Peter Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Michael I thought it was YOU quoting something from one of his books and I am sure I heard Trump say something about the gorgeous women he has bedded including some who were married in a phone interview but I don’t know in what year or month that was. Brant, I do think that TODAY Rand would support Ted Cruz though she would demand he separate church and state in his practical, political philosophy. Adam, I hope Trump will lose and I hope Old Hickory will lose. Nyah. I just had a crab cake something they don’t have in Jersey. Now for some random notes. Enjoy or skip, bud. Peter Richard Allen wrote on OWL, on 5/17/2001 of Roark and Mike in "The Fountainhead": There was simply the unspoken acknowledgement that regardless of the various beliefs or opinions they held, they did share those values that were most important. Their like-minded nature was not readily apparent, nor would it be to others. But to them it was immediately recognizable . . . . and in the same message: I have read that Rand often did not want to allow (or acknowledge) contradiction in her own life. As I understand her, she might suggest that to allow friends with such opposite beliefs into our lives would be a compromise of our own nature. end quote George Bernard Shaw wrote: The greatest problem in communication is the illusion that it has been accomplished - end quote From a Summary of OPAR by Leonard Peikoff by Luke Setzer: Honesty as the Rejection of Unreality. Honesty can be defined as "the refusal to fake reality or to pretend that facts are other than what they are." It is a rational virtue because pretense is metaphysically impotent, i.e. pretense can neither erase an existent nor create one. A con man who dupes gullible people into providing him a livelihood works against his self-interest by falling into the primacy of consciousness trap and becoming dependent on those people. The commission of a vice (such as lying) in order to obtain a value (such as an income) invalidates the acquisition of the value. In other words, the end never justifies the means when those means are irrational. Because the ultimate standard of value is individual human life, moral principles are absolute within their proper context. Thus, lying to obtain cash from an honest and productive person is morally wrong, while lying to protect one's children from kidnappers is morally right. Justice as Rationality in the Evaluation of Men. Justice can be defined as "the virtue of judging people's character and conduct objectively and of acting accordingly, granting to each person that which he earns." It is adherence to the trader principle. Its mandate is to sanction people's virtues while condemning their vices, thus encouraging good (life-enhancing) behavior and discouraging evil (life-diminishing) behavior. Justice demands the use of reason to reach one's moral estimates through two steps: first, identification of the relevant facts; second, evaluation of those facts by reference to objective moral principles. Moral judgment can only be passed on observable behavior, not psychological problems. Evaluative subjectivism occurs when a person judges others based on either whim or irrational principles. Either form tends to promote the evil at the expense of the good. Moral inversion, moral neutrality, and sweeping condemnation all defy the virtue of justice. Because what really counts in life are the virtues that support life, one should praise and support virtues first, and combat and brush aside vices second. Forgiveness can be legitimately earned, while mercy never can be. The purpose and result of egalitarianism is to smash the good by encouraging "completely equal" treatment of everyone regardless of their virtues or vices. end quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Here is Trump's official statement: Quote I have no idea whether or not the cover story about Ted Cruz in this week’s issue of the National Enquirer is true or not, but I had absolutely nothing to do with it, did not know about it, and have not, as yet, read it. Likewise, I have nothing to do with the National Enquirer and unlike Lyin’ Ted Cruz I do not surround myself with political hacks and henchman and then pretend total innocence. Ted Cruz’s problem with the National Enquirer is his and his alone, and while they were right about O.J. Simpson, John Edwards, and many others, I certainly hope they are not right about Lyin’ Ted Cruz. I look forward to spending the week in Wisconsin, winning the Republican nomination and ultimately the Presidency in order to Make America Great Again. - Donald J. Trump I'm going to say something the media keeps ignoring. Cruz did not immediately disavow what the Superpac did to Melania. Instead, he coasted on the benefits for awhile. Then he acted all self-righteous about being accused of being the source. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the first thing out of his mouth--the very first thing--is that it came from Trump. I wonder if he sees the irony... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Make America Awesome is the creature of Liz Mair, a Republican operative who got booted off the Scott Walker campaign just over a year ago for her Tweets disparaging Iowa. When Walker shut down his campaign, she was one of several to blame all of campaign's failures on the candidate. I remember that in a different eon, Breitbart was also rumbling about her because she wasn't really anti-abortion. (Relevant because another ad that ran in Utah slammed Trump for being pro-choice.) Ted Cruz would have to be pretty dumb to ask Liz Mair to do anything for him. Her organization is not pro-Cruz, it's purely anti-Trump. Though there is an interesting question about where it got the money, to run the ads or to do anything else. Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Question: If Katrina Pierson was Ted Cruz's ex-mistress, and then she became Trump's spokeswoman, why didn't Ted find a convenient excuse to drop out of the race months ago? Question: If Katrina Pierson was Ted Cruz's ex-mistress, and then she became Trump's spokeswoman, why wouldn't she have told The Donald all about it? Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 13 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the first thing out of his mouth--the very first thing--is that it came from Trump. I wonder if he sees the irony... Unless, of course, it did come from Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Let's see if Ted Cruz sues the National Enquirer. I think he has to, even if he is guilty, if he want's to stand a chance to survive the hit this story will probably do to his numbers. What's more, I am practically certain the National Enquirer is waiting for the lawsuit. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 1 minute ago, Robert Campbell said: Unless, of course, it did come from Trump. Robert, I don't think it did, but I am pretty sure Trump knew about it. Just like with the Make America Awesome ad against Melania. I don't think it came from Cruz, but I do think he knew about it before it hit. Thus, if I am right, the irony stands. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: Question: If Katrina Pierson was Ted Cruz's ex-mistress, and then she became Trump's spokeswoman, why wouldn't she have told The Donald all about it? Robert, In my mind, I keep hearing The Donald after the last primary round saying he really really really wanted a two man race with Cruz... What on earth could have made him so confident? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Why did he speak out about it if it was not his group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Since Breitbart has purged its anti-Trump faction or, as per a theory that's been propounded here, finally succeeded in getting all of the members to stomp off, where is its coverage of Ted Cruz allegedly having 5 mistresses? Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 4 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Robert, In my mind, I keep hearing The Donald after the last primary round saying he really really really wanted a two man race with Cruz... What on earth could have made him so confident? Michael Such a statement has very little information in it. Not when it comes from a guy who wants everyone to believe he is going to win every contest. Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, Selene said: Why did he speak out about it if it was not his group? I think you mean, why did he not speak out about it? Maybe he didn't feel he owed it to Trump, in light of everything Trump has said about him. It started really ugly in this nomination race, and has just keep getting uglier. Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: I think you mean, why did he not speak out about it? Maybe he didn't feel he owed it to Trump, in light of everything Trump has said about him. It started really ugly in this nomination race, and has just keep getting uglier. Robert Campbell Didn't he condemn the ad? Or did I misremember? A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Michael was asking why Cruz didn't condemn the ad in question, microseconds after it appeared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 1 minute ago, Robert Campbell said: Michael was asking why Cruz didn't condemn the ad in question, microseconds after it appeared. Ah, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 I look forward to spending the week in Wisconsin, winning the Republican nomination and ultimately the Presidency in order to Make America Great Again. - Donald J. Trump Or as Donald J. Trump’s Mini-Me said, “I think Trump should only give out official statements from now on, except at press conferences and in any debates my pathetically tiny feet can carry me to. He needs a portable teleprompter, and a strong compulsion to remain silent when he is about to go Asperger’s on us. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 51 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Robert, I don't think it [the National Enquirer piece] did [come from Trump], but I am pretty sure Trump knew about it. Just like with the Make America Awesome ad against Melania. I don't think it came from Cruz, but I do think he knew about it before it hit. Michael Michael, This makes for interesting reading: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/10/trumps-alliance-with-the-national-enquirer.html My only the comment, at this point, is that if my last name were Pecker, I would change it. Just a thought. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Robert wrote: My only . . . comment, at this point, is that if my last name were Pecker, I would change it. end quote And say Dick not Peter. How to remember? Just remember that old saying, Peter is a Saint. Dick is a prick. I did not mean to sound disparaging about someone with Asperger’s syndrome. I was looking for a condition to describe Trump’s running insults and thought Tourette Syndrome (you can’t help using obscenities and you have twitches) was not apropos . . . but the word Asperger’s should not have been besmirched. Hmmm, I know. Trump has Don Rickle's syndrome. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 From the Washington Examiner: Still more lost Clinton emails unearthed on account she had claimed she didn't use. Judicial Watch on Thursday announced that it had unearthed emails from Hillary Clinton's personal email account dated February 2009. Until now, the former secretary of state had maintained she was not using the account at that time. The findings include a Feb. 13, 2009, exchange between Clinton and her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, in which Mills conveys to Clinton that the National Security Agency is not pleased with her request for a more secure, personalized BlackBerry. Clinton sought the device to circumvent normal security protocols for accessing classified information. Another fib. end quote Is this evidence? Did she then do something naughty? Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said: If Cruz drops out it will be because of his up in the air citizenship status. He may be the citizen of no country at all because he renounced his Canadian citizenship (2014). His parents declared him Canadian at birth. By Canadian law there is no such thing as dual citizenship. Nor was any paperwork ever filed with the US Government to the contrary. His mother was a US citizen. That's the only thing going for him. He may even be illegally a US Senator. Regardless, it looks like Trump will get enough delegates for a first ballot win. Brant, A judge in Pennsylvania has already ruled that Ted Cruz may appear on the primary ballot there. The ruling came specifically in response to a complaint that Cruz is not a natural born citizen. If Donald Trump and his operatives thought that Cruz is not a natural born citizen, and that this would disqualify him, they would keep using the issue consistently. They haven't been. Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Let's see if Ted Cruz sues the National Enquirer. I think he has to, even if he is guilty, if he want's to stand a chance to survive the hit this story will probably do to his numbers. What's more, I am practically certain the National Enquirer is waiting for the lawsuit. Michael Michael, Since Trump has already threatened to sue Cruz over a campaign ad, and Cruz has made it clear he knows the relevant law quite well, surely he would sue only if he felt he absolutely had to get the publicity attendant on suing. That is the only conceivable reason to file. Suppose he could produce evidence to discredit every allegation in the story. He's still (duh) a public figure, so National Enquirer could see every allegation shredded in discovery or in court, and still walk away not having to pay a cent, because it's so hard to prove "actual malice." Katrina Pierson (Trump's spokeswoman!) and Amanda Carpenter have now denied the allegations. It will be interesting to see whether the Enquirer's next move is to deny that they were supposed to have been among the five, or to stick with its story. Unless managed by idiots, I'm sure the Enquirer is ready for a lawsuit. Mr. Pecker might even have lined some people up to pay the costs of its defense... Ms. Pierson repeated (on that CNN segment) that Trump is completely against SuperPACs, as though such groups as Make America Awesome should be prohibited by law. Or, at the very least, condemned and run out of Dodge, immediately and by all campaigns, any time they say something nasty about the spouse of a candidate. The effect of the campaign finance laws that many Democrats still want (full McCain-Feingold and then some) is to put clamps on SuperPACs or get rid of them. The one source of outside support that these laws wouldn't restrict or forbid entirely is support from media companies. Hmm... Make sure there can never be another Make America Awesome, but if the National Enquirer wants to go all in for Trump, it's allowed to. Hmm... Robert Edited March 25, 2016 by Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 OK, there is some Breitbart coverage. I didn't see it because I was looking for at one least one feature article, and everything so far is on today's HorseRace/LiveWire: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/25/horse-race-livewire-11/ Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said: Since Trump has already threatened to sue Cruz over a campaign ad, and Cruz has made it clear he knows the relevant law quite well, surely he would sue only if he felt he absolutely had to get the publicity attendant on suing. That is the only conceivable reason to file. Suppose he could produce evidence to discredit every allegation in the story. He's still (duh) a public figure, so National Enquirer could see every allegation shredded in discovery or in court, and still walk away not having to pay a cent, because it's so hard to prove "actual malice." Robert, I dunno... Coming right on the heels of the Hulk Hogan defamation suit that will probably end Gawker, this was pretty brash and imprudent on National Enquirer's side if totally false. As you point out, Cruz is a lawyer. A damn good one. I don't know how he is with defamation suits, but I imagine he knows his way around and has a list of high-level colleagues to help him. Also, there's lots of monied power behind Cruz. I disagree with you that Cruz would only sue the National Enquirer over political image. A moral man like Cruz is supposed to sue them over the truth, especially with something this damaging to his family. But thinking image-wise, I would wager a lot and win that many evangelicals who now support Cruz will see a lack of lawsuit as an admission of guilt. And every one of them vote... That's why I said I think he has to sue, guilty or not. Cruz may be sleazy on lawyerly-like technicalities (like what he did with Ben Carson), but he is not a stupid man. I got a link from your Breitbart link--the Daily Mail is also carrying running real-time coverage of this: Donald Trump DENIES he is behind National Enquirer claim Cruz had FIVE affairs while 'mistresses' vent fury over 'garbage' - but one is accused of 'coming on' to Ted What I read there is that National Enquirer itself is vehemently denying any outside influence in its reporting. They believe their journalistic integrity is being slighted. But, hypothesizing on the possibility that there was, the name Roger Stone comes up on Ted Cruz's lips. And dirty tricks has been Stone's speciality over the years. But don't forget, Stone was fired from Trump's campaign way early. Apparently, Cruz thinks Stone is a ratfucker. And it looks like he actually said that. (He also said Trump is a rat and I'm not sure he's thought that all the way through.) So there we have tit for tat. Cruz knows nothing about Make America Awesome's big-data profiled ad campaign against Trump's wife. It's just a coincidence that Cruz is using the same behavioral science models that Obama's COBS team used and the anti-Melania ad was run to a highly segmented target that would find it distasteful. Trump knows nothing about National Enquirer's story about Cruz's alleged affairs with other women including a hooker. It's just a coincidence that Trump knows the National Enquirer's CEO David Pecker. What a campaign full of coincidences! It's turning into a contest of my coincidence is bigger than your coincidence. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 20 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: It's turning into a contest of my coincidence is bigger than your coincidence. Michael Well, that's progress, we do not have to measure hands anymore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Speaking of rats, I smell a lot of 'em in this lurid affair. (groan... that's a bad pun... ) So where is Karl Rove and company? As long as I'm in the mood for a good conspiracy theory, where did they go all of a sudden? Are they too busy to be involved with this? Maybe they're all down at church working on feeding and clothing the poor or something and just don't have time for anything else... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now