Donald Trump

[william.scherk]

Frank Luntz collects some Debate Love.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What was the "width" number again?

Adam,

If you are referring to the width of the video, I don't know what is causing it. Probably the setting you have on YouTube itself when you watch videos. You can change the size there and it will copy over when you get the embed code.

Anyway, I fixed it to make the video smaller.

Michael

[Marc]

Here's yesterday--it's how Trump warmed up for tonight's debate:

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Michael

Reminds me of Muhammad Ali , might even had been when he was Cassius Clay and folks loved him or hated him . Clay or Ali ( not sure but it was close to his name change date ) would boast so much and also name the round when his opponent would fall . A reporter mentioned that half the people came to see him win , the other half came to see him get his ass kicked .

I can only imagine folks that MSK will say " they all paid , they all love him , they all whatever " , but lots are coming to see him get trounced and some might even vote .

[Marc]

What did you think of the pair of Nate Silver/538 analyses, assuming you did not merely check my links for integrity but also for content?

I'll read it and get back to you.

Nice. He is not Frankenstein.

My favourite moments of the Kiddies Table Argument were Fiorina being a high-kicking Trumpette on terror, borders, refugees, immigrants, force, might, Fear and Hillary. Both also-rans kicked and shouted but failed. Rand Paul was kicking away in a paper bag somewhere, but nobody could tell.

Fiorina kicked it high, higher, highest. Godface and McShouty are losers and they know it. Angry shouting corpses.

Neither of the shouty tan-booth Christians could say this:

<blockquote class="twitter-video" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/CarlyFiorina">@CarlyFiorina</a>:“Unlike another woman in this race, I actually love spending time with my husband.” <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GOPDebate?src=hash">#GOPDebate</a> <a href="https://t.co/pzy5fSIf5t">https://t.co/pzy5fSIf5t</a></p>— FOX Business (@FoxBusiness) <a href="https://twitter.com/FoxBusiness/status/687772822354055170">January 14, 2016</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

And a nod to the maniacs among us:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/CarlyFiorina">@CarlyFiorina</a>on refugees at the undercard Republican debate <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GOPDebate?src=hash">#GOPDebate</a> <a href="https://t.co/UdNyF4evYw">pic.twitter.com/UdNyF4evYw</a></p>— Newsweek (@Newsweek) <a href="https://twitter.com/Newsweek/status/687775850897485824">January 14, 2016</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Has any US politician read this recently on the campaign trail ?

In my opinion ( before anyone starts preaching to me here ) is that I do not accept the " yeah , but its different this time " comeback . Yeah , different cause you are in the game , and your great grand parents were not terrorists .

The country was blown up ( Syria ) , now people need some help .

Plain and simple .

Carly sold out with this statement to get points . Same as all the rest . Trump , Carley , Rubio , Hillary . Same painting different brush friends

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

[Marc]

Trump killed it again.

Right now, the Drudge poll on who won the debate has him at 56.5% and Cruz at 30%.

Everybody else is eating dust by a long way off (with Rubio only slightly better than the rest).

I would do a screenshot, but I'll wait until tomorrow after more people have voted. Only 159k people have voted so far.

Man, are some crows breaking a sweat.

Michael

Damn , I remember selling bonds to a client in the 80s and my client said I wanna sell at 90 , and I said but the market is 80 . They said " yeah , but the Toronto Star quoted 90 " , I said then sell to the Toronto Star , but the bond market is quoting 80 "

Really , folks , counting delegates is the game here .

DT giving out free popcorn at movie showings of Alice In Wonderland or whatever the feature presentation is has as much to do with delegates in the first 4 states that my bond story has to do with delegates . Somewhere between " zero " and "no chance "

[Marc]

Hey William , not sure if you guys have internet connections in Vancouver but here in Toronto our connections are down .

Could you please research for me the count of delegates counted in Iowa please ?????

Thanks !

[Roger Bissell]

What's a Pragmatic Iowa Evangelical to do??

[Roger Bissell]

Hey William , not sure if you guys have internet connections in Vancouver but here in Toronto our connections are down .

Could you please research for me the count of delegates counted in Iowa please ?????

Thanks !

Hi, Marc. I'm an Iowa transplant, living 19 years (off and on) in the Volunteer State and 25 years (agonizingly in one long stretch) in the Land of Fruits and Nuts. But my sources tell that the Iowa Republican Party will have a total 30 delegates to the National Convention. So that's the "count" of delegates. The "count of delegates counted" - which is what you asked for - is a little trickier. The GOP officials in Iowa decided last year that they want the Hawkeye State's (aka the Corn State's) delegates to be divided proportionally, not winner-take-all. So, "winning" Iowa will be a somewhat vague thing - taking *all* the delegates would certainly be winning, but that's not likely to happen. Probably instead, some will go to Cruz, some to Trump (fewer, I'd guess, because Cruz sticking his foot in his mouth about the Big Apple last night will not likely alienate Iowa voters, who have long chafed at the attitude of New Yorkers toward the Heartland aka Fly-Over Country), and maybe several to Rubio, etc.

However, I do get the drift of your urgent plea in the above.

REB

[Peter]

Here in the county where my granddaughter goes to school all the schools were closed and evacuated. Her Dad picked her up. I have not heard the details yet but I know the FBI is investigating. It does not seem right that one or more individuals can close an entire school district with bomb threats. I was talking to a family member in a Dem state and they will be voting for Mother Bear Clinton who will bomb the crap out of THEM.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I was talking to a family member in a Dem state and they will be voting for Mother Bear Clinton who will bomb the crap out of THEM.

 

Peter,

 

Here is a former STRONG Hillary supporter who disagrees with your family member about Mother Bear Clinton.

 

 

I tried to look into Bob Kunitz, but the hype about what he is saying here is too thick in the search engines (even using custom date ranges). So when I say STRONG, I mean according to what he says, not according to what I have been able to verify.

 

I imagine he is legit, though. Alex Jones can get loopy on interpretation, but he usually has his sources in order.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a bone for anti-Trumpers to chew on.
 

 
The Politico article it comes from is here:
 
Exclusive: RNC member urges party to rally against Trump
 
I'm having a hell of a time trying to find easy info on Google these days. I tried to look into Holland Redfield to see what his general political gist was (other than his rant above), but the hype is thicker than overgrown weeds.
 
Going on my gut, I say if you want to see the face of old-boy crony capitalism, look no further than Mr. Redfield.
 
I especially like the part in his rant where he refers to his party being hijacked by someone. Not by people. By someone. That a single tail now wags the dog (to use his cliché). You can see he is sincere, too. He really doesn't understand that he left out the voters (i.e., Trump supporters) in the hijack. Oh, he says there are angry voices (shudder), but he treats that like a momentary thing of no importance. That's nothing serious...
 
You can almost hear him think, it would be far better to get things done in the cigar-smoke-filled backrooms like life is supposed to be...
 

 
I can't resist quoting his soaring rhetoric at the end of his rant, propounded with emphasis and certainty.
 

A good politician is pragmatic — they have to be to succeed.

 
There's your battle-cry, anti-Trumpers!
 
On to glory with "The Art of the Sellout"!
 

 
Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The country was blown up ( Syria ) , now people need some help .

Plain and simple .

Marc,

This is not either-or in the manner the media likes to frame it.

Reality is a bit broader.

We can find a way to help those who are screwed (the Syrian folks) without being suckers ourselves. Both are on the table--helping the screwed and not getting screwed, not just one.

That's exactly what Trump has been getting at all along.

He uses a wrecking ball at times for rhetoric, but doing both is his aim.

(See his tactic of the bombastic offer in The Art of the Deal--this means you make a bombastic offer in a negotiation that is so over the top, you take the other side's breath away, get them riled, etc. Then as you compromise, you end up at the position you wanted all along.)

Trump has a huge heart--the size of America.

Michael

[Marc]

i have no doubt to the size of his heart . He is a good guy probably . My issue is seeing those boats filled with refugees from Europe being turned away in Canada and the US . People chant " OMG , how did this happen ? " Well its happening right now .

His heart may be good , but DT having the knowledge that 78.6 % of the 4.6 million Syrian refugees are women , children and people over 60 and then spouting " where are the women " and whatever other bullshit followed is a man guided by something other than the truth , and love and etc .

[Marc]

Hey William , not sure if you guys have internet connections in Vancouver but here in Toronto our connections are down .

Could you please research for me the count of delegates counted in Iowa please ?????

Thanks !

Hi, Marc. I'm an Iowa transplant, living 19 years (off and on) in the Volunteer State and 25 years (agonizingly in one long stretch) in the Land of Fruits and Nuts. But my sources tell that the Iowa Republican Party will have a total 30 delegates to the National Convention. So that's the "count" of delegates. The "count of delegates counted" - which is what you asked for - is a little trickier. The GOP officials in Iowa decided last year that they want the Hawkeye State's (aka the Corn State's) delegates to be divided proportionally, not winner-take-all. So, "winning" Iowa will be a somewhat vague thing - taking *all* the delegates would certainly be winning, but that's not likely to happen. Probably instead, some will go to Cruz, some to Trump (fewer, I'd guess, because Cruz sticking his foot in his mouth about the Big Apple last night will not likely alienate Iowa voters, who have long chafed at the attitude of New Yorkers toward the Heartland aka Fly-Over Country), and maybe several to Rubio, etc.

However, I do get the drift of your urgent plea in the above.

REB

First of all , Roger Bissell writing to me is really quite an honour ! Thank you !

So you are agreeing then that 37,000 non voters in Minnesota will not sway Iowa , right ?

[Selene]

First of all , Roger Bissell writing to me is really quite an honour ! Thank you !

So you are agreeing then that 37,000 non voters in Minnesota will not sway Iowa , right ?

Marc:

The Donald will get approximately 40% of the final delegate allocation in Iowa which will either be number one or two.

The morning after Iowa The Donald will be rolling away with New Hampshire and South Carolina. Nevada will be quite interesting.

Then we will have a much better idea of how big this Trump juggernaut actually is.

A...

[william.scherk]

The country was blown up ( Syria ) , now people need some help .

This is not either-or in the manner the media likes to frame it.

One way to frame it is the Canadian way. Help the screwed and in so doing, don't get screwed. Another way to frame it is the Trump way -- if you are a Syrian refugee. you are going to be deported. The GOP presidential candidates, with the exception of Sleepy, Bashful and Dopey, the walking dead, are not as quick as Trump to foresee the Executive Orders to ICE and Homeland and the rest of the Borg. They are muffly wobbly at best.

My dad was a mailman said nothing completely stupid on the issue. Brain surgeon said only completely stupid things on the issue. Your toast is burning. Bzzzt. Get the fork.

The framing is black and white, and the frame of the debate is fear. That's how I see it, anyway. Michael, you surely comprehend at least part of the revulsion some people feel at calls for a religious bar and refugee deportation, in present circumstances. If the strongman Trump cannot tell us now about The Compromise to come, you get a pig in a poke, a pig widely advertised as Wall and Exit Chute Back to Hell. No Syrian refugees, period. Ban Muslim Entry Till I Figure It Out.

Compromise? I just don't understand. Consider the sloganeering in the Canadian campaign. Ban all but male refugees and 'correct' ethnicities from Syria. Ban the niqab in public service. Snitch on bad brown neighbours with an 1-800 hotline on 'barbaric cultural acts.' Terrorists are coming. Boo. And then a bit of bombastic rhetoric: "We will commit to taking in 25,000 Syrian refugees by Xmas."

Election.

Big compromise: "We will have brought in 40,000 by next Christmas."

If you understand that the refugee refusal and deportations planned 'take the breath away' in some people, then you understand something about 'framing.' I would like to get you riled up enough about this to give your own plan, or maybe sketch out what will come out of the pig poke later on ... since it would seem Mr Trump is bullshitting if he does not intend to carry out his repeated pledges.

I for one imagine what Trump pledges now in the context of later achieving what he wanted all along. Having damaged the American brand in the run-up, he later announces he was just grandstanding and 'negotiating'? Yikes.

It makes me think about his flail about the Chinese tariffs, and the casual lie that his interviewers made it up. Is he calling for a Compromise with China later? If they build enough Trump Towers for Ivanka?

This line of defense using 'reality will be different' Compromise Trump just sounds bizarre to me, apologies if I am being dense or stupid.

Trump has a huge heart--the size of America.

i have no doubt to the size of his heart . He is a good guy probably . My issue is seeing those boats filled with refugees from Europe being turned away in Canada and the US . People chant " OMG , how did this happen ? " Well its happening right now .

It's an emotional issue. We shouldn't forget that the American refugee intake machine has been ticking along for all the years of the Syria war. America has managed to vet and invite a grand total of refugees only slightly less generously to Canada's proportions. Where we take in ten they take in a hundred, roughly. So, if we take in ten thousand, America takes in a hundred thousand, year after year. In the next two years or so, America will take in more than two hundred thousand refugees from all over the place.

Since 2011, only a relative trickle of the last million refugees have come from Syria. How many total has America taken in over the last five years of devastating war?

2,296.

I don't think Michael will disagree with where we are coming from, Marc, but perhaps see it only in the structural context of a US election campaign. Our feelings and analysis don't matter in that context. In relation to the actual effect of our feelings and analysis on the US GOP race, he is absolutely right to find emotional objections irrelevant to the moment's political calculations, and if I were a Trump supporter, I would not get bogged down discussing refugee policy to come. So fair enough to play defense for Trump that way.

His heart may be good , but DT having the knowledge that 78.6 % of the 4.6 million Syrian refugees are women , children and people over 60 and then spouting " where are the women " and whatever other bullshit followed is a man guided by something other than the truth , and love and etc .

Hmmmmm. Even if this were true, any of it, all of it, factually, in detail, it doesn't matter. I mean, it doesn't matter to the temper of the US campaign. It is completely out of our hands. About all we can do is sort of wave to Michael from the other side of the window. He is in the cockpit, steering his plane to Victory. We are effectively gremlins clinging to the wing. As a recently-spanked newcomer might say, these frames are not commensurate.

Michael usually considers the Principle of Charity, but in this case he is excused. If you can't grandstand at a circus, and root for your favourite elephant, and utter baleful glances at the clowns getting in the way of the real acts, then when can you? This is not the time to speak of principles and facts. This is the season of King of the Jungle.

Edited January 16, 2016 by william.scherk

[Wolf DeVoon]

Mr. Scherk, since when is charity an Objectivist first principle?

[william.scherk]

A reader from Texas writes in.

Dear Dick Liquor,

Since when is charity an Objectivist first principle?

Dear Greenhorn,

Your question is ill-formed. None of us at Dick's Liquors presented the Principle of Charity as a first principle, let alone as a principle in the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Your first clue was syntax. "Michael usually considers the Principle of Charity."

An honest inquirer will ask "What is The Principle of Charity?" A sham inquirer will ask, "Since when is charity a principle in Objectivism?". A fake inquirer will ask "So, the Principle of Charity is first principle in Objectivism? Ha."

Using your witless and lazy fake inquiry as a class tool, we ask you to consider the phrase one more time, as we help you work through the stages of inquiry.

"Michael usually considers the Principle of Charity."

Step one, formulate research question: Is this true? Step two, open research toolkit. Step three, examine the record of Michael's engagement with the "Principle of Charity" in OL discussions over time. Step four, five, six -- establish methodology, refine statistical tests, define operational terms. Seven, Think. Step ten, publish findings in open archive for peer review. Or, publish question on Clickbait: "Are Martians eating our brains while we sleep?"

Texas Greenhorn, you perform poorly in the middle steps, having stumbled out of the gate with your first cognitive error. What does the Principle of Charity mean? What does the principle mean to Michael? Does it usually operate, and if so, why is William suggesting Michael is excused from its purview in the context I have so carefully removed from my brain?

Texas Greenhorn, we appreciate all good faith questions, especially those that allow us to explain to our classes how stupid some people can be, especially people who think they are quite smart, especially when they make an object lesson in how to be sloppily irrational to your own detriment.

Class will now silently review. Does publishing one-liners on Clickbait serve its purpose for acclaimed filmmaker, oil-market analyst and general sour old has-been windbag Wolf DeVoon?

The key to the tragic irony is that Blanche put herself in the wheelchair trying to harm Jane. So when Jane fed her rats and killed the housekeeper, Blanche herself was kind of to blame, in a distal causal way.

Edited January 16, 2016 by william.scherk

[Selene]

Another way to frame it is the Trump way -- if you are a Syrian refugee. you are going to be deported.

William:

The Donald never said this, therefore you should correct your post #2666

A...

[Roger Bissell]

Hey William , not sure if you guys have internet connections in Vancouver but here in Toronto our connections are down .

Could you please research for me the count of delegates counted in Iowa please ?????

Thanks !

Hi, Marc. I'm an Iowa transplant, living 19 years (off and on) in the Volunteer State and 25 years (agonizingly in one long stretch) in the Land of Fruits and Nuts. But my sources tell that the Iowa Republican Party will have a total 30 delegates to the National Convention. So that's the "count" of delegates. The "count of delegates counted" - which is what you asked for - is a little trickier. The GOP officials in Iowa decided last year that they want the Hawkeye State's (aka the Corn State's) delegates to be divided proportionally, not winner-take-all. So, "winning" Iowa will be a somewhat vague thing - taking *all* the delegates would certainly be winning, but that's not likely to happen. Probably instead, some will go to Cruz, some to Trump (fewer, I'd guess, because Cruz sticking his foot in his mouth about the Big Apple last night will not likely alienate Iowa voters, who have long chafed at the attitude of New Yorkers toward the Heartland aka Fly-Over Country), and maybe several to Rubio, etc.

However, I do get the drift of your urgent plea in the above.

REB

First of all , Roger Bissell writing to me is really quite an honour ! Thank you !

So you are agreeing then that 37,000 non voters in Minnesota will not sway Iowa , right ?

Ooh, trick question, Marc!

What if "someone" in the Demoncrat Party with lots of money to spend wrangled those 37,000 Minnesota non-voters into buses and carried them down to the Iowa caucuses? This allegedly happened on the Demoncrat side back in 2008, when the Obama campaign paid his ACORN buddies $832,000+ for "voter turnout" work during the primaries. (This is a questionable allegation, because the first google hit on <2008 iowa caucuses acorn> yielded this report by the obviously racist bunch over at Newsmax: http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/obama-voter-fraud/2008/10/27/id/326134/ )

Imagine "someone" taking a page out of Obama's (alleged) 2008 playbook and "righted the wrong" that denied us our first woman President (and gave us our first half-black President) - by stacking the deck in favor of a GOP candidate who is a NATIONAL socialist, to run against a more palatable Demoncrat who is a national SOCIALIST. (Trump's policies - including being in favor of national healthcare - are hardly distinguishable from Hillary's, except he doesn't want to tax us as much, and he doesn't want to take away our guns, and he wants America to be "great" again. So he says...)

But I think this will be a year of surprises - maybe even more surprising than 2008. And who knows, maybe The Donald will be nominated and elected and actually be a decent President. Maybe he won't turn on a dime and abandon his economic freedom rhetoric like FDR did in 1932, or abandon his anti-war rhetoric like LBJ did in 1964 (anti-expansion of the Vietnam War). After all, they were politicians and pragmatists, saying what the people wanted to hear so they would get elected - and we all know The Donald is not a politician, but an "outsider." Mmm-mmm-mmm.

REB

P.S. - I appreciate the kind words, Marc, but the honor of writing to you is all mine.

P.P.S. - It's only two additional short words from "You're fired" to "Off with their heads."

[Wolf DeVoon]

WSS,

However loopy and florid your personal attack, there is no principle of charity in Objectivism. I think I read somewhere that MSK isn't bound by O'ist catechism, which is fine. I'm similarly situated, having hacked a little trail in a wilderness that Ayn Rand never explored. But I think you have to retract the notion of charity. It's absolutely anti-Objectivist.

There will come a time fairly soon when I'll ask for material support, not as an unearned gift, but a vote for excellence. I've paid in little sums to support OL occasionally, for similar reasons, voting for excellence. There is no other place on the web to swap ideas, speak freely, and puzzle at preposterous evasions and juvenile "arguments to the man."

If you think anyone is obligated by a principle of charity, you should say so in plain language.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mr. Scherk, since when is charity an Objectivist first principle?

Wolf,

Actual charity like giving money to the needy has nothing to do with this.

The Principle of Charity is a technical term used in academia and the sciences. It means making your best effort to understand what someone is saying before evaluating it. It is the opposite of gotcha.

In other words, if there are two interpretations of a statement, and one is better than the other (or clearer, etc.), you assume the better one until proven otherwise for the purpose of evaluating it, even if the better one runs counter to your ideas and beliefs.

This is an attitude and procedure of understanding more than anything else. The aim is to enhance objectivity.

So when looking at a statement like Trump's proposed temporary ban on the entry of new Muslims to the USA, for example, a person who does not use the Principle of Charity would claim that Trump's meaning is that he is a racist who hates Muslims. That his statement is a form of bigotry and hatred and probably pandering to all the racists out there for votes.

A person who uses the Principle of Charity takes him to mean he is seeking a solution to the thorny problem of covert migration of Islamist terrorists who intend to kill American citizens (and whoever else is around during their attacks), he is probably making a bombastic offer as a form of drawing attention to the problem and neutralizing the obfuscating intimidation of political correctness, and, most likely, he is trying to create some leverage so that Muslim countries will start doing things on their end to help fix this. Such a person would also believe that implementation would entail a great deal of common sense and exceptions, and that Trump's implicit meaning includes this. That would be an example of using the Principle of Charity.

As I understand William (and I might be wrong), he believes I should use the Principle of Charity as a form of granting an automatic "innocent until proven guilty" status to Syrian immigrants (who are impossible to vet correctly) based on their need, which is great and imminent. However, I learned from Ayn Rand that need is not a moral claim on the lives of others.

I have a big heart, myself, so I would like to help to the extent I can without endangering myself and others. But I don't see the Principle of Charity applying to potentially dangerous situations where proven ill intent is plausible. As they say in law courts, it has no standing. I use it only for statements and rhetoric. In fact, the Principle of Charity fits perfectly with my cognitive before normative model of absorbing new knowledge (when using volition).

In this sense, that is if the Principle of Charity means identify a statement correctly to the best of one's ability before evaluating it (instead of the contrary), it could be considered as a first (or near-first) principle in Objectivism. After all, as I have asked before, how can one judge correctly that which one has not identified correctly?

On another point, for those interested in a solution to the plight of the refugees, setting up a no-fly zone in Syria and supplying the refugees with food, shelter and medical stuff works perfectly. It keeps the refugees alive, it eliminates the infiltration of terrorists to the USA until the government can get a handle on this problem (and the Syrian problem in general), and it has the added value of keeping the refugees in their own land where most of them want to stay (according to several accounts I have seen in the news).

Obama won't do this, but I have no doubt Trump will once he gets sworn in.

After all, I use the Principle of Charity when I analyze Trump's statements.

btw - He'll probably make a deal where the Arab countries will pay for most of this aid, too.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

My issue is seeing those boats filled with refugees from Europe being turned away in Canada and the US .

Marc,

It does look like a repeat of the shameful story of boatloads of Jewish immigrants from Nazi Germany being turned away.

However, there is a difference. There was no plausible threat of Nazi terrorists infiltrated among the escaping Jews intent on killing American civilians in surprise attacks. Unfortunately, ISIS and other Islamist terrorist groups are infiltrating the Syrian refugees and even bragging about it.

Like I said above, keeping the refugees in a safe camp (no-fly zone) in Syria is probably the best solution until hostilities permit them to return to their homes or immigrate with good vetting to somewhere else.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

Okay. Never heard the expression before. I'm not sure it makes a great deal of sense, to assume best intentions.

Re no-fly zone, we can't force Russia to stand down, and Qatar/KSA caused Syrian refugees to flee Wahabbi/Sunni jihadis. They are unlikely to pay for Shia repatriation and reconstruction. Nor is there any good reason for Syrian doctors and engineers to return -- ever.

I like Trump's attitude. To hell with it, let the Russians sort it out if they want to.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm not sure it makes a great deal of sense, to assume best intentions.

Wolf,

Not best intentions. Best meaning. (Cognitive, not normative.) In this sense, this means do not attribute a worse meaning to a statement simply because it bolsters your own argument.

Getting back to my Trump example, some people hate Trump so it is convenient for them to believe he is a bigot. Thus they take his ban Muslims statement to mean bigotry. These do not use the Principle of Charity.

Even if I were not a Trump supporter, I would have attributed the meaning I gave to Trump's statement because he has clarified it at other times. Also, I look to his past to see how he has acted. So I situate his statement within the context of what I believe he means, not what I want him to mean to make my case.

That is a correct use of the Principle of Charity.

I agree the term sounds weird. It threw me the first time I heard it, too.

(btw - Trump's a hell of a deal-maker. I doubt he will need to force Russia to do much anything. And I believe he will have the Arabian countries eating out of his hand before too long.)

Michael