@Bernard "Interspecies" breeding is a semantic contradiction: If they can produce offspring, then they're not distinct species--by definition of species.
Let's get one ABSOLUTE FACT straight: There are both left-libertarians (who are socialists, and who are not strong supporters of property rights, if they even support them at all) and there are right-libertarians (whose whole identity is the strong support for individual property rights, and who are extremely anti-socialist.)
Maher: “I don’t think what he said was exactly right… He said the MAGA crowd was trying to characterize the assassin as anything but one of them because the guy’s family was MAGA.
As if a 22-year-old with a trans girlfriend never rebelled against their family."
@djsumdog "Because voting is literally the least significant way to change the world? Go vote harder then. See if it makes a different."
No, you idiot. One person's vote is essentially meaningless. Always was, always will be, no matter how smart or dumb the voters are, no matter how honestly or dishonestly the media may be in the narratives it pushes.
Why? It's the math: One vote is just one vote, typically out of thousands, if not millions.
What matters is how the crowd votes. That's why so much money, time and effort is spent attempting to influence public opinion. It's why I bother to post anything publicly at all, just as it's why you do the same.
We're both trying to move the Overton Window. Perhaps in the same direction, even. The difference is that I'm trying to move it incrementally, in order to avoid having my message be completely ignored because it causes too much cognitive dissonance, and so has no effect on most of my audience. And also because "the people are retarded."
You, on the other hand, are trying to black pill people into apathy, into despair, into either useless action (because most people aren't ready for the world you'd like to live in,) or into no action at all.
By the way, the world I want to live in is a strictly-voluntary society without any monopoly providers of justice and security (no "governments" as we know them, no "states.")
Democracy is not a system that puts the people in power. "The people" will never be in power.
Democracy is a system that puts the best manipulators in power.
“We need to give more power to the State so that the State can limit its own power,” said the idiot.
Power is power. Once you delegate it to the collective, you cannot control whether it will be used for good or evil. Nor against whom.
It's impossible to grant the monopoly power to effectively fight injustice, corruption and oppression without also granting the power to engage in it with impunity. A monopoly cannot be expected to police itself; it's a conflict of interest.
"There can be no such thing as 'limited government,' because there is no way to control an entity that in principle enjoys a monopoly of power." ~ Joseph Sobran
Therefore, our job is to get a critical mass of people to understand all of the above. But that has to be done incrementally. And while we're doing that, we ALSO have to try to prevent The Powers That Should Not Be from gaining so much power and control that Orwell's nightmare vision of "a boot stamping on a human face— forever" does not come to pass.
@djsumdog Here's your actual thesis--which for you is axiomatic, meaning it motivates all else that you believe: "It will not matter if people vote, because Trump’s installation is already a foregone conclusion. We do not elect leaders in America, we select one of two puppets."
You comprehend everything based on that premise. It's patently ridiculous. Were it true, there would be no need for the charade you believe is happening. Once that level of control were achieved, it would be "game over."
Your overall message reduces to "it's all hopeless." That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. And should it be true, then you would have no rational motivation to champion it. And that raises the question of why you're doing it.
I'll let the audience answer that question for themselves.