Donald Trump

[william.scherk]

I get mail. 

You can use this link to go do your duty ... https://action.donaldjtrump.com/official-trump-approval-poll

Spoiler

 

Edited August 22, 2019 by william.scherk
Tidied. Image from Postimages.org, since my-now-hated hosting services is sputtering at updating browser-delivery of uploads.

[Peter]

Sarah is a great addition to The A Team. I see they are coming out with a movie about Roger Ailes starring the "A List of dumb blonds." That is a joke. I don't see why they need a movie about it but I am glad to see the scoundrels get trashed for what they are. Initiators of force. Perverts. Invaders. Low Life's. Capitalist Pigs. Notice that Capitalization. That means a lot. Sometimes the market and justice are not in sync.

[Peter]

15 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

I get mail. 

You are obligated, as a Canadian, to leave that circle bland. I mean black. oops. I mean blank.  

[Peter]

Has there ever been charges of aggressive sexual oppression or aggression among the Communist elite? They were all loyal family men, I spoof ya! Even Adolph had just one bimbo. Mao? Was his Little Red Book a place to keep the phone numbers of hot chicks? Hell no. Even Wittle Kim has just one wife. No harems for him. His famous 100 babe, chanting choir is just rote learning for the populace. They either have *morals* or people who don’t keep their mouth’s shut are tortured and killed but how likely is that?

On our side, I don't think Jimmy, Ronald, Gerald, George, or George, Barrack, or Donald have had illicit nookie. While Clinton's wife probably had to get 450 shots for the clap. 

[william.scherk]

5 hours ago, Peter said:

You are obligated, as a Canadian, to leave that circle bland. I mean black. oops. I mean blank.  

We generally keep our opinions to ourselves, Canadians, with obvious exceptions. Look what happened to Denmark.

-- this item, what passes for an expose these days, could have been posted in about five different threads. From some folks at NBC ...

-- reading that story is its own reward (just click the image above), in the sense of updating your shelf of conspiracy/mistrust/distrust/bias knowledge.

In the story and in subsequent reports the writers' research suggests that the organization is targeting a solid bloc of voters via the Largest Ad Rotation at Facebook. 

Connect the dots:

End-times America-based 'cult' or movement led by Teacher Li, a broadcast arm, a hardcopy paper, a massive web presence, an early load of promotion for the 2020 showdown in November, and ... well, the one dot that really impressed me was the broadcast/audio-visual production arm of Li's movement producing a Youtube channel called Edge of Wonder.  In which, the co-hosts range freely over the world of, well, wonders. Q and the QAnon fantasy-movement of course, but also just about everything on the plate for 'alternative' media in the Age of Trump.  Aliens, secret space programs, MMS, Antarctic civilizations and Nazi space bases, Vaccines as a tool of Them, SRA, hollow Earth, Flat Earth, David Wilcock and the Blue Avians and more! So much more

Here's a sample, part of the bottom of the Li communications pyramid. Should I have posted this elsewhere? The intertwined story skeins at this channel feature a little bit Trump, a little bit conspiracy, a little bit woo, a little bit Q, a little bit of climate change plots ... along with the bread and butter Aliens and free energy, electric sun. The fellows are so darn cheerful.  Does it help to know that they belong to the 'movement' and take their cues from Li the leader?

 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited August 23, 2019 by william.scherk
Linked, speelcheck, added woo video; changed "Nazi Sauce Bases" to "Nazi Space Bases"

[Jonathan]

39 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

We generally keep our opinions to ourselves, Canadians, with obvious exceptions. Look what happened to Denmark.

What happened to Denmark?

Trump made a suggestion.

Mette Frederiksen responded publicly with snarky anger, snooty superiority, and delved into imagining the evil of unwashed monster parvenu Trump's motivations.

Trump described her response as "nasty." Rather understated, I'd say. Then he postponed his visit to Denmark.

So, what's the tee hee hee that I'm missing? Denmark is somehow now a massive pile of bloody victims in this? Oh, my Lord Jesus, look what happened to Denmark!

J

[Jon Letendre]

 

Wow Billy, that Official Trump Approval Poll sounds important.

What are EpicTimes, Teacher Lee and the edges of wonder, anyway? Is this how you all plan to attack Q from now on — by attacking people no one has heard of? 

Too bad there isn't a poll on impeachment. Oh, wait, there is! Just last month, the House voted 332-95-1 to kill the impeachment measure. But keep bitching about Greenland's wee feelings and responding to every poll, Loser.

[william.scherk]

2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

We generally keep our opinions to ourselves, Canadians, with obvious exceptions. Look what happened to Denmark.

What happened to Denmark?

Trudeau coulda learned Prime Minister Nastyass on how to get along with the elephant/ally, yes?  We haven't had a curse-out in a good long while. Cross your fingers for the final signatures on the USMCA.

In other words, Don't Poke It!  Or your Queen will suffer ....

Nothing much happened to Denmark. Nothing happened to Greenland. The 'nasty' remarks are to one's taste, in comic opera perhaps. Denmark is one of those small smug EU socialist hellholes where almost everyone lies about quality of life on surveys, and rides around on bicycles. The Danish crown is on a boring Margrethe II, pictured wearing swag above. State visit postponement till whenever. Ho and hum.

The Danish PM has at least a few common goals with the Trump administration in a few areas hereinafter not discussed at the seniormost political level, for the moment. The nasty Danish thing has had an interesting political career, and may have a long run. I bet those two could have had and will have an interesting side-talk about immigration and demographic destiny.

To the other notion. A serious play for Greenland (which I would support 150%) needs Greenlandish buy-in, mostly, and 'sloping in.' Greenlanders might prefer the NATO embrace under familiar rule and processes, rather than as a giant icy Puerto Rico. Who knows?

The cool aspect of US sovereignty over Greenland is that the various pan-arctic polities and linguistic relations (in Alaska, Nunavut, North West Territories, Nunavik, Labrador, Greenland) have mutual interests and preexisting connections.  The unique native-majority society in Greenland might be better bonded to Canada and the USA ... yet as they are presently European citizens with all the rights of Danish nationals, would they give that up? Would today's West-Greenlandic-speaking citizens have to accept a different passport regime?

The worst that can be said about the blurts from the White House was that they foreclosed on even exploratory talks about purchase for the immediate future. If it had already made sense three times in history to extend sovereignty to the icy island, there'll come another opportunity to chat. Denmark and the USA are longtime allies.

For the US president to scorn and abjure the government of Denmark is good. Shake 'em up, keep 'em on a defensive footing. If the nasty thing had not said the words "absurd" and "not for sale" ... nothing would have happened except a whole lotta not much. The boring queen can get out of her girdles.  Much state dinner seafood will go uneaten. Bicycles will be ridden in grim-faced pseudo-happiness.

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

What are EpicTimes, Teacher Lee and the edges of wonder, anyway?

Li Hongzhi is the leader of the Falun Gong in the USA. Epoch Times is the newspaper and website. You can click the photo-link above to read the details in the NBC 'news' story.

The Edge of Wonder is a popular Youtube channel produced by the movement's larger media production arm. Click to discover!

 

Quote

Is this how you all plan to attack Q from now on — by attacking people no one has heard of?

Q is being quite effectively promoted by Edge of Wonder. We differ on our views of the Q and QAnon phenomena. You could perhaps quietly celebrate a new set of allies with audiences and cultural dissemination potential ...

As for not knowing much about the Falun Gong or its various media empires and domains, it doesn't mean nothing can be known.  Less pithily ... Questions arose. Answers were sought. Research was indicated. Reporters went in. Facts or so-called facts came out.

Edited August 22, 2019 by william.scherk
Scorn and abjure required finesse

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

19 hours ago, Jonathan said:

What happened to Denmark?

Trump made a suggestion.

Mette Frederiksen responded publicly with snarky anger, snooty superiority, and delved into imagining the evil of unwashed monster parvenu Trump's motivations.

Trump described her response as "nasty." Rather understated, I'd say. Then he postponed his visit to Denmark.

Jonathan,

Based on her public statement of disappointment, I bet a buttload of money that other deals went down the toilet with the canceled visit.

People pay for their mouth. Condescending idiots like that lady get surprised when that happens, too.

MAGA.

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

Falun Gong promote Q’s message? I’ll be damned. They have been oppressed, jailed, tortured and murdered by the communists for decades, right? I suppose it should be no surprise that victims of your political ideology would be excited about a global purge of corruption and evil.

[william.scherk]

This will not stand.

Zadrozny is one of the authors of the so-called exposé linked above; earlier today another "is this what they call dark advertising?" update on the story from yesterday ...

Edited August 23, 2019 by william.scherk
Is it an end-of-the-world cult?

[Jon Letendre]

"Former Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates may not be able to escape Epstein-gate after all, after it was revealed last week that the billionaire traveled with Jeffrey Epstein on his infamous 'Lolita Express' Boeing 727 in 2013 - four years after Epstein served time for pedophilia.

"In addition to Gates - other famous figures who flew aboard the Lolita Express include legendary newsman Walter Cronkite, architect Peter Marino, and of course Bill Clinton, Naomi Campbell, Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker and Prince Andrew. "

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-22/why-did-bill-gates-fly-epsteins-lolita-express-after-pedophiles-prison-stint

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

17 hours ago, william.scherk said:

"is this what they call dark advertising?"

William,

No.

What those guys did was set up pages and accounts under different names. (Also, Epoch Times is a piker at this compared to Media Matters and other Dem operations.)

This has nothing to do with dark ads on Facebook.

A dark ad is a technical term for an unpublished (invisible) Facebook post (like on a fan page, group feed, etc.) that can be used as a "sponsored post ad" within Facebook's normal advertising system. (Invisible is not totally accurate since a person with the url can see the post.)

The purpose of dark posts is to not junk up a fan page or group with so many ads it looks like spam, but instead, keep ads limited to the main news feed going to targeted viewers. Think about it. An audience is being created to discuss, say, knitting. The audience grew and engagement is high among the expert knitters and knitting lovers. Suddenly, one day constant posts appear selling smartphones, health products, business opportunities, etc.

Before too long, the old ladies will move on to other places that are free from all that spam. (And the ads will increase since a good marketer likes to advertise a lot. He often does not have the time to run a separate audience-growing group or page for each area of product he sells, which is why he uses the ones he already cultivated.) "Sponsored posts" perform really well, better than normal ads. So dark posts to serve as the model for dark ads are really popular.

This format has been around at least since 2013 (probably before).

On the other hand, anytime one uses the term "dark" with an activity, especially in politics, it gives the person an aura of being an insider and expert about something sinister. So it's a good word to use to fake it 'til you make it.

 

Unfortunately, this sinister quality has nothing to do with Facebook dark ads. The "dark" merely refers to the fact that a fan page reader or group member will not be able to see the invisible post used for creating "sponsored post" ads (also called dark ads when made with such unpublished posts).

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a thought about President Trump's escalation of economic rhetoric against China.

How many people want to see a literal massacre (blood and dead people) in Hong Kong?

President Trump has negotiating skills other people do not.

Remember President Obama's way of handling his own differences with Qaddafi in Libya? Obama overused and poorly used the military and turned the country into a shithole where slavery--selling slaves out in the open--has made a comeback.

I think Hong Kongers should thank their lucky stars their current troubles did not escalate under President Obama.

President Trump stands a great chance of resolving this amicably by leveraging money. That's what he does.

Michael

[ThatGuy]

 I have to admit to an initial revulsion when I read Trump's seemingly authoritarian "I hereby order" quote, based on the better Objectivist reasons to do so. That said, I have no love for totalitarian China, either. Did Rand herself not say what Trump said, basically speaking, in her articles chiding Kennedy for attending a Russian ballet during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and for reaching out to the Soviet Union?

 Some are pointing out the "Obleftivish" response to this. But this isn't limited to "Obleftivists", of course. Which brings me to something I saw this morning on Facebook.

https://www.facebook.com/jeffreytucker.official/posts/2527088670663424

Libertarian/anarcho-capitalist Jeffrey Tucker wrote a post about Trump as Fascist in regards to all this. In that conversation, someone called him out for a post of his saying that the "Deep State" is preferable to Trump.

Another defender says: "Wow. Another fake-libertarian criticizing Jeffrey for yelling at a Nazi. You know what has poisoned the libertarian movement more than anything? Associating with and welcoming literal Fascists into their circles. Thank god Jeffrey yelled at him, you weird fash sympathizers ruin the name "libertarian" for the rest of us."

Tucker, meanwhile, was defending himself about some conference in a hotel where white supremacist Richard Spencer was also present.

One of Tucker's defenders wrote that "Again, physical removal was written precisely for someone like Spencer. Want to promote nazism? Do it somewhere else." Tucker himself said this:

"Neither the hotel nor the conference wanted a Nazi on the premises whipping people up, pretending to be with SFL. I can't believe you are still on this. Amazing. You call yourself a libertarian and the day after the US president orders all US businesses to stop dealing with China, this is what excites you. this is what drives you. Truly, I'm sure you have something valuable to contribute but it's long past time to do a deep assessment of where your values are."

Someone else on that thread responded to why Tucker and co. weren't going after the Left by responding that they aren't in power.
Aren't they, though? Why else would have to ask the question of who's worse, the Deep State or Trump, let alone "sadly conclude" that the former is preferable to the latter?

 I'm not personally fond of Trump, overall, but in the context of our times, but I strongly support his anti-socialist message. And I have no truck with those exhibiting "Trump Derangement Syndrome." That said, up until now, I've been tolerant of criticisms of Trump from Objectivists and libertarians (with more qualifiers on the latter than the former), based on shared principles, when they've been legitimate. An anarcho-capitalist going against fascists, but not communists? (Makes me think that Rand was right all along about anarchists AND libertarians, but that's another story...) That's what Antifa does. This is coming off, to me, as inconsistent, as best, and hypocritical, heading towards the worst, to boast about ejecting fascists from a restaurant while condemning Trump for his "orders" via trading with China.

 

[Brant Gaede]

Trump as a Nazi?

Man, some people don't know shit.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

I have to admit to a momentary revulsion when I read Trump's "I hereby order" quote, based on the better Objectivist reasons to do so.

TG,

There's something in O-Land that keeps people from pegging words to deeds. I'm not saying this is your case, but some of the people you talk about obviously have this handicap (as do many I have interacted with, especially those who hate Trump).

So, in the spirit of trying to get across what I see, and maybe open a window into a part of reality that is constantly obfuscated and hidden by the hysteria in our culture, let my push back a bit on your revulsion, even momentary. 

 

Controlling idea

The controlling idea when judging President Trump's words is sequence. Or sequence of frames. Or steps in a negotiation. Or even process. However one wants to call it.

This is because Trump is a producer for real. He builds things so he thinks in a process frame by default. And he knows you cannot install toilets in the bathrooms on the seventh floor of a building before you lay the foundation. Everything is done in sequence. And each step in the sequence has its own context, its own frame. What is proper to pouring cement and driving massive piles is not proper to choosing the decor of toilets. The jargon changes, the number of people involved changes, the tools change, even standards of precision change if you compare an inch too much of cement with an inch too far left or right in installing a bathroom fixture.

 

Funnel

So keep this in mind and let me add on an abstract analogy. Try to imagine a funnel. There is a wide end and a narrow end with a gradual decrease along the way. Then segment this funnel into 4 or 5 slices from wide to narrow. Each slice will be one context. Now imagine that the funnel represents cognitive precision of language. 

At the wide end of the funnel, not much cognitive precision of language is needed, but emotional impact is paramount. And the narrow end, precision is paramount while the need for emotional impact is negligible.

This is how President Trump uses the language for negotiating, closing and implementing deals. The wide end is the start of the process where people are introduced into the funnel, and the narrow end is where the entire process turns into something tangible and real.

If you want to know what Trump really means, you have to take into account the context along these funnel segments. Once you see it, you see this pattern over and over and over in his dealings. You can see countless examples in the less than three years of his term of office alone.

 

Examples

Here are some examples. Trump called Kim Jung-un rocket man and so on. That was at the wide end. At the narrow end, his language is totally different, always respectful and almost fatherly. Trump, at the wide end, told Senator Feinstein that he was going to work closely with her to her liking on immigration reform. How did that work out at the narrow end?  At the wide end, he said he was going to do climate change restrictions, free trade agreements, gun control, and on and on and on. But how does it always look once things get to the narrow end? Hmmmm?  

Oh... once in a while he has to swallow a frog like the massive amount of pork he agreed to with the Dems to get his military budget, but these cases are few. When the entire process gets finished, I doubt pork-loving Dems are going to be happy.

Trump always stakes a position at the wide end he can later back off from. He's setting a boundary for negotiation at that juncture, not setting a policy. So--to him--it doesn't matter what he says cognitively so long as he gets people's attention and gets them wound up emotionally (either excited or outraged), that is, thrown off balance. He already knows what he wants and it is never what he says up front.

 

The fun part

And the fun part. Every time he does a new wide end statement, even though he's done the same pattern a gazillion times before, people have a cow. Oh no! Trump's caving. Oh no! Trump's abandoning all principles! Oh no! Trump's a dictator! Oh no! Trump's a madman! Oh no! Trump's going to kill us all with a nuclear war! And on and on. Yet the outcome is always productive and in the direction of freedom for all.

Another way to put this is that reality is unchanging for Trump, but words are flexible. He structured his processes--all his chosen processes--that way.

This is the exact opposite of the people who hate him. To them, words are unchanging and reality is flexible. That's how they can accept a phrase like "free trade agreement" and pretend it has something to do with the free market as construed by libertarian and Objectivist principles. What does reality matter if words like free and trade are involved? And, of course, the elites get paid. It says free goddamit. That's principle. (Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Chinese--and others--are grinning and hauling out everything they can get their hands on.  )

So before you get too nauseous when Trump says something that sounds outrageous, first try to see where he is in the negotiating sequence. If you start detecting his use of language using this standard, you will see that he is one of the most disciplined people out there in the use of words.

Think of it this way. The wide beginning of the sequence is for entertainment, i.e., for herding people emotionally into the funnel. The narrow end is for implementation, i.e., making something new in reality. Trump's use of the language follows this sequence consistently. In fact, when it gets to to the implementing contracts stage, Trump is consistently boring, but dead on precise. 

From that perspective, go on and admit it. Look at all those O-Land and libertarian people--the ones who are more than content to enrich themselves with crony games and pose as sanctimonious moralists--having a cow over "I hereby order..."

It's fun. 

 

We know a dictatorship will never come to pass for real with President Trump. But they don't. They're too caught up in their own lives trying to hide their own morally compromised deeds from everyone by words with static contextless meanings that they try to shove down everyone's throats.

And man do they go round and round and round...

 

Meanwhile, Trump and his peeps are building a better world for all of us irrespective of what anyone says at any particular time. And he and they keep doing it over and over, one thing after another. His enemies can't keep up.

So who has a better handle on reality in terms that mean real actual reality? The ones who accept the primacy of reality and build while being colorful and sometimes inconsistent with words along the way? Or the ones who constantly take recourse to the primacy of words, give birth to countless cows over their demand for unchanging words, and almost always seek to destroy others?

As a suggestion, if you haven't read The Art of the Deal, read it. You will not be sorry. If you have read it, then reread it. You will not be sorry, either.  

Michael

[Peter]

I knew it. William drinks a lot of mental mineral water, doesn’t he? He goes frequently. I rarely read any of those conspiracy websites though I won’t say I never have. William mentioned that Canadians keep their opinions to themselves, but doesn’t he frequently post the words of others that he agrees with?

William wrote: Look what happened to Denmark.

Denmark was once a Naval Power, but now? Pffft! If President Trump were Canadian he would have annexed Greenland and Alaska by now and made them part of The Queen’s British, Royal Trump Empire, and be declared “Raj of India” to boot. He just ordered American companies to get out of China with a tweeted, executive order. Can he legally do that? I will dub that policy, “Chinese Checkers.”

[Peter]

Michael wrote:  Once you see it, you see this pattern over and over and over in his dealings. You can see countless examples in the less than three years of his term of office alone. end quote

Alone. Sigh. No Henry Kissinger to guide him. joke.  The embargo of China is the start of a pattern. As soon as I heard him quoted I started to think about the repercussions and the tie-ins to larger policy. I remember reading that Chinese manifesto to be the world leader in X number of years. Good luck with that with Trump at the helm. Will this moderate China’s rule of Hong Kong and save lives and freedom? I hope so.

Will this raise prices? Probably. Is this an objectivist approved, American government? In the long term, it may very well be. I despise the fact that China takes patented products from around the world and then duplicates them without paying royalties and claims they invented them, just like the USSR used to do. Has President Trump gone too far?  Wait for the backlash. If President Trump starts using the word “bully” like Theodore Roosevelt I won’t be too surprised. Peter

Notes. Big Stick policy United States history Written By: The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. Big Stick policy, in American history, policy popularized and named by Theodore Roosevelt that asserted U.S. domination when such dominance was considered the moral imperative. Roosevelt’s first noted public use of the phrase occurred when he advocated before Congress increasing naval preparation to support the nation’s diplomatic objectives. Earlier, in a letter to a friend, while he was still the governor of New York, Roosevelt cited his fondness for a West African proverb, “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.” The phrase was also used later by Roosevelt to explain his relations with domestic political leaders and his approach to such issues as the regulation of monopolies and the demands of trade unions. The phrase came to be automatically associated with Roosevelt and was frequently used by the press, especially in cartoons, to refer particularly to his foreign policy; in Latin America and the Caribbean, he enacted the Big Stick policy (in foreign policy, also known as the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine) to police the small debtor nations that had unstable governments.

[ThatGuy]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

Will this moderate China’s rule of Hong Kong and save lives and freedom? I hope so.

That was the other thing about this that bugged me. People like Amy Peikoff were calling out Trump and Pence for not being strong enough on China in favor of Hong Kong. But now that he's "ordering" companies not to deal with China, he's a "fascist." Hmmm...

[ThatGuy]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

TG,

There's something in O-Land that keeps people from pegging words to deeds. I'm not saying this is your case, but some of the people you talk about obviously have this handicap (as do many I have interacted with, especially those who hate Trump).

So, in the spirit of trying to get across what I see, and maybe open a window into a part of reality that is constantly obfuscated and hidden by the hysteria in our culture, let my push back a bit on your revulsion, even momentary. 

Well,  it's to your credit, Michael, that I don't suffer from "Trump Derangement Syndrome" myself. I did read The Art of the Deal upon your earliest suggestions. And it's the reason I'm even having this discussion, today.

[Peter]

2 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

That was the other thing about this that bugged me. People like Amy Peikoff were calling out Trump and Pence for not being strong enough on China in favor of Hong Kong. But now that he's "ordering" companies not to deal with China, he's a "fascist." Hmmm...

Well said. What if all King Kong American trade had to go through Hong Kong? I tried to make that sound Chinese but it might be more like Thai.

[ThatGuy]

Rand's article "How To Demoralize a Nation" (where she criticizes Kennedy for going to the Russian ballet during the Cuban Missile Crisis) keeps coming to my mind, in regards to Trump's "orders" re China.

This passage, particularly:
 

Quote

"No one can pretend that this was an issue of 'art' and not a diplomatic issue. The question of art is not applicable to any Soviet importation: there is no such thing as free art in Russia, there is only state art. Therefore, regardless of the import' merits or demerits, it is not the 'artists' but the Soviet government that one sanctions and supports when on attends a Soviet ballet or concert or movie.

"Is it proper for the President of the United States to act as a Soviet stage-door Johnnie?

"In the past decade, we have ben asked by all our political leaders- and particularly by Mr. Kennedy- to make unlimited sacrifices to save our country, because we are engaged in a cold war with a deadly enemy. We have been told repeatedly that the issue of morale is crucially important during a war, be it a cold war or a hot one.

"What will Mr. Kennedy's gesture do to our morale? Will it inspire us to make sacrifices? Will it give us confidence in our leaders and their policies Will it prompt us to take
the crisis (or anything) seriously?

"Is that the way to lead a world crusade- or to breed cynical apathy?

If that was her argument about dealing with Russia during the missile crisis was valid, wouldn't the same apply to dealing with China today, regarding Hong Kong?

 

[Brant Gaede]

Rand believed in using morality as a weapon and Kennedy was trying to deweaponize the situation that threatened general thermonuclear war (GTW).

--Brant

[ThatGuy]

22 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Rand believed in using morality as a weapon and Kennedy was trying to deweaponize the situation that threatened general thermonuclear war (GTW).

--Brant

Hmmm. Yes, there's that aspect, and I knew it would come up, sooner or later.  On that note,  those Objectivists who are criticizing Trump for his China "orders" were Trump  were upset when he praised Kim Jong Un...well, so did the parents of Otto Warmbier, so there's something to be said for the morality of it. But it almost seems like a Catch 22 for Trump...

Not that the topic is unimportant, of course it is. I'm just personally stuck on, at the moment, just how "all over the place" (regarding consistence and application of princinples) this topic seems to be within the Objectivist community. That seems to be a phenomenon in itself worth looking at, philosophically speaking.