Donald Trump


Recommended Posts

That was a hypocritical thing for Trump to tweet when he just "disappointed supporters by choosing James Woolsey, the corrupt former head of the CIA, as a campaign advisor for national defense" (quoting from the updated "Fear and Loathing of Donald Trump" on ARIwatch.com).

Hopefully Woolsey will go the way of Manafort, Trump's earlier big mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mark said:

That was a hypocritical thing for Trump to tweet when he just "disappointed supporters by choosing James Woolsey, the corrupt former head of the CIA, as a campaign advisor for national defense"...

Mark,

I don't grok what Woolsey has to do with Powell or why this was hypocritical.

Apropos, how do you propose to find clean dirty-tricks folks to do the dirty tricks needed to fight the dirty tricks from the other side? I looked Woolsey up since I didn't know much about him. Just from the Wikipedia article alone, "dirty tricks dude" jumped out at me from in between the lines of every paragraph.

Trump wants to win this election, not play at it by making soapbox speeches about ideological purity.

:)

Look at it this way. If you fight a hog in a fancy suit, there's no way to keep it clean. It's going to get dirty and so are you. So it's much better to use another hog to fight a hog. :) 

Don't worry, though. Manafort helped get the primary delegate mess straightened out. Trump knows when a person like that has served his function and it's time to move on. I don't know what he has in mind with Woolsey, but I'm pretty sure he knows exactly what he is doing.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From digital “People Magazine”: Ivanka Trump, in Testy Interview, Makes Clear Her Father's Child Care Plan Is Not for Gay Dads (or Any Dads). The policy, which Ivanka, 34, unveiled alongside the Republican presidential nominee in Pennsylvania on Tuesday, would give new moms six weeks of paid maternity leave, and also makes child care expenses tax-deductible for families that earn less than $50,000 annually. Further, it would establish tax-free accounts for families to use for child care and child enrichment activities. Most of the plan's focus, however, is on women, as reporter Prachi Gupta noted while questioning the mother-of-three.

"Why does this policy not include any paternity leave?" Gupta asked.

In response, Ivanka explained, "I think this takes huge advancement and obviously, for same-sex couples as well, there's tremendous benefit here to enabling the mother to recover after childbirth. It's critical for the health of the mother. It's critical for bonding with the child, and that was a top focus of this plan."

Ivanka said the plan would impact same-sex marriages if the couple had legal married status under tax code, but ruffled when pressed about unions of two men. "The policy is fleshed out online, so you can go see all the elements of it," she said. "But the original intention of the plan is to help mothers in recovery in the immediate aftermath of childbirth." end quote  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some ideas from Rush Limbaugh today. Big government’s job is to give away other people’s money to a “generational” class of moochers.  By establishing a ‘NEEDY’ voting class who will vote “only” for them, they have institutionalized their elitism. Their goal is to always remain in power. For years there has been an undercurrent in politics that has wanted an outsider in the White House, to get rid of the elites. That is who Trump is. This election is not about conservativism and progressiveness. For instance, Ivanka Trump’s plan for tax breaks for mom’s who have just given birth has already been proposed by conservative think tanks. So would it simply be one more way for government to expand? Yes, but Rush’s goal has never been to keep any particular party in power. He still sees no alternative to Donald Trump even though Trump is not a conservative in many ways.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woolsey was part of the Bush administration’s gin up of the Iraq War, as was Powell.  Yet Trump opposed that war.

Who does Trump think his supporters are?  Doing a dumb thing like hiring Woolsey is no way to win the election.

Trump didn’t know what he was doing when he chose Pence, an establishment type, as his running mate.  Trump, as president, risks being impeached – contrary to popular belief committing a crime is not required for impeachment – because Congress can stomach Pence as president.  

Sometimes Trump needs to be forced on track.  Don’t give him cartes blanche.  It would be hard to undo the Pence choice but it would be easy to dump Woolsey.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guantanamo Bay or Gitmo, is a U.S. Naval base as well as a prison. What should President Trump do about it? There may be other ways of disposing of illegal combatants and terrorists.

Peter

 

Notes. From: "Peter Taylor" To: atlantis Subject:  The death penalty – BB Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001.

 

BB wrote: There are a number of maximum security prisons in this country to which are sent only the most violent and unmanageable prisoners . . .The law of the land is that no one in prison can receive the death penalty for what he may do in prison . . . One prisoner, known to have murdered a guard, was put into a blazingly lit cell, far underground, for twenty-four hours a day. He was allowed no human contact, no visits, no television or movies or books or writing material. He is expected soon to join the ranks of the madmen . . . What does one do in such cases?

end quote

 

The guards have lost none of their inalienable rights, though they have agreed to place themselves in harm’s way. I have long thought that such incorrigible prisoners should be exiled to a tropical Pacific island in the chain of islands in the Hawaiian archipelago.   They will be given the housing and initial food to survive and will be given seeds, stock animals and tools to do farming and light carpentry. None may leave. No guards will be on the island but three miles off the island the prisoners will be guarded by the Coast Guard or private guards, and surveillance satellites or devices.

 

The name, “Devil’s Island” would be appropriate, but unlike the French version, we would wash our hands of them. They would not be monitored, shackled, or imposed upon by decent society. Nor would reporters be allowed in. If a fool decides to "Break In" they will not be rescued or allowed off the island. Escapers will simply be returned to the island if they can be rescued without the guards endangering their own lives.

 

The prisoners will be free to form the society they deserve. They will be free to dispose of each other or themselves. RATIONAL INDIVIDUALS WILL NOT BE TAINTED BY HAVING TO MAKE ANY FURTHER DECISIONS ABOUT THESE PEOPLE. THEIR FATE IS IN THEIR HANDS.

 

In Justice, Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

 

From Wikipedia. Gitmo: The payment of $2,000 was increased to $4,085 in 1934. The new amount was paid by checks from the United States Treasury, payable to "The Treasurer General of the Republic". Payments have been sent annually, but only one lease payment has been cashed since the Cuban Revolution. Fidel Castro claimed that this check was deposited due to "confusion" in 1959, and the Government of Cuba has declined all further payments . . . . In 2005, the US Navy completed a $12 million wind project erecting four wind turbines capable of supplying about a quarter of the base's peak power needs, reducing diesel fuel usage and pollution from the existing diesel generators (the base's primary electricity generation), while saving $1.2 million in annual energy costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Mark said:

Sometimes Trump needs to be forced on track.  Don’t give him cartes blanche.  It would be hard to undo the Pence choice but it would be easy to dump Woolsey.

Mark,

I half agree with you and half disagree. It's not on principle. It's on what I call process thinking, which is very typical of those who build projects.

I think you are coming from an ideological mindset, which is good. But that view--in practice--is always looking at the horizon, not at a specific destination. And the characteristic of a horizon is that you can only move toward it or away from it, you never reach it, nor do you ever escape it. Why? Because it is a context, a background, fundamentally a standard for guidance. But that's not a work plan. In a journey, an itinerary is a work plan.

The vision for the future in an ideology is like a horizon. It is always based on some kind of perfection, or some kind of utopia or other. And it includes a set of principles for moving toward that horizon (or perfection or utopia).

A work plan for a project is waaaay different. To start with, the vision for the future is concrete. You can touch it. It's a drawing of a skyscraper, the finish line for a relevant athlete, an outline of a symphony, pictures of and info on specific targets to destroy (for whatever purpose), a law project, etc. A vision for a project is wholly tangible. A vision for an ideology can have tangible elements, but intangibility is its fundamental characteristic. 

For Trump, he's mostly about tangible. And here is how a sequential work plan plays out for a project (like, say, for Trump's election). There's a lot more to it, but I'm doing this off the top of my head as illustration.

PROJECT VISION (or Goal): Win the election for the presidency of the United States.

STAGE 1: Generate buzz (get name in the mainstream as a candidate), formally announce and do the legalities.

STAGE 2: Compete in and win the primaries with the voters.

STAGE 3: Win delegate election at convention and accept the nomination.

STAGE 4: Compete in and win the general election, both with voters and with the Electoral College.

You can set up a work plan in different ways with lots of different details and approaches, but this sequence demands to be followed by the reality and nature of the project's vision. So any variations will have to include these stages in one form or another.

Now here's the thing. Often there will be things you do in Stage 1--while you are in it--to get that Stage done correctly, but it would be poison to do the same thing in Stage 4. Making super-controversial comments is a good example. It's great for generating buzz (Stage 1), but the closer you get to November 8 in Stage 4, the less time there is to let a controversy burn out. 

So you essentially have two arcs for strategy and tactics in a work plan: (1) the general arc for the overall vision, and (2) a series of smaller arcs based on the specific steps that must be done in the correct sequence. 

When a man like Trump executes a project, he always keeps his overall vision in mind, but he is well aware of fundamental needs of each Stage. That's why he has gone through campaign managers the way he has done. Lewandowsky was great to get him through the buzz and the primaries (Stages 1 and 2), but a technical problem arose along the way with delegates. So he got a specialized man do fix the delegate situation (Manafort).

Note, Trump still loves Corey Lewandowsky and there will probably be a place at the table for Corey in a Trump administration, but tension between him and Manafort was distracting from Stage 3 goals. So Trump got rid of Corey. Does that mean Corey is out of the overall vision? No. It does mean he was removed after he had successfully helped achieve the first two Stages, but was not effective in the following one. I believe Corey will be part of the destination, but is no longer part of the journey.

That can work with more sinister elements, too, and with a slightly different outcome. They can be on board for part of the journey due to specific needs of specific Stages, but (barring sinecures or pats on the head or things like that), they will not be part of the working structure at the destination. For a kinda lame analogy, what does a construction contractor have to do with running a luxury hotel? His part is over once the hotel is built.

I cannot talk intelligently about Woolsey until I learn more about him, but based on what little I do know, I bet he's on board for tactical reasons arising from a specific Stage or Stages where certain establishment Republicans could torch the process, but will most likely not be on board for running the country.

From an ideological view, Woolsey does not share Trump's ideology (or that of his followers), so he cannot be on board. From what I have seen so far, I can fully agree with this, but this is also where I said I half-agree with you.

When we change perspective and go from a project view, the lack of Woolsey (or the lack of someone who does what he does) might be fundamental to a specific Stage and result in it not being completed correctly. Trump knows the details of that and I don't (yet). In that case Woolsey's history and principles would become a matter of blah blah blah only. Why? Because by losing a Stage, Trump will lose the election. 

This does not mean that, for a man like Trump, he has no ideology. I've said it before and I'll say it again. I believe he is one of the most moral men to ever run for the presidency, despite not using correct ideological jargon. But in a project plan, ideology can present (and it is better when it is), but it is a horizon. It is a general guide (go East or go West, etc.). It is not an itinerary or instruction manual for getting specific jobs done.

Trump knows his destination lies to the West (so to speak), but the specific place where it lies is projected by his vision and a map, not by just looking at the horizon and following it as the crow flies, i.e., never going East or North or South to get around a mountain or canyon.

To move a bit into your wheelhouse (btw - I always hear this used, but what the hell is a wheelhouse? :) ), one of my main beefs with ortho-Objectivists is that they do not understand this difference in perspectives. At least, I never see them write about it. Or if they do, they treat business plans as a form of selling out when a tactic needs to be used that does not point squarely toward their ideological horizon. Their way of going through a forest is by running over a straight line of trees with a bulldozer, not finding the pathways between the trees. They kinda get in trouble when they come across a forest of giant sequoias, too. Their bulldozer stops dead in its tracks. :)

To overextend the metaphor, they try to build tunnels through all mountains to make sure the horizon line stays straight even when it makes no sense to do that, and that's one of the reasons they hardly ever arrive at a destination other than right beside Rand's works. 

Then there's the part you always like to point out, that their horizon and Rand's horizon often point to different directions, but that's beyond the scope of this post.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Have you felt it too? Have you seen how your best friends love everything about you- except the things that count? And your most important is nothing to them; nothing, not even a sound they can recognize . . . .  The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see.” ― Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead.

Segue to the election year of 2016. “How does that old nautical saying go?” Michael wonders. “Red sky in morning, sailors take warning. Red sky at night, sailors delight.” He lowers his hardbound, first edition of “The Fountainhead.” “Horizons,” he ponders. Taking a sip of Michelob, he sighs, and then writes: “Then there's the part you always like to point out, that their horizon and Rand's horizon often point to different directions, but that's beyond the scope of this post.”

Taken by itself Michael’s statement is intriguingly vague, but with the other parts of his post it makes a lot of sense. President Trump does not illustrate a particular policy, start a national project, or solve a crisis by saying, “I am working towards limited Constitutional Government.” In the back of his mind his overall goal is success, and not an ideological goal.  He probably even calls Ayn to mind thinking her name is Ann Rand.

So objectivists cannot judge him through the lens of ideology. If you were looking at a sheet of paper with faded writing, and you saw the words, “President Trum . . . . .” you might wonder if it said, “President Truman?” And in 2020, President Truman may be the name we most compare to President Trump.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if Hillary magically turned into Ron Paul I would prefer Donald Trump.  That said, obviously at times Trump needs to be straightened out.

Another example besides Manaford today gonaford tomorrow:  During one of the RNC debates Trump blurted out that as president he would torture people more severely than Bush.  He immediately (the next day or soon after) retracted this statement.

The following are my notes from the Right Web’s profile on Woolsey:

James Woolsey is a former director of the CIA. He has supported several neoconservative groups, including the Committee on the Present Danger, the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, the Project for the New American Century, the Center for Security Policy.

He defends the U.S. government’s extensive domestic surveillance program, including the phone-tapping program of the National Security Agency, and hates Snowden for alerting the public to its existence.

He accused Snowden of providing “classified information to people who are enemies of the United States.”  He blasted suggestions of giving Snowden amnesty and said he should be hanged. “He should be prosecuted for treason. If convicted by a jury of his peers, he should be hanged by his neck until he is dead,” Woolsey said in a 2013 interview.

After the terrorist attacks in Paris in November 2015 Woolsey said Snowden was partly responsible.  He claimed that the use of encryption by ISIS was due to Snowden’s leaks. (ArsTechnica responded: “... a bit far-fetched, given that terrorist organizations have been using encryption of various sorts for more than 15 years at least. And additional details shared by officials since the attack suggest that ... the encrypted communications provided early warning that an attack in France was imminent.”)

He chairs the Leadership Council of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a pro-Israel group.  Served on the board of advisors of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a spinoff of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and of the Jamestown Foundation.

Woolsey champions President Obama in attacking the Islamic State (ISIS) in Iraq and Syria. In September 2014 he said the United States should commit ground troops.

In an interview after the July 2015 nuclear deal between Iran he [without reason] claimed that “Iran was involved [in] ... the support to the terrorists that brought about 9-11.”

Woolsey was an outspoken proponent of invading Iraq before 9/11. He supported the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the group founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, and signed several PNAC open letters to government figures encouraging an aggressive military agenda.  One such letter was to Clinton in 1998 which advocated the U.S. invade Iraq.

After 9/11, Woolsey was among the first government advisors to call for ousting Hussein, joining Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle.  He became a prominent media presence after 9/11, criticizing opponents of the Bush administration’s “War on Terrorism.”

Frequent advisor to defense contractors and government panels. A former vice president of Booz Allen Hamilton (a big Pentagon contractor) and partner at the D.C. law firm Shea and Gardner.  He served as chair of his firm Woolsey Partners, as venture partner and senior advisor to VantagePoint Venture Partners, chaired an advisory group of the private equity fund Paladin Capital Group, and served as counsel to the law firm Goodwin Procter.

Critics have criticized Woolsey’s simultaneous employment in government and the private sector.  In a March 2003 report about potential conflicts of interest of several DPB members, the Center for Public Integrity wrote: “Former CIA Director James Woolsey is a principal in the Paladin Capital Group, a venture-capital firm that, like Perle’s Trireme Partners, is soliciting investment for homeland security firms. Woolsey joined consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton as vice president in July 2002. The company had contracts worth more than $680 million in 2002.”

After a tenure as CIA director during Clinton’s first term Woolsey rejoined the law firm of Shea & Gardner where he had first worked in 1973. Shea & Gardner represents a number of major corporate clients, including defense contractors Boeing and Lockheed Martin, and counts among its former employees Stephen Hadley, national security advisor during Bush’s second term. In 2003, the firm was registered as a foreign agent performing lobbying and legal services for the Iraqi National Congress. After Shea & Gardner became part of Goodwin Procter, the latter registered as a foreign agent for the Iraqi National Congress Support Foundation, which “contacted U.S. Government officials to refute allegations made against Ahmed Chalabi.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Mark said:

Save that “coming from an ideological mindset” for someone else.

Mark,

I most definitely will not.

:)

Besides, I was talking about a perspective on your objection, not on you per se. It's easy to confound ideology with project when looking at tactics. I do it, myself. So I don't equate you with the true believer mindset I see in others in our subcommunity. (If I did, I would say so clearly, as I have done with others.)

However, while you want to straighten out Trump with a hammer, I see that he has arrived where he did against great odds. So I give him credit for knowing what he is doing. You, apparently, do not.

:evil: 

(Just kidding... :) )

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mark said:

During one of the RNC debates Trump blurted out that as president he would torture people more severely than Bush.  He immediately (the next day or soon after) retracted this statement and said he opposed using torture.

Mark,

If you are talking about waterboarding, Trump is in favor.

He always has been to my knowledge. In his speech yesterday to the financial honchos in NYC, he mentioned it again. He said the ISIS savages hung prisoners upside down on meat hooks, then cut their throats and filmed the whole thing. Then he said, we worry about waterboarding and we are playing on an uneven field and that's not smart. Then he said we have to take ISIS out decisively, that we have no choice.

I don't remember the specific words, but the impression he gave left no doubt that he was going to let the military go as hard as it wished on ISIS prisoners if the need arises.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Mark,

If you are talking about waterboarding, Trump is in favor.

He always has been to my knowledge. In his speech yesterday to the financial honchos in NYC, he mentioned it again. He said the ISIS savages hung prisoners upside down on meat hooks, then cut their throats and filmed the whole thing. Then he said, we worry about waterboarding and we are playing on an uneven field and that's not smart. Then he said we have to take ISIS out decisively, that we have no choice.

I don't remember the specific words, but the impression he gave left no doubt that he was going to let the military go as hard as it wished on ISIS prisoners if the need arises.

Michael

To get information from the ISIS vermin which could save innocent lives, I'd do a lot more than waterboarding. --J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The following video is one of the most satisfying I have seen this election cycle, even though Cenk said awful things about Trump.

Ahhhh...

Man, that felt good...

:)

Michael

If The Donald wins (I still would not bet on it)  it would be such a profound Shock to the System that our political alignment will fall apart.  From the wreckage good might yet arise.   I am voting for The Donald just to see what kind of a mess he can cause.  At the very least it will be an interesting mess...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Mark,

If you are talking about waterboarding, Trump is in favor.

He always has been to my knowledge. In his speech yesterday to the financial honchos in NYC, he mentioned it again. He said the ISIS savages hung prisoners upside down on meat hooks, then cut their throats and filmed the whole thing. Then he said, we worry about waterboarding and we are playing on an uneven field and that's not smart. Then he said we have to take ISIS out decisively, that we have no choice.

I don't remember the specific words, but the impression he gave left no doubt that he was going to let the military go as hard as it wished on ISIS prisoners if the need arises.

Michael

Torture is a stupid interrogation technique. You can't trust the answers. As a practical matter it might be useful if information is needed immediately apropos an acute emergency situation. The "practical matter," however, is hypothetical and might only be found in science fiction or other made up stuff. ("Mr. Roark, where did you stash the dynamite? What are/were you planning to do with it? What does Dominique have to do with this? We know she purchased blasting caps in a mining supply store in Reno and has disappeared. Where is she?")

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

Ayn Rand used the term "subhuman" a lot.

Do you think radical Islamists who hang prisoners upside down in a slaughterhouse on meathooks, cut their throats, film it and publicize it are human beings deserving of protection for their individual rights?

Go to the following link: WATCH: New ISIS Video Hangs ‘US Spies’ From Meat Hooks & Slaughters Them Like Sheep

Scroll down to the video and start at about 8:20 to skip the blah blah blah. See if you can watch to the end.

Then we can talk about the effectiveness of waterboarding those bastards. Frankly, I don't think many people care what happens to them. I know I don't. These are true subhumans.

Trump promises to take them out, one way or another. I don't mind if his way is the "another."

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

Ayn Rand used the term "subhuman" a lot.

Do you think radical Islamists who hang prisoners upside down in a slaughterhouse on meathooks, cut their throats, film it and publicize it are human beings deserving of protection for their individual rights?

Go to the following link: WATCH: New ISIS Video Hangs ‘US Spies’ From Meat Hooks & Slaughters Them Like Sheep

Scroll down to the video and start at about 8:20 to skip the blah blah blah. See if you can watch to the end.

Then we can talk about the effectiveness of waterboarding those bastards. Frankly, I don't think many people care what happens to them. I know I don't. These are true subhumans.

Trump promises to take them out, one way or another. I don't mind if his way is the "another."

Michael

I second the emotion.   Plus I do not give a Rat's Ass about collateral damage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ba’al wrote:  . . . I do not give a Rat's Ass about collateral damage. end quote

If civilians are not targeted, then objective law properly places full moral blame on the person who put the innocent in the position of hostage or shield. In a sense, the aggressor is the *cause* of the deaths of the innocents and is the *cause* of any collateral damage that is unavoidable during the process of self-defense. Yet rules of engagement are essential to morality, and to the consciences of individual servicemen. We are the good guys.

I likened the name President “Trum . . . an” to the name President “Trum . . . p”, with just three letters different. How weird is that? Truman ended the war with Japan with an atom bomb. Few people remember Truman as simply a democrat. No, he was the president who followed FDR and ended the war. Trump will be the President who followed the disastrous Obama and destroyed the latest crop of terrorists. I say the latest crop because Western Civilization’s condensed populations will always be a target for subhuman monsters. It may become necessary to disperse people, infrastructure, and water supplies.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

Ayn Rand used the term "subhuman" a lot.

Do you think radical Islamists who hang prisoners upside down in a slaughterhouse on meathooks, cut their throats, film it and publicize it are human beings deserving of protection for their individual rights?

Go to the following link: WATCH: New ISIS Video Hangs ‘US Spies’ From Meat Hooks & Slaughters Them Like Sheep

Scroll down to the video and start at about 8:20 to skip the blah blah blah. See if you can watch to the end.

Then we can talk about the effectiveness of waterboarding those bastards. Frankly, I don't think many people care what happens to them. I know I don't. These are true subhumans.

Trump promises to take them out, one way or another. I don't mind if his way is the "another."

Michael

What does this have to do with my post? I was referring to effective interrogation technique.

--Brant

Link to comment
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