# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  Libertarian debate w/ Stossel on Fox Business April 1 & 8- FULL VIDEO ADDED

## jct74

[update] full debate - Part 1 (aired April 1) and Part 2 (aired April 8) combined

Part 2 starts at 41:00




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQPWiCgAjDo


--


http://www.lp.org/news/press-release...-show-in-april
https://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/good-...ted-by-stossel

----------


## r3volution 3.0

So far, Gary focusing on economic issues, McAffee focusong on social issues...

Oh, and McAfee's as off-putting as Gary, albeit in a different way

----------


## r3volution 3.0

Peterson was sounding the least off-putting...

...until he used the term "freedom ninjas"

----------


## opal

ROFL.. reasonable democrats

----------


## r3volution 3.0

As far as the flavor of the rhetoric:

Peterson = Paulish
Gary = CATO-ish
McAfee = ....uh, peyote?

----------


## rg17

Peterson is sounding very much like Ron Paul.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

Peterson just quoted Bastiat.

----------


## opal

commercial breaks .. arghhghghghghgh.. gonna fall asleep

Not thrilled that when asked "what would you cut"  only GJ answered that question.. with specifics

----------


## mac_hine

So far I'm digging McAfee. Peterson is a pandering douche. This is the same guy who bashed Ron Paul on Facebook. I'm underwhelmed by Johnson. I don't think he wants to be there.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

McAfee in his element talking about cybersecurity, as you might imagine.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> So far I'm digging McAfee. Peterson is a pandering douche. This is the same guy who bashed Ron Paul on Facebook. I'm underwhelmed by Johnson. I don't think he wants to be there.


That's what I thought.

----------


## opal

OMG.. thousands of Grizzled Veterans ????  this guy... Petersen...

----------


## rg17

Who is the best of out of the 3?

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> Who is the best of out of the 3?


At least McAfee knows what liberty means.. In real life.

----------


## opal

> Who is the best of out of the 3?



I think we'd have to have a  Frankenstein kit to make one

I'm leaning toward McAfee too though - ever so slightly

----------


## mac_hine

Peterson reminds of of Ted Cruz/Hitlery Clinton , in the same sociopathic sort of way. I don't believe anything he says. The dude's a creep.

----------


## fisharmor

Someone overseas is livestreaming it on YT

----------


## mac_hine

Wasn't there another libertarian candidate? An anarchist. I think his first name might have been Darryl....

Edit: Deryll Perry

http://youtu.be/2bc-Ussr9HM

----------


## r3volution 3.0

Since none of them have the slightest chance of assuming office, I care about their policy stances only to the extent that they represent something recognizable to the masses as libertarianism - since the whole purpose of supporting the LP this cycle is to increase the profile of libertarianism. It looks like they're all well within acceptable ideological limits, so the only consideration is who can draw the most votes from independents or disaffected GOPers/Dems. 

I'm leaning toward Gary for this reason; he's not going to wow anyone, but he's not going to do anything really stupid either. He's the safe choice.

McAfee's a wildcard: more charisma (at times) but could well go berserk and do something stupid. 

Peterson's an unknown, to me anyway, but his Paulish rhetoric is playing fairly well tonight.

----------


## rg17

> Wasn't there another libertarian candidate? An anarchist. I think his first name might have been Darryl....
> 
> Edit: Deryll Perry
> 
> http://youtu.be/2bc-Ussr9HM


He dropped out.

----------


## fisharmor

Gary Johnson thinks bakers should be forced to bake cakes.

He's pulling 11% only for one reason: because he's not the other two.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

Gary in favor of anti-discrimination laws, Peterson and McAfee opposed.

...small potatoes, except that Gary's very out of step with the GOP this cycle.

----------


## mac_hine

Nobody mentions property rights.

----------


## presence

Gary just got owned by McAffee and Peterson on austrian take on gay wedding cake

----------


## mac_hine

> He dropped out.


Thanks. Wasn't aware of that.

----------


## opal

nooooooooo.. buffering

----------


## bunklocoempire

That's not really a $5 sandwich honey...

----------


## mac_hine

Woman aren't paid less than men. Peterson wins there.

----------


## rg17

> That's not really a $5 sandwich honey...


Make me a Sandwich.

----------


## opal

well.. that was short.. not even an hour.
As debates go.. I think this one was easy to watch.

I will try and remember to watch part 2 next week..  so much they didn't get to..

----------


## rg17

The Libertarian debate is so much better compared to the Rebloodicans amd Democrips.

----------


## mac_hine

So who won? I say Mcafee. Peterson second. Johnson a distant third.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

Bottom line, Gary will get the most votes.

He'll be the nominee if the LP has any sense.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

LOL, immediately following the Libertarian debate Fox is airing a propaganda piece about how the military is underfunded.

----------


## kahless

Did they discuss immigration and securing the border at all?

I wish FBN or someone would do a Constitution Party debate.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl



----------


## r3volution 3.0

^^^That was unfortunate, I winced.

----------


## bunklocoempire

Now bake me a cake, handsome?  (the  smooch?)

I guess I missed that part.

----------


## Libertas Aut Mortis

Here is my take:

Johnson: 
Worse than I thought. His social  policy is in no way libertarian, it is purely libertine. He wants to use  government coercion to implement socially "liberal" policy. I am just  not okay with government having any sort of role whatsoever in that  regard. I am so sick of hearing that libertarians are "socially  liberal". I am for one, not, at all. However, that is my private virtue.  Anyone who has seen A Clockwork Orange should understand that forcing  morality completely destroys morality. You have to accept the fact that  people have different values. Forcing "conservative" social law is no  worse than forcing "liberal" social law. GET RID OF THE DAMN LAWS.  PERIOD. END OF STORY. His economic policy is absolutely clear that he is  in no way respectful of property rights or individual liberty. He is an  egalitarian leftist who leans towards fiscal responsibility. No thank  you. 


McAfee:
He is charming in a weird sort of way. I've  called him "a character with a character". I really like his  genuineness. However, I am measuring policy, not person (or at least im  trying not to). I think he is fantastic when thinking about Cyber  Defense, but I am not sure how he could implement it in a constitutional  or libertarian way. Outside of this, I have relatively few complaints,  he seems well rounded, a little more pragmatic than principled perhaps,  but overall, a solid candidate. 

Peterson:

Peterson is a  complete f*ckboy. However; if I support any of the 3, it will be him. I  have no desire to be a Freedom Ninja...actually, that sounds kinda  cool....but behind his stupid slogans and mannerisms, he has a fantastic  philosophical mindset. He is a Constitutionalist when attempting to  'get things done', such as war with ISIS, but bringing back Letters of M  and A. That is a fantastic position. He respects Liberty and Property  clearly...and of very particular interest to me, he respects life with  the same vigor. I do not really care how you craft the argument of  pro-choice as an issue of Liberty, it is an issue of Life for the child.  Now, if this issue did not exist...Peterson would still be my guy of  the 3. He simply comes off as a Paul-ite. 

So if i could mix and match them all.

I  would take Petersons policy positions and philosophy, his youthful and  upbeat energy and enthusiasm, and maybe a few of his corny jokes, and  cross them with McAfees ruggedness, real world intellect, and weird  persona....and I would go fly Johnson to the Sanders campaign so he can  start making stump speeches for his ideological ally.


EDIT: I like McAfee more and more every time I hear him. I am highly concerned that Peterson is all Slogan, no Backbone. It's not that I dislike Peterson, it is that he seems more concerned about sound-bites and saying something edgy than a mature articulation of his philosophy. McAfee suffers from the exact opposite issue. I would like to see them run together.....and Johnson can take a hike.

----------


## Libertas Aut Mortis

McAfee's Time in Belize, Video Released by his YouTube Channel (i don't know how to pop the video up in the thread itself, so either click the link or do me a favor and link it correctly  ) The second link is Alex Jones and McAfee in talking about Belize.

https://youtu.be/fIaUlqhLmaw

https://youtu.be/irS5GRQt_KE

Thank you Opal....ahhh, why is this hyperlinked...I wish I was capable of understanding technology

----------


## opal

here ya go




well crapamundo! the link shows in the edit.. but I forgot, I can't see vid embeds .. still no clue why

----------


## afwjam

Crappy but something, debate starts at 2hr48m

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

I'm not with McAfee on everything, but he's by far the best out of the three. I still say we should sell the SF Bay Area to him, whole-cloth. Give him ultimate and complete executive power over running the place, and see what he does over a five year period.

----------


## misterx

> ^^^That was unfortunate, I winced.


That was just plain weird.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

Petersen opened by calling himself an "anti-establishment" candidate.  What a f@cking joke.  He has trolled hardcore for the establishment on 9/11 and any other number of issues.  He really needs to STFU.

----------


## Bern

> Here is my take:


Fair enough, but I don't think anyone outside of the LP and remnants of the Ron Paul crowd are going to take him seriously.  He's just too young and his quick, canned answers don't inspire confidence that he has really given things serious thought.  Imo, of the 3, he would likely do the worst in the general election.  He really should try and cut his teeth on a local or statewide race and get some experience in the great sausage factory.  Would help his credibility tremendously.

I really wanted GJ to shine as he has some credibility having been a two term governor with a record to back his rhetoric, but I really thought McAfee won round 1.  He (McAfee) seemed a bit nervous at times, but he still managed to be responsive, clear and coherent and present himself as a serious individual.  I thought of the 3, he is the most likely to capture some interest from the broader electorate (outside the LP) based upon what I saw last night.

----------


## jct74

Part 1 of debate aired on April 1




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iib0nyobUQM

----------


## jct74

Stossel interview on Fox News yesterday promoting the debate




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jK5snyfGX84

----------


## Jan2017

found this about Petersen . . .

*Austin Petersen on the Perception of Isolationism

*You know, obviously terrorism is a threat but we have got to resist these politicans who are going to fear monger as an excuse to take away our liberties. 
Stand up to people who use every tragedy as an excuse to take away our constitutional rights.

Now listen. Thomas Jefferson had the Islamic terrorists of his day. He still managed to fight them Constitutionally. 
After 9/11, Congressman Ron Paul went to the Congress and asked for Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Congress should update these letters. 
Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution would give us powerful tools to fight ISIS in a way that doesn’t involve invasion, occupation, and nation building.

http://austinpetersen2016.com/peters...rum-responses/


---------------
Not really sure what he means though when he said. . . "Congress should update these letters" - misspeak or misunderstanding.
Letters of Marque were used hundreds of times in the War of 1812

---------------
There is a poll on the debate . . . not very many responses.
http://theconservatarianusa.com/poll...e-or-petersen/

----------


## farreri

I'm cool with a Johnson/McAfee ticket.

----------


## undergroundrr

Brilliant article by a young fellow at... of all places... The Blaze.  Totally echoes my views and I'll bet those of many others here.

http://www.theblaze.com/contribution...g-libertarian/

Excerpt: 




> "When Paul dropped out in February to focus on his Senate campaign, I was in shock. I couldnt forgive Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) for his foreign policy and his betrayal of criminal justice reform, along with his position on the USA Freedom Act. Gov. John Kasich (R-Ohio) is a delusional man pretending to be the moderate choice in this three-man race. And Trump is a progressive masking himself as a right-wing populist who has given the greatest performance in the history of American politics.
> 
> 
> I chose the Libertarian Party after Paul dropped out. My beliefs in limited government, restrained military action, immigration reform, ending the War on Drugs and protecting civil liberties clashed too much with the Republican Party. I cannot in good conscience vote for a Democrat, a televangelist, or a moderate.
> 
> I agree with the Libertarian Party far more than I agree with the Republican Party. They espouse limited government and believe in it, unlike Republicans such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Trump. They understand that it is the free-market, not the government, that creates jobs. They understand the War on Drugs has gone too far and that is has done nothing but make things worse. And most importantly, they understand that the neo-conservative foreign policy the United States has implemented for the past twenty-five years is a disaster.
> 
> Paul did, but hes gone now."

----------


## Jordan Liberty

Johnson, as a former governor, has the best chance of getting more votes in an election. Personally, I like McAfee, but his personality and questionable history would hurt him in an election. Petersen says all the right things, but he just seemed to be pandering to the libertarian audience the entire debate. I'm sure he believes what he says, but it seemed like he was looking for the applause like a libertarian Rubio (yuck). I'll be voting for McAfee in the primary. He understands the libertarian philosophy, and he brings something to the table that none of the other candidates can, cybersecurity. His explanation of a terrorist plot pattern analysis has me intrigued. It may sound like science-fiction ala The Minority Report, but I would like to hear more details on how he can build such a system. I would happily vote for Johnson if he's the LP nominee. For some reason Petersen rubs me the wrong way, but he'd be a better option than the mainstream choices.

----------


## afwjam

Mcafee.

----------


## farreri

> Personally, I like McAfee, but his personality and questionable history would hurt him in an election.


What questionable history?

----------


## staerker

I think if McAfee got into the general election debates, he would actually have a chance of winning.

He _seems_ smart, rugged, and comprehensible. Has a toned down Trump vibe, but everyone will be sick of both Hilary and Trump.

----------


## Jordan Liberty

> What questionable history?


This was addressed in the debate. He was a person of interest in a murder case in Belize. Some actually believe McAfee did it, but it was never proven. He was also convicted of a DUI. He has a nice response to these accusations, however. He cleared up that he was only a person of interest, not a suspect, and he owned up to the DUI. I just know that if he were an actual threat to the mainstream candidates the media would hammer him on these accusations.




> I think if McAfee got into the general election debates, he would actually have a chance of winning.
> 
> He _seems_ smart, rugged, and comprehensible. Has a toned down Trump vibe, but everyone will be sick of both Hilary and Trump.


Agreed. He has way more personality than Johnson, and he provides clear and concise answers.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> This was addressed in the debate. He was a person of interest in a murder case in Belize. Some actually believe McAfee did it, but it was never proven. He was also convicted of a DUI. He has a nice response to these accusations, however. He cleared up that he was only a person of interest, not a suspect, and he owned up to the DUI. I just know that if he were an actual threat to the mainstream candidates the media would hammer him on these accusations.


His story goes as follows;

-He went to Belize to live a nice life and to spend some of his millions in researching antibiotics through new techniques which he was hoping to find material for in the jungle there. 
-He was approached to do a 2mln$ donation by a local politician.
-He refused.
-His lab got raided, his dog was shot with a US supplied assault rifle, he was handcuffed and not treated well while they destroyed half a million dollars worth of his property. 
-They didn't find any evidence of illegal drug production.
-No chargers were filed, he was released.
-Shortly after, same politician comes back to him, says he's sorry about what happened to him and if he reconsidered his donation. 

-He then claims to have at some point donated a bunch of computers to the government of Belize onto which he installed key-loggers and other monitoring software. 
-He then claims to have uncovered a lot of criminal activity by high placed officials in the Belize government.  [Including selling fake identities]

-At some point in all of this he had fights with his neighbor about his dog that barked.
-His neighbor had made complaints about that. 

This is near the end;

-At some point McAfee's dog was killed. 
-Then his neighbor was killed. 
-Then he ran off because he felt like he was set up. 



Now this is the story I remember him telling from several interviews. I believe all the facts are as he mentioned them. 

As far as I'm aware his story isn't contradicted by anyone.

----------


## jct74

Justin likes Austin Peterson

----------


## jct74

*Poll: Who won the Libertarian Presidential debate on Stossel?*

http://www.lp.org/blogs/wes-benedict...ate-on-stossel


Gary Johnson
20% (310 votes)

John McAfee
16% (255 votes)

Austin Petersen
52% (811 votes)

I loved them all equally!
2% (28 votes)

Too close to call.
3% (49 votes)

I didn't watch the debate.
6% (92 votes)

Other
1% (15 votes)


Total votes: 1560

----------


## Mad Raven

It's encouraging to see the LP debate draw the elusive young white male demographic. That's been a tough group for the LP to reach out to. A few more of those guys and we've got it won!

----------


## Champ

Few thoughts after watching this.

Petersen - Probably like this guy the least of the bunch.  Was a producer for Freedom Watch with the Judge, so that's good.  Seemed to have too many pre-scripted answers, similar to the crap we usually get from Dems/Repubs.  He has a certain polish to his speaking ability and that may appeal to some, but I don't get the impression he knows the value behind the words he is saying.  The people pointing out he is similar to Rand are right, since he uses similar wording to some of the stuff Rand said in debates.  Maybe he used that as practice?

Johnson - Same old Johnson we got familiar with last time.  The whole socially liberal, fiscally conservative motto he goes by is still there.  I guess he is likely most appealing to new/soft libertarians and disenfranchised liberals looking for a tougher guy on economics but with all the typical democrat trite.  He seems like a really nice guy, but I guess after being stuck between semi-nodding and then shaking my head through most of his answers for the first hour of the debate, I'm finding myself less of a fan than I thought I would be.  Libertarian lite.

McAfee - I can't put my finger on it yet, but I like this guy.  It seems like he stands by far the firmest in his convictions out of the 3 so far.  He obviously has some crazy past events and likes showing off when he gets the opportunity.  I like his looking ahead to the future model, with a lot of emphasis on technology.  He gave all the best answers for most of the questions as far as I could tell and he seems to be genuine and straight to the point with most of his answers.  He may be lacking in some areas, since some of his answers seemed to be quick and/or vague.  Agree with the guy on the Trump thing.  He is kind of the libertarian Trump of this cycle.  I could see him being considered too much of a maverick type damaging his chances to win the nomination.


Altogether, I enjoyed this a heck of a lot more than typical crap we have been watching for the past 8 months.  All 3 of these guys would be better than anyone still out there, although that's not saying much.  I'm glad this happened and hope we see more of it.  Thank you John Stossel for making this happen.

If I had to sum it up, Petersen was the most textbook politician of the bunch, Johnson is the safest bet since he ran in 2012 and has broader appeal, and McAfee is the dark horse cyber guru with some flare.

----------


## Bern

> ...
> Austin Petersen
> 52% (811 votes)
> 
> Total votes: 1560


Internet poll + freedom ninjas

----------


## brandon

I'm only halfway through this, but Austin Petersen is repugnant. He's like a Marco Rubio with slightly different talking points. 

Johnson and McAffee are both really interesting and I'd be happy to nominate either one.

I'm sure the party will $#@! it up and nominate Petersen though, just like they nominated Bob Barr (guhh.... why???)

Edit: Gary Johnson thinks bakers should be forced to make a gay nazi cake, or something. That's a pretty $#@!ing dumb position.

----------


## Champ

> Gary Johnson thinks bakers should be forced to make a gay nazi cake, or something. That's a pretty $#@!ing dumb position.


Yup, definitely a facepalm moment.  He is trying to broaden his appeal since this is still an unpopular stance nationwide, I guess, but alienates hardcore libertarians in the process with this type of rhetoric.

Agreed on the Petersen analogy for the most part, but I despised Rubio far more personally.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

Austin Peterson is a joke.

That's without even watching the debate.

----------


## economics102

nevermind...

----------


## idiom

Closing over-seas bases
applying the law equally to all
ending the fed
Leaving NATO
exiting trade agreements
Ending medical fraud and racketeering
Paying down the debt in 8 years

$#@!... thats Trump, not these bozos.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Closing over-seas bases


Trump isn't for closing all over sea bases.




> applying the law equally to all


Trump wishes to use the government to steal private property for his own gain. As such, and through many other examples, it is obvious he does not understand what rights are, much less applying the Law equally or at all.




> ending the fed


Trump agreed with the bailouts and has a faulty understanding of economics, at best. He has never advocated an abolition of the Fed.




> Leaving NATO


Empty rhetoric.




> exiting trade agreements


Yeah, sure.




> Ending medical fraud and racketeering


Uh huh.




> Paying down the debt in 8 years


That's a yuge promise. One would have to be dim to believe it.




> $#@!... thats Trump, not these bozos.


Yeah, you're a $#@!ing idiot.

----------


## idiom

> "I think we’re sitting on an economic bubble. A financial bubble. ... We’re not at 5 percent unemployment. We’re at a number that’s probably into the 20s if you look at the real number. That was a number that was devised, statistically devised, to make politicians – and in particular presidents – look good. And I wouldn’t be getting the kind of massive crowds that I’m getting if the number was a real number.





> "I’m talking about a bubble where you go into a very massive recession. Hopefully not worse than that, but a very massive recession. Look, we have money that’s so cheap right now. And if I want to borrow money, I can borrow all the money I want. But I’m rich. ... If somebody is a great, wonderful person, going to employ lots of people, a really talented businessperson, wants to borrow money, but they’re not rich? They have no chance ..."





> You have a situation where you have an inflated stock market. It started to deflate, but then it went back up again. Usually that’s a bad sign. That’s a sign of things to come.


Who does this remind you of? What other politicians blame America's woes on cheap money?


BTW none of the "liberty" candidates tackle the healthcare scam so cleanly as points 5 & 7 below, which together would cut medical costs by 80% in the US. Doing so would free up 12% of GDP. Not even Ron listed these for some reason that is beyond me.




> 5. Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.
> 
> 7. Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Who does this remind you of? What other politicians blame America's woes on cheap money?
> 
> 
> BTW none of the "liberty" candidates tackle the healthcare scam so cleanly as points 5 & 7 below, which together would cut medical costs by 80% in the US. Doing so would free up 12% of GDP. Not even Ron listed these for some reason that is beyond me.


Ron talked about how drugs should be allowed to be imported.

Trump, in the recent Chris Matthews interview, said our dollar is too strong.

----------


## idiom

> Trump, in the recent Chris Matthews interview, said our dollar is too strong.


The dude talks out both sides of his mouth.

But one of those sides is all of Ron Paul's talking points.

----------


## opal

hey..idio..... what do the last few post have to do with the Libertarian debate?(part 1) .. Trump wasn't in it.. does not belong in this thread

----------


## T.hill

> Considering he also likes natural-born Canadian Ted Cruz, that's really not saying much.


And Cruz is arguably the least bad candidate, which is why Justin endorsed him.

----------


## ProIndividual

The anarchist did pretty good.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

Love these guys^.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> And Cruz is arguably the least bad candidate, which is why Justin endorsed him.


Cruz is inarguaby a natural-born Canadian.  Anyone supporting him is inarguably a treasonist.

----------


## idiom

> hey..idio..... what do the last few post have to do with the Libertarian debate?(part 1) .. Trump wasn't in it.. does not belong in this thread


Just missing the part where they were being leading lights for liberty. Is all a bit woeful.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

bump

----------


## Origanalist

> bump


It will be interesting to see the second round, maybe some adjustments on their part. It's not like these guys get this opportunity as much as the gop an dems do.

----------


## opal

I think the whole thing was done at once and because Stossel only has an hour broadcast, they had to split he airing

----------


## T.hill

> Cruz is inarguaby a natural-born Canadian.  Anyone supporting him is inarguably a treasonist.


According to your understanding of the constitution, however being born to an American citizen is generally accepted as a sufficient condition to being considered a natural citizen of the United States. It could be argued that the current understanding is wrong, but either way I could care less tbh.

----------


## T.hill

You implying that he isn't a US citizen is an implication of your understanding of the constitution, not him being born in Canada or being a citizen of Canada of course.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> It will be interesting to see the second round, maybe some adjustments on their part. It's not like these guys get this opportunity as much as the gop an dems do.


I'm certainly going to be watching the next debate.

Will McAfee make some more killer statements?

Will Johnson make some more nazi cake comments?

Will Peterson make libertarianism sound bland still in a bookish, far away but correct way?
- - - 
It's a lot more interesting than the two party debates were anyway

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> I think the whole thing was done at once and because Stossel only has an hour broadcast, they had to split he airing


It will be a little bit different then seeing how candidates do on different days.  If you see any difference - it will just be perceptual

----------


## jct74

Looks like there will a stream here for part 2 of the debate, tonight at 9 pm ET




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3gazHEFQww

----------


## opal

yeah!  thanks


*you must spread some reputation around.......*

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> to someone else:
> Yeah, you're a $#@!ing idiot.


Dang, and from a libertarian debate     I'm looking forward to tonight's!

----------


## opal

argh.. the profanity filter is on again

----------


## opal

are we using this thread for part two or do we need a new one?

----------


## libertysource

My livestream 
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/SRA7LnZwJDW

----------


## opal

I have the youtube one open.. but thanks for the backup

----------


## jct74

> are we using this thread for part two or do we need a new one?


this thread works fine

----------


## jct74



----------

