no ever pursued it because there’s no real money to be had. A judgement would put the LP out of business however.

    This is all just conjecture on my part. I’m only an observer now.

  44. disinter Says:

    I don’t understand what talking like a retard had to do with my post.

    Sweet irony.

  45. Jonathan Says:

    disinter is definetly a retard

  46. Catholic Trotskyist Says:

    Exactly right, Mark Smith, libertarianism is not mainstream. There are many other non-mainstream groups, and all of them need to come together to reform our system, while simultaneously campaigning for Revolutionary General Barack Obama, the only reformist viable candidate. If you will not nominate Barr/Gravel at the libertarian convention, I hope that at least some delegates propose the Fringe Alliance Strategy at this weekend convention. God is very angry that noone has done this yet. However, I have posted it here in case anyone has a change of heart.

    I have developed a strategy based on an alliance between the Green, libertarian
    and constitution parties, the various socialist movements and centrist independents, Kucinich Democrats, Ron Paul Republicans, and other smaller groups such as fascists, feudalists, monarchists and syndicalists, to initiate the following goals.

    1. The electoral college is abolished.
    2. The presidential election uses a national Majority Runoff system. This will change us from a republic to a democracy.
    3. Congress is elected through proportional representation.

    Third parties should spend most of their energies pushing for these constitutional amendments, using graphic protests in public locations. Otherwise, the
    efforts of all of them are doomed to do nothing more than push the major parties slightly in one direction, and ruin the chances of the parties that their
    candidates are most closely aligned with, while gaining such small failing numbers for themselves. The people who visit this site are by definitions on
    the fringes of society. It is important for the fringe to get together. This strategy is gaining the support of many political scientists across the nation,
    and I will continue to post it several times a week here until it is adopted. Fortunately, we have the Obama Revolution to save our country for now.
    The revolution will be televised.
    Please pray for the pope and please pray for Barack Obama. Amen.

  47. DrGonzo Says:

    Sweet irony.

    Not really, and clearly you need to learn the definition of irony. Because I don’t believe Barr/Ruwart would be a bad ticket, I am a retard?

  48. Catholic Trotskyist Says:

    By the way, what was actually so terrible about Richard Campagna?

    I would also like to add that Wikipedia now has congressional election results from the 1990s for the entire nation, and for California going back at least to the 1970s. Clearly, the Libertarian Party did much better overall in the 1980s and 1990s than now, looking at this data.

  49. disinter Says:

    I am a retard?

    That is the whole point, yes. I realize you retard caucus members are a little slow and all, but good lord.

  50. DrGonzo Says:

    That is the whole point, yes. I realize you retard caucus members are a little slow and all, but good lord.

    Cherry picking parts of posts does not make you clever. It only makes you an idiot who is unable to engage in honest debate.

    And you keep referring to these caucus that I am not a member of in the first place.

  51. disinter Says:

    disinter is definetly a retard

    I no retar. I know dat Barr will be nex prezident. He a moderate, that the secrit. Libertarans be popular now. Credibl two.

  52. kombayn Says:

    Well, I don’t think Mike Gravel is anywhere close to the nomination if he’s getting laughed at in the public.

    Bob Barr will probably take the nomination, it’ll be interesting to see who they elect as his running mate. My money is on Wayne Allyn Root, but now I’m starting to hope that it’s Mary Ruwart and she fixes her stance on the “kiddie-porn” incident.

  53. timothy west Says:

    By the way, what was actually so terrible about Richard Campagna?

    he claimed he could raise 200K from his business interests for the campaign and raised virtually nothing.

  54. disinter Says:

    Bob Barr will probably take the nomination

    Me two! He be da best an everythin. He 1 of them there Republicrats so he shure to be poplar. Credaball too. He win fer shure.

  55. disinter Says:

    Oh, he get news attenshun and stuff two. He gonna be prezidant.

  56. timothy west Says:

    “We’ve lost the recollection that, at one time, we had a voluntary society [in the US] and were the most literate people on earth.”

    absolute bullshit. Mary Ruwart either has no knowledge of American history or she is willing to commit intellectual fraud. So much for principles. Circular argument. The United States have always been a Constitutional Republic since the founding.

    Even north american indian tribes prior to the landing of the Pilgrims were not “voluntary society’s”. They had a structured society with leaders.

  57. Steven R Linnabary Says:

    By the way, what was actually so terrible about Richard Campagna?

    Think: Imperato, without the glitter.

    But, in true LP tradition, we usually nominate a Veep that campaigns for that position.

    PEACE
    Steve

  58. Guy Fawkes Says:

    Tick Tock Tick Tock - The clock is ticking on the anarchist wing. Are the radicals being suppressed? No it appears they are poking holes in the bottom of their own rapidly sinking boat. Doom and gloom they cry as they declare attempted homocide from their enemies with the gun strangely pointed at their own head. All or nothing they cry from the rooftops to parties of none. No one is pure in their minds but themselves.” Oh but Ron Paul we support (we overlook his statist closed borders policies and pro life stances)” Woe to the anarchists whose selfish desires to be left alone and fuck you to the world stances leave them dancing in the dark. Yes, the democrats fight amongst themselves and the anarchists wish to emulate them instead of uniting against the common enemy. Tsk Tsk, Tick Tock….

  59. Preston Says:

    disinter, You bash the reform caucus left and right, but if you acknowledge that elections are a sham, why are you frequenting political sites? Shouldn’t you be organizing some sort of violent revolution? Or better yet, playing video games or something useful?
    I’ve never heard you make a positive contribution for your side. All you do is tear down people who disagree with you. Why is anarchism so great? I mean damn, engage in some honest argument. I’m agnostic on the issue; I just want to see you stop making such an ass of yourself.

  60. Jonathan Says:

    Thank you Preston. I wish someone would monitor these sites for people like Disinter.

  61. Shawn Says:

    Gravel is basically running a 3 plank platform:

    - End the war in Iraq, which he can do as commander in chief - Stop enforcement of unjust drug laws, which he can do as chief executive - Encourage people to take responsibility for their own lives via the National Initiative, which he can do with the bully pulpit of the presidency.

    Which other Libertarian candidate has a platform that can actually be achieved like Gravels, without unrealistic expectations of cooperation from the congress? Assuming they were even to be elected. Sure, Mike has some other views that are more socially liberal, but he’s admitted that nothing major will change without giving power back to the people first, and then those other issues will be out of his hands, and into ours.

    Mike has the best platform of anyone running. It’s a solid first step towards giving life and liberty back to the people. A step that will give everyone a taste of the freedom and personal liberty they’ve been missing out on all these years.

    Of those three major, achievable planks, what would a real Libertarian disagree with?

  62. kombayn Says:

    I personally like Mike Gravel a lot and have been hoping for a Gravel/Barr ticket, that’d be the most idealistic to me but with the response he’s receiving at LP National Convention, I doubt he’ll even make it to the 2nd round of voting.

  63. Sean Scallon Says:

    I’m sure Gravel is probably wondering what the hell he’s doing arguing with someone named “Starchild”.

  64. Jonathan Says:

    Whoever is the winner The Libertarian Party will shine and be better off for having strong candidates. It will broadedn it’s appeal and therefore will become more powerful. Personally speaking I’m hoping for a Barr/Gravel ticket but I doubt Gravel would go on as a VP

  65. Stins Says:

    I’ll qoute myself from lastfreevoice.wordpress.com.

    1. Stins Says:
      May 24, 2008 at 12:23 am

    Disinter.

    Gravel own you any day of the week. What I don’t understand, is why you extremist libertarians don’t embrace the national initiative that goes hand in hand with Gravel. Even if you disagree with him on every issue, your vote will be worth more than his.

    That’s what the man stands for, and you belittle him. Shame on you,

  66. Stins Says:
    1. Stins Says:
      May 24, 2008 at 12:33 am

    Also, even on a libertarian platform, the government as it’s run today is beyond corrupt. You sure as hell won’t be better off than the dems or the republicans. It’d still be the same corrupt system.

    As for Gravel being for government run educaition… its cause everyone has to have an option that DOESN’T COST THEM MONEY!. He sure isn’t against private schools at all, so whats the big deal. Talk about whining for nothing.

    Then we have healthcare. Gravel wants every american to decide on what they consider basic treatment and have that covered by taxes. Pretty much the same as every western country.

    However, he consider a 70 year old asking for a heart transplant excessive and outside of his system, so people would have to buy extra insurance for a cover like that.

    So why do you really whine about Gravels policies?

    The man is realistic.

    He’s bringing you the tools to perhaps actually win.

    And yet you whine about completely moronic issues that will never go through in the near future. Grow up.

  67. Stins Says:
    1. Stins Says:
      May 24, 2008 at 12:40 am

    “johncjackson Says:
    May 24, 2008 at 12:27 am

    The man stands for something, but it’s not libertarian. I have no personal reason to belittle him. He fails on the issues.”

    I could create the Santa Party and wish for better christmas gifts any day of the week and then whine when that didn’t go through for the 20th time in a row.

    Libertarian apparently also stands for child porn being ok as long as the kid is ok with it. Seriously, either you bang your head against the wall just for the hell of it. Or you take the giant step towards being an accepted party and work from there.

    Considering that no other western country accepts what you run on, and you run against the 2-party system with their western beliefs(but worse ofcourse) theres no chance in hell your way will work. Sorry. Change strategy already.

  68. DrGonzo Says:

    The clock is ticking on the anarchist wing. Are the radicals being suppressed? No it appears they are poking holes in the bottom of their own rapidly sinking boat. Doom and gloom they cry as they declare attempted homocide from their enemies with the gun strangely pointed at their own head. All or nothing they cry from the rooftops to parties of none. No one is pure in their minds but themselves.”

    It is good to see. Since they basically took over the party, it has done nothing. Now more realistic people are running for the LP nomination, and can actually grow the party. We are getting more national attention than ever, and all they can whine about is someone not being Libertarian enough.

  69. Shawn Says:

    I dunno. He has denied it, but then again he’s willing to go to any length to get the word out about the National Initiative. You can bet he would not be a very obedient veep. He’d be all over the country riling people up about civil rights and them taking responsibility for their communities etc…

    Man, he’s a great guy, and so smart. I hope he does well at the convention… The Libertarian party could do a lot worse this year. Hell, Barr supported the war, the patriot act, all sorts of nanny-state laws…

    And I just don’t see anyone else taking realistic steps. At least Ron Paul, like Mike, was realistic about his goals, saying he wouldn’t change things overnight. Some of these other candidates somehow think they’ll waltz into the oval office and abolish all taxes their first day there, without even considering how dependent our nation has become on the federal teet. We need to ween this baby off slowly but surely.

  70. Stins Says:

    Well Shawn, that’s why Gravels the only chance you have to really see some change. His No1. priority is to get the national initiative activated. Once that’s in place you can repel and argue laws as you see fit.

    What’s more libertarian than that?

    Even if the libertarians were in charge of the congress and the precidency as the current system is run it’d be corrupt and anti freedom. Not like this would ever happen. But the system corrupts, and that’s where Gravel totally exceeds the rest.

  71. Shawn Says:

    First thing I would do with the National initiative is limit all presidents, senators, and congressmen to one term. They spend half their time working on getting reelected as it is, and the money dynamic only reinforces partisanship and perpetuates the two party system. Cut that out and you’ll see Libertarians get a fighting chance in more states.

  72. Stins Says:

    I totally agree with term limits like that. Personally I’d also see all wages lowered to bigtime to make sure people running for office do it to help their countrymen rather than for personal benefit.

  73. End the Empire Says:

    Where were you Gravel people weeks ago? You are too late to make a difference now. He most likely won’t gather enough tokens to be in the debate. Kubby probably won’t either. Barr, Root, Ruwart and maybe Phillies are the only ones who will make it to the debate. Phillies is handing out Phillies Blunt cigars trying to gather tokens and Barr is giving away cowboy hats. Kubby’s people are bumming snacks and showers and sleeping in places they’re not surposed too(other words, can’t afford a motel room)I guess they’re sleeping in broom closets.

    Sean Scallon Says:

    May 23rd, 2008 at 7:24 pm
    I’m sure Gravel is probably wondering what the hell he’s doing arguing with someone named “Starchild”.

    ***

    Thank you, Sean ! I had a good “BELLY-LAUGH” from your post. One blogger wrote while describing this incident, they didn’t know which pronoun to use so they would just use SC. Starchild must be a transvessie, so making the site of the confrontation with a former two term U.S. Senator even more humorous.

  74. Wes Benedict Says:

    The stuff today at the convention was mostly about by-laws. A lot of unimportant stuff happened. Also, a lot of unimportant stuff did not happen because it was rejected by the delegates. Not much important happened, nor could it, because rules don’t build a party—hard work does.

    I think some of the new delegates who did not know what was going on did not realize how unimportant most everything was.

    On the other hand, a few of the extremist reformists seem to think that if we just tweak the by-laws, the party’s going to grow by leaps and bounds.

    I think who the convention elects as the presidential nominee will have a significant though short-term impact on the party, but most of the rest is minutiae.

    Hanging out with all the crazy libertarians (like the ones who post on this blog—some of whom I’ve met for the first time) is the best part about the convention.

    The platform debate tomorrow will be unimportant (in my opinion—to some it’s a big freakin’ deal).

    Beer’s expensive at the hotel but there’s a liquor store a block away with beer (avoid the 7-Eleven—-they only got 3.2 beer). An in-room fridge costs $10/day. There are two McDonald’s within a block of the hotel. McDonald’s seems to be a hangout for gang-bangers and homeless looking people (no offense intended). But the Value Meals, low cost, OK quality, are a tribute to the great American free enterprise system where strong and consistent branding and marketing give a clear indication to consumers about their products.

  75. Darren Says:

    Can we get Clark @4:04 to put Mary Ruwart’s name into nomination? From the way he writes he must be the purists’ top election strategist.

  76. Shawn Says:

    Did you see Mike at the party last night? For an old guy he had quite a few ladies on his arms. And that was before the beer bong.

  77. Tom Bryant Says:

    Wow…9/11 Troofers making the LP look like a bunch of disorganized juvenile idiots…who would have thought?

  78. disinter Says:

    but if you acknowledge that elections are a sham, why are you frequenting political sites?

    I didn’t know political sites were “elections”, but the short answer is that I enjoy seeing people get their panties in a wad over stupid blog comments. Works, doesn’t it?

    Shouldn’t you be organizing some sort of violent revolution?

    For what purpose?

    Or better yet, playing video games or something useful?

    Playing video games is “useful”? What are you, 12?

  79. disinter Says:

    Thank you Preston. I wish someone would monitor these sites for people like Disinter.

    Me two. We not gonna be poplar if’n we dont suprres pepl like them ther big partys n stuff. We wanna be big tint.

  80. disinter Says:

    Mike has the best platform of anyone running.

    If you are a socialist, maybe.

  81. disinter Says:

    I’m sure Gravel is probably wondering what the hell he’s doing arguing with someone named “Starchild”.

    I’m sure Starchild is probably wondering what the hell a dried up old statist like Gravel is doing attempting to win the LP nomination.

  82. disinter Says:

    Whoever is the winner The Libertarian Party will shine and be better off for having strong candidates.

    Yes, a Ruwart candidacy would be very good for the LP.

  83. disinter Says:

    What I don’t understand, is why you extremist libertarians don’t embrace the national initiative that goes hand in hand with Gravel.

    Because we are not socialist Democrats? Hello, this is the LP.

  84. disinter Says:

    Now more realistic people are running for the LP nomination, and can actually grow the party. We are getting more national attention than ever, and all they can whine about is someone not being Libertarian enough.

    Yea. THem there idiats with thir frooty-tooty prinsipals n stuff. Who the sam ell they thank they is anyhow? We ain’t gunna win nuffin less we namenate Barr, he get lotta media n stuff.

  85. Tom Bryant Says:

    I wonder why Disinter is a good little boy and continues to believe the government that arsenic should not be swallowed. What a terrible Troofer Disinter is turning out to be, believing the government!

  86. Clark Says:

    ...thank-you for your readership, darren and other apparent republicrats!.. ;o)

    ..btw, as an a$ide, we clarkians, clarkists, etceterclarks, feel that because politicians inevitably end up, in essence, FREQUENTLY working their mcdonald’s hamburger holes about illion$ of federal reserve tokens (‘dollars’ to most/all of you bob barf, etc. denver cheerleaders)...in taxe$, $urplusses, deficit$, gro$$ dome$tic product$, job$, health in$urance, gas price$, $ocial $ecurity, etc. ad goddamned nau$eam…we do hope the LP nominates someone, for once, who HONESTLY understands the origin, nature, etc. of even one ‘dollar’..

    ...then we could, AT LEAST, eliminate ‘direct taxation’ and all the stinking buffalo-shuffle paperwork, economic diary compilations, etc. ad goddamned nauseam, this entails..

    ...you see, SURELY, you apparent goddamned fool monetary ignoramusses, if ‘the government’ has the power to create/charter/etc. a stinking, secret-squirrel, ‘private’ corp$oration which ‘loans,’ at intere$t, ‘money’ to ‘the government’—’money’ which ‘it’ has created/counterfeited/etc. out of thin air!—then SURELY, you apparent goddamned fool republicrat monetary ignoramusses, ‘the government’ ‘itself’ has ‘the power’ to create the ‘money’ ‘they’ ‘need’ out of thin air too!..eliminating the stinking abomination of DIRECT TAXATION and all it entails..

    ...(i should have listened to my uncle hank, who told me..”stay away from those stooooopid republicrat fucks, clark…the worst shitheads, phony, loud know-it-alls, etc. in society tend to gravitate towards ‘politics,’ ‘political conventions, etc”)....

    ...ooga booga, republicrats…ooga fucking booga! ;o)

  87. Red Phillips Says:

    “Me two. We not gonna be poplar if’n we dont suprres pepl like them ther big partys n stuff. We wanna be big tint.”

    Well that was inappropriate. How long would it take for the PC police to raise a ruckus if someone came on here mocking urban ghetto language? Some prejudices are acceptable I guess?

  88. Jon Says:

    I have come into the Libertarain fray for just alittle while, I can see why you guys get 1% every time. Your nuts, I can understand this is why no one respects 3 parties is how you act towards canidates like Gravel. It used be that you repect a man on his character and his record then on one issue that you repeat over and over.

    How many of you Libs, would be willing to Philbuster for 5 months and release the Pentagon Papers. Pussies and you should be grateful for having someone like Mike who speaks his mind but also knows what to say when to say it. I just don’t see how you people can respect canidates like Barr,Root, or Ruwart. What have they ever done, let alone in office. Root gambled and Ruward protested and wrote some books…then there is Barr what record does he have working for the peoples interest…It is easy to vote yes or no…But has he ever stood up and show leadership Like Mike Gravel…

    He a socialist, so he has some issues where he would put some socialist prinples. So what, are we still in the cold war. People are free to believe what they believe but he would only be able to do something with those issues through congress and wait congress are cowards and will never change anything…So he would have to entact the NI first, and at that point the issue would move to the American people. So where, at any point can he enact a socialist agenda…I dont want to put sterotypes I’m sure that there are some good level head Libs. But the ones at that convention laughing are just a bunch of white childern. Some Liberatrains seem to be for white middle class and wealth America not for everyone… Just my thoughts I could be wrong, But I hear the same from Neo-con as some libs.

  89. Brad Says:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021146.html

    According to polling, Mary Ruwart is the frontrunner (this shocked me, as I thought Ruwart was the frontrunner). I suspect that only these 5 will make it above the cut-off after the first round (in order of polling):

    1. Ruwart
    2. Barr
    3. Root
    4. Kubby
    5. Phillies

    I don’t see Jingozian as having any chance, so I expect Gravel to miss out (and Imperato is #8, with Christine Smith at #9). I expect the nomination to come down to Ruwart VS Barr, but without specific numbers it is irresponsible to make a prediction. However, since Barr is not even remotely a libertarian, if the word libertarian is to retain its meaning, Ruwart needs to triumph. Although conventional wisdom says Barr would get more votes, I personally doubt it. Barr is basically a late 90s conservative (slightly more doubts about war, a few doubts about throwing the Constitution out the window, and a bit less overt with the shoving religion down everybody’s throat nonsense), so he would alienate all libertarians (although the Libertarian Party does have a caucus which is battling to turn them into the 90s Conservative Party). Barr might draw a few Republicans who don’t like McCain, but he won’t draw any libertarian votes (Chuck Baldwin, Ralph Nader, and Cynthia McKinney are more libertarian than Bob W. Barr). Ruwart would draw virtually all libertarian votes (nobody can question her libertarianism) and would likely draw votes from women who want to vote for a woman (there are many of them, which is why Hillary Clinton has had enough votes to stay in the Democratic race until the end). Considering that the Libertarian Party has traditionally been a predominately male party, nominating a woman for president would likely broaden the party base. Ruwart is the one candidate the Libertarian Party has who can increase the LP’s appeal to the female vote (the way she presents the message is perfect).

    Ruwart is more libertarian than Barr and she will do far more to grow the Libertarian Party (does anybody really see those anti-McCain Republicans Barr would bring in sticking with the LP?).

  90. JupeytheJew Says:

    All this is interesting. But I have to go back to the issue of this being Third Party Watch, and not Libertarian Party Watch. Like, why no reports on the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party?

  91. SweetEvilJesus Says:

    “How many of you Libs, would be willing to Philbuster for 5 months” Would I be willing to do what to Phil Buster for 5 months? Oh, you meant filibuster, never mind.

  92. Bill Wood Says:

    Brad, I don’t think Ruwart will have much of an impact at growing the Libertarian Party. She apparently hasn’t had an impact on the membership totals in all of her years with the LP. I have not heard one Libertarian tell me they joined the LP because of Ruwart. Harry Brown,yes,Ron Paul yes,Ayn Rand yes, but never Ruwart.

  93. Shawn Says:

    I joined because of Gravel. I am a little disappointed that some people’s expectations are so ridiculous in our party. Rome was not built in a day, and we are not going to wake up in a Libertarian Utopia in November, no matter who wins!

    Why not pick a candidate that actually has held office, and shares most if not all Libertarian views? At least he will get us a little further down the road towards personal liberty and reducing the power and scope of government.

    Giving people the National Initiative to reign in their elected officials, and abolishing the IRS (which could only ever happen if the National Initiative were passed) would incredibly reduce the power of the federal government. We could veto their overbearing laws and they’d have no money or economic influence to lord over us anymore.

  94. Steven R Linnabary Says:

    Giving people the National Initiative to reign in their elected officials, and abolishing the IRS (which could only ever happen if the National Initiative were passed) would incredibly reduce the power of the federal government. We could veto their overbearing laws and they’d have no money or economic influence to lord over us anymore.

    OTOH, the NI4D could increase the power of the central government. Imagine everybody circulating a petition to raise the minimum wage to a “living wage” of,oh just say $100/hr. Or free housing, in McMansions. Or free medical care, etc.

    NI4D is an interesting idea. And not inherently unlibertarian. But knowing people’s nature, probably unworkable.

    IMHO, NI4D should be considered just a “hook” to get voters interested in libertarian ideals. Many of our candidates use “hooks”, such as Dave Hollists plan for government “contract insurance”.

    Also IMHO, Senator Gravel’s non Libertarian planks, such as the “fairy tax” or nationalized health care would be easier to shake off in coming years than Root’s and Barr’s anti-immigrant ideas or Roots pro war stance or Barr’s homophobic past.

    The Senator’s long time antiwar stance and antiPatriot Act stance does dovetail quite nicely with Libertarian principles.

    PEACE
    Steve

  95. Clark Says:

    SHAWN WROTE: ‘[I love gravel]’

    ..SHAWN, i must admit he made me smile a time or too in the stinking democreep ‘debates’..

    ..but, imo, he’s not an articulate, true ‘libertarian’..

    ...for example, his stances on ‘education’ (government schooling/inculcation) are well within the STINKING republicrat box..

    ...(IMAGINE!! what these goddamned republicrat ‘education’ fools have done with the illion$-FUCKING ILLION$-of ‘tax dollars’ they’ve bludgeoned out of people so as to ‘give us’ ‘teachers,’ many of whom HAVE NEVER ACQUIRED ONE STINKING FEDERAL RESERVE TOKEN NOT STOLEN/EMBEZZLED/ETC. FROM SOME ‘TAXPAYERS’...

    ...YET, THESE REPUBLICRAT ‘TEACHERS’ ARE ‘GIVEN’ MAYBE THE MOST IMPORTANT JOB IN SOCIETY??: THAT OF ‘TEACHING’ PEOPLE THE SKILLS NECESSARY TO FACILITATE, COMPETE IN, ETC.
    A ‘FREE’ ‘MARKET’ ‘ECONOMY’?...) (you goddamned republicrat monsters)

    ..imo, gravel doesn’t get at ‘the root’ of ‘the problem(s)’ as do true ‘libertarians’..he’s a ‘government reformer’..not a government repealer..

    ..unlike apparently ruwart and kubby, etc., (i’ve never met either) who are NEAR-ALWAYS LOOKING FOR WAYS TO ELIMINATE/REPEAL “GOVERNMENT” (ORGANIZED FORCE, AGENCIES OF COERCION, ETC.)

    ...btw, BILL WOOD, who claimed ruwart ‘hasn’t had an impact on membership’:..she’s one of the relatively few ‘political’ people who’ve ever moved/impressed me..her understandings in the area of ‘health, etc. freedom’ are perfect..

    ..(if memory serves she had a sister who sought the services of that big, bad, oh so eeeeeeeeeeevil monster, kevorkian…her story made even a big rude bastard like i cry a river)..

    ..but to be perfectly honest with you denver knuckleheads, a better, more knowledgeable, ‘libertarian,’ ticket would be CLARK/ruwart or kubby!.. ;o)

  96. Shawn Says:

    Clark, I hear you on one sized fits all education and the power of the federal reserve. I just don’t believe the majority of Americans are even in the right frame of mind to address those issues. They’ve been hypnotized by fear and the nanny state and federal funding and “tax cuts” for so long they don’t even see the roots of the problem.

    I think this onion has many layers, and putting people in the Libertarian mindset has to precede the bigger, deeper changes. Unless we somehow plan to enslave the nation and force them to be Libertarians! :-)

  97. Kenny Says:

    “Kenny, are you at the Convention? If not why not? ”

    Because I am a British citizen and would compulsorily finger-printed by the Homeland Security Gestapo on arrival in the US.

  98. Kris Overstreet Says:

    Disinter: I ask this as a serious, non-leading question:

    By what means do you propose to get libertarian change enacted in our government and/or society?

    From what I’ve read, you reject persuading the masses, you reject democratic action… what else is there?

  99. Alex Peak Says:

    I hope the only people who get enough tokens are Ruwart, Kubby, Smith, Phillies, and Root. :)

  100. texpat Says:

    The ones who received enough tokens were (these numbers are to the best of my recollection) Ruwart (94), Barr (93), Root (91), Gravel (65), Phillies (62), Kubby (58), and Jingozian (58). Ruwart apparently gave away about 30 tokens to other candidates. The cut-off number was 57.

  101. disinter Says:

    By what means do you propose to get libertarian change enacted in our government and/or society?

    You don’t get smaller government via compromising more government in hopes you will get less government. Doesn’t work that way, sorry.

  102. disinter Says:

    you reject democratic action… what else is there?

    http://www.democracyisnotfreedom.com/

  103. disinter Says:

    Ruwart (94), Barr (93), Root (91), Gravel (65), Phillies (62), Kubby (58), and Jingozian (58). Ruwart apparently gave away about 30 tokens to other candidates. The cut-off number was 57.

    Awesome news. Go Ruwart!

  104. Kris Overstreet Says:

    disinter: You don’t answer my question.

    By what means do you propose to get libertarian change enacted in our government and/or society?

  105. disinter Says:

    By what means do you propose to get libertarian change enacted in our government and/or society?

    By electing Libertarians that won’t compromise their principles.

    Again:

    You don’t get smaller government via compromising more government in hopes you will get less government. As the retard caucus wants to do.

  106. Alex Peak Says:

    According to C-SPAN.org, “Libertarian Party is holding its national convention in Denver, Colorado, this weekend. Tonight, watch a two-hour debate between six presidential candidates (9pm ET). Then, current Party Chairman William Redpath debates two contenders for his position (11pm ET).”

    Seems they miscounted.

    I can’t wait to watch this! :D :D :D

    Go Ruwart/Kubby/Phillies/Root/Jingozian! :)

    Alex

  107. Alex Peak Says:

    The LP has a press release on this.

    Go Kubby/Ruwart/Phillies/Root/Jingozian! :)

    I should add that I’m glad to see that both Gravel and Barr made it into the debate, although I hope neither of them gets the nomination. :)

    Cheers,
    Alex Peak

  108. Alex Peak Says:

    Oh, wait, Imperato didn’t make it? I’m so shocked. That guy seemed, like, so destined to win and stuff.

    I’m actually a bit surprised Smith didn’t get enough. Does anybody know how many she received?

    Cheers,
    Alex Peak

    P.S. Can you tell how excited I am? :D

  109. Jon Says:

    Mike Gravel will Debate tonight….hoo hooo
    www.ni4d.us

  110. Kris Overstreet Says:

    disinter: Okay. Now: how do you get people elected without democracy?

    How do you get people elected without persuading the masses, or a majority of the voters thereof, to trust those candidates and their positions above all others?

    (Bearing in mind, by the way, that the vast majority is currently opposed to anarchy.)

  111. benedicts anal gerbil Says:

    helpppppppppppp! i’ve been stuck in here since noon mountain time heeeeeeeeellllllllllllllpppppppppppppp!!

  112. disinter Says:

    disinter: Okay. Now: how do you get people elected without democracy?

    Overstreet, quit being a retard. You know what a constitutional republic is. You can stop playing the idiot role.

    Republic: a form of self-government in which: the citizens are the free and sovereign rulers; they are served by a limited government of elected representatives; the government is ever subject to the law and the citizens’ vigilant scrutiny; the rights of the minority may not be overturned by majority vote. “A government of laws and not of men”—John Adams. The founders understood an ideal republic to be one in which the rights and property of all citizens are uniformly protected, within which context the people rule themselves, and are not ruled by any government, or one another. (Contrast this with what the U.S. has become under the mythical ruse that “this is a democracy,” and you will soon see why the founders detested democracy.)

    http://www.democracyisnotfreedom.com/ampolprimer.asp

  113. Kris Overstreet Says:

    disinter: Republics have existed in which the representatives were hereditary (Rome) or appointed (England under Cromwell, the early government of the Netherlands) without regard to any vote of the people. We have a democratic republic, where our government is chosen by democratic vote.

    And, if you perceive a violation of your rights or an overreach of government power, you can only correct it through the democratic process.

    And my point is, you’re not going to get change in the libertarian direction without winning the support of the people. At present, the LP (and particularly the anarchists within it) is doing its best to antagonize, not attract, the vast majority of the people.

    If you hold the voters in contempt, if you refuse to participate seriously in the democratic process, you’re not going to get any changes made.

  114. disinter Says:

    We have a democratic republic, where our government is chosen by democratic vote.

    No, we have (or used to have) a constitutional republic. Are you fresh out of public school or what?

    And, if you perceive a violation of your rights or an overreach of government power, you can only correct it through the democratic process.

    Have you ever heard of the courts? Of the constitution?

    Dear god the retard caucus really is retarded.

    And my point is, you’re not going to get change in the libertarian direction without winning the support of the people.

    You are not going to get less government by changing the platform to reflect that of the statist parties.

  115. Kris Overstreet Says:

    disinter: The constitution, as it currently stands, requires that our representatives be elected by the people- that is, democratically. Furthermore, our head of government and of state is elected indirectly by the people of the states. Democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive terms, and republics need not be subject to the will of the common people.

    The courts are filled with people chosen by our elected representatives; they view the Constitution according to the general opinion of the party who got them on the bench; and they rule on laws passed by those elected representatives. If the views of the people and yours are radically different, the courts are not going to rule in your favor.

    And finally, you’re not going to persuade people that it’s a good idea to abolish all government tomorrow, leaving them at the mercy of whoever wants to take advantage of them, with no more protection than what they can provide for themselves.

    That’s anarchy- a system where the only freedom belongs to the most powerful.

  116. disinter Says:

    The constitution, as it currently stands, requires that our representatives be elected by the people- that is, democratically.

    No shit shirley. Go back and read the definition of Republic above.

    The U.S. Constitution plainly defines a republic as both the national and each independent State’s form of government (see Article IV, Section 4).

    That’s anarchy- a system where the only freedom belongs to the most powerful.

    Thus the purpose of a constitutional republic. Are we a little slow today?

  117. Kris Overstreet Says:

    Your definition of “republic” is incorrect. A republic is merely a system of government where a group of people, theoretically representing the whole, make decisions on behalf of the whole. The people, as I mentioned, need not be involved directly.

    And you can’t keep upholding a constitutional republic and, at the same time, advocate a platform that proposes to render that republic powerless, and thus void.

  118. disinter Says:

    And you can’t keep upholding a constitutional republic and, at the same time, advocate a platform that proposes to render that republic powerless, and thus void.

    You can’t uphold the constitution by advocating the constitution? You retard caucus nuts are dumber than I previously thought.

Leave a Reply