And this is exactly what the libertarians have been screaming about for almost two decades at this point. Everything we were warning about is happening right in front of our eyes.
And this is exactly what the libertarians have been screaming about for almost two decades at this point. Everything we were warning about is happening right in front of our eyes.
No one listens to us!! haha. I really backed off trying to yell from the rooftops when we all got bent over the bankers barrel in 2008-2009 and NO ONE CARED.
Curious if the MAGA people will start to feel the same way and move on as a lot of us have from the 2008 fiery days of Ron Paul supporters blowing up EVERY youtube/facebook/news comment thread.
The thing I got from that time...even though we couldn't impact the gov't machine in anyway...we walked away with a set of ideals that will live on forever for us...I'm still not sure what the MAGA people are going to walk away with when Trump is crushing cheeseburgers in Mar-a-Lago. I wish someone would explain that to me.
Now that's a good question. Trump is a 90's Democrat with a pragmatic populist streak. That he became so popular is a scathing indictment of our ruling class and how worthless they are. What he leaves behind is mostly a sincere and well-earned distrust of DC, how that fleshes out may be "exciting," unfortunately.
Yep. As always and as it should be, the vote for POTUS is a vote for the lesser of two "evils." DJT beat Republican establishment because we didn't want another mealy-mouth Bush, then he beat the Democrat establishment (Bernie would have beat Trump) because we didn't want another corrupt Clinton. He became popular because for the first time in 30 years, lay republicans finally and refreshingly and surprisingly had someone actually acting like what we vote for!!!!
And increasing distrust of foggy bottom is ALWAYS exciting!
From the outside looking in, Trump never really lead any discussion on what reform would look like. If the current state of politics is the result of the incentives inherent to system, how are we going to change that? What in the system must be changed? If you blame the individual actors within an incentive structure you will never fix anything.
"You are being screwed over by the ruling class" is a message for everyone. The Bernie supporters will tell you the same thing. If the message has to be connected to conservative politics, there has to be a realization that you will limit who you will reach with your message. If you connect it to an individual, you are asking for those that would oppose reform to tear apart your strawman.
America first, Biden over reach will blow the Dems out in 2022. We are in the middle of a pandemic with our companies going under and jobless hoards and the addled old geezer the geniusтАЩs elected is inviting all of Central America to come get amnesty and free healthcare
"If you connect it to an individual, you are asking for those that would oppose reform to tear apart your strawman."--Wes D.
All of us are individuals, unless you buy into the collectivist bullshit.
An individual that embodies the principles that the United States was founded upon is the only one who can fight for those principles. Any "party platform" is going to be a collectivist compromise. That is why a maveric like Trump is needed at this critical time in history. And that is why the Corporatist Left is doing all in its power to destroy Trump and his supporters.
Glenn's aricle here is what that is about! Trump and his supporters are the new "domestic terrorists" according the the current regime.
How can so many of you have lost sight of this in the short time since you read the article?
This is a critically dangerous moment in our nation's history. One false step, and the nation is doomed. Wrap your heads around that.
I thought he was going to be the kingmaker of Mar-a-Lago but now he overplayed his hand on this election fraud nonsense and the republican establishment is going to distance themselves from him.
In 2010 I actually campaigned for Rand but he has proven to be a party hack and I have no faith in him. He picks his spots but is not principled like his father was.
He's playing a role. There's something about becoming a senator that is even creepier than Skull and Bones, the Stone Cutters, or even finding out who Xenu really is. Whatever it is, it gets them all.
Maybe the Deep State puts something in their booze. Either that or they're possessed by the Lizard People.
Now come on, that's a bit too far I think. After all, without Rand in the Senate, would any of us have even heard that the DemRepUnibrowWarEverywhere Party had cancelled U.S. troop reductions in Europe 75 years after, let's see....what was the name of that police action?
"he overplayed his hand on this election fraud nonsense"--Wes D.
That is where you are terribly wrong! The election was indeed rigge, and those like you who refuse to inform yourself of the facts are bound to fuck everything up as bad as the corporatist Democrats. Damnit man!
2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION FRAUD
The 2020 Presidential Election was rigged by a cabal of corporate oligarchs to install their own meat-puppet into the White House as a titular figure so they could rule behind the curtain of Oz
PROLOGUE
It has become increasingly obvious after several months of dealing with the repercussions of the TIMES Magazine article by Molly Ball that some preliminary remarks are in order to understand the meaning of this article.
First and foremost is Ms. BallтАЩs use of language. The language she uses is what George Orwell referred to as, тАЬPolitical LanguageтАЭ, wherein the terminology takes on rather deceitful nuances to portray a message that although true, is couched in coded terms. So that when Ms. Ball is describing what is clearly a conspiracy to manipulate the 2020 Presidential election, she chose the term тАЬto saveтАЭ it.
This key phrase has allowed for a disingenuous interpretation of the message Ms. Ball is giving the readers. This tactic allows for mollification of those who will automatically recoil from the real message that the article conveys, that the 2020 presidential election was тАШriggedтАЩ ie; stolen by the cabal of corporatist oligarchs who conspired to place the candidate of their choice in the White House.
Another thing is obvious from the article, and that is that Ms. Ball was obviously taken into confidence by the leadership of this conspiracy and given first hand detailed information. They wanted this story to be revealed to the public. They knew because of their powerful positions that they are impervious to any legal consequences for their plainly illegal activities, as they have the impunity of wealth and political power. These people can brag about this outrage and get away with it.
Great post. IMO by playing the sore loser Trump loses a lot of moderate independents who would have given at least some of the benefit of the doubt to him regarding election illegalities. I also feel his list of pardons were as whorish as Bill Clinton's were (if not more) and so he falls even further in my eyes.
Another election, another shitty set of choices :(
Rand Paul would get destroyed in an election. Trump had multiple strengths, one being that he had never been a politician, but the biggest strength is that he was a known media entity and got free media focus every time he spoke. Not every candidate can generate that. Regardless of whether you like how elections are won currently, there is a clear system to victory. Outspending your opponent in every way shape or form to control the narrative tends to win elections.
Wait, Iconoclast, I didn't mean to stop voting because you cancel my vote. I just meant that it's ok to not vote if you either see no difference, or are frustrated with politics.
Sorry I made my post sound rude.
I agree with most of your sentiment, and money does mess things up, but not always.
This is just another wing of the conservative movement?
General question for conservatives: If you seek the preservation of the institutions that you believe the country was built on, I ask you this, is there no room for consideration that a lot of people have been disenfranchised by some of those institutions? Should those individuals be ignored?
Can you be specific? In what way have тАЬa lot of people been disenfranchisedтАЭ by the institutions the country was founded on? Disenfranchised means no voice.
Marriage is an example of an institution. Conservatives wanted to not allow gay people to marry because it was viewed as an attack on that institution. The institution was more important than how not allowing gay people to marry negatively impacted fellow citizens.
How were gays disenfranchised from marriage when they won that debate to the extent few conservatives care about it any longer? The institution that was preserved was popular consent. The fact it was decided in the courts doesnтАЩt preclude the fact it would have been decided the same way via elections. The courts were simply the easier path.
You asked for an example, I gave you an easy one. I know conservatives have moved on. The point is still relevant.
To stay on topic of the article, the idea that conservatives have it right and "the others" are the problem is exactly what the ruling class wants you to focus on. They want you wrapped in the flag talking about how made you are that college kid wants to be called "zhe" and not paying attention to the revolving door that Trump had in his cabinet.
My overall point is you think of the individual as the most valuable institution, yes, that trans college kid can smoke crack if zhe wants to....but we need to come together to preserve our nation and leave the conservative crap behind.
What is the difference between тАЬconserveтАЭ and тАЬpreserveтАЭ? ItтАЩs not Conservatives that want to eliminate the individual as the most valuable institution which IMO is the most dangerous thing possible. Why shouldnтАЩt I want to conserve and preserve individual rights? I certainly donтАЩt want to тАЬprogressтАЭ into some form of collectivist dystopia because of how many millions it will kill.
I am no more happy about crony capitalism than anyone else. Our nation wasnтАЩt founded on crony capitalism. I am no less happy about the alternatives being proposed by opponents of crony capitalism as they result in less liberty.
I can't tell you why you don't understand - that is your deficiency. All I can tell you is that you don't understand. If my conclusion follows directly from your comment, that kind of implies the source of the deficiency, doesn't it? But I'll give you a hint - look up the definition of the word "conservation".
LOL. So you wonтАЩt tell me. Here I am wanting to consider and learn and you make claims and refuse to explain them. Am I supposed to take you seriously now?
Seriously? Have you seen the numbers on woke professional sports? How about Fox News ratings since the election? How about Twitter/Facebook stock in the last two weeks? How about Hollywood movie studios or woke college enrollment? There are many examples of MAGA destroying brands, companies, even industries based on their persecution of dissent. It is legally all MAGA has left to fight back.
I think it is about defending the conservative ideals/values upon which classic liberalism and the USA were founded upon. Even these allow for broad social/cultural changes. IтАЩm not sure what else can be done by average citizens. Voting doesnтАЩt seem to matter anymore either.
Reform and policies are controlled by the UniParty that do not represent these values.
To me it means decentralized government, less federal power, strong national defense with minimal foreign entanglements, defense of civil rights, following the Constitution, etc. All the traditional red meat foundational stuff. Basically the polar opposite of what we currently see.
Just realized you are the same person from the other comments haha, I suck at this.
You speak as though you are a libertarian, then why would you support a republican? That party has been the opposite of these things since Eisenhower. Trump was a lot of things, but a constitutionalist and gov't shrinker he was not.
I would consider myself a classical liberal with social libertarian leanings. I have found many Conservatives share these same main beliefs.
I voted Republican because Trump ran as a Republican. It was that or not vote. I wouldnтАЩt vote for a modern Democrat if my life depended on it.
Other than the spending I think TrumpтАЩs polices and actions followed these values. I lost interest, as did society in general and certainly politicians and the misleadia, in the spending and debt after Obama doubled it in eight years to such grotesque levels that is became apparent, to me at least, that the international monetary system was broke and thoroughly corrupt. In other words, it is fake money no one will ever see again short of a massive world war reset. I think Trump realized this as well and decided to beat the Democrats at their tried and true plan of buying votes. That was hilarious and even worked as he achieved huge gains in minority votes.
How was Trump not a Constitutionalist? I wouldnтАЩt describe him as either but your claim implies he defied the Constitution. Do you have examples!
Trump did make major reforms in how the federal government wastes tax money. He cut through the bureaucratic red tape regulations to fix the VA and fire incompetent useless federal gov employees. He cut tens of billions from wasteful spending programs that help no one but the parasites at the trough. He saved the US tax payers at least $1TRILLION by pulling out of the non treaty Paris climate deal that would have benefited the US in no way shape or form.
So he and Congress did spend a lot of money but Trump also cut more than any President in history when he didnтАЩt even need to do so. He did it because it was wasteful.
Of course, all of that was dwarfed by the big military spending
As I said, Trump was many things, including many good things.
"How was Trump not a Constitutionalist?"
Please note that in my response, I know that all other presidents do this...but two easy examples:
1. Redirecting funds allocated by congress from the homeland security budget to fund his border wall. Can't argue that is in line with powers enumerated to the executive branch in article 2 of the constitution.
2. Appointing "acting" cabinet members to avoid going through the senate to confirm his cabinet positions.
IтАЩm not aware what constitutional arguments were made by the administration in support of the wall funding but I do know it was allowed by the courts. How is it unconstitutional if the courts rule it isnтАЩt? If the wall doesnтАЩt relate directly to homeland security then what does?
Your second point is weak IMO. Trump didnтАЩt appoint all acting cabinet members. He only did that when Congress told him they would never confirm anyone he selected. When Congress unconstitutionally uses the confirmation process as a weapon to prohibit a President from performing his role as leader of the Executive Branch, then appointing acting members is the only other choice.
IsnтАЩt it unconstitutional for Congress to blackmail a President over confirmations?
We libertarians will argue that you cannot collect our nation's power and money in a centralized location such as DC and expect only good actors to arrive. The only to achieve a gov't that rules for the people is to make it as local as possible.
So for the Trumpers, what is the solution? I will also argue, if the idea is to elect the right people, you are not going to change anything.
Speaking for myself, I've been in favor devolution of power "as local as possible" forever. Trump adhered to that for the most part, witness his fateful decision not to try to enforce a national COVID policy as Exhibit A. No, you can't rely on "elect the right people", we know exactly how that works. It's hard to say what "the solution" is right now. Most of us are probably looking for "Trump 2.0", someone who wants to #MAGA, but maybe with a personality a little more thoughtful and not so verbally combative.
I will give Trump credit for plenty, but trying to defang the executive branch is not something I will give him credit for. Even before COVID he signed off on massive budget deficit like all the other before him. His cabinet was chalked full of lobbyist.
Point is South Dakota was allowed to pursue a very different COVID strategy than New York. A Democrat would've tried very hard to make everyone follow the same rules.
The President cannot enforce federal COVID policy in the manner you describe, only the states can. Biden will be restricted in the same way and the change he will make is mandating masks on Federal property.
Him responding to COVID in a decentralized fashion doesn't mean he tried to reduce the power of the state he inherited. That was the response to something new. Trump never really lead any discussion on what reform would look like if we were to reduce the state in size and scope. If the current state of politics is the result of the incentives inherent to system, how are we going to change that? What in the system must be changed? If you blame the individual actors within an incentive structure you will never fix anything.
Sure. I'd probably say that given the secular long term trend towards ever increasing the scope and power of the federal government, "holding the line" against radical expansions is probably the most that we can really hope for in the White House. I'm not sure how it could be argued that he wasn't better on that than anyone since Reagan, and before that, you're into the 1920's? But yeah, if Rand Paul wins in 2024, then I'd assume we'd see something much different.
I need to go to bed so we can agree to disagree on this one. I wouldn't claim Reagan was not an expansionist. He was all rhetoric on that as he ran what were eye popping deficits at the time.
I don't think we disagree that much about it. According to you, no President since (?) has been "good" on expansion of federal power, including Trump. If that's your standard, then I agree.
He could not enforce a national covid policy. Biden will be restricted in the same way. Biden has already begun prepping for enforcing his COVID policy on Federal Property.
He initiated the national emergency, EUA giveaways to pharma, enabled CDC to enact property laws in name of public health.... you must be kidding!!! States absolutely expanded this but he began the тАЬexecutiveтАЭ power grab.
The question was more about the relationship between federal and local power, there were a lot of people really pushing for a NATIONAL COVID strategy whereas Trump left it to the states, so South Dakota handled things very differently than New York.
No he didnтАЩt. Executive order March of national emergency. It granted all sorts of powers to feds that he didnтАЩt undue. He attacked Georgia in the beginning for their model. Suspended all sorts of reporting requirements to push things through. EUAтАЩs that gave a trash drug status as only approved covid treatment in effect making it standard of care (as to fear liability or Medicare issues by providers). Pushing out useless ventilators we are still producing at 500% markup while frontlines still donтАЩt have new mask for every patient (cuz fda seems it medical device). Have fda exclusive rights to approve intimal testing. Gave cdc the power to prevent evictions for the year. The worthless cdc. No he didnтАЩt tell states what to do, but his emergency powers burdened even the most тАЬopenтАЭ states. State of emergency opened funding graveytrain.
A lot of that was done despite Trump, not because of Trump. I'm not really here to defend Trump at this point, and there's plenty not to like about his COVID response and plenty else, but the idea that a President when faced with authoritative experts advising that 2M lives were at stake would not invoke some extraordinary powers seems far-fetched. The question is how did his response differ from what Hillary or Biden or even W would done and there were plenty of those types screaming at him to make every state respond the same way, and he didn't.
They all would have done the same disaster response, bc theyтАЩre all the same.
His тАЬmoderationтАЭ in public pronouncements overtime (from his boredom of the issue and its effect on his тАЬpopularityтАЭ) did fuck all to reverse or end his national emergency declaration. Obama promised amazing better healthcare with the ACA, but just like TrumpтАФwords mean fuck all when your policy is wrong.
Because of his so easily mocked rhetoric on the subjectтАФeverything became political on the subject.
The тАЬsquadтАЭ just recently decried and pontificated the latest covid funding monstrosity then voted on it.
In no way am I a Trumper. I liked maybe 20% of his policy and about 10% of his words.
But, if you are, as you say "blowing up youtube facebook news comment" you are literally helping those empires profit and thrive. The media today (for the most part) sells advertising based on impressions. Thats raw views. They never saw where the views come from or if they are the same IP 3423494 times in a day. When the entire industry sells like this, as a purchaser you have no other options. Every time you visit their site you add to a number that they then sell from. If you comment, you now increase their user interaction, which is another metric they sell by. If you stay on that site for a long time, typing tons of responses, you increase yet another metric which is time spent on site.
At least Glenn is nice enough to do the youtube links with no-cookie, but he ought to consider downloading those videos (you can use any search engine BUT google to find youtube download sites) locally, and then reposting them to another site.
What do you think of the idea that everyone turn off their ad-block and anti-popup apps and click on as many as possible so it costs the advertisers so much money it runs them and the social media parasites out of business?
Sure. But that takes time. In the meantime the advertisers will have their ad budgets drained without the expected income from purchases. Any immediate price hikes would also result in lost sales and money.
I was recently informed by an acquaintance that libertarians helped facilitate the rise of Trump and therefore are to be considered enemies. The old saw about cutting down the forest of laws to get at the Devil comes to mind.
If a libertarian screams in the forest, and no one is there to hear him, does he make a sound? (Has to be a "him." No chicks allowed.)
In all seriousness, though, libertarians, in addition to being vastly outnumbered, suffer greatly from their association in the public mind with Libertarians.
Lighten up, man. No offense intended. In 2016 I actually voted for the pot-addled compulsory gay wedding cake guy and his smarmy RINO-reject running mate who "vouched for Hillary" in 2016. I even joined the Libertarian Party briefly, out of desperation, I suppose. But the reach of any political party where one of the most recognizable perennial candidates wears a boot on his head and whose convention features a large, hairy man doing a striptease on stage will always be self limiting.
Not that being serious would yield much better results versus the fixed R and D duopoly controlled by the oligarchs whose corruption inspired the original article, as well as the media propagandists, which these oligarchs also control. Either way, we're screwed.
Your second paragraph says it perfectly, and explains why your first paragraph is completely wrong.
They are simply looking for an excuse to marginalize us. If nothing existed, they would simply make it up. Vermin Supreme or the stripping guy have nothing to do with it.
Maybe so. But consider this. I have observed two traits among my fellow human beings that seem to be so pervasive as to constitute a large part of "human nature." Perhaps you've also observed these tendencies. The first is what seems to be an instinct toward tribalism. We tend to prefer to associate with others who share certain similarities, one of which is likemindedness. In and of itself, maybe that's not a bad thing, but maybe sometimes it is.
The second is the instinct to force others to act in ways that comport with one's own viewpoint, and by extension, that of our likeminded brethren, usually--although not always--out of a belief that it is the Right Thing To Do, and that sacrificing just a wee bit of freedom (particularly someone else's freedom) is worth it for the greater good of all. A good example of this would be Gary Johnson's position on the gay wedding cake controversy. When this instinct acts together with the instinct toward tribalism, as it inevitably does, individual freedom always loses.
So I would contend that, given human nature, libertarian ideas are easily marginalized, even by those of us who consider ourselves to be libertarians and that coercion is, by default, an erosion of or assault on individual freedom (except for this one small thing, of course, and maybe the next, then the next, etc.--for the greater good, of course). And the average naked ape doesn't think it through even to this limited extent. So maybe the line between "they" and "us," and exactly who is doing the marginalizing, isn't so well defined, and that therefore, libertarianism--silly or not--is indeed self-limiting to a great extent.
And maybe the large "L" silly side of it is a way to laugh to keep from crying over the human condition and a humorous recognition that being libertarian is, at least at this point in human evolution, so rare as to be an exercise in futility, broadly speaking.
But being a real libertarian is not caring what other people are doing, unless they are harming somebody.
Human nature being what it is, real libertarians will ALWAYS be outnumbered and outgunned by the "elite" in society who want to keep their power. But libertarian ideas are powerful and persuasive when people actually stop to listen, so we must be marginalized as freaks. Hell, you do it and you voted for GJ!
We all do it--even GJ., even you--to everyone, including ourselves. That's why I caution against viewing it solely, or even mainly, an "Us vs. Them" proposition. And surely you've noticed that most people don't listen very well, if at all, and that the vast majority of the time, everyone seems to hear what they want to hear within the cacophony of experiential life. Humans, and humanity itself, are inherently imperfect. Libertarianism represents an ideal, and like all ideologies, it is ultimately self-limiting. To be libertarian is to be lonely, but it is what it is.
Thanks for the kind words. Life IS good. But I choose my fights with care, and the Republic is done. I will waste no more time or energy on it. My primary concern at this point is the welfare of my immediate family. The zombie Empire it has mutated into will stagger on for a while, but it is not salvageable as a republic. The statist rot goes too deep.
Voting on principles (that in our opinion are the founding principles of our nation) as we watch the republicans and democrats destroy our country is a moral high ground I'm happy to be on with the other 2% of voters that pull the "L" lever.
Too bad we have to live in the world the 98% of yall have built for all of us. It kinda sucks now.
You vote? That's not very libertarian of you. Just kidding. I was trying (and failing) to make two points, though. The first is that those of us who view being left alone (and leaving others alone) as opposed to using the power of Government to perpetually bash people with whom we disagree over the head is a vanishingly small subset of the electorate.
The second is that the Libertarian Party is a fundamentally unserious bunch, moral high ground notwithstanding. I actually joined the party and voted for their ticket in 2016 (and for the extraordinarily well qualified and competent candidate for Texas Railroad Commissioner. He lost badly, of course, to the Republican hack du jour). In a hostile system controlled by R's and D's, unserious is never going to cut it... although it's an exercise in futility regardless.
(I claim to be uber-libertarian, you know getting kind of close to that other Rand, no not Ron, but the one who wrote the hated book. The name and the book both start with A.)
Gee, Socialism wins again.....and again and again.
Thanks a lot doctrinaire libertarian/Libertarian/Conservatives
Look, wake up to the unavoidable reality that there is a very, very good reason why there can be only two parties, one more-or-less in power, and one more-or-less in opposition.
For POTUS anyway, either you vote for the lesser of two "evils," or you are increasing the chance that the greater of two "evils" wins.
(That would be Socialism/Statism, right libertarians?)
98% of us have built for all of us? I don't think so. There are only two ways to look at this equation. One is that 1% of us built this world for themselves, but find the rest of us useful to keep their feet dry - OR - two, that 100% of us built this world and have to live in our own sandcastles.
The moment local media was replaced by national/global empires we were doomed. The vertical integration of media, politics, legal and finance is a terrible hydra that I fear will require a lot of fire to destroy. I could go on and with voluminous evidence but any critical thinker already sees it. The evidence is all around us.
Yeah, exactly as predicted, vast waves of right wing violence and voting with massive consolidation of right wing and establishment power, utterly ruled by corporations.
You know, what libertarians always tell people "hey, hey now, you guys better watch out".
The Democrips and Rebloodicans are on the right now, ty Gov Ventura! Real freedom lovers cannot align with them. We may have to relabel. l'm a Christian Socialist and I'm horrified at what is happening under JoKa. I'm trying to tell you that real lefties don't want suppression of free speech. That and a middle class are all that make this place livable.
ItтАЩs crazies all around. The schizophrenic shifting of тАЬprinciplesтАЭ btw the parties (war, policing, censorship, policing, тАЬreligionтАЭ, big pharma) is so clear to us libertariansтАФhow both sides canтАЩt see it is stunning. MeanwhileтАФmore bailouts for the bankers, the pharma, the lawyers, the hospital conglomerates, тАЬgovernment essential employeesтАЭ....while everyone forgot about their $2k Check. No one was prosecuted after 2008 financial crisis, and no one will be held accountable in this endless covid crisis.
The elite sure arenтАЩt suffering. Liz Cheney is a hero now, police must protect our celebrity politicians, and тАЬhate speechтАЭ must be eliminated. Most of allтАФpositions must align 100% with what the leaders declare for the team.
We went from Dennis kucinnich and Ron Paul challenging their parties with consistent principles (opposite sides but same enemy)....to AOC and Hawley as тАЬprincipled heroтАЩsтАЭ. Fuck due process and civil liberties!
Yeah, wow, it was Liz who? last month. She sure knew just when to grab some celebrity status. But she must be way too principled to actually be opportunistic, right? (crickets.)
And this is exactly what the libertarians have been screaming about for almost two decades at this point. Everything we were warning about is happening right in front of our eyes.
No one listens to us!! haha. I really backed off trying to yell from the rooftops when we all got bent over the bankers barrel in 2008-2009 and NO ONE CARED.
Curious if the MAGA people will start to feel the same way and move on as a lot of us have from the 2008 fiery days of Ron Paul supporters blowing up EVERY youtube/facebook/news comment thread.
The thing I got from that time...even though we couldn't impact the gov't machine in anyway...we walked away with a set of ideals that will live on forever for us...I'm still not sure what the MAGA people are going to walk away with when Trump is crushing cheeseburgers in Mar-a-Lago. I wish someone would explain that to me.
MAGA folks are listening
In all honesty, I do want to know what political ideals are going to be the champion of the movement when Trump is no longer around.
Now that's a good question. Trump is a 90's Democrat with a pragmatic populist streak. That he became so popular is a scathing indictment of our ruling class and how worthless they are. What he leaves behind is mostly a sincere and well-earned distrust of DC, how that fleshes out may be "exciting," unfortunately.
Yep. As always and as it should be, the vote for POTUS is a vote for the lesser of two "evils." DJT beat Republican establishment because we didn't want another mealy-mouth Bush, then he beat the Democrat establishment (Bernie would have beat Trump) because we didn't want another corrupt Clinton. He became popular because for the first time in 30 years, lay republicans finally and refreshingly and surprisingly had someone actually acting like what we vote for!!!!
And increasing distrust of foggy bottom is ALWAYS exciting!
Trump may seem to be a "lesser of two evils" to you Timothy, but I see him as a true patriot and the last hope for a free America.
\\][//
From the outside looking in, Trump never really lead any discussion on what reform would look like. If the current state of politics is the result of the incentives inherent to system, how are we going to change that? What in the system must be changed? If you blame the individual actors within an incentive structure you will never fix anything.
"You are being screwed over by the ruling class" is a message for everyone. The Bernie supporters will tell you the same thing. If the message has to be connected to conservative politics, there has to be a realization that you will limit who you will reach with your message. If you connect it to an individual, you are asking for those that would oppose reform to tear apart your strawman.
America first, Biden over reach will blow the Dems out in 2022. We are in the middle of a pandemic with our companies going under and jobless hoards and the addled old geezer the geniusтАЩs elected is inviting all of Central America to come get amnesty and free healthcare
Finger's crossed. (Except for the "things have to get worse to get better part. Search Alexander Tytler.)
"If you connect it to an individual, you are asking for those that would oppose reform to tear apart your strawman."--Wes D.
All of us are individuals, unless you buy into the collectivist bullshit.
An individual that embodies the principles that the United States was founded upon is the only one who can fight for those principles. Any "party platform" is going to be a collectivist compromise. That is why a maveric like Trump is needed at this critical time in history. And that is why the Corporatist Left is doing all in its power to destroy Trump and his supporters.
Glenn's aricle here is what that is about! Trump and his supporters are the new "domestic terrorists" according the the current regime.
How can so many of you have lost sight of this in the short time since you read the article?
This is a critically dangerous moment in our nation's history. One false step, and the nation is doomed. Wrap your heads around that.
God Bless America.
\\][//
Let's not count our Left behinds" before they are actually left behind.
\\][//
ItтАЩs not complicated: America first
Assuming Trump isn't going to run and instead wants to play kingmaker, look at the people close to him.
I'm hoping for Rand Paul.
I don't think Paul can win the general. Just too much anti-libertarianism.
Besides, I sure do love him in that Senate!
I thought he was going to be the kingmaker of Mar-a-Lago but now he overplayed his hand on this election fraud nonsense and the republican establishment is going to distance themselves from him.
In 2010 I actually campaigned for Rand but he has proven to be a party hack and I have no faith in him. He picks his spots but is not principled like his father was.
Rand Paul is no Ron Paul, that's for sure.
But he looks like George Washington next to Kamala Harris.
JFK would look like Dick Cheney next to Kamala Harris
Nancy Pelosi like Paul Ryan?
LBJ like DJT.
I will give you that sir....
Him and about half the country.
ItтАЩs the voters who give Trump strength
He's playing a role. There's something about becoming a senator that is even creepier than Skull and Bones, the Stone Cutters, or even finding out who Xenu really is. Whatever it is, it gets them all.
Maybe the Deep State puts something in their booze. Either that or they're possessed by the Lizard People.
Now come on, that's a bit too far I think. After all, without Rand in the Senate, would any of us have even heard that the DemRepUnibrowWarEverywhere Party had cancelled U.S. troop reductions in Europe 75 years after, let's see....what was the name of that police action?
"he overplayed his hand on this election fraud nonsense"--Wes D.
That is where you are terribly wrong! The election was indeed rigge, and those like you who refuse to inform yourself of the facts are bound to fuck everything up as bad as the corporatist Democrats. Damnit man!
2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION FRAUD
The 2020 Presidential Election was rigged by a cabal of corporate oligarchs to install their own meat-puppet into the White House as a titular figure so they could rule behind the curtain of Oz
PROLOGUE
It has become increasingly obvious after several months of dealing with the repercussions of the TIMES Magazine article by Molly Ball that some preliminary remarks are in order to understand the meaning of this article.
First and foremost is Ms. BallтАЩs use of language. The language she uses is what George Orwell referred to as, тАЬPolitical LanguageтАЭ, wherein the terminology takes on rather deceitful nuances to portray a message that although true, is couched in coded terms. So that when Ms. Ball is describing what is clearly a conspiracy to manipulate the 2020 Presidential election, she chose the term тАЬto saveтАЭ it.
This key phrase has allowed for a disingenuous interpretation of the message Ms. Ball is giving the readers. This tactic allows for mollification of those who will automatically recoil from the real message that the article conveys, that the 2020 presidential election was тАШriggedтАЩ ie; stolen by the cabal of corporatist oligarchs who conspired to place the candidate of their choice in the White House.
Another thing is obvious from the article, and that is that Ms. Ball was obviously taken into confidence by the leadership of this conspiracy and given first hand detailed information. They wanted this story to be revealed to the public. They knew because of their powerful positions that they are impervious to any legal consequences for their plainly illegal activities, as they have the impunity of wealth and political power. These people can brag about this outrage and get away with it.
https://thedissedent.page/2021/07/01/2020-presidential-election-fraud/
\\][//
But Rand has to get Conservative Republicans to vote for him, too!
I am libertarian to my core, but you are being unfair to a true libertarian hero.
Great post. IMO by playing the sore loser Trump loses a lot of moderate independents who would have given at least some of the benefit of the doubt to him regarding election illegalities. I also feel his list of pardons were as whorish as Bill Clinton's were (if not more) and so he falls even further in my eyes.
Another election, another shitty set of choices :(
Why didn't the Dems lose the moderates when they played sore loser for 4 years?
Because the media and their democratic officials talked about how Trump was Russian every day for three years and COVID the other year?
I would not assume that Trump will not run if I were you.
Keep up vocal support for him and he will. To my mind he MUST RUN.
For God and our nation's sake support Trump!
\\][//
Justin Amash!
Rand Paul would get destroyed in an election. Trump had multiple strengths, one being that he had never been a politician, but the biggest strength is that he was a known media entity and got free media focus every time he spoke. Not every candidate can generate that. Regardless of whether you like how elections are won currently, there is a clear system to victory. Outspending your opponent in every way shape or form to control the narrative tends to win elections.
You are too jaded. Stop voting.
And you don't give the American voter enough credit.
Your lines of reason lead the Unipartyestablishments to offer up Bushes and Clintons forever, like we've returned to dynastic monarchies.
But the voters are woke now. DJT has got us looking ahead to our next Reagan or modern Coolidge.
You didnt name a single president I was a fan of so I can understand why you would tell me to stop voting.
Wait, Iconoclast, I didn't mean to stop voting because you cancel my vote. I just meant that it's ok to not vote if you either see no difference, or are frustrated with politics.
Sorry I made my post sound rude.
I agree with most of your sentiment, and money does mess things up, but not always.
Just substitiute other presidents that you like!
The same ideals we have always had. Conservative values donтАЩt allow for fundamental ideals/values to change. It is in the definition of the word.
Now if you are asking about right wing campaign slogans, who knows?
This is just another wing of the conservative movement?
General question for conservatives: If you seek the preservation of the institutions that you believe the country was built on, I ask you this, is there no room for consideration that a lot of people have been disenfranchised by some of those institutions? Should those individuals be ignored?
Can you be specific? In what way have тАЬa lot of people been disenfranchisedтАЭ by the institutions the country was founded on? Disenfranchised means no voice.
Marriage is an example of an institution. Conservatives wanted to not allow gay people to marry because it was viewed as an attack on that institution. The institution was more important than how not allowing gay people to marry negatively impacted fellow citizens.
How were gays disenfranchised from marriage when they won that debate to the extent few conservatives care about it any longer? The institution that was preserved was popular consent. The fact it was decided in the courts doesnтАЩt preclude the fact it would have been decided the same way via elections. The courts were simply the easier path.
You asked for an example, I gave you an easy one. I know conservatives have moved on. The point is still relevant.
To stay on topic of the article, the idea that conservatives have it right and "the others" are the problem is exactly what the ruling class wants you to focus on. They want you wrapped in the flag talking about how made you are that college kid wants to be called "zhe" and not paying attention to the revolving door that Trump had in his cabinet.
My overall point is you think of the individual as the most valuable institution, yes, that trans college kid can smoke crack if zhe wants to....but we need to come together to preserve our nation and leave the conservative crap behind.
What is the difference between тАЬconserveтАЭ and тАЬpreserveтАЭ? ItтАЩs not Conservatives that want to eliminate the individual as the most valuable institution which IMO is the most dangerous thing possible. Why shouldnтАЩt I want to conserve and preserve individual rights? I certainly donтАЩt want to тАЬprogressтАЭ into some form of collectivist dystopia because of how many millions it will kill.
In the US, esp now, a voice equals economic power. Who has that?
Economic power to do what?
I am no more happy about crony capitalism than anyone else. Our nation wasnтАЩt founded on crony capitalism. I am no less happy about the alternatives being proposed by opponents of crony capitalism as they result in less liberty.
But Crony-capitalism is NOT Capitalism.
It IS Socialism.
How does opposing Crony-capitalism result in LESS liberty?
The alternatives I am referring to that result in less liberty are communism and socialism.
You surely do not understand what it means to be a political conservative.
Why is that or I am supposed to read your mind?
I can't tell you why you don't understand - that is your deficiency. All I can tell you is that you don't understand. If my conclusion follows directly from your comment, that kind of implies the source of the deficiency, doesn't it? But I'll give you a hint - look up the definition of the word "conservation".
LOL. So you wonтАЩt tell me. Here I am wanting to consider and learn and you make claims and refuse to explain them. Am I supposed to take you seriously now?
The answer you seek is right before you - I even told you where to look.
OK Yoda.
Wes, What makes you think that Trump will no longer be around.?
\\][//
Seriously? Have you seen the numbers on woke professional sports? How about Fox News ratings since the election? How about Twitter/Facebook stock in the last two weeks? How about Hollywood movie studios or woke college enrollment? There are many examples of MAGA destroying brands, companies, even industries based on their persecution of dissent. It is legally all MAGA has left to fight back.
So....just anti-wokiness in the private sector? That is what this is about? What reforms are required for this? What policies?
I think it is about defending the conservative ideals/values upon which classic liberalism and the USA were founded upon. Even these allow for broad social/cultural changes. IтАЩm not sure what else can be done by average citizens. Voting doesnтАЩt seem to matter anymore either.
Reform and policies are controlled by the UniParty that do not represent these values.
"Conservative ideals" can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. For purpose of this discussion, can you expand what you mean by that?
To me it means decentralized government, less federal power, strong national defense with minimal foreign entanglements, defense of civil rights, following the Constitution, etc. All the traditional red meat foundational stuff. Basically the polar opposite of what we currently see.
Just realized you are the same person from the other comments haha, I suck at this.
You speak as though you are a libertarian, then why would you support a republican? That party has been the opposite of these things since Eisenhower. Trump was a lot of things, but a constitutionalist and gov't shrinker he was not.
I would consider myself a classical liberal with social libertarian leanings. I have found many Conservatives share these same main beliefs.
I voted Republican because Trump ran as a Republican. It was that or not vote. I wouldnтАЩt vote for a modern Democrat if my life depended on it.
Other than the spending I think TrumpтАЩs polices and actions followed these values. I lost interest, as did society in general and certainly politicians and the misleadia, in the spending and debt after Obama doubled it in eight years to such grotesque levels that is became apparent, to me at least, that the international monetary system was broke and thoroughly corrupt. In other words, it is fake money no one will ever see again short of a massive world war reset. I think Trump realized this as well and decided to beat the Democrats at their tried and true plan of buying votes. That was hilarious and even worked as he achieved huge gains in minority votes.
How was Trump not a Constitutionalist? I wouldnтАЩt describe him as either but your claim implies he defied the Constitution. Do you have examples!
Trump did make major reforms in how the federal government wastes tax money. He cut through the bureaucratic red tape regulations to fix the VA and fire incompetent useless federal gov employees. He cut tens of billions from wasteful spending programs that help no one but the parasites at the trough. He saved the US tax payers at least $1TRILLION by pulling out of the non treaty Paris climate deal that would have benefited the US in no way shape or form.
So he and Congress did spend a lot of money but Trump also cut more than any President in history when he didnтАЩt even need to do so. He did it because it was wasteful.
Of course, all of that was dwarfed by the big military spending
As I said, Trump was many things, including many good things.
"How was Trump not a Constitutionalist?"
Please note that in my response, I know that all other presidents do this...but two easy examples:
1. Redirecting funds allocated by congress from the homeland security budget to fund his border wall. Can't argue that is in line with powers enumerated to the executive branch in article 2 of the constitution.
2. Appointing "acting" cabinet members to avoid going through the senate to confirm his cabinet positions.
IтАЩm not aware what constitutional arguments were made by the administration in support of the wall funding but I do know it was allowed by the courts. How is it unconstitutional if the courts rule it isnтАЩt? If the wall doesnтАЩt relate directly to homeland security then what does?
Your second point is weak IMO. Trump didnтАЩt appoint all acting cabinet members. He only did that when Congress told him they would never confirm anyone he selected. When Congress unconstitutionally uses the confirmation process as a weapon to prohibit a President from performing his role as leader of the Executive Branch, then appointing acting members is the only other choice.
IsnтАЩt it unconstitutional for Congress to blackmail a President over confirmations?
A federal government that looks out for its citizens?
Wouldn't we all!
We libertarians will argue that you cannot collect our nation's power and money in a centralized location such as DC and expect only good actors to arrive. The only to achieve a gov't that rules for the people is to make it as local as possible.
So for the Trumpers, what is the solution? I will also argue, if the idea is to elect the right people, you are not going to change anything.
Speaking for myself, I've been in favor devolution of power "as local as possible" forever. Trump adhered to that for the most part, witness his fateful decision not to try to enforce a national COVID policy as Exhibit A. No, you can't rely on "elect the right people", we know exactly how that works. It's hard to say what "the solution" is right now. Most of us are probably looking for "Trump 2.0", someone who wants to #MAGA, but maybe with a personality a little more thoughtful and not so verbally combative.
I will give Trump credit for plenty, but trying to defang the executive branch is not something I will give him credit for. Even before COVID he signed off on massive budget deficit like all the other before him. His cabinet was chalked full of lobbyist.
Point is South Dakota was allowed to pursue a very different COVID strategy than New York. A Democrat would've tried very hard to make everyone follow the same rules.
The President cannot enforce federal COVID policy in the manner you describe, only the states can. Biden will be restricted in the same way and the change he will make is mandating masks on Federal property.
Thank you, M. Iconoclast, for bringing the discussion back to real earth.
No political party, let alone one POTUS, can get this debt paid. We either service it with more Capitalism, or default and start again.
Him responding to COVID in a decentralized fashion doesn't mean he tried to reduce the power of the state he inherited. That was the response to something new. Trump never really lead any discussion on what reform would look like if we were to reduce the state in size and scope. If the current state of politics is the result of the incentives inherent to system, how are we going to change that? What in the system must be changed? If you blame the individual actors within an incentive structure you will never fix anything.
Sure. I'd probably say that given the secular long term trend towards ever increasing the scope and power of the federal government, "holding the line" against radical expansions is probably the most that we can really hope for in the White House. I'm not sure how it could be argued that he wasn't better on that than anyone since Reagan, and before that, you're into the 1920's? But yeah, if Rand Paul wins in 2024, then I'd assume we'd see something much different.
I need to go to bed so we can agree to disagree on this one. I wouldn't claim Reagan was not an expansionist. He was all rhetoric on that as he ran what were eye popping deficits at the time.
I don't think we disagree that much about it. According to you, no President since (?) has been "good" on expansion of federal power, including Trump. If that's your standard, then I agree.
DING DING DING
He could not enforce a national covid policy. Biden will be restricted in the same way. Biden has already begun prepping for enforcing his COVID policy on Federal Property.
He initiated the national emergency, EUA giveaways to pharma, enabled CDC to enact property laws in name of public health.... you must be kidding!!! States absolutely expanded this but he began the тАЬexecutiveтАЭ power grab.
The question was more about the relationship between federal and local power, there were a lot of people really pushing for a NATIONAL COVID strategy whereas Trump left it to the states, so South Dakota handled things very differently than New York.
No he didnтАЩt. Executive order March of national emergency. It granted all sorts of powers to feds that he didnтАЩt undue. He attacked Georgia in the beginning for their model. Suspended all sorts of reporting requirements to push things through. EUAтАЩs that gave a trash drug status as only approved covid treatment in effect making it standard of care (as to fear liability or Medicare issues by providers). Pushing out useless ventilators we are still producing at 500% markup while frontlines still donтАЩt have new mask for every patient (cuz fda seems it medical device). Have fda exclusive rights to approve intimal testing. Gave cdc the power to prevent evictions for the year. The worthless cdc. No he didnтАЩt tell states what to do, but his emergency powers burdened even the most тАЬopenтАЭ states. State of emergency opened funding graveytrain.
A lot of that was done despite Trump, not because of Trump. I'm not really here to defend Trump at this point, and there's plenty not to like about his COVID response and plenty else, but the idea that a President when faced with authoritative experts advising that 2M lives were at stake would not invoke some extraordinary powers seems far-fetched. The question is how did his response differ from what Hillary or Biden or even W would done and there were plenty of those types screaming at him to make every state respond the same way, and he didn't.
They all would have done the same disaster response, bc theyтАЩre all the same.
His тАЬmoderationтАЭ in public pronouncements overtime (from his boredom of the issue and its effect on his тАЬpopularityтАЭ) did fuck all to reverse or end his national emergency declaration. Obama promised amazing better healthcare with the ACA, but just like TrumpтАФwords mean fuck all when your policy is wrong.
Because of his so easily mocked rhetoric on the subjectтАФeverything became political on the subject.
The тАЬsquadтАЭ just recently decried and pontificated the latest covid funding monstrosity then voted on it.
ItтАЩs exactly the same thing
In no way am I a Trumper. I liked maybe 20% of his policy and about 10% of his words.
But, if you are, as you say "blowing up youtube facebook news comment" you are literally helping those empires profit and thrive. The media today (for the most part) sells advertising based on impressions. Thats raw views. They never saw where the views come from or if they are the same IP 3423494 times in a day. When the entire industry sells like this, as a purchaser you have no other options. Every time you visit their site you add to a number that they then sell from. If you comment, you now increase their user interaction, which is another metric they sell by. If you stay on that site for a long time, typing tons of responses, you increase yet another metric which is time spent on site.
At least Glenn is nice enough to do the youtube links with no-cookie, but he ought to consider downloading those videos (you can use any search engine BUT google to find youtube download sites) locally, and then reposting them to another site.
What do you think of the idea that everyone turn off their ad-block and anti-popup apps and click on as many as possible so it costs the advertisers so much money it runs them and the social media parasites out of business?
The advertisers will just pass their costs on to consumers. You know this.
Sure. But that takes time. In the meantime the advertisers will have their ad budgets drained without the expected income from purchases. Any immediate price hikes would also result in lost sales and money.
And where is that massive ad revenue ending up?
Do you work for Dorsey, maybe? (I kid!)
I was recently informed by an acquaintance that libertarians helped facilitate the rise of Trump and therefore are to be considered enemies. The old saw about cutting down the forest of laws to get at the Devil comes to mind.
Eh, we were ALWAYS considered enemies by anybody who would say something so dumb.
If a libertarian screams in the forest, and no one is there to hear him, does he make a sound? (Has to be a "him." No chicks allowed.)
In all seriousness, though, libertarians, in addition to being vastly outnumbered, suffer greatly from their association in the public mind with Libertarians.
Yep, and a whole lot of that association in the public mind is thanks to the exact same media who has been lying to you about Russiagate for years.
Allow that to sink in for a moment.
Lighten up, man. No offense intended. In 2016 I actually voted for the pot-addled compulsory gay wedding cake guy and his smarmy RINO-reject running mate who "vouched for Hillary" in 2016. I even joined the Libertarian Party briefly, out of desperation, I suppose. But the reach of any political party where one of the most recognizable perennial candidates wears a boot on his head and whose convention features a large, hairy man doing a striptease on stage will always be self limiting.
Not that being serious would yield much better results versus the fixed R and D duopoly controlled by the oligarchs whose corruption inspired the original article, as well as the media propagandists, which these oligarchs also control. Either way, we're screwed.
Your second paragraph says it perfectly, and explains why your first paragraph is completely wrong.
They are simply looking for an excuse to marginalize us. If nothing existed, they would simply make it up. Vermin Supreme or the stripping guy have nothing to do with it.
Maybe so. But consider this. I have observed two traits among my fellow human beings that seem to be so pervasive as to constitute a large part of "human nature." Perhaps you've also observed these tendencies. The first is what seems to be an instinct toward tribalism. We tend to prefer to associate with others who share certain similarities, one of which is likemindedness. In and of itself, maybe that's not a bad thing, but maybe sometimes it is.
The second is the instinct to force others to act in ways that comport with one's own viewpoint, and by extension, that of our likeminded brethren, usually--although not always--out of a belief that it is the Right Thing To Do, and that sacrificing just a wee bit of freedom (particularly someone else's freedom) is worth it for the greater good of all. A good example of this would be Gary Johnson's position on the gay wedding cake controversy. When this instinct acts together with the instinct toward tribalism, as it inevitably does, individual freedom always loses.
So I would contend that, given human nature, libertarian ideas are easily marginalized, even by those of us who consider ourselves to be libertarians and that coercion is, by default, an erosion of or assault on individual freedom (except for this one small thing, of course, and maybe the next, then the next, etc.--for the greater good, of course). And the average naked ape doesn't think it through even to this limited extent. So maybe the line between "they" and "us," and exactly who is doing the marginalizing, isn't so well defined, and that therefore, libertarianism--silly or not--is indeed self-limiting to a great extent.
And maybe the large "L" silly side of it is a way to laugh to keep from crying over the human condition and a humorous recognition that being libertarian is, at least at this point in human evolution, so rare as to be an exercise in futility, broadly speaking.
Generally you're right.
But being a real libertarian is not caring what other people are doing, unless they are harming somebody.
Human nature being what it is, real libertarians will ALWAYS be outnumbered and outgunned by the "elite" in society who want to keep their power. But libertarian ideas are powerful and persuasive when people actually stop to listen, so we must be marginalized as freaks. Hell, you do it and you voted for GJ!
We all do it--even GJ., even you--to everyone, including ourselves. That's why I caution against viewing it solely, or even mainly, an "Us vs. Them" proposition. And surely you've noticed that most people don't listen very well, if at all, and that the vast majority of the time, everyone seems to hear what they want to hear within the cacophony of experiential life. Humans, and humanity itself, are inherently imperfect. Libertarianism represents an ideal, and like all ideologies, it is ultimately self-limiting. To be libertarian is to be lonely, but it is what it is.
Most Excellent Discussion.
" To be libertarian is to be lonely, but it is what it is."
Chin up, Braxton. The SimulationCommanders and pop122's are here!
To be libertarian is also to be aware, and that is good.
So is life, and the fight.
Thanks for the kind words. Life IS good. But I choose my fights with care, and the Republic is done. I will waste no more time or energy on it. My primary concern at this point is the welfare of my immediate family. The zombie Empire it has mutated into will stagger on for a while, but it is not salvageable as a republic. The statist rot goes too deep.
"Either way, we're screwed."
So your opinion is there is no exit from the Alexander Tytler cycle.
I was always hoping mankind would one day find a way to guide societies out at the "freedom" points.
Voting on principles (that in our opinion are the founding principles of our nation) as we watch the republicans and democrats destroy our country is a moral high ground I'm happy to be on with the other 2% of voters that pull the "L" lever.
Too bad we have to live in the world the 98% of yall have built for all of us. It kinda sucks now.
You vote? That's not very libertarian of you. Just kidding. I was trying (and failing) to make two points, though. The first is that those of us who view being left alone (and leaving others alone) as opposed to using the power of Government to perpetually bash people with whom we disagree over the head is a vanishingly small subset of the electorate.
The second is that the Libertarian Party is a fundamentally unserious bunch, moral high ground notwithstanding. I actually joined the party and voted for their ticket in 2016 (and for the extraordinarily well qualified and competent candidate for Texas Railroad Commissioner. He lost badly, of course, to the Republican hack du jour). In a hostile system controlled by R's and D's, unserious is never going to cut it... although it's an exercise in futility regardless.
No offense intended.
(I claim to be uber-libertarian, you know getting kind of close to that other Rand, no not Ron, but the one who wrote the hated book. The name and the book both start with A.)
40% Socialist, 30% libertarian/Libertarian, 30% Conservative
Gee, Socialism wins again.....and again and again.
Thanks a lot doctrinaire libertarian/Libertarian/Conservatives
Look, wake up to the unavoidable reality that there is a very, very good reason why there can be only two parties, one more-or-less in power, and one more-or-less in opposition.
For POTUS anyway, either you vote for the lesser of two "evils," or you are increasing the chance that the greater of two "evils" wins.
(That would be Socialism/Statism, right libertarians?)
98% of us have built for all of us? I don't think so. There are only two ways to look at this equation. One is that 1% of us built this world for themselves, but find the rest of us useful to keep their feet dry - OR - two, that 100% of us built this world and have to live in our own sandcastles.
Exactly, the moment the TCA became law in 1996 the countdown began.
https://www.fcc.gov/general/telecommunications-act-1996
The moment local media was replaced by national/global empires we were doomed. The vertical integration of media, politics, legal and finance is a terrible hydra that I fear will require a lot of fire to destroy. I could go on and with voluminous evidence but any critical thinker already sees it. The evidence is all around us.
Yeah, exactly as predicted, vast waves of right wing violence and voting with massive consolidation of right wing and establishment power, utterly ruled by corporations.
You know, what libertarians always tell people "hey, hey now, you guys better watch out".
Yeah, all that right-wing violence that burned Portland all summer.
The ministry of truth being formed under Biden.
You're really on the money, man.
The Democrips and Rebloodicans are on the right now, ty Gov Ventura! Real freedom lovers cannot align with them. We may have to relabel. l'm a Christian Socialist and I'm horrified at what is happening under JoKa. I'm trying to tell you that real lefties don't want suppression of free speech. That and a middle class are all that make this place livable.
"...real lefties don't want suppression of free speech."
Hmmm.....oh, right, you wrote that AFTER this:
"We may have to relabel."
May I please have your relabeling schema?
Not too bright are we?
I'm a little slow, M.Garebear. If you are still attending the thread could you explain where you're coming from and what you mean?
Shoo troll
ItтАЩs crazies all around. The schizophrenic shifting of тАЬprinciplesтАЭ btw the parties (war, policing, censorship, policing, тАЬreligionтАЭ, big pharma) is so clear to us libertariansтАФhow both sides canтАЩt see it is stunning. MeanwhileтАФmore bailouts for the bankers, the pharma, the lawyers, the hospital conglomerates, тАЬgovernment essential employeesтАЭ....while everyone forgot about their $2k Check. No one was prosecuted after 2008 financial crisis, and no one will be held accountable in this endless covid crisis.
The elite sure arenтАЩt suffering. Liz Cheney is a hero now, police must protect our celebrity politicians, and тАЬhate speechтАЭ must be eliminated. Most of allтАФpositions must align 100% with what the leaders declare for the team.
We went from Dennis kucinnich and Ron Paul challenging their parties with consistent principles (opposite sides but same enemy)....to AOC and Hawley as тАЬprincipled heroтАЩsтАЭ. Fuck due process and civil liberties!
Yeah, wow, it was Liz who? last month. She sure knew just when to grab some celebrity status. But she must be way too principled to actually be opportunistic, right? (crickets.)