Recommended Posts

Here's Glenn Beck warning Ted Cruz not to support Trump at the convention.

I might be wrong, but I am 99.9999999999% certain Ted Cruz will support Trump because he signed a pledge and he's a deeply religious man. In general, for people like him, his word means something important.

As for Beck, I feel sorry for him. His Anointed One, Ted Cruz, will make a pact with whom Beck perceives as Satan, Trump will most likely make America super-prosperous, and there goes his end of times transfer of wealth shot to hell...

:)

Michael

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 14.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Michael Stuart Kelly

    4617

  • Peter

    1434

  • Jon Letendre

    1316

  • Brant Gaede

    884

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That's what it says at the top of the page.  Your point?  It's not like this thread has devolved into a medley of cat videos.  Yet.  

It is intriguing.  I've been fairly obsessed for about a year with thinking about details.  I find microbiology fascinating. I wouldn't be wise, however, to talk about details.  The schemers are

They see suave, debonair Frisco giving a philosophically deep money speech, or John Galt taking over a radio presentation and addressing the audience in the manner of a professor. If they don't see th

Posted Images

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

Wait until you see the people who you don't think exist exist, too.

:)

Michael

Shall we wait until the first  Thursday in November.   There is no point in speculating.  What will happen will hap[pen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump. Pence. Trumppence. It does kind of roll off the tongue. Oy mate. It takes four trumpence to make a pound.

This is a big issue. How do you explain to a woman, Pence’s religious/political stand to “force” a pregnant woman to deliver a deformed baby? Many women will not vote for him because of just that one stance. Well, Pence can’t change Roe v. Wade. He would encounter a ton of opposition if he tried any executive actions, from the College of Obgyn and from women in general. And if he secedes Trump, there is no guarantee a Pence Supreme Court nominee would be confirmed if they held authoritarian views.

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Peter said:

This is big issue. How do you explain to a woman, Pence’s religious/political stand to “force” a pregnant woman to deliver a deformed baby? Many women will not vote for him because of just that one stance.

I didn't think Trump was even serious about running, back when the Primaries were just starting - just pumping his brand.  Then when he actually ran, I didn't think he had a chance.  So, I've been totally wrong from the get go.  But, having said that, I don't think Trump has a chance to win the general election.

I can now see that Trump had a winning concept for the primaries that had to do with spitting in the face of political correctness and political cowardice and political inaction and doing it by disparaging both parties.  Those are things worthy of attack, but his attack is clearly costing far more general election votes than they gain (again, I have to remind myself that I was wrong before).

His way out of this might be to have Pence talking to those that are right of center, and he, in the mean time, completely switches on key issues to appeal to independents and to the more conservative democrats.  That and continue to point out the horror story of a Hillary candidacy.  I don't think it will get the job done.

At this point, I see him as having a kind of con-man's genius for scamming the primary voters, and like a con-man the process is a range of the moment maneuvering and his problem is that the kind of maneuvering that wins the primary, doing it in his style, fouls the ground for general election.  I just don't see anyway he gets enough women, blacks, Hispanics, or millennials to vote his way.  And some of the Republicans just won't go to the polls.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SteveWolfer said:

I didn't think Trump was even serious about running, back when the Primaries were just starting - just pumping his brand.  Then when he actually ran, I didn't think he had a chance.  So, I've been totally wrong from the get go.  But, having said that, I don't think Trump has a chance to win the general election.

I can now see that Trump had a winning concept for the primaries that had to do with spitting in the face of political correctness and political cowardice and political inaction and doing it by disparaging both parties.  Those are things worthy of attack, but his attack is clearly costing far more general election votes than they gain (again, I have to remind myself that I was wrong before).

His way out of this might be to have Pence talking to those that are right of center, and he, in the mean time, completely switches on key issues to appeal to independents and to the more conservative democrats.  That and continue to point out the horror story of a Hillary candidacy.  I don't think it will get the job done.

At this point, I see him as having a kind of con-man's genius for scamming the primary voters, and like a con-man the process is a range of the moment maneuvering and his problem is that the kind of maneuvering that wins the primary, doing it in his style, fouls the ground for general election.  I just don't see anyway he gets enough women, blacks, Hispanics, or millennials to vote his way.  And some of the Republicans just won't go to the polls.

 

The raw voting numbers will tell the story by the first  Thursday of November....

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

I didn't think Trump was even serious about running, back when the Primaries were just starting - just pumping his brand.  Then when he actually ran, I didn't think he had a chance.  So, I've been totally wrong from the get go.  But, having said that, I don't think Trump has a chance to win the general election.

Steve,

I've seen you say that before and I keep getting the same image in my mind every time: the third stage of the Five Stages of Grief (the bargaining stage).

Don't blame me. The image comes up on its own...

:evil:  :) 

(Just funnin' with ya'... :) )

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Shall we wait until the first  Thursday in November.   There is no point in speculating.  What will happen will hap[pen. 

 

53 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The raw voting numbers will tell the story by the first  Thursday of November....

What happened with Nate Silver?!?

Did it have something to do with these poll numbers? :P

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

 

What happened with Nate Silver?!?

Did it have something to do with these poll numbers? :P

 

Polls and models are just Polls and Models.  In Statistics the Population is the reality.  Everything else is just a model.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Polls and models are just Polls and Models.  In Statistics the Population is the reality.  Everything else is just a model.

Yup, existence exists--something to pull the data from (depending if you're selecting correctly), and the polls are showing what exists out there are a bunch of Trump supporters :P

...which can be modeled later, after they come out to vote in droves, winning Trump the election :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

Yup, existence exists--something to pull the data from (depending if you're selecting correctly), and the polls are showing what exists out there are a bunch of Trump supporters :P

...which can be modeled later, after they come out to vote in droves, winning Trump the election :)

Shall we wait for the first Thursday in November?

By the way,  do you recall the poll that declared   Dewey the winner over Truman?   So much for polls.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

NeverTrump forces causing a scene at the convention

Trump has captured enough of the establishment insiders to be the one who gets to rig the system.  That's what the crooked voice vote was.  Trump has enough delegates that he will be nominated and the NeverTrump forces were bound to lose.  The establishment would have been wise to let them lose in an open and above board fashion.  But they didn't (or at least haven't yet).  It makes Trump look bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Nope, I'm going to vote early----I imagine the lines might be long otherwise  :)

Kinda like this:

proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimages%2Eikwiz%2E

http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=9441

There's a lot of data right there

We will not have a vote totaled and certified  before the first Thursday in November.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

Trump has captured enough of the establishment insiders to be the one who gets to rig the system.  That's what the crooked voice vote was.  Trump has enough delegates that he will be nominated and the NeverTrump forces were bound to lose.  The establishment would have been wise to let them lose in an open and above board fashion.  But they didn't (or at least haven't yet).  It makes Trump look bad.

Media is reporting "Cruz forces", but is careful to say whether Cruz himself backed the event.  Seems to be a bit of drama for the content of Cruz's speech, so far it's being said the Trump camp hasn't looked at what he plans to say.

First day of the convention and it's dominating the news cycle, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

First day of the convention

If I were a Republican and tuned in the Convention on the TV, I'd change my registration tomorrow.  It isn't just that I don't get excited by funny hats, lots of yelling and cheering over nothing, and just how much flag and sign waving can we tolerate (personally, I've overdosed already).

One of the speakers was this bearded, religious guy whose claim to fame is that he is a business man (he makes duck calls and has a reality TV show about his family who are part of the company that makes duck calls), and former Governor Rick Perry (who was a GOP primary candidate) but from what I saw Perry only introduced a former Navy Seal.  The former Seal was pretty hard to follow - a very disjointed speech that was mostly about how we all should die for the country.  I won't go on... it is too painful.

Maybe it will get better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

If I were a Republican and tuned in the Convention on the TV, I'd change my registration tomorrow.  It isn't just that I don't get excited by funny hats, lots of yelling and cheering over nothing, and just how much flag and sign waving can we tolerate (personally, I've overdosed already).

One of the speakers was this bearded, religious guy whose claim to fame is that he is a business man (he makes duck calls and has a reality TV show about his family who are part of the company that makes duck calls), and former Governor Rick Perry (who was a GOP primary candidate) but from what I saw Perry only introduced a former Navy Seal.  The former Seal was pretty hard to follow - a very disjointed speech that was mostly about how we all should die for the country.  I won't go on... it is too painful.

Maybe it will get better.

I see your imagination has failed you, so you rolled in hope.

Rand's imagination failed her too. The villainry in Atlas Shrugged was quite low grade compared to what came down the pike since 1957.

The truth doesn't stop villains. If it did they would have been stopped decades ago.

--Brant

centuries?

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

The truth doesn't stop villains. If it did they would have been stopped decades ago.

I like reading your posts. Prompts me to think. Seems to me that evil requires the sanction of the victim, and therefore the problem is brainy people did not withdraw their sanction and support for low grade villains like Bill and Hillary, George W., etc. Objectivism fails unless it magnetizes and inspires the best and brightest, and I have come to see that it doesn't do that. It attracts idealistic dopes like me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

Seems to me that evil requires the sanction of the victim

I don't believe that evil requires sanctioning.  Sanctioning helps encourage more evil in the future, and makes it easier for present evil to go unpunished, but each instance of evil is an act that comes from an individual by the exercise of their will.

24 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

the problem is brainy people did not withdraw their sanction and support for low grade villains like Bill and Hillary, George W., etc.

I think that this is more a case of a society that doesn't understand what it should of individualism and free enterprise. 

I'd agree that there is far too much toleration of lying, corruption, and just plain dishonesty in politics - but I wouldn't call it a sanction.  (Maybe I'm just quibbling on that word.)
---------------------------------

I brought up the Ayn Rand Lexicon page for "Sanction" and here are her comments:
 
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it."
------------
 
"One must speak up in situations where silence can objectively be taken to mean agreement with or sanction of evil. When one deals with irrational persons, where argument is futile, a mere “I don’t agree with you” is sufficient to negate any implication of moral sanction. When one deals with better people, a full statement of one’s views may be morally required. But in no case and in no situation may one permit one’s own values to be attacked or denounced, and keep silent."
-------------
 
"To combat petty larceny as a crucial danger, at a time when murder is being committed, is to sanction the murder."
--------------
 
"To abstain from condemning a torturer, is to become an accessory to the torture and murder of his victims.  The moral principle to adopt in this issue, is: 'Judge, and be prepared to be judged.'"
--------------
 
"A forced compliance is not a sanction. All of us are forced to comply with many laws that violate our rights, but so long as we advocate the repeal of such laws, our compliance does not constitute a sanction. Unjust laws have to be fought ideologically; they cannot be fought or corrected by means of mere disobedience and futile martyrdom."
-----------------
 
What I noticed is that the context where one might sanction evil is a situation that calls out speaking up - where one is practically on the spot and have to say something.  At that point, they must not say something that acts as a sanction.  What I'm trying to say is that it isn't a duty to speak up against all evil one becomes aware of and to do at every occasion.  Sanctioning is more a case of not saying the wrong thing (not condoning, not equivocating, not positing moral relativity, not giving a false impression - even with silence).
 
Examining Rand's quotes, one could say,
- "If you don't discuss evil in a way that implies neutrality,"
- "If you don't stay silent where silence can objectively be taken to mean agreement with evil,"
- "If one doesn't treat a small evil as equivalent to a large evil,"
- "If one doesn't [when it is in front of one] fail to condemn an evil,"
Then one isn't sanctioning evil (in so far as any of her quotes is concerned).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

I don't believe that evil requires sanctioning.  Sanctioning helps encourage more evil in the future, and makes it easier for present evil to go unpunished, but each instance of evil is an act that comes from an individual by the exercise of their will.

I think that this is more a case of a society that doesn't understand what it should of individualism and free enterprise.

Okay, there's room to interpret Rand differently. I filed it as "Evil requires the sanction of the victim" and view it as her chief accomplishment, right up there with Conceptual Common Denominator.

We're miles apart on evil being an individual act by exercise of their will. Evil consists of blanking out, avoiding thought, refusing to choose.

I also find it implausible that anyone fails to understand individualism and free enterprise, except by blank out, changing the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wolfdevoon said:

We're miles apart on evil being an individual act by exercise of their will. Evil consists of blanking out, avoiding thought, refusing to choose.

I don't think we are that far apart.  Blanking out, avoiding thought, and 'refusing to choose' are individual acts - exercise of the will.  They don't happen to us like a virus or an avalanche or a dust storm.  We cannot blank out except as a choice.  People only blank out when they are presented with an option of not blanking out in a given context. 

And, refusing to choose is almost a contradiction in terms... It is choosing to not choose.  I think I know what you meant, but I want to point out that each of these things is an act of will.

And, let me point out that "blanking out" - when and if that is the act of evil in question (which we both agree it can be) happens with or without the sanction of others.

It wasn't my intent to argue a point, but rather to explore the question of what sanction consists of.  I completely agree that sanctioning evil makes it possible for evil to flourish.  But evil can and does happen without first being sanctioned.  A sanction is to evil what gasoline is to a fire.

If we go too far in blaming evil on a victim who we see as sanctioning the evil it becomes too much like blaming the victim for the act of the aggressor (where it is that kind of evil).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

 

We're miles apart on evil being an individual act by exercise of their will. Evil consists of blanking out, avoiding thought, refusing to choose.

 

Some wicked deeds are thoroughly and carefully thought out.  Some wickedness is very much a matter of choice and will.  

I notice you talk of Evil as a generality.  I tend to think of wicked deeds  which are specific and particular.   Working in generalities is necessary for some ends but when generalities are being deployed and  invoked  there should be  use of particulars to make sure no errors are committed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2016 at 9:54 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here's Glenn Beck warning Ted Cruz not to support Trump at the convention.

I might be wrong, but I am 99.9999999999% certain Ted Cruz will support Trump because he signed a pledge and he's a deeply religious man. In general, for people like him, his word means something important.

As for Beck, I feel sorry for him. His Anointed One, Ted Cruz, will make a pact with whom Beck perceives as Satan, Trump will most likely make America super-prosperous, and there goes his end of times transfer of wealth shot to hell...

:)

Michael

 

What did Cruz finally do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now