Remember. He is a felon. That means he cannot vote in an election, but he absolutely can be elected to created laws. It's so weird thinking about that out loud.
To be fair, allowing felons to run for office means that a leader's political enemies can't be charged with phony crimes in order to prevent them from running for office. It's a safeguard against authoritarianism.
But ironically in this case, it means someone who illegally rebeled in support of an authoritarian overthrow of democracy is given another chance to support authoritarianism.
Yeah we don't want political shenanigans to happen that easily. Looking at you, India.
Actually? He served in the military (US navy,) and took an oath to defend and uphold the constitution,
The 14th absolutely applies, and he is ineligible to hold any public office - including city-level positions.
Of course, we want him to be ineligible. Yet, there's zero legal authority that has ruled him ineligible.
Keep dreaming that it'll happen. We're truly in the "Twilight Zone" of retardedville.
The constitution is the single highest legal authority in the US. No law may be written violating it. It sets the legal basis for the existence of the US government, describes the nature of how it is to be run, and who is eligible to hold office. It esposues rights and processes.
the entire basis of the legal system depends on the us constitution, and it's amendments, both as the guiderails and the source of authority. So when the 14th amendment, section 3 says that a person who having previously taken an oath to defend the constitution and then leads an insurrection is ineligible; they're ineligible. There's really no mincing words on that one.
Unless perhaps, you're arguing that the insurrection on jan 6 wasn't in fact, an insurrection. (perhaps you suggest they were just... tourists?). Even though their stated goal was to disrupt and stop the lawful proceedings of congress- specifically counting the votes as cast by the electoral college.
Jacob Chansley served in the US navy, therefore he's taken an oath to defend the constitution. he particapted (most... LARPishly...) in the jan 6 insurrection.
I don't disagree with you, but I would make the argument that laws only matter when they're enforced. If the law says "You can't do X" and a bunch of goons do X, what happens?
Someone backs down, or violence, probably.
So if the 14th amendment says he can't run, that only matters if it's enforced. Do you think it's going to be enforced?
It does t say he can’t run.
It doesn’t even say he can’t be elected.
But he can’t hold the office. Either congress (both senate and reps,) agrees to let him in by a 2/3’s vote or they call the sergeant at arms and go from there.
As for which way that goes… it depends highly on who has power in the next cycle, and you’re right about laws not being enforced, which is why I’m increasingly pessimistic about our future as a country.
You seem to have missed the key word, "ruled", but nice rundown.
There is neither a mandate he be “ruled” ineligible by any entity. The constitution as written has already deemed him ineligible by the simple facts:
-he took an oath to defend the constitution
-he participated in an insurrection.
The constitution lays out other requirements, as well, elsewhere, including being of a certain age (30 senate, 25 for rep.) the courts don’t rule anyone whose 24 ineligible- they just are.
They can be expelled easily when they got to take office. “Uh nope. Weren’t you that guy? Yes? Well buhbye. Aren’t you supposed to be in jail?!”
Who do you think is going to do this expelling? Do you imagine that there is some meta-governmental body, at the highest level, that can be relied upon to block anybody who isn't following the rules, other than a court? Nobody 24 runs, because they know they would be ruled ineligible. Ultimately, government works because of functioning institutions. The Supreme Court is not, currently, a functioning institution.
But nevermind that. The point is that, if you wanted to suggest that a ruling wouldn't, or shouldn't, be necessary, you could have said so, but you did not. You said that, if no legal authority had ruled him ineligible, that must mean the Constitution has zero legal authority. The Constitution doesn't make rulings. Your comment was entirely unrelated to the comment you were responding to, because you ignored the word "ruled", whether you think a ruling is necessary or not.
"Libertarian party endorses man who fought to install authoritarian dictatorship."
Whatever happened to the whole "Don't tread on me" slogan? Oh right. I forgot it was all bullshit.
“We want a small government! And by small we mean a permanent fascist dictator with all the power and no accountability!”
Yep. "Libertarian" is just a mask-on way of saying "I want all regulations removed so I can fully indulge my psycopathic thirst for greater and greater wealth" because if they were honest, even the most gullible middle-class voters would be escorting them to the guillotine.
I can guarantee that sleazy neoliberal circles have done the maths on the most profitable political system to back and the results were almost certainly...
Fascism (because slaves)
Libertarianism (because using child workers to dump toxic waste in public waterways counts as "freedom")
Conservative neoliberalism (because you can mostly get what you want by donating bribes and don't need to worry about morality)
"Left-wing" neoliberalism (mostly the same as above but you have to be slightly less greedy and look sad doing it)
Progressivism (because they'd have to pay for taxes, workers and the environmental cost of their products)
Unfortunately that's ironically correct. Neo-libertarians funded and propped up by stolen capitalist trust funds. Have effectively stolen the term from the group it actually represents.
I would never refer to myself as just ”libertarian" for instance. Despite aligning pretty closely with the actual ideology. I tend to prefix it as left libertarian. Or if there's a right wing dumbass present, true libertarian. Because they truly are all posers. And it's fun to see their faces contorted.
If you support the libertarian party, you ain't really a libertarian. That's like a vegan eating steak for dinner every night. If you spend all your time whining about the government imposing on your "freedoms". But can't even offer feint criticism of the ultra wealthy and the much more devastating effect they have on society. You're not really a libertarian. But sadly for most people, that's who they associate most with being libertarian.
NO STEP ON SNEK!
Wage labor is already very totalitarian in principle - they determine what you wear, what you do, when you eat, when you go to the bathroom, basically it's a private government of their own, and people are selling themselves into the servitude.
Libertarianism seeks to go even further with that by removing regulations and letting free market do its thing, which, considering the first sentence of this comment, would make Libertarianism authoritarian if you're not a business owner or someone rich, and the "Don't tread on me" slogan only applies to those people.
Doesn’t the 14th amendment have him barred already? This seems a non issue as it can’t happen.
As far as I am aware, it has never been tested. Clearly he should not be able to run, and clearly neither should Trump, but laws only have meaning if they are enforced.
[edited:] That's what the Trump cases in MN etc are about. The MN(?) judge punted, though, and declined to say whether he was ineligible for office, saying instead, basically, that the state didn't have any rule against insurrectionists being on primary ballots.
Parties are welcome to nominate someone who might never be allowed to take office - that's a party problem, not a state problem.
The first thing I thought of was the Trump crap, like is this guy just going to be the first one ousted then there is precedence for Trump to be ousted as well?
I listened to him talking on a podcast. Not just satisfied with every conspiracy theory out there, the guy makes up new ones, for example that a mall in Arizona has underground passageways to facilitate the trafficking of children.
I think authorities really need to be looking into these people that are this obsessed with child trafficking. Like yes, it's awful and we all want to stop it. But the fantasies these people come up with... If anything, it makes it harder for people and organizations that actually do give a shit and put their money where their mouth is.
Dude was in near solitary confinement for 27 months. He's really just another example of how broken the American prison system is, he comes out even more aggressive and deranged than when he went in
that's because Libertarians are nothing but trolls
They are Republicans with weed and a bigger hard on for Ayn Rand.
I am really fucking sick and tired of the Libertarian Party giving all libertarians a bad name.
For the record, not all libertarians are motherfucking an-caps. Some are leftists.
JFC I used to be a libertarian and I still agree with some of their values, but over the last 20 years they've really just become a joke. Not as much as the GOP, who intentionally associate with Cruz and MTG, but this is getting there.
It's like someone said "it can't be worse than Ted Cruz and Margie..." And the libertarian is all "hold my beer."
They've always been a joke. You've just grown up.
Same here.
I used to have a buddy that said, "tell me the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian." When I would ask what or someone would as a what. He would say, "Libertarians are just anarchists in denial."
Despite what you think the values are not entirely far off and both are kind of silly one believes in the government not interfering with your business until that government isn't supporting what they want it to support.
The other says, "I don't want the government interfering with my business or anything at all until someone wants to run the portion the government can't to support what the government wasn't supporting for them."
I used to be, too, and still am registered as one (Only to keep myself from being counted as a Democrat or Republican which they love to lump Independents into them), but I've noticed the nonsense between 2008 and 2010 which is about the time the media focused on these pieces of human garbage over all the others.
I really don't see an easy fix, and most of what I've seen in history, it usually gets much much worse before it gets better.
Don’t worry, once they find out he’s Vegan, he’ll be unelectable
Cuckolds wear horns.
Incel insult
It's not like I forced him to wear the cuckold's traditional uniform. I just pointed out that he dressed like one.
He's a genuine piece of shit.
But using cuckold as an insult is really sad.
He's wearing the uniform of the alt-right's favorite insult. I was pointing out the irony.
But I guess sanctimony causes people to take personal offense on behalf of pieces of shit sometimes. Righteous indignation is a hell of a drug.
And non-incels know that cuckolding is a racist power-fantasy for men.
I was under the impression it’s usually a powerlessness fantasy that’s often racist and typically found in men
Wearing horns is a traditional symbolic representation of being cuckolded in since European countries, and in some languages the word for cuckold literally translates as ‘horned’ or variations on it. Even the horn sign associated with heavy metal can be very insulting.
If it’s an incel insult, it’s a historically accurate one.
That's fascinating. I know about the English etymology, which comes from "cuckoo" because a number of species are nest parasites. Do you have any sources? I love etymological history.
In English it does come from cuckoos, but in Spanish for example it’s ‘cornudo’ (horned). Despite the etymological root in English, the symbolism of cuckoldry was still historically horns. This page has a lot of great examples from England of the association of horns with cuckoldry.
Cool etymology explanation. It's a pretty well known one, but extra points for being deliberately obtuse.
It's a sad incel insult because they equate a man's worth to the ownership of a woman for the purpose of sex, and the loss of it to another man as a loss of their 'manhood'.
The moment you call someone a cuck or cuckhold, you're telling the world exactly how reductive and sad your view of the world and the people in it is.
I was being genuine and assuming you didn't know the symbological meaning, because frankly I don't think it is that common to know unless you either come from a culture where that's prevalent or are interested in history. 🤷♂️ I'm pretty sure the Q Shaman guy didn't put that outfit together thinking about the cuckold symbolism.
Acknowledging that the alt right is obsessed with cuckoldry while being ignorant of its symbolism isn't the same as buying into it.
Go have this argument with someone who actually buys into this stuff instead of someone who is just trying to be informative online. If that pisses you off then block me because the type of autism I have doesn't come with an off switch for dropping random info.
Kink shaming people with cuckoldry fetish is reductive and reactionary.
Ancient incell insult is still incell insult.
"Unga bunga you is cuck"
Do most U.S. Libertarians not see themselves this way?
He's just a twat in a hat
I'm a shamanic practitioner irl and this guy's nickname pisses me off. The guy pisses me off, too. His ancestors think he's a cunt, I bet.
As a liberal-libertarian, this shit pisses me off.
I want the libertarian party to be taken seriously. I think the libertarian platform could very well have mass appeal.
But they need to stop focusing on wingnuts like this who not only will NEVER get elected to anything more than dog catcher, but harm the whole image of libertarians and libertarianism.
Libertarians should focus on personal freedom and lower taxes. And Stop with the far right wing shit- 'let's lower taxes by defunding the EPA and let the open market tackle pollution' type stuff.
And Stop with the far right wing shit- ‘let’s lower taxes by defunding the EPA and let the open market tackle pollution’ type stuff.
Dude that's what this party is. Maybe stop pulling for a party that is ideologically bankrupt.
They're the party of "gubmint bad". They're a joke.
I dislike most political parties. Red, blue, yellow, I think the system is fucking broken and there are no angels in it.
All political parties do, as a concept, is reduce the number of choices voters have overall.
I think if you want true democracy, you have to get rid of primaries. Anyone who can get enough signatures goes on the ballot, and people vote with ranked choice voting.
The amount of work and connections required to run a campaign basically guarantees political parties. There's a reason why political parties exist in practically every democratic or pseudo-democratic country.
I agree that the current system sucks and I'd prefer ranked choice which would increase the amount of viable political parties.
But the libertarian party and everything it stands for are still ideologically bankrupt and the politicians in the party are deeply unserious people who haven't exercised a single ounce of grey matter between them on how government could or should actually work in the US.
I'd argue the amount of work and connections necessary to run a campaign is because of political parties. You need a media machine because the other guys will have one.
I would love a situation where the media machine is more or less prohibited- where events like debates are what affects peoples minds, not slick 30 second ads that do a shitty job explaining anything so they just throw mud.
I think what you say is probably accurate- but I'd add the libertarian party (the organization) has the exact same problem the DNC / GOP have (national group focusing on own interest or special interest, losing touch with their base).
I heard a good joke a few weeks ago-- Libertarians are like house cats- fiercely independent, yet totally dependent on a system they have no understanding of. I think that especially applies to a lot of the national Libertarian platform- they expect that dismantling the EPA and Dept of Education is going to have some kind of positive effect on quality of life.
They'd do much better if they stay away from conservative/wingnut talking points and focus on personal liberties, a subject most Americans can get behind...
I’d argue the amount of work and connections necessary to run a campaign is because of political parties. You need a media machine because the other guys will have one.
I'm starting to see why you occasionally fall for libertarians, this is practically a libertarian argument. You've picked an element that is ever present (government in their case, political parties in yours), blamed it for the way things turned out in the real world, and then imagined if it were relegated to as small as possible a role, or eliminated it, that things would be perfect / better.
The amount of work and connections necessary to run a campaign has to do with there being lots and lots of people, consuming lots and lots of media, and trying to persuade them to decide in your favor.
I'd like ranked choice everywhere, and I'd also like for solely public funding of campaigns. And the overturning of the citizens united decision.
All of that said I agree with most of what you're advocating for anyway and largely agree with most of what you're saying and want more than two parties in the US so rock on. 🎸
I suspect we'd agree a lot more than we'd disagree :)
FWIW I think most libertarian talking points are crap (especially lately).
I think the whole 'take some piece of something and blame it for whatever's wrong' attitude is sophomoric to the point of being childishly immature. Libertarians do a lot of that publicly, and it's stupid and narrow-minded. Thus, housecats.
I'd summarize my political position as 'I think the married gay couple should be able to defend themselves, their marijuana farm, and their adopted children with AR-15 rifles, knowing that if they get hurt and have to go to the hospital, single payer health care will mean they don't go bankrupt'. I take my positions on their merits, not out of revenge against some apparent problem caused by some group.
I oppose political parties for the same reason George Washington warned us about them in his farewell speech- that they encourage voting based on party loyalty rather than the common good. And that's in addition to the complaints about the two-party system I've already laid out.
I think if we eliminated primaries and let anyone with signatures get on the ballot, that by itself would sufficiently reduce the influence of parties. They could stop being kingmakers and start being more of a broader support structure for ideologically similar (not identical) candidates.
We definitely need more functional parties though. We need minimum of 2, probably better with 4 or 5, and right now between GOP and DNC together we have about 0.8 of one. :(
God fucking damnit. I'd love to see them get their shit together and be a real competitor
Remember. He is a felon. That means he cannot vote in an election, but he absolutely can be elected to created laws. It's so weird thinking about that out loud.
To be fair, allowing felons to run for office means that a leader's political enemies can't be charged with phony crimes in order to prevent them from running for office. It's a safeguard against authoritarianism.
But ironically in this case, it means someone who illegally rebeled in support of an authoritarian overthrow of democracy is given another chance to support authoritarianism.
Yeah we don't want political shenanigans to happen that easily. Looking at you, India.
Actually? He served in the military (US navy,) and took an oath to defend and uphold the constitution,
The 14th absolutely applies, and he is ineligible to hold any public office - including city-level positions.
Of course, we want him to be ineligible. Yet, there's zero legal authority that has ruled him ineligible.
Keep dreaming that it'll happen. We're truly in the "Twilight Zone" of retardedville.
The constitution has zero legal authority.
Huh. TIL! Edit: 1, 2, 3.
The constitution is the single highest legal authority in the US. No law may be written violating it. It sets the legal basis for the existence of the US government, describes the nature of how it is to be run, and who is eligible to hold office. It esposues rights and processes.
the entire basis of the legal system depends on the us constitution, and it's amendments, both as the guiderails and the source of authority. So when the 14th amendment, section 3 says that a person who having previously taken an oath to defend the constitution and then leads an insurrection is ineligible; they're ineligible. There's really no mincing words on that one.
Unless perhaps, you're arguing that the insurrection on jan 6 wasn't in fact, an insurrection. (perhaps you suggest they were just... tourists?). Even though their stated goal was to disrupt and stop the lawful proceedings of congress- specifically counting the votes as cast by the electoral college.
Jacob Chansley served in the US navy, therefore he's taken an oath to defend the constitution. he particapted (most... LARPishly...) in the jan 6 insurrection.
I don't disagree with you, but I would make the argument that laws only matter when they're enforced. If the law says "You can't do X" and a bunch of goons do X, what happens?
Someone backs down, or violence, probably.
So if the 14th amendment says he can't run, that only matters if it's enforced. Do you think it's going to be enforced?
It does t say he can’t run.
It doesn’t even say he can’t be elected.
But he can’t hold the office. Either congress (both senate and reps,) agrees to let him in by a 2/3’s vote or they call the sergeant at arms and go from there.
As for which way that goes… it depends highly on who has power in the next cycle, and you’re right about laws not being enforced, which is why I’m increasingly pessimistic about our future as a country.
You seem to have missed the key word, "ruled", but nice rundown.
There is neither a mandate he be “ruled” ineligible by any entity. The constitution as written has already deemed him ineligible by the simple facts:
-he took an oath to defend the constitution -he participated in an insurrection.
The constitution lays out other requirements, as well, elsewhere, including being of a certain age (30 senate, 25 for rep.) the courts don’t rule anyone whose 24 ineligible- they just are.
They can be expelled easily when they got to take office. “Uh nope. Weren’t you that guy? Yes? Well buhbye. Aren’t you supposed to be in jail?!”
Who do you think is going to do this expelling? Do you imagine that there is some meta-governmental body, at the highest level, that can be relied upon to block anybody who isn't following the rules, other than a court? Nobody 24 runs, because they know they would be ruled ineligible. Ultimately, government works because of functioning institutions. The Supreme Court is not, currently, a functioning institution.
But nevermind that. The point is that, if you wanted to suggest that a ruling wouldn't, or shouldn't, be necessary, you could have said so, but you did not. You said that, if no legal authority had ruled him ineligible, that must mean the Constitution has zero legal authority. The Constitution doesn't make rulings. Your comment was entirely unrelated to the comment you were responding to, because you ignored the word "ruled", whether you think a ruling is necessary or not.
Don't worry about it too much. All a libertarian ballot is going to do is take votes away from the Republican candidate.
Bingo, the tea party basically created the "do you uphold your oath" shit to cops, they should probably know better.
Remember, he’s also a moron.
"Libertarian party endorses man who fought to install authoritarian dictatorship."
Whatever happened to the whole "Don't tread on me" slogan? Oh right. I forgot it was all bullshit.
“We want a small government! And by small we mean a permanent fascist dictator with all the power and no accountability!”
Yep. "Libertarian" is just a mask-on way of saying "I want all regulations removed so I can fully indulge my psycopathic thirst for greater and greater wealth" because if they were honest, even the most gullible middle-class voters would be escorting them to the guillotine.
I can guarantee that sleazy neoliberal circles have done the maths on the most profitable political system to back and the results were almost certainly...
Unfortunately that's ironically correct. Neo-libertarians funded and propped up by stolen capitalist trust funds. Have effectively stolen the term from the group it actually represents.
I would never refer to myself as just ”libertarian" for instance. Despite aligning pretty closely with the actual ideology. I tend to prefix it as left libertarian. Or if there's a right wing dumbass present, true libertarian. Because they truly are all posers. And it's fun to see their faces contorted.
If you support the libertarian party, you ain't really a libertarian. That's like a vegan eating steak for dinner every night. If you spend all your time whining about the government imposing on your "freedoms". But can't even offer feint criticism of the ultra wealthy and the much more devastating effect they have on society. You're not really a libertarian. But sadly for most people, that's who they associate most with being libertarian.
NO STEP ON SNEK!
Wage labor is already very totalitarian in principle - they determine what you wear, what you do, when you eat, when you go to the bathroom, basically it's a private government of their own, and people are selling themselves into the servitude.
Libertarianism seeks to go even further with that by removing regulations and letting free market do its thing, which, considering the first sentence of this comment, would make Libertarianism authoritarian if you're not a business owner or someone rich, and the "Don't tread on me" slogan only applies to those people.
https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/pictrs/image/b0b18eb8-cf76-49c4-8708-afeba686450a.webp?format=webp
This is what became of that slogan.
Doesn’t the 14th amendment have him barred already? This seems a non issue as it can’t happen.
As far as I am aware, it has never been tested. Clearly he should not be able to run, and clearly neither should Trump, but laws only have meaning if they are enforced.
[edited:] That's what the Trump cases in MN etc are about. The MN(?) judge punted, though, and declined to say whether he was ineligible for office, saying instead, basically, that the state didn't have any rule against insurrectionists being on primary ballots.
Parties are welcome to nominate someone who might never be allowed to take office - that's a party problem, not a state problem.
The first thing I thought of was the Trump crap, like is this guy just going to be the first one ousted then there is precedence for Trump to be ousted as well?
I listened to him talking on a podcast. Not just satisfied with every conspiracy theory out there, the guy makes up new ones, for example that a mall in Arizona has underground passageways to facilitate the trafficking of children.
I think authorities really need to be looking into these people that are this obsessed with child trafficking. Like yes, it's awful and we all want to stop it. But the fantasies these people come up with... If anything, it makes it harder for people and organizations that actually do give a shit and put their money where their mouth is.
Dude was in near solitary confinement for 27 months. He's really just another example of how broken the American prison system is, he comes out even more aggressive and deranged than when he went in
that's because Libertarians are nothing but trolls
They are Republicans with weed and a bigger hard on for Ayn Rand.
I am really fucking sick and tired of the Libertarian Party giving all libertarians a bad name.
For the record, not all libertarians are motherfucking an-caps. Some are leftists.
Yeah this is the party we’re talking about
And who can forget https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-libertarian-chairman-candidate-streaks-amanda-prestigiacomo
JFC I used to be a libertarian and I still agree with some of their values, but over the last 20 years they've really just become a joke. Not as much as the GOP, who intentionally associate with Cruz and MTG, but this is getting there.
It's like someone said "it can't be worse than Ted Cruz and Margie..." And the libertarian is all "hold my beer."
They've always been a joke. You've just grown up.
Same here.
I used to have a buddy that said, "tell me the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian." When I would ask what or someone would as a what. He would say, "Libertarians are just anarchists in denial."
Despite what you think the values are not entirely far off and both are kind of silly one believes in the government not interfering with your business until that government isn't supporting what they want it to support.
The other says, "I don't want the government interfering with my business or anything at all until someone wants to run the portion the government can't to support what the government wasn't supporting for them."
I used to be, too, and still am registered as one (Only to keep myself from being counted as a Democrat or Republican which they love to lump Independents into them), but I've noticed the nonsense between 2008 and 2010 which is about the time the media focused on these pieces of human garbage over all the others.
I really don't see an easy fix, and most of what I've seen in history, it usually gets much much worse before it gets better.
Fuck
Don’t worry, once they find out he’s Vegan, he’ll be unelectable
Cuckolds wear horns.
Incel insult
It's not like I forced him to wear the cuckold's traditional uniform. I just pointed out that he dressed like one.
He's a genuine piece of shit.
But using cuckold as an insult is really sad.
He's wearing the uniform of the alt-right's favorite insult. I was pointing out the irony.
But I guess sanctimony causes people to take personal offense on behalf of pieces of shit sometimes. Righteous indignation is a hell of a drug.
And non-incels know that cuckolding is a racist power-fantasy for men.
I was under the impression it’s usually a powerlessness fantasy that’s often racist and typically found in men
Wearing horns is a traditional symbolic representation of being cuckolded in since European countries, and in some languages the word for cuckold literally translates as ‘horned’ or variations on it. Even the horn sign associated with heavy metal can be very insulting.
If it’s an incel insult, it’s a historically accurate one.
That's fascinating. I know about the English etymology, which comes from "cuckoo" because a number of species are nest parasites. Do you have any sources? I love etymological history.
In English it does come from cuckoos, but in Spanish for example it’s ‘cornudo’ (horned). Despite the etymological root in English, the symbolism of cuckoldry was still historically horns. This page has a lot of great examples from England of the association of horns with cuckoldry.
Cool etymology explanation. It's a pretty well known one, but extra points for being deliberately obtuse.
It's a sad incel insult because they equate a man's worth to the ownership of a woman for the purpose of sex, and the loss of it to another man as a loss of their 'manhood'.
The moment you call someone a cuck or cuckhold, you're telling the world exactly how reductive and sad your view of the world and the people in it is.
I was being genuine and assuming you didn't know the symbological meaning, because frankly I don't think it is that common to know unless you either come from a culture where that's prevalent or are interested in history. 🤷♂️ I'm pretty sure the Q Shaman guy didn't put that outfit together thinking about the cuckold symbolism.
Acknowledging that the alt right is obsessed with cuckoldry while being ignorant of its symbolism isn't the same as buying into it.
Go have this argument with someone who actually buys into this stuff instead of someone who is just trying to be informative online. If that pisses you off then block me because the type of autism I have doesn't come with an off switch for dropping random info.
Kink shaming people with cuckoldry fetish is reductive and reactionary.
Ancient incell insult is still incell insult.
"Unga bunga you is cuck"
Do most U.S. Libertarians not see themselves this way?
He's just a twat in a hat
I'm a shamanic practitioner irl and this guy's nickname pisses me off. The guy pisses me off, too. His ancestors think he's a cunt, I bet.
As a liberal-libertarian, this shit pisses me off.
I want the libertarian party to be taken seriously. I think the libertarian platform could very well have mass appeal.
But they need to stop focusing on wingnuts like this who not only will NEVER get elected to anything more than dog catcher, but harm the whole image of libertarians and libertarianism.
Libertarians should focus on personal freedom and lower taxes. And Stop with the far right wing shit- 'let's lower taxes by defunding the EPA and let the open market tackle pollution' type stuff.
Dude that's what this party is. Maybe stop pulling for a party that is ideologically bankrupt.
They're the party of "gubmint bad". They're a joke.
I dislike most political parties. Red, blue, yellow, I think the system is fucking broken and there are no angels in it. All political parties do, as a concept, is reduce the number of choices voters have overall.
I think if you want true democracy, you have to get rid of primaries. Anyone who can get enough signatures goes on the ballot, and people vote with ranked choice voting.
The amount of work and connections required to run a campaign basically guarantees political parties. There's a reason why political parties exist in practically every democratic or pseudo-democratic country.
I agree that the current system sucks and I'd prefer ranked choice which would increase the amount of viable political parties.
But the libertarian party and everything it stands for are still ideologically bankrupt and the politicians in the party are deeply unserious people who haven't exercised a single ounce of grey matter between them on how government could or should actually work in the US.
I'd argue the amount of work and connections necessary to run a campaign is because of political parties. You need a media machine because the other guys will have one.
I would love a situation where the media machine is more or less prohibited- where events like debates are what affects peoples minds, not slick 30 second ads that do a shitty job explaining anything so they just throw mud.
I think what you say is probably accurate- but I'd add the libertarian party (the organization) has the exact same problem the DNC / GOP have (national group focusing on own interest or special interest, losing touch with their base).
I heard a good joke a few weeks ago-- Libertarians are like house cats- fiercely independent, yet totally dependent on a system they have no understanding of. I think that especially applies to a lot of the national Libertarian platform- they expect that dismantling the EPA and Dept of Education is going to have some kind of positive effect on quality of life.
They'd do much better if they stay away from conservative/wingnut talking points and focus on personal liberties, a subject most Americans can get behind...
I'm starting to see why you occasionally fall for libertarians, this is practically a libertarian argument. You've picked an element that is ever present (government in their case, political parties in yours), blamed it for the way things turned out in the real world, and then imagined if it were relegated to as small as possible a role, or eliminated it, that things would be perfect / better.
The amount of work and connections necessary to run a campaign has to do with there being lots and lots of people, consuming lots and lots of media, and trying to persuade them to decide in your favor.
I'd like ranked choice everywhere, and I'd also like for solely public funding of campaigns. And the overturning of the citizens united decision.
All of that said I agree with most of what you're advocating for anyway and largely agree with most of what you're saying and want more than two parties in the US so rock on. 🎸
I suspect we'd agree a lot more than we'd disagree :)
FWIW I think most libertarian talking points are crap (especially lately).
I think the whole 'take some piece of something and blame it for whatever's wrong' attitude is sophomoric to the point of being childishly immature. Libertarians do a lot of that publicly, and it's stupid and narrow-minded. Thus, housecats.
I'd summarize my political position as 'I think the married gay couple should be able to defend themselves, their marijuana farm, and their adopted children with AR-15 rifles, knowing that if they get hurt and have to go to the hospital, single payer health care will mean they don't go bankrupt'. I take my positions on their merits, not out of revenge against some apparent problem caused by some group.
I oppose political parties for the same reason George Washington warned us about them in his farewell speech- that they encourage voting based on party loyalty rather than the common good. And that's in addition to the complaints about the two-party system I've already laid out.
I think if we eliminated primaries and let anyone with signatures get on the ballot, that by itself would sufficiently reduce the influence of parties. They could stop being kingmakers and start being more of a broader support structure for ideologically similar (not identical) candidates.
We definitely need more functional parties though. We need minimum of 2, probably better with 4 or 5, and right now between GOP and DNC together we have about 0.8 of one. :(
God fucking damnit. I'd love to see them get their shit together and be a real competitor