I thought this was interesting because I took a brief look at his profile and I don’t think this guy is a troll. I think he’s trying to give a genuine case for the BBB being wasteful spending. Of course, the issue is that he’s picked out what basically sounds like a wishlist for much of the right! He’s doing a great job arguing for the spending in this bill and he doesn’t even get it.
This is also exactly why I’m frustrated with Rand, Massie, Elon, et. al. It’s very easy to say vague things about “we need to reduce spending, let’s cut some stuff out,” but we all know that critical things like this would be first on the chopping block.
A lot of these guys have the "reduce spending" mindset that buys 30$ boots that collapse in a few months instead of 100$ ones that last a few years.
Its all virtue signal, because they only apply this principle to other people's lives and government programs they don't personally like. For their property and investments/industries, its always kosher and not wasteful at all!
For the legit ones, I disagree. Our Keynsian monetary system is basically going to kill us. My problem, even from my lolbert leaning mind, is that if I get what I want; no deficit spending and mass deflation, it will also probably destroy the world.
Even then, I'm glad that cutting programs is a topic that's on the table for discussion, whether it's selfish or not.
And I don't think there are any legit ones, because they standard most of them espouse is an impossible one to live legitimately.
When you are dismantling and destroying any attempt at fixing simply because it doesn't fit your way and your view of ideal, you better be a shining example of that ideology not only only working but being lived to the fullest every single day and every way.
Which is wherein my problem is. Most lolberts and guys like them position themselves as hardline, no compromise when it means making a fucking problem (and thereby getting attention), but then are happy to live make concessions for their personal gain and life, with a dozen excuses why its okay for them but you (who'd benefit somewhat from what they crusade against) need to grit and suffer until we reach Andrew Ryan's Rapture.
My problem is that the world I want physically doesn't exist. It was destroyed and replaced with this one. Civil Society is no longer organized by family, local community, or even religion. It's organized by government and it's vassals. We live in a totalitarian democracy, under Socialist economic conditions that the people who I most ideologically align with... would have violently revolted against.
I'm not going to revolt (because mass graves are filled with people seeking liberty from tyranny as it is), but I am going to undermine this system, and build an anti-parallel system however I can. That requires me to practical more than ideological, which is one of the reasons I'm okay with this bill, and even the tariffs: it's doing more significant damage to the Fabian Socialist Order than anything else.
My problem is that the world I want physically doesn't exist
I think this is how we all feel, once we "wake up" as they used to say. My home and culture was violently destroyed by the federal government pushing numerous "progressive" or "economical" rulings, and we are now basically dead and treated as a living punchline by our entire country.
Almost all current "victory" conditions the people I am forced to align with, as they are the closest with any chance of enacting anything, fill me with disgust at how milquetoast and lacking in karma they are, yet I swallow that in hope that the future we are building is worth letting those compromises happen.
I do want to also point out that you're not wrong to cite either the Koch Brothers Libertarians who something something mass migration is innately good. Where they're calling Socialism of the regime approved corporate fiction as: "Free Market Capitalism". These are unquestionably the enemy, and frankly socialists wearing gold. I consider them no different from Hasan Piker.
On the other hand, you've got the Ideology Autistic Lolberts who don't understand that the "Non Aggression Principle" is a purely ideological construct that hardly any civilization has been allowed to tolerate by governments and their slaves. Thus, because they pull from Liberal Universal Morality, that every people will just innately accept the principle. They don't realize that Libertarianism is a kind of "Anglo-Saxon-in-the-woods Sharia", nor do they understand that the out-spoken individualist and his whole family are normally raped and murdered by a lynch mob of the tyrant's vassals at the first sign of contrarianism. The only individualist societies that have survived have done so because they were marshal societies that were heavily armed and trained. Less than a handful of civilizations have embraced something akin to it in history, and the very idea of individuality in the modern context exists exclusively because of the gun functioning as a massive force multiplier for the individual against the mob.
So, you're not wrong, but I do think there are a minority of legit libertarians who genuinely understand the problem with deficit spending and do truly want to reduce the size of the government. The others may be either ideologically captured, or socialist skin-walkers.
but I do think there are a minority of legit libertarians who genuinely understand the problem with deficit spending and do truly want to reduce the size of the government
In every group there is the "good ones" who are somehow able to live and breathe against their stereotype and general predisposition. Once you reach a decent enough mass, its inevitable by the force of human individuality to happen.
The question is always how rare these individuals are, compared to the majority who are decidedly not them. This is how the line gets drawn on things like the "good" races versus the "remove entirely" which is how you get things like Asians being treated as less bad than blacks in the racism community.
In the case of lolbertarians, I think its unfortunately such a vanishingly small percentage that its almost not worth thinking about. Much like communism, the type of personality and mindset that draws someone to the ideology comes from a specific type of flawed individual and thereby you see a lot of the same failings and hypocrisies arise. Those who can rise above those failings, often seem to just leave the label and trappings behind entirely even if they make technically still fall under it.
I assume there's some degree of tweaking the model and/or proofing posts because it's specifically formatting its tweets to be making value judgments on these things. In theory, it should be representing its programmer's opinions to a decent degree, because they created it for a specific purpose and they haven't yanked it yet.
This is also exactly why I’m frustrated with Rand, Massie, Elon, et. al. It’s very easy to say vague things about “we need to reduce spending, let’s cut some stuff out,” but we all know that critical things like this would be first on the chopping block.
Anyone have a link to a good summary of specific criticisms?
I've also only heard vague statements about needing to cut spending.
Wait, these are the things I'm supposed to be mad about spending on? I'm all for cutting spending aggressively and I'm sure this bill is full of garbage somewhere. However almost all of this is needed temporarily to boot all these effing migrants out.
Leftists magically transform into fiscal conservatives the moment you try to fund anything besides communism, and libertarian traitors are all too happy to join them.
As for the rest, I agree with Elon that it's a waste. But sadly it's a needed waste as this expenditure will reduce further erosion of an already sizeable debt incurred.
The big question is "If debt costs more than the military, why not send the military to those claiming money".
"Big Beautiful Bill Includes 10-Year Ban on State AI Regulation"
Good.
Too many dipshits "tryin' to get things done" without knowing what they are regulating. The crap we have now isn't even AI like in the movies. Generative algorithms is a better term. They can't just stop doing something because you make a law against it because they aren't actually intelligent. That is why people can with minimal effort get Fortnites Darth Vader chatbot to generate a racial tier list when it was been told by its makers not to be racist.
It is like the Star Trek main computer, not like the random sentient programs that get generated by a malfunction.
Nearly any useful "AI" regulation is better done in interstate commerce as a federal manner, like shorting the copyright provisions on it to be as short as a normal patent rather than the multigeneral copyright terms.
An Application Fee for asylum is a bit rough, and $1,000 for asylum is also rough, but a lot of Asylum-seekers are sponsored by NGO who will probably front that.
Meh, this will basically force people to choose a different option if the US system is taking too long. It's a little crass, but I'm not going to say it's wrong.
That's heavy charge, but I see it as a "shit or get off the pot" maneuver. Become a citizen, or go home. At 6 months, this won't effect any seasonal workers.
You got denied an appeal so now their charging you. I don't see this as a problem.
At-Will employment should be coerced onto bureaucrats. There shouldn't be a civil service protections AT ALL
I seriously doubt all of this. Most of the people losing medicare are people who are non-disabled adults who aren't seeking work. And they're just getting a mandatory work requirement, they shouldn't be covered at all.
Immigration enforcement is not bloat at the moment. That's like calling military funding bloat during a war. You know what eases infrastructure? 30 million less people.
Ohkay, listen, as a minarchist, I'm agreeing a lot with Rand Paul and Massie on their objections, even though I tend to agree that the bill needs to be passed to start moving in the right direction.
However, these are not exactly compelling arguments.
At-Will employment should be coerced onto bureaucrats. There shouldn't be a civil service protections AT ALL
You need some kind of framework that makes it legal to discuss and act on things like FBI crime statistics even when you have a libtard boss and illegal to be a libtard if you want things to get better. I do not know how you would be able to achieve this.
You can't. You actually need to have competing partisan actors that can be removed at will within one election cycle at all times.
Unfortunately, objectivity within politics is a non-starter. You have to have someone in one administration say, "hey, I'm not releasing data about the 'despite' numbers. When you win, I want a promise that with this study I won't get fired"
It implies someone built a bot that combs bills and summarizes them, but in this case they also clearly built it to editorialize about which bills are good and bad and which spending is wasteful or not, so I'm assuming there's at least a bit oversight/direction in there to try to make sure it really is representing its coder. That said, yes, this could be a bot misfire on some level.
Here’s a Nitter link.
I thought this was interesting because I took a brief look at his profile and I don’t think this guy is a troll. I think he’s trying to give a genuine case for the BBB being wasteful spending. Of course, the issue is that he’s picked out what basically sounds like a wishlist for much of the right! He’s doing a great job arguing for the spending in this bill and he doesn’t even get it.
This is also exactly why I’m frustrated with Rand, Massie, Elon, et. al. It’s very easy to say vague things about “we need to reduce spending, let’s cut some stuff out,” but we all know that critical things like this would be first on the chopping block.
Edit: And here's an archive.
A lot of these guys have the "reduce spending" mindset that buys 30$ boots that collapse in a few months instead of 100$ ones that last a few years.
Its all virtue signal, because they only apply this principle to other people's lives and government programs they don't personally like. For their property and investments/industries, its always kosher and not wasteful at all!
For the legit ones, I disagree. Our Keynsian monetary system is basically going to kill us. My problem, even from my lolbert leaning mind, is that if I get what I want; no deficit spending and mass deflation, it will also probably destroy the world.
Even then, I'm glad that cutting programs is a topic that's on the table for discussion, whether it's selfish or not.
And I don't think there are any legit ones, because they standard most of them espouse is an impossible one to live legitimately.
When you are dismantling and destroying any attempt at fixing simply because it doesn't fit your way and your view of ideal, you better be a shining example of that ideology not only only working but being lived to the fullest every single day and every way.
Which is wherein my problem is. Most lolberts and guys like them position themselves as hardline, no compromise when it means making a fucking problem (and thereby getting attention), but then are happy to live make concessions for their personal gain and life, with a dozen excuses why its okay for them but you (who'd benefit somewhat from what they crusade against) need to grit and suffer until we reach Andrew Ryan's Rapture.
My problem is that the world I want physically doesn't exist. It was destroyed and replaced with this one. Civil Society is no longer organized by family, local community, or even religion. It's organized by government and it's vassals. We live in a totalitarian democracy, under Socialist economic conditions that the people who I most ideologically align with... would have violently revolted against.
I'm not going to revolt (because mass graves are filled with people seeking liberty from tyranny as it is), but I am going to undermine this system, and build an anti-parallel system however I can. That requires me to practical more than ideological, which is one of the reasons I'm okay with this bill, and even the tariffs: it's doing more significant damage to the Fabian Socialist Order than anything else.
I think this is how we all feel, once we "wake up" as they used to say. My home and culture was violently destroyed by the federal government pushing numerous "progressive" or "economical" rulings, and we are now basically dead and treated as a living punchline by our entire country.
Almost all current "victory" conditions the people I am forced to align with, as they are the closest with any chance of enacting anything, fill me with disgust at how milquetoast and lacking in karma they are, yet I swallow that in hope that the future we are building is worth letting those compromises happen.
I do want to also point out that you're not wrong to cite either the Koch Brothers Libertarians who something something mass migration is innately good. Where they're calling Socialism of the regime approved corporate fiction as: "Free Market Capitalism". These are unquestionably the enemy, and frankly socialists wearing gold. I consider them no different from Hasan Piker.
On the other hand, you've got the Ideology Autistic Lolberts who don't understand that the "Non Aggression Principle" is a purely ideological construct that hardly any civilization has been allowed to tolerate by governments and their slaves. Thus, because they pull from Liberal Universal Morality, that every people will just innately accept the principle. They don't realize that Libertarianism is a kind of "Anglo-Saxon-in-the-woods Sharia", nor do they understand that the out-spoken individualist and his whole family are normally raped and murdered by a lynch mob of the tyrant's vassals at the first sign of contrarianism. The only individualist societies that have survived have done so because they were marshal societies that were heavily armed and trained. Less than a handful of civilizations have embraced something akin to it in history, and the very idea of individuality in the modern context exists exclusively because of the gun functioning as a massive force multiplier for the individual against the mob.
So, you're not wrong, but I do think there are a minority of legit libertarians who genuinely understand the problem with deficit spending and do truly want to reduce the size of the government. The others may be either ideologically captured, or socialist skin-walkers.
In every group there is the "good ones" who are somehow able to live and breathe against their stereotype and general predisposition. Once you reach a decent enough mass, its inevitable by the force of human individuality to happen.
The question is always how rare these individuals are, compared to the majority who are decidedly not them. This is how the line gets drawn on things like the "good" races versus the "remove entirely" which is how you get things like Asians being treated as less bad than blacks in the racism community.
In the case of lolbertarians, I think its unfortunately such a vanishingly small percentage that its almost not worth thinking about. Much like communism, the type of personality and mindset that draws someone to the ideology comes from a specific type of flawed individual and thereby you see a lot of the same failings and hypocrisies arise. Those who can rise above those failings, often seem to just leave the label and trappings behind entirely even if they make technically still fall under it.
It’s a bot. It’s about as useful as asking grok.
I assume there's some degree of tweaking the model and/or proofing posts because it's specifically formatting its tweets to be making value judgments on these things. In theory, it should be representing its programmer's opinions to a decent degree, because they created it for a specific purpose and they haven't yanked it yet.
Points #4 through #8 aren't even spending. They must have used ChatGPT's retarded little brother.
Anyone have a link to a good summary of specific criticisms?
I've also only heard vague statements about needing to cut spending.
Wait, these are the things I'm supposed to be mad about spending on? I'm all for cutting spending aggressively and I'm sure this bill is full of garbage somewhere. However almost all of this is needed temporarily to boot all these effing migrants out.
Leftists magically transform into fiscal conservatives the moment you try to fund anything besides communism, and libertarian traitors are all too happy to join them.
The other option is illegal.
As for the rest, I agree with Elon that it's a waste. But sadly it's a needed waste as this expenditure will reduce further erosion of an already sizeable debt incurred.
The big question is "If debt costs more than the military, why not send the military to those claiming money".
This is my fetish
Legal employment is tight!
The spending criticisms are a small issue compared to them sneaking in Patriot Act: AI edition.
Big Beautiful Bill Includes 10-Year Ban on State AI Regulation
https://www.infowars.com/posts/big-beautiful-bill-includes-10-year-ban-on-state-ai-regulation-drawing-some-opposition
Learn The Secrets Of The AI Dictatorship Provisions Hidden In The BBB
https://www.infowars.com/posts/live-exclusive-learn-the-secrets-of-the-ai-dictatorship-provisions-hidden-in-the-bbb-and-how-alex-karps-palantir-project-fits-in
MTG Says She Was Wrong To Vote For The BBB Because Of A Provision Giving Big Tech / AI Total Power To Override States’ Rights
https://www.infowars.com/posts/total-integrity-mtg-says-she-was-wrong-to-vote-for-the-bbb-because-of-a-provision-giving-big-tech-ai-total-power-to-override-states-rights
Rogan Exposes AI Regulation Ban Slipped Into “Big Beautiful Bill”
https://www.infowars.com/posts/watch-rogan-exposes-ai-regulation-ban-slipped-into-trumps-big-beautiful-bill
Roger Stone Calls On President Trump To Realize The MAGA Base Does Not Want To See The Total Destruction Of Their Privacy Rights
https://www.infowars.com/posts/exclusive-roger-stone-calls-on-president-trump-to-realize-the-maga-base-does-not-want-to-see-the-total-destruction-of-their-privacy-rights
"Big Beautiful Bill Includes 10-Year Ban on State AI Regulation"
Good.
Too many dipshits "tryin' to get things done" without knowing what they are regulating. The crap we have now isn't even AI like in the movies. Generative algorithms is a better term. They can't just stop doing something because you make a law against it because they aren't actually intelligent. That is why people can with minimal effort get Fortnites Darth Vader chatbot to generate a racial tier list when it was been told by its makers not to be racist.
It is like the Star Trek main computer, not like the random sentient programs that get generated by a malfunction.
Nearly any useful "AI" regulation is better done in interstate commerce as a federal manner, like shorting the copyright provisions on it to be as short as a normal patent rather than the multigeneral copyright terms.
You have exactly two choices: either the federal government regulates AI or the state of Califormia does. There are no third options.
Ohkay, listen, as a minarchist, I'm agreeing a lot with Rand Paul and Massie on their objections, even though I tend to agree that the bill needs to be passed to start moving in the right direction.
However, these are not exactly compelling arguments.
You need some kind of framework that makes it legal to discuss and act on things like FBI crime statistics even when you have a libtard boss and illegal to be a libtard if you want things to get better. I do not know how you would be able to achieve this.
You can't. You actually need to have competing partisan actors that can be removed at will within one election cycle at all times.
Unfortunately, objectivity within politics is a non-starter. You have to have someone in one administration say, "hey, I'm not releasing data about the 'despite' numbers. When you win, I want a promise that with this study I won't get fired"
Bad bot. #4-8 are revenue, not expenditures.
To be fair, I'm sure it was trained on previous government bills and 99.99% of the time when a value is mentioned, it's going to be spending.
I don't know a dang thing about twitter, but it goes out of it's way at the top to say that tweet was automated. I'm not sure what that implies.
It implies someone built a bot that combs bills and summarizes them, but in this case they also clearly built it to editorialize about which bills are good and bad and which spending is wasteful or not, so I'm assuming there's at least a bit oversight/direction in there to try to make sure it really is representing its coder. That said, yes, this could be a bot misfire on some level.
Ahh, thanks. I haven't used twitter in a decade, so I had no idea what that meant.