Standard liberal discussion point ##7....insult others. Yes we understand...you don't like Trump...and apparently your hair is on fire.

Yes...we get it...you don't like Trump. Oh and you are absolutely right. Good to be you.

Trump does not part the seas. That is what the idolatry thinks. Rejecting your your flippant, snide comments supporting Pragmatist 'ends justifies the means' in seizing other people's property is not "fencing words". Words and principles have meaning.

No, you don't get it. Your cynical sarcasm condoning the 'take what you can get away with' mentality is the opposite of Ayn Rand.

Why the heck should I? You are right...I don't care to fence words with someone who seems uninterested in any reasoning other than his own. You don't like Trump and you will not be convinced, or even persuaded otherwise. I lay a dollar to a doughnut that you would not even consider that he did anything well. If Trump parted the Red sea, you, I am certain, would find a reason to find fault with it.

No it isn't "you don't like". You do not address the reasons for rejecting your posts and your cynical sarcasm, and don't seem to care.

Yes...we get it...you don't like Trump.

OK...we get it...you don't like Trump. I didn't...but do now. His promises didn't seem vague to me and he sure as heck is following through on them.

He appointed a Supreme Court Judge off a list given to him by conservatives during the campaign. That was more than rescinding, though the Senate Republicans had to rescind the filibuster for it.

But he didn't seem to understand why or show any understanding what the criteria for a judge should be, only emoting over Gorsuch's academic background with names and titles that impressed him.

During the campaign he promised to appoint judges who will overturn the right of abortion, which he may or may not have done. Who knows what the next one will be -- anything from conservative religious zealot to progressive in order to pander to one pressure group or another for whatever he emotionally feels works at the political moment ('You got one now it's their turn')?

As for the rescinding, he hasn't revoked many (most?) of Obama Executive Orders. In particular he hasn't rescinded the National Monument decrees he campaigned against (when he wasn't swooning over "Federal lands").

Not sacrificing does not mean taking whatever you can get away with. No wonder you like Trump. Ayn Rand's concept of rational self interest is not Nietzsche and is not hedonism. The relevant principle is to neither sacrifice yourself to others nor others to your self. That is not an "abstract construct" detached from reality; the purpose of morality is to establish principles for living on earth.

Pragmatism is the philosophy of William James, Charles Peirce and John Dewey that has increasingly dominated American thought and politics for a century. It is the foundation of Progressivism with its premise that government power is a "tool" for whatever you want to accomplish. It holds that truth is whatever "works" and that what is true today need not be true tomorrow. It is against principle on principle.

Your cynical, 'nothing wrong with" being a Pragmatist, take what you can when you "find" yourself able to get away with it, isn't even civilized. It is not what Atlas Shrugged is about.

Drop the cynical sarcasm. It doesn't take whatever you think "purity" is to not be a life-long liberal pragmatist statist or to know not to hijack government eminent domain authority to steal other people's property just because you "found yourself in an environment" where you can get away with it.

Obama "fullfilled promises", too. It matters what they are. Trump's are typically vague and contradictory the more he talks, including major issues like the promised repeal of Obamacare now turning into a Republican version of government entitlements and control. Trump is an emotional thinker who lacks the principles and understanding necessary to "promise" anything meaningful. The Trump idolizers don't know the difference.

Of course no one forced him to use eminent domain in that way. He chose to do it. It was an option available to him. It would have been self-sacrifice to do otherwise. He did not create the situation he just took advantage of it when he found it. What's wrong with being a pragmatist. Not self-sacrificing is one of the key tenets of objectivism. It may not be entirely moral to utilize this system in this manner however morality is abstract construct. Certainly not part of objectivist Theory. At least morality as we tend to understand it.

Accept that my Grand Canyon note was to show the size of it, 2700 cubic miles, and all the people on earth will fit in only 20% of it, so the physical demand for space on earth is not very much. The issue, IMHO, is food. And food supply is not the issue, it is distribution. The teenagers in the US waste enough food to make everyone in Somalia fat. And the problems with distribution depend on the political winds (dictators, revolutions, graft, corruption,etc,) blowing in the areas that need food the most. I define over population as situation where the number of people directly hurt the quality of life of those living tin a particular area. Somalia, for example. Now, how to improve those factors, that's for another thread. By the way, I live in Wyoming, we do have lots of space but, in most parts, only a 90-day growing season.

see a lot of jobs, crop growing land, houses,electric plants etc. in the Grand canyon??? Overpopulation takes a lot of land, resources , money and mature PARENTS, not just men. Birth control is cheap...preventing 1000 births as opposed to feeding 1000 babies who will reproduce exponentially to infinity is not even cost measurable. There are millions of acres in Siberia, Wyoming, Saudi Arabia...we're not looking for standing room only on Earth..

AGW plausible? Sure. Reality? No.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/0...

Birth control is easy and cheap. It just takes a decision, by the woman, NOT the man (it's none of his business and if he REALLY wants a child, adopt one) to take control.

The "too many people" issue is plausible but not likely. Consider, all of the current population of the earth would only fill 1/5th of the Grand Canyon.

jimjamesjames... I basically agree with all your premesis. The accusations that humans are responsible for much of the changes?? has some plausibility but NOBODY has the balls to suggest what to do about too many people.. What ever could we do about overproduction of babies??? who turn into child producing machines???? Too bad there is no safe, proven, cheap nethod of birth control>>>>

I am sure we all marvel at your purity. Trump is just a predator operating in the environment that he found himself in. Government is the one with the guns that takes private property. Trump had no ability to do this without them. He is operating in a different environment now. Thus far he has fulfilled more promises that I have ever seen fulfilled and I am nearly 60. Lets hope for the best.

As I mentioned, Paris has nothing to do with climate. Even if mankind is warming the earth (we are not), any money is for wealth redistribution only, to by favor in other countries, to foment revolutions and other nefarious activities. Studies (read http://wattsupwiththat.com from time to time) have found that even if we do everything they say to do, it will make no difference to Mother Earth. It's a scam, pure and simple. It sets up a problem to be solved by extorting money on the premise that "we MUST DO SOMETHING NOW or your children will cook" ----that does not exist.

jimjamesjames I have no idea of what the Paris trap was all about but I believe the biggest complaint from America is that it gives the worst polluters many more years to even catch up to us, while we are already far ahead of them and have to help pay their way for being such slackers with their gross overpopulations and lack of discipline. I saw a news article today from the WHO Saying that USA has cleaner air than any of the G 7 countries and has the record of being the least polluting country on earth..???who to believe???

No one forced him to like using eminent domain to take other people's private property and to go out of his way to make deals with politicians to do it. He is a Pragmatist wheeler dealer with no principles. He has yet to speak out on behalf of the rights of the individual. Everything to him is a "deal". Being principled does not mean "go on strike". The unprincipled Pied Piper Trump idolatry during the primaries was embarrassing enough without continuing it now.

You have to be more careful when trying to be humorously sarcastic when posting -- no matter how outrageous the statement no one can see your eyes rolling.

He is doing better than any of the previous Republican Presidents..at least the Bushes... thus far. As to "...making 'deals' with government for decades". While I have sympathy for what you are saying...When one is in Rome one best act like a Roman. He...like every other businessman in America is forced to play by the rules of those who have the guns. Not everyone wants to "Go on strike"

Trump has been a liberal and a crony making 'deals' with government for decades. He has his own swamp and has never defined what he means by the "swamp" he promised to drain.

Trump has been leading the Rino pack in dodging the promised repeal of Obamacare as they stubbornly insist on 'replacing' it with their own statist-collectivst government run health care entitlement and control system. Adding insult to injury they promote this as 'free market', further giving an undeserved bad name to political and economic freedom as their 'free market' statism continues to fail.

They have also failed to reform taxes as Trump pushes for what amounts to a national sales tax on imports, Trump is now pushing his massive "infrastructure" spending plans as the biggest "monument builder" of them all, and he has put the revocation of Obama's National Monument decrees on hold in a 'study'.

Excellent observation. Thanks for saying what I have been too busy to post;^) I agree that the Trump action was part of a long term plan to prevent a future administration from using the congress-unapproved treaty to force foreign imposed limits on US business (with the consent of gutless looters of the GOP.) Trump's team wisely saw the potential for harm and sanely acted in the interests of American small to medium business, consumers, and the sovereign people.