I agree philosophically, but you do not address two things:
1. there are no free and fair elections in this country
2. the other major party is just as bad and just as captured
the former is, to be sure, an issue but we can push back on it with ends to unsupervised mail in and more citizen supervision. ultimately, this should be verifiable and electronic using some sort of 2 sided system (possibly blockchain) that allows votes to be indelibly and verifiably cast only by those with permission.
the second, however, is half the topic of the piece. i explicitly state that you cannot trust donkey or elephant or the puppet show of issues over which they purport to fight. i'm therefore sort of confused that you see this as an unaddressed issue when it was a full blown central point.
i might recommend that you read this again with a bit more care.
this is the whole underpinning of why i advocate one issue voting and one and only one question:
“what will you do to reduce the federal bureaucracy and free us from its yoke?”
But gato, time after time people vote for individual candidates who talk the right talk, only to find that that candidate, once elected, is quickly captured, or if not, is unable to make any headway against an entrenched system. Sure, we can say "don't vote for the party, but the candidate," yet the results are ALWAYS negative.
which, again, is why you need to stop paying attention to that puppet show and become a one issue voter on dismantling the technocratic levers of power and why we need to vote for this en masse and especially for president.
get a president determined to cull the federal agencies (and who knows how) and you could make A LOT of headway.
trump was a terrible failure in this regard. he fed the beast handsomely instead of starving it.
In Trump’s defense (I am no longer a supporter after his handling of abdication of all things WuFlu & “vaccines”), while I agree he put spending on steroids, he did get us out of WHO, the Paris Climate Accord, Iranian nuke deal & forced NATO members to kick in more for their own defense. He made us energy independent, raised all boats economically, tried to build the wall & had the remain-in-Mexico deal, no wars, baby step peace in the Middle East, & more. But he was in a constant battle w/ the left, media, tech, swamp, et al. He was never afforded the honeymoon period all presidents had been granted before. For all of his faults, he was absolutely America & Americans first. When I think of how much more he could’ve done if he hadn’t been piled on w/ all of that.... I do not want him to run. I want DeSantis, not because he’s in one of the 2 parties but because on virtually every corrupt, left-loon policy or idea, he stands up & says none of that is going through on his watch. I think he could do a lot (maybe) w/defanging the bureaucracy
Let’s see.... what crisis could develop that would force a a POTUS to rely entirely on the advise and expertise of government officials , have to trust them to be truthful and trust them of course to “do no (unnecessary) harm”? Can you imagine if Trump had just said “ No shutdown, the economic and possibly personal consequences could be too severe” ??? The media ( oh and now he thinks he’s a Doctor/Scientist) and Democrats would have had him charged with mass murder in 24. It’s the main reason I entertain arcane theories about COVID and the on going stone walling and censoring of any contrary theories confirm my skepticism. 🤷♀️🤷♀️🤷♀️
To what end though? Trump got us out of some stuff, culled a bit, but as soon as he's out of power, the next dude undoes it all. We don't need a curating of the swamp (like Trump gave us) but a slash and burn.
I don’t disagree, AM. It’s whiplash every 2 & 4 years w/ a changing of corrupt & less corrupt guards. Trump had the 1st 2 years of Repub congress & THEY fought him & prevented some of his stuff. What would slash & burn look like?
It would be good if this could happen all at once. But, maybe it cannot. Vote for only those who agree with this plan. If they waver, get rid of them. We need to build a group of like minded recruits. There are so many of us on the government dole in one way or another now that this is a mighty task.
DeSantis is more of an experienced politician than Trump was. However, he will also be constantly attacked by the rabid left, the media, tech and the swamp. The question is how long he can continue to fight back against an overwhelming wall of opposition and resist them, or will they block him at every turn forcing him to capitulate to them much like Trump did in order to get anything at all done.
I’m afraid people hang on to Trump out of a habit of binary thinking. “I idolize Trump simply because I so dislike the other party”. Come
on people, surely we deserve better than a dysfunctional clown persona like him. When you have to list things that he did well you are making excuses for a bad choice simply because you think it’s less bad than the other choice, whatever you imagine it to be, or because you lack the imagination to envision something much better. It’s time to respect ourselves and the country enough to demand good choices, not just the lesser of evils. The US is acting like a battered wife, defending the wrongdoer out of fear and a lack of familiarity with the idea of good.
From one Pollyanna to another...that ain’t gonna happen. And at this point, other than his hard core base, I don’t think anyone idolizes Trump.... but since he’s been run out of town , his accusations and assessments of corruption and duplicitous “plots” have and are continuing to be proven true. Now if the media would actually report truthfully on the state of American people longing for something better.... but they don’t. Especially their total disregard for the poor, lower class, homeless, veterans, drug crisis, etc. I don’t disagree with you, I just don’t see how we break the stranglehold control the msm has on the population
I’m fearful as well, but at least their popularity is way down. I suspect that a lot of people have a feeling that something is wrong, but are scared to speak out, for fear that they will be in the minority (especially in blue areas). Maybe, just maybe (hanging onto a thread of hope here) there’s a critical mass at which the fearful and deluded feel brave enough to open both their eyes and their mouths. 
I said I do not want him to run & Im not at all hanging on or making excuses. Do you deny that all of those were good for the country? I’d take America circa 2019 over the hell we’ve been in since 2021.
I noticed that you said that, and I was commenting on ppl in general. I don’t deny that some of the things he did were positive. My point is that we deserve SO MUCH BETTER than a dysfunctional narcissist who “gets some things right”. Just because the successor is even worse Trump didn’t suddenly become a worthy leader of the free world.
Agree, but I think you have to be a narcissist and egomaniac if you want to make major changes. Kinda " catch 22" eh? If you don't believe in yourself, who will? De Santis has a little time to develop and learn. Trump didn't really have that luxury!!
The lesser of two evils is what has gotten us into this mess over and over again. The lesser of two evils is the lie that perpetuates the partisanship that creates the swamp that gives the Beast its place to hide. As far as Mr. Trump my feelings are that they failed to control him with bribes or threats, which puts him in the top 1% of leaders. But in the end they just tricked him.
In the US, reference ballotpedia.org -- search for your state and read through all information for candidates, as well as ballot initiatives (local news and MSM has failed at informing about initiatives). Active candidates may provide information, from survey results (Ballotpedia's questions) to providing links to public and private social media pages.
Somewhat fortunately, a lot of the third party candidates in my state this year are candidates I can support. I'm not optimistic about their chances of winning, but at least I can vote *for* someone and not against, thanks to doing some research.
Also, check out past candidate information on Ballotpedia. In one case, I'll be writing in a third-party candidate who has campaigned in previous elections, but is not running this year.
And yet, look how scared they were of him for his daring to reevaluate and look to change SOME of their regime. They do not take this sort of thing lightly.
Whoever takes on this role needs to be beyond brave and somehow beyond the manipulation of those who finally found the Achilles heel of Trump.
Excellent. Yes and amen....speaking of amen, what needs to be addressed is the spiritual. We in the west are suffering a deep spiritual malaise, which is part and parcel of this decline....And not solved by voting.
I agree. This missing foundation is fundamental to meaningful change and growth in our systems on the planet.
I also feel as Napoleon does. And I wonder... lots of things. Few of my imagined precedent situations before a great consciousness shift occurs are pretty.
I’ve started to think dire is what it will take. Sad. But that is ego.
I don’t know if you guys are into Energy Is Everything / Everything is Energy? Thoughts included. (Quantum physics. The new science behind ancient truths re laws of nature and the universe. Fascinating. The mathematics is beyond me and it’s hard to wrap my head around English language explanations. But occasionally a “portal”(?) in my waking consciousness will open and an insight into something seemingly simple will be illuminated and clear. Unfortunately, almost as quickly clarity becomes obscured once more as the opening slams shut darn it!)
Anyway, an experiment for you, a quickie that meshes with both my waking consciousness and that part of my consciousness that is everything, one, everlasting and ineffable. If it works for you in a similar way or another beneficial way, great! If not, discard and move on.
A 10-second to one minute “meditation”. Longer if you wish. Picture mother earth 🌍 surrounded by and penetrated to her core with brilliant golden white light. That’s it.
The point: Light. The antithesis of dark. High vibration energy flooding the planet to counter the dark forces/low vibration energies. (Let’s face it, we know it’s/they’re here. Seen any attempts at stirring and sustaining fear recently? Mm hm.)
If’n it feels right, pass it on. It’s so simple. Imagine if 2 billion people (more!) did this quickie multiple times throughout their day. !!!
Open to ideas and discussion. Probably off this board. Lmk.
The tides are changing, Napoleon. Many sense a revival of traditional values including religion. So you might have been a crazy loon a few years back, but not now.
After Wokeism dies (which it will), people will be looking for something real that give their life meaning.
Replied to @Aaron Ferguson on this thread. Not sure you get thread breakout update notification? You might be interested in the mini meditation? See post.
I think Linda is saying (point 2) that neither candidate is going to support your desired goal. There was no mention or plan for finding/recruiting viable candidates. I suspect citizens will need to step in, and run for office themselves (as Independents) at state and local levels.
I would add that re “the other party”...that they are not quite so lacking in common sense as the party that currently is succeeding at taking our rights away and fashioning the country into a bureaucratic gulag of “ we know best and you will be happy, even though that involves a lot of misery.” It’s why the majority of Independents migrate towards the party that doesn’t scold Independents...
It is a rare politician that wants to take on a truly "Constitutional" outlook on the government because it involves voting themselves out of power, and not many politicians are into that. What they should be doing is spending most of their time vetoing and rolling back laws rather than being "lawmakers." The irony is that the one job that government should be able to handle is making sure free enterprise remains unregulated in such a way as to allow max competition between businesses so we can all benefit from innovation and moving forward.
I won't touch election integrity, aside from saying that it's hard to believe Biden had more votes than Barack Obama, even factoring in Trump Derangement Syndrome. The fact that any questioning of the premise behind what is called the "Big LIe" is telling all by itself.
El Gato Malo did call the fight between the major parties as a "puppet show." What I think he was getting at is that we need to make it clear that whoever we vote for has to know that draining the swamp is very important. The swamp is the standing water that is the deep state,and dismantling it, the bloatware of government, is their primary job.
I share with you a sense of helplessness concerning our system. The officials voted in and out of office are far from effective at this. We need to run a relay race, on this, and need a lineup of officials willing to do the work over the long game of dismantling and keep dismantled these huge unwieldy mechanisms of government. We have managed to create a vast unelected state that is evergreen and functions in spite of the illusion of a democratic republic.
This is the trunk / ear / leg / belly / tail / small part of the elephant in the room. The Fed is a child of the bankers / families who have run the world with impunity for hundreds of years. My understanding is that the BIS is the institution that needs to be blown apart. Until that happens no election, selection, appointment or other political, financial or corporate office (facism defined, yeah?) will remain untouched by this influence. I don’t have the answer on how to accomplish this. If this is not the peak of the pyramid I suspect it is ever so close. As with blindness regarding this ongoing medical farce people/s need to learn the truth. First step. Heavens this process is achingly slow. Crazy optimist in me trusts that somehow, we’ll get it done. Triple tin foil hat stuff: I hear there are White Hats working from the inside. Deep inside. No details, all hearsay. I’ll gladly direct the Light of God their way though, Amen. Who the heck knows??
Bank of International Settlements, the central bank of all the central banks. The granddaddy of control mechanisms. The US could dismantle the Federal Reserve but I suspect a moot exercise because the tentacles of the upper tier institution penetrate so deeply. I don’t have an inside look, only an aerial view of the framework. I’m going to sound like a nut job but it almost feels like there needs to be some higher order intervention to get the system -multiple systems- on a humanity-supportive track. The cabal has no such interest. Apart from our numbers, 7+ Bn, they hold the controlling cards - every system infiltrated/captured. ?? No easy answers. No definitive answers here for sure! I send God-light to the planet 🌎 in the mind’s eye. Thought energy is a thing. Quantum. Light vs dark - and these f’ers are *dark*. Can’t hurt is how I see it!
To be a single issue voter in a two party system feels a bit meaningless, even though I don't doubt it's the best way to go.
Same donors, general consensus on many issues and time and time again anyone can see that little changes.
The big benefit Republicans have currently is that they are in opposition. So they get to point out more clearly what is broken and wrong. Whereas the democrats have to pretend things are going well, that we can trust them.
It's not like the Republicans don't receive the same funding or are emmeshed in the same corrupt system.
1. There *are* many "free and fair" elections in this country in the sense that the majority elects its candidate. But not all, not by a long shot, and not in the sense that the "final" vote count is the true one, since vote fraud is rampant and almost never punished in any way, let alone as the attempted or actual coup d'etat it is (which should deterred with hard prison time or the death penalty). "Free and fair" ones as described above include those so lopsided, watched & defended that they're in the traitors' interest not to steal. Too obvious, blows their ability to steal elections.
2. The other major party is *not* just as bad as the DemComs, and it *can* be captured IF people stop making & promoting demoralizing psyops and self-serving excuses for apathy, for doing nothing, for refusing to sacrifice, volunteer, organize and donate to save the USA. Same story for Tiger Talkers (often agent provocateurs) who yap about how "the ballot box failed so now it's time the bullet box". Another excuse to do nothing and shirk the duty of citizens to sacrifice. Those who are not agents have usually never really lifted a finger or donate a penny to save the USA.
1. The problem is that there is the perception of "one version of reality." What do you do when media, the entertainment industry, the education system, and what is perceived as "reality" is hijacked by the side that says the elections are "free and fair." As I am now often repeating, you can tell it's propaganda because there is a mantra associated with it "Safe and effective" "Free and Fair" "Stay home/Stay Safe." If something is governed by the truth, you don't need a mantra surrounding it. If I hear those things, I almost feel like adopting a "zombie-like" stance and saying things like "Milk, it does a body good" and "McDonalds, because you deserve a break today."
2. At the same time while Republicans are not as bad as Dems, how much are they really helping? This is like saying that Coca Cola Light isn't as bad as Coca Cola, yet both contain sugar. I am sure the diabetic would be happy to know his leg won't get amputated quite as quickly.
What do you define as "lifting a finger, sacrificing, or donating to serve the USA?" I wish Rand Paul lived in my district, as I would spend time and effort supporting him. But what about my senators and officials here in Georgia? Our governor here has been a big disappointment, he talked out of both sides of his mouth during Covid in order to placate both sides of the issue. I know that the pro Covid regulation people could not have been happy with him as it allowed many us unmasked and unvaccinated to continue in life without restriction or obstacle unless we wanted healthcare or an Uber Ride. And I am certainly not happy with Kemp saying "You don't have to wear a mask, but if you do, here is the correct way to do it." If I was governor, I would have placed the mask firmly on my head or worn it as a goté under my chin.
While "NOT" as bad, is better than BAD, shouldn't we be setting our sights much higher?
My question is, what do the Republicans offer? Less Tyranny? I agree that there has to be a reality-based solution to this. The libertarian ideal of no government is not realistic and I doubt many libertarians believe it anyhow, but there has to be a realistic version o this that is "At little government as possible." Certainly the idea that the people in government as public servants and not government overlords that believe they know better than you what is best for you, would be a step in the right direction.
One of the many problems with government is that when they do hand out entitlements, they get the mistaken impression that they know best who the recipients should be. THEY DO NOT.
As I said, clearly not all elections are "free and fair" in an honest sense. Not even close. Many are free and fair ENOUGH in the sense I've discussed.
Referring to Republicans as THEY, as if they're all in on the game, serves as a common excuse and rationalization for doing nothing, evades responsibility for failing to lift a pinky in primary elections to determine WHO "THEY" ARE.
"If only so an so lived in my district/state" is an invalid excuse used by many for not donating to candidates they trust & believe in. Any citizen in any district or state can donate to any federal candidate in any other district or state. And since they vote on issues that affect all states, electing them, or even just forcing the enemy to outspend us 10-1 and divert money that could've been used to elect other traitors is as critical to your liberty as donating to a good federal candidate who reps your district. This is even true for state candidates in other states, since they have indirect power over federal elections through redistricting, stopping theft of federal elections etc.
The problem is that once "free and fair" is called into question, it really doesn't matter "how much." This is like "mostly peaceful protests" while you see buildings being burned to the ground.
I don't think people on here think of Republicans as "they" but rather politicians as "they." You can tell a person is a "they" when "they" are coercing you to do something. While this can be an excuse, it can also be a frustration that invites invention. All I know is I had close family members come visit me back in April and both were wearing masks, and my private residence does not have any mask related mandates associated with it.
Politicians have been making unconstitutional laws and have yet to be held accountable for it. This needs to stop. The ballot box is not working, as every time new candidates are brought into office, very often they either do nothing, or enact more unconstitutional laws, or we have politicians that completely ignore the Constitution and go the executive order or other loophole route to enact more unconstitutional laws.
I am willing to vote for any candidate regardless of party who votes "LESS IS MORE" in terms of government. But I am of the belief that we can do more. I think throwing money at the issue is a rationalization not to do something more substantial. Really, what I could do is volunteer for a candidate if I feel strongly about it, or I could write a blog, or comment on posts about it, but money, in my opinion, is really not that effective. Right now in Georgia I Stacy Abrams has a ton of money backing from Hollywood. But no amount of funding is going to make me vote in Crazy.
The problem with your idea about voting in a candidate in a region that I am not part of is that our federalism government is not built to be like that. It is meant to be broken down into smaller regions to accommodate the population of hat given region. Who am I to say what is better for your area of the world? Do I know you? Imagine the hubris! The one exception to that is for politicians who think exactly in this manner. If you have a list and their voting record, I'll be glad to look at it.
Finally, your assertion is the problem. The Federal government needs to be decentralized, and dismantled. If you can show me where these candidates intend that, then I am behind them.
Also, it is a very real criticism of government that a lot of what is enacted is by unelected bureaucrats.
I suppose that money is a big deal for the masses that are easily swayed by mantras and campaign ads, but I don't care how much money you sink into a PSA that tells me vaccination is the perfect response to a hurricane natural disaster, I think your crazy.
I think there is a better answer than throwing money at the problem because we see so often in government how throwing money at the problem rarely does anything good. They keep throwing money at education, has that made the education system any better?
"The problem with your idea about voting in a candidate in a region that I am not part of is that our federalism government is not built to be like that. It is meant to be broken down into smaller regions to accommodate the population of hat given region. Who am I to say what is better for your area of the world?"
My idea? How is it my idea? That's what the federal government IS and always has been. Reps don't only vote on issues affecting the states they live in. Those that do are called STATE reps. Federal reps vote on issues that affect YOU whether you like it or not. That's called REALITY. Pretending they don't doesn't change it. If you don't think people should help good out-of-state candidates, you're shooting yourself and the rest of us in the foot.
Don't like it, want to change it, voting L will never do it. All that does is spoil races and elect even worse candidates - communists. Perhaps you think a RINO or conservative that doesn't keep all his promises is just as bad as a communist. If so, crack a history book.
Voluntarism is terrific. It's a good example of "sacrifice". Time = money. Have you ever done it?
But the notion that good candidates don't need money, just volunteers, that money makes no difference, reveals a lack of experience with campaigns and how things really work. A good candidate doesn't need to match the spending of a communist, but they need SOME funding. I've seen candidates like Dave Brat beat entrenched RINOs with a relatively small warchest, some of which I donated, but he did HAVE a warchest. In Arizona, Blake Masters is being outspent 8-1 by commies and RINOs, and he may beat the commie anyway, barely, but he HAS a warchest, probably $10 million by now. There's a reason so money goes into campaigns; it's necessary and it works.
You keep excusing things by asserting that's the way they are and have been. Then, sadly, the government has always been unconstitutional?
Just because reps vote on issues affecting not only the states they live in, does not mean they should, or that such a thing is constitutional. I certainly would not want California politicians voting on things that won't fly down her in Georgia and vice versa. Isn't it very clear after three years that one-size-fits-all is clumsy and a horrible way to run a country the size and scope as ours? Wouldn't more autonomy broken up into smaller areas and regions be better than more central control?
While federal reps do vote on issues that affect me whether I like it or not, and that is reality, that doesn't mean it is true. There are a lot of things in this life that are real but predicated on falsehood. I can say repeatedly that the vaccine is safe and effective..and that mantra is real, but it is not true. That more people adopt the idea that it is, also is not true. Truth has no bearing on the amount of people who believe it.
The problem here is misinterpreting reality as true. But I understand your world view, and that you want to use ad hominem attacks who do not believe as you do. I will accept the moniker of ignorant and a wishful thinker, and you can safely discard whatever it is I have to say based on it.
I noticed how you didn't engage with the definitions of the word "libertarian" and notice the dichotomy of what the "reality" of libertarian party is.
I'm not excusing that. You seem to think noticing reality is excusing it. Lay off the strawman arguments. I'm busy. Show me where the Libertarian party platform and some actual party candidates who reject numerically unlimited immigration. Till then Adios.
Except it's not a strawman argument. A strawman argument is a distortion of the extreme version of itself. Throughout this discussion your answer has been that "this is what is going on" as a way of discarding it. In this case, it is the libertarian party. Although the Libertarian party has been traditionally taken over by the left wing which could very well lead to social/globalism, that isn't what it means to be a libertarian. At the very heart of libertarian view (at least in principle) is the individual property owner and their ability to conduct trade with other individual property owners.
The mises caucus does not support unlimited immigration. They speak rather that those who are into violent crimes and are bad actors should not be allowed to come into our country. But if they are here peacefully they should be allowed to come here. That doesn't sound unlimited to me. In fact, the libertarian policy is to make it easier for immigrants to come into this country, this is something I agree with. We should not make immigration so difficult and expensive so as to motivate citizens from other countries to come here illegally.
I went through the mises material on immigration and the ultimate goal is as much open borders as possible, but the arguments and discussions proposed show realistic incremental thinking, and an admission that there should be some form of vetting going on, but they would rather it be in the form of competition in, at least one form, an Ellis Island type strategy.
You are not excusing it, but you are in your way, seeing the way the libertarian party has been during your time familiar with it to make broad judgments based upon it, and that is a perfectly valid tact to take. The problem I have is that it is not exercised the same way in regards to your position as well.
I wish there was a document that contained a summary of all the libertarian candidates and their specific views on immigration and other issues. What I can assert is that from what I know of and have read of Mises candidates, they are definitely not into globalization and socialism, nor do they adhere to an unrealistic ideal of complete open borders in the same way they would not be for removing doors on their own houses and inviting anyone in for a perpetual open house.
This is not double-talk, you said in your comment, "Show me where the Libertarian party platform and some actual party candidates who reject numerically unlimited immigration. Till then Adios." I was responding to that statement.
To speak in plainer English, if you go through the different libertarian candidates and notice which ones are Mises Caucus members, they are not for "numerically unlimited immigration."
No one ever stated you were for "unlimited immigration, what, if anything, in my comment suggested you did?
For those keeping track at home I have now been called:
Ignorant
Uneducated
Inexperienced
Leftist
Unintelligible
A Double-Speaker
Loser
Spoiler
Lazy
If I collect a full twenty ad hominem attacks I get a free toaster.
Both major parties are equally bought by predatory globalist corporations, and neither will do a thing to shut off that gravy train. Both parties do their damndest to make sure voting is not fair--it's just that they each have different methods of doing this. Sacrificing, donating and organizing do not do diddly squat to change anything, because the rot is much higher up than that. Our country is run by a shadow government controlled by our security agencies. It doesn't matter a damn who "wins" an election, including the presidency, because decisions are not made by elected officials, and the elected officials we do have are controlled and mollified by their own gravy train. Presidents are puppets, and if they try to go off script, they are quickly brought back into line. No candidate who cannot be controlled is allowed to progress past a certain point. Let me ask you something. When Pompeo laughed and said "We would never let that happen" to the notion of Jeremy Corbyn becoming prime minister of the UK, do you think he was kidding? He was not. We control every election on earth. Did you think they neglected to think of controlling our own?
Tarring every single R with the same brush, e.g. Marjory Taylor Green & Steve Bannon, is a ridiculous, simplistic, self-serving excuse for doing nothing. Might as well be a Deep State psyop to demoralize as many loyal Americans as possible - if it's not one. Serves Deep State ends, so useful idiot's another option.
Demoralizing conservatives to do nothing ensures that DemComs don't even HAVE to steal elections. At least MAKE them steal them. At least TRY.
If you really believe there's nothing we can do, what are you DOING here? Why bother demoralizing everyone else? Does public rationalization & misery loves company make you feel better about selfish apathy?
Do you have a solution to save the USA that you're hiding from everyone?
Voting "Libertarian" sure won't do it. The "L" stands for Loser (and spoiLer). And if there's no free elections, "Ls" would never be allowed to win anyway.
You remind me of my mother, who only wanted to watch happy movies. The purpose is not to demoralize, but to tell the truth. I also demoralize plenty of liberals, believe me. If people do not know the truth, then they keep mindlessly following the narrative, which is "vote religiously, because that is the only way to change things." But that is just what deep state operatives want people to do, because then they do not overthrow the system. The solution is massive civil unrest and refusal to cooperate, along with shining a light on the way things run.
First, when speaking in generalizations, there will always be "What about" pushback.
Maybe we should do a line by line analysis of officials in office and see how they voted. My first indicator is, the one who votes "no" on the most legislation wins in my opinion. Second runner up is the official who wants to repeal the most laws. The response to "Build Back Bloatware" is "Build Back Basic."
So wait, you are against demoralizing (edited) those who vote for major parties, but demoralizing (edited) who vote for minor ones is fair game? If there was a Conservative that ran on the platform of less government, and at the very least stood by that by vetoing most legislation out of hand (this should be the default in my opinion) Then I would love to vote for that candidate. If the candidate ran on the platform of "Working toward removing myself from office" I could, if it were possible, vote for them every day and twice on Tuesdays.
The solution is dismantling government. If it happens through executive order, repealing legislation, or judicial ruling, so much the better, but it needs to happen. It can be done peacefully. We should be going through legislation on the books and simply eradicating and repealing laws that are unconstitutional. That would be a great idea. I imagine a great many laws are unconstitutional.
I think peaceful non compliance is also possible, and it has worked. I was ready to have my ass thrown out of Kroger if they pushed the mask issue on me. We should also record ourselves peacefully non complying as well. Because the media loves to hype the irrational screaming insane person who refuses to comply. Whereas most of us I believe are more into peaceful, polite, noncompliance. I know that I am.
"you are against demoralizing major parties, but demoralizing minor ones is fair game?"
Who's talking about demoralizing the party itself? I'm talking about demoralizing potential voters, donors, activists, organizers into doing nothing instead.
"Libertarians" are nothing but Losers and spoiLers for the reasons I laid out. They really don't even try to win. I ran a college Libertarian club long ago, was campaign manager for several libertarian campaigns, ran a Libertarian presidential office, and have followed "L" candidates closely over the decades, including New Mexico clown Gary Johnson and Massachusetts RINO gun grabber Weld, so I'm confident I know whereof I speak. And they're not real libertarians anyway. As discussed, they're de facto globalists and socialists. Is that what you want?
The only hope is for loyal conservatives to take over the Republican party, purge the corrupt RINOs, and align the party with true Republican principles.
It sounds like you are projecting. You are doing the very thing that you are against people who are critical of Republicans as doing. Replace Libertarian with Republican and it is almost an identical criticism.
I guess I am a loser then, not that I want to lose, I think if anything has demonstrated the need for less government it is the last three years.
Dave Smith, who strikes me as libertarian doesn't sound like he wants to lose, he also doesn't sound like a globalist or socialist. But then again, he isn't a candidate either. But it sounds to me like there has been a recent sea change in the libertarian party recently for the reasons you outlined. You're right in that the examples you mentioned are not libertarians. I would like to think most libertarians agree with you.
Your assertion sounds almost like the bandwagon logical fallacy. "Most people, or a majority of people act this way, so if you aren't going to join them, then your ideas don't matter at all."
How about no? No that I will not join a majority if that majority does not represent my views.
A big part of sacrifice is doing something on principle because it is the right thing to do regardless of how popular it is. I am sorry that your experience as a libertarian has left you so hopeless in that regards. It's not an easy road to have principles that go against the very way reality currently is. If I lived in China, I'd probably already be in a quarantine camp.
If I could, I would run for office, and continuously propose more and more absurd laws hopelessly clogging the system until people finally understood how arbitrary and capricious our current society has become. If enough lawmakers did this, maybe we would enact a law that made it difficult to create absurd laws.
I am sure you know of what you speak in terms of libertarians, but that doesn't mean that is all that is, or could be. If convincing people that wearing masks has taught me anything, it's that there is far more possible than we believe.
Loyalty has nothing to do with it. If you nail down most conservatives, you will find in a lot of ways they align with libertarian thinking. I think there was a recent podcast with Dave Smith who was doing this very bit of deconstruction over a criticism of libertarians by a conservative. The problem was they were criticizing libertarians but the points they were making were the very talking points of the libertarian party.
Finally, it is not a throw away vote to vote libertarian if the opposition makes the assertion that "If you vote libertarian it could cause the opposing side to win." That sounds like the libertarian vote in that case is very important. If a few percentage points make that much a difference, then I would say it is a great reason to vote libertarian.
If it is a throwaway vote, and does not matter, then why care at all what the libertarian or independent does?
Here's the rub though: we know the swamp that generated the tyranny enacted on us were not voted into powe and thus can equally be removed from power in a similar fashion. Aside from the one issue for voting, this is something that I would love to look into finding the answer to.
Also "Jury Box, Ballot Box, Ammo Box" sounds suspiciously like a mantra, which means the truth again, is more nuanced and complex.
Hardly the exact thing, and I'm far from hopeless, just very realistic about the "Libertarian" party based on actual knowledge vs wishful thinking and ignorance. The "Libertarian" party chose William Weld, a gun grabber, as it's Presidential candidate. The "Libertarian" platform is for unlimited immigration, which CLEARLY, inevitably, leads to globalism and socialism, wealth "redistribution" and destruction, crappy rat-race sardine-can quality of life. You are evading these issues, facts. EVERY Libertarian candidate I've ever seen in the last 42 years was for deluge immigration = NO USA. Those are FACTS you want to avoid. On the other hand, they pull enough votes from ignorant voters and true believers now to hand many elections to Democratic communists.
Actual knowledge does not mean that it will stay that way. Using your logic, I could argue that because our government is mandate happy on Vaccine passports and masks, that I would be realistic in saying "that's it, get vaxxed, wear your mask, and send in your absentee ballot for whatever blue check candidate in your district.
If I looked through sad moments in history, I imagine there were many similar sentiments to the way things were. How many people do you think were behind the mask mandates these past three years? Do you think it was eighty million Americans? What percentage thought up the mantras "build back better" "stay home/stay safe?" How many people actually buy into our "progressive energy policies?"
What percentage of Germans were really the evil behind the Genocide and how many went along to get along?
What percentage of Russians were ardent advocates of the policies enacted and explained in the book "Gulag Archipelego?"
How many North Koreans love all the ideas and policies perpetuated by their leader?
The Libertarian Party is not into unlimited immigration. Maybe parts of it are/were. As you know there are many different wings of each party. Again, doesn't this sound to your protests regarding critics of he Republican party? (I will beat you to the punch and assert that no, you don't think it is the same at all).
Yes, there is the sentiment "wish in one hand, s in the other and see which fills up first" but I know there are a lot of people that believe this way. Are we all "wishful thinkers?"
Look at it another way, a very small segment of our society actually believes in Wokeism. I imagine twenty years ago, the early intentions of less stigmatization of alternative lifestyles was considered "wishful thinking" but now look, Disney will probably come out with a 3D cartoon of a handicapped lesbian biracial trans princess.
Sadly, a lot of times, people think in terms of binary thinking. Did you ever stop and think that maybe the people who have a vision of the way things could be might not be merely wishful thinkers and or ignorant. That they may have actual experience of knowing how things are, but that doesn't stop them from seeing how they could be? And it starts with treating others as if it already was.
I know myself the problems with the libertarian party. You think Dave Smith, Tom Woods, and other libertarians I listen to don't talk about this or recognize its existence? You think they are teeming with wishful thinking and ignorance. I would be the first to plead ignorance, but I've known I was libertarian in nature as early as eighteen. The idea of a laissez faire government sounded great. To be left alone — sign me up.
Socialism and Globalism is as far from libertarian as Individualism is from collectivism. Those who have perpetuated globalism and socialism in its name don't know what it means any more than the left who talk about democracy also talk about policies concerning the tyranny of caring know what they are talking about.
When you were part of these different college libertarian groups, did you believe in socialism and globalism?
Freedom to make decisions means freedom to make bad decisions, unsafe decisions, etc.
At the center of it, libertarianism is into private ownership, how is that congruent with socialism and globalism? While all are welcome into this country, it is obvious they can't be simply allowed to walk in and go anywhere as that would infringe on an individuals right to do what they want on their property.
Also at the center of Libertarianism is free market/enterprise. It sounds to me that the type of libertarians you are hanging around sound like leftists, who in parlance of our time, have hijacked and attempted to redefine libertariansm in the same way that they have redefined vaccine, immunity, and a number of other words.
Just so we are on the same page, I googled libertarian and this is the definition I am talking about:
an advocate or supporter of a political philosophy that advocates only minimal state intervention in the free market and the private lives of citizens.
As opposed to socialism which is:
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
I am not evading these issues, nor am I ignoring their existence, just understand this is not what libertarian means. Just as the real policies of Covid that exist were predicated on Falsehood, so also the candidates who advocated for these socialistic and globalist policies were based on a false definition of what they asserted was "libertarian."
But the left is good at that, isn't it? Co-opting definitions and redefining them as the opposite of what they actually are.
Words like "safe and effective" describe something that is leaky and harmful.
"Inflation Reduction Act" is something that describes policies that will lead to more government bloat, and inflation.
I know liberals who are as against the Leftist agenda that has hijacked the democrat party, as well as Conservatives who are against the anemic response of the Republican party, and there is a growing grass roots movement of libertarians who resent the socialistic wing of those who have hijacked the libertarian party.
First things first, list all the libertarian candidates you have seen over the last 42 years.
Finally, if libertarians are a throw-away vote, then why should you care if they vote for pie-in-the-sky ideals. Consider this, they weren't going to vote for your candidate anyhow. I certainly have no overriding desire to vote Kemp "Let' extend the emergency powers just a little bit longer."
I agree philosophically, but you do not address two things:
1. there are no free and fair elections in this country
2. the other major party is just as bad and just as captured
this seems a puzzling comment.
the former is, to be sure, an issue but we can push back on it with ends to unsupervised mail in and more citizen supervision. ultimately, this should be verifiable and electronic using some sort of 2 sided system (possibly blockchain) that allows votes to be indelibly and verifiably cast only by those with permission.
the second, however, is half the topic of the piece. i explicitly state that you cannot trust donkey or elephant or the puppet show of issues over which they purport to fight. i'm therefore sort of confused that you see this as an unaddressed issue when it was a full blown central point.
i might recommend that you read this again with a bit more care.
this is the whole underpinning of why i advocate one issue voting and one and only one question:
“what will you do to reduce the federal bureaucracy and free us from its yoke?”
But gato, time after time people vote for individual candidates who talk the right talk, only to find that that candidate, once elected, is quickly captured, or if not, is unable to make any headway against an entrenched system. Sure, we can say "don't vote for the party, but the candidate," yet the results are ALWAYS negative.
which, again, is why you need to stop paying attention to that puppet show and become a one issue voter on dismantling the technocratic levers of power and why we need to vote for this en masse and especially for president.
get a president determined to cull the federal agencies (and who knows how) and you could make A LOT of headway.
trump was a terrible failure in this regard. he fed the beast handsomely instead of starving it.
In Trump’s defense (I am no longer a supporter after his handling of abdication of all things WuFlu & “vaccines”), while I agree he put spending on steroids, he did get us out of WHO, the Paris Climate Accord, Iranian nuke deal & forced NATO members to kick in more for their own defense. He made us energy independent, raised all boats economically, tried to build the wall & had the remain-in-Mexico deal, no wars, baby step peace in the Middle East, & more. But he was in a constant battle w/ the left, media, tech, swamp, et al. He was never afforded the honeymoon period all presidents had been granted before. For all of his faults, he was absolutely America & Americans first. When I think of how much more he could’ve done if he hadn’t been piled on w/ all of that.... I do not want him to run. I want DeSantis, not because he’s in one of the 2 parties but because on virtually every corrupt, left-loon policy or idea, he stands up & says none of that is going through on his watch. I think he could do a lot (maybe) w/defanging the bureaucracy
we need to show our strength and power. We need to hold them accountable. The left is indeed the devil. The right just has their nose out of joint.
Honestly, I think Trump had good intentions, but was lured into bad decisions. It was a terrible situation to watch. The left is evil
Let’s see.... what crisis could develop that would force a a POTUS to rely entirely on the advise and expertise of government officials , have to trust them to be truthful and trust them of course to “do no (unnecessary) harm”? Can you imagine if Trump had just said “ No shutdown, the economic and possibly personal consequences could be too severe” ??? The media ( oh and now he thinks he’s a Doctor/Scientist) and Democrats would have had him charged with mass murder in 24. It’s the main reason I entertain arcane theories about COVID and the on going stone walling and censoring of any contrary theories confirm my skepticism. 🤷♀️🤷♀️🤷♀️
spot on!
I agree, Rose Mary
To what end though? Trump got us out of some stuff, culled a bit, but as soon as he's out of power, the next dude undoes it all. We don't need a curating of the swamp (like Trump gave us) but a slash and burn.
I don’t disagree, AM. It’s whiplash every 2 & 4 years w/ a changing of corrupt & less corrupt guards. Trump had the 1st 2 years of Repub congress & THEY fought him & prevented some of his stuff. What would slash & burn look like?
Yup, George Carlin over and over again. We don’t get to choose who is going to be President of their private Club.... it’s so very toxic and corrupt.
Yes, George Carlin said it exactly. He is surely missed by most all that ever heard what he said.
It would be good if this could happen all at once. But, maybe it cannot. Vote for only those who agree with this plan. If they waver, get rid of them. We need to build a group of like minded recruits. There are so many of us on the government dole in one way or another now that this is a mighty task.
DeSantis is more of an experienced politician than Trump was. However, he will also be constantly attacked by the rabid left, the media, tech and the swamp. The question is how long he can continue to fight back against an overwhelming wall of opposition and resist them, or will they block him at every turn forcing him to capitulate to them much like Trump did in order to get anything at all done.
Of course they will CMCM. I’m sure they have some “items” they hope are explosive in the event he runs
I’m afraid people hang on to Trump out of a habit of binary thinking. “I idolize Trump simply because I so dislike the other party”. Come
on people, surely we deserve better than a dysfunctional clown persona like him. When you have to list things that he did well you are making excuses for a bad choice simply because you think it’s less bad than the other choice, whatever you imagine it to be, or because you lack the imagination to envision something much better. It’s time to respect ourselves and the country enough to demand good choices, not just the lesser of evils. The US is acting like a battered wife, defending the wrongdoer out of fear and a lack of familiarity with the idea of good.
From one Pollyanna to another...that ain’t gonna happen. And at this point, other than his hard core base, I don’t think anyone idolizes Trump.... but since he’s been run out of town , his accusations and assessments of corruption and duplicitous “plots” have and are continuing to be proven true. Now if the media would actually report truthfully on the state of American people longing for something better.... but they don’t. Especially their total disregard for the poor, lower class, homeless, veterans, drug crisis, etc. I don’t disagree with you, I just don’t see how we break the stranglehold control the msm has on the population
I’m fearful as well, but at least their popularity is way down. I suspect that a lot of people have a feeling that something is wrong, but are scared to speak out, for fear that they will be in the minority (especially in blue areas). Maybe, just maybe (hanging onto a thread of hope here) there’s a critical mass at which the fearful and deluded feel brave enough to open both their eyes and their mouths. 
👍
I said I do not want him to run & Im not at all hanging on or making excuses. Do you deny that all of those were good for the country? I’d take America circa 2019 over the hell we’ve been in since 2021.
I noticed that you said that, and I was commenting on ppl in general. I don’t deny that some of the things he did were positive. My point is that we deserve SO MUCH BETTER than a dysfunctional narcissist who “gets some things right”. Just because the successor is even worse Trump didn’t suddenly become a worthy leader of the free world.
I agree
He is his own worst enemy when it comes to his ego & there was an exhausting lot of it during his term.
Agree, but I think you have to be a narcissist and egomaniac if you want to make major changes. Kinda " catch 22" eh? If you don't believe in yourself, who will? De Santis has a little time to develop and learn. Trump didn't really have that luxury!!
Yes! He just curated his own flavor of swamp, built around his own ego.
Most of the time - we are voting for lesser of 2 evil. When was the last time we had a candidate that you really wanted to vote for?
The lesser of two evils is what has gotten us into this mess over and over again. The lesser of two evils is the lie that perpetuates the partisanship that creates the swamp that gives the Beast its place to hide. As far as Mr. Trump my feelings are that they failed to control him with bribes or threats, which puts him in the top 1% of leaders. But in the end they just tricked him.
Ron Paul. But alas...
Great comment! We get "shit or shineola" and most shineola turns into shit anyway 😒!
To me, Ronald Reagan in 1984.
In the US, reference ballotpedia.org -- search for your state and read through all information for candidates, as well as ballot initiatives (local news and MSM has failed at informing about initiatives). Active candidates may provide information, from survey results (Ballotpedia's questions) to providing links to public and private social media pages.
Somewhat fortunately, a lot of the third party candidates in my state this year are candidates I can support. I'm not optimistic about their chances of winning, but at least I can vote *for* someone and not against, thanks to doing some research.
Also, check out past candidate information on Ballotpedia. In one case, I'll be writing in a third-party candidate who has campaigned in previous elections, but is not running this year.
If I recall, JFK was one of those presidents who would actually hold federal agencies accountable. Sadly, we saw how that worked out for him.
It was June 4, 1963 when he signed XO 11110. The bankers wouldn't stand for that movement off their planned path.
And yet, look how scared they were of him for his daring to reevaluate and look to change SOME of their regime. They do not take this sort of thing lightly.
Whoever takes on this role needs to be beyond brave and somehow beyond the manipulation of those who finally found the Achilles heel of Trump.
Excellent. Yes and amen....speaking of amen, what needs to be addressed is the spiritual. We in the west are suffering a deep spiritual malaise, which is part and parcel of this decline....And not solved by voting.
I agree. This missing foundation is fundamental to meaningful change and growth in our systems on the planet.
I also feel as Napoleon does. And I wonder... lots of things. Few of my imagined precedent situations before a great consciousness shift occurs are pretty.
I’ve started to think dire is what it will take. Sad. But that is ego.
I don’t know if you guys are into Energy Is Everything / Everything is Energy? Thoughts included. (Quantum physics. The new science behind ancient truths re laws of nature and the universe. Fascinating. The mathematics is beyond me and it’s hard to wrap my head around English language explanations. But occasionally a “portal”(?) in my waking consciousness will open and an insight into something seemingly simple will be illuminated and clear. Unfortunately, almost as quickly clarity becomes obscured once more as the opening slams shut darn it!)
Anyway, an experiment for you, a quickie that meshes with both my waking consciousness and that part of my consciousness that is everything, one, everlasting and ineffable. If it works for you in a similar way or another beneficial way, great! If not, discard and move on.
A 10-second to one minute “meditation”. Longer if you wish. Picture mother earth 🌍 surrounded by and penetrated to her core with brilliant golden white light. That’s it.
The point: Light. The antithesis of dark. High vibration energy flooding the planet to counter the dark forces/low vibration energies. (Let’s face it, we know it’s/they’re here. Seen any attempts at stirring and sustaining fear recently? Mm hm.)
If’n it feels right, pass it on. It’s so simple. Imagine if 2 billion people (more!) did this quickie multiple times throughout their day. !!!
Open to ideas and discussion. Probably off this board. Lmk.
Brightest blessings.
The tides are changing, Napoleon. Many sense a revival of traditional values including religion. So you might have been a crazy loon a few years back, but not now.
After Wokeism dies (which it will), people will be looking for something real that give their life meaning.
I do hold out hope that the Wokeists will self destruct soon.
Replied to @Aaron Ferguson on this thread. Not sure you get thread breakout update notification? You might be interested in the mini meditation? See post.
Blessings.
I think Linda is saying (point 2) that neither candidate is going to support your desired goal. There was no mention or plan for finding/recruiting viable candidates. I suspect citizens will need to step in, and run for office themselves (as Independents) at state and local levels.
I would add that re “the other party”...that they are not quite so lacking in common sense as the party that currently is succeeding at taking our rights away and fashioning the country into a bureaucratic gulag of “ we know best and you will be happy, even though that involves a lot of misery.” It’s why the majority of Independents migrate towards the party that doesn’t scold Independents...
I am asking everyone running that question. I wonder who will respond
It is a rare politician that wants to take on a truly "Constitutional" outlook on the government because it involves voting themselves out of power, and not many politicians are into that. What they should be doing is spending most of their time vetoing and rolling back laws rather than being "lawmakers." The irony is that the one job that government should be able to handle is making sure free enterprise remains unregulated in such a way as to allow max competition between businesses so we can all benefit from innovation and moving forward.
I won't touch election integrity, aside from saying that it's hard to believe Biden had more votes than Barack Obama, even factoring in Trump Derangement Syndrome. The fact that any questioning of the premise behind what is called the "Big LIe" is telling all by itself.
El Gato Malo did call the fight between the major parties as a "puppet show." What I think he was getting at is that we need to make it clear that whoever we vote for has to know that draining the swamp is very important. The swamp is the standing water that is the deep state,and dismantling it, the bloatware of government, is their primary job.
I share with you a sense of helplessness concerning our system. The officials voted in and out of office are far from effective at this. We need to run a relay race, on this, and need a lineup of officials willing to do the work over the long game of dismantling and keep dismantled these huge unwieldy mechanisms of government. We have managed to create a vast unelected state that is evergreen and functions in spite of the illusion of a democratic republic.
Difference between the 2 parties? Huey figured that out the minute he went to congress.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MKb35NK0F0
cut the legs off the fed, move the power to the states, as the originators designed.
This is the trunk / ear / leg / belly / tail / small part of the elephant in the room. The Fed is a child of the bankers / families who have run the world with impunity for hundreds of years. My understanding is that the BIS is the institution that needs to be blown apart. Until that happens no election, selection, appointment or other political, financial or corporate office (facism defined, yeah?) will remain untouched by this influence. I don’t have the answer on how to accomplish this. If this is not the peak of the pyramid I suspect it is ever so close. As with blindness regarding this ongoing medical farce people/s need to learn the truth. First step. Heavens this process is achingly slow. Crazy optimist in me trusts that somehow, we’ll get it done. Triple tin foil hat stuff: I hear there are White Hats working from the inside. Deep inside. No details, all hearsay. I’ll gladly direct the Light of God their way though, Amen. Who the heck knows??
When I wrote "fed", I meant the whole federal apparatus, not just the FED. Sorry for the confusion.
When you say BIS, is that the Bank of International Settlements, or Bureau of International Security?
Anyway, there is only one way to dismantle, and that is the old fashioned analog way as described in the writings of the founders.
Sorry for confusion from my side as well.
Bank of International Settlements, the central bank of all the central banks. The granddaddy of control mechanisms. The US could dismantle the Federal Reserve but I suspect a moot exercise because the tentacles of the upper tier institution penetrate so deeply. I don’t have an inside look, only an aerial view of the framework. I’m going to sound like a nut job but it almost feels like there needs to be some higher order intervention to get the system -multiple systems- on a humanity-supportive track. The cabal has no such interest. Apart from our numbers, 7+ Bn, they hold the controlling cards - every system infiltrated/captured. ?? No easy answers. No definitive answers here for sure! I send God-light to the planet 🌎 in the mind’s eye. Thought energy is a thing. Quantum. Light vs dark - and these f’ers are *dark*. Can’t hurt is how I see it!
Yes, but how?
Without mercy.
Not an answer. How is this accomplished?
by a merciless and overwhelming application of the 1st amendment.
if that fails, then the same process using amendment #2.
sometimes violence IS the answer.
To be a single issue voter in a two party system feels a bit meaningless, even though I don't doubt it's the best way to go.
Same donors, general consensus on many issues and time and time again anyone can see that little changes.
The big benefit Republicans have currently is that they are in opposition. So they get to point out more clearly what is broken and wrong. Whereas the democrats have to pretend things are going well, that we can trust them.
It's not like the Republicans don't receive the same funding or are emmeshed in the same corrupt system.
Well, almost as bad. There are a few real people in it, but they get squelched.
1. There *are* many "free and fair" elections in this country in the sense that the majority elects its candidate. But not all, not by a long shot, and not in the sense that the "final" vote count is the true one, since vote fraud is rampant and almost never punished in any way, let alone as the attempted or actual coup d'etat it is (which should deterred with hard prison time or the death penalty). "Free and fair" ones as described above include those so lopsided, watched & defended that they're in the traitors' interest not to steal. Too obvious, blows their ability to steal elections.
2. The other major party is *not* just as bad as the DemComs, and it *can* be captured IF people stop making & promoting demoralizing psyops and self-serving excuses for apathy, for doing nothing, for refusing to sacrifice, volunteer, organize and donate to save the USA. Same story for Tiger Talkers (often agent provocateurs) who yap about how "the ballot box failed so now it's time the bullet box". Another excuse to do nothing and shirk the duty of citizens to sacrifice. Those who are not agents have usually never really lifted a finger or donate a penny to save the USA.
1. The problem is that there is the perception of "one version of reality." What do you do when media, the entertainment industry, the education system, and what is perceived as "reality" is hijacked by the side that says the elections are "free and fair." As I am now often repeating, you can tell it's propaganda because there is a mantra associated with it "Safe and effective" "Free and Fair" "Stay home/Stay Safe." If something is governed by the truth, you don't need a mantra surrounding it. If I hear those things, I almost feel like adopting a "zombie-like" stance and saying things like "Milk, it does a body good" and "McDonalds, because you deserve a break today."
2. At the same time while Republicans are not as bad as Dems, how much are they really helping? This is like saying that Coca Cola Light isn't as bad as Coca Cola, yet both contain sugar. I am sure the diabetic would be happy to know his leg won't get amputated quite as quickly.
What do you define as "lifting a finger, sacrificing, or donating to serve the USA?" I wish Rand Paul lived in my district, as I would spend time and effort supporting him. But what about my senators and officials here in Georgia? Our governor here has been a big disappointment, he talked out of both sides of his mouth during Covid in order to placate both sides of the issue. I know that the pro Covid regulation people could not have been happy with him as it allowed many us unmasked and unvaccinated to continue in life without restriction or obstacle unless we wanted healthcare or an Uber Ride. And I am certainly not happy with Kemp saying "You don't have to wear a mask, but if you do, here is the correct way to do it." If I was governor, I would have placed the mask firmly on my head or worn it as a goté under my chin.
While "NOT" as bad, is better than BAD, shouldn't we be setting our sights much higher?
My question is, what do the Republicans offer? Less Tyranny? I agree that there has to be a reality-based solution to this. The libertarian ideal of no government is not realistic and I doubt many libertarians believe it anyhow, but there has to be a realistic version o this that is "At little government as possible." Certainly the idea that the people in government as public servants and not government overlords that believe they know better than you what is best for you, would be a step in the right direction.
One of the many problems with government is that when they do hand out entitlements, they get the mistaken impression that they know best who the recipients should be. THEY DO NOT.
As I said, clearly not all elections are "free and fair" in an honest sense. Not even close. Many are free and fair ENOUGH in the sense I've discussed.
Referring to Republicans as THEY, as if they're all in on the game, serves as a common excuse and rationalization for doing nothing, evades responsibility for failing to lift a pinky in primary elections to determine WHO "THEY" ARE.
"If only so an so lived in my district/state" is an invalid excuse used by many for not donating to candidates they trust & believe in. Any citizen in any district or state can donate to any federal candidate in any other district or state. And since they vote on issues that affect all states, electing them, or even just forcing the enemy to outspend us 10-1 and divert money that could've been used to elect other traitors is as critical to your liberty as donating to a good federal candidate who reps your district. This is even true for state candidates in other states, since they have indirect power over federal elections through redistricting, stopping theft of federal elections etc.
The problem is that once "free and fair" is called into question, it really doesn't matter "how much." This is like "mostly peaceful protests" while you see buildings being burned to the ground.
I don't think people on here think of Republicans as "they" but rather politicians as "they." You can tell a person is a "they" when "they" are coercing you to do something. While this can be an excuse, it can also be a frustration that invites invention. All I know is I had close family members come visit me back in April and both were wearing masks, and my private residence does not have any mask related mandates associated with it.
Politicians have been making unconstitutional laws and have yet to be held accountable for it. This needs to stop. The ballot box is not working, as every time new candidates are brought into office, very often they either do nothing, or enact more unconstitutional laws, or we have politicians that completely ignore the Constitution and go the executive order or other loophole route to enact more unconstitutional laws.
I am willing to vote for any candidate regardless of party who votes "LESS IS MORE" in terms of government. But I am of the belief that we can do more. I think throwing money at the issue is a rationalization not to do something more substantial. Really, what I could do is volunteer for a candidate if I feel strongly about it, or I could write a blog, or comment on posts about it, but money, in my opinion, is really not that effective. Right now in Georgia I Stacy Abrams has a ton of money backing from Hollywood. But no amount of funding is going to make me vote in Crazy.
The problem with your idea about voting in a candidate in a region that I am not part of is that our federalism government is not built to be like that. It is meant to be broken down into smaller regions to accommodate the population of hat given region. Who am I to say what is better for your area of the world? Do I know you? Imagine the hubris! The one exception to that is for politicians who think exactly in this manner. If you have a list and their voting record, I'll be glad to look at it.
Finally, your assertion is the problem. The Federal government needs to be decentralized, and dismantled. If you can show me where these candidates intend that, then I am behind them.
Also, it is a very real criticism of government that a lot of what is enacted is by unelected bureaucrats.
I suppose that money is a big deal for the masses that are easily swayed by mantras and campaign ads, but I don't care how much money you sink into a PSA that tells me vaccination is the perfect response to a hurricane natural disaster, I think your crazy.
I think there is a better answer than throwing money at the problem because we see so often in government how throwing money at the problem rarely does anything good. They keep throwing money at education, has that made the education system any better?
"The problem with your idea about voting in a candidate in a region that I am not part of is that our federalism government is not built to be like that. It is meant to be broken down into smaller regions to accommodate the population of hat given region. Who am I to say what is better for your area of the world?"
My idea? How is it my idea? That's what the federal government IS and always has been. Reps don't only vote on issues affecting the states they live in. Those that do are called STATE reps. Federal reps vote on issues that affect YOU whether you like it or not. That's called REALITY. Pretending they don't doesn't change it. If you don't think people should help good out-of-state candidates, you're shooting yourself and the rest of us in the foot.
Don't like it, want to change it, voting L will never do it. All that does is spoil races and elect even worse candidates - communists. Perhaps you think a RINO or conservative that doesn't keep all his promises is just as bad as a communist. If so, crack a history book.
Voluntarism is terrific. It's a good example of "sacrifice". Time = money. Have you ever done it?
But the notion that good candidates don't need money, just volunteers, that money makes no difference, reveals a lack of experience with campaigns and how things really work. A good candidate doesn't need to match the spending of a communist, but they need SOME funding. I've seen candidates like Dave Brat beat entrenched RINOs with a relatively small warchest, some of which I donated, but he did HAVE a warchest. In Arizona, Blake Masters is being outspent 8-1 by commies and RINOs, and he may beat the commie anyway, barely, but he HAS a warchest, probably $10 million by now. There's a reason so money goes into campaigns; it's necessary and it works.
You keep excusing things by asserting that's the way they are and have been. Then, sadly, the government has always been unconstitutional?
Just because reps vote on issues affecting not only the states they live in, does not mean they should, or that such a thing is constitutional. I certainly would not want California politicians voting on things that won't fly down her in Georgia and vice versa. Isn't it very clear after three years that one-size-fits-all is clumsy and a horrible way to run a country the size and scope as ours? Wouldn't more autonomy broken up into smaller areas and regions be better than more central control?
While federal reps do vote on issues that affect me whether I like it or not, and that is reality, that doesn't mean it is true. There are a lot of things in this life that are real but predicated on falsehood. I can say repeatedly that the vaccine is safe and effective..and that mantra is real, but it is not true. That more people adopt the idea that it is, also is not true. Truth has no bearing on the amount of people who believe it.
The problem here is misinterpreting reality as true. But I understand your world view, and that you want to use ad hominem attacks who do not believe as you do. I will accept the moniker of ignorant and a wishful thinker, and you can safely discard whatever it is I have to say based on it.
I noticed how you didn't engage with the definitions of the word "libertarian" and notice the dichotomy of what the "reality" of libertarian party is.
I'm not excusing that. You seem to think noticing reality is excusing it. Lay off the strawman arguments. I'm busy. Show me where the Libertarian party platform and some actual party candidates who reject numerically unlimited immigration. Till then Adios.
Except it's not a strawman argument. A strawman argument is a distortion of the extreme version of itself. Throughout this discussion your answer has been that "this is what is going on" as a way of discarding it. In this case, it is the libertarian party. Although the Libertarian party has been traditionally taken over by the left wing which could very well lead to social/globalism, that isn't what it means to be a libertarian. At the very heart of libertarian view (at least in principle) is the individual property owner and their ability to conduct trade with other individual property owners.
The mises caucus does not support unlimited immigration. They speak rather that those who are into violent crimes and are bad actors should not be allowed to come into our country. But if they are here peacefully they should be allowed to come here. That doesn't sound unlimited to me. In fact, the libertarian policy is to make it easier for immigrants to come into this country, this is something I agree with. We should not make immigration so difficult and expensive so as to motivate citizens from other countries to come here illegally.
I went through the mises material on immigration and the ultimate goal is as much open borders as possible, but the arguments and discussions proposed show realistic incremental thinking, and an admission that there should be some form of vetting going on, but they would rather it be in the form of competition in, at least one form, an Ellis Island type strategy.
You are not excusing it, but you are in your way, seeing the way the libertarian party has been during your time familiar with it to make broad judgments based upon it, and that is a perfectly valid tact to take. The problem I have is that it is not exercised the same way in regards to your position as well.
I wish there was a document that contained a summary of all the libertarian candidates and their specific views on immigration and other issues. What I can assert is that from what I know of and have read of Mises candidates, they are definitely not into globalization and socialism, nor do they adhere to an unrealistic ideal of complete open borders in the same way they would not be for removing doors on their own houses and inviting anyone in for a perpetual open house.
Where did you go to doubletalk school? Ask for your money back.
"I'm not for unlimited immigration. I'm just for letting everyone in who is here peacefully."
This is not double-talk, you said in your comment, "Show me where the Libertarian party platform and some actual party candidates who reject numerically unlimited immigration. Till then Adios." I was responding to that statement.
To speak in plainer English, if you go through the different libertarian candidates and notice which ones are Mises Caucus members, they are not for "numerically unlimited immigration."
No one ever stated you were for "unlimited immigration, what, if anything, in my comment suggested you did?
For those keeping track at home I have now been called:
Ignorant
Uneducated
Inexperienced
Leftist
Unintelligible
A Double-Speaker
Loser
Spoiler
Lazy
If I collect a full twenty ad hominem attacks I get a free toaster.
Both major parties are equally bought by predatory globalist corporations, and neither will do a thing to shut off that gravy train. Both parties do their damndest to make sure voting is not fair--it's just that they each have different methods of doing this. Sacrificing, donating and organizing do not do diddly squat to change anything, because the rot is much higher up than that. Our country is run by a shadow government controlled by our security agencies. It doesn't matter a damn who "wins" an election, including the presidency, because decisions are not made by elected officials, and the elected officials we do have are controlled and mollified by their own gravy train. Presidents are puppets, and if they try to go off script, they are quickly brought back into line. No candidate who cannot be controlled is allowed to progress past a certain point. Let me ask you something. When Pompeo laughed and said "We would never let that happen" to the notion of Jeremy Corbyn becoming prime minister of the UK, do you think he was kidding? He was not. We control every election on earth. Did you think they neglected to think of controlling our own?
Tarring every single R with the same brush, e.g. Marjory Taylor Green & Steve Bannon, is a ridiculous, simplistic, self-serving excuse for doing nothing. Might as well be a Deep State psyop to demoralize as many loyal Americans as possible - if it's not one. Serves Deep State ends, so useful idiot's another option.
Demoralizing conservatives to do nothing ensures that DemComs don't even HAVE to steal elections. At least MAKE them steal them. At least TRY.
If you really believe there's nothing we can do, what are you DOING here? Why bother demoralizing everyone else? Does public rationalization & misery loves company make you feel better about selfish apathy?
Do you have a solution to save the USA that you're hiding from everyone?
Voting "Libertarian" sure won't do it. The "L" stands for Loser (and spoiLer). And if there's no free elections, "Ls" would never be allowed to win anyway.
You remind me of my mother, who only wanted to watch happy movies. The purpose is not to demoralize, but to tell the truth. I also demoralize plenty of liberals, believe me. If people do not know the truth, then they keep mindlessly following the narrative, which is "vote religiously, because that is the only way to change things." But that is just what deep state operatives want people to do, because then they do not overthrow the system. The solution is massive civil unrest and refusal to cooperate, along with shining a light on the way things run.
Fascinating
First, when speaking in generalizations, there will always be "What about" pushback.
Maybe we should do a line by line analysis of officials in office and see how they voted. My first indicator is, the one who votes "no" on the most legislation wins in my opinion. Second runner up is the official who wants to repeal the most laws. The response to "Build Back Bloatware" is "Build Back Basic."
So wait, you are against demoralizing (edited) those who vote for major parties, but demoralizing (edited) who vote for minor ones is fair game? If there was a Conservative that ran on the platform of less government, and at the very least stood by that by vetoing most legislation out of hand (this should be the default in my opinion) Then I would love to vote for that candidate. If the candidate ran on the platform of "Working toward removing myself from office" I could, if it were possible, vote for them every day and twice on Tuesdays.
The solution is dismantling government. If it happens through executive order, repealing legislation, or judicial ruling, so much the better, but it needs to happen. It can be done peacefully. We should be going through legislation on the books and simply eradicating and repealing laws that are unconstitutional. That would be a great idea. I imagine a great many laws are unconstitutional.
I think peaceful non compliance is also possible, and it has worked. I was ready to have my ass thrown out of Kroger if they pushed the mask issue on me. We should also record ourselves peacefully non complying as well. Because the media loves to hype the irrational screaming insane person who refuses to comply. Whereas most of us I believe are more into peaceful, polite, noncompliance. I know that I am.
"you are against demoralizing major parties, but demoralizing minor ones is fair game?"
Who's talking about demoralizing the party itself? I'm talking about demoralizing potential voters, donors, activists, organizers into doing nothing instead.
"Libertarians" are nothing but Losers and spoiLers for the reasons I laid out. They really don't even try to win. I ran a college Libertarian club long ago, was campaign manager for several libertarian campaigns, ran a Libertarian presidential office, and have followed "L" candidates closely over the decades, including New Mexico clown Gary Johnson and Massachusetts RINO gun grabber Weld, so I'm confident I know whereof I speak. And they're not real libertarians anyway. As discussed, they're de facto globalists and socialists. Is that what you want?
The only hope is for loyal conservatives to take over the Republican party, purge the corrupt RINOs, and align the party with true Republican principles.
It sounds like you are projecting. You are doing the very thing that you are against people who are critical of Republicans as doing. Replace Libertarian with Republican and it is almost an identical criticism.
I guess I am a loser then, not that I want to lose, I think if anything has demonstrated the need for less government it is the last three years.
Dave Smith, who strikes me as libertarian doesn't sound like he wants to lose, he also doesn't sound like a globalist or socialist. But then again, he isn't a candidate either. But it sounds to me like there has been a recent sea change in the libertarian party recently for the reasons you outlined. You're right in that the examples you mentioned are not libertarians. I would like to think most libertarians agree with you.
Your assertion sounds almost like the bandwagon logical fallacy. "Most people, or a majority of people act this way, so if you aren't going to join them, then your ideas don't matter at all."
How about no? No that I will not join a majority if that majority does not represent my views.
A big part of sacrifice is doing something on principle because it is the right thing to do regardless of how popular it is. I am sorry that your experience as a libertarian has left you so hopeless in that regards. It's not an easy road to have principles that go against the very way reality currently is. If I lived in China, I'd probably already be in a quarantine camp.
If I could, I would run for office, and continuously propose more and more absurd laws hopelessly clogging the system until people finally understood how arbitrary and capricious our current society has become. If enough lawmakers did this, maybe we would enact a law that made it difficult to create absurd laws.
I am sure you know of what you speak in terms of libertarians, but that doesn't mean that is all that is, or could be. If convincing people that wearing masks has taught me anything, it's that there is far more possible than we believe.
Loyalty has nothing to do with it. If you nail down most conservatives, you will find in a lot of ways they align with libertarian thinking. I think there was a recent podcast with Dave Smith who was doing this very bit of deconstruction over a criticism of libertarians by a conservative. The problem was they were criticizing libertarians but the points they were making were the very talking points of the libertarian party.
Finally, it is not a throw away vote to vote libertarian if the opposition makes the assertion that "If you vote libertarian it could cause the opposing side to win." That sounds like the libertarian vote in that case is very important. If a few percentage points make that much a difference, then I would say it is a great reason to vote libertarian.
If it is a throwaway vote, and does not matter, then why care at all what the libertarian or independent does?
Here's the rub though: we know the swamp that generated the tyranny enacted on us were not voted into powe and thus can equally be removed from power in a similar fashion. Aside from the one issue for voting, this is something that I would love to look into finding the answer to.
Also "Jury Box, Ballot Box, Ammo Box" sounds suspiciously like a mantra, which means the truth again, is more nuanced and complex.
Hardly the exact thing, and I'm far from hopeless, just very realistic about the "Libertarian" party based on actual knowledge vs wishful thinking and ignorance. The "Libertarian" party chose William Weld, a gun grabber, as it's Presidential candidate. The "Libertarian" platform is for unlimited immigration, which CLEARLY, inevitably, leads to globalism and socialism, wealth "redistribution" and destruction, crappy rat-race sardine-can quality of life. You are evading these issues, facts. EVERY Libertarian candidate I've ever seen in the last 42 years was for deluge immigration = NO USA. Those are FACTS you want to avoid. On the other hand, they pull enough votes from ignorant voters and true believers now to hand many elections to Democratic communists.
Actual knowledge does not mean that it will stay that way. Using your logic, I could argue that because our government is mandate happy on Vaccine passports and masks, that I would be realistic in saying "that's it, get vaxxed, wear your mask, and send in your absentee ballot for whatever blue check candidate in your district.
If I looked through sad moments in history, I imagine there were many similar sentiments to the way things were. How many people do you think were behind the mask mandates these past three years? Do you think it was eighty million Americans? What percentage thought up the mantras "build back better" "stay home/stay safe?" How many people actually buy into our "progressive energy policies?"
What percentage of Germans were really the evil behind the Genocide and how many went along to get along?
What percentage of Russians were ardent advocates of the policies enacted and explained in the book "Gulag Archipelego?"
How many North Koreans love all the ideas and policies perpetuated by their leader?
The Libertarian Party is not into unlimited immigration. Maybe parts of it are/were. As you know there are many different wings of each party. Again, doesn't this sound to your protests regarding critics of he Republican party? (I will beat you to the punch and assert that no, you don't think it is the same at all).
Yes, there is the sentiment "wish in one hand, s in the other and see which fills up first" but I know there are a lot of people that believe this way. Are we all "wishful thinkers?"
Look at it another way, a very small segment of our society actually believes in Wokeism. I imagine twenty years ago, the early intentions of less stigmatization of alternative lifestyles was considered "wishful thinking" but now look, Disney will probably come out with a 3D cartoon of a handicapped lesbian biracial trans princess.
Sadly, a lot of times, people think in terms of binary thinking. Did you ever stop and think that maybe the people who have a vision of the way things could be might not be merely wishful thinkers and or ignorant. That they may have actual experience of knowing how things are, but that doesn't stop them from seeing how they could be? And it starts with treating others as if it already was.
I know myself the problems with the libertarian party. You think Dave Smith, Tom Woods, and other libertarians I listen to don't talk about this or recognize its existence? You think they are teeming with wishful thinking and ignorance. I would be the first to plead ignorance, but I've known I was libertarian in nature as early as eighteen. The idea of a laissez faire government sounded great. To be left alone — sign me up.
Socialism and Globalism is as far from libertarian as Individualism is from collectivism. Those who have perpetuated globalism and socialism in its name don't know what it means any more than the left who talk about democracy also talk about policies concerning the tyranny of caring know what they are talking about.
When you were part of these different college libertarian groups, did you believe in socialism and globalism?
Freedom to make decisions means freedom to make bad decisions, unsafe decisions, etc.
At the center of it, libertarianism is into private ownership, how is that congruent with socialism and globalism? While all are welcome into this country, it is obvious they can't be simply allowed to walk in and go anywhere as that would infringe on an individuals right to do what they want on their property.
Also at the center of Libertarianism is free market/enterprise. It sounds to me that the type of libertarians you are hanging around sound like leftists, who in parlance of our time, have hijacked and attempted to redefine libertariansm in the same way that they have redefined vaccine, immunity, and a number of other words.
Just so we are on the same page, I googled libertarian and this is the definition I am talking about:
an advocate or supporter of a political philosophy that advocates only minimal state intervention in the free market and the private lives of citizens.
As opposed to socialism which is:
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
I am not evading these issues, nor am I ignoring their existence, just understand this is not what libertarian means. Just as the real policies of Covid that exist were predicated on Falsehood, so also the candidates who advocated for these socialistic and globalist policies were based on a false definition of what they asserted was "libertarian."
But the left is good at that, isn't it? Co-opting definitions and redefining them as the opposite of what they actually are.
Words like "safe and effective" describe something that is leaky and harmful.
"Inflation Reduction Act" is something that describes policies that will lead to more government bloat, and inflation.
I know liberals who are as against the Leftist agenda that has hijacked the democrat party, as well as Conservatives who are against the anemic response of the Republican party, and there is a growing grass roots movement of libertarians who resent the socialistic wing of those who have hijacked the libertarian party.
First things first, list all the libertarian candidates you have seen over the last 42 years.
Finally, if libertarians are a throw-away vote, then why should you care if they vote for pie-in-the-sky ideals. Consider this, they weren't going to vote for your candidate anyhow. I certainly have no overriding desire to vote Kemp "Let' extend the emergency powers just a little bit longer."
"The Libertarian Party is not into unlimited immigration."
Wrong. Do your homework.
"Wrong, Do Your homework"
At some point this all starts to sound like ad nauseam ad hominem attacks does not not?