Donald Trump

[Selene]

12 minutes ago, Peter said:

I edited some of the following article for brevity. 

From The Wall Street Journal. How Trump Can Raise His Game by Karl Rove, ENLARGE

 

Karl Rove

The Wall Street Journal

CANCEL

Karl Rove

 

March 16, 2016 7:03 p.m. ET: The Donald is in a commanding position. But watch out: This is when some candidates slack off and make mistakes. Here are ten bits of unsolicited advice for the GOP front-runner:

1. Change your tone.

2. Work to unify the GOP. 

3. Pay attention to party regulars.

4. Figure out how to parry the attacks.

5. Stop being a one-man band.

6. Take a breather, and make good use of it.

7. Go after swing voters.

8. Keep the focus on Hillary Clinton and President Obama.

9. Write a new stump speech. Y

10. Please stop talking about polls. 

Peter:

None of the Rove "suggestions" will be considered - ever.

Next list...

A...

[merjet]

11 minutes ago, Selene said:

Peter:

None of the Rove "suggestions" will be considered - ever.

Part of Peter's #10: "Mr. Trump claims that he must be nominated since he will go to Cleveland with the most delegates. Yet Lincoln entered the 1860 Republican convention trailing William Seward . . . . If you don’t raise your game, you could suffer the fate of William Seward." 

"As the convention developed, however, it was revealed that Seward, Chase, and Bates had each alienated factions of the Republican Party. Delegates were concerned that Seward was too closely identified with the radical wing of the party" 1860 Convention. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

Thought you both might find the below video interesting.  The Youtuber has other persuasion videos that I don't agree with, where he says phrasings similar to "we can't help it when people say" or "our minds automatically", etc.--which is an effort to negate volition, based off of phony research that passes for psychology today.

Korben,

I liked parts of this video and didn't other parts. In case you weren't aware, the guy's name is Charlie Houpert. I think he hides it because, from what I was able to tell, he comes from the PUA world. (PUA = pick-up artist.)

The good thing about PUA people is they split-test everything (especially on girls  ). So even though they might now know why some persuasion technique or other works, they know it generally does because they have tried it in all kinds of combinations and get repeatable results.

I have a much longer discussion on this that I am not sure I will get around to writing in this thread, but since you are worried about volition, let me give you a nuance you might not be considering. The standard Randian view is either you control your mind or you don't. It's either-or. Not only that, you choose to.

The reality of the brain is that it's both. There is a hell of a lot that the brain does automatically. Volition can override the automated stuff, but there are degrees depending on how thick a neural pathway has developed. And where there are conflicts between volition and an automated subconscious habit, the overrides are temporary. Think of all the broken New Year's resolutions to see how hard it is to control a bad habit with volition alone. On the other hand, I broke a crack cocaine addiction--forever I hope--so it can be done and that was one thick-ass neural pathway. (That, by the way, was the hardest thing I ever did in life.)

There are many times when the subconscious (automated part) of the mind rules volition, though. At the extreme, people snap and go temporarily insane. Their volition gets totally hijacked, yet they are rational enough to carry out sophisticated actions requiring planning. This is far more complicated than simple volition versus non-choice. (People do good things when snapping, too, like when someone rescues another in eminent danger without knowing what he was doing at the time.)

Here is the best book I have read so far on this (I'm only halfway through): Why We Snap by R. Douglas Fields, PhD. This is the best by far on the neuroscience of subconscious processes for laymen, but it does get right up to the edge of being too technical. I have seen no finer, though.

The main part of the Houpert's video I didn't like is ignoring reality. When Houpert says Trump frames with fear, he leaves out that Trump talks about something actually to be afraid of (ISIS chopping off heads, etc.). Yes, there is a technique. But it is used in addition to reality, to enhance the effect of something real, not to replace reality.

When fear is used as a technique only, like with climate science, the thing to fear is all over the map and even doubtful. So that frame only convinces the already-convinced. It comes off as melodrama to others.

This is similar to seeing people criticize Trump supporters as going on emotion only (which you mentioned). One guy I know (Biddibob) says Trump's rise is proof of the "triumph of cynicism over principle" in America. That's horseshit, but it's understandable why he would think that because reality is missing. Think of it like this. If Trump supporters only used emotion, why don't other emotion manipulators do what Trump does? You will never see one of these "triumph of cynicism over principle" answer that question because they blank out a reality Trump supporters see.

The narrative people (also Biddibob) commit the same error. They think you only need to come up with a better story to tell the masses and you get large-scale compliance. They think the masses will adopt a different narrative through storytelling techniques--so they focus on learning how to present a better narrative. They forget there has to be enough reality in the story to make people believe it.

Trump supporters see Trump's achievements. The principle-only people don't (or they are dismissive). Trump supporters see how eggheads talking about constitutional principles without doing anything about them has resulted in expanding government and endless war. The principle-only people blame these issues on others and don't acknowledge their own lack of action or totally ineffective action.

Principle-wise, Trump supporters see Trump's principles of fairness, winning, excellence, free market trade and value creation in his projects. They also see how he reacts to the principle of sanction of the victim. The principle-only people don't see Trump as having any principles at all because he does not use their jargon and read the same books they do.

I could go on, but the point is the anti-Trump principle-only people may have good things to say about government and life and so on, but I have restrictions on some of their thinking because it is not based on the reality they live or the reality right in front of them. They blank out the parts they don't like.

In like manner, I have restrictions about some of Houpert's explanations of Trump's persuasion because it is only based on PUA-like split testing (which is basically NLP-style modeling. NLP = neuro-linguistic programming). Houpert implies the techniques would work even if there were no reality to peg them to, that they are not based on reality substance at the root. He treats a persuasion technique as a string pulled by a contextless puppetmaster.

And Houpert does not base his explanations on the available science of the brain. I don't think he blanks out anything. He's young and still learning, so I believe there is a lot he hasn't looked at. But he makes broad statements of fact about things that are not fact. 

In both cases (Haupert and typical anti-Trump principle-only people), there are overlaps to the big picture where some things they say are correct, but reality is missing from their why foundation. And that makes their explanations hit-and-miss and given as dogma.

I'm going to look at more videos by Houpert and I'll probably write some more about him. Even with my reservations, I like him. The best thing he has going is constant analysis of others as case studies. (To that extent, he is looking at reality. But he is confining his observations to social behavior, not automatic brain behavior like fMRI scans. And, like I mentioned, at least in Trump's case, he doesn't look at the reality referent of the persuasion technique. He only sees the technique through the lens of how it worked on girls in bars.  ) 

So even when I don't agree with what Houpert  says, he comes up with questions to think about I probably would not have asked. And he gives great examples. He's definitely someone to keep an eye on as he grows.

(btw - He does good marketing--all the standard stuff--for selling his fish.  )

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 3/15/2016 at 11:01 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

btw - Everybody!

What a glorious day!

I just voted for Donald Trump!

Michael

There is something that has bothered me ever since I voted.

I received a sticker saying, "I voted!"

Here is a photo I just took of it, but what an odd sticker:

Notice the communist star in the middle of the O.

Also, I was able to make out two Chinese characters in the first five-character string (the first and fourth). The fifth character at the end is Japanese. (I got these from Google translate.) I couldn't find the second and third.

Then the "I voted!" message is in Spanish. Then in Hindi of all things.

As far as I know, there is no big Hindu population in Cook County. At least not big enough for the government to print electoral materials for everyone in Hindi.

Ditto for Chinese and Japanese.

Weird... even for left-wingers...

Michael

[Guyau]

Michael, you wrote: “Principle-wise, Trump supporters see Trump's principles of fairness, winning, excellence, free market trade and value creation in his projects.” No, that’s only a bit part of his political virtue and of their concerns for many of this supporters. With millions of supporters (some of them, friends I’ve talk to about their support in person), they are many different sorts, especially while there is enough vagueness and instability in what are to be his positions. [Underline unintentional]

Here is a couple working hard for Trump that we saw on last Tuesday evening. One wonders about their present full economic realities, such that they are devoting these days to a political campaign; my own friends strongly in favor of Trump are working every catch-as-catch-can to make a living and have no time for such activism. (PBS apparently didn’t realize the significance of the tattoos 88 and the Celtic cross, but these too are devoted Trump supporters.)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/videos/#174681

 

[Peter]

I looked it up. A Celtic Cross tattoo is a symbol for white supremacy. The 88 tattoo means “Heil Hitler.” I wonder why they don’t just have the real meanings tattooed on their bodies or faces? In general I think a tattoo is a scar. Why scar yourself or forever be labelled a loser? It’s gross and stupid. We fought a war to defeat the Nazi’s and anybody who supports them is aligning themselves with the enemies of America and the free world.

Peter   

[Selene]

I find it somewhat disquieting that those few of us here on OL who supported the Trump candidacy from early on are still attempting to "convince" folks that Donald Trump is a remarkable individual person standing above an impersonal, tribal culture.

However, here is just another testimonial about what this man is about.

Quote

Giridharadas pointed out that Ruddy and Trump are personal friends, and asked if he has faith that the real estate mogul will be less extreme as a nominee or as president than his has been so far.

"Look, there's two Donald Trumps," said Ruddy. One is "incredibly generous, charismatic, smart, kindhearted — and then there's sort of that other Donald Trump we're seeing who is angry and petty and sometimes vindictive, and some people don't even recognize that, even his friends, to the degree he is going in that direction."

Ruddy cited an example of Trump's real persona.

Ruddy said he was speaking recently with former New York City Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik, who told him that after the 9/11 attacks, Trump called to say he was emptying out his buildings and his staffs, sending 500 to 1,000 of his people to Ground Zero to help. Trump even came to the site to help.

 

Ruddy said when other business owners were thinking about evacuating the city, Trump took the opposite approach.

"There were no press conferences, no photo ops," said Ruddy. "That's the sort of good Donald Trump that we all know. I've chatted with him and said, 'Hey, look, you've got to stop attacking all of the people that you're going to need in the general election.'"

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/ruddy-delusional-dangerous-trump/2016/03/18/id/719812/#ixzz43HwsZQKY
 

You shall not crucify Donald on a gold dollar sign...

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Guyau said:

With millions of supporters (some of them, friends I’ve talk to about their support in person), they are many different sorts, especially while there is enough vagueness and instability in what are to be his positions.

Stephen,

In other words, are the people you talk to in doubt that Trump favors fairness, winning, excellence, free market trade and value creation? Do they honestly think Trump might stand for cheating, losing, poor quality, government control of markets and screwing customers?

If so, even though they support Trump, they know nothing about him. (Or they are only watching anti-Trump people talk about Trump University.) Those principles are pretty clear Trumpian principles. He not only talks about them all the time, his projects reflect them. (btw - His employees love him precisely because he is so principled.)

And how about the victim stuff? Do the people you talk to have doubts about that, meaning they think Trump doesn't mind sanctioning evil when he is the victim?

Well, someone might say he sanctioned paying off politicians. And I respond, just like Hank Reardon did. And then he finally turned when he could do something about it. Trump is doing exactly that. He is saying he is withdrawing his sanction and, if elected, he is going to dismantle the evil.

On the other hand, I can give you a bunch of people in our subcommunity who talk a pretty good game on classical liberal positions and even dyed-in-the-wool Objectivism who were more than happy to support the neocon wars--in Randian moral terms at that. The online forums were full of these discussions for several years.

I can't say for other people, but war to me means death, real death, and maimed bodies and minds. Real ones, not talking points. And I love human life, all of it. Not just the potential for greatness (which I love most of all, but I love the rest, too--it is all precious). So if we have to go to war, to me it damn well better be over something other than cheap oil and crony contracts. (btw - You should have seen the howling every time I said back then we were fighting over oil, can't we do better than that? I was called pussy and everything else.)

Yet in our neck of the world, those principled people who everybody respects shut their eyes to the reality of cronyism. Blank out. Trump, who some people (including these) are calling unprincipled, never did. On the contrary, he did not make his money with the neocon war machine.

What's the worst Trump would ever do crony-wise? Build a golf club?

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Donald Trump is one of the most principled men ever to run for the office of the US presidency. He is a producer supreme.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Guyau said:

(PBS apparently didn’t realize the significance of the tattoos 88 and the Celtic cross, but these too are devoted Trump supporters.)

Stephen,

Maybe Donald Trump will introduce them to another Trump supporter, Mike Tyson.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here, let's interrupt the white power guilt by association moment with a message from reality.

Let's look at a different side of Donald Trump's supporters from Business Insider, March 15, 2016:

22 celebrities who love and endorse Donald Trump

There are many, many more (see here for instance), but this 22 is a good start.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I don't believe the establishment folks are seriously considering Kasich, though. I think they are using Kasich to see if they can slip in Bush at the end, or maybe Ryan or someone else who plays ball with them without reservation. 

Using this rationale, they would support Ted Cruz to elect Hillary because they (through surrogates) would bash the shit out of his religiosity and start hammering the theme of theocracy to gin up fear, thus guarantee he loses. It's second best, but the trough is still loaded and they still get their turn. (Lindsay Graham has already figured this one out.)

Lookee here:

Failed presidential candidate Mitt Romney, the man who "choked" and let us all down, is now endorsing Lyin' Ted Cruz. This is good for me!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

March 18, 2016

How's that for corroboration?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For this last post, you have to see the unfolding storyline to get it, but it's there. This storyline has been running since the beginning of the race. It's the same storyline where the establishment sucked up to Carly to later spit her out. And what they've now done to Marco Rubio.

Speaking of Rubio, he now says he wants to leave politics altogether.

Looks like the door to the backrooms slammed in his face.

But think of this. If Rubio is folding under the pressure of losing one campaign, a big campaign, granted, but only one campaign for a young person, imagine what he would have done under the pressures of the presidency.

America might have dodged a bullet.

Michael

[merjet]

 

Quote

In other words, are the people you talk to in doubt that Trump favors fairness, winning, excellence, free market trade and value creation? Do they honestly think Trump might stand for cheating, losing, poor quality, government control of markets and screwing customers?

......

What's the worst Trump would ever do crony-wise? Build a golf club?

You misrepresent Trump when you say "free trade", at least regarding foreign trade. He wants tariffs. He uses vaguely "fair trade", whatever that means. Does any candidate stand for cheating, losing, poor quality, [ ] and screwing customers?

How about eminent domain? How about "cutting a deal" with banks to make loans with government guarantees if the borrower defaults? 

Regarding celebrities endorsing Trump, I couldn't care less. You could find as many or more endorsing Hillary.

P.S. The quote function is very annoying.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

48 minutes ago, merjet said:

You misrepresent Trump when you say "free trade", at least regarding foreign trade. He wants tariffs. He uses vaguely "fair trade", whatever that means.

Merlin,

Actually, you misrepresent what I said.

I didn't say "free trade." I said "free market trade." When one side pays with manipulated currency and protective tariffs and government subsidies and the other side can't (except maybe for subsidies), they call that "free trade" and maybe you might want to call that "free trade," but you can't call it "free market trade."

Why? There is no free market. Without a free market, how can there be free market trade?

In the absence of a free market, Trump is in favor of using whatever mechanisms are available to make it fair trade (meaning equal payment and delivery conditions on both sides). If they cheat causing a 35% imbalance, he slaps them with a 35% penalty on this side. It's that kind of thinking.

That way, normal Americans stop being chumps.

And boom! One more euphemism hiding evil goes up in flames.

(In today's language, "free trade" means government manipulated trade between countries to favor crony government+corporation insiders.)

Trump's biggest druther, though, is a free market. I am pretty sure international trade people who play fair will not be bothered much by the American government.

Michael

[merjet]

11 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

In the absence of a free market, Trump is in favor of using whatever mechanisms are available to make it fair trade (meaning equal payment and delivery conditions on both sides). If they cheat causing a 35% imbalance, he slaps them with a 35% penalty on this side. It's that kind of thinking.

If there is a trade imbalance, that implies cheating?  

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Heh.

More Chicken Little stuff?

Walmart is falling! Walmart is falling! 

Sorry, I don't buy it.

I say put the same payment and delivery conditions on both sides, then let the market compete.

Until then, work it out so the results of unfair payment and delivery conditions are as fair as you can get them.

I'm a simple man and that's probably because I am not smart enough to understand intricacies.

 

Michael

[Selene]

On 3/17/2016 at 4:01 PM, Peter said:

Republican Primaries March 22 – April 19. American Samoa, Arizona, Utah, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Colorado, and start spreading the news, New York,. Newwww Yorrrrk!

Let's hold New York this week...

Quote

EMERSON POLL: TRUMP, CLINTON TROUNCING THEIR RIVALS IN NEW YORK;  IN GENERAL ELECTION, HILLARY AND BERNIE LEAD THE DONALD   
BOSTON, MA – Buoyed by a string of decisive primary wins this past Tuesday, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump hold a commanding lead in New York State, where a victory in the April 19 primary could effectively seal the presidential nomination for both candidates.   

With Marco Rubio out of the race, Trump leads his closest rival, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, by 52 points (64% to 12%). Rubio received 4% of the vote before suspending his campaign. Ohio Governor John Kasich earned just 1%, getting no bounce from his recent home-field victory in the Buckeye State. In a hypothetical, two-man matchup between Trump and Cruz, Trump leads 69% to 25%.  
In the Democratic primary, Clinton is ahead of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders by 48 points, taking 71% of the vote to Sanders’s 23%. The former Secretary of State holds a massive advantage in key demographic groups, including men (66% to 29%), women (73% to 20%), African Americans (72% to 22%) and Hispanics (85% to 8%). Younger voters, ages 18-34, favor Sanders, but by a slimmer margin (53% to 40%) than in many primary states. Among all other age groups, Clinton dominates, leading by 45 points (ages 35-54), 50 points (ages 55-74), and 67 points (ages 75+).  
Clinton and Sanders have similar favorability numbers with likely Democratic primary voters. Her favorable/unfavorable ratio is 82%/15% (+67); his is 63%/26% (+37). However Clinton garners far more loyalty: 85% of those who view her favorably plan to vote for her in the primary, while only 31% who have a favorable view of Sanders intend to vote for him.  
Trump has the highest favorable ratings with GOP voters, 71%/23%, followed by Cruz at 52%/44% and Kasich at 54%/34%. Consistent with other primaries, Trump supporters are the most loyal, with 89% of those who see him favorably planning to cast their ballot for him. In contrast, only 21% of Republicans who have a favorable opinion of Cruz say they will vote for him

Gonna sneer at those New York values when you greet New Yorkers in the street, Rafael?

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

26 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I say put the same payment and delivery conditions on both sides, then let the market compete.

Until then, work it out so the results of unfair payment and delivery conditions are as fair as you can get them.

Here's how people (including Ed) make a simple explanation.

Person A wants to trade with Person B. 
Person A gives money to Person B and gets Person B's goods.
End of story.

OK.

I like that.

That is until we look into the inputs of Person B's goods. Suppose Person B got government subsidies, holds a monopoly in his country because there are tariffs on importing similar goods, and gets off with artificial financial benefits on all trade agreements because his government manipulates the currency (which affects transactions already underway in addition to those yet to be made).

These are just a few of the ways the game is rigged.

In this case, Person A is not trading with Person B. He is trading with Person B+government.

Since those government inputs come from taxes and not trade, Person A is not doing trade with Person B, but essentially making a crony deal with Person B to get goods plus government stuff (including money).

If you call it "free trade," though, now you are fixing the problem...  

Yeah right... 

As a simple person, I always wonder why gobs of hidden ill-gotten money are often left out of simple explanations about trade transactions...

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Get a load of this.

Yours truly is striking the big time.

I'm being cited in a WaPo article by Virginia Postrel.

 

Trump isn’t just campaigning. He’s selling his supporters a glamorous life.
By Virginia Postrel
March 18, 2016
Washington Post

Virginia Postrel said:

To tastemakers and TED talkers, Trump may seem impossibly vulgar, with his braggadocio, teased hair and preference for well-done steaks. But one definition of “vulgar” is “of or relating to the common people,” and a lot of folks find Trump their kind of tycoon: a totem of success in whom they can imagine their ideal selves. “Trump is the big time, the bright lights, the fancy everything — and wealth and fame and all things I am not but would like to be,” says supporter Michael Stuart Kelly, who runs an Internet marketing company. Kelly believes that the candidate appeals to “good, intelligent, productive people who dream big, even when they can’t live it.” Unlike moguls who inspire resentment, Trump encourages his audience to imagine sharing his success.

Virginia mentioned me a few more times in the article.

This came about from a question she made on Facebook asking Trump supporters what they liked in him. She also asked anti-Trump people to keep away. I gave her a few thoughts, but told her of my misgivings, that people who normally ask this are interested in creating better-looking strawmen to knock down. I had already answered a few such calls for explanation, starting with Glenn Beck, but the result was always the same. And I had no interest in that.

I also mentioned, as I have already read her excellent book, The Power of Glamour: Longing and the Art of Visual Persuasion, I thought she might be more interested in Trump from a glamour lens. She popped up and said that was exactly it and she was writing an article on it. So I gave her some thoughts using the concepts in her book as a frame (Trump's appeal to people like me for transport, hidden artistry and mystery) including other thoughts I imagined she would find useful.

She thanked me and I forgot it. Now here I am surfing the big time.

 

(I'm just bantering--acting exactly like I think she perceives me.  )

I disagree with Virginia on some fundamental ideas. Her understanding of Trump comes not only from the lens of her book, but from the very nature of who she is. And I think the concepts in her book can be flipped upside down to look at those who despise Trump.

I might write some thoughts on this later and send them to her (posting them here, of course). 

I have come to some interesting conclusions about those who despise Trump so much they are immune to recognizing his achievements, even easily researched ones. Virginia herself belittles Trump's builder ability by highlighting how he licenses his name, but anyone familiar with Trump's businesses knows that, until recently when he decided to run for office, he still negotiated with contractors, equipment manufacturers, and so on, and generally oversaw projects. Granted, he's had top people doing most of the work, but he's the one who did it so much, he knew who to hire and how to keep them honest. And, from what Trump people say in interviews, he's a bit hands on for many things he doesn't have to be.

But I got to thinking about this visceral Trump hatred (or disgust or any other automatic deep negative emotion). Suppose my image of glamour, the good life, the way I long the world to be, what I aspire to, is debonaire, refined, old-world elegance, erudite, soft-spoken, learned in all things cultured and so on.

What would I think of Trump?

I would hate him as an imposter, that's what. 

Then when he comes out and beats me in business, gets accolades that should be mine, and calls me a moron to boot, there is no turning back. That vulgar man should have gone through the initiation rites, goddamit, not crashed the party. That man is running for president and making allusions to bodily functions, for God's sake! Menstruation! His dick!

SHUDDER!!!!!!!!!!

 

And that, I believe, is a lot of it.

There is nothing Trump could ever do to become accepted by people committed to a highbrow view of glamour in the halls of power. Virginia, included. Trump, the pretender to them, trying to reach high power, is like someone trying to make a silk purse with a sow's ear. It doesn't fit and they want him gone regardless of what he did, does or will do.

I have more thinking along these lines based on the psychological pressure triggers (based on neuroscience) from the book Why We Snap by R. Douglas Fields, but that, and more elaboration on the current idea, must wait until I get these ideas sorted out properly in my head.

For now, please read Virginia's article. It's very well-written.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Merlin,

Actually, you misrepresent what I said.

I didn't say "free trade." I said "free market trade." When one side pays with manipulated currency and protective tariffs and government subsidies and the other side can't (except maybe for subsidies), they call that "free trade" and maybe you might want to call that "free trade," but you can't call it "free market trade."

Why? There is no free market. Without a free market, how can there be free market trade?

In the absence of a free market, Trump is in favor of using whatever mechanisms are available to make it fair trade (meaning equal payment and delivery conditions on both sides). If they cheat causing a 35% imbalance, he slaps them with a 35% penalty on this side. It's that kind of thinking.

That way, normal Americans stop being chumps.

And boom! One more euphemism hiding evil goes up in flames.

(In today's language, "free trade" means government manipulated trade between countries to favor crony government+corporation insiders.)

Trump's biggest druther, though, is a free market. I am pretty sure international trade people who play fair will not be bothered much by the American government.

Michael

 

I wonder if it would have worked to "slap a 35% penalty" on the groceries Al Capone bought with stolen money. 

REB

[Guyau]

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Stephen,

In other words, are the people you talk to in doubt that Trump favors fairness, winning, excellence, free market trade and value creation? Do they honestly think Trump might stand for cheating, losing, poor quality, government control of markets and screwing customers?

If so, even though they support Trump, they know nothing about him.

Michael, those are not the salient traits for the decision of these good people. There are many sorts of good people who support the various candidates. Many sorts for every single candidate. These are blue-collar working people, who work like the dickens, and they do not spend nearly so much time as you manifestly do looking at politics and this their preferred candidate. And if they did, it would be with different salient concerns (and they would not share your definite valuation of free market trade, I gather, however they might classify him on that were they to look into it).

By the way, back to the high-abstraction set (viz., you and me), where is your principle(s) behind the views of Mr. Trump on immigration (especially illegal Mexican) that has been such a salient issue for him and many of his supporters (not for my personal friends and perhaps not for you)? There seems likely some principle missing from your list.

[Roger Bissell]

No one has posted this yet! So here it is...Blockheads for Trump! 

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/03/walter-block-announces-formation-of-libertarians-for-trump/

Walter Block Announces Formation of “Libertarians for Trump”

106 Replies

Walter Block 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Guyau said:

Michael, those are not the salient traits for the decision of these good people. There are many sorts of good people who support the various candidates. Many sorts for every single candidate. These are blue-collar working people, who work like the dickens, and they do not spend nearly so much time as you manifestly do looking at politics and this their preferred candidate. And if they did, it would be with different salient concerns (and they would not share your definite valuation of free market trade, I gather, however they might classify him on that were they to look into it).

By the way, back to the high-abstraction set (viz., you and me), where is your principle(s) behind the views of Mr. Trump on immigration (especially illegal Mexican) that has been such a salient issue for him and many of his supporters (not for my personal friends and perhaps not for you)? There seems likely some principle missing from your list.

Stephen,

Since when are principles supposed to be exclusive to supporting a candidate? Just because other people share your principles, that doesn't mean you don't have any.

 

I said what I said in answer to those who claim Trump is proof of the collapse of principles in America (or however they said it). They are wrong. Principles are stronger than ever these days. One of the proofs of this is the lessening of violence and explosion of the population. (See The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Steven Pinker.) This doesn't happen where there are few moral principles.

I don't think I've been clear on something, though. The people I refer to, ones who support Trump from the working class, don't talk about principles like the list I mentioned. They live them. At their jobs. Producing stuff.

They don't see other candidates working like they do.

Where they resonate with Trump is that they see him live his principles in the same manner they do. Trump goes to work early every morning even though he is loaded. And he makes his family work. I could even mention a few other principles in addition to the ones I said like helping someone out who is down for real, being a good neighbor, and so on. And when Trump--the man who lives his principles--mentions those principles, the recognition with his supporters is immediate.

Let's just take one as an example: fairness. Working class Trump supporters process Trump talking about fairness a lot differently than they do someone like a Black Lives Matter activist, or like Mitt Romney, to use two widely disparate examples. They see fairness come out of Trump's mouth meaning doing and benefitting from work with the same rules for everybody--with emphasis on earning your way. That's the meaning they use in their own lives, too.

Fairness to a BLM activist means giving him stuff or power to compensate for social grievances. And fairness to Mitt Romney means a euphemism for some kind of small print technicality to essentially stick it to the other party. Even Ted Cruz sounds different when saying fairness to them. They think it probably means to Cruz some kind of legality or religious notion.

All these people may not mean fairness the way I just said when they use the word, but that's how they are interpreted by working class Trump supporters. (I know this from being that way myself, although I am a bit different since I also transit the halls of higher learning, at least in my library.)

So I object to people saying Trump is unprincipled. He isn't. The people who say his is are used to talking about principles in one form only. But a moral principle is part of a code to guide man's actions (to use Rand's meaning), correct? Working people have principles they take seriously, very seriously, even if they don't express them or express them as homilies. Ditto for Trump. And in many, many instances, those principles align between him and them. Thus you have instant bonding without effort.

The thing I most love about these people (including Trump) is that they live their principles. If you catch them alone, you will see them doing right as they understand it in the same manner they would do in front of others. Oh, they all have their small moral lapses where they jive a little, but in general on the big stuff they are all good moral people.

About Mexicans and the border, everybody is yelling their heads off about bigotry, but the fundamental issue is money and power. Moneywise, working-class Americans resent losing jobs to lower-wage illegal immigrants and seeing the government bestow largess on them. They also resent their bosses for wanting to hire cheaper foreign labor over them. 

Power-wise, everybody knows Democrats want more illegals so they can give them government benefits and get votes in return. 

With the breakdown of border law, I don't see how to fix this and I believe many people get worried this breakdown in law will ultimately extend to where they live as a breakdown of society in general. The politicians have been promising to fix this mess for decades only to do jack once in power. So everyone is frustrated about it except those who have been benefitting money-wise or power-wise. I.e., the cronies.

The issue of bigotry, although it still exists, is so small now it is a minor issue.

Many (I believe most) of the poor Mexicans are caught in the middle of all this just trying to do the best they can in a world that doesn't want them for anything except political cannon fodder or drug mules. And I mean in Mexico as well as the USA.

I support Trump's wall because this restores order. I also support deportation as the starting position in resolving the illegal immigration issue for the same reason.

In practice, though, I believe it will work differently because of the sheer number of people here, but at least enforcement of the law will be defined correctly and start working in that way, even if imperfectly at first. There will no longer be two laws, one for the books and one you have to obey. Even though enforcement will be a mess at first, enforcement will happen. That's a good thing. Even for the illegals because finally there will be a correct doable process to get it right.

I have little doubt many, nay most of the illegal people who are here will work things out just fine, too.

I've seen how this works in Brazil. Until I got my permanent residence card, I always had to leave the country and come back in to renew my work visa at customs. This happened every time my contract was renewed. Countless tourists I knew got the two permitted extensions from within the country, but then had to leave and come back in to get a new tourist visa. 

Since there exists a big, big problem with millions of illegal people right now, I believe the government will get the ball rolling with a few cases for show, then a facilitator industry will spring up. If my hunch is correct, an illegal immigrant will be able to pay a facilitator to do all the paperwork and use a chartered bus (one chartered just for the facilitator's clients) to go across the border in order to re-enter legally on the same chartered bus. And I wager this will not be prohibitively expensive.

Here's a comment about one issue that is probably dear to your heart, Trump's attitude toward gays. I know he doesn't like gay marriage, but I know for a fact he loves the law more. Since gay marriage is the law of the land, he says observe it. I've heard him say this.

Also I don't think the gay issue is much on his radar for anything. I honestly don't think he sees it as fundamentally important--his attitude is mostly live and let live. And if Baron turns out to be gay, I think The Donald will love him just as dearly. 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

btw - A word from The Donald:

Just leaving Salt Lake City, Utah- fantastic crowd with no interruptions.
Love Utah- will be back!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

March 19, 2016

May this continue, although I don't think it will.

Michael

[Guyau]

Michael,

For my own part, you may recall I always vote against the anti-abortionists. That is to say, I always vote pro-Roe. Beyond that, I’d rather lose to Cruz than to Trump. I don’t care about the former’s initiatives against same-sex marriage, since I’m confident they will fail. Politician’s personal attitudes on such issues have always been irrelevant to me; only what they can and also would do with the law is the serious concern. If no can, would does not matter so much. The principle behind favor of Roe v. Wade is, in my writings on it, as you may recall, the wrongness of involuntary servitude. (And I don’t think people are evil just because they don’t analyze who has what rights in the way I do.) That is the issue for the military draft as well, but there has not been a full can-do on that for some decades, and Presidential candidates on both sides (e.g. Obama and McCain) have disavowed it, though they leave the registration in place. Perhaps Mr. Trump or Sen. Cruz will join the libertarians on this one and oppose draft registration before this is over. That could give me pause over whom to vote for in the general election.

(Bye the way, I think the abortion case presently before the Supreme Court may very well come down against the State of Texas by 5 to 3, making the absence of Scalia irrelevant to the case. Here's hoping.)