Pragmatist Trump

Posted by $ TomB666 8 years ago to Politics
154 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

This article gives a little different take to Donald Trump.

Mychal S. Massie is an ordained minister who spent 13 years in full-time Christian Ministry. Today he serves as founder and Chairman of the Racial Policy Center (RPC), a think tank he officially founded in September 2015.

RPC advocates for a colorblind society. He was founder and president of the non-profit “In His Name Ministries”. He is the former National Chairman of the conservative black think tank, Project 21-The National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives and a former member of its parent think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Trump is not a liberal or conservative, he’s a Pragmatist.

We recently enjoyed a belated holiday dinner with friends at the home of other friends. The dinner conversation was jocund, ranging from discussions about antique glass and china to theology and politics.

At one point reference was made to Donald Trump being a conservative, to which I responded that Trump is not a conservative.

I said that I neither view nor do I believe Trump views himself as a conservative. I stated it was my opinion that Trump is a pragmatist. He sees a problem and understands it must be fixed. He doesn't see the problem as liberal or conservative; he sees it only as a problem. That is a quality that should be admired and applauded, not condemned. But I get ahead of myself.

Viewing problems from a liberal perspective has resulted in the creation of more problems, more entitlement programs, more victims, more government, more political correctness, and more attacks on the working class in all economic strata.

Viewing things according to the so-called Republican conservative perspective has brought continued spending, globalism to the detriment of American interests and well being, denial of what the real problems are, weak, ineffective, milquetoast, leadership that amounts to Barney Fife Deputy Sheriff, appeasement oriented and afraid of its own shadow. In brief, it has brought liberal ideology with a pachyderm as a mascot juxtaposed to the ass of the Democrat Party.

Immigration isn't a Republican problem – it isn't a liberal problem – it is a problem that threatens the very fabric and infrastructure of America. It demands a pragmatic approach not an approach that is intended to appease one group or another.

The impending collapse of the economy isn't a liberal or conservative problem, it is an American problem. That said, until it is viewed as a problem that demands a common sense approach to resolution, it will never be fixed because the Democrats and Republicans know only one way to fix things and the longevity of their impracticality has proven to have no lasting effect.

A Successful businessmen like Donald Trump find ways to make things work, they do not promise to accommodate.

Trump uniquely understands that China’s manipulation of currency is not a Republican problem or a Democrat problem. It is a problem that threatens our financial stability and he understands the proper balance needed to fix it. Here again successful businessmen like Trump who have weathered the changing tides of economic reality understand what is necessary to make business work and they, unlike both sides of the political aisle, know that if something doesn't work, you don't continue trying to make it work hoping that at some point it will.

As a pragmatist Donald Trump hasn't made wild pie-in-the-sky promises of a cell phone in every pocket, free college tuition, and a $15 hour minimum wage for working the drive-through a Carl’s Hamburgers. I argue that America needs pragmatists because pragmatists see a problem and find ways to fix them. They do not see a problem and compound it by creating more problems.

You may not like Donald Trump, but I suspect that the reason people do not like him is because: (1) he is antithetical to the “good old boy” method of brokering backroom deals that fatten the coffers of politicians; (2) they are unaccustomed to hearing a candidate speak who is unencumbered by the financial shackles of those who own them vis-a-vis donations; (3) he is someone who is free of idiomatic political ideology; and (4) he is someone who understands that it takes more than hollow promises and political correctness to make America great again.

Listening to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders talk about fixing America is like listening to two lunatics trying to “out crazy” one another. Jeb Bush, John Kasik [sic] and Marco Rubio are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the bankers, corporations, and big dollar donors funding their campaigns. Bush can deny it but common sense tells anyone willing to face facts is that people don't give tens of millions without expecting something in return.

We have had Democrats and Republican ideologues and what has it brought us? Are we better off today or worse off? Has it happened overnight or has it been a steady decline brought on by both parties?

I submit that a pragmatist might be just what America needs right now.

And as I said earlier, a pragmatist sees a problem and understands that the solution to fix same is not about a party, but a willingness and boldness to get it done.

People are quick to confuse and despise confidence as arrogance, but that is common amongst those who have never accomplished anything in their lives (or politicians who never really solve a problem, because its better to still have an "issue(s) to be solved" so re-elect me to solve it, which never happens) and those who have always played it safe (again, all politicians) not willing to risk failure, to try and achieve success.

Donald Trump has his total financial empire at risk in running for president - that says it all. Success for the US!


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by mia767ca 8 years ago
    Trump is an opportunist...he is a creation of the failure of the Republican & Democratic parties....but as you said as a pragmatist he saw a problem and an opportunity and he took it...he has no philosophy other blowing which ever direction the prevailing wind is blowing in...he neither understands or cares what is happening to the foundation (liberty and freedom) of this country...an opportunist...nothing more...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Herb7734 8 years ago
      I have tried to apply Einstein's thought experiment process to the mystery of Donald Trump. Here's what I came up with.I think that Trump, on a lark, decided he'd announce for the presidency. It would give him some publicity and some prestige and after he gets beaten in a couple of primaries, he could complain how unfair it was and then withdraw. Much to his amazement, and everyone else's he started winning. He'd tapped into white male American angst. (Yes he has some Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians so don't go all tangent on me). With the growth of his new found popular support, he was forced to get serious, although totally unprepared. It became a variation of the Prince and the Pauper in reverse, or maybe the Prisoner of Zenda. In other words, the guy who looks the part but doesn't know crap about it suddenly becomes the pretender to the throne. Are people just now beginning to see through the dog and pony show, or will the phony prince become the real king?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bsudell 8 years ago
    Democrats, Republicans (GOP), Constitutionalists. We don't want the GOP, we want the Constitution. Ted Cruz is the only one that will give us that. Trump is a cronyist. He is not the right guy. He will destroy us and the Republicans and capitalism will get blamed. Wake up America. Our country is too important.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years ago
    There are three men in a sophisticated speed boat being chased by Barbary Pirates. One, an expert boat pilot is running the boat. The second knows how to run the boat but is terribly seasick and can hardly move. The third is in good shape, but knows nothing about boats. The first gets shot. the second is so sick he can't move. The third takes over the boat. Problem: He doesn't know crap about how to run it. What are the odds that they'll escape? In this situation, you may be a pragmatist, but you'll need to learn very fast. You're too busy running the boat to read the manual, which you probably should have done before getting into the boat.
    Trump may be a pragmatist when it comes to dealing in real estate development, but politics is entirely a different game. He has to learn on the job and as a result is bound to make mistakes. Lots of them. Now say the second guy on the boat takes a pill, feels better and takes over. Should the third guy be resentful?
    Jeez, I love analogies.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by evlwhtguy 8 years ago
    A very considered discussion, I am a little concerned that Trump will be a little too pragmatic in serving the needs of his "Customers" the electorate and merely work to find low cost way to give them the goodies they want rather than in working to keep government within its constitutional bounds. I mean the other day he described the governments purpose as education healthcare and security.....never mind that only the last one is in the constitution.

    On the other hand, the cat is out of the bag as to keeping the federal government small. Maybe it would be nice to have someone with a track record of delivering on time and on budget!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 8 years ago
    As I understand it, a "Pragmatist" is one who acts
    on the expediency of the moment, without refer-
    ence to basic principles; it is not the same as a
    Practical person.--And, in the long run, Pragmatism
    does not work.

    Trum is no free enterprise man. He does
    not really care about the Rights of Man. He has
    praised eminent domain and bragged about his
    lack of principle. I have contempt for him. That
    is why my vote went to Cruz in the Virginia pri-
    mary. He is not ideal, but I consider him the
    best alternative available.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years ago
    He still lacks a basic understanding of the Constitution and the fact that it is governments lack of accountability to it and the rule of law that has gotten into this mess. The answer is NEVER more or even so called better government...the answer is always empowerment for one to govern themselves.
    I don't see trumps approach to problems as pragmatic, I see it more like asthmatic...gasping for solutions regardless of principles, reason or consequences. He thinks a "Crony" approach is just as good as any.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by blackswan 8 years ago
      You keep talking about the Constitution, but there's no one who can or will deliver. The real question is, among all the candidates still standing, who will come closest to delivering solutions that will take us the closest to a constitutional system. That's all that's available, unless you know someone who can win the election, and deliver constitutional solutions.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years ago
        Cruz,,,love em or hate em...he lives and breaths the constitution...also Rand Paul...but even though he is still on the ballot in most states, how could we get everyone to vote/write him in?
        That still leaves us with Cruz and he does have a shot at taking the convention.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years ago
        I think more damage can be done by a government run entirely by either of the two parties. I want a split government. If they fight, then nothing gets done, and at least we can learn to adapt to the current relations and live.
        I'll vote third party and let the democrats win the presidency before I give in to support a shit candidate. I refuse to say "yes" to such authoritarians
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 8 years ago
          Refusing to vote does say yes. The authoritarian will win and have power over you because enough people did not vote against it. When there is a difference between the candidates, vote to at least make the difference in the outcome.

          Splits in government do not mean nothing gets done. The government continues to operate under existing laws interpreted by whoever is the president, and agencies continue to make new rules under existing law granting ambiguous powers to the executive branch -- with more rules added in accordance with the political appointees of the president and the entrenched bureaucracy.
          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 ago
          How are you going to have a split party when the only party in the race is not split. Government
          Party is everything from extremist secular progressives to Republicans in name only.

          "Government Over People "

          It should be Citizens Over Government.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years ago
    If America gets a pragmatist like Trump, it will certainly have gotten what it deserved, much like it has in many recent presidential elections. For that matter, no matter who wins this election, America will have gotten what it deserved.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 8 years ago
      America does not deserve Pragmatism. It is contrary to the intellectual basis of the country and what is left of its sense of life. It is an illustration of how philosophy determines the course of a nation and how a bad philosophy is destroying this one.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years ago
        Your last three sentences are correct. Regrettably, America has endorsed the philosophy of progressivism over the past 100+ years, completely contrary to its founding. And I reiterate, America has now gotten what it has deserved. Anyone who thought that they were not getting czars to manage the decline of America in 2009 had the chance to vote President Zero out in 2012, not that things were significantly different in the prior 15 years. Where we differ is in America's "sense of life". America is a rotting corpse, just like Japan and Europe before her.

        I watched AS 2 again on Wednesday. Remember the sign by the homeless guy that said: America. Born July 4, 1776. Died yesterday. RIP.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 8 years ago
          All of it was correct. America does not deserve Pragmatism. It has been injected by the intellectuals. Most people have naively absorbed it knowing nothing of the explicit philosophy, thinking of it instead in terms of their sense of life of "American know-how and practicality". The intellectuals are killing the country and wiping out the American sense of life. In that sense, they were given no choice with Pragmatist me-too Romney.

          "Died yesterday" a that stage of AS means murdered. A large portion of the society didn't approve it but didn't have the understanding to know an alternative or what to do about it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years ago
            Yes, it does mean murdered by the looters and suicide by the moochers who voted for those looters. The lack of understanding of an alternative makes those who didn't vote for Romney or Zero into Eddie Willers-like characters.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 8 years ago
    "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H. L. Mencken

    As any businessman knows, solving problems it the name of the game. Politicians are problem creators. Trump is not a politician.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 8 years ago
      Government is not a business. "Problem solvers" operating on a premise of and in a framework of statism do not solve the problems.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by jimjamesjames 8 years ago
        My point being, put someone with a history of solving problems (business) into a place with problem creators and we might have something interesting. Who knows? Maybe a problem will be solved.......
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 8 years ago
          Putting a businessman into a statist environment of problem causers and you get more problems in the name of solving them. Businessmen rarely know or are committed to proper principles of government and cannot begin to challenge a statist environment they are put into. That certainly applies to Trump, who already starts out with statist premises of his own.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by jimjamesjames 8 years ago
            I would suggest that businessmen are committed to efficiency of process. Our Founders created the Constitution with some thought to efficiency of governance. You may be right in the "name of solving them" concept, but I would sure like to see the panic in their eyes and actions IF someone with a bent toward efficiency jumped in the middle.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 8 years ago
              The major problem with bureaucracy is what it does, not that it doesn't do it more efficiently. Some of it we are stuck being dependent on and need something better than the lines at the dept of motor vehicles to get a license renewed within a day, but the biggest problem is the intrusive, punitive interference. Who wants that done more efficiently?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years ago
    Lately Trump has pretty well displayed himself to be someone who will at times speak before he thinks.
    At least when in hot water he thinks before he says "I misspoke."
    Doubt he lost any impassioned supporters but you don't win over new voters when you say deadhead stuff like you're going to punish women for having abortions.
    That does not strike old dino as being at all "pragmatic."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Maritimus 8 years ago
      From what I know the question to Mr. Trump was: "Would you punish women for having ILLEGAL abortions?" He answered yes. Hillary supporting media, in their usual manner, dropped the crucial qualifier to smear their opponent and spread their smear everywhere. They are already working beyond primaries.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 8 years ago
        Trump wants abortion to be illegal. There is no "qualifier". He said he wants women to be punished for their abortions, which he opposes and wants banned.

        And why wouldn't he want to punish them? If he thinks abortion violates a "right to life", then in his screwy mind it is murder and women should therefore be imprisoned for life or executed.

        His campaign backed off with a claim that his position is that the doctor is the murderer, ignoring and despite what Trump had just emphatically said -- which is typical of his Pragmatist campaign of shifting positions appealing to whomever he is trying to 'deal' at the time.

        Cruz responded with a crude evasion: "Of course we shouldn’t be talking about punishing women; we should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have to bring life into the world,”

        So are all murderers and their accessories now to be exempt from punishment: "we should affirm their dignity"?

        Are the doctor's to be executed instead of the women, or also have their "dignity affirmed"?

        The circus continues.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Maritimus 8 years ago
          Greetings ewv,
          I really don't know what Mr.Trump wants, other than presidency and ego satisfaction.
          I was just narrowly pointing out at the charade that is called reporting and journalism in our times. Strictly speaking,the question that was asked and the answer that was reported were both distorted virtually instantly.
          By the way, many millions of Americans would like to go back to banning abortions. I hope that we do not.
          Neither Mr. Trump nor Mr. Cruz inspire in me any confidence whatsoever. I am first and foremost interested not to allow Mrs. Clinton and her party any power whatsoever. Any alternative at this time seems to me to have a good chance of being significantly better than she. Perhaps I should say lesser evil, since the federal government has so much evil inbred that it will surely take more than a couple presidency cycles to generate significant improvements. E.g. after Carter it seemed that Reagan turned things around and improved them substantially.
          As others have observed and I tend to agree, virtually all that he achieved has been reversed. I conclude that great numbers in the electorate do not have even a most basic skill of dispassionate thinking. As many have sad and I deeply believe, peoples get the governments they deserve.
          I recently read, in a unrelated context, the definitions of hope and optimism which appealed to me:
          Hope is the belief that the future will be better than the present and that you have some power to make it so.
          Optimism is the belief that things will work out no matter what you do.
          I confess to having lost hope and not being optimistic at all.
          EDIT: corrected spelling and reversed paragraphs
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 8 years ago
            Trump was asked the question about punishment because he wants to ban abortion.

            The alternative between Trump and Clinton, if it comes to that without either or both self-destructing before the election, is Trump as an intolerable bad risk for what Clinton makes a certainty.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ProfChuck 8 years ago
        Exactly! "Illegal" has a very specific meaning and is completely unambiguous. A law prohibiting an act also includes a description of punishment in the event it is violated. We must decide if we are a nation of laws. Selective enforcement leads to chaos. If a law is bad remove it from the books, if it is good enforce it. The problem is that Trump may not know how to make that argument.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 8 years ago
          Trump wants the women punished because he wants abortions to be banned. Abortions are legal. He wants to change the law to make abortions illegal. There is nothing to enforce against them and no law to "remove" for what he wants.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years ago
          What about laws that are bad but are still on the books? Like drug laws?
          You present a false dichotomy. We cannot simply "remove" such a law until there is enough popular support. However does that make your actions of consuming illegal drugs unethical?
          I say no. Law does not determine ethics, philosophy does. Ideals.
          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 ago
            That's your opinion If they were bad and removed such as in Oregon and similar states there would have been a lot of people let out of the prisons. That particular reason turned out to be a specious excuse for legalizing drugs. It should have been followed up on since the amount is extraordinarily high and wasteful of space for real criminals who do threaten society daily. But like the anti draft movement as soon as they got there wish list whatever that was they disappeared. probably both to smoking dope and supporting Pellosillyni.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years ago
    Pragmatism should NOT be applauded.

    "[The Pragmatists] declared that philosophy must be practical and that practicality consists of dispensing with all absolute principles and standards—that there is no such thing as objective reality or permanent truth—that truth is that which works, and its validity can be judged only by its consequences—that no facts can be known with certainty in advance, and anything may be tried by rule-of-thumb—that reality is not firm, but fluid and “indeterminate,” that there is no such thing as a distinction between an external world and a consciousness (between the perceived and the perceiver), there is only an undifferentiated package-deal labeled “experience,” and whatever one wishes to be true, is true, whatever one wishes to exist, does exist, provided it works or makes one feel better."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 8 years ago
      Trump was identified as a follower of Pragmatism long ago on this forum and thoroughly denounced for it. It has been discussed many times here.

      The standard of selecting a president is whether or not he will advance freedom and the rights of the individual or accelerate their demise. We need a president who recognizes the American principles of the rights of the individual and the role of the Constitution in limiting the power of government, not a Conservative or a Liberal -- or a Pragmatist who tries to be both depending on what is expedient at the moment.

      Pragmatism does not mean 'practical', it is the philosophy of William James, John Dewey and their followers, beginning in the late 19th century and first centered at Harvard under the influence of the European counter-Enlightenment.

      Pragmatism is opposed to principle on principle. It holds that truth is whatever 'works'. In politics it is the philosophy of Progressivism and has swept the country for a century. Obama appeals to it, too, and so do the conservatives. It is so ingrained that people follow it as a matter of psychology without ever questioning what it is, where it came from and how it contradicts the Enlightenment principles of individualism and reason on which the country was founded.

      'Works' for what, for whose goals by what standard? Pragmatism is a parasitical philosophy that requires unacknowledged principles to decide on whose goals for what, what are acceptable means, and the criteria for whether or not something "works" at all. Collectivism-statism with an altruist base have remained the premises of the Pragmatists, "left" or "right", including Donald Trump. The Progressive implementation of whatever "tools" of government power can be made available to address anything in any "Deal" is Pragmatism. The standard of "whatever works" is built in statism.

      We do not need and cannot tolerate a Pragmatist president who evades principles and treats everything as a "Deal", including his own campaign.

      This is a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason, egoism and freedom -- on principle. No one who has the least understanding of Atlas Shrugged can rationally ignore it in favor of anti-principle Pragmatism acting on underlying altruism, collectivism and statism, let alone in the name of "full-time Christian Ministry" and “In His Name Ministries”. Proper principles "work", Pragmatism does not.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Dobrien 8 years ago
        Thank you ewv that was very well written.

        It is a downward slope the US rides with the philosophy of progressivism that is permeating and has been fooling the masses. Telling them that they are not responsible---they deserve
        ----that A=A is not relevant
        ----that it's better to label then discuss.
        Endorsing the collectivist altruism that steals our liberty . It gives a pass on principles and allows for riots to occur when felons are being apprehended for serious crimes and are shot for their continued threatening behavior.
        Principals promoting rugged individualism have been the adversary of the large nonprofit's like the Carnegie foundation, the Guggenheim , standard oil , Ford Foundation. All included in the minutes of the board meetings dating back to 1908. Their stated strategy has three basic prongs
        1. control the diplomatic corp
        2. Control education
        3.Control the media

        Unfortunately the plan is working.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 8 years ago
      John's quote on Pragmatism is from Ayn Rand's For the New Intellectual. She referred to Pragmatism and its destructive influence frequently.

      A full discussion of Pragmatism is in Leonard Peikoff's lecture series on the history of philosophy. He discusses its impact on American in his book The Ominous Parallels.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years ago
    Wow, that was the first sensible piece I have read on the issues in this election. I have had misgivings about the "conservative" and "liberal" tags put on people- no matter which one takes over, things seem to progress more and more into statism and socialism. Very distressing.

    I do think that the problems of today are not conservative or liberal problems, but just problems needing to be solved. And we then need to move on. If taxation is 40% and really should be 0%, isnt it better to settle on 20% and move on. When the philosophy of the country is in better shape, it can and would be revisited to get it to 0%.

    The power brokers on either side want to keep the status quo, and no wonder they hate Trump (and sanders for that matter). A lot of people now are angry at a system that manipulates them and they like that Trump is anti-establishment.
    Hillary is the poster child of the manipulative establishment, and I would NEVER vote for her.
    Cruz has been anti establishment and I really doubt the power brokers would go for him, unless he "says he is sorry" and promises to do their bidding in the future (gone would be the bible thumping constitutionalist- being traded for the nomination for president)
    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 ago
    Trump first, the nation second and no rule of law. Now we are back to your roughly translated version of Hitlers popularity.

    We don't need another Adolf. The ultimate pragmatist out side of Stalin in the 20th century.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -1
      Posted by Temlakos 8 years ago
      Adolf Hitler wasn't a pragmatist, either. He wanted power, and he got it.

      Trump is the guy who will make the trains run on time, because he genuinely cares about making the trains run on time. What Trump will not do is ask himself whether, as chief executive, he has any business running trains or even hiring someone to run taxpayer-funded trains.

      Rand never imagined anyone like Trump. Her villains were all politicians, all out to make either a fast buck or a fast power grab, and none of them knew beans about how to make things run. Trump, for instance, would never have tolerated the stupidities and favoritisms that set up the Taggart Tunnel disaster. Nor, if you made him Director of Railroad Unification (Cuffy Meigs' job), would he have stolen and sold off everything in the way of railroad supplies he could get his hands on. And if you were to appoint him to run Rearden Steel, after its nationalization, and gave him carte blanche, he could make it run.

      In fact--and some might think this the worst problem--if you offered him the post of Economic Dictator, or Top Coordinator of Economic Planning and National Resources (Wesley Mouch's job), he would actually be smart enough to make it work.

      And John Galt and his crew would have had to wait a generation for the Great Collapse. Wait for Donald J. Trump to die and for the whole thing to crash down like a house of cards. Because Donald Trump builds the house of cards and, while he lives and is on the job, keeps it standing. But the minute he's gone, look out below! And he never once questions the fundamental principle.

      Or would he? I wonder whether he would simply conclude that socialism can never be made practical. As William Bradford, the second Governor of the Plymouth Colony, realized after that first disastrous winter.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years ago
        There is no one "smart enough" to make an Economic Dictator position work, unless their dictate was to set us completely free of all government restrictions. It is not only an impossibility, for every single economic decision to be made from the top-down, but it is highly immoral.

        We do not fight collectivism because "it does not work." We fight it because it is unethical, anti-human, and evil.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by blackswan 8 years ago
          ALL of the arguments about the superiority of collectivism vs. capitalism revolve around efficacy, not morality. In fact, morality is on the back burner. Maybe it's time to put morality where it belongs, but we'll need to also show that it's the most efficacious approach.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Temlakos 8 years ago
          I take your last point. And I remember how John Galt shot Mr. Thompson down in a few sentences: "Start by abolishing all income taxes...Fire your government employees."

          But I say again: Rand never imagined anyone who really believed such a system could work, and had a way to do it, or at least an idea he wanted to try out.

          That's the kind of person I think Trump might be...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years ago
            I disagree.

            "In the context of her terrifying tale of a nation and an economy brought to practical and moral ruin by an overpowerful government driven by a veneer of phony altruism, her character Dr. Floyd Ferris tells metal magnate Henry Rearden:

            The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws....just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers..."

            And a nation of law-breakers' freedom depends entirely on when or whether the government decides to crack down. No decent person wants a system like that at all. But one might think someone with Trump's demonstrated sense of raw id would be especially alarming. It's an important argument against Trump, and alas we'll have plenty of need to bring it up over and over again as this election year crawls toward its terrifying climax."

            http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/02/ayn...
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 8 years ago
              It's already terrifying. The climax threatens to be worse.

              The nation in Atlas Shrugged was not driven to ruin by a veneer of phony altruism; it was driven by a real appeal to real altruism. So is this one.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Temlakos 8 years ago
              But Floyd Ferris concerned himself only with power. He didn't give a fig whether the trains ran on time, or at all, unless he was aboard one of them.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 8 years ago
                Mussolini made the trains run on time and it didn't "work", did it? He wound up being strung up for it. Fascism is fascism.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Temlakos 8 years ago
                  If he had stopped there, who knows? But he didn't stop there. He tried to re-establish the Roman Empire. The Fascists took their name from the fasci, or bundles of rods, that the escorts to Roman magistrates carried.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 8 years ago
                    Stopped where? It was already fascism. He didn't need to join with Hitler for his own domestic fascism. His lack of respect for the rights of the individual only led to his attacking those in other countries.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by Temlakos 8 years ago
                      I meant, had he stopped with domestic policy only. Instead he allied with a fellow dictator in a war of aggression against the rest of Europe. And one could argue that war, not any domestic collapse, brought him down.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 8 years ago
                        If he had stuck to domestic fascism the trains would have failed along with everything else. But statists can't resist attacking other countries. Who would have hung him when under different circumstances is speculation.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DavidRawe 8 years ago
    Trump knows problems and if there are none creates them. However its easy to say what the problem is and never really present how to solve them.

    If he sees he is not getting what HE wants he stammers and pouts and yells and insults. Wow that works. He is a master marketer and knows how to manipulate the emotions of the "mob". He is not a pragmatist by any means.
    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 ago
      A practical pragmatist all camouflage for yet another left wing socialist corporatist/statist. I've yet to see any thing good stated about or quoted from him. Just a bunch of meaningless doo hicky rah rah. No substance.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 8 years ago
    solving problems is the right thing to do ... but it's all
    about how they are solved. . if the three primary
    functions of government are security, law generation
    and justice -- instead of security, healthcare and
    education, well, we might solve 'em better. . don't you
    think? -- john

    p.s. I would prefer the R who will beat Hillary and
    obey the constitution. . DT might do both.
    .
    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 ago
      Highly doubtful as a member of the left he would give a second thought to reinstating the Constitution. Why give up all that power when the main platform plank of the left is government over citizens using any and all means possible.His whole background steers him straight into the dogma of the left wing socialist corporatist/statist camp and nothing he has said or not said or evaded has indicated other wise. Even the statist/corporatist or the pure statist camp of the left would, however, prefer a Trump loose cannon than an Wwotl waddling barrage from a Clintonite artillery battalion. God is not on the side of the big battalions but the those who can direct their 'at home' big guns' in a direction of their choosing. Sorry dear.. nothing for you tonight. Though in some cased that might prove a blessing. Can you imagine going home to a Miss Lube Job 1955? A clear 8th amendment violation.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years ago
    Trump is certainly a pragmatist, aka someone without basic principles. He follows the "whatever works" philosophy, which is often even more dangerous than the incorrect, but at least consistent, philosophies of the statists.

    Trump believes the answer to all problems are to get the government involved to strong-arm people into acting the correct way. From tariffs on Chinese goods, to a stricter immigration policy, to including education and healthcare as basic duties of the government.

    He is an authoritarian, and he seems to be an equal opportunity one at that.
    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 ago
      Added up, down and sideways that is worthy of the Goebbels Propagandist Award of the Bi-Century and the Seig Heil Comrade We Don't Serve The Party Award as well. Spin is just another word for deceit.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -1
      Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years ago
      Trump's core value is competence. He doesn't think the government should be run by incompetent people. Our trade negotiations shouldn't be done by people who are or are about to be in the pay of our competition. If we spend billions taking care of our vets we should take care of them.

      You know competence would be refreshing.

      I mean we could have "conservatives" like George Bush who expanded the federal education system with "no child left behind", add ed an expensive drug program to Medicare had a couple of decent wars and totally mishandled the post war process and then handed a fortune over to the banking system so that they could keep funding political campaigns.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years ago
        It does not matter who is in government. The departments need eviscerated, not made "more efficient." That will only improve their ability to hamper our lives. The majority of the freedoms we have nowadays are those that government has been to busy to enforce the restrictions against.

        And without a profit motive, how do you get such competent people into government work? It is an impossible goal.

        Our "trade negotiations" should be "free Trade." That is it! That is the only answer if you support liberty.
        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 ago
          There is no profit motive with income tax so first get rid of it and replace that fascist loser with an end user consumption tax. With income tax in place all else is just pandering and enabling.
          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 ago
        Yet we wait and wait for any demonstration of competence and end up with ....nothing.

        nothing except a school of over aged, over ripe and over smelly red herrings or should they be red smelt. about George this and who ever that.

        But no evidence of competency comes to light. Until finally the single most important argument is stated. "Well.....ahem...uhhhh... it's better than Hillary."

        That's all you have to say? The best you can do? Hilary smells like last month's garbage so that qualifies Trump? If that's the best you can do go back to RINOland with the left of the left wingers.

        Where is that stamp. BANG. Rejected As Incompetent..
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 8 years ago
    I can appreciate a pragmatic approach, but what I prefer is that first the problem be identified and categorized into something the Federal Government should be dealing with at all and second that the problem be dealt with according to the rules of the Constitution.

    1. Immigration. He says we need to build a wall and restrict immigration. That's fine and good, but Congress is legally responsible for setting immigration standards - not the President (see Obama).
    2. Trade with China. Yes, China's currency manipulation is a problem. But their economy right now is imploding because it was based on false consumption. I would also point out that before Trump does something to cut off most of the manufacturing needs of America, he probably should work with Congress to do something to improve the business climate here in the US. That brings me to ...
    3. Taxes. Trump has argued that we need to lower corporate income tax rates. I agree. But then he also turns around and says he wants to force businesses to repatriate all their oversees earnings and pay taxes on those. So he wants to help business just as he turns around to hurt them. He's also said he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy. Didn't we just decide that we were going to lower the taxes?

    Here are some of the problems Trump has identified and how he would solve them I outright object to:

    1. Obamacare. He doesn't like it, he just wants to replace it. The problem is that his position is all over the map. In one speech he says he's all for single-payer. The next he says that healthcare is a government responsibility, but it should be handled privately. WHAT???
    2. Free Speech. He doesn't like it when people say things about him he doesn't like, so he wants to be able to sue and or prosecute them.
    3. Private land development. If there is a wealthy developer who wants to build a shopping mall, hotel, or golf course, where some private residents have homes, he just exercises eminent domain to take the land.
    4. Executive Orders. If he sees that Congress isn't going to do what he wants, he is going to use an Executive Order to get it done.

    So what I see is that being a "pragmatist" is all about getting to a solution - any solution - as long as there is one. I want solutions, but I want to take a more thorough approach to identifying the real problem and designing a solution where neither the implementation nor the end goal are end-runs around the Constitution. This is where I feel Trump is very suspect.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years ago
      Congress HAS set immigration standards. They passed the laws limiting immigration. It's the President's constitutional duty to enforce those laws. He may be suggesting new laws to improve the legal immigration system such as guest workers but securing the border is a clear constitutional duty.
      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 ago
        And it's the duty of Congress to ensure he does so....where's the iimpeachment speeches. Why it's disappeared since the congress is just as liable. On only has to look at the situation in south central Arizona to see obeyme and his cabinet and the congressionals are a bunch of chicken doo doo gutless wonders And then one wonders how much was the payoff.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 8 years ago
        I agree - both that Congress has set standards and that it is a Constitutional duty both for Congress to set the standards and for the President to enforce them.

        What concerns me is that Trump has stated on numerous occasions that he would side-step Congress and resort to Executive Actions to carry out his agenda. I don't have a problem with the President using the bully pulpit to call on Congress to put forward legislation in order to address a need (provided that such a call isn't condescending and blatantly partisan). I DO have a problem with a President who goes it alone (as this one has) - regardless of ideology. The media were quick to criticize President Bush for being a maverick and warmonger to go after Saddam, but I will give him credit that he didn't do it by himself. He presented the case to both the American People and to the rest of the World. I don't trust "The Donald" to try to do anything such.
        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 ago
    Prragmatism at it's best. The story starts with a herd of cows.

    Sanders - Cows Fart and kill the ozone layer but if we turn them all in to hamburger they can be re-distributed equally at no charge and the income earned used to buy powdered milk for everyone.

    Hillary - All cows and dairy farmers into a collective with no profit allowed and norms set to provide each citizen with one glass of milk per day paid for by the equal distribution laws.

    Trump. The best dairy farmers get control over their neighbors herds. who will be come employees tied to their herds by executive order

    Students for a Safe Spot America. Cows should not exist as they kill the environment but one glass of milk per day provided to all students daily at no charge.

    RINOS - whatever you say Debbie.
    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 ago
    Come to think of it the use of Pragmatic in relationship to a Presidential hopeful is not the best way of presenting the individual. In FACT it's a slam as to their suitability to any objectivist.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ sjatkins 8 years ago
    We need a pragmatist that has advocated among other gems:
    1) torture;
    2) large tariffs on foreign goods;
    3) severe punishment of US companies that do any offshore manufacturing;
    4) building a literal wall around parts of the US
    ??
    This is "pragmatic"? WTF?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 8 years ago
    Regarding Trump, I have adopted Walter Block's argument: "Suppose we were all slaves, and the master said we could have a democratic election; we could vote for overseer Baddie, who would whip us unmercifully once per day, or overseer Goodie, who would do exactly the same thing, but only once per month. We all voted for the latter. Is this incompatible with libertarianism? Would this make us worse libertarians?" In our case, substitute Objectivist for libertarian.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by starznbarz 8 years ago
    Call him, or the others what you will, their "label" simply does`nt matter. If the goal is to begin to correct what we have allowed, a proven Constitutional fighter is the only choice. With that as your baseline, there is only one choice - like them or not. Country First.
    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 ago
      I presume you are talking Cruz or the other outside the pale candidate since you couldn't possibly be talking anyone else with that description.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by starznbarz 8 years ago
        Your presumption is correct. The other outside the pale candidate? Austin?
        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 ago
          And None of the Above it's in the column marked refuse to participate in a rigged crooked game where only left wing socialists are allowed in the winners circle.

          I'm at the point of being more blunt about it. Those who vote for Sanders, Clinton or Trump are anti-Constitutionalists and traitors to the USA.

          However as good little Citizen X's of the USSA they do quite well.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by zzdragon 8 years ago
    First let me say. I'm from TEXAS and voted for Cruz. Do I like Trump. Yes. That being said let's look at the alternatives. Hilary the crook? Sanders the give away artist?
    Remember Ronny was treated just like Trump is being now. The GOP went so far as to back a 3rd party candidate against him.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 8 years ago
      Trump is not like Reagan and the GOP did not back a third party against him.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by zzdragon 8 years ago
        Yes they did. It was a libertarian just don't remember his name.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 8 years ago
          The GOP did not support a third party at all, let alone the Libertarian Party. The Republicans supported Gerald Ford in 1976, who won the primary against Reagan but then lost the election. The Republicans then won the election with Reagan the next time in 1980. Reagan overwhelmingly won the primary against George Bush I, who was the establishment candidate. John Anderson, the distant third in the primary who ran in the general election as an Independent, was no libertarian. David Clark was the Libertarian candidate. The Republican Party did not support Independent Anderson, who got less than 7% of the popular vote and no electoral votes in the general election, and never supported the politically irrelevant minority Libertarian Party, which in 1980 received 1% of the popular vote and no electoral votes.
          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 ago
      You missed a few alternatives and alternative choices Trumpet Boy is far from the only choice unless you limit your choices to left wingers only. Furthermore the Republicans aren't the party of Reagan anymore they are the right wing OF the left. Not for nothing are they called neo-cons and RINOSs. But if that's the kind you support then it's one more vote for the Comrades.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by zzdragon 8 years ago
        I agree with you about where the GOP stands now. But I would like to see you and everyone else on the thread below me here list just who you think is electable and where do they stand. Name names please don't just say alternatives.
        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 ago
          I don't care about the left wing fascist GOP or any of that left wing fascist shit. My oath of office and personal oath is to the Constitution of the USA and anything else is meaningless to me. Those that feel differently can take their place as traitors or prove...prove...prove their case. For me they are at present just red tie targets of opportunity
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo