turkeyfoot

He did at one time. He doesn't anymore. Now he's pushing mostly for a repeal of ACA and allowing insurers to compete across state lines. Im having a difficult time finding Trumps position on ACA. His web site shows hes taken no formal position. Cruz is unwavering,having cut his teeth on opposition to it and apparently is capitalizing on Trumps detail less comments. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamacares-newest-front-cruz-vs.-trump/article/2582335

Is a straw poll a promise to vote for a candidate? sort of depending on the context... Thx, I suppose the answer lies in how the Iowan poll ended up in choosing the resulting nomination. Given the time frame as the first, seems a lot still remains. Even the GOP debates got off to a slow start.

Is a straw poll a promise to vote for a candidate?

By the time you posted this, youve already have gone through mountains of internal discourse. Im sure you can support your position, and probably skillfully. So Ill skip to something that helped me. Dr. Hurd offers by phone, email or in person consultation. In the last year I reached a point when I emailed him. I asked him whether he thought it helpful to provide a lot of background because I considered my problem and the symptoms accompanying it would seem petty without context. And I had a lot of context without which it didnt make sense, imo. He replied, that any and all information would be useful. I composed my thoughts and wrote a pages worth of stuff and then sat on it for a day knowing what I said had to convey precisely what I meant or the opportunity I was giving him for being helpful would fall short. I wrote more and the more I wrote I found the irrational, absurd, consistent, self pitying, rationalized, confirming, reality checked, substantive pieces of junk floating in my head. I was anchored to what I expressed until I understood that I wanted to revise it. It had nothing to do whatsoever about Objectivism or John Smaltz. It was more about keeping emotions in check and wanting and needing someone to support or agree with me. I havent paid a cent for his services, yet. Its rare when anyone agrees with your choices. Especially in personal matters and especially if they dont know you and even more when they dont know in detail how you hold the matter/concern/problem in your head. I have no idea what youre really thinking. Its couched in goobledygook about Galt. So get real! Oh, by the way you can likely find a supportive piece in his archives that can provide perspective.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430758/iowa-caucuses-ted-cruz-beats-ethanol-industry "Dave Vander Griend. has estimated that lifting the EPA blend wall could result in ethanol increasing its market share by 60 percent. The crowd, standing in the middle of miles of cornfields, erupted in cheers as Cruz concluded that “by lifting the blend wall, by getting rid of an arbitrary government regulation, we can enable ethanol to expand its market share dramatically with no government mandate, no subsidy, no dependence on Washington.” Whether Iowans understood the issue well enough to consider Cruz a friend and not foe of ethanol, only the voters know. If they voted with full knowledge of the ethanol issue then more power to them. If Cruz can bring his understanding of how market solutions can replace government subsidies and result in a win/ win, it will be a good thing. He does appear to know the issues and to make a convincing case.

Ba'al Chatzaf Ha ha. Your will, "And finally to you, the lights of my life, I leave to you all, to be distributed, in equal shares, my LEDs. Perhaps a more suitable gift than money but could earn you the title eccentric grandfather. Just kidding. )

I think led technology is great, for flashlights etc. The battery cost for maintaining a high lumen light is high too. The cost multiple is about 3 times more for leds vs incandescents. The rooms I use that get cycled most often and left on longer are the main culprits. I have no problem changing bulbs every yr or so vs paying a theoretical once for every 3 through the snoozola. Spare me the science, I dont count pennies or measure watts on the electrical bill. Its going to take time to accept the price differential so I keep leds in one fixture that is used repeatedly and often to inform my seat o the pants meter whether theres anything more to the of dazzle them wit yer brillance, baffle dem wit bs claims. )

I said what the comparison was. "What........... supporters are for is they are against everything that exists now." It doesnt extend to everything we know about the two. Its a commentary and view of the electorate when, in my opinion, there isnt the substantive information that the candidate provides enough of to judge well. Yes, I know hes made declaratory statements, but wheres the beef? Its a general malaise or discontent with everything else that attracts lemmings to Trump. Hes lite in the loafers, imo, despite any rhetorical affect. Hitler is overdone and gone. The attitudinal enthusiasm of falling over ones self expressed as interest in the personality - hes my candidate/waving flags ideal - is as American as apple pie and still prevalent and an obvious factor notwithstanding the grave dangers of stepping over the edge in this next election.

I'm not a big fan of Trump or Hitler analogies... Neither am I. I dont spend much time ruminating over either. One is dead and the other is a side show that resonates with a populace over little other than his confrontational stance. But since I listened to some history yesterday, it seemed appropriate to the discussion in the sense that those attitudes aren't new to the human condition. Lo all those years ago. It mostly revealed something personal about myself. When I first voted, for Reagan, it was the mans charm, not his assessment of states affairs. In the Kenndy/Nixon run up, I was chanting ditties based on personalities. Now that I can vote, based on my objective assessment, I find choices so poor that the choice available to me is my choice to not choose any candidate. )

Gregor Strasser, #2 man to Hitler (1932) as people were going to the polls. These are choices being made over whether to choose Hindenburg (social democrats) or the upstart Hitler (Nazis) who are neither right or left, its not clear but they're chiefly a party about enthusiasm. "What Hitler (Trump) supporters are for is they are against everything that exists now." Paraphrased, "That is really what Hitler (Trump) presents. In other words, If you dont like it hes the man against it. Hes very not specific about what hes going to do about it." ("Im going to hire smart people") Reporter; "If you believe in heaven you dont care if theres a gold standard there, you dont worry about details, you just wonder if youre going to get there or not and whos going to take you." Its not at all clear who wins if Trump wins.

Thank you for taking the time. Isn't this a whiz bang True Story???? Thx. Awesome! I was particularly taken by Lew Lenart, 16:00 and his story. Its heartbreaking. And Eddy Styrak. "caught aiding and abetting illegal immigration of Jews..served 4 1/2 months in a British prison. I wasnt breaking the law, I was saving a people. "I just did" Heroic! My fil had a similar view when Germans killed his brother. He was extremely upset over his loss and had something to prove. He disobeyed a direct order to send a platoon forward, instead sent an entire company to seize a town which had been a divisional objective. He succeeded because of his personal drive to exact a price from the Germans, but would certainly have been court martialed if unsuccessful. What could they say though?? Its people like Lew, who driven by a personal motive, get the job done.

You know what they say about electricity, its the current that will kill you. Thats why I could safely discharge a crt anode of 25k volts. ) North Koreas missle range is said to be 5600 miles, close enough to hit all of the mideast, most of Europe, N Africa, Australia and Southern California arced to Minnesota. On Jan 6th an underground test measured 5.1. My guess is they want to live. No attacks but there have been tests. This is how we can know the effects of EMP although conducted long ago in an era mostly devoid of electronics. The 1962 Soviet Nuclear EMP Tests over Kazakhstan. http://www.futurescience.com/emp/test184.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime 1962, begun in response to the Soviets ending a 3 yr moratorium on testing. Although Starfish Prime was a 1.44 megaton thermonuclear weapon, it was actually extremely inefficient at producing EMP. Much smaller nuclear fission weapons, requiring far less expertise, would be much more efficient at producing EMP, especially the very fast E1component. In general, the simpler the nuclear weapon, the more efficient it is at producing EMP. (See the the notes on EMP page.) Thermonuclear weapons (so-called hydrogen bombs) are very inefficient at generating the fast-rise-time E1 pulse. (Weapons with a high energy yield are much better at generating the slower E3 pulse that can damage transformers in the power grid, which would take years to replace. This E3 pulse can induce large currents even in long underground lines. Solar superstorms can cause the same type of damage.) The Starfish Prime test knocked out some of the electrical and electronic components in Hawaii, which was 897 miles (1445 kilometers) away from the nuclear explosion. The E1 component of the pulse....... gamma rays hit the upper atmosphere, they knock out electrons in the atoms in the upper atmosphere..... This current interacts with the Earth's magnetic field to produce a strong electromagnetic pulse, which originates a few miles overhead, even though the nuclear detonation point may be a thousand miles away or more. The Earth's magnetic field over the center of the continental United States is about twicethe strength as at the location of the Starfish Prime test.

Interesting book. http://www.onesecondafter.com Any internal combustion engine reliant on solid state electronics; ecm (electronic control module) becomes worthless if in range when EMP is employed. By the way, all electronics that would ordinarily run off a gen set would be toast too. I have a gen set with 2k gallons of propane, good for 48 days on high demand. I consider my manual well pump more precious in certain circumstances. Even a pre 80's analog carbureted generator would back fire on its owner. )As soon as roving bands of malcontents appeared. What every family would benefit from is a survival course. Last summer I went to https://mountainshepherd.com. SERE trained the owner who trained me. What I learned is, the single most important aspect to survival is a positive mental attitude, then first aid, shelter,fire craft, signaling and lastly food and water. That and not to listen to Bear Grylss. )

"Paine’s voice is needed today, I incline to think rather not." Its remarkable how even a man long since dead, a standard bearer of his time by fighting in deeds and thoughts, is regarded as not living up to an ideal. If as I understand things, he is remarkable for his convictions, in being against taxes which were in essence debt to the colonialists, (representative of national debt) I dont understand the basis for the sleight however small. "After our revolution, he was an American hero." Im a simple guy. He was regarded as a hero for a commitment to freedom. That is precisely the kind of voice needed in todays culture even if layered over with a belief in god. I think the facts speak for themselves. There are other American dead who are/were misrepresented by history. I was concerned that T Paine was one of them.

deleted

Thats an interesting take Stephen, for me. The notion that some historical figures and proponents dont deserve the feet of clay status that some hunger for in the absence of real heroes or the alternative status when the regard held for some borders on hostility. I especially like hearing about the real deal regarding people who have have been depicted wrongly or inaccurately. I had the idea that he spoke out strongly, did he risk his life and fortune in doing so?

Good find. I once saw aTOYOT in my rear view mirror.Different plates. )

Im glad. In fairness, it came from the book, The Big Short. In fairness to the Russian author I dont really know what he said. I saw the movie. Columbia Pictures credited Mark Twain with essentially the same message. “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” Take it for what its worth, leave the rest. No attribution to Mark Twain aka Samuel Langhorne Clemens, could be found. Are you going to hang it? Sticky note? ) Staying with the op's op, Im gifting it to the thread. <insert saaaoag emoticon>

Theres privacy, limited. Depends. Search my name, you wont see content unless you are on the close friends list. I can go days when no one sees me. )

The "little quarrel" is precisely on topic. Fragile poseurs demanding respect, banning informed, potent dissent, squealing about criticism, and retreating to their safe spaces is one of the primary reasons that Objectivism has "problems" (which is putting it mildly) with outreach efforts. J I agree with the sentiment expressed above. O isnt suffering, cant its a thought process. Its people and an ability/inability to express their ideas. O is channeled through a persons moral views, views that were in some way adopted or arrived at and not always or almost through direct sensory experience from the ground up. The single most evocative event within O known for its moral suasion and impact was in '68. It was about picking sides. Whos side do you want to be on and how much effort does one feel they have to expend on behalf of their convictions. To paraphase its the "simplest thing in the world" however it is also the most difficult. You have to pull without pushing (hapkido) you have to exert far more mental/physical effort than the "force" before you because you may possess the ability to do more harm (if you are a master or a spastic). By absorbing deflecting an argument/blow and pivoting or aligning with the person(s) arrayed before you. In a situation where a person is unable to defend their argument/force thats brought to bear you must stand your ground thereby allowing the person to view you as an unassialable person you are..with the strength of your convictions or physicality to defend a position. Take the last post ^. Man up! Please? The method used was an attempt to stiff arm altogether different from persuasion, which Marcus so rightly pointed out is the only way to reach a rational mind. Of course I care whether that verbal attempt was meant to challenge my views or sensibilities but not because the comment challenged my moral convictions. I dont have a dog in that kind of fight. Personal attributes, whether pompous, pious, or patronizing arent going to persuade me of anything other than the attempt in undermining my own effort. My background consisted of physical domination and psychological torture by the person whos moral obligation was to provide safety and security. I lived with an ominous black cloud of oppression and subjugation backed up by physical force. At an early age. If the desire is to stuff something down the throat without regard for your aim in assisting someones views to turn towards your own then good luck. In that example theres urgency. If on the other hand you are willing to wait for the voluntary impact from the strength and persuasion that your arguments possess then you have a life time. For if the person wont come willingly of their own accord you have nothing and little choice but to move on to something worthy of your time and effort. One of the most difficult things Ive attempted is to introduce my views to my son. I want him to be unhampered by strong armed or salesman technique so I expend effort in not alienating myself from him. I adopt a process that is arduous, slow and painful for me but for which I think will prove the most worthy of my efforts. His bs detector is on high alert when I burrow into him and we both feel the push and pull. Tolstoy: “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” What I see as the most likely approach to elicit interest in o is in asking questions, not stating an idea as an immutable subject. And not unlike the one posed by Marcus. You get more bees with proper care and syrup, if the bees can make honey without feeling threatened ....then the chances are that you too will benefit and the bees thrive. Ah, sayeth the wise man, what is it that causeth a colony collapse disorder. )

But wait! That's not all you get! If you order right now we'll double the rationality! . In a free society, Wolfe is on to it. Free.... just another word for nothing left to lose. Free is certainly not unmitigated laissez faire freedom that we dont see today, not by a mile. Heres a suggestion, Marcus, parse the word in the full context of what living in todays society means today. Freedom was a corrupted concept even when AR published AS. Read about the reception her critics had to the book. She was throughly depressed by it. Heres a spokesman par excellance. ) Notice the not so subtle use of props.

Mostly though I figure people embrace philosophically heady ideas for the basis of their survival or for academic success. There are ample ways to survive without an articulated philosophy. Who really needs philosophy?? ;) Who needs philosophy? Good question. Philosophy, as I understand it, maximizes your chances of success because it (good philosophy) is fully consistent with reality. This is not insignificant and should not be ignored by Objectivism. I read Anthem at 14. My college bound brother discarded it and Virtue of Selfishness to the bottom of a closet. In retrospect I was more interested in my brothers possessions. But I recall loving its message as I was trying to escape a physical/psychological prison. I read in Mimi Gladstones book, young people were the primary audience attracted to it. Alas, a story is but a story. I had no way, in my experience to capitalize on its meaning and VOS was simply out of my grasp. So I went on to Dune, then Heinlein, Edgar R Burroughs, and then Howard. Later, some 10 yrs, I read AS and Fountainhead. Those books also didnt pique my curiosity enough to take a snap shot of the culture and draw meaningful insights. They were all simply stories to me, irrelevant to me forming a much needed philosophical detection mechanism. Much of what Ive heard in re to reading ARs books, stems from recommendations to read her fiction first. My assumption about that was it introduces you to the author as interesting, rather than the tie in to headier themes as "sanction of the victim". You had said a similar thing occurred, in that you loved AR and that its taken you a long time to understand headier concepts. If it was any one thing about what AR wrote its the listing of virtues as a guide for living. I had a strong sense of morality already. It read something like a higher level boy scout credo and I was hooked. The other subject she touched on in Capitalism...., were the ethical arguments contrasted with history and what happened to Jewish people in WW2. What she wrote sparked an interest in history more than anything presented in school. I doubt there are any real take home messages about what Im saying in re to introducing people to AR material or making it sexier. I dont think sexier works unless you mean simpler and or more interesting. Take "sanction of the victim". Arghhhhhhh Hell, Im the epitamy of the non philosophical detective, I have to see a hand on a knife in a bloodied dead person before I realize a "crime" has occurred. And even then, in my younger yrs, couldnt have been sure the dead person wasnt deserving of death. ) What may work best is simple. To tie simple in with the electoral process think Trump. Hes crushing it with a mantra that is working, even if its temporary. So , yeah, sorry to inform you, the way right now is through Trump. He has the repeated consistent messaging that touches on, however slight, AR's material AND he has the platform/gravitas that allows for permeation through a pig headed culture. In other words, there is very little chance of not hearing the incessant chatter. Its less to do with him being president than the simple connections to what virtually everyone is dimly aware of and feeling. I really hate to say it but for 4 yrs Ive been speaking my mind to a bunch of motorcycling independently spirited yokels in what we lovingly refer to as the Dumping Ground, a space separate from the main forum that requires a request to join. Its a large audience of lookie lous, whos company I enjoy, but simply dont connect for no lack of tryin. Very rarely do I mention AR's material as it can be a turn off. Although every thread is laden with its messages. Its only accomplishment that I know of, was to me, learning to articulate my understanding and to write more clearly, which is two different kinds of things. Its been valuable. The real goal has been to distill a thoughtful commentary into something my son will hear. The best current vehicle for pushing an admittedly severely limited version of o into the mainstream is through Trump exercising his businessmans mindset and prerogative in running for the presidency. ) Its an entirely different proposition, and one I think youll realize if you really think about it, getting heads to turn towards the ethics underlying AR's material. In another thread Trump is what turns you off. )

Those words stir in me a sense of something beyond my grasp and yet are heartfelt. They exalt a greater beings fairness in not allowing a fate to befall themselves. Taking out all references to god, Paine is a good and motivated leader attempting to rally the troops. Armageddon has been referenced too often to wake an average person from his slumber. They had guns to fight foreign invaders. We fight from within armed only with our wits. "We" asked for it. They didnt. The crisis is bigger than anything that might be achieved by voting for president. To judge whether we are in crisis would depend on when a person considered the question first. From my point of view, there is little that can be undone, not on this forum. Death and taxes, the two guarantees in life. When was the last time taxes were repealed in real terms?

Wouldnt want my post to be misconstrued (it wasnt sent to me) but as I read the article on the point of his wife having reacted to the plight, it occurred to me philanthropy is what rich folks wives do best. The candidates machine certainly would miss an opportunity to give air time to this story as it would be goobled up for all the saccharine ingredients in the narrative although substance would go missing. Imo, it was simply a nod to his wifes endeavors. His last charitable donation was reported to be in '08. It could only cast him in a better light than the unsavory details from Ivanas divorce that was granted on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment. ) "Trump told the Atlanta businessman that his wife, Ivana, had seen the report on the Hill family’s plight on the network news, and she suggested that he get involved." http://www.businessinsider.com/theres-something-fishy-about-donald-trumps-charitable-donations-2015-8