shirgall

When Secretary Clinton says, "the rich will pay their fair share" she's figuratively waving the gun in my face. When the Fed sets a target of 2% inflation, Janet Yellen is figuratively saying she thinks it's right to set fire to 2% of my cash savings. If voting can have some small effect on this, it's worth it. I can't spend my moral superiority at the supermarket.

At the moment, un-Presidented as well, so I'd say the first checkpoint is approximately 100 days into his term? See you then?

Even this is unprecedented in a politician.

Be aware that I only scratched the surface of a heck of a lot of writing by Rothbard, Rand, Peikoff, etc., and I don't identify as an objectivist so I'm putting terse words in their mouths.

I think a core disagreement is that libertarians consider the NAP axiomatic and objectivists consider it derivative of other principles. Where this can be seen is that objectivists won't necessarily extend protection of rights to those who don't protect those rights themselves. Quite the opposite of what you say above, objectivists also consider libertarianism incomplete as it is a political philosophy without regard for other domains like ethics. You can be a libertarian about politics and have widely divergent views on other philosophical topics. Minarchism is a small piece of the range of topics encompassed by objectivism, and is considered another area where objectivists think an idea was stolen with the teeth taken out of it.

Blown the f*** out. A sports term for winning by a large margin. I have always used something akin to "actions or threats of manifest harm" as "force".

Well, two years in the Federal Service, which implies taking personal responsibility for the safety of the human race rather than possessing a pulse and a temperature near 37C. The movie made it sound more evil by loading on more entitlements.

A lot of 4chan claims have not materialized into evidence, charges, and convictions. My expectations on this line of inquiry have always been low. I still think the real crux of the criminal enterprise is intentional, cavalier access to sensitive, confidential, top secret, or compartmentalized information to unauthorized individuals.

I certainly came to the same assessment, just based on what she was willing to do regarding oil and who was donating to her.

Subjective things are supposed to be legally determined with the reasonable person standard: "Would a reasonable and prudent person, knowing what the defendant knew, come to the same conclusion?" We've all been exposed to pretty much same knowledge, and a significant number of us have determined unfettered immigration to be a credible threat to western values, increased taxation, and inexorable shambling of the omnipotent state. Some haven't, perhaps. Part of the fun of the reasonable person standard is that both the prosecution and defense get to dismiss jurors that make this determination if they are not objective enough to handle this determination. One such reason to dismiss a juror in voir dire is whether they have prejudice to the question or the defendant. Where can we find a jury for this? Trump voters? Clinton voters? Only non-voters?

If I saw that kind of traffic out of my routers, I'd notice. What is true that certain major switche locations (imagine the places where giant ISPs connect to the rest of the Internet) did have facilities in place for NSA and law enforcement to analyze the traffic. The broad extent of this was touched upon in the Snowden documents, but it was an open secret before then.

I was certainly afraid to talk to people because of their probable reaction. My test cases were certainly met with scorn and derision with a select few. Who volunteers for that crap very often?

Voting for someone that will diminish or reduce the use of force is a good thing, not an evil one. I am not so much of a perfectionist that I insist the entire system be overthrown on day one, I will be encouraged if the use of force is diminished. I'm already under the threat of force. I'm not going to storm the barricades and die trying. We've been down this road before. Was voting for me immoral when I ran for office? Was voting me to become Membership Director of a state-wide political party? How about appointing me parliamentarian so as to ensure the party followed its own bylaws that were passed by majority vote? I have a hard time accepting that any of those things were immoral.

Fundamentally, the state does not have to use force, so only voting for people who want to use force via the state is immoral. Voting in and of itself is not akin to rape, voting for rapists is.

They are attacking Breitbart for carrying shocking articles, as if the Guardian didn't carry pieces by Bin Laden. It's an empty appeal. I was around for Reagan-Thatcher. People called Ron an idiot. They focused on his love of jelly beans. Genesis made puppet videos that had him accidentally pushing the button. We laughed and moved on. Stef probably has the same memories with a different accent when it comes to how the media treated Thatcher.

Stefan has thanked Alex Jones plenty of times.

Adam Baldwin said it best: #DiaperRiots However, George Carlin also remarked: "Symbols are for the symbol-minded" Yes, just like the people who were shamed for not wearing ribbons on award shows or other public events, it's about quashing the opposition.

23% of self-identified atheists voted for Trump... at nearly 1 in 4 can we have a little recognition for not all being statists?

You talk to them. Do you know how the Israeli airline El Al has such a good record on terrorism? They talk to the passengers. I know it sounds simplistic, but the kinds of question you ask are "what do you want to do?" "who do you know in America?" "where will you live?" and lots of questions that thoughtful people will have put some effort into. Going back to my organizations example, you immediately noticed the difference of people that joined the organization to support a person or an agenda versus ones that joined to support efforts outlined in the charter of the organization. If they didn't understand the mission but did know the personalities, you knew you were dealing with a mole.

My Marxist sister would hate me even more if I openly expressed disdain for the state as an institution of mechanized oppression. She never respected my positions on government. She hates me for saying that Trump will accelerate the distrust of government that all people will feel and I don't get to die in a reeducation camp in for a little while longer.

What I picked up on from this article that Trump listened to Obama and would consider his suggestions, so of course he softened his promise on Obamacare: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-obamacare-repeals-latest-policies-quote-replacement-president-elect-a7412621.html "Either Obamacare will be amended, or repealed and replaced," Trump told the newspaper. "I told him I will look at his suggestions, and out of respect, I will do that."

Ben and Stef kinda had a falling out over the Michelle Fields incident.

I'm in this same boat, and I'm emphasizing the need for rational discussion, which does not include name-calling, tantrums, or violence. It's not getting anywhere yet, but I'm trying to be soothing.

No matter how it is presented, truth is preferable to falsehood. There are many ways to say things, and one should always carefully chose their words. That being said, excessive words spent on such things reduce clarity and serve to poison the well against what you say, which is what I think people really want by imposing trigger warnings on essays and presentations.

So... IM'd my folks who said they voted for Hillary and know I voted for Trump but "love me anyway." I find this to be passive-aggressive.