# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  My case for Ventura

## clowns789

I think we should support Jesse Ventura for president in 2012. I would rather support Ventura as an independent than a Republican candidate (such as Johnson) because of this:

In the two-party system, we have very few choices on who we want to be elected. This is particularly troublesome in larger elections like the Presidency and Congress. We will be stuck in a two-party system until political parties are phased out altogether and people run for president as independents. They would have to get on the ballot to be counted generally, so there probably would not be more than 10 candidates for any one office. Since it's extremely unlikely that there would be an outright ban on political parties before they're already dead anyway, here's what I suggest.

Because Jesse Ventura is famous, he won't have the name recognition trouble Ron Paul had. He'll be able to get a much larger amount of support if the campaign and grassroots can convince the public he's electable and a good candidate. If he becomes president, people will be more open to voting independent on lower levels. Then we will truly have a choice at the polls.

To clarify an earlier point, one would generally need several thousand signatures in every state to be a viable candidate for president. Therefore, you wouldn't have to worry about an impractically large ballot of people with most not having any chance of becoming elected.

So what do you think? IMO, trying to save the GOP and nominate a Republican doesn't make much sense, because it would be difficult to do and could go back to the way it is now in a single election.

P.S. Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOEatjzXcjE at 2:00 to see why he opposes the two-party system and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgdhWRiJcw8
 at 6:56 to see him announce interest in running for President if there is enough steam.

----------


## dr. hfn

Ventura-Johnson 2012!

----------


## nate895

I won't vote for Ventura because:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Jesse_Ventura.htm 

He splits about 50/50 for me, and he is pro-abortion, a deal breaker for me, especially when I split with the others.

----------


## slothman

I agree with maybe 80% of him.
I would say that for him to be elected he would have to be a dem or repub.

----------


## MikeStanart

I won't support Ventura, sorry.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

I will support Ventura as the Independent candidate 100%, however, I wouldn't give up on the GOP primary race just yet. Jesse has a chance to do real damage as a third party guy by breaking through the media barrier and getting in the debates.

----------


## Kludge

*91% Ron Paul (R)
80% Jesse Ventura (I)
73% John McCain (R)
71% Mitt Romney (R)
67% Mike Huckabee (R)
65% Fred Thompson (R)
57% Rudy Giuliani (R)
56% Tom Tancredo (R)
46% Mike Gravel (D)
45% Bill Richardson (D)
42% Dennis Kucinich (D)
41% Chris Dodd (D)
37% Barack Obama (D)
35% Hillary Clinton (D)
34% John Edwards (D)
33% Joe Biden (D)
*

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> *91% Ron Paul (R)
> 80% Jesse Ventura (I)
> 73% John McCain (R)
> 71% Mitt Romney (R)
> 67% Mike Huckabee (R)
> 65% Fred Thompson (R)
> 57% Rudy Giuliani (R)
> 56% Tom Tancredo (R)
> 46% Mike Gravel (D)
> ...


What does that list mean, if you don't mind my asking?

----------


## Kotin

> What does that list mean, if you don't mind my asking?


+1

----------


## Kludge

> What does that list mean, if you don't mind my asking?


% agreement on issues I find important. Somewhat irrelevant in general but should give a general hint as to what many (IMO) minarchists (abortion and the death penalty are excluded from the results) would loosely rank Ventura in terms of agreement.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> % agreement on issues I find important. Somewhat irrelevant in general but should give a general hint as to what many (IMO) minarchists (abortion and the death penalty are excluded from the results) would loosely rank Ventura in terms of agreement.


Ah, very nice. I would say that while I disagree with Ventura on a TON of issues as I am a more right-libertarian and he is farther left, there are issues on which he goes above and beyond the call of duty. He overcompensates for his left leaning ways in areas like civil liberties, anti-CIA rhetoric, and fearlessness.

----------


## AJ Antimony

Yeah, I too don't agree with Ventura on 100% of the issues, but he is a genuine hater of the two party system and political Bull$#@!, so I'd vote for him. However, he could easily blow it for me if he picked a bad running mate (ie. one who TPTB would much rather see in power to the point of shooting at Jesse)

----------


## Elwar

So we support Ventura so that maybe he can double Bob Barr's .4%?

Where do I sign up?

I know how much the two party system is...it is quite unfortunate. I think Ron Paul has shown us, me at least, that working within the party is the only way to get the national attention that is truly needed.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> So we support Ventura so that maybe he can double Bob Barr's .4%?
> 
> Where do I sign up?
> 
> I know how much the two party system is...it is quite unfortunate. I think Ron Paul has shown us, me at least, that working within the party is the only way to get the national attention that is truly needed.


You must've missed Perot. Ventura can get just as much attention.

----------


## lodge939

Ventura is an idiot troofer.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Ventura is an idiot troofer.


Ventura is a genius compared to idiots who can't spell, and are so thin-skinned that they can't stand somebody who even mentions the 9-11 subject.

----------


## MRoCkEd

Ventura's the only one who can get away with 9/11 truth. 
I mean, I'm not a "truther" but he had legitimate questions that left hannity and gibson pretty silent

----------


## HenryKnoxFineBooks

Can we get Vetura off that beach in Mexico?

And Perot was a multi-billionaire, back in 1992, who was able to fund his campaign and ballot access.

----------


## mediahasyou

http://www.venturaforums.com/

----------


## clowns789

> http://www.venturaforums.com/


Thanks for the link.

A lot of people believe independents can't get elected, but someone with his kind of name recognition can pull it off. I want him to win since independent candidates for Congress and other lower positions can ride on his coattails and have a chance of winning when they otherwise wouldn't. This will help end the two-party system.

----------


## Bman

> Ventura is an idiot troofer.


Yes Ventura is a troofer.  I am not.  However if I may play devils advocate.  When Jesse Ventura speaks about anything truth movement related what exactly does he say that would make you classify him as an idiot.

I would supprt a Ventura candidacy myself.  However, I think he'd need a bit more than an invitation to the debates to win.  And I think that's about as much as he plans on doing to try and win.  It may work for a governors job, but I imagine it wouldn't be as effective when running for President.

And one quick question a little off topic since I've seen people mention a disagreement with some of Venturas stances.

TO the Sanctity of Life crowd.  Explain to me exactly how long we should throw someone in jail for abortion.  Or how you plan on punishing people who will have abortions illegally.

See, I thought people would've understood things a little bit better in here because of the war on drugs, but alas the reasoning is all over the place.

The truth is that making something illegal does not prevent it.  It just makes people criminals.  We have to be careful when imposing our will as right or wrong.  Especially when your point of view is in the minority when it comes to the subject at hand.

----------


## nate895

> TO the Sanctity of Life crowd.  Explain to me exactly how long we should throw someone in jail for abortion.  Or how you plan on punishing people who will have abortions illegally.
> 
> See, I thought people would've understood things a little bit better in here because of the war on drugs, but alas the reasoning is all over the place.
> 
> The truth is that making something illegal does not prevent it.  It just makes people criminals.  We have to be careful when imposing our will as right or wrong.  Especially when your point of view is in the minority when it comes to the subject at hand.


Abortion is murder. It should be prosecuted as such.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Ventura is an idiot troofer.


And comments like *this* are why we Fail.

----------


## trey4sports

ventura is too fringe. i hate to say it but theres no way in hell he could win in the General. 
Media would hound him as a nut 24/7, although thats better than not getting any media attention at all.

i think he could make a splash, roughly 10% of the vote tops but by no means could he ever be elected

----------


## Bman

> Abortion is murder. It should be prosecuted as such.


Actually underlaw abortion is not murder.  Now if it was made illegal it would be murder.  But what type of murder penalties.  Maybe the death penalty?  Because that obviously in no way contradicts the sanctity of life.

So tell me exaclty how many years you would like to throw these people in jail for.  And tell me how that will prevent another abortion.

You know I once was a kid.  And I know full well that kids sometimes do irrational things.   Shouldn't education be our main focus here.  In most of these cases we are not talking about adults.

----------


## trey4sports

> Actually underlaw abortion is not murder.  Now if it was made illegal it would be murder.  But what type of murder penalties.  Maybe the death penalty?  Because that obviously in no way contradicts the sanctity of life.
> 
> So tell me exaclty how many years you would like to throw these people in jail for.  And tell me how that will prevent another abortion.
> 
> You know I once was a kid.  And I know full well that kids sometimes do irrational things.   Shouldn't education be our main focus here.  In most of these cases we are not talking about adults.


if someone views abortion as murder then shouldnt murder be punished regardless of its ability to stop future murders?

----------


## nate895

> Actually underlaw abortion is not murder.  Now if it was made illegal it would be murder.  But what type of murder penalties.  Maybe the death penalty?  Because that obviously in no way contradicts the sanctity of life.
> 
> So tell me exaclty how many years you would like to throw these people in jail for.  And tell me how that will prevent another abortion.
> 
> You know I once was a kid.  And I know full well that kids sometimes do irrational things.   Shouldn't education be our main focus here.  In most of these cases we are not talking about adults.


I don't care what the law currently says. A fetus is a life, and has the right to life. The punishment should be the same as all first-degree murders within that jurisdiction, most likely life. I am not in favor of the death penalty, but you do forfeit all rights when you choose to violate another's rights, so it is not an injustice to end someone's life for a crime, especially on as heinous as the murder of the unborn. 

Yes, education should be the main focus. Educating our children that abortion is murder is what should be taught.

----------


## Indy4Chng

> I won't support Ventura, sorry.


+1.  I can't stand him I would put my heart and soul into Johnson or Samford, if he ran I would vote constitutional party and maybe even NeoCon overhim.  He is clueless on the economy and not much of a fiscal conservative, supports public schools (not even vouchers) and open borders.  Not to mention he sounds like an idiot when he talks and spews garbage about 9-11 truth whether it is true or not is not going to help our cause at all.

Go $#@! yourself Ventura, I'm not falling for your bull$#@!!

----------


## Bman

> Educating our children that abortion is murder is what should be taught.


Not to rain on your parade but in nationwide political polls people vote in favor of abortion 60% to 40%.  You can debate all day long on whether it is morally right or wrong but at some point you have to realize that at this point in time it is not federally recognized as murder and that goes for the majority.

Now it is killing but there has to be some reason that people look at from a different light than murder.  And obviously telling them it is murder does not change their mind.  Look I understand that this is a religious topic and let me reason why I get argumenative to people who support the death penalty but go fanatical over pro-life.

What you purpose is what you see as the law of god.  Not the law of man.  Because quite frankly the law of man says that abortion is not murder.  Look no further than Roe vs Wade for the evidence.  But at the sametime the commandment that brings most argument to this case is thou shall not kill.  Now that is pretty simple.  So by the law of god to support a death penalty is in direct contradiction with the law of god.  Making a supporter of the death penalty a murder in the eye of god.  Which I am just amazed at the hypocrisy in the belief.  It's a large reason I walked away from the church in the first place.

----------


## Shotdown1027

I cant support Ventura. Besides, Johnson is SO much better.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> I don't care what the law currently says. A fetus is a life, and has the right to life. The punishment should be the same as all first-degree murders within that jurisdiction, most likely life. I am not in favor of the death penalty, but you do forfeit all rights when you choose to violate another's rights, so it is not an injustice to end someone's life for a crime, especially on as heinous as the murder of the unborn. 
> 
> Yes, education should be the main focus. Educating our children that abortion is murder is what should be taught.


What's wrong with using the range of punishments that existed for abortion in the thousands of years during which it was illegal? Were those laws ever that severe in their treatment of mixed-up mothers? Some supporters and opponents of legal abortion seem to act like abortion was never illegal before. Punishing the abortionist doctors (stripping licensure, prosecuting) AND educating our children may be sufficient to deter the killing and restore legal protection to the unborn.

----------


## nate895

> What's wrong with using the range of punishments that existed for abortion in the thousands of years during which it was illegal? Were those laws ever that severe in their treatment of mixed-up mothers? Some supporters and opponents of legal abortion seem to act like abortion was never illegal before. Punishing the abortionist doctors (stripping licensure, prosecuting) AND educating our children may be sufficient to deter the killing and restore legal protection to the unborn.


It was only illegal for 100 years. The banning of abortion was due to an advance in the microscope in the 1830s that lead to scientists discovering that the fetuses that they were aborting were alive. Prior to that only late term abortions were banned. 

Maybe mothers who choose to murder their child, if a juvenile, should get manslaughter, but doctors who choose to practice infanticide should be punished for murder.

----------


## MRoCkEd

To play devil's advocate: if doctors are punished for performing abortions, girls will  resort to some dangerous back-alley treatment

----------


## nate895

> To play devil's advocate: if doctors are punished for performing abortions, girls will  resort to some dangerous back-alley treatment


See, I know it sounds cold-hearted, but I really don't care what happens to someone who is trying to murder their own child. If they choose to get a dangerous back-alley abortion, it is their own fault if they die.

----------


## lodge939

> Yes Ventura is a troofer.  I am not.  However if I may play devils advocate.  When Jesse Ventura speaks about anything truth movement related what exactly does he say that would make you classify him as an idiot.


this explains it pretty well

----------


## Bman

> this explains it pretty well


The explains the sterotype of a 9/11 truther.  I'm looking for comments directly from Jesse.  Sure I have a ton of problems with truthers.  And that comic displays alot of my problems.  I just haven't heard Ventura say anything other than he's not buying what he's been told about how it happened from the Government.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> To play devil's advocate: if doctors are punished for performing abortions, girls will  resort to some dangerous back-alley treatment


If we stop the Fed from counter fitting money and back the Dollar with gold, people will just counterfeit their own paper money.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> this explains it pretty well


Maddox rules!

anyhoo, 2 planes, 3 buildings, nuff said.

----------


## scandinaviany3

> I will support Ventura as the Independent candidate 100%, however, I wouldn't give up on the GOP primary race just yet. Jesse has a chance to do real damage as a third party guy by breaking through the media barrier and getting in the debates.


he could be a very interesting unity candidate for all but the cp to get behind...

Could be very interesting for 3rd party run in 2012

----------


## Athan

I support Ventura. We need to get him to simply oppose the SCOTUS interference in the abortion issue and allow states to handle it. He doesn't have to support or oppose it, he just has to allow people to make the decisions in their state governments.

----------


## nodope0695

Ventura....nice town.

----------


## Bman

> I support Ventura. We need to get him to simply oppose the SCOTUS interference in the abortion issue and allow states to handle it. He doesn't have to support or oppose it, he just has to allow people to make the decisions in their state governments.


That won't happen unless you repeal the 14th admendment.

----------


## DXDoug

if he could just win one of the MAIN party contenders . or atleast run in there primarys

----------


## Nathan Hale

My case against Ventura:

9/11

----------


## Kludge

> My case against Ventura:
> 
> 9/11


He caused 9/11?!

----------


## Nathan Hale

> He caused 9/11?!


...In a word?  Yes.

----------


## ClayTrainor

If we lose the republican nomination to another neo-con and Ventura hints at an independant run, and I hear people saying stupid things like

"I wont vote for him because of 911"

"I wont vote for him because of abortion" etc.

I will get angry...  If Ventura runs, we are presented with an opportunity to start cleaning out washington.  Do you really think Ventura is going to get corrupted like Obama, McCain, Clinton, Bush's etc.  Do you really think he'll be a worse president than whatever the alternative is?  I understand that you may want Gary Johnson or Sanford etc  But, imagine ***IF*** Ventura does run, and he actually gets polled at something like 7% right away, while Sanford and Johnson are barely a blip on the radar.  You wouldnt support him?  Is he not genuine enough for you?

My god people.... are you patriots or are you not?  Ventura cares about the constitution, and may not be on the same page with you on every issue, i even disagree with alot of his positions including abortion and other important ones but, the man is a War veteran, a statesman and a man who loves his country and his constitution.  He is warming up to ron pauls conservatism message i believe as, he seems to have been surrounded in it with every public appearance.  Preserving and upholding the constitution should be the one and only goal!

IF you wouldn't support Ventura because of some individual issue, then you really are a detriment to the freedom movement.

Jesse is FAR FROM PERFECT, but if he runs and you support a neo-con or a liberal instead... you're as bad as the obamabots!

----------


## clowns789

> If we lose the republican nomination to another neo-con and Ventura hints at an independant run, and I hear people saying stupid things like
> 
> "I wont vote for him because of 911"
> 
> "I wont vote for him because of abortion" etc.
> 
> I will get angry...  If Ventura runs, we are presented with an opportunity to start cleaning out washington.  Do you really think Ventura is going to get corrupted like Obama, McCain, Clinton, Bush's etc.  Do you really think he'll be a worse president than whatever the alternative is?


Good point. Ventura is a lot better than Obama and whoever the GOP is likely to produce.




> I understand that you may want Gary Johnson or Sanford etc  But, imagine ***IF*** Ventura does run, and he actually gets polled at something like 7% right away, while Sanford and Johnson are barely a blip on the radar.  You wouldnt support him?  Is he not genuine enough for you?
> 
> My god people.... are you patriots or are you not?  Ventura cares about the constitution, and may not be on the same page with you on every issue, i even disagree with alot of his positions including abortion and other important ones but, the man is a War veteran, a statesman and a man who loves his country and his constitution.  He is warming up to ron pauls conservatism message i believe as, he seems to have been surrounded in it with every public appearance.  Preserving and upholding the constitution should be the one and only goal!
> 
> IF you wouldn't support Ventura because of some individual issue, then you really are a detriment to the freedom movement.
> 
> Jesse is FAR FROM PERFECT, but if he runs and you support a neo-con or a liberal instead... you're as bad as the obamabots!


Absolutely spot on. We can vote for Paul, Johnson etc. in the primaries, but if they don't make it through, it'll be an obvious choice. Not to mention, most of us probably don't appreciate what an independent president could do for us. If enough congress and senate candidates can ride his coattails, it can really help the liberty movement. Perhaps it could eventually end the two-party system as well.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

One of the great things about Ventura is not only is he willing to talk about (and face down) the way false flag ops are impacting policy, he also openly acknowledges the nesting of the CIA and other intelligence agencies in the various levels of our government. He knows first hand these operatives have offices in each of the governors' mansions, most of the major media organs and elsewhere and are continuously influencing (or even creating) local, state as well as national foreign policy. Only with this kind of honesty and 'truth first' approach are we going to make headway in reversing the trend towards the total state in our lifetime. From a recent interview:

http://52.thelastoutpost.com/video-4...overnment.html

----------


## Nathan Hale

> If we lose the republican nomination to another neo-con and Ventura hints at an independant run, and I hear people saying stupid things like
> 
> "I wont vote for him because of 911"
> 
> "I wont vote for him because of abortion" etc.


IF the GOP picks an unacceptable candidate and there is no other choice sure, vote for Ventura.  But he's not a candidate for whom we should be pushing because he is too weak.  I'd pick Sanford or Johnson over him any day because Ventura doesn't stand a chance of winning - his position on 9/11 insures it.  I'm not saying whether or not I agree with it, just that it is enough of a turnoff that Americans simply won't give him the votes he needs to win the seat.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> IF the GOP picks an unacceptable candidate and there is no other choice sure, vote for Ventura.


That's what i like to hear 




> But he's not a candidate for whom we should be pushing because he is too weak.  I'd pick Sanford or Johnson over him any day because Ventura doesn't stand a chance of winning


You think Sanford and Johnson stand a better chance of winning the presidency than Ventura?  Sorry but, i must respectfully disagree.  Ventura already has national name recognition that is untouched by Sanford or Johnson.  All 3 of these candidates will likely have media attacks against them, so I believe Sanford and Johnson will be marginalized much like Paul was, and will lose because of this.  Ventura's case is different because he has balls, and will call out the media HARSHLY on every time he's mistreated, and people will listen because they know who he is.




> - his position on 9/11 insures it.  I'm not saying whether or not I agree with it, just that it is enough of a turnoff that Americans simply won't give him the votes he needs to win the seat.


I think i concur with you here, and it is my greatest fear if Jesse does launch a presidential campaign.  911 will be his BIGGEST problem, as the media has essentially already instructed people that truthers are all nuts and crazy, no matter what type of questions they have.

You might be right but, i still think Jesse would poll WAY higher than Johnson or Sanford could ever dream of.

----------


## acptulsa

Well, I liked the original Ventura because it was as nicely equipped as the Star Chief but no bigger than the Catalina, which is nice for a two-door.  Of course, it got replaced by the Grand Prix and came back as a Nova, and that...

What?  Who?  _Who?_  That #*%@$ semi-articulate _wrestler_?

No thanks.  I support those who do the pwning in debates, not those who get pwned.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> No thanks.  I support those who do the pwning in debates, not those who get pwned.


Example of Ventura getting pwned in a debate please?

----------


## Nathan Hale

> You think Sanford and Johnson stand a better chance of winning the presidency than Ventura?  Sorry but, i must respectfully disagree.  Ventura already has national name recognition that is untouched by Sanford or Johnson.


Osama Bin Laden also has national name recognition.  That doesn't make him more qualified to win the Presidency.  Name recognition is still possible to come by for Johnson or Sanford (though, to wit, Sanford is often mentioned in polls listing the 2012 contenders, so perhaps he's more mainstream than you know).  Right now it's not even 2009 - which gives Johnson two full years to become a major player before the primary heat begins.  A lot can happen in that time.




> All 3 of these candidates will likely have media attacks against them, so I believe Sanford and Johnson will be marginalized much like Paul was, and will lose because of this.


Every presidential candidate faces media attacks.  The media credibility gap between Paul and Sanford/Johnson is that S/J are both Governors.  Johnson was one of the most wildly popular Governors in his state's history - term limited with 10% victory margins in both races - and NM is a 60% Dem state!  Being a Governor 




> Ventura's case is different because he has balls, and will call out the media HARSHLY on every time he's mistreated, and people will listen because they know who he is.


I'm sorry, I just don't see this happening, because the moment he launches 9/11 is going to rear its ugly head and crush him.  I actually supported Ventura for President - I was one of the many signers on that Ventura for President 2008 petition page that launched back in 2006.  I backed him up until he started with the 9/11 stuff, and even so I backed him joining the race for MN Senate.  I like the guy, I really do, but I see him getting sideshowed a lot easier because of 9/11.




> I think i concur with you here, and it is my greatest fear if Jesse does launch a presidential campaign.  911 will be his BIGGEST problem, as the media has essentially already instructed people that truthers are all nuts and crazy, no matter what type of questions they have.


It's not about the media instructing people, it's about the simple fact that there is no solid truther argument, it's all conjecture and piecemeal speculation, most of which has been disproven but it remains repeated.  Back in 03-04 I was a truther.  I believed a lot of the theories.  But as I continued to read I found the nonpartisan analysis, especially analysis at the nuts and bolts level, that picked apart the sweeping generalizations and claims made by the theorists.




> You might be right but, i still think Jesse would poll WAY higher than Johnson or Sanford could ever dream of.


That's why we have conversations like this - to determine the most viable strategy and move forward with it.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Example of Ventura getting pwned in a debate please?


vs Jim Norton (a comedian) on Opie & Anthony.  Ventura actually stormed off the set.

----------


## danny987

In my high school one of our text books has an entire chapter on Ventura (no joke) And this is in Oregon. So alot of people across the country know him. That being said i have yet to do much research on him myself so i well shut my mouth now

----------


## Nathan Hale

> In my high school one of our text books has an entire chapter on Ventura (no joke) And this is in Oregon. So alot of people across the country know him. That being said i have yet to do much research on him myself so i well shut my mouth now


What's the textbook?

----------


## dr. hfn

i don't know if johnson is the best  candidate. he may seem extremist or crazy for his 9/11 views. However he does now how to win and run a state.  But wouldn't goldwater be a favorite b/c of his name and his father?  johnson definitely seems like a good candidate that is likable by everyone.

However, should we be more concentrated on 2010 and getting Liberty candidates elected to office instead of an insane quixotic presidential campaign?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> vs Jim Norton (a comedian) on Opie & Anthony.  Ventura actually stormed off the set.


LMAO!!!!!!!!!

you call that a debate?  

Do you realize how freaking rude and inconsiderate Norton was?  he was not only mocking ventura, but full blown insulting him.

I don't blame ventura for leaving after being treated like that on air.  I can count at least 6 times ventura was cut off before finishing his points in that argument.

In a FAIR moderated debate, Ventura would own, and perhaps 911 is not the topic he should make his #1 issue, i agree with u there.

There was no real debate, in the "debate" you recall.  Just cutoffs and condescending remarks.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> I'm sorry, I just don't see this happening, because the moment he launches 9/11 is going to rear its ugly head and crush him.  I actually supported Ventura for President - I was one of the many signers on that Ventura for President 2008 petition page that launched back in 2006.  I backed him up until he started with the 9/11 stuff, and even so I backed him joining the race for MN Senate.  I like the guy, I really do, but I see him getting sideshowed a lot easier because of 9/11...
> 
> It's not about the media instructing people, it's about the simple fact that there is no solid truther argument, it's all conjecture and piecemeal speculation, most of which has been disproven but it remains repeated.  Back in 03-04 I was a truther.  I believed a lot of the theories.  But as I continued to read I found the nonpartisan analysis, especially analysis at the nuts and bolts level, that picked apart the sweeping generalizations and claims made by the theorists.


Sounds like you are characterizing truther positions with the same vague generalization brush you are complaining about. At best, you know full well there are different 'technical' issues---the details about WTC 1/2 are different than those over 7, which are different than the Pentagon issues, or the standdown, or over what happened with Flight 93. You cast ALL the points made on ALL these fronts as equally 'conjecture?' What exactly is 'speculation' about multiple media reports and government admissions on several of these issues, from the 70 times the FBI was blocked from acting on forewarnings, to the US pre-9/11 Afghan military build-up, to the training of the suspects on US bases, etc? And much of the 'non-partisan' analysis has turned out to be anything but upon rudimentary scrutiny.

What is actually the case is *you* view 9/11 as a sideshow, and no fact or source is going to change your mind. I became involved in the truther movement after 2004, ironically as a result of scrutinizing articles appearing in LRC and antiwar.com, NOT Alex Jones or the videos. In NYC, I also heard from 9/11 family members and rescue workers, who routinely admitted (as do the co-heads of the 9/11 Commission Rport) that there was and is a massive cover-up involved. I ran statewide for Senate in 2000, and as the LP's candidate for Governor of NY in 2006, the latter race with re-opening a 9/11 inquiry as one of the issues. I received three times as many votes running on 9/11 as I did from running on constitutional issues in 2000. I utterly reject the nonsense that the truther issue is a problem.

----------


## Akus

> If we lose the republican nomination to another neo-con and Ventura hints at an independant run, and I hear people saying stupid things like
> 
> "I wont vote for him because of 911"
> 
> "I wont vote for him because of abortion" etc.
> 
> I will get angry...  If Ventura runs, we are presented with an opportunity to start cleaning out washington.  Do you really think Ventura is going to get corrupted like Obama, McCain, Clinton, Bush's etc.  Do you really think he'll be a worse president than whatever the alternative is?  I understand that you may want Gary Johnson or Sanford etc  But, imagine ***IF*** Ventura does run, and he actually gets polled at something like 7% right away, while Sanford and Johnson are barely a blip on the radar.  You wouldnt support him?  Is he not genuine enough for you?
> 
> My god people.... are you patriots or are you not?  Ventura cares about the constitution, and may not be on the same page with you on every issue, i even disagree with alot of his positions including abortion and other important ones but, the man is a War veteran, a statesman and a man who loves his country and his constitution.  He is warming up to ron pauls conservatism message i believe as, he seems to have been surrounded in it with every public appearance.  Preserving and upholding the constitution should be the one and only goal!
> ...


Ahh...


one voice of sanity and reason. So laughable to hear all these "I can't vote for Ventura because I don't like his mustache" excuses. This is why we keep getting Republicrats, because all that most people can do is bitch on the internet about how everything is bad and how we need honest people on the Hill, and when presented with an actual opportunity to elect a person with moreless of an integrity, they practically are looking for an excuse not to vote for him.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> LMAO!!!!!!!!!
> 
> you call that a debate?


Yes, Norton addressed and countered the logic presented by Ventura.




> Do you realize how freaking rude and inconsiderate Norton was?  he was not only mocking ventura, but full blown insulting him.


Yeah, he insulted Ventura.  Obviously, it's O&A - but note that Norton's insults were all buoyed by the fact that Ventura was unable to address Norton's concerns.




> I don't blame ventura for leaving after being treated like that on air.  I can count at least 6 times ventura was cut off before finishing his points in that argument.


Ventura had ample time to make his case.  I can count just as many times that Ventura failed to address Norton's criticisms.




> In a FAIR moderated debate, Ventura would own, and perhaps 911 is not the topic he should make his #1 issue, i agree with u there.


9/11 should not even BE an issue, whether its at the top or the bottom of the platform.  It's suicide to run as a truther.  He'd be wasting our money to do so.




> There was no real debate, in the "debate" you recall.  Just cutoffs and condescending remarks.


There was a contentious exchange of ideas.  That's a debate.  It was uncouth and sophomoric, but the ideas were there and addressed, and both sides had plenty of time to make their points.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Sounds like you are characterizing truther positions with the same vague generalization brush you are complaining about.


Howso?




> At best, you know full well there are different 'technical' issues---the details about WTC 1/2 are different than those over 7, which are different than the Pentagon issues, or the standdown, or over what happened with Flight 93. You cast ALL the points made on ALL these fronts as equally 'conjecture?'


Not equally.  But all employ it in order to make their case.




> What exactly is 'speculation' about multiple media reports and government admissions on several of these issues, from the 70 times the FBI was blocked from acting on forewarnings, to the US pre-9/11 Afghan military build-up, to the training of the suspects on US bases, etc? And much of the 'non-partisan' analysis has turned out to be anything but upon rudimentary scrutiny.


If you really want to get into a debate of truther issue, then let's start by getting your source for all of these "facts", and I'll offer a rebuttal.




> What is actually the case is *you* view 9/11 as a sideshow, and no fact or source is going to change your mind.[


Lovely assumption, but entirely untrue.




> I became involved in the truther movement after 2004, ironically as a result of scrutinizing articles appearing in LRC and antiwar.com, NOT Alex Jones or the videos.


Same here.  I never gave Alex Jones or rense any credit, I turned truther from Antiwar and places like LRC, but as I delved deeper I found answers to my truther concerns.




> In NYC, I also heard from 9/11 family members and rescue workers, who routinely admitted (as do the co-heads of the 9/11 Commission Rport) that there was and is a massive cover-up involved.


Yes, but that coverup can involve quite a few things without contending that the government did 9/11.




> I ran statewide for Senate in 2000, and as the LP's candidate for Governor of NY in 2006, the latter race with re-opening a 9/11 inquiry as one of the issues. I received three times as many votes running on 9/11 as I did from running on constitutional issues in 2000. I utterly reject the nonsense that the truther issue is a problem.


You can't possibly draw that conclusion because there are so many other variables that can easily account for the difference - not the least of which is the fact that you were running for two different offices, that one race was before 9/11, to say nothing of changes in your campaign itself and exposure you received between the two races or any of the other myriad factors.  And even IF you could possibly isolate your trutherism as the cause for your increase, we're still talking about a microniche of voters.  "Three times" the number of voters sounds like a lot, but when that "three times" equals .25% of the voting population it's no statement of popularity for 9/11 trutherism.

----------


## Captain Bryan

I agree with ArrestPoliticians' signature. Support Gary Johnson, if he doesn't make it to the primaries we should really support Ventura. ( And really try to push him to have Ron as a VP. )

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> If you really want to get into a debate of truther issue, then let's start by getting your source for all of these "facts", and I'll offer a rebuttal.
> 
> ... And even IF you could possibly isolate your trutherism as the cause for your increase, we're still talking about a microniche of voters.  "Three times" the number of voters sounds like a lot, but when that "three times" equals .25% of the voting population it's no statement of popularity for 9/11 trutherism.


Since you started with the vague claim of 'non-partisan' sources, you should cite some specifics about *your* 'facts' before asking others to source things for you to reflexively 'rebut.' A person could contentously rebut that 2+2=4 if they wanted to ("but it's not true in base 3"). The microniche status of a 3rd party race is precisely a clean way to test trutherism, as there are no other 'mainstream' elements present to credit the increase to. If the candidate attracted a macroniche of voters, you'd obviously credit other things for his success. As your latter quote shows, you're simply not prepared to accept 9/11 as positively impacting a candidacy, period. You are not an honest player.

----------


## Gage

The fact that Ventura would even consider, based on his positions, to appoint people like Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Mark Sanford, Dennis Kucinich and all the other Constitutionalist politicians should be enough incentive to get Ventura into office. Just picture Ron as the vice president of the United States of America for just one second. Picture the very first general election debate among the still promising CHANGE Obama, the plasticized Neocon Romney, and the political outsider Jesse Ventura. He already knows how to beat the Republicrats, and if we can get him polling at 20 or 30% why not seize the opportunity? Opposing Jesse Ventura for any reason at all in 2012 deserves an immediate GTFO.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Since you started with the vague claim of 'non-partisan' sources, you should cite some specifics about *your* 'facts' before asking others to source things for you to reflexively 'rebut.'


Fair enough.  This site seems comparable to the site that originally turned me away from trutherism (though I cannot find via google the original site): www.debunking911.com

As for my take on the issue - I am agnostic.  I don't know who did 9/11, or why.  I don't believe the government's story, I don't believe truther gospel, and I don't have any alternative theory to offer.  I am, however, a loyal seeker of the truth, and I intend to find that truth via logical and fact-based discussion of it.  So if you'd like to talk about the 9/11 issues you brought up in your previous post, I'll need to know where you learned about them so that I can read up and interpret your data for my rebuttal.




> A person could contentously rebut that 2+2=4 if they wanted to ("but it's not true in base 3").


This is true, the same is true of any debate.  One need only cry "solipsism" and render any debate of issues null and void.  




> The microniche status of a 3rd party race is precisely a clean way to test trutherism, as there are no other 'mainstream' elements present to credit the increase to.


This is not true.  I pointed out numerous variables in my previous post, and there are more - not the least of which are time and chance (to quote, ironically, from Ecclesiastes 9:11).  




> If the candidate attracted a macroniche of voters, you'd obviously credit other things for his success.


Not true.  I never said that your vote total increase WASNT a result of your 9/11 position, only that you fail to show that it was.




> As your latter quote shows, you're simply not prepared to accept 9/11 as positively impacting a candidacy, period. You are not an honest player.


Draw whatever unfounded conclusions you like, but know that I am more than willing to accept trutherism's impact on a race, when it is shown empirically to have an impact on the race.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Fair enough.  This site seems comparable to the site that originally turned me away from trutherism (though I cannot find via google the original site): www.debunking911.com
> 
> Draw whatever unfounded conclusions you like, but know that I am more than willing to accept trutherism's impact on a race, when it is shown empirically to have an impact on the race.


I asked for your facts, you reply with exactly the kind of faux 'impartial' site that has been long discredited due to its bias. If you can't even recall the actual site, your memory of its persuasiveness is likely also faulty, and in any event indicates it is your conclusions that are unfounded and unverifiable. The positive impact of the 9-11 issue can of course never be 'shown empirically' to you, since you listed numerous caveats denying its impact could ever be isolated to your satisfaction. It's the difference between a reasonable doubting Thomas saying 'show me the wounds and I will believe,' versus a contentious Thomas saying 'prove to me you can prove something, then I'm willing to accept you can prove you  can prove something,' and we never even get to the wounds. 

This is the rhetorical approach of diversion, not of truth seeking.  I will not waste further time in a one-way exchanging of evidence on this basis. Nor is there a need to, as there are now several peer-reviewed sites that document 911 truth issues that are findable with a simple Google search. Instead, below is today's Daily Paul article noting the long list of coincidences one has to believe in to accept the government's conspiracy theory, and the site referencing over 250 smoking guns pointing to an inside job. Good night and good luck:

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/76899#comments

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

----------


## dr. hfn

Johnson/Goldwater Jr.  and Ron Paul as Treasury Sec.

----------


## Imperial

I actually would want to see a Johnson/Ventura ticket for libertarian party, but A) I don't see Ventura joining the LP and B) I don't see Ventura going for VP.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> I asked for your facts, you reply with exactly the kind of faux 'impartial' site that has been long discredited due to its bias.  If you can't even recall the actual site, your memory of its persuasiveness is likely also faulty, and in any event indicates it is your conclusions that are unfounded and unverifiable.


First, how do you consider that site "faux impartial"?

Second, I did stumble on to the site today while searching for something related to this very post.  Here it is: www.911myths.com

Third, failure to recall a site URL that I last visited 3 years ago says nothing about the viability of the information on the site or the conclusions I derived from the site, unless there's been some serious advances in recent memory science that I missed.




> The positive impact of the 9-11 issue can of course never be 'shown empirically' to you, since you listed numerous caveats denying its impact could ever be isolated to your satisfaction.


Not true.  If you had some sort of data or actual evidence that could isolate the positive impact of the 9/11 issue on the campaign I would be satisfied.

This isn't about me having high standards.  There were many variables between the two races, and you picked one (your use of the 9/11 issue) as the reason for improved vote totals.  I wish to know how you arrived at that conclusion.




> It's the difference between a reasonable doubting Thomas saying 'show me the wounds and I will believe,' versus a contentious Thomas saying 'prove to me you can prove something, then I'm willing to accept you can prove you  can prove something,' and we never even get to the wounds.


I don't see how this is analogous because I'm not asking you to prove that you can prove something.  I want to talk directly to the issues.  You made some points earlier and I offered to discuss them.  I'd like to discuss the facts of the matter directly.




> This is the rhetorical approach of diversion, not of truth seeking.
> 
> I will not waste further time in a one-way exchanging of evidence on this basis.


Talk about a diversion - I'm happy to talk about the data points you posted, or anything to do with 9/11 - but lets talk issues.




> Nor is there a need to, as there are now several peer-reviewed sites that document 911 truth issues that are findable with a simple Google search.


And they are?




> Instead, below is today's Daily Paul article noting the long list of coincidences one has to believe in to accept the government's conspiracy theory, and the site referencing over 250 smoking guns pointing to an inside job. Good night and good luck:
> 
> http://www.dailypaul.com/node/76899#comments


Have you ever actually looked critically at something that agrees with you, or do you just give it a pass because it arrives at a conclusion that supports your point.  I couldn't even make it past the first ten items before shaking my head and closing the link.  In fact, the first item on the list, the Riggs Bank thing, jumped right out at me - here's the truth about that:

http://www.911myths.com/html/riggs_bank.html




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


Please, the first two items that are supposed smoking guns are Operation Northwoods and the plot of a TV show pilot.  These are not smoking guns.  If that list contains any actual smoking guns, I'd love if you would post them here so I could rebut but I'm not going to sift through pages of bilge.

----------


## angelatc

Based on his performance in MN, Ventura runs like a libertarian and governs like a Democrat.

The libertarian GOPers in MN that I respect were very disappointed in him, and I won't support him for that reason.

----------

