Donald Trump

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Something's cooking...

 

Big announcement in Ames, Iowa on Tuesday! You will not want to miss this rally! #Trump2016 https://t.co/J2wyAfXdlz pic.twitter.com/lErVfowpMX

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

January 17, 2016

 

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

"Moral high horse"?? "Misrepresentation"??

Roger,

Precisely.

But rather than argue with someone who is already convinced according to his own jargon, let me suggest you don't vote for a presidential candidate in this election.

We've already discussed the eminent domain issue on this thread, but I'll mention it again. Everyone running on the Republican side supports the Keystone Pipeline. That is a project embroiled in not one, but many eminent domain lawsuits. And it has to be in order to exist. And guess who benefits? The government? Hell no. It's a private company. And a Canadian company at that.

I notice you have no venom for the other candidates on the Keystone Pipeline eminent domain score. The only one you hate is Trump. (I'm basing my comment on your printed words.)

That tells me the issue is other. (I don't know what that might be, but I am pretty sure eminent domain is the paint job. Something else is underneath.)

Even so, based on the importance you place on eminent domain for disqualifying a candidate, I certainly can't see how you can morally justify voting for any of the candidates. On the Republican side, according to your stated views and their support of a project premised on eminent domain for a private company from another country, they are all thieves. And on the Democrat side, they actually are all thieves.

btw - Expect President Trump (if he gets the job) to revive the Keystone Pipeline and undo Obama's crap.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

Roger:

I believe you owned a house in California and one where you moved East.

Is it "stealing" that you get to deduct the interest on your mortgage because of an IRS statutory deduction?

A...

Yes, in the same sense that it's stealing if I walk into Al Capone's house and take back some of the money he stole from me first.

However, I never owned a house in California, and don't ever come to Tennessee and refer to it as "East."

REB

[Selene]

Roger:

I believe you owned a house in California and one where you moved East.

Is it "stealing" that you get to deduct the interest on your mortgage because of an IRS statutory deduction?

A...

Yes, in the same sense that it's stealing if I walk into Al Capone's house and take back some of the money he stole from me first.

However, I never owned a house in California, and don't ever come to Tennessee and refer to it as "East."

REB

Cute.

However, in this conversation that you and I are having, you rely on a lot of "what ifs" argumentation...What if you owned a house in California?

Your answer is that that would be stealing?

Interesting.

A...

[Roger Bissell]

"Moral high horse"?? "Misrepresentation"??

Roger,

Precisely.

But rather than argue with someone who is already convinced according to his own jargon, let me suggest you don't vote for a presidential candidate in this election.

We've already discussed the eminent domain issue on this thread, but I'll mention it again. Everyone running on the Republican side supports the Keystone Pipeline. That is a project embroiled in not one, but many eminent domain lawsuits. And it has to be in order to exist. And guess who benefits? The government? Hell no. It's a private company. And a Canadian company at that.

I notice you have no venom for the other candidates on the Keystone Pipeline eminent domain score. The only one you hate is Trump. (I'm basing my comment on your printed words.)

That tells me the issue is other. (I don't know what that might be, but I am pretty sure eminent domain is the paint job. Something else is underneath.)

Even so, based on the importance you place on eminent domain for disqualifying a candidate, I certainly can't see how you can morally justify voting for any of the candidates. On the Republican side, according to your stated views and their support of a project premised on eminent domain for a private company from another country, they are all thieves. And on the Democrat side, they actually are all thieves.

btw - Expect President Trump (if he gets the job) to revive the Keystone Pipeline and undo Obama's crap.

Michael

So, I'm convinced of my position "according to my jargon"?

Thanks for the suggestion, but I definitely *will* be voting for President this November.

A suggestion: check your facts and/or implications. Yes, every GOP candidate supports the Keystone pipeline, but *not* every GOP candidate supports eminent domain for the pipeline. There were two GOP Senators who voted against using eminent domain for Keystone. Would you care to guess - or google - who at least *one* of them was? The one GOP Presidential candidate that actually *isn't* a thief?

"Hate" and "venom" are very strong words, especially since I haven't stated *any* position here about the Keystone project. (My position is the same as those two GOP Senators mentioned above, the two GOP Senators who actually *aren't* thieves on this matter.)

However, my opinion about Trump on the Keystone issue is the same as for the other GOP candidates (excluding the unnamed one mentioned above, who is *not* a thief).

Since *none* of them (apparently) has a personal financial stake in the project, none of them (including Trump) is tainted in the same egregious way that Trump is in regard to his trying to use eminent domain for *his* personal financial gain. However, there are degrees of "taint," and favoring eminent domain for crony capitalism, if not a red flag, is at least amber-turning-orange. The whole bunch (save one) are, in principle, crony capitalists, at best. Boo. But Trump is a crony capitalist *in deed* (indeed). Boo-and-double-boo. Red flag.

"Paint job"? As I said previously, one red flag makes me stop and look very carefully at someone's other views. They may say some very good things, and say some things that really need to be said. But that is not nearly enough for me. I've already mentioned other views of DT that are protectionist-mercantilist-crony-capitalist, not laissez-faire capitalist. I'll be watching to see whether he modifies these ill-considered views, as well as on the other hand whether he comes out with still more as the campaign rolls along.

"They're all doing it" isn't a very good argument - especially when it's not even true.

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I suppose I have to get to the latest pearl of wisdom from the intellectual effetes who try to explain to me what I really am because I support Trump.

I received the following article offline from a dear friend earlier today.

The One Weird Trait That Predicts Whether You’re a Trump Supporter
And it’s not gender, age, income, race or religion.
By Matthew MacWilliams
1/17/2016
Politico

On skimming it, here is what I responded:

LOL...

What a crock.

This guy doesn't recognize self-confidence when he sees it. He calls it "authoritarianism."

Dayaamm!

What he means is that Trump supporters don't bow down before people like him. They use their own minds to come to their own conclusions. In that respect, I agree they are "authoritarian." They own their own minds.

I only skimmed this article so far (I have to leave soon), but I'm going to do a number on it later on OL.

I'm sure you saw my reaction in your mind before you sent this. If not, I'm sure you felt it.

. . .

So yes, I guess we both are authoritarian when it comes to not worshipping morons. We do it our way. If a moron wants to call that "authoritarian," that shows exactly who he or she is thinking of ruling. Namely us. And that ain't happening.

Now I have read the article more carefully and it's even worse than I thought.

To start with, here is the blurb on Politico about the author, Matthew MacWilliams.

Matthew MacWilliams is founder of MacWilliams Sanders, a political communications firms, and a Ph.D. candidate in political science at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, where he is writing his dissertation about authoritarianism.

So I thought, cool. I wonder what MacWilliams Sanders does for real. So I Googled it and got to its site.

On the About page, there is this gem:

There's a simple reason we do what we do: our belief that we can help make real change.

That's why we work everyday to elect good, progressive candidates; why we fight to protect our environment; and why we're committed to defending workers' rights, civil rights and human rights.

That’s not all we believe – but it is a large part of who we are.

For almost 20 years, MacWilliams Sanders Communication has worked with progressive organizations, labor unions, Democratic candidates, foundations and issue campaigns.

Well, at least we know who is calling who "authoritarian."

btw - In looking at that About page, it seems MacWilliams was a Walter Mondale insider. Is that important? Nah... maybe... whatever... but there it is.

Now, what was MacWilliams's criteria for determining who was authoritarian and who was not? (Don't forget, his polling is "scientific." )

Let me quote from the article (my bold).

Political pollsters have missed this key component of Trump’s support because they simply don’t include questions about authoritarianism in their polls. In addition to the typical battery of demographic, horse race, thermometer-scale and policy questions, my poll asked a set of four simple survey questions that political scientists have employed since 1992 to measure inclination toward authoritarianism. These questions pertain to child-rearing: whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious. Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian.

That's it, folks.

Get it wrong on four either-or questions about child rearing and you are branded authoritarian by this dude.

Like I said in my email, what a crock!



Here's a metric none of these idiots who try to explain the real real hidden reason why Trump supporters really support Trump. No really. This time it's right!

Try individual productive values, that is whether a person blames himself when he does a bad productive job or blames someone or something else. And whether a person feel non-guilty pride in his ability when he does a good productive job or whether he feels he has to share the glory. You won't see anyone asking about this.

Before I finish, here's another gem from the article:

Authoritarianism is not a new, untested concept in the American electorate. Since the rise of Nazi Germany, it has been one of the most widely studied ideas in social science. While its causes are still debated, the political behavior of authoritarians is not. Authoritarians obey. They rally to and follow strong leaders. And they respond aggressively to outsiders, especially when they feel threatened.

Well, now, that's great. Trump supporters are all spiritual Nazis.

People like MacWilliams don't realize that if Trump started acting like a political insider who would sell them out irrespective of how "authoritarian" he seemed doing it, they would leave him in droves.

Trump is not about a personality cult and it is not about a bunch of frustrated control freaks walking around and finally coming into their own. Hell, progressives are control freaks par excellence. Certain kinds of religious folks, too, I admit.

But that is not the Trump appeal. Er... I am wrong on one respect. Control freaks actually do factor into Trump's appeal.

Trump supporters are sick to death of control freaks. They will not bow down any longer before control freaks. And they are irritated that there are so many control freaks running rampant in the culture. Trump supporters just want to be left alone. And they want to be left alone so they can produce stuff to the best of their abilities.

But I don't expect the committed anti-Trump people to ever get this. So I suppose the anti-Trump folks will like this article.

To me, I am putting it in my Evernote file called "Trump explanation." This is a file I am compiling of clippings from news articles that "explain" Trump and Trump supporters. I started it back in July and boy is it full. There is one boneheaded theory after another. I didn't realize just how boneheaded people could get, nor how varied they could get in their boneheadedness.

I've been needing to start making videos, so I might start with one where I showcase this stuff.

Anyway, another boneheaded theory just got added.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

Roger:

I believe you owned a house in California and one where you moved East.

Is it "stealing" that you get to deduct the interest on your mortgage because of an IRS statutory deduction?

A...

Yes, in the same sense that it's stealing if I walk into Al Capone's house and take back some of the money he stole from me first.

However, I never owned a house in California, and don't ever come to Tennessee and refer to it as "East."

REB

Cute.

However, in this conversation that you and I are having, you rely on a lot of "what ifs" argumentation...What if you owned a house in California?

Your answer is that that would be stealing?

Interesting.

A...

It was an analogy, not a "what if."

I'm sorry my position was not sufficiently clear.

It is not stealing to take back some of what is stolen from you - whether it's from Al Capone or the federal government.

I hold that view on principle - or as some would say, I'm "convinced according to my jargon."

Do you require further clarification?

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There were two GOP Senators who voted against using eminent domain for Keystone. Would you care to guess - or google - who at least *one* of them was? The one GOP Presidential candidate that actually *isn't* a thief?

Roger,

Ha!

I don't even need to look that one up. I already know it's Rand Paul.

btw - Is he still running?

Michael

[william.scherk]

A few more details on Iowa Caucusing for Trump -- how to figure out exactly where to go -- from an Iowa gentleman who is Trump captain in his precinct. I will later transcribe the fiddly bits from the gent, and post links. If I was marketing the How To Caucus video, I would have the details clickable, and the details already programmed into a site on the Trump side. That way, any Trump Iowa supporters who have not been recruited already -- at a rally or by operatives off the RNC lists, or by friend, neighbour, family -- they could just click in their Zip code and bam, there spits out a reminder with all the details, ready to print and tweet and stick on the bulletin board at the truck stop ...

The exciting part of the night of February 1 is in the ground game and the turn-out. It is not completely predictable in advance -- at least with two weeks left on the clock.

The closer to Iowa we get, the less meaningful the actual results, in a way. By the day before the results, we will have a very good rough idea which way the chips will fall, and how the preference proportions will be reported, ie, Trump 36%, Cruz 27%, etc ... and yet the circus will have moved on to Hoopla In New Hampshire. As I have noted, the actual delegate totals are teeny, and the winner is not necessarily indicative. This is almost certainly the verdict of Iowa, though its verdict will spare a couple of the walking dead from a few more weeks and months of spending and balloting.

Being wonkish, I think the neatest thing about Iowa is the retail game, even if the outcome is not going to make a slight bit of difference in the next three heats. I have been reading today all the things Mr Trump has said about Iowa expectations the past week or so, and I think he has calculated quite well. His eyes are on the horizon ... even as his supporters slug it out in the organizing and instructing and mobilizing. Thanks, Michael for the goad to a bit of research. If I was in Iowa, apparently I could pick up a paper at the gas station on February 1st, with every last precinct IDed.

By the time the date comes, I will be so wonked out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYd1Qw9G614

-- a snapshot of the running window of polls in Iowa via RCP -- just a bit out of date. It is going to be tight, if one had to close off bets right now:

POLLS!

[Selene]

Roger:

I believe you owned a house in California and one where you moved East.

Is it "stealing" that you get to deduct the interest on your mortgage because of an IRS statutory deduction?

A...

Yes, in the same sense that it's stealing if I walk into Al Capone's house and take back some of the money he stole from me first.

However, I never owned a house in California, and don't ever come to Tennessee and refer to it as "East."

REB

Cute.

However, in this conversation that you and I are having, you rely on a lot of "what ifs" argumentation...What if you owned a house in California?

Your answer is that that would be stealing?

Interesting.

A...

It was an analogy, not a "what if."

I'm sorry my position was not sufficiently clear.

It is not stealing to take back some of what is stolen from you - whether it's from Al Capone or the federal government.

I hold that view on principle - or as some would say, I'm "convinced according to my jargon."

Do you require further clarification?

REB

That works.

[Roger Bissell]

I received the following article offline from a dear friend earlier today.

The One Weird Trait That Predicts Whether You’re a Trump Supporter

And it’s not gender, age, income, race or religion.

By Matthew MacWilliams

1/17/2016

Politico

The thing I find most fascinating about this article - and Michael's revelation about the egregious conflict of interest of the researcher (a long-time liberal progressive) only served to amplify it - is that it is grossly one-sided and clearly intended as a partisan smear against the Republican Party.

You have only to look at the behavior of the Democrats in the Congress, especially since losing their majority in both houses, to realize that the lure or appeal of authoritarianism is *not* a phenomenon of conservatism *or* of liberalism. (In fact, the researcher said as much himself, though he didn't provide a balancing example, leaving us to wonder whether it indeed *was* a specifically conservative vice, after all.)

When a pattern of Presidential usurpation of Congressional powers became all too obvious - signing Executive Orders to forward his agenda when the grid-locked Congress would not give him legislation he wanted - the Congressional Democrats wasted no time in giving their best impression of crickets chirping. No protests (to speak of) against the Presidential authoritarian power grabs from the liberal-progressive-socialists in Congress. And why? Because they were frustrated and fearful that they only way to save their views and values from being lost would be for an authority figure to step up and save them by decree. Enter their authoritarian savior: Barack Obama.

Obama and other liberals spoke out against just such abuse of Presidential power by George W. Bush, and those of us who had no great love for W. were wincing at the precedents he was setting and worrying that it would produce blow-back, even worse abuses of Presidential power, when the pendulum swung back to the liberals. Which it has been producing, big-time. Is there more to come? Stay tuned.

But I think that the not-too-stealthy progressive smear artist (aka public opinion researcher) who wrote the article missed an important point, which I just touched on above in mentioning the Congressional Democrats. The point? That (1) frustration and (2) fear in general are the motivators for people welcoming an authoritarian power grab. Not all people who are frustrated and fearful react this way, and not all authoritarians are frustrated and fearful, but this appears to be where the biggest support for authoritarianism comes from, if observable behavior and comments over the past 15 years by politicos and activists on both sides of the aisle is any indication.

So, what does this mean for the next cycle? I think it means that the strategically minded among the liberal-progressive-socialists are already figuring on there being a repeal-minded GOP President in the White House, and they want to poison the well in advance by beating the drums against all the Obama disasters he will undo with Executive Orders. Maybe it will be Trump, maybe Cruz, maybe Rubio - but whoever it is (we hope) will waste no time in pushing back against Obamacare, climate and environment regulation, gun controls, etc. You will hear this process called every nasty name in the book: undemocratic, fascistic, racist, you name it. Authoritarian will be the least of it. But nor is it the last of it. It's the first salvo in smearing and discrediting attempts to roll back the state. How ironic.

REB

P.S. - Perhaps the funniest - or most insulting? - thing about the study was its methodology: four questions about how you like children to behave. Agggggh. As if (1) that would translate into the kind of behavior you, the adult, are likely to engage in to enforce that preferred behavior, and (2) that adult behavior would further translate into the kind of behavior you would like a political authority figure to engage in to enforce how other adults behave. The hidden premise apparently being that we're all just (like) children, so we need someone powerful in the room to tell us how we can and cannot behave. Pathetic - and dangerous.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

About the announcement that Trump is going to make in Ames, Iowa on Tuesday that I mentioned in Post 2726, my gut just kicked into full gear.

(Er... I mean that in a metaphorical way. )

Epiphany time.

I STRONGLY suspect the announcement will be Carson leaving the race and throwing his support behind Trump.

And this would mean Cruz is out as Trump's possible VP pick and Carson is in.

Here's my thinking so far.

1. Carson's election team has fractured, his poll numbers have tanked (except for his evangelical base), but in this last debate, he seemed crack on the money with how much he has studied the issues he didn't know before. That's where he's at right now.

2. I think Carson wants to exit the race before he gets humiliated. However, seeing how relaxed on camera he has become, how knowledgeable he is, and a certain feel I've picked up from him recently, I think he really is interested in attaining high power in the government. Before it was a calling he was doing reluctantly. Now I think he has seen himself in that role in his mind and he likes what he saw. What is the best way to improve his odds? Team up with the apparent winner at a time when said winner needs him. Trade his support for VP consideration and practically guarantee Trump takes Iowa.

3. He is black. If he became the VP candidate, there would go the "Trump is racist" crap right out the window. And he is an outsider. perfect for the outsider David and Goliath story that Trump has successfully engineered in the mind of the public (with Trump, of all people, being the self-funded David and the establishment crony political class being Goliath).

4. Here is speculation on a personal level. I think Carson is afflicted as a black man that the first black president was a leftie who made all kinds of messes. As VP, he is young enough to practically ensure being top choice on the Republican ticket after 8 years. So he can show the world a black president who gets the free market and make history right.

5. Here is more speculation. Carson has always been respectful of Trump and Trump has gone out of his way to praise Carson in public. There was a flare-up earlier over faith, but Carson backed off elegantly. Ever since, he has had nothing but good words about Trump. I don't think this is political maneuvering. I think Carson really does admire Trump.

6. Carson knows the value of having a mentor. That is how he became a world-class brain surgeon. The idea of working beside Trump in high office for 8 years and treating him as a business and political mentor right there on the job has to be appealing to him. As a devout Christian, I can even see him believing God put Trump on his path. And, frankly, I think this appeals to Trump as well. For an ego his size, having a top brain surgeon as his disciple is like candy for a baby.

7. Did anyone notice that Trump almost spilled the beans about his interest in Cruz as VP during the debate? He came right out with a hypothetical. That, to me, was the big slip, not his attack on Cruz. And Cruz threw Trump's offer back in his face. Right there in front of everyone. Trump doesn't have the kind of temperament to appreciate that as banter. So if Carson and Trump have come to an arrangement, that would explain why Trump is going after Cruz with the kitchen sink right now. He damages Cruz by planting doubts in the public mind, but the downside is that this is pissing off a lot of people in the conservative base. Not to worry. Out comes the Trump card. He is forgiven because he gets Carson's endorsement. And his numbers grow even higher.

It's like a puzzle where all the pieces suddenly fit together.

Let's see if I am right.

If this doesn't happen, goddamit, it should.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

First--the Superbowl!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here we go:

Glenn Beck Apologizes After Citing Anti-Trump Hoax Tweet on Fox News; Trump Fires Back: Dope’s ‘Company Is Falling Apart’
by Tony Lee
17 Jan 2016
Breitbart

From the article:

On Saturday evening, Glenn Beck apologized for falsely claiming—based on a photoshopped hoax Tweet from faketrumptweet.com—that GOP frontrunner Donald Trump voted for Barack Obama in 2008.

Beck made his apology after Trump called him out on his lie and obliterated Beck at a Saturday campaign event in New Hampshire.

“My apologies for the misinformation,” Beck wrote on his Facebook page. “I owe Donald Trump an apology for the error of this tweet. More importantly I owe you an apology for making the water muddy where the water is crystal clear on his record.”

. . .

Trump, as he has done to the mainstream media, has prevented Beck from spreading lies and misinformation during this election cycle. Trump pointed out on Saturday that “the thing about having a large microphone is that we can at least explain to people that these people lie so much.”

Trump said there is often “no one to refute” people like Beck when they lie and said he has discovered “how smart the public is, how caring the public is” while taking on the lies that Beck and the mainstream media have tried to disseminate.

Beck has had it out from Trump since Trump started leading the the 2016 presidential polls. Beck has gone on left-wing National Public Radio to slam Trump as a “progressive” just like he did against Newt Gingrich in 2012 when Tea Party supporters started to support Gingrich over Mitt Romney. After insisting that “we have a real, serious issue with civility,” Beck called Trump a “son of a bitch.” The political shock jock/entertainer also mocked Trump for keeping all of the Bibles people send him in a safe place and vowed to not support Trump if he is the GOP nominee.

Sorry, Glenn.

You are doing this to yourself.

If you wish to fight someone in the name of truth, you cannot lie and demand double standards.

Michael

[Selene]

Excellent radio commercial...

http://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/ivanka-trump-radio-spot

[william.scherk]

[Marc]

Makes sense what you are saying about the VP being called tomorrow . Would obviously help his poll numbers so he can up the ante before he leaves the race . Short of this , I have no idea why he would call him VP so early .

As a strategy , it would be a horrific death blow to a dude who has no shot .

I think that it would only make sense if he anticipates ( correctly ) that he gets a huge boost in the polls and maybe pulls out 2 wins of the first 4 states . Then he is in a pretty good bargaining position to leave the race on his terms .

That being said , just for the hell of it I will bet the other side and say that maybe Carson just throws his support behind DT

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That being said , just for the hell of it I will bet the other side and say that maybe Carson just throws his support behind DT

Aren't baby-steps beautiful?

Michael

[william.scherk]

Mr Trump spoke today in Lynchburg, Virginia, at Liberty University's Martin Luther King Day convocation. I include a fun fifteen seconds at the beginning, of a seemingly drunk Jerry Falwell. This was a result of a failed screen capture, not Jack Daniels. The rest of the video is Pure Trump, even with the choppy capture frames ... I took a long two hours and reduced it -- but you can watch and skip and replay the whole dang thing here.

There were too many highlights of the convocation speech to mention them all, but I did note that under a Trump presidency, American retailers -- at least the department stores -- will be saying "Merry Christmas." Mr Trump said he will protect Christianity, and so I suppose this will ring a lot of bells. Me, I like Happy Holidays. Because, really, that is what it is all about for a rationalist. I gag at all the trappings of fake piety and goodness.

For those who watch these Trump appearances, as I do, tomorrow's Trump special guest event in Ames, Iowa is readied for live webcast -- set up for viewing right here in the thread: I too think he will be announcing his engagement to Dr Carson. There will be a ring, lots of pink roses, and a latina flower girl. There will be no kissing. And no official ceremony. Sometimes love is enough.

More seriously, I know Trump is appearing later that day at the John Wayne house in Ames. I hope we get to see Trump on a horse. Perhaps Dr Carson can hold his reins.

-- Meanwhile, in New Hampshire, Mr Trump delivers some enthusiastic messages about his ground game, polls, expectations, and conventional wisdom, according to the Boston Herald's Chris Cassidy:

CONCORD, N.H. -- Republican front-runner Donald Trump tried to ease questions about his campaign’s get-out-the-vote effort in key primary states today, and projected he’ll finish even stronger than the polls suggest.

“They’re waiting five, six, and seven hours, and then the pundits say, ‘Do you think you’re going to vote for him?’” Trump said of his supporters at Concord High School this afternoon. “For me, there’s a big theory … that the polls are fantastic but we’re going to do even better than the polls.”

Trump said he’s confident he’d win if the election were held now.

“I wish the election were today,” said Trump. “In some countries you can do that …. If I were president right now, I’d be calling the election right now. I’d want the election immediately.”

If America had the Westminster system, with an all-powerful executive, a Prime Minister Trump could dissolve his parliament at any time. America will never have such a system, but a man can dream, can't he?

Speaking of dreams, wishes and hopes, and fear of children, I had to check my own score on the personality dimension of Right Wing Authoritarianism. My score was 17.5%.

Your mileage may vary.

On the libertarian/authoritarian dimension of the Political Compass scale, I am tested at -5.49, as I can prove:

On a totally unrelated note, here is a neat depiction of all the emotions in a USA election campaign. I currently am feeling quite distinctly orange, which is odd for a Red.

Edited January 19, 2016 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

That's one ugly . . . .

[Selene]

Meaningless shiny shit to distract the political squirrels of the marxist left, environmental reds and other tyrannical flotsam and jetsam of the historical waves...

[Roger Bissell]

Hey, I really enjoyed that Right Wing Authoritarianism thingy. And it was just an updated version of the old WW2 "fascism" scale, not some Trojan Horse smear job by a progressive "researcher" from Massachusetts. (Thanks to Michael's ever-vigilant, never-vigilante research efforts, we know who's the real deal and who's not!)

So, try it out for yourself. It's at: http://personality-testing.info/tests/RWAS/

My score was similar to William's - 17.05 - a little lower, but troubling in a way. Does this mean I'm 1/6 fascist - or 5/6 *not* fascist? And is that on a one-dimensional scale with fascist at one end and communist at the other? I hope not, because that would mean I'm 5/6 of a communist! Nuh-uh! Or is it some other kind of scale with fascist at one end and libertarian at the other - you know, us live and let live, government small enough to fit in my bathtub, folks? In which case, are there *no* communists any more? What about Left Wing Authoritarians? We've got a living, breathing one running amok in the White House. A very convenient specimen for scientific study, with at least 12 more months to observe his hegemony in action.

Anyhoo - how about it, folks? Anybody brave enough to step up and measure your macho - your right-wing authoritarianism?

As for the political color zinnia or daisy or whatever it was - I find that, these days, I'm fluctuating between the pale orange William mentioned and its polar opposite, the pale blue green at the lower right. I understand that there's very little difference between being artistic and being autistic, so maybe that explains it.

http://s26.postimg.o...qs5c9/wheel.jpg

Looking forward to the big announcement tomorrow from Ames, Iowa. That's where I went to college nearly 60 years ago. Amazing times, those mid-60s. Lots of right-wing authoritarianism back then - all kinds of in loco parentis stuff going on. I was proud to be a "radical for capitalism" back then. People hadn't quite figured out it means I wanted to starve babies and trample the poor underfoot. Now I kinda have to lay low and not try to talk over screeching student demonstrators and environmentalist housewives.

REB

[Backlighting]

Meaningless shiny shit to distract the political squirrels of the marxist left, environmental reds and other tyrannical flotsam and jetsam of the historical waves...

Nice descriptive adjectives.

-J

[Roger Bissell]

On the libertarian/authoritarian dimension of the Political Compass scale, I am tested at -5.49, as I can prove:

Hmmm, I came out *somewhat* different from William on the political spectrum thingy. I inhabit the right libertarian quadrant of the Political Compass. (I messed up and didn't get a cool certificate printed.)

Here's my result:

Economic Left/Right: 6.38

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.13

By comparison, William seems to be more of an economic leftist (not quite -2.0) compared to my 6.38 economic right-winger.

But on the social scale, we are very similar. I'm -5.13, meaning way anti-authoritarian, as is William at -5.49.

(Maybe we need to talk about economics? But I trust his instincts on the social libertarian and civil liberties side.)

Thanks, William, for hipping me to this. I've done similar questionnaires before, and the diagram is sometimes called the Nolan Chart after David Nolan, founder of the U.S. Libertarian Party. I wrote about it in a JARS article, "The Logic of Liberty" back in 2012. It was based on talks I did in California in July 2011. The Objectivist group I spoke to - "Free Minds" - all seemed like a bunch of blinking hooty owls, but the Sam Konkin III dinner group provided some lively discussion. (I was very proud of my then 16 year old daughter, Rachel, who always asks excellent questions. )

REB

[Selene]

Aren't these based on the Myers-Briggs thingy from like 1943?