Donald Trump

[Peter]

Jonathan asked: Do we expect more of Trump than of anyone else?

We should. I am disappointed in our Republican allies, like Jeb, Mitt, Glenn Beck, and some big donors but Trump is still being held neutral by Paul Ryan and others. The people who were running against him the primaries get a pass in my opinion up until the time he is actually nominated.

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union a lot of people worried a nuke would be on the open market and I remember there was an additional worry about The Ukraine turning over its nukes to the Russians. The fall of The Twin Towers shut America down for a brief time. Imagine the deaths and havoc when a nuke goes off in Europe, or a North Korean nuke goes off in California or in South Korea. The TV show Madam Secretary is dramatizing what would if occur if modern day terrorists acquire a nuke. But terrorists will do what they can in the meantime. It is time for the Free World to crush Islam and push it back onto its own territory. I don‘t worry about Muslims in Indonesia, or our allied Muslim countries but . . . for goodness sake, we don’t need a messiah . . . we know where they are and where they are coming from.

What will Trump do? I think he will be like Cruz who was just on CBS news saying he will attack them on every front and won’t apologize. I think Trump will also attack the terrorists on every front, including retaliatory nuking if provoked. Take their money? Check. Attack them where they live? Check. Use his own “Just War Theory” which REALLY means attacking them where they live even if the terrorists' families are placed in jeopardy? Check. Going after their donors even if they are Saudi princes? Check. We should let Trump know how fans of Rand think and give him some intellectual ammunition, when and if he is nominated.

Peter  

[Peter]

An edited for brevity quote.

What Should Conservatives Do if Trump Wins the Republican Nomination? George Rasley, CHQ Editor | 3/23/2016. The results of the March 22 Republican presidential primary elections should focus the mind of every movement conservative leader and activist on the very real possibility that Donald Trump will hold a near-majority, or perhaps even an outright majority, of delegates when the Republican National Convention convenes in Cleveland on July 18 . . . . . While the math of delegate accumulation does not make a Trump outright victory inevitable, the math is on his side . . . . What I see on the part of Senator Cruz’s erstwhile establishment Republican allies is not an effort to deliver the nomination to him, but an effort to create a chaotic situation in which no outsider has a majority, thereby delivering to the Washington Cartel’s powerbrokers and insiders the ability to choose the nominee at the Convention . . . . So what should conservatives do if Donald Trump is the Republican nominee? . . .  Tomorrow’s scenario: The “Benedict Option.” Should movement conservatives let the Republican establishment deal on its own with the Trump phenomenon it created and sit out the 2016 election? end quote

Hell no. I think we can do better than that. There are better strategies. Did everyone notice Trump gave a prepared speech at the Jewish conference? He has a better spokesperson (I hope) and he jokes about how he will be more presidential once his nomination is secured. Enough of the Lyin’ Ted bullshit. Ted’s support could add some intellectualism to Trump’s campaign, whether Ted is VP or not. I suppose Trump is assured of a Texas victory anyway in the general election, but Ted could still pull in a lot of Hispanic and the finally somebody different, pro-minority vote.

Peter 

[Brant Gaede]

The conservatives don't know what they are going to do or should do but they will do something--both after the convention and then again after the election and some will do what others won't do and some will do nothing, which too is doing.

--Brant

[turkeyfoot]

16 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

but Trump knows exactly what he is doing and is doing it on purpose

Its not wholly Trumps doing, whatever it is he is doing.

Youre only charismatic because of a special feeling people have. Max Weber wrote about it as an idea, that it is a quality that is value neutral. A charismatic person can be a good person or just as easily a bad person. Its a connection other people are predisposed to find you and the charisma exists in the space between the two of you. If there isnt that connection made, the guys a jerk and a mystery about how someone else finds him different.

I think many followers of Trump are struck by his demeanor, and have a very personal context made for them automatically, whether there is any substance to it is besides the point. If the connection isnt made, the substantive ideas. the work, if you will, remains in being convinced the ideas make sense.

Given that he is getting votes and large crowds hes the default candidate probably garnering the nomination. One thing thats bothered me is the wave of adulation that accompanies Trump. You cant tell me that finding full agreement over a wall or ISIS are whats accounting for that. I reserve judgment on him and he must prove himself. He isnt fine on his own two feet, in my opinion. When he has a teleprompter and a speech writer I will still wonder what his own ideas are, some things havent been fleshed out. At the recent AIPAC conference, it was said that those ideas would have sounded pretty tame 20 yrs ago.

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

You might not have a high opinion of Alex Jones, but what he says about Megyn Kelly's broadcasting training here is true. I know this from having studied it. (Please ignore the cheesy thumbnail of Megyn's eyes. Friggin' Alex Jones will be Alex Jones. He's like a goddam dog with muddy paws.  )

Pretty female news broadcasters actually are trained to look at the camera with slightly insinuating glances. Not too much, but enough.

Don't think Trump doesn't know it, too. One does not keep a top TV show on air for 14 years without learning this stuff. Trump is neutralizing Megyn well neutralized.

I wrote earlier: "Actually, Trump's feud with Megyn is starting to be a little about her because I've seen her recent shows and she's cracking." It didn't occur to me until just now, but the break in underscored muted sexiness was the thing that caused me to notice it. 

If you look at her expressions when she goes on the attack against Trump (in almost every show these days), she loses all the soft insinuation glows and starts looking bitchy in a controlled manner. This is different than the "Joan of Arc" crusader look she gets when challenging a guest. In that look metaphorical fire comes from her eyes and you are right there with her, rooting for her.

The look she gets when Trump bashing is cold. Then she often instantly switches to Trump defense of the same thing she bashed in the same cold manner. It's very odd and not emotionally resonating.

I think Trump knows this. And I think Ailes knows this, too. I even think Megyn knows this and doesn't give a damn because she's pissed.  

Michael

Who's Alex Jones?

--Brant

heard the name a few times

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

While Europe is bleeding, Obama is at a baseball game with a dictator doing the wave. He should be morally condemned by every decent person. And Europeans should be especially upset and vocal. He is a disgrace. Let’s hear one resounding, Come on ! Republicans and Democrats should condemn his obscene behavior. Congress should be speaking out. We have sunk so low as a country that the mainstream media will not do one editorial on the national news about our insensitive, juvenile President.

Peter  

Europe bleeding is out of the loop for his disgraceful behavior.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

32 minutes ago, turkeyfoot said:

Given that he is getting votes and large crowds hes the default candidate probably garnering the nomination. One thing thats bothered me is the wave of adulation that accompanies Trump. You cant tell me that finding full agreement over a wall or ISIS are whats accounting for that.

Geoff,

One of the consistent mistakes I find with people in analyzing Trump is to try to pin everything down to one cause.

Persuasion doesn't work like that. You have to stack the techniques and your target cannot be aware of what you are doing (generally).

If this didn't work and work in this manner, the entire advertising industry would not exist.

Michael

[Peter]

Brant wrote: Europe bleeding is out of the loop for his disgraceful behavior.

Off on a bleeding tangent, remember how the Iraqi’s allowed people who’s families had been murdered horribly by Sadam have a go at him and then those same folks finally hung his sorry ass? Here is a fine kettle of fish for all of O’Land. What would you do with that sub human terrorist they just caught in Europe? He not only bragged about his murders he bragged about what his lizard buddies were going to do in the future. He had no remorse. No conscience. Just pure hatred and venom. I would not want to cause suffering or nightmares for his interrogators but there are people who would really like to go medieval on his ass, and could wring every last scrap of intel out of that monster. What would Super Trump do? What should we do if he is handed over to the U.S.? This definitely is under the heading of “emergency ethics.”

Scenario: We know an atom bomb is set to go off in America. We have the bomb builder and we know this for a fact and he has admitted such. To what lengths should we (and will we) go to stop the bomb from killing one million people or more?

Peter

Notes: From: "George H. Smith" To: "Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: The purpose of rights – revisited Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:41:47 -0600

Bill Dwyer wrote: "We've already conceded, along with Rand, that there are such things as emergencies in which we are justified in taking someone's property against his will.  So we've already conceded that different principles apply to emergencies than to non-emergencies."

Different principles don't apply, according to Rand. Rather, the same principles are applied to radically different situations, thereby resulting in radically different conclusions.

To quote from "The Ethics of Emergencies": "It is important to differentiate between the rules of conduct in an emergency and the rules of conduct in the normal conditions of human existence. This does not mean a double-standard of morality; the standard and the basic principles remain the same, but their application to either case requires precise definitions." (VOS, 47)

Thus, according to Bill, Rand claims that "different principles apply to emergencies than to non-emergencies." But, according to Ayn Rand, Rand claims that "the standard and the basic principles remain the same."

So whom should we believe, Bill Dwyer or Ayn Rand, as to what Ayn Rand actually believed?  Why Bill, of course, for here as elsewhere he speaks with the assurance and authority of one who never has to back up a single word he says.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

6 minutes ago, Peter said:

Brant wrote: Europe bleeding is out of the loop for his disgraceful behavior.

Off on a bleeding tangent, remember how the Iraqi’s allowed people who’s families had been murdered horribly by Sadam have a go at him and then those same folks finally hung his sorry ass? Here is a fine kettle of fish for all of O’Land. What would you do with that sub human terrorist they just caught in Europe? He not only bragged about his murders he bragged about what his lizard buddies were going to do in the future. He had no remorse. No conscience. Just pure hatred and venom. I would not want to cause suffering or nightmares for his interrogators but there are people who would really like to go medieval on his ass, and could wring every last scrap of intel out of that monster. What would Super Trump do? What should we do if he is handed over to the U.S.? This definitely is under the heading of “emergency ethics.”

I only meant Obama was already in Cuba.

--Brant

[turkeyfoot]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

One of the consistent mistakes I find with people in analyzing Trump is to try to pin everything down to one cause.

Persuasion doesn't work like that.

One cause? I mentioned two substantive and included myriad personal connections explaining charisma between parties. (thats how persuasion works) ;) 

If Trump wanted to earn my vote, 1/60M of the total.....ah but he doesnt need my vote. He misused the opportunity I gave.  ) And what about those who didnt or wont vote, so much for persuasion.

Its an interesting phenomenon, the persuader and the persuaded, but nothing new. If he starts talking in the third person about himself and his successes I will blanch.

I really liked Scott Adams honest appraisal, when he said hypnosis/persuasion share a common set of tools. That is the willingness to believe something that isnt "real". Or not yet real. As in Trumps "presidency".  

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/07/hypnosis.html

"About one person in five can experience what hypnotists call "the Phenomena." For those people, their powers of imagination become so strong it is almost indistinguishable from reality. Those are the people who can give birth without pain, or see an elephant in the room, or eat an onion and think its an orange, or have multiple orgasms on suggestion. My name for that group is "lucky bastards."" 

"For example, a subject under hypnosis would get a little extra power in one or more of these areas."

1. "Extra relaxation" - relief over your choice as being made and you no longer have to exert energy on something unimportant for you.

2. "Extra imagination" - Imagine America really GREAT!

3. "Extra focus" - Now that everything is under control you can go about your real work - your job.

" Nothing in this life makes sense if you assume people are rational most of the time."

For the rest of us in the Trump Skeptic Club, who are depending on more than luck to see the GREAT in America, I hope that Im not in for a rude awakening. )

[Peter]

ABC and Fox are also confirming this story. America is next.

Peter

ISIS has dispatched hundreds of fighters to Europe. Associated Press, 12:18 PM, Mar 23, 2016 7 mins ago. PARIS (AP) — The Islamic State group has trained at least 400 fighters to target Europe in deadly waves of attacks, deploying interlocking terror cells like the ones that struck Brussels and Paris with orders to choose the time, place and method for maximum carnage, The Associated Press has learned.

The network of agile and semiautonomous cells shows the reach of the extremist group in Europe even as it loses ground in Syria and Iraq. The officials, including European and Iraqi intelligence officials and a French lawmaker who follows the jihadi networks, described camps in Syria, Iraq and possibly the former Soviet bloc where attackers are trained to attack the West. Before being killed in a police raid, the ringleader of the Nov. 13 Paris attacks claimed to have entered Europe in a multinational group of 90 fighters, who scattered "more or less everywhere."

But the biggest break yet in the Paris attacks investigation — the arrest on Friday of fugitive Salah Abdeslam— did not thwart the multipronged attack just four days later on the Belgian capital's airport and metro that left 31 people dead and an estimated 270 wounded. Three suicide bombers also died . . . .

[Robert Campbell]

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Uh oh.

Jeb just endorsed Ted Cruz.

Now Trump's really in trouble.

 

Michael

Michael,

When I saw that announcement, I thought Cruz should have turned the endorsement down.

Mittens has been helpful in one state.  Jeb?

Robert

[Robert Campbell]

5 hours ago, Jonathan said:

I understand and agree with where you're coming from, Robert, admitting to errors, failures, etc., is virtuous, and dodging them is not. But when do we ever see such admissions in politics? It's pretty unusual. I'm a Cruz fan, and I've seen him admit to a mistake or minor wrongdoing on very rare occasions, but I've also seen him deny and obfuscate.

Obama admitting to obvious failure? Hillary? Hahahaha!

And, hell, it's not limited to politicians. The founders and heirs of Objectivism skated and skirted around their shortcomings. People here on OL do it often. I've expended millions and millions of pixels showing members here (including ones who seem to think of themselves as important Objectivish gurus/leaders) to be wrong and to have failed in their public philosophizing, trying to convince them to accept and admit to the reality of their failures, and ultimately laughing at their stubbornness.

Do we expect more of Trump than of anyone else?

Jonathan,

I'd like to see more admissions of error from Ted Cruz.

I guess the real question is whether we should expect more admissions of failure out of Donald Trump than we can reasonably expect out of Leonard Peikoff.

Robert

[Mark]

Will wonders never cease?  Binswanger replied as follows:

Quote

Mark Hunter attempts to smash down my letter's points. Unfortunately for me, he succeeds.  : )

That's his complete post.  Nuts, now I'll have to be nicer to him in future.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Mark said:

Will wonders never cease?  Binswanger replied as follows:

Mark,

Let's also post what you wrote to him.

Mark Hunter said:

Mr. Binswanger lists three avenues of ill-gotten wealth:

1. government loans
2. special privileges
3. eminent domain
4. etc.

Nix the third, eminent domain. Trump lost money *trying* to use eminent domain, twice: once in the U.S. and once in Scotland. He tried but he lost in court both times. Financially they were losses. (Of course he shouldn't have tried but that's not the issue here.)

Perhaps the second, special privileges, refers to (A) being allowed to bypass local regulations that shouldn't have been in force anyway, and (B) getting abatements of taxes that shouldn't have been in force anyway.

Trump donated to politicians to in effect bribe them so he could do what he would have been free to do in a future capitalist society. You could as well trash the fictional Taggart Transcontinental considering its fictional history.

As for the first avenue of ill-gotten wealth, government loans, can Mr. Binswanger provide us a reference? All I can find so far is Mainstream Media commentators *calling* tax breaks "loans."

Since "special privileges" is a catch-all, Mr. Binswanger's fourth avenue, "etc.," is just propaganda unless he can be explicit.

At this point we have zero out of four. Trump may be no Objectivist – hey, he's no Objectivist for sure – but he probably earned most – most as in almost all – of his weath.

Really good.

Michael

[Peter]

Robert? In your new picture you look older but wiser in a guru sort of way. Are you the REAL Wizard of Oz?

signed. Meercat Pedro who looks like Dick Cheney after too many fine dinners but with no heart problems.

[Neil Parille]

Mark,

Quote

That's his complete post.  Nuts, now I'll have to be nicer to him in future.

I've never been impressed by Binswanger.  Sure, he knows a lot about Objectivist epistemology (it only took him 20 years to write a book on it) but on any other subject I'm not sure what he brings to the table.

-Neil P.

[Peter]

Trump. Cruz. I see a winning combination. Oh, I know it depends on their personal chemistry . . . but I think the elements would meld beautifully. Tomorrow, Trump says, I am looking for a Veep and it starts with “C” AND who could it be, to complement me? Cruz would be an amazing asset to steer Donald to the Presidency. Trump has admitted he wants a facts and figures guy . . . a legislator, and that has to be Paul Ryan or Ted Cruz. Oy! It’s Cruz. I truly think a Trump / Cruz alliance would be unstoppable. And a great combination after power is achieved.

Peter

[Mark]

A brief talk by Mischaël Modrikamen, founder of the People’s Party in Brussels.  The accompanying note says it was filmed 11 days before the recent massacre.
 

 

[Mark]

14 hours ago, Neil Parille said:

I've never been impressed by Binswanger.  Sure, he knows a lot about Objectivist epistemology (it only took him 20 years to write a book on it) but on any other subject I'm not sure what he brings to the table.

Neil,

About the Binswanger exchange, probably he didn’t know who Mark Hunter was.  When I posted I didn’t say I ran ARI Watch or link to it.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Mark said:

A brief talk by Mischaël Modrikamen, founder of the People’s Party in Brussels.  The accompanying note says it was filmed 11 days before the recent massacre.

Mark,

I bet that guy has a seat at the table (for consulting Europeans) when Trump is sworn in.

Michael

[Mark]

4 hours ago, Peter said:

Trump. Cruz. I see a winning combination ...

Peter,

----------------------------------
Donald J. Trump
‎@realDonaldTrump
Lyin' Ted Cruz just used a picture of Melania from a G.Q. shoot in his ad. Be careful, Lyin' Ted, or I will spill the beans on your wife!
9:53 PM - 22 Mar 2016
----------------------------------

Do you want a vice president whose wife has beans on her?

 

[william.scherk]

On 3/9/2016 at 1:22 PM, william.scherk said:

I kind of get the feeling that Gingrich would like to be in the Trump Kitchen Cabinet as it self-assembles under the Trump apex.  I kind of laugh at his presumption.  Oh well. 

 

[Peter]

Thanks Mark. The campaign derails my grand plans once again.

Cruz claims it was a political site for him but he had nothing to do with it. They don’t consult him. Since it is a well known shot of Melania from Gentlemen’s Quarterly Magazine, I am not sure why Trump was so upset about it, except it was supposedly sent to a lot of Mormon women to sway the vote in Utah. I am sorry the Pac did it. They were wrong to do it. In a way it seems like the Pac was sabotaging any chance of a VP slot for Cruz and it also sabotages the Republican campaign. It gives the lame stream media a reason to publicize photos and attacks on Melania and Trump and Ted and his wife.

Unfortunately Trump’s reaction to it immediately assumes it was Ted’s fault and he lashed out at Cruz’s wife. Donald should attend an anger management class or think twice and listen to a sensible advisor. And that trashing of Cruz’s wife truly lacks so many things. It lacks communication skills. It lacks tact. It lacks class. To threaten to tell the world about Cruz’s wife’s depression and mental issues is a low thing to do. It’s on the level of trailer park vindictiveness and gossip. And now, if it gets any lower, how can he expect Cruz to support him if he wins the nomination?

On Fox Business, Charley Gasparino is talking about RNC money. Trump is in negotiations with them though he claims to be self funding. Charley says Trump has about $700 million in disposable income and a successful campaign would cost about $500 million. I am not suggesting Trump will suddenly woo the money but . . . . a feud with other Republicans could cost him dearly.  

Stephen Miller, Trump’s spokesperson, is on Fox Business now talking about Cruz‘s endorsements which hurt him. Lindsey Graham? Jeb Bush? The Club for Growth?

Oh shit. Now Cruz has called Trump a sniveling coward for attacking his wife.

Peter 

[Peter]

I now doubt we can win this election. The Dems are shrieking in glee. Only a well done campaign from now until November can save us and is that likely to happen? Is Hillary going to be indicted? What stupidity. Now we sit back and wait for Trump to act like an asshole.

Peter