Donald Trump

[Brant Gaede]

Bob,

Anyone who has never been President is "untested" as President.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Check this one out, folks.

Donald Trump loves Ayn Rand.

You weren't prepared for that one, were you?

Donald Trump's 'kinder, gentler' version
by Kirsten Powers
April 11, 2016
USA Today

Apparently other people in O-Land were not prepared for this either.

I have to quote Biddibob's latest pronouncement:

Bidinotto said:

I now expect Trumpian morons to come here to declare that their hero truly represents Randian, even Roarkian, psychology and values. Don't bother. "The Fountainhead" is my favorite novel. I don't normally place any restrictions on posts here, except for foul language and personal insults. But I'll delete any post of that sort, as being a personal insult to me, and certainly to the standards that I hold dear.

Well, that certainly sounds reasonable.

 

If you hold an opinion, this guy considers it a personal insult. Note how he reveals himself. I already knew he thought Trump supporters were morons, even though he kept denying it.

No, I didn't post on his thread.  When people evade facts and only think with their emotions about a topic, not with their reason, I give them a wide berth, at least until they simmer down. 

But look at that comment and soak it in, folks. That is what I mean by a Trump hater. It goes beyond reason, beyond any principle, beyond any friendship. This is the spiritual stuff wars are made of. I'm serious. (I mean real war, shooting and bombing and killing people kind of war.) With haters, they always say they don't hate (they say they love), but all you have to do is wait and they always end up exposing themselves. They can't not do it.

I could go into reasons for such intense Trump hatred from authoritarian-leaning Rand folks, but let's leave that to another discussion. I just want to say for now, if people think I am unreasonable in not taking anti-Trump arguments seriously, the hatred below the surface that the hater always denies is the reason. There's too much of it, it's not reasonable, and there are simply too many good people in the world for that much hatred. Also, there is no way to grow from hatred.

I don't live that way and I don't surrender up my values that way to anyone.

Here's a thought. Wait until Trump is president and things are working better than they ever did before.

With each new Trump triumph, poor Biddibob is going to seethe in mushrooming loathing...

I'll be amused to see this (I admit it), but I hope he'll still be able to write. I kinda like his stuff...

 

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

On 4/11/2016 at 3:17 AM, Roger Bissell said:

I've finally gotten around to comparing Ted Cruz's website to Donald Trump's, which I looked at several months ago. Cruz has provided a great deal of material on his track record as well as details of policies and actions he will carry out if elected. Here's a link: https://www.tedcruz.org/issues/. I guess there's plenty there that libertarians or Objectivists could hate or be worried about if he were to be elected, as well as a lot of good things. I'd start there, just to see how reasonable or scary he sounds in detail.

It might be fun to do a "report card" on his record of achievements and on his proposals, just to see how the things he's proud of doing or planning to do match up with your or my own standards. I tossed out a careless figure of 50%, which probably implied that I think Cruz meets that threshold of acceptability. I'm not really sure whether he does, and one thing I'll be doing shortly is to go through all that material and making some kind of overall rating, as well as identify any serious problem areas in which he might be likely to do more harm than good.

 

Here's a followup: Becky and I read through Donald Trump's "platform" yesterday and Ted Cruz's "platform" today and then rated them according to a 3 point system and positive and/or negative applied to each of Trump's 7 and Cruz's 9 categories of policy. We pretty much agreed that Trump rated approximately a 55-60% and Cruz 85%.

Trump scored well on veterans affairs and tax reform, Cruz scored well on the 2nd amendment, jobs and opportunity, and shrinking federal government (including tax reform). Where Trump really fell down, by our standards, was immigration reform (including The Wall) and China trade policy.

Trump had almost nothing to say about civil liberties or foreign policy/military, so we had to look things up in the Internet (but we didn't factor that into our rating) - we found that in the November CNN debate, Trump favored using troops and bombing, while Cruz only favored bombing which he unwisely characterized as "carpet bombing." For us, "boots on the ground" is a deal-breaker, so it was good that even one of them opposed committing troops to fighting ISIS. Cruz has mixed positions on religious and social conservative issues, but overall he was positive in our opinion.

It was a good exercise. It made us feel not quite so bad about the prospects for someone to vote for this fall. (I'm sure we would have scored both Hillary and Bernie well below 50%.)

REB

[MereMortal]

3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Any  candidate who has never  held a political executive office  is "untested"  as President.

As a President, yes, but in Sowell's defense, he likely means untested in the sense that this is the first and only political office he will hold in his entire life.  At least with other President's there was some governmental experience behind them.  This is the theory that you need work your way up the political ladder.  Start with a secondary office (Governor, Senator, Representative) and then you have a track record and some experience.  It isn't necessarily my theory but it does exist and it has some plausibility.  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

33 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

We pretty much agreed that Trump rated approximately a 55-60% and Cruz 85%.

Roger,

My numbers are different, but I'll take it. 

 

Be careful, you will break William's heart if you go over to the dark Trump side.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

btw - I wonder how Robert Campbell feels about Trump floating Scott Walker's name as his potential VP. (Floating, not stomping.  )

If you haven't seen it, he did (see here).

He also floated the names of Marco Rubio and Kasich (and "others").

Michael

[william.scherk]

For those who don't enjoy reading reams of Cruz, here is the assemblage made by Reb ...

Edited April 13, 2016 by william.scherk
Added soundfile of the Cruz planks .../ broke website / executed Plan B. Good posts by Brant today, yo.

[Robert Campbell]

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

btw - I wonder how Robert Campbell feels about Trump floating Scott Walker's name as his potential VP. (Floating, not stomping.  )

If you haven't seen it, he did (see here).

He also floated the names of Marco Rubio and Kasich (and "others").

Michael

Michael,

I've been lurking, and will return to that status in short order.

But, yes, I've read Kirsten Powers' interview with Donald Trump.

There's no departure from the pattern in it.

Where other Republicans are concerned, Trump feels obliged to stomp, re-stomp, and, at the feeblest sign of continuing resistance, re-re-stomp.

He seems to believe that stomping and re-stomping are among his keys to success:

Quote

 

So, why not just stick to substance and stop with the other stuff?

“Maybe the other stuff is part of it,” Trump said. “If I didn’t do it, then you might not be talking to me about a race where we are leading substantially.”

 

Then he expects the stompees to tender their vows of obedience, and beg him for a position under his command.  

In effect, he wants someone like Scott Walker to apologize for making it necessary for Trump to lie about his record.

Quote

There are people I like, but I don’t think they like me because I have hit them hard.

Why would any of them ever think Trump likes them?

Besides, if one tenth of what Trump has said about any of them is true, no voter should want them on the ticket—and Trump should want them least of all.

Robert

 

[Robert Campbell]

8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I just want to say for now, if people think I am unreasonable in not taking anti-Trump arguments seriously, the hatred below the surface that the hater always denies is the reason.

Michael,

This is why I see no point in contributing further to a discussion here of Donald Trump's candidacy for President of the United States.

For if it weren't the alleged disowned hatred beneath the surface, it would be something else.

It's hard to engage in anything resembling dialogue with a person who informs you in advance that anything you might say on the subject will be dismissed.

Robert

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

Then he expects the stompees to tender their vows of obedience, and beg him for a position under his command.  

In effect, he wants someone like Scott Walker to apologize for making it necessary for Trump to lie about his record.

Robert,

I don't understand this, probably because I don't know of instances where Trump demands people beg.

I get your reservations, but isn't there enough you don't like about Trump without adding fears that have no history?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

39 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

It's hard to engage in anything resembling dialogue with a person who informs you in advance that anything you might say on the subject will be dismissed.

Robert,

That dismissal is contingent on me (as a Trump supporter) being seen as I exist. Do you remember how my comment arose?

I was starting to be told I needed to come back to sanity and things like that. It was in jest, but right at the edge. Right at the point where a barrage of accusations and shaming start going by the normal pattern of these things. And I didn't want the hassle.

The But Eraser was strongly in use, too. (A But Eraser is the word "but." When used as an eraser, it erases 100% of what was said before. For example, "I see you, BUT the fact is... blah blah blah..."  Voila! All seeing got erased with three little letters!  Never underestimate the power of the But Eraser. It allows you to say something and backtrack 100% without looking like you are backtracking.  )

You didn't say that. Another did. I just needed to make it clear that my mind was made up and I had good--no, scratch that--great reasons for supporting Trump. Logical reasons. Reality reasons. And those reasons needed to be acknowledged, not dismissed, before I would establish common ground for even considering arguments hostile to them. And you do tend to be dismissive of those reasons.

Let's put it this way. Is there anything on earth I could say to get you to change your opinion of Trump?

See?

It's not one way.

The difference is, I see you and I don't think you are stupid for holding the reasons you do. I know where you are coming from. I don't sense you believe me yet about the reasoning behind my support of Trump. In other words, it's beyond disagreement. I think you can't fathom how I could "be that stupid" and it's perplexing to you.

Granted, you are a cut way above Biddibob. I don't see you ever prohibiting a differing opinion or evaluation within your vicinity. Still, I admit, I was surprised by the intensity of your anti-Trumpness and the load of exaggerated negative presumptions and predictions that accompany your criticisms of him. 

Before such a posture, if this were you, how many hostile comments from someone who refuses to see you would you take seriously enough to consider changing your mind? My guess is none.

(When I tried to say that before, I kept being told I was playing the Victim Card. Without mustard, too. I only eat baloney with mustard.  )

Michael

[william.scherk]

5 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

It's hard to engage in anything resembling dialogue with a person who informs you in advance that anything you might say on the subject will be dismissed.

Everything went black for a minute there. Did I hear a door slam? Whatever, the porch is easier to sweep when there aren't so many people around.

Edited April 13, 2016 by william.scherk
Added scrolling ...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But hello President Donald J. Trump!

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

I can't resist quoting one of Donald Trump's less publicized appearances in Wisconsin:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/trump-advice-wisconsin-college-students-221383

Quote

And you’ll find that when you become very successful, the people that you will like best are the people that are less successful than you, because when you go to a table you can tell them all of these wonderful stories, and they’ll sit back and listen,” he said. “Does that make sense to you? OK? Always be around unsuccessful people because everybody will respect you. Do you understand that?

Stomp 'em enough, and then they'll sit back and listen to your stories?

Robert

[BaalChatzaf]

5 hours ago, RobinReborn said:

I've read a decent amount critical of Myers Briggs.

 

It's not to say that it's completely useless, but it's not clear to me that it makes useful predictions or is stable across a person's lifetime.

MB typology is like astrology in some respects. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said:

Stomp 'em enough, and then they'll sit back and listen to your stories?

Robert,

LOL...

That's not about stomping. That's about positioning. Marketing 101. It works the other way, too. If you want to highlight a victimization story about hunger for, say, a Social Justice Warrior, don't tell it and show pictures of starving babies out on the street. Do it in a fancy room to a group of wealthy people who look nice and well fed on caviar.

Stomping to me is something like this:

Maybe to go along with this:

Big Sister Is Watching You
by Whittaker Chambers
National Review
December 28, 1957 (reprinted Jan. 5, 2005)

Now that's some Rick-Rolling rumble rousing real righteous stomping.

Funny how NR keeps trying to stomp, but just can't get it done effectively...

That is, until people these geniuses support get power. Then they stomp all over the place.

(I would insert pictures of blown up and disfigured American soldiers from Endless War for profit these geniuses support, but I don't want to be too much of a smartass.  )

Michael

[Peter]

Michael mentioned Trump floating the names of Walker, Rubio, Kasich (and "others") as potential VP candidates. Wow. How generous. That showcases Trump’s carnival side-show, barker mentality.  Pull the wool over their eyes, give false hope to, and gull the rubes. That’s how ya do it, folks. Step right up! Just one thin vote will get you a glimpse at all the freaks.

Duke Roger de Bissell wrote: Becky and I read through Donald Trump's "platform" yesterday and Ted Cruz's "platform" today and then rated them according to a 3 point system and positive and/or negative applied to each of Trump's 7 and Cruz's 9 categories of policy. We pretty much agreed that Trump rated approximately a 55-60% and Cruz 85%. end of quoted portion of the royal statement.

Without counting I would have placed Ted above Trump but closer in my mental averaging. For their official platforms/stances Cruz would have gotten 4 stars out of 5 and Trump 3 stars out of 5. Now the blear in my eyes is gone. Thanks for something verging on the scientific. Stephen Hawking could probably *project* your ratings into likely modes of governance by each candidate.

Robert Campbell quoted Trump as saying: And you’ll find that when you become very successful, the people that you will like best are the people that are less successful than you, because when you go to a table you can tell them all of these wonderful stories, and they’ll sit back and listen,” he said. “Does that make sense to you? OK? Always be around unsuccessful people because everybody will respect you. Do you understand that? end quote

I am now slightly more uneasy about supporting Trump if he wins the nomination. That scary icicle over the door is dripping. Michael has chronicled Trump’s mode of campaigning which includes stomping your opponent, demagoguery, hyperbole, and outright lies that harkens back to 1800’s Presidential campaigns. For example, his failure to do his homework in Colorado is slanted to show the process is rigged. In general after the fact, Trump’s strategy is to spin, lessen and lie about a loss and to gloat, spin, and increase the magnitude of a victory. He calls others liars but he IS A LIAR. So when is the stomping, whining, vindictive, juvenile Trump going to come out of his cocoon and become a Presidential butterfly?        

As an aside, and for this campaign’s record, I would Objectively redefine personhood so that it doesn’t require the Supreme Court to seriously modify Roe v. Wade. Obstetric codes and personal doctor’s and patient’s moral codes already do that. If the fetus thinks - it is a *person*. Viability IS another consideration. You should not be able to legally kill an innocent *person*. Termination of life in brain dead older people or accident victims is a separate issue.

Yet, I have looked for but not found, any instance of Cruz saying his religious beliefs would supersede his Constitutional or libertarian beliefs. To the contrary Ted is the most Randian candidate. He is a man for all seasons. He is that one person in a generation.   

Peter  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This should brighten the day of some and darken the day of others:

RNC Rules Cmte. Member Randy Evans: If @realDonaldTrump exceeds 1100 votes, he will become the nominee https://t.co/NmEwHF5FFt

— Morning Joe (@Morning_Joe) April 13, 2016

What a beautiful sunny day!

Michael

[moralist]

18 minutes ago, Peter said:

I am now slightly more uneasy about supporting Trump if he wins the nomination. That scary icicle over the door is dripping. Michael has chronicled Trump’s mode of campaigning which includes stomping your opponent, demagoguery, hyperbole, and outright lies that harkens back to 1800’s Presidential campaigns.

That's the right approach, Peter.

I never finally decide who I'm going to vote for until election day. Voting by mail in advance is a mistake because it ignores every subsequent event following it.

Ted Cruz would make a good President just for the simple fact that politicians don't like him.

On the other hand, can you imagine how entertaining it would be to watch Trump stomping on Hillary with demagoguery hyperbole and outright lies?

When it comes to politics... entertainment is high on my list of priorities.

 

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

11 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This should brighten the day of some and darken the day of others:

What a beautiful sunny day!

Michael

He didn't say why.

--Spoilsport

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

33 minutes ago, Peter said:

Yet, I have looked for but not found, any instance of Cruz saying his religious beliefs would supersede his Constitutional or libertarian beliefs.

Peter,

It's maybe because you are not looking?

Ayn Rand, even though she found pornography disgusting, defended the right of people to engage in it. And from her writing, that meant the commercial right. She said tyranny starts by restricting the rights of those who are disgusting. And it grows out from there.

The following just popped up on Drudge, but I am sure if you dig into Cruz's past in earnest, you will find all kinds of things that will challenge your opinion. It's from a lefie rag, but it has to be. Can you think of a right-wing publication that would even feature this topic?  

The Time Ted Cruz Defended a Ban on Dildos
His legal team argued there was no right "to stimulate one's genitals."
by David Corn
Apr. 13, 2016
Mother Jones

From the article:

Corn said:

In one chapter of his campaign book, A Time for Truth, Sen. Ted Cruz proudly chronicles his days as a Texas solicitor general, a post he held from 2003 to 2008. 

. . .

Yet one case he does not mention is the time he helped defend a law criminalizing the sale of dildos.

The case was actually an important battle concerning privacy and free speech rights. In 2004, companies that owned Austin stores selling sex toys and a retail distributor of such products challenged a Texas law outlawing the sale and promotion of supposedly obscene devices. Under the law, a person who violated the statute could go to jail for up to two years.

. . .

In 2007, Cruz's legal team, working on behalf of then-Attorney General Greg Abbott (who now is the governor), filed a 76-page brief calling on the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to uphold the lower court's decision and permit the law to stand. The filing noted, "The Texas Penal Code prohibits the advertisement and sale of dildos, artificial vaginas, and other obscene devices" but does not "forbid the private use of such devices." 

. . .

In other words, Texans were free to use sex toys at home, but they did not have the right to buy them.

. . .

The brief insisted that Texas in order to protect "public morals" had  "police-power interests" in "discouraging prurient interests in sexual gratification, combating the commercial sale of sex, and protecting minors." There was a  "government" interest, it maintained, in "discouraging...autonomous sex."

. . .

In perhaps the most noticeable line of the brief, Cruz's office declared, "There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one's genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship." That is, the pursuit of such happiness had no constitutional standing. 

. . .

And the brief argued there was no "right to promote dildos, vibrators, and other obscene devices." The plaintiffs, it noted, were "free to engage in unfettered noncommercial speech touting the uses of obscene devices" but not speech designed to generate the sale of these items.

That's enough to get the gist. Fortunately, Cruz and his buds lost the case.

This is an issue of personal morality, not government coercion. And Cruz was squarely on the wrong side of it.

The article is quite enlightening if you are interested in constitutional issues and whether Cruz might be open to, let's say, a creative interpretation of them when it suits his fancy.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Robert,

That dismissal is contingent on me (as a Trump supporter) being seen as I exist. Do you remember how my comment arose?

I was starting to be told I needed to come back to sanity and things like that. It was in jest, but right at the edge. Right at the point where a barrage of accusations and shaming start going by the normal pattern of these things. And I didn't want the hassle.

The But Eraser was strongly in use, too. (A But Eraser is the word "but." When used as an eraser, it erases 100% of what was said before. For example, "I see you, BUT the fact is... blah blah blah..."  Voila! All seeing got erased with three little letters!  Never underestimate the power of the But Eraser. It allows you to say something and backtrack 100% without looking like you are backtracking.  )

You didn't say that. Another did. I just needed to make it clear that my mind was made up and I had good--no, scratch that--great reasons for supporting Trump. Logical reasons. Reality reasons. And those reasons needed to be acknowledged, not dismissed, before I would establish common ground for even considering arguments hostile to them. And you do tend to be dismissive of those reasons.

Let's put it this way. Is there anything on earth I could say to get you to change your opinion of Trump?

See?

It's not one way.

The difference is, I see you and I don't think you are stupid for holding the reasons you do. I know where you are coming from. I don't sense you believe me yet about the reasoning behind my support of Trump. In other words, it's beyond disagreement. I think you can't fathom how I could "be that stupid" and it's perplexing to you.

Granted, you are a cut way above Biddibob. I don't see you ever prohibiting a differing opinion or evaluation within your vicinity. Still, I admit, I was surprised by the intensity of your anti-Trumpness and the load of exaggerated negative presumptions and predictions that accompany your criticisms of him. 

Before such a posture, if this were you, how many hostile comments from someone who refuses to see you would you take seriously enough to consider changing your mind? My guess is none.

(When I tried to say that before, I kept being told I was playing the Victim Card. Without mustard, too. I only eat baloney with mustard.  )

Michael

The value of arguing goes to the third party not participating seeking information and analyses, not to anyone trying to win the argument for an argument is a war and a war is force in action--as opposed to simple ratiocination--albeit in this case metaphorical force. Thus all parties lose with someone's "victory" for the discussion stops. Since it's war ad hominem is introduced and it gets farcical. My motive, your motive, your motive and mine. Suddenly Robert got rational about the all of it.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I know many people make fun of Alex Jones, but this video with him and Roger Stone just got featured on Real Clear Politics video. see here: Roger Stone: "Tricky" Ted Cruz "Continues To Lie About Me," Reminds Me Of Richard Nixon.

If only we could get Alex to stop wagging his tail when he hears something that confirms his paranoia.

 

Still, it's a very informative video. And it balances what you see on mainstream news outlets.

The fact is, if RCPV featured this, that's because Stone's march on Cleveland campaign is having a huge effect they know backstage, but nobody is mentioning.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

34 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Thus all parties lose with someone's "victory" for the discussion stops.

Brant,

There is no victory or loss involved here.

My arguments for Trump are outright dismissed by anti-Trump people and they have been ever since the beginning. So I got tired of all the pretending and merely said the opposite was true--that I don't consider their arguments. And I got to the point where that became real for me.

Why should I consider their arguments if they don't consider mine, but give me a pat on the head instead? (Or a "wow, just wow" or something like that?) Why should I do that? Just because they are awesome?

That's not winning or losing an argument. That's not taking arguments seriously. It was only one side before doing that. Now it's both.

At least I say it out loud and don't pretend. And further, I say I am open to taking their arguments seriously, but on the condition that they take mine seriously.

There are millions upon millions of people who think like I do. Look how they're voting. That's a hell of a lot of people not to take seriously.

That's the best I can do and stay "rational about the all of it"...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Michael,

The main reason I want Trump to beat Cruz is to see what he then does to Hillary. (I can switch these names around.) Trump may end up reigning like an emperor, but what would be new about that? It's just a semantical shift from "king" which has always been the reality of the American President under the Constitution. Waterloo comes along eventually. It always does.

Service to the Constitution has gradually been replaced by lip gloss. Cruz might stop that for a while. Might not. Trump would have no idea about lip gloss having little idea about the Constitution.

--Brant