Libertarian Presidential Debate

[LibertiORDeth]

Not sure if I missed it, I can't go through this all right now, is there a youtube?

 

[LibertiORDeth]

bump?

 

[Bradley in DC]

Not sure if I missed it, I can't go through this all right now, is there a youtube?

It was probably a bit long for a YouTube.

Quick summary: crowd thinks Barr and Ruwart did well and would make a good ticket, WAR was very loud, Phillies flopped, Jingo, I can't remember, Gravel, well, he was Gravel.

And the mob is always right, right?

 

[scotto2008]

When I heard him say that I assumed that I misheard. Gravel is far from a Libertarian but I didn't realize he was a closet nativist. I wish I could see transcript somewhere.

This guy is insane if he thinks he belongs on a stage with real Libertarians.

His answer to gov't provided healthcare was something like "Well, you can't be free if you're not healthy."

How lame.

 

[AFM]

Barr is stylish
Barr for GQ cover

 

[Knightskye]

Quick summary: crowd thinks Barr and Ruwart did well and would make a good ticket, WAR was very loud, Phillies flopped, Jingo, I can't remember, Gravel, well, he was Gravel.

Barr seemed okay. Kubby made a lot of jokes. Phillies was scary. Root (WAR) shouted his answers and most of the time went off on a tangent. Jingozian gave half-assed answers. Gravel... yeah... Universal healthcare, carbon tax, National ID - too non-Libertarian. Ruwart gave clear answers and actually answered the questions.

And the mob is always right, right?

Not if the Supreme Court disagrees.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Would the Hillary feminists back Ruwart?

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Barr seemed okay. Kubby made a lot of jokes. Phillies was scary. Root (WAR) shouted his answers and most of the time went off on a tangent. Jingozian gave half-assed answers. Gravel... yeah... Universal healthcare, carbon tax, National ID - too non-Libertarian. Ruwart gave clear answers and actually answered the questions.

Really? I must have been listening to a completely different debate. Barr was concise, confident, and friendly. Great performance. Kubby had a good performance, but I would not consider him presidential material. Phillies was concise and confident in himself, but he came off too strongly for my tastes, and I imagine he turned some people off. Root was enthusiastic, energetic, and concise. I thought he answered every question very clearly...I don't have any confusion on where he stands. He even went as far as to admit his past mistakes...that takes a true man. I thought Gravel answered questions well and had a nicer presence than his typically "pissed off" debate persona. That being said, I don't agree with the majority of his stances. I thought Ruwart was unclear, unconfident, and very rehearsed. She was the worst, in my opinion, next to Jingozian. If I had to grade it, I'd say...

1. Wayne Allyn Root
2. Barr
3. Gravel
4. Phillies (concise, but too hostile)
5. Kubby
6. Ruwart
7. Jingozian

Did any website do a critique of the debate? I'd like to hear what some analysts thought of it.

 

[nbhadja]

Really? I must have been listening to a completely different debate. Barr was concise, confident, and friendly. Great performance. Kubby had a good performance, but I would not consider him presidential material. Phillies was concise and confident in himself, but he came off too strongly for my tastes, and I imagine he turned some people off. Root was enthusiastic, energetic, and concise. I thought he answered every question very clearly...I don't have any confusion on where he stands. He even went as far as to admit his past mistakes...that takes a true man. I thought Gravel answered questions well and had a nicer presence than his typically "pissed off" debate persona. That being said, I don't agree with the majority of his stances. I thought Ruwart was unclear, unconfident, and very rehearsed. She was the worst, in my opinion, next to Jingozian. If I had to grade it, I'd say...

1. Wayne Allyn Root
2. Barr
3. Gravel
4. Phillies (concise, but too hostile)
5. Kubby
6. Ruwart
7. Jingozian

Did any website do a critique of the debate? I'd like to hear what some analysts thought of it.

Gravel is a socialist. He should be dead last.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

You should have read my entire post, and next time i would appreciate it if you did. I said he answered well and came off well. I don't agree with most of what he says. I've said in the past he is a socialist and I'd never vote for him, but he was definitely performing better than those below him. They either left no impression or a poor/hostile one. Gravel was aggressive without being hostile and, for the most part, on point.

You have to keep in mind these people are running for president. You need to have a strong presence about you to survive. Many of these people would be great for a senate position or something, just not president.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

i would vote like this right now:

1. barr
2. WAR
3. gravel
4. ruwart
5. kubby
6. phillies
7. jingozian

 

[LibertiORDeth]

I would love to vote but need to see it first
YOUTUBE!

 

[LibertiORDeth]

bump for youtube!

 

[RPTXState]

1. WAR
2. barr
3. kubby
4. ruwart
5. jingozian
6. gravel
7. phillies

Root has been a fiscal conservative for ages, thats what matters most to me. He also brings energy and excitement the LP seems to lack
Barr would be great for 2012, but give him time to prove he's serious and build up some serious inter-party support
Kubby is a nice one-issue or VP canidate, but not so sure if he should be at the top just yet.
Ruwart is a great inter-party canidate, but can't appeal to non-libertarians. Good VP due to being a well-versed libertarian woman.
Jingo, well, no real opinion of him good or bad
Gravel needs even more time that Barr to prove he's a serious libertarian
Phillies is, well....Phillies.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Voting on debate

I know how much you guys like online polls...

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/

Bob Barr 26% (18 votes)

Steve Kubby 25% (17 votes)

Mary Ruwart 22% (15 votes)

Mike Gravel 14% (10 votes)

Wayne Allyn Root 7% (5 votes)

George Phillies 4% (3 votes)

Michael Jingozian 1% (1 votes)

TOTAL VOTES: 69

 

[WRellim]

Please... Show some respect and stop speaking to me in a condescending tone like you are the authority on the issue or like I am some uneducated child.

But your post contained NOTHING to be respectful of.

It contained nothing but the standard pandering, reactionary, emotional nationalistic BS.

IMHO, YOUR post is the one that was disrespectful. If I didn't believe you were worthy of the discourse, I would not have bothered to post my reply (I don't normally waste my time trying to teach pigs {or neocons} to sing.)

So you are trying to tell me that NO terrorists EVER would come up with the idea to go to a country like Canada or Mexico and take advantage of our insecure borders and infiltrate the country??

If we left them alone... took our military OUT of their country, why would they want to bother? Some sad sick form of desire for only "revenge" would somehow motivate them to abandon their OWN country, their OWN lives and families, and venture all the way to the US in order to commit suicide and kill a bunch of Americans?

Because of why? Because they hate our Freedom? Because we DIDN'T stay and continue to occupy their country?

They might come up with the idea... but I doubt very sincerely that they would follow through.

I know why terrorism exists, geez, I am not a Neocon. Terrorism will exist as long as we have a belligerent foreign policy so we might as well protect our borders until we revise our foreign policy.

But no matter what you build for a wall... they will be able to get around it (if they even bother to come that way). Consider all of the money, time and effort the French put into building the MAGINOT LINE... it didn't work, did it?

And besides, all of the foreign-terrorists have never even bothered trying to come through Mexico or Canada... it's much easier to come here in a straight forward fashion.

You're right, terrorists probably aren't going to use planes again, so we should worry more so about our borders.

This is a non-sequitor. Your logic is entirely faulty. They didn't COME HERE via the borders. The borders had NOTHING to do with 9/11; in the same way that IRAQ (or Easter Island or the Blue-Footed Boobies on the Galapagos Islands) had nothing to do with 9/11.

Just because the 9/11 terrorists were legals doesn't mean we don't have to worry about illegals coming to America via our insecure borders. If 20 million illegals can sneak into America for seeking work, then you can bet terrorists can sneak into America with the intent to due harm.

But why would they bother? Much easier to just get a passport from the Saudi government and fly here on a direct flight.

And the whole issue itself is really nothing more than FEAR-mongering. People are MUCH more likely to die at the hands of a friend, family-member, irate neighbor, and much MUCH MUCH more likely to be injured or die in a car accident than they EVER are of dying from a Terrorist attack here in the US. Seriously, Lightning, Tornadoes, Earthquakes, Floods, and other things are MUCH greater things to RATIONALLY FEAR than are a bunch of ragheads in some cave several thousand miles away.

So for Grandma and Grandpa Jones to be made to "quake" in their boots and to then VOTE for someone on an issue that is based on an IRRATIONAL and UNLIKELY FEAR... is really rather inane.

Clearly, YOU have not been listening to Ron Paul at all. Paul has voted for a wall. Paul has expressed concerned for securing our borders. He voted for tipping off officials about illegals receiving hospital treatment.

Yes, you are correct on this (I like to TRY to forget it myself) he did and does... and it is the MAIN area of idiocy (and bog-standard "politician") on his part that I disagree with, and cannot fathom (other than the fact that being from Texas, it is an important LOCAL issue for him). He has stated several times in interviews that he believes the whole illegal immigrant thing to be nothing more than a scapegoat ...and yet he DOES in fact persist in additional scapegoating.

And that his campaign chose to waste a BIG amount of money advertising on this "scapegoat" issue {in Iowa where it is NOT so much a problem} bothers and offends me greatly. I believe it is pandering of the WORST sort, and plays directly into the neocon's game.

I truly WANTED to discuss all of this with him when I had (hoped) to have the opportunity last fall in Chicago -- but as at the time he was NOT focusing on this "scapegoat" issue of the "borders" (and his "Immigrant" ads were months in the future) -- it both didn't seem THAT CENTRAL to his campaign, and regardless I paid $1,000 in order to get less than 5 seconds with the man (as the 2 hour long "private briefing" was turned into a joke by his staff ... it ended up being a 1 hour session, with RP showing up 1/2 hour late, the next 1/2 hour with him being huddled in a corner for an on-camera interview, the next 1/2 hour being a short speech by RP and a longer one by Dr. Pape -- and after which "poof" he was gone 1/2 hour before the session was supposed to end... whacha gonna do?)

Since then the issue became more "central" to the campaign (at least in the sens of advertising dollars spent) -- and one presumes because of a (IMHO poorly) calculated belief that it would make him more "mainstream" and thus acceptable to the "conservatives" of the party as an alternative to "Amnesty McCain." Basically the "pandering" didn't work (and again, I'm fairly certain on RP's part the focus is more because of local TEXAS issues... but I have no proof of that, nor does it make me excuse the inconsistency).

And how is having a borderless nation not a step towards losing our sovereignty?? When an illegal alien can just walk into our country and take advantage of the American taxpayers and not have to pay taxes themselves, that is a HUGE violation of our country's sovereignty. It is extremely unfair to the American taxpayers to pay for the welfare of illegal aliens. Having no borders is a step towards merging America & Mexico. Americans are Mexicans and vice versa. We need borders.

And we have borders. But the "loss of sovereignty" issue is one of treaties, UN subservience, and the like, to which the "immigration" is a consequence, rather than a cause.

And taking actions to change a consequence by "other means" (rather than addressing the root cause) does NOT affect that root cause; if anything since it MITIGATES the impact of the root cause, it actually INCREASES the likelihood of the root cause NOT being recognized as such, and therefore increases the likelihood of that causal problem continuing AND potentially becoming even worse.

As to the "no taxes" and the "welfare" impact and costs, this is (yet another) scapegoat meme.

Similar to the standard Bushie BS red-herring statement that "the poor don't pay income tax" -- which meme hinges ENTIRELY on the "technicality" of the definition of the "income tax" and PURPOSEFULLY ignoring the 15% FICA "payroll tax" as well as the host of OTHER taxes which together constitute a significantly higher percentage of the middle and lower class incomes than ANY "income tax" or "capitol gains tax" paid by the wealthy (even disregarding tax avoidance schemes). But it is repeated SO OFTEN that even many "Liberal media" types tend to repeat it without actually thinking about it. (And it is a USEFUL meme because it plays on emotions and thus distracts from the MAIN issue -- the SIZE and runaway COST of government).

But to get back on topic, in general, illegal immigrants DO PAY TAXES in many of the same ways that citizens do (Gas Tax, Sales Tax, Property Tax {via rent} etc these things are all virtually unavoidable, regardless of one's status). And often in order to get a "legitimate" job, they provide a FAKE Social Security number... which means they ARE paying a 15% FICA payroll tax as well (and likely income tax too... but no filing = no refunds). If the illegal is NOT working a "legitimate" job but instead is paid "cash under the table" then it is the company or person doing the HIRING that is equally responsible and (at least) equally the problem (regardless of one's residency status).

But no "wall" will prevent any of the above, because these problems are INTERNAL to the United States.

And no "wall" will effectively prevent them from continuing to come into the country. If they REALLY want (economically NEED) to find a way in ...they will. Cameras, walls, checkpoints, are all just futile expenditures.


As to the "welfare" costs -- I am certain that there are significant problems with Hospitals, etc. in the direct "border states" like Texas and Arizona (and especially the border towns). But in my opinion those both CAN and SHOULD be handled on a LOCAL, and a state-by-state basis. It is the BS Federal "mandates" and Federal funding that have helped to create the problem in the first place, and ENDING those Federal programs will be the only REAL solution.

But in the rest of the country -- despite the rhetoric and grand-standing (i.e. scapegoating) -- the actual costs of immigrants in terms of hospitals, etc are relatively minor. Much HIGHER costs (i.e. the BIGGER problem) are due to fraud, incompetence, ignorance, and a view of "entitlement" of our own citizens, etc.

So instead of straining at the "gnats" we are going to continue to swallow the "camels" -- and count ourselves as having done something of value?

You could remove ALL of the illegal immigrants from the "welfare" system and the entire thing would STILL be insolvent and headed towards bankruptcy, because it was always an unworkable system.



The entire "secure borders" issue is a Red-Herring. The arguments may have some small validity, but they do NOT address the main issue and problems. So in the end, they are nothing but a distraction. (But a very USEFUL distraction for the neo-cons, the party hacks, and the bog-standard politicos... because it plays on the EMOTIONS of the populace, and let's them continue with the game.)


But if all of that is just too darn condescending... well, fine, then I'm condescending. But don't expect me (or anyone else who thinks it through) to do a "QFT" beneath your next spiel of scapegoat-based, fear-mongering, regurgitated bromides. (Regardless of whether RP agrees... he's not the second coming).

 

[Kludge]

It was probably a bit long for a YouTube.

Quick summary: crowd thinks Barr and Ruwart did well and would make a good ticket, WAR was very loud, Phillies flopped, Jingo, I can't remember, Gravel, well, he was Gravel.

And the mob is always right, right?

Right =)

Dance, my friends, dance!

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I hope that we can save face and maybe have Barr as LP nominee and Chuck Baldwin come as his VP. I think Chuck getting the CP nomination hurts both parties.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

1. WAR
2. barr
3. kubby
4. ruwart
5. jingozian
6. gravel
7. phillies

Root has been a fiscal conservative for ages, thats what matters most to me. He also brings energy and excitement the LP seems to lack
Barr would be great for 2012, but give him time to prove he's serious and build up some serious inter-party support
Kubby is a nice one-issue or VP canidate, but not so sure if he should be at the top just yet.
Ruwart is a great inter-party canidate, but can't appeal to non-libertarians. Good VP due to being a well-versed libertarian woman.
Jingo, well, no real opinion of him good or bad
Gravel needs even more time that Barr to prove he's a serious libertarian
Phillies is, well....Phillies.

I agree with your summary of WAR. However, I think Bob Barr has the credentials to win over many Republicans and breathe new life into the Libertarian party, while still keeping its message strictly Libertarian...almost like a booster for the party. He could bring some people there, and WAR will keep them there...I think it'd be a great ticket. Experience along with young new life both supporting the same principles.


How did Jingozian end up so high on your list? After hearing him speak, I couldn't figure out why he was on that stage. And, I'll contend that Ruwart is severely overrated and over hyped. However, I think any one of them would be better than the Democrats or Republicans. That being said, I still don't think any could change my write in vote for Ron.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

How did Jingozian end up so high on your list? After hearing him speak, I couldn't figure out why he was on that stage. And, I'll contend that Ruwart is severely overrated and over hyped. However, I think any one of them would be better than the Democrats or Republicans. That being said, I still don't think any could change my write in vote for Ron.

Write-ins are meaningless. She's "overrated" because she was the purist on stage and she has been a Libertarian activist for ages.