@LiberalRetvrn's banner p

LiberalRetvrn


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 November 18 19:14:16 UTC

				

User ID: 1892

LiberalRetvrn


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 November 18 19:14:16 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1892

No, the alternative is a representative constitutional republic with checks and balances, which has worked for the US and other advanced countries. Direct democracy means that 51% of the people have unlimited power, which invariably leads to disaster. The average person is not smart enough to be making these kinds of decisions.

Why should doge have access to any classified information? Does Musk have a security clearance? Did congress vote to create doge and decide what its powers will be?

People did vote for this, but they shouldn't have been allowed to. This is democracy out of control, something that the constitution was carefully crafted to prevent. Musk is running around shutting down agencies with no accountability to the bureaucracy or the courts. I don't know whether anyone except Trump can actually stop him.

  • -13

I strongly prefer helping my own country, town, and family before helping foreigners. But I still support foreign aid to Africa because it's ridiculously effective at saving people. So even though I value the life of random strangers less, it's still a better use of money than letting the military blow it on F-35s or whatever.

Our best hope is that he's bluffing. I doubt that he really wants to risk being remembered as the guy who caused the great depression of 2025. Maybe within a few days he'll announce that Canada and Mexico made concessions, regardless of whether that's true, and lift the tariffs. And Canada and Mexico will be too scared to contradict him. That would explain him not making concrete demands, as he can now declare victory whenever he wants.

Hinduism holds it is offense against Dharma possibly requiring being cast out into a lower caste

Examples of barbaric cultures that I would never want to live in aren't really going to convince me. All countries that are remotely civilized protect LGBT rights.

I mean if you like buttsex a lot, thats your thing.

I certainly don't, but I'm not going to have christians and jews telling me what I can and can't do. Secularism is what made America great, and religion is what keeps the middle east a dump.

"Biology" doesn't care what we do, we all die of something in the end. Technology prevents the spread of STDs a lot more effectively than purity culture. I'm not going to spend my limited time living under christian slave morality.

His critiques about Afghanistan were pretty unsubstantive. Obviously the Afghanistan war was unwinnable, but he didn't acknowledge whose fault it was that we were there in the first place. He didn't acknowledge the fundamental problem with Bush era foreign policy that got us stuck in those wars. And going further back, why were we ever so involved in the middle east that Bin Laden wanted to attack us? All of this could have been avoided by simply leaving the middle east to sort out its own problems. But Hegseth has an emotional bias at play here - he views the middle east as his holy land. His loyalties are not to the American people, or western civilization, but to his god and Jesus. The title of the book is all you have to read to understand his philosophy, and why he's dangerous.

There is absolutely nothing "immoral" about sodomy.

Well, my holy lands are in Europe, not the middle east. I don't care what happens in the middle east as long as we're not too heavily involved. The Abrahamic religions will be fighting each other until they destroy themselves. America should be aspiring to greatness, not religious barbarism.

Well like I said, I really don't know what Trump's intentions are. Given how easily he seems to be swayed by people around him, I'm definitely worried about Hegseth's influence. I don't know why Trump would appoint him if not to take his opinions seriously. Other than starting a nuclear war, I think putting boots on the ground in the middle east is one of the most catastrophic decisions he could make.

I was referring to Hegseth's book, "American Crusade", where he justifies the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

If he wanted to expand the American empire in an advantageous way, that would be one thing. But based on his appointments it seems like we'll be going on a crusade in the middle east rather than actually annexing any valuable territory or defending the West. The fact that he railed against the Iraq war in 2016 makes me think he has no coherent foreign policy or vision. I don't see how someone can flip-flop on that particular issue.

The irony is that we're getting the worst of both worlds with Trump's brand of isolationism. On one hand, we have Bush lackey Pete Hegseth who thinks Iraq was a great idea. And then we're defunding basic, uncontroversial medical aid and possibly leaving Ukraine defenseless against the mongrels. There's no coherent policy other than doing the opposite of whatever Biden supported.

  • -15

More like his "hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory" moment.

I disagree about the lack of an immune response, the issue is that wokeness thrives off that immune response. The reason classical liberalism didn't take off virally is the absense of the religious purity culture component. Classical liberalism says "let's all be equal and respect each other and let everyone do what they want." Which is too inoffensive of a message. Wokeness says "you're privileged and inherently a bigot, now pay me for my emotional labor." That's a message that provokes a response. Either you convert, apologize for your original privilege, and accept equity as your lord and savior, or you become an uncouth MRA chud who supplies exactly the examples of oppression that can be used to justify future wokeness.

eugenics being associated with the right is itself Cthulhu swimming left

because cthulu swam past eugenics and now it's toward the right? Or are you saying that doing more eugenics is directionally leftward?

I think Freddy's argument here, and the cthulu swims left meme are both examples of extending the left/right political model way beyond its usefulness (to the extent that it is ever useful in the first place). Reducing all of politics to a single axis in modern times is already suspect, but the model only gets worse in the past. If we're only talking about social issues, maybe you can define "right" as adherence to traditional values and "left" as rebellion against those values, but when the values completely change multiple times over, that doesn't really mean anything. Today, traditionalist christians might be considered right wing, but in the Roman empire they were the weird commie leftists who wanted womens' rights and equality under god. But is that inherently more right wing or left wing than paganism? Is banning abortion right wing because it upholds the sanctity of life, or is it left wing because it's dysgenic? The "left" and "right" have flip-flopped on this even in the last 50 years, let alone centuries.

I do find it very frustrating that before assisted suicide has even been legalized for terminal cancer, we're already talking about 30 year old women with psychosomatic illnesses. I think assisted suicide is obviously a good thing, because nobody should be forced to endure the last 3 months of a terminal illness if they don't want to. We can immediately recognize that it's cruel to let a dog suffer until the bitter end, but we can't extend that compassion to 90 year old humans in excruciating pain?

If the anti-suicide people are responsible for steering the debate away from the situations where euthanasia is obviously good and just, and toward the most ridiculously favorable ground for their side, I have to tip my cap to their genius. It's some kind of reverse Motte and Bailey that seems to happen with a lot of social issues. Moderates support allowing adults to be transgender if they want to, and then suddenly we're arguing about womens' sports and 9 year olds transitioning, and the moderates are stuck either defending indefensible and irrelevant nonsense or being called bigots by the radicals on their side.

Lately I've noticed a Muslim talking point that Islam appreciates Jesus more than any other religion, and that Christians are essentially slightly misguided Muslims who Allah will save anyway. I get the impression that for a lot of these gen Z trad groypers, it's the anti-degeneracy part of religion that they care about, not the specifics of the theology. Hating on Muslims also seems to have become a little uncool in the alt-right, since it would put them on the same side as Israel.

Nick’s audience is separate from the groups that actually successfully control women’s bodies

Is it? Nick has said he supports the Taliban's gender policies. I think he probably has a significant Muslim fanbase nowadays.

Just what the democrats need, more waffling and apologizing for their beliefs. I guess with a platform this boring and incomprehensible, nobody can be offended.

It may be poetic justice for democrats to storm the capitol and refuse to certify the election results, but it wouldn't accomplish anything except guaranteeing that democracy ends. Somebody has to stop defecting.

I meant that if someone thinks things like the national debt and money supply are important, they wouldn't vote for the candidate who wants to print more money and triple the deficit.

I think the president has basically nothing to do with the economy. Regardless, Trump is planning to print money like never seen before, so I'm not sure why anyone would vote based on that.