Libertarian VP candidate Weld promotes voting for Clinton
Here is a transcript of the infamous Nov. 1, 2016 Maddow-Weld interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I4Fk... in which Libertarian Weld promotes voting for Clinton.
SOURCE URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I4Fkiu2nak
1. MSNBC Chuck Todd interview Sept. 30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature... (Watch Todd's face as he pushes farther and farther, as if he can't believe he's getting away with it and wondering how far he can go.)
(at 3:25) "I do not view those other two candidates the same way. I think very highly of Mrs. Clinton, I think she's very well qualified. I thought she did a great job in the debate the other night, she kept her game face on and it was, uh you know, a nice smile not a press lip smile. I thought Mr. Trump by the end of the debate was out - of - control as your guests earlier were pointing out that's nothing unusual, but I think they're whistling past the grave yard if they don't think Trump has a chance to win this whole thing, it's an irrational year.
Todd: "No I understand that, and if you thought you were playing a role in that, what would that mean for you?"
Weld: "Oh no, that would be a very [laughing], that would be a very bad thing..."
Todd: "You seem genuinely concerned about the threat of a Trump presidency."
Weld: "That's for darn sure."
Todd: "Do you think he [Gary Johnson] is more qualified than Hillary Clinton to be president?"
Weld: "I'm not sure anyone is more qualified than Hillary Clinton to be president of the United States."
On the VP debate he wasn't part of - Weld: "Well of course I'd love to be there and uh, uh talk about how uh, uh government can uh make a big difference on issues like uh black lives matter, uh police brutality, I think we need huge amounts of training there ..."
So "doing a great job in the debate" means making a physical impression with a "nice smile" in a "game face" and has nothing to do with rational articulation of rational principles and policies, let alone inability to defend the life-long pattern of indefensible corruption.
2. Nov. 2 transcript of Weld as apologist for the Clinton corruption being investigated by the FBI as he misrepresents and trashes the FBI http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vide...
Weld: "It’s incomprehensible, and I can’t see it – Mr. Comey’s got a good background but there’s nothing there, so far as it appears. Nothing there... So it’s not a good thing, it’s a distraction so I think we should just ignore it because there’s nothing there so get on with the business of last week of the election."
Then another endorsement of Clinton:
Maddow: "The Libertarian Party hasn’t treated you great if they’re putting out statements that you disagree with over your name even now, one week before the election I can’t imagine that your loyalty to them is stronger than your fear of Trump as a President."
"Weld: Well I’m here vouching for Mrs. Clinton and I think it’s high time somebody did and I’m doing it based on my personal experience with her and I think she deserves to have people vouch for her other than members of the Democratic National Committee so I’m here to do that."
No wonder that the MSNBC hard leftist Maddow praises him as she milks him for all she can get on behalf of Hillary: "I’m in a different place than you ideologically on the number line but I have a lot of respect both for your career and your thoughtfulness and I think that you are, you’re a deep thinker and a clear thinker on these things and I have a lot of respect for you, hope you don’t mind me saying..."
Ordinarily they wouldn't bother with these loons, but this was just too juicy for them to not exploit as they butter him up as a "thoughtful clear thinker". It's like shamelessly taking advantage of a retarded child for a heist while laughing about it. He's so out of touch he doesn't see it. Like so many libertarians he wants to feel he's respected by the left and to be accepted so he can spout off and get someone to pay attention to him, and the ruthlessly hard ideological leftists who know what they are doing are only too willing to exploit it for their own agenda.
Clinton, if she got a Democrat majority in Congress, would trample the Constitution to an extent not seen since FDR.
And Weld fears Trump?
I've voted for every Libertarian candidate for President (including the write-ins) since the party was formed, and I was going to do the same this year. But after reading this I think I'll have to pull the lever for Trump.
Weld has nothing but praise for Clinton's character(!) and competence(!) -- as if all that matters is that a president come from their common elitist social-educational class of progressives who know how to show the right attitude in public and rule with 'business-like competence' -- with no admission of any underlying statist-collectivist premises or any of the facts of Clinton's actual life and political career of permanent corruption and power seeking.
Weld openly admits he can't possibly win, and couldn't even suggest, let alone urge, on behalf of his own party that people vote for him instead of Clinton. He wouldn't even say that he thinks Johnson would be a better president than Clinton. Instead he obviously implies that voters support Clinton, especially in states with close elections.
This from the self-proclaimed "party of principle".
And not until then. Education in the 4 years between elections is the way I think we can have an effect. John stossel does a good job. I've heard him on fox. Pointing out how statist programs fail is a good start to cracking their hold on us too
Ayn Rand summarized the essence of the intellectual battle required in "What Can One Do?" and "Don't Let it Go" in her book Philosophy: Who Needs It?:
From "What Can One Do?":
"If you are seriously interested in fighting for a better world, begin by identifying the nature of the problem. The battle is primarily intellectual (philosophical), not political. Politics is the last consequence, the practical implementation, of the fundamental (metaphysical-epistemological-ethical) ideas that dominate a given nation's culture. You cannot fight or change the consequences without fighting and changing the cause; nor can you attempt any practical implementation without knowing what you want to implement..."
"Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to 'do something'. By 'ideological' (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, that subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the 'libertarian' hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies. (For a discussion of the reasons, see 'The Anatomy of Compromise' in my book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.)
"The only groups one may properly join today are ad hoc committees, i.e., groups organized to achieve a single, specific, clearly defined goal, on which men of differing views can agree. In such cases, no one may attempt to ascribe his views to the entire membership, or to use the group to serve some hidden ideological purpose (and this has to be watched very, very vigilantly)..."
"... that reader's question implied a search for some shortcut in the form of an organized movement. No shortcut is possible. It is too late for a movement of people who hold a conventional mixture of contradictory philosophical notions. It is too early for a movement of people dedicated to a philosophy of reason. But it is never too late or too early to propagate the right ideas—except under a dictatorship.
"If a dictatorship ever comes to this country, it will be by the default of those who keep silent. We are still free enough to speak. Do we have time? No one can tell. But time is on our side—because we have an indestructible weapon and an invincible ally (if we learn how to use them): reason and reality."
And from "Don't Let it Go":
"We cannot fight against collectivism, unless we fight against its moral base: altruism. We cannot fight against altruism, unless we fight against its epistemological base: irrationalism. We cannot fight against anything, unless we fight for something—and what we must fight for is the supremacy of reason, and a view of man as a rational being."
"These are philosophical issues. The philosophy we need is a conceptual equivalent of America's sense of life. To propagate it, would require the hardest intellectual battle. But isn't that a magnificent goal to fight for?"
Ayn Rand couldn't spread the right philosophical ideas all by herself, and Trump surely could not do any of it. He is the last gasp of the anti-conceptual Pragmatist businessmen -- often in the form of a parody -- but our only hope to buy time. It's an example vindicating Ayn Rand's theme of the importance of what is left of the American sense of life versus the intellectuals, but how also of how that isn't enough. Just being 'pro-American' isn't enough.
The Trump vote represents a sizable protest against the establishment intellectuals and the government swamp (including the vacuous Republican establishment), and that will continue, but that movement lacks the ideas necessary to fight -- with or without representation in the presidency -- which is how it wound up fervently following the man on the white horse through the primaries and into so much self-made destruction in the campaign. It's not at root their fault because they haven't been taught anything better, while absorbing mixed and bad premises from the culture around them and continuing to follow and echo them even as they want something better. We have a big battle on our hands, and nothing that has happened has contradicted Ayn Rand.
Rachel Maddow: "I posited, just a moment ago before the commercial break, that what you and Gary Johnson are really aiming for this year is that 5% threshold, to try to get some Federal matching funds, to try to get ballot access and all those other things,.basically so the Libertarians might be viable in the future."
Bill Weld: "I think in the real world that's probably, that's probably correct. That would give Federal matching funds, it would mean no more ballot access woes. You know we thought for the longest time we might have a chance to run the table because we're such nice guys and a centrist party, etc., uh but not getting into the debates uh really uh sort of foreclosed that option. So now it is the 5% you're right.
Maddow: "In the real world when you think about pursuing that 5% option, um, for people who are in states where it's really close, for people who are in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, these states where the presidential race really might be decided among the two candidates who actually have shot at it. Do you think that people in those states should vote for you?"
Weld: "Well we are uh making our case that we're fiscally responsible and and socially inclusive and welcoming and we think we've got on the merits the best ticket of the three parties if you will, uh and so, you know, we'd like to get there. Uh, having said that, as I think you're aware, I see a big difference between the, the R candidate and the D candidate, and I've been at some pains to say that uh I fear for the country, if Mr. Trump should be elected. Uh I think uh it's a, it's a candidacy without any parallel that I can recall. It's content free and very much given to stirring up envy and resentment and even hatred, and it's uh I think it'd be a threat to the conduct of our uh foreign policy and our position in the world at large."
Maddow: "When you say fear for the country, do you, do you mean, is, is, are, is that hyperbole or do you mean it literally? You think it'd actually be a threat to us as a country?"
Weld: "Well I think it would be a threat to our polity uh as Tom Brockaw has been saying the last couple of days, you know we're getting to the point where we're, we're impinging on democratic institutions in this country and I think uh, you know it takes a certain, uh, not suspension of disbelief, but a willingness to go along with other people to get the ship of state going forward. I'm not sure that happens in a Trump presidency, frankly."
Maddow: "You've described him as um unstable. Did you mean that sort of psychologically or what's, what's the basis of that?"
Weld: "No I mean that, I mean that psychologically. I, I think he showed in the debates that when he encounters criticism or challenge, uh, he, uh behaves the way, uh, you know, a bully would, he just doesn't take it well. He doesn't deal well with criticism and blame, uh and I don't think he could, uh, competently manage the office of the presidency given, the uh the criticism and the challenge that you face every single day as president of the United States. He just would not be, uh in his uh element and, and I think he would wobble off course, 'n I think the country just can't have that."
Maddow: "[sighing] Given, given that. Um, I'm just gonna, I'm gonna circle back to the question I asked before. Um. Somebody listening to you right now in North Carolina, knowing that North Carolina may decide who the next president of the United States is. Hearing you in terms of what you think about Donald Trump and him being, uh that that you fear for the country if he is elected. Why wouldn't it be -- if if those are the stakes, and that person is deciding well, I'm gonna vote against Donald Trump -- and you concede basically that you're not gonna win the -- you and Gary Johnson are not gonna to win the presidency. Why, would that person not weigh threat to the country, fear for the fate of the country, against hope the Libertarian Party gets its 5% this year. Why would a person pick the Libertarian vote in that case if the, if the stakes are that high between voting for Clinton and Trump?"
Weld: "Well, the, the person could very well decide not to do that. And for someone deciding not to do that I have a lot to say about Mrs. Clinton that uh has not been said by others, uh recently and I that think needs to be said. I mean I've know her for forty years. I've worked with her, I know her well professionally, I know her well personally, I know her to be a person of uh high moral character, uh a reliable person, uh and uh an honest person, eh however so much uh Mr. Trump may rant and rave uh to the contrary. So uh I'm happy to say that, and people can make their own choices."
Maddow: "I feel like you're, you're butting up against a [laughing] gossamar, ceiling, here, a very uh, in that you're I mean you're not getting -- you're not quitting, you're not stepping out of the race. Um I heard you say to today on MSNBC that you'll cast a vote for the Libertarian ticket, on which you are --"
Weld: "That would be our ticket."
Maddow: "That would be your ticket, your and Gary Johnson's ticket. But do you honestly believe that Gary Johnson would be a better president than Hillary Clinton?"
Weld: "I think he'd be capable of being a good chief executive and yes a commander in chief Aleppo to the contrary not withstanding. Uh he was a strong governor, and, uh, you know, I believe in the platform of the Libertarian Party, which is different from that of the other two parties, and I believe that it would be good for the country if the Libertarians were to have a seat at the table to speak truth to power of the other two parties, which now have this monopoly uh in Washington. Having said that I'm not taking back anything I said about the massive difference between the two establishment party candidates. One would be chaos for the country, I think, and the other would be a very uh, uh business-like and and capable and competent approach to our affairs."
Johnson and Weld will turn the Libertarian Party into just another party, but with a name that used to have a meaning.
Gary Johnson picked Weld and the "delegates" in this phony organization picked him and told him to pick whatever he wanted. They have a 40 year record of abysmal failure. Ayn Rand properly denounced them at the beginning, but even she didn't publicly foresee them sinking to this. It is, however, an unsurprising consequence of their a-philosophical rush (now 40 year old) into politics without regard to the required philosophical base for changing a culture that she explained so well.
At this point, as has been the case since the campaign began, voting for Johnson is voting for the candidate that is best qualified and most trustworthy to be president. History has proven to me that voting for the lesser evil only lets looters continue to increase government power and steal wealth from producers. Trump and Hillary are poor choices for president. I vote on principles not in fear of Trump or Hillary. I am not a "Libertarian Party" member and I do not always agree with the platform of the party, but it is better by far than any other choice at present.
Not good at all.
Weld: "The person could very well decide not to do that."
Weld is sadly correct. My dream of one of the mainstream candidates completely imploding did not come true.