Donald Trump

[Marc]

18 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

I fell asleep and woke up on November 9th.  Congratulations, President Trump!

 

lolllllllllllllzzzz

[Brant Gaede]

I speculate Ayn Rand was closest to "Leo" (We the Living) whom she left in Russia (to an unknown, to her, fate) and Gail in The Fountainhead. These were not typical Ayn Rand hero names, "Gail" is sexually ambiguous and "Leo" is soft, but I read she cried when she had to kill off Gail as a character. She was so smitten with Leo she would have stayed in Russia if he had proposed marriage--and died there. It makes one wonder if she could have loved John Galt--a "god" to her, or just been smitten with admiration. She did use Gail Wynand, I think, as a proxy lover to Howard Roark for her. As soon as Gail met Howard he fell into the Rand female to Howard male role. It wasn't Gail on the yacht knowing he couldn't power away leaving Howard to drown. Nope. It was Rand herself. She loved Gail because Gail loved Howard and she wanted that too for herself. Auto envy.

--Brant

yep--it's speculative bs, but why not?

[turkeyfoot]

2 hours ago, Marc said:

One last thing before I sit down and eat crow from here until Nov when Trump is POTUS . 

As wrong as I have been with basically all of my mantras and bravado , I have never in my life seen anything like MSK here standing firm on his beliefs , and predictions . I know of no one anywhere who has ever been so right on any topic . 

Pure brilliance . 

Adam and others started to see the light too when I remained stubborn but congrats to everyone here who called this right .

This has been an election year and primary season for the ages !!!

President Trump , 

I said it ! 

Congrats !

He earned it 

Youve been hypnotized and linguistically lanced. ) It aint over until the full figured woman trills.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 hours ago, Roger Bissell said:

On Cruz's premise (which you certainly must disagree with), low-information voters *should* sit down and shut up - and especially not vote.

Roger,

You are my friend. I hope you will still be after what I say (I mean it).

No matter how you slice and dice that statement of yours, you just expressed an elitist wish for statism and not just any statism. You just said you want the government run only by people you approve of and you want to deny the voice of all those you look down on. You don't even want them to vote. Yet you want you--or who you appoint--to govern them against their will.

All I can say is no.

You can't have your wish.

I, for one, will not let you simply by supporting Trump.

And further, I will always work to stop any efforts, yours included, to set up a system like that.

I don't care if you would want me to be part of your elite. I am not and I will never be. I don't want it.

This country doesn't work that way, I don't work that way, I don't even believe Objectivism works that way. I certainly never read any political philosophy from Ayn Rand where she demanded certain classes of citizens to sit down, shut up and be denied their vote, or maybe voluntarily withdraw from exercising their individual rights until someone says they are smart enough to.

On the contrary. I can't imagine how your wish looks in reality except by ruling the so-called stupid people by force. And thought control force at that. I've actually seen what that looks like in reality (in Brazil during the military dictatorship). No sir. I don't want that here in America. Even with all the irritating bickering that I can't stand and idiots running the country, it is glorious in light of the alternative. Even Obama was better than that and I can't stand Obama.

Rand, going by her actions, saw an opportunity to persuade those "stupid" people you look down on, justified their lack of book-learning by coming up with a theory about sense-of-life (and praising it to the skies at that), and wrote magnificent books for them--starting with fiction. That was a lady who was hell bent on persuasion and education. I don't recall her telling large swaths of people to sit down and shut up, not even when she went scorched earth in Q&A sessions. (She did get close by calling certain questions stupid and so forth, but her default mode was always respectful to peaceful groups unless people in them attacked her.)

When she wrote her nonfiction, she came up with a "middle level" style (I believe that was the term she used in The Art of Nonfiction) so that she could talk "low information" people. 

I don't know if you have noticed, but Trump's public is Rand's public. There are productive people of all stripes who support Trump who also like Rand's ideas a lot, including many highly successful entrepreneurs I can name. (These last tend not to post on forums and try to tell others what they can and can't do, and grandstand about changing the world for the better--they are too busy actually changing the world for the better.)

If you look at Rand's fiction alone, working class Americans and entrepreneurs are the ones still buying her books, not those who say to others, "Sit down and shut up! You should not vote!" 

(Well, there are some elitists who fit that bill among the fundies who distribute her books in schools for free, but they get the books and earn their own money from charity. So, to me, they don't count for much. I certainly would not call them "high information" irrespective of what they think of themselves.)

There's a lesson in perception here for anyone who wants to look at it. And some deep premises to check for those who actually do premise checking.

 

5 hours ago, Roger Bissell said:

We're just exercising *our* rights to free speech by trying to persuade the low-information voters to learn more so that their votes are *informed* rather than just *anger-driven.*

OK.

I agree with trying to persuade.

Go for it.

But you believe persuasion starts with telling someone they are too stupid to talk, to have an opinion, to vote? So they should sit down and shut up?

That's your persuasion strategy?

Really?

You think that will work? During an election at that?

Excuse me if I say you are a low information persuader--and low information educator, for that matter. I mean that literally. You don't know what the hell you are doing if that is your method of persuasion.

I can offer you a long list of books on the topic, books any layman can understand, that include oodles of strategies and techniques that have been implemented and split tested for over a century and a half (hell, even going back further), then more recently tested in labs by scientists with control groups, all with repeatable results. And now these techniques are being borne out by fMRI scans, electrodes put in brains and all kinds of experiments. (I can go on and on about this stuff...)

Not one of them I have seen includes calling the target to be persuaded stupid.

Not one.

Your strategy persuades only one person when you do it: you. And I'm not sure what you are persuading yourself of, but going by what you write, you are not persuading yourself to "learn more so that your persuasion efforts are 'informed' rather than just 'anger-driven.'"

There's a word for someone who doesn't learn: low information.

However...

And this is a big honking however...

You will never hear me tell you to sit down and shut up.

I don't want to sound snarky because you are my friend (at least up to this post  ). Call this the dose of reality a friend says to another when reality is being ignored. If I didn't like you as much as I do, I certainly would not have written it. Why? Because I detect you have no interest in looking, are contentious and testy about it, and I don't like wasting my time.

But a friend says look anyway when it's important.

Regardless, it's OK by me if you still disagree. From my end, we have a bond that is not affected by this.

You say your mind. I say my mind.

Nobody sits down and shuts up...

Michael

 

EDIT - Let me start with a recommendation. The following is not the best book on persuasion out there, but it's a damn good one: The Art of the Deal by Donald J. Trump and Tony Schwartz.  

The techniques seem to be working, too.  

[Roger Bissell]

First of all, Michael, I am not telling informed but (perhaps) mistaken people such as yourself to be quiet. We *need* educated voices to speak up and to make the best arguments that can be made for positions on policy and principle, and let the truth will out.

Secondly, what is wrong with telling people who are cluelessly or brazenly ignorant to stay away from the voting booth until they've learned enough about the issues and candidates to cast an informed vote? To me, LIV's are dangerous in principle. They are ultimately as deadly as someone who wants to perform surgery without medical training or someone who wants to drive an automobile without driving lessons. I would never indiscriminately encourage LIV's to vote. 

If we say "use alcohol responsibly," aren't we implying "don't use alcohol irresponsibly"? Of course. So, what is wrong with saying "don't use alcohol irresponsibly?" Similarly, for "vote responsibly" or "be an informed voter." Right???

I think that there is something fundamentally immoral about the mainstream party practice of encouraging barely literate people to go into the voting booth and select a candidate solely by the letter D or R that precedes their name - and that it is hardly less moral when such voters are encouraged to vote for someone because they are angry at someone or greedy for the unearned. That is like saying "responsibly or irresponsibly, please drink."

Further, I think it is fundamentally immoral not to discourage such people from casting uninformed votes. No, I'm not clueless. I would not bluntly say, "You're stupid (or angry), stay home." I would say something like, "It is irresponsible to vote without learning about the candidates or to vote when you're too angry to properly think about the facts and issues. Please take the time to learn more and to calm down before you vote. No ballot-box rage, please!"

Beyond this, knowing you and the others here on OL to the extent I do, I would think that all of us (not just I) need to encourage the low-information voters to learn about economics and individual rights and learn to think about what these politicians are saying, and only then go out and vote. That is where the persuasion part of the communication comes in. 

And the task is daunting - for every year, the number keeps growing of people who have a vested interest in voting, not for people who will defend the rights of all individuals, but who instead will rob some to give to others. To this, we must now add the growing number of people who are seduced in voting, not for people who will govern according to the rule of law, but who instead will seize whatever illegitimate power they can to push their agendas. 

We saw this trend kick in big-time in 2008 (Obama has been a champ), and it has gotten worse during the past seven years. I don't know if we're at a crisis point yet, but it seems like we are. How to turn this around, when the process is being driven by welfare-statist and pragmatic-populist hordes of LIV's? I don't know if enough people can (or will) be educated to make a difference in our trajectory - viz., circling the drain of history.

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Roger Bissell said:

... what is wrong with telling people who are cluelessly or brazenly ignorant to stay away from the voting booth until they've learned enough about the issues and candidates to cast an informed vote?

Roger,

There is nothing wrong with telling anyone this. Everybody has free speech.

You said you were trying to persuade people. You did say you were "trying to persuade the low-information voters to learn more..."

Frankly (and this is a technical judgment, not a personal one), your approach is piss-poor persuasion. It's about as bad as it gets.

If you're venting, fine. Venting and letting off anger is also free speech. But venting does not persuade any of those you look down your nose at, especially when you tell them they are not fit to vote.

Here, let me help you with a really, really basic formula: AIDA. This stands for Attention, Interest, Desire, Action.

Attention: This means you have to start with something instantly interesting. You need to get people to look at what you are saying. If you can't get them to start, it doesn't matter how well-crafted the rest of the message is. They're not looking. There are many ways to do this going from the startle reflex to incongruous juxtaposition to funny/quirky to something primal like sex or fear or anger. (I could go on a lot.)

Interest: This is basically two parts. The first is bonding. If people don't bond with you enough to listen to what you have to say, they won't ponder it. The best way to bond is be non-threatening and be just like the target on some level. The second part is storytelling to get people to lower their defenses and defensive critical thinking. (I say storytelling because it is the easiest way, but there are other forms of doing this.)

Desire: This is where you ramp up their desire for your message and deliver it. There are lots of techniques to put in here, but the granddaddy is through WIIFM (What's In It For Me). You have to frame everything important in terms your listener can and wants to use. If the listener has no use for it, why on earth would he or she adopt it?

Action: You tell the listener what you want him to do with your message. 

That's basic, but it works. Has worked. Will work. As long as there are humans. (I can even give you some neuroscience on this.) Obviously, the more you know about your targets, the easier you will be able to tailor this formula to persuade them. 

Now try to fit the message, "You're too stupid to vote," in there. You can call your target stupid to get his attention (insulting someone always gets their attention), but how on earth will you bond with him since he will be pissed off and defensive? You've shut down communication with hostility.

You can throw stones at the target's enemy and that will get his attention in a good way for persuasion. Or you can throw stones at him and get him riled at you. But if you do that, you won't persuade a man dying of thirst in the desert to drink a glass of water.*

That's why I say your approach is piss-poor persuasion. And that's not even scratching the surface.

Now get this. Once you start learning this stuff for real, that should make you a conceited asshole because you can manipulate targets. But, even though it seems counterintuitive, you start gaining a lot of respect for targets you used to think were ignorant. You see yourself reflected in them because we're all the same in these vulnerabilities. At least, that's the way it has worked with me and tons of others. And that's a beautiful thing once you see it.

(Or you can break bad.  )

Michael

 

* To tie this to Trump, when he insults the enemies of his supporters, they love it. He throws rocks at their enemies. Notice he doesn't insult them. Instead, he tells them he loves them. His opponents have not learned this. And Cruz just today flamed out on it big time. He threw rocks at the people he wants to support him. Let's see how this impacts his numbers. 

[Brant Gaede]

A republic, as opposed to a democracy, is an elitist construction; that's this country right out of the box. Then the good elite was replaced by a worsening elite and the country devolved into a democracy, but still run by an elite. The "elite" can be described as those who rule and those who make that particular rule possible. Consider the Roosevelts, Kennedys and Bushes, just for starters. Have I mentioned the media elite? William Randolph Hearst. Sorenson and Kissinger. The list is endless. Everybody has their game to play, especially the most interesting, as a candidate, the Donald, Trump. Everybody is trying to manipulate "low-information voters" including the lowest possible ones who live on in Illinois graveyards.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

When I say elitist in this context, I am referring to a morph of the concept of social metaphysician. In my meaning, elitists are people who only have a self if they have a large group of others they can feel superior to. Take away the "low information" group and they are lost souls floating rudderless on the wide, wide sea of existence.

Washington people, the press and intellectuals are full of elitists like that. Oddly enough, "low information" people have their own version of elitists. Also, not all intellectuals, press or Washington people are elitists.

Establishment Republicans are elitists in this sense. Donald Trump is not.

Most Americans are not, either. That's why they resonate with The Donald in such large numbers.

Michael

[anthony]

A searching debate, Roger and MSK. After a measure of populist-idealism, the antidote of populist-pragmatism was a likely consequence, I think. Not great, but perhaps inevitable as a start to a transition. My guess from the beginning was that Trump would always be in with a strong chance. Also I'm not one of those who's too worried about a Trump Presidency. Trump the brash and crass Showman this far, is going to go through a remarkable metamorphosis closer to the time (I have the feeling) and if he has the will (he is showing) to appeal to and resuscitate the famed American self-confident, can-do, lets-make-a-deal, good-willed -- but-don't-push-me-round -- spirit, that would be a massive plus, for now. For us elsewhere included. Of course one must always oppose 'issues' over rational principles, particularly when emanating from politicians in election years. But that's how the deck is stacked in a democracy, even the inimitable US one. To make your influence felt, you have to get in first. Maybe (just maybe) it will be by way of initially recovering the American "sense of life" that Rand identified, which will lead you in the right direction. Anyhow, imo, to reach back the intellectual and moral strengths which have underscored the nation (as Roger points to) will happen, but give it time.  

[Roger Bissell]

54 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

When I say elitist in this context, I am referring to a morph of the concept of social metaphysician. In my meaning, elitists are people who only have a self if they have a large group of others they can feel superior to. Take away the "low information" group and they are lost souls floating rudderless on the wide, wide sea of existence.

 

I have often said I would rather be the worst player in a trombone section than the best. It is more inspiring and motivating. Similarly, I would rather be the most ignorant person in society, not the least. Finding myself "low information" would spur me on to become less so. I don't look down on those who know less. I look down and especially askance at those who are low information and don't aspire to do anything about it, indeed, who revel in it as a badge of nobility.

Those who couch themselves in faux moral superiority of defending the willfully ignorant yahoos, however, now, there is an elite. What to do about that problem? I.e., how to enact/activate our common ideal of lifting up and informing/persuading those folks to enhance their civic awareness and knowledge...? I don't think it's right to either write them off or give them a pass. Any ideas?

REB

[turkeyfoot]

Did anyone notice low energy Trump last night? The 69 yr old should hand over the reins to the younger principled candidate.

Only Buchanan and Eisenhower were older and they were retired at the age Trump says he wants to go into office.

The guy has put up a valiant effort. 

 

 

[Jon Letendre]

Did anyone else notice the defeated and dejected pussies' informal surrender?

[Jon Letendre]

Formal surrenders and more endorsements coming Wednesday.

[Peter]

Turkeyfoot wrote: Did anyone notice low energy Trump last night? The 69 yr old should hand over the reins to the younger principled candidate. end quote

Yea, verily. Friends, Romans and Countrymen, it ain’t over till it’s over. And as long as it isn’t locked up I will support Ted Cruz. By far, even with his religion on his sleeve, he is the more Randian candidate. But if Trump wins Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, and North Carolina on March 15th he may statistically lock it up, unless he pulls out his really, really big . . . uh . . . hands on stage or something equally as stupid which is possible but not yet probable for the old fart.  

Trump gives the same speech over and over. He continually uses the same words and allusions. He never says anything substantial. He never gives details. He is boring after five minutes.  Who can be excited about his speeches after hearing the same dumbed down rhetoric for the umpteenth time? He is on a tenth grade level. I don’t want four years of that. On the plus side, he delegates authority and hires a lot of people.

What would a Trump presidency be like? Can we expect a spokesperson like Jay Carney, or Josh Ernest? Maybe . . . but my choice would be Dana Perino. She was George Dubya’s press secretary from September 14, 2007 to January 20, 2009 and now appears on Fox’s The Five. I wonder if the reporter’s angry Trump questions would move her to tears? Any predictions about his first 60 days?  

Peter

Rand quotes: Q: What should be done about the killing of innocent people in war?

AR: This is a major reason people should be concerned about the nature of their government. Certainly, the majority in any country at war is innocent. But if by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overthrow their bad government and establish a better one, then they must pay the price for the sins of their governments we are all paying for the sins of ours. If some people put up with dictatorships some of them do in Soviet Russia, and some of them did in Nazi Germany then they deserve what their government deserves. There are no innocent people in war. Our only concern should be: who started that war? If you can establish that a given country did it, then there is no need to consider the rights of that country, because it has initiated the use of force, and therefore stepped outside the principle of right. I've covered this in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, where I explain why nations as such do not have any rights, only individuals do.

Q: Assume a war of aggression was started by the Soviet Union; assume also that within the Soviet Union, there were individuals opposed to the Soviet system. How would you handle that?

AR: I'll pretend I'm taking the question seriously, because this question is blatantly wrong. I cannot understand how anyone could entertain the question. My guess is that the problem is context-dropping. The question assumes that an individual inside a country can and should be made secure from the social system under which he lives and which he accepts, willingly or unwillingly (even if he is fighting it he still accepts it because he hasn't left the country), and that others should respect his rights and collapse to aggression themselves. This is the position of the goddamned pacifists, who wouldn't fight, even when attacked, because they might kill innocent people. If this were so, nobody would have to be concerned about his country's political system. But we should care about having the right social system, because our lives are dependent on it because a political system, good or bad, is established in our name, and we bear the responsibility for it. So if we fight a war, I hope the "innocent" are destroyed along with the guilty. There aren't many innocent ones; those that exist are not in the big cities, but mainly in concentration camps. But nobody should put up with aggression, and surrender his right of self- defense, for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have an ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him with force, never mind who he is or who stands behind him. If he's out to destroy you, you owe it to your own life to defend yourself. end quotes

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

33 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

I look down and especially askance at those who are low information and don't aspire to do anything about it, indeed, who revel in it as a badge of nobility.

Roger,

I don't know many people like that. Most of the people I see are trying to do the best that can in life with that they've got and what they believe they can get (including you and me).

Ironically, the majority of people I have seen who revel in their ignorance as a badge of nobility belong to the elites. They actually crow about it. (For example, ask an elitist what is it that motivates Sarah Palin and you will see him say he doesn't know and would puke if he did.)

Let me ask you a question, and I mean this sincerely.

You have expressed a clear desire to persuade people you deem low information, and I have shown you how you are not only not doing that, but instead are doing the contrary, because you use the wrong tools. (And wrong approach, wrong sequence, all of it.)

Since you are demonstrably low information in persuasion, the worst player in a trombone section so to speak, do you feel inspired and motivated to learn how to do this correctly? (I'm willing to share and this stuff is not hard to learn.)

Or do you feel you inherently don't need to bother yourself with it because the low information yahoos you want to persuade should already recognize their inferiority?

Answer those questions in the deepest part of your soul and you will get a good look at what you really want.

Michael

[Peter]

Michael advised: Answer those questions in the deepest part of your soul and you will get a good look at what you really want. end quote

Your soul? Is that a religious allusion? Are The Donald’s supporters superficial, expedient, or devout? Years ago I was reading the March 2005 “Reason Magazine” article by Cathy Young on “Ayn Rand at 100.” It is an interesting criticism of ‘The Objectivist Movement’ and of Rand’s novels and of Ayn Rand as a person. When describing the “Objectivist Movement” during and after Ayn Rand’s lifetime, Young calls Ayn Rand “a devout atheist.” In Rand’s case this is obviously a flawed, oxymoronic description because the word, ‘devout’ implies faith, not reason. Ms Young writes, “In 1962, when they were still among the faithful, the Branden’s co-wrote a book called “Who Is Ayn Rand?” Again, the use of the word ‘faithful’ implies religiosity. Cathy Young describes Rand’s novels, “We The Living,” and “The Fountainhead,” in this way: “But in these novels Rand’s philosophy has not yet petrified into dogma.” Once again, the word, ‘dogma’ is usually associated with religiosity and more specifically to the Catholic faith.

She describes Ayn Rand as having, “plenty of worshippers,” and Ms Young also states, “No other modern author has had such extravagant claims of greatness made on her behalf: followers of her philosophy, Objectivism, regard her as the greatest thinker to have graced this earth since Aristotle and the greatest writer of all time . . . . Rand’s philosophy admitted no contradictions or paradoxes in reality; but reality is full of apparently irreconcilable truths.”

All I ask is that we look at Trump using Objectivist epistemology. Use: Reason, and Logic to Persuade. As much as I quote the William F. Buckley axiom to support the most conservative but ELECTABLE candidate I wince when I think about Trump. He isn’t the greatest anything. He is full of apparently, irreconcilable contradictions

Peter

[Peter]

After receiving a phone call, just now, I donated 100 bucks to Cruz. The caller was young and female and persuasive which did not have anything to do with my support of Cruz, but she was fun to listen to. Except . . . Cruz is young and could start a Constitutionalist dynasty. Trump and Hillary are both nearing 70. That is important.

Peter    

[Peter]

Just one more point and I will be quiet. Ben supported Trump. Juan Williams on Fox said that will have a big affect on black voters. Ben said that in person, with no mikes around, Donald is very cerebral. Who would'a thunk?

[anthony]

Peter: "Your soul" = your consciousness. And I request you don't "be quiet".

[Jon Letendre]

On 3/8/2016 at 6:13 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The "Jon is magnificent" statement wins!

Michael

Actually, you are free to take credit for persuading me, early. I've read only a small fraction, but have followed this thread since July. I had many of the same doubts about Trump as others have. I would come back, read a page or two, and quickly become embarrassed at the doubt, the flimsy, silly, stupid, specific doubt I had entertained. By fall I was totally persuaded you had most of it more or less exactly right.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jon is more magnificent than I thought!

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

24 minutes ago, Peter said:

Ben said that in person, with no mikes around, Donald is very cerebral. Who would'a thunk?

Peter,

Me.

I've read his books and looked at what he does. 

 

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

24 minutes ago, Peter said:

After receiving a phone call, just now, I donated 100 bucks to Cruz. The caller was young and female and persuasive which did not have anything to do with my support of Cruz, but she was fun to listen to. Except . . . Cruz is young and could start a Constitutionalist dynasty. Trump and Hillary are both nearing 70. That is important.

Peter    

Funny you say that. For over a year I have feared a terrible terrorist attack in October 2016 that would require a temporary postponement of the election. Obama: "...until such time as we can figure out what the hell is going on!"

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

43 minutes ago, Peter said:

Your soul? Is that a religious allusion?

Peter,

I was using it with the same meaning Ayn Rand did when she used it. For example, from the ads for Atlas Shrugged: "... about the murder — and rebirth — of man's spirit..."

All right, all right, she used "spirit" there instead of "soul." But it's the same thing. The "I."

Rand used the word "soul" in other places like: "Do not let the hero in your soul perish in lonely frustration for the life you deserved and have never been able to reach."

I can find many other examples if you like.

I don't think she was talking about ghosts.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

41 minutes ago, Peter said:

After receiving a phone call, just now, I donated 100 bucks to Cruz.

Peter,

I should know better but I can't resist.

From Drudge just now:

 

That is just too coincidental with this discussion.

Is that a religious allusion?

Michael