Numerical breakdown of the outstanding 2020 votes. (Don't be mad...but I think Biden wins)

[jmdrake]

You seem to have completely missed the point. The first point was that being for freedom doesn't always lead to freedom.

The second point is that the main reason we don't have freedom is because the people who own the media and control everything don't want us to have it, and they are Trump's biggest enemies.

Trump was winning according to Vegas odds and according to PredictIt last night - he isn't now, obviously because of voter fraud.

Trump's best skill is getting the left to act badly and get themselves in trouble. If Trump can take down a significant portion of the establishment for election fraud, and in the process win his second election, that would be boss. Especially because he will then be able to prosecute all of the other previously planned coups against him.

LOL. I'm sure in your mind everything you said somehow makes sense. Back to what was actually being discussed, Trump didn't win on Russiagate or "freedom." He won on fear. Fear is indeed popular. It just only carries you so far.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

Self preservation and propagation of the species are the prime directives of every biological organism. The idea of closed borders is also based on self preservation over freedom whether the self preservation is economic or ethnic. I guess nobody actually likes freedom, even the people who complain about other people not liking freedom.

There are no complaints here. Freedom is not popular is an observation rooted in fact. Worldwide, freedom is an aberration. In the United States, where there are likely far more adherents to the concept than anywhere else, it is a minority position within its own borders. Those Republicans and Libertarians that cherish it will continue to decrease in statistical relevance. I imagine some Libertarians will continue to persist in the delusion that people just don't know about their philosophy and that is why it is not popular, but the plain reality is that people both understand it and reject it.

Aside from that, discussions about borders are a waste of my time. People that believe in open borders inevitably succumb to those that do not share such a belief by force. Whether that force is ethical or not has no bearing on its usage. Some may like to take losing positions due to some virtuous feeling it grants them, but that is on them. Suffice to say, borders are purposeful for creating an area in which a group of people can operate harmoniously in such a way that they can secure their blessings of liberty from encroachment by outsiders.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Honestly, Trump as a billionaire backer of right wing causes and social commentator might be a better thing long term than four more years in office.

 

[jmdrake]

There are no complaints here. Freedom is not popular is an observation rooted in fact. Worldwide, freedom is an aberration. In the United States, where there are likely far more adherents to the concept than anywhere else, it is a minority position within its own borders. Those Republicans and Libertarians that cherish it will continue to decrease in statistical relevance. I imagine some Libertarians will continue to persist in the delusion that people just don't know about their philosophy and that is why it is not popular, but the plain reality is that people both understand it and reject it.

Aside from that, discussions about borders are a waste of my time. People that believe in open borders inevitably succumb to those that do not share such a belief by force. Whether that force is ethical or not has no bearing on its usage. Some may like to take losing positions due to some virtuous feeling it grants them, but that is on them. Suffice to say, borders are purposeful for creating an area in which a group of people can operate harmoniously in such a way that they can secure their blessings of liberty from encroachment by outsiders.

Defense against a pandemic is every bit as "purposeful" as defense against whoever is threatening to come over an open border. You can't secure the "blessings of liberty" if you are dead.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

Your argument is self contradictory. In your warped world view simply wanting freedom is wanting the government to "do something for you." I guess if the Pilgrims had been faced with closed borders and voted for the Indian tribes that allowed immigration that would mean they hated freedom.

This is quite simple. Democrats want the government to do things for them. Many Republicans share this distinction. This desire systematically subverts the concept of freedom. Among the Republicans, there are those that do not want the government doing things for them as individuals. They are a minority within the minority party.

Freedom is not popular.

Your example using the Natives/Pilgrims is categorical nonsense.

As for Rand in the general, until it's tried you don't know. Trump pulled together a "white genocide" coalition along with a Tea Party coalition. Rand could have pulled the Tea Party and enough "leftitarians" to make a difference. He was ahead at one point as you seem to forget. But the "white genocide" faction was too strong.

We do know how he would have fared. He could not achieve the nomination in the party with most of the United States' freedom advocates. He did not even come close, and the fact he had a (very) fleeting lead is of no relevance at all. He lost decisively. He would have also lost decisively against the party that stands in opposition to what he believes in. Again, since you like to ignore this point, Rand runs as a Republican for a reason.

"Leftitarians" are even less relevant than Libertarians. If this is the kind of argument you're making for the popularity of freedom, then your entire position is intellectually bankrupt.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Truth is, Trump ran a confused campaign.

-He talked about law and order, but then tried to run to the left of Biden due to the 94 crime bill and Trump's prison reform.
-He was sort of for lockdowns, but then against them, but still for them, very confused messaging regarding Fauci and the lockdowns.
-Full throatily against the riots, but not willing to actually wield power to stop them. There were Trump fans who talked about how it was strategy to not give the media a "Trump is a fascist!" photo op, but at this point I think it's fairly clear that it didn't really work how they said it would.

If Trump would have been openly and completely against lockdowns, ran as a tough on crime Republican populist who crushed the riots and went in on the media, he may very well have won.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

Defense against a pandemic is every bit as "purposeful" as defense against whoever is threatening to come over an open border. You can't secure the "blessings of liberty" if you are dead.

Your comparison can be read as comparing immigrants to a pandemic. This is a defense I would expect from someone arguing for ethnic nationalism. Bizarre.

Setting that aside, securing the blessings of liberty requires the recognition that risking one's life is necessary. Whether it be from a virus or an opposing group matters little.

 

[jmdrake]

This is quite simple. Democrats want the government to do things for them. Many Republicans share this distinction. This desire systematically subverts the concept of freedom. Among the Republicans, there are those that do not want the government doing things for them as individuals. They are a minority within the minority party.

Freedom is not popular.

Your example using the Natives/Pilgrims is categorical nonsense.

No it isn't. Your nonsense is that you assume someone voting for the party more willing to let them and their family come hear means they "want the government to do something for them." You are argument is nonsense. Voting for someone because you want a larger safety net is wanting the government to do something for you. Voting for someone because they give you a chance to do something for yourself is not.

We do know how he would have fared. He could not achieve the nomination in the party with most of the United States' freedom advocates. He did not even come close, and the fact he had a (very) fleeting lead is of no relevance at all. He lost decisively. He would have also lost decisively against the party that stands in opposition to what he believes in. Again, since you like to ignore this point, Rand runs as a Republican for a reason.

"Leftitarians" are even less relevant than Libertarians. If this is the kind of argument you're making for the popularity of freedom, then your entire position is intellectually bankrupt.

Ronald Reagan lost the GOP nomination before he won it. Non argument from you.

 

[dannno]

LOL. I'm sure in your mind everything you said somehow makes sense. Back to what was actually being discussed, Trump didn't win on Russiagate or "freedom." He won on fear. Fear is indeed popular. It just only carries you so far.

Every single day the left acts poorly.. they lie, they are devious, it is transparent. Trump is pushing them to do that. One day it could bring them all down.. Then we will have a better shot at freedom.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I want to know how Biden gets 78% of absentee ballots if they're not just throwing out Trump votes.

 

[jmdrake]

Your comparison can be read as comparing immigrants to a pandemic. This is a defense I would expect from someone arguing for ethnic nationalism. Bizarre.

Many people on your side of the immigration argument called it an "invasion." Trump did the same thing. And he brought up the diseases they might be bringing over. It's not my argument. It's the argument from your side.

More importantly, whatever "reason" you choose big government over small government, you still choose big government over small government.

Setting that aside, securing the blessings of liberty requires the recognition that risking one's life is necessary. Whether it be from a virus or an opposing group matters little.

You can't secure the blessings over liberty if you are dead. You can't secure the blessings of liberty if those around you are dead. People from all political stripes risk their lives against disease every day by serving as healthcare workers. That's no different from border patrol. But if the whole country caught COVID and died then who would even man the closed borders you want so bad? And no, I don't think COVID would have caused millions of deaths the way it was claimed. I am just arguing against the "people don't love freedom if they are concerned about COVID" argument. It's nonsensical.

 

[dannno]

Truth is, Trump ran a confused campaign.

-He talked about law and order, but then tried to run to the left of Biden due to the 94 crime bill and Trump's prison reform.

That is because the '94 crime bill was locking up non-violent offenders for minor drug offenses. Trump lets people know he is tough on REAL criminals, the violent ones.

-He was sort of for lockdowns, but then against them, but still for them, very confused messaging regarding Fauci and the lockdowns.

He was for the lockdowns for a few weeks while we ensured that we had the hospital capacity and could get ahead of the virus with therapeutics and such.

Ever since the he has clearly been for opening up.

-Full throatily against the riots, but not willing to actually wield power to stop them. There were Trump fans who talked about how it was strategy to not give the media a "Trump is a fascist!" photo op, but at this point I think it's fairly clear that it didn't really work how they said it would.

Ya, he basically showed America that he was a Constitutionalist - however this gets back to what I was talking about with jmdrake. Technically Trump made the Constitutional decision with regards to the riots. But it also allowed him to stand back while the Democrats failed at containing them and actually helped him get a lot of inner city votes from people who are scared of the rioters and are tired of having Democrats in control of everything.

 

[jmdrake]

I want to know how Biden gets 78% of absentee ballots if they're not just throwing out Trump votes.

Because the overwhelming majority of the people who requested mail in ballots in the first place were democrats.

https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/PA.html

That shouldn't be surprising as the democrats pushed mail in voting as the next thing since sliced bread and Trump attacked it as moldy bread.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

No it isn't. Your nonsense is that you assume someone voting for the party more willing to let them and their family come hear means they "want the government to do something for them." You are argument is nonsense. Voting for someone because you want a larger safety net is wanting the government to do something for you. Voting for someone because they give you a chance to do something for yourself is not.

That's exactly what it means. If they are voting for a party on the basis it will facilitate immigration from members of their in-group, then they are voting on the basis that they want the government to do something for them. Freedom is of no consequence at all to them in how they vote.

Ronald Reagan lost the GOP nomination before he won it. Non argument from you.

We had Ron Paul '08, Ron Paul '12, Rand Paul '16. You want to place a wager on Rand Paul winning the nomination in '24? How about a follow up bet on the general election? I am willing to put my money where my mouth is on this one. I have no problem with waiting 4 years to collect from you. Maybe I could even be merciful and reduce what you owe based on freedom at least winning a single state. You really have no understanding of how bad the situation is for freedom.

Also, Ronald Reagan was not running in a minority party with demographics inflicting substantial changes. Try comparing apples to apples next time. Like I did with Ron and Rand.

 

[jmdrake]

Truth is, Trump ran a confused campaign.

-He talked about law and order, but then tried to run to the left of Biden due to the 94 crime bill and Trump's prison reform.
-He was sort of for lockdowns, but then against them, but still for them, very confused messaging regarding Fauci and the lockdowns.
-Full throatily against the riots, but not willing to actually wield power to stop them. There were Trump fans who talked about how it was strategy to not give the media a "Trump is a fascist!" photo op, but at this point I think it's fairly clear that it didn't really work how they said it would.

If Trump would have been openly and completely against lockdowns, ran as a tough on crime Republican populist who crushed the riots and went in on the media, he may very well have won.

That is because the '94 crime bill was locking up non-violent offenders for minor drug offenses. Trump lets people know he is tough on REAL criminals, the violent ones.



He was for the lockdowns for a few weeks while we ensured that we had the hospital capacity and could get ahead of the virus with therapeutics and such.

Ever since the he has clearly been for opening up.



Ya, he basically showed America that he was a Constitutionalist - however this gets back to what I was talking about with jmdrake. Technically Trump made the Constitutional decision with regards to the riots. But it also allowed him to stand back while the Democrats failed at containing them and actually helped him get a lot of inner city votes from people who are scared of the rioters and are tired of having Democrats in control of everything.

Dannno is right about why Trump said what he said about the crime bill. Coming into 2020, the First Step Act was one of Trump's biggest achievements. Tucker Carlson pushed Trump, wrong headedly in my opinion, to abandon that and talk only about law and order. Trump in the first debate, and Pence in the VP debate, couldn't finish a question about race relations before going full throttle into "law and order."

As for the lockdowns and Fauci? Trump should have either fired Fauci in May when it was clear Fauci was stabbing him in the back, or gave deference to Fauci in the COVID press conferences. Trump kept giving the other side bad headlines like "Trump wants you to inject disinfectant." Yeah I know what he was trying to say, but the messaging was awful.

 

[69360]

Honestly, Trump as a billionaire backer of right wing causes and social commentator might be a better thing long term than four more years in office.

Billionaire status is questionable. If he is he sure won't spend it on conservative causes that he doesn't actually believe in.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

Many people on your side of the immigration argument called it an "invasion." Trump did the same thing. And he brought up the diseases they might be bringing over. It's not my argument. It's the argument from your side.

More importantly, whatever "reason" you choose big government over small government, you still choose big government over small government.

A populist used populist means to do something. Truly groundbreaking stuff.

You can't secure the blessings over liberty if you are dead. You can't secure the blessings of liberty if those around you are dead. People from all political stripes risk their lives against disease every day by serving as healthcare workers. That's no different from border patrol. But if the whole country caught COVID and died then who would even man the closed borders you want so bad? And no, I don't think COVID would have caused millions of deaths the way it was claimed. I am just arguing against the "people don't love freedom if they are concerned about COVID" argument. It's nonsensical.

Again with your fallacious equivocation of immigration with the pandemic.

At least finish the thought next time. "People don't love freedom if they are so concerned about COVID they will deny others in their community the means to make a living as they see fit via government force. I agree with you that your incomplete logic is nonsensical.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

That is because the '94 crime bill was locking up non-violent offenders for minor drug offenses. Trump lets people know he is tough on REAL criminals, the violent ones.

I'm not saying the 94 bill was good, but people old enough to remember the time (I was a small child) are pretty unanimous in just how much of a crime infested hellhole cities in the early 1990s were. Narratively speaking, the crime bill has been vindicated on its own terms. The question is whether you accept those terms or reject them.

He was for the lockdowns for a few weeks while we ensured that we had the hospital capacity and could get ahead of the virus with therapeutics and such.

Ever since the he has clearly been for opening up.

The GOP never truly held that space, of being totally anti-lockdown after the 15 days BS. They started trying to be about that as time went on, but I think it was too late, and Trump was a part of that.

I'm not even strategically critical of him being too in favor of lockdowns. If he was more in favor of it it might have also helped him. The issue is he just kept trying to split the baby.

Ya, he basically showed America that he was a Constitutionalist - however this gets back to what I was talking about with jmdrake. Technically Trump made the Constitutional decision with regards to the riots. But it also allowed him to stand back while the Democrats failed at containing them and actually helped him get a lot of inner city votes from people who are scared of the rioters and are tired of having Democrats in control of everything.

Constitutionalism is something a vanishingly small number of Americans care about as such. Sure, there's things they won't support that go too far like court packing or abolition of the Electoral College (give it time though), but I don't buy that allowing the riots to continue to be able to stand on legality actually helped Trump. Trump has increased support with Latinos due to his caudillo aesthetic, crushing the riots would have played into that and perhaps netted him more support.

Trump likes the trappings and aesthetics of power, but he doesn't like actually wielding it. I know that's probably appealing to libertarian leaning conservatives, but that's largely a philosophy of the past.

The one I missed, and perhaps the biggest blunder was trying to paint Joe Biden as a Marxist, or at least a pawn of Marxists, which is just absurd. Kamala Harris is pragmatic neoliberal centrist who will support whatever she has to in order to accrue power. Even AOC and the intersectional woke squad in the universities aren't really Marxists. It just fell so flat, and was also confused with the whole "did nothing in 47 years" thing. He did nothing in five decades, but he's also a puppet of Marxists? Please.

 

[jmdrake]

That's exactly what it means. If they are voting for a party on the basis it will facilitate immigration from members of their in-group, then they are voting on the basis that they want the government to do something for them. Freedom is of no consequence at all to them in how they vote.

Wrong. That's like saying wanting the government to cut taxes is wanting the government to do something for you.

We had Ron Paul '08, Ron Paul '12, Rand Paul '16. You want to place a wager on Rand Paul winning the nomination in '24? How about a follow up bet on the general election? I am willing to put my money where my mouth is on this one. I have no problem with waiting 4 years to collect from you. Maybe I could even be merciful and reduce what you owe based on freedom at least winning a single state. You really have no understanding of how bad the situation is for freedom.

Hell, I don't even know if Rand will run. Non argument from you.

Also, Ronald Reagan was not running in a minority party with demographics inflicting substantial changes. Try comparing apples to apples next time. Like I did with Ron and Rand.

Ummm....when Ron Paul and Rand Paul ran as republicans they were not "running in a minority party" either. Non argument.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

...
Or they just bypass the whole thing and riot in the streets some more to get what they want.

That works much better than this politics shit...that's the lesson I take away from all this.

Based on recent history, those who oppose Biden will now be entitled to several months a year of free shopping at your favorite establishment. Arson, rioting, fireworks and random attacks on people will also be allowed as a form of emotional therapy.