Do You Have To Choose a Side in Politics? Reason Versus The Bulwark

The Bulwark's Tim Miller and Sarah Longwell debate Reason's Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch on choosing a side in politics.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Do You Have To Choose a Side in Politics? Reason Versus The Bulwark

HD Video Download

For the very first Reason Versus debate this week, Reason was joined by The Bulwark for a lively, thought-provoking discussion. The resolution: "You Don't Have To Pick a Side in Politics."  

Reason's Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch argued for the affirmative, while The Bulwark's Tim Miller and Sarah Longwell argued for the negative. The debate was moderated by Reason's Peter Suderman.

Whether you've made up your mind about the necessity of choosing sides or are questioning the whole premise, this debate will challenge your assumptions and broaden your perspective. The discussion was recorded in front of a live audience at the Howard Theatre in Washington, D.C. A full video of the event can be found here.

• Video Editor: César Báez
• Audio Production: Ian Keyser
• Camera : Cody Huff
• Camera: Justin Zuckerman

Comments

[Rob Misek]

Politics is obsolete.

With the internet we could vote on every issue that politicians take sides on. We could have technological democracy.

Left and right are artificial constructs designed to occupy, divide and weaken the will of the people in perpetual conflict.

Nothing in nature exists as equal and opposite or is as divisive as politics.

Politics is controlled and manipulated by corrupt elites who win regardless who is elected. They are the secret society puppeteers who absolutely recognize the people as left vs right puppets.

When you’re a hammer, everything is a nail.

They only exist in an environment of lies and secrecy. Only criminalizing lying will expose and demonstrate their counterproductive effect on society.

Recognize the unpleasant truth of politics and act on it, or ignore it like a puppet in the bliss of ignorance.

The red pill or the blue pill.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Refuted.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Refuted.

[Rob Misek]

I’m reminded of a recent post here by an anonymous coward supporter of Israel who scoffed at the mountains of evidence of conspiracy between Zionists, Israel and western governments worldwide.

The poorly constructed logic was that if there actually was a cabal and I wasn’t a part of it, the mossad would have surely killed me by now.

On December 11 Candice Owens interviewed Phil Tourney a surviving sailor and current president of the USS Liberty veterans organization. Earning Ms Owens the coveted antisemite of the year award.

In the video he demonstrates irrefutable evidence that the US president knew about the attack by Israel in advance and that the entire event was a false flag planned to use the sinking of the USS Liberty to bring the US into WW3 on the side of Israel.

The US is occupied by Israel. The black pill.

If you consider yourself a US PATRIOT, putting America first, you need to see this interview and WAKE UP!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ub88PCEMPxs

[Rob Misek]

The interview without commentary

https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/candace-owens-interviews-uss-liberty-survivor-phil-tourney/

[Wizzle Bizzle]

Wow, bro. You need to do something different in life. Just because a small percent of conspiracy theories happen to be true doesn't mean they all are. See: Flat Earth.

[Rob Misek]

When a conspiracy is proven it moves from theory to fact.

The fact is that the president of the US conspired with Israel to kill American citizens to serve the political interests of Israel. Then coerce survivors silence.

Both the US government and Israel still deny these facts today. Nothing has changed.

Today the US has chosen to be on the wrong side of history sacrificing its credibility on the world’s stage to support Israel’s genocide in Gaza and prop up an Israeli president with international warrants for his arrest for crimes against humanity.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

But we have obviously , by means of the Internet, REJECTED using the Internet to vote on every issue, RIGHT 🙂

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

Welch and gilepsy picked a side. They chose facist totalitarianism.

[mad.casual]

Should've just gotten up and said, "Let's listen to some music for a little bit." and then sorta jammed out to Rush's Permanent Waves album.

[Zeb]

That's usually the best answer.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

The only answer, TBQH.

[Wizzle Bizzle]

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Very true, and that was my immediate reaction to the title of this article. They chose the democrat side. The only difference is that reason writers are political hipsters cosplaying at libertarianism.

[sarcasmic]

If you don’t choose Trump then you’re a hardcore leftist. That’s basically it. Trump or commie. There’s no such thing a libertarian or anything like that. Trump or leftist. Choose.

[Sarah Palin's Buttplug - Jan 6 = 9/11 (same motive)]

Parties don't need to exist any more. You're either in the Trump Cult or you're a communist globalist pedophile.

[Don't look at me!]

Cry harder boys.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

But you are a pedophile. It is why you were banned.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

You actually posted child porn links here. You ARE a pedophile. And as an admitted Sorosite, also a global neo Marxist. We didn’t do any of that. It’s all on you.

Oh, and you lost big. So seethe harder bitch.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

"or you're a communist globalist pedophile."

For a guy who actually got his original handle permabanned for posting child porn links, and regularly lauds the Davos crowd to post this, it is kind of a self-own.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

[Scotterbee]

I suspect that the four posters above are the same person.

[Vernon Depner]

Actually, there's only three or four regular posters here. All the rest are socks.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

You're a hardcore leftist for your beliefs.

Political lawfare.
Applauding shooting your enemies.
Amnesty for Democrats and the deep state.
Higher taxes.
Open borders in a welfare state.
You literally push every DNC narrative.
Censorship.
Covid authoritarianism.

[sarcasmic]

Whatever you say. I’m not arguing with the voices in your head.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

No, he’s summarizing what you say in writing here every day. Outside of that, you’re just a drunken nuisance, like in your real life. Just a worthless raving drunk.

[Don’t. Get. Eliminated.]

You know everyone can read all your posts here, right, you drunken moron?

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

"I’m not arguing with the voices in your head."

No, you're arguing with the voices in your head, drunky.

[LIBtranslator]

Matt, Nick and Peter could have said what a "side" is, and named Libertarian candidate Chase Oliver as an example of a good choice of sides. But nooooooo.... Instead they let the looters put BOTH (not all three) sides within the altruist looter Kleptocracy Venn Diagram--exclusing themselves from the universe of discourse.

[LIBtranslator]

Of the 12 posts preceding yours, all but one are grectangles.

[LIBtranslator]

The important choice is whether to betray your values or sacrifice rights to The Looter Kleprocracy by assigning altruism moral certitude. The Looter side always invokes a Utilitarian Monster that uses Gestapo powers to offer to kill just one voter (for now). If the populace has the guts to say no, then the reprisal will be to massacre the entire lot as in Lysander Spooner's description of the Civil War income tax, or the actual true history of Dutch resistance against Christian National Socialist occupation. Nick ALMOST had the guts to say this out loud.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Sitting out is still an active choice.

[sarcasmic]

Getting involved is the active choice. Sitting it out is the passive choice. Are you stupid or lying?

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

You’re just a drunken bitch that offers nothing except your idiotic ravings. You do nothing productive, and don’t even bother to vote. You do nothing, and are worth nothing. This is why you are universally despised here, and likely everywhere else.

[Don’t. Get. Eliminated.]

All true.

[LIBtranslator]

I VOTE for and give MONEY to candidates running on a genuine libertarian platform. That is CHOOSING the side of freedom and integrity. Christian Prohibitionists did that and with a lamentable 2% of the vote made beer a chain-gang federal felony. Sockpuppet communist parties saddled us with an income tax with under 2% of the vote. Now that integrity has been retasked to enforce freedom rather than abet altruist totalitarianism, the booty-snatchers point and HISS!

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

Then you must believe all sitting out is an active choice, whatever that means. As a citizen you are wrong to sit out what affects you , yours, the country, and the world. People like you gave us the laziest stupidest worst Pres and VP in history. She is obvioulsy stupid and juvenille. He has a 50 years history of venal and sub-standard lazy politics

[EssssJ]

Wow those Bulwark people are really dense. And that Tim Miller is a jaw dropping snob, sans brains.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Apparently Bulwark is libertarianish or libertarian adjacent or something. The Reason Kochheads can't get enough of these guys.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Political hipster libertarian cosplayers too?

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

"Apparently Bulwark is libertarianish or libertarian adjacent or something."

The Bulwark crowd are neocons and corporatists to a man, who left the National Review because even it wasn't warhawk and bureaucratic enough.
They are the opposite of libertarian... but so is Welch.

[Wizzle Bizzle]

Exactly. I nearly shat myself when I read that. Whichever evolving definition of "libertarian" you use, the Bulwark crowd meets none of it.

They are the actual swamp. They are Bushies and Obama-ites who actually attend the DC cocktail parties we use as shorthand. Their daddies were important DC players and they've been cosplaying in daddy's shadow. They lecture the deplorable common folk about a lack of morals even as they share a bed with the pedophiles at the Lincoln Project.

Fuck these people. They are without ideas, morals or beliefs. Kill the lawyers second. Start with these shitbags.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

I don't call it The Bullwank for nothing.

[Use the Schwartz]

All the "back the blue" commentariat bobbleheads love Bulwark.

[LIBtranslator]

Yes, but he beat the stuffing out of Peter, Matt and Nick. So a better rebuttal of his sneering smarminess is in order.

[LIBtranslator]

The entity's real name is Sneerybdia. I'm surprised Reason staff have so much trouble spotting obvious fake names like Dave Smith, Tim Miller and Rectumwald.

[Ersatz]

this ‘debate’ was one big TDS orgy. It was disgusting. The bulwark people came off as insufferable elitists that obviously have Trump living rent free in their heads.

It’s nice to know, though that they saved some of their distain for the plebes that disagree with them, to throw like so much monkey faeces at the reason reps.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Insufferable elitists is an understatement. The Bulwark crowd pose as masters of the universe, with their unread magazine and affected mid-Atlantic accents that make them sound like Frasier Crane’s gay uncle, perpetually explaining the subtle parallels between George W. Bush and Seneca."

Empty suits like Miller, Longwell, and their colleagues gave up any sense of obligation to honest debate a long time ago. Grappling with the actual arguments on the table takes effort, and gets in the way of stoking the unearned sense of superiority to which they're addicted.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

Still you made no argument.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Maybe you should improve your reading comprehension, retard.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

and using that word marks you as a callous inhuman soulless misanthrope

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

well we can't tell whether you meant plebes, who disagree OR plebes who disagree. Was that a restrictive clause or not. If there are plebes who don't disagree then you have no point

[Ersatz]

I was referring to the 'plebes' they were debating - because that was their attitude towards the Reason reps

[Rick James]

Hopefully Reason will choose the libertarian side one day.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

Guessing it will take a move back to at least LA and possibly Santa Barbara. The current management has no idea what the term "libertarian" means; live in the swamp, become slimy TDS-addled swamp shit-bags.
Furthermore, most all 'editors', 'senior editors', 'grand poobas' seem to have raging cases of TDS and should fuck off and die.
We'll see if my $0.50 contribution keeps me out.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

Did and rejected when people like you cared more about L. than suffering people, true Ayn Rand heartless-privileged-jerks.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Anyone promoting pathological altruism should get a claw hammer to the skull.

[LIBtranslator]

DickJim is one of those sockmasks that never read a Libertarian Platform. https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/2016/03/11/third-party-votes-repeal-bad-laws/

[TJJ2000]

Leftards are the only one's who "pick a side".
Part of their [WE] gang RULES mentality.
Well recognized for years.
The left has always been far-more Loyal to their Side than their sides policies.

[JFree]

What a nonsense question. Nothing you do or choose matters to any outcome. Picking sides is thus about nothing other than bogus bragging rights. Bogus because the ballot is secret so even that choice to take pride in being on a winning side is never demonstrably true.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

You contradict yourself by your example because at least a person who cares and votes IS BEING A CITIZEN

[JFree]

Aristotle disagreed. He viewed citizenship as the requirement to share in governance. Voting in an election where you have no impact is not sharing in governance. It is merely consenting to someone else governing you.

An example of citizenship is jury duty or militia duty. I suppose an initiative or referendum is an example of citizenship via voting. But that doesn't involve candidates or even partisan sides.

[SRG2]

Worth noting that Aristotle lived at a time of city states where direct democracy was practicable.

And for fun, also note the etymology of "idiot". 🙂

[JFree]

They didn't use direct democracy in Greece then. Nor elections. They used sortition - random selection like jury pool.

What was 'missing' then was election choice as a manifestation of 'consent of the governed'. That notion itself derives from early Xianity not ancient Greece. And in turn is based more on a notion of 'just rulers' and the right of a people to overthrow their government than it is on 'citizenship'. We don't think of jurors as 'representing' non-jurors in order to judge facts. But nor do juries require everyone to serve on every case.

[JFree]

I take that back. In Greece, they did use elections in those city-states that were oligarchies or other 'rule-by-the-few'. Aristotle even described elections as the method by which oligarchs should be selected

[JasonT20]

It is merely consenting to someone else governing you.

Well, I think someone once wrote that the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed. Even if that minimalist view is correct when it comes to voting, then it is still extremely important to express that consent.

[JFree]

The 'consent' is expressed in its absence. In the right of a people to overthrow a ruler. Once 'consent' is granted in an election, then the right to overthrow that outcome is eliminated. That is the purpose of the widespread practice of autocrats and dictators creating elections as the way of undermining opposition and pretending that they have support.

[JasonT20]

Nothing you do or choose matters to any outcome.

As a literal statement, this could only be true if there really was some grand, secret conspiracy to deliver election results that were completely fake and unconnected to the actual votes of citizens. Contrary to what you seem to think, we know that our votes matter because it is the sum of all votes that determine who holds elected office.

What you really seem to be feeling, if I hazard a guess, is that your one vote is so small compared to the collective action of electing leaders, that it seems insignificant. You make a choice, but the actual outcome is determined by the votes of so many people, that it seems that your choice is irrelevant. As an individual contribution, that is valid. If you, as one person, chose to vote differently, or not to vote, the outcome would be the same 99.9...% of the time. However, somewhere in this vast country with a few thousand counties and thousands of state legislative districts in addition to federal races, there is some election that actually does come down to a single vote.

It also misunderstands the nature of holding elections at all to view our one vote as an isolated choice. The whole point of representative government is to avoid critical governmental decisions that affect everyone being made by a handful of powerful elites or a single tyrant. Instead, "the will of people" rules. Elections are a collective action that requires the input of every citizen to obtain its results, just like any other large-scale activity. Building a bridge, running a corporation, growing food for a whole society, all take the contributions of hundreds of people or more. Even producing a best-selling novel takes more than the talent and efforts of the author, since that book needed an editor, marketing, and the production and distribution of the actual books or electronic versions.

This leads to a tangent that explains a lot of this attitude, I think. Western societies are highly individualistic, and the U.S. has been the most individualistic of all Western nations. That leads to a lot of strengths, but the primary weakness is the way in which we end up not understanding or appreciating the importance of what we do for each other. It also has psychological effects. It is possible that the feelings of isolation and loneliness that seem epidemic in recent decades is actually due, in part, to this high valuation of individual rights and achievements. Tying our self-worth so closely with what we accomplish as individuals rather than the accomplishments of our group activities (the successes of our teams, businesses, or communities, for instance) means that we don't have success unless we succeed individually. But is a quarterback with incredible season stats as successful as the one with an average individual record that wins a super bowl?

In summary:

Voting only seems pointless if we think that our choice was successful only when our preferences are the ones that win. Taken in isolation, our one vote is insignificant. If we change our thinking, though, we can view our vote as being important no matter what the outcome is. Our goal should be to contribute to choice of the whole electorate. We put in our two cents when we vote, and if we made our individual choices with knowledge, thought, and care, then our small contribution increases the overall quality of the choice of the electorate. We can't control what other voters do. There is still value in our one vote, though. If we think that we are smarter than the average bear, then we are depriving society of the value of our contribution if we don't vote.

Regardless, cynicism does not serve us when it comes to elections. It is a natural and understandable reaction, but it is self-defeating.

[JFree]

this could only be true if there really was some grand, secret conspiracy to deliver election results that were completely fake and unconnected to the actual votes of citizens.

Not at all. It is simply a recognition that your vote does not matter. Even if that 'not' is not an absolute truth, there is nothing rational about investing even a nanosecond of your time in attempting to vote wisely for a 'candidate' or a 'faction'. The people who understand this also understand that to have influence in an election, they DONATE to BOTH sides.

It also misunderstands the nature of holding elections at all to view our one vote as an isolated choice.

Like it or not, your vote is an individual vote. What is NOT individual is the social/mass influence on you to vote in a particular way. That influence is massively manipulated by others in ways that have been well-understood since WW1 (see Bernays, Creel, Lippmann, Gallup). The more we humans understand about ourselves, the more we understand that we are animals - not rationalist Spocks. Our limbic system drives our votes - not our frontal cortex.

The ACT of voting is merely your acceptance of that manipulation. There are many ways in which we can truly cooperate in an organized manner to govern ourselves. Elections are not one of them.

[LIBtranslator]

The Texas GOP tried to enlist me as a Trumpanzista elector. This I discovered going through a stack of held mail. I did go to considerable trouble to vote for Gary Johnson, to whom I also sent money. My absentee ballot was returned stamped "Out of Date" by some Texas clerk claiming my early international vote was after the deadline. But I can at least prove I donated to and voted for Libertarian principles and candidates before Trump's Jesus Caucus Anschluss turned the LP into a Night of the Long Knives.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

But if you live in America , you have chosen at least first principles in common. All men created equal and the contentions of the Declaration, plus things like Freedom of Religion
If you are using the word 'sides' rightly then we MUST be talking about first principles, Our Founding.
Else it is like asking must a dog and a cow take sides ....

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

Victoria Villarruel is pro-life and anti-perversion, as clear a Libertarian stand as I've heard in my lifetime and I am older than you 🙂

[Use the Schwartz]

Right-Wing Nationalist = Libertarian?

Poe's Law

[SRG2]

You appear to be confused about what liberarianism means.

If you defend state terrorism and the Argentine junta, or at least plead mitigation, if you oppose SSM (while accepting government's role in traditional marriages), if you're a social conservative (what you probably think of as "anti-perversion"), you're not a libertarian.

[JasonT20]

... if you're a social conservative (what you probably think of as "anti-perversion"), you're not a libertarian.

Agreed. My understanding of "conservative" in the political context of Western society, is that it values existing or traditional hierarchy. The goal is to "conserve" the existing structure of society, including economics, law and government, and culture. Using that definition, a conservative could only be the same as a libertarian if society was already one that matched the libertarian ideal. If that was true of the U.S., then people that consider themselves to be libertarian more than anything else, would be a bit more than a few percent of the electorate. At least, you would think so.

When it comes to the hot-button social issues (LGBTQ rights, abortion, role of religion, race, etc.), conservatives are clearly distinct from any libertarian values I recognize from many years of reading what self-described libertarians write. I always thought that libertarians valued individual rights and freedoms too much to be interested in imposing one particular set of ideas about gender, sexuality, religion, or race relations on all of society.

I'm not libertarian at all, but that is one area where I find some common ground with what I thought was an essential part of libertarian ideology.

[SRG2]

Yup.

I think that many on the right think that there's a certain intellectual or social cachet in calling themselves "libertarians" - and will be quick to call any politician they like a libertarian. But as we can agree, just because one is in favour of limited government intervention in one's own life doesn't make one a libertarian.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

Just nonsense. You don't deny there is 'perversion' you just say your use is right and mine is wrong. Even that abominable equivocation on 'marriage' --- are we talking two homosexuals

In the United States, the divorce rate is around 42%

Is that a good thing, bet you would argue it shows 'flexibilbity' 'freddom'. 'mobility' --- you lose.

[SRG2]

I don't say mine is right and yours is wrong. I say that this is a personal decision, not left to other people's moral or religious judgment. I find religious celibacy so obviously perverse I won't even bother to argue it, but I don't go around trying to prohibit it.

The divorce rate shows many things. It does not show that getting the government more involved is a good thing.

How is your - or her - position libertarian? "You're free to do anything I/the Roman Catholic Church thinks you should be allowed to do but not things I/the RCC don't think you should be allowed to do" is not a libertarian position.

[SRG2]

BTW having only just encountered Peter Kreeft thanks to your handle, your illogic becomes more understandable.

It would have amazed me how anyone who can write drivel like this can be held as an intellectual exemplar by anyone else. https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/design.htm

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

That he helped me does not mean I am his Mommy, idiot.

Let me quote Edmund Burke against you lazy Libertarians telling people not to vote

Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little. Edmund Burke

You always want the splashiy big relatively effortless WIN.
And so your numbers dwindle. As to Peter Kreeft, don't hear you saiying antying like that about polliticians you considered great but now can barely move. Sen Feinstein for example

[SRG2]

Your reply makes a number of stupid - or lying - assumptions. I don't know why you think I'm a lazy libertarian telling people not to vote - I have never said any such thing, nor do I think it. And I don't look for an effortless win. (Years of membership of the Liberal Party and late, the Liberal Democrays, would cure any such tendency I might have had anyway.) Nowhere have I held out Feinstein as a great politician nor do I think she ever was. I can think of no current politician who I have ever considered great. So I am not sure where you get all this crap from, other than your capacious arse.

When your handle explicitly says that Peter Kreeft taught you logic with the implication that you are somehow better armed in a debate, it's reasonable to note that this man you elevate is a poor logician and writes drivel about subjects he clearly doesn't understand, etc. Which certainly supports the idea that you have learned from him, but not that anyone who debates you should beware.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

I am better armed than you in a debate. let's keep to specifics.
You commit 3 errors most every logician deplores.
1) "writes drivel" -NO EXAMPLE
2) "That no one understands' -- shows literallly that you admit you do not understand 🙁
3) We are not talking about 'anoyone ;who debated" me --- we are talking about you and you publsied all the evidence I need to show you are without a point 🙂

[LIBtranslator]

"Someone once said" is the standard appeal to superstitious fear among mystics terrified of how DNA shapes evolution by a ratcheting feedback loop. Ask which caveman originated their wisdom and the rebuttal is you burning in the hell they love to imagine. Imagine brainwashing children with this, instead of letting them learn math and physics... Thanks for revealing the link. One wonders if superstition isn't a zoonotic disease.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

again , you embarrass yourself among adults. You don't say there is no perversion, yoiu simply say it isn't oerversuib unless you say it's perversion. Now think: Are you the controller of what Libertariism means and what being Americanb means ??

A New Birth of Marriage: Love, Politics, and the Vision of the Founders
by Brandon Dabling
Homosexuality was treated as a criminal offense in all of the original thirteen colonies, and eventually every one of the fifty states (see Robinson, 2003; “Sodomy Laws…,” 2003)

[LIBtranslator]

Well said. Then again, one hardly expects Klaus Fuchs, Ted Hall, David Greenglass to infiltrate Los Alamos by adding "Soviet KGB" as "former employer." Trumpanzees are the same gang that grows long hair, spouts groovy slang and shoots pot to try to infiltrate hippie "dope cartels" for the DEA. The DEA runs Argentina and Brazil through the memory of what it did to Panama and all Latin American economies after DEC1989 enforcement of 1987-88 Reagan-Bush-Biden prohibition laws. 1990 inflation in Brazil was over 80% MONTHLY!

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

No, I am an American

A New Birth of Marriage: Love, Politics, and the Vision of the Founders
by Brandon Dabling

So Liberal Thomas Jefferson thought it mind punishment for homosexuality to castrate. You are a nobody I go with Jefferson

[JeremyR]

The Bulwark only exists to push Democrats and bash Republicans. That's their whole point of existence.

[SRG2]

The Bulwark only exists to bash Trumpist Republicans. That's their whole point of existence.

FTFY

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

No, they openly endorse Democrats now.

[LIBtranslator]

The Bullwarkistas are watered-down communists struggling to keep their coercive religion afloat without changing any communist party planks. Actual libertarians use spoiler votes and the 1972 platform to exploit the commie-nazi mutual hatred. This causes both looter factions to repeal bad laws, ditch crappy planks and move toward freedom--or lose the next election. Before 1971, only looters did this, so everything worsened. From 1972 till the Jesus Caucus Anschluss, the LP caused most repeals.

[MWAocdoc]

Okay, I get it. It's a loaded question. Depending on what "have to" means. I also get the point about "Not choosing IS a choice." The team in support gave away the entire argument in the first minute of their opening statement. Just because you see one candidate as better for your agenda than the other candidate(s) doesn't mean voting for that candidate will help, or at least avoid hurting, your agenda. I think that having achieved 51% of eligible voters who identify as independent is a major victory in the battle to downsize government.

[LIBtranslator]

Finally! A real debate outside of that rigged venue pitfall for morons. I can't wait to see whether Dr Gillespie will invoke law-changing Libertarian spoiler vote clout as an alternative to caving and bootlicking National or Soviet socialism. That fake alternative between things we DON'T want is what keeps The Looter Kleptocracy from repealing bad laws.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

And how much ‘libertarian spoiler vote clout’ was there in the recent election Hank?

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Not going to respond, are you? Too much of a cowardly wacko.

[voluntaryist]

I don't vote. That's a statement. You disagree? I will let you explain it to yourself by stopping and thinking long & hard about this. What would happen if the POTUS election was boycotted by 99%? Only politicians voted. What if the non-voters said: "I will vote when they put 'None' or 'Abolish this office' on the ballot? Would you still equate not voting with not taking a political stand? Think!

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

Okay, so you made a greater effort to wrangle on REASON about voting than to actually vote....to argue against an opposing opinion than to vote your opinion. I'll let readers deduce

[LIBtranslator]

My libertarian vote is six inches long compared to the total LP vote as the width of Colorado. A vote for either half of the looter kleptocracy gets you 3/8" toward crossing CO. Grok the difference? Now the quiz: 1. The Prohibition party made beer a felony and wrecked the economy with what percent of the vote? 2. What share of the vote did Communist-sock parties average before Marx Manifesto Plank 2 became the 16th Amendment? Answer: http://www.hankphillips.com/caseforlp07.html

[LIBtranslator]

Hypotheticals are a crutch for folks who can't handle facts, data or reality. But I will fight anyone who tries to force this poster to vote, and transport what's left of them to Australia. They love coercion Down Under. A pity we didn't let Japan have them for a while...

[Uomo Del Ghiaccio]

The entire question "Do You Have To Choose a Side in Politics?" is ludicrous. The short answer is NO! You don't have to choose a side, particularly if both sides are full of idiots, so you have to choose who is less of an idiot? The other thing is the false narrative that politics is a binary (left vs right) decision. The truth is that most people are much more nuanced and have personal positions that are cherry-picked from both the left and the right.

The arguments in the debate were simply a deflection and recasting of the debate question. A voter does not to choose a "side" period, and even if they choose the least moronic candidate, it is not necessarily and endorsement, but rather pragmatic decision to keep the more moronic candidate from winning.

Personally, I always vote in the general election, but seldom in the primary (I don't belong to a party, and at times I'm not allowed to vote in the primary without declaring a party). Regarding Presidential elections, I also have a very long losing record. For other offices, I've voted cross party lines even within the same election cycle. I believe that I've never voted for more than 4 different parties within a single election.

To me it's important to vote, even if there is zero chance of my choice winning, if for no other reason than to reduce the percentage or total vote count of the winning candidate.

In this past presidential election, we had incredibly terrible candidates. I could not vote for either of them and instead voted for RFK Jr. who had suspended his campaign, had zero chance of being elected, and is an imperfect candidate, but better than either Trump or Harris.

I relieved that Harris didn't win, but not happy that Trump won, however do see a sense or hint of justice in Trump winning considering all the BS propaganda that corporate media and the Democrat party spewed the last 8 years. Even then I don't have high expectations of Trump and completely expect the same sort of mediocre presidency as his previous term. I also expect the same sort of dirty underhanded tricks to be played by the corporate media and Democrat party.

I guess that you could say that I detest Trump less than the tactics of the the corporate media and Democrat party. So if I'm forced to pick a side, I would not be picking the the corporate media and Democrat party and all their authoritarian dirty tricks.

Trump may be a rude loud-mouth, that uses banter as a negotiating cudgel, however objectively assessing his outcomes, he was far less authoritarian than Biden has been. Even so, I didn't pick his side either.

[Wizzle Bizzle]

Yup.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

Let's move into Rhetoric from Logic....Why even debate that unless someoine actually holds that position? not evreryone who takes a side in political matters does so for political reasons. First huge mistake. Secondly, YOU need to show that my position is even your business. Are you like the guy that pickets outside Barbara Streisand concerts with a sign " Rolling Stones are better!"
If you argue about having to take a side you are ipso facto taking a side. And if you don't it all comes down to real issues and not fakeo overriding cooked-up rabble rousing.

PS Historically this was a non-question as best evidenced by the Founding. None of the Founders got even close to what they themself personally argued for. Not close.Yet virtually all supported the outcome (eg we know that The Federalist Paper writers had to defend results we know they had argued against) so Why ? Because if you hold a differing opinion but still value discussion you are not even talking about taking a side, you are just starting from your side and trusting the insight of good and decent people

[Azathoth!!]

Do You Have To Choose a Side in Politics?

There is nothing to debate here, there is no question, no 'sides'.

You WILL choose a side because you have no choice in that matter.

You choose your side and then ally with those you think will further it.

EVERYONE does this. It is simply the way of things.

And you will behave thus not just in politics, but in all things.

Now, those who choose to not use all legal means possible to further those interests, such as choosing not to vote, have chosen the path of foolishness, whatever course they think they may support.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

True. There is MY side. And I choose who gets to be on it.

[Rob Misek]

Regarding all things we can perceive there are only two choices and everyone must choose one of them every time a choice is to be made.

They supersede the simplistic notion of “sides” demonstrated by the question “what makes you believe that to be true?”

Reality, truth or irrationality, lies.

[RickAbrams]

The actual winner of the Nov 2024 election was the Center. Trump's sole mandate was to kill WOKE DEI and that is sbecause the Center an abandoned the Woke Dems. Biden was twice warned, but by that time, he was 100% Pelosi's senile DEI puppet.

(1) https://bit.ly/3TsGezw December 14, 2023, CityWatch, Biden Fails to Realize that Americans Hate Wokeism, by Richard Lee Abrams

(2) https://bit.ly/4d35jIR April 22, 2024, CityWatch, Hurray for Centrism, by Richard Lee Abrams,

[LIBtranslator]

Ah! Another Christian National Socialist hatemonger trying to fabricate a difference between its own and "that other" looter kleptocracy faction. A real man would be blocking the door of a women's cilnic, shoving pregnant women around with no mask on.

[LIBtranslator]

"Is there not a choice between that party and the Democratic party, which has always been the slave of the liquor party, and whose opposition to the enforcement of the Dow law cost the state $2,000,000? The Democratic party, if put in power, will repeal that law and will do nothing for prohibition that you will accept." John Sherman, 04NOV1887 campaigning for Foraker, recites a litany of liquor laws republicans passed, pressured by spoiler vote clout wielded by the Prohibition Party. Small Party spoiler votes pass and repeal laws faster. Entrenched looters quail and cower.