Donald Trump

[Marc]

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

You went to College 60 years ago ?????

Come on ???? They let fetuses go to College in Iowa ??? What are you , like 57 ??????

Come on man

[Marc]

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

If he did pick Carson , it would be Mondale picking Geraldine . I think Mondale won Minnesota but DT and Mr " evolution is a fairy tale " Carson would give Hillary a 50 State sweep

Assumption that he got the nomination of course

[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

You went to College 60 years ago ?????

Come on ???? They let fetuses go to College in Iowa ??? What are you , like 57 ??????

Come on man

Aggggh. Sorry. It was nearly *50* years ago. It just *seemed* like 60. (I attended ISU in Ames from 1966 to 1969.)

I was no dummy at age 8 (in 1956), but I wasn't quite ready yet for college. For one thing, I looked like a fetus, and I was somewhat sensitive about that.

REB

[Marc]

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

You went to College 60 years ago ?????

Come on ???? They let fetuses go to College in Iowa ??? What are you , like 57 ??????

Come on man

Aggggh. Sorry. It was nearly *50* years ago. It just *seemed* like 60. (I attended ISU in Ames from 1966 to 1969.)

I was no dummy at age 8 (in 1956), but I wasn't quite ready yet for college. For one thing, I looked like a fetus, and I was somewhat sensitive about that.

REB

If I asked you to pick one person who would be POTUS next January , who would you pick ?

[william.scherk]

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

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.)

That makes me go all pink, Roger. But yeah. The way I look at it is I am closer to Ayn Rand than Stalin or Obama.

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.

I am going to have to get a bootleg of that JARS article. The only library that stocks it nearby is up a mountain. I'd ask what you meant by hooty owls, but we already have a backlog of unexplained adjectives from the gentleman in New Jersey.

I had forgotten about the Libertarian roots of the Compass. That makes sense.

It isn't the first time that Mr Trump and his supporters have been assessed as authoritarian-leaning ... but it does seem to be the first time the measure has been incorporated in a straight-up survey. A four-question metric seems crude, but maybe the example questions on the Authoritarian test indicate the same thing. I tweeted the dirty red squirrel marxist flotsam, MacWilliams, to ask him if his survey had been published. He said not yet, but directed me at earlier work.

I have found in my long years at Objectivist Living that it is just too simple to assign single-dimension labels to my colleagues and friends and foes here. Doing so doesn't help me understand things. If we are all psychologists simply because we are human -- then we sometimes can use tools to better augment our perceptions.

In answering the questions on the RWAS, it made me think of how a person might try to detect 'authoritarianism' in a prospective mate, or boss, or acquaintance. How do we do it 'naked,' so to speak? And of course, what is being measured?

I'll add in here some appalling examples of sleazing Trump with 'dictator' impulses. They will certainly be candidates for Michael's bonehead file, but they seem more malevolent than merely stupid or flailing (hey, Michael, can you share your Evernote file? -- I love me the boneheaded stuff).

Any grains of wisdom in authoritarianism as personality aspect will be lost in the Hoopla. Beneath all the bullshit is a neat point of data, but I expect it is meaningless to effect anything except our comprehension here. A club to beat the Man, in the wrong hands or the right hands, is just another club. And it is clubbing season in the Jungle (Circus, Tournament, Musical Chairs).

Here's something I saw today that went down the wrong way. As a fellow who has overused the ironic phrase "socialist hellhole" to describe where I live, I want hellhole to remain meaningful. Trump wrecked that for me today, if I can trust this quote to be accurate.

-- hey, Brant, I liked your comment. I don't know what it meant, but I liked it. With the Principle of Charity under the bus wheels, we might only have emotion to guide us.

Oh, and adjectives.

In News of the Nice: Glenn Beck Apologizes After Citing Anti-Trump Hoax Tweet on Fox News; Trump Fires Back: Dope’s ‘Company Is Falling Apart’

On Redstate, of all places: This Study Proves Why Trump’s Supporters Won’t Leave Him No Matter What He Does | tl;dr: We're screwed

With respect to Trump’s supporters in particular, the study found that the main statistical variable that could be used to predict whether someone was a Trump supporter was not race, age, religion, income, or education. It is, rather, an impulse towards authoritarianism.

I’m inherently skeptical of the work of social scientists, but this particular study passes the eyeball test as well.

Trump: We’ll get more and more angry as we go along, is that okay? [crowd cheers] And by the end I’ll say, “Get them the hell out of here!” And then, by the way, by that time, the security will be so tough and so nasty, and you know what’s going to happen when that happens? You’re not going to have any more problems. You’re not going to have any more problems. Did you notice the first group, the security guys are going, “Oh, please come with us,” and they’re screaming, “please come.” Alright. Second group, they’re [unintelligible]. Now, the last time they’re starting to get nasty. Pretty soon they’re going to get so nasty that we’re not going to have any more protesting, you know that, right? Don’t give him his coat! Don’t give him his coat, keep his coat, confiscate his coat! You know, it’s about ten degrees below zero outside.

[...]

It also indicates why Trump’s support has refused to leave him in spite of an avalanche of gaffes and embarrassing moments. To an authoritarian, showing respect for the authority figure because they are the authority figure is important, regardless of whether they are right or not. The mode of attack against Trump this entire time has been wrong because people have not understood why Trump has the support that he has.

That was the nice one, here comes Mr MacUltraNasty, aka John Dean, making the same point but with much more invective. This will make some folks go all violet. It made me blue.

Trump Is the Authoritarian Ruler Republicans—and Some Dems—Have Been Waiting For

How far can a truly authoritarian leader go in America?

Political pundits everywhere are scratching their heads, asking what is going on with Trump? How can a clown like Trump be in front of the “serious” GOP candidates? Most blame the news media for giving Trump’s antics too much attention. But much more than media attention is at work in explaining Trump’s success. In fact, Donald Trump has emerged as America’s leading authoritarian political figure, representative of a type of leadership for which many Americans yearn.

I looked closely at authoritarians in Conservatives Without Conscience, and the information I developed and shared in 2006 is equally, if not more, relevant today. Actually, Trump is far more aggressive in his authoritarianism than his predecessors. To understand the Trump phenomenon, it is essential to appreciate political authoritarianism, as well as its limits and boundaries.

[...]

I am only going to briefly summarize the authoritarian types, who can be broadly broken down into “leaders” and “followers.” Starting with the followers, who are more prevalent and who are characterized by their submissiveness to established authorities, a trait that becomes combined with a general aggressiveness toward others. Altemeyer labels these followers “right-wing authoritarians,” and from his studies I developed a laundry list of characteristic and traits consistently found in these people.

Specifically, as I noted in Conservatives Without Conscience, the authoritarian followers are both men and women, who tend to be highly conventional, always and easily submissive to authority, while willing to work aggressively on behalf of such an authority. They tend to be very religious, with moderate to little education, trusting of untrustworthy authorities, prejudiced (e.g., with respect to gay marriage); they are typically mean-spirited, narrow-minded, intolerant, bullying, zealous, dogmatic, uncritical of their chosen authority, hypocritical, inconsistent, prone to panic easily, highly self-righteous, moralistic, strict disciplinarian, severely punitive; they also demand loyalty and return it, have little self-awareness, and are typically politically and economically conservative Republicans.

These are the characteristics and traits of Donald Trump’s followers.

[...]

Authoritarian Leaders

With any group of authoritarian followers you will find a few in the ranks who are not only among the loyalist of loyal followers, but who also want to be leaders. They are biding their time. In fact, testing shows one of the reasons they are such good followers is that they believe when they are one day leading, their followers should be as loyal as they have been. These authoritarian leader types, who are typically men, will always have four clear characteristics or traits that distinguish them: They are dominating; they oppose equality; they desire personal power; and they are amoral.

While it may seem I am merely describing Donald Trump, in fact, these essential distinguishing features have surfaced time and again over decades of testing by social scientists, but Trump clearly fits the pattern. In addition, Trump reflects many of the other characteristics or traits that identify the authoritarian leaders, which I similarly spelled out in Conservatives Without Conscience—a point I make here to clarify that I am not making this up with Trump’s arrival as a near perfect authoritarian leader type. Among the additional personality features, these people are usually intimidating and bullying, faintly hedonistic, vengeful, pitiless, exploitive, manipulative, dishonest, cheat to win, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, militant, nationalistic, tell others what they want to hear, take advantage of “suckers,” specialize in creating false images to sell self, may or may not be religious, and are usually politically and economically conservative and Republican.

It is striking that Donald Trump appears to have all these characteristics. Without question, Trump is the most prototypical authoritarian leader to ever so prominently seek the American presidency, and we have had several authoritarian presidents and vice presidents, most recently including Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, followed by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. But Donald Trump appears to fall within the indicia of the authoritarian leader far more than any of the others. This raises the question of how far a truly authoritarian leader can go in America.

[,,,]

Given Trump’s years as a public personality, plus his years hosting an authoritarian reality television shows—“The Apprentice” and “Celebrity Apprentice”—he understands the media better than any of his Republican rivals, and how to play himself publicly. Unlike most candidates, who can be embarrassed into following the rules by exposing foul-play, Trump is going to set the rules this time because he knows he can bully and manipulate everyone necessary to get his way. Trump is thoroughly enjoying being the loose cannon of the GOP 2016 Primary; he is making it up as he goes along. In short, do not look to Trump to restrain himself, nor the media criticizing him as a restraint. Trump knows the American public has less respect for the news media than politicians—while he sees himself as neither, rather a successful businessman who loves his country and wants to fix it for himself and his friends.

The only restraint on Donald Trump will be voters, but Republican voters love authoritarian leaders. Republicans have spent the last seven year portraying President Obama as wishy-washy and spineless, with Trump, of course, claiming he is not even an American nor as smart as he pretends to be. (Otherwise he would produce the transcript of his college grades, as demanded by Trump!) It is difficult to determine exactly how many Republicans are authoritarian followers—thus naturals for the Trump bandwagon—but in discussions with social scientists I have come to believe that somewhere between a quarter and half of registered Republicans are authoritarians, not to mention they are the activist base of the party. While the entire field of GOP presidential candidates evidence varying degrees of authoritarianism, none can top Trump.

In my informal conversations with many people who view themselves as part of the GOP base, Trump is very popular. He is telling them what they want to hear. Trump will not appeal to the Iowa evangelicals who dominate the Iowa caucuses, but if he makes a strong showing in New Hampshire and South Carolina, there will be no stopping him. Many Wall Street big-shots live in Trump’s upscale Manhattan buildings, and they view him as one of their own. Wall Street would not likely try to block him.

As I have watched Trump proceed in 2016, I keep recalling Bob Altemeyer’s troubling observation in The Authoritarian Specter: “If you think [Americans] could never elect an Adolf Hitler to power, note that David Duke would have become governor of Louisiana if it had just been up to the white voters in that state.” While Trump is no Hitler, we have never had as serious and off-the-charts authoritarian leader vying for our highest office.

[...]

To cut to the bottom line: I can envision a number of scenarios where Trump could capture the GOP nomination, and they all start with him making respectable showings in New Hampshire and South Carolina. If Trump is going to decide to go home and stop playing the game due to it being a waste of money, it will be after South Carolina. If he is in play at that time, he could win the nomination.

But I can find no scenario in which he could win the White House. Too many voters still remember Nixon, Agnew, Bush, and Cheney, who ranked high on the authoritarian leaders scale, albeit not as high as Donald Trump. Should it happen that Trump wins the GOP nomination, he will surely all but finish the destruction of the Republican Party, which began with the ascendency of the religious right and Southern conservatives leaving the “Big Tent” Democratic Party to make the GOP their unspoken racist home. The authoritarian base of the GOP has been steadily growing, and Trump could test its strength.

Of only one thing am I absolutely certain: Donald Trump will never be President of the United States, so rest easy. Authoritarians remain a minority in America, thankfully.

The smug stylings of Rick Salutin appeared in the Toronto Star, the rightest of the right media in Hogtown. I think the 'authoritarian' blister will appear in The Hoopla another couple of times during the Circus. It's a button, once pressed, difficult to resist. But the Salutin goes straight for a dirty thirties metaphor. Sigh.

Donald Trump helps us relive the 1930s | Give this to Donald Trump: he helps us picture how the anti-democratic, right wing, personality-driven movements of the 1930s came to power.

He’s relatively indifferent to democracy. Very early, he said he’d like to “expedite” the election, i.e., get it over with and on to taking power. This week in Iowa he said he wished the vote was tomorrow. His policies are utterly vague; there’s no point articulating them, it’s all in his head. He’ll get the best people, make the best deals, “you’re gonna love it.” It amounts to trusting him absolutely, the strong leader, whose brilliance, success, even his physical beauty, are undeniable. There’s no concrete participation. He “loves” his base and will look after them; their only role is to love him back.

He’s about his own strength and power, as were those movements. His favourite word is strong; the “guys” he’ll recruit to beat back the Chinese and Japanese are “killers,” it’s an upbeat version of Nietzsche’s will to power. He mocks weakness in opponents; his code word for it is “low energy.” He’ll restore national greatness, which was lost due to “stupid,” weak leaders. He’s not racist in any explicit sense — quite the opposite — but there’s clear racist appeal in his attack on evil, murderous Mexican illegals in “our” midst.

[...]

But Trump shows that people go soft on democracy when it’s not delivering and they and their families are suffering. It’s not an easy choice but some make it. In a time of rising inequality and diminishing fortunes for most people, a kind of democratic despair could occur here, though probably in response to a figure more inclusive than Trump.

Salutin sounds like one of those guys who say, "If Donald Trump wins, I'm movin' to Canada."

[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

You went to College 60 years ago ?????

Come on ???? They let fetuses go to College in Iowa ??? What are you , like 57 ??????

Come on man

Aggggh. Sorry. It was nearly *50* years ago. It just *seemed* like 60. (I attended ISU in Ames from 1966 to 1969.)

I was no dummy at age 8 (in 1956), but I wasn't quite ready yet for college. For one thing, I looked like a fetus, and I was somewhat sensitive about that.

REB

If I asked you to pick one person who would be POTUS next January , who would you pick ?

OK, Marc, I'll take a stab at it, but first I need you to clarify a couple of things:

1. You say "would be" POTUS, and you want me to "pick.". Are you asking me to pick (predict) who I think *will* be elected - or to pick (state a preference as to) who I think *should* be elected (i.e., who I'd like to be elected), regardless of whether they have a strong chance? This assumes your question limits me to choosing from the available candidates currently running.

2. Or, do you mean it as a wide-open question - to include *anyone* in America who is legally qualified to be President, running or not? If so, I'd be happy to tell you who I'd like to see as our next President.

I'll be happy to answer whichever question you meant to ask - or all three, if you want. But I'm not going to take a number for crow fricassee.

REB

[Selene]

OK, Marc, I'll take a stab at it, but first I need you to clarify a couple of things:

1. You say "would be" POTUS, and you want me to "pick.". Are you asking me to pick (predict) who I think *will* be elected - or to pick (state a preference as to) who I think *should* be elected (i.e., who I'd like to be elected), regardless of whether they have a strong chance? This assumes your question limits me to choosing from the available candidates currently running.

2. Or, do you mean it as a wide-open question - to include *anyone* in America who is legally qualified to be President, running or not? If so, I'd be happy to tell you who I'd like to see as our next President.

I'll be happy to answer whichever question you meant to ask - or all three, if you want. But I'm not going to take a number for crow fricassee.

REB

I think it would be intriguing for you to pick one in each distinctive category.

A...

At least I would be interested

[Roger Bissell]

OK, Marc, I'll take a stab at it, but first I need you to clarify a couple of things:

1. You say "would be" POTUS, and you want me to "pick.". Are you asking me to pick (predict) who I think *will* be elected - or to pick (state a preference as to) who I think *should* be elected (i.e., who I'd like to be elected), regardless of whether they have a strong chance? This assumes your question limits me to choosing from the available candidates currently running.

2. Or, do you mean it as a wide-open question - to include *anyone* in America who is legally qualified to be President, running or not? If so, I'd be happy to tell you who I'd like to see as our next President.

I'll be happy to answer whichever question you meant to ask - or all three, if you want. But I'm not going to take a number for crow fricassee.

REB

I think it would be intriguing for you to pick one in each distinctive category.

A...

At least I would be interested

OK, Adam, will do. (Marc, please disregard whichever answers don't fit the question you intended to ask.)

1a. My (current) prediction - at this time (prior to Trump's big surprise announcement tomorrow in Ames, Iowa), I think that Hillary Clinton has better than even odds (is that an oxymoron?) to be elected President in November.

1b. My choice of the candidates currently running - if I have to specify a Republican, I'd choose Rand Paul. But I'd prefer to have Gary Johnson, Libertarian, to be elected President. I will send him money and speak and write on his behalf.

2. Of all qualified Americans - I'd feel confident we were in good hands with either Milo Schield or Douglas Rasmussen in the White House. Milo is a college professor who is sharp on political philosophy and critical thinking, but he's also been an entrepreneur and got his Ph.D. in physics, proving before satellite information confirmed it that the Van Allyn radiation belts stretched out twice as far as the existing models predicted. Very smart man, very committed to liberty. Douglas is a college professor who is deep into Aristotelian and Thomist philosophy, has published works on ethical and political philosophy, and is a committed advocate for liberty. If they ran (which they won't), I would go wherever they needed me to help campaign.

3. My fantasy pick (if 2 doesn't already count) - Andrew Bernstein the other day distributed on Facebook a Platform and Policy statement for what he called the American Capitalist Party. It doesn't exist (yet), and probably shouldn't (yet), but I read the whole thing, both pages of it, and I couldn't find a single thing to disagree with - and for a bonus, I found the first statement that I agreed with by *any* party of what abortion should and should not be permissible (basically, abortion on demand should be legal until the beginning of the third trimester of pregnancy). So, here's my fantasy pick: if there were such a party, and any of the people seeking its nomination "felt right in my gut" and didn't send off warning bells, I'd back that person to the hilt. [EDIT: Actually, I just read Gary Johnson's position on abortion, and it is the same as mine, too, so my fantasy pick is hereby null and void.]

But back to the real world. I don't trust *any* of the people with a realistic chance to win to not further sell out our liberties. Some are more likely to sell us out than others, some sadly even without realizing they are doing so. We are not in a good situation.

REB ( or as WSS styled me earlier today: Reb! )

[Selene]

[EDIT: Actually, I just read Gary Johnson's position on abortion, and it is the same as mine, too, so my fantasy pick is hereby null and void.]

But back to the real world. I don't trust *any* of the people with a realistic chance to win to not further sell out our liberties. Some are more likely to sell us out than others, some sadly even without realizing they are doing so. We are not in a good situation.

REB ( or as WSS styled me earlier today: Reb! )

That works. That abortion position is going to move the goalposts back to the point of 20 weeks as technology advances.

Ole Aristotle's "quickening."

A...

[Selene]

Wow - Is there really a John Wayne Birthplace museum in Iowa?

Donald J. Trump Rally with John Wayne's daughter Aissa Wayne at the John Wayne Birthplace Museum in Winterset, Iowa on Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Donald J. Trump Special Announcement Rally at the John Wayne Birthplace Museum in Winterset, Iowa on Tuesday, January 19, 2016

When:
Tuesday, January 19, 2016 from 10:30 AM to 11:30 AM (CST)

Where:
John Wayne Birthplace Museum
205 John Wayne Drive
Winterset, IA 50273

Hosted By:
Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.

Register for this event now at :
http://www.eventbrite.com/e/donald-j-trump-in-winterset-ia-special-announcement-rally-tickets-20741929670

Event Details:

The rally will be held outside the John Wayne Museum gathering at the John Wayne statue.

Please Note -- This announcement will be held outside. Please dress accordingly.

Doesn't look like the spot for that announcement Michael...

[Roger Bissell]

The announcement is scheduled for later in the day and up the road a piece from Winterset - supposedly 5 pm CST in Ames.

Speculation is running rampant about who the special guest is and what the announcement will be. Some say that Sarah Palin is going to endorse Trump. Others say Jerry Falwell, Jr. My money is on Monica Lewinsky.

REB

[Selene]

Palin endorsement seems about right and it will be no real surprise.

However, it will be worth a few points in Iowa.

Probably about 5 to 8 which is quite big in this one. Bring The Donald into the solid low 40's.

A...

[william.scherk]

Trump announces for Ted Cruz!

Can you say SuperPAC zillions?

[Roger Bissell]

Trump announces for Ted Cruz!

Can you say SuperPAC zillions?

A live repeat of this in Ames later today would be *outstanding*!

Reb!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

(hey, Michael, can you share your Evernote file? -- I love me the boneheaded stuff).

 

William,

 

Lemme figure out how to do it. Evernote has a sharing thing, but I don't want to open my Evernote account for sharing with anyone. (Please don't feel bad. This is within the rules I impose on myself of online digital containment.)

 

For the time being, the following Stephen Molyneux video just came up (called "The Untruth About Donald Trump") and should present many of the items I collected. 

 

 

I realize you don't like Molyneux, but he is a good source of sources in this video. I sympathize with your dislike, too. I never cared much for him because of that stuff about getting kids to separate from their parents and follow him (I forget the jargon term he came up for it, defooing or something like that). Creepy stuff.

 

But since he has become very Trump-friendly, suddenly I like him.

 

I have only seen the first 10 minutes and I have no doubt (should you watch the video) he will give you oodles of the boneheaded theories once he gets to that block. For now he is showing who said Trump is not serious, does not really want to run, etc.

 

Although I believe this video is going to be a great single source of the boneheaded stuff the press did, it shows precisely the problem I have been having in figuring out how to present this material in video.

 

Organization-wise, there are only two basic forms: list or narrative. Lists get very tedious if they drag on too long. And what Molyneux does is a good example of why. btw - This is not to say he is a lousy presenter. He does just fine. It's that the list form is extremely hard to pull off when there are long lists of similar material.

 

Up to the point I have watched, he uses the following micro-template for the news articles:

 

1. He presents a PPT-like visual of the quote and source.

2. He reads the quote.

3. He makes a snarky comment about the author, often with amusement.

 

Then he goes to the next one and does the same template. Then the next one, then the next one, and so on.

 

This gets old real fast. It's like telling the same joke over and over.

 

But how to arrange this stuff in a narrative... That's the issue for me...

 

Anyway, it's getting late so I will probably see the rest of this video tomorrow.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Before Trump's Iowa announcement later today, let me go on record and revise my speculation about Ben Carson VP slot.

I've been thinking. Announcing a VP candidate this early in the game is not Trump's way of doing business. He needs to keep his options open all the way to the end. Tying something this important up at this stage is not something I believe he would do.

I can still see Carson endorsing him, but my enthusiasm for the possibility of speculation actually happening has tanked.

Maybe a Sarah Palin endorsement?

That would excite the base.

Michael

[Selene]

That would excite the base.

Michael

Correct.

The dirty little secret is that all elections are about getting out your base/identified pro voters and impeding the opposition from getting theirs out [this is the creative and fun part of politics].

A...

[Roger Bissell]

Before Trump's Iowa announcement later today, let me go on record and revise my speculation about Ben Carson VP slot.

I've been thinking. Announcing a VP candidate this early in the game is not Trump's way of doing business. He needs to keep his options open all the way to the end. Tying something this important up at this stage is not something I believe he would do.

I can still see Carson endorsing him, but my enthusiasm for the possibility of speculation actually happening has tanked.

Maybe a Sarah Palin endorsement?

That would excite the base.

Michael

Building off the Sarah scenario - here is a juicy, meaty possibility. (Literally.)

Suppose that both Tea Party darling Sarah Palin and newly elected U.S. Senator, Joni Ernst, were to throw their support to The Donald? Heeeeeeeeres's Joni !

Those two could provide the "entertainment" at a big barbecue celebration by slaughtering the beefy and porky critters to be cooked up for everyone's gustatory enjoyment. Would that not be super cool?

Heck, throw in a moose or elk (the animals, not the members of the social organizations) - Sarah is really good at dressing the carcasses. And Joni, who would make a darling Secretary of Agriculture, could allude to how she might adapt her hog castration skills in D.C.

The Donald has such a flair for show business. Could something like this be up his sleeve? We don't have long to wait to find out. Just enough time for a little nap.

Reb!

[Marc]

Excellent my young sir !

Ok , my issue here is that lots of folks have strong opinions but I have not seen these strong opinions get off any proverbial fence .

MSK has clearly stated his prediction .

As have I .

My fellow brilliant Canadian has too .

Just wanna see who walks the walk besides just talk the talk . Some folks just wanna leave enough wiggle room to say " Yeah , I knew that "and then proceed to blah blah blah me to death .

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't see much doubt after this article by Bristol Palin.

Is THIS Why People Don’t like Cruz?
January 19, 2016
by Bristol Palin
Patheos

From the article:

Is my Mom going to endorse Donald Trump for President of the United States?

That’s the rumor, and I’ve been too busy with diapers to delve too much into politics these days. But the rumors were enough to cause staffers from Ted Cruz’s office to slam my mom.

. . .

I like Cruz. In fact, I met him last year, and I believe anyone’s better than Hilary Clinton. But here’s the thing, Sen. Cruz. My mom has consistently supported you and encouraged you. You’ve been a great advocate for conservative causes, and she’s stood by you when others haven’t.

“I would not be in the U.S. Senate today if it were not for Governor Palin,” you’ve said before.

. . .

After hearing what Cruz is now saying about my mom, in a negative knee-jerk reaction, makes me hope my mom does endorse Trump. Cruz’s flip-flop, turning against my mom who’s done nothing but support and help him when others sure didn’t, shows he’s a typical politician.

Sarah endorsing Donald might not be the big announcement, but with this coming from her daughter, it's reasonable to think she will.

Talk about a Hollywood buildup.

And the very next thing on people's lips and/or in their hearts: will Donald invite her to be his VP?

Now that would make my day.

Michael

[Marc]

Before Trump's Iowa announcement later today, let me go on record and revise my speculation about Ben Carson VP slot.

I've been thinking. Announcing a VP candidate this early in the game is not Trump's way of doing business. He needs to keep his options open all the way to the end. Tying something this important up at this stage is not something I believe he would do.

I can still see Carson endorsing him, but my enthusiasm for the possibility of speculation actually happening has tanked.

Maybe a Sarah Palin endorsement?

That would excite the base.

Michael

Regardless of his announcement ( maybe he has decided to run on Mars as he has already assumed this race over . and Clinton over ) , delegate votes by 930 pm tonight will remain at zero .

All comes down to South Carolina anyway , so we should shift our discussion to that

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

All comes down to South Carolina anyway...

Marc,

Baby steps are so beautiful...

And you look so cute doing them...

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

[DELETED]

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's some more gasoline to throw on the Hollywood buildup fire:

Here Are 5 Reasons A Palin Endorsement of Trump Could Win Trump The Nomination
by Ben Shapiro
January 19, 2016
Daily Wire

From the article (just the reasons):

1. Palin’s Endorsement Means Conservative Support for Trump. ...
2. Palin Endorsed Cruz In 2012. ...
3. Palin’s Endorsement Blunts Cruz’s “New York Values” Attack. ...
4. The Palin-Trump Axis Unites Establishment With Tea Party. ...
5. Palin’s Endorsement Helps Trump Directly In Iowa. ...

Wait a minute!

Isn't Ben Shapiro part of that conservative axis around Breitbart? (Which includes Mark Levin and Sarah Palin offstage?)

Of course he is.

This is why I am not too concerned about Trump with eminent domain and so forth. He is surrounding himself with small-government constitutionalists. They will keep him on track when the going gets going. That I believe.

Michael

[Selene]

Regardless of his announcement ( maybe he has decided to run on Mars as he has already assumed this race over . and Clinton over ) , delegate votes by 930 pm tonight will remain at zero .

All comes down to South Carolina anyway , so we should shift our discussion to that

FYI marc:

There are delegates that have committed to a specific candidate, particularly in the Democratic Race, the so-called super delegates.

I have to check the Republican rules since there are so many new wrinkles in their procedural rules.

However, to say that it "...all comes down to South Carolina anyway..." is just not accurate.

A...