Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
HandyHandle

Contra Trump – by Harry Binswanger

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

In the coming presidential race between Trump and Hillary, Binswanger says:  “I will either not vote, or vote for Hillary.”

At this point he’s sitting on the fence between the two.  The question is:  What would Hillary have to do or say to make him decide not to vote for her?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, HandyHandle said:

In the coming presidential race between Trump and Hillary, Binswanger says:  “I will either not vote, or vote for Hillary.”

At this point he’s sitting on the fence between the two.  The question is:  What would Hillary have to do or say to make him decide not to vote for her?

 

Some of the things Trump has been saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Self-contradictory nonsense.  The two essays are based on an asserted unpredictability that leads them (inexplicably) to predict, among other things, a reduction in minimum wage to $5, the shooting of an innocent in broad daylight, a war waged with Russia because of a perceived slight, and a devolution of the nation into Peronism.

Predictable evil is preferred to the unpredictable?  Would Hillary strive less for power than the Donald?  Would she be less likely to drag us into a war or destabilize the world?  See Libya, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Egypt for examples of Hillary's stabilizing political savvy.  Would she be less likely to wield the bureaucracies of the federal government against her political enemies?  

And predictability?  Yes, I knew what Obama was, and not one thing he's done has surprised me at all.  Is that a selling point?  Would anyone, in their wildest paranoias, have predicted that the small-government, no-nation-building Bush who ran in 2000 would start a multi-decade war attempting to build democracies in the heart of Islam, or consolidate previously unimaginable power and incompetence in the hands of an Orwellian behemoth the likes of the Department of Homeland Security?

One thing is clear in this election:. Hillary would be an unmitigated disaster.. She will push the Court into an unchecked Leftist tool of her self-serving statism.. She will disarm law-abiding citizens and repeal the government's acknowledgement of the right to self-defense.. She will open the borders to the worst scum of the Earth in order to secure votes for the Party.  She will put an even greater stranglehold on banks, investments, energy, healthcare, manufacturing and more and more of our economy than even the current prince has accomplished.

Trump, on the oher hand - yes, they call it correctly: who the hell knows?  But from a rational point of view, does Binswanger really advocate a swig from the bottle of cyanide over one from the unmarked bottle, because, what?  Better to make the conscious choice for certain suicide than put your fate up to random chance?  Out of principle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicky, that riddle’s so good even I can’t understand it, LOL.  Here’s what I had in mind even if I failed to say it.

It would be hard to find any position of Trump’s that Hillary could embrace and remain consistent with her current positions.  She can’t start supporting the Second Amendment or restricted immigration for example.  

About Binswanger’s post that I cited at the beginning, I think it suffers from deduction without induction.  Instead of looking at the world – specifically Trump and America’s problems – and developing a theory based on what he sees, he starts with a theory divorced from reality and starts pontificating.  His theory seems to be that immigration, NAFTA & TPP have only been good for America and that Trump is a mindless brute.

I just checked:  Binswanger still has “Contra Trump” on his website.  Does anyone, even those who generally support the Ayn Rand Institute, agree with it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HandyHandle said:

I just checked:  Binswanger still has “Contra Trump” on his website.  Does anyone, even those who generally support the Ayn Rand Institute, agree with it?

 

I haven't read it, but the comments suggest that Binswanger argues that Hillary would be better than Trump. I agree, and am likely to vote for her if I think it is going to be close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HandyHandle said:

Nicky, that riddle’s so good even I can’t understand it, LOL.  Here’s what I had in mind even if I failed to say it.

It would be hard to find any position of Trump’s that Hillary could embrace and remain consistent with her current positions.  She can’t start supporting the Second Amendment or restricted immigration for example. 

Hillary Clinton doesn't support restricted immigration? When did she turn Libertarian on this? Because I'm writing a check to her campaign right now if she did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Nicky said:

Hillary Clinton doesn't support restricted immigration? ...

Keee...rect.  She’s the Open Borders candidate.

“I am proud to work with Sen. Menendez on trying to make sure that in the process of doing immigration reform, we don’t separate families, we try to have family unification as one of the goals. So in addition to giving people a path to legalization, we want to make sure their families can come along with them.” (2007)
 
She ...
Sponsored a bill to cover children of resident aliens – illegal or otherwise – under Medicaid.
Sponsored a bill funding social services for illegal aliens.
Voted for allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.
Voted for continuing federal funds for “sanctuary cities”.
Voted for establishing a Guest Worker program and giving guest workers a “path to citizenship.”
Wants to halt “certain” raids on illegal immigrants.
Wants “comprehensive reform” to get 12 million “out of shadows” – that is, amnesty.
Wants to allow illegal immigrants to pay state college tuition.
Wants to allow driver’s licenses for illegals.
Opposes local police helping immigration enforcement.
Etc.

Whenever you see “comprehensive immigration reform” or “pathway to citizenship,” think unrestricted immigration.  See her campaign website:
www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/immigration-reform

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From this list, it appears that she holds a view that there are not enough people that want to immigrant to this country without enticing them with taxpayer dollars. This doesn't ring so much of a simple unrestricted immigration policy as much as a subsidized immigration policy. Such a policy can only be maintained as long as the economic well doesn't become tainted. unpotable.

Edited by dream_weaver
choice of wording

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

* All leftists want more people to vote socialist.
* Hillary is a leftist.
* Third World immigrants by and large vote socialist (a statistical fact, look at the polls).
* Hillary wants more Third World immigrants.

She should anyway, and she certainly does.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HandyHandle said:

She ...
... ...

... ...
Etc.

 

I'm sold. She gets my vote (even though the list doesn't fit any reasonable definition of open-immigration, and even though it is mixed, it's a good list of things on balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think open immigration describes her position pretty well.  She pays lip-service to “getting control of our borders” but look at her voting record.  The “reform” and “control” turn out to mean let them in.

Anyway, whatever we call it – open, or mostly open, or a lot open – if I understand your post you will vote for Hillary because you like her position on immigration.  Is that correct?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HandyHandle said:

... if I understand your post you will vote for Hillary because you like her position on immigration.  Is that correct?

There's a slightly higher chance that Hillary will push through a way for at least some fraction of the millions of undocumented Mexicans to stay in the U.S. legally. Trump might do so to (despite the stuff he says), but I find him utterly unpredictable. So, I'd bet on her on this particular issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gather the answer to my question is, No.  You favor Hillary because of her position on the particular issue of immigration, but that isn’t enough for you to vote for her.

So is there anyone who agrees with Binswanger?

I agree with most of calzonie’s post above.  Even assuming that Trump is unpredictable, it’s crazy to prefer the unpredictable over the predictably abysmal.  

In order for that not to be self-contradictory nonsense, there would have to be a chance that Trump is much more abysmal than Hillary.  The links in Craig24’s post above (“Fear and Loathing” etc.) argue that Trump is predictably pretty good, and they make more sense than Binswanger.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, HandyHandle said:

I gather the answer to my question is, No.  You favor Hillary because of her position on the particular issue of immigration, but that isn’t enough for you to vote for her.

There's a good chance I'll either stay home or vote Libertarian.
However, if the polls look close in my state, between Trump and Hillary, I will vote for Hillary.
If the FBI go after her and Bernie is the DEM candidate, I stay home or vote Libertarian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.  Objectivists want a person in the WH who:  destroyed get husband's rape victims; pulled in millions from Arabs; let our people die in Benghazi ; wants to abolish 2nd Amendment; wants more killer Muslims  the US; lied to families of Benghazi victims while their coffins were being loaded. Just Wow.

Did I forget $6,000,000 mysteriously missing from State Dept under her watch and thousands of classified emails missing from a bathroom server?

Edited by Claire1964

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Claire1964 said:

Wow.  Objectivists want a person in the WH who:  destroyed get husband's rape victims; pulled in millions from Arabs; let our people die in Benghazi ; wants to abolish 2nd Amendment; wants more killer Muslims  the US; lied to families of Benghazi victims while their coffins were being loaded. Just Wow.

Did I forget $6,000,000 mysteriously missing from State Dept under her watch and thousands of classified emails missing from a bathroom server?

Well that's barely the beginning of it. Someone should actually write up an explanation on how insane it would be to vote for Hillary as an Objectivist. I'll probably do it if nobody else does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2016 at 8:54 PM, HandyHandle said:

Keee...rect.  She’s the Open Borders candidate....Whenever you see “comprehensive immigration reform” or “pathway to citizenship,” think unrestricted immigration. 

Ok, I'll play this game. So the rule is that, no matter what anyone says, I get to think whatever I want to think? Fun, fun, fun.

I've got one for you: whenever you hear "Keee...rect.", think pedophile ( kee as in kid, and I don't need to explain that last part, do I?). That's sick, dude. I think you're the one who should be deported. To Antarctica or something.

 

4 hours ago, epistemologue said:

Well that's barely the beginning of it. Someone should actually write up an explanation on how insane it would be to vote for Hillary as an Objectivist. I'll probably do it if nobody else does.

Shame that instead of writing it, you just settled for an argument from intimidation. Now I won't read it.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, epistemologue said:

Well that's barely the beginning of it. Someone should actually write up an explanation on how insane it would be to vote for Hillary as an Objectivist. I'll probably do it if nobody else does.

Well, to be clear, you're not saying Trump is worth a vote, just that Hillary is worse than most people say? I do find a lot of people ignore just how -bad- Hillary is, in efforts to make Trump look worse than Mussolini, and then lose all objectivity about Hillary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×