regevdl

It would just create a black market. But also, why isn't the option of social ostricism....why all of this 'block entry road' etc.... the people by then...if the society was stateless would have already been using the method of social ostracism for anyone who uses drugs. If you are in the preferred drug-free zone, it would be too costly to actively enforce and block roads and rally everyone to pressure the road owner etc, instead, anyone who is known to use drugs in that area will be cut off from goods and services. If I own a gas station and I don't approve of the drug users, then I would refuse service to them. The grocer etc. Then the drug user would either stop using or move to more drug-friendly areas. Which....why wouldn't the drug user do that from the beginning? But honestly, in order to get the road owner to 'cave', the surrounding neighborhood would have to make a STRONG case as to why a few individuals doing drugs is wreaking absolut havoc on their society and infringing on their prosperity and peace and privacy, etc. If they can factually pinpoint that the individuals buying/selling/using drugs is somehow violating the non aggression principle, destroying their property or disturbing their livilood (beyond just being nosy busy bodies), then by all means. I mean if the Tower block was turning into a total crack town with prostitutes and STDs rampant and doing some vile things violating non-agression (sex slave children, etc) then the surrounding 'hood would have a reasonable case. But I just can't see any other scenario where it would be worth or conducive for a neighborhood to try to turn another neighborhood into a drug free zone. I mean that 's WHY they are the drug free zone by voluntary compliance so they can live in the standard that suits them. So it shouldn't be up to them what is being transported on the road so long as it's not infringing on their personal safety, property, etc

Wow. that's so sad, those poor kids! I don't even know what to suggest. I mean the fact that the partner/mother 'agnonizes' over the question is concerning. I mean the abusive dad is an obvious problem and he clearly is not open for change but why in the world is the mother 'torn'. I mean if she is fully aware and bothered by everything you have described that SHE witnesses and experiences in her home then what's to agonize about...I think the children will respect her more for leaving and saving them from this monster. As typically the case the mother sticks around until the kids are big enough and then she leaves because then suddenly the father becomes too much for HER to bear...nevermind what she put the children through. This too is incredibly selfish. It seems like you tried every conceivable solution with your brother who is committed to being this way but you may have hope in convincing the mother to leave with the children to get them to safer 'waters' of sorts. Try to find out what she is benefiting by staying with him. If it's financial (but doesn't seem to be the case if they are barely making ends meet). But she, herself, must feel she is gaining SOMETHING that is outweighing her decision to leave and protect her kids. Maybe also look up alternative solutions for her a protection home or if you can help or take them in or other people so she feels she has a soft landingthat might encourage her to leave.

I am not sure in which context we are speaking and want to make sure we are on the same page. From an individual level, I am not sure who gets harrassed more so I will take your word for it. On a social level....let's say aggregate/media narrative this might be true (and sorry..by Trans woman is that a woman who change to a man? Or do I have it backwards?) In any case, my viewpoint was in the context of how it's unleashed in media and entertainment (aggregate perception). You have showgirls or the entertainment business that is known for transgender or cross dress that is revered to a semi-socially acceptable level. . There is a political and social movement that is trying to jam down our throats that women are superior...not equal but superior. As in.... Bruce Jenner the most recent example. He is heroic and wonderful and all of this. But how/why doesn't media and hollywood pick out any 'heroic' women who trans into men? My argument was pointing this out that the culture-makers don't care about the women who change to men because it doesn't fit their narrative and agenda. It's like in religions, people who convert are considered more holy than those who were 'born' into the religion. But then if you leave the religion, it's as if you are a non-person....you either get treated like SH** or they act like you don't exist (ignore) etc. THis is sort of how I see the issue with the transgender that there are more socially acceptable 'opportunities' for the men who change to women because of this fembot agenda to convince people women are better and ewewww..who would want to choose to be a man, etc. if that makes sense. I am not saying I agree with the fembots!! good grief no! lol I'm just expressing my observation. so maybe this plays into why on individual basis the woman are bullied more because they aren't glorified by media who shape the minds and opinions of most people (or attempts to)

lol thank you. I ramble on and you condense it down so succintly. Awesome!! XD

Thank you for sharing and I cannot imagine how hard that was for you to write and share among us so thank you and I am incredibly sorry for what you have gone through. My heart wrentched the more I read on and then I thought....my gawd... I feel terrible and cannot imagine the imense pain you felt going through this experience that sounds very deeply rooted from your childhood. It was esquisitely direct and well written. I LOVE how from the beginning you disarmed them by pointing out their predictable repsonses and giving them permission to have those reactions and feelings. That is the BEST defense is offense and it's doesn't put them in an impossible expectation to NOT have a reaction, so VERY well done from the start. If you don't mind me asking, are you in a legal custody battle with your son? I just can imagine in what circumstance your son was able to be with your husband and your sister instead of in your custody unless it was financially conducive... and courts thinking that is a better solution for him?!

I don't know if this falls in line with the overall discussion but there is even contradictory viewpoints about media's perception of Trump. Some say the media hate him and some say the media loves him since they give him so much publicity and they say 'love' with equivilence to 'support' him. my argument on this is that they media loves him as much as a farmer loves the cow who provides profitable resource. The media can be nice or hateful towards Trump but either way profits from his face on their website/newspaper etc. Now, at the beginning, the media and especially debate moderators were completely out of line and unfair towards him, yet they were still rewarded with profits simply because he existed on their airwaves. He set very clear and strong standards and media abided. Why? Because they cannot afford him to BOYCOTT their news outlet. So it's more profitable for them to play by his rules so they still get the cash flow by being nice and playing fair. Same with the left media. They use honey to bring the bee. It's not a matter of them liking his ideas and policies but he already exempliefied how his high standard and unapologetic reasonable demands benefits EVERYONE. Because as I mentioned, the media profits from him Either way....so they might as well be respectful towards him so they don't 'scare' him off which will leave them with nothing. So, it's a win win. Hitler was a win-lose authoritarian all around.

That's great that you found such an amazing person and likewise to her! You seem to have been open and honest with her and taking steps to resolve any glitches from the past. If she's ok with it, then your guilt is within yourself and you probably need to dig deeper on why that is. I mean if she was giving you a hard time (justifiably or unjustifiably) then it would be easy to pinpoint your feelings of guilt or regret. But she is supportive and still willing to continue the relationship so this must be from a deeper source that might have existed prior to you meeting your lady. I have had regrets of my sexual past and wish I could take it all back. But I cannot and neither can you. Remember, when you had that sexual experience(s), you were not doing it in order to hurt your current girlfriend who you probably didn't even know. I know that sounds redundant but it can be a destructive thing to try to change things you cannot change. Getting an STD check, doing some analysis on what went wrong in the past relationship overall is a stellar idea and I hope will bring you closure on this. You seem to have grown from that past experience which means you are NOT that person anymore. If you are NOT that person anymore (old you) then you are felling guilty/regret of things the in essence 'someone else' did. I am not saying this to obsolve you from all bad decisions but you paid retribution by working on being a better person and finding another great person who is supporitve and empathetic and caring. It would be different if you hadn't changed at all but kept regretting the mistakes you continue to repeat. That would be lunacy. But you clearly have moved beyond who you were in that past. The guilt shows that. If you didn't care or it didn't register within you, then you would not be self aware. Best of luck in your new relationship and hope it is long lasting!

Thanks. I am glad it is helpful/useful lol. Actually only after I wrote it a few times did I make the Bernie Sanders B.S. 'pun'. It was completely unintentional as I was focused on the principles and accurately and succinctly presenting my method but at the end I also chortled when I caught it. ha ha gret minds think alike! There are some videos online about street epistimology. I have been debating for a few years now, so it's a lot of trial and error. But also I recently 'found' Anthony Magnabosco and his videos about street epistimology. They have been helpful to give me new insight. He doesn't teach point by point as that's impossible and you have to bring your genuine self to each coversation and learn how to 'read' people. The way I speak to a religious person is not the same as I speak to a leftist but can help them both reach the same awareness about an issue. So this is what takes practice. Most of my time I speak with people I don't agree with...I search for them. lol I come to FDR to recharge my batteries every now and again and find different sources that might help me hone in. Recently I had an online debate with someone who continually verbally abused me. Normally I just call it out and leave the discussion but this time I kept calling it out and again and again until they stopped. I didn't get angry or insulting I just told them it's easier for me to follow their point if they can avoid verbally abusive language. or, I asked if they have ever convinced anyone after they verbally abused them and if not...then why he is continuing that approach? etc I asked if HE was ever convinced of a new viewpoint after being verbally abused and if so...did he trust that he really held the viewpoint or it was a mechanism to avoid further verbal abuse?.... so after a few of those..he got the point. . When they stopped and replied without verbal abuse I cheekily told him "wow....I almost didn't recognize you without you calling me a $$%^%$%#$$@... you snuck up on me. and that sort of broke the ice and we actually had a productive conversation. AFter a few days I reflected on that experience and realized thi sperson has probably never or rarely made it past his first 2 or 3 verbally abusive insults before people walk away and that way he won't be challeneged on his ideas so I hope it gave him the opportunity to exercise his arguments and refine them. I did mention that to him briefly that we don't have to agree at the end but simply put arguments forward so we can see them 'outloud'. That is a small phrase (and I have other variations) that sort of gives them the perspective that we are thinking together....not against each other. and it softens up the edges and defenses of people and lets them feel 'heard'.

And...that principle must be applied to every other thing this man has read or written. I am sure he has read a LOT of books that have influenced him on business or life or possibly parenting and yet since those aren't as sensational, it's not worth mentioning from a media perspective.

Oh man...I must be exposing my age but before I read the link I thought this was related to public breast feeding. I see this is not the case and yet another attempt by fembots to dangle carrots in front of men and slap them for objectifying them. This is so annoying and screams 'look at Meeeeeeeeeee!!!' What do they want? like most private property is 'no shirt, no shoes, no service'. So where is it that they feel discrimated against? Nascar races? even the link didn't share what this movement is about. It only reveals their clashes with the law. What's their mission? What's their statement and goals? I get really annoyed when there are movements like this. Like Adam Kokesh. Just going around being an annoying provocetuer pretending the state won't push back and then scream when the state pushes back. So boring and annoying. The big picture... they aren't violating anyone, not using force.. so go for it at your own risk. Show your nips or don't. Personally I don't see what can be acheived for them on personal levels or how this will help society grow if it becomes common for women to walk around topless and again...because of private property, they will still be restricted, equally to men or...the propriator can make that call who can be topless or who cannot. I am open for explainations but unfortunately they are too busy walking around topless and getting arrested than actually having intellectual discussions with people and give us the bottom line and facts behind where do they feel discriminated against. Why should I care and how is this good for the society in the long run . I think first they should go about their advocacy more philosophicall rather than 'visually'. I agree with RoseCodex (except I have never heard a libertarian argue to legalize DRUNK driving.....) I think if they earned credibility by speaking to people's minds and making their case rather than spend their time in jail from their 'advocay' they could achieve more of whatever they want. I mean even in the photo look...men stand at a distance and take photos and she is a young attractive topless women...what's being achieved here? Why should I care, why should I support? What is the big picture? There is no interaction in these 'displays' and frankly the people in the immediate vacinity probably don't even take it seriously. Is she flanked with middle aged women who also want to free the nip? Or is this an 'equal rights' that is only for young attractive women?

This is the 3rd time I have heard the Mein Kampf comment from different people on different social venues. So that tells me this is some narrative being pushed. I don't know who knows what he has on Trump's nightstand and if he's going around in interviews commenting on what he has on his nightstand? I would like someone to fill me in because everytime I ask....I never receive an answer where this comes from and if this came from Trump himself. With that said. I know Israeli Jews who have read it and were given the book by the Holocaust survival grandparents....so? I mean that would make EVERY crime scene investigator a murderer by association since they study in GREAT detail the motives and techniques and patterns of murderers. Mein Kampf has been a GREAT tool to be now used as a protection device. Even if someone wanted to use the content of Hitler's motive in the same way Hitler did, then it will be countered with those who have read it to immediately recognize the tactc. People forget HOW many people have read it and now understand how the Germans were lulled and influenced and obedient and compliant. It's not like suddenly all the people who have read it and would never do arm are now 'deactivated' by the people who have read it and may want to try to be the next Hitler. That's how dillusional Hitler was.... he was so proud that he shared his method in order to gain fame and glory, in his mind. Trump....was raised in a peaceful home, grew up with success and help from his father to grow his own success and made him organically confident, therefore he doesn't need some psychotic manifesto because Trump...with or without the presidency IS someone unique and memorable (doesn't mean likable but can't deny memborable) throughout internationall and intergenerationally. Plus, Trump keeps his plans SEALED tight. He is planned and calculated but unpreditable. That makes some people uneasy and assume the worst about him but Hiter revealed his method to everyone for the glory but by doing that, he just disarmed himself (even after his death) from ANYONE willing or wanting to copy cat him.... so.... not even a success after his death. AGain...in the mindset of Hitler. If I think I am such a genius and I publish my methods and ideas that is to gain credibilty but also hoping it will create a world of other 'me's'. Trump doesn't need that nonesense.

It's easy for any of us to pick out certain similarities and differences and think we have achieved something. it's completely arbitrary. Ok, so Hiter was often beaten to a bloody pulp by his parents until he lost consciousness, suffered from impotency and other symptoms of unresolved abuse....maybe that is the special ingredient to make a tyrant ready to use state power to unlease his rage on people? Trump was taught by his father, a successful businessman how to negotiate, was not spanked and Trump does not spank his kids and is an excellent negotiator. The fact that media tries to put the two names in the same sentence, as well as put Trump /KKK in the same sentence and people try to 'analyize' it IS still the media controlling us. Trump has held positions and views and once he had more information, occassionaly changed those views despite it being inconvenient to certain niches. Why isn't that in the Hitler/Trump compare/contrast list? Hitler was a double-down type leader...surrounded by yes men. Trump even writes that he takes the BEST people from his competitors. He knows how to delegate. I have a friend who knows Carson personally and was part of his campaign. carson isn't in the public light so much but he has been sort of delegated by Trump to try to rally the people that Carson appeals to...the religious and the more PC conservatives. He knows how to use people's best quailities to the best of their abilities, he's not micromanaging them. I just don't see that in Hitler's profile. He had a network of horizontal peer-enforced obedience and discipline. I mean....if we want to compare.....then Hillary and the Clinton regime should come up in THAT compare/contrast. How many people who went up against them ended up dead? If someone isn't useful for Trump he just walks away....he doesn't seem to be the type or seems a bit too busy to dwell on it and use resources to go after them. He just lets them be and carries on. Even Clintons can't claim that and yet..media has us fixated on the Trump/Hitler Trump/KKK. very very clever Left media to protect Hillary. Why even entertain this garble? People use the same commonalities and the same difference and rely on confirmation bias or 'consensus' to feel validated to then go into hysterical panic as we see occuring on the streets in Chicago and other places. Hitler was a skiddish abused man child. Trump has actual confidence that came from a loving and productive childhood. Hitler's 'protectionism' was turning LEGAL citizens in his own country into targets and enemies of the state. Trump has a problem with citizens of other countries, entering illegal to suck off the welfare which is violence against the taxpayers of the US. So to even compare the two is a false equivilancy. His remarks from 'take the oil' he has said in expanded statements in the context that he disagreed long ago about the war in Iraq and once he realized Bush was going to do it anyway he said....it's a bad idea but if you are going to do it, then take the oil. He then explains why. because if you don't, then you are going to rouse of the hornets nest and when you leave...the new power force that fills the void will use the oil revenue to unleash unholy hell and he was exactly right. I struggle with this and finally realized why. I used to be Libertarian and am now Anarcho-capitalist and my bad habit was to try to implement 'free market free society' ideas on a STATIST world. And then nothing made sense and everyone was a tyrant and nothing was productive. The statist world is a mess and bad decisions are always made and worse decisions to counter those bad decisions are made BUT...Trump... knows how to minimize damage. This is something intuitive with his business experience and 4 bankruptcies out of 500 companies (.008 fail rate). That's why it's hard to process for us 'liberty minded'. In the matrix of a statist world and terrorism and agents of war not ordered by a head of state, then his suggestion to take the oil would have minimized or eliminated or prevented EVERYTHING we see going on today and all the terrible subsequent decisions and intervetions that occured after Iraq. I mean how is ISIS funding themselves now? From the oil Trump suggested to take. People make it seem like he pushed for Iraq and to take the oil. No. he was against it and new it would fail and to minimize tht damage from a bad decision he did not support he made a suggestion.

Here's my take overall and it doesn't require us to spend hours sifting through raw video or analize media video and those things. A few years ago, Obama 'updated' a federal law HR347 that prohibits protesting around government buildings or anywhere Secret Service is or government officials. Trump and other candidates are protected by Secret Service during their campaign and rallies and such are considered 'government business'. Therefore those areas are HR347 enforced zones. Free speech in terms of protesting, is prohibited. With that said. We can debate whether the law itself is constitutional or not.....and actually, credit to the Libertarians at the time who tried to have this discussion with people when the law was updated (the law has been around for a few decades...Obama did not create the law from scratch). And no one listened. They were met with 'shut up you tin foil hat right wing nut case paranoid freak.." and such. So the public went on blissfully ignorant of what this law is and when it would rear it's ugly head. Enter Campaign 2015/16. People get all bent out of shape getting kicked out of Trump rallies and trying to make him appear as a tyrant when they are so foolish. This law prohibits them from protesting at his or any rally. It is a federal crime. So when they see Trump simply telling his security 'get them out of here'.... he is actually doing them a favor...because he could push for their arrest and federal charges against them. But instead, he just orders for their removal and they can go about their life, blissfully unaware how close they came to being charged with a federal crime if Trump was the tyrant they want to make him appear to be. Again, I am not supporting the law or anything, just speaking in the current matrix of laws and statist reality. Even if this law did not exist, he could still run his rallies as he sees fit. The tickets ARE open to the public but once they enter the rally area, it is a private event and he can then dictate how he sees fit. Just like those parties where everyone needs to wear 'white'...they can kick you out if you have on another color, etc. People need to focus on the REAL crimes of free speech infringment and that is the Commisson of Presidntial Debates. This is the head of the snake on the 2 party monopoly. Now, beyond ALL of that...the way these people 'protest' is by agitation. It's like me sticking my finger close to your face and shouting 'I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you! " and if you get all pissy and annoyed and shove my finger out of your personal space I wail and flail and cry foul. These are the same cry-bullies that obstructed media at the Missouri campus incident and cried about 'safe space' and keeping people away as to not trigger the delicate fragile minds of their peers. ok.... so where in the hell are they giving Trump supporters 'safe space'. Peaceful protesting is NOT interlocking arms and circling around obstructing people's movement and casually waiting for someone to bump into this unpredictable blob of people and cry out and pounce on them. Also, it's not peaceful protesting with Trump = Hilter signs. The fact that people THINK or BELIEVE that is peaceful protesting is astounding. That is absolutely passive aggressive provocation. Have any of these brilliant protestors done a social experiement and put on a Trump shirt and showed up to a Bernie or Hillary Rally with a Hillary = Hitler or Bernie = Hitler and observed how they are greeted and treated? My guess is... no. and the answer is no because they know they will be met in the same toxic manner as they are treating the Trump supporters. I am sure I am preaching to the choir here but I just can't stand what is now commonly viewed as 'peaceful protest'. Just because they aren't punching someone in the face it's peaceful protest. Total B.S. Their is provocational protesting and this is exactly what they do and they love to lower the standards of what's even considered peaceful protest. These people are so sick and mental if they think Trump is a tyrant. I'm not saying he is our beacon of free society or anything but the fact that they demonize him on such a viscious level and they defend societies that actually ARE tyrranical (the middle east theocracies). It's astounding the level of cognitive dissonance.

Because we are suppose to believe that woman are superior..not equal...superior and that we are so superior that men want to be women and anyone that goes the other way must be delusional and sick and devient. A man turning to a woman is honorable and worthy of nobel prizes and publicity and grandeure and great and feeds nicely into the fembot movement and the women turning to men are rapey freakshows that we need to reject (not my sentiment but the narrative we are fed) I used to blindly support Trans/Les/Gay etc and I am not against it, i just take the position that I want to make sure I am not glorifying and celebrating symptoms of abuse. I have close friends who knew long before they knew what sex was that they were 'different' and gay. I have others who had highly dysfunctional childhoods and their 'homosexuality' is an obvious symptom of their abuse and they even admit that but neither of us are sure if it's then cureable or reversable in those cases and society is NOT ready to even discuss that, of course. lol

Thanks for sharing. I am not a therapist, of course so take this with what value it may or may not have. I am sorry for the passing of your father. By you not feeling anything I think would depend on what your realtionship was like. I mean if you were really close and connected and engaged in each other's lives and had trust and love and companionship throughout and you felt nothing...that would be quite concerning. but if you had a rocky or barely existant relationship and felt nothing at his passing, then it might be something that still needs to be reviewed (by a professional) but nothing to panic over. Your self-described characteristics remind me of my brother-in-law. So I will try not to superimpose his characteristics on to you but the few things that jumped out immediately to me was your use of the word 'arrogant' and unempathetic. I am not putting words in your mouth but just stating that sometimes when men are described as arrogant, many use that word almost synomyously with 'confident'. But confidence would allow for humility and empathy. When one is arrogant and possibly mistaken as 'confident' in excess, then it is actually the opposite... of severe insecurity that is being guised or compensated by the arrogance and lack of empathy. With that said.... it IS a chore to keep that up. It might be a learned 'survival' skilll depending on how you were raised but if this is the case, then it's no surprise that these other areas are 'sub par' to your expecations because much of your energies are spent trying to mask your insecurities and vuneralbilities and connect with people. Even the way you phrase it 'I feel intellecutally inferior TO ME". AGain... I have no context of your intelligence..I mean you seem like an intelligent person, etc. But that would depend on who is in your circle or the level of intelligence. See, it's one thing to say, 'inferior intelligence to me' setting yourself as the benchmark of intelligence. It's another to say. 'of inferior intelligence' which doesn't really set a standard but leaves you open to people in your life who might be MORE intelligent and give you opportunities of expanding your intelligence. So based on that (again...I spelled out the context of my viewpoint so understand I might be totally off...but these are the clues I picked up on) that you might be consciously or subconsciously be surrounding yourself with people you know are of inferior intelligence for your short-term benefit of feeling superior intellectually but at the cost of then becoming unfullfilled and frustrated. But, the other downside to that, that also spins this in the viscious circle is that you feel too vunerable to allow higher intelligence people in...that might expose you to the 'inferiors' that you are not as smart as THEY see you and would be too difficult for you to bear to reveal that vunerability. Again that is not to say it would make you as inferior as them but I hope you understand what I am speculating. So if this resonates in any way and you want to provide more details about the people in your life, it might help confirm or dispell. It sounds like if you were to be true to yourself, there are those close to you who would not be willing to accept the new you, the true you. But again, if you cannot or will not connect with them and empathize with them, then you really won't know for sure. Keep in mind that your lack of empathy might also be 'sensed' by those around you who you deem inferior intellectually and they might be avoiding revealing or sharing for their own fear of your lack of empathy or cynicism etc. So deeper connection is avoided which won't result in more empathy of course. If I sense someone has an arrogant complex that sort of gets jollies off other people's vunerabilities it instantly signals that they themselves lack confidence and they try to hack down anyone that tries to expose their own vunerabilities or areas of confidence, and I would never open up to that person, even if I know that person thinks I am 'intellectually inferior' than them, I don't care...I never reveal my emotions or intelligence to them to avoid their exploitation of my precious emotional and intellectual assets. This could be what those around you are experiencing and how they are managing themselves around you and is giving you this feeling that they aren't as intelligent. Or...you could be right...maybe they are inferior to which you need to find more stimulating people in your life which requires humility and vunerability. .... so again, it's probably a learned survival tactic from your childhood that you no longer need but has been long imprinted and needs to be resolved because just cutting and running and starting fresh might seem great for the first while but after things normalize you'll be right back where you are now...bored, dissastisfied, on the hamster wheel. If you get to the root (a professional is probably best) then your future will be more clear to decide if cutting and running is best or if you have some salvagable people and opportunities already around you, you have just been emotionally blocking them out.

I have been a listener for a few years now and I can't really specify if he's literally spelled it out , however, he has made numerous clarifications for men and women about virtue and love. The consistant definition of both. Love is our involuntary response to virtue as long as we are virutuous ourselves. So whether the discussion is around a good man or women...I think it's a safe mental leap to replace 'good' with virtuous.

The reply about 'she probably did it herself and therefore not expensive' is almost direct quotes from other memes I have seen float around to the context of something like "you know that woman or single mom on welfare that you are judging, she did her hair herself, her nails herself..." so on and so forth. it's to play at people's heartstrings and of course... maybe it's true but it's to red herring or distract from actual abuse. We have to feel sorry for ALL welfare people and ignore ANY abuse going on. hell, I make decent coin and I still do my own hair and make my own jewelry etc so those arguments then become moot and unproductive relative to the focus you want to bring. They started on a reasonable ground for a counter argument but lost their credibility by simply projecting 'trump is an asshat'. Exposing their emotional bias and advertising they are unwilling to have a rational discussion. I personally would have pointed that out first and foremost. Basically the counter argument that person is making is, "don't judge until you have the full context" which is 'fair' ...AS LONG as they don't judge you until they have the full context of your argument and thus cannot call you a racists as long as you back your position with consistant, factual arguments. The fact is, I think we all know someone like that and you are right, it's not about this particular woman in the picture. The people responding to you are turning her into their strawman.... avoid that trap as I see you did, well done. I employed a single mom who eventually went from making a ton of money from us to deciding she can make the same working part time + welfare. When she started, she was on welfare, was able to get off of welfare but figured...why bother working for equal pay for sitting at home. She smoked and drank and went on more vacations than me, the owner! So I get it and I think just try to make it more personal with people in that way by asking them directly if they at least know anyone like this (so it steers aay from the stranger in the photo) and maybe they really dont' know anyone like this, and that's ok but at least it can turn into a conversation about the abuse of welfare and such. Personally on social media such as FB and such, I avoid memes and news articles. Instead I write things in my own words or post 'notes'. I've been doing it for years and at first people would mock me (family and friends). I post those particular thinks as 'public' so others can view. And people I knew personally would ask when I would snap out of this 'phase' and I just ignored them and kept posting maybe 1 long post every other day ...not everyday as then it turns people off. And after about a year people woudl private message me about how much they feel 'informed' and 'clarified' by what I write. So occassionally I get validated. But if I wanted to write about a topic that gets into the issue of welfare abuse I would not use any meme or article beause we know it first evokes non-thinking/rational/emotional repsonses from people. It wouldn't appeal to logical thinkers anyway...just those who don't have patience or attention span beyond 10 words. So I avoid those methods. Instead, as I mentioned, I would just make some general arguments (to avoid strawmen in the responses) about topics. I did one about illegal entry and why I no longer call it illegal immigration. Think of it as a 'textual' monologue and when people get used to seeing them they then start to read them...they may not interact or agree or maybe they will but it's far more productive than the 'meme' approach which does get conversations going but you clearly experienced how much B.S. you have to filter before you can even get to your point and by then everyone is frustrated and exhausted. I make my case and leave it for anyone to try to refute it... seems the most efficient and productive approach.

This is pure speculation, of course but I see Trump as SEVERELY well prepared and EXTREMELY calculated. I do'nt think he goes to Chicago and then has to 'react/respond' on the spot or after the fact. Before he went to Chicago he knew EXACTLY what he was up against and probably already had a few plan A,B,Cs in order if X then A if Y then B, etc. I don't think much really catches him by surprise and thus his response if/when/how ever comes, was well prepared before he even arrived or attempted to arrive. Chicago is known for its leftism, his people or he himself is well aware of the visceral hate they have for him, he did not go in this unprepared.

Because media uses the same tactics that typically 'stumpify' other candidates and people in they catch in their net they assume these tactics at higher velocity will bring Trump down. Frankly it will expose exactly the monster they are which one thing I do believe Trump when he says...how much he loathes the media so I trust that his calculated 'behavior' and 'plan'...where and when to do rallies etc have a lot to do with using media against themselves and their dangerous narrative. And I say all of that having friends of my own and other random strangers on the internet looking at this and literally saying, "well...gosh darnit...I never thought I would actually feel bad for Trump or want to defend him'. That says a lot and these are people on the left. One person I know who is very left said.. "well glad to see people in Chicago stopped killing each other to go after a common goal.... maybe Trump is right, he is making america great again'. now it's a pun with a twist as he is very much against Trump but more deeply I thought.. BINGO. that's his value or power. he is so capable of taking ALLLLL the hits and anger and absorb all of the toxicity from the nation so we will at least leave each other alone for a bit. Not saying overall that's the most philosophical appraoch to anything of value, of course, but just a thought that made me take pause of how much Trump really does take on and barely shows any fragility. If nothing else....just that persona is quite comforting....unless it's just me?

Maybe more accurate to say that Trump is only spending his money with very very miniscule exceptions compared to his overall campaign spending. Compare that to the others who bring their own money versus donor money/special interest money, then Trump is putting HIS money where his mouth is while the others are putting other's ppl money where their mouth is. So yes. in the political matrix, there is a distinction, given we are all aware of corporate corruption in politics. Maybe he will be a corporate fascist to use the power to gain more power/money but how is that any different or worse than now? So either he means what he says and will stay as true to it, which would be an interesting and move towards positive change or he won't which won't leave us any worse off...just on the same course.

Man is this election cycle interesting and sort of exciting. Now, don't get me wrong...I'm an anarcho capitalist so this changes none of that but I enjoy observing and interacting with the statist to try to get them to think amongst the chaos. I have actually succeeded in not only getting through to some to get them to actually listen (maybe not agree but have a pleasant convo) but I had a few of them actually step out of the statist indulegence of political advocacy and at least peak behind the door of anarcho-capitalism. I rarely reveal my 'persuasion' unless they ask me directly. I keep it ambiguous and simply stick to the mental exercises to snap them out of the rhetoric. I will share some of my tactics. And I go in with low or reasonable expectations. I don't expect them to go from statist to non statist by the end of the conversation. I go in hoping to give them pause, thought and insight that will hopefully carry with them and be a beacon in their brain even after the fuss of elections that will draw them towards their path to find their answers....which of course I hope will be anarcho-caplitalism or 'worst case' libertariansim. And this was mostly with Bernie supporters! Here's how I did it, this is my general forumula: Bernie supporter: I don't support him because of the free stuff.... (we've all heard this one) Me: So you voted for Ron Paul in 2012? Bernie Supporter: No, why? Me: He was basically Bernie without free stuff.. Bernie Supporter: ..... oh Me: Yeah, it's best to not look at which party line these people choose to run on because of the Commission of Presidential Debates. BS: the what? Me: The Commision of Presidential Debates, it's common knowledge for those who follow actual anti-establishment candidates as they have been known to expose this outright or at least the symptoms of it. Look it up and make your own judgment but it's the reason why Donald Trump, or your guy Bernie Sanders is even running on main party tickets and don't really have the 'freedom' to run as a third party, so it's odd that Bernie doesn't point that out and Trump actually has, Ron Paul has, Ralph Nader has. You can see how they treat people who expose this and Trump is actually getting further than any of the others, which is incredible and will expose the level to which the establishment will go to try to shut him down or steer people away from him. BS: I'll look into it. Me: yes. Look...I don't agree with B.S. but I wish he could run in whatever party he seems fits his platform the best. I loath the 2 party monopoly and I would rather work together with all the voters on this issue than bet on the horse-race. Exposing this would liberate voters from the 2 party monopoly and liberate future candidates so they can run on any party ticket they want without being blocked from media and getting their message out and they can speak as frankly and be their genuine selves without having to be P.C. all the time. BS: Makes sense. Another approach: BS: Free college....help the poor....bla bla bla...I'm donating to BS Now! Let's do this! Activate your friends...get them to donate, buy merch.! Me: Wow, that's incredible how much effort, time and resource such as your money or expertise and energy to rally people to voluntarily give their money to a man for a cause you believe in. BS: Yes....we really believe he's the one to finally...bla bla bla Me: Great. Tell me, have you ever put this much effort in actually helping a poor person or the poor or needy in general? BS: ............avoids question completely. Me: I mean I look at Bernie. He has a lot of interesting things to say, he's seems like a nice and likable guy, he knows how to rally young people, he cares about the disenfranchised and you guys are willing to help him in this cause and you work together, voluntarily to raise him hundreds of millions of dollars! That's incredible! BS: It really is. I mean when you care about these issues you do whatever.... bla bla bla Me: I get it. I guess my only question is, how many poor people could this effort to raise his hundreds of millions actually help if it was given to them or given to the proper organizations directly? How many studen loans could this campaign money pay off? How many private school tuitions for poor kids could this pay for? How many medical bills could this pay off for people? BS: ..........How much time do you put in to help the poor? Me: (gives list of my effots) BS: Well...there aren't many people like you and why we need....bla bla bla Me: But wait...there are. I mean Bernie's campaign proves how many there are and there are MORE because I don't support BS and do my share and know many others, that's the point. BS:...... Me: I just find it to be a charity with high overhead BS: what do you mean? Me: Well you put in all this time and effort and get everyone involved to raise a LOAD of cash for the guy you want to solve the inequality problem. Then you hope he wins the nomination and dump more money into his campaign. Then you hope he wins the election and dump more money into the campaign. Then once he's president you hope Congress will pass his policies and if he does, it's been several hundreds of millions and then they need to tax everyone to make this plan work when he had people willing to VOLUNTARILY work and donate to help poor people but refused to open a charity with the guy or use this momentum to actually go out and do it. Every month that he brings in tens of millions and it doesn't go to poor people or uneducated people is another day of hypocricy. BS: I..... I mean.... yeah but.... I don't even know what to say. Me: Me neither. Ther eis no reason you and all of his supporters can't do this as an actual charity rather than (and this applies to all campaigns) go out and use the same effort and cooperation and volunterrism to solve the issues you find most important. But you are rallying for political power and force to help when you already prove the voluntarism WORKS, otherwise the guy wouldn't have a dime to his campaign. BS: ......... stunned silent. Me: If you have more to respond later once this sinks in, i'm available to listen but never forget how well voluntarism has helped you help him to help the poor...but it's a WHOLE lot of overhad and risk that has no or little guarantee when you could just simply....help the poor. And another one: Me: How will we pay for all of Bernie's plans? BS: Wallstreet, taxes and future generations. Me: Having the future pay for it doesn't bother you? BS: No, why should it. that's very common thing and guarantees we can get what we need and what' sbest...bla bla bla Me: Well, then you are simply enslaving the children. Could you look a child in the eye and at least explain to them the implications and ask their permission before you sell their future wealth? BS: oh that's ridiculous. Me: I know, so you are taking without asking or you couldn't live with yourself to have to face them in the eye while you take their future wealth knowing they have no idea what's going on or the implications. Me: tell me, do you enjoy now having to pay for past decisions that use your tax dollars today but you receive no benefits for? BS: Huh? ME: Well, most of the income tax goes to interest on borrowed money and this is for things that were voted on when you and I were too young or not even born yet and certainly couldn't vote on. Those benefits have been used up, are not available for you and me and we are still paying for them. And you are sitting here complaining that our generation is out of money or it's unevenly distributed and we have no benefits or not enough. Don't you see the problem you are repeating? BS: yea but the money is spent anyway so what does it matter ME: that we can have some moral, ethical integrity and disciple to at least be the generation that stopped this cycle. Our elders sold our future and we feel now what that is like and you have no problem doing the same to the future? Are you giving any guarantee that they future who will be held to pay for this will have anything left for them or how long do you want this cycle to go on? BS: I guess I can see how paying for the past decisions I wasn't a part of didn't work well for this generation. Me: Exactly and if you have kids or think of having kids, this is the exact posiiton or feeling you will be heiring to them. Now you call yourself moral and good and altruistic. Do you think our elders were moral and good and altruisitc when they made these decisions for you to pay for? BS: absolutely not. Me: ok. so you can feel moral and good now but when your children grow up, they will see you as freeloading jerks as we see our elders. Bs: yea...I guess that's true. Sometimes I ask if they think money is private property. Typically...as leftists do...they ask me WHY I'm asking. That is so they can scan and try to sniff out any advantage and wiggle and move the goal posts. But I just ask them again until they leave the conversation or answer me. of course it always ends with them realizing that taxation is theft. Doesn't mean they will instantly switch to libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism but at least they have come to terms with taxation is theft. ...always a good start.

exactly. I guess this is their preemptive self defense. ironic, isn't it?

I'm overseas (American) and missing out on all the nitty gritty details of the daily 'news'...ok...maybe not missing but I am filtered from it but from a long-distance perspective it might have been a clever tactic to do a rally in Chicago simply to expose how extreme the left can be. I have found this occuring in much of Trump's campaign, again, from my filtered from pundit-viewing. That much of what he says or where or how he says it will elicit the exact thing he is either purposely trying to expose or by default is exposing. I think it's refereshing but unsettling to see what we are up against. Those who call him a tyrant and behave this way. The media does SO much in inciting violence. I mean when they spoon feed people to belive that he really is a tyrant, of course they will react this way. I am NOT condoning their behavior but just pointing out how brain-dead/brain washed portions of the masses are and their addiction to media.

Too many rebuttals to even know where to begin. This video parrots back the soundbytes and attacks without giving the full context. I have no particular loyalty to him but when both sides of media hate the same guy... no matter who.... I tend to pay more attention and much of the 'attacks' against Trump are the same old tired tactics of media. I've listened to many of his speeches in full and reading the headlines the day after is ASTONISHING how OUT of context the media puts it. Just the speech in Nevada he says, "We're winning....we're winning everything and everyone... everyone is voting for me. I'm winning with everyone...short people, tall people, fat people, skinny people, dumb people smart people, educated , uneducated. I love them all. The headline read, "Trump loves the uneducated'. so..... to give you an idea... the media poisons the well and then people like this guy who made this video uses the media clips to make his arguments rather than listening to Trumps full speeches and then making his arguments. There is a video (2 actually..part I part II) on youtube. Search Trumpception and you should find them. A guy does a decent job of simply pointing out the psychological mastery Trump uses. Some people freaked out saying it was bias and trying to make him look bad but honestly... I respect Trump even more for having this master skill for so many decades...it has clearly worked for him so it can only empower us to know how or what he does. The man has had decades of practice so it's clearly natural to him as his own breath! I only bring that up because this video uses some of the same tactics. Look up the video I referenced and then watch this video you posted and you'll see exactly what I mean.

He has made a lot of statements that lightly allude to important issues. He made comments about the Military Industrialized Complex without specifically calling it out. It's sort of speaking in 'code'. I think his strong build a wall stance is really an 'anti human smuggling' tactic. His 'bomb the hell out of them' referring to ISIS and the pig's blood is simply (not saying he WON'T take military action) but sort of send a chill and sound more threatening than we have been. IN Any case he also made a statement during a debate that 'we pay our friends in the M.E....those who we think are our friend." And left it at that. That could be Israeli or Saudi Arabia or both. It's amazing how he says it in the middle of a thought and it catches your ear and people can interpret it many different ways but it gets them THINKING. He is a really interesting candidate. I