Anti-Neocon
Member

If there was any consistency and principles in MAGAland, no, but there isn't.

She apparently loves Corey Lewandowski almost as much as she loves Israel. I doubt she'll be picked now.

At least it makes sense for the governor of South Dakota to send out random tweets saying ho much they love Israel.

Her federal record was consistently that of standing with the neocons. Even DeSantis had a significantly better record there. It's no surprise she endorsed Rubio who basically represents the opposite side of the GOP as Rand in the senate. We're talking about someone who could be president if an 80 year old died - do we want more surveillance and foreign intervention? Because that is where she consistently was at. https://thefreedomindex.org/legislator/n000184/

Yeah, two pretty clear enemies of liberty. But Trump does think about himself and personal grievances. Maybe he will think twice when he realizes that Noem endorsed Rubio over himself.

This is a terrible line of attack too, picking on her for doing what kids growing up in Soviet Russia did.

I believe he was even endorsed by Rand & co last time, which he lost but not by a ton. While Tester is probably the most tolerable Democrat in the Senate (he is pretty good on civil liberties stuff and not crazy about overregulation) I don't think there's any question that his race will be one of the most important to win in 2024 for overall liberty concerns. I don't think he officially declared but it seems pretty clear that he's going for it.

I don't really like this narrative that the ADL is doing it for some other agenda. For them, like AIPAC, it's mainly about power and control for their own Jewish Zionist agenda. They want to set the rules for the censorship regime. Without that power it's useless. It's the anti-racism and stuff like that which is actually the cover for what they are about. Maybe the best analogy would be that you have to do your job as a guard to keep your keys to the watchtower, but they really want to be in the watchtower to decide who is let through. It's interesting watching this sail over the head of all the leftists/Marxists who are basically rushing to defend them as they've been conditioned, a lot just due to who is opposing them. Yet these same people will call out AIPAC.

Okay that's way better than expected; it looks like the hashtag reached him. I'm not sure the substance of this case but the ADL is all about information control and it's nice to see a grassroots effort getting in their way. 10 years ago it would've been the AD-who???

It's amazing even having to read that kind of stuff in "Ron Paul Forums".

I wonder what self-proclaimed "free speech absolutists" Elon and Vivek are saying about Twitter's direction being decided by the ADL. Oh right, Vivek is only tweeting X-ing about his own campaign surging.

I'll add - never go all in on people. Go all in on principles, and see people as generally flawed vehicles to implement those principles. The amount of hero worship that goes on in the supposedly libertarian forums is really kind of sickening. The reason Ron Paul was good was because he was consistently and honestly in alignment with principles. Some rare people like Amash come along too, who are somehow able to get into government. There's especially no reason to go all in on people whose primary principle is self-promotion.

:rolleyes: Don't tell me you placed faith in Elon too... the forever optimist. This is reminding me of when Trump picked Bolton. Clearly some 4D chess!

Add this to the bad faith stats about "mass shootings" which is mostly counting gangbangs and then the MSM makes it look like this is going to happen to your kids.

But hey, Tucker and some pro-Russian idiots are on there.

:rolleyes: Clearly, when a site which is moving toward censorship has someone on who interviews supporters of anti-free speech governments, that should make us feel all comfy inside.

This x 1000

Why do you keep saying stuff that shows you made no attempt to read what happened? "The bill" (the piece of legislation) was signed by DeSantis, which "strengthened" littering penalties, and treated personal intimidation and threats against people as a result of their equally to if they did the same thing repetitively under the stalking law. These are targeted attacks on individuals, not speech. While I think the bill should've been opposed, Vivek was not correct on really anything outside of being against it. He lied to make it sound like it was something other than what it was and then wouldn't walk back the lie. Others told him what he was, but he kept lying about it. Unless what you mean by 'the bill" is the hate crime statute in Florida state law, which has been there since before the turn of the century and was last updated in 2016 I believe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect From what I've seen, your judgment is attaching yourself to Dershy and Trump and Vivek.

Well... I want someone to put their words into actions when I agree with their words. :) Main reason I joined Ron Paul Forums, because he seemed to get both sides of the deal right.

A lot to pick apart here. "The law" that you're talking about is a statute that already exists. It has for a long time. Would I suggest repealing it? YES. Is the fact that DeSantis didn't move to repeal it, and instead bragged about passing a nothingburger bill that does very little while taking a pilgrimage to Israel troubling? YES. But basically what he did was pass a bill which punishes those who harass or credibly threaten, and since it is based off an already existing stalking law, the only thing that changes is that if you put something on an individuals' property NOT repetitively then it makes it over the threshold. But this is about targeting individuals, NOT specifically about anything to do with hate crimes. What Vivek did was read a press release meant to swindle ADL types, without reading the bill itself, and then when pressed on it he just linked to the press release without even reading the law, and a bunch of lawyers told him what the law said, and rather than admit he was wrong, he instead just kept repeating slogans about he was a "free-speech absolutist", yada yada. This is why it is such an illustration of his character. This isn't about whether you are pro or anti free speech. This is about whether you will keep on repeating lies and hope that repeating slogans will cover up your wrongness, or admit you were wrong. He chose the former. See, if he were smart AND honest this wouldn't happen.

Goalpost moving much? Vivek lied about what it was and wouldn't admit he was wrong. I'm assessing Vivek's character, not how good the bill is, or anything about DeSantis. While I don't support the bill, I also wouldn't lie about what it is. And the George Soros thing has nothing to do with that bill at all, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. The hate crimes statute was in EXISTING LAW. I changed the link so it now links to the FL state law from 2021 so you could read it. 2021 is before the "DeSantis hate speech bill" was passed. The hate crimes statute remains unchanged.

LOL, did you know that Vivek is able to form sentences really well though while talking fast? We should buy everything he sells! Forget thinking for yourself when Daddy Vivek or Dim Tool can tell you what to think. FWIW, I've found people who talk fast generally are just saying things out of recall, which means they are coming from a sort of static, concrete database, rather than taking the time to reason something through and respond to new information. The "VivekGPT" jab may come from a source we don't like but it does seem to hit home.

The election was not "stolen". Trump lost. And what is this? http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=775.085&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.085.html I'll tell you what it is - it is the hate crime statute that ALREADY EXISTED prior to the "DeSantis hate speech bill". What the bill does is increase the penalty for:

Ya know dannno , if you only read the law before and after the bill (which acts as an amendment of the law), maybe you wouldn't have to do all this weird defending of the guy. It basically changed nothing. Maybe you can argue the law should be abolished, but that is not what this is about. Fraudsters like Vivek are taking advantage of the lack of truth-seeking initiative from people like you to push a false narrative that DeSantis passed a bill that actually did something. Like I said, he can't be smart and honest at the same time when refusing to admit he's wrong in something like this. A smart person would realize they are wrong, and if they were honest, would admit their mistake. Vivek did not do this and doubled down on hoping you and others would eat it up, as you clearly have. Until people punish liars (electorally) for doing this kind of stuff, politicians will keep doing it because the incentives line up for them. As for the election reform thing, what day was this supposed to be passed? It demonstrates a cluelessness of process, whether or not you think it's a good idea to pass these reforms. Was he supposed to hold the Senate hostage until they passed some bill that wasn't even written yet?

When has the bolded worked out?

Yeah this is getting into weird worshippy territory. He can't be very smart and honest at the same time. And it's those who are smart and dishonest that are generally the most dangerous people (so I guess I'm hoping he's stupid and honest?). Maybe the most telling example was his attack on DeSantis for being against "free speech" for the nothingburger FL law amendment that he passed. Rather than admit he was wrong about it, he doubled down and kept saying that it was what it wasn't. Now his latest thing about what Pence was supposed to do on January 6th - cluelessness. And mind you, I am really concerned with DeSantis's opinion on free speech and hate him as a candidate, but it was clearly just not true. Lying about my enemies doesn't make it good.

Regardless of intent, I think there's a good reason why we shouldn't be saying that :)

Spoken like someone who has never worked with women in technical roles...