Donald Trump

[turkeyfoot]

2 hours ago, Selene said:

I don't think that I just said that, however, that may be how you interpreted what I did post.

At any rate, I am well aware of our opposite sexes wide differences on the subject.

A...

Ok. Thx.

"Like so many bullies, Trump has skin of gossamer. He thinks nothing of saying the most hurtful thing about someone else, but when he hears a whisper that runs counter to his own vainglorious self-image, he coils like a caged ferret. Just to drive him a little bit crazy,  I took to referring to him as a“short-fingered vulgarian” in the pages of Spy magazine."

Spy was a satirical monthly magazine that ran from 1986 to 1998. The magazine was based in New York City.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/10/graydon-carter-donald-trump

"To this day, I receive the occasional envelope from Trump. There is always a photo of him—generally a tear sheet from a magazine. On all of them he has circled his hand in gold Sharpie in a valiant effort to highlight the length of his fingers." 

 "also written in gold Sharpie: “See, not so short!” I sent the picture back (to Trump) by return mail with a note attached, saying, “Actually, quite short.” "

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

10 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

But I'm surmising (correctly?) that the Facebook friend you describe is Objectivism-oriented, and you've posted quite a bit indicating that similar reactions are wide-spread amongst the "Objectivish."  I've been surprised by the extent of visceral negativity toward Trump and his fans displayed by persons strongly influenced by Rand.  I would have thought that they would see Trump's popularity as a good sign that there are lots of people in this country who are sick and tired of being manipulated and disregarded by intellectuals and politicians and the mainstream media.

Ellen

Ellen,

I agree about the pro climate change scientists. Pure elitism from most of the stuff I have looked at when they express their opinions. Not to mention the outside of science people like Obama & Co. (and other people like that). They yap on that "the science is settled." 

Notice they always say that in public in the tone of a preacher who, facing the public, extends his arms in a upward embrace and says, "Christ shall come again."

"The science is settled."

As to my friend, he was Objectivism-oriented at one time, but no longer is. He, to me, is living proof that not all elitists are assholes (until they are  ).

An elitist mindset in the "social metaphysics" manner I mention here definitely permeates the Objectivist and libertarian community. Take away the cattle of mankind and these people wither up to nothing. Rand's entire work, to them, means they are superior to their inferiors. All the rest is filling. They need their perceived inferiors like all humans need water. Without those inferiors, they die.

(Apropos, there is a huge group of entrepreneurs who use the self-help and motivation part of Rand's message and leave this other stuff out of it. You do not see them hanging around movement Objectivists.  They are too busy changing the world for the better and making a fortune doing it. Check out the entrepreneurs who surround Richard Branson as an example of one of the pockets of them. These giants of capitalism are generally not elitists. They're too damn busy. )

In fact, all thought systems and cultures are permeated with elitists like I have mentioned. Unfortunately, I think Rand partially (only partially) turned into this kind of elitist later in life, although I don't think she was one in the early and middle years.

The more I think about elitism, the more I think it is a hard cross to bear. Imagine having to compete constantly against the brilliant things that come out of the "oh so inferior masses." I don't mean compete in the business sense. I mean you have to deny the brilliant thing and destroy it, or admit the doer of the brilliant thing to the elite club (and boy are there gatekeepers), or you have to die a little each day. That's a pretty tough choice for someone who is both conceited and insecure at the same time.

Trump is crashing the top elitist party and this is killing them inside. They did not invite him. He does not play by their rules. He shows them reality where they have been lying to themselves. They don't like him. And he is getting ready to walk away with the prize they only allow other fellow elitists to get, the presidency of the United States.

He is showing them he identifies with the masses they look down their noses at, not them. Thus, to Trump, they are not superior and, since he wins a lot, that stings them every second of every minute of every day. What's worse, he's showing them they are not relevant to the rest of humanity and I believe that's the root of their vicious hatred.

I sure hope Trump is careful because I worry he will be assassinated. Elitists play dirty. They always have. If you're going to poke a den of vipers with a stick, the den better have large sides and the stick better be long. 

btw - I don't know if you know Carol Dweck's work. Elitism (in my meaning) is a classic fixed mindset in the manner she describes. This is the opposite of a growth mindset. Fixed mindset people tend to have a high anxiety level. No wonder. Reality is fluid and runs through time (meaning change). The fixed mindset people want reality to to be as they say and only as they say, no more, no less. But reality always is more and less and sometimes the same.

It tortures elitists when they learn that what they want actually is irrelevant. Sometimes, when I see this bubble pop in a particularly arrogant elitist, this brings me great enjoyment. But then I get to feeling guilty for being such a dick and I start pitying them.  

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

Apropos of nothing relevant to this thread, man-made climate change skeptics tend to dismiss Rachel Carson, the little lady who started it all. I have not read any book by her, but I have been studying some writing books that use excerpts from her works as examples of great writing. (For example, I am studying a marvelous book that does this called The Art of X-Ray Reading: How the Secrets of 25 Great Works of Literature Will Improve Your Writing by Roy Peter Clark who is a head honcho at the Poynter Institute).

These excerpts are breathtaking. I wish the people on the opposite side from the climate change cartel learned from works like hers and produced equally beautiful and powerful passages. Maybe they have and I have not encountered them yet.

Style-wise, what I have seen so far is the equivalent of eating a Big Mac in a high-class French restaurant.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Newt says many of the same things I think.

 

I especially like this part:

Newt Gingrich said:

 

Trump represents a very real change. He is the most anti-left candidate in modern times. He is the most anti-politically correct candidate in modern times. He is very ruthless about stupidity in operational terms. And he's an American nationalist. 

Well, if you're part of the old order, if you're part of the people who, since WWII, have built this worldwide financial system, etc., Trump is a genuine serious policy threat to the world you live in...

 

Take a look at the top Trump critics in the mainstream and see where they, or their sponsors, get their money. See if it is not tied to this "worldwide financial system" and sticks it to Americans in the end.

I think you will see a lot...

The anti-Trump movement in the Republican party is about money and power at the root, not about ideology.

Trump is about the growth of prosperity for Americans, not just the elite.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For saddened Glenn Beck fans, from The Daily Caller:

Glenn Beck’s Trump Riff: ‘The Stabbing Just Wouldn’t Stop’ [AUDIO]

Beck is referring to Trump during the debate. One of his cohorts made a quip about sitting in his shoes.

And here is the audio quote of Glenn Beck's response.

Glenn Beck said:

If I was close enough and had a knife, the stabbing just wouldn’t stop.

In damage control mode, Beck's cohort says Beck's comment refers to him, not Trump.

Beck, so far, hasn't commented. 

Fortunately, Trump is not a stabber, he's a builder. Where others plant the seeds of hatred, Trump will build beauty and wealth.

They say shit is the best fertilizer to make beautiful roses grow.

 

Michael
 

[Selene]

Who is he playing, Brutus?

[KorbenDallas]

15 minutes ago, Selene said:

Who is he playing, Brutus?

11 days to know for sure..

[turkeyfoot]

The psychological portrait of this man is that of being borne of a disaster. The intrigue is palpable. The master persuader, linguistic kill shots and all manner of manipulation of facts, strategy, people and truth. A one man wrecking ball. Wow, Im trying to wrap my head around the idea put forth that he is who is needed.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432232/donald-trump-bbc-journalist-recalls-sexism

"Trump was making assertions that didn’t stand up to scrutiny"

"pointed to the Empire State Building, telling Scott he owned “100 percent of it.”"

"the same story with the Trump Taj Mahal Casino in Atlantic City. ‘It’s wholly owned by me,’ he said.” 

"he rolled back the claim from 80 percent to, finally, 50 percent ownership."

“Selina, you are a major loser,” one read. Another, as D’Antonio reported in his biography, fumed: “Selina, you have little talent. . . . You are no longer ‘hot.’ . . . I hope you are able to solve your problems before it is too late.’”

“Over many years he sent me a series of intimidating letters branding me ‘sleazy, unattractive, obnoxious, and boring.’” “Selina, you are a major loser,” one read. Another, as D’Antonio reported in his biography, fumed: “Selina, you have little talent. . . . You are no longer ‘hot.’ . . . I hope you are able to solve your problems before it is too late.’”

"The flurry of mail stopped when Scott threatened legal action." 

"Diana asked about Trump. He had just sent her multiple bouquets"

"in an interview with Roger Stone, Trump said he regretted never having asked the princess for a date. “I always have a shot,” he said."

[Ellen Stuttle]

8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Reality is fluid and runs through time (meaning change). The fixed mindset people want reality to to be as they say and only as they say, no more, no less. But reality always is more and less and sometimes the same.

Reality is a butterfly - 

A living butterfly that 

Shifts and changes

In the light.

You cannot pin it down 

With one immortal thrust 

Upon a mounting board

Called Truth.

Something I wrote in the late 1970s, a reaction to Objectivist ways of referring to "Reality," with capitalized effect.

Ellen

PS: <sigh> Another software aggravation.  I don't find a way to override the automatic paragraph breaks.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm going to start working on a mini-project of my own.

Some people in our subcommunity keep calling Trump unprincipled.

Now with Rubio and Romney's "con man" attacks, I am hearing this unprincipled thing a little more.

From my observations, Donald Trump is one of the most principled men ever to run for the office of the US presidency. But his principles have not been defended by others. I believe this might have been due to the dazzle of his celebrity status and the bickering due to his engineered polemics, so no need has arisen.

I have offered a good explanation of many of his principles right here in this thread, but it's all disjointed, really long, hard to find, and not in the jargon of moral principles. Also, people play gotcha galore with his statements because they don't have a clue about the difference between plan of action and marketing/political hyperbole.

As a good capitalist, I see a need right now. I don't know if I will have the competence to pull this off correctly in a timely fashion, nor do I have a clue about how to monetize something like that (I can brainstorm it), but I'm thinking it might be worth a shot.

My only reservation is that I am currently involved in a big project and something like making a serious and entertaining moral defense of Donald Trump will bring out an army of trolls. I'm not sure I have the time to deal with them efficiently.

I know the following is a very good way to deal with a gotcha troll (Roland Martin in this case). The moment the lovely ladies detected they were being played through gotcha bullshit and Martin was looking down his nose at them, they simply drowned him out. I can't do it that way, but I sure as hell can feel good when they do. 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

PS: <sigh> Another software aggravation.  I don't find a way to override the automatic paragraph breaks.

Ellen,

I like that small poem. That is how I have come to think about life. I have learned to distinguish between absolutes like existence (axioms) and propositions vested as absolutes. They're like butterflies in underwear with a hat and an umbrella. Propositions always come loaded with context, communication and the beholder. So they can't be absolute unless all those other things are absolute. Just as butterflies don't use underwear, hats and umbrellas, absolutes don't use context, communication and beholders. They just are for all time everywhere for everybody.

Free associating off this idea, do you remember I once said I was going to write a short story about the starving child in the wilderness? I never forgot it, but I did not have the writing chops to do a good job back then. Now I do, or at least I'm very close. I won't spoil it, but there is a moment where the protagonist is trapped on a ledge he fell to from a hiking path in the mountains. He thinks he is going to die and the climax is a moment of transcendence where he shakes off the shackles of ideology from others and sees things for himself--a total commitment to using his own mind even if it will only be for what little time he has left. The name of the story is Melody's Edge. The name of the starving child he finds is Melody.

On the issue of the quote above about the space between paragraphs, if you want single lines, hold shift when you press enter.

===========================

Here is an

example of only 

hitting enter for

each line.

===========================

Here is an
example of using
shift when hitting
enter at the end
of lines. This is 
better for poems.
 

===========================

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

44 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

On the issue of the quote above about the space between paragraphs, if you want single lines, hold shift when you press enter.

Thanks.  I just tried doing that, but it didn't work, I suppose because I'm posting from a tablet.

===

I like the title "Melody's Edge."  It would entice me to find out what the story's about.

Ellen

[merjet]

7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I have offered a good explanation of many of his principles right here in this thread, but it's all disjointed, really long, hard to find, and not in the jargon of moral principles. Also, people play gotcha galore with his statements because they don't have a clue about the difference between plan of action and marketing/political hyperbole.

Is this a plan of action or marketing/political hyperbole? Whatever, how do you rate it?

Until a few days ago Trump said he liked the mandate. Now he wants to undo it. Why does he want to undo it? The principle of freedom or to pick up a few votes? 

Trump versus Rubio on healthcare proposals (link).

[merjet]

On 3/2/2016 at 0:29 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

From The Onion:

GOP Statisticians Develop New Branch Of Math To Formulate Scenarios In Which Trump Doesn’t Win Nomination
March 2, 2016
The Onion

From the article:

Heh heh heh...

Michael

 

The GOP statisticians more recently adapted a Trump slogan. "Make math great again!"  

[merjet]

I infrequently read USA Today but saw this 3 days ago.

"Investors could invest in a Trump-controlled company in the 1990s:  Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts. Trump was chairman of the board back in the late 1990s, owned 41% of the company in 1999 and drew a $1 million a year salary from the company for years. But investors didn't do so well. Investors who bought the stock when the company went public in 1995 lost 87% of their money by 1999" (link). 

Many IPOs go bad. I don't know enough about it to fault Trump. Anyway, investing in casinos is like ... gambling. 

More history.

 

[Peter]

It’s silly Saturday and cold out. The delegate math is pi R squared times diameter of the circle plus Rollins and Rove times old Republican money minus Hillary indictment, times major gaff. Here is some news about The Big Guy. I have been hearing that Trump will get the Reagan democratic vote. Maybe. But is the party over? Is it crying time again?

Peter

From the Washington Examiner: Former Democratic primary candidate Jim Webb said Friday that there is no way he would vote for his party's front-runner, Hillary Clinton, in a general election, and said he'd prefer Donald Trump.

"No, I would not vote for Hillary Clinton," Webb said Friday on MSNBC's Morning Joe. When asked if he might support Trump, Webb said, "I'm not sure yet, I don't know who I'm going to vote for. It's nothing personal against Hillary Clinton."

Webb was a bit of an outlier during his time in the Democratic primary, as his Republican views often bled into the debates. Unlike the other candidates, Webb rarely focused on social or economic issues and mainly spoke of foreign policy. During a memorable moment in the October Democratic debate, he reminded voters that he killed a man during the Vietnam War.

end quote.

From Ben White, Politico's chief economic correspondent: Can Donald Trump be stopped? That is the big question hanging over the GOP establishment and the 2016 presidential race. The answer is yes. But it's a long shot and almost certainly depends on denying Trump the Republican nomination at the GOP convention in July.

From a delegate math perspective, the effort to stop Trump likely depends on the Florida primary on March 15. If outside groups going up with negative ads on Trump, including the Wall Street-funded Our Principles PAC, can move the numbers in the Sunshine State and deliver a win to its home-state senator, Marco Rubio, there is a good chance Trump will fall short of the 1,237 delegates he needs to win the nomination outright before the convention in Cleveland.

Because if Trump loses winner-take-all Florida, he could also lose winner-take-all Ohio to the state's governor, John Kasich. And as the race progresses, the terrain becomes somewhat less hospitable to Trump, with contests moving out of the South and into the Midwest, West and Northeast. Trump has shown the ability to win anywhere (see Massachusetts) but he has not faced the kind of sustained assault on the air he is about to face over his business record and past positions on abortion and gun rights and other issues key to GOP primary voters. He could face $10 million in negative ads in Florida alone over the next 10 days.

The conundrum for political operatives working to stop Trump is what they refer to as the "magnet problem." They are trying to use powerful magnets to drive voters away from Trump but at the moment they don't have a single magnet to draw in the voters leaving the front-runner. 

In Florida, they have Rubio. In Ohio, Kasich. In other states, Texas U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz. At some point there has to be a single recipient of the anti-Trump vote. And that may not happen until the convention . . . . Trump remains the front-runner with the most obvious path to the GOP nomination. But if he starts losing the biggest states — and his supporters wobble on him — that front-runner status could easily evaporate. This thing isn't over.

end quote

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 hours ago, merjet said:

Is this a plan of action or marketing/political hyperbole? Whatever, how do you rate it?

Until a few days ago Trump said he liked the mandate. Now he wants to undo it. Why does he want to undo it? The principle of freedom or to pick up a few votes? 

Trump versus Rubio on healthcare proposals (link).

Merlin,

You ought to know by now that gotcha doesn't work with Trump.

Let me add another few items to "plan of action" and "marketing/political hyperbole." Trump could be punking the questioner. Or had a brain freeze and is winging it. Or using his negative-to-positive template against gotcha, except he inadvertently went on autopilot as he thought about something else (see The Art of the Deal for a description of this template). Or he was tired and got a little careless. There are probably others.

No matter how many times you try to fit Trump into the standard gotcha box, it just won't work. You may feel a slight moment of self-satisfaction when you find a logical inconsistency in Trump's words, but then look at the impact this has on Trump supporters. How many times do we have to hear a pundit say Trump has "rewritten all the rules," or call him "Teflon Don," or things like that? His critics always watch in awe as the number of Trump supporters grows.

You could, I suppose, think this is proof that the American public is so stupid, people are beyond reason. If your thing is to scratch a self-superiority itch, that works. It doesn't convince anyone of anything, but it feels good. 

Or you could make an effort to see if you have been missing something due to your own perspective. That doesn't mean you are wrong when you find a gotcha. But there are things you haven't seen. And to see them means stepping out of your perspective for awhile--long enough to see them and add them to the gotcha. Then you can go back to your own perspective. But stepping out for real, even temporarily, can get awfully uncomfortable, especially if strong emotions are involved. Not everyone wishes to do this, but it is the only pathway to understand things by using critical reasoning.

 

Political Game

Here's the way the political game is played. A person in politics, say his name is George, touts a body of principles (liberal, conservative, libertarian, Objectivist, Christian, whatever) and he points to a few examples of what he is talking about to illustrate those principles, including a few victimization stories as cautionary tales. Then he filters what he encounters from opponents according to those principles and mostly congratulates himself on being right, having a great vision, etc. His opponents try to find examples of him doing actions contrary to the very principles he touts and try to shame him in public with hypocrisy to discredit him.

Since a body of principles is an abstraction, it works just as well for making a public mask as it does as a code for deciding on action in reality. That public mask is important to a politician. So George usually spends a HUGE amount of time and effort to make sure his words and publicly perceived actions align with the principles he touts. If they don't align, he makes damn sure there are reasons the public will swallow. And he tries to neutralize his critics by playing the same game on them.

Now here's the kicker. Behind the scenes in the back rooms, George does whatever he damn well pleases and much of that actually does contradict his principles. In public, he's a moral crusader. In private, he's corrupt and pleased with himself for outsmarting everyone. Think of terms like pork, horse-trading, sneaking in provisions, and so on. Now the worst part. The public expects George to act like that. They think that's what all politicians do.

 

A Different Way

But what would it look like if a person did not live like that? What if he did not think like that and had a lifetime of doing it differently?

That's easy to see. That's Donald Trump. And Trump supporters, if you want to be precise. They don't think or act like that. (I'm speaking of overall habits, not sporadic exceptions.)

They use a different thinking system because their main value is peaceful production. That's not George's primary value. He wants to gain power to exploit unearned wealth, destroy people he doesn't like, and fool the public to keep up appearances.

So the very first thing you have to realize about Trump and Trump supporters is that they want to do right. They may not always be clear on what is right and wrong, but they want to do right. These people will do right in private when no one is looking because they can't not do it. They made a fundamental choice early in life that they want to do right and that's just how they live. This makes them look inconsistent when they change their minds, but when you look deeper, you see them wanting to do right at the root.

 

Example -- Killing Terrorist Families

A good example is Trump's public backup on killing terrorist families. Trump has always acted within the law, so he obviously was not talking about running roughshod over the law when he said he would go after the families of terrorists. The image in his mind when he made that statement was family accomplices of terrorists. The people who see bombs lying around, knowing what they are going to be used for, and staying silent or even helping the terrorist. Then getting off Scot free after lots of innocents are murdered. Trump's idea is that those people are evil, too. Not just the terrorist. Recently, I imagine he had some military advisor explain international treaties to him and why they came about, so he said, of course he doesn't want to order soldiers to break the law.

His critics scream, "Gotcha!" but they don't perceive that Trump is still thinking about those evil family members and how to nail their asses. He just added a different perspective of keeping to the law and, also, trying to avoid innocent family member deaths in the crossfire (which is why the law exists in the first place--I have no doubt Trump is fully aware of that and will temper his plans to include it).

Trump wants to do what is right. Now get this. The wrong he wanted to address is still wrong. So he adapts his words to the new information and context overviews that he got from trusted advisors and makes new plans to get the bad guys. He has no compunction about doing this in public. He's not even seeing the gotcha game when he's looking into the face of evil.

This is the mentality of a builder. The builder sees he needs an area for a playground. He discovers that the area he reserved in the project comes with all kinds of problems, so he moves the playground and builds it over there. People can scream, "Gotcha!" all they want, but he still builds the playground.

Trump supporters are like that and they recognize Trump is like them in that respect. No amount of gotcha will ever dislodge their relief at finding someone who thinks and builds like they do. They don't mind that he changes his mind as he learns because he sees what needs to be done just like they do. They know he wants to do right.

 

Example -- Health Care

As to health care, I'm sure of one thing. Any plan Trump lays out now will change by the time it is implemented and Trump learns new information. His genius is that he hires the best people to carry out what he wants so I am 100% sure the details will shine bright.

And what does Trump want? It's very simple. A free market (a truly free market) for people to be able to choose insurance among competing insurance companies, if they wish insurance, and no one dying in the streets when their lives are so destroyed they can't fend for themselves. Is that simplistic? Damn right. That's the prize and it's no more complicated than that. Regardless of this detail or that, this law or that, this vision is exactly what he is going to do.

People can cry, "Gotcha!" all they want, but his abstractions are generally visual: a booming marketplace of cheap (and expensive) insurance that people can choose to purchase, and poor people not dying in the street. Expect Trump to stay true to that vision, not to any theories about government role, this person's concept versus that person's concept on freedom, and so on. When that information is relevant, he will do what what is already doing. He is surrounding himself with plenty of great people to keep him grounded in the Founding Fathers. And he will listen to them and learn. Why?

 

Because Donald Trump wants to do right, not wrong.

That's why his supporters love him. He is just like them and they want to do right, not wrong. 

That's why political sellouts, and those who defend political sellouts, will never convince them of anything bad about Trump. They see Trump's flaws. They also see the flaws in the political sellouts. Between living with one or the other, it's not even a choice anymore. What do you want to live with, a pet you love that poops or a huge manure factory next door?

I don't know if this explanation will resonate with you because of the perspective shift needed to grok it, but that is what is happening. Frankly, that is the way masses of productive Americans think. I know this because I think that way myself and see it all over other Trump supporters.

Michael

[merjet]

11 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Merlin,

You ought to know by now that gotcha doesn't work with Trump.

Let me add another few items to "plan of action" and "marketing/political hyperbole." Trump could be punking the questioner.

[blah, blah, blah]

What are you talking about? What questioner? And I wasn't trying to play gotcha. I pointed to a website that laid out his plan. Here's another, and note the URL, for which gotcha and questioner are completely irrelevant.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 minutes ago, merjet said:

What are you talking about? What questioner? And I wasn't trying to play gotcha. I pointed to a website that laid out his plan. Here's another, and note the URL, for which gotcha and questioner are completely irrelevant.

Merlin,

Well, excuse me, I thought you asked this gotcha.

6 hours ago, merjet said:

Why does he want to undo it? The principle of freedom or to pick up a few votes? 

Michael

[Selene]

 

Folks;

In terms of his medical plan, the reason that Trump modified, or, "evolved" on that issue is Gingrich's input.  Funny, when a marxist like O'bama "flip flops," he evolved.  When Trump does, he is a "con man," unprincipled and ___________[your agenda word of the day].

When are folks going to see Trump as the innovator that he is.

Additionally, he modifies his approach to reality as he absorbs new and valid information.

Does anyone want a close minded idealouge that jams a fluid real situation into a pre-set format?

Sounds like a great way to get people killed.

A...

[Peter]

Michael suggested to Merlin and other Right Thinkers: Or you could make an effort to see if you have been missing something due to your own perspective. end quote

 

OK. IN FLORIDA the latest Quinnipiac, PPP, and Gravis Polls (from Feb. 24 and 25) have Trump with a substantial average lead over all challengers including Marco Rubio, of 18.7 percent. The latter of the three polls show Trump leading with 20 percent and that is a huge challenge to Rubio. If Marco Rubio loses Florida he should get out of the race.  I can see the temptation of staying in until a brokered convention occurs but he COULD still “suspend” his campaign but not technically take his name out of the quest for the holy grail of the nomination.

 

One assumption is that Rubio and Kasich share the establishment vote and the “Anyone But Trump Vote” but would Kasich most benefit from a Rubio withdrawal if John wins Ohio as expected? Maybe. Kasich might also benefit from those rumored, big money GOP donors if Marco withdraws. They are expected to spend some big bucks to stop a foreign born first lady from coming out from under the covers. (Sorry, Melania, who was born in 1970 in Slovenia. That image was just too enticing.)

 

Be gone loser. We won’t have (Little Havana) Marco to pick on anymore. Which leaves Trump, Cruz, and Kasich. ‘Splain that to me Lucy,’ said Ricky Ricardo.

Peter  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's Yaron Brook on the Peikoff podcast killing it on persuasion.

Expect to see hoards of Americans lining up just to sit at his feet to hear his pearls of wisdom.

Hoards and hoards and hoards of them, I tell ya'.

Yaron Brook said:

Does Donald Trump’s popularity signify how dumbed down the American population has become?

Yaron Brook: Yeah. I think so.

Michael

[merjet]

22 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Merlin,

Well, excuse me, I thought you asked this gotcha.

Quote

Why does he want to undo it? The principle of freedom or to pick up a few votes? (me)

 

Take it as gotcha if you want, but I didn't intend it as such. My second question gave two possible, not exhaustive, answers to the first question. The first in my view would be extremely shaky, given that he liked the mandate only a few days ago.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

21 minutes ago, merjet said:

Take it as gotcha if you want, but I didn't intend it as such. My second question gave two possible, not exhaustive, answers to the first question. The first in my view would be extremely shaky, given that he was liked the mandate only a few days ago.

Merlin,

My bad, then. Sorry.

(I still gave a hell of a good explanation. )

I heard it when Trump said he liked the mandate, but if you look at everything he said before and everything he said after, it's obvious he didn't have forced purchase of health insurance in mind. I honestly think he got his wires crossed and was imagining a moral mandate to take care of the helpless or something like that since some of the rightwing rhetoric is so strong against doing that. 

In short, I attribute his statement to a speaking/word screw-up, not a change of intentions. He was fighting the wrong battle at that moment.

This different manner of thinking was evident when he was being grilled by Rubio on healthy care during one of the debates. Rubio kept asking him about his health care plan (thinking government plan) and Trump kept saying the different insurance plans people would receive from removing the lines around the states were all the plan anyone needed to get cheaper rates (thinking private insurance plans).

Trump doesn't conceive of the government as an insurance company and it shows at the times when he talks to people who do. This is an area where he is going to have to learn the jargon and concepts of those who think like socialists or don't mind certain socialist ideas.

And Rubio? I'm not sure Rubio even saw the difference in that debate. He just wanted to nail Trump. But I don't think he perceived he was inadvertently speaking out in favor of socialism by offering the choice of one form against the other as the only conceptual alternatives. 

Michael

[Selene]

11 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I heard it when Trump said he liked the mandate, but if you look at everything he said before and everything he said after, it's obvious he didn't have forced purchase of health insurance in mind. I honestly think he got his wires crossed and was imagining a moral mandate to take care of the helpless or something like that since some of the rightwing rhetoric is so strong against doing that. 

In short, I attribute his statement to a speaking/word screw-up, not a change of intentions. He was fighting the wrong battle at that moment.

This different manner of thinking was evident when he was being grilled by Rubio on healthy care during one of the debates. Rubio kept asking him about his health care plan (thinking government plan) and Trump kept saying the different insurance plans people would receive from removing the lines around the states were all the plan anyone needed to get cheaper rates (thinking private insurance plans).

Trump doesn't conceive of the government as an insurance company and it shows at the times when he talks to people who do. This is an area where he is going to have to learn the jargon and concepts of those who think like socialists or don't mind certain socialist ideas.

And Rubio? I'm not sure Rubio even saw the difference in that debate. He just wanted to nail Trump. But I don't think he perceived he was inadvertently speaking out in favor of socialism by offering the choice of one form against the other as the only conceptual alternatives. 

Michael

Michael:

You raise a serious point in that post.

Trump has a different dictionary/semantic than the "polito-speak" that is confined by "plans," regulations and other government generated speech.

I think you are right as to what he meant by mandate because he almost became wistfully emotional when he said, "I like tee 'mandate.'"

It was similar to his answer to Howard Stern on the Iraq question.  It was a very painfully issued, "I guess its OK" response.

A...