Donald Trump

[Selene]

From an article about a budding superpower, India grows at night because that is when the government sleeps.

A history lesson is fair evidence. OK. Maybe it is too early for the lower 48 to drop out. I saw in the Sunday paper that Rubio was a Catholic, then a Mormon, then back to being Catholic Adam. What do you want to make of that?

This thread has over 50 pages of Trump. I wonder if it affects the number of letters getting to OL? Phooey. A bunch of trumpeter swans denying the purity of Rand Paul!

If you were able to put this stream of consciousness chaotic sequence of words into something understandable, I would "make" something out of it...

Something that sentient folks can understand.

[Mark]

...

The media is practically singing in chorus that Trump cannot deport 11 million people (if not more).

I think this is more indicative of how the media thinks than how people actually think.

...

The media has no sense of history. In 1954 the Eisenhower administration deported approximately 1.3 million illegals, by force or the threat of force. (It was called “Operation Wetback.”) The INS forcefully deported only about 80,000. The numbers are in dispute but the point is that the INS got many more illegals to leave than they had to round up. Most saw the writing on the wall: better to leave under their own control than be suddenly arrested and expelled.

Trump could have ICE begin with high profile in your face illegals such as Jose Antonio Vargas.

[Peter]

I wrote that Rubio was a Catholic, then a Mormon, then back to being Catholic. I remember the ridicule about Mormons from Adam, so I asked him a question about his possible support of Marco Rubio. Granted the observation was made in an unclear fashion. (I think I was writing that brief letter over an hour’s time, writing and then going back to it with a new thought, while doing other things.)

Seemingly determined to reelect Obama in 2012, Adam wrote about Romney:
“So do you think Goody Two Shoes wears the "garment" during the debates?”
And he referenced a picture of Mormon underwear, captioned: Post-1979 two-piece temple garments end just above the knee for both sexes. Women's garments have cap sleeves with either a rounded or sweetheart neckline. Male tops are available in tee-shirt styles.
end quote

So, my specific questions are will Rubio’s religious affiliations make you want to not vote for him and if you should vote for him, why would you, since he was a Mormon once as is Romney then and now?

Peter

[Selene]

I wrote that Rubio was a Catholic, then a Mormon, then back to being Catholic. I remember the ridicule about Mormons from Adam, so I asked him a question about his possible support of Marco Rubio. Granted the observation was made in an unclear fashion. (I think I was writing that brief letter over an hour’s time, writing and then going back to it with a new thought, while doing other things.)

Seemingly determined to reelect Obama in 2012, Adam wrote about Romney:

“So do you think Goody Two Shoes wears the "garment" during the debates?”

And he referenced a picture of Mormon underwear, captioned: Post-1979 two-piece temple garments end just above the knee for both sexes. Women's garments have cap sleeves with either a rounded or sweetheart neckline. Male tops are available in tee-shirt styles.

end quote

So, my specific questions are will Rubio’s religious affiliations make you want to not vote for him and if you should vote for him, why would you, since he was a Mormon once as is Romney then and now?

Peter

Well Peter, it took me 35 seconds to find this article which would have provided some connection to your Church of LSD observations...

Rubio – who is currently being considered as a vice presidential nominee by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who is a Mormon – explained that his mother decided to join the LDS Church after the family moved to Las Vegas when Rubio was eight years old. Some of Rubio's relatives were, and still are, members of the LDS Church, so the family had some familiarity with the church through them.

His mother wanted a "wholesome environment to raise" her family, Rubio said, and she was "a big admirer" of the "family-friendly environment" within the LDS Church.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/marco-rubio-says-he-felt-called-to-leave-mormon-church-for-catholic-church-77156/

[Peter]

Mark wrote: The media has no sense of history. In 1954 the Eisenhower administration deported approximately 1.3 million illegals, by force or the threat of force. (It was called “Operation Wetback.”)
end quote

It is tough to change a "closed" philosophical system, like Objectivism. The citizens of America have a right to associate with non citizens and other Americans have a right to NOT associate with non citizens. So, the only proper response to seemingly contradictory rights is to have a border that is enforced. A non citizen must be invited into our country. Having an open border with a SMALL country similar to us in values and culture like Israel is problematic because of the need for security and the conflict of laws in the two countries. At a minimum there would need to be screening for health reasons and for smuggling reasons.

I think I re-published some of the following on another thread on immigration but it seems appropriate to put it here.
A few years ago, Ed Hudgins, the director of advocacy for The Atlas Society wrote on Objectivist Living: . . . . the choice of most immigrants to come here illegally was morally right and should be applauded. In most cases, poor Latinos face two choices: 1) Stay in their own countries, wallowing in poverty, watching their families suffer, with little opportunity for prosperous, happy lives; or 2) Seek the best life possible for themselves and their loved ones by entering the United States illegally . . . . Sneaking across the border breaks an American law. But illegals don’t limit the liberty of others when they come here to offer their labor with willing employers . . . . in the same circumstances as most illegals, most Republicans and conservatives would do exactly the same thing! In the spirit of America, they’d say, “To hell with idiot America lawmakers and paper-pushers. I’m coming here to make money!” Yes, welfare state transfers muddy the issue. Yes, there’s a lot to sort out concerning those who have been here for decades. But Republicans and conservatives should get beyond denouncing “amnesty” and seek ways to welcome those who want to come here and stay in this country that was, after all, founded by immigrants.
end quote

In the book “Facets of Ayn Rand” by Charles and Mary Ann Sures includes a passage that seems relevant to this discussion. The book is in interview format, and includes the following exchange on page 108:
ARI: Can you give a specific example of when she [Rand] responded angrily to a question?

Mary Ann: Someone asked her for her views on immigration, if she thought it was a good thing. And she got indignant immediately at the very idea that anyone might be opposed to immigration, that a country might not let immigrants in. One of the things she said in her answer was, "Where would I be today if America closed its doors to immigrants?" [...] In her answer, she was defending people who were seeking freedom and a better life. And I think she was assuming that immigrants would be like she was -- ready and able to make their own way, accepting help if voluntarily given by individuals but not expecting government handouts. [...]
--end quote--

From: BBfromM@aol.com, To: atlantis@wetheliving.com, Subject: Re: ATL: Immigration in the eyes of a Russian immigrant Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 03:21:33 EST
Of course she believed in free immigration and ending the welfare state. Her point here -- in a question period -- was that in a welfare state, totally free immigration was not reasonable. She also would have said, for instance, that there should be no Social Security -- but that in a welfare state, it cannot be ended all at once because people have counted on it, with good reason, and have not been able to prepare financially for their old age; Social Security would have to be ended in stages and with plenty of warning given. But this, like the immigration issue, has nothing to do with choosing the lesser of two evils.
Barbara

[Peter]

So, Rubio never went to LDS churches? I don’t have the quote but Rubio said he was a Catholic, then a Mormon, then a Catholic. What if it was not under the duress of his mamacita? My specific question is do you still discriminate against Mormons. Would you vote for Marco?
Pedro

Spanish: Mamacita, Type: Popular Slang, Meaning: As opposed to the diminutive “madrecita,” or “dear little mother” (an affectionate term for one’s mother), a mamacita refers to a “babe.” It’s a common pick-up line. Oye, mamacita, qué buena estás.” (Hey, baby, you are looking fine.)

[Peter]

The Progressives on America’s totalitarian left, claim that rounding up aliens and shipping them back to Mexico in railway boxcars is akin to the Nazi’s evil deeds and their death camps.

Eyal Mozes wrote on OWL in 2003: An individual who had a guest in his home, and robbed, assaulted or kidnapped that guest, clearly does violate that guest's rights, and would be prosecuted. So even if there were some validity to the analogy of non-citizens to "guests in one's home", it would still be true that non-citizens do have rights, and their lives, liberty and property has to be protected against violation, both by individual criminals and by tyrannical government officials.
end quote

So if Donald Trump does deport millions of illegal aliens, what level of force should be used, what should happen to anyone sheltering or employing them, and what about the property they own in America?
Peter

[Selene]

My specific question is do you still discriminate against Mormons.

Peter, do you still wear women's underwear when you go jogging?

A...

[Peter]

Adam wrote: Peter, do you still wear women's underwear when you go jogging?
end quota

NO, I never did, but I have seen Harpo sniffing women's undies. Groucho

So, are you afraid to answer my question? My specific questions to you, are do you still discriminate against Mormons, will you support Marco Rubio if he ever was but isn't now, or ever has been a Mormon, and still speaks well of Mormonism, and his Mormon relatives?

You were very harsh towards Romney, which puts you in the same leagues as a third party Ross Perot type who would rather see the worst possible candidate in office over the not perfect but better presidential hopeful. It's not a trick question.

[Selene]

Adam wrote: Peter, do you still wear women's underwear when you go jogging?

end quota

NO, I never did, but I have seen Harpo sniffing women's undies. Groucho

So, are you afraid to answer my question? My specific questions to you, are do you still discriminate against Mormons, will you support Marco Rubio if he ever was but isn't now, or ever has been a Mormon, and still speaks well of Mormonism, and his Mormon relatives?

You were very harsh towards Romney, which puts you in the same leagues as a third party Ross Perot type who would rather see the worst possible candidate in office over the not perfect but better presidential hopeful. It's not a trick question.

Actually, you do write fiction, just not well.

I made a distinction between Romney and a candidate that could win which was not Romney.

Apparently, you equate being "harsh" with discrimination. I do not.

I'm confused so I am supposed to support Rubio because:

1) he left Mormonism?

2) he is courteous to his Mormon relatives?

3) he is a better candidate to defeat the Progressive Democratic candidate?

4) __________________________

A....

[Peter]

Will the readers of this thread support Rubio even if he IS/WAS a Mormon? There is no, I don't know, it depends, answer allowed.

[Mikee]

Forbes: Why Trump Dominates

"And on it drearily goes. One would never know that Trump’s rivals have substantive records in politics, business and/or medicine. Instead they come across as high-pitched miniature dogs, pathetically yapping at an unassailable alpha dog.

They have only themselves to blame for Trump’s steadily increasing lead. Why? Because these veterans of the public square violated the first law of politics: They let Trump set the agenda."

Well, except for Carly...

[Peter]

Iowa voters are favorable to Donald Trump! I wonder if his negatives have diminished nationally too? I don’t think Carson’s tie in this poll is solid. But golly, Andy, Trump and Carson combine for 46 percent of the Iowa caucus voters.
Peter

For the first time in forever, Donald Trump doesn't have the outright lead in a poll from Business Insider By Maxwell Tani 4 hours ago
. . . . A new Monmouth University poll released on Monday showed Trump and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson tied for the lead among likely Iowa Republican caucus-goers. Both men got 23% of the vote. According to Monmouth, Monday's poll is the first major poll since mid-July to show the real estate magnate yielding sole control of top spot in one of the early-voting states. Trump has also led every major national Republican poll since early July. Carson, like Trump, is a political outsider that appeals to an electorate looking for such a candidate. And he has been surging in polls taken after the first Republican presidential debate earlier this month. But the news still isn't bad for Trump — both he and Carson are far ahead of their Republican rivals in the Hawkeye State.

The next-closest candidate was former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina with 10% of the vote. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who had 9%, and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (7%) rounded out the top five. And Trump still leads among voters who say they are relatively certain who they will vote for. Among that group, Trump leads with 30%, while only 22% of voters support Carson.

Republicans may be coming around to his candidacy. In Saturday's Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register poll, 61% of Iowa Republicans responded that they view him either mostly or very favorably, compared with just 35% who view the reality television star unfavorably. That's almost a direct reversal of the sentiments Iowa voters expressed earlier this year. Back then, Iowa Republicans viewed him unfavorably by a 63-27 margin.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I wouldn't worry too much about Clovis.

...

I think he uses people like this, not because he signs on to their form of business and politics, but to get bigger garbage out of his way so he can get his projects done.

...

That thought had occurred to me too. You’re probably right.

Aha!

I found the connection.

Donald Trump's Iowa playbook: Organize, organize, organize

By Betsy Klein

CNN

August 31, 2015

From the article:

One sign the campaign is serious about their strategy in the Hawkeye State: The Trump campaign hired top Iowa strategist Sam Clovis, once proclaimed as a "conservative icon," away from the Perry campaign. Clovis, who was Rick Perry's Iowa co-chairman, will serve as national co-chair and senior policy adviser.

Clovis is a big asset to the Trump team in Iowa. A popular Iowa talk radio host, he previously worked to steer Rick Santorum to slow and steady victory in the 2012 caucuses, and ran in the Republican primary for Senate in 2014.

After the results from Iowa are in next year, I wouldn't be surprised to see Clovis leave.

But I wouldn't be surprised to see him stay, too. It depends on how he and Trump get along--and most of all, how well he performs. Trump is a demanding boss.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Look how close these people almost come to getting it, but they still don't get it.

 

 

I was surprised at how they highlighted the steady climb in Trump's favorability stats, but they balanced that with Krauthammer's snark about "bizarro world."

 

And that's the clue that they don't get it.

 

They went on to talk about Ben Carson. They think he is climbing in the polls because he is soft-spoken and likeable like a "gentle, soft-spoken family doctor," he can formulate an intelligent argument, and he made a joke in the debate about people in Washington having half a brain.

 

Those are strong points, but the fact is that in the clip they showed, he was discussing immigration. And when he made the debate joke, he also mentioned his preeminent achievement of being a brain surgeon.

 

Producer.

 

That's the secret sauce nobody sees except other producers--the Silent Majority as Trump said.

 

Nobody in the elite media or elite politics will even say the word.

 

It's funny, but nobody in the elite here in O-land and l-land will say it, either.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

After all the glee (even on Fox, albeit a bit cautious) about Carson being tied with Trump at 23% in an Iowa poll (Monmouth University polled 405 Iowa Republicans between Aug. 27 and Aug. 30--see here), I just caught the most recent PPP National poll on Rachel Maddow's MSNBC site (see here--there's a video of her commenting on this poll, too).
 
You read that right. All this glee was over whole whopping 405 people in Iowa called by telephone.
 
Well, here comes a poll by PPP (Public Policy Polling) with a lot more people surveyed, albeit a national poll.
 
Trump leads at 29%. Ben Carson comes in second at 15%.
 

 
The Donald didn't hesitate to jump on it:

 

Just out - new PPP NATIONAL POLL has me in first place by a wide margin at 29%. I wonder why only @FoxNews has not reported this? Too bad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

September 1, 2015

 
Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is absolute proof that Objectivist elitists do not understand free enterprise and do not support it:

Donald Trump: A Know-Nothing for the 21st Century
by William R Thomas
The Atlas Society
August 31, 2015

A President Trump would be a disaster. His instincts are dictatorial: he views the job as being CEO of the country, but a CEO is like an emperor, not a constitutional executive in a system of separated powers. A President Trump could significantly increase state control over us, expanding the powers of the Presidency and corrupting the rule of law, all for the sake of goals that will make most of us suffer greater poverty and insecurity.

That is probably one of the most embarrassing things I have read by an Objectivist elitist to date. I want to tell him to go back to his charity-supported world.

Nevermind the standard snark against Trump.

A CEO is like an emperor?

Meaning unlimited power?

Further meaning career politicians under our system of government are inherently superior to business executives?

WTF?

Has this guy never heard of constraints on CEOs like stockholders? Law? Market? Hell, physical reality like building materials?

I stand in awe.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

byw - There's a word you will not read in Will's article above. Not in reference to Trump. Not in reference to anything or anyone.

What is the word?

Producer.

(Man, does this piss me off. It's like this guy never read the same books by Rand that I did. What the hell did I get into by getting involved with O-Land, anyway? Scratch that. I mean O-Land elitists...)

Michael

[Peter]

William R Thomas at The Atlas Society wrote about Trump: His instincts are dictatorial: he views the job as being CEO of the country, but a CEO is like an emperor, not a constitutional executive in a system of separated powers. A President Trump could significantly increase state control over us, expanding the powers of the Presidency and corrupting the rule of law, all for the sake of goals that will make most of us suffer greater poverty and insecurity.
end quote

Commander in Chief Trump: Boehner, I said I wanted that bill passed by 4pm today and it has not. Drop and give me 20.
Boehner: I’m too old for 20 General Trump can I just do 10?
Commander in Chief Trump: You’re not going to cry on me, are you Johnnie Boy?
Boehner: Uuuuh 19. Oooooh 20.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A standard complaint here in O-Land is that businesspeople are portrayed as villains all the time in Hollywood, on TV dramas, and in bestselling fiction. Rarely as heroes.

Well, behold the spectacle of Objectivist elitists demonizing a businessman in an election (Thomas, Tracinski, and I know there are others but I don't want to irritate myself by digging for articles by them about Trump).

They won't even point to Trump's achievements. And if one is mentioned in passing, they denigrate it.

Why?

Because, to these puffed up souls, according to their own words, the business executive is a dictator and the American people are retards.

Then they remind us they are superior thinkers because they think in principles.

Bah...

Michael

[Peter]

Even for someone as self aggrandizing as Donald Trump, he knows being President is not the lead role on The Apprentice, a business deal, or the building of a skyscraper. He will certainly approach this job head on, with all of his skills and understanding of the job. My chief worry is NOT that he will be a devious person like Obama, but that he will be divisive to those who stand in his way (a good thing,) uncompromising, gracious in victory, and in agony over defeat. He may be an arm twister like LBJ. He will keep everyone on their toes. His wrath will be blistering.

Who will his A-Team be? Sycophants and yes men, or people who know their jobs and are not afraid to make a mistake? I don’t think I would want to be on his team, but a lot of more famous, high achievers may. I still think Ted Cruz would be the type of uncompromising person he will want for his VP.

[Selene]

A standard complaint here in O-Land is that businesspeople are portrayed as villains all the time in Hollywood, on TV dramas, and in bestselling fiction. Rarely as heroes.

Well, behold the spectacle of Objectivist elitists demonizing a businessman in an election (Thomas, Tracinski, and I know there are others but I don't want to irritate myself by digging for articles by them about Trump).

They won't even point to Trump's achievements. And if one is mentioned in passing, they denigrate it.

Why?

Because, to these puffed up souls, according to their own words, the business executive is a dictator and the American people are retards.

Then they remind us they are superior thinkers because they think in principles.

Bah...

Michael

Sadly, Michael, this is the insulated "cultish," "first generation" Objectivists applying the absolutely oppressive obeisance to the minions.

They are emulating the worst aspects of Ayn's dictatorial behavior within the movement.

Would make anyone who admired her ideas want to physically run for rationality.

I have been giving this a lot of thought since I always felt that we hit an emotional wall in 1968, in terms of an Objectivist movement.

Essentially, I was impatient. It may take another generation, or, two.

We just have to keep sowing the ideas in fertile minds.

A...

Johnny Aynseed

[tmj]

My impression of Trump in the last few elections was that he was using the visibility it provided him for Trump purposes, economic media manipulation for promotion of his enterprises. I thought that in this one too in the beginning. Now I am starting to get the impression he sees something else , I wouldn't be surprised if he was surprised at how "serious" the interest in him as a viable candidate is or was or is becoming. This is getting very interesting.

[Peter]

temporomandibular joint dysfunction (tmj) wrote: . . . I wouldn't be surprised if he was surprised at how "serious" the interest in him as a viable candidate is or was or is becoming. This is getting very interesting.
end quote

I think Trump put his toe in the water just like he did in 2012, looked around for alligators, but in stead a beautiful Polynesian Babe walked right up to him, put a lei around his neck, kissed him on the lips, and said, “Welcome to Hawaii, President Trump!”

Now that he has been kissed he is smitten. He wants the Presidency with every ounce of his being.
Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Heh.

 

" data-width="400">

">

No more Clintons or Bushes!

Posted by Donald J. Trump on Tuesday, September 1, 2015

 

 

Michael