17

Trump's Record: and Why Are People Throwing Reason Out the Door For Populist Thinking?

Posted by khalling 8 years, 7 months ago to Politics
186 comments | Share | Flag

For Nancy Pelosi
For Eminent Domain-Praised the Kelo Decision
For Single Payer HEalthcare
4 Bankruptcies, 3 marriages
For Gun Control
SOURCE URL: http://www.redstate.com/diary/southernconstitutionalist/2015/08/08/andrew-breitbart-and-michelle-malkin-warned-conservatives-about-the-donald/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 14
    Posted by Animal 8 years, 7 months ago
    To paraphrase H.L. Mencken: Nobody ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the American voters.

    I keep thinking Trump will implode sooner or later, but then, this is a country that:

    1) Put the incompetent Barack Obama in the Imperial Mansion not once, but twice, and
    2) Takes the fundamentally corrupt Hillary Clinton seriously as a candidate.

    Mrs. Animal and I are stepping up our house search in southern Alaska. Time to bail may be drawing near.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Maritimus 8 years, 7 months ago
      First a report!
      He told us in advance what he planned to do. Few were listening.
      The following is a narrative taken from a 2008 Sunday morning televised
      "Meet The Press'.
      From Sunday's 07 Sept. 2008 11:48:04 EST, Televised "Meet the Press"
      THE THEN Senator Obama was asked about his stance on the American Flag.
      General Bill Gann' USAF (ret.) asked Obama to explain WHY he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.
      The General stated to Obama that according to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171...
      During rendition of the national anthem, when the flag is displayed, all present (except those in uniform) are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. Or, at the very least, "Stand and Face It".
      Senator Obama replied:
      "As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides." "There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression..." "The anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all that sort of thing."
      Obama continued: "The National Anthem should be 'swapped' for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach
      the World To Sing'. If that were our anthem, then, I might salute it. In my opinion, we should consider reinventing our National Anthem as well as 'redesign' our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love.
      It's my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we, as a Nation of warring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam, where peace prevails - - - perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments ....."
      When I Become President, I will seek a pact of agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation, have placed upon the nations of Islam, an unfair injustice which is WHY my
      wife disrespects the Flag and she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past".
      "Of course now, I have found myself about to become The President of the United States and I have put my hatred aside. I will use my power
      to bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path. My wife and I look forward to becoming our Country's First black Family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America."

      Second an observation!
      People get the government they deserve. There is pretty good evidence that many Americans consider it their rational self-interest to live off the lootings from those who produce. Why do they think that way? Because the values they hold are vastly different that those held by great majorities of Americans say 150 years ago. Why are their values different? Because they are not educated to use their minds to the best of its capacities. They are indoctrinated.
      The cancer of communist/socialist/fascist/statist ideology has spread far and wide. In might be curable only after another Dark Age.
      In other words, I do not think that it is stupidity (although widening the electorate probably decreased the average cognitive ability some), because I think that there is some good evidence that average cognitive ability increases slowly over generations. It is that we are not using the tools that we have available optimally.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by XenokRoy 8 years, 7 months ago
    Need look no further than his business history.

    It basically goes like this.

    1) find something that I can get a huge government grant, or subsidy for.
    2) Go into business in that something.
    3) When I can no longer generate enough pull to continue subsidies profiteering continue as long as I can while I look for #1.
    4) Found new area ready for subsidy, pull out a bankruptcy after changing all the loot I have over to others, LLCs or Trusts to protect them from the collectors,
    5) Go back to step one and start over.

    He is in the 5th cycle of this now.

    Those that say he is a great businessman need to look a bit closer. He is the ultimate looter; James Taggert in the flesh.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by blackswan 8 years, 7 months ago
      Taggart destroyed others to get what he wanted. Trump BUILDS to get what he wants. And he takes advantage of every boondogle and loophole available, just like any other businessman would. The subsidies weren't his idea; they're there for anyone who wants to take advantage of them, viz., everyone in his line of business. If, out of 104 projects, you have 4 failures, you should consider yourself quite successful. Finally, corporations and other shelters were enacted into law to protect the entrepreneur from catastrophic losses. Again, it is the LAW. Explain why Trump shouldn't take advantage of the law. I think I detect a bit of envy rearing its ugly head.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 7 months ago
      So, if you see a $100 bill laying on the ground, you will not pick it up, right? Because you know that it is not yours. Right.... The government's policies make it profitable to steal and loot, and you expect people to simply stop, move out of the way and let someone else loot and steal? We all do what Trump does, only on a smaller scale. Show me a person who pays more taxes than he is required to, just because he thinks others deserve it more. However, Trump is honest about this sickness and willing to stop it. Is there a Republican candidate who has done anything in this regard? Yes, perhaps Rand Paul, but then he also brings his religious baggage, which is really just more statism.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by XenokRoy 8 years, 7 months ago
        If you were familiar with me you would not have posted this.

        I was unemployed for 1 and half years during this recession. I qualified for unemployment I never took it. I have had time in my life where I have qualified for other government programs, I have never taken a dime from them.

        I prefer to pay as little as a I legally can to any government thief and take as little as I can as well.

        I practice what I preach so yes, if I see a $100 bill on the ground I will take it to the lost and found and after the 90 days law required I would keep it because no one is likely to come claim it, but I would attempt to return it if I can. The fact is I have done that exact thing with a $50 bill in a local amusement park.

        This is the most fundamental root cause of nearly every problem we face in society. People willing to take what they have not earned. WIthout people willing to "take advantage" the people at the top can gain no power by the corruption stealing it in the first place support.

        If we are ever to really fix this problem more people must choose to not participate in the theft, especially people who do it on such a grand scale, not to eat but to get rich of the labor of others. He is James Taggert and there are Hank types out there as well.

        To soften this a bit, I understand that not everyone is in the situation where then can avoid taking it when out of work and they are forced to do so to eat.
        .
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 7 months ago
          This was not a personal attack/comment. I simply brought up an example using a "personal" case for illustrative purposes. That said, I applaud the fact that there are some honest people in our society. However, I don't believe it is a good policy to simply rely on an individual's honesty, for it may be short lived. I much prefer a system where corruption and dishonesty work against a person practicing it. Capitalism is that system. And anytime any form of socialism is introduced, dishonesty and corruption come with it. Trump is a successful exploiter of the system he lives in. Most of us are exploiters of this system as well, although less successful. But if he is recognizing the sickness, is willing and able to stop (at least some of it), that is worth something! More, I would say, than the alternative offered by the establishment. Trump is accused of 4 bankruptcies; I would say that every congressman, senator and especially president, should get a lifetime award for continuously running the country into a bankruptcy.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 7 months ago
            I find Trump repulsive in personality, and there is a lot of pro-and-con about his value as a potential president - I am still undecided about that (personal reaction notwithstanding). So far, the best I can say about Trump is that Putin would be afraid of him. The worst I can say of him is that I would not be proud to have him represent me and my country.

            I do love the shake up he is giving the political arena, though. He may be the icebreaker that shatters the floes so that other vessels can sail into port.

            Jan
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ nickursis 8 years, 7 months ago
              Jan, I agree with you, I do find his speech to generally be boorish, and he has the manners of Attila the Hun, but then, Attila did accomplish some things. Trum is a master manipulator, and he is a product of the Republican sell out to special interests and media, so they lost all connection to the voter base, expecting them to "comply and conform" just as the Democraps have. As long as we have 2 parties that consistently chase the money trail, and when elected with their false promises, then proceed to start work on the next election, people will migrate to whoever has the temerity to actually voice what most of them see as the truth. Trump conviently ignores the details, like when he said he would "fix ISIS by putting boots on the ground". He sort of forgot about all the other little things that will get in the way, like other countries, getting them there, supplying them, and some weirdos called the Russians and Chinese, not to mention Iran. All that could be addressed, but I think he believes he just saddles up the 101st and sends them on the way with a phone call. I have not seen any evidence to support any deeper thought than he will yell at whoever to get what he wants. The first time Vlad flips him off and says "Bite Me", he will die of a stroke, then we need to see who the VP is. If the morons want to really vote him in, I hope Ben Carson is VP.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ Terrylutz3682 8 years, 7 months ago
                Nickursis, Trump says he will defeat ISIS using economics. He will bomb their oil fields and cut off their transfer of money. He will starve them. I think this is a very effective strategy.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ nickursis 8 years, 7 months ago
                  Only up until Russia says NO.China, Iran also play a part. While I love the idea of a Jack Ryan president, who will actually do something to bad guys, I do not think it is as easy as "bomb them". There are way too many countries we have to have on our side to just up and toss some MOABs on them. North Korea has been embargoed for years and years and the Munchkin is still there, shooting his people with anti aircraft guns.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ Terrylutz3682 8 years, 7 months ago
                    I didn't mean to say Trump's strategy would defeat ISIS. You can not defeat a religion but you can contain it. Trump would shut off the oil profits and keep them from moving money around. There is no way we can win a war with Islam. Let the two sides fight each other but don't let ISIS spread outside the Middle East.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ nickursis 8 years, 7 months ago
                      Agreed, and I understand your point, just saying it is a lot more complicated than Trump makes out, and I want someone who clearly understands that, as well as respecting my rights. I don't see that in him, and 99% of the rest, either. Certainly not in the last few either.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by XenokRoy 8 years, 7 months ago
            Sorry Strugatsky if I gave the impression I took it as a personal attack I did not. I took as what you intended.

            I also agree that I would prefer a system that naturally works against the dishonest. We had one and it has gone the way it has because people started to exploit that system and by doing so turned it into something else.

            I do not believe that the turn coat will do anything good. He is exceptional at saying things that create a buzz and knowing what to say.

            The reason his business ventures eventually fail, I think, is likely that he lacks follow through on what he commits to. He is a showman and a very good one. Showmen usually lack the ability to do what they say and say what they mean. His business history and political history show him to fall in this category.

            Obama says all the right things for the left. He follows through with only the things that are most destructive to the US because that is his agenda.

            Trump has a history of changing his agenda for the moment to keep or get momentum. He cannot be relied upon not to do so again. He will do so again it is his nature.

            I like lots of what I hear him saying but its just that empty words with no action.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 7 months ago
              Basically, I do agree with you. Except for the part of failing ventures. That's just a question of business philosophy - very conservative, afraid to venture, but less chance of failure, or try, risk, succeed and not be afraid of failure. Personal preference. However, if it wasn't for Trump, the front runner would have been Jeb Bush. So we may just as well vote for Bernie, or don't vote at all, since what difference do our votes make?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 7 months ago
            You think that trying to pay the lowest taxes is the same as taking grants and government guarantees? Completely irrational.
            You don't think its good to rely on honesty? But you are willing to trust Trump's honesty? Irrational.
            Strut, I think we likely agree on many things, but you are not making your point clear and rational in this case,
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 7 months ago
              Perhaps I'm not getting my point across very well. The system that we have is so intertwined with corruption that it is almost impossible to not part take in it in one way or another. Sure, one can draw a line somewhere and not take welfare checks, but still get on a subsidized bus. Our money (our labor, our knowledge, etc.) is stolen every day; and you don't take (steal, as there is no other way) something back, it is only to your own detriment, as that simply leaves more for other looters to steal. That is the point of Obama Care - to intertwine looting so deep and thick that, short of a revolution, it cannot be untangled. Trump made a career looting, for sure. I applaud him for acknowledging it. And, perhaps irrationally, I tend to believe that at this point of his financial empire, he is more interested in sense, honesty and legacy, than another freebie. I don't think that Trump is a perfect representative of my wishes, by any means. But the ship is sinking, and while others clean the decks, he's attempting to patch up the big holes.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by XenokRoy 8 years, 7 months ago
                I think I understand what your attempting to say. I will illistare it with something that bothers me.

                I go to the state college and pay my own bills, but 40% of the existance of that school is paid by Utah tax base. There is no way to use the school and pay that extra 40%. I know because I asked if I could at one point because I want to pay my own way in everything. I want to be able to stand up to a socialist and say "I have done it, and so can you" but when it comes to college courses I have not done it and become as dishonest as the next person as a result.

                It reaches a point where every honest person is still a thief, but I still maintain that we must put in leaders who do not support this, or abuse it, as much as is possible. Trump is not such a person.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 7 months ago
                  You paid school taxes for your entire life either directly or via rent. So have I, so did my parents, and their parents. You get more back than someone who can't or won't go to college, yes, but your family paid for it. The state government doesn't have a money printing machine like the banking cartel, yet. Bus rides are also paid for via taxes that you pay (sales taxes and fuel taxes usually.)
                  Trump went on step beyond this and sought public funding for his private projects. Then 4 times those projects bankrupted. Trump is not prepared, nor qualified, nor has the integrity to be president.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 7 months ago
                    But every congressman and senator has been spending the country into bankruptcy. Trump created jobs for thousands of people; he created value. No congressman, senator or president created any jobs, nor value. This is not to say that Trump is great; just that if we were to use the same standards as we use in re-electing the scum in the government, Trump would be solid gold.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 7 months ago
                      You get no argument from me on the lack of production from elected federal 'public servants.' However, being a little less looter than Obama doesn't give me confidence that Trump should be considered for federal elective office. I don't use the standard of Obama or Bush to select a president, and I am pretty sure you don't either.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ nickursis 8 years, 7 months ago
                      Strut, I question if he created value. He created a lot of media stuff that has financial value, but he has not produced anything of substance, except he is a master manipulator. In addition, he has offset any gains with his losses and use of the system. Just because a system is corrupt is not license to use it. That is where we are today, all of politics is basically corrupt, and it has spread to our society. Personal values have gone to the side and been replaced by cultural "memes" that justify any position because they exist. Clinton is one of them. Pelosi another, they will destroy anything they have to to get what they want. Wait until the Obamacare payroll taxes hit everyone with a health plan in 2017, and then you will see some real "WTF just hit us" comments.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by blackswan 8 years, 7 months ago
                  You're assuming that you must pre-pay for everything, and keep the books balanced as you go along. Given the amount of BS built into the system, that's impossible, as you're finding out. An alternative approach is to pay back, as in doing the best you can as you go along, and create something that pays back what you were given. In order to do that, you'll need to do your best at whatever you choose to do. If you do that, then you've paid your debt.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 7 months ago
          Thank you. I have done something similar, though it was with a couple of $20's...and I was desperately poor at the time.

          And further thanks for your last paragraph, XenokRoy. I appreciate people who take time to make sure that a conversation is impersonal.

          Jan
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 7 months ago
        "We all do what Trump does, only on a smaller scale. "
        You speak for yourself, not for me.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ nickursis 8 years, 7 months ago
          Well, it is easy to confuse what has been generally accepted for years as part of the system (such as school taxes, transit fees, etc) and to become so disgusted you want to avoid any appearance or connection to the craziness. I have not had a kid in school for the last 15 years, yet I have paid school taxes, funding everyone elses kids. So I would never turn my nose up at anything I can get that is something that I have paid for through whatever financial rape they devise. Take what you can knowing that it was an established standard, and avoid the "special deals". I don't think that is dishonest or looting. Knowing you were forced to pay for something at some point creates a debt back to you. One they will never balance, thats the whole plan. Trump is way higher in the "taking" department than I will ever be, I wonder what he has paid in taxes etc? I bet he has found ways to write off most of his spending anyways, just like Bill Clinton gets huge fees for a 30 min speech, that funnel to the Clinton Foundation, so it can get funneled back to him and Hillary. Politicians today are experts in how t cheat anyone, anywhere. Trump is just more broad based than most, but I would say he is a pretty good camouflaged politician at heart.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by XenokRoy 8 years, 7 months ago
          I get what he means by this. You take a bus, you are getting subsidised transportation, you go to state school your getting subsidized education. You cannot completely avoid it in our society.

          Each person should wherever they can, and then push for the other locations to get so you can.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 7 months ago
            Trump sought out the sources and voluntarily consented to the funding. I do not.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 7 months ago
              Let's refer this to Ayn Rand. As you recall, in "We the Living," the choice was to hold your head high and die, or to join the system and survive. Really, neither is a good choice. But given reality, I would expect by far the majority to join the system. The alternative is not to make a martyr out of an individual, but to change the system so that honesty thrives and corruption extinguishes itself. Obviously, everyone on the Democrat side carries the torch of corruption, but so do Bushes and Christies and the establishment company. They are all mired in corruption, but will never admit it. At least Trump admits it, which is the first (and a required) step to fixing the problem. He is a successful businessman and, now, a politician - so I expect him to be corrupt. But he may be the best one out there to stop the corruption (or slow it down, at least).
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Maritimus 8 years, 7 months ago
            Except that I pay much more in various taxes (about 50% of my income) than I "receive" in all those subsidies.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by XenokRoy 8 years, 7 months ago
              Agreed so do I.

              Robin hood (if he was real) stole form royalty (the government) to return the rightful property to its rightful owner. He was still a thief.

              Just because the government takes from me, it does not justify me taking from it. It would justify a full out rebellion by its citizens if enough had the backbone to do it, but it does not justify me being a thief back.

              I loose more than I take, but I would prefer to take none and loose only enough to pay for the role government should do. About 8% to state and 2% to the fed would be around the maximum tolerable level in my opinion. That level would force people to rely on self a lot more and government a lot less.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Maritimus 8 years, 7 months ago
                I am glad to hear someone else say that Robin Hood was a thief. He did not rob just from the king. I think that he is much more like the occupiers of Wall Street.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 8 years, 7 months ago
                  Martimus, I do not think that was the story. He stole from Prince John, the Sheriff and the Church-all of which worked in collusion to steal wealth from villagers and land owners
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 7 months ago
                    Not having been there..., no first hand knowledge, but if I recall, Prince John and the Sheriff and the Church still wanted other peoples' money, so after the robbery, they would just send the tax collectors back to get more. Now, if Robin would have killed the Prince, and the Sheriff, and the Bishop.... Well, that would have been a different story.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 8 years, 7 months ago
                this is interesting. Would make a great post. So the Boston Tea Party was about a bunch of looters?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by XenokRoy 8 years, 7 months ago
                  A bit of history about the Boston tea party, first to answer they did not take any tea and it was not really even about the 1% tax on the tea it was about what that represented.

                  First off each colony had a governor that was appointed by the King. There was also a counsel of Burgesses that was elected advisers to that governor. The Burgesses of nearly every state (lead by Virginia) brought up the 15 taxes as unfair if charged only to the colonies and not to all of the British empire. As a result the King disbanded the burgesses.

                  When the bergesses were instated again all of the taxes were dropped except the tea tax. The Boston Tea Party was about the King getting feedback he did not like from those that represented the people and simply shutting down that source of self representation and doing what he wanted anyway.

                  Nothing was looted, it was a group of people responding with force to send a message that the force used to disband there representation would not be tolerated.

                  The king decreed about 15 new taxes.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 8 years, 7 months ago
                so you did not support Ragnar in AS?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by XenokRoy 8 years, 7 months ago
                  Actually I do, and would support a person today who quite honestly stole from the federal government in some way and gave it back to the original owners.

                  That is not the same philosophically or from a value system as taking money from a program offered by the government. Ragnar was in open defiance of the theft of his property, he was not hiding behind the available options to give sanction to the thief by playing by the rules they set up to get the money.

                  If I sign up for and take a dime from the fed or state government in some way where I ask for it. I also justify that its civil and OK to steal from me in the first place. Ragnar did not give them that, he made them face their theft and the consequences of it by not saying it was OK by playing by there rules but rather used the rules they had set up to take the money (force) against them.

                  Indeed I would love to see a Ragnar or a few thousand that would refuse to participate in making civil something that is not. If even 10% of all business and individuals would go on strike collecting and paying taxes for state and federal government it would be to many people to jail without serious cultural, economic and infrastructure consequences binding states hands. Others would fallow suit and the negotiations that would happen would change the US in the right direction forever. This would be a modern equivalent to Ragnar and may actually accomplish something.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ nickursis 8 years, 7 months ago
                    Xenok, your family has been forced, by this same government, to contribute through taxes and fees, and wonderful SS and Medicaid. If you feel they were justly compensated, then you may have a point, but I cannot say that about the money my family sunk into this misadventure that is what the US has become.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 7 months ago
                    So Schindler, by joining the Nazi Party, saved thousands of lives. Or, he could have been openly defiant, shot and killed a couple of Nazis, and would have been killed himself, along with the thousands that he saved. I'm using this example to illustrate that some things are not black and white simple.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ nickursis 8 years, 7 months ago
                      Truth. Nothing is ever simple, and people make it even less so. Khalling has it right, and so did AR, you lose nothing by using what you were forced to pay for.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by XenokRoy 8 years, 7 months ago
                        More than once when talking with a socialist about something objectivity in nature I have had that socialist bring up the fact that rand was dependent on the government at the end of her life taking social security. Her life and what she shared with us would be more powerful had she not given that validation to them.

                        I hold nothing against her for this, She did what she felt was right. In this case it took some of the power of who she was and what she shared with us away in so doing. It validated the social security system. when she took the money from it. I hold nothing against a person who has paid into government systems and uses them, but I also hold to reality. There are consequences.

                        In Rands case it weakened her augments when using them against socialists.

                        In the case of trump it weakens his case a candidate for president because even with free money he has failed many times. It shows he is a person who can negotiate to get what he wants, but once he has it he lacks the fortitude to stick with it and make what needs to happen happen.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 7 months ago
                          I fail to understand how Rand taking a SS check is a negative reflection on her? She was forced to pay into the SS ponzi scheme most of her life and then allowed to collect a fraction of it. Was she supposed to gift all of it to the government/looters? Why? Similarly, Trump used the available system, but recognizes the faults and wants to fix them (or some, at least). What's wrong with that? I work for the federal government and consider myself an Objectivist. Should I resign because the government is mostly a looting organization? How effective will that be in stopping the looting? And how many Don Quixotes do you expect to meet? And how effective will they be and how long will they survive?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by $ nickursis 8 years, 7 months ago
                            I am with Strugatsky here. I also believe AR did not compromise on SS. The government took from her, she did not elect to join it, which is the flaw in the whole thing. She just got back a little of what they took, with no interest. Although I disagree on the Trump thing in regards to the fact he should not be celebrated as an ingenious producer, producing on the backs of others (taxpayers) is not something to emulate, though it often is. Think of how much has been wasted by such programs, and how little was actually produced.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 8 years, 7 months ago
                          first of all she left a sizable estate. She was not "dependent " on SS. Here is her reasoning:
                          "The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims." The Objectivist, June 1966
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by XenokRoy 8 years, 7 months ago
                            Thanks, I understand this, however it is something that comes up over and over again. She did take it and I cant say she did not.

                            This creates a situation where you have to explain the logic, which I do not see as wrong, but it does not do away with the reality that the case is weakened to those who do not understand because she did take it.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 8 years, 7 months ago
    Hello khalling,
    Trump's record is quite distressing. It would be nice to believe he has truly seen the light and is sincere in his newly expressed positions on these matters since he is ranking so high in the polls.
    I know people can change, but they seldom do. There are a few examples like David Mamet, David Horowitz and a few others that come to change their philosophy. Here is an interesting list: http://www.conservapedia.com/List_of_...

    It can happen, but I do not trust words until I see deeds.
    Regards,
    O.A.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ohiocrossroads 8 years, 7 months ago
      Unfortunately, to find out if he's going to make good on his words, you have to trust him enough to vote for him. Then when you see the deeds he does in office, it'll be too late. I don't trust him that much. This is kind of like when Nazi Pelousi said "we'll have to pass the Health Care bill to see what's in it."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by overmanwarrior 8 years, 7 months ago
      That is a good point about Horowitz. I have never trusted him because of his past. But he has been very important to strategic assessing the political left. Trump is an entertainer. I see him as someone who will sell capitalism. Romney ran from his wealth. We have an upcoming election with a criminal and a socialist and someone needs to stand up there and not cower from their personal wealth. There are few like Trump who don't feel they have to apologize for the gains they've achieved.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 8 years, 7 months ago
        Hello overmanwarrior,
        One thing I do like about Trump is his unapologetic success, individualism and his need for no allegiances to cronies if he were to be in office.... Of course his history out of office is filled with need and use of cronies. If I had to choose between him, the criminal, or the self proclaimed socialist... no contest. Trying to remain optimistic, I hope to have other options.
        Regards,
        O.A.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 7 months ago
      I know. I wish Mr. Mamut had seen the light BEFORE I went to college and had to read all of his plays. I also had to immerse myself in Brecht. It's a wonder db ever was able to save me. Oh the shark has lovely teeth dear and he keeps them pearly white...:)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ sjatkins 8 years, 7 months ago
    Frankly I would be shocked utterly if the vast majority of people suddenly started giving evidence of using reason. Sad but true. The vast majority have been thoroughly schooled/socialized to be meek little sheep that regurgitate what they have been told/taught. They have not been taught to reason or rewarded for doing so - particularly if reason leads them to question and oppose the way things are done.

    The vast majority have no opinion on anything that is truly their own. They have regurgitations and approximations to what they think others think that they think they should align with. Although I do think some of the Trump popularity is people just viscerally liking someone who speaks his mind for a change rather than the normal mealy-mouthed political spew.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by XenokRoy 8 years, 7 months ago
      sjatkins,

      I am reading a book called "Quite" which I highly recommend to anyone. One section of it talked about a study where they were trying to determine if group think happened because:

      a) People really new the correct answer but lied
      b) People did not know the correct answer and went along with the group without knowing
      c) people believed they had the correct answer.

      They did this by watching brain activity in specific areas of the brain that would indicate which of the three it was.

      First when asked the focus questions individually 70+ percent got them right.

      When asked in a group less than 30% got them right.

      Brain activity showed that for most of those (over 40%) who gave a different answer they overwhelmingly (90+%) thought they were right.

      It is the worst of the 3 scenarios. People who answered differently were largely not lying, and not going along with the group in order to fit in. Thier minds processed the answer as if it were the correct answer.

      The takeaway to me. Watch yourself because your brain will attempt, if not guarded and guided to fit in without you even realizing what your doing.

      Cool book so far, I am a bit past half way through it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ nickursis 8 years, 7 months ago
        Now you are really POing me. You are saying Pelosi really thinks Obamacare is right??? That Hillary really thinks her email server was no big deal? Obama thinks Iran really will just build some nice power plants? Yuck... Maybe it's just the physical symptoms of the stupidity virus...That covers so much of the spectrum of prattle we hear from both camps. At that point we just have to take all their toys away, and shut down twitter until we get some semblance of sense going again....
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by XenokRoy 8 years, 7 months ago
          Nickursis,

          A little context of the post you are referring too.

          The study refereed to in the book this thread is referencing found that 40% of those in the study who knew the correct answer when ask the question privately would follow a strong leader (actor placed in the group) who gave a false answer and based of brain activity believe they were right while in group think mode following that planted leader.

          The only way it would apply to Polosi really thinking Obamacare is right is if Polosi is not thinking but following the group thought based on Obama's leadership. Which could be the case but I doubt it.

          Hillary is clearly leading on the email server had no possibility of group think as a factor.

          Obama talking of Iran and power plants, he would be the planted leader. The people who regurgitate anything Obama says may actually believe his BS. They take it as fact and engage in group think, they actually believe what he feeds them to be true. If the study is accurate then about 40% of people will follow a leader who states boldly a lie, and think it to be truth. Very likely a factor in this scenario.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ nickursis 8 years, 7 months ago
            Xenok, it is difficult to separate where the group think stops and true manipulation begins. Hillary and Bill have been masters of manipulating opinion since they were in office. Whether that qualifies as group think of a believer version or not I can't tell, but the Dems seem to have a much higher competency in manipulating opinion and marshaling the tools to do it with than the Reps do. I think that may be what scares the Establishment Reps the most, Trump is showing signs of the same ability. Maybe he is taking their planted leader role for himself.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by XenokRoy 8 years, 7 months ago
              Agreed.

              Seperating the two is difficult. Before looking at this study I would not have believed people really believed it, at least those who when asked individual knew better. I would have figured they had to lie to themselves, but based of this study 40% of them will know the truth when alone, but completely believe a strong leader when in a group.

              It says a lot about why we are where we are. Group think is more powerful in its ability than I would have believed.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ nickursis 8 years, 7 months ago
                Oh yes, and I have had this discussed in Psych class in college. People can be manipulated between their bias and a framed situation into believing weird things like Obama is a really good president who cares about us all. Look at Mao Tse Tungs cult status in the 50's and 60's, which the North Koreans tried to duplicate. Once the group mind is poisoned by other data (such as North Korea currently is by radio and internet, despite controls and jamming), then they get the guns out (which they have done).
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 7 months ago
          No but they expect you to believe it. The left's version if the truth is whatever advances the party. It's the only truth they have.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ nickursis 8 years, 7 months ago
            Michael, I have to say I think it is both sides, the left has just been more open and egregious about it. I posted an article in Education about the U of Illinois being racked by "they did email off official servers" crisis and the pay they get is absolutely outrageous. Yet they are the ones programming the droids to let these yahoos keep on pillaging, "for the public good".
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 7 months ago
        Is it by Susan Cain?

        Jan
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by XenokRoy 8 years, 7 months ago
          That is the book.

          Slight warning, she does have liberal leanings based on some of what she states and the people she focuses on for examples. A bit of Alturism comes through from her. You just need the filter of your mind on like anything.

          The concept of introversion is a strength that is largely ignored in our culture a greatly under valued. The data, and studies she references and the way she puts it together are exceptional.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 7 months ago
            Thanks. Most of the 'introversion is good' topic books that I have had handed to me are just cheer leading to try to bolster the crumbled self-image of introverts. Since I never needed this, not being the crumbling kind, they were pretty useless.

            A book on that topic with actual science in it would be welcome.

            Jan
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 7 months ago
    Goldwater-Reagan 2016.
    Heck, might as well go for broke.
    Jefferson-Jackson 2016.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by XenokRoy 8 years, 7 months ago
      Jeffereson wanted to dispose of the central bank but thought better of it. We would be way better off if we still had the one that Jackson did dispose of.

      Hamilton had set it up well. Gold backed and restricted from playing funny money. The right restrictions were in place. Had Jackson not removed it the greenbacks of the civil war would never have happened.

      Hamiltonian central bank existed to keep currency stable, currency was gold or backed by gold or silver and loans had to have 50% backing by any bank.

      In addition the central bank could make loans (note loan) for the purpose of developing an industry viewed as key. Hamilton used it in this way for the textile industry with the equivalent of $2000 pounds, all of which had to be paid back in 5 years and it was.

      If that was still our system we would be rocking it today.

      Jefferson saw no need for a central currency management until he was in office and had 5 different financial advisers look at Hamilton's baby. He listened to them and did not dismantle but did restrict it further. (he added the requirement for backing on loans).

      Hamilton central bank was as it should be, a central backer for currency, a vault that kept the gold and a financial center to kick start key industry in the US through loans, not investment. The Austrian economic model works for this purpose.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 7 months ago
      Jackson?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 7 months ago
        Yes, the two that closed down the central banksters.
        Even dead they are more capable for POTUS than the current crop of looters, er, candidates.
        They would never be able to sign new bills, and would not create any new Executive orders.
        They would not rush into any "free trade" treaties or start any wars.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ nickursis 8 years, 7 months ago
          Oh man, the whole
          Executive Order" thing.. that has been taken out back and restriped a few dozen times....a tool to get around any and all rules or regulations.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 years, 7 months ago
          Jackson is not looked on kindly in History
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 7 months ago
            Jackson is not looked upon kindly in history because a) he had a belligerent personality, and b) he opposed statism, particularly from the bankers, and c) he opposed Henry Clay (whom history's authors in the last 100 years have liked). Those who have rewritten the history in the last hundred years have written it from the statist perspective.

            Yes, Jackson had some bad moments, most notably The Trail of Tears, but overall he was one of our finest presidents.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ nickursis 8 years, 7 months ago
              His abilities in New Orleans were what got him elected. He was always able to take people and get the most out of them, I read a couple chapters devoted to him in the War of 1812, and the author echoed your position. Jackson is a very underrated president. But he does resemble some of Trumps aspects. Not many, but some.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by dbhalling 8 years, 7 months ago
              I think Jackson did not understand finance. Jefferson also did not understand how fractional reserve banks worked and vilified because of his ignorance.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 7 months ago
                How do you come to the conclusion that Jefferson didn't know how fractional reserve banks worked, please?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by dbhalling 8 years, 7 months ago
                  Jefferson's vehement attack on banks was based on a lack of understanding of how they work - this comes through in his attack on banks.

                  Can you show me something that shows he knows how they worked? In fact, Jefferson seems to have held economic views that were closest to the physiocrats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physioc.... Jefferson was brilliant man, but not about economics. He wanted the US to be made up of self-sufficient farmers, who were philosophers. Luckily he did not actually follow this point of view as president.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 7 months ago
                    What specific attack on banks exposes his lack of knowledge?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • -1
                      Posted by dbhalling 8 years, 7 months ago
                      I am not your research assistant. It is well known that Jefferson was against banks, do a simple search on the internet.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 7 months ago
                        I am not your research assistant either. I didn't make the statement that Jefferson didn't understand banking, you did. You made a statement and now refuse to provide any support for it.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 8 years, 7 months ago
                          you make comments against banking regularly on the site without separating out the crony and Fed from the purpose of banking in the first place, including financing which is essential to business growth
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 7 months ago
                            I think I have also made statements in favor of free market banking. I (and others) have provided sources for the criticism of the banking cartel, e.g., The Creature From Jekyll Island.

                            So now that you have tried to deflect the topic to place blame on me and I have answered, how about actually posting some support for the statement that "Jefferson also did not understand how fractional reserve banks worked and vilified because of his ignorance."
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 7 months ago
            And Lincoln is a saint. Big surprise.
            Cui Bono.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 7 months ago
              How much did he earn? Some reason I thought he died almost a pauper. Not much Cui Bono there. Didn't even get a good book deal or a turn on the lecture circuits.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 7 months ago
                The Cui Bono was about government historians praising the traitor Lincoln (and trashing Jackson) to justify more traitorous acts and convince others that opposition to banksters is only done by dishonorable men.
                As for Lincoln, he held dictatorial power and channeled fortunes to his backers. If I had a time machine, Lincoln's parents would never have met.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 7 months ago
                  Hmmmm. So he was just like all the rest? good reason not to vote for the Government Party. But that's in the past and it can't be changed only learned from. And not repeated. Right. Sure. I predict once again the next President and the winning Party will get over 95% of the popular vote and all of the Electoral Vote. I haven't been wrong yet.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 7 months ago
                    I recommend DiLorenzo's book, The Real Lincoln . There are a lot of presentations on youtube by DiLorenzo that you may find interesting, too.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 7 months ago
                      Oh yes I remember DiLorenzo the sheep herder and what's his face the fifth tier Boortz wannabe. The do nothings whose web site is all about sending them money

                      I don't do You Toob Not into social media. I'm not that stuck in the past to know how to not make the same mistakes.

                      Lincoln begat Wilson and Wilson begat Roosevelt and Roosevelt begat and the rest of the ends justifies the means crowd. So far this time around it's cost us giving up everything we're supposed to stand for including the Bill of Rights.

                      History in a nutshell and no need to read the book
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 8 years, 7 months ago
    The harsh reality is that without The Donald the GOP wouldn't have promoted a candidate who had a chance in the first place. No way, no how that Jeb could beat Hillary. Never ever.

    I'm not watching any other debates. Not following this on the news. I'm already done. I think the country is so finished and the voters so far mentally gone that why bother? Even if a candidate arrived who spoke sound fiscal, monetary policy almost nobody would recognize it. It'd be like talking to the public about forced convection, or Von Misses stress...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 7 months ago
      That's a step in the right direction. One half of the Government Party down for the count! Now for Uncle Fuzzy and The Wicked Witch of the Left. With luck - ah hell I forgot - there is no None of the Above.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 8 years, 7 months ago
    Something will trip him up eventually. Until then he is entertaining and tapping into an anti government sentiment. As the field narrows I think the support will gravitate to anyone but Trump. Interesting to see how he reacts as the poll numbers change.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jabuttrick 8 years, 7 months ago
      Correct about the narrowing field. Trump is benefitting tremendously from the 17 person field. After the culling begins the supporters of the former candidates will realign and it won't be to Trump who is nobody's second choice. Once it gets down to about 4 candidates, Trump will be toast. You heard it here first.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 7 months ago
        17 candidate field perfectly good gender neutral word. Person is sexist. Wonder what the PC crowd would do if they had to actually pick up a dictionary. instead of replacing one word with a more sexist word than the one it replaces.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ProfChuck 8 years, 7 months ago
    Advice for anyone trying to understand a politician or someone wanting to become a politician. Ignore everything they say and pay close attention to everything they do. It is axiomatic that politicians lie and they do so to further their own political career. Also, when someone desires a political office they can be expected to lie in order to conceal their true motives. Trump is an enigma but is probably not an exception to this rule.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 8 years, 7 months ago
    The guy has every right to run for the presidency. He is a born and raised in the usa person and he has lots of money to promote /himself. In the event that he wins the job which is thankless he may be good at it, we don't know. What will be good is to see how the weasels of d.c. react to his presidency if that were to happen. We all know it matters not what the candidate says because once elected as in the case of 0 other things are done. Except in the case of 0 he said he was going to fundamentally change america and that was not a lie.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 8 years, 7 months ago
    I think a lot of his support is coming from the frustrated. People that have worked in the system to correct our course, only to see it do absolutely no good.

    Trump is at least forcing all the others to confront issues they would just as soon pretend don't even exist. That I support.

    I don't think he has long term staying power, but if he can force some backbone into the other candidates, it would be a big improvement.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ nickursis 8 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I really enjoyed his discussion. He has good points for his view, and it works for him. He has evidence of his abilities in the twins story, and, as l listened to him, I got the impression he is very thoughtful, calm, and logical, as well as very strong in his faith. I can live with a man of his convictions, as I did not sense he was trying to force it on others. He was not a "my way or highway" type, but he makes his point of view known, and interprets things in that light. Since he was on his own turf, (he obviously was not selling his view to anyone in that room), I can't be sure how he would react in a hostile audience. But I would say he still is the best bet the Republicans have. I would love to see him debate Clinton or Sanders, I think he would very quietly rip them up. Thank you for the link.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 7 months ago
      Agree with all of the above. Here's a problem, however; at least in my mind. He is clearly a man of deep convictions. Good. I prefer to deal with Objectivists with deep convictions, and I count myself among them. But Objectivist convictions are based on facts, which means that when presented with factual evidence, the person will alter those convictions to coincide with the facts. A person with deep convictions that are based on faith will tend to alter facts to coincide with the convictions. For example, his successful operation on the twins, he is attributing not to his training and that of others on the team, but to divine providence. That is altering facts to fit the belief. In another interview, he was asked, which he would consider to take precedence - the Bible or the Constitution. He did not answer the question, claiming that it was too complicated for a quick answer, but my take on it is that the Bible would take the precedence for him. This has danger lurking within. Perhaps here I am being irrational, as I am making these statements without factual evidence. What worries me is that, in my opinion, these types of personalities can be fanatics. As far as I know, Carson has never been in a position of power. We don't know how he will act in the role of a president with almost unlimited power, acquired overnight. For whatever it's worth, Lincoln was a man of deep convictions, with no power-handling experience beforehand, and the result was a despot (regardless of one's opinion of whether Lincoln was right or wrong, he was a despot). This is scary.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ nickursis 8 years, 7 months ago
        Good points, I do not believe that he would be so corrupted. I am willing to bet he has made a very good living off his skills, and is used to relative wealth and some of the power that brings. Yet I do not see any evidence he is anywhere near as corrupt as the rest of them (Trump included), especially in regards to individual rights. That is a very biased statement because he does not have a track record, but I think we need someone without a political track record as well as the baggage that brings, he will accrue enough if he gets elected. He does do what could be either dodges of quesions or maybe he really did mean it was a complicated question, and most people will not discuss anything more than 5 minutes before they want a decision and then go off topic, get bored, or fall asleep. He has to work within the framework he is given and the bulk of America wants te short version of everything, which is why we get the crap we get. Imagine if they had all had to read Obama care before they voted? The speed factor is a manipulative tool that they system has adapted to, and Carson seems to doa really good job holding it in and still getting a valid explanation out. I noted in some of his videos he can be short and to the point, yet justify his position, but you have to believe he has the facts to back it up. I did not buy his creationist position, but I also see he is not pushing it either, he just states his apparent reasons to align to the story, which I am ok with. Could he be a fanatic? Probably, but then I see all of them right now as fanatics, and then they weird out on specific special interest topics and all else goes in the crapper. I would hope he would help get things back to the real problems we have and get the govt back to some semblance of what it should be. He isn't a great choice but we are talking about a basket of spoiled fruit to choose from here....
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 7 months ago
    Can you say...Hegelian Dialectic?
    Create a problem, pressure you to scream about it and call out for someone to stop this crap...at this point?...Gotch ya!

    I am convinced, Vote for him and we're screwed!
    You think he's not connected to the Bildeburgs!
    Think again...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by samrigel 8 years, 7 months ago
    Let's not be too tough on the The Donald just yet. Time for toughness is coming. He has everyone shaking in their boots. They can't control him, they can't buy him, he says what he says without any of the PC nonsense and gets the points out in the open. But I suspect that as time goes by, not too much time, he like all narcissists will put his foot in it and the party will be over. But at that point, my hope is, that a good candidate will have seen and used Trump to pull themselves up to show their true Conservatism. Thereby gaining the appeal with the vast numbers of Conservatives in the wild. Patience, no party last forever.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 7 months ago
    It dawned on me as I heard a Trump tirade that it all sounded familiar. Not the words, but the scenario. He spoke about what we all wanted done, but with no details on how he was going to do that. But his attitude and the feelings he stirred in people were reminiscent of the way audiences were affected by every dictator from Napoleon to those of the present day. I asked myself, why was this guy credible? Then I reminded myself what I thought after Obama got elected twice; the truth of an argument has nothing to do with its credibility. One of the things we seem to forget about, with all the rhetoric of all the topics, is that we will put a person into the ultimate seat of power. What kind of character does this person need to have to wield that power properly? Time for a quote:
    "Power is nothing more than the capacity to get things done. It is the uses of power that are virtuous or evil." --Laurence J. Peter
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by KCLiberty 8 years, 7 months ago
    The answer is simple. It is what most Americans have been conditioned to do every election cycle. There are probably people here that were all about electing McInsane the fake war hero and his retarded soccer mom partner. Or, thought Obama was going to stop the wars and genocide. It is all a psy-op by the military industrial banking complex. All the stupid things we have done, helping ISIS take over Libya, helping ISIS kill Syrians, leaving Iran in charge of Iraq, etc... - it is all based on the dollar and the banksters.

    I always thought it, but back in '08 it became glaringly obvious. There was a "Foreign Policy" "Debate" on CBS I think. Ron Paul, the one anti-genocide/war person, the one person with a different opinion, was given 90 seconds to speak out of an hour and a half. It was disgusting. But, really woke me up to how much control the war profiteers have over the media.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 7 months ago
      Just speaking as a former 24 year veteran of the combat arms I have to ask

      "Where were your jumps?"
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by KCLiberty 8 years, 7 months ago
        I don't understand the question. Are you asking if I was Airborne?

        I too am a veteran, albeit a short active Army enlistment and some time in the reserves. Being in the "combat arms" could mean you were in any of the military branches or even CIA.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 7 months ago
      I won't take away a point but I completely disagree about Palin. Tell me what's so "retarded" about the former governor of Alaska?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by KCLiberty 8 years, 7 months ago
        Apparently you've never heard her speak. She is devoid of understanding her talking points. She is truly stupid. OK, maybe not retarded, just dumb as Hell.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 7 months ago
          Examples? KHalling asked or examples not rhetoric.

          She sure as hell shot down the media. i remember she was the only one in the room who understood what the role of Vice President was- Constitutionally. Not of the left wing fascists had a clue and clearly showed how retarded they were. I love it when those who claim to be journalists are shown up as nothing more than reporters AKA propagandists.

          You want Dumb meaning 'can't speak' or ignorant or stupid you have to quote Pelosi. do you want examples?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by KCLiberty 8 years, 7 months ago
            No thanks. I don't play the false left/right paradigm game. There is no difference between the two "parties". They are both big government corporatist organizations and, like the media, are used to give the people a false choice. (just as FOX News has the same messages controlled by the military industry as MSNBC, they just cater to a different demographic).

            Your misunderstanding of the word "fascist" is all I needed to see. Hard to believe you are on an objectivist forum.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 7 months ago
    So, for all the people that don't like Trump, consider this -- if it wasn't for Trump, the Republican Party's front runner would have been Jeb Bush...
    Enough to ruin my day!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 7 months ago
    Thanks, khalling, for that very enlightening article.
    In my own dino way, I was finding Trump's bull in a china shop rampage highly amusing and was cheering him until his reaction (and also his crybaby name calling thereafter) to Megyn Kelly's opening debate question.
    I have a lot of respect for Kelly as well as Michelle Malkin, whose warning about Trump I just read via a link in the Eric Ericson article.
    I was all over it arriving at following conclusion anyway and now I shall state it without equivocation--
    But what sounds better?
    Dino dumps Trump
    or
    The Dino dumps The Donald
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 7 months ago
      I used to have respect for Kelly. But I think that her question/comment was inapproriate, rude and had nothing to do with policies that should have been discussed in a "debate." In fact, the debate should have been between the candidates, discussing their positions on national and international matters, not snipping between the "moderators" and the candidates.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 7 months ago
        I just returned from my dentist's office where I saw an editorial cartoon in today's The Birmingham News.
        Megyn Kelly sits at a desk holding a pipe as if to look like an old-fashioned patriarch figure.
        Donald Trump's head is floating in the air.
        Kelly says: "Go ahead, make my career."
        Trump says, "Go ahead, make my dinner."
        It took me a couple of seconds to "get it."
        Then I barked out a laugh in the waiting room with people looking at me.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 7 months ago
        Shortly after the debate, Kelly stated that Trump cannot expect his opposition to play nice.
        IMO, early debates should be a process for weeding out candidates who will not be able to hack in the big league.
        Trump is crazy if he thinks Benghazi Killary won't throw (factual) mud.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 7 months ago
          This should not be a prep school for aspiring candidates to face the DEMOCRATS. This should be an interchange of ideas of how to lead the country. Instead, it was made into personal snipping between the candidates and the media, often on subjects that really don't matter. What difference does it make what Trumps thinks of fat women, for example (including Rosie)? This should have been a direct discussion (if that is even possible anymore) between the candidates, with some moderate moderation.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 7 months ago
            Face the??? There's a difference? Only one with any meaning. Number of US Service personnel killed in wars started by the two halves of the government party. 18:1 Democrats vs Republican since WWII. The rest is tweedle DEMO and tweedle DUMBO adding up to 100% BS.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 8 years, 7 months ago
    I view Trump as a businessman and opportunist. That said, if you view him as I do the large majority of his actions and positions are understandable as being profit motivated. While some of the things he's done over the years may have been unsavory, I've never heard of him accused of anything unlawful.

    My biggest concern about Trump is that he would run the country to profit himself and his friends and actually hurt the nation at a time when it desperately needs CPR. If he were able to quell my concern and run the country as he would his businesses for the benefit of the American people, and in the process his companies - rising tide raises all boats mentality- then I could easily bypass his boisterousness, which I find thoroughly refreshing most times, and support his candidacy.

    This country could really use an America-first, I don't give a damn if you like me, oriented opportunist.

    Trump still has a long road to travel and quite a bit to prove of his fidelity.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ woodlema 8 years, 7 months ago
    Ok, aside from the fact I am a Trump supporter, I read both articles.

    I then went to the Puclic Records in the New York Civil court records, the New Jersersy records, even Arizona and California civil court records, and cannot find ANY cases where Trump or his organization used Eminent domain and the courts to do what is claimed.

    I do know that one such "occurrence" was the Trump Casino in New Jersey but Carl Icon owned that and Trump only leased his name to the building as a branding tool. Trump did not actually "own" any of it.

    But even that story was a bit wonky because the people who filed suit were offered, if I remember right, 5.3 million dollars for their property which they then refused, they also won their lawsuit, against Carl Icon and his attempt at eminent domain, then complained when their property only sold recently for 600K
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo