Why you should vote Republican this election:

[Matt Collins]

It's important to vote Republican this election.




Why?




Because once the Republicans gain control of Congress and the White House:




- the budget will be balanced and the deficit will be reduced

- the national debt will start to be paid down

- anti-gun laws will be repealed

- abortion will be outlawed

- the government will get completely out of healthcare

- corporate and personal welfare will be eliminated




If the Democrats keep control of the government then none of these things will happen. We can only count on any of this happening if the Republicans are running the show. So get out there and do your part!

[Origanalist]

Vote early, vote hard.

[CCTelander]

It's important to vote Republican this election.




Why?




Because once the Republicans gain control of Congress and the White House:




- the budget will be balanced and the deficit will be reduced

- the national debt will start to be paid down

- anti-gun laws will be repealed

- abortion will be outlawed

- the government will get completely out of healthcare

- corporate and personal welfare will be eliminated




If the Democrats keep control of the government then none of these things will happen. We can only count on any of this happening if the Republicans are running the show. So get out there and do your part!



This sounds an aweful lot like the promises Republicans made back in 1994 when they were basically begging Americans to give them control of both houses in spite of the fact that they'd just stabbed us in the back by collaborating in the passage of both the 94 assault weapons ban and the Brady Act, the latter they went so far as to engage in late night holiday sessions in order to help rewrite the bill to include the instant background check, rendering it de facto federal registration of all new gun sales.

They got their wish. Big red wave in today's terms. Majorities in both houses.

How many of the promises above did they actually keep, among many others? NONE. NADA. ZIP. A BIG FAT ZERO.

Typical. Go Republicans.

[luctor-et-emergo]

Vote early, vote hard.

Finally, a gasp of fresh air.

[otherone]

It's important to vote Republican this election.




Why?




Because once the Republicans gain control of Congress and the White House:




- the budget will be balanced and the deficit will be reduced

- the national debt will start to be paid down

- anti-gun laws will be repealed

- abortion will be outlawed

- the government will get completely out of healthcare

- corporate and personal welfare will be eliminated




If the Democrats keep control of the government then none of these things will happen. We can only count on any of this happening if the Republicans are running the show. So get out there and do your part!


Hitting the bottle early today?

[CCTelander]

Vote early, vote hard.


You forgot "vote often."

[Origanalist]

This sounds an aweful lot like the promises Republicans made back in 1994 when they were basically begging Americans to give them control of both houses in spite of the fact that they'd just stabbed us in the back by collaborating in the passage of both the 94 assault weapons ban and the Brady Act, the latter they went so far as to engage in late night holiday sessions in order to help rewrite the bill to include the instant background check, rendering it de facto federal registration of all new gun sales.

They got their wish. Big red wave in today's terms. Majorities in both houses.

How many of the promises above did they actually keep, among many others? NONE. NADA. ZIP. A BIG FAT ZERO.

Typical. Go Republicans.

I'm hoping it's satire.

[CCTelander]

I'm hoping it's satire.


I'm right there with you.

I'd +rep you if I could.

[dannno]

Does anybody in this thread understand the concept of a spectrum?

[jmdrake]

It's important to vote Republican this election.




Why?




Because once the Republicans gain control of Congress and the White House:




- the budget will be balanced and the deficit will be reduced

- the national debt will start to be paid down

- anti-gun laws will be repealed

- abortion will be outlawed

- the government will get completely out of healthcare

- corporate and personal welfare will be eliminated




If the Democrats keep control of the government then none of these things will happen. We can only count on any of this happening if the Republicans are running the show. So get out there and do your part!


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BvTALt7CAAE6JJd.jpg

[Brian4Liberty]

I'm hoping it's satire.

I’m betting it is.

[TheCount]

Does anybody in this thread understand the concept of a spectrum?
http://discovermagazine.com/~/media/Images/Issues/2017/July%20August/ScreenShot20170613at44607PM.jpg

[Krugminator2]

When Democrats last held Congress and the Presidency, you got Kagan and Sotomayor on the Supreme Court. Obamacare. Dodd-Frank. Cash for Clunkers. And massive increases in environmental regulations.

With Trump and Republicans, you get good to great judges not just on the Supreme Court but the lower courts are getting packed. A corporate income tax rate that is competitive with the rest of the world. A slowdown of the regulatory state that hasn't been seen in modern history. No transaction tax. No push for universal health care. No real gun control. On a scale of ten, Republicans are an 11 on the gun issue. They are great on guns. Not just good. They are pretty absolutist in the face of pressure on that issue.


As far as paying down the debt, when did that ever become a goal of libertarians? That isn't my goal. You bitched about Amash being against crony tax loopholes on the state level where budgets have to be balanced but worry about having high taxes to pay the national debt? That is the complete opposite view a libertarian should take. The budget should always be at a deficit on the federal level. The spending is the bad part but even that is in line with what has been historically going back to the 50s as a share of GDP. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S

I usually vote LP in statewide and national races but will vote Republican this year. Very pleased.

[euphemia]

When Democrats last held Congress and the Presidency, you got Kagan and Sotomayor on the Supreme Court. Obamacare. Dodd-Frank. Cash for Clunkers. And massive increases in environmental regulations.

This ^^^

You really want to keep looking at Feinstein and Pelosi?

[dannno]

This ^^^

You really want to keep looking at Feinstein and Pelosi?

Don't worry, we can have a red wave without these tools and continue to make progress without them.

Republicans certainly aren't going to get government completely out of healthcare, but they can turn back the tide and help the market get back to functioning better again.

[euphemia]

I’m good with that. We’re less than a month away and I don’t see Libertarian candidates on the ballot.

[Matt Collins]

When Democrats last held Congress and the Presidency, you got Kagan and Sotomayor on the Supreme Court. Obamacare. Dodd-Frank. Cash for Clunkers. And massive increases in environmental regulations. With Trump and Republicans, you get good to great judges not just on the Supreme Court but the lower courts are getting packed. Trump is pushing more gun control than Obama did. The Republican Congress and President are growing the deficit larger than Obama did (amazingly).

John Roberts gave us Obamacare and Gorsuch gave us overreaching national internet sales taxes. Kavanaugh has, in the past, given us unlimited warrantless spying on citizens.





A corporate income tax rate that is competitive with the rest of the world. A slowdown of the regulatory state that hasn't been seen in modern history. No transaction tax. No push for universal health care. All good steps, but they should be going a lot farther.



No real gun control. I have to call BS on this one. Trump is about to ban bump stocks.


On a scale of ten, Republicans are an 11 on the gun issue. They are great on guns. Not just good. They are pretty absolutist in the face of pressure on that issue.Then why haven't they repealed the NFA and all other unconstitutional gun control laws.



As far as paying down the debt, when did that ever become a goal of libertarians? Always. Fiscal conservatism is part of libertarianism.


The budget should always be at a deficit on the federal level.This makes zero sense whatsoever.


Are you sure you're on the right forums?

[Krugminator2]

Always. Fiscal conservatism is part of libertarianism.

This makes zero sense whatsoever.


Are you sure you're on the right forums?




Fiscal conservatism is certainly part of Gary Johnson's definition of libertarianism. I do consider Gary a libertarian so I guess there is one person who agrees. Zippyjuan is big on that. Howard Dean is for balanced budgets. He says he is a fiscal conservative. Michael Bloomberg says he is a fiscal conservative.

People who want smaller government like Walter Williams and Milton Friedman, not so big balanced budgets or paying down debt.

https://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams/02/18/lets-limit-spending


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndmmO07ckAU

Try harder. Be better. You should post less and listen more and learn more about the philosophy.

[Pauls' Revere]

You forgot "vote often."

Vote early, Vote hard, vote often.

Suffragium Primo, Suffragium Durum, Suffragium saepe.

[Krugminator2]

Trump is pushing more gun control than Obama did.

No. He's really not. Saying stuff like that should eliminate all credibility from you on anything.


John Roberts gave us Obamacare and Gorsuch gave us overreaching national internet sales taxes. Kavanaugh has, in the past, given us unlimited warrantless spying on citizens.

All three preferable (by far) to Kagan and Sotomayor



I have to call BS on this one. Trump is about to ban bump stocks.

I don't care. That means nothing. It is a nothing issue. Nixon wanted to ban all handguns. If this is the kind of thing that is considered "gun control" that is pretty good place to be in.

[Pauls' Revere]

http://discovermagazine.com/~/media/Images/Issues/2017/July%20August/ScreenShot20170613at44607PM.jpg

LOL :)

[Pauls' Revere]

Don't worry, we can have a red wave without these tools and continue to make progress without them.

Republicans certainly aren't going to get government completely out of healthcare, but they can turn back the tide and help the market get back to functioning better again.

I want to see Trump privatize the VA.

[Pauls' Revere]

If I vote for Trump, will RBG die?

[Origanalist]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DpfJ4bnXUAY03cY.jpg:large

[Matt Collins]

People who want smaller government like Walter Williams and Milton Friedman, not so big balanced budgets or paying down debt. Then they fail at economics (remember Friedman is ok with the Fed).

[Matt Collins]

No. He's really not. Obama enacted zero gun control. Trump is about to enact more.




All three preferable (by far) to Kagan and SotomayorIf they violate the Constitution then it makes no difference if a Republican or Democrat president appointed them.





I don't care. That means nothing. It is a nothing issue. Incorrect. Any gun control is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

[aGameOfThrones]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DpPPVPoUYAAfU7E.jpg

[TheTexan]

They got their wish. Big red wave in today's terms. Majorities in both houses.

How many of the promises above did they actually keep, among many others? NONE. NADA. ZIP. A BIG FAT ZERO.

Are you kidding? This Congress managed to cut the income tax by .5% or in some cases even a whole 1% which is just an enormous tax cut.

It's one of the largest tax cuts in the past 100 years!

Sure, they also increased taxes on imports but any good American should be buying American products anyway.

[TheTexan]

If the Democrats keep control of the government then none of these things will happen. We can only count on any of this happening if the Republicans are running the show. So get out there and do your part!

You can count on me to do my part :up:

I'm gonna vote super extra hard this time around!

[Swordsmyth]

Obama enacted zero gun control. Trump is about to enact more.
O'Bummer only failed to enact gun control because of Republicans in Congress, Trump is about to enact a regulatory bumpstock ban that will fail in the courts, if you want to see a legislative bumpstock or even semi-auto ban that will be more likely to survive a court challenge then let the Demoncrats take over Congress.




If they violate the Constitution then it makes no difference if a Republican or Democrat president appointed them.
It matters how much they violate the Constitution, the only reason the bumpstock ban will probably fail in the courts is because we got Gorsuch instead of Garland and now we have Kavanaugh instead of Kennedy.





Incorrect. Any gun control is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Absolutely true but there is still a difference between banning a gimmick accessory and banning all handguns or all semi-autos.

[phill4paul]

So who/how does MatttehZippyCollinz advise us to vote for? Inquiring minds want to know?

[TheTexan]

Absolutely true but there is still a difference between banning a gimmick accessory and banning all handguns or all semi-autos.

This x1000. Trump is and always has been an ardent supporter of our 2nd amendment hunting rights. Who cares about some gimmick accessory, that has no legitimate hunting use?

Bump stocks have been proven to be incredibly dangerous, capable of killing many people very quickly. Obviously, no responsible hunter would ever use this accessory to hunt deer, so it makes total sense to have it banned.

[Swordsmyth]

This x1000. Trump is and always has been an ardent supporter of our 2nd amendment hunting rights. Who cares about some gimmick accessory, that has no legitimate hunting use?

Bump stocks have been proven to be incredibly dangerous, capable of killing many people very quickly. Obviously, no responsible hunter would ever use this accessory to hunt deer, so it makes total sense to have it banned.
I don't want a broken finger but if it takes a broken finger to avoid a broken leg I prefer the broken finger.

I'm kinda funny that way.

[TheTexan]

I don't want a broken finger but if it takes a broken finger to avoid a broken leg I prefer the broken finger.

I'm kinda funny that way.

If someone is trying to break your finger (or your leg) you shouldn't just stand there and take it, you should be doing something about it. Like calling the police.

[Krugminator2]

(remember Friedman is ok with the Fed).

Yeah.... So... What am I supposed to be remembering? What are you talking about? He is the single most prominent Fed critic to ever live. It is kind of what he is famous for. He spent his career advocating ending the Federal Reserve system.

1994

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6fkdagNrjI


2006


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMY0tAHHF_M


Then they fail at economics

Where did you get your PHD in economics from? UCLA like Walter Williams? Harvard? Chicago?

All budgets are balanced at the federal level. It is just a matter of how the bill is paid. Spending is what matters because spending is what diverts resources away from the private economy.

[TheCount]

I don't want a broken finger but if it takes a broken finger to avoid a broken leg I prefer the broken finger.

I'm kinda funny that way.

2016: If you want to avoid a broken leg you'll have to let us break your index finger.

2018: If you want to avoid a broken leg you'll have to let us break your other index finger.

2020: If you want to avoid a broken leg you'll have to let us break your middle finger.

2022: If you want to avoid a broken leg you'll have to let us break your other middle finger.

...

Repeat forever.

[Swordsmyth]

2016: If you want to avoid a broken leg you'll have to let us break your index finger.

2018: If you want to avoid a broken leg you'll have to let us break your other index finger.

2020: If you want to avoid a broken leg you'll have to let us break your middle finger.

2022: If you want to avoid a broken leg you'll have to let us break your other middle finger.

...

Repeat forever.

Let me know when there is an actual chance to avoid both.

[phill4paul]

The only party that supports white, male, cis-gendered, straight individuals? Yeah, that's the party I'm voting across the board for. If votes don't matter then why not?

[spudea]

Ron Paul ran as a Republican. Rand Paul ran as a Republican.

[euphemia]

The point is, I don’t want Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein or Chuck Schumer running things. The balance of power in Congress is very delicate. The appointment of good judges is vital. I have 5 grandkids. I want them to experience a life where they have some liberty, and I want them to know I did what I could to advocate for their liberty.

[Matt Collins]

Trump is about to enact a regulatory bumpstock ban that will fail in the courts, No gun control is acceptable at all ever! And if you think the courts will repeal it, you are very naive.





It matters how much they violate the Constitution, the only reason the bumpstock ban will probably fail in the courts is because we got Gorsuch instead of Garland and now we have Kavanaugh instead of Kennedy.Not sure what you're smoking.






Absolutely true but there is still a difference between banning a gimmick accessory and banning all handguns or all semi-autos.Do you not understand "shall not be infringed???"

[Swordsmyth]

No gun control is acceptable at all ever! And if you think the courts will repeal it, you are very naive.
It isn't but if the only choice is between a regulatory rule that will be overturned and a law that might not I know which is less bad.
And it will be overturned.





Not sure what you're smoking.
Perhaps the problem is what you are smoking, Gorsuch is pro 2ndA ans so is Kavanaugh, Garland wasn't and Kennedy wasn't.







Do you not understand "shall not be infringed???"
Yes, do you understand the difference between a bumpstock ban and a semi-auto ban?

[TheCount]

Let me know when there is an actual chance to avoid both.

So long as you keep offering your fingers there will never be a chance.

[Swordsmyth]

So long as you keep offering your fingers there will never be a chance.
That's not how it works, we get to vote for the people who run, we don't decide who runs.

[Ender]

It isn't but if the only choice is between a regulatory rule that will be overturned and a law that might not I know which is less bad.
And it will be overturned.





Perhaps the problem is what you are smoking, Gorsuch is pro 2ndA ans so is Kavanaugh, Garland wasn't and Kennedy wasn't.







Yes, do you understand the difference between a bumpstock ban and a semi-auto ban?

There is no difference.

Any law against the 2nd Amendment is against freedom & what & why the 2nd Amendment was put into place. It is the very core of protecting the people.

From Chuck Baldwin:


It is time for the American people to forget about which party controls Congress and who is in the White House and start standing en masse for the Constitution and Bill of Rights—and against ANY new gun control laws—or the Second Amendment (and the rest of our liberties) will soon be toast.

As I said: THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENT.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/03/chuck-baldwin/this-is-the-beginning-of-totalitarian-government/

[dannno]

There is no difference.

Any law against the 2nd Amendment is against freedom & what & why the 2nd Amendment was put into place. It is the very core of protecting the people.

From Chuck Baldwin:



https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/03/chuck-baldwin/this-is-the-beginning-of-totalitarian-government/

Spectrum...

Continuing the ban of automatic weapons vs. total gun ban

GO

[Ender]

Spectrum...

Continuing the ban of automatic weapons vs. total gun ban

GO

How do you eat an elephant?

One bite at a time.

[Matt Collins]

And it will be overturned.You don't know that. But regardless, there is absolutely zero excuse to push gun control, ever.






Gorsuch is pro 2ndA ans so is Kavanaugh, Gorsuch is pro tax and Kavanaugh is anti-4th Amendment.








Yes, do you understand the difference between a bumpstock ban and a semi-auto ban?There is no difference, both are direct violations of the 2nd Amendment and infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

[oyarde]

I have a general rule in local elections , Always vote for who will steal the least . In national elections general rule , Never vote for a Dem .

[TheTexan]

That's not how it works, we get to vote for the people who run, we don't decide who runs.

"We get to vote"

Damn right. Our forefathers fought and died for our right to vote. It's our duty, honor, and privilege to vote for someone, no matter how much we dislike the candidates available.

I'll be damned before I disrespect my forefathers sacrifices by choosing not to vote.

[TheCount]

That's not how it works, we get to vote for the people who run, we don't decide who runs.

How do you suppose the system works, then? Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords?


Here's a thought experiment for you: If no one votes for the candidates who want to break our bones, then... what? Government ceases to exist?

[TheTexan]

Here's a thought experiment for you: If no one votes for the candidates who want to break our bones, then... what? Government ceases to exist?

I'll vote, and as the only voter, my candidate will win. And then you and everyone else must bow down and beg for mercy because he is your rightfully elected leader bwahahahaha

[Swordsmyth]

There is no difference.

LOL

There is a vast difference, I agree that both are violations of the 2ndA but there is a vast difference.

[Swordsmyth]

You don't know that. But regardless, there is absolutely zero excuse to push gun control, ever.
I never said there was but the Demoncrats will push for much more gun control.






Gorsuch is pro tax and Kavanaugh is anti-4th Amendment.
That isn't what we are discussing, I never said either one was perfect but both are much better than Garland or Kennedy.








There is no difference, both are direct violations of the 2nd Amendment and infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.
In that single way they are the same but they are much different in other ways.

[Swordsmyth]

"We get to vote"

Damn right. Our forefathers fought and died for our right to vote. It's our duty, honor, and privilege to vote for someone, no matter how much we dislike the candidates available.

I'll be damned before I disrespect my forefathers sacrifices by choosing not to vote.
If both candidates are bad enough there might be a reason to not vote or to make a protest vote for a candidate that can't win or isn't even running (I have done that before) but that isn't the case most of the time, in most cases these days there is a significant difference and it is almost as bad to refrain from voting for the less bad choice as it is to vote for the worse choice.

[enhanced_deficit]

It's important to vote Republican this election.




Why?




Because once the Republicans gain control of Congress and the White House:




- the budget will be balanced and the deficit will be reduced

- the national debt will start to be paid down

- anti-gun laws will be repealed

- abortion will be outlawed

- the government will get completely out of healthcare

- corporate and personal welfare will be eliminated




If the Democrats keep control of the government then none of these things will happen. We can only count on any of this happening if the Republicans are running the show. So get out there and do your part!


Excellent.

Just one minor omission, "Lock her up" fulfillment seems to have been missed accidentally from the promise list.

[Swordsmyth]

How do you suppose the system works, then? Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords?
How do you think it works?
People decide to run and then we get to choose between them, the only exception is if we are able to run ourselves.
Will you be running for office any time soon?



Here's a thought experiment for you: If no one votes for the candidates who want to break our bones, then... what? Government ceases to exist?
In the first place you will never have everyone stop voting and in the second the bone breakers would declare some kind of emergency and take power anyway.

[Ender]

LOL

There is a vast difference, I agree that both are violations of the 2ndA but there is a vast difference.

NO.

Taken one away opens the door for much more breaking of the 2nd Amendment, until it no longer exists.

[Ender]

How do you suppose the system works, then? Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords?


Here's a thought experiment for you: If no one votes for the candidates who want to break our bones, then... what? Government ceases to exist?

LOL


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXmwK2-R2dY

Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you. If I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.

[Swordsmyth]

NO.

Taken one away opens the door for much more breaking of the 2nd Amendment, until it no longer exists.

One takes an insignificant bite out of the 2ndA and the other takes a huge chunk away, the precedent of breaking the 2ndA was set long ago and hasn't been rectified so you can't claim a threshold is being crossed.

[Anti Federalist]

NO.

Taken one away opens the door for much more breaking of the 2nd Amendment, until it no longer exists.

I got started in political "activism" over the 2nd Amendment issue 35 years ago.

The plain fact of the matter is that the 2nd is much healthier and robust today that it was in 1983 when I bought my first guns and my first gun rights activist membership.

In 1983 there were wholesale bans, very real talk of banning all handguns at a federal level, taxes and insurance scams and concealed weapons carry by "civilians" was unheard of.

Now, over 80 percent of the people in this country live in "Shall Issue" states, many live in "Constitutional Carry" states, there is very real pushback every time there is some shooting used as an excuse to take away gun rights...if only people would defend the rest of the rest of the bill of rights so strongly.

And the very real fact is that it was GOP representatives at every level that voted for or signed off on these measures.

In NH it took getting rid of a Democrat woeman to elect a Republican man who signed off on Constitutional Carry the very first month in office.

Of course there have been set backs and losses, but on the whole, restrictions on the right to defend yourself are much, much, much less burdensome and restrictive and tyrannical than they were 35 years ago.

And it was not Democrat party representatives that embraced loosening and limiting those restrictions.

I have no reason to think that it's possible to make the 4th just as strong and robust, if only people would be as active on that as they are on the 2nd.

But I have no reason to think that support would come from the modern day "left".

[Matt Collins]

I never said there was but the Demoncrats will push for much more gun control.And the Republicans have been pushing for more gun control too.

[jmdrake]

O'Bummer only failed to enact gun control because of Republicans in Congress, Trump is about to enact a regulatory bumpstock ban that will fail in the courts, if you want to see a legislative bumpstock or even semi-auto ban that will be more likely to survive a court challenge then let the Demoncrats take over Congress.




It matters how much they violate the Constitution, the only reason the bumpstock ban will probably fail in the courts is because we got Gorsuch instead of Garland and now we have Kavanaugh instead of Kennedy.





Absolutely true but there is still a difference between banning a gimmick accessory and banning all handguns or all semi-autos.

OMG! Your mental gymnastics are painfully stupid as usually. Trump at first backed legislation for a new assault weapons ban and then walked it back due to a backlash from the right. And the same republican majority that wouldn't let Obama pass an assault weapons ban won't let Trump. The dems will not get a 2/3rd majority in the senate even if they run the tables, so if Trump was solidly pro second amendment, which he is NOT (he was calling for an assault weapons ban back in 2002), then it wouldn't matter if the dems got both houses because any new gun control could be vetoed. And when Obummer was president we were all solidly against his abuse of executive and administrative orders. Now you're saying that's good because its going to fail in the courts? How many Obummer executive orders were overturned in court? Not many.

[jmdrake]

I got started in political "activism" over the 2nd Amendment issue 35 years ago.

The plain fact of the matter is that the 2nd is much healthier and robust today that it was in 1983 when I bought my first guns and my first gun rights activist membership.

In 1983 there were wholesale bans, very real talk of banning all handguns at a federal level, taxes and insurance scams and concealed weapons carry by "civilians" was unheard of.

Now, over 80 percent of the people in this country live in "Shall Issue" states, many live in "Constitutional Carry" states, there is very real pushback every time there is some shooting used as an excuse to take away gun rights...if only people would defend the rest of the rest of the bill of rights so strongly.

And the very real fact is that it was GOP representatives at every level that voted for or signed off on these measures.

In NH it took getting rid of a Democrat woeman to elect a Republican man who signed off on Constitutional Carry the very first month in office.

Of course there have been set backs and losses, but on the whole, restrictions on the right to defend yourself are much, much, much less burdensome and restrictive and tyrannical than they were 35 years ago.

And it was not Democrat party representatives that embraced loosening and limiting those restrictions.

I have no reason to think that it's possible to make the 4th just as strong and robust, if only people would be as active on that as they are on the 2nd.

But I have no reason to think that support would come from the modern day "left".

I agree. I just wish people would quit acting like Trump is a republican. He's not. He never was. He's a wolf in sheep's clothes. And there is no excuse for what HE is doing on the 2nd amendment front. Yes the republicans in state houses are doing a bang up job protecting gun rights. On the federal level...not so much. At the presidential level....he's working for the other side. And he always has.

[Ender]

I agree. I just wish people would quit acting like Trump is a republican. He's not. He never was. He's a wolf in sheep's clothes. And there is no excuse for what HE is doing on the 2nd amendment front. Yes the republicans in state houses are doing a bang up job protecting gun rights. On the federal level...not so much. At the presidential level....he's working for the other side. And he always has.

Yep- and heavy gun control/confiscation is upon us.

More from Chuck Baldwin:


Following the mass shooting in Florida, there was NO surge in gun sales (which is not normally the case—usually gun sales skyrocket after mass shootings in anticipation of more gun control laws being enacted), as conservatives and gun owners were confident that their constitutional right to keep and bear arms was not in jeopardy: Donald Trump would make sure of that.

But as I have tried to warn people, Donald Trump has no core convictions; he has no center; he has no moral compass; and he is a dish rag when it comes to the Constitution. Of the sixteen gun control bills in Congress that I referenced in my October, 2017, column, Trump is now actively supporting at least ten of them.

In Trump’s highly publicized round-table discussion with members of Congress from both parties (including radical gun control zealots such as Dianne Feinstein), Trump announced that he favors implementing several additional gun control laws, including banning bump stocks (and similar “modifiers”), more background checks for gun purchases—including adding a variety of “mental health” screenings—and implementing the “Fix NICS” bill (a longtime goal of gun grabbing Democrats like Schumer and Feinstein).

In point of fact, the original “Fix NICS” bill was introduced under Barack Obama and included outlawing private gun sales. Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie is warning the American people that the Republican leadership in Congress is trying to pass the “Fix NICS” bill THIS WEEK. He warns of how devastating the bill will be to America’s veterans and seniors who will be thrown into the “no buy” list for a host of reasons. And will the bill include the original language outlawing the private sale of firearms? Don’t count it out.

Trump also announced that he supported gun confiscation without due process. He TWICE said that government should take (confiscate) the guns first and worry about due process later. He then looked at Dianne Feinstein and told her he would support her bill. “Her” bill is the “assault-weapons” ban that would outlaw all semi-automatic rifles.

After Trump’s shameless calls for more gun control, the White House has tried to calm Trump’s conservative constituents by walking back several of those comments. That doesn’t change the fact that Trump said them—more than once. And it doesn’t change the fact that Trump is still forging ahead with plans to implement new gun control laws.

Again, until Donald Trump made his stupid Stalinist statements supporting more gun control laws—even gun confiscation—the Democrat-led charge for more gun control was DEAD. However, AFTER Trump’s stupid Stalinist statements, politicians in both parties have gone into a gun control frenzy.

Already, the Republican house, senate, and governor of Florida have enacted one of the most draconian gun control laws in U.S. history. The law bans the sale of firearms to anyone under the age of 21; it mandates a three-day waiting period for most gun purchases; adds a “red flag” law that allows law enforcement to CONFISCATE the firearms of individuals who have not committed a crime or have not even threatened to commit a crime—but who might be “suspected” of having “mental health” issues; adds additional background checks for gun purchases; and mandates “mental health” screening for all public school students in the State.

Again, these Marxist-inspired gun control laws were passed by a REPUBLICAN house, senate, and governor.

Do you think for one minute that Trump’s pro-gun control rhetoric had NOTHING to do with the way those Republicans voted in Florida? Donald Trump is the leader of the Republican Party. The party takes its cues from him. When Trump embraced and promoted the enactment of more gun control, it was a signal to Republicans and Democrats alike to proceed with more gun control. And that’s exactly what both parties are doing.

A few days ago, the State of Washington became the first State in the country to enforce its newly enacted “red flag” law and confiscate the firearm of a man who had broken NO law and who had not even threatened anyone. His firearm was confiscated on the mere notion that he was “suspected” of having “mental health” issues. I wrote about this Gestapo-style episode last week.

See the column here:

Trump Opens Door For Gun Confiscation In America

Now, the State of Illinois is about to pass a law that would authorize blanket gun confiscation of everyone under the age of 21. Writing for American Thinker, Daniel John Sobieski writes,

It is no longer a conspiracy theory spawned by deplorable bitter clingers, but a creeping reality spawned by shootings law enforcement could have prevented but didn’t. The Illinois House has passed legislation requiring 18- to 20-year-olds to give up certain legally purchased and legally owned firearms:

A bill requiring 18-20 year olds to hand over or transfer ownership of heretofore legally possessed “assault weapons” is gaining sponsors in the Illinois Senate after passing the House last month.

The bill, HB 1465, was sponsored in the House by Rep. Michelle Mussman (D-Schaumburg) and passed by a vote of 64-51 on February 28.

After being introduced in the upper house by Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago), the bill has added seven co-sponsors in the last week. Notable among them was Sen. Jim Oberweis (R-Sugar Grove), the NRA “A” rated 2014 Republican nominee for U.S. Senate.

Gun confiscation is here. First they will come for the young, who can go to war with guns but can no longer go hunting with them or protect their families. If you are a 20-year-old single mom with a restraining order against a violent ex-boyfriend, well, you’ll just have to trust your life to 911 as your door is being kicked in. Meanwhile, the government wants you to give it your guns.

See the report here:

Gun Confiscation Begins In Illinois

Notice that Democrats AND Republicans in Illinois are supporting this Marxist bill that confiscates guns from law-abiding people with NO DUE PROCESS WHATSOEVER.

[CaptUSA]

If there's a liberty candidate to support, I'll support them regardless of party. Unfortunately, there are so few.

I really think it's best to look at the candidate instead of the party. Hell, both parties advocate increased spending and new wars. Both want government control over the individual. I don't really get caught up in their games to see which ones "own" the control.

When there's no liberty candidate - just vote against the incumbent. It's not going to matter anyway, so I can't imagine getting emotionally invested. Cast a lot against them and move on with your day.

[jmdrake]

Yep- and heavy gun control/confiscation is upon us.

More from Chuck Baldwin:

You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice.

1) Chuck Baldwin is awesome and that further solidifies that Ron Paul did the right thing to support him over Bob Barr when he dropped out in 2008.

2) Thank you for posting that. I knew the situation was bad, but I did not know how bad.

3) Prior to being elected, when some of us pointed out that Trump wrote in his 2002 book The America We Deserve that he supported a new assault weapons ban, Trump humpers were all like "He can change his mind." Now, after being elected, Trump stumps for assault weapons bans and Trump humpers are like "Well he's trying to do it by executive order so that makes it better because it can more easily be overturned" even though the truth is Trump is backing BOTH executive action AND legislation to restrict gun rights. I support the Trump tax cuts, reaching out to North Korea, and ending the regime change/confront Russia policy in Syria. That's....that's about it.

[Anti Federalist]

I agree. I just wish people would quit acting like Trump is a republican. He's not. He never was. He's a wolf in sheep's clothes. And there is no excuse for what HE is doing on the 2nd amendment front. Yes the republicans in state houses are doing a bang up job protecting gun rights. On the federal level...not so much. At the presidential level....he's working for the other side. And he always has.

Yah, Trump is Trump, no doubt.

I've said over and over again, I can't figure out what the hell he's doing. Maybe Randal needs to get in his ear more. I know he wanted to execute the "Central Park Five" (who turned out to be innocent) back in the day and now he's taking prison reform recommendations from Kim Kardashian and Yeezy, so who fucking knows what the next Drunken Monkey move may be.

But the point of Matt's thread was to discourage freedom folk turnout in the upcoming House and Senate races, to not vote Republican.

I can see many benefits of keeping the House and Senate out of the Bolshevik left's hands.

YMMV.

If I was strictly voting identity politics, in my NH district, I'd be torn:

We have the first black man running for congress in NH, who is an ex cop and Trump supporter.

Or a young homosexual white man who is an avowed socialist.

Or a personal acquaintance of mine running on the LP ticket.

Choices choices choices...

[homahr]

and ending the regime change/confront Russia policy in Syria. That's....that's about it.

If only this was true; I'm not seeing any indications that this is actually happening based on 'facts on the ground'.

[Swordsmyth]

And the Republicans have been pushing for more gun control too.
Oh really?
Then why isn't a bumpstock ban moving through Congress?
Are the Demoncrats going to stop the "evil" Republicans from taking our guns?

[Swordsmyth]

OMG! Your mental gymnastics are painfully stupid as usually. Trump at first backed legislation for a new assault weapons ban and then walked it back due to a backlash from the right. And the same republican majority that wouldn't let Obama pass an assault weapons ban won't let Trump. The dems will not get a 2/3rd majority in the senate even if they run the tables, so if Trump was solidly pro second amendment, which he is NOT (he was calling for an assault weapons ban back in 2002), then it wouldn't matter if the dems got both houses because any new gun control could be vetoed. And when Obummer was president we were all solidly against his abuse of executive and administrative orders. Now you're saying that's good because its going to fail in the courts? How many Obummer executive orders were overturned in court? Not many.
Do you even know what thread you are posting in?
This isn't about Trump and I haven't said one good word about him on this subject.
You are helping to make the case that it is the Republicans in Congress that have stopped and will stop gun control legislation and therefore we should keep them in control.

[Matt Collins]

Oh really?
Then why isn't a bumpstock ban moving through Congress?
Because Trump is doing it administratively. And in Florida it did pass the Republican legislature with help of the Republican Governor.

[enhanced_deficit]

It's important to vote Republican this election.




Why?




Because once the Republicans gain control of Congress and the White House:




- the budget will be balanced and the deficit will be reduced

- the national debt will start to be paid down

- anti-gun laws will be repealed

- abortion will be outlawed

- the government will get completely out of healthcare

- corporate and personal welfare will be eliminated




If the Democrats keep control of the government then none of these things will happen. We can only count on any of this happening if the Republicans are running the show. So get out there and do your part!



FEDERAL DEBT PRIMED TO EXPLODE... (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?521196-FEDERAL-DEBT-PRIMED-TO-EXPLODE/page3&)US budget deficit expands to $779 billion in fiscal 2018 as spending surges



The federal budget deficit rose 17 percent in fiscal 2018, according to the Trump administration.
Spending jumped, and revenue only increased slightly following the GOP tax cuts.
The Trump administration has pushed for dramatic budget cuts at several agencies and supported massive increases in military spending.



Jacob Pramuk
Published 2 Hours Ago Updated 1 Hour Ago

[Swordsmyth]

Because Trump is doing it administratively.
Circular logic, Trump is going the administrative route because it won't pass Congress.



And in Florida it did pass the Republican legislature with help of the Republican Governor.
RINOs gonna RINO but Trump isn't governor of Florida and the Republicans in Congress aren't moving forward a bumpstock ban, the Demoncrats will move one and much worse gun control if they take control.

[jmdrake]

Do you even know what thread you are posting in?
This isn't about Trump and I haven't said one good word about him on this subject.
You are helping to make the case that it is the Republicans in Congress that have stopped and will stop gun control legislation and therefore we should keep them in control.

Your words.


Absolutely true but there is still a difference between banning a gimmick accessory and banning all handguns or all semi-autos.

There is no difference period. Trump tried for legislation to ban semi-autos and failing that attempted to do the next best thing which was gun control by executive order. The difference is that Obama wasn't smart enough of a gun grabber to think of that.

[Swordsmyth]

Your words.



There is no difference period. Trump tried for legislation to ban semi-autos and failing that attempted to do the next best thing which was gun control by executive order. The difference is that Obama wasn't smart enough of a gun grabber to think of that.
This thread is about Congressional Republicans and it is them that have stopped any ban from progressing legislatively, Trump's administrative ban is doomed to failure in the courts, if you want to see more gun control passed as legislation that might not be doomed then do as Matt snake in the grass Collins is suggesting and let the Demoncrats take control.

[Swordsmyth]

There is no difference period.

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP. zmw0VpEiBS1Ew52-hnjUywHaFe%26pid%3D15.1&f=1

[Matt Collins]

Circular logic, Trump is going the administrative route because it won't pass Congress.

RINOs gonna RINO but Trump isn't governor of Florida and the Republicans in Congress aren't moving forward a bumpstock ban, the Demoncrats will move one and much worse gun control if they take control.Except that Trump is the one pushing gun control here. Why do you (and he) hate freedom?

[Swordsmyth]

Except that Trump is the one pushing gun control here. Why do you (and he) hate freedom?
I have attacked him for that in other threads and it is the Demoncrats who will send him gun control legislation to sign if they win.

Why do you hate freedom?

[Jamesiv1]

Trump might grab your pu$$y but he's not going to grab your guns. Take it to the bank.

[Krugminator2]

There is no difference period. Trump tried for legislation to ban semi-autos


Yeah. That never happened, at least not while he has been president.

[Anti Federalist]

Because Trump is doing it administratively. And in Florida it did pass the Republican legislature with help of the Republican Governor.

And in Vermont with a republican gov.

But what is your point?

RINO's suck?

We get that.

If you want to see hard core gun control getting rammed through, just look to uniparty democrat states like New York and Kalifornia.

[dannno]

Except that Trump is the one pushing gun control here. Why do you (and he) hate freedom?

Of anybody here, you don't have a god damn clue what Trump is doing.

[phill4paul]

Except that Trump is the one pushing gun control here. Why do you (and he) hate freedom?

Kavanaugh is better than most on the 2nd amendment. Trump nominee and Rand supported. Suck it. :tears: :tears: :tears:

[phill4paul]

Of anybody here, you don't have a god damn clue what Trump is doing.

Fixed that for you.

[phill4paul]

And in Vermont with a republican gov.

But what is your point?

RINO's suck?

We get that.

If you want to see hard core gun control getting rammed through, just look to uniparty democrat states like New York and Kalifornia.

Two case studies that undeniably prove you correct. And matttehcollinz wrong.

[Anti Federalist]

Two case studies that undeniably prove you correct. And matttehcollinz wrong.

Nothing new for Matthew...wasn't he the one preaching to all of us how we should work within the system, learns it's ways and means through study and expensive political theory classes?

Look, I need a Representative that is actually IN government.

I'm sure you and I could each represent each other on 99 out of 100 issues.

But it does no fucking good to have the representative sitting with you at the bar sipping bourbon while we bitch at other about how fucked up government is.

Right now, at this time in history, I'd rather have somebody that I agree with 80 percent of the time actually IN government and able to DO something, or more correctly STOP something, than somebody I agree with 100 percent who is outside just like me and can do nothing.

[phill4paul]

Nothing new for Matthew...wasn't he the one preaching to all of us how we should work within the system, learns it's ways and means through study and expensive political theory classes?

Look, I need a Representative that is actually IN government.

I'm sure you and I could each represent each other on 99 out of 100 issues.

But it does no fucking good to have the representative sitting with you at the bar sipping bourbon while we bitch at other about how fucked up government is.

Right now, at this time in history, I'd rather have somebody that I agree with 80 percent of the time actually IN government and able to DO something, or more correctly STOP something, than somebody I agree with 100 percent who is outside just like me and can do nothing.

I'm right there with you. I'm voting straight Republican this go around. Not because I care for them. Because, I cannot abide the left in the least since. Don't have a libertarian to vote for so I just don't care. Hopefully, a smack down will give the Democrats pause. Doubt it.

[Matt Collins]

Kavanaugh is better than most on the 2nd amendment. Yes, and he is awful on the 4th Amendment.

[Matt Collins]

Of anybody here, you don't have a god damn clue what Trump is doing.
I do. He is pushing for gun control.

[dannno]

I do. He is pushing for gun control.

Exactly, see, you don't have a fucking clue what Trump is doing.

He is filling the supreme court with people who are stronger on the 2nd amendment than anybody currently on the court. He can say he is going to do whatever he wants for political advantage, but he is ultimately protecting our gun rights in the longterm. Worst case scenario, bump stocks are illegal for a short time until a court makes the correction.

He's already getting beaten by the left and the media from 100 different directions, last thing he needs is people throwing buckets of blood on right wing politicians and shit while he is trying to get other things done.

[TheCount]

How do you think it works?
People decide to run and then we get to choose between them, the only exception is if we are able to run ourselves.

Your description is apt for a high school council, but not for the state or federal level.

Political parties are businesses and candidates are their products. If customers' preferences change, then businesses will either change their products or they will be outmaneuvered by new entrants who better meet demand.



Will you be running for office any time soon?

No; I'm not corrupt, and therefore politics is unprofitable for me.




In the first place you will never have everyone stop voting and in the second the bone breakers would declare some kind of emergency and take power anyway.

1) Way to contradict yourself within your own post.

2) Why even vote then?

[phill4paul]

Yes, and he is awful on the 4th Amendment.

Yawn.

[Swordsmyth]

Your description is apt for a high school council, but not for the state or federal level.

Political parties are businesses and candidates are their products. If customers' preferences change, then businesses will either change their products or they will be outmaneuvered by new entrants who better meet demand.
LOL, they will only shift the kind of candidates that they run based on which ones win, if leftists win they will keep offering people who are ever farther to the left.





No; I'm not corrupt, and therefore politics is unprofitable for me.
LOL






1) Way to contradict yourself within your own post.
It's not a contradiction, I simply stated what would happen IF the impossibility actually took place.


2) Why even vote then?
Because voting denies them the "legitimacy" that they would have if they did impose themselves on us in the event that nobody voted and voting allows us to choose the best available option to move things as far in our direction as we can.

[r3volution 3.0]

That's not how it works, we get to vote for the people who run, we don't decide who runs.

Is that the cause of the bad political outcomes (e.g. ever increasing federal spending)?

[Swordsmyth]

Is that the cause of the bad political outcomes (e.g. ever increasing federal spending)?
It may be involved but it isn't any different than not getting to choose who is born to the last king.

[r3volution 3.0]

It may be involved

How would you correct this problem (of "us" not being able to choose the candidates)?

Or, if that actually isn't a problem (you seemed to be saying it is, but now maybe not), what is the problem?

[Swordsmyth]

How would you correct this problem (of "us" not being able to choose the candidates)?

Or, if that actually isn't a problem (you seemed to be saying it is, but now maybe not), what is the problem?
Life is the problem and therefore there is nothing you can do about it, the only thing that would make it better would be a more equal distribution of money and power but we all know what happens if you try to force that.

[r3volution 3.0]

Life is the problem and therefore there is nothing you can do about it

That's certainly not true, though I'm not going to explain why (again), as I'd like to hear your proposed solution, if you have one.

It seemed to me that you were blaming the "deep state" or some such thing for the bad political outcomes.

As in, "if only we could choose the candidates, and get the deep state out of it, we'd have better outcomes," or something along those lines.

Maybe not

You're a fatalist now?


the only thing that would make it better would be a more equal distribution of money and power but we all know what happens if you try to force that.

Communism would make it better...?

[Swordsmyth]

That's certainly not true, though I'm not going to explain why (again), as I'd like to hear your proposed solution, if you have one.

It seemed to me that you were blaming the "deep state" or some such thing for the bad political outcomes.

As in, "if only we could choose the candidates, and get the deep state out of it, we'd have better outcomes," or something along those lines.

Maybe not

You're a fatalist now?
I am a fatalist to a certain extent that is why I reject pie in the sky fantasies that claim they will make a perfect world but I am an optimist to the extent that I believe we can make things better by choosing the best available option and by reforming the system in the ways I have proposed elsewhere.




Communism would make it better...?
No it wouldn't, that is why I said this:

but we all know what happens if you try to force that.
If somehow money and power were more equally divided naturally that would make things better because more people could run for office against the "anointed" candidates.

True free markets would result in a more equal distribution of money and power but only to a degree.

[r3volution 3.0]

If somehow money and power were more equally divided naturally that would make things better because more people could run for office against the "anointed" candidates.

This is what I was referencing.

How do you think candidates come to be "anointed" and what, if anything, do you think could be done to change this?

What would a better, alternative arrangement be?

As to what is to be done, feel free to propose any reform you like, even if you think it's impossible to implement in practice.

[Swordsmyth]

This is what I was referencing.

How do you think candidates come to be "anointed" and what, if anything, do you think could be done to change this?
Those with far more money and power than most people pick them based on their own interests, you can't change it, you can compete with it if you have enough money and power to run yourself or back someone you choose.


What would a better, alternative arrangement be?

As to what is to be done, feel free to propose any reform you like, even if you think it's impossible to implement in practice.
Realistically the only better arrangement would be truly free markets that would create many more people with the power and wealth to run or back someone.
Unrealistically things would be best if everyone was born with the same amount of money and power and had all the same opportunities so that everyone would be equally capable of running for office or supporting someone's run but that is impossible and any attempts to make it happen would result in a total loss of liberty and the destruction of the economy.

[Matt Collins]

he is ultimately protecting our gun rightsYes, like GWB abandoning free market principles to save the free market? :unamused:


Violating the 2nd Amendment is not protecting our gun rights. And nominating SCOTUS justices that actively abridge our rights doesn't help either.


You are confused.

[r3volution 3.0]

Those with far more money and power than most people pick them based on their own interests, you can't change it, you can compete with it if you have enough money and power to run yourself or back someone you choose.

That's right.


Realistically the only better arrangement would be truly free markets that would create many more people with the power and wealth to run or back someone.
Unrealistically things would be best if everyone was born with the same amount of money and power and had all the same opportunities so that everyone would be equally capable of running for office or supporting someone's run but that is impossible and any attempts to make it happen would result in a total loss of liberty and the destruction of the economy.

Laissez faire would obviously not result in anything resembling an equal distribution of wealth (nor should it).

It may or may not even narrow the gap; that depends entirely on the specific market conditions.

Anyway, I'm not seeing any proposal to improve things (I guess this is the fatalism).

Well, good luck with that system.

At least you get to vote as hard as you want.

[Swordsmyth]

Laissez faire would obviously not result in anything resembling an equal distribution of wealth (nor should it).

It may or may not even narrow the gap; that depends entirely on the specific market conditions.
It would narrow the gap, crony capitalism and government intervention is responsible for the extreme distortion that has existed throughout most of history and those societies that had the freest markets have had the smallest gaps.


Anyway, I'm not seeing any proposal to improve things (I guess this is the fatalism).
I have made other proposals in other threads that would help but the problem can't be eliminated entirely in any system.



Well, good luck with that system.

At least you get to vote as hard as you want.
I'll have better luck than the birth lottery will provide in a monarchy.

[r3volution 3.0]

It would narrow the gap, crony capitalism and government intervention is responsible for the extreme distortion that has existed throughout most of history and those societies that had the freest markets have had the smallest gaps.

That may be the case, but it isn't necessarily so.

The state's economic interventions necessarily redistribute wealth, they don't necessarily cause greater concentrations of wealth.

That depends entirely on the type of intervention and random market factors.

Anyway, a minor reduction in wealth inequality (or even total equality of wealth) wouldn't solve your problem.


I have made other proposals in other threads that would help but the problem can't be eliminated entirely in any system.

Such as?

[Swordsmyth]

That may be the case, but it isn't necessarily so.

The state's economic interventions necessarily redistribute wealth, they don't necessarily cause greater concentrations of wealth.

That depends entirely on the type of intervention and random market factors.

Anyway, a minor reduction in wealth inequality (or even total equality of wealth) wouldn't solve your problem.



Such as?
Here is one:
Why not give each Rep. multiple votes? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?504767-Why-not-give-each-Rep-multiple-votes)Another is prohibiting those who receive government money from voting

There are others I have posted as well elsewhere.

[r3volution 3.0]

Here is one:
Why not give each Rep. multiple votes? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?504767-Why-not-give-each-Rep-multiple-votes)As I said at the time:


Color me skeptical.

By the way, I'm sure you know that this (nation-wide proportional voting) is more or less how it works in most of the rest of the world.

In Europe, for instance, there is an amusing number of minority parties with one or two seats in parliament.

Does that system seem to be yielding significantly different results?

People complain (understandably) about the winner-take-all nature of our system, but the coalition building process that the rest of the world employs ends up with the same thing, more or less (you get to be part of the government, if only you abandon all principle and compromise with your enemies, in some milquetoast middle).

...


Another is prohibiting those who receive government money from voting

...which would be as effective as a constitutional prohibition on welfare.

[Swordsmyth]

As I said at the time:



...
I replied at the time so I won't here.




...which would be as effective as a constitutional prohibition on welfare.
Not really but I'm not going to have that argument again in this thread either.

[r3volution 3.0]

I replied at the time so I won't here.

Your reply was that the Europeans have "political revolutions" more often (i.e. more changes in which parties dominate).

I then asked (rhetorically) if these were usually/ever pro-liberty revolutions.

You acknowledged that they were not.


Not really but I'm not going to have that argument again in this thread either.

That's fine.

[Swordsmyth]

Your reply was that the Europeans have "political revolutions" more often (i.e. more changes in which parties dominate).

I then asked (rhetorically) if these were usually/ever pro-liberty revolutions.

You acknowledged that they were not.

But I pointed out that that was because Europeans don't have a political culture that is even as liberty oriented as ours.

[r3volution 3.0]

But I pointed out that that was because Europeans don't have a political culture that is even as liberty oriented as ours.

So you did.

One final issue: Why do you think that wealth equality would improve political outcomes?

(ignoring problems associated with how wealth could come to be equally distributed; suppose it happens by magic)

[Swordsmyth]

So you did.

One final issue: Why do you think that wealth equality would improve political outcomes?

(ignoring problems associated with how wealth could come to be equally distributed; suppose it happens by magic)
Because more people could run for office and the voters would have more choices, they would then be able to choose the better options over the "anointed" options.

[r3volution 3.0]

Because more people could run for office and the voters would have more choices

Everyone can already run for office (within age requirements etc).


they would then be able to choose the better options over the "anointed" options.

I'll come back to that after we figure out who's running.

[Swordsmyth]

Everyone can already run for office (within age requirements etc).

Theoretically, but you need enough money to pull it off or the right connections to people with enough money.

[r3volution 3.0]

Theoretically, but you need enough money to pull it off or the right connections to people with enough money.

Certainly, but what's the difference between $1,000 from 1000 donors or $10 from 100,000 donors?

[Swordsmyth]

Certainly, but what's the difference between $1,000 from 1000 donors or $10 from 100,000 donors?
None, but you need the money to fund-raise in the first place, if nobody has heard of you then nobody will donate.

You also need much more money than that for higher offices that make more of a difference.

[r3volution 3.0]

None, but you need the money to fund-raise in the first place, if nobody has heard of you then nobody will donate.

Why would voters be more likely to have heard of the "good guys" in an equal wealth situation?

[Swordsmyth]

Why would voters be more likely to have heard of the "good guys" in an equal wealth situation?
Because they would have the money for the initial public outreach.

[r3volution 3.0]

Because they would have the money for the initial public outreach.

That each political actor has equal wealth doesn't mean that each candidate has equal funding.

The guy speaking unpopular views will still attract less money, no?

[nikcers]

That each political actor has equal wealth doesn't mean that each candidate has equal funding.

The guy speaking unpopular views will still attract less money, no?

I bet there is much more that goes on behind the scenes. If the establishment wants to they could show an open podium at primetime at a loss and run advertisements off the books and claim its news, they can literally print money to pay for that loss. It's like how the news runs a story on Starbucks adding a new size to their menu or mcdonalds changing their ingredients because they added salt and got rid of a salt substitute.

[Swordsmyth]

That each political actor has equal wealth doesn't mean that each candidate has equal funding.

The guy speaking unpopular views will still attract less money, no?
True, but right now most people who might run don't have the money to speak their views so that people can decide if they are popular.

Remember that I am not claiming that a more equal distribution of money would make everything perfect, just that it would improve things.

[r3volution 3.0]

I bet there is much more that goes on behind the scenes. If the establishment wants to they could show an open podium at primetime at a loss and run advertisements off the books and claim its news, they can literally print money to pay for that loss. It's like how the news runs a story on Starbucks adding a new size to their menu or mcdonalds changing their ingredients because they added salt and got rid of a salt substitute.

That's true, but it only begs the question: how did they become "the establishment" in the first place?

How can it be that elections, in which everyone gets to cast one vote, turn out this way?

The answer is: it can't end up otherwise, it's built into the system.

Elections can't be anything other than a fight between interest groups (be it 1000 thousand-aires seeking business subsidies or 100,000 ten-aires seeking more Obamaphones). Then, whichever faction (or coalition of factions) ends up controlling the state ("the establishment") uses that power to further entrench themselves by subsidizing friendly media and so forth, as you're describing. The essential problem is that everyone has an incentive to steal as much as possible from the public trough, regardless of the cost to society at large. It's a tragedy of the commons.

[Pauls' Revere]

If there's a liberty candidate to support, I'll support them regardless of party. Unfortunately, there are so few.

I really think it's best to look at the candidate instead of the party. Hell, both parties advocate increased spending and new wars. Both want government control over the individual. I don't really get caught up in their games to see which ones "own" the control.

When there's no liberty candidate - just vote against the incumbent. It's not going to matter anyway, so I can't imagine getting emotionally invested. Cast a lot against them and move on with your day.

^^this^^ +rep.

[r3volution 3.0]

True, but right now most people who might run don't have the money to speak their views so that people can decide if they are popular.

Remember that I am not claiming that a more equal distribution of money would make everything perfect, just that it would improve things.

Let's suppose that every candidate has whatever amount of money that is.

But is that really the problem?

Candidates proposing to cut welfare don't get the welfare recipient vote for lack of publicity?

[Swordsmyth]

That's true, but it only begs the question: how did they become "the establishment" in the first place?

How can it be that elections, in which everyone gets to cast one vote, turn out this way?

The answer is: it can't end up otherwise, it's built into the system.

Elections can't be anything other than a fight between interest groups (be it 1000 thousand-aires seeking business subsidies or 100,000 ten-aires seeking more Obamaphones). Then, whichever faction (or coalition of factions) ends up controlling the state ("the establishment") uses that power to further entrench themselves by subsidizing friendly media and so forth, as you're describing. The essential problem is that everyone has an incentive to steal as much as possible from the public trough, regardless of the cost to society at large. It's a tragedy of the commons.
And it's not much different from the power struggles between oligarchs in a monarch except that the common man's interests are abused more in a monarchy because they have no power at all other than the negligible threat of revolution.

[Swordsmyth]

Let's suppose that every candidate has whatever amount of money that is.

But is that really the problem?

Candidates proposing to cut welfare don't get the welfare recipient vote for lack of publicity?
They don't get the tax donkeys' votes for lack of publicity and the same thing goes for every other issue.

[r3volution 3.0]

They don't get the tax donkeys' votes for lack of publicity and the same thing goes for every other issue.

I don't follow.

If every candidate gets sufficient publicity for people to hear their views...

...how will this improve the outcome of elections?

In other words, which voters do you think will vote differently in virtue of knowing about candidates they would otherwise not know about?

[Swordsmyth]

I don't follow.

If every candidate gets sufficient publicity for people to hear their views...

...how will this improve the outcome of elections?

In other words, which voters do you think will vote differently in virtue of knowing about candidates they would otherwise not know about?
The silent majority, those that have given up on politics because they have given up on the two main parties and they don't believe that 3rd parties stand a chance or that challengers stand a chance in the main parties, also those that hold their noses and vote for the "lesser of two evils" because "nobody else stands a chance".

Ron almost crossed the threshold but too many people thought he just couldn't win because he didn't have nearly as much money as so many other candidates and he actually needed more to overcome the media blackout/discouragement campaign.

[nikcers]

That's true, but it only begs the question: how did they become "the establishment" in the first place?

How can it be that elections, in which everyone gets to cast one vote, turn out this way?

The answer is: it can't end up otherwise, it's built into the system.

Elections can't be anything other than a fight between interest groups (be it 1000 thousand-aires seeking business subsidies or 100,000 ten-aires seeking more Obamaphones). Then, whichever faction (or coalition of factions) ends up controlling the state ("the establishment") uses that power to further entrench themselves by subsidizing friendly media and so forth, as you're describing. The essential problem is that everyone has an incentive to steal as much as possible from the public trough, regardless of the cost to society at large. It's a tragedy of the commons.

You have to legalize liberty and to do that we would need to get rid of the legalized theft, legalized fraud, legalized slavery, and end government surveillance and the violations of the fourth amendment and all the abuses of power. Maybe Trump is just going to tell all nonessential government to go home, fire all of the government. That's what I want to believe atleast. What he said about Mattis leaving when he was quoted he said they all go eventually..

[r3volution 3.0]

The silent majority, those that have given up on politics because they have given up on the two main parties and they don't believe that 3rd parties stand a chance or that challengers stand a chance in the main parties, also those that hold their noses and vote for the "lesser of two evils" because "nobody else stands a chance".

Ron almost crossed the threshold but too many people thought he just couldn't win because he didn't have nearly as much money as so many other candidates and he actually needed more to overcome the media blackout/discouragement campaign.

Currently the LP gets about 1% of the popular vote nationally, with 0 seats in the House. Under a proportional representation system, all else being equal, that 1% of the popular vote would translate into about 4 House seats. If we suppose that all else isn't equal (as you argue above), and their support would double (by eliminating the "wasted vote" mindset), that's still only 8 seats. Sure, any improvement is nice in principle, but that doesn't actually change anything in practice, does it? Tinkering with the electoral system doesn't isn't going to solve the underlying problem (namely, that the vast majority of voters want loot, not liberty).

[homahr]

(namely, that the vast majority of voters want loot, not liberty).

Thats because the vast majority of voters are scary brown illegal immigrants, not hard-working whites like me and you.

[Aratus]

Currently the LP gets about 1% of the popular vote nationally, with 0 seats in the House. Under a proportional representation system, all else being equal, that 1% of the popular vote would translate into about 4 House seats. If we suppose that all else isn't equal (as you argue above), and their support would double (by eliminating the "wasted vote" mindset), that's still only 8 seats. Sure, any improvement is nice in principle, but that doesn't actually change anything in practice, does it? Tinkering with the electoral system doesn't isn't going to solve the underlying problem (namely, that the vast majority of voters want loot, not liberty).

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Aratus]

The current crop/pack of POLITICAL HACK HOGs slopped at
the large & ample 2o18 public trough are GOP members!!!!

[Aratus]

Throwing the bums out at regular intervals slightly reduces corruption.

[EBounding]

I love the voting ritual--the anticipation, the media coverage! Then the day finally comes where I waddle down to my voting precinct with other people who are ALSO voting! If there's a lot of people, I might even stand in line with them...to VOTE! I show my ID to the old person behind the desk and I FINALLY get the ballot! This is my VOTE! I fill in the circles I like very carefully and when I'm done I get the see the machine take my ballot! #247! I VOTED! But it doesn't end there! I finally get to watch the results come in during the evening and experience all the twists and turns--an emotional rollercoaster that I was part of! What an awesome day!

[jmdrake]

Thats because the vast majority of voters are scary brown illegal immigrants, not hard-working whites like me and you.

You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice.

[CCTelander]

Voting is the most sacred sacrament of the religion of statism. It lends the patina of legitimacy to everything the state does thereafter. That alone is reason enoughto abstain, may TheTexan forgive me for saying so.

[CaptUSA]

Throwing the bums out at regular intervals slightly reduces corruption.

They should make ballots with a "non-incumbent" party line vote. It would really speed up the process.

[Swordsmyth]

Currently the LP gets about 1% of the popular vote nationally, with 0 seats in the House. Under a proportional representation system, all else being equal, that 1% of the popular vote would translate into about 4 House seats. If we suppose that all else isn't equal (as you argue above), and their support would double (by eliminating the "wasted vote" mindset), that's still only 8 seats. Sure, any improvement is nice in principle, but that doesn't actually change anything in practice, does it? Tinkering with the electoral system doesn't isn't going to solve the underlying problem (namely, that the vast majority of voters want loot, not liberty).
8 seats might make the difference on close votes and people would start to listen to what they had to say because they would have broken through the "they can't win" barrier, quite a few Republicans would switch and some Democrats might, they wouldn't stay at 8 seats long.

[shakey1]

Throwing the bums out at regular intervals slightly reduces corruption.

There.

[r3volution 3.0]

8 seats might make the difference on close votes and people would start to listen to what they had to say because they would have broken through the "they can't win" barrier, quite a few Republicans would switch and some Democrats might, they wouldn't stay at 8 seats long.

Apart from being fairly insignificant, the benefit is situation-dependent.

As I mentioned in the old thread, it's like gerrymandering; what benefits you today may harm you tomorrow when conditions have changed.

If libertarians became a larger party, they might be overrepresented in the present system, so you wouldn't want proportional representation.

...

Imagine a giant boulder (socialism) on a hill, and a guy trying to push it up (libertarianism).

The guy might occasionally push it up the hill, or at least hold it in place, but eventually gravity will win.

Giving him some coffee and a pep talk can help for a time, but it doesn't solve the underlying problem.

[Swordsmyth]

Apart from being fairly insignificant, the benefit is situation-dependent.

As I mentioned in the old thread, it's like gerrymandering; what benefits you today may harm you tomorrow when conditions have changed.

If libertarians became a larger party, they might be overrepresented in the present system, so you wouldn't want proportional representation.

...

Imagine a giant boulder (socialism) on a hill, and a guy trying to push it up (libertarianism).

The guy might occasionally push it up the hill, or at least hold it in place, but eventually gravity will win.

Giving him some coffee and a pep talk can help for a time, but it doesn't solve the underlying problem.

That if will never happen under the current system, winner take all in geographical districts makes any 3rd party all but incapable of taking a single seat.

[r3volution 3.0]

That if will never happen under the current system, winner take all in geographical districts makes any 3rd party all but incapable of taking a single seat.

I'm quite certain it won't happen under any electoral system.

I guess we'll see.

Vote hard.