PDS

For that matter, how can one love a God that allows there to be mosquito bites?

I said one example. I don't think anybody needs to be subjected to everything my father said at the dinner table. So you don't think Trump supporters blame the Mexicans for any of America's problems? Come on, man.

Yes, you missed the point of my rhetoric. You didn't vote for a Presidential candidate in 2012, did you?

Yes, we can agree you know what I have written. Sometimes. [See my post immediately above, addressed to you and predicting a Trump nomination in January of this year]. My point in bringing up my background--which would otherwise be irrelevant here--was to remind you that you simply cannot chalk up objections to Trump as being from people who don't know how Trump supporters think, which is something you commonly do. My background actually has nothing to do with the merits of the Trump discussion, except you love to claim that I cannot see you (and now other Trump supporters, apparently). But, since you keeping bringing this up as a way of dealing with issues, and as merely one example of this hole in your game, I would note that my father--a life long bricklayer and cement mason--talked and acted like Trump long before this iteration of Trump ever came along. He complained about "the Japs" stealing auto manufacturing jobs from Detroit constantly, and he hated the elites, who he never really did a great job of defining. This was my way of suggesting to you that you have no special claim to knowledge about how Trump supporters actually think, or how or why my background might prevent me from understanding them. That is the reason I bring it up.

Here you go. What I said on January 30 of this year was the following: MSK: I know you know this, but want to state it anyway: it is clearly possible to admire Trump's achievements in business and still believe is he simply another bullshit artist politician. That's my view of Trump. With that said--i.e., that Trump is just like the rest of 'em--I have asked myself why it is that Trump rubs me the wrong way, and the answer is that I believe he will not only win the nomination, but that he will lose BIG against Hillary, taking down the Senate and maybe the House with him. So, my primary objection is a tactical, made with not all that much to back it up--other than a naval gaze...** **Full disclosure: A source of my bias is that I am what you have been calling an "establishment" conservative on this thread. I was the lead election lawyer for George Bush in my jurisdiction in 2004 and am also theoretically a lead (election) lawyer for Jeb Bush in my jurisdiction should he (1) ever get nominated, and (2) get in legal trouble...--neither of which looks very likely... I hope this link is helpful. Re my full disclosure comment above: I have been in the trenches trying to elect limited government conservatives since about 1982, when I went door to door for my local state senator. I usually (not always) know a limited government conservative when i see one. Donald Trump is not a limited government conservative. If anybody could prove otherwise to me I would swallow my objections about him and not only vote for him, but contribute money and raise money for him--the same way I swallowed objections about Bush, McCain, and Romney.

Here is a category error:. for some reason on this thread, you keep conflating a disagreement with your point(s) with not "seeing" Trump supporters. But I do see you and I do see them. Otherwise I wouldn't have predicted long ago that Trump would win the nomination. He obviously wouldn't be able to do this without lots of supporters. Here is a diagnosis error:. you know almost nothing about me or my background. You don't know whether I am from a blue collar family, whether my family are Trump supporters, or whether I grew up in the very environment that Trump has been found to be a target-rich environment for support. But I did. I heard the points you are making at my dinner table nearly every night as a kid. I grew up in the environment you claim to know so well. My broad family has suffered in it for at least 30 years. Believe me, I know how "Trump supporters" think. That's one reason I predicted he would win. Finally, if I cared to reason in such a manner, I would argue that, in fact, you are not "seeing" me, or others who have concerns about a Trump presidency. Instead, you lump me in with the "elite" or the Establishment wave your hand. This is true, Michael. You have at least half a dozen friends on this thread expressing Objectivish concerns about a Trump presidency and I'm not aware of your crediting a single one of those concerns. Not a one. Trump temperament? No big deal. Trump's lack off details? I'm too busy to explain. Etc. etc. Insread, it has been the template I have described above time and again.

Why are you the only one on this thread who claims not to be seen, and only then in those instances where your argument has taken a tumble? Other Trump supporters on this thread don't feel the need to claim they are not seen. They seem very willing to address counter arguments head on. Why do you constantly make this claim? You seem to have two jabs and two counterpunches every time you get in trouble on this thread: Jab 1 is your "gotcha" allegation; Jab 2 is your claim that others can't "see" you when in fact you can be seen perfectly well; counterpunch 1 is an attack on motives, which usually implies some form of mind reading; and then counter-punch 2 is an appeal to authority about "Trump supporters" that presumes that you have special wisdom about their (presumably) homogenous traits. You have mentioned in the past that you literally don't care what I have to say on this Trump subject. If this is still true, then just put me on ignore and I will talk to the Trump supporters who are willing to engage on the merits.

Too many words, Michael: you have been using the "gotcha" move as an escape hatch when you paint yourself into a corner. Since I don't possess mind reading skills like some others on this thread, I am not going to speculate on your motives for this, but the move is pretty transparent. This might be a situation where we simply have to let the readers decide.

Dayamm! With guys like you and Jonathan both voting Obama/Biden in 2012, no wonder they got reelected!

I agree that Trump's a bright fighter and that he quickly and accurately sums up his opponents. The rest will play itself out in the highly unlikely event that Trump gets elected. Btw, may we assume that you voted Obama/Biden in 2012, given your assessment of Ryan above? Or did he snooker you back then?

I agree with your last full paragraph. Cruz would have had almost no chance of beating Hillary. Trump has a puncher's chance of doing so. The binary choice on the table is Trump or Hillary. To support Trump, a lot of people (I'm talking mainly to myself here...) need to get over their distaste for Trump's temperament and style--not so much his substance--because (1) nobody really knows what his substance is, i.e., witness his 3 flip flops since earlier this week, and (2) we are electing a statist no matter who ends up winning in any event. One wants to expand government without apology and the other seems very comfortable such a result. Then again, GW Bush turned out to be a pretty strong statist too, as would have Romney. So what is really lost should Trump land an unexpected left hook late in the fight? Mainly a sense of stability related to temperament and style. This country just might not be so interested--or even willing to feign interest--in limited government anymore.

Spot off. I'm pretty sure the presiding Speaker of the House of one of the three co-equal branches of government has "leverage." Unless passing laws through Congress has become just another game of "gotcha" among Establishment Types. Ironically, the only way Ryan doesn't have leverage is if Trump gets his ass kicked so bad in the upcoming election that he brings down the House with him. Then he won't have leverage. And neither will Trump. But Hillary will. Yippie.

I love that Epicurus quote..."when death is, we are not..." The zen philosopher Alan Watts said something similar that "when we die, we are not going to be placed in a dark room and 'undergo' death"... A similar sentiment. He said that death is like going to sleep and never waking up, just like birth is like waking up without ever having gone to sleep.

This is funny. I suspect it is going to take awhile for many to get used to the fact that the election is now essentially a binary choice. Even those disgusted by Trump are going to have shake their etch a sketch a few times and see which of the two choices makes sense. Not which is ideal, but which makes the most sense.

This would qualify as a powerful, one-word understatement.

Ahem. I believe there were 3 who picked Trump...

Easy. Easy. I was trying to be playful. Your guy just won for chrissakes. You're getting pretty predictable, my friend. Whenever you get hung on the petard of your own logic, you seem to have two default moves:. (1) claim that the point being made is a mere "gotcha" and (2) question the motives of the person making the argument. Do you notice this? I hope you do a lot of stretching or hot yoga or something. Some of these contortions might otherwise cause a severe injury. ?

Wouldn't it just be easier to admit that Coulter's first choices for President not so very long ago sorta kick the legs out from under your anti-Establishment narrative? There is no harm in admitting this. Nobody loses their union card for admitting they are wrong once in a while.

Very prescient of her. But Michael please note the two Establishment Types she named as her first choice. Kinda undercuts the Us vs. Them narrative you are growing so fond of...

This is actually quite funny. And a little gloating of this kind doesn't hurt anybody.

One point of clarification: I always predicted a Trump nomination--although I further predicted a Cruz VP slot, which now seems a little unlikely. Your magnanimous gesture is therefore premature. I should be the one crowing, since my prediction was made with, shall we say, a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the Trump candidacy. If Trump gets elected, however, I will be seeking to take advantage of this offer.

Congratulations to all the Trump fans on the thread, and of course our host!

Yes. That is all what matters in a constitutional republic. Winning.

A couple of priceless moments: CRUZ: America is a better country... (Shakespearian pause) TRUMP SUPPORTER: Without you. . . . CRUZ: And an question that everyone here should ask... (Shakespearian pause) TRUMP SUPPORTER: Are you Canadian? Sorry for you guys who are sad, but this is some seriously funny stuff. Michael Yeah, that part where the guy with the sign talks about Cruz's wife working for Goldman Sachs was comic genius. I'm sure Trump would be proud, because, as we all know, Trump has never had a loan in his life, so he surely could not be accused of being in the hip pocket of any bank. Oh wait, we don't know that, since Trump hasn't released his tax returns just yet. Like I said above, just some good old-fashioned rote mouthing of Trump's insults. Nothing more and nothing less. The only thing missing was a reference to the dad's Lee Harvey Oswald connection. More comic gold, I tell ya. Now that would have been downright hilarious. I hope someday a Trump supporter can offers the rules of the road for legitimate questions about Trump, since, you know, he is hoping to be our President and all: i.e., those questions/statements/concerns that are not merely "gotcha" questions.

That's where I'm at, more or less. Every time Trump does something in the neighborhood of adding to the plus column (for instance, I actually kind of liked his foreign policy speech), he does something like this. One step forward, 2 or 3 steps back. The dude really has no class.