PDS

I was under the impression that the patients came to her health clinics voluntarily. "Really shitty" may be true, in a vacuum, but the clinics were/are the best game in town, no?

Peter: You might want to start getting used to the idea of Trump getting nominated, whether you (or I) like it or not. The threat of chaos at the convention is going to end up as just enough Trump Thuggery to get him over the top, me thinks. The squishy delegates will cave when all is said and done. The big question is not whether he will be nominated, but who to support: Trump or Hillary. Old Man Peikoff* says that a theocracy is afoot if you vote Republican, so I guess that makes the question an easy one to answer. One could argue, however, that supporting Trump over Hillary is still the rational move in order to minimize the size and extent of the Hillary landslide**: i.e., in the hopes of hanging onto a Republican Senate, whose sole redeeming value would be to keep lunatics off the Supreme Court. But, at least when Hillary is President for the next 8 years and the Senate is 50/50, a lot of angry Americans living in the most prosperous country in the most prosperous epoch in history will have had "their voice heard" and... (aw, never mind--sorry--I can't finish this sentence...) **I don't think he has repudiated this fatwa, at least that I am aware of. **This is the landslide I foretold many moons ago, when I predicted a Trump/Cruz ticket getting its hind quarters spanked by a Hillary/it-doesn't-matter ticket.

No I hadn't see that. interesting.

This all sounds "rigged" in favor of Trump to me!! How else might one explain the idea that Cruz and Kasich are going to lose?

I'm not aware of Mother Theresa "imposing" anything on others, are you?

Please explain. How is helping the poor of India "getting the lesser minds to engage in self-sacrifice"?

That interview is one of the single best explanations for Trump I have seen.

This is right as rain, as they say. I read an amazing book a few months ago that is implicitly consistent with this scenario: The Accidental Superpower. The upshot is that this country is going to be one of the last civilized countries "standing", over the next 20-30 years, and that we will be a largely self-sustaining and prosperous society while the rest of the world goes full "Mad Max", more or less. If the author is right, this country will need an actual non-interventionist, pro-liberty political party to make it work. The wild card in the scenario is whether a pro-liberty Republican Party will matter if there is a 7-2 collectivist/statist Supreme Court.

Rove reminds me of a professional baseball player that has a super-bad-ass walkup song before each bat while hitting about .169. His bluster and rep doesn't match his achievements at all. Watching his predictions go down the dumper the night Romney got stomped in 2012 was PAINFUL.

Cruz definitely gives me a bad vibe. I don't think it's that he's lying. I think it's that he talks way too much like a politician--everything is scripted. And when everything is scripted, how can anybody know what he actually thinks? My gut tells me he probably holds perfectly orthodox conservative Republican views. But, there is an almost zero chance that Cruz can beat Hillary. I agree with you that Trump's woman "problem" is likely more tactical fumbling than some inherent discriminatory element. It strikes me as almost a dog-whistle that everybody heard, rather than the subset of people he was trying to whistle to. The man is 69 years old. He is bound to say some stupid things about women now and then. But just like momentum begets momentum, so too does the converse. It would be nice if a man who inherited a bunch of money, has been rich all his life, has had almost every conceivable good break, and really has nothing to complain about were more generous in his dealings with others. If Trump gave off that vibe more often, he would get more benefit of the doubt when stubbing his toes. Trump's tax plan is one of the few things I actually like about him. So I hope you're right about that. Too bad his protectionist garbage would basically cancel out any economic gains from the tax plan. I fear that Trump may have blown in it in the last month or two: i.e., he may have blown his chance to actually govern, in the unlikely event he somehow were to get elected. It should be easy for me, a life-long Republican who has actually worked to elect Republican presidents (sorry Leonard...) to want to support Trump. He doesn't make it easy--and almost makes it impossible.

This might mean that, no matter how much of bragging bullshit artist Trump seems to be, he's probably still better than Hillary.

Adam: I think I know what your last sentence means, but I'm not 100% sure. With that caveat, I have had a client for close to twenty years (probably a billionaire, but--as with Trump--I'm not sure) who has built hotels and golf courses throughout the country. He's been doing so longer than Trump has been doing so. The hotels and golf courses are run quite well, and this client is also well known in the industry for projects that are run very well. Would you vote for him for President? Or would you want to know more about him?

Well, given the last three paragraphs of your post, I think I will go ahead and bow out of the conversation.

Michael said his "arguments are not arguments." He then said they are "statements of who I am." On this point, Michael gives himself way too little credit. I am 100% serious about this. Who Michael is is far more important and more worthy than a politician such as Trump. Especially a politician such as Trump--for the reasons I have stated above. If anybody wonders why I am giving Michael such a hard time on this thread, one reason is because of this: Michael is casting his pearls to swine. Perhaps naively, I think he can be persuaded of the errors of his ways...

So: since you don't agree with me about Trump, does this mean you don't see me? I say I am someone who thinks Trump is a Braggart and a bullshit artist. If you disagree with this assessment, does that mean you don't see me? If so, then our respective failures to see would seem to cancel each other out, and we can get on to the substance of the issues at hand.

Honestly, Michael, you really need to turn in the Victim Card. You just got through saying--10 minutes and 2 posts ago- "from your statements, I doubt you can see what [Trump supporters] see." Now you are claiming again that I "don't see" you. This isn't about you Michael. I see you just fine. I just don't find your arguments to be compelling.

"You don't have to be afraid." Thank you. I appreciate that. I may be afraid for the future of the country, but I'm really not afraid of the arguments that you claim support a Trump presidency. "Trump reflects his supporters, not the contrary." Maybe true. Maybe not. I don't have your secret decoder ring about Trump. If true, however, this proves my point about his lack of core convictions. "And he is not conning them as you most likely think." Two problems here: (1) you are playing the Victim Card again, and (2) if you want know what I "mostly likely think", you need only ask me, rather than speculate. "[Reagan] reflected his constituency--not the other way around..." Wrong. I was part of that constituency. I voted for him twice. I worked on his campaign. Twice. That's not how it worked at all, Michael.

Michael: I just happened to be editing my remarks above, and saw your post. I may be able agree with you--just to advance the discussion--that those who support Trump have core convictions. That doesn't say all that much about Trump, I'm afraid.* But more to the point, how do you know what Trump's entire life has been a monument to? When he dumped his first wife for Marla Maples, was that a monument to anything but his libido? When he targeted the use of the power of eminent domain to build hotels, which core convictions of his supporters was he in accord with? The proposition that his "entire life is a monument to the core convictions of those who support him" seems like a pretty big stretch to me. *I know you have claimed Trump is the effect of his supporters, not the cause. It would seem to me that this supports my conclusion, not yours.

Great questions. The change agent for this cycle certainly wouldn't look like Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders. So that leaves us with the question of whether Trump is up to the task. First, I have strong doubts about him because of his lack of core convictions. I can explain more, if you wish, but, as one example, take the 5 positions he took on abortion recently. He clearly has lived 69 years and hasn't given this core issue much thought, or he is lying about his true beliefs. Second, I have doubts about him because he is indeed a bullshit artist. We have no idea of what we are going to get with Trump. Nor, apparently, does he. The example here would be the way he is jumping around on what to do with Obamacare, and, when his bluff his called, he defaults to being "against the establishment". Third, his lack of conviction and his bullshit artistry is amplified by his fundamental lack of seriousness about the job he is seeking. Anybody who would tweet "I alone" can stop suicide bombings in Pakistan is self-evidently not someone whose judgment can be trusted. Some may believe he has magic powers. I don't. Fourth, the man is a true bully who does not handle setbacks or pressure well--at least not in the political arena. Witness his inability to take a loss without going apeshit, or his nastiness about Cruz's wife. Again, I really wouldn't care about this if he were building a hotel. Finally, he has burned just about every bridge possible on his way to the nomination so far. There is no good will built up for Trump among the people he will have to work with to accomplish these great (unknown) things that will "Make America Great Again". As a practical matter, this would mean 4 years of stalemate, punctuated by erratic uses of presidential power. This sounds a lot like more Obama to me. [All of these problems would be disqualifying even if Trump didn't pander on the questions of David Duke, "the Mexicans", and "the Muslims", or was willing to do his homework]. As for who might be such a change agent, I imagine an Obama figure who actually governs like Obama campaigned, i.e., as somebody who would unite the country, who could strike "grand bargains" about the nation's crippling debt, who might help solve the racial divide that has haunted us since 1776, and who actually (in practice) might pull back from policing the entire world, except where truly needed to protect our interests. My sense is that a completely "apolitical" leader will be needed after 4 years of Hillary in 2020--maybe a retired general or somebody like that. Some of the "grand bargains" on entitlements, debt, and budgeting will then need to be struck to keep us from bankruptcy, but the pain will be much greater than it had to be. Unfortunately, by then, the Supreme Court will have 2-3 more Hillary-appointed Justices and what's left of our constitutional republic will likely never be recovered.

I don't think the Trump supporters are insane. From what I can tell, their concern for the state of the Republic is nearly spot on. I just don't think Trump is the right change agent for the expression of that pathos. My biggest fear of Trump is that he actually make things far worse than they are. But as for your quote from Einstein, I don't think that applies here. The sample size is too small.

Agreed, Brant. On all fronts--no pun intended.

Hmmm. I'm certain the arguments for (1) not starting the war(s) and (2) ending the wars were and have been considered. I'm missing your point here.

That is a full-on, 100% use of the Victim Card. This is a long thread. I have read most of it. I may be wrong, but I don't recall what you have in mind when you use the term "con game". One more time, Michael: this isn't about you, it's about your arguments. You exist. You're not stupid. And you're not stupid as a rock. You disagree with me. This doesn't mean you are calling me stupid, or saying that I don't exist. The converse is true as well.

So you were ignored because you lost the argument? That's not being ignored. That's losing the argument. Losing an argument is something that occasionally happens in a constitutional republic. In this case, however, I think you are demonstrably wrong. Barack Obama won the 2008 election, in part, by seeking to end the Iraq War. Then he got elected. Then he withdrew our forces. That ended the Iraq War. In this context, I don't understand your "talk versus do thing" point.

By the way, my use of the term The Braggart or The Pathological Braggart is intentionally in homage to Trump's deployment of the linguistic kill shot. If anybody can think of a better linguistic kill shot for Trump, I am all ears. I thought the term Bullshit Artist might be a good term, but, as I have argued, the term seems to be encompassed by Pathological Braggart, so I am using the latter term for two linguistic kill shots with one stone, so to speak.