Donald Trump

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The Donald's campaign positions so far:

Protecting Our Second Amendment Rights Will Make America Great Again

Immigration Reform That Will Make America Great Again

More will be coming.

Michael

[Selene]

Well well, lookie here...I am no Geraldo fan, however, he did us a solid with this...watch The Donald's eyes...

 

 

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dayaamm!!!

Double-dog dayaamm!!!

There's a lot of buzz going around saying Fiorina is now beating Trump according to a poll. I looked into it and here is what they are talking about.

Morning Consult polled 504 registered voters by survey and, of these 504, Carly (29%) beat The Donald (24%) for the debate.

However...

In the same poll, Trump leads by a lot for these same voters when asked if they would choose Trump as the Republican candidate. Not only is he still leading, he received a bump after the debate (from 33% to 36%). To be fair, Carly did, too, going from 3% to 10%.

The Hill just showed to me how much backroom bickering there must be on how to spin these results. And I bet the problem is not just at The Hill. Here is the headline at its site for its article on this poll:

Poll: Fiorina won GOP debate

By Bradford Richardson

The Hill

September 18, 2015

But... but... but... I just received a notice in my Facebook feed from The Hill that links to this very article. There is a far different headline and even a subheadline. Here's a screenshot (I circled the subheadline in red because I thought it was cool ):

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Another poll from NH is going around, too. It's from a place called Voter Gravity.

Fiorina Leads in NH in Post-CNN Debate Poll

There were more folks polled in this one than the one above (2,839 New Hampshire Republican Primary Voters) and the polling system is called "presidential flash poll through touchtone phone responses." In this flash poll, Carly beats Trump 22% to 18%.

I'm not taking this too seriously because, to quote the article, "everyone in the poll had voted in the last 3 Republican Primary and General Elections in addition to the 2008 and 2012 Presidential Primary." Yet Trump's main appeal is to those who don't normally vote--the silent majority, and establishment Republicans are extremely active in these things right now.

Still, let's see what happens. At least anti-Trump folks now have something semi-real to crow about.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a bunch of students from Urbandale High School, Urbandale, IA, on learning that Trump will address them Saturday evening.

 

 

Imagine if this were Jeb or Hillary being announced.

 

 

Michael

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... a new shitstorm is rising from the Social Justice Warriors about him not correcting a man in that same rally when the man affirmed Obama was a Muslim. Instead, Trump politely blew him off. The SJW people are going ape and trying to use this to paint Trump's supporters as racists while he panders to them.

 

It looks like somebody who likes The Donald ain't waiting for him to play the media in an SJW bait. 

 

 

You go get 'em, girls.

 

Rant-wise, this video is one of your best so far.

 

 

Michael

[Selene]

And no one knows who this guy in the crowd is?

Really?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Trump is going for the moral obligation argument.

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Am I morally obligated to defend the president every time somebody says something bad or controversial about him? I don't think so!</p>— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="

19, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

I like it.

 

I think this is going to resonate.

 

People are sick of being "morally obligated" (then legally obligated) by the grievance industry to curb their language, do things for people they don't want to do, buy health insurance they don't want to buy. Most of all, they are fed up with the moral obligation to feel shame and guilt when they don't feel it.

 

Here's a little gravy:

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This is the first time in my life that I have caused controversy by NOT saying something.</p>— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="

19, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

And this, which is not only 100% true, it's what a lot of people feel about themselves:

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">If someone made a nasty or controversial statement about me to the president, do you really think he would come to my rescue? No chance!</p>— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="

19, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

He's right. I can't imagine any situation--not one--where Obama would defend Donald Trump in public from someone who said something bad about him.

 

Michael

 

 

[Brant Gaede]

All this Trump drama is extremely interesting and even valuable. His candidacy, however, will fade. Too light in the ideas. Carly will take up the slack. Hillary Clinton's worst nightmare (it's being said).

--Brant

[Selene]

He's right. I can't imagine any situation--not one--where Obama would defend Donald Trump in public from someone who said something bad about him.

Michael

This impressed me.

It is the perfect response and I never thought of it.

I will use this counter point argument.

Astoundingly perceptive and everyone knows he is correct on this.

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Uh, better say the "left" of which Obama is a tiny part. A President has a different context for conversation of this sort than the candidates themselves. He gets to defend his Veep and other members of his Administration. He's supposed to be "presidential" even if he, himself and him frequently aren't--not really.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

He's right. I can't imagine any situation--not one--where Obama would defend Donald Trump in public from someone who said something bad about him.

Michael

The only situation would be the classic (if not cliched) backhand: "People say that Trump isn't fit to eat with pigs. I defended him: He's perfectly fit to he with pigs!"

J

[Brant Gaede]

He's right. I can't imagine any situation--not one--where Obama would defend Donald Trump in public from someone who said something bad about him.

Michael

The only situation would be the classic (if not cliched) backhand: "People say that Trump isn't fit to eat with pigs. I defended him: He's perfectly fit to he with pigs!"

J

Ah--Obama the Muslim?!?

--oink!

pigs march on Washington, Obama flees to Indonesia

[Selene]

I would suggest that those that are interested in seeing The Donald become the nominee should pay close attention to this:

And they said they were increasingly convinced that Donald J. Trump could exploit openings created by the party’s revised rules to capture the nomination or, short of that, to amass enough delegates to be a power broker at the convention.

“You’ve got a set of unintended consequences that weren’t planned for,” said Richard F. Hohlt, a Republican donor and Washington lobbyist. “So it’s going to be harder for a candidate to get to the magic number, which could open up the process to a convention situation.”

To some extent, this reflects forces beyond the party’s control.

I am certain that his folks or The Donald looked very carefully at the new "contract" for nomination put out by the controlling klutzes in the Republican Party hierarchy and saw the same openings that I see for him.

Remember "contracts" are The Donald's specialty.

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This one is a bit long.

I've been getting into some kerfuffles with Bidibob (Robert Bidinotto) on his Facebook page about Trump. I find it fascinating how the difference in our outlooks makes for collision, not fruitful discussion.

Growth Mindset versus Fixed Mindset

I have what I call a growth mindset (as in the book by Carol Dweck called Mindset: The New Psychology of Success) and Robert has a fixed mindset, at least with respect to philosophy and politics.

To be fair, it is possible to hold different mindsets in different areas. In other words, one can have a growth mindset in on part of ones life, and a fixed mindset for another.

For example I believe Robert has a growth mindset about writing fiction. He doesn't talk about "plot theme" and other Randian jargon when he writes about his approach to fiction. Instead, he talks about the hero's journey of Joseph Campbell, cites writing technique works by Lajos Egri, Dwight Swain, Christopher Vogler, Randy Ingermanson, and so on (see here for one of his posts--and notice the total lack of any Objectivism-oriented writing advice). In other words, when it came time in his life to actually produce fiction, do or die, he dropped all the fixed mindset moralizing, rolled up his sleeves and learned his craft the right way. The hard way. And it worked.

I can almost see him saying to himself at the time that he has to get through this non-Objectivist stuff and try it out in practice. Later he can see how it fits with Objectivist writing advice. To his credit, he is very successful with his two novels so far (Hunter and Bad Deeds) and I am thrilled for him. I even told him in one of our discussions that I am proud of him.

As to philosophy? I believe he has a fixed mindset. I have always known him to take pleasure in public moral condemnation. Maybe pleasure is a bit harsh, but it always seemed that way to me. And look at the subject matters he writes about.

Back when nobody was talking about it, he had a blog devoted to exposing the evils of the Climate Change folks (it was called EcoNot or something like that). Years ago he edited a nonfiction book Criminal Justice?: The Legal System Versus Individual Responsibility and was, for a while, very active in promoting the difference between punishment and retribution (leaning toward harsh retribution ). Notice that Dylan Hunter, his main thriller character, is a vigilante who kills his targets in cold blood and in some painful albeit colorful ways.

In other words, in Bidibob-land, once a person is deemed EVIL, that's all there is to it. After that, philosophy is simply used as a tool to justify calling said person evil, proving said person is evil, convincing others that said person is evil, punishing said person for being evil, and so on.

Speaking of which, a growth mindset as regards good and evil deals with "evil deeds" far more than "evil people."

A fixed mindset condemns the person as evil and stops right there. A negative moral judgment to this kind of mentality is an inner command to stop looking and stop thinking, but instead go about punishing (or enacting retribution as the case may be ). Concepts like forgiveness, recovery and so on are seen as signs of moral weakness and appeasement.

A growth mindset will look for growth possibilities, even in harsh punishment situations. A growth mindset is not either-or on the person's identity, just his actions, meaning, the person will use his brain and common sense case by case. He is not necessarily a bleeding heart progressive. He will hang the horse-thief just as fast as the next man if that's what it takes. But he will try to curb the cruelty urge in himself. Ditto for selective indifference.

The Donald

So Robert and I disagree a great deal on how to judge someone like Trump. All Robert manages to see are Trump's two entanglements with trying to use eminent domain (which I don't support), his self-confessed bribing of politicians, and the 4 casino-related corporate bankruptcies in Atlantic City (at a time where everyone was going under and debts were being restructured all over the place). This makes him a THIEF to Robert (in all caps ). When I point out the thousands of great projects Trump has done supremely well, he says I am guilty of evasion, that I am merely going on sense of life, that I don't know what a philosophy is, and so on.

Then again, I could level this charge at him for "blanking out" Trump's achievements and so on, except I have abandoned the Randian jargon. I don't categorize a politician (even Trump) as good or evil based on a few cases or lack of mouthing a party-line. And I certainly don't moralize against a person for using his own eyes and ears.

Besides, my point when I talk about Trump's success is never to hold Trump up for worship. It is usually to explain what Trump's appeal is. All of Trump's supporters I know of are producers. They know what it takes to do productive work well and they recognize someone like themselves who is devoted to excellence. They admire that. From this frame, they are more forgiving of lapses so long as there are not many of them and they don't become a pattern. They cut a little slack for screw-ups just like they do in their own lives.

From a fixed moral condemnation frame, once someone has crossed a doctrine line (moral, legal, etc.) and does not repent with the right wording, there is no redemption. Said person is no longer fit to live. Certainly not fit to run for office. And supporters of said person are dupes, evil themselves, low information voters, and so on.

Carly

A real interesting part comes in with Robert's support for Carly Fiorina. He's almost as bad as my support for Trump.

But there is a difference. Although there are lots of Carly's past deeds that are dubious, she currently preaches the small-government doctrine in pitch-perfect party-line presentations, so to the moral condemnation fixed mindset, one can excuse rationalizing her previous bad behavior. And Robert has done this in perfect pretzel form several times.

Lucent and HP accounting and leadership monkeyshines, with resulting massive losses and layoffs? Nah... Nothing to see there, folks. Support for McCain and even Hillary? Nah... she had a context. Losing election for Senator? Nah... It was the fault of er... someone or something... And on it goes.

I'm not the only one who has clashed with him over this.

Notice that the issue important to him is words, not deeds. Robert calls this "positions," but this means words. Phrases. Talk.

I believe if Trump sang the party line with the right vocabulary, Robert would be supporting him in the same manner he is Carly and rationalize the two imminent domain attempts and the other lapses. Ironically, this would not be a defense that would sway Trump supporters for or against anything. They will always be grounded more on what Trump does, not so much on what he says.

Mankind

I suspect I have a deep difference with Robert on how I see mankind. A fixed mindset locks himself into a superior elite self-image as opposed to an inferior "everybody else." I don't mean this as superficial conceit (nor to be offensive). I mean it as what actually goes on in the mind.

This is a sword of many edges, not just two. It comes with enormous pressure to always keep up the appearance of said superiority. And perceived attacks on such a person's superior self-image comes from many sources. Every day there are more and they have to be fought. I know this is exhausting because I gave it all up a while back. I used to be that way.

(This is one of the reasons I am so proud of Robert's achievements in fiction. It's a bitch to hold this mindset off and actually learn something new--then do it--while it wants to honk at you inside your head nonstop. I speak from personal experience. )

Back to mankind. In one of our discussions, where Robert was teaching me what a philosophy is , he made it clear that the masses, despite having a good sense of life, are not intellectually fit to make important decisions about the country because they need a formal philosophy to instruct them. Although we did not discuss it, I read the same essay by Rand years ago ("Don't Let It Go"). I no longer believe this.

Silent Majority Producers

I believe the producers in America are some of the most kickass people on the planet. I admire them more and more the more I get to know about them. I specifically mean the silent majority type of producer.

Sometimes I will post on a Facebook thread by Trump and often I get hundreds of likes (see here for example where I got 345 likes). I've done the experiment of opening up the list of people who liked my post, then looked at their descriptions. Seeing that and their pictures can be mind-blowing. I don't know any of these people.

Now let's look just a little bit deeper. (I'll leave aside those who only mention they are retired, don't give their profession and so on, and I'll leave out their names for privacy).

One guy in Linden, New Jersey is a shop steward. As I click over to his page, I think to myself is this guy an intellectual midget with a good sense of life, but ultimately philosophically unfit to make important decisions about the country he lives in?

Another guy in Hawkeye, Iowa is the owner-operator of a firearms store and is a sheet metal engineering manager. Is this guy an intellectual midget with a good sense of life?

Another guy in Gallatin, Tennessee is the owner of a university medical center and also a heating and cooling company. Is he an intellectual midget with a good sense of life?

One lady in Hobbs, New Mexico is a librarian at an elementary school. Is she an intellectual midget with a good sense of life?

Another lady in Discovery Bay, California works at Ambit Energy. Is she an intellectual midget with a good sense of life?

Another lady in Kansas City, Missouri works at Bayer CropScience. Is she an intellectual midget with a good sense of life?

Another guy in Glendale, Wisconsin works at Johnson Controls. Is he an intellectual midget with a good sense of life?

Another lady in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania works as a buyer specialist at Century 21 Frontier Realty. Is she an intellectual midget with a good sense of life?

Another guy in Cumming, Georgia is the owner of ABC Concrete. Is he an intellectual midget with a good sense of life?

I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point. These are not fictional people nor are they abstractions. Every one of these people have families, personal stories, they went to school, they are engaged in productive work, they are technically competent enough to use social media, etc.

Granted, during a time when there were no mass communications and transportation was hard, I believe a person could be intellectually unfit to see a broader picture rationally depending on his or her exposure to education and other cultures, religions and philosophies. But these people I listed get bombarded with this stuff every day at all hours.

How in hell can I look myself in the mirror and claim I am superior to these people, so much so that I have to teach them how to live their lives correctly so they can make responsible decisions about the country?

God knows I'm having enough trouble with my own life and my own fuck-ups. And, believe me, I am not philosophically unlearned.

End

Anyway, I don't want this to be seen as a a Robert-bash. He's my friend (maybe no longer if he reads this ) and I admire him a lot.

My purpose is to analyze why two intelligent reasonable people can come to such an impasse. I guarantee it's not philosophy. (After all, the other day Robert taught me what philosophy is. )

The best thing I can come up with so far is how we think--the core story that moves us and how fixed it is in our worldview.

In judging candidates, is it possible for a person like Trump to want to build a great country, surround himself with small government people, and learn the relevant principles in more depth just like he has done before with major projects he has produced? Hell no, says the fixed mindset. Trump is a THIEF and the small government conservatives around him are in a conspiracy amongst themselves with a hidden agenda! (Unfortunately, Robert did float this idea.)

I, of the growth mindset, say of course Trump can do this. In fact, that is exactly what he is doing. I see him doing it with my own eyes. His supporters see it, too. Especially, the famous small government conservatives around him see it.

Is it possible for a person like Fiorina to have been seduced by power (based on looking at her trajectory) and is currently saying what sounds good in order to advance her campaign? Hell no, says the fixed mindset. No one can recite the doctrine chapter and verse letter perfect like she has done recently and not believe it. It's offensive as all git-out for you to suggest it and the conversation is over!

Is it possible Fiorina is not what she claims for a growth mindset? Of course, but also, nothing is conclusive so far. There's enough controversy in her past to keep an eye on her. That's all. (On Trump, too, for that matter.) But she could also now be what she says.

I believe it is extremely difficult to reason with a fixed mindset on an argument level--that is, unless you, at least, do not challenge some of the fixed ideas and phrasings, but use them in your speech. Probably, it is better to keep to stories and narratives...

OK. Enough meandering. I guess you can say I'm thinking out loud...

I wish I had a good smartass conclusion, but I don't. So there it is...

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

I do not know the man personally.

However, what was Bob's position, if you know, about our involvement in Iraq?

Thanks.

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

It's been years since all the discussions erupted on the forums about the war in Iraq.

I started Googling, but I don't want to dig. So I'll go on memory.

I can't say for sure, but I remember Robert leaned hard in George Bush's direction. I don't recall if he was a "neocon Objectivist" back then, but he defended Bush a lot and trashed Saddam Hussein (although this last does not mean anything--everybody trashed Saddam Hussein ). Also, Robert was gush-supportive of certain Bush advisors, especially the one on Islam, Daniel Pipes.

Michael

[Selene]

Adam,

It's been years since all the discussions erupted on the forums about the war in Iraq.

I started Googling, but I don't want to dig. So I'll go on memory.

I can't say for sure, but I remember Robert leaned hard in George Bush's direction. I don't recall if he was a "neocon Objectivist" back then, but he defended Bush a lot and trashed Saddam Hussein (although this last does not mean anything--everybody trashed Saddam Hussein ). Also, Robert was gush-supportive of certain Bush advisors, especially the one on Islam, Daniel Pipes.

Michael

I remember the Pipes connection.

Possible reason he gravitates towards Carly could be her national security position and how "tough" she appears.

Or, immigration. Although I have to admit, I do not know Carly's position on immigration yet.

A...

[Selene]

The article in the NY Times that I have been quoting from about the potential assist the Republican rules for delegate selection is at a level high alert about The Donald that I have not seen to date.

If Mr. Trump draws one-third of the Republican primary vote, as recent polls suggest he will, that could be enough to win in a crowded field. After March 15, he could begin amassing all the delegates in a given state even if he carried it with only a third of the vote. And the later it gets, the harder it becomes for a lead in delegates to be overcome, with fewer state contests remaining in which trailing candidates can attempt comebacks.

“Somebody like Trump, who is operating in a crowded field, could put this contest away early if the crowd doesn’t thin out,” said Eric Fehrnstrom, who was a senior adviser to Mr. Romney.

In a telling perception, the Times author notes that:

“There is a bubble of delusion among Republicans and Democrats in Washington, D.C., with regard to their parties’ respective nominating processes,” Mr. Schmidt said. “There is no magic date upon which the air will come out of the Donald Trump balloon. The notion that Donald Trump cannot be the Republican nominee is completely and totally wrong.”

The "drip" is starting to pour...and the Rattlesnakes are starting to commit suicide...

But this was a remedy for a very different campaign from the one now being waged. With 15 candidates in the field, and Mr. Trump at the center of the action, the debates have become ratings bonanzas for the networks and drawn record-setting viewership. And many states, eager to play a more influential role, seized the opportunity to schedule their nominating contests earlier. Eight states in the conservative-dominated South, where insurgent candidates like Mr. Trump could do well, have created a Super Tuesday on March 1, when delegates must still be awarded proportionally.

Here is the key problem that their telescoped process gets them into and it is perfect for The Donald's position of having:

1) gotten out to and holding the lead;

2) spending almost no money of his campaign; and

3) the key and critical date is March 1st, 2016 where Trump can sew up at a minimum the power broker position at the convention.

But this was a remedy for a very different campaign from the one now being waged. With 15 candidates in the field, and Mr. Trump at the center of the action, the debates have become ratings bonanzas for the networks and drawn record-setting viewership. And many states, eager to play a more influential role, seized the opportunity to schedule their nominating contests earlier. Eight states in the conservative-dominated South, where insurgent candidates like Mr. Trump could do well, have created a Super Tuesday on March 1, when delegates must still be awarded proportionally.

Here is what they are cogitating about...

In Washington, some longtime Republican hands have begun conversations about how to handle a race that could last through the last day of voting on June 7, when five states representing about 15 percent of all delegates, including California and New Jersey, cast their ballots.

Kinda makes that Arnold Apprentice deal give a whole new perspective on that California race that late in the process.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/us/new-party-rules-fail-to-speed-up-republican-race.html?module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Politics&action=keypress&region=FixedLeft&pgtype=article

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

 

Here's another person from the right who viscerally hates Trump and doesn't get it why others don't hate like he does: Glenn Beck.

 

He joined Bidibob in promoting the conspiracy argument to make sense of his world.

 

Robert thinks Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity, Ingraham, Steyn and maybe some others are complicit in a "right-wing version of 'Journolist.'" You can tell him you see what they see (like I have done), and explain what that is, but his mind is fixed in a storyline where Trump cannot possibly be a producer and perceived as such by other producers.

 

So it has to be a conspiracy. 

 

Now Glenn is doing this same thing, except he thinks bigger. Trump's candidacy to him is a conspiracy by big business to take out the entire Tea Party. Listen in his own words:

 

 

I find the same three characteristics in Robert and Glenn right now:

 

1. They are aghast that people of their fold disagree with them about Trump and do not adopt their hatred of him.

 

2. The reason cannot be that people of good principles are seeing with their own two eyes and seeing something different than the respective storylines these two live by, so it has to be a conspiracy or some other form of backstage crowd manipulation.

 

3. They refuse to consider the reasons people of goodwill give them from any perspective except their hatred of Trump.

 

So, to them, conspiracy it is. And they start calling good people names, condescending to them and so on when they get really frustrated.

 

 

This kind of behavior is characteristic of a fixed mindset.

 

Michael

[Selene]

You know that I like you treasure Glenn.

However, I do not follow his reasoning on this one.

I have not been listening to him on the radio in the last year and a half.

Did I miss something about Glenn's broad tent approach that if the Tea Party is in an alliance with Trump for this election that they can go their way and he will go his?

Moreover, he is weaving a conspiracy theory with a lot of moving parts that I just do not see fitting with his "analysis."

Curious...

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

Core narrative is powerful stuff.

This is total meltdown frustration at not being the one to call the shots on how people think. I believe it is a self-image thing. A power thing. (A fixed mindset is always about power and comparison to others.) How dare someone profess to have my values and disagree with me?

Well, what the hell does Glenn (or Robert for that matter) think Trump is going to do to screw up America, build a gigantic golf course?

Seriously, this is not a man who makes money off war-mongering. He wants wealth for everybody, he truly wants America to be great again, and he won't be bought while building this project since he's picking up the tab for his campaign.

On another note, Trump is now in his "make the media look like morons" phase of the Social Justice Warrior bait. Look at the following:

Trump to CNN: 'I love the Muslims'

By MJ Lee and Noah Gray

CNN
September 20, 2015

Unfortunately you have to go there to see the video, but it's short: 22 seconds.

Here's a transcript that I took down:

FEMALE STUDENT: So I consider Muslim-Americans to be an important asset to our country and society. Would you consider putting one in your Cabinet or even on your ticket?

TRUMP: You consider what?

FEMALE STUDENT: Putting one in your Cabinet or on your ticket?...

TRUMP (trying to hear): What?

FEMALE STUDENT: A Muslim-American.

TRUMP (trying to hear): Muslim?... Muslim?...

FEMALE STUDENT: Uh huh.

TRUMP: Oh, absolutely. No problem with that.

(CUT TO LATER BACKSTAGE WHILE LEAVING)

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Do you personally think that Muslims pose a danger to this country?

TRUMP: I love the Muslims. I think they're great people.

Boom. He turns and leaves.

Twenty-two seconds and it's over. No explanation. Just dismissal. And his tone sounded like he was saying the most obvious thing in the world, like, "Yes, there are trees and animals in the woods."

Also, Trump said he did better than John McCain did a few years ago when an audience member asked him about Obama being a Muslim. See here at the NYT:

Donald Trump Tells Evangelicals He Handled Obama Ethnicity Question Better Than John McCain

This stuff is just now starting to spread, but the media is already showing signs of backing down after the surge of attacks.

Between these things and Trump invoking no moral responsibility to defend Obama, seeing that Obama would never defend him, they will look like morons to their readers.

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

They are morons.

btw - Trump will be doing some Sunday morning TV shows in a few hours. Guess what he will be talking about?

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

I believe the producers in America are some of the most kickass people on the planet.

They'd love to kick a whole lot of asses out of Washington, D.C.

I keep being intrigued by the extent to which Trump's popularity is mystifying and alarming party leadership on both left and right. Neither side has been paying attention to the existence of the "silent majority" of "the producers in America."

Back to mankind. In one of our discussions, where Robert was teaching me what a philosophy is , he made it clear that the masses, despite having a good sense of life, are not intellectually fit to make important decisions about the country because they need a formal philosophy to instruct them. Although we did not discuss it, I read the same essay by Rand years ago ("Don't Let It Go"). I no longer believe this.

That sounds similar to leftists viewing the masses as not capable of running their own lives and needing an informed elite to take care of them.

To be fair, it is possible to hold different mindsets in different areas. In other words, one can have a growth mindset in on part of ones life, and a fixed mindset for another.

Your descriptions of a "fixed" versus "growth" mindset are resonating with me in connection with the difference between the surface "spirit" of Rand's fiction and the reality of how Objectivism in practice has played out (so far). The reality has (often) been a "fixed" mindset - and there's an undertext of that in Rand's fiction. The surface, though, looks like a "growth" mindset. Thus adherents of Objectivism can think that they're being bold, daring, adventurous, creative, when actually they're living in a regimented mold.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I keep being intrigued by the extent to which Trump's popularity is mystifying and alarming party leadership on both left and right. Neither side has been paying attention to the existence of the "silent majority" of "the producers in America."

Ellen,

I get the oddest feeling when I talk about this to intellectual types or read their analyses. Whenever I mention the producer angle, there is no dispute. There is just simply nothing. A big fat silence. It's even worse than talking to an empty room, where one can imagine a person entering at some point. It's like talking in outer space where there are no oxygen molecules to carry the sound waves.

Yet when I interact with Trump supporters, they may not use the same words I do, but they all treat Trump like a producer as if this were a given. This is generally apparent in comments of comparison. Something like, "These politicians are all talk, but they don't do anything. Trump gets the job done."

I have a collection of articles I have clipped from the web by people explaining the Trump phenomenon. Talk about boneheaded theories! It's enough to make you lose faith in the human reasoning faculty. Look at some of these gems: Hillary plant, emasculated white men, (recently) a conspiracy by big business or conservative small government pundits, Trump taps into white privilege bigotry, entertainer, covert persuasion skills, and on and on.

Most of the explanations then go to the "story behind the story" and that falls into two premises. Sometimes both are given in the same article, sometimes only one:

1. People are angry.

2. The American people are stupid.

These are the prime movers of Trump supporters according to the enlightened masters of deep insight.

I could offer a defense against both being the fundamental urge, starting by saying, "Just go to a Trump rally and look," but even when I have done that, never is the concept of producer-to-producer anywhere near all the depth-plumbings by the elevated souls who instruct us.

Why can I see this and they can't? Maybe it has something to do with my former addictions and recoveries. I did both AA and NA. The premise behind these treatments is simply talking and telling stories without the BS, one addict to another. It takes one to relate to one, so to speak.

So my antenna is tuned to see what is common between Trump and his supporters (meaning me, too). Where it is they relate to each other without the BS, not in words, but in how they live? The one thing I keep encountering over and over at the very bottom is producer--with an emphasis on competence.

On top of that, some of the other reasons our intellectual superiors so generously school us in (like the ones I listed ) might apply to this person or that, but at the root, there is the silent majority producer.

Even anger is secondary. Trump supporters are mostly happy upbeat folks. But none of the intellectual elite class seems to notice. Their anger is like the anger they feel at an inept employee or service provider. They just want to get rid of the incompetent folks in government (but maybe mock them and yell at them a little ) and replace them with competent folks. That means competent at producing, not competent at politics.

This is not like the raw hatred I keep seeing displayed toward Trump.

That sounds similar to leftists viewing the masses as not capable of running their own lives and needing an informed elite to take care of them.

Now we're getting into my Big Disillusionment with the Objectivist world. They've made an elite to ultimately rule over the mind of mankind, although I doubt any of them would own up to this.

And Rand presented it well in that essay ("Don't Let It Go"), which essentially boils down to "the American people are stupid" argument. It's a glass half-empty perspective. The idea is let's fix the defective nature of people before it's too late, before they destroy themselves and what little good they managed to be lucky enough to have. Their good is an accident and we must now make it real.

What makes Rand and followers (the fixed mindset side) believe they don't suffer from this same metaphysical design flaw as the other humans? Ah, but they do. Except they corrected their innate human defects with a fixed doctrine that is supposed to make them morally perfect.

I think humans are wonderful, even those who disagree with me. That's my default. And I don't believe there is a cap on human evolution. Personal growth might be subject to the limitations of a particular individual, but as a species, we have doubled our life-span in a short amount of time, vastly increased our numbers, educated most of our individuals with at least literacy, eradicated many of the plagues and diseases that used to kill folks, exploded the amount high-quality cultural artifacts and availability, and on and on. And I don't see this trend abating. On the contrary, I see it getting better all the time.

Notice that this all happens in the midst of diverse doctrines, not a specific one.

And the empty part of the glass? To me, that is the room for growth, not the defect to be corrected.

Once I realized that this was my fundamental difference with most of the rest of the Objectivist world, I changed the purpose of Objectivist Living to "working through ideas" and started saying Objectivism was a starting point here, not the end point. And that wherever a person took his or her honest thinking from there was alright by me.

Your descriptions of a "fixed" versus "growth" mindset are resonating with me in connection with the difference between the surface "spirit" of Rand's fiction and the reality of how Objectivism in practice has played out (so far). The reality has (often) been a "fixed" mindset - and there's an undertext of that in Rand's fiction. The surface, though, looks like a "growth" mindset. Thus adherents of Objectivism can think that they're being bold, daring, adventurous, creative, when actually they're living in a regimented mold.

There is a huge number of world movers out in the culture who follow Ayn Rand. But they get the growth mindset aspect from her work and simply ignore the fixed mindset parts. They don't belong to any formal Objectivist movement. Instead, they are producers: Mark Cuban, Joe Polish, Dean Jackson, Yanik Silver, many of the entrepreneurs around Richard Branson, many involved with Singularity University, many Silicon valley folks, and so on.

They tolerate each other's intellectual quirks, but they all produce great things, not just talk about producing.

I once made a quip to Barbara Branden and she laughed harder than I ever saw her laugh. This was before my clarity on all this happened, when I was still working my way through to it (from my admittedly fixed mindset back then).

I said instead of Objectivism being a philosophy for living on earth, it seemed like it was a philosophy for controlling other people's living on earth. Man, did she crack up.

Unfortunately it is both, meaning both are present in Rand's works, not just in her followers. I agree with you on this point. Rand herself is the source of both.

So it is up to each person interested in Rand's ideas to see which part interests him or her. The self-help growth part or the fixed mindset part which, ultimately, is about maintaining an inner and outer image.

This is the innate contradiction in Objectivism. It is like nuclear energy, which can light up a city or blow it up, depending on the mindset of the wielder. That makes it appeal to many different people. Popular religions, the ones that endure, also have their contradictions and diverse appeals.

Incidentally, getting back to Trump and Robert, he referred to me in one Facebook discussion as an Objectivist and said it was unbelievable how I could possibly be that and support Trump. My response? I asked him to please not call me an Objectivist.

I don't mind when OL people call me an Objectivist when it is clear that they are referring to the growth mindset type. But I don't want to be identified with the intimidation Objectivists. The save-the-world movement Objectivists. The ones with cultish characteristics. The only thing I have in common with them is interest in Ayn Rand. I live according to vastly different values, starting with actually producing great things (at least trying for now ) based on my own vision, not just talking about how others should live according to someone else's vision.

Ironically, that is the thing I most admire about Robert's achievements in fiction. He did this according to his vision, not Rand's. I can't say the same for his nonfiction thinking.

Michael

[william.scherk]

Robert [bidinotto] thinks Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity, Ingraham, Steyn and maybe some others are complicit in a "right-wing version of 'Journolist.'" You can tell him you see what they see (like I have done), and explain what that is, but his mind is fixed in a storyline where Trump cannot possibly be a producer and perceived as such by other producers.

Until we have a new Parliament up here in Canada, I am not commenting on US 2016 primary election campaigns, candidates and what have you -- but I am still quite interested.

Can you let us have a link to the Bidinotto opinions you are describing?