In other news

There are police accountings of how things supposedly went, and the other guy who got only severely wounded (the other whose name started with Ho anyway) was the first one

Why are you still arguing here?

About the Minnesota assassinations? because there is no official narrative about what the motive(s) was

It was clearly the radical left. First they blocked the bridges.... and I did nothing.

Why does a dog lick its own balls?

According to eurostat, northern africans are the most anti-black racist people in the area

Social conservatism is pretty much incompatible with libertarianism, simply due to its love for morality laws and censorship. There is also the worship of authority that tends to come with conservatism in general, which is at odds with libertarian principles of reduced government power.

You see a similar phenomena on the "left axis" of politics when you start to move past social democracy and touch more on socialism. Very high acceptance for state intervention, reduced respect for political rights like free speech and high taxation pretty much makes libertarian takes impossible.

So, I'd say there is a "bubble" which we can imagine on the middle of the political axis where libertarian values is possible on both sides of the spectrum. However, the right side tends to focus more on principles of freedom (less legal constraints on what you can do), whereas the left side focuses more on practical freedom (less practical constraints on what you can do). As a result, they spend a lot of time whining about each-other.

This also mimics historical debates on freedom from the state, where anarchism / voluntarism / syndicalism arose on the left (Bakunin etc) and effectively shifted the political axis so that (classical) liberalism ended up on the right. Flanked on either side you had Marxism on the left and conservatism on the right. The German revolutions of the late 1840s is pretty much this historical phenomena distilled, and the events leading up to it actually have some striking similarities to the debates of today.

As a closer I'd also say that modern day "conservatism" (Trumpism / MAGA) is pretty much an anti-thesis of individual freedom. Lack of due process, a government / leader which openly persecutes press / political opponents, no oversight, no transparency, protectionism / mercantilism, open corruption, regulations for sale to the highest bidder, and everything dressed in veneer of fake patriotism.

There is incompatibility only when it's social conservatism that wants to mandate stuff to others. Plenty of socially conservative people do not want to mandate their morality upon others, especially in the USA.

As an example the subset of people who, say, are in favor of banning porn is much smaller than the subset of people who think porn on net is negative for society.

In europe it's more common to automatically ask for mandates for your moral preferences in most countries.

But even in europe it's not like all catholics that wouldn't abort themselves (or wouldn't want their wives to abort) , want to ban abortion for others for example.

Hey, you just might be right. Keep Hope Alive!

When you are shown to be 100% wrong on this - and you will be - I expect as many words in your mea culpa post as you've already typed putting forward your asinine position.

Let's put together a little thesis here.

Precepts:

p1) Luciom posts here every waking hour most days, and has done for at least a year. That's a lot of posting, most of it opining on subjects where his only source of knowledge is a cursory Google search. The chances he has been wrong about something are therefore pretty close to 100%. In fact, I'd venture the chances that he's wrong about something at least once a day are close to about 100%, but we need not go that far.

p2) The number of times I've ever seen Luciom admit to being wrong about anything, even after having been demonstrably shown to be factually incorrect about something that is not a matter of opinion are, let me count this up, around zero. The most I've seen him do is ignore corrections and stop posting on a specific topic, sometimes only to pick the same talking points up some time later when he hopes everyone has forgotten how hard he got his pants pulled down over the same thing last time.

Possible conclusions:

p1 is incorrect, in which case

c) The man is omniscient and infallible, all hail our new overlord,

p2 is incorrect, in which case

c) Show me the receipts,

or both p1 and are p2 are correct, in which case

c) that stubborn, arrogant prick would sooner hack his own balls off with a dull knife than ever admit to being wrong about anything.

I guess I'll leave the rest as an exercise for the reader.

Well it's pretty obvious what the answer is...

HAIL LUCIO

It's possible that at the end the guy will be proved to be rightwing instead of leftwing, which then will beg the question as to how a crazy rightwing nut (if that's what he ends up being) was appointed twice by 2 different democrat governors to boards where state legislature democrats sit as well and no one noticed

1 - You are using "beg the question incorrectly".
2 - This has been explained to you many times.

All output, no input.

The way people like Luciom continually “ask” for answers without ever listening to them when presented, is absolutely wild.

oh thx i checked what i had to write would be "raise the question"

not sure what you mean with 2), other than attempts to dismiss the relevance of those appointments. Some people mentioned those boards are basically worthless (which *raises* the question about why the **** do those boards then exist) , but the state senator that ended up wounded was on that board as well, so maybe it wasn't such an irrelevant board?

Pretty much all Democrats are on the right fwiw.

These boards include people from business, universities and NGOs as well as the legislature and they aren't supposed to be partisan. The Governor's Workforce Development Board (from which Boelter's name has been appropriately deleted, if I've got the right board) includes Republican Senator Carla Nelson and Republican Representative Bernie Perryman. Boelter's reportedly conservative views would not appear abnormal if you didn't know how he was allegedly planning to act on them.

https://mn.gov/deed/gwdb/about/gwdb/

From what i gather his appointment had ended in 2023

Funny , my perception is totally the opposite .
What disappeared tho is liberal republican which has way more affinity with libertarian .

The only link with libertarian and republican conservative was the fiscal economic issue and guns.
Now the « trump conservative » let go fiscal responsability too by borrowing money to give tax break ….

Tame seem absolutely correct to me shrug .

Do u have many example of social conservatism not wanting to mandaté stuff ?
Hell look what they did with poker online…

I mean real social conservative would be the PC in Canada from 1990 to around 2010.
And they would be considered democrats in the US ….

Montreal there are american states that voted for trump with 10-15 points of margin (or more), where the same voters voted against strict limits to abortion.

That means sizeble portions of republicans in those states don't want to mandate their moral preferences.

As for "what they did to poker online", the infamous UIGEA in 2006 passed the senate 98-0. It was about taxes/regulation, not about morality , and it had full bipartisan support.

I thought it was about the casino lobby pressuring them to end it

That and some conservative groups like Focus on the Family.

I believe the UIGEA was also "tacked on" to other major legislation. That is, I don't believe it was voted on as a stand-alone bill.

Almost nothing is a stand alone bill.

True.

But most legislators were probably indifferent to online poker at the time, so I suspect they voted almost exclusively on the merits of the main legislation, not the UIGEA.

addendum: The UIGEA was a so-called rider.