turkeyfoot

Geoff, Here, let me help you some with that framing (all books by Donald Trump): There are others, but that small list should keep you busy for a few nights if you decide to read them. Let's say this is one way to frame capitalism. Thx Michael. Nice of you to add value to our conversation. I cant explain the style of this reply. I quoted Jon at one point and then this. No worries.

Got it. I know too, you favor Cruz if Trump doesnt get enough electoral support for the nomination. Hes got the deep well I favor as a nominee. I do agree that Trump by his mere presence in the race has dealt adequately with issues, not for me, but at least enough to stir up the base AND newcomers. I only disagree on one thing. That is his inarticulateness in framing the issues in a way that I can overcome my intense dislike for his attitude. In part it has paved the way. Ive already had my say in the matter since I live in Virginia. Beyond that its all hyperbole. One guys sense of a winner vs anothers. Good luck to your guy! So far so good.

Michael, How might I put this so you can entertain it? His successes are in the business world not in the political realm. In other words I recognize there are qualities in both worlds that cross over, leadership, negotiation etc. He has those in abundant supply. Its difficult to argue from that standpoint. Mostly because we all understand the qualities that lead to success. The problem is can he make a coherent argument without the simplicity he prefers? He talks like a mush mouth as a candidate. Youve heard him. That you believe him is fine, you find adequate answers on your side. But what about his ability to reinforce and convey ideas and connect them to politics? I think the concern is universal for those who view him as second rate in the political realm. The person wanted and needed is someone who can both refute the politics of socialism and explain the benefits of Capitalism. I havent seen him do that. Do you see what Im saying?

I dont know, only think, do I. ) He is emotionally driven in no small measure. I believe hes taking testosterone or something that keeps it up for him. ) He dove in it appears because he senses it slipping away. Thats why he sneers and pouts and twists and talks trash, evades and avoids. And why I have no doubt I couldnt spend time with him and come away enlightened. From the art of the deal http://tinyurl.com/jqm4rwb “You can’t con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don’t deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on.” And this about Ronald Reagan 4 paragraphs later, "Only now nearly 7 and half years later, are people beginning to question whether theres anything beneath that smile." Im waiting. With the number 1 problem for politicians being delivering on their promises, lets not mistake will for decisions turning into solutions. The next concern he will face is will there be a house and/or senate willing to do what he wants. I can envision him leaving office due to a temper tantrum.

Every dog has his day. The Notorious took it on the chin. Loses one. UFC record now 15-1. Connor made $1M. Diaz made $500k to show with an extra $100k in bonuses for performance of the night and the win. Royce Gracie won $50k in UFC 1 in 1993. "Round 2: McGregor spins, but hits nothing. Solid left to the body scores for McGregor. And now a left upstairs twice for the Irish fighter. Diaz clinches, but McGregor pummels in right away and they separate. McGregor is picking Diaz apart here and now they flurry. Diaz scores a left. Lead uppercut scores for McGregor now. DIAZ WOBBLES McGregor and McGregor looks hurt. Diaz is pouring it on as he pressures McGregor against the fence. They separate and McGregor lands a hard left, but McGregor is hurt and SHOOTS. Diaz stuffs it and takes mount. He pounds on McGregor, flattens him, takes his back and secures a choke. That's it. McGregor loses. "

I thought he would say Trump saved his life. At 62 Ive noticed a lot of sentimentality coming from remembrances. Ill save what I think his writing style reveals. The salient points are Trump is not evil, dont fear him, people dont change ideologically, ever, after their 17th birthday and he will hire good people. Its a defense of his personality not of his ethical or principled stance in any measure. When Trump needs a lawyer, whos he gonna call? Need a lawyer**LAW. ) Fine enough. In an effort to put forth ones best assessment one has to say how a deep well of resourcefulness Trump purportedly possesses lends itself to being President. He and most any successful person share those basic qualities. Im still waiting for his own rational language to take hold. Without that, pathos sounds well, pathetic. If hes saving his best for last I see very little suggestion of true intellect. Its as if he depends on and intends a caricature of himself to portray his tough guy qualities. Trump and Clinton in a last gasp debate, I see a hilarious SNL skit, not an inspiring leader. Will power alone isnt enough and at 69 I see signs of flagging when confronted with serious topics. He rambled on for 1 1/2 hours on Power Lunch on Tuesday, and I considered killing the program, but listened to a ramblin man. Keep ramblin man. Im intrigued by Trump. I dont count him out. He is 69, his best days behind him, has handed off the baton to his children and is living off his storied name. If he is so tough, a quality he exudes, demonstrate it. The strongest people use simple language, grasp a principle, articulate it and earn trust, the old fashion way. I did mention, names mean nothing to me. ) Has anyone seen Jeb, Mark, John and Ben can you tell me where theyve gone. And seriously, Cruzs' Hispanic blood runs deeper for voters than does his name.

Ted changed his name at the perspicacious age of 13. Sounds like an issue where other kids would poke fun at his expense. Not necessarily an idea born of unwillingness to reconcile his heritage. My brother changed his name to Axton (immediately elevated himself)) at about age 25 as a direct result of his father falling out of favor. Years later he forgot the reason why he changed it and said it was for professional reasons. He had reacquainted himself with his father as an adult. It seemed more like shame, knowing the participants. My given name is Geoffrey. Every year in grade school role call mangled it as Gee off. My HS English teachers apparently obtained their degree never having heard of Chaucer. Never bothered me other than wonder about their difficulties. My name in Spanish is Cristobol. You can call me Ray, turkeyfoot. I am neither proud nor embarrassed of my heritage. I like simple, one syllable names if possible. I cringe at hearing my given name. Ive been referred to as Geoff or honey for so long I wouldnt respond well to hearing Geoffrey. I heard sir the other day and immediately turned and was embarrassed. ) The fall out from all of this is that Ted changed his name to appeal to white conservatives. Where is the due for the Spanish for whom Raphaels father was named by his father who was from the Canary Islands in Spain. ) 32 yrs of being referred to as Raph Ted. If he changed his name would it be a major cave, I dont know but for millenials boy, the appeal! May likely overwhelm the suffering Cuban sentiment. This is of course done in jest. Dont mean a thing. Edit: Cruz does well because he speaks English. )))))))))

I worked for Excel Erections in '82. (I was hanging siding at the Washington Naval Yard the morning of the Air Florida crash.) Anyway.....The company slogan printed on the trucks and business cards was "The best erections in the business." And yes we did. bada boom

The psychological portrait of this man is that of being borne of a disaster. The intrigue is palpable. The master persuader, linguistic kill shots and all manner of manipulation of facts, strategy, people and truth. A one man wrecking ball. Wow, Im trying to wrap my head around the idea put forth that he is who is needed. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432232/donald-trump-bbc-journalist-recalls-sexism "Trump was making assertions that didn’t stand up to scrutiny""pointed to the Empire State Building, telling Scott he owned “100 percent of it.”""the same story with the Trump Taj Mahal Casino in Atlantic City. ‘It’s wholly owned by me,’ he said.” "he rolled back the claim from 80 percent to, finally, 50 percent ownership."“Selina, you are a major loser,” one read. Another, as D’Antonio reported in his biography, fumed: “Selina, you have little talent. . . . You are no longer ‘hot.’ . . . I hope you are able to solve your problems before it is too late.’”“Over many years he sent me a series of intimidating letters branding me ‘sleazy, unattractive, obnoxious, and boring.’” “Selina, you are a major loser,” one read. Another, as D’Antonio reported in his biography, fumed: “Selina, you have little talent. . . . You are no longer ‘hot.’ . . . I hope you are able to solve your problems before it is too late.’” "The flurry of mail stopped when Scott threatened legal action." "Diana asked about Trump. He had just sent her multiple bouquets""in an interview with Roger Stone, Trump said he regretted never having asked the princess for a date. “I always have a shot,” he said."

Ok. Thx. "Like so many bullies, Trump has skin of gossamer. He thinks nothing of saying the most hurtful thing about someone else, but when he hears a whisper that runs counter to his own vainglorious self-image, he coils like a caged ferret. Just to drive him a little bit crazy, I took to referring to him as a“short-fingered vulgarian” in the pages of Spy magazine." Spy was a satirical monthly magazine that ran from 1986 to 1998. The magazine was based in New York City. http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/10/graydon-carter-donald-trump "To this day, I receive the occasional envelope from Trump. There is always a photo of him—generally a tear sheet from a magazine. On all of them he has circled his hand in gold Sharpie in a valiant effort to highlight the length of his fingers." "also written in gold Sharpie: “See, not so short!” I sent the picture back (to Trump) by return mail with a note attached, saying, “Actually, quite short.” "

You just said that. ) The unscientific polling says women say so what. Youve got to wonder if Melania gave it a name. Enquirering minds want to know.

I dont doubt he is gifted in some sense. Fact. He didnt build any of them. ) But he knew a lot of very very smart people. He knew......smart smart people. Very very. I do not view that as a distinction with no difference. Would it not be more accurate and honest to say it was his business acumen and money? I dont mean to cast aspersions and am not pissing in the wind. ) I know, I stick built houses for a living, designed and built, compounded angles on roof rafters. The only difference in my being able to build something and him, and yes its substantial, is money, networking, and paying politicians. Its the anti constitutional foundation built upon a good one thats rotted and if youre right he is going to build on the wonky one. The outcome of the structure is in question. Given the team aspect of the project, the points thus far add up to being in favor of one man getting the house built. Excuse me if I am less than sanguine. For goodness sakes, hes running for President. Its not hard to make politicians look dumb.

Find your answer Arkadi. I have mine and there are a multitude, as varied as the people whose lives you count. Yes on WW2. The question is a hypothetical for you. You need to make it real for yourself to be in a position of knowing. I suppose the ultimate eye opener for myself was reading Black Earth by Timothy Snyder and integrating it with everything else I know. In short, human nature.

I hear that. Dazzle with bull shit, baffle with "brilliance". Hes turd polishing, the only thing he can sell. Lets not confuse his wares with quality, even if it has a Machiavellian component. It doesnt matter whos buying, his turds are still unproven, smelly, vacuous nonsense. My take is that he wouldnt pass a 5th grade test on the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the DOI.

"What value can I possibly gain in exchange for my life?" Brant advice is good. Distance yourself from this stuff and introspect. The answer is your life. Its opposite is self sacrifice. A threat approaches (clear enough, he has a weapon and is menacing and verbally threatening), and will take your life if you do not defend yourself. Would you risk dying to save yourself? Take that tangible threat and apply it to your abstract notion. This idea had bothered me for years in the context of WW2, knowing how people wouldnt resist and in some cases would rather die than struggle. I didnt watch Shindlers List until I adequately resolve it for myself. My repugnance was based on the willingness to surrender ones life without putting up a fight. My father in laws (John) (class of '44) brother, his Tactical Officer at West Point died accepting surrender of Germans (they pulled tommy guns from their coats). In his words, "I had something to prove." His other brother, went to retrieve the body and his jeep ran over a mine and he evacuated to England and returned when he could walk again. Johns best friend and class mate was the subject of Lars Andersens book, The All Americans. Approaching Omaha Beach he took a bullet stepping off a Hutchins boat, evacd to England and returned to the field of battle. This was the backdrop for Europe. If you ever played team sports you have but one/enth scintilla of understanding of the attitude and what comprises a band of brothers. Rand worshipped their cause. Brant is a veteran. Im a veteran army brat who was born at West Point and grew up surrounded by West Pointers. ) I didnt stand a chance. )

All vacuous bobble heads. But my guys a winner. ) I served with a genius, knew a genius and he was a friend of mine. Trump is no genius. Hit a new low. Talked about his manhood. Who knew, just in case anyone wondered he cleared it up quickly. ) But he held back on the punch line since he got a quick laugh. I swear he was going to mention how pleased Melania is. Hes selling bs and I aint buyin. He reminds my of that guy. RInse and repeat.

Thats funny, I dont care who you are.

You might want to check the link Brant.

Michael, Oh jeez, Im going to pretend you werent on the receiving end because youre smart. ) http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/virginia Major population areas, college educated in the main didnt vote for Trump. Stupid no. Not low IQ's. What phenomenon do you think is owing to voting results in general in most all elections? Is it thinking errors, political indoctrination or cultural conditioning or something else? Forgetting Trump, I mean. The same kind of people who appear here at OL? What kind of person goes to a stadium to ride the wave of adulation and scream like little girls? Unless its the Stones? ) Im thinking people who constantly vote for the kind of politicians that society is willing to place on pedestals are stupid about politics. But forget what good hair, a masculine voice and manner, a handsome man can bring to the party. Forget about how Trump uses his native language that consists of mostly 2 syllable words, that his persuasion technique is in repeating himself. Yea, hes a good salesman, alright. And hes smart. But voters are more stupid than fifth graders and that mentality is where his appeal is found at least in the early rounds. His masterly technique is found in how people perceive and compare him to others not in the substance of what he offers. I dont doubt that if his nomination results in a win the congratulations will be for how smart voters were. ) Back to this idea of throwing votes. Please look at the platform and policies of the American Capitalist Party and see whether youre in agreement. http://www.theamericancapitalistparty.com Would you throw your vote towards Trump if the ACP was at full throttle? If the calculation is always in favor of someone who might win rather than a philosophical ally then the result is where we find ourselves.

MSK, I see Trump winning the Republican nomination due in large part with voters who default on the principle of thinking for oneself. The number of voters who otherwise would have stayed home if confronted with establishment candidates are interested in his winning attitude more than anything having to do with politics. Its them youre counting on. Look, they gave up long ago, and now they have some belief that this guy is going to give back to them what was taken. I know, because I had the same attitude towards Reagan. I had little understanding of politics but he was funny, insightful, an empathetic anti government candidate and gave the appearance of being a regular joe and likable to boot. He received the same "hitlerian" treatment that Im hearing thrown from the dems now. As much as Reagan did for the country it was short lived and we are still paying for the out sized spending. Im interested in long term gains. If this is it Id say it gives the appearance of falling seriously short. Its tantamount to talking a good game. Im not sanguine over a reversal in policy matters and to be realistic am tepid in a reaction that expects a slowing of government growth. And as with all things that pendulum will swing when the strength of the emotions of the moment go back in the general direction of more not less. The country is not willing to change to any significant degree. Fact oriented folks should know, in the same way Rand came to understand the futility of her effect on the practical ideas in the mainstream, when it came to the masses willingness to absorb them, were at complete odds from actions that take hold. Boy, if Im not a debbie downer. )

https://audioboom.com/boos/4250118-to-make-men-free-a-history-of-the-republican-party-by-heather-cox-richardson This recording is a travelogue through history of political philosophy starting with the formation of the Republican Party. She suggests the patterns of the cultures acceptance of politicians. What happened in 1880's-90's was a pattern over whether government should be about redistribution or the producers in control. What came about was anti-trust and hatred of the good being good. I took it as a partially good when viewing Lincolns and what I knew of him growing federal powers. In the recording it was mentioned that he also brought about several things regarding individual property rights (Homestead Act). That was in part what made the Republican Party and got Lincoln elected. She puts forth an argument that Obama, the fourth great Republican president, is just to the right of Eisenhower. Obama recognizes his own republican leanings. Thus swings the pendulum. She says though she is a prophet of the past not the future and that the language of 2020 will be the language of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Eisenhower. It was interesting.

I did. I didnt think you had a smirk. Its a full on crow! ) Unabated enthusiasm is the story line here. I wouldnt expect anything less. ) Im (scuse the lack of ') one who voted in Va.'s primary (no 3rd party ballots) for someone other than the chosen one. A belief that non Trump voters will all or in part redound to him is founded on what principle? I'll admit that since the 80's every candidate that won Super Tuesday won the nomination. You are aware that Trump has the highest negatives amongst all candidates? And the total vote for all other candidates supercedes votes for Trump. Heres an idea, maybe legs maybe not. Those who chose an alternate candidate are unhappy with Trump and go Libertarian. If the popular vote exceeds 5% in the next election that party will get matching federal funds. I only have so much to give to this discussion because in the end I am but one vote in 125M. "Many came out to vote for Trump or against him. That's the truth. More for than against, obviously." Ill take a stab at that. They voted their conscience. The American Capitalist party will be up and running (cough) in 2020. If there ever was a fully fleshed out platform for objective mentalities I would think thats it. Now would you vote your conscience or would you vote Republican? )

Dont crow too loud. ) “Since 1988, the candidate to clean up on Super Tuesday has always gone onto win their party’s nomination,” the Dublin-based bookmaker said" "Trump’s odds indicate he has a 33 pecent chance of winning the White House, while Clinton has a 65 percent shot, Paddy Power Betfair said." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-02/bookmaker-pays-out-early-on-trump-winning-republican-nomination

(Damn, this is entertaining!) Clown, dancing bear, circus atmosphere and under that big hair, whats there, Oh my! Thats entertainment. Man, it is going to be especially hard on all of us if a republican doesn't win. The entertainment factor will be through the big top.

My vote is worth 1/125,000,000 in a popular election. That is to say squat and worth as much as anyones since electoral votes already guarantee a nominee. My vote in a primary may be negligible too but thats where I can do the most damage. ) Wanting your guy isnt the same as getting what youre really after. So I will wallow in anything the republicans can drag to the party, the alternative will leave me depressed (as did ACA in 2012). 2nd rate, bs artist, drag into the gutter, retard.