• Announcements

    • Michael Stuart Kelly

      Evil emoticon   04/16/2016

      We now have a devil emoticon. Type colon, evil, colon, all together, then space. See an example by opening this message. Here's the example  .

Robert Campbell

VIP
  • Content count

    3,994
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About Robert Campbell

  • Rank
    $$$$$$
  • Birthday 07/31/1953

Previous Fields

  • Full Name Robert L. Campbell
  • Description I'm a professor of psychology at Clemson University.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://www.robertlcampbell.com
  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location South Carolina
  • Interests psychological theory, self-esteem, classical music, jazz, blues, music history

Recent Profile Visitors

16,121 profile views
  1. Indiana - Place Yer Bets!!

    Adam, Looks like you're going to be pretty close, on the Republican side. Which effectively means that Trump will be the nominee. (I do think you've overestimated Kasich's percentage.) Bernie vs. Evita is currently very close to your prediction. Therefore, way too early to call. Robert
  2. Donald Trump

    Korben, My final paragraph was about the expedient stuff. You know, Donald Trump wanting to defeat Hillary Clinton. Donald says, "Hillary Clinton takes money from Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs." (Which, of course, is true.) Hillary says, "Donald Trump's campaign manager takes money from Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs." (Which is also true.) I'm actually wondering why Donald Trump would accept such an exposure. What the hell does any of this have to do with McCarthyism? Robert
  3. Donald Trump

    Korben, What you appear to be saying is that you don't actually care what Donald Trump's position is on anything. All that matters is that he is winning. That's great for Donald Trump, and it's pretty attractive to anyone who is, or will be, on his payroll. What does it do for you? Robert
  4. Donald Trump

    Michael, Do you have anything to say about Viktor Yanukovych? You know, the politician who was Paul Manafort's client for 6 years, give or take... I suppose it could be that people who see Yanukovych fail to see you, and people who see you will fail to see him. Robert
  5. Donald Trump

    Michael, I won't ask you what sort of hate is driving you. But I am morbidly fascinated by your own account of your guy's tactics. Perhaps you can explain what he got—cheaply, of course—by giving Mitch McConnell $60,000 to deliver a punch in the nose to Matt Bevin and other Tea Party opponents of sitting Republican Senators. As for the Club for Growth story, what is your evidence for the Club for Growth people telling him he would never win without them? The chairman of the Club sent Corey Lewandowski a letter asking for $1 million, apparently after having met with Trump at Trump Tower. I believe the letter, because Trump produced it. What leads you to suppose that the rest of the story is any more credible than Donald's "perfect statistics" (20% unemployment in Wisconsin!) or his claim to have invented the tired slogan, "Common-sense conservatism"? Though it has occurred to me that you may not care whether it's true or not, as long as it helps Trump win. And he is winning in Indiana, which probably makes him the Republican nominee. Robert
  6. Donald Trump

    Why should any participant on this list take Fred Reed seriously? Robert
  7. Cruz Nuz

    Adam, Thank you for your frank answer. But where you got the notion that spelling his first name "Raphael" instead of "Rafael" is hiding his ethnicity, I haven't a clue. His last name is Cruz. Not Cross, not Croix, not Kreuz, not Croce. And he doesn't exactly go around pretending not to be of Cuban descent. I figured your constant repetition of "Rafael" was intended to tie Ted to his father, so as to brand him as a dangerous religious fanatic. Robert PS. If you're so concerned about candidates hiding their ethnicity, why haven't you taken points away from Donald Trump for not restoring the ancestral surname?
  8. Donald Trump

    The man nobody wants to talk about. None of the Trumpians hereabouts have shown much interest in Paul Manafort. Not even when he appears to contradict his boss: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/manafort-tells-rnc-trump-has-different-private-persona-n560186 He worked for Ronald Reagan once. He will insure Donald's triumph now. Leave it at that. The guy actually has a much more interesting résumé: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/paul_manafort_isn_t_a_gop_retread_he_s_made_a_career_of_reinventing_tyrants.html The author is a Leftist, formerly with the New Republic. So there are occasional obligatory shots (for instance, at Ronald Reagen's 1980 campaign, insinuating racist appeals without evidence). They don't matter, because he's done his homework. Paul Manafort didn't just work for Bob Dole (or for Jerry Ford against Ronald Reagan, before he worked for Reagan). He worked for Mobutu Sese Seko, Ferdinand Marcos, at least one dictator out of the dynasty that's ruled Equatorial Guinea, and Mohammad Siad Barré (the last dictator of Somalia). He worked for Viktor Yanukovych. Visited him many times, at the gilded palace mentioned upthread. Whenever I've brought up Yanukovych, he's been the client nobody wants to talk about. Forget about Donald Trump's alleged integrity here. Just focus on the expedient for a minute. Why would a guy who expects to be the nominee, running against Hillary Clinton, employ the services of a man who has accepted large sums from foreign dictators and Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs? The Clinton Slush Fund Foundation has accepted large sums from foreign dictators and Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs. Robert
  9. Donald Trump

    Sycophancy, thy name is... http://www.mediaite.com/online/coulter-trump-gave-best-foreign-policy-speech-since-washingtons-farewell-address/ I have never been an admirer of Ann Coulter. I have never bought one of her books. I often change channels when she is the next talking head. Her entire career has been built on cheap shots and mean-spirited remarks. Even with her training as a lawyer, I figure she has to practice them each morning in front of a mirror to stay in form. And, really, she should stick with the barbs. Enough people like them to bring her fame and money. She is embarrassingly bad at praise. Whenever she attempts it, she goes all sycophantic. She was all sycophantic for Mittens, four years ago. She's all sycophantic for Donald, now. Robert
  10. Donald Trump

    I see that Jon is not interested in netting out the principles expressed in Donald Trump's magnificent foreign policy speech. So let's try a simpler exercise. Here are two small portions: By the way, accepting the option to reformat the material gets rid of all the extra blank lines that Brant complained of. Of course, it also kills italics and bold (I restored them to the headers). Now, if France and Germany and Slovenia aren't putting sufficient resources into their respective militaries, what does President Trump do to make sure they commit their fair share? And how does he do it without further convincing them that they can't depend on the United States? This is just one stretch of the speech for which I cannot find a meaning that is noncontradictory. But I don't like Donald Trump. Surely those who admire him, and understand him far better than I, can find the noncontradictory meaning. Bonus item 1: Trump rips Obama for pulling the plug on missile defense systems for Poland and the Czech Republic. But wouldn't going ahead on those systems have contributed mightily to the very "cycle of hostility" with the Putinian empire that Trump deplores elsewhere in the speech? Bonus Item 2: Trump says, "Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and... will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon." Do you think that anyone, even the author of The Art of the Deal, can employ diplomatic means to get the Ruling Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his lieutenants to give up on getting nuclear weapons? If so, how? If not, are we to read this statement as a promise that a Trump administration will send American troops into war against Iran? Robert
  11. Donald Trump

    Michael, You say that you've kept on pointing to the sources that refute my arguments. In many cases, you haven't. You've either dropped the discussion, or just proclaimed that you see something with your own two eyes. If Donald Trump has in fact said any of the things about Social Security that you attribute to him, beyond it MUST BE PRESERVED and it WILL BE FULLY FUNDED, and he has done so during NTE 1, you should be able to find at least one interview (video, audio, text) and link to it. You are, after all, by far the greater expert on Donald Trump. Otherwise, the reasonable inference is that you're talking about your position on the matter, not his. Robert
  12. Cruz Nuz

    Adam, When I've asked Michael whether he really believes everything he says about Ted Cruz (which, taken seriously, would imply that Cruz should be run out of politics, no later than the end of his present term in the US Senate) he's insisted that he wants Cruz to stay in the Senate, where he can act as the faithful servant of President Donald Trump. How about you? Your rhetoric about Cruz routinely has a nastier tone, even, than Michael's. You seem to regard him with utter loathing. Do you think Ted Cruz should be run out of political office? If he has anything at all going for him, what is it? Another way to put it: If you had to choose between a US Senate with Mitch McConnell and without Ted Cruz, or with Ted Cruz and without Mitch McConnell, which would you prefer? Robert
  13. Donald Trump

    Michael, Isn't one of the selling points of interviewing politicians on TV precisely that viewers can see their faces as they talk? You know, because otherwise radio or podcasts would suffice? Robert
  14. Donald Trump

    Michael, First you said that you and I don't understand the political establishment the same way. The reason apparently being that I can't grasp what it is and you can. So I suggested that, if this is so, you must not be able to define the establishment, give clear examples of it, or explain it. Not, at any rate, to persons with my cognitive limitations (or my insidious and, to me, imperceptible ties to that establishment). You then turn around and give me instances of the establishment that, while kinda short on specifics, are in broad terms what I, too, consider instances thereof. Which doesn't exactly attest to my inability to grasp what it is. And you still haven't answered my questions about particular political actors. Establishment or anti-establishment? How do we know which they are? Is it possible for anyone, already on the political scene or in the media or in the commentariat, to be establishment one day and anti-establishment the next? If so, what are the indicia of this deep transformation? If the validity of your arguments really depends on whether Donald Trump wins recent and upcoming primaries; comes out on top in the contention for pledged and unplugged delegates; gets nominated at the Republican Convention; and wins in November... You could claim a lot of really wild stuff—much wilder than anything you've said about political establishments, their relation to Donald Trump, and the relative ability of Trump supporters and Trump opponents to understand and discern who belongs to one—and, given its pure dependence on Donald Trump winning or losing... then if Donald Trump is inaugurated on January 20, 2017, these claims will all be true. But this does lead me to wonder what will happen, if at any point in this sequence, Donald Trump loses. If he loses, will it suddenly then be the case that Mitch McConnell is part of the establishment, and Donald Trump sucked up to him? Whereas if Trump wins all the way to the White House, then McConnell was never part of the establishment—or, if he was, Donald Trump never sucked up to him? Robert
  15. Donald Trump

    Michael, You're not denying that this is a privilege. Nor do you seem to be claiming that it's a good idea, in general, to let candidates for high political office to give phone interviews to TV shows. For if that were the case, you'd be all for phone interviews from the non-Trumps of the world. I guess it's Le Droit du Donald. Robert