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

Second an observation!
People get the government they deserve. There is pretty good evidence that many Americans consider it their rational self-interest to live off the lootings from those who produce. Why do they think that way? Because the values they hold are vastly different that those held by great majorities of Americans say 150 years ago. Why are their values different? Because they are not educated to use their minds to the best of its capacities. They are indoctrinated.
The cancer of communist/socialist/fascist/statist ideology has spread far and wide. In might be curable only after another Dark Age.
In other words, I do not think that it is stupidity (although widening the electorate probably decreased the average cognitive ability some), because I think that there is some good evidence that average cognitive ability increases slowly over generations. It is that we are not using the tools that we have available optimally.

Taggart destroyed others to get what he wanted. Trump BUILDS to get what he wants. And he takes advantage of every boondogle and loophole available, just like any other businessman would. The subsidies weren't his idea; they're there for anyone who wants to take advantage of them, viz., everyone in his line of business. If, out of 104 projects, you have 4 failures, you should consider yourself quite successful. Finally, corporations and other shelters were enacted into law to protect the entrepreneur from catastrophic losses. Again, it is the LAW. Explain why Trump shouldn't take advantage of the law. I think I detect a bit of envy rearing its ugly head.

So, if you see a $100 bill laying on the ground, you will not pick it up, right? Because you know that it is not yours. Right.... The government's policies make it profitable to steal and loot, and you expect people to simply stop, move out of the way and let someone else loot and steal? We all do what Trump does, only on a smaller scale. Show me a person who pays more taxes than he is required to, just because he thinks others deserve it more. However, Trump is honest about this sickness and willing to stop it. Is there a Republican candidate who has done anything in this regard? Yes, perhaps Rand Paul, but then he also brings his religious baggage, which is really just more statism.

For us, yes. For the inaccurate believers that support him? I wonder.

Indeed, It was our other discussion of eminent domain that illustrated for me just how bad it has gotten. The unwashed masses would be just as bad off, and would never bother to see what it was.

excellent point

Unfortunately, to find out if he's going to make good on his words, you have to trust him enough to vote for him. Then when you see the deeds he does in office, it'll be too late. I don't trust him that much. This is kind of like when Nazi Pelousi said "we'll have to pass the Health Care bill to see what's in it."

That is a good point about Horowitz. I have never trusted him because of his past. But he has been very important to strategic assessing the political left. Trump is an entertainer. I see him as someone who will sell capitalism. Romney ran from his wealth. We have an upcoming election with a criminal and a socialist and someone needs to stand up there and not cower from their personal wealth. There are few like Trump who don't feel they have to apologize for the gains they've achieved.

I know. I wish Mr. Mamut had seen the light BEFORE I went to college and had to read all of his plays. I also had to immerse myself in Brecht. It's a wonder db ever was able to save me. Oh the shark has lovely teeth dear and he keeps them pearly white...:)

sjatkins,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cool book so far, I am a bit past half way through it.

Jeffereson wanted to dispose of the central bank but thought better of it. We would be way better off if we still had the one that Jackson did dispose of.

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

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

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

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

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

Hamilton central bank was as it should be, a central backer for currency, a vault that kept the gold and a financial center to kick start key industry in the US through loans, not investment. The Austrian economic model works for this purpose.

Jackson?

Correct about the narrowing field. Trump is benefitting tremendously from the 17 person field. After the culling begins the supporters of the former candidates will realign and it won't be to Trump who is nobody's second choice. Once it gets down to about 4 candidates, Trump will be toast. You heard it here first.

And if you think rationally after learning this, you will never be tempted to vote GOP or Democrat again ;^)

The Duck 2016

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.

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

you are welcome william ;)

I won't take away a point but I completely disagree about Palin. Tell me what's so "retarded" about the former governor of Alaska?

no, other candidates including Bush would have gotten media air time. Plese put Bush in front of a camera-PLEEZ so everyone can hear him support common core, put down the tea party and NOT talk about the economy.

I used to have respect for Kelly. But I think that her question/comment was inapproriate, rude and had nothing to do with policies that should have been discussed in a "debate." In fact, the debate should have been between the candidates, discussing their positions on national and international matters, not snipping between the "moderators" and the candidates.