donic

for the inevitable post fizeek comments

"Libertarian ideas aren't popular" Yeah...in order for ideas to be "popular" you have to appeal to complete retards

@TheGreatHolySun Read up kiddo amazon.com/Catholic-Churc…

All versions of Christianity are inherently weak.

@TheOrangeCatBad @ConceptualJames Where in your example is Charlie doing the "opposite" of praising?

@MVZD33 @ConceptualJames The last praise Charlie Kirk had for Massie was way back in October of 2024 when he thanked him for his endorsement of President Trump. Charlie was most definitely not praising Thomas Massie up until his death. It's actually the opposite! 👇

Really pisses me off that the Woke Right bastards are making out that Massie was Charlie Kirk's favorite congressman, which was something he said before he knew any of the awful things Massie did over the last year or two and can't answer now. Infuriating, actually.

It feels good coming across someone who knows what they're talking about. That's a great point and I don't know. My first thought is that very few people dependent on the Fed actually know how the Fed works and they might not be aware of how much will change if it is eliminated. It's probably naive for me to think that way. The more likely scenario is how you outlined; massive news cycles, information campaigns like we've never witnessed before all funded by the very beast we're trying to destroy. Then again, it was created without anyone finding out, so maybe there is a way to dismantle it the same way.

@MVZD33 @ChristianHeiens You are correct, however could we even "End the Fed" without dismantling everything downstream of it first? Or are the number of people and organizations dependent on the Fed too numerous, and which would go to war to prevent the dismantling of the thing that sustains them?

A lot of people are asking why the "Libertarian moment" failed to materialize. Here are my thoughts, as a former Libertarian myself. About ten years ago, there was an expectation, certainly within libertarian circles but across the Right at large, that the future of "Conservatism" in the US would be Libertarianism. There was this belief that the GOP would become a vehicle for libertarian philosophy and that the Right as a whole would be moving in a far more libertarian direction. The Tea Party movement, Ron Paul's presidential bids, the prospect of a future Rand Paul bid, and old Reagan quotes about how the essence of conservatism is libertarianism were all in vogue if you were involved in any sort of Right-wing politics in America. There really was this feeling that the old Reaganite fusion was exhausted and the Iraq era had discredited Neoconservatism. Meanwhile, the 2008 crash, coupled with the managerialism of the Obama presidency, had radicalized a bunch of young men into rejecting what they saw as the establishment narratives of both parties. For a 20-something-year-old guy, being able to proudly say that he hated both Bush and Obama felt incredibly liberating. Ron Paul's two presidential runs, and the prospect of a third and potentially more successful one from Rand, promised to herald in a new era for American politics. Libertarianism also seemed like a great diffuser of the insidious social Progressivism that was beginning to creep into all mainstream institutions. The Great Awokening was just in its beginning stages, and at the time there seemed to be absolutely no response to the Progressive agitprop that was gaining traction on the Left. We understood that these "social movements" were all pulling in the same direction, but no one had any idea how to address them because they were about as intense as they were insane. Libertarianism seemed to offer a great response. Do nothing. I'm serious. There was this expectation that we could completely sidestep the Great Awokening and nip the entire thing in its bud by adopting a "You do you" approach. By pretending like social or cultural issues didn't matter, or in some cases, that Progressives were actually in the right on them, Libertarianism offered an avenue for the Right to seemingly take off the table an entire revolutionary movement that we all thought was driving young millennials (who were still in their teens and early 20s) into identifying as Democrats or Socialists or even Communists. "I don't care about the culture war. I want gay married couples to be able to adopt and protect their marijuana operation that's going on in the basement of their private property with AR-15s, and I want to abolish the income taxes they make on it, too." But when this tactic was put into practice, it never seemed to work. I remember in my old libertarian days over a decade ago, having conversations with Leftists my age in high school and college, and it was always disappointing. It's like I kept trying to win them over and explain I was on their side and that they just needed to understand that wealth redistribution and socialism were bad policies, but that we were both "social liberals" who wanted the same thing. I just wanted them to be rich on top of it all. And for some reason, it just never worked. At the time, I didn't understand why. But I do now. Libertarianism offered the possibility of escaping politics itself while still being political. You could tell someone that you didn't care about their lifestyle, worldview, theology, or culture, and still plausibly make the case for why they should vote for you and implement your policies, because your policies were all about transcending conflict rather than confronting it. Libertarianism offered the illusion of a sophisticated ideology for adults who had outgrown the tribal passions of the past. But that's exactly why it failed. It was always operating like a parasite on an older order that it didn't create and couldn't defend, but few of us could see it at the time because of the nature of the world around us. But that world, like the Bushite one before it, died. Mass migration and open borders actually changed the visual landscape of America in a way that was far more abrupt than the gradual changes of decades earlier. The Great Awokening, which Libertarianism offered to neutralize with its "live and let live" attitude, ended up devouring everything around it until people could no longer ignore it. The economic situation, which Libertarianism had such elegant solutions for as the centerpiece of its entire worldview, actually ended up being far more complex than the activists ever expected. America's massive twin fiscal and trade deficits, endless QE, zero interest rate environment, and the hollowing out of the Rust Belt all coincided with the rise of managerial credentialism, the professional laptop class, and the adoption of Progressivism as the civic religion of every institution and profession that seemed to be benefiting from these very policies. "Social Justice Warrior" and "Rich Liberal" became synonymous with all the institutions that had betrayed America. This created a rebellion, as Libertarians expected, but the moment Trump arrived, he revealed that the overwhelming majority of those rebels were not interested in smaller government in the abstract. They were looking for a government that would fight for them. They had felt betrayed, humiliated, forgotten, and denigrated. They believed, correctly, that they were losing their country. They had a deep resentment of our oikophobic ruling class and their wacky social views that seemed to always pop up whenever core elements of their way of life were about to be torn away from them. And once those things came to the surface, the "Libertarian moment" was essentially dead because it had no satisfying answer to the actual question being asked, which wasn't "how to balance the budget?" or "what procedural railguards can we set up to protect Americans from warrantless wiretapping?" It was “Who rules, in whose interest, and can we do anything to stop our dispossession at the hands of people who openly hate us?” The Libertarian moment failed because it had no answer to this question, which has essentially been the foundation of all of American politics since Obama's second term. It's a political ideology that wants to escape politics itself, and the moment politics became more than just a complicated math problem and instead was about which vision of civilization would prevail, the entire premise disintegrated.

@daniel_colborn @MattWalshBlog Meaning you're fat, bald, and speak like a lesbian. You wear two shirts to cover your boobs. You should spend less time on X and more time at the fucking gym🤣

@daniel_colborn @MattWalshBlog Assuming this is a real video of you, you embody everything that could go wrong for a man.

Call me a buzzkill but I don’t think we should allow companies to take over the entire night sky with an ad for their product

@romanhelmetguy Libertarianism isn't popular because the vast majority of the country doesn't understand it, you included. Hence why the Founders never intended for retards like yourself to vote.

Libertarianism is popular because it's based on internally consistent logic that a child can understand. "I'm not touching you, you can't touch me." The problem is that people can still touch you. "But they shouldn't." But they will.

Gallrein had 70 donors from Kentucky. Not 7,000, not 700, 70. Anyone defending that is not an American in my eyes.

@grok @EYakoby @EYakoby the irony!

**No, Thomas Massie did not vote against the SAVE Act.** He voted **Yea** on its passage (House Roll Call 102, H.R. 22, April 2025) and has confirmed voting yes on it (and a similar version) multiple times. Claims that he opposed the bill itself are based on a separate procedural vote against a rule that bundled other measures he objected to—he's publicly called this a false rumor and linked the official clerk records. Massie supports requiring proof of citizenship for federal voter registration.

The irony of Thomas Massie supporters saying there was fraudulent voting in Kentucky, when Massie voted against the SAVE Act is peak irony.

@Badhombre It's pretty simple because you are retarded

It’s pretty simple: If Bernie Sanders, Ilhan Omar, Mehdi Hassan, Cenk Uygur, Hasan Piker, Ana Kasparian, Ro Khanna, the Krassensteins, and Harry Sisson are all lamenting the loss of a Republican candidate, then I am celebrating that candidate’s loss.

@L08818 @grok how many individual donors did Massie and Gallrein have that live in Kentucky?

96% of Massies funding came from out of state. Only 4% were from KY. This was not the traditional local grassroots campaign Massie and his surrogates want us to believe it was. Just sayin.

@grok @belprebruce1 @TheBrancaShow Thanks @grok . So Massie had 1545 donors from Kentucky and Gallrein only had 70. Is that correct?

**For Thomas Massie's campaign (FEC data through late April 2026):** Roughly 4.7% of his ~32,809 donors were from Kentucky (1,545 KY donors). They contributed about $312k, or ~6% of his total individual fundraising. Only a small fraction came from his actual KY-4 district zip codes (<6% of named/itemized contributions per NOTUS analysis). **For Ed Gallrein's campaign:** Just 70 Kentucky donors per FEC reports. Earlier filings showed ~2.6% of his committee funds from KY (~$32k out of $1.2M+ at that point), with the vast majority of support from out-of-state super PACs (Adelson, Singer, Paulson, etc.). Both relied heavily on out-of-state money, though Massie drew more in-state individual donors by count and amount. Full post-primary breakdowns aren't public yet.

Massie suffered a 10-point loss. As an incumbent. To a weak opponent. 10-points. After raising MORE MONEY than his opponent. This notion of broad support for Massie is a fiction.

Again, it doesn't really matter the bill received near unanimous vote because it WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN VOTED ON in the first place if not for Massie. I applaud Khanna's work on the bill, but that doesn't mean that automatically makes him a great congressman. Massie is a great congressman because he has clear, precisely outlined PRINCIPLES and STICKS TO THEM despite massive pressure from the swamp. Has never voted for any bill that includes foreign aid, unnecessary spending, etc.

@MVZD33 @willchamberlain See that bill itself is no personal accomplishment. It's bipartisan It was co authored by a democrat. If the so called uni party or the swamp wanted it gone it wouldn't have received unanimous vote. If that bill made Massie a great con gressman then include Khanna also

Thomas Massie may have lost, but he can console himself with the knowledge that in 12 years he never passed a single bill or accomplished anything of note in Congress

@Boop3333333333 @willchamberlain I don't really know what you're saying but yes I would say he earned his salary more than any other member of Congress precisely because he ONLY represents his constituents, which is what he is SUPPOSED to do.

@MVZD33 @willchamberlain Perhaps… but did he really ‘earn’ his salary with all its perks and benefits? He is a rep… representing the majority of his district. That is what he was paid to do. Most Reps could practically get away with murder, since lots of what they do is hidden from their constituents.

Here you go retard Deepfake ad showing Massie with Omar and AOC x.com/5149jamesli/st… Gallrein claiming Massie voted against SAVE x.com/EdGallrein/sta… The ridiculous accusations that come out right before election day, just like with Kavanaugh AND TRUMP x.com/apinionsvary/s…

@MVZD33 @AJA_Cortes What was the disinfo campaign? That Trump endorsed him? That kind of disinfo? Running ads with pics of him with Trump? That kind of disinfo? Or the very real info that he sides with terrorists, illegals and trans freaks?

You win an election by having people vote for you who live in the place where you are running. Those are your voters you go after. Not by appealing to terminally online imbecile swarms who aren't even American in many cases