97 Comments

Tulsi Gabbard left the Democrat party

Expand full comment

Glad to see it, but they basically ex-communicated her for standing up against Hillary in 2016. I guess it took her 6 years to realize there was no way forward as a D.

Expand full comment

Exactly

Expand full comment

Today = 4, 5, 7, and 9. A little more freaked out than usual.

Expand full comment

About Nordstream, the swedish prosecutor investigating it has declared the investigation solely under swedish jurisdiction despite the blast sites not being in our territorial waters (they are in our economic zone though) and that foreign participation is not allowed.

That in itself is weird, since the prosecutor does not have jurisdiction outside swedish territory. Also, Gazprom who owns 51% of the pipeline has been explicitly fobidden from participating in the investigation.

The language used from the secret police and the prosecutor's office also makes it clear that the interim governement (the new cabinet is not yet finalised - there's no set limit until it must be either) is the one who's leaned on the police and prosecutors to act like this, itself a violation of procedure and praxis, not to mention possibly in violation of swedish constitutional law.

Yet our media too are quiet; not even traditional liberals or the people usually making noices about separation of political parties, state, and executory branches can be heard or seen - not even our "alternativ" media is talking about it.

Something is very wrong here, and to me it brings to mind the massive cover up of the sinking of the 'Estonia' in the early 1990s. It wasn't until recently finnish and baltic divers could show cinclusive pictures taken of the hull's ruptures it was proven that the ship was intentionally sunk. Who by is unknown as the swedish Socialist Democrats have classified as much as they can, and are blocking any attempt to uncover any leads. (The party was highly involved in smuggling weapons and high-tech equipment to the GDR in the 1970s and 1980s, using civilian ferrys as cover and to protect the cargo.)

So I'd say our major political part, at least parts thereof, are involved in helping to cover this up by way of being allowed by the greater powers to handle the "investigation" - I mean, why isn't Denmark, Germany and the US protesting Sweden shutting them out of investigating the sabotage?

Edit: forgot to pick a number. I'm a 3 most days.

Expand full comment

That is very very interesting. Shouldn't we all be working together to figure out this mystery? Sounds like the beginning of a cover-up.

Expand full comment

That would be my guess, that the resigning Socialist Democrats has struck a deal with US/NATO persons to put pressure on Turkey to let Sweden into NATO without the Socialist Democrats having to hand over kurdish and turkish and other moslem terrorists to their home nations (we have an unknown number of ISIL sympathisers, backers and slodiers here), since the moslem "community" represents more than half a million potential votes at the very least.

So the Socialists helps cover up the "whodunnit", the Biden/WEF loyalists in NATO helps placate Erdogan, and the Socialists doesn't have to upset their key voting group.

Whoever wins, we lose seems eerily fitting if I'm right. (I'd rather be wrong.)

Expand full comment

Marriage is a contract, it HAS to be registered with the State, or the contract has no standing in society, otherwise, how will wealth or children be parsed up or indebted, depending on the situation?

If a large enough amount of people are actually dumb and horny enough to enter into a contract with multiple persons, the long-term result will probably be the dissolution of all binary financial bonds between marital parties, meaning you and your partners will simply be shareholders in a relationship, and all rental and purchases of large, big ticket items, such as housing, RVs, exotic cars, all dependent on the signer, the rest of the marriage shareholders don't mean squat. Good luck getting a cosigner for anything, what bank will want to entangle with a 12-person home with 45 liens against them?

Kids today.

Expand full comment

Does registration require a license?

No.

Does government require people be married before they mediate contract disputes?

No.

Just because it works like that currently doesn't mean that it makes sense or that's the way it must be done in the future.

Expand full comment

We are gonna have to agree to disagree.

Please don't cancel me and my 15 polygamous partners of 8 different genders.

Expand full comment

The difference is fundamental:

Registration = this is what we're doing

License = can we do this?

Expand full comment

Agreed. Which is why the pro-SSM argumentation was self-contradictory.

The marital relationship is not, in legal terms, a love relationship. There is no love requirement for the individuals who'd enter a same-sex relationship. Nor, according to the SSM argumentation, is there a legal requirement for some form of same-sexed sexual behavior. Nor, if one takes the SSM argumentation at face value, does the lack of these requirements define the type of relationship that supposedly merits the special status of marriage.

Yet the two-sexed sexual basis of the social institution of marriage is not defined by exceptions nor by non-requirements but rather by the type of relationship that merits special status in our traditions, conventions, and, yes, in our laws. And that sexual basis is neither same-sexed nor asexual.

The marital type of relationship integrates the sexes and provides contingency for responsible procreation, both of which are principled concepts that are thrown aside by SSM argumentation (and opens the way for treating marriage as non-marriage); the marital type of relationship needs no license per se but it does merit recognition and special status in civilization. All the same, there are legal requirements that define this type of special relationship and, no, it is not sexual attraction for which there is no legal requirement.

The SSM argumentation often conflated polygamy and polyamory. Polygamy is an inferior form of sex integration and responsible procreation and yet it is comprised of one man entering a series of two-sexed (and two-person) relationships; the women do not marry each other in polygamous practice. Polyamory is a form of group or clustered relationships across the participants each of whom join that group or cluster. Yet polyamory practice is far more loose and unlimited than even SSM argumentation could refine with its lack of principled basis for co-option of the preferential or special status of marriage as a social institution.

Meanwhile the two-sexed basis of marriage did not unjustly discriminate against those who'd form a same-sexed relationship which, by SSM argumentation, was not defined by love (no requirement) nor by same-sex sexual attraction (no requirement) nor by same-sex sexual behavior (no requirement) nor even by the limitation of two per relationship (only an arbitrary requirement to mimic marriage). SSM argumentation and its imposition on society demoted the marital relationship from its special status; this downward decline was a long trend that pre-dated SSM argumentation, certainly, but the abolition of the two-sexed sexual basis for marriage could do nothing, and actual did nothing, to flatten that trend nor to reverse that trend of modern times. Instead the imposition of the SSM idea, as replacement for the marriage idea, entrenched the permanent decline of this vital social institution.

That had been a long term goal of communism; and, as it turns out, the fascism of national socialism also. All for the state. Atomize the individual and leave him and her naked under the shadow of the big hairy arm of the STATE. All for the collective or the "greater good" and nothing but derision and demeaning of the common good.

Maybe some hyperbole thrown in, there, but the point remains.

Expand full comment

Don't trust Gabbard...the white streak in her hair reminds me of Cruella.

No to poly marriage. No to divorce; marriages need expiration dates that can be renewed by both parties, if desired.

#9 staying cool, calm and collected throughout the last 2-1/2 years.

Expand full comment

Tulsi worries me as she has been raised in a cult, her father was part of the political arm of that cult and she still retains personal 'perks' of that cult like having a cult photographer. See Wai Lana/ Jagad Guru. The forums and articles at this site provide more information: https://www.culteducation.com/

Expand full comment

Expiration dates on marriages would be WONDERFUL! .....and if you used your money to pay for it, or you inherited it, it's yours ALONE!

Expand full comment

I have one #9 day a month, it seems. Well done for keeping your cool!

Expand full comment

Didn’t Twitter uncancel the Surgeon General of Florida’s tweet?

Expand full comment

It was indeed once again there when I just clicked, which is more proof that the political science is driving the decisions and not actual science. They only reversed it because of the backlash.

Expand full comment

There's much to like in this post, but I had to laugh because people told me I was nuts. I had the same reaction when SCOTUS "legalized" gay marriage: "I’ve always thought that it was EXTREMELY strange to say ‘People should be able to marry whoever they love’ but not to extend this to multi-partner relationships." And I'm all for gay marriage, but, no, you can't be inconsistent. You could regulate for age and incest, but among consenting adults, you can't regulate who or how many, not if you're really serious about that particular contract being open to anyone.

Expand full comment

So while the insane among us go all in on trans/gender fluid/drag queen issues, sane people counter with polygamy??? Seriously?

Sorry, can’t go with you guys on this one.

Expand full comment

It's not what I approve of or disapprove. The ruling just left an obvious legal paradox and an opening for polygamists that I'm surprised they didn't take sooner. And rather agree with SimulationCommander. It's none of the government's business as long as we're talking adults.

Expand full comment

I think we're countering with the idea that government has no business in this arena in the first place.

Although knowing humans, making something 'acceptable' might drain the 'cool' out of it.

Expand full comment

Yep, government shouldn’t be involved in ANY marriage.

Expand full comment

I’ve been libertarian in outlook for almost 40 years, and agree that government should be limited. And I grew up in the era of free love, no problem with multiple relationships.

But I also value Western Civilization (yes, in caps), the only culture that supports individual freedom. That culture turned away from the legal recognition of polygamy, while repressive cultures support it. Maybe there’s a good reason for that different approach?

Expand full comment

Then what’s the good reason?

If we’re gonna follow Western Civilization off a bridge, I’d like to know what we’re landing in - even if it’s cotton candy and snuggles.

Expand full comment

Phisto, that’s exactly what I think about following new progressive ideas. If the plan is to overturn centuries of the mores of Western Civilization, I’d sure like to hear a really good reason for changing. Otherwise why should we follow the hubris of the latest progressive thought right over the bridge?

If you’re proposing that we jettison Western norms to follow other ideas that have also been around for centuries, I’m gonna need more than some version of “If it feels good, do it”.

Expand full comment

If your earlier question was rhetorical, just say so.

Expand full comment

Maybe! But should government or society handle this pressure back to the traditional family unit?

Expand full comment

Oh, Lillia do you know what an optimist you are when you support the very idea of more then one husband which no doubt would be followed by a whole lot of kids? Think of the housework and the worry. One is enough.

Expand full comment

I'm completely with you there. Sometimes one is two more than I can handle, and we don't even have kids.

Expand full comment

🙌

Expand full comment

Well, best to deal with your post one subject at a time. I'm really surprised Tulsi Gabbard openly acknowledged that the election was stolen,  but what operates in her favor in avoiding a hit job is she has been so side-lined in the political arena and perceived as an extremist, and even appears on Tucker Carlson, ergo no problem. However, I'm glad she said it!!!!!!!!!! Others know it, the media, including the left, and many in the republican party, and of cause the democrats know it. They tried their best to remove Trump from office so why would they allow him a second term?

 As far as Nord Stream is concerned, if Blinken calls blowing up the pipeline a tremendous opportunity and gives it a thumbs up what difference does it make who did it?  

I'm not so sure that Joe Biden, whom I consider a neocon,  along with the likes of  Blinken, Nuland, Rice, neocons that have assigned roles in his administration, as well as those neocons that abandoned the republicans during the Trump years and slipped on over to the democrats side. and all pushed an agenda of ousting Trump. I see them as dangerous, and the whole situation is of great concern. I very much see a nuclear war as a possibility. The neocons pushed a seven war agenda in the Middle East and said they only needed a new Pearl Harbor to carry it out. They got that on 9/11, how convenient. As far as those marriages with multiple spouses, well, I don't find it ichy, but the very thought of it gives me a terrible headache.   

Expand full comment

Tulsi Gabbard understands that the Machine is the Machine. Once a precedent is set, it can be used against anybody. That's why I've always liked her.

Expand full comment

I like her a whole lot, but she didn't stand a chance of winning the spot for president and loses to a man dealing with some degree of senility, who is corrupt, and a known liar, and then chooses a vice present because she is a woman of color who can't talk for any length of time without laughing. I bet they see the whole thing as very woke.

Expand full comment

Tulsi got smeared the same way Ron Paul got smeared and for the exact same reason -- REAL anti-war views.

Expand full comment

I know and like him too.

Expand full comment

SimCom was bored today and wanted to ask his readers to identify themselves as "libertarian" or "conservative" without using the words.

Expand full comment

Where's the option for combining those two into "contrarian"?

Expand full comment

"Rikard"

Expand full comment

I believed there would be a wide range of issues on the matter. ;)

Expand full comment

And by "wide," you mean "2 opposing." :)

Expand full comment

I'm always interested in the honest views of others, no matter how many of them there are! :)

Expand full comment

Now look, are you a bigoted piece of shit, or are you with me on this?

Expand full comment

I'm a 7. Thanks for asking 🙀

Expand full comment

7 feels like every day the last few years!

Expand full comment

I feel #4 and #8.

Expand full comment

Trapped?

Expand full comment

maybe more like being in the wrong room.

perhaps trapped

too much drama over here, Thank God I have a normal hubby, but

the rest of the family (sister, brother daughters) is nuts. taking care of my daddy (98) is a blessing but he is

getting scary, walks wobbly sometimes, forgets stuff, and then other times he is clear as a bell.

Trapped. I just keep moving.

Expand full comment

God bless you, Rosemary B. You've got your hands full.

Expand full comment

The libertarian part of me agrees that government should stay out of marriage/relationship issues.

But the cynical part of me knows that polygamy is a cultural value in non-Western cultures. I have seen enough of efforts to cancel Western Civilization; this feels like another step down that road.

Expand full comment

I talked at a gathering of people who for the most part are in the "waaaaay out there" section of sexuality and asked if polyamorous relationships could extend to household appliances. The audience thought it was a serious philosophical question.

Expand full comment

Great part about keeping the government out of marriage is getting to answer that question, “Who fucking cares?”

That’s said, I’d be much less likely to visit these people for Thanksgiving.

Expand full comment

Wouldn't it be a form of polygamy, which I believe is illegal in the US? This might open the door to legalizing the Muslim tradition of having multiple wives and all the complex social issues pertaining to marital/inheritance rights, govt. benefits, immigration. Something of a wasp's nest perhaps....

Expand full comment

I feel like, “Don’t fuck the toaster” comes long before any marriage discussion.

Expand full comment

When a man and a pillow love one another very much.......

https://metro.co.uk/2010/03/09/man-marries-pillow-154906/

Expand full comment

Whyyyyyyy. Why make it legal and publicize your mental illness?! 😶

Expand full comment

As nobody in their right mind ever said: "I care for you so much, I want to get government involved!"

Expand full comment

Haha exactly!

Expand full comment

I’ve actually worried about Tulsi...her truth is hugely consequential. I wonder when her Army Reserve unit gets called up for their annual stint.......ugh.

Expand full comment

Exactly. "Training accidents" happen -- especially when you're investigating the authorities.

https://reason.com/2022/10/04/lapd-officer-killed-during-training-exercise-was-reportedly-investigating-cops-accused-of-gang-rape/

Expand full comment

Well,thanks ..that will be my full moon insomnia worry tonight! 😉

Expand full comment

Agree.

Expand full comment

Ok, are you both saying that you think Tulsi is in danger. AND, yes, I’m pretty thick in the head lately so be nice and humor me…….a simple yes or no will suffice.

Also, what do you think of Nikki Haley……I think she’s great and doesn’t suffer fools lightly.

Expand full comment

Another WEF alumni, I believe. Seemed quite promising as US Amb. at UN but what does that prove? The WEF have recruited some very bright capable people, who may be going around as sheep in wolves' clothing or quite the reverse. Hard to trust any of them knowing their affiliation with Schwab.

Expand full comment

Yes.

Don't know much about her, to be honest.

Expand full comment

In regards to Haley, I ‘ll be very interested in your assessment, whenever that is.

Expand full comment

I have met her twice. I live in Northern Virginia and she has been here with every election to support our candidates.

I think she is a wonderful person, and quite knowledgeable but I am

not so sure about my feelings at this time.

She is wading into the swamp and keeping her mouth shut.

I kind of lost track of her these past few years.

Expand full comment

Also, she’s been on the news a lot in the past few weeks.

Expand full comment

Thanks.

Expand full comment

I know several Muslims in polygamous relationships here in the US. They don't register their marriages with the state. I agree as a libertarian that the state needs to get out of the marriage business. It should be contractual between the parties and divorce should be handled per the pre-nuptial contract.

Expand full comment

Yes, it's not like keeping poly marriage illegal is stopping people from being in poly relationships.

Expand full comment

Can confirm.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Oct 10, 2022
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Agree, so long as a parent’s failure to pay doesn’t mean taxpayers pick up the tab. (And we all know that’s exactly what it means).

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Oct 11, 2022
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Sorry I was unclear. A parent's failure to pay in many/most cases means taxpayers pick up the tab through the various welfare programs. Somebody pays to the is children. If it's not the parent, it is usually the taxpayers.

Expand full comment

I wouldn't care about the multipartner-union decision if I didn't feel like we've now been strapped into a seat on the train to the land of polygamous marriage being a constitutional right.

Expand full comment

Brigham Young is smiling....

Expand full comment

How do you know, since dead men tell no tales.

Expand full comment

And all these fauxminists staying closed mouthed about women with rudders winning swimming championship will also find some lame rationale to accept polygamous unions as “a good thing.” 🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️

Expand full comment

OMG, I just “got it” when you said “women with rudders”………smiling………and I’ve got to get more sleep……

Expand full comment

Transsexuals in women’s sports is hardly the same thing as multi-partner unions.

Expand full comment

I just don’t see either situation as progress for women. I see both as further methods of marginalization of women.

Expand full comment

Why is multi partner marginalizing to women?

Expand full comment

How many multi partner relationships do you know that are one woman and multiple men??

Expand full comment

My personal experience is hardly grounds for reasonable conclusions.

Besides that, I’m not sure there’s some ratio that would obviously determine whether or not it “marginalizes” women.

All that said, of all the polyamorous relationships I’ve personally encountered they’ve all be equally distributed or had more men than women.

Expand full comment

Admittedly my circle is probably fairly small, but 1 of the 3 'consistent' poly relationships that I know of, one is 1 woman 2 men.

Expand full comment

Agree

Expand full comment

It starts out that way, then before you know it, multiple partner men in women's locker rooms, nude spas, etc. Wait and see.

Expand full comment

While it may end up coming to that, this particular ruling will have nothing to do with it (IMO). As a man, you can't go into the women's locker room just because your wife is in there.

Expand full comment

Do you think anyone would even ask anymore? Nobody seems to care about this (except some of the women whose privacy still means something).

Expand full comment

I think the vast vast majority care about this, they're just afraid to say so because of the huge backlash that occurs when somebody speaks out.

Expand full comment

Lol - Yes, a lot of people would be very put off by that.

Expand full comment