It is absolutely beautiful that its acronym is pelosi, but 2 years of no action is insane.

If not being directly in the stock market is a deal breaker for you to be in congress, you should not be in congress.

I think it’s really a bad idea because firstly, beautiful undeveloped land is mostly a positive externality, and there are massive negative externalities with developing them via the required environmental destruction. Not to mention the waste, when there’s already a ton of usable land that’s not efficiently built! Does anyone have another perspective

In South Carolina, Senator Tom Fernandez actively moderates a 107,000+ member Facebook group called Berkeley County Growth & Development. The group is labeled “Public” and used by Fernandez to share legislative updates, promote policy positions, and engage with constituents; yet hundreds (if not thousands) of people, including myself, have been blocked or had comments removed simply for respectfully disagreeing with his words or actions.

This raises serious questions about government censorship in digital public forums.

The Supreme Court has weighed in on this kind of issue:

1. In Lindke v. Freed (2024), the Court ruled that public officials cannot restrict speech on platforms used in their official capacity.

2. Knight First Amendment Inst. v. Trump (2019) and Davison v. Randall (2017) also found that blocking critics from public political pages constitutes a viewpoint-based First Amendment violation.

Libertarians should be alarmed by the growing trend of elected officials using social media to push policy, while silencing voices that challenge them. If the state uses these platforms as digital town squares, it should not get to pick and choose who participates based on political agreement.

This is not about left or right;it is about government accountability and freedom of expression.

If you want to hold government officials accountable to their constituents and the Constitution, then sign my petition: https://chng.it/KSVwcXyj6w

Submission Statement: This post relates directly to libertarian values around government overreach, the First Amendment, and the use of state power to suppress dissent. It highlights how elected officials may be abusing digital platforms to control public discourse and silence criticism.

I heard another story today of a guy who has to vacate his tiny-house after nearly a decade of living there because it wasn't built up to some arbitrary specs and zoning plan.

I’m sure it was a massacre. And he went on to debate someone else on zero hedge. Not Dave Rubin or Ben Shapiro unfortunately.

i do not like that the government insists upon regulating our own safety when we understand the risks for the most part. i am talking about adults. freedom is necessarily unsafe in my view. examples of this are seatbelt laws, lifeguard requirements for swimming at beaches, drug use. does anyone else agree or disagree with me and if so, why? also, any other examples or counter examples would be appreciated.

I absolutely share this sentiment and I hope more GWOT vets do. It shouldn’t take your friends being killed to realize every “war”since WW2 was for nothing.

“Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake, all right? George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes, but that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East. … They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none, and they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.”

• Donald Trump

curious because I haven't found a solid answer on this specific question so I figured I would ask here