Sanford, Johnson, Ventura, or other?

2012

  • Gary Johnson

    Votes: 46 40.0%
  • Jesse Ventura

    Votes: 21 18.3%
  • Mark Sanford

    Votes: 30 26.1%
  • Other

    Votes: 18 15.7%

  • Total voters
    115
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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 bullshit (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.
 
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.
 
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 "bullshit", 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.
 
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?
 
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 bullshit. Saying that Operation Northwoods and the pilot to a TV show are "smoking guns" that our government "did" 9/11 is BULLSHIT.

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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 

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.
 
better support someone a group

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.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top