Donald Trump

[SteveWolfer]

3 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You're probably not going to believe this, but Trump ultimately wants to end the Fed. He wants to start by auditing it.

I'm pretty sure he wants to phase out the IRS, too.

I hope you are right.  But EVERYTHING I've seen about Trump and those who support him is that the longer and more ardently they support him, the more they come to see in him things that I cannot find the slightest hide nor hair of.

[SteveWolfer]

5 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Alex Jones and Roger Stone crash Cenk Uygur and the New Turks at the convention

They all fill me with disgust.  These are people who use their little minds to generate made-up facts to suit soap-opera motives.  Maybe they do it to make a buck... I'd rather be a drug dealer than that kind of political soap-opera prostitution.  I wish people like that would stay in something like astrology, or ESP, or selling snake oil and get the hell out of politics.

[SteveWolfer]

9 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here's a tip. Look at Trump's family, then at the families of clinically diagnosed narcissists...

Clinically diagnosed narcissists come in considerable varieties - some with very good families and considerable success in business.  It is a defensive mechanism that can actually accelerate success in business.  It isn't good for the president of a constitutional government.

[Brant Gaede]

48 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Steve,

You're probably not going to believe this, but Trump ultimately wants to end the Fed. He wants to start by auditing it.

I'm pretty sure he wants to phase out the IRS, too.

Michael

The first would be an unmitigated disaster and the second--?

--Brant

the disaster first then you might "end the Fed"--most of the world's economies run off central banking

[SteveWolfer]

5 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

The first would be an unmitigated disaster and the second--?

Done right, these would be awesome!  Money is a commodity and it should not be controlled by the government.  Needless to say, the transition from government money, government control of the banking system, and government intervention in the credit markets would have to be very orderly and over time.  But the result would a much more vibrant, and healthy system.  And far less of the world's wealth would go into the pockets of politicians, cronies and special interests.

The functions of money and credit would be handled better without the government involved.  Fractional reserve banking and international banking and financial clearing houses... none of these need to be government run.

 

The IRS should be dissolved and replaced with a small department within the Treasury.  It should just be collecting some very small percentage of all sales at the consumer level.  No more.   Get rid of all income tax, all of those exemptions and regulations, capital gains, inheritance taxes, and payroll taxes.

[KorbenDallas]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You know, sometimes things get heated on OL, but we are tame.

[...]

For those who want a bit of a train wreck, see Alex Jones and Roger Stone crash Cenk Uygur and the New Turks at the convention with a Bill Clinton "rape" teeshirt.

Michael

Here is the incident from Jones' area.. more cussing, obscenities, Cenk wanting to punch, some spitting.  All around bad.

[Brant Gaede]

The transition from government money will be done electronically through advances in technology. It won't be done by government or through it.

The dollar is primarily buttressed by need for debt repayment. The rest is psychology or faith in value. When that goes the debt bubble collapses in a weird kind of "debt jubilee." If you own debt you're screwed. There is actually no national debt for a country if it's in its own sovereign currency. The entire US National Debt is just electronic entries. The government has a printing press in the basement and it just prints up--electronics up--what dollars it needs to fund its deficit spending and interest due payments on that debt.

If you own assets that are not dollars when the dollar collapses those assets will be revalued in other coin. Not bonds.

Imagine two semi-tractor trailer trucks, one filled with a hundred million dollars in gold and the other filled with a hundred million dollars wrapped protectively for long-term storage. Imagine them driven into an underground cavern and left there for a hundred years. Who could or would want which cargo then if one had to be chosen and the other not? Today I would personally take the paper money and invest it in something other than gold. 100 years from now I would take the gold and turn it into a common currency used in financial transactions and invest it in something other than gold.

Neither paper currency nor gold is an investment. Investment is putting up money (value) now in the expectation of getting more money (more value) back later. Gold is insurance. Paper currency is an act of faith. You pay me one million bucks for my Wombat 12 automobile. You now have an asset and I have faith that by the time I get to Safeway the prices haven't gone up twice in a thrice. When faith goes the dollar goes. Likely, however, in a long time coming, just as it has now for over a hundred years. Today's dollar has 50 times less buying power than the dollar of 1912. (Of course in 1912 there were a lot of things you couldn't buy then, like a Wombat 12.)

--Brant

[SteveWolfer]

27 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

The transition from government money will be done electronically through advances in technology. It won't be done by government or through it.

The transition from government will have to include changing some laws.  There are laws right now that grant special legal privileges to agencies who grant special privileges to cronies and special interests.  Money goes from the debt the treasury creates and from the money tax payers are squeezed for to people who shouldn't get it.  And the acts of the Fed drive markets, effect credit rates, move money around in huge amounts.  These are legal changes that need to be made so private enterprise can create better ways to use technology to facilitate the flow of capital, the store of value, and the determination of credit terms.

[Jon Letendre]

4 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

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.

Ted shoots at the person who came in first.

[Jon Letendre]

2 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

Done right, these would be awesome!  Money is a commodity and it should not be controlled by the government.  Needless to say, the transition from government money, government control of the banking system, and government intervention in the credit markets would have to be very orderly and over time.  But the result would a much more vibrant, and healthy system.  And far less of the world's wealth would go into the pockets of politicians, cronies and special interests.

The functions of money and credit would be handled better without the government involved.  Fractional reserve banking and international banking and financial clearing houses... none of these need to be government run.

 

The IRS should be dissolved and replaced with a small department within the Treasury.  It should just be collecting some very small percentage of all sales at the consumer level.  No more.   Get rid of all income tax, all of those exemptions and regulations, capital gains, inheritance taxes, and payroll taxes.

Wolfer 2024

[Jon Letendre]

7 hours ago, PDS said:

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. 

There's nothing for Michael to cede.

The pledge was to the Republican Party. It was between Ted and the Party. Someone else's misbehavior does not change that the candidates got things from the Party and the pledge says the Party can count on an endorsement of whoever the Party may ultimately nominate.

It isn't a legal matter. Litigation is impossible. Therefore there's not much to be gained by going there to establish meaning.

Everyone knows what the pledge means, including you, Steve, Preibus, Ted. You should cede.

[Jon Letendre]

13 hours ago, PDS said:

Here's what I find troubling about Cruz:   he signed a pledge to support the nominee.   He didn't do that.   He owes/owed Trump (and people who voted for him) an explanation for why he didn't do so.  

It took big balls to do what he did last night, but it would have been even more strong if he had explained why he was reneging on the pledge. 

"He owes Trump an explanation."

No. He owed The Republican Party an endorsement.

He chose to cheat the Party, which, like society, is not a real entity, but millions of individuals. Ted cheated me.

May he fuck off and prosper.

[Jon Letendre]

7 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

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.

Harming Ted is meaningless, his career in politics is over and he cannot stop Hillary.

You say you could vote for Trump, but not Hillary, yet here you are, and everywhere you are, I assume, badmouthing Trump ("con man", etc., ) who can stop her. Its the absolute worst thing you could do, if you wanted Hillary stopped.

[PDS]

9 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

There's nothing for Michael to cede.

*****

Everyone knows what the pledge means, including you, Steve, Preibus, Ted. You should cede.

Thanks for your instructions.  

Next time you tell me to do something, please use the word "please."  I'm not the neighbor kid walking on your lawn, we're not neighbors, and this isn't your lawn.  

One of the disadvantages to jumping into a conversation and then issuing proclamations of this kind is...pretty obviously demonstrated here.  As I said at least three times above, the pledge is moral, not legal.   Kinda like where you say above "It isn't a legal matter."    As such, a non-binding pledge can be withdrawn:   kind of like when Trump withdrew what he obviously viewed as a non-binding pledge in the video I posted above.    I notice you left out the word "Trump" in your examples of those who know what the pledge means.  

In other words, moral pledges have moral implications.   This being an Objectivish website and all, I would think this would be intrinsically more interesting to discuss and consider in any event. 

I still believe Cruz owed Trump, and his voters, a better explanation of why he didn't keep the pledge.   If it will make you feel better, I'll expressly agree he owed it to the RNC too.   

[turkeyfoot]

Cruzs Senate career will last until 2018 and what he hasnt accomplished (pledge) doesnt affect his standing, in my opinion, if it matters.

If it were true, in his mind and explainable that the Republican Party currently isnt the same group as the one in the previous September context that he pledged to when he pledged then the pledge is rendered meaningless, in my opinion. I wonder what he would say. He was on the outs then but garnered enough votes to place higher than all but one. The party is in shambles, lacks backbone and integrity. Its funny how meaningless the Republican Party truly is in terms of opposition to the ideals of its nemesis.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, PDS said:

I still believe Cruz owed Trump, and his voters, a better explanation of why he didn't keep the pledge.   If it will make you feel better, I'll expressly agree he owed it to the RNC too.

David,

I don't think Cruz owes anyone an explanation. He defines his public persona as a man who keeps his word, a man of conviction and integrity. He decided not to keep his word on something very, very simple, where he even bound himself by signing a pledge before the entire world. Regardless of what he explains or how he explains it, these words will come off as political yawp, blah blah blah, to most people.

So Cruz can no longer claim that he keeps his word and be taken seriously, at least not by most folks. That possibility no longer exists for him. This is not punishment by man. It is punishment by reality.

In his favor, I will say one thing. I heard Newt say it and I agree. America is the land of the comeback, so Cruz's career is not necessarily over. (Newt should know.  ) The only thing that is permanently over is the public perception of Ted Cruz as a man who keeps his word. That's done, dead, deceased, expired, passed on and pushing up daisies. 

I believe he's going to have to redefine his public persona if he wants to stage a comeback. But that new persona cannot include honesty as one of the linchpins and still work. He will have to focus on other virtues like courage and so forth, or hell, maybe as the Anointed One by God to rule America. He already started running this last before he lost.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peter Thiel's speech at the convention:

When he said the following, he brought down the house:

Quote

Of course, every American has a unique identity. I am proud to be gay. I am proud to be a Republican. But most of all I am proud to be an American. I don’t pretend to agree with every plank in our party’s platform; but fake culture wars only distract us from our economic decline, and nobody in this race is being honest about it except Donald Trump.

I was expecting a gasp when he said, "I am proud to be gay," seeing this was a Republican convention and all, but that didn't happen. That was exactly when he started bringing down the house. To my mind, he even looked a little surprised.

Michael

[PDS]

14 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

I don't think Cruz owes anyone an explanation. He defines his public persona as a man who keeps his word, a man of conviction and integrity. He decided not to keep his word on something very, very simple, where he even bound himself by signing a pledge before the entire world. Regardless of what he explains or how he explains it, these words will come off as political yawp, blah blah blah, to most people.

 

Come to think of it, you may be right.    If he weren't so obviously craven, this move could have spring-loaded the comeback you mention.   I have my doubts that such a comeback will occur...

[PDS]

7 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Peter Thiel's speech at the convention:

When he said the following, he brought down the house:

I was expecting a gasp when he said, "I am proud to be gay," seeing this was a Republican convention and all, but that didn't happen. That was exactly when he started bringing down the house. To my mind, he even looked a little surprised.

Michael

Agreed.   His energy certainly unclenched after that line...

[moralist]

I think the reaction to Ted Cruz's speech served the useful purpose of uniting the delegates... and that's ok with me.

 

Greg

[moralist]

16 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Peter Thiel's speech at the convention:

When he said the following, he brought down the house:

I was expecting a gasp when he said, "I am proud to be gay," seeing this was a Republican convention and all, but that didn't happen. That was exactly when he started bringing down the house. To my mind, he even looked a little surprised.

Michael

This is a real time demonstration of how for Conservatives, values are more important than what group a person belongs to. For liberals, it's exactly the opposite.

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I decided to catch up and just saw this speech by Laura Ingram from a couple of days ago.

It's a great speech. And she rocked the house in a manner that surprised me.

There's a little line in that speech that went by almost unnoticed, but it would make one hell of a great slogan:

Laura said:

Quote

We're not the enemy. We're the people!

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

19 minutes ago, PDS said:

Come to think of it, you may be right.

I'm going to frame this...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

11 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

May he fuck off and prosper.

Jon,

That's exactly how I feel about Ted Cruz right now.

I believe this sentiment is widely shared, albeit, many people would leave out the prosper part.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here are a couple of Alex Jones videos. The first is unbelievable. Alex Jones is schmoozing with Van Jones.

SCHMOOZING!

Dayaamm!

They provisionally set a Van Jones interview on Infowars and Van Jones said: "Nobody is able to keep up with you or me because nobody can keep up with the Joneses." They even did a friggin' fist bump.  

Dayaamm!

And below is a discussion between Alex Jones and Roger Stone. The reason I have been focusing on Alex during the Trump campaign is because I detected something that seemed different this time around and I couldn't put my finger on it.

The coin dropped watching this interview.

Do you remember that Roger Stone used to be Trump's campaign manager in the beginning, then was fired? I believe that was theater, at least partially. Paul Manafort, the current campaign manager was (and probably still is) Stone's business partner. How's that for a coincidence? 

At the time of Stone's departure, Trump said Stone wanted to use the campaign to publicize himself too much. That was Trump's reason for firing him and that always sounded like a lame reason to me.

I think what really happened was that Trump sent Roger Stone to Alex Jones to cultivate him because of Alex's massive audience. Think about it. Just as soon as he left Trump's campaign, he started appearing on Infowar, not a little, but a lot.

I think Trump learned a lesson from history. Barry Goldwater suffered in his election because of the John Birch Society. No matter what he did, it was lose-lose. When the John Birch Society endorsed him, that was used as a weapon against him. When Goldwater denounced the JBS, that alienated a crapload of other voters, ones from his base. There was no way for Goldwater to win that public relations disaster.

I think Trump learned from looking at that and came up with a strategy. Since Roger Stone is somewhat damaged goods in the mainstream, Stone lost nothing by becoming a regular on Infowars. On the contrary, I believe he sold a crapload more of his books than he otherwise would have. (I even bought some.  ) And Trump got a HUGE voting block without being tainted by the more kooky stuff Alex sometimes gets into.

I saw Roger Stone reign Alex back in when Alex started skirting on the edge of promoting violence at the GOP convention. Stone said no way, José, nothing doing. It's turn the other cheek time. Take it and stand there. And that attitude worked well in execution. They even got the ACLU, which normally tilts full left, to help them in the courts with unblocking the city's ban on airspace and demonstration permits.

Alex Jones is a powerhouse of research. He digs up stuff that the powerful would like to stay hidden. And he digs up tons of it. But he's like a bull in a China shop about interpreting it. Or maybe a big muddy dog going apeshit in a clean fancy house.  

Roger Stone tempers him. Oddly enough, I think this works the other way, too, but I don't have any examples right now. It's just a feeling: Roger Stone is coming off as less dirty and Alex Jones less kooky. In a weird way, this Stone and Jones partnership is taming them both and allowing the better angels of their natures to emerge.

I wonder how long this will last... I hope for a long time...

Michael