Donald Trump

[Peter]

2 hours ago, Selene said:

Peter:

Do you have the list?

A...

No. Sorry. I wish I had kept it. But it can probably be found. I just don't feel like looking. It was depressing.

Peter

[Backlighting]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Joe,

Did you notice the wide range of philosophical views and lifestyles of people endorsing Trump or saying they will vote for him?

It's a long, long list.

Michael

Michael, Yes I did. From Bible Thumpers to RINOS to Libertarians.

Jonathan, I think Rand would support Trump and advise him to "stick with the issues"... as she did with Goldwater ---Joe

 

[Mikee]

From Olivia Pierson's blog:  Why Trump deserves to win the American Election

About Trump haters:  " I am so disgusted with these people for pretending to have such "great judgment" yet are not able to see their own shocking propensity for context dropping, despite their self-proclaimed intellectual prowess. They, in their various critiques, get to feel superior to Trump in some fucked up way - and that is the only emotion which carries them along in their criticism and Derangement Syndrome. I hope they have the good grace to let me know when they have created a family fortune of 10 billion plus, have the heart, guts and competence to want to save their country from becoming a "once was" civilization. I hope they let me know when they have 2 ex-wives as good friends, along with five high-functioning kids who absolutely adore them - and, more importantly, want to learn from them. I won't hold my breath. "

[Brant Gaede]

48 minutes ago, Backlighting said:

Michael, Yes I did. From Bible Thumpers to RINOS to Libertarians.

Jonathan, I think Rand would support Trump and advise him to "stick with the issues"... as she did with Goldwater ---Joe

I think Rand's head would have exploded long before it reached this century.

--Brant

[Backlighting]

Just now, Brant Gaede said:

I think Rand's head would have exploded long before it reached this century.

--Brant

Or perhaps just shrug. ---J

[Roger Bissell]

1 hour ago, Backlighting said:

I think Rand would support Trump and advise him to "stick with the issues"... as she did with Goldwater ---Joe

Yeah, that Trump, he's a regular Barry Goldwater, all right - in one major respect: he's going down to a landslide defeat in November. 

We can only hope that there's another Reagan that emerges during the campaign who will one day step up to the plate and truly restore America's greatness and, more importantly, her liberty. 

REB

[Backlighting]

21 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

Yeah, that Trump, he's a regular Barry Goldwater, all right - in one major respect: he's going down to a landslide defeat in November. 

We can only hope that there's another Reagan that emerges during the campaign who will one day step up to the plate and truly restore America's greatness and, more importantly, her liberty. 

REB

Roger, I don't believe and never implied Trump is another Goldwater. I was referring to what advice AR would give to him or any other candidate for that matter, running for POTUS.

"Stick to the issues" made sense when AR wrote it as it does today. I believe it offers you the best chance of winning, since the voters will see what you stand for.  Negative campaigning is the bottom of the barrel, best left for the democraps. --Joe

[Brant Gaede]

49 minutes ago, Backlighting said:

Or perhaps just shrug. ---J

She did that when she closed down The Ayn Rand Letter 40 years ago.

--Brant

[Backlighting]

1 minute ago, Brant Gaede said:

She did that when she closed down The Ayn Rand Letter 40 years ago.

--Brant

Shrug, to me, means an indifference. Hard to imagine she no longer cared. She may have just run out of gas, exhausted from the intense intellectual battles she fought throughout her career. --Joe

[KorbenDallas]

1 hour ago, Mikee said:

From Olivia Pierson's blog:  Why Trump deserves to win the American Election

About Trump haters:  " I am so disgusted with these people for pretending to have such "great judgment" yet are not able to see their own shocking propensity for context dropping, despite their self-proclaimed intellectual prowess. They, in their various critiques, get to feel superior to Trump in some fucked up way - and that is the only emotion which carries them along in their criticism and Derangement Syndrome. I hope they have the good grace to let me know when they have created a family fortune of 10 billion plus, have the heart, guts and competence to want to save their country from becoming a "once was" civilization. I hope they let me know when they have 2 ex-wives as good friends, along with five high-functioning kids who absolutely adore them - and, more importantly, want to learn from them. I won't hold my breath. "

Liked this, thanks

 

[Brant Gaede]

21 minutes ago, Backlighting said:

Shrug, to me, means an indifference. Hard to imagine she no longer cared. She may have just run out of gas, exhausted from the intense intellectual battles she fought throughout her career. --Joe

Her actual statement was to the effect that she no longer cared to comment on the culture as it was so bad. I don't think "indifference" is quite the right word.

--Brant

[KorbenDallas]

6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Goofus?

Elizabeth Warren is a goofus?

LOL...

 

Michael

Goofy Elizabeth Warren and her phony Native American heritage are on a Twitter rant. She is too easy! I'm driving her nuts.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 7, 2016

Here is a link to the Trump / Elizabeth Twitter battle:  http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/279100-warren-attacks-trumps-lame-nicknames-twitter-fighting-style

I found this May 2012 article about her "Native American" heritage:

Is Elizabeth Warren Native American or What?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/is-elizabeth-warren-native-american-or-what/257415/

Quote

Elizabeth Warren is not a citizen of the Cherokee Nation.

Elizabeth Warren is not enrolled in the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.

And Elizabeth Warren is not one of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee.

Nor could she become one, even if she wanted to.

She won't be passing a DNA test anytime soon.

(On a side note, I nicknamed her "Evil Librarian" when she ran for the Senate, but I'm not sure I like it now.  Maybe Elizabeth "The Warrior" Warren?)

 

[Backlighting]

11 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Her actual statement was to the effect that she no longer cared to comment on the culture as it was so bad. I don't think "indifference" is quite the right word.

--Brant

Perhaps. Do you remember where that statement came from. Thought I read it in the Objectivist Newsletter or perhaps the Objectivist magazine.--Joe

[KorbenDallas]

Here is a Fox piece about Lizzy The Warrior's Native American claims, tying her Twitter rant back to Hillary, and estimating influence on the election:

 

[Brant Gaede]

46 minutes ago, Backlighting said:

Perhaps. Do you remember where that statement came from. Thought I read it in the Objectivist Newsletter or perhaps the Objectivist magazine.--Joe

No you didn't. It was the last issue of The Ayn Rand Letter.

--Brant

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 hours ago, PDS said:

Other Trump supporters on this thread don't feel the need to claim they are not seen. They seem very willing to address counter arguments head on. Why do you constantly make this claim?

David,

I am not talking about me personally when I say I am not seen. I don't care if you see me, Micheal, or not (except as a friend. )

I am talking about two archetypes that have emerged during this election.

1. The Trump supporter, who has not been seen for decades, but is starting to be, albeit with great resistance and resentment.

2. Anti-Trump people of different stripes, mostly elite establishment types, but there are others. They have two characteristics in common other than a dislike (or hatred) of Trump. (a) They think Trump supporters are mentally suboptimal in some manner (intelligence, morality, bigotry, etc.), thus they need to dismiss these folks and do not need to see them further, and (b) They can't believe anyone intelligent or moral could possibly support Trump if only they knew who he REALLY was.

So every time I make the claim about not being seen, it is generally to highlight a form of dismissal, condescension, etc., that anti-Trump people have constantly used to put Trump, Trump supporters and their concerns in a mental or rhetorical peg hole and forget about them.

Why do these these enlightened ones do this? Obviously so they can free up the neurons in their massive intellects and get back to the serious business of being more brilliant, wise, witty and important than everyone else.

I recall making many distinct arguments, profiles, explanations, etc.--over and over, in fact, throughout this thread--about Trump supporters and my words were constantly dismissed by those against Trump. Since now Trump is winning, I figure it might be useful for those who made such an enormous error to understand where they erred. They may not like the fact that they have been so wrong over and over, but they were so wrong over and over.

You, yourself, constantly asked me, "How do you know?" when I said Trump supporters are like this and that. I would say I am one and I interact with them. You would dismiss it just like you tended to dismiss everything of importance about Trump and Trump supporters I said. At one point, you went through a phase of saying I was playing the victim card with each post.

Just this last time you said "too many words" to a frame of mind explanation I was trying to convey and dismissed it outright as a pile of bullshit to keep from losing an argument. Poof. Wave of a hand. And all those words I took time and effort to manifest from my honest best were dismissed. You didn't see them because you didn't even look at them.

Sorry, David. If you are going to keep your eyes closed on purpose and complain about the lack of light, I am going to say you are not seeing. Why? Because you are not seeing.

And if you think that is inconvenient or silly or somehow hypocritical or whatever, I merely point to the tsunami of Trump supporters you never thought would support Trump in your wildest dreams.

You did not see them coming because you did not see them, period.

I am operating on the assumption you want to know why. It's not personal. As before when you didn't see, it's about the ideas--identify correctly to evaluate correctly--but you think it's personal and competitive. (I'm going on your words.) Maybe I'm wrong and wasting time for both of us.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

Otherwise, why not just attribute to your guy, Donald Trump, any position you want, just because it happens to be a position that you like?

Robert,

Maybe because I am not a person who does this? People like me exist, you know...

 

You are right about the need to source, though. I just don't like the presumption I am lying to win an argument, if that is what you were doing. When passions rise, it's hard to tell.

It's going to be a slog (and I really do not have the time to look beyond a certain number of hours) to find Trump's statement about intending to phase out Social Security through offering private accounts to younger folks, but I cannot blame you for wanting the source. In your shoes, I would want it, too. It is 100% correct to want it.

And, since it is so hard to find, I will not rule out a glitch in my memory. I clearly remember it, but my memory is fallible just like the memories of all humans. 

At least you can see (through a direct quote I provided from my Google search) that Trump thinks of Social Security as a deal Americans made with the government and he thinks the government should honor its side of the deal to them. It's not in the article, but Trump also holds those who want to welch on working Americans in contempt. This is a moral position, not mere bluster.

If I can't find the statement for the other part, we will just have to assume I am wrong. I don't think I am, but I agree I have to find the source if I am going to state it as a fact.

I remember the statement from the beginning (or early middle) of the campaign. Hopefully, someone wrote about it. If not, now there are all those goddam videos with no search function for their content...

What a pisser!

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

8 hours ago, Jonathan said:

After seeing some of Trump's recent events and media appearances, I think, even more than before, that Rand would be endorsing and very publicly cheering for Trump.

Jonathan,

Rand certainly was thrilled when Alan Greenspan was called by president Gerald Ford. She went to Washington, took pictures with Ford and Greenspan and all. And she was calling him "The Undertaker" in private while cheering. (She also maintained friendship with him all the way up to her death.)

So she was no stickler for personality quirks when someone defended America and capitalism, even if they worked in high places in the government.

I can't say since she is dead, but in my gut, I feel she would have laughed off Trump's bluster. Maybe even made one of her glowing statements about Trump guiltlessly celebrating his own achievements and ability as is proper for a man who abides by a philosophy for living on earth.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

(On a side note, I nicknamed her "Evil Librarian" when she ran for the Senate, but I'm not sure I like it now.  Maybe Elizabeth "The Warrior" Warren?)

Korben,

I'm going to stick with Goofus.

And I have a feeling it's going to stick to her like crazy-glue.

 

Michael

[Backlighting]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

No you didn't. It was the last issue of The Ayn Rand Letter.

--Brant

 

Thanks & please excuse my aging memory. --J

[KorbenDallas]

Here is a good video on the upcoming Trump/Ryan meeting.  I think they will come out of the meeting with unity--with as much unity that can be had:  My theory is Ryan fully intended to support Trump, his non-endorsement a bargaining chip to show that he wouldn't agree with Trump on everything, that he is formidable and will need to be worked with, met with.  By this, Ryan believes he is upholding his constitutional duties as the head of the legislative branch.  This "non-endorsement" also has the effect of corralling some Trump skeptics, and perhaps some anti-Trumpsters, so that when Ryan and Trump meet and come out with unity, there will be more sway toward Trump's side than without doing the play.  (I think this move would have some success with the Establishment folks as well.)  This video doesn't contradict the theory, and seems to uphold most of it:

Eric Shawn reports: Trump and Speaker Ryan to meet

 

[PDS]

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

I am not talking about me personally when I say I am not seen. I don't care if you see me, Micheal, or not (except as a friend. )

I am talking about two archetypes that have emerged during this election.

1. The Trump supporter, who has not been seen for decades, but is starting to be, albeit with great resistance and resentment.

2. Anti-Trump people of different stripes, mostly elite establishment types, but there are others. They have two characteristics in common other than a dislike (or hatred) of Trump. (a) They think Trump supporters are mentally suboptimal in some manner (intelligence, morality, bigotry, etc.), thus they need to dismiss these folks and do not need to see them further, and (b) They can't believe anyone intelligent or moral could possibly support Trump if only they knew who he REALLY was.

So every time I make the claim about not being seen, it is generally to highlight a form of dismissal, condescension, etc., that anti-Trump people have constantly used to put Trump, Trump supporters and their concerns in a mental or rhetorical peg hole and forget about them.

Why do these these enlightened ones do this? Obviously so they can free up the neurons in their massive intellects and get back to the serious business of being more brilliant, wise, witty and important than everyone else.

I recall making many distinct arguments, profiles, explanations, etc.--over and over, in fact, throughout this thread--about Trump supporters and my words were constantly dismissed by those against Trump. Since now Trump is winning, I figure it might be useful for those who made such an enormous error to understand where they erred. They may not like the fact that they have been so wrong over and over, but they were so wrong over and over.

You, yourself, constantly asked me, "How do you know?" when I said Trump supporters are like this and that. I would say I am one and I interact with them. You would dismiss it just like you tended to dismiss everything of importance about Trump and Trump supporters I said. At one point, you went through a phase of saying I was playing the victim card with each post.

Just this last time you said "too many words" to a frame of mind explanation I was trying to convey and dismissed it outright as a pile of bullshit to keep from losing an argument. Poof. Wave of a hand. And all those words I took time and effort to manifest from my honest best were dismissed. You didn't see them because you didn't even look at them.

Sorry, David. If you are going to keep your eyes closed on purpose and complain about the lack of light, I am going to say you are not seeing. Why? Because you are not seeing.

And if you think that is inconvenient or silly or somehow hypocritical or whatever, I merely point to the tsunami of Trump supporters you never thought would support Trump in your wildest dreams.

You did not see them coming because you did not see them, period.

I am operating on the assumption you want to know why. It's not personal. As before when you didn't see, it's about the ideas--identify correctly to evaluate correctly--but you think it's personal and competitive. (I'm going on your words.) Maybe I'm wrong and wasting time for both of us.

Michael

Here is a category error:.  for some reason on this thread, you keep conflating a disagreement with your point(s) with not "seeing" Trump supporters.   But I do see you and I do see them.   Otherwise I wouldn't have predicted long ago that Trump would win the nomination.    He obviously wouldn't be able to do this without lots of supporters.  

Here is a diagnosis error:.  you know almost nothing about me or my background.   You don't know whether I am from a blue collar family, whether my family are Trump supporters, or whether I grew up in the very environment that Trump has been found to be a target-rich environment for support.  But I did.  I heard the points you are making at my dinner table nearly every night as a kid.  I grew up in the environment you claim to know so well.  My broad family has suffered in it for at least 30 years.    Believe me, I know how "Trump supporters" think.  That's one  reason I predicted he would win.  

Finally, if I cared to reason in such a manner, I would argue that, in fact, you are not "seeing" me, or others who have concerns about a Trump presidency.  Instead, you lump me in with the "elite" or the Establishment wave your hand.  This is true, Michael.   You have at least half a dozen friends on this thread expressing Objectivish concerns about a Trump presidency and I'm not aware of your crediting a single one of those concerns.    Not a one.  Trump temperament?  No big deal.  Trump's lack off details?   I'm too busy to explain.  Etc.  etc.  

Insread, it has been the template I have described above time and again.  

[Peter]

I am not a Trump supporter but I will vote for the guy. Trump is the master of hypnosis. You are getting sleepy.  

Emeritus Roger wrote: Yeah, that Trump, he's a regular Barry Goldwater, all right - in one major respect: he's going down to a landslide defeat in November. end quote

Are you going to be goaded into a bet? What is the evidence for a defeat? Polls change. Campaigns shift their focus. Consider what has changed or remained the same since Trump won the nomination. Is he still name calling? Yup. Crooked Hillary. Elizabeth Warren is “Goofus.” And people are laughing. I use the leftist Yahoo as a search engine and this morning there were five stories about Trump and one about Old Hickory Clinton. Their selection of stories tells me they can’t help themselves as to what is interesting.

Goldwater? I don’t see it. It’s almost as if ‘the right’ is addicted to Republican slogans and “never followed through on, diet lite, manageable, wink wink, free market” philosophy. Trump is not philosophic or doctrinaire. I don’t plan on being influenced by ANY Republicans and certainly not by leftist propaganda. I keep waiting for the monolithic Progressive news machine to start to grind Trump, but it may grind to a sputtering halt in 2016. Does it look like Trump could have a winning campaign? His methods are so brilliant (to me, only in retrospect, because I don’t see the result coming) that I need to wear shades.

Peter 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, PDS said:

Otherwise I wouldn't have predicted long ago that Trump would win the nomination.

David,

You have made that claim before and I honestly don't recall you ever predicting Trump would win the nomination. In my mind, it is the contrary, or more specific, I don't recall you involved much in the prediction thing. (Maybe there was something during banter with Marc that escaped me since he made no bones about his predictions.  )

Just a few days ago, you made your Trump prediction claim in a jocular fashion (the reference was to a poll on OL) and WSS posted the results of his poll. You are not there making any prediction whatsoever. Here's the link if you wish to see it.

So I face a conundrum when you claim you predicted of Trump's win. You say one thing and my memory tells me another. I admit I might be wrong and my impression due to all the negative things you have written about Trump during the campaign. So a link would be helpful.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, PDS said:

Here is a diagnosis error:.  you know almost nothing about me or my background.

David,

That is correct. I only have your words to go on.

So if I am responding to your words in a certain manner that bothers you, maybe your are expressing yourself poorly.

I'm not saying you are doing the following for the same reasons, but your argument above is used all the time by highly emotional ortho-Objectivists who mouth off spiteful moral condemnations and get strong pushback against their hatred. This often surprises them. Rather than wonder if they did express too much hatred or did give a wrong impression, they blame the reader for not having a crystal ball and start saying the reader knows nothing about them.

In their case, readers do know one thing. They know what the posters wrote. And in your case, I know one thing about you and know it well. I know what you write.

That's what they judge and that's what I judge. 

If you are going to go into a conversation, misrepresent your views whether by stating them differently than you believe or by selective omission to create wrong insinuations and impressions, then claim ignorance of you by the other party as your Trump card (pun intended  ), we can call that technique many things, but not reason.

Then there's the whole thing of one even being aware of doing it...

Clarity takes work, but it's worth it. 

It's one of the reasons this site exists--so that people can gain clarity on what they believe and what others believe. Since OL is a discussion forum, the only way to communicate clarity (or obfuscation) is by posting words. Crystal balls and cauldrons for boiling animal parts with magic herbs and potions may be in a future upgrade to the software, but so far this feature is lacking.

 

Michael