Hillary was against gay marriage until 2013.
Sanders wasn't really an advocate til 2009, but he never opposed gay marriage.
I just thought y'all should consider that.
>>5867473
Shillary will say anything to get elected.
Most of us aren't single-issue voters though.
Economic policies always come first and foremost to me.
>>5867473
I'm voting for Bernie because he seems like the most likely candidate to focus on infrastructure.
I want my bullet trains across the U.S., god damn it.
>>5867496
fair enough, I just kinda posted that because it seemed like Hillary was getting a lot of traction here. And if you're talking about a candidate here, it makes sense that you'd be talking about their el bbq track record.
Also, fuck yeah trains.
>>5867473
shut the fuck up if you don't know what you're talking about. you make the rest of us look bad. ps vote bernie.
http://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2015/06/30/32-years-before-scotus-decision-sanders-backed-gay-pride-march
>>5867496
Funnily enough, Trump wants a tax plan where any household that makes 100k or less a year doesn't have to pay taxes, and corporate taxes lower but he wants to fix loopholes so corporations actually do pay their share of taxes that aren't completely ludicrous and profit-destroying as it is now. E.g. Mark Zuckerberg paying much less taxes than a middle class American because of his split into a "charity" company
Sanders supported civil unions and "state's rights" over federal marriage equality in 2006.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4550754/sanders-opposed-federal-marriage-equality-2006
>>5867527
rude
>>5867534
no, people like you are why republicans hate taking us seriously. you talk as if you know stuff, but haven't even done the most basic of research. educate yourself, or fuck off.
>>5867529
>believing trump actually plans to follow through with tax breaks for lower income families
oh boy, oh man~
>>5867545
Are you saying fucking Sanders would follow through with anything?
He couldn't use his political clout to get single-payer passed in Vermont.
Three of his bills passed, and two were motions to rename post offices in Vermont.
He ordered the arrest of protestors in front of Burlington's GE plant.
>>5867560
>Sanders resisted their calls to shut down the plant, arguing that it was unfair to punish workers for corporate policies influenced by Washington.
>“I’m not going to throw 3,000 people out of their jobs at union wages and create a depression,” he said in an interview at the time.” In another interview he argued that “you cannot split the movement and push workers to one side and have peace activists on the other side.”
im saying he's the only candidate that we can even pretend to trust not to immediately sell out on their moral stances to line their pockets.
>>5867576
He's calling out Hillary's support of Latin American regimes.
Guess where those GE gatling guns were used?
>>5867591
i don't have to guess, i'm not uninformed. salvador is a hell of a place, but seeing as he's been pro-gun for at least 30 years, it's not really a surprising action. he never 'supported' the latin american regimes, since that seems to be what you're implying?
>>5867473
>2016
>not voting for the female candidate
it's like you enjoy raping women 24/7
>>5867628
that's right. even faggots rape
Regardless, Hillary and Sanders are a 100% better than Hitler Jr. I mean Trump.
>>5867835
B A S E D
A
S
E
D
>>5867854
Look up the pink triangle and history of LGBT people in the Holocaust before you start thinking this is "cool."
>>5867863
>you're gay so the liberals own you
get gassed faggot
>Republicans have caricature of capitalism and an evangelical nutjob leading the race
>Democrats have an insincere establishment shill and a cuckold contending for the nomination
Burgerstan = fucked :DDD
Why is it that Trump gets shit for not denouncing David Duke but Clinton is still a hero despite praising a Klan member who was not only the founder and head of his local chapter but tried to prevent the civil rights act, the repeal of don't ask don't tell, and same sex marriage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryweuBVJMEA
Does wearing a donkey on your pin really shield you from the consequences of supporting bigotry? I really hope it doesn't come down to Trump vs Clinton.
>>5867508
Fuck, i'm with you. I wish we had candidates running on infrastructure more often.
>>5867473
Gary Johnson has been an advocate of gay marriage and pushed for it his entire political career.
Just thought y'all should know.
>>5867545
Years ago Trump pushed for the government to tax every American worth over a million dollars 15 percent to pay off the debt. Not just on income, but on all the money they are worth.
>>5868571
Paul or Johnson are what this country needs after 8 years of Trump/Webb.
I think the start of all this would be a full congressional investigation of H1B visas, especially if hiring Indian shitcoders is actually a bigger economic drain than a boon.
Next we could work on illegal immigration- first by stopping amnesty in its tracks, then mass deportations, using existing illegal immigrants to rat out the criminal element, threatening funding to sanctuary jurisdictions, and heavy punishments for their employers.
Trump's use of executive power to prevent immigration from Muslim nations would also be a step in the right direction.
The US and the Russian Federation really need to get their shit together and do some considerable nation building with multilateral enforcement . These little proxy wars between the Sunni Bloc and the Shiite Bloc with Israel right in the middle has caused nothing but short term troubles and long term strategic disadvantages, as well as a destabilized middle east and eventually Europe.
And of course the wall- the greatest public works project since the New Deal. We would have the wall itself, build deep enough to stop tunnels, fencing, guards, and seismic sensors.
We just need to gain enough momentum to repeal the immigration act of 1964; then we can get a constitutional amendment rolling to repeal birthright citizenship.
During Rand /Johnson or Rand/Cruz, we can insitute the 'real' DOMA- a federal ban on no-fault divorce, then roll back welfare that subsidizes young low income single motherhood , and introduce decriminalization of marijuana, cocaine and heroin in small amounts.
>>5869107
Ignoring all the other stupid shit, why would a libertarian ever pass a law banning divorce? This ain't the middle ages, and state is supposed to remain so erase from religion. Government shouldn't even be in the business of marriage.
>>5867534
...the fuck? Did someone just call someone rude on 4chan? Where the fucking fuck do you think you are???
>>5867628
As an unironic feminist, this is bait.
>>5867628
Because gender is the only reason to vote for someone. Not their record. Not their policies. Just the presence or absence of a dick.
You do realize that that's the same thinking that led people to reject the concept of a female president for 240 years, just in reverse, right? I'm just saying, adopting that mindset doesn't really help. I'm all for a woman president, but not this one. Elizabeth Warren, anybody?
>>5867871
You don't have to be liberal, but voting for someone who wants you dead is just stupid. Though desu Cruz is far more anti-LGBT than Trump, the main Hitler comparison is about Trump's demonizing racial minorities and his whole cult of personality. And the whole being the preferred candidate of neo-nazis, too.
>>5871007
Trump is in support of gay rights and has been for a long time, nigger.
Anyone that thinks current trump is real trump is an idiot. Trump isn't dumb, he knows what he's doing. He's saying crazy shit in the primaries to draw in votes and let the media basically fund his campaign. Everyone knows about him now because of this. Then, in the generals, he's going to go back to being the liberal he has been his whole life. He's going to totally tear into hillary on all the bs she has pulled, and go to Bernie Sanders level liberal.
>>5867490
It's so bizarre how Hillary is basically just winning because everyone suddenly decided she "deserved it"
Like nobody even cares about her policies or her history, everyone just thinks because she tried to get elected a couple of times that suddenly now that instantly qualifies you as president material.
The democratic party is just fucked in general. I don't know how anyone could support a party that blatantly allows non-democratic voting processes like superdelegates and such.
>>5871217
RIGHT?!?!
>>5871178
So much faith in a personal Trump.
>>5867835
>>5867863
>>5871007
it is, imagine taking in a 10/10 holocaust survivor bf, nursing him back to health, and living in solitude in a small cottage somewhere in switzerland. But nooo, Mr. Shillerino says "oyy vey muh 6 trillion", have fun being a killjoy debbie downer for the rest of your life, faggot.
>>5871217
i think everyone is suffering some kind of mass brain hemmorhaging because i remeber eight years ago when she wasn't good enough to beat a junior senator, half-black lawyer who by all accounts had NO CHANCE going in. so why is she suddenly MORE qualified than a veteran civil rights warrior, anti-corporate humanist who, as far as anyone can tell, never even tells lies like she does?
>>5870965
Just how new are you?
>>5871178
Trump suckers are so great.
>trump says stupid crazy things because it gets him attention, duh! he doesn't actually MEAN it like 100% really
>I like trump cause he says whatever's on his mind, he's not like those lying politicians
>he doesn't need details of his big plans, he can just DO it, you know?
>>5876299
So you think that even though trump was a liberal his entire life, he just suddenly dramatically changed this election?
I am voting trump because he pisses people off, and that amuses me. It will be the most entertaining presidency yet. I can't wait to see how many berniefags that gave their life saving away, expecting to get it back if he wins, kill themselves when he doesn't even win the primary.
Well now that Hillary is all but assured the nomination after winning Ohio, it's time for as a community to rally behind Hillary Clinton as our nominee. I was a bernie sanders supporter, but we as Democrats need to unite as a party just as in 2008 to defeat the far right wing Republicans.
>>5876341
west coast hasnt voted yet nigga
>>5876456
right, and then go back to apathy for 2018 so we can keep riding this kiddie coaster to the grave
>>5876483
>right, and then go back to apathy for 2018 so we can keep riding this kiddie coaster to the grave
2020 redistricting is during a presidential year. 2018 is a year when a lot of unpopular GOP far right wing extremist governors retire. Places like Kansas, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc. have been destroyed by the reich wing extermists.
>>5876475
Face it, he lost. He already lost the majority of states. Clinton has got this in the bag.
>>5870927
>Ignoring all the other stupid shit,
Explain why it's stupid . Certain demographics are net welfare recipients per capita. Other demographics are net producers per capita.
I could also get into the heritability of cognitive and behavioral traits but perhaps this board is too touchy .
>why would a libertarian ever pass a law banning divorce?
Not divorce entirely, but no-fault divorce.
The argument is as follows-
>Be libertarian
>Want to decrease total coercion
>Coercion in the form of crime, dollars extracted from taxpayers, etc
>Single parent households typically require more public services and funding than thameir counterparts
>Children of Single parent households typically commit more crime and utilize more welfare than their counterparts .
>Reducing the number of divorces that have no rational basis , especially when children are involved, would mean the court would have to assume the least restrictive resolution
>The court would then weight the facts, as it did in days before Reagan's governorship :
Is the current situation as is more deleterious to the upbringing of the child than would be if a divorce was approved?
If there is evidence of abuse, financial misuse, crime etc. then the answer is yes and the divorce is granted.
If there is no answer beyond emotional discomfort, than the potential harm done to the children by the divorce would be an outweighting externality.
Cold hard economic analysis of marriage .
Now- is it coercive to institute a ban on no -fault divorce?
No.
>Government shouldn't even be in the business of divorce.
Also no. Here is why: Marriage is a contract, and should be treated as one, so long as nothing drastically changes within the situation, nothing should change within the stipulations as well.
>>5870927
Renewals, amendments and novations should then be considered the extreme , not the norm, especially with children involved, thus placing greater responsibility on the spouses in finding and maintaining partners in the first place, knowing the court won't be too keen on nullifying the marriage, the State won't bail them out, and alimony may not be granted .
Secondly governments have long been a recognizer, adjudicator, and at times grantor of marriages, to the degree it was contractual. This took a sour turn in places where the consent of the parties was not a factor, or the bride not condered anything other than property, but the system still provided the framework for a (generally) monogamous family unit.
Furthermore still, Paul and Cruz are Christians , making the idea more appealing to them.
>>5867473
Who cares if she is pro or against gay marriage? As long as she has a vagina she gets voted, that's what important right now.
>>5876519
>Reich wing
If you can't tell the difference between Paul Walker and Heinrich Himmler, you are in no position to make political analyses.
>>5876341
Trump is also the most anti-war candidate in the running, which is an unnerving thought.
>But what about B-
Yes, he is even more of a pacifist than Sanders.
>>5876299
>Stupid crazy things
Enumerate them or continue speaking in vague phrases.
>>5871217
Hopefully the Bernie and Webb voters will revolt against the DNC and make sure it operates more like the RNC.
It should be a separate, private entity, with no acting politicians in its management (or as few as possible), and no endorsements until the nomination, and no fucking superdelegates.
It's astounding how your own chairwoman DWS not only can lobby within her place of employment for HRC endorsements- which just so happens to be congress- but also dumped the entire party warchest on Clinton, not to mention helped to marshall superdelegates for her as well.
(Yes I know the supers technically can change their candidate any time from the primaries to the convention, but their endorsement alone increases the clout of that candidate and shuts competitors out.)
My bets are that DSW worked congress to set aside earmarks for super delegates' districts, and to endorsenthem for reelection, in return for superdelegate endorsement of HRC. Did any dems look into this?
>>5871007
You know real neo-nazis think Trump is a Shabbos goy that's pro Israel, made deals with Jews to get real estate access in NYC, and sold his daughter off to Jews as a sacrificial sign of loyalty right?
What neo Nazi forums do you browse? Or are you conflating /pol/ with the NSAWP and their affiliates?
>>5877038
I also forgot to mention: all other things being equal, certain races/ethnicities/religious practioners have markedly different birth rates than the host population, as well as ideas about how society should be run.
Hillary would be basically the continuation of Obama, which is ok by me considering Obama is a great president.
Trump is harbinging to many racist and bigots on his side. I read a poll a recently that in South Carolina, 30% of Trump supporters wanted to ban homosexuals from immigrating to the USA.
I could see LGBT people be throwing in death camps under a Trump or Cruz presidency. That's why we as a community need to come out for Hillary.
I'm ready for Hillary!
>>5877038
It's stupid because it's extremely authoritarian, and there is absolutely no way a principled libertarian like Gary Johnson would ever ever pass such drivel. Even a constitutionalist like Rand would never do that.
The wall will acomplish nothing. We should end the welfare state and adopt an open border policy. No taking in refugees or hand outs, but if they can afford to get here and make a life for their own they should be able to do so.
Businesses should be allowed to hire whomever they want for whatever price they want. That's how the free market works. We actually want less regulation, not more.
All drugs and prostitution should be legalized. That eliminates cartels.
Their should be no state marriage in the first place. Marriage is not the government's concern, and any ban on any divorce is absurd.
>implying any actual libertarian believes in tax
>implying the libertarian idealology doesn't revolve around the NAP
>implying forcing people to pay taxes isn't breaking the NAP
>implying libertarians don't want to end welfare because it's funded with stolen money
Marriage is a contract through the church. Marriage should stay within the church.
How long government has been doing anything is irrelevant, and using that as an argument is a fallacy. If we want to go by what's been done for a long time, let's get rid of fag marriage, put Trans people in insane asylums and make niggers slaves again.
Also, speration of church and state. If you want to go by Christian values, we may as well go back to stoning the gays and the adulterers. Because that would be the Christian thing to do.
Actually, Paul said his religious beliefs come second to government. He is a strict believer in keeping the two separate and not making laws based on religion.
>implying rand is anything more than libertarian lite
>implying Cruz is anywhere close to libertarianism
If you far right people could stop using libertarianism to sound different and edgy, that'd be great.
>>5877188
>Continuation of Obama
>Obama is a great president
I'm no leftist, but even from a "left wing " perspective Obama was a shit president by many metrics.
Foreign policy
>Fostered the Arab Spring, which led to the Muslim Brotherhood getting optimal footing against secular regimes for the first time in decades.
(In some nations, they have been fighting the Muslim Brotherhood for over 60 years, the West supporting them)
>Utterly destabilized Libya
>Iraq fell to shit under his watch
(and will likely have to be revisited by the US and its Sunni allies, Russia and it's Sunni allies, or both, in a later term.
>Resources to "moderate rebels" either directly or indirectly went to terrorist extremist groups
(Not to mention the same multilateral solution Democrats supported for Iraq - with the implication that the other members of the security council should join in and be recognized as allies belligerents- was put to the wayside for Syria, which almost turned into a proxy war with Russia blow wide open).
>Supporting the depostion of the Democratically elected government in Ukraine
I could go on.
>>5877214
>Foreign policy
Iran deal
Ending some of the Cuban embargo and opening up relationships
Removing our troops from Iraq
Removed chemical weapons from Syria
>>5877188
>Trump is harbinging to many racist and bigots on his side.
>1.
Quantity how many "racists and bigots". I could claim that Sanders is attracting many Communists and agitators, but without providing a specific number, the claim would be moot.
>2.
Qualify what makes one a 'racist' or a 'bigot'. Otherwise these are just buzzwords
>3.
Substantiate what is specifically wrong (other than [threat of] harm or aggression to others, with 'racism' or 'bigotry'.
>30% Trump supporters wanted to ban homosexuals from immigrating to the USA.
"Public Policy Polling surveyed 897 likely Republican primary voters "
I can't say the sample size was sufficient enough one way or the other, but even if it was 100%, what is the specific issue with banning homosexuals from the US?
>I could see LGBT people be throwing in death camps under a Trump or Cruz presidency.
Death camps? Really?
During the Bush Administration we at one point has a GOP WH, Senate, House, as well as a GOP majority in state governorships and legislators, as well as a rather conservative SCOTUS.
I don't recall lunch mobs coming to my door.
Even in more conservative eras in conservative cities in the US, the worst that would happen was short jail sentences for sodomy and indecency.
> That's why we as a community need to come out for Hillary.
We are not a monolith. At the very fucking least you Democrats should have did what the Republicans did: threaten the establishment. If they saw low turnout because of Clinton's tactics against Sanders, than they would have gotten the message.
>I'm ready for Hillary
Christopher Hitchens rolls in his grave, his bony fingers reaching for some Johnnie Walker Black.
i realized hillary is basically tge nominee and lgbt Republicans are fucking dumb do yeah
as stupid of a reason it is to support a politician, it feels good to support a woman
>>5877260
>Quantity how many "racists and bigots". I could claim that Sanders is attracting many Communists and agitators, but without providing a specific number, the claim would be moot.
He's advocating violence and mass murder (calling for the killing of family members of ISIS). He's said overtly racist things and been endorsed by KKK and David Duke. This fringe deeply racist man is dividing the country more than any man in history.
>Qualify what makes one a 'racist' or a 'bigot'. Otherwise these are just buzzwords
It's racist to hate undocumented immigrants and Muslims. Kids go home being bullied because of Trump.
>Substantiate what is specifically wrong (other than [threat of] harm or aggression to others, with 'racism' or 'bigotry'.
Because the threat of the use of force (which racism and bigotry is) will lead to violence and mass murder. His rallies will lead to shootings. There was already a Trump supporters who have beaten up a bunch of minorities.
>I can't say the sample size was sufficient enough one way or the other, but even if it was 100%, what is the specific issue with banning homosexuals from the US?
What? Are you saying there is nothing wrong with banning homosexuals from immigrating to the USA?
>We are not a monolith.
76% of LGBs voted for Obama in 2012. If only straights voted, America won't have a Democratic president since 1996.
Sorry but you are a minority and an uncle tom in your community.
>Death camps? Really?
Ted Cruz was endorsed by a pastor who said that homosexuals should be put to death.
Trump has advocated for abolishing the constitution and turning himself into a dictator.
So yes death camps are a reality in America. Anyone who isn't a WHITE CHRISTIAN HETEROSEXUAL MALE will be thrown in if one of those two are elected.
>>5877280
>It's racist to hate undocumented immigrants and Muslims.
This is fucking retarded, neither of those things are a race.
>>5877236
>Iran deal
Split Israel and the US such that relations between the two countries hasn't been this sour since the Liberty, or maybe the Lavon Affair.
Also, while I don't believe Iran has a large nuclear weapon stockpile nor aspirations toward one, it is not unreasonable that like Israel, it may have at least one, or the materials and means to make at least one- just as Israel acquired or made nuclear weapons by covert means.
The Iran Deal softened prospects for more intensive inspections than the IAEA currently conducts.
Furthermore, the lifting of economic sanctions benefits Iran- albeit marginally, since they are an oil exporter- but doesn't provide much benefit to Western interests in turn. They still fund Hamas and Hezbollah. They still are a tool of expanding Russian and shiite interests. They still have serious human rights violations that have not been dealt with.
Lastly, Obama even admitted that Iran's weapon proliferation is simply delayed, and possibly inevitable
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/08/11/431652556/obama-iran-will-face-longer-breakout-time-though-not-indefinitely
whereas other plans would rather see them stopped, or reversed.
>Ending some of the Cuban embargo and opening up relationships
I actually agree with this in part
>Removing our troops from Iraq
I don't agree with invading Iraq in the first place, but once we were there, a rapid drawdown just led to greater instability and loss of Western access.
>Removed chemical weapons from Syria
You're talking shit if you think that was Obama's doing unilaterally. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council - including Russia and China- agreed on the resolution and how it was to be enforced.
>>5877309
>Split Israel and the US such that relations between the two countries hasn't been this sour since the Liberty, or maybe the Lavon Affair.
First of all, Obama has been one of the most pro-Israeli presidents ever. No president has gone so far out of their way to defend the state of Israel.
Second of all, the Iran deal removes a significant threat of a nuclear Iran to Israel.
Third, there are STILL sanctions in Iran for other stuff.
>I don't agree with invading Iraq in the first place, but once we were there, a rapid drawdown just led to greater instability and loss of Western access.
We aren't the police men of the world. We need to mind our own business. ISIS is being dealt with already and losing territory.
>You're talking shit if you think that was Obama's doing unilaterally. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council - including Russia and China- agreed on the resolution and how it was to be enforced.
John Kerry was the mastermind behind that. You are being disingenuous.
>>5877214
>will likely have to be revisited by the US and its Sunni allies
I will never understand how the US can condemn regimes like Assad, Gaddafi or the Ayatollah and at the same not only turn a blind eye to but outright support the prison of a nation that is Saudi Arabia.
I understand hypocrisy is a reality in geopolitics, but this blatantly? Makes one lose faith in humanity more than any Westboro protest every could.
>>5868395
>Does wearing a donkey on your pin really shield you from the consequences of supporting bigotry?
yes.
Test
>>5877191
>It's stupid because it's extremely authoritarian
>it's
'It's' implies one thing, but I mentioned several things:
>1.
H1B Audit
>2.
Amnesty cutoff
>3.
Deportations
>4.
Snitch rewards
>5.
Cutting sanctuary funding
>6.
Employer fines
>7.
Categorical legal immigration bans
>8.
Border control (including wall, tunnel barriers, sensors, and guards)
>9.
Birthright citizenship repeal
>10.
Drug decriminalization, after all else is in order
>authoritarian
By what measure? I can measure how coercive or authoritarian something is by
>1.
Comparison to existing law
>2.
Comparison to the alternative
Bearing in mind that is is already within the accepted bounds of state authority to punish violators of the law.
Courts may use similar tests for determining 'restrictiveness'
>>5877191
>absolutely no way a principled libertarian like Gary Johnson would ever ever pass such drivel.
Which is why I noted that I would first prefer a closed-borders presidency for 8 years, then a less authoritarian presidency for another 8-16 years.
>Even a constitutionalist like Rand would never do that.
I don't see why not
>The wall will accomplish nothing.
It will definitely slow down the traffic of people and contraband by foot, and by tunnel, leaving trafficking by sea, which is harder to accomplish but can easily be dealt with with coast guard deployment.
Furthermore the wall is not the only thing I mentioned, also giving credit to decriminalization.
>We should end the welfare state and adopt an open border policy. No taking in refugees or hand outs, but if they can afford to get here and make a life for their own they should be able to do so.
The problem is that short of a constitutional amendment, normal democratic processes already provide a mechanism to ramp up welfare spending from 0 to 1 within an election cycle. This is furthermore compounded if blocs of net-welfare recipients have more children, and this a greater potential voting bloc, than those voting against the welfare state, having fewer children.
>Businesses should be allowed to hire whomever they want for whatever price they want.
Nowhere did I bar firms from outsourcing, though there are concerns with that even from an anti-coercion perspective that I might discuss if you want to hear them.
>All drugs and prostitution should be legalized. That eliminates cartels.
I agree with the general sentiment, though have caveats even from an anti-coercion perspective.
>>5881340
Libertarians believe in a free market. There would be no taxes, so there would be no audits. We also believe in the free movement of people, and enforcing borders are an overreach of government.
Also, showing that it's constitutional is irrelevant, libertarians are not constitutionalits. Drugs should also not be just decriminalized, they should be made fully legal. Government has no right to tell you what you put in your body. 1 - 10 dismissed.
Any government entity that breaches the NAP or uses force to enact laws that restrict freedom are too authoritarian. The only roles a government should have are to represent the people to the rest of the world, and uphold laws that stop people from breaking the NAP. If you are not breaking the NAP, then there should be no law against what you are doing.
The thing is though, if we legalize drugs and stop at least end welfare for the immigrants, that alone would stop the bad ones from coming. The cartel would be useless and the economic immigrants wouldn't be able to mooch off the system. It may be super hard to abolish welfare, but if we get a libertarian and conservative majority in senate, we can definitely at least stop it for immigrants.
>>5877191
>that's how the free market works. We actually want less regulation, not more.
Yes, but illegal immigrants, even those working here on a voluntary basis, still receive publicly funded services, thereby adding to toal coercion. And it's easier to get rid of people who aren't supposed to be here in the first place than an entire system of provision.
>Their should be no state marriage in the first place. Marriage is not the government's concern, and any ban on any divorce is absurd.
>1.
Even if that is so, go ahead and make that happen. I am talking about feasible things that can be done working within the system to reduce total coercion.
>2.
While the government still does recognize marriage as a legal institution for purposes of guardianship recognition, esp. for admission of children into public services, for purposes of tax status, and for purposes of census taking, I would like the government to in turn take the most sensible view of marriage, especially in relation to externalities (namely taxpayers and children).
>3.
Furthermore, even if marriages were still a function of plain contract law, which is typically recognized by common law, which can be hypothetically administrated under a stateless polycentric legal system. So even in absence of a state, and of a religion, two or more people can enter into a partnership-in-consideration, which an agreed upon third-party adjudicator, who in turn can rule that monagamous, long term, heterosexual couples cause the least potential harm to potential children, and thus would not recognize no-fault divorces while children are in the equation. Not a ban on all divorce in all circumstances, but a ban on divorce to the extent it negatively affects third parties.
>/Paragraph of libertarian meming
>>5877191
>Marriage is a contract through the church.
And also a possible legal contract as well
>Marriage should stay within the church
But such that it is contractual, should have a way to be universally recognized within its jurisdiction.
[>>implying any actual libertarian believes in X
>>actual libertarian
>>actual
I am using libertarian in a relative sense, not an absolute sense, i.e. that one policy is in the end more libertarian or authoritarian than another
>How long government has been doing anything is irrelevant, and using that as an argument is a fallacy.
Not when looking through and using the framework of constitutional law (unless you want to go full Spooner and reject the constitution outright).
If X has been constitutionally recognized as Y from as close to the constitution's adoption as possible, for years, there would have to be a very good, logical, and legal argument made for it to be now recognized as Y+Z.
>If we want to go by what's been done for a long time, let's get rid of fag marriage,
No, but get rid of coerced universal recognition and issuance
>put Trans people in insane asylums
if they are a threat to selves or others
>and make niggers slaves again
Violation of rights and law.
>implying rand is anything more than libertarian lite
>implying Cruz is anywhere close to libertarianism
>If you far right people could stop using libertarianism to sound different and edgy, that'd be great.
Reiterating here, but using 'libertarian' in a relative sense.
>>5877276
>Unsure if troll
>>5881482
>Libertarians believe in a free market
Except we don't live in a vacuum. How could be operate as a free market, when other coercive actors such as Russia, China, and the Islamic world are all the ready to take over?
>There would be no taxes, so there would be no audits.
I'm talking about what we can feasibly implement now.
>We also believe in the free movement of people
Yet currently, people can move into democracies which recognize birthright citizenship, and thus can drop off kids that have more kids that thus vote in more benefits.
> and enforcing borders are an overreach of government.
It is one of the only functions of a government, and prevents a greater coercion from occurring.
>Also, showing that it's constitutional is irrelevant, libertarians are not constitutionality.
I'm not arguing from an an-cap perspective.
>Drugs should also not be just decriminalized, they should be made fully legal. Government has no right to tell you what you put in your body. 1 - 10 dismissed.
See above. Argue all you want about smashing archons, but you will still be surrounded by those that do not respect contracts, individual freedoms and rights, rule of law, or non aggression.
>Any government entity that breaches the NAP or uses force to enact laws that restrict freedom are too authoritarian.
Which I argue can be less authoritarian if the purpose and effect is reducing total coercion from occurring.
>The only roles a government should have are to represent the people to the rest of the world, and uphold laws that stop people from breaking the NAP
If we were living in anarchist restrictive covenants, I would support such a system, but also support various restrictions within the covenant that I would also support living under and within a state.
>>5881482
>If you are not breaking the NAP, then there should be no law against what you are doing.
Which would be great if we lived in a stateless society where people are not able to vote themselves power, privileges, goods,and services.
>The thing is though, if we legalize drugs
Which I agree with
> and stop at least end welfare for the immigrants
which cannot be feasibly done until we reduce the number of blacks and hispanics as a proportion of the electorate
>that alone would stop the bad ones from coming
Except regardless of whether they come legally or illegally, certain demographics are more prone to 'bad' qualities. At the very least, legal immigration provides a vetting process.
> It may be super hard to abolish welfare, but if we get a libertarian and conservative majority in senate
>Let more people in become able to vote
>These people vote against libertarian policies
Then:
>Want to gain a libertarian majority or super-majority
You're putting the cart before the horse.
>>5867473
Well now that Bernie is basically finished, what do we do now? We basically let him all down and half the people who supported him didn't even vote.
Do we vote for Hillary? Do we demand she make him a running mate? Do we leave her shaking in her boots we'll not vote for her and let Trump gain ground and have a fairer fight/sweep.
Is there something we can help Sanders do?
>>5867835
I'm fine with electing a new Hitler as long as he brings back the uniforms.
Dem aesthetics
>>5882255
>Do we vote for Hillary?
In swing states we do.
>>5877038
>Also no. Here is why: Marriage is a contract, and should be treated as one, so long as nothing drastically changes within the situation, nothing should change within the stipulations as well.
Contracts can be terminated at any time by either party. Otherwise it's equivalent to slavery.
>>5877191
>>implying any actual libertarian believes in tax
So "actual libertarians" are functionally anarchists? You can't have a functioning government without taxes.
>>5882708
The idealology of libertarianism revolves around the NAP (non-aggression principle). You do not get a choice when it comes to paying taxes and if you refuse you get kidnapped and locked in a cage. That makes it theft, and aggression is used to enforce it. Two violations of the NAP. So yes, all real libertarians believe in no taxes, and you can not believe in taxes and still be a libertarian.
Now when I say taxation isn't libertarian, that is not entirely true. What I am talking about is forced taxation. If the government wanted to have voluntary taxation to fund things like public road and a police force etc, that would if course be totally allowed since force is not being used. And if they wanted to go further and say that people who opt out of taxes can't use things like public roads and the police, that would also be totally fine as it would then be like any other service.
This is why I don't like her. She just adjusted her stance to appeal to a certain audience, politics is always about trying to win over as many people as possible while stepping on as few toes as they can. I may not agree with trumps ideas, but at least he has actual opinions instead of just being a middle of the road coward trying to please everyone.
>Trump is Nazi, bad for LGBT!
>Pro marriage equality before Clinton thought it was cool
>Wants to ban Muslims from countries where Muslims are actively hanging gays and trans from cranes and beheading them in the street
>Wants to *gasp* enforce currently existing immigration laws!
Trump is just like Hitler! Not ISIS which is literally the 3rd Reich with Turbans! Never mind he has Jewish grand kids!
Vote Hillary if you want more Clinton proxy wars. Clinton will throw LGBT and Blacks a few scrapes and get on with making JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs tons of cash, for the rest of her term.
But hey, enjoy some extra free pizza and a few more "anti-hate speech" laws.
Trump is the last viable outsider. Everyone else is a global bank puppet, but most people don't get past the first buzzfeed article.
>>5882887
>Pro marriage equality before Clinton
Lies, lies and more lies. he STILL opposes gay marriage, and said he will appoint a Supreme Court nominee to overturn gay marriage.
>Wants to ban Muslims from countries where Muslims are actively hanging gays and trans from cranes and beheading them in the street
In Muslim countries yes, but not in America. We have laws to prosecute murder. Muslim Americans are not going around hanging gay people. That's extremists doing that.
>Wants to *gasp* enforce currently existing immigration laws!
Latino Americans vote Democrat, Democratic politician are pro-LGBT.
>Vote Hillary if you want more Clinton proxy wars.
As opposed to Trump who literally advocated for war crimes and said we should have US ground troops in Iraq?
>Trump is the last viable outsider.
1 billion in free corporate media coverage of Trump is an "outsider" now?
Pic related. Hillary is far more closer to Bernie Sanders than any GOP candidate. Trump is actually far far right wing, his authoritarianism is akin to Hitler levels.
>>5882942
>He swallowed the meme
>>5882942
>only going by the current media to get your facts
>implying Trump said he would get rid of American Muslims and didn't say he just wouldn't let new ones in
>implying trump wasn't the earliest advocate of not going to war even before it's cool, and isn't now just saying we either need to be serious or get out
Oh, so because they equal Democrat votes they should be exempt from the law? So if they started voting republican you'd be for getting rid of them like the law says we should?
>>5882956
>implying trump wasn't the earliest advocate of not going to war
Like in 2002 when he said we should go into Iraq?
>Oh, so because they equal Democrat votes they should be exempt from the law?
Open the border and let them all in.
>So if they started voting republican you'd be for getting rid of them like the law says we should?
Yes because Republicans are shit.
>>5882966
So you're nothing more than a hypocrite that shouldn't even be allowed to vote.
All illegals should be sent back no matter who they vote for because the are breaking the law.
>>5882977
>So you're nothing more than a hypocrite that shouldn't even be allowed to vote.
No, I'm a guy who doesn't want the human race to fucking die out you stupid retard.
Trump doesn't believe in climate change, Hillary does. That alone should be reason to NOT vote for Trump.
Climate change = end of the human race.
>>5882991
Because there is no evidence for climate change. The temperature has always changed from extreme highs to lows.
They have been saying the ice caps would be melted within ten years since the 50's. That's exactly why they keep changing the name of it. Remember when it was call global warming?
What we do know for a fact is at the beginning of time all continents were connected and the middle was extremely hot, then they drifted apart. We are currently very slowly coming together again to form a super continent.
What we also actually know as fact is earth went through an ice age. Humans may be speeding up the process, sure, but how do you know that we aren't still warming up from the ice age and going back to how it was prior?
>>5882998
>Because there is no evidence for climate change.
99.99% of the world scientists would disagree with you.
Goodbye troll/retard.
>>5883005
Okay, if there is so much evidence for it, back your statement up and show it.
Stop just reiterating things you hear from people like the amazing cuck.
>>5883012
>Okay, if there is so much evidence for it, back your statement up and show it.
I'm not going to do research THAT YOU SHOULD BE FUCKING DO YOU STUPID FUCKING RETARDED FUCKER
I do not have to a write a fucking report paper on something you should have learned in school.
It's not that hard, humans produced greenhouse gases, gases go up to atmosphere, causes warming on earth. No that hard.
And you didn't address the 99.99% of scientists believing in climate change. I bet you don't believe in evolution as well.
>>5883028
Because I already looked into it and came to my conclusion.
You claimed climate change is real in the first place, the burden of proof lies on you.
>and you didn't address the 99.99% of scientists believing in climate change
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Also gonna need to evidence on those numbers.
>>5883038
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Again creationists uses this same argument. Does that mean god created the earth in 6 days?
>>5883045
You are one dense mother fucker.
That is completely irrelevant.
I'm not the one using the appeal to majority fallacy, you are.
>>5883055
>That is completely irrelevant.
No it isn't. The fact you cannot see how intellectually dishonest you are just proves my point.
You think 99.99% of the world's scientists are wrong because you apparently are smarter than them.
>>5883068
No, I know that using that as an argument is a fallacy.
>>5883070
>No, I know that using that as an argument is a fallacy.
WHAT ARGUMENT?
You didn't disprove anything I said about human caused greenhouse gases.
>>5883076
What's to disprove?
I never said we didn't. What I said is climate change is wrong, and they have been saying the same shit for decades. When it actually happens when they say it will happen, then I will believe.
>>5883084
>What I said is climate change is wrong,
How do you explain the melting Arctic ices?
>>5883101
Like I said, we have always went from extreme highs to extreme lows.
How do you explain every ten years the scientists say it will be fully melted by the end of the decade and it never is? How do you explain other places getting colder so they had to stop saying global warming?
>>583106
>How do you explain every ten years the scientists say it will be fully melted by the end of the decade and it never is?
I've never heard scientists say that. The usual statistic is something along the lines of the majority of the polar icecaps will be melted by circa 2100.
>>5883177
Meant to reply to >>5883106
>>5883055
Appeal to majority is ONLY a fallacy when the majority is some irrelevant, non-authoritative group. When the majority is of nearly all experts on a topic, you can't just dismiss it as a fallacy.
>>5882873
>And if they wanted to go further and say that people who opt out of taxes can't use things like public roads and the police, that would also be totally fine as it would then be like any other service.
How would that not violate the NAP? Keeping non-taxpayers from using the roads could only be enforced with force and coercion.
>>5883177
Since the 50s scientists have been saying they will be melted by 1960, 1970, 1980 etc. Once that year hits, they move it up again.
If it won't be until 2100 though, I have no need to worry. I'll be mong dead so it ain't my problem.
>>5883185
Not true. I say public roads because that's what they are now. After the governed change, they would be essentially private roads all co-owned by the people willingly buying in. That negates the force used to stop non taxpayers because they would be trespassing at that point. The NAP only applies to aggressors, defending yourself and your property does not violate it.
>>5883199
>Since the 50s scientists have been saying they will be melted by 1960, 1970, 1980 etc. Once that year hits, they move it up again.
Again, I haven't heard any of them saying that. Care to provide some examples?
>Not true. I say public roads because that's what they are now. After the governed change, they would be essentially private roads all co-owned by the people willingly buying in. That negates the force used to stop non taxpayers because they would be trespassing at that point. The NAP only applies to aggressors, defending yourself and your property does not violate it.
I don't see how the two situations are fundamentally different. For example, suppose for whatever reason some private organization built a wall surrounding (but not ON) your property, and charged anyone who wanted to get in or out. Would that be in violation of the NAP? Seems like it would be functionally equivalent to the government saying "pay taxes or get jailed".
>>5867532
To put it another way
Sanders has since 2006 supported the unconstitutional expansion of the federal government's powers
Not supporting him then.
>>5877280
>76% of LGBs voted for Obama in 2012. If only straights voted, America won't have a Democratic president since 1996.
Then it sounds like we shouldn't get the vote.
>>5883210
Private citizens could, government wouldn't be allowed to though.
>>5883229
And that's what I find inconsistent about the libertarian philosophy, like there's some kind of magical difference between government and everyone else. The government jailing you for refusing to pay is "aggression", but private citizens doing the same is somehow okay. And in practice, whoever's in the position to build that wall and charge people to go through it is basically the de facto government, whether they're formally classified as such or not.
>>5883235
It's because generally we agree that government shouldn't own property, that's why we believe in open borders. An exception could be made for the roads since it's funded by and for the community to use, but generally we'd like governments power limited as much as possible.
>>5883245
Yeah but it's still inconsistent to classify government jailing you for not paying taxes as aggression, yet some rich guy who hates you could build a wall around your property so you can't go anywhere and that's 100% okay.
>>5883249
You would have to take him to court.
I personally don't agree with that, and do not know exactly how it would work. Libertarianism has never been properly done. We will be the first to tell you that we don't know how everything will work, our main priority right now is minimizing government and getting rid of laws that limit freedom.
>>5882255
>Well now that Bernie is basically finished, what do we do now?
I'm not a member of the Left but sympathetic to your cause.
Practically? Focus on local, state, and congressional elections. Spend all of the time and resources you guys did on Sanders on some social, political or economic cause.
If every dollar that went to Bernie instead went to campaigns to revitalize nuclear power in the US, we could work on decreasing coal emissions.
If every person that voted for him rallied for Green party candidates in local, state and congressional elections, you could break the DNC's hold on you, and blackmail them to stop using superdelegates.
If you want to go really Leftwards, you can try getting Obama and Clinton tried at the Hague for war crimes.
>Do we vote for Hillary?
Well if you want to. You can also support propaganda within the GOP for them to have a brokered convention, while you support a brokered convention in your party as well as an all out revolt against Trump and Clinton.
> Do we demand she make him a running mate?
>Demand
Listen to yourself. A demand only works if there is a credible power or threat behind it.
>(A threat such as the Democrats losing the election this cycle; are you willing to risk that?).
If you had enough power to "demand" she take Sanders as a running mate, you would have enough power to "demand" that the entire party stops being so crooked.
>Is there something we can help Sanders do?
You can't help a man who can't help himself. He can barely gin up enough support in the Senate for most of his sponsored bills. Stop relying on some old politician to get your causes through.
>>5882627
HRC underpaid intern pls.
>>5883258
>You would have to take him to court.
The court's decision would be meaningless unless the government was able to use coercion to enforce it.
>Libertarianism has never been properly done.
You mean just like Communism?
>>5883276
Private courts would still have power.
Different forms of socialism has been tried. My main gripe with it is communism is impossible without force and requires an even bigger government than what we have now.
I'm a bit more of a social libertarian myself.
>>5883287
>Private courts would still have power.
What standards would they be held to? And who would decide which court tries your case?
>>5883296
Same standard they are held to now. They would be forced to uphold the law. The law would be to prevent things that break the NAP. If that person was found to be breaking the NAP, they would get in trouble. The smaller details will be worked out when the time comes, which is a long ways off. Dismantling the government is a very slow porocess, there is no way it could just be done overnight.
>>5883245
>that's why we believe in open borders.
Great, so the Muslims and Mexicans can come and murder us. Some LGBT paradise you'd create!
>>5883311
Who would force them to uphold the law? I would think there would need to be some kind of centralized authority to regulate privatized courts, as there would need to be some consequences for failing to properly uphold the NAP. Just as an absurd example, suppose one court decided "Yeah, you killed a guy, but the victim was ugly and killing ugly people doesn't violate the NAP." Obviously, pretty much every sane person would realize that's a ridiculous "interpretation" of the NAP. But what would actually prevent a court from doing that?
>>5882699
>>5882699
>>Also no. Here is why: Marriage is a contract, and should be treated as one, so long as nothing drastically changes within the situation, nothing should change within the stipulations as well.
Contracts can be terminated at any time by either party. Otherwise it's equivalent to slavery.
>Problem 1:
Children as externalities, party to the contract but not signatories to it, the divorce having a great probability of causing harm to them (in the tort sense).
>Problem 2:
Taxpayers as externalities, for the same reason, as typically families under divorced status are greater net users of public funds and publicly funded goods and serves than those who were not, all else being equal.
>Problem 3:
The legal system has previously recognized marriage as a life-long contract that may only be nullified if one or more parties violated its terms (abuse etc.)
The current legal system now recognizes one party to leave the partnership while the other did nothing wrong, incentivizing extraction of alimony, child support, custody, and state funding over the stability of the family.
In this way, marriage is treated less like a contract than it was before, where both parties agreed to a length of time (life) made stipulations, are were found by legal parameters.
If you want to reform marriage and kick out the church, then bring back Marriage On Terms of Consideration.
>>5867496
>Single issue candidate
>Bernie's single issue is that the entire country is getting fucked in the ass by corporate leeches.
By that logic Hillary is the platitude candidate.
Daily reminder that Trump is the least warmongering candidate (besides wanting to BTFO of ISIS).
I'll vote Bernie if Trump does not get nominated. If it is neither than I will not even vote.
>>5883331
The government. Libertarianism isn't anarchy. Using force to uphold the NAP is valid. Like I said, it only applies to the aggressor.
>>5883345
That's a very good image for making me think Trump is the worst possible candidate.
Which is saying something considering the Dem candidates.
>>5877214
You forgot his security bullshit in how he's been an advocate of domestic spying and, up to yesterday is supporting the DOJ siezing Apple's source codes and security keys.
>>5883334
>Taxpayers as externalities, for the same reason, as typically families under divorced status are greater net users of public funds and publicly funded goods and serves than those who were not, all else being equal.
Couldn't the same justification be used to ban people from being unemployed, or entering occupations or making other lifestyle choices that are likely to drive them into poverty?
>The legal system has previously recognized marriage as a life-long contract that may only be nullified if one or more parties violated its terms (abuse etc.)
Again, that makes it equivalent to slavery in my mind. It's like saying slaves can be taken from their owners if their owners are found to be abusing them, but that doesn't make it not slavery.
>>5883346
Where would the government get the funding it needs to operate in a society without taxes?
>>5877280
>He's advocating violence and mass murder
What the fuck do you think war is? WTF do you think the allies did to win WWII? WTF do you think carpet bombing is?
>calling for the killing of family members of ISIS
>a. Family is complicit in their activities.
Therefore using them as leverage is more ethical and more pinpointed then bombing whole encampments
>b. Family is not complicit in their activities
Therefore on a utilitarian basis alone (which is how the military operates AS. IS.), the targeting of a few would still save many.
>He's said overtly racist things
Enumerate them.
>endorsed by KKK
Which the US government bars from coalescing into one entity,so which KKK?
> and David Duke
I follow Duke. He thinks Trump is a Jew puppet who is too-pro Israel, but supports him on a practical basis to usurp the establishment.
>Fringe
Slight protectionism, border control, military strengthening, and multilateral military alliances are now fringe?
>racist
Citation needed
>dividing the country more than any man in history
Who is Obama?
>Its racist to hate undocumented immigrants and Muslims.
>1.
Not technically, since they are not a race
>2.
Not practically, since there is a wold of range between xeno-kepticism and xenophobia, and Islamo-skepticism and Islamophobia.
>3.
One can not hate a person or group of people, but simultaneously despise or distrust their activities, behaviors, beliefs, effects, and history.
It's best to judge people as individuals, but without knowing each person individually, it's best to generalize to minimize risk and maximize gain.
If the US can only take in X number of people per year based on logistics alone, then it's best to make sure that number of people are more amenable to our interests.
>>5883345
>Russia is a model
>the same country that criminalized "homosexual propaganda" a few years ago.
>>5883345
WW3 maybe not
But he has definitely advocated for war crimes
>>5877280
>Because the threat of the use of force (which racism and bigotry is) will lead to violence and mass murder
Nations worldwide including the US ALREADY use force to protect their borders.
They already use force to protect their interests and those of their allies.
Individuals already use force to protect themselves, their resources, their families and their livelihoods.
>which racism and bigotry is
Those two things literally
>(and I use 'literally' in the literal sense.. literally)
do not need force to exist.
Furthermore, the use of force may be used to stop, ameliorate, or prevent violence
>Violent crime worldwide, controlled for other factors, done predominately by those of African, Hispanic, or Arab descent,
>not to mention that extraction of resources through taxation is also using the state as a proxy for violence, and that certain blocs are per capita net extractors of resources than they are producers.
> There was already a Trump supporters who have beaten up a bunch of minorities.
>1.
Provide a citation
>2.
Provide a citation that is is a norm among this group
>3.
Provide a citation that violence (or violence against X) is higher among Trump supporters per capita than the general population
>4.
Provide a citation that violence (or violence against X) is higher among Trump supporters per capita relative to violence found in supporters of other presidential candidates.
>Are you saying there is nothing wrong with banning homosexuals from immigrating to the USA?
I am saying to give me specific, tangible issues that it would cause.
>inb4 'people escape from homophobic countries!' strawman
>76% of LGBs voted for Obama in 2012.
Yes, as single issue (or handful-of-issues) voters, out of perceived necessity.
>If only straights voted, America won't have a Democratic president since 1996
Do you realize how small we are relative to the general population?
>>5877260
>Sorry but you are a minority
Outnumbering my opinions and arguments do not outweigh them. Rebut my points directly without pointing to the majority.
I can similarly point to the majority in any part of the world and use their cultural norms to justify any of my views.
>Ted Cruz was endorsed by a pastor who said that homosexuals should be put to death.
Most fundamentalist pastors believe those who don't follow the orders of God or have faith in Christ will die.
However, I don't see Christians in the us in roving death squads shooting up San Fran and Greenwich Village.
>Trump has advocated for abolishing the constitution and turning himself into a dictator.
[Citation needed]
>death camps are a reality in America.
[citation needed]
>anyone who isn't a WHITE CHRISTIAN HETEROSEXUAL MALE will be thrown in if one of those two are elected
Reiterating my point:
"During the Bush Administration we at one point has a GOP WH, Senate, House, as well as a GOP majority in state governorships and legislators, as well as a rather conservative SCOTUS.
I don't recall lunch mobs coming to my door.
Even in more conservative eras in conservative cities in the US, the worst that would happen was short jail sentences for sodomy and indecency. "
>>5883353
The US and the USSR, later Russia, spent decades arming the global radical Sunni Bloc, and the moderately less radical Shiite Bloc, respectively, to gain global control, leading in part to the Islamic world today, which was already fucked up thanks to colonialism before that, and the nature of Islam itself even before that.
While Islam in all its forms- Shiite, Sunni, stateless, theocratic, orderly, terroristic, moderate, and radical
>(though radicals have grown in proportion to other Muslims)
has spread, grown, taken control of more resources, and its believers are now being exported (or imported) to Europe, North America and Asia-
We finally has a candidate who can say to Russia:
STOP!
We can stop these proxy wars, unilateral geopolitics, and destabilizing regions just to expand and maintain presence.
We can both work on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya militarily to bring peace and order, coordinate attacks on ISIS targets, agree on which groups should not be armed, funded and trained and which are to be supported, and how an orderly phaseout of inept governments should go, to a transition to democratically elected recognizable governments.
We can both work on the countries in which the Muslim Brotherhood gained a foothold politically, and try to use our collective clouts and trading powers to incentivize moderation.
Then we can both work on a stable solution to the migrant/refugee crisis in Europe, then the denuclearization of Pakistan, (and of India), then a full nuclear audit of the Middle East, sharing intel we both have on Saudi Arabia and Iran.
>>5883363
This too, and it's a shame Trump supports this.
>Couldn't the same justification be used to ban people from being unemployed, or entering occupations or making other lifestyle choices that are likely to drive them into poverty?
Let me expand a bit on what I support: I support the idea of marriage as a contract two people can make, introducing a partnership, with an expected duration, with stipulations for asset distribution and custody roles, with grounds for termination.
I do not support the idea that one party can terminate it prematurely with no grounds
>(with government sanction),
nor the idea that one or both parties can terminate when the well being of the child is in jeopardy
>(which again, is typically done through government sanction).
What you are describing is a system whereby the government either bars people from entering voluntary contracts, or forces them to enter other contracts. I argue no such system but the government not ending a contract when there is no reason to.
>Again, that makes it equivalent to slavery in my mind. It's like saying slaves can be taken from their owners if their owners are found to be abusing them, but that doesn't make it not slavery.
When you sign a 99 year lease with a tenant, you have full capacity to understand the implications, and even if you want out, you are still party to the tenant's demands, and if there is no grounds for eviction, and no one to buy you out, you are stuck with them. Is that slavery?
>Full disclosure: I support a modern idea of marriage whereby after a couple has the agreed upon number of children, and they reach the age of 18, the marriage agreement can allow for each party to do things they otherwise would have been restricted from doing.
>>5883199
>How would that not violate the NAP? Keeping non-taxpayers from using the roads could only be enforced with force and coercion.
Not that guy, but the 'A' in the NAP may also include property rights violations, and an unauthorized person trespassing on a private road.. or anywhere.. is 'aggressing' not only against the property owner, but the other users of said property, who pay just a bit more for you to free-ride.
A more accurate scenario would probably be private registration systems for car owners, probably in a partnership between car dealers and the road owners, whereby each car is assigned a universally recognized tracking number (such as a license plate or license plate number).
A car that passes through the toll booth without paying will thus have its picture taken
>Wait, that happens now!
and will be billed. If the bill is not paid, they will be reported to the insurer, who will in turn apply a raise of rate as a penalty.
>Wait, similar things happen now!
>>5883451
OR we could elect someone who gives Russia AND Islam the finger.
How about no. Trump 2016.
>>5867527
I read that in his voice
>>5884818
>breaks
>>5867527
>In a free society we must all be committed to the mutual respect of each others lifestyles
>we must all be committed to the mutual respect of each others lifestyles
>lifestyles
