Donald Trump

[PDS]

MSK: up above, you state the following: "Trump will balance the budget and he will do what he says he will. I base this on his past performance of bringing projects in on time and under budget and always doing what he said he was going to do."

May I ask how he plans to do this? Has he told anybody how he plans to do this?

Dave,

You could start here.

When he builds a skyscraper, I seriously doubt he tells the public the make and model of the bulldozers he will use during demolition. He just says he's going to clear the land and lay a foundation.

It's the same kind of principle with his positions.

Trump's a competent manager. He's been that way all his life. And he always gotten great stuff done. On time. Under budget.

I think he will do a hell of a lot better than the community organizer we have right now. That guy didn't tell anyone how he was going to implement hope and change. People didn't and still don't bother to ask.

But for some reason, Trump, a professional builder, saying he is going to build a wall makes people ask suspiciously how he is going to do it.

Go figure...

Michael

The link you provided doesn't say anything about how he is going to balance the budget.

I know you are fond of contrasting Trump with Obama, but that is not an argument in favor of Trump; that argument would favor almost anybody other than Obama.

Michael: your statement about Trump balancing the budget seems almost like magical thinking to me. When Trump builds skyscrapers, he doesn't identify the bulldozers, etc. But he does have a blueprint. And he does have a budget for the building. And when he sees cost overruns, he develops a specific plan to bring the project within budget.

If he can do that with a skyscraper, why can't he do it with a something like the economic future of the country?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael: your statement about Trump balancing the budget seems almost like magical thinking to me. When Trump builds skyscrapers, he doesn't identify the bulldozers, etc. But he does have a blueprint. And he does have a budget for the building. And when he sees cost overruns, he develops a specific plan to bring the project within budget.

If he can do that with a skyscraper, why can't he do it with a something like the economic future of the country?

David,

You call that magical thinking?

Whereas the business plan of hope and change was not?

Or how about laws that tell you exactly all the details--ones that the Congress doesn't read? Ones that even the major proponent says we have to pass before we know what's in it?

That's not magical thinking using your standard.

Trusting that a man who has a constant history over decades of developing specific plans to deal with specific problems and implementing those plans will keep doing that apparently is magical thinking using your standard.

But let's play a little. The four drivers of balancing the budget according to Trump, (which will be familiar if you have followed his speeches and interviews) are the following:

1. An easy, rational tax plan that is slightly tilted to getting more from the wealthy and nothing from those at the bottom. This is based on the hand-up not hand-out perspective. The assumption is that with fewer loopholes and an easier simpler process, there will be more compliance, thus greater income.

2. Cutting waste. Not just cutting waste. Cutting entire portions of the government, for example, the Secretary of Education (and it's Hail Mary pass at untold insider riches called Common Core).

3. Making the country more business-friendly, thus physically creating more wealth. If there is a bigger pie to cut up, the government will obviously get more than it gets now.

4. Repatriating at least two trillion dollars from overseas with a plan the owners of the money will find acceptable.

I probably could go on (like getting foreign governments to pay for stuff they get for free today, taking part of the oil when we fight a war to protect the people who sit on it, etc.), but I have a feeling you already know all this.

I get the impression you just don't agree that it fits whatever standard you are using for "knowing how" and you automatically put it in the category of "magical thinking."

In other words, if it comes from Trump, it's magic. If it comes from elsewhere, it's rational.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

Let me boil all this down to one statement:

Trump supporters do not want a parasitical elite class ruling over them and telling them how to live and think anymore.

Michael

Maybe *some* - perhaps a significant-sized minority - of Trump supporters have this live-and-let-live attitude toward the "parasitical elite class ruling over them and telling them how to live and think." But I doubt it is held in thought-out, philosophical form, right? Probably more like a feeling born of resentment and frustration unmitigated for too long, would you say?

OK, what basis do you have for thinking this subset of Trump supporters to be anything more than a minor fraction of the whole? Are there opinion polls that indicate the big groundswell for Trump is really of this individualistic bent - rather than, say, wanting *their* people to be in charge and calling the shots, forcing *their* controls and rules and taxes (including tariffs) and spending on others?

Sure, it's unreasonable for Trump to offer a line-item budget showing what he's going to spend vs. cut - but how about at least a sketch? You know, in lieu of an actual builder's or architect's blueprint, at least an informative artist's conception of where he wants America to go?

E.g., what about cutting departments? Back in October he talked about abolishing the EPA and the Department of Education, but last week he toned it down to merely reducing funding. This is not a good trend. Abolution-->reduced funding-->compromise-->increased funding. That is the typical GOP sell-out pattern that Trump is already manifesting.

See, this is what I fear will happen when the rubber meets the road - when the great Deal-Maker actually has to get cooperation from all those big-spending, big-government Establishment statists he will have to deal with in the Congress. Like the great Community-Organizer-in-Chief's pals in ACORN being reborn under other guises, I suspect that whatever spending or programs are cut will magically reappear in 2000-page bills as disguised pork items that restore the functions and spending under other names. We have seen this too often, in sell-out bills fast-tracked by Boehner and McConnell and all too happily signed by BHO.

Yes, this can happen under *any* President who says he wants to reduce the size of government - but it is *more* likely to happen with a President who is rudderless, who has no philosophy except Making The Great Deal. Pragmatism. You won't believe how fantastic America will be. (Channeling Nancy Pelosi in re Obamacare: we'll have to read it to find out what's in it.) We're going to roll up our sleeves, set aside our ideologies and philosophies, and get to work solving America's problems - exactly what Obama said, and how he was sold to the American people by Emanuel Rahm: as a Pragmatic Problem-Solver.

So, back to the Trump supporters: they are united in frustration and resentment, anger, etc. But how does this translate into policy, other than giving Trump a blank check on whatever he can get Congress to agree to? Suppose the *new* ruling elite tells them to do something they don't like - or to live their lives or think in some way they don't like? Sure, *some* of those Trump supporters will get up on their hind legs and protest that "this is not what we signed on for." Sorry, too late.

Plus, *most* of those Trump supporters will instead just take solace in the fact that they are "sticking it to* the other folks who used to be calling the shots - except guess what, a lot of those folks will *still* be calling the shots. Just as Boehner and McConnell caved in to the Establishment types who knew they had no firm principles to stand on and stand by. Fricking Pragmatists.

But I could be wrong about my suspicions and projections. So, please do send along poll results that break down Trump support into reasons why they support him. I'd sure like to see how large his individualist support actually is - as opposed to the resenters who want to turn the tables and get back at those who have been ruling them.

REB

Know philosophy - know freedom. No philosophy - no freedom.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger,

I know my stuff about Trump supporters because I am among them. I interact with them. I read them and talk to them.

Try it and you will see.

You want polls as a replacement for your eyes?

Like a poll of Objectivists who truly believe in Rand's ideas? You would need a poll to figure that one out?

Come on...

Michael

[PDS]

Michael: your statement about Trump balancing the budget seems almost like magical thinking to me. When Trump builds skyscrapers, he doesn't identify the bulldozers, etc. But he does have a blueprint. And he does have a budget for the building. And when he sees cost overruns, he develops a specific plan to bring the project within budget.

If he can do that with a skyscraper, why can't he do it with a something like the economic future of the country?

David,

You call that magical thinking?

Whereas the business plan of hope and change was not?

Or how about laws that tell you exactly all the details--ones that the Congress doesn't read? Ones that even the major proponent says we have to pass before we know what's in it?

That's not magical thinking using your standard.

Trusting that a man who has a constant history over decades of developing specific plans to deal with specific problems and implementing those plans will keep doing that apparently is magical thinking using your standard.

But let's play a little. The four drivers of balancing the budget according to Trump, (which will be familiar if you have followed his speeches and interviews) are the following:

1. An easy, rational tax plan that is slightly tilted to getting more from the wealthy and nothing from those at the bottom. This is based on the hand-up not hand-out perspective. The assumption is that with fewer loopholes and an easier simpler process, there will be more compliance, thus greater income.

2. Cutting waste. Not just cutting waste. Cutting entire portions of the government, for example, the Secretary of Education (and it's Hail Mary pass at untold insider riches called Common Core).

3. Making the country more business-friendly, thus physically creating more wealth. If there is a bigger pie to cut up, the government will obviously get more than it gets now.

4. Repatriating at least two trillion dollars from overseas with a plan the owners of the money will find acceptable.

I probably could go on (like getting foreign governments to pay for stuff they get for free today, taking part of the oil when we fight a war to protect the people who sit on it, etc.), but I have a feeling you already know all this.

I get the impression you just don't agree that it fits whatever standard you are using for "knowing how" and you automatically put it in the category of "magical thinking."

In other words, if it comes from Trump, it's magic. If it comes from elsewhere, it's rational.

Michael

Michael: there is no need to make this personal. It's not about me.

You are not as good at discerning motives as you think you are-- this is now at least the third time on this thread you have tried to switch the topic to my motivations for asking questions, etc. Please don't do that. You and I are not strangers. We have a track record together. It's beneath you, and starting to become predictable.

You are the one who said Trump would balance the budget. Not me. Balancing a budget is about as "objective" as something can be. Either the math adds up, or it doesn't. Either a blueprint exists for such a thing, or it doesn't.

If you don't know how Trump plans to do something you so boldly claim he will do, it is okay to admit it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Let me boil all this down to one statement:

Trump supporters do not want a parasitical elite class ruling over them and telling them how to live and think anymore.

Michael

That sounds great, but Roger needs philosophy. It's a religious thing for him. He needs to believe. He needs a candidate to specify his ideological principles, because, apparently, if one states one's principles, one will never, ever betray them (a good example here would be just a few short years ago Paul Ryan's stating his admiration of Ayn Rand's ideas and his dedication to the principles of liberty and very limited government). And, conversely, if one does not speak the language of philosophy, and one doesn't specifically identify one's ideology, then one is guaranteed to be immoral, and to behave irradically! Only politicians who speak the language of ideology can be trusted, and those who don't speak it will be worse than Bernie Sanders (whom Roger says he prefers to Trump).

So, the masses and their candidates who want freedom and economic abundance need to take philosophy courses so that they properly understand what freedom and economic abundance really are. They need to learn how to want it on principle and not just because it's their natural state of yearning to be free and to have the best life possible. It has to be much more abstract, elite and intellectualized than that. Socialism is preferable to dopey people just mindlessly wanting to be free without being able to write fancy essays which intellectually justify their freedom.

J

Jonathan,

If you take this from the personal (all about Roger) and apply it to all the people who wrote that awful National Review issue, you have correctly identified their mindset.

They build on words disconnected to the reality of human nature except as an abstract. The actual people, each who clearly shows their human nature, must be dismissed as not relevant.

The people must peg themselves to the words rather than the words muse arise from observation.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Let me boil all this down to one statement:

Trump supporters do not want a parasitical elite class ruling over them and telling them how to live and think anymore.

Michael

That sounds great, but Roger needs philosophy. It's a religious thing for him. He needs to believe. He needs a candidate to specify his ideological principles, because, apparently, if one states one's principles, one will never, ever betray them (a good example here would be just a few short years ago Paul Ryan's stating his admiration of Ayn Rand's ideas and his dedication to the principles of liberty and very limited government). And, conversely, if one does not speak the language of philosophy, and one doesn't specifically identify one's ideology, then one is guaranteed to be immoral, and to behave irradically! Only politicians who speak the language of ideology can be trusted, and those who don't speak it will be worse than Bernie Sanders (whom Roger says he prefers to Trump).

So, the masses and their candidates who want freedom and economic abundance need to take philosophy courses so that they properly understand what freedom and economic abundance really are. They need to learn how to want it on principle and not just because it's their natural state of yearning to be free and to have the best life possible. It has to be much more abstract, elite and intellectualized than that. Socialism is preferable to dopey people just mindlessly wanting to be free without being able to write fancy essays which intellectually justify their freedom.

J

Jonathan,

If you take this from the personal (all about Roger) and apply it to all the people who wrote that awful National Review issue, you have correctly identified their mindset.

They build on words disconnected to the reality of human nature except as an abstract. The actual people, each who clearly shows their human nature, must be dismissed as not relevant.

The people must peg themselves to the words rather than the words muse arise from observation.

Michael

I think what this boils down to is trust.

Roger trusts Cruz, despite his flaws.

You trust Trump, despite his flaws.

The only difference is that Roger (and those who have the same sort of panicked attitude about Trump) wants to believe that your trusting of Trump has very dire consequences, because Trump might betray you (or what you think he stands for), but Roger's trusting Cruz won't have dire consequences even if Cruz betrays him.

Your trusting someone is silly because it doesn't have philosophy to back it up, where Roger's trusting someone is not silly because it does have philosophy to back it up! Once a politician has a philosophy, he will never betray it! If he has always had a conservative constituency at the state level, and suddenly he holds national office which governs a more diverse constituency, he's not going to be tempted in any way to soften, bend or change in order to maintain his position (like Paul Ryan did). No! He wouldn't do that! He can be trusted because he's got philosophy!

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The only difference is that Roger (and those who have the same sort of panicked attitude about Trump) wants to believe that your trusting of Trump has very dire consequences, because Trump might betray you (or what you think he stands for), but Roger's trusting Cruz won't have dire consequences even if Cruz betrays him.

Your trusting someone is silly because it doesn't have philosophy to back it up, where Roger's trusting someone is not silly because it does have philosophy to back it up!

Jonathan,

I find the first paragraph true and perceptive. I have a strong disagreement with an assumption in the second and it comes from marketing.

In marketing, there is the functional value of a thing and the perceived value. But I find this is true on the cognitive level, also. On the identification level. There is the true nature of a thing and the perceived nature of it. These can differ wildly.

The assumption I disagree with is there is no philosophy to back Trump up. But if you want philosophy from Trump, read his books. He'll give you all the philosophy you could ever want--that is if metaphysics, epistemology, human nature, ethics, politics, even aesthetics are what you want to read about on a conceptual level.

He merely will not use the context of academia or think tanks, and he will not use their jargon. So if you want those contexts and that jargon, you will not get it from him. But he will discuss the principles in all the different areas and, man, does he give you a bunch of case studies to anchor the abstract to the concrete.

In other words, the National Review folks think of conservatism (or philosophy) or whatever as expressed only in a certain manner within a restricted venue. They don't recognize the essence of philosophy when it comes in a different form unless they can drag it into their restricted venue and slap the jargon on it.

Apropos, I would prefer to see both aligned since the essence is the same. It's just that one one talks about it but doesn't live it a lot, and the other lives it but doesn't use the jargon and even contradicts the jargon at times. But right now they are in a power struggle, so they see each other as enemies.

I expect they will align for the most part after Trump takes power, though. That power contest has to end before goodwill can be reestablished.

I agree that trust is a main issue, but so is power.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

Roger,

I know my stuff about Trump supporters because I am among them. I interact with them. I read them and talk to them.

Try it and you will see.

You want polls as a replacement for your eyes?

Like a poll of Objectivists who truly believe in Rand's ideas? You would need a poll to figure that one out?

Come on...

Michael

Michael, *you* are the one who claimed to be channeling "Trump supporters." Trump supporters do not want a parasitical elite class ruling over them and telling them how to live and think anymore.

Now you say I should immerse myself in them, as if getting in some little cluster of them in a pub somewhere or reading someone's blog post is going to give me an accurate assessment of what is true of the majority ot Trump supporters?

Seems like you're going all anecdotal and want me to join you by licking and putting my finger in the wind, rather than getting some decent approximation by reading the barometer. Now it's screw the polls? Seems like the polls were Donald's indication to go ballistic on Cruz. Weird double standard here.

Your psycho-epistemology is fraying badly. That "analogy" to Objectivists truly believing in Rand's ideas was irrelevant, immaterial, and immature. Try something a little more this-worldly, OK?

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If you don't know how Trump plans to do something you so boldly claim he will do, it is okay to admit it.

David,

You're a good lawyer, but I ain't falling into that trap.

btw - It's not personal. But I am acquainted with the technique of wearing someone down by repetition. You ask how Trump is going to do something. I say. You ask again as if I did not say (or you dismiss what I say without consideration). I say again. And on and on it goes.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Seems like you're going all anecdotal and want me to join you by licking and putting my finger in the wind, rather than getting some decent approximation by reading the barometer. Now it's screw the polls? Seems like the polls were Donald's indication to go ballistic on Cruz. Weird double standard here.

Your psycho-epistemology is fraying badly. That "analogy" to Objectivists truly believing in Rand's ideas was irrelevant, immaterial, and immature. Try something a little more this-worldly, OK?

Roger,

You misunderstood me.

Imagine this.

You are talking to a bunch of hardcore progressives and they say the followers of Ayn Rand are heartless monsters who eat babies. You tell them no they are not. Ayn Rand followers tend to be good caring people.

Then they ask you for a poll...

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

Seems like you're going all anecdotal and want me to join you by licking and putting my finger in the wind, rather than getting some decent approximation by reading the barometer. Now it's screw the polls? Seems like the polls were Donald's indication to go ballistic on Cruz. Weird double standard here.

Your psycho-epistemology is fraying badly. That "analogy" to Objectivists truly believing in Rand's ideas was irrelevant, immaterial, and immature. Try something a little more this-worldly, OK?

Roger,

You misunderstood me.

Imagine this.

You are talking to a bunch of hardcore progressives and they say the followers of Ayn Rand are heartless monsters who eat babies. You tell them no they are not. Ayn Rand followers tend to be good caring people.

Then they ask you for a poll...

Michael

Again, with the weird distractions.

Are there no opinion polls with a breakdown of Trump supporters as to why they support him? Emotion/frustration/anger vs. ideology/policy etc.? You are his supporter. Do you not have such information at hand?

As for the wacked-out progressive example: no progressives actually believe that. They might ask such a question in jest or as a toxic attack on Objectivists, but they know better, and they know it is a smear.

On the other hand, I would not say anything of the kind about what Ayn Rand supporters "tend" to be. They are all over the map, as are non-Objectivists. So, for both reasons it's really hard to wrap my mind around your attempted analogy. It's just not realistic.

In the real world (ahem), there is legitimate concern as to whether there are a lot of caring, concerned individualists in the Trump camp vs. their being just a (very?) small minority - as against the perception (to many, such as myself) that it is largely a headless revolt that will lead to nothing good if he wins.

An even modestly incisive poll would be so helpful in sorting out the degree to which the Trump Phenomenon is a truly individualist revolt. My own impressions, and yours, are just anecdotal. Speaking just for myself anyway, I think that the American people need more than instincts and provincial, fragmentary impressions to guide us this year.

REB

[EDIT] P.S. - one more comment, strictly as an aside, on your attempted analogy about Objectivists. One might claim that since Objectivism promotes and fosters the rational, productive, creative individual, Objectivism should be a gushing fountain of breakthrough ideas in the sciences and humanities - so where's the beef? Where are those breakthrough ideas? The problem is that supposed good intentions aside, the leading institutions in Objectivist-Land have *not* promoted and fostered such traits, but instead have inhibited or neglected such for decades now. It's a good lesson to real individualists that they should not depend on *groups* of such supposed individualists for their encouragement and support. You can't just look at what people say or espouse. You have to look at what they do. (That is also a theme in this campaign, which many want to brush aside, treating integrity in action to one's stated principles as not relevant or important.) And Objectivists in their big umbrella organizations have dropped the ball on this, big-time.- which is a major reason why people like Diana ex-Hsieh Brickell have gone rogue and caused so much personal pain and devastation (some, blessedly and karmically, on themselves).

[Jonathan]

Michael, *you* are the one who claimed to be channeling "Trump supporters." Trump supporters do not want a parasitical elite class ruling over them and telling them how to live and think anymore.

Now you say I should immerse myself in them, as if getting in some little cluster of them in a pub somewhere or reading someone's blog post is going to give me an accurate assessment of what is true of the majority ot Trump supporters?

Joining little clusters of Trump supporters in a "pub" (Are you British? In America, we tend to say "bar") and getting to know what they think, and why, is a better way of understanding where people are coming from than just making shit up based on nothing but your emotions.

Seems like you're going all anecdotal and want me to join you by licking and putting my finger in the wind, rather than getting some decent approximation by reading the barometer. Now it's screw the polls? Seems like the polls were Donald's indication to go ballistic on Cruz. Weird double standard here.

What a snippy snarky pissy pants! And what an angry, irrational mischaracterization of what MSK is doing! Get control of your anger, Roger!

Your psycho-epistemology is fraying badly. That "analogy" to Objectivists truly believing in Rand's ideas was irrelevant, immaterial, and immature. Try something a little more this-worldly, OK?

Why are you such an angry person, Roger? And also so thin-skinned? What's the problem? It always seems that you need to feel superior to others. What's up with that? Has life not turned out the way you had hoped? Are you not quite measuring up?

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Again, with the weird distractions.

Are there no opinion polls with a breakdown of Trump supporters as to why they support him? Emotion/frustration/anger vs. ideology/policy etc.? You are his supporter. Do you not have such information at hand?

Roger,

Actually I do.

I have a file full of explanations, polls, rantings and whatnot all trying to explain Trump and his supporters. It's one boneheaded theory after another.

The latest that got any kind of traction is one you, yourself liked until I pointed out the boneheaded methodology. That person said Trump and his supporters were authoritarian and had polling data to prove it. Then you saw this was based on 4 questions about childrearing.

If you are asking me for polls by Trump supporters about Trump supporters to prove they are not evil , I can't help you. People don't tend to poll themselves on matters of the very identity that binds them together. It would be like the examples I mentioned that you don't like, or Christians polling themselves on whether they believed in God.

People don't do that. But all Christians will tell you they believe in God. That's anecdotal, not polling. But it's still true.

So if you want to know what a Trump supporter believes, it's a great start to ask one. They're all around everywhere and their numbers are growing. But then you have to do the second part of such an inquiry and actually listen to them with an attempt to understand from their eyes. You can't ask an initial identity question like that while in a mood predisposed to disprove them and expect to get any kind of correct information.

Michael

[Peter]

J wrote: Your trusting someone is silly because it doesn't have philosophy to back it up, where Roger's trusting someone is not silly because it does have philosophy to back it up!
end quote

I will still vote for Cruz even if he is a Canadian hoser. joke. This has been covered before but with Iowa only a few days away I thought I would bring up some possible deficits for Trump. Two points for thought. If Trump’s trade policy with China is fair does that mean it is not free trade? And the second point is about restricting the immigration of smart, educated people. Is that unfree to American companies and not fair?
Peter

Notes from the official Trump for President site:
. . . . America has always been a trading nation. Under the Trump administration trade will flourish. However, for free trade to bring prosperity to America, it must also be fair trade. Our goal is not protectionism but accountability. America fully opened its markets to China but China has not reciprocated. Its Great Wall of Protectionism uses unlawful tariff and non-tariff barriers to keep American companies out of China and to tilt the playing field in their favor . . . . When Donald J. Trump is president, China will be on notice that America is back in the global leadership business and that their days of currency manipulation and cheating are over. We will cut a better deal with China that helps American businesses and workers compete . . . . Protect American ingenuity and investment by forcing China to uphold intellectual property laws and stop their unfair and unlawful practice of forcing U.S. companies to share proprietary technology with Chinese competitors as a condition of entry to China’s market. Reclaim millions of American jobs and reviving American manufacturing by putting an end to China’s illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards. No more sweatshops or pollution havens stealing jobs from American workers. Strengthen our negotiating position by lowering our corporate tax rate to keep American companies and jobs here at home, attacking our debt and deficit so China cannot use financial blackmail against us, and bolstering the U.S. military presence in the East and South China Seas to discourage Chinese adventurism.

And from his site about Trump’s immigration policies:
Requirement to hire American workers first. Too many visas, like the H-1B, have no such requirement. In the year 2015, with 92 million Americans outside the workforce and incomes collapsing, we need companies to hire from the domestic pool of unemployed. Petitions for workers should be mailed to the unemployment office, not USCIS.

[Jonathan]

Again, with the weird distractions.

Are there no opinion polls with a breakdown of Trump supporters as to why they support him? Emotion/frustration/anger vs. ideology/policy etc.? You are his supporter. Do you not have such information at hand?

You're Trump's attacker who is making claims about the motives and mindsets of Trump's supporters. Where are your polls to back up your assertions?

As for the wacked-out progressive example: no progressives actually believe that. They might ask such a question in jest or as a toxic attack on Objectivists, but they know better, and they know it is a smear.

Arbitrary assertion. Claiming to know the minds of others. Heh. Roger, you don't get out much, do you? You have lots of theories, but you don't seem to have much experience with reality. Do you ever actually talk to real people outside of Objectivish circles?

On the other hand, I would not say anything of the kind about what Ayn Rand supporters "tend" to be. They are all over the map, as are non-Objectivists. So, for both reasons it's really hard to wrap my mind around your attempted analogy. It's just not realistic.

So, you're saying that even with philosophy, Objectivists are all over the map? But I thought that your theory was that philosophy made people predictable and reliable? WTF?

In the real world (ahem), there is legitimate concern as to whether there are a lot of caring, concerned individualists in the Trump camp vs. their being just a (very?) small minority - as against the perception (to many, such as myself) that it is largely a headless revolt that will lead to nothing good if he wins.

What is your "perception" based on? Nothing, right? Nothing but your emotions, your fears. Well, then MSK's anecdotal "pub" perceptions are significantly more substantial than your emotions. Discussing ideas with some people is more reliable than discussing ideas with no people and just making up what you think they think.

An even modestly incisive poll would be so helpful in sorting out the degree to which the Trump Phenomenon is a truly individualist revolt. My own impressions, and yours, are just anecdotal.

Yours don't sound as if they're actually "anecdotal." Have you talked about these issues with real people who are Trump supporters? It doesn't sound as if you have. Instead, you've just imagined some Trump supporters. The pretend people in your head don't count as real people, and therefore your interviewing them doesn't count as being "anecdotal."

Speaking just for myself anyway, I think that the American people need more than instincts and provincial, fragmentary impressions to guide us this year.

What the people need is a reliable, principled student of the philosophical foundations of freedom! Someone like Paul Ryan!

J

[Jonathan]

So if you want to know what a Trump supporter believes, it's a great start to ask one. They're all around everywhere and their numbers are growing. But then you have to do the second part of such an inquiry and actually listen to them with an attempt to understand from their eyes. You can't ask an initial identity question like that while in a mood predisposed to disprove them and expect to get any kind of correct information.

Michael

Exactly!

It would be fun to see pissy prissy Roger walk into a "pub" and question some of the Trump supporters whom I've met, while bringing his snarky, pompous attitude to prejudging them and looking down his philosophical nose at them. Heh.

J

[Peter]

Some interesting excerpts.
Peter

The Two Words That Explain Donald Trump, Lawrence Meyers | Jan 26, 2016.
For months, pundits have been trying to suss out Donald Trump. Is he a Liberal? A RINO? A Conservative? Why did he give to this Leftist group? Why did he say this? How could he say that? He’s Hitler. He’s speaking what we think. What are his views on abortion, on the economy, on ISIS?

Everybody, and I mean everybody, is so used at trying to pigeonhole political candidates that they are missing what is right in front of them. Donald Trump can be explained in two simple words: Donald Trump. Donald Trump is, and always has been, about himself. His only goal is self-promotion. He epitomizes the maxim, “there is no such thing as bad publicity.” . . . . Donald Trump is not a con artist. Donald Trump is a salesman . . . .Trump knows that nobody actually trusts political candidates. Nobody is the next Ronald Reagan. Americans will always have misgivings regardless of who their candidate is. Trump knows that America is fed up with politics as usual, and that we are sick of carefully prepared remarks and debate zingers. We want authenticity, and Trump is selling his authenticity.

So Trump takes potshots, to shake up politics. It turns the game on its head. It forces candidates to either look too stuffy and calculated to respond, or take off the gloves and reveal themselves for being who they are. Nobody is as quick on his feet as Trump is, and Trump will always look good because he’s using a classic Alinsky tactic: make fun of your opponent.
. . . . The best salesmen appeal to your shadow. They seduce you by appealing, not to your higher thinking and developed functions, but to your shadow. They whisper, “You deserve that new car. You are unappreciated at work. Show them you have value. Show them you’re better than they are.”

Voters who think they can figure out what he stands for are in for a surprise. Trump doesn't even know what he stands for, so voters don't stand a chance of figuring him out. Trump stands for whatever garners him publicity, doesn’t waste his time, and is beneficial to his economic empire.

So what kind of President would Trump be? Could Americans count on anything, or will he be a shape-shifter that nobody can pin down? My sense is that Trump will support policies designed to get the 94 million unemployed citizens back to work, and that he will be strong – if perhaps diplomatically clumsy – on national defense and foreign policy. Beyond that, if it isn’t about Donald Trump, forget it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peter,

Thanks for that reference--I looked it up from the title you gave: The Two Words That Explain Donald Trump.

I especially like this quote:

Donald Trump is a salesman, and he is one of the greatest living salesmen. He is selling the American people a political enema...

In other words, as a Trump supporter, I'm in the market for a political enema.

He's sellin' and I'm buyin'...

Ooh... Kay....

Yep...

Another one for my boneheaded file.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Let me just tack on an idea.

If Cruz starts winning and Trump loses, I will become an ardent supporter of Cruz despite some serious misgivings on the impact his religion will have on his governing.

I recently finished reading the Bible (and the Book of Enoch for good measure ). Good is clearly defined in the Bible, over and over and from the beginning. Good is loving and obeying God. Bad is disobeying God. The golden rule comes in a long second after that. Even Jesus said that.

So good policy for Cruz will be defined at the fundamental level by what God tells him to do. George Bush the younger believed like that. We see where that led us.

Should Cruz get in office (as president, or VP to later become president), let's hope God will tell him to support all individual rights, even the rights of those who disagree with us.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Interesting:

[EDIT] P.S. - one more comment, strictly as an aside, on your attempted analogy about Objectivists. One might claim that since Objectivism promotes and fosters the rational, productive, creative individual, Objectivism should be a gushing fountain of breakthrough ideas in the sciences and humanities - so where's the beef? Where are those breakthrough ideas?

I don't think that it follows that merely promoting and fostering those virtues will lead to breakthrough ideas. One of the flaws in Objectivism is the belief that anyone can choose to be great at anything. Just think the right philosophy, turn on the volition switch, and will yourself to be the next Mozart, Da Vinci or Rand! Reality doesn't work that way. Rand's assertions that no one is born with any kind of “talent,” and that breakthrough creators are made, and not born, are just empty assertions. Wishful thinking. Rand would not have been a great painter, or mathematician, or physicist, no matter how hard she had volitionally willed herself to try. She wasn't born with "it" in those fields. All of the work in the world wouldn't have made her a great painter, math or physics wiz.

Likewise, her followers haven't been born with "it" in any field, and that's why they haven't become a gushing fountainhead of breakthroughs.

That's the rubber meeting the road. The theory doesn't hold up in reality.

The problem is that supposed good intentions aside, the leading institutions in Objectivist-Land have *not* promoted and fostered such traits, but instead have inhibited or neglected such for decades now.

That's true. There have been a lot of Objectivists who really don't know much of anything, but who pose as being experts in various disciplines, and they just kind of repeat Rand's uninformed opinions. They attract a lot of people who are willing to follow, to not investigate or learn anything for themselves, and to limit themselves to obeying Rand and the group. But I think that anyone willing to do such a thing never had the independence to be a gushing fountain of breakthroughs to begin with.

It's a good lesson to real individualists that they should not depend on *groups* of such supposed individualists for their encouragement and support. You can't just look at what people say or espouse. You have to look at what they do. (That is also a theme in this campaign, which many want to brush aside, treating integrity in action to one's stated principles as not relevant or important.) And Objectivists in their big umbrella organizations have dropped the ball on this, big-time.- which is a major reason why people like Diana ex-Hsieh Brickell have gone rogue and caused so much personal pain and devastation (some, blessedly and karmically, on themselves).

Unoriginal, uncreative mediocrities do whatever it takes to make sure that their mediocrity is rewarded. Selling the illusion of their own importance becomes more important than promoting the principles that they've attached themselves to. They promote the idea that they are leaders or authorities. They often demand conformity. Doing so is really just the only way that mediocrities can take advantage of the weak-minded and get paid, or admired, or whatever they're after personally as individual mediocrities.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

See, this is what I fear will happen when the rubber meets the road - when the great Deal-Maker actually has to get cooperation from all those big-spending, big-government Establishment statists he will have to deal with in the Congress. Like the great Community-Organizer-in-Chief's pals in ACORN being reborn under other guises, I suspect that whatever spending or programs are cut will magically reappear in 2000-page bills as disguised pork items that restore the functions and spending under other names. We have seen this too often, in sell-out bills fast-tracked by Boehner and McConnell and all too happily signed by BHO.

Roger,

To be fair, I've got my eye on that.

Ditto for Trump's comment that he has had a great relationship with Pelosi and Reid.

However, in the point you brought up, I believe his bargaining chips will not be government handouts. Maybe a few, but I think he is going to cut way down on them. I think his bargaining chips will be private industries and developments he can convince to set up shop in their states, convincing local private investors to actually build stuff, foreign investors to kick in, where to invest all this money coming back into the USA and things like that.

What's not reasonable is to imagine a government without dealmaking. The whole point of checks and balances on power is to arrive at decisions through deals, not through dictates. The idea is to make good deals, not bad ones. Just because the current idiots make bad deals and compromise their principles and campaign promises, that doesn't mean making deals is bad.

You can't make bread without flour no matter how pretty you want to loaf to look. Why? Because flour is an essential component of what bread is. Ditto for government and deals. You can't have representative government without deals. It's either that or a dictatorship. And even in a dictatorship, there will be some dealmaking. Why? Because deals are an inherent component of the very concept of government.

In fact, believing dealmaking is an evil-in-itself is the same thing as believing capitalism is inherently evil. Capitalism runs on deals.

Now on the second point. In Trump's touted good relationship with the dark side, Rush Limbaugh thinks Trump was exaggerating within the context of showing how difficult a person Cruz is as opposed to the wonderful marvelous him. I think Rush has a point, but it goes beyond that. I clearly see a fake-out move on the Republican establishment that Trump will walk back pretty soon. ("What I meant was... blah blah blah..."). He's done this over and over after a phase of digging in on something outlandish.

After he seals the deal and gets elected, he will do what he damn well wants to do, which will be what everyone else wants, too. (See his "bombastic offer" method.) Promises to liars can be treated differently than promises to people of good faith. At least I am pretty sure this is how he thinks because it is exactly how I think. As the political people he admires lean small government (the Breitbart crowd), I imagine he will lean that way in governing.

As a campaigner and even businessman, Trump cuts close to the edge. That's his style. It can get too close for comfort at times, so I do have my eye on these things.

But not enough to disavow him.

Donald J. Trump rocks!

Trump 2016.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sarah Palin just posted this on Facebook:

 

 

My God! That's inspiring!

 

 

Michael

[Peter]

Michael wrote: If Cruz starts winning and Trump loses, I will become an ardent supporter of Cruz despite some serious misgivings on the impact his religion will have on his governing.
end quote

Well pilgrim, this is Ted Cruz. The Son of bible thumper that I am . . . even gives me the heebie jeebies. I remember several Republicans who I worried about in the past . . . but wait! I now see the light. Good Morning, Your Holiness, Bishops, Priests and farmers who pray for a good corn crop and subsidies. I hope you can help influence our election. Especially in Iowa. But I will stop your subsidies for corn and Gideon Bibles.

I see Fox News is really joshing Trump. He’s scared of Megan Kelly. If Donald were to play Hans and Frans on SNL which one would he be, the girly man?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I see Fox News is really joshing Trump. He’s scared of Megan Kelly. If Donald were to play Hans and Frans on SNL which one would he be, the girly man?

Peter,

You wanna know what I see? I see Trump got 24 million viewers to the first debate. In this last one on Fox Business, only 11 million tuned in.

I see some controversy brewing and I loves me some controversy. Wanna bet a few millions more viewers do, too?

(innocently) I wonder if that has anything to do with it...

Michael