@MURDRMUTT Do you have any idea how fuel pricing actually works, or are you just permanently stuck in the juvenile “evil, greedy corporations” mindset?
@mcmahonforcd6@jeffhunt The more effective argument is “you had an incumbent on the ballot that had a top 3% libertarian-leaning track record. You chose to split the ballot anyways bc ‘muh principles’, the incumbent lost, and now you’re getting a rep that’ll vote in your interests less than 50% at best”
@mcmahonforcd6@jeffhunt Oh I’m sure all that stops once Laubacher is in office! Boebert had a 92 liberty score (top 10) and lolberts split the ticket against her. Now you’ll get what Laubacher promised: more money for Ukraine, federally mandated price controls/insurance mandates, more regulations, etc
@DickBlandTrackr@VoWSilla Totally unrelated case? It’s a very appropriate example to use to highlight the prosecutorial discrepancy and hypocrisy, suggesting a political motivation in the Brand case
@blasphemous_vox@jeffhunt Foreign aid to Ukraine, and heavy AI industry regulation. Last I checked these were polar opposite values of libertarianism, but hey, guess I should’ve “held my part accountable” or something
@blasphemous_vox@jeffhunt What exactly do you think I can do to “hold my party accountable?” Boebert had a 92 liberty rating, 7 points under Massie. You idiots split the ballot against her and now you’re going to be ruled over by someone who supports federal price caps, insurance mandates,
@mcmahonforcd6@jeffhunt Of course you care about how you’re represented in Congress, that’s why you vote in the first place. But now you’ve “voted your conscience” or whatever, and you’ll be ruled by a political institution that is more hostile to your interests than the alternative. Good work!
@blasphemous_vox@jeffhunt Again meaningless slop. Once again lolberts “voted their conscience” or whatever and as a result will be ruled over by a political institution that is even more hostile to their interests than the original alternative. Good stuff