Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

When the number of Tatemites on NS drops to 20, when the few who actually care about NS still start complaining about the failures of the region, remember not to blame on people who don't care and have moved off of NS, it's not their job to maintain a government and military, and all that. If you want to continue activity on NS, why don't you write up a constitution and form a government? I won't, as I don't care for one.

Miencraft, The New United States

Skaveria wrote:Repuplicans are obviously more pro-liberty than Democrats. Look at the diversity of thought within the Republican party, there's neo-conservatism, conservatarianism, conservatism with more of a nationalist edge to it, among others. Democrats basically have two factions, they all pretty much think the same thing, but the Sanders/Cortez wing of the party wants to focus on class while the Warren/Booker wing focuses on race. The blue dogs are dead. Look at Jim Web in the Democratic primaries. It looked like he stepped out of a time machine. He bragged about killing Communists in Vietnam, which elicited offended gaspes from the crowd. Wonder why? Because a lot of them ARE Communists. The DNC screwed Sanders out of the election, he should've been the nominee. Trump became the nominee in spite of the efforts of the GOP. I could go into more detail, but I'll leave it there for now. By the way, calling an argument you don't agree with "low IQ" isn't actually an argument.

Can I have a link to the Jim Webb thing? I was looking but theres no direct article about it

West Smolcasm wrote:

The Republican Party seeks to convince us of tales that are simply too tall not to be true, or so they wish us to believe: The Democrats are obsessed with nominating celebrities - our idols Reagan, Schwarzenegger, and Trump sure make them look stupid! The Democrats are out to infringe upon our Constitutional rights like terrorists - which, incidentally, can only be fought by restricting civil freedoms! Liberty is never more than one generation away from extinction - speaking of extinction, you can never have too many nuclear weapons or too much military funding! We need tax cuts to improve the purchasing power of the average American - that money needs to come from somewhere, so let's slash the welfare budget and reduce the number of government jobs! The government fails at everything it sets out to do - we'll prove it by actively sabotaging its endeavors!

Sure, the Dems aren't perfect - I mean, they consider fools like Hillary Clinton their vanguard, and they're learning all the wrong lessons from the Trump presidency! - but most of their candidates are demonstrably well-intentioned and somewhat cognizant of political realities. That's not to say the GOP doesn't have shades of integrity and intellect in its candidates too, but their current strategy makes these things take a back seat to misleading voters into distrusting experts and instead putting their trust in demagogues to appeal to their dissatisfaction with a system no one but a slimy "career politician" could comprehend (supposedly). Until they change this strategy to one more conducive to upholding the rights of the people, I feel the Republicans should be made to pay for it at the polls.

I've actually met most of the candidates running for election in VA (District 7 seat and Senate), and the thing that struck me the most is that I ended up preferring the Dem candidate visits because they felt so much more well informed about their platforms. Tim Kaine, who I actually was picked to ask a question to, definitely snaked his way out of plenty of answers and knew how to dodge tricky questions, but he always knew exactly what he meant. His challenger, Corey Stewart, however, just yelled at us about how weed was evil and how he wanted to build the wall.

Of course I liked the Libertarian candidate the best though. The Republicans have such a weak showing in VA right now, and its going to cost them at least a house seat.

Rateria, West Smolcasm

Jadentopian Order wrote:I've actually met most of the candidates running for election in VA (District 7 seat and Senate), and the thing that struck me the most is that I ended up preferring the Dem candidate visits because they felt so much more well informed about their platforms. Tim Kaine, who I actually was picked to ask a question to, definitely snaked his way out of plenty of answers and knew how to dodge tricky questions, but he always knew exactly what he meant. His challenger, Corey Stewart, however, just yelled at us about how weed was evil and how he wanted to build the wall.

Of course I liked the Libertarian candidate the best though. The Republicans have such a weak showing in VA right now, and its going to cost them at least a house seat.

I moved to Oregon recently and have found myself quite surprised at the political scene here:

- There are a lot of third parties here, most of which cooperate with similarly-minded ones more often than they compete. Candidates are not only allowed but encouraged to secure as many party nominations as possible.

- State-level candidates without prior political experience are almost exclusively Republican or Constitution candidates. It's very rare for any candidate at this level not to have a college degree and/or a background in managing/owning a business, though.

- Republicans in particular are of two minds on federal issues; one bloc is so moderate that you could mistake them for fiscally conservative Democrats, whereas another is rabidly unapologetic in their support of the President. If there is a middle ground, I haven't seen it yet.

- Democrats stay out of each others' way on the state level - at least after they've secured their nominations - and even try to make sure their third-party allies are heard. They're far more internally competitive on a local level, however.

- Republicans are currently pushing for unproven edits to the state constitution, two of which are more likely to contribute to tax burden than lighten it, and another one that would compel state and local law enforcement to actively comply with federal goals rather than municipal ones. This seems rather bizarre; Republicans in my old state were all about halting foolhardy amendments, proposing tax cuts, and advocating a more decentralized government. (Community consensus indicates that 'special interest groups' are partly to blame for these odd proposals.)

- Democrats are promoting a measure that would substantially loosen the prohibition on local governments issuing bonds with nongovernmental entities, most notably for the purpose of financing affordable housing. Again, this seems topsy-turvy to me; I never knew a Democrat who paid the private sector its dues for any reason, but a substantial number of Democrats here are rather business-minded.

- There are more churches here than I expected; what's more, they're not all of one mind on the issues. You have your conservative churches using scripture to condemn abortion just as you'd find anywhere else, but there's also liberal ones who quote the Good Word to advocate social justice. I'm still getting used to the idea of pious Democrats.

- Some things don't change, though; the conservatives have brought forward a measure to restrict abortion funding and the liberals are opposing it, the third parties are promoting alternatives to FPTP voting while the Republicans and Democrats remain tight-lipped on that whole argument, and the whole "rural vs. urban" trope finds its way into political debates on a regular basis.

The conclusion I've picked up from this: Take the time to learn about your local political scene. You can't count on the situation being the same everywhere!

Narland, Rateria, Jadentopian Order

Haha, the differences between my brother's church and my own are hilarious. Both describe themselves as Evangelical, but:

1. Mine is part of a large ecclesiastical structure, his is a small independent church that rejects such things.

2. Mine is in an expensive building with lots of decorations and all that stuff, while his is a bland one with a single cross on the wall.

3. Mine has a woman pastor and is more "liberal", his is ... traditionalist.

4. My church has endorsed Homosexual rights and all that, his church is one of those other congregations.

5. My Church takes a sane approach to demons and the like, my brother's church thinks that witches are around putting curses on people and communing with the Devil.

6. Whereas my own church is made up of diverse groups of people (politically, economically, etc.), his church is made up of conservative and ultra-conservative individuals.

The church you go to actually does have an effect on your perception of Christianity.

Rateria, West Smolcasm

Highway Eight wrote:Haha, the differences between my brother's church and my own are hilarious. Both describe themselves as Evangelical, but:

1. Mine is part of a large ecclesiastical structure, his is a small independent church that rejects such things.

2. Mine is in an expensivr building with lots od decorations and all that stuff, while his is a bland one with a single cross on the wall.

3. Mine has a woman pastor and is more "liberal", his is ... traditionalist.

4. My church has endorsed Homosexual rights and all that, his church is one of those other congregations.

5. My Church takes a sane approach to demons and the like, my brother's church thinks that witches are around putting curses on people and communing with the Devil.

6. Whereas my own church is made up of diverse groups of people (politically, economically, etc.), his church is made up of conservative and ultra-conservative individuals.

The church you go to actually does have an effect on your perception of Christianity.

In a similar vein, some perceive Christianity as a boon to society because they've benefited from the presence of churches like yours, whereas others perceive it as a glorified cult because of the shenanigans of 'churches' like your brother's.

According to Christ, all of God's commands are derived from two significant ones: to love Him and to love others as yourself. It may be obvious that churches that violate the first principle (e.g. those that do not glorify God) are flagrantly blasphemous, but why is it less evident to Christendom that churches that violate the second (e.g. those that preach a rhetoric of hatred) are every bit as heretical?

Rateria

Skaveria wrote:Repuplicans are obviously more pro-liberty than Democrats. Look at the diversity of thought within the Republican party, there's neo-conservatism, conservatarianism, conservatism with more of a nationalist edge to it, among others. Democrats basically have two factions, they all pretty much think the same thing, but the Sanders/Cortez wing of the party wants to focus on class while the Warren/Booker wing focuses on race. The blue dogs are dead. Look at Jim Web in the Democratic primaries. It looked like he stepped out of a time machine. He bragged about killing Communists in Vietnam, which elicited offended gaspes from the crowd. Wonder why? Because a lot of them ARE Communists. The DNC screwed Sanders out of the election, he should've been the nominee. Trump became the nominee in spite of the efforts of the GOP. I could go into more detail, but I'll leave it there for now. By the way, calling an argument you don't agree with "low IQ" isn't actually an argument.

yeah well uhhh both parties are the same and trump is hitler

bottom text

top text

vote Libertarian 2k18

Narland

Pevvania wrote:top text

vote Libertarian 2k18

My typical voting procedure is to vote Libertarian or Independent whenever possible, if a Democrat and Republican are the only candidates I vote Republican, I skip any people running unopposed, and I skip any judges that I don't know. I actually broke this rule last year for Trump, but that's because I liked Trump more than your average Republican and disliked Johnson more than your average Libertarian.(Why do you never see an Independent and a Libertarian on the same Ticket? Is this just in my state?)

Republic Of Minerva, Jadentopian Order

Nothings better than a good long nap to get ye old brain juices flowing.

Rateria, Highway Eight

https://reason.com/blog/2018/10/16/bill-weld-libertarianism-is-not-centrism

It seems like being around the party has radicalized him somewhat. I don't know guys, I might just vote Bill Weld for president in 2020.

Rateria

end the 2 party system

Republic Of Minerva, Rateria

West Smolcasm wrote:In a similar vein, some perceive Christianity as a boon to society because they've benefited from the presence of churches like yours, whereas others perceive it as a glorified cult because of the shenanigans of 'churches' like your brother's.

According to Christ, all of God's commands are derived from two significant ones: to love Him and to love others as yourself. It may be obvious that churches that violate the first principle (e.g. those that do not glorify God) are flagrantly blasphemous, but why is it less evident to Christendom that churches that violate the second (e.g. those that preach a rhetoric of hatred) are every bit as heretical?

What does it mean to "preach a rhetoric of hatred?" Nowadays it's "hate" to defend Christian morality where it conflicts with progressivism.

The New United States wrote:What does it mean to "preach a rhetoric of hatred?" Nowadays it's "hate" to defend Christian morality where it conflicts with progressivism.

"Christian morality" devoid of love for one's neighbor is neither moral nor Christian.

West Smolcasm wrote:"Christian morality" devoid of love for one's neighbor is neither moral nor Christian.

Why are love for one's neighbor and respect for God's law mutually exclusive?

Narland, The United States Of Patriots

Usually that gap is bridged by the "love the sinner hate the sin" sentiment. That begs the question though. Why did god make homosexuality a sin? Seems rather arbitrary to me.

Unless, of course, he didn't, and ancient people did because they recognized you can't procreate that way and they were worried about population growth...

West Smolcasm

HAIL DRED o/o/o/

Dred hath returned from the grave to spread his religion upon non-believers. SMITE those who shun the name of Dred (pbuh)

Also f*ck North Korea

Rateria, Fascist Dred

What do you get when an illegal immigrate and a rapest get into a fight

Alien VS Predator

Rateria, Skaveria

Les Voiles wrote:What do you get when an illegal immigrate and a rapest get into a fight

Alien VS Predator

Oldie but goodie

Rateria, Les Voiles

The New United States wrote:Why are love for one's neighbor and respect for God's law mutually exclusive?

It isn't, unless you equate respecting His law with misinterpreting it, forcing others to comply with this misinterpretation, and calling them hellbound nonbelievers or abominations when they object.

This is the lesson that the "evangelical" right has yet to learn: God's law is to love one's neighbor.

The New United States

love everyone

Rateria, West Smolcasm

West Smolcasm wrote:It isn't, unless you equate respecting His law with misinterpreting it, forcing others to comply with this misinterpretation, and calling them hellbound nonbelievers or abominations when they object.

This is the lesson that the "evangelical" right has yet to learn: God's law is to love one's neighbor.

Part of loving your fellowman is warning of the consequences of sin. Not to say that it should be done in anything but a loving way, but it is incumbent upon believers to shine their light and help the errant back to the path.

"3 If when [the watchman] seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people;

"4 Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head.

"5 He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul.

"6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.

"7 ¶ So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me."

Ezekiel 33:4-7

I would note, though, that this scripture is referring specifically to "the house of Israel." Trying to convince people that don't have faith to begin with to live a Christian Life is not effective in any way at building people up.

Faith has to precede obedience, and some Evangelicals might put the carriage before the horse in their preaching.

West Smolcasm

West Smolcasm wrote:This, unironically

The whole "vote Republican if you love the country, vote anything else if you'd see it destroyed" line of rhetoric only serves to enable corruption and statism. In times like these, we need legislators who comprehend political science and are willing to use this understanding to serve the people. The GOP is not offering such candidates; in an effort to "drain the swamp" of supposed elitists, they fan the flames of anti-intellectualism by sending "outsiders" to Washington. Terms like "career politician," rather than being a label to denote one's qualifications for public office, are instead used by the conservative media as a personal attack on their often more seasoned opponents - an accusation of petty self-interest, seldom found with any compelling justification for why their own candidate has the moral high ground.

Anti-intellectualism? Huh? Yes, there's definitely a lot of that on both sides, but why would you single out the Republican Party? Debate their actions as much as you want, but the modern conservative movement is steeped in empirical and intellectual solutions to policy problems in almost all fronts. Taxes, regulations, entitlements, foreign policy (if not defense spending, which is overtly political), gender, and so forth. There are notable exceptions of course, but on at least half of the major issues, the Republican Party is on the empirically 'correct' side and aligns far more with libertarian ideals than it did during the 2000s and arguably even during the Obama presidency.

And regarding outsiders v. career politicians, why is it anti-intellectual to want fresh blood in Washington? Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Being in office longer does not make you any better at enacting good policy, it just makes you better at being a politician and getting re-elected.

West Smolcasm wrote:The Republican Party seeks to convince us of tales that are simply too tall not to be true, or so they wish us to believe: The Democrats are obsessed with nominating celebrities - our idols Reagan, Schwarzenegger, and Trump sure make them look stupid!

That's true and quite funny, but it doesn't negate the fact that celebrity culture and Hollywood is almost universally left-leaning. Reagan, Schwarzenegger and Trump all had very successful private sector careers before getting into politics and contributed to society, and never dared talk down to or make presumptions about the American people. What differentiates them from the leftist Hollywood elite is that many of them hold deep hatred and disdain for conservative Americans and even Democrats that voted for Trump. This is not a straw man, this is based on their own words. Big difference.

West Smolcasm wrote:The Democrats are out to infringe upon our Constitutional rights like terrorists - which, incidentally, can only be fought by restricting civil freedoms!

What are you talking about? The egregious erosion of our civil liberties was a bipartisan endeavor. Large bipartisan super-majorities of Congress voted for the War on Terror, the PATRIOT Act and so forth (not to excuse Bush or the cowards that went along with him). And as I'm sure you know, President Obama eviscerated civil liberties even more than Bush with warrantless wiretapping, illegal execution of American citizens, and so on. This issue has receded from public view somewhat, but if you're talking about the travel ban, that was upheld by the Supreme Court and iterations of it have been practiced and proposed before, such as under the Obama administration, who enacted a travel ban on Iraqis for six months and created the list of 'high-risk' countries.

West Smolcasm wrote:Liberty is never more than one generation away from extinction - speaking of extinction, you can never have too many nuclear weapons or too much military funding!

You have a point here, but the Democrats too voted for military spending increases.

West Smolcasm wrote:We need tax cuts to improve the purchasing power of the average American - that money needs to come from somewhere, so let's slash the welfare budget and reduce the number of government jobs!

This, we desperately need. Trump has been pretty successful on chipping away at federal employment. The Republicans have actually failed at cutting welfare, which we need badly.

West Smolcasm wrote:The government fails at everything it sets out to do - we'll prove it by actively sabotaging its endeavors!

The 'government is underfunded' argument is a classic statist fallacy. You do not improve the efficiency of a government program by perpetuating its failures with more funds (i.e. more incentive to waste); you improve its efficiency through a business-like approach and or the incorporation of market forces into that program's activities. Often, government programs can function just as well, if not better with fewer funds. But this assumes that the program in question should exist, and a very large majority of government programs should not. Slashing government programs is an act of mercy towards the taxpayer, not vengeance, and the expenditures often make society much worse off.

By the way, to counter a point you made a few weeks back that I didn't answer, it would be better for America at large to get rid of entitlements in an instant to let them careen towards bankruptcy. This is, of course, not a desirable option, because it would mean millions of seniors and poor people falling into poverty, or worse, dying, because they've paid into these programs their whole lives and suddenly would be deprived of the income. However, this outcome, while disastrous, pales in comparison to what would happen if we let the entitlements go bankrupt. You would not see just seniors suffer, you would see the entire American economy collapse and the whole country falling into a depression of a magnitude never seen before. The world economy would likely fall, too, or at the very least permanently reorient itself towards China. And we won't be able to save ourselves with bailouts when that happens - how can Uncle Sam bail anyone out when 90% of its expenditures go towards servicing the debt? And when it can no longer service the debt, why would creditors stick around? Do you see what I'm getting at?

I think most conservatives and libertarians agree that gradually phasing out entitlements is the best solution. But make no mistake, as horrible and seemingly cruel it would be to get rid of them all at once (which once again, I'm not advocating), the alternative is preferable to societal collapse.

Miencraft, The New United States

Jadentopian Order wrote:love everyone

shut up hippie

Jadentopian Order

The States Of Balloon wrote:shut up hippie

This meme is made by Richard Nixon Gang.

I love people who've earned my love. Love is not a givin in this life, neither is respect. This is what's wrong with young folks today. They've been fed a never-ending stream of positive rights.

Positive rights are fiction. You don't have a right to automatic respect and you don't have an automatic right to be loved.

You don't have a right to life, you have a right for me not to murder you.

You don't have a right to healthcare, you have a right for me not to harm you.

You don't have a right to my guns.

You don't have a right to my patriotism.

You don't have a right to my products.

And you don't have a right to me giving a good god damn about your religion.

Miencraft, Rateria

West Smolcasm wrote:I moved to Oregon recently ... The conclusion I've picked up from this: Take the time to learn about your local political scene. You can't count on the situation being the same everywhere!

Welcome neighbor. Good advice. It keeps the locals happy.

The New United States, Rateria, West Smolcasm

Rateria wrote:This meme is made by Richard Nixon Gang.

Like my Grandpa (one of them anyway) used to say, "Nothing wrong with a hippy that a job wouldn't cure... or a haircut... or bath... or a well tuned guitar."

The New United States, Rateria

Post self-deleted by Narland.

Narland wrote:Like my Grandpa (one of them anyway) used to say, "Nothing wrong with a hippy that a job wouldn't cure... or a haircut... or bath... or a well tuned guitar."

They gave hippies guitars and they gave us the best 4-5 years of music we've ever had so I'll take it

Narland, Rateria, West Smolcasm

Here's an article that was just published on CNN's Spanish site:

https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2018/10/25/trump-no-es-el-unico-que-se-define-nacionalista-7-lideres-que-tomaron-este-camino/amp/

In English, the title would be "Trump Isn't the Only One that Defines Himself a Nationalist: 7 Leaders that Took that Route"

It then goes on to list almost every great villain of the 20th century (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco), a couple modern politicians, and Ghandi as the token "acceptable" figure.

Beyond ridiculous. Not even reporting; just propaganda. Can you imagine an article that did the same thing to Bernie Sanders and compared [I]him[/I] to Stalin, or Hitler, or Mussolini?

"Bernie Isn't the Only One that Identifies as a Socialist: 7 Leaders that Took that Route"

Pevvania, Rateria, Skaveria

The New United States wrote:Here's an article that was just published on CNN's Spanish site:

https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2018/10/25/trump-no-es-el-unico-que-se-define-nacionalista-7-lideres-que-tomaron-este-camino/amp/

In English, the title would be "Trump Isn't the Only One that Defines Himself a Nationalist: 7 Leaders that Took that Route"

It then goes on to list almost every great villain of the 20th century (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco), a couple modern politicians, and Ghandi as the token "acceptable" figure.

Beyond ridiculous. Not even reporting; just propaganda. Can you imagine an article that did the same thing to Bernie Sanders and compared [I]him[/I] to Stalin, or Hitler, or Mussolini?

"Bernie Isn't the Only One that Identifies as a Socialist: 7 Leaders that Took that Route"

It's almost as if emphatic nationalism is inextricably tied with totalitarian ideologies or something

Rateria, Jadentopian Order

West Smolcasm wrote:It's almost as if emphatic nationalism is inextricably tied with totalitarian ideologies or something

There's a difference between being somewhat of a nationalist and being an actual fascist, plus, in the interview where Trump called himself a nationalist, he was using it in the context of it being a synonym of patriot.

So the real headline is: "Trump is patriotic and uses some words wrong."

Miencraft, Narland, The New United States, The Completly Oppressive States, Rateria

I hate the idea that admitting your country has flaws is unpatriotic. If I love my country wouldn't I want to fix it's issues?

Miencraft, Narland, Rateria, Fascist Dred, Skaveria, West Smolcasm, Les Voiles

Jair Bolsanaro is on the cusp of winning the presidency in Brazil. Whether you condone his socially conservative and incendiary rhetoric, he's unabashedly pro-free market and has some very smart economic Chicago School advisers around him. If his policies are enacted, they will make Brazil, and hopefully Latin America as a whole, much better off. The Latin 'pink tide' is coming to an end.

The New United States, Fascist Dred, Skaveria

Pevvania wrote:Jair Bolsanaro is on the cusp of winning the presidency in Brazil. Whether you condone his socially conservative and incendiary rhetoric, he's unabashedly pro-free market and has some very smart economic Chicago School advisers around him. If his policies are enacted, they will make Brazil, and hopefully Latin America as a whole, much better off. The Latin 'pink tide' is coming to an end.

Nahhh this is the same guy who said Pinochet didn't kill enough and called for beating of gay people.

West Smolcasm

Jadentopian Order wrote:Nahhh this is the same guy who said Pinochet didn't kill enough and called for beating of gay people.

Yeah, I'm generally not inclined to support anyone who would be happier if people like me died a gruesome death.

Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:Nahhh this is the same guy who said Pinochet didn't kill enough and called for beating of gay people.

Emphasis on the word 'said'. Appalling as those things are, many of his policies are sound.

People think you have to endorse everything somebody says or believes in if you support their candidacy. When did such absolutist thinking become so mainstream? I like free markets, sue me.

Miencraft, The New United States, Fascist Dred, Skaveria

Pevvania wrote:People think you have to endorse everything somebody says or believes in if you support their candidacy. When did such absolutist thinking become so mainstream?

It hasn't; you need look no further than our current POTUS for evidence of that.

West Smolcasm wrote:It hasn't; you need look no further than our current POTUS for evidence of that.

What do you mean?

Pevvania wrote:What do you mean?

A president famed for saying and believing a number of ridiculous things - things that, if someone else had said them, would alienate entire voting blocs - has still managed to have a resilient base of supporters despite the controversy surrounding him, and he did handily win the election back in 2016. To give one example - hell, Trump's probably been the most transphobic president in recent history, yet Caitlyn f***ing Jenner was on his side, at least until the recent sex/gender redefinition scandal.

If anything, it's trendy for people to align themselves with politicians who don't have their best interests at heart, often because of a single issue they happen to agree on.

Jadentopian Order

One only has to look at Chile to see that an imperfect, market-oriented leader can make a country a hell of a lot better than it would have been otherwise. Did Pinochet do some bad things? Yeah, but the good that came from his leadership far and away outweighs the bad.

Like Pinochet, Bolsonaro might not be right on everything, but his policies on economy, gun-ownership, and crime have the potential to make Brazil way better than it is today.

Pevvania, Fascist Dred

Pinochet was a dictator, no doubt, but, as dictators go... He wasn't that bad. He really let his people do whatever they wanted as long as it didn't threaten his power.

Pevvania, Fascist Dred

West Smolcasm wrote:A president famed for saying and believing a number of ridiculous things - things that, if someone else had said them, would alienate entire voting blocs - has still managed to have a resilient base of supporters despite the controversy surrounding him, and he did handily win the election back in 2016. To give one example - hell, Trump's probably been the most transphobic president in recent history, yet Caitlyn f***ing Jenner was on his side, at least until the recent sex/gender redefinition scandal.

If anything, it's trendy for people to align themselves with politicians who don't have their best interests at heart, often because of a single issue they happen to agree on.

I'm not convinced Trump is transphobic, also, trans people weren't a political issue until a few years ago, we only have Obama to compare his policies to in that regard. We don't know Bush's, Clinton's, or even Carter's opinions on trans people. Not only do we not know their opinions now, but while in office, I doubt it would be great.

Miencraft, Pevvania, Fascist Dred

Skaveria wrote:I'm not convinced Trump is transphobic,

So far, the Trump administration endeavored to reinstate the ban on transgender people serving in the military (a ban that had been lifted under the Obama administration), rescinded Education and Justice Department guidelines regarding the treatment of transgender students, and recently issued a memo that would direct federal agencies to "define sex as male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with." What's more, the man has repeatedly made derisive comments about transfolk, most notably in his Twitter rants regarding the aforementioned theoretical military ban, and any claims on his part that he is some sort of LGBT+ ally have been directly contradicted by policies he and his administration have put in place.

West Smolcasm wrote:So far, the Trump administration endeavored to reinstate the ban on transgender people serving in the military (a ban that had been lifted under the Obama administration), rescinded Education and Justice Department guidelines regarding the treatment of transgender students, and recently issued a memo that would direct federal agencies to "define sex as male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with." What's more, the man has repeatedly made derisive comments about transfolk, most notably in his Twitter rants regarding the aforementioned theoretical military ban, and any claims on his part that he is some sort of LGBT+ ally have been directly contradicted by policies he and his administration have put in place.

The first is wrong, the others are not. Wow, using the biological definition of sex as recognized by science? How bigoted! Explain the DOJ guidelines and why that's transphobic?

Miencraft, The New United States, The United States Of Patriots, Fascist Dred

Pevvania wrote:People think you have to endorse everything somebody says or believes in if you support their candidacy. When did such absolutist thinking become so mainstream? I like free markets, sue me.

It at least means you are willing to tolerate it. In this case, it would be the beating of gay people and the murder of opposition. Essentially, what you're saying is that because the economy might get better, you'll tolerate a deliberate attack on minorities, that the physicial well-being of a homosexual is lesser than economic growth.

Edit: yeah, this is Highway Eight, forgot to switch accounts.

Jadentopian Order, West Smolcasm

West Smolcasm wrote:So far, the Trump administration endeavored to reinstate the ban on transgender people serving in the military (a ban that had been lifted under the Obama administration), rescinded Education and Justice Department guidelines regarding the treatment of transgender students, and recently issued a memo that would direct federal agencies to "define sex as male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with." What's more, the man has repeatedly made derisive comments about transfolk, most notably in his Twitter rants regarding the aforementioned theoretical military ban, and any claims on his part that he is some sort of LGBT+ ally have been directly contradicted by policies he and his administration have put in place.

I don't agree with the first thing, but the reason he gave was undue medical costs associated with their transition, it's still wrong, but if we're believing his reasoning, it's not transphobic. I'm not aware of the education and justice department guidelines, is this having to do with the transgender people in school sports controversy? Where a kid with the muscular and bone development of a male was made to compete against females and unsurprisingly beat them all. Also, isn't it the opinion of the trans community that sex is distinct from gender? Honestly I can't keep up. But last time I looked into it they were claiming the two were separate and that sex was biological, but gender was social.

Miencraft, Fascist Dred

The Deutsch Reich wrote:It at least means you are willing to tolerate it. In this case, it would be the beating of gay people and the murder of opposition. Essentially, what you're saying is that because the economy might get better, you'll tolerate a deliberate attack on minorities, that the physicial well-being of a homosexual is lesser than economic growth.

Edit: yeah, this is Highway Eight, forgot to switch accounts.

Beating of gay people? What? When did he call for that? The only thing I've heard him say about homosexuality is that he doesn't have a problem with homosexuals themselves but the teaching of LGBT-ideology crap in Brazilian primary schools, and that he hopes to end it.

If you have a link to where he called for the "beating of gay people," I'd be happy to take a look.

The Deutsch Reich wrote:It at least means you are willing to tolerate it. In this case, it would be the beating of gay people and the murder of opposition. Essentially, what you're saying is that because the economy might get better, you'll tolerate a deliberate attack on minorities, that the physicial well-being of a homosexual is lesser than economic growth.

Edit: yeah, this is Highway Eight, forgot to switch accounts.

Plus, I find it strange that you trivialize having a better economy. Brazil is dirt-poor and crime-ridden. Having bread on the table and not getting shot in the street is higher up on average joe's hierarchy of needs than LGBT rights are, and it's pretty laughable that some ideologues don't see the difference.

Pevvania

Pevvania wrote:Emphasis on the word 'said'. Appalling as those things are, many of his policies are sound.

Pevvania wrote:People think you have to endorse everything somebody says or believes in if you support their candidacy. When did such absolutist thinking become so mainstream? I like free markets, sue me.

I can agree with that to a point but when a guy goes around threatening to beat gays and starts using the most vulnerable citizens of a nation as scapegoats, I have to draw the line. This is why the right has a bad name, because we have people openly supporting a guy who has on multiple occasions talked openly about how much he hates minorities. It's not absolutist thinking to not support a guy who I disagree with entirely on social issues. It's absolutist to think that I have to support the right wing guy just because he likes free markets.

Skaveria wrote:Pinochet was a dictator, no doubt, but, as dictators go... He wasn't that bad. He really let his people do whatever they wanted as long as it didn't threaten his power.

Dictators have very loose definitions of "threatening my power".

The Deutsch Reich, West Smolcasm

The New United States wrote:Beating of gay people? What? When did he call for that? The only thing I've heard him say about homosexuality is that he doesn't have a problem with homosexuals themselves but the teaching of LGBT-ideology crap in Brazilian primary schools, and that he hopes to end it.

If you have a link to where he called for the "beating of gay people," I'd be happy to take a look.

I don't think I have heard anything besides anti-LGBT+ hate from him.

He said in 2011 he would be "incapable of loving" his son if he was gay, then went on to say that "would prefer that my son die in an accident" than look gay.

In 2010 he said that your son is gay, "he deserves a smack"

I don't remember the exact date but he has said openly that he would attack gay men if they were openly gay.

West Smolcasm

Also what we doing for Z day

Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:I don't think I have heard anything besides anti-LGBT+ hate from him.

He said in 2011 he would be "incapable of loving" his son if he was gay, then went on to say that "would prefer that my son die in an accident" than look gay.

In 2010 he said that your son is gay, "he deserves a smack"

Not particularly nice, but his views on the morality of homosexuality are irrelevant to policy. He has stated openly that his LGBT policy will be concerned with removing its teaching to young children in public schools, not with punishing homosexuals for their sexuality or something like that.

Jadentopian Order wrote:I don't remember the exact date but he has said openly that he would attack gay men if they were openly gay.

Citation needed

Pevvania

Jadentopian Order wrote:Also what we doing for Z day

I go along with the idea of baptizing the world with fire.

The New United States, Rateria

Highway Eight wrote:When the number of Tatemites on NS drops to 20, when the few who actually care about NS still start complaining about the failures of the region, remember not to blame on people who don't care and have moved off of NS, it's not their job to maintain a government and military, and all that. If you want to continue activity on NS, why don't you write up a constitution and form a government? I won't, as I don't care for one.

Who here would be willing to collaborate and work out a new constitution and government?

The Completly Oppressive States, West Smolcasm

Jadentopian Order wrote:Also what we doing for Z day

That’s a good question. I’m saying that we should cure, like usual. We will lock the region, as usual, and we could work among ourselves to cure each other.

This is just my opinion, and I’m open to suggestions.

Pevvania wrote:Maybe it's time to return to the old corporate model of old, i.e. 'snap' elections based on WA Delegacy and an appointed Board? I think this would serve us well considering how small the active population is.

I think that this would be a great place to start. It would give us a small, lean government to get the region running without a ton of bureaucracy. We could, as you suggest, have an elected Chief Executive that could appoint a board. The board would act as executive (ie each board member would double as director of a department), legislature, and judiciary. The board could be limited to Chief Executive, Deputy Executive, Director of Operations (military), Director of Recruitment, and Director of Foreign Relations. That would of course depend on how many people are willing and able to actively work in one of these capacities. The whole point would be to have the bare minimum number of positions to do the things necessary for greater activity.

I'm just spit-balling here. What do y'all think? Any input? I could draft something up and post it here for revisions.

West Smolcasm

No new government. Go off and make your own region if you want your name as an author for a constitution so bad.

Venomringo wrote:No new government. Go off and make your own region if you want your name as an author for a constitution so bad.

I don't need recognition in a videogame and I couldn't care less whether or not my name were on a fictional constitution, man. This is my home region and I care about its survival.

Pevvania

The New United States wrote:I don't care if my name is on a constitution or not, man, and I'm not the only one who gives a crap about the region.

Here's what will happen if you start writing a new constitution: we'll have a grand ole debate among its supporters, critics, and enemies, then a vote; if passed, we have some activity for a month until elections are over then our region dies again; if rejected, we achieve the same end result of having a government again.

There's really no point in a government in any sense, so let's not bother. We can have activity as a community.

Venomringo wrote:Here's what will happen if you start writing a new constitution: we'll have a grand ole debate among its supporters, critics, and enemies, then a vote; if passed, we have some activity for a month until elections are over then our region dies again; if rejected, we achieve the same end result of having a government again.

I doubt that there are enough active people to have a "grand ole debate," which is the whole point. This region will continue to fade away into nothingness if we don't organize the few people that we still have.

Venomringo wrote:There's really no point in a government in any sense, so let's not bother. We can have activity as a community.

There's no point in a Discord community having a government, but a NationStates community dies without one. I am concerned about the perpetuation of Libertatem as an active region and a bastion of anti-communism, as it always had been until sometime after I CTE'd.

Tying power to the WA delegate seems like an awful idea to me

Miencraft, Rateria

The New United States wrote:Who here would be willing to collaborate and work out a new constitution and government?

The New United States wrote:I think that this would be a great place to start. It would give us a small, lean government to get the region running without a ton of bureaucracy. We could, as you suggest, have an elected Chief Executive that could appoint a board. The board would act as executive (ie each board member would double as director of a department), legislature, and judiciary. The board could be limited to Chief Executive, Deputy Executive, Director of Operations (military), Director of Recruitment, and Director of Foreign Relations. That would of course depend on how many people are willing and able to actively work in one of these capacities. The whole point would be to have the bare minimum number of positions to do the things necessary for greater activity.

I'm just spit-balling here. What do y'all think? Any input? I could draft something up and post it here for revisions.

Sure. I'd advocate a more classical system altered slightly to suit contemporary game mechanics.

Power could be vested in a regularly-elected executive, who:

- Would have dibs on the delegacy, but could tell people to endorse a different nation of their choosing if they don't want it (this other nation need not have any practical powers)

- Would appoint an internal affairs guy, a foreign affairs guy, and a military affairs guy to delegate duties to (and decide an order of succession between them in the event of a succession crisis before the next executive election)

- Would pass or veto legislation brought forward by a small unicameral legislature (also regularly-elected - three seats? - with every citizen except for the executive being eligible)

This government would have seven seats at maximum, four at minimum, and would have fair representation for the citizen body regardless of how big or small it gets.

Pevvania, The New United States

I am just gonna butt in and say that I oppose all Anti-Communist action.

Also, Lib says hello and "God bless you". Apparently he's a hippy now.

Rateria, Sprechline

Highway Eight wrote:I am just gonna butt in and say that I oppose all Anti-Communist action.

Also, Lib says hello and "God bless you". Apparently he's a hippy now.

wtf I love Lib now

Rateria

Highway Eight wrote:I am just gonna butt in and say that I oppose all Anti-Communist action.

I concur. I mean, unless that action takes the form of, like, a classy debate or something.

Highway Eight wrote:Also, Lib says hello and "God bless you". Apparently he's a hippy now.

Right on. God bless him right back.

Rateria, Sprechline, Jadentopian Order

Highway Eight wrote:I am just gonna butt in and say that I oppose all Anti-Communist action.

Also, Lib says hello and "God bless you". Apparently he's a hippy now.

It depends, I think we should match our opponents level of violence, not unprovoked though; if they want to have a debate then by all means, have one, but if their goal is to harm me or my compatriots with sticks and pepper spray with police nowhere in sight, I'm sorry to say I won't be taking the Marin Luther King Jr. Approach.

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Tying power to the WA delegate seems like an awful idea to me

Yeah, I don't give a damn what happens NS-side; if y'all want to set up a government, have fun with that, do whatever you want, whatever.

But, seriously, putting the WA delegate in charge should be a last resort. There's a reason we abandoned it in the first place.

Rateria, West Smolcasm

"Regarding Eletrobras [Brazilian state-owned electrical company], a study must be done and, if possible, privatize everything that can be privatized. We don't need to doubt that." - Brazilian VP-elect Hamilton Mourão

"Privatize everything that can be privatized."

<333333

https://www.bbc.com/mundo/amp/noticias-america-latina-46032401

Pevvania

Post self-deleted by Les Voiles.

Anybody have cure missiles that can help me out?

The New United States wrote:Anybody have cure missiles that can help me out?

I got you dude. Anyone wanna help me out, please?

The New United States, Rateria

The Deutsch Reich wrote:It at least means you are willing to tolerate it. In this case, it would be the beating of gay people and the murder of opposition. Essentially, what you're saying is that because the economy might get better, you'll tolerate a deliberate attack on minorities, that the physicial well-being of a homosexual is lesser than economic growth.

Edit: yeah, this is Highway Eight, forgot to switch accounts.

What an incredibly presumptuous thing to say. That's the kind of logic I expect from the modern left. "If you like Trump, you're willing to tolerate bigotry and racism" or whatever. Spare me your empty virtue signalling - it's incredibly unbecoming of anyone professing to be right of center, or anyone professing any kind of interest in politics. It's a shaming tactic that cheapens the debate and acts to intimidate those with opposing points of view. Prioritizing words over actions is also incredibly shallow and detracts from the policy discussions we should be having.

You've also shown great disregard about the state of Brazilian politics. This is a BRIC nation and one of the largest economies in the world by virtue of its natural resources, human capital and population. A country like this should not be in economic freefall. Decades of mismanagement and abuse by socialist politicians and policies has left this country a crime-ridden, dilapidated wreck. There are massive structural problems and widespread corruption. All I said was that Bolsonaro will likely be a net good, because his economic policies will likely alleviate the country's suffering, he supports liberalization of gun laws and will take a hard line against Venezuela. Like many of Trump's brash and unscripted statements during the campaign, I highly doubt Bolsonaro is going to encourage attacks on gay people or repeal the country's same-sex marriage law. His election is about reversing Latin America's decline, which has been several decades in the making.

I'm so sorry your feelings were hurt by the mean man. But I'll take a free market candidate over a corrupt socialist even if he says nasty things. And you know what? 29% of LGBT Brazilians agreed. So tell me, Highway, are they 'Uncle Toms' or 'self-hating'?

I went to a party on Saturday and got into a debate with a girl over President Trump. I was pointing out his accomplishments on taxes, foreign policy, and other policies. All she could say was "he's racist" and "he presents himself badly". I kept trying to have a logical discussion, but to no avail. So I just asked her directly - "Accusations of racism aside, do you have any political principles that you can base your opposition to Trump to?" And she went silent. More often than not, behind the outrage, there's nothing there. "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

The New United States

When I suggested restoring the power of the WAD, my bigger point was a more simplified government in the vein of the Liberosia-Snabagag era. We don't actually have to go back to an executive delegate, but the simplicity of a delegate-based system could be a strength.

West Smolcasm wrote:

You know, this isn't a bad idea. My only concern is the size of government relative to the active population. I think we'd be best off, at first, just having a directly elected president that appoints either a cabinet or a five-person board of directors. I helped come up with the elections system in 2013 to accommodate the region's growth, activity and general zeal for playing the game. This was when many of us were much younger and had more time on our hands. I don't think we necessarily need to have a super-democratic system, just one that recruits people who are going to do stuff.

I also think it's time we become vocally anti-communist once more and reclaim our heritage. I doubt many of us have the time to do raiding and defending anymore, but at the very least we need to put the old flag back up.

The New United States, New Waldensia, West Smolcasm

The New United States wrote:"Regarding Eletrobras [Brazilian state-owned electrical company], a study must be done and, if possible, privatize everything that can be privatized. We don't need to doubt that." - Brazilian VP-elect Hamilton Mourão

"Privatize everything that can be privatized."

<333333

https://www.bbc.com/mundo/amp/noticias-america-latina-46032401

Doesn't matter, Brazil man bad

The New United States

Venomringo wrote:No new government. Go off and make your own region if you want your name as an author for a constitution so bad.

Why do you care so much if you don't even use the game anymore? I'm pretty sure it was you who said this is now a Discord that owns a region, rather than vice versa.

The New United States, West Smolcasm

Also, I want to see some hard stats on the claim that the game is dying. According to a 2012 NSG post, the website's global Alexa rank was #22,341. Right now, it's about #15,000. This of course doesn't tell us very much because it negates the middle six years, but still I'd like to see some evidence that we're fighting some kind of unstoppable tidal wave of decline.

The New United States, West Smolcasm

Pevvania wrote:Also, I want to see some hard stats on the claim that the game is dying. According to a 2012 NSG post, the website's global Alexa rank was #22,341. Right now, it's about #15,000. This of course doesn't tell us very much because it negates the middle six years, but still I'd like to see some evidence that we're fighting some kind of unstoppable tidal wave of decline.

Yeah, I don't see it. Other regions in the conservative/libertarian market are doing just fine. FCN just broke 150 nations and their delegate has over 50 endorsements (!!!). RTL is almost the same, population wise. FCN's recent splinter had grown to several dozen nations before their coup. The NS right is more active than ever.

It's claimed that our regional population has contracted with that of the game as a whole. I don't see any evidence for that theory.

Pevvania wrote:.I also think it's time we become vocally anti-communist once more and reclaim our heritage. I doubt many of us have the time to do raiding and defending anymore, but at the very least we need to put the old flag back up.

Totally agreed. Changing the flag back and re-adding the "Anti-Communist" tag would be a start.

Good military activity would hinge on recruitment. I think that to start we could reaffirm and strengthen our ties with old military allies and develop relations with potentials. A very limited amount of involvement with higher-profile militaries would at least put us back on the map.

Pevvania, New Waldensia, Skaveria, West Smolcasm

Post self-deleted by The New United States.

The New United States wrote:Yeah, I don't see it. Other regions in the conservative/libertarian market are doing just fine. FCN just broke 150 nations and their delegate has over 50 endorsements (!!!). RTL is almost the same, population wise. FCN's recent splinter had grown to several dozen nations before their coup. The NS right is more active than ever.

It's claimed that our regional population has contracted with that of the game as a whole. I don't see any evidence for that theory.Totally agreed. Changing the flag back and re-adding the "Anti-Communist" tag would be a start.

Good military activity would hinge on recruitment. I think that to start we could reaffirm and strengthen our ties with old military allies and develop relations with potentials. A very limited amount of involvement with higher-profile militaries would at least put us back on the map.

Wow, I didn't know that. Perhaps it's less about the 'death' of the game and more about a lack of willingness to put work into the region? I've been inactive from the game for quite a while so I'm not casting any stones, but I think it's better to have some kind of a system in place that can lay the groundwork for future success than to give up entirely.

The New United States, West Smolcasm

I think arguments about illegal immigrants "taking" American jobs really undermines the case for capitalism. We should point to the $50-$100bn a year it costs public services, the fact 20% of federal inmates are illegals, the porousness of the border and so on. But many illegal immigrants do indeed perform useful economic functions, and to claim that they "take" American jobs is to promote the Marxist fixed-pie wealth fallacy, which is also used to argue for the minimum wage and many other terrible ideas.

The New United States, Republic Of Minerva

Pevvania wrote:I think arguments about illegal immigrants "taking" American jobs really undermines the case for capitalism. We should point to the $50-$100bn a year it costs public services, the fact 20% of federal inmates are illegals, the porousness of the border and so on. But many illegal immigrants do indeed perform useful economic functions, and to claim that they "take" American jobs is to promote the Marxist fixed-pie wealth fallacy, which is also used to argue for the minimum wage and many other terrible ideas.

Whether they add anything to the economy or are worth having is irrelevant to me, people can't just come into the country illegally, wait until a Democrat gets elected, then get citizenship. That's not how countries work, literally the whole point of countries is to favor those IN them already at the exclusion of everyome else.

Pevvania

I just got back on, and the infection started. Well, looks like I took quite a hit already.

Some help would be appreciated, please.

I like how I'm now part of the Modern Left. Never once did I bring up Trump.

Sincerely, Wilhelm, Highway Eight

Rateria

The Deutsch Reich wrote:I like how I'm now part of the Modern Left. Never once did I bring up Trump.

Sincerely, Wilhelm, Highway Eight

What did I miss?

I'm moving my nation to get my zombies cured. BRB

Rateria

Can someone please help me with the zombies? Country is almost dead

Rateria

Clingmans Dome wrote:Can someone please help me with the zombies? Country is almost dead

I don’t think we can do anything. For one thing, my nation’s doomed.

Clingmans Dome wrote:Can someone please help me with the zombies? Country is almost dead

Rateria wrote:I don’t think we can do anything. For one thing, my nation’s doomed.

If you need healing, go over to Federation Of Conservative Nations. Their president told me that we'd be welcome to heal there if/when necessary.

Rateria

Rateria wrote:I don’t think we can do anything. For one thing, my nation’s doomed.

I gotchu

Rateria

Pevvania wrote:I think arguments about illegal immigrants "taking" American jobs really undermines the case for capitalism. We should point to the $50-$100bn a year it costs public services, the fact 20% of federal inmates are illegals, the porousness of the border and so on. But many illegal immigrants do indeed perform useful economic functions, and to claim that they "take" American jobs is to promote the Marxist fixed-pie wealth fallacy, which is also used to argue for the minimum wage and many other terrible ideas.

I'm more concerned with housing costs and competition over wages. I guess the part about wages could fall under "taking jobs"

Jadentopian Order wrote:I gotchu

Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Edit: Thanks to Balloon and Skaveria as well.

If you need targets, check this list: https://www.nationstates.net/page=list_nations/region=libertatem/mode=g?censusid=82

Concentrate on the nations highest up on the list. Because they have more zombies, targeting them makes your cure missiles / elimination squads more effective.

Rateria

Unfortunately, my research is incredibly slow due to the lack of survivors. I’ve been resorting to elimination squads, which don’t do much.

The New United States

If I got one cure missile or one invasion I'd start researching a cure, but I wanted to take care of my zomberinos first.

The New United States, Rateria

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