Michael Stuart Kelly

Root Admin
  • Content count

    25,243
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About Michael Stuart Kelly

  • Rank
    $$$$$$
  • Birthday 06/09/1952

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Michael Stuart Kelly
  • Articles
    Initial Understanding of Islam on Fundamental Intellectual Issues Thoughts on the 12 Steps and Self-Forgiveness Why the Tolerance and Support? Atlantis in the Wilderness A Hunting Story Moral Perfection Like a Lamb to the Slaughter Letter to Madalena ... An Homage to the Value of Valuing Going Home... A Few Thoughts on Family Values Where Principles and Rights Break Down The Stigma of Addiction Book Review on an Addiction Fraud - A Million Little Pieces Charmed on a Raw Night The Nature of Private Written Correspondence – The Sciabarra Smear Online Objectivist Mediocrity The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth - Part 2 - Moral Ambivalence The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth - Part 3 - Brotherhood of Hate The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth - Part 4 - Rand's True Value The Virtue of Silliness (w/Kat)
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

57,950 profile views
  1. William, Let me counter now. Maybe today's polls are non-prognostic in the main, but that's not the way the media plays them. Nor does the media play them prognostically. The media uses polls to influence public opinion to vote for this candidate or that. They are propaganda tools and nothing more. True? Made-up? Good methodology? Pulling numbers out of the pollster's ass? Frankly, it doesn't matter in terms of the media. Propaganda is propaganda. The media does not have interest in correct facts and truth right now. It does have an interest in plugging for one candidate or another and giving the appearance of something else. I agree that when we get close to the election, some of the polls will become more serious. But even then, they will reflect those who answer the pollsters, not necessarily how people in general will vote. Actually, I expect a bit of both down near the clutch, so I expect them to get a bit better accuracy-wise, but still not be very good. I would love to be wrong. Michael
  2. Merlin, I just put it in my Netflix DVD queue and pushed it to the top. I have to first watch Altered States, which I got because it was written by Paddy Chayefsky, and return it before they will send me the new DVD. Unfortunately, it's not on Netflix streaming nor is it included with my Amazon prime without an extra charge. If it sounds like I'm a cheapskate, I am. Eye in the Sky looks good. I look forward to seeing it. Michael
  3. Peter, When I was a hardcore crack addict, I sure as hell did not cut back because of money. Ditto for my alcoholic stage. I did not get into burglary, but I sold a lot of precious things from my past to get drugs, and, I'm ashamed to say, at times some stuff belonging to other people I knew. I always owned up and promised not to do it again. As if that meant something back then... Nowadays drug dealers are cutting heroin with elephant tranquilizer, I kid you not, and it is killing off customers, yet the customers keep on coming for more. They can't get enough of the stuff (that is until they are six feet under). Michael
  4. I caught a cute meme out there on the Interwebs about drugs and it deserves to be retyped so it can be searchable. There was no image on the original meme, so nothing is lost. Being a meme, we have to credit it to an anonymous source until further notice. It goes like this: Michael
  5. William, I think I read this kind of mocking of doubters coming from a Brit a few months ago about the Brexit polling. Or was that someone here in the US about the Republican primaries polling? Odd... I'm feeling the weirdest sensation of déjà vu... Michael
  6. Peter, What is a legitimate pollster? Michael
  7. Brant, Over to the right at top (a little down underneath your name) is a button marked "Unread Content." That only gives you one entry per thread no matter how many new posts are on it. Burying solved. Boom! Michael
  8. I just saw Anderson Cooper's interview with Trump. Cooper pushed Trump hard. For those who like to look at words instead of deeds, listen to Trump say clearly illegals will have to leave the US and come back in to get legalized. Also, his first priority toward fixing this problem will be to get rid of the bad illegals and build the wall. Kinda like what I said he thinks. He doubled down on "Hillary is a bigot, too." I've read around about this and I came across a thought I think is hilarious--and true, for that matter. When Clinton went after Trump as a racist, this would have worked in the past. It would have eroded his support like nothing else. But by Trump calling her a bigot, too, he turned it into a food fight. This is very similar to what goes on in reality TV. And that's the point. What's more, I think he did it on purpose. Hell, people are arguing over Picklegate right now. Clinton opened a pickle jar on Kimmel the other night to prove she was healthy and now there's a controversy all over the friggin' place--one the size of the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories--over whether this was staged or real. You have to see it to believe it. And unless you are a monk, you've seen it. That is pure pop entertainment, not politics. Back to racism. What is mudslinging and calling each other racist by exaggeration other than food-fight on reality TV? Trump could have become defensive and outraged and postured with dignity or "taken the high road" or whatever when she called him a racist. Instead he happily joined the mudslinging and moved the discourse from the presidential campaign to a reality TV battlefield. The rules are different there. Nobody takes a food-fight seriously, but it's fun as hell to watch. Trump knows how to make reality TV a success. Clinton doesn't. Her time was when the media had gatekeepers and she had a talented pitch man out front (Bill). And that time has passed. Michael
  9. Peter, Having lived in Brazil and gone through a Brazilian form of immigrant control, I can tell you how Trump's model will play out with about 99% degree of accuracy for, say, Mexicans (but this includes other friendly countries). I base this on what I saw in Brazil. I am making an assumption that the law will be similar, I know, but I believe human nature will ultimately guide the law. I predict it will be something like this: For undesirable illegals (gang members and so on), the law will be used to get rid of them. Knowing Trump, this will be effective and even brutal at times. For more desirable illegals (like the peaceful productive ones who have been here 20 years, etc. etc. etc.), there will be some hoops to jump through (fines, paperwork, Mexican police records check, etc.), a trip to the other side of the border, a small waiting period (a day or two), then legal reentry into the USA (yay! ). Within the Mexican immigrant community itself, a documentation and trip facilitator industry will pop up out of nowhere. Prices will vary all over the place. After illegal aliens see the process work a few times, they will line up in droves to become regularized. Some ONG's will pop up to help them. Thus, most of the issues will get settled in a simple manner, but there will be some that will be messy. Maybe a few unjust situations will slip through the cracks. But many of those will be solved with recourse. That's about it. I believe most of the politicians talking about the impossibility of Trump's deportation force, busting families apart, and all kinds of melodramatic grandstanding know all this, too. These elitists just want cheap labor (Republicans) or a government handout dependent voting block (Democrats). So they say fixing it within the law is impossible and bloviate all over everyone. Michael
  10. Geoff, I have always understood Trump's words on immigration in terms of a goal based on different processes. This includes the constantly hammered context of "according to the law." (How many times does he have to say, "Immigrants will be able to enter through the big beautiful gate in the wall... [dramatic pause]... legally," before the mainstream media grok the concept of legality rather than bigotry as his frame?) Even O'Reilly asked Trump recently about his deportation force. And Trump had to correct him that he doesn't plan on a deportation force. Do you want to know why Trump supporters are not affected by his different wording and the media spinning the hell out of it? It's because of the "say versus do" thing I have talked long and hard about. We (meaning Trump supporters) know that Trump will do what he says. If he has to do it one way or has to do it another, he will do it. And what does he want to do? What is his overall goal in this case? Fix the immigration mess in a manner where American law is respected. That's what he is about, not destroying the lives of anyone. If anything he considers goes toward that goal, he will think about it, consult about it, entertain it, etc. If anything goes against that goal, he will talk bad about it. This is why he can sometimes be for and against the same thing in a short period. You have to see which lens and context he is looking through. We (meaning Trump supporters) also know that most of the other politicians will not do what they say on immigration and they have no intention of doing it. They just want to sound reasonable while they fool the public and, basically, attend to the interests of special interests (and take their cut, let's not forget that part ). This is why Trump can look at the possibility of treating differently the productive peaceful illegal aliens who have been in the US for 20 years or so and it doesn't affect Trump voters, whereas Jeb Bush can say this was all his idea and nobody listens. They know Trump is looking things over to the fix the problem, whereas Jeb is sugar-coating an agenda that goes against what they want. The words may be similar, but the results in reality from these two men are just about as different as they could be. Trump supporters see this. Now, I mentioned above the idea of goal and different processes. What does that mean? Well, if you are the mainstream press, the goal is to make sure illegals have to leave the country, and to them that means the main process of jackbooted thugs busting down doors of helpless families to cart them off in wagons. But that's not the way a man like Trump works. He knows concepts like priority, context, trades and deals, and so on, and they are not just words to him. So, using the goal of fixing the immigration mess in a manner where American law is respected, Trump starts with a wall and getting the bad illegals out. That has to be done first for the rest to work. Then he will evaluate and figure out the best way to deal with the other illegals, but the frame will always be to get them within this goal of obeying American law. One thing I believe is fixed in his mind. As he said to Anderson Cooper recently, the only pathway to legalization is for an illegal alien to leave the country and come back in legally. Regardless of how he will do it, and I expect there to be many forms, I doubt he will ever change that part of the process. Sarah Palin last night said all this in a different manner, but it was the same conceptually. And she said it in a manner that is so clear, even Media Matters and Mitt Romney will not be able to say they don't understand. Michael
  11. Korben, Since you originally posted Hillary Clinton's tweet with her ad showing the KKK supporting Trump, let me repost it to make a point. Looks like Clinton left out Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon, Will Quigg, who supports her and says so on the video below. This is from a KKK rally last March in Anaheim, CA. (Read about it here, which is where I got the video from.) Michael
  12. Rand Paul on supporting Trump: Michael
  13. Korben, I don't think we have to worry too much. Look at this video by Joel Pollack from Breitbart. I actually met Joel a few times. Kat bamboozled me into working on his campaign when he ran against Jan Schakowsky here in Illinois (and lost). He's a nice guy. Kat liked him because he plays guitar and sings. (She also like his politics. ) btw - Joel's about as Jewish as they come. Even Alan Dershowitz came out and campaigned for him back then. But... but... but... one of the characteristics of "alt right," according to those who use this term disparagingly like Clinton does, is that it is an anti-Semitic ideology. I guess someone should tell Joel he's in the wrong place at Breitbart. Michael
  14. The following video is just for people who like looking behind the scenes to talk about it later in life. Right now, it's almost in real time, so that's the main value. Alex Jones is in heaven that Hillary Clinton singled him out in her speech to say bad things about him. Alex gets a little too over the top a few times, but then again, he does that a lot. Michael
  15. Korben, Clinton never would have mentioned the name, Alex Jones, for anything, but she did in her speech today. I think her playbook was to paint Trump as a racist in a drip drip drip fashion, but I suspect her people's internal polling has them in a panic. After all, Trump has started appealing to African American and Latino votes in a pro-active way and, from the noise, he is making some headway. That's the only reason I can think of for this Hail Mary Hillary pass. I think the pro-Clinton media is going to push this race-baiting strategy a bit, but then--I speculate--it will fizzle into nothing except a random snarl. Maybe I'm wrong, but on this one, the media stands to lose audience big-time. I don't think they can paint a person as a racist and make it stick when he is surrounded by so many leaders within the black and Latino communities, leaders who are now singing praises of Trump. I have heard Trump will be speaking in black venues in a couple of weeks or so. That should bury the racist form of attack. Expect to see speeches to Latino and women venues, too. Michael