Donald Trump

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

Get elected President?

Brant,

I gotta do double duty on this.

Trump blessed Brexit & it won. Then LeBron & the Cavs won. Then he won the election. Now, he blessed the Patriots. It's science. #SuperBowl

— CHAR ?? (@TrueCharLen) February 6, 2017

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a very funny episode regarding the segment of Trump's interview with O'Reilly aired before the Superbowl.

When O'Reilly said Putin was a killer, Trump said lots of people are killers. Then, "What? Do you think our country is so innocent?"

The media went apeshit in mass. Moral equivalence! Proof that Trump is a Putin puppet! Yada yada yada.

Rush Limbaugh had a few thoughts (see here). The gist is that the same people who think America is to blame for everything bad in the world are suddenly proponents of American Exceptionalism so they can bash Trump. Rush wonders where this outrage was when Obama went on his apology tour, essentially apologizing to the world for America being a killer.

But the funniest was between Tucker Carlson and David Horowitz last night. I don't know how long the following video will stay up, but it's funny as hell.

Tucker tried to nail David by practically adopting the Neocon stance that America does not kill, this is a moral equivalence, etc. etc., etc. All this was said in the right tone of subdued outrage.

David was having none of it. He said Trump was a patriot who deeply loves America, not someone who wants to denigrate it. When asked to give an example of America killing, David said that was easy. President Obama killed Muammar Gaddafi with no reason whatsoever to do that. And Hillary Clinton, his Secretary of State, showed up and said, "We came. We saw. He died." Har har har har har...

 

The look on Tucker's face was priceless. You can see him visibly giving it up and deflate.

I love Tucker and what he is doing, but I don't think he expected that one.

What's worse, the Neocons can't even complain because David mentioned the killing by their open adversary (Obama and Clinton).

Michael

[merjet]

NEW ESSAY ON LEARN LIBERTY: “CRONY-IN-CHIEF: DONALD TRUMP EPITOMIZES AYN RAND’S ‘ARISTOCRACY OF PULL’”

It's projection, folks. Many dark clouds, thunder, and lightening in the author's view (link).

 

[anthony]

Significant change comes from the bottom, up. It constantly surprises me that Objectivists look to a political official for ideological guidance out of the swamp, and right away, please! They ~must~ know that real change will take a powerful groundswell of radical new ideas in the culture. In the mean time, making specious comparisons of an elected and representative leader, to O'ist principles of freedom, Capitalism and individualism, is fruitless and unhelpful. A liitle bit at a time, I feel sure is how it will work, and one must encourage every little bit along the way. I dunno. Just maybe, to begin with, it requires a degree of Statism to undo the ravages of Statism? But I really can't say.

[Ellen Stuttle]

6 hours ago, merjet said:

NEW ESSAY ON LEARN LIBERTY: “CRONY-IN-CHIEF: DONALD TRUMP EPITOMIZES AYN RAND’S ‘ARISTOCRACY OF PULL’”

It's projection, folks. Many dark clouds, thunder, and lightening in the author's view (link).

 

I think that the degree of cloudiness one sees in the Trump skies partly depends on one's sense of priorities.  I place stopping the climate alarmist and "globalist" power push at the top of the list.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

 I dunno. Just maybe, to begin with, it requires a degree of Statism to undo the ravages of Statism? But I really can't say.

 

Back in March 2016, Michael made an analogy to a pinga drunk which has stuck in my mind as descriptive of the current situation in the U.S.:

On March 4, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The new metaphor I'm thinking about, though, is the alcoholic in Brazil who is addicted to pinga (a rotgut version of rum). Don't forget, I was once a drop-down everyday drunk so I got to see some of this stuff up close (and drink my fair share of pinga  ). A person dependent on pinga reaches a curious stage, if his problem goes on long enough, where he dies if he goes cold turkey. This is on record in hospitals. Such a pinga-addicted alcoholic needs internment in a hospital for a period of time to get sober and still live. Does that mean he will live his entire life in a hospital and the routines he finds there? No. It only means if he doesn't go through the hospital stage, he dies.

I don't see Trump as a perfect candidate. Go back in this thread and you will see me say several times he is an intermediary candidate. And I mean intermediary on the timeline of going from sickness to health, not intermediary on compromising principles. Trump is a great achiever. Having the government run by such a man for a while is the hospital for a hopelessly pinga-drunk USA.

Ellen

[KorbenDallas]

8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

When O'Reilly said Putin was a killer, Trump said lots of people are killers. Then, "What? Do you think our country is so innocent?"

The media went apeshit in mass. Moral equivalence! Proof that Trump is a Putin puppet! Yada yada yada.

Rush Limbaugh had a few thoughts (see here). The gist is that the same people who think America is to blame for everything bad in the world are suddenly proponents of American Exceptionalism so they can bash Trump. Rush wonders where this outrage was when Obama went on his apology tour, essentially apologizing to the world for America being a killer.

I think Rush got it wrong, O'Reilly pressed Trump after he made the statement and Trump's explanation lands in his anti-war sentiment:

So Trump's reasoning is:  people were killed in Iraq, therefore they were killed by killers.  Yea, great logic there.

The best explanation I heard came from Mika on Morning Joe, she listed a few possibilities, the last was that Trump doesn't understand.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

The best explanation I heard came from Mika on Morning Joe, she listed a few possibilities, the last was that Trump doesn't understand.

Korben,

That's classic.

And rich.

Trump doesn't understand, huh? This coming from Mika. If I understand her, Trump only became president by accident. Mika is the real one who understands things because if she had run, she would have smoked him. Maybe she someday could teach him how to understand stuff.

btw - Trump used the Iraq war as an example. Not as a sole reason. Come on.

But qua Iraq war, we did do a lot of unnecessary killing there. Over a mistake--at best. Or a horrible manipulation by the Endless War for Profit machine (which I am inclined to believe.)

I like Horowitz's Gaddafi example best of all. Given enough time and prodding, I have no doubt Trump would have mentioned it. Your reasoning implies Trump approved of all the killing the US government has done except the Iraq war. That's just not how he thinks.

Trump is a producer, not a war-monger.

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

My reasoning doesn't imply Trump approved of all the killing the US government has done except the Iraq war, Trump's reasoning is that the US isn't innocent not only for the Iraq war, but for other wars as well.

Iran's Ayatollah agrees, "[Trump] has proven what we have been saying for more than 30 years — we would always speak about the political, economic, moral and social corruption in the U.S. administration — this man revealed it during the election campaign and since then, his actions now have demonstrated the reality of America and the meaning of American human rights."

What's next, an apology tour?  Or...

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Trump is ... not a war-monger.

Sure about that?

 

[KorbenDallas]

 

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

 

Kill them all and let God bury the bodies....

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Sure about that?

Korben,

Absolutely sure.

I don't consider dismantling a hostile bellic enemy to be war-mongering, meaning engaging in war for the sake of war.

Trump wants to eliminate a threat, not conquer the world.

In eliminating a threat when it's an enemy as evil as ISIS, competence demands you do it decisively. Otherwise, they will regroup and come back harder (and probably even more evil, like with biological weapons and dirty nukes).

That is not war-mongering. That is dealing with an enemy who is war-mongering.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Trump's reasoning is that the US isn't innocent not only for the Iraq war, but for other wars as well.

Korben,

And he's absolutely correct.

Wanna talk about the Vietnam war? Hell, outside that war, the US practically assassinated Diem. 

Wanna talk about how the US approved of, trained and equipped the kind folks in Operation Condor in Latin America?

I could go on and on and on.

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

10 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Korben,

And he's absolutely correct.

What he's not correct about is saying the US isn't so innocent as POTUS and in front of the world.  This isn't the campaign trail anymore.  A phrase like that emboldens our enemies, look at what Iran's Ayatollah has already said.  Part of the war is ideological and Trump's words will show up in recruiting videos.  Terrorists all over the world have certainly heard it by now, likely justifying positions or helping strengthen them.  Like Mika said, I don't think Trump understands.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

What he's not correct about is saying the US isn't so innocent as POTUS and in front of the world.  This isn't the campaign trail anymore.  A phrase like that emboldens our enemies, look at what Iran's Ayatollah has already said.  Part of the war is ideological and Trump's words will show up in recruiting videos.  Terrorists all over the world have certainly heard it by now, likely justifying positions or helping strengthen them.  Like Mika said, I don't think Trump understands.

Korben,

I totally disagree with this.

Faking a moral position that did not reflect reality is all President Obama did. How did that work out?

Trump ran on reality-based platform. He meant it. And he says the ugly facts when they need to be said, not as propaganda, but merely as identification.

As for recruiting and emboldening our enemies, that's pure baloney. The premise is that we can somehow use words to make violent terrorists change their minds and start to like us. Or make them worse. Jeez... how bad is worse compared to now?

Those who hate enough to blow up innocents, chop people's heads off for both evil and to make propaganda videos, etc. etc. etc., hate beyond redemption. And those attracted to that way of life will not be swayed by this word or that of the president when he says America is not innocent.

Gimme a break... 

I can assure you that if Mika lands in the middle of ISIS or those who think like ISIS does, she will get a good multiple raping--and that's if she's lucky enough for that to be all she'll get. That's not hyperbole, either. That's what they do to Western women. Hell, even their own women. And it won't matter how much she tries to appease them and say she has the moral high ground. 

You can't fight evil with lies and expect good to come from it. You fight evil by being a badass.

Trump's a badass.

Folks who fear the enemy as much as Mika seems to don't need to do anything. Just stay out of Trump's way and he (and other American badasses) will take care of it. After that, we can go back to pretending shit if people want to.

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Korben,

I totally disagree with this.

Faking a moral position that did not reflect reality is all President Obama did. How did that work out?

Trump ran on reality-based platform. He meant it. And he says the ugly facts when they need to be said, not as propaganda, but merely as identification.

As for recruiting and emboldening our enemies, that's pure baloney. The premise is that we can somehow use words to make violent terrorists change their minds and start to like us. Or make them worse. Jeez... how bad is worse compared to now?

Yea, I don't think the care bear technique would work, either.  What I have a problem with is rattling ISIS's cage, keeping them pissed off or pissing them off even more.  And regardless of what you've said here on the forum, Trump's words will show up in a recruiting video.

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Those who hate enough to blow up innocents, chop people's heads off for both evil and to make propaganda videos, etc. etc. etc., hate beyond redemption. And those attracted to that way of life will not be swayed by this word or that of the president when he says America is not innocent.

Gimme a break... 

I can assure you that if Mika lands in the middle of ISIS or those who think like ISIS does, she will get a good multiple raping--and that's if she's lucky enough for that to be all she'll get. That's not hyperbole, either. That's what they do to Western women. Hell, even their own women. And it won't matter how much she tries to appease them and say she has the moral high ground. 

That's gross.  Doesn't advance the argument in any way.

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You can't fight evil with lies and expect good to come from it. You fight evil by being a badass.

Trump's a badass.

Trump thinks Putin is a badass.  But the one thing the media keeps saying that it is moral equivalence what Trump said about Putin.  I don't think so, if this was about deal making.  Gotta ask the question, what does Trump have to say to Putin to get him to come to the table?  One thing about the US is pride, Proud to be an American.  With Trump saying the US isn't so innocent, is Trump proud to be an American?  See Putin has the upper hand here, to even deal Trump had to abandon American Pride and that makes America look bad before even coming to the table.  And Putin likely doesn't mind being called a killer, in fact he probably likes it.  Putin is a brilliant mastermind, and Trump got played.  Let me put it this way, if Trump and Putin were the only two in a room, Trump wouldn't be the smartest one there.

And how about that deal making?

Putin likes to blow shit up.  Trump wants to blow the shit out of ISIS.

Putin doesn't give a shit about collateral damage.  Trump thinks we should take out terrorist's families.

And how 'bout the oil?!

[anthony]

What I've been saying back when they were still growing, was to wipe out these ISIS sub-animals, then. While I don't claim full causality, I am sure the failure to do so has had some knock-on effect for the long, terrible Syrian situation and in turn created the migrant problems. Placation and self-blame by the West is what has encouraged them and recruited more - in the absence of swift, uncompromising opposition. What is always being down-played or evaded (by westerners) is the fact that it's the values of the West, above all, they pathologically hate, much less what "we did to them" (and so on). The only answer, from some EU countries: compromise those values of free speech etc., -- and then take in migrants, willy-nilly. And all that angst about a possible "incitement" of terror attacks by saying this, or by doing that, is exactly how the Left in Europe (and Obama) has strengthened them and aided their morale.

If it's our values they hate, very well then, let's show them our values in action.

(How can they hate us, it must be our fault - we only need to return them love and understanding and we will change their ways! - BS). Along with 'value' and causation, the Left can never grasp the meaning of 'evil' and needs to find excuses for and empathetic 'causes' of it. But ISIS knew this, they understood their enemy's Left Liberal uncertainty, appeasement and weakness, and they played us well. I think I have a little insight into the Arab/Muslim psychology; I believe that in a twisted way, Jihadists have contempt for (what they see as) cowardice, while respecting resolve. In the final result, if they don't achieve final victory for their 'caliphate', they wish to perish as glorious martyrs at the hands of a respectable foe. All their promoted and self-publicized acts of barbarity have been aimed at that objective, of a war. But not even their brutality against Christians(!) - the Yazidis and Kurds - prompted any orchestrated western response until recently when it's almost too late. It's quite unbelievable.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

That's gross.  Doesn't advance the argument in any way.

Korben,

Sometimes reality is gross.

And it doesn't go away just by refusing to name it.

If people want to advance arguments like saying President Trump just doesn't understand, what's wrong with advancing a vision of the outcome if they had their way and they faced their own understanding--in reality as it currently stands? Not according to what they want, but according to what current reality demands?

That's the way I learned to think in Objectivism.

So what's the reality we need to look at? Here's one item.

The ISIS people like to make videos with the following scenes in them. They hang people upside down in slaughterhouses and slit their throats. They put them in cages and drown them. They burn prisoners alive in cages. They have young children execute prisoners. Oh yeah... They openly practice sex slavery and write about it. Gang rape is constantly reported during hostilities. 

What is it that Trump doesn't understand about that? He openly talks about it.

Since Mika doesn't talk about it and wants Trump to understand her more enlightened vision of the world where wisdom reigns supreme and the lion lays down with the lamb, why does she blank out that stuff? Does she honestly think someone who gets jazzed by that stuff enough to want to join it is swayed by an offhand remark by the US president?

Sorry. I look at the reality of who these people are, then the vision of how they will act according to Mika, and say she should thank her lucky stars she hasn't had to deal with that reality. Why? Because the reality she refuses to consider is gross.

1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

And regardless of what you've said here on the forum, Trump's words will show up in a recruiting video.

Yeah.. right... If Trump didn't say those words, ISIS would stop making recruitment videos. Kumbaya. Hey, maybe they will give us all a big group hug.

   

Isn't it obvious that if they don't put Trump's words into those videos, they will put other stuff and the videos will be just as effective? 

Haven't you seen ISIS recruitment videos?

Do you think they are about gotchas? Trump saying something with a gotcha? Really? Do you honestly think young men will join a dangerous war because of a gotcha? Hell, the Trump part is a minor detail in a recruitment video that can be swapped out for any other detail about America.

The persuasion is in the vision of power they present--the typically long patches where your friendly ISIS folks set up a hypnotic rhythm in their chanting and preaching, then blow the music wide open to climactic ecstasy as they slaughter immobilized prisoners one after another, say, for 15 minutes of gore, then the butchers strike heroic postures at the end as they stare meaningfully into the camera. Do you think people who are persuadable to get converted by this kind of stuff even remember who Trump is by the end of the video? They couldn't care less. They just want that kind of power for themselves and a religious storyline to fit it to.

1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

Gotta ask the question, what does Trump have to say to Putin to get him to come to the table?

How about this: "Hey, Putin. Come to the table."

Telephones exist.

   

1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

With Trump saying the US isn't so innocent, is Trump proud to be an American?

You better believe it. Why do you think he wants to fix the mess?

Trump doesn't have to fake his pride or use deception to manipulate others into thinking he has this pride. His pride comes from his vision of America's greatness and a deep love of America, not from what others say, nor from what others have done to try to destroy that greatness.

Do you love your wife any less when she gets sick? Are you less proud of her and less in love when you say the word "sick" or name the disease that is making her sick so you can work on healing her?

If not, then why presume this doesn't apply to loving a country?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Trump will calm things down in Eastern Europe. The big question is what is he going to do with Iran then what about China? China is short and mid-term doable. Iran? That's where the next war might be. Cleaning up Iraq-Syria is going to be easier than one might think, especially if Turkey is put into its place. (Turkey is supporting ISIS,)

--Brant

masters of war don't fight wars, but some might have to be fought anyway--especially right out of the box to get there from here

Georgia farmer at his fencepost alondside a rural road and up drive a couple of Northerners: "Can you tell us how to get to Chicago?" The farmer slowly takes the straw out of his mouth and drawls: "You can't get there from here."

[william.scherk]

12 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Trump thinks Putin is a badass.  But the one thing the media keeps saying that it is moral equivalence what Trump said about Putin.  I don't think so, if this was about deal making. 

I don't get this part. Can you explain the ambit of 'deal making'? I mean, do you mean a global 'reset' with Russia, or more particular agreements that reduce tension between the powers?

Quote

And Putin likely doesn't mind being called a killer, in fact he probably likes it.  Putin is a brilliant mastermind, and Trump got played.  Let me put it this way, if Trump and Putin were the only two in a room, Trump wouldn't be the smartest one there.

Russia has complained about the 'fake news' (how I hate the term) calling Putin a killer.

Just one day after a Fox News interview between Bill O’Reilly and President Donald J. Trump aired — which showed the O’Reilly Factor host press POTUS on Vladimir Putin‘s history as an assassin of journalists — the Kremlin isn’t so happy.

A spokesperson for the Russian Federation said Monday that it is asking for a formal apology from Fox News over the line of questioning.

During a conference call with reporters Monday, Dmitry Peskov said, “We consider such words from the Fox TV company to be unacceptable and insulting, and honestly speaking, we would prefer to get an apology from such a respected TV company.”

During the interview from the White House, Trump argued that “it is better to get along with Russia,” than be adversarial, despite O’Reilly correctly pointing out that Putin has ordered the murder of political opponents and meddling journalists. “He’s a killer though, Putin’s a killer.”

Trump shrugged it off, responding, “What, you think our country’s so innocent?”

Although O’Reilly did not elaborate on specific cases during his sit-down with our nation’s 45th Commander in Chief, Russia’s aggressive and authoritarian history is well-documented. Alexander V. Litvinenko was an opponent of the Kremlin’s who was poisoned with polonium-210 in 2006, and two years ago another by the name of Boris Mentsov was gunned down in the shadows of the Kremlin itself. President Barack Obama at the time spoke out against the killing, calling it a, “brutal murder,” in direct contrast to the more friendly and understanding rhetoric that President Trump has so far invoked while discussing the Russian Federation.

Quote

And how about that deal making?

I don't know how the USA-Russia relationship will play out, though I have some biases and suspicions. 

What seems important to me is to understand what the President meant by suggesting the USA's leadership is guilty of the same crimes as the Putin regime.  Specifically, the deaths of disfavoured opponents of the regime.  In other words, political leaders, journalists.  

Now, one could argue that nothing has been proved to perfection. That the deaths attributed to a Kremlin command are just run-of-the-mill happenings that happen.  The death of Nemtsov may raise many suspicions that this was a 'hit' ... but since it was not proven, it is just a happening.

For me, the false equivalence is in a direct comparison.  If there were, for the sake of argument, a clear indication that the Kremlin uses hit-men to remove critics of its United Russia rule, then the equivalence that the President suggests is tied to what O'Reilly was going on about.

Who is the US equivalent of Nemstov, Polinskaya, Perepilichny, Lesin, Litvinenko -- and other figures in opposition to or investigating aspects of the Kremlin leadership?

That is where I think the comparison fails, and indicates that as Korben suggests, Trump does not understand.

Name the USA equivalents to these Russians, and the equivocation makes sense.

-- as for the future 'negotiations' with Russia, I look to the Arctic.  Over the next generation, if Arctic weather conditions continue on the longer-term trend of today, the players at the top of the world will seek to exploit its hydrocarbons (the Arctic is believed to hold about one fifth of Earth's reserves).

Russia is already planning to take control of the Arctic operational zones that may come, via its northern military buildup (as marked a couple of times by the departed Adam Selene). It will re-open and modernize its military outposts, it will construct three more nuclear icebreakers.  It will sooner or later impinge upon contested waters and valuable ocean 'real estate.'  I don't think there will necessarily be armed conflict, but the essential differences between the Western democracies and the Russian autocracy remain.

If the President does not understand the differences, it is possible if not probable that Putin is already in the pole position.

Meanwhile, of course, the border between a sovereign nation like Ukraine and the sovereign nation Russia  is a wound, an active, low-level killing war.  We have not heard the President's considered opinion on how that conflict might end.

I have no idea what the President's policy will be in regard to the larger issue of Russian agitation about NATO "encroachment."

12 hours ago, anthony said:

What I've been saying back when they were still growing, was to wipe out these ISIS sub-animals, then. While I don't claim full causality, I am sure the failure to do so has had some knock-on effect for the long, terrible Syrian situation and in turn created the migrant problems.

Knowing how, where, when and in what stages ISIS emerged from Al Qaeda in Iraq is essential, as you underscore. 

The Syrian war is complex, needless to say, but I hold that one can assess ISIS as wholly evil in intent, and wholly inimical to freedoms most basic -- and also assess the 'evil' of other players in the cockpit.  One can assess the failures of the Syrian military to confront ISIS instead of the FSA, Kurdish commies, varied non-Islamic civic opposition, and the galimaufrey of armed opposition.

I figure for myself that the index of evil is multivariate. It can only be simplified to a given point, beyond which is misunderstanding of the root of conflict.

For example, yesterday Amnesty International released a report that highlighted documented war crimes by the Assad regime in its prisons (specifically Sednaya). Folks will already be aware of the war crimes of the regime, as depicted by the "Caesar" photos which show actual torture-starvation victims in the many thousands. They may not be aware that the "regressive left" is complicit in denying and attempting to refute the evidence, using a crippled 'leftist' logic (eg, per the folks at Counterpunch): 

The new AI report documents an additional aspect of the Baath state:  secret 'execution factory'  prisons. In this report, we learn that the regime systematically hangs en masse tens of thousands of 'suspects' ...

I fear that the new President will make a too-simple cost-benefit calculation.  Russia is yes a guarantor of the Syrian state along with its allies Iran and Hezbollah. Russia is also  publicly opposed to ISIS (and partially engaged in degrading it).  The President may decide that a common enemy in ISIS can overrule or set aside concerns of the evils of the regime itself.  In which case, the entire spectrum of opposition will be abandoned to its fate, including the refugees closest in Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan. That has vast implications for the migration crisis ...

I'd like to believe that the President is focused and hard-headed and knows what he wishes to gain from negotiating a deal or deals with Russia.  I prefer to think that American ideals are what inform his decision-making and deliberations.

Quote

Along with 'value' and causation, the Left can never grasp the meaning of 'evil' and needs to find excuses for and empathetic 'causes' of it. 

There is a portion of the Left Blob that has been dubbed 'the regressive left.' These are otherwise rougey-red fulminators of the Labour-Left (in Britain) and the anti-war Left (in America) who find themselves in ideological contortions when faced with crimes against humanity of the Baath. In other words, they side with Assad ... 

Which sickens me.

Edited February 8, 2017 by william.scherk

[Jules Troy]

It's a shitshow ever there.

Wait...Where did Adam go?

[william.scherk]

-- to the Gentlemen of the Lake. 

1 hour ago, Jules Troy said:

Where did Adam go?

I prefer to think he is "at the lake" with Roger Bissell, Peter Reidy, Robert Campbell, Stephen Boydstun, "Whistler's Mum" Caroljane, Jerry Biggers, Jeff Riggenbach, and assorted other leavers amongst haters -- and not far beyond with Barbara.

Midway between The Lake and Valhalla but still among the living, I presume. I am not the only one who checks death notices, and so far Adam is not dead, by all reports. He is incommunicado as far as we know, which makes me think of the gavel, the hallway and the cell. Or -- a ravishing redhead who told him to concentrate his mental energy on her.

Also between the lake and heaven, incommunicado, is a "don't complain, don't explain" choice to be busy elsewhere. Since Adam is a pseudonym, he might today be arguing with a version of WSS in a new iteration of the OL Front Porch. Not everyone fucks off with the vehemence of a Phil.

[Jules Troy]

"Phillis" was always a whiny biotch anyways.  It was painful to read his bullcrap.

[KorbenDallas]

5 hours ago, william.scherk said:

16 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Trump thinks Putin is a badass.  But the one thing the media keeps saying that it is moral equivalence what Trump said about Putin.  I don't think so, if this was about deal making. 

I don't get this part. Can you explain the ambit of 'deal making'? I mean, do you mean a global 'reset' with Russia, or more particular agreements that reduce tension between the powers?

Not sure if I can nail down exactly what 'deal making' is, in the Trumpian context.  Trump seems to think it is an ability someone is born with.  Being that Trump didn't write The Art of the Deal, rather Trump was the subject of the book and it was written by Tony Schwartz, Tony Schwartz did some interpretation of his own.  My sarcastic attempt upthread about a Putin-Trump 'deal making' might not have captured the essence.  Others, such as Scott Adams and our resident whip---aka. MSK---seem to be able to channel Trump deal making with more accuracy.  Regardless of that, I think there is an overuse of applying the 'deal making' analysis to things Trump, when ignorance might be the best explanation.  With Trump's 'not so innocent' remark, I think Trump was ignorant to the consequences of saying it as POTUS, though as you mentioned I think a reasonable Trump interpretation is a desire to reset relations with Russia.

And, if I had to say another thing about Trump's own belief of his 'deal making' abilities, I think he is overstating them.  It seems to be his go to instrument to fix all problems, from trade to foreign relations to ACA---because Trump has declared himself to be the best 'deal maker' of all time, he is the one to fix all the problems.  But there are limits to that, it's been said many times in this thread that Trump is a producer, so when it comes to 'deal making', cajoling, convincing, influencing coverty/overtly the people of other countries to do a real estate or construction deal it is vastly different than dealing with someone's ideology or philosophy to get them to act.

[Brant Gaede]

On 2/7/2017 at 4:20 AM, merjet said:

NEW ESSAY ON LEARN LIBERTY: “CRONY-IN-CHIEF: DONALD TRUMP EPITOMIZES AYN RAND’S ‘ARISTOCRACY OF PULL’”

It's projection, folks. Many dark clouds, thunder, and lightening in the author's view (link).

A worthy article, but it doesn't describe Trump except here and there in superficial if not coincidental manifestations.

--Brant