What's new
By:
Filters

Libertarians- “keep getting your 3% every four years”

subybaja said:
Huh. His jumping is successful, because I didn't know that at all. He should lead with it, because that's a very valid reason.
Click to expand...
He just doesn't want to flat out blame it on that but yeah...

Screenshot_20240612-215223.png
 
It just goes back to what I've always said, the system isn't setup to promote the types of people you actually want to be in office and is actually setup to promote the exact types you wouldn't. I mean our current POTUS raised a literal fucking crackhead. You couldn't even raise a fucking kid something run of the mill idiots have been doing since the dawn of our species, how are you supposed to run the most powerful country the word has ever known?
 
45acp said:
He doesn't want to lead with it because he doesn't want to be an excuseful douchebag.
Click to expand...
Yabbut- what he went with instead was vague rambling about being kinda busy. It came off as jumping ship at the first setback for the Mises Caucus.
 
subybaja said:
Yabbut- what he went with instead was vague rambling about being kinda busy. It came off as jumping ship at the first setback for the Mises Caucus.
Click to expand...
The typical politician would use such a situation to garner sympathy while not giving a fuck about his actual family while he's out campaigning. A stand up dude would try to cook up some other reason while distracting from his kid's health issues while attending to his family's needs.

The former piece of shit is what our political system rewards. Nice guys finish last.
 
I'll probably hold my nose and vote for him just to protect Libertarian ballot access. I'm not voting for Trump or a Biden so might as well vote to protect one of the few third parties that actually had widespread ballot access. The LP getting their shit together is a terrible long shot but it's still probably our best shot long-term.
 
east_beast said:
I'll probably hold my nose and vote for him just to protect Libertarian ballot access.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking of going the opposite direction.

Vote for the #1 hitler just for accelerationism. Right now that's biden, but in a couple months it might be clinton.
The most shittiest candidate that can not even be held above a totally made up "20% approval" with 100% media collaboration paints the plain and clear picture of what popular democratic voting results in.
Why vote for the /lesser/ evil? Vote for the most hilariously overbearing shithead who is going to destroy the state's image in the eyes of the public even further (which newsflash, isn't trump, trump's actually pretty popular (which is a bad thing in a politician))
 
ApeEater said:
You’re just excusing the use of force to impose your morals on others.
Click to expand...

Still on page 3, so maybe this has been addressed further...but this absolute bullshit.

If you think this is imposing morals on another, then so is every law against murder, stealing, rape, abuse.

Those all involve violating the rights of another human. Just as mutilating a kid because they think they were born into the wrong body.

You're an idiot if you think otherwise.

There's a reason minors can't vote, drive, drink, make legal decisions, etc, etc, etc.

This is just pure progressivism, not libertarianism. "You can't tell me what do, I decide what's right or wrong." Horse shit

There are absolutes, have been and always will be. Mutilating minors is one of those things that will always be wrong. Once upon a time it was called mental illness. Now the likes of you want to glorify it.
 
JD Mark said:
There's a reason minors can't vote, drive, drink, make legal decisions, etc, etc, etc.

This is just pure progressivism, not libertarianism. "You can't tell me what do, I decide what's right or wrong." Horse shit

There are absolutes, have been and always will be. Mutilating minors is one of those things that will always be wrong. Once upon a time it was called mental illness. Now the likes of you want to glorify it.
Click to expand...
But who is making the decisions for the minor in your idea of a system, the state or the parent?

Once upon a time? Dude, people been mutilating their children for centuries.
 
[486] said:
But who is making the decisions for the minor in your idea of a system, the state or the parent?
Click to expand...

The state is who has legally defined a minor.

If a 6 year old and his parents want to allow him off himself and gets a doctor to agree, should the state stay out of it?

[486] said:
Once upon a time? Dude, people been mutilating their children for centuries.
Click to expand...

OK, once upon a time in Murca.

Doesn't make it right no matter how long it has been done.
 
ApeEater said:
Novel idea for social security. Maintain the employer contribution to keep the current crop of recipients covered, while getting rid of the employee contribution to let the next generations prepare for their own retirements.
Click to expand...
but that's not how a ponzi scheme works
it always needs to be growing, it can't taper off or it collapses
 
JD Mark said:
The state is who has legally defined a minor.

If a 6 year old and his parents want to allow him off himself and gets a doctor to agree, should the state stay out of it?
Click to expand...
Okay, so now you've made the state in control of more of a child's decisions, and the parent less in control of that child's decisions.

What's been instrumental in pushing all this trans bullshit?
The state taking over for the family.

Why have they been doing it?
To gain more power traditionally held by the head of the family.
JD Mark said:
OK, once upon a time in Murca.

Doesn't make it right no matter how long it has been done.
Click to expand...
Child labor is a parallel that's very easily seen in "our" past.
Everything has a cost. Reducing the utility of having children, results in people having less children. Shock, that, I know.
 
[486] said:
But who is making the decisions for the minor in your idea of a system, the state or the parent?

Once upon a time? Dude, people been mutilating their children for centuries.
Click to expand...

I mean we are supposed to be a society that self governs through our elected representatives. I know you like the idea of an evil state vs the individual but in our system the two groups are kinda joined. At least as a fundamental concept of how the “system” is defined and functions.
 
[486] said:
but that's not how a ponzi scheme works
it always needs to be growing, it can't taper off or it collapses
Click to expand...
Exactly. That was Chase's plan to kill off Social Security, while still maintaining a level of income for people currently receiving payments. It's not perfect, but nothing will ever be perfect when talking about SSI.
 
ApeEater said:
Exactly. That was Chase's plan to kill off Social Security, while still maintaining a level of income for people currently receiving payments. It's not perfect, but nothing will ever be perfect when talking about SSI.
Click to expand...
Rob Paul ran on opt out of social security as well.
 
Animalmother said:
I mean we are supposed to be a society that self governs through our elected representatives. I know you like the idea of an evil state vs the individual but in our system the two groups are kinda joined. At least as a fundamental concept of how the “system” is defined and functions.
Click to expand...
Are you willing to let the state vaccinate your kids at their discretion?

I firmly believe parents should be the decision-makers in their children's medical decisions, not the government.
 
ApeEater said:
Exactly. That was Chase's plan to kill off Social Security, while still maintaining a level of income for people currently receiving payments. It's not perfect, but nothing will ever be perfect when talking about SSI.
Click to expand...
Eliminating SS will "never" happen now that it is part of the government's general fund to be used at their discretion.
 
ApeEater said:
Are you willing to let the state vaccinate your kids at their discretion?

I firmly believe parents should be the decision-makers in their children's medical decisions, not the government.
Click to expand...
So you also believe that the parents can deny having any medical service needs for their child because they are praying?
 
ApeEater said:
Are you willing to let the state vaccinate your kids at their discretion?

I firmly believe parents should be the decision-makers in their children's medical decisions, not the government.
Click to expand...

Fuck no and I vote accordingly
 
Thumping said:
So you also believe that the parents can deny having any medical service needs for their child because they are praying?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Do I think it's right? No. Am I willing to send men with guns to enforce my personal beliefs? Also No.
Animalmother said:
Fuck no and I vote accordingly
Click to expand...

45acp said:
We've come full circle.

An adult transitioning= medical decision

A child transitioning= abuse
Click to expand...
I agree; as I said to Thumping above...

Do I think it's right? No. Am I willing to send men with guns to enforce my personal beliefs? Also No.
 
I just can't get onboard with gender transitioning children. There's a reason why you can't go get your nine year old a face tattoo. And that's way less dramatic than cutting your kid's dick off. They're kids. They're not mature enough to make those types of decisions for themselves and a lot of the parents of these gender confused kids are pretty much bat shit crazy idealogues who desperately wants a kid with the en vogue issue for wine mom street cred. It used to be ADHD, them autism, then gay, now you need to cut your kid's dick off. It just keeps getting more and more extreme. How far are you willing to go with your kids to prove your allegiance to the tribe? Are we gonna go full Aztec and start sacrificing them at the altar?

When you turn 18 if you still wanna cut your dick off, well I'd strongly advise against it but at the end of the day you're a legal adult now so best of luck to you.
 
ApeEater said:
Novel idea for social security. Maintain the employer contribution to keep the current crop of recipients covered, while getting rid of the employee contribution to let the next generations prepare for their own retirements.
Click to expand...
Won't work. It's a Ponzi scheme. They need new people money to pay for the old people.
 
And no, don't call it "gender affirming care". That would be pulling your britches down and looking down. There ya go. We've affirmed the gender.

With all that said, I'm absolutely for consenting adults having full bodily autonomy. Do whatever you want. I support your right to do it. But I also reserve the right to laugh. :laughing:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh