SteveWolfer

You are the lawyer. It was a long time ago that Mr. Holzer said that and things were different. Now we have an intensely partisan Supreme Court. I don't think the 2nd, 9th, 10th, 14th or any other amendment will matter. All that will matter is which faction has a majority. I would like to see the kind of Supreme Court justices that would say that individual's had the right to own guns before the existence of the federal government, and nothing in the constitution explicitly grants the federal government the right to regulate them. I don't know how the supremacy clause would apply that kind of ruling to state attempts to control guns.

I don't think that is necessarily so. For example, if two or three people get together to form a limited partnership, that isn't necessarily the application of a collectivist philosophy. In a world where very different ideologies and cultures wield power, there will be nations to separate them with borders. It makes concrete the separation of the different political systems. It is true that "nation" can be used as part of a collectivist motivation, as in Nazi Germany, or as in flag-waving patriotism that is used to motivate people to support a political campaign. But nation can also be a way asserting the rights of the nation's citizens to not be abused by other nations (We broke away from the nation of Great Britain to form our own nation - and we did so in a way that supported the political application of individualism - not collectivism.) Whenever or wherever we can point to a national act that is in support of individual rights, it would make no sense to say that was a collectivist act.

That was my reaction as well.

Well, if you are right, then they will have to go off and lick their wounds and your statement about you and him won't matter. If it turns out that you are wrong, it will depend upon how they feel about you - not Trump. If he turns out to be a bad guy, they will have been justified in their view of him, and if they like you, they will say, "He wasn't like you at all - you're a good guy." If they don't like you.... well, then who gives a shit?

Yes, that is true. But that is only held in place by a Supreme Court decision (one written by Scalia, in response to a challenge to that view). The progressives don't want guns and they will take any change from a future supreme court that they can get if it will let them effectively outlaw guns. I agree. But that is arguing for a moral position, or for a practical logical position (or both), and won't sway the progressive. If you really want to understand what I'm saying about the progressive view on guns, read the dissenting opinions of the supreme court rulings that have upheld the second amendment. You make an excellent point. It also side-steps the progressive attempt to muddle the argument by talking about a militia. I remember that Ayn Rand's lawyer, Henry Holzer, thought that the 9th amendment had the best potential for fighting for individual rights.

I hope so. There are some other alternatives - some good, some not so good. I still think we are just going to have wait and see (which doesn't mean we don't act on our best guesses in the mean time).

Of course we may never know. And he may not be a Jihadi. But it would be funny if he got the details of a terrorism attack wrong and thought that the sequence of events was to 1.) Kill lots of people. 2.) Finish with blowing yourself up. 3.) Enjoy your 72 virgins in paradise. But he didn't have any explosive and just thought that getting to #3, to his 72 virgins could be done by shooting himself. ------------- To be a fundamentalist of this sort (if that is what he was) isn't going to happen to a stable, rational fellow. So, in some ways it is splitting hairs as we dissect the differences between a nut case who goes on a rampage and a Islamic Fundamentalist terrorist who goes on a rampage. Slightly different flavor nuts.

All very true.

That's true. But for me, it is only the arguments that matter. The insinuations will just follow along. Of course, I have to explain that since no one here who supports Trump insinuates in his favor, right? .

Here are some facts: 1.) There is indeed a great deal of corruption around those who hold power. 2.) Agreed, they don't want to give up their power and will fight back. 3.) Challenges to that power come in a number of forms: One is "I'm going to throw you out. Nothing you can do about it." Second is, "I'm going to be the new leader of your power clique. Get on board or get out." Third is, "Quit trying to fight, me. I just want to join your system. We will share the power." And fourth is "Quit trying to fight, me. I just want to join your system. You can call all the shots." So, can you know that one of those approaches isn't the best description of his intentions?

The boiling of argument seems to get different things for you than it does me. I don't remember making that argument. Not quite. I remember saying he should be judged by the conservative people he surrounds himself with. Remember? And I was just pointing out that who surrounds himself with during the GOP primary isn't necessarily indicative. He has surrounded himself with progressives in the past. But if you say that, supporters say he had to because it is New York and because he had to in order to do business. So the people doesn't really prove anything, does it? What I said is that he makes deals. That is how he rolls. What I want to know is will he trade away a Supreme Court nomination for something else. I ask it because we don't seem to have anyway to nail down that he strong constitutional leanings. We just know that much about what his principles are. I never said anything like that. His family tells me that he is a highly functional narcissist and not a lower functioning narcissist. His family is very good, as is his huge business successes and a number of other things in saying that he has some strong functional capabilities. Do you see how you just strung together things I didn't say to make a conclusion that wasn't mine? I never said that. I have said that one of his best features is that he may be one of the few people anywhere that can break political correctness and I think that is critical to our nation's political health. I don't know what his political principles are, and he has made it hard for many people to believe him when he changes his stance on things. But, again, you took things I didn't say, and made then into conclusions I didn't draw. Every politician today is a Trojan horse to some degree. We need to find out what is most likely inside, and then judge how bad that it. If you have decided that it is impossible that he is a Trojan Horse at all, you will never want to look inside - you don't think there is an inside. The crimes that might get committed are those that happen in office. He couldn't be guilty of them till then. We want to make our best guess as to what, if any, those are. But I don't get the impression that you are anything but totally convinced that he is what he says to his supporters.

Ah, good that settles it then.

I believe that early on some Trump money went to Morris. If you look at one his early daily videos it was gushing for Trump and at the same time there was a small ad for Trump, an paid for by the campaign and on the same web page. That ad would serve to explain money going to a Morris bank account while Morris could still pretend that he was giving neutral analysis. Morris stayed fairly friendly to Trump for a while, then he went... not neutral, because he hates Hillary, but no longer gushing for Trump. Now he is back. I've had the same feeling about his recent columns and videos and his book. He has always been about the money and I think he is working to get on the inside of the Trump campaign (money-wise), but hasn't gotten there. Trump has a good friend at the National Inquirer (the owner, I think) who is willing to pimp for him now and then. And, surprise, they are now running a Morris column on occasion and it is embarrassingly pro-Trump and takes some of the more far out positions. I don't think anyone is as corrupt as Hillary. She is in an another league altogether. I think that Morris is just sleazy. But he really knows campaign tactics - that's what I pay attention to him for... nothing else.

No one is more progressive than Hillary - but she focuses so much time on gaining personal power and corrupt practices that her Saul Alinsky principles have to take second seat. I agree that no one in this discussion is a corrupt as Hillary but that's a low bar. If you make a comparison of Hillary people and Trump people there is no comparison, but that still doesn't really answer the question. He had to surround himself with conservatives of different types because he chose to run in the Republican primaries and he is way too smart to not know what that requires. Let's see if he moves to the middle during the general election and if so in what way and who is around him then. I really don't like Paul Manafort - that's not a good person in most senses of the word.

Understood. And she did make mistakes, but very, very few in my opinion. And just for the record, If I were choosing between Miss Rand and Wolfdevoon, guess who I'd take. But I don't have to make that choice, this is an issue I've given years of thought to and on those first two propositions I believe Ayn Rand was correct. (As to it meaning that taxes are needed... I believe that there are ways to raise the money without taxes - as did Rand - but that would not happen over night and in the mean time taxes would be needed).

That's a reasonable approach. I see both positives and negative there. He is extremely litigious, is okay with eminent domain, and has paid off a lot of politicians... those are among the negatives. The positives are the quality of the projects he has completed, the sheer magnitude of his success, and that he has been building things - real things. He is very much about the deal. He says he will take that into office with him. That is good, but it could be bad if he is willing to make deals that increase the size of government or the amount of regulations or install high tariffs, or give away a supreme court nominee to the democrats for some deal or another. Too many unknowns is the bad news. The good news is that being just a single private citizen voting I don't have to make up my mind till the day before.

I did enjoy that. O'Reilly is an old friend of Trumps (they socialize and they are both pragmatic, anti-theory, populists - to a degree). I suspect that O'Reilly sometimes sees himself as the voice behind the throne guiding Trump. I think that O'Reilly likes a strong-man. I tend to agree with Krauthammer in that I'm trying to figure out what Trump would do in this or that situation.

That's a great video. If Hillary is elected, the 2nd amendment won't stop her. The progressive strategy is wear away at things - regulation by regulation while shifting each new graduating class coming out of college farther and farther to the left. But if Hillary is elected, she will get it done in four years by stacking the Supreme Court and then they will just reinterpret the second amendment to mean that militias have the right to guns, but not citizens, and that the modern day militia is the national guard. Done deal.

Dick Morris is pro Trump. They've know each other for a long time. I think he worked for Trump's father, or Morris' father worked for Trump's father... I don't remember. But the important thing to know about Dick Morris is that he is anti-Hillary with a white hot passion. He hates her. It's personal. (He used to work for the Clintons). Also Morris starts getting optimistic about the side he favors during the heat of the campaign. He is very sharp on campaign tactics, a little loose with facts, and his background, before he became conservative (to the degree that the has a political ideology) used to be a bit progressive. His formal studies were mostly history, and his history and his economics are closer to what liberals taught when he was a college boy.

Well, if it is important for you, go look it up. Is there something I've done to you that warrants your attitude?

I was not making a sweeping epistemological statement. I was saying that we still don't know much about Trump's political principles. There was no insult intended. I guess if you aren't 100 percent pro Trump you don't get to say anything without being attacked.

I have no idea what you are saying. In 2008 I voted Libertarian, and it was a mistake (which I've admitted) but only because of the supreme court. Apart from the supreme court appointments which can destroy constitutionality itself we have to do something to break this downward spiral of the lessor of two evils (that get more and more evil). As for the "holier than thou" bullshit and your smart ass assertions about what you think I want... hey, stuff them where the sun don't shine.

If a vote were between "We poke out your right eye with a sharp stick, or we poke out your left eye with a sharp stick," I wouldn't vote - at a certain point, a vote becomes a sanction. Unless I feel confident that Trump will stand by that list of supreme court nominees, I'll vote for Gary Johnson. Will Gary Johnson become president (with or without my vote)? No. Not a chance. Then why vote for him? Because if the other two choices are too awful, I'd prefer to add a tiny bit to the presence of the Libertarian party. Maybe in this election cycle, where the unfavorables are unbelievably high, the Libertarian party will break 10% in the popular vote. That would be something significant - not in terms of the next 4 years, but maybe down the road if these two corrupt and disgusting political parties continue their downward spiral of unpalatable offerings. Please remember, that most of what encourages you to vote for Trump rests upon the judgment that he probably isn't really going to be a fascist, or that he isn't really a progressive, or that he really isn't just a con-man, or that he isn't narcissistic enough to be truly dangerous. Not much we can do but look, listen, and make our best guess. What doesn't make any sense is to pretend that guess is something we can be as certain of as tomorrow's sunrise. If, at the last minute, it turns out that Hillary is going to cream Donald in this election, then I'll probably vote Johnson. If I'm going to throw my vote away, I'll do it on someone representing mostly good political principles. If, at the last minute, it turns out that Trump is going to cream Hillary and doesn't need my vote at all, then I might vote Johnson. If my vote isn't needed in selecting the next president, then why not add that tiny bit to the popularity of the Libertarian party. If, at the last minute, it might be close, then it goes back to my judgement of whether or not Trump would honor that list of supreme court choices.

Does seem to happen quite often.

I agree. I'm a NeverHillary person. But still a MaybeTrump.