The biggest issue I have with libertarians is that they never consider any regulation for the sake of sovereignty. If a company has become big enough to threaten a function of the sovereign state, it probably needs to be regulated down a peg.
There is also some things about indirect costs and some real shit ideas about social policy, but besides from that libertarians are fine.
Frankly, its because a harmful monopoly cannot stand without government assistance of some sort. Without government, monopolies can't exist for a meaningful period of time.
There are some good and services that do form natural monopolies, but they always face the problem of shitty management being on boarded and fucking everything up. Once the guy who started the company dies, the company starts contracting.
Can you name a single company that became that big without the government picking it as a winner? At&t, Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc were all picked by the govt to win and received advantages over the free market
Corporatism ain’t Capitalism. Capitalism is a simple series of economic systems that naturally form around human behavior when they have property rights and can trade, making up things like markets, banks, investments, and so on...
Corporatism is a system by which those same systems are forcefully taken over by governments, either directly or indirectly to choose winners and losers.
Real loose definitions, but simply put govt makes economic problems worse 9 times out of 10.
Sorta. More like fascism lite, that turns to fascism heavy when socialists take over and start banning and threatening their opposition with being de-personed, shutting down free speech and accusing their opposition of the crimes they commit... Fuck we are under a fascist authoritarian regime now, aren't we?
Did a libertarian touch you in appropriately? We come with a wide range of beliefs and we certainly don’t like the aggression these companies are showing.
Social media has become so engrained in our lives, one could argue it's a basic human right at this point, like water... We don't allow private companies in charge of our water
The true heart of that problem runs FAR deeper. To say that "Twitter needs to be regulated" isn't looking at the heart of the problem of government regulations. Government regulations are the CAUSE of the problem, not the solution to them. How is Amazon the largest retailer in the world? 2 reasons. 1) They locate in areas with low taxes. 2) The utilize tax payer subsidized delivery services. Eliminating the post office, and removing expensive local taxes that make it hard for local businesses to compete with amazon would go farther to bring competition to the scene than any regulation you could do on Twitter. Removing financial regulations would bring more competition into the fold for payment processors than the relatively few we have now, where if PayPal or Gofundme, or whoever decides they don't want to allow payments to Parler (Or Gab) anymore then they don't have to. Well that circumstance wouldn't exist in a world where anybody in their garage could set up a payment processor. But today the government would shut you down for not being KYC compliant, or abiding by AML laws to prevent you from counterfeiting the currency (Only the government can debase the currency, not plebs!).
The problems go FAR deeper than "Regulate twitter".
What happens when all the processors collude to cut somebody off, as happened to Gab.com? Or when industry colludes to make servers unavailable as is happening to Parler - other server farms with size enough to serve them, cut them off as well, not just Amazon.
For Gab.com to function, they basically have to integrate every single element involved in a website, from servers to payment processing, in house. Super anti-competitive, and done not through regulation, but the machinations of Big Tech.
In my 20s I was a card carrying member of the Libertarian party.
Ask yourself the question “what are the barriers to entry?” In any given space that prevents a small start up from competing with the big colluding players? 100% of the time the answer is government regulation
Is that why Parler is shut down and Gab has so many problems?
They ran afoul of government regulation?
The reason ConEd hasn't turned off the lights to Trump tower is because of Utility Regulation that prevents them from doing so. Otherwise, they'd go from being a disliked company to the hero of Wall Street and the Upper East Side, whom they service with the rest of NYC.
The reason Amazon cut off Parler and encouraged lesser providers to also cut off Parler is because Servers aren't considered a Utility, when they should be.
Again, I was a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party and my first votes were for Harry Browne. I was even a student member of CATO. I know the arguments, and my opinion is that they are no longer convincing.
Yes, industry uses government to get anti-competitive regulations against new entrants. ULA is lobbying heavily to get NASA to only use purchased rockets and not use bids for the Artemis Program. It's a problem. But it's not what happened here.
But why did people want to regulate railroads and banks in the first place?
I'm down with Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, a middle course. I no longer believe no regulation is good, just like I don't believe in too much regulation.
"Is that why Parler is shut down and Gab has so many problems?"
Yes, it is. Not because government regulates the supporting businesses. I already said in my first comment, the government regulates money. They have "know your customer" laws and ant money laundering laws. Both of these cost money, and aren't cheap to be compliant with. These regulations keep out competition. If it weren't for government regulation, anybody could set up a payment processor in their garage (Like Cryptocurrency is going to allow you to be able to do), which would then help to secure funding for places like Gab.
Amazon as a business takes HUGE advantage of government tax havens and government subsidies. They set up shop where the taxes are low, and then the people who DO pay the taxes are paying for their own destruction by paying for the post office, that Amazon is using to help put them out of business. The government is literally forcing small business at gun point to find their own destruction. (Amazon is who knocked Parler off of their AWS servers).
"The reason ConEd hasn't turned off the lights to Trump tower is because of Utility Regulation that prevents them from doing so."
Unless they have too many people gathering due to COVID, then they're happy to shut your power off.
"The reason Amazon cut off Parler and encouraged lesser providers to also cut off Parler is because Servers aren't considered a Utility, when they should be."
This will only make the problem worse. The opposite is what needs to happen. Remove barriers of constructing competing companies. How much red tape exists in order to build out the infrastructure for giant internet companies? A LOT.
"Again, I was a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party and my first votes were for Harry Browne. I was even a student member of CATO. I know the arguments, and my opinion is that they are no longer convincing."
Unfortunately, Libertarians are closer to communism than any of them would like to admit, which is why I'm an anarcho capitalist. There shouldn't be a government at all. As soon as you assign a monopoly on the use of force, then that power becomes corrupted. We've seen it happen a thousand times in human history. This is nothing new that we're experiencing now.
"Yes, industry uses government to get anti-competitive regulations against new entrants. ULA is lobbying heavily to get NASA to only use purchased rockets and not use bids for the Artemis Program. It's a problem. But it's not what happened here."
Yes it is. Section 230 grants all social media total control over their platforms with no accountability. The fact that corporations exist at all is a legal shield of liability for them. Before the existence of corporations, you used to be able to go after the business owner personally and seize their personal assets, say if a bank collapsed. There's no REAL consequences for wrongdoing. It IS what's happening here, because there would be a LOT more competition in the space if it weren't for government regulation keeping small players out.
"But why did people want to regulate railroads and banks in the first place?"
Because they're too brainwashed by the government indoctrination camps (Pubic school) to realize that government controls both already. The government subsidized the creation of the railroads that led to "monopoly" control in the first place. The government regulates the currency which led to monopoly control of banks in the first place. The government is the problem, not the solution.
What changed for me is that I realized Libertarianism is just like Socialism in one important sense - They are both utopian concepts that fail in practice. But no matter how many times they fail, people keep believing they can be done better.
The blind spot of Libertarianism is childhood. Libertarianism would probably work if everyone was born a mature adult that understood the basics of cause/effect and how the world works. How to identify cults, how to be responsible with signing contracts/taking loans etc. But that's not how life is - for the first 25 or so years of life people are pretty dumb and liable to make dumb decisions.
When you are young you are particularly vulnerable to stuff like drugs and (as this post says) porn.
Kids, teens, and even into young adulthood - people need to be protected from themselves. If a kid has access to drugs at 14 years old it can cripple their life permanently. Same with porn. And if they are crippled like that, they never mature properly and in a Libertarian system that means they are totally screwed.
If by Libertarianism you mean government should be small and respect rights, then I agree, that's a great idea. But when you become so socially permissive that you've allowed kids to be exposed to all sorts of horrors of the world then you've made a big mistake.
A point that no one has mentioned...but if GAB is banned from every major company...
Do you know who owns PhotoDNA, the software that scans for Child Sexual Abuse Material?
Microsoft.
So, do they have people that have to manually look at that and then report it? Instead of using the same software that every other company has to use to auto-report known images of CSAM.
Even worse, did you the victims in known CSAM get notified everytime another instance was found?
Did you know that Facebook Messenger is the MOST USED platform to distribute CSAM?
As much TDS as Sam Harris has, his podcast about this was highly disturbing and enlightening.
I used to listen to his podcasts, but when his TDS only seemed to pick up steam during 2017 I just couldn't keep listening. I tried listening again a year ago, but by then he had lost his flair.
It didn't help that there are topics that he seems afraid to touch and that he thinks shouldn't be researched e.x. his discussion with Gad Saad on whether the relationship between race and IQ should be a topic open for research.
The "fall" of Sam Harris was beyond bizarre. His TDS essentially eroded the very argument his life's work is based on. I'll never understand how someone whose brand is literally championing reason and critical thinking could be so wrong.
You made it all the way to 2017? I had to stop in 2016 when, after Hillary announced she would do a no-fly-zone in Syria Sam told his audience that Trump was an infinitely larger threat to world peace.
His TDS had him in denial of evidence since the beginning. The only defense I can make for him is that he may have fallen victim to trusting the analysis and or fake news of his professor friends and associates in the humanities. Perhaps he trusts his colleagues too much. Not much of a defense though, it's his job to be critical. He preaches that message to others, but TDS is a hell of a plank in the eye.
Libertarians are not pro-monopoly. This is the stupid shit ever. To insinuate that they are so pro-business that they support the removal of the people’s liberties.
Anyone who believes what you have said doesn’t know the difference between a liberal, libertarian, or libertine.
Yeah, Im not sure what kind of a caricature the OP has of Libertarians. Geez, Im a right wing Libertarian and always have been and I voted Trump. By the way OP you might want to look at the murdered Woman Patriot's Twitter page, did you not see a hashtag there #Libertarian? Kind of making me a bit angry with this post.
I’m a libertarian who like ... list off some degenerate behavior. Why doesn’t everyone think like me? Oh well I’ll just naked on national television for the betterment of my party...
I'd argue that this is REALLY good for Gab's reliability not to cuck out for a pouch of silver. Sex sells, but he's denying sex on his platform because he doesn't want it. I think he's genuine in his beliefs.
People expect to get porn at Gab? Why would you expect to get porn from a platform like this? Anyways, I’ll take my right to select my representatives over porn, though I don’t see why that’s a choice.
This wanker's really going for the lowest common denominator for political support. Banning porn is really the only option for small or new social media, the amount of moderation for legality and copyright would be way too costly if they want to last more than a year.
Well that's RETARDED. Oops is that a banned word. I thought calling people you don't like schizophrenic and mentally was STIGMA. If I had Twitter I'd go blast the shithead.
Porn is indeed a psychological weapon. When Israel first started invading its neighbors, the FIRST thing they did was attack the TV broadcast stations, and immediately started to broadcast pornography. Why would they do that, if it wasn't a weapon? The entire porn industry is controlled by the same (((people))).
Libertarian is about freedom of association. Gab is a private platform, that can have whatever it wants on its platform.
The biggest issue I have with libertarians is that they never consider any regulation for the sake of sovereignty. If a company has become big enough to threaten a function of the sovereign state, it probably needs to be regulated down a peg.
There is also some things about indirect costs and some real shit ideas about social policy, but besides from that libertarians are fine.
Frankly, its because a harmful monopoly cannot stand without government assistance of some sort. Without government, monopolies can't exist for a meaningful period of time.
Can cite examples.
Airlines, for one. There is so much regulation and red tape, new companies can't really enter the market. Also: car manufacturers
Utilities are a monopoly, just ask yourself if you have an option between internet providers (local/municipal government more than likely)
Telecom (government regulations)
Banks (they were all consolidated back in 2008, good luck trying to open up a (non credit union) bank nowadays)
Pharma has a metric fuckton of overhead, prevents barriers to entry
Healthcare (health insurance is regulated out the ass, hospitals are clusterfucks mainly because of government regulation (and other reasons)
I could go into historical ones like standard oil, railroads, steel, but those are more monopolies killing other monopolies and prove my point lol
Or pretending you have multiple electricity providers when you only have one set of wires going to your house.
The best example is water/sewage. It makes no sense to run multiple systems hence the natural monopoly
There are some good and services that do form natural monopolies, but they always face the problem of shitty management being on boarded and fucking everything up. Once the guy who started the company dies, the company starts contracting.
Can you name a single company that became that big without the government picking it as a winner? At&t, Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc were all picked by the govt to win and received advantages over the free market
Corporatism ain’t Capitalism. Capitalism is a simple series of economic systems that naturally form around human behavior when they have property rights and can trade, making up things like markets, banks, investments, and so on...
Corporatism is a system by which those same systems are forcefully taken over by governments, either directly or indirectly to choose winners and losers.
Real loose definitions, but simply put govt makes economic problems worse 9 times out of 10.
Sounds like a communist command economy to me.
Sorta. More like fascism lite, that turns to fascism heavy when socialists take over and start banning and threatening their opposition with being de-personed, shutting down free speech and accusing their opposition of the crimes they commit... Fuck we are under a fascist authoritarian regime now, aren't we?
Did a libertarian touch you in appropriately? We come with a wide range of beliefs and we certainly don’t like the aggression these companies are showing.
Social media has become so engrained in our lives, one could argue it's a basic human right at this point, like water... We don't allow private companies in charge of our water
So was Parler.
The true heart of that problem runs FAR deeper. To say that "Twitter needs to be regulated" isn't looking at the heart of the problem of government regulations. Government regulations are the CAUSE of the problem, not the solution to them. How is Amazon the largest retailer in the world? 2 reasons. 1) They locate in areas with low taxes. 2) The utilize tax payer subsidized delivery services. Eliminating the post office, and removing expensive local taxes that make it hard for local businesses to compete with amazon would go farther to bring competition to the scene than any regulation you could do on Twitter. Removing financial regulations would bring more competition into the fold for payment processors than the relatively few we have now, where if PayPal or Gofundme, or whoever decides they don't want to allow payments to Parler (Or Gab) anymore then they don't have to. Well that circumstance wouldn't exist in a world where anybody in their garage could set up a payment processor. But today the government would shut you down for not being KYC compliant, or abiding by AML laws to prevent you from counterfeiting the currency (Only the government can debase the currency, not plebs!).
The problems go FAR deeper than "Regulate twitter".
What happens when all the processors collude to cut somebody off, as happened to Gab.com? Or when industry colludes to make servers unavailable as is happening to Parler - other server farms with size enough to serve them, cut them off as well, not just Amazon.
For Gab.com to function, they basically have to integrate every single element involved in a website, from servers to payment processing, in house. Super anti-competitive, and done not through regulation, but the machinations of Big Tech.
In my 20s I was a card carrying member of the Libertarian party.
Now I greatly distrust any "overmighty subjects".
Ask yourself the question “what are the barriers to entry?” In any given space that prevents a small start up from competing with the big colluding players? 100% of the time the answer is government regulation
Is that why Parler is shut down and Gab has so many problems?
They ran afoul of government regulation?
The reason ConEd hasn't turned off the lights to Trump tower is because of Utility Regulation that prevents them from doing so. Otherwise, they'd go from being a disliked company to the hero of Wall Street and the Upper East Side, whom they service with the rest of NYC.
The reason Amazon cut off Parler and encouraged lesser providers to also cut off Parler is because Servers aren't considered a Utility, when they should be.
Again, I was a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party and my first votes were for Harry Browne. I was even a student member of CATO. I know the arguments, and my opinion is that they are no longer convincing.
Yes, industry uses government to get anti-competitive regulations against new entrants. ULA is lobbying heavily to get NASA to only use purchased rockets and not use bids for the Artemis Program. It's a problem. But it's not what happened here.
But why did people want to regulate railroads and banks in the first place?
I'm down with Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, a middle course. I no longer believe no regulation is good, just like I don't believe in too much regulation.
"Is that why Parler is shut down and Gab has so many problems?"
Yes, it is. Not because government regulates the supporting businesses. I already said in my first comment, the government regulates money. They have "know your customer" laws and ant money laundering laws. Both of these cost money, and aren't cheap to be compliant with. These regulations keep out competition. If it weren't for government regulation, anybody could set up a payment processor in their garage (Like Cryptocurrency is going to allow you to be able to do), which would then help to secure funding for places like Gab.
Amazon as a business takes HUGE advantage of government tax havens and government subsidies. They set up shop where the taxes are low, and then the people who DO pay the taxes are paying for their own destruction by paying for the post office, that Amazon is using to help put them out of business. The government is literally forcing small business at gun point to find their own destruction. (Amazon is who knocked Parler off of their AWS servers).
"The reason ConEd hasn't turned off the lights to Trump tower is because of Utility Regulation that prevents them from doing so."
Unless they have too many people gathering due to COVID, then they're happy to shut your power off.
"The reason Amazon cut off Parler and encouraged lesser providers to also cut off Parler is because Servers aren't considered a Utility, when they should be."
This will only make the problem worse. The opposite is what needs to happen. Remove barriers of constructing competing companies. How much red tape exists in order to build out the infrastructure for giant internet companies? A LOT.
"Again, I was a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party and my first votes were for Harry Browne. I was even a student member of CATO. I know the arguments, and my opinion is that they are no longer convincing."
Unfortunately, Libertarians are closer to communism than any of them would like to admit, which is why I'm an anarcho capitalist. There shouldn't be a government at all. As soon as you assign a monopoly on the use of force, then that power becomes corrupted. We've seen it happen a thousand times in human history. This is nothing new that we're experiencing now.
"Yes, industry uses government to get anti-competitive regulations against new entrants. ULA is lobbying heavily to get NASA to only use purchased rockets and not use bids for the Artemis Program. It's a problem. But it's not what happened here."
Yes it is. Section 230 grants all social media total control over their platforms with no accountability. The fact that corporations exist at all is a legal shield of liability for them. Before the existence of corporations, you used to be able to go after the business owner personally and seize their personal assets, say if a bank collapsed. There's no REAL consequences for wrongdoing. It IS what's happening here, because there would be a LOT more competition in the space if it weren't for government regulation keeping small players out.
"But why did people want to regulate railroads and banks in the first place?"
Because they're too brainwashed by the government indoctrination camps (Pubic school) to realize that government controls both already. The government subsidized the creation of the railroads that led to "monopoly" control in the first place. The government regulates the currency which led to monopoly control of banks in the first place. The government is the problem, not the solution.
I used to be Libertarian.
What changed for me is that I realized Libertarianism is just like Socialism in one important sense - They are both utopian concepts that fail in practice. But no matter how many times they fail, people keep believing they can be done better.
The blind spot of Libertarianism is childhood. Libertarianism would probably work if everyone was born a mature adult that understood the basics of cause/effect and how the world works. How to identify cults, how to be responsible with signing contracts/taking loans etc. But that's not how life is - for the first 25 or so years of life people are pretty dumb and liable to make dumb decisions.
When you are young you are particularly vulnerable to stuff like drugs and (as this post says) porn.
Kids, teens, and even into young adulthood - people need to be protected from themselves. If a kid has access to drugs at 14 years old it can cripple their life permanently. Same with porn. And if they are crippled like that, they never mature properly and in a Libertarian system that means they are totally screwed.
If by Libertarianism you mean government should be small and respect rights, then I agree, that's a great idea. But when you become so socially permissive that you've allowed kids to be exposed to all sorts of horrors of the world then you've made a big mistake.
my man! I'm right there with you. (heart emogi, frog face)
A point that no one has mentioned...but if GAB is banned from every major company...
Do you know who owns PhotoDNA, the software that scans for Child Sexual Abuse Material?
Microsoft.
So, do they have people that have to manually look at that and then report it? Instead of using the same software that every other company has to use to auto-report known images of CSAM.
Even worse, did you the victims in known CSAM get notified everytime another instance was found?
Did you know that Facebook Messenger is the MOST USED platform to distribute CSAM?
As much TDS as Sam Harris has, his podcast about this was highly disturbing and enlightening.
I used to listen to his podcasts, but when his TDS only seemed to pick up steam during 2017 I just couldn't keep listening. I tried listening again a year ago, but by then he had lost his flair.
It didn't help that there are topics that he seems afraid to touch and that he thinks shouldn't be researched e.x. his discussion with Gad Saad on whether the relationship between race and IQ should be a topic open for research.
The "fall" of Sam Harris was beyond bizarre. His TDS essentially eroded the very argument his life's work is based on. I'll never understand how someone whose brand is literally championing reason and critical thinking could be so wrong.
I think it has very much to do with that Trump seems to be his opposite in so many major ways that it is almost instinctual.
Globalist vs nationalist.
Elitist vs populist.
Idealist vs realist.
Help people improve vs give people the freedom to succeed or fail on their own.
People should be careful in how they speak vs being blunt.
Strictly no lying whatsoever vs not caring about the details as long as the big picture is true.
Want's to move humanity away from it's traditions vs wants to restore the good parts that were lost.
Pure intellect vs infused with righteous spirit. (Explained by - Academic Agent)
*edit - link doesn't compare Trump and Harris, it only explains what I mean by spirit in this context.
Mange tak.
I didn’t even know who same Harris was and was introduced to his tds where he proclaimed, and I quote:
“ Osama bin Laden, as a person, is far more understandable to me and far less reprehensible, personally, psychologically, than Trump."
So the guy is a nut bag. TDS made him crazy.
You made it all the way to 2017? I had to stop in 2016 when, after Hillary announced she would do a no-fly-zone in Syria Sam told his audience that Trump was an infinitely larger threat to world peace.
His TDS had him in denial of evidence since the beginning. The only defense I can make for him is that he may have fallen victim to trusting the analysis and or fake news of his professor friends and associates in the humanities. Perhaps he trusts his colleagues too much. Not much of a defense though, it's his job to be critical. He preaches that message to others, but TDS is a hell of a plank in the eye.
Not like porn has a near infinite platform everywhere else on the internet.
Same.
Gab, still taking on casual degeneracy, good for them.
Too bad i havent been able to log in for 4 days
Libertarians are not pro-monopoly. This is the stupid shit ever. To insinuate that they are so pro-business that they support the removal of the people’s liberties.
Anyone who believes what you have said doesn’t know the difference between a liberal, libertarian, or libertine.
What the difference between libertine and listerine?
Listerine cleans your mouth while libertines want to soil it?
Minty freshness?
Well, that's what the lolbertarians on Plebbit think.
They are euros and children. Since when is Reddit right about anything?
Libertarian inc will suck jack’s dick and say whatever pro monopoly thing he wanted if the price is right.
Inc? Yes, just like republican inc, Democrat inc, green part inc, you get the point. The parties are shit and do not represent their constituents.
If I want porn I go to pornhub not fucking gab. Carry on Torba!
I think I like him just for saying "porn isn't speech, degenerate". I'm going to agree with that.
Trump-supporting libertarian here, not seething. I got on Gab. Why would I be seething?
They don’t have any idea what a libertarian is. They are children.
Yeah, Im not sure what kind of a caricature the OP has of Libertarians. Geez, Im a right wing Libertarian and always have been and I voted Trump. By the way OP you might want to look at the murdered Woman Patriot's Twitter page, did you not see a hashtag there #Libertarian? Kind of making me a bit angry with this post.
Based
I’m a libertarian who like ... list off some degenerate behavior. Why doesn’t everyone think like me? Oh well I’ll just naked on national television for the betterment of my party...
And here is the real Andrew Torba: https://news.gab.com/2020/11/28/who-is-gab-founder-andrew-torba/
Here's his statement predicting this would happen: https://postimg.cc/87Vyvym8
I'd argue that this is REALLY good for Gab's reliability not to cuck out for a pouch of silver. Sex sells, but he's denying sex on his platform because he doesn't want it. I think he's genuine in his beliefs.
Nice 👌
I think porn is art, not speech.
He ain’t wrong
People expect to get porn at Gab? Why would you expect to get porn from a platform like this? Anyways, I’ll take my right to select my representatives over porn, though I don’t see why that’s a choice.
This wanker's really going for the lowest common denominator for political support. Banning porn is really the only option for small or new social media, the amount of moderation for legality and copyright would be way too costly if they want to last more than a year.
I mean, so Gab censors porn. So does everyone else. But then everyone else censors everything else too. Try harder.
I’m a libertarian, I see no issues. Dude can say what he wants. Fuck the lolbertarians though
Coomers fuck off. Go squirt in the corner while you watch some other man fuck.
Twitter will allow porn but not differing opinions.
Gab will allow differing opinions but not porn.
If you think that the latter is somehow worse than the former, you're retarded and beta.
Well that's RETARDED. Oops is that a banned word. I thought calling people you don't like schizophrenic and mentally was STIGMA. If I had Twitter I'd go blast the shithead.
Cool, once the purge is complete, lets take down porn off the internet.
Porn is indeed a psychological weapon. When Israel first started invading its neighbors, the FIRST thing they did was attack the TV broadcast stations, and immediately started to broadcast pornography. Why would they do that, if it wasn't a weapon? The entire porn industry is controlled by the same (((people))).
What's a coomer?
Based af
Uh... why is he bashing a mental condition so lightly? I thought they were the party of empathy.
Muh morals 🙄
Glad someone is fighting the degenerates. We know the libertarians won’t do anything, in fact they’d welcome it