Comments by "Debany Doombringer" (@debanydoombringer1385) on ""Libertarian" New Hampshire Gov Candidate Borysenko Flips At Me, Declines Debate" video.

The whole thing with Kerri was unhinged. She made like almost a hundred videos about her while Kerri made none until it got too much and she addressed once. That speaks volumes.
7
I wasn't aware she's turned on Straka now. Sheesh. She's a mess.
6
@CountArtha That may be, but electing someone to a federal office who is completely ignorant of geo politics will only weaken the country. We're experiencing a good example of that right now, only worse. While I'm more isolationist than many, I'm well aware that we can't just magically snap our fingers and start producing everything in the US so diplomacy and understanding of the politics of other countries is a necessity.
4
You're entitled to your opinion, but it better never go against hers or she'll attack you. No matter how much you've supported her.
2
No he's not like her at all. He likes to troll and doesn't take the internet, especially Twitter, seriously. She's a you're either with me or against me type of person.
2
@gen-xboomer The problem is the party, not the people that lean libertarian. The founders were extremely libertarian for their day. Which is why most who say they are, are Constitutionalists or classic liberals. It's also why most aren't in that party, because it's that by name only for the most part. It's why you're seeing my generation, Gen X (the most libertarian generation ever), taking over the Republican party instead of trying to build up the Libertarian one. Edit: I'd hoped the Mesis could fix the view of the party, but not if they put people like her forward in it.
2
She shows how much she cares about him by also abandoning him because he won't endorse a book. Yeah, great friend.
2
Styxx hasn't changed at all. Who is "we"? I don't take anyone that speaks in the 3rd person or comments as if representing a group seriously. That just means you're a collectivist without independent thought. Otherwise you'd comment for yourself alone. Edit: That's not a direct threat legally either. I can physically remove someone from somewhere without doing stuff in minecraft. So it would be considered protected speech under the 1st amendment. It has to be a direct and imminent threat to be illegal. So supporting someone running for a high office that doesn't understand even the first amendment is a bad look. Especially running as a Libertarian which supports absolute free speech. I bet you also think it's illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater. It isn't. That was a horrible decision and was overturned awhile ago. That case was about if it was legal to protest against a war and the court said no and he was imprisoned.
2
Legally? It depends. It has to be an explicit threat and then it comes down to intent. By explicit, I mean extremely specific. Then you can be charged with terroristic threatening, but that doesn't carry much of a sentence. What the person said doesn't fall under illegal speech in the slightest.
1
Someone suppressing others free speech doesn't have "good ideas". They are a totalitarian and would use power like any other one would. Just because you agree with somethings they say, doesn't mean they won't violate your rights if given half the chance.
1
She's not very popular. She had a decent audience at one point, but she went nuts and has said some insane stuff. She bans people in her omm6ent section, even followers. No way anyone like that should ever be given any amount of power.
1
One of the most popular libertarian Youtubers. He does debates and is doing or has done one with Dave Smith. How often has she been on Dave's show? Oh that's right, never.
1
Great? She's an extremely unhinged individual. I used to follower her. When someone can't keep a friendship and claims everyone else is the problem, they are the problem. It's psych 101.
1
Because Tulsi seems to go whichever way the wind blows. There's absolutely nothing wrong with questioning someone's motives until they prove themselves. She's a politician or has everyone conveniently forgotten that? They say a lot of things they don't believe to garner support and change once in office.
1
I used to follow her, but couldn't take the constant demands of showing loyalty and the requirement to agree on absolutely everything she says.
1
How is he wrong? That's the issue. She's claiming he's wrong when she's using big tech to suppress speech which is completely against the Libertarian party stance on free speech. Even her claiming it was "violence" is against it because the NAP doesn't recognize speech that way. It's only about actual imminent physical danger. If he's not wrong, by her own admission, he can't be "triggered" (which it's laughable to say just because someone disagrees with you).
1