Trump's Record: and Why Are People Throwing Reason Out the Door For Populist Thinking?
For Nancy Pelosi
For Eminent Domain-Praised the Kelo Decision
For Single Payer HEalthcare
4 Bankruptcies, 3 marriages
For Gun Control
For Eminent Domain-Praised the Kelo Decision
For Single Payer HEalthcare
4 Bankruptcies, 3 marriages
For Gun Control
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.
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.
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.
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.
.
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
Jan
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.
I go for Hilary-Bush at least there would be a ton of low brow humor all over the web about that option.
No box of dirt now. It wouldn't have put Obamacare in place or made soldiers have to defy orders to attempt to save an ambassador or gone on an apology tour.... or spent 6 years talking negatively about the country at every opportunity. A box of dirt would be big improvement.
Comments?
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,
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.
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.
And further thanks for your last paragraph, XenokRoy. I appreciate people who take time to make sure that a conversation is impersonal.
Jan
You speak for yourself, not for me.
Each person should wherever they can, and then push for the other locations to get so you can.
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.
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.
How come you say that? Boston tea party, I thought, was an anti-tax rebellion. Wasn't it?
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.
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.
"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
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.
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.
Could be like biting into an apple only to find a worm... a little too late then isn't it?
Respectfully,
O.A.
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.
Yes. I wonder if Trump ran into a db of his own, figured things out for himself or is just playing a game. Skepticism is warranted .
Regards,
O.A.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jan
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.
Jan
A book on that topic with actual science in it would be welcome.
Jan
Jan
I read for about 6 hours last night, and did not sleep enough. great book.
Heck, might as well go for broke.
Jefferson-Jackson 2016.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, Jackson had some bad moments, most notably The Trail of Tears, but overall he was one of our finest presidents.
Jan
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.
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."
http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffer...
this is a famous quote which may be a great political statement but shows no understanding of fractional reserve banking or finance generally and is not anything Jefferson actually said.. Jefferson was in debt most of his life. Perhaps he's too biased to trust on this. edited: to include a sentence for clarity
Cui Bono.
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.
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
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...
Out! Out! Damn Left Wing Spots!
Then again, so would Donald Duck. . .
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.
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-my...
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...
"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
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.
"Where were your jumps?"
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.
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?
Your misunderstanding of the word "fascist" is all I needed to see. Hard to believe you are on an objectivist forum.
Enough to ruin my day!
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Load more comments...