Donald Trump

[Peter]

William mentioned the altruistic twist Trump puts on his snub of Iowans and charity event. The Des Moines Register oped mentions Reagan snubbing their 1980 debate and losing to Bush Senior. If I were from Iowa I would feel miffed too. I heard on the news that one of the Carolina's primaries has picked the eventual nominee all but one time.

And Roger wrote: The money that *some* people are making overseas, he wants to "bring back" to the USA "for everyone"?? Um....isn't that...stealing? (aka redistribution of wealth).

end quote

Others have identified Trump’s divergence from Constitutional Tea Party government but let me bring up a twist on that theme, Oh Great and Mighty Oz. Why MIGHT Ayn Rand only reluctantly support Trump AFTER he had been nominated and if he were running against a Progressive or a Socialist? Because of Trump’s support of eminent domain. Trump assumes to know what is in the *public interest.*

Peter


“The Monument Builders,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 88. “Public Interest:” Since there is no such entity as “the public,” since the public is merely a number of individuals, any claimed or implied conflict of “the public interest” with private interests means that the interests of some men are to be sacrificed to the interests and wishes of others. Since the concept is so conveniently undefinable, its use rests only on any given gang’s ability to proclaim that “The public, c’est moi”—and to maintain the claim at the point of a gun.
end quote

“The Pull Peddlers,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 170.: So long as a concept such as “the public interest” (or the “social” or “national” or “international” interest) is regarded as a valid principle to guide legislation—lobbies and pressure groups will necessarily continue to exist. Since there is no such entity as “the public,” since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that “the public interest” supersedes private interests and rights, can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others.

If so, then all men and all private groups have to fight to the death for the privilege of being regarded as “the public.” The government’s policy has to swing like an erratic pendulum from group to group, hitting some and favoring others, at the whim of any given moment—and so grotesque a profession as lobbying (selling “influence”) becomes a full-time job. If parasitism, favoritism, corruption, and greed for the unearned did not exist, a mixed economy would bring them into existence.

Since there is no rational justification for the sacrifice of some men to others, there is no objective criterion by which such a sacrifice can be guided in practice. All “public interest” legislation (and any distribution of money taken by force from some men for the unearned benefit of others) comes down ultimately to the grant of an undefined, undefinable, non-objective, arbitrary power to some government officials.

The worst aspect of it is not that such a power can be used dishonestly, but that it cannot be used honestly. The wisest man in the world, with the purest integrity, cannot find a criterion for the just, equitable, rational application of an unjust, inequitable, irrational principle.
end quote

“The Fascist New Frontier,” The Ayn Rand Column, 111.: There is no such thing as “the public interest” except as the sum of the interests of individual men. And the basic, common interest of all men—all rational men—is freedom. Freedom is the first requirement of “the public interest”—not what men do when they are free, but that they are free. All their achievements rest on that foundation—and cannot exist without it. The principles of a free, non-coercive social system are the only form of “the public interest.”
end quote

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The money that *some* people are making overseas, he wants to "bring back" to the USA "for everyone"?? Um....isn't that...stealing? (aka redistribution of wealth)

Roger,

I humbly submit that if the stealing you are referring to is what Trump means, you are right.

But what you just said is a perfect case of a strawman argument by playing gotcha with words. There's nothing but straw where there should be an identification.

Look at any Trump speech or interview where he discusses "bringing back" money. Here is what he says.

1. Lots of companies have money overseas because of high taxes and insane regulations here in the USA.

2. The owners of the companies want to bring it back, he knows because he knows them and they've told him, but they can't because the regulatory and tax system here will confiscate too much of it.

3. Trump proposes to remove the regulatory and tax obstacles to make it attractive for them to want to bring the money to the USA.

That's what he means and what he has always meant.

How is that stealing?

Bash Trump if you want. But make up shit about him and bash that as if it were him? Dayaamm!

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This just came in at Breitbart.

(batting eyes innocently) I wonder if it has anything to so with anything, hmmmmm?

Trump Campaign Manager Reveals Fox News Debate Chief Has Daughter Working for Rubio

Surprise, surprise, surprise:

Frank Luntz Focus Group: Marco Rubio Won Final Debate

Real Clear Politics Video

This is the same dude who constantly chooses focus groups to air on Fox after GOP debates. These groups have been consistent. They have said, over and over, that they were switching from Trump because he was nasty.

Michael

[Jonathan]

The last time I watched a football game, you didn't win by taking your football and going home. Not real savvy.

You're making fun of Trump for behaving exactly as you do on OL? Hahahaha!

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a pretty insightful discussion on Morning Joe of what happened last night.
 

 
Things to watch for:
 
1. They mocked Frank Luntz's focus group, saying that Luntz has already presented a gazillion focus groups where Rubio always manages to win the debate.
 
2. Here's a bone for anti-Trumpers who want to pursue a Hitler analogy. Joe Scarborough talked about looking at the TV last night with amazement and seeing images of Trump's plane at the airport. And the story being told was: Trump arrives in Iowa in his plane, then he goes to the event, then he does the event. The Morning Joe people didn't mention it, but Triumph of the Will, anyone? The god descends from the heavens and goes to attend a ceremony of earthly affairs as people watch every step of the way in rapt enthrallment...  
 
3. Mark Halperin said one of the most insightful things about Trump I have seen on TV up to now. Trump supporters know this, but it seems like everyone else is blind to it. The slice of Halperin saying this even hit Real Clear Politics Video (see here). In the quote below, I cleaned it up a bit, removed the interjections from the other people and added the numbers to make it clearer.
 

Here's three things that Trump showed in what he did with this debate gambit.
 
1. One is he's willing to take risks. No one else in the field takes as many risks as he does.
 
2. Two, he thinks ten steps ahead. People think he sort of bumbles into stuff. He anticipates what's going to happen. He thinks it through. He understands how other people will react. No one is his equal in this field in that.
 
3. Finally, he's willing to adjust. "He's willing to think about... watch how things go with incredible media savvy and say, "OK. I need to recalibrate this just a little bit."
 
In those three areas there's no one in the field who is his equal. This was a dramatic example of that, but every day he's doing those three things better than anybody else. That's what's going to make him hard to stop.

 
I remember, way early in this thread, people worried that Trump would get trounced by Hillary if he got the nomination because of what he was doing. And I said back then that he was using a strategy to win the nomination. When the general election came, he would change his strategy to fit the new situation.

 

Halperin's comment is exactly what I was referring to.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just in case anybody's wondering:

 

 

There's a video of Trump telling a CNN reporter (in his plane before the event and debate) that the Fox people called him and couldn't have been nicer. He says the Fox person apologized for the press release, but refused to say who it was. Fox later put out another press release saying Ailes called Trump three times, but the Fox press report weasel-worded when discussing the previous mocking press statement. Also, it seems Trump was demanding Fox contribute $5 million to veteran charities, but Fox called that a quid pro quo and brushed it off as a ridiculous bribe.

 

The gist of what Trump told the CNN reporter is that he probably would have done the Fox debate, but he got the peace calls too late. His other event was too far along. Besides, he had to live by his principles.

 

If I run into the video of this pre-event interview, I'll post it. I don't want to put in the time running it down, but if it pops up in my normal surfing, I'll put it here.

 

Michael

[Peter]

Jonathan asked: You're making fun of Trump for behaving exactly as you do on OL? Hahahaha!
end quote

Every topic is sometimes a humorous topic. I see on the net some vets are slamming Trump for not showing up at the debate. Hmmm? His fund raiser should have been for Vets, puppies, little babies, The Pope, and the water crisis in Flint. Should someone quote Rand or use her as an authority on an Objectivist forum? Quoting Ayn Rand and not reasoning is a version of the argumentum ad verecundiam, the appeal to authority. So I thought I would whimsically appeal to reason by quoting authorities in lieu of answering the question, “Is Trump a necessary evil???”
Peter

Bill Dwyer wrote: . . . . The fallacy of appealing to authority consists not of quoting someone in defense of a position, but of claiming that a particular position is true or argument valid merely because some authority says it is. If I had said that having to earn one's rights is a bogus idea ~because~ Ayn Rand said so, then ~that~ would be an argument from authority. But invoking someone else's argument in defense of a theory or position does not by itself constitute a logical fallacy. By citing Rand, I was not saying that what she said is true because she said it; I was simply saying that I regard her argument as sound and sufficiently well stated to be worth quoting. What's wrong with that?
end quote

Marcus Aurelius wrote: If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance which does harm. end quote

George H. Smith wrote: It has long been my understanding that Ayn Rand regarded "fact" as metaphysical concept, and "truth" as an epistemological one. A "fact" is that which is, regardless of anyone's knowledge. A "truth" is the identification (or "recognition") of a fact, and is therefore contextually dependent of a given state of knowledge.
end quote

Is Trump a conservative, libertarian, secret Randite, or Tea Party man?

Roger E. Bissell in “On the Fine Art of Thawing out Frozen Abstractions: an Essay in Mental Economics? wrote: In recent years, a certain logical fallacy has appeared in the writings of various prominent Libertarian and/or Objectivist theoreticians. It is the purpose of this essay[1] to explore the nature of this fallacy, "the fallacy of the frozen abstraction," to identify and analyze several instances of this fallacy, and to identify and validate the epistemological principle which this fallacy violates.
Phase I: Identifying the Nature of the Genus-Species "Freeze."
As defined by Ayn Rand, the fallacy of the frozen abstraction (or, in the language of Nixonomics[2], "the genus-species freeze") is a fallacy "which consists of substituting some one particular concrete for the wider abstract class to which it belongs."[3]

In other words, this fallacy entails the refusal to include certain members of a class in the wider class to which they belong, and instead limiting the class to one or a select few of its members.
end quote

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ha!

 

Great Twitter poll- and I wasn't even there. Thank you! #GOPDebate pic.twitter.com/yLJGkoOeBg

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

January 29, 2016

 

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... in lieu of answering the question, “Is Trump a necessary evil???”

Peter,

There's the other end of that question, too.

Is Trump an unexpected good?

It all depends on which facts you want to base your truths on.

(I'm doing the facts=metaphysical and truth=epistemological thing here.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I might as well put this one up. It will save me some image processing time and effort.

 

The Drudge poll question was "Who is your Republican pick for president?"

 

Notice that over 835,000 people had voted in Trump's screenshot.
 

Thank you, America! #Trump2016 Via @DRUDGE_REPORT pic.twitter.com/hVa0gJiBNz

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

January 29, 2016

 

Thump... thump... thump...
 

 
Michael

[william.scherk]

Someone please remind me why a Drudge internet survey is probative.

Meanwhile ... all my predictions came true:

Fox News draws 12.5 million viewers with Trump-free Republican debate
 

[for Trump Lovers] The ratings for Fox News Channel's Republican presidential primary debate took an expected hit from Donald Trump's decision not to participate in the event, staged Thursday night in Des Moines, Iowa.

The debate, which fell four days before the state's nominating caucuses, averaged 12.5 million viewers from 9 to 11 p.m. Eastern time. It was the second-smallest audience of the seven GOP primary debates and about half of what Fox News scored with its first Republican debate in August.[...]

[for Trump Haters] Trump had predicted the event would be a "total disaster" without him, but the audience exceeded the 11 million who watched his last debate appearance.

 
 
Oh, and the direct-charge website for the Trump Foundation veterans charity reports: OVER $620,000 RAISED. It is apparent from news reports that much cash was pledged directly including one million from Trump himself and another million each from couples Phil Ruffin and Oleksandra Nikolayenko, and Ike and Laura Perlmutter. He also mentioned an anonymous donor who gave an additional million.

 

Some feeble progressivishist is going to spin this item for Hate, since Trump has bruited Ruffin as a trade negotiator with China in a Trump administration.  That spinning is already underway in the wild swamps of Twitter.

 

Another couple of big donors Trump names were Richard LeFrak and Carl Icahn. Some DF might suggest this is pay-to-play, or pay for future benefits, or worse.  Others less cynical and conspiratorial might suggest this is just ostentatious altruism on display. Where the rich and famous meet social metaphysics. Does this dress make me look fat? Does this contribution to charity make me look good?

 

You poor Americans.  The system forces you to feel things that you maybe did not want to feel.

 

@DRUDGE_REPORT @ABC pic.twitter.com/sX2miubIpk

— Wolfe Davis (@WolfeDavis210)

January 29, 2016

Edited January 29, 2016 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Someone please remind me why a Drudge internet survey is probative.

William,

Hell, that's easy.

Since you will probably not find anything I could say on the matter compelling, why don't we look at someone from a left-wing publication, shall we? Say Salon (granted from a former right-wing dude, but one who migrated and now supports Hillary)...

This is why the Drudge Report poll matters: In a bad year for polls, this online vote keeps demonstrating Trump fervor

Yes, it's unscientific and reaches only a specific segment of GOP base. But it's an accurate measure of intensity

by Jimmy LaSalvia

Salon

It starts like this:

Move over Nate Silver. There’s a new predictor in town, and his name is Matt Drudge.

Helpfully...

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

The money that *some* people are making overseas, he wants to "bring back" to the USA "for everyone"?? Um....isn't that...stealing? (aka redistribution of wealth)

Roger,

I humbly submit that if the stealing you are referring to is what Trump means, you are right.

But what you just said is a perfect case of a strawman argument by playing gotcha with words. There's nothing but straw where there should be an identification.

Look at any Trump speech or interview where he discusses "bringing back" money. Here is what he says.

1. Lots of companies have money overseas because of high taxes and insane regulations here in the USA.

2. The owners of the companies want to bring it back, he knows because he knows them and they've told him, but they can't because the regulatory and tax system here will confiscate too much of it.

3. Trump proposes to remove the regulatory and tax obstacles to make it attractive for them to want to bring the money to the USA.

That's what he means and what he has always meant.

How is that stealing?

Bash Trump if you want. But make up shit about him and bash that as if it were him? Dayaamm!

Michael

I'm not "making up shit" about Trump, just *quoting* shit posted by your buddy KorbinDallas (which you conveniently omitted in your attack on me for "making up shit").

Thus, the strawman argument is yours. You made up a target (me "making up shit") which you thought you could mock and ridicule with your homey little "DAYAAMM" - which I agree is much easier and safer than actually addressing the source of what I quoted (not made up).

That source being your comrade, Korbin or Dallas (not sure which if either is his first name), who was - just several posts above - waxing rhapsodic over how Trump was going to get all that overseas money back to America "for everyone."

What part of "for everyone" don't you get, Michael?

What can it *possibly* mean, except that Trump figures that, on his scheme, there will be still *more* taxpayer money to redistribute than the government already takes? Isn't a lot of his overseas tax policy and incentive program designed to get more tax revenues from businesses who have gone overseas? (Yes.)

And yes, I say that is *stealing.* Legalized theft is still theft, and just because the government is already doing it, doesn't make it right to rig policy so you can do more of it.

I agree with Rand and Objectivism's view on taxation, as well as with that of libertarianism. You are welcome to express how and why and whether you disagree. If we're actually on the same side, that would be wonderful. But then you might want to have a little talk with KorbinDallas about his enthusiasm for Trump's salvaging all those taxes "for everyone."

REB

P.S. - For your ease in reference, here's the post with the quote from KorbinDallas:

KorbenDallas, on 28 Jan 2016 - 10:34 PM, said:

Michael Stuart Kelly, on 28 Jan 2016 - 9:19 PM, said:

I just watched the Trump event instead of the debate. It just finished and, as of now, this event netted over $6 million for the wounded warriors.

So I tuned in to the Fox debate, which is still going on, to see if I could catch the end and, I swear, I can't watch it. After a few minutes of boilerplate political platitudes, I just can't. I'm outta there.

I'm still high from the goodness I just saw with Trump and the veterans and that boilerplate with phony sincerity started blowing my high.

Maybe I'm biased.

Michael

I watched the Trump event, too, and switched over to the Foxnews broadcast and was struck by the contrast. I have to admit, the Trump event had me chanting U S A along with them a few times.

In one of his statements, he said he was "greedy" in making his money, but he wants to be "greedy" for our country, to bring back all that money to the USA, for everyone.[enlarged for the particularly vision-challenged readers on OL]

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger,

Take a breath and pipe down.



There is no us against them going on. Not in my mind, at least. And certainly no "attacks." (I have something you may find interesting about that word below.)

I don't know Korben, so I can't claim him as a "comrade." He seems to be a nice enough person. Intelligent and independent at first blush. I admit, that's my kind of person, whether he agrees or disagrees with me. Notice that OL is full of intelligent and independent people who disagree with me.

But Korben seems to like Trump, so I like that even better. Is that a problem?

One thing is for sure. You said:

That source being your comrade, Korbin or Dallas (not sure which if either is his first name)...

Well, Korbin is definitely not his first name. He spells it Korben.

Gotcha!!!

Anyway, the part you emphasized that Korben wrote is an almost verbatim quote from Trump. It's a paraphrase, but Trump did express himself like that. He did say he wanted to be greedy for America. I heard him.

In our world, a conceptual thinker (and you are a conceptual thinker, at least I think you are ) tries to understand what someone means, not just parse words divorced from context. So to try to pretend that Trump is a redistribute the wealth socialist/communist dude is a stretch too far for accuracy, even as an expression of disliking him.

There is no referent to reality except the words you took out of the context of everything Trump stands for. That's gotcha stuff on words, not conceptual thought. Either that, or you literally have no idea who Donald Trump is, meaning you have not seen him speak, not read his books, etc. And you are just responding to his archetype.

Regardless, tagging Trump with a redistribution of wealth scheme is a misidentification lapse, a serious one, and I brought it to clarity for the sake of the reader, not to demean you. Was the banter a bit tough? Sure. But so was the bash on the strawman you called Trump. At any rate, this exchange with a bit of color is a way to call attention to the idea and prompt the reader to look it all up for himself or herself and come to their own conclusion.

And here we get to the word "attack." I've been doing a lot of study on metaphor. I've decided that one of the things I dislike about Rand's style is her constant reliance on war as a metaphor for persuasion.

She always talks about attacking this, blasting that idea out of existence, defeat, triumph, defend against, intellectual ammunition, and on and on.

I used to think like this when discussing philosophy. (In Brazil, of all places. ) Many Rand people still do.

As a good primate (primates learn through imitation), I learned my war-mongering attitudes form Rand. I certainly did my share of seeking out enemies I could engage in battle and defending against their attacks, often nuking them with the H-Bomb of Reason. (Rand never used "nuking," but what the hell, a good student builds on what he learns. )

That's all OK and stirring if I am going to go out into a hostile intellectual environment and try to get heard. But here among friends? We're gonna fight? Like war?

Really?

Would you like to blast me off the face of OL with your intellectual ammunition and plant a flag of triumph?

Does that make any sense at all?

Jeez, I thought we were friends...

(If that's what you want to do, which I don't believe, I would really feel sorry for your dog. )

So I don't attack you. If I see you making a serious mistake, I will correct you (as I hope you would me), but not to demean you. We do have an audience, after all.

Correctly understood ideas are important.

After all, how can one evaluate correctly what he has not identified correctly?

Michael

[Jonathan]

I'm not "making up shit" about Trump, just *quoting* shit posted by your buddy KorbinDallas (which you conveniently omitted in your attack on me for "making up shit").

Heh. You're not just quoting, but interpreting. As is typical of you, you assume that your interpretation, based on your rather hostile and limited imagination, must be the only possible interpretation.

That source being your comrade, Korbin or Dallas (not sure which if either is his first name), who was - just several posts above - waxing rhapsodic over how Trump was going to get all that overseas money back to America "for everyone."

What part of "for everyone" don't you get, Michael?

What can it *possibly* mean, except that Trump figures that, on his scheme, there will be still *more* taxpayer money to redistribute than the government already takes?

What else could it possibly mean? Think. Try to expand your imagination. Try to set aside your emotions. There many possible meanings that it might have. Are you really so dense as to not be able to imagine more than one possible meaning? Heh.

J

[william.scherk]

 

Someone please remind me why a Drudge internet survey is probative.

 

Hell, that's easy.

 

Since you will probably not find anything I could say on the matter compelling

 

We can pretend that you can read my mind and that I can read yours; otherwise we are not clairvoyant in truth, to my way of thinking.

I find what you write compelling in many quarters of discussion, and if I do not find something compelling in answer to a question, I can always do follow-up. Why is a Drudge internet survey probative?

 

why don't we look at someone from a left-wing publication, shall we?

If that someone has a rational and well-warranted explanation of probative value, why not? Since you are responding as "Someone," I will ask you -- not a left-wing zealot Trump Hater liar like Jimmy. I am most interested in your answer to my question. What is probative about a Drudge survey?

 

Say Salon (granted from a former right-wing dude, but one who migrated and now supports Hillary)...

 

This is why the Drudge Report poll matters: In a bad year for polls, this online vote keeps demonstrating Trump fervor

Well, at first glance the "online vote" demonstrates fervor. Or so the hater says ...

 

Yes, it's unscientific and reaches only a specific segment of GOP base. But it's an accurate measure of intensity

by Jimmy LaSalvia

This is promising, but has little relation to the query.  How does one measure 'intensity' of fervor, and what does that mean in terms of the value of this kind of poll?  I will look into it.  

I'd be interested, Michael, in whether you agree that the Drudge Trump surveys are accurately measuring the blob term 'intensity of fervor.'  Maybe this is like the Authoritarian Personality questions that flag Trump support. Perhaps the two kinds of polls could be blended. 

 

But anyhow, here is the thing that you poo-pooed some pages back.

 

 

It starts like this:

 

Move over Nate Silver. Theres a new predictor in town, and his name is Matt Drudge.

 

Helpfully...

To sum up, I find no dearth of probative evidence for the zany theories of Trump ... but what is the poll result telling us? On the face of it, how many people pushed a button.

What does it translate to? That stumps me.

Maybe a more fruitful question would be an open-ended "What, in your opinion, do these particular online soundings mean?"

That way I can discover what does it mean to different people? And then, of course, what do those differences mean? Sometimes, Michael, I clairvoyantly read your mind and come to a tentative conclusion that there is no explanation for a difference in opinion ... except that Haters gonna Hate. It is almost like you have sorted your OL colleagues into two piles and only two piles: For Him -- and Agin Him.

IF my telepathy is correct, you have zero respect for the opinions of anyone here who is either doubtful of, unsold on, or clearly antagonistic to Donald Trump and what he represents.

It's a difficult bridge, Michael, to my eyes. You will not want to be so nasty that folks stop posting critical commentary about Trump, but you will also want to preserve the master position, trumping the shoddy opinions of others, if only out of loyalty to your favoured candidate.

Water under the bridge. Blood in the water. Tension. Climax, Denouement.

 

 

-- update on Election Eve Live Chat: it is not as easy as I thought to establish a clean, quick chat box standing independently -- at least in terms of being dead simple to use and enjoy. Thanks for the interest backstage.

Finally, are you ever going to get back to me on the two 538 articles I flagged? If not, you are in deficit with me. As I have said a few times, I like discussion, but it is weird to be engaged and ignored.

(yikes, reading this back through TTS, the last sentence sounds bizarre. Instead of deleting, I thought to mention I mean no harm. Ignoring is best countered by the same thing in return, according to the Trader Principle. Still, I laugh at myself for sounding miffed ... and share the humour with this counterpoint. Another Trump Hater bitching about getting no respect ...)

Glenn Close as rabbit-cooking nemesis: "I'm not going to be IGNORED!"

Returning to a bland mien, I saw a snatch of an odd encounter between people and power just now on Commie News. The preceding segments included a balanced report on the hoopla over the last pre-Iowa GOP debate. It showed some footage of Mr Trump answering questions from reporters, his speech at the charity event, and some takes of the Iowa debate. I was struck at how mediated the entire affair is on one hand, and how much 'media manipulation' is a constant background hum of politics, whatever the level, whatever the intensity of events, whatever the truth.

So, here is Trump interviewed by a zillion people in a kajillion appearances on TV as phone-in guest, with a further zillion videos of him on the stump. He takes a hell of a lot of questions, and is never at a loss for an answer.

And here is our showboat Trudeau doing a TV appearance in which he is interviewed by a panel of citizens (not chosen by Trump), ten on one. No escape, no charity dodge, no special pleading.

I hate (as in I Hate Trump) Trudeau a little bit more each day, if only for his increasing popularity in the polls. He is a walking media slut of the worst kind. Cold, calculating, almost demonic in his smiling 'sunny days' persona.

Anyway, media hog Trudeau sits with ten people who pepper him with questions for an hour and half. No Bloodclot. No banks and walls of reporters and lights and hoopla and frenzy and bizarre outbursts of punditry.

Like I said a few posts back here, I am starting to hate my own country. When Mr Trump calls the USA a hellhole, or Brussels a hellhole, I say to him: Sir, you have no idea. Come north to see what a hellhole really looks like. Since Mr Trump is a man of integrity and traditional values of respect and courtesy, he will stick with the routine and make his first foreign trip as President to Ottawa.

I fully expect Trump to turn on Trudeau long before the coronation ball. Canada is, like China, often sitting on the USA's face -- in terms of balance of trade. And NAFTA and other North American integration treaties underway could offer him a great new target. Who doesn't secretly hate Canada in the USA?

I should add a hot link or two after subjecting my fans to this sprawl, so how about these:

Don't Treat Trump Badly

Trump causes firestorm with Muslim registry remarks – but what did he really say?

Taking the bait: Rush, Coulter among the gullible GOPers falling for Trump’s birther smear on Cruz

Josh Earnest: Ted Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship just 18 months ago, you know

Trump Ramps Up Birther Attacks On Cruz In Iowa:

 

“Ted is very glib and he goes out and says ‘Well, I’m a natural born citizen,’ but the point is you’re not.” 

 

CLEAR LAKE, Iowa — Donald Trump escalated his attacks on Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be president on Saturday, devoting a solid four minutes of his speech at a campaign rally here to the subject.

 

“[Cruz] was born in Canada,” Trump said at the Surf Ballroom here, his second of two stops today in Iowa. “Whether we like it, don’t like it, he lived there, he was there, he was born in Canada, I guess his parents voted in Canada, a lot of things, I mean a lot of things happened here. So if you’re born in Canada, it’s immediately a little bit of a problem.”[...]

 

“You can’t have a person who’s running for office, even though Ted is very glib and he goes out and says ‘Well, I’m a natural born citizen,’ but the point is you’re not,” Trump said. “You gotta get a declaratory judgment. You have to have the courts come up with a ruling. Or you have a candidate who just cannot run. Because the other side will immediately bring suit and you’ve got that cloud on your head, and you can’t have that cloud on your head.”

 

Ted Cruz Draws Contrast With Trump On Federal "Deportation Force," "We Don't Live In A Police State"

Still don’t think Donald Trump can win? This chart should convince you.

The Tracinski Letter: A Republican Debate, Finally

 

New Technique Allows Scientists to Read Minds at Nearly the Speed of Thought

 

Edited January 30, 2016 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

IF my telepathy is correct, you have zero respect for the opinions of anyone here who is either doubtful, unsold or clearly antagonistic to Donald Trump and what he represents.

William,

Good Lord!

Really?

I would get that crystal ball fixed. Or even get a new one. It sounds like you got low-grade glass.

Let me state it clearly. (Hopefully.)

One has to identify something correctly before one can evaluate it correctly. I often see you trying to get me entangled in the evaluations of people who have made horrible identifications of who Trump is and who Trump supporters are. Note: not horrible evaluations. I don't even pay attention to that. How could I? I don't recognize what's being evaluated as anything real. And you have to admit, the long string of predictions about Trump based on these many and varied evaluations have had a sorry history since last June.

So it's deeper. It's on the cognitive level--the "what is it?" level. Horrible identifications.

It's like calling dog a frog because both have "og" in them, then evaluating the weird way the frog-dog sounds when he goes ribbit. It sounds like friggin' barking, but better not say that since people might think you're crazy.

I just gave what I see by analogy, I know, but I don't know what to do with that kind of argument and attitude. And you're not to blame. The entire mainstream media, political establishment, and people who defend big government are that way. Hell, even some conservatives and libertarians are that way.

Not the growing band of Trump supporters, though.

So I have some fun. It's not a matter of respect or disrespect. It's just waiting until the others catch up and see it correctly. Then I will be interested in their opinions, for and against. Right now, they are opining over something they see that fits a storyline in their heads, but doesn't exist in reality.

How do I know?

I'm one of the things that exist in reality. And what they claim is me has nothing to do with me.

... are you ever going to get back to me on the two 538 articles I flagged? If not, you are in deficit with me. As I have said a few times, I like discussion, but it is weird to be engaged and ignored.

(yikes, reading this back through TTS, the last sentence sounds bizarre. Instead of deleting, I thought to mention I mean no harm. Ignoring is best countered by the same thing in return, according to the Trader principle. Still, I laugh at myself for sounding miffed ... and share the humour with this counterpoint. Another Trump Hater bitching about getting no respect ...)

You might find this odd and it might not seem like it, but I read slowly.

I have found a way to plow through shit by using audio along with reading the words, but no speed-reading is involve. This is the only way I have found to keep my concentration going along with comprehension. Use up two senses, not just one. So there is a natural time limit imposed by how fast the books and articles can be read out loud. This takes time, even when I listen at 1.5 to 2 times the speed (as is my habit).

I use a program called TextAloud when no recording is available but online text is. btw - There's a great free program that does the same thing called Balabolka. I used to use that all the time, then I bought TextAloud, thinking it would do more since they charged for it. It doesn't, but I'll be damned if I'll not use it and use the free one instead after buying it.

In fact, I just went through the entire Bible (King James version) and Book of Enoch (ancient English) using recordings available online and online texts (and online dictionaries--Good God are some of those words hairy! ). I didn't even need to use TextAloud.

Right now I'm halfway through the Koran, a more inaccurate but modern translation (Dawood, which is why I spelled it "Koran") because I've overdosed on ancient English. Without the audio to help, my mind would have drifted so much, I would still be in about the 7th or 8th book of the Old Testament (there are 66 books in the whole Bible) and understood less. I still have the Book of Mormon and the Bhagavad-Gita in front of me.

Why? I always wanted to see what was in these books. I will be writing some serious stuff before too long and I want to see the metaphors and stories. Man, am I glad I'm doing this, too. It's one thing to opine about religion based on the opinions of others, like Rand. It's another to realize what is correct and what is wrong because you read it.

Also, I do a great deal of technical reading for my projects.

Lots and lots and lots of reading. (Even some books without audio.) And I can't read faster to save my life. God knows I've tried everything. (Apropos, the best book I found to help is this: Reading with the Right Brain by David Butler. I even reviewed it on Amazon.)

So, in the middle of all this, I get a request to read something that, on the surface, looks like more Trump mythology and not Trump reality. Or worse, in your case, the instructions manual for government election employees , and I think, when am I going to squeeze this in?

So I'm not ignoring you. I'm just harried.

Let's put it this way. Life is short and WSS is long.

Like I said a few posts back here, I am starting to hate my own country.

. . .

I fully expect Trump to turn on Trudeau long before the coronation ball.

I hear ya', but I disagree that Trump will turn on Trudeau. There may be some bluster for show. I even doubt that.

But get prepared.

Once Trump takes office, expect real hatred to grow in the deepest recesses of your good heart once you see Trudeau eating out of Trump's hand, rolling over and playing dead, and fetching on command.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

On the Drudge thing, I don't know how to say this without it coming off as condescending and I really don't feel that.

So I'll just say it. But please keep in mind that I'm still in the mode of being poorly identified. Evaluation isn't even on the radar yet.

It doesn't matter to Trump supporters what you (or other anti-Trump) people think of the Drudge poll. Not even to the independents and Democrats who are increasingly jumping on board. They know it represents the reality of who they are. And they know they are in a growing movement that will keep growing. (And some of the anti-Trump people are sensing they have missed something, so they are no longer so dismissive.)

The parameters of the "scientific" polls simply don't take Trump's appeal into account. And that appeal most definitely is not Donald Trump. He merely embodies it.

There is a huge group of people out there that the elites have categorized in their minds as stupid, not important to human affairs, cattle, and so on. A storyline of white privilege, bigotry, Christian backwater hillbilly Bible-thumping, bullying, and just plain dumb as a rock intellect is usually included on some level. Do the elites really think this? I presume so from all the stuff they've written that I've read. They are rarely explicit like I just was, but they speak as if they were speaking to or about such a stereotype when talking about who, now, is the growing body of Trump supporters.

The problem is this story is wrong. And people are tired of being misidentified. For example, one of the essential traits left out of both storyline and polls about Trump supporters is a strong independent work-ethic.

(I don't even know how you would poll that. Are you a lazy-ass bum or do you work hard? )

So the elites poll and they poll and they poll and the polls keep coming up wrong according to their stereotype storyline. Then they vary the storyline and try to see what element of manipulation they missed and poll that. Frank Luntz, a while back, even spent a full three hours with a group of Trump supporters and he threw everything in the book at them in terms of manipulative messages he could think of to get them to change their views. The result? The more negative against Trump the messages, the more they supported Trump.

Luntz's conclusion was along the lines of fury at the establishment, personality cult and so on, but he missed the point. Every negative thing he threw against Trump, he as was throwing against the archetype of productive hardworking people of good intentions who just want to be left alone, who love their families, want to be good neighbors, and, ironically, who don't want to be involved with political power.

That's the main character of the story that the elite should look at if they want to understand what's happening with Trump's support and why they look like fools every time their predictions explode in their faces like a trick cigar. But that archetype is nowhere to be found in their narratives. And after cleaning the tobacco off their faces, they look for some other manipulation characteristic to analyze.

And people like me look on in wonder and say, dayaamm!

Let me give you my take on the Fox audience for the GOP debate. It should have been over 20 million, but was about 13 million or so without Trump. Still, 13 million is a lot of people. And Trump's audience for his parallel event didn't draw nearly that much audience. I read somewhere it was a couple of million or so. Except it wasn't broadcast, either. Just sections were broadcast with running commentary on top. But still, there was no build-up. It was slapped together one day to the next.

The result? That "proves" to people who ignore the storyline of what I am talking about that Trump isn't really an audience draw, that the voting public really does want politics as usual, that the other candidates embody true conservative values, yada yada yada. Except they don't realize that lots of people (not all, but more than you would imagine) who tuned into the debate were looking to see how the candidates would react to Trump not being there. Or even if he would show up. And many took the time to analyze the politicians who were speaking through the lens of the storyline of who they are, the hardworking ones I am talking about, seeing how they had some extra time since Trump wasn't there. And from that lens, many of them were disappointed, so they turned back to Trump.

That's not in the polls, nor will it be, but I guarantee you it's in the minds and hearts of millions of people.

And you know what?

We will find out with the real poll, the voting on Monday and beyond.

I fully expect the people who think the Drudge online "unscientific" poll results are some kind of fluke or manipulation to scratch their heads and say, "What did I miss?"

Or I could be full of shit, too.

(I'm not, but I just threw that in to give you hope.)

We'll see.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Apropos, read this from today by Rush Limbaugh.

We're Tired of Gotcha Debates

I've written too much, so I'll just let the person read it who wants to. But think about the stereotype storyline as opposed to the Trump supporter profile I mentioned in the last post.

Rush gets it. And some of his callers do, too.

btw - I love the leading graphic from that transcript:

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

Apropos, read this from today by Rush Limbaugh.

We're Tired of Gotcha Debates

I've written too much, so I'll just let the person read it who wants to. But think about the stereotype storyline as opposed to the Trump supporter profile I mentioned in the last post.

Rush gets it. And some of his callers do, too.

btw - I love the leading graphic from that transcript:

Michael

Michael, thanks for your thoughtful, patient comments. You're certainly right about the cognition-->evaluation thing.

I did look up (again) Trump's tax policy ideas. I suppose the idea of getting the overseas money back to the US "for everybody" could be.interpreted as making it available for investment and job-creation here. Not literally everybody, but helping to raise the tide and lift all ships, certainly.

My own interpretation (previously) was that Trump wants a revenue-neutral set of ideas, so loss of revenues from tax cuts for folks here will be offset by increased revenues from the "repatriation fee" (10% tax) on businesses bringing their moolah back home. It certainly doesn't *have* to result in greater government spending - though I suspect it will, if it has the stimulating effect on the economy Trump apparently thiinks it will - but it definitely *will* result in redistribution of the tax burden from individual taxpayers to corporations, even with the corporate rate cut for domestically based firms.

Heck, if bringing their bucks back home would have as much stimulus effect as Trump thinks/hopes it will, then why tax the repatriated money at all? (Do we tax other countries who want to invest in America and build firms and create jobs here? God, I hope not!) Think what 100% of that repatriated money could do for the economy, rather than just 90% of it! The 10% that goes to the Federal treasury will just be spent on MOTS, even if the whole package is just revenue-neutral. Why feed the monster?

* * * *

Now, about the debate questioners: I for one enjoy their "gotcha" questions. I never felt like they were being unfair to Trump that way, and I didn't feel that they were unfair to Cruz or Rubio that way either. I really appreciate it when they hold one or more frontrunners' feet to the fire about things they said and claimed they didn't say. The magic of video replay! In particular, I enjoyed seeing Cruz and Rubio squirming about their immigration views, which they claimed not to have changed.

As Christie said, there's no crime in changing your views, as long as you're just adjusting for either changing circumstances (now the immigration/refugee issue includes the serious problem of how to keep ISIS and Al Qaeda infiltrators out) or changing information and understanding. I wouldn't be surprised to see Christie as somebody's VP running mate. He has the magical ability to be a very energetic, stern, and sensible attack dog, without seeming hostile. Considering how much I dislike his views and his cuddling with Obama, I'm surprised to find myself feeling this favorably disposed toward him.

What I did *not* like was the moderators (and Chris Wallace is the worst at this) setting the candidates against each other. Cruz was whiny and obnoxious about it, but entirely correct when he point out that there was a string or barrage of moderator prompted attacks on Cruz from the other candidates. WTF was that all about? The debate was most interesting and helpful when the candidates answered questions about their own views or attacked Hillary and Bernie - and it also seemed...more benevolent. Perhaps it was due to Rand Paul being there.

REB

[william.scherk]

Get up to speed with William and Michael's online encounter today first ...

http://wsscherk.hostingmyself.com/sndz/GREAT-HITS.mp3

Then take in some very cool technical talk. Michael and I have been using technology in parallel. My Sexy Robot Poetry videos featuring Sarah Palin were a tool in linguistic analysis, but I also used text-to-speech back in the days when Michael and I battled royally over this or that claim of Glenn Beck. Since then I have continued to also use it as a language-learning tool. I routinely use Google Translate to render speech into Spanish and mostly French, and further render the translations through text-to-speech software. Then I can listen to the language while reading it, and understand the meaning from before the translation.. It is such a tool for self-study.

Like Michael I use it as an editing tool on my own posts. Half of the time I quickly render a comment pending via text-to-speech. It tells you when your prosody is just what you intended, where punctuation and pause are lacking. It is another way to build a persuasive piece of prose, a final ear:

Eg,: http://wsscherk.hostingmyself.com/sndz/rollover.mp3

I have found a way to plow through shit by using audio along with reading the words, but no speed-reading is involve. This is the only way I have found to keep my concentration going along with comprehension.

Good point to bring up. It sharpens concentration to give over to the aural channel. The only thing challenging is keeping yourself from drifting too much into your own thoughts and reactions. You have to let the words into your mind with a certain neutrality of emotion in order to extract the maximum meaning. As per the PofC.

Use up two senses, not just one. So there is a natural time limit imposed by how fast the books and articles can be read out loud. This takes time, even when I listen at 1.5 to 2 times the speed (as is my habit).

Here's a fun mental image for you, Michael --William listening to 3X videos of such as Molyneux, with auto-translated subtitles blazing. It is the only way I can get through some things -- eg, a Trump stump speech.

I use a program called TextAloud when no recording is available but online text is. btw - There's a great free program that does the same thing called Balabolka. I used to use that all the time, then I bought TextAloud, thinking it would do more since they charged for it. It doesn't, but I'll be damned if I'll not use it and use the free one instead after buying it.

I use the free online wizardly-good http://www.spokentext.net/

Before I publish this commentary, Spokentext.net will have taken my draft and rendered it at 3X speed into an MP3, which I do not need to upload to my server, which results in a link/file/download opportunity like this -- a mere internet address URL> such is the magic of HTML5. It is also what makes it possible for me to insert videos directly from my server. Hats off again to Clem and his cousin Cletus for helping me put the parts together.

Michael, this is fame: when I go into Vancouver on the train, I can listen to a round-up of OL page 199 Trump as a download to my smart phone. I can take you anywhere, and even play you on a rumbly Bluetooth speaker in public. Today we call it OL for the Blind, tomorrow ...

http://www.spokentext.net/members/wsscherk/Post_Number_Seven_Kajillion_--_Donald_Trump_Stump.mp3

In fact, I just went through the entire Bible (King James version) and Book of Enoch (ancient English) using recordings available online and online texts (and online dictionaries--Good God are some of those words hairy! ). I didn't even need to use TextAloud.

I admire such stamina. My first preference is to read, since I am a terrific, retentive and curious reader. I need at least one recursion to fix something in my mind, and an aural recursion is a very sharp tool.

For those who want something to listen to that offers a sweeter and less fussy interface than Spokentext, I use the freeware NaturalReader. This is a local - host programme on your machine, that keeps and stores spoken text files and is topped by a schweet GUI. You can download voices to read to you in foreign or second tongues, eg, Portuguese.

The easiest of all is simply Google Translate. That is how I got Sarah text spoken in Latin.

Get out there, kids, and play. It is all in aid of understanding and comprehension. It is a deepening of your mind.

Why? I always wanted to see what was in these books. I will be writing some serious stuff before too long and I want to see the metaphors and stories. Man, am I glad I'm doing this, too. It's one thing to opine about religion based on the opinions of others, like Rand. It's another to realize what is correct and what is wrong because you read it. [...] Life is short and WSS is long.

Remember the rabbit, Michael. Then the crowing. Then the crow.

As an afterthought, imagine what it would be like if you had to listen to WSS to extract meaning, if he was available in audio only, as in the glory days of ARI? Boooooring X6?

One minute response: http://wsscherk.hostingmyself.com/sndz/HiThereMSK.mp3

Edited January 30, 2016 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

I don't need to listen at 2X speed. I simply don't listen. I avoid 99.95% of the offered-proffered podcasts.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

Just to let you know, in your last post, three of your audio embeds don't work, at least not on my computer. Since one does, I imagine the problem is not on this end.

1, 2 and 4 don't work. 3 does.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

William,

Just to let you know, in your last post, three of your audio embeds don't work, at least not on my computer. Since one does, I imagine the problem is not on this end.

1, 2 and 4 don't work. 3 does.

Michael

Same for me. I can read faster line for line still, but have no paragraph scanning ability not to bother with huge blocks of worthless text.

--Brant

so no yammer for me

[Peter]

Thump. Thump. Thump. 12.5 to 13.5 million people watched the debate. Some buckeyes are angry that Trump did not attend. 2.5 million people watched Trump for the 15 minutes he was on CNN and then the viewership declined as the show went on. Who won the ratings war? Trump is a loser.

Polls bolster the heart or cause angina. Sunday still to go. Then Monday. Thump. But the heart knows what the heart knows. Thump. Thump. Can Trump supporters handle the truth? Does Trump need to win Iowa? Of course not but a loss might lower his vote in New Hampshire, which will affect South Carolina's turnout and distribution of votes. The primaries won't be winner take all until March 1st.

I think Trump should have debated. Fox was fair if belligerent to Donald (The Duck) Trump. Drip, Drip, drip. Now if it was an MSNBC debate I would not attend if I were a Republican. But Fox. Fair and balanced and right wing?

Peter