PDS

Yup. This is true.

Okay, I don't really get the Jewish references or the Froggy stuff, but I think this is a pretty strong brief--maybe the strongest I've seen--in favor of Trump, and certainly you've landed a strong series of jabs to the chin of YB. Maybe YB shouldn't be trying to punch above his weight class. Or pick a different sport. I also appreciate that you appreciate that Trump's demeanor is, at least, a cause for concern. The stylistic concern is only that, i.e., a mere concern, if if is only stylistic. Unfortunately, I think it's more than a style issue. Trump seems a little unhinged to me. I hope I am wrong, or the coming landslide may become a Landslide.

It may be the case that Trump is a boorish, bragging, bullshit-artist, but at least he is winning what he is winning "straight up." Trump's victories are "no shenanigans" victories, in other words. The same can't be said about either Cruz or Kasich--at least not after their purported "alliance" to split up the votes and factions in various states. This really rubs me the wrong way. I get that it is technically legal and technically a strategic move within the bounds of respectable party politics. But: if the overriding objection to Trump is a stylistic objection, i.e., that he is obnoxiously the things I say above, then the Cruz/Kasich maneuver above is stylistically obnoxious in its own regard as well. The move notches them down to Trump's level, in other words. There is a real opportunity for Trump in the wake of this alliance. If he plays that opportunity like he plays so many other things (as a whiner, etc.) he will blow this opportunity. But if he plays from a position of true strength, pats them on their heads, talks about an affirmative vision for the country, and sticks to the substantive merits of his ideas, he could put the nomination in his hip pocket pretty soon.* Trump's moves over the next few days on this front will tell us a lot about whether he is a prisoner of his foibles. Or not. *God help us.

Mikee: The argument about Trump's children is intriguing. They do seem like well-adjusted and good people. Under some circumstances, this could be a tie-breaker piece of information, in my opinion. Not sure if the Presidency is the right context for such tie breakers, but the point is certainly a plus in the Trump column.

Well, that would sure be a game changer. I defer to your expertise on this. I would be very happy to be wrong about the extent of any predicted Hillary landslide (including my own). Anything that might salvage an R majority in the Senate might salvage the Supreme Court--at least from 2016-2020.

Now why do you have to go and bring up Phil Coates again?

I didn't say they were good reasons. Just the best reasons (available).

Here, in my opinion, is one of the best cases anybody who is generally anti-Trump has made for voting for Trump. So, on the one hand, we have Gingrich's thinking for why a Trump supporter might vote Trump. On the other hand, Wilson gives the best reasons why an erstwhile Republican leaner would not vote for Trump. And Jeff Green, in the article I refer to above, gives the reason why somebody who has yuuuuge reservations about Trump might do so anyway. There are too many money quotes in there to even list... Nothing emotional or personal about any of these three considered opinions.

Actually, just continue to be one now...

Very, very well said REB! There really is no loss of one's union card if a prediction is wrong. If I am wrong about the Trump landslide, I am wrong. These are factual determinations, not floating abstractions. I really agree with REB's penultimate paragraph. As the Zen master says, "before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." I say likewise in this context: before election, chop wood and carry water. After election (of either Hillary or Trump), chop wood and carry water--but with a hard hat on and much less yen in pockets....

Peter: You seem thirsty. Do you prefer grape or cherry Kool-Aid? I'm sure the handful of Trump supporters on this site have some left over...

Adam: is there any chance Trump can take Hillary in NY state? What say you?

Somebody is getting their leg pulled, that's for sure.

I think the perfect bookend to Gingrich's statements in favor of Trump is the following article against Trump, with the money quote being "[t]here’s a reason most Republicans and a vast majority of voters loathe Donald Trump: his vulgarity, his blistering ignorance, his constant dishonesty, his venality, and his utter lack of the knowledge, judgment, or temperament to be president of the United States. But of all his ugly characteristics, his endless stream of self-pity has become the most irritating feature of the most irritating candidate in modern political history." That pretty much says it all.

J: I think you're forgetting the part of The Fountainhead where Howard Roark consulted various authorities for his value judgments about architecture. Too bad it never occurs to LP to simply say, "I don't know. Ask somebody else."

Isn't this what you normally call an argument by asseveration?

You're really struggling to address the merits of the question, aren't you? Again, yes I read the article. Now I'm pretty sure you haven't, since you keep changing the subject. The question isn't whether Hitchens is better than you or me when not at his best. He obviously is. But facts are facts. The question is whether Mother Teresa helped the poor. It is not enough for you to make this assertion and then point to an article with an interview involving Hitchens to prove your point. The question is not whether she might have helped them more, or in the manner you prefer, or in the manner I happen to do in my hometown. I see from your profile that you help the blind and "dyslexic folks." This is commendable, in my opinion. There are others, however, who might help these same kinds of persons in a manner different than you. Or better than you. Or maybe worse than you. These possibilities or assertions of fact do not mean you are not helping the blind and "dyslexic folks." You see what I mean?

Okay Baal. I read it. Did you? This was not Hitchens at his finest. He is usually not so reliant on hearsay or speculation. And the term "Catholic death" is mentioned but not described. You know, there really is no harm in admitting that Mother T has helped the poor. Go ahead and throw in a caveat that you would have done much better had you spent your life among the lowest of Calcutta, but it's okay to simply concede my simple point. Lightning won't strike. I promise.

It's nice that Trump is watching this thread and has noticed your "somewhat late to the party" enthusiasm for his campaign. I have received no such emails.

Yup. The other reason Trump/Cruz is highly likely relates to the Cruz organization. Trump will need the Cruz data/volunteers/organization for the general election. Since he can't seem to do this on his own--notwithstanding his self-proclaimed excellence and brilliance in all things--he may as well just buy the Cruz operation.

An interesting possible dialogue. I predicted this general dialogue, and wonder if the "Heidi" factor would keep Cruz from accepting a VP role. But, if you think the country is going to hell and you have unique skills and abilities to prevent that from happening (i.e., you're Ted Cruz), why would you let a petty issue like your wife being insulted get in the way of such things? Besides, Trump is going to be 70ish were he ever to get elected, so Cruz could conceivably be the Teddy to Trump's McKinley. In other words, I stand by my prediction: Trump/Cruz get their asses kicked hard by Hillary/it-doesn't-matter.

Can you be more specific? I'm not a Catholic so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Here: now we're even. I love Hitchens as much as anybody--and I understand why somebody might claim that she was highly overrated--but whether MT was pro life, travelled to Haita under odd circumstances, etc., does not address whether she helped the poor. She might not have helped the poor the way you would prefer from the comfort of your air-conditioned space in New Jersey, but she did help the poor. She may not have helped the poor as efficiently as John Galt's motor may have done, but in the world we actually live in, she helped the poor. Sometimes you have to play the ball where it lies, not where you wish it landed.

That last part about Peikoff and Binswanger influencing "tens of thousands of voters" is actually pretty funny. You're a funny guy, Peter, If I were Hillary Clinton I would be quaking in my boots at the prospect of Harry Binswanger unleashing these young grad students to the polls. There will be a veritable tidal wave of repressed and bespectacled ARI fellows overrunning voting booths, with no small number of court extended deadlines to make sure the young Orthodox Objectivists are not denied their vote! All 11 of them.

Brant: actually, she did.