Donald Trump

[merjet]

13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

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."

Whoop-de-do. You said "potato." I said "tater". But I am curious what you believe this "one side" is. I assume by "other side" you meant the USA.

13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Heh.

More Chicken Little stuff?

Walmart is falling! Walmart is falling! 

.......

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

That is a very curious comment. I might reply if I learn what you meant.

.........

I don't get what you might be implying. Anyway, how can it be the same payment conditions when the traders have/want two different currencies?

[Roger Bissell]

David Stockman (part of the Reagan administration) advocates:

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/toward-a-grand-new-bargain-how-donald-trump-can-clear-the-field-and-realign-american-politics/

[turkeyfoot]

Stockman is very astute. Its clears the open convention hurdle. Kasich brings in Ohio, which takes care of the ominous bellwether for Republicans. No guarantees for Cruz. Republicans on the Judiciary Committee out number Dems by 1. Can he vote for himself? ) 

I like it and would vote for Trump under those circumstances.  

[Robert Campbell]

The problem with Donald Trump, as see it, is that no one (I suspect this includes Donald Trump) has any idea what he will do if elected.

Predicting what politicians will do when elected is always risky (Mr. Boydstun, for instance, was sure that upon reelection Barack Obama would approve Keystone XL—instead, he suppressed it).

But it's extra risky in Mr. Trump's case, because he's been all over the place on everything.

Robert Campbell

 

 

[Peter]

Robert Campbell wrote: The problem with Donald Trump, as see it, is that no one (I suspect this includes Donald Trump) has any idea what he will do if elected. end quote

His website is one clue. As to his life and style in the White House look for an online interview with pictures of Trump’s butler. He will bring Downton Abby to DC. The interview with the butler is candid and insightful. I am surprised he was not fired for being so open but I guess that shows Trump's integrity.   

Peter     

[Peter]

Adam quoted Christopher Ruddy, President of Newmax, as saying: “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." end quote

You know what they say about a Masquerade Ball. Give a man a mask and he will show you his true self. Show Trump a stage and he will be himself. But do we really want his true self or a Trump who is acting Presidential? Why can’t we have both? Will Trump only act Presidential when he is President? It almost sounds silly but I want a potential President to show us what his future “true” Presidential “self” will be. I went back to Trump’s web site and he has added some video’s of himself talking about issues, but I want that official platform in writing.

Peter

[Roger Bissell]

5 hours ago, Guyau said:

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.)

 

Several comments here:

1. Stephen, your first sentence seems to be in conflict with your second sentence, or at least to suggest an equivalence that does not exist. While Roe 1973 does not require States to restrict abortion after a fetus becomes viable, it does allow such restriction, and Casey 1992 affirms this (while rejecting the more rigid "trimester" framework Blackmun designed in Roe). Thus, always voting pro-Roe does not require you to vote against anti-abortionists - for you could vote for or against someone proposing a ban on third-trimester abortions (except for mother's health) and still be consistent with Roe. 

2. The Court in Roe held that while the right to abortion is basic, it is not absolute. There were two "compelling interests" that allowed the State to intervene with regulations on abortion. One was from the end of the first trimester until the point of fetal viability (essentially, survivability of the fetus outside the womb, which was then thought to occur around the beginning of the third trimester), the compelling interest being the health and well-being of the pregnant woman. This is the issue involved in the Texas case, and it is transparently obvious that the concern motivating the law is not the woman's health and well-being, but instead putting up impediments to her obtaining a safe and legal abortion. NBC News has a pretty good discussion of this here: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-takes-texas-abortion-case-n527956. I am glad to see that the Supreme Court is likely to strike down the Texas law.)

3. The other compelling interest is, to me, more interesting, for it goes to the heart of what is a human being possessing individual rights. The majority decision in Roe allowed States to protect fetal life after viability even though (they asserted) the fetus is not "a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment" (which the Court held to be the source of the right to privacy on which the woman's right to abortion was based). To me, this makes no sense, neither in fact nor in law.

a. Most, if not all, viable fetuses are minutes away from live birth and are just as well or more developed than many babies delivered prematurely. The latter are automatically acknowledged by the law as having the right to life once they are delivered, and no matter what heroic efforts may be required to keep them alive (incubators, life-support machines, respirators, etc.) To say that the latter are suddenly "persons with rights" by virtue of being outside of the mother's body is an arbitrary and superficial basis for granting them rights that are denied to their equally or better developed fetal brothers and sisters.

b. And I think this is exactly the basis for a just legal claim founded on the Fourteenth Amendment's "equal protection" clause. If a fetus's developmental status is equal to or more advanced than that of a delivered premature baby, that fetus too should be recognized as having a right to life - and in particular, a right to life that trumps (no pun intended) the freedom of the pregnant woman "to do whatever she wishes with her body." If preemies are persons with rights, so are well developed, viable fetuses. There should thus be a law allowing premature delivery, but banning abortion, of these fetuses by their mothers. There is no "involuntary servitude" involved - just restricting the woman's freedom of action to the non-commission of murder. Just as you are free to do whatever you want with your body except aggressing against another human being or his/her property, a pregnant woman in her third trimester is would still be free to do whatever she wants with her body - except to kill her viable fetus. (This is essentially the argument I made in my September 1981 article in Reason magazine, "A Calm Look at Abortion Arguments.)

REB

[Roger Bissell]

34 minutes ago, Peter said:

Adam quoted Christopher Ruddy, President of Newmax, as saying: “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." end quote

You know what they say about a Masquerade Ball. Give a man a mask and he will show you his true self. Show Trump a stage and he will be himself. But do we really want his true self or a Trump who is acting Presidential? Why can’t we have both? Will Trump only act Presidential when he is President? It almost sounds silly but I want a potential President to show us what his future “true” Presidential “self” will be. I went back to Trump’s web site and he has added some video’s of himself talking about issues, but I want that official platform in writing.

Peter

 

Sometime, I'd like to ask this Donald Trump just who he thinks he is. 

REB

[Selene]

43 minutes ago, Peter said:

..., but I want that official platform in writing.

Peter

Essentially, you want something that is truly meaningless?  Something which is not binding?  Something that may change based on information that he is not privy to now?  Something like a Viagra advertisement,  except it is about policy? 
Of what use is this "document?"

A...

8 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

Several comments here:

1. Stephen, your first sentence seems to be in conflict with your second sentence, or at least to suggest an equivalence that does not exist. While Roe 1973 does not require States to restrict abortion after a fetus becomes viable, it does allow such restriction, and Casey 1992 affirms this (while rejecting the more rigid "trimester" framework Blackmun designed in Roe). Thus, always voting pro-Roe does not require you to vote against anti-abortionists - for you could vote for or against someone proposing a ban on third-trimester abortions (except for mother's health) and still be consistent with Roe. 

2. The Court in Roe held that while the right to abortion is basic, it is not absolute. There were two "compelling interests" that allowed the State to intervene with regulations on abortion. One was from the end of the first trimester until the point of fetal viability (essentially, survivability of the fetus outside the womb, which was then thought to occur around the beginning of the third trimester), the compelling interest being the health and well-being of the pregnant woman. This is the issue involved in the Texas case, and it is transparently obvious that the concern motivating the law is not the woman's health and well-being, but instead putting up impediments to her obtaining a safe and legal abortion. NBC News has a pretty good discussion of this here: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-takes-texas-abortion-case-n527956. I am glad to see that the Supreme Court is likely to strike down the Texas law.)

3. The other compelling interest is, to me, more interesting, for it goes to the heart of what is a human being possessing individual rights. The majority decision in Roe allowed States to protect fetal life after viability even though (they asserted) the fetus is not "a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment" (which the Court held to be the source of the right to privacy on which the woman's right to abortion was based). To me, this makes no sense, neither in fact nor in law.

a. Most, if not all, viable fetuses are minutes away from live birth and are just as well or more developed than many babies delivered prematurely. The latter are automatically acknowledged by the law as having the right to life once they are delivered, and no matter what heroic efforts may be required to keep them alive (incubators, life-support machines, respirators, etc.) To say that the latter are suddenly "persons with rights" by virtue of being outside of the mother's body is an arbitrary and superficial basis for granting them rights that are denied to their equally or better developed fetal brothers and sisters.

b. And I think this is exactly the basis for a just legal claim founded on the Fourteenth Amendment's "equal protection" clause. If a fetus's developmental status is equal to or more advanced than that of a delivered premature baby, that fetus too should be recognized as having a right to life - and in particular, a right to life that trumps (no pun intended) the freedom of the pregnant woman "to do whatever she wishes with her body." If preemies are persons with rights, so are well developed, viable fetuses. There should thus be a law allowing premature delivery, but banning abortion, of these fetuses by their mothers. There is no "involuntary servitude" involved - just restricting the woman's freedom of action to the non-commission of murder. Just as you are free to do whatever you want with your body except aggressing against another human being or his/her property, a pregnant woman in her third trimester is would still be free to do whatever she wants with her body - except to kill her viable fetus. (This is essentially the argument I made in my September 1981 article in Reason magazine, "A Calm Look at Abortion Arguments.)

REB

Excellent REB. 

Very clearly argued.

[Peter]

I am getting tired of the idiots who only focus on what percent of the remaining primary votes a particular candidate needs to win the nomination outright. Trump currently has: 678. Ted Cruz: 423. Kasich: 143. Needed to win the nomination: 1237. It is likely that IF Kasich and Cruz stay in the race and win a few more States then Trump won’t win on the first or second ballet.

Peter    

From CBS: Following Donald Trump's avalanche of victories in recent weeks, and the continuing opposition posed by Ted Cruz and John Kasich, House Speaker Paul Ryan is acknowledging the increasing chances that the party will be facing an "open convention" in Cleveland come July. "Nothing's changed, other than the perception that this is more likely to become an open convention than we thought before," Ryan told reporters Thursday. "So we're getting our minds around the idea that this could very well become a reality, and therefore those of us involved in the convention need to respect that." Ryan, who said that he hadn't known when taking on the role of House speaker that it required him to co-chair the party's convention, promised to be "neutral" when overseeing the delegate summit. "My goal is to be dispassionate, and to be Switzerland," he said, adding that he would "make sure that the rule of law prevails." end quote

Imagine a writer who won’t give his real last name. From the site Crooks And liars. Vote For Cruz, Get Kasich? By Steve M. Marco Rubio is close to endorsing Ted Cruz.... The buzz about a Rubio endorsement of Cruz intensified after the St. Paul Pioneer Press on Thursday reported that the Florida senator called his Texas colleague “the only conservative left in the race.” In the event of a contested Republican convention this summer, John Kasich is the candidate most acceptable to GOP delegates. That’s according to members of The POLITICO Caucus -- a panel of political insiders in seven battleground states....insiders said Kasich has alienated fewer Republicans.... Others pointed to Kasich’s electability in the fall and insisted GOP delegates would pick a candidate who can win. ...But Kasich’s appeal on the convention floor might have more to do with the nature of the delegate pool than with Kasich himself. ... “Delegates tend to come from the donor class/establishment wing of the GOP,” an Iowa Republican pointed out in choosing Kasich, adding that most delegates are “older party regulars.” If Trump somehow wins the presidency and doesn't rule the way he campaigned, I don't know what we'll get from his voters. Revolution? Random shootings? Hard to tell, but it won't be pleasant. end quote

[Peter]

As always, Roger, that is an excellent analyses of the abortion vs. individual rights issue. Rand was wrong, not by using the science available at that time but she was wrong by not using her skills of observation and her common sense available at that time.

Adam asked about a Trump platform: Of what use is this "document?" I know that Republican and Democrat platforms are traditionally fluff with a couple of current hot button issues inserted that the winner will fight to achieve. I think Trump could be different. 

Trump could insist on a shortened platform stating what he intends to do. Do you doubt his honesty?

Peter

[william.scherk]

19 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

[T]he 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.

I missed that entirely, Michael. Where did he say he wants to leave politics altogether?

-- on the Carly Fiorina point, the suck up and spit out, I don't see that storyline as reflecting the Carly story.  She did not achieve her goals, the voters did not reward her performance, and the 'spitting out' is the consequence. The 'establishment' is kind of a stretchy blob term that describes so many it describes none at times. 

A lack of specifics renders the story less convincing to me.

But, challenge in hand, I go forth into the deepest internet to read what I can find about Rubio leaving politics. It is probably right under  my nose.  I set the stopwatch and enter the world of search.

____________________

00:21 and I get Marco Rubio Says He’s Leaving Government

This is good news. He won't run for re-election, and will go all private citizen. I like when this happens in the aftermath of an election, seats resigned, swords fallen on, responsibility assumed.  I like it best when the political consequences are immediate and permanent: here in BC we have had stunning resignations, where the ruling guy is forced to do a Nixon, most often over squalid scandals of picayune corruption. That's when it isn't the voters that deliver the rebuke, but events and the invisible morality that underlies politics, honour and scrupulousness in serving the public weal.

Our premier VanderZalm accepted a bag of cash at a swanky hotel. Bye-bye. Our premier Clark accepted favours in kind (renovations to a deck) from a friend. Bye-bye. Some party loon futzed with Bingo donations (bingo donations) and the premier Mike Harcourt resigned. Bif bam boom.  

The outliers to this are premiers Campbell and Christy Clark.   Campbell drove drunk, was charged and convicted in Hawaii, but resisted calls to step down, dishonouring the office and the game, I thought. Similarly, Clark's inner circle was fiddling with funding ethnic outreach under her nose. She fired them, rather than step down herself. Dishonour. 

Back to Rubio, and his return to private life. This is perhaps the most honourable thing to do, if he does it, and does not enter the Hoopla world and become a media go-to guy in the future, or worse (!) a consultant or lobbyist for .... insert demonic force here.  Step down, step aside, fold your tent, change your vocation, move on. Good luck to him and Stay Off the Public Teat, please.

In our boring Westminster system, the usual result of a failed leadership bid is a return to a Cabinet post. 

 

Edited March 19, 2016 by william.scherk
It pays to Google first ...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Roger Bissell said:

David Stockman (part of the Reagan administration) advocates:

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/toward-a-grand-new-bargain-how-donald-trump-can-clear-the-field-and-realign-american-politics/

Roger,

I don't know about Stockman's grand bargain, but this guy gets Trump.

Cruz on the Supreme Court would be good, although his religion is an issue. I fear his social conservative rulings would keep the left alive and kicking in the culture.

Stockman's portrayal of Kasich is spot on. And he gets the Washington rot of the neocon war machine. The more I learn about these guys, the more I dislike them.

I have Stockman's book, The Great Deformation (all 768 pages of it  ), but every time I crack it open in my study, I wonder how deep into the economic woods I want to wander, then something interesting about writing on the bookshelf usually catches my eye and I close his book.  

I am pretty sure I am going to read it, though. It looks like one of the great books on capitalism.

Michael

[Peter]

Cruz and Romney are going to speak in Utah (Cruz is talking right now) before the Tuesday primary vote. Cruz is likening Trump to the villains in Lord of the Rings while to Ted, the Constitution is “my precious.” And he says it like the character Golem.

 It’s time for some serious thought about legitimate police protection at political rallies. Peter Doocy on Fox is talking about a riot at a Utah Trump rally where protesters tried to shut the event down and they even tore down a fence used to siphon off the initiators of force and fought with police. Many Trump supporters were not able to get inside, and went home. We think of Utah as being law abiding Mormon’s so where did these destroyers of the first amendment come from? Now on Fox, an Arizona reporter is saying there is only one way in to an event there and traffic is stopped and drivers are being questioned. They have a police helicopter overhead shooting footage of the blocked highway.

Mass arrests? Keep the bastards in jail? How do we keep a Chicago Vietnam riot from happening when the rioting villains are already showing their hand against freedom of speech and Trump? I remember the (1968?) Time Magazine expose of “the Chicago Police,” brutality for cripes sake. Will the police need to use Roman Centurien tactics to heard the protesters like cattle, lock them up and throw away the key?

Peter 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

13 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

I missed that entirely, Michael. Where did he say he wants to leave politics altogether?

William,

This was all over the news for a couple of days. See here for instance: Marco Rubio to quit politics.

About Carly, this was during the debates. Trump said that comment about her face and suddenly all the doors of the media and access to donors, etc., opened to her, just so long as she kept up a steady stream of Trump bashing. The access started shutting off as soon as her Trump-bashes were no longer effective and she wanted to talk about her policies.

Michael

[Peter]

In that Arizona highway closing going on now? It is just 10:30 there. It is the protesters blocking the road. Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a fan of Trump should bring in bull dozers and destroy the vehicles of the initiators of force. Arrest them. Clothe them in his much publicized, crazy colored prison suits and put them in a tent camp with guards and get federal funds to do it.

Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

The problem with Donald Trump, as see it, is that no one (I suspect this includes Donald Trump) has any idea what he will do if elected.

Predicting what politicians will do when elected is always risky (Mr. Boydstun, for instance, was sure that upon reelection Barack Obama would approve Keystone XL—instead, he suppressed it).

But it's extra risky in Mr. Trump's case, because he's been all over the place on everything.

Robert,

The principle I use is when there is a difference between what a man does and what he says, I go with what he does as the better indication of what he will do.

When money, projects, etc., are involved, Trump is a high-end achiever. On time, under budget, top quality. Time after time after time. Also, he is surrounding himself with people like Sarah Palin, Jeff Sessions, etc.

So I expect to see business competence applied to government affairs, not in terms of extracting crony contracts to supply phony wars, but on a common sense level. Things like this. We are giving tons of money for free to countries that have evolved economically. Why should we keep doing that? Nobody in politics who is effective is asking those kinds of questions.

As to constitutional issues, I totally expect his conservative mentors (who he legitimately admires) to keep him on the straight and narrow.

Michael

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 hours ago, merjet said:

But I am curious what you believe this "one side" is. I assume by "other side" you meant the USA.

Merlin,

Since you keep changing the topic to fish, it's hard to keep this discussion going.

When a leading statement hits this level of pickiness in that tone with scare quotes and all, intelligent conversation is going out the window.

It's like people discussing a Trump rally and the forces opposing it and someone saying, "I assume by 'speaker at the rally' you mean Donald Trump."

You get the feeling the person isn't interested, not interested at all, in the ideas on the table. He's more interested in something, but not in the ideas.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 hours ago, merjet said:

That is a very curious comment. I might reply if I learn what you meant.

Merlin,

Keep trying.

You will! You will!

I believe in you.

Michael

[william.scherk]

On 3/18/2016 at 6:19 AM, Mike E, the Great and Wise said:

OL for the blind!  I like it! (sometimes I'm too tired to keep my eyes open).  Here are those rules:  GOP 2012 Rules

You might like this one, Mike -- it is the Scott Adams observations from a few pages back. And you might like the 'Round-up' recording at my latest blog post ...

1 hour ago, Peter said:

Peter Doocy on Fox is talking about a riot at a Utah Trump rally where protesters tried to shut the event down and they even tore down a fence used to siphon off the initiators of force and fought with police. [...] Now on Fox, an Arizona reporter is saying there is only one way in to an event there and traffic is stopped and drivers are being questioned. They have a police helicopter overhead shooting footage of the blocked highway.

Mass arrests? Keep the bastards in jail? How do we keep a Chicago Vietnam riot from happening when the rioting villains are already showing their hand against freedom of speech and Trump? [...] Will the police need to use Roman Centurien tactics to heard the protesters like cattle, lock them up and throw away the key?

Mass arrests.  Herd like cattle. Lock them up and throw away the key.   Yeah. Sounds like a progressive American idea.

56 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

About Carly, this was during the debates. Trump said that comment about her face and suddenly all the doors of the media and access to donors, etc., opened to her, just so long as she kept up a steady stream of Trump bashing. The access started shutting off as soon as her Trump-bashes were no longer effective and she wanted to talk about her policies.

My point was that the events are better explained in the relationship between Carly and her voters. She didn't get enough votes from voters. As for the 'steady stream of Trump bashing,' I gotta ask -- is there a category or conceptual label you can use to describe or denote a person who does not support Trump?  I get Trump Haters, Bashers, Anti-Trump, and a new adjective in the mix, Trump despisers.

Is there a term to use to denote a not-demonic group of non Trump Supporters? 

In the paragraph above we have several actors or groups of actors all splooged into a blob: All the doors opened (passive construction, implied actor), the access started shutting off (passive construction, implied actors). This is not persuasive or even descriptive.   I wish you would de-blob some of your remarks when appropriate.   I wish you would not invoke Demonic Urges and Forces to explain those not convinced or persuaded by your Trump promotion. 

Blank-out, psychological handicaps, ignorance, hate, etcetera. When you come to write the Great Post-Mortem for the Trump defeat/victory, I sure hope you get beyond the generalities and seed with actual examples and quotes, and try to persuade the persuadable. 

Blank out. Hate.

53 minutes ago, Peter said:

Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a fan of Trump should bring in bull dozers and destroy the vehicles of the initiators of force. Arrest them.

I have been waiting years to pay you back for your ugly comments about Angela's Nazified character. These remarks are not the kind I associate with Objectivism or even Objectivish things.   What is missing in your remarks is -- at least to my eyes -- a sense of proportion. 

Destroy their vehicles. Mass arrests.  Bulldozers. Yeah!

Meanwhile, in Phoenix, live ...

 

Edited March 19, 2016 by william.scherk
Padded out a boring and self-referential post with added replies to current comments; Trump Rally!

[merjet]

25 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

When a leading statement hits this level of pickiness in that tone with scare quotes and all, intelligent conversation is going out the window.

You again prove you are a prolific expert of false presumptions.  They weren't "scare quotes".  They were merely to point to what you said. "Scare quotes, shudder quotes, or sneer quotes are quotation marks placed around a word or phrase to signal that a term is being used in a non-standard, ironic, or otherwise special sense. They may be used to imply that a particular expression is not necessarily how the author would have worded a concept" (Wikipedia). On the other hand, they might be "scare quotes", meaning you are scared to answer. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 minutes ago, merjet said:

They weren't "scare quotes".  They were merely to point to what you said w/o quoting the entire sentence.

Merlin,

I'm not sure what you mean by "point," but by "scare quotes," I assume you mean something quoted.

Michael

[merjet]

16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Merlin,

Keep trying.

You will! You will!

I believe in you.

I won't even try. Probably behind it is more from your vast supply of false presumptions and logical fallacies.

[Jon Letendre]

When one of these aggressive, forceful, essentially violent acts such as blocking and trapping people on the highways turns into a shootout with a body count, the Sheriffs, chiefs of police, mayors, etc., who continue to choose to look the other way instead of throwing the book at them, they will be the ones with blood on their hands, not the innocent trapped who next see "protestors" coming up from the rear.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Is there a term to use to denote a not-demonic group of non Trump Supporters? 

William,

Sure. Anti-Trump people. Those against Trump. And so on. I don't demonize someone who criticizes Trump just for criticizing him. There are lots of people who can't stand Trump as is their right. And some of them make great points.

But take a look at some of the things Carly said about Trump back then. According to her, Trump was barely a businessman.

You might find that level of discourse OK, rational and objective, but I do not. And I say so.

In fact, this is a mini-example of why Trump is killing it with voters. They have kept saying what they wanted for years and years and decades. And those with public voices and power have ignored them except at voting time. 

Here's a quick example. I am saying Trump has strong productive achievements and that people the world over admire them. The people who criticize Trump keep ignoring this. But it's real and it's not going away this time just because it gets ignored. And when people like Carly treat his achievements without acknowledgment and with disdain, she pays a price. She can criticize him, but she has to criticize something real if she wants to be taken seriously.

This is not demonizing her. I'm merely reporting that voters are telling her they will not be blown off again. She blew them off, so they blew her off. 

Believe me, the establishment Republicrats knew exactly what I am talking about when they punked Carly off.

btw - Cruz is suffering from this. He says Trump supports Obamacare, that Trump funded the Gang of Eight and stuff like that. He ignores what is really going on, isolates a detail, throws the spotlight on it, and attributes it with an unreal intent. Many, many people are sick of this kind of discourse. Their votes are proving it.

Those who call Trump a bigot are making the same error. Believe me, that bigot charge will not take with Trump except among Trump haters. If you don't believe me, just watch. My point is that this growing mass of Trump supporters is not made up of bigots (as those making the charge eventually conclude). The truth is these people are no longer listening to those who yell, "Bigot!" Why? Because those who yell it are doing it for manipulation, not for identifying any fact.

How many times and how many people have to appear on air saying they have known Trump for years and he is no bigot? How many times do people have to point to Trump's businesses and show that no bigotry is to be found? How many people from all minority classes have to come out in support of Trump and say he is no bigot? The yellers ignore this. The people are now saying they will not.

Now I have a question for you. Is there any category of Trump supporter you can imagine where they are not mentally or morally suboptimal in some manner? Among all the many theories out there from Trump critics about what moves Trump supporters, I have yet to see one. It's not disagreement. It's failure to even consider the possibility that Trump supporters have correct functioning brains.

Does that attribution of inherent inferiority count as demonization to you?

Michael