At you can just fuck off this completely sounds like parody of the proper channels position. And yet someone could be saying all of this and believe it's not a reprehensible pro-tyranny position, especially after Germany.
We have a deeply entrenched two-party candidacy, which is the ultimate outcome of any first-past-the-post electoral system. But yeah, the news networks won't even bother unless they're looking to spoil the election.
Voting for Libertarian is essentially abstaining. We're not going to get anyone except Trump or Clinton.
The way I see it (and I may be completely wrong in this) is that Clinton can be pressured by the lobbies. Some backed by corporate interests and some backed by the people, but she can be pressured by the system.
Trump can be manipulated. Much like George W. Bush, whose advisors learned that they just needed to be super-emphatic around Bush to get what they wanted, some advisors will figure out they just need to convince Trump that those people over there insulted him, and the way to show them is by passing this executive order.
And we're going to have the same problem, where shadowmen hold the power of the presidency, because the president is too much of an idiot to realize he's being manipulated. The last time we had massive war profiteering, mercenaries committing war atrocities, torture, burned spies and (so far) the most secret administration in history. Much of the crap blamed these days on Obama were Bush policies first.
So with Trump, yeah, I expect he'll be the new puppet. With Clinton, I think there's a chance she'll be an active participant in the conversation. I think she is aware enough to know who holds the cards.
There's actually a debate between early and late mergers (late mergers argue they're utilizing the most of the available lanes). What's weird is that computer models with high late-merging frequency actually speeds up the traffic throughput slightly.
Fair doesn't necessarily equate to efficiency when resources are dear (such as lane space before a closing lane). But then we want to make sure that everybody gets what they need.
That's why we still let people merge, late in the ending lane.
And it's one of the explanations for why IP owners hate pirates more than they like the profits they make from pirate activity. It gets worse since people often don't have a true idea of what is fair (e.g. often conflating legal for right) hence we even get gazillionaires believing they earned their wealth, IP trolls believing they deserve their profits and companies whose business model is exploiting legal loopholes being believed to provide a real service in proportion to their profits.
The virtue of a gun is that someone twice your size can't have his way with you, and that your rival's two buddies will think twice before backing his play.
It's not protection against a posse comitatus, unless you can muster one of your own. So no, our freedoms are not safe when our law enforcement are willing (eager, even) to gun down their fellow Americans.
They choose their culprits and then seek out evidence to convict them. When a suspect is acquitted, they assume he escape justice through a technicality. It doesn't even occur to them that they got the wrong guy in the first place.
They certainly don't re-open the case and look for other suspects.
So why do we regard acquittals as false and evasion, but regard convictions as absolute, enough that we can doom them to a heinously cruel penal system?
We need to completely change how we investigate, and then refine our forensic science accordingly.
Pirates and emperors: Our state policies are more monstrous than the crimes of those trapped in the system.
And we need to change our penal system to include the presumption we probably got the wrong guy and he's there to be reformed and contained, but doesn't necessarily deserve punishment.
Considering the magnitudes of idiocy done in the name of parenting, I can understand the arguments that there might be limits.
Considering that US culture seems to hate promiscuous girls and boys who don't fight (when outsized and outnumbered), I can understand an argument for a child's privacy rights being violated by his or her parents.
I got lucky, but I know people who didn't and there should be a vector for redress for them, and there isn't.
Lord is a position of power. In early feudalism they extorted the serfs by demanding tribute at swordpoint with a loose promise that they would defend them against other raiders. Only time and collusion with the clergy gave them legitimacy, but do imagine for an instant their vassals consented to rule.
The situation hasn't changed here. I agree, this man is criminal. But by there being no available legal redress, it dispells the notion that anyone in that county lives under the rule of law.
Instead, they live by the whimsy of those in power. Call them what you want, but they are essentially feudal lords with the power of pit and gallows behind them.
And still, no one consents to their rule, but instead capitulates under their sollerets.
I've been hearing sentiments like this a lot that we get the government we deserve and if we're taking into consideration a human sense of justice, that's bullshit. Those of us without power are still trying to work out just government. It's just very prone to bugs and exploits.
The thief wasn't elected as a thief. He was elected as the best option available to do a job. We can't say rival candidates would be any better. The voting taxpayers we're not aware this guy was going to abuse this system. They barely comprehend that the system is so readily ripe for abuse via asset forfeiture. We're still shaken up about the notion that murderous police officers just don't go to jail. Ever.
The voters who put this guy in office deserve to pay the way a mouse deserves to be eaten by a cat (The cat out-detects, out-runs and out-fights the mouse by far). If you believe the natural order is what we deserve, that applies to everyone:
~ Every American buried in rubble by a terrorist got what they deserved.
~ Every innocent man, woman and child gunned down by law enforcement got what they deserved.
~ Every European Jew incinerated by the German purge got what they deserved.
~ Every Cambodian little girl taking dick as a trafficked sex slave is getting what she deserves
~ Similarly, by that same logic, every unprosecuted rapist, every gluttonous dictator, every escaped Nazi, every golden-parachuted executive and every slush-funded running-dog politician who sells out his constituents all get what they deserve.
It's not a just world.
But the only reason we know that is because we have a sense of what a just world looks like. (Exempli gratia, none of the above examples.)
People in power consistently abuse that power. The exceptions are rare.
We deserve better, and that outrage we feel is because we know that. We haven't worked out how to get the society we deserve. It may not even be possible. But we know that this isn't it. We know that in this society, deserve is an infinitesimal facter in what people get. We know we want something else. Almost anything else.
Perhaps you feel we should be taking more direct action. Only toppling tyrants takes time and energy, and costs more lives than we have to give. And each time we get it wrong there are new bosses same as the old bosses that require more spilled blood to overcome. There's a stong disincentive to do anything but lay low.
We may be resigned to hide for now, until an insurrection has a chance in Hell, but that isn't to say we deserve these circumstances. Otherwise we'd be teaching our kids that they're fucked, and they should be thankful for their lot as wage slaves. At least they're not trafficked sex slaves. We certainly wouldn't be lying to them about Anyone can be President! Even you!
No, we deserve better. Just because we don't know how to get it doesn't mean we deserve it less.