Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

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

If the pledge Cruz signed is the same pledge Trump signed, then there are not "two parties" to a "contract".    

Priebus signed it as a witness, not a party.  The RNC didn't agree to anything in the pledge. 

Again, the pledge is moral, not legal.     

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

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Michael Stuart Kelly

    4617

  • Peter

    1435

  • 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

Just now, SteveWolfer said:

I can't bring myself to bet for a Hillary victory - I don't want to make any money out of a disaster.

Steve,

You didn't read the crow thing before. There is no money involved.

It goes like this. If Hillary wins, I eat a big plate of crow. If Trump wins, you eat the crow.

All the people who betted against me in the primaries should have scarfed down some delectable barbecue of corvus when Trump got the nomination. But I took pity on the crows and on these folks for that matter, poor things. Nobody likes to be wrong. :) 

So I pardoned the crows and released the crow-eaters from their pledge.

(Hey! That sounds familiar! :) )

You should have seen the discussion before. There were some hilarious crow pictures. William even came up with one bearing a knife and hunched over like in a defensive posture. :) 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

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.

Michael

But it's true--and that small band of Objectivists is also moronic, albeit of an elevated sort. Then there's higher still here at OL. Then--ME!

--Brant

King of OL--it's that hierarchy thingy Rand kept talking about

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, PDS said:

If the pledge Cruz signed is the same pledge Trump signed...

David,

So do you have the one with Cruz's signature beside Trump's?

I didn't think so.

Therefore Trump and Cruz are not parties to contract with each other.

If this ever were to be litigated for real for whatever reason, I would argue that the pledge was made to the Republican National Committee since it was made on the stationery of the same, it dealt with the Republican nomination for president, and the pledge was formally accepted by the RNC by being witnessed and dated by the RNC's chairman. I think I would have an excellent argument.

So, yes, two parties to the contract. With 17 separate contracts.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The voters?

We shall see, won't we?

Here's exactly what I'm talking about. And it's not even a full 24 hours after the speech.

Notice CNN trying to pin this on Trump at the end by insinuating she was influenced by Trump's name for Cruz (Lyin' Ted).

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

So do you have the one with Cruz's signature beside Trump's?

I didn't think so.

Therefore Trump and Cruz are not parties to contract with each other.

If this ever were to be litigated for real for whatever reason, I would argue that the pledge was made to the Republican National Committee since it was made on the stationery of the same, it dealt with the Republican nomination for president, and the pledge was formally accepted by the RNC by being witnessed and dated by the RNC's chairman. I think I would have an excellent argument.

So, yes, two parties to the contract. With 17 separate contracts.

Michael

No.  You wouldn't have an excellent argument.

I'm trying to be kind here.  Let's just say I've been doing this kind of litigation for almost exactly 29 years now.  Your argument doesn't fly.

By the way, make sure to let us know if you ever hear of the RNC filing such a lawsuit and making your argument. 

It really is okay to cede an inch of ground once in a while.   Nobody will revoke your Trump-loving-privileges for doing so. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, PDS said:

By the way, make sure to let us know if you ever hear of the RNC filing such a lawsuit and making your argument. 

David,

Nah... I'll stick to the court of public appeal. And there, to the folks, Cruz betrayed the Republican Party by reneging on a pledge he made to it (and to them, for that matter).

I don't mind ceding to your greater expertise (seriously), but I will not agree that Trump and Cruz have a contract with each other with this pledge which Trump's actions or Cruz's actions "abrogated." This is what was alleged before (when one party does this, the other party gets off... etc. etc. etc.). 

You later corrected yourself that Trump and Cruz were not two parties to a contract with each other (you even emphasized "not"), so I can go with that.

:evil: 

Michael

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

But it's true--and that small band of Objectivists is also moronic, albeit of an elevated sort. Then there's higher still here at OL. Then--ME!

--Brant

King of OL--it's that hierarchy thingy Rand kept talking about

Brant,

Thank goodness this is defined.

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Nah... I'll stick to the court of public appeal. And there, to the folks, Cruz betrayed the Republican Party by reneging on a pledge he made to it (and to them, for that matter).

The court of public opinion might think this is very tiny bit of nothing.  Or, they might think that Trump supporters are behaving like asses by focusing on hating Ted Cruz when they should be focused on the general election.  Or, their may be more Republicans - people in the grass roots - not the people in office, not in the convention hall, and not those spitting fire in the blogoshere who still don't like Trump.

Question: What is worse that shooting inside the tent during a primary? 

Answer: Shooting fellow republicans when the primary is done.

Question: Who would be the absolute worse Republican for Trumpers to shoot at right now?

Answer: The person who come in second... i.e., the person who was the second most desired as president.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve,

After what Cruz did to Ben Carson in Iowa, lying to Ben's voters and taking advantage of the fact that both were sharing the evangelical slot, thus stealing Ben's voters, I wrote him off for bad character.

At first I was shocked, then after the dust settled and I confirmed, yup, that's exactly what he did, he was never my second most desired as president. 

Besides, Donald Trump is going to make a wonderful president. I even knew it back then and I've got a long-ass forum thread to prove it.

:) 

Michael

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me add to that.

For anyone who is interested in Trump's grasp of economic principles, here is an information video that discusses how his people got the return of Glass Steagall put into the official Republican platform.

Granted, this is Infowars, but David Knight is very good at explaining the gist of complex things in layman's terms and he is always documented to the gills. And he's very libertarian, even more so than Alex.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve,

I don't trust economists. (And believe me, I've read a lot of them. Currently, I keep picking up David Stockman's The Great Deformation, but I keep getting distracted after a few pages.)

It's visceral. On par with climate scientists in my soul.

They always know everything about money except how to create wealth. But they are experts in one thing. They know masterfully how to create funding for economists.

Fuggem'...

:)

Michael

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

Ted Cruz

Steve, I don't like Ted Cruz because he's an avowed mystic of the Benny Hinn breed, and how he accepted his wife's delusion that god spoke to her and he told her to tell Cruz to run for President.  Here's a quote from Rafael Cruz:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/rafael-cruz-ted-cruz-campaign-god-sign

Quote

My son Ted and his family spent six months in prayer seeking God's will for this decision. But the day the final green light came on, the whole family was together. It was a Sunday. We were all at his church, First Baptist Church in Houston, including his senior staff. After the church service, we all gathered at the pastor's office. We were on our knees for two hours seeking God's will. At the end of that time, a word came through his wife, Heidi. And the word came, just saying, "Seek God's face, not God's hand." And I'll tell you, it was as if there was a cloud of the holy spirit filling that place. Some of us were weeping, and Ted just looked up and said, "Lord, here am I, use me. I surrender to you, whatever you want." And he felt that was a green light to move forward.

So, god is an axiom for Cruz.
 

Back in January I said why I like Trump:

On 1/26/2016 at 9:22 PM, KorbenDallas said:

With Trump, I'm seeing an Independent man, a capitalist, with an earned and deserved self esteem and someone who isn't going to allow others to knock his morality through inference or whatever.

I'd bet Rand would have a lot of positive things to say about Trump.

I don't consider myself any less Oist for supporting Trump, or Cruz supporters any less Oist for supporting Cruz--though the latter to me is more perplexing..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve,

Apropos, are you familiar at all with international finance? Bank of International Settlements (hell, central banks in general) and things like that?

I had to learn a lot about that stuff when, during a colorful period of lunacy in Brazil, I messed with government bonds. 

:) 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

For anyone who is interested in Trump's grasp of economic principles, here is an information video that discusses how his people got the return of Glass Steagall put into the official Republican platform.

 
Somebody should point out to David Knight that the Ukraine is not part of Russia... It doesn't need to secede - it wants to stay independent.  David Knight  is pushing that Goldman Sachs military industrial wanting to get rich selling stuff in an active war conspiracy theory.  There is nothing there that is intelligent foreign policy.  A principled approach to the Ukraine is finding a way to discourage Putin from escalating his desire to expand beyond his borders.  That is the only concern we have for the Ukraine is as one possible focus point for discouraging Putin from trying to rebuild the old Soviet Union.
 
The return of Glass Steagall is nutty.  You don't destroy the ability to compete in a global financial environment as a way to stop big financial houses from being able to socialize losses, or from being able to draw on Fed funds at below market rates.  We need to get government farther out of finance not deeper in.  This is a call for greater regulation without ever addressing the problems of socialized losses, bailouts, or federal reserve abuses.
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

I don't consider myself any less Oist for supporting Trump, or Cruz supporters any less Oist for supporting Cruz--though the latter to me is more perplexing..

I find Cruz's religiosity very repellent.  But, his strong, clear grasp of the constitution and his long work with it, as a clerk on the Supreme Court, with the briefs he wrote as Texas AG, and what I've heard him say, made it clear to me that he would keep religion separate from government.  He has said that as president the constitution comes before anything, including the bible.

As for Trump, he has shown himself to be good at making money in this economy.  He builds things.  That's good.  But I don't see any evidence that he understands the principles of Capitalism with the kind of clarity a president should.  I don't see a level of honesty that we should see.  I don't see a stable personality in this area.  I have a clinical understanding of Narcissism and it isn't the same as high self-esteem and it can be a serious problem for an office like president.

If I'd had it my way, we'd be talking about nominee Rand Paul and arguing about if he will be strong enough against ISIS.  But that isn't the case.  And Ted Cruz is no longer the case.  It is, for me, "NeverHillary" and maybe Trump, maybe not.

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