"A Republic, if you can keep it."

[NiftyNiblick]

Hello NiftyNiblick,



It's not 50%.

That is an inflated figure.

'A prepeutal state of rage???'

I would put it at 30-35%, tops, and I suspect it is actually far fewer.

Just because people vote a certain way, and some of them are 'enraged,' doesn't mean that everyone who votes that way is similarly motivated.

You're an optimist, Poli, but we're in a place where being a realist is more helpful.
I've been to Middle America and to the Deep South.
I've been to Europe.

Europe feels more like home to a progressive liberal from the Northeast than does Red State America.
It has nothing to do with how friendly or welcoming the people are. I don't care too much about that.
It has to do with their values.

Typical, average, normal Red State Americans have values that are genuinely deplorable to me,
and while you may be willing to embrace them as fellow countrymen,
I quite obviously am not.

 

[RB 60]

in my mostly conservative area, about 5% believe that we should be able to own machine guns.........the other 95% believe you shouldn't HUNT with a machine gun..........the key word you might have missed was FEDERAL........

If you need to hunt with a machine gun, you sure as hell shouldn't be in the woods. Period.
But you can own a machine gun. Although I really think the cost of the permit is steep, I
understand those who have them are responsible individuals. Criminals don't spent the time
and money to obey the law.

You mentioned bump stocks. If you feel the need to make your semi-automatic "automatic,"
make one. they aren't that complicated. Myself, if I want to spray lead, I have 2 1100's for that.

But, this is your quote that I replied to:
"MOST republicans support every federal gun control law on the books"

Most Republicans don't support every federal gun control law. There are over 20,000 gun laws on
the books. I, for one, feel most are unconstitutional. Exceptions being, violent offenders owning one.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hello Dutch Uncle,

LOL! We can only wish. But if that pipe dream were to be real there would have to be a method to discern between use and abuse. Responsible use, no problem. Abuse is the concern.

I was randomly drug and alcohol tested for almost 40 years. The procedures are fairly well established on limits. Alcohol was allowed, but only to a limit. For pilots it's half of drivers: 0.04BAC versus, AFAIK, all states are 0.08BAC for drivers. For military and pilots, no drugs at all. Although I can see Congress giving themselves a limit on THC. For the Trumps, especially Donnie Jr, cocaine would be allowed.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

We are still a republic, Owl, but not a sustainable one with 50% of the electorate perpetually in a state of rage, no matter which side is in power.
That's no way to live, and "United" States of America is quite obviously not true.

If I sleep well once in a while, the state of the nation is not a contributing factor.

I think it's even worse, actually. The rage belongs to a small minority on the right, perhaps less than 30% of the population -- but they are the most violent, the loudest, and ones that force formerly-principled politicians to bow down to the Tangerine Tyrant.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The rage belongs to a small minority on the right

the rage ALSO belongs to a sizable percentage of the population on the left. The number of lefties i've seen who actively wished for trumps death was about equal to those on the right who are angry about the so called election stealing

stop minimizing negative aspects of those in your demographic because they embarrass you...........you own them every bit as much as you stick those on the right with owning their radicals

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Libertarianism is counter to governments agenda. they don't want less power, therefore they (both parties) push the idea that Libertarianism is anarchy or extreme, that they want no government.......and it works because most people are either too lazy to find out for themselves or too afraid of what the other side would do if they won, so they continue voting the way they have been. It has absolutely nothing to do with it not being a good idea, just that people are led to believe otherwise so that the two main parties don't lose their own power or support.

Nah, it's more like Christianity. When all you see of it is weirdoes knocking at your door and handing out tracts filled with crazy, you're not going to have a good impression of the faith. Same with libertarians -- when all you see are nutjobs and whackos pushing the ideology, you're not going to have a good impression of it either.

On a prior forum there was a libertarian guy who was articulate, rational, well-spoken, and unfailingly civil. Yet even he could never explain to why we should practice such a form of non-government. For instance, he wanted to abolish the use of courts for civil cases. I gave him a scenario where you own a farm and draw your water from the river that abuts your property. A company puts in a plant upstream and starts dumping their waste into it. Your cattle and family can no longer drink the water, nor can you use it to irrigate your crops. What is your recourse, if you have a government that doesn't protect your rights, and no court to enforce it? He had the idea that you could work things out with the company. From what we've seen over the years, that seems unlikely.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Nah, it's more like Christianity. When all you see of it is weirdoes knocking at your door and handing out tracts filled with crazy, you're not going to have a good impression of the faith. Same with libertarians -- when all you see are nutjobs and whackos pushing the ideology, you're not going to have a good impression of it either.

question for you, if you'll answer it honestly. What part of the Libertarian ideology do you find crazy? or is it that you see just those pushing Libertarian ideology as 'nutjobs and whackos' and why?

On a prior forum there was a libertarian guy who was articulate, rational, well-spoken, and unfailingly civil. Yet even he could never explain to why we should practice such a form of non-government. For instance, he wanted to abolish the use of courts for civil cases. I gave him a scenario where you own a farm and draw your water from the river that abuts your property. A company puts in a plant upstream and starts dumping their waste into it. Your cattle and family can no longer drink the water, nor can you use it to irrigate your crops. What is your recourse, if you have a government that doesn't protect your rights, and no court to enforce it? He had the idea that you could work things out with the company. From what we've seen over the years, that seems unlikely.

so you're basing your entire viewpoint of Libertarian ideology on a single person who didn't understand what Libertarian ideology really is?

 

[Iolo/Penderyn]

question for you, if you'll answer it honestly. What part of the Libertarian ideology do you find crazy? or is it that you see just those pushing Libertarian ideology as 'nutjobs and whackos' and why?


so you're basing your entire viewpoint of Libertarian ideology on a single person who didn't understand what Libertarian ideology really is?

Capitalism, obviously, can't survive without a full, active police state, yet you surely believe in capitalism far more than in your imagined 'liberty'?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Nah, it's more like Christianity. When all you see of it is weirdoes knocking at your door and handing out tracts filled with crazy, you're not going to have a good impression of the faith. Same with libertarians -- when all you see are nutjobs and whackos pushing the ideology, you're not going to have a good impression of it either.

On a prior forum there was a libertarian guy who was articulate, rational, well-spoken, and unfailingly civil. Yet even he could never explain to why we should practice such a form of non-government. For instance, he wanted to abolish the use of courts for civil cases. I gave him a scenario where you own a farm and draw your water from the river that abuts your property. A company puts in a plant upstream and starts dumping their waste into it. Your cattle and family can no longer drink the water, nor can you use it to irrigate your crops. What is your recourse, if you have a government that doesn't protect your rights, and no court to enforce it? He had the idea that you could work things out with the company. From what we've seen over the years, that seems unlikely.

question for you, if you'll answer it honestly. What part of the Libertarian ideology do you find crazy? or is it that you see just those pushing Libertarian ideology as 'nutjobs and whackos' and why?


so you're basing your entire viewpoint of Libertarian ideology on a single person who didn't understand what Libertarian ideology really is?

Part of the problem is that there is Libertarianism and the Libertarian Party. The LP actually has a platform: https://www.lp.org/platform/

Just asking someone "what does libertarianism mean to you" is like asking someone "what does Christianity (or the United States) mean to you?" The answers will vary a lot in this latter case.

Personally, support the LP platform but consider points 3.1 and 3.3 to be more idealistic than realistic. I agree with their spirit but reality requires stepping outside the bounds of that spirit in today's world.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Capitalism, obviously, can't survive without a full, active police state, yet you surely believe in capitalism far more than in your imagined 'liberty'?

without a full, active police state? surely you can expand upon that to show us why that is, right?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Nifty,

You're an optimist, Poli, but we're in a place where being a realist is more helpful.
I've been to Middle America and to the Deep South.
I've been to Europe.

Europe feels more like home to a progressive liberal from the Northeast than does Red State America.
It has nothing to do with how friendly or welcoming the people are. I don't care too much about that.
It has to do with their values.

Typical, average, normal Red State Americans have values that are genuinely deplorable to me,
and while you may be willing to embrace them as fellow countrymen,
I quite obviously am not.

A good assessment.

I want to see the good in people. I want to envision how we can patch up this fractured nation. And I certainly do think that is possible, even if it doesn't always appear that way. I am not ready to give up on the United States of America.

There must be a way to bring the country back together.

I want to find it.

I am not one to shy away from a difficult challenge because it appears daunting.

I have accomplished some things in life that I could have easily said were too hard and never tried.

That produces a strong sense of empowerment and a willingness to take on difficult challenges that others would not try.
.
I would rather try and fail to do something seemingly impossible than to never even try.

And I even recognize that when it comes to countries and populations that some efforts require people like me to dedicate themselves to it, fully knowing it may not happen in my lifetime, but that if enough people continue the effort it may eventually be realized over many lifetimes.

Being a part of something bigger than me is a good feeling. Like I am doing the right thing to give back to a society which has produced a fantastic life for me.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Part of the problem is that there is Libertarianism and the Libertarian Party. The LP actually has a platform: https://www.lp.org/platform/

Just asking someone "what does libertarianism mean to you" is like asking someone "what does Christianity (or the United States) mean to you?" The answers will vary a lot in this latter case.

Personally, support the LP platform but consider points 3.1 and 3.3 to be more idealistic than realistic. I agree with their spirit but reality requires stepping outside the bounds of that spirit in today's world.

Do you think it's necessary that the US be the worlds policeman?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Hello Nifty,



A good assessment.

I want to see the good in people. I want to envision how we can patch up this fractured nation. And I certainly do think that is possible, even if it doesn't always appear that way. I am not ready to give up on the United States of America.

There must be a way to bring the country back together.

I want to find it.

I am not one to shy away from a difficult challenge because it appears daunting.

I have accomplished some things in life that I could have easily said were too hard and never tried.

That produces a strong sense of empowerment and a willingness to take on difficult challenges that others would not try.
.
I would rather try and fail to do something seemingly impossible than to never even try.

And I even recognize that when it comes to countries and populations that some efforts require people like me to dedicate themselves to it, fully knowing it may not happen in my lifetime, but that if enough people continue the effort it may eventually be realized over many lifetimes.

Being a part of something bigger than me is a good feeling. Like I am doing the right thing to give back to a society which has produced a fantastic life for me.

so can you maybe stop advocating to send all jobs and key industries away based on globalist(corporatist) zealotry?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I think it's even worse, actually. The rage belongs to a small minority on the right, perhaps less than 30% of the population -- but they are the most violent, the loudest, and ones that force formerly-principled politicians to bow down to the Tangerine Tyrant.

I'd say much less than 30% of the population. Probably more like 30% of the Republican party which is already 30% of the voting public. 40% of Americans don't even vote. Since 40% of voters are neither D's or R's, that means Republicans are actually 18% of the population, about 42.7M voters. A third of them would be about 14M enraged Republicans. (Feel free to check my math). My guess is the vast majority of them don't want to go to jail for murdering Democrats, attempting to overthrow their State or the Federal government or any other criminal actions. Out of 237 eligible US voters, I doubt more than a handful would do anything that sees them spend the rest of their lives in a federal prison or lying dead in the streets.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Do you think it's necessary that the US be the worlds policeman?

Absolutely not. However, the term is often used as spin.

Example: The world is 3/4s water. The same two oceans that protected the United States from Eurotrash wars and Asian warlords is now a vital highway for US trade. IIRC, about a third of all US jobs are related to foreign trade. If some asshole nation like North Korea or Iran starts to fuck with our trade routes, shouldn't we do something about it? Since the best defense is a good offense, having our Navy and Marines in the area to quickly shut down any problems would be advantageous. Remember the Somali pirates?

In fact, even the staunchly isolationist President Jefferson recognized the necessity of stopping the problems caused by the Barbary Pirates. Hence, the Shores of Tripoli.

During the Cold War it made sense to have a large US presence as the Euros rebuilt following WWII. Since the US was reluctant to share command, much less let some Frenchie or Englishman control US troops, the US was willing to pay the lion's share of defending Europe in exchange for retaining command. Those days are gone.

IMO, our allies need to start stepping up to the plate as the US slowly withdraws our presence. We can have joint exercises, still float the Marine Corps taxi service around, but our Euro and Asian allies need to carry their own weight.

Although Trump is a shitty leader and often like a bull in a china closet, I give full credit to President Trump for shaking up the status quo with our allies....even if I do not trust his true motives in doing so.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Absolutely not. However, the term is often used as spin.

Example: The world is 3/4s water. The same two oceans that protected the United States from Eurotrash wars and Asian warlords is now a vital highway for US trade. IIRC, about a third of all US jobs are related to foreign trade. If some asshole nation like North Korea or Iran starts to fuck with our trade routes, shouldn't we do something about it? Since the best defense is a good offense, having our Navy and Marines in the area to quickly shut down any problems would be advantageous. Remember the Somali pirates?

In fact, even the staunchly isolationist President Jefferson recognized the necessity of stopping the problems caused by the Barbary Pirates. Hence, the Shores of Tripoli.

During the Cold War it made sense to have a large US presence as the Euros rebuilt following WWII. Since the US was reluctant to share command, much less let some Frenchie or Englishman control US troops, the US was willing to pay the lion's share of defending Europe in exchange for retaining command. Those days are gone.

IMO, our allies need to start stepping up to the plate as the US slowly withdraws our presence. We can have joint exercises, still float the Marine Corps taxi service around, but our Euro and Asian allies need to carry their own weight.

Although Trump is a shitty leader and often like a bull in a china closet, I give full credit to President Trump for shaking up the status quo with our allies....even if I do not trust his true motives in doing so.

wouldn't piracy, even from a nation state, be considered under maritime law? I don't see that as being a worlds policeman, though I guess some radical lefties might........and yes, I agree with you that our european allies need to step up to the plate and definitely do their part.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Absolutely not. However, the term is often used as spin.

Example: The world is 3/4s water. The same two oceans that protected the United States from Eurotrash wars and Asian warlords is now a vital highway for US trade. IIRC, about a third of all US jobs are related to foreign trade. If some asshole nation like North Korea or Iran starts to fuck with our trade routes, shouldn't we do something about it? Since the best defense is a good offense, having our Navy and Marines in the area to quickly shut down any problems would be advantageous. Remember the Somali pirates?

In fact, even the staunchly isolationist President Jefferson recognized the necessity of stopping the problems caused by the Barbary Pirates. Hence, the Shores of Tripoli.

During the Cold War it made sense to have a large US presence as the Euros rebuilt following WWII. Since the US was reluctant to share command, much less let some Frenchie or Englishman control US troops, the US was willing to pay the lion's share of defending Europe in exchange for retaining command. Those days are gone.

IMO, our allies need to start stepping up to the plate as the US slowly withdraws our presence. We can have joint exercises, still float the Marine Corps taxi service around, but our Euro and Asian allies need to carry their own weight.

Although Trump is a shitty leader and often like a bull in a china closet, I give full credit to President Trump for shaking up the status quo with our allies....even if I do not trust his true motives in doing so.

but toppling quaddafi is different from all this. trade sanctions are our most powerful weapon. but globalist imbeciles like you have pronounced it off limits, cuz you're banker cocksuckers.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

real libertarians believe in sound currency.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

wouldn't piracy, even from a nation state, be considered under maritime law? I don't see that as being a worlds policeman, though I guess some radical lefties might........and yes, I agree with you that our european allies need to step up to the plate and definitely do their part.

I don't see it as being world police either, but you and I both know there are idiots who claim it is. Additionally, since those same trade routes are also vital to both Europe and Asia, they need to beef up their navies to carry their share of the load patrolling those routes.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

real libertarians believe in sound currency.

Who doesn't believe in a sound currency? The same people who are anti-capitalist?