What convinced me to vote for Trump was this one CNN town hall where they set Anderson Cooper to work him over with his family. It turned out differently, as the family shut down Cooper nicely but intelligently. Worth watching to see how he raised his kids. I thought it was impressive. Its about 40 minutes long, but there is a very revealing interview with the CNN asshole Anderson Cooper and Trump’s family. YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWCJ1...

Unfortunately true. Hillary will surely get more money out of you somehow, as she would me. I am voting for the lesser of the two federal problems, i.e. Trump. He is somewhat anti-establishment and might even help break up the two party system and give third party candidates a chance at winning next time.

Under a representative government, you acknowledge that certain rights of government are ceded to those you vote into power. What you are arguing is a contradiction: that you only have to agree with the decisions made by those duly elected leaders when it also fits your agenda. You don't get to have it both ways.

Yes, you may petition the government to alter its decisions, even take them to court to do so. But the laws must apply to everyone or they are arbitrary.

No, there really aren't if you look at them. There are only extents to which we are subject to enforcement of the contractual provisions of each association and their respective jurisdictions. That many of these associations are subordinate to the broader association of community or nation is acknowledged, but all are associations one way or the other. And here in America, each of these associations is an association of choice.

When the Founders started out, what were the major associations in play? Towns and States - to which each was a voluntary member. Those States then voted to voluntarily associate themselves with a greater (and "more perfect" union) called the United States of America. I do not think any part of the First Amendment was worded without careful thought and deliberation as to its meaning and scope.

As I mentioned above, the "new oath" is optional and I have seen nobody choosing it.

Oh, I don't know. I can think of one way to vote with my finger... j/k

You are absolutely correct in identifying that the problem lies predominantly in a lack of patriotism - especially in our elected leaders. They aren't interested in the true American values as espoused in the Constitution, because those values favor individualism, personal responsibility, and local control of government. Those are poisonous ideas to a power-monger.

Myself, living in an unincorporated community within an incompetent county, am quite unlikely to "vote" anymore merely to chose some lesser evil (that's every pol I can think of). I suppose that we might say I have already voted with my feet. None of us can truly escape the tall stack of Rulers!

There is a huge difference between "Associations", which are private, and GOVERNments of Force, which are rather ignorantly called "public".

yeah, I am not so sure about being a patriot anymore. The deal has changed so much here. I think I am just here temporarily and ready to vote with my feet instead of my finger

Being part of a community is a willful act, yes. The First Amendment includes the right of Association, meaning that we choose with whom we associate. Those associations include marriage associations, employment associations, business associations, and community/national associations. If we assert the freedom of Association, we must also recognize the willful nature of these associations - and any obligations or responsibilities we take on as a part of that association. To assert that one can have association without responsibility or obligation IMO is to assert a looter mentality.

"Willful"?

but... but... but... Oaths are a way of extorting consent, against one's will, and of affirming a government and it's constitution forced upon us all by ancestors long-gone.

But many call themselves proud citizens and patriots anyway.

"as though ALL Muslims, or even a majority, are doing such things."

But see that's the problem. Outside the US, the majority do engage in these behaviors. It isn't the minority. Turkey is the noted exception among Muslim nations in that its government is still largely secular, yet their major international airport was bombed just this week. Iraq used to be a military dictatorship where Saddam kept the religious fanatics in line - and acted as a foil for the religious fanatics ruling Iran. Same with Egypt and the Palestinians. Not the case any more. Iran and Syria openly support with government funding radicals all over the world, including Hezbollah and al Queda. Bin Laden was well connected in Saudi Arabia, from whence most of the 9/11 hijackers emanated.

And even the minority ones in nations like France and Belgium and Sweden and England and India and the Phillippines and China act out. China has serious problems with Islamic fundamentalists in Western China near the border with Pakistan. The Phillippines is currently fighting with several Islamic rebel groups. We saw the bombings recently in France and Belgium, but only a few years ago Paris saw massive rioting and looting from the Muslims there. Sweden is facing a rape epidemic from the Muslims - admittedly immigrants - coming there. England saw one of it's Bobbies beheaded and that recording broadcast across the Internet.

The problem is that this fundamentalist behavior is mainstream in that culture - it's not a fringe element. This is a significant part of their culture and their own religious books, historical tradition, and glorified leaders (i.e. Mohammed) are pretty clear examples encouraging the perpetuation of a violent and coercive mindset. Does that mean 100% of Muslims are hardliners? No, and I never said that. But the principles of the religion violate the principles of natural law and are antithetical to the Constitution of the United States. And the practice of the majority of Muslims across the world demonstrate that it is anything but a peaceful, live-and-let-live religion. You are welcome to draw your own conclusions. The evidence to me is beyond compelling.

Heh, no. And it causes no end of visual confusion when scanning comment threads, as you might imagine. :-)

You may not know this, but Israel is a pioneer in many software systems, providing valuable services in that arena. I worked for HP some years ago and one of the products - a printing press - was being developed primarily in Tel Aviv and we'd have conference calls periodically to discuss the testing software we used during development. You might be surprised to learn this, but Tel Aviv is awash with software development companies. There are also several major import/export/shipping companies and other industries.

Is that a lot? Not in comparison to China. But who would you rather have as a trade partner: one who shared your values and ideals and wasn't constantly trying to screw you over on intellectual property or... the other one? We deal with China because of their size. We deal with the Saudis because of their oil. We deal with Israel because of their values.

Side comment-
is dballing related to dbhalling ?

You say things like that and then -- again -- paint "Muslims" with a broad brush, as though ALL Muslims, or even a majority, are doing such things.

Nobody argues that those who commit, encourage, or condone these actions should be vilified.

The problem is that many seem to just be all too willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater, as it were, and treat all Muslims as some sort of "atomic indivisible entity". You're willing to concede that if "a Jew" were to do something "they" should be dealt with, but when you speak of Muslims, you lump them all together and (effectively) punish and vilify them all for the actions of the minority.

I'm just as charitable (or not) when so-called Christians open up in those places.

Knoxville, Oklahoma City, the KKK, Zion Emmanuel, ... the list goes on and on.

Vilifying the innocents because of the acts of the crazies is immoral and illogical.

I say its nonsense because it is not working for either side. I agree it will end either when they agree to disagree and live together, OR one side or the other is attacked and destroyed. I dont think the USA should get involved any more- its just a drain on our own economy and it nets us nothing

Agreed.

I don't condemn people. I identify and condemn false principles. I agree completely that if a Jew in today's day and age were to stone his/her son to death for becoming an Objectivist that they should be tried and convicted for murder. I similarly hold that a Christian or Muslim who does the same should be similarly treated.

The problem is that neither Jews nor Christians are observing this kind of behavior. Muslims are and do so on a regular basis in their own nations. That to me is a critical difference between them - one that can not be objectively ignored.

But you see what you are talking about is the essence of who these people are. Yes, many of these things happened millenia ago, but the current practice of their religion doesn't care. The traditions and ceremonies of the Jews date back to that era, but have not been changed whatsoever.

"They both need to snap out of it and shed off the nonsensicel religious demands."

It isn't nonsense to them - on either side. You are imposing your value system on them, which is why you can not possibly understand the depths and context of the conflict. What if they told you to discard all that hooey called Objectivism. Oh, and along with that your nationality as an American. And your parents, your friends, and any other family. Oh, and your home. Starting to get the picture yet?

It isn't nonsense to them. It is all those things. That's one of the reasons political negotiations for peace are utterly ridiculous. The only way that situation will be resolved is the utter annihilation of one or both of those parties or very literal divine intervention. Muslims have tried the former several times and been rebuffed, but they have the numbers and will to try again, and I would give anyone favorable odds they will try again in the next five years - especially if our next President is as hostile as Obama has been. Israel has no choice but to rely on the latter and petition help from its allies like the US.

dballing.. You may not be do charitable when some fanatic opens up in your neighborhood, workplace, theater, or kid's school.

circuit guy... I personally do not believe, or follow, or live under any superstition, but our Constitution guarantees those who choose to do so, the right to make their own decision. However, if their beliefs include murder etc. I am willing to fight them all the way to the firing squad. One's right to indulge in fantasy stops at the neighbor's line.if it causes harm.

Millions.

3.3M muslims in America was the last count.