2020 Election MEGAthread

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by Danth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The two are cut from the same cloth. In much common usage "libertarian" is simply a polite word for anarchist. It stems from the era where openly calling yourself an anarchist would get you the old-timey equivalent of deplatformed. Some self-described libertarians regard themselves as more minarchists than anarchists in that they have enough sense to accept that some governance is necessary.

Danth

A lot of libertarians I meet believe in the bill of rights, and they kind of stop there. So would every single anarchist.

But I saw that amazing rant by Anton Scalia, where he was like, "every banana republic in the world has a bill of rights, what sets America apart is our judicial, executive, and legislative branches being separate and that is protected in the constitution."

The, "gridlock of big goverment" is what the founding fathers wanted, the bill of rights wasn't necessary because of this, but it was added to appease the federalists: It is the constitution that would "protect the bill of rights" and that's what sets us apart. (And it's why the "living document" aspect works too.)

He quoted the soviet unions bill of rights, and it was ours, + an anti corruption right, and that was the country that made the KGB lol... Because they didnt have the 3 branches of goverment the way we do and a constitution that protects them.

So I believe you're right, but, I disagree that they have enough sense to accept that some governance is necessary, I would argue, most think that that governance comes from the bill of rights simply existing and the rest of our goverment just follows it, and that we should get rid of the senators and legislative beurocracy, that is "big goverment", that turns out is the only reason we follow the bill of rights in the first place.

I think a true libertarian/conservative, likes big goverment, because it means no changes. An an anarchist says "get off my property its mine! Says so in the bill of rights!"

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Idk if you watch those I dont talk to cops videos on youtube, but those are always, libertarians.

[Danth]

I might have worded my post badly: A "minarchist" believes some (albeit limited) active governance is necessary. That is the distinguishing characteristic between such a person and a true anarchist/libertarian.

[BlackBellamy]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But I saw that amazing rant by Anton Scalia, where he was like, "every banana republic in the world has a bill of rights, what sets America apart is our judicial, executive, and legislative branches being separate and that is protected in the constitution."

...It is the constitution that would "protect the bill of rights" and that's what sets us apart. (And it's why the "living document" aspect works too.)...

...Because they didnt have the 3 branches of goverment the way we do and a constitution that protects them.

Sorry, I was going to get back to this earlier but it's tough to beat up an icon like Scalia so I had to compose myself.

Scalia was dead wrong.

His main thesis comes midway through his speech -- "So, the real key to the distinctiveness of America is the structure of our government." Then he goes on to describe the branches and so forth.

Here is the real key:

The only reason America exists is because the people believe. A structure means nothing without a culture that cherishes it. Written promises, however numerous and complicated, are made worthless without a core belief that it is the nature of government to serve it's citizens.

I don't know what happened to Scalia there, perhaps he was microing and the speech was out of context, or maybe he was addressing third-graders with the basics, because he surely knows that. No amount of rights and branches and structure and will protect the Republic if the people become weak and start to worship idols. It doesn't matter if your legislature is bi-cameral or tri-camelot; it can delay the decay but the end result is the same.

Everything flows from the belief that we have created the most just and progressive society on earth in order to serve the people to achieve happiness (which by the way we specifically included as a written action item just to make sure everyone knew). Protecting that belief is so much more important than any mechanical issues.

I'm not being ideological. This just flows from the foundation. If we all got together in the beginning and said 'ok all these governments are bad let's make a new one and this one will be better, so let's have a roundtable and throw around some suggestions' and then we came up with some models and decided which one was logically better for the people and we settled on that, then the structure would be very important and would serve as the primary basis for the existence of the nation.

But that's not what happened. I mean yes, that conversation did take place, but that was after all the impassioned feelings. It wasn't the basis. The basis was "we don't need no King" and "aargh!". It was feelings. It was idealism. Irrational exuberant idealism. They hammered out the structure later. That's why protecting the belief in American Exceptionalism is so important, more than anything toward preserving this nation. Because it really is all we got. The structure is smoke and mirrors, designed to make us think there's something more so we don't panic.

[Castle2.0]

Nope, I would say, politically, I am a mix conservative/libertarian.

I wonder if Mr.Priss is gonna run away from the Hunter laptop story like he ran away from my simple COVID question, lol.

Looking forward to it. Maybe he'll chime in now one last time before the deeper, darker stuff off that laptop drops, like the pedo stuff, yuck. I mean, it's already starting to leak out, but someone who only watches CNN will be on a 1-week delay.

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by Castle2.0 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nope, I would say, politically, I am a mix conservative/libertarian.

So you're a conservative that supports the biggest inflation of our national debt in history, and a libertarian who thinks a president writing the highest number of executive orders in history (based on time in office), is small goverment?

[Castle2.0]

So you're a conservative that supports the biggest inflation of our national debt in history, and a libertarian who thinks a president writing the highest number of executive orders in history (based on time in office), is small goverment?

Nope.

I don't agree with Trump on some things. These would be 2 of them. Executive order overreach. Every executive has done this and it gets worse with each new president. It's a problem. I don't think the means justify the ends - but I do appreciate the policy ends.

I also supported Ron Paul's idea to audit the fed and I would have preferred his son Rand Paul as the nominee instead of Trump in 2016. I didn't vote for Trump or Clinton in 2016.

Seeing how Trump has performed in the past 3 years, he has my vote this go.

[Jibartik]

Explain my disingenuous example?

[BlackBellamy]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Explain my disingenuous example?

It's an appeal to purity. Like when someone says 'oh I support something' or' I support this political party or ideology' - it's disingenuous to go 'oh how can you do that when here is this example' when you know that people are able to be flexible in their support of policy positions. Because you know this and still ask that way, that is the disingenuous part.

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by Castle2.0 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I didn't vote for Trump or Clinton in 2016.

By not voting for trump or clinton in 2016 you're only affirming my views that you are an ex Bernie bro, like I also suspect BB is [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Your hate of social democracy, is exactly why democrat's hated Bernie bro's and why people like Tim Pool, became "liberal trump supporters"

[BlackBellamy]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

ex Bernie bro, like I also suspect BB is [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Age 1: What a beautiful baby.

Age 2-6: My handsome boy.

Age 7-10: Anti-Communist Ethno-Nationalist. Not even budding but for real.

Age 11-20: Reagan Republican. So same as above except now in America.

Age 21-30: Centrist Republican. Bush, like his son later about The Towers, lied to me.

Age 31-35: Paleolibertarian. Freshly flush with cash. Stay out of my business!

Age 36-45: Conservative Republican. I figured out how to evade taxes. The pendulum swings back.

Age 45+: Looking for someone more hardcore, yet also who can give me some lebensraum for my boys when I have them on the weekend. Swipe left if you don't goose-step or don't like long harangues about the Treaty of Versailles.


Haha just kidding about that last one. At my age I'll fuck anything, literally the first political ideology that comes at me with some pussy and a nice smile I'm down, I don't care.