Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'donald trump'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Introductions and Local Forums
    • Introductions and Personal Notes
    • Local Forums
  • Philosophy
    • Questions about Objectivism
    • Metaphysics and Epistemology
    • Ethics
    • Political Philosophy
    • Aesthetics
  • Culture
    • Current Events
    • Books, Movies, Theatre, Lectures
    • Productivity
    • Intellectuals and the Media
  • Science and the Humanities
    • Science & Technology
    • Economics
    • History
    • Psychology and Self Improvement
  • Intellectual Activism and Study Groups
    • Activism for Reason, Rights, Reality
    • Study/Reading Groups
    • Marketplace
    • The Objectivism Meta-Blog Discussion
  • Miscellaneous Forums
    • Miscellaneous Topics
    • Recreation and The Good Life
    • Work, Careers and Money
    • School, College and Child development
    • The Critics of Objectivism
    • Debates
  • The Laboratory
    • Ask Jenni
    • Books to Mind – Stephen Boydstun
    • Dream Weaver's Allusions
    • The Objectivist Study Groups
    • Eiuol's Investigations
  • About Objectivism Online
    • Website Policy and Announcements
    • Help and Troubleshooting

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Other Public-visible Contact Info


Location


Interests


Chat Nick


Interested in meeting


Real Name


Digg Nick


Biography/Intro


Experience with Objectivism


School or University


Occupation

Found 6 results

  1. At the first presidential debate Joe Biden and Chris Wallace started interrupting President Trump soon after the initial round of two-minute answers. Trump then went into beast mode, like any self-respecting man might do who was being attacked from both directions. He verbally smashed Biden like an action hero smashing henchmen in order to reach the big villain. "Biden as henchman" is an apt analogy, I think, because he is just a little man with little ideas. He's a weak human shield for the pack of thirsty socialists peeking over his shoulder. Listening to Biden debate was like watching a robot whose battery is running down. As Trump vigorously interrupted him, Biden might have called the president "disrespectful" or even "rude"--and made it stick! Instead he called Trump a "clown" and immediately retreated from his own word, changing the insult to "person." Even Biden's invective arrives dead in the water. He's practically lifeless. If he wins, what vitality will help him fend off the rabid socialists in his own political party? I smile when Trump treats these people with due disrespect. I nod when he gives them appropriate nicknames like "Sleepy" Joe. (It's hard to distinguish one human shield from another without such colorful monikers.) And I clap when Trump points across the battlefield and calls them all "socialists." It's time to draw a political line in the sand. Trump's line will do for now. It's not the best or clearest line, but it's better than nothing. It helps rally forces against the more devoted socialists in this country--and some of their support networks. Politically the battle is between various types of socialists and various types of capitalists. Over the years much mixing has taken place, which makes it difficult to sort out the different sides. But the sorting must happen if we are to ever rid ourselves of socialism. Trump is the candidate actively attempting the division. On a more personal level, I recall that in 2016 Trump told USA Today that he was an "Ayn Rand fan." He even identified with Howard Roark. This makes me happy--that someone running for president would admit to liking Rand, and even connecting with her protagonist in The Fountainhead. Trump doesn't represent the core of Rand's philosophy, but it's a good sign that he shares some of the ideas and the sense of life found in her novel. Has Biden ever said a kind word about Rand? I challenge you to find one. Trump believes in "the power of positive thinking," which he picked up from pastor Norman Vincent Peale. Whether this power comes from God or from one's self, it results in a psychological orientation towards "positive thinking." Further, it apparently helps Trump focus on finding solutions to problems. But even if this idea offers little philosophical value, the name still contains the words "positive" and "thinking," which is something to go on. Trump's speeches are often full of off-script remarks, indicating an actively engaged mind. Unlike Biden, Trump holds his own at regular press conferences and interviews. He entertains large audiences at his rallies, usually for an hour or more. He has a bold sense of humor and rarely fails to communicate his freshest thoughts--sometimes to a fault. Given his positivity and mental output, I'm not surprised that our president appreciates Rand's fiction, which celebrates rational thought and achievement. Primarily for the above political and personal reasons, I'm voting for Trump. In the end, I hope you consider what you want in a president that is of political and personal value to yourself, and vote according to your values.
  2. President Trump is taking a survey on socialism versus capitalism. If he makes this the big issue in 2020, I might have no choice but to vote for him. Obviously, he's not the best spokesman for capitalism, but I don't think I can vote for a Democrat this time around.
  3. I saw this short interview on CNN: https://youtu.be/Tsy3ESLbzAo The host talks to Brian Rosenwald, who wrote a book called Talk Radio's America. Judging from the segment, the thesis is that conservative talk radio hosts are primarily responsible for Trump winning in 2016. Rosenwald argues that over the last few decades, entertaining conservatives like Rush Limbaugh have established an aggressive, anti-liberal style that voters found in Trump. I'm not sure how this explains Hillary winning the popular vote. I guess I'll have to read the book. Personally, I'm still of the opinion that Trump had a better campaign strategy. He wasn't focused on raising dollars. He was focused on winning.
  4. Maybe we could state who we voted for President without arguing about it on this thread. No nitpicking or criticizing other people's answers. Just listening. I'll go first. I ended up voting for Clinton because I don't want to see the Alt-Right gain real, government power with Trump in the White House.
  5. There's an interesting system for predicting the presidential elections, developed in 1981, that has always been right. I'm curious how others would answer the 13 questions below [note: I'm copy/pasting the description from wikipedia, because there's no point in me typing out the same thing]: The Keys to the White House is a 1996 book about a historically based prediction system for determining the outcome of presidential elections in the United States. The system, inspired by earthquake research,[1] was developed in 1981. by American historian Allan Lichtman and Russian scientist Vladimir Keilis-Borok, an authority on the mathematics of prediction models. The model has a record of accurate forecasts but has been criticised by some statisticians as including too many predictors to be a sound model and for forecasting only the winner of elections rather than the vote share of the winning party [note: it's been criticized for not taking any chances?]. The Keys are statements that favor the re-election of the incumbent party. When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party is predicted to win; when six or more are false, the challenging party is predicted to win. Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections. (F) Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. (F) Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. (F) Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign. (T) Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. (T) Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. (F) Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. (T) Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. (F) Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. (?) Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. (F) Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. (F) Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. (F) Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. (?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Keys_to_the_White_House#The_13_Keys_to_The_White_House The answers in parentheses, at the end, are MINE, not Lichtman's. (F) means false, (T) means true. By to my count, the Repubs should've won this election (eight false, three true). Of course, this model is based on a long history of elections where the nominee is an established political figure, is a long time member of the challenging party, and has the support of the vast majority of his party. So it doesn't apply this year. Lichtman himself seems to be aware of this, because, as far as I can tell at least, he hasn't made a prediction. But it does show that, had the Republicans nominated a reputable Republican politician, that has the support of major donor networks and the Republican infrastructure, they would've almost certainly won. P.S. I answered no. 8 false because of Black Lives Matter (mainly because of the cop shootings, not because BLM is significant in itself), and no. 10 false because of the rise of ISIS, the mess in Libya and Ukraine, and all the terrorist attacks.
  6. I understand that all the choices we have are bad. None of them support non-coercive solutions to this country so voting based on policies is futile for libertarians/objectivists. I know Trump supports some statist policies and says stupid things sometimes. The reason I think libertarians and objectivists need to vote for Trump is because I feel he will shift the political dynamic in ways that will undermine political correctness, the establishment and media propaganda that serve as barriers to freedom. Read my blog post for a more in-depth case about why I think Donald Trump is the best option. I wrote this case for my libertarian readers but this can also apply to objectivists who would like to challenge conventional wisdom and reduce government tyranny. https://vforvoluntary.wordpress.com/2016/03/02/why-libertarians-should-vote-for-donald-trump/
×
×
  • Create New...