At the 2024 Libertarian convention, the first ballot had Michael Rectenwald in the lead, although no one had a majority. This was the first Libertarian presidential convention since 2004 in which the first-place finisher did not win the nomination. Chase Oliver, who consistently placed second until the final two ballots, won the nomination on the seventh ballot.
The last Libertarian convention for which the first ballot leader did not win the nomination was the 2004 convention. Aaron Russo had the most votes in the first round, but eventually Michael Badnarik received the nomination.
For the two major parties, the last time the candidate who received the most votes on the first ballot did not win the nomination was the 1952 Democratic convention. Estes Kefauver had the most votes in the first round, but Adlai Stevenson won on the third round.
For the Republican Party, the last instance was 1940, when Thomas Dewey lead in the first three ballots but did not get the nomination. Wendell Willkie won it on the sixth ballot.
Did they ever have 7 or more ballots before? If not, what was the previous record and when?
The 1924 Democratic convention took 103 ballots. It took 2 weeks. Back then the Democratic rules required the winner to get 2/3rds.
Rectenwald bad name to run .
Sounds like Rectum. A small thing like this could lose you a nonination.
Politicians are like actors. Actors change their name. Food for thought.
Oh sorry, I was unclear. L.P. Specific questions –
Did they (libertarians nomination for president) ever have 7 or more ballots before? If not, what was the previous record and when? – thanks again
I don’t think it had anything to do with his name. It was because he acted like what you said it sounds like when he took drugs at an inopportune time, plus bad dealmaking with other candidates etc etc.
Sorry, that was @ Johnny if that was unclear
Michael Rectenwald thought he was taking a harmless CBC gummy. He did not realize it had 100 mg of THC.
He also had been told at the time that he was not speaking that night.
The Libertarian Party presidential conventions had never needed more than 6 rounds, until 2024. The 2008 convention needed six rounds.
Oliver Chase now that’s a name. Say it , see how it sounds…
Very interesting. The Green Party has only gone to a second ballot once. That was in 2004, which was a really weird situation in which Nader sought the Green endorsement rather than the nomination. Cobb led in the first round and won in the second.
Andy, I made no insinuation that you may have thought I did. He took drugs and acted like an ass, at a time that proved to be unfortunate. That remains true despite your added information. The botched dealmaking, whether by himself, Heise, or whoever else, is also as far as I know still true. There may be other factors. I don’t think his name was one.
I didn’t know that he didn’t know he would be speaking, and I’m mildly surprised to hear he was told he would not be. If I remember right, your party ran a poll, I think maybe on its website, to decide which campaigns would deliver a reply. I’m not surprised that he accidentally took much more than he thought he had; that’s a very common problem with cannabis edibles. Thank you for additional details on that.
If you disagree with my assessment as to why your candidate lost the nomination, please offer yours. You were there and I wasn’t, so yours may be more accurate. I didn’t support any of them before, during, or after, so mine might have the relative advantage of objectivity among them. Had I been one of your delegates, I’d have voted NOTA on each ballot.
I’ve never seriously considered voting for anyone except Trump since he announced. My second choice is Kennedy, but distant second. Terry is probably closest to me on issues, but that’s not my sole consideration.
Biden is my absolute last choice, no matter what, with the possible exception that Harris has to replace him at the top of that ticket, in which case she would be. I don’t foresee any circumstances under which I’d vote for Oliver, Stein, DeLaCruz, West, or anyone else I have heard of written about here.
I’ve voted libertarian before, even for president. All of the candidates who sought your nomination this year were embarrassing, independently of what I believe will be the best Republican ticket ever and the worst Democrat ticket ever.
Yes, it’s the same Democrat ticket as last time, but Biden is older and worse now. Yes, Trump was the Republican nominee the last two times, and we don’t know who the VP will be yet. I have tons of reasons to believe he’s much better now than before.
Johnny, how do you think it sounds?
It only happened because ter Maat put his full weight behind Oliver and conveniently neglected to mention that Rectenwald had offered to pick him as a running-mate as well. He should not have been allowed near the mic until after the final round of voting was over.
@Andy
Very interesting. I was wondering to what extent Rectenwald was sabotaged and to what extent he was just a moron. Can you link me a source, please?
ALL NOMINATIONS OF PUBLIC CANDIDATES AND ELECTIONS OF PARTY OFFICERS BY ALL PARTY MEMBERS
— APPROVAL VOTING PENDING CONDORCET
END THE OLIGARCH SYSTEM IN THE LP SINCE DAY 1.
Nuna, I was there and at the pivotal time you refer to, the delegates were told that Rectenwald had also offered the v-p to ter Maat.
They were only told by Michael Heise some time after ter Maat gave his endorsement for Oliver. And unlike ter Maat’s announcement, Heise’s was chattered over.
There was even a question from the delegates who cast their vote before ter Maat’s announcement, if they couldn’t recast their votes. How many votes got cast between ter Maat’s announcement and Heise’s?
https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/politics/2024/06/14/house-passes-bill-883-billion-defense-programs/74099865007/
BILLIONS/TRILLIONS FOR WAR AND MASS DEATH AND DESTRUCTION BY MONARCHS/OLIGARCHS
PENNIES FOR ELECTION REFORM TO SAVE REAL DEMOCRACY
Thank you for that interesting history. I recall the 2004 convention. I noted for Aaron Russo on all ballot rounds but was happy to support Michael Badnarik when he won the nomination. Michael was an energetic speaker and seemed more relaxed during the debates. It was probably because he didn’t think he had a chance to win! Sadly both men are no longer alive. I was fortunate to correspond with Michael a few months before his death.
“It only happened because ter Maat put his full weight behind Oliver and conveniently neglected to mention that Rectenwald had offered to pick him as a running-mate as well. He should not have been allowed near the mic until after the final round of voting was over.”
I don’t see why not. TerMaat should have had the same right as Oliver and Rectenwald to communicate his preference who he wanted his ticket partner to be. Just because he’s the bottom half of the ticket, he can’t say who he wants his running mate to be? Doesn’t sound fair.
Regardless of who offers him VP or not, it’s actually traditional for candidates eliminated after each round to make a speech thanking various people, giving their parting thoughts as a candidate, and making an endorsement among those remaining, or none. That seems logical to me. It was cut short this time due to absolutely horrible time management.
The deal between Oliver and TerMaat was not on the fly – TerMaat said he had already rejected any alliance with Misesians over a year earlier. The fact that they also offered him a spot on their ticket did not change those dynamics. That was bungled dealmaking by Heise and Rectenwald.
Logically, negotiations for all plausible candidate elimination order outcomes must have occurred between campaigns before the convention, at the convention before any presidential voting rounds, in between and during rounds – Heise and Rectenwald shouldn’t have made that weak VP offer without a matching commitment from TerMaat to want to be their VP ahead of time.
There are many ways to handle losing. It was a desperation move, weak, and stupid.
I’m not saying this because I like Oliver or TerMaat. I don’t. I won’t vote for them in the general election. I wouldn’t have voted for either at any round of the convention. I don’t like either better than Rectenwald. If you make their names X, Y, and Z this still holds.
They acted like weak beta cucks, did not lock down their deal, made a desperation offer that sounded desperate because it was, and everyone there (or like me, just listening) knew it or at least felt it.
They were whining then, and their sympathizers are whining now. Man up. Stop whining. Vote for Trump, Kennedy, stay home, write in Ron Paul or Dave Smith or Terry or Rectenwald or yourself or whoever or whatever you want. Wipe your butt with your ballot and deposit it in the box. Leave president blank.
I don’t care what you do.
Just stop whining. You lost. It happens. Deal with it. Learn lessons on what to do better next time. Apply them to different life situations. Don’t be a crybaby. Try adulting. Grow up.
Whether bad luck, bad negotiating skill, bad breath, whatever it was, whatever combo – accept that these things happen all the time in life, for whatever reasons, good or bad. You should have learned that life lesson and how to handle it when it happens much better a long, long time ago.
“was wondering to what extent Rectenwald was sabotaged and to what extent he was just a moron.”
Meh. Even if he was sabotaged, he was still a moron. He ate something which he did not vet properly. We’ve all done dumb crap. I’ve made far worse errors in judgement more times than I can count, so I know when I see moronic behavior and choices and moronic attempts to evade taking responsibility for them.
But, this part is a real question: if he was told he would not be speaking, when, how, and by whom? Did they bungle the vote count in the poll? Another candidate beat him in that poll and decided not to do it? They thought responses would get cancelled, then got uncancelled? What happened? Details, please, anyone who knows.
TRUE MORONS LOVE OLIGARCH *POLITICS* —
ESP AT OLIGARCH MEETINGS / CAUCUSES/ CONVENTIONS
ESP MINOR PARTY OLIGARCHS – SMALL FISH IN A BATHTUB
— TRYING TO TAKE ON STATIST KILLER WHALES IN WORLD OCEANS
—
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
Chase Oliver supports child abuse and wide open borders. He’s an evil communist.
Agreed. Oliver is a typical Democrat. He loves communist Obama and the Deep State.
Many of the people at these things scrape together the money to share gas cost in overcrowded vehicles to get there and back and pile into overcrowded motel rooms for the inadequate amount of sleeping and showering they so during the long weekends at such gatherings. The notion that they are oligarchs is incredibly out of touch with reality.
I know it’s bullshit from a bot, but in case anyone actually reading who has reading comprehension ability hasn’t been to these things themselves.
My own family’s experience is that real “child abuse” is government interfering with personal decisions. My own great-nephew was born physically as a girl, but even in kintergarden, my great-nephew always wanted to stand in the boy’s line, not the girl’s line. At the age of 13 my great-nephew was horrified by the first period, and started dressing as a boy and with hair in a boy’s style. My great-nephew, fortunately, lives in a state that doesn’t interfere. My great-nephew chose to transition and has been far happier and more functional ever since the transaction.
Harry Browne’s mantra was “government doesn’t work.” My family’s experience, and our awareness of the heavy-handed practices of some states (fortunately not California) on sexual transition, tells me Harry was right. How is it possible for so-called libertarians to want to increase government control over individuals?
It’s because anyone can call themselves whatever they want, for the most part.
“TerMaat should have had the same right as Oliver and Rectenwald to communicate his preference who he wanted his ticket partner to be”
He could have expressed a VP pick at any point before his elimination, and that could have been one of the his rival candidates. But the moment he was eliminated from the running, he should have kept his mouth shut instead of trying to become a kingmaker.
“it’s actually traditional for candidates eliminated after each round to make a speech thanking various people, giving their parting thoughts as a candidate, and making an endorsement among those remaining, or none”
It most certainly is not. They do that at the end, after all the votes are in.
“TerMaat said he had already rejected any alliance with Misesians over a year earlier”
When did he say this? After the fact? Because what he said at the convention, during voting, was that he had only just received the offer from Oliver’s campaign and accepted it on the spot. And at that time he failed to disclose that he had gotten the same offer from Rectenwald’s campaign. He even went through the little song and dance of pretending to call Heise a good friend while turning the knife in his back and spitting in his face.
“I’m not saying this because I like Oliver or TerMaat. I don’t. I won’t vote for them in the general election. I wouldn’t have voted for either at any round of the convention.”
I think everyone agrees NOTA was the only valid “candidate” in any of the rounds of voiting. But if you dislike Oliver and ter Maat as much as Rectenwald, then why are you reaching so hard to excuse for ter Maat’s actions? You should follow your own advice to stop whining and grow up, but instead you are throwing a little crybaby tantrum that someone would dare call out ter Maat’s treachery.
@Richard Winger
Was Harry Browne in favor of expanding LGBTQ+ “rights” though? What about parents’ “right” to mutilate their children and pump them full of poison? I don’t remember him being in favor of those things, but I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t have a proper sense of Harry Browne – or of James Lewis for that matter.
“How is it possible for so-called libertarians to want to increase government control over individuals?”
They don’t. What libertarians want is for government to stop them from protecting individuals against other individuals. The libertarian stance is that you are allowed to protect children from parents who are trying to murder (“abortion”) or mutilate them (“sexual transition”), etc. A libertarian would support the right to have a shoot out between a church, an abortion clinic and a gay club, without the government involving itself.
*for government to stop preventing them from protecting
“He could have expressed a VP pick at any point before his elimination, and that could have been one of the his rival candidates. But the moment he was eliminated from the running, he should have kept his mouth shut instead of trying to become a kingmaker.”
Why? That’s precisely the traditional and logical time to communicate his choice, particularly since he’s not just endorsing in this case but but would need to then actually work in a supporting role with whoever is at the top of the ticket for the next few month.
Communicating a second choice before being eliminated is practically begging your supporters to abandon you before you’re eliminated. It can become a self fulfilling prophecy. It’s more logical to get eliminated or to the point where you know you will be and then make your endorsement if you have one. And this goes double if you are asked to be vp by the two remaining campaigns. You’ll have to work with one of them.
“It most certainly is not. They do that at the end, after all the votes are in.”
You are historically inaccurate, at least as far as the LP Presidential nomination.
Actually, I just read further to the end of your response, and there’s no need to repeat myself further. I stand by everything I said in the prior round. Regardless of how you may want to twist or mischaracterize it, it remains completely accurate. Going back and forth about it changes nothing. There are better ways to spend time.
That’s not something a 13 year old should decide. It sounds like she has a mental illness and should seek therapy.
Richard Winger supports child abuse. No wonder he loves communist Chase Oliver.
“libertarian would support the right to have a shoot out between a church, an abortion clinic and a gay club, without the government involving itself.”
That’s one very unattractive way of applying libertarian ideology. Most people who call themselves libertarians aren’t anarchists. Even anarchists generally theorize – unconvincingly, imo, but I’m not going down that rabbit hole again – that non-territorial monopoly solutions to prevent shootouts as a means of solving problems can and will be found often enough to make government unnecessary and counterproductive.
Very few people want to live in a world where shootouts are how you solve differences. Even people who somewhat live that life – gangsters, soldiers, etc – generally prefer to avoid it most of the time. If they don’t, regardless of any bragging before or after, they don’t tend to live very long.
If you want to persuade people, telling them that’s your preferred solution only persuades them you’re crazy. If they’re nice, they will merely not want to associate with you or the label you thus defined for them.
If they’re less nice, they might believe you that this is what libertarians want, decide you are dangerous psychopaths, and make your views illegal, lock you up, or give you your wish and shoot it out with you. Since people who are not anarchists generally don’t have a problem with using laws and law enforcement to solve problems, that’s likely who you would be shooting it out with. That’s what’s generally called suicide by cop.
So, you are defining libertarian as people who want to commit suicide by cop? What’s the goal here? Are you actually someone who hates libertarians and want people who want government to be smaller to not call themselves that at one end of the scale, and for law enforcement to hunt them down like dangerous animals at the other?
Anyone wondering why libertarian ideas are not more popular: that right There is a prime example.
Sane people don’t want to live that way. If you think sane people do, you are not a sane person.
There are reasons I’m no longer a libertarian.
“That’s not something a 13 year old should decide. It sounds like she has a mental illness and should seek therapy.”
You are referring to nunya?
Whoah, lulz. Hold your horses. Before we relegate Nuna to the nut farm, let’s see whether she thinks she’s speaking for all libertarians or libeling them with “What libertarians want is for government to stop them from protecting individuals against other individuals.”
Is that supposed to be a categorical statement by a self described libertarian that’s true for all situations and defines who she does and doesn’t consider to be one?
1924 KEEP COOL WITH COOLIDGE >>> FAKE BOOM 1925-1929 >>> GREAT DEPRESSION I 1929-1941
DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN ??? DUH
The AZ bot is once again spewing FAKE NEWS. Coolidge was a fantastic present. Hoover and especially Roosevelt turn a minor blip into a prolonged depression.
1920S- FAKE BOOM — BAAADE LOANS — ESP WORSE/WORSE STOCK MARKET FRACTIONAL STUFF
GERMANY WW I WAR DAMAGE LOANS
RIGGED LOW LOW LOW INTEREST RATES
LOANING OUT OF BANK DEMAND DEPOSITS — TOTAL FRAUD
OCT 1929 CRISIS – STOCK MARKET LOANS – PAY NOW >>> MASS STOCK SELL-OFFS >>> BAAADE LOANS REVEALED — STOCKS / CAPITAL GOODS – HOUSING / CARS / FACTORIES / MACHINES / BUILDINGS / ETC.
ALL SORTS OF BANKRUPT BANKS WHEN DEPOSITORS DEMANDED THEIR CASH — IN CHECKING AND SAVINGS DEPOSITS.
GOVTS — TOO EVIL STUPID — TO INFLATE MONEY SUPPLY – CHECKING ACCOUNTS TO OCT 1929 LEVELS AND LET INTEREST RATES GO SKY HIGH TO GET *REAL* SAVINGS — AND TO HAVE TIME LIMITS ON GETTING SAVINGS CASH BACK — IE LOAN TIMES/REPAYMENTS.
ESP ROTTED BRITS TRYING TO MAINTAIN BRIT POUND VALUE REGARDLESS OF BRIT WW I DEAD / WAR DEBTS / EMPIRE ROT – IRELAND, INDIA, ETC.
>>> 1931 – WORST ECON YEAR IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION >>> JAPAN INVASION OF MANCHURIA – DE FACTO START OF WW II.
CRASH OF IMPORTS — ESP IN GERMANY >>> HITLER 1929-1933
Transgender care for youth is a big topic with lots of scholarly studies. I now choose one at random, “Treatment and Ethical Considerations in Youth and Family Therapy”, 23 J of Fam Pyschotherapy 296″ (2012). It is by Anibal Torres Bernal & Deborah Coolhart. I have not read it. What I know about the subject is from my family’s own experience. There is lots of therapy. What rings true is the great increase in happiness and well-being of my great-nephew since the transition. Those who are interested but who don’t know any transgender people should get to know a few transgender people.
Stop the propaganda Winger. What happened was child abuse. She will regret it when she is older as most do. The fact you support it is sick.
https://groups.google.com/g/lnc-business-list-public/c/aWcgPCBdbCI
Fantastic letter why the LNC must remove Chase Oliver.
Matt Loesby is spot on!
1880 GOP (Just read that not-so-good new Garfield bio https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/6580860641 ) went 36 ballots, without the Dems’ 2/3 rule.
Nuña is a “no true Scotsman” libertarian, and even more nutters over at Independent Political Report. If he’s even really a L/libertarian.
Nuña vaguely reminds me of if Justin Raimondo self-resurrected, then moved about three Overton Windows to the right, and without any of Raimondo’s redeeming qualities.
Numerous essays on Quillette.com and Abigail Shrier and videos by Peter Boghossian explain succinctly why “treating” gender dysphoria with hormones or surgical transition is wrong medically and psychologically. They have highlighted the role that social media and peer pressure played on making teenage girls want to pretend to be boys en masse. They have also discussed the problems girls face when they compete in sports against boys pretending to be girls. This is also a form of gay conversion in disguise because most boys with feminine traits or interests would otherwise grow up to be homosexual men if not led into the trans fad. I cannot support Chase Oliver for president on the basis of his support of injecting hormones artificially to simulate the opposite sex.
In addition, a growing number of “transgender” people now regret the irreversible damage their “transition” caused their bodies and make attempts to de-transition. That the hormones and surgeries are no “cure” is evidenced by a high rate of suicides by transgender people. In any event, it’s a violation of the doctor’s oath to do harm to patients, and most children grow out of cross-dressing and pretending to be the opposite sex with time so nobody should rush them into this course of action. Journalist Steve Sailer has shown that the trans movement is largely funded by wealthy “trans” older men who are autogynephiliac, that is, sexually attracted to the idea of being a woman. Some rational homosexuals have tried to separate themselves from the dangerous trans movement by calling themselves members of a LGB or GLB community without the T.
Trans activists are also against free speech. They have put pressure on social media companies to ban so-called “misgendering” and some of those platforms (Discord, for instance) complied with their demands. Those in universities have tried to prevent people against their ideology from speaking to their students and pretend that debate and open discussion will “harm” people, as seen in the famous video of Peter Boghossian at Portland State University.
@White Men Can Trump
“That’s one very unattractive way of applying libertarian ideology.”
It is the consistent way of applying libertarian ideology.
“Most people who call themselves libertarians aren’t anarchists.”
Most people who call themselves libertarians aren’t libertarians.
If both terms are used correctly, all libertarians are on the road to anarchy; the ones who haven’t gotten there yet, have either gone astray or haven’t finished drawing conclusions yet.
“Very few people want to live in a world where shootouts are how you solve differences.”
Nobody WANTS it, but sometimes it is necessary. And it is certainly preferable to your totalitarian alternative.
“If you want to persuade people, telling them that’s your preferred solution only persuades them you’re crazy.”
Preferred is a relative term: preferred to what? Government intervention? If you prefer government intervention, then certainly you are no libertarian.
“So, you are defining libertarian as people who want to commit suicide by cop?”
You are creating a series of convenient but ever more detached straw men so that you can pretend to not see the forest through the trees.
The point you are deliberately missing is that due to human nature, anarchy is self-regulating. And when guided by the Holy Spirit, anarchy is (self-)regulated better than archy. There is no need for welfare, when people voluntarily care for those in need. There is no need of government to “increase control over individuals” – as Richard put it – when people are free to deal with doctor and parents who violate the NAP towards their children.
“If you think sane people do, you are not a sane person.”
Well, one of us clearly either insane or evil or both. And everyone who is sane will agree it’s the statist, while everyone insane will agree it’s the libertarian…
@LulZ
Very funny, perun-worshipper, but Lenny was clearly talking about Richard’s sibling’s grandchild, and he is correct.
@Troll Daddy
I wouldn’t make such a big deal out it as all that. As I said: All libertarians are on the road to anarchy; if you prefer government intervention, then certainly you are no libertarian.
@Just Me
As I explained to you on IPR, Gadfly, unless there is backpedaling and retroactive amending of a definition, it is not a “no true Scotsman”-fallacy. If there was a different point you wanted to make, at least try to get the terminology right after having already been corrected once; otherwise, consider your false-accusation dissected and rebutted for the second time.
And don’t insult me by drawing a false-comparison to a heathen homosexual.
@Anti-TCult
“They have also discussed the problems girls face when they compete in sports against boys pretending to be girls.”
There is no problem. Womens’ sports are a joke. If they can’t compete in a competition that is open to all, they are simply not good enough warrant that level of attention.
The difference between individual men or individual women, are generally also not taken into consideration – with a few exceptions like weight and age classes in some martial arts – so why should your testosterone level and genetic makeup be?
While I am as much against men pretending to be women as I am against women pretending to be men *cough* feminists *cough*, the whole sports controversy is a hollow pile of excrement made up by women who want to get just as much attention, fame, money, etc. as men while being held to a much lower standard.
“Some rational homosexuals have tried to separate themselves from the dangerous trans movement by calling themselves members of a LGB or GLB community without the T.”
They are, if anything, worse. Because they maintain the same core degeneracy but without any of the commitment of those mutilating themselves over it. They are more akin to those who “declare” their gender to be whatever at any given moment, than those who actually go through the charade of having a sex-change.
Hi, if not the Libertarian Party, which party most closely follows the message in the Declaration of Independence:
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
The LP should, but not when they nominate child abuse supporting communists like Chase Oliver.
“That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to alter or TO ABOLISH IT, and to institute new government [OR NONE AT ALL] laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness [INCLUDING ANARCHY].”
If the Libertarian Party had anything to do with libertarianism – spoiler: it doesn’t – then that would be the obvious choice. Same thing with the Liberal Party vis-a-vis classical liberalism. Unfortunately, since they don’t, we must look elsewhere.
Once upon a time, you could have looked to the Democratic-Republican/National Republican/Whig/Republican Party, not to mention the Anti-Masonic Party and – perhaps paradoxically to those who view all US history through the lens of slavery – both the Nullifier Party and the Liberty/Free Soil Party, and even to quite a few individual Federalists.
But today we do not have such a luxury of choice, alas, and your best bet might be on the Constitution Party or once in a blue moon maybe someone from the American Independent Party.
consent of the governed = MAJORITY RULE
—-
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
I’m neither a statist nor a libertarian.
I want government to be significantly smaller, but I don’t buy into the idea that it can be done away with completely in a peaceful manner or that doing away with government completely would result in anything except chaos leading to tyranny, and as I said, I no longer find the speculation that it can be to be worthy of discussion.
Most of the people who do hold such extreme views wisely don’t campaign on them for public office, and foolishly believe that a society without territorial monopoly government would find peaceful ways to maintain social order and peace, as opposed to routinely solving social issues through armed shootouts.
I’m not convinced Nuna is a libertarian, either. There’s at least a decent chance she is aping the most extreme libertarian nonsense to marginalize it and point out its inherent self contradictions. If so, good job. If not, she’s either completely out of touch with how expressing such ideas in such manner plays politically, or doesn’t care.
I’m quite sure Nuna, if serious and not a troll, realizes the Constitution Party does not push any kind of libertarian ideology, much less extreme anarchism where shootouts are the way to solve social problems. I’ve supported Virgil Goode for President, and he didn’t spout any such nonsense.
While I didn’t vote for or support their other nominees, they have consistently been among the top options. If my vote was solely based on ideology as the only factor, I’d vote for them consistently. It’s not. We live in a real world, like it or not.
I’ve supported L.P. nominee’s for President twice – Ron Paul and Bob Barr – and also supported them when they didn’t run as Libertarians. They didn’t spout such nonsense, either. I’ve never heard LP nominees for any office advocate churches, abortuaries, sodomite clubs etc having armed shootouts.
I’ve never heard any Constitution Party candidate for any office advocate that, either. Howard Phillips didn’t. Randall Terry doesn’t. None of the ones running in between them, and to my knowledge none down ticket, ever have.
By what right does Nuna claim for libertarians to define who is or isn’t one?
My “totalitarian” alternative is law and order in a framework of limited government according to the original intent of USA and CSA founders. That, incidentally, is also the basic alternative proposed by the Constitution Party – are they libertarians or totalitarian statists in the mentally warped world view Nuna is offering up here?
Does Nuna believe the government of the Russian Federation, which she claims to be a big fan off, advocates anarcholibertarian nonsense, armed shootouts to solve social problems, or tolerates anyone who would act on such beliefs?
I’m for making abortion, homosexualism, Sodomy, and transgenderism illegal, and prosecuted and punished through a legal law enforcement and judicial process. Not armed shootouts.
I’m not for outlawing libertarian advocacy. However, if libertarians were to define themselves in the public mind in the way Nuna proposes, that’s a more likely result than them making any significant headway in persuading any significant portion of the public to agree with them.
At the very least, very few people, including those like me who want government to be much smaller overall and have even voted Libertarian and called ourselves libertarians from time to time, would want to vote that way, call ourselves that, or have anything to do with those who do ever again.
At best, libertarians would be socially shunned and reviled pariahs. At worst, they would be hunted and shot dead on sight like dangerous animals. The first would much more ideal.
Nuna probably understands this, and probably wants it to happen, in which case Nuna is a huge statist who hates libertarians. Otherwise, Nuna might be highly confused, out of touch with reality, and filled with self contradictory ideas.
@RW, N
It is not apparent that there were any discussions between Ter Maat and Rectenwald. When Michael Heise spoke 2 minutes after Mike Ter Maat had endorsed Chase Oliver, he said he was “responding to Ter Maat”. He then in an angry voice said that the Mises Caucus had offered the VP spot to Mike Ter Maat. It wasn’t really a matter of information.
It is not clear what discussions had been held between Ter Maat and the Mises Caucus (Heise). Ter Maat alluded to a “strategy” of the Mises Caucus, but not specify what that strategy was. Maybe they hoped to have a majority.
After the also-rans, Olivier, Toad, RFKjr, Ballay, then Hornberger and Smith were limited, Rectenwald had gained the most (76), but Oliver (50), Ter Maat (34) and Mapstead (17), collectively had gained (101).
Mapstead voters split about 1/3 Oliver, 1/3 Ter Maat, and 1/3 NOTA or go home. Rectenwald actually lost a vote.
The question about recasting votes was not raised until 19 minutes later, when the chair was announcing that balloting was completed since all delegations had turned in their ballots. A motion to overturn the ruling of the chair was ruled to be dilatory.
Oliver needs to be nullified from the ballot. Child abuse is not libertarian.
Thomas Knapp on his retarded blog is openly supporting child abuse.
@White Men Can Trump
“I’m neither a statist”
You name belies that.
“I don’t buy into the idea that it can be done away with completely in a peaceful manner or that doing away with government completely would result in anything except chaos leading to tyranny”
Thanks, but we already knew you were a statist moron.
“foolishly believe that a society without territorial monopoly government would find peaceful ways to maintain social order and peace”
Read Hoppe’s “Democracy: The God That Failed” regarding social contracts.
“the Constitution Party does not push any kind of libertarian ideology”
The Constitution Party is certainly not perfect or anything, but it is the only party – certainly the only national party – that sets itself apart from the pack, and he does so in the positive, liberty-loving direction. Constitution Party’s candidates tend to be far less totalitarian than their competition. There is no other party that fields candidates that aren’t all equally bad (except the American Independent Party in 2008 but never since then).
“I’ve supported Virgil Goode for President, and he didn’t spout any such nonsense.”
I supported Ron Paul for president that year, what’s your point?
“I’ve never heard LP nominees for any office advocate churches, abortuaries, sodomite clubs etc having armed shootouts. I’ve never heard any Constitution Party candidate for any office advocate that, either.”
Again with your “advocate” straw man. As I said: Nobody WANTS it, but sometimes it is necessary. And it is certainly preferable to your totalitarian alternative.
The Constitution Party is generally the least bad option available. Generally! There are exceptions, like their anti-semitic 2004 and 2008 tickets.
“By what right does Nuna claim for libertarians to define who is or isn’t one?”
If words are to have any meaning, that meaning must be defined. I have expressed my understanding of libertarianism. I have no attempted to force any definition on anyone else. That would be highly unlibertarian.
“My ‘totalitarian’ alternative is law and order in a framework of limited government according to the original intent of USA and CSA founders.”
Not at all. Your totalitarian alternative has nothing in common with the founding fathers’ restrictions on government. And thus hopefully also not with the aims of the Constitution Party.
“Does Nuna believe the government of the Russian Federation, which she claims to be a big fan off, advocates anarcholibertarian nonsense, armed shootouts to solve social problems, or tolerates anyone who would act on such beliefs?”
Again with such confident ignorance.
I support the Russian government in so far as it supports Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kharkov, Kherson, Zaporozhia and Transnistria against nazi “Ukraine” and the NATO and EU axis of evil.
I support the Russian government in so far as it supports Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Adjaria against Georgia and the NATO and EU axis of evil.
I support the Russian government in so far as it supports Abkhazia against Azerbaijan and its Turkish masters.
I support the Russian government in so far as it supports Belarus against covid lockdowns and color revolutions.
I support the Russian government in so far as it supports Libya, Syria, Mali, the Central African Republic and Niger against western backed coups.
I support Russia in so far as it the last major bastion of Christianity, and thus of liberty, truth and justice, on Earth today.
But you arrogant statist Trump sycophants know and care nothing about any of that.
“I’m for making abortion, homosexualism, Sodomy, and transgenderism illegal, and prosecuted and punished through a legal law enforcement and judicial process.”
Ends don’t justify means.
“those like me who want government to be much smaller overall and have even voted Libertarian and called ourselves libertarians from time to time”
Yes, yes. Useful idiots are just that: useful. That does not make you any more of a libertarian though.
“At worst, they would be hunted and shot dead on sight like dangerous animals.”
Come try it. See how that works out for you.
*I support the Russian government in so far as it supports Artsakh against Azerbaijan and its Turkish masters.
@Jim Riley
Thanks for doing the legwork on the timeline.
I don’t understand what you mean by “It wasn’t really a matter of information”. If Michael Heise as Michael Rectenwald’s campaign manager offered Michael ter Maat – why are they all called Michael?! – the VP spot, then certainly that was important information. And information that ter Maat should have disclosed – if he were allowed to speak at all at that time – and deliberately did not disclose when he announced that he instead accepted Oliver’s offer to pick him as a running mate.
I also don’t see why it matters that the question about recasting votes was asked up nineteen minutes later, since voting was going on throughout and certainly votes were cast during the two or three minutes between ter Maat and Heise speaking. The votes cast before ter Maat’s announcement were unaffected, and the votes cast after Heise’s response were affected but at least were cast with both sides of the story in mind, but however many votes were cast in between were based on a deceptive half story. How many of votes were cast between ter Maat and Heise? How many of those votes would have been different taking Heise’s words into consideration?
Rectenwald confirmed my suspicions:
“Before the vote, Heise and I talk to Mike ter Maat (MtM) for the third time. MtM was eliminated in round five. Just as Heise had predicted, he was last to come off the board before this one-on-one contest between Chase and me.
[…]
Heise and I had told MtM after rounds three and four that he was going to come off the board soon. MtM denied the prospect, saying a shakeup was in the offing. MtM had promised me no less than three times through the course of the campaign that he’d endorse me when or if he came off the board. That time has come, so we are trying to call in the promise. In fact, in Texas, at the Texas LP convention, MtM emphatically told me that he did NOT want Chase Oliver to be the nominee and would make sure of it.
But now he equivocates. We can’t get him to confirm his commitment.
After some wrangling, he lines up behind a microphone to make an announcement. Before he makes a statement, I walk up to MtM and ask him, point blank: You’re not going to endorse Chase now, are you? He says no while shaking his head as if the idea was preposterous.
He announces in a point of parliamentary procedure that he has accepted the role of vice president with Chase Oliver. If that is not an endorsement, then nothing is.
Meanwhile, MtM’s statement was not a point of parliamentary procedure, but it’s too late. He’s said it already. The election has shifted entirely. This is the endorsement that Heise said would clinch my nomination, but it’s just gone south. MtM also complains that he’s tried to work with Heise and the Mises Caucus (MC), to no avail. I guess he means that he tried to get the caucus’ endorsement, or else to shake them from their exclusive endorsement of me but failed. In other words, MtM suggests that he’s been scorned by the caucus and is now retaliating.”
Silly troll moron, you’ve read things into my screen name that may or may not be there. Hint: each of the four words has a dictionary definition. At least two of the four can also be last names. That’s really more clues than you need or deserve.
Please, don’t pretend to speak for anyone besides yourself. It doesn’t become you. Unless, of course, that was the royal we. Delusions of grandeur would certainly be in character for you.
I’ve read Hoppe’s book which you referenced. I disagree with him on many things, and agree on a fair number of others. I no longer consider it worth discussing whether anarchism could work, least of all with you. I have much more immediate and real world concerns.
The Constitution Party doesn’t support anarchist shootouts in the streets to solve social problems. Only a troll moron would have failed to get that point: They don’t prefer them to law and order. Thus, they don’t advocate shootouts as the preferred or “necessary” solution. Shootouts are indeed sometimes necessary, but never to solve social problems in a functional society. All of the parties, candidates and governments names herein, and the founders of the USA and CSA, agree/agreed with me on this point.
I have supported Ron Paul every time he ran for President or Congress. I’ve never lived in his congressional district, but always donated each time he ran since I first heard of him from friends in 1974 (that first time without success) to 2010, and both donated and voted for him each time he ran for President as a Libertarian or Republican. He wasn’t running in the general election in 2012. I supported him in the primary and Virgil Goode in the general. My point was made in context. I stated it in the last paragraph, so there’s no point in repeating it yet again.
Ron Paul doesn’t prefer shootouts in the streets to law and order as means of solving social problems. Neither do the Constitution Party or any Libertarian nominees, at least far as their campaigns go.
Your understanding of libertarian is not shared by the vast majority of libertarians, or even anarchist libertarians.
You keep babbling about some totalitarian alternative I support. I oppose totalitarianism, and you are plain and simple lying in saying I don’t support the limited government sought by the founders of the USA and CSA. The aims of the Constitution Party are very much in line with mine. Howard Phillips and I generally agreed on almost all political issues, almost all the time.
Despite your confident ignorance, troll moron, I am far from being anyone’s sycophant.
None of the government’s of any countries or regions you named prefer shootouts over law and order as means of solving social problems, including abortion, sodomy, transgenderism , etc. Only an arrogant lying troll POS intentionally misses the point as much as NUNYA.
I don’t seek to be called a libertarian, troll moron useless idiot. They lost my support with the same type of idiocy you display here.
I’m for making abortion, homosexualism, Sodomy, and transgenderism illegal, and prosecuted and punished through a legal law enforcement and judicial process. The means are far more justified than solving these issues through shootouts in the streets.
You must have missed where I said I’d rather not have libertarian advocacy – even of the most wretched sort, such as you put forth or mimic or parody to the highest level of absurdity – made illegal.
I think your type of “libertarian”, or the type you pretend to be or are parodying, should be merely shunned.
I think I ought to, at the very least, no longer directly address you going forward. Further egregious lies may be corrected or ignored, we shall see.
As for the other end of how society might handle your(?) Ilk, which is once again most certainly NOT my wish; I don’t believe for a moment you missed that explicitly stated twice – there’s nothing to try. Law enforcement is quite capable and competent to deal with mentally ill, antisocial miscreants who advocate shootouts in the streets as preferable ways of solving social problems to law and order.
I’ll be statist enough to let law enforcement folks handle it, and libertarian enough to advocate shunning first, and less extreme means to neutralize the threat if it does ever come to that.
The “final solution” to the nonpeaceful anarchist problem is NOT what I advocate, and I’m retired – law enforcement would handle it, even if it came to that. Your threats are empty. I don’t want to see you hunted down, and if you do get hunted down, it will be by much younger men than me.
For the sake of the many decent libertarians I’ve known over the years, I certainly hope you fail in redefining libertarian as unpeaceful anarchist in the public mind. I highly suspect that, and creating an overly broad overreaction, is precisely your goal.
Having caught you directly and repeatedly lying about me and my personal views in particular, it seems even more likely. Occams razor indicates you are a TROLL. Troll,be gone, and shame on you for besmirching libertarians with your foul stench.
Silly troll moron, you’ve read things into my screen name that may or may not be there. Hint: each of the four words has a dictionary definition. At least two of the four can also be last names. That’s really more clues than you need or deserve.
Please, don’t pretend to speak for anyone besides yourself. It doesn’t become you. Unless, of course, that was the royal we. Delusions of grandeur would certainly be in character for you.
I’ve read Hoppe’s book which you referenced. I disagree with him on many things, and agree on a fair number of others. I no longer consider it worth discussing whether anarchism could work, least of all with you. I have much more immediate and real world concerns.
The Constitution Party doesn’t support anarchist shootouts in the streets to solve social problems. Only a troll moron would have failed to get that point: They don’t prefer them to law and order. Thus, they don’t advocate shootouts as the preferred or “necessary” solution. Shootouts are indeed sometimes necessary, but never to solve social problems in a functional society. All of the parties, candidates and governments names herein, and the founders of the USA and CSA, agree/agreed with me on this point.
I have supported Ron Paul every time he ran for President or Congress. I’ve never lived in his congressional district, but always donated each time he ran since I first heard of him from friends in 1974 (that first time without success) to 2010, and both donated and voted for him each time he ran for President as a Libertarian or Republican. He wasn’t running in the general election in 2012. I supported him in the primary and Virgil Goode in the general. My point was made in context. I stated it in the last paragraph, so there’s no point in repeating it yet again.
Ron Paul doesn’t prefer shootouts in the streets to law and order as means of solving social problems. Neither do the Constitution Party or any Libertarian nominees, at least far as their campaigns go.
Your understanding of libertarian is not shared by the vast majority of libertarians, or even anarchist libertarians.
You keep babbling about some totalitarian alternative I support. I oppose totalitarianism, and you are plain and simple lying in saying I don’t support the limited government sought by the founders of the USA and CSA. The aims of the Constitution Party are very much in line with mine. Howard Phillips and I generally agreed on almost all political issues, almost all the time.
Despite your confident ignorance, troll moron, I am far from being anyone’s sycophant.
None of the government’s of any countries or regions you named prefer shootouts over law and order as means of solving social problems, including abortion, sodomy, transgenderism , etc. Only an arrogant lying troll POS intentionally misses the point as much as NUNYA.
I don’t seek to be called a libertarian, troll moron useless idiot. They lost my support with the same type of idiocy you display here.
I’m for making abortion, homosexualism, Sodomy, and transgenderism illegal, and prosecuted and punished through a legal law enforcement and judicial process. The means are far more justified than solving these issues through shootouts in the streets.
You must have missed where I said I’d rather not have libertarian advocacy – even of the most wretched sort, such as you put forth or mimic or parody to the highest level of absurdity – made illegal.
I think your type of “libertarian”, or the type you pretend to be or are parodying, should be merely shunned.
I think I ought to, at the very least, no longer directly address you going forward. Further egregious lies may be corrected or ignored, we shall see.
As for the other end of how society might handle your(?) Ilk, which is once again most certainly NOT my wish; I don’t believe for a moment you missed that explicitly stated twice – there’s nothing to try. Law enforcement is quite capable and competent to deal with mentally ill, antisocial miscreants who advocate shootouts in the streets as preferable ways of solving social problems to law and order.
I’ll be statist enough to let law enforcement folks handle it, and libertarian enough to advocate shunning first, and less extreme means to neutralize the threat if it does ever come to that.
The “final solution” to the nonpeaceful anarchist problem is NOT what I advocate, and I’m retired – law enforcement would handle it, even if it came to that. Your threats are empty. I don’t want to see you hunted down, and if you do get hunted down, it will be by much younger men than me.
For the sake of the many decent libertarians I’ve known over the years, I certainly hope you fail in redefining libertarian as unpeaceful anarchist in the public mind. I highly suspect that, and creating an overly broad overreaction, is precisely your goal.
Having caught you directly and repeatedly lying about me and my personal views in particular, it seems even more likely. Occams razor indicates you are a TROLL. Troll,be gone, and shame on you for besmirching libertarians with your foul stench.
White Men Can Trump!
Silly troll moron, you’ve read things into my screen name that may or may not be there. Hint: each of the four words has a dictionary definition. At least two of the four can also be last names. That’s really more clues than you need or deserve.
Please, don’t pretend to speak for anyone besides yourself. It doesn’t become you. Unless, of course, that was the royal we. Delusions of grandeur would certainly be in character for you.
I’ve read Hoppe’s book which you referenced. I disagree with him on many things, and agree on a fair number of others. I no longer consider it worth discussing whether anarchism could work, least of all with you. I have much more immediate and real world concerns.
The Constitution Party doesn’t support anarchist shootouts in the streets to solve social problems. Only a troll moron would have failed to get that point: They don’t prefer them to law and order. Thus, they don’t advocate shootouts as the preferred or “necessary” solution. Shootouts are indeed sometimes necessary, but never to solve social problems in a functional society. All of the parties, candidates and governments names herein, and the founders of the USA and CSA, agree/agreed with me on this point.
I have supported Ron Paul every time he ran for President or Congress. I’ve never lived in his congressional district, but always donated each time he ran since I first heard of him from friends in 1974 (that first time without success) to 2010, and both donated and voted for him each time he ran for President as a Libertarian or Republican. He wasn’t running in the general election in 2012. I supported him in the primary and Virgil Goode in the general. My point was made in context. I stated it in the last paragraph, so there’s no point in repeating it yet again.
Ron Paul doesn’t prefer shootouts in the streets to law and order as means of solving social problems. Neither do the Constitution Party or any Libertarian nominees, at least far as their campaigns go.
Your understanding of libertarian is not shared by the vast majority of libertarians, or even anarchist libertarians.
You keep babbling about some totalitarian alternative I support. I oppose totalitarianism, and you are plain and simple lying in saying I don’t support the limited government sought by the founders of the USA and CSA. The aims of the Constitution Party are very much in line with mine. Howard Phillips and I generally agreed on almost all political issues, almost all the time.
Despite your confident ignorance, troll moron, I am far from being anyone’s sycophant.
None of the government’s of any countries or regions you named prefer shootouts over law and order as means of solving social problems, including abortion, sodomy, transgenderism , etc. Only an arrogant lying troll POS intentionally misses the point as much as NUNYA.
I don’t seek to be called a libertarian, troll moron useless idiot. They lost my support with the same type of idiocy you display here.
I’m for making abortion, homosexualism, Sodomy, and transgenderism illegal, and prosecuted and punished through a legal law enforcement and judicial process. The means are far more justified than solving these issues through shootouts in the streets.
You must have missed where I said I’d rather not have libertarian advocacy – even of the most wretched sort, such as you put forth or mimic or parody to the highest level of absurdity – made illegal.
I think your type of “libertarian”, or the type you pretend to be or are parodying, should be merely shunned.
I think I ought to, at the very least, no longer directly address you going forward. Further egregious lies may be corrected or ignored, we shall see.
As for the other end of how society might handle your(?) Ilk, which is once again most certainly NOT my wish; I don’t believe for a moment you missed that explicitly stated twice – there’s nothing to try. Law enforcement is quite capable and competent to deal with mentally ill, antisocial miscreants who advocate shootouts in the streets as preferable ways of solving social problems to law and order.
I’ll be statist enough to let law enforcement folks handle it, and libertarian enough to advocate shunning first, and less extreme means to neutralize the threat if it does ever come to that.
The “final solution” to the nonpeaceful anarchist problem is NOT what I advocate, and I’m retired – law enforcement would handle it, even if it came to that. Your threats are empty. I don’t want to see you hunted down, and if you do get hunted down, it will be by much younger men than me.
For the sake of the many decent libertarians I’ve known over the years, I certainly hope you fail in redefining libertarian as unpeaceful anarchist in the public mind. I highly suspect that, and creating an overly broad overreaction, is precisely your goal.
Having caught you directly and repeatedly lying about me and my personal views in particular, it seems even more likely. Occams razor indicates you are a TROLL. Troll,be gone, and shame on you for besmirching libertarians with your foul stench.
White Men Can Trump!
White Men Can Trump!
White Men Can Trump!
Oh dear, my exhaustively reasoned response seems to been too much for the totalitarian troll and now it’s stuck in a loop spamming the same vulgar drivel over and over again.
Your exhaustively unreasonable drivel seems to be spammed over and over, agent of chaos/false flag totalitarian troll, and explaining why it’s unreasonable drivel over and over is indeed exhausting, unnecessary, and a waste of effort. Reasonable people understood it the first time,without having to have it explained.
As a lifelong opponent of totalitarianism, I apologize for giving in to the blatant time wasting troll’s provocation, as well as for the technical glitch which made it look like the latest unnecessary explanation – as if the troll was insane enough to need such an explanation, much less to have it reworded yet again, or as if anyone capable of understanding common sense hadn’t already understood it – look like it hadn’t posted successfully twice, when it appears that it had.
– Mr. White, aka Whitey.
Actually, my apology should be to any other readers , if any remain, for addressing the troll directly yet again. I apologize, and will not address it yet again.
Lord, did us of the false flag agent of chaos totalitarian troll Nunya, and send it back to hell to spend eternity with its maker forthwith. In Jesus holy name,
Amen!
Corrected:
Lord, rid us of the false flag agent of chaos totalitarian troll Nunya, and send it back to hell to spend eternity with its maker forthwith. In Jesus holy name,
Amen!
Do not cast pearls of wisdom before swine. It’s like wrestling with a pig, or attempting to teach one to sing. Putting lipstick on it doesn’t work, either. Sooner or later, the persistent pig “wins,” after the perpetually wasted effort becomes too boaring to bear.
Take it from an agricultural porcine specialist.
Pig Farmer, mea culpa. You are correct, sir.
I didn’t jump into the pointless fray. It was a general piece of advice for whoever may have discernment.
Incidentally, the Constitution Party did, at least once, nominate an anarchist: the great and wise Joseph Sobran for VP with Howard Phillips, in 2000. Pat Buchanan was running as well, as the Reform Party nominee, and ended up winning my vote, much as he had during 1990s primaries.
Sobran, unfortunately, had to resign from the ticket due to schedule conflicts. Phillips created what was then the US Taxpayers Party as a potential vehicle for Buchanan, who ended up using Perot’s instead.