Is this a psychological question? Or do you mean, what makes him think they are?
Printable View
By adopting, defending, supporting, and implementing anti-liberty positions rather than pro-liberty ones.
They cannot have been "persuaded" by someone else into doing so despite their own presuppositions (and/or sensibilities, inclinations, temperament, self-interest, etc.), but only because of them.[1]
And the same is true of those who adopt, defend, support, and implement pro-liberty positions rather than anti-liberty ones.
The only person who can "persuade" you of anything is you. Everything else is just grist for the mill, to be ground as you see fit (if at all).
[1] Otherwise, who "persuaded" the "persuaders"? And who "persuaded" them? And who "persuaded" them? And so on ad infinitum ...
This is all great and fine and applies to... 2007. Or 2012. Or even 2016.
Not in 2022.
We're done with persuasion at this point. The war is being waged. If our spheres, such as YAL, are doing stuff like this, then they need to be cast away OR TAKEN BACK OVER BY OUR TYPES.
Liberty folks, by nature, don't like taking over things; we don't like force, etc. Unfortunately, that has led us all to being bent over the table and gagged and here we are.
It's time to get mean about this stuff.
I would argue that it's time to unify over principles rather than divide our ranks even further over messaging. The simple principle that the government has overreached and is clinging to this stolen power is unifying and has broad-based appeal. Let's stop taking shots at each other over how we're talking about things. Let them use their messaging technique and we can use ours. Hell, even Jimmy Dore, Bill Maher, and Russell Brand are helping the cause. I don't agree with any of them on their points of view, but they can speak to people who won't listen to us.
Rather disappointed. Hopefully the people that are pushing wokeness and neoconservatism will be pushed out of the organization.
Unifying over principles is an absolute non-starter. Give me one time in history where people united over principles. It's probably 0.
Unifying over a common cause? That is more reasonable.
Unifying over a common enemy? This is historically most common.
But principles? Pretty much never.
We need to separate. And the only way that happens is if people get angry.
So let people get angry. Fuel their rage, on both sides.
Piss people off. And do not apologize for it.
I don't discriminate much in allies. The only thing I request in an ally is the willingness to separate and the balls to do it.
Lauren however has no balls. That does not make her an enemy, it just makes her an average weakling coward like the vast majority of America. Neither ally nor foe.
If the leftists are going to rise up in America, they'd better do it before the eggs get cold and the breakfast is ruined. I have no issue with working with them (when *they* make their own choice) but I don't have the time or patience pull a stubborn mule, when the horse is saddled and ready to go.
H'yah!
Not to mention that her comments completely missed the original reason that 2A was written. Self-defense perhaps in a sense, yes, but we all know why. Or is it for hunting and self defense, @TheTexan?
The courts have consistent re-affirmed that the 2A is primarily for hunting.
The justices often refer to it as the "deer rule". When considering whether a weapon is protected by the 2A or not, ask yourself: how many deer has it killed lately? how many people has it killed lately?
If a weapon has killed way more deer than people then it's protected by the 2A.
Many constitutional scholars believe that the word "bear" was a typo. It was intended to be "the right to deer arms shall not be infringed"
BINGO.
BINGO.
Libertarianism's future is certainly not national. It'll never be at the highest office in the land. It hardly works at the federal level. I foresee true libertarian candidates never holding more than 5% of the House even in its best years. The Senate will be lucky if it has one candidate like Rand every 6 years.
If people want to be serious about it, then local and state is where to go. Even then, good luck. Like I said in another thread, the GOP outnumbers the LP more than 60:1 in my state. Dems outnumber the LP around 35:1. It'll take many years for the LP to get to respectable levels. Years we no longer have.
How many Dems and Reps are gonna be converted any time soon with everything that's going on? What power does the LP grant to right wing people who want to help curtail the tyranny of D.C. NOW? And most Dems are a lost cause at this point.
And you see some of the responses above saying "we shouldn't divide over something like messaging... we need unity..."
Yea, we did need unity. Let me ask everyone: at this point in time, do you want people who are willing to sacrifice principle and courage over some marketing decision because it might, MIGHT win over a handful of Dems on Twitter? Really? That's where we are? That's pathetic. Like I said above, if YAL if gonna be like this, take them back over or cast them away. We can't afford to have weak entities right now who will bend with the wind. They're the types that'll apologize to a leftist hoard for mistyping something. It seems to me they likely would have endorsed Jo as LP nominee because of her fantastic BLM "messaging."
"It'S sTrAtEgIc!"
Kumbaya is over, people have picked their sides. Quit dragging your feet and worrying about "messaging" on Twitter. Twitter!
And this is why getting libertarians to unify, as it was and as it remains, is like herding cats.
delete nulll