PDS

Agreed. The Trump supporter's willingness to rotely mouth the various insults Trump has thrown out there ought give everybody the shivers. Cruz's "stump speech" instinct in responding to the insults is almost as jarring.

By the way, whatever happened to our Canadian friend, the Rubio champion? I miss his exclamation points!!!!!!

You pretty much said it, WSS:. 3 or 4 fewer politician cliches and Crappola set-pieces and I might have like the entire episode.

This almost makes me kinda sorta almost like Cruz. The Trump supporter in the video, however, makes me want to run into traffic and just get it over with...

I Tender the view that Ted's Tendentiousness is Tedious.

Can one's nickname be one's given name? Seems to violate the well-known rules of nicknaming to me. Kind of like calling the current president Barack "Hussein" Obama? I am giving Adam the benefit of the doubt and assuming there is no dog whistling afoot, which is why I wonder about the references.

I would be interested in Adam's responses on this. Something of a side note/side question: is there a purpose to calling Cruz "Raphael"? With that said, I do agree with Adam that Cruz is getting tedious.

Agreed. And if you combine the Stoic metaphysics with the Epicurean ethics and way of life, you would have a really cool combination.

Well said, all the way around.

Although there hasn't been a torrent of enthusiastic interest in this thread as of yet for this thread, I intend to post a chapter-by-chapter outline of the book after the middle of this week. Reality and work are intervening until then. Sorry for the delay to both of the faithful participants so far...

Hmmm. The more I think about this, the more I'm just not sure this is a strong argument, one way or another, on this specific point. As one example of what I mean: is the converse true? In other words, let's say Trump's daughters happened to be far less obviously successful, intelligent, and "with it." Would that be a knock against Trump? I don't think so. We all know wonderful parents who tried their hardest with their kids--including daughters--and things didn't quite work out the way anybody expected. Nobody can reasonably blame the parents when this happens. Human beings are not billiard balls when it comes to cause (parenting) and effect (how kids turn out). I really am not saying this as a knock on Trump, or to diminish his role as a parent. I am the parent of a teenage daughter, and God knows, it is a very humbling experience in many ways, so I applaud Trump's seemingly successful daughters and Trump as well in this context. Maybe Trump's daughters turned out to be wonderful people because Trump's daughters are beings of self-made souls who are wonderful people.

If bon mots were cards, this would be a pair of aces. One of your best, Brant!

The author claims that Alberta is likely to approach us because of frustration with its lack of respect and subsidizing of the rest of Canada (going from memory here, but that is the gist). If I am recalling correctly, he believes USA and Alberta will form something along the lines of a senior partner/junior partner joint-venture, politically.

As one teaser for our Canadian friends, the author says America will become Great Again in part by taking a big bite out of Alberta.

I would like to offer a potential parallel track to much of the Tactical Trump Talk here at OL. I recently read this book. The upshot of The Accidental Superpower is that the America most of us have known is about to change. Over the coming decades, America's role in the world will recede to, in effect, a Fortress America. As the authors says: "In THE ACCIDENTAL SUPERPOWER, international strategist Peter Zeihan examines how the hard rules of geography are eroding the American commitment to free trade; how much of the planet is aging into a mass retirement that will enervate markets and capital supplies; and how, against all odds, it is the ever-ravenous American economy — alone among the developed nations — that is rapidly approaching energy independence. Combined, these factors are doing nothing less than overturning the global system and ushering in a new (dis)order. For most, that is a disaster-in-waiting, but not for the Americans. The shale revolution allows Americans to sidestep an increasingly dangerous energy market. Only the United States boasts a youth population large enough to escape the sucking maw of global aging. Most important, geography will matter more than ever in a de-globalizing world, and America’s geography is simply sublime." Some may recognize that, if the author is correct, Donald Trump is more of a canary in the coal mine than he has been given credit for, and, even if he doesn't get elected, he is bringing into the conversation of American politics a number of items that are (1) consistent this book and (2) reflective of a coming world order that appears likely by many objective indicators. The author (Peter Zeihan--who I highly doubt is a Trump fan) seems to be of a libertarian political bent as well, if that matters. Let me know if you would like me to walk through this book chapter by chapter as fodder for discussion. As I said above, a discussion of this book would be very similar to the issues being discussed in the current campaign with the added benefit of taking Trump's foibles and the usual horse-race considerations out of the mix.

Because you don't really "see" Bernie. Worse yet, there are dozens of Trump supporters in the portrait you're not "seeing" either, Peter.

Okay, my friend, whatever you say. You haven't exactly described the second coming of Abe Lincoln above. Most competent professionals can speak for an hour without gaffs, or gaffes. I think we may rightly hope for sterner stuff than that to pull Cruz's chestnuts from the fire. But yes, there is no doubt that CF is a woman. She plays the role of a woman very competently. My disdain for Trump is out in the open, so I am not carrying his water here. The CF choice is a CF. I won't mind it if I'm wrong about this, but, the whole move has the whiff of flop-sweat desperation about it. Or, if perspiration analogies are not your thing, the entire move (especially when combined with the Cruz-Kasich "alliance") has a kiddie-table feel to it. Cruz, Kasich and Fiorina are all eating at the kiddie table with food slopping on the floor while, Trump is eating at the Adult Table--with small bites, mind you... If I recall, you served in the Navy, as I did in the Marines. We both know what the term CF stands for...This is it.

Peter: not to quibble, but the "Wow Factor" from the Cruz Fiorina alliance seems to like it might be more of a "Bow Wow" factor.

That's pretty funny... Whatever happened to Rand Paul, i wonder? I loved his first speech when he announced and jabbed Hillary pretty good. But he faded so quickly after that...

I love the last 4 paragraphs of the speech.

Good point. Imagine how one's stomach would react to eating a full banana peel. It isn't/wasn't meant to be eaten whole...

It is rather comical that Ted is going to make a "major announcement" this afternoon. I assume this will be to pick a running mate, and assume further it will be CF.* It will not only be CF,* but it will be a CF**. Very bad move. Kind of like a 4-10 professional football team announcing that it is selling playoff tickets with 2 games to go. My guess is that this move will be about as well-recieved as the Cruz-Kasich alliance that recently turned into yet another CF.*** *Carly Fiorna. **"Charlie Foxtrot." See below. ***Cluster Fuck.

Baal: every major religion has exoteric and esoteric truths. The esoteric truths are those that truly matter. The exoteric truths are for the workaday types. If "religion" were a banana, the real truth would be the banana and the truth for the public would be the peel. What you are thinking of as "religion" is the peel. Without the peel, the best part of the banana is eaten too fast, wilts in the hot sun, and is indigestible. Just like a peel protects the nourishing banana underneath, religion provides a protective layer for core spiritual truths. If "you" can screw up your courage to use this life to peel back the banana peel, you will find nearly every religion contains the more or less the same core truths. Aldous Huxley called those truths the Perennial Philosophy. That is the purpose of religion. I think the question within the question you are asking is: are there core spiritual truths, and if so, why would one believe any of them?

Christopher Hitchens would like a word with you...

How do you know?