It'd be better to have missile installations, tiger pits, and turret towers. It'd be much more economical to just annex Mexico because their southern border is much more defensible than ours. Either solution would be fine with me.
FWIW, Mexicans aren't as bad as the sterotypes you may be familiar with.
Knowing these facts is good. What really matters is what is done.
I wish inflation were the worst of our problems. It's actually not very hard to solve.
Yeah, well that was kind of the American project from the beginning. Liberalism itself is fine in an appropriate social context, such as what existed in those times.
https://raccoons.space/illustration/john-adams-constitution-religious-moral-meme.O4xRUN
As I mentioned, our opponents reject classical liberalism and Judge Nap.'s natural rights theory outright. In fact, they hate those ideas and resent you for holding them. Spend some time talking to progressives to confirm.
This is the outcome of the legal positivism as described in Judge Nap.'s lecture. People who believe the only rights which exist are those granted by text of law will feel justified in petitioning for 'rights'. That precedent has already been established, recently by the blatantly unequal enforcement of laws though it's been bubbling up from the bottom for many decades.
This entire lecture is liberal. He speaks of 'rights'. Describes the origins of those 'rights', the theories used to justify them, and gives examples of how they are challenged. AFAIK he's correct about everything in the lecture.
Here's the problem I see. Please skip to timestamp 45:08 of the video (Q&A portion).
If people reject the lesson of The Declaration of Independence (our rights are inalienable) ... then there's little hope for natural rights.
Judge Nap. just described the predicament America is in right now. Our opponents reject natural rights (rights justified by God and/or humanity) and insist on legal positivism (rights created by text of laws). How will our natural rights be protected when every public institution, corporation, and the state itself side with our opponents?
I don't say he's 'too' liberal. It's that all of his assumptions come from liberalism. So I see Judge Nap. as an ally. However, if we're going to keep liberalism as a guide to structure society then we must first root out its flaws and weaknesses.
Judge Nap. is a wise man. A bit liberal for my taste, but his lectures are quite mind expanding.
Yes, I believe there is some truth to this. Now I have a question. What comes after Donald Trump?
Of course.
If there are normies who still don't understand the perilous state of America, the rapacious and totalizing nature of the regime, I have to wonder how they can ever be informed.
Okay. Can you identify the purpose of this tweet with regard to his audience? Is he informing, persuading, or entertaining?
Only God is always right.
Catturd sometimes has good takes. Lately he's kinda ... normie tier (I guess?).
The Libertarian Party exists, depending on how far you want to stretch the definition of a political party. But no one should vote for The Libertarian Party candidate for President. They don't have the knowledge and resources to to politics successfully.
How about we just get some people who share our values to take over the party? We already know it can be done.
This is an interesting thought experiment. It could make sense. However, I don't believe they need to do it this way anyway because so far they've demonstrated zero concern for law and precedent.
It is crucial that people learn to think outside the narratives fed to us by corporate media. In politics, the issue is never what they tell you it is and the solutions offered rarely produce the promised results. They know what they're doing.
It's good to support those who share our values. I think it's even better to buy from locally owned small businesses where possible.
Reagan wasn't perfect. He was very charismatic, a skilled orator, and near universally liked. He also spent too much and gave ground on firearms. I remember people saying he was going to start WW3, but in hindsight that wasn't a realistic criticism.
It's not a win until AB InBev is dust.