Seems to a regional thing. I'm from the twin cities. Lots of Hagens here. I spent my teenage years in Chicago. The phone boo, the white pages were 3" think, and there were only two Hagens. In MN, there's dozens with my first name alone. Thanks for noticing...

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.

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).

You think Trump is? I'm not sure they wouldn't toss him out first meeting...

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....

j, I know some Hagens and it is not a common sur name. are you from the Seattle area?

Ha! Never thought of that! Good point!

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.

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.

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.

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.

There it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPqq6...

Comments?

Thanks!

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.

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.

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

Yes, I was totally surprised. I'll look up the youtube link this evening.

Where was that at, I haven't seen it. It would spoil my hopes for him to go down that rutted road...really.. he seemed so smart..

I agree with you regarding Carson; he was my choice. But then I listened to his speech on Creation. I cannot reconcile an intelligent person believing in Creation. (As in 6 day stuff and humans were created as they are, and then it's time for sabbath...)

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.

No, I have to stay away from the Obamanation, he is just too much of a bad thing to even discuss at this point. The lack of any real debate beyond "Do I look prettier than the other boob" has nullified the whole election. Ben Carson has been the only one I have seen yet who actually thinks. He also has the race thing in it's proper place, Trump just fills the Hot Air Box. It's better air than the other one, but still Hot Air.

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.

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.

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?

Thanks. Got it for the Kindle.

Jan