Donald Trump

[william.scherk]

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

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

The Donald said:

"And I'll tell you right now, and I'm putting everybody on notice, and hopefully this gets outside of this room, and I guess it will with all these crazy cameras going back there, I'm putting the people on notice, that are coming from Syria, as part of this mass migration, that if I win, if I win, they're going back, they're going back. I'm telling you, they're going back."

And at the debate, Mr Trump's further remarks below informing my comments, of which, Adam, you only quoted a brief snatch. Please don't commit the Blanche Hudson Error, or Jane's Objectivish equivalent will be in a position to feed you rats.

I loved Trump's debate spin into soundbites and garble, not having grasped the question. Anyway, as I explained, some people feel a revulsion at Trump's attitude and feel queasy about his grip on data. Some people don't. As I explained, it doesn't matter in the gong show that is GOP primary season. If Trump carries the day in Cleveland and faces down Clinton, the Syria file is just one aspect of a feeble grasp of law, morality and American exceptionalism. Like I said, maybe Trump's pledges to wall off and deport bad things is a kind of It Sells In Topeka dodge, a pig in a poke. But if that is true, it makes me think Donald is deceptive as well as a slugfest politician in the fight of a lifetime.

It's a circus. I am a spectator. I am just calling it like I see it. It's how I pay my rent around here.

CAVUTO: Mr. Trump, at the State of the Union, the president pointed to a guest who was a Syrian refugee you might recall whose wife and daughter and other family members were killed in an air attack. Now he fled that country seeking asylum here, ultimately ended up in Detroit where he's now trying to start a new life.

The president says that that doctor is the real face of these refugees and not the one that you and some of your colleagues on this stage are painting; that you prefer the face of fear and terror and that you would refuse to let in anyone into this country seeking legitimate asylum. How do you answer that?

TRUMP: It's not fear and terror, it's reality. You just have to look today at Indonesia, bombings all over.

(APPLAUSE)

You look at California, you look, frankly, at Paris where there's a -- the strictest no-gun policy of any city anywhere in the world, and you see what happens: 130 people dead with many to follow. They're very, very badly wounded. They will -- some will follow. And you look around, and you see what's happening, and this is not the case when he introduced the doctor -- very nice, everything perfect but that is not representative of what you have in that line of migration.

That could be the great Trojan Horse. It could be people that are going to do great, great destruction. When I look at the migration, I looked at the line, I said it actually on your show recently, where are the women? It looked like very few women. Very few children. Strong, powerful men, young and people are looking at that and they're saying what's going on?

TRUMP: You look at the kind of damage that two people that two people that got married, they were radicalized -- they got married, they killed 15 people in actually 15 -- going to be probably 16 but you look at that and you take a look -- a good strong look and that's what we have. We are nineteen trillion dollars -- our country's a mess and we can't let all these people come into our country and break our borders. We can't do it.

(APPLAUSE)

Michael, you did indeed read me incorrectly. I excused you from considering the Principle of Charity in the GOP primary circus. Words are being used as blunt objects, as weapons, as jets of burning invective in a torrid firestorm of hoopla. It is not the time for a nice principle. Though I must say you beautifully articulated the importance of the philosophical principle to rational argument and understanding. There was an argument in my preceding remarks that just explained a revulsion. My queasiness has fuck all effect on the circus, not even here.

Wolf, to say it nicely and respectfully, you got a little ahead of yourself. And as far as florid personal attack and deflection go, it was not I who called Sciabarra a Dick Liquor. That was you, sweetheart.

You give. You get. In this case, you get a couple of light spankings and live another day. Unlike with backsplash from Dick Liquor, you are not permanently marked.

The Principle of Charity is a methodological presumption made in seeking to understand a point of view whereby we seek to understand that view in its strongest, most persuasive form before subjecting the view to evaluation.

Edited January 16, 2016 by william.scherk

[Wolf DeVoon]

The Principle of Charity is a methodological presumption made in seeking to understand a point of view whereby we seek to understand that view in its strongest, most persuasive form before subjecting the view to evaluation.

I read the Wikipedia article. As far as I'm concerned it's rubbish. Trump's theme is clear. Stop immigration.

Ayn Rand's theme was equally clear. No charity or benefit of the doubt given to soft focus blather.

[william.scherk]

The Principle of Charity is a methodological presumption made in seeking to understand a point of view whereby we seek to understand that view in its strongest, most persuasive form before subjecting the view to evaluation.

As far as I'm concerned it's rubbish.

Yes, the old Jane, you ignorant slut gambit. It's one way to kill discussion.

Edited January 16, 2016 by william.scherk

[Wolf DeVoon]

That's the end of any future discourse.

[william.scherk]

[Roger Bissell]

I feel like odd-man out here. I really don't like Trump, yet neither do I think he's a bigot or racist in regard to immigrants or refugees.

The Principle of Charity (for civil discourse), properly interpreted, is relevant - but even more relevant is the Principle of Unbiased Perception.

I have never heard Trump advocate a permanent ban to Muslim immigrants or refugees. From the get-go, he has always spoken of temporarily stopping the flow of such people, until we can make sure our method of properly vetting them has been properly defined and is being consistently, effectively carried out. There is considerable evidence to show that he is responding to an actual situation, not reacting out of his own or others' irrational fears.

Yet, people persist to this day in saying that DT wants to permanently ban Muslims from coming to the U.S. This kind of deliberate misrepresentation is, to use terms bandied about freely by our lupine friend, "rubbish" and runs the risk of being "the end of any future discourse."

REB

P.S. - the other sense of "charity" qua benevolence, pertaining not to benefit of the doubt in discourse, but to voluntarily helping those in need, has actually been defended and advocated as a moral obligation by Rand in "The Ethics of Emergencies." Read it carefully. While she says no one has a sacrificial duty to help others, she also says that when one can non-sacrificially help another in need, one *should* do so. And it's not just a slip of the tongue. She uses the term in that context several times in the essay. "Should," last time I check, is a term of *moral obligation.* So, where does this obligation come from? How does it relate to the primary Objectivist virtues of rationality, productiveness, independence, honesty, pride, integrity, and justice? I think a case can be made for charity, as Rand advocates and sanctions it, as being a corollary of either justice or integrity - i.e., either rendering to each man his due or acting in accordance with one's convictions about the basic benefit-of-the-doubt (aha! charity!) worth of each individual. (The latter is a more likely reading from the text of Rand's essay, according to Yaron Brook and Tara Smith.)

[MereMortal]

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 reminds me of something I read about a year ago or so on the Gus Van Horn blog about what is referred to as steelmanning.

I'm serious. I think steelmanning makes you a better person. It makes you more charitable, forcing you to assume, at least for a moment, that the people you're arguing with, much as you ferociously disagree with them or even actively dislike them, are people who might have something to teach you. It makes you more compassionate, learning to treat those you argue with as true opponents, not merely obstacles. It broadens your mind, preventing us from making easy dismissals or declaring preemptive victory, pushing us to imagine all the things that could and might be true in this beautiful, strange world of ours. And it keeps us rational, reminding us that we're arguing against ideas, not people, and that our goal is to take down these bad ideas, not to revel in the defeat of incorrect people.

[Peter]

REB wrote: 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.
end quote

Trump sounds like the “No new taxes” guy at times. I looked it up. Trump historically contributed nearly equally to Democrats and Republicans. He might think of that as business is business or business as usual, and Trump for quite a while he was described as a “State Capitalist.” But who did he endorse? Sort of, kinda Hillary in years past (almost as a bribe) but not Obama. So who did he support in 2008?

(CNN) – Real estate mogul Donald Trump is endorsing Sen. John McCain: “I’ve known him. I like him. I respect him. He’s a smart guy and I think he’s going to be a great president,” Trump said Wednesday night on CNN’s Larry King Live. “I endorse him.” Trump also had praise for McCain’s decision to pick Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. “I think she’s made a tremendous impact. The impact that she has had on rejuvenating almost the Republican Party, it’s been unbelievable.” Trump also confided that he did not know who Palin was before McCain asked her to join him on the GOP ticket. “As soon as we got to see her and watch her, everybody’s impressed,” said Trump. “That really is to John McCain’s credit. What he did in this choice is amazing. . . . It was a courageous choice.”
end quote

Joke time.

A guy goes into a bar in Louisiana where there is a robot bartender. The robot says, “What will you have? The guy replies, “Whiskey.” The robot brings back his drink and asks, “What’s your IQ?” The guy says, “168.” The robot begins to talk about physics, space exploration, and medical technology.

After the guy leaves and the more he thinks about it, the more curious he gets, so he decides to go back.
The robot asks, “What’s your drink?” The guy answers, “Whiskey.” The robot returns with his drink and asks, “What’s your IQ?” The man replies, “100.” The robot talks about Nascar, Budweiser, the Lions, and LSU.

The man finishes his drink, leaves, but is so interested in his “experiment” that he decides to try again.

He enters the bar and, as usual, the robot asks him what he want to drink. The man replies, “Whiskey.” The robot brings the drink and asks, “What’s your IQ?” The man answers, “50.” The robot leans in real close and asks, “So . . . are . . . you . . . people . . . still . . .happy . . . with . . . Obama ?

[Selene]

A guy goes into a bar in Louisiana where there is a robot bartender. The robot says, “What will you have? The guy replies, “Whiskey.” The robot brings back his drink and asks, “What’s your IQ?” The guy says, “168.” The robot begins to talk about physics, space exploration, and medical technology.

After the guy leaves and the more he thinks about it, the more curious he gets, so he decides to go back.

The robot asks, “What’s your drink?” The guy answers, “Whiskey.” The robot returns with his drink and asks, “What’s your IQ?” The man replies, “100.” The robot talks about Nascar, Budweiser, the Lions, and LSU.

The man finishes his drink, leaves, but is so interested in his “experiment” that he decides to try again.

He enters the bar and, as usual, the robot asks him what he want to drink. The man replies, “Whiskey.” The robot brings the drink and asks, “What’s your IQ?” The man answers, “50.” The robot leans in real close and asks, “So . . . are . . . you . . . people . . . still . . .happy . . . with . . . Obama ?

Finally, now that is very funny Peter.

[william.scherk]

The Principle of Charity is ... the opposite of gotcha.

This reminds me of something I read about a year ago or so on the Gus Van Horn blog about what is referred to as steelmanning.

Good catch, Craig. Thanks. It looks like there is a backdoor into Objectivish thought for the Principle. I followed your link to a few places where it seems like the Principle transformed into Steelmanning. A meme on the move! And now lodged in the minds of the front porchers at Objectivist Living. It might be worth a split-off thread ...

This is from a group blog, Less Wrong, which is said to be "devoted to refining the art of human rationality," in a 2011 article called Better Disagreement. The author is referring to a Disagreement Hierarchy, and explicitly notes Steelmanning:

DH0: Name-Calling. The lowest form of disagreement, this ranges from "u r fag!!!" to "Hes just a troll" to "The author is a self-important dilettante."

DH1: Ad Hominem. An ad hominem ('against the man') argument wont refute the original claim, but it might at least be relevant. If a senator says we should raise the salary of senators, you might reply: "Of course hed say that; hes a senator." That might be relevant, but it doesnt refute the original claim: "If theres something wrong with the senators argument, you should say what it is; and if there isnt, what difference does it make that hes a senator?"

DH2: Responding to Tone. At this level we actually respond to the writing rather than the writer, but we're responding to tone rather than substance. For example: "Its terrible how flippantly the author dimisses theology."

DH3: Contradiction. Graham writes: "In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence." For example: "Its terrible how flippantly the author dismisses theology. Theology is a legitimate inquiry into truth."

DH4: Counterargument. Finally, a form of disagreement that might persuade! Counterargument is "contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence." Still, counterargument is often directed at a minor point, or turns out to be an example of two people talking past each other, as in the parable about a tree falling in the forest.

DH5: Refutation. In refutation, you quote (or paraphrase) a precise claim or argument by the author and explain why the claim is false, or why the argument doesnt work. With refutation, you're sure to engage exactly what the author said, and offer a direct counterargument with evidence and reason.

DH6: Refuting the Central Point. Graham writes: "The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someones central point." A refutation of the central point may look like this: "The authors central point appears to be X. For example, he writes 'blah blah blah.' He also writes 'blah blah.' But this is wrong, because (1) argument one, (2) argument two, and (3) argument three."

DH7: Improve the Argument, then Refute Its Central Point. Black Belt Bayesian writes: "If youre interested in being on the right side of disputes, you will refute your opponents' arguments. But if you're interested in producing truth, you will fix your opponents' arguments for them. To win, you must fight not only the creature you encounter; you [also] must fight the most horrible thing that can be constructed from its corpse."

See also Michael's use of Steel and Straw: Great Conversation Starter "Because these are elections, dummy." It is interesting to think how my offerings here might score on the DH scale on a given day or a given hundred of posts. Combining Michael's jocular deconstruction of Fuzzy Chump versus Trump Supporter, I made a brief dialogue. Imagine how the pair's offerings might be scored on the DH scale, or how each claim was steel or straw, and how they might be improved:

The guy, I will call him Fuzzy Chump, talks with a Trump Supporter, briefly. He is coming from the point of view that Trump's 'drawing power' will be tested in elections. Not to be confused with Fuzzy saying "Trump won't bring out the voters" and not to be confused with WSS saying "Premature RubioGasm":

TS: Now, we are supposed to think that this drawing power will somehow evaporate when actual elections happen. Why?

FC: Because they are elections, dummy.

TS: But what's so different about elections in terms of drawing power?

FC: Well... They're elections, dummy. People vote.

TS: Don't people vote in a sense by tuning into a TV channel? Aren't they voting with their time against top entertainment shows?

FC: Man, you're such a dummy! That's different.

TS: You mean, according to you, elections have nothing to do with reality or the public?

FC: Now you're getting it...

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. In an election campaign, the Principle of Charity is abused with wild abandon. Just think how many people got all agitated about Trump's argument on China tariffs, on his plain words at the debate. And think about those who can't interpret these plain words charitably. Straw! Steel!

Inevitably, as it must with me, it comes back to Ayn Rand and humanity's foremost tool, reason. In this case of GOP Circus Hoopla Firestorm Of Deception, where disagreement can be seen as membership in Hater Club, it bears to listen to the lessons of Objectivism and its founder. This Ayn Rand I have always found poignant. The fuzzy thinker who set Rand off is probably a Sanders supporter. I mean, her argument was pretty flabby, I ain't gonna be charitable, and so her interjection was ill-posed, as with TS's final question . The response Rand gives about disagreement and how it is managed is striking, even after all these years.

I think she would loathe Mr Trump, all things considered. As she loathed so much irrationality. But I am probably wrong to think that. We can disagree without being disagreeable, except of course with Dick Liquors.

Edited January 16, 2016 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's a really sad day for me to post this. Glenn Beck has deteriorated a lot from the time I used to promote him. And it's not just because he is against Trump. It's why and how he's against Trump. That's what bothers me.

 

There are lots of people against Trump I'm fine with. 

 

Glenn was on O'Reilly last night and it wasn't good. I don't know if you can see it, but to me, he came off needy. Look at the long fake laugh he made when O'Reilly joked that he was getting old from so much success year after year. I got the feeling Glenn needed this exposure.

 

Why? I suspect his audience is leaving him. I know I've left him as a regular. I didn't renew my subscription, either.

 

 

There's a lot I could say and I will later, but here's Trump's reaction:

 

 

And this from Business Insider:

 

'He looks like hell': Donald Trump unloads on Glenn Beck after being accused of voting for Obama

 

OK. Forget needy, forget progressive and forget the rest until I get to it later. What about this back and forth? Did Trump vote for Obama in 2008 or not? 

 

I hate to say it, but Glenn Beck is either lying or he hates Trump so much he is repeating sloppy copy/paste research hoping it's true.  Someone said something on the Internet, so it must be true. Gimmee a break!

 

What happened (from what I have been able to gather) is that in 2012, Trump made a smart-ass tweet saying congratulations to Obama for winning, that he was accustomed to supporting winners. I think he realized the how this could be read, so he deleted it soon after.

 

Then his opponents took it and ran with it as proof that he voted for Obama. Typical "trading up the chain" crap. (I would find a BBC article to link on this, but I somehow closed the browser tab and I'm running short on time to look it up again. It's not important. If you are curious, Google it. You will find it--and even more articles about this kerfuffle.) How this got to 2008 instead of 2012, I don't know.

 

But I do know Trump was in the tank for McCain in 2008. Both feet. Here is an article from CNN dated September 18th, 2008:

 

Trump endorses McCain

 

I don't even need to quote from the article. The headline says it all.

 

So what the hell, Glenn? Why the lying all of a sudden?

 

I'm pissed at you. Disappointed and pissed.

 

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

[...]

Finally, now that is very funny Peter.

I don't see his peter, but I do see one of his balls, and that is very funny.

[Roger Bissell]

The Principle of Charity is ... the opposite of gotcha.

This reminds me of something I read about a year ago or so on the Gus Van Horn blog about what is referred to as steelmanning.

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. In an election campaign, the Principle of Charity is abused with wild abandon. Just think how many people got all agitated about Trump's argument on China tariffs, on his plain words at the debate. And think about those who can't interpret these plain words charitably. Straw! Steel!

To me, this clip says it all. It conjures up the image of an old, obese woman proudly and unselfconsciously doing a strip-tease at the family picnic. (Thanks a lot, Aunt Shirley. I ruined a good shirt, barfing up my potato salad and baked beans.)

But suppose we want to be benevolent and apply the Principle of Charity to DT's remarks. The very BEST you can say is that taxing China 25% and in general smacking down those who don't engage in "fair" trade - or those who won't buy American-made goods - is part of how we can "make America great again". (Taxing China 25% will of course be passed along to anyone who tries to buy their goods, in defiance of the jawboning by our statist, protectionist rulers.)

However, as Harry Binswanger so eloquently said in a 2003 article in Capitalist Magazine (online), "Buy American" is Un-American! Here's a link to the article: http://capitalismmagazine.com/2003/09/buy-american-is-un-american/

And yes, I think that DT is Un-American. He's far from being the only one that label fits. But he's all we have as an alternative to out-and-out socialism? God save us...

REB

[william.scherk]

I thought that the notorious 'Congratulations' tweet was faked for 2012, and that no comparable 2008 Tweet even exists. What do I know? Shows you how much digging you gotta do with some of this shit.

Apparently the website Politwoops has been cleared by Twitter to resume its work of compiling deleted tweets from politicians. I don't have the time to fact-check the 'congratulations' right now ... and there is nothing on Snopes on it yet ... if Mr Trump says now that there was/wasn't a tweet or that it was faked, much like the New York Times faked his audio recording in re 45% tariffs, who am I to doubt his word?

Apparently, Mr Trump actually got agitated on Obama's re-election night and dashed off some angry calls for revolution. He may or may not have deleted them all. As far as I can tell he was mighty steamed up back on the day.

My favourite fake/meme-spawn/deleted Trump posts are on Ebola and Michelle Malkin. Trump spelled Ebola EBOLA. EBOLA sounds almost as scary as Syrian refugees infected with ISIS. Maybe that is just the way he thinks, in terms of gated communities, and there is nothing wrong with that. They can come in to build Trump 1600 once we figure out what is going on, but until then they have to be kept out, EBOLA people, by a wall. Where have we heard this before?

I don't think Mr Trump gives much thought to the niceties of 'charity' in discussion, so that is moot. But we can still score his utterances, for fun.

Here goes ...

Twitter is a weird mental place. Here is the Tyrant of Trump Tower at his tweet desk.

Edited January 17, 2016 by william.scherk

[Roger Bissell]

This is from a group blog, Less Wrong, which is said to be "devoted to refining the art of human rationality," in a 2011 article called Better Disagreement. The author is referring to a Disagreement Hierarchy, and explicitly notes Steelmanning:

DH0: Name-Calling. The lowest form of disagreement, this ranges from "u r fag!!!" to "Hes just a troll" to "The author is a self-important dilettante."

DH1: Ad Hominem. An ad hominem ('against the man') argument wont refute the original claim, but it might at least be relevant. If a senator says we should raise the salary of senators, you might reply: "Of course hed say that; hes a senator." That might be relevant, but it doesnt refute the original claim: "If theres something wrong with the senators argument, you should say what it is; and if there isnt, what difference does it make that hes a senator?"

DH2: Responding to Tone. At this level we actually respond to the writing rather than the writer, but we're responding to tone rather than substance. For example: "Its terrible how flippantly the author dimisses theology."

DH3: Contradiction. Graham writes: "In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence." For example: "Its terrible how flippantly the author dismisses theology. Theology is a legitimate inquiry into truth."

DH4: Counterargument. Finally, a form of disagreement that might persuade! Counterargument is "contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence." Still, counterargument is often directed at a minor point, or turns out to be an example of two people talking past each other, as in the parable about a tree falling in the forest.

DH5: Refutation. In refutation, you quote (or paraphrase) a precise claim or argument by the author and explain why the claim is false, or why the argument doesnt work. With refutation, you're sure to engage exactly what the author said, and offer a direct counterargument with evidence and reason.

DH6: Refuting the Central Point. Graham writes: "The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someones central point." A refutation of the central point may look like this: "The authors central point appears to be X. For example, he writes 'blah blah blah.' He also writes 'blah blah.' But this is wrong, because (1) argument one, (2) argument two, and (3) argument three."

DH7: Improve the Argument, then Refute Its Central Point. Black Belt Bayesian writes: "If youre interested in being on the right side of disputes, you will refute your opponents' arguments. But if you're interested in producing truth, you will fix your opponents' arguments for them. To win, you must fight not only the creature you encounter; you [also] must fight the most horrible thing that can be constructed from its corpse."

[...]

Inevitably, as it must with me, it comes back to Ayn Rand and humanity's foremost tool, reason. In this case of GOP Circus Hoopla Firestorm Of Deception, where disagreement can be seen as membership in Hater Club, it bears to listen to the lessons of Objectivism and its founder. This Ayn Rand I have always found poignant. The fuzzy thinker who set Rand off is probably a Sanders supporter. I mean, her argument was pretty flabby, I ain't gonna be charitable, and so her interjection was ill-posed, as with TS's final question . The response Rand gives about disagreement and how it is managed is striking, even after all these years.

I think she would loathe Mr Trump, all things considered. As she loathed so much irrationality. But I am probably wrong to think that. We can disagree without being disagreeable, except of course with Dick Liquors.

I wince in pity and sadness for Rand every time I see this clip. She was totally in the right, and that insulting little fool need a smack-down, which she unfortunately did not get. PD, of course, loved it, because (despite his fawning, obsequious ways) he hated Rand (while loving the ratings boost her appearances gave him), especially her anti-altruist, pro-capitalist views.

But Karma will out for PD and the anti-self-interest crowd. As ineffectual and contemptible as Rand was portrayed to be in that clip, the clip below shows Milton Friedman at the top of his game, completely blind-siding PD and his not-quite-clever-enough gotcha question about "greed." This is a classic. Instead of pity, I was however briefly awash in jubilation and admiration. Yeah, Milty! (And PD's perplexed, sideways, frozen expression was classic!)

https://youtu.be/MQ0-cDKMS5M

Do we have anyone who can do this sort of thing any more? What a great teacher and communicator - and debater!

William, in terms of the Disagreement Hierarchy, would you say Uncle Milty earned at least a 6? (And Donahu - maybe a 2?)

REB

[william.scherk]

It isn't always fair to judge a person on his words. Case in point, wherein Mr Trump gives himself whiplash. I suppose it depends on whose ox is being gored polled.

And here is Mr Trump going haywire today on that bitch Ted. Hatchet time!

[Roger Bissell]

Looking for confirmation of the rumor that George Soros is working on a book about his behind-the-scenes involvement in the 2016 Presidential election. It's entitled Mein Trumpf.

[william.scherk]

Donald Trump Booed By Conservative Crowd After Attacks on Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz Goes on Multipronged Attack Against Donald Trump

Donald Trump claims credit for Iran's release of Americans

Ted Cruz and Donald Trump join in criticizing the US prisoner swap with Iran

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe the Trump and Cruz smackdown free-for-all shootout this-is-it now-they're-all gonna-lose oh-shit deathmatch is a brush fire.

 

I still think Ted is going to be Donald's VP.

 

 

Meanwhile, just to keep perspective, here is a small one The Donald did for his friend Scott Walker. It's where the video in my Beck post is from.

 

Departing NH now- great morning with record crowd in Portsmouth- in a snow storm! Thank you! https://t.co/m98wooUwsG pic.twitter.com/izBMhEZolh

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

January 16, 2016

 

And speaking of Glenn Beck, some dude came up with this:

 

@realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/NrUxAMFxxQ

— Jeremy Scheuch (@jeremyscheuch)

January 17, 2016

 

Gawd dayaamm!

 

 

Michael

[william.scherk]

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And yes, I think that DT is Un-American. He's far from being the only one that label fits. But for Objectivists to support this anti-capitalist thug? Come on...this doesn't even rise to the level of Sense of Life Objectivism. It's more like Sense of Life Pragmatist-Progessivist-Mercantilism.

Ah Roger,

Ya' know how to hurt a guy.

You mean I can't be part of the O-Land insider group-think anymore?

Try this one on for size.

I know where you are coming from, but you are wrong.

Wrong.

Not a little wrong.

Completely wrong.

You are thinking with your emotions.

Michael

[Backlighting]

@realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/NrUxAMFxxQ

— Jeremy Scheuch (@jeremyscheuch)

January 17, 2016

Gawd dayaamm!

Michae

A Boris Becker look a like.

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=boris+becker&tbm=isch&imgil=LQyK8iHTkj8VEM%253A%253Bw9229zvV-9W0KM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.sneakerfreaker.com%25252Farticles%25252Fboris-becker-talks-sneakers-80s-tennis-sf%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=LQyK8iHTkj8VEM%253A%252Cw9229zvV-9W0KM%252C_&biw=1502&bih=951&usg=__h8RyrUoKpuyZrW6DdiQDxIqhCIg%3D&ved=0ahUKEwjys-TrgLDKAhVOw2MKHf5lDqkQyjcIfA&ei=KhibVvL2CM6GjwP-y7nICg#imgrc=LQyK8iHTkj8VEM%3A&usg=__h8RyrUoKpuyZrW6DdiQDxIqhCIg%3D

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ha!

I've been told offstage that I misidentified the Trump-Beck mashup. That it's really Guy Fieri.

But nah...

The Photoshopping was too obvious in the mashup.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And yes, I think that DT is Un-American. He's far from being the only one that label fits. But for Objectivists to support this anti-capitalist thug? Come on...this doesn't even rise to the level of Sense of Life Objectivism. It's more like Sense of Life Pragmatist-Progessivist-Mercantilism.

Ah Roger,

Ya' know how to hurt a guy.

You mean I can't be part of the O-Land insider group-think anymore?

Try this one on for size.

I know where you are coming from, but you are wrong.

Wrong.

Not a little wrong.

Completely wrong.

You are thinking with your emotions.

Michael

A footnote to this.

Dish it out and you're gonna have to take it.

OL is not SLOP and certainly not below SLOP, I don't care what kind of peer-pressure and insult someone is trying to use in the place of a rational argument.

Zinnnnnnnngggg...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's some classic marketing:

 

Trump video explains how to caucus in Iowa
By Caitlin Yilek

January 16, 2016

The Hill

 

Here's the video:

 

 

The marketing lesson is called "call to action."

 

You not only tell people what you want them to do, you show them and simplify it for them. And you don't take a lot of time doing it.

 

I expect this video will be pumped like hell from now until Feb. 1.

 

Michael