Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Skylark1

Donald Trump

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

On 10/7/2017 at 7:16 PM, StrictlyLogical said:

He's an unprincipled, leftist (not a communist and not as bad as a democrat), buffoon.

Well, he certainly is an unprincipled buffoon.  And the country is all the worse for his buffoonery.

His latest is that he would have rushed into that school in Florida to take down the shooter with his bare hands.   Then there are the buffoons who elected him in the first place.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Buffoon"? Who cares how he comes across - and although of another nationality, I care very much about America's future direction and particularly its moral stance. When Trump says of something, "That's a bad deal!" -  what does that say?  A bad deal is surely when you get less out of something than what you've put in. In other words, losing a greater value for a lesser; In short, self-sacrificial altruism. Why, I can't understand, has this central aspect never been picked up (that I've seen) by Objectivists? For whatever his (very likely), businesslike pragmatism, your president has one overall principle, and that's to pull back the USA from further descent into its dutiful sacrificial altruism, which all other nations have taken as 'a given' for so long. Make no bones about it, beneath the enraged/scornful opposition (we get here too from our self-righteous Left-liberals) they ~know~ what's going on. No one will mention, or always explicitly understand, the basic ideology at stake, but this unbelievable, unceasing opposition to Trump, especially the hatred seen from the loathsome CNN, can't be taken any other way. It shows me their fear, and that a threat to their altruism is implicit in whatever they're  doing.

Like I say, what do I care about what he says, or acts like. We are feeling his shakeup in many places in the world, all to the better.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2018 at 5:03 PM, whYNOT said:

your president has one overall principle, and that's to pull back the USA from further descent into its dutiful sacrificial altruism, which all other nations have taken as 'a given' for so long.

His "principle" is popularity. His position is always what is going to make him look "big".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

His "principle" is popularity. His position is always what is going to make him look "big".

 

That's ludicrous.  There were and are much easier paths and positions on issues for him if he wanted to be popular.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grames said:

That's ludicrous.  There were and are much easier paths and positions on issues for him if he wanted to be popular.  

Can't tell...if trolling... or not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Eiuol said:

His "principle" is popularity. His position is always what is going to make him look "big".

 

President Trump's popularist appeal (and his antics), serves a principled purpose - and I am positive it is a purpose he believes in 100%. After he became president, he could easily have turned into Mr. Nice Guy and gone along to get along - if personal popularity for its own sake was in the least important to him. He hasn't changed much from campaign days, I gather.

I suggest to not be fooled by the front he puts on (in his volatile nature, not always calculated - sure) and even there, he firmly has the big picture and a pre-eminent value in mind, over his personal image. I find myself in a strange reversal - as with those who argue with me (quite nastily) about Trump in my country (as though there isn't a bad enough situation here to concern themselves about) - since unlike most of them, I have always been somewhat/very cynical about all politicians, 'leaders' and generally, the cult of personality, but in this instance I am uncynical. I believe this businessman turned national leader and leader of the free world, has a forthright vision of the self-interested good of the US, (and by secondary consequence, other nations) - he *means* it. Who can honestly negate this objective?  But his vision is misperceived as self-aggrandisement and power lust. And along with some of his policies and fickleness at times, what one might disagree with is ~the way~ he goes about things, but displaying "style", warm feelings and the "good intention" for the public's appetite are trivial compared with character, actions and results. The altruist Lefties I hear from can't stand listening to this very thing. Raw as is his personality, character qualities Trump has plenty of, unfashionable as it has become to mention within the Left, and clearly he recognises (and prefers to deal with) those who also have integrity (or don't). 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I suggest to not be fooled by the front he puts on (in his volatile nature, not always calculated - sure) and even there, he firmly has the big picture and a pre-eminent value in mind, over his personal image.

You seem to be suggesting that he puts on a front out of necessity in order to get anything good done.

First, this is a problem because this idea is promoting abandonment of principles in the short-term is fine if it's for a good goal. I'm not opposed to some political pragmatism in terms of being diplomatic and acknowledging that instant change isn't always wise. But here your discussing populism and "antics" is beyond that. These are the things that undermine rational discourse - don't forget he popularized the Obama birth certificate thing.

Second, I honestly don't see why I should think he has a vision.

Forget his political positions even. I don't see how even pre-presidency he was a -respectable- person. He wasn't and isn't a role model. I don't sense any bit of heroism in him. 

23 hours ago, Grames said:

There were and are much easier paths and positions on issues for him if he wanted to be popular.  

Like what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2018 at 10:30 PM, JASKN said:

Can't tell...if trolling... or not...

 

6 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Like what?

By not caring about illegal immigration, not leaving the Paris Climate Accord, not repealing Net Neutrality, not removing Obama's freeze on drilling and mining on federal lands on offshore zones, not daring to include corporate tax reductions in tax reform, not withdrawing from UNESCO, not recognizing Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel or moving the embassy there, not halting the federal gov't land grab tactic of declaring new national monuments, not ending the foreign policy of regime change and fomenting wars, not using the "bully pulpit" he has as President to call out the kneelers of the NFL, by continuing to pretend the fascist and mercantilist regimes in China and Mexico are legitimate partners in "free trade" deals,  . . .   it's getting late here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, whYNOT said:

...  a forthright vision of the self-interested good of the US, ...

There's a lot to unravel in your post, so I'll focus only one one aspect: every protectionist that ever existed, has based it on a view of "what's good for my country".

You seem to be contrasting two attitudes:

  • America should do what's best for the world, even sacrificing its own interests at times; vs.
  • America must look out for its own interests, first and foremost

Just having that second orientation does not mean one will do better than the other orientation. One might think that theoretically it should be better, but it does not turn out that way in practice. Further, nationalism is not rational selfishness. The lone wolf trying to steal what he can from everyone else is not the answer to altruism.

Share this post


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

By not caring about illegal immigration, not leaving the Paris Climate Accord, not repealing Net Neutrality, not removing Obama's freeze on drilling and mining on federal lands on offshore zones, not daring to include corporate tax reductions in tax reform, not withdrawing from UNESCO, not recognizing Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel or moving the embassy there, not halting the federal gov't land grab tactic of declaring new national monuments, not ending the foreign policy of regime change and fomenting wars, not using the "bully pulpit" he has as President to call out the kneelers of the NFL, by continuing to pretend the fascist and mercantilist regimes in China and Mexico are legitimate partners in "free trade" deals,  . . .   it's getting late here.

Are you a closet leftist? :D This is all the kind of stuff that titillated his voters. I will grant that I'm giving him too much credit  - he didn't really plan any of this, in the same way that none of us plan our personalities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

There's a lot to unravel in your post, so I'll focus only one one aspect: every protectionist that ever existed, has based it on a view of "what's good for my country".

You seem to be contrasting two attitudes:

  • America should do what's best for the world, even sacrificing its own interests at times; vs.
  • America must look out for its own interests, first and foremost

Just having that second orientation does not mean one will do better than the other orientation. One might think that theoretically it should be better, but it does not turn out that way in practice. Further, nationalism is not rational selfishness. The lone wolf trying to steal what he can from everyone else is not the answer to altruism.

To go to your last, first: As you know, sNerd, the lone wolf (predator) is as much altruist - sacrificing others to himself - as those who self-sacrifice. The other side of the altruist coin, I think Rand named this. For the grand stage of America, there would seem to be no getting to "there" from "here", overnight. That's going to take a large mindset change from the population, I think not by electing the 'right' president. In the interim, I've long been in favor of an American government looking critically at your nation's role in the world. It is an injustice for the American taxpayer to meekly foot the bill for other nations mistakes, corrupt practices, and in the end, as ever, lack of value in themselves. Past time for a complete 'reset' I think, in terms of aid, alliances, trade treaties, moral support - and military interventions. BUT not - to cancel everything outright, please understand, but to review the reality of where US actions are beneficial, useful, wasteful, creating dependence, rationally moral, reciprocated (or, at least accepted with appreciation).

The very mention of Trump's to withdraw aid, etc. has been sending shockwaves through some countries and institutions, nominated by him or not. One way or other, each is taking a look at themselves and individuals are realizing their addictive dependence upon the USA's munificence-- and *perhaps* beginning to plan to go it alone and find their own sovereign pride and independence. There's no better outcome than helping someone get on their feet after a disaster (etc.) --and then leaving them alone. (Don't bet against the president not understanding this.)

On "intervention", I believe the biggest of false dichotomies, is American "interventionism vs. Isolationism". The world prospers and does better with a morally, financially, not to mention, militarily, strong America - while America has to stay fully involved with the world and trade (in its people's self-interest). Even foes of your country look to it and up to it as a standard, in a twisted way. While those of us who look to you as examples of rational, free values continue to do.

I think you find I am anything but catering to a jingoistic "good for my/your country and damn the rest". If nationalism and the extreme Right grows in the USA, it will be a danger. But I see that as improbable, and you aren't there yet, while I see the Left and hard Left as a greater, immediate threat to you there, as it is generally to the West and western values. As for an individual so a nation, it's clear to me only the strong and independent can afford to be (and choose to be) gentle and generous. My view (as a long, if not always uncritical admiring observer) is the US has become morally weakened in recent decades by inroads from the Left. Get strong again with Trump :) for now. Hopefully the regulative state will downsize, (but you'll know much better than I). Then issues e.g. immigration will sort out themselves. 

 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Eiuol said:

You seem to be suggesting that he puts on a front out of necessity in order to get anything good done.

First, this is a problem because this idea is promoting abandonment of principles in the short-term is fine if it's for a good goal. I'm not opposed to some political pragmatism in terms of being diplomatic and acknowledging that instant change isn't always wise. But here your discussing populism and "antics" is beyond that. These are the things that undermine rational discourse - don't forget he popularized the Obama birth certificate thing.

Second, I honestly don't see why I should think he has a vision.

Forget his political positions even. I don't see how even pre-presidency he was a -respectable- person. He wasn't and isn't a role model. I don't sense any bit of heroism in him. 

Like what?

Well, "heroism", no (it's early days...) I wasn't suggesting anything such, and in case anyone thinks so, I don't see him as a rational egoist, either! Although I can spot some Objectivist virtues in him (productiveness, honesty, pride, purpose). My main point was he utterly believes in his mission and its good. And unlike nearly all politicians after power,  he didn't have to curry favor, make backroom deals, sell out his principles, and so on, to run for Office. ("Independence", no?)

I tend to think that Trump came to the White House expecting and ready for the fight of his life, and as a streetwise tactician from a tough real estate world, preempted his opponents and hit em first. We all know he wouldn't have got an easy ride, from Democrats and the media, no matter how diplomatic and gracious he may have been to them. And I'm thinking that respectability has its limits. Who is doing the "respecting", and if it is the snooty, intellectual, leftist/socialist 'elite', who needs it? I don't mean you, obviously. However, if partisan politics and the Press hadn't been so viciously, inexplicably, undemocratically anti-Trump, I feel he would be running things with a lot more presidential graciousness and a lighter hand.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is said as a warning against the kind of “Nietzschean egoists” who, in fact, are a product of the altruist morality and represent the other side of the altruist coin: the men who believe that any action, regardless of its nature, is good if it is intended for one’s own benefit. Just as the satisfaction of the irrational desires of others is not a criterion of moral value, neither is the satisfaction of one’s own irrational desires. Morality is not a contest of whims . . . .

A similar type of error is committed by the man who declares that since man must be guided by his own independent judgment, any action he chooses to take is moral if hechooses it. One’s own independent judgment is the means by which one must choose one’s actions, but it is not a moral criterion nor a moral validation: only reference to a demonstrable principle can validate one’s choices.

(Had to make sure I wasn't misleading anyone about altruism. From the Lexicon, Intro: VOS. Sorry about the formating. 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


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

Although I can spot some Objectivist virtues in him (productiveness, honesty, pride, purpose). My main point was he utterly believes in his mission and its good. And unlike nearly all politicians after power,  he didn't have to curry favor, make backroom deals, sell out his principles, and so on, to run for Office. ("Independence", no?)

The productivity of Trump university and bankruptcy as a strategy to get money. He enjoys the dealings of shady people (i.e. mafia-associated people). Perhaps this is out of necessity, but he ignores it anyway. This is action for pure self-benefit without rational thought.

The honesty of a man who accuses Obama of not even being American-born. This is spreading a falsehood.

The pride of a man who would rather ignore or defend bad past decisions as though those -are- good decisions. This is vanity. When I say mistakes I mean some business ventures or questionable actions with foreign dignitaries.

Trump is a master of backroom deals. It's part of his success. I don't see why you think he'd stop that now.

The "tough real estate" world is, from what I gather, a business that takes political thinking. It's strange to me that you consider him separate from being political. I'd be fine with that if it wasn't for his questionable character.

By the way, he could be "disrespectful" which is okay on its own. My issue is the lack of any apparent leaning towards virtue. The undermining of rational discourse further rather than at least redirecting it.

Grames said there are easier ways to be popular if that was Trump's aim. But what he does is popular and gets him talked about while still winning an election. There may be "easier" ways, except none of those would do anything interesting. Self-aggrandizement isn't easy, but I'm sure it feels "better" than simple majority popularity.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people talk about Trump leading us to less government.  Leaving aside the complexities of what he has done, how long will this last?  There will probably be a reaction against it, partly because of the way it was done, partly because the opposed point of view is still very strong, partly because Trump turns a lot of people off.  After a few election cycles, how much better off will we be because of Trump?  Might we be worse off?  

Also, what if he causes a nuclear war?  Even if its a war elsewhere, say between Israel and Iran, that is very much against our interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, let there be no mistake a great many of the things Trump is pushing are wrong ...  but, he is pushing for at least some things which are in the right direction... so called correct causes.

Second, unless Trump's initial behavior truly is a cunning ruse of long term genius, we can assume his behavior and lack of principle will remain over his entire time in office.

 

Now, following up on thoughts spurred by Doug Morris, any correct cause Trump acts towards (whether by accident or on secretly held principle) without exposition and garnering some public agreement and understanding on the reasons and principles justifying and legitimizing that correct cause, will only be tarnished by its association with Trump, a person who is perceived by many as unprincipled and boorish.

So no matter what Trump does which is actually "right", to the extent the public does not know that it is right or why it is right (and also are not shown that Trump knows that it is right and why it is right), what he does will simply be labeled as "Trumplike" or "Trumpish"... and 4 or 8 years of Trump, instead of providing posterity with reasons and principles to guide political thought and action, will likely provide a number of distinctly "unpleasant" concrete causes associated with the MAN himself, more apt to be quickly dismissed as groundless (when ever were reasoned grounds used to support them?) and vulnerable to ad hominem attack, certainly for the foreseeable future.

IF Trump were aspiring to be a cunning genius, fooling the brutes and idiots to get into power and do the right things while smokescreening all the while his motivation for doing so... it still would serve as inimical to his causes because of the taint of his persona (even if purposeful) and the lack of expressed principle supporting those causes.  Such aspirations in fact would be for naught, might see short term gains but in the long run simply more damaging to the already clearly unprincipled state of "modern" conservatism.  Rand often said the Republicans were worse for their lack of a moral defense of their positions, those positions, in the public arena will suffer an even worse fate at the hands of Trump, I cannot imagine how Rand would react today.

 

Future Media Pundits Skewering perfectly good conservative policies because of their association with Trump:

2024 "Oh... that new libertarian.. half of the things he's proposed hearken to the Trump era... "

2028 " Oh that new GOP candidate is reminiscent of Trump.. Trump lite... " etc.

2024 "After almost a decade of Trump do we want more of the same policies?"

2048 "At the halfway mark in this new century, this woman wants us to embrace X, Y, Z, ... do we really want to entertain Trumpism again?"

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/1/2018 at 5:21 PM, whYNOT said:

To go to your last, first: As you know, sNerd, the lone wolf (predator) is as much altruist -..

Yeah I know. Trump is one of the most self-less people I've seen: completely lacking in self-esteem and desperate for people to constantly tell him how great he is, even when he knows they're lying. No wonder the left occasionally try to tie him to Ayn Rand. 

He has almost zero understanding of either the purpose of government or of what would make good policy. He has an extremely short-term view of action. He's not a businessman in the J.P.Morgan vein. He's a shyster who can make money and be effective if the system requires corruption, dealing with union thugs, and so on. So, I'll give him that: he is an effective businessman in the context of the more heavily regulated, "bribe your way out" and "deal with thugs" parts of the economy. 

Like many businessmen, he has not understanding of the difference between running a company and running a country. Hence his love of protectionism.

He has zero principles. He is not right wing, left wing or anything like that. He is a text book definition of a pragmatist. he's willing to say whatever it takes to get elected, and he comes close to not knowing he is lying because he's never really thought in terms of truth, or in terms of the importance of ideas. Is post-modernism could birth a child with Capone, the product would be Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking to politicians for principles. Maybe sometimes, in difficult times like these, but a doubtful premise. It seems I set a lower bar. Having the space and freedom for each of us to live by his own principles is the only non-negotiable expectation. How about, rather, looking for politicos to say what they mean to do, and do -exactly - what they say? (Within Constitutional, congressional, etc. limitations). That suffices for liberty lovers. I believe part of the tizzy the world is undergoing about Trump stems from exactly this fact: he is *not* a politician, he doesn't fit any pattern, as has been complacently accepted by westerners' prolonged statism (just consider all the years of compromising and secret deals which politicians had to make, to have gotten anywhere). Contrarily, President Trump obviously lies his ass off on the lesser things, simply to confound his meanest opponents (or does anyone believe, just for the fun of it?) and so keeps himself highly "visible" -- in order to get his job done. He noticeably has kept largely to his word on 'the main thing'. While, most politicians, forever aware of their superficial media and public image of 'candor' or 'honesty', turn that right around, and lie or are deceitful on the big things.

The "main thing" I think is that Trump plainly saw the need for a country and its every citizen (yes, with his eye mostly on the conservatives, the "deplorables", and his electorate - but all would gain) to return to former levels of self-reliance, self-esteem and independence, only achieved by being productive, earning a living, looking after one's own values. One does not have to be a reasoning philosopher to come to a certain conclusion. A man who has moved everywhere and heard from many, many people, from the corridors of power to dying factory towns, only needs to be deeply aware and thoughtful about all he sees, in order to be quite "intellectual" enough, to see, to identify the problem, assess its causes, and decide on a solution. 

Is the president not plainly acting towards that goal of a great America? A goal which inevitably requires less government interference, ultimately. A goal which has to entail individualism, "rugged" -as it may be. Collectivism, and people splitting from each other by "group identity" - along every fracture line, possible, and a few never heard of before - and insidiously promoted by many governments, is the modern sickness existing where I am and in every place. The USA is one place in the front line, whom the rest of the world watches to see what idea "wins". (It's as if, I speculate, being built originally upon "an idea", unlike any other nation, also makes America vulnerable to every bad idea which arrives).

I don't know if Trump's aim and ensuing acts and methods - as I can best evaluate him and them - can be called "self-less", s'nerd, by any meaning. I think it's most necessary to mentally isolate character from personality with all individuals, since it happens a not very likable personality sometimes goes with qualities of character (or the reverse); for we Oi'sts, you know, virtues of character are predominantly for one's own benefit and purposes, though secondly, of advantage to others around. But if Trump helps create a future and potential ~greater~ value which he believes make his efforts worthwhile, non-self-sacrificial, his goal could well be most rationally selfish.

Not having knowledge of government procedures, is also what can be seen in a positive light. 

Let's have more industrialists and businessmen become presidents and PM's in the world. They are able to balance their books, will answer to shareholders and make a profit, at least, all of which bureaucrats are inept at - and know from the inside the dirty tricks govt. and business in cahoots get up to...

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


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

Let's have more industrialists and businessmen become presidents and PM's in the world.

The richest business leaders in America are more often than not to the left of mainstream Democratic politicians. Only thing they would be effective at is pushing socialism.

I can't think of anything worse than a socialist (or a nationalist and a protectionist, in Trump's case) who's really good at running a large scale enterprise and negotiating deals...precisely because he's going to accomplish things that a career politician like Obama couldn't.

Quote

The "main thing" I think is that Trump plainly saw the need for a country and its every citizen (yes, with his eye mostly on the conservatives, the "deplorables", and his electorate - but all would gain) to return to former levels of self-reliance, self-esteem and independence, only achieved by being productive, earning a living, looking after one's own values.

The Clinton quote the "deplorables" meme originates from:

“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”

How you went from that to "return to former levels of self-reliance, self-esteem and independence achieved by being productive", I have no idea. Trump ran on nationalism and economic protectionism, not self sufficiency. And the reason why he won the nomination was because he was the only such candidate, among a dozen conservative and libertarian ones competing for the kind of electorate you're describing. 

There's nothing self-reliant about people who demand foreign workers be kept out so they can keep their artificially high paying union backed or minimum wage jobs. There's also nothing self-reliant about steel executives applauding the 25% tariff he just slapped on steel imports, reaping a huge windfall at the expense of every US company that buys steel or steel products, not to mention all the companies that are going to be hurt by the worldwide, coordinated retaliation sectors of the US economy are about to get hit with.

 

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2018 at 4:59 PM, StrictlyLogical said:

First, let there be no mistake a great many of the things Trump is pushing are wrong ...  but, he is pushing for at least some things which are in the right direction... so called correct causes.

Like what? As far as I can tell, every time there's a budget impasse between Congress and the White House, the positive economic measures are being pushed by Congressional Republicans. The White House is pushing funding for the wall, economic protectionism, and reductions in immigrant quotas (even outright abolition of some forms of legal immigration), and only agreeing to fiscally conservative measures if there is a 40-50 billion worth of spending in there that furthers Trump's nationalistic agenda.

Same with the Obamacare replacement. As Conservatives were proposing a bill that would've made the US healthcare system considerably more free, Trump felt the need to engage in his usual populism and go around calling it "mean" and "lacking heart"...until he eventually killed the whole thing, and moved on to what he really cares about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nicky said:

The richest business leaders in America are more often than not to the left of mainstream Democratic politicians. Only thing they would be effective at is pushing socialism.

I can't think of anything worse than a socialist (or a nationalist and a protectionist, in Trump's case) who's really good at running a large scale enterprise and negotiating deals...precisely because he's going to accomplish things that a career politician like Obama couldn't.

The Clinton quote the "deplorables" meme originates from:

“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”

How you went from that to "return to former levels of self-reliance, self-esteem and independence achieved by being productive", I have no idea. Trump ran on nationalism and economic protectionism, not self sufficiency. And the reason why he won the nomination was because he was the only such candidate, among a dozen conservative and libertarian ones competing for the kind of electorate you're describing. 

 

 

7

Rather ironic and disingenuous that, coming from la Clinton. On her watch, racism, etc.,etc. only grew worse. Trump inherited all that, and certainly took initial advantage of "-phobias". While he didn't make the usual soothing noises to satisfy the people a politician is adept at, I doubt strongly he's phobic about any 'group'. "Half" of his supporters, I think is a total fabrication by her. On the fringes of Trump's supporters are the worst of the right, ("fellow travelers" who should be shunned by conservatives) - as there exists the worst of the Left (who number a larger, noisier and more powerfully connected "fringe", I have the impression, not positive). The Progressives have shrewdly made much of Trump's support into 'Fascists' and bigots, concealing their own left-fascist policies. (And knowingly creating further divisions).

I'll have to consider your prediction about Trump accomplishing what a career pol can't. Interesting.

I think the "self-sufficiency" and self-responsibility - or independence - for individuals and country is implicit in most of what he says and does. One can question the methods he uses (protectionism) but output, performance and good earnings are the prerequisite for an individual's pride, and counter the welfare state. As much as I oppose pragmatism there are worse philosophies (if one can call it that). Just more conjecture, but I've wondered if the way forwards might necessitate a turn back, into and by way of American pragmatism, which then gradually could be augmented, this time, with proper principles to achieve laissez-faire, limited govt., and full individual rights - but, anyhow and for sure - the Left will never, ever implement these principles.

Amused, sadly, at your comment about "socialist business" leaders. Yes, that I've been noticing. Pretty much an effect of postmodernist influence, I guess

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Rather ironic and disingenuous that, coming from la Clinton. On her watch, racism, etc.,etc. only grew worse.

Hillary Clinton isn't the subject of the thread. Furthermore, the truth value of the statement I quoted is not dependent on who made it. So you're very clearly committing the most famous logical fallacy of them all. So famous that it's not even worth switching to Latin to name it...or read the rest of your post. If you have valid arguments, next time start with those.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nicky said:

Like what? As far as I can tell, every time there's a budget impasse between Congress and the White House, the positive economic measures are being pushed by Congressional Republicans. The White House is pushing funding for the wall, economic protectionism, and reductions in immigrant quotas (even outright abolition of some forms of legal immigration), and only agreeing to fiscally conservative measures if there is a 40-50 billion worth of spending in there that furthers Trump's nationalistic agenda.

Same with the Obamacare replacement. As Conservatives were proposing a bill that would've made the US healthcare system considerably more free, Trump felt the need to engage in his usual populism and go around calling it "mean" and "lacking heart"...until he eventually killed the whole thing, and moved on to what he really cares about.

Although implemented clumsily and possibly ineffectual the initiative for reduction of the number of regulations could be labelled a cause in the right direction however minuscule.  likewise the attempt at controlling costs of regulations.

 

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


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×