Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 26 minutes ago, anthony said: Tell you what, it has been seeming to me President Trump is a conceptual-minded man also. Which flies in the face of charges of his "anti-intellectualism" I've heard in O'ist circles. Tony, I saw this from the beginning with President Trump. And that leads me to conclude that the people in certain O-Land circles would not know a concept if it bit them on the ass. That's why I don't participate too much in any "Objectivist movement." I am interested in helping to change the world for the better. I am not interested in playing at it, but in reality, only playing clique games by people who don't know what the hell they are doing, but preach to others how wrong they all are. They use the "criticize first, then try to identify" axiomatic method of thinking when they come across an anomaly to group-think and power structures. And since President Trump is the anomaly supreme to the scripts running in their heads, they add "rationalize the hell out of the criticism and refuse to identify" corollary. I use the "try to identify correctly before evaluating" method. And reality, not predigested scripts and storylines, is my foundational standard. I look at a person who molds reality to his vision by accepting the laws of reality first and leaves a trail of achievements across the world, and that is a person I call conceptual irrespective of how he talks. Ayn Rand never got tired of saying, "Nature to be commanded must be obeyed." It sounds good, but what happens when someone lives it instead of just talking about it? Do you get all those essays and lectures we see all over the place in our subcommunity that no one remembers after they are presented, or do you get President Trump and his massive high-end achievements that literally changed the world for the better and--in many places--the very face of it? (btw - Ayn Rand lived this saying, not just talked about it. And she was talking about getting the concepts right--that is, getting the concepts aligned with nature. Look at her novels and try to write one like that. One must accept the nature of fiction, the nature of what in the human mind makes fiction resonate, before one can command it.) In many O-Land circles, I see people passionately trying to command other people and get them to obey, but little of the commanding and obeying nature part. Maybe they feel working with nature is beneath them... It's feels better to issue moral commands to other people and to hell with their nature, then criticize those who mold nature to their visions and dreams as "anti-intellectual"... (Yup, elitism has infested our subcommunity to the gills...) Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch; If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you; If all men count with you, but none too much; [...] (Talking of elitism) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 5 hours ago, caroljane said: J, why are you wasting so much time trying to fit me into the prefab box of a fictional prototype Trump-hater? I don't seethe with hatred against Melania, I think she is pretty and glamorous and in a tough spot and married to an overbearing boor, and does as good a job as possible. I certainly dislike Trump and disapprove of his policies, but I don't feel any burning hatred towards him. I have got kind of used to him. I am not a good hater even in personal life. Political invective when used by Trump is, to you and Michael, a tactical weapon; when used by a critic of Trump, it's a symptom of pathological hatred. I have not turned into a liar, seething with hatred, and the stereotype you create is your own projection. Continually calling me these things does not make me these things. I don't know why you have decided that my distaste for a political figure has turned me into a raging left-wing version of Breitbart . I suppose you are so used to hating Obama and the Clintons that now that they are gone, you need more present targets to defeat. I haven't changed into your fantasy construct. I am the same person you knew. I don't feel the reverse is true. Yeah, you're not getting what I'm doing. J 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 26, 2018 Share Posted May 26, 2018 Just for the record... 15 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: After all, Hillary Clinton is a famous liberal politician who breaks glass ceilings, champions women's rights (except those of her hubby's rape victims, of course ), and our fearless big sister leaders are to be admired, not criticized... Aaaaaaaaannnddd... That's exactly how it goes down with Hillary Clinton fans. While Harvey Weinstein is preparing to be arrested....My Rapist is charging $2500 To $100,000 To attend the Clinton Foundation Dinner. pic.twitter.com/xmhKuTsFf5— Juanita Broaddrick (@atensnut) May 25, 2018 But some of us don't forget. The Me Too movement sure as hell won't remember... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 26, 2018 Share Posted May 26, 2018 12 hours ago, Jonathan said: Yeah, you're not getting what I'm doing. Jonathan, From what I've seen, she doesn't even know there's anything to get. But she's starting to get a glimpse of how meta thinking works re consistency. Give her time... when the epiphany hits, it will probably be a ways down the road in the future at 3:00 AM while coming out of a deep sleep. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted May 26, 2018 Share Posted May 26, 2018 20 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Tony, I saw this from the beginning with President Trump. And that leads me to conclude that the people in certain O-Land circles would not know a concept if it bit them on the ass. That's why I don't participate too much in any "Objectivist movement." I am interested in helping to change the world for the better. I am not interested in playing at it, but in reality, only playing clique games by people who don't know what the hell they are doing, but preach to others how wrong they all are. They use the "criticize first, then try to identify" axiomatic method of thinking when they come across an anomaly to group-think and power structures. And since President Trump is the anomaly supreme to the scripts running in their heads, they add "rationalize the hell out of the criticism and refuse to identify" corollary. I use the "try to identify correctly before evaluating" method. And reality, not predigested scripts and storylines, is my foundational standard. I look at a person who molds reality to his vision by accepting the laws of reality first and leaves a trail of achievements across the world, and that is a person I call conceptual irrespective of how he talks. Ayn Rand never got tired of saying, "Nature to be commanded must be obeyed." It sounds good, but what happens when someone lives it instead of just talking about it? Do you get all those essays and lectures we see all over the place in our subcommunity that no one remembers after they are presented, or do you get President Trump and his massive high-end achievements that literally changed the world for the better and--in many places--the very face of it? (btw - Ayn Rand lived this saying, not just talked about it. And she was talking about getting the concepts right--that is, getting the concepts aligned with nature. Look at her novels and try to write one like that. One must accept the nature of fiction, the nature of what in the human mind makes fiction resonate, before one can command it.) In many O-Land circles, I see people passionately trying to command other people and get them to obey, but little of the commanding and obeying nature part. Maybe they feel working with nature is beneath them... It's feels better to issue moral commands to other people and to hell with their nature, then criticize those who mold nature to their visions and dreams as "anti-intellectual"... (Yup, elitism has infested our subcommunity to the gills...) Michael Michael, I know what you refer to ("try to identify correctly before evaluating"") and that "correctly" is central. Obvious, if you don't know very well what something (somebody) is (which can be extremely complex), you will falsely evaluate it -- so, many an objectivist has been known "to rush to judgment" on insufficient facts and thinking, I know I have, and that testing is part of the learning process. I guess in there is some understandable enthusiasm to try out the O'ist 'tools' and attempted emulation of Rand; big difference, she almost always would identify and evaluate, precisely and quickly, which no one else can pull off. After learning the theory, putting Objectivism to work requires the hardest effort, though when correct, paying the great dividends. If one looks at what Institutional Objectivism has published in the field of pure theory of Objectivism, from my limited reading, their intellectuals and essays have often been excellent. But where they have been erratic (i think) is the application and implementation of principles to real life issues. Recall, nearly all the foolishness and blunders, and spats among Objectivists have been in the applied practice, far less, the theoretical. In this way one can also see President Trump misidentified or underestimated by O'ist scholars - e.g. as cynical and "out for himself" (if one assumes his objective value in an America made great again, yes, his is indeed, a most selfish motive as they would have to admit) - or - of leading the country into a dictatorship... All or mostly all, I believe based upon wrong and superficial identifications of Trump and his motives, with some valid moans about his methods, erraticism and certain policy decisions. "Perfection", from a leader, none of us will ever find. Good, or great, in a given context, is plenty enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted May 26, 2018 Share Posted May 26, 2018 7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Jonathan, From what I've seen, she doesn't even know there's anything to get. But she's starting to get a glimpse of how meta thinking works re consistency. Give her time... when the epiphany hits, it will probably be a ways down the road in the future at 3:00 AM while coming out of a deep sleep. Michael The really sad thing is that Carol cheerfully supports the means that terrorists use to kill innocent children over in Europe. Those poor dead babies will never breathe again, and their families will mourn for the rest of their lives, but Carol can't be bothered about it! I specifically asked her about her support of the means used in the killings, and she just brushed off the horrific deaths as being so unimportant that it wasn't worth her time to address. And notice that the murdered children that we're talking about we're all foreigners. Ahem. I think we all know what that means. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 26, 2018 Share Posted May 26, 2018 On 5/25/2018 at 10:24 AM, caroljane said: Political invective when used by Trump is, to you and Michael, a tactical weapon; when used by a critic of Trump, it's a symptom of pathological hatred. I have not turned into a liar, seething with hatred, and the stereotype you create is your own projection. Continually calling me these things does not make me these things. I don't know why you have decided that my distaste for a political figure has turned me into a raging left-wing version of Breitbart . Carol, There is a distinct difference between the nature of President Trump's invective and the nature of the language his detractors throw at him. It might be worth looking into. From inside a political-cultural bubble, it's hard to see, but the difference is blatant. Here's one clue. I don't recall President Trump ever calling anyone a bigot. Once you see this and grok it, you can't unsee it. Then other differences start emerging like a cinema fade-in. (I don't say any of this as a put-down. Besides, I like you too much to want to do any serious put-downing on ya'. I say it as one who was once in a political-cultural bubble, even after I came back from Brazil and started posting on the old SoloHQ. I got out, probably, because I lived in a different culture entirely for 32 years, so I had to learn the hard way to break the scripts in my mind. I learned that what I thought the world should be and what the world actually is are two very different things. Brazil certainly didn't give a crap about what I thought it should be. It went merrily along being what it was irrespective of any freakout or criticism I could level at it. Once I accepted that and started looking through the eyes of a child, not through the eyes of the American culture I grew up with, and a Randian version I later adopted at that, my irritation level went waaaaaaaay down and I started having a lot of fun with Brazilians. They're great people. In fact, that's probably where I got my cognitive before normative idea from--by being forced to do it before even formulating it.) You said, "Continually calling me these things does not make me these things." I agree. But on the other hand, you repeating gross caricatures of President Trump (and, by implication, his supporters) does not make them the caricature. I have no doubt at all that your distaste for him comes from the evidence of your eyes and ears being filtered through the political-cultural scripts running in your head and choosing the scripts over anything you see that flies against them. If you learned to look at him (and, by extension, everything around him) through the eyes of a child, you would have a far different opinion--the exact opposite. I have no doubt at all. You said: "I don't know why you have decided that my distaste for a political figure has turned me into a raging left-wing version of Breitbart." Setting aside the insinuation that Breitbart is some kind of "basket of deplorables," once again, you make the same mistake you just protested. You can't see it from inside the mistake. But once you step outside, it's quite obvious. And by stepping outside, I don't mean supporting Trump. I mean setting aside all your beliefs and simply looking (through the eyes of a child) and asking yourself, "What is it I'm really seeing?" And evaluating only after answering that question to the best of your ability. The bubble scripts make you evaluate, then look. This is a mistake people do all the time--on all sides. I don't expect you to do any of this, though. Maybe you will eventually, maybe you won't. The inside of bubbles make the insider people feel safe and that's a powerful drug. I'm saying it merely to show readers that there is a lens outside of the "us against them" lens to look at this. What I called the "political-cultural bubble" is the glue that binds, the veil that blinds and the bomb that bubble people explode on each other. And I get it that it is very hard to see this when dodging bombs from other bubble people. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 26, 2018 Share Posted May 26, 2018 Here's the New York Times being gleeful: Trump’s Blocking of Twitter Users Is Unconstitutional, Judge Says Here's what they didn't think about and I doubt it will cause glee: Rep Keith Ellison has unlawfully and unconstitutionally blocked me, and I will be taking legal action to vindicate my constitutional rights. pic.twitter.com/hZDFCnPeKq— Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) May 23, 2018 And this: If you’re blocked by a member of Congress and would like to join my lawsuit or potentially file your own (I am a client, NOT a lawyer in any capacity on this), DM me:- Congressman who blocked you - State you reside in And I’ll pass your info along to my lawyer. https://t.co/r8M5C5NGci— Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) May 26, 2018 I loves me some checks and balances and equal rights under the law. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted May 26, 2018 Share Posted May 26, 2018 On 5/24/2018 at 2:17 PM, Peter said: Trump is being nice and circumspect about his comments towards world leaders like Putin. Sweethearts! Unable to consummate the love of one erstwhile strong conceptual man for another. Meanwhile, the leader of Russia is somewhat troubled that Trump is not yet able to implement the Sweethearts policy enunciated during his campaign. From the Irish Breaking News site ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted May 26, 2018 Share Posted May 26, 2018 It is interesting that Trump and I agree about most things. I can almost state my view and expect our President to share it. So, darn it, I will speak for him. For instance, about Putin, “Who gives a crap? He’s a shifty weasel. Who else is he going to invade? I can’t believe his people voted for that authoritarian, former head of the KGB. Remember the KGB is staffed by the people who were incarcerating and murdering the Russian people. And they still are.” About Authoritarian, totalitarian Canadians: “You know you are encouraging a regime in your own country and other countries that puts the ruling elite in charge and steals the liberty of the people. So, you are mini Putin’s.” About a meeting with Kim Jun Un, “It may happen, or it may not. Don’t try to Shanghai me! Let South Korea work it out. Why do I have to be there anyway? If it is a good deal, I will endorse it.” Thank you for your opinion, President Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted May 27, 2018 Share Posted May 27, 2018 19 hours ago, Peter said: It is interesting that Trump and I agree about most things. I can almost state my view and expect our President to share it. So, darn it, I will speak for him. For instance, about Putin, “Who gives a crap? He’s a shifty weasel. Who else is he going to invade? I can’t believe his people voted for that authoritarian, former head of the KGB. Remember the KGB is staffed by the people who were incarcerating and murdering the Russian people. And they still are.” About Authoritarian, totalitarian Canadians: “You know you are encouraging a regime in your own country and other countries that puts the ruling elite in charge and steals the liberty of the people. So, you are mini Putin’s.” About a meeting with Kim Jun Un, “It may happen, or it may not. Don’t try to Shanghai me! Let South Korea work it out. Why do I have to be there anyway? If it is a good deal, I will endorse it.” Thank you for your opinion, President Trump. "A good deal" you will know, President Peter Trump, is the capitalist businessman's outcome when "everybody wins". A "bad deal", for I (we) are giving up more than I will get back. That's why I think the self-sacrifice/sacrificial element needs stressing. If your president doesn't view it in exactly these Objectivist terms, isn't relevant. Although he's now showing he can be diplomatic too, it is refreshing to get someone who is candidly blunt and thinks firstly in terms of self-interested "deals". It should be clear that Trump has identified that moving back to a self-responsible America and Americans, with no assumed-upon, pre-existing duties to others, is top priority. (The first hint or giveaway to me was the incomprehensible fury and outrage (and fear) by many, of generally Left/liberal tendencies, I've heard from (in SA) against Trump's presidency. From before he even took office - which didn't make sense, then. (I am of course not including those, such as other Objectivists, who have or had, quite reasonable reservations about him). The basic premise of the worst vilifiers, it is becoming clear, is that the USA must "owe" to the world, in the same way that each person owes his service and values to any and all takers. Their pleasant fantasy of selflessness has evidently been shocked by reality). The Trump pushback is implicitly, I feel, against the altruism lying under the more explicit "power" and "elitism" (both, over 'others'). That famous American self-responsibility, is the prime weapon against it. Presumptuous of me to involve myself here, you might think. Bear in mind please that ideas have no borders. This is a battle everyone is in, every place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted May 27, 2018 Share Posted May 27, 2018 3 minutes ago, anthony said: "A good deal" you will know, President Peter Trump, is the capitalist businessman's outcome of "everybody wins". A "bad deal", for I (we) are giving up more than I will get back. That's why I think the self-sacrifice/sacrificial element needs stressing. If your president doesn't view it in exactly these Objectivist terms, isn't relevant. Although he's now showing he can be diplomatic too, it is refreshing to get someone who is candidly blunt and thinks firstly in terms of self-interested "deals". It should be clear that Trump has identified that moving back to a self-responsible America and Americans, with no assumed-upon, pre-existing duties to others, is top priority. (The first hint or giveaway to me was the incomprehensible fury and outrage (and fear) by many I've heard from (in SA) against Trump, from before he even took office, which didn't make sense, then. (I am not including those who have or had quite reasonable reservations). The basic premise of the worst vilifiers, it is becoming clear, is that the USA must "owe" to the world, in the same way that each person owes his service and values to any and all takers. Their pleasant fantasy of selflessness have been shocked by reality). The Trump pushback is implicitly, I feel, against the altruism lying under the more explicit "power" and "elitism". That famous American self-responsibility is the prime weapon against it. Presumptuous of me to involve myself here, you might think. Bear in mind please that ideas have no borders. This is a battle everyone is in. Mr. President , great comments ! On the note of my home Province and upcoming election , we have our Premiere 11 days away from being voted out ( thank God ! ) and Rob Fords brother battling it out with the socialist party NDP and their leader Andrea Howarth . Memes of Hitler ,fake poppy’s as war glorification,female oil wrestling matches , 9/11 conspiracy theory truthers and social justice warriors who suggested that it might be a god idea if “ gun nuts” were blown up by a drone . These are the candidates running under the NDP party . Welcolm to Sunday morning inToronto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted May 27, 2018 Share Posted May 27, 2018 21 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Here's the New York Times being gleeful: Trump’s Blocking of Twitter Users Is Unconstitutional, Judge Says Here's what they didn't think about and I doubt it will cause glee: And this: I loves me some checks and balances and equal rights under the law. Michael You know that they'll end up with a leftist judge who will rule that it's not unconstitutional when their side does it. The issue will go to the Suoremes, and they'll restore everyone's right to block whomever the fuck they want to. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted May 27, 2018 Share Posted May 27, 2018 1 hour ago, Marc said: Mr. President , great comments ! On the note of my home Province and upcoming election , we have our Premiere 11 days away from being voted out ( thank God ! ) and Rob Fords brother battling it out with the socialist party NDP and their leader Andrea Howarth . Memes of Hitler ,fake poppy’s as war glorification,female oil wrestling matches , 9/11 conspiracy theory truthers and social justice warriors who suggested that it might be a god idea if “ gun nuts” were blown up by a drone . These are the candidates running under the NDP party . Welcolm to Sunday morning inToronto Good morning Toronto! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted May 27, 2018 Share Posted May 27, 2018 15 minutes ago, anthony said: Good morning Toronto! Good morning Mr. Anthony !!!! Forgot to mention that our fearless ( perhaps soon to be - although my guess is soon to be Premiere Ford - leader Andrea Howarth , wants to make Ontario a sanctuary Province ! Bruh , I don’t even know what that means ????? Are we gonna be California North ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted May 27, 2018 Share Posted May 27, 2018 45 minutes ago, Jonathan said: You know that they'll end up with a leftist judge who will rule that it's not unconstitutional when their side does it. The issue will go to the Suoremes, and they'll restore everyone's right to block whomever the fuck they want to. J I think someone blocked me on OL a few years ago , cannot remember the posters name but is there a statute of limitations on action and also can I get my constitutional rights even though I’m not an American ? What are the jurisdictional issues on such ? Better still , I want to blame Trunp for this too !!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted May 27, 2018 Share Posted May 27, 2018 21 hours ago, Peter said: I can almost state my view and expect our President to share it. So, darn it, I will speak for him.[...] About Authoritarian, totalitarian Canadians: “You know you are encouraging a regime in your own country and other countries that puts the ruling elite in charge and steals the liberty of the people. So, you are mini Putin’s.” Bizarre. Can you perform a bit of quasi-Objectivist reasoning to show your work -- how you arrived at this unusual conclusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted May 27, 2018 Share Posted May 27, 2018 2 hours ago, Marc said: Premiere Ford Ford 4 premier Beer Promise: For too long beer consumers have been forced to pay inflated prices for beer in order to increase the profits of big corporations. Doug Ford will bring back buck a beer. #onpoli #onelxn pic.twitter.com/ZosD6Xa9fj — Ontario PC Party (@OntarioPCParty) May 26, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 This is odd... Louis Farrakhan: 'Mr. Trump is destroying every enemy that was an enemy of our rise' I'm not much of a fan of Farrakhan, but if he gets on the Trump Train, this will form a major crack in the black community that will result in a flood of blacks moving away from voting Democrat by default. What's more, I can't think of anyone on the Trump side, including Ben Carson, Candace Owens, Diamond and Silk, etc. who would actively court Farrakhan. It looks like he is coming around on his own. And the anti-Trumpers keep on dreaming of the day when President Trump will be gone before the end of his two terms... Dream on... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 On 5/26/2018 at 4:10 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: That's exactly how it goes down with Hillary Clinton fans. Well, there's this, too. Hillary has implied if she is Prosecuted- she’ll take HALF of DC with her......... That’s precisely the reason she hasn’t been. Who’s protecting who??? pic.twitter.com/UTTMPfKA4J— Juanita Broaddrick (@atensnut) May 27, 2018 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 25 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: This is odd... Louis Farrakhan: 'Mr. Trump is destroying every enemy that was an enemy of our rise' I'm not much of a fan of Farrakhan, but if he gets on the Trump Train, this will form a major crack in the black community that will result in a flood of blacks moving away from voting Democrat by default. What's more, I can't think of anyone on the Trump side, including Ben Carson, Candace Owens, Diamond and Silk, etc. who would actively court Farrakhan. It looks like he is coming around on his own. And the anti-Trumpers keep on dreaming of the day when President Trump will be gone before the end of his two terms... Dream on... Michael I’m really curious how Dems will react when Trunp wins all 50 States , the popular vote , Congress and the Senate . He really is the Emperor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 15 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Well, there's this, too. This reminds me of what happened in Romania , what’s his name ? Ceucescu ? 15 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 7 hours ago, william.scherk said: Ford 4 premier Beer Promise: Lolllllllll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 On 5/27/2018 at 9:56 AM, anthony said: "A good deal" you will know, President Peter Trump, is the capitalist businessman's outcome when "everybody wins". A "bad deal", for I (we) are giving up more than I will get back. That's why I think the self-sacrifice/sacrificial element needs stressing. If your president doesn't view it in exactly these Objectivist terms, isn't relevant. Although he's now showing he can be diplomatic too, it is refreshing to get someone who is candidly blunt and thinks firstly in terms of self-interested "deals". It should be clear that Trump has identified that moving back to a self-responsible America and Americans, with no assumed-upon, pre-existing duties to others, is top priority. (The first hint or giveaway to me was the incomprehensible fury and outrage (and fear) by many, of generally Left/liberal tendencies, I've heard from (in SA) against Trump's presidency. From before he even took office - which didn't make sense, then. (I am of course not including those, such as other Objectivists, who have or had, quite reasonable reservations about him). The basic premise of the worst vilifiers, it is becoming clear, is that the USA must "owe" to the world, in the same way that each person owes his service and values to any and all takers. Their pleasant fantasy of selflessness has evidently been shocked by reality). The Trump pushback is implicitly, I feel, against the altruism lying under the more explicit "power" and "elitism" (both, over 'others'). That famous American self-responsibility, is the prime weapon against it. Presumptuous of me to involve myself here, you might think. Bear in mind please that ideas have no borders. This is a battle everyone is in, every place. You are always a reasoning person with a unique perspective. I like your posts, so please keep composing your thoughtful letters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now