Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Being almost a Randian hero doesn't make Trump a Randian hero and it's rather pointless to discuss how close "almost" is.

Brant,

I always find this kind of purism odd when Rand's name comes up among Rand-loving people who don't always agree with her.

Did you know one of the first names Rand considered for Objectivism was "Contextual Absolutism"? She prided herself in the beginning on having developed a reason-based philosophy based on context.

Over the years, she gradually abandoned context and stayed with the absolute part (although she never said so). But context was prominent in her thinking when she finished Atlas Shrugged.

Nowadays, when her supporters see her name and work used in a parallel to a positive modern event or positive modern person, if this is not picture perfect according to her fiction or if it does not sing the dogma in the proper jargon, it is not true to them and could never be true. Context be damned.

I don't understand Objectivism or her work that way--as a template divorced from the same reality I live and observe. And I believe her work is far more powerful than her cantankerous demeanor in her later years.

According to purists, in practice, no human ever could possibly become President of the United States. They sometimes say one could in some distant future, but they would never approve of anyone in reality no matter who appeared. Ever.

For them, the reality could never live up to the abstraction of John Galt. And being thus, at least in one respect, they practice Objectivism as a philosophy for NOT living on earth, but instead for living according to some Platonic unattainable ideal.

Am I committing heresy?

Maybe.

But, my heresy goes even deeper.

I don't think her abstract characters would ever fit the reality of an American President. Not in any reality context.

(To be clear, I'm not saying they are the antithesis of reality. That is false. I'm saying that the characters as given in her fiction are not complete abstraction-wise to deal with specific reality-based contexts like running for President. So to call someone a Randian hero in a context like that keeps the core fundamental abstractions of her fictional heroes, but needs much different details than in her fiction and an addition of a fundamental abstraction or two to deal with presidential realities like crowd control, inspiring leadership, exercise of power and so on.)

Can you imagine John Galt campaigning against Hillary Clinton? Or Howard Roark campaigning against her? Or Hank Rearden? I hate to say it, but Clinton would win by a landslide. And it would not be because the world is corrupt and suffering from an orgy of this or that. The fact is the world is a better place than it ever has been in human history. Hell, people are even living longer lives on average than ever before, the population is exploding, technology is creating miracles right before our eyes every day, and so on.

It would be because Rand's fictional characters did not have much use for the masses. (Clinton doesn't either, but at least she knows how to fake it and pretend she is a lot more friendly to them than Rand's characters could ever pull off. That's why Clinton would beat them hands down in elective politics every time.) The masses are the voters.

President Trump likes people. Likes them for real in a first-hand prime-mover manner. He loves the best within each individual. He absolutely glows in front of a crowd. He celebrates their excellence and production and encourages them to achieve their dreams, to never give up.

Can you imagine a person winning an election who didn't like people? Liking people is a prerequisite to winning an election. Or at least faking liking people enough to make it look real. That condition is a big honking context. Yet Randian purists are suspicious of it because liking people can never be anything except Peter Keating parasitism, right?

Wrong.

In the purely abstract, one can imagine a Randian hero as President by simply plopping him there in the position. But out here in reality, campaigning is one of the fundamental contexts to becoming President. You don't get to be President without campaigning. And you don't get to win campaigns involving millions of people without getting people to like you. And that starts with liking them (or, as I said, faking it well enough to fool them).

Would you ever promote the idea that Rand believed her ideal man could never become President of the United States? Or that she lied to herself and believed he could while blanking out context like campaigning? I don't agree. And I don't think that's even plausible given her "man worship." 

Now... to get away from the mind-body dichotomy of purism and get into tying Rand's abstract ideas and abstract fictional characters to the earth, tying the moral to the practical, tying value to fact, just because she did not cover in her books the many skills and prerequisites needed to become President does not mean that a man who becomes so skilled and harbors such prerequisites is not a Randian hero in essence. (That means according to the fundamental abstractions.)

Like she said about several people and situations, the details differ but the fundamental abstractions are the same. And she often said this about two people or things that looked like polar opposites. In fact, her fiction is loaded with examples. Roark and Mike the construction worker were cut from the same essence cloth. And don't forget Roark's love at first sight of the spoiled brat Dominique or his instant recognition as soul mate of Gail Wynand. AS is full of similar examples.

I think Ayn Rand would have fallen in love with President Trump. And more, she would have declared him a hero in her strictest meaning of the term. And even more, she would have added context. She would have declared that he was the best of the American sense of life in essence and in fact--a uniquely American Randian hero who could only have been conceived in America and made real in America.

But I don't speak for her. I speak for me.

I believe this--my characterization of President Trump, not my channeling of Rand--heart, mind, and soul.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 15k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Michael Stuart Kelly

    4640

  • Peter

    1446

  • Jon Letendre

    1319

  • Brant Gaede

    884

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

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.  

Might as well do to them now. If they get back in power they'll do it to us regardless. --Brant

Posted Images

It feels so good to be just one day away from the beginning of the end: the confirmation* of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

* Not Trump’s last one, either.

Those still walking around in an MSM-induced trance are in for some real shocks. I feel a little bad for them. Believing what they believe, then witnessing what’s coming next is going to be terrifying.

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

Huh?  That was coherent.  Do you know how to read?

Korben, you're boring. Your attempts at trolling are so anti-creative. The idea with trolling is to get someone's blood boiling, not to anesthetize them. 

Do you have anything of substance instead of your stupid games?

What is it about Trump that has gotten you so emotional? Do you disagree with his reducing and eliminating regulations? His lowering of taxes? His walking away from the global warming fear-mongering and power-grabbing? Are you angry that he's waged a tariff war with the goal of eliminating tariffs?

Have you listened to his speeches? Have you not heard the philosophical similarities that he has with Objectivism? Perhaps your emotions are so out of control that you refused to hear them? They get in the way of your enjoyment of hating Trump?

Try to express yourself like a grownup. You complain that Trump isn't an intellectual. Well, show us some of your alleged intellect, and address some substance.

J

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

Korben, you're boring. Your attempts at trolling are so anti-creative. The idea with trolling is to get someone's blood boiling, not to anesthetize them. 

Do you have anything of substance instead of your stupid games?

What is it about Trump that has gotten you so emotional? Do you disagree with his reducing and eliminating regulations? His lowering of taxes? His walking away from the global warming fear-mongering and power-grabbing? Are you angry that he's waged a tariff war with the goal of eliminating tariffs?

Have you listened to his speeches? Have you not heard the philosophical similarities that he has with Objectivism? Perhaps your emotions are so out of control that you refused to hear them? They get in the way of your enjoyment of hating Trump?

Try to express yourself like a grownup. You complain that Trump isn't an intellectual. Well, show us some of your alleged intellect, and address some substance.

J

Jonathan the conversation ended yesterday, why are you still talking?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Being almost a Randian hero doesn't make Trump a Randian hero...

How did we end up with people refuting a claim that hasn't been made? No one has suggested that Trump is a "Randian hero." The only claims made were that Trump is quite Objectivism-friendly.

15 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

...and it's rather pointless to discuss how close "almost" is. Water doesn't boil at 99 degrees and it takes much more energy to go from 99 to 100 than 98 to 99.

???

It's not at all pointless to recognize that Trump has many ideas and policies which are consistent with Objectivism, or at least coincidental to it. It's not at all pointless to recognize that he and his ideas and policies have more in common with Objectivism than, say, Bernie Sanders does, or Jeff Flake. It's not pointless to recognize that Trump, despite not totally sharing Objectivism's view and goals, has nevertheless achieved more toward achieving those views and goals than people who have professed them.

J

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

Jonathan the conversation ended yesterday, why are you still talking?

Oh, so you abandoned the conversation yesterday due to not having the intellectual capacity to deal with it substantively. Got it.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/federal-government-cut-1000-jobs-september-16000-under-trump

 

Federal Government Cut 1,000 Jobs in September; -16,000 Under Trump

By Terence P. Jeffrey | October 5, 2018 | 9:30 AM EDT 
 

 

 
trump1_15.jpg?itok=ouznjmjz
(Screen Capture)

(CNSNews.com) - The number of people employed by the federal government declined by 1,000 in September, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Since President Donalf Trump took office, federal employment has declined by 16,000...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's great, Michael, you about said it all with regard to the Objectivist take. More, we are all in "a war" (I agree with Brant), and a major front line is where you are (it is a world war). Trump is the right man in the right place and at the right time, I think. For whatever can be argued the President is or should be, and so what? his unconventional methods have forced his worst foes (and not counting those who still have some reasonable reservations about him) to emerge into the open, they've had to make some sort of stand instead of hiding behind their previous, never-questioned status of intellectual and ethical superiority. As they get more desperate and vile, now everyone can see how weak on substance their stance actually was. (Amazing, most of the players in the media etc. are too self-blinded to see this themselves and change course, that cocky have they become on manipulating Americans by way of their feelings - which tells of arrogance, and how herd-like or dumb they believe the people to be. They simply go on "doubling down"). I suspect this has been President Trump's strategy, to make himself the target for abuse, draw them out and show them up. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jonathan said:

How did we end up with people refuting a claim that hasn't been made? No one has suggested that Trump is a "Randian hero." The only claims made were that Trump is quite Objectivism-friendly.

???

It's not at all pointless to recognize that Trump has many ideas and policies which are consistent with Objectivism, or at least coincidental to it. It's not at all pointless to recognize that he and his ideas and policies have more in common with Objectivism than, say, Bernie Sanders does, or Jeff Flake. It's not pointless to recognize that Trump, despite not totally sharing Objectivism's view and goals, has nevertheless achieved more toward achieving those views and goals than people who have professed them.

J

I don’t think Trump is a Randian hero , I think John Galt is a Trumpian hero . 

Atlas Shrugged was still only a book , Trump is real life 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Listen carefully.

Greatest speech in history. 

Not American history but greatest speech in history. 

Not Churchill nor Reagan nor Thatcher even comes close. 

Greatest speech in history 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, anthony said:

I think that's great, Michael, you about said it all with regard to the Objectivist take. More, we are all in "a war" (I agree with Brant), and a major front line is where you are (it is a world war). Trump is the right man in the right place and at the right time, I think. For whatever can be argued the President is or should be, and so what? his unconventional methods have forced his worst foes (and not counting those who still have some reasonable reservations about him) to emerge into the open, they've had to make some sort of stand instead of hiding behind their previous, never-questioned status of intellectual and ethical superiority. As they get more desperate, now everyone can see how weak on substance their stance actually was. (Amazing, most of the players in the media etc. are too self-blinded to see this themselves and change course, that cocky have they become on manipulating Americans by way of their feelings - which tells of arrogance and how herd-like or dumb they believe the people to be. They simply go on "doubling down"). I suspect this has been President Trump's strategy, to make himself the target for abuse, draw them out and show them up. 

Brilliant , Bravo ! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

It feels so good to be just one day away from the beginning of the end: the confirmation* of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

* Not Trump’s last one, either.

Those still walking around in an MSM-induced trance are in for some real shocks. I feel a little bad for them. Believing what they believe, then witnessing what’s coming next is going to be terrifying.

That moment when you leave Plato’s Cave and the sunlight burns your eyes and you cannot see . It is a terrifying , then incredibly gratifying moment. 

The good news is it that your eyes adjust and then you soon realize that everything you thought you knew was totally fake. 

Crashing in Galts Gulch or taking the red pill. 

Its eye opening to say the least 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jonathan said:

No one has suggested that Trump is a "Randian hero."

Jonathan,

Actually I kinda did.

:) 

However, I said it like this:

On 10/2/2018 at 6:07 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

President Trump is the most Randian President we have ever had.

And that is actually the way you said--that President Trump is Objectivism-friendly. 

However, eleven posts above this one, I came out saying that, in the major fundamental abstractions, President Trump is a Randian hero. Maybe I should have said he's the equivalent, but that's just playing with words. In fundamentals, it's the same thing.

I also said alterations need to be made due to context and scope. I certainly made enough qualifications for context and scope to make it clear he was not identical to her fictional heroes since the situation he lives in is not present in her fiction. I forgot to mention he's a Christian, but then again, the Founding Fathers were Christians and/or Deists, Aristotle most likely believed in Greek mythology as his religion, Thomas Aquinas was Catholic, and so on. All of these were real-life Randian heroes to Rand--but within the context of the different realities they lived in.

I feel fully justified saying what I say, too, mainly because the official self-proclaimed guardians of Objectivism claim, in the name of Objectivism, that he represents the exact opposite of what he does--when what he does is Objectivism-oriented. They left their awareness of principles outside the hating room when they went in to speak and all they see is an archetype they made up and fear. The Trumpian archetype is nowhere in Rand's literature. I know. I've read all of it. So to see it for what it is, you have to use your brain. Rand doesn't give it to you. And that scares the shit out of them.

Rand's philosophy standing on one foot:

Quote

Metaphysics: Objective Reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Self-interest
Politics: Capitalism

When dealing with reality, President Trump checks all four boxes. The only exception is his professed Christianity, which nobody really believes he holds deep down inside (except, maybe, in the way the Founding Fathers were Deists). And even then, he never relies on miracles or whatever to guide his judgment of what needs to be done.

He uses religion, but he uses it as an organizing tool to get people on the same emotional level more than anything else. Just look. When he does public prayer, it's almost always to encourage people to care about each other enough to want to live and work in peace with each other.

Notice that President Trump has written a lot of books. Not one of them is a religious tract. They are all about applying reason to the market, applying reason to inspiring yourself toward excellence, applying reason toward winning, and so on.

So he relies on reason. Actually, he is the President who has most applied reason to deal-making in the history of our country. His reason starts with identifying human nature within the context of deal-making and using that knowledge with the skill of a grand master.

As to metaphysical reality, like I've said often, his buildings don't fall down. He uses reason to build them.

Or how about this quote from Rand?

Quote

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

What the hell do people think Trump's concept of winning through excellence is about if not heroism? And so on through all four.

People who can't look at Trump's actions and see this always say things like Trump's tariffs are not laissez faire capitalism, but they never include Trump's stated goal of international trade without tariffs and without government subsidies. They cherry-pick his comments and actions, blank out the context, and treat Trump as a mental case or evil villain. Oddly enough, these geniuses want Americans to practice self-sacrifice against crony cartels and call that free trade. And they can't see the man who is against that because he doesn't use their jargon and doesn't look like anything they've seen predigested by Rand. They haven't been told by her how to think about him.

And they do all this in the name of Objectivism using their self-proclaimed authority as gatekeeping credentials.

Well... if they can do that, I certainly can tell the truth--as openly and loudly as I can--about the parallels between Trump and Objectivism. And, using Rand's own shortcut criteria for Objectivism, he meets that fundamental criteria in his actions. Not in his words a lot of the time, though. But there are reason-based reasons for that.

Even going toward nitpicking about words, what is reality? Words or actions? And when the two conflict, which represents reality better? Actions, of course. All anyone has to do is look and see that President Trump's actions are geared toward productive achievement. One doesn't do that without reason-based concepts guiding it irrespective of the words one says.

And there's the following. My authority to say all this is my own independent rational mind. My own independent observation and thinking.

Let them try to shut me up with condemnation, peer pressure and the like. I will not betray my mind the way they betrayed theirs.

Michael

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

It feels so good to be just one day away from the beginning of the end: the confirmation* of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

* Not Trump’s last one, either.

Those still walking around in an MSM-induced trance are in for some real shocks. I feel a little bad for them. Believing what they believe, then witnessing what’s coming next is going to be terrifying.

Any smart Democrat Senator at this point should flip sides and vote Kavanaugh in . 

I know I know , it’s an oxymoron but Zo mean no one even needs your freaking vote because my confidence is real strong that we get all 51 in line before the vote regardless of any pre vote propaganda . 

What a total joke this has been and what an incredibly great man SCOTUS Justice Kavanaugh is !!!!!! 

Congrats Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh ! 

Roe v Wade  bye bye 

#nevergiveup

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

Jonathan,

Actually I kinda did.

:) 

However, I said it like this:

And that is actually the way you said--that President Trump is Objectivism-friendly. 

However, eleven posts above this one, I came out saying that, in the major fundamental abstractions, President Trump is a Randian hero. Maybe I should have said he's the equivalent, but that's just playing with words. In fundamentals, it's the same thing.

I also said alterations need to be made due to context and scope. I certainly made enough qualifications for context and scope to make it clear he was not identical to her fictional heroes since the situation he lives in is not present in her fiction. I forgot to mention he's a Christian, but then again, the Founding Fathers were Christians and/or Deists, Aristotle most likely believed in Greek mythology as his religion, Thomas Aquinas was Catholic, and so on. All of these were real-life Randian heroes to Rand--but within the context of the different realities they lived in.

I feel fully justified saying what I say, too, mainly because the official self-proclaimed guardians of Objectivism claim, in the name of Objectivism, that he represents the exact opposite of what he does--when what he does is Objectivism-oriented. They left their awareness of principles outside the hating room when they went in to speak and all they see is an archetype they made up and fear. The Trumpian archetype is nowhere in Rand's literature. I know. I've read all of it. So to see it for what it is, you have to use your brain. Rand doesn't give it to you. And that scares the shit out of them.

Rand's philosophy standing on one foot:

When dealing with reality, President Trump checks all four boxes. The only exception is his professed Christianity, which nobody really believes he holds deep down inside (except, maybe, in the way the Founding Fathers were Deists). And even then, he never relies on miracles or whatever to guide his judgment of what needs to be done.

He uses religion, but he uses it as an organizing tool to get people on the same emotional level more than anything else. Just look. When he does public prayer, it's almost always to encourage people to care about each other enough to want to live and work in peace with each other.

Notice that President Trump has written a lot of books. Not one of them is a religious tract. They are all about applying reason to the market, applying reason to inspiring yourself toward excellence, applying reason toward winning, and so on.

So he relies on reason. Actually, he is the President who has most applied reason to deal-making in the history of our country. His reason starts with identifying human nature within the context of deal-making and using that knowledge with the skill of a grand master.

As to metaphysical reality, like I've said often, his buildings don't fall down. He uses reason to build them.

Or how about this quote from Rand?

What the hell do people think Trump's concept of winning through excellence is about if not heroism? And so on through all four.

People who can't look at Trump's actions and see this always say things like Trump's tariffs are not laissez faire capitalism, but they never include Trump's stated goal of international trade without tariffs and without government subsidies. They cherry-pick his comments and actions, blank out the context, and treat Trump as a mental case or evil villain. Oddly enough, these geniuses want Americans to practice self-sacrifice against crony cartels and call that free trade. And they can't see the man who is against that because he doesn't use their jargon and doesn't look like anything they've seen predigested by Rand. They haven't been told by her how to think about him.

And they do all this in the name of Objectivism using their self-proclaimed authority as gatekeeping credentials.

Well... if they can do that, I certainly can tell the truth--as openly and loudly as I can--about the parallels between Trump and Objectivism. And, using Rand's own shortcut criteria for Objectivism, he meets that fundamental criteria in his actions. Not in his words a lot of the time, though. But there are reason-based reasons for that.

Even going toward nitpicking about words, what is reality? Words or actions? And when the two conflict, which represents reality better? Actions, of course. All anyone has to do is look and see that President Trump's actions are geared toward productive achievement. One doesn't do that without reason-based concepts guiding it irrespective of the words one says.

And there's the following. My authority to say all this is my own independent rational mind. My own independent observation and thinking.

Let them try to shut me up with condemnation, peer pressure and the like. I will not betray my mind the way they betrayed theirs.

Michael

Brilliant ! 

Simply brilliant 

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

Jonathan,

Actually I kinda did.

:) 

However, I said it like this:

And that is actually the way you said--that President Trump is Objectivism-friendly. 

However, eleven posts above this one, I came out saying that, in the major fundamental abstractions, President Trump is a Randian hero. Maybe I should have said he's the equivalent, but that's just playing with words. In fundamentals, it's the same thing.

I also said alterations need to be made due to context and scope. I certainly made enough qualifications for context and scope to make it clear he was not identical to her fictional heroes since the situation he lives in is not present in her fiction. I forgot to mention he's a Christian, but then again, the Founding Fathers were Christians and/or Deists, Aristotle most likely believed in Greek mythology as his religion, Thomas Aquinas was Catholic, and so on. All of these were real-life Randian heroes to Rand--but within the context of the different realities they lived in.

I feel fully justified saying what I say, too, mainly because the official self-proclaimed guardians of Objectivism claim, in the name of Objectivism, that he represents the exact opposite of what he does--when what he does is Objectivism-oriented. They left their awareness of principles outside the hating room when they went in to speak and all they see is an archetype they made up and fear. The Trumpian archetype is nowhere in Rand's literature. I know. I've read all of it. So to see it for what it is, you have to use your brain. Rand doesn't give it to you. And that scares the shit out of them.

Rand's philosophy standing on one foot:

When dealing with reality, President Trump checks all four boxes. The only exception is his professed Christianity, which nobody really believes he holds deep down inside (except, maybe, in the way the Founding Fathers were Deists). And even then, he never relies on miracles or whatever to guide his judgment of what needs to be done.

He uses religion, but he uses it as an organizing tool to get people on the same emotional level more than anything else. Just look. When he does public prayer, it's almost always to encourage people to care about each other enough to want to live and work in peace with each other.

Notice that President Trump has written a lot of books. Not one of them is a religious tract. They are all about applying reason to the market, applying reason to inspiring yourself toward excellence, applying reason toward winning, and so on.

So he relies on reason. Actually, he is the President who has most applied reason to deal-making in the history of our country. His reason starts with identifying human nature within the context of deal-making and using that knowledge with the skill of a grand master.

As to metaphysical reality, like I've said often, his buildings don't fall down. He uses reason to build them.

Or how about this quote from Rand?

What the hell do people think Trump's concept of winning through excellence is about if not heroism? And so on through all four.

People who can't look at Trump's actions and see this always say things like Trump's tariffs are not laissez faire capitalism, but they never include Trump's stated goal of international trade without tariffs and without government subsidies. They cherry-pick his comments and actions, blank out the context, and treat Trump as a mental case or evil villain. Oddly enough, these geniuses want Americans to practice self-sacrifice against crony cartels and call that free trade. And they can't see the man who is against that because he doesn't use their jargon and doesn't look like anything they've seen predigested by Rand. They haven't been told by her how to think about him.

And they do all this in the name of Objectivism using their self-proclaimed authority as gatekeeping credentials.

Well... if they can do that, I certainly can tell the truth--as openly and loudly as I can--about the parallels between Trump and Objectivism. And, using Rand's own shortcut criteria for Objectivism, he meets that fundamental criteria in his actions. Not in his words a lot of the time, though. But there are reason-based reasons for that.

Even going toward nitpicking about words, what is reality? Words or actions? And when the two conflict, which represents reality better? Actions, of course. All anyone has to do is look and see that President Trump's actions are geared toward productive achievement. One doesn't do that without reason-based concepts guiding it irrespective of the words one says.

And there's the following. My authority to say all this is my own independent rational mind. My own independent observation and thinking.

Let them try to shut me up with condemnation, peer pressure and the like. I will not betray my mind the way they betrayed theirs.

Michael

99% Randian.

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

“So, how are the grandchildren, Lisa?”

6d7ed0e495dec06faafe9fe873768becf7450a4b

Jon,

Rush Limbaugh noticed that if Kavanaugh is not confirmed, that leave the Supreme Court divided 4 to 4 on most contentious things, including everything coming up from the uber-liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. And that means everything coming up from Alaska through the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In a split Supreme Court decision, the latest judgment stands.

In practice and within the context of Murkowski, that means all Supreme Court-worthy challenges coming from Alaska will be governed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. And they almost always favor the progressive line.

Dems Put the Screws to Murkowski

There's a lot on the line with oil drilling in Alaska, so God only knows what dirt they have on her. My own guess (not Rush's), but this is only speculating from a pattern, is that someone in Murkowski's family has been involved with pedophilia or other sexual deviance that would bury her forever as a public voice. And the Dems are tightening the screws on this should she support Kavanaugh. Ditto, maybe, for some massive corrupt money matters.

Pattern-wise, they only do this as a last resort since all of them are similarly vulnerable and the potential for a nasty backlash is always a risk. But Alaskan oil from the Arctic calls and there is a shit-load of it. Gobs and gobs and gobs. And since President Trump took the straightjacket off in a deal with Murkowski, it's all virgin territory again awaiting to be regulated--with massive payoffs for the insiders...

It sure would be nice for the Dems to have the uber-liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as the final arbitrar, even if only for a short time, huh?

And, to hammer this point home, Rush used a picture comparison.

APP-100518-DiFi-murkowski-B.jpg

Alien.png

I wonder what Sarah Palin is thinking...

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have another thought--a philosophy-based through--I want to add while it is on my mind.

I believe the anti-Trumpers would have had much better results opposing Trump if they had waged their propaganda against something in reality.

For the most part, they have aimed all their big guns at two enemies:

1. Trump, the Putin puppet.

2. Kavanaugh, the gang-rapist.

And, man, did they destroy the Putin puppet and the gang-rapist. Totally obliterated them.

Yet, out here in reality, they keep scratching their head in wonder, then screaming and raging in frustration about why this destruction had no effect.

The reason is they destroyed characters in a bad melodrama of their own authorship, not real people.

They waged war against ghosts and now wonder why nobody died...

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Q Posts: https://qmap.pub/

Q post #2351:

New: Title TBD

2351

Q!!mG7VJxZNCI5 Oct 2018 - 10:05:20 PM

Justice K >>> Highest Court in the Land.
Law & Order [majority] [U.S. Constitution] safeguarded.
IT WAS OUR LAST CHANCE TO SAVE IT [Non-Force]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2qIXXafxCQ?
Think HRC win >> SC appointments >> SC 'Corrupt' TILT [ex: LL]
Now comes the real PAIN.
Now comes the real TRUTH.
BOOM
BOOM
BOOM
BOOM

They want you DIVIDED.
DIVIDED by RACE.
DIVIDED by RELIGION.
DIVIDED by CULTURE.
DIVIDED by CLASS.
DIVIDED by POLITICAL AFFILIATION.
DIVIDED YOU ARE WEAK.
TOGETHER YOU ARE STRONG.
This movement challenges their ‘forced’ narrative.
This movement challenges people to not simply trust what is being reported.
Research for yourself.
Think for yourself.
Trust yourself.
This movement is not about one person or a group of people.
WE, the PEOPLE.
Save the Republic!
Hatred and Dissension in the Nation will Heal.
WHERE WE GO ONE, WE GO ALL.
Q

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Marc said:

Roe v Wade  bye bye 

Marc,

I doubt that will ever happen at the Supreme Court level and I don't think it should.

Roe v Wade was made through a strategy Franklin Roosevelt tried and ultimately failed at: stacking the Supreme Court.

According to the constitution, the proper way to enact an abortion law is for a member of Congress to submit a bill in Congress, have it pass there, then have it sent to the President for signature. ONLY AFTER THAT should the Supreme Court ever consider it, and even then, ONLY after lower courts have judged cases involving it. Further, the Supreme Court should judge whether such law is constitutional or unconstitutional and only that.

The way it stands now, if a Supreme Court decision reversed its previous "legislate from the bench" decision on abortion, it would be like trying to cure arsenic poisoning with a different brand of arsenic. That would assure that stacking the court is the best way to govern for insiders, that rights, elections, and the other branches of the government mean nothing. This ultimately would lead to a de facto dictatorship where even lifetime appointment of the President would not be difficult to imagine (after the Supreme Court approved temporary emergency powers for the President, imposing martial law for some crisis or other, and so on).

To me, Roe v Wade is a legal abomination that has more or less worked in a clunky manner in American society. But it's fragile precisely because it is a legal abomination.

I read somewhere (and I honestly don't remember where) that they have legal abortions in England, but they don't have this endless bickering about it in public, or demonstrations, violence, etc. Why? Because it was a law that passed the House of Commons. The people voted on it. This was not something imposed by a legal abomination.

Most of the bickering about it here in the US is, fundamentally, about who gets to tell everybody else what to do about abortion in a dictatorial manner. It's about who gets to ram their social views down the throats of everyone else and bypass elections. If pro-abortion people would just use the American system instead of constantly trying to game it, I believe they could sway enough people to get a pro-abortion law passed. (They would even have a supporter in Ayn Rand to add to their persuasion mix. :) )

I, personally, have my own views on abortion, but they are irrelevant to the issue of how to pass laws.

Granted, President Trump is currently stacking the court, but he's got the good sense to stack it with constitutionalists. The progressives have no clue how bad their idea of stacking the court could get if President Trump were a full-blown conservative and Christian fundamentalist. Imagine stacking it with Christian theocrats.

Hopefully, going through a phase of constitutionalist control within the Supreme Court and freedom lovers kicking the globalists' asses in elections will put a lid on this idiotic stacking the court strategy. There is no reason on earth to allow insiders to sneak laws into effect that the majority of the American people don't want.

The correct process is Persuade the Public --> Elect Members of Congress --> Pass a Bill in Congress --> Send Passed Bill to President to Sign.

The globalists and the left do not want to bother with the persuading part. They want to game the system in backrooms and rule no matter what it takes, so long as they can get their mitts on power in the shortest time possible.

Michael

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