AlexL

It is an essay/article, not a book. In general, I highly recommend The Tracinski Letter.

Your claim was that most of Trump’s chaotic and erratic behavior etc. is only “bluff to throw off or tease his virulent media opponents into frenzies”, but is not fundamental to his personality. You mention some instances when, in your opinion, he is doing this bluffing and provocation, namely directed toward media. This is not sufficient to prove that. What about the chaotic and erratic behavior outside and beyond his interaction with the media, namely in domestic and foreign policies, in WH personnel decisions etc.? Are these also for bluffing/taunting the hostile media? So: no, I cannot buy your arguments to explain away his behavior.

I don't buy into the oneself part because we are both conceptual beings. Therefore, I still expect you to provide some clues/indications YOU did observe and which made you to allege :

" I think ..." Do you have some hard facts to substantiate your assumption? Otherwise it is simply wishful thinking or rationalization.

If you see the value of that strategy, then I am satisfied. Besides, there can be no evidence about what people will do in the future.

Because in the past some Republicans had some glimpses in that direction. It is true, however, that public demand for that has dropped… And then... there is Trump's chaotic and clownesque personality...

Yes, there is a non-zero probability that the Dem party will quantum-tunnel to individual rights, economic freedom, limited government etc.😁

But why do you think this could happen? Why are they any more likely than Democrats? Because I think that, if Trump loses the election, GOP will examine the hypothesis that this had something to do with Trump, the previous GOP choice from among several candidates

if that's all you meant, Republicans have historically failed on this. All evidence points to "not gonna happen". You would need a new political party. I don't have reason to think that any Republicans will reform their ideas if Trump loses. A new political party to compete with Reps and Dems - it not gonna happen. And: if Trump loses, maybe GOP will select in the future much more carefully its presidential candidates. And finally: there is zero chance that Dems will switch to individual rights, economic freedom etc. Given all this, getting rid of Trump it is a priority (unless the Dem candidate will be of the extreme left).

By "Under current circumstances, that is as an alternative to Trump, a not-so-extreme a counter-candidate IS a hope" I did not intend to imply that Trump is "extreme" and a Dem candidate would be less. My claim is that Trump is worse than a Dem candidate, IF the latter is not of the extreme left. Sorry if the wording appeared ambiguous. And the reason I gave was that "the non-election of Trump [being, under circumstances] a hope for a better Republican party for the (medium-term) future", because GOP is the only major party which could be in the future for some individual rights etc., more than the Dems

Under current circumstances, that is as an alternative to Trump, a not-so-extreme a counter-candidate IS a hope. It is a hope for the non-election of Trump and, therefore, a hope for a better Republican party for the (medium-term) future.

So Who Is John Galt, Anyway?: A Reader's Guide to Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" Author's presentation: http://tracinskiletter.com/2019/09/26/so-who-is-john-galt-anyway/ Editions: Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1694291782 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07YCY22W8

The Kindle version is available again : https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07P5TWX4J/

Oh, I see!!! Your „gravity threads theory“ wasn’t for real, you intended it as an exercise in philosophical detection! Possibly in the context of the discussion in the thread “Fundamentally, is there only ‘spacetime’?", which I did not follow...

1. I’ll begin with the most serious mistake and continue with the less serious ones. The premise of your “theory” is that the possible trajectories an object can take in free fall are in fact real. You call them “gravity threads”. In your view, an object follows a path by “attaching” itself to the “thread” corresponding to the object’s velocity. Until and unless the reality of the gravity threads is established, any speculations about details, e.g. how it would work in different circumstances, are absolutely useless. In the absence of a solid justification of your premise, your “theory” is neither true nor false, it is simply arbitrary. This essential objection was already made by MisterSwing - but you failed to comment on it, which is unfortunate... Besides, yours is not a theory, it is a hypothesis - at most ! 2. You did not justify the necessity of revising the classical Newtonian theory of as applied to free fall: non-concordance with observations, possible gaps in the theory and so on. In the classical theory the various trajectories are potentialities, only one will be taken in reality, depending on the initial velocity (value and direction) and the strength of the gravitational field. 3. You say nothing about how it would be possible to prove the reality of the “gravity threads”. 4. If the trajectories/“gravity threads” are real, it should be possible to observe them. For this they should interact with our senses or instruments, and thus they probably have to possess some energy. Because you postulate an infinity of such “gravity threads”, you have an obvious problem: one will need an infinite energy to create them (at least a continuum infinity of the 6-th order!!) 5. I will also mention one of the least important mistakes. You write that “in space above the Earth and within the Earth's influence, Threads all follow parabolic arcs”. This is false: even in the absence of any other force beside the Earth gravity (such as air resistance), the parabolic arcs (y=Ax+Bx2) are only approximations - namely second order approximations. Even in the ideal case, the true trajectories are (almost) never parabolas. Details – on demand. PS: wrong is also your question addressed to the audience: “What’s wrong with the theory?”. This question is wrong from the point of view of the onus of proof rule.