Donald Trump

[KorbenDallas]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

And he wants to make the country rich so the math for all his projects works on the balance sheet. 

Is that the fuzziness you refer to?

Michael

This quoted part is, yes.

[merjet]

Eminent Domain Critic, Ayn Rand Superfan, Former Cato CEO John Allison Could Run Trump’s Treasury
"Allison wants to repeal all Dodd-Frank regulations, which didn't fix the problem of banks being "too big to fail.""

[turkeyfoot]

12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Geoff,

Gotcha 

Michael

Michael,

I have no idea about Soros' meme.

Words and deeds. He is reneging. On what is arguably a laughable position re Clinton. His comment was built on ignorance not the expert advice of political engineers. Apparently in the harsh light of day they reached consensus. He could never prosecute Clinton so now they cleverly disguise it with good will avoiding personal embarrassment of the PE. He said not only that he recognizes the need to drain the swamp but he knows how to do it. 

An analogy is, he promised to build under budget and sooner than projected and failed to deliver. The point Id make about that is he would have no discretion over a Clinton matter but only over his agents (USAG) conduct. But Clinton is not the lynch pin. It was an offhanded thoughtless remark made during the last debate.

ACA is, in my opinion. The idea of repeal is fraught with political realities. If as he has said pre existing conditions will be allowed and 6 week paid leave for pregnant mothers it sounds less like repeal and more like more of the same. 

We will see what he can do. My observation is he plays a good game but speaks mostly out of ignorance. As he learns he rewrites the words. His call to arms rhetoric is couched in the false belief that he can change enough of DC to drain the swamp. If the last 80 yrs has taught me anything its that the ignorant electorates sentiment is carried away on the political coat tails of our caretakers.   

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

18 minutes ago, turkeyfoot said:

He could never prosecute Clinton...

Geoff,

No, but his Attorney General could.

And I predict, will unless she gets a presidential pardon.

 

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

33 minutes ago, turkeyfoot said:

 

We will see what he can do. My observation is he plays a good game but speaks mostly out of ignorance. As he learns he rewrites the words. His call to arms rhetoric is couched in the false belief that he can change enough of DC to drain the swamp. If the last 80 yrs has taught me anything its that the ignorant electorates sentiment is carried away on the political coat tails of our caretakers.   

 

There is campaign mode  and administration mode.  They are quite different.

 

[Mikee]

My personal impression: Obama still retains all of the power of the presidency until January, the damage he is capable of doing to this country has to be managed very carefully.  Obama is a loose cannon, his blind arrogance can only be managed with conciliatory actions to assuage his overwhelming egocentricity until he is out of power.  Trump is a master at sizing up and understanding his opponents, no one really understands Trump.

[BaalChatzaf]

39 minutes ago, Mikee said:

My personal impression: Obama still retains all of the power of the presidency until January, the damage he is capable of doing to this country has to be managed very carefully.  Obama is a loose cannon, his blind arrogance can only be managed with conciliatory actions to assuage his overwhelming egocentricity until he is out of power.  Trump is a master at sizing up and understanding his opponents, no one really understands Trump.

Obama is  concerned about his "legacy".  They may constrain him a bit.  

[turkeyfoot]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Geoff,

No, but his Attorney General could.

And I predict, will unless she gets a presidential pardon.

 

Michael

Michael,

That is your wish. Dependent on charges being brought forth by an FBI indictment prior to Jan 20.

If that is to be the case, then Trump has heaped even more confusion on top of his retracted statement and will have issued another erroneous pledge by pursuing her. Your assumption rests on Trump approving of his AG to prosecute.

"If I win, I am going to instruct my AG to get a special prosecuter........"

"I don't want to hurt the Clintons, I really don't," Trump said, according to the tweets. "She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways." "I think I will explain it that we, in many ways, will save our country,"

Kelly Ann Conway, “I think when the President-elect, who’s also the head of your party, tells you before he’s even inaugurated that he doesn’t wish to pursue these charges, it sends a very strong message, tone, and content to the members,” Conway said. “And I think Hillary Clinton still has to face the fact that the majority of Americans don’t find her to be honest and trustworthy. But if Donald Trump can help her heal, then perhaps that is a good thing. Look, I think he’s thinking of many different things as he is preparing to become president of the United States, and things that sound like the campaign aren’t among them.”  

The only way I can think of where these sentence can be parsed to still find a loophole that relieves Trump of his words intent is by explaining that Trump hasnt made a commitment.

If what you have wished comes true, then his veracity and his character will have been put to the test. And on that alone I would judge the man a liar.

Words dont mean anything in politics until, I suppose, a time when they can be acted on or not.

Is this the way you read Trump? As the kind of person who doesnt say what he means nor mean what he says? 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, turkeyfoot said:

Is this the way you read Trump?

Geoff,

The way I read Trump should show something obvious: That it's different than the way many people read Trump. After all, how many geniuses at reading people led to them to repeatedly predict in public--over a full year and a half--that Trump would fail whereas I repeatedly predicted he would win?

So there's that.

I don't know what you think that means, but, at the very minimum, it should be that I see something the others don't.

And this leads me to the false dichotomy you are proposing, essentially whether Trump is honest or an incorrigible liar. This includes the conclusion that can be derived from that, which is: If I think Trump is merely a lying politician who says different things to appease different people, that makes me a hypocrite for claiming he is different. 

I claim that formulation does not mean anything other than a word game because reality is not present in it.

If gotcha is your standard of reality, any gotcha shows there is no difference between Trump and a two-bit criminal who never produced anything (or even a Buddhist saint who desires nothing).

An old chestnut in Objectivist canon says if a thief asks you where the jewelry is, you are not being virtuous by telling him (so you can be honest). But you are being virtuous by lying to him and telling him you have no jewels. The thief approached you dishonestly and with intent to coerce, so you are more than justified by withholding your own honesty from him and preserving your values. The point is that honesty needs a context of honesty to be a moral restraint on a person.

The principle is: Honesty is a good default habit as a rule of thumb, but it must be earned to be demanded as an all-or-nothing moral restraint on a person. Agree or disagree, that's the way I learned it in my reading of Rand and those who wrote with her. I agree with this, too.

So who speaks for you and to you about Trump? What I mean is, where do you get your information about Trump and who reflects your opinions? The press?

Well, let me ask you this. Do you really think The New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media has the moral standing to demand honesty from anyone? I sure as hell don't. And I'm asking that without even claiming Trump was dishonest to them.

Why? Because in that either-or situation (honest or dishonest), the only thing in reality that is served is a word game. Think about it. What traces in reality are left after that game is played? I only see one: The accused can claim, "See? I am right! You should not have accused me," or the accusers can point the finger at him and say, "Shame on you."

Pffffftttt...

That's it. And the fallout is maybe one person feels superior to another and can pat himself on the back.

There is nothing else in reality this does.

Out in reality where stuff gets done, where stuff gets built and destroyed, gotchas can be spun like slings, but the stakes from spinning gotchas are about nothing but power. They're not even about stuff, they're merely about the power of rulers to aid or obstruct the people who actually deal with reality. And, believe me, this power game deals with a hell of a lot more than gotchas.

So Trump deals with the press as a power game as his priority. The gotcha stuff is entertainment for the public in this context, not morality. And Trump entertains the hell out of his supporters.

Besides, there is a fundamental difference between a marketing message and an outright lie to cover a crime said directly into the camera to the American public at large--like Hillary Clinton did. Remember? She said, with a straight face and looking all innocent and stuff, that she did not send or receive classified documents on her personal email server.

But I think the difference goes even deeper. Some people use words to unleash their creative potential to build beautiful projects in the future and motivate people to help them. Others see words as straightjackets and buckets of cement from the past that are best used to anchor the feet of this creative potential in everyone to the bottom of the sea and let it drown.

Trump falls into the first category and so do the millions of people who voted for him. They see this difference because they have to produce things and still live with the idiots of the second category who try to block them every day of their lives. After all, Trump supporters are the kinds of people who create the wealth that the ruling class so magnanimously distributes to others (and themselves).

Michael

[turkeyfoot]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Geoff,

The way I read Trump should show something obvious: That it's different than the way many people read Trump. After all, how many geniuses at reading people led to them to repeatedly predict in public--over a full year and a half--that Trump would fail whereas I repeatedly predicted he would win?

So there's that.

I don't know what you think that means, but, at the very minimum, it should be that I see something the others don't.

Michael

Michael,

I asked the question hoping you would answer it. Thanks for your response.

____________________________________________

And this leads me to the false dichotomy you are proposing, essentially whether Trump is honest or an incorrigible liar. This includes the conclusion that can be derived from that, which is: If I think Trump is merely a lying politician who says different things to appease different people, that makes me a hypocrite for claiming he is different. 

I claim that formulation does not mean anything other than a word game because reality is not present in it.

_______________________________________________

I hadnt thought enough ahead to form an opinion, I was waiting for your answer.

Your wish simply needs to be played out and I will say then that Trump misrepresented his view of leniency with an explicit lie. Especially given his first position and retraction. A second would indicate to me a flippancy and lack of character. Public utterances that are recorded or written, I hold to a higher standard than say doing business when misrepresentations are made without the necessary contractual language to back them up. 

________________________________________________

If gotcha is your standard of reality, any gotcha shows there is no difference between Trump and a two-bit criminal who never produced anything (or even a Buddhist saint who desires nothing).

_________________________________________

Im not finding equivalency in a criminal and Trump. Hes only said words and hasnt acted upon them except to change his public stance. I expect him to stand by his words. He knows very well what the stakes are, he needed to judge the facts and choose accordingly and stand by his convictions. Any vacillation is seen by me as capricious. If the intention is to keep his opponents off balance he does it at the expense of losing those who place importance on keeping ones word.   

_____________________________

An old chestnut in Objectivist canon says if a thief asks you where the jewelry is, you are not being virtuous by telling him (so you can be honest). But you are being virtuous by lying to him and telling him you have no jewels. The thief approached you dishonestly and with intent to coerce, so you are more than justified by withholding your own honesty from him and preserving your values. The point is that honesty needs a context of honesty to be a moral restraint on a person.

The principle is: Honesty is a good default habit as a rule of thumb, but it must be earned to be demanded as an all-or-nothing moral restraint on a person. Agree or disagree, that's the way I learned it in my reading of Rand and those who wrote with her. I agree with this, too.

___________________________________

Yea, as I remember it the example given by Peikoff involved cops (Nazis) coming to a door demanding the whereabouts of a person who is known by the door opener to be innocent. The "lie" was the chosen response to being unwilling to submit to an arbitrary claim made by authorities. I view the Trump reversal on the Clinton disposition as starkly different.   

_________________________________

So who speaks for you and to you about Trump? What I mean is, where do you get your information about Trump 

_________________________

Trump.

__________________________________

Well, let me ask you this. Do you really think The New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media has the moral standing to demand honesty from anyone? I sure as hell don't. And I'm asking that without even claiming Trump was dishonest to them.

________________________________

Im limiting my views to one example where he has misrepresented what he said he will do. I draw inferences about the man and await his next steps. When I have read the Times transcript I perhaps mistakenly ?? interpreted his quoted remarks as being his and not something the Times dreamed up. For the moment I will assume they are accurate. For the questions unrelated to Clinton he appeared dodgy and non committal, like a rookie in summer camp looking for inside strategies to make the big leagues.

_________________________

Besides, there is a fundamental difference between a marketing message and an outright lie to cover a crime said directly into the camera to the American public at large--like Hillary Clinton did. Remember? She said, with a straight face and looking all innocent and stuff, that she did not send or receive classified documents on her personal email server.

___________________________

Theres no doubt in my mind shes guilty as hell. But Im looking at a person who caved, finding a better solution in the wake of the media fire storm, he needed closure, to move on not retribution. That will be taken in a court of law if at all. Now if he were to waver yet again and change his mind again, as you would want/wish for, after the in depth explanation, he will have little reason to expect trust since he has proven himself otherwise. He would have made himself an easy target, certainly avoidable and a political price would be deserved and probably extracted. The thing is he has little to do with a final judgment, other than choosing a just AG, but has inserted it anyway.  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, turkeyfoot said:

Your wish simply needs to be played out and I will say then that Trump misrepresented his view of leniency with an explicit lie.

Geoff,

Say it "then"?

Actually, you said it before.

13 hours ago, turkeyfoot said:

Words and deeds. He is reneging. On what is arguably a laughable position re Clinton.

Gotcha!

   

My broader point is that Trump is a doer, not just a talker. He's not even in office, so he hasn't had time or conditions to lie about Hillary Clinton. Or renege, for that matter. Or any other euphemism for immorality and selling out his supporters. 

Let's see what he does when Jeff Sessions does what he does about the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation. There are several investigations still ongoing. All the rest is nothing but verbal thrusts and parries with a dishonest, hostile press.

Buyer beware.

It's a mistake to treat words as deeds, especially when only words are possible right now, then call the man a liar--or say he is reneging--for not doing something he has no power to do one way or the other until he is sworn in. 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

12 hours ago, Mikee said:

... no one really understands Trump.

Mike,

You do.

I'm going to say something I have no doubt you will understand, but others will not.

Once Trump has implemented a functioning border along Mexico and stopped the flow of illegal immigrants to the US from there, and established a rational immigration procedure with an effective customs gateway, I believe you will consider he met his campaign promise. It won't matter if that border is made up of part wall, part fence, part natural boundary with beefed up surveillance, etc. 

Trump's critics will howl if that border is not 100% wall.

They don't understand what Trump's wall rhetoric symbolized during the campaign.

I believe you do.

I know I do.

(And btw - I have no doubt--none whatsoever--that Mexico will pay for it.  )

Michael

[Mikee]

Right.  If actions achieve their stated purpose people can criticize the details all they want.  Watch what people do not what they say.  Talkers talk, doers do.

[merjet]

On 11/23/2016 at 10:16 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

In other words, some people hold to the principle that poor people buy more than rich folks, and the corollary that spending creates wealth--just so long as you hide these ideas with math. They say their math is as clear as crystal, too. And, man, can they posture about it.

Trump says rich people buy more than poor folks and that's the way it's always been. That only a moron would think a poor person buys more than a rich person does.

I guess I'm a moron without the wisdom of Donald Trump! 

I believe that lower income folks spend a larger percent of their income on consumption goods, and save a smaller percent of their income, than do high income folks. 

Many people, probably all economists, believe that. This page says so, too, and there are plenty of statistics to support it. Of course, that does not mean that poor folks buy more (MSK's vague claim) in dollars than richer folks. On the other hand, maybe the statistics, or math, is as far from crystal clear as MSK insinuates, i.e. it's all "posturing" or some sort of "junk math". 

Obviously Donald Trump is better at math than me, a mere actuary who took many math courses more advanced than calculus. After all, his income and wealth is much higher than mine.  On the other hand, there is that exception for our incomes in 1995, at which I bested him by more than $915,000,000 (per Form 1040 AGI). 

[Brant Gaede]

As Obama (Obama/Clinton?) was the irrational playout of statism infecting America, Trump is (will be) the dam that bottled up the flow of collectivism until the lake overflows and destroys that dam. We've four to eight years to come up with something better if "we've" are into that. Trump is a cultural, not intellectual, force. What is now needed is a re-transmogrification of freedom into a cultural force and take that as available from Trump and leave the rest. The cultural force created By Ayn Rand with her Objectivism has played out for sundry reasons and cannot be re-animated but can be somewhat recast. Trump does demonstrate the need for a lot of alpha-maleism to deal with the public weal and the need to speak simply, basically and forcefully. 

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

16 hours ago, turkeyfoot said:

Michael,

That is your wish. Dependent on charges being brought forth by an FBI indictment prior to Jan 20.

If that is to be the case, then Trump has heaped even more confusion on top of his retracted statement and will have issued another erroneous pledge by pursuing her. Your assumption rests on Trump approving of his AG to prosecute.

"If I win, I am going to instruct my AG to get a special prosecuter........"

"I don't want to hurt the Clintons, I really don't," Trump said, according to the tweets. "She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways." "I think I will explain it that we, in many ways, will save our country,"

Kelly Ann Conway, “I think when the President-elect, who’s also the head of your party, tells you before he’s even inaugurated that he doesn’t wish to pursue these charges, it sends a very strong message, tone, and content to the members,” Conway said. “And I think Hillary Clinton still has to face the fact that the majority of Americans don’t find her to be honest and trustworthy. But if Donald Trump can help her heal, then perhaps that is a good thing. Look, I think he’s thinking of many different things as he is preparing to become president of the United States, and things that sound like the campaign aren’t among them.”  

The only way I can think of where these sentence can be parsed to still find a loophole that relieves Trump of his words intent is by explaining that Trump hasnt made a commitment.

If what you have wished comes true, then his veracity and his character will have been put to the test. And on that alone I would judge the man a liar.

Words dont mean anything in politics until, I suppose, a time when they can be acted on or not.

Is this the way you read Trump? As the kind of person who doesnt say what he means nor mean what he says? 

Go after the Clinton Foundation.

--Brant

take the money--and leave the rest

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 hours ago, merjet said:

I believe that lower income folks spend a larger percent of their income on consumption goods, and save a smaller percent of their income, than do high income folks.

Merlin,

I'm a simple man.

I learned in my own business dealings many many moons ago that 1% of a billion is far more than 100% of 100. 

I didn't need advanced math to come to that conclusion. And, it's probably due to my lack of advanced math, I don't even find that vague, neither the concept, nor the math.

Michael

[turkeyfoot]

10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Geoff,

Say it "then"?

Actually, you said it before.

Gotcha!

   

My broader point is that Trump is a doer, not just a talker. He's not even in office, so he hasn't had time or conditions to lie about Hillary Clinton. Or renege, for that matter. Or any other euphemism for immorality and selling out his supporters. 

Let's see what he does when Jeff Sessions does what he does about the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation. There are several investigations still ongoing. All the rest is nothing but verbal thrusts and parries with a dishonest, hostile press.

Buyer beware.

It's a mistake to treat words as deeds, especially when only words are possible right now, then call the man a liar--or say he is reneging--for not doing something he has no power to do one way or the other until he is sworn in. 

Michael

Michael,

He changed his publicly held position. Hes on the hook.  

Youre off. For now. )

Flippantly,  

Geoff 

 

[william.scherk]

You guys I took a look at why @realDonaldTrump will keep on changing his mind https://t.co/e85bnneMQg

— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) November 25, 2016

Does it make any difference to expectancies that the President-elect defers decision until full counsel can be taken? I mean, betwixt the cup and the lip and so on, sure -- but is anyone here surprised that there is a 'campaign rhetoric' and a 'policy position' ... that the two may not be the same thing? I believe Michael has once or twice in this endless thread made such an observation: heightened language, sure-fire slogans, repeated 'action directives' from The Wall to Muslim ban/extreme vetting/zero refugee acceptance from Syria.

For an example, look back in this thread to discussion about Mr Trump's abortion position, back when he was gotchafied into saying the word 'punish,' and then goaded into further flips and flops before landing on the 'return it to the states' boilerplate? Throughout the campaign I watched and listened to the Trump rallies. He would say things out there, unprompted by anything but his free-association, that the next day were gummed to death by his campaign aides.

Or consider the Trump Administration's likely action on 'gay marriage.' The cosmopolitan New Yorker who personally has no problem with gay marriage, and raised the issue almost never on the stump. The closest he would get to opining was to say that it also should be returned to the states, or to the high courts again. I mean does anyone know what the Trump position on gay marriage is right now? As far as I can tell, Trump as president will see it as a done deal.

If that is what happens (no presidential weight added to any plans to overturn the Supreme Court), then that is somewhere in the ballpark of all the things he has talked up about it in the last 19 months and more.

Similarly, The Wall. During the campaign, Build The Wall ... and, wait for it ... Who Is Going To Pay? and such slogans were political campaigning gold. It electrified the crowds by simplifying the broad Trump point that protecting and holding 'our borders' was his supreme responsibility. Once the campaign is over, the supreme responsibility remains, but the nuts-and-bolts and the 'air' wall and the 'port' wall, and the visa-system, and the 'vetting' and the 'registry' and the 'deportation force' and other salient features will be translated into policy and procedure and made into law/regulation/spending bills.

I have heard Trump the candidate in many of his campaign rallies. The main item of interest for me was Canada. I always listened to what he had to say about Canada. The main reference to Canada in his stump speeches and policy proposals and point-plans was NAFTA. I heard it nine different ways, the Trump plan for NAFTA. It was from the least awkward 'renegotiate' all the way to 'tear it up.'

So, ultimately, wishful thinking or not, we will see how the almost cartoonish simplified campaign principles are made concrete. -- it seems awkward to hold to a position that Trump has not softened, flip-flopped, nuancified, smoodged over or buried some of his campaign rhetoric and his punchy debate lines. He wouldn't be the quick-witted, think on his feet, unpredictable man of The Deal whom his fans love or hero-worship. He wouldn't be effective if his election slogans and bark-lines were taken as graven in stone.

The Wall translates into Tighter Controls & Devices across the entire migration/immigration/visitor/visa/due-process/deportation alphabet soup of federal agencies. Gay rights translates into 'get used to it,' and abortion rights is left in the politico-judicial realm that isn't a decision made at the President's desk.

Another bout of sloganeering on the hustings was Infrastructure. America is falling apart. I will rebuild, renew, replace old, unsafe and inefficient infrastructure. Our US airports will again rival and surpass the world's finest airports in Asia and Europe. Your crumbling county bridges will be renewed. Etc. And we know from recent dispute here that It Is Complicated. Mr Trump will take counsel and the Policy may not exactly match either Slogan or Webpage Plan ... On and on, middle-class tax cuts to deregulating Wall Street, ending offshore profiteering to "bringing back our jobs."

Personally, I find the Trump wriggling and shape-shifting an indication that he has, as he said in the interview with NYT, an 'open mind.' That generally means open to argument, evidence, changing position.

One other interesting thing to watch will be how he fulfills his 'environmental'/capitalism bed of promises as pertain to the issue of Climate Change. He said, again, he has an open mind. So ... will it come to pass that the NASA earth sciences budget will be gutted, that the axe will fall on a lot of familiar high-science projects allied to NASA's work on climate? It is unclear.

Another thing to watch. For those who are a bit touchy about critical attention to Trump coming before he sits his big ass down in the Oval Office for his first presidential order, give it up. This is America, there is no one correct line. Moreover, this is a side-porch of Objectivishland, where dissent flows like sparkling wine.

I am counting on Mr Trump being flexible, corrigible, open-minded, analytical, deliberate and reasonable as he gets educated by his team on how to put policy into practice. I don't expect him on Day One to (as promised) get on the blower with Trudeau and Pena Nieto to say, "I am just now invoking the clause in NAFTA that signals USA withdrawal from the treaty. Have a nice weekend, fellas."

I will go out on a limb and say "Critiquing Trump is a Randian Thing,"  it is required.  If every potent or feeble critique of policy or performance is met with accusations of personal unworthiness -- it does Trump no good.  It creates a weird playground for reason where nobody is credited a 'point' against Trump. All points must be taken by Team Red.  All criticisms of Trump must be chewed down to stubble.  All queries and questions and observations that add critical light must be 'gotcha-ed' or scorned or driven from the field as Hate or Stupidity or Folly. 

Weird?

Trump's nat'l security advisor tells Tokyo that Trump values Japan, campaign remarks were rhetoric to win election:https://t.co/Xk5tzz4bIi

— Martin Fackler (@facklernyt) November 25, 2016

Edited November 25, 2016 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

I will go out on a limb and say "Critiquing Trump is a Randian Thing,"  it is required.

William,

No limb required. This is as it should be for those interested in correct identification before judging.

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

If every potent or feeble critique of policy or performance is met with accusations of personal unworthiness -- it does Trump no good.

Well, thank goodness that doesn't happen as a policy here on OL. 

btw - I am heartened by your concern for President-elect Donald Trump's welfare.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

... is anyone here surprised that there is a 'campaign rhetoric' and a 'policy position' ... that the two may not be the same thing?

William,

In the world of word-game-only folks, you will find even more that are not the same thing.

Here's just a taste of an explanation of a different way, though:

What Trump wants: He uses words to describe this.
What Trump perceives as reality: He uses words to describe this.
What Trump perceives as the best form of using that reality to get what he wants: He uses words to describe this and instruct others.

There are other variables, but these three are enough to make my point.

Sometimes a word used to describe what Trump wants has a different meaning than the same word used to describe what Trump perceives as reality (most words have more than one meaning--see any dictionary), but let's leave this aside right now for even further simplicity.

Now let us suppose the following:

What Trump wants: This stayed the same as before.
What Trump perceives as reality: This changed because reality changed or because previously unclear aspects of reality became known.
What Trump perceives as the best form of using that reality to get what he wants: This needs adjusting from the previous statement if Trump is to instruct others correctly to get what he wants.

This is just one of the ways he uses words. I know this blasts the gotcha game all to hell and back (although word-game-only folks have great fun calling this "flip-flopping"), but this is how you build things.

And it works like this for all builders.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

21 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Merlin,

I'm a simple man.

I learned in my own business dealings many many moons ago that 1% of a billion is far more than 100% of 100. 

I didn't need advanced math to come to that conclusion. And, it's probably due to my lack of advanced math, I don't even find that vague, neither the concept, nor the math.

Michael

If your income is a billion/yr and you spend 30% on food, you'll need a big warehouse--or the Salvation Army will love you for your donations.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

Game on.

On 11/25/2016 at 0:31 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

On 11/25/2016 at 10:55 AM, william.scherk said:

... is anyone here surprised that there is a 'campaign rhetoric' and a 'policy position' ... that the two may not be the same thing?

William,

In the world of word-game-only folks, you will find even more that are not the same thing.

I am one of The Folk.  I mean, I hate word-games, in the sense of getting pedantic-obstrutive or absurd in nit-picking a word out of context, reading too much into a word's connotation without context, or making an argument hinge on equivocation, an equivocal reading of a word or phrase.

Like here, I use the Principle of Charity to follow your argument.  I include under 'word-game-only' folks those folks who I have observed going to war on a word, sticking at word-level for analysis, avoiding or trivializing pending discussion by word/nit .  Today you invite me into a simile and an imaginary field of conversation and that is fun. More fun than gamey stuff we both disdain.

Quote

Here's just a taste of an explanation of a different way, though:

What Trump wants: He uses words to describe this.
What Trump perceives as reality: He uses words to describe this.
What Trump perceives as the best form of using that reality to get what he wants: He uses words to describe this and instruct others.

There are other variables, but these three are enough to make my point.

Sometimes a word used to describe what Trump wants has a different meaning than the same word used to describe what Trump perceives as reality (most words have more than one meaning--see any dictionary), but let's leave this aside right now for even further simplicity.

Now let us suppose the following:

What Trump wants: This stayed the same as before.
What Trump perceives as reality: This changed because reality changed or because previously unclear aspects of reality became known.
What Trump perceives as the best form of using that reality to get what he wants: This needs adjusting from the previous statement if Trump is to instruct others correctly to get what he wants.

This is just one of the ways he uses words. I know this blasts the gotcha game all to hell and back (although word-game-only folks have great fun calling this "flip-flopping"), but this is how you build things.

This is as far as I got without a question:

• What Trump wants: He uses words to describe this. 
• What Trump perceives as reality: He uses words to describe this.
• What Trump perceives as the best form of using that reality to get what he wants: He uses words to describe this and instruct others.

Can we swap out Trump for  Joe, or Any Builder or Anyman or Human beings?  Sure.  It seems pretty universal in scope: a goal can remain the same while a goal-seeker adapts or adjusts details of his plans to ongoing reality.

• A human builder uses words (but not words alone) to describe what he wants. Eg ... Goal, Building,Golf Course
• Joe the builder uses words (but not only words) to describe what he perceives (as a reality), Ie ... details of plan of accomplishing Goal, Building, Airline, Policy, University
• Any builder uses words (but not just words) to describe the best (updated) plans for achieving the Goal, Building, Policy, Infrastructure .

Quote

And it works like this for all builders.

I love New York. So much builders. So big buildings.  All building Trump wall of beans.

Think of all those builders, those Joes, those human beings who built up this enormous concrete engine of world capitalism ...  and somewhere in the mix of time and achievements, the structures made real by Trump's determination and savvy.  Can you pick them out and enjoy them as a class above all the rest? I can. 

 

-- another angle on Joe the Builder and Man-built New York.  In this one I can pick out Trump Tower by its golden sheen. It's not the tallest, it's not the grandest, it's not the most chic or the most vulgar or the most-celebrated, nor the most attractive. As achievements go, I give the Man full score.  And if you want to think that his tower outclasses all others, I can understand.

But back to Michael's good point, as I see it.   Do not mistake a 'flexibility' in verbal  exchanges around a table of New York Times staffers and honchos for flip-flop.  Do not underestimate Trump's determination to achieve his goals and grand plans.  Do not mistake a media-wizard's wizardry in session with the function of government.  Trump is not stupid. He knows what he says and he knows what he means.

For example, does this sound like a man who 'flip flops' or tailors message to  audience? Or does this sound like a reasonably intelligent person explaining where his mind is at, informally?  Or alternatives C through X.  Or something else.

From the transcript of the President-elect locutions amid minions of Carlos Slim, linked above:

Quote

[TRUMP:] As far as the, you know, potential conflict of interests, though, I mean I know that from the standpoint, the law is totally on my side, meaning, the president can’t have a conflict of interest. That’s been reported very widely. Despite that, I don’t want there to be a conflict of interest anyway. And the laws, the president can’t. And I understand why the president can’t have a conflict of interest now because everything a president does in some ways is like a conflict of interest, but I have, I’ve built a very great company and it’s a big company and it’s all over the world. People are starting to see, when they look at all these different jobs, like in India and other things, number one, a job like that builds great relationships with the people of India, so it’s all good. But I have to say, the partners come in, they’re very, very successful people. They come in, they’d say, they said, ‘Would it be possible to have a picture?’ Actually, my children are working on that job. So I can say to them, Arthur, ‘I don’t want to have a picture,’ or, I can take a picture. I mean, I think it’s wonderful to take a picture. I’m fine with a picture. But if it were up to some people, I would never, ever see my daughter Ivanka again. That would be like you never seeing your son again. That wouldn’t be good. That wouldn’t be good. But I’d never, ever see my daughter Ivanka.

UNKNOWN: That means you’d have to make Ivanka deputy President, you know.

TRUMP: I know, I know, yeah. [room laughs] Well, I couldn’t do that either. I can’t, that can’t work. I can’t do anything, I would never see my, I guess the only son I’d be allowed to see, at least for a little while, would be Barron, because he’s 10. But, but, so there has to be [unintelligible]. It’s a very interesting case.

UNKNOWN: You could sell your company though, right? With all due respect, you could sell your company and then …

TRUMP: Well …

UNKNOWN: And then you could see them all the time.

TRUMP: That’s a very hard thing to do, you know what, because I have real estate. I have real estate all over the world, which now people are understanding. When I filed my forms with the federal election, people said, ‘Wow that’s really a big company, that’s a big company.’ It really is big, it’s diverse, it’s all over the world. It’s a great company with great assets. I think that, you know, selling real estate isn’t like selling stock. Selling real estate is much different, it’s in a much different world. I’d say this, and I mean this and I said it on “60 Minutes” the other night: My company is so unimportant to me relative to what I’m doing, ’cause I don’t need money, I don’t need anything, and by the way, I’m very under-leveraged, I have a very small percentage of my money in debt, very very small percentage of my money in debt, in fact, banks have said ‘We’d like to loan you money, we’d like to give you any amount of money.’ I’ve been there before, I’ve had it both ways, I’ve been over-levered, I’ve been under-levered and, especially as you get older, under-levered is much better.

UNKNOWN: Mr. President-elect …

TRUMP: Just a minute, because it’s an important question. I don’t care about my company. I mean, if a partner comes in from India or if a partner comes in from Canada, where we did a beautiful big building that just opened, and they want to take a picture and come into my office, and my kids come in and, I originally made the deal with these people, I mean what am I going to say? I’m not going to talk to you, I’m not going to take pictures? You have to, you know, on a human basis, you take pictures. But I just want to say that I am given the right to do something so important in terms of so many of the issues we discussed, in terms of health care, in terms of so many different things. I don’t care about my company. It doesn’t matter. My kids run it. They’ll say I have a conflict because we just 9/21 opened a beautiful hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue, so every time somebody stays at that hotel, if they stay because I’m president, I guess you could say it’s a conflict of interest. It’s a conflict of interest, but again, I’m not going to have anything to do with the hotel, and they may very well. I mean it could be that occupancy at that hotel will be because, psychologically, occupancy at that hotel will be probably a more valuable asset now than it was before, O.K.? The brand is certainly a hotter brand than it was before. I can’t help that, but I don’t care. I said on “60 Minutes”: I don’t care. Because it doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters to me is running our country.

MICHAEL BARBARO, political reporter: Mr. President-elect, can I press you a little further on what structures you would put in place to keep the presidency and the company separate and to avoid things that, for example, were reported in The Times in the past 24 hours about meeting with leaders of Brexit about wind farms …

TRUMP: About meeting with who?

BARBARO: Leaders of Brexit about wind farms that might interfere with the views of your golf course and how to keep, what structures, can you talk about that meeting, by the way?

TRUMP: Was I involved with the wind farms recently? Or, not that I know of. I mean, I have a problem with wind …

BARBARO: But you brought it up in the meeting, didn’t you? TRUMP: Which meeting? I don’t know. I might have.

BARBARO: With leaders of Brexit.

MANY VOICES: With Farage.

TRUMP: Oh, I see. I might have brought it up. But not having to do with me, just I mean, the wind is a very deceiving thing. First of all, we don’t make the windmills in the United States. They’re made in Germany and Japan. They’re made out of massive amounts of steel, which goes into the atmosphere, whether it’s in our country or not, it goes into the atmosphere. The windmills kill birds and the windmills need massive subsidies. In other words, we’re subsidizing wind mills all over this country. I mean, for the most part they don’t work. I don’t think they work at all without subsidy, and that bothers me, and they kill all the birds. You go to a windmill, you know in California they have the, what is it? The golden eagle? And they’re like, if you shoot a golden eagle, they go to jail for five years and yet they kill them by, they actually have to get permits that they’re only allowed to kill 30 or something in one year. The windmills are devastating to the bird population, O.K. With that being said, there’s a place for them. But they do need subsidy. So, if I talk negatively. I’ve been saying the same thing for years about you know, the wind industry. I wouldn’t want to subsidize it. Some environmentalists agree with me very much because of all of the things I just said, including the birds, and some don’t. But it’s hard to explain. I don’t care about anything having to do with anything having to do with anything other than the country.

BARBARO: But the structures, just to be clear, that’s the question. How do you formalize the separation of these things so that there is not a question of whether or not you as president …

TRUMP: O.K.

BARBARO: … are trying to influence something, like wind farms?

TRUMP: O.K., I don’t want to influence anything, because it’s not that, it’s not that important to me. It’s hard to explain.

BARBARO: Yes, but the structures?

TRUMP: Now, according to the law, see I figured there’s something where you put something in this massive trust and there’s also — nothing is written. In other words, in theory, I can be president of the United States and run my 10/21 business 100 percent, sign checks on my business, which I am phasing out of very rapidly, you know, I sign checks, I’m the old-fashioned type. I like to sign checks so I know what is going on as opposed to pressing a computer button, boom, and thousands of checks are automatically sent. It keeps, it tells me what’s going on a little bit and it tells contractors that I’m watching. But I am phasing that out now, and handing that to Eric Trump and Don Trump and Ivanka Trump for the most part, and some of my executives, so that’s happening right now. But in theory I could run my business perfectly, and then run the country perfectly. And there’s never been a case like this where somebody’s had, like, if you look at other people of wealth, they didn’t have this kind of asset and this kind of wealth, frankly. It’s just a different thing. But there is no — I assumed that you’d have to set up some type of trust or whatever and you know. And I was actually a little bit surprised to see it. So in theory I don’t have to do anything. But I would like to do something. I would like to try and formalize something, because I don’t care about my business. Doral is going to run very nice. We own this incredible place in Miami. We own many incredible places, including Turnberry, I guess you heard. There’s one guy that does — when I say Turnberry, you know what that is, right. Do a little [inaudible]. But they’re going to run well, we have good managers, they’re going to run really well.

 

 

 

Edited November 26, 2016 by william.scherk
Transcription paragraphing

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

12 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Can we swap out Trump for  Joe, or Any Builder or Anyman or Human beings?  Sure.  It seems pretty universal in scope: a goal can remain the same while a goal-seeker adapts or adjusts details of his plans to ongoing reality.

• A human builder uses words (but not words alone) to describe what he wants. Eg ... Goal, Building,Golf Course
• Joe the builder uses words (but not only words) to describe what he perceives (as a reality), Ie ... details of plan of accomplishing Goal, Building, Airline, Policy, University
• Any builder uses words (but not just words) to describe the best (updated) plans for achieving the Goal, Building, Policy, Infrastructure .

William,

Let me give you an example more pertinent to this election than your example. (And, of course, as you say, any human can use this method of deploying words. In fact, they do it all the time for productive outcomes.)

1. What Trump wants: He wants to stop the flow of illegal aliens across the Mexican border.
2. What Trump perceives as reality: A wall is a great way of establishing a border barrier, so he tells everyone he wants to build a big wall all along the border for the physical part of solving the problem. (Let's leave aside the bureaucracy for this example.)
3. What Trump perceives as the best form of using that reality to get what he wants: As the border lands and waters have their own natural formations, Trump decides to use a wall in some places, a fence in others, a river with reinforced surveillance in others, and so on.

The critics scream "GOTCHA" and say he's backpedalling, yada yada yada. See? They're right and Trump's wrong. (General merriment, mocking and dancing in the street.) Ya' see? Ya' see? Trump can't literally build a wall all along the entire Mexican border. They've said that since the beginning. (Lots of self-patting on the back for being plenty more gosh-darn smarter--a slather I tell ya'--than the dopey flip-flopping Donald Trump.  )

But they're using "wall" as a gotcha word game and they couldn't give a rat's ass about the illegal immigration problem in their word game. 

But Trump isn't on that wave length. He doesn't use words for gotcha ball. He's got work to do, not a word-game to win. "Wall" in part two was a shorthand way of saying "barrier," but it was great as a visual symbol for his electorate since "wall" is specific whereas "barrier" is more abstract and cannot be visualized as well. Also, Trump doesn't want a wall at the root. He wants to solve an illegal immigration problem. That's what his electorate's problem really is. "Wall" is merely part of the solution and a great symbol for communicating an "out there" and "in here" in a way where the two shall not mix without supervision.

In part three, regarding the actual construction of the barrier along the border, any form that solves the problem in part one (illegal immigration) is what he is going to look at. Then he's going to settle on what works best with reality. A physical wall is only one solution among several. Other solutions for specific stretches will be wall stand-ins so to speak.

And, as gravy and knowing Trump, he will build this, all of it, ahead of schedule and under budget--unlike word-game-only politicians who can't design a horse without getting one-third of a camel seventeen years after the deadline for 32 times the original price--all paid for by US taxpayers.

Ah, yes, I almost forgot... Mexico is going to pay for that wall, too.

 

Michael

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

For example, does this sound like a man who 'flip flops' or tailors message to  audience? Or does this sound like a reasonably intelligent person explaining where his mind is at, informally?

William,

This is a subtle point, but an important one.

There goes that false dichotomy again. It is not a false dichotomy for word-game-only people. It has no real use for a producer who actually produces. Maybe a little, but it's a tiny slice of a much bigger pie, whereas for the word-game-only people, this dichotomy is the whole enchilada.

(I think I'm over-extending food metaphors all of a sudden.  )

When hit with a new situation or problem, here is what a producer does:

Analyzes the situation for problems and what needs to be done.
Brainstorms solutions.
Makes a plan of action.
Gathers resources and staff and finances.
Builds the thing based on the plan of action, adjusting where necessary or if a good opportunity arises.
Establishes an organized structure for using and/or maintaining of the built thing.

All of these stages use words. Sometimes a word used in one stage will not be used in the same way in another. Also, a word in an earlier stage, say brainstorming, might refer to an idea that gets scrapped for a better solution during the implementation. 

Hmmmm...

You know, the more I write about this, the more boring it gets. I'm not saying that as a posture or put-down. This is like going over elementary math (1+1=2, 1+2=3 and so on).

The mainstream press, which does not get this way of using words, sure has dumbed itself down as a byproduct of its self-corruption. I don't know the solution, either. Once an entire institution like the mainstream press has abandoned all standards of journalistic ethics, they end up fooling their customers as their business model. And like all cons, a widespread con crashes one day.

The journalists don't have to be so elementary-level stupid, though. But right now they are...

Michael