Donald Trump

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I had thought we Randian-types were supposed to be against this sort of thing.

David,

You really don't see the logical error in your statement?

When you choose the lesser of several evils in a situation where no other choice is possible, that does not mean you would choose evil if good were an alternative.

Of course I'm against that sort of thing. But look at the context. You cannot have it snow on a tropical beach in the summer no matter how much you like snow. You can wish for snow all you want to remain true to your values, but you can't have it on the tropical beach in summer. Ever.

If it were possible to elect a president where the ugly power stuff was not part of the inherent reality of the situation, you think my enthusiasm for Trump is something? You ain't seen nothing yet.

Alas, I prefer to deal with this election according to what I can change--in reality, not in some dream world of ideological purity to come 300 years down the road, if ever.

Why? Because I want to keep my leg and my head. Now. Not in 300 years.

But I'm not going to lie to myself about what that reality is. If I identify reality correctly, I will be able to discard the bad stuff when the opportunity avails itself. If I lie to myself or rationalize things to pretend I am morally superior or some other self-image problem, I will become complacent with the very things I oppose, but have to accept for the time being.

The least I can do right now is call stuff by its right name.

That may not seem like a lot, but believe me, clarity is a fundamental prerequisite of rationality.

Also, Trump lives according to quite a few values I resonate with: larger than life, productive, family values (albeit with a nasty lapse when his high state went to his head--but he cleaned it up well), hard work, excellence, etc. So even with the ugly power side, there is a lot of good to be seen when contemplating a Trump presidency. I hope he relies on this good side more than not when wielding government power.

Besides, it's fun to watch sanctimonious hypocrites go nuts. (Not you should you think I mean that, I'm talking in general.)

Michael

[PDS]

I had thought we Randian-types were supposed to be against this sort of thing.

David,

You really don't see the logical error in your statement?

When you choose the lesser of several evils in a situation where no other choice is possible, that does not mean you would choose evil if good were an alternative.

Of course I'm against that sort of thing. But look at the context. You cannot have it snow on a tropical beach in the summer no matter how much you like snow. You can wish for snow all you want to remain true to your values, but you can't have it on the tropical beach in summer. Ever.

If it were possible to elect a president where the ugly power stuff was not part of the inherent reality of the situation, you think my enthusiasm for Trump is something? You ain't seen nothing yet.

Alas, I prefer to deal with this election according to what I can change--in reality, not in some dream world of ideological purity to come 300 years down the road, if ever.

Why? Because I want to keep my leg and my head. Now. Not in 300 years.

But I'm not going to lie to myself about what that reality is. If I identify reality correctly, I will be able to discard the bad stuff when the opportunity avails itself. If I lie to myself or rationalize things to pretend I am morally superior or some other self-image problem, I will become complacent with the very things I oppose, but have to accept for the time being.

The least I can do right now is call stuff by its right name.

That may not seem like a lot, but believe me, clarity is a fundamental prerequisite of rationality.

Also, Trump lives according to quite a few values I resonate with: larger than life, productive, family values (albeit with a nasty lapse when his high state went to his head--but he cleaned it up well), hard work, excellence, etc. So even with the ugly power side, there is a lot of good to be seen when contemplating a Trump presidency. I hope he relies on this good side more than not when wielding government power.

Besides, it's fun to watch sanctimonious hypocrites go nuts. (Not you should you think I mean that, I'm talking in general.)

Michael

MSK:

Putting my money where my mouth is, I take your comments at face value, of course. If you think Trump is the lesser of two or more evils, than I don't dispute that. I would note, however, that your seemingly-unbounded enthuisiasm for Trump does not obviously align with a resigned "what the hell, I guess I'll go with Trump" type of mentality, i.e., a mentaility of actually being confronted with the lesser of two evils. Your enthuisiasm for Trump generally, the various polls showing his strength, his penchant for double reverse "gotcha", etc. bely a tenor of resignation that would otherwise be inherent in that mentality. Thus the reason for my being so perplexed.

Are we truly in the state of affairs where only Trump is worthy of such enthuisiasm? I don't think so. Here is but one quick example of why. There are many, many others.

And, even if we actually were in such a state of affairs, is Trump truly the lesser of the evils out there? Possibly. But only if he is not primarily a bullshit artist--which I am beginning to think is precisely what Trump actually is.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I would note, however, that your seemingly-unbounded enthuisiasm for Trump does not obviously align with a resigned "what the hell, I guess I'll go with Trump" type of mentality, i.e., a mentaility of actually being confronted with the lesser of two evils.

David,

Come on.

Do you really believe there is only one emotional tone appropriate for learning you might not have to lose your leg and head?

And even if there were, I submit my tone of enthusiasm is far more appropriate than a jaded, "What the hell."

If the choice were between, say, Clinton and Rubio, you might be more satisfied with my tone and we can spread the misery. In fact, I can't say with 100% certainty, but look up some old writing on McCain versus Obama or Romney versus Obama. You will probably find plenty of that tone back then.

(I recall being enthusiastic about Sarah Palin, though. I was impressed at the time by a small-town fundamentalist religious person who would fight to keep bars open on the principle of liberty and who would buck the old-boy system in her own party.)

Politics is not a religion to me. Politics itself is a necessary evil. So I can like what a politician does in his other life without a smidgen of inconsistency.

I really like Trump in his other life. He rocks.

Michael

[Marc]

I'll deal with The Cause after Trump cleans out the government stables and fires a bunch of morons. (There's a Convention of the States on the horizon.)

Those will certainly be exciting times, if a Convention of the States (known also as an Article V Convention) comes together before we all die.

I don't know if Trump has weighed in yet, but several of his GOP competitors are on board, with caveats, from Kasich to Huckabee, according to this story in the Moonie Times.

A push by conservative activists for states to call a national convention to amend the U.S. Constitution has won the backing of several of the Republican presidential contenders, and one of the movement’s leaders said the process could get rolling next year if the candidates talk about it more.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich wants a convention for the express purpose of passing a balanced budget amendment. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida says he is open to a convention but fears a “runaway” assembly where delegates try for a wholesale rewrite of the Constitution — sort of what happened in 1787.

Advocates for a convention say the candidates need to start talking up the idea on the campaign trail.

“If it starts to become a serious presidential issue, we could get it done in 2016,” said Mark Meckler, president of Citizens for Self-Governance, a leading group pushing the effort.

I think a few of us here may be paying close attention to the Convention of the States issue over the years. I think Adam and Wolf. This article already linked-to above gives a good short history of efforts: "The Other Way To Amend The Constitution: The Article V Constitutional Convention Amendment Process, by James Kenneth Rogers.

It is 'on the horizon' in the same sense that the Moon can be on the horizon, I think. The map Wolf pasted above graphically represents the extent of current efforts for a single-issue Article V Convention on a Balanced Budget Amendment. This graphic is similar, but comes from IamAmerican.org's page.

I don't know how to gauge the likelihood of a first Article V convention in the nation's history. My better-informed colleagues will weigh in, no doubt.

I think that this threads most important point was made recently by William who thoroughly explained how polls need to be converted to votes and sometimes the difficulty in doing this .

I'll take Marc's compliment ... even though I don't know which recent post he may have in mind, or exactly which contest I was commenting on. Let's look at the latest aggregates from Real Clear Politics: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina.

What do these numbers show us? Well, three things. Trump is either tied or right behind Cruz in Iowa, with its 30 delegates (which will be portioned out by percentage). Trump is on top in New Hampshire by what seems a comfortable margin of close to 20%, for 23 delegates. Trump is in the lead currently at near 15% over the nearest rival in South Carolina for 50 (the same day Nevada holds its GOP caucuses, which are complicated and will not give immediate tallies as in Iowa, for a further 30 delegates).

So, Marc, it looks like a toss-up in Iowa, with Trump far ahead in the other three states. Care to revise your confident assessments about the four early states? I don't think anyone should be surprised if the three of the first four contests are 'taken' by Trump, with Iowa the only present uncertainty.

It might not seem like a hill of beans, a mere five percent of GOP delegate totals, but by February 10th, there will be Momentum.

What does this say about Super Tuesday?

As I said, nothing is in the bag until the votes are in. Let's not count chickens until they ...

I think I was speaking about a comment you made on Iowa .

who are the non voters and wealthy old white men in the northeast that are going to vote in Iowa ?

The polls are tainted ( OK MSK jump all this but I don't care my man !!!!!!!!! LOL )...... because everyone is just being brainwashed in a sense of non stop Trump and his most amazing propaganda technocolour dreamboat machine . So buddy in Iowa , turns on a TV in Iowa , sees Trump 24/7 , Rah rah rah , he was just like Archie bunker back in the day when men were men and a good cigar was a smoke blah blah bullshit . Phone rings , hey pal you love Trump , right ? You betcha son I do I do .

As you said William , who does buddy vote in Iowa , register etc etc etc .

Cruz won already and the polls are lagging on the ground . Cruz has a machine .

Now NH falls , as they see Trump got Trumped on the ground .

Then Carolina falls as Trey whats his name is in the game ,

My best guess is Trump is working the phones now , not to actually spend money but dealing as he does .

Trump has made fools of everyone . Follow the money , follow the money , follow the money .

Trump is collecting dollars here , not spending .

The ultimate capitalist

[Marc]

Putin was responsible for the deaths of countless dissident journalists

I feel certain that you could name four or five, right? Probably choked them with his bare hands.

Are you suggesting that Putin is a Saint ?

I don't know anything about Russia under Putin.

That doesn't sound right. If Wolf had written, "Trump doesn't know anything about Russia under Putin," fair enough, we can investigate that and test the claim.

Freedom House: Freedom of the press in Russia 2015.

I get creeped out by Trump's byplay with Putin. I just don't know what it means. Listening back to the Republican debate on foreign policy ... and reviewing Trump's blurts and statements about Russia ... I don't get a sense of his cause, what Trump stands for in relation to the Russian entity. It gives me a weird feeling to think that Trump has not thought this through.

I am going to go hunt down where he is getting his foreign policy advice from on Russia. He might be an appeaser.. He might just be winging it, or like Wolf, blanking-out.

I was invited to Moscow and declined.

Putin invited you to Russia? Nice. Artful use of the passive voice, too. I was invited to Russia, too. I also declined. I was invited by a Kremlin Twitter Troll who thought I needed my ticket punched.

Back to dead journalists in Russia, of which Wolf knows nothing. He can keep his ignorance intact, but here is a link for those who are willing to push back the shadows.

Wolf, it is surprising you claim ignorance about the state of Russia. You opine on moral deviants, love, law, film, culture, politics, Objectivism and its queer destroyers, JARS, jars, personalities, philosophy, religion, history and ex-wives. I expect more.

Anyway, Trump on Russia, anyone? Questions, concerns, observations, links and commentary?

For extra fun and extra points in the popular game Blank-Out, the 2015 World Press Freedom Index.

Hey , thanks for the great link . Said Putin had 4 ,Wolf - you asked for 4 or 5 names . Wiki gave you 4 , better than my 5 .

[william.scherk]

Re the WND/Clout poll of 447 or so people surveyed ... trick question. How many black people? Another trick question: how many Republicans, Democrats, Independents surveyed? Answers below.

Notable finding? Cruz is crushing the competition among American atheists. He cruises to a massive 62.5% of the atheist vote. Oh, and Trump got 100% of the Muslim vote. So there's that.

Granted, this poll has its own problems, but a poll is a poll is a poll...

A poll is a poll is a poll? If we think of polls like candy, I guess. I like rich and buttery toffee. I gag on mint. But that is just me going with my gut, and not your gut.

Are there problems in this WND poll that are in all polls, any polls? Of course not. The worst kind of polls are in the class called 'non-scientific' ... these are exemplified by online 'insta-polls' from any website. All of them are suspect, because the respondents are self-selected and we know nothing about them. The only worse ones are the newish Twitter polls.

Okay, a good poll? Well, a good poll is examinable, for one, in all its aspects.

This means you get to see not just the toplines and crosstabs and questions. This is where you examine the numbers via demographic data and the nuts and bolts and reliabilty of the particular methodology. This is when you ask and answer such questions as 'is this sample representative?' A good poll withstands such scrutiny and allows you a measure of confidence in its accuracy, given its particular constraints.

If you cannot get at how the selected respondents were either weighted or interviewed, whether this was an opt-in, operator, online, probability survey, scripted encounter or robo-call cheapo, then ... it is unexaminable and it is not good, at least in my eyes. Trump seems to tout polls that show him up and disparage polls that show him down. The down polls are biased, bought, tainted, wrong and stupidly unreliable. The up polls are like orgasms. Always good. As can be seen from Trump's hired staff lists on wonk sites, there are poll wonks in his camp, hard-assed stink-eyed wonks. They surely direct him to reality when he needs it, and it shows when he is on a low heat talking about facts -- as in the Fox phone-in above.

Do they tell the Boss what he does not want to hear? Well, who knows, probably. It will all come out in the books about this campaign. I am writing mine now.

A poll is a poll is a poll? We will have to make up our own minds on that.

Here is the meat from the WND/Clout poll, without comment, without additional WSS interpretation. I won't give the link to the whole thing since it is easy to find and check for those interested in assessment by objective standards. Below the graphic, a few remarks from the WND story, courtesy of Clout's spokesperson.

Candy!

Explained Fritz Wenzel, chief of Clout Polling, “The Republican presidential primary preference nationally remains unchanged through the Christmas holiday and heading into the New Year, as Donald Trump continues to lead by double digits.

“The newish development of Sen. Ted Cruz rising and now solidifying his top-tier stature is likely going to remain for the coming weeks before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. But the rise of Cruz signals nothing new in this race, as voters continue to voice their complete dissatisfaction with the GOP establishment. Cruz merely supplanted Carson as a more conservative outsider alternative to Trump.”

He said a key will be whether Republicans, whose divisions have been opened by Trump’s brash criticism of the establishment and refusal to go along, can come together.

“There really is just one more act to come and question to be answered before the nomination is sealed: ‘Will the establishment coalesce behind one moderate candidate and mount a serious challenge, or will they remain divided and be conquered?’” Wenzel said.

“For this challenge to develop, three of four candidates – Bush, Rubio, Kasich and Christie – would have to step aside, and given the stakes involved, it is hard to imagine that happening in time to make a difference. The clock has now become a serious factor in this race.”

He said moderates like Trump, with a sizable chunk also favoring Marco Rubio, while conservatives favor Cruz.

“Cruz does so badly among moderates that it is hard to make a case for him as the consensus candidate. Trump’s ability at this stage of the game to gain solid support among all demographic groups makes him a significant favorite to win the nomination. It is interesting to note that there is a significant gender gap inside the race for the GOP nomination – as Trump wins only 29 percent support among men but wins 47 percent support among women who will be voting in the GOP primary elections. Among conservative women voting in the GOP primaries, Trump wins 53 percent support,” Wenzel reported.

[...]

The question: “If you were voting today in your state’s primary or caucus election for the Republican nomination for president, and the candidates were, in alphabetical order, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, John Kasich, Marco Rubio and Donald Trump, for whom would you vote?”

Among men and women, Trump also had far and away leads, with 30 percent of the men and more than 46 percent of the women. Only Cruz was within sight, with about 23 percent of support from each group.

Trump dominated, too, among the religious categories, getting 40 percent support from Protestants, 30 percent from Catholics, 40 percent of Jews and more. Trump also dominated among the age groups as well as across all geographic regions in the country

Edited December 30, 2015 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

I thought you would like that one.

How about that Frank Luntz focus group immediately after the first debate where the big news of the evening was the collapse of Donald Trump?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Anywho... for now I guess us Trump supporters will just have to content ourselves with the following polling crumbs from the tables of the enlightened:

 

New #ReutersPoll. Thank you America! #MakeAmericaGreatAgain #Trump2016 pic.twitter.com/oETsjV3aR4

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

December 29, 2015

 

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am writing mine now.

William,

Really cool use of the blog feature.

Michael

[william.scherk]

William,

I thought you would like that one.

You thought wrong.

You didn't have much to say about polls except that they are all the same, and I gave my reaction to that notion. I liked that part.

How about that Frank Luntz focus group immediately after the first debate where the big news of the evening was the collapse of Donald Trump?

Luntz's big news? I will look back in the thread for earlier discussion and links. Is this part of the coverage you remember? If not. fork up The Words and I will see if I can make an intelligent comment.

I don't know what I think about focus groups -- as opposed to polls. The main benefit is that the people are real, embodied folks in a relatively-open setting, structured and monitored like ICU patients. The people seem to be expressing their own views, but how can one possibly assess their representativeness? I guess the best part is to explore 'memes' in the mind of the particular cohort.

Off the top of my head, I wonder about how the Luntz cohorts are selected and screened, and just what the extracted messages are supposed to have been. You say the main extraction was Trump Slump in one of these ICU events. I don't know.

Here is another Luntz excerpt. Maybe this one is which you mean?

Edited December 30, 2015 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

I thought you would like that one.

You thought wrong.

William,

That was a quip.

A quip...

Like telling an atheist of the Dawkins sort who just saw a Christian sermon, "I thought you would like that one."

A light-hearted tease...

A quip...

I sure hope Trump's success is not making you grumpy. It seems to be pissing off a lot of folks...

Michael

[Selene]

If you have lost Jerry Lewis.....****

And gained The Donald!!

****see Walter Cronkite and LBJ...

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/cronkite-and-the-vietnam-war/

[Marc]

Strike one Iowa ( Its over basically , Cruz wins - within weeks , even this thread will agree )

Strike two NH ( Rubio wins, that paper is the beginning of the end for Trump )

Strike 3 South Carolina ( Trey Gowdy , power and contacts - Rubio wins )

Don't even get to bat in Nevada ,and if I am wrong , well thats Sheldons town

drip , drip , drip is correct !

Its beginning to feel a lot like Nomination ( President Rubio )

[Marc]

Ok , really serious here .

Are Canadians allowed to donate money to a campaign ?

I want to send a few shekels to Rubio ,

Advice ?

Does not need to be in my name even

[Marc]

If you have lost Jerry Lewis.....**** And gained The Donald!! ****see Walter Cronkite and LBJ... http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/cronkite-and-the-vietnam-war/ <<<

Exactly my point !!!!! Jerry Lewis ????? An 88 year old white guy who loves Trump . Re read my posts my man , I told you The DT has the old white guy vote - everyone knows that .

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Is this part of the coverage you remember?

 

William,

 

No. It was on Fox right after the first debate back at the beginning of August. The one where Megyn Kelly & Co. thought they had taken Trump out for good.

 

The immediate post-debate commentary was a two-step: Luntz and Krauthammer, one right after another declaiming Trump's collapse.

 

If you can't find the video, I'll try to dig it up...

 

Here, I just did:

 

 

For some reason, Fox did not publish the entire thing on its YouTube channel, but you get the gist.

 

The literal phrase "collapse of Trump" came from Krauthammer right after the Luntz focus group. I can't remember the words Luntz used at the end, but they meant the same thing.

 

 

Remember, this was before people saw that Trump won the debate by a landslide on the informal Drudge, Time, etc., online polls. And way before Trump slammed Megyn Kelly with the spurting blood gotcha and Roger Ailes made her take about 10 days unannounced vacation just to let the dust settle and preserve her image. (Fox has a lot of money tied up in her image.)

 

In these videos, she seemed like she was feeling pretty good. Like she bagged a big one. And Krauthammer was so smug it made me tingly all over.

 

Ah... the sweet countenance of innocence... and we who know how it will turn out...

 

It touches the poet in my soul...

 

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

My point is, even though this was not a formal poll, these people were selected according to a certain criteria. And to have them all come out against Trump in the same manner when the rest of the country reacted differently smells... well... fishy.

Sort of like a lot of the polling going on these days. (Including the WND one. I just posted it because I thought it was cute. )

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Re read my posts my man , I told you The DT has the old white guy vote - everyone knows that .

Marc,

 

You mean like this?

 

 

There's a crapload more like her, too. Check the demographics sometime... Eye-opener...

 

btw - That's a "Hillary for Prison" tee-shirt she's wearing.

 

 

Michael

[Marc]

Re read my posts my man , I told you The DT has the old white guy vote - everyone knows that .

Marc,

You mean like this?

There's a crapload more like her, too. Check the demographics sometime... Eye-opener...

btw - That's a "Hillary for Prison" tee-shirt she's wearing.

Michael

Listen , when you're right , you're right ! Usually , well always as far as I have known you , we both know that you are usually right !

That being said , I know the demographics say that the non voters will vote for him but .....

Iowa

NH

South Carolina

Cruz , Rubio , Rubio

Strike 3 big man !!!!!!!!

My prediction is somewhere around page 130-140 this thread will end . Well except for me keeping it alive till the next election .

I cannot wait till we start counting votes , delegate votes , Money moving to Rubio , a lot of politicians dropping , and the nation deciding that Rubio carries the torch .

This is the moment folks , this is where the fun begins

[Selene]

Marc:

FYI - correct your profiling or you will no longer be allowed as a Volunteer Junior Royal Canadian Mounted Policeperson...

Engineering student, female, white, first vote ever cast and avid proselytizer - she is worth at least 500 votes on a bad day.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Money moving to Rubio , a lot of politicians dropping , and the nation deciding that Rubio carries the torch .

 

 

How awful, if true. Is that like Mittens carrying the torch in 2012?

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I wouldn't worry.

Phase 2 is starting. This should have started long ago, but Trump struck paydirt with social media and Social Justice Warrior baiting. I think he, himself, was surprised at how well it worked.

But time to move to a different strategy--or better: add another strategy to what is working so well.

Report: Trump will get access to RNC voter file

By Rebecca Shabad

CBS News

December 29, 2015

Why does Trump want this all of a sudden? It's a double-edged sword.

Well, we are nearing the primaries, all attempts to stop him have failed miserably, so it's time to spend a little money to make sure they stay failed.

Donald Trump: "I'll be spending a minimum of $2 million a week" on ads

By Kylie Atwood

CBS News

December 29, 2015

Billionaires like Trump who got their money the hard way don't spend it on mere speculation and vanity press. They want data and target profiles. They want a return on investment.

Drip... drip... drip...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am not fighting for The Cause with Trump. I want him to have power. Raw naked political power, the kind where he gets to determine if the government kills people or lets them live, if the government confiscates their stuff or lets them keep it, if the government wrecks people's lives or not, if the government takes from some people, keeps most of the plunder and gives the rest to others.

See? No illusions.

Nobody ever says that, but that is the game everybody plays. That is what all candidates are after.

All of them.

There's an aspect of this I want to clarify.

I never support a person who seeks this kind of power as a primary reason to live inside his or her soul.

What I'm saying is that the office of the presidency is innately as I described above and all the candidates know it.

So let me rephrase the opening paragraph in this quote and maybe that will make it clearer.

The presidency is ultimately not about The Cause. The presidency is about power. Raw naked political power, the kind where the president gets to determine if the government kills people or lets them live, if the government confiscates their stuff or lets them keep it, if the government wrecks people's lives or not, if the government takes from some people, keeps most of the plunder and gives the rest to others.

That's how I see the presidency and that's what I consider when I evaluate a person to take that job.

When I look at the past of current candidates, I either see confused signals when they have wielded power, or simple lack of experience with it on a level meaningful to the reality of the office they seek.

Apropos, that was one of Obama's main problems. In his ascension, he wielded power through getting close to people and getting their endorsements, then betraying them. He also did a lot of covert manipulation and backroom dealing. A lot of deception. And he did not have much experience in any meaningful way. Now look at how he has run his presidency. That's almost an official playbook. Look at how he has managed to get laws passed. Look at his foreign policies. And watch as the next president takes apart all his policies easily. Why? Because he built them on manipulation and deception, not deal-making for real.

Could one of the Republican candidates rise with grace under stress in the job and wield presidential power with greatness? (By greatness, I mean in a manner that makes the world more productive and wealthy and less violent.) I think it's likely in a few cases. Could one of them abuse the power inherent in the office and do crappy things? Probably all of them to some degree or another (including Trump). But which one has lots of experience with power?

As I mentioned with Trump, he has had power most of his life. He chose the good path and built stuff with it, magnificent stuff, not the evil path to rule people for the sake of ruling them and to destroy people who become inconvenient. Nor has he been inept and watched things go down the tubes as massive amounts of people get destroyed (except in the Atlanta casino market, where they went down the tubes for everybody. At least Trump got out early and intact.)

I think what people have done over their lives with power is one of the best indicators of what they will do if they get the kind of power available to a president. So Trump's my man.

That probably makes more sense than the leg and head metaphor I used.

Michael

[Marc]

Marc:

FYI - correct your profiling or you will no longer be allowed as a Volunteer Junior Royal Canadian Mounted Policeperson...

Engineering student, female, white, first vote ever cast and avid proselytizer - she is worth at least 500 votes on a bad day.

Man , I have no idea what this even means . As you can see , my vocabulary is not that strong , my grammar is horrific , and my knowledge of Objectivism is poor to weak . Word games , and pictures and posts like this leave me stumped .

Adam ,

Who gets the nomination ?

Who gets POTUS ?

Real simple .

Thats all I need to know please

[Marc]

Money moving to Rubio , a lot of politicians dropping , and the nation deciding that Rubio carries the torch .

How awful, if true. Is that like Mittens carrying the torch in 2012?

Sir , I don't even understand what this means ?

We elect POTUS on Nov 8 , 2016

Who wins the nomination ?

Who gets the Oval office ?

Google works up here in Toronto too ! I know who the current President is .

Would you please state for the record the answer to my questions ?

God Bless,