Search the Community

The 2020 Election - Capitalism vs Collectivism Rand Style The essence of the 2020 Presidential election is shaping up to be capitalism vs. collectivism in the way Ayn Rand laid it out. I don't know what's happened in the Objectivist subcommunity. I keep seeing the enormous difficulty our fearless leaders have in applying Rand's thinking to current events. This might be because of sematics, gobs and gobs of semantics. For example, President Trump is considered among the intelligentsia (both within O-Land and without) as a nationalist. We rarely hear of him referred to as a capitalist. But capitalist he is. And I mean politically. How many times has he said at important events like the State of the Union that America will never become a socialist country? He said it at the UN. He said it at one rally after another. He has preached the gospel of a non-socialist America in the short time he has been a politician more than anyone since Ayn Rand if public spread of the idea is the measure. And I'm including Ronald Reagan in that. In President Trump's conception, a capitalist society cannot exist without a nation or nations to practice it in. This is probably why he never bothered with the theory of capitalism. His life has been more about living capitalism than talking about it. In other words, he's been too busy building things and making money from it to bother with studying and forming mental constructs he can use to condemn people with or get a job at a think tank with. I happen to think he's right about living it first, then preaching it. Frankly, I myself fall short on doing the same. (I'm working on correcting that, though.) Our O-Land luminaries are so stuck on abstract ideas they gleaned from Rand, they don't know how to apply them to current affairs. In the post following this one, I am going to present a case from a person who is NOT an Objectivist, but who dug up a lecture by Rand (on the McGovern campaign) and applied it to what is unfolding right before our eyes. Every day. And it has been happening for a long time. Yet nobody in O-Land has been talking about it. Just like they are missing the critical issue of the 2020 campaign, capitalism vs. collectivism, because in their heads and pronouncements, they claim President Trump is no capitalist. They call him a fascist, big government person yada yada yada, and that leads them to anywhere except the fundaments. Oh, they get the collectivism part. I mean, with Bernie openly calling himself a socialist, all the Dem primary candidates agreeing with supplying health care for illegal aliens, and so on, how can anyone miss it? But bashing collectivism in abstract terms only (with the exception, maybe, of pointing to Venezuela), and all the while saying capitalism is the answer--without having anything concrete to point to that modern folks understand or relate to, is just plain stomp down lame. The issue of the century is right before them, in Randian terms at that, and they are missing it. Well other people are not missing it. I'm presenting below a post about someone not in O-Land who didn't miss it. And it's brilliant. Hopefully other examples will arise and someone (or I) will add it to this thread as time goes along. In fact, I believe we are seeing the start of a new wave of Rand in politics--totally outside of O-Land. Time will tell. Michael

Black Panther - How did this happen? I haven't seen Black Panther yet, but my stepson Sean did. He's a huge Marvel superhero fan. He loved it. Since he is semi-autistic, things like racism confuse him. I noticed in his comments about the movie, he didn't talk about race. Yet that's all they talked about in the marketing hoopla before the film What happened? Well, OK... That's Sean. But then I started seeing some other things. For example, John Nolte wrote the following review at Breitbart: ‘Black Panther’ Review: The Movie’s Hero is Trump, the Villain is Black Lives Matter Nolte did some follow-up articles on Black Panther, see here and here. Looks like Hollywood, for all it's virtue signaling, found a sneaky way to appeal to Trump supporters. I'm serious. People who identify with President Trump had greatly diminished their presence at the theaters. Yet they turned out in droves to see Black Panther. Of course, the intelligentsia in Hollywood are giving birth to a cow over Nolte's observation, but the truth is, money moves Hollywood, not virtue or political agenda. Still, many lefties are in powerful positions. And they are not stupid people. So how did these Hollywood lefties allow this "on the nose" level of metaphorical fit to happen in a movie about black people with an all black cast? I think there's a dirty little secret they don't talk about but all bow down to. The intelligentsia can sneak in their leftie agenda and propaganda so long as the movies make money. When they stop making money, the Hollywood suits look at what normal paying folks believe and serve up entertainment geared to that profile. And with this project, they covertly made an appeal to woo back Trump supporters. I stand in awe that they made a black dude in a black movie a symbolic President Trump and a black villain in a black movie a symbolic Black Lives Matter, but there it is. And it worked. The money doesn't lie. Nolte is not the only one who sees this. Ms. Candace Owens (Red Pill Black) noticed, although she focused on the immigrant angle and keeping grievance movements out of the hidden land. This President Trump metaphor connection with Black Panther is going to turn into a thing in our culture. It really is. Then the intelligentsia will start giving birth to whales, not just cows. Andrew Breitbart always said politics is downstream from culture. It looks like culture has run downstream from politics this go around. Michael

My second test is also awful ... long, choppy, echoey, but I fear not [added February 2] _______________________________ I have been fussing with technical impediments for a few days -- with the end of the fuss a more-success-than-fail test of streaming video live from Chilliwack. It is still awful, laggy, popping here and there, distorting audio, skipping frames, refusing to play video so I can hear it ... but with some more fussing and rehearsal, and more script cards, and more drilling, this can work. Expect this thread to be locked from time to time as I replace the content with the actual live event URL. This is a recording ... Yes, it is even more awful than I feared, but still a success. The echoes can be fixed by disabling the mic when listening to playback of embedded videos. And the awful disparities in volume can be finessed. > I want to recommend a neat little standalone application that lets a podcaster/livecaster play various sound files. It's called Jingle Palette. A screenshot of the thing: As can be seen in the labels, I had audio excerpts from video, text-to-speech items, and some radio-stingers. All at various wrong sound levels ...

The Tragic Hero Hanson Style Is a tragic hero a tool of persuasion? I never used to think so until I read Victor Davis Hanson's characterization of President Trump. In fact, I don't think he thinks this archetype is a persuasion tool. But it just might be. I want to explore this idea throughout this thread since it happens enough in the culture to see a pattern. First the archetype. Note, Hanson's view of tragic hero is not what is typically understood in the culture. Macbeth, for instance, is a tragic hero in normal understanding and is taught as such in schools. However, Macbeth was a power-grabbing scumbag more like the dark protagonists of modern TV series like The Sopranos, Breaking Bad and so on than what Hanson wrote about. Hanson's archetype is a force of massive social change. btw - Hanson's book on President Trump is mentioned in the quote below, but promoting Trump is not what this is about. That book is where Hanson wrote about the tragic hero and used Trump as an example based on the events Hanson saw unfold before him. Here is his characterization of the tragic hero archetype: The archetype as persuasion idea will be probed in more depth later in this thread for no other reason than I haven't fully thought it through yet. It does seem, though, that when a large group of people in society get to the end of their patience and tired of oppressive suffering, they flock behind a tragic hero figure. Some call this a strong man figure, but it can be a trickster like Milo. In fact, this became clear to min in the video below of a recent conversation between Jordan Peterson and Milo. Think about it. Milo is a Hanson Tragic Hero almost to a tee--even the aftermath. He helped Trump win the election by mobilizing and stirring up controversy in a large youth segment that was inaccessible to normal Republicans. After the election happened, he was shunned by decent people. The circle was complete. The reason Milo was thrown out of decent society was over some of his public statements about pedophilia and what happened to him as a child. In that respect, the above video is valuable because you can listen to what he says under objective questioning from Jordan Peterson rather than go by media propaganda or hearsay. As always, come to your own conclusion. At any rate, Steve Bannon used Milo as a persuasion weapon to help elect Trump. And it worked. I wonder if Bannon had this final stage, expulsion of Milo, in mind when he did. If he didn't, I am pretty sure some of the people who used Milo as a weapon knew full well they would make him move on after the election. To that extent, Milo seemed bitter in the video when he proclaimed that, based on how he was treated, he now thinks conservatives are cowards, so he won't be defending them like he used to. While there definitely is some cowardice by some individuals involved, the archetype--the ancient pattern--speaks louder to me as a cause. With this thread, let' me invite you to help look for other examples of Hanson Tragic Heroes in our culture (all sides and all issues). If you are interested, let's see if we can make a list of them, then see which ones were weapons of persuasion and how. At least, that is what I will be doing. I hope you join me in that purpose rather than bash or praise Trump or discuss the evils of pedophilia. Those issues are important and have their place, but the Hanson Tragic Hero as a culture-shaping force and persuasion element is important enough for a separate probe. I'm already fascinated... Michael

I should have perhaps posted this in the Mideast forum, but Jerry has thoroughly polluted that thread with Garbage File level bullshit. Islam Rape Invasion Europe Box Cars. No thanks. Trump has been pretty clear about Syria and its travails. He prefers the strong leader, even if that means a strongman or dictator. He is more revolted by Saudi Arabia than by Assad. He will reject any 'refugees' from Syria. He likes a leadership role. He'd like to take Putin under his wing. He'd like to shake up the board. But mainly he is centred on America first. So, I bet Syria is just left to fester in terms of Russian-US sponsored Final Agreement kinds of peace accords, which would make Trump a hero in the history books. I think, cynically, that the Russians and Trump will agree a timetable, like ... let it run for two, three four years until it can be wound down and peace imposed by Russo-Yank might. Anyway, those cynical and pessimistic notes aside, the reaction among "certain people" is predictably sad and groaning and fearful. The article I highlight is just one example of the spread of opinions that you can find on the topic today. It makes me sad and fearful for Syria. The spirit of vengeance and annihilation among the Assadists is fearsome in places. The undercurrent of agreement across the spread is that Trump will mean an escalation of war. A bigger, badder storm before the calm. What does a President Trump mean for Syria? Published November 9th, 2016 - 13:22 GMT With Trump’s vocal support of Assad, and his tight-knit relationship with Russia, political analysts have predicted the end to US support for rebel groups in Syria, and perhaps a new US ally in the shape of Assad. And it’s not just the analysts who think so, with Assad supporters taking to Twitter to praise Trump’s win as a victory for the regime and Syria: The close relationship of Trump(US) with Putin(Russia), will be positive as it will end the kids gaming of continue conflicts, especially in Syria. They agree here Since Trump won. Enemies of Assad take my advice Apologize for Assad before he takes his revenge

I Like Trump - rap The artist is An0maly. The song starts like this: I like Trump I don’t really give a fuck And it goes on from there. Enjoy. And so the change starts. Kanye kicked it off. Now the smaller rappers will try to outdo each other tying pro-Trump to their reality. Not propaganda. Cultural commentary. But eventually the big guys will jump on. As Eminem just learned, you don't get out of the ghetto bashing Trump and pretending that's art. In another musical style, Barbra Streisand just learned that lesson, too. Note to the sanctimonious left: You assholes are starting to lose the culture war. I bet you a pro-Trump theme will generate gobs of cash for some musical artists. Mainstream gobs of money. Once again, I'm not talking about propaganda. If anyone wants more about An0maly, see the article on The Gateway Pundit. There's an interview with him over there, too. Rapper An0maly’s New Release ‘I Like Trump’: ‘Media Control The Mind…Censor Everything That Goes Against Him’ Michael

This is the latest part of a series of videos uploaded recently by the Ayn Rand Institute, some of which are repackaged audio files (of which some are not always dated precisely). A careful listener may hear the hint of approval she would have for a President Trump, who is said to have dined with her in 1977 ... just after her secret affair with Pierre Elliott Trudeau came to a sad end. Qui eu percipit accusata. Nam ex perpetua forensibus reprimique, mei sale mucius te. Ei postea sanctus nam. Natum suavitate pertinacia sit ea, quas fugit ius ei, an augue utroque abhorreant qui. Dicunt multa. Quia similes sunt.

Scott Adams on Persuasion This thread is a placeholder--a place to throw tidbits of information Scott Adams dribbles out about persuasion. It's kind of a reference thread. I've felt the need for a place like this for some time now. So here it is. For people who don't know, Scott Adams is the author of the syndicated cartoon strip, Dilbert. He also dabbles in persuasion. During the Trump campaign, he identified the future president as a " master persuader" and wrote a series of blog posts dissecting the techniques. He made a series of predictions that came true while the mainstream predictions turned out to fizzle, one after another. That led to guest appearances on mainstream TV news shows and a bestselling book: Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don't Matter. His blog: Scott Adams' Blog. I have frequently made reference to Scott here on OL. Over time, I'll see if I can bring some of those comments to this thread, too. He's one hell of a smart cookie. To start things off, here's a lesson by Scott on how to recognize cognitive dissonance in people and in yourself. Really cool... Michael

Hi All, A friend pointed out a March 17 article about the Steele dossier that goes into incredible detail about who the players were and what their roles were in creating and disseminating the dossier. I've only started reading it, but it appears to contain a treasure trove of information about the incestuous relationships between the government, the media, Fusion GPS, the Clinton campaign, the DNC, and so on. It appears quite interesting. Here is a link. Darrell

Some Deep Swamp comes up swinging Look at this crap. Just look at this crap. From The Daily Mail: George W. Bush comes out of retirement to throw shade at Trump as he denounces 'bullying and prejudice' in politics and praises the value of immigration All during President Trump's election process, I harped on and on about the difference between words and deeds. President Trump built things. Other candidates and politicians talked things. And the mainstream press tried to crucify Trump over and over about his words while ignoring his deeds--and often outright lied about his deeds. Now, here's a beaut in our modern culture. Notice that former President Obama, while in office, couldn't let a day go by without bashing George Bush the younger. Everything wrong in Obama's world was due to Bush. The economy he inherited was Bush's mess. All foreign policy problems were Bush's fault. And on and on. Not a day went by without some whining of that nature. for all eight years. And what did former President Bush have to say? Not... a... peep... All eight years. Not... a... peep... He was moral. He was a Texan gentleman. He was above it all. He didn't want to get in the way of a duly elected president. Yawp yawp yawp. Do you know why? Because Bush is a Deep Swamp Creature and Obama is a Deep Swamp Creature. Both are on the globalist path. And both know that words without deeds don't mean much. Now, how about President Trump? He says some harsh things about former President Bush, but only mentions Bush sporadically. Yet here is Bush climbing out of his deep silent muck to sound off against Trump--in leftie terms at that (bigot racist yawp yawp yawp). Why? Because President Trump is doing stuff. Just like he did stuff instead of talking about it during The Apprentice, which was famous at the time for diversity (look it up). Trump had a lot of different minorities showcased as executives and this was one of his audience draws. Now, in government, President Trump continues doing stuff. He is taking apart the globalist plans and efforts brick by brick and replacing them with productive policies that are good for normal American people instead of just the elitists. Do you want an indication? There are many, but here is a good one. A big issue a few months ago--March to be exact--exploded when the Dow broke 20,000 for an all-time high on the stock market. And now? A couple of days ago it broke 23,000 and still goes up every day. I could list a bunch of other things. Former President Obama merely had harsh words for former elitists, but he kept their money and power con games running. President Trump is doing deeds--ones that mean less money and power for elitist globalists and better living for all other Americans who want to make productive efforts (and even needy ones who don't or can't). Suddenly the Swamp swirls in commotion... Out come Deep Swamp Creatures (Bush and Obama) and lobby forth harsh words. Yawp yawp yawp... President Trump looks at it, yawns, then gets back to work. It's a words versus deeds thing. Michael

Former President George W Bush doesn't usually make much news, but a speech he gave at his Presidential Center has the usual suspects dragging out portions of his speech for crimes against Trump. The theme of the conflab at the Bush Center was "The Spirit of Liberty: At Home, In the World." Here is the full speech, and below I add in the full text. Some folks think it was an unfair attack on the current President (or his perfect policies and actions). You listen, you read, you decide ... The nub of the matter? The full remarks ... cued to (one of) the 'attacks.' You can roll up and down to find other shameful examples of Swamp Gas. -- the kingdom of reaction, via Memeorandum.com -- see also MSK's new OL thread for a candid reaction to the "attack against Trump."

This is taken from Conservative Treehouse. The hoopla industry and the committees of benghazi will have another picnic. Here is the state of Grand Supreme Hoopla ... from Memeorandum:

As always Zero Hedge has the best coverage, White House and DOJ documents, reactions http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-09/president-trump-fires-fbi-director-james-comey

3D Chess with Health Care People know of my enthusiastic support of President Trump. Some might wonder why I haven't talked about the repeal of Obamacare. Frankly, I haven't known what to think until now. The way it was unfolding was soooooooo ulike the way Trump does things, I've been scratching my head. But after the Republican plan was withdrawn, it became clear to me. It's another 3D chess move by the president. I haven't seen anyone recently discuss the original intention of Obamacare. It was designed to fail. This was widely discussed before it passed, then this angle went down the memory hole as it started to be implemented. The idea was that once the insurance companies left the exchanges and the thing was falling apart, Obama (or other progressive, say, Clinton had she been elected) would help ramp up the public clamor of pain, then blame it all on the greedy insurance companies. At that point, they would ram through a single payer health plan without serious opposition and slay the insurance company villains in one fell swoop. I think President Trump just took over Obama's designed to fail plan and is using it for his own ends. Think of the benefits to him once Obamacare becomes unbearable. 1. He breaks the Democrat alliance against him since many Democrats will come on board to help negotiate a way out of the mess they now own 100%. 2. He breaks the back of all-or-nothing entrenched Republican sides since he will have Democrats on board. 3. He will be able to engineer a plan he believes in based on popular support rather than a big fat compromise with special interests. 4. He gets the Koch brothers to finance the midterm campaigns of folks who will vote for the plan he ultimately wants because they have committed a half a trillion dollars or so to this end, saying anybody who voted for Ryancare would not get any money. And on and on... All he has to do is weather the gloating and snark from the clueless mainstream press (which is business as normal for him) and make sure the "evil greedy insurance companies" are not set up as the villains for the collapse--in practice--of Obamacare. Now, with the Republican plan flop, that will be easy. When the kaboom starts to hit, he can say the Republicans tried, but Obamacare was too much of a mess to do it the traditional way. So not only are Obama and the Democrats to blame for the mess (they, not the insurance companies become the villains in the public mind), there needs to be a radical solution... etc., etc., etc. Like he said to the press today, he was elected to repeal and replace Obamacare, but he made no promise to do it in 60 days. I stand in awe. Michael

Wisdom of the Electoral College When people wonder why the Electoral College exists, there is no better demonstration than the image below. In the top image, you have the areas of the country that voted for Donald Trump in the majority. In the bottom image, Hillary Clinton. Green is the low end starting at 51% and white is 100%. Most of the brown ranges from about 70% to 85%. The site says: "Maps were created using IDW (Inverse distance weighted) technique in ArcGIS." You can see the original here: TrumpLand and Clinton Archipelago Numberwise, the Democrats keep saying over and over that Clinton won the popular vote by about two-and-a-half million votes. Rush Limbaugh said if you remove New York and California, Trump wins the popular vote by about three million votes. See here: They're Still Gobsmacked! Washington Never Imagined Trump Could Really Win. But it's even worse. Look what a caller (Steve in Baldwinsville, New York) said to to Rush (from the transcript): Here's the link to David Leip's site if anyone wants to check the numbers (I didn't): Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. Basically, if we had not had the Electoral College, Trump and Clinton would have spent most of their time campaigning in New York, especially New York City, and California, especially LA County, and a place or two like Chicago. (In fact, that's basically what she did this election while Trump busted his ass running all over.) Those few areas would have dictated who the rest of the country had to accept as president. But look how the rest of the country voted in the TrumpLand and Clinton Archipelago maps above. Now let's ask the obvious question. Where do most of the poor immigrants migrate and where do most of the government handouts go? Directly into these small high-population-density areas, that's where. In other words, if we had used the popular vote system, the US President would have been elected by the people who do not sustain the US. So what to think about those who advocate throwing out the Electoral College? Talk about the looters and moochers wanting to rule over the producers! This could almost be out of Atlas Shrugged. I'm not sure the Founding Fathers anticipated such a dramatic demonstration of their wisdom, but ever there was one, this election definitely was it. Michael

From the pages of life itself ... Michael, I had to think long and hard what to say in response. And I'm going to do this in two parts. (The section about hurting will come later.) Now, after Donald Drumpf has cleaned up in 5 Eastern states and the triumphalism is in a mad crescendo, seems as good a time as any. What you mean by "an environment has been engineered," I don't comprehend. It's one of those mistakes-were-made constructions. Not an agent, not a human being in sight. Who engineered this environment? How did they do it? The engineers are those faceless beings who engineered (whatever that amounted to, in more concrete terms). They have bosses, again unnamed, who boss them. As for silent complicity, I was not aware that you were in a line of work in which it would be dangerous to utter political opinions of a certain kind. Nor that anyone was keeping you quiet (are you telling me you had to discover Donald Drumpf, 2015-2016 edition, to find your voice on your own site?). Why would you need Donald Drumpf to rouse you from your slumbers? It doesn't matter all that much what the New York Times does, or what NBC does, or what Fox News does. If you want to inform yourself, in this time and place, it isn't hard. I'm not questioning the instrumental rationality of remaining low-information (the one vote I will cast in November will be in a deep red county in a red state, which the Republican nominee, no matter who, is just about sure to carry; the one vote you will cast in November will be in a deep blue area of a blue state that the Democrat will have a lock on). Just saying the obvious: that if it's important to you to find out what's going on, you will. That was as true in 1999 or 2007 or 2011 as it is today. Some people might want to stop you, but this doesn't mean that they can. And if you weren't paying attention till Donald issued the call to arms, there's a good chance you won't recognize the existence of valid or reliable sources of political information, besides the candidate and those who in 2016 are among his more prominent supporters. It's as though neither Donald Drumpf nor his present champions even had a politically relevant history, before July 2015. Worse yet, anyone who was paying attention, politically, before The Donald launched his latest campaign becomes suspect. For surely only operatives of the Establishment had any motive to do so. Robert Things I learned about George Soros on Objectivist Living ...

[http://wsscherk.hostingmyself.com/trumpAbortionTalk.htm] QUESTION: Hello. I am (inaudible) and have a question on, what is your stance on women's rights and their rights to choose in their own reproductive health? DRUMPF: OK, well look, I mean, as you know, I'm pro-life. Right, I think you know that, and I -- with exceptions, with the three exceptions. But pretty much, that's my stance. Is that OK? You understand? MATTHEWS: What should the law be on abortion? DRUMPF: Well, I have been pro-life. MATTHEWS: I know, what should the law -- I know your principle, that's a good value. But what should be the law? DRUMPF: Well, you know, they've set the law and frankly the judges -- I mean, you're going to have a very big election coming up for that reason, because you have judges where it's a real tipping point. MATTHEWS: I know. DRUMPF: And with the loss the Scalia, who was a very strong conservative... MATTHEWS: I understand. DRUMPF: ... this presidential election is going to be very important, because when you say, "what's the law, nobody knows what's the law going to be. It depends on who gets elected, because somebody is going to appoint conservative judges and somebody is going to appoint liberal judges, depending on who wins. MATTHEWS: I know. I never understood the pro-life position. DRUMPF: Well, a lot of people do understand. MATTHEWS: I never understood it. Because I understand the principle, it's human life as people see it. DRUMPF: Which it is. MATTHEWS: But what crime is it? DRUMPF: Well, it's human life. MATTHEWS: No, should the woman be punished for having an abortion? DRUMPF: Look... MATTHEWS: This is not something you can dodge. DRUMPF: It's a -- no, no... MATTHEWS: If you say abortion is a crime or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under law. Should abortion be punished? DRUMPF: Well, people in certain parts of the Republican Party and Conservative Republicans would say, "yes, they should be punished." MATTHEWS: How about you? DRUMPF: I would say that it's a very serious problem. And it's a problem that we have to decide on. It's very hard. MATTHEWS: But you're for banning it? DRUMPF: I'm going to say -- well, wait. Are you going to say, put them in jail? Are you -- is that the (inaudible) you're talking about? MATTHEWS: Well, no, I'm asking you because you say you want to ban it. What does that mean? DRUMPF: I would -- I am against -- I am pro-life, yes. MATTHEWS: What is ban -- how do you ban abortion? How do you actually do it? DRUMPF: Well, you know, you will go back to a position like they had where people will perhaps go to illegal places. MATTHEWS: Yes? DRUMPF: But you have to ban it. MATTHEWS: You banning, they go to somebody who flunked out of medical school. DRUMPF: Are you Catholic? MATTHEWS: Yes, I think... DRUMPF: And how do you feel about the Catholic Church's position? MATTHEWS: Well, I accept the teaching authority of my Church on moral issues. DRUMPF: I know, but do you know their position on abortion? MATTHEWS: Yes, I do. DRUMPF: And do you concur with the position? MATTHEWS: I concur with their moral position but legally, I get to the question -- here's my problem with it... (LAUGHTER) DRUMPF: No, no, but let me ask you, but what do you say about your Church? MATTHEWS: It's not funny. DRUMPF: Yes, it's really not funny. What do you say about your church? They're very, very strong. MATTHEWS: They're allowed to -- but the churches make their moral judgments, but you running for president of the United States will be chief executive of the United States. Do you believe... DRUMPF: No, but... MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle? DRUMPF: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment. MATTHEWS: For the woman? DRUMPF: Yes, there has to be some form. MATTHEWS: Ten cents? Ten years? What? DRUMPF: Let me just tell you -- I don't know. That I don't know. That I don't know. MATTHEWS: Why not? DRUMPF: I don't know. MATTHEWS: You take positions on everything else. DRUMPF: Because I don't want to -- I frankly, I do take positions on everything else. It's a very complicated position. MATTHEWS: But you say, one, that you're pro-life meaning that you want to ban it. DRUMPF: But wait a minute, wait a minute. But the Catholic Church is pro-life. MATTHEWS: I'm not talking about my religion. DRUMPF: No, no, I am talking about your religion. Your religion -- I mean, you say that you're a very good Catholic. Your religion is your life. Let me ask you this... MATTHEWS: I didn't say very good. I said I'm Catholic. (LAUGHTER) And secondly, I'm asking -- you're running for President. DRUMPF: No, no... MATTHEWS: I'm not. DRUMPF: Chris -- Chris. MATTHEWS: I'm asking you, what should a woman face if she chooses to have an abortion? DRUMPF: I'm not going to do that. MATTHEWS: Why not? DRUMPF: I'm not going to play that game. MATTHEWS: Game? DRUMPF: You have... MATTHEWS: You said you're pro-life. DRUMPF: I am pro-life. MATTHEWS: That means banning abortion. DRUMPF: And so is the Catholic Church pro-life. MATTHEWS: But they don't control the -- this isn't Spain, the Church doesn't control the government. DRUMPF: What is the punishment under the Catholic Church? What is the... MATTHEWS: Let me give something from the New Testament, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Don't ask me about my religion. DRUMPF: No, no... MATTHEWS: I'm asking you. You want to be president of the United States. DRUMPF: You told me that... MATTHEWS: You tell me what the law should be. DRUMPF: I have -- I have not determined... MATTHEWS: Just tell me what the law should be. You say you're pro-life. DRUMPF: I am pro-life. MATTHEWS: What does that mean? DRUMPF: With exceptions. I am pro-life. I have not determined what the punishment would be. MATTHEWS: Why not? DRUMPF: Because I haven't determined it. MATTHEWS: When you decide to be pro-life, you should have thought of it. Because... DRUMPF: No, you could ask anybody who is pro-life... MATTHEWS: OK, here's the problem -- here's my problem with this, if you don't have a punishment for abortion -- I don't believe in it, of course -- people are going to find a way to have an abortion. DRUMPF: You don't believe in what? MATTHEWS: I don't believe in punishing anybody for having an abortion. DRUMPF: OK, fine. OK, (inaudible). MATTHEWS: Of course not. I think it's a woman's choice. DRUMPF: So you're against the teachings of your Church? MATTHEWS: I have a view -- a moral view -- but I believe we live in a free country, and I don't want to live in a country so fascistic that it could stop a person from making that decision. DRUMPF: But then you are... MATTHEWS: That would be so invasive. DRUMPF: I know but I've heard you speaking... MATTHEWS: So determined of a society that I wouldn't able -- one we are familiar with. And Donald Drumpf, you wouldn't be familiar with. DRUMPF: But I've heard you speaking so highly about your religion and your Church. MATTHEWS: Yes. DRUMPF: Your Church is very, very strongly as you know, pro-life. MATTHEWS: I know. DRUMPF: What do you say to your Church? MATTHEWS: I say, I accept your moral authority. In the United States, the people make the decision, the courts rule on what's in the Constitution, and we live by that. That's why I say. DRUMPF: Yes, but you don't live by it because you don't accept it. You can't accept it. You can't accept it. You can't accept it. MATTHEWS: Can we go back to matters of the law and running for president because matters of law, what I'm talking about, and this is the difficult situation you've placed yourself in. By saying you're pro-life, you mean you want to ban abortion. How do you ban abortion without some kind of sanction? Then you get in that very tricky question of a sanction, a fine on human life which you call murder? DRUMPF: It will have to be determined. MATTHEWS: A fine, imprisonment for a young woman who finds herself pregnant? DRUMPF: It will have to be determined. MATTHEWS: What about the guy that gets her pregnant? Is he responsible under the law for these abortions? Or is he not responsible for an abortion? DRUMPF: Well, it hasn't -- it hasn't -- different feelings, different people. I would say no. MATTHEWS: Well, they're usually involved. Anyway, much more from the audience here at the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay. We'll be right back.

Since you think Rand would ideologically support Cruz after deriding Reagan on abortion, I have to consider you not to be much of an authority on her. It is very easy to analyze the 2016 campaigns and campaigners but very hard to actually observe what is going on and all projections are arbitrary. I've never seen anything like this is presidential politics. If Cruz drops out it will be because of his up in the air citizenship status. He may be the citizen of no country at all because he renounced his Canadian citizenship (2014). His parents declared him Canadian at birth. By Canadian law there is no such thing as dual citizenship. Nor was any paperwork ever filed with the US Government to the contrary. His mother was a US citizen. That's the only thing going for him. He may even be illegally a US Senator. Regardless, it looks like Drumpf will get enough delegates for a first ballet win. --Brant Peter, You've said this before and now, through repetition, you are treating it as if it were a fact. Where has Drumpf bragged about the women he has bedded? Michael Peter, As your man said to Donald, breathe. Calm down. Take some deep breaths. You can do it... Drumpf tends to have this effect on people when they think he's toast, except he doesn't know it, then they discover he actually won. Besides, after the dust settles, I wager you will start seeing Drumpf's virtues again. It's all good... Michael Is that interesting?

he Republican Crack-Up, Revisited, published three days ago, March 24.

It may not look like it, but the following article on Breitbart is nothing more than the free market in action. Trump-Effect: Fox News Channel’s Brand Takes 50% Hit Among Republicans by John Nolte 27 Feb 2016 Breitbart From the article: It's not ideology. It's deception and cluelessness. People don't want deception and cluelessness. When they get deception and cluelessness, they go to other places. It's kinda duh, but there it is. The most important thing Nolte said in that article was the following: "That could also give an upstart an opening." My heart does not lie in making a media company, but if it did, I would certainly jump on this opportunity. I would be that upstart. Glenn Beck once did and he took off like greased lightning. Recently he has become quite manipulative and clueless, so his audience is deserting him. So even savvy media people forget the nature of their power once the power goes to their heads. Then they become just like the others. And that makes them part of the problem and no longer a solution to it. Michael

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. 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? Source: Donald Trump

David, That's one way to frame it, I suppose. Look at the mess Obama the tyrant has done, or Bush the tyrant has done, or Clinton the tyrant has done, and so on. I disagree with your core identification, though. These folks were not tyrants and neither will be Trump. The quest for gobs of power does not necessarily result in tyranny, although the quest for it, and the exercise of it, always has the ugly side I described. I think fools ignore this ugly side, but that's their choice and their religion. In the USA, there's a little thing called checks and balances. That keeps the formation of true tyrants at bay, not altruism or love or kumbaya (or snark ). If you believe that someone seeking large-scale power is doing so for purely humanitarian reasons and has no notion of this negative stuff, that he or she would be horrified to think such things, I say have a good delusion. I'm sorry you feel I'm trying to pop your rose-colored bubble and you need to mischaracterize it as if I'm a tyranny-loving bad guy. I have yet to meet such a person as the one you apparently believe in who pursues vast power for softhearted reasons. The closest I've ever heard of, I guess, would be someone Lord Acton might have had in mind when he wrote (in a letter to Mandell Creighton): "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." But I'm damned if I know who that pre-power saint might have been. Back to frames. Rather than framing this as me being enamored of tyranny, I prefer a frame I read from George Smith. If the only choice someone gives me is to cut off my leg or cut off my head, I'll keep my head. Now here's my addition. If I can get away with my leg, I'll take that, too. That's my frame for supporting Trump. I get to keep my head and my leg. With the other candidates, I either lose my head, my leg, or both. This has nothing to do with liking tyranny, as you imply. Just because I'm having fun, especially lampooning those interested in my leg and head, that doesn't mean I like the choice. btw - I don't speak for the others you so cavalierly accuse of loving tyranny (in addition to Me the Moral Monster all of a sudden), but I believe many would agree with me. Apropos, which part of me are you interested in cutting off and taking home, my leg or my head? Michael Worthy of pondering. It's a ground game of 'identification' that may be key. Could be Word Games. Source: Donald Trump