There we go again. "Muh Democracy" and "Muh Trans rights!" I can tell you right now that most of you who spout this nonsense don't gaf about anyone's rights. Minorities, LGBT, Palestine, etc. are all used as just used as props for Democrats to gain and Lord their power over everyone. These are the same people who buried the Iyrana Zarutaka murder, because the murderer was a black guy. Black people only matter to them, when they can paint them as victims to hate on white people.

If anybody promoted division, it's leftists. At least Kirk was willing to listen to the other side's arguments, not shout them down and dox them on social media. 

So according to how you framed it here, there is the dichotomy between people who give lip-service to individual rights of marginalized people and don't listen to opposing views that suggest they shouldn't have them vs. a person who doesn't think large groups of Americans who fall in these groups should have rights ("We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.", "Homosexuality is akin to alcoholism or drug use", etc) but he was willing to listen to people who think the individual rights should exist, which is the prevailing view that the overwhelming majority of Americans have. 

And you're wondering why people of marginalized groups vote for Democrats? 

Hell, I am not a very strong Democrat. I pretty much hate the party. But if it is a choice between people who want to hurt me (I am non-heterosexual, non-white, and have a disability) and those who pay me lip-service and do nothing, I am obviously going to side with the latter. I really don't care if the first group will listen to me justify my existence as a fully equal member of society. I shouldn't have to be arguing for it in the first place. 

In regards to what Charlie said about the Civil Rights Act, He's right. The CRA was a mistake, and that's a view shared by most libertarians. You don't need a federal law to protect individual rights of minorities, when freedom of association and the free market will already take care of that. Hell, I'd argue the Civil rights act is one of the reasons behind DEI mandates of modern times. 

Kirk wasn't advocating against groups of people having rights. He was advocating for government to stop enacting nonsense laws like the CRA to fix problems that natural rights of citizens and the free market could already fix. 

Why weren't the rights of minorities secured and why didn't the free-market take care of it for the hundred years between the 13th thru 15th Amendments and the CRA? That's a pretty long time for the "free-market" to drop the ball. If your argument is that the market wasn't free, then it is pretty useless to talk about "the free market" that never existed ever. 

Even still, most right-wing "libertarians" support the first two civil rights acts, even if they don't support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Barry Goldwater, for example, supported the CRA of 1957 and the CRA of 1960. He didn't support the 1964 law mostly because of Title VII and II. He was mostly in favor of everything else in it. He also regretted not voting for it. 

Charlie's language didn't discern between them, and he specifically used it in reference to Title IX, which no libertarian should oppose if they were aware of the inequalities in the Jim Crow states. 

"Title IX made it easier to move civil rights cases from U.S. state courts to federal court. This was of crucial importance to civil rights activists who contended that they could not get fair trials in state courts."

It was not ignored:

CNN: Video shows fatal stabbing of Ukrainian refugee on Charlotte light rail — stirring debate on crime in major US cities

PBS: Charlotte officials under fire after man with long criminal history kills Ukrainian refugee on train

Everyday in the US, there are around 63 murders. How many of those do you think you hear about? And why do you think you only hear about maybe 1 out of every few thousand murders. 

The ones you do hear about, get shared because they're expected to be particularly controversial or notable - maybe because you can politicize it. Maybe because it's a particularly horrible case.

Right wingers want to politicize cases like these, because it helps divide. Left wingers don't have that same incentive to report on that news. 

Democrats aren't a singular block, a lot of them absolutely don't care about trans issues, some of them absolutely do.    

There's not really a such things as natural rights of citizens. Almost every right has to be supported by the culture or the country.

If your culture doesn't support black people drinking from the same water fountain, and it looks the other way when white people murder black murder in revenge, then who is protecting that right? 

Who is protecting free speech, if someone gets murdered for saying the wrong things? 

We also don't have a free market, unless some major things change - and generally the people arguing for those changes, aren't actually advocating for a free market. Because they're generally just changing who's in control of situations. 

I’m having a hard time comprehending the stupidity of this post……..we don’t need laws protecting individual rights because the free market will take care of that? What the fuck are you going on about?

Did the free market abolish slavery? Did it bring about women’s suffrage? Did it regulate child labor? Did it provide the elderly with pensions & healthcare? Did it legalize gay marriage? Did it protect the disabled? Did it attempt to clean up the air & water?

The “free market” doesn’t give a fuck about anybody’s individual rights, it cares about selling goods and turning profits.

No problem!

The thing that is hard about simply going back to Clinton tax rates is that while the Bush/Trump cuts were skewed towards the rich, they did also include cuts for the middle class (I’ve seen estimates put it at an 80/20 split) and it’s political suicide to increase taxes on the middle class so that means the taxes on the rich would likely need to be a bit higher than the Clinton days to offset the middle class cuts.

Looking at the Biden tax proposals:

Increase top corporate tax rate from 21% to 28% (halfway between Pre-Trump & Trump rates)

Raise minimum corporate tax rate from 15% to 21% for corporations with profits over $1 billion

Raise stock buyback tax from 1% to 4%

Return top income bracket to 39.6% for individuals making over $400,000 and couples making over $450,000

Apply Social Security taxes to income over $400,000

Increase Medicare tax from 3.8% to 5% for income over $400,000

Tax capital gains at the same rate as income

25% minimum billionaire tax

Some other, extremely wonky taxes

I do think part of the problem is most don't know how taxes work, so rising taxes gets a huge push back.  

Like increasing Medicare from 3.8 to 5%.  If someone makes 450k, most think that 5% applies to the entire 450k, when it doesn't.  It applies to the 50k above 400k. 

I'm not saying you don't understand how taxes work, but the average American doesn't, which is why so many oppose.  

I had a coworker a long time ago who didn't want want his annual raise because it was going to take him from 98k to 100k and his tax rate was going to increase, and has was going to make less money.  I could not get him to accept the increase tax rate was on the 2k, not applied for the first 98k.  Tbe first 98k was going to be taxed as per usual.

For sure, I’ve had coworkers say similar things in the past, “I don’t want to go up a tax bracket and end up making less!” Or “It’s not worth getting overtime after a certain amount of hours because taxes take it all!”

Overall, our country is financially and politically illiterate but even worse than that, so many people are willfully ignorant. They don’t understand something and put in zero effort to try and learn about it or when given an explanation, they bury their head in the sand and don’t want to hear logic.