See that is the kind of arguments that have no basis in any logic or rational. He cannot say violence is justified because the ultimate goal is worth it, when their ultimate goal is saying Trump has to go because he is a fascist, and fascism must be defeated with any means. By that argument, the bullets should have been flying all over the last 8 years. Thanks EWV, I had to use it for my FB as an object lesson.

Where guns are outlawed decent citizens are unarmed and the government then proceeds to kill more of its citizens that it loses during wartime; i.e.; Stalinist Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mao Tze Tung's China. There is only the peace of the grave yard when people cannot defend themselves against the state. This does not mean 'license' to have the right to have a gun then that gives the government the right to refuse the license.

Huffington Post: ‘Violent Response to Trump Is as Logical as Any’ http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-ban...

Agreed, "traction" comes from the mainstream media, and they have a statist agenda. They ignore or use the "conspiracy" label to mislead and invalidate.

LOL Both good ones. The Hilldebeast's mind was jello then, and it's worse now.

It matters for the same reason that it makes a difference whether you are in a welfare state or communism, they are different degrees of implementing the same principle.

We live in a mixed system, part controlled and part free. The controls are getting worse but some of the politicians and their supporters are imposing it more severely than others. Many of those differences are not widely publicized, but if you are subjected to them you soon learn what they are.

If a tax agency or some licensing board or other agency is harassing you it matters who is charge for whether you can stop it. If you live in a rural area targeted for land use controls and prohibitions or acquisition on behalf of the pressure groups, it matters to you who is running the government and how far he will let it go.

The Democrats are typically much worse because they are more zealous statists. But that doesn't mean that some me-too Republican won't support some odious initiative in Washington or a state legislature. They are all bad, but there are degrees of what you are subjected to and the possibilities of stopping particular instances of abuse.

And yet their basic premises have not changed. They have not learned of an alternative.

"Statism is a premise that they share; they apply it every time they impose it in different ways to different degrees. There is consensus among them on broad statist ideology but not on different policies."
Then why does it matter much who wins elections? It matters to me some, enough for me to get out and vote, which really isn't very much work. If you're right that politicians mostly share a believe in statism, why does it matter much? Is it just a question of degrees? If so, are the differences in degree close or far apart? Excluding unusual ones like Rand Paul and Gary Johnson, IMHO the differences in degree are no where near enough for it to be a big deal.

", the writer took the position that Trumps apparently insane and crazy tweets are actually coldly calculated"
I think he has a natural gift for getting broad attention. I consider marketing an important skill. I think his gift is so good, he does it on autopilot. He's not thinking if it's a good idea for policy. He gets attention for the things around him.

"in that the professionals no longer know who the average citizen is, hence their bad election projections."
I don't know that they're bad expect for with Trump. I think there were logical reasons people might vote for Trump in the general election: concern about gun rights, rejection of PPACA, rejection of candidates anointed by the establishment, etc. But they didn't like Trump's racist, sexist, attention-seeking carnival act. The media really went to down on it. If Trump said one sexist comment and ten comments about PPACA, they focused on the sexism. Most citizens want nothing to do with sexism and racism. So they were loath to admit they were voting for Trump. It's easy just not to answer or to lie than to explain: "Trump, but not all that racist crap. The media are being totally unfair..."

You wrote, "I don't understand how people not involved in policy can get fired up about the successes and failures of politicians like President Trump and President Obama. I do not get it at all." Most of us aren't involved in their policies but have every reason to care about the "successes" and "failures" of politicians: they impact our lives and the lives of others. Those who support the statism care because they want it imposed.

Statism is a premise that they share; they apply it every time they impose it in different ways to different degrees. There is consensus among them on broad statist ideology but not on different policies. None of it is "show business", it is serious damage promoted by their own propagandist "show business".

Loretta was the poster girl for many of the really, really bad things going on, that statement being one of her greatest moments, yet it went by the side like so much foam at the beach. Had anyone else done it, no job no future...one of the things I just have never been able to reconcile with any honest, rational society, so makes me believe in the dishonest, lying, corrupt society. Sad to say..

The point of who accepts and who knows it is BS, is so true, especially with the Communists. I recall several war stories, where the Russians in the military at the front KNEW all the claptrap speak was BS, and blithely ignored it (even took some opportunity to accidentally lose their commissar when they could), but the majority just blew it all off as the everyday propaganda. True, it seems in any dictatorship, look at Venezuela today, their government "it will all be wonderful" has sort of fizzled to "BS".

As said above, they only want YOUR guns taken away, after all, they so wise, they KNOW who needs killing.

"a totally out of control train wreck, "
Yes, exactly, to your entire comment.

If our eyes and clicks are drawn even briefly to lurid events, the feedback loop of the internet can and will provide the world more of what people click on.

It's as if the gods or fairies caught us rubbernecking at a wreck that happened to be along our path, and they responded by giving us a tour of more wrecks to view.

Bingo!

Thank you, I knew it was in that neck of the timeline. And brings to mind the ugly truth of those who refuse to learn from history...

As in the infamous "false flag" operations many allude to? I have seen some of the videos for that, and sometimes they are pretty persuasive, but never get any traction.

EWV, that is a very good point. I have had brushes with said government, although it is in the arbitrary and imposition of law by fiat (through a county commisioner who imposed his rule of "you can do anything you want in my county on a farm (including stuffing 300 alpacas on 3 acres and never removing any manuer)" I had a case where we were granted damages but no nusicence was found. One had to ask how that works, what caused the damages? Yet no one batted an eye at the incongruity. Magnify that a million times for what we see from the Feds. Many of Obama's sins were along those lines, imposition of his concept of the universe and rules, whether they matched society or not.

CG, a noted feeling, almost of "society fatigue". Media and politicians have pushed the limits of most people to even digest their lates idiocy, before they are onto the next. It speaks of a totally out of control train wreck, but also an opportunity to assume total control to "save us".

"The statist policies they put into effect are not just personal disputes among policy makers. "
I never said the politicians are having a personal dispute. I'm saying statism is the bipartisan consensus, and the rest is show business.

I do believe you have a point, it has accelerated in the last 10-15 years with the rise of instant media, no longer do you need to wait for a letter or even an email. You can blunder about and open your mouth with ill considered statements. It also shows why more and more celebrities and politicians go down in flames for some bad or misstated post or tweet. In another article I posted on Comey, the writer took the position that Trumps apparently insane and crazy tweets are actually coldly calculated to produce just the right response in people, on both sides. I wonder if that is true or not. I also do not see it being the average citizens view, in that the professionals no longer know who the average citizen is, hence their bad election projections. We would also see a much larger rise in violent confrontations.

IG, good points, I do not have the written edition, so I did not recall that statement, although specifically calling out people to kill people seems a bit more in detail, but equal in substance. Amazing thing is 50 years or so ago, this was alive as a process and we failed to identify it and take action as a society, but are left with defense at the individual level. Speaks bad for the ability of society to identify and react to cloaked threats.

The statist policies they put into effect are not just personal disputes among policy makers. What they do progressively adds to the rules and prohibitions imposed on us by force.

The spending and controls from both parties is progressively worse, but it makes a difference how much worse. Holder is worse than Sessions. Spending under a Democratic Congress is worse than a Republican Congress pandering to a Democrat or Republican president. Trumpcare will probably be worse in some ways than Obamacare, but not like a Hillarycare 'single payer'. Federal agencies under Clinton and Obama, from the IRS to EPA and Federal land agencies like NPS, were much worse than Bush-II and what appears to be coming from Trump. Hillary would have been much worse picking up where Obama left off.

Of course it "involves all of us". Their actions are not like "rare diseases". If you haven't been directly hit yet in a personal way worse than the routine bureaucracy then consider yourself lucky. But if you're not, how many people have to be shafted before you start to care?

Hillary Clinton couldn't "Try to Remember" 25 years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWQur...

And Gore's "Ball of Fire" https://youtu.be/OD0jeBhCjz0

Not having an internet did not prevent Ayn Rand from seeing what was coming. She did, and spoke out about it profusely. You wrote that she "never saw this coming because AS was written in the 1950s, long before the internet." She wrote the book in the form she did because she did see it coming, trying to stop it.

In Atlas Shrugged the policies of Mouch et al were neither broadly accepted nor rejected in the stale acquiescence, but the usual philosophical premises of unreason, altruism and collectivism were widely taken for granted -- which is why the propaganda appealed to them. Most people regarded the government platitudes with cynicism, but only a minority with more active minds questioned the premises.

People did resist, but not in the form of a hopeless revolution or civil war except for the roving gangs as the deterioration progressed. Others were radical leftists pursuing the standard false premises, like those who took over California at the end. Many of the better people resisted by dropping out on their own, which was widespread, not just the small number who organized in the the Valley. Some of those dropping out banded together in communes because they had never learned better. The people in general did not like the disintegration all around them, but neither would they reject the philosophical platitudes on behalf of more of the same kinds of policies. They did not know what to "rise up" for.

The "Second Amendment" was not ignored, it did not come up by name just as other parts of the Constitution did not -- Atlas Shrugged is a philosophical novel about basic principles, not tradition, and constitutionality had already been long lost, though guns had not been banned.

In recent years, Obama was originally widely regarded as a savior on a white horse, following the increasingly accepted false premises of collectivism and altruism. He appealed mostly to the left, and the right did not know how to oppose his supposed "idealism". Certainly McCain and Romney didn't, let alone the rest of the Republican establishment or conservatives dwelling on faith and tradition.

The revolt against two terms of that wound up with another anti-intellectual man on a white horse in the form of Trump idolatry. Trump is not an America hater like Obama and Clinton, even though he is a Pragmatist statist himself, but neither he nor his ardent followers know what to do: saving the country is a philosophical undertaking on behalf of reason and individualism, not making better "deals" while appealing to emotional thinking and tradition.

This is the importance of Atlas Shrugged: It is a philosophical novel showing the role of fundamental ideas in human life, and what happens when the wrong ideas are followed. It's not a matter of armed resistance coming to the rescue while invoking the Second Amendment, or supporting a phenomenon like Trump, or foreseeing specific technologies like the internet. Those were not ignored in the novel as something Ayn Rand did not foresee, they are irrelevant to and/or contrary to its theme.