No, they won't be. That's the nice thing about federalism. You know, ike how my numerous examples showed how we are right now winning?And without national level power, those local moves won't stick or spread, and can be reverse themselves by edicts from DC or rulings by SCOTUS.
No, it doesn't have to. That's the part you are missing. It has been shrunk in the past, it can be again.The car is going to get gas no matter what, the only difference is your idea doesn't even attempt to regain control of the steering wheel.
"I want to win a PR war by doing the same thing the right has lost every PR war by doing." Yeah, hows that worked out the past 70 years of the right trying and failing at this?I read it, and saw the usual AnCap/libertarian lines that are behind the times and which are ultimately self-defeating.
You do not win the PR war by trying to shy away from power, you win the PR war by taking power in society and media, and showing the Lefties lies about the Right are just that, lies.
"WAAHHHH, you can't shrink government"And 'getting rid of government' is a worthless take that does nothing but show you just want to virtue signal to other AnCaps and the 'small gov right' about how 'pure' you are.
You aren't getting rid of government, you aren't likely to be able to shrink it meaningfully, and you will make even more parts of the center look at libertarian as out-of-touch ideologues.
What I want isn't authoritarianism, however I am not naive enough to believe that the Right can accomplish many of it's stated goals without controlling just as much of the gov as the Left currently do. Which means the Right and libertarians are already decades behind the curve.
Deal with the world as it is, not as you wish it to be.
No, he's gone from running with them to trying to out race them to hell. It's not a viable solution (as the right is slower by nature), and it gets you to the same awful place regardless of who wins. Government has never been an answer. He's improved from a supporter to a useful idiot.because that's functionally impossible.
The left is in a purity cycle and is an environment of constant witch hunts. Keeping them happy is impossible, apeasing them increasingly difficult. They currently hold the whip hand yes but they make enemies where ever they go. The pendulum will turn it will just be a really hard and difficult path.
Barcle has decided to suffer along side the people who are also fucked rather then get into a cultist race that simply can not be one and barely even survived.
Yes -- If one wants a good example of what conservatism should really aim for, Tolkien is in fact a great example. Both in his writing (all about how dangerous power is, and how it shouldn't -- and can't be -- "used for good") and in his life (very traditionalist and very unwilling to impose his views on others; aware of the many blights upon the world, but always seeking out the spots of beauty and light).You:
Your example is not really applicable to US politics, because guess what, no one (outside fools) expects a US politican to be even close to what Jesus was, even if they do worship him. And the US electorate is more than just Christians, too, and politicians have to keep that in mind.You seem to have missed the part where I gave a clear example that proves my point.
Have you considered there might be more people in the center than on the Right or Left? Or at least more people on the fence, in the center?Once again, your cognitive dissonance strikes. You say that you "deal with the world as it is", but the opposite is true. The advice you give to conservatives always boils down to "be more centrist, guys! stop being so conservative!"
Well, I think I'd have a better view of what the situation is like on the ground than foreigners like you.What a coincidence: you're a centrist who was disappointed with the Democrats swerving hard to the left, so you hopped onto the GOP bandwagon, and now you want to turn the GOP into a centrist party. Your advice is never "what's good for conservatives", because in reality, you are completely unable (or unwilling) to make any distinction between "what's good for conservatives" and "what Bacle happens to like (which is turning conservatism into centrism)".
And the idea you have a more realistic view of the US domestic scene than I do is laughable.You do nothing but focus on "the world as you wish it to be".
If there's one thing for certain, it's that the right will never benefit from adopting your mindset.
Federalism is a nice feature, but it is not a replacement for the power in DC, and most state level powers effectively exist at the whim of DC, who can and will issue edicts if it feels the need/desire, as the Wu Flu showed.No, they won't be. That's the nice thing about federalism. You know, ike how my numerous examples showed how we are right now winning?
Libertarians have no answer for how to deal with international fuckery like the Wu Flu and the continuing fallout from it, or how to rein in Putin without getting into WW3 or betraying Ukraine.No, it doesn't have to. That's the part you are missing. It has been shrunk in the past, it can be again.
And the idea that control of the steering wheel matters is the illusion they sell you the gas on. It's not hooked up. You need brakes.
"I want to win a PR war by doing the same thing the right has lost every PR war by doing." Yeah, hows that worked out the past 70 years of the right trying and failing at this?
Unless by power in society and media you mean organic power that comes from just honestly telling the truth, and watching as small government wins and big state governments crumble? Cause that's the libertarian way. But if you mean by using government control to do that, you guys have tried that over and over again and failed each time. It's laughable you think that this time daddy government will help you.
You conflate federalism jurisdictional boundaries being respected with 'small gov good, small gov winning', rather than DC letting them as 'small potatoes' and just letting the courst (and the Dems lawyer friends) do their work."WAAHHHH, you can't shrink government"
*Laughs in NH*. *Laughs in FL*. Thatcher's laughing at you too, btw. So is every state that legalized Marijuana. Same with all the states that refuse to cooperate with feds when it comes to gun control. This is just a dumb take that isn't reflected by reality. The only thing real about it is that there are a bunch of conservative/right leaning people who've given up and accepted leftism in deed, as much as they pretend otherwise, and you are one of them.
See, that's the thing; I know they could crush me, or any of us, on a whim.The only thing that matters is government size, as if it's big, they will crush you no matter who you are. Your naive belief that you can use it for your own ends is simply hilarious if it weren't what caused the problem in the first place.
You:You:
View attachment 1519
No, he's gone from running with them to trying to out race them to hell. It's not a viable solution (as the right is slower by nature), and it gets you to the same awful place regardless of who wins. Government has never been an answer. He's improved from a supporter to a useful idiot.
At this point, I've given up responding to you as most of your points are calcified ignorance about libertarian solutions (seriously, pretending that the US should care that Ukraine got invaded? Not our business. Sell them weapons, but that's about it). You could at least rebut the numerous examples I gave? Oh, wait, were those fatal to your fatalistic surrender monkey worldview? So you just dismissed them as small potatoes? First, wrong. You don't seem to know how things operate at all though, so not a surprise. Second, Thatcher (again).Short of a nuclear war, the gov ain't getting smaller, though the bad actors in it can be defanged in other ways.
Your misplaced sarcasm notwithstanding, the derision is simply what your persistent lies tend to invite.Nice way to snip the convo and smear me at the same time, real clever./s
This part in particular (which you repeat about four or five times in different iterations) deserves a special mention, though, because it illustrates the special way in which you are being unnecessarily dense here. To elaborate: your argument is equivalent to a typical afrocentrist saying white historians aren't allowed to have an opinion about African history because they're not African. That's the intellectual level you're operating on. Improvement recommended.A moderate person in the US is more likely to have a realistic view of US politics, than someone who from a foreign nation the size of a postage stamp.
Thank you for showing yet again why US politics is so FUBAR; even the 'third option' in the Libertarian Party is full of idiots and ideologues.At this point, I've given up responding to you as most of your points are calcified ignorance about libertarian solutions (seriously, pretending that the US should care that Ukraine got invaded? Not our business. Sell them weapons, but that's about it). You could at least rebut the numerous examples I gave? Oh, wait, were those fatal to your fatalistic surrender monkey worldview? So you just dismissed them as small potatoes? First, wrong. You don't seem to know how things operate at all though, so not a surprise. Second, Thatcher (again).
Seriously, this compounded ignorance combined with insisting that all parties act as you wish exposes why you are frustrated with us. You are an old school dem who still believes, laughably, that government is the solution (no, none of your examples given are real reasons to have government, all can be replaced with private solutions/lawsuits/doing nothing). Meanwhile, we are watching as the government exposes that it is full of lies and laughing as we win by moving someplace we like better, and making the local rules as we wish it.
Your error, as even shown in this post, is thinking 'what conservatives think about themselves' matters more than 'what moderates think about conservatives'.This part in particular (which you repeat about four or five times in different iterations) deserves a special mention, though, because it illustrates the special way in which you are being unnecessarily dense here. To elaborate: your argument is equivalent to a typical afrocentrist saying white historians aren't allowed to have an opinion about African history because they're not African. That's the intellectual level you're operating on. Improvement recommended.
What you've also failed to consider is that other categorisations than your favoured one might actually be possible, and make more sense. Even if you assume the premise of "only [X] may have an opinion on [Y]" holds true, then your argument is still shit. Consider the following:
-- Bacle: "An American moderate, by default, has a better understanding of conservatism in America than a foreign conservative!"
-- Response: "A foreign conservative, by default, has a better understanding of conservatism in America than an American moderate!"
Both those statements use the same exact argumentation. They just consider different linear relations to be more significant. Both may have merit, and the one that has it right may in the end not be yours. It is my view, however, that neither has merit. Because of the "by default" in that sentence. You assume stuff is true by default; that a foreigner understands less by default. And that's your biggest error.
I've just learned to live with what I cannot change, instead fighting futile battles out of pride. There are still absolutely fights the Right can win, and a lot of them; it just needs to stop wasting time on some fights it cannot achieve victory in anymore.
I love how you say this, but encourage the US to intervene/aid in Ukraine vs a nuclear armed country. No, the US should be offering to broker peace and its companies selling weapons, that's about it.Guess what, radiation don't give a fuck about politics
No. You fail to grasp what is at stake. You think in terms of popularity contests. You want to cater to the masses to make them yours. You are, as this citation proves beyond a doubt, concerned with what other people think about you, or your movement, or your goals. And you think that what you must sacrifice for that is what you "think about yourself".Your error, as even shown in this post, is thinking 'what conservatives think about themselves' matters more than 'what moderates think about conservatives'.
See, this all pre-supposes that mass authoritarianism is the only end state that can come from accepting that shrinking the gov just isn't realistic, and that shrinking the gov is the only way to 'fix' the issues plaguing us.buddy, I'm going to be as blunt as I can you're not going to live under your own ideology. Say the right did become the uber-big government leftist-lite that you think we should be, hating illegal immigration and trannies isn't going to be enough to save you. After all "you aren't part of the tribe, you weren't there from the beginning, you were a leftist that turned tail when
the effort was no longer profitable." if this ideological revolution that you want occurs people like you will be up against the wall either metaphorically or worse because guess what ALL big government power ideologies turn into a massive purity spiral. to use Lord of the rings since that is being referenced a lot, you can't survive joining Sauron, you can't survive fighting The Ring. Well guess what you won't survive using the ring either. Your a dead man walking. but if that's the case, instead of trying to buy yourself just a little bit of time by appeasement, stick to your principles and face your death with courage. I want to live too but I rather die keeping to my principles than live giving appeasement to the agents of the devil.
Yes, because I understand Putin/Russia are not rational or good faith actors, so there is no point negotiating with them, unless it's with a metaphorical gun to their head.I love how you say this, but encourage the US to intervene/aid in Ukraine vs a nuclear armed country. No, the US should be offering to broker peace and its companies selling weapons, that's about it.
US elections are popularity contests, not sure why you would ever think otherwise? I mean it's also a multi-generational cold war in a lot of ways, but it is still a popularity contest at it's heart.No. You fail to grasp what is at stake. You think in terms of popularity contests...
The same one that was used by Nero, I daresay.You are right we have very different definitions of victory, and guess which definition of victory actually is used by the majority of the US electorate.
You crave this, and it controls you. I would refuse it if offered, and it has no power over me at all. You see pigs wrestling and you jump in to join them, thinking you'll win with all your strategic brilliance.for votes and political power
No, just not the Tolkien-ish/Epikourus-ish fantasy of victory that you seem to hold to.The same one that was used by Nero, I daresay.
You assume that I think anyone can stay clean of it of the mud; that is Epikourus's/your delusion about the world.You crave this, and it controls you. I would refuse it if offered, and it has no power over me at all. You see pigs wrestling and you jump in to join them, thinking you'll win with all your strategic brilliance.
Meanwhile, at the end of the day -- "win" or lose -- you're tired, bruised, scratched, covered in mud, stinking and debased -- and I've spent the entire time sitting on a near-by terrace, sipping a glass of wine, looking at your antics with a mix of amusement and despair at such madness. Not a speck of mud on me.
Which one of us was smarter about this?
Because do not mistake me for someone who loves big government; I just know the practical and realistic limitations on trying to 'skrink' the gov, and that not all 'private' options are better, as AnCaps want to believe.
You openly state that you want to jump in. You can choose not to do that. Avoiding madness is the opposite of a delusion, but explaining that to you seems futile, because you are obsessed with the mud-pit. You see it as the entire world, and can't see that there are other things beyond it.You assume that I think anyone can stay clean of it of the mud; that is Epikourus's/your delusion about the world.
'Perfect is the enemy of good enough.'Satan doesn't need you to love him, He just needs you to renounce your principles and surrender to him.
And you're 'just let me grill' attitude (which is what your ideology/Epikourus's ideology amounts to in the modern day) is why the Left and the Marxists push them have gotten so much ground.You openly state that you want to jump in. You can choose not to do that. Avoiding madness is the opposite of a delusion, but explaining that to you seems futile, because you are obsessed with the mud-pit. You see it as the entire world, and can't see that there are other things beyond it.
That's why my supposed "delusions" give me a happy life where every moment of peaceful enjoyment is a victory in itself, and your "realism" ends in bitter despair, for even its victories are only ever hollow.
'Perfect is the enemy of good enough.'
Within the scope of your actions, it has the power you give it. You want to give it power; I give it none.I want none of it, but that does not mean I'm going to pretend it doesn't have power regardless of how I feel about it.