Reason Magazine: Andrew Heaton: '13 Non-Pedophile Reasons You Can Hate Roy Moore'

Source:Reason Magazine- Judge Roy Moore & this guy- I prefer this guy.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Even if you disregard the nine women accusing Roy Moore of sexual assault, there are plenty of reasons to despise him." 

From Reason Magazine

Just to be clear, I don't hate anyone that I don't personally know. Other than Adolph Hitler and murderous racist tyrants like that. And Roy Moore is obviously a bad guy and not particularly bright apparently and how he ever got a law degree I believe deserves an investigation into the school that he graduated from. I mean, here's a man who doesn't even believe in the U.S. Constitution and yet somehow becomes a judge in America. You would think even Alabama would want judges who believe in the U.S. Constitution.

Roy Moore is a man who claims to be a fundamentalist Evangelical Christian and yet he can't even accurately quote or interpret the Bible. Claiming that homosexuality is not only a sin, but that people who could be arrested if caught doing homosexuality activity. Saying that is what God would want. Even though Roy Moore as never even met, heard or read anything that this supposed God has ever said. Which would put him in club of roughly 320 million members and that is just in America alone. The American club for people who've never met, talked to, or has read anything that God has ever said is so full and not big enough for the entire world of people who've never met, talked to, or has read anything that God has ever said. And yet Roy Moore who puts his fundamentalist, made up frankly interpretation of the Bible, over the U.S. Constitution.

Can't label Roy Moore a so-called Constitutional Conservative either or big believer in rule of law. But only because he isn't and doesn't believe in rule of law. Not because I'm putting the man down or something, or at least anymore than he deserves. Because Moore only believes in enforcing laws that he believes in and agrees with. Which is a Christmas gift from Santa Clause to every Anarchist who has ever lived. 

Imagine if everyone else and not just Roy Moore only had to follow laws that they agree with. You don't think there would be some spike in crime do you? And and far as Constitutional Conservative. Roy Moore being quoted as believing in eliminating only half of our constitutional amendments going from 11-20. Including the amendment that eliminated slavery. Where's the constitutional conservatism there? That is not conserving, but eliminating.

How about church and state: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of thereof. Well, it's a good thing that Roy Moore won't be going to Congress now for lots of reasons, but a big one being that he doesn't believe in the separation of church and state. And perhaps would work as a senator to try to disobey the First Amendment, because again he doesn't agree with it, so he doesn't believe he should have to follow it. Roy Moore is the classic case of not ready for prime time and represents someone who simply doesn't have the judgment and knowledge to be serving in public office, at least not Federal office.

I realize its easy to put down and critique someone who just lost a huge Senate seat in the state of Alabama, who also just happens to be a Republican and being the first Republican to lose an Alabama Senate seat in a generation and this these are embarrassing enough for even a so-called Republican who doesn't even believe in the republic and yet he calls himself a Republican, which I guess is a different story. 

Roy Moore is a Christian-Theocrat ideologically, not a Conservative Republican or Constitutional Conservative, which is actually very different. But Roy Moore should be the lesson and example of what not to do and be if you're a Republican and even a Bible Belt Republican and a lesson for the Republican Party even in the Bible Belt. And if they learn this lesson they can avoid further embarrassments in the future.

Ron Paul Liberty Report: Ron Paul & Chris Rossini- 'Government's Can't Legislate Morality'

Source:Ron Paul Liberty Report- The U.S. Constitution, on fire?

Source:The New Democrat 

"America's Founders did not delude themselves into believing that government was a moral institution with a responsibility to take care of people. They understood that government was violent force, and that the best way individuals to thrive was to chain that force down as much as possible. Those chains have obviously been removed, and the terrible results should not be a surprise. Ron Paul discusses on today's Liberty Report." 

From the Ron Paul Liberty Report

I agree with Ron Paul on one thing here: Chris Rossini makes a good point that I'll mention as well, but Representative Paul said that government is one of the last institutions to legislate morality. Why is that? Because government represents and governs the people. 

Government is only as good as the people they represent. Rarely if ever better and in many cases worst. Americans tend not to avoid paying their taxes and taking bribes. Legislatures who vote for bills because thats what their donors want them to do. But a lot of politicians do and you could argue every politician takes bribes at least in the sense that lobbyists tell them that if they vote for or against this piece of legislation, they'll give them their support. Financial support, as well as their endorsement.

When politicians do corruption, its what's called legalized bribery. Joe or Mary Jones (or whatever name you want to use) tells Senator Smith or Wilson, that if they vote for or against this legislation, they'll back their reelection campaign financially and verbally. But if a private citizen offers a police officer 20 bucks if they don't write them a ticket, that person could be arrested for attempting to bribe a police officer. If people want a moral government, then they need to vote for moral people to represent them in government and then hold them accountable.

It's easy for anyone to run on morality in a political campaign. But that old cliche of actions speak louder than words, the intelligent person who came up with that quote must of had politicians in mind when they said that. Because behaving in office and actually doing what you campaign on, is hell of a lot different than saying we need morality and I'm in favor of this against that and this is what I'm going to do if you elect or reelect me.

Government is only as good as the people it represents and that is government when its at its best. And there are good moral politicians and I believe most civil servants, as well as law enforcement officers, foreign affairs officers, military personal, as well as a lot of politicians, are generally good people who want to do the right thing. (No, I really believe that) 

But if government wants a moral society, than they need to set the example and not try to hold the people they're supposed to represent to a higher standard than they are willing to hold themselves simply because they think they can get away with it and have the power. Because at the end of the day the people always have the power in a liberal democracy. The power to fire politicians who don't do a  good job representing them.

Reason Magazine: John Stossel- 'Ayn Rand: The Author People Love To Hate'

Source:Reason Magazine- John Stossel on the author the Far-Left loves to hate.

Source:The Daily Review 

"Not everyone will celebrate Atlas Shrugged's anniversary. Ayn Rand is someone people love to hate. Years after her death, people still feel compelled to attack her ideas.

A recent John Oliver segment said her philosophy, objectivism, "is just a nice way of saying 'being a selfish asshole.'" 

From Reason Magazine

If you're a Socialist especially a hardcore Socialist who looks up to people like Che Guevara and even have some respect at least for some aspects of communism, even if you don't like the authoritarian aspects of it, Ayn Rand literally is the devil. Because she represents everything that you hat: freedom, individualism, free-thinking, the belief that people should actually be able to make a living on their own and not have to be babysat by government.

Because if you are a Socialist who puts all their political eggs in the basket of big government like a wishbone offense in football that if they can't run the ball, they literally can't move the ball, because they have almost no passing game to speak of. And if government can't solve problems, by itself those problems don't get solved according to the Socialist. Because the socialist philosophy of socialism is completely centered not around government or even big government, but big centralized national government. Where even state or provincial government's, as well as local government's, barely exist, because so much power in the country is centralized with the national government.

Because Socialists tend to see freedom as dangerous and individualism as selfish. That if you give people the freedom to manage their own economic and personal affairs, you're only giving them the freedom to make mistakes that society (which is government, according to the Socialist) will have to pay for.

Also, is you give people the freedom  to manage their own affairs, they might become good at it which is what adults tend to do and not need or want government to take care of them and be less incline to have your tax dollars taking care of people who aren't as free as you. Socialists tend to see people who don't think like them at least, if not people in general as idiots. People who need help tying their own shoes and even spelling their own names. Who need big government managing their lives for them.

Socialists also see individualism as selfish. This idea that people can go out in the world and be creative, think for themselves and create new things. Is like trying to explain calculus to a fish. It's so foreign to them and would be like an American who has spent their whole life in America, who only speaks English and one day finds them self in Mongolia. It would be like being on another planet for that person having no idea what people are saying or even what language they're speaking.

That is what it's like trying to explain freedom and individualism to Socialists. You might have better luck trying to teach your dog to speak Chinese. Because freedom and individualism, completely goes against everything that Socialists have ever believed and have been taught.

As much as the Christian-Right hates feminism and freedom and equal rights for women, as if women are human beings who are capable of making their own decisions and living their own lives and deserving of equal rights as men, thats how much Socialists whether they're democratic or communist, hate Ayn Rand. Because they see her as the devil who represents individualism and freedom. Which to them is as bad as cancer or stealing. It completely goes against what they believe in and what they've been taught as people. 

John Stossel: 'Who Owns Your Body?'

Source:John Stossel- on prostitution.

Source:The New Democrat

"I confront a prostitute, a pimp, and an anti-prostitution crusader." 

From John Stossel

I'm going to paraphrase political humorist P.J. O'Rourke on this: I'm very conservative socially in the sense that I live a conservative lifestyle. I don't even smoke tobacco or drink alcohol, not even beer, for crying out loud. I don't gamble or even go to casinos. And no, I'm not even religious at all so its not because of some strong religious beliefs why I don't do these things. But instead I don't enjoy these activities and I don't like what tobacco and alcohol do to people, I don't want to become a gambling junky who either has collectors constantly on my ass (if not up my ass) or can't pay his bills because I'm out of money and looking for my next big score at some card game.

And no, I would never even contemplate selling by body for sex or buying sex. I rather listen to a Donald Trump marathon of speeches with him telling everybody how fabulous he is and perhaps end up in coma because of how boring those speeches are. But that is just me.

Again to paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke: just because someone is socially conservative as far as how they live, doesn't mean they believe they have the wisdom and knowledge to run everyone else's lives for them. And be in charge of a national adult day care center telling people when they should go to bed, wake up, eat their meals, what they can eat, who they can talk to and about what and how they talk to people.

Being a social conservative means someone who lives conservatively. Not someone who is so hardcore fundamentalist with their religious beliefs that they believe they know exactly how everyone else should live as well. Even to the point that they would force their religious and cultural beliefs on everyone else though government force. 

I might be a social conservative when it comes to lifestyle, but I'm a Liberal when it comes to my political beliefs, as someone who bases all his views not just on politics, but everyone else in life based on the best available facts and evidence. My views are based on reason, not faith.

Prostitution like every other activity in life that comes with risk and in prostitution's case a lot of risk as far as the people you work with, go to bed with and the clients you deal with, but like gambling, tobacco, alcohol, pornography, certain plastic surgeries, are things that have been around forever and are never going to disappear. They'll always be with us whether they're legal or not. So the question then becomes what should be done about them.

Do we put people in jail simply because they're personally involved in activities that aren't good for them and as a result create a gigantic nanny state that makes the Communist Republic of North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran, look like thriving first world liberal democracies, or do we legalize these activities so we can make them as safe as possible and no longer allow people who work in these activities avoid paying the taxes that everyone else hates to pay (except Socialists) but pays, because these workers are involved in illegal dangerous activities . And are obviously afraid to report their income. That is the question when it comes to prostitution or any other dangerous activity in America.

Saturday Night Live: 'Roy Moore & Jeff Sessions Cold Open'

Source:SNL- Judge Roy Moore and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Roy Moore, is one of the few people that Jeff Sessions, doesn't look like Jethro in comparison. 

Source:The Daily Review

"Embattled Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore (Mikey Day) meets with Vice President Mike Pence (Beck Bennett) and Attorney General Jeff Sessions (Kate McKinnon)."

From Saturday Night Live

Of course there are perhaps millions of reasons why Alabama is considered a backwards, stuck in the 1850s, let alone 1950s state that perhaps only Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the other gulf states could be proud of.

Alabama is known for people being selfish when it comes to their names and feeling the need to have two first names instead of just one. Jim or Bob, is not good enough for a lot of Alabamans so they combine the two and call themselves Jim Bob. Elizabeth or Susan, not good enough for a lot of women in Alabama, so they go by Betty Sue.

Fundamentalist religious beliefs that don't come from anywhere in the Bible at least, but a lot of Alabamans put their faith and fundamentalism over annoying little things like facts, reason, and science.

Alabaman cousins falling in love with each other.

People going to the University of Alabama not because they believe it's a great university, but because they want to play football in the NFL and be part of a great football program.

Low literacy rates, high poverty, lack of infrastructure and education. But what do you expect when you put your religious fundamentalism or what Roy Moore calls God's Law, over education and facts.

But if there was just one reason and I just named five for why even Southern states like Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, look at Alabama as if it was an embarrassment and joke, like that next door neighbor who mows his lawn naked, or has a Nazi flag hanging from their house, who has Jewish and African-American neighbors, it's how Alabamans are seen at least when it comes to male and female relations. What men in Alabama seem to believe they can get away with or is completely acceptable when it comes to how they treat women and even girls.

A 14 year old girl, is obviously not a woman. Even in Alabama legal consent is 16, even though most of the rest of the country legal consent is 18. But, again we're talking about Alabama. And if you're not from the Bible Belt talking about Alabama can be like talking about Afghanistan. Some far away country that is very backwards, at least compared with the Western developed world.

In almost every other state in the Union except for perhaps Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, South Carolina, West Virginia, and perhaps Texas, at least in the deep rural parts of that huge state, Roy Moore wouldn't be considered a joke or an embarrassment. Perhaps that would be like complement compared with what he really is. He would be considered a disgrace. Women outside of the Bible Belt, wouldn't have waited 35-40 years to speak out about what Roy Moore did to them when they were girls. Because they wouldn't worry about the backlash that could have come from speaking out against this fundamentalist redneck who calls himself a Christian, and yet he has very anti-Christian beliefs. And is more of a religious theocrat with no real religion backing what he believes.

About a month from now we're going to see if Alabama is ready to join the 21st Century. Because they missed out on a lot of the 20th Century, at least the positive aspects of it and reject this neanderthal who calls himself a Christian and say that Alabama also believes that pedophilia, child molestation, and sexual harassment, are wrong. And they don't want anyone like Roy Moore representing then anywhere in Congress, especially in the Senate, but the House as well. And hopefully they'll overwhelmingly reject him. Even if that means having a Democrat who doesn't have the sexual baggage as their next U.S. Senator.

Sargon of Akkad: Communists At Berkeley

Source:Sargon of Akkad- Communists at Berkeley, should be as surprising as rednecks in Mississippi. I mean is this your 1st day on Earth?

Source:The New Democrat 

The main woman in this video said the according to her the free speech movement at Berkeley from the 1960s, which really was a free speech movement and something that Berkeley has moved away from, this woman said that was the real free speech movement, because of what they were speaking against. Which is what's called white supremacy and the authoritarian establishment back then at Berkeley that tried to censor cultural and speech movements that they disagreed with. In other words, if its speech that she agrees with, then its free speech. But if she disagrees with the free speech, then its fascism according to her and therefor it doesn't deserved to be heard. Should be silenced and those people should not be be allowed to exist and should be forcefully removed if necessary.

ANTIFA if they really were an anti-fascist movement, then I could probably respect them. But they're instead a hypocritical contradiction of a movement. They claim to be against fascism on the one hand, while on the other hand they try to shut up and stop speech that they simply disagree with and are even offended by it. Which is basically the definition of fascism. Preventing speakers that you disagree with from speaking and trying to physically stop if necessary speakers that you don't like and disagree with from speaking. ANTIFA are not anti-fascists, but Neo-Communists if not just pure Communists, who want to destroy the American system and form of government and replace it with a socialist state by any means necessary as the woman in the video proudly stated 

Source:Sargon of Akkad

Sargon of Akkad: Why Do People Hate Feminism?

Source:Sargon of Akkad- I guess with those glass & red hair, she's "like a totally awesome leftist."

Source:The Daily Review

According to Merriam-Webster's definition of feminism. Feminism is the belief that women and men should have equal rights and opportunities. To put that even simpler feminism is the belief that women should be treated equally as men and not be punished or rewarded simply because of their gender.

Thats not controversial, because probably 7-8 out ten or more Americans believe that men and women should be treated equally under law and not be punished or rewarded simply because of their gender. You polled Republicans (not including the Christian-Right) and you would get a substantial majority of Americans who believe men and women should be treated equally.

Its radical or fundamentalist feminists, as Sargon of Akkad calls them or even fascist feminist who believe you're either with them and that means 100% of the time, or you're against them. You either believe that men (especially Caucasian men) are ignorant bigots and sexist pigs who struggle to tie their own shoes, or you are part of the problem. You either believe women are superior to men and should have most if not all the power in the country, or you're a sexist pig (even if your'e a women) who hate women of all races and ethnicities.
Source:Sargon of Akkad

Reason Magazine: Matt Welch: 'Republicans: 'We Have To Cut Taxes Because We're Too Cowardly To Cut Spending'

Source: Reason Magazine- Senator Rand Paul & President Donald Trump.

Source:The New Democrat

According to Wikipedia.

'Fiscal conservatism is the economic philosophy of prudence in government spending and debt. Fiscal Conservatives advocate the avoidance of deficit spending, the reaction of overall government spending and national debt, and ensuring balanced budgets.'

Call me silly, but when I think of fiscal Conservatives I think of people who believe the national debt and budget deficits, not only exist (unlike at least some Socialists) but its a big deal. (Unlike most Socialists) That when government borrows heavily and run up high deficits and debt especially when their economy is growing and job growth is high, which is what the American economy is doing right now, that running high deficits and debt is not a good thing.

Because you end up having your government, as well as your economy depending on others to make sure your government gets the borrowing that it needs run its operations. Plus, when you run high deficits and debt, which is where America is now while your economy is strong which is where are now as far as growing economy with low unemployment and high job growth, your government ends up competing with the private sector for borrowing. Which affects interest rates and makes it more difficult for private organizations to borrow money. Which is where we are now which isn't much different from the 1980s that had strong economic and job growth for most of the decade, while the U.S. Government was piling up deficits and debt every year. Which affected the stock market with the 1987 crash and was partially responsible for the recession of the early 1990s.

So to me anyway a fiscal Conservative is someone who is not only concern about high deficits and debt, but is crazy enough to believe that those issues need to be dealt with so at the very least they don't get out of hand. If there is anything positive about having a Republican united government (and most of the country is still looking for anything positive about that) it would be at least now there's a political party in power and in control that will finally deal with our deficits and debt. And works to pass policies out of Congress that brings our deficit down and perhaps even puts the budget on a path where it could be balanced at some point. Where at the very least the national debt is now growing faster than the economy.

Again, if there's anything positive about having the Republican Party in charge of anything, it would be at least you would have fiscal Conservatives in charge who'll bring down our debt and deficits. get our spending under control, decentralize the Federal Government, get more power out of Washington. But thats not where the Republican Party is right now. They seem to believe that fiscal conservatism is about obtaining power, not about governing. But as a tool to use to get into power, but once you're there then it becomes about staying in power.

And I'm not picking on Socialists anymore than they deserve to at least, but tax cuts in America are popular to anyone who is not a Socialist. Perhaps more popular to Republicans and the Republican Leadership in Congress and at the White House, has concluded that the best way for them to stay in power is to pass popular bills that will help them get reelected and keep their majorities next year. And then let their children and grandchildren figure out the costs of their parents and grandparents borrow and spending. National debt card spending spree that covers everything from defense spending and generous tax loopholes, to Federal spending covering public education and medical research. As well as the Federal safety net.

I really could call this piece The Death of Fiscal Conservatism, because that is what we're seeing in the Republican Party. Even with House Republican who in 2014 were railing against the so-called Obama deficits and national debt and overspending and arguing about how big a threat to our children's future and other nonsense that they've seem to forgotten. Apparently power does corrupt and its a lot easier to be loudmouth when you're on the sidelines than actually in the game with the ball. Apparently Republicans now believe that you don't have be in the game to govern, but don't even have to have any balls to take on high deficits, the national debt and that governing to them is just about staying in power. And again leaving it to others to figure out how much their governing which is really borrowing, is going to cost others later on.

The great political humorist P.J. who is a Libertarian and I don't think you could pay him to be a Democrat today and even if you could it might bankrupt the Democratic Party and perhaps major economies to get P.J. to even consider doing the Democratic Party, gave a speech at the National press Club several years ago talking about so-called Conservatives and fiscal responsibility. I wrote a piece for FRS Real Life Journal where I write lifestyle and entertainment, as well as humorous pieces and put the link of his speech on that blog. And you can see that here.

I argued back in 2014 that Republicans when they only controlled the House of Representatives while Barack Obama was will President and Democrats still controlled the Senate, that so-called fiscal responsibility and fiscal conservatism, were just tools to blame the Democrats for the financial and economic problems of the country. Republicans and the Tea Party, only saw fiscal conservatism as a way to get back into power, but never as a tool to actually use to govern and finally bring down our deficits and debt. And with President Donald Trump and the Republican Congress, I'm being proven right everyday.

Reason Magazine: Robby Soave- Mel Brooks: 'We Have Become Stupidly Politically Correct & Its Killing Comedy'

Source: Reason Magazine- Mel Brooks, hates political correctness.

Source:The Daily Review

"Mel Brooks, recently said in an interview that "political correctness" will be the “death of comedy.” Brooks, best known for comedies "Blazing Saddles," "Robin Hood: Men in Tights,” and “The Producers,” sat down with BBC4 recently to talk about his work. He said, “We have become stupidly politically correct, which is the death of comedy. It’s not good for comedy. Comedy has to walk a thin line, take risks." Regarding the portrayal of racial prejudice in his film “Blazing Saddles" from 1974, the director said, “Without that the movie would not have had nearly the significance, the force, the dynamism and the stakes that were contained in it." Brooks is currently developing “Young Frankenstein” into a West End stage show.

From Wochit Entertainment

Mel Brooks is damn right here! Now, imagine if I said damn right in a movie or on TV back in lets say 1952, I probably would've been expelled from Hollywood back then for using the word damn, because it would have offended someone's religious and moral values. Which was a form of political correctness from a different time.

If comedians, writers, and other commentators, don't have the freedom to express themselves even if it offends someone who wears underwear that is way too tight for them, or is a coffee or Red Bull junky and is so wound up they couldn't fall asleep even if they watched a PBS telethon for 48 hours straight and simply does not know how to relax, who has a glass jaw for an ego and the slightest form of criticism like telling them they're 30 seconds late absolutely destroys their glass jaw, meaning to put it simply, that they can't take a joke. They can't even handle criticism that is fair and even accurate. If people with glass jaws become in charge of what is appropriate and inappropriate in comedy and other forms of communication, well yes we can then make the appropriate funeral arraignments for comedy in America.

Because it will die simply because comedians, writers, and other commentators won't want to take a risk and make fun of something or someone that can later sue them for it, put in jail, or risk losing their job because they're not politically correct. They'll simply find something better to do with their time and find another way to make a living. Perhaps instead of performing on stage, they'll perform in private clubs where you only get in by invitation. Perform at private homes. Perhaps write books and articles, but the only people who'll get to read them are people they approve of who won't turn them into the Political Correctness Police. Maybe they'll have and give private readings of their material.

You take away comedians ability to perform and express themselves, you're taking away comedy in America. And we'll be left with comedians making fun of the Christian-Right and what the Far-Left calls White people and White trash. Because anyone who understands political correctness in America knows that the Far-Left pretty much dominates it.

Which makes modern political correctness hypocritical and partisan , because jokes about fundamentalist Christians especially if they're also Protestant and of Southern English background, are considered acceptable, but you make a joke about fundamentalist Muslims especially people who believe in and practice Islamism, you're considered a racist by the New-Left in America. People who are Socialists and even what I would at least call Neo-Communists, because they believe in  a certain level of democracy, but where communication should only be limited to people who think and believe the way they do.

So if you make a white trash joke, you're considered progressive by this community. But you make fun of ghetto people, you're considered a racist. Political correctness from so-called social justice warriors on the Far-Left in America, is about as hypocritical as Donald Trump calling someone selfish, or accusing someone of being too self-centered, as consistent as one of Donald Trump's political positions.

Political correctness is kryptonite for comedy in America. One thing that you would think that could never die in America is comedy, because of our free speech rights that are guaranteed by our First Amendment and the fact that we have a lot of stupid people and dishonest people who tend to be our politicians that are elected by most of our stupid people. But the one thing that could kill comedy is political correctness.

And no, people will never be arrested for cracking a joke about someone that offends them, or perhaps not even sued for it because it would probably get thrown out, unless the Political Correctness Police takes over our judiciary. But what would happen instead is that people will be afraid to be funny and take risks, because they're worried about the aftermath from people who again wear underwear that is too tight, or drink too much Starbucks or Red Bull and simply can't handle criticism about themselves, or people they claim to care about.  The way you kill comedy even in America, is not just by having too many oversensitive tight asses in America, but actually having those people in charge and running things for everyone else.

Roll Call: David Hawkings - Whiteboard: What is a Filibuster?

Source:Roll Call- A filibuster whiteboard. 

Source:The New Democrat 

David Hawkings is right about what an actual filibuster is. Its generally one Senator or a group of Senator's who take to the Senate floor and talk forever basically, or till they run out of breath, faint, have to use the bathroom, discover they have lives, perhaps miss their kids and wives, etc. Maybe the Senate Leader finds the 60 votes that he needs to cut off the Senator or Senator's that are speaking.

And generally but not always filibusters are performed (if you want to call filibustering a performance) by a member or members of the minority party. The Senate has a filibuster and the cloture rule, but its really the cloture rule is used by the Minority Leader who rounds up enough votes to stop the majority from moving ahead on legislation that is used by the minority to block legislation.

Instead of minority members speaking indefinitely about a particular bill, the Minority Leader will round up 41 or more votes to simply prevent the majority from moving to final passage on a bill that probably has no minority input on it and perhaps didn't even go through committee. And then the Minority Leader or his deputy who is generally the lead minority member on the committee that has jurisdiction of the bill, will argue that the Senate simply hasn't had enough time to consider the legislation and the minority simply can't support this and isn't ready to vote on the bill.

The minority party blocks legislation all the time with the cloture rule. The Minority Leader will announce that they intend to block the legislation. The Leader will then move to final passage, but to get to final passage of legislation which is the final vote, the majority party needs 60 votes to accomplish that. Which generally doesn't happen on partisan legislation because Congress tends to be very divided at least in the last 40 years or so. Even when on party controls both the House and Senate, their majorities tend to be fairly small, especially in the Senate. And the Senate minority party tends to have at least 45 members which is more than enough to block legislation on their own, if the Minority Leader keeps them unified against partisan legislation that the majority party wants to pass.

I'm somewhat divided on the Senate filibuster myself. Even as a Democrat who sees his party both as the minority party in Congress, but as the opposition party and in the White House. Filibusters themselves I'm not a fan of. The idea that one Senator or even a group of them can command so much attention and power by themselves, which makes them as powerful as both the Minority Leader and Majority Leader, even if there're a freshman and perhaps have no other experience in Congress other than their first year or 2 in the Senate, seems counterproductive and makes the party leaderships seem very weak.

But on the other side as a Liberal who believes in both limited government and is against absolute power even if the Democratic Party is the party with complete control over the government, I don't want the Senate to become like the House of Representatives. I actually believe the House is too much like the House and not calling for the House minority party to be able to block legislation on their own that majority brings to the floor, but the House minority should at least be able to offer relevant amendments and alternatives to all legislation that majority brings to the floor and committee. And at the end of the day if the majority party has a simple majority or more to pass legislation, then they would be able to do that even if not one minority Representative votes for the bill.

What Congress needs to return to is regular order. Where if the majority parties in either the House or Senate, decide not to work with the minority on legislation, then their bills at least have to go through the relevant committee or committees where hearings are held, amendments and alternatives are offered, debated and voted on. And then if the final bill passes out of committee, then the bill goes to the floor where the same process is done all over again, but this time with everyone in the chamber able to debate and offer amendments to the bill.

If Congress both the Senate and House did this and you eliminated gerrymandering, you could see less obstruction and partisanship in Congress. Because the majority party in both chambers would then know they can't steamroll the minority and be able to pass partisan legislation with very little if any debate and probably no amendments. And the minority party in both chambers would then know that they have a stake in the game (so to speak) and know they'll be able to offer amendments and alternatives to all legislation that the majority brings up and be able to force the majority to take tough votes and have new issues to run on the during the next election.

I'm not a fan of the filibuster because it makes both the Minority Leader and Majority Leader weak. It makes back-benching Senator's seem as powerful as the two leaders. But I don't like absolute power especially when one party controls both the White House and Congress. So you need to strengthen the leadership's while protecting minority rights and our checks and balances.

So I would eliminate the filibuster and say for legislation to be blocked from final passage in the Senate, it can only be done by the two leader's. Have a motion to table that only the Leader and Minority Leader can propose and similar to the cloture rule when the Minority Leader moves to table the bill, the Leader can overcome that with 60 votes.

Along with the new amendment process where the members of both parties can offer relevant amendments to all legislation and the minority can offer alternative bills to all legislation. And then I believe you would see less partisanship because now both parties would be able to debate and even legislate and just need to the votes for the amendments to do that.

And I believe you would also see less obstruction from the minority party, because instead of the Minority Leader trying to block legislation by himself, he might just decide to let legislation go through once it has been fully debated with a real amendment process and use those votes as election issues.

The filibuster is outdated but checks and balances aren't and absolute power with the opposition having no ability to hold the party in power accountable is un-liberal democratic. This is not a one-party state or a parliamentary system where the party in power doesn't just have the power to govern, but the power to rule. We'll always need checks and balances especially when one party has complete control of the government.
Source:Roll Call

Reason: John Stossel- Lilly Tang Williams: '100 Years of Communist Disaster'

Source:Reason Magazine- Happy Birthday to Communism, from John Stossel.

Source:The Daily Review 

"This year marks communism's 100th birthday. Its horrors should remind us of the value of freedom." 

From Reason Magazine

China is a good example of a communist disaster as far as their economic system until they started their privatization program about 40 years ago and moved to a more capitalist private enterprise economic system.

But China is still a communist unitarian one-party state that happens to have a private enterprise economic system, while still maintaining some state-owned enterprises. Their political system is still a one-party communist system and there's still no free press, free speech, right to privacy, fair trial, etc, things that liberal democracies like America have.

And yet I don't think anyone at this point would argue that the People's Republic of China is a failed state. Just a little push back at John Stossel's broad point here that communism has failed in China.

I'm more interested in the somewhat rebirth if not of communism, but certainly socialism and what I call Neo-Communism. Which is a very illiberal (not liberal) form of socialist-collectivism which is somewhat undemocratic while still leaving in some democratic principles.

For example, non-socialist parties are still allowed to technically run for national office in Venezuela. The Center-Left Liberal Democrats did win control of the National Assembly there a few years ago. But then what the so-called Socialist (Neo-Communist) Maduro Government does there is say that those elections were not valid and the opposition is now a threat to the country (meaning the Maduro Government) and the Maduro Government starts their own brand new National Assembly where only members of the Socialist Party there are allowed to serve.

Which is a big reason why we're seeing so much chaos in Venezuela there because the economy is collapsing in a country that is energy independent and yet they can't produce enough affordable energy for most of the country. But rising inflation and interest rates, shortages of other basic necessities in life including food. Because Big Uncle Nick (meaning President Nicolas Maduro) believes his state is more capable of producing the goods and services that the Venezuelan people need better than the people themselves.

And that Venezuela is a country of 25 millions morons essentially who are too stupid to manage their own affairs. And they need Big Uncle Nick and his army of Neo-Communists (his government) to take care of them for them.

Venezuela is the perfect example of a failed Neo-Communist state and disaster. Cuba would be another great example, add North Korea. Anyone seen or heard from the Soviet Union lately or seen any Soviets? Almost like they've disappeared from the face of the Earth.

But to bring it back home back to America where no one who isn't an alcoholic or drug addict actually believes communism will ever takeover America and run this country. But there is a new socialist movement that has two wings in it.

One, is a democratic socialist wing led by Senator Bernie Sanders and Dr. Jill Stein, who by enlarge are both peace-loving Hippies from the 1960s who perhaps occasionally enjoy a joint every now and then who do live on cloud nine politically in the sense that they both have this warped fantasy that perhaps you could only get from smoking too much pot, that government services are free.

That if American taxpayers just gave up most of their income to Uncle Sam, or perhaps Uncle Bernie and his wife Aunt Jill, assuming that we wouldn't allow them to just take our money from us, that America would turn into some beautiful socialist utopia. With no one ever going without not enough or enjoying too much, because the U.S. Government would collect our wealth for us and then manage for us and decide for us what we need to live well.

Besides, in Bernie and Jill's view Americans tend to be stupid anyway and aren't capable of making our own complicated decisions anyway that you would probably need a masters degree from an Ivy League or some other great Northeastern or West Coast university to be able to manage properly.

Such complicated decisions like where we should get our health insurance, health care, how to invest for our retirement, where to get our childcare for our kids, who to take care of our kids when they get older, etc. Basic decisions that only New York, San Francisco, and Washington yuppie intellectuals are capable of making. And therefor according to Uncle Bernie and Aunt Jill and other Socialists, should have this decision-making power over everyone else and given the power to run our lives for us.

But wait, it gets a helluva a lot worse than that. Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein, are the good Socialists for the most part. Other than having a hard time telling the truth about the costs and consequences of their economic policies. Its much worst than the Sanders-Stein factions of American socialism.

Move over to the American Neo-Communists the people who hate free speech so much that they'll use their free speech rights to try to shut up people who disagree with them. Even use violent tactics and terrorism to try to shut people up. We saw this at Berkley during this winter.

The Neo-Communists are people who say they hate capitalism even though they own almost every form of new technology there is and claim they can't live without their smartphones and iPads and other devices. Who are always up to date on the latest fashion trends and own all of them. And yet they say they hate capitalism.

Neo-Communists are people who claim to love animals and are for animal rights and put people down for the eating cheeseburgers and other meat and call that animal cruelty as they're wearing leather jackets.

Again, who say they hate capitalism even though they spend most of their time when they're not protesting against free speech, at coffee houses on their laptops and iPhones. Who claim our Founding Fathers (the original Liberal Democrats) were evil racists who created this evil American empire. As they wear t-shirts of Che Guevara and Fidel Castro and support those two men who are both responsible for the murders of thousands of people. In Fidel's case perhaps millions.

Communism will never make it to America at least as a governing philosophy where we would see some communist regime installed and running the U.S. Government. Because Americans tend to be too individualist and once we are educated we tend to know what doesn't work and what does work and are able and want to make our own decisions in life both personally and economically.

Besides, the examples of failed communism and failed communist states are widely known. At least outside of the Millennial Generation and once the Millennial's finally grow up I believe they'll come to realize that the pot fantasies that they had in their twenties and even thirties about how like totally awesome socialism and communism is, was nothing more than a social fad and an attempt to look cool with their generation.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie & Todd Krainin: Hey Libertarians For Donald Trump, How Much More Winning Can You Take?

Source:Reason Magazine-real Libertarians don't like anything about the MAGA Cult King Donald J. Trump.

Source:The New Democrat

I believe to understand why some so-called Libertarians support Donald Trump in 2016 and still do today, you have to understand libertarianism and libertarian society. You also have to understand the anti-Hillary Clinton movement which includes the Far-Left and Bernie Sanders socialist movement. The Far-Right nationalist and Christian-Conservative theocratic movement. But the Libertarian-Right and the fringe movement on the Libertarian-Right.

Not all and perhaps most Libertarians aren't fringe and I have a lot of respect for true Libertarians especially Conservative-Libertarians like Senator Rand Paul and Liberal-Libertarians like Governor Gary Johnson. But there is a fringe libertarian movement that is highly conspiratorial (just like Donald Trump) and sees any evidence and information that contradicts their beliefs as some type of either government conspiracy or leftist conspiracy.

By the way, the nationalist movement, the Britbart's and others who still back Donald Trump and his supporters in Congress, are also conspiratorial. You have a movement on the Far-Right and fringe Libertarian-Right that sees Hilary Clinton as nothing but the devil. As some radical feminist Marxist-Communist from the 1960s, who would ruin America by forcing her form of anti-male (especially Caucasian male) radical feminism, as well as Atheism on the country. And put radical feminists in charge of everything and try to completely outlaw all forms of individualism. Even if that individualism comes from women. And then add the fact that Hillary Clinton is hawk on a lot of foreign policy and national security issues, adds to why fringe so-called Libertarians absolutely hate the woman.

The Far-Left hates Hillary because she's a hawk, but she's also not a Socialist and has no issues with being successful and wealthy and everything else that Socialists hate about America and American capitalism. But the fringe so-called Libertarians are the same people who believe John Kennedy was murdered by the CIA. That 9/11 was an inside job. That President George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, because Saddam Hussein ordered George W. father H.W. Bush to be murdered and to steal Iraq's oil.

So of course Trumpian cult followers are going to believe Donald Trump when he says that Russia didn't try to interfere with our elections in 2016, because they see that as some made up government conspiracy by our National Security State. Donald Trump represents to them the anti-establishment. People who hate Washington and the people who work there, especially for the Federal Government. That is why these so-called Libertarians (cult followers is more accurate) are backing Donald Trump so heavily. Because he's the leader of their anti-establishment political cult.

That is why you have Kristin Tate who up until just two years ago was an actual Libertarian, say she has to put aside her libertarian views to support Donald Trump. Why Wayne Allyn Root backs everything that Donald Trump does and always has a reason for it and that reason being that if Donald Trump believes its the right thing to do, than it must be true. Whether its bombing Syria in the same of protecting human life, trying to ban Muslims from coming into the country which violates freedom of religion. Labeling Mexicans as racists, or saying there are fine people in the racist Alt-Right Neo-Nazi movement.

These Trumpian cult followers and this is going to sound harsh, but I really believe this, but they remind me of the Manson Family from the late 1960s. Who when ordered to commit those murders essentially said this must be the right thing to do because their leader Charles Manson says it is. Which of course sounds crazy but there's not exactly a surplus of sanity around when you're talking about fringes whether they're on the Far-Right or Far-Left. "Donald Trump believes its the right thing to do, so it must be. Besides, he's not Hillary Clinton so it must be okay." Which to me sounds like the attitude of the Donald Trump cult followers and why these so-called Libertarians support Donald Trump.
Source:Reason

The Atlantic: Olga Khazan: 'The Social Benefits of Swearing'

Source:The Atlantic- So in other words: we shouldn't watch our fucking language. LOL

Source:The Daily Review 

“Earlier this year, the Democratic National Committee began selling T-shirts on its site with a punchy slogan: “Democrats give a shit about people.”

From The Atlantic 

Source:The Atlantic- social swearing: apparently we're supposed to swear when we're in public.

“People are swearing more and more in public life with no negative consequences. Are there social benefits to swearing? And what’s the psychology behind people actually enjoying it when others curse?” 

From The Atlantic

I'm going to give you an answer to why Americans swear so much at least now in public but also in private as well that is a lot less scientific than what Olga Khazan gives you. But before that I'm just to go on the record and say I'm not a religious fundamentalist or very religious at all and don't even practice any religion and I'm not a prude. Of course I swear like most Americans do I just have a real purpose to it and don't feel the need to sound cool and lot of times today swearing is generally used simply to sound cool and hip. People will swear really for no other reasons other than that.

I swear to express anger and amazement and no other reasons:"Holy, shit! That man is fat!" Would be an example of someone showing amazement and being caught off guard. "Why don't you watch where the fuck you're going, are you trying to fuckin kill me?" Would be an example of someone expressing anger because they think someone is moving too fast generally in a vehicle and moving recklessly.

But most Americans swear today and cable TV especially HBO and company is a perfect example of that because that is simply their normal vehicle of communication. That is how they talk to their friends, that is how their friends talk and it seems perfectly normal to them. That is how cool people talk today.

If you want to sound cool today you swear a lot and even do it for no apparent reason: "Where the fuck is he? He was supposed to be here 2 minutes ago. Fuckin lazy ass!" Now was that really called for or could that person just so a little patience instead and say: "Relax, he'll be here." Or not even say that and just enjoy that time waiting a few minutes. Maybe get a latte and stare at their iPhone and pretend too look hip and important for a few minutes.

The more you swear and sound cool doing it, the cooler you'll be in American pop culture. And if you're in entertainment the more you swear the more popular you'll be and the more roles you'll have in movies or on HBO or the other networks where hard-core swearing is not just allowed but encouraged.

The bigger the asshole you are the more attention you'll bring to yourself as the reality genre as proven the last fifteen years or so. You don't have to do a scientific study to prove this but simply be aware of your own surroundings and what is going on in culture today.

The fact that we now see more cussing in American politics today whether its lets say moderate cussing with the use of the word damn and hell, screw, and other words like that not just on cable news, but network news where you would think the people there would be more moderate and cognitive with their approach to how they express themselves, is just an example of how pop culture hasn't just infiltrated our political system, but that our political system is a reflection of our pop culture in America.

And saying what the heck, or darn it all, gee wiz, just sounds too 1950s Leave it to Beaver for most Americans today. Especially when you can say I don't give a damn or what the hell, that is a helluva a lot, and not pay any price for it. You don't need to poll people or do any scientific research on this and ask people why they swear regardless of their profession. You just have to be aware of what's going on in front of you and see it for yourself.

Learn Liberty: The Rubin Report- Dave Rubin Interviewing Dan Carlin: We're All Liberals & Radicals

Source: Learn Liberty-

Source:The New Democrat

I agree with Dave Rubin and Dan Carlin on at least one thing here about political labels having lost their meanings and I would argue true meanings. I'm a Liberal because I believe in liberal democracy and its that simple. Individual rights, rule of law, equal rights, equal justice, equality of opportunity, limited government, free, fair and open elections, fiscal responsibility, strong but limited national defense, property rights.

But someone who believes in the opposites of many if not all of those things and not even believing in free speech and perhaps even a free press that is in private hands, along with having a lot socialist if not communist views on economic policy, will also call themselves a Liberal. People like talk show host Thom Hartmann who really is a Democratic Socialist if you bother to look at his politics instead of just automatically taking his word when he calls himself a Liberal, but he at least in the past has called himself a Liberal, but has called for state-control of the press.

The so-called liberal magazine Salon had an article in 2014 written by Fred Jerome calling for the nationalization of Fox News and other right wing media outlets because he believed there was too much of a right wing slant on the news.

Now who is the Liberal here? The man who advocates for liberal values and policies, or the people who call themselves Liberals, but advocate for Far-Left politics and positions and view people like Communists Fidel Castro Che Guevara, and the Neo-Communist regime in Venezuela as really good but misunderstood people. Perhaps they were treated badly as kids which is why they turned out like this, or its societies fault that they became authoritarian dictators.

When I see an apple and an orange, I'm going to call the apple an apple even if the orange calls them self an apple as well. Sometimes you need to believe your own ears and eyes over someone else's mouth. Facts matter and we should always take facts over someone else's propaganda. I partially agree with Dan Carlin on his second point that we're all Liberals. A lot of us are in America in the sense that Americans tend to believe in liberal democracy and values I just laid out and believe in both personal and economic freedom.

But if you're familiar with the over-caffeinated Millennial Generation and aging Baby Boomers who are still living in the 1960s culturally and mentally and still trying to take down the man (as they would put it) and destroy our inhumane, corrupt, corporate controlled private system, (as they would put it) they're not liberal all all, really. They can't take a joke and believe anything that offends them or people they claim to care about, should be censored and outlawed.

To go back to my previous points about Fidel and Che, the illiberal-left believes Castro and Guevara are good men. They believe in the Venezuelan Neo-Communist regime is a good honorable government trying to serve their people and eliminate corporate control. Even though they're arrested people simply for protesting against their regime. They believe the wrong country won the Cold War. And yet they get called Liberals by the lame stream media (to quote Sarah Palin) as Liberals, simply because the so-called mainstream media doesn't know what Liberals are and equates everyone on the Left as Liberals even if their politics are illiberal.

But again who are the Liberals here? The people who believe in liberal values, or the people who simply call themselves Liberals and are called Liberals by others? To go back to my point about facts matter, we should always believe our own ears and eyes overs someone's else's propaganda. Just because someone else labels them self something or is labeled something by someone else, doesn't make that true. Instead what you should do is your own research and look at their politics and see if that matches up with what they're self-proclaiming.
Source:Learn Liberty

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie- Interviewing Frank Furedi: 'College Students Think Freedom is Not a Big Deal'

Source:Reason Magazine- author Frank Furedi, with a book about college students.

Source:The Daily Review 

“Sociologist Frank Fruedi and Reason’s Nick Gillespie discuss the decline of free speech on campus and his new book, What Happened to the University: a Sociological Exploration of its Infantilisation.”

From Reason Magazine

As someone who didn't even graduate college I'm probably not the right spokesperson for this, (to say the least) but I've always believed that college is supposed to be a place to learn and and even learn news ideas.

College should be a place where new ideas and things that people didn't hear much if anything about in high school or anywhere else and not to automatically take those new ideas and philosophies on face value and automatically, but to learn about them and then decide for themselves on the best available evidence possible on the worth of those ideas and philosophies.

That it's not the job of college to tell people how to think and what to think, but how to learn and then the students can figure out for themselves the worth of what they're learned and what it means on the best available evidence possible.

Call me naive if you want, but that is what I believe. I think what we're seeing at college now is sort of the opposite of that. That you have professors who don't teach their students about ideas and philosophies as much as they try to teach their students what to think. That this is what you should believe because this is what is right and wrong. Instead of giving their students the freedom to learn and experience and figure out what works for them and in society for themselves. Again on the best available evidence possible.

Today what we're seeing at college with young students like millennial's and soon to be the so-called Z Generation, is that the opposites are being taught and learned as far as what makes America great and what makes our diverse vast liberal democracy work so well.

According to too many millennial's freedom and free speech are bad. They seem to believe that free speech is nothing more than the right to offend someone and because of that we should eliminate free speech because someone might be offended by what is heard and believed.

That personal freedom is nothing more than the right to make mistakes and screw up that the rest of society will have to pay for.

That capitalism and property rights are racist and selfish. Because African-Americans and Latino-Americans, haven't done as well as European and Asian-Americans economically in America and because of that capitalism is racist and unfair.

That allowing people to keep what they own and have earned simply by purchasing it with money they've earned, that is somehow selfish for people to be able to keep property for themselves. And as a result some people will have to go without because you have these selfish people keeping their own property and not sharing it with people who have little.

That Fidel Castro and Che Guevara were great men because they took on the man (so to speak) and that Tomas Jefferson is evil because he owned African slaves. Even in a time when almost all European men in America with means owned slaves. Forgetting the facts that Fidel and Che were both Marxist-Communists who killed people simply because they disagreed with them politically and would lock people up simply for dissenting.

As I said the opposites are being taught to young people in and outside of college in America. And one can just say: "Hey, look at those stupid young people. Don't worry, they'l grow up and be forced to go to work in order to support themselves and learn how the real world works, even if they end up bashing the American system that they've benefited from their whole lives."

One could say that young people being so ignorant is not important  and perhaps these Millennial's as they reach their forties and fifties at worst will end up being like these fake Hollywood Socialists like the Jane Fonda's and Mike Moore's of the world, who end up bashing capitalism and freedom in general, even as they collect their millions and continue to take advantage of a system as they should, that they've benefited so much from.

The thing with socialism is that it's much easier to practice as long as you don't have to live with it. It's a much better system hypothetically than in practice and having to live with it. Because at the end of the day whether you're an Ayn Rand Objectivist-Libertarian, or a Marxist-Socialist, we're all Americans. And we all tend to want to be successful in life and live comfortably. I believe that is the best hope that we can have for the Millennial Generation at this point. 

The Open Mind With Richard Heffner: Milton Friedman: What is Actually Wrong With Socialism?

Source: Philosophy Insights- Professor Milton Friedman-

Source:The New Democrat

What is wrong with socialism? Where should I start? First I guess I'll tell you what actually seems to work about socialism in other countries and to a certain extent in America even. Even though America has more of a pragmatic progressive approach to social welfare, instead of the welfare state approach that you see in Britain and Scandinavia where their social programs are universal instead of just for people who truly need extra financial assistance in order to pay their bills.

But there's a flip side to what actually works about socialism in lets say Scandinavia to use as an example. If Scandinavia were a country instead of a region that includes Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, and even Iceland, if you include Iceland as part of this broader Nordic region of countries, Scandinavia would be one of the largest countries in the world, especially if you throw in Greenland, as far as territory. But with only twenty-five-million people which would make a fairly small country in population.

That is important because Sweden, Norway, and Finland, are all large countries as far as territory. Sweden is almost as big as Turkey as far as land and most people I believe don't realize that, but Sweden only has ten-million people and they're one of the wealthiest countries in the world as far as per-capita income and over living standards and there also one of the most socialist countries in the world as far as what their national government spend on their's people's behalf and the amount of money the Swedish Government spends on social welfare. Turkey on the other hand as over seventy million people making it a big country as far as land and population. Why is that?

Scandinavia is deep as far as natural resources including oil and gas. Norway and Sweden, are two of the largest oil and gas producers in the world and they both have very small populations, but with a lot of territory. Because of all the oil and gas revenue that Sweden and Norway bring in through taxation and interest their government's have in their energy sectors, they can afford to be very socialist with their people. Because even when they go through an economic downturn or slowdown they're still bringing in all of that energy revenue.

Unlike America which is third largest country in the world in territory, only behind Russia and Canada and with the fourth largest population in the world, we're still importing both oil and gas. We have to be more conservative with our tax revenue and expect our people to do more for themselves. Especially mentally and physically able people. That was my more positive take on socialism.

Again, what's wrong with socialism? Where should I start? How about with the presumptions that Socialists especially in America who want America to look more like Europe tend to make.

Socialists tend to look at the world as a big complicated place and that if you let all of the people enter the world with the freedom to make their own decisions, some people might make some really good decisions and do really well, but others and perhaps a lot of other people will make some really bad choices and do badly. Leaving the society having to pick up the slack for the people who haven't done well in the economy. So according to the Socialist you need to have a big centralized government with all of these progressive minded (as they see it) intellectuals in their central- planning offices, with the power to decide for everyone else most of those people they've never even met let alone know, what the people need to live well in their Socialist Utopia.

In other words a big welfare state there to take care of everyone so the people don't have to make impossible decisions like where to send their kids to school. Where to get their health care. Where to get their health insurance. Who should take cake of their kids when the parents are working. How people should fund their retirements. Pay for their family and medical leave. And these are just examples. Perhaps even where to live and where to work.

And then Socialists will say that, "hey, it works in Scandinavia and Europe, that means it will work in America as well." Socialists also tend to see the world as one place where there aren't many differences economically between one country or another and that if something seems to work in country, that means it will work everywhere else. Forgetting about cultural and economic factors from one country to another.

Like the fact that some countries have deeper natural resources than others. Or that Americans tend to be a lot more individualistic and freethinking than most other countries regardless of race and ethnicity and tend to want to do more for ourselves and expect more from ourselves than Canadians and Europeans tend to.

But I already explained why the democratic form of socialism seems to work in Scandinavia. Because you're talking about small countries as far as population, but large countries as far as territory and natural resources. Including natural resources to power their countries that so-called Progressives in America (Socialists in actuality) tend to hate and want to see outlawed in America. Like oil and gas.

The reasons why socialism wouldn't work in America, again has to do with cultural more than anything else. Americans by enlarge (except for Bernie Sanders and his supporters and others) like being able to take care of themselves and making their own decisions and then being rewarded for those decisions when they do well. You start taxing income and production at high levels and you'll get less of it. Because Americans will say why should they work so hard and be so productive when Uncle Sammy is going to take so much of my money from me to give to his nieces and nephews.

So what will happen is a lot fewer of Uncle Sam's nieces and nephews will work hard and be less productive, because their annoying greedy uncle is taking away from them so much of what they produce. Which will be a drag on economic and job growth because our economy won't be as productive. Also it would hurt our education because Americans will decide why should they work hard in school and get a good education when their Uncle Sam will pay them well not to work when they're out-of-school with generous Unemployment Insurance checks. Which is also what you get in Sweden.
Source:Philosophy Insights

The Atlantic: Kurt Anderson: 'The Cultural Factors Driving America's Departure From Reality'

Source:The Atlantic Magazine - Kurt Anderson, for The Atlantic. 

Source:The Daily Review 

“Kurt Andersen’s cover story “How America Lost Its Mind” argues that “being American means we can believe anything we want.” This is due to a combination of the new-age mentality born out of the 1960s that encouraged Americans to find their own truth and the internet age, which has allowed us to create communities that reinforce our beliefs. According to Andersen, the perfect manifestation of America’s journey away from reality is the election of Donald Trump. Read more in The Atlantic’s September 2017 cover story:The Atlantic." 

From The Atlantic

I don't want to make this whole piece about Donald Trump and even not most of it and perhaps just a lot of it, but the way I look at America's Departure From Reality (to paraphrase Kurt Anderson) is way I describe Donald Trump's approach to politics and broader approach to salesmanship. Which is that it's not what's true that's important to him, but what's believable. And not what's believable to most people or intelligent people. But what's believable to enough people for him to accomplish what he wants.

In 2016 that was the presidency and perhaps now it's just about what's believable to his base so his presidency doesn't completely go under water. Right now President Trump's approval rating is somewhere between 33-37% depending on what non-Fox News and Rasmussen poll you look at. Even Fox News has him in the low to mid forties right now. And you take President Trump's base away from him he's probably in the teens right now and perhaps low teens. Not the Republican Party but just his base in the Republican Party. Which is about 4-10 Republicans.

President Trump believes for him to stay alive and not risk being kicked out of office or asked to resign even with a Republican Congress, he has to have his base with him. And to for hat he has to tell them things that are believable to them even if the rest of the country knows what he's saying his complete garbage. (To be kind) Millions of Americans perhaps have escaped the real world to break from reality and perhaps live in so-called reality TV because their real world is too scary for them. But so does their own President.

America's break from reality of course didn't start with Donald Trump. Right now he's just the overwhelming benefactor of it. Where he now represents people who believe that Russia had nothing to do with the 2016 elections and didn't try to interfere in them. Even though President's own intelligent agencies have told him that Russia tried to hack our elections. Climate change is a hoax, 9/11 was an inside job, Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and I could go on. But America's break from reality has nothing to do with Donald Trump. Again he's just the biggest benefactor of it.

We now live in a country where Americans believe reality TV is actually real and the people on these shows are like that in real-life. When in fact we now now (or at least some of us) that the cast members on those shows are encouraged by the producers of those shows to act out and be the biggest jerks they can and get into arguments with other cast members about nothing to draw the biggest ratings. Because conflict is what sells on TV.

Life in America can be tough and stressful and Americans sometimes need a break from that and be able to escape their own reality. Which is why we take vacations and a lot of us watch the tube and get online when we get home from work especially after we've completed everything we need to do that day. That's fine and I do these things myself. But it's when alternative reality takes over our lives and we start to live in those worlds and start seeing and hearing things that simply don't exist is where virtual reality becomes a problem and we look stupid as a result. Americans are only as powerful and free as we are educated and intelligent.

The smarter we are the freer and powerful we are because we'll make the right decisions for ourselves and people who depend on us. But the more virtual reality and so-called reality TV takes over our lives and we actually take those things seriously instead of the mindless entertainment that it is (like pro wrestling) the dumber we become and the less free that we are as a people and country.