Donald Trump

[Peter]

Wolf wrote in The Freeman's Constitution: Only in the 20th century did the U.S. begin in earnest to exert intrusive, dictatorial control of every citizen's private life and civil liberty. Today, all business owners are compelled to serve as tax collectors (income tax withholding, Social Security, and Medicare). Global income is taxed, all investment gains are taxed, and an immense code of rules govern the operation of banking.

The result is a nation of political sheep, following the most conservative in our midst. It is a tragedy of unequaled horror, that the meek are led routinely by dangerous and devious charismatics. The only way to rectify this unfolding political disaster is to articulate an alternative legal system, based on a simple proposition that enshrines liberty as the cornerstone of justice. end quote

I think Greg would agree. I know I do.

Chris Sciabara wrote: Peter Schwartz and the Abandonment of Rand’s Radical Legacy: . . . For several years now, I’ve been engaged in a critique of the foreign policy writings of various Objectivists, who, I believe, have abandoned Ayn Rand’s radical insights on the nature of U.S. politics. For those who are not Ayn Rand fans or who don’t care one iota what Objectivists have to say on U.S. foreign policy, this week’s five-part series (which begins today) might not provide the requisite excitement. But for those readers who are classical liberals and libertarians, and who see, on a daily basis, the erosion of the noninterventionist tradition of liberalism, this series will have some merit. Suffice it to say: In fighting for Rand’s radical legacy, I’m fighting simultaneously for that noninterventionist tradition that stands opposed to the welfare-warfare state, while seeking to comprehend the inextricable relationship between the “welfare” and the “warfare” part of that equation. end quote

I thing both of their themes, if acted upon or even remembered when formulating policy, are the way to extend the *life* of the U.S. Constitution. I am glad to see President Trump’s critics on the right, like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, are generating ideas along the same line as Wolf and Chris.

And on the left? They refuse to accept a legitimate election. They are civilly disobedient which is their right, but they are having no effect on the people who voted for Trump and will vote for him again in 2020. Alec Baldwin is like Don Quixote; funny and, ludicrous but wasting his life.      

Peter  

[Marc]

11 hours ago, Peter said:

Ba’al estimated the amount of time remaining to President Trump as: 3 years 9 months.  If he runs again it is not certain he will win. end quote

Marc refuted that with this claim: He already won the second term.  It is quite certain. end quote

A lot of people, including Rush Limbaugh think a second term is moderately assured if our economy pulses with new life after being defibrillated by tax cuts and an end to crippling regulations. That means no wars, President Gladiator. And the only other things that might stand in his way are a scandal, health issues, defaults, or an increase in the national debt. In other words, nothing is for sure and everything is tied to performance after the world throws chaos at the United States.

To you Trump supporters who defend and define him as being super smart, always right, and a grand political schemer, time will tell.  If Trump thinks the members of the Freedom Caucus and The Tea Party are rats, then all bets are off. He would be besmirching a lot of people in O’land including me. I may be campaigning for the libertarian if he keeps that suicidal crap up.

But as of now he is still the best thing since sliced bread. Did you know that during WWII, commercially made bread was sold unsliced, to save on the use of steel blades? No wars, (cue the applause sign) but otherwise, President Trump, you are free to be an international Texas Ranger (the crowd roars its approval.)

Peter     

Beautiful post my man ! 

Look folks , Trump won the election . What folks here desire to discuss be it Mr. Presidents and NK this , or how much bombs weigh and why he did this , said that , or whatever folks debate about . What he did , what he said , the critics , the blah blah blah . Look at the Presidents achievements here.

Reality check now , then I am going to be a good Capitalist and go create some wealth .  I am looking for people ( in Toronto ) , not money . I build with relationships .

Reality is the Mr. President won the election .

He is not dividing his social constructs into Republican , Democrats , Tea Party , or male , female , social status , colour of skin , religion , or whatever . He is dividing into good/evil . Name that what you want , be it good/bad whatever . He is cleaning out the rats from his party and finding the loyal ones . Folks make mistakes and Trump has too . He is partnering with Dems when he sees fit , again he wants people , not pathetic back stabbing .Trump is looking in their eyes , playing some incredibly funny and brilliant strategies i.e. Obama care and the " we vote once " speech where the fakers blinked .He is creating his power base , he is not doing this for 1 term , he is doing this for 100 terms . He is building not only via the issues and demographics only but by people . This administration is not playing for 2 terms . They are changing the world , and playing for centuries . This is a new age , and you don't see it yet , thats cool . It don't change reality though .He is choosing people , choosing relationships , value for value . 

He took Power , he is now focusing on keeping power . Two different games . He is doing grass roots , in his administration , thats true growth , fractal thinking i.e. Mandelbrot . He cannot change the world with rats in his house . 

He is choosing people , hiring people . He is not following the old game , or the old rules . He is building an empire , not for his kids , for the world . 

President Trump figured shit out . 

Makers, not takers .

For God sake folks , this is Atlas Shrugged .

You all are Dagny and Eddie - but its good . 

Platos Allegory of the Cave ,comes to mind . 

This is a paradigm folks , 

Kids today , they say " stay woke " 

I gotta go do some good , and talk to some good folks in Toronto ,  building my own personal empire ,with people , not money 

Ciou Bella 

 

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, Marc said:

 

I gotta go do some good , and talk to some good folks in Toronto ,  building my own personal empire ,with people , not money 

Ciou Bella 

 

Bon chance, mon ami.

[Marc]

3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Bon chance, mon ami.

Muchas gracias , mi amigo ! 

[Marc]

On July 3, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

William,

I'm going to give out a few ideas about why I think Trump's ratings will grow and grow and, unlike my earlier prediction, I now believe it is extremely viable he will get the candidacy.

1. The first deals with the nature of emotions. There are many forms of classifying them, but there is one particular way that is relevant here: valence and intensity.

The meaning of valence is a bit ambiguous as different people use it to mean different things, but in the way I use it here, it means the ability of an emotion to prompt action. So in this meaning, a positive high-valence emotion like excitement makes people want to jump up and down and hug strangers and so forth. A positive low-valence emotion like satisfaction makes people shut down and rest or bask. On the negative side, high-valence is rage and low-valence is sadness. Rage makes people want to kill and destroy whereas sadness shuts them down.

So how does this relate to Trump? I believe many conservative and libertarian folks simply don't vote at all, much less vote for Republican candidates. Why? Because the candidates aren't exciting. They are bland. Romney was bland as hell. He let Obama get away with the most absurd things that he should have been called on and tried to be above it all. Low valence.

Remember the appeal of Chris Christie at the time? People liked the fact that he told it as it was with brashness. High valence and high intensity.

Trump has this high-valence high-intensity appeal in spades. In short, he has a big fucking mouth and is not afraid to use it. And he will not back down like a Romney would. He smacks right back with a haymaker.

Believe me, this kind of thing brings out voters.

2. Trump was an early adopter for Mitt Romney in the last election. Romney still holds an enormous amount of sway with the Republican machine. Right now Romney is leaning toward Christie or Rubio or Bush, but I believe Republican primary voters, who tend to lean in the Tea Party direction, will reject Bush hands down even after he spends gobs of money trying to convince them he is actually conservative, and I am not so sure Christie and Rubio will be able to generate majority stats. This will leave Romney free to choose another.

Romney is a deal-maker. So is Trump. Both are rich. They run in the same economic circles. Etc. Etc. Etc.

So I believe Romney will ultimately throw his support behind Trump. And that means a good hunk of the Republican king-making machinery will go with it.

3. I hope this one doesn't sting too much, but there is the proven success of SJW (Social Justice Warrior) baiting as a marketing ploy. Here is an article that give this process better than I could:

Making The Trolls Pay: How One UK Company Made £1 Million In Four Days From Furious Social Justice Warriors
by Martin Daubney
27 Apr 2015
Breitbart

From the article:

Notice that Chick-Fil-A, which should have been buried because of the bad press on the owner's public statements about gay marriage, has now been ranked America’s Favorite Fast Food Chain by the American Customer Satisfaction Index (see here).

Unfortunately, in the first election against Obama, Sarah Palin let McCain's people muzzle her in the beginning and that was all the SJW people needed to brand her as a dingbat. When she started hitting back, it was too late. Then she compounded her image problem with quitting as governor. The kind of Americans I believe will support Trump hate quitters, even if they love Palin.

Trump is no quitter. In fact, he's a winner. He might be a bit obnoxious about tooting his own horn, but he builds shit and he wins. He certainly will not give SJW people a media calm in which to manipulate his image. So far, he has come right out hitting again and again. I believe he will keep doing that.

For example, when Don Lemon tried to get him on a victimization gotcha by talking about Latin women who get raped on the way to America (see here), Trump said, "Well, somebody's doing the raping, Don! I mean somebody's doing it! Who's doing the raping? Who's doing the raping?"

When you hit back like that, it doesn't matter if the gotcha folks think they actually did a gotcha. It sounds like common sense. And independent people love common sense.

The gotcha folks will never vote for Trump anyway, so he is happy to let them hate him. A good fight needs an enemy and they are serving as a perfect bad guy side for his target audience.

The SJW team might think they are dealing with a lightweight, but Trump has been hanging around with the very best in marketing talent for years. The SJW squad, and even major progressive media manipulators like Media Matters, might want to think again.

Time will tell if I am right.

Michael

July 2015 , 

Michael Stuart Nostradamus 

[Peter]

The President should do away with subsidies to fake car companies like Tesla that lose a billion dollars a year. Instead of calling it a ‘car company,’ perhaps it should be called a ‘care company,’ because that crony Capitalist, progressive snowflake who owns it cares so much about the environment.

However I do see some strategic importance to foreign aid, which is technically one percent of our budget. And if you factor in the protective shield we give to South Korea, Japan, and the NATO countries it may be worth the expenditure to keep Pax Americana humming along. Of course if you ALSO factor in our military placement expenditures that one percent in foreign aid cost jumps dramatically. The largest per capita receiver of plain old foreign aid is Israel.

Peter    

United States foreign aid From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: . . . . In fiscal year 2014-15, less than 1% of the national budget goes to foreign assistance. Amounts in fiscal year 2014, the U.S. government allocated the following amounts for aid: Total economic and military assistance: $43.10 billion. Total military assistance: $10.57 billion. Total economic assistance: $32.53 billion of which USAID Implemented: $17.82 billion . . . . In the 21st century, the US government operates five major categories of foreign assistance: bilateral development aid (the largest amount), economic assistance supporting U.S. political and security goals, humanitarian aid, multilateral economic contributions, and military aid.

From the Times of Israel: Tel Aviv mayor says the city will 'remain free.' In landmark ruling, High Court says Tel Aviv mini-markets can open on Shabbat. Ultra-Orthodox politicians vow to fight move and bypass the court, saying decision desecrates Jewish values. 

[BaalChatzaf]

41 minutes ago, Peter said:

The President should do away with subsidies to fake car companies like Tesla that lose a billion dollars a year. Instead of calling it a ‘car company,’ perhaps it should be called a ‘care company,’ because that crony Capitalist, progressive snowflake who owns it cares so much about the environment.

However I do see some strategic importance to foreign aid, which is technically one percent of our budget. And if you factor in the protective shield we give to South Korea, Japan, and the NATO countries it may be worth the expenditure to keep Pax Americana humming along. Of course if you ALSO factor in our military placement expenditures that one percent in foreign aid cost jumps dramatically. The largest per capita receiver of plain old foreign aid is Israel.

Peter    

United States foreign aid From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: . . . . In fiscal year 2014-15, less than 1% of the national budget goes to foreign assistance. Amounts in fiscal year 2014, the U.S. government allocated the following amounts for aid: Total economic and military assistance: $43.10 billion. Total military assistance: $10.57 billion. Total economic assistance: $32.53 billion of which USAID Implemented: $17.82 billion . . . . In the 21st century, the US government operates five major categories of foreign assistance: bilateral development aid (the largest amount), economic assistance supporting U.S. political and security goals, humanitarian aid, multilateral economic contributions, and military aid.

From the Times of Israel: Tel Aviv mayor says the city will 'remain free.' In landmark ruling, High Court says Tel Aviv mini-markets can open on Shabbat. Ultra-Orthodox politicians vow to fight move and bypass the court, saying decision desecrates Jewish values. 

Specifically,  what subsidies does Tesla Motors receive?

There is no Pax Americana.  We blew that opportunity  over 50 years ago.

All foreign assistance other than money used to finance joint military operations with other nations should be voluntary  and tax deductible.

 

 

[Peter]

Ba’al asked, “Specifically, what subsidies does Tesla Motors receive?”

I had to reread the below article and it does NOT say Tesla receives any subsidies, only that it is grossly overpriced on the stock market. BUT if one adds in the regulatory burden on other companies like GM then . . . if, then, therefor . . . which is some sort of fallacy if any of the three links is shown to be exaggerated or completely untrue. If so, maybe, I could be, but may not be, and don't want to be, wrong.      

Peter

What Is Subsidized and What Is Not Subsidized Feature Article by Robert Tracinski, April 18, 2017. New York Times technology columnist Farhad Manjoo recently touted electric cars—Tesla, actually—as a case where government regulations can have an economically beneficial effect by promoting innovation. “Researchers who study regulation and its effects on business said there have been numerous instances in which regulation speeds along, rather than impedes, technological progress.” After all, we wouldn’t want US automakers to get left behind by “a future ruled by electric motors rather than the internal combustion engine.”

This claim might seem to have been vindicated in the past few weeks as Tesla’s value soared upward on the stock market to surpass General Motors, making Tesla the most valuable American auto manufacturer. But this is actually an example of exactly why the regulatory boosting of Tesla is so destructive. For all the fabled libertarianism of the Silicon Valley of old, today’s technology media leans solidly and uniformly to the left, which really does them a disservice. It puts them in an ideological bubble and causes them to miss important facts and ideas. The economic arguments in favor of electric car regulations, for example, would make a whole lot less sense if anyone had the slightest familiarity with pro-free-market economics.

I would particularly recommend Frederic Bastiat’s essential essay “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen,” because this is exactly what Bastiat was warning against. What you see is the electric car company that has been boosted by subsidies and regulations. What you don’t see are all the other innovations and new productive endeavors that would have been created with the same money if it hadn’t been spent on subsidies and regulatory compliance. So it’s not exactly true that regulations pushed innovation forward. What actually happened is that government pushed forward this politically favored innovation, at the expense of other advances—things that people would have valued more if they had been free to make their own decisions in the marketplace.

In economic terms, the danger is malinvestment, the diversion of capital from a more productive enterprise to a less productive one. Which leads us back to Tesla’s share price, a bubble so blindingly obvious it makes the tulip mania look sober and calculated. Tesla is more valuable than GM? Yet it manufactured fewer than 100,000 cars last year, while GM manufactured just under 10 million. And Tesla still loses money on every car it sells—it posts losses of nearly a billion dollars every year—while GM is finally profitable again.

Yes, the irony here is that GM is profitable only after a massive taxpayer-funded bailout, which took money away from more productive uses—such as other, non-bailed out automakers like Ford. The double irony? We were assured that a government bailout was going to make GM profitable by pushing them to shift their production over to electric cars—which didn’t happen, yet somehow GM is now making money while the electric car makers are losing it.

But maybe Tesla is being valued as a “growth stock,” rather than as a stable, mature company. So what exactly is the future growth investors are expecting? If all goes insanely well, if Tesla hits a whole series of targets that it is extremely unlikely to hit, then someday the company will sell as many cars as…General Motors. In other words, investors are anticipating the potential future value Tesla might grow into after a decade or two of spectacular success. Yet they’re pretending it’s worth that much now, today.

The real insanity is that if Tesla hits its most immediate goal, by rapidly expanding production of its new, mass-market Model 3, its biggest government subsidy goes away. Federal subsidies for electric cars begin to phase out once an automaker sells 200,000 electric vehicles—in other words, 2% as many cars as GM sells in a year. And what happens when subsidies go away? Sales tend to crash.

Tesla’s overpriced luxury cars have been a little more resistant to this effect, because wealthier buyers—you have to be pretty well off to shell out $100,000 for a Model S—are less price-sensitive. But as one observer notes, the Model 3 is supposed to be a more affordable, mass-market vehicle. “Buyers with large amounts of money were seemingly less concerned about the credit cut—but those aren’t the people Musk wants to market the Model 3 to.”

The idea of the subsidies, I guess, is that they would help the electric vehicle industry during its struggling infancy, after which it would become so profitable and self-sufficient that it would no longer need the support. But that’s the question, isn’t it? When you start to subsidize economic activity, you tend to encourage the kind of economic activity that needs subsidies—and always will.

Tesla has carved out a small niche by selling a $50,000 car for $100,000 to customers who are willing to pay a premium to be able to say that they’re on the cutting edge or that they’re saving the planet. It’s now trying to go to a larger market by selling a $20,000 car for $35,000. It’s not clear that this business model works without government subsidies.

What the regulatory support for Tesla has actually managed to achieve is to inflate a massive bubble that sucked billions of dollars of private capital into a company that probably doesn’t have a sustainable long-term business model. At the very least, money and capital are being diverted from places they would otherwise have gone and instead are being used to support a politically favored innovation at a very high risk of failure . . . .

[BaalChatzaf]

4 minutes ago, Peter said:

Ba’al asked, “Specifically, what subsidies does Tesla Motors receive?”I had to reread the below article and it does NOT say Tesla receives any subsidies,

That is the doing of the buyers and sellers of stock.  Any benefits  Tesla Motors gets from that is purely due to market place,  not the government.

I think Musk is more likely to help produce good energy storage devices than that purveyor of hotels on The Boardwalk,  Donald Trump.

[Peter]

Ba’al wrote: I think Musk is more likely to help produce good energy storage devices than that purveyor of hotels on The Boardwalk, Donald Trump. end quote

Don’t be cruel. And don’t forget Park Place, get out of jail free, and passing go, which is predicted to occur one year after President Trump assumes office.

Look up the def of “musk,” and then look up the def of ‘trump.” Trump is better and Musk stinks.   

Bali Hai ALSO wrote, “There is no Pax Americana. We blew that opportunity over 50 years ago.”

2017 minus 50 equals 1967. Are you insinuating that we lost the war in Vietnam? We certainly did withdraw. But guru machine intelligence Ba’al, don’t losers suffer defeat and ruin? If you look at Vietnam, the Soviet Empire, or “The Great Armada streaming towards the Korean coast” who has comparatively prospered in the last 50 years? Vietnam is a provincial, post colonial, somewhat totalitarian, POORER country and The Soviet Union is kaput. While we, The United States, have elected a builder who will use a wrecking ball to demolish the decrepit welfare state and make America great again.

As an aside, MSN and Yahoo are back going all out to defame Trump. They have their orders.

Peter

Pax Americana From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This article is about the historical concept. For the documentary film, see Pax Americana and the Weaponization of Space. Americana (Latin for "American Peace", modeled after Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, Pax Mongolica and Pax Russo) is a term applied to the concept of relative peace in the Western Hemisphere and later the world as a result of the preponderance of power enjoyed by the United States beginning around the middle of the 20th century and continuing to this day. Although the term finds its primary utility in the latter half of the 20th century, it has been used with different meanings and eras, such as the post-Civil War era in North America, and regionally in the Americas at the start of the 20th century.

Pax Americana is primarily used in its modern connotations to refer to the peace among great powers established after the end of World War II in 1945, also called the Long Peace. In this modern sense, it has come to indicate the military and economic position of the United States in relation to other nations. For example, the Marshall Plan, which spent $13 billion to rebuild the economy of Western Europe, has been seen as "the launching of the pax americana."

The Latin term derives from Pax Romana of the Roman Empire. The term is most notably associated with Pax Britannica under the British Empire, which served as the global hegemon and constabulary from the late 18th century until the early 20th century. 

[Peter]

Ba’al wrote: All foreign assistance other than money used to finance joint military operations with other nations should be voluntary and tax deductible. end quote

Is the foreign assistance you are talking about, government or personal assistance? If it is tax deductible you must be talking about Unicef or something. Oh, I see. You are talking about the portion of a person’s taxes that go abroad should be taken off your taxes? Oh no! Not another tax form!  

So . . .  you are a libertarian who thinks taxation is theft? Don’t you think you are being represented? Even Rand thought voluntary taxes would be one of the last things instituted in a Totally Free America. “NO taxation without representation!" Wasn't that phrase invented in one of her earlier novels?

Peter

From The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Taxation. In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government—the police, the armed forces, the law courts—are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance. The question of how to implement the principle of voluntary government financing—how to determine the best means of applying it in practice—is a very complex one and belongs to the field of the philosophy of law. The task of political philosophy is only to establish the nature of the principle and to demonstrate that it is practicable. The choice of a specific method of implementation is more than premature today—since the principle will be practicable only in a fully free society, a society whose government has been constitutionally reduced to its proper, basic functions. Any program of voluntary government financing has to be regarded as a goal for a distant future. What the advocates of a fully free society have to know, at present, is only the principle by which that goal can be achieved. The principle of voluntary government financing rests on the following premises: that the government is not the owner of the citizens’ income and, therefore, cannot hold a blank check on that income—that the nature of the proper governmental services must be constitutionally defined and delimited, leaving the government no power to enlarge the scope of its services at its own arbitrary discretion. Consequently, the principle of voluntary government financing regards the government as the servant, not the ruler, of the citizens—as an agent who must be paid for his services, not as a benefactor whose services are gratuitous, who dispenses something for nothing. end quote 

[BaalChatzaf]

14 minutes ago, Peter said:

Ba’al wrote: All foreign assistance other than money used to finance joint military operations with other nations should be voluntary and tax deductible. end quote

Is the foreign assistance you are talking about, government or personal assistance? If it is tax deductible you must be talking about Unicef or something. Oh, I see. You are talking about the portion of a person’s taxes that go abroad should be taken off your taxes? Oh no! Not another tax form!  

 

end quote 

Charitable deduction.....   Foreign aid done by individuals or associations of individuals  could be thought of as charity. If there is a return on the money, it should be thought of as investment. I rarely think of the United Nations, and on those rare occasions  I regard the U.N.  with contempt, contumely, low regard, loathing,  disrespect, disgust and depreciation.  In addition I do not like the U.N. 

[Peter]

Ba’al wrote: Foreign aid done by individuals or associations of individuals could be thought of as charity. If there is a return on the money, it should be thought of as investment. end quote

How about if I pay to have a tree planted in semi - socialist Israel? On the face of it doesn’t Israel look wonderful as a retirement village? Mediterranean weather, people sitting around sipping iced tea at outdoor restaurants, smarty pant’s everywhere you look? Imagine the conversations. But then those damn barbarians lob a rocket over the border.

Peter

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

Ba’al wrote: Foreign aid done by individuals or associations of individuals could be thought of as charity. If there is a return on the money, it should be thought of as investment. end quote

How about if I pay to have a tree planted in semi - socialist Israel?

Peter

Tzadakis.  Charity. 

[Marc]

FRANK BRUNI: I feel like one can't have any conversation today, without it being at some point about Donald Trump. So I thought we'd just begin with Donald Trump. 

Get him entirely out of the way. 

In my world of friends and acquaintances it seems like everybody is either in near hysteria and feels like we're in the end of days. Or they look at those people and see a bunch of drama queens. I want to know where you two stand on this. What is your state of mind and state of feeling about the Donald Trump era?

We'll start with you Camille because I know you're so shy with your opinions. 

CAMILLE PAGLIA: I am a Bernie Sanders supporter. I voted for Jill Stein. So I want to make that clear.

My feeling is that an election occured. 

It is incumbent upon the defeated party to pull itself together, or else we're going to get the reelection of the present administration. That's what I feel right now. 

BRUNI: You feel like he is going to get reelected? 

PAGLIA: Yes. The Democrats have overplayed their hand. And the -- I just can't imagine--

BRUNI: You're already betting on his reelection less than 100 days in?

PAGLIA: Yes because what the Democrats needed to do-- and the major media, Frank, needed to do was to do some soul-searching. 

BRUNI: By that you mean the failing New York Times?

PAGLIA: Yes. 
 

[Peter]

I see 96 percent of Trump voters would still vote for him again, former Hillary supporters would now vote for Trump, and fewer Hillary voters would vote for her. She only gets 85 percent of her former voters. Damn this video is funny. Look it up.

Peter

Trump Supporter Gets Last Laugh On Thief With Booby-Trapped Sign by Christine Rousselle Nov 08, 2016 4:55 PM: One innovative Donald Trump supporter, however, found an effective way at deterring the theft of his lawn sign: he electrified it. A video of a would-be thief getting the shock of his life (both literally and figuratively) while trying to steal a sign has gone viral.

[Marc]

 

MSK , he called it first !!!!!!!!!! 

Revolution though , that was my word !!!!!  Early on in the thread , boys and girls

How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution Paperback – February 27, 2017

by Joel Pollak (Author), Larry Schweikart (Author)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/04/19/camile_paglia_trump_already_headed_towards_reelection_democrats_have_overplayed_their_hand.html

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Marc said:

 

MSK , he called it first !!!!!!!!!! 

Revolution though , that was my word !!!!!  Early on in the thread , boys and girls

How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution Paperback – February 27, 2017

by Joel Pollak (Author), Larry Schweikart (Author)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/04/19/camile_paglia_trump_already_headed_towards_reelection_democrats_have_overplayed_their_hand.html

A lot can happen in 3.5 years.  How can you be so certain?

[Marc]

1 minute ago, BaalChatzaf said:

A lot can happen in 3.5 years.  How can you be so certain?

All that I am certain of my good friend is that Mr. MSK called it , and that this is a revolution . 

Its already began !!!!!!!!!!

A bloodless revolution . Its already started Sir ! 

[Peter]

Marc wrote” A bloodless revolution. Its already started Sir! end quote

Definition of revolution from the www: a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system. synonyms: rebellion · revolt · insurrection · mutiny · uprising · riot · rioting · insurgence · seizure of power · coup (d'état).

It may be correctly called a meaningful election, Marc, but not a revolution. And your exuberance and hoopla don’t make it a revolution. Who wants a revolution when there is a reasonably fair, voluntary, non-violent voting contest? The good guys won. A revolution by our Founding Fathers could result in a free land that guarantees individual rights, but a revolution without that historical and philosophical background could result in a dictator.

Britain has had Brexit and France could elect a populist, female candidate, though not exactly a version of President Trump. But what does commonwealth Canada have? A government voted in, but you also have a Queen Mum. Marc, don’t disappoint your Mum.        

Peter 

[Marc]

4 minutes ago, Peter said:

Marc wrote” A bloodless revolution. Its already started Sir! end quote

Definition of revolution from the www: a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system. synonyms: rebellion · revolt · insurrection · mutiny · uprising · riot · rioting · insurgence · seizure of power · coup (d'état).

It may be correctly called a meaningful election, Marc, but not a revolution. And your exuberance and hoopla don’t make it a revolution. Who wants a revolution when there is a reasonably fair, voluntary, non-violent voting contest? The good guys won. A revolution by our Founding Fathers could result in a free land that guarantees individual rights, but a revolution without that historical and philosophical background could result in a dictator.

Britain has had Brexit and France could elect a populist, female candidate, though not exactly a version of President Trump. But what does commonwealth Canada have? A government voted in, but you also have a Queen Mum. Marc, don’t disappoint your Mum.        

Peter 

I hear you , but its still a Revolution ! 

I admire your words greatly my man , Peter yet Joel Pollack called it a Revolution , and earlier in this thread I called it a Revolution and MSK called it , yet I do not believe he used the word Revolution . 

 

AS for the Queen,  the Queen Mum and PM Trudeau ( they were all handed power ) , Trump took it 

 

 

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

44 minutes ago, Marc said:

... Joel Pollack called it a Revolution...

Just for the record, Kat had me out on the street handing out political propaganda in 2010 when Joel ran against Jan Schakowsky for the House here in our district. (He lost.)

I met him and his wife during that time. I doubt he would remember me, though. I was just a volunteer schlub. Kat became a fan of his when he played a song he wrote during a rally. 

One day this is a chip I intend to cash.  

Michael

[Peter]

Marco Polo wrote: AS for the Queen, the Queen Mum and PM Trudeau (they were all handed power), Trump took it. end quote

Admittedly, I was ecstatic as I watched the news on election night but Trump took it? Trudeau was handed power and not elected? Once again, do I need to get the dictionary out? No, President Trump did not “take it.” He legitimately won the electoral college but lost the popular vote. He did a good job while running but there was no use of force, or some kind of Nietzsche-an *will,* nor was it a huge win.

We are on the same side Marco, but you are characterizing a meaningful victory in a way that is misleading. I want to see him lower taxes, decrease regulations, grow the economy or even cause a boom, increase personal freedom, strengthen our military, protect our borders, and save our citizens from more terrorist attacks. AND perhaps, legislate an increase in concealed or open carry firearm laws so we can protect ourselves. I am glad he is learning quickly on the job, though some of his campaign promises are running into some snags OR they are evolving as he learns more. And he listens to the experts he has hired. What a good man.

I feel disdain for the objectivists who express disdain for President Trump. The proof is in the “100 day, instant pudding” as a start, but I like my pudding cooked. (And chocolate or butterscotch.) So the Prez needs to remember what he said so he doesn’t get pudding on his face. What he does and not rhetoric, is the crucial component needed for a successful America.

Pax Americana! Live Free or Die.

Peter  

[BaalChatzaf]

10 hours ago, Marc said:

All that I am certain of my good friend is that Mr. MSK called it , and that this is a revolution . 

Its already began !!!!!!!!!!

A bloodless revolution . Its already started Sir ! 

I will assume from the multiple "!"s  that your are not entirely serious.

[Marc]

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Just for the record, Kat had me out on the street handing out political propaganda in 2010 when Joel ran against Jan Schakowsky for the House here in our district. (He lost.)

I met him and his wife during that time. I doubt he would remember me, though. I was just a volunteer schlub. Kat became a fan of his when he played a song he wrote during a rally. 

One day this is a chip I intend to cash.  

Michael

NIce !!!!!!!

Any thoughts on the book ?