Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Me: *cuts taxes*

Nationstates: *raises taxation*

Rateria

Skaveria wrote:Me: *cuts taxes*

Nationstates: *raises taxation*

Me: *Does anything*

NationStates: *Lowers weather and increases crime*

Guess whose back from a POWER OUTAGE?! Power turned on like 5 minites ago

Rateria, Highway Eight

Acelandinisia wrote:Guess whose back from a POWER OUTAGE?! Power turned on like 5 minites ago

It's been manths since my last power outage.

Rateria

Highway Eight wrote:

It's been manths since my last power outage.

Well lucky you. The nor'easter tore in the power lines up the ass and made our trees turn 90 degrees

Rateria

Winston Churchill was a man of astounding leadership and character that saved Britain, and the free world, from the rule of national socialism. I believe his heart was in the right place and that he detested the rise of socialism in Britain after World War II. It's just a shame he didn't do more to put his words into action.

Miencraft, Rateria, Venomringo, Acelandinisia, Highway Eight

While my general views on economics and military intervention are largely unchanged, I find myself increasingly trending towards conservatism in the social sphere. No, I'm not a Bible basher and I don't believe in banning gay marriage or trans people from serving in the military. But why do the leading cultural figures and institutions of our time insist on entertaining mental illness? On disrespecting our military, law enforcement and flag? On apologising for our great history? On demonizing white people? On bending to the forces of political correctness? On trying to make being a feminist mainstream? (It isn't.) On giving Islam a pass while mocking our Judeo-Christian history and values? On refusing to enforce immigration laws and literally protecting violent criminals from deportation?

On these questions and more, the libertarian 'intelligentsia' - if it even exists anymore - have no good answers. I am sick of people that disingenuously play to the political centre and try to act above the fray. Sorry, but on some issues there is such a thing as 'black or white'. Many libertarians are standing by while the far left continues its Marxist assault on American values.

I am not being paranoid or over dramatic. I see the lunacy of the left every day on my college campus, which is itself relatively conservative. The right is producing a number of young, well spoken and convincing leaders such as Milo, Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder that would make William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman proud. Who does the libertarian movement have left to call its own?

Until these questions can be answered, I'll probably go further down the path of the conservative.

Rateria, Fascist Dred, Acelandinisia, Highway Eight

Pevvania wrote:While my general views on economics and military intervention are largely unchanged, I find myself increasingly trending towards conservatism in the social sphere. No, I'm not a Bible basher and I don't believe in banning gay marriage or trans people from serving in the military. But why do the leading cultural figures and institutions of our time insist on entertaining mental illness? On disrespecting our military, law enforcement and flag? On apologising for our great history? On demonizing white people? On bending to the forces of political correctness? On trying to make being a feminist mainstream? (It isn't.) On giving Islam a pass while mocking our Judeo-Christian history and values? On refusing to enforce immigration laws and literally protecting violent criminals from deportation?

On these questions and more, the libertarian 'intelligentsia' - if it even exists anymore - have no good answers. I am sick of people that disingenuously play to the political centre and try to act above the fray. Sorry, but on some issues there is such a thing as 'black or white'. Many libertarians are standing by while the far left continues its Marxist assault on American values.

I am not being paranoid or over dramatic. I see the lunacy of the left every day on my college campus, which is itself relatively conservative. The right is producing a number of young, well spoken and convincing leaders such as Milo, Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder that would make William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman proud. Who does the libertarian movement have left to call its own?

Until these questions can be answered, I'll probably go further down the path of the conservative.

I support our military, law enforcement, flag, etc etc.

In my view however, neither social conservatism or progressivism provide an adequate amount of freedom for my taste.

I agree that sanctuary cities are very stupid and should be stopped, not sure what you think should be done about islam though.

But to me, being social conservative means treading on someones rights.

Rateria, Acelandinisia, Jadentopian Order, Highway Eight

Pevvania wrote:While my general views on economics and military intervention are largely unchanged, I find myself increasingly trending towards conservatism in the social sphere. No, I'm not a Bible basher and I don't believe in banning gay marriage or trans people from serving in the military. But why do the leading cultural figures and institutions of our time insist on entertaining mental illness? On disrespecting our military, law enforcement and flag? On apologising for our great history? On demonizing white people? On bending to the forces of political correctness? On trying to make being a feminist mainstream? (It isn't.) On giving Islam a pass while mocking our Judeo-Christian history and values? On refusing to enforce immigration laws and literally protecting violent criminals from deportation?

On these questions and more, the libertarian 'intelligentsia' - if it even exists anymore - have no good answers. I am sick of people that disingenuously play to the political centre and try to act above the fray. Sorry, but on some issues there is such a thing as 'black or white'. Many libertarians are standing by while the far left continues its Marxist assault on American values.

I am not being paranoid or over dramatic. I see the lunacy of the left every day on my college campus, which is itself relatively conservative. The right is producing a number of young, well spoken and convincing leaders such as Milo, Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder that would make William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman proud. Who does the libertarian movement have left to call its own?

If anything, I think this is more of a reason to be your own individual rather than identifying with some movement. I found this out a while ago when I realized that I wasn't really a conservative after calling myself one for years. I couldn't call myself a liberal because of the state of liberalism, and the same thing went with conservatism and libertarianism. The state of the two big parties in the US is absolutely awful right now, with both parties acting like children and continuing to refuse to work together on anything. Same goes for most 3rd parties who are just fringe and obnoxious anymore.

My point is, I see no reason to start leaning towards restricting social liberties because the very vocal minority of the youth left continues to preach its increasingly ridiculous views.

And on Milo and all the others, I don't really think they qualify as being great speakers. I mean, except for maybe Shapiro, most right wingers have begun relying on shock and the whole "SJW TROLLED XDDD" shtick anymore, attacking only the most ridiculous of the ridiculous in order to boost their own status. Not saying the left is any better, but as they get more louder, the right is only going to get more extreme to counter it. I might be biased though.

Sorry for rambling, its hard to type on mobile.

Edit: fixed my whole thing about the vocal majority to minority

Miencraft, Pevvania, Rateria, Acelandinisia, New Tampa, Highway Eight

Milo and Crowder are traditional demagogues, not intellectuals or "leaders." They provide no analysis other than shock, outrage, and talking points, which are full of glib anyhow. Ben Shapiro, on the other hand, is truly a leader for conservatism (he's more libertarian) and represents a vision rather than the others who merely spew baseless rhetoric from InfoWars and right wing Instagram accounts. As for the two parties, they are god awful and I only say that I'm Republican because it's easier for the laymen to understand. In reality, I'm pragmatic in economics and socially tolerant elsewhere, so call it what you will, but party identification overall is a pain in the ass.

Miencraft, Rateria, New Tampa

Venomringo wrote:Milo and Crowder are traditional demagogues, not intellectuals or "leaders." They provide no analysis other than shock, outrage, and talking points, which are full of glib anyhow. Ben Shapiro, on the other hand, is truly a leader for conservatism (he's more libertarian) and represents a vision rather than the others who merely spew baseless rhetoric from InfoWars and right wing Instagram accounts. As for the two parties, they are god awful and I only say that I'm Republican because it's easier for the laymen to understand. In reality, I'm pragmatic in economics and socially tolerant elsewhere, so call it what you will, but party identification overall is a pain in the ass.

"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." -George Washington

Miencraft, Narland, Rateria, New Tampa

Why do we need a leader for an idea anyhow? Why do we have to have a party speaker, party head, or some large authority governing who is aloud to express their beliefs on a stage? The entire concept of governing a party is stupid, and if a party cannot be around without governing its followers, then parties themselves are useless and a waste of time. Do you feel represented by the Libertarian Party? I certainly don't. I feel more represented in the Republican party, and i'm not even a damn conservative! People are horded like sheep and sent to slaughter by politicians who would sell their souls for a dime. And the only way they won't get butchered, is if they pick a right or left side and choose to become a slave of a certain group of people. Authority isn't needed for ideas. We need to stop treating it like it needs it

Miencraft, Pevvania, Narland, Rateria, Fascist Dred, New Tampa

Has anyone else noticed the broadening of beliefs in political parties? If you hate SJWs, apparently that makes you a Republican. If you hate Nazis, then you are apparently a Democrat. So not only have we become too broad with our politics, but we have relied on strawmen to assault the other party. The Libertarian party isnt innocent either. I'm sure its agreeable that parties broadly bash eachother with strawmen and half truths. I think we need to stop widening the margins for what counts as Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, Communist, etc etc.

Rateria, New Tampa

Acelandinisia wrote:Has anyone else noticed the broadening of beliefs in political parties? If you hate SJWs, apparently that makes you a Republican. If you hate Nazis, then you are apparently a Democrat. So not only have we become too broad with our politics, but we have relied on strawmen to assault the other party. The Libertarian party isnt innocent either. I'm sure its agreeable that parties broadly bash eachother with strawmen and half truths. I think we need to stop widening the margins for what counts as Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, Communist, etc etc.

Filthy commies get out *daberooni*

Rateria, Acelandinisia

Pevvania wrote:While my general views on economics and military intervention are largely unchanged, I find myself increasingly trending towards conservatism in the social sphere. No, I'm not a Bible basher and I don't believe in banning gay marriage or trans people from serving in the military. But why do the leading cultural figures and institutions of our time insist on entertaining mental illness? On disrespecting our military, law enforcement and flag? On apologising for our great history? On demonizing white people? On bending to the forces of political correctness? On trying to make being a feminist mainstream? (It isn't.) On giving Islam a pass while mocking our Judeo-Christian history and values? On refusing to enforce immigration laws and literally protecting violent criminals from deportation?

On these questions and more, the libertarian 'intelligentsia' - if it even exists anymore - have no good answers. I am sick of people that disingenuously play to the political centre and try to act above the fray. Sorry, but on some issues there is such a thing as 'black or white'. Many libertarians are standing by while the far left continues its Marxist assault on American values.

I am not being paranoid or over dramatic. I see the lunacy of the left every day on my college campus, which is itself relatively conservative. The right is producing a number of young, well spoken and convincing leaders such as Milo, Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder that would make William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman proud. Who does the libertarian movement have left to call its own?

Until these questions can be answered, I'll probably go further down the path of the conservative.

RIP Pev. Became an alt-rightist

Rateria, New Tampa

Alt-Right is pretty lit because its been proven numerous occasions that they believe traps are straight, therefore they can screw men who wear whigs ans panties. Thats a right that us god fearing christians cant have

Republic Of Minerva, Rateria

New Tampa wrote:snip

Jadentopian Order wrote:snip

I think we need to identify what exactly social conservatism is these days. I have always been opposed to using the power of government to crush people's personal freedoms and civil liberties. Perhaps it's more accurate to say I'm becoming more of a cultural conservative, because I'd like to return to the days when people didn't argue over how many genders there were and whether white people should be ashamed for existing. Of course, I'm opposed to the crusades of the social conservatives against gays and so forth. But how often do we really see that these days?

Republic Of Minerva wrote:RIP Pev. Became an alt-rightist

Low quality bait. Consider addressing my points next time.

Venomringo wrote:Milo and Crowder are traditional demagogues, not intellectuals or "leaders." They provide no analysis other than shock, outrage, and talking points, which are full of glib anyhow.

A lot of what Milo says is designed to provoke outrage, but if you actually listen to some of his talks and speeches, he's capable of very thought-provoking and intellectually substantial points. He's not just a provocateur, he's contributing to the national discussion. Ok, Crowder is certainly more of an entertainer than an intellectual, you're right. But still, my point stands that there are few traditionally libertarian thought leaders around right now that are well known and frequently spoken about. Please correct me if I'm wrong because I'd genuinely like to find them.

Rateria, Acelandinisia, New Tampa

I plan to get into politics when i graduate from law school... if i get in. I of course plan to advocate Libertarian beliefs, but i probably wont join the Libertarian party unless i see an oppurtunity to turn it into the Libertarian party, not the "Weed and Pedophilia" party. Before Libertarians can be taken seriously, we need to start realizing that government and opinions MUST be changed drastically to hold a Libertarian system succesfully. The best way to do that is to talk with people as a civilian, not a politician or a higher being. Politicians and public speakers talk like messiahs, but they all forget that without ears, they are nothing

Pevvania, Rateria

I've described myself as a Libertarian on multiple, wish it was possible to call myself a Classical Liberal without a self described historian correcting me. I'm actually quite conservative personally despite believing in a more progressive society that doesn't necessarily enforce religion, morality, etc. I oppose monopolies on all power (that includes businesses which are just another vehicle for bad men to oppress others), I support conservationism and environmental protection (I reject the idea that man can and should actively try to fix these issues though, hence "conservation"), and I believe that the free people of the world should actively defend the rights of those who live in bondage to better defend their own by any means possible. This is my problem with the Libertarian movement, it's just a bunch of potheads, obnoxious atheists, and ancaps.

Pevvania, Rateria, Acelandinisia

Highway Eight wrote:I've described myself as a Libertarian on multiple, wish it was possible to call myself a Classical Liberal without a self described historian correcting me. I'm actually quite conservative personally despite believing in a more progressive society that doesn't necessarily enforce religion, morality, etc. I oppose monopolies on all power (that includes businesses which are just another vehicle for bad men to oppress others), I support conservationism and environmental protection (I reject the idea that man can and should actively try to fix these issues though, hence "conservation"), and I believe that the free people of the world should actively defend the rights of those who live in bondage to better defend their own by any means possible. This is my problem with the Libertarian movement, it's just a bunch of potheads, obnoxious atheists, and ancaps.
I totally agree. I agree entirley with you. However, i don't think that these reforms should occur country wide by a 51% majority. Instead, i think each state should determine it's laws. I also think Counties should have more power in determining their own laws, that way the community decides how it wants to function, not a Bureaucrat in Harrisburg deciding whats best in say Reading, Levitown, or someone in Charleston determining whats right in Wheeling. I'm for certain a libertarian, but even i believe that people have the right to oppress themselves as long as it isnt country wide. If a county wants to make weird laws about religion or such, i say let them. Im heavily religious, against drugs, and despise anarchy, but i don't think that Washington or a State Capital should determine who should

Acelandinisia wrote:I totally agree. I agree entirley with you. However, i don't think that these reforms should occur country wide by a 51% majority. Instead, i think each state should determine it's laws. I also think Counties should have more power in determining their own laws, that way the community decides how it wants to function, not a Bureaucrat in Harrisburg deciding whats best in say Reading, Levitown, or someone in Charleston determining whats right in Wheeling. I'm for certain a libertarian, but even i believe that people have the right to oppress themselves as long as it isnt country wide. If a county wants to make weird laws about religion or such, i say let them. Im heavily religious, against drugs, and despise anarchy, but i don't think that Washington or a State Capital should determine who should

I've often described myself as a conservitarian, but I've realized a better label would be "national libertarianism" or even more of a contridiction: "anarcho-nationalist" basically I believe in a minarchist government, army, cops, and courts are all it's good for. I would like tight borders, but I'm open to legal immigration. If you were a child when you came here I could see you being able to stay, maybe even if you came as an adult, but you have dependents, but I want a wall and high standards for entry. When it comes to social issues I'm completely libertarian except for abortion, I'm pro-life, but that's more of a personal thing. I'm for the decriminalization of all drugs, even the fun ones, civilians should be able to own any type of weaponry except maybe nukes and bio/chemical weapons. I support free market capitalism, and environmental issues can be settled in property rights courts, like your smog is screwing up my potatos kind of thing. I actually don't believe in private prisons though. Prisons are a part of the justice system and one of the only valid roles of government. I like big stick foreign policy and free trade as well

Acelandinisia

I'll agree to make California a sanctuary state if we deport all of our liberals!

The New United States, Fascist Dred

Skaveria wrote:

I've often described myself as a conservitarian, but I've realized a better label would be "national libertarianism" or even more of a contridiction: "anarcho-nationalist" basically I believe in a minarchist government, army, cops, and courts are all it's good for. I would like tight borders, but I'm open to legal immigration. If you were a child when you came here I could see you being able to stay, maybe even if you came as an adult, but you have dependents, but I want a wall and high standards for entry. When it comes to social issues I'm completely libertarian except for abortion, I'm pro-life, but that's more of a personal thing. I'm for the decriminalization of all drugs, even the fun ones, civilians should be able to own any type of weaponry except maybe nukes and bio/chemical weapons. I support free market capitalism, and environmental issues can be settled in property rights courts, like your smog is screwing up my potatos kind of thing. I actually don't believe in private prisons though. Prisons are a part of the justice system and one of the only valid roles of government. I like big stick foreign policy and free trade as well

Im all for that as well. Although i'm definatley conservative when it comes to  Drugs and Abortion. With drugs, i think there should be "Drug Permits" as a way to determine who could take drugs responsibley and have private drug sellers checked in case they may poison the drugs with other chemicals, a health inspection. Have the legal age be 21, and a liscense to smoke. That sounds pretty statist, i know, but the government needs to stay relevant because if the world sees a weak american government, we'll loose our allies, have our oversea assets seized, and see a larger Russian Bloc. The Abortion thing usually turns into "its my right to choose". However, whose civil liberties are more important? The Mother or the Child? If the mother is at risk of dying, then (only if it is in the first trimester) abortion should be optional.

Skaveria wrote:civilian should be able to own any type of weaponry except maybe nukes and bio/chemical weapons.

Honestly, I'd support a constitutional amendment banning everyone, including (and especially) the government, from developing weapons of mass destruction if we didn't have Russia, Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan, etc. with them.

Acelandinisia

Highway Eight wrote:

Honestly, I'd support a constitutional amendment banning everyone, including (and especially) the government, from developing weapons of mass destruction if we didn't have Russia, Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan, etc. with them.

Same

It's time for polls again Libertatem!

Presidential Approval Ratings | Day One, [George Washington]

Vote Here

Rateria, Acelandinisia

So in the last month Trump has blown up the deficit, pushed gun control and slapped potentially debilitating tariffs on steel and aluminium. NOT GOOD! It's all well and good to act independently, but he will lose the support of his base and his party if he abandons conservative principles.

Miencraft, Rateria, Fascist Dred, Acelandinisia

I don't buy the "demographics" argument as to why Cali is solid blue. I put it down to laziness and bad branding on the part of the Republicans. The GOP hasn't seriously campaigned for the presidency in the state since 1992 when they essentially gave up on it. Also, Arnold had few achievements as Governor, didn't bother to help down ballot Republicans and further poisoned the brand in California's eyes.

Remember that Mass and New Jersey are very liberal states that elected Republican governors!

Power went out again

Pevvania wrote:I don't buy the "demographics" argument as to why Cali is solid blue. I put it down to laziness and bad branding on the part of the Republicans. The GOP hasn't seriously campaigned for the presidency in the state since 1992 when they essentially gave up on it. Also, Arnold had few achievements as Governor, didn't bother to help down ballot Republicans and further poisoned the brand in California's eyes.

Remember that Mass and New Jersey are very liberal states that elected Republican governors!

If you look at cali, it's like every other damn blue state, swathes of light red counties, dominated by three or four dark blue cities and coastal counties. Perfect case study as to why the electoral college is a good idea.

Miencraft, Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria, Acelandinisia, Highway Eight

Pevvania wrote:I don't buy the "demographics" argument as to why Cali is solid blue. I put it down to laziness and bad branding on the part of the Republicans. The GOP hasn't seriously campaigned for the presidency in the state since 1992 when they essentially gave up on it. Also, Arnold had few achievements as Governor, didn't bother to help down ballot Republicans and further poisoned the brand in California's eyes.

Remember that Mass and New Jersey are very liberal states that elected Republican governors!

Skaveria wrote:If you look at cali, it's like every other damn blue state, swathes of light red counties, dominated by three or four dark blue cities and coastal counties. Perfect case study as to why the electoral college is a good idea.

Pevvania wrote:I don't buy the "demographics" argument as to why Cali is solid blue. I put it down to laziness and bad branding on the part of the Republicans. The GOP hasn't seriously campaigned for the presidency in the state since 1992 when they essentially gave up on it. Also, Arnold had few achievements as Governor, didn't bother to help down ballot Republicans and further poisoned the brand in California's eyes.

Remember that Mass and New Jersey are very liberal states that elected Republican governors!

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/California_Presidential_Election_Results_2016.svg/300px-California_Presidential_Election_Results_2016.svg.png

It's because it would take far too much capital and resources to even start the process of making Cali a red state again. It's much easier to flip places like Michigan and Wisconsin. Plus, there is no way in hell the city-left in CA are going to even consider supporting someone like Trump for the next few elections. Trump's polarization may have helped him win the support of many conservatives and the 2016 election, but I cannot see him flipping a place so dominated by liberal cities like CA.

Miencraft, Rateria, Acelandinisia

Skaveria wrote:If you look at cali, it's like every other damn blue state, swathes of light red counties, dominated by three or four dark blue cities and coastal counties. Perfect case study as to why the electoral college is a good idea.

Thank God for giving man the idea to install that thing.

People always forget that rural people are the *real* minority in America.

Narland, Rateria, Fascist Dred, Acelandinisia

Highway Eight wrote:Thank God for giving man the idea to install that thing.

People always forget that rural people are the *real* minority in America.

If you look at the demographics it's ironic, people say it's the minority vote in those places that, but that doesn't swing the vote considering the country is still 60% white. It's all the rich, guilty, white liberals in those places that make them so blue. And they support socialism and "overthrowing the ruling class" when they ARE the ruling class.

Narland, Rateria, Acelandinisia

Presidential Approval Ratings | Day Two, [John Adams]

Vote Here

Rateria

If I had a penny for every time some SJW said I don't know what it feels like to be a minority because I'm a white, right-wing working class, male from a rural area....

Rateria, Acelandinisia

Highway Eight wrote:If I had a penny for every time some SJW said I don't know what it feels like to be a minority because I'm a white, right-wing working class, male from a rural area....

In that case, you would be able to pay off all debt in the world.

Miencraft, Acelandinisia

Rateria wrote:In that case, you would be able to pay off all debt in the world.

Pretty sure hyperinflation would cause the world to fall into chaos.

Rateria, Acelandinisia

Highway Eight wrote:Pretty sure hyperinflation would cause the world to fall into chaos.

You’re right. Money would be absolutely worthless. People would build skyscrapers out of it.

Acelandinisia

Are there any other Libertarians in here who voted for Trump?

Skaveria wrote:Are there any other Libertarians in here who voted for Trump?
I would have, but im underage

Only because i didnt want Hillary and there was no way in hell i was voting Johnson as there was no way he was going to win. Im not even sure the Pennsylvania Ballot allows us to vote Libertarian

Skaveria wrote:Are there any other Libertarians in here who voted for Trump?

I supported, but knowing what I do now I most likely would not have as much as I did.

Acelandinisia

"How dare the school not let me walk out of class just because I feel like it!"

Acelandinisia, Highway Eight

Your supreme leader has arrived

Rateria, Acelandinisia

Jill i want to suck your leafs oh yes i love greens 😣

Presidential Approval Ratings | Day Three, [Thomas Jefferson]

Vote Here

Rateria, Acelandinisia

Reagan: talked tough to Soviet Union, scared people into thinking he'd start a nuclear war, had USSR come to negotiating table and ended Cold War.

Trump: talked tough to North Korea, scared people into thinking he'd start a nuclear war, has had North Korea come to negotiating table and promise a meeting.

Hmmmmm

Rateria, Acelandinisia

Jadentopian Order wrote:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/California_Presidential_Election_Results_2016.svg/300px-California_Presidential_Election_Results_2016.svg.png

It's because it would take far too much capital and resources to even start the process of making Cali a red state again. It's much easier to flip places like Michigan and Wisconsin. Plus, there is no way in hell the city-left in CA are going to even consider supporting someone like Trump for the next few elections. Trump's polarization may have helped him win the support of many conservatives and the 2016 election, but I cannot see him flipping a place so dominated by liberal cities like CA.

California is not all big cities. The Central Valley is highly agricultural and pretty conservative. If you don't invest party resources or campaigning time into places you expect to lose in, of course you're going to lose.

But seriously I've seen it with my own eyes: swing districts or even lean conservative districts go blue because the national GOP just cannot be bothered with us. Winnable races are being lost because of laziness and negative thinking. For example, I live in San Luis Obispo County, which had a string of elections where Republicans won the congressional district and the Democrat representing us now - Salud Carbajal - only won office in 2016 by a razor thin margin. The Central Coast of California is pretty moderate politically and we have a candidate for Congress who is very charismatic, photogenic and has a winning message. But he's getting no funding because it's Cali and the perception is that the Democrats will always win! Bad thinking.

Yes, the big cities will not suddenly become conservative, but we're letting easy races and easy districts slip through our fingers. Orange County, which is just outside LA county, voted Republican in every presidential election from 1940 until 2016 when it went to Hillary. Why? No engagement by the party, low conservative turnout ("my vote won't make a difference") and poor leadership.

No, we're not going to make California red any time soon, but I assure you that we can make it far more competitive than it is now simply with better leadership and strategy.

Miencraft, Rateria, Acelandinisia, Jadentopian Order

Pevvania wrote:California is not all big cities. The Central Valley is highly agricultural and pretty conservative. If you don't invest party resources or campaigning time into places you expect to lose in, of course you're going to lose.

Exactly, but the big cities in CA have much more weight compared to places like MI and WI that the GOP was able to flip.

Pevvania wrote:

But seriously I've seen it with my own eyes: swing districts or even lean conservative districts go blue because the national GOP just cannot be bothered with us. Winnable races are being lost because of laziness and negative thinking. For example, I live in San Luis Obispo County, which had a string of elections where Republicans won the congressional district and the Democrat representing us now - Salud Carbajal - only won office in 2016 by a razor thin margin. The Central Coast of California is pretty moderate politically and we have a candidate for Congress who is very charismatic, photogenic and has a winning message. But he's getting no funding because it's Cali and the perception is that the Democrats will always win! Bad thinking.

I think we can both agree on this-- the GOP has been pretty cautious with its spending as of late, causing some mistakes (See: Roy Moore campaign). If they want to start winning in Cali, it needs to start from the bottom. I think they either a.) Don't realize this or b.) realize that this is going to take lots of time and money and don't see the electoral votes as worth it. Of course the GOP could flip Cali, but it is going to be extremely involved and take away resources from other races that they deem more important. Unless they lose this mentality they're only going to be defending their current lead.

Pevvania, Rateria, Acelandinisia

Why would you want to flip them to the Republican side? This mentality of forcing Republican and Democrat into the lives of average people is why 3rd parties flounder in politics. What needs to happen is that we stop promoting parties that benefit 1 part of the country, and instead, look at what benefits each state. What's good for California isnt good for Texas or Wyoming or Hawaii. It's like how Socialism works in Europe, but would flounder here. Instead of uniting under 1 party, we should be united by an idea, and if people dont agree with that idea, they should be able to leave as they please. 1 idea of Liberty is enough to unite the country in a friendly alliance, but they should look at states like little countries with their own needs and gains. The government's sole purpose should be to protect the nation and states, not to micromanage. The states can lead themselves, like Counties like their little "states", but the country should be united under a Military and common idea, nothing more. Let states decide what route they want to take, and let the rest of the states decide what works for them. Let the Californians be leftest commies and let the Texans be yee-haw conservatives. No one wants to legit leave the US. If they self govern, why would They? Let states decide how they want to function, and dont unite the nation under specific and wide ideals, just 1 or 2 or maybe 3.

Acelandinisia wrote:It's like how Socialism works in Europe, but would flounder here.

https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/why-denmark-isnt-the-utopian-fantasy-it-is-made-out-to-be-a6720701.html

https://qz.com/544951/scandinavian-countries-are-not-so-perfect-after-all/

Except for the fact that neither of that is true.

Miencraft, Rateria, Acelandinisia

Shoot guys, we're all terrorists

Rateria, Acelandinisia

Acelandinisia wrote:Why would you want to flip them to the Republican side? This mentality of forcing Republican and Democrat into the lives of average people is why 3rd parties flounder in politics. What needs to happen is that we stop promoting parties that benefit 1 part of the country, and instead, look at what benefits each state. What's good for California isnt good for Texas or Wyoming or Hawaii. It's like how Socialism works in Europe, but would flounder here. Instead of uniting under 1 party, we should be united by an idea, and if people dont agree with that idea, they should be able to leave as they please. 1 idea of Liberty is enough to unite the country in a friendly alliance, but they should look at states like little countries with their own needs and gains. The government's sole purpose should be to protect the nation and states, not to micromanage. The states can lead themselves, like Counties like their little "states", but the country should be united under a Military and common idea, nothing more. Let states decide what route they want to take, and let the rest of the states decide what works for them. Let the Californians be leftest commies and let the Texans be yee-haw conservatives. No one wants to legit leave the US. If they self govern, why would They? Let states decide how they want to function, and dont unite the nation under specific and wide ideals, just 1 or 2 or maybe 3.

At the end of the day, no one is *actually* forcing anyone to into "specific and wide ideals" (? Opposites?), and people still have the ability to think freely. So long as either party is even mildly doing its job in American eyes, they can stay. Don't get me wrong, I'd love a three party system, but only if the third party was a socialist party. Otherwise we'd be outnumbered by a united left.

Acelandinisia

It's really important the U.S does not go down the socialist path any further. I'll happily give up legal weed and gay marriage (things Republicans are coming around to anyways) to avoid descending into commie, PC, hell. That's why I vote straight R down ballot (unless there is a Independent or Libertarian running) and it's why I voted for Trump rather than Johnson. The stakes are too high, plus Trump is pretty much a libertarian on a lot of things and the places he deviates and goes right on (borders and abortion) are the same places I diverge from the Libertarian platform as well.

Miencraft, Pevvania, Acelandinisia

Jadentopian Order wrote:

https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/why-denmark-isnt-the-utopian-fantasy-it-is-made-out-to-be-a6720701.html

https://qz.com/544951/scandinavian-countries-are-not-so-perfect-after-all/

Except for the fact that neither of that is true.

All your articles are legit arguements, but not against anything i said. I never argued that denmark was a utopia, and i never will, because utopia doesnt exist. I never argued that they were perfect. At the moment, it is working just fine, even though it is showing signs of decay, but that happens to economies under socialism. It works great at first, until it doesnt. The article where he says that they arent socialists is hooey. He basically said "We arent socialists, but we're socialists". Wait, sorry, "DEMOCRATIC socialists". The part when he said that they were free market is agreeable, but Market Socialism (Titoism) exists, and has been praised by many. So really, his mouth says free market, but his actions say socialist

Acelandinisia wrote:All your articles are legit arguements, but not against anything i said. I never argued that denmark was a utopia, and i never will, because utopia doesnt exist. I never argued that they were perfect. At the moment, it is working just fine, even though it is showing signs of decay, but that happens to economies under socialism. It works great at first, until it doesnt. The article where he says that they arent socialists is hooey. He basically said "We arent socialists, but we're socialists". Wait, sorry, "DEMOCRATIC socialists". The part when he said that they were free market is agreeable, but Market Socialism (Titoism) exists, and has been praised by many. So really, his mouth says free market, but his actions say socialist

I think it fairly proves that

Acelandinisia wrote:All your articles are legit arguements, but not against anything i said. I never argued that denmark was a utopia, and i never will, because utopia doesnt exist. I never argued that they were perfect. At the moment, it is working just fine, even though it is showing signs of decay, but that happens to economies under socialism. It works great at first, until it doesnt. The article where he says that they arent socialists is hooey. He basically said "We arent socialists, but we're socialists". Wait, sorry, "DEMOCRATIC socialists". The part when he said that they were free market is agreeable, but Market Socialism (Titoism) exists, and has been praised by many. So really, his mouth says free market, but his actions say socialist

Socialism is defined as: "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Sure, European states have heavy socialist elements, but the means of production have not been seized by workers. The reason they can get away with their system is that we pay the majority of their defense bill. I mean look at this: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2017_06/20170629_170629-pr2017-111-en.pdf 3.58% of our GDP may not seem like much, but consider that our GDP is about 18-19 TRILLION. The European "socialist" states would have the same fate as Greece if we were not footing their bill to defend against threats like Russia.

Lastly, socialist elements != socialist govt. The US today would look like a socialist utopia from the eyes of an American from the 1890s-early 1900s with our compulsory education, workers rights, economic regulation, social security, and (god-forbid) our national parks system. The US takes advantage of many of these socialist elements, but is widely considered to be one of the most free-market countries in the world, while most European states are regarded as socialist utopias in the eyes of world, despite having very similar economies to the US, only with heavier reliance on welfare programs.

Miencraft, Rateria, Acelandinisia

Jadentopian Order wrote:

I think it fairly proves that

Socialism is defined as: "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Sure, European states have heavy socialist elements, but the means of production have not been seized by workers.  The reason they can get away with their system is that we pay the majority of their defense bill.  I mean look at this: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2017_06/20170629_170629-pr2017-111-en.pdf  3.58% of our GDP may not seem like much, but consider that our GDP is about 18-19 TRILLION.   The European "socialist" states would have the same fate as Greece if we were not footing their bill to defend against threats like Russia.

Lastly, socialist elements != socialist govt.  The US today would look like a socialist utopia from the eyes of an American from the 1890s-early 1900s with our compulsory education, workers rights, economic regulation, social security, and (god-forbid) our national parks system.  The US takes advantage of many of these socialist elements, but is widely considered to be one of the most free-market countries in the world, while most European states are regarded as socialist utopias in the eyes of world, despite having very similar economies to the US, only with heavier reliance on welfare programs.

Alright. That's all fair. I didn't mean pure socialism, i should have sepcified that, as pure ideology is hard to achieve. But it would be foolish to say that Europe wasnt leftist, much more so then the Americans. Im well aware of America spending so much on Europe, however, even though they rely on us, that is another way of saying it works in a different sense that they can rely on someone else and succeed

Presidential Approval Ratings | Day Four, [James Madison]

Vote Here

Rateria

Skaveria wrote:Are there any other Libertarians in here who voted for Trump?
I supported Trump because what became the Libertarian ticket was confused and quite frankly came across as imploringly impotent and the Constitutionalist ticket was hopelessly broken.

Trump has a history as a scrapper and helped form the Reform Party that is both consistently Anti-Establishment, Disestablishmentarian and specifically anti-NAFTA, anti-GATT, and anti-Croney -- but totally ignorant of the nature of Liberty. The myth that Free Trade tm (a wholly owned subsidiary of GlobGovCo) as practice by Globalists is somehow compatible with individual economic freedom must be refuted. I would still be a Rancher/Agricultural Businessman if it wasn't for GATT/NAFTA setting up barriers and blockades to being able to be our own brokers/bankers/underwriters and sell our produce and goods overseas.

That huge sucking sound in the 90s was family run businesses (families who survived the Statist onslaughts of LBJ/Nixon/Carter) loosing our factories, mines, timberlands, ranches, and farms to big multinational globalists and overseas governments. Families loosing our self-employ -- that misunderstood thing called the right to pursuit of happiness. Self-Employed families who have become serfs to globalist concerns whom have no love for (individual) Liberty, nor Americans who haven't bought into the Cultural Marxist Lie.

Trump's desire to fire 80% of the Federal Government, retire 20 old regs for each new regulation, cut taxes drastically; and his record as a doer, builder, maker, and unapologetic bombastic egotistical bastard who was willing call out the parliament of fools that is the Beltway Establishment for their decadence (a corrupt and rigged system) and go toe to toe with them was enough to gain my support.

He isn't Libertarian by any means, but he is powerful enough to break the back of the Establishment, which gives Libertarians the chance to show that if a little bit of liberty is good then total liberty is best.

Pevvania, Rateria, Acelandinisia

Pevvania wrote:So in the last month Trump has blown up the deficit, pushed gun control and slapped potentially debilitating tariffs on steel and aluminium. NOT GOOD! It's all well and good to act independently, but he will lose the support of his base and his party if he abandons conservative principles.

I would say his base agrees with the tariffs though.

Most of his supporters are happy about it, it was always his plan, and he wants to secure the midwest for 2020.

The fact that most people don't know what a trade deficit is doesn't help.

Miencraft, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria, Acelandinisia

I haven't seen a Libertarian use the words "Cultural Marxist" or "Globalist" until just now, to my memory, in a way that was serious. Weird.

Republic Of Minerva, Acelandinisia

Highway Eight wrote:I haven't seen a Libertarian use the words "Cultural Marxist" or "Globalist" until just now, to my memory, in a way that was serious. Weird.

Not sure how popular this opinion is, but not sure I really buy into all of that. To me, it just seems like a reaction to a change in culture.

Seemingly starting with 60s mass-counter culture, things like homosexuality, openess about sexuality, and irreligion- that were normally taboo and in extreme caees even illegal in places (See: Alan Turing) were now slowly becoming acceptable. This did not and has not gone over well with more conservative individuals who prefer tradition values.

You can see this reaction to the shift in culture very clearly on both sides. A good amount (not all, mind you) of young liberals feel that it hasn't gone far enough yet, pushing for all your typical sjw-type stuff, doing stuff as moderate as the weird haircuts and as extreme as domestic terrorist groups such as antifa. On the right, we also see extreme groups like the alt-right who feel violently against the shift, doing things as moderate as, you guessed it, getting haircuts to look like "ideal men" and as extreme as domestic terrorist actions such as the rally in Charlottesville.

The long and short of it is, there is much debate about where this new shift in culture ends. Do we stop at allowing homosexuality? Do we revert back to 50s style American values? Do we need to go further? Is Western society on the verge of collapse? Are we overreacting? --If you ask me, the answer is none of the above because this happens just about everytime a major development occurs and each time, no one can stop what happens. Just look at history and you'll find plenty. For example, the Reformation and the Renaissance. Both caused massive social confusion, altering European way of life forever, and no one could do a damn thing.

I'll stop rambling now.

Miencraft, Rateria, Highway Eight

Remember when they domesticated plants and the hunter-gatherers were tragically drowned in the cultural Marxist conspiracy to destroy the traditional and moral society that existed for 60,000 years?

Rateria, Jadentopian Order

Highway Eight wrote:Remember when they domesticated plants and the hunter-gatherers were tragically drowned in the cultural Marxist conspiracy to destroy the traditional and moral society that existed for 60,000 years?

I was there for when those damn Christians destroyed my pure and moral Roman Empire. Wish I could go back to the days where kids would worship Zeus and Ares, not this "God" or "Jesus".

Rateria

On a serious note, I'd argue that the Greek god Ares and the Roman god Mars are not really equivalent.

Rateria

Highway Eight wrote:On a serious note, I'd argue that the Greek god Ares and the Roman god Mars are not really equivalent.

I'm not an expert, explain.

Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:I'm not an expert, explain.

Just considering that Mars represented the Roman idealized view of war as a tool to protect and expand the state and to create peace, while Ares was universally hated and represented the Greek view that war was inherently destructive. Ares lacks honor and often fought on both sides of a conflict and Ares delighted in chaos, while Mars represented the stability of Rome.

Rateria

In Roman mythology Mars is generated as a great, if not the greatest, of the gods, while Ares is rejected and hated by not only man, but also the gods.

Rateria

Key points:

Peace:Violence

Stability:Chaos

Honor:Dishonor

Loved:Hated

Growth:Destruction

Donald Trump is a conservative, and that is what conservatives want. Why are some libertarians surprised at this? Trump was never libertarian.

Rateria, Colorado-Kansas

Presidential Approval Ratings | Day Five, [James Monroe]

Vote Here

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Donald Trump is a conservative, and that is what conservatives want. Why are some libertarians surprised at this? Trump was never libertarian.

As a fellow Libertarian, i'm here to say that he's the most Libertarian president we're ever get anytime soon at least. Some stuff my suck, and you may not agree with it. But you got to savor the rest his presidency at this point.

Pevvania

That is a low bar then.

I'm yet to see a day in time where Libertarianism has ever had influence over any major political leaders. Maybe in some small cases, but nothing major. Like, Gary Johnson was the Governor of New Mexico for a while, but other than that, not a lot of Libertarians who have sane beliefs to get into politics. The entire Libertarian party is so messed up, that it makes me sick to associate Libertarianism with the Libertarian party

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Donald Trump is a conservative, and that is what conservatives want. Why are some libertarians surprised at this? Trump was never libertarian.

I wouldn't say he himself is a conservative. Not in the same sense that ted cruz or mike lee is a conservative.

Rateria, Fascist Dred, Acelandinisia

Mmm, I love the smell of a dummy in the morning.

Rateria

I'm glad i wont be the only unfunny tard here

Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:Kohalo's here

Isn't that one of Aux/Hyder's puppets?

Rateria

Acelandinisia wrote:I'm yet to see a day in time where Libertarianism has ever had influence over any major political leaders. Maybe in some small cases, but nothing major. Like, Gary Johnson was the Governor of New Mexico for a while, but other than that, not a lot of Libertarians who have sane beliefs to get into politics. The entire Libertarian party is so messed up, that it makes me sick to associate Libertarianism with the Libertarian party

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Donald Trump is a conservative, and that is what conservatives want. Why are some libertarians surprised at this? Trump was never libertarian.

Small-l libertarianism had a heavy influence over Ronald Reagan and his administration, though he and the Republican Party in the 80s followed more of a 'fusionist' ideology that united small government libertarians, religious conservatives and defense hawks. Honestly, Donald Trump probably doesn't even think about libertarianism, but that doesn't mean libertarian economic and constitutionalist thinking hasn't influenced his administration, his officials, his policies and his Supreme Court pick (Gorsuch). Pre- and post-Bush Republican orthodoxy still reigns supreme on taxes, state's rights, guns, social programs, Israel, political correctness and free markets. In that way, Trump is the continuation of the Reagan Era, if more in spirit and policy rather than in his demeanour or the way he communicates. So no, not libertarian, but close enough for now.

Narland, Rateria, Acelandinisia, Highway Eight, Libertarian New Hampshire

Another reason why single-payer healthcare at the state level won't happen: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article204794809.html

As awful of a governor that Jerry Brown has been, to his credit, he has helped put the state budget back into surplus and has resisted calls from the legislature to create new social welfare programs. That we can praise him for. It's just a shame he'll likely be replaced by a statist sociopath like Gavin Newsom or Villagarosa.

Rateria, Acelandinisia

Pevvania wrote:

Small-l libertarianism had a heavy influence over Ronald Reagan and his administration, though he and the Republican Party in the 80s followed more of a 'fusionist' ideology that united small government libertarians, religious conservatives and defense hawks. Honestly, Donald Trump probably doesn't even think about libertarianism, but that doesn't mean libertarian economic and constitutionalist thinking hasn't influenced his administration, his officials, his policies and his Supreme Court pick (Gorsuch). Pre- and post-Bush Republican orthodoxy still reigns supreme on taxes, state's rights, guns, social programs, Israel, political correctness and free markets. In that way, Trump is the continuation of the Reagan Era, if more in spirit and policy rather than in his demeanour or the way he communicates. So no, not libertarian, but close enough for now.

Yeah, that's what i found amazing about Reagan. He seemed to be the only one to take Libertarians seriously, like as an actual force that can influence the election and politics.

Pevvania, Narland, Rateria

Highway Eight wrote:I haven't seen a Libertarian use the words "Cultural Marxist" or "Globalist" until just now, to my memory, in a way that was serious. Weird.
Jadentopian Order wrote:Not sure how popular this opinion is, but not sure I really buy into all of that. To me, it just seems like a reaction to a change in culture.

Seemingly starting with 60s mass-counter culture, things like homosexuality, openness about sexuality, and irreligion- that were normally taboo and in extreme cases even illegal in places (See: Alan Turing) were now slowly becoming acceptable. This did not and has not gone over well with more conservative individuals who prefer tradition values.

You can see this reaction to the shift in culture very clearly on both sides. A good amount (not all, mind you) of young liberals feel that it hasn't gone far enough yet, pushing for all your typical sjw-type stuff, doing stuff as moderate as the weird haircuts and as extreme as domestic terrorist groups such as antifa. On the right, we also see extreme groups like the alt-right who feel violently against the shift, doing things as moderate as, you guessed it, getting haircuts to look like "ideal men" and as extreme as domestic terrorist actions such as the rally in Charlottesville.

The long and short of it is, there is much debate about where this new shift in culture ends. Do we stop at allowing homosexuality? Do we revert back to 50s style American values? Do we need to go further? Is Western society on the verge of collapse? Are we overreacting? --If you ask me, the answer is none of the above because this happens just about everytime a major development occurs and each time, no one can stop what happens. Just look at history and you'll find plenty. For example, the Reformation and the Renaissance. Both caused massive social confusion, altering European way of life forever, and no one could do a damn thing.

I'll stop rambling now.

Thanks for rambling. I hope I am not the only one who enjoys it. It is 5 am here and being both sleep and oxygen deprived will probably ramble as well.

_________________________________________________________________________

Re: Globalism and Cultural Marxism. The Atlas Society and Libertarians such as Peikoff and Badnarik come to mind; as well as Ayn Rand in (in the late 50s early 60s) on her college lectures she described it and what would later be called the "culture wars" without naming them.

Political revolutions do not happen by accident. No one from our Founders, to the Comintern, to the October Revolution, to Che Guevara's little outing in S. America happened without planning nor by accident. Chrmn Mao didn't say, "Comrades, we didn't have to do anything, and look what glory happened!" nor did Ghandi say, "First they ignore you, and then by accident you win!" No. Neither is any cultural revolution is by accident -- The Generation Gap (that happened in the US in the 60s; to Germany in the 1920s, and to Russia in the 1900s is unique only to countries wherein Socialists have engineered the tools to indoctrinate the children away from the bourgeoisie mentality of their parents into an inexorable determinist Progressivism (progressing whether slowly or swiftly on that train wreck called Socialism where the New Man never rises out of the ashes, just the same old strongman petty tyrant who had the wits, will, and wile to survive by force,fraud and violence).

Once the cultural shift of Progressivism starts, to the next generation it seems to be the natural order of things that morals become more lax, education requires more schooling (if one is educated at all (in the classical sense)) and it is identity not the individual that makes a person. Those who come from the old order (where Reality is Objective, Truth is Correspondence to the Facts, Logic is a transcendental necessity, Justice is exacting and met based on Law (capital L) and the facts adjudicated equally regardless of popularity or lack thereof, class, race, social status, creed, color, sex, religion, political affiliation or national origin; and Liberty and Equality are both harmonious and the only end of government) find themselves under siege and unwelcome in the Civilization that they created, by the new order of Progressivist Socialist who are willing to lie, cheat and steal to see their ends (a one world socialist order). Socialism fails wherever it is tried and must suck on the teat of both free enterprise and individual labor invariably parasitically draining the life out of its host and eventually if unchecked death by starvation, executions and mass murder when those in power (never realizing they cannot squeeze blood from a turnip) blame everyone else but themselves when they cannot make it work.

The academician philosophers of the previous generation indubitably determine the textbooks that the teachers of this generation will be inculcated thereby, and what is postulated as "Education" when successfully implemented by them becomes the word, though, and deed of the next generation. Schaeffer, Muggeridge, Orwell, even Lincoln spoke of it; Solzhenetsin and Sakharov got the brunt of it, and Dewey and the PME Socialists (from the New School of Thought Educators to the Frankfurt School ) bragged about accomplishing it all the while redefining history to suit their narrative as best they could.

We have gone from extinguishing the Classical Eclectic Education model devised by our Founding Fathers (that created more inventors and polymaths per capita (except for Jewish enclaves) to embracing almost in totality the Bismarkian Socialist's Progressive Modern Education (transplanting it starting in Chicago in the 1890s to taking over even Idaho and Alaska by the 1970s. This model whose primary goal is to "force children into a sociological norm".. through "peer pressure and idols" and isolating children from their "parent's morés and religion" making it so that no class of children could readily relate to anyone outside their age category -- Dewey's own words. And of course its derivative successors Outcome Based Education and Common Core have further isolated children from their traditional heritage, culture, language, civics, and history by denying them even the tools to think through logically and cogently, but instead relying on their feelings given to them by bellyfeel from their handler/community organizer/"illustrious" leader. We cannot go back to the 50s, but we can educate the next generation to be self-learning individuals who think for themselves and respect the opinions of others; to desire Liberty and Equality; to live free; to objectively understand reality (and the nature of things); to do good, eschew evil, and to recognize the satisfaction of self-interest by engaging competently in the marketplace of both ideas and goods & services to the happiness and content of others. This is the essence of greatness in any generation, and the bane of despots.

_________________________________________________________________________

Re: The Alt-Right. The alt-right is not American Right but a disaffected part of the Left ranting against their own. They use the left's own tactics and stratagem against them, and position themselves as an alternative to the Right. They are not consistently "right" in the sense of conserving classical liberalism only in being reactionary (a European not an American trait) to Progressivism specifically, and liberalism in general. If the Orkish Feudalism of Mordor were the opposition to American Leftism they could just as well be advocates of Sauron since they have no consistent ties to the traditional American Right other than using it as a shock value against the current opposition to the left they are trying to repudiate.

_________________________________________________________________________

Re: Questions. No civilization has withstood the destruction of the family unit as naturally derived (man + woman) without collapsing into either anarchy (bad anarchy, not good anarchy) or tyranny. Or if orchestrated by the tyranny quickly reversing itself. Those destroyed by anarchy invariably return back to heterosexuality as the societal norm.

Historically, It hasn't been a matter of if rampant militant homosexuality is rejected but when. i am specifically referring to that form of homosexuality that is hostile to the traditional family not necessarily individual homosexuals. The Soviet Union in the teens and twenties of the last century almost detroyed themselves from within with the abolition of the family which they have yet to fully recover and it is nearly 100 years later. They raised a generation to engage in their sexual appetites and openly encouraged everything but "bourgeoisie marriage." It failed. They ended up starving, executing or sending their homosexuals off to the salt mines and they recalled the Orthodox priests temporarily from the same salt mines to teach traditional marriage and family rearing. Of course the Orthodox were rewarded by being sent back to the mines once the Soviets were satisfied that Communism would survive; Germany learned from it and only allowed homosexuality in the ranks of the Brownshirts (and in the Blackshirts if well hidden and they at least married, had kids even after the Night of Long Knives) in order to destabilize the fabric of Lutheran society. Once homosexuals had served their purpose starting with the Night of Long Knives they were ruthlessly eliminated. The fall of the Roman Empire is complex and complicated but one of the factors. There were no longer enough Roman citizens to man the garrisons nor replace themselves in their own lands and the more prolific Germanic Tribes moved in thrived where they had declined.

With the rise of militancy and the declaration of militant homosexuals to destroy traditional marriage and those who hold to it, they are ruining for other homosexuals who want to coexist in peace the ability to do so. In the past, the result has been disastrous. I do not foresee this ending well for either Liberty and equality for any individual.

_________________________________________________________________________

Sorry for the length. Lack of sleep and oxygen make for wordsy miscellaneous ramblings.

Rateria, Venomringo, Acelandinisia

Jadentopian Order wrote:Not sure how popular this opinion is, but not sure I really buy into all of that. To me, it just seems like a reaction to a change in culture.

Do we revert back to 50s style American values? Do we need to go further? Is Western society on the verge of collapse? Are we overreacting? --If you ask me, the answer is none of the above because this happens just about everytime a major development occurs and each time, no one can stop what happens. Just look at history and you'll find plenty. For example, the Reformation and the Renaissance. Both caused massive social confusion, altering European way of life forever, and no one could do a damn thing.

Ah, you are misguided. You prosing the the wrong questions and looking at this through a tunnel of "reverting" and how these "developments" are inevitable - I believe that you are wrong and your language indicates that. You are completely right that the far-right is seeking to revert to some pseudo-50s society, however, that is not what all conservatives (in a loose American context) believe or value just as the left seeks, by your own admission, to break societal norms and progress their views further. Therefore, the "moderate" or sensible rights, like the majority of us are, only seek to preserve the traditional family that Narland describes and the emphasis on parental morals rather than morals enforced or at least taught by the state. The main difference, at least in today's society and culture, between the right and left is individuality vs collectivism - does your individual character and person define you or does a larger interest group make up your identity/blur your individuality? Being that the right seeks to preserve individuality, it is without question that we would want to protect the basic family unit, as it removes a child (a whole generation of kids) from a progressive culture taught in schools that truly do blur the individual in favor of state-sponsored ethics and values. So, the only reaction to a change in culture is found in the reactionaries, but a change in culture is not inevitable as you suggest, but rather accelerated by the state.

Narland, Rateria, Fascist Dred, Acelandinisia

Democrats help pass bipartisan bank deregulation bill in the Senate. Who would have thought?

Rateria, Acelandinisia

Pevvania wrote:Democrats help pass bipartisan bank deregulation bill in the Senate. Who would have thought?
Do you think that the Democrats are trying to wedge the Republicans and Libertarians into their gap teeth? (Meaning in their broad influence)

Rateria

Acelandinisia wrote:Do you think that the Democrats are trying to wedge the Republicans and Libertarians into their gap teeth? (Meaning in their broad influence)

Well I think all the vulnerable Senate Democrats up for reelection in red states want to be able to point to something they can work with Republicans on. The problem is that working voters that support Trump don't care about bank regulations, but they do care about their opposition to tax cuts. So honestly I doubt this will save them.

Rateria, Acelandinisia

Sorry for being a few days late. Busy week.

Presidential Approval Ratings | Day Six, [John Quincy Adams]

Vote Here

Rateria, Acelandinisia

go to nationstates

Acelandinisia

Well its the ides of march, 2062 years ago Caesar was assassinated in the senate house.

I know that there are a lot of different feelings about Caesar, but here are my thoughts.

Cato was right. Caesar was a tyrant, he violated roman law when he started a entire campaign (albeit with some justification) without the senates approval. When the senate demanded he return to rome and disband his legions he responded by marching with his army crossed the Rubicon, a river which marked the boarder between Cisalpine Gaul and Italy, doing this was forbidden for this exact reason, coup d'etat.

Some blame Cato for the fall of the republic, as it was he that walked out of peace talks.

I don't think that's fair, Caesar was already on his way to becoming dictator long before the civil war.

Cato knew this, and rather than letting the republic die on its knees he made it die on its feet. Fighting against tyranny, rather than surrendering in the face of it.

While Caesar would live for another year since the end of the civil war, and the republic in name at least for another eighteen, the makings of its demise was already set in place.

Caesar was with no doubt a great general, and his military career is impressive, but he was just a man.

His name eventually became the title of power across the world. From Kaiser, in Germany to Tsar, in Russia.

Was the assassination of Caesar justified? I don’t know. But its effects, rather than killing Caesar, made him immortal in the chronicles of time.

Narland, Rateria, Acelandinisia, Jadentopian Order

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Some blame Cato for the fall of the republic

""""""republic""""""

https://www.theroot.com/doug-jones-and-the-democratic-party-just-screwed-black-1823802570/amp

"The Democrats frequently screw over black people...

...because they're too conservative!"

What world are these people living in?

Pevvania wrote:https://www.theroot.com/doug-jones-and-the-democratic-party-just-screwed-black-1823802570/amp

"The Democrats frequently screw over black people...

...because they're too conservative!"

What world are these people living in?

How does anyone that blatantly racist have any credibility in any circle anywhere at all?

Pevvania, Acelandinisia

Presidential Approval Ratings | Day Seven, [Andrew Jackson]

Vote Here

Rateria, Acelandinisia

Presidential Approval Ratings | Day Eight, [Martin Van Buren]

Vote Here

Rateria, Acelandinisia

Presidential Approval Ratings | Day Nine, [William Henry Harrison]

Vote Here

Rateria

Hey negroes

Did you know

that blackpeople exist????????

Acelandinisia

Presidential Approval Ratings | Day Ten, [John Tyler]

Vote Here

Rateria, Acelandinisia

The States Of Balloon wrote:Hey negroes

Did you know

that blackpeople exist????????

wow omg racist

Rateria, Acelandinisia

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.