As I explained in the intro, now that the iron appears to be having an effect and my anemia is lessening, I plan to be more active–it also helps that I’ve just forced myself to proceed anyway, of course–and that means a return to podcasting. I’ve been planning to reboot Rantings & Ravings for a while, and this is episode 1: “Ryancare & Russians.”
Note: I’m certainly not doing anymore podcasts in this voice. I sound so angry. This is actually due to the fact that I edited out most of the pauses; you can tell from some of the less edited podcasts that, when recording, I tend to talk about like Obama, with a pause following every 3 or 4 words. That fits with the inflections better, but removing the silences makes it sound… like a continuous raving rant. That’s actually not intentional.
In this episode, we discuss the GOP’s attempts to modify the Affordable Care Act, and the effects we can expect that to have. Spoiler: it will really piss off the GOP’s voter base. They already have trust issues so severe that they rejected the establishment and elected Donald Trump. With him betraying them, as I predicted in this video:
… and with Paul Ryan–who already drew their ire by siding against Trump–working to further undermine their implicit desires, the 2018 midterm elections will be The Reckoning for Republicans. It will be a bloodbath that pours Democrats into office, a trend that will continue with a sure Democrat victory for the White House in 2020.
The Stupid Comment of the Week is quite possibly the most stupid thing that anyone has ever said to me, no joke. It’s seriously that stupid. The Anarchist Shemale will not be held responsible for drivers whose heads explode when they hear the stupidity and thereby have an accident. It is advised to not listen to this segment while driving.
Furthermore, Trump, Russians, and hysteria are discussed, since that’s always in the news, and we consider the implications of the Clown Sightings that people seem to have forgotten about, as well as what it might mean that the FBI isn’t looking into it. Schools were actually locked down because of alleged clown sightings, but the FBI hasn’t bothered to check it out? There’s something certainly odd about that, and the parallels between clowns and Russians are too much to ignore, so we speculate the possibility that–seriously–the entire clown sightings thing was a Psy-Ops campaign by intelligence agencies to study the effects and spread of hysteria.
We also discuss the absolutely absurd assertion that the Russians are competent enough to “hack the election” of the world’s foremost superpower and the most technologically advanced nation in human history, but are simultaneously too incompetent to click four things to change their Date & Time and keyboard settings.
Finally, there is an overview of Reductive Reasoning and how it applies to the boy/girl dichotomy, the nature of definitions, and abortion. Each week in this segment, I’ll be picking an issue and applying Reductive Reasoning to it. This week wasn’t meant to dive fully into gender or abortion, but sought to use them as examples to explain the concept.
Thanks for listening, and I hope you enjoy the reboot. 😀
Everyone has a set of principles that they follow. It’s true that these principles aren’t always neatly defined and expressed, and that this failure to codify leads many people to do and say things that seem hypocritical, but, at the end of the day, everyone does have a set that they follow. There are three basic parts to any problem: the issue, the principles, and the solution. We could just say that only the issue and the solution are truly parts of the problem, and that the principles are merely how a person gets from the issue to the solution, but when we’re discussing things like politics and rulers, it is of utmost importance to us how a person gets from the issue to the solution, because knowing their method of “how” allows us to predict their position on any given issue.
My set of principles is pretty simple: it is wrong to initiate the use of force, violence, and coercion. This is a principle that I would gladly follow right off the cliff. If, for example, I found myself in a world where failure to initiate force and violence would result in widespread catastrophe, then I would gladly let the catastrophe hit. There are a few reasons for this, but the primary one is the principle that “The whole is not more than the sum of its parts. The whole is an illusion.” Preventing the catastrophe to y possible people by harming x people when y > x relies upon this sort of conceit: y‘s victims are possible ones. Theoretical ones. It may or may not happen exactly as predicted, but… it may or may not happen exactly as predicted. The reality of life in our universe is that there are far too many variables for a person to predict accurately what will happen five seconds in the future, and the perceptions that the person uses to identify and evaluate those variables can’t be demonstrated to be reliable in the first place. But I’m not here to give an overview of my positions and why I hold them. I’m working on such a document, but it’s not completed yet.
Moving along, the Social Justice Warrior is motivated by a different set of principles: a sort of usurped empathy that more closely resembles empty sympathy and that is directed entirely at certain groups and people. The SJW does not consider the morality of using force, violence, and coercion, not when force, violence, and coercion can be used to promote the SJW’s agenda, such as this masterfully phrased piece on Twitter:
Free speech is inconsequential to the SJW, the type of person who coined the phrase “Hate speech is not free speech.” We’re not here to say whether they are right or wrong; we are merely pointing out that their set of principles does include liberty or free speech. Still, their response to any given issue is relatively easy to predict, because they do abide a set of surprisingly well-defined principles. Primarily, the question “Is it in support of a historically disenfranchised group?” is the deciding factor. Whereas my deciding factor would be “Does it involve the initiation of force, violence, or coercion?” they use a different set of principles to take them from the issue to a solution.
Then you have people like Rand Paul and Gary Johnson, who are the real reasons that I’m writing this. Although it looks like the Libertarian Party is finally free of Johnson, it isn’t going to do any good if we immediately turn to a candidate who is motivated by poorly defined principles.
Gary Johnson’s position on religious freedom at least was motivated by concerns more in accordance with the SJW’s than with the libertarian’s. If force, violence, and coercion are unambiguously wrong, then it obviously cannot be the right thing to force one person to associate with people that they don’t want to associate with. Although Johnson eventually changed his position on this (though not really by very much, and it doesn’t really matter for reasons I’ll explain a moment), the fact remains that he used some hidden principle to determine when to apply the libertarian principle of non-violence and when not to apply the libertarian principle. This is dangerous, because it makes him unpredictable. Without being able to identify the principle that he uses to determine when to be a libertarian and when not to be a libertarian, we are unable to draw a straight line from any issue to his solution. If, for the sake of the argument, gun sales quadrupled and the homicide rates of LGBTQ people in the south multiplied several times, would his SJW-style principle prompt him to discard the Second Amendment in favor of protecting the LGBTQ crowd, just as he was ready to discard the First to protect the same group? Honestly, I’d guess “Probably,” without even getting into Gun Grabbing Weld.
Libertarianism isn’t defined by a person’s position on a given issue or even a set of issues; it is defined by the methods a person uses to get from the issue to their solution. Let’s play a game. I’m going to use mathematical principles to determine my answers; you, an imaginary person, are going to just “answer from the gut.”
1024 * 8
9 / 3
75 * 15
As this short, stupid example attempts to show, using the wrong set of principles won’t always result in an incorrect answer. Math, of course, is defined by the rules of numbers and its own field, so it has right and wrong answers… so does a political issue, really, since a person’s evaluation of an answer as right or wrong is determined the principles they used to make that assessment… I would say the SJW is wrong to come to their answer that it’s okay to use violence against people who say things they don’t like, because the principles that went into my answer are that force and violence are wrong. This is inescapable–the principles we use to determine an answer will always be the principles we use to determine whether someone’s answer is right or wrong…
Strictly speaking, is “your” answer of “About 8000” wrong? No. It’s simply imprecise. 8192 is “about 8000.” And though you came to precise and correct answers for the next two questions, it doesn’t in any sense mean that you’d get Question #4 correct, and we have no idea whether you’d get Question #4 correct, because we don’t know what principles–what rules you are following–to get from the problem to your answer. If Question #4 is “37 * 6 + 15” we could justifiably guess that your answer will be an estimate, but this is assuming that “Give an estimate unless the problem is one that can be done quickly and easily in the head or on one’s hands” is your guiding principle. With a large enough sample size, we could probably deduce your principle, but if you’re running for President of Mathematics, then we should not have to deduce your principles in the first place.
This is the problem with people like Rand Paul and Gary Johnson. Sure, they do occasionally land on the correct answer–correct from the perspective of libertarian principles–like Gary Johnson on marijuana and Rand Paul’s recent behavior over the GOP ACA replacement bill–but that doesn’t mean they’re going to land on the correct answer next time, or that they landed on the correct answer last time. In fact, we’ll have a hard time predicting any of their responses to an issue, because they alone know when they choose to apply the principles of libertarianism and when they choose to apply some other principles.
We’re talking about giving these people power. Unpredictability isn’t acceptable. We need to know how an elected official is going to respond to things that will come up during their reign. An educated guess isn’t good enough. A vague understanding of their principles isn’t good enough, not relative to the power we’re handing over to these people. And I think after the unprincipled Trump is finished, Americans will have a deep yearning for a president who abides clear and simple principles, since they’re learning first-hand how poorly shooting from the hip works out.
It’s a subject I’ve avoided for the most part, but one that I can’t take any longer. I know a fair number of self-described libertarians, and even a few self-described anarchists, who boarded the Trump Train, and so I felt it best to just look the other way. Many of these people are friends, after all.
But these same people still support Trump, and I’ve got to call them out on it.
First, let’s talk about the VALs (Voluntaryists, Anarchists, and Libertarians, self-professed and actual) who routinely criticized Hillary as a passive attempt to help Trump, instead of just doing it because the bitch clearly wanted to start World War 3. They didn’t want Hillary to lose; they wanted Trump to win. I wanted both to lose. I wanted everyone to lose, in fact. No one on the ballot should have been on it.
If you attacked Hillary hoping to hurt her so that Trump would win, then you’re not just “not a libertarian.” You’re also underhanded and untrustworthy. We can’t just distrust the things you say; we must also distrust your motives for saying it.
I’m not gonna sit here and lie to you. I’m biased as hell. Everything I wrote during the election was aimed at making Hillary lose and McAfee win. I avoided Trump most of the time, because so many other people were attacking him, and instead focused my Trump articles on primarily addressing hysteria–hysteria that remains more of a problem than ever. In the grand scheme of things, Hillary was probably worse, seeing as she repeatedly threatened military action against Russia, but that doesn’t make Trump any better. He’s still a buffoon.
As to the people who fell for Trump’s speeches about draining the swamp, and who have now realized that it was all bullshit, welcome back. I hope you learn from the experience what I learned from Obama in 2008: no one in the main two parties can be trusted to do anything they say. I don’t know why anyone who was an adult in 2008 didn’t know this, but it happens, I guess.
Now the biggest group: the ones who are still with Trump.
Fuck all of you.
You’re not librarians or minarchists, and you’re damn sure not anarchists. Trump is clearly just another politician. If you supported Trump because you wanted to throw a bomb at Washington, I get it. I don’t approve of your choice in bomb, but I understand your sentiment.
But Trump wasn’t a bomb, was he? No, he was just wearing a Bomb Mask.
Pictured: Trump campaigning.
Now that he’s removed the mask, nothing but doublethink and cognitive dissonance can keep those people supporting him. He’s not a bomb. He’s not challenging the status quo. He’s just another politician, and one with a scary understanding of the military’s purpose and an America-centric way of viewing the world.
I was willing to give you guys the benefit of the doubt and let you say that you fell for his con. But you’re still falling for it, even though it’s apparent that he’s nothing but a modern Lincoln. You know. Lincoln. That President that libertarians despise because he cemented the federal government’s hold on the states, suspended the Bill of Rights, and killed more than half a million Americans. Policy-wise, he and Trump are identical. “The Union first” morphed into “America first.” The only thing that remains to be seen is how far Trump is willing to go.
But if by some chance [note: it would require more explanation than I’m willing to get into right now, but my position on California’s secession has changed–I now support it] California secedes, then we’ll see first-hand how similar they are.
And I’ve no doubt that you Cum Trumpsters would continue cheerleading for him as he invaded California. Why not? You guys don’t have the credibility to simply claim you’d be against such an invasion; your credibility lies burned by the bombs that killed the 8 year old girl.
You are every bit as bad as hypocritical conservatives. You know, the people who claim to want small government, unless it’s something they want to do, in which case big government is okay. That’s exactly what you’re doing. Your biggest issue is immigration. Even though the federal government has no authority over immigration (something that you knew until Trump announced his campaign), and certainly no rational or moral justification to affect it, you’re now totally okay with the federal government dictating over all fifty states and even cities in the name of your pet issue.
Just like a conservative.
Just like a liberal.
And, just like the conservatives, you completely lack the self-awareness to realize how hypocritical you are. If the federal government wanted to allow abortion in all fifty states, you’re all “RAWR! STATES’ RIGHTS!”
But if the federal government wants to force California to use Texas’s immigration policy, you don’t see the problem, the tyranny, or the hypocrisy. Because it’s YOUR pet issue.
Conservatives blew it, as I knew they would. It’s true that I hoped they wouldn’t, but I knew they would.
They had the chance to put their money where their mouths have been, to not force conservative positions onto liberal states. And instead of beginning to build bridges by allowing liberals to continue being liberal in liberal states, they jumped right to forcing conservativism onto everyone, particularly in regard to immigration, though there are other areas.
And you’re doing the same shit. “Oh, I’m a libertarian! I don’t think the government should be telling anyone what they can do! … Unless the government is going to tell them to do what I want them to do, in which case, yeah, I’m okay with that.”
You only want liberty when you get your way. If people who disagree with you want to get their way, then you suddenly stop being libertarians.
That’s conservatives’ shtick. Get that shit out of here.
Oh, and transgenderism? There is no fucking better indicator of a Cum Trumpster than vehemence toward transgender people. It’s not ubiquitous or exclusive, but it is certainly one of the best indicators. If someone professes to be a VAL but insults transgender people, particularly by calling us mentally ill, then I’ll gladly take the bet that they’re a Cum Trumpster.
You want to talk about mentally ill? Let’s talk about the Cum Trumpsters who think that the number of brown people in the country affects their lives in any way, and who think that how brown people enter the country makes even the smallest difference.
For fuck’s sake, these “Libertarians” are for the wall. The wall! The motherfucking, goddamn wall. I’m not sure that anything can get more statist than “We need the government to put a fence around our country!”
As Ron Paul pointed out repeatedly, walls don’t just keep people out. They also keep people in. Under no fucking circumstances should the government be building walls that could one day trap us in a la East Berlin. But no, these “Libertarians” are for it! They’re for what is probably the crowning symbol of statism: border walls.
Many of these same “Libertarians” want states or the federal government to legislate that a person can only use the restroom associated with their birth certificate. Even though, you know, they clearly don’t trust birth certificates, which is why their champion Trump carried the “Obama is a Kenyan” shit for so long. Though they don’t trust Obama’s to honestly report his place of birth, they’ll trust yours to report your birth sex.
They’re particularly fond of saying that liberalism is a mental illness. So is conservatism, and I just don’t see a difference any longer between them and conservatives.
And they are conservatives, clearly–they want to conserve the 1950s Leave it to Beaver way of life that never actually existed anyway. They think their way of life is somehow under threat. It wasn’t long ago that I read an article by one Cum Trumpster saying that multi-culturalism was bad. What? Coexisting alongside other cultures is bad?
No, idiots. It’s only bad if incoming cultures refuse to allow and accommodate other cultures. It’s not even about assimilation; it doesn’t matter if people assimilate. It only matters if they conquer other cultures.
And while I know they don’t understand the difference and truly believe that Muslims are trying to conquer their culture, that’s because they are lunatics who think that a transgender person demanding the state not force its gender definitions onto her is the same as her forcing her definitions onto everyone.
And I do hate to say it, but that’s certainly a side effect of privilege: thinking that not being allowed to force your way onto people is the same as them forcing their way onto you. I mean, for centuries those people had the power and ran all over everyone. Then the democrats formed their equality coalition and pushed back. Of course, then that coalition became addicted to the power and went way too far, moving the goalposts from equality to elevation of minorities. I even agree that democrats have done that.
But the solution is egalitarianism and no one forcing things onto anyone. The solution is not reverting back to the way things were and forcing conservatism onto liberals. Just like Democrats, you “Libertarians” have moved the goalposts from liberty and egalitarianism.
So kindly fuck off and stop calling yourselves libertarians, voluntaryists, minarchists, and anarchists. You’re not. You’re conservatives who want small government when Democrats want to force their way onto you, and want large government when you can force your way onto them.
Some of you criticized Johnson for not being a libertarian, too. Are you kidding me? If you’re going to criticize Johnson for not being libertarian enough while supporting Trump, then you’re an idiot and you’ve dug the principled high ground right out from under your own feet.
I criticized Gary Johnson repeatedly as the libertarian candidate. The difference is that I did so because of principles. The Cum Trumpsters appear to have simply used that as an excuse to back a terrible candidate. And yes, Trump was a terrible candidate, and he’s proving a terrible President. I don’t know why anyone expected anything else. My sister recently said, “I like that Trump is doing what he promised to do.”
Like what? Bombing little kids? It’s true, he did promise to go after families. I have a hard time accepting that anyone, regardless of what they call themselves, is okay with that, but fair enough–he did promise to do that, and he is doing it.
That doesn’t make him a good President. It makes him a murderer. A monster. A depraved, disgusting wretch of a human being with calloused disrespect for life.
Tariffs are bullshit, too. They do have some place in world trade, but their only conceivable non-destructive use would be implementing them on a plan to phase them out from the start, easing a nation into an economic change instead of taking it all at once. That’s not good by any means, and consumers ultimately pay the cost, but it’s the only non-destructive role they could play. They’d still be damaging, but not destructive.
Economics is a pretty big part of libertarianism. I know very few VALs who are economically ignorant. So the Cum Trumpsters should *know* that tariffs on China should be put in place only if the plan is to abolish the Minimum Wage, and even then should start on a system to phase them out over several years. Ditto for Mexican tariffs. And this is because we KNOW that taxes are paid by consumers.
That sales tax you pay at Wal-Mart? That’s not a tax on you buying the item. It’s a tax on Wal-Mart for selling the item. But because Wal-Mart doesn’t want to eat the cost, they pass it onto you. That’s how taxes work. Consumers are always screwed by them and by tariffs. I’ll grant that it’s conceivable tariffs could be used to soften economic blows. I wouldn’t like it, and I think it would extend the damage, but I’m not going to argue the point. But just imposing tariffs and taxes?
A libertarian should know better.
I arrived on-site at a client’s and had to get started working. I intend to add more to this.
When I first saw the flier posted and attributed to the Emerald City Antifa group, I admittedly thought it was genuine–and I still think it’s very likely that a member of the group took the initiative and posted it, though without permission from the group. Of course, Emerald City Antifa has disavowed the flier and denied having anything to do with it, but whether or not they had anything to do with it, the mere possibility that such a flier could have been posted sincerely by such a group is alarming and deeply concerning.
No one familiar with the tendencies, beliefs, and behavior of Antifa, or the left generally, would be terribly surprised to find out that the above flier is real. These are, loosely speaking, the same people who brazenly and openly say things like this:
Really, how big of a leap is it from Laci Green–who I believe is with the Huffington Post–and her racist, misandrist bullshit to the flier attributed to Antifa? There is no dispute that here, a prominent liberal, openly and proudly said, “Fuck you, white America. Fuck you, you racist, misogynist pieces of shit.” Is that really any different from “Propogation [sic] of whites is propogation [sic] of hatred, oppression, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, racism, ableism…”? If anything, I would say that the fake Antifa sign is less extreme than Laci Green’s psychotic, hateful rant. Laci Green straight up said “Fuck you, white people.” The sign merely said “White people are evil.”
So, yes, when I saw the flier I assumed it was real, and that’s because America has become a shining symbol of Poe’s Law: parodies of extremism and fundamentalism are indistinguishable from extremism and fundamentalism. Why would I assume the sign isn’t real, when well-known liberals are brazenly spewing such hateful rhetoric?
Don’t go away yet! Because there’s also this threatening letter that was sent to several mosques in the United States.
Unlike the flier, this letter is easily dismissed as bullshit. This was clearly a liberal–or group of liberals–attempting to stir up controversy and continue the doom-mongering that we saw after the election, with headlines saying things like “Hold your loved ones close” and Jessica Valenti asking “How do I tell my daughter America elected a racist, misogynist bully?” There are a few telltale signs. First, Hitler is universally reviled, and even a Neo-Nazi wouldn’t say something like “[Trump] is going to do to you Muslims what Hitler did to the Jews.” With all the fake police reports filed by Muslims who pretended to be attacked and harassed, we know that this is a game that liberals are more than willing to play.
And judging by the flier, conservatives are more than willing to play it, too.
Because the likeliest scenario is that a conservative hung the Antifa fliers, attempting to drive people away from Antifa and call attention to their hateful rhetoric. Since they’ve gone on to vandalize property and cause riots just because some guy was going to speak and they didn’t want to hear what he had to say, it’s obvious that Antifa is a hate group. So this could very well have been a conservative who hung the flier, parodying the extremist positions of Antifa–or it could have been a rogue Antifa. Similarly, the letters to the mosques were probably liberals hoping to call attention the threat that Trump poses to Muslims (and he does pose a threat to Muslims, something I’ve never denied, but to black people, LGBT people, Hispanics, et al.? Not from anything he’s said or done.) by parodying the extremist positions of the alt-right–or it could have been a rogue alt-right Neo-Nazi.
The real problem is that there’s no way of knowing, and all the above scenarios are believable. I don’t at all find it hard to believe that some Antifa group would hang such a flier. Neither do I find it hard to believe that some Neo-Nazi would send such a letter. Leftist elements say hateful, terrible, racist, misandrist, cisphobic, heterophobic shit all the time, just as rightist elements say hateful, terrible, racist, misogynistic, transphobic, homophobic shit all the time. Granted, the leftist extremists have grown to encompass more of the Democratic Party than the right extremists comprise in the Republican Party, but it’s all believable.
These extremists have to be reined in by their respective parties and allies. This is a much larger issue on the left, as I said, where the “progressives,” as they call themselves, have come to totally dominate the party, drowning out all moderate voices and costing Hillary the election by driving away white and male voters by constantly making them into a scapegoat. The right is doing the same to Hispanics and Muslims–“immigrants” generally–but the wackier fringe elements of the right are… still on the fringe. The wacky, fringe left is pretty much “the left” these days, and it’s killing the Democratic Party.
Because it is more believable that Antifa would have hung this flier than it is that the KKK sent these letters to the mosques. On the Scale of Believability, that Antifa hung the fliers is 100% believable, while the notion that the KKK sent the aforementioned letter sits around 65% believable. The KKK and loud, racist, misogynistic, homophobic idiots just aren’t the loudest or most prominent voices in the Republican Party; hell, one of their loudest speakers is an openly gay man. Meanwhile, one of the left’s loudest speakers… is openly saying “Fuck you, white America.”
The American Left appears to be totally lost, with no idea what to do now that shouting and calling people racist is no longer enough to win elections. They are having the identity crisis that, four years ago, I expected the Republican Party to have. How is the left handling this? By and large, they want the party to become more extreme and to move more to the left. I’ve got to tell you, Democrats. If you think the problem is that your party isn’t to the left enough, then you’re more detached from the average person than I thought. But we know they’re really detached, because there remains a huge chunk of people who firmly believe that Sanders would have won the election.
How can they think anything else? They’ve been surrounded, in their cities and universities, for nearly their entire lives telling each other how glorious socialism is and how everyone wants socialism, so they assume this must be true of everyone. Yet there is nothing that would inspire people to get out and vote more than running a socialist for President would, but they wouldn’t be voting for the socialist. Such an election would have the highest turnout in American history, and it would be a landslide victory for whoever ran against the socialist.
The Democratic Party has the chance now to begin getting the extremists under control, but I honestly don’t see it happening. How can it, when media figures are some of the most extreme people out there? When leftist groups are rioting, setting fires, smashing windows, and committing violence to stifle free speech? They’ve characterized their opponents to such a degree that they no longer can react any other way, so I would guess that’s square one: accepting that the right isn’t filled with racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic pieces of shit. I think the left should take a breath, chill the hell out, and tell themselves every single morning for the next two years, “Not all men are sexist. Not all straight people are homophobic. Not all white people are racist. Not all cisgender people are transphobic.”
And the right needs to get its fringe elements more under control, but, being honest here, the right simply isn’t much of a threat to anyone. They’ve had full control of the Federal Government for nearly a month, and they’ve done nothing. That should make the extreme leftists happy, shouldn’t it? We’ve been under “textbook fascism”–according to Laci Green’s weird definition of it–for almost a full month, and absolutely nothing has changed or happened. Our lives have carried on for the last month exactly as they did before, and while some people have been deported, that’s been going on for decades and isn’t new, and neither are travel bans. So really, no, nothing has changed or been remotely different. And the only black-clad, masked people I’ve seen going through the streets attacking people… have been leftists.
Both sides have a problem with extremism, and right extremism has certainly seen a surge since Trump’s victory, but it still isn’t mainstream. Leftist extremism is mainstream, so much so that it’s impossible to tell whether a tremendously racist flier from a liberal group is real or fake.
That’s a serious problem, and it’s going to take a lot of effort to fix. You can’t have people like Laci Green running around saying “Fuck you, white America” if you want people to see fliers like that and immediately know that it’s fake.
That rather delicious comment was posted as a comment to my latest video, 7 Reasons To Vote For Gary Johnson:
Even though I addressed this guy’s comment literally in the video that he commented, I’m going to do it again, because I enjoy banging my head on brick walls that I know will break my skull before I penetrate the barricade. So, without further adieu, what the fuck is this guy talking about?
Gary only polling at 10% because Gary Isn’t a True libertarian is also speculation same as McAfee polling at 40% because he is a true Libertarian.
Yes, I pointed that out in the video. That was seriously the entire point that I was driving at. I explicitly said in the video that it’s just baseless speculation to say that McAfee would be polling at 40% by now. This is not the first time I’ve had to tell someone in the past few days that I’m a few steps ahead of them, but yes, dude, I’m a few steps ahead of you here. I said that. I explicitly said that. You’ll find it in Reason #5. Your attempt to undermine my statement is null, because I already undermined my own statement.
McAfee would have been put away by the media as a crazy nut job even worse then Ron Paul was you must know that right?
What an interesting thing to say in an election cycle that gave us Donald Trump, who has spent the better part of the past year being crucified by the media and social media. Hardly a day goes by that we don’t see stories from the media about how crazy Trump is, and it’s been going on for a long time now. Trump has been compared to Hitler ad nauseum, has been derided as juvenile, has been mocked as infantile, has been criticized as naive, has been insulted as a megalomaniac, and this has been going on for a year. Donald Trump has faced criticisms far worse than anything that McAfee would face.
Yet Donald Trump is polling around 40%–four times higher than Gary Johnson. You assert that the media would write him off as a crazy nut job if McAfee had won the nomination. So? Donald Trump has proven, beyond any doubt, that if you propose ideas that people like, then the media cannot derail you. And while it’s true that the media mocked Ron Paul, it was not the mockery that hurt him. As I and others have explained, it was that the media ignored Ron Paul that hurt him. In so many ways, neglect is worse than contempt, and Donald Trump’s success has roundly proven that to us.
So this statement may be true, but is completely irrelevant.
I think you are wrong about the Libertarian party being the Next Republican party.
Well, I think I’m right.
As I explained in the video, without libertarian principles, there is nothing that distinguishes the Libertarian Party from being a Republican Party that actually walks the walk that it talks. The GOP has long been criticized for wanting small government unless the government being big will help their causes, at which point the principle of small government is discarded. I’ve written about this myself. If the Republican Party actually adhered to the ideas that it has been proposing, rather than partially adhering to those ideas, and then ignoring them in their desire to push their morality onto others, then the Republican Party wouldn’t be in this mess.
Now we have a Libertarian Presidential Candidate who demonstrably wants to push his morality onto others, but who otherwise wants small government when he is indifferent toward something. The only difference here is that the majority of Americans are okay with discrimination being illegal. I would remind you, however, that might is not right, and that it doesn’t matter of 99.99999999% of humans are okay with criminalizing discrimination; it would not make it morally right to do so. Morality is subjective, and libertarianism demands only that people abide one basic moral maxim universally:
It is morally wrong to initiate force, violence, and coercion.
That is the only moral maxim that libertarians are required to abide. Everything else is up for grabs, and you will find libertarians who disagree greatly on what is morally good, what is morally bad, and what is morally neutral. We have Johnson’s preference for outlawing something that is subjectively determined to be morally bad (discrimination), but outlawing something that is subjectively morally bad is a violation of the universal moral maxim, because the only way to outlaw something is to use force, violence, and/or coercion to put a stop to it.
I would redirect you to my remarks about groups and individuals, particularly to my podcast on businesses, because you must remember that there is no such thing as discrimination.
What we are actually talking about here is an individual choosing with whom they associate and with whom they do not associate. They may choose not to associate with another individual, or they may decide that they don’t want to associate with people who have x characteristic. It is not our business what criteria someone uses to determine who they want to associate with. Someone may not want to associate with red-heads, with transgender people, with homosexuals, with Muslims, with black men, with fat people–it’s not our business, and it is not our place to tell other people who they should associate with, or what criteria they should use in determining who they associate with.
I say this quite a lot, but that I have to explain this simple thing to a self-professed libertarian is truly… truly horrifying.
If a woman was repeatedly abused by bearded men as a child and teenager, and goes on to own a business where she decides that she doesn’t want to do business with bearded men, this would, in your worldview, be an act of discrimination against bearded men. You would tell her that she is not allowed to do that, that she is not allowed to choose who she associates with and who she shuns. You would tell her that she must associate with bearded men, whether she likes it or not, and you will put a gun to her head and force her to do what you want her to do.
I am stunned that you don’t see this travesty as a problem.
If, however, you do see a moral outrage in the previous paragraph, I would urge you to replace “bearded men” with any other group or category of people, and replace the reason with literally any other. The type of discrimination should be irrelevant to your worldview, as should the reason. Regardless of why someone wants to discriminate, and regardless of who they want to discriminate against, you must hold that it is wrong of them to do it, and that they must be forced to not do it.
Otherwise you are being sexual orientationist, racist, misogynistic, misandristic, or sexist. How?
If you would allow bearded men to be discriminated against, but not LGBT people, then you are placing LGBT on a higher pedestal than bearded men; you are treating them differently based on their sexual orientation. To treat someone differently based on their sexual orientation is, of course, sexual orientationist. It follows that if you are against LGBT discrimination, you must be against discrimination against bearded men.
know Gary Johnson isn’t a 100% true Libertarian but we are all hoping a moderate candidate can make way for a True Libertarian running in the Future.
Holy fuckballs, I’m tired of hearing this one.
I’ve addressed it… so many times… including in my most recent video about Gary Johnson:
There is a clear failure to think in this argument. As I’ve explained repeatedly, the people who are impressed by Gary Johnson and “becoming libertarians” because of him are not learning about libertarianism. They interpret “libertarianism” to be the warped mess of “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” bullshit that Johnson is peddling. Four years from now, these same people will be on the Internet, at the LNC, on the news, etc., talking about what a great libertarian Gary Johnson is.
If people were coming into the Libertarian Party and being universally encouraged to learn about its principles, to be exposed to people like myself, to Thomas Knapp, to John McAfee, to Daryl Perry, etc., then it wouldn’t be a problem. Johnson, however, is the one informing them of what a libertarian is, and he is not telling them what libertarianism is. They are learning what libertarianism is from the Libertarian Presidential Candidate.
It seems obvious, right?
Assume that you know nothing about the Libertarian Party, and then suddenly you see Gary Johnson talking his “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” stuff, and you think, “Wow! That’s perfect!” Just like that, you’ve come to believe that a libertarian is someone who is “fiscally conservative, socially liberal.” Imagine that you then go on to join the Libertarian Party, and four years later you are presented with five or six choices of who to nominate for the party, so you apply what you know of libertarianism, and you choose a candidate who is “fiscally conservative, socially liberal,” probably Gary Johnson himself (Good god, do I hope not, but I’m starting to wonder if we’ll have another Johnson candidacy in 2020, and that would cause me to give up hope on the party), or someone like Rand Paul.
In a very real way, Gary Johnson is the face of the Libertarian Party. To the masses, Gary Johnson’s policies are the policy of the Libertarian Party. Their education on what libertarianism is begins and ends with Gary Johnson. The more popular Gary Johnson becomes, the further away we get from ever being able to nominate a “true libertarian.” This… is… obvious. Because the same people we’re talking about will still be here four years from now, eight years from now, twelve years from now… and they’ll still be outnumbering us and refusing to listen because we’re chastised, mocked, derided, insulted, and considered heretics for pointing out that this “moderate” shit is un-libertarian.
I don’t want to argue with you, Ronald, because you know that I’m correct. Your contention is that it’s necessary to choose pragmatism over principle. I dispute that, but don’t make the mistake of thinking I don’t understand it. I fully understand it. I fully understand why you and others have done it. My gripe is not necessarily with you.
My gripe is with the people who don’t know that I’m correct. My argument is with the people who say that Johnson is a libertarian. My contention is directed at the people who think I’m a lunatic for saying Johnson isn’t a true libertarian. My issue is with people who say that I’m wrong about libertarianism. My ire is directed at people who say I don’t know what I’m talking about when it comes to liberty. My arguments are directed primarily at the people who say that I don’t understand libertarianism, who came into the party as former Republicans and believed Johnson’s spiel is libertarianism.
You and I both know that Johnson is not a libertarian. You assert that we must use him as a stepping stone to having an actual libertarian. I dispute that, too, don’t get me wrong. I certainly argue against that idea. But my ire is not directed at you. You and I have a difference of opinion. I and those people who think libertarianism is “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” have a difference of fact. And, most dangerously, they adamantly refuse to listen, and they will not entertain the possibility that they are wrong, because, as I’ve said, they think they know: they think they can “feel” their way to libertarianism, they think that it’s common sense, and they think that they know what they’re talking about.
It is, once more, the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
Gary will just warm the American people to that idea.
But… he won’t. He isn’t, he hasn’t, and he won’t. This is… demonstrably false, man. This is completely untrue. The stuff that Gary Johnson is warming people to is not libertarianism, as you yourself know and admit. We “true libertarians” (a phrase that I don’t care for, to be honest, because one either is a libertarian or one is not) will continue to be outliers, looneys, and heretics. Our own party is currently calling us crazy lunatics, treating us like heretics. I’ve seen “libertarians” say that people like me should be thrown in the Gulag! While the person was obviously being hyperbolic, the fact remains that “people who disagree with me should be thrown in prison” should never come out of a libertarian’s mouth, even as a joke, and we all know that there was some underlying grain of truth to his “joke.” The statement “it was just a joke” does not mean there is no nugget of sincere belief behind it. After all, my grandfather makes lots of racist jokes, and he could say “They’re just jokes,” too.
Imagine how the rest of America is going to treat us “true libertarians” if our own party is calling us crazy lunatics.
On top of that, read my previous points and watch my videos. Johnson is not warming people up to libertarianism, because libertarianism is not what he is exposing people to.
Here I go again on my own…
Going down the only road I’ve ever known
Like a drifter, I was born to walk alone
And I’ve made up my mind
I ain’t wasting no more time
Here I go again…
Here I go again…
Four years ago, I and others were told that we should vote for Mitt Romney, because he was “better than Obama” and that he was the lesser of evils. Myself and many others refuted that statement, pointing out that choosing “the lesser of evils” is still “choosing evil,” and that we would not play along.
Fast forward to today, and we have Gary Johnson supporters telling us that he’s “better than Trump and Clinton” and that he is the “lesser of evils.” One has to wonder if these are the same people who, four years ago, stood alongside me (back when I was called I/E) in rejecting this bullshit for the defeatist, apologist dribble that it is.
Virtually everything I make gets downvoted into oblivion. This neither surprises nor bothers me. I’ve always expected it. What surprises me is that I have, however slowly, been able to put together an audience over the past several months, and that what I’m saying isn’t totally rejected.
Is this it?
Is this truly the best argument that the Libertarian Party can put forward?
“He sucks less than the other two!” is not an argument at all. It is a passive resignation to corruption, squalor, and fraud, an admittance of cowardice and a concern not to stand by one’s principles but to minimize damage.
Should I be surprised that a Gary Johnson supporter is so willing to evidently throw his principles aside to vote for the lesser of evils? I suppose not.
So… you’re voting for Hillary, then? She’s “better than trump” too, right? Moreover, she stands a better chance of beating Trump than Gary Johnson does. In fact, Gary Johnson is still polling behind this mess of a person we call the Republican Presidential Candidate (Fuck, at least Libertarians are doing better than Republicans, right? I mean, it’s true…. Johnson is not an orange baboon that appears to have transcribed its bowel movements onto Twitter). So if your argument is “better than Trump,” you must be a Hillary supporter, yes?
I have to agree with John McAfee here. Barring some unforeseen calamity that causes Trump to drop from the race entirely, Gary Johnson’s poll numbers just aren’t going to change very much, and people are being foolish if they think there is a serious chance of Johnson winning the White House.
There is a strong resistance to changing political affiliations, especially from the average voter, and they view it largely as treason to their party to do it. They may reject Donald Trump, but this clearly doesn’t mean they’ll embrace a third party. In fact, evidence suggests that they are more likely to support Hillary than Gary Johnson.
I recently said that if Gary Johnson begins polling around 40%, I will soften my tune on him and will actually vote for him. The opportunity to put a third party candidate into the White House is too great an opportunity to pass up. I would also vote for Jill Stein if she hit 40%, and I disagree with her on basically everything.
It would be a gesture aimed at defeating the two party stranglehold, and nothing more. It would be a vote for “Third Parties,” not a vote for Gary Johnson and his warped brand of liberty-leaning conservatism that has usurped libertarian principles.
It’s funny that the same people who know that the fracturing of a state will not immediately produce a new state now think that the fracturing of a political party will inspire people to flock to a single, united political party. We simply will not put a Libertarian in the oval office this election. At best, Trump succeeds in destroying the GOP. This will NOT cause people to flock to the Libertarian Party.
Many will go to the Constitutionalist Party. I’d wager it will receive a greater bump than the Libertarian Party. The Reform Party will gain ground, as well. The Republican Party is massive and entails a wide ideology, and many parts of the party disagree vehemently with other parts. There are liberty-leaning Republicans like Gary Johnson. There are hardcore religious nuts like Ted Cruz. There are moderates like Kasich. There are loud, obnoxious people like Trump and Christie. There are crooked slimes like Gingrich.
If you seriously believe that people from all of those different shades of the political swathe are going to join the Libertarian Party, then you need a reality check. What would happen is this:
Donald Trump’s poll numbers fall to 15-20%.
Hillary’s climb to 70%.
Gary Johnson’s increase maybe to 10%. Despite his claims, no… he is not polling anywhere near 15%. He’s closer to 5%.
Republicans continue jumping ship.
Many defect to Hillary for the election, hoping to buy time to regroup and figure things out.
Many defect to the Constitutionalist Party, probably led there by Ted Cruz.
Many defect to the Reform Party, probably led there by Kasich. I would guess Kasich; I may be mistaken on that.
Many defect to the Libertarian Party, led there by Johnson.
The GOP has been fracturing for quite a long time, and I wrote four years ago that their only chance at long-term survival was to adopt libertarian principles. That’s still true. To survive in the modern world, the GOP needs black Americans, LGBT Americans, Hispanic Americans… Yet it has spent the better part of four decades antagonizing those groups. Any sudden reversal in those policies would be perceived as disingenuous.
Libertarianism allows them to continue disliking blacks, gays, and Mexicans without being disingenuous. It was a lifesaver thrown into the ocean for those who were trying to survive the striking of the iceberg by the RMS Trumptanic. Instead, they’ve basically been running around, like a chicken with its head cut off.
There will be severe in-fighting between the three parties I mentioned in the coming decade, and it’s a good thing for the Democrat Party. The GOP will not fracture into a strong, unified party; it will fracture into 3+ smaller parties, all of whom will begin fighting for dominance. It will be like a neverending GOP Primary, and eventually one of those three parties will reign supreme.
It won’t be the Libertarian Party.
It will be the Constitutionalist Party.
Because the Constitutionalist Party provides the religious people with a way of enforcing their will and morality onto others; libertarianism does not. People are sometimes surprised to learn that “The U.S. was built on Christianity” is a fundamental part of the Constitutional Party’s platform. Yes, it really is. When I first heard that, I argued with the Constitutionalist who told me so.
“There’s no way,” I said. “That’s insane. The First Amendment explicitly rejects that idea. There’s no way the freaking Constitutional Party could think that.”
That evening, I looked it up, and, sure enough, the man was correct.
As I said in the video, the only thing we have are our principles.
Yes, I know. I’m working on remixing the audio. Unfortunately, because I’ve used up two TB of hard drive space, I don’t save WIPs; I only save completed projects. So I have to extract everything from that video, fix the audio, and then put it all back together. It may be a while before I have the chance to do that, so… strain your ears, I suppose. I apologize for the inconvenience.
We’re not about to put Johnson into the White House. It’s time to stop kidding ourselves that any of this matters. It doesn’t–not for that purpose.
The only thing that matters is the image we’re presenting to disaffected Republicans when their party finally shatters, and this image… is not a good one.
Cowards & Apologists
These people are cowards.
Just look at how the apologentsia rush out to defend their own cowardice, their champion of unprincipled rhetoric.
“…a real Libertarian cannot be elected in the US…”
Can you imagine George Washington and Thomas Jefferson saying, “Fuck! I’d love to rebel against Britain and declare independence, but that’s just too extreme for people in the present climate. We should start smaller. Instead of the Declaration of Independence, let’s just write them the Statement of Polite Request For Better Treatment, okay?”
As I addressed in the video–the entire reason I made the video–is that this is not doing a damned thing to help the Libertarian Party. Johnson’s presidential campaign is helping only Gary Johnson, and that is coming at the expense of the Libertarian Party.
Ronald De Regt, however, has admitted to my implied claim in the video: known Republican and classical liberal Ron Paul (whom I greatly admire and respect) is more libertarian than the current Libertarian Presidential candidate. This… This is somehow helping libertarianism?
It’s helping Gary Johnson.
He didn’t want to be a little fish in a big pond, so he moved to a much smaller pond, where he was a much bigger fish.
This is probably the last thing I’m going to say for a while about Gary Johnson, because I’m just so horrifically disappointed in the Libertarian Party that I don’t see much point in continuing to speak out against him. Sure, the Libertarian Party is doing better than ever, but they killed libertarian principles to do it, and Gary Johnson is the con artist that caused it to happen.
It’s not a good time to be a libertarian.
We should never reach that point where someone is schooling the Libertarian Presidential Candidate on liberty. Yet here we are.
This matters because the Libertarian Party was the greatest hope that we would one day be free again. However, it is virtually indistinguishable from liberty-leaning conservatism today. This means there is very little hope that we’ll ever have a libertarian society (or even a classical liberalist society), because the party founded on those principles has abandoned them in favor of Johnson’s warped, narrow, and limited understanding and inability to apply simple principles.
the only value in discussing the election now is in asking “what does this say about this?” There’s a reason otherwise meaningless and inconsequential information is referred to as “academic.” Conversations about such things are little vehicles for knowledge, perspective, wisdom, and such. The vast majority of things that occur at places like universities are indeed academic. All that brain exercise is largely entertainment for the participants. You and I enjoy considering things like this, but in fact anything/everything – or nothing – can happen between now and November. Right now it’s simply brain food. The information doesn’t exist that would enable someone to “predict” the election.
Trump is just a symptom…an indicator…a “barometer,” so to speak. It enrages me that the Left is so afraid of change, but that, too, is a massive indicator. More and more, the shift is toward looking to the government as the solution to problems. That’s horrifying. And the Left just wants more and more of it. There can never be too much for them. It’s the projection of the ego, and it’s as “natural” as can be. Humans are lost, desperately searching for SOMETHING to “make everything ok.” Nobody really grows up. We’re just old children. We are so emotionally weak it’s astonishing.
What I can’t reconcile is the basic Left impulse. Is it lack of confidence that humans can take care of it themselves? Does it emanate from a sense of fear, that left to their own devices humans are self-destructive? Isn’t the irony absolutely breathtaking? I mean, really. Isn’t the fundamental tenet of marxism that humans are basically good? How does that ethos co-exist with a paternalistic view of government?
And, of course, I realize that the “left” in America bears little resemblance to Marxism. But I’m thinking of the basic motivations, the issues on which peoples’ worldviews and thus decisions turn? Am I fighting a straw man?
You know, THAT right there distinguishes a real thinker from the “rest.” Seriously. Consider how attractive and nature the strawman impulse really is. My strawman tends to be of two types: the liberal intellectual who hates all things uneducated, religious, “redneck.” He sees bias and racism everywhere. He feels himself completely qualified and justified spouting his “progressive” views everywhere. He thinks he pities those who come from “challenged” backgrounds. He is not proud of his ancestors. He feels no patriotism, nationalism….not even sure what “pride” is. Yet he completely understands “black pride” and he feels a sense of righteousness in their anger. He “understands” them.
My other strawman is the person the educated liberal doesn’t know exists. This person doesn’t work and doesn’t want to. This person lives among a culture than devours the system that devours them. She knows every trick in the book – how to qualify for all the programs that enable one to live and build a large family of dependents, without working a job. She has 8 kids by 3 different fathers. She’s not qualified to work, and she likely suffers from several physical and/or mental disabilities, any of which can be used to further her cause. Her interest in government (politics) is 100% limited to how it serves her specific purpose.
I know individuals who fit both those profiles. But do they exist like that at large? Or am i fighting stawmen just like everyone else, and therefore I’m missing the real points, overlooking the real issues?
Are Hillary and Trump simply dogs and ponies, trotted out every 4 years to occupy our attention, while the REAL business of running the world goes right on? Are we eating the diversion hook, line, and sinker? Does it matter? I mean, really?
You’d have to look to Mussolini, not Marx, to understand the left in America, and it was your email that just made me realize this. The left simply wants more power. That’s all leaders on the left want. I know that sounds like a strawman, but Mussolini and Hitler also sound like strawmen, don’t they? There’s no chance that Sanders genuinely believes the bullshit that comes out of his mouth, but that’s how the left functions. What an interesting thing, considering neurology. Anyway, they simply take an emotion and add “The government should put a stop to this!” to it. But this isn’t a policy. It’s an emotion that could lead to a policy. Instead, the left takes their solution of having the government brute force it, and associates it directly with that emotion. “No one who works 40 hours a week should live in poverty! So we must raise the minimum wage!” and they never realize how divorced from each other those two statements are. Wanting workers to make more money becomes associated with raising the minimum wage, to the extent that liberals think you can’t be for higher wages if you don’t support an increased minimum wage. “You don’t want to raise the MW? So you’re okay with families living in poverty?”
The statement “No, I’m not. But I also know that the MW is the reason that many people live in poverty, and that raising it will only ensure that ‘the percentage of people who live in poverty’ will only increase.” falls on deaf ears. They literally can’t understand it, because they’ve tied their emotion to their solution.
Leaders on the left did this intentionally, framing themselves as the only possible solution, such that anyone who didn’t support those solutions therefore lacked those emotions: sympathy, namely, often blown up to ridiculously selfless levels. Of course, everything about it is egotistical. The mask of selflessness is absolutely something that they take pride in. So they have pride, I think, and they know what it is–they just take pride in the fact that they don’t take pride. It comes back to that thread we’ve discussed often: trying to abolish the ego is, itself, an act of ego.
The masses are merely tools for this. I was stunned a few years ago when a recently graduated friend informed me of what her student council defined as “leadership.” It was, more or less, “the ability to influence people to support your ideas.” It’s a sort of ultra-cynicism that views people as pawns to be moved around on a chessboard, and those people have taken over the country. Hillary’s snide smirk says it all. And I suspect that Trump actually is somewhat better, because he knows that his business empire is built on the backs of thousands of other people. Yes, he deserves his wealth, but he is not the sole person earning it, and he surely knows that. That’s where the left’s ideology completely breaks down: we don’t need megacorporations and mega-banks, but they absolutely need us.
We don’t need Wal-Mart. Not really. We do right now, because so many of the government’s laws assist Wal-Mart by preventing places like Dollar General from truly rising to that level. We need Microsoft because Intellectual Property prevents Android from making a competitive PC version. Everyone wants what they’re accustomed to, and there is nothing that stagnates competition quite like intellectual property. If Android could throw a start button and windows into their OS and slap it on PC, they’d finish off Microsoft. We both know that a competitor should have risen with Windows 8 and pushed Microsoft out of the market. But they didn’t. Why not? The pieces are all in place: we have new operating systems that work better, are cleaner and more efficient, and we have companies with the money to do it. But it didn’t happen. The Windows 10 debacle is just a new step in Microsoft’s fuck ups, yet they still reign supreme in the PC market. Why? Intellectual property.
So the government has, one by one, fabricated these conditions where we can’t solve our problems ourselves. We can’t solve the problem of Wal-Mart’s reliance upon child labor and Microsoft’s bullshit shenanigans by switching to competitors because there are no competitors, and there are no competitors because the state’s laws prevent competition. And they do this in the misguided idea of “leveling the playing field,” forgetting, apparently, that the universe isn’t fair and that we can’t use laws to make it fair without violating rights. My cover of Metallica’s Call of Ktulu is likely to land me in very hot water at some point in the future, but I will never take it down. It’s more than 10% different from Metallica’s, and it’s obvious that I used their version as a springboard to add my own ideas to it, but it won’t matter. In every sense, I violated their intellectual property. But what is that, really? It is their ownership of me. I picked up my guitar, used my computer, my drumsets, my time and my energy, and I recorded a song. Everything that I used was 100% mine, even the cassette tape that I listened to as a teenager that contained Metallica’s song.
Intellectual property was the mechanism by which we had our property rights stolen from us, usurped by corporations.
More to the point, I recently realized the same thing that you just said, except I don’t think it’s really just a strawman. The only people who are socialists are the people who don’t have, and this is the reason that socialism failed to compete with private property when the hippie communes rose in the 60s and 70s–they couldn’t attract engineers, doctors, physicists, etc. Socialism is for the unskilled and lazy. No one who has their effort rewarded would ever choose to enter into a system where their effort would not be rewarded. Such a system is only attractive to people who are not being rewarded. And while that characterization could actually describe me, I’m smart enough to see the inherent flaw–one day, my various efforts will be rewarded, and, even if not, my own interests simply don’t outweigh the interests of society. Sure, I could benefit from socialism, but the rest of society would stagnate. I guess it’s kinda like my refusal to condemn discrimination and make it illegal. Sure, I’d benefit, but what about other people? Surely they deserve freedom, too?
Socialism is too easy to pick apart for that one fundamentalism reason, and I can’t take any “intellectual” socialists seriously. I think they’re propaganda tools, though they probably believe the bullshit they say. I can understand that, as Matt Slick undoubtedly believes his TAG is sound, but it obviously isn’t.
Mussolini said about democracy that it looks beautiful in theory, but that it’s a disaster in practice, or something to that effect.
Isn’t that pretty much exactly what we’ve been hearing about Trump’s nomination and the Brexit vote?
i’ve been saying for months what continues to be evident, perhaps obvious: Trump is destroying the GOP. I think I said “he’s killed the GOP and something will take it’s place.” I’ve equated it with the death of the Whig Party, which basically ended with and because of slavery, when rifts among Whigs because too deep and wide for any kind of national cooperation to survive. The modern equivalent just might be immigration, although there certainly are many issues that will contribute. The bottom line is a 2 party system in a place as diverse as America is a goddamn travesty. It almost insures nothing of consequence will get done, because even the most liberal party democrat favors what can only be regarded as status quo. That’s why Trump scares them so badly.
I don’t think it’s possible Trump can win, because I don’t believe anyone can win without a party machine. There’s just too much infrastructure. Elections in America aren’t like class president or the homecoming queen. These are some of the largest, most broadly-cooperative networks on the planet – literally. The democratic party in the US can mobilize more resources in a shorter amount of time than the vast majority of countries in the world.
I’m starting to think this may have all been a prank. I’m starting to think Trump has played one big joke…or pulled off the greatest con job in history.
I think Trump and the GOP are the least of the problems these days. Websites being off from free speech in favor of “protected groups” is the biggest problem. Milo knew it was only a matter of time before he was banned. AIU and TNB also know it. And while this makes them retarded for sticking their hands in the oven when they know it’s going to burn them, the obvious divisiveness of having protected groups is something that can’t easily be undone, not when “but look what happened in the past” remains an acceptable argument. Once it’s a given that the idea of reparations is stupid, we might be able to move forward.
I decided a few days ago that I simply have to stop fighting on a few fronts. That won’t be easy, because every part of me wants to weigh in, but I have to be more focused and concentrated in a few areas. My target audience is minuscule.
I’ve stopped predictions about the election. I think Trump can win, but I don’t see how, not without appealing to moral outrage. We bombed Libya a few days ago.
A country that we’re not at war with.
We killed 28 civilians in Syria last week. We killed 100,000 in Iraq. Hilary bears a lot of responsibility for all of this, and she’d definitely continue it.
There’s another way this could go, though: the libertarian party replaces the GOP. It’s not an accident that we have two Republican governors as our nominee, and that I’ve written extensively about why there’s nothing libertarian about Johnson. They’re not angling to promote libertarian ideas. They’re aiming to sacrifice those and become a new liberty-leaning GOP. And it looks like they might be successful. If Romney and Bush endorse Johnson, then libertarian principles will die, and Hillary will certainly be victorious.
Sometimes I think about the reality that one of these two is going to be president. That’s horrifying. Only 9% of Americans picked them. If that’s not an argument for anarchy, then I don’t know what is. 91% of the country had nothing to do with this.
this is what’s horrifying: “banned.”
No doubt. The sentiment that people deserve safe spaces and deserve to be protected is growing, not dying. The reality, though we don’t want to accept it, is that creating online profiles immediately exposes someone and violates their own safe space. This is what happened with the Khan family.
Man, I’ve made some people angry on Quora! Never have I had an answer get this much attention from babies with no comprehension of what I said.
I’ve since stopped arguing the thread. Once I meet someone who drags the topic toward freedom of the press and the Constitution who insists he’s staying on topic, I know to wash my hands of it.
Khan and the dems expected that they couldn’t be criticized because “muh son died, yo”. The bias in questions about it that I’ve been asked to answer… I’ve only answered one more, and only then to call attention to the bias in the question: “Why did Trump criticize the parents of a fallen soldier” or something like that. My first line was “Is this question for real?”
But yeah, it was. My point remains perfectly valid: if I have a child who dies as a soldier, could I then say “Long live David Duke” and no one would be allowed to criticize me?
“But that’s fucked up to say, so yeah, you’d be criticized.”
Great, so we’ve accepted that your indignation isn’t with the fact that Trump “criticized the parents of a fallen soldier,” but that he did so when they were expressing opinions you don’t disagree with. So what we have is you using these people to voice your opinion and wanting them to be inundated against criticism because “muh son died” is a credential if the person agrees with you.
both you and I are pretty analytical. we see things and then we look for their causes and explanations. with that in mind, here’s why clinton will win, and likely pretty solidly:
the single biggest point of confusion for me when I was in sales was how amazingly difficult it was to get customers to change from their current provider (interesting term, given the topic) to a new one, *even though they detested their current provider*. During the sales process (primaries), the emotion was fervent. “Oh my, yes, your option does look great…that’s MUCH better than we’re getting now….wow, I LIKE what you’re saying!”
Then, after all the dogs and ponies have been trotted out, and it was time to put a piece of paper in front of the customer, and it was time for them to put a signature on that line……..they just couldn’t do it.
I saw this over and over and over and over and over, until I accepted it as a fundamental of human behavior: Unless there is a clear and decisive benefit to switching, people will stay with something they know is bad rather than change to something new. This tendency is ALWAYS exaggerated when the NEW thing is in the least bit associated with risk. Humans as a group have a genetic aversion to RISK. A bad sure thing is often preferred over a possibly-good-but-risky alternative.
And the Dems know this. They have always been better at understanding and taking advantage of human psychology. Hell, their entire existence, their raison d’etre, is THAT – emotion, appealing to fear. The irony is that’s what liberals THINK is going on with Trump, and, surely, there is an element of that in ANY and EVERY campaign – me, good. him, bad. BUT, this election is turning on it more than any other we’ve ever seen.
When it comes down to it, Trump is just too risky for Americans. The voters will decide – in the end – that we’ve likely seen Hillary’s worst, and “it ain’t SO bad” (humans are the best rationalizers the universe ever created).
Trump’s a master salesperson, promoter, marketer. He really is. That’s what he does. It’s why he’s a billionaire. But this is one deal he won’t be able to close.
I don’t agree. For most independents, that could certainly be true, but here’s a few details that I would add. The biggest spoiler of independents is Gary Johnson, and he’s drawing primarily from Hillary. So is Jill Stein, who I rather like (just can’t stand her policies), though she’s also proving a safe place for many Sanders supporters.
If we had a different libertarian candidate, things could be different. McAfee would be trolling what little remained of the defeated GOP and Democratic party by now (bit of an exaggeration), because there’s such a seismic shift away from systemic corruption, from both sides of the aisle, and McAfee couldn’t have been accused of that. But without more major endorsements, Johnson just isn’t going to achieve anything, and many republicans are placing loyalty to the party above dislike for Trump, and so they see people like Romney as traitors.
More importantly, has Hilary EVER been in the public eye for any length of time without her approval rating plummeting? Nope. Every time she appears, we remember how much we can’t stand this bitch, and we marvel at the fact that she hasn’t fucked off yet. Unless Assange is an idiot (and he’s proven that he isn’t), he’s got enough material to throw a new controversy at Hillary regularly through to election day. As soon as one dies down, he throws out another. Each time, Hillary’s numbers go down just a bit more. As long as he’s telling the truth about how much content he has (and he’s never lied about this sort of thing before, and I’ve been following wikileaks since the Iraq diplomacy cables), Hillary is done. There’s just too much dirt, and recent leaks have revealed homophobia, racism, and all kinds of shit from top democrats. The left-wing media just is ignoring it, but social media is NOT.
i would need to see the demographics. perhaps social media has more of an impact than i appreciate. i still see a GOP that looks a lot like my grandparents, and they got their news from cbs, nbc, and abc. We know what their “news” looks like.
You’ll hear hard-core numbers people say elections are simple numbers – numbers that can be forecast. thus, elections contain no real surprises. I’ve seen the electoral college forecast over and over, and trump has a problem because the GOP has a problem. No republican is going to change the fact that Dems start with about 247 electoral votes, the GOP about 200. Trump can’t lose either Florida or Ohio. He must have them both. Could the Hispanic vote in Florida mean the difference? Could the Hispanic/Latino vote in general mean the difference? North Carolina is up in the air, as always, and its hispanic population has grown (where hasn’t it grown?) steadily since 2000.
do people vote for party or for people? I could make a case either way. You seem to be focusing on the impetus created by dislike for Hillary personally. will that cause people to stay home or vote differently?
Republicans have struggled with all minority groups, but especially the ever-growing Hispanic segment. Trump kicked that into mega-overdrive. It could be the difference, IMO. Interestingly, hispanics are not especially-motivated voters. Their turnout is less than other groups. But fear is a fantastic motivator – perhaps the best. And what do immigrants fear above ALL THINGS? Immigration “reform,” read: deportation. Talk of walls and shit certainly crystallized a segment of trump’s base, but likely didn’t bring him many new voters. But it absolutely, unequivocally cost him any/all chance of substantially improving the GOP’s standing with latinos.
wow. I came across this comment in a discussion regarding voter segments, demographics, specifically trump’s problem with Latinos. it made an immediate impact:
It is hard to imagine a white woman doing worse than a black man among white voters.
No, it’s not. And THAT may very well be the difference.
The context was comparing possible red/blue state alignment in 2016 with the election of 2008. the author suggests that because Obama won with only 37% of the white male vote, the outlook is good for Hillary. Only, he’s wrong. The average white American male likely MUCH prefers Obama to Hillary.
Just consider the fact that Sanders went even with Hillary while the media mostly ignored him. Or Ron Paul doing so well when the media COMPLETELY ignored him. And insulted him. In fact, the attached is one of my favorite images of the week.
If you’ve never seen Mike Judge’s Office Space, I really think you’d appreciate it. Lumberg… Man.
Johnson climbed to 10% from 5% riding on social media.
Research shows that a person hearing an idea three times from the same person has the same effect as hearing the idea from three different people. It also shows that we assess popularity based on our familiarity. It’s why fans of obscure anime shows think their pet is popular when it obviously isn’t. One of the greatest challenges as a modern human is learning of these psychological vulnerabilities and using that conscious awareness to defend it against them. It’s why I talk of the Dunning-Kruger Effect so often. That, and, once you learn of it, you’ll seriously see it everywhere.
In fact, this election is a wonderful example. The average American has no idea what would be good for the economy, health industry, diplomatic interests, terrorism, whatever. And that’s so obvious that no one will dispute the statement. Everyone knows that the average person knows nothing about any of these things, and everyone accepts that truth.
“Except me, of course. *My* ideas would CLEARLY be best.”
Last night I argued with a guy who called Trump a fascist. When I told him what a fascist is (someone who wants business to merge with the state while the state is revered as supreme), and pointed out that this obviously describes Hillary and Sanders (particularly Sanders) far more than Trump, he said something like “Well, Trump is a pumpkin and racist tyrant.”
The irony of insulting someone based on their skin color while calling them racist was too much for me to take.
He proceeded to talk about how Trump is a fascist, but using different words. Authoritarian, Nazi, etc. None of which are synonyms, of course, but my point is that he didn’t alter his worldview to accommodate the new information. He proceeded as though his position was just as valid as mine.
I helped put Obama into office (delusionally, I mean, since the popular vote doesn’t matter).
But she’s wrong, and I guarantee she’s not white. The average white person voted for Obama BECAUSE he was black, and it was that white guilt in action. Hillary doesn’t have that advantage.
Love Office Space. Gary Cole deserves an oscar for that performance. OMG he captured every sales manager in american business history.
this is a quote from Michael Moore:
listen to Hillary and you behold our very first female president, someone the world respects, someone who is whip-smart and cares about kids, who will continue the Obama legacy
“…someone the world respects….”
when someone with his visibility is THAT delusional, what are the chances of sanity ever prevailing. I mean, really…..
I’ve made no secret of the fact that I strongly dislike Gary Johnson and strongly disapprove of the “Libertarian” Party’s choice to nominate him (again) for President, just as I strongly disapprove of the direction that the libertarian party has taken in recent years. It is increasingly the party of classical liberals and liberty-leaning Republicans, and I know a lot of “libertarians” who support Rand Paul and wanted him to be Gary Johnson’s Vice President.
I mean… What do you even say? What do you even say to people who claim to be libertarians without knowing the first thing about libertarianism?
Libertarianism: What is it?
Libertarianism is the political ideology that liberty is the best method of solving almost all problems, and that force, violence, and coercion are only acceptable to defend liberty and as a response to force, violence, and coercion. Force, violence, and coercion are the only way that rights can be violated; in fact, force, violence, and coercion instantly and by definition violate the rights of the person who is a victim of force, violence, and coercion. Libertarianism is the ideology that the state should exist only to protect liberty, and should only use force, violence, and coercion to protect liberty. I go one step further and am an anarchist, because I don’t believe that the state can protect liberty, and I hold that its very existence is counter to liberty. Anarchism aside, there is no ambiguity in this platform, and a libertarian’s position on any given matter should be easy to guess.
Does the issue utilize force, violence, and/or coercion?
If yes, then the libertarian rejects it. If no, then the libertarian doesn’t give a shit about it.
It’s really that simple.
There’s no room for disagreement on this matter or that issue, because force, violence, and coercion (collectively: aggression) can always be demonstrated, and must always be rejected. In fact, to even join the Libertarian Party, one is required to sign what is basically the Non-Aggression Pact:
I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.
Recent years have seen an influx of disaffected Republicans and liberty-leaning conservatives who do not understand that the Libertarian Party is built from principles, not ideas, and there is a difference. The Republican Party is a party of ideas, a party where issues and solutions can be discussed, suggested, picked apart, accepted, and rejected. The Democrat Party is a party of ideas, where issues and solutions can be discussed, suggested, picked apart, accepted, and rejected. But the Libertarian Party is a party of principles, and those principles are set in stone. They are not up for discussion, and they cannot be put up for discussion without violating the very core of the libertarian party: that force, violence, and coercion are not acceptable.
Take the question of marijuana, for example. Should it be illegal, should it be legal? Some people within the Libertarian Party would discuss this and have a debate about it, and that’s nonsense, because the question has already failed at the first hurdle. Does possession or usage of marijuana entail force, violence, and coercion? No. Everything else is completely irrelevant, and the government has no right to weigh in on the subject. Prostitution is another area that “libertarians” are debating. Should it be legal? Should it be illegal? Should it be legal, but regulated? Again, this is a discussion that is not warranted under libertarian principles, as prostitution (when taken out of the black market, obviously) does not involve force, violence, or coercion, and the state therefore has no right to weigh in on it.
Gary Johnson is against the notion of religious freedom and wholly rejects the idea that businesses should be allowed to discriminate on religious grounds. Gary Johnson fails to realize that saying “I don’t want to do business with you or people like you” in no way, shape, or form involves aggression, and thus the government has no right to weigh in on the matter. This is just one of many areas where Gary Johnson abides libertarian principles until they’re no longer convenient and easy, at which point he rejects them in favor of his own ideas. Because he thinks discrimination is really, really, really wrong, he is okay with the government legislating against it, even though it involves no violation of anyone’s rights, and thus he has his own morality that guides him in deciding when to apply libertarian principles and when not to.
In effect, Gary Johnson wants to legislate his morality. Unless he doesn’t care about the behavior, in which case, “No, he’s a libertarian.” But if he dislikes the behavior, then he’s every bit as authoritarian as the people who banned sodomy.
Johnson’s pledge would be:
I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals… as long as the goal isn’t “to end discrimination.”
I have to blame Ron Paul for all the “new” libertarians who don’t know the first thing about libertarianism, though that isn’t Ron Paul’s fault. These people were brought into the folds of liberty by Ron Paul (as was I), but they stopped with Ron Paul and assumed that he was Mr. Libertarian. They may not have ever even read any of Ron’s books. They certainly never read Mises, Rothbard, Nock, or Hayek. Their understanding of libertarianism comes from Ron Paul, and so that’s what they think a libertarian is.
Ron himself would tell you that he’s a classical liberal, though, and he explicitly wrote that in Liberty Defined. There’s a reason that Ron Paul only ran for President as a Libertarian once, and that was nearly three decades ago. I’m not knocking the guy–no one loves Ron Paul as much as I do. He was the guy who introduced me to liberty, after all. I’d also vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat, even though I disagree with him on a few things just as much as I agree with Johnson. There are more areas where I disagree with Johnson, and…
That should be a pretty big indicator of how bad Gary Johnson is. Republican Ron Paul is more libertarian than the current Libertarian Party Presidential candidate. Worse still, Gary Johnson is only marginally more of a libertarian than Rand Paul. Rand Paul. The guy who slightly leans toward liberty but is otherwise a Republican to the core. Does anyone out there really think that Rand Paul is a libertarian? Does anyone out there who knows what libertarianism is really think that Rand Paul is a libertarian?
I just answered my own question, didn’t I?
The more people understand liberty and libertarianism, the more glaringly obvious it is that neither Rand Paul nor Gary Johnson deserve the label. Ron Paul deserves the label far more than either of these two, and Ron Paul refused to accept the label. Granted, he has become more libertarian since his retirement, and he has always been a champion of liberty and libertarianism. The same cannot be said of Johnson and Rand.
But Johnson is Bringing In New People!
Yeah, and I addressed that in my podcast.
The problem is that these “new people” brought in by Johnson who think that libertarian means “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” not only outnumber us (obviously) but also pick the presidential nominee. Do you see the problem? Johnson brings in people like him who have no idea what a libertarian even is, and they nominate more people like Johnson. When people like me point out that there’s nothing libertarian about any of these people, we’re told to shut up, that we don’t know what we’re talking about, that we just don’t want the party to be successful, that we need to fall in line, and that they are what a “true libertarian” looks like, while we’re just spiteful.
Johnson literally stole the Libertarian Party right out from under us, and these endorsements he is getting by big-name Republicans is not going to help matters, and neither is the influx of more disaffected Republicans who hate Donald Trump. I think it’s great that the party is growing. But as it grows, the education must also grow, or the LP will just become the GOP. It’s already happening, after all. Look at our presidential nominee and the endorsements he is getting. With libertarian principles slain on the altar of mass appeal, what, exactly, distinguishes the Libertarian Party from a party of unhappy liberty-leaning Republicans?
These people must be made to understand that they have no idea what they’re talking about, and that Gary Johnson is not Mr. Libertarian. They don’t have time to read Anatomy of the State, End the Fed, Human Action, The Road to Serfdom, On Intellectual Property, and whatever else? Fine. That means it’s our job to educate them. And I don’t think any of us mind that.
The problem is that they aren’t willing to listen, because they think they know what libertarian means, and it means “fiscally conservative, socially liberal.” They think it means “Basically like Ron Paul” and “Basically like Gary Johnson” and our bemused head-shaking does nothing to reach them.
So what, in a sentence, is my issue with Gary Johnson?
Gary Johnson has made me a heretic to my own party.
And let’s not even get into the fact that he claims to be a champion of the Fourth Amendment, and wants to let in Syrian refugees–except that he wants to spy on them and monitor them based on their religious beliefs and their nation of origin, even though he has no probable cause or justification or warrant! How can this guy claim to be a defender of the Fourth Amendment?
“I defend the Fourth Amendment sometimes,” is what you mean to say, Johnson. “As long as you’re not a Muslim from Syria.”
That’s the exact mentality that gave us the Patriot Act! And you dare claim to be a libertarian? This is exactly the sort of “I’m a libertarian… unless I’m not” crap that Johnson is notorious for. One either supports the Fourth Amendment or one doesn’t. Gary Johnson wants to have it both ways. Either people have the right to privacy without being spied upon by the government until they’ve demonstrated probable cause and the state has gotten a warrant, or people don’t have that right. Gary Johnson, however, would say “People have that right, unless I think they shouldn’t.” That is not a libertarian position. And, again, by what hidden criteria does he use to determine when people should be protected by the Bill of Rights and when they shouldn’t be?
That is how badly statism has conquered the world. Even the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate uses a non-principled metric to determine who gets rights and who doesn’t.
Libertarians, I implore you: kick Gary Johnson and his ilk from the party. If he was willing to learn, that would be one thing. But he has demonstrated that he is not. He has had this glaring contradiction (“I believe in the Fourth Amendment, unless you’re a Muslim refugee from Syria”) brought to his attention, and he waves it away. He knows that he is not following libertarian principles. Why are we still discussing this “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” clown? Kick him from the party and nominate an actual libertarian. Kick Austin Petersen while you’re at it, because he openly says that the Non-Aggression Pact is stupid. That’s the VERY BASIS of the party!
What is going on? Kick these people out until they’re willing to follow the principles. The GOP and Democratic Party are what happens when you let people in who don’t give a duck-squatting shit about the principles.
President Obama has added North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to a U.S. sanctions list, and cited human rights abuses as justification. Of course, this caused the retarded dipshit in North Korea to start blustering, and they’re saying that they view it as an act of war, but I don’t really care about that. Realistically, he’s not wrong, and Ron Paul pointed this out years ago: sanctions are not an alternative to war. They are a prelude to war.
Anyway, what strikes me as amazing as that this is quite clearly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I don’t know if Mr. Obama has noticed, but he has quite a lot of blood on his hands. In fact, I would wager that Obama has more blood on his hands… than Kim Jong Un has. We know that Obama has personally ordered airstrikes that killed as many as 64 people, and the figure as of July 1 was 64 to 116, but most other governments (read: not the Obama Administration) place the number much higher, at around 900. I don’t know about you, but I don’t expect the Obama Administration to tell us the truth about how many civilians it has killed.
Some people say this makes me paranoid. I say that makes them stupid.
We have Obama saying “No, look, I only killed like 116 people, tops.”
Then we have other governments saying, “No, he killed more like 900 people.”
Are you seriously so naive that you think Obama is likeliest to be telling the truth here?
“Casualties,” they call them, as though there is something casual about the unjust murder of 28 people, a crime for which Obama will never be held to account. Let’s take a moment to remember and appreciate the fact that Barack Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize. The man who authorized a drone strike that killed 28 civilians in an area that we had killed civilians in the week before–that man has a Nobel Peace Prize. The man who authorized a drone strike at a wedding that killed 12 civilians in Afghanistan–that man has a Nobel Peace Prize.
If the Nobel committee cannot retract its prizes, then this should serve as a stern reminder that they should never give out Peace Prizes in anticipation based on what they think someone will do. I was an Obama supporter in early 2009, but the only promise he kept was to end torture; he didn’t fulfill any of his other promises, and thus I stopped supporting him. When he received the Nobel Peace Prize, I was still a supporter, but even I was shocked and embarrassed that it had been given to him. It was such a transparent and gross political statement, and now look what we have. The man who is responsible for the murder of 28 innocent people… has a Nobel Peace Prize adorning his mantle.
Today’s family members of civilian “casualties” are tomorrow’s terrorists.
Women and children were just murdered in Syria by American bombs guided by American aircraft piloted by Americans, and the attack was authorized by the President of the United States. Whatever delusions people harbor that allow them to persist in their insane belief that we have some sort of moral high ground must be fully jerked out from under their feet.
I would not ever make the foolish and false argument that “we” are the government and thus “we” are responsible for what Obama and his military have done, but it is time that we took a serious look at examining our Commander-in-Chief and impeaching him. If this was an attack that killed 28 Americans, how would we react?
Not nearly as kindly, I think, and Republicans would be screaming impeachment. Yet because they’re not Americans, we’re not going to hold our President to the same high standard, and that’s messed up. These were people, human beings, innocent men, women, and children. They are now dead, and they are dead by our President’s hands.
It is not fearmongering to say that Hillary would be even more liberal with authorizing drone strikes than Obama; Hillary is a well-known hawk when it comes to foreign policy, and I would urge anyone who supports her to take a look at what she and Bill did to Haiti, Sudan, and Rwanda. Neither Trump nor Hillary will solve this problem in any way that would satisfy a just and compassionate heart.
All I want… is for the United States to stop murdering people.
People are so fixated on things happening within the United States. Black Lives Matter, All Lives Matter, feminism, wage gaps, education costs, health care, immigration, unemployment, inflation, racism, police brutality… And I’m as guilty as anyone. Most of my content in the past three months has been directed largely at one of these issues.
Part of the problem is that our media doesn’t spend much time talking about the civilians left murdered by American bombs. The murder of innocent people has just become… a casual matter. Our media will tell us about it, and the headlines will have the front page for a few minutes, but then Trump will tweet something, Kim Kardashian will set a wine glass on her fat ass, or police will shoot someone, and everything will get pushed to the side as the new story is brought to the front. The story of the 28 dead civilians is pushed into the background, and no one hears about it.
28 people had their lives mercilessly, brutally, inhumanely, viciously, and barbarically cut short by the United States, its military, its drones, its bombs, and its President.
That is a statement that should not be pushed from our minds by something trivial.
The murder of 28 innocent people should be the primary factor when people determine for whom they will vote, and they should all look at the matter objectively, accept the facts, and be honest with themselves. After all, lives are on the lines. Lots of them.
And the truth is that Trump is unlikely to be very restrained with the drone strikes. Trump would surely be more liberal with the attacks than Obama, but probably attack less frequently than Hillary. Between Hillary and Trump, Hillary is by a wide berth the most hawkish. Trump is no non-interventionist, but he does have some non-interventionist policy running through him, and it comes out on occasion.
I can’t say that I would trust Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate, on foreign policy matters, either. The official Libertarian answer to Isis is not a particularly good one–“Leave them alone and stop bombing the Middle East” is essentially the Libertarian Party’s position on the matter, and that’s not really applicable to this situation. Isis is not Al-Queda, and treating them as though they are will leave us weaker. Al-Queda was a rebel group resisting foreign occupation and using religion as a front. Isis is a religious group; Islam is more than a front to them, and it is their primary motivator.
To be honest, the only one who I’d really trust (other than McAfee) to handle Isis would be Jill Stein. This is because of her character, and not because of any particular policy. Alas, however, a candidate like that doesn’t exist.
Trump and Hillary are our de facto choices.
Let the oceans boil red with the blood of the innocent.