Yes

So, in one corner, Rep. Greene of the Christian White Supremacist Right, and in the other corner, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez of the Urban Neo-socialist Left.
A prime example of why I despise politics.  Neither of these representatives has a political philosophy rooted in reason, in my opinion.  Modern politics is that way- amoral, collectivist, with a blatant disregard for individual rights.  Neither of these should be the voice of the future of American politics.

Greene is far worse; anyone who supports treasonous activity directly is about as bad as you can get. 

As America prepares to certify our next President, a large band of hooligans have taken upon themselves to storm the Capitol.  This in the name of Freedom?  Are these hooligans striving to look for their Fuhrer?  As a footnote, something like this happened in fiction- in Atlas Shrugged.

Okay, Joker. If you mean also Republicans who wanted to "stop the steal" as well, sure, everyone got what they deserved in the end (I think all of Congress is pretty responsible for the overall distrust throughout America). But to correct anything in the future, this is bad. 
"There are goblins on Mars that study Hegel's dialectics" is metaphysically possible, but without any kind of evidence to say that this claim is true, it is arbitrary. You need something in reality, something observable, not just possible stories you came up with.
This is not a valid way of thinking. You need to make a connection with the past event in a causal way, not just merely correlations. I don't care what you provide, you just need to provide something. 
Then hop to it, make the connections with reality that you can observe. 
Partial evidence is fine. If I doubted that she had evidence, I would say that her claim was arbitrary. If it was a conversation, I would do the same as with you: I would ask for some more evidence. And she would provide it. She would never mention the word hunch. Problem solved. All you have to do is the same thing, but give me some verifiable concrete evidence. Some observation to work with about this event. 
I can understand if you don't want to explain all this in the first post you made. But now I am asking. 
This is completely subjective. This is not evidence. I don't have trouble believing this, so it proves nothing. 
This is not evidence either. Even if something is stupid, it is nothing to do with if it's important. Give me something somebody said or did in this case. 
 

Yes, but someone got killed. Who cares about what the "experience" of the representative is. This was violence, encouraged by "our" leader. And as Trump once predicted, he will get away with it. I'll grant him that.

I have a hunch that this will turn out to be a false-flag operation done by Antifa people, sort of like the attempted kidnapping of that governor a while back. The press went on and on about that, remember? Until when the perpetrators were discovered to be associated with Antifa, at which point the press suddenly fell silent...
This move was probably designed to intimidate Republicans out of objecting to the electoral votes of states where fraud turned the election. The Democrats are already giving the "shame on you Republicans" speeches, as if the invasion of the Capitol was caused by Republican objections. "See what kind of behavior your objections are encouraging?" they seem to be saying.
Trump never asked for anyone to do anything like this. There is nothing to protest yet -- the process hasn't even played out yet and, without interference, could conceivably have come out Trump's way. There is no reason for Trump to have interfered with it, or to have encouraged anyone else to -- and there is every reason for the Democrats to have done so.
And yet, we hear again that "Trump's rhetoric" is to blame. But Trump isn't the one who has been saying "Burn it all down"...
Funny how calling out fraud and trying to investigate it allegedly destroys democracy and undermines the system -- but committing the fraud in the first place is apparently OK. Obviously the honorable thing for the Republicans to do is to drop all their objections and allow the Democrats to get away with it (sarcasm).

A silver lining is that this is an obvious example of what not to do for anyone who's actually interested in freedom and the legitimate rule of law.

As America prepares to certify our next President, a large band of hooligans have taken upon themselves to storm the Capitol.  This in the name of Freedom?  Are these hooligans striving to look for their Fuhrer?  As a footnote, something like this happened in fiction- in Atlas Shrugged.

As America prepares to certify our next President, a large band of hooligans have taken upon themselves to storm the Capitol.  This in the name of Freedom?  Are these hooligans striving to look for their Fuhrer?  As a footnote, something like this happened in fiction- in Atlas Shrugged.

Your response is interesting, to say the least.  But I do not agree that joining the military is, in itself, highly immoral.  What would be immoral, if not illicit, is a country's use of the military to initiate force and violence against another country.  Our military is supposed to be prepared to defend our nation against the initiation of force and violence against us.  In that regard, just joining the military is, in fact an honorable move in that the military person then trains to defend against enemies.  Also, the personnel in our armed forces are not "volunteers" in the sense that they are paid, given essentials (food, clothing, shelter, etc.), and even "perks" such as the GI bill of rights which helps pay for their higher education.  A nation whose basis is the socio-economic system of capitalism requires an armed force to defend its citizens' rights.

At this point, there is no immoral draft on behalf of the elected representatives, leaving free the choice to join or not.
As an American, the line from Atlas Shrugged " If a man dies fighting for his own freedom, it is not a sacrifice: he is not willing to live as a slave; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of man who's willing." would suggest a different moral conclusion.
Are your expressions cited here an example of you fighting for your own intellectual freedom, Xiti?

If anyone is still interested in the goings on at the Ayn Rand Institute, Yaron Brook has come out strongly in support of Biden for President: 
Yaron Brook Show
The article “Biden is Our Only Hope” comments on this in detail.  You can find it by  searching on
biden yaron "christian right"
using Google (Bing and DuckDuckGo won’t work); “christian right” must be in quotes.
You will learn that after Brook’s comments it became known that Leonard Peikoff had donated $250 to Trump’s campaign.  So far Brook hasn’t commented on having once said that no “Trump apologist” should call himself an Objectivist.
 

White supremacists pop up in strange places wherever they might think they could persuade someone to join their side, and the types of people that I've seen go to those protests are stupid enough to fall for it. I don't know how many of them think that the virus was created in a lab as a weapon, or think that the flu is more dangerous, but they are there. Not to mention that libertarian types have a terrible time at condemning racism, so white supremacists and certainly white nationalists fester quite easily there.
 

OK, so maybe I'm being a "Monday morning quarterback", but having a team of pandemic response scientists on the ready to harness, then develop strategies to deal with a virus might have caused governments not to have to take drastic action in a vain attempt (my opinion) to "protect" vulnerable elders, those with compromised health issues, etc., into quarantine.

Sonic & Knuckles,
You're covering a lot of topics; you might consider breaking it down a little, or searching for threads related to each of these areas of discussion. Nonetheless, I'll take a few of your questions and try to answer briefly.
work is generally being replaced by machines. Yes, labor intense work is often replaced by machines. Machines increase productivity. Increased productivity results in greater output at a lower cost. Net result: More people will be able to afford the goods and services that, at present, only the higher income market can afford. Services made more efficient through high-speed communications are another improvement.
So many jobs are going to be gone in the next decade. I think this is going to make the distortions and socio-economic gaps we already have in society much worse. What you are describing has been a concern since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, especially in mass manufacturing. The blacksmiths and candlestick makers were taking a terrible beating back then, but it certainly wasn't the end of the world. You are right to be concerned about being "left behind." I think every young person, (and for that matter, middle-aged people stuck in jobs of the aging industries) ought to seriously plan for the reality of mechanization in the Digital-Age. Objectivist ethics requires one to face the facts, and to deal with them accordingly. As for society getting worse, I think the worst will affect those at the economic bottom, as it always has.
The changing ways of doing business like watching a movie or shopping, and the effects of business like concentration of ownership of media with newspapers and (formerly) locally-managed TV/radio stations is creating a scenario in the private market that can be analogous to centralization or Communism in many ways. If the media outlets are privately owned, it certainly wouldn't qualify as Communism, which means that the media are a monopoly owned and operated by the government; so long as the internet stays relatively unregulated, centralization of information is unlikely. I would say the greater problem is the reaction of the general public to hysteria inflamed by the media. As long as there is a market for entertainment and information products, be they physical or digital on-demand, those products will be produced. Ask anyone with a vinyl record collection.
As for your neurological condition, I have no comments. I hope the best for your improvement, and by all means, spend some time reading some of the works of Ayn Rand.

I've always thought that Rand made wayyyyyy too strong of a claim here. I agree that it was a violation of property rights, but I think the overall violation of property rights against black people especially was reduced. The worst breach? Hardly. Besides, I don't think similar laws have become more oppressive. Perhaps more petty, but not more oppressive.
And anyway, I don't think it reflects an erosion of property rights. Rather, even though it doesn't reflect an improvement of property rights, I think it pushes people to think about property rights more. But it doesn't change the dynamics of anything. It's a confused notion of property rights (that the public should have a say with any property that interacts with the rest of the public), but it's nothing like actual erosion of property rights. 
I don't know what you mean that white racists have been victimized the most. The most I guess because they are the only ones being racist? I don't know what you mean that antidiscrimination laws have disproportionately affected white people. With affirmative action, sure, but that's not what you're talking about. 
Part of my thinking is that this is a symptom of fear that laws will necessarily get worse. Fear that the laws will get worse because of foreigners distorting the national culture. Except, it's not property rights they are reacting to. They are reacting to an implementation of public property rights that they don't like, but they would approve laws that violate the property rights of others. After all, people like this are anti-capitalists. Property rights aren't even on their mind. In a way, actions like this, murdering people, is a far greater erosion of property rights. 
I think property rights have gradually improved since the Civil Rights Act. So I don't think the erosion of property rights explanation works here. I think it's more about identity politics, which is the primary thing that will erode property rights.
You would be right though as far as laws that are created because of identity politics. But not all antidiscrimination laws are created for that reason.

What is disturbing is a world that looks at this staged event as something that can be understood on its own merits. If it is reason and rationality that are to be embraced, then ignorance and irrationality are the default conditions that represent the state of an unachieved human stature.
Even in a world where the embrace of reason and rationality are the norm, there will be aberrations from that norm. At the age of 29, Ayn Rand stated in her journal
As to psychology—learn whether the base of all psychology is really logic, and psychology as a science is really pathology, the science of how these psychological processes depart from reason. This departure is the disease. What caused it? Isn't it faulty thinking, thinking not based on logic[?]
By the age of 55, she had set up three essential categorizations for man dealing with the conceptual level of consciousness. The producer achieved this human stature. The stature she described of the other two categorizations in For The New Intellectual dealt with thinking, not as a means of perceiving reality, but as a means of justifying their escape from the necessity of rational perception.
The Churchchrist shooter's manifesto is hardly a man writing the Constitution of the United States as protection against the actions of the irrational that may violate the rights of those living peaceably.
In medicine, diseases are identified as a means of organizing, conceptually, the various ones that exist, and further identifying which are treatable by what means.
When a malignancy such as Brenton Tarrant develops in the "body of humanity", until a cure or a method of preventing such a malady from occurring in the first place exists, the approach need be one to excise or isolate the anomaly in such a way as to protect the "body of humanity" from the ravages of such a disease.
 

What appears to be missing from these woe-begotten arguments about abortion is the right of the woman to her body.  Government has no right, moral or otherwise, to legislate what a woman should do with her body.  The decision to give birth or abort is hers and hers alone.  So debate as you may about this issue, but never forget that government trying to restrict abortion is, at the very least, government  laying yet another layer of regulation on individuals, and yet another wanton, illicit restriction on our lives.

i live in Connecticut.  Like the rest of the nation, Connecticut is a mixed socioeconomic system, that is, blending government control and capitalism.  One aspect of this mixed system that I detest is the ability for state governments to pass legislation which places restrictions on trade.  One such restriction is a law meant to prohibit automobile manufacturers from selling direct to consumers.  Such law was meant to ensure that consumers buy their vehicles through dealerships.  Tesla wants to sell its autos directly to consumers through its company-owned showrooms.  Already,  Tesla has gotten in trouble for selling cars from a gallery in Greenwich. 
https://www.courant.com/business/hc-br-judge-rules-against-tesla-in-greenwich-gallery-suit-20181210-story.html
The law that caused this ruling goes against the grain of free-market capitalism.  Yet the auto dealers lobby is a strong one, staunchly defending this anti-trade law.
So much for the bromide foisted by many right-wingers that America is a capitalist country!

For those who might read the thread later, I'm posting this thread shortly after the Vegas mass shooting in October, 2017. Every media analyst in the western world is searching for the shooter's "motives", and looking for them everywhere, except on their own news channels, and the front page of their own news sites or papers. That's your motive: the world's attention is focused on this dull, unimportant idiot who could've never commanded attention any other way except through the most unimaginative, copycat act of murder in the history of crime.
Sorry to the victims, it's a tragedy for them and their friends and families, but, as far as everyone else is concerned, nothing notable happened in Vegas. Some people were killed by some moron. No special achievement, no special misfortune in the overall scheme of things. Just some personal tragedies. They happen. To everybody, eventually.
And covering it as if it's the most important event in the world, for the next week, will benefit no one. Especially not the victims, or the victims of future copycats. If it was at least interesting, like Ted Bundy going on a seduction/torture/murder/necrophilia spree, or Charlie Manson and his exploits, then there would be some reason for the coverage. It would still be despicably exploitative, but it would be a reason: it would be telling the audience something they've never heard of before.
There's no reason for covering these mass shootings to this extent. They're not interesting, they're not even frightening (at least not to anyone with an ability to evaluate the danger rationally), it's just the same coverage, every single time some loser does the same exact thing (knowing that that's what it takes to get into the headlines).

The Soviets, and now the Russians, have been trying to influence U.S. politics for decades, primarily by influencing public opinion. And, not just U.S., they did the same all over the world. The most blatant way was to helping professors and intellectuals who were favorable to socialism. They would invite them to see how well their revolution was going, they would provide them with "data" about how well their economy was doing. It seems unbelievable now that Samuelson's widely used Economic text book kept projecting that the U.SS.S.r would surpass the U.S. in a decade a two... and continued to predict this through years of revisions. 

Another thrust was the aiding of anti-war and anti-nuke movements all over the world. Along with that, they always had an eye out for disaffected groups in the west, and would help fringe groups if they were railing against the political system of the west. It did not matter if the ideology of such groups was counter to their own. In the eyes of a Russian KGB/FSB officer, a fringe group with a religious agenda or even with a radically free-market agenda is a potential asset. There's potential for such groups to spread dissent while never actually succeeding too much; but there are all sorts of related advantages in using local groups for cover and to lend an domestic legitimacy to other activities that may otherwise appear suspiciously Russian. 
In the post Soviet era, semi-private organizations like RT work with this as their dual agenda. Social media opens another avenue. From their premises, the Russian FSB would be stupid not to use this new media, when it is available, and becoming the primary source of news for so many U.S. voters. It's also a place they have a slight advantage, because they are quicker to censor things they do not like. SO, they set up organizations to publish on social media, for a U.S. audience. Of course, "publish" means something different from traditional media. On FB, you have to create sock-puppet accounts, build networks of friends, build cred, and then start to send out the propaganda. 
In the last election, the Russians seemed to have preferred Trump over Hillary, but that is in keeping with their usual playbook of disrupting the establishment. I doubt the potential policies of the two candidates was a big deal. And, apart from social media, they also influenced people in Trump's campaign, promising them dirt on Hillary, and possibly delivering. 
U.S. Politics:  None of this implies that Trump won because of Russian influence. Is it possible that he did? Yes, of course. Given the razor thin margin by which Trump won the election (only certain states matter in this calculus), and given how big a role Hillary's negatives played, it is possible that a small percentage in swing states might have voted differently. Even those voters themselves would not be able to tell you; so, it is an impossible question to answer either way. The only thing that makes it "possible" and plausible is the thin margins and the nature of the positives/negatives.
It is really bad strategy -- from the Democratic perspective -- to think that Trump won because of the Russians. If they truly think this, they won't address their actual weaknesses: the things that explain the bulk of the difference in votes. In my judgement, influential mainstream Democrats do not believe this. They understand that  people wanted to chuck them out, and that they had a candidate whose core message was "more of the same". However, most Democrats are willing to spread this narrative because it is the only explanation that many party faithful will buy. This is short-sighted, because their best long-term solution is to re-position themselves a bit, for which they need to explain the real reason they failed. Instead, they seem to be hoping that the country will tire of the buffoon in the White house in 4 years. it's a gamble; but they've been in this game for a long time, and understand how difficult it is to change their members' ideology.
Back to the Russian menace: At heart, the problem with the country is the ignorant and confused American voter, who has mostly bought in to statism as a theory of politics. With such voters being the vast majority, they'll keep voting for statist politicians and cheering statist laws. Whether it's Trump or Hillary, ... that's not going to make any fundamental changes to the country.

I won't waste my time challenging this statement. It should be clear to every Objectivist why it's monstrous in its dogmatic dismissal of rationality and individual moral responsibility.

On a separate note, it also strikes me as extremely stupid to drive dangerous ideologies underground. That's when they turn from obnoxious loudmouths into violent insurgents. And this bunch might just prove better equipped for mass killing than the Islamists. So I really wouldn't poke the bear. The guy who drove his car into the lefty agitators was just some idiot who flunked basic training. Someone who didn't would go about mass murder a lot more efficiently.
Just leave them alone, let them protest and march, expose and shame politicians like Trump who show any sympathy for their cause, and that will be that.

As a significant phenomenon, yes, it is mainly entrepreneurs and businessmen. People who wish to do politics or administration do not leave France, it is the country dreamed for it.
Actually a supporter of mixed economy, you should say. Who is, however, a little more pro-capitalist than what France has known so far (especially from a center-left guy). He's a bit like Tony Blair...
But France has never known her Thatcher.

How the fact that french brains, in business (entrepreneurs), have actually left the country could explain Macron's success? It's seems a poor explanation from someone who doesn't know this country...