Donald Trump


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, PDS said:

Wouldn't it just be easier to admit that Coulter's first choices for President not so very long ago sorta kick the legs out from under your anti-Establishment narrative?

David,

Such hunger for a gotcha!

Would you like catchup and mustard with it? Maybe a beer?

:evil:  :) 

I would have no problem admitting this if I could understand the logic. But I don't.

I never claimed that Coulter was a died-in-the-wool anti-establishment person. I said that she has seen what I have seen about the middle class and that is her resonance. And I just now said she has an establishment side I don't resonate with. 

Besides, you are trying to peg my position as an "us against them" thing along some kind of ideological lines when it's more like firing the staff (throwing the bums out, actually) and hiring another.

If it were us against them (like us against ISIS) I would have no problem with assuming it.

I am against crony capitalism and Endless War for profit irrespective of who practices it. And believe me, there are ton-loads of people who do. But within that, I realize there are all kinds of degrees and situations, some really, really bad and some just plain-vanilla run-of-the-mill lightweight corruption.

We'll probably never get rid of the second, but at least we can tackle the first and get the worst out. So if that's a them and a competent staff is an us, I'm an us against that them.

But I have no doubt that is not what you are trying to get at.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

Newtzilla* talking things Trump, then addresses VP rumors:

 

*(positive nickname)

One of the finest minds in America. 

A futurist.  Open minded.  Excellent historian.  His Gettysburg trilogy is masterful.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Finally America is going to have an accomplished, intelligent, principled and dynamic individual for commander-in-chief.

 

Seriously? What has Hillary accomplished, really? :P

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

Such hunger for a gotcha!

Would you like catchup and mustard with it? Maybe a beer?

:evil:  :) 

I would have no problem admitting this if I could understand the logic. But I don't.

I never claimed that Coulter was a died-in-the-wool anti-establishment person. I said that she has seen what I have seen about the middle class and that is her resonance. And I just now said she has an establishment side I don't resonate with. 

Besides, you are trying to peg my position as an "us against them" thing along some kind of ideological lines when it's more like firing the staff (throwing the bums out, actually) and hiring another.

If it were us against them (like us against ISIS) I would have no problem with assuming it.

I am against crony capitalism and Endless War for profit irrespective of who practices it. And believe me, there are ton-loads of people who do. But within that, I realize there are all kinds of degrees and situations, some really, really bad and some just plain-vanilla run-of-the-mill lightweight corruption.

We'll probably never get rid of the second, but at least we can tackle the first and get the worst out. So if that's a them and a competent staff is an us, I'm an us against that them.

But I have no doubt that is not what you are trying to get at.

Michael

Easy.  Easy.  I was trying to be playful.  Your guy just won for chrissakes.   

You're getting pretty predictable, my friend.  

Whenever you get hung on the petard of your own logic, you seem to have two default moves:.  (1) claim that the point being made is a mere "gotcha" and (2) question the motives of the person making the argument.   Do you notice this?

I hope you do a lot of stretching or hot yoga or something.  

Some of these contortions might otherwise cause a severe injury.  ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Selene said:

Peter, it was only eight (8) months ago. 

"What a fool?"

Yeah, he wasn't as smart as all the OL folks who picked Trump...oops...hmm there were only two!

This is like a bad remake of 12 Angry Men!

I play the old coot who gave Fonda/Michael the supportive vote when he needed it.

Also provided great recipes for Crow.

A...

Ahem.  

I believe there were 3 who picked Trump...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Finally America is going to have an accomplished, intelligent, principled and dynamic individual for commander-in-chief.

Jon,

Amen to that.

And it is so good to see someone else talk about Trump being principled.

There's a meme out in the culture that successful businesspeople are unprincipled. This is reflected in TV dramas, movies, novels, you name it. When authors need an evil villain, they often choose a business person. It's one of the memes that Ayn Rand tried to fight with Atlas Shrugged.

Unfortunately, in O-Land, many people have bought into this meme in their subconscious hook, line and sinker. And they reflect it in their opinions even though I think they would be appalled once they saw it.

When they have expressed their attempt to support businesspeople in a Randian manner, somehow they keep picking really awful examples. Here's an interesting exercise in memory I just did.

Do you remember when Bill Gates was getting hammered for linking the Internet Explorer to Windows and killing Netscape? I read soapbox screeds, one after another, against the evils of antitrust regulations and so on. This was Atlas Shrugged all over again. And so on.

While I agree that the government should not have been involved in that case, I never have liked Bill Gates very much. He always came off to me as predatory and a manipulator of patent laws. A crony capitalist of the type I never have liked. A power-monger in the corporate world. (He was furious that Netscape even existed so he wanted to suck it dry just for the pleasure of destroying it. That was part of his motivation.)

His virtue was that he knew his audience well and managed to rip off a lot of ideas from others, get monopolistic legal sanctions for them, and package them in really useful ways. (And get a lot of big fat government contracts to boot.) On a personal level, I hated how Windows (Microsoft in general) hogged my computer with spam back then and laid booby traps for other programs I used or disabled them automatically. 

Anyway, this man was held up as a Randian hero at the time. If you take your mind back to then, you will find that the loudest voices in our subcommunity that clamored for the coronation of Bill Gates as the Human God of Twentieth Century Enlightenment and Rational Production are the same voices who today most loudly denounce Donald Trump.

So how's Common Core working out for them as a Randian ideal? :evil: 

Obviously, they have since abandoned their worship of Gates. He's done way too much in the government for them to keep up the Randian hero image. And he sure as hell doesn't like Ayn Rand. He never has. It was amusing to watch them sputter in confused indignation about altruism when he signed a philanthropy pledge.

Why does this happen? This reaction in our subcommunity is very odd where lots of vocal people fall for a Bill Gates at first blush but ignore Donald Trump's productive achievements and dismiss his support of Ayn Rand. Their initial reactions are off in a critical manner. I know there is a connection between the two (this love and hate) but I don't yet know what it is. I do detect the connection. I think power over others is involved. 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PDS said:
14 hours ago, Selene said:

Also provided great recipes for Crow.

A...

Ahem.  

I believe there were 3 who picked Drumpf...

2016-05-05_06_42_31-Who_will_be_on_the_G

... re the metaphorical crow-eating due those in confidently-boasted error ...

On 2/20/2016 at 3:23 PM, william.scherk said:

As I chew and chew, I think too of the thanks due to Drumpf for the folding Bush tent.

He more or less alone (building on the tepid initial Jeb support) branded the campaign as hospice-bound.  Too true, too telling, and contributory to decline. By tagging Bush as dead-wheeling and doomed, Drumpf was responsible in measure for the step-down last night. I am glad so glad the dynastic hopes are crushed. It is truly  a No Thanks moment. Good stuff.  I credit Drumpf. Chew chew.  Bush is gone and I must eat this gamey, boney sneaky-tasting boid., Vile but instructive. [...]

My brothers in error -- as registered by the poll in the thread-starter, in the clubhouse below.  Chew chew sigh chew chew.

Jeb Bush


×

  • william.scherk

    william.scherk

  • Derek McGowan

    Derek McGowan

  • Marc

    Marc

  • BaalChatzaf

    BaalChatzaf

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PDS said:

You're getting pretty predictable, my friend.  

Whenever you get hung on the petard of your own logic, you seem to have two default moves:.  (1) claim that the point being made is a mere "gotcha" and (2) question the motives of the person making the argument.   Do you notice this?

We all notice it. It's his living room. He can dance about naked with a lampshade on his head and accuse us of gotcha or of suspect motives if we protest. (Start your videocams now.)

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:
2 hours ago, PDS said:

Whenever you get hung on the petard of your own logic, you seem to have two default moves:.  (1) claim that the point being made is a mere "gotcha" and (2) question the motives of the person making the argument.   Do you notice this?

We all notice it.

?

 

But but but ...

15 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Yup.

:evil:

Got you!

Fecking 'you gotcha people' anyway,  as they say ...  at least we have seen less "In Other Words" and "You think [inventive paraphrase/distortion/exaggeration]" and a slight decline in  "So, what you are saying is ... I should just roll in the ditch and die."   The latter martyr ploy is hilarious. All you have to do is turn all the knobs up to eleven.

Before I say too much, I must note for all and sundry -- Michael long ago in this thread abandoned the Principle of Charity. This is a stump thread by a partisan of the presumptive nominee.  Michael is not going to task himself to fairly examine and try to understand any argument or claim about Drumpf from the POV of You.  

And yes, I mean You People.  

Give it up, get a new hobby of your own. This is the Pro-Trump thread designed to be a triumphant record of his march to the White House. That is the plot, the narrative, the story.    

You are not going to get a coherent analysis of your own content, because .... drum roll ... you are suffused by irrational hatred. Yes, you.  You people. Stephen, Peter, Brant, Robert, Roger, PDS, all stand accused/convicted of Hate.  It seems the only Drumpf critic/doubter who escapes the designation is me.

Argh. Too many words on a screen, William. Go back in the submarine and fetch us up a podcast.  Or, if you must heckle, heckle from the protest camp over yonder erected by The Gentleman from New Jersey.  If you  bring snacks and warm blankets, some won't be afraid to join the Hate Club.

Yes, I abandon this thread as no longer a field for Reason.

Edited by william.scherk
Added hate speech & flouncing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now