Recommended Posts

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

There was a trap back then: the culture was so irrational Rand's Objectivism sparkled in contradistinction, a generalization not too well examined in the particulars.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 15k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Michael Stuart Kelly

    4640

  • Peter

    1446

  • Jon Letendre

    1319

  • Brant Gaede

    884

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

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

Might as well do to them now. If they get back in power they'll do it to us regardless. --Brant

Posted Images

First on CNN: Trump met with CEO of Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
By MJ Lee
CNN
September 1, 2015

From the article:

Donald Trump met privately in New York on Tuesday with Javier Palomarez, the CEO of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, CNN has learned.

The meeting took place at Trump's midtown Manhattan office in Trump Tower and lasted more than an hour, Palomarez told CNN. The conversation centered around immigration and the Hispanic electorate.

"It's kind of interesting, the dichotomy between the private Donald Trump and the public Donald Trump. He listened a lot more than he spoke," Palomarez said. "He never once interrupted me."


Ya' think?

Trump is in now deal mode, not splash mode. How in hell do people think he builds luxury skyscrapers? By being a buffoon, blowhard, racist, bully, yada yada yada?

He drives a hard bargain, but a fair one.

Now America will watch as Trump makes a deal with the entire Hispanic community. He won't get everybody on board, but just watch what happens as he does the deal.

Following the meeting, Palomarez said they two men still did not see eye-to-eye on immigration -- particularly on the logic behind a wall along the Mexican border and the impact of mass deportation of undocumented workers.

Still, the the two men were able to have a "thoughtful conversation" about the issue, Palomarez said. "There were no bombastic statements of any sorts."

During Tuesday's meeting, Trump also agreed to participate in a question-and-answer forum with the Chamber, scheduled for October 8.


Like I said, deal-making...

Also, this seems to be following the Eddie Bernays model of public relations: get the leaders of different important social organizations on board and let them get their members.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Trump put his toe in the water just like he did in 2012, looked around for alligators, but instead 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,

I love this imagery and I think the metaphor is accurate.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

peter said

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.

I like the metaphor also, though I can only speak to my impression of the man, but he would need to want it pretty badly in order to do the work to make it a possibility so yeah lots of ounces.

How about a different pledge, "I will only serve one term" that would probably trump any other 'firsts'

Link to post
Share on other sites

peter said

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.

I like the metaphor also, though I can only speak to my impression of the man, but he would need to want it pretty badly in order to do the work to make it a possibility so yeah lots of ounces.

How about a different pledge, "I will only serve one term" that would probably trump any other 'firsts'

Oh no!!

Another one has spawned...

Not using the quote function is contagious!

cockroach-smiley-emoticon.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

tmj wrote: How about a different pledge, "I will only serve one term" that would probably trump any other 'firsts'
end quote

Would the pledge of only serving one term mean more votes in a primary or general election? I don’t think so, in the case of the current Democrat and Republican candidates. It would signal philosophical purity to some small government candidates like Rand Paul but he already owns his Olandian, Randian, core supporters.

A great topic for a college history course would be, “If the Constitution limited a president to one term how would history be different?” Well, immediately I can say, there would have been twice as many presidents. Without an incumbent campaigning every election would be more exciting. The current President would always be a lame duck so he or she might not be able to pass laws that restrict individual freedom. The current President’s last two years in office would be overshadowed in the news by the upcoming election.

Kennedy was assassinated, then LBJ decided not to run for a second term, so there were two one term presidencies in a row and that did not keep us out of, or shorten the war in Vietnam. Would a tri-presidential reign make a difference? It did with FDR. And then we have the dynasty of Bush senior and George W. Bush, which could also be lengthened by Jeb Bush. In one way that is like a royal line except they are elected and ascension to the throne must be approved by the voters.

What reason would Trump have to pledge only to serve one term? I think he would, only if he thought that is what he wanted. Get in. Change the country in certain specific ways. Then retire.
Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's one of the things I love about Trump.

 

He goes all the way in a fight, even framing an enemy's achievement as his own victory:

 


 

:smile:

 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael wrote: Don't mind me, I'm just gloating:
end quote

Well, there you go again. He still isn’t at 30 percent . . . but he is damn close. edit. I put my glasses on and it does look like he is over 30 percent for the first time. Trump will sign the pledge because he could not win The Presidency as a third party candidate. I do not mind him being coy with the Rino’s and the RNC. He needed to be holding five aces to beat the stacked deck they held. The following story says it is from unknown AP sources which means it could be a damn lie, but it seems to ring true.
Peter

WASHINGTON (AP) — Seeking to avert a 2016 disaster, the Republican National Committee on Wednesday challenged every GOP presidential candidate to sign a pledge not to undertake a third-party bid under any circumstances.
The challenge, confirmed by multiple campaigns, is aimed squarely at Donald Trump. And the timing of the pledge suggests an agreement has been reached.

While he is leading the packed Republican field in early polls, the billionaire businessman last month repeatedly threatened to launch a third-party bid — leaving open the possibility even at the GOP's first presidential debate last month — should he fail to claim the Republican presidential nomination. Such a decision would make it all but impossible for the Republican Party to win the White House in 2016.

RNC officials have been working privately with Trump's campaign for several weeks to avert such a scenario.
While neither side would publicly confirm late Wednesday that an agreement had been reached, Trump has hinted in recent days the GOP lobbying was beginning to work.

The Trump campaign did not respond to questions about the pledge late Wednesday. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus is set to meet privately with Trump at his campaign headquarters in New York City shortly before Trump is scheduled to address reporters. The meeting was confirmed by two RNC officials who weren't authorized to discuss the plan publicly and requested anonymity.

In recent days, Trump has suggested he would soon decide whether to rule out a third-party bid.
"I think a lot of people are going to be very happy," he said Saturday in Nashville.

Several candidates contacted late Wednesday confirmed that they would sign the pledge, among them Ohio Gov. John Kasich and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, although few doubted the intentions of the vast majority of the GOP's 17 presidential contenders.

The Republican National Committee's pledge asks candidates to promise to "endorse the 2016 Republican presidential nominee regardless of who it is."

Further, it asks them to pledge "that I will not seek to run as an independent or write-in candidate, nor will I seek or accept the nomination for president of any other party."

An RNC spokesman declined to comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only person capable of a real third party bid is Trump, so that's the source of the proposition. They want him to emasculate himself so they won't have to masculate themselves. They can't ascend so he must descend. They're trying to give him a knife with instructions on how to use it.

--Brant

not a problem for Carly--Trump might end up supporting her if she's man enough

Link to post
Share on other sites

If he did I'd vote for him, what does the Constitution have to do with? Girding our collective political loins against human nature ? does that even jive with protection of rights ?

Hey home, I can dig it. You know he ain't gonna lay no mo' big rap up on you man. I say hey, sky, s'other s'ay I wan say? Pray to J I get the same ol' same ol'.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If he did I'd vote for him, what does the Constitution have to do with? Girding our collective political loins against human nature ? does that even jive with protection of rights ?

Hey home, I can dig it. You know he ain't gonna lay no mo' big rap up on you man. I say hey, sky, s'other s'ay I wan say? Pray to J I get the same ol' same ol'.

J

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonathan wrote: Hey home, I can dig it. You know he ain't gonna lay no mo' big rap up on you man. I say hey, sky, s'other s'ay I wan say? Pray to J I get the same ol' same ol'.
end quote

Yes, this is a case of jive talking. But luckily I have a universal translator machine and a truth detector combo, given to me by Captain Picard for my contributions to The Federation. Here is the translation.

Why are they trying to get Trump to sign a pledge to not run as a third party candidate? If he DOES sign the RNC may sabotage his candidacy, or just make his winning more difficult. My truth detector component shows that Trump wants to win and knows he cannot as a third party candidate. He will remain a Republican. So this is just one more instance of using the same ploy by the RNC, to embarrass Trump. To repeat, Trump will not run as a third party if he loses the primaries. He plans on winning them and will stick it out to the convention where he will buy hundreds of votes if necessary. If the winning candidate is someone other than himself he may support them if they are an outsider and free market supporter. And I think Carly considers Donald sponge-worthy.
Peter

Notes from Wikipedia, The Sponge, or Sponge Worthy.
. . . Kramer also mentions the female contraceptive sponge is being taken off the market . . . . Meanwhile, Elaine goes on a 25-block radius hunt to find the contraceptive sponges. When she finally arrives at a pharmacy which still carries them, she purchases a full case at Pasteur Pharmacy from a pharmacist named Roger Hoffman (David Byrd), who acts a little suspicious since Elaine wants a whole case. Her limited supply requires that she restrict her usage. She puts her current boyfriend, Billy (Scott Patterson), through a rigorous examination to make sure he is "sponge-worthy" . . . . At Elaine's, she presumably ends her relationship with Billy since she still plans on conserving her sponges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I [name] affirm that if I do not win the 2016 Republican nomination for president of the United States I will endorse the 2016 Republican presidential nominee regardless of who it is. I further pledge that I will not seek to run as an independent or write-in candidate nor will I seek or accept the nomination for president of any other party.
end quote

From Politico: Last week, the South Carolina Republican Party announced that candidates who want to qualify for the state’s primary ballot must sign a loyalty oath by Sept. 30. Candidates were asked to state that they “generally believe in and intend to support the nominees and platform of the Republican Party in the November 8, 2016 general election.”
end quote

Must a candidate sign the oath (the SC oath does not sound iron clad) to appear on the ballot in South Carolina? Perhaps Trump will sign to continue on, but at a later time, say no I won’t stand by that coerced document? The RNC may think they have Trump boxed in but Trump could just say, “See my lawyers,” if it appears he will not win at the convention, or just after the convention.
Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump signs pledge not to run as independent in 2016

September 03, 2015

Fox News

 

 

Trump said at the end he sees no circumstances under which he would tear up the pledge.

 

However, that, to me, sounds like marketing, not committment. This is a man who is suing Univision for half-a-billion dollars for breach of contract.

 

If the Republican Party betrays him and it is evident a new frontrunner was part of it, I easily see Trump making an adjustment to this pledge. Why? Because he received a pledge of fairness from the Republican Party.

 

It's a deal. Both sides have to comply, not just one. When people don't live up to their sides of a deal and it's in bad faith, Trump generally rains hell down on them.

 

I have never known Trump to be a sanction of the victim kind of guy.

 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Marketing is not incompatible with commitment. I got both. I was impressed with everything. I think Trump hit a home run. He turned his will-not pledge into a takeoff for a broader constituency by changing his mind. The first horse had run out of gas. He was like Tarzan grabbing the next vine on a trip through the jungle.

--Brant

I never thought I'd trump you about Trump (sin loi!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Former campaign manager for Trump, Roger Stone, on the meaning of Trump's pledge:

 

 

It's funny when you think of it.

 

Imagine Trump getting the nomination and all those candidates who absolutely hate him having to support him, especially Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, Carly Fiorina (although I expect her to smoke the peace pipe with Trump pretty soon), Rand Paul, Rick Perry, not to mention the elite party bosses and pundits.

 

They candidates will have to support Trump because they signed the pledge and the bosses and pundits will, too, because their favorites will have to support him.

 

I expect the press to have a field day with this at the time.

 

:smile:

 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember all those people in the news who said Donald Trump would never be the nominee or the candidate, especially not president?

Never ever ever ever ever, at all, under any circumstances, no chance in hell, no way José?

That Trump wouldn't last more than a few weeks?

That he didn't even want to be president?

What happened?

Has anybody noticed the booming silence on that line of observation?

Dayaamm!

All that certainty and soapbox preaching--and now silence?

Hmmmmm...

I know a few crows must be sweating...

:smile:

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hewitt made his point and Trump was direct in his response.

“I’m looking for the next commander-in-chief, to know who Hassan Nasrallah is, and Zawahiri, and al-Julani, and al-Baghdadi. Do you know the players without a scorecard, yet, Donald Trump?” Hewitt asked the 2016 Republican candidate, referring to the respective leaders of Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State.

“No," Trump said.

"You know, I’ll tell you honestly, I think by the time we get to office, they’ll all be changed. They’ll be all gone,” he said. “I knew you were going to ask me things like this, and there’s no reason, because, No. 1, I’ll find, I will hopefully find Gen. Douglas MacArthur in the pack.”

I enjoy the fact that he can be clear and say, "No."

Also, the way he handled not knowing a particular line of inquiry.

Trump also mixed up the Quds Force, the elite foreign unit of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, with the Kurds — the Middle Eastern ethnic group concentrated in northern Iraq and parts of Iran, Syria and Turkey.

“Are you familiar with Gen. Soleimani?” Hewitt asked.

“Yes, but go ahead, give me a little, go ahead, tell me.” Trump said. “The Kurds, by the way, have been horribly mistreated by …”

“No, not the Kurds, the Quds Forces, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Quds Forces,” Hewitt said.

"Soleimani is to terrorism sort of what Trump is to real estate," Hewitt explained later.

"OK," Trump said.

He does not try and "fake" it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/trump-terror-hewitt-213333

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

This could get very interesting very fast in this media climate...the inertia is going "The Donald's" way...

f36fbbfe-1873-4bc7-a4d2-8cb517edd0f4.jpg

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 66% of Likely Republican Voters now think billionaire developer Donald Trump is likely to be the Republican presidential nominee next year. That’s up seven points from 59% a week ago and up 10 points from 56% the week before that. But the latest finding includes only 26% who consider a Trump nomination Very Likely, down slightly from 29% in the previous survey.

This compares to 27% of Republicans who felt a Trump nomination was likely when he formally announced his candidacy in mid-June. At that time, only nine percent (9%) felt Trump was Very Likely to be the GOP nominee.

I wonder if many folks know how "The Donald" got that nickname and from whom.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/trump_change?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DailyNewsletter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam,

I saw the Hewitt interview. And I saw the one he did with Carly right after.

I was disappointed in Hewitt for his insinuation that Trump doesn't know the difference between Hamas and Hezbollah. And he practically said this to Carly as he asked her it it was important for the Commander in Chief to know the difference.

Gimmee a break. That's not what happened as anyone who listens to the interview can ascertain. Hewitt threw out the names of a bunch of terrorist cell leaders, all with typically complicated names. One was a Hamas leader and the other a Hezbollah leader. Trump said these folks were going to change anyway and called out Hewitt for gotcha questions. (Carly said it was hard to keep all these names straight, too. But Hewitt gave her a pass.)

Now Hewitt keeps saying he wasn't doing gotcha questions, but he sure is spinning the hell out of the answers.

And it's started. Trump on Morning Joe just called him a "third-rate radio announcer."

The crony-capitalism war profiteering branch of the Republicans are going to burn through all their media folks this way.

:smile:

I don't think Carly gains much by allowing herself to be used as a pawn by them. Should she go to the forefront, she will discover just how deceptive they are as they pile on her with dirty tricks and start manipulating everything they can in favor of their lobby-bought candidate (probably Bush, but maybe Rubio).

The Hewitts of the world can't imagine that the average American sees what they are doing. So some of them are going to learn the hard way.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now