Okay, after much freeze-framing it appears the younger woman with the backpack is stalking the old couple who are bothering nobody, grabs his shoulder from behind and nothing is really determinable after that. So she is guilty of an unprovoked assault against an elderly guy who is clearly handicapped but may have still managed to bump or push her away as a reflex to defend his wife and himself from an unseen attacker in an out-of-control violent crowd of protestors. As with every Trump rally, the hired protestors sent by Dems are the only instigators of violence and the only ones shouting obscenities and starting fights. If I was walking through an unruly crowd like that with my wife and was grabbed from behind I'd likely have killed the attacker simply out of reflex. She sought out and chased down the most vulnerable people there and attacked them. She really needs to do some serious jail time before she hurts someone else.
It is of my belief we are past the point of redemption. So any effort to make things better will just prolong the inevitable and make it worse. Its not that we need a new system, its that we are being bamboozled by the current one.
The "racist deplorable" was an elderly man who couldnt keep his balance. The "victim" seemed like an annoying bitch who was looking to get punched.
You missed my point, which was that some system other than the American system isn't guaranteed to be better - in fact it's highly likely to be worse, based on human history so far. barfo
Actually as things evolve" its likely to be better. 120 years ago, people thought horses were the best way to travel and any other method would be inconceivable
Free markets are better. When our markets were free, we built railroads and highways and airports and auto industry and airplane industry and electricity and skyscrapers. Now we build twitter. The definition of insanity is to keep making it worse, somehow believing it will get better.
Some would say that a lot of those were either subsidized by or entirely paid for by government, not by 'free markets'. barfo
The railroad barons put up enormous sums of money. The government shouldn't own land in the first place. I 'm not sure what the government did to build the Empire State Building. Or Ford Motors. Or the Wright Brothers. Or Thomas Edison. Go ahead and make something up.
Whatever you think should be the case, the actual reality is that the government did own land, and did contribute it to incentivize the build-out of the rail system. I notice you didn't mention how the free market caused highways and airports to be built. Some of those are indeed free enterprise. Some of them are people, not sure the free market builds people. As for Edison, though, ever hear of the Rural Electrification Act? At least Trump only wants to take us back 50 years. You want to take us back 100 years (or more). barfo
JP Morgan was basically the govt before Teddy Roosevelt took office....it may have been a free market but Rockefeller, JP Morgan, Carnegie, Vanderbilt and Hearst pretty much had monopolies until they went after each other. Not really until Ford did we see that sort of success from the ordinary hard working citizen
Right, Libertarians believe the free market is good because it allows for the market to determine things. You know, like monopolies! The market works REALLY well when there's no competition for a product, right? Oh wait, the extreme irony of libertarianism is that without government regulation of industry there IS no competition because eventually a single competitor can simply out compete, buy, or in other ways put their competition out of business which of course is bad for the consumer! I in fact lean libertarian, but generally find myself arguing with them on ideological grounds. When taken to it's ideological extreme it gets quite crazy, because in reality there are true needs for both private and public sectors; they compliment each other well, and do things better than the other. Anyway my favorite Monty Python skit really hits the nail on the head with Libertarianism:
Sure. FDR instituted his 3-letter programs and agencies and it's take decades to get to the point it is now - bankrupt.
We haven't had true free markets, now, have we? They were just free-er. The Carnegie foundation cured polio. Standard Oil built the aqueducts - nationwide. OK, pipes to carry oil, but of a similar scale. Carnegie's and then JP Morgan's steel industries built the golden gate bridge and the empire state building, as well as most of NYC and Chicago and ... But of course, government and private sector partnerships have been great. Corporations get protections from their competitors by the government. They pay good money for it. Replacing monopolies with a government monopoly is no better - in fact worse. Have fun at the DMV next time you go. Or dealing with the IRS in a tax dispute. A monopoly might be a barrier to entry for competitors, but it creates opportunity anyway. Whatever happened to the company with the buggy whip monopoly? As a Libertarian, I am not an anarchist. I do believe there is a role for government in society. I just don't think they should be picking winners and losers, favoring certain businesses over others, subsidizing any private venture, etc. We need police and fire and courts and printed money and military to protect us, etc.
