Democratic lawmaker criticized for tweeting names of Trump donors

He supports the ideas that motivate the Alt-Right.

Would it be any less horrifying or immoral if Trump sent troops to the border with orders to fire on any one who tries to cross?

 

Trump? Who is the 'Alt-Right' and how is he motivating them?

Is that a plan? Trump has already commented on this if you watch the video in question.

 

So I take it you are against having a police force, and schools, supported by taxation? And opposed to having laws about which side of the road to drive on?

 

Any law based on objectivity and the principle of individual rights is fine.

No taxes at, at anytime, for anything, for anyone, for any reason, for always and always until eternity ceases to exit.

It's not really hard, all one need to do is think. Try it, you might enjoy the experience instead of asking pointless rhetorical questions.

 

Didn’t say it was a plan, just wondering how much the Right would sanctioned in their quest of a racially pure America? As far as the Left would for a classless America?

As for Trump, follow him, straight into hell, because that's where he’s taking America. Your life, your soul-with a warning, when he gets us there, crying, ”But I don't mean this” won't excuse you. Reasoning minds know better than to support their destroyer.

Trump is not the shining path to the city on the hill, nor is he a defender of liberty, reason, and capitalism.

The Alt-Right? Any who agree with any of the evil spawned from this monster’s mind.

Keep America racially pure is pure filth.

 

The proper rule of government is to protect our right to decide for ourselves how to live our lives, not force us to live as the rulers demand.

”The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law”--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government.html

 

The Alt Right evil: ”“In general, I support the Christchurch shooter and his manifesto. This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas. They are the instigators, not me. I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion.”


Straight from the monster’s mouth. Who agrees this vile emotional vomit? Brainless twits? Think about what he is stating—White American Christians are being replaced by Brown Hispanic Christians. Even if true, who would care? Someone who’s ego, soul, life, morals, ideas, are based on their skin color? That’s pure rotten evil, and that type of person needs at the very least to rethink their philosophical foundations, and might be best served by getting psychological help.

 

It was the supreme Leftist, Leon Trotsky, who once remarked that it is rare in politics to find an honest opponent.

I think the reason so many lefties are dishonest in political argument, is that in politics, we're not arguing over something like whether the 7.62 round is better than the 5.56. You can get heated arguments over that sort of thing, especially where manhood issues are aroused, since knowledgeability about weapons is seen as a proxy for masculinity, but seldom outright dishonesty.

But in politics we're arguing about something that, for the Left, is simply about morality. They believe that the world is divided into the evil oppressors and the good oppressed, and they feel very good about themselves for taking the side of the oppressed. (In an abstract, theoretical sense. I suspect few of them actually get their hands dirty in real struggles.) So facts be damned. It's not that there are no facts which are 'leftwing facts' -- of course there are. But it takes effort to find them, to think about them, perhaps to try to read arguments against them. So much easier to just bask in self-righteousness.

They also have been taught that their side is clever and we are stupid. When they run into people who don't agree with them, and who are not obviously knuckle-dragging troglodytes, they're a bit flummoxed. But they recover quickly and just substitute witty remarks (as they see it) and insults for reason. Or, if they're at their university-wombs, they try to shut down the horrible people who are invading their 'safe spaces'.

I once read an explanation, which seemed plausible to me, for the Catholic Church's treatment of Galileo. It wasn't that they had some special investment in a geocentric universe, as a question of science. It was that Galileo's thesis, removing the earth from the center of the universe, threatened their whole theological construct, and therefore decency and morality. Galileo was, as they saw it, opening us up to moral chaos. And that was why they opposed him.

You see similar arguments -- with more reason on their side, actually -- when religous fundamentalists try to confront evolution and natural selection: if Darwinism is true, then we're just animals, and anything goes. (In a different context, Dostoeyevsky famously said, "If God does not exist, everything is permitted.") There is a certain plausibility here, but at most it urges us to pretend to believe in God, or rather, to try to make everyone else believe in Him. However, the bad consequences of belief or non-belief in a certain factual question don't tell us anything about the truth or falsity of that question, whether it's a question of race and IQ, the role of Jews in promoting Communism, or anything else. (However, it might caution us about the careless broadcasting of facts, especially facts out of context. And then there is also the question of being polite and not hurting anyone's feelings unnecessarily. A lot of discourse about race is like that. We all know the reality, but we hold back from saying hurtful, though true, things. Or we should.)

Which brings us to Mr Trump: we shouldn't let him off the hook. His careless use of language is almost certainly a factor in triggering race-war psychopaths, and not just in the sense that BLM's agitation probably helped trigger that cop-killer psychopath in Dallas. The man is crude, impulsive, and doesn't bother to think through the possible malign consequences of his words, which as President of the United States can have a far different effect from those someone might utter at a private dinner party after a few drinks. He often says the right thing afterwards, the right thing being just what all American politicians have said for the last fifty years -- of course the mainstream media try to distort this -- but it's like locking the barn door after the horse has escaped. So I have a lot of sympathy for those people in El Paso who have said, 'Go away'.

And although the ignorance, and intellectual dishonesty whch flows from it, of much of the Left is always disheartening, we have to acknowledge that there are some very intelligent people indeed on the Left, no question about it. Probably the majority of serious intellectuals in the 1930s, certainly in France, were on the Left: they were quite convinced that Joseph Stalin was building the workers' paradise in Russia. They've got to be taken seriously. A liberal, Mark Lilla, has written a good book -- Reckless Minds: Intellectuals in Politics -- going into some depth about various intellectuals during that period who embraced exterminationist ideologies, some going for fascism, some for communism. Coming down the intellectual ladder a long ways, I have some pretty smart friends on the Left, including the far Marxist Left, with whom I can have a reasonable argument. But we've known each other for fifty years.

Also, I should say, that ignorance is not at all confined to young Lefties. I think it's a generational thing. I tutor young people and it's dismaying that among even the very intelligent ones, you find very few readers. I tutored a boy about five years ago and he got a King's Scholarship to Eton, one of Britain's finest schools -- he was a reader! At 13, he was already familiar with the corpus of works you go through, or over, in first year university humanities courses. He came by my house last month to talk about going to university -- and it turned out, as soon as he arrived at Eton ... he stopped reading. I could not work out why. The accursed computer game industry is often to blame, but not in his case. Nor was it a case of cherchez la femme.

I had another tutee this year, who wanted to go on to study Classics. But when I tried to lend him some Mary Renault (a wonderful, now deceased, historical novelist with some brilliant books about ancient Greece, psychologically accurate according to a history professor who first recommended her to me), he turned me down: he doesn't read, he said. On the other hand, this year I had a tutee, going to another of the great British 'public' (ie private) schools, who is a voracious reader. He's non-white, his parents are doctors, and he's very right-wing, more so than he should be, according to me. But he reads! So there's hope.

 

Okay. So I take it you're in favor of forcing me to pay taxes to support the police and courts and army, but only if they obey your principles (or Ayn Rand's principles), and if I refuse to pay those taxes, you'll imprison me, or have the government seize my property. That's a relief! Welcome to the club of people who think it's correct, under some circumstances, to force people to hand over their hard-earned money to the government.

 

this is public record, you know that right

 

yep, I am pro-choice too

the government should be there for help if we need it and ask for it, should not be forced on us

do not agree with excessive taxing of cigarettes, outlawing drugs like Marijuana, ect - let the people choose for themselves, that is what living in a free country is about

 

Whoops! I didn't see the previous reply. You're for law, if it follows your principles, but not for the taxes required to support the application of that law.

I can call on those Randian policemen and jailers and judges to protect me and my property, but I won't be forced to pay for them!

And the people -- there must be more than one, surely -- who believe in this ... interesting ... future utopia are the ones who can think, indeed the only ones who can think, and the rest of us ... right across the political spectrum ... who are laughing our heads off at this utterly naive idea ... we are the ones who can't think.

Well, you're harmless at least.

 

One of the things about stupid and/or ignorant people is their lack of self-awareness.

 

Nope. Randian police would be just as evil as the SS. A legal police force under objective laws based on the principle of individual rights? Naive? That’s what the South told the Northern abolitionists. A free nation of self-governed men? Absurd and impossible; that’s what the English conservatives told America’s Revolutionaries.

Liberty will always win, no matter what detour the tribalists force upon the living.

 

And just what was it that crushed the slave-owning South? As I recall, there was a wee bit of coercion involved, even in manning the army that did the crushing.

As there was in your model of self-goverened men, the Republic established by the American Revolutionaries. Well, I'll buy into that, but I'm afraid that if you didn't pay your taxes in that Republic, there were consequences.

Here's a history lesson:

[ SOURCE ]

So, yes, it was possible to make a big leap upward from the barbarism of monarchy. But you stlll had to have a state. (The human species is evolving rapidly now, not biologically yet but socially, and it's not crazy to imagine, especially after we are able to control our own genome, that our descendants some centuries hence may live in a world which is very very different from our own, in terms of social class, the state, laws ... it would be foolish to see the future as simply a linear projection of the present. We may well, if we don't destroy ourselves, pass from the kingdom of necessity into the kingdom of freedom, as a philosopher put it. But we cannot leap over our own heads.)

Imagine how far the American revolutionaries would have gotten, if they had said, after we drive out the colonial masters, no one will have to pay taxes. We'd still be celebrating the Queen's birthday.

Which brings up another point, which I hope you will not take in the wrong way: here you are, an intelligent, passionate person, keen to advance the cause of human freedom, which you don't use as a cloak for racialism/nationalism, understanding that there are a lot of people who want to push it back in the name of 'fairness', upholding reason in the face of supernatural dogmatism ... but because your understanding of the world has led you to this -- pardon me, absurd -- position, you are not able to be effective. So we lose what could be a most effective voice for freedom.

 

https://thecount.com/2019/08/03/patrick-crusius-manifesto-full-transcript/

 

Its also an invitation for harassment and violence that has no place in a civil society

 

No taxes. The government must be financed voluntarily.

You are really befuddled about liberty and the role of government. The purpose of government is to protect our individual rights, not to overrule those rights.

 

Civil War—Capitalist North defeated feudal slavery South. God bless the Capitalist. And though there was a draft, it could be bought out of. And, yes, the draft is abhorrent. Lincoln was right in crushing the South with total war. Slavery has no right to exist.

The Whiskey Rebellion. An forgivable error in judgment on both the part of the rebels and the Feds. The Rebels would have been better served to fight the law through legal means and respected the rule of law. The Fed would have been better served in repealing the tax and coming with a better way of financing.

Were taxes necessary to fund the nation? No. There are other ways to morally finance a government. Nothing justifies taxes anymore than necessity justified slavery.

What position is absurd, defending liberty, or renouncing taxes? Because one is connected to the other. However, at the present time what is slowing the growth prosperity is not taxes, but social spending. As spending is reduced, taxation can be replaced with a moral system of financing a government. Maybe a lottery?

There is no bargain to be struck between liberty and tyranny.

 

do you have an example

to be honest, I could care less who donates the $2700, I want to know those that donate more then that

 

Okay, we've finally reached a point where I understand you: no taxes. Financing government through a lottery sounds fine to me, although I strongly suspect that you won't get enough money that way, especially since your lottery cannot be a monopoly. And I take it you're opposed to compulsory education and free public schools (or the equivalent, vouchers)?
Ironically, I have the same attitude towards your ideal society as I have towards the ideal society my Marxist friends propose: not now, not this century, but who knows what the human race will be capable of in a few more generations, if we can just avoid a big war.

Co operation is so much more profitable for everyone than stealing, and this idea has very slowly been steeping into the collective consciousness of humanity. When we get control of our own genome (that of our descendants) we'll be able to edit in all sorts of desirable changes -- so that spread in IQ from 50 to 200 can be compressed a lot, with the mean close to the end point right side. And we may be able to make everyone an entrepreneur, a leader, so the psychological/biological basis for extreme class divisions will vanish. Just so long as we can avoid a big war.

 

So liberty is not possible, put permission to use a straw is. How bizarre.

 

Democrat computers are easily hacked. Perhaps some Russian hacker out in Siberia will see this as an opportunity for creating even more chaos and declining civilization in the USA, and copy Castro by doxxing a bunch of big dem donors. It can be done without involving Fusion GPS.

 

Not sure what you're getting at here. "Permission to use a straw"?

 

Thank you.

After reading that, I can assure you that the left isn't cherry picking anything. He's a far right wing white nationalist nut job.

If anything, it is the right doing the picking, trying to claim he's a leftist because he cares about the environment.