Recommended Posts

Who is this strange woman?

I shudder with each visit.

It's the implicit power of the Barb.

--Brant

beware, beware, beware OL--beware, beware, beware!

I have warned you; these Canadians are not here for our own good--but they smile, smile, smile

Yeach!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mwa-ha-ha.

It is the Queen of Air and Darkness.

You always knew it.

Ware tomorrow! Welll, that would be me, sorry -- Ware today!@

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WIlliam would never, ever, ever do this:

no-no-no-very-bad-man-Babu-Bhatt-seinfel

Right?

I want a strip search of this entity that claims to be "Carol."

All of a sudden "it" cannot use the software? Looks like our Northern border needs some walls also.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two points.

One, that is not a lot of money to pay for a three day seminar.

Two, one has to effectively employ the concepts with your own hard work and thought to succeed.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete,

 

Heh.

 

Buckley didn't like Rand, either. :smile:

 

National Review is old money right-wing cronies. They talk small government. They make big government with big wars.

 

If they ever start liking Trump, that will mean Trump is selling out. :smile:

 

And for the hell of it:

 


 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha!

Here is Lawrence O'Donnell totally wimping out. No embeddable video so far, you have to go to the site, but once something comes on YouTube, I will post it.

Donald Trump’s challenge to Lawrence O’Donnell
New Republican Presidential frontrunner Donald Trump challenged Lawrence to a bet of one year’s salary Thursday morning. Lawrence responded on “The Last Word.”

O'Donnell said he liked Donald Trump.

O'Donnell said Donald Trump has always been gracious to him and he is grateful.

O'Donnell said he did not want to be the story, but instead cover Donald Trump.

O'Donnell said he was trying to have fun (er... this particular backpedal was pretty lame).

O'Donnell said he went overboard on his rant on Morning Joe and he regrets it.

O'Donnell said HE WILL NOT TAKE THE BET.

:smile:

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actor Hugh Brant to that babe in the movie, Notting Hill: It stalled out and basically went away because it was too much a cult and not enough of a religion on the one hand and not enough of a philosophy on the other it was so corrupted by its cultural artifacts, primarily from its top-downism and Russian-European influences never completely and substantially enough transcended by Ayn Rand. The real theme of Atlas Shrugged is give-upism. end quote

Interesting. I give up. Yes, I have not figured it out my self but in some ways Ayn Rand wanted to be an authoritarian and religious figure like The Pope.

R.W. Bradford wrote about Jeff Walkers The Ayn Rand Cult: If there ever was any doubt that the movement that Nathaniel Branden built around Ayn Rand was a cult, it was removed by the publication of Nathaniel Branden's Judgment Day (1989). In this basically sympathetic portrait of Rand and those around her, one can see ample characteristics of a cult: the beliefs that "Ayn Rand is the greatest human being who ever lived, . . . Atlas Shrugged [Rand's masterwork] is the greatest human achievement in the history of the world, . . . that Ayn Rand, by virtue of her philosophical genius is the supreme arbiter of any issue . . . no one can be a fully consistent individualist who disagrees with Ayn Rand on any fundamental issue . . . since Ayn Rand has designated Nathaniel Branden as her 'intellectual heir,' and has repeatedly proclaimed him to be an ideal exponent of her philosophy, he is to be accorded only marginally less reverence than Ayn Rand herself . . ." (Judgment Day, pp 258-9). end quote

Put that together with Barbara Branden's The Passion of Ayn Rand and everyone's own experience with Ayn Rand and you may conclude that she was a religious icon, and she was quite pleased with her stature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael wrote: Trump kills it because he knows how to use Twitter for influence. And Michael quoted: Among voters who identify either as Republicans or independents and who plan to vote in their states' Republican primaries or caucuses, 17 percent named Trump as their first choice for the GOP nomination in the 2016 presidential race. end quotes

Like Christie, Trump wows the gunslingers among us, but he will make no further significant headway towards his election as President with his loose rhetoric. He is shooting down a lot of potential supporters.

I think a few of his detractors here like Adam, would welcome a chance to become his advisor, (if only secretly since he said Trump's use of Twitter was a pleasure to observe.) As Penn said, Trump needs some filters. If Trump IS serious he will put together an A-Team. We can only dream but with his desire and money he could make it a reality in one day's time.

Who would you pick for press secretary and spokesperson, strategist, and Ad maker? Who would create and handle his web site? Who would he star in his commercials? I think Kevin Bacon and his wife Kyra Sedgwick (in her personae as Brenda Lee in The Closer) could put together some smashing political commercials for the next President of the United States, Donald Trump! He could harness blogs and stellar sites like Objectivist Living. I would not mind a Trump commercial at the top of the page. Any other bright ideas? How would you run his dream campaign?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael wrote: Trump kills it because he knows how to use Twitter for influence. And Michael quoted: Among voters who identify either as Republicans or independents and who plan to vote in their states' Republican primaries or caucuses, 17 percent named Trump as their first choice for the GOP nomination in the 2016 presidential race. end quotes

Like Christie, Trump wows the gunslingers among us, but he will make no further significant headway towards his election as President with his loose rhetoric. He is shooting down a lot of potential supporters.

I think a few of his detractors here like Adam, would welcome a chance to become his advisor, (if only secretly since he said Trump's use of Twitter was a pleasure to observe.) As Penn said, Trump needs some filters. If Trump IS serious he will put together an A-Team. We can only dream but with his desire and money he could make it a reality in one day's time.

Who would you pick for press secretary and spokesperson, strategist, and Ad maker? Who would create and handle his web site? Who would he star in his commercials? I think Kevin Bacon and his wife Kyra Sedgwick (in her personae as Brenda Lee in The Closer) could put together some smashing political commercials for the next President of the United States, Donald Trump! He could harness blogs and stellar sites like Objectivist Living. I would not mind a Trump commercial at the top of the page. Any other bright ideas? How would you run his dream campaign?

Peter, you are stuck in old campaign models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete,

Heh.

So well poisoning is to deny deniers?

Now we can deny the deniers of deniers, and then deny the deniers of deniers of deniers...

That's a well that runs deep.

:smile:

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a cap to the Lawrence O'Donnell apology to Trump.

 

Donald Trump and MSNBC host walk back their feud in an incredible TV clip

 

There's a video at that link that is longer than the one below. It is fascinating to watch for several reasons. They will get discussed over time, but the main one is how Trump manages to charm his enemies.

 

This is one of the reasons I believe he will go the distance and get elected. He knows how to target enemies, then neutralize with charm the folks who should support said enemies.

 

 

btw - The YouTube title said Trump calls off his bet with O'Donnell. Not accurate. O'Donnell refused to take the bet and essentially apologized to Trump for about 5 minutes on air.

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mythical Connection Between Immigrants and Crime

They might start by pointing out that numerous studies going back more than a century have shown that immigrants—regardless of nationality or legal status—are less likely than the native population to commit violent crimes or to be incarcerated. A new report from the Immigration Policy Center notes that while the illegal immigrant population in the U.S. more than tripled between 1990 and 2013 to more than 11.2 million, “FBI data indicate that the violent crime rate declined 48%—which included falling rates of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and murder. Likewise, the property crime rate fell 41%, including declining rates of motor vehicle theft, larceny/robbery, and burglary.”

Don't you just love when everyone "studies up!"

My study can beat up your study!

A separate IPC paper from 2007 explains that this is not a function of well-behaved high-skilled immigrants from India and China offsetting misdeeds of Latin American newcomers. The data show that “for every ethnic group without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants,” according to the report. “This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population.”

Anybody ever look at these studies?

First issue is to define which "immigrants" we are comparing and are the results based on weighted populations.

http://latinosreadytovote.com/the-mythical-connection-between-immigrants-and-crime-3/

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump on O'Reilly last night:
 

 
Helluva quote from that interview about how to combat terrorism:
 

You have be intelligent, and... you have to bring back the word "intelligence"...

 
Trump is not talking about information gathering in this context.

 

He is talking about not being a dummy.

 

Here is a good example of what he means, and he didn't even mean it to be an example. Later, getting to the government meaning of the word "intelligence," O'Reilly asked Trump if he would reorganize all the intel agencies. Trump responded he would certainly put the people who are the smartest and the best in there. He said that there are unbelievable law enforcement agents who are amazing people. He said they are not being used and he wants to let them do their jobs.

 

That's intelligent.

 

If people wonder what Trump's appeal is, but do not understand the massive hunger for that kind of approach after 15 years of Bush and Obama, they will never get it. But the hunger is real and people who have checked out are now flocking to Trump like crazy.

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's intelligent.

If people wonder what Trump's appeal is, but do not understand the massive hunger for that kind of approach after 15 years of Bush and Obama, they will never get it. But the hunger is real and people who have checked out are now flocking to Trump like crazy.

Michael

Precisely Michael:

I would tell anyone who has not voted in the last Presidential and Gubernatorial races, in their state, to check, either on-line, or, on the phone, to verify that they are still registered and where their polling place will be on every voting day.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really not how much crime illegals are committing vs the general population or other segments of the population. Look at the huge cut blacks get. It's how much crime recent illegals commit, especially from Central American gangs. Trump is generalizing too much off particular slices of data. Someone deported five times and comes back to commit a murder--that's a problem for law enforcement or improper use of law enforcement. This is referencing extant legalities not how to make better law out of libertarian principles. That's a hard nut to crack, but in the meantime--what?

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More on immigration and crime

I found the article through this one, which is itself an interesting read full of links worth following.

I am fascinated by this myth that somehow we are to assume Trump is a "Conservative," as if this pidgeonholed semantic label had definition.

Trump is a pragmatist who knows how to manage. An executive who would be a superior head of the Executive branch of our government.

However, he is no "Conservative."

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Superior head of the Executive branch" doesn't mean he should be in charge of foreign policy or commander-in-chief of the armed forces unless there is some way to guarantee he won't be presiding over any serious war. Bush invading Iraq was bad enough. The next one is easily going to be much worse. War--actual war--is political failure out of the box. The next President needs a more modest view of his abilities than Trump has of his. A businessman like Trump operates within the political context of his nation. Putting him in charge of the context is a whole another ball of wax. There is one caveat to my caveat, however: the foreign policy of this country is being run by neo-con bureaucratic idiots looking for a war and Trump, as opposed to any other candidate I can think of, would have the force of personality and the brains to stop them. This leaves Trump, to me, still on top of the presidential candidate heap.

--Brant

thinking of moving to the southern hemisphere

he's not a "conservative"--should he be?--this is not a conservative forum (is this me being delusional?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Superior head of the Executive branch" doesn't mean he should be in charge of foreign policy or commander-in-chief of the armed forces unless there is some way to guarantee he won't be presiding over any serious war. Bush invading Iraq was bad enough. The next one is easily going to be much worse. War--actual war--is political failure out of the box. The next President needs a more modest view of his abilities than Trump has of his. A businessman like Trump operates within the political context of his nation. Putting him in charge of the context is a whole another ball of wax. There is one caveat to my caveat, however: the foreign policy of this country is being run by neo-con bureaucratic idiots looking for a war and Trump, as opposed to any other candidate I can think of, would have the force of personality and the brains to stop them. This leaves Trump, to me, still on top of the presidential candidate heap.

--Brant

thinking of moving to the southern hemisphere

he's not a "conservative"--should he be?--this is not a conservative forum (is this me being delusional?)

Lol. No Brant, that was the focus of the article that Reidy linked to.

There are "voices" in the "Conservative" moniker who are whispering, well you know Trump is no "Conservative."

Yeah, I do.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am fascinated by this myth that somehow we are to assume Trump is a "Conservative," as if this pidgeonholed semantic label had definition.

Trump is a pragmatist who knows how to manage. An executive who would be a superior head of the Executive branch of our government.

However, he is no "Conservative."

Adam,

This is spot on.

But there is a nuance.

I believe Trump did not have a political worldview until recently. That would make him a pragmatist, I suppose. But it is not the same pragmatism of Richard Nixon. I think it goes more into the realm of common sense. In this version, you look at a problem, get the best people you can find on board, analyze the causes, make a plan to fix it, and implement and produce. This is a lot different than a philosophical "if it works, use it, if not, discard it," approach to wide abstractions of principle.

In other words, there are solid unchanging principles already underlying Trump's common sense approach: competence, integrity (with respect to a project, but not to politicians), goal-directed action, and so on.

The previous scope of Trump's big-picture philosophical thinking was limited to his projects and simply getting shit done. For example, why did he give money and praise to Hillary before? It's because she and her hubby were in power and he needed to get rid of their obstacles to get his projects built and running.

That sounds simple, but I believe it is that simple. If Hillary did not have power that created obstacles for him, he would not have ever involved her in his projects. I can practically guarantee that. I mean, what can she do productively? She was a gatekeeper, not a partner. And that is how Trump has managed politics in the past. Be nice to gatekeepers and get them out of the way.

Nowadays, though, I believe he is acquiring a bigger picture. Not because he is innately political or philosophical or ideological, but simply because it comes with the territory of this new project of his--restoring the country to greatness. Now he has to think in wider social abstractions. And he's doing that in a call it as he sees it manner that is open to correction if he finds he is wrong.

So, yes, he will tend to be pragmatic where others would be ideological, but it is a pragmatism grounded in the reality of cause and effect, real-world competence, objective goals, and so on.

Here's another example. Brant raised the issue of Trump commanding the military and, like, what's keeping him from engaging in the neocon version when thinking about war other than a lack of involvement with it?

And here's the reality. In almost all countries where we could fight a really nasty long drawn-out war, Trump is already doing real estate business. He's not afraid of Putin because he builds in Russia. He employs Russians in Russia. Ditto China. And so on. He does not need to nation build with the military in charge. He is--and has been for years--nation building with old-fashioned capitalism where everybody wins.

If he ever went to war with, say, ISIS, he would go in, get the job done quickly, and get out. And, I believe, he would keep the American people informed about his actions and the reasons for them in broad general terms.

The very image of him to foreign leaders will be colored by this. Since they are all eminently corruptible, I see Trump easily making one deal after another rather than playing war games.

And here is the most important implication of that: Trump does not need war to make money like the military-industrial complex does. Trump makes money, lots of it, peacefully.

And I believe this will set a world standard--it will be a role model for the world--during his administration should he be elected.

I could go on about this all day. But in short, pragmatism-wise, there's a reason Trump's main appeal is to working class and middle class folks and not the elites. That appeal is common sense and a can-do attitude with the chops and history to back it up. And, literally, he does not want to screw anybody unless they try to screw him.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael:

This is also spot on:

Nowadays, though, I believe he is acquiring a bigger picture. Not because he is innately political or philosophical or ideological, but simply because it comes with the territory of this new project of his--restoring the country to greatness. Now he has to think in wider social abstractions. And he's doing that in a call it as he sees it manner that is open to correction if he finds he is wrong.

His gestalt is precisely that of "projects," individual blocks that are managed exceptionally well and are connected within a larger plan.

I knew as I hit post that I should never have used an unqualified term like "pragmatist."

I also agree with your definition in relation to Trump.

Frankly, I do not see many downsides to him in office at this time in our very fragile Republic.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael wrote or was it Adam, that Trump has, ". . . common sense and a can-do attitude with the chops and history to back it up."

Imagine Tina Turner singing without rhyming, What's that got to do with it? Those are second hand emotions . . . If Trump has attitude, chops, and common sense . . . he also has lots of baaaagaaaage.

I get the feeling that Trump's support is a send up and tongue in cheek, like that commercial: Toe nail fungus? Seriously? Not so oddly, all the other candidates are relatively well known AND considered serious. Trump is a TV personality and a celebrity. His philosophy currently floats in the clouds and he is not yet serious.

If he ever does get serious, he needs a written platform, principles, and positions on just about every subject that will be brought up in interviews and debates. Now that he is a semi-viable candidate, America needs to be sure he is not a buyable candidate. Is he corrupt and for cronyism and eminent domain? We will find out the second he truly seems viable to the left wing press. So, will he then divest himself of his world - wide holdings? Will he put his funds into a blind trust so that there is no conflict of interest?

Michael wrote: I believe Trump did not have a political worldview until recently. That would make him a pragmatist, I suppose. But it is not the same pragmatism of Richard Nixon. end quote

I don't think he would meddle in the economy like Nixon and he would not apply wage and price freezes. In spite of his criticism of Mexico and China those countries are two of our biggest trading partners so Trump will favor commerce over state's craft and therefor China over Russia. He would be better than Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...