2
CaveTorch 2 points ago +2 / -0

My own info is based on half-remembered old info from TGP; maybe someone else can comment as well:

Basically didn't do a proper ballot inspection & forensic audit. I think they just recounted the number of totals on the audit or something similar. "Found nothing wrong", despite one circumstance where ballots WERE inspected & showed a massive disparity in Trump votes, but no action taken and no more inquiry otherwise.

Here: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/?s=new+hampshire+audit&cf_chl_jschl_tk=pmd_iy_Q3EPNZV3JMl4yQCM8Np7vdLIxD8LfVo7dGj5Z2Fc-1629763044-0-gqNtZGzNAeWjcnBszQd9

1
CaveTorch 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ah, I see. I assumed most of them would be Democrats, didn't know they were all Sudanese, though.

Aside from that, I was more interested your rationale for the policy position, not just the well-placed dislike of certain politicians.

2
CaveTorch 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'm not sure how you've connected "liberal" to "goverment that does whatever it wants" (autocracy/totalitarianism).

"Liberal" is often ascribed to a person, and a "liberal government" would simply a government that represents THAT person. So it all ties back to the "liberal person", and a "liberal person" would understand that to lead their liberal life, they'd need a smaller government, not a bigger one.

Even if I were to agree with your perspective of a "liberal government" as "a liberal government is a government that can do whatever it wants, while a conservative one is restricted by the people.", 'liberal' would still be the wrong word. The correct word would either be "selfish" or another word that would imply that the government is unconcerned by the needs and desires of its constituents, and acts only in its own interest. I cannot, in any way, say that calling such a mindset "liberal", you see?

As for your interpretation of "leftist", I think you are straying away from the typical understanding of left and right politics, which is in reference to public vs private sectors, and, as such, represent a totalitarian government (read: socialism) in its absolute leftist form, and a laissez-faire government in its absolute rightist form.

Your explanation of left/right seems to be a reflection of personality type/psychology, and representation of chaos & order, from my understanding. In which case using left/right, which is political terminology our case here, would be wrong. You might be right if you had discussed "left and right brain hemispheres" or such, but I think you're using political terms to understand what seems to be psychological categories. I'd look at Jordan Peterson's explanations for chaos and order if you want some explanation of personality, in particular. It's not everything, but it's a good start if you're interested.

1
CaveTorch 1 point ago +1 / -0

Wikipedia says 'lawyer'.

"Even after Karl’s move to Berlin, his parents remained concerned with his lifestyle and extravagance. After receiving a letter from Karl in November 1837, his father responded in critical fashion:

Alas, your conduct has consisted merely in disorder, meandering in all the fields of knowledge, musty traditions by sombre lamplight; degeneration in a learned dressing gown with uncombed hair has replaced degeneration with a beer glass. And a shirking unsociability and a refusal of all conventions and even all respect for your father. Your intercourse with the world is limited to your sordid room, where perhaps lie abandoned in the classical disorder the love letters of a Jenny [Karl’s fiancée] and the tear-stained counsels of your father. ... And do you think that here in this workshop of senseless and aimless learning you can ripen the fruits to bring you and your loved one happiness? ... . As though we were made of gold my gentleman son disposes of almost 700 thalers in a single year, in contravention of every agreement and every usage, whereas the richest spend no more than 500.[8]

However, in spite of their disagreements, Karl always retained a strong affection for his father, his daughter Eleanor writing “he never tired of talking about him, and always carried an old daguerreotype photograph of him”. On Karl's death, Engels laid the photograph in his coffin."

Champagne socialist, much?

1
CaveTorch 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm assuming you mean that in regards to term limits. If so:

Why do you think an additional limitation against dual citizenship be necessary in addition to having to be born in the USA?

My best guess is in the rare cases where someone is born in the US (ie: birthright citizenship), spends most of their life elsewhere, comes back and runs for office.

I'd like to hear your argument :)

1
CaveTorch 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. "Conservative" would have a better antonym in a word like "subversive" or "destroyer", as the opposite of "conserving something" is to "destroy something". Think of cultural Marxism and how it's colonising the free world, and has been for a long time. That's antithetical to conservatism.

Aside from that:

I think most of our disagreement stems from the fact that your application of the two terms is framed specifically with regards to the size of the government, and relies on a figurative use of the terms as you've suggested with your buttered toast example. The terms extend far beyond just the size of government, and includes culture norms and values. I think your definitions are too narrow.

If anything, calling small-government types "conservative" is an oxymoron, since most governments throughout history are large and totalitarian, and if someone were to "conserve" anything, it would be a "conservation" of large government. By that perspective, a liberal would someone who sought to change that, which would be achieved by arguing for smaller government, not "conserving" the typical large government.

Also, fuck leftists. I do not consider myself to be right wing, per se. I'm closer to libertarian than right wing. What I am, however, is anti-left wing & anti-Marxist. More than any other label, that is what I would rather be called: "anti-left wing ".

2
CaveTorch 2 points ago +2 / -0

He should have the space to make gigantic demands, I agree. Especially:

          Term limits should apply to congressmen the same way they apply to the president:
  • 35 years or older
  • 2 Terms, totalling 8 years
  • Must be born in USA

But, honestly, I must echo a sentiment I heard around the time Biden was installed. That is, as much as I love him and think the country needs him now more than ever, I feel bad for him. I feel bad that we put him in that place, and that we expect him to fix the country for us. I almost wish he can just retire and spend the rest of his life trying to be happy. I don't want him to run until he dies, and I'd rather he follows in the tradition set forth by George Washington, and relinquish the power when it's right to do so. Which, I think, would be 2028 if any of this comes true.

1
CaveTorch 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sorry, but I deleted my post to re-edit the image to show 2028 instead of 2026. I hope this reply still reaches you.

As for my actual reply:

There used to be a middle ground in this country, and the left destroyed it.

I think conflict is inevitable. The left is at war the right/libertarian/center/anti-establishment of this country, and the west. The right might not like it, they might not have started the fight, but make no mistake, there already is a war raging, and the right isn't fighting it.

They need to stop being nice. Start fighting back.

Whether Trump is reinstated or wins in 2024, the left WILL NOT let him govern. Period. War has been declared since 2016. It was largely a cold war, but we saw it get hot in 2020 with leftist terrorism being normalised across America. It wasn't enough for people to properly battle, but we are nearing the tipping point, day by day.

The vaccine passports might even be final domino. Hell, it's gonna redpill a hell of a lot of minorities, sooner rather than later.

These are unprecedented times. Trump and the right would be owed restitution, and the Democrats have no leg to stand on, given that FDR was the only president that served more than 2 terms.

Frankly, term limits should apply to congressmen the same way they apply to the president:

  • 35 years or older
  • 2 Terms, totalling 8 years
  • Must be born in USA

If that happens, we won't need Trump. This all happened because the power of congress and the intelligence community is not limited the way the president's is. Term limits on congress is one step down the road to fixing this shit for the future, but I fear that day won't come soon.

At the time being, it's not all the people that we need to worry about. It's the Democrat party and its politicians, specifically. Cheating needs a proper punishment. Threatening them with treason charges will be appropriate, but this is a compromise that can be long lasting, and beneficial to the country.

1
CaveTorch 1 point ago +1 / -0

You're missing my point. I know the difference between the two, I'm saying that "libertarian" is the word we use for that TODAY. The word we used to use WAS "liberal".

I don't recall Reagan ever using the term "libertarian". It's more or less a modern term, at least in its usage (the term was first used in 1789, as per Wikipedia).

The meaning of "liberal" was diluted and mutated to mean leftist. It didn't always mean leftist. The word in and of itself doesn't mean leftist. But it's been used to describe them, and now they get to use it. I'm saying that's the wrong word to describe

3
CaveTorch 3 points ago +3 / -0

Finally! Face masks put to good use!

1
CaveTorch 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't disagree that it applies to many of them, but if you do that in most conversations then people will largely dismiss you as a "crazy guy". These words outlined in the post are still appropriate, but won't be off-putting to people and drive them away from you. They can become useful habits, and actually make people disassociate these good words from the leftists that wear the labels proudly.

1
CaveTorch 1 point ago +1 / -0

It means someone who espouses the values of liberty. What we once correctly called 'liberal', we call 'libertarian' today. In fact, most Americans are center-right, which itself is known as "Classical Liberalism".

But, for some reason, the label has been grafted onto leftists, going even as far back as Reagan saying "The problem with liberals isn't that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so."

Sadly, the same people who many call "liberals" are themselves either communists or totalitarians in general, believing in bigger government and more bureaucracy. Statists. That is the irony of it all. A true liberal would call themselves "libertarian" today, as I mostly do.

2
CaveTorch 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yeah, no inclusion of cyber attacks and vote flipping in these numbers, mostly based off registrations and trends.

2
CaveTorch 2 points ago +2 / -0

"If we lose freedom here, there's nowhere to escape to. This is the final stand on earth." Ronald Reagan

2
CaveTorch 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'm all for laughing at this cunt for losing, but I can't really enjoy that because it was Canada that defeated them recently.... What have we become?

4
CaveTorch 4 points ago +4 / -0

FFS, can he please be wrong this time?

6
CaveTorch 6 points ago +6 / -0

Democrat governors, SoS, etc. The fix was in a long time ago.

view more: Next ›