posted by geeblock

Libertarians want governments passing laws about the curriculum of local school districts?  Or ANY more laws? A libertarian would want the government to stay out of local school districts and oppose unnecessary new laws unless a dire need was proven 

Libertarians oppose unnecessary FEDERAL laws and power seizures. 

They do not hold the same beljefs for state and local.

Hope that helps.

“Why don’t you let liberal leaning education majors (possibly easiest major) make the policies”…. Hmm pretty simple answer. Also, making sure books are age appropriate isn’t banning. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

I understand your philosophy, I just think it does not make sense in governing in today's world. 

Government needs to function for society. In order for it to function, you need to have policies and laws in place from both sides of the aisle.

You take part of ideas from the conservative side and liberal to address a problem. Infrastructure, drug policy, and in the past, social security reform and healthcare. 

Also, if you are just voting opposing party regardless of candidate, that is very shortsighted as you may be eliminating actually good candidates and lawmakers. 

Calling for gridlock does nothing but continue the outrage cycle. 

Your philosophy worked 20 years ago or more when both sides would work together and cross party lines.

Think Clinton and Newt Gingrich for example. For the last 12-16 years both sides are complete morons and refuse to work together. 

Given that dynamic shift stalemate is better than either side being in complete power.

And if the 2 sides ever get their head out of their asses, splitting power absolutely makes sense still so they are forced to compromise and work together for ideas from both sides just like you said.

With how far both sides have gone away from center (admittedly the Ds have moved way further) I just don’t see them actually compromising and working together anytime soon. 

So gridlock is better than full power owned by either side.

And I do “compromise” in my hardline voting philosophy if there is an obvious bad candidate.

For instance, if MTG was in my area or the guy from PA who had a stroke and obvious brain damage, I wouldn’t have voted for them no matter who was in power in the WH (that moron woman from Alaska too, Palin, would have never voted for her, voted for Obama there so she wasn’t 1 heart beat away from POTUS).

posted by geeblock

I also said school classes (curriculum ) , you pretended to ignore that and focus on the word books as if that changes the point about what a libertarian would want. 

Real libertarians wants to do away with public education.  Hoyw that helps. 

Republicans hate Critical Race Theory, but do they know what it is? pic.twitter.com/lBrGy4mpre

— The Good Liars (@TheGoodLiars) February 2, 2023

Focus this energy on strengthening the bonds with the people you value being around. End of. 

In short: live your life your fucking dorks. 

Thank me later. 

posted by Automatik

Focus this energy on strengthening the bonds with the people you value being around. End of. 

In short: live your life your fucking dorks. 

Thank me later. 

How many drinks?

After 6pm today. I plan on having many. 

posted by jmog

Your philosophy worked 20 years ago or more when both sides would work together and cross party lines.

Think Clinton and Newt Gingrich for example. For the last 12-16 years both sides are complete morons and refuse to work together. 

Given that dynamic shift stalemate is better than either side being in complete power.

And if the 2 sides ever get their head out of their asses, splitting power absolutely makes sense still so they are forced to compromise and work together for ideas from both sides just like you said.

With how far both sides have gone away from center (admittedly the Ds have moved way further) I just don’t see them actually compromising and working together anytime soon. 

So gridlock is better than full power owned by either side.

And I do “compromise” in my hardline voting philosophy if there is an obvious bad candidate.

For instance, if MTG was in my area or the guy from PA who had a stroke and obvious brain damage, I wouldn’t have voted for them no matter who was in power in the WH (that moron woman from Alaska too, Palin, would have never voted for her, voted for Obama there so she wasn’t 1 heart beat away from POTUS).

That still does not make sense because gridlock just continues the large government programs you apparently disagree with. 

Budgets just continue as is as they are just CRs. Spending increases. Social security and other mandatory spending continue. 

Also, issues like immigration just continue to be broken and not fixed.

Instead of offering solutions, seems like you are just good with the status quo of more spending and moving from crisis to crisis, which is what gridlock is. 

Good to see you do compromise on voting and not just go opposite party the whole time. You do seem to use rational thought, just wish it would apply to more than just supporting more gridlock. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

That still does not make sense because gridlock just continues the large government programs you apparently disagree with. 

Budgets just continue as is as they are just CRs. Spending increases. Social security and other mandatory spending continue. 

Also, issues like immigration just continue to be broken and not fixed.

Instead of offering solutions, seems like you are just good with the status quo of more spending and moving from crisis to crisis, which is what gridlock is. 

Good to see you do compromise on voting and not just go opposite party the whole time. You do seem to use rational thought, just wish it would apply to more than just supporting more gridlock. 

No, neither side is really going to shrink the government ever, even through the Rs say they will, they won’t  either. Ds are full on board with federal expansion.

So if both side would make it bigger if in power why wouldn’t a “status quo” and no/slower growth be better? Let them fight over stupid shit like morons and never pass anything which means the status quo doesn’t change and the federal government doesn’t grow as fast as if either party were in power.

And it is perfectly rational when you know both sides will grow the government, and they won’t work together anymore, to vote for gridlock so they won’t grow the government.

And if they magically start working cross party lines again like 20 years ago then it’s a win win.

The last time we had a balance budget was when the power was split. 

posted by jmog

No, neither side is really going to shrink the government ever, even through the Rs say they will, they won’t  either. Ds are full on board with federal expansion.

So if both side would make it bigger if in power why wouldn’t a “status quo” and no/slower growth be better? Let them fight over stupid shit like morons and never pass anything which means the status quo doesn’t change and the federal government doesn’t grow as fast as if either party were in power.

And it is perfectly rational when you know both sides will grow the government, and they won’t work together anymore, to vote for gridlock so they won’t grow the government.

And if they magically start working cross party lines again like 20 years ago then it’s a win win.

The last time we had a balance budget was when the power was split. 

I have had this debate with my buddy in Orange County who is a libertarian.

The problem I have with your line of thinking is it is passive. It is not about finding a solution, but just good with the status quo, which seems to contradict the libertarian ideology to me. 

You say the fed may be growing more slowly, but the last 10 years so the opposite has happened. Spending has increased as each side gains power and trys to one up the other. 

They are passing more things by default as the spending train keeps rolling. 

By just saying you like gridlock, you are agreeing with that philosophy of more spending by default, which I know you and other do not support. 

It would be one thing if you were aggressively supporting libertarian candidates and ideas. But, as you said, you are not as you are supporting the status quo of gridlock or the lesser of two evils on the ballot. 

Also, odd you just are waiting for something magic to happen and not actually working to make that change happen. 

I may be wrong, but I am going off your own words of supporting gridlock which just makes the current situation worse and contradicts what I thought was the libertarian mission. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

I have had this debate with my buddy in Orange County who is a libertarian.

The problem I have with your line of thinking is it is passive. It is not about finding a solution, but just good with the status quo, which seems to contradict the libertarian ideology to me. 

You say the fed may be growing more slowly, but the last 10 years so the opposite has happened. Spending has increased as each side gains power and trys to one up the other. 

They are passing more things by default as the spending train keeps rolling. 

By just saying you like gridlock, you are agreeing with that philosophy of more spending by default, which I know you and other do not support. 

It would be one thing if you were aggressively supporting libertarian candidates and ideas. But, as you said, you are not as you are supporting the status quo of gridlock or the lesser of two evils on the ballot. 

Also, odd you just are waiting for something magic to happen and not actually working to make that change happen. 

I may be wrong, but I am going off your own words of supporting gridlock which just makes the current situation worse and contradicts what I thought was the libertarian mission. 

1. The massive expansions happened when one side had POTUS and Congressional control. Both Rs and Ds. Not when the 2 sides were splitting power.

2. The 2 party system suck donkey balls. I would be all for electing an actual small federal government candidate like a libertarian if it was actually physically possible in our system. Trash the whole system and give me a libertarian and I am in 100%. A libertarian will never be a national candidate with a 2 party system locked down.

3. Find me a better strategy than what I do to slow down federal government growth, fill me in since I don’t use logic and you do, mister “middle road”.

posted by jmog

1. The massive expansions happened when one side had POTUS and Congressional control. Both Rs and Ds. Not when the 2 sides were splitting power.

2. The 2 party system suck donkey balls. I would be all for electing an actual small federal government candidate like a libertarian if it was actually physically possible in our system. Trash the whole system and give me a libertarian and I am in 100%. A libertarian will never be a national candidate with a 2 party system locked down.

3. Find me a better strategy than what I do to slow down federal government growth, fill me in since I don’t use logic and you do, mister “middle road”.

Not disagreeing with 1, but your gridlock approach just continues those policies. It doesn't slow, it just continues with continuing budget resolutions. 

Well number 2 is not realistic as the system is not going to blow up unless you drive policy and people to change it, which given your passive approach, you are not doing.

I don't have the answers, but stay engaged in trying to promote bipartisan policy.  That to me seems a better strategy than just throwing up hands, complaining, yet not offering any practical solutions other than both suck and they need to figure it out. 

That's my main annoyance around here. Easy to complain, harder to try and work toward actual solutions. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Not disagreeing with 1, but your gridlock approach just continues those policies. It doesn't slow, it just continues with continuing budget resolutions. 

Well number 2 is not realistic as the system is not going to blow up unless you drive policy and people to change it, which given your passive approach, you are not doing.

I don't have the answers, but stay engaged in trying to promote bipartisan policy.  That to me seems a better strategy than just throwing up hands, complaining, yet not offering any practical solutions other than both suck and they need to figure it out. 

That's my main annoyance around here. Easy to complain, harder to try and work toward actual solutions. 

One problem is you didn’t answer the question. If both sides always grow the side of the federal government when they are in power, and I believe in a smaller federal government as described in the Constitution….what/who should I vote for since you apparently use logic and I do not?

Your problem is that factual history backs up my position and conjecture backs up yours.

Every single major spike in the lasr 25 years in federal spending as a percent of GDP was when one side had unified control  (both sides have done it) and every dip down or stagnation in federal spending as a percentage of GDP was when power was divided.

Sure it’s a little more nuanced than that, but that is still factual information, and the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S

https://www.foxnews.com/us/education-board-member-gets-booted-defending-constitution-speaking-socialism

It's as if Virginia turned into Venezuela overnight.  Who the hell are these radicals?

posted by jmog

One problem is you didn’t answer the question. If both sides always grow the side of the federal government when they are in power, and I believe in a smaller federal government as described in the Constitution….what/who should I vote for since you apparently use logic and I do not?

Your problem is that factual history backs up my position and conjecture backs up yours.

Every single major spike in the lasr 25 years in federal spending as a percent of GDP was when one side had unified control  (both sides have done it) and every dip down or stagnation in federal spending as a percentage of GDP was when power was divided.

Sure it’s a little more nuanced than that, but that is still factual information, and the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S

Who should you vote for? Find and encourage candidates. Thats how. It seems like you just want the easy approach, just sit back and let them magically appear. You do not want to do the leg work on growing your political movement. 

The 2020 spike was divided government, but it was the covid year, so easy to forget. But, yes, the spending overall does slow in divided government, but that is not achieving your policy solution, the spending continues. 

Instead of just throwing up your hands, do something. 

How many of you on here are actually involved in the local or regional political process? 

I was in Maryland, and am involved here in Ohio too.

If you want to change the system, you have to work at it and not just complain about on a message board. 

Good news from the SOTU, def need gas for at least 10 years. Or like 100.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Who should you vote for? Find and encourage candidates. Thats how. It seems like you just want the easy approach, just sit back and let them magically appear. You do not want to do the leg work on growing your political movement. 

The 2020 spike was divided government, but it was the covid year, so easy to forget. But, yes, the spending overall does slow in divided government, but that is not achieving your policy solution, the spending continues. 

Instead of just throwing up your hands, do something. 

How many of you on here are actually involved in the local or regional political process? 

I was in Maryland, and am involved here in Ohio too.

If you want to change the system, you have to work at it and not just complain about on a message board. 

So your solution is that I need to grow the National libertarian party from basically scratch and overhaul  the whole 2 party system?

Or, and hear me out, I can work to take care of my family.

I can’t believe you agree with me, that spending is slowed during split government, yet still tell me I’m wrong and I need to overhaul the whole 2 party system myself.

Sometimes your act is insufferable.

posted by jmog

Sometimes your act is insufferable.

You actually said this to someone else on here…you.  Wow

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

You actually said this to someone else on here…you.  Wow

Ptown agreed with my statement then told me I was wrong with a straight face…so yes I did  

posted by jmog

Ptown agreed with my statement then told me I was wrong with a straight face…so yes I did  

The "insufferable" part...that's what blew me away.  Your posting is easily the most insufferable on here.  

posted by iclfan2

Good news from the SOTU, def need gas for at least 10 years. Or like 100.

Yeah, he came off as pretty sharp in acknowledging energy needs out a decade. 

posted by jmog

So your solution is that I need to grow the National libertarian party from basically scratch and overhaul  the whole 2 party system?

Or, and hear me out, I can work to take care of my family.

I can’t believe you agree with me, that spending is slowed during split government, yet still tell me I’m wrong and I need to overhaul the whole 2 party system myself.

Sometimes your act is insufferable.

If you really care about your own policy views as you say, then yes. Otherwise, you are doing the least you can do, and as I said are being very passive. You are doing nothing but complaining and hoping something magically happens. 

You are still stuck on thinking gridlock slows or stops growth. Your chart shows otherwise. It still grows and rose dramatically in 2020, under divided government. 

Gridlock government also does not address the core spending problems like entitlement reform and immigration reform. If you care about your policy problems, ignoring the reform only makes it worse as we spend more and more. 

You can take care of your family and be involved in getting your policy solutions implemented. You seem to not like the answer...you have to do more and not just say I will vote the opposite party and call it a day. That is lazy. 

If you or others on here actually care...do something. 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-cities-rattled-prostitution-human-trafficking-broad-daylight-cops-pin-blame-new-law

Lovely 

posted by QuakerOats

https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-cities-rattled-prostitution-human-trafficking-broad-daylight-cops-pin-blame-new-law

Lovely 

You and Tucker Carlson are obsessed with California cities.  If they're that bad, don't visit them.