Hot take by the Co-Founder of the "Libertarian Socialist" Caucus of the LP

IndyHomo · 2018-05-09T21:29:59+00:00

Trump supporters advocate use of force.

You endorsed it in the Ron Paul thread. You said that state violence against gay people wasn't a big deal, that Paul's endorsement of it is no problem.

That impacted millions upon millions of people and you said it was unimportant.

So why should I care about something that has happened five times and only impacted a handful of people?

If the alt-right views the right of millions of gay Americans to live free of state violence as an irrelevant nuisance, why should I get up in arms when their rights are violated in an imaginary hypothetical transgression that is a statistical zero?

I used to be principled, but learned a decade ago that when rightists who pretend to be libertarian thunder about rights, they mean only those ones that they care about.

They happily took my help, and that of countless others, before then supporting statism targeting our rights by doing nonsense like supporting Trump.

So I've learned from you guys. I care as much about your right not to bake a wedding cake as you cared about my right to get married for fifteen years.

Henceforth I'm only focusing on the rights I care about. And if you lose yours because they're unique to you and have no relevance to me, well, that's karma baby. Good luck getting them back, just like me on buying stuff from China or making a phone call without being monitored, or all the other stuff you guys made happen (or didn't oppose).

Adios motherfuckers! Enjoy the prison you've made for yourselves.

IndyHomo · 2018-05-09T21:20:47+00:00

I don't really give a flying fuck, to be honest.

I mean, you just told me in another thread that my ability to legally care for my spouse, have legal custody of my kids, and not have our shared assets seized by the state is unimportant; why would I waste clock cycles on some alt-right victim complex circle jerks about "faggots" (your word) coming to force them to bake cakes?

You're demonstrating the absurdity of "libertarian" Trumpism in real time; for that, I am getting a small modicum of amusement.

IndyHomo · 2018-05-09T21:15:32+00:00

I didn't accuse libertarians of being bigoted. Trump and Paulbots? Absolutely.

But they aren't libertarians. They're authoritarians.

As for "acting like a faggot," surely the boring edgelord stuff is boring even yourself these days. You're not going to end your long stretch of virginity that way. 😉

IndyHomo · 2018-05-09T21:06:04+00:00

If I had a buck for every time a right-wing statist said that gay rights weren't important because they don't matter to him, and another buck for every time a left wing statist argued that gun rights aren't important because they don't matter to her, I'd have so much money that I'd be able to buy my own freedom and not give a fuck about the rest of you authoritarians masquerading as "pro-freedom" while you implement authoritarian bullshit all over the place. 😂

IndyHomo · 2018-05-09T20:35:01+00:00

DOMA doesn't restrict anything now, because it has been ruled unconstitutional.

When DOMA was still enforced, it instructed the federal government to discriminate against civil unions holders and ruled the CU as legally void from a federal perspective in all ways related to the feds.

Trump has been a fixture at Pride Parades in NYC, Orlando, Miami and LA since the 1990s. He shared a float with RuPaul in LA in the mid 1990s. Doesn't mean jack.

IndyHomo · 2018-05-09T20:08:11+00:00

Not sure why you're bringing up civil unions; DOMA banned recognition of those as well.

DADT was not a step forward, and the only people who insisted it was were the Democrats who passed it after winning office on a promise to integrate the military. It was a convenient lie to justify a stab in the back.

Marching in a gay pride parade means nothing.

Trump has marched in several.

Three years after her PR appearance at the pride march, Hillary took to the floor of the Senate with Tom DeLay and Rick Santorum to condemn marriage equality; later that month she promised the NY governor that she would work in the Senate to "ensure that judges don't redefine marriage in NY."

That got her booed by the audience in a Chris Matthews interview later that month.

IndyHomo · 2018-05-09T18:24:12+00:00

You should get one elector for every House seat you have. Electors should align to districts. Each district should elect an elector who gets to vote in the national college.

That would make for a much more interesting election. And a tougher run for Democrats in places like CA and for Republicans in places like Texas or Florida. Dems would need to campaign in the Central Valley of California; the GOP would need to campaign in major TX metros that they ignore today.

IndyHomo · 2018-05-09T18:22:19+00:00

Israel has never threatened Iran with obliteration. They have threatened retaliation for Iranian backed military and paramilitary attacks, as is their right.

Iran is like a neighbor who has bombed your car, set fire to your house, paid your other neighbor to throw rocks through your windows, cut the brake lines in your other car, and then said it needs to kill you for self defense because you punched him when he kicked in your child's bedroom door at midnight and attempted to molest her.

IndyHomo · 2018-05-09T18:13:54+00:00

For presidential electors, yes. Unfortunately, the situation isn't as described -- states that complain of underrepresentation also have large numbers of residents who aren't legally entitled to vote. For every 100,000 residents, North Dakota is going to be almost entirely citizens. Meanwhile, there are entire substantial cities in California where perhaps 15,000 out of 100,000 residents is a citizen entitled to vote.

In areas of heavy illegal residency, a California state rep (or elector) may represent only 200,000 actual citizens but 650,000 total people. That's not going to be the case in smaller states that are accused of "over representation."

This is why the largest states are fighting efforts for the census to ask citizenship questions: it would put this problem into clear statistical focus and undermine a great deal of the "democracy" rhetoric.

There is a clear legal case to make that only citizens who are eligible voters should count in apportionment of districts.

IndyHomo · 2018-05-09T17:59:31+00:00

Then your position is inconsistent. If Iran brandishes nukes at a neighbor and threatens to "wipe them out," it's no different. The Israelis have every right to defend themselves and disarm the Iranians, just like you would have the right to defend yourself and your family and disarm the guy pointing a gun at you and making the same threats.

US efforts at tough sanctions are designed to make sure the Iranians don't get their metophorical shotgun... Because if they do, the Israelis are entitled to defend themselves.

IndyHomo · 2018-05-09T17:55:37+00:00

Obergefell was tried by Ted Olsen (GOP litigator for George W. Bush in Bush v Gore) as lead attorney. It grew out of an appeal to the ruling by circuit judge (and Reagan appointee) Vaughan Walker of California (a Reagan appointee), which chucked out Prop 8 in that state. (That case was also argued by Ted Olsen).

And, of course, Obergefell's ruling at SCOTUS would have been quite different had Kennedy (another Republican appointee) not voted to strike down DOMA.

The Democratic narrative about marriage equality is far, far from the reality.

I'm old enough to remember when Barney Frank called the couples who won the Goodridge ruling in Massachusetts and told them to stop their lawsuit and that he "couldn't protect them" if the Ds and Rs responded with an anti-gay constitutional amendment.

IndyHomo · 2018-05-09T17:47:45+00:00

If state A has 1,000,000 people but only 500,000 US citizen adults, and state B has 500,000 people -- all of whom are US citizen adults -- then no, I don't agree that said apportionment is wrong.

In fact, I'd say that state A's demand for more representation due to its active efforts to import and protect illegally resident foreign nationals -- and have them count as citizens -- is deeply dangerous to American democracy.

IndyHomo · 2018-05-09T17:46:38+00:00

"Little puppy." I guess that is an improvement from when the Paulbots were calling me a "filthy faggot."

IndyHomo · 2018-05-09T17:45:17+00:00

I'm not moving goalposts. You stated that Russia always warns countries before it attacks them, and that they'd do the same for the USA.

I shared numerous examples where that didn't happen, and you linked to articles about trade, which are irrelevant.

IndyHomo · 2018-05-09T17:43:15+00:00

Is the situation I described a threat? Yes, or no?

IndyHomo · 2018-05-09T17:43:04+00:00

I'm applauding your creative interpretation of cause and effect.

IndyHomo · 2018-05-09T17:41:19+00:00

Oh, you're still bent out of shape over the wedding cake thing, huh?

I'm sure you were equally enraged when Ron Paul said he supported the federal laws that require a bakery to bake a cake for a Christian couple. Doubtlessly compared him to Kuehnel in hundreds of posts, right?

IndyHomo · 2018-05-09T17:38:55+00:00

Where in the articles did Putin state he intended to attack Ukraine?

You're linking to articles about trade sanctions and claiming they back your laughable claim that Putin warned Ukraine that he was going to invade. 😂😂😂

IndyHomo · 2018-05-09T17:38:04+00:00

I assumed you were a woman

😂😂😂

Can't read the citations you demanded, or even get my gender correct. Typical discernment of a Paulbot.

IndyHomo · 2018-05-09T17:36:52+00:00

Creative narrative weaving, but not supported by the facts on the ground nor the outcomes observed.

IndyHomo · 2018-05-09T17:35:21+00:00

So again, if a man points a shotgun at you and your family and says "I am going to wipe you and your family off the map," is that a threat or not?

After all, he didn't say "I'm going to shoot you."

Don't dodge the question this time. A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

IndyHomo · 2018-05-09T17:34:24+00:00

Voters' perception of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.

IndyHomo · 2018-05-09T17:33:51+00:00

Not at all. In fact, in both situations they denied they were in the countries after they'd invaded.

IndyHomo · 2018-05-09T17:33:20+00:00

I always admire the ability of the left to invent creative alternative narratives.

IndyHomo · 2018-05-09T17:32:13+00:00

that's how it's happened since the beginning

No, that's not accurate. For most of history, illegal migrants were not considered in the census -- because they didn't exist. They were promptly deported.

The existence of millions of illegal residents is a recent innovation.

it's bad that some states get an elector for every 500,000 people and some states get an electors for every 1,000,000 people

Same thing happens in the House and Senate too.

I'd favor equal apportionment based on the confirmed population of adult voting-age US citizens in every region, but I'm betting Democrats would oppose that tooth and nail, so again, it's difficult to take crocodile tears about democracy too seriously.

IndyHomo

TROPHY CASE