Donald Trump

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, PDS said:

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.

David,

I humbly submit you are selectively reading posts with a prejudged answer you want to appear. Contrary to what you just claimed, I have addressed one Objectivish concern after another on this thread.

Trump's temperament? It is true that I don't find it a big deal, but not because I think irrationality and emotional breakdowns are good. (Or, as you insinuate, I want to blank it out because I support Trump.) It's because I see Trump use his whole manner of expression with a high degree of persuasion competence. I've even said I don't like some of his way of speaking. As to what it does in practice, it sure as hell wins elections.

But I, also, constantly point out that irrationality does not build skyscrapers. So if Trump were actually a narcissistic wreck like his opponents say he is, if he actually were as emotionally chaotic as he sometimes seems, his projects would not be completed with such high numbers of them and with such consistent high quality (and consistently on time and under budget). 

And if one does not like Trump's bluster, calls that "temperament," but blanks out what Trump achieves and the environments he achieves them in and the odds he overcomes, how in hell is that Objectivish?

Trump's lack of details? Gimme a break. This is a media myth. Trump has laid out details on his own site. I and others have constantly pointed to it. Since when is ignoring that Objectivish?

And for tactical details, like exact dates, times, resources he will employ, etc.? Trump is doing what all great producers do, he's waiting for correct surveys. Pulling details out of one's ass is not Objectivish. Hell, pulling details out of one's ass is not even a correct way to make a business plan. You have to start with a goal and a vision. Then you define a strategy for addressing the main problems. And you base it on your own experience at the start. Trump has done all that.

Tactical details (as opposed to strategy) for large projects need to be based on a correct evaluation of what is available (including the nature of the different elements) and feedback from experts. That can only happen rationally when Trump can look at it.

For example, Trump will build a border wall with Mexico and Mexico will pay for it. He can say that (and a few more things) right now. But what will be the date and first place he starts digging? What type and mark of concrete will he use? How many feet down will the foundation go? What are all the financial mechanisms he will use to get Mexico to pay for it? Etc. etc. etc.? He needs to be in office to give those details out responsibility. He needs to survey. He will not find that information in his ass. And it is not Objectivish to demand that of him.

Just recently, Peter complained that there was no philosophy discussed on this thread about Trump. I pointed to a very Objectivish discussion of epistemology and metaphysics as a recent example, but believe me, there is plenty more.

I could go on and on and present links to back up everything. I really can go deep into the weeds about this. Just because the discussions don't fall within certain dichotomies your words give off that you prefer, that does not mean the discussions did not exist.

So yes. I do see them because I discussed them. And the words are on this thread.

Those discussions are right there in front of you. All you need to do is look. Yet you just claimed they do not exist.

If that isn't an example of not seeing, I don't know what is.

Michael

[Peter]

The few. The proud. Who has a desire to be a Marine? If the choice is yours, would you choose greatness? Would you choose the Presidency? I really like two movies about that theme. Both are humorous. Would a Trump Presidency be humorous? He has been very funny so far.

Peter

From Wikipedia. “Dave.” Dave Kovic runs a temporary employment agency in Georgetown, Washington, D.C., and has a side job impersonating President Bill Mitchell. He is requested by Secret Service agent Duane Stevensen to make an appearance as the president at a hotel. Dave assumes it's a matter of security, but it is really to cover up Mitchell's extramarital affair with a White House staffer.

Mitchell suffers a severe stroke during the rendezvous, leaving him in a coma. White House Chief of Staff Bob Alexander and Communications Director Alan Reed convince Dave to continue impersonating the president. They tell him that Vice President Gary Nance is mentally unbalanced, but the truth is that Bob does not want the vice president in power because Nance's honesty and good nature would get in the way of Bob's own agenda of lies and corruption. Only Bob, Alan, the Secret Service, and the medical staff know of the switch. First Lady Ellen Mitchell leads a separate life, rarely seeing the president.

The public is notified that Mitchell has had a "minor circulatory problem of the head." With Dave established as president . . .

The American President is a 1995 American romantic comedy-drama film directed by Rob Reiner and written by Aaron Sorkin. The film stars Michael Douglas, Annette Bening, Martin Sheen, Michael J. Fox and Richard Dreyfuss. In the film, President Andrew Shepherd (Douglas) is a widower who pursues a relationship with environmental lobbyist Sydney Ellen Wade (Bening) – who has just moved to Washington, D.C. – while at the same time attempting to win the passage of a crime control bill . . . .

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's an article I'm posting just because I like the headline.

Donald Trump is giving the over-educated geeks who run the world a sharp lesson in reality
Tim Newark
6 May 2016
The Telegraph

From the article:

Newark said:

 

The establishment has thrown everything at Donald Trump and failed. Again and again, he brushes off their insults and indignation and bags a few more million votes. But unlike everyone else in the media, I see Mr Trump’s decisive victory in Indiana as a really hopeful sign for democracy in the West.

Never have professional politicians and media pundits on both sides of the Atlantic been so completely out of step with vast swathes of the electorate. The over-educated simply do not get the under-educated, but under-educated doesn’t equate with stupid. That’s what politicians and the media need to wise up to, and the same goes for Europe as well as the US.

 

The only thing I disagree with in this article is the insinuation that only the under-educated (in Newark's meaning--that is, blue collar workers) support Trump.

What has happened is that many of the under-educated stopped voting and they are turning out in droves for Trump. But when you look at election results, the over-educated are always well-represented. In at least one election I recall (and probably several of them--I can't say for sure because I did not track this), more of the over-educated voted for Trump than for other candidates.

Trump is simply bringing people back into the political process and a good portion of those people happen to be the under-educated blue collar people Newark is talking about. But Trump is getting plenty of support from all other demographics, including the over-educated.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I talk about Trump haters, and there are quite a few.

But this guy's a Trump hater in ways the Trump haters I talk about are not:

Matt Drudge posted this on his Conservative Outfitters blog (see here) and Facebook account, so if this guy wants publicity, he's gonna get a lot real soon.

I hope he enjoys his cup of coffee with the Secret Service when they catch up to him.

btw - I had to look it up, but SMH apparently means "shaking my head," i.e., a way of saying "This is really fucking stupid."  

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Human stupidity seems to have an infinite quality.

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Human stupidity seems to have an infinite quality.

Even the gods are helpless in the face of  human stupidity. 

[Roger Bissell]

3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Human stupidity seems to have an infinite quality.

 

At 252 pages and counting, this thread certainly seems that way.

REB

[Mikee]

Nothing is stupider that a supposed individualist not respecting the differing opinions of others.  Or, for that matter, someone who doesn't have at least some doubt about their own opinions.

[Selene]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Even the gods are helpless in the face of  human stupidity. 

Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.

Friedrich von Schiller
German dramatist & poet (1759 - 1805)  

 

One of my favorite quotes.

Azimov modified it a bit...

 

Quote

Asimov's relationship to the story

In a letter of February 12, 1982, Asimov identified this as his favorite science fiction novel.^[5] Asimov's short story "Gold", one of the last he wrote in his life, describes the efforts of fictional computer animators to create a "compu-drama" from the novel's second section.

Asimov took the names of the immature aliens—Odeen, Dua, and Tritt—from the words One, Two, and Three in the language of his native Russia. (The original forms are odin, dva and tri).

Asimov's inspiration for the title of the book, and its three sections, was a quotation from the play The Maid of Orleans by Friedrich Schiller: "Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.", "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain" (quoted in the book itself).

Asimov describes a conversation in January 1971 when Robert Silverberg had to refer to an isotope—just an arbitrary one—as an example. Silverberg said "plutonium-186". "There is no such isotope", said Asimov, "and such a one can't exist either". "So, what?", said Silverberg. Later Asimov figured out under what conditions plutonium-186 could exist, and what complications and consequences it might imply. Asimov reasoned that it must belong to another universe with other physical laws; specifically, different nuclear forces necessary to allow a Pu-186 nucleus to hold itself together. He wrote down these ideas, which gradually became the novel.

In his autobiography, Asimov stated that the novel, especially the second section, was the "biggest and most effective over-my-head writing [that I] ever produced".^[6]

A...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gods_Themselves

[Roger Bissell]

4 hours ago, Mikee said:

 

Nothing is stupider that a supposed individualist not respecting the differing opinions of others.  Or, for that matter, someone who doesn't have at least some doubt about their own opinions.

 

 

I agree. You've got to watch those "supposed individualists" very carefully. At least, I think so...not sure.

And even if I disagreed, you certainly have a point...I think.  

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is the most colorful endorsement for Trump yet:

Azealia Banks Endorses Donald Trump for President

When one of her fans complained and claimed that Trump was a racist, she wrote back, "So am I!"

 

Michael

[Peter]

Mikee wrote: Nothing is stupider that a supposed individualist not respecting the differing opinions of others.  Or, for that matter, someone who doesn't have at least some doubt about their own opinions. end quote

And REB responded: And even if I disagreed, you certainly have a point...I think.  

I, for one, do bow to superior wisdom. When several dozen big names in the GOP were hesitant to support or said, “Never Trump,” I wondered what would be the best political reaction?   

Well, Trump said, “The GOP doesn’t need to be unified.” I think that one sentence exemplifies the amazing, the one and only, Donald The Magician. He can snatch victory out of a hat. What is just as astounding is that he never seems to fire off metaphorical test missiles.

He has sicced his pet grizzly, Sarape, on Paul Ryan. "I think Paul Ryan is soon to be Cantored, as in Eric Cantor," Palin said on CNN's "State of the Union," referring to the former House Majority Leader who lost his seat in 2014 in a shocking upset to Tea Party challenger Dave Brat.

Pretty cool.

Peter

[PDS]

23 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

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

Here you go.

What I said on January 30 of this year was the following:

MSK: I know you know this, but want to state it anyway: it is clearly possible to admire Trump's achievements in business and still believe is he simply another bullshit artist politician. That's my view of Trump.

With that said--i.e., that Trump is just like the rest of 'em--I have asked myself why it is that Trump rubs me the wrong way, and the answer is that I believe he will not only win the nomination, but that he will lose BIG against Hillary, taking down the Senate and maybe the House with him. So, my primary objection is a tactical, made with not all that much to back it up--other than a naval gaze...**

**Full disclosure: A source of my bias is that I am what you have been calling an "establishment" conservative on this thread. I was the lead election lawyer for George Bush in my jurisdiction in 2004 and am also theoretically a lead (election) lawyer for Jeb Bush in my jurisdiction should he (1) ever get nominated, and (2) get in legal trouble...--neither of which looks very likely...

I hope this link is helpful. 

Re my full disclosure comment above:  I have been in the trenches trying to elect limited government conservatives since about 1982, when I went door to door for my local state senator.  I usually (not always) know a limited government conservative when i see one.   Donald Trump is not a limited government conservative.    If anybody could prove otherwise to me I would swallow my objections about him and not only vote for him, but contribute money and raise money for him--the same way I swallowed objections about Bush, McCain, and Romney. 

[PDS]

23 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

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

Yes, we can agree you know what I have written.   Sometimes.  [See my post immediately above, addressed to you and predicting a Trump nomination in January of this year].  

My point in bringing up my background--which would otherwise be irrelevant here--was to remind you that you simply cannot chalk up objections to Trump as being from people who don't know how Trump supporters think, which is something you commonly do.  

My background actually has nothing to do with the merits of the Trump discussion, except you love to claim that I cannot see you (and now other Trump supporters, apparently).   But, since you keeping bringing this up as a way of dealing with issues, and as merely one example of this hole in your game, I would note that my father--a life long bricklayer and cement mason--talked and acted like Trump long before this iteration of Trump ever came along.  He complained about "the Japs" stealing auto manufacturing jobs from Detroit constantly, and he hated the elites, who he never really did a great job of defining.  This was my way of suggesting to you that you have no special claim to knowledge about how Trump supporters actually think, or how or why my background might prevent me from understanding them.   

That is the reason I bring it up.          

[PDS]

On 5/6/2016 at 4:34 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

I'm confused.

I didn't vote for Obama/Biden and Jonathan says he didn't either.

Is your post a typo or am I missing some arcane form of rhetoric?

 

Michael

Yes, you missed the point of my rhetoric.  

You didn't vote for a Presidential candidate in 2012, did you? 

[MereMortal]

9 minutes ago, PDS said:

Yes, we can agree you know what I have written.   Sometimes.  [See my post immediately above, addressed to you and predicting a Trump nomination in January of this year].  

My point in bringing up my background--which would otherwise be irrelevant here--was to remind you that you simply cannot chalk up objections to Trump as being from people who don't know how Trump supporters think, which is something you commonly do.  

My background actually has nothing to do with the merits of the Trump discussion, except you love to claim that I cannot see you (and now other Trump supporters, apparently).   But, since you keeping bringing this up as a way of dealing with issues, and as merely one example of this hole in your game, I would note that my father--a life long bricklayer and cement mason--talked and acted like Trump long before this iteration of Trump ever came along.  He complained about "the Japs" stealing auto manufacturing jobs from Detroit constantly, and he hated the elites, who he never really did a great job of defining.  This was my way of suggesting to you that you have no special claim to knowledge about how Trump supporters actually think, or how or why my background might prevent me from understanding them.   

That is the reason I bring it up.          

It's fair to say that there are enough supporters who are good, intelligent people and you have to ask yourself if their support of Trump carries enough weight to convince you of Trump's merits.  Of course they need to properly explain their support.  One thing: I do hear enough from people who's judgment I trust saying that Trump is dangerous and cannot be trusted.  I wanted to think I should believe the same but I can't make myself feel it (Yeah, just like Hank Rearden when he wants to think Francisco is the guiltiest man in the room.)  I'll merely advise myself and you to keep an active mind (not merely an open one of course for the obvious reason).  

[BaalChatzaf]

H. L. Mencken warned us that one day we will be ruled by boors  and rubes.  Welcome to the Future.  Ain't Democracy wonderful??????

[Mikee]

Boo hoo, civilization has come to an end...  Yeah, just like everything that can be invented has been invented.  To figure out Donald Trumps successes one only has to look at the alternatives.  I believe Trump is the most honest, least politically correct potential POTUS in my lifetime.  He even has Reagan beat in that regard.  I think he also has better instincts about when he's being conned by the political establishment than Reagan.  That was Reagan's downfall in my opinion.  He was talked into compromises by a democrat congress (and establishment Republicans) which made his presidency less successful than it could have been.  Trump and his family have more to lose than anyone I can think of if he fucks up the presidency so I think he will try very hard to get the best advice he can find about everything, and it won't be from establishment political hacks.  I've actually become optimistic.  That's a new thing for me, feels kind of strange... 

[Peter]

18 minutes ago, Mikee said:

Boo hoo, civilization has come to an end...  Yeah, just like everything that can be invented has been invented.  To figure out Donald Trumps successes one only has to look at the alternatives.  I believe Trump is the most honest, least politically correct potential POTUS in my lifetime.  He even has Reagan beat in that regard.  I think he also has better instincts about when he's being conned by the political establishment than Reagan.  That was Reagan's downfall in my opinion.  He was talked into compromises by a democrat congress (and establishment Republicans) which made his presidency less successful than it could have been.  Trump and his family have more to lose than anyone I can think of if he fucks up the presidency so I think he will try very hard to get the best advice he can find about everything, and it won't be from establishment political hacks.  I've actually become optimistic.  That's a new thing for me, feels kind of strange... 

I, for one, am willing to vote Trump. Give him four years. Let’s see what the guy can do. Well said, Iron Mike. 

And, aaah, poor Paul Ryan. NOT. He could have avoided the publicity by keeping his yap shut, and just said, let’s wait for the convention or the election when asked to support Trump by a newsperson. He is too cryptic even if he was bargaining.  

I have been waiting for a rational argument advocating a third person, not Trump or Hillary, and Tracinski has some points, but he does not propose we vote libertarian. Heavily edited to highlight some points I found interesting.

Peter

Robert Tracinski wrote:  What I am proposing, in short, is a third party that will serve as a Republican leadership in exile, waiting to either reclaim our occupied homeland or to build a new home for our band of ideological refugees

David Harsanyi lays out the scenario very clearly: every Republican in every race is going to get slimed by association with Trump. Associating themselves instead with a new third party would give them a credible way to disavow the association, freeing them from the necessity of answering for Donald Trump's policies or character.

So a Republican candidate for office can still be the official Republican nominee--while also accepting the support of the new third party and declaring that he is answerable only for the (presumably) wiser and more sober views of that party's leaders.

(For us, Trump vs. Hillary is the Iran-Iraq War of politics. It's a shame they can't both lose, and there's neither fun nor profit in cataloguing the carnage. This means that a lot of us are going to drop out of commenting on electoral politics for the next six months, because we have no one who is even close to being a standard-bearer for our ideas.

A properly constructed third party would give us someone and something to talk about in a positive way. I don't mean this just as a Full Employment Act for Disgruntled Pundits. I mean this as a way that we can continue to advocate for our political principles in a year when ideas and principles have gone AWOL.

Most of all, a third party could provide the germ for a new, improved ideological coalition on the right.

If the old ideological coalition cannot reclaim the Republican Party, it will need a new political home, and we'd better start building it now.

But what about the Libertarian Party? The Libertarian Party is too narrowly focused to be suited to that goal. It could easily take on the free-marketers, for example, but would be unlikely to be able to make common cause with national-security hawks or religious culture warriors, who are key parts of the old Republican coalition and without whom it probably cannot gain a majority. This old Republican Party coalition has been fractured, perhaps irrevocably, and we need a base from which to assemble a new one.

That's the kind of attitude we need right now, not just from a potential leader, but from ourselves. We need the spirit of George Washington, who rallied the Constitutional Convention with advice that turns out to be the best answer to our dilemma today: "If to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair." 

[Roger Bissell]

29 minutes ago, Mikee said:

I believe Trump is the most honest, least politically correct potential POTUS in my lifetime.  He even has Reagan beat in that regard.  I think he also has better instincts about when he's being conned by the political establishment than Reagan.  That was Reagan's downfall in my opinion.  He was talked into compromises by a democrat congress (and establishment Republicans) which made his presidency less successful than it could have been.  Trump and his family have more to lose than anyone I can think of if he fucks up the presidency so I think he will try very hard to get the best advice he can find about everything, and it won't be from establishment political hacks.  I've actually become optimistic.  That's a new thing for me, feels kind of strange...

 

How does THIS feel?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/09/trump-shows-flexibility-on-taxes-minimum-wage-in-turn-toward-november.html

And THIS?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/08/trump-blindsided-by-ryan-tacks-to-middle-with-change-on-minimum-wage.html?intcmp=trending 

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, PDS said:

But, since you keeping bringing this up as a way of dealing with issues, and as merely one example of this hole in your game, I would note that my father--a life long bricklayer and cement mason--talked and acted like Trump long before this iteration of Trump ever came along.  He complained about "the Japs" stealing auto manufacturing jobs from Detroit constantly, and he hated the elites, who he never really did a great job of defining.  This was my way of suggesting to you that you have no special claim to knowledge about how Trump supporters actually thin

David,

If that is what you think the Trump supporters think and the way they think, I actually do have a leg up...

Here's just one nuance. They don't think India and so on are stealing American jobs. They think the crony capitalists and government officials are such morons, they caused this situation and ignored that they were screwing their own constituents. They don't blame the Chinese or Indians or Mexicans or whatnot. They blame the morons who are giving America away for whatever reason they do it.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

33 minutes ago, Mikee said:

Boo hoo, civilization has come to an end...  Yeah, just like everything that can be invented has been invented.  To figure out Donald Trumps successes one only has to look at the alternatives.  I believe Trump is the most honest, least politically correct potential POTUS in my lifetime.  He even has Reagan beat in that regard.  I think he also has better instincts about when he's being conned by the political establishment than Reagan.  That was Reagan's downfall in my opinion.  He was talked into compromises by a democrat congress (and establishment Republicans) which made his presidency less successful than it could have been.  Trump and his family have more to lose than anyone I can think of if he fucks up the presidency so I think he will try very hard to get the best advice he can find about everything, and it won't be from establishment political hacks.  I've actually become optimistic.  That's a new thing for me, feels kind of strange... 

Mike,

Hear hear!

You see what I see in the very way I see it.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, PDS said:

You didn't vote for a Presidential candidate in 2012, did you?

David,

I did.

I held my nose and voted for Romney and Ryan. It was not a happy day for me.

And the time before, I voted for Sarah Palin. McCain was merely a detail.

 

Michael

[Mikee]

3 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Mike,

Hear hear!

You see what I see in the very way I see it.

 

Michael

Thanks Michael.  I took the long way around...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, PDS said:

... I have asked myself why it is that Trump rubs me the wrong way, and the answer is that I believe he will not only win the nomination, but that he will lose BIG against Hillary, taking down the Senate and maybe the House with him.

David,

Thank you. I actually remember this and I won't make that mistake again with you.

In my enthusiasm for Trump and stumping for him (after all, this is the stumping section  ), your view is so emotionally foreign to me, it simply didn't register that well in my brain. 

People who are for Trump generally root for him for both the nomination and the general election. And people who are against him generally root for him to fail anywhere and everywhere he can. 

btw - On your prediction about the general election, I will humbly have the pleasure of telling you how wrong you were after Trump wins the general election in a landslide. I can even throw in keeping a majority in Congress (both houses). I don't intend to be sadistic, but I will be very, very, very objective.

   

Michael