- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Massie the only republican to vote against the SAVE Act
Posted on 2/12/26 at 11:05 am to the808bass
Posted on 2/12/26 at 11:05 am to the808bass
A democrat opposes a bar opening in your town because the owner isn’t an aggrieved minority.
A republican opposes a bar opening in your town because alcohol is sinful and dangerous.
A libertarian doesn’t care what business someone operates on their own property.
A republican opposes a bar opening in your town because alcohol is sinful and dangerous.
A libertarian doesn’t care what business someone operates on their own property.
1
Posted on 2/12/26 at 11:10 am to John somers
quote:
He voted for the bill though, and it passed.
He voted no to advance the bill and it passed by 1 vote. If that vote had failed, the bill would have be tabled, and may have died there.
That's Massie's grift. Vote No to advance the bill and boast about that to his Never Trumpe base. Then vote Yes on the actual Bill and claim that in the upcoming election.
Massie is a full blown two-faced DC Swamper.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 11:12 am to kingbob
quote:
A republican opposes a bar opening in your town because alcohol is sinful and dangerous.
Republicans aren’t conservatives like rectangles aren’t squares.
quote:
A libertarian doesn’t care what business someone operates on their own property.
Libertarians don’t care if you’re making AI kiddie porn. What’s the harm?
Posted on 2/12/26 at 11:25 am to the808bass
quote:
Anyone who doesn’t know the difference between libertarian and conservative probably thinks smoking pot is a conservative value.
That's a social conservative, not a conservative.
The GOP is made up of 3 major factions. You have conservatives, aka basically libertarians. You have social conservatives that are mostly conservative, but want to use the government to enforce their moral codes, aka what you are talking about. And then you have neoconservatives who replaced the Rockefeller big government republicans in the 80s, and are basically Marxist and not really conservative at all.
I generally agree with social conservatives on many issues, however I depart when they want to use government to uphold their social issues.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 11:26 am to the808bass
quote:
Libertarians don’t care if you’re making AI kiddie porn. What’s the harm?
This is a straight up lie.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 11:29 am to 3down10
AI is nothing but a massive violation of private property rights. It is a plagiarism machine that takes intellectual property without compensation and replicates it into slop. An an-cap might support it, but most libertarians would not. That’s not even accounting for the glaring consent issues involved in child pornography. Consent is the literal foundation principle of libertarianism, and children cannot consent.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 11:56 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
No, we should be appealing to the constitution.
You haven't been arguing that, though. You've been arguing, "What I want to do is justified because of THEM."
Slow and I agree that the consitution isnt strong enough to fix this mess. Why is that? Because of THEM. They are entrenched in TDS opposition. They are a legit threat, but libertarians want to ignore them.
Are you expecting this to pass? Tell me why.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 11:58 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
You guys are making the exact same argument as quoted above.
Absurd comparison:
We are talking about Federalizing national elections. Thats it.
They are talking about expanding government far and in every WRONG direction.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 12:00 pm to djsdawg
quote:
In other words, you accept it
Accept what, specifically?
quote:
because there are only 2 choices here: Fix it or don't fix it.
There are infinite choices, actually, as you can modify legislation proposals however you want.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 12:00 pm to 3down10
quote:
That you think there is a difference between libertarian and conservative is funny.
More deflection.
Libertarians would never vote Republican.
A conservative would vote Republican.
There is a difference.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 12:01 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
You haven't been arguing that, though. You've been arguing, "What I want to do is justified because of THEM."
Correct, which shows the irrationality of discussing policies based on in/out group identification.
You can literally justify anything if you make your enemy dehumanized/evil enough. This isn't something, new, either.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 12:02 pm to kingbob
quote:
Massie has a legit argument against federalization of elections from a constitutional perspective. The federal government is attempting to regulate something which they were not granted power to do via Article 1: Section 8 of the Constitution. As a result, the power to do so should be reserved for the States under the 10th Amendment.
However, I would offer a constitutional argument rebutting his reasoning. The 15th Amendment prevents federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Every fraudulent vote cast, or vote cast by a non-citizen effectively nullifies the vote of a citizen, thereby denying that right. Congress is empowered under the 15th Amendment to pass legislation to enforce this mandate upon the states. Just as the federal government was empowered to force states to integrate their schools, they can be forced to secure their elections in order to ensure that citizens votes are not being changed or nullified.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 12:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Accept what, specifically?
"We are talking about ways to fix "liberal fraud and cheating in elections."
Since you have no realistic option to fix it, as 60 is impossible, you DO accept "liberal fraud and cheating in elections"."
quote:
There are infinite choices, actually, as you can modify legislation proposals however you want.
1. Fix
2. No Fix
What's the 3rd option? 4th? You have been able to offer zero realistic ones. Zero substance to your naivety.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 12:10 pm to djsdawg
quote:
More deflection.
Libertarians would never vote Republican.
A conservative would vote Republican.
There is a difference.
As usual you are completely clueless but still have no trouble running your dick sucker.
In 1976, there were only 4 congress men who supported Reagan for president. One of them would later run as the libertarian candidate in 1988.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 12:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Correct, which shows the irrationality of discussing policies based on in/out group identification.
I already corrected his mistake in that incorrect conclusion. You and I both agree 60 isn't happening. He somehow missed that part of our talk.
What is the next move now that we know Congress cant fix this now?
quote:
You can literally justify anything if you make your enemy dehumanized/evil enough. This isn't something, new, either.
It's not new..........
......As the far left has won many battles for control of their nations in the past few centuries.
Due in no small part to apathetic people like you and 3rd down.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 12:12 pm to djsdawg
quote:
"We are talking about ways to fix "liberal fraud and cheating in elections."
Since you have no realistic option to fix it, as 60 is impossible, you DO accept "liberal fraud and cheating in elections"."
Then no. That's illogical
quote:
1. Fix
2. No Fix
You're conflating stated policy goals with how to get there.
And you're using a very broad way to define those policy goals, which isn't smart, but you do you.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 12:13 pm to 3down10
quote:
s usual you are completely clueless but still have no trouble running your dick sucker.
If a Libertarian votes for a Republican, they certainly aren't a principled Libertarian. This doesn't sound like you. Is it? You vote against your own principles?!
quote:
n 1976, there were only 4 congress men who supported Reagan for president. One of them would later run as the libertarian candidate in 1988.
Finally, providing some history. Tell me more about these 4, and that 1. What changed for 1980?
Posted on 2/12/26 at 12:14 pm to kingbob
quote:
Massie has a legit argument against federalization of elections from a constitutional perspective. The federal government is attempting to regulate something which they were not granted power to do via Article 1: Section 8 of the Constitution. As a result, the power to do so should be reserved for the States under the 10th Amendment.
However, I would offer a constitutional argument rebutting his reasoning. The 15th Amendment prevents federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Every fraudulent vote cast, or vote cast by a non-citizen effectively nullifies the vote of a citizen, thereby denying that right. Congress is empowered under the 15th Amendment to pass legislation to enforce this mandate upon the states. Just as the federal government was empowered to force states to integrate their schools, they can be forced to secure their elections in order to ensure that citizens votes are not being changed or nullified.
For starters, Massie did not vote against the SAVE Act. The OP is a liar and paid propagandist.
He voted against a bill on the rules that would allow it to be voted on because it also contained a rule that said they could in the future put forth other bills that would be voted on in less than 24 hours and without giving them time to read the bills. AKA the gold old Pelosi "You have to pass it to know what it's in it" return of congress.
He already said he would vote in favor of the actual Save Act.
And the 15th amendment doesn't apply here even remotely.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 12:14 pm to djsdawg
quote:
I already corrected his mistake in that incorrect conclusion. You and I both agree 60 isn't happening. He somehow missed that part of our talk.
That has nothing to do with relying on in/out group identification when discussing policy.
quote:
It's not new..........
......As the far left has won many battles for control of their nations in the past few centuries.
It's like an addiction. You just can't go without framing everything around "the left"
quote:
Due in no small part to apathetic people like you and 3rd down.
See and intelligent people know you're trying to use the in/out group dynamic to try to marginalize me, because you can beat me rhetorically.
That in no way legitimizes andy substantive or logical argument.
You're just relying on the emotional appeal of people fearing being labeled as being in the out group to mute any opposition.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 12:15 pm to djsdawg
quote:
If a Libertarian votes for a Republican, they certainly aren't a principled Libertarian. This doesn't sound like you. Is it? You vote against your own principles?!
You're such an idiot that you only think in terms of party rather than issues.
quote:
Finally, providing some history. Tell me more about these 4, and that 1. What changed for 1980?
This is the problem with dumb people, they think it's everyone else's responsibility to educate them.
As if everyone else has access to information they don't.
This post was edited on 2/12/26 at 12:17 pm
Page 12 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News