Recommended Posts

Davidson's article is very strong and some more absorbing background info for me. It has long been thrust on the USA, less willingly lately, to be "the leader of the free world" ( unsaid, "the moral leader" matters much more) - one hears the confusion from overseas commentators, asking outright : Where has America been? And doubtless in recent times, the 'leading from behind strategy' has emboldened terror groups and hegemonies. I can fully understand the increasing resistance from Americans having to police other countries. But it has all changed since Washington's times and even since the Kuwait war. Enemies can (and want to ) bring 'the fight' to the US, despite all the freedom-sapping security measures implemented. So I've argued that isolationism vs. interventionism is a terribly false alternative. The former is short term and concretist in thinking, delaying inevitable action for later - and the latter has in practice meant more exposed risk and great expense, and taking and implementing Democracy to countries which seldom show they deserve it and desire it. Guilt and altruism should play no part in the nation's self-interest and defence (or of the "free world", for that matter).

As I see a possible strategy, any foreign military 'excursion' would clearly fit certain criteria: a direct response to a direct attack; a response to an almost certain longer term threat; a selective and highly concentrated force on narrowly defined targets; a standing agreement of co-operation and involvement from allies; and mostly, that clear objectives can be reached, quickly and effectively - in and out.

(It's funny. I'm hearing and seeing a lot of anti-Trump derision and contempt from those of leftist persuasion over here. Is this the man who will have his finger on the Red Button? sorta thing. That's what progressives do, parade for others those publicly correct morals at every opportunity. But underneath, I'm sure I hear also a wistfulness for a firm America back in the world again to alleviate their fears. They won't ever admit it, they too crave blunt honesty and strength).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 14.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Michael Stuart Kelly

    4548

  • Peter

    1419

  • Jon Letendre

    1316

  • Brant Gaede

    881

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That's what it says at the top of the page.  Your point?  It's not like this thread has devolved into a medley of cat videos.  Yet.  

It is intriguing.  I've been fairly obsessed for about a year with thinking about details.  I find microbiology fascinating. I wouldn't be wise, however, to talk about details.  The schemers are

That is astonishing. Thanks Jon. Behaviors that can cause a kid, later in life to be screwed up enough to become addicts or to kill themselves, needs a remedy and if the answer is chemical or physical

Posted Images

Trump assured that Christian persecution will stop and Christians will feel that their voices are heard. He promised to bring it up a lot. And to make saying Merry Christmas ok again.

So obviously, watch soon for deeply, deeply sincere concerns about a Trump Christian Theocracy...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon wrote: Same leaders, funders and troops. The enemy was always America and its Republican defenders. end quote

Excellent article and analyses. It IS a vast left wing conspiracy and that is not just a joke about the corrupt, deceitful Clintons.  

Michael wrote: . . . I also keep seeing more and more people who are not celebrities say they are not really Trump supporters, but they are going to vote for him anyway, end quote

Count me in after tomorrow. I think Cruz was wrong to back the storm troopers against Trump (and political freedom) though he did walk it back later. Trump is perceptive to scold the police and the FBI for not arresting and throwing the book at the bastards. We MUST NOT stand for this brand of left wing Nazi stifling of The Constitution. Protests are legal. Shouting down an opponent or the initiation of force is illegal. Toxic environment Kasich? Mrs. Clinton? It’s the Constitution, stupid.

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon wrote: Same leaders, funders and troops. The enemy was always America and its Republican defenders. end quote

Excellent article and analyses. It IS a vast left wing conspiracy and that is not just a joke about the corrupt, deceitful Clintons.  

Michael wrote: . . . I also keep seeing more and more people who are not celebrities say they are not really Trump supporters, but they are going to vote for him anyway, end quote

Count me in after tomorrow. I think Cruz was wrong to back the storm troopers against Trump (and political freedom) though he did walk it back later. Trump is perceptive to scold the police and the FBI for not arresting and throwing the book at the bastards. We MUST NOT stand for this brand of left wing Nazi stifling of The Constitution. Protests are legal. Shouting down an opponent or the initiation of force is illegal. Toxic environment Kasich? Mrs. Clinton? It’s the Constitution, stupid.

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Donald Trump: Please explain how America used to be great so we know what you're supposed to be aiming at--or are you?

--American Great (the right stuff)

"great," "great," "great"?--(we already know about "grate" as in grating)

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, merjet said:

Check your premises. Mussolini was full of bluster.

Rand herself was full of bluster. Even more so than Mussolini.

Nathaniel Branden was also full of bluster. William Hickman too. Rand got all tingly over them.

Trump would make her swoon. "A maaaan! A reyul maaayun!"

J

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, merjet said:

Earth to MereMortal.  Duh!

Let's get to the meat: Are you saying that Trump is a potential dictator because he is full of bluster?  Might as well ask a simple yes/no question to see what your actual position is and if you can defend it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you liked Rand's novels give her a pass on Hickman. We the Living had some mistakes qua what became her mature philosophy, but she had well ramped up comparatively by then in all respects. Hickman should be treated as an artifact consigned to her immaturity, not as a door to examining Howard Roark, say, per se. You don't need Hickman to understand and evaluate Roark. If you don't like Rand as a person, or even respect her, Hickman is your man. When you get through with her with him there won't be anything left--in your mind, that is.

--Brant

strange she married Frank--pretending he was the model for her heroes, not the cowardly little girl murderer--you can make the mental stretch Frank to Howard from the physical type; I don't understand the rest beyond an astounding ability at pretense

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, MereMortal said:

Let's get to the meat: Are you saying that Trump is a potential dictator because he is full of bluster?  

Nothing of the kind. Jonathan had said, " She [Ayn Rand] loved bluster." My response to Jonathan, in effect, was that Rand would not have loved anybody for the mere reason that he/she was full of bluster, e.g. Mussolini. She probably despised him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's current focus with Kasich:

And this:

I think this, along with Kasich's pro-amnesty position, will be very effective if this focus flows to Trump's other communications.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

More half-truths and non sequiturs from Trump and his OL puppet. Ohio steelworks were rapidy declining before Kasich was even in Congress and long before NAFTA.  The decline of American auto manufacturing was most responsible for Ohio's economic decline, also long before NAFTA. The Cleveland area was heavily into making parts for the auto industry (tool and die).

LOL. Trump believes causality goes backward in time.  Anti-free trade, too.

It's starting to sound like Trump has a bunch of staffers trained in the same methods that Hillary Clinton's people use, and Trump and his OL puppet pass their stuff along without a moment of checking facts or logic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Yeah, right.

So that's how you think he builds skyscrapers?

Backwards in time?

:)

Michael

Trump builds skyscrapers? I thought hundreds of craftsmen did that! (Obama whispered to me.)  :D

Well. of course, backwards in time for mental causality. It is vastly different than physical causality, like the Donald assures us. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, merjet said:

... backwards in time for mental causality...

Now there's a concept for ya'.

You mean mental causality like persuasion, psychology, neuroscience, etc.?

The stuff Trump uses so well he's almost the GOP candidate right now against all odds?

He does mental causality backward?

Hmmmm....

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Philip Bump, writing at the Washington Post's The Fix:

Why a contested GOP convention may be more likely than a Donald Trump nomination by Wednesday

There are five states and a territory that will be voting on Tuesday.

In two, Illinois and Missouri, the candidate with the most votes statewide gets all of the statewide delegates -- 12 delegates in each. In Illinois, people in each congressional district elect a three-delegate slate per candidate, giving that person three delegates. If someone hits 50 percent in Missouri, they get all of the state's delegates; otherwise, the winner of each congressional district gets five delegates per win.

In North Carolina, it's simpler: You get one delegate for every 1.39 percent of the statewide vote. (All delegate rules via The Green Papers.)

In total, there are 367 delegates at stake.  [...]  

In Florida [... Trump's] support doesn't seem like it's going anywhere. That would allocate 99 delegates to Trump.

In Ohio [...] the state's 66 delegates will go to Kasich or Trump.

In Illinois [...] something like 51 delegates for Trump and 15 for Cruz.

In North Carolina [...] we're looking at 29 delegates for Trump and 22 for Cruz -- with the rest divvied up between Kasich and Rubio.

In Missouri [...]  If Trump wins the state and he and Cruz split the state's eight congressional seats, east-west, we'd end up with 32 delegates for Trump to 20 for Cruz.

Of the remaining contests, six -- Arizona, Delaware, Nebraska, Montana, New Jersey and South Dakota -- are winner-take-all, and could give Trump 217 delegates if he wins each state. On top of that, if he keeps edging out the pack in most states, he'll keep getting the most delegates under a proportional allocation system. If he gets 50 percent of all of the proportional delegates, that's 586 in total -- and the nomination. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank god this country avoided nominating the Sea Island fuckers' brilliant idea, the ready-to-capitulate-to-leftist-violence-lest-we-appear-angry, weak-willed, mopey, dopey loser, Rubio:

"And everyone just goes around saying I'm going to speak my mind, and if I'm angry I'm going to say or do anything I want. Well there are other people that are angry too. And if they speak out too and say whatever they want, the result is called chaos, it is called anarchy. And that is what we are careening towards in the political process."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/12/rubio_obama_has_used_divisive_language_too_i_admit_but_hes_never_said_to_beat_somebody_up.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Peter said:

Jon wrote: Same leaders, funders and troops. The enemy was always America and its Republican defenders. end quote

Excellent article and analyses. It IS a vast left wing conspiracy and that is not just a joke about the corrupt, deceitful Clintons.  

Michael wrote: . . . I also keep seeing more and more people who are not celebrities say they are not really Trump supporters, but they are going to vote for him anyway, end quote

Count me in after tomorrow. I think Cruz was wrong to back the storm troopers against Trump (and political freedom) though he did walk it back later. Trump is perceptive to scold the police and the FBI for not arresting and throwing the book at the bastards. We MUST NOT stand for this brand of left wing Nazi stifling of The Constitution. Protests are legal. Shouting down an opponent or the initiation of force is illegal. Toxic environment Kasich? Mrs. Clinton? It’s the Constitution, stupid.

Peter

Shouting down is not per se illegal.  But it is Bad Manners. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Thank god this country avoided nominating the Sea Island fuckers' brilliant idea, the ready-to-capitulate-to-leftist-violence-lest-we-appear-angry, weak-willed, mopey, dopey loser, Rubio:

"And everyone just goes around saying I'm going to speak my mind, and if I'm angry I'm going to say or do anything I want. Well there are other people that are angry too. And if they speak out too and say whatever they want, the result is called chaos, it is called anarchy. And that is what we are careening towards in the political process."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/12/rubio_obama_has_used_divisive_language_too_i_admit_but_hes_never_said_to_beat_somebody_up.html

Sea Island?  Please decode.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I want Trump to win mainly because his stand on immigration is a huge step in the right direction.

I want him to win despite the valid criticisms against him.  His supporters need to take care not to “evaluate in reverse” and think they must defend his errors, such as trying to use eminent domain for no good reason, just because they prefer him over the other presidential candidates.

For example, consider the following stupidity from a Trump supporter we could do without:

20 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

If some stubborn old lady [Vera Coking] won't let go of her dilapidated [?] house, while she can be relocated to a nicer [to whom?] place, and something nicer built there [a casino parking facility], then she has no case except irrationality.  The cases I've seen hit the news of Trump's have been ignorant people that don't know a good deal when they see one.

In this case Trump was a jerk.  That’s too bad, he’s still far and away the best man among today’s presidential contenders.

By the way, Binswanger opposes Trump – another reason to like Trump.  See Binswanger’s post:
FutureOfCapitalism.com/comments/9016
and my response:
FutureOfCapitalism.com/comments/9026

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been making the rounds on Trump Hate Hater hatey Facebook ...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Mark said:

His supporters need to take care not to “evaluate in reverse” and think they must defend his errors, such as trying to use eminent domain for no good reason...

Mark,

I don't think there is any danger of that. I, myself, several times on this thread (and elsewhere) said I didn't agree with Trump on eminent domain.

There are actually a few areas where I disagree with Trump. But it's like Rush Limbaugh said. The upside far outweighs the downside.

What's more, considering the people Trump is surrounding himself with, Sarah Palin, Jeff Sessions, etc., I think they will help keep him on the constitutional straight and narrow once in office. I can almost see Sarah chewing him out and reaming him a new one if he tries that stuff on another little old lady's house.

:)

If you want to know the truth, I wouldn't be surprised to see him go whole hog and actually prompt a convention of states. Legacy-wise, that would brand his administration the way he likes to be politically branded.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now