The Facebook Files

Why do you think the Libertarian Party has had a hard time putting forth a decent candidate?

What is the Republican Party's messaging problem in your view? Seems to me that its messaging has been both crystal clear and effective at its goals, right down to varfous dogwhistles.

Neither the Republican platform nor the Democrats is "free money for everyone!" and there would be an obvious way to compete with that platform if it was: we don't have infinite free money, and spending the way we have has kept our taxes way higher than they should be, and vote for me and I'll bring some financial sanity and discipline to Washington.

If your ideas are popular, why is it, do you think, that almost no politicians support them? Why hasn't the public put any such politicians in office?

Who are you referring to as being called Russian assets?

While doing more to regulate Congress financially would be a good in and of itself, you realize that would do next to nothing to get money out of politics or to make it more likely that Libertarian or third party candidates were electable, right?

Okay @Raoul the Red Shirt so I’ve been able to relisten to the Lawfare podcast on my way to work and yeah, I do [still] think it provides a lot of good context on this discussion.

Basically the host and both panelists (including the law professor who literally wrote the paper on jawboning) thought the government did actually fuck up more times than they should and violate first amendment protections but that the current BS is dumb and hamfisted (there was seriously a moment where someone felt the need to state ‘we need to differentiate between normative and statutory’ which is not just a nuance but likely a vocabulary some here can’t grasp) and actually hurts their own case in a legal sense.

However I still have a soul and can walk in daylight so would really appreciate if you, @Faceman or @Fisherman's Worf have time to take a listen (not now, totally cool to come back in a month or later) and give me your reaction.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-lawfare-podcast/id498897343

Whoa man, slow down. You just rapid fired a bunch of questions at me.
1. I don't know. The Democrats and Republican have worked very hard to discredit the Libertarian Party and politicians want to be on a winning team so it's hard to attract people who are true believers to run for president in a party with one foot in the grave. That would be my guess.

2. Their messaging is supposed to be low taxes and less government in your life. I don't know what dog whistles you're referring to nor do I care to speculate.

3. The Democrats are very much about free money. Joe Biden just won the mid-terms based on wiping out student debt.
"we don't have infinite free money, and spending the way we have has kept our taxes way higher than they should be, and vote for me and I'll bring some financial sanity and discipline to Washington." Yeah, nobody believes that's a winning message and nobody believes that's ever going to happen, the Swamp is too big.

4. My ideas are popular and some people in congress line up with my ideas, I've already said this why are you trying to change my words.

5. Tulsi Gabbard.

6. No I don't realize that. Explain why it would do nothing to get money out of politics.

You pose rapid-fire stuff all the time as part of your sealioning schtick, don't pretend otherwise.

As for your ideas being popular, no. The GOP are literally having to pull gerrymandered shit or procedural "ignore the majority" crap to pass their agenda, and if you have any ideas that don't align with theirs, they aren't popular except among three year olds.

I have to stop you right there. The Libertarian party discredited themselves when they put forth Bob Barr as a candidate. All they've done since is talk out of both sides of their ass

Oh, that ass ain't limited to just two.

Didn't intend to imply it was.

Interesting

I initially posted this to the blood sucking lawyers of the board but let’s switch it up.

@Steal Your Face you have said that you heard on Joe Rogan about jawboning.

I know you prefer to get your legal analysis from failed comedians and MMA announcers but what if you listened to a podcast featuring the guy who first elucidated concept of jawboning and see what he thinks?

To kinda lure you in I will tell you that on the podcast all three participants think the government/Biden admin went too far. This isn’t me trying to trick you into listening into some kind of far left podcast.

When you have the time I would appreciate you listening to this podcast and telling me your thoughts.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-lawfare-podcast/id498897343

Are you willing to listen to actual experts (LIKE THE DUDE THAT CREATED THE TERM JAWBONING) discuss the issue of jawboning or na?

Do you agree that they went too far?

wow-someone doesn't want to answer the question...

That's because it's irrelevant. We all have a basic understanding of what jawboning is or we can look it up. If all three participants agreed the the point is moot. What I want to know is if others here think the government went too far?

Yes.

I agree that when in post #13 I said that there was actually a there there that I agree that there is actually a there there.

http://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/3489743/

Ya got me. Ya caught the Tater.

Now will you please listen to the podcast and give me your reaction?

Whenever you have the time.

Yes I will listen to it. The question now is what do you think should happen since you agree that they went too far?

Thank you.

I agree with the panel that in the immediate sense there should be an Executive Order clarifying who can and cannot communicate with social media companies and on what basis.

I think there there is a difference between HHS (Health and Human Services) and the FTC (Federal Trade Commission [who is in charge of anti-trust application]) emailing a social media company saying they think a post should be taken down.

After that I do think there should be some statutory clarity but have ZERO faith that it can be enacted in our current congress.

for a guy who refuses to answer the question, you sure demand a lot of other people do.

libertarianism at its most mediocre?

A formal acknowledgement would be nice as well.

The fuck man?

A formal acknowledgement of what?

This is fucking Wordforge LOL. You hereby have my formal acknowledgment of what the fuck.

I heretofore acknowledge that little green men run the site.

I heretofore acknowledge that though my connections I know @Spaceturkey is and has been for over FOUR DECADES an agent of the CIA and is helping us get rid of the Castro Son.

I fully acknowledge whatever you want me to fully acknowledge.

I HAVE FULL KNOWLEDGE.

Now listen to the god damn podcast.

Sigh.

Fine...

*Puts on tuxedo*

*Waves to the crowd*

*Bows gracefully then salutes with his sword*

You're a cunt.

No I was talking about Biden.

I acknowledge all the things.

Now.

You gonna listen and give us your take?

Trust fund kid insists he's owed something.

He owes me a sandwich.

Yeah but I wouldn't trust the filling.

So you agree that the Biden Administration went too far, but you don't think Biden should come out say as much? Interesting.

I agree all the things.

Now.

You gonna listen and give us your take?

If you believe that Biden should hold a press conference condemning the actions of these people, fire them and take steps to prevent this from happening again and apologize to the American people for lying to them, otherwise known as "all of the things", then why is post # 80 "dumb"?

Well, only in so far as a buddy of mine is a groundskeeper at a BC ski hill and sold him a short quarter bag in '95. It was still decent weed though.

Oh fuck yeah man.

It’s all horrible.

Just. Fucking. Horrible.



So you gonna listen and give us your take?

For the fifth time here it is in case you couldn’t find it:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-lawfare-podcast/id498897343

Are you going to tell me why my post was marked “dumb” sine you agree with me?