Donald Trump

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

Is there any Trump supporter who can point to evidence of any kind that that isn't a reasonable fear?

Steve,

You mean like this thread?

 

There's a lot of great stuff on it, including a lot of deep thinking and the evidence you seek. But in your mindset right now, I'm not sure you would see it as evidence. That sounds awful, but I don't mean that in a derogatory way. It takes awhile to see it when a strong ideology like Objectivism has been one's main link to reality. (I speak as one involved, not as an accusation.) People like us don't deal much with brick and mortar, big real estate business or things like that. Hell, people in our subcommunity don't even get hits in entertainment. Well, some do (like Terry Goodkind), but then again, they are not really in the subcommunity. They just like Ayn Rand and say so.

But I'm not going to repeat everything I already wrote. I'll just affirm that there is plenty of evidence to allay your fears about Trump and leave it up to you to decide whether to look at it or not. (I won't blame you if you don't, though. This is a long-ass thread. A real long long-ass thread...  )

Let me just say that I believe Donald Trump is one of the most moral men ever to run for high office in the USA. Since you know I am not a silly man, I'll leave the cognitive dissonance hanging in the air. This is not a trick, though. I truly believe that and have argued it earlier (argued it well, in fact).

Here's just one item. I have a principle I use a lot and it serves me well the vast majority of the time. Whenever I see a disparity between what a person says and what he does, I go with what he does as the better indication of what he will do in the future.

Trump talks smack at times and he hustles, but he builds. A lot. Big things. He's consistently on time, under budget and with top quality. Right now he has well over 500 successful companies (see here) and he does business the world over. Also, he does not make money from the endless war for profit machine. He never has to my knowledge. He builds things. 

(Don't get me started...  )

There are several people who have followed this thread as it grew and came over to Trump. I don't know of any Trump supporter who went the other way due to this thread.

In fact, outside of this thread, I only know one person personally who initially leaned toward Trump in a half-hearted kind of way, but who eventually turned into a vitriolic Trump hater. He's a thriller author named Michael Prescott. I consider him a friend (an online friend, but still good people). He, like many other Trump haters, is going through the Five Stages of Grief right now.  

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

57 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

Trump is a con man.  Sorry, but I can't see that any other way.  I will vote for him over Hillary, but only if on the day before the election I believe that he will actually select Supreme Court nominees from that list.  If I don't believe him, I'll throw my vote away on Gary Johnson.  Mr. Art of the Deal might decide to let the democrats have a liberal for the court, but only if they'll promise to give him something he wants more.  Is there any Trump supporter who can point to evidence of any kind that that isn't a reasonable fear?

I don't know for sure, but appointing conservative judges is a condition of the deal he's made to the American public that he'd do once elected.

(But, if Ruth just won't kick the bucket before the end of his term, we can always send a Keating type to try to stress her into a stroke--nobody would know a thing, and it'd appear natural )

[SteveWolfer]

1 minute ago, KorbenDallas said:

I don't know for sure, but appointing conservative judges is a condition of the deal he's made to the American public to do once he's elected.

Yes, that's exactly the condition.  But I have no reason to believe he'd honor it if he saw a better deal to made by changing those conditions.  (And he did say "probably" pick from the list).  He is a pragmatist and plays hardball and litigates about as often as other people change their socks and changes what he says from time to time  - none of that is encouraging.

[SteveWolfer]

Just now, SteveWolfer said:

appointing conservative judges

If he were to be elected, and if he did honor that promise, it would make nearly anything else he did worth it.  And he is the one candidate that can bust political correctness wide open like a rotten melon.  Those are very good things. 

But all of this has that ugly odor of false hopes.  We don't know what his deepest desire is.  Maybe he sees a way to use the presidency to turn his billions into a trillion.  Politically, he is a different kind of animal.  The usual measuring sticks aren't going to tell us much.

[Jon Letendre]

Steve,

Speaking of respect, you know full well that he made a promise to the Republican Party and chose to cheat.

My esteem for you will rise when you stop saying I called him the piece of shit that he is merely for failing to "spout unconditional love for The Donald."

[KorbenDallas]

53 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

Yes, that's exactly the condition.  But I have no reason to believe he'd honor it if he saw a better deal to made by changing those conditions.  (And he did say "probably" pick from the list).  He is a pragmatist and plays hardball and litigates about as often as other people change their socks and changes what he says from time to time  - none of that is encouraging.

I'd like to think he thinks of it as a binding contract, and he'd honor the contract.  This is something he gained a lot of equity with with conservatives, and many began to think of him differently.  To renege would be a betrayal (with consequences), but I also think he thinks appointing conservative judges is somewhat of a Presidential legacy (I gleaned this from watching interviews of him, and he might have said this in one of them, but I couldn't find it with a quick search), that would be important for him to leave.

48 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

If he were to be elected, and if he did honor that promise, it would make nearly anything else he did worth it.  And he is the one candidate that can bust political correctness wide open like a rotten melon.  Those are very good things. 

But all of this has that ugly odor of false hopes.  We don't know what his deepest desire is.  Maybe he sees a way to use the presidency to turn his billions into a trillion.  Politically, he is a different kind of animal.  The usual measuring sticks aren't going to tell us much.

Does he have to have a deepest desire, why couldn't he have purpose?  Purpose to turn America around, similar to the Reagan years that he has nostalgia for, purpose to try to make America more safe, etc. etc.  If anything, Trump has a deep, deep love for his family that I'm not seeing faked, and they have a love for him.  To me that speaks volumes and I'm thinking that a lot of his policies and what he's doing is to try to leave a better America for his family, and future generations.  Selfish, yes.. but isn't that a virtue?

[SteveWolfer]

2 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

he'd honor the contract

That's the question.  We'll see.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

But I have no reason to believe he'd honor it if he saw a better deal to made by changing those conditions. 

Steve,

You mean like signing a pledge during a contest, then deciding you don't need to honor it, you can just change those conditions because you didn't win and now see a better deal for 2020?

That kind of "no reason to believe"?

   

That's exactly what Cruz did. He didn't hide it. The better deal he's thinking about is not going to work out, but that's beside the point. Cruz betrayed his word to his party for what he perceived as a better deal. If he can't keep his simple word on a simple pledge like that, how can anyone believe he would keep his word on swearing an oath to uphold the Constitution?

I honestly believe America dodged a bullet by not electing Cruz as nominee. I have no doubt his fundamentalist religion would take precedence over his political convictions if he ever got executive power. And God (or his father) would tell him what laws he should obey or not. Those folks believe in a concept called the "end time transfer of wealth." Look it up if you don't know what that means.

With executive power in hand, people who don't respect the oaths they take but believe in their divinely anointed privileged status could easily see it as their mission to help God along a bit with His plans... It starts with a little fudge, then a bigger one, then on and on until they have a royal stinking quagmire of oppression and corruption witnessed by a string of incompetent and failed projects. That's the way power works with true believers.

Anyway, try building a skyscraper with a betray-everyone-and-everything-for-short-term-gain way that is now Cruz's hallmark way of competing. The damn thing would fall down, not get done, turn into a mess, etc. (Kinda like government projects in general. )  

Trump's buildings don't fall down. They're big magnificent structures, one after another. And they're done on the capitalistic market through entrepreneurship. Not just in America, but the world over. There's a moral lesson there if you want to see it... I recall Rand writing a book or two about that moral lesson...  

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sarah weighs in:

Exclusive — Sarah Palin to Ted Cruz: Delete Your Career
Breitbart
20 Jul 2016

Don't forget, Sarah made his career. Without her, he would not be Senator and he, himself, has said so many times.

Here is what she told Breitbart (quoting Sarah Palin):

Quote

Turns out Ted Cruz’s partner, Carly Fiorina, had a more graceful exit from the political stage than he had.

Cruz’s broken pledge to support the will of the people tonight was one of those career-ending “read my lips” moments. I guarantee American voters took notice and felt more unsettling confirmation as to why we don’t much like typical politicians because they campaign one way, but act out another way. That kind of political status quo has got to go because it got us into the mess we’re in with America’s bankrupt budgets and ramped up security threats.

It’s commonplace for politicians to disbelieve their word is their bond, as evidenced by Cruz breaking his promise to endorse his party’s nominee, evidently thinking whilst on the convention stage, “At this point, what difference does it make?” We’ve been burned so horribly by that attitude that voters won’t reward politicians pulling that “what difference does it make” stunt again. Politicians will see — it makes all the difference in the world to us.

(btw - The link to Fiorina's exit is to a video of when she fell off stage introducing Cruz.)

Then, according to Breitbart, Sarah sent them the link to this video:

Michael

[Mikee]

Just watched Cruz this morning.  A contemptible man...  Hopefully the last I'll see of this man on the national stage.  "Crafty Cruzy", his lies and dirty tricks during the campaign were much worse than Trumps comments after his own wife was insulted.  Cruz, in his heart, is gutter low life and mean spirited.  Trump got him right.

[PDS]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Steve,

You mean like signing a pledge during a contest, then deciding you don't need to honor it, you can just change those conditions because you didn't win and now see a better deal for 2020?

That kind of "no reason to believe"?

   

That's exactly what Cruz did. He didn't hide it. The better deal he's thinking about is not going to work out, but that's beside the point. Cruz betrayed his word to his party for what he perceived as a better deal. If he can't keep his simple word on a simple pledge like that, how can anyone believe he would keep his word on swearing an oath to uphold the Constitution?

I honestly believe America dodged a bullet by not electing Cruz as nominee. I have no doubt his fundamentalist religion would take precedence over his political convictions if he ever got executive power. And God (or his father) would tell him what laws he should obey or not. Those folks believe in a concept called the "end time transfer of wealth." Look it up if you don't know what that means.

With executive power in hand, people who don't respect the oaths they take but believe in their divinely anointed privileged status could easily see it as their mission to help God along a bit with His plans... It starts with a little fudge, then a bigger one, then on and on until they have a royal stinking quagmire of oppression and corruption witnessed by a string of incompetent and failed projects. That's the way power works with true believers.

Anyway, try building a skyscraper with a betray-everyone-and-everything-for-short-term-gain way that is now Cruz's hallmark way of competing. The damn thing would fall down, not get done, turn into a mess, etc. (Kinda like government projects in general. )  

Trump's buildings don't fall down. They're big magnificent structures, one after another. And they're done on the capitalistic market through entrepreneurship. Not just in America, but the world over. There's a moral lesson there if you want to see it... I recall Rand writing a book or two about that moral lesson...  

Michael

Besides all that, why would we want a president whose father may have been in on the assassination of John F. Kennedy?

Or whose wife doesn't look like a super model?

Or who is "in the pocket" of Wall Street because he has a history of loans with certain banks?

[PDS]

12 minutes ago, Mikee said:

Just watched Cruz this morning.  A contemptible man...  Hopefully the last I'll see of this man on the national stage.  "Crafty Cruzy", his lies and dirty tricks during the campaign were much worse than Trumps comments after his own wife was insulted.  Cruz, in his heart, is gutter low life and mean spirited.  Trump got him right.

Mikee:

I'm curious:  from what you watched this morning, what did Cruz say that was contemptible?

[PDS]

50 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Sarah weighs in:

Exclusive — Sarah Palin to Ted Cruz: Delete Your Career
Breitbart
20 Jul 2016

 

 

Too bad nobody ever invented a contraption that might carry people through the air for long distances, landing them safely and mostly on time.  

Then maybe Sarah might have actually said something in person at this convention.  But, alas, Alaska is a long ways away from Cleveland.

MSK:  why do you suppose Sarah was not one of the people who actually said something at this convention? 

[Mikee]

47 minutes ago, PDS said:

Mikee:

I'm curious:  from what you watched this morning, what did Cruz say that was contemptible?

The blatant hypocrisy.  His pretense of being greatly offended by Trump's "attack" on his wife Heidi.  His own dirty tricks during the campaign, notably against Ben Carson were underhanded to the extreme which is why I started calling him "Crafty Cruzy", a play on "Tricky Dicky".  He does not have the integrity of character to run for any office in my opinion.  And his camp through PAC's, which he denied having any control of but did not try to at all in any perceptible way to control or censure, were the source of the original attacks on Trump's wife which caused the reaction of Trump in a Twitter message which Trump pulled fairly quickly and apologized for.  Trump was rightly offended and angry at Cruz's dirty tricks and responded in kind which was unfortunate because Trump has gotten a lot of criticism for it, unfairly in my view.  Cruz brought the GOP campaign into the gutter and should be blamed for it.  Contemptible, he's dead to me.  I had every reason to support him because I was an early and strong supporter of Carly Fiorina, and a strong critic of Trump.  Cruz says some of the right things about issues I care about but its a character issue.  I wouldn't trust Cruz with power, whereas I believe Trump will find good advisors and will listen to them and make good decisions, good for the country and consistent with the principles most people in this country love living here for.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, PDS said:

MSK:  why do you suppose Sarah was not one of the people who actually said something at this convention?

David,

I don't know. We'll have to wait and see. The one thing I am almost sure about, though, is that something is cooking. Sarah likes to do things the rogue way and she is definitely in like Flynn with Trump backstage.

She's the person who initially set Trump up with Jeff Sessions and practically opened her rolodex from her VP run to Trump. I think she's going through a stage of being a power behind the power.

Expect to see her on Trump's cabinet once he's elected.

Michael

[PDS]

14 minutes ago, Mikee said:

The blatant hypocrisy.  His pretense of being greatly offended by Trump's "attack" on his wife Heidi.  His own dirty tricks during the campaign, notably against Ben Carson were underhanded to the extreme which is why I started calling him "Crafty Cruzy", a play on "Tricky Dicky".  He does not have the integrity of character to run for any office in my opinion.  And his camp through PAC's, which he denied having any control of but did not try to at all in any perceptible way to control or censure, were the source of the original attacks on Trump's wife which caused the reaction of Trump in a Twitter message which Trump pulled fairly quickly and apologized for.  Trump was rightly offended and angry at Cruz's dirty tricks and responded in kind which was unfortunate because Trump has gotten a lot of criticism for it, unfairly in my view.  Cruz brought the GOP campaign into the gutter and should be blamed for it.  Contemptible, he's dead to me.  I had every reason to support him because I was an early and strong supporter of Carly Fiorina, and a strong critic of Trump.  Cruz says some of the right things about issues I care about but its a character issue.  I wouldn't trust Cruz with power, whereas I believe Trump will find good advisors and will listen to them and make good decisions, good for the country and consistent with the principles most people in this country love living here for.

So, can you tell me what Cruz specifically said this morning that you found contemptible?   Anything specific? 

[PDS]

Here's what I find troubling about Cruz:   he signed a pledge to support the nominee.   He didn't do that.   He owes/owed Trump (and people who voted for him) an explanation for why he didn't do so.  

It took big balls to do what he did last night, but it would have been even more strong if he had explained why he was reneging on the pledge. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

23 minutes ago, PDS said:

It took big balls to do what he did last night, but it would have been even more strong if he had explained why he was reneging on the pledge.

David,

You mean like explaining he was powerful disappointed he lost and was gambling to jazz up a run in 2020?

 

Michael

[Mikee]

25 minutes ago, PDS said:

So, can you tell me what Cruz specifically said this morning that you found contemptible?   Anything specific? 

“I am not in the habit of supporting someone who attacks my wife and attacks my father,” Cruz told the Texas delegation at a breakfast in Cleveland. He added: “That pledge was not a blanket commitment that if you go and slander and attack Heidi, that I'm going to nonetheless come like a puppy dog and say thank you very much for maligning my wife and maligning my father."

Bullshit.  Cruz set the anything goes of a personal nature ground rules, not just against Trump but everyone else as well.  Trump was circumspect relative to Cruz, he got most of his backlash over his remarks on issues not personal attacks.  Cruz just lost, he's a loser and can't stand it.  Everything is personal to him.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

48 minutes ago, Mikee said:

Cruz brought the GOP campaign into the gutter and should be blamed for it.

Mike,

You're one of the few people who see this, even among people who can't stand Cruz anymore. Trump has boundaries on repulsive tactics, but he's not afraid to brawl out loud. Cruz, despite his religion, has no boundaries on using smutty and two-faced tactics if he believes they will work for a short term gain. He's just sneaky about it and plays innocent.

As Trump said, Cruz holds that Bible high, then he puts that Bible down and he lies, lies, lies.

Lyin' Ted...

 

When most people look at the mainstream, they think the brash thing is the only thing that exists because it's the loudest. That's why the polite cunning folks have gotten away with murder for so long.

Ironically, though, because of this stunt, Ted Cruz--not Jeb or any other establishment elitist crapweasel--is going to be this cycle's poster boy for dirty tricks, cowardice, immaturity and stabbing his own people in the back.

Michael

[PDS]

19 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

You mean like explaining he was powerful disappointed he lost and was gambling to jazz up a run in 2020?

 

Michael

Possibly. 

Or maybe because of this: 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

40 minutes ago, PDS said:

Or maybe because of this: 

David,

That was in response to the Republican Party being complicit in blatantly stealing the election from Trump. Back then there were all kinds of nasty things flying around and the party was letting them evolve. However, the Republican Party was more than fair to Ted Cruz all down the line.

Don't forget, the pledge was to the Republican Party, not to any one person. Cruz did not pledge to Trump. He pledged to the Republican Party on RP stationary.

If I have any criticism of Trump in that video, it is that releasing Cruz from his obligation (albeit not legal obligation) to honor the pledge was not his decision to make. It was the Republican Party's.

Notice that Trump's beef was with the Republican Party as one side of an agreement he saw defaulting on its own obligations. He was very vocal when he signed it that he expected to be treated fairly like any other candidate. So he said if the Republican Party was defaulting, he would default, too. In other words, since the Republican Party was sanctioning processes and backroom deals to steal the election from him in the face of massive votes, he did not feel bound to a thief. But note, once the Republican Party stopped defaulting (it did clean up its act), Trump went back to his commitment. This is on video somewhere.

Cruz's beef was with Trump and it was personal. How does that give him the right to default with a third party? At a breakfast this morning, Cruz even said Trump "abrogated" the obligation by insulting his family (see here). That's tortured legal thinking and I'm being generous. 

Wouldn't it be wonderful if you could stop paying a mortgage to a bank simply because a different client of the bank insulted your wife and father? That a third-party insult canceled the debt?

You're a lawyer. Shit, this is law school 101 stuff, getting the parties to an agreement right. Cruz knows better, but he did it anyway.

If you want to see a clear way of how Cruz would govern as opposed to Trump, there you have it. 

Michael

[turkeyfoot]

My fellow americans. Its a circus atmosphere and they're all full of baloney.

The surprise was Trumps invitation to Cruz. It conveys a complete lack of understanding. Invite a person whose wife and father youve slammed, show yourself to be petty and contemptible but expect an ass kissing from the competition. Cruz was played in a way that was not complimentary of either man. 

Im so tired of this ritualistic conformity of the conventions. Cruz can follow through with his pledge at a time of his choosing.   

The Republican debates were a disappointment, the Leave land shew is another.

The only exception has been Marcus Luttrells gut wrenching speech. To paraphrase, "I know he (Trump) understands what its going to take..................(read, I hope he understands).................................................. to fix this." In his unprepared comments he said not only do we expect them to step up and support us, we back them up for every position and office that they hold. 

This from a man with a proven track record.

As DT texted. "Dont lose out. Get Trump/Pence gear before it sells out."

Isnt it Great? 

 

 

 

 

 

[SteveWolfer]

3 hours ago, PDS said:

You mean like signing a pledge during a contest, then deciding you don't need to honor it,

 

1 hour ago, PDS said:

Or maybe because of this: 

 

Trump wiped out any pledge - it no longer exists - Cruz broke nothing... except in the minds of people who want to violently strike out at anyone that won't join their love delusion, chant 'Trump' 'Trump' 'Trump' 'Trump', and attack anyone who is not of the Borg.

Pledges are meaningless.  There are other videos showing Trump making his 'pledge' conditional - adding conditions after it is signed (If I'm treated fairly")  There is something Hilarious about Trump expecting consistency out of someone else.

I have seen people gathered together in small tight groups - having a bible reading - safely sharing in warm delusions and fierce denunciations.  I see the same kind and range of emotions from Trumpers.

I was just going to ignore all of this, but then I saw that top left corner of this and every OL page.  That photo of Ayn Rand, and the words "The Art of Living Consciously" and Objective Living.  It kind of touch me.

And all I can think is that we should be better.

[SteveWolfer]

1 hour ago, turkeyfoot said:

My fellow americans. Its a circus atmosphere and they're all full of baloney.

The surprise was Trumps invitation to Cruz. It conveys a complete lack of understanding. Invite a person whose wife and father youve slammed, show yourself to be petty and contemptible but expect an ass kissing from the competition. Cruz was played in a way that was not complimentary of either man. 

Im so tired of this ritualistic conformity of the conventions. Cruz can follow through with his pledge at a time of his choosing.   

The Republican debates were a disappointment,

Well said.  It is painful to watch much of this silliness.  Makes me want to move to a deserted Isle somewhere.  The Dems convention, next week, will be far worse.  Like looking into a sewage filled snake pit.