Donald Trump

[Robert Campbell]

On April 30, 2016 at 10:57 PM, Jon Letendre said:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-foreign-policy-speech

Let me know if you can't find any.

Jon,

I'll give my opinion of this speech soon enough.

In the meantime, the question is not whether I can find any principles in it.

It's what you think the principles are.

You've been writing as though you know what they are, so you should be able to net them out.

Robert

[KorbenDallas]

KT McFarland: Trump’s foreign policy speech was very Reaganesque

 

[Robert Campbell]

On April 30, 2016 at 10:57 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You kinda left out the Bushes, the donor class, and so on. Just turn on the TV news almost any day and you will see one. And the Democrat establishment, for that matter. They are all pretty visible. And there are rituals to get among them and be accepted to share power with them.

Michael,

You're actually supposing that I don't know who any of these people are, and can't identify them as part of an establishment.  (By the way, I'm still seeing you not referring to any of them by name, unless it's Bush.)

Your whole point seemed to be that you, along with all other Trump supporters, possess this special ability to discern who is a member of the Establishment, and I, in my duped, or befuddled, state, do not.

If your special powers of discernment pick out Chuck Todd as part of an establishment, or Anderson Cooper, or Bill O'Reilly, or Nicholas Kristof, or anybody who works for Politico, or Tom Steyer, or anyone who gave chunks of money to Jeb! this past cycle... well, my grossly inferior, if not completely absent, powers of discernment managed to pick them out, too.

So how about the cases where your special powers succeed, and my inferior powers fail?

As my powers are so inferior, these must be abundant.

If one Bush on Ted Cruz's team makes him part of the establishment, did one Barbour on Chris McDaniel's team make him part of the establishment?

If Ann Coulter was part of the establishment when she was a sycophant of Mitt Romney, did she stop being part it of the day she became a sycophant of Donald Trump?

If Paul Manafort was pure establishment when he worked for, say, Bob Dole, did he become pure anti-esabllishment the first day he received a paycheck from Trump?

As one who knows the establishment far better than I ever could, you should have an easy time bringing clarity to these matters.

That is, unless along with my inability to see the establishment, I have a further inability to see anyone else's ability to see the establishment.

Robert

[william.scherk]

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

I can't help comparing you to a Christian missionary, or some other sort who believes in a Messiah and spreads the Good News on His account, because you and I don't seem to be operating by the same standards of evidence.

Robert,

I'm going to answer this post in more depth, but with this comment above, all I can do is say you are being silly.

There's not really much more substance than a rant to follow when a person leads like this.

You have made two pretty wild evaluations right there and are now going about cherry-picking facts to validate them.

This is not how I use my reason. I try to identify something I see correctly, then judge it. I see you accepting your prejudice as a metaphysical fact, then looking for stuff to back it up while ignoring or rationalizing what does not. It's like those sunglasses that block certain colors. The colors keep existing but the wearer no longer sees them.

In that sense, we actually are operating on different standards of evidence. I look at it all through the "identify then judge" filter (including all of Trump's varied "sins" you find so horrific). You blank out entire skyscrapers right in front of your face, then talk about things you prefer to focus on as if they were the entire picture.

I don't know if you do that in your head, but you certainly do in your posts, especially when you keep spicing them with gawdawful comments like prejudging your friends as Christian missionaries.

This is an election and it is no sin to stump for a preferred candidate. If you don't compete, how the hell else do you win?

 

That doesn't make anyone a sheeple.

Neither is it a sin to want to fix problems nobody fixes and do that through electing a candidate with a platform for doing it.

Since you operate on a partial view of what you call evidence that is informed by a deep hatred of Donald Trump (I base this on the words you constantly post, so I might be wrong, but it looks like "evidence" to you means anything that proves your hatred is the good), I honestly don't know how far you are interested in looking at any fact that does kindle your hatred.

Whatever.

We are friends. We have been through several good and important online things together and I am not going to give that up. If that goes out the window, it will have to come from you no matter how snarky you get with me.

(Is that Objectivish? No, but that's the way I roll, baby.  )

Now I'm going to go back and reexamine your more recent posts where you try to explain to me my moral failings, my hypocrisy, my emerging true-believer mentality and the tragic fate that awaits me, my relationships, nay, my very sanity, my sanity, you hear? , at the end of my sad imprudent spiritual journey as a self-flagellating, self-sacrificing, deluded and even dishonest alter boy for the Church of Donald Trump and see if I can salvage something actually worth talking about.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

On April 30, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Trump shows up to the press. The other candidates do not most of the time.

Michael,

You might be leaving a couple of things out.

(1) Trump can't live without publicity—he must have a Minimum Daily Requirement—has long known how to get it, and has long known how to hire people who know how to get it for him.  This was already the case 40 years BNTE (Before New Trump Era).

(2) Media outlets are willing to extend privileges to Trump that they wouldn't dream of extending to any other candidate.  The most blatant manifestation is TV shows letting him do interviews over the phone.

Robert

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

The most blatant manifestation is TV shows letting him do interviews over the phone.

Robert,

Heh.

They let him? 

Double heh.

I have seen several TV personalities say on the air--during their shows--that they have a standing invitation for Trump to do that anytime he wishes.

News shows don't let Trump call in. They beg him to do it.

This gives them standing and ratings.

Ironically, the one exception is Trump's most friendly outlet, Fox and Friends. They don't beg Trump because they developed this call-in thing with him as a schtick over years. In this case it was mutual.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

18 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

You're actually supposing that I don't know who any of these people are, and can't identify them as part of an establishment.

Robert,

Good God!

Do you really think I think that instead of thinking something like, say, you are playing gotcha?

If so, how do you know I think that?

In the same manner you know the following?

On 4/30/2016 at 8:09 PM, Robert Campbell said:

I think what you are saying is that you actually can't identify the establishment, or any considerable manifestation of it—and mustn't be asked to.

There's a lot of supposing about my supposing, my mental abilities, and my knowledge going on.

Meanwhile, Trump is still winning.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's how a Trump supporter has to do it when he has a bunch of establishment donors he has to obey.

But, qua Trump supporter, he still supports Trump one way or another.

   

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And further, back on the stump:

Thank you Indiana! #Trump2016 pic.twitter.com/shPWexfkVX

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 1, 2016

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

On April 30, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Of course he isn't [sucking up]. He's going to have to work with McConnell, so it's better to get an early start on sizing each other up.

Michael,

How perfectly Establishmentarian of you!

Why, Mitch McConnell is a permanent fixture in Washington, in Kentucky, in the Republican Party, in the United States of America, in the Milky Way, in the entire cosmos.

So even the most courageous, the most brilliant, the most audacious, the most outspoken, the most generous, the most principled anti-Establishmentarian of all time, Donald J. Trump, is going to have to work with Mitch McConnell!

(One is tempted to ask whether Trump ought to refrain from slamming any other Establishment Republican in either House of Congress—and every Establishment Democrat—because if he is elected, and they are not defeated for re-election, he will have to work with each of them.   Maybe he's really thrilled to have gotten Bill Shuster's endorsement.  Maybe he's fishing for Hal Rogers', as we speak.  He must be dying for validation from Paul Ryan.)

Sorry, but now the reductio is all the way to the absurdum.

If you can justify Donald Trump sucking up to Mitch McConnell, you can justify his sucking up to any Establishment figure you or I would care to name.

It's not like McConnell is, well, strong.  (In fact, he needed money from Donald Trump to shore him up in 2014).  The dude is unpopular in Washington.  He's unpopular at home.  He backed Trey Grayson, and Rand Paul won the primary. He beat Allison Lundergan Grimes because she was pro-Obama in a state that is now strongly anti-Obama, and she is a twit.  Meanwhile, the guy he beat in the primary with Trump's help, Matt Bevin, is now the Governor.  McConnell is unpopular nationwide.  He's unpopular with Republicans.  (The only constraint on his national unpopularity: lack of name recognition.)  I find it plausible that his staunchest allies (say, Lindsey Graham or John McCain or Bob Corker or Orrin Hatch) privately despise him.  Whereas Chucky Schumer and Dick Durbin unquestionably despise him, but if he were gone they'd miss him terribly, because he's been so easy to roll.

It's not like McConnell is, well, effective.  Unless you count Cromnibus spending bills and debt ceiling increases and the Gang of Eight legislation and restoring the Export-Import Bank and caving on the Iran deal ... fill in the blank, there's so much more... as proof of effectiveness.  Since every Republican Senator opposed Obamacare, there hasn't been much either you or I would want to point to.

If Donald Trump wanted to enhance his support with anyone not currently in his camp, Mitch McConnell is a target-rich environment unto himself.  The Donald could attain new heights of creativity with his insults, and every one would be an applause line.

If Donald Trump wanted to enhance views of his effectiveness, should he win the election and have to deal with Congress, he should already be at work now to push McConnell out, because a random selection among the remaining Republican Senators would give him somebody with more backbone and a greater prospect of getting his legislation through Congrees.

Nope, Trump's too busy sucking up to him.

Robert

[Brant Gaede]

53 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

Michael,

You might be leaving a couple of things out.

(1) Trump can't live without publicity—he must have a Minimum Daily Requirement—has long known how to get it, and has long known how to hire people who know how to get it for him.  This was already the case 40 years BNTE (Before New Trump Era).

(2) Media outlets are willing to extend privileges to Trump that they wouldn't dream of extending to any other candidate.  The most blatant manifestation is TV shows letting him do interviews over the phone.

Robert

Any presidential candidate is toast without publicity.

Trump is on the verge of demonstrating of how to run a successful campaign to get the nomination of a major party--the Republican anyway. Will the moth then turn into a butterfly? That's stage two of the three stage process. If he wins the general enter stage three. Will the butterfly turn into a decent President? I'll believe it when I see it, but not until I do.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

On April 30, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Where do you get this crap?

I don't see that at all.

Michael,

I take this to mean that what you see with your own two eyes has no implications regarding anything else (whether the other thing can be seen with two eyes or not).

All of these experiences are "loose and separate," as David Hume used to say.

Robert

[Robert Campbell]

On April 30, 2016 at 0:21 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

It makes me sad when I see Cruz do that, too, because I don't want to lose my respect for him.

Michael,

Donald Trump wants you to lose your respect for Ted Cruz.

So why shouldn't you?

Robert

[Brant Gaede]

"Establishmentarian": I was watching the $64,000 Question, before the scandal of course, when a young lady--early teenager--was asked to spell "antidisestablshmentarianism," which she did. Easy phonetics but an extremely long word.

I much more like "defenestration"--which I suspect Robert is hoping someone will do to Donald, in an effective albeit metaphorical way--if it works metaphorically, that is.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

10 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Trump is on the verge of demonstrating of how to run a successful campaign to get the nomination of a major party--the Republican anyway.

Brant,

You just named the gigantic frustration of the anti-Trump folks when they complain about Trump's media coverage.

You just said: "... run a successful campaign..."

It's that word "successful" in the same context with Trump.

That's the chicken bone stuck in their throats.

If Trump were losing or their guy were winning (including with overwhelming media coverage), I doubt they would be interested in talking about the media very much, if at all.

 

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Michael,

It wasn't a compliment.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

 

WSS,

Is this clip unedited?

Robert

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said:

I take this to mean that what you see with your own two eyes has no implications regarding anything else (whether the other thing can be seen with two eyes or not).

All of these experiences are "loose and separate," as David Hume used to say.

Robert,

Your interpretation is in error.

The proper way to "take it to mean" (for the epistemological system I use) is that concepts must be connected at root to observable reality (or boil down to it). To be objective, you have to validate concepts with observation, not just with words.

I suppose one could try to validate observations with, say, hatred (i.e., putting hatred first). I see a lot of people do it that way. That is not a good mental sequence, though.

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

10 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

I much more like "defenestration"--which I suspect Robert is hoping someone will do to Donald, in an effective albeit metaphorical way--if it works metaphorically, that is.

I'm inclined to think it doesn't

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

It wasn't a compliment.

Brant,

It doesn't need to be. 

When you say "successful," you are identifying a fact (cognitive).

That doesn't mean you have to like it (normative).

Trump is successful.

That identification will stay the same whether you like it or suck it up with a grimace.

Michael

[Peter]

Michael mentioned the media’s superior ratings, prestige, and scratch – my - back relationship with Trump. And then Msk wrote: Ironically, the one exception is Trump's most friendly outlet, Fox and Friends. They don't beg Trump because they developed this call-in thing with him as a schtick over years. In this case it was mutual. end quote

Of course the feeling was mutual. But do you see any philosophical or political motivation energizing The Fox Network beyond headlines, ratings and standings? Most people do. The owner and his minions are Conservatives. I watch them and chronical their hijinks all the time for the obvious, sympathetic reason.  

Raving mania whether it is pro or con is not objective. So, what perplexes me about his support on Objectivist Living is that it is NOT very philosophical.  Does angry, rebellious yet pragmatic, hero worship, describe a Trump supporter here? That may not be how they would describe themselves, but their words speak for themselves. Trump supporters flatter and overlook his gaping unknowns and flaws.   

I think all of us understand the intense, continuous rationality required to plan and build any large structure or enterprise. And that is very worthy behavior. Rand studied and seemed to idolize a few architects before she wrote “The Fountainhead.” But look at all the geniuses in one field who were so terribly wrong about other fields. Rand and human psychology? It's not scientific. Cosmos’ Carl Sagan promoted socialism. I esteem them both, but caution is a virtue too.

Politically, Rand worked for Wendell Wilkie and Barry Goldwater but was it her age or accumulated bitterness that kept her from supporting Ronald Reagan? I remember the vitriol then and now from people who despise religiosity in a candidate but I thought she was wrong then. Ten plus ten, plus ten, plus ten . . . , minus five still equals a 95 on a scale of one to a hundred.   

Is Trump support here, equal to a younger Ayn Rand’s support of Barry Goldwater? Is Donald, Reagan-esque? I wonder if Ayn looked back at some of her past behavior and said, “Cripes, I’m not a kid any more. Thank goodness.”

Peter     

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 minutes ago, Peter said:

... what perplexes me about his support on Objectivist Living is that it is NOT very philosophical.

Peter,

You obviously missed this post dealing with the epistemology of Trump and his supporters as the filter through which they see political principles. And that is just one post.

There are many philosophical posts on this very thread.

All you have to do is want to read them when you scan over them.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

58 minutes ago, Peter said:

Does angry, rebellious yet pragmatic, hero worship, describe a Trump supporter here? That may not be how they would describe themselves, but their words speak for themselves.

Peter,

This does not describe me. I keep batting down with banter people who are pissed with me and I don't get pissed in return. So how does that make me angry?

Want proof?

There. You just got a smiley. Here's another:

 

I'll cop to rebellious and hero worship, but pragmatic?

Really?

Does that mean one has to fail in order to have moral integrity? That when something works, it's because the person who did it was "pragmatic," not moral?

Gimme a break.

Killing people for profit in an Endless War scheme is "pragmatic" in the philosophical sense (if it works, use it). That's all our current politicians do. And that is not Donald Trump or me. 

I've said many times that I believe Donald Trump is one of the most principled men ever to run for president. The more I learn about him (warts and all), the more convinced of that I become.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

43 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Killing people for profit in an Endless War scheme is "pragmatic" in the philosophical sense (if it works, use it). That's all our current politicians do. And that is not Donald Trump or me. 

I've said many times that I believe Donald Trump is one of the most principled men ever to run for president. The more I learn about him (warts and all), the more convinced of that I become.

Here's somebody else who thinks like I do, principles, Endless War and all:

Michael