National Review turns all guns toward Trump.
Last night, National Review dropped its latest edition. It is a formal declaration against and excoriation of Donald Trump.
Trump and his supporters will not (and have not) taken this lightly. Prepare for fireworks.
Trump and his supporters will not (and have not) taken this lightly. Prepare for fireworks.
Wow! All guns blazing! They really don't like him... Well, duh... He is no conservative. He is a populist. He is ring leader of the circus. Of course the circus is at least entertaining in a pleasant way. Fireworks indeed.
The story is always the same; it only depends on whose Ox is being gored.
A benevolent dictator is still a dictator; though living under one may feel like relief after years of being trampled under foot. The least statist candidates will be largely ignored by the media, and the electorate, who cry out foolishly for the government to come to the rescue... Einstein's definition of insanity comes to mind...
But alas, we all must do with what we have...
Regards,
O.A.
However, with that being said, I for one am still going to wait until November to see who I am going to vote for. Cruz is making a intelligent run against Trump, so far!
All the rest including Cruz have dirty underwear what makes him so special?
Unfortunately for him, being as wealthy and famous as he is, there are reams of quotes and miles of tape capturing his persona and beliefs. For that reason, many of us are having trouble taking his rhetoric seriously! His statements up until recently (past year) have been contrary to much of what he is pushing these days.
Wouldn't you agree that is the case? Basically, everyone seems to be willing to give him a pass, much like the electorate did twice with Obama. Look what we ended up with!!!!! I for one would rather not make that mistake with Trump.
At least with several of the other candidates, you "sort of" know where they are coming from. There is some past performance that shows consistency between their rhetoric and their actions historically. We shall see won't we?!
A few things Trump has going for him:
1. His media presence. "The Apprentice" and other such shows mean he's a household name. I think people also like his no-nonsense attitude that focuses on performance in these shows. They're sick of the politicians where the performance is all acting.
2. That he is crusading on just one or two real policy matters, and they are resonating with people: especially illegal immigration. The Democrats have been pushing this for a long time - long enough for the results to start being known to people as a net negative.
3. His refusal to be politically correct, which he has parlayed into a platform from which he can say outrageous things like "I could kill a man in New York City and not lose a vote." and get away with it.
Now, how about sanity on the never ending betrayal by the GOP against conservatives, and the obvious solution: libertarianism.
What to do if the Walmart lemmings get him the republican election? Nasty, executive-power, insider Hillary is the worst thing in a long time. However, an honest, fool-socialist Bernie might actually be better for the US than a completely uninhibited, narcissist Trump as long as there is a republican-controlled congress to beat up the little fairy-tale school boy. Basically a stale-mate for 4 years and government power is in check.
Be careful what you wish for. Trump could do for conservatives what Bush did...ensure an Obama/two house control in the next election, and it is over.
My conscience is already forcing me to vote (for whoever the GOP front runner may be) against the continuation of Obama's destructive policies.
As for the policies of Bolshevik Bernie, those would nuke us into a third world country with a double-downed debt..
Sanders would multiply whatever this will grow into http://www.usdebtclock.org/ by 2. Maybe 3 for the ballooning interest
this is not rocket science or brain surgery, its observing actions vs promises.
The GOP is worse than the Dems because they claim to be your saviors and they always betray your interests in favor of their own power. They are traitors and deserve the punishment for that crime just as much as the Dems.
To paraphrase Valentine in Trading Places, "it occurs to me that the best way you hurt powerful people is by turning them into powerless people."
Edit: clarity
At the end I was asked to give a written suggestion and I wrote "Get rid of that RINO Paul Ryan." For a donation I wrote, "$00.00.
Not having to provide a stamp encouraged me to do all that.
I've seen posters here hope that a Clinton or a Sanders should be allowed to crash the economy so people will wake up and raise a renewed republic from the ashes like the proverbial Phoenix.
Such an idealistic hopeful outcome may instead slam into a brick wall of hard reality.
My concern is that calling down destruction may only accomplish just that permanently.
I've written this once before on this board~"How do we know 2084 won't end up like the novel 1984? If not Mad Max?"
Recently saw The Purge with "new founding fathers" that had to be psycho.
Unless that individual is a supporter of left wing fascists.
Republicans are at best the right wing OF the LEFT. At worst they are the lapdogs of the left. Doesn't matter how you flush your vote.
Sad.....
That's how the left ensures and insures we will always be given no choice in their rigged elections and ensure one of their kind will win no matter what.
Sorry I don't support The Party.
I'm leaning heavily toward voting for Cruz in the primary because the GOP hates his guts for solid conservative views.
Just little me trying to make my FU GOP pipsqueak statement.
Don't think he will win but IMO voting for the quixotical libertarian attempt right now is a way emptier thing to do.
What I do about the presidential election depends on how things play out.
The similarity was that Perot also siphoned off about 20% of the vote allowing Clinton to defeat Bush 1 without a plurality. History does repeat itself and it is usually planned that way!
For what its worth!
The center was and still is the Constitution....and there resides those who believe citizens should control government not the left wing other way around government should control citizens view.
All the puzzling pieces come together quite rapidly when proper definitions not propaganda definitions are used.
Keep going to the right and you find the opposite of totalitarian government the true anarchists. after a series of less is best.
Rinos and Dinos and their enablers are ALL left of center which is why the Demos can always get the Repos to cave....Same party same basic philosophy some more National Socialist and some more International Socialist. Not a mouses eeek worth of difference.
Where do you land on the chart?
If our culture has been so "dumbed down" then it is on us because we allowed it to happen. Gramsci understood this as did Allinsky. So, perhaps if parents took a little more time to understand our corrupted (progrssive, Hegelian) educational system, we would not have several generations of brainwashed, growing population of self-absorbed, socio-paths voting for more freebies and being disappointed that they were given jobs and wealth, all the while failing to understand that those things only come through hard work and not through the Progressive rant "that everyone is special"and deserving of getting everything they have been promised and then not seeing it materialize. That is the reason the millennials are so sour.
Yes, Trump, Corzine, Clinton, Sanders and the rest of the gaggle of Beltway politicians are truly representative of our own cumulative degenerating values and intellectual laziness. Make way for the leader we deserve!
So I ask for your opinion as to who you think might turn this bus around? Cause without a person to back slowing down is the better option.
I don't know Webb, Johnson, a number of names have been bandied about. None that have ignited any real interest because within the confines of a closed single party system that can't really be done nor any of them trusted. The one group that had potential was this supposedly Non Rino group of elected officials who could and should bolt the party while IN office. Turned out they were just play acting. They haven't So there's no leadership there.
I don't personally know of any that's left except that aren't probably too old like the Allison from BB@T a long time Objectivist and Rand supporter who finally went to the Rand Institute and then the Cato Institute attempt to get something accomplished.
Failing someone like that with bona fides it's the military supporting it's oath of office in the current stages. Everyone else is too busy cutting their own throats to pick up the garbage so it's the rats and snakes who benefit.
It's also the reason Obama is making a run and suborning and co-opting the military from that duty - what you might call a counter revolution but as of 31 December evening speech it's not only that but a legal one. If they do they can't be stopped. But if they don't it's for one of two reasons and one reasons. the leadership has been co-opted and taken an oath to Obama or they don't think the country and people are worth it. Can't say I blame them there.
Either way that's where my loyalties lie. "Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic....that does not include self confessed traitors.
Third choice they take over using their real oath and keep the country instead of putting it back under the Constitution.
And the police? Most are veterans and so are many others in the nation.
So? Should that happen. It's legal and in absence of a Constitution other than as a platitude to wave before pissing on it as Obama did New Years Eve they have my vote. I like majority rule.
And if the people don't like it?
Tough. You get what you ask for.
Maybe you are old enough to be thinking you will be gone but for me I plan to be here awhile yet.
You have no options because you don't have the courage to run without the flock. BaaaBaaaa
All I had to do was say None Of The Above and invoke the third law of objectivism. That may not work for you. That's for you to decide.
Couch Potatoes are a dime a gross.
Hint' Why did you say lesser of evils. and then accept that self evaluation? We don't tell people what to do we enourage independent free thinking. That way you "never have to say your sorry."
My reaction to his candidacy was the same as my reaction to the news that Kanya West announced his intention to run, or Colbert, or Scrooge McDuck.
I seriously can think of few personalities in the public eye that are less suited to be the leader of the western world. Its not hyperbole when I say that he reminds me of Caligula, who thought himself a living God - who berated, then beheaded anyone, including elected roman senators, for no other reason than they displeased him, let alone criticize or dare to challenge him. His name calling of women, minorities, and anyone who dare question him is so patently infantile that, this alone should disqualify him to deserve the admiration, let alone the elegance of any fair minded objectivist (which SHOULD be redundant). The entire philosophy it about finding the truth about the world and the people who live on it. Can anyone in this forum or beyond say that they objectively agree with "Trumps Truth?"
As Ayn said, we should only follow others if they truly reflect our values, principles and ethics. To do otherwise is a contradiction of logic, and a betrayal of oneself. Does anyone here want to say that Trump is even a remote reflection of their own ethic? Does his sense of life comport with yours?
Yes, I know, I know, he is supposedly the poster boy for the disaffected - those who are so frustrated with the do-nothing political system, that they want a bomb thrower who will blow it all up.
He also is locking down the Chicolina vote. (For those of you who don't know, Chicolina is a porn star who was elected to the Italian parliament by a constituency the wanted demonstrate what a farce the Italian ruling body truly was). As far as I know, Trump has not appeared in any porn movies, but his public rants and embarrassing "dancing monkey" antics before any camera, are just as obscene.
By Objectivist standards, he is worse than a man with the wrong values and ethic, he is man with opportunistic personal principles... in other words, he is consciously unprincipled and void of any ethical standards. I think Ayn would call him the height of hypocrisy and evil.
He is the worse kind of fraudulent dealer who panders to the fear and confusion of minds that are truly defenseless, because they lack the acumen to see Trump for the fraud he is.
Another historical parallel is Sen. McCarthy who road runaway fear and conspiracy theories to public prominence in the 50s. Ironically, his underlying opposition to socialism was justified (Ayn actually testified before his committee), but it became abundantly clear that McCarthy lost sight of the "cause" and became a demagogue whose means were perverted to one end, his own power and aggrandizement.
Trump marks the return of the kind contagious McCarthyistic disease... the symptoms of which are defined by the kind of mass insanity that needs a figurehead to be the embodiment of their deepest frustration and fear.(and ignorance).
But just as McCarthy had his Edward R. Morrow - a man who had the common sense and bravery to point out that the "Emperor has no clothes", so the National Review is a least attempting to call us back from the brink of the abyss that is "The Donald."
I note with interest, but not surprise, that the media, including much of the conservative media (read Fox), have betrayed their primary role as gate keepers who are charge with exposing the absurdity of those who are delusional enough to aspire to the most powerful position in the free world, yet totally lack the temperament, skill, or even a modicum of good will toward the people they, in theory, should represent. The Trump, people are pawns, whose only purpose is to play the role of surfs in his imperial Presidency.
Why have the press not been savaging him for his truly ridiculous behavior as the buffoon he proven, time and again, that he is?
Answer is obvious, Trump virtually guarantees a Clinton presidency. This is true if he gets the Republican nomination or not. If he fails, it is clear that he intends to run as a third party candidate, splitting the "right of center vote." Hillary walks into the West Wing, giggling at the stupidity or her opponents (the ones she said on national TV were her enemies - i.e.Republicans).
What do we, the sane, do to stop any of this nightmarish reality from coming to pass. No scenario looks promising. Hillary or Trump? Hillary vs. who? say Cruz, when the only way Cruz could win is to buy Trump off with a major position in the Administration. Vice-President? Sec of Estates, er, I mean State?
Talk about picking your poison. Either option leaves us just as dead.
You like to sneak around it too.l What makes you different fro Clinton or Obama?
Now he has to prove the rest of it. Why would we vote for a right wing of the left candidate. Something that bedevils Trumps even more.
"Hope and Change" anyone????
I have yet to see one former Trump employee on camera, bleating about what a cruel, heartless boss he is, and you can bet the media has been feverishly seeking such persons out. His children are productive and without the trainwreck of a life so many offspring of the wealthy inhabit. He's a philanthropist who insists there be no publicity about his gift-giving. His ex-wives insist he's a kind, thoughtful man, with an obsession with his business that made it impossible for them to stay with him.
Is he an ideologue? Absolutely not, but he is focused on making the government work, and understands the office of the President requires a diplomat, not an autocrat, when dealing with Congress (a lesson that totally escapes Obama). The word that he uses constantly is "negotiation," which is an art form most hard-nosed conservatives are sadly lacking.
Ted Cruz, the darling of the conservative crowd, flip-flops as much as any other candidate, but he's a great debater who points with pride that he's impossible for other Senators to work with. That may impress the purists, but getting nothing done isn't what I want in the office of the Executive.
I admit that I sometimes cringe at some of Trump's statements, but when I dissect the statements of other more polished politicians, I find they've mastered the art of saying nothing with great sounds of importance. It's difficult for any public figure to be perfectly flawless and consistent, but are we looking for the best orator (which was what got Obama elected) or someone who's determined to herd the dissonant cats of Congress into the right direction?
In the past he has espoused exactly the opposite of his rhetoric today so, the question is "Who is the real Donald Trump?".
You said that you do not like Cruz because he "flip flops" on issues. Can you cite these flip-flops?
In addition to Trump having been a Democrat and having endorsed or given donations to a host of Democrats including the Clintons (I cand add the list if needed), how can anyone in all honesty take him seriously?
I have been skewered by many of my "Conservative" friends for not jumping on the Trump bandwagon however every time I ask for some form of proof that he is the real deal, no one can provide it. Why is that?
Anyway, I am glad you and a host of other Americans have finally found the "Champion" that is going to lead the country to the "Promised" land however, being the Doubting Thomas that I am, all I can say is: "I'm from Missouri, show me!".
At some point the only way to win is not to play and I've rolled the dice with these non choices for too many decades. The next round is the sixth chamber.
Yes, for HRM Donnie Trump and uses looters power against everyone else that gets in his way even his own partners. Trump has little business acumen that can be applied toward the job, and he has shown through his actions and his words that he can not be trusted to limit his actions as president to the original constitutional limits. Character assassination of Trump is not necessary; his actions and words have shown his character and ethics clearly.
The Trump businesses have one of the highest percentages of female and minority executives, and they aren't "tokens". He doesn't make a big deal of this, as to him it's only the natural course of him being open to talent and initiative without prejudice.
A lot has been said about his support of eminent domain, but he's open about it as a natural tool of business. I suspect others in the arena have benefited from use of this mechanism, but are careful to keep their mouth shut.
He's the only candidate who makes no bones about how easy it is to buy politicians with money or favors. Like Bernie Sanders, he also doesn't support big money or super-PACs for his campaign (of course, Bernie, unlike Trump, can't self-finance).
If you want a tested Washington politician, vote for Kasich, who has an admirable record there, and as a successful governor. However, I think people are sick of the way that system acts (I wanted to say "works," but it doesn't), and are willing to give an outsider a try.
When you have more specifics about Trump instead of baseless invective, I'm willing to listen.
While there are many things I don't like about Trump he seems to be the one the insider statists of both parties like the least -- which certainly is attractive.
I never really connected to Beck at all. He always missed the mark with me. It's like his arguments start off strong, making a good point, just before the conclusions veer off into the tumbleweeds.
THE CLUE:
This presidential candidate has been variously described by the use of these adjectives, all of which start with with the letter "B":
Buffoon, Bully, Braggadocios, Brash, Bankrupt, Bald-faced, Belittling, Boar, Baby, Bitter, Baffled, Baffling, Beginner, Back-Stabbing, Back-Handed, Back-tracking, Backward, Bitchy, Benedict Democrat, Bias, Bigoted, Blow-hard, Bozo, Botched, Blathering, Basher, Bleeding-heart, Bloody, Besmircher, Besmearer, Bombastic, Bad-mannered, Belligerent, Bellicose, Blasphemous, Bickerer, Big-Mouthed, Balderdash, Boob, Badgerer, Bamboozling
Bandit, Babbling, Batty, Bag-man, Bawdy, Bad-mouther, Bedeviling
Baulker, Bawler, Bazaar, Barker, Begrudger, Berater, Boot-strapper, Bewildered, Botched, Byzantine. BAD.
The Answer is: Who is ****____?
(and that's just the "B"s)
Ok... partly tongue in cheek but I challenge you to make a case against the appropriate application of any of these adjectives. If even half are true, is this really the man an Objectivist could vote for with a clear conscious. My question. What would Ayn say? What would she do?
I could go on and on listing the issues he has supposedly changed his views on. He is not only inconsistent, he's a lier. We already have a lier with a huge, but fragile ego, in the Whitehouse.
Another presidential candidate is an even better lier, but she will likely be indicted before the general election. Her primary opponent is probably the most honest candidate running, unfortunately he is wrong on almost every issue.
I stayed home for the last two elections because the choices were two Statists. We may get to choose from two Statists again this year. If this country wants to commit suicide, it would be better to give it a quick death, rather than a slow more painful one.
ISIS,.... Can I kill them if they threaten me?
Drugs,..... Do I have the right to stop someone from destroying their own life?
Abortion,.....Who should be made to support the child if the mother refuses or isn't capable?
Isis has killed how many? And plan to kill how many more? Enough said.
As for abortion, killing is killing no matter what you name it. They cut babies out of mothers that are not usually even educated on alternatives. I think rather than keeping abortion clinics going, they should pool those resources into affordable birth control methods and educating young mothers to make better decisions. It costs between $400 and $1500 to get an abortion, it's $10,000 with insurance to get a tubilligation. And rapists get a slap on the hand if that, rather than justice served. They ruin lives and get no or very little punishment. That's why we still have abortions.
Is someone forcing you to eat poisoned food?
Do I have the right to tell someone they can't have sex for money?
Is it my responsibility to educate people? Who should be forced to pay for their education or their abortion? Who should we force to pay for their birth control?
If "killing is killing no matter what you name it", is killing a baby the same as killing ISIS or a rapist?
And the other questions?
they would probably attack any of the other outsider candidates if they too were in the lead. The would not attack bush.
The fact is that this is all a side show to distract the voters from the truth: neither the GOP nor the Dems deliver what the voters want because prosperity comes from individual liberty, not from state control which has been the only accomplishment of the fedgov regardless of which party is arguably in power.
The only rational response is for voters to abandon the GOP and the Dems for a third party that has for decades consistently defended individual liberty.
I believe that Trump, with his past being a true representation of his core beliefs and, with nothing to show that his rhetoric today is a true representation of his "real" core beliefs, that he an Rubio are probably now the "preferred" Establishment candidates regardless of the faux bluster that they (the establishment) are spewing.
In addition, I believe Trump (who is already attracting many Democrats) will govern more like the Democrats with their core beliefs rather than all of the supposed conservative, populist tripe that he has been promoting in order to capture the Republican base. This could be the bait and switch of the century!
For what its worth!
1. Hard Core Conservatives
2. Libertarians
3. Religious Right
4. Constitutionalists
5. Establishment Republicans
6. Starstruck Republicans
and
7. Starstruck Reagan Democrats.
Which blocks support Trump? Cruz? Rubio? Bush? Carson? etc? Are there other Republican voting blocks of consequence, that I've missed?
Objectivists are not a substantial voting block.
The religious folks seem to be all over the board, depending in part what they "feel " about abortion, immigration and income inequality. The Jews mostly vote Democrat. Catholics like immigration from Mexico and South America, but not so much from the Middle East and Africa. Protestants are Pro Lifers. Muslims typically vote Democrat. I consider all religious folks irrational and somewhat unpredictable.
I may and up in that block of people who stay home, but I meant to talk about people who will end up cast a vote.
One scoop of shit or two? I'll pass.
Some people never learn. If you want to bring Trump down, leave him alone. Instead bring someone else with a chance up. But don't waste your efforts on the one and two percenters.
Having said that, if he decided to work with congress and passing legislation that could be signed into law, he "may" have the ability to get cleaner bills and less pork. All of the candidate yearn for the line item veto, so they can strike the pork barrel funding, but that will never happen. Congressmen get re-elected by bringing the federal money home to their constituents.
A tertiary point regarding both Trump and Romney is that both guys made fortunes in the American business environment. I for one, would love to learn from and follow a leader like that. Imagine what Romney may have taught Americans about achievement, charity, and efficiency. I would guess the same is true of Trump. To face challenges and find workable solutions is something we haven't seen in a while and I believe American's need a refresher course. When you have a major group of young people that complain about their situation, spend their money on piercings and tattoos, have enough cash to buy pot and stay stoned, yet still demand what they "need and deserve" from the achievers, they need a lesson. Something along the lines of, "you are only as valuable as the service you provide for others." Or. "You can get everything you want out of life if you just help enough other people get what they want."
If there is a retail politician offering that, please fill me in.
He keeps talking about making deals -- even wrote a book on the subject.
On the one hand he says he will put a tariff on China, something like 35%, then later I hear him say it will never happen, they will concede on their currency manipulation before they would face that tariff.
It is a fact that every piece of information I have ever read on success states you get the best results when you improve your skills working with people. So, I would concede Trump knows how to work with people. I recall from the Art of the Deal, one of his first deals was in Cincinnati. Trump had been told the seller enjoyed French food, so they had the meeting to discuss the deal at the Maisonette. That was not an accident, he has always known how to reach out to people. In the last several months I have come to understand Trump will exaggerate an issue, attracting maximum press, then fine tune the issue later. He has played the press like on old violin.
He's not my first pick because my fantasy would be seeing President Ted Cruz swear in Supreme Court Justice Anthony Napoletano. I prefer to go by the constitution and in particular the 10th Amendment. That's just me. If Trump is the republican nominee, I will gladly vote for him because if it's Hillary or Bernie I don't think we will have a country after their term.
What I don't get is why, from the point of view of the establishment republicans, why is it perfectly acceptable for me and my ilk to hold our nose and vote for John McCain, G.W. Bush, or Bob Dole. It is expected for millions of guys like me to go along with the party choice. Why is it unacceptable to them to have a candidate Like Trump or Cruze? Why can't they hold their nose? I certainly have had second thoughts but then voted for the establishment guy. And what has it gotten me? I heard on Fox today if you divide the National debt by the population, it's like having $331,000.00 of credit card debt.
For instance, you mentioned that both Trump and Romney made their fortunes in a "business environment". Romney was a Wall Street type (mostly populated by Democrats) as was Jon Corzine (past NJ governor) who incidentally was one of the worst governors that NJ ever had. His business acumen was being basically a boiler room salesman. That is not creating something of value per se. This was also the environment that Romney made his wealth in.
Trump is also be his own definition, a Big Government, Crony-capitalist who loves the use of Eminent Domain. That is exactly what most the Establishment and the Democrat party like.
You also mentioned that you don't want a president to govern by the use of Executive Orders, fine, but what you have (and what Obama knew) was that Congress is moribund! The leadership is in the tank with the lobbyists and the donor class calls the shots, not the electorate.
Now, if you said that but also indicated that perhaps it were time for real term limits, then I would be in agreement with you. That, unfortunately will not come to be if we rely on our elected representatives who currently infest the Beltway to vote for an amendment to the Constitution in order to make that happen. It won't in a million years.
In order to shake DC up, there should probably be an Article V Convention of the States to effect a Constitutional Amendment for Term Limits. George Mason ensured that safety valve was there just because he knew empirically that Congress would not make certain changes themselves.
For these reasons, Trump will not be the savior that we think he will because he will either be a dictator or he will deal with Congress as is being done now. For what its worth!
The fundamental cause of the decline is bad ideas spread throughout the culture as a result of the intellectual influence of the European Counter Enlightenment driven by false moral and anti-reason premises of self-sacrifice, collectivism and faith not properly addressed the first time. The decline is not fundamentally caused by corruption concentrated in Washington, which only cashes in on the rest. A convention of states is no solution to that. The politics of the states has its own corruption and the same false premises.
The COS is a solution, whether it is the right one or the wrong one, that is an academic question and could only be answered by trying it. To not try it is to either endure the encroaching status quo or worse yet, putting our faith in a hero with feet of clay and no record of wanting to reverse the creeping Crony-capitalism engulfing our country!
We engage in various actions all the time fighting government abuse, and some of it helps to at least live to fight another day or another year. But do it without self delusion. Amending the constitution in a flurry of Mark Levin's tactic is not the Big Solution he claims. It is one mechanism among many, subject to the same underlying limitations, which takes enormous effort and resources which may or may not make a dent as it opens up the possibility for more "compromises". And even if every one of Mark Levin's proposed amendments were to be somehow adopted as he stated them it still would not change the downward direction of the country.