LOL

I have this conversation at some point with my kids, every one of them, in there teens so far.

The good thing about the clothing is it gives a real chance for an educational conversation.

If Trump wins the nomination, I will vote for him over Hillary, Sanders, Bloomberg or any lefty. Not that Trump won't cross that line. As to bringing a child into the world at present, you've got to remember that in the long run, he/she could be one more objectivist. I wouldn't Exclude religious people. If their basic premises coincide, they can indulge so long as it doesn't impeded forward progress.

And stop buying and wearing t-shirts and other clothing that is just free billboard advertising for statists.
When did advertising for looters become fashion?
Talk about brainwashing!

Thanks, well said.

I do not understand how anyone can support a thief who had built his money up by first taking tax dollars to rebuild a blighted area, then shifting funds to protect himself and then pull out bankruptcy. It is legalized theft on both the start, and ending of each of his cycles.

Trump will only act to increase his own power, just as he has all his life. He will veto anything that gives power to anyone else. That you can count on.

I hope that Trump can slow down the demise of the country until after I am gone. If he did nothing but veto everything and speak his mind and tell us when the emperor has no clothes, that would be a GOOD start.

Objectivists cant win because its mob rule in a culture that wont even listen to Atlas Shrugged in book and film forms, OR even Venezuela in real time.

Interestingly enough, if Atlas Shrugged didnt get the populace here to understand the dangers of socialism, I think its a lost cause at this point. All we can do is slow it down a bit. I wouldnt want to bring a child into this world at this point.

There are religious people even in the Gulch (why, I dont understand actually). There are a lot of religious people in the US that will vote, and the president is obligated to represent them too.

Its ok for gulchers to hate trump. I understand that. I am voting for him anyway, as I must make my own choice and live with the results. I dont want to spend my time under Hillary or Sanders, and that is the choice this election.

And the fact that he started with an inherited fortune upon which to build. Also didn't hurt that that fortune was protected by lawyers during FOUR bankruptcy courts. His investors lost billions of dollars and he laughed - completely insulated from his own poor decisions.

Socialism makes sense. Socialists want to go back to the glory days of fiefdoms - a ruling class and a peasant class. It's not hard to understand and therefore very easy to intellectualize and find fault with.

Religion requires a tremendous amount of effort, because the only way to understand it is to live it. Those of a religious persuasion are very easy to criticize from an intellectual standpoint, but it should be noted that these critical intellectuals all start from an anti-religious standpoint: the denial of existence of a supreme being (or more than one). It's an inherently biased position to start from no matter which side you grew up on, and there are no fence-sitters. All philosophy must start from either the existence (and characteristics) of god or deny such entirely.

One of the things I'm profoundly grateful for is that the Founders of our nation recognized the need for diversity of thought and sought to protect it. They rejected calls to institutionalize any particular brand of thought and instead specifically protected it as an individual decision and right.

All that being said, at least with the social conservatives there is a common base for fiscal responsibility and the furtherance of sound economic policy. It hasn't been the social conservatives who have been leading this country down the path to ruin.

sadly...i agree...it will have to be After the collapse...meanwhile i am living according to Harry Browne's book "How to Live Free in an Unfree World"...

headed to Hawaii for last half of Feb...then a week in the wine country north of San Fran in April...

They can't win because you write them off and vote for evil because the GOP tells you they are better than the Dems. history shows that they are lying and betraying you..
Catch 22 created by the statist GOP.
Stop wasting your vote on evil and the third party suddenly has a chance to win.

I do wish there was an objectivist candidate who could actually win. But this culture has deteriorated so much that even if there were one that ran, he could never win at this point in time.

I dont know what they would give him that they already had not taken away first. I never got anything from government except relief from some power that they wielded over me, or some regulation that they had imposed but then relaxed.

In NYC, everything is regulated, even the size of soft drinks. If you want to make it in NYC, you have to feed money to the powers that be or you get nowhere with all the regulations.

While you are waiting for an Objectivist president, get ready to be lorded over by Hillary or Sanders

what interesting times we are in...

sorry for the delay in replying...new x-files...loving it..

so true...

Ayn Rand thought less of the conservative base and attacked them more...her main point was that they were not as consistent as the socialists upon which both bases were founded...

democracy leads to oligarchy which leads to fascism

we were founded as a republic...we need that as a base with a restricted right to vote based on productivity...

that will not happen till after the collapse that is coming...

I agree, but the President should never be the one writing the legislation, such as in the case of Obamacare. I support the idea of the executive bringing up needs to the Legislature, but acting of their own accord should be out of the question.

The agencies do report to the President, yes, but they should never be asking for additional duties beyond what Congress has authorized. This has been a real problem under this administration.

The fallacy of Atlas Shrugged is the supposition that a strike could be extensive enough to "stop the motor of the world". The fact is that society is too large and resilient for a small group to bring it down, even if that group is composed of the best and brightest. That said, it is still a moral imperative to withdraw support from an immoral endeavor. The proper way to strike is to refuse to participate in the system and to frustrate it where possible. Home school your kids. Opt out of the banking and financial system. Pay as few taxes as will keep you out of jail. Do not vote - voting in the present system serves only to perpetuate the illusion of individual power. Will these actions change the world? Of course not. You might as well try to stop an avalanche by standing in front of it with Captain America's shield. But such actions will allow you to seize the moral high ground.

Do you even listen to your own guy.

“I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them, and they are there for me.” He added, “And that’s a broken system.”

That is not to get them off his back, that is to get a favor from them. Now he uses it to state its a broken system, but the problem is giving 50k to one person at one time is illegal and you can find where he has done it more than once.

His own words prove you wrong.

https://theintercept.com/2015/08/07/d...

There is a bit more for you. If your going to back a guy you may want to know something about him.