I just may vote Republican in 2020

I get attacked by Democrats when I attack Lincoln for his being an outlaw president. I blame him for the deaths of over 630,000 Americans due to his invasion of the South with troops carting in cannons.

Nobody from the South had carted in Cannons to where Abe was.

So of course Abe did things and I blame him for what he did.

 

Moronic reply on your part. I never said that all laws are good. I said that we have more rights now than we did 100 years ago.
And as a whole, we do.

 

Your conflating laws with rights.

 

So you're saying that things weren't all rosy and peachy back 100 years ago - which is what I pointed out.

 

You by selling your own home acted for you. I said the license is to represent others, not ourselves.

Had you sold even your adult child's home acting as their agent, you would have violated law in the process.

In fact, there is an excellent chance that you broke laws even though you sold your own home. Buyers have rights of full disclosure. I suspect you failed to follow all laws of CA in the sale of your own home.

 

That is not what he told you. In fact when you brought up rights, you keep discussing laws.

 

Well then you should have claimed all along we were in agreement.

 

So you're saying that California requires agents have a license in order to PROTECT the rights of the buyer.

 

False.

"In the United States, abortion laws began to appear in the 1820s, forbidding abortion after the fourth month of pregnancy."

https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-abortion-3528243

"One popular misconception is that libertarianism as a political principle supports choice on abortion. And major elements within the libertarian movement (the Libertarian Party, for example) take abortion-choice stands. Nonetheless, libertarianism's basic principle is that each of us has the obligation not to aggress against (violate the rights of) anyone else -- for any reason (personal, social, or political), however worthy. That is a clearly pro-life principle. Recognizing that, and seeing the abortion-choice drift within the libertarian movement, Libertarians for Life was founded in 1976 to show why abortion is a wrong under justice, not a right."

http://www.l4l.org/

Trump is trying to get us out of nation building. As a conservative, I'm generally in favor of anything that helps people reach greater freedom, including nation building, but Trump is much more of an isolationist.

Trump hates the mainstream media, and with good reason. That doesn't mean he hates the first amendment. If the Catholic church came out and excommunicated you publicly and you had some nasty things to say about the church in response, I wouldn't put that down as you hating the 1st amendment right to freedom of religion.

Not sure what you're asking here.

If you don't think Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the biggest clown on it, you are seriously deluded.

I haven't seen the latest budget, but if Le Chef is right and Trump really is trying to scale back the size of government, I will be first in line to applaud. The previous two budgets were complete disasters.

 

That there are some Libertarians calling themselves "Libertarians for Life" is just as absurd as the average Conservative these days claiming to believe in the principles of Republicanism.

Your claim that not violating the rights of others is a "Pro Life Principle" is abject nonsense on steroids - and you made no attempt to justify this claim. In fact .. you contradict your own claim by saying that major elements within the Libertarian movement (myself included) take a pro choice stand. Obviously this is not "Clearly" a pro life principle.

Sorry but you do not understand the founding principles with respect to this issue. This is not about abortion being a "right" so much as it is about whether or not the Gov't has the legitimate authority to make law messing with essential liberty.

This is not a moral issue - it is an issue of law. There is a difference between 1) having a belief and 2) forcing that belief on others through physical violence - Law.

On the question of abortion the legal question is clear - at least in the early stages of pregnancy ( it gets much more complicated when we get to later in the term) .

In the case of conception - the single human cell - there is no scientific consensus that this constitutes a living human - never mind a person with rights, including the right to life. Nor is there an consensus among subject matter experts.

This is one of the few things in the abortion issue that can be stated as absolute fact. "Experts Disagree".

Proof - there are 5 different Scientific perspectives on the question of "when human life begins" - Metabolic, Genetic, Embryological, Ecological, Neurological. Only one of these 5 puts the beginning at conception.

This is not a debate about which is correct - this is merely to prove that "Experts Disagree".

Now to the question of Law. Even if we give this single human cell some status - what we now have is a conflict between two individuals. We then have to weigh the value of the liberty of each on the scales of justice.

The essential liberty of the woman has a high value - the liberty over her own body - the right not to be forced by the Gov't to do something with her body that she does not want. The value of the liberty of the individual in this respect is enshrined in - and forms the basis of the founding principles.

What are we to put on the other side of the scale ? This is the problem. How do we value "Experts Disagree" "We don't know".

The idea that we should make law on the basis of "we don't know"/ "we don't know otherwise" is beyond bonkers. This is simply not how our legal system works -and thank goodness - this would be a complete violation of the principles of Justice on which our system is based.

No idea how the kind of nation building we have been involved in helps us to reach greater freedom. What this policy is doing is giving us less freedom.

I was not referring to Trumps dislike of the mainstream media. I was referring to the Establishment engaging in censorship and attacks on the press .. like "Russiagate", going after Assange and numerous other examples. This has more to do with the Establishment but, at the end of the day Trump is an Establishment wonk.

I wasn't asking anything - I was stating a fact ... Trump, and the Establishment in general (both red and blue) "HATE" essential liberty and the principles on which this nation was founded ... as does SCOTUS - including Ruth.

Le Chef is not right ..

 

Trump has escalated the 8 current wars we’re in, and has only offered rhetoric to move out of Syria (rhetoric is cheap in this administration). With Bolton in the administration we will only further the span of our foreign wars.

Such as committing election fraud, wishing to reduce to voting pool and suspending a Supreme Court nomination?

I don’t see anything to indicate that Republicians like dealing with Democrats, or that they even respect them.

Typically fascism is associated with right-wing movements. They often have an obsession with traditionalism and national identity, and use xenophobia to project fear onto their populace.

Republicans fear monger constantly; Democrats are killing babies, there’s an invasion from Mexico, Democrats want to steal your guns, Muslims are dangerous...

You don’t need violence to suppress labor unions and news outlets. Right to Work laws and attacks on collective bargaining have been Republican policy. And Trump has claimed the media is the enemy of the people, constantly bashing outlets that don’t comply to his agenda.

Republicans are not outwardly fascist, they don’t have the power to be. That doesn’t mean you cannot make an argument. It’s not likely for fascism to appear the same way twice because it will be unique to any situation. And a fascist will never call themselves a fascist post-WWII.

One of the better essays I found on the subject is “Ur Fascism” by Umberto Eco. An Italian who grew up in fascist Italy. He lists 14 tendencies of fascism, claiming only 1 is necessary for the ideology to fester.

 

You cited anti-miscegenation laws. Laws .....

The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government and each state from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude".


There would be no need for the amendment if there were no laws denying women the right to vote in the first place.

(Or are you claiming that we could now repeal the XVth Amendment and the right would just dissolve?)

It's the same with many rights in the constitution. They are protected ... not created. That's why the 2nd Amendment does not create a previously non-existent right:


the right (hello?) of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The founders were very deliberate about this.

 

No, he criticizes them, and has pointedly noted that he does not mean all of them.

You cannot make the argument because no Republican wants to suppress speech or assembly rights, nor deny the vote to minorities, nor shut down news outlets, nor install a dictator.

And it really doesn't matter what any individual wants, even Trump. It's just not part of the Republican platform.

Show us something fascistic in the platform.

 

Say it again ....

 

BAN THIS GUY!!

 

Now now - just because you can not handle information and facts which conflict with your belief and/or perspective - is no reason to start banning people.

 

The main issue is the wall on the Southern border. 43% favor that. 57% strongly oppose. That has been his gimmick to get elected and he hopes to get reelected. If you are in favor, you don't care if he is a crook. He is your crook! We must get out our vote of 57% for the Democratic candidate in order to stop the stinking bastard!

 

Now, now, I might have been joking.

 

I didn't mention anything about slavery and don't even need to bring up to point out that "classical liberalism" never actually existed.

 

I protest your vulgar characterization of the President. Inappropriate.

 

The most gross characterization is an understatement, but has no effect if he is the crook who does what pleases you!

 

How about arresting and questioning journalists trying to report on the migrant caravan?

https://thehill.com/policy/national...-tracked-journalists-covering-migrant-caravan

Attempting to change libel laws.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...ment-press-gain-ally-supreme-court-ncna973431

There is this gem.



Republicans trying to change National Emergency Law for any presidents after Trump’s declaration.

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-act...e-bill-to-rein-in-presidents-emergency-powers

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...-door-to-changing-presidents-emergency-powers

Their platform is meaningless.

 

This is a very long essay when all you're doing is changing the topic, from one on which you were wrong to one on which you can claim to be right. You claimed that being against abortion was not something libertarians would do. I showed you otherwise. That you now engage in the "no true Scotsman" fallacy doesn't help your case one bit.

It doesn't help us reach greater freedom, but would you say the Iraqi people have greater freedom today than they did under Saddam Hussein? I was against the war, but I would say they do. We helped Germany, Japan, and most of Europe rebuild after the war and garnered significant and powerful allies as a result of our beneficence. So nation building very much helps people reach greater freedom and benefits US in turn.

This made me spit.

I don't agree that Trump or the Republicans hate essential liberty, however, they can be very confused on how to preserve those essential liberties. The Democrats want to curtail liberty as much as possible, with that I agree.

 

What a nonsense strawman. I don t change the topic ... I am not wrong - (you twirling around crying wrong wrong" does not make something wrong )- and then you make the false claim that I stated no libertarians were against abortion.

Then you completely fail to address my libertarian argument in relation to abortion and your completely flawed understanding of the abortion question and the founding principles.

2) You claimed we had greater freedom - not you move the goalpost to Iraqi's having greater freedom - which has zero to do with your initial claim

3) You can spit all you like when you encounter information that conflicts and/or refutes your flawed beliefs. All this does is show how hopelessly unable to come up with an argument in support of your position you are.

4) You do not present a single argument in support of your claim thusfar - and not a single refutation of any of my arguments. Now you say "you disagree" that Trump/GOP hate individual liberty. This at least is a somewhat reasonable response - albeit this shows how clueless you are in relation to the subject matter.

One of the main reasons for the Libertarian party is because the GOP Establishment lacks respect for individual liberty.

This nation was founded on "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" The founders said things like (Franklin) "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase Temporary Security Deserve neither liberty or Security

So tell me - how is making it our "Patriotic Duty" to give up essential liberty - not completely disrespecting essential liberty ?