Recommended Posts

So Trump’s “I’m just saying, BS, blah blah blah, hint hint hint . . . was he suggesting someone shoot her or protest at her rallies? That got him more scorn and distrust. A lot of distrust.  But jeepers, she is a crooked individual. And thanks to Michael for exposing the Demoncrat’s manipulation and propaganda machine which is in cohoots with the Lame Stream Media.

Michael wrote: Trump even has a conceptual category for this that he wrote about in The Art of the Deal. He calls it a "hyperbolic truth" or something like that. This is basically an important truth packaged in enough exaggeration to get everyone's attention. You use it when the simple truth by itself does not penetrate. end quote

Thanks, Michael.

Cripes. I just got seven pieces of mail from Donald Trump. Seven. Donald just also sent a fund raising email letter to me where he says, “But we cannot rest, Peter. You’ve seen it – the liberal media can’t stop telling outrageous lies about me. They are really a disgrace to journalism, and they’re so desperate to mislead the American people about our campaign!” end quote

So, what did Trump gain? It is a sentiment Objectivists, the NRA, and most Americans  share. His statement may generate more security at Hillary’s “crow concerts.” (Gosh, I hate her grating voice.) His words may make Hillary a bit more worried on a personal level.

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 14.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Michael Stuart Kelly

    4617

  • Peter

    1434

  • Jon Letendre

    1316

  • Brant Gaede

    884

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That's what it says at the top of the page.  Your point?  It's not like this thread has devolved into a medley of cat videos.  Yet.  

It is intriguing.  I've been fairly obsessed for about a year with thinking about details.  I find microbiology fascinating. I wouldn't be wise, however, to talk about details.  The schemers are

They see suave, debonair Frisco giving a philosophically deep money speech, or John Galt taking over a radio presentation and addressing the audience in the manner of a professor. If they don't see th

Posted Images

Wolf wrote: I think Trump's remark and your comments skate around the right of revolution, causes of taking up arms like the Founders did. end quote

Well said. And Trump should stop dropping the gas bombs and get into his political and philosophical positions, in a better way. When he said it, he did not think he was making a mistake.

Peter

NOTES. Richard Lawrence wrote: Ayn Rand on Gun Control: An Investigation. Background. In the spring of 2001, a dispute arose on the newsgroup humanities.philosophy.objectivism over the question of what, if anything, Ayn Rand had ever written about the subject of gun control. While it was clear to all involved that there were no major, well-known passages that were explicitly about this topic, some people maintained that the topic had been covered in some more obscure location in Rand's writings. However, these people could never specify exactly where this passage could be found.

To help resolve this controversy, I searched Ayn Rand's writings for words and phrases that might be related to gun control, using the Objectivism Research CD-ROM (available at either Objectivism.net or The Ayn Rand Bookstore). This CD contains all of Rand's major writings, including all of the essays she wrote for The Objectivist Newsletter, The Objectivist and The Ayn Rand Letter, her columns for the Los Angeles Times, and her Letters and Journals. If a comment by Rand about gun control exists in any of these sources, it should be possible to find it using the CD's search tools. The relatively small number of selections not contained on the CD, such as the short stories from The Early Ayn Rand, are not likely to contain any comments on gun control -- and in most cases are positively known by this author not to contain any such comments.

The results of my searches were as described below. Findings. First, a few quick technical notes to help with the interpretation of the results: The search hits listed for each word or phrase are the total hits, including any duplications caused by the reprinting of material in multiple places. For example, a single essay might have originally been in The Objectivist Newsletter and then reprinted in one or more of Rand's books. These counts also include the writings of Leonard Peikoff that are included on the CD-ROM. The search function looks for an exact match to whole words, so that variants of the same word, such as "gun" and "guns," can produce different hits. Finally, searches are case-insensitive. For example, "Second Amendment" and "second amendment" would be equivalent. Now, on to the results.

The following search terms produced no matches at all: "gun control" "weapons control" "control of weapons" "weapons restrictions" "restrictions on weapons"

"firearm" "second amendment"

The following search terms produced hits as described: "guns" -- 40 hits. Many of these were obviously irrelevant, such as a character in Atlas Shrugged describing the "naval guns" shooting at Ragnar Danneskjold. "Guns" was also frequently used as a metaphor for the use of force in general. The following mentions were the closest to being relevant:

A minor character in Atlas Shrugged mentions "hunting guns" (along with "fishing tackle" and "snapshot cameras") as one of the "amusement" items for which workers didn't get any money at 20th Century Motor Company. The inclusion of hunting guns along with other inoffensive items could be taken to suggest that Rand considered the use of guns for hunting to be normal and inoffensive.

The following remark from the title essay of For the New Intellectual: No advocate of reason can claim the right to force his ideas on others. No advocate of the free mind can claim the right to force the minds of others. No rational society, no co-operation, no agreement, no understanding, no discussion are possible among men who propose to substitute guns for rational persuasion.

If men of good will wish to come together for the purpose of upholding reason and establishing a rational society, they should begin by following the example of the cowboys in Western movies when the sheriff tells them at the door to a conference room: "Gentlemen, leave your guns outside."

At least one reader took this comment to suggest that police authorities have a role of restricting gun possession in some situations. However, the word "guns" in this passage is clearly a metaphor for force in general, and the situation described does not appear to be intended as literal advice for sheriffs dealing with cowboys.

"gun" -- 49 hits, again mostly irrelevant. The most relevant passages were the following: In The Fountainhead, a major character owns a handgun and considers committing suicide with it. Rand's narrative of this incident does not include any suggestion that there is anything unusual or wrong about him having a gun.

In Atlas Shrugged, Hank Rearden carries a handgun: "He carried a gun in his pocket, as advised by the policemen of the radio car that patrolled the roads; they had warned him that no road was safe after dark, these days." Passing over the irony that Rand has the police in a highly collectivist state advising a private individual to carry a gun, there is nothing in this passage to suggest support for gun control. It could be interpreted to suggest the opposite, since Rand has one of her heroes carrying a privately owned gun, and even contemplating (later in the passage) its use against the police. (In subsequent passages of the novel, other of Rand's heroes, including Dagny Taggart and Francisco D'Anconia, use guns. However, in the later parts of the novel the culture has broken down into open armed conflict, so these passages are not as clearly relevant to the question of carrying arms in a peaceful society.)

The following remarks from the Journals of Ayn Rand: "With modern technique and modern weapons at its disposal, a ruthless minority can hold millions in slavery indefinitely. What can one thousand unorganized, unarmed men do against one man with a machine gun?" This passage could be taken to suggest that weapons in individuals' hands are necessary to fight against tyranny (an argument sometimes used against gun control). However, it says nothing about the role of guns in a free society, so could be considered off-point.

"bear arms" (as in, "the right to keep and ...") -- 1 hit, from the Letters of Ayn Rand, in a letter to a Mr. Flynn: "A man has a constitutional right to bear arms. But if a man has declared that he intends to murder you, it is not your duty to provide the knife and place it in his hands." This is the only instance I could find where the subject of a right to bear arms was directly mentioned. However, Rand only mentions in passing (on her way to an analogy) that such a right exists in the Constitution. She does not expound at all on what this right might involve.

"objective control" (this phrase was included due to its frequent use by those who claimed that Rand did support gun control) -- 6 hits, all duplications of matches from two essays (these essays appear in multiple places, hence the duplication of hits):

"The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man's rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man's right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control" (From "What Is Capitalism?")

"A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control, i.e., under objectively defined laws." (From "The Nature of Government")

These passages make no specific mention of the content of those objectively defined laws, and thus offer no direct support for or opposition to gun control.

"weapons" -- 61 hits, mostly mentions of "intellectual weapons" (or some similar phrase) or weapons in a military context. See the entries for "gun" above for the only passage that had any relevance to the specific issue of gun control.

"firearms" -- 4 hits, none even remotely relevant. Three are from fictional scenes where people are carrying firearms. One is from a hypothetical scenario in Leonard Peikoff's book, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, and therefore not from Rand's pen at all. Even in this case, the subject under discussion is epistemology, not law. (Firearms are mentioned as a clue in a hypothetical effort to solve a crime.)

All of the passages indicated above require substantial interpretation -- to the point of distortion, in my opinion -- in order to make them into direct comments on gun control. At best they contain indirect hints at what Rand's views might have been.

Expanding the phrase searches to include the "NEAR" operator -- that is, to look for cases where one word was near the other, rather than right next to it -- produced exactly two additional hits. One was a use of the word "second" in a sentence after one that mentioned the First "Amendment." This find was obviously not relevant. The other new hit was the following passage, produced by searching "objective NEAR control":

"The rest is a matter of consistent implementation -- the first step of which is to delegate to the government the right to use force in retaliation, and only in retaliation. (This is necessary in order to take the homicidal power, force, out of the reach of human whims and human irrationality, and place it under the control of objective laws.)" (From "A Nation's Unity" in The Ayn Rand Letter)

This passage offers essentially the same level of discussion as the two previously quoted passages on "objective control" -- which is to say that it offers nothing specific about gun control per se.

Conclusions. Earlier claims notwithstanding, no passages could be found showing explicit support for gun control -- or any explicit position about gun control, for that matter. As a whole, the comments about guns that were found provide weak evidence that Rand opposed gun control. Rand refers to a "right to bear arms," a phrase more common to opponents of gun control than to its supporters. She also portrays characters in her fiction owning and using guns without any negative commentary or repercussions to those characters. However, any position on gun control that might be gathered from this indirect evidence would be an implied one, which is not a very good substitute for an explicit and detailed position statement. Such a detailed statement was apparently never offered by Rand, at least not in any of her published writings.

Updates. February 2003. Since placing this essay on the site, I have gotten several emails about it. Typically, those who write want to argue that even though Rand didn't say anything explicit about gun control, other aspects of her philosophy make it clear what her position would be. Unfortunately, these authors disagree on what this supposedly obvious conclusion is. Some say that her championing of the individual and opposition to statism lead naturally to an anti-gun-control position. Other say that her description of government as having "a monopoly on the legal use of physical force" implicitly supports a pro-gun-control position.

Regardless of whether one believes either of these arguments, the point of my essay stands: Rand did not write down any explicit position on the issue of gun control. Other authors are free to extend or apply her other ideas to produce a conclusion about gun control, but this does not constitute proof that Rand would have agreed with their arguments.

Beyond these speculative arguments, two additional pieces of evidence have been brought to my attention since this research was done: In the November 1980 issue of The Intellectual Activist, Peter Schwartz published the article "Guns and Knee-jerkism," which criticized gun control. Although Rand did not have any direct editorial control over TIA, she did know Schwartz personally, and she endorsed the magazine in a speech delivered in November 1981. It is unlikely that she would have given such an endorsement if Schwartz was publishing material that she had serious disagreements with. This is an indication that Rand also opposed gun control.

In a discussion of this subject on a newsgroup, I was told that Rand was asked about gun control during a recorded interview with Edwin Newman. She declined to state a firm conclusion, but said that her initial thought was that she did not see any reason why personal gun ownership should be prohibited. I do not have a copy of this recording, so I have been unable to confirm Rand's exact statements.

Anyone with specific information (not speculation) to offer is encouraged to send it to me. An email link is provided at the bottom of the page. I will incorporate any findings to future updates of this page. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a personal page belonging to Richard Lawrence. If you are looking for the Objectivism Reference Center, go here:

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Merlin,

Stupid? Nah..

Trump's running a campaign, not a history lesson. If he did it your way, nobody would be talking about it (and branding Obama and Clinton with ISIS).

Doing it his way, everybody's talking about it (and branding Obama and Clinton with ISIS), including you.

:)

Trump even has a conceptual category for this that he wrote about in The Art of the Deal. He calls it a "hyperbolic truth" or something like that. This is basically an important truth packaged in enough exaggeration to get everyone's attention. You use it when the simple truth by itself does not penetrate.

When you look at it, Rand used this technique a lot in her scorched earth rhetoric.

Michael

Agreed. And very well stated, Michael.

Now I understand "punching through the media" better.

It isn't about overpowering or being louder, but duping them to deliver punches routed for delivery through them. In this case the media hoped people would buy that Trump really thinks Obama/Hillary literally founded ISIS, but that's silly, so few will buy that. Yet every media outlet is screaming about it, so people will assume that's because there is something there.

By the end of the process, voter thinks "Trump exaggerates rhetorically, like everyone does. Obama/Hillary didn't found ISIS, only screwed everything up."

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

He's talking about home ownership and when President Obama took office. He said you don't need to have very good eyesight to see what's going on.

He points to the peak on the chart and circles it with his finger. He says, "Here's Obama."

Then he slides his finger down the slope and stops on the lowest point. "And here's... the end."

To see the years along the x-axis of that chart would have taken extraordinary eyesight. But see here. Where Trump points and quips "Here's Obama" is 2003-07, which is well before BO moved into the White House. Backward causality? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

One more letter. I remember Mitt Romney promised that during his first sixty days as President he would cancel most of Obama’s executive orders. In spite of his opposition to Trump I still think Mitt would have made a good President. Because of Trump’s rebelliousness and lack of big party boss connections, Trump has a chance of being even better. So, would Donald Trump consider the hypothetical “Repeal Amendment?”

Peter

Notes from an old letter of mine.

In Robert Tracinski  “An Interview with Jamie Radtke, Part 2, he asks the Senatorial Tea Party and Republican candidate from Virginia about the Repeal Amendment and Jamie replied: The Repeal Amendment is a proposed amendment to the US Constitution designed to restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments that our Founders originally envisioned. The amendment states that any law, rule, regulation, or tax passed by Congress can be repealed upon a vote of two-thirds of state legislatures. This does not give absolute power to the states—but with repeal power, the states could check the current absolute power of the federal government and force Congress to take a second look at unwise legislation.

Over the years, regardless of the political party in power, states have surrendered their sovereign prerogatives in return for federal handouts. This has given the federal government the ability to intrude in areas that the Constitution has reserved to the states.

This concentration of federal power has had many negative and unconstitutional consequences, from loss of personal freedom to unnecessary burdens on the free market, to the transfer of the people’s money to federal bureaucrats, to the imposition of unfunded mandates and other financial burdens on the states and their people.

Unless states stop yielding power to Washington, their complaints about federal intrusiveness will ring hollow. We must empower states with a constitutionally legitimate tool to check the powers of the federal government. The Repeal Amendment is that tool. The Repeal Amendment will empower states to regain their veto power to stop the irresponsible concentration of power in the federal government.

end quote

 

Interesting. A two-thirds majority of the state’s legislatures can repeal any law, rule, regulation, or tax passed by Congress. But a “con-con” or constitutional convention must first be called, to enact The Repeal Amendment. Does anyone have any thoughts about the advisability of passing this amendment? The Government is once again, about to run out of money and ten elected, Tea Party Senator’s are tired of it. I like The Repeal Amendment better than calling more than one constitutional convention in the coming years or politics as usual.

Peter Taylor

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, merjet said:

To see the years along the x-axis of that chart would have taken extraordinary eyesight. But see here. Where Trump points and quips "Here's Obama" is 2003-07, which is well before BO moved into the White House. Backward causality? :)

I watched the video several times at the moments he's pointing and talking. And I looked at the still pic you give a link to above.

I see what you mean, he certainly is pointing at years that are not Obama's, as though O had started earlier.

But you seem to think Trump exaggerates against Obama in this case, whereas as I see it, Trump's error is in Obama's favor.

Trump points to years prior to Obama, when home ownership was still climbing, and attributes it to Obama.

If Trump had pointed more precisely Obama's bad record on homeownership would be made even more clearly for what it has been - pretty much straight down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon, home-ownership has been pretty much straight down since BO took office, but only about 2/3rds of the big decline on the right side of the graph is after he took office. Of course, policies undertaken during Hillary's hubby's administration were a main cause of the housing boom and bust.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Merjet wrote: . . . Of course, policies undertaken during Hillary's hubby's administration were a main cause of the housing boom and bust. end quote

So if BO is gone but is replaced by under arm deodorant Hillary she will have a housing and property values boom. We just need to know when it is going to go pop so we can make some dough. Got it. We need to keep an eye on her graft buddies, and when they sell we will know it is time. What a great first Lady Bill will make. I foresee more Secret Service Agents resigning in disgust. 

Trey Gowdy who I do respect just sent this to my inbox: . . . Marco is facing a really tough re-election campaign. They have set a goal to raise 1 Million by their August 30th Primary, and I told him I would email my most loyal friends and supporters to see if they could help Marco . . . Marco's voice and vote in the Senate are crucial to the future of our nation. He is a stalwart supporter of the conservative values that you and I hold dear, and we must do whatever it takes to make certain Marco wins re-election . . . . end quote

Bejeesus. As of now, Trump must win Florida to win the Presidency. But never have I given so little money to a candidate since McCain. But there Trump IS, out there in still another arena, exhausting himself while saying the same stupid things, and shooting himself in the foot. Maybe “Little Marco” or “Lyin’ Ted” will come to the big baby’s assistance. Oh, wait. They and their state’s were insulted and their support has been lacking because of that big asshole’s gas. Go figure.

He is still the better candidate. America cannot afford the fifth, deciding vote to be a (communistic without the Marx groupie) progressive. The conservatives on the court are honest and have their differences but the commies vote as a block, 90 percent of the time. Oh Great Zeus and Poseidon I beseech thee . . . .

Peter

From The Washington Examiner: As Donald Trump continues to slip in both national and state polls, it appears so does his optimism behind closed doors. According to a New York Times report, the Republican presidential nominee's mood has become "often sullen and erratic." His associates say he "veers from barking at members of his staff to grumbling about how he was better off following his own instincts during the primaries and suggesting he should not have heeded their calls for change. Furthermore, Trump has become thoughtful about his relationship with the media — and how it has soured. He even calls the national chairman of his campaign, Paul Manafort, several times a day "to talk about specific stories"  . . . . Interviews with more than 20 Republicans that are close to Trump and chose to remain anonymous, they described their nominee as "exhausted, frustrated and still bewildered by fine points of the political process and why his incendiary approach seems to be sputtering." end quote

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peter said:

From The Washington Examiner: ...

Peter.

Heh.

Look again.

That is not a Washington Examiner story about Trump. It is a story about a New York Times story based on "unnamed sources" about Trump.

:) 

I wonder how much Kelly Cohen got behind the scenes to run that thing.

After all, a gal's gotta eat and she knows that thing will not make a damn bit of difference. :) 

I realize Alex Jones is biased, but look at the video below. He claims to have information on Trump's internal polling and the news is quite sunny. Judging from the overkill in the media, I suspect there is some truth in that.

Also, here is a kid who is really pro-Trump.

He gives a pretty good overview of the polling situation from a pro-Trump insider perspective. He's signing up to be a Trump poll watcher for the election. I keep seeing stuff like this, so I may end up doing that, too. I'm not crazy about the idea, but what the hell...

Anyway, these videos should give you a little more optimism, even if only for a second before you turn on the mainstream media again. :) 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

Here's another video for you, also. It's from a Trump rally in South Carolina last Tuesday.

This kind of thing is happening wherever Trump goes. Maybe he doesn't always call people to the stage, but they always have his back.

Can you imagine this happening at a Hillary Clinton rally?

She gets enthusiasm, as is proper for a candidate for president, but not this.

Michael

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Mike. I needed a dose of optimism. I was happy with Trump’s tax and economic speech. The Washington Examiner is usually conservative and biased towards the truth. Joke. They are conservative but a bias towards the truth is illogical. You aren’t biased. You are rational. Live long and prosper, Donald.  I wish Trump were from Vulcan, mentally.

 

After reading that story I expected Trump to come out for carbon taxes and other Green horse crap, like McCain did. I remember thinking I am giving my dough to that sexy babe Palin not to McCain. Pence is not a substitute. Nope, it’s all about the good feeling I get, so I know, I will give the dough to Melania and she can hand it to El Supremo.

Peter 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peter said:

Thanks, Mike. I needed a dose of optimism.

Peter,

Let me help you some more.

As Reince Priebus said below, "Don't believe the garbage you read..."

He's introducing Trump at a rally yesterday in Erie, Pennsylvania:

Does that sound anything remotely resembling the doom-and-gloom Washington Examiner story of a story of the stories of unnamed storytellers?

:)

On the contrary, that sounds to me like a solid stride on the path toward victory.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Peter,

Let me help you some more.

As Reince Priebus said below, "Don't believe the garbage you read..."

He's introducing Trump at a rally yesterday in Erie, Pennsylvania:

Does that sound anything remotely resembling the doom-and-gloom Washington Examiner story of a story of the stories of unnamed storytellers?

:)

On the contrary, that sounds to me like a solid stride on the path toward victory.

Michael

look at that audience!   Blinding white faces.  It made me squint.   I  hypothesize that the smallest group in American politics  is  Negroes For Trump.   The Population of Color in the U.S.  is about 1/7 of the entire population.   1/7 of those faces  are not darker than average.   Is this significant?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ba’al wrote: Look at that audience!   Blinding white faces.  It made me squint. end quote

Well, you still have your Jewish hieroglyphics at the bottom of your posts, which reads, “Workers of the world unite. Stride towards victory, one step at a time, behind our fearless leader.” Perhaps there is a genetic predisposition towards *liking* and supporting your particular branch of the family tree, just as a baby grows up subconsciously liking people who look like his parents and siblings. Trump is effective at tailoring his message to the group he “thinks” are most likely to vote for him.

Peter  

Notes from The Washington Post: Mickey and Ayn. Spillane's effectiveness at tailoring that political message for the masses made him the envy of intellectual conservatives and won him affection from another best-selling novelist who also endured critical skewering: Ayn Rand. Spillane smiles when the writer of "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" is mentioned. "We were good friends," he says. Rand was an atheist and Spillane was devoutly religious, but they found common cause in their opposition to communism, a theme they agreed should be championed in literature. Rand also liked Spillane because her concept of an ideal man was similar to the Mike Hammer character: tough, strong-willed, independent. She admired the way Spillane dramatized themes of moral absolutism in his detective plots. end quote

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael wrote: On the contrary, that sounds to me like a solid stride on the path toward victory. end quote

When will we see the good news from RealClearPolitics polling averages? Nobody wants to back a loser and throw money down the drain.

Donald? Tell your story. Fight The Media Bias. Fight The Hillary Machine. Otherwise pick your fights wisely. Stop being SO emotional and snarky.  Stop pretending your sarcasm isn’t literally, a lie, so you have to walk it back. “Leaving a vacuum in Iraq” does not mean Obama and Hillary are the founders of Isis. That’s on the level of a seventh grader, I’m just sayin’. You have no political philosophy and you have “Presidentially” thought very little out, beyond the eight major points in your platform. So for the next 3 months, every time you open your mouth, think about the electoral college. Wake up in the morning and say, I must win Florida, (not “Rosebud” which is an allusion to Orson Well’s character in Citizen Kane.)

As one good example consider Trump’s blasting of the New York Times for its poor reporting and bias. That’s good but then to talk about taking away their press credentials illustrates how Trump will misuse his Presidential powers and disregard The Constitution. Of course he can refuse to do interviews with The NY Times or Politico, but to close them down is the action of a dictator.

He wants to hint at things like instigating violence at his rallies, physically attacking the opposition, (I recommend no one discuss that further or you may have the Secret Service knocking on your door), destroying a free press and disregarding The Constitution.

So is he having a meltdown, like the Times cover? Are those unsourced leaks proof that Trump’s staff is in a major psychological depression? Maybe, maybe not. But the Trump campaign is not winning.

RCP averages: Clinton 47.8. Trump 41. Johnson 8.3. Stein 3.0 percent.  Chance of Hillary winning? 60 to 70 percent BUT what will the next story be. But still, as of now, Clinton is crushing the battle ground states  and is beating Trump by 3.6 percent in much needed Florida. August 14th to September to October . . .  to the most crucial election day in history . . .  in early November.

"Florida. I must win Florida."

Political Scientist Larry Sabato from UVA is on Fox talking about media bias. Does the nature of his campaign cause the bad press? He should adopt the Sinatra song, "I did it my way," as his theme song.       

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL...

Trump (to a protester): Hillary, is that you?... Say hello to Bill, Hillary...

:)

I believe America is starving for this kind of spontaneous swagger, which is another reason Trump will win.

When Hillary puffs up to do it, she goes into her default nag-like loud voice and makes a beating motion with her hand that comes off as waaaaaay too rehearsed--often a one-two Karate chop series (a different chop with alternating hands for each point).

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peter said:

When will we see the good news from RealClearPolitics polling averages?

Peter,

There is a reference point to use as a template. Look at the primaries.

So when will we see the good news from RealClearPolitics polling averages? Probably as the election nears and the pundits start wondering out loud if anything, anything at all, can take Trump out and start laughing nervously about being so wrong, just like in the primaries.

Notice that Trump's establishment polling massively improved in the primaries around when that started happening.

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Peter,

There is a reference point to use as a template. Look at the primaries.

So when will we see the good news from RealClearPolitics polling averages? Probably as the election nears and the pundits start wondering out loud if anything, anything at all, can take Trump out and start laughing nervously about being so wrong, just like in the primaries.

Notice that Trump's establishment polling massively improved in the primaries around when that started happening.

:)

Michael

Most primaries are open only to voters registered with the party.  They do not have the same predictive significance as a general poll or the Real Vote which is open to any registered voter regardless of party affiliation.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Most primaries are open only to voters registered with the party.  They do not have the same predictive significance as a general poll or the Real Vote which is open to any registered voter regardless of party affiliation.

Bob,

I would normally agree with this.

But taking into account the way Trump has set the issue agenda on most all of the major campaign issues for both parties in this election, and the doofus behavior and spectacular failures--gobs of 'em--of the media, polls and pundits going back to June of last year, I think the polling pattern of the primaries is a hell of a lot more predictive than the actual establishment polls, the finger-wagging of establishment toady pundits, or the crooked mainstream media shilling for Clinton.

Modern establishment polls remind me of the drunk searching for his car keys under a street light at night. When someone asked him where he lost his keys, he pointed to a block away where it was dark, but said he prefered to search where he was searching because the light was better. 

:) 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

I would normally agree with this.

But taking into account the way Trump has set the issue agenda on most all of the major campaign issues for both parties in this election, and the doofus behavior and spectacular failures--gobs of 'em--of the media, polls and pundits going back to June of last year, I think the polling pattern of the primaries is a hell of a lot more predictive than the actual establishment polls, the finger-wagging of establishment toady pundits, or the crooked mainstream media shilling for Clinton.

Modern establishment polls remind me of the drunk searching for his car keys under a street light at night. When someone asked him where he lost his keys, he pointed to a block away where it was dark, but said he prefered to search where he was searching because the light was better. 

:) 

Michael

We will have to wait for the first Thursday in November to see if you are right...

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

But it is soooo much better to wait for the first Thursday in November to see if you are wrong...

:evil: 

Michael

Why not wait until the first Thursday in November and see how the election turned out?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Why not wait until the first Thursday in November and see how the election turned out?

Bob,

Because I'm not arguing with the election. I'm arguing with you.

:)

Anyway, I already have a prediction about the election. Trump is going to win. And I give it about a 95% chance.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

Because I'm not arguing with the election. I'm arguing with you.

:)

Anyway, I already have a prediction about the election. Trump is going to win. And I give it about a 95% chance.

Michael

If he wins it is a 100 percent chance  and if he loses it is a 0 percent chance.  to come up with 95 percent you have to hold the election many time  and see how many of the times Trump won.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

If he wins it is a 100 percent chance  and if he loses it is a 0 percent chance.  to come up with 95 percent you have to hold the election many time  and see how many of the times Trump won.  

You are arguing post election while Michael is on the pre-election. It's an odds calculation. At the racetrack there is only one race and one set of odds out of the gate. Michael--correct me if I'm wrong--is offering 95 bucks for your 5 buck bet on Clinton. Take it.

--Brant

(if he's a sucker)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now