Donald Trump

[Selene]

47 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

On 3/11/2016 at 4:24 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here is a Facebook post by Ann Coulter.

In addition to her text, which shows what a bunch of thugs showed up at Trump's rally in Chicago (as per her police scanner), she links to a Reddit post giving an eyewitness account from a nonwhite legal immigrant. It's well worth reading and has over 500 comments so far.

 

 

I'm not so sure anymore that Trump scheduled this on purpose at the university because he knew troublemakers would shut it down. I think something more sinister is occurring.

Michae;

Kasich has been out there saying Trump's words cause violence, so it's all on Trump.

Kasich can go fuck himself. He deserves zero consideration. 

Quote

 

Quote

pportunist Ted Cruz: “Donald Trump is Responsible” For Organized Chicago Violence (video)…

Posted on March 11, 2016 by sundance

This is quite stunning even for a politician as low as Ted Cruz.  Senator Cruz has a prime opportunity to highlight the intolerance of the left.  Instead he choses to attack Donald Trump:

At a media availability in Chicago, Ted Cruz basically blamed Donald Trump for the violence and protests that occurred earlier in the day at a Donald Trump rally at the University of Illinois-Chicago. The rally had to be cancelled due to safety concerns (link)

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/ann-coulter-fox-traitors/2016/03/13/id/718860/?ns_mail_uid=6735229&ns_mail_job=1659549_03132016&s=al&dkt_nbr=k8cagri2

[william.scherk]

 

9 hours ago, merjet said:

14 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Updated Delegate Totals ... I don't understand the shitty results from Wyoming and the District for Mr Trump. It seems odd and unbalanced and does not provide Magic Numbers going forward. 

What is the most likely explanation for the shitty results?

	TRUMP		CRUZ		RUBIO		KASICH
MICHIGAN (59)	36.5%	25	25.9%	17	9%	0	24.3	17
MISSISSIPPI (40)	47.3%	24	36.3%	15	5.1%	0	8.8%	0
IDAHO (32)	28.1	12	45.4%	20	16%	0	7.5%	0
HAWAII (19)	42.4%	11	32.7%	7	13.21%	0	10.6%	0
WYOMING	7.2%	1	68.3%	9	19.5%	1	--	0
WASHINGTON (DC)	13.8%	0	12.4%	0	37.3%	10	35.5%	9
Average vote %	29.22%		36.83%		16.65%		17.34%
Previous total		461		360		154		54
GRAND TOTAL		462		369		165		63

WSS, did you compute those Average Vote %'s youself? If so, you need to learn some basic statistics.

Thank you.  The average of the percentages rendered out in these last six contests does not necessarily influence any races going forward. I find it not-so-odd that Mr Trump did so shitty in DC. The caucus process was new, the numbers attending relatively small (in relation to the number of putative voters for the GOP come November).  

The Wyoming fail is more difficult to understand, at least for me.  Michael tried to explain, and perhaps a Venn best explains it: Trump's campaign does not really give a shit about stumping in Western/rural/small flyover states.   He didn't compete there, so he lost there. 

On balance, it seems to me that Mr Trump is weak in certain areas. I am sure his campaign has made strategic decisions to pinpoint and persuade voters who can make a difference, either in Hoopla or in delegate counts.  My Callfire work with the Trump campaign shows a very weak effort in Wyoming. MSK may be right that it is by design.  As with Rubio being left alone in Florida by Cruz, some strategies make a lot of sense if you think like a wonk-slash-electoral operative in the kitchen cabinets of the campaigns.

I take your point that an average of these last six contests is not particularly meaningful.  

Quote

More objective would be the percent of delegates for each candidate for the 5 states + DC. They are:

 TRUMP     41.0%     CRUZ   38.2%        RUBIO        6.2%     KASICH      14.6%

You are welcome to work off and/or add better features to the Google Sheets document I used to keep track of vote percentages and delegate totals: GOP primary data -- delegate counts and vote percentages

Quote

You should also have labeled the columns. I have no idea what your left column for each candidate is.

Thanks for that note, too. I should have labeled the two columns under the candidates as Percentage of Vote ... and Delegate Count. 

I don't know if you are a skimmer or a reader of the posts I have made in the Guesstimates threads. I have -- for my own understanding -- tried to paste in the numbers from each contest, and use arithmetic to compute how close Mr Trump is to his goals. 

(as an aside, I took the CNN transcript of the Miami debate and annotated it for my own understanding.  One oddity leaped out at me -- though the oddity may be in my own processing/analysis -- and that is the Math Question. Those who have listened to, watched or read the entire thing will recall that Mr Trump and the others responded to Jake Tapper's arithmetic ... he raised the Magic Number of a majority of delegates. In the answers given by Mr Trump, it looks to me like he didn't have a grasp on what was being discussed.  (cue up the moderator's introduction to the issue  here at around the 50 minute mark.  

Link to transcript section here -- where Mr Trump seems like he is speaking of 1237 as an "artificial number" ... I just don't get it yet. ) 

Quote

I just noticed that MSK has called himself a Trump groupie on this thread. Now I can't stop imagining the many screaming, teenage, female fans of the Beatles.   

Nothing can top this hilarious item: 

On 3/12/2016 at 11:43 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Suddenly, without signal, in the tiniest instant, in a sliver of time, I elevated inside. I shut off the video's sound and experienced a feeling of Nirvanic transcendence.

The little nonstop voice in my head lowered its tone, then whispered: Who gives a shit?

And the most delicious calm came over my entire being.

I became singular with the universe.

I am going to submit that poetry to the festival of love at TrumpGasm!!!

I wish I could fall as totally in love. Who doesn't want a strongman/strong leader to make us one with Reality?

Edited March 13, 2016 by william.scherk
I became singular with the Universe. And left a wet spot.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

56 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

 

2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

If Rand were alive, she'd love Trump.

She always put aesthetics above the rest of philosophy (in fact, her aesthetics are the tail that wags the dog: contrary to her statements, her philosophy does not begin with metaphysics and proceed from there, but rather it begins with her personal aesthetics).

And Trump has the proud, fearless, guiltless attitude that she adored. Her fictional heroes and "ideal men" bent and broke the rules when they had had enough meddling from others, despite the fact that their doing so didn't comply with Objectivists ethics. I think she'd be cheering Trump for his personal style and strength, and just occasionally lightly slapping his wrists, or completely looking the other way, when it came to the issue of his violations of Objectivist morality -- very much like how Trump "scolds" his supporters for calling others "pussies" or whatever; with a wink and a nod.

J

So you assert.

I'm mixed on how I speculate Rand would react to Trump, but I'm more inclined than not to suspect that she'd be negative because of his blustering style and lack of philosophical heft.

 

Based on Rand's reaction to Reagan, if she were alive today, she might not even consider Trump's business stuff or any of his virtues.

I believe Rand would hate Trump because he is pro-life.

I remember her saying, about Reagan, that no one can make a sense-of-life error like that. Being pro-life to her was proof Reagan was evil, that adopting a pro-life stance was choosing evil on purpose.

I imagine she would continue her same opinion with Trump.

Michael

[william.scherk]

(Note from MSK: Please go to the following link for the post that was originally embedded here in an iframe):

CNN Miami GOP Debate Transcript (courtesy CNN)

[Roger Bissell]

1 hour ago, Selene said:

(Actually, Jon Letendre said this)

Kasich has been out there saying Trump's words cause violence, so it's all on Trump.

Kasich can go fuck himself. He deserves zero consideration. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Selene said:

(And this was quoted as being from somebody named Sundance)

This is quite stunning even for a politician as low as Ted Cruz.  Senator Cruz has a prime opportunity to highlight the intolerance of the left.  Instead he choses to attack Donald Trump:

At a media availability in Chicago, Ted Cruz basically blamed Donald Trump for the violence and protests that occurred earlier in the day at a Donald Trump rally at the University of Illinois-Chicago.

2

Ummm, yeah, I see your point. When a Presidential candidate says things he could or would do, like punching people in the face or shooting people, and then protestors against him get violent, why, there's absolutely no logical or psychological connection there. Inciting to riot, fighting word provocation...bah, that stuff is all a bunch of psycho-babble. You go, Donald. You go, Trumpgasmers. Fight on. Just do it somewhere else. Things are pretty peaceful down here in Tennessee. Provoke people into burning down your cities. Thank you.

REB

P.S. - See? I'm not telling anyone to sit down and shut up. Free speech forever. Glorify and bask in violent rhetoric and revel in the additional support it creates for you. And vilify and mock the people who object to that pathway. You guys rule. (Or, at least, one gets the impression that you would like to. <shudder>)

[Selene]

1 minute ago, Roger Bissell said:

 

Ummm, yeah, I see your point. When a Presidential candidate says things he could or would do, like punching people in the face or shooting people, and then protestors against him get violent, why, there's absolutely no logical or psychological connection there. Inciting to riot, fighting word provocation...bah, that stuff is all a bunch of psycho-babble. You go, Donald. You go, Trumpgasmers. Fight on. Just do it somewhere else. Things are pretty peaceful down here in Tennessee. Provoke people into burning down your cities. Thank you.

REB

So, if a candidate you supported for President told you to do something, you would, of course do it?

You are absolved of any individual control over acting?

Interesting theory on rational thinking.

A...

[merjet]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

You are welcome to work off and/or add better features to the Google Sheets document I used to keep track of vote percentages and delegate totals: GOP primary data -- delegate counts and vote percentages

I won't do that. I can't edit the file anyway.

You do need to understand the difference between a simple (or arithmetic) average and a weighted average. This spreadsheet should help. Note that the 'All' line combines the 3 groups. So cell D5 calculates the %Female for all groups combined with the formula = C5/D5.  The simple average =average(D2:D4) in D6 treats all groups as if they were the same size, which they are not.  The wtd avg =sumproduct(B2:B4,D2:D4)/sum(B2:B4) in D7 recognizes that the groups differ in size, using B2:B4 as "weights". Note that the result matches cell D5.  

If each group were of the same size, each would have the same weight, and the simple average and weighted average would be identical.

Regarding your %delegates calculations, you can't use simple averages because the groups (states) aren't the same size.

[Roger Bissell]

44 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Based on Rand's reaction to Reagan, if she were alive today, she might not even consider Trump's business stuff or any of his virtues.

I believe Rand would hate Trump because he is pro-life.

I remember her saying, about Reagan, that no one can make a sense-of-life error like that. Being pro-life to her was proof Reagan was evil, that adopting a pro-life stance was choosing evil on purpose.

I imagine she would continue her same opinion with Trump.

 

 

Reagan's 1976 campaign for the GOP nomination was threatening the re-election of Rand's pal, Jerry Ford. Ford had recently picked her erstwhile protege, Alan Greenspan, to be on the Federal Reserve Board. She got to go to the White House and pose, smiling proudly, for photo ops. One could imagine that she thought, "This is it, now Objectivism has achieved major cultural influence. Oh, happy day!" Reagan, of course, threatened Ford's continued Objectivist presidency. Then Reagan tries to horn in and interfere with her access to the White House. Turns out, it didn't matter anyway.

As for abortion - yeah, Rand was knee-jerk anti-anyone who was anti-abortion, because it was essentially a religious position, and she hated religion about as much as she hated socialism. Hard to say which she hated more. "Faith and force, destroyers of the modern world..." Trump, who insists he is a devout Christian, would certainly have lost her support just for that alone, let alone for his crazy position of opposing abortion but supporting tax-financed Planned Parenthood.

REB

[Jon Letendre]

17 minutes ago, Selene said:

So, if a candidate you supported for President told you to do something, you would, of course do it?

You are absolved of any individual control over acting?

Interesting theory on rational thinking.

A...

Well, you see, Adam, the SJWs don't have free will. Tell them you will punch them if they trespass and violate your speech rights, why, you are basically forcing them to throw bottles at police.

Just like Hebdo killers. You know what they're going to do if you draw, so don't try to deny the logical and psychological connection between drawings and killings. It is very well understood connection.

[Roger Bissell]

18 minutes ago, Selene said:

So, if a candidate you supported for President told you to do something, you would, of course do it?

You are absolved of any individual control over acting?

Interesting theory on rational thinking.

 

Nope. Not theory. Just cause-and-effect observation.

I'm saying there are a lot of people in our country who are little better than animals - in their self-control and in their understanding of individual rights - and who respond in Pavlovian manner to incitements to riot, destroying other people's property and interfering with other people's peaceful exercise of their freedom of speech and freedom to work at their occupations.

They certainly are absolved of responsibility for their actions - not by me, but by mayors in Baltimore, Ferguson MO, and elsewhere - which translates into permission to do whatever they want, whenever they are angry and provoked enough. Rational thinking is the last thing that these mayors and our President - and your favorite candidate for POTUS #46 - are interested in promoting.   

Trump's repeated careless (or calculated?) invocations of physical violence and use of firearms against random people on the street plays into this psychology and intensifies the violent preoccupation in our culture - just as do the mayors mentioned above, and the President who invites BLM into the White House, while turning his back on the police who are the thin, blue line protecting us from these animals.

But you already know this. So why are you heaping your b.s. on me?? Are you craving approval from the thread's den mother?

REB

[Selene]

12 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

But you already know this. So why are you heaping your b.s. on me?? Are you craving approval from the thread's den mother?

REB

Fascinating response.

OK, I am done arguing with you.

However, I do enjoy your music.

A...

[Roger Bissell]

3 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

30 minutes ago, Selene said:

So, if a candidate you supported for President told you to do something, you would, of course do it?

You are absolved of any individual control over acting?

Interesting theory on rational thinking.

A...

 

Well, you see, Adam, the SJWs don't have free will. Tell them you will punch them if they trespass and violate your speech rights, why, you are basically forcing them to throw bottles at police.

Just like Hebdo killers. You know what they're going to do if you draw, so don't try to deny the logical and psychological connection between drawings and killings. It is very well understood connection.

 

Hebdo-Schmebdo.

When violence-prone people are repeatedly excused from the legal consequences of their actions by criminal policies of mayors and the President and his Attorney General, they get the idea that it is OK to keep doing it - and others get the idea that they can do it, too. .That is one of the most important reasons for quick and certain criminal prosecution of people violating rights of others - so as to dis-incentivize those who might do it if they think they can get away with it. To have any more lenient policy than this - which is indeed our current situation, in spades - is to invite a gradually escalating level of violence in our society. This is how it works. 

Donald Trump knows that this is the current situation in our society. It is the height of irresponsibility to throw rhetorical gasoline on a culture that is constantly hovering near the flash point of burning down. Yet, that is what Trump does, repeatedly, without seeming to understand or care. That is the message of Gov. Kasich and Sen. Cruz. I'm Roger Bissell, and I approve of that message. 

REB

[Jon Letendre]

3 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

Hebdo-Schmebdo.

When violence-prone people are repeatedly excused from the legal consequences of their actions by criminal policies of mayors and the President and his Attorney General, they get the idea that it is OK to keep doing it - and others get the idea that they can do it, too. .That is one of the most important reasons for quick and certain criminal prosecution of people violating rights of others - so as to dis-incentivize those who might do it if they think they can get away with it. To have any more lenient policy than this - which is indeed our current situation, in spades - is to invite a gradually escalating level of violence in our society. This is how it works. 

Donald Trump knows that this is the current situation in our society. It is the height of irresponsibility to throw rhetorical gasoline on a culture that is constantly hovering near the flash point of burning down. Yet, that is what Trump does, repeatedly, without seeming to understand or care. That is the message of Gov. Kasich and Sen. Cruz. I'm Roger Bissell, and I approve of that message. 

REB

Goodbye.

[william.scherk]

40 minutes ago, merjet said:

You do need to understand the difference between a simple (or arithmetic) average and a weighted average. This spreadsheet should help.

I appreciate the criticism, and thanks for the links and explanation. 

Quote

Regarding your %delegates calculations, you can't use simple averages because the groups (states) aren't the same size.

I don't follow this. Can you copy-paste from the sheet what you mean? I am counting delegates as they are approximated, and summing them. The only percentage I would care about -- and the only percentage I imagine the Trump campaign cares about, is the proportion of delegates in bag to the number needed to win a first ballot: 1237.  

Mr Trump, presently with 462, is on track to a plurality if he can maintain at least 33% of the votes in the remaining heats, but is not yet certain to have a majority. As I noted in the comment above with the transcript of the Miami debate, Mr Trump seems confused about what he needs to win ... and what a winner needs to achieve. To my eyes, he needs a first-ballot majority for the biggest TrumpGasm to date, MSK"s universal climax of oneness notwithstanding.

462/1237 .... and 462/2472 ...

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

More objective would be the percent of delegates for each candidate for the 5 states + DC. They are:

 TRUMP     41.0%     CRUZ   38.2%        RUBIO        6.2%     KASICH      14.6%

I don't know what this tells you, objectively. Did you have some thoughts on the campaign, given what you know and your facility with numbers?

Let me reiterate a few observations, at the risk of boring the emotionalists among us ...

The important numbers to me are the accumulated delegate counts, the percentage of the vote that each candidate amassed in state heats, and the  current polling trends for each candidate.  For example, the RealClearPolitics site gives a rolling average of national numbers for Mr Trump, and also for each state heat where there are credible soundings.  The national number is pretty steady around 36% (Mr Trump seems convinced that a portion of the polls are lies and fabrications, touting only his massive outliers, and not taking into account the basic margins of error).  There is weakness in some regions.

My wonk-boneworm tells me this:  if Mr Trump maintains a 33% lead, then he is likely to scoop up all of the delegates at stake on March 15.  If I am correct, then he will have 829 delegates in the bag.  Not quite there, but almost there. 

829/1237 == 

[Jon Letendre]

30 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

Two down...

Yes, a great success.

Just like Friday evening. "We won! We stopped Trump!"

Ideologically similar, and delusionaly similar, too.

[GALTGULCH8]

It is instructive to watch as Trump acknowledges that he has supported politicians of both parties over the years on the grounds that he needed to do so in order to be able to carry on his business dealings with the help of those politicians. He does not apologize for this behavior and I am not aware that it is even considered to be crony capitalism or government intervention and is more consistent with a government of men and not of laws. He doesn't show any sign that what he does in rubbing elbows with politicians for his own benefit is evil or immoral or even just unfair.

He justifies it as a necessity for a businessman to do business. He is unaware of the distinction between a capitalist, which he is not despite his wealth, and one who seeks to benefit using bribes rather than innovation and productivity.

Another issue which is seemingly inexplicable is the idea that the power brokers within the Republican Party, the so-called Establishment, would rather that if Trump gets the nomination, that he actually lose the election to the Democrats. The thinking is that if he did win he would replace all of them from lucrative positions in the GOP hierarchy which would be devastating for them personally.

That may be the case. It brings to mind what might become of anyone who poses a substantial threat to those who have been prospering as shareholders and owners of the Federal Reserve System. Some think that JFK's attempt to create a gold backed redeemable currency to compete with Federal Reserve Notes led to his assassination!

The third issue on my mind is the idea that Kasich might win in Ohio and then continue to do well in subsequent contests as he expects. I don't know if the math is in his favor to get the 1237 rather prospect of succeeding on a multi ballot contest in the convention in Cleveland. I would rather that Gary Johnson win but I am not yet sure whether the LP has chosen their nominee yet. Last time Johnson did get over one million votes in the presidential election of 2012.

Does anyone here think that the president might declare a bank holiday and then confiscate money from deposits to pay down the national debt or the like? I think that retirement accounts are another appealing source of revenue and are vulnerable as well.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Roger Bissell said:

When a Presidential candidate says things he could or would do, like punching people in the face or shooting people, and then protestors against him get violent, why, there's absolutely no logical or psychological connection there.

Roger,

You got the sequence wrong.

When people start threatening and actually punching peaceful people in the face, arming themselves with tomatoes and so forth, even shooting people (like on the police scanner during the canceled Chicago rally), you have a presidential candidate who says if you see anything, knock 'em out.

Granted, everybody gets scared. But they want to intimidate Trump, then go home to mommy when the heat's on. That ain't gonna happen anymore.

You are ignoring the initial provocation, violence and threats. Without that crap from the bad guys, there is no other violence. In fact, even with peaceful protesters sounding off and being escorted out, Trump's rallies are some of the most peaceful I have ever seen for the crowd sizes.

The baddie Trump words problems that cause you such fear start when Trump gets info from the Secret Service that they have intel that violent people with violent intentions are somewhere out there in the audience and he tells his supporters to be on the watch, then do something about it if the bad guys erupt.

That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Roger Bissell said:

Reagan's 1976 campaign for the GOP nomination was threatening the re-election of Rand's pal, Jerry Ford. Ford had recently picked her erstwhile protege, Alan Greenspan, to be on the Federal Reserve Board.

Roger,

Two comments:

1. I never thought about the President Ford connection when evaluating Rand's harsh judgment of Reagan. That makes a hell of a lot of sense to me. Kewell...

2. President Ford did not appoint Alan Greenspan as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. President Reagan did that in 1987, five years after Rand died. Ford appointed Greenspan to the Council of Economic Advisers.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's what I'm talking about.

The headline says it all.

CNN Exclusive: 'Trump is a bully,' says man who rushed stage

If you don't see the irony in that, your hatred of Trump is greater than your ability to track conceptual hierarchies.

Michael

[merjet]

WSS, I expanded the spreadsheet (link).

I added males and unknowns. For each of females, males, and unknowns the wtd average matches the number 2 lines above. The simple averages misrepresent the "big picture." The data is now structurally like having three political candidates and 3 states.

You wrote, "I don't know what this tells you, objectively."

It tells you for each candidate the %delegates for the 5 states + DC combined. It doesn't misrepresent the "big picture" like simple averages do.

Addenda: Here is an even starker example of my point. Assume a 2-man basketball team plays a game. Player #1 attempts 60% of the shots, making 55% of them, and player #2 attempts 40% of the shots, making 45% of them.  How did the team do? (0.55 + 0.45)/2 = 0.50 is wrong. Likewise, 0.5 * 0.55 + 0.5 * 0.45 = 0.50 is wrong. It uses wrong weights. The correct answer with the correct weights is 0.6 * 0.55 + 0.4 * 0.45 = 0.51.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ann Coulter is right.

This is a fantastic article.

 

FANTASTIC article by David Horowitz: How Not To Fight Our Enemies."The mob that came to disrupt the Trump rally in...

Posted by

Ann Coulter

on 

Sunday, March 13, 2016

There are many quotes that jump out at you.

For example, this one, especially for the tut-tut-tut crowd:

Quote

The fact is that Trump’s anger is pretty controlled, considering the hate-filled environment of Islamic terrorists, illegal immigrants, event disrupters and rival candidates openly smearing him.

When David Horowitz is good he is really, really good.

Michael

[william.scherk]

America's best political comedienne ...

Ann Coulter 'Would Like to See a Little More Violence' from Trump Fans https://t.co/fFpE9AUxOu pic.twitter.com/7PdDhdW0nq

— Mediaite (@Mediaite)

March 14, 2016

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ann Coulter is right.

This is a fantastic article.

The Facebook embed is acting funny above. If it is for you, too, here is the article:

Horowitz: How Not To Fight Our Enemies
Some Republicans seem more intent on destroying their allies.
by David Horowitz
3.13.2016
Truth Revolt

Michael

 

[KorbenDallas]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here's what I'm talking about.

The headline says it all.

CNN Exclusive: 'Trump is a bully,' says man who rushed stage

If you don't see the irony in that, your hatred of Trump is greater than your ability to track conceptual hierarchies.

Michael

The term "bully" is being thrown around today too loosely, often being applied to anyone who demeans another.  That's not what it is.  The targets of bullies aren't necessarily victims, either.  Anyone can be a target, strong or weak.  Given enough opportunity, a bully can wear nearly anyone down.  Picture a sports game heckler in your privacy.  Not working?  How the same sports heckler mentality, but only doing the actions through guise and inference, and likely with a smile.

But that's still not the essential.  What makes a bully a bully is insolence.  The OED defines insolent as, "...offensively contemptuous of the rights or feelings of others.."

Donald Trump is not a bully.  He respects one the most important things about Objectivist ethics, likely THE most important: that each man has the right to his own life, that his life is the ultimate standard of value.  This is a right to freedom.  Freedom to think.  Free to act.  Free to be.  Free to become.  And freedom from the initiation of force.  Free from those "bullies" who are offensively contemptuous to others.  As said before, given enough opportunity a "bully" can wear nearly anyone down.  But the word bully isn't strong enough, psychological criminal is more like it.  Introduce that into the conversation and we're getting somewhere.

Donald Trump is not a bully.  He might use the tools of a bully to protect the rights of others.  Responding to force WITH force doesn't make you a bully, it makes you an American.  Where has THAT mentality gone?  "Don't tread on me" works.  Peace before force.  Thought before action.

This thread has gotten uuge, but there is something else that can be said about Trump:

He wants to protect your rights, namely, the right to your own life.

Go Trump!

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

16 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

America's best political comedienne ...

Come on, William,

At least post Ann's tweet as she wrote it instead of leaving off the second half:

I would like to see a little more violence from the innocent Trump supporters set upon by violent leftist hoodlums.

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter)

March 13, 2016

 

Do you really need to deceive through omission to criticize Ann Coulter? 

Ann Coulter, for God's sake?

You can't find enough Ann Coulter stuff to jump on? You have to spin her words and jump on that?

Are you really lacking in Coulter material to bash from your perspective? It's not like she hasn't provided plenty...

Jeez...

You used to be good at making a case...

 

Michael