Austin Petersen, thoughts?

[younglibertarian]

What do you guys think about Austin Petersen? My first choice for the libertarian nomination is McAfee, yet being in 3rd place at the moment there is a good chance he won't be the nominee. Gary Johnson simply seems to "luke-warm" to me, especially with his comments regarding cake baking ect.

While Petersen has some flaws I think he is a pretty decent candidate. He has a pretty good stance on economic principles and in general foreign policy. You can have a look at his platform here.

http://austinpetersen2016.com/platform/

There are a few downsides in my opinion, that being experience and presentation. He really has no solid business/political past, which sends up a few red flags for me. Also he can sometimes be a bit denigrating in tone to potential supporters and other individuals. I've seen some pretty bad attitude on his Facebook page. Sometimes his campaign doesn't seem very serious. While we all love them, are "dank memes" really what you want the face of your campaign to look like?

I also don't really agree with his stance on the NSA, his "penny plan," and a few other things.

Prehaps creating an evaluation of this candidate should be considered?

What are your thoughts?

 

[phill4paul]

I think you hit the nail on the head when you mention his presentation as a downside. Having watched the LP debate he comes off as extremely knowlegegable WRT history/Constitution. However, he just didn't seem to be able to "make the sale." I can't exactly pin-point why. Kinda like the difference between reading a history book and an action novel when compared to McAfee. Most people these days prefer an action novel.

 

[presence]

Petersen has the most firm grasp on austrian economics vs mcafee and johnson. Economics is the heart of the liberty movement.

I think he accepts the futility of "winning" and is running more of an educational campaign. I respect that.

 

[CaptUSA]

Just a different life experience which means a different way of approaching liberty. I expanded on this in another thread, but here's my short take:

Petersen = Liberty theorist (he's read the books and understands liberty thinking)
Johnson = Utilitarian pragmatist (which often utilizes liberty as the most efficient means)
McAfee = Liberty empiricist (free spirit in an un-free world. the state fought him and he's fighting back)

We need them all. Including Rand who is more of a liberty pragmatist. I don't care about your path to liberty as long as you arrive here. Each one of us took a slightly different path.

 

[younglibertarian]

Just a different life experience which means a different way of approaching liberty. I expanded on this in another thread, but here's my short take:

Petersen = Liberty theorist (he's read the books and understands liberty thinking)
Johnson = Utilitarian pragmatist (which often utilizes liberty as the most efficient means)
McAfee = Liberty empiricist (free spirit in an un-free world. the state fought him and he's fighting back)

We need them all. Including Rand who is more of a liberty pragmatist. I don't care about your path to liberty as long as you arrive here. Each one of us took a slightly different path.

Those are some good observations, and I think that is a major problem with libertarians these days. We sometimes try to find that "perfect" candidate who approaches the issues exactly like ourselves, thus causing disunity. This slows down our progress tremendously. The hard part is asking the question: "When and how much should we compromise?"

 

[Peace&Freedom]

In terms of what we most need now, a "liberty empiricist" comes closest to fulfilling our electoral objectives. An empiricist, once in office, can always hire the theorists and pragmatists needed to make liberty policies work. But our candidates need to be able to make a connection first, to attract and build coalitions that can win elections. Educational campaigns can only build up a liberty core, whereas the movement needs to build beyond the core.

 

[Bryan]

Prehaps creating an evaluation of this candidate should be considered?

What are your thoughts?

Good point, we'll start an evaluation (tonight).

I agree with your points, basically he comes off very well with his message and presentation. The red flags come to experience, he can work on that by winning a lower office.

 

[CaptUSA]

Those are some good observations, and I think that is a major problem with libertarians these days. We sometimes try to find that "perfect" candidate who approaches the issues exactly like ourselves, thus causing disunity. This slows down our progress tremendously. The hard part is asking the question: "When and how much should we compromise?"

Exactly, my friend. This has been my main theme on this site. We concentrate our energies on our disagreements instead of our agreements. I don't really care about how much each one of us may want to compromise to achieve our goals - we are all different. I think whatever disunity we have with people should be with those that try to take us in the opposite direction.

You will never find someone exactly like yourself, and even if you did, you would most likely find some point of disagreement just to remind yourself that you are an individual.

 

[afwjam]

I like him. He is very smart, well learned and well spoken. He comes off a bit to strongly and unexperienced. I would like to see him work on life experience in lower office or better yet in private enterprise. It is not his time yet, I agree with McAfee that he is the future just like Johnson is the past.

 

[phill4paul]

I like him. He is very smart, well learned and well spoken. He comes off a bit to strongly and unexperienced. I would like to see him work on life experience in lower office or better yet in private enterprise. It is not his time yet, I agree with McAfee that he is the future just like Johnson is the past.

I'm with you on this. In this election cycle both Austin and Gary would be drowned out. McAfee is the only one that would appear to be fighting as opposed to seeming accepting a third place status.

 

[Conza88]

Petersen... ugh... bro, just drop the fakeness for crying out loud.

His demeanour and character... absolutely repel. Great in terms of knowledge etc.. but clearly NOT ENOUGH:

Power of Attraction

“I am not at this level but I am aware of it and know some of its imperatives. One imperative is the awareness that the higher the objective is, the more dignified the method must be. If we aspire to such a high objective as advancing individual liberty and the free market, we can resort to no lesser method than the power of attraction, the absolute opposite of using propaganda, indoctrination, and half truths. A good way to test how well one is doing on the objective we have in mind is to observe how many are seeking his counsel. If none, then one can draw his own conclusions!

The sole force that will turn indifference into acceptance is the power of attraction. And this can be achieved only if the eye is cast away from the remaking of others and toward the improvement of self. This effort demanded of each individual is not at all a sacrifice, but rather the best investment one can make in life’s highest purpose.

Well, where can we find such individuals? I think we will find them among those who love this country. I think we will find them in this room. I think that one of them is you.”

— Leonard Read

His "speak tough" "bloviate" "politician" style reeks of mimicry as to what he thinks works on voters and the general public. It comes across as so fake.

Tone alone can be divisive, or not, independent of content. Separate from the issue of agreeing or disagreeing, is the issue of style. Both the “what” and the “how” have an impact in any instance of communication, and the virtues of the one cannot make up for the defects of the other.
— Konrad Graf

 

[William Tell]

What do you guys think about Austin Petersen? My first choice for the libertarian nomination is McAfee, yet being in 3rd place at the moment there is a good chance he won't be the nominee.

Where are you getting the information on who is 1st 2nd and 3rd? Polls mean absolutely nothing in the Libertarian party because they choose at the national convention like how the Constitution Party nominated Castle. They don't have a primary like the GOP, Johnson McAfee and Petersen just need to sell themselves to the convention delegates. Nobody else matters. Based on history I would guess Johnson has the best shot by far but it is a strange election cycle so you never know.

 

[afwjam]

Petersen... ugh... bro, just drop the fakeness for crying out loud.

His demeanour and character... absolutely repel. Great in terms of knowledge etc.. but clearly NOT ENOUGH:



His "speak tough" "bloviate" "politician" style reeks of mimicry as to what he thinks works on voters and the general public. It comes across as so fake.

This is what Judd Wiess, McAfees VP choice was talking about on the Peter Schiff show. Gotta sell people on how it will really benefit them.

 

[groverblue]

Austin Petersen, the Marco Rubio of the Libertarian Party, is a fraud. He's only concerned about self-promoting. Knock this fraud off his high horse before it's too late.

“The more I listen to Ron Paul the more I think he actually despises this country” -Austin Petersen

From Liberty Conservatives:

In July of 2014 Petersen stated that Ron Paul sounded like he hates America as a response to an AP article which stated Paul was defending Russia. Petersen also stated that he thought Ron Paul was using the same tactics as those who defended the Soviet Union in order to defend the actions of a big government overseas (that being Russia). He said that Ron Paul’s rhetoric sounded like Soviet apologia, and asked why he would want to sound like he was defending a big government overseas. Petersen’s comparison of Ron Paul’s non interventionist foreign policy to Soviet style propaganda is sure to inflame liberty voters who have largely viewed Petersen as a close alternative to Paul.

Petersen goes on to implicitly reject the notion that the war on terror finds its roots in blowback from our foreign policy. Petersen states that the more you delve into foreign policy the more you realize that there are in fact people who hate us for our freedoms, and that the actors in the current “war on terror” are an example of this. He claims that Ron Paul blames the United States whenever something wrong happens overseas, and that “when you start sounding like Soviet apparatchiks or real America hating socialist liberals then you have a problem”. He believes that Paul’s rhetoric will lead to people thinking that libertarians hate America, due to Paul’s constant incorrect (in his view) blaming of the United States for every problem.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

If you want brushfires of liberty, then you have to be capable of striking a spark. Theory is certainly important, but theory will not make a comatose voter wake up. Right now LP needs outreach and expansion. Theory doesn't buy that, razzle dazzle does. So bottom line is McAfee is the only one who is going to move the ball down the field in this environment. If it's not McAfee, then I'm just not going to pay attention.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Austin Petersen, the Marco Rubio of the Libertarian Party, is a fraud. He's only concerned about self-promoting. Knock this fraud off his high horse before it's too late.

From Liberty Conservatives:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umZrDj-UDIU

And that's the other reason I will not have anything to do with Peterson. For all his claiming to have theory down, the one best chance we've had in 100 years he fought against us. So F* that guy, for real.

 

[Conza88]

If you want brushfires of liberty, then you have to be capable of striking a spark. Theory is certainly important, but theory will not make a comatose voter wake up. Right now LP needs outreach and expansion. Theory doesn't buy that, razzle dazzle does. So bottom line is McAfee is the only one who is going to move the ball down the field in this environment. If it's not McAfee, then I'm just not going to pay attention.

Theory is literally what RP was all about.

 

[bunklocoempire]

Austin Petersen, the Marco Rubio of the Libertarian Party, is a fraud. He's only concerned about self-promoting. Knock this fraud off his high horse before it's too late.



From Liberty Conservatives:

Thank you for posting.

Humble and courageous vs proud, and enjoys a good scare. Petersen is dabbling with the pride and the fear, and in front of what audience? Fail.

He did this when grandstanding w/pro-life issue at Stossel's event. He had his obvious reasons, but in my opinion, he was encouraging/entertaining a political football. What has that done for the rights of the unborn, at the Federal level? Fail.

Packaging. Fail. I'm sort of a dork (socially), so I can recognize one. He's a major dork, and there's nothing wrong with that of course, just really hard to sell when he's that young.

MSM versus Petersen? Horror show. MSM versus Johnson (ew, no) or McAfee? Much more imaginable and exploitable in liberty's favor.