2020 Presidential Election (All Serious POVs Welcome)

[BallSacBounce]

You’re telling me not to believe what I see and hear with my own eyes and ears? There’s no reason to bring up Velshi getting hit with a rubber bullet except to be a dick. What did Velshi do to deserve that? That’s an abuse of power by the government, journalists are clearly marked during the protests so laughing and cheering on someone getting attacked by the police is promoting Facism. Only complete **** cheer or try to defend this garbage.

If that's what you saw and heard then your eyes and ears are defective. I just demonstrated how so. Laid it all out. If you disagree then show me how I am wrong. If you can't or don't I'll just chalk up your inability to do so and your response of simply repeating the accusation to cognitive dissonance. Carry on.

Tally up the number of times Trump has disavowed neo-nazis/white supremacists compared to the number of times he’s gone after Antifa

Don’t bull us with this nonsense

Tally up the number of times on his watch Antifa has caused violence and compare it to how many times neo-nazis/white supremacists have caused it and you'll see why Antifa gets called out so much more often.

But happy to see you understand he did disavow. A lot of people just don't get it even after they're shown the evidence.

[Fury]

If that's what you saw and heard then your eyes and ears are defective. I just demonstrated how so. Laid it all out. If you disagree then show me how I am wrong. If you can't or don't I'll just chalk up your inability to do so and your response of simply repeating the accusation to cognitive dissonance. Carry on.

Tally up the number of times Trump has disavowed neo-nazis/white supremacists compared to the number of times he’s gone after Antifa

Don’t bull us with this nonsense

Tally up the number of times on his watch Antifa has caused violence and compare it to how many times neo-nazis/white supremacists have caused it and you'll see why Antifa gets called out so much more often.

But happy to see you understand he did disavow. A lot of people just don't get it even after they're shown the evidence.

Go ahead count it up. You do know that white supremacists are actually the biggest domestic terrorist threat in the country right? And have killed more people than antifa, right?

So again, tally it up, bullshitter

[j4remi]

Well I always hear this line of reasoning from people on this board and across social media, but they never expand on what Obama could have done. I always hear the criticism that he should have fought the Republicans at every turn and jailed the GWB administration for the Iraq war. I’m curious as to where you think he could have pressed harder considering that: he inherited the greatest global economic crisis since the depression, he inherited two disastrous wars and he had to deal with resistance within his own party. Sure it’s easy to play Monday morning quarterback, but the Republican backlash against Obama was simply because he is a black man and Democrats stopped bothering to show up after 2008 the black President didn’t fix all the world’s problems in two years. There were actual Democratic candidates that distances themselves from him during the midterms.

Well first and foremost we can start on what he did do. Expansion of drone strikes and NSA surveillance powers were problematic. High levels of deportations. These aren't circumstances where his hands were tied and yes, you might have a reason for disagreement for why you feel all of that was justified. But these are real critiques fam. That's not to mention a failure to address income inequality in any meaningful way while attempting to restore the economy.

His circumstances were unfortunate and it's understandable that he didn't accomplish a huge utopian dreamscape; most people don't critique him from that cartoonish world view though. The critique from the left is about expanding powers that should have been reduced and coming up with responses that may have been adequate in cases but mostly just got the ball rolling with compromises included that could unwind the initiatives.

A significant portion of the Democratic Party is still moderate. Bernie learned the hard way what only catering to a segment of your party leads to. I hundred percent support challenges within the party. But the when the primaries are over, Democrats need to vote blue period. No third party stupidity, no protest votes or sitting out.

That's not what I'm talking about and we've been over this a few times. While my normal rationale is vote blue in swing states, but in blue or red states don't worry about protest voting. My concerns about this specific election have moved me off of that position. Either way, at no point have I ever condoned sitting out or protest votes. I'm referencing the DCCC's overprotectiveness of incumbents such as threatening to blacklist consultants who helped primary challengers. \

I bring up Trump because it shows that just because a President has control of all three branches doesn’t mean that they can ram through any legislation that they want. Obama had a lot more success in the first two years than Trump has. And you know the reason why Trump has confirmed so many Federal judges? Because the **** Mitch McConnell refused to fill the Federal judiciary under Obama. That’s why there were so many vacancies. It comes back to how horrible Republicans are and voters failing to show up during the midterms.

The Federal Judges example is one where respecting norms (blue slips) held no value and did nothing to obstruct the GOP from ignoring those exact same norms. It's the case for more aggressive action over attempts at olive branches and compromises with bad faith actors. The reality is, whether the Democrats set the precedent or not...the Republicans will do whatever they believe is necessary to accomplish their agenda. As Mcconnell completely ignores the precedent he set in 2016 with Garland in the near future; that bares remembering if the Democrats get hold of fleeting power.

They may only have 2 years of flexibility; they'd be better suited to move aggressively than to expect the Republicans to do anything that actually looks like good faith negotiation. That hasn't been the case in the entire Mcconnell era.

Like I said above. Primaries is the time to fall in love, then the general election is the time to fall in line. I don’t see how sitting out of votes, even if it’s not for your preferred candidate gets you closer to what you want. A Democratic member of Congress is much easier to move further left than a Republican member. It’s really that simple. So yes even if someone’s ideology doesn’t 100% align with yours, they can be pressured. And you don’t stop the pressure till you get what you want or they’re replaced.

And I don’t know what you expect from Biden but if he wins he’s going to inherit a similar situation that Obama did. It will take time for his administration to start putting the government back in order and investigating the obvious crimes of the previous administration and President. These things will take time. The one benefit he’ll have that there are a stack of laws passed by Pelosi awaiting the next Senate Majority leader. I just hope that voters don’t think they don’t need to continue to show up in record numbers in 22’,24’,26’,28’,30’,32’. This is all about the long game.

And I'll continue to ask that you stop pivoting to third party voters when I'm not one of those people. We're not debating a vote for Biden at all. My only refrain was that Obama's Administration obviously made some mistakes with the limited time that they had a super majority, otherwise they wouldn't have lost the supermajority in such dramatic fashion. At a minimum, I think it's worth a deeper exploration than just saying "It's all the Republicans' fault we didn't do any better."

The question needs to be "what can we do differently to affect more change..." I'd start with the American Prospect's Day One Agenda series. It looked at potential day one initiatives that the different Primary candidates supported and how they intended to accomplish those tasks. These are more aggressive approaches...

https://prospect.org/day-one-agenda

[BallSacBounce]

Tally up the number of times Trump has disavowed neo-nazis/white supremacists compared to the number of times he’s gone after Antifa

Don’t bull us with this nonsense

Tally up the number of times on his watch Antifa has caused violence and compare it to how many times neo-nazis/white supremacists have caused it and you'll see why Antifa gets called out so much more often.

But happy to see you understand he did disavow. A lot of people just don't get it even after they're shown the evidence.

Go ahead count it up. You do know that white supremacists are actually the biggest domestic terrorist threat in the country right? And have killed more people than antifa, right?

So again, tally it up, bullshitter

Sure, no problem. First unequivocally denounce Antifa and BLM violence as I and the President have done have done for the white supremacist's and no one at all on this board has done for BLM/Antifa. I don't think you can do it. Hell it took Joe Biden over three months to get up the "moral leadership" to do it and to my knowledge Harris still hasn't. Show me your actually interested in coming to an understanding on this issue, political violence is bad wherever it comes from. Otherwise it looks like you just want an arguing point, why bother.

[HarthorneWingo]

So who still believes that you can "work with your good friends across the aisle"?

[Oscirus]

So who still believes that you can "work with your good friends across the aisle"?

You can, as long as its a conservative program you want pushed when you're a liberal. In all other cases, rofl.

All 2020 has taught us is that the dems need to stop talking **** and start backing their **** up. Member when the supreme court went conservative under bush and Dems made sly comments like they werent going to let those seats be filled but filled them anyway?

Good times

[HarthorneWingo]

Tally up the number of times on his watch Antifa has caused violence and compare it to how many times neo-nazis/white supremacists have caused it and you'll see why Antifa gets called out so much more often.

But happy to see you understand he did disavow. A lot of people just don't get it even after they're shown the evidence.

Go ahead count it up. You do know that white supremacists are actually the biggest domestic terrorist threat in the country right? And have killed more people than antifa, right?

So again, tally it up, bullshitter

Sure, no problem. First unequivocally denounce Antifa and BLM violence as I and the President have done have done for the white supremacist's and no one at all on this board has done for BLM/Antifa. I don't think you can do it. Hell it took Joe Biden over three months to get up the "moral leadership" to do it and to my knowledge Harris still hasn't. Show me your actually interested in coming to an understanding on this issue, political violence is bad wherever it comes from. Otherwise it looks like you just want an arguing point, why bother.

You heard directly from the FBI Director who gave sworn testimony before Congress last week that it was alt-right white supremacists who were at the top of the country's domestic terrorist threat. Yet you pander this bullshyt. This is why people here hate your guts. I, on the other hand, have been and will continue (at least for the time being) to give you some more rope but you need to prove that what Chris Wray testified to last week is a lie. Otherwise, no one here is going to take you seriously. Do you have DOJ/FBI stats to back you up?

[aq_ua]

Originalism is that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was understood and intended to be understood at the time.

If it's deemed to be lacking in some respects update it with current legislation not the whims of 9 judges. Let the people vote on it.

I’m still only in the early part of the document that Wingo posted, but it seems there’s even debate about what each side of the debate represents as the argument and the definition of the terms. Let’s revisit after we’ve digested this.

Wingo really **** us with this homework. Deep dive into what people call "originalism" and living constitutionalism."

He makes an excellent point early on about properly defining terms and shifting definitions. We all speak past each other often in political debates as a result.

I find this very interesting:

It seems
likely that there is a gap between originalist constitutional theory as
articulated by legal scholars and the use of the word “originalism” by
politicians and pundits. The gap between judges and scholars may be
narrower, but it is significant.39 If the label “originalism” is applied to the
actual decisional practice of self-identified judicial originalists, the content
of the theory is likely to diverge from the versions of originalism advocated
by legal scholars. An example of this divergence is seen in the context of
precedent, where judicial originalists are likely to place greater emphasis on
precedent, and constitutional theorists are likely to place more emphasis on
the original meaning of the constitutional text.

The relationship between the realms of originalist discourse are
complex. Many of the invocations of the word “originalism” in political
discourse are mere rhetorical flourishes, without any theoretical content at
all, but some politicians have a sophisticated understanding of contemporary
originalist constitutional theory—as illustrated by Senator Mike Lee’s
questioning of then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh during confirmation hearings.40
Some of the uses of “originalism” display very little awareness of originalist
scholarship, but some judicial originalists, for example, Justice Scalia,
Associate Chief Justice Thomas Lee of the Utah Supreme Court, and Judge
Amy Coney Barrett of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit, display a sophisticated command of originalist theory and participate
in scholarly debates.

The terminological and conceptual discussion in this Essay is aimed
primarily at scholarly discourse and to those aspects of judicial practice and
political discourse that interact with the academic debates. It should go
without saying that (at least in the short run) the proposals offered here are
unlikely to affect the use of the word “originalism” in rough-and-tumble
politics or judicial opinions authored by judges who are mostly (or even
completely) unfamiliar with the academic debates.

I loved Scalia. So I guess I come down on the academic originalism as interpreted by him and another one he brings up and relevant to the right now Amy Coney Barrett. I love the reasonings Clarence Thomas has written as well. I'd love to know what key ways if any he differs from Scalia in how he reads the constitution. Maybe Wingo can weigh in.

I like this passage, I want the applications of originalism to be ideologically neutral, and I believe that originalism does or
should at least lead to a mix of liberal, progressive, conservative, and libertarian results. I want politics out.
That's what legislatures are for.

For example, in Bradwell v. Illinois,97 the Supreme Court upheld Myra
Bradwell’s exclusion from the Illinois bar on the basis of gender. I have
argued that Bradwell v. Illinois was inconsistent with the original public
meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause because the right to pursue
a lawful occupation is one of the basic rights protected by the Clause.
However, Bradwell could have been understood as consistent with the
Clause by Justices who believed that women were intellectually incapable of
functioning as competent lawyers. The opposite result would be required
given true beliefs about women’s intellectual capacities.98 Fixed original
public meaning can give rise to different outcomes given changing beliefs
about facts. The Constraint Principle does not require constitutional actors
to adhere to false factual beliefs held by the drafters, Framers, ratifiers, or
the public.

Consider the following proposal for theorizing this intuitive reaction,
using Bernard Williams’s notion of a “thick moral concept”100 in which
descriptive and evaluative content are entwined. Similarly, it is possible that
some critics of originalism believe that originalism is a thick ideological
concept. The idea would be that the concept originalism combines
ideological and descriptive-theoretical elements. To put it more plainly,
originalism necessarily involves right-wing ideology—if it is not
conservative, it is not originalism. Similarly, one might think that living
constitutionalism is inherently liberal or progressive.

Many originalists disagree with this understanding of “originalism” as
that term operates in the realm of scholarly discourse. Quite obviously,
political progressives who are also originalists do not believe that their own
views are conceptually incoherent. Moreover, my impression is that most
conservatives and libertarian originalists believe that originalism is
ideologically neutral, and that originalism leads to a mix of liberal,
progressive, conservative, and libertarian results.

For example, the original
public meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause may support gender
equality rights (as discussed above).101 Originalism is arguably inconsistent
with sovereign immunity doctrines that are viewed as conservative.102
Moreover, the doctrine of birthright citizenship is supported by the original
public meaning of the Citizenship Clause of Section One of the Fourteenth
Amendment.103 And originalism likely leads to conservative results as well:
for example, the original meaning of the Commerce Clause likely leads to a
restrictive understanding of national legislative power.10

Well put conclusion:

CONCLUSION
Words and concepts matter, and not because conceptual clarity is more
important than normative substance. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Words
and concepts matter because conceptual clarity brings normative substance
to the fore. The most important normative issues in the great debate arise
from the originalist case for the Constraint Principle and the living
constitutionalist arguments for its rejection. These issues are many and
varied, in large part because there are so many different forms of living
constitutionalism. Making progress on the important questions of political
morality raised by the great debate between originalism and living
constitutionalism is difficult, even if we clearly understand the conceptual
structure of the debate. But if the meaning of “originalism” and “living
constitutionalism” is unstable or obscure, it seems likely that progress will
be all but impossible.

So, readers of this board, where do you fall in the following list and why?

I'm a public meaning originalist. The constitution should be interpreted by the meaning it had at the time. If you want to change the constitution there is a built-in method for that with certain standards and it involves the legislature not judges willy nilly style
re-imagining things as they go along. That's just chaos and ultimately the destruction of our republic if the meaning of the core of our laws change with the wind.

TABLE 3: THE CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE
Originalism
Public Meaning
Intentionalism
Original Methods
Original Law

Hybrid Theories
Living Originalism
Constitutional Compromise
Original Law Originalism

Living Constitutionalism
Constitutional Pluralism
Common Law Constitutionalism
Moral Readings
Super-Legislature
Popular Constitutionalism
Extranational Constitutionalism
Multiple Meanings
Thayerian Deference
Constitutional Antitheory
Constitutional Rejectionism

Great stuff Wingo!

That was a very good and thorough academic paper. The conclusion I drew from the analysis is that the line separating Originalism and Living Constitution is quite blurry when you break the two concepts down to their application. I was not aware the concept of Originalism has evolved since the 1980s and considers a pragmatic "original public meaning" at the core of its argument (i.e. no one on the Originalism side still argues that whatever Thomas Jefferson meant is how the constitution should be read today). If you take that argument forward, since it allows for the consideration of new facts (e.g. Internet and the impact on the First Amendment), as well as clarification of textual vagueness, the basis of original public meaning and doctrinal dynamism actually does and can co-exist.

Similarly, I was not aware that Living Constitutionalism is not a concept that deems judicial interpretation can somehow supercede constitutional doctrine (i.e. no willy nilly style re-imagining), rather the acceptance that the constitution was not drafted to be an all encompassing predictor of all times and therefore appropriate conduct, but one that can be amendment and appropriately applied as the circumstances of the world evolves.

I liked this passage myself:

...even if we assume that Original Methods Originalism eliminates almost all underdeterminacy, it would still allow for the development of new implementing rules in response to changing circumstances—for example, in the application of the First Amendment freedom of speech to oral communication via the Internet. To name names, this metalinguistic proposal would likely result in scholars like Professors Randy Barnett, Kurt Lash, John McGinnis, Michael Rappaport, and myself, as well as judges like Justices Neil Gorsuch, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas, all being classified as living constitutionalists—an odd result indeed.

All of which read to me as, the philosophies - at their very core - are actually quite close together in nature and when considering that a core function of the Supreme Court is the interpretation of the Constitution, I'm actually more confused as to why there is a debate and sides on this matter, other than there is a political will at work.

[lloydj]

Trump will go down as the Greatest Con Artist in the United States. Got to give credit, where its only due.

[Fat Kat]

So who still believes that you can "work with your good friends across the aisle"?

We can’t. That’s why playing footsies with them is not only unproductive, but also counterproductive as it lends legitimacy to their Nazi tendencies. They’re not looking to meet in the middle. They want to either rule or eliminate folks they deem less than.

[HarthorneWingo]

So who still believes that you can "work with your good friends across the aisle"?

We can’t. That’s why playing footsies with them is not only unproductive, but also counterproductive as it lends legitimacy to their Nazi tendencies. They’re not looking to meet in the middle. They want to either rule or eliminate folks they deem less than.

I meant “clobbering” in the political sense. I know sometimes it’s difficult to tell with me. So whatever it takes Schumer and Pelosi. We just need to use whatever we can to squelch this. And then we crush them. They are not partners nor will they be if they think we’ll play nice while they lie, cheat, and steal. They’re going to call us names no matter what we do.

[HarthorneWingo]

Dems already punking out.

Watch on YouTube

[spree2kawhi]

Tally up the number of times on his watch Antifa has caused violence and compare it to how many times neo-nazis/white supremacists have caused it and you'll see why Antifa gets called out so much more often.

But happy to see you understand he did disavow. A lot of people just don't get it even after they're shown the evidence.

Go ahead count it up. You do know that white supremacists are actually the biggest domestic terrorist threat in the country right? And have killed more people than antifa, right?

So again, tally it up, bullshitter

Sure, no problem. First unequivocally denounce Antifa and BLM violence as I and the President have done have done for the white supremacist's and no one at all on this board has done for BLM/Antifa. I don't think you can do it. Hell it took Joe Biden over three months to get up the "moral leadership" to do it and to my knowledge Harris still hasn't. Show me your actually interested in coming to an understanding on this issue, political violence is bad wherever it comes from. Otherwise it looks like you just want an arguing point, why bother.

So you can't...?

[Pointgod]

Go ahead count it up. You do know that white supremacists are actually the biggest domestic terrorist threat in the country right? And have killed more people than antifa, right?

So again, tally it up, bullshitter

Sure, no problem. First unequivocally denounce Antifa and BLM violence as I and the President have done have done for the white supremacist's and no one at all on this board has done for BLM/Antifa. I don't think you can do it. Hell it took Joe Biden over three months to get up the "moral leadership" to do it and to my knowledge Harris still hasn't. Show me your actually interested in coming to an understanding on this issue, political violence is bad wherever it comes from. Otherwise it looks like you just want an arguing point, why bother.

You heard directly from the FBI Director who gave sworn testimony before Congress last week that it was alt-right white supremacists who were at the top of the country's domestic terrorist threat. Yet you pander this bullshyt. This is why people here hate your guts. I, on the other hand, have been and will continue (at least for the time being) to give you some more rope but you need to prove that what Chris Wray testified to last week is a lie. Otherwise, no one here is going to take you seriously. Do you have DOJ/FBI stats to back you up?

BallSacBounce is an example of real time cult behavior. I laugh when he claims he’s a Libertarian because hes fully on the Trump train. His posts come straight out of 1984.

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

[robillionaire]

Sure, no problem. First unequivocally denounce Antifa and BLM violence as I and the President have done have done for the white supremacist's and no one at all on this board has done for BLM/Antifa. I don't think you can do it. Hell it took Joe Biden over three months to get up the "moral leadership" to do it and to my knowledge Harris still hasn't. Show me your actually interested in coming to an understanding on this issue, political violence is bad wherever it comes from. Otherwise it looks like you just want an arguing point, why bother.

You heard directly from the FBI Director who gave sworn testimony before Congress last week that it was alt-right white supremacists who were at the top of the country's domestic terrorist threat. Yet you pander this bullshyt. This is why people here hate your guts. I, on the other hand, have been and will continue (at least for the time being) to give you some more rope but you need to prove that what Chris Wray testified to last week is a lie. Otherwise, no one here is going to take you seriously. Do you have DOJ/FBI stats to back you up?

BallSacBounce is an example of real time cult behavior. I laugh when he claims he’s a Libertarian because hes fully on the Trump train. His posts come straight out of 1984.

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

Not just him though, a lot of self described libertarians jumped right off that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson wagon head first into supporting an authoritarian police state just as soon as white nationalism was offered up. Says something about the ideology

[robillionaire]

Also in the latest move to punish any opposition to this administration and ban any civil protest nyc is officially an “anarchist jurisdiction” now, congrats everybody. Not sure if they intend on bombing us now or what. Are we basically on the Gaza Strip now or what

[Fury]

Tally up the number of times on his watch Antifa has caused violence and compare it to how many times neo-nazis/white supremacists have caused it and you'll see why Antifa gets called out so much more often.

But happy to see you understand he did disavow. A lot of people just don't get it even after they're shown the evidence.

Go ahead count it up. You do know that white supremacists are actually the biggest domestic terrorist threat in the country right? And have killed more people than antifa, right?

So again, tally it up, bullshitter

Sure, no problem. First unequivocally denounce Antifa and BLM violence as I and the President have done have done for the white supremacist's and no one at all on this board has done for BLM/Antifa. I don't think you can do it. Hell it took Joe Biden over three months to get up the "moral leadership" to do it and to my knowledge Harris still hasn't. Show me your actually interested in coming to an understanding on this issue, political violence is bad wherever it comes from. Otherwise it looks like you just want an arguing point, why bother.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/white-supremacists-terror-threat-dhs-409236

All three documents note that 2019 was the most deadly year for domestic violent extremists since the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995.

“Among DVE [domestic violent extremist] actors, WSEs [white supremacist extremists] conducted half of all lethal attacks (8 of 16), resulting in the majority of deaths (39 of 48),” the drafts read.

Now show me something for Antifa and BLM violence that has put them as the greatest domestic threat in the country and tally it up, bullshitter

[DOT]

You heard directly from the FBI Director who gave sworn testimony before Congress last week that it was alt-right white supremacists who were at the top of the country's domestic terrorist threat. Yet you pander this bullshyt. This is why people here hate your guts. I, on the other hand, have been and will continue (at least for the time being) to give you some more rope but you need to prove that what Chris Wray testified to last week is a lie. Otherwise, no one here is going to take you seriously. Do you have DOJ/FBI stats to back you up?

BallSacBounce is an example of real time cult behavior. I laugh when he claims he’s a Libertarian because hes fully on the Trump train. His posts come straight out of 1984.

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

Not just him though, a lot of self described libertarians jumped right off that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson wagon head first into supporting an authoritarian police state just as soon as white nationalism was offered up. Says something about the ideology

I find about a third of libertarians are Republicans who are embarrassed to call themselves Republicans, another third is Republicans who like to smoke weed, and the last third are Republicans who want to lower the age of consent

All of them think we need more police in the streets, which should tell you everything you need to know about their ideology

And all of them will feign moral outrage when you call them Republicans, but at the end of the day, they always vote red. It's like how I'm technically an Independent and much further to the left than the Dem party, but when push comes to shove, I have to vote blue because they're by far the better option. I don't get triggered when I get lumped in with the Dems as much as I don't like them because at the end of the day, better dead than red.

[Rasho Brezec]

BallSacBounce is an example of real time cult behavior. I laugh when he claims he’s a Libertarian because hes fully on the Trump train. His posts come straight out of 1984.

Not just him though, a lot of self described libertarians jumped right off that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson wagon head first into supporting an authoritarian police state just as soon as white nationalism was offered up. Says something about the ideology

I find about a third of libertarians are Republicans who are embarrassed to call themselves Republicans, another third is Republicans who like to smoke weed, and the last third are Republicans who want to lower the age of consent

All of them think we need more police in the streets, which should tell you everything you need to know about their ideology

And all of them will feign moral outrage when you call them Republicans, but at the end of the day, they always vote red. It's like how I'm technically an Independent and much further to the left than the Dem party, but when push comes to shove, I have to vote blue because they're by far the better option. I don't get triggered when I get lumped in with the Dems as much as I don't like them because at the end of the day, better dead than red.

That doesn't tell us anything about libertarianism and everything about people who think they're libertarians.

[Pointgod]

You heard directly from the FBI Director who gave sworn testimony before Congress last week that it was alt-right white supremacists who were at the top of the country's domestic terrorist threat. Yet you pander this bullshyt. This is why people here hate your guts. I, on the other hand, have been and will continue (at least for the time being) to give you some more rope but you need to prove that what Chris Wray testified to last week is a lie. Otherwise, no one here is going to take you seriously. Do you have DOJ/FBI stats to back you up?

BallSacBounce is an example of real time cult behavior. I laugh when he claims he’s a Libertarian because hes fully on the Trump train. His posts come straight out of 1984.

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

Not just him though, a lot of self described libertarians jumped right off that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson wagon head first into supporting an authoritarian police state just as soon as white nationalism was offered up. Says something about the ideology

Whiteness is a hell of a drug.