Donald Trump

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Once again, Stefan Molyneux does not argue in a manner I like (including his smirking and condescension at the material he discusses), and I have had issues with some of his past ideas, but this analysis of Thomas Sowell on Donald Trump is so spot on, it's scary.
 
(Scary because I agree with Molyneux. )
 

 

All right, all right, there are a couple of points where he played gotcha a little too hard and mischaracterized what (I believe) Sowell intended, but not in general. Overall, he nailed it and it's ugly for Sowell. Especially when you go to about 14:12. Here is a transcription of that section.

 

Before going there, though, let me set the context. Molyneux says he is brokenhearted to have to make this video because of the enormous admiration he has for Sowell. Also, he is obviously deconstructing a negative article against Trump by Sowell that is definitely not Sowell's finest hour. He starts this section in response to a point where Sowell bashed Trump.
 

I'd rather have somebody who's been in business than somebody who's spent their whole life in the public sector--or in the, to put it charitably, quasi-public sector. I.e., Thomas Sowell has spent his whole life studiously avoiding the market he praises so much... he praises so much. He has studiously avoided spending a lot of time in the free market, rather praising it from afar in an ivory tower where he can't be fired, where he gets four months off in the summer, where he gets paid a fortune for doing very little work, and he can have sabbaticals and go on cool conferences... all protected by state power. 
 
And this guy feeding off state power, Dr. Thomas Sowell feeding off state power is really criticizing somebody who's been working in what's left of the free market in America for decades and having enormous success.

 
Don't think Molyneux is the only one who notices things like this.

 

Frankly, Sowell surprised me with his vehemence and academic snark against Trump in the place of reason.

 

If Molyneux keeps on in this vein, I may have to overhaul my opinion of him. At the very least, he quotes correctly, presents his views clearly, and discusses a crapload of things. He's very prolific.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

VIDEO: Black Democrat says Trump ‘gives real hope and change’
by Stacey Dash
Patheos
January 24, 2016
 
From the article:

Yes.  We’re going to be seeing more of this.

Trump is attracting more and more blacks over to his side…
 
. . .
 
As Trump continues to attract support of black Americans, watch the media absolutely go ballistic.

 

Here is the video she posted:

 

 

 

Michael

[Jonathan]

What That "Made in China" Label Really Means

Josh Gelernter

National Review - December 13, 2014

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/394565/chinas-slaves-josh-gelernter

This isn’t NRO’s dedicated China spot, but I’ve got one last CCP piece to write before moving back to more cheerful subjects.

There was big news last week: that China had overtaken the U.S. as the world’s largest economy; the People’s Republic is on track to produce $17.6 trillion of goods and services this year, $200 billion ahead of the U.S. A lot of acrimony has been heaped on Mr. Obama’s economics, which seem to have sludged our growth to a crawl. And a lot of credit has been laid at the feet of Communist China’s march toward capitalism. But there’s an element missing from the discussion. An economy is bound to grow when it’s got one billion, three hundred and fifty-seven million people available for slave labor.

A hundred and fifty years ago, the United States finally stamped out its scourge of slavery. Most of the civilized world either had beaten us to the punch or would follow soon after. China has officially abolished slavery several times — in the 14th century, in the 18th, and again in the 20th. But it never really took: China’s Communist dictators operate more than a thousand 1,000 slave-labor camps.

The camps are called “laogai,” a contraction of “láodòng gǎizào,” which means “reform through labor.” They were conceived under Mao; unlike Stalin’s gulags, they never closed — though the CCP has tried to abolish the name “laogai.” In the Nineties, it redesignated the camps “prisons.” The conditions, though, don’t seem to have changed.

Our picture of life in the laogai is murky, but here’s what has been reported: The prisoners are given uniforms and shoes. They have to purchase their own socks, underwear, and jackets. There are no showers, no baths, and no beds. Prisoners sleep on the floor, in spaces less than a foot wide. They work 15-hour days, followed by two hours of evening indoctrination; at night they’re not allowed to move from their sleeping-spots till 5:30 rolls around, when they’re woken for another day of hard labor. Fleas, bedbugs, and parasites are ubiquitous. The prisoners starve on meager supplies of bread, gruel, and vegetable soup. Once every two weeks they get a meal of pork broth.

The camps currently billet between 3 and 5 million convicts — real criminals along with thought criminals guilty of opposing Communism, promoting freedom, or practicing religion — though the process doesn’t wait on conviction; Chinese law permits the police to hold anyone for four years before judicial proceedings. At any given time — according to the Laogai Research Foundation — 500,000 Chinese citizens are in “arbitrary detention.” If a prisoner does get a hearing, he enters a legal system controlled, capriciously, by the Communist Party.

The laogai camps are estimated to have held between 40 and 50 million prisoners since they opened in 1949. Which is about the population of South Korea. Between 15 and 20 million of those prisoners died or were killed. Which is two or three times the population of Hong Kong. Or to put it another way: Between 50 and 300 thousand people were murdered during Japan’s rape of Nanking. China’s Communist Party has inflicted between 50 and 400 Nanking massacres on the country it dominates.

According to an article published in Human Events by a man named Michael Chapman, a large proportion of Chinese exports originate in the camps — a quarter of China’s tea, tens of thousands of tons of grain; “ . . . prisoners mine asbestos and other toxic chemicals with no protective gear, work with batteries and battery acid with no protection for their hands, tan hides while standing naked in vats filled three feet deep with chemicals used for the softening of animal skins, and work in improperly run mining facilities where explosions and other accidents are a common occurrence.” And that work finds its way into American and European stores.

A quick Internet search will yield photos of notes slipped into Chinese products on sale everywhere from Kmart to Saks. Notes begging for help, signed by Chinese slaves. One that turned up in Northern Ireland says, “We work 15 hours every day and eat food that wouldn’t even be fed to pigs and dogs.” It was written in Chinese; one that turned up in Oregon was written in English. “People who work here have to work 15 hours a day without Saturday, Sunday break and any holidays. Otherwise, they will suffer torturement. . . . Many of them are Falun Gong practitioners, who are totally innocent people only because they have different believe to CCPG. They often suffer more punishment than others.”

The CCPG is the Chinese Communist Party Government; the writer of that note identifies himself as a worker in the Masanjia labor camp. Former Masanjia inmates have been interviewed by the New York Times. They described “frequent beating, days of sleep deprivation, and prisoners chained up in painful positions for weeks on end.” One told the Times, “Sometime the guards would drag me around by my hair or apply electric batons to my skin for so long the smell of burning flesh would fill the room.” Another said, “I still can’t forget the pleas and howling.” About half of Masanjia’s inmates are in for refusing to renounce their religion — mostly followers of Falun Gong and Christians. Another note from China turned up in Brazil. It was written in English and just four words long: “I slave. Help me.”

And remember: The camps’ prisoners are just the formal slaves. In a more general sense, all of China’s one and a third billion people are slaves; without freedom of speech, of assembly, of religion, of movement, of the press, and without a government that derives its powers from the consent of the governed.

So, China’s got a leg up in the economy-building race. The same one that Germany had at its camps. So this Christmas season, look out for that “Made in Nazi Germany” sticker.

Or maybe this will bring it home: This Christmas, remember that “Made in China” may mean “Made by Chinese Christians.” Happy holidays.

— Josh Gelernter writes weekly for NRO and is a regular contributor to The Weekly Standard.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/394565/chinas-slaves-josh-gelernter

And?!!!

What are your Objective solutions to the problem, Roger?

In post #2873 I responded to MSK's comments on slave labor, and asked to hear Objectivist/Objectivish solutions, especially from those who are aghast at the idea of using the threat of "protectionist" measures as a bargaining chip. You are such a person. You seem to be pretty worked up about it, and all moralistic and full of self praise about your dedication to voting on principle. But yet you didn't answer MSK's points, or my questions from #2873.

("Let's hear some Objectivist solutions. If retaliatory tariffs are not the answer, what is? Should we ban US citizens from outsourcing slave labor? Should we convict US business people for complicity with slavery when trading with nations who don't respect the rights of their citizens?")

You posted an article above which gives details supporting what MSK and I are talking about, but you skipped the act of offering Objective solutions. What policies would a principled candidate propose? What's Cruz's position? What's yours? Put your Objectivish Logic and Principles to work and instruct us on what position a morally principled candidate should take, and why.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's something nobody is saying about the splash Glenn Beck made by publicly endorsing Ted Cruz.

In every election for the president (that I can recall), everyone Glenn endorsed lost.

He's claiming he never endorsed a candidate before, but that's just a technicality without a difference. The current endorsement is during primary season, not during the general election. So mumble mumble mumble...

Granted, he never made a big production out of endorsing a candidate before (that I can recall), but I was listening when he did the last endorsements on his radio show. And I was listening during his later continual plugging of them.

The last were Michele Bachmann, then Rick Santorum.

So if one believes in curses, Glenn Beck's endorsement of Ted Cruz for president is not a good omen for Ted.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You tell 'em, ladies!

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4K1SXjKB_KY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

I wonder what their talking manner would look like when formatted as modern poetry.

 

 

Michael

[william.scherk]

That poetry with my words is sheer genius. And flattering.[...]

To make it a real poem, it would need a strong edit, lots of trimming and the addition of a few poetic values like alliteration, more metaphors, some rhymes, rhythm, etc., but by God, that's a friggin' first draft you made.

With the help of a Southern gentleman and the miracle of technology, we took that first draft and rendered it through the translation test. As you will hear in this crude first cut, the Cletis translation brings the poetry home. It has automatic ignition.

I'll find some easy-listening hillbilly Bach as an added score, and we can go viral. We might get up to eleven (11) reads.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Looking at a navel that contains a content perspective net is one of the grossest mental visual images I have had in the last couple of years.

Maybe that part of the poem needs a little editing...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This one is for William.

I promised I would look at some Nate Silver stuff after dismissing him. Then life moved on.

Well, I stumbled across an article from a left-wing slant that mentions a lot of what I didn't like about Silver since the beginning--and I'm including objectivity when I say "like" in this context. Nate Silver was not objective. So I stopped looking at his stuff.

Why Donald Trump Isn’t A Real Candidate, In One Chart (by Silver's pal, Enton, at his site)

Donald Trump’s Six Stages of Doom

Donald Trump Is Winning The Polls—and Losing the Nomination

Bias anyone?

Now go to Silver's blog, FiveThirtyEight and search for Trump. Only the more recent articles are starting to reflect some sheepishness in the headlines. The ones before are just like the ones above if not worse. And there are a crapload of them. They transmit Silver's absolute certainty that Trump's campaign will collapse any moment now.

I got it early. Silver doesn't like Trump.

I like Trump, so why should I read Silver?

But there's another problem. Silver has been willing to corrupt his work to damage Trump and/or deny reality.

OK.

That nails it. That's a perfect reason to stop listening to him.

Now that he's coming around, because, after all, getting thwacked over the head hard by the 2x4 of reality is not easy to ignore, I might start looking at his stuff. But probably not.

I believe in his expert ability, but I don't believe in his objectivity, integrity or goodwill when the numbers go against his views of someone he hates.

He seems like a classic case of Carol Dweck's fixed mindset expert in high-profile people (see here).

I bet he isn't a very happy man.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

Once again, Stefan Molyneux does not argue in a manner I like (including his smirking and condescension at the material he discusses), and I have had issues with some of his past ideas, but this analysis of Thomas Sowell on Donald Trump is so spot on, it's scary.

(Scary because I agree with Molyneux. )

[......................]

Before going there, though, let me set the context. Molyneux says he is brokenhearted to have to make this video because of the enormous admiration he has for Sowell.

[......................]

Frankly, Sowell surprised me with his vehemence and academic snark against Trump in the place of reason.

1. Even a smirking, condescending clock is right twice a day.

2. Molyneux may indeed be really brokenhearted about having to smirkingly, condescendingly do a hatchet job on Sowell . But still I have this nagging doubt. If you are able to find one or two examples of his "enormous admiration" for Sowell, I'd like to read them. Surely there's more than whatever throwaway lines there might be in this dreadful video.

3. One man's "vehemence and academic snark" is another man's forthrightness and passionate rhetoric. I've heard irrational attacks on Trump, and Sowell's is not delivered "in the place of reason." It may be more emotionalistic than you are comfortable with, along with the logic and evidence that he adduces, but emotionalism is not a fallacy when it is accompanied by facts and reason.

[EDIT: And there are *plenty* of facts, including historical, in Sowell's piece - facts which we ignore at our peril. Who was it that said, "Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them"? I think it was that rock group Santana, or somebody like that. ]

REB

[william.scherk]

A better kind of recursion:

This one is for William.

I promised I would look at some Nate Silver stuff after dismissing him.

You tend to dismiss Nate Silver. No problem with that. Reading his analyses and seeing what he is actually writing about the 2016 primary campaign is a chore. I did pick out a couple of 538 items earlier that I was hoping you would read with an inquiring mind ...

Who’s Winning Iowa And New Hampshire? Our two forecasts give differing perspectives.

How We’re Forecasting The Primaries -- *And why we might be totally wrong.

What did you think of the pair of Nate Silver/538 analyses, assuming you did not merely check my links for integrity but also for content?

I bide my time.

What did you think of the pair of Nate Silver/538 analyses, assuming you did not merely check my links for integrity but also for content?

William,

I'll look at them, I suppose. [...] Because you asked, I'll read it and get back to you.

An inquiry into those two pieces is a good place to start, if you want to discuss 538 with me. I would like to stick with facts, not hoopla and emotion. The 538 crew is not going to be surprised by events in Iowa or New Hampshire. Neither will I be and neither will Mr Trump.

If we do not pay attention to the folks with good track records in polling analysis, we are not really in the game. The Trump campaign's polling-analysis section has 538 bookmarked for consultation. Why? Because they are not fools.

Edited January 26, 2016 by william.scherk

[Backlighting]

You tell 'em, ladies!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4K1SXjKB_KY"frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I wonder what their talking manner would look like when formatted as modern poetry.

Michael

I like the way they project their message with the facial expressions, vocabulary & tone of voice. Some passion there.

Compare that to the "duh" type (Jeb).

"this ain't no kickback Jack" (0:53)

-J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But still I have this nagging doubt. If you are able to find one or two examples of his "enormous admiration" for Sowell, I'd like to read them. Surely there's more than whatever throwaway lines there might be in this dreadful video.

Roger,

I don't think Molyneux is famous for writing all that that much, although he has several books out. Here is his Amazon page: Stefan Molyneux. You can get a Kindle version of a few of his books for a buck.

And there's social media (Twitter, Facebook posts of his videos, etc.).

His main thing is video and podcasts. He does lots of videos and lots of podcasts. Lots and lots and lots of 'em...

Freedomain Radio (As given on the site, over 100 million downloads.)

Stefan Molyneux YouTube Channel

As to what Molyneux has written in favor of Sowell, let me help you.

Search for Molyneux and Sowell

Most of the initial results are about the recent video, but there are over 31,000 results. I'm pretty sure you can find something.

Helpfully,

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

But still I have this nagging doubt. If you are able to find one or two examples of his "enormous admiration" for Sowell, I'd like to read them. Surely there's more than whatever throwaway lines there might be in this dreadful video.

Roger,

I don't think Molyneux is famous for writing all that that much, although he has several books out. Here is his Amazon page: Stefan Molyneux. You can get a Kindle version of a few of his books for a buck.

And there's social media (Twitter, Facebook posts of his videos, etc.).

His main thing is video and podcasts. He does lots of videos and lots of podcasts. Lots and lots and lots of 'em...

Freedomain Radio (As given on the site, over 100 million downloads.)

Stefan Molyneux YouTube Channel

As to what Molyneux has written in favor of Sowell, let me help you.

Search for Molyneux and Sowell

Most of the initial results are about the recent video, but there are over 31,000 results. I'm pretty sure you can find something.

Helpfully,

Michael

Michael, I'm very familiar with Molyneux's work. I've downloaded dozens of his videos. What I'm looking for is not lots of videos with his face and attitude, but even one with him saying how he deeply admires Thomas Sowell. It's easy to assert you strongly esteem someone, but exactly why or for what, and how long have you been saying so, vs. is this just a throwaway line, like the "two pieces of bread" between which you put the "meat" when you want to appear statesmanlike and diplomatic when you rip someone to shreds. That's what I'm looking for. I thought you might have a lead or two for me - a specific place to go. (Unlike some people, I actually *read* specific references, if I am assured that they have the answer to something I am wondering about.)

REB

[merjet]

The cartoon here was in yesterday's print edition w/o the article. Darcy is often funny, even if I hate his political opinions.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger,

I would have to research to give you specific examples. There's nothing off the top of my head. In fact, there's very little in my head about Molyneux. I thought I made it clear I am not much of a Molyneux content consumer. Sorry to give the wrong impression.

You raise an interesting question. Where has Molyneux gushed about Sowell? As a free-market celebrity, it seems to be a reasonable assumption that Molyneux admires Sowell. After all, Sowell is part of the classical free-market literature. From what I see from my distance, he and Molyneux share many of the same core ideas.

But if they don't know each other well, or have some kind of professional conflict of interest, or any number of other distancing things, would Molyneux need to gush about Sowell on pain of being considered a hypocrite?

For that matter, has Sowell ever said anything about Molyneux? Are they miffed at each other for some personality clash?

Damned if I know. Maybe...

This got me to thinking, though. I admire the Founding Fathers. A lot. Not a little. A lot. I don't recall ever gushing about John Adams anywhere, but I do admire him.

I wonder if someone will question my sincerity about John Adams because of that...

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

Roger,

I would have to research to give you specific examples. There's nothing off the top of my head. In fact, there's very little in my head about Molyneux. I thought I made it clear I am not much of a Molyneux content consumer. Sorry to give the wrong impression.

You raise an interesting question. Where has Molyneux gushed about Sowell? As a free-market celebrity, it seems to be a reasonable assumption that Molyneux admires Sowell. After all, Sowell is part of the classical free-market literature. From what I see from my distance, he and Molyneux share many of the same core ideas.

But if they don't know each other well, or have some kind of professional conflict of interest, or any number of other distancing things, would Molyneux need to gush about Sowell on pain of being considered a hypocrite?

For that matter, has Sowell ever said anything about Molyneux? Are they miffed at each other for some personality clash?

Damned if I know. Maybe...

This got me to thinking, though. I admire the Founding Fathers. A lot. Not a little. A lot. I don't recall ever gushing about John Adams anywhere, but I do admire him.

I wonder if someone will question my sincerity about John Adams because of that...

Michael

No, all you would need to do to establish your sincerity would be to cite one or two *specific* things that John Adams did that you liked very much. E.g., his stand defending the British soldiers in a Boston court. ("Facts are stubborn things" was the famous quote from that incident.) But to merely say that he was a man of principle and integrity without giving any details says very little. We know *lots* of people with very bad principles and pretty strong loyalty to those very bad principles.

I don't know any reason why Sowell might be "miffed" at Molyneux. I don't even know whether Sowell *knows of* him. But Molyneux is plenty exercised about Sowell. Sowell and the others at NR took forthright stands. They drew a line in the sand. Not for one particular principle, since there was quite a diversity of viewpoints. But they were all *ideological* and *principled.* They were all, in some loose sense, *conservative.* They were all concerned that the Republican Party is booting out conservatism and replacing it with populism and nationalism. So am I.

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

No, all you would need to do to establish your sincerity would be to cite one or two *specific* things that John Adams did that you liked very much.

Roger,

But isn't that exactly what Molyneux did?

Didn't he talk about Sowell's books and how much he liked them, read them over the years, etc.?

It seems to me like he met your condition of citing one or two specific things to establish sincerity.

btw - What else could he have said about Sowell? Isn't Sowell primarily a writer? What else does a free-market writer do but write? Well... there are speeches...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

They were all concerned that the Republican Party is booting out conservatism and replacing it with populism and nationalism. So am I.

Roger,

There is a nuance here that should be addressed. I have heard this argument before and it is not correct. It's one of those self-congratulatory phrases people say when they belong to an elite.

They are concerned the conservatism as they practice it is going to be replaced by a conservatism as practiced by other people.

That's their true fear. Words like conservatism and populism and nationalism (as they use them) are for show.

But speaking of words, since when do they get to define conservatism and hand down their decrees to the rest of us Plebeians? Who elected them to do that?

Let's take a look at some of their conservatism in practice, shall we?

1. The war in Iraq. Even though I'm no fan of Chris Matthews, he does have a point that every person writing those articles supported the invasion of Iraq at the time. Trump did not support the Iraq war at the time.

That form of ganging up and going to war on a whim is the conservatism they want to protect. Spread freedom throughout the world and if people don't want freedom, bomb the shit out of them until they do. Thanks, but no thanks.

Apropos, are non-defensive invasions now defined as conservatism? Your pals think so and that's a premise that needs checking big-time.

2. Illegal immigration. Don't forget, we're talking practice, not the words people put on paper as they go about doing differently. They want to keep this system of gridlock running so they can keep their cushy jobs, the main job being to bitch about immigration (and other issues of those in power). They don't really want a solution and, frankly, they are all over the place in their bitching. Some even want amnesty.

Trump wants to build a big wall with a big gate, clarify the immigration laws, fix the immigration system so immigrating is easy for the good guys, enforce it properly, and ship the illegals outside the US border so the best of them can come back in legally. He's a doer, too, so expect it to get done.

The form of do-nothing about illegal immigration while saying we must do something is the conservatism your pals want to protect. Doing something about it for real it is what they want to protect against. That would make one less thing to bitch about and that threatens their jobs.

3. Elections. These ideological eminences of high integrity used the format of talking Tea Party stuff to win the House and the Senate in the midterm elections, but when the people who were elected gave Obama every damn thing he wanted, time after time, including this last addition of two trillion dollars to the budget, these brave ideologues were meek and complacent. Maybe a snarl here or there, but overall in terms of practice, they were pretty happy with the result.

That crap was acceptable to them, but a guy like Trump gets them riled. Yeah, right. Talk to me about ideology and integrity.

Trump will balance the budget and he will do what he says he will. I base this on his past performance of bringing projects in on time and under budget and always doing what he said he was going to do. Lying to constituents in Tea Party-speak and caving to those in power once they get a slice is the conservatism they want to protect.

I could go on and on (especially about Islamist terrorism). But this meme says it all for me about the elite ideological Republican do-nothings with a track record of doing nothing:

If they are concerned that their form of do-nothing conservatism is being booted out of the party and being replaced by people who are going to do what they say they will--and actually get it done, not just make gestures, they are right. That is exactly what is coming.

Michael

[Jules Troy]

That's the best meme everrrrr!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Let me boil all this down to one statement:

Trump supporters do not want a parasitical elite class ruling over them and telling them how to live and think anymore.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That's the best meme everrrrr!

Jules,

Thanks. I made it.

I would like to take credit for the caption, but this is a paraphrase of something else I saw. And the photo came from a Trump retweet (if I remember correctly).

Spread it if you like.

Michael

[Jules Troy]

Ok!

[PDS]

MSK: up above, you state the following: "Trump will balance the budget and he will do what he says he will. I base this on his past performance of bringing projects in on time and under budget and always doing what he said he was going to do."

May I ask how he plans to do this? Has he told anybody how he plans to do this?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

MSK: up above, you state the following: "Trump will balance the budget and he will do what he says he will. I base this on his past performance of bringing projects in on time and under budget and always doing what he said he was going to do."

May I ask how he plans to do this? Has he told anybody how he plans to do this?

Dave,

You could start here.

When he builds a skyscraper, I seriously doubt he tells the public the make and model of the bulldozers he will use during demolition. He just says he's going to clear the land and lay a foundation.

It's the same kind of principle with his positions.

Trump's a competent manager. He's been that way all his life. And he always gotten great stuff done. On time. Under budget.

I think he will do a hell of a lot better than the community organizer we have right now. That guy didn't tell anyone how he was going to implement hope and change. People didn't and still don't bother to ask.

But for some reason, Trump, a professional builder, saying he is going to build a wall makes people ask suspiciously how he is going to do it.

Go figure...

Michael

[Jonathan]

Let me boil all this down to one statement:

Trump supporters do not want a parasitical elite class ruling over them and telling them how to live and think anymore.

Michael

That sounds great, but Roger needs philosophy. It's a religious thing for him. He needs to believe. He needs a candidate to specify his ideological principles, because, apparently, if one states one's principles, one will never, ever betray them (a good example here would be just a few short years ago Paul Ryan's stating his admiration of Ayn Rand's ideas and his dedication to the principles of liberty and very limited government). And, conversely, if one does not speak the language of philosophy, and one doesn't specifically identify one's ideology, then one is guaranteed to be immoral, and to behave irradically! Only politicians who speak the language of ideology can be trusted, and those who don't speak it will be worse than Bernie Sanders (whom Roger says he prefers to Trump).

So, the masses and their candidates who want freedom and economic abundance need to take philosophy courses so that they properly understand what freedom and economic abundance really are. They need to learn how to want it on principle and not just because it's their natural state of yearning to be free and to have the best life possible. It has to be much more abstract, elite and intellectualized than that. Socialism is preferable to dopey people just mindlessly wanting to be free without being able to write fancy essays which intellectually justify their freedom.

J