LGBTQI rights and 2016 election

>voting for clinton

>voting for democrats

>Letting your sexuality drive your entire political influence
I'm not an American, but if I was I'd been voting for Trump.
I mean come on. It's a three horse race between Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's insane wife, an old Jewish socialist, or a self-made billionaire who wants to rape the Republican establishment while building a wall to stop the demographic-changing mass-immigration from the south.
Do you seriously want to live in a USA where Europeans are a minority?
Non-Hispanic European children amount to something like 49% of American children, so it's already happening.
If you don't take drastic steps, you guys are fucked.

>>5781379
Sanders is probably the best candidate on LGBT issues, and the only one to acknowledge the existence of transgender people. Cruz is probably the worst, given his association with the "kill the gays" pastor. Clinton and Trump are in the middle - Clinton has acted against LGBT rights in the past, but now claims to be in favor of LGBT anti-discrimination laws, while Trump seems more or less neutral on the issue.

>>5781490
If muslims come in you guys will face a lot more discrimnation than you have thus far.

>clinton opposed lgbt rights until it was politically dangerous to do so
>sanders attended protests and rallies in support of lgbt rights when he was in college

do the fucking math

>>5781516
None of the candidates are planning on bringing in large numbers of Muslims.

>>5781516
Muslims are supposed to be busy invading Europe since 2013. Plus you've a well-regulated militia fetish here in the states, so you can protect yourself.

Really, don't let a proto-facist in your white house. Your country cannot become "great again", if you act like a spoiled child who ignores all of its problems.

>>5781504
Trump doesn't care about the gays, which means states right, which means get fucked if you live in the South or an homophobic state.

>>5781540
It's a slippery slope. Take a look at Germany and Sweden. Either way zero immigrants is the best way to go, especially considering only 30% of these "refugees" actually are refugees.

I'm not from the US, my country is currently hosting 10,000 Refugees trying to pass through into Germany. They've literally burned down food, clothes and anything our government tries to give to them, and generally act like cunts.

I'm pro gay rights, but on every other issue I'm conservative, and if all of you were to honest with yourselves you'd be the same.

Anyone who is on the LGBT spectrum needs to be anti-immigration if they want to be safe in 20-30 years.

>>5781556
> only 30% of these "refugees" actually are refugees.
>implying

Care to show where these stats come from ?

>They've literally burned down food, clothes and anything our government tries to give to them, and generally act like cunts.

If you watch Fox News or listen to /pol/, then it's true. The reality is more complex than that., and many refugees have integrated themselves well enough in their home countries. Case in point, the poles from 3 generations away didn't destroy the western civilisations, so there are countless precedents of integration actually working.

>ib4 they were white so it doesn't count

>Anyone who is on the LGBT spectrum needs to be anti-immigration if they want to be safe in 20-30 years.

You're judging refugees on the behalf of few of them, the same way fundamentalists are judging gays on the behalf of few of them. I find it a bit hypocrite.

>Take a look at Germany and Sweden

If your information comes from Fox News or equivalent, then I might suggest you take it with a grain of salt. Muslims will be still less then 7% in these 2 countries, even after the refugee crisis.

>>5781537
>clinton opposed lgbt rights until it was politically dangerous to do so
>until it was politically dangerous to do so
In my book she never stopped opposing us. I'm usually not the type that thinks "if they're not actively helping then they're part of the problem" but she's a rare exception. The only reason I consider her to still oppose our rights is because she actively tried to DO something to make sure we couldn't get married but when she claimed she was for gay marriage she didn't DO anything. Her words changed but because her actions didn't I don't believe her. If she did nothing to help pass DOMA I'd believe she'd change, but considering that she refused to lift a finger and to this day defends helping to pass DOMA I just can't believe she's changed.

>>5781544
>Trump doesn't care about the gays, which means states right, which means get fucked if you live in the South or an homophobic state.
Yeah of course. But he's still better than Cruz who willingly associates with people who think homosexuality should be punishable by death.

>>5781741
Why choose between pest and cholera ? Vote democrat, or something that won't say "lol, get fucked" if you were born on the wrong side of the bible belt

>>5781504
Lol u want more gibsmedats because you are a lazy piece of shit.

>>5781604
When Donald Trump becomes president, he should deport you to Saudi Arabia and we'll see how much you like your muslim tolerance brah!

>>5781604
I would like to see him try. You didn't answer my argument. And frankly, I hate muslims extremists just as you do, I just know that they won't destroy Europe or the United States of America, and that it is stupid to believe so.

>>5781818
Really nigga?

>>5781818
>>5781799
I meant to respond to you

>>5781490

So essentially you are a gibbering moron blind to the fact that Trump intends to do away with LGBT rights.

You deserve to die.

>>5781821
They are less than 10% in the worst case. Most of them are peacefully integrated. We have 1 churches for every small village in my country. Many "muslims" here don't speak arabic.

I'm confident that my country will not be destroyed that soon. What's wrong with having faith in the future ?

>>5781829
Fuck fag rights. Rights are for whites!

I normally vote for the Socialist Party USA candidate, but I'm voting for Bernie Sanders regardless this year. Tbh I'm surprised SPUSA isn't endorsing Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders actually has popularity, and may be the closest thing to a real chance to get a socialist into a position to affect not just change in policy, but the way people think.

I'd never vote for Clinton or the establishment republican candiates; I'm unsure on Trump, but Clinton and the rest of the establishment candidates would definitely just mean another 4-8 years of stagnation, which we do not need.

>>5781840
Have fun being brutally fucked by sand niggers
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/its-not-only-germany-that-covers-up-mass-sex-attacks-by-migrant-men-swedens-record-is-shameful/

>>5781379
>blah blah blah I only gobble up garbage the libcucks tell me to
VOTE
TRUMP
R
U
M
P
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

>>5781379
>2016
>muh social issues
>muh vote D for LGBT meme

pathetic to be honest. Trump's got my vote, ya' cucks.

>>5781853
So much projection.

File: Sea_arrivals_to_Greece_and_Italy_in_2015_by_nationality.png (108KB, 1280x697px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1280x697px

>>5781604
>we all refugee from Syria pls gib money

>>5781379
>campaign finance
>Clinton
Ur joking right

>>5781379
>it is vital we have to get a Democrat in the white house in 2016
think about real issues, not fucking made up tumblr ones

>>5781857
>le memes ..... SPORK XD!

>not voting republican
>thinking lgbt discrimination is a thing

Honestly if your a pride fag you deserve the shit you get.

I'm voting for Trump.

I don't want to lose my right to bear arms and deal with Rapefugees.

if a young adult in the 1970s was smart enough to openly campaign for gay rights, i think we can trust them to be progressive in the 2010s.

so, bernie.

>>5782572
I've been told I wouldn't get a position because a gay on the staff would "upset the clientele." Not the only example of discrimination, but one that you can't reduce to "You're just obnoxious," and a form that should definitely be illegal.

>>5781379
Sanders > Trump >>>>>>>>>> Clinton

Bernie is fucked. Clinton's already dominating in delegates and every victory he's had has come with just as many losses. He's not going to get the nom.

It's gonna come down to Clinton and Trump. No one in history has gone on to win New Hampshire and South Carolina and not win the nomination.

Regardless, I just don't want that fucking serpent Hillary to win.

>>5781544
>Trump doesn't care about the gays
I'll just leave this here for you http://www.advocate.com/election/2015/9/28/read-donald-trumps-advocate-interview-where-he-defends-gays-mexicans

>>5782643
I thought they got the same number of delegates thus far

>>5782643
A fucking serpent who needs to pander to you to get votes is better than a serpent who doesn't or an ape who thinks you're everything wrong with society.
Still I'd prefer a functional human being who wants the best for people so I'm going to push for a Sanders win as hard as possible.

>>5782668
Hillary has been promised (almost) all the superdelegates. Unless everywhere else is HARD pro Sanders, she's already in.

>>5782659
How did I know that was an article about Trump circa 2000?

>>5782668
Clinton: 505
Sanders: 71

Superdelegates, man. And don't get me started on the coin flips and playing cards.

I like Bernie but he has zero chance of winning so I am voting for Clinton because Republicans must not win.

>not feeling the Johnson

>>5781847
Kill yourself

>>5781423
>voting against your own interests

>>5781490
Shows what an idiot you are, Trump will make America a laughing stock and would suck in foreign policy because he is so thinned skin.

>fags will shut up after they get marriage rights

How wrong were some people.

>>5782747
Why? Are you not feeling the Bern?

>>5782833

This, we got all the rights when we got the right to marry. Everything else is bullshit and I understand people hating us for wanting rights that are privileges in reality.

>>5782853
>>5782833
You can still be fired for being gay and face housing discrimination you tool. Also The Republican candidates are all talking about trying to stack the court with justices that will overturn marriage.

Sure you can make those assertions after the Republican party stops trying to overturn gay marriage and when we no longer have housing and employment discrimination.

And where the fuck did you get the idea that marriage is a privilege? Ar you retarded?

Driving is a privilege not marriage, a privilege is something that can be taken away if abused, that doesn't apply to marriage.

>>5782853
You are the biggest fucking uncle tom ever.

>I understand why my lack of equal protection is annoying to you

These people would hate you regardless of what you do because of what you are. Jesus, moron here.

>>5782880
>"He's really gay! There's no way he's a straight Christian with a neck beard!"

>>5782875

I didn't meant that marriage is a privilege, I meant that everything the gay and lesbians are asking after we got the right is having privileges. Be thankful we got it now, adult incestuous couples have it worse than us. I believe in freedom of association as long as it isn't some government service being deniend to any citizen.

>>5782880


>WAHH, people don't like me


I'ts funny how they paint conservatives as authoritarian people who don't want people to do what they want, but you got a lot of these so called liberals being mad at people not liking them and wanting to make laws to make people like them.

>>5782836
No, I'm feeling the Johnson.
I actually work for what I want instead of holding my hand out like a nigger expecting to get it for free.

It's digesting how we fought so hard against communism and now people want to bring it here. If you want to live in a socialist country, go live in Venezuela or Cuba. I'm sure someone from there would gladly switch places with you.

>>5782875
You should be allowed to be fired for being gay. Private businesses should be allowed to discriminate against anyone for any reason.

>>5782926
>Private businesses should be allowed to discriminate against anyone for any reason.

Civil wars have been fought for less. Also, try to imagine if everyone decided to act this way. All the outcasts (not only gays) are to die by starvation.

You shouldn't be penalised for circumstances outside your controls, your sexual orientation is one.

Also, the employee is part of the business. He has rights as such.

File: Feels good to be european.png (51KB, 489x479px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 489x479px

>>5782919
When these guys mean "socialism", they mean Norway, Sweden, or Denmark.

Which is better than the future third-world country you call United States.

>>5783043
He says this as those countries actually allow the third world to flood into them unabated.

Shoo shoo slimy swede.

All of your ideas are wrong because of the evil in your hearts & minds.

FIND THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN WITHIN

Once you deny yourself and sacrifice your life to the LORD nothing in this world will matter to you because your rightful home is somewhere else where darkness doesn't exist.

>>5783015
Not everyone would act like that though. If everyone did, at least one person would realize that if they allow those people in they get all the business and money. Or that group and start their own farm and sell their own food to just people in that group. That's the free market.

And no, the employees are not part of the business, they get zero rights or say. The only people that are apart of the business are the owners, and share owners if it's publicly traded. You wanna have control and rights over a business? Open your own.
>>5783043
And those countries are slowly going downhill. You can't be rich there, eventually the money will be gone. You can't run a country by giving everything away. And remember, "socialism" did not get them there. The free market is what made them such a rich country, they only made these policies and regulations after.
http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/how-laissez-faire-made-sweden-rich

>>5783015

Such people (who think businesses should be allowed to discriminate) typically also believe that the civil war was unnecessary because lolz slavery would've totes ended sooner or later! You can't reason with them, they're overly idealistic at best and callously unempathetic toward social strife at worst. It never crosses their minds that it's BAD to allow people to become second-class citizens, because the concept is just beyond their fathoming. History proves them wrong over and over, but it's just that this time it would totally not happen again.

>>5783118

>employees have zero rights or say

Either a yet-to-be-employed high school student, or management's favorite sucker. Either way, educate yourself.

If lgbt right are all that matters to you, vote either Bernie or Trump.

Trump is pretty much uncaring and Bernie has shown support throughout the years.
Any other vote is either outright hostility or an eventual knife in your back.

>>5783118
Measuring the value of public spending by the rate of mean personal income growth and development of large corporations is begging the question. When increased public spending itself is the story of the society's slow decline, of course you'll tell a story of the virtues of small government.
Look instead at median quality of life, at suicide rates, at crime rates, basically anything else you like, and the story changes quite a bit.

>>5783128
My thoughts on slavery are it obviously that it shouldn't have been a thing, and the government should have ruled it illegal. People aren't property, and enslaving people is breaking the NAP.

The civil war was not about slavery though, and yu clearly do not know any more about it other than the 5 pages you read in public school. The war was fought over taxes, at the time the government was taxing the south so heavily on their cotton it was causing them to starve. Lincoln did not even care about the slaves, he said he would do whatever had to be done to win whether it was freeing them are keeping them slaves. The union actually proposed an ammendment that would allow the confederacy to keep their slaves if they ended the war, and the confederacy said no. One of the most prominent leaders of the confederacy, Robert E Lee, was against slavery himself. He inherited slaves and let them free. The confederacy also allowed blacks to fight for them, and gave them equal pay. Meanwhile the union payed black soldiers less than white soldiers.

>>5783163
Support for lgbt rights is more than a single issue, it's a moral litmus test. Positions on gay marriage, and the time people adopted them, shows how deeply people care about the well-being of others and how strongly they resist the temptation to demonize groups.

>>5783192
>Support for lgbt rights is more than a single issue, it's a moral litmus test.
Either way only Trump and Bernie pass that test.
Everyone else either failed or cheated.

>>5783190
It was about slavery in largely the same sense that the Supreme Court case want about gay marriage. The idea was, it was a right of the states to decide to allow or not allow slavery. The casus belli in both cases was that states should not have the right to deny rights arbitrarily.
In both cases, "states rights" was a cop-out where people can say "the states should decide" without coming out in support of something shitty.

>>5783118
I'm not swede, I'm french (it's worse, I know.)

Well-regulated capitalism and social democracy (with I confess a little help from the US that the USSR would also have given us) allowed us to rise from the ashes of WW2 and become great powers again.

It is the lack of regulations, not the excess, who have caused all the financial crisis we know today, and many of them come from the US.

But arguing with a Waffletarian on the Internet is pointless so I'll leave you to it.

>Not everyone would act like that though. If everyone did, at least one person would realize that if they allow those people in they get all the business and money. Or that group and start their own farm and sell their own food to just people in that group. That's the free market.

Any reasonable merchant who would have to choose between a large anti-gay lobby and a small LGBT minority will choose the stronger side ; that's why we live in Democracy. Democracy is not only the rule of the majority, it is the protection of the minorities.

Or that benevolent guy could be "persuaded" by groups of interest (Church, for example) to cease his activities.

Adam Smith himself said for a free market to function, there need to be regulations in the forms of trade unions and regulations.

>>5783154
I am a college student. For work I am an apprentice doing home remodeling. I'm basically the bosses bitch doing his nigger work for 4 dollars an hour under the table.

I just have a strong work ethic and will do what I have to do. I'd rather be dead broke without a pot to piss in then have to get on my knees and suck the government's cock waiting for my daily load to get by.

>>5783190
>
My thoughts on slavery are it obviously that it shouldn't have been a thing, and the government should have ruled it illegal. People aren't property, and enslaving people is breaking the NAP.

How cute. How are you even going to enforce that without a centralised and public force ? There is a reason why society exists.

>>5783240
America is not a good example for capitalism at all, and hasn't been for the last 100 years. It wasn't our lack of regulations, but rather the loopholes companies could use to get around the ones we had, and the businesses buying off government. Libertarianism does not endorse crony capitalism and corporatism.

Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't have any regulations, of course some are necessary. But we shouldn't be having the government intrude in our lives. Businesses are private property, to say the owners must allow everyone to shop there is ludicrous and crossing the line. Where does it stop?
If a straight man is throwing a party but not allowing gays to enter, should the police show up and say it doesn't matter that it's your home, you must let them in? No, that's ridiculous. Same thing for a private business.

And way to ignore where I said gays can grow and sell their own food. With a freer market, you can say that while being realistic. It wouldn't be as hard to start up a business, you wouldn't have to give most of your money to the government or pay thousands of dollars in fees to start it. If people aren't accepting of you, for whatever reason, why would you even want to give them business? Take it upon yourself. That's the American dream my friend.

>>5783258
Libertarianism is not anarchy.
A libertarian society would be a minarchy, a small government with limited powers and maximum freedom. We'd still have a government to represent us, and we'd still have a police force. Almost anything would be legal, except breaking the NAP. People that break the NAP would be arrested, including cops. In a libertarian society we'd be safer than we are now. No one would go to prison, essentially ruining their lives and in some cases forcing them to commit more crime, for arbitrary things like choosing to inject their body with poison. That would drastically cut back on crime. And the shit police get away with now would absolutely in no way be tolerated, police would be held up to the same standard.

>>5783163
>If lgbt right are all that matters to you,

When did I ever say that anon? I'm not an identity politics / single issue voter. I'm also a Sanders supporter. Sanders doesn't pander to LGBTs, despite having the best positions for us.

File: 1456266633883.png (29KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 400x400px

>>5781490
>voting for Trump, a LITERAL fascist

File: Sad truth.png (78KB, 700x788px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 700x788px

>>5783287
I admire your idealism, anon, I really do.

I will admit that in a perfect world, free market, equal opportunity capitalism is the perfect way to build the best civilisation.

But crony capitalism, corporatism, are not bugs of capitalism, they are features. I have been reading about the industrial revolution, the birth of capitalism as we know it.

For a small time, the men of innovation were free to pursue their dreams, enrich themselves and contribute to the happiness of mankind. Then, they all got bought by banks or either bought off their competitors, and made everything possible to increase their profits, and this includes buying state officials, child labour, colonies, and so on.
Even if there were not government officials to buy, then the capitalists would simply appoint themselves as rulers of the land.

>gays can grow and sell their own food

Of course they can, if they are let to be. I pray you have a big gun anon, because your enemies will also have one, and I don't think the NAP matter next to their holy book which say we have to be killed.

>>5783118
>And those countries are slowly going downhill.

Lol and America isn't? America pretty much a third world oligarchy. If Trump gets in, civil rights go out the window and become a banana republic dictatorship like in Latin America in the 1980s.

File: trump-huffington-tweet.jpg (32KB, 525x303px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 525x303px

>>5781379
Trump likes same sex marriages, though.

>>5783347
>Trump likes same sex marriages, though.

He said he wants to overturn the US Supreme Court ruling in 2015 legalizing gay marriage nationwide and said he will appoint a US justice who will do so. He also said he supported "religious freedom" legislation.

TRUMP IS NOT PRO-GAY! HE'S A REPUBLICAN!

>>5783319
It wasn't specifically aimed at you.
It was a general statement.

>Sanders doesn't pander to LGBTs, despite having the best positions for us.
Which is why I'm only slightly upset that the 'lgbt representatives' almost always support Hillary.

Either way Trump or Sanders is a victory for the US.

>>5783306
Libertarianism makes the most attractive utopias, as I've said, but government is feeble and historically has always took the strongest side.

What if a billionaire decides to buy off all of our representatives and forces us to conversion therapy ? After all, if he's bought the land, we're technically trespassing and violating the NAP. Same with the police company, since in Libertopia everything can be bought and sold.
Not even taking into account small influences, bribes, and general meddling of the rich with the government, no matter how small he is.

>>5783324
You need to learn nationalist.

The guys not that bad, don't listen to the media.

>>5783354
He said that to get conservatives. Don't be stupid. He's done the wink wink nudge nudge for a long time now so the conservatives can't throw him out or make him run independent. He has a ton of liberal and conservative ideals. He's not going to overturn it.

>>5783324
>slightly left, neutral on authoriatarian/libertarian
>called socialist by everybody
Never change, USA.

>>5783354
Please don't listen to the media. The establishment is trying to destroy Trump and constantly makes up shit.

>In a June 28, 2015, interview on CNN's "State of the Union," Donald Trump was asked by anchor Jake Tapper how Trump's three marriages fit into the definition of "traditional marriage." Trump responded that someone asking the question has "a very good point" and suggested he was at fault for his divorces. Tapper said he wasn't asking for an explanation for Trump's divorces, but rather what he would say to a gay person on this question. Trump answered, "I don't say anything. I'm just for traditional marriage."

>>5783366
Nationalism was just the cause of 2 world wars. For all the semi-hate I have against your country, I wouldn't wish to anyone to go ultra-nationalist again.

I'm really worried about USA governmental decisions because whatever they do affects a lot of the rest of the world's governments' decisions.

>>5783393
We have to go nationalist again. We're being fucked in the ass by other countries and bled dry. All of our money and our jobs are being taken out of the country. Bernie wants to impose some insane 95% tax increase to pay for shit and nothing will get done. Shillary is just a dumb bitch that can't do anything.

Trump is the only hope America has at doing anything.

>tfw everyone falls for the media bullshit

The media hates Trump because he talks shit about the media constantly. He calls the media liars and horrible people, and he's right.

>"I’ve gone to gay weddings. I’ve been at gay weddings," said Trump. "I have been against [same-sex marriage] from the standpoint of the Bible, from the standpoint of my teachings as growing up and going to Sunday school and going to church, and I’ve been opposed to it, and we’ll just see how it all comes out. But, you know, if I was ever in that position I'd just have to explain it."

>>5783334
>If Trump gets in, civil rights go out the window and become a banana republic dictatorship like in Latin America in the 1980s.

where the fuck do you people get shit like this? Just because the man wants to actually enforce our borders means he's a dictator?

>>5783398
Trump requires some reading through the lines.

If you just pay attention to this:
>"I’ve gone to gay weddings. I’ve been at gay weddings," said Trump.

He's not anti-gay. He doesn't give a shit. He's just saying it to make sure the TRUE conservatives will still vote for him. He's a centrist.

File: dxo3Dya.jpg (170KB, 2498x1600px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 2498x1600px

>>5783333
The thing is, if people wake up we can get rid of those features. Get rid of the regulations that crush competition. Get rid of laws and programs that keep the minorities dependant on government. Minimize government power so they can't be bought. Tell the federal Reserve to fuck off so we can get back to the gold standard. Break the banks up and stop bailing them out so they can't keep fucking us over. Stop bailing out failing businesses, and close up all loopholes they use. Stop giving big businesses special treatment. We can have a free market and still fix these things.

And of course gays would be allowed. Personal opinions and beliefs would not have any role in law. The law and government is not allowed to discriminate, because it is supposed to be made up by the people and represent everyone. Private businesses and property are one thing, but there is no way laws against minority groups would be allowed.

>>5783334
When did I say I support trump or America is doing good?
I specifically said America isn't a good representation of capitalism and I am feeling the Johnson.

Trump does not give a single fuck about gays or doing anything bad towards gays. He doesn't care. He's not going to spend any time fucking with gay rights in office. He's building a wall to secure our borders from illegal immigrants, protecting legal immigrants, and that's why he got 45% of the hispanic vote in Nevada. They know what he's talking about and they are tired of illegal shitigrants giving them bad names.

Believe me, jobs are what we need to be worried about. Our economy is sunk. We have no money, we have nothing, and drugs and illegals are pouring in.

Please, lets all enjoy Donald Trump's movie reviews.

He's not going to touch the gays.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=upC8pX3RY0A

File: gn60t8d.jpg.png (174KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 550x550px

>>5783398
Who is fucking you over, anon ? Mexico ? The refugees ?

>All of our money and our jobs are being taken out of the country.

That's capitalism without regulations which is your enemy them. And I don't think as conservative like Trump is going to impose things on business, especially riches ones.

>>tfw everyone falls for the media bullshit

Because Faux News is always telling the absolute truth.

It's hilarious to me that we're in the middle of a massive legislative backlash against trans people, but HRC and all the gay activists are too busy throwing all their weight behind Hillary to notice or care. You're next, LGB. Remember that a (large) majority of states are controlled by Republicans, and they're far more rabid than in non-election years. This is what the start of a backlash looks like. Enjoy watching all your rights disappear while your leaders laugh it up at fundraising dinners.

>>5783424
You're obviously not an American, glad you cant vote.

File: 1455522291802.jpg (205KB, 708x674px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 708x674px

TRUMP
TRUMP
TRUMP
TRUMP
TRUMP

>>5783424
>And I don't think as conservative like Trump is going to impose things on business, especially riches ones.

Have you completely forgotten when Trump bit into Ford for their plans to move a production plant to Mexico?

>>5783424
Are you mentally braindead? Trump wants businesses to come back to America and he's taking away restrictions on business in the US. If they are out of the US he's gonna tax the SHIT out of them.

You're dumb.

Please do not vote for Hillary. She is not protecting your rights, she's protecting her donors and lobbyists interests.

>>5783406
>Get rid of the regulations that crush competition.

Which also our good friends the Koch bros or Google to buy you off, just like their predecessors did in the industrial revolution. And as an engineer, I can tell you that even the most libertarian of my classmates wouldn't even think a business plan without a social safety net. It is worth risking your life, your savings and your future just for the sake of some hypothetical profits.

>Get rid of laws and programs that keep the minorities dependant on government.

Which means that unless racism, homophobia and transphobia disappears, the old power structures will be back in full force. And I don't bet on us.

>Minimize government power so they can't be bought.
>Stop giving big businesses special treatment.

You cannot will crony capitalism into non-existence. For the past centuries, there are always been a connection between power and money. A smaller government will not change this, in fact, it will be worse - the big CEOs won't even need friends in Washington to forbid you from being employed, or to pay you a ridiculously small salary and rent your use of any public services.

>Tell the federal Reserve to fuck off so we can get back to the gold standard.

Gold doesn't have a value on its own, but simply because governments decided that it was a fancy metal. Many economies throughout history were based on silver, copper, and paper.

>Stop bailing out failing businesses, and close up all loopholes they use

I will conclude on the one thing we agree on.

I think >>5783128 was right, and that we will not reach an agreement. At least it was a civil debate.

>>5783428
>>5783436
>>5783445

Not american and can't say I'm sad. I didn't really read through the Donald economic program, but if it as well-thought as his social policies, then I'll pass.

File: 1455307773856.gif (2MB, 350x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 350x240px

>>5781379
I hate regressives so fucking much.


I am voting for trump and I am a atheist bi transwoman of color.

I can understand voting for Sanders though, but fuck Hillary.

>lgbt protects
we already have the 14 amendment

>abortion
I don't care, but if it will piss sjws why not outlaw it

>environment
it depends on the regulation

>voting rights
It isn't hard to get a photo id. Hell, you can't get a legal job, fly, buy alcohol without one and drive. Seriously if you cant get one you don't deserve to vote.

>gerrymandering
Both sides do it, but it should be fixed. However, if democrats had the chance they would do the same thing.

>campaign finance
All that money did yeb a lot of good.

Shit that i care about

>guns
>freedom of speech
>deporting the illegals and Muslims that wish to be head me.
>shutting down this 'free trade' bullshit


Seriously, I just hate all these numales and sjws. I think that is why despite being bi that I will never date a cislesbian. They have been corrupted by feminism and dye their hair purple. I just can't stand most cislesbians and I am kind of thankful I only have ever been attracted to other transwoman and cismen. I mean i don't like the way vaginas look either, but that is besides the point. ciswomen lesbo are just toxic. I might be able to date a bi ciswoman, but fuck third and four wave feminism. Fuck gender studies, and fuck people who get queer and gender studies degrees and demand to get jobs.

File: American education system.jpg (70KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 640x480px

>>5783506
>>abortion
>I don't care, but if it will piss sjws why not outlaw it

>>5783491
For your first point, I can't really understand what you're trying to say.

The thing is thougb, these laws are actually more racist. It's teaching blacks to depend on government instead of getting jobs. It's saying "I don't think blacks can make it on their own, they need whitey to come in and help them out".

I say blacks are capable of doing it on their own. Is their still racism? Is some places, yes. Will they have to work harder because of it? Maybe. But I believe in them.

After getting rid of the regulation that stop the competition, the CEOS won't be as rich and powerful. We can see that over time as we started taxing more and introducing more regulation and government programs, the gap has gotten wider.

>>5783506
>shit that i care about
>guns
I never understood this. Why do Americans care so much about guns?

>>5783506
>i don't like the way vaginas look
>i decided i was a woman
anyway looks like you got a serious pack of issues you need to work on. your post was pure hartred.

File: 1440603344321.jpg (224KB, 500x628px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 500x628px

>>5783544
For one it is in the bill of rights and if they can take gun rights away then what is to stop them from taking the fourth and first amendment away?

Another is I just like guns. It is a funny hobby but the left just wants to take them away for no good reason.

Lastly, because self defense.

>>5783525
Like seriously, in principle I support abortion rights, but if they want to take away my gun rights then fuck them. I don't care if we get a anti abortion justice on scotus as long as I get to keep my gun rights.

>>5783555
idk I want to get srs at some point and i am planning it, but honestly I am not attracted to vaginas that much. I could be with a post op transgirl, but I am not into vaginas and I would really have to like the person to be able to deal with a vagina. I do love boobs, soft skin, and other shit that girls have though. I love cisguys straight up though dicks are awesome.

>>5783544
Because they are an inherent right that defined the formation of the country.

>>5783566
>children dying every week
>no good reason
looks like the people calling you degenerate are right to some extent

>>5783586
Sandy vagina would have never happened if we just armed the people who worked at the schools.

>>5783586
Scare tactics and appeals to emotion are not a reason to limit rights.

I would think and LGBT board would understand that.

>>5782926
But they can't, they can't fire someone for being black or for being Catholic as long as those rules are on the books they should apply to gays as well.

>>5783593
you know what? sandy vagina never happened in civilized countries where the problematic kids don't get to hurt others badly

>>5783604
>calling scare and emotion tactics pure facts
this is not about emotion. the gun culture in the usa is an important problem that leads to regular disasters and needs to be wiped out.

>>5783621
Yup that sure stopped the paris attacks. No one will be able to get guns if we out law them just like drugs.

>>5783633
Like seriously, from my cold dead hands. Regressivism needs to be wiped out. I can make a shit load of money on it too buy shorting companies that sell ugly 60s style womens glasses and purple hair dye makers.

Do these pictures #trigger you?

http://i.imgur.com/ymlbnzm.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/FFf4qEO.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/a9rQ2Qk.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/kyc0OHh.jpg

That is what I was doing on Sunday.

>>5783633
Well, first of all, good luck, as there are more guns than people in this country.

And second, just because you don't like something doesn't mean you can choose regulate what other people can do. There was a time when some folks were really on about regulating what dudes and other dudes could do to each other in bed, but thankfully, people fought against those who wanted to inhibit their freedom.

>>5783649
>school massacres and insane gun crime rates
>because you don't like sth doesn't mean you can choose to regulate it
I think you need to realize guns free access is used for more than the casual hobby.

>>5783646
I don't care about you having fun with guns. The problem kinda is on an other level.

>>5783669
There have been less than fifty killed in school shootings in the past year or so. Excuse me if I hesitate to limit the rights of over 300 million based off the fears and emotions of a selection of people who think they need others to tell them how to live.

Another faulty assumption is that crime would somehow go down if guns were banned or restricted. You fail to address my point that there are hundreds of millions of guns in this gun. Do you believe that they can be contained?

How is the "War on Drugs" going?

>>5783692
guns in this country*

File: 1455903309931.jpg (670KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

670KB, 1024x1024px

LIBFAGS ANSWER THIS

There's more guns than people in the U.S. alone, and if you're gonna deem guns bad then the only people that are going to have them are the BAD PEOPLE. Why should you liberals be in charge of anything when you make all your decisions based on emotion and fear?

>>5783621
I believe I said anyone for any reason.

>>5782899
I don't think it should be legal to discriminate against people for being gay. In my opinion, if a gay person starves to death because no one is willing to hire them because they're gay, those who refused to hire him on the basis of them being gay are no better than those who beat gay people to death. The fact that they did not themselves physically harm anyone is irrelevant, the end result is the same: someone is gay, and due to others' homophobia, they end up dead.

>>5782911
It's not about people not liking you. It's about the absurd claim that people would suddenly committing hate crimes against gays if gays stopped asking for so much. Gay bashing occurred even when gays couldn't even legally have sex. It's not that homophobes think gays are SJWs or asking too much, they just hate gays and think they don't deserve to live. Attempting to appease them by not pushing so hard for equal protections won't help.

File: heresy 2.jpg (154KB, 580x472px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 580x472px

>>5781379
>it is vital
>us
>TQI

>>5783805
>I don't think it should be legal to discriminate against people for being gay.

I think government has no business discriminating against any of its citizens.
Private businesses however should be able to do business with whoever the heck they please, because what exactly is the alternative?

>Hey, do you want to enter into a contract with me?
>No, not really.
>Too bad, I'm gay so you better do it anyway.

Now you might want to argue that of course people can still decline business to gay people just not BECAUSE they are gay. But a person's motivation is irrelevant in this scenario. You either want to enter into a contract or you don't, your motivations are entirely your own and unless you decide to express them they are not even recognizable for anyone on the outside.

If either side is not willing there is no meeting of the minds.

>>5782926
Aren't many hospitals private businesses? Should they be allowed to turn away patients, even those wounded to the point that they would die before reaching another hospital (but would be nearly guaranteed to live if they received immediate treatment)?

>>5783085
None of the candidates are advocating letting in large numbers of refugees. So your criticism is nonsensical, it's not a flaw in socialism itself, it's external circumstances that don't apply.

>>5783110
Are you recruiting for some crazy cult or something? That's what you sound like.

>>5783190
>People aren't property
Property rights are only meaningful if they can be enforced. If the government is willing to protect the right to own other people, for all intents and purposes it is a right. You can say it's immoral, but the notion of rights as something independent of enforcement. If laws were not enforced, I would have no recourse if someone stole my personal property .Saying I have a right to that property is pretty meaningless in that case.

>>5783240
>Adam Smith himself said for a free market to function, there need to be regulations in the forms of trade unions and regulations.
Exactly. In a totally unregulated society, once an individual or company had become sufficiently powerful and wealthy, it could make it impossible for anyone else to compete.

>>5783306
The problem with the NAP is that it's based on action, not results. If you harm someone through action, it's in violation, if you harm someone through inaction, it's not in violation. Which means in some cases it's possible to harm someone through inaction, without violating the NAP.

>>5781829
>>5783324
>he's this he's that
What about you gitz start putting some sources and quotes on ya damn posts?

>>5783506
>>lgbt protects
>we already have the 14 amendment
Which isn't consistently applied to protect lgbt, especially trans people. It's still legal in many states to be fired or denied housing for being trans. If you're one of those libertarians who thinks businesses should be allowed to discriminate, well you're free to believe that, but keep in mind that you're only going to be hurting yourself, and unlike other minorities you won't have laws to protect you

>>abortion
>I don't care, but if it will piss sjws why not outlaw it
I really can't see what benefit a complete ban of abortion would have, unless you're one of those who believes even early term abortions are equivalent to murder. It would be bad for the economy (since people would have to raise babies instead of going to work or school), would force people into poverty (since those too poor to raise a kid wouldn't have any options), possibly increase domestic violence (since women without money to raise their children would have to stay with an abusive partner who supports them by necessity, and would not be able to leave without abandoning the baby), etc

>>5783537
>The thing is thougb, these laws are actually more racist. It's teaching blacks to depend on government instead of getting jobs. It's saying "I don't think blacks can make it on their own, they need whitey to come in and help them out".
>I say blacks are capable of doing it on their own. Is their still racism? Is some places, yes. Will they have to work harder because of it? Maybe. But I believe in them.
I mean, I get that giving racial minorities easy access to welfare, subsidized services etc can be racist, but I really don't think that anti-discrimination laws are in the same category. It's kind of neccessary to send people the message that discriminating on the basis of race is not acceptable.

>>5783593
Yes, but if there were armed people at every school, that's a lot more potential shooters. If just a miniscule fraction turned out to be a bit messed up in the head, you'd have school shootings a lot more regularly. Honestly I think a better idea is to make schools and such gun free zones that are actually ENFORCEABLE, e.g. with bulletproof doors that can be locked remotely.

>>5783621
It's an issue of enforcement.

>>5783649
How many innocent children have died as a result of people having gay sex?

>>5783739
"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" is hardly a new or original argument. And it's flawed in two ways. First, it assumes liberals actually want to BAN ALL guns, rather than just enforce reasonable background checks and forbid or heavily restrict ownership of guns that are only really useful for mass murder (i.e. military-grade automatic weapons can kill or wound large numbers of people in a short amount of time, but aren't really any more useful than normal guns for self-defense, so it makes sense to make civilian ownership of those illegal). Second, it assumes that it's impossible to stop criminals from getting guns (because "criminals don't follow laws") and that we shouldn't even bother trying. When in fact, stopping illegal gun sales is a necessary part of gun control. Obviously banning anything won't accomplish anything if you don't actually enforce it. The ultimate purpose of gun control is not to ban guns, but rather to make it harder for "bad guys" to get guns. And generally speaking, disarming bad guys is better than arming good guys, at least to the extent that it's possible. Guns are a purely offensive weapon, while they can be used defensively as a deterrent, they can't deflect bullets. If someone shoots me while my back is turned, it doesn't matter if I have a gun or not at that point. So assuming the ratio of armed "good guys" to armed "bad guys" is the same in both cases, I'd rather have a few people be armed than have everyone be armed.

>>5783763
But that's not going to stop anytime soon so you might as well fight to include gays until the policy stops. Get gays included and then fight for the end of it, don't just argue against it when people say it should be broadened to include gays.

>>5783889
That's not really addressing my point, you're just repeating your previously stated views. My argument is that inaction vs action is irrelevant, if you knowingly do something that causes harm to someone, you are responsible.

And you argue that anti-discrimination laws are bad because they deprive people of free will. But the gay person who starves to death because of homophobia didn't consent to his fate either. Why is his death less of an issue than business owners being required to have legitimate reasons to deny someone a job?

>>5783960
>How many innocent children have died as a result of people having gay sex?

You want to factor in rape and pedophilia? Not zero.

Just saying.

And again, you resort down to emotions to argue to point. The death of a small statistic of people means we should have sweeping regulations for a right that's existed since the birth of the country.

>>5784027
>enforce reasonable background checks

Ah ha, typical leftist weasel wording. "Reasonable", "common sense", phrases, when these are completely arbitrary terms that differ depending upon the person.

Another fault in your argument is that you think guns are meant to be used solely for personal self defense. At their core, they're intended to be used to defend against the potential tyranny of the government, as was the case during the founding of the nation.

Come on though, I know what your next argument will be. Saying that the general populace can't take on the military.

But meanwhile, how well has the United States' efforts in fighting in wars like Vietnam and Iraq fared? Now factor that any and all damage would be done to their own territory in the size of a country fifty times bigger than any of those smaller territories.

>>5784052
>you're just repeating your previously stated views

I'm a different guy. Sorry, didn't read the entire thread.

>>5784063
>a right that's existed since the birth of the country.

You know what? Even my wording there is wrong. It hasn't existed since the birth of the country, it's existed, just like our capability to speak our minds freely. The government doesn't bestow such things on people.

>>5784063
>But meanwhile, how well has the United States' efforts in fighting in wars like Vietnam and Iraq fared?
He'll say some vague thing like "it's a different place with a different culture" or "it wouldn't work here". I was seeing a guy that made the same arguments, lost my interest on him right after he spouted that bullshit.

>>5784063
>You want to factor in rape and pedophilia? Not zero.
Sure, but there are a lot more straight pedophiles than gay ones. By that logic we should ban heterosexuality.

>Ah ha, typical leftist weasel wording. "Reasonable", "common sense", phrases, when these are completely arbitrary terms that differ depending upon the person.
An important part is enforcement, as I stated. In many cases background checks exist in law but are not enforced. They follow an "innocent until proven guilty" principle, which is good for courtrooms, but not for purchase of restricted items. Imagine if instead of having to show ID at a bar, it was on them to prove you were underage? Same situation with background checks, they have to prove you're forbidden from buying a gun within a time limit, rather than having to fully check your record and make sure it's clean.

>Another fault in your argument is that you think guns are meant to be used solely for personal self defense. At their core, they're intended to be used to defend against the potential tyranny of the government, as was the case during the founding of the nation.
>Come on though, I know what your next argument will be. Saying that the general populace can't take on the military.
Armed individuals cannot take on the government. An organized militia can. Such a militia should be independent of the government (or otherwise there's no point), but gun ownership should only be allowed to members of the local militia. If the militia says you're too dangerous to be armed, you can't legally own a gun. The only problem is that it would be hard to enforce any policy to keep the militia leaders in line.

>>5784112
It's only a right because no one deprives you of it. If the government banned gun ownership, the only ones who would have a right to bear arms are those who are able to obtain them illegally. If you couldn't do that, then saying you have a right to bear arms is meaningless.

>>5784168
>An important part is enforcement, as I stated. In many cases background checks exist in law but are not enforced. They follow an "innocent until proven guilty" principle, which is good for courtrooms, but not for purchase of restricted items. Imagine if instead of having to show ID at a bar, it was on them to prove you were underage? Same situation with background checks, they have to prove you're forbidden from buying a gun within a time limit, rather than having to fully check your record and make sure it's clean.

Guns are not alcohol. Guns are not cars. Guns are not anything on that level. In terms of our constitution, they are next to our ability to freely speak our minds.

We have the inherent right to defend ourselves.

>Armed individuals cannot take on the government. An organized militia can. Such a militia should be independent of the government (or otherwise there's no point), but gun ownership should only be allowed to members of the local militia. If the militia says you're too dangerous to be armed, you can't legally own a gun. The only problem is that it would be hard to enforce any policy to keep the militia leaders in line.

So you just making up how you think things should be now, or what? Newsflash pal: every capable is part of the "militia", and that's what makes us dangerous and able to keep the potential government in check.

When every person can potentially be armed, you can bet your fucking ass that the police, the military, or anyone who could harm you, will be just that tiny bit more cautious.

>>5784185
>It's only a right because no one deprives you of it

We all have the right to defend ourselves, just as we all have the right to speak our minds. Just because a current power tries to strip those rights away from you doesn't mean you still don't have them, as much as they may want you to think otherwise.

>>5781383
nixon was a sleazy scumbag too, but he ended up being a good president, while carter the 'nice guy' was terrible

i'm voting clinton, idgaf about wanting to have a beer with her or whatever

>>5784219
>So you just making up how you think things should be now, or what? Newsflash pal: every capable is part of the "militia", and that's what makes us dangerous and able to keep the potential government in check.
Militia is defined by organization. Otherwise it's just a bunch of random guys with guns.

>We all have the right to defend ourselves, just as we all have the right to speak our minds. Just because a current power tries to strip those rights away from you doesn't mean you still don't have them, as much as they may want you to think otherwise.
A right that you can't actually exercise is meaningless. Is there a right to life? If so, if I get arrested for stealing to support my family, couldn't I say they're infringing on their right to life?

>>5784237
>Otherwise it's just a bunch of random guys with guns.

Funny, in terms of our constitution, that's not entirely wrong.

>A right that you can't actually exercise is meaningless

We all have the right to defend ourselves. If you hit me, I can hit back. What guns provide are an equalizer, because if endangering me, and you're two feet taller and a hundred pounds heavier, I can still protect myself from being hurt.

>>5784219
If rights are inherent whether you can exercise them are not, what determines what is a right? How can you prove that there is a right to bear arms, but not a right to everything? What makes "you're violating my rights" any different from saying "you should be ashamed for doing something that I don't like."

>>5784259
>We all have the right to defend ourselves. If you hit me, I can hit back.
But by that logic, people also have the right to murder. They can kill people, just like someone attacked can fight back. What makes these two situations different?

>What guns provide are an equalizer, because if endangering me, and you're two feet taller and a hundred pounds heavier, I can still protect myself from being hurt.
In some situations they're in equalizer, in other they just shift the advantage from strength to something else. If you shoot me in the back before I can react, it won't make a difference at that point whenever I have a gun or not. It just means you win fights by being sneaky rather than strong.

All I know is I make a fuckload of money, and I don't want sanders to take it.. Hillary is for preserving the current financial industry protections we have in our great nation, but she would be too weak to be leader of the world's sole superpower.

China's economy has devalued itself almost 40% in recent months, and I got Chinese trying to buy my house for fucks sake; trying to stash that slave-driver wealth to secure their status.

I'd be okay with Trump. I'm aware that most of what he wants will never happen. Clinton will carry the status quo -- but ultimately fail us on the "world's stage".

Trump or Clinton. "Works for me!"

>>5784276
>What makes "you're violating my rights" any different from saying "you should be ashamed for doing something that I don't like."

Because one is attempting to inhibit the freedom and actions of another.

>>5784294
>But by that logic, people also have the right to murder. They can kill people, just like someone attacked can fight back. What makes these two situations different?

One is protecting yourself, while the other is seeking to harm others. Murder tends to go against "life" part in the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

>It just means you win fights by being sneaky rather than strong.

If someone is going to be sneaking, they're going to be sneaky. They could go full Tom & Jerry and drop a fucking bowling ball on your head. All guns provide are a means. They don't stop people from being violent.

>>5781379
BERNIE SANDERS

>by a mile

>>5783406
Or you could vote for Trump.
http://christophercantwell.com/2016/01/24/radical-agenda-ep094-the-libertarian-case-for-trump/

>>5784063
>and again
>not talking with the same person
not that it matters much. I'll answer the rest later.

File: 1456454103868.jpg (500KB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 2048x2048px

>>5784381
I agree with trump on hardly anything. Anyone who would give up their principles and vote for Trump is not a real libertarian.

You could make a more libertarian case for Bernie. That article uses the regressive left, a loud minority, as their argument. That isn't representative of the whole. Libertarians are a mix of both sides, socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Bernie may be an economic moron, but he's at least got the socially liberal part down. Trump has got neither part down. And libertarians are highly against war unless it is defense, I don't like Bernie but at least he won't send us straight into WW3.

File: 1456446766697.png (389KB, 850x638px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 850x638px

>>5784381
Sanders can't get elected

Hillary is a bitch

Trump 2016

>>5784325
>Because one is attempting to inhibit the freedom and actions of another.
Okay, so anything that doesn't inhibit the freedom and actions of another is a right?

>If someone is going to be sneaking, they're going to be sneaky. They could go full Tom & Jerry and drop a fucking bowling ball on your head. All guns provide are a means. They don't stop people from being violent.
They do make it a bit easier to kill by being sneaky, as you don't need to be right next to someone to kill them. Without a gun, you'd need to get really close which isn't always practical.

>>5784437
Did you actually read the article. I know Trump is not a principled libertarian. And neither are you. Take that "fiscally conservative socially liberal" crap and shove it. It's about the non-agression principle and private property. Leftists are threatening to take my property and therefore violating my property rights. And as a result, I want a guy who will make life fucking miserable for leftists.

>>5784445
>Okay, so anything that doesn't inhibit the freedom and actions of another is a right?

You can get into a pretty big philosophical regarding these ideas, but ultimately what this comes down to is people have the right to protect themselves. Whether that be on the small scale, or the large.

>They do make it a bit easier to kill by being sneaky, as you don't need to be right next to someone to kill them. Without a gun, you'd need to get really close which isn't always practical.

They're tools. I'm not going to say that shooting someone isn't easier than stabbing, or doing anything else, but at the same time if someone wants to kill another, they'll still aim to do it.

Ultimately though, none of the arguments of violence at an individual level particularly matter in regards to the overall point of the amendment, which is to defend against governments stepping over the line.

>>5784469
philosophical debate*

>>5784457
But trump, the guy that supports eminent domain and tried to take an old ladies house for a fucking casino, isn't a threat to property rights?

And would you like to tell me how I am not a principled libertarian?

>>5784063
You should compare the "small statistic" of 10.54 gun death per 100,000 population per year of the United States with the ~1.5 and lower that pretty much every European country has.
This is 10 times higher and human lives are usually considered an important issue.

>>5784469
>You can get into a pretty big philosophical regarding these ideas, but ultimately what this comes down to is people have the right to protect themselves. Whether that be on the small scale, or the large.
Yes, but what I'm looking for is a general definition of what is a right. Either there's a known list of all things that are rights, or there's some rule to decide if something is a right or not. Otherwise the concept of a right is meaningless.

>>5784219
Not to rain on the gun parade, but they've become safety blankets to you, more than weapons.

When legislators openly doom vast swathes of their populace to poverty and abuse for generations, they don't get shot.

When police use deadly force to break up protests, they rarely get shot.

When your army kills people on strike, your citizenry doesn't execute your tyrannical government.

If you never defend yourself against abuse from authority, you only have guns as toys, trinkets, and ways to kill one-another.

Your government isn't afraid of you, or your guns. As a people, you won't hurt your masters.

>>5784474
>But trump, the guy that supports eminent domain and tried to take an old ladies house for a fucking casino, isn't a threat to property rights?
It is, but like I said, he isn't a principled libertarian. I'm supporting Trump because he makes the left, the people that want to tax citizens at 90% and force businesses to allow minorities onto their property, fear for their lives.

>And would you like to tell me how I am not a principled libertarian?
You're not a principled libertarian because you base your beliefs on "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" rather than the non-agression principle.

>>5784324
>All I know is I make a fuckload of money, and I don't want sanders to take it..
Yeah. Usually not wanting to share when you got the best part is called being an asshole. Kinda sad you don't realize that.
And please don't go like "they're all retarded lazy niggers that don't deserve it" on a board where most people are generalized as degenerates. You're supposed to know it's not true.

>>5784477
Those gun statistics also include matters such as suicide.

If you're going to kill yourself you're going to kill yourself.

Regardless, America is not Europe, nor does it need or want to be. Situations are different, and have been different between us for centuries. You don't have an inherent gun culture, so your thought processes might be different.

Lives are important, but people shouldn't have their rights stripped down because a selection of people feel they're too irresponsible to have them.

>>5784504
Doesn't following the non-aggression principle imply that one is socially liberal?

>>5784547
>If you're going to kill yourself you're going to kill yourself.
A lot of suicides are impulsive, if you don't have an easy way to kill yourself you're more likely to have to wait and have an opportunity to reconsider your feelings. The same is true of a lot of murders too.

>>5784550
You're side stepping.

>>5784503
If the government isn't afraid of people and their guns, then why the heavy push towards more regulations regarding them?

I mean it was a scary time a few years back when shit with the NSA started to fly and all the while we had people trying to inch their way further into disarming the populace. That was some fucking Orwellian stuff.

The police though are scared shitless of people and guns. It's part of their training, and they're shown not to take the average citizen at just face value.

>>5784550
No. Forcing gay marriage down the throat of everyone in the nation, killing unborn children, and importing thousands of violent third world theocrats is against the nonaggression principle.

>>5784554
Even if you factor in suicides the numbers aren't so rampant that there needs to be a push towards sweeping changes. We are a country of over 300 million that spans from coast to coast and into territories beyond. I think some people don't fully understand that. Five figure numbers don't showcase a pandemic.

Sanders is the best candidate, but if it comes down to trump and clinton you really should vote trump.
Clinton is a liar, the corporate shill supreme of the major candidates, and fucking all around evil as fuck. She's also weak, she's just a plain bad politician. Her only strengths are the legacy of the people she's surrounded by, her name and her vagina.

>>5784567
That's not what socially liberal means. It just means you have no problem with people living differently from you as long as they don't harm anyone. And indeed, in a true libertarian society, wouldn't gay marriage be a non-issue? Don't libertarians think marriage shouldn't be a government matter?

>>5784573
The size of the country doesn't really make a difference since we're talking about ratios.

>>5784567
I believe government should stay out of marriage. But if a church decides to marry a gay couple, I am perfectly fine with that. More power to them.

As for abortion, it isn't a life yet when people get it aborted. It's authoritarian to say people can't get abortions, it's making laws against their bodies.

As for the importing people thing, open borders is a core libertarian belief. We believe in the free movement of people. End the welfare state and adopt an open border policy is a common belief.

Honestly, you sound like nothing more that a Republican calling yourself a libertarian because it's what's cool now. I wish you people would just fuck off and stop giving us a bad name. The reality is, libertarians are some of the most open minded and socially liber group their is, we have been there advocating for various social issues before it was popular and still are. Someone as close-minded as you doesn't really fit in with this idealology.

>>5784595
>The size of the country doesn't really make a difference since we're talking about ratios.

I think it does matter. We are a country that founded themselves as one with the ability to bear arms. This is something that's been in our blood since our inception. Yes, gun deaths may be higher, but I think we should be looking at just how many people are dying.

When it comes down to things, it's not millions. It's not even hundreds of thousands. It float around the high five figure range, and goes lower if you factor in suicides.

>>5784559
Yes, your police fear is well-documented. At the slightest sign of risk, they shoot to kill. Strangely, your untrained mob of "armed citizens" usually disperse, and later endorse the government declaration that any organised group are terrorists.

The people suggesting gun control aren't taking away your weapons; as a populace, you're already toothless. May as well know whose gun it was that shot some other coward - it's not as though you'll turn those weapons on your enemies. It's a good thing, too. Historically, your abusers have just brought in bigger guns to slaughter you.

>>5784637
Trannies should be euthanized

>>5784637
So you're argument is that the American people are already weak, and as such, deserve to become weaker.

Well, the fact that people continuously shoot down the demands to limit our rights on this, and in fact, gun rights are overall expanding, tells me that we might not be as weak as you believe.

>>5784602
You are fucking autistic. I am a libertarian because I believe in the non-agression principle, private property, and the abolition of the state.

>It's authoritarian to say people can't get abortions, it's making laws against their bodies.
I don't support abortion laws, but I am against abortion. In the real word, you have to make a choice whether the state forces you to pay for some irresponsible black woman's abortion or the state forces abortion clinics to shut down. I would honestly rather the state forced morality than force degeneracy.

>open borders is a core libertarian belief
Open borders is anti-libertarian. The point of private property is to establish borders.

You are seriously one of the most autistic people I've talked to. Read some real libertarians like Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Murray Rothbard.

>>5784645
Ooh, good choice. Trans people don't have the power or the numbers to make your life as shit as it is, but at least that means when you take it out on them, you'll probably come out on top. Good way to feel good about yourself when your chains get to chafing.

>>5784651
Security blankets, Anon. The people expanding those rights spend the rest of their time limiting your other rights. How fortunate you are to be free to cuddle your blankie.

>>5784664
Continue to use your condescending speech all you like. You're not going to shame or subdue people into giving away their rights.

>>5784595
To maintain a libertarian order, people with degenerate behaviors will be socially ostracized.

Let's say someone marries 6 women, 4 men, a donkey, a horse, and a sheep. Its not harming anyone and would in that sense be ok. But for a society to be maintained it must have a strong moral character and it wouldn't be unlibertarian for utility companies to prevent him from having access to utilities or grocery stores and restaurants from having access to food etc. He would be forced to take his degenerate lifestyle somewhere else.

>>5784658
You can have abortion and not fund clinics. Ultimately taxes are theft and should be abolished, so nothing should be funded by government. But if you have the funds, you should be allowed to pay for an abortion at a hospital.

As for borders, the government should not be allowed to own property. Closing off a countries borders is anti libertarian and an overreach of government power. If a private citizen wants to purchase that land and not allow people on it that's one thing, but then it's not really a border.

>>5784658
>In the real word, you have to make a choice whether the state forces you to pay for some irresponsible black woman's abortion or the state forces abortion clinics to shut down.

What, in fucking australia or something? That kind of shit doesn't happen in America. Stupid political armchair fucktards think it does because their newssource is right wing blogs. Reality and evidence say otherwise. Oops I mean libral medjia!

>>5784691
Actually, it would be unlibertarian for utility companies to refuse service. Utility companies would not be allowed to discriminate since they are heavily mandated by government and are essentially a monopoly. Government can not discriminate.

>>5784645
This. I hope Emperor Trump will make it happen

>>5784691
I think that goes against the libertarian philosophy though. Who's to define what is "degenerate" in the first place? Who's to define what "moral character" means? And I don't see how ostracizing people for being attracted to the same sex is moral in any way. If anything it shows moral weakness if you're willing to reject your fellow citizens over something as petty as that.

>>5784658
I'll support every black woman's abortion with my taxes. No problem

>>5784714
That you see it as petty is not fact, other people certainly do not see it as petty.

>>5784677
I'd rather shame and infuriate you into using your perceived right to defend your freedom to actually fucking defend your freedom for a change.

>>5784714
>Who's to define what is "degenerate" in the first place? Who's to define what "moral character" means?

Well, you see...the general community decides that! And then people kind of just agree or don't agree, because there's no cause for middle ground or debate obviously. And then those people could even maybe have some sort of process to choose a spokesperson, to voice their concerns and manage the efforts of running those fags out of town.

>>5784727
You're talking in platitudes. Yes, there are issues to be had right now with the state of America, but what specific ones do you think garner a full on national uprising?

And bear in mind, I'm not trying to come of as condescending on this. What do you think deserves it?

>>5784726
Sure, but that's the whole point, with that kind of disagreement there will be no cultural unity in a libertarian society. At least in a statist society we at least have laws to give us a clear framework of "okay" and "not okay".

>>5784728
Libertarians are opposed to government because it results in an oppression. But a community kicking out people for being different from them is also oppression. And if they appoint a spokesperson, they're instituting a form of government of their own.

>>5784728
Majority of America believes fag marriage should be legal and is not degenerate. Even bigger majority believes drugs should be legal and is not degenerate. Guess it's time to run you it if town.

>>5784757
Please do not lump him in with us. Like I said, he is not a real libertarian. People like him are why were viewed like crazy unsympathetic assholes. He is nothing but a close minded homophobic republican using our label.

>>5784714
>Who's to define what is "degenerate" in the first place? Who's to define what "moral character" means?
The same people that have defined moral values for all of fucking eternity. People engaging in the free market.

As for your little bit on ostracizing, I'm not talking about fags. I'm talking about tranies, free lovers, commies, and dune coons.

>>5784757
>At least in a statist society we at least have laws to give us a clear framework of "okay" and "not okay".
but who gets to be satisfied with the law? the state doesn't solve the disagreement, it just enforces a winner

>>5784757
>Libertarians are opposed to government because it results in an oppression.
Libertarians don't oppose the government because of "much-oppression." We oppose it because it violates private property. Ostracizing people out of a community is not a violation of property rights.

>>5784782
Trannies aren't harming anyone either. No matter how you feel about them, ostracizing them IS a form of oppression. That's the flaw in the ideology of the internet meme libertarians, they think government is the cause of oppression. It's not. It's a consequence of oppression. People desiring power over others leads to government, this is inevitable in any society. The only way to end oppression is to change human nature, or create a society in which is it not in people's best interest to oppress others. Elimination of government works against these goals, and would only leave a power vacuum for an even more unjust government to take over.

>>5784777
If you're gonna say I'm a fake libertarian, at least have the balls to call me a Neo-Nazi.

>>5784805
Okay, so you're okay with people being oppressed as long as you have your property rights? That just makes you sound greedy.

File: 1446794849390.png (6KB, 309x246px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 309x246px

>>5784805
>Ostracizing people out of a community is not a violation of property rights.

>>5784811
You'd be a bit more respectable if you were.

>>5784812
I don't fucking care. If your so fucking "oppressed" go off and start your own society. Don't force your shit in our faces.

>>5784837
Oppressed groups often don't have the means to start their own society, if their oppressors control all the resources, what are they supposed to do? Sure, you're free to not care, but it makes you come off as horrifically entitled. And if you value property rights above the well-being of your fellow humans, you probably are.

And if the trannies somehow did make their own society, and became wealthy enough to buy all the land in your town, and forced you to leave, would you feel you deserve your fate? Would you not feel wronged?

>>5784807
I agree that oppression leads to states leads to more oppression, but you loose me at " No matter how you feel about them, ostracizing them IS a form of oppression." Its not. Not associating with someone isn't oppression.

>>5784853
>And if the trannies somehow did make their own society, and became wealthy enough to buy all the land in your town, and forced you to leave, would you feel you deserve your fate? Would you not feel wronged?
No. To buy my land, they would have had to get my permission and according to your example I said yes.

>>5784874
They wouldn't need to buy your own land specifically. They could just buy the local farms for example, and refuse to sell the food to you. Or the local stores, etc.

>>5784864
I fail to see how refusing to sell food to a group (especially if you're the only seller in that area, often common in small towns) isn't oppression. You're making it impossible for them to live there.

>>5784887
Still. I would leave because living there would be shit. I wouldn't feel bad because I would want to leave and go live with the people that sold their homes and farms and stores to trannies.

>>5784892
Do you know what freedom of association is?

>>5784903
I know what freedom of association is, but I believe it's immoral to exercise it if doing so would cause unnecessary harm to people.

>>5784898
Okay, but what if the only place left is some really shitty place? Like what if you used to live in a nice town on the coast and the only other place available is off in the desert somewhere? This is particularly significant if the local economy is dependant on the environment - you wouldn't be able to do much farming or fishing in the desert

>>5784906
Not to mention that nowhere in any code for how freedom of association is conducted does it say that someone can prevent others from associating how they choose. Freedom of association is not your freedom to prevent others from associating. You can leave whatever group you like, but you can't force anyone else to leave any group at all.

Hillary is just a puppet vote for Bernie.

>>5784063
>small statistic of people
>small

"Gun owners have shot 4.5 million Americans in 45 years and managed to kill 1.34 million of them. "

"In 2012, 130,437 people were shot. In 2013, 132,885."

At this rate you're all gonna kill yourselves. And if I were a citizen of the United States, I wouldn't be safe knowing that some nut with itchy fingers can be anywhere, in my campus, in the mall, at the university... I don't care how much of a "good guy with a gun" you are, many guns-related death occur because a "good guy" lost his shit.

If you want a gun you should have at least 6 months of practise at the fire range and a psychiatric evaluation.

>>5784294
>All I know is I make a fuckload of money, and I don't want sanders to take it.

>fuck you, got mine

>>5784477
A suicide is a small impulse over time. People who survive their suicide don't do it again 90% of the time.
Yon can't survive a suicide with a gun.


Overall, I am deeply confused by the gun-owner mentality, you think a piece of metal should have more rights to you, that it's okay to lave in constant fear...

>>5784825
Property is theft anyway.

>>5781490
immigration is coming from asia now, get your head out of 2003

>>5785510
>3.9 non-suicide deaths/100k people/year
whew lad better ban those guns!

>>5785553
Belgium: 0.68 guns-related deaths for over 1 millions civilian firearms.

You shoudn't ban all guns, but be trained. Gun safety, psychological stability, when to have your gun...

I see comments saying they like Bernie but rather vote for Clinton because she have a higher chance of winning. The only reason she will most likely win is because of people like you give up. At least vote for Bernie even if you think she's gonna win, you never know till you try.

Honestly I have a hard time trusting Hillary because of her email controversy and her pro DOMA. She's so inconsistent with her POV unlike Sanders who always vote against segegration and DOMA even when it was against moral belief.

>>5785565
so?

>>5785576
not to mention Sanders is beating all the republican candidates in polls while Clinton either isn't or is winning by a lot less

>>5781379
I'm voting trup for shits and giggles and there is nothing you can do to stop me

[spoiler]I've been voting republican for years anyways, sorry familam.[/spoiler]

>>5785565
They typically are trained in gun safety, but not always.
Psychological stability cannot be proactively tested for by the gov't, the hoops they'd have to jump through to get precedent for it would be hysterical.

>>5782773
>my interests are anything that makes Christians miserable

absolutely disgusting

File: 1455774251467.jpg (35KB, 360x360px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 360x360px

>>5783324
>politicalcompass.org

>>5781544
I live in New York, and guess what, so does Trump.

>>5783324
>political compass
This is probably the worst meme to ever occur in mainstream reddit politics.
That thing is the most misleading piece of shit ever created.

>>5782618
You probably deserved it.

>>5781544
>which means get fucked if you live in the South or an homophobic state.
To be fair that isn't what courts say.

>>5781604
>You're judging refugees on the behalf of few of them, the same way fundamentalists are judging gays on the behalf of few of them
This is how the world works, anon. One shouldn't encourage others to take on undue risk.
Also, I actually wonder how many of these so called refugees ever intend to return home?

>>5784892
Everyone on 4chan is oppressing you right now

>>5782618
>a gay on the staff would upset clientele
I'd wager you could take that one to court.

Perhaps it isn't just the fact that you're gay, anon.

>>5784728
How come gay people oppose "oppression by popular opinion" aka discrimination but they're okay with political correctness? And then they say it's okay because society is just telling you your shitty opinions aren't welcome here. That's hypocrisy.

>>5783043
norway, sweden, denmark
>sweden has been a capitalist nation since the mid 90's

>>5784626
a million death would be 0.3% of the country's population, which would be completely insane. You have to realize tens of thousands of deaths every. single. year is nothing to scoff at when mos of those could be avoided.
In 2014 there were 32,675 deaths from road accident. The same year, 33,599 died from firearms.
Do you think road safety is not a concern at all ?

>>5785788
So is Sweden just a "leftist hell hole" when it is convenient?

>>5785576
It's a classic paradox. Bernie voters would prefer Bernie, but fear that he's too controversial to win the general election, and would still prefer Hillary over Trump or Cruz.

>>5785734
They didn't say anything about Christians. But Republicans generally don't support LGBT+ rights, which isn't surprising given how much they love "traditional values".

>>5785749
If they had a legitimate reason not to hire them, they would have been able to say that and not use him being gay as an excuse.

>>5785756
I suppose you could argue that any behavior falls under the category of oppression, however people on 4chan calling me a dumb faggot isn't depriving me of survival necessities.

>>5785760
Political correctness does not cause people to be unable to feed themselves or their family, or cause parents to kick out underage children, etc.

>>5785959
Road safety IS a concern, which is why we take measures to improve it - speed limits, vehicle safety testing, driver's licenses, etc. But when you start talking about applying the same degree of safety legislation to gun ownership, gun owners throw a temper tantrum.

>>5785971
Kek

>>5786211
>Road safety IS a concern
>causes less deaths than guns
Then at least you will agree that something needs to be done. Any idea apart from taking away the guns ? (serious question. Contenting everyone would be nice)

>>5781829
When the fuck has Trump said anything about LGBT shit?

>>5782875
>Also The Republican candidates are all talking about trying to stack the court with justices that will overturn marriage.
You're a paranoid idiot. The Supreme court already had a conservative tilt when that ruling was made.

One thing you faggots are too stupid to realize is that the majority of the republican establishment doesn't give a fuck about gay marriage, or abortion, or prayer in schools or any of that horseshit. They only bang on about that stuff because it pulls evangelical voters. If it were Huckabee or Santorum who was going to be president, maybe you'd have something to be worried about, but Cruz, Rubio, and Trump are not moralist candidates, Trump least of all.

And remember that Hillary was not a supporter of gay marriage until relatively recently.

>>5786316
Don't talk like that you Christian pedophile dog shit.

File: 1441744139805.jpg (214KB, 563x721px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 563x721px

>>5783043
So let me offer up some perspective on that list you posted.

>10.96% more likely to be unemployed
When it comes to the rights of the labor-force Sweden are miles ahead of America with higher wages for more traditional blue collar jobs, higher pensions and a better regulated marketplace. This is however changing, as the unified front that previous generations of workers had is dying. When a country is ethnically, culturally and religiously divided with a rapidly growing population labor becomes cheap. There is already a great push to LOWER the minimum wage.

>91.83% less likely to be in prison
This is both good and bad. Good because American jails are breeding ground for criminals, and bad because a slew of crimes such as rape, robbery and assault are hardly punished in Sweden while the same crimes carry great penalties in the united states. You could say that the government and the courts haven taken the perspective of the offender, not the victim.

>Have 11.26% more free time
I believe this to be difficult to measure. It varies between workplaces and what kind of a job you have. That being said you do have five weeks of paid vacation a year in Sweden. It comes back to labor rights.

>Make 22.54% less money
I feel like the real difference is much greater as products and services are a lot cheaper in the united states. There are certain services a lot of Americans take for granted (such as pizza delivery) that are very uncommon in Sweden because it's not economically viable to provide them.

>Experience 48.89% class divide
I'm not sure what they mean with this, but I think that in the general sense it's true. Public spaces like transportation or shopping centers are certainly more "integrated" but this is not just a positive thing. It's better for the poor who are not confined to their areas of living, but bad for everyone else because middle class people run a lot higher risk of being the victims of crime and other negative things.

File: 1435594808497.jpg (19KB, 276x320px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 276x320px

>>5786325
To follow up on this. The future of Sweden is a worse version of what America is today. Wages are stagnating, public services are rapidly decreasing, multi-culturalism and cultural marxism has become the state's new religion, crime has risen with 50% since the 1990's and taxes remain among the highest in the world. If I am going to live in a country where there is no social cohesion, I might as well live in America where I get to keep some of what I earn.

Oh and the future for lgbt people in Sweden is grim. Today it might be celebrated in the media and accepted among the white population but the new minorities doesn't share those values. Murders, assaults and bullying of lgbt people are on the rise and it will continue to rise until it's once more unthinkable to display affection in public for a gay couple.

Daily reminder that gun violence has been dropping since the early 90's
>https://archive.is/EB3LD
and for 2014
>https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls
If we stay the course the problem will eventually resolve itself

>>5786302
It's not as simple as taking away the guns. In Washington DC, allowing CCWs again had an instant and dramatic decrease in violent crime. Sane, sober, law abiding citizens with guns can apparently reduce crime and violence.

Gun laws in America aren't actually targeted at who the criminals and murderers are or any crime studies. They're overwhelmingly aimed at posturing for the public and general disarmament.

I see it much more simply. When was the last time an armed gayfag or transfag got bashed?

>>5786316
>The Supreme court already had a conservative tilt when that ruling was made.
That doesn't mean a more extreme conservative tilt won't make things worse.

>Cruz, Rubio, and Trump are not moralist candidates, Trump least of all.
Trump isn't, he's just a populist/nationalist with some libertarian ideas. But Cruz attended an event held by a pastor who literally thinks homosexuals should be punished by death, so I'm pretty skeptical of the claim that he's not a moralist.

>>5786331
You lost me at "cultural marxism".

>>5786366
You're not the one who has to live it. It's very real and it affects peoples lives.

>>5786358
>I see it much more simply. When was the last time an armed gayfag or transfag got bashed?
Do you happen to have any actual statistics on this?

>>5786372
Political attitudes may harm people, but that doesn't mean cultural marxism exists.

>>5782919
I actually moved to Canada. I'm voting for Bernie by mail. <3 I'd be really happy if the USA became a communist nation; I'd consider moving back.

And I worked really hard to get where I am and get what I have. I just never developed the destructive mindset of, 'since I had it difficult, everyone else should have it just as difficult'; my experiences with how hard I've had to work just drove it further into my head that basic needs like medicine and university should be available to everyone for free.

>>5781490
>do you seriously want to live in an america where europeans are the minority
Badly. Kick the white bois out 2k16

>>5781379
I'm a Virginia resident that will ve voting in the Virginia primary and I am undecided as to who to vote for... Hillary or Bernie.

Hillary and Bernie supporters please try and convince me to vote for your candidate.

Log cabin republican here.

the dictator in chief already forced everyone to like and accept, it worked so great right?

nah. LGBT was making progress for the last 3 decades looking good in the public eye. Then Obama shined a rainbow on the fucking white house and made all the judeo christians despise us even more so.

forced integration is not the answer, and neither is voting for a literal marxist socialist. as for Hillary I'd be fine and dandy with a female president, anyone but her though, anyone but that lying criminal. The fact that you're willing to vote for either of them means you're politically uninformed and get your facts from twitter and facebook. and I know lgbt has some SJW crossover but if another democrat gets into office the progressives are going to eat what is left of this crippled fucking nation. BLM is literally trying to enforce new segregation and decriminalize minor offenses like trespassing, drinking publically, and disrupting the peace.

get over yourself and your orientation. there is so much more than that.

I'm gay and have a boyfriend.

Can one of you screeching people give me an actual source where Trump said he was for or against LGBT rights?

From what I understand, he's pro civil unions but basically against forcing priests to marry people when they don't want to.

>>5787319

I believe your analysis is correct

>>5787319
I would also like to add to this that I could care less about being married in a church and think the right for that should belong to whoever owns/runs the place.

So long as I can be considered 'married' in a legal way I'm fine with that.

Besides, for every church that refuses to preform a marriage there would be three others willing to do so.

>>5787307
>Then Obama shined a rainbow on the fucking white house and made all the judeo christians despise us even more so.

They would have despised us regardless you idiot. I don't mind gay conservatives, but gay conservatives like you who bend over backwards to try and appease those who hate us are just pure cancer.

Do you honestly care what people like Kim Davis think and do you think she would hate you anymore or less with or without that rainbow shone upon the white house.

Consider yourself excommunicated from the gay community for stupidity and pure cuckery. Gay conservatives are allowed but cucks like you aren't GTFO.

>>5787307
>all the judeo christians
>all
You are fucking retarded. There are so many different sects and branches of Christians with differening beliefs, the fact that you generalize to all shows how dumb you really are.

I respect people who aren't gay who talk like you because they don't know any better, you should. You are shit. Please kindly fuck off.

>>5787370

And people like you who can only attempt to silence others and are obsessed with your sexuality are worst than cancer. You want to force everyone to like you and that isn't the way the world works. Things take time, someone in power cannot force people to like and accept you. Get over yourself or kill yourself, either way don't reply to my posts with anymore self righteous cuck bullshit.

>>5787319
http://news.yahoo.com/trump-appoint-supreme-court-justices-160600158.html

He wants to overturn the Supreme Court ruling.

He's also buddy with that phony televangelist Pat robertson. A family member of mine worked for old Patty, he really is a fraud.

>>5787384
>are worst than cancer.
kek
>Can't even do grammar properly

Also learn to read I have no interest in making everyone like me, I know there's some people who never will, the type you're trying to appease. I could care less what they think.

God you're dumb as shit.

>>5787379
>>5787370

4chan.org/tumblr/

>>5787384
>Get over yourself or kill yourself
Aww is baby upset? Were you triggered?

The people who say shit like that are the ones who get overly emotional when arguing.

>>5787397

literally tumblr. Forcing everyone to like you is the point of this thread so I guess you can't even 'do grammar' properly either.

>>5787398
>tfw LGBT is the tumblr of 4chan

>>5787307
>LGBT was making progress for the last 3 decades looking good in the public eye

Because Stonewall, because inclusivity, because education.

>>5787404
Different anon, but you're turning me on. I love dumb guys, like the dumb jocks who can't think.

Man I'd love to fuck your ass like you grunt like the neanderthal you truly are.

I want to ravish your asshole while you talk dumb.

>>5787413
Kinky

>>5787307
Lol, you lash out at our allies and those who are gay while cuddling up to the phobes and people who already hate us?

You're a fucking moron.

>>5787413

You're getting me hot and bothered too. Wanna meet up at Trump's Texas rally and make out?

>>5787379
All Christians are shit though. I've never once heard of a Christian stoning one of their own kind for looking at a homosexual funny, but they still stone homosexuals for having a funny look in some parts of the world, and many Christians in western countries call for the west to start doing that again. Once Christians start beheading and hanging the Christians who use the word fag, then I'll consider "some" Christians human, until then they're all shit.

>>5787379
Sure, there are plenty of judeo-christians who DON'T hate us, but the supreme court isn't forcing them to do anything. They're not required to do gay marriages in churches. The only christians who would get upset about the legalization of secular gay marriage are the ones LOOKING for an excuse to hate gays.

>>5787404
I don't care about people liking me, as long as they don't try to interfere with me having equal rights.

>>5787307
Log Cabin Republicans are a group of retards. They're so dumb and pretentious that they assert the absurd notion that Abraham Lincoln was gay, that's where the term "log cabin" comes from in their name.

You're a bunch of idiots who look down on everyone else when you're just as bad if not worse by pushing lies such as Abraham Lincoln was gay. That's going to piss people off more than the White House lit up in rainbow colors.

Dumbasses the lot of you.

>>5787430

My point was that they could learn to love us over time, like many were already beginning or well into. I know this from first hand experience. Executive orders are not the solution. Obama fucked up. You are ignorant.

>>5787439
The Methodists and the Episcopalians are pretty cool with us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Esb7oBAHd7c

>>5787447
Supreme court decisions can be decided by executive order?

>>5787441

Equal rights would come very easily from universal acceptance. Something that will never occur with radical LGBT leftists.

>>5787447
Mmm yea talk dumb some more. Oh fuck, I'm leaking ore cum right now over your stupidity. Keep talking and don't stop. This is so dumb and so hot at the same time. Man I would fuck your man cherry raw while you squeal like a little piggy.

>>5787451
A happy video, but they seem to have a pretty lax interpretation of the Scriptures.

>>5787456
Equal rights would only exist if protected by the government. People don't hate gays because they're asking too much, gays have been hated even before they started pushing for the right to marry. And gay marriage being legalized isn't depriving anyone of anything, so anyone who uses it as an excuse to hate gays always hated gays to begin with.

File: ignorant.jpg (77KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 400x400px

>>5787447

>>5787453

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/07/21/president-obama-signs-new-executive-order-protect-lgbt-workers

File: 12593951324_ff67e3b3df_b.jpg (171KB, 770x1024px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 770x1024px

>>5782773
My interests are to not throw the economy in a black hole which democrats surely are trying to meticulously do.
I just understand how economy works and understand that more taxes, higher min wage, quotas are going to destroy business (that creates and runs everything in the world, like blood), which leads to lowering of my possibilities of earning a good living.

I just choose reality over fantasy, knowledge and rationality over idealism and delusion.

>>5787451
That doesn't address what I said at all. Have a single Methodist or Episcopalian every beheaded a Baptist or Catholic for calling gays funny names? No? Then all Methodists and Episcopalians should be killed, same as the other dog shit.

>>5787465
How, the word homosexual is never in the Bible. There was no concept of sexual orientation back then. Also the sort of male on male sex they were condemning is what they saw in the greek and pagan societies which was pederasty and temple prostitution.

Two consenting adult men loving each other was essentially unheard of back then. The writers of the bible took anything associated with being a gentile or a pagan and condemned it as part of their ways so that the Jews could create their own separate identity.

Books like Leviticus are all about making a Jewish identity.

>>5787475
>Books like Leviticus are all about making a Jewish identity.

If you interpret them with a modern and progressive eye. Taken as literal value, it says clearly to not "lie with man as you lie with woman ; this is an abomination".

Unrelated, but the same way the Jihad in Koran (not sure of the writing, I'm not English) taken at face value is about war and killing, and interpret with a peaceful mind is about finding peace in yourself.

>>5787466

>Equal rights would only exist if protected by the government.

What a revelation.

>People don't hate gays because they're asking too much

You're right, they hate us because it always has to be about us, we have non stop degenerate sex that caused an AIDS epidemic, and most lesbians are annoying militant feminists and hypocrites.

> gays have been hated even before they started pushing for the right to marry.

Read above

>And gay marriage being legalized isn't depriving anyone of anything

Yeah it's definitely not depriving them of adhering to their religious beliefs at all. I'm saying this as an atheist too.

>so anyone who uses it as an excuse to hate gays always hated gays to begin with.

And posts replying to my original post are certainly going to suppress that hatred some day.

>>5787468
That just bans discrimination on the basis of sexuality or gender identity. Doesn't mean gays and trannies get special privileges, just that you can't fire them for being gay or trans. The only ones who would be opposed to this are those who think people deserve to be unemployed simply because they're gay or trans, i.e. people who are going to hate us no matter what we do.

>>5787494
>Imma say some straight dog shit

>>5787494
>You're right, they hate us because it always has to be about us, we have non stop degenerate sex that caused an AIDS epidemic, and most lesbians are annoying militant feminists and hypocrites.
Lesbians were hated even when "feminism" was athing.

>Yeah it's definitely not depriving them of adhering to their religious beliefs at all. I'm saying this as an atheist too.
Their religious beliefs forbid them from living in a country that allows gays to get married? Remember, we're not saying churches have to marry gays, we're talking about secular marriage. You're only entitled to religious freedom of expression so long as it doesn't entail depriving others of their rights.

>>5787502
*even before "feminism" was a thing

>>5787502
>Their religious beliefs forbid them from living in a country that allows gays to get married?

I wish. It would be great if they all left.

File: Bernie_button.jpg (43KB, 425x516px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 425x516px

>>5787272
look up anything about Hilliary being a lying sleezy corrupt jerk. Who only goes by what the polls say.
Gay rights isn't that big of an issue this election, but she had decades and she only came around 2 years prior to the SC decision. She's not a leader.
Just look at her try and keep up with Bernie. "oh I voted for the Iraq war but that was a bad choice now that I think about it" "I said the TPP was great, but now since I am running it's not as good as I thought since alot of my base seems to hate it"
even if we go along with the facade that she genuinely changed her mind, do we really want a president who will make choices, regret it later and we have to live with the consequences?
not to mention she is less electable then Sanders in most polls, despite what people say. Bernie is always beating the republicans by wider margins, and her trustworthy and approval ratings are super bad.
even if you think he is too left that is fine. He will actually fight for something and then the compromise might be more moderate. While shillary will compromise before the compromising even begins in an attempt to seem partisan or pragmatic.
She is just a corporate puppet.

I hope you vote for Bernie and I hope Virginia is one of the few if any states Sanders can actually win from her in the former confederacy.
The Commonwealth of Virginia from all I can tell is probably the best southern state so I am optimistic.

File: let's dispel the fiction this is a straight man.jpg (20KB, 700x393px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 700x393px

>>5781379
>The first gay president of american history

make it happen /lgbt/

>>5781379
>Sanders or Clinton
Rat poison or mercury?
>it is vital we have to get a Democrat in the white house in 2016.
[Citation needed]
>The US Supreme Court is at stake here.
Wake me up when they resurrect Robert Bork and put his putrefying body on the bench.
>That means not just LGBT discrimination protections,
In my experience as both part of the LGBT community (de facto) and as someone potentially on the receiving end of such 'discrimination suits' (as an employer and service provider) I'll pass.
>abortion
You have Roe V. Wade.
>environmental protections
As in auditing the practices of the steel industry, reassessing the need for various damns and addressing which 'endangered' species are worth protecting, or is that newspeak for trying to dismantle the oil and gas industries, and without a viable nuclear strategy, replace it with effectively nothing
>But but what about geothermal, wind and solar!
Like I said, effectively nothing.
>voting rights,
Translation: amnesty
>gerrymandering
Fix Maryland's Devil District first and we'll talk.
> campaign finance
I have no issue with this, but know any law applied to a corporation must also be equitably applied to a union as well
>This is the most important election of our life time.
Elections from now to the US' projected demographic tipping point in 2032 is going to be increasingly important.

>>5785519
It's largely projected to come from SOUTH-East Asia- such as India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Pakistan (whose populations are exploding)

not EAST Asia- such as the PRC, ROC, HK, SK, Japan, Singapore and Macau (whose populations are stagnating).
>>5785565
Cross reference violent crime data by
>income
>city
>age
>race
Then come back to me when you find the strongest correlation.
>>5781544
Lrn to Voting Bloc.

Immigrants from the second- and third- world and their children and grandchildren
>stay on welfare
>vote to increase the welfare state
>vote Democrat
>vote against
>vote against gun rights
>have greater allegiance to practical benefits than to constitutional integrity
>have a higher birth rate than the native population
(ah you mean the people whose land Whites stole from!?)
>You know what I fucking mean; native in the demographic sense.

What does it matter that there is a steadily declining conservative voting bloc if they will be outnumbered by a factor to one through mass immigration

>>5781604
>> only 30% of these "refugees" actually are refugees.
>implying Care to show where these stats come from ?

1. We need to demarcate who is coming from Syria or another nation at war from those who are not
2. We need to demarcate from those coming from nations in a state of war, those who lost their status as asylum seekers and can now be categorized as economic migrants.

There are various figured about, but the question is to respond to you: Whom do you consider a refugee?

>and many refugees have integrated themselves well enough in their home countries.
>many
We cannot properly quantify this since much of Europe doesn't record or reveal crime and literacy data based on race, ethnicity, religion and/or country of origin
>integrate
We cannot properly qualify this for the reason above

From most accounts, crime rate in Europe has gone up.

>>5781604

>Case in point, the poles from 3 generations away didn't destroy the western civilisations, Poles come from a largely Westernized nation
Poland has had connections with the rest of Europe for the better part of a millennium,
Poland, as well as the rest of Europe, has a Christian background,
Poland doesn't come for a culture that subjugated women and oppressed gays to the extent Muslim nations have
>But muh intersecting oppressive White patriarchical power structures I learned about in Sociology 101
Real, tangible oppression.

>ib4 they were white so it doesn't count
Turks have integrated fairly well in Germany, even though they too have increased the crime rate by all unofficial accounts.

>If your information comes from Fox News
Fox news does not cover this subject.

>Muslims will be still less then 7% in these 2 countries,
That's a VERY SIGNIFICANT welfare bloc and voting bloc, not to mention when you take into account birthrates, by 2050 they can very well turn the tables demographically.

>>5781772
If Democrats wanted to- really wanted to- they could have ousted Hillary from running and left the campaign between Webb, Sanders, and O'Malley, by threatening to lobby Bloomberg to run indie and for him en masse if she didn't end her campaign.
>>5781840
>IQ per country
>Asian tigers, Macau, PRC, Germany and Scandanavia rank at the top
>KSA, Pakistan, Syria, Libya rank relatively low
>Literacy per country
Heh, similar pattern
>Gender inequality index
Welp
>Nations and cultures that have a history of violent intolerance against certain subgroups
Oops
>Nations and ethnicities by birthrate
Shit
>Voting patterns of people by country of origin /ethnicity
Well that doesn't mean anyth-
>Crime rate compared to Whites and Asians
Nurture! Not Nature!
>Welfare usage per capita
But we should be generous!

>>5781847
>Tbh I'm surprised SPUSA isn't endorsing Bernie Sanders.
While I despise Socialists, you do realize that Bernie is the system they fight so hard against, right? He's fully within the establishment, and will keep getting voted in until he's too sick or old or cold to run anymore.
>>5782715
Bruh Johnson is a great administrator, great governor, and has great policies, but he is too open-borders for me, and an impractical vote. Any other cycle I would vote libertarian just to get them to the debate threshold (5% or whatever).

>>5782875
>This, we got all the rights when we got the right to marry
Implying Obergefell was constitutionally sound.
>I understand people hating us for wanting rights that are privileges in reality.
I actually respect this. You take the view that
>Okay, 14th amendment, rights equal protection under the law, there was unequal protection of straight and gay marriage, therefore right

I disagree with the reasoning, but that is at least well-thought out, but more to the point I respect the fact that you can demarcate rights from privileges

Something like special housing concerns or bathrooms are completely pulled out of legislators' asses.
>>5783015
> Also, try to imagine if everyone decided to act this way. All the outcasts (not only gays) are to die by starvation.

Really. Complete ostracization.
>Everyone
>Completely
>All at once
>And permanently
would form a stable enough cartel to push LGBT et al out of buying goods and services.

Even during the worst days of Jim Crow south, blacks still found goods and service providers. Even when people didn't like Polish Irish and German immigrants, they still found a way to obtain food and shelter, buy property, get jobs, and make an income to pass down to grandchildren.

>Also, the employee is part of the business.
If the employee is not yet an employee, what right does s/he have as an extension of the firm, such that I have to hire that person? (Yes yes I know about anti discrimination law.)
> He has rights as such.
The employee has rights and privileges that are
1. Enumerated in contract
2. Enumerated in law
Don't try to pull more shit out of your ass and claim 'right'

>>5783015

> You shouldn't be penalised for circumstances outside your controls, your sexual orientation is one.
There are an INFINITY of things an INFINITE amount of people are discriminated against every day, yet you want to pick one of those things, and back up a person who falls under this criteria who claims to have been discriminated, send them and the firm through an expensive legal process, when that may not have been the reason at all the person was 'discriminated' against in the first place, and then wanting the government to apply punitive measures for the business for doing what the owners and managers needed to be done to survive.

You are scum.

Also do you want to know a good example of discrimination working in the firm's, customers', and fellow employees' benefit?
>Running a bar geared toward heterosexuals, especially heterosexual women
>Not hiring, or firing your straight bartender, and hiring a gay one, preferably one that acts straight, long-pours, does tricks, is handsome and tall
Watch overpours stop, revenue increase, returning female customers, which in turn attracts more male customers by a factor, and tips be more equitably shared.

In a less unscrupulous example, drag shows need such discrimination to survive. .

>>5781379

None of this thread matters, Trump is going to win.

With that in mind, we should be careful, as Trump is a bit of an idiot sometimes. Luckily for us however, hes appointing a general as his VP. That way if Trump does something retarded and gets kicked out/assassinated by some crazed liberal pawn, we can get a guy with some actual leadership experience in the office.

+building walls is fun.

File: 1453170282006.jpg (54KB, 373x527px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 373x527px

>>5781604

Keep in mind that this picture actually works for any group of people.

>>5783043
>What are crime rates by race
>What are IQ index by race
>What are racial composition by country
>What are small homogeneous populations
>What is using the medical and scientific advancements of the US' private industries and universities
>What are using products and services from the US provided by companies who reached large enough economies of scale to in turn be cheaply provided to the consumer
>What is using the US navy to undergird world trade and act as a global defense monopoly so that smaller nations don't have to have their own substantial militaries.

>What are confounding variables

>>5783118
> If everyone did, at least one person would realize that if they allow those people in they get all the business and money
Sh, they don't want to know that's why cartels never last save for government sanction (OPEC).

>And no, the employees are not part of the business, they get zero rights or say
I disagree with you here. You are strawmanning our argument. They have rights and say insofar as
>1.
The individual labor contracts stipulate
>2.
Insofar as the union contract stipulates, where applicable
>3.
Insofar as the law states (i.e. can't make employees take out radioactive waste without protection and such)

>You can't be rich there, eventually the money will be gone.
I'm free market to the marrow, but what is your response to those that point to
>1.
better socioeconomic mobility in Europe
>2.
Better overall living conditions for those under a certain income, which they consider a good tradeoff for not being "rich", which is relatively unattainable anyway.

I like to point to the ease of starting and operating a firm in each country, but you might have some different qualifiers and metrics

>libertarianism.org
I read the article and agree largely with the sentiment, but it skirts two possible counterarguments
>1.
Public infrastructure projects can pave the way for markets to flourish- not the other way around (basically muh roads redux),
>2.

File: 1454412815698.jpg (2MB, 4296x2928px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4296x2928px

Just want to throw this in here. The GOP might win. And the three likely candidates are:

TRUMP
RUBIO
CRUZ

RUBIO and CRUZ are homophobes. RUBIO may be an even more dangerous homophobe because there are rumors of him being closeted or having a past, so he will nhave every intention of "proving" that he's not gay by being anti-gay.

TRUMP is not pro-gay, but he's not anti-gay. In fact, there is plenty to suggest that he simply does not see social issues as important. His family, especially wife and daughter, are overly pro LGBT and its well known that on heart-string issues Trump listens to these two and possibly Ivanka as well (who also is very pro-LGBT.

There's also the fact that TRUMP is the anti-GOP candidate. The GOP is losing their shit. Good riddance, I say. This party has been increasingly hostile to LGBT whereas they were actually more willing to reach out before George W Bush's Presidency (which basically killed off the civil liberties wing that was always there clashing with Bible thumpers). Now TRUMP is pulling apart the entire Bush dynasty within!

Finally AND THIS IS IMPORTANT, Trump remains the sole candidate who is not only moderate on social issues but is strongly against openly letting refugees in. You want to see real homophobia? Look at the streets of Germany where refugees are stoning people like us. Look at areas heavily populated by Latinos where there is a huge clash between those who are queer and those who are homophobic--and often illegal.

Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8

So for me, it's TRUMP, SANDERS or bust. Fuck everyone else in the GOP and DNC. Oh and especially fuck Hillary who only cared about us when we became popular.

>>5783128
>Such people (who think businesses should be allowed to discriminate)
So first you conflate the arguments themselves with the people holding the arguments,

>typically also believe that the civil war was unnecessary because lolz slavery would've totes ended sooner or later!

Then you connect those very people to those making a supposedly bad argument, and badly,

>You can't reason with them
Then you deftly conclude that therefore, it is pointless to respond to the initial arguments.

>they're overly idealistic at best
Greed will cause goods and service providers to get the largest market share. That's not really idealistic

>and callously unempathetic toward social strife at worst.
>social strife
Qualify this 'social strife' you speak of. Also, this is more poisoning the well by insinuating lack of moral judgement on the part of those who hold the argument in the first place. Keep up with the logical fallacies.

> It never crosses their minds that it's BAD to allow people to become second class citizens
I assume you mean that "to be second class citizens" is contingent on not being employed, or party to some good or service.

Employers have an infinite list of reasons why they do not wish to employ someone for potentially an infinite number of people . Are you going to sift through every person who did not get a job, or was fired from a job, to determine which people and reasons were 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' because those people are now disadvantaged?

You would be here forever.

>>5783128
>because the concept is just beyond their fathoming.
It's you who doesn't understand concepts.
>What is a cost benefit analysis
The costs of monitoring, fining, and suing firms for various practiced- real, alleged and potential- would infringe on their ability to operate their firms at maximum capacity, and thus negatively affect their taxable income, or even negatively affect a firm's propensity to form, expand, employ more people and/or continue existence in that jurisdiction.


> History proves them wrong over and over,
On what points? Specify.
>but it's just that this time it would totally not happen again.
I love your vagueness.
>>5783154
I disagreed with that guy for omitting voluntary contracts, third party contracts, and the law, but I see where he is coming from, both as a guy who's
>1.
a
worked SHIT jobs (shit shoveling, corrupt carnival, private sanitation, construction/demolition)
b.
and white collar jobs
>and 2.
worked in various capacities as self-employed and at times an employer.
>5783192
>Support for lgbt rights is more than a single issue,
>rights
Or do you mean a combination of rights and privileges?
>it's a moral litmus test
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/submission/16361/virtue%20signalling
>>5783235
I'll come at it from a different angle than that anon
what of the slave states that restricted states rights by
>lobbying the federal government to punish states that nullified fugitive slave laws
>lobbying the federal government to impress people from across the country, slave state or not, into slave-catching units
>lobbying the courts to infringe on the self-determination of each states to make their own recognition as to whether a fugitive slave on their land is property owned elsewhere, or now free

In fact, the CSA were pretty shit when it came to states' rights, even the right to secession they claimed was inherent
>The CSA constitution called for a 'permanent' union, barring states from seceding

CSA Paid lip service

>>5783240
>It is the lack of regulations, not the excess, who have caused all the financial crisis we know today, and many of them come from the US.
So the government didn't use Fannie Mae to enter the long term loan market as an independent actor to securitize mortgages as ABS packages and then send them off to the market at large

So the government didn't use the CRA to apply punitive measures to banks that didn't give loans, with a focus on mortgages, to the low-income, who have less potential to pay the loan back in the first place

So the federal reserve's soft-landing during the dot com crash didn't artificially incentivize the construction and housing industries and their constituent investors to expand their stake

Good to know.

>Any reasonable merchant who would have to choose between a large anti-gay lobby and a small LGBT minority will choose the stronger side
We see the market doesn't generally work this way in the freest markets and most conservative states.
If it was that big of a problem, then the supposedly marginalized groups can accumulate in cities, which are cosmopolitan melting pots.

>that's why we live in Democracy. Democracy is not only the rule of the majority, it is the protection of the minorities.
And that power should be used with massive restraint. I despise Ayn Rand, but this quote is applicable
""The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."

>Adam Smith himself said for a free market to function, there need to be regulations in the forms of trade unions and regulations.
For standardization and stability, not so every Dick and Jane can be spared from hurt feelings.

>>5783354
>>5783354
>He said he wants to overturn the US Supreme Court ruling in 2015 legalizing gay marriage nationwide and said he will appoint a US justice who will do so.
1. This cannot be done until a case comes before SCOTUS
2. This cannot be done until more justices die or retire, as the vote would be the same as Obergefell
3. This is implying Obergefell was sound or desirable in the first place


>He also said he supported "religious freedom" legislation.
What is the issue with this? Right now we force private firms of religious basis to act outside of accordance with their religion, when nothing they were doing was coercive, where the only coercive actor is the government.

I call that
>prohibiting the free exercise thereof
There are three legal tests I'm aware of that apply to the 'free exercise clause'
>1.
Was the religious entity or religious practitioner violating the rights of others?
>2.
Was the government violating the rights of the religious practitioner ?
>3.
If the answer was yes to both, what is the Least Restrictive Remedy (typically the one that minimizes coercion or minimizes economic losses to all parties involved)?

In my view, in relation to cases like Hobby Lobby, the answers are
>1.
No
>2.
Yes
>3
Leave the state of affairs as status quo

>>5783393
One can be simultaneously non-interventionist and nationalistic, or patriotic if you prefer.
>>5783424
>Who is fucking you over
People coming over from mass immigration, incentivized by the welfare state, who use more welfare benefits per capita, commit more crimes per capita, have a lower IQ per capita, and have more children per capita.

Chinese and Indian firms that steal trademarked, copyrighted, and patented designs from the US.

China's weak currency policy.

China trying to expand in the South China Sea where US interests are, trying to force competitors out of the Pacific.

>That's capitalism without regulations which is your enemy
I actually agree that a free market can't exist purely when a command market is manipulating trade to their favor, at the expense of their people's rights.

We don't live in a vacuum. However, your idea of regulations may not be the same as mine.

>That macro
>What is the Laffer Curve
>What is tax avoidance
>What is cost offsetting to consumers
>What are the largest energy producers
(Hint they are oil coal and natural gas, who in turn are responsible for a significant portion of the US' GDP and dominance as a world power)
>Where does the money from pension plans, retirement plans, 529 plans, and HSA plans come from
(Hint: returns on the securities markets)
>Who is Stephanie Kelton, his chief economic advisor from the Modern Monetary Theory school of economics, who thinks all programs should be paid for by debt, government debt should increase, and taxes should just be used to suck excess capital from the economy that would otherwise be used for 'speculation'
>What are welfare cliffs

I also wish I could find the Bernie quote where he said welfare should be provided to those unable AND unwilling to work .

Surely the system won't be abused

>>5783491
>Re: regulations
There are plenty of regulations which serve as barriers to entry and barriers to expansion
1. Interstate insurance restrictions
2. AMA annual doctor restrictions
3. Existing hospitals using regulatory capture to sit on boards which approve or deny the formation or expansion of clinics and hospitals
4. The FDA restricting pharmaceuticals from the market which are accepted in Europe

>Get rid of laws and programs that keep the minorities dependant on government.
>Which means that unless racism, homophobia and transphobia disappears, the old power structures will be back in full force.
Indian immigrants, East Asians, and Ashkenazim Jews- all groups which have been marginalized at various times and places- do just fine.

There is a quantitative incentive for welfare reliance when we take welfare cliffs into account.


>You cannot will crony capitalism into non-existence. For the past centuries, there are always been a connection between power and money. A smaller government will not change this, in fact, it will be worse
Firms will not be able to lobby such a government to tilt the playing field in their favor.

> big CEOs won't even need friends in DC to forbid you from employment,wages housing,
Consumers, employees, and members of competing firms outnumber management of the firms in question by a huge factor to 1.

It will be hard for them to do so

Disagree with gold though