Donald Trump

[william.scherk]

 

1 hour ago, Selene said:

Bill:

Please define bigotry, as you understand it, first. 

Thanks.

I'd better make sure I have been consistent in my own usage! But I might as well paste in a couple of lines from an earlier bout of anger:

On 12/21/2015 at 1:07 PM, william.scherk said:

I go to bat for anyone facing bigotry, for to me the essence of bigotry is a fixity, a stagnation. Bigotry is obstinate devotion to one's own prejudices and emotion. It is against reason.

Now I and half my staff will go consult the dictionaries, and try to avoid the recursion that Daniel Barnes warned us against. Bottom line -- I appreciate bigotry as a habit of mind, a misplaced insistence on rectitude, an obstinate holding of one's opinions as being beyond doubt or useful criticism. It can be that a bigoted thinker in one aspect of life is a much more rational actor in others. I can think of some hockey fans, for example. I can also think of crowds of left-ish types of particular bigotry: the demonizing of "The Right" as if it were just an undifferentiated mass of You People. This is most often seen when a bigoted speaker dismisses as one of Those People as beyond the pale, because of his or her membership of a group. (so, of course, in my normal real life I have many 'discussions' with folks who hold bigoted views, often shallowly-warranted views -- and the key test for me is whether or not they allow in new information contra their opinion. If they do, the bigotry was only apparent in a forceful opinion. The old saw about not attributing to malice that which belongs to ignorance or error comes to mind ...)

How about you, Adam? What is your definition or working set of attributes of bigotry, bigot, a bigoted opinion?

And I kind of expect half the front-porch to weigh in, but it is Sunday, a slow day at the ranch, and this definitional invitation will soon be buried under fresh hoopla.

[Selene]

Bill.

I will not do this dance.

What does bigotry mean to you William Scherk?

A...

[william.scherk]

2 minutes ago, Selene said:

What does bigotry mean to you William Scherk?

As simply as I can put it, bigotry means an intolerance of other people's opinions, and an obstinate refusal to entertain information that tends to contradict one's opinions.  At an extreme and as a persistent habit of mind.

Obstinate intolerance of The Other. Obstinate 'dark' emotions dominate reason.  

Fixity.

Stuck-ness

A mind closed to rational argument

A tendency to let prejudice guide decisions

Intolerance.

Refusal to entertain the notion that one might be prejudiced in some matter.

I try to pay my rent here,. Thanks for the follow-up, Adam.

[Brant Gaede]

For me it's my moral condemnation of a despicable person that generates the "bigotry." Take Hitler--please.

I assume there's a better word for Hitler hate than "bigotry," but I can't put my finger on it right now.

Wait! That word is "hate"!

--Brant

self educated

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

45 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

As simply as I can put it, bigotry means an intolerance of other people's opinions, and an obstinate refusal to entertain information that tends to contradict one's opinions.  At an extreme and as a persistent habit of mind.

William,

In other words, when the scientific community demonizes specific scientists because their climate change findings and conclusions do not fit the outcomes the community spokespeople expect, you thus consider the scientific community to be bigoted?

That seems to fit your condition: "... obstinate refusal to entertain information that tends to contradict one's opinions."

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Apropos, re morality and bigotry and Rand.

She considered the choice to use reason to be a moral issue.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

How about another case of bigotry according to your criterion?

Way back in June, Donald Trump announced he was running for president. Only recently have certain people taken him seriously, but along the way they constantly denied, dismissed, belittled all evidence that pointed toward his increasing support and his increasing likelihood of getting the candidacy. They kept making wrong predictions of his implosion time after time after time.

Many of these people still deny, dismiss and belittle that same information and explain Trump as, "He does not follow the rules," or, "This election is unlike any in history." In other words, blank out.

There is even a faction whose members, while still denying, dismissing and belittling this information, are contemplating convention monkeybusiness and/or a third party to try to deny Trump the candidacy in a fairly fought campaign.

To you, are these people bigots?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

Ah shit... this got me on a roll.

Just one more example and I'll pause.

At a rally in Tucson, a black Trump supporter knocked out a white protester dressed in a KKK costume.

Which one was the bigot according to your understanding? The black Trump supporter who did not want to entertain any information the white leftie in a KKK costume had to offer and wanted to punish him? Or the white leftie in a KKK costume who did not want to entertain any information Trump or the crowd of his fans had to offer and did not want them to hear what Trump had to say?

Or neither? Or both?

Bigotry or something else?

 

Michael

[Selene]

10 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

William,

Ah shit... this got me on a roll.

Just one more example and I'll pause.

At a rally in Tucson, a black Trump supporter knocked out a white protester dressed in a KKK costume.

Which one was the bigot according to your understanding? The black Trump supporter who did not want to entertain any information the white leftie in a KKK costume had to offer and wanted to punish him? Or the white leftie in a KKK costume who did not want to entertain any information Trump or the crowd of his fans had to offer and did not want them to hear what Trump had to say?

Or neither? Or both?

Bigotry or something else?

 

Michael

Lol - I used this today with three different folks today in NJ who are coming around to supporting Trump in the NJ primary...they are all gatekeepers which make them valuable to convert...

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

14 hours ago, Peter said:

I briefly saw Trump’s new spokesman, though I didn’t catch his name, and he was spectacular. He ran through several of Trump’s positions like immigration and trade, and I said to myself, “This is the guy Trump has been needing. Good job!”

Anyone catch his name? He is Brilliant.

Peter  

Peter,

Do you mean Stephen Miller?

And a one-minute breakdown like this?

I think that guy's really good.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, Selene said:

Lol - I used this today with three different folks today in NJ who are coming around to supporting Trump in the NJ primary...they are all gatekeepers which make them valuable to convert...

Adam,

Apparently the white leftie who got creamed by the black Trump supporter was not wearing KKK attire, the young lady with him was. And if you watch the video you posted, as soon as she saw her buddy being creamed, she yanked that hood off quick.

The guy was wearing an American flag and holding a poster that jiggered Trump's face with the Confederate flag and yelling out with hatred and spite. The expression on his face is awful. Here is a better view of him:

 

Michael

[merjet]

Here are a couple more webpages about Stephen Miller.

http://anncorcoran2016.org/2016/01/27/trump-hires-aide-to-senator-jeff-sessions-indicates-seriousness-about-protecting-american-soverignty/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/14/stephen-miller-kasich-pro-amnesty-position-even-more-radical-than-hillarys/

I am not as impressed by the video as MSK is, at least for the present. Miller says "foreign currency cheating" and follows with "provisions in law about international trade." I'm not familiar with the latter; I suspect he refers to Bank for International Settlements stuff. "Foreign currency cheating" is his opinion and makes a convenient "sound byte."

 

[turkeyfoot]

7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

deleted

Edited March 21, 2016 by turkeyfoot
......

[Peter]

Thanks Michael. So he’s named Stephen Miller.

Merjet responded to Michael saying Stephen Miller is really good: I am not as impressed by the video as MSK is, end quote

He was being pushed and examined by the Fox political commentator. And the segment started with some Trump criticism by Karl Rove and Miller had to hit back. He needs no teleprompter. When I saw him he was with a friendlier Fox lady, and he just answered the questions directly. I am impressed with him. He will only get better and I think we will see some of Trump’s combative nature showing up in his answers.

Peter  

[Peter]

Robert Campbell wrote: One can fully expect Donald Trump to defeat Hillary Clinton.  I think he can.  Many in both parties' Establishments are obviously afraid he can. end quote

John Sununu (Monday morning on Fox) thinks the same as Robert on one issue. RINO’s are afraid of Trump. However, they are not sure he will defeat Hillary in the general election. Most experts are sure of one thing. It is undecided.

Sununu on Fox said something like: Hypothetically, if on opening day of a convention the nomination has not been clinched, and if every poll is showing Trump losing badly to Hillary, then the delegates will have a difficult decision to make. The delegates choose the candidate. That is the way it has always been. The delegates understand that. Trump may not. end remembered summary

For Trump I don’t see a worst case scenario if he doesn’t clinch the nomination before the convention. It would be a rousing good time. But if at that time if Trump is losing badly to Hillary in the polls I would hesitate to strongly support him if I were a delegate. It is fun to imagine, best case, worst case, and probable case scenarios. All will be clearer on Tuesday night.

Peter

[Peter]

I think Trump will pay the legal fees for the guy who punched out the phony KKK Trump protester.

Richard Viguerie has a Tea party news letter. Here are some of today’s headlines:

Republicans Must Demand Law and Order or the Left Will Steal the Election...
Kasich Spits on the Second Amendment...
Presidential Horse Race 2016: Is Kasich a nice guy now or just the same old jerk?
Are 60,000 More “Refugees” Too Many?
The Obama – Soros Radical Leftist Revolution Is Here... And More...

And here is the start of one article: Republicans Must Demand Law and Order or the Left Will Steal the Election By George Rasley, CHQ Editor: As our friend (and Trump supporter) Diana West has pointed out, “Nothing, but nothing, Donald Trump has said from his podium about protestors disrupting his rallies drives the anti-USA agendas of these Leftist groups." Nor did it inspire them to organize the mobs that interrupted the democratic process in Chicago, blocked traffic in Phoenix and rioted in Salt Lake City. This is a well-thought-out attempt by a well-organized and well-funded revolutionary group to use violence to influence the political process in our country – and that’s the textbook definition of a revolution. . . . end quote

Ok, Objectivists and fans of Rand. It is time for patriots to unite on the issue of the Hillary, Bernie, George Soros’ Nazi army. They actually think they are moral and heroic beings to use violence to steal an election. They know better than you how to run your life. They should be in charge of Nazi Amerika to enlighten and FORCE you onto the golden route to Progressive Utopia.

Peter    

[Peter]

Traffic seems slow here on OL. I will make this my last post until this afternoon. How are we to deal with minds we angrily think are completely different from ours on the subject of Politics? Here is an old letter from Atlantis, on Friday, April 4, 2000, from Achilles. I fixed some of the line breaks and other problems.

Barbara Branden wrote: I've said I'll have nothing more to say on the subject of the Objectivist ethics. But I should like to suggest something on another subject entirely. I think that some of the differences among members of Atlantis are less philosophical than they  are psycho-epistemological. I've been observing very different ways of dealing with ideas, of going from idea A to B to Z. I don't at the moment see how to resolve this discrepancy, but I think it's worth looking into. But not by me. I have a book to write. end quote

I agree completely with Barbara that some of our most significant differences have to do with the manner in which our minds work, rather than with the conclusions we reach. She and Ayn Rand have referred to this as "psycho-epistemology." In personality type theory, it is sometimes referred to as "thinking styles." I wrote some on this to Objectivism-L and another list a couple of years ago, and I am reposting some of that material here now just to put some flesh on the issue that neither Barbara nor I have enough time to do full justice right now. Comments are welcome!

Best to all, Roger Bissell. end quote

If we all rationally want the best for our country, including life, liberty, happiness, The Constitution, Capitalism, prosperity, peace, and we want to love and respect our country now, can we unite behind a less than perfect candidate? I think we must if we want it to be morning in America.

Peter

[Robert Campbell]

12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

There is even a faction whose members, while still denying, dismissing and belittling this information, are contemplating convention monkeybusiness and/or a third party to try to deny Trump the candidacy in a fairly fought campaign.

To you, are these people bigots?

I'm not sure they're all bigots.

I am sure they're all dumbasses.

Robert

[Peter]

I've managed to be quiet until 1pm. Obama is about to give a Press Conference in Havana. I hope he stays there, with people he is more happy with . . . communists. 

Christ. In another story, the Obama cartel is publicizing the fact we’re putting more marines and special forces on the ground in Iraq BEFORE WE DO IT!@^&*%$@#$!. And dad gum it, Jethro, Biden is back speechifying on Iran like he is in the running for President again as Hillary is trumpeting her support of Israel. The heck with a Republican contested convention – what about the Democrats? Is she too old and sick?

Judge Napolitano on Fox was just saying Old Hickory Clinton is about to be interviewed by the FBI. I see a new blood clot forming in her reptilian, totalitarian brain, as she cruises on her personal bus with bed and bathroom, limo, and jet, and all of it bought with graft money from Wall Street speaking fees and those traitorous, influence peddling, foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation .

Peter

From an old New York Times article: The 2012 election ended on Tuesday, just in time for the 2016 election cycle to begin. Ridiculous as it may seem, a poll has already been released revealing that Hillary Clinton will be a heavy favorite in the Iowa caucuses. The Secretary of State, long speculated to be preparing a run for the White House again, claims she doesn't want to hear anything about another presidential campaign. Clinton, 65, who long ago told President Barack Obama that she plans to resign at the end of his first term, says she isn't thinking about her future in public life currently.

'I just want to sleep and exercise and travel for fun. And relax. It sounds so ordinary, but I haven’t done it for 20 years. I would like to see whether I can get untired. I work out and stuff, but I don’t do it enough and I don’t do it hard enough because I can’t expend that much energy on it,' she told The New York Times from aboard her personal 757 jet.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 hours ago, merjet said:

I'm not familiar with the latter; I suspect he refers to Bank for International Settlements stuff.

Merlin,

I've seen in several of your comments you are not familiar with currency manipulation, thus you don't see a problem when it is brought up. This isn't criticism, it's just an observation.

I lived in a country that was based on nothing but currency manipulation, so I know it well.

There are so many ways to do it, it's not funny. I will give you one so you can visualize it, but this is just the tip of the iceberg and not particularly suited to the international trade problems with the countries Trump talks about. I would have to look at them in more detail to give proper details, so I prefer to comment on what I know.

When a company in one country makes a contract with a company in another, it has to stipulate which currency will be used for the transaction in case there is litigation. This is usually dollar, Later the euro was added to the mix, but that does not alter my point. (Prior to the Bretton Woods agreement in 1944, international contracts were done in English pounds or, to a lesser extent, French francs. After Bretton Woods, the dollar got that honor and the USA became policeman of the world funding its own police force, so to speak, as part of the deal.) 

In Brazil, how it pegs its currency to the dollar is extremely important to importers and exporters. If this were one mechanism only, that would make it hard to cheat, but Brazil got around this when I lived there by having a slew of economic indexes: OTN, ORTN, Staple Food, Minimum Wage, Official dollar, Tourism dollar, Black market dollar (they actually indexed this ), Overnight market, and so on. These are just a few off the top of my head. I learned them because I worked as a professional translator for about 10 years and I did a lot of trade documents. These indexes were for the value of the currency and inflation.

When you made a contract in Brazil, you had to stipulate which index you would use for what input. The trick was to peg what you were to receive to the official dollar (which was the strongest index) and peg what you had to pay to a different one (preferably one that exploited high inflation in your favor). You also had to stipulate which set of laws would govern the contract. Since, by law at that time, a company situated in Brazil was prohibited to make payment obligations in any currency other than Brazil's and was bound by Brazilian law, this was an easy manipulation.

I saw and translated documents for lots of times where a company would supply Brazil with XXX amount of dollars worth of goods or services and receive 30% or 50% of the dollars for it and, under Brazilian law, since the cruzeiros or cruzados or cruzados novos or reais (Brazil constantly changed the name of its currency back then) worked out on paper, the transaction was considered as settled.

You might ask, who would be so stupid to do that, to receive 30 cents on the dollar? And here the monkeybusiness gets interesting. A deal like that in itself actually was stupid, but the monopolies and trade-offs and subsidies and briberies in parallel deals were extremely lucrative for cronies. A good crony established a losing deal for show and ran huge corruption schemes behind it.

All this was held in place due to currency manipulation. It was impossible for an honest competitor to break into a market like that.

The details vary from country to country, but the format is the same. Insiders sew up a bilateral market through legal manipulations and screw a lot of honest businesses along the way by playing games with currency value.

With arrangements like NAFTA and so on, this process gets a smokescreen, but the process is still the same.

Trump knows all this. So he wants to destroy all these collective multi-country agreements and deal with countries one-by-one. He wants the US government to punish countries that do a lot of exchange rate shenanigans with tariffs and leave in peace those who trade fair.

As you can probably imagine, Trump is not big into forex investing.  

Apropos, George Soros is.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

I'm not sure they're all bigots.

I am sure they're all dumbasses.

Robert,

Hear hear!

I'm 100% with you on that.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

Robert Campbell wrote: One can fully expect Donald Trump to defeat Hillary Clinton.  I think he can.  Many in both parties' Establishments are obviously afraid he can. end quote

John Sununu (Monday morning on Fox) thinks the same as Robert on one issue. RINO’s are afraid of Trump. However, they are not sure he will defeat Hillary in the general election. Most experts are sure of one thing. It is undecided.

Sununu on Fox said something like: Hypothetically, if on opening day of a convention the nomination has not been clinched, and if every poll is showing Trump losing badly to Hillary, then the delegates will have a difficult decision to make. The delegates choose the candidate. That is the way it has always been. The delegates understand that. Trump may not. end remembered summary

Peter,

I'm not precluding the possibility that some delegates will face tough choices, under the scenario you mention.

But it has occurred to me that RINOs might say that Trump will lose to Clinton, not because they really think he will, but because they don't want him to win and they're trying to frighten those of a less RINOistic inclination into supporting whoever the RINOs' current fave is.

And yes, I suspect Sununu Sr. might be one of those playing out that strategy.

No one should ever underestimate how bad a candidate Hillary Clinton is.

Robert

Edited March 21, 2016 by Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

On March 20, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

Sorry for repeating two posts, but I want to keep them together with the following for later reference.

We need to add two more gems of Beckian divine elevation of Ted Cruz.

I'll just let the headlines speak for themselves.

From Breitbart:

Salt Lake Tribune — ‘Cruz in Utah: Glenn Beck Says He’s Fulfillment of Mormon Prophecy’

From The Gateway Pundit:

Glenn Beck Brings Fasting Child on Stage at Cruz Rally, Yells: “This is the Priesthood Rising!” (VIDEO)

Both of these stories hit Drudge.

This ain't good... Not for America... Not even for Ted...

Michael

Is Glenn Beck nuts?  Yes.  (Although for Mormons the priesthood is a broad category.)

Would Cruz be better off not campaigning with Beck in Utah?  Maybe.

Michael, I'll award you props if Cruz keeps campaigning with Beck in states that are not majority Mormon (i.e., in any other state).

I'll award 50 times the props if Ted Cruz announces his conversion to the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, any time during the campaign.  Will he do that for Beck's endorsement?  Mitt Romney's?  Because he thinks the LDS crowd has executed a corner on the apocalypse?

I'll award 100 x props if reliable evidence is secured that Rafael Cruz has anointed Ted's head with Crisco (a ceremony that was supposedly performed on John Ashcroft).

Funny thing is, I didn't hear anything serious about Cruz's Messianic inclinations before the South Carolina primary.  What I did find interesting is that in the exit polls nearly half cited getting along with a lot of Congressmen and Senators as something they were looking for; those folks did not vote for Cruz.  That, not Ted auditioning for Messiah, was the major attack line from Trump and his surrogates before the SC primary.

I'm actually curious who Drudge thinks will respond to the Messiah stuff by rejecting Cruz.  Surely Drudge is not targeting the Democratic Party base at this juncture.

Robert

[Peter]

Robert wrote about Republicans against Trump: I'm not sure they're all bigots. I am sure they're all dumbasses. end quote

I am sure that is all hyperbola. Some are bigots and dumbasses. Some aren’t. And some delegates aren’t worried about keeping the RINO’S clout. (or would it be more colorful to say their big, sharp horn of plenty?) Trump may pull in a large percentage of voters in blue collar states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. Trump appeals across democratic lines and may get over 10 percent of the black vote. If he picks Cruz as VEEP he may get the Hispanic vote. I find it incomprehensible to think Trump will not pick the right person for 2^nd in command who will help in the campaign. It’s the art of the deal, Baby. Trump will get the vote at the convention.

Robert also wrote: But it has occurred to me that RINOs might say that Trump will lose to Clinton, not because they really think he will, but because they don't want him to win and they're trying to frighten those of a less RINOistic inclination into supporting whoever the RINO's current guy is. end quote

They would use deceit, Robert? How dare they. Will it work? I think Trump has such a rock solid, vocal base that it won’t happen. That would mean they can control the polls and with democrat support that is not implausible, but it won’t work.

How badass is Trump? Concerning the terror group ISIS, Would Trump advise our Army to just kill them all, like author Robert Heinlein? Yup. Would he provide perks for serving in our armed forces? Yup. Benefits. Parades. Respect. And now from the classics.  

Peter

From: "Andrew Taranto" ataranto@bellatlantic.net To: atlantis@wetheliving.com Subject: Starship Troopers (was Re: ATL: collectivized ethics and US intervention) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 16:37:54 -0500

Ellen L replying to Sandra M: Joey, you have the great benefit of living in the freest country in the world. I agree with Robert Heinlein's view that citizens should do something to *earn* that citizenship? Ayn Rand earned her citizenship by writing a book that gave an ethical underpinning to laissez-faire capitalism (THE FOUNTAINHEAD) by writing another book that exposed the horrors of life under communism (WE THE LIVING) and by writing ATLAS SHRUGGED and numerous essays that greatly clarified the political and economic thinking of the generations that followed.

end quote

Robert Heinlein wrote over a period of at least 30 years. I haven't read Starship Troopers but I doubt seriously if he ever really believed that citizenship was to be earned, and if he did I doubt he kept that view.  You might read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress for what was probably more his real view point.  I suspect the character of Prof de la Paz was his role in the book.

In the Starship Troopers ethos, citizenship was "earned" by ~voluntary~ military service; and one could opt out of one's service at any point. Citizenship then gave one the right to vote and hold public offices. It makes some sense: if one wants political power, one must lay one's life on the line. Conversely, force someone to lay his life on the line, and he becomes a thorn in the government's side when he assumes his rightful position in public office.

Also note that non-citizenship did not relegate people to second class status: they were simply barred from voting or holding political offices. Besides the slight enmity between citizens and non-citizens in the book, I really don't think it displayed a caste society in any meaningful sense.

I have no idea if Heinlein ~believed~ in this form of polity; but _Starship Troopers_ made a very compelling (and entertaining) thought experiment. If anything, I think Heinlein provided a viable (or at least semi-viable) alternative to the kind of political order we have now, or at least an interesting principle upon which to base such an alternative (i.e., voluntary citizenship, with full individual rights retained by non-citizens).

Laissez-faire, Andrew Taranto

[merjet]

Michael,

Likewise, this isn't criticism, it's an observation.

You wrote, "Since, by law at that time, a company situated in Brazil was prohibited to make payment obligations in any currency other than Brazil's and was bound by Brazilian law, this was an easy manipulation."

Your Brazil example was interesting, but what you describe is very heavy manipulation. It also sounds like the powers-that-be in Brazil cheating Brazilians, not foreigners. If it could be shown that China does something to manipulate exports and imports between the USA and China, despite being observed by some astute financial people in the US who have their own tools, then Stephen Miller's brief remarks would carry more weight.

There is nothing in your post about hedging cross-currency transactions. The currency futures, currency swaps,  and foreign exchange swap markets are gargantuan. A company that exports or imports goods, typically with the help of a bank, can greatly reduce the currency risk that comes with a cross-currency transaction extending over weeks or months.

So I'm wary of extrapolating Brazil's case to the USA and/or China. Brazil's economy is small relative to them. China's GDP is more than 4 times as big. The USA's GDP is more than 7 times as big. The $US is the proverbial 800 pound gorilla, the Chinese Yuan a small gorilla, and Brazil's Real a monkey on the world monetary stage.

Regarding your ending comments about Trump and Soros, investing ("speculating" is more fitting for currencies) and hedging are very different.

P.S. For anybody interested  Foreign exchange market