• Attention All Comstar Customers, We are pleased to report that our HPG systems update was completely successful. Service is fully back online. Sincerely, Comstar Precentor Dune

Stargazer

Well-known member

MSNBC Historian Claims If GOP Wins Midterms Your Kids Will Be Arrested And Killed

God in heaven. This whole thing is turning into a powder keg. Some idiot is going to believe this and going to get people killed. Especially with the Right being on the look out for voter fraud; this is just going to push tensions higher.

I can just imagine some leftard looking at a protest in response to voter fraud and taking action. ( because the protestors are clearly all fascists and must be stopped) Which probably would involve fists, pepper spray and/or a bike lock or similar. Though I would not rule out a Vehicle of Peace or even a gun.

It's clear that the left wing media gives tacit approval to certain kinds of political violence. How long did they cover the congressional baseball shooting that almost killed Steve Scalise? Two, maybe three days? Versus how long they're dragging out the assault of Paul Pelosi.
 

Stargazer

Well-known member
They. Do Not. Agree. With. You.

They want gay marriage. They want legalization of drugs. They want more freedom, period. They want less government period.

They. Do. Not. Agree. With. You.

They are not fighting "for the right to exist", they are not fighting for your causes, they are nothing like you and they never will be anything like you.

Stop acting like they are.

They are not on the right wing, they are not on the left wing.

Ok, I think I see what you're saying. And yes, I basically agree, modern libertarianism fundamentally does not agree with conservativism, and that's why it has no real place in the conservative movement. But libertarians do attempt to influence and infiltrate conservativism, as Abhorsen referred to. I think there's some appeal to libertarianism for conservatives, a "live and let live" mentality which can be appealing on an instinctive level. But progressives aren't going to play by those "live and let live" rules. My point is that if you try to take conservativism in a more libertarian direction in the face of progressive opposition, at best you're going to end up just ceding more and more ground in the hope of preserving a basic right to exist that you're just going to lose in the end anyways. It's not truly compatible, it's not a winning strategy.
 

Vyor

My influence grows!
Ok, I think I see what you're saying. And yes, I basically agree, modern libertarianism fundamentally does not agree with conservativism, and that's why it has no real place in the conservative movement. But libertarians do attempt to influence and infiltrate conservativism, as Abhorsen referred to. I think there's some appeal to libertarianism for conservatives, a "live and let live" mentality which can be appealing on an instinctive level. But progressives aren't going to play by those "live and let live" rules. My point is that if you try to take conservativism in a more libertarian direction in the face of progressive opposition, at best you're going to end up just ceding more and more ground in the hope of preserving a basic right to exist that you're just going to lose in the end anyways. It's not truly compatible, it's not a winning strategy.

In that case it's time to start killing. Oh, what's that? You're against political violence? Too bad, the left is doing it therefore the right has to as well.

Maybe... don't go down that road? And no, the libertarians believe that the government should stay out of things, period. That is fundamentally linked to most branches of conservatism. The differentiation comes in from what each side believes people should choose to be.

Lets take the idiotic school indoctrination argument. You want to know what the libertarian view on that is? No public schools.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
I just think Masters should win as fucking Norris has endorsed him.
I didn't realize Norris was a republican thiugh I think he stays out of politics
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Yeahhhhh... the same NH Libertarians that post crap like this and double down when called out on it?
Yup. Fuck warmongers. This is a warmonger crying over a worse warmonger. They'll post the same picture when Chelsea Clinton cries over Hillary's casket.
I don't know, it just kind of strikes me that libertarianism is a loser mentality for the GOP. It's giving up on actually winning the culture war

Below, Vyor covers us very well, but as for culture war, we are fighting it. We started by retaking the Libertarian party from a bunch of near democrats, ditching the stupid ass kinda pro-choice plank the national party had like an albatross around our neck, and got motivated.

They. Do Not. Agree. With. You.

They want gay marriage. They want legalization of drugs. They want more freedom, period. They want less government period.

They. Do. Not. Agree. With. You.

They are not fighting "for the right to exist", they are not fighting for your causes, they are nothing like you and they never will be anything like you.

Stop acting like they are.

They are not on the right wing, they are not on the left wing.
Vyor puts it great here. We aren't the Right or the Left. We have our own standards. Now frequently these line up with the right more than the left, especially lately, but why should we vote for the right if you guys aren't promising us what we want?

We want anti-war people number one. We want people who actually want to shrink government, not go to Washington and lie about it. I could go on. So looking at the polls, the Libertarian vote would have made a huge difference in a number of races, at least ensuring wins in a bunch of districts. NH is a big one, where the Senate libertarian candidate is probably our most prominent:


If the republicans lose (which I kinda hope they do, because it strengthens the libertarian bargaining position), we will point out that they had the chance to avoid a libertarian spoiler by choosing a Free State Project approved nominee (which they did have the option of). But not choosing liberty will cause losses. That's the situation the libertarian party needs to be in so we can seize control and leave people alone.

I get it's a tactic a lot of people on the board won't be fond of, but consider the people we want to spoil: pro war (read- owned by the MIL), big government (part of the swamp), anti gun, republicans.

The libertarians don't care about positions on gay marriage, because that is settled. Same for a bunch of other stuff. So if we can exert control on the senate, we'd do it through the republican party, not the democrats.

For stuff about how libertarians want to influence the senate elections, that's on topic here, but yes, please let's keep larger, more in depth topics on libertarianism specifically in that thread.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Hey, war heros do deserve some respect for what they did IN service.
What ever they did outside can be hated and the like, but what they did in service should be respected.

Of course the left doesn't see it this way with the confederates or even revolutionary heros
 

Stargazer

Well-known member
In that case it's time to start killing. Oh, what's that? You're against political violence? Too bad, the left is doing it therefore the right has to as well.

Maybe... don't go down that road? And no, the libertarians believe that the government should stay out of things, period. That is fundamentally linked to most branches of conservatism. The differentiation comes in from what each side believes people should choose to be.

Lets take the idiotic school indoctrination argument. You want to know what the libertarian view on that is? No public schools.

And you're losing me a little. I'm not universally against "political violence", and that shouldn't be a controversial statement. The US was founded on the very idea that there is an appropriate time to take up arms against tyranny. I think anyone who seriously cares about their beliefs and values needs to think through at what point it would be justified and even necessary to take up arms against a tyrannical government, how bad it would have to get before enough is enough. My hope, though, is that we have a society with enough shared values governed under the rule of law with the Constitution that we can debate and decide on our differences peacefully and not fall into tyranny. So it's a cause for consternation to see those values drifting apart and the Constitution being undermined.

As for schools, actually much of the conservative response has long been to pull kids out of the public school system into home schooling or private schooling. But not every family can afford that, can make that work, and it basically means the system is set up to use tax money to benefit and indoctrinate for one ideological side only. That's unacceptable. But I don't think abolishing the public school system is the answer, I think there is a clear societal benefit and interest to providing publicly sponsored education up to a point. So reform, not abolition, is what I would support as the way forward. The federal Department of Education is probably unnecessary. Children are the future of our nation, and the education of our children is worth fighting for, not scuttling entirely.

Yup. Fuck warmongers. This is a warmonger crying over a worse warmonger. They'll post the same picture when Chelsea Clinton cries over Hillary's casket.

And that kind of attitude is going to keep the Libertarian party out of any actual office, keep them from ever actually accomplishing anything. Criticizing politicians for being "war-mongers" is one thing. Dancing on their graves and cruelly mocking a woman for mourning her own father is another. It's repulsive. If that's the attitude I can expect from the Libertarian Party, then Libertarians can go climb a tree. This earns being called a lolbert.
 
Last edited:

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
And that kind of attitude is going to keep the Libertarian party out of any actual office, keep them from ever actually accomplishing anything. Criticizing politicians for being "war-mongers" is one thing. Dancing on their graves and cruelly mocking a woman for mourning her own father is another. It's repulsive. If that's the attitude I can expect from the Libertarian Party, then Libertarians can go climb a tree. This earns being called a lolbert.
Hey, war heros do deserve some respect for what they did IN service.
What ever they did outside can be hated and the like, but what they did in service should be respected.

Of course the left doesn't see it this way with the confederates or even revolutionary heros
That's specifically the New Hampshire branch, which is where the more extreme libertarians move to (sorta like judging conservatives by their fundies). But yeah, note that Meghan McCain is a target as well, as she too pushed war.

It's a warmonger mourning a warmonger, when their policies that they pushed caused thousands of innocent children to mourn their parents death, and many of the kids didn't survive the funerals, as those were bombed too. The McCains didn't let them mourn in peace, why should they be so bothered that a tweet mocked them?

Do I think it's in somewhat bad taste? Sure. Do I think the point is worth it? Also yes. War is evil. This scene you see here? Happened thousands of times over in part because of the two depicted here. Honestly an ironic photo.

Only McCain got to die peacefully of old age with a grown up daughter. Many that his policies killed will never get that.

As for schools, actually much of the conservative response has long been to pull kids out of the public school system into home schooling or private schooling. But not every family can afford that, can make that work, and it basically means the system is set up to use tax money to benefit one ideological side only. That's unacceptable. But I don't think abolishing the public school system is the answer, I think there is a clear societal benefit and interest to providing publicly sponsored education up to a point. So reform, not abolition, is what I would support as the way forward. The federal Department of Education is probably unnecessary. Children are the future of our nation, and the education of our children is worth fighting for, not scuttling entirely.
The problem with a public education system that includes public schools is that by letting the state run it, they will be fed propaganda that the parent's do not have control over. The people with control over it will be a combo of government employees (which will tend heavily leftist) and beaurocrats, with some minor community involvement from school boards that won't be enough. This cannot be fixed, it's a fixture of the system.

What libertarians want to do as at least a start to the fix is radical school choice. We want to emphasize a family's role in their child's education, and not let the government run roughshod over it for some nebulous good like 'diversity', 'equity' or 'good of the nation'. Family is more important than all those things.

Currently, what that looks like is proposing complete school choice by linking tax dollars with kids instead of their schools. A great deal of this has been done in New Hampshire, providing parents with school choice. The specific platform is:
2.12 Education
Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability, and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children’s education.

Any government school will inevitably shovel woke shit down kids throats. Now if a parent wants that, fine, that's their kid, but it shouldn't impact other's kids.

So yeah, people in favor of school choice is something I highly value when voting, which is another reason why a spoiler candidate is so important. Take Dr. Oz. As I posted before, he's pushed trans kids. I don't want him in office representing me (if I lived in PA) supporting shoveling woke shit down kids throats. But voting for the Dem tells the republican party this is a Dem state and not to bother. Go for a third option: vote L. It tells the republican that the person ain't good enough, but also doesn't signal that the place is a lost cause.
 

Stargazer

Well-known member
That's specifically the New Hampshire branch, which is where the more extreme libertarians move to (sorta like judging conservatives by their fundies). But yeah, note that Meghan McCain is a target as well, as she too pushed war.

It's a warmonger mourning a warmonger, when their policies that they pushed caused thousands of innocent children to mourn their parents death, and many of the kids didn't survive the funerals, as those were bombed too. The McCains didn't let them mourn in peace, why should they be so bothered that a tweet mocked them?

Do I think it's in somewhat bad taste? Sure. Do I think the point is worth it? Also yes. War is evil. This scene you see here? Happened thousands of times over in part because of the two depicted here. Honestly an ironic photo.

Only McCain got to die peacefully of old age with a grown up daughter. Many that his policies killed will never get that.

Yeah, and your reaction was and continues to be to completely validate them for that tweet. So it's kind of nonsense to then halfheartedly try wiggling out by saying they're "more extreme libertarians".

Let's be specific about this. What policies are you referring to, exactly? And you say war is evil. Interesting word choice. What standard of "evil" are you using, exactly?
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Yeah, and your reaction was and continues to be to completely validate them for that tweet. So it's kind of nonsense to then halfheartedly try wiggling out by saying they're "more extreme libertarians".
No, I'm one of the more extreme libertarians. I know I'm extreme though. But the libertarian party has quickly become the only antiwar option in the 2022 midterms, with the progressive wing of the democrats backing down like cowards, and the republican group being kinda scattered and wishy washy.

Let's be specific about this. What policies are you referring to, exactly? And you say war is evil. Interesting word choice. What standard of "evil" are you using, exactly?
Specifically, each and everytime they justified war. I'll even spot you Afghanistan, as the declaration was justified, though the method wasn't (fuck hearts and minds, just go there, kill the leaders, make it clear you'll leave the second you have them, then actually leave the shithole once they are dealt with).

McCain supported the Iraq war and still continued to, and not only that but was a leading proponent of it prior to it's beginning (for example, on an October 2001 interview with Letterman, he called Iraq the second phase of the war in Afghanistan); hence, I find him to be scum.

Meghan McCain, while not having hard political power, still cheerleaded the wars, including calling anyone against war in Syria Assad apologists (Tulsi for example), and condemned Trump and Rand Paul for supporting removing troops from a war we had no business in. I've little doubt I can give more examples for other wars if I wanted to spend the time to look.

As for my standard of evil: war is evil. War is a mass killing, and largely innocents die. It is one of the biggest violations of the NAP there is for how many times it will cause individuals to violate it. Sometimes very rarely war is a necessary evil (which is why I spotted you Afghanistan at the beginning), but joining a war when you weren't attacked makes those times vanishingly small. Iraq and Syria and Lybia were not justified. We had no business being there, they were no threat to the US. So I condemn each president that had a role in those, and hate each one (also the US support for war in Yemen).

Basically, the libertarian party doesn't support pro war candidates (it's our biggest priority), so we are quite happy to spoil one pro war candidate that's replaced by another.
 

Stargazer

Well-known member
Specifically, each and everytime they justified war. I'll even spot you Afghanistan, as the declaration was justified, though the method wasn't (fuck hearts and minds, just go there, kill the leaders, make it clear you'll leave the second you have them, then actually leave the shithole once they are dealt with).

McCain supported the Iraq war and still continued to, and not only that but was a leading proponent of it prior to it's beginning (for example, on an October 2001 interview with Letterman, he called Iraq the second phase of the war in Afghanistan); hence, I find him to be scum.

Meghan McCain, while not having hard political power, still cheerleaded the wars, including calling anyone against war in Syria Assad apologists (Tulsi for example), and condemned Trump and Rand Paul for supporting removing troops from a war we had no business in. I've little doubt I can give more examples for other wars if I wanted to spend the time to look.

So you just broadly say every time they justified war...but then immediately "spot me" with Afghanistan and admit that declaration was justified. That opens the possibility for other declarations to be justified, too. So you can't just broadly say all the wars they supported were evil by default, you have to criticize them case by case.

When it comes to wars in the Middle East, and military action around the world in general, I think libertarians have a rather naive notion that if we would just leave everyone alone, everyone would leave us alone. That hasn't been true at any point in human history. It would be nice if it were true, but if all nice things were true things we would have a cure for cancer, Elvis would be alive, and the Star Wars sequels wouldn't exist. Nations have always been getting in their neighbors' business. And the more powerful and prosperous a nation is, the more they become a target. Libertarians also like to ignore the existence of violent ideologies that are going to hate us regardless of what we do.

We saw the result of such ideology on 9/11, and we took steps to remove the threat. But I also think it's naive to act like it's a one and done thing. The United States needs to show constant vigilance on the world stage, constant action to fight terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and prevent them from establishing bases and building a capacity to train forces that can then be used to attack us. It's naive to think that it's all fine now, we can all go home, 9/11 can never happen again. A naivete that could cost thousands of lives. I have zero confidence that after the fiasco of the pullout from Afghanistan, the country won't go back to being a safe harbor and training ground for terrorists like it was 20 years ago.

Libertarian criticism of the US for war is also historically shortsighted. The US military is one of, if not the most, conscientious in history. Far from perfect, but in the grand scheme of things, we do a lot more to try to minimize civilian collateral. Rules of engagement, billions of dollars spent to develop ridiculously precise weapons systems.

And to that point, there's the reality of rivals like Russia and China. The more weakness the United States shows on the world stage, the more Russia and China will assert themselves. You cannot tell me that Putin's orders to go ahead in Ukraine were not in part spurred by the US humiliating itself with Afghanistan. You don't like death and mass killing? I don't think you want to find out what would happen if Russia and China knew they could throw around their military might and never have to worry about the US getting in the way. A friend of mine, retired marine, once said this to me - having the biggest gun in the world is worthless if your enemy knows you will never use it.

The evaluation of any given war and how necessary it is to securing your own citizens' safety can be a flawed judgment. You can have bad information going in that makes the war seem foolish in hindsight. War is awful and traumatic and deadly, but it's also a reality of history, of humanity, a reality that we have to deal with or it will deal with us. So, political leaders ordering military action to protect our interests, to ensure the security of our citizens for the reasons indicated above, can be valid, can be just. Again, I think it's naive to accuse leaders like John McCain of being "scum" for having that sort of reasoning. Maybe he was wrong in his evaluations, with tragic consequences. But that doesn't make him a monster deserving of you dancing on his grave and spitting in the face of his daughter.

As for my standard of evil: war is evil. War is a mass killing, and largely innocents die. It is one of the biggest violations of the NAP there is for how many times it will cause individuals to violate it. Sometimes very rarely war is a necessary evil (which is why I spotted you Afghanistan at the beginning), but joining a war when you weren't attacked makes those times vanishingly small. Iraq and Syria and Lybia were not justified. We had no business being there, they were no threat to the US. So I condemn each president that had a role in those, and hate each one (also the US support for war in Yemen).

But here's the question, how is any of that connected to a concept of "evil"? In your own words, can you explain just what the deaths of innocents, what violating the "NAP", has to do with evil? I have my own answer, at least with regard to the death of innocents, but my understanding is that you have a different moral framework than I do, so I'm curious as to what your own answer would be.
 
Last edited:

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
So you just broadly say every time they justified war...but then immediately "spot me" with Afghanistan and admit that declaration was justified. That opens the possibility for other declarations to be justified, too. So you can't just broadly say all the wars they supported were evil by default, you have to criticize them case by case.
Afghanistan was only justified because they (or more accurately people on their soil that they refused to hand over) attacked us first. I've got no problem with self defense.

The others had no self defense part. We weren't being attacked. And coming to defend others at war just leads to more war, as we piss off people.

Libertarian criticism of the US for war is also historically shortsighted. The US military is one of, if not the most, conscientious in history. Far from perfect, but in the grand scheme of things, we do a lot more to try to minimize civilian collateral. Rules of engagement, billions of dollars spent to develop ridiculously precise weapons systems.
The illusion that you can fight a clean war is just that, and illusion. Every war is monstrously evil, causing massive amounts of dead. Understand that the killing of soldiers is still bad even though necessary, as they are people. The killing of any innocents is awful. And both happen during every war, not even counting the second order effects of the instability we brought to the region.

We saw the result of such ideology on 9/11, and we took steps to remove the threat. But I also think it's naive to act like it's a one and done thing. The United States needs to show constant vigilance on the world stage, constant action to fight terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and prevent them from establishing bases and building a capacity to train forces that can then be used to attack us. It's naive to think that it's all fine now, we can all go home, 9/11 can never happen again. A naivete that could cost thousands of lives. I have zero confidence that after the fiasco of the pullout from Afghanistan, the country won't go back to being a safe harbor and training ground for terrorists like it was 20 years ago.
No. We were already fucking around in the Middle east prior to 9/11, that's why they came over here, because we were over there. Going/staying overthere is not going to help at all. And look, if you want to continue the war vs antiwar debate, best to continue that in the libertarian thread or in a new one.

For the purposes of this election and thread, just note that my general position of NATO being an overall good and contributing to less wars makes me comparatively pro war when it comes to the libertarian party. The ideal Libertarian setup by most in the party is hedgehogging: we got a country, you touch the country you die. Otherwise, not our business.

So when it comes to people running for senate, Libertarians want those who will be anti war. Specifically, those who want to withdraw our troops from Ukraine (where they never should have been) and stop stealing from the American people to fund them. They can buy weapons if they want, but the unilateral transfers need to stop. The same for the war in Yemen and future wars as well.

So we are quite fine fucking up the race for a republican who is just as war happy as the democrat.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Afghanistan was only justified because they (or more accurately people on their soil that they refused to hand over) attacked us first. I've got no problem with self defense.

The others had no self defense part. We weren't being attacked. And coming to defend others at war just leads to more war, as we piss off people.


The illusion that you can fight a clean war is just that, and illusion. Every war is monstrously evil, causing massive amounts of dead. Understand that the killing of soldiers is still bad even though necessary, as they are people. The killing of any innocents is awful. And both happen during every war, not even counting the second order effects of the instability we brought to the region.


No. We were already fucking around in the Middle east prior to 9/11, that's why they came over here, because we were over there. Going/staying overthere is not going to help at all. And look, if you want to continue the war vs antiwar debate, best to continue that in the libertarian thread or in a new one.

For the purposes of this election and thread, just note that my general position of NATO being an overall good and contributing to less wars makes me comparatively pro war when it comes to the libertarian party. The ideal Libertarian setup by most in the party is hedgehogging: we got a country, you touch the country you die. Otherwise, not our business.

So when it comes to people running for senate, Libertarians want those who will be anti war. Specifically, those who want to withdraw our troops from Ukraine (where they never should have been) and stop stealing from the American people to fund them. They can buy weapons if they want, but the unilateral transfers need to stop. The same for the war in Yemen and future wars as well.

So we are quite fine fucking up the race for a republican who is just as war happy as the democrat.
1) NAP doesn't work on an international scale, never will, and AnCap lolberts really need to get this through their heads.

2) There are no US troops in Ukraine, only some weapons inspectors to make sure the stuff we give Ukraine doesn't end up on the black market.

3) You are the one making this a 'war/anti-war debate' by acting like anyone who doesn't follow your extreme brand of lolbertarianism is a 'warmonger'.

4) Thank you for showing why the GOP should treat the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire as an extension of the Democrat party, and showing you and many lolberts care more about acting as a spoiler for GOP candidates than you do about stopping Dem insanity. It shows the GOP never to trust the lolberts to act in good faith, rather than as petty, spoiled cunts who are willing to allow the Dems more power than help elected a GOP person who isn't an radical isolationist. I can honestly say you, @Abhorsen, have done a wonderful job of dispelling the illusion that the Libertarain Party is actually a viable third party or that it should be paid attention to at all, instead of just treated as another Dem controlled opposition operation.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
1) NAP doesn't work on an international scale, never will, and AnCap lolberts really need to get this through their heads.
War is evil. Stop waging war. Though I do agree the NAP does have flaws at the international scale, and that war for defense of others internationally should also be looked at with skepticism as well, as that usually makes everything worse (see WW1 for the worst but not only example).

2) There are no US troops in Ukraine, only some weapons inspectors to make sure the stuff we give Ukraine doesn't end up on the black market.
Sure, that's definitely the only reason they are there.

3) You are the one making this a 'war/anti-war debate' by acting like anyone who doesn't follow your extreme brand of lolbertarianism is a 'warmonger'.
No, what I'm doing here is pointing out that libertarians are anti war, and will only vote for anti war candidates, and that it's campaign messaging during this time has consistently been anti war.

4) Thank you for showing why the GOP should treat the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire as an extension of the Democrat party, and showing you and many lolberts care more about acting as a spoiler for GOP candidates than you do about stopping Dem insanity. It shows the GOP never to trust the lolberts to act in good faith, rather than as petty, spoiled cunts who are willing to allow the Dems more power than help elected a GOP person who isn't an radical isolationist. I can honestly say you, @Abhorsen, have done a wonderful job of dispelling the illusion that the Libertarain Party is actually a viable third party or that it should be paid attention to at all, instead of just treated as another Dem controlled opposition operation.
You want every party to be a centrist party. You want the Republicans to stop being conservatives, you want the Libertarians to not be libertarians. What do you expect? We aren't republicans. We don't agree with them on a lot (namely the drug war, ones who are pro-war, and police accountability). Why should we vote for someone who holds next to none of our core values to stop someone else who holds none of our core values?

Instead, the GOP needs to primary acceptable people if they don't want to be spoiled. Earn our vote or don't get it.

Also, lol at calling us controlled opposition. Look at much of the GOP for controlled opposition. They want the same stuff that the Dems do: more war, more spending, more government.
 
Last edited:

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
War is evil. Stop waging war. Though I do agree the NAP does have flaws at the international scale, and that war for defense of others internationally should also be looked at with skepticism as well, as that usually makes everything worse (see WW1 for the worst but not only example).
See, here's the thing, you need to tell that to the people who are actually causing wars, i.e. Russia, Iran, the CCP, and North Korea.

The fact is the NAP doesn't work on an international scale, never will, and is worthless for most politics outside lolbert fantasies.

Sure, that's definitely the only reason they are there.
Can you provide any evidence they are doing more than inspecting weapons and passing intel to Ukrainian leaders?

And no, US volunteers in Ukraine's International Legion don't count as 'US troops'.
No, what I'm doing here is pointing out that libertarians are anti war, and will only vote for anti war candidates, and that it's campaign messaging during this time has consistently been anti war.
You mean pro-Russian appeasement; because in the middle of an active conflict like this, being 'anti-war' just means wanting Ukraine to surrender to make life easier.

Don't like that, tough shit; maybe lolberts should start to realize the NAP doesn't mean shit once the bullets have already started flying.
You want every party to be a centrist party. You want the Republicans to stop being conservatives, you want the Libertarians to not be libertarians. What do you expect? We aren't republicans. We don't agree with them on a lot. Why should we vote for someone who holds next to none of our core values to stop someone else who holds none of our core values?

Instead, the GOP needs to primary acceptable people if they don't want to be spoiled. Earn our vote or don't get it.

Also, lol at calling us controlled opposition. Look at much of the GOP for controlled opposition. They want the same stuff that the Dems do: more war, more spending, more government.
The GOP doesn't want drag queen story hour, doesn't want continued massive illegal immigration, doesn't want more wokeness spreading, and doesn't want to pretend we can just stick our heads in the sand as a nation.

Which is more than I can say for the Dems.

And if Dem insanity is more acceptable to lolberts like you than 'pro-war' GOP members (never mind that the Left outside of the very far left fringe is supportive of helping Ukraine and keeping a strong military), then the GOP probably should just write NH off and focus energies in places where radical lolberts don't have any spoiling ability.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top