Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 1 hour ago, SteveWolfer said: Pledges are meaningless. Steve, That's a hell of a statement coming from someone who speaks often about morality. Do you mean your pledges are meaningless? Or the pledges by your guy are meaningless when he breaks them? Or my pledges are meaningless? Or that nobody's word should be their bond because we are all liars, especially when we make a ceremonial promise? Let's quote Rand: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Is that meaningless since it's a pledge? Is that how you see the header of this site? Man, we strongly disagree. On a practical politics level, here's what Priebus thinks (from Politico): Priebus to Kasich on pledge: 'It's more than just a piece of paper' btw - Whatever happened to all that fear of fundamentalist Christianity from Objectivists? Does that vanish when a person talks in the correct jargon like Ted Cruz does? (I just started hearing in my mind the strains of "Killing me softly with His song"... ) Can Cruz slime others all he wants and that's OK, just so long as he hides it a little and mouths the right jargon noises? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 1 hour ago, SteveWolfer said: Trump wiped out any pledge - it no longer exists - Cruz broke nothing... except in the minds of people who want to violently strike out at anyone that won't join their love delusion, chant 'Trump' 'Trump' 'Trump' 'Trump', and attack anyone who is not of the Borg. Steve, I want to point out an error here that seems to be inherent to our subcommunity. The world is not made up of brainless morons except for a small band of Objectivists. I keep seeing that presumption over and over. It's wrong. There is going to be a backlash of people--good people and masses of them--who are going to bury Ted Cruz's career. And you know why? Because they don't think Trump wiped out any pledge or that it no longer exists or that Cruz broke nothing. And if you look, really look, you will perceive that they are not deluded or belong to any borg. They are simply hard-working people who want to honestly work at a productive job and raise a good family. They don't even want to be bothered with politics. I try to use the identify correctly to judge correctly sequence in my thinking. You seem to have done the contrary sequence here. The identification you just made is not borne out by observation. Wanne see? Go to any suburbs of any blue-collar neighborhood anywhere in America. Then look and try to find the borg and fanaticism you refer to. There are plenty of other places, too, but that one is easy just to get a conceptual referent. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: David, That was in response to the Republican Party being complicit in blatantly stealing the election from Trump. Back then there were all kinds of nasty things flying around and the party was letting them evolve. However, the Republican Party was more than fair to Ted Cruz all down the line. Don't forget, the pledge was to the Republican Party, not to any one person. Cruz did not pledge to Trump. He pledged to the Republican Party on RP stationary. If I have any criticism of Trump in that video, it is that releasing Cruz from his obligation (albeit not legal obligation) to honor the pledge was not his decision to make. It was the Republican Party's. Notice that Trump's beef was with the Republican Party as one side of an agreement he saw defaulting on its own obligations. He was very vocal when he signed it that he expected to be treated fairly like any other candidate. So he said if the Republican Party was defaulting, he would default, too. In other words, since the Republican Party was sanctioning processes and backroom deals to steal the election from him in the face of massive votes, he did not feel bound to a thief. But note, once the Republican Party stopped defaulting (it did clean up its act), Trump went back to his commitment. This is on video somewhere. Cruz's beef was with Trump and it was personal. How does that give him the right to default with a third party? At a breakfast this morning, Cruz even said Trump "abrogated" the obligation by insulting his family (see here). That's tortured legal thinking and I'm being generous. Wouldn't it be wonderful if you could stop paying a mortgage to a bank simply because a different client of the bank insulted your wife and father? That a third-party insult canceled the debt? You're a lawyer. Shit, this is law school 101 stuff, getting the parties to an agreement right. Cruz knows better, but he did it anyway. If you want to see a clear way of how Cruz would govern as opposed to Trump, there you have it. Michael I don't recall the Republican Party "blatantly stealing the election" from Trump. And, when you say "the party was letting [nasty things] evolve," I have no idea what you are talking about, or how such things should have been prevented from evolving. You're actually wrong about the law school 101 stuff. Look up the doctrine of "anticipatory repudiation" as only one example of why you are wrong on that. With that said, I still think Cruz should have honored the pledge, even though Trump indicated he wouldn't. Or, he should have had the cajones long ago to say that he wasn't planning to honor the pledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 15 minutes ago, PDS said: You're actually wrong about the law school 101 stuff. Look up the doctrine of "anticipatory repudiation" as only one example of why you are wrong on that. David, I never studied at law school, but I certainly translated enough of this stuff (a few thousand pages). So... Since, according to you, law students don't learn about parties to contract until after "anticipatory repudiation," when do they learn in law school that binding agreements have parties? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveWolfer Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 18 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Because the don't think Trump wiped out any pledge But it is there in his own words, on video. The man does this all the time. He says something, then he qualifies it or disowns it, or evolves. And his supporters can find NOTHING wrong with him (That's borg-like), and they reserve their greatest vitriol for a conservative who won't support him. If Trump had insulted my father like that, I'd very likely have punched him the chops - screw any pledge. 18 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: They are simply hard-working people who want to honestly work at a productive job and raise a good family. And I hope that Trump beats Hillary because that will give them a better chance at those goals. Because with Hillary, we know that she will make things worse for them, and we are only guessing and hoping with Trump. If he institutes a 35% tariff, we may see our faltering economy drop, not into to a recession, but into a major depression. We don't know what he'll do. Every time someone points out things like this, his supporters have to 'explain' him... like he was tea leaves, or an obscure oracle, or passages of scripture. 28 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: 1 hour ago, SteveWolfer said: Pledges are meaningless. Steve, That's a hell of a statement coming from someone who speaks often about morality. Do you mean your pledges are meaningless? Or the pledges by your guy are meaningless when he breaks them? Or my pledges are meaningless? Or that nobody's word should be their bond because we are all liars, especially when we make a ceremonial promise? I shouldn't have said "Pledges are meaningless" when what I meant is "This pledge has become meaningless" Trump wiped out that pledge - it no longer exists... It became meaningless. There are other videos showing Trump unilaterally making his 'pledge' conditional - adding conditions after it is signed ("If I'm treated fairly") There is something Hilarious about Trump expecting consistency out of someone else when he unilaterally refused to treat it with any honor himself. For him it has never been anything but a bargaining level first with the RNC, then with the other candidates.. Trump should be glad that Cruz didn't "Endorse" him. Because if Cruz were to do that, just to meet the letter of the law on this non-binding agreement, he could easily have done it in a way that ripped Trump up one side and down the other while saying that Trump is like beating your thumb with a hammer, but Hillary is like cutting it off with a dull knife... so I Endorse this man who I think has no honor as being the lesser of two evils. The giant uproar in the convention hall over Cruz's speech which didn't say one single negative word against Trump shows the true believer status Trumpians have adopted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 1 minute ago, SteveWolfer said: I shouldn't have said "Pledges are meaningless" when what I meant is "This pledge has become meaningless" Steve, Whew! Man, am I glad to hear that. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmj Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 Can the President of the United States issue a tariff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Ironically, though, because of this stunt, Ted Cruz--not Jeb or any other establishment elitist crapweasel--is going to be this cycle's poster boy for dirty tricks, cowardice, immaturity and stabbing his own people in the back. Kewell. I just got corroboration from two different pundits, albeit, they have their own angles. The first is Charles Krauthammer. The second is Rush Limbaugh. Unfortunately, I have to make this two posts to avoid a formatting nightmare since the embeds for these videos use different systems. Charles: The only caution I want to add is that I recall a statement by Krauthammer right after the first debate. He was the very first pundit to speak on Fox. He said: "The real story is the collapse of Trump in this debate." Oops... I think he's better in the video above, but then again, I'm biased as all hell. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveWolfer Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 8 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Steve said: I shouldn't have said "Pledges are meaningless" when what I meant is "This pledge has become meaningless" There are some pledges that start out valid, like a proper contract, with meeting of the minds, specificity, consideration given, etc. But then some of them become meaningless - such as when one party abandons them. But there are pledges that start of meaningless. What about those check-boxes on forms that say, "Check here if you have read and agreed with the terms of this agreement." And all you are doing is downloading an update to a minor software program you bought years ago. If that agreement runs to so pages of obscure, fine print - do you take that Pledge? There are lots of cases where a politician signs some pledge, like to the NRA, and then ends up violating it, and usually for sleazy political reasons, but not always. What if the NRA started using all of its receipts to back political candidates you opposed? What if they chose to compromise and permit the banning of something that liberals call an Assault rifle, but really isn't Pledges turn out to be weak tea in politics and the only ones that matter are the ones a person takes with themselves. Those don't go public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 And here is Rush laughing about Krauthammer's line that Cruz's speech was the longest suicide note he ever read. But Rush also makes a hell of a good point that Cruz unified the Republican party by setting himself up as the common enemy. And I bet there was orchestration by Trump just like Rush speculates. And Cruz walked right into it like a doofus. Trump is wicked smart about public image. Cruz's dark arts talents are for the shadows and public deniability. Trump's are out in the open in front of the entire world. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveWolfer Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 5 minutes ago, tmj said: Can the President of the United States issue a tariff? Ever since an act passed in 1934 which let FDR set Tarrifs, there has been something of a tradition for presidents to do what really should be a matter of law passed by congress. Bush put a tariff on steel in 2002. I don't remember if that was sanctioned by some act of congress or not. I really don't know the history or the law in this area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 26 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: David, I never studied at law school, but I certainly translated enough of this stuff (a few thousand pages). So... Since, according to you, law students don't learn about parties to contract until after "anticipatory repudiation," when do they learn in law school that binding agreements have parties? Michael You're missing the point. A party to a contract (in this case it's a "pledge") can be released from its obligations under the contract if the other party repudiates the contract first. Or breaches the contract first. Or indicates that it has no plans to abide by the contract. Not trying to score a point here. Just pointing out that there is no legal basis ("law school 101") for Cruz having to honor his pledge. The basis is moral--as I mentioned twice above. That is sufficient in this context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveWolfer Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 1 minute ago, PDS said: A party to a contract (in this case it's a "pledge") can be released from its obligations under the contract if the other party repudiates the contract first. Or breaches the contract first. Or indicates that it has no plans to abide the contract. Exactly! And for Trump people to treat this like some kind of giant issue that in front of them and must be addressed and that Cruz must be pilloried, burnt on a cross, and never again darken political halls is a sign that there is something wrong in the psychology here. They should be focused on being supporters of man who would not want vindictiveness from his people, a man who is generous, a man who sees great value in Cruz even if Cruz doesn't like him. They don't want him seen as a thin-skinned paranoid fellow who keeps an enemies list - we had too many of those. They should be focused on how the hell do you win an election with so few millennials, so few women, so few Hispanics, so few Asians, so few blacks. How do you beat a powerful get-out the vote machine the Clinton's control? Does ANYONE think that attacks on Cruz - calling him names - treating him like leper will win over a single one of them? Do you unify the party base by taking one of the very largest segments of it and trashing its leader? Stupid! Even Hillary had the good sense to woo the Bernie people. Sheesh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 35 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said: But there are pledges that start of meaningless. Steve, This Republican Party pledge actually started out as meaningless, in my opinion, and became saturated with meaning over time. It was supposed to be a trap in the beginning, not a pledge. It was made to get Trump to refuse to set up a third party--as the first step in taking him out. In an election with a nonenforceable pledge, perception becomes reality and that perception imbues the pledge with more meaning that it should even carry. Why? Because enforcement is by votes, not legalities. There is no one judge. There is only a huge number of individuals that make up the public and each one of them votes. Technicalities become interesting to the public, but they also become small talk. The "guilty or not guilty" judgment is rendered on whoever the public perceives as having violated or lived up to his pledge. And that's a big honking slow moving image. That perception has inputs that go beyond the wording of the pledge. For instance, in Cruz's case, he has the public image of a deeply religious man. So lying for him is castigated by the public much harsher than it is for, say, Hillary Clinton (lying is what she does ). Cruz gets castigated not only for the lie, but for being a religious hypocrite. This is why the technicalities get brushed aside by the public. Also, I believe Cruz will suffer a backlash that will far outweigh anything Bush, Kasich or Fiorina will endure simply because they kept their heads down and avoided public perception on this point as much as they reasonably could, whereas Cruz went to the public and rubbed their noses in his refusal. He wanted the spotlight of public perception on himself and the fact he refused to live up to his pledge. He got it big time. Now he's going to find out what that means. It's not a courtroom. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 23 minutes ago, PDS said: You're missing the point. A party to a contract (in this case it's a "pledge") can be released from its obligations under the contract if the other party repudiates the contract first. David, OK. What other party? When did the Republican Party repudiate its agreement with Ted Cruz? Cruz had no agreement with Trump. He had an agreement with the Republican Party where Trump's role could have been any of the other candidates. That's what I'm talking about. You are arguing as if there were only one agreement and the parties to contract were Trump and Cruz. That's totally wrong. There were 17 separate agreements with identical wording and one party to contract that was the same in all 17 (the Republican Party). Cruz should have endorsed Trump not because he promised Trump he would. He promised the Republican Party he would endorse the winning candidate irrespective of whoever it was. It just happened to be Trump. Cruz's obligation, as per the agreement (pledge), was to the Republican Party, not to Trump. So, in terms of party to contract, it didn't matter what Trump did. He had his own separate agreement with the Republican Party, just like all the candidates did. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveWolfer Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 5 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Now he's going to find out what that means. This latest kerfuffle isn't going to mean much. Constantly calling Cruz a liar and a hypocrite when held up next to Trump is absurd. What we will see is Trump absolutely crushed by Hillary and that would partially vindicate everyone who did NOT stand next to Trump. Or, Trump will win and turn out to be a horrible president, which will partly vindicate those who fought against him from inside the party and never joined. Or, Trump will become an acceptable to great president and Cruz will be a forgotten has-been. There was no longer any pledge to live up to - it died when Trump indicated that he did not consider it binding and added terms to it that only applied to a pledge between he and the RNC. There is a real insecurity in attacks on Trump, when Hillary is the real enemy. And when all of the Cruz supporters are out there to be won over, not trashed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 Just now, SteveWolfer said: Or, Trump will become an acceptable to great president and Cruz will be a forgotten has-been. Steve, Now you're talking! Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveWolfer Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 3 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Cruz's obligation, as per the agreement (pledge), was to the Republican Party, not to Trump. So, in terms of party to contract, it didn't matter what Trump did. He had his own separate agreement with the Republican Party, just like all the candidates did. No so. If Trump abrogates his part in his pledge to the RNC, everyone's pledge to the RNC is voided. The separate agreements are all linked by their nature - they were to bring about everyone acting in the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 9 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said: If Trump abrogates his part in his pledge to the RNC, everyone's pledge to the RNC is voided. Steve, Sez who? The RNC? I missed that part. Reince Priebus is--and has always been--acting like he doesn't agree with your observation. The voters? We shall see, won't we? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveWolfer Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: What we will see is Trump absolutely crushed by Hillary and that would partially vindicate everyone who did NOT stand next to Trump. Or, Trump will win and turn out to be a horrible president, which will partly vindicate those who fought against him from inside the party and never joined. Or, Trump will become an acceptable to great president and Cruz will be a forgotten has-been. Michael, I retrieved that part of the quote of mine that you dropped ... I like to be helpful. p.s., That part of the quote that is in bold is indeed made of my words, but Michael Stuart Kelly did NOT quote them - he left them out, and quoted only that last part which he was okay with. I put them back in but couldn't change the wording where it looks like Michael was doing the quoting. Edited July 21, 2016 by SteveWolfer To offset any idea that Michael was quoting things he really wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 3 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said: Michael, I retrieved that part of the quote of mine that you dropped ... I like to be helpful. Steve, I didn't like that other part. That's why I shamelessly left it out. (btw - There's a glitch and it attributes your words to me in your last post. It's a big hassle to fix this, so I'm letting the reader know here.) Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveWolfer Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 3 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: We shall see, won't we? We've already seen it. People know that Trump went all weasel-like on the pledge, and others are taking that as solid proof that the pledge is no longer binding (Cruz, Kasich, Bush, etc.). But that is past. If the Trumpians stay all hot and bothered over this instead of focusing on the Hillary fight, they will loose the fight with Hillary and there isn't anything to win by fighting with Cruz or Kasich or Bush. You don't win a war without firing your shots at the actual enemy. Trump digs holes and then he still moves forward to dig new holes. I don't think he'll get past his hole with women, with Hispanics, or with Cruz supporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 3 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said: ... they will loose the fight with Hillary... Steve, I heard a lot of this kind of stuff about Trump, but regarding other candidates, during the primaries. Whattaya gonna do when Trump kills it in a landslide like he did the primaries? It is time to bring out my poor crows again? Wanna make a bet on who eats crow? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveWolfer Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 6 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: (btw - There's a glitch and it attributes your words to me in your last post. It's a big hassle to fix this, so I'm letting the reader know here.) Yes, I saw that and I tried to fix it, but that attribution line couldn't be edited. I did go back and edit the post to make sure people know what you quoted and what you didn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 53 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: And here is Rush... Dayaamm. Look how he is framing this on Facebook. Not good for Cruz, but great for Trump's election. 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