Jjeorge

David...

Shouldn't you consider a different gestalt to view him through?

A...

I'm ashamed to say that I have no idea what that means.

It's astounding to me how listening to Trump speak, as opposed to simply reading a transcript of what he said, seems to short-circuit my usual emotional response of "God this guy is a pompous ass."

He does very much seem like a guy who is not into big, weighty political philosophy discussions. (I think this is why a lot of the more purist libertarians may hate him -- this philosophizing is basically all of politics to them, and he won't indulge them with praise for Hazlitt or whoever they have an intellectual infatuation with at the time.)

Perhaps this is why I have trouble articulating my fascination with him to nay-sayers, because those idle ideas are what I'm used to working with, and that emotional "ew" is something I can't seem to stop even in myself.

I just don't see the situation as does Michael. From the article above: Trump wasn't as generous in his assessment of Rubio and the others who came to the Koch retreat, writing on Twitter: "I wish good luck to all of the Republican candidates that traveled to California to beg for money etc. from the Koch Brothers. Puppets?" end quote

As usual, Donald Trump sought to destroy everyone who isnt him. What the heck is wrong with the guy?

Peter,

That's easy.

Marco Rubio (about Trump's McCain comment): Its not just absurd. Its offensive. Its ridiculous, and I do think it is a disqualifier as commander-in-chief.

Some other unprovoked gems from other Republican politicians:

Racist

Blowhard

Cancer

Jackass

DumbDumb

He fired up the crazies

Rise in polls due to the public's "temporary sort of loss of sanity"

I don't want to be associated with the kind of vitriol that he's spewing out these days

Not reflective of the Republican party

He doesn't represent me, and he doesn't represent my party

And so on.

So it's OK to say those things about Trump when a politician disagrees with something he said. And why would that be? Obviously, because the insults are about Donald Trump.

But it's not OK for Trump to counterpunch. And why would that be, I wonder?

Maybe because he goes for the knockout counterpunch?

Sorry.

No sanction of the victim coming from Donald Trump.

Hit him. He hits back. Hard. Immediately. Without apology.

And he wins.

Ask Sarah Palin how McCain's handler-enforced sanction of the victim worked out for her.

Not going to happen this go around.

Take a look at that string of insults about Trump from politicians who thought they were getting a free ride on the wave of public sentiment, thus getting a free bump in the polls.

Moral crusaders?

Or puppets?

Looks like the second option to me.

Michael

This reminds me of something in the Ender Quintet. The main character responds exactly in this way to threats against him and his loved ines.

He killed an older child because he knew that the kid would never stop bullying him, and simply winning the one fight would only atagonize the bully further.

His reasoning was that he had to "win this fight and all those that follow."

Trump seems like the kind of guy who thinks this way.

Sex as self-fulfillment is rape-y?

I had always thought it was non-fulfilling sex that is rape-y.

I picture some man telling a woman she should thank him for so brutally ravishing her. "It was for your own good!"

Greg,

I looked into those people. They're not even worshipping Satan. Just the name and some of the trappings.

They like publicity more than depth, or good, or evil or any of that stuff.

I call it cheap profundity. Pop religion fit for the pages of a teeny-bopper magazine.

Stupid, not really evil in a Hitler sense...

Michael

Nearly the same as Pastafarians.

Of course that makes them evil secularists, right Greg? ;)

Highlights from Donald Trump on Anderson Cooper tonight. In the first video, he discussed very openly his involvement with lobbying politicians. Cooper tried to nail him and asked if he used to be part of the problem. He said, "Absolutely."

Look below at how he responded about racial problems. He talks about what he knows, not what he believes people want to hear.

He didn't give it up about McCain being terrible for vets. He's like a bulldog with a bone.

I missed the full interview, but this was enough for me. Especially the first video.

Michael

Oh my god.

I was sold as soon as he said that in the private sector he has to deal with everybody.

Gee, isn't that minda what you were saying Michael?

Just to be clear -- is this asking for a prediction of what will happen? The other poll seems to be asking what the people want.

I don't want to weigh in if it does, because I don't feel I've even been alive long enough to have enough knowledge of practical politics -- to say nothing of being actually interested and paying attention.

Don't get interested. It took me a lifetime to find out it's all crap. Even Donald Trump is playing at it for his own angle. The others want to be President, I don't think he does. He's having all the fun his money and brashness can buy. Greg, here, has it mostly right about his own relationship to politics, although he's mostly wrong about many other things. Learn how to be an American but become a man of the world. If you're interested in business learn a foreign language for trade. Spanish takes 600 hours, Mandarin 2600. That's optional because English is the most important for starters.

The only way to make a difference in politics, unless you have a hell of a lot of money--if you don't someone with money will put you in his pocket if he thinks your exploitable--is local, depending on what your local is like to begin with.

The basic trap in politics is top-downism orientation. For instance, you or your man gets elected President and now you can make the world right. You or your man, however, might start World War III. And, after 30 years of devoting your life to achieving that achievement, you'll find that you've changed so much through growth and circumstances your young, today self, would hardly recognize you. He may admire what he sees or maybe not. Depends.

Regardless, so far you seem to have your head screwed on right about this subject. It's okay to be a political animal if that's your passion, but not--primarily--for freedom, justice and the American way (unless it's purely local and part-time).

--Brant

Lol, I'm mostly not. Seems like too much effort I could be expending elsewhere.

Just to be clear -- is this asking for a prediction of what will happen? The other poll seems to be asking what the people want.

I don't want to weigh in if it does, because I don't feel I've even been alive long enough to have enough knowledge of practical politics -- to say nothing of being actually interested and paying attention.

Bush - Rubio

Clinton - Sanders

Bush in a landslide ,

Trump and Sarah P , 3rd party

Didn't you predict in the Trump thread that he would splinter off and fuck the Republicans over by doing so and splitting the vote?

Which is it?

How on earth does she think it's even mediocre reporting to claim he said McCain isn't a war hero not ten seconds after reading a *direct* quote from him saying the exact opposite?

That's insane.

What's obvious to those of us who like Trump is that he was insulting McCain for being an asshole.

Michael

Ha!!

This thread is beautiful...

A friend of mine on Facebook (an actual fan of Jeb -- I finally found one) seems to be ranting about this exact thing, saying this alone is a reason to, as he said, #FireTrump.

I tried telling in that even if this is insulting, it doesn't matter unless it translates into policy -- that mudslinging politics is just as foolish as the droves of people in our generation (he's two years my senior) who would vote for Obama just because they think he is a cool guy.

But maybe I'm going about this wrong.

-David

P.S. Can you tell you're swaying me away from Rand/Walker?

Perhaps this anecdotal, but I have seen and heard a number of people say that Trump either pushes their buttons or males them smile "just like that Palin woman."

It seems he is speaking to the same crowd then, and that's good news for his candidacy -- a ton of people on the right think McCain lost the election for Palin rather than the other way around.

People want justice.

Letting the one that murdered your family sit on death row eating 3 squares a day?

Here's a report on prison food. Enjoy some schadenfreude.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/07/07/what-s-in-a-prison-meal?ref=hp-1-111

Still looks a lot better than Michele "Dominatrix" O'bama's school lunches.

Also, it would be interesting to find out what is available in their commissary to supplement the meals.

A...

They look to be about the same quality as the food I had in high school, to me.

I can think of a few of the regulars they gave us that Id have killed to have replaced with some of these.

Brant,

I haven't felt this good about a viable political candidate for president in a long time.

This is the stumping section.

I'm stumping.

Michael

Wait, did I miss something?

You want a Trump presidency?

From Politico today: Donald Trump, clickbait - Reporters insist he has no shot, but news outlets, led by CNN, cant get enough of him.

One of my favorites so far--from today's The Daily Beast: Donald Trump (and His Nonstop Cable Coverage) Makes Me Want to Die - Anderson Cooper devoted a full hour to the 2016 hopefuls sit-down Wednesdaycomplete with pundit analysis. Dont cable execs realize their wall-to-wall coverage is making him relevant?

This last is a full article about Trump in a main press vehicle. Like author of the article Olivia Nuzzi says, gotta be careful with that wall-to-wall coverage that makes Trump relevant. She, for example, in the subheadline of her article about him, insinuates she would never write about him.

Drip... drip... drip...

Michael

Hilarious.

Don't these people writing these articles understand that even that kind of article gives him media coverage?

I must say I'm surprised by the stir Trump is causing. Didn't he "run for President" once in the recent past? Why is it different now? (Or is it?)

I found some interesting quotes from a few years ago, but no one was interested in the topic then. Has America's opinion changed? I guess that is not important now. What is important is other than taxation and hospital visiting rights, will this SCOTUS ruling affect long term survival of the species?

Quotes: The breakdown of marriage in America has already had devastating effects on society, especially on children, without delivering yet another blow to this most fundamental structure of society by eliminating it entirely. If heterosexual marriage is protected, children will at least have the benefits of its stabilizing influence in their surrounding familial relationships. This is why Satinover stresses that society's compelling interest is to ensure not only the mere propagation of the species but humankind's well-being too, which is the whole purpose of heterosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage is a societal structure and without it, society crumbles. And yet this is precisely what the courts are about to do. "And they're going to do it without any impact studies," Satinover said . . . . The second point against homosexual marriage is that it doesn't just create a second societal structure, it actually "smuggles into existence ... two radically different social structures," Satinover explained . . . . We would have heterosexual marriage, female gay marriage and male gay marriage. This new set of marital structures will, in turn, produce three new classes of children . . . "This third point ties the first two together," Satinover said. "We know that motherlessness has a different impact on children than fatherlessness does. Therefore, we have every reason to expect that children raised in female unions will turn out to have a different set of problems than those raised in motherless unions. These children will be different from children raised in heterosexual unions. So we will create three different classes of children."

end quotes

The few studies I could find said no or few bad affects. But oddly, someone or group had rigged the internet so that you could not find any studies discussing bad affects on same sex raised kids. I always thought that was a form of censorship. PC raises its head.

Motherless children and fatherless children already exist. This will in no way "create" these "classes"of children.

The same argument could be made for nearly anything: Children with loving parents as a class seperate from children of detached and aloof parents, for example. (I have seen people arguing for some form of affirmative action against the former group already.)

Should we change our society because of alleged "class" differences? Sounds vaguely Marxist to my ears.

Greg is giving me flashbacks to my own parents' rhetoric.

Not a pretty sight on such a rational place as this.

Incest and polyamory are disgusting to most people personally, but to outlaw them, Greg, would be to worship government as the safeguard over our culture -- which does not sound like you.

It's up to individuals to refrain from these things, not the government to outlaw them.

That list includes water...

WATER

That is bad. Fish fuck in it....

Yuck. That means there's fish sperm in it.

We had better keep our women away from it. Wouldn't want them growing little fish baby monstrosities in their wombs, would we?

I am a rising college freshman at a large, well-respected public university. There is a group called Young Americans for Liberty, the "leading advocates for social and economic freedom and individual liberty on campus." As of now, I am planning on joining this group and seeing how it goes. Do you think it is moral for an Objectivist to join a Libertarian organization? I know dealing with Libertarian organizations is a highly-debated topic within Objectivism, and I would like to hear any opinions on this issue. I would love to join the organization, but am worried it could conflict too much with some of my beliefs. Thanks!

Push the "Think" button.

--Brant

Brant's suggestion is actually the moral thing to do.

But I suppose that's an evasive platitude worthy of any politician,so I'll answer ever so slightly lesa cryptically:

It's worth noting that many of the people who frequent this site have expressed displeasure at the penchant that orthodox Oists seems to have for ridiculing Libertarianism.

Also, Nathaniel Branden looked favorably upon the movement, and Branden is viewed favorably by many here.

This is all assuming you're asking because of a possible qualm with Libertarianism itself, and not this a specific organization. (About which I know very little).

That list includes water...

WATER

Just read through the thread...

Ya know, the thing I'm always curious about when someone makes a statement like Kyrel's opener about how(paraphrasing from #26) blacks downgrade and deteriorate white society whenever they appear, I wonder how does that person view all of history where conquering whites have expanded into other races' (Africans, Austrialians, Mexico, Native Americans, Chinese, Japanese, even Scotland) territories and degraded, killed off, disrupted or enslaved the local populations?

On the other hand I was about to order his book until my wife said that that would be supporting such nonsense positions.

On the word nigger. I never agreed with the idea that only blacks can say it especially when we are talking about young generation friends. If people grow up in a mixed culture and they aren't saying it out of hatred but just the same as I would say it to another black guy, then it's all good to me. Black people do have an issue with ownership. They want to own certain words and culture and the want to own the struggle. No one else can complain about having hardships growing up because black people own that narrative. No one else can rap or dance a certain way without being authorized by a panel of African American gatekeepers. From some folk I get the distinct feeling that while on the outside they say that they want to have an honest and open discussion about race, really they don't want to hear a word of it unless that conversation goes exactly the way they want it too.

We will reach to mountaintop

To announce book boycott, even if it's your own personal one, just encourages people to buy the book in the same way college profs in the 1960s (and likely since) call for implicit Ayn Rand boycott using less honest means such as sneers which only encouraged many to go read her anyway.

--Brant

This is exactly what pushed me to read Atlas Shrugged. My AP US History teacher in high school used to go on tirades against her, and I figured that since I disagreed with everything else the woman said, this Ayn Rand person was probably pretty smart.

I considered telling her that it was her own words that metaphorically pushed me into the arms of her most hated enemy, as payback for the crazy things she did when I dared argue with her. (She kicked me out of class several times -- which of course also backfired, as my peers only rallied to my defense.)

Decided it was better to just leave it alone.

I believe what Kyrel said was completely wrong and in my experience, it's not worth arguing with people that are that wrong.

Funny how people often say it's not worth arguing with someone right after they have done exactly that. ;)

People want justice.

Letting the one that murdered your family sit on death row eating 3 squares a day? It is a bit of justice, but still a bitter pill knowing he still breathes while your family is dead, the only consolation being he can't do it to anyone else.

Except up here in Canada were half the time we let the buggers out after a "life sentence"....

For me it would depend on how lonely death row is.

Barring anything fatal, that's the worst punishment I can think of, but perhaps I am biased from recent experience.

The knowledge that there is no one to talk to about any of your troubles, not even a mere acquaintance, and that you will never have that again, is soul-crushing.

If it was my wife or my kid or my father that got gunned down? Pleasure no, satisfaction of payback? Hell ya, I would grind that fucker into dust.

I was thinking about this earlier, actually.

If it had been my little brother (4 years old) I'd pine for something like Adam's mode of torture for awhile, so I guess I do understand.

I think I've been looking at this wrong. Surely it isn't the suffering itself that people want. Few people are actual sadists like that.

First of all, taking part in killing this self confessed murderer would of course take a personal toll on me because of who I am.

I can also make my point with out capping a word...

A...

My apologies if I insinuated that it wouldn't. I didn't mean to insult you if I have.

The capping of "me" is a habit I formed instead of italics, because I communicate with out-of-country friends through Facebook messenger quite a bit -- and for some reason it doesn't allow them.

I simply forgot OL is more sophisticated than that. Or I'm typing on my phone and CTRL + I isn't a possible key combination.