Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said: How did he attack her? What was Trump's point? Brant, He didn't attack her. The "trading up the chain" media puff is saying he attacked her and everybody is repeating the spin. Trump said he felt for her and wanted to hear from her. But maybe she was not allowed to speak. There's a video somewhere. I'll see if I can find it. You will see this as a media brush fire of accusations of Trump's heartlessness, bigotry, yada yada yada, but among working class people, it will be what politicians call a nothing-burger. Next week it will probably be forgotten. The Silent Majority will resonate (in fact, is resonating) just like I said they would, that is, thinking about Islamic terrorism, the way women are treated in Islam, etc. I'm already seeing this. It gets worse, too. Among the families of veterans and those killed in war, I'm already seeing a reaction like what makes this guy's pain any worse than ours? Just because he's a Muslim? Our kid died, too. Let's see what happens, but I predict this story is not going anywhere but down. Or worse. Hillary is due to get a small bump from the DNC and the press will spin it as due to this story. But the polling reaction from this story will be a week later. So look to that for the real deal. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 5 hours ago, merjet said: 13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: That's not a slur. That's called research. I see. It's "research" if the target is the Koch brothers, but a slur if the target is Donald Trump. Also, see 6th or 7th paragraph here. Donald Trump: ‘Eminent Domain Is Wonderful’ Merlin, That is valid research and you just made my point. Why the double standard between Trump and the Koch brothers? Why have people been researching Trump for a long time on these kinds of issues, and blasting him, but they will not research the Koch brothers? They are supposed to be election kingmakers. (This is not an indirect comment about Steve. I mean everyone.) In fact, most everybody in our subcommunity talks about Trump's views on eminent domain (including a whole bunch earlier in this very thread) and treat the Koch brothers as if they are against it. Hell, in practice, Trump was unable to use it--he failed the times he tried. And those were in his big-headed casino days (in his literature, he said that is where he revised some of his thinking). But the Kochs use eminent domain and probably think it is wonderful in private. I know if I had a 4,000 mile oil pipeline in the USA, I would be tempted to think that. Trump just says it out loud. The Kochs fund CATO. Different styles. This reminds me of the way many hardcore Objectivists excused an enormous amount of evidence of Ted Cruz's lack of character and his religious zealotry just because he read a few pages of Atlas Shrugged on the Senate floor. I think the people in our subcommunity are so starved to be taken seriously in the mainstream, they swallow sweet poison because they think taste is the only part that counts. And it tastes soooooo good when the coating is right. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 18 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Let's see what happens, but I predict this story is not going anywhere but down. I started looking for a few stories I saw last night, and, oddly enough, they are buried. I'm actually going to have to dig for them. I got to thinking, what? What happened? Then I saw these two tweets by Trump: Captain Khan, killed 12 years ago, was a hero, but this is about RADICAL ISLAMIC TERROR and the weakness of our "leaders" to eradicate it!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 31, 2016 I was viciously attacked by Mr. Khan at the Democratic Convention. Am I not allowed to respond? Hillary voted for the Iraq war, not me!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 31, 2016 That makes this one too tough for the anti-Trump media to keep spinning. So no need for a lot of pro-Trump media reactions. Here, I just found one on Breitbart: Hillary Called Benghazi Mom a Liar, But Media Freak Out over Trump on Muslim Parents. Also, the father is taking himself out of the mainstream debate without any help from anyone else. The Hillary folks might believe the following, but they know what promoting this idea will mean to their poll numbers: Muslim Dad Khizr Khan Tells CNN Terror ‘Has Nothing to Do with Islam’. Anyway, no need now to dig up the things I saw. If Trump is true to form, he will repost his tweets on Facebook and all anyone needs to do is go there and read the comments. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 2 hours ago, PDS said: His comments will be viewed by many who are undecided as an attack, especially mothers. My wife is an example. She is looking for a reason to vote for Trump but his thin skin and big mouth always get him in trouble with her. What was Trump's point? To impress people like Michael. Did you see how impressed Michael was? Trump's the alpha male 8th grader who just LOVES that attention. The problem is that he should have grown out of that about 56 years ago. I'm back to thinking Hillary is going to landslide him big time. Fuggin' Hillary. Probably the worst retail politician in anybody's lifetime. Was it an attack or not? I thought he was pointing out how silent if not compliant she was as her husband did all the yakking. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveWolfer Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 7 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said: Was it an attack or not? Lots of Trump's "attacks" are indirect. Sort of a "just saying" or "reports are" type of attacks - National Enquirer stuff. For him, or at least his base, the unstated reference to that couple being Muslim is enough. It works as a deflection. He should have shown sympathy for them, ignored the guys attack on him, and turned it against Hillary. Their son was killed by terrorists and Obama and Hillary are the ones who have made the terrorism worse with their incompetence and failed policies. Hillary is politicizing this poor couple's grief. He will prevent this from happening in the future. He could have shown warmth and compassion, picked up women's votes, showed clear reasoning, and lashed Hillary. The Dems are good at baiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 Here is how I understand Objectivist principles in regard to this Khan issue, Trump and Clinton: Trump, Islam and Presidential Temperament by Dr. Michael Hurd His website From the article: Quote Donald Trump was criticized for “attacking” the mother of a deceased Muslim American soldier who stood next to her husband when he attacked Trump at the Democratic National Convention. “If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say. You tell me,” Trump said, in an interview with ABC’s “This Week.” This is not an “attack.” It’s simply a question. Trump was probably referring to the fact that in Islamic culture, women are denigrated and required to play a passive role, compared to men. How is that an attack? . . . The father of the American soldier did, however, attack Trump. So why shouldn’t Trump retaliate in some way? . . . The father said that Trump has never made sacrifices, like his family has. How can he know that, and what does he define as a sacrifice? Presumably, a sacrifice consists of giving up your life in battle. But nobody in Hillary Clinton’s family has done that. . . . Hillary Clinton makes her money via the acquisition of and – through her husband and the Clinton Foundation – the shameless trading of political power for money. Donald Trump has made his money in the private sector. Granted, we don’t have a fully private sector, and government has its hands in just about everything, particularly at the high level of business where Trump has operated. Nevertheless, the fact remains: Trump could not get money if willing customers did not pay it; Hillary gets all her money only through exercising pull (almost always dishonestly) through the political system. . . . By the way, self-sacrifice is not the American way; or at least, it should not be. America’s founding premise was the individual’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In America, it’s all about the sovereignty of each person’s life, so long as that same right is respected in others. Donald Trump, while not perfect, is closer to this ideal than Hillary Clinton ever could be. Hillary Clinton, in fact, represents the precise opposite of what the Declaration of Independence considered the ideal, as well as what this grieving father (and his religion) claim should be the ideal. Making lots of money in the private sector, with only willing customers, is a glorious, highly American thing. Making money Hillary’s way is what our Republic was created to prevent, to say nothing of celebrate, like her supporters do. . . . To paraphrase Ayn Rand, whenever there’s someone claiming a need to sacrifice, there’s always somebody else nearby ready to collect your sacrifices. Rest assured: Muslims and fascist politicians like Hillary Clinton stand ready to collect those sacrifices. I haven't seen many people in our subcommunity say things like this about Trump: "Trump could not get money if willing customers did not pay it..." and "In America, it’s all about the sovereignty of each person’s life, so long as that same right is respected in others. Donald Trump, while not perfect, is closer to this ideal than Hillary Clinton ever could be." I hope this becomes a trend. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 2 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said: He should have shown sympathy for them... Steve, Look at his comments and you will see he did. Several times. He just didn't do it in a sanction of the victim kind of way. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveWolfer Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 4 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: From that web site: “If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say. You tell me,” Trump said, in an interview with ABC’s “This Week.” This is not an “attack.” It’s simply a question. Trump was probably referring to the fact that in Islamic culture, women are denigrated and required to play a passive role, compared to men. How is that an attack? It is a subtle attack, better called a "deflection" with some negative overtones. People who insist on seeing some of his attacks as "questions" or, saying he was attacked first, are just showing that they no longer look at any given incident objectively, regardless of their decision of who to vote for. The fact that Islamic culture is totally screwed up is so NOT the subject, that this must be seen as a deflection. There are only two issues here. There son's death, and Trump's "sacrifice" and he could have hit them head on. No deflection needed. I'm all for attacking Islamic traditions that force submission (on women, on gays, on non-believers, on all but fundamentalists), but not as the response to their son's death. 12 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: From the web site: "The father said that Trump has never made sacrifices, like his family has. How can he know that, and what does he define as a sacrifice? Presumably, a sacrifice consists of giving up your life in battle. But nobody in Hillary Clinton’s family has done that." That is like a child's argument. "Nobody saw me take any cookies. How do you know I took cookies. Besides, Tommy takes cookies all the time, why aren't you after him?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 Steve wrote about the Koch brothers, “They are going to pour nearly half a billion into senate races.” That will help Trump. And they may or may not donate the maximum to Trump. What is the personal max? Two grand and change? Their PAC is what rocks the Casbah. Wolf wrote: 160 million get government checks + 20 million federal, state, local government employees and contractors = landslide for Hillary. end quote Steve responded: But subtract out the social security recipients that worked for an entire lifetime. Also subtract out those who receive Medicare as opposed to SSI or Medicaid. Subtract out all of the federal, state, and local employees that are doing work that is appropriate (law enforcement and military for example). Subtract them out, since they aren't all voting because they've been bought. end quote Well said. If Wolf’s syllogism were an equation proving socialism’s efficacy neither Trump nor Hillary would be campaigning - the election would be a done deal, but I get Wolf's point. Piling onto that rationale, Rush and Mark Levin have both commented that allowing immigrants or undocumented Americans to vote allows the Progressives to have an advantage. Yet a whole lot of social security recipients will vote for Trump and they will also be in favor of SSI reform. To me, when Hillary took foreigner’s money through the Clinton Foundation when she was making decisions as Secretary of State and as a Senator, that should disqualify her for President or any other public office. She should be prosecuted. She is on Fox right now being interviewed saying the Foundation is a charitable thingy. How much has Donald contributed to charity? Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveWolfer Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 5 minutes ago, Peter said: Rush and Mark Levin have both commented that allowing immigrants or undocumented Americans to vote allows the Progressives to have an advantage. Judges around the country have been overturning state laws requiring voter ID. In Virginia, the governor, a long-time Hillary operative and former chair of the DNC has issued an executive order to let felons vote. Not enough time to get any of these reversed by the tattered remains of the Supreme Court (as if that would happen). The progressives are on an all out push to get undocumented aliens to vote, felons to vote, and even get some of the base to vote two or three times. They are targeting key swing states. All in all, I think we are living in that period of history where a great transition takes place. Liberty had been fought for and won with emancipation and suffrage, but then it was going the other way and slowly taken away law by law, regulation by regulation, and now I think we are at a pivot point where the democratic election of representatives and the president and the application of law will all become a farce - a façade. Then open tyranny shouldn't be far down the road - easily assembled behind the facade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 I just listened to this fascinating audio interview between Milo Yiannopoulos and Roger Stone. For readers who are not very familiar, Roger Stone is a dirty tricks conservative dude, former Trump campaign manager and current Trump supporter and insider. Milo Yiannopoulos pisses off many gays because he's young, gay, wicked smart, conservative and a Trump supporter. (Sorry about the big honking ad. This is not from me. It comes with the embed.) They discussed some upcoming things that are going to appear in the mainstream that nobody is talking about. The most scandalous is a series of pictures of Hillary Clinton at a Halloween party in blackface. Roger said he can guarantee that these pictures will appear before the election. Roger has a take on Richard Nixon I find fascinating, albeit he's way too much of a disciple and sycophant to take as the whole story (he has a Nixon tattoo on his back--like he said, he's one of the only men to have a dick in front and a dick in back on his body, and both are big ). I honestly didn't expect to listen to the whole thing, but it is good, a bit quirky, and deals with different issues than the mainstream yelling right now. For example Brexit and the parallels to the current election in America. I recommend it. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 21 minutes ago, Peter said: How much has Donald contributed to charity? Peter, I'm not sure anybody knows. The anti-Trumpers spin it that he contributes next to nothing because they use an extremely narrow filter. Trump does a lot of his charity contributions indirectly (through his companies and so forth) for a simple reason. He's rich, he's cultivated being rich, and everybody and their brother already come after him with their hat in hand and a sob story. By keeping the numbers mostly buried of who he contributes to and how much, he keeps the aggravation level down. You won't see that in the press, but I have known lots of rich dudes in Brazil who operated this way. You can tell Trump donates a lot by the sheer number of spontaneous stories by thankful people that pop up all the time. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 1 hour ago, SteveWolfer said: People who insist on seeing some of his attacks as "questions" or, saying he was attacked first, are just showing that they no longer look at any given incident objectively, regardless of their decision of who to vote for. Steve, Man, does that come off as condescending. I won't personalize this to me (I like you, so shoot me ), but do you really think Dr. Hurd, because of his article above, is incapable of looking "at any given incident objectively."? Disagreement does not mean the other person has become a retard. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 1 hour ago, SteveWolfer said: That is like a child's argument... Steve, But the father saying Trump has made no sacrifices is the epitome of maturity? Come on... If I wanted to snark, I would say your altruism is showing. But I won't snark. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Steve, But the father saying Trump has made no sacrifices is the epitome of maturity? Come on... If I wanted to snark, I would say your altruism is showing. But I won't snark. Michael Snarking the snark. --Brant snark that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveWolfer Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Man, does that come off as condescending Michael, I didn't have you in mind. But I have to say that I see an emotional intensity in many Trump supporters that appears to drive their arguments. I see emotion first, then use of the reason to create some justifying rhetoric. They seem to almost never see anything negative about Trump. They are all on the Trump train as opposed to saying something like, "I wish Trump would do this, or not do that, but I'll vote for him anyway" - instead they appear to see every single thing he says in a favorable way, they have endless explanations for what they think Donald will actually do when elected. They always explain what he has said when others say it is vague and their explanations are sometimes so out of thin air as to be embarrassing. Most of the arguments and explanations are justifications rather than principles. I don't know Dr. Hurd, or who he is, or what he has written. I just know what I took out of his explanations of Trump's way of dealing with the Muslim mother and father. I didn't see his explanation of that incident as coming from an objective place. And I was clear about how I thought it could have been handled. Consistent, on-going disagreements between parties, neither of which are 'retards,' will mean something. One side is likely to be ignoring some glaring error in their processing. Phrasing may or may not become heated, or condescending, or off the top, but there is still that likelihood that at least one side isn't thinking critically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveWolfer Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 23 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: But the father saying Trump has made no sacrifices is the epitome of maturity? Come on... If I wanted to snark, I would say your altruism is showing. But I won't snark. So, if the father says something that is immature, it is okay for the candidate for president to say something immature? You say, "If I wanted to snark..." you then do snark and then you say you won't snark. What kind of argument is that. I'm not altruistic. If you disagree, and seriously think I made some point that arises out an altruism that you believe I harbor, then man-up and make an intelligible argument to that end. I don't mind condescending, which is what that seemed like (I don't like it) but I'd sure rather have arguments that can be addressed and not sneak attacks. Clearly this is not an environment for saying anything negative about anything Trumpian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 6 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said: If you disagree, and seriously think I made some point that arises out an altruism that you believe I harbor, then man-up and make an intelligible argument to that end. Steve, You mean calling Trump supporters incapable of being objective needs no rational arguments other than they need to shut up because a person's son died if they can't talk like you want them to, but you get offended about a quip? (Mmmmmph... mmmmph... I'm holding back a quip right now just to show how altruistic I can be.) Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 24 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said: I don't know Dr. Hurd, or who he is, or what he has written. Steve, Dr. Hurd is not an official spokesperson for ARI, but he is an ortho-Objectivist psychotherapist. He's been around a long time in the subcommunity. He's actually quite well-known. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 Right on cue, the mother now speaks. Anybody who thinks this is good for Trump is drinking some strong Kool-Aid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: David, That's the real problem, ain't it? Welcome to Trump's America, the Silent Majority. And enjoy the ride. Michael Your comment really doesn't make any sense. Maybe I'm missing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 And no, this isn't "Trump's America", any more than it's Obama's America. Silent Majority, my ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveWolfer Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 5 minutes ago, PDS said: Anybody who thinks this is good for Trump is drinking some strong Kool-Aid. Very true. There are some very bright people (twisted maybe) who sit around in the Hillary campaign gaming tactics... and progressives like to demonize and they are good at putting out bait, anticipating responses, then closing the trap. This is what they do. They have a goal, they marshal resources, they plan out moves, and they know that a theme, like a marketing campaign, needs lots of hits for it to become a meme, then a deep belief, than a viewing prism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveWolfer Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 Michael, we've been friends for a long time and that makes this on-going argument about Trump uncomfortable. I'm going to follow Stephen Boydston's lead and exit till sometime after the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 Just now, PDS said: Right on cue, the mother now speaks. Anybody who thinks this is good for Trump is drinking some strong Kool-Aid. David, Right. And when Patricia Smith, the mother of the Benghazi victim, Sean Smith, talked at the RNC and the media blasted her (and blasted her viciously) for playing on heartstrings, I don't recall any outrage from anyone in our subcommunity on how gauche the media was. Not one tut-tut-tut. But there was a big yawn about Hillary Clinton lying to this lady about her son's death. What happened? Shall we put videos of the two ladies side-by-side and see who cries the most about their dead sons? If one gets outraged at callousness by one side, it is a double standard to give a pass to the other side. What's more, Trump didn't kill either of the sons. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now