MereMortal
-
Posts
67 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by MereMortal
-
-
-
9 minutes ago, PDS said:
Yes, we can agree you know what I have written. Sometimes. [See my post immediately above, addressed to you and predicting a Trump nomination in January of this year].
My point in bringing up my background--which would otherwise be irrelevant here--was to remind you that you simply cannot chalk up objections to Trump as being from people who don't know how Trump supporters think, which is something you commonly do.
My background actually has nothing to do with the merits of the Trump discussion, except you love to claim that I cannot see you (and now other Trump supporters, apparently). But, since you keeping bringing this up as a way of dealing with issues, and as merely one example of this hole in your game, I would note that my father--a life long bricklayer and cement mason--talked and acted like Trump long before this iteration of Trump ever came along. He complained about "the Japs" stealing auto manufacturing jobs from Detroit constantly, and he hated the elites, who he never really did a great job of defining. This was my way of suggesting to you that you have no special claim to knowledge about how Trump supporters actually think, or how or why my background might prevent me from understanding them.
That is the reason I bring it up.
It's fair to say that there are enough supporters who are good, intelligent people and you have to ask yourself if their support of Trump carries enough weight to convince you of Trump's merits. Of course they need to properly explain their support. One thing: I do hear enough from people who's judgment I trust saying that Trump is dangerous and cannot be trusted. I wanted to think I should believe the same but I can't make myself feel it (Yeah, just like Hank Rearden when he wants to think Francisco is the guiltiest man in the room.) I'll merely advise myself and you to keep an active mind (not merely an open one of course for the obvious reason).
-
Incidentally, why do many people still think Clinton is nearly invincible against Trump? Trump just trounced Cruz in Indiana. Clinton just lost again to the aging socialist dope Sanders (sorry, couldn't resist).
What is Clinton's appeal? I don't see it.
-
Ok, here's a link that will work:
Poll: Trump Reaches 50 Percent Support Nationally for the First Time
-
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Poll-wise, the center of gravity of the the climb keeps climbing.
Trump breaks 50 percent mark in national poll
Michael
Not sure why but this link leads to a dead end. I wonder if the article moved or was taken down.
QuoteThis site can’t be reached
trump%20breaks%2050%20percent%20mark%20in%20national%20poll’s server DNS address could not be found.
-
What we may be looking for is the difference between a selfish act and an act of self sacrifice and asking if there is some personal benefit to the second that contradicts the idea that it IS in fact a self sacrifice. Do you serve the other at your own expense for some psychological or emotional return on the "investment". Does that negate it being a self sacrifice? Is the motive approval or the avoidance of disapproval or actual punishment? Would that negate it being a self sacrifice?
-
On 4/18/2016 at 4:12 PM, RobinReborn said:
In my experience the AGW people are somewhat informed of actual scientific claims made by people who have PhDs. I don't doubt that there's a level of complexity to the research that they've done that I would have to work hard to understand. My skepticism is more due to this 'climate science' being a relatively new field of study.
I just found this really good free online book by Bob Tisdale and it explains the global warming science and politics in layman's terms.
-
Damn that's a laugh riot!
-
57 minutes ago, Jonathan said:
In the news item that I posted, the city of Englewood, NJ, had banned the public display of images that it regarded to be loathsome or inappropriate. The Borghi Fine Art gallery posted images of nudity in one of its display windows. Rand specifically supported "legal restraints" on exactly that!
I quote her again (with my bolding added):
"Only one aspect of sex is a legitimate field for legislation: the protection of minors and of unconsenting adults. Apart from criminal actions (such as rape), this aspect includes the need to protect people from being confronted with sights they regard as loathsome. (A corollary of the freedom to see and hear, is the freedom not to look or listen.) Legal restraints on certain types of public displays, such as posters or window displays, are proper—but this is an issue of procedure, of etiquette, not of morality . . .
"The rights of those who seek pornography would not be infringed by rules protecting the rights of those who find pornography offensive—e.g., sexually explicit posters may properly be forbidden in public places; warning signs, such as “For Adults Only,” may properly be required of private places which are open to the public. This protects the unconsenting, and has nothing to do with censorship, i.e., with prohibiting thought or speech."
Of course, her position is wrong, irrational, and in inconsistent with her stated philosophy. It's an example of her reacting emotionally, not thinking the issue through, and deviating from Objectivism.
J
Yes that's true and that bothers me too but she's no longer with us. The rest of us have to correct the errors and move on. At least she provided the methods by which to think about these issues more clearly.
-
Brant, I'm afraid you missed my point. If one opines that a particular law is justified, it doesn't matter if the action being prohibited is occurring or not. The law itself is the issue, not whether or not the behavior being legislated is occurring or not occurring.
-
1 minute ago, BaalChatzaf said:
No one is forced to see or watch pornography. Confront is an interesting word. I wonder what it means (legally speaking). Short of a couple rutting on the grass of a public park, how does anyone confront anyone else with scenes of gross sexuality. Most people (mostly men) view their porno stuff by logging onto www.video-one.com or similar sites. Is that confronting?
Rand isn't claiming anyone is forced to watch pornography. In fact, that wasn't even the issue. She was asked a question about sex and what can or cannot be prohibited. She simply said what she thought was appropriate to legislate in that area. It's like me saying that I think the government can properly outlaw private ownership of nuclear bombs in response to a question related to the 2nd Amendment and then a critic responds by saying "No one owns any nukes".
-
5 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:
This would be a lot better if it came with a referenced Rand quote. I tend to disregard--not discount, disregard--if it doesn't. I don't have time to salvage nuance if not the substance. No one can lecture me about her, not this way. Quote her.
--Brant
Perhaps this is what he had in mind.
-
On 4/16/2016 at 10:28 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
6. Now Cassell is claiming she was taken out of context, that the thing was clickbait, yada yada yada. But the Internet is not a forgiving place when your words can be read "in context."
Tsk tsk tsk...
Is she from Europe? If she is, she apparently has the right to be forgotten. John Oliver helps to explain:
-
-
Stefan Molyneux posted this a few days ago.
-
3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:
Any candidate who has never held a political executive office is "untested" as President.
As a President, yes, but in Sowell's defense, he likely means untested in the sense that this is the first and only political office he will hold in his entire life. At least with other President's there was some governmental experience behind them. This is the theory that you need work your way up the political ladder. Start with a secondary office (Governor, Senator, Representative) and then you have a track record and some experience. It isn't necessarily my theory but it does exist and it has some plausibility.
-
-
Has anyone seen this? The Boston Globe's attempt to scare everyone against electing Trump. Think this stuff actually works?
-
The most recent Sam Harris podcast gives a roundabout backhanded endorsement of Trump. On the subject of the Brussels attack, he openly admits that Trump identifies the problem while Clinton is lying. To be sure, he made it clear he thinks Trump is dangerously unqualified (perhaps to mollify the anti Trump faction listening to the podcast).
-
This should seal the deal for Clinton:
KKK Grand Dragon endorses Hillary Clinton for President
WTF?
Can't these white supremacy jerkwads get it through their thick skulls that Trump is the bigot that will save the country??
-
13 hours ago, Mark said:
I want Trump to win mainly because his stand on immigration is a huge step in the right direction.
On this point, I listened to a 2 part podcast debate between Yaron Brook and Leonard Peikoff with Brook taking the open borders position and Peikoff explaining why, in the current political and cultural context, open borders would be a disaster. Peikoff was actually mirroring the Trump position on Hispanic and Islamic immigration. I don't know if that surprises anyone here but it's refreshing.
-
2 hours ago, merjet said:
Earth to MereMortal. Duh!
Let's get to the meat: Are you saying that Trump is a potential dictator because he is full of bluster? Might as well ask a simple yes/no question to see what your actual position is and if you can defend it.
-
4 hours ago, merjet said:
Check your premises. Mussolini was full of bluster.
Out of all the traits Rand likes in her heroes, you choose to focus on this one because some vicious dictator had the same trait? Why does this always happen? Why does Mussolini's bluster matter?? It isn't JUST a person's bluster Rand likes. It's part of the package. If some blustering idiot is a destructive collectivist, I'm sure Rand would despise such a person
-
46 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
The Facebook embed is acting funny above. If it is for you, too, here is the article:
Horowitz: How Not To Fight Our Enemies
Some Republicans seem more intent on destroying their allies.
by David Horowitz
3.13.2016
Truth RevoltMichael
Excellent piece. I've always liked David Horowitz.
Donald Trump
in Stumping in the Backyard
Posted
If you need some evidence that this will go badly for Clinton, here's a good analysis of Trump's new and effective campaign strategy.
Top three reasons Donald Trump is surging in the polls right now
I see the strategy clearly. Trump is hitting Clinton now on all of her negatives to erode her support. The next step will be to offer the alternative these folks are looking for to surge his own support and I think that's what Trump will use the convention to start doing.