I'm liking Trump because he doesn't rescind his comments the next day with the PC formulated answer of the day. I'm not ruling him out. I interact with the profit producing public every day and they like the none PC Trump monster!

Oh...okay, thanks, cuz I don't understand objectivism.. sigh... Just because he doesn't hesitate doesn't mean he's not thinking, he just isn't stopping to make sure he's using the right 'tooooone'... the tone is not relevant. People can't handle a blunt, quick response based in honest opinion. Everything has to be wrapped in a coating of soft nice feel good sparkles these days. I just don't get it.

Okay

b) global warming, baseline budgeting, entitlement accounting gimmickry that would make Charles Ponzi or Bernie Madoff gasp, etc

Except for global warming these all property rights issues. 1st if you own yourself and that which you produce almost all federal spending evaporates. Entitlements are antithetical to property rights.

c) the media backlash that one gets when someone tells the facts as they are.

The media is a product of the idea that the airwaves are owned by the public. But even more fundamentally, most of the media backlash is based on the idea that you are a slave - property rights start with you owning yourself. This puls reason also kills global warming.

OK. I hold my own life as my highest value, rationality as my highest virtue, and my own happiness as my primary objective. If one person or one corporation or even one news organization perpetrates a fraud, perhaps I can use the court system to look for some sort of justice based on the premise of property rights. However, when the political party in power and/or the vast majority of the media perpetrate such a fraud, I see no opportunity for redress under the concept of property rights. I am willing to be enlightened on this.

Owning property is a matter of ego?

I completely disagree with you. The Constitution was designed to ensure that government kept out of citizens affairs. The local governments, being closer to the people they represent, religious or otherwise, even less stand-offish and more actively engaged. People looking after their own interests without being told what interests to look after is the surest way to guarantee peace and prosperity. When issues of interest arise local police and local courts come into play.

As for moral relativism, I again disagree with you. Eg. Homosexual marriage. Okay, any two people have a right to be joined in union. But now plural marriages want acceptance? Still okay? But now, transgendered are flaring up for acceptance Still okay?Now (seriously) people want age of sexual consent lowered to 13. Still Okay? When you accept anything, when there is only shades of gray, you have nothing.

Moral relativism waters down the structure of a society. Structure is defined by laws. Laws are defined by people. People define their morality through their beliefs.

Yeah, moral relativism doesn't mean anything.

ewv, I agree with most of what you say, but on the stem cell issue, you simply don't know the technology well enough, even if I were to agree with you on the morality of using embryonic stem cells.

Induction of pluripotency into one's own stem cells a) is technically sound because it eliminates the quite significant issue of immune rejection, b) eliminates anyone's concerns regarding morality (as the cells are own's own cells), and c) eliminates any potential issues regarding rights and ownership (as the cells are one's own cells and hence, as I said earlier, a more ethically reasonable workaround). Hence, Bush's position on stem cell research is now quite frankly a moot point.

If you think I am exaggerating on the ownership of stem cells issue, consider the following possible dispute between embryonic stem cell therapy patients, the mother, and the clinic providing the procedure. The "mother", after signing away privileges to the aborted embryo, later could still go after the clinic nonetheless to ensure that stem cells from that embryo would not be further used.

Would you have the same opinion if the stem cell research clinic later used the embryonic stem cells for cloning purposes?

Regarding your last paragraph saying that they don't have the power to do so, you are correct. They will never again have that power either.

Anybody needs to think to ascertain the truth before speaking. It's called Objectivism.

And you ..... have NO sense of humor. Here, have a Kleenex.

The basic moral issue is rational egoism. Property rights are how it is implemented.

Trump himself has not been able to show any intellectual depth either in his campaign or previous statements, or his previous inconsistencies. His narrower success in real estate is not an intellectual basis or a basis of experience to run the government in accordance with the proper principles. Your personal insults attempting to be "colorful" are intellectually vacuous and worse crap than Trump at his worst.

No Constitution can function with citizens at each others' throats as they embrace pressure group warfare. Without respect for the rights of the individual no constitutional government can function. That is much deeper than "politicians letting it". It is not enough for politicians to claim to represent everyone no matter what they believe. What people think matters.

Lack of religious absolutes is not the problem. "Moral relativism" is not an "issue with the Constitution". The religious "framework" is deadly to American individualism and a false alternative to ends justifies the means Pragmatism..

Hahaha... have fun. Don't be too picky about your coffee!

They have been blocking reform in politics by tying their religious obsession to reform, preventing it from being taken seriously and making implementation impossible because the tea party movement is not electable with the albatross of the religious package deal. They are blocking fundamental intellectual reform every time they open their mouths tying American principles of individualism to faith and religion, denying there is a rational basis. "Embracing capitalism" and American individualism while tying it to religion is intellectually deadly. The politically suicidal religious right has left the establishment conservatives to dominate in an intellectual vacuum within the party.

There is no such thing as a "more ethically reasonable workaround" to stem cell research or any other science conflicting with religion. The very idea of restricting science in accordance with religious dogma is morally repugnant. Bush's precedent setting selective denial of scientific funding of stem cell research on religious grounds is fundamentally abhorrent, but they have also constantly pushed for religious injunctions ranging from Creationism in schools to religious dogma like the Ten Commandments in courthouses to bans and obstructions on abortion.

They don't block much more because they don't have the power to. Everyone knows what they are after but we are told they are no danger because they haven't done been able to do it yet.

Amazing how they demand a candidate to have a "relationship with God' but don't bat an eye at corruption, lies, coercion, or cigars and blow jobs in the oval office...THAT'S just politics. I don't get it.

If he's going to speak the truth why do you say he needs to think before he speaks?? For what purpose? Tone??? Ugh

Please educate me, db. Property rights generally consist of being able to use what one owns or produces, to earn income based on what owns or produces, to be able to transfer those rights/goods to others via sale, lease, royalties, etc.. The last class of property rights is the expectation that property rights will be enforced, or to preferably enforce them by oneself. I can see how the piling on of debt could be construed as falling under property rights, but I fail to as yet see how b) and c) fall under property rights. They couldn't even be prosecuted under the common "mail fraud" statutes.

J those all fall under property rights.

Am so hoping Carly pulls ahead. America
would benefit with a Fiorina presidency. Maybe
down the road her time will come.

Not long after I wrote what I did, Mark Levin echoed me, "The Republican Party establishment stands for ... nothing."

You should have PM'd me with your phone number rather than posting it here. You may want to delete the post. I have your number. :)

Fiorina should ask for Hillary to be tested by a little girl with a bucket of water, since dropping a house on Hillary would not really prove anything beyond an improvement.

McCain started it, setting Trump off by calling those who supported him crazies.
Trump is the kinda guy you don't throw mud at if you don't want mud thrown back.

Used to live 2 houses from the Squaw Peak preserve in north Phoenix. Phoenix was a great place to live until early 90s. Then the liberals took control and ruined it.
It will always be Squaw Peak to me.
Did they rename Camelback to Napolitano yet? Looter whore (with apologies for the insult to whores.)

Absolutely nothing.