Donald Trump

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I remember telling you (sometime ago) that Beck was a buffoon. What do you think now?

Bob,

At the time Beck was exposing ACORN, George Soros, Van Jones, the Caliphate, educational brainwashing, etc., and getting average people to read the USA founding documents and read about the Founding Fathers, etc., he most definitely was NOT a buffoon.

What I think is that people can change over time in certain basics. They don't have to, but they can.

Beck did. And for the worse.

(People can also fundamentally change for the better.)

So back when you said Beck was a buffoon, you were wrong. Nowadays, you are still wrong.  

 

Beck is not a clown. He has become a cult leader (or very close to one) who is professionally crashing and burning.

Michael

[Peter]

I am sad to see the decline of  Beck. I never understood why he left Fox to begin with. Will he crash and burn? Tracinski was defending his and author Brad Thor's hypothetical call to kill all tyrants. But by referencing a candidate I think they overstepped their reason.

Peter

Edited cuts from Can We Reconcile the Trump Phenomenon With America's Founding Principles? David Limbaugh Posted: Jun 03, 2016 12:01 AM: Apart from the endless question of who always will, who probably will, who may and who never will vote for Donald Trump, I'd like to call a temporary truce between the believers and the skeptics and warn against any conscious abandonment or neglect of our founding principles.

I sense that the Trump movement in some ways presents a false choice -- that we either temporarily abandon our principles to save America or preserve our principles and lose America. To the contrary, even if we take drastic action, we must always do so within the constraints of the Constitution -- being mindful that to restore America's greatness, we must reclaim our founding principles.

Some Trump supporters will be offended by the suggestion that they want to de-emphasize the Constitution or do not hold Trump to ordinary standards of decency, but I've had many exchanges with Trump supporters in which they have demeaned the Constitution as a bygone relic, a meaningless piece of paper. I refuse to believe that to combat leftism we must abandon our founding principles, our standards of decency and our aspirations for a noble, virtuous and civil society. If, as a Trump supporter, you agree with me, then this column is not meant for you, but if you disagree, please indulge my sappiness for a moment.

. . . . I share the angst of Trump supporters toward the left and the establishment, and I'm deeply concerned by the current miserable condition the nation is in. Indeed, constitutional conservatives have been fighting against these foes longer than most Trump supporters, but there's no point in bickering over that now.

Trump supporters must know it's outrageous to lump constitutional conservatives in with the establishment merely because we are skeptical of Trump. There are many reasons for skepticism, including that he has hardly been anti-establishment and is not likely to be consistently so if he becomes president.

We understand the gratification of believers when Trump refuses to kowtow to leftist and politically correct pressure to conform to the left's thought-stifling standards. We feel it, too; at least I do . . . . 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Back when there were viable contenders other than Trump during the Republican primary, there used to be a hugely popular argument that voting for Trump would guarantee a Clinton win. In the beginning, some people even thought Trump was a plant by her to ensure her victory. (They seriously promoted this idea.)

I always consider all of that baloney, so I saw the video below with great satisfaction. Cenk Uygur, one of the most popular progressives outside of big broadcast media (and, incidentally, one I respect for his consistency), is now using this same argument ABOUT Clinton--that a vote for her will ensure a Trump presidency--or at least, almost guarantee it.

Why?

Easy. Do like Cenk. List most of the reasons that were given by the genius fortune tellers (i.e., intellectuals on our side  ) about a Trump vote ensuring a Clinton victory and merely adapt the details for her.

Ahh...

Life is good.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Look how an anti-Trumper acts outside a Trump rally:

It's hard to deny when it's on video like that.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Looks like one of those fellows who wants to return California to Mexico since he doesn't want to return to Mexico.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Drudge posted this on his Facebook timeline. It is going viral (as usual with these pro-Trump things) and I suspect it will eventually end up on Drudge's main site.

The pro-Trump Latinos are rising...

Michael

[Peter]

For that Latin amigo. Find the Roman Numeral in the following: Mislanddressing. TheIthatgotaway. Lwaystoleaveyourlover. Thexcommandments. Cyearsofsolitude. Indianapolisd.  

“If you can’t breathe, you can’t scream.” Tagline from the 1997 horror flick, “Anaconda.”

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Does anyone remember Ayn Rand writing about refusing to accept the premises of your accuser?

I have to look this up, but if my memory is correct, she discussed this when she wrote about what she called "argument from intimidation."

If you want to see a perfect example of refusing an accuser's premises, refusing to accept unearned guilt and refusing to let the accuser set the moral agenda, the following example by Trump is perfect.

Everybody wants to call Trump's statement bigotry and remove the judge's bias from discussion by means of intimidation with a slur about bigotry, first implied, then stated explicitly.

Yet Trump plows forward using his words his way according to his own meanings and leaves people scratching their heads. He refuses the false dichotomy that if he says things the way the PC language Nazis disapprove, he is a bigot and if he says them the way the PC language Nazis approve, he is not. His accusers ask him if he doesn't see that he is being bigot when he calls the judge Mexican, Trump says not at all, he has never been a bigot, and repeats his statement.

But by doing this, he is making people think.

I'm not sure if he does this on purpose--I'm inclined to to think he does. Why? Because it's based on an old marketing principle, even if it is hard to see at first.

People cannot be dislodged from a decision if they came to it themselves through their own reasoning. So telling them what to think is practically worthless in many situations. They need to be led down a path where they do their own thinking and their own choosing.

This principle especially applies to large purchases. A prospect for a large purchase is generally not the only one who decides, he or she often has a spouse or partner, etc.. The seller knows the prospect's other people will possibly pooh pooh the purchase, so he has to convince the prospect so much that the prospect will override these later objections.

The only way to do that is induce the prospect to come to his own conclusion based on his own reasons and values.

For example, here's how it works with a car and a male prospect. The seller knows the prospect's wife will possibly object, so he has to neutralize her objections by getting the prospect to make his case for him (and the spousal relationship dynamics will do the rest  ).

Instead of selling the guy on the features or benefits, he paints a picture of the guy's future while owning the car. He lets the guy see himself in the car, breezing through life behind the wheel with others looking on in admiration, and encourages him to feel what that feels like. Along the way he dribbles in tidbits of information about features and benefits. Then the guy starts concluding--on his own--that he needs those features and benefits. He like really needs those features and benefits. That car just feels too damn good.

This is much, much stronger than the seller telling him what he needs. That is one of the main reasons for a test drive. (That's also why some sellers can't close prospects through test drives to save their lives. They frame it wrong and keep telling the prospect what to think.)

I believe Trump uses this principle by throwing out a phrase intended to provoke cognitive dissonance in the public regarding no-no positions set by PC language intimidators. But rather than saying the intimidators are wrong according to the premises of the intimidators, he uses his own meanings and sticks to them like a bulldog with a bone. This makes people step back and think again about the no-no stuff. It makes them wonder, is it really like the PC language intimidators have been saying? Or is there something else going on?

Hmmm...

Once they rethink it, no amount of previous covert manipulation like victimization stories, social proof, guilt by association, etc., not to mention language monkeyshines (replacing "illegal aliens" with "undocumented workers," etc.) will take anymore.

Under the efforts of current PC language Nazis, average people are not reasoned into compliance. They are intimidated and manipulated into it. If they reason their way out because they want to rethink it, they suddenly get power over their own behavior again. What's more, no amount of arguing based on previous premises will work on them anymore. Not on that issue.

If Trump tells the public that a judge who has a radical Latino history is targeting him because of political positions on immigration, the public will go, OK, that's rotten, but par for the course and it will move on. If the public concludes, through the individual reasoning of each person, that the judge is biased due to his radical past and this is making him abuse the legal system to target Trump, the public will think the judge is cheating and acting like a wannabe dictator. No amount of intimidation, shaming, calling Trump racist and bigot, etc., will phase them.

By snapping people out of their PC language induced automation, Trump is making them think through the issue and look at it with fresh eyes. Most people don't like what they see when they do that and it's not Trump they are repudiating.

If Trump is doing that, and I think he is, he's much better than what I imagined in the beginning. He's scary good and it's a good thing he has good character.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

If he becomes President, Michael, it will take you three years from now to understand you were mistaken about Donald Trump. If he isn't, you never will.

--Brant

I do want to be mistaken myself, but if Hillary isn't nominated he's toast

[Brant Gaede]

I forget where I read* that Republican convention delegates were "bound" and Democrat delegates "pledged," meaning Hillary can be dumped before the first round of voting and Donald can't. (If a bound delegate unbounds himself and votes for someone else his vote will not be counted.)

We should know in a few weeks whether Hillary gets shafted.

--Brant

*read it on ToThePointNews.com

[BaalChatzaf]

29 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

I forget where I read* that Republican convention delegates were "bound" and Democrat delegates "pledged," meaning Hillary can be dumped before the first round of voting and Donald can't. (If a bound delegate unbounds himself and votes for someone else his vote will not be counted.)

We should know in a few weeks whether Hillary gets shafted.

--Brant

*read it on ToThePointNews.com

Don't count on it.  Hillary is the likely winner.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Don't count on it.  Hillary is the likely winner.

Ha!

Like Jeb...

Where have I heard this kind of thing before?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

If he becomes President, Michael, it will take you three years from now to understand you were mistaken about Donald Trump. If he isn't, you never will.

Brant,

If it happens the way you say, I'll own up.

However, it won't happen the way you say. 

   

Seriously, expect America to be much, much better off when Trump is president (especially after three years), meaning all those who live here.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Gotta admit, Stephen Molyneux is making sense here:

He cited the statutes for defining domestic terrorism--and the assaults on Trump supporters fit squarely under the statutory conditions.

The reason I am posting this video is because it was posted to Real Clear Politics Video. That means a LOT of people are going to be looking at it. Not just a lot of Molyneux fans (although they will). I mean a LOT of political people.

It doesn't take much imagination to see what is coming. Somebody who likes Trump and has some power is going to see this video, check the statutes, then go after these violent protesters and try to get them charged as domestic terrorists.

And Molyneux is making life easy for anyone who wants to do that providing appropriate links to laws and such: see here.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That didn't take long.

As soon as I posted the above, I opened up Facebook and this headline from Conservative Outfitters popped up in a post by Matt Drudge:

ARE ANTI-TRUMP PROTESTERS REALLY DOMESTIC TERRORISTS?

For those who don't know, Conservative Outfitters is a site owned or greatly promoted by Matt Drudge, I'm not sure which. It is like a seed site for his main site (Drudge Report). I receive headlines from it on my Facebook feed because I liked Drudge's Facebook page.

Domestic terrorism is not discussed on the Trump video at that link, but there the headline is on the article.

I think Drudge is floating it to see where it goes.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

Too funny not to share:

https://www.facebook.com/alucidnation/videos/1676821885921428/

[Mikee]

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Does anyone remember Ayn Rand writing about refusing to accept the premises of your accuser?

I have to look this up, but if my memory is correct, she discussed this when she wrote about what she called "argument from intimidation."

If you want to see a perfect example of refusing an accuser's premises, refusing to accept unearned guilt and refusing to let the accuser set the moral agenda, the following example by Trump is perfect.

Everybody wants to call Trump's statement bigotry and remove the judge's bias from discussion by means of intimidation with a slur about bigotry, first implied, then stated explicitly.

Yet Trump plows forward using his words his way according to his own meanings and leaves people scratching their heads. He refuses the false dichotomy that if he says things the way the PC language Nazis disapprove, he is a bigot and if he says them the way the PC language Nazis approve, he is not. His accusers ask him if he doesn't see that he is being bigot when he calls the judge Mexican, Trump says not at all, he has never been a bigot, and repeats his statement.

But by doing this, he is making people think.

I'm not sure if he does this on purpose--I'm inclined to to think he does. Why? Because it's based on an old marketing principle, even if it is hard to see at first.

People cannot be dislodged from a decision if they came to it themselves through their own reasoning. So telling them what to think is practically worthless in many situations. They need to be led down a path where they do their own thinking and their own choosing.

This principle especially applies to large purchases. A prospect for a large purchase is generally not the only one who decides, he or she often has a spouse or partner, etc.. The seller knows the prospect's other people will possibly pooh pooh the purchase, so he has to convince the prospect so much that the prospect will override these later objections.

The only way to do that is induce the prospect to come to his own conclusion based on his own reasons and values.

For example, here's how it works with a car and a male prospect. The seller knows the prospect's wife will possibly object, so he has to neutralize her objections by getting the prospect to make his case for him (and the spousal relationship dynamics will do the rest  ).

Instead of selling the guy on the features or benefits, he paints a picture of the guy's future while owning the car. He lets the guy see himself in the car, breezing through life behind the wheel with others looking on in admiration, and encourages him to feel what that feels like. Along the way he dribbles in tidbits of information about features and benefits. Then the guy starts concluding--on his own--that he needs those features and benefits. He like really needs those features and benefits. That car just feels too damn good.

This is much, much stronger than the seller telling him what he needs. That is one of the main reasons for a test drive. (That's also why some sellers can't close prospects through test drives to save their lives. They frame it wrong and keep telling the prospect what to think.)

I believe Trump uses this principle by throwing out a phrase intended to provoke cognitive dissonance in the public regarding no-no positions set by PC language intimidators. But rather than saying the intimidators are wrong according to the premises of the intimidators, he uses his own meanings and sticks to them like a bulldog with a bone. This makes people step back and think again about the no-no stuff. It makes them wonder, is it really like the PC language intimidators have been saying? Or is there something else going on?

Hmmm...

Once they rethink it, no amount of previous covert manipulation like victimization stories, social proof, guilt by association, etc., not to mention language monkeyshines (replacing "illegal aliens" with "undocumented workers," etc.) will take anymore.

Under the efforts of current PC language Nazis, average people are not reasoned into compliance. They are intimidated and manipulated into it. If they reason their way out because they want to rethink it, they suddenly get power over their own behavior again. What's more, no amount of arguing based on previous premises will work on them anymore. Not on that issue.

If Trump tells the public that a judge who has a radical Latino history is targeting him because of political positions on immigration, the public will go, OK, that's rotten, but par for the course and it will move on. If the public concludes, through the individual reasoning of each person, that the judge is biased due to his radical past and this is making him abuse the legal system to target Trump, the public will think the judge is cheating and acting like a wannabe dictator. No amount of intimidation, shaming, calling Trump racist and bigot, etc., will phase them.

By snapping people out of their PC language induced automation, Trump is making them think through the issue and look at it with fresh eyes. Most people don't like what they see when they do that and it's not Trump they are repudiating.

If Trump is doing that, and I think he is, he's much better than what I imagined in the beginning. He's scary good and it's a good thing he has good character.

Michael

Thanks for this Michael.  I admit, for myself, some of Trumps early remarks I felt were offensive, but watching the overreach by his opponents, left and right, and then contrasting with his explanations for his remarks I moved closer and closer to his pov.  In fact, if he hadn't done it that way I wouldn't have paid that much attention to the issues he concerns himself with.  And the lack any attempt at objectivity of his opponents, again both sides, moved me farther away from any regard for them.  I think Trump is a good man, I hope he survives this election cycle and wins the presidency.  That's not going to end the corruption in Washington but is a step in the right direction.  The majority of objectivists of any stripe are once again proving themselves irrelevant in yet another election cycle.

[BaalChatzaf]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ha!

Like Jeb...

Where have I heard this kind of thing before?

Michael

Relax.  In six months we will know

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

45 minutes ago, Mikee said:

The majority of objectivists of any stripe are once again proving themselves irrelevant in yet another election cycle.

Mike,

You can say that again.

I swear, I believe some people in our subcommunity are more interested in wielding power over others by decreeing what others should and should not do, what others should think and should not think, what others should and should not care about, than they are in learning and wielding reality to attain their own values.

The problem with Trump is he can't be ruled unless he agrees to be. And even then, he makes his own rules and makes peace with those he can't avoid. But he also thinks those who try to rule him without capability are morons and he lets everyone know it. All the while, he's as productive as all hell.

Trump says of himself that he's good at winning and he's good at choosing and drawing excellence out of capable people.

Amen to that.

In my world, that (in each one's own manner) is what all of us should strive to be like. 

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, Mikee said:

Thanks for this Michael.  I admit, for myself, some of Trumps early remarks I felt were offensive, but watching the overreach by his opponents, left and right, and then contrasting with his explanations for his remarks I moved closer and closer to his pov.  In fact, if he hadn't done it that way I wouldn't have paid that much attention to the issues he concerns himself with.  And the lack any attempt at objectivity of his opponents, again both sides, moved me farther away from any regard for them.  I think Trump is a good man, I hope he survives this election cycle and wins the presidency.  That's not going to end the corruption in Washington but is a step in the right direction.  The majority of objectivists of any stripe are once again proving themselves irrelevant in yet another election cycle.

Along with everybody else not sucking up to power and money.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

27 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Along with everybody else not sucking up to power and money.

Brant,

Ha!

You mean like those anti-Trump people in O-Land who only suck up to power and money when there's a no-win war for profit going on? And when they can talk with relish and glee about how many innocents they can bomb or otherwise kill while blaming all the moral responsibility on the enemy?

 

Michael

[Mark]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Trump says of himself that ... he’s good at choosing and drawing excellence out of capable people.

It might be difficult to remember since there’s so much to watch and read about Trump, but do you happen to remember where Trump said this?

Mark

[Jon Letendre]

1 hour ago, Mark said:

It might be difficult to remember since there’s so much to watch and read about Trump, but do you happen to remember where Trump said this?

Mark

I wish I could help with any cite. It shouldn't be hard. I've heard him say more than once that his skill is in finding highly skilled people, motivating them and keeping them on track. Pressed to name that skill, he responded "I'm a delegator."

The exchanges where he said this were the closest I've seen from him of what could be called modesty. He was saying his people had the skill to run all his businesses, he didn't. Maybe he believes his skill is the superior skill, and maybe it is, but he didn't say so and seemed to imply the opposite.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Mark said:

It might be difficult to remember since there’s so much to watch and read about Trump, but do you happen to remember where Trump said this?

Mark,

I've heard him say it several times in the manner Jon said above. And I saw a meme recently that had a quote of his that was closer to the way I said it. I meant to save the meme so I could Google the exact words, but I lost where it was.

(Note later: It used the Twitter quote below.)

On looking around, the following phrase by him came from a phone in with Mark Halperin (on "With all Due Respect on Bloomberg, see here). "I believe in winning. I'm very good at winning."

And I found this:

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

Ha!

You mean like those anti-Trump people in O-Land who only suck up to power and money when there's a no-win war for profit going on? And when they can talk with relish and glee about how many innocents they can bomb or otherwise kill while blaming all the moral responsibility on the enemy?

 

Michael

I only meant this country is ruled and not by the people. That's why so many people are pissed off and supporting Trump (and Sanders).

--Brant

I'm not anti Trump--not really, not yet--and I'm so glad Cruz is out of the election loop; he scared me, another Bush religious freak--Bush on stilts (Trump, btw, is the anti-war candidate--and I don't think he knows it [Sanders is too stupid coming and going])