# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  Sanford, Johnson, Ventura, or other?

## Virginia Libertarian

Personally, I'm voting for Johnson

----------


## ClayTrainor

Personally, Ventura but i really like Johnson alot.

----------


## angelatc

Sanford. Ventura governed like a Democrat - the people in MN didn't get a lot of liberty during his reign.  I lke Johnson well enough but unless he starts his campaign tomorrow he'll never get enough name recognition to be viable.

----------


## Sandra

Paul, Schiff

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Sanford. Ventura governed like a Democrat - the people in MN didn't get a lot of liberty during his reign.  I lke Johnson well enough but unless he starts his campaign tomorrow he'll never get enough name recognition to be viable.


Well said.

----------


## pacelli

I'll decide when I see who has a presidential campaign and examine their platforms.  The next candidate I support will not be a 'reluctant candidate'.

----------


## Andrew Ryan

> Paul, Schiff


qft

----------


## Elwar

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com

----------


## Dan Chisholm

I like Mark Sanford, but I also like Mitt Romney.  I think both would make fantastic presidents or vice presidents because they both stand up for what's best for the country even if it's not popular.

----------


## Call Me V

> Sanford. Ventura governed like a Democrat - the people in MN didn't get a lot of liberty during his reign.  I lke Johnson well enough but unless he starts his campaign tomorrow he'll never get enough name recognition to be viable.


I agree 100%.

To be brutally honest...

Johnson - He was governor too long ago for anyone to recognize him
Ventura - Too many people view him as a nut and don't take him seriously
Sanford - Sanford is our best candidate (unless paul runs again)

Sanford/Paul ticket would be incredible.

We have to unite our cause!!!

We either have to pick Johnson or Sanford. We can not be divided.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Paul, Schiff


Paul and someone....but definitely Ron while we still got him! If we really want this he needs to be the one that runs. Everything he's said has come to be and I bet people that didn't give him a shot last time will next time around.

----------


## Kotin

> Personally, Ventura but i really like Johnson alot.


this.

----------


## nullvalu

At this point, I like Johnson the best.

----------


## thasre

I know everyone thinks, "But Sanford's more viable than Johnson!" Which is precisely why we at least need to throw enough support behind Johnson to get him some recognition. He's way better than Sanford. Sanford can be a backup... he's obviously going to run anyway, and he's already being given semi-frontrunner status (considering how many people hate or are indifferent to Palin, Huckabee, and Romney). 

We need to make Johnson a realistic candidate... after all, can you imagine if we managed to get a Sanford/Johnson ticket or a Johnson/Sanford ticket?

----------


## Beanie_N

Sanford 2012, I think he's our only hope because he's the only one of the three that the GOP mainstream actually really likes.

----------


## RSLudlum

I like Johnson but I don't know if he's got national exposure enough.  If he's going to take a shot at it he needs to start getting exposure by the beginning of next year or even during congressional runs next year.  Sanford is getting the kind of exposure that he needs to put up a run in 2012, esp. since his stint as governor is up in 2010.

----------


## AJ Antimony

I like Ventura and Johnson, but I'm very suspicious about Sanford. He seems far too establishment for me. If the rank and file Republicans welcome him with open arms, then there is a serious problem with him supporting our views. His record on ontheissues does not seem very libertarian to me. I actually think we're at the point now in this country where the people seen as oddball-nutjobs are actually the best candidates/people out there.

----------


## AJ Antimony

Wow some posts in this thread certainly sound like the typical politician Republicans we've had for a long time--"Yeah there are guys like Johnson that better represent our views, but we have to go with Sanford because he's electable!"

$#@!ing pitiful.

----------


## scandinaviany3

> I agree 100%.
> 
> To be brutally honest...
> 
> Johnson - He was governor too long ago for anyone to recognize him
> Ventura - Too many people view him as a nut and don't take him seriously
> Sanford - Sanford is our best candidate (unless paul runs again)
> 
> Sanford/Paul ticket would be incredible.
> ...


The big thing about sanford is he and ron supported each other in congress when no one else did.

Ron in NH would mention his name as one of the main choices he would have made for his vp.

Sanford if he is smart would make ron his vp to protect his life or put ron as sec of treas. to protect the country and change monetary policy

----------


## Lucille

Are we voting for who we want or who we think has the best shot?

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> I agree 100%.
> 
> To be brutally honest...
> 
> Johnson - He was governor too long ago for anyone to recognize him
> Ventura - Too many people view him as a nut and don't take him seriously
> Sanford - Sanford is our best candidate (unless paul runs again)
> 
> Sanford/Paul ticket would be incredible.
> ...


Excluding the most popular and well-known choice (Ventura), while playing up the worst of the three (pro-war, McCain-and-Bilderberg supporting Sanford) is NOT the way to unify us. Sounds more like the way to sabatoge us.

----------


## Captain America

Paul/Schiff

----------


## Lucille

Sanford-Johnson with Paul as Treasury Secretary.

----------


## Call Me V

> Excluding the most popular and well-known choice (Ventura), while playing up the worst of the three (pro-war, McCain-and-Bilderberg supporting Sanford) is NOT the way to unify us. Sounds more like the way to sabatoge us.


Ventura = Fail

He is not a viable candidate.

----------


## Call Me V

> Sanford-Johnson with Paul as Treasury Secretary.


I think i'd have a heart attack of joy.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Sanford-Johnson with Paul as Treasury Secretary.


A President-elect Sanford would probably shock us the same way Obama has shocked his liberal/pro-change supporters by appointing the sameo CFR-approved set of insiders, with no Paulites. How many people in Sanford's *current* adminstration can be reasonably called part of the liberty movement? i say zero. Sanford = fail.

----------


## gaazn

The RP supporters are already splitting between Sanford and Johnson.  Is it a regional split or just preference?  I like Sanford more because I don't know who Johnson is because he is in the west.  He was not supported initially by the GOP establishment in his run for Congress or Governor, and after becoming Congressman and Governor, he had to battle his own party.

----------


## Call Me V

> A President-elect Sanford would probably shock us the same way Obama has shocked his liberal/pro-change supporters by appointing the sameo CFR-approved set of insiders, with no Paulites. How many people in Sanford's *current* adminstration can be reasonably called part of the liberty movement? i say zero. Sanford = fail.


Well I guess it's just a matter of 

A. Who you like
B. Who actually has a chance of winning

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Wow some posts in this thread certainly sound like the typical politician Republicans we've had for a long time--"Yeah there are guys like Johnson that better represent our views, but we have to go with Sanford because he's electable!"
> 
> $#@!ing pitiful.


it's not $#@!ing pitiful to choose a candidate that stands a chance of winning.  Electability is a viable concern.  I believe that Johnson is electable, that's why I voted for him.  He needs to work on name recognition, but my support for him is based largely on his electability.  Remember, this election won't be decided by we the few, dedicated activists, it will be decided by the people at large - which is why electability is such a major, reasonable concern.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Excluding the most popular and well-known choice (Ventura), while playing up the worst of the three (pro-war, McCain-and-Bilderberg supporting Sanford) is NOT the way to unify us. Sounds more like the way to sabatoge us.


Ventura is not the best choice here.  C'mon now.  We've already clashed over this, but Ventura carries the shackles of 9/11 trutherism, which effectively destroys any chance he has of winning the presidency.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Are we voting for who we want or who we think has the best shot?


I think we're voting for who will be the best candidate.  Now assuming that we're all thinking strategically, that decision involves weighing and balancing both factors you mention above.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Paul/Schiff


Schiff needs to run for a lesser office - VP requires at least some political experience.  And Paul is too old.  It's sad but true.

----------


## johnrocks

My "long shot" pick is Gary Johnson but I like what I've see with Sanford and so far could support him.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Ventura is not the best choice here.  C'mon now.  We've already clashed over this, but Ventura carries the shackles of 9/11 trutherism, which effectively destroys any chance he has of winning the presidency.


You come on now. You've imperiously decreed Ventura unelectable *without a drop of proof* that his mentioning 9/11 makes him not viable. I've just pointed out that seems to be merely a preoccupation on your part, not the demonstrated view of voters. YOU have a problem with the issue, therefore, of course, you think most everybody else must have a problem. BTW, how are you doing on those 250+ documented 9/11 truth issues I linked you to?

Without question, Ventura is a more interesting speaker, and is more well known nationally than both Sanford or Johnson put together. There is zero evidence so far that Johnson will catch fire, and zero evidence that Sanford is even part of the liberty movement when push comes to shove (again, who exactly are the liberty people in his current administration?). It has yet to be demonstrated how Johnson or Sanford will fare better given the current GOP climate, so I fail to see where any of this dedicated Jesse-baiting is justified.

----------


## JoshLowry

> Well I guess it's just a matter of 
> 
> A. Who you like
> B. Who actually has a chance of winning


I'm sure glad I didn't support Romney or McCain because they had a "chance of winning."

Sanford is a trojan horse in my opinion.

Johnson seems to be much more on the right track.  I don't care if he has zero name recognition.  We changed that once before.

----------


## Call Me V

> I'm sure glad I didn't support Romney or McCain because they had a "chance of winning."
> 
> Sanford is a trojan horse in my opinion.
> 
> Johnson seems to be much more on the right track.  I don't care if he has zero name recognition.  We changed that once before.


I'd rather have Romney than Obama.

----------


## Young Paleocon

The fact that Ventura is a truther makes him nonviable plain and simple.

----------


## ClockwiseSpark

> My "long shot" pick is Gary Johnson but I like what I've see with Sanford and so far could support him.


Johnson is my "long shot" pick as well. Sadly, miracles aside, I will not be supporting Sanford. I trust him about as far as I can throw my house.

The last thing we need is another Reagan.

----------


## AJ Antimony

> The fact that Ventura is a truther makes him nonviable plain and simple.


Really? Wanna bet on that?

Let me remind you of a MN poll taken months ago for MN Senate... This was when Jesse Ventura was considering running for the seat. 

As an undeclared, Independent, and a "truther," he polled 24% state wide. I'd image if he decided to run, he would have gone up to 30~%.

Sounds viable to me. How did third party candidates do in 2008 again? Anything close to that? Didn't think so.

----------


## Young Paleocon

I'm not saying that this is solely about Ventura, but if our movement gets fully behind a truther for President we will be forever tainted as the truther movement.  This is the perception we will give off, and any seriousness original bestowed on us will be relinquished.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> I'm not saying that this is solely about Ventura, but if our movement gets fully behind a truther for President we will be forever tainted as the truther movement.  This is the perception we will give off, and any seriousness original bestowed on us will be relinquished.


More negative supposition, with no substantiation. We cannot bow down to elite establishment marginalization games forever, that is how we got into our current mess. "No, we can't talk about ending the Fed, or the IRS, our global troop deployments or whatever, it will brand us as extremists." The entire Paul campaign was a repudiation of that traditional timidity, and it challenged the elite's hold on defining 'serious' or mainstream thought. If we don't ever speak the truth on these matters, things will stay exactly the same. We all understand this about every issue, it seems, except 9/11.

The entire conceptual framework for our current foreign interventions and domestic omni-survelliance is 'we have to do this because they may get us again.' Our rational arguments will not overcome the fear mongering atmosphere set by false flag operations---unless we speak the truth about how regularly these ops are used to emotionally sway the public. We already tried it the non-truthers' way, and saw that Paul's distancing himself from 9/11 did not gain him a single primary win, nor prevent him from being blacked out by the MSM. Let's try things differently with the next candidate, otherwise the next false flag will likely take us into yet a new round of wars and domestic lockdowns. If we don't ever speak the truth on these matters, things will stay exactly the same.

----------


## Calpico

Cynthia McKinney ran as a truther and look at how well she did.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> You come on now. You've imperiously decreed Ventura unelectable *without a drop of proof* that his mentioning 9/11 makes him not viable. I've just pointed out that seems to be merely a preoccupation on your part, not the demonstrated view of voters. YOU have a problem with the issue, therefore, of course, you think most everybody else must have a problem.


I imperiously decree it as a person with twenty years experience strategizing political campaigns.  My evidence is numerous polls that suggest that while a great number of people are dissatisfied with the government's explanations surrounding 9/11, very few agree with the idea of open complicity by the US government in the attacks.  Judging by the polls I've seen, belief in the possibility of US government complicity in the 9/11 attacks hovers around 25% - and this is just people, such as myself, who believe in the _possibility_ of government complicity.  Here's a good analysis of the polls:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_opinion_polls




> BTW, how are you doing on those 250+ documented 9/11 truth issues I linked you to?


As I told you in the relevant thread to which you have yet to respond, I started going down your list, found numerous items of questionable credulity, and decided to stop wasting my time.  Take a moment to re-read my post, and please respond in the appropriate thread.




> Without question, Ventura is a more interesting speaker, and is more well known nationally than both Sanford or Johnson put together.


Your first statement is your personal opinion.  Your second statement is true, but unfortunately does not carry enough weight to justify him running considering his many liabilities and the simple reality of the Presidential race's dynamics.




> There is zero evidence so far that Johnson will catch fire,


There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Johnson will be a strong candidate.  Of course there is no way to prove the future, we can only speculate, but looking at the man's background and characteristics he proves a strong candidate.




> and zero evidence that Sanford is even part of the liberty movement when push comes to shove (again, who exactly are the liberty people in his current administration?).


I agree that Sanford is questionable on these grounds, and have argued that very point on these threads.




> It has yet to be demonstrated how Johnson or Sanford will fare better given the current GOP climate, so I fail to see where any of this dedicated Jesse-baiting is justified.


There is no current GOP climate, that's why the time is ripe for this movement.  The GOP is splintered and without a rudder - every camp, ours included, is jockeying for control.

----------


## Gage

Either Johnson or Ron, if he runs again, in the GOP primaries. After that, if neither of them doesn't get the nomination then I will fully support Jesse Ventura 100% up to election day. If we do get a liberty candidate in the Republican nomination though, I really hope Jesse holds off on a run until 2016 or 2020; luckily Jesse will only be in his 60s by the latter.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Really? Wanna bet on that?
> 
> Let me remind you of a MN poll taken months ago for MN Senate... This was when Jesse Ventura was considering running for the seat. 
> 
> As an undeclared, Independent, and a "truther," he polled 24% state wide. I'd image if he decided to run, he would have gone up to 30~%.
> 
> Sounds viable to me. How did third party candidates do in 2008 again? Anything close to that? Didn't think so.


You're taking a lot for granted.  Consider first that the poll was taken in his HOME STATE, where he served as Governor, which clearly serves as a buoy.  Consider also that the poll was taken before he entered the fray, which allows him to ride on certain buoys that would not exist once he declared.  And then consider that he wasn't running on trutherism.  I doubt many people, when asked about him, even knew he was a truther - in large part because he wasn't in the race and his feet weren't held to the fire on the issue by the other candidates.

----------


## Gage

> Really? Wanna bet on that?
> 
> Let me remind you of a MN poll taken months ago for MN Senate... This was when Jesse Ventura was considering running for the seat. 
> 
> As an undeclared, Independent, and a "truther," he polled 24% state wide. I'd image if he decided to run, he would have gone up to 30~%.
> 
> Sounds viable to me. How did third party candidates do in 2008 again? Anything close to that? Didn't think so.


Reminds me a little bit of Fred Thompson, actually. Tons of excitement and big poll numbers before he entered the race, but then it turned on him.

Luckilly though, Jesse isn't as unenergetic as Thompson was during his campaign, so maybe that was Fred's only downfall.

----------


## dr. hfn

precinct politics is more important

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Judging by the polls I've seen, belief in the possibility of US government complicity in the 9/11 attacks hovers around 25% - and this is just people, such as myself, who believe in the _possibility_ of government complicity.  Here's a good analysis of the polls:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_opinion_polls
> 
> As I told you in the relevant thread to which you have yet to respond, I started going down your list, found numerous items of questionable credulity, and decided to stop wasting my time.  Take a moment to re-read my post, and please respond in the appropriate thread.


Your mentioning polls and poll analysis is at least something, though the latter is still opinion. 25% is not fringe, and exceeds the percentages of support for many of Paul's positions by the mass public---so once again, why is 9/11 _singled out_ as creating 'non-viability?' As I mentioned in the other thread, to which you have yet to respond, I will not engage your contentious 9/11 skepticism, *that blows off hundreds of specific sources* (as above) with vague, undocumented rebuttals (about 'questionable credulity'). My time is also valuable. The reasonable basis for 9/11 truth and for a new inquiry is well established, the burden is on you to show otherwise:

http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Your mentioning polls and poll analysis is at least something, though the latter is still opinion.


Polls are opinion as well.  Public opinion is what determines elections, and analysis of polls is the best we can do to determine what will and what will not help a candidate get elected.




> 25% is not fringe, and exceeds the percentages of support for many of Paul's positions by the mass public---so once again, why is 9/11 _singled out_ as creating 'non-viability?'


To repeat, 25% is not the number of people who believe in 9/11 shenanigans, only the number of people who acknowledge the possibility of _some form_ of coverup.  As I stated, I count myself among that 25%, and I wouldn't even vote for a candidate who ran on trutherism.  So don't go mistaking that 25% as the number of people who would support a truther candidate.




> As I mentioned in the other thread, to which you have yet to respond, I will not engage your contentious 9/11 skepticism, *that blows off hundreds of specific sources* (as above) with vague, undocumented rebuttals (about 'questionable credulity').


I offered to engage the issues on a point by point, fact by fact basis and I have been nothing but open to that debate.  Please, make your claims in this thread and I'll be happy to reply specifically to what you claim, in this thread, to be fact.




> My time is also valuable. The reasonable basis for 9/11 truth and for a new inquiry is well established, the burden is on you to show otherwise:
> http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html


I already addressed this list.  I'm not wasting my time reading all 250 points as the first few are outright bull$#@! (Operation Northwoods and the plot for a TV show are about as far from smoking guns as you can get).  If there are any on that list that you consider to be genuine smoking guns (please read exactly what a smoking gun is and make sure the item qualifies) then please cut and paste them here and I'll be happy to reply.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

There have been many polls. According to Zogby, e.g., from 2004: "Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; *66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General*." Wanna parse that majority support for a new inquiry down to a slither?

You keep saying you've 'addressed' the list (in the way somebody ignorantly dismisses an encyclopedia), but despite empty rhetorical gestures 'to engage the issues'  you've repeatedly shown no good faith approach to the subject. If you have zero respect for over 250 mainstream sources, you will have zero for anything else presented, so debate is useless, and I absolutely will not waste my time on you.

I say again, the disproportionate attention given to this one issue is distorting some people's ability to back an appropriate candidate in 2012. I listed 6-7 major, fundamental things wrong with Sanford on several threads, with absolutely no breaking of the momentum for going with that Judas Goat. I have nothing much against Johnson, and think he could be a unifying person, but his obscurity, pro-choice stance, lack of flair or backstory (compared to Paul) is a  concern; these concerns have likewise been underdiscussed. But I find untenable the one-issue 'Ventura---9/11---non-starter' dismissals populating these threads.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> There have been many polls. According to Zogby, e.g., from 2004: "Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and Consciously Failed To Act;\


So what does that say to you?  That half of New Yorkers would support a truther candidate?  Here's the exact wording from the poll:

_"knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act,"_

Look at that wording.  It's a far cry from asking New Yorkers whether or not the US government "did" 9/11.  It's actually a rather mainstream accusation - gross negligence and failure to act on intel.  




> *66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New Yorks Attorney General*." Wanna parse that majority support for a new inquiry down to a slither?


Majority support for what?  You seem to be taking away a TON of meaning from this poll that simply is not there.  Calling for a new probe was not uncommon sentiment, but not because people were suspicious that the US government was involved in the attacks.  There was massive dissatisfaction with the 9/11 commission's work - many mainstream questions were left unanswered and many recommendations were met with great resistance from both right and left.




> You keep saying you've 'addressed' the list (in the way somebody ignorantly dismisses an encyclopedia),


Ignorantly dismisses an encyclopedia....right....




> but despite empty rhetorical gestures 'to engage the issues'  you've repeatedly shown no good faith approach to the subject.


And what qualifies as good faith?  Hours of effort responding to 250 line items on a laundry list?  I am thrilled to debate your theory, but I am not jumping through hoops to prove that willingness to you.




> If you have zero respect for over 250 mainstream sources, you will have zero for anything else presented, so debate is useless, and I absolutely will not waste my time on you.


If you took from my post that I had no respect for 250 mainstream sources then I apologize for your misinterpretation, but that was clearly not what I wrote.  What I wrote was that I did not consider the items presented on the list to _be smoking guns_.  A smoking gun is a very specific thing.  That's why I called the plot of a TV show and Operation Northwoods "bull$#@!", because they are by no stretch of the imagination smoking guns, and yet they are items number 1 and 2 on your 250 item list.




> But I find untenable the one-issue 'Ventura---9/11---non-starter' dismissals populating these threads.


If this were not something so incredibility important, this is the point where I would simply say "fine, go ahead", and allow you to learn the lesson through life experience.  But this is important.  Do you do much strategy - SWOT analysis, game theory, stuff like that?  I do.  For a living.  I don't object to 9/11 truther candidates because of any personal hatred for them - I'm agnostic on 9/11.  I object to them because of the strategic implications of that issue.

But that's not the only reason I don't consider Ventura a strong candidate.  He had a mediocre record as governor, he has several other issue positions and background issues that hurt his electability, and he's not a particularly good debater.  I've seen every episode of his TV show and watched every interview he gave last year on youtube.  The man ducks questions, changes the subject, offers last week's talking points to people who have this week's answers, and doesn't keep his cool when challenged.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Calling for a new probe was not uncommon sentiment, but not because people were suspicious that the US government was involved in the attacks.  There was massive dissatisfaction with the 9/11 commission's work - many mainstream questions were left unanswered and many recommendations were met with great resistance from both right and left.
> 
> And what qualifies as good faith?  Hours of effort responding to 250 line items on a laundry list?  I am thrilled to debate your theory, but I am not jumping through hoops to prove that willingness to you.


Acknowledging that 9/11 truth concerns are supported by a lot of mainstream sources would be one example. From your approach to the first few items, you have no intention of doing so. Non-truthers here have also strenuously objected to candidates even calling for a new probe, despite polls showing that has wide support.  Give it up, Nathan. YOU must present proofs on YOUR side, not just respond to (vaguely dismiss) evidence others have already presented.  I'm leaving it to members here to look at the url cited and judge for themselves how reasonable 9-11 truth concerns are---not jump through the hoops of someone with a closed mind.  

You've mentioned your other issues with Ventura, but back to my last point, which was about the _singular emphasis_.  Since there are 6-7 potential major problems with a Sanford candidacy, and 3-4 problems with  Johnson, why are people here most upset over one issue with Ventura? Are there moles here trying to drumbeat us into backing the wrong horse?

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Acknowledging that 9/11 truth concerns are supported by a lot of mainstream sources would be one example.


Because the Washington Post quoted some bystander as saying something that could, by someone in the right frame of mind, be interpreted as a 9/11 truth concern doesn't mean that 9/11 truth concerns are supported by mainstream sources.




> From your approach to the first few items, you have no intention of doing so.


I won't acknowledge outright bull$#@!.  Saying that Operation Northwoods and the pilot to a TV show are "smoking guns" that our government "did" 9/11 is BULL$#@!.




> Non-truthers here have also strenuously objected to candidates even calling for a new probe, despite polls showing that has wide support.


Here's the problem.  Ask the average respondent to those polls WHY they want a new investigation and you will get a dramatically different story than if you ask a hardcore truther why they want a new investigation.  Calling for a new investigation is mainstream, and I've seen many politicians call for one in their campaigns (my own congresswoman, Kirsten Gilligrand, being one of them), but to somehow lump these people in with truthers because of this vague similarity is disingenuous.




> Give it up, Nathan. YOU must present proofs on YOUR side, not just respond to (vaguely dismiss) evidence others have already presented.


Two things.  First, I have no side.  I'm agnostic about 9/11.  You're the one with the beliefs.  Second, I haven't vaguely dismissed anything.  If I've dismissed something you said, I have made myself crystal clear as to why - and if I haven't, please point to where, and I will gladly clarify.  If you have a problem with my dismissal, please, address my stated reasons for the dismissal, but don't attempt to write me off as unwilling to talk about the issue.




> I'm leaving it to members here to look at the url cited and judge for themselves how reasonable 9-11 truth concerns are---not jump through the hoops of someone with a closed mind.


Assuming you're (erroniously) speaking of me as the person with the closed mind, what hoops am I asking people to jump through?  (Ironic, as jumping through hoops was the very criticism I leveled at you in my previous post - and you failed to address).

Not to sound like a broken record here, but to say it for a third time, I would love for you to point out how the items in that URL are "smoking guns".




> You've mentioned your other issues with Ventura, but back to my last point, which was about the _singular emphasis_.Since there are 6-7 potential major problems with a Sanford candidacy, and 3-4 problems with  Johnson, why are people here most upset over one issue with Ventura?


You seem to be comparing Sanfords supposed 6-7 problems with Johnson's supposed 3-4 problems and then saying that Ventura has only one problem.  That's not true.  Ventura has many problems.  As you admit, I've criticized Ventura for his other flaws as well.  I started with the 9/11 issue because it ALONE is enough to derail his candidacy, but that does not diminish Ventura's other liabilities, which are just as serious as the supposed liabilities leveled against the other potential liberty candidates.  




> Are there moles here trying to drumbeat us into backing the wrong horse?


Yes.  You got us.  We're all Bilderberg plants.  Quick, CFR allies, back to Bohemian Grove in the black helicopters!

We would've gotten away with it too if it weren't for you dastardly Ventura supporters!

----------


## Elwar

I don't quite see how you can believe that the government caused 9/11 and still fight for smaller government. The whole argument for smaller government is the whole incompetence of government. You're saying that the government hatched this great plan and all the pieces fell into place just the way they needed to and the world was fooled? Why don't we take those same planners and get them to fix our education system if they're that good?

If they're such experts, why did we go to war? Why not several of these well hatched plans happening to other countries bringing _their_ economies to their knees?

I've worked in the "military industrial complex" for over a decade. Incompetence is rewarded, friends of power players get the good contracts, screwing up just requires that you get a new contract working on something else.

Big government doesn't work. Not because we need to fear its power, but because it just doesn't create the desired results. There's no need to create boogeymen to blame for the problems of centralized power. Centralized power creates enough problems on its own.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> I don't quite see how you can believe that the government caused 9/11 and still fight for smaller government. The whole argument for smaller government is the whole incompetence of government. You're saying that the government hatched this great plan and all the pieces fell into place just the way they needed to and the world was fooled? Why don't we take those same planners and get them to fix our education system if they're that good?


Government is fantastically competent and effective when it comes to expanding and centralizing its power. It is routinely incompetent at doing everything else. Some of the incompetence may in fact be intentional, in order to provide the state with a rationale for it advocating for more power and money. "You need to fund us to X extent for us to accomplish our mandate, or approve these new laws so we can deal with this crisis." So opposing/exposing false flag ops is precisely consistent with fighting for small government, as it deprives government of one of its single biggest fraudulent excuses for enlarging it.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Government is fantastically competent and effective when it comes to expanding and centralizing its power. It is routinely incompetent at doing everything else.Some of the incompetence may in fact be intentional, in order to provide the state with a rationale for it advocating for more power and money. "You need to fund us to X extent for us to accomplish our mandate, or approve these new laws so we can deal with this crisis."


How convenient.  What leads you to believe that the government is "fantastically competent and effective when it comes to expanding and centralizing its power"?




> So opposing/exposing false flag ops is precisely consistent with fighting for small government, as it deprives government of one of its single biggest fraudulent excuses for enlarging it.


Assuming, of course,  that everything you said in your post is true, and that's a big assumption.  It seems more likely that Elwar's theory based on his observational analysis trumps your unsupported hypothesis.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> How convenient.  What leads you to believe that the government is "fantastically competent and effective when it comes to expanding and centralizing its power"?


History to date (I get to observe too). The question was how to reconcile believing in smaller government with inside job operations, and I reconciled them. Government has solved no private sector problem, but has grown spectacularly over the same time. If it were incompetent in all things, it would have even failed to grow itself. Another example is in military operations. In Iraq, the occupation has failed after six years to make the streets of Baghdad safe, to restore regular power and water, to end the refugee crisis, to reconstruct the area for the citizenry, etc., etc. BUT, all the military mega bases have been constructed on time, like clockwork, with no slip ups or delays whatsoever. The state succeeds in what STATE expansion goals it really wants to accomplish, to heck with the non-governmental problems.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Government has solved no private sector problem, but has grown spectacularly over the same time. If it were incompetent in all things, it would have even failed to grow itself.


_Why assume that growth is intended?_  If government is bad at everything else, then the most logical deduction is that growth is unintended, yet another undesirable result of poor management.  But you assume that growth is not some horrible side effect of bad policy, but rather the intended goal.  _Why?_




> Another example is in military operations. In Iraq, the occupation has failed after six years to make the streets of Baghdad safe, to restore regular power and water, to end the refugee crisis, to reconstruct the area for the citizenry, etc., etc. BUT, all the military mega bases have been constructed on time, like clockwork, with no slip ups or delays whatsoever.  The state succeeds in what STATE expansion goals it really wants to accomplish, to heck with the non-governmental problems.


Once again, you're assuming motive.  There are many variables in the paragraph you present.  Many possibilities.  But you take one possibility and run with it.  _Why do you feel that the military's ability to complete force protection projects on time but not public works projects somehow implies that the state is motivated to succeed at state expansion goals?_

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> [I] 
> Once again, you're assuming motive.  There are many variables in the paragraph you present.  Many possibilities.  But you take one possibility and run with it.  _Why do you feel that the military's ability to complete force protection projects on time but not public works projects somehow implies that the state is motivated to succeed at state expansion goals?_


No, you are characterizing my observations as assumptions. An example was used _because_ it simplifies the point, that's why it's called an example.  Apparently, I cannot even look at sun and declare there's daylight. I must somehow assume straight seven decades of radical, unrelenting US govermental growth federally and across all 50 states, the systematic subversion or ignoring of constitutional limits on state power, and systematic military expansionism to 140 countries is unintended. I must 'prove' motive and intention, while you can call my proof 'unsupported' without offering evidence for your characterizations. 

This was the problem with your approach to 9-11, and it appears to be your MO to be putting people on the defensive. Objectivize your agnostism, subjectivize whatever others say that you don't like. Let's say I am agnostic about the presumption that accidentialism is the 'default' reasonable situation, and other other scenarios must be rationalized away. I do not accept your unsupported hypothesis.

----------


## scandinaviany3

Guys 66,000 people already pushing for Palin online.

Sound familiar?

We need to support several candidates and get our message out...one isnt going to do it.

Personally Ron, Johnson and Sanford all need to be on that stage with huckabee, palin, and romney just to even the odds.

We are in very serious times with massive defaults on a and arm defaults surely kicking in around 2010/2011 and increased deficits, debt and financial ditch digging for america ...we need to not think get our way but get our message out...no matter what it takes.

Start working on legislative pacs all across america now...put money into them every month so that in 2011 all 3 candidates can have maximum money to go the distance with the other three.

We need 52,000 meetups of 2008 election to become 52,000 pac groups with non commital pac focus and have members everywhere put in small amounts everymonth so that we can build up the nest eggs we need for those that support liberty to save our nation.

----------


## DeadheadForPaul

1.) Johnson and Sanford are both good candidates

2.) Sanford is not a "shill" like some of the people on this board seem to think.  It is generally the tin foil faction of our movement that is condemning Sanford.

He consistently voted with Paul in Congress and has consistently stood up for liberty in his home state over the course of 2 terms as Governor

3.) Sanford is most electable for the following reasons:
a.) People like governors because they have the executive experience that a President needs
b.) Sanford is a traditional conservative and can unite the warring factions of the Right while bringing in moderates, libertarians, and independents
c.) He is a southerner, and a solid South is key to Republican victory
d.) He is in the news - very big in the news, in fact.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> No, you are characterizing my observations as assumptions.


Yes, because the moniker is appropriate.




> An example was used _because_ it simplifies the point, that's why it's called an example.


The example you chose was very open-ended, leaving many possible explanations.  You somehow came to a conclusion as to an explanation without addressing the many other possibilities, which I why I characterized your conclusion as assumption.




> Apparently, I cannot even look at sun and declare there's daylight.


Unfortunately your example is not quite so direct.




> I must somehow assume straight seven decades of radical, unrelenting US govermental growth federally and across all 50 states, the systematic subversion or ignoring of constitutional limits on state power, and systematic military expansionism to 140 countries is unintended.


I'm not asking you to assume anything.




> I must 'prove' motive and intention,


Yes.




> while you can call my proof 'unsupported' without offering evidence for your characterizations.


First, I'm not the one characterizing the situation, this is about your opinion of the matter.  Second, I have no intention of calling your proof "unsupported" unless that adjective fits the bill.  Contrary to what you probably think of me, I am supportive of your claims.  If government shenanigans are the case, it would explain a lot, and I would like to see them brought to task for it.  I'm not here waiting to shoot down every proof you offer.




> This was the problem with your approach to 9-11, and it appears to be your MO to be putting people on the defensive. Objectivize your agnostism, subjectivize whatever others say that you don't like.


I apologize for your misunderstanding of the situation, but I'm not trying to put you on the defense, all I want is the logic and evidence behind your conclusions.




> Let's say I am agnostic about the presumption that accidentialism is the 'default' reasonable situation, and other other scenarios must be rationalized away.


I never said anything of the sort!  Reasonable people determine on a case by case basis what the most reasonable explanation is in a given situation.




> I do not accept your unsupported hypothesis.


Why don't you concentrate on defending your argument, because you're not going to get anywhere trying to turn this around on me.

----------


## angelatc

> 1.) Johnson and Sanford are both good candidates
> 
> 2.) Sanford is not a "shill" like some of the people on this board seem to think.  It is generally the tin foil faction of our movement that is condemning Sanford.
> 
> He consistently voted with Paul in Congress and has consistently stood up for liberty in his home state over the course of 2 terms as Governor
> 
> 3.) Sanford is most electable for the following reasons:
> a.) People like governors because they have the executive experience that a President needs
> b.) Sanford is a traditional conservative and can unite the warring factions of the Right while bringing in moderates, libertarians, and independents
> ...


LOL! Josh is hardly a tin foil hatter!  I'd vote for either Sanford or Johnson at this point, but the primaries haven't started yet.

----------


## RebelRoss0587

> I'd rather have Romney than Obama.


I hope so many of the those Huckabee supporters are finally realizing that Romney would've been better than Obama and that their support would have saved the GOP from nominating McCain who was the WORST possible choice and ran a ridiculously terrible campaign.  I'd rather have Romney, Paul, Sanford, or Jindal than Obama and hopefully we'll get one of those four in 2012.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Why don't you concentrate on defending your argument, because you're not going to get anywhere trying to turn this around on me.


Just to conclude this matter, I'm also not trying to misunderstand you, but do in fact find your approach to be unsupported. I just have a strong aversion to contentious exchanges, which your microscopic parsing of my posts seemed to signify. I was not even TRYING to argue this time, and you rebutted. All I did was reconcile beliefs, in response to a comment, not to try to prove the truth of either belief. The problems with Sanford and Johnson remain, whether others want to dismiss them by negative labelling or not, or whether they want to dwell on secondary matters or not. There may not even be elections in four years, folks---now is not the time to be worried about looking like tinfoil.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Just to conclude this matter, I'm also not trying to misunderstand you, but do in fact find your approach to be unsupported.


You find my approach to be unsupported?  Please explain that, because I'm at a loss.




> I just have a strong aversion to contentious exchanges,


And yet you have no aversion to posting contentious statements.




> which your microscopic parsing of my posts seemed to signify.


I parse your posts strictly as a matter of making myself as clear as possible.  Had I simply quoted you and wrote my reply below it, I'd have to use five times the verbiage to articulate myself on each point I wished to make.  Parsing allows me to insert my quotes as directly as possible.  If it signifies anything else, I apologize for your misunderstanding.




> I was not even TRYING to argue this time, and you rebutted. All I did was reconcile beliefs, in response to a comment, not to try to prove the truth of either belief. The problems with Sanford and Johnson remain, whether others want to dismiss them by negative labelling or not, or whether they want to dwell on secondary matters or not.


The thesis of your post was to link fighting for small government with fighting "false flag" ops.  That prompted my reply.




> There may not even be elections in four years, folks---now is not the time to be worried about looking like tinfoil.


That's the same thing I hear every four years.

----------


## SovereignMN

In addition to the 9/11 stuff, a reason why Ventura is not a good choice for this movement is that he is hostile to religion.  Calling Christians "weak minded" and advocating taxation against churches is going to split this movement in two.

----------


## tajitj

Imagine this....

Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, and Peter Schiff all on the GOP stage in the debates. 

You can even throw Sanford in that group but he is a neocon people. Do not be to excited about him.

----------


## Flash

I like Gary Johnson the best out of the three. Ventura I hope really doesn't run. Hopefully Sanford runs alongside Johnson..

----------


## libertarian4321

Ventura for President, with RP as Vice (to help keep him in line a bit).

----------


## scandinaviany3

> I agree 100%.
> 
> To be brutally honest...
> 
> Johnson - He was governor too long ago for anyone to recognize him
> Ventura - Too many people view him as a nut and don't take him seriously
> Sanford - Sanford is our best candidate (unless paul runs again)
> 
> Sanford/Paul ticket would be incredible.
> ...


Sanford and Paul ticket does make the most sense

----------


## Chieftain1776

Look I've actually changed my approach to politics somewhat. My view is that I basically want a Ron Paul in every presidential primary just to get the message out. I don't really care about electability anymore b/c I believe that the majority of Americans want the government they have more or less. Read Bryan Caplan's Myth of a Rational Voter and you'll see that all politicians really do is fan the flames of the median voter's bias. The people _wanted_ Iraq...not in the sense that they were clamoring for it but they wanted _something tangible_ done. Same goes for the stimulus...most polls show that the people are against it but when Obama is attached the polling changes and most people are accept that he's _doing something_. 

On 2012, I'd actually changed my preference to Johnson if he'd do something to show he's part of the movement. Where is he on speaking against the bailout? On the stimulus? At C4L events? Is he even doing anything with drug legalization?

My view is that Sanford is the only one (besides Ron Paul) taking a stand against bailouts, stimulus and the size of government and at a personal cost (Google Sanford Amendment). Look if Johnson starts taking the RP line and showing up at C4L events he has my support... until then I'm backing Ron Paul and then Sanford.

Here are my previous contributions to the debate...keep in mind my philosophy has changed about the purpose of political activism:

Sanford as "one of us"
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...3&postcount=29

Problems with them as candidates
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...35#post1818535

Oh and about Ventura....he doesn't seem that libertarian/constitutionalist. Here's a quick result I found: http://www.angelfire.com/mn/rongstad...y/ventura.html

But hey if someone can (1) make the pro-liberty case for him, (2) he starts getting active _and_ (3) focuses on the size and scope of the federal government (instead of spouting off about Trutherism every chance) then....even with his baggage... I'd reconsider my support.

----------


## RebelRoss0587

> My view is that Sanford is the only one (besides Ron Paul) taking a stand against bailouts, stimulus and the size of government and at a personal cost (Google Sanford Amendment). Look if Johnson starts taking the RP line and showing up at C4L events he has my support... until then I'm backing Ron Paul and then Sanford.


I don't understand that statement.  I can think of many people who have been very outspoken against bailouts, but one immediately comes to mind as the person who was most outspoken against even the auto bailout which affected the state he was from.  Look at these articles and tell me who has been more outspoken against bailouts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Ro...not_government

http://digg.com/politics/Governor_Ro...can_Conference

http://digg.com/politics/A_Republica...om_Mitt_Romney

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I don't understand that statement.  I can think of many people who have been very outspoken against bailouts, but one immediately comes to mind as the person who was most outspoken against even the auto bailout which affected the state he was from.  Look at these articles and tell me who has been more outspoken against bailouts.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html
> 
> http://digg.com/political_opinion/Ro...not_government
> 
> http://digg.com/politics/Governor_Ro...can_Conference
> 
> http://digg.com/politics/A_Republica...om_Mitt_Romney


Romney is a warmongering prick who made fun of and laughed at Paul on the radio, during the primaries.

Screw Romney!

----------


## Juvenal

Having lived under the Ventura administration, it was not all the different than any other administration, but the press conferences were alot more interesting...

His main rail is against the duopoly the two major parties have over politics, which is a great thing to rail against, but is not necessarily central to the cause.

----------

