Invisible Man
Member

I wonder if Trump has given any thought to seeing if Musk would like to be his running mate.

1529824256367861764

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmdrake again."

He may not get the chance. But if his next power grab isn't that, it will be something else. If he's president again, he'll be a lame duck and will no longer feel any need to compromise his agenda in order to placate conservatives, which is pretty much the only reason for any of the actually good things he did in his first term.

I think it's debatable whether they are or not.

Most of the time. But there are legal ways to buy guns without that happening. At least for now. This is something the gun controllers want to change.

I think it would be stretching what Acts 2 says beyond the common sense meaning of the language to say that there was literally no private property. Note that Ananaias and Saphira weren't condemned for keeping some property to themselves, but only for lying about it. Peter even told Ananaias that while his land remained unsold, it remained his own.

I'm with Brian on this. The meanings of words are determined by how those words are intended in their usage. The word "socialism" has an established meaning that isn't the way you're using it. That being the case, labeling what took place in Acts 2 as "socialism" isn't an "accurate label." There may be some rare cases where people use the word "socialism" in an idiosyncratic way to apply to something like that. But that's not the meaning of the word that is established through its historic and typical usage. I think that application of the word is a muddying of the waters, rather than an accurate label.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Brian4Liberty again."

Perhaps. But his quarrel with Kemp goes back to Kemp lifting the lockdowns in Georgia against Trump's wishes. It appears to me that Georgians have sided with Kemp against Trump on that, and good for them. Suffice it to say, if Perdue and won, and if Trump became president again, the pressure for Perdue to do a better job of kowtowing to Trump on his next round of lockdowns, or whatever the communist fad of the day that Trump happens to push might be, would be high.

Here are a couple of helpful paragraphs from the wikipedia article on libertarianism. As I understand it, this is a pretty accurate summary of the history of the use of the word "libertarian." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism The historic meaning of "libertarian socialism" is not what the OP describes. And I think that still today most self-described "libertarian socialists," particularly in other countries besides the US, still hold to what is basically just an extreme form of communism that is not grounded in voluntary participation. When they use the word "libertarian" they don't mean what we mean by it.

The Perdue loss is great news, and a big defeat for Trump and his lockdowns!

The OP reads like it's a way that a libertarian capitalist might hope libertarian socialism could work, but not like what actual self-identified libertarian socialists themselves say they are for. I don't think that socialists who call themselves libertarians advocate strictly voluntary participation. They view private property itself, everywhere that it exists, as theft, and they believe that abolishing capitalism goes hand in hand with abolishing the state.

The document in the OP explicitly says not to do that. No I don't. But your whole point was to claim that they did say it outright. In actuality, what they say outright is the exact opposite. In which case, what do you imagine you proved by posting the document in the OP? Where does it say anything at all noteworthy?

That's unconscionable. But that's not what the document in the OP is talking about.

I don't see which poll you're referring to. On 4/3-4/4 Barnette polled at 15 percent, with Bartos above her within the MOE at 17, and Sands down at 11. In the same poll McCormick was at 27 and Oz at 21. Notably, this was the first time in the race that Barnette began to emerge as a serious contender.

On April 9, when Trump endorsed Oz, she was a big factor. In fact that timing makes it even more suspicious. In late March she was polling in single digits, and her popularity had just started to surge when Trump decided to endorse Oz. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2022/senate/pa/pennsylvania_senate_republican_primary-7485.html#polls

Are you sure about that? I think that making sure Barnett didn't win might have been equally important, and possibly even more important, to him than making sure McCormick didn't win. And I wouldn't rule out the possibility that he understood how his endorsement could result in McCormick winning, and may have considered that an acceptable consolation prize if he didn't manage to push Oz over the top.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmdrake again."

It is no different than who determines what is right in mathematics, logic, or the physical sciences. The Creator determines it. Our role is to discover these truths. We have no power to invent them to be whatever we may want.

Almost. People *should* do what *is* right. Not just what they think is right. If what a person thinks is right is not actually right, then they *should* change their thinking to conform with what is actually right. In practice, the difference between this and what you said is slight, not not negligible. And the difference is this: we have a moral obligation to seek to know what justice is, and to conform our thinking to it by changing our convictions when we find out they were wrong.

I agree with Snowball that the distinction between democracy and republicanism is overrated. In practice, either way the Iron Law of Oligarchy is always bound to prevail.

And yet this division of power doesn't result in this system being a rule of law and not men.

OK, but that deference to the law without respect for personal politics is not a form of government. It's a posture that can be either taken or not by those in power in any form of government.

The distinction meant a lot to them, or at least to the people whose support they needed to get their Constitution ratified. But how'd that work out?

That was a weird and unfortunate place to inject the word "capitalist."

Calcin Klein is going to OWN that demographic now!

I agree with that Breitbart article about the reason for Garland's not enforcing this law is because he's pro-abortion. But I don't agree with the reasoning in the part I quoted. If a law is unconstitutional, then Garland is obligated not to enforce it. It isn't to wait until the Court decides on the law's constitutionality, and then if the Court decides to lie and call an unconstitutional law constitutional just go on and keep enforcing an unconstitutional law, which he vowed not to do in his oath of office. This passing of the buck is typical in both the executive and legislative branches. By the reasoning of the article, legislators are also well within their rights to pass unconstitutional laws and then have the executive branch enforce those laws until they eventually get challenged in court and ruled unconstitutional (or, as often happens, ruled constitutional even if they aren't). I have heard supposedly conservative legislators use this exact line of argument to defend their refusals to promise not to vote for unconstitutional laws. If the article were right about this reasoning, then there really would be no point in having all members of the legislative and executive branches vow to uphold the Constitution.

Now they're going to have a bunch of people complaining about how they went down there and unwrapped what was supposed to be a taco, only to find a hot dog instead.

The tiny percentage of constitutionalists among American voters won't be what makes or breaks Trump. Trump ran in 2016, both in the GOP primaries and in the general election, as a staunch anti-constitutionalist, and he was rewarded with the White House for it. If he flip flops too much on that, he will lose too much of his base of support to win in 2024.