Donald Trump


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I can't resist.

As you listen to this, replace "badger" with "gotcha."

If that isn't the motor running Merlin's soul, it could be.

:)

Michael

Michael? Souls don't have motors...motors are mechanical and material...and spirit is immaterial... 😕

"We're not computers, Sebastian...we're physical." -Roy Batty
"What is mind? No matter...what is matter? Never mind..."- Homer Simpson
"We are spirits, in the material world..." -Gordon Sumner

"I think, therefore, I am...I think?"
(Sorry, I'll see myself out...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2020 at 7:27 AM, ThatGuy said:

Michael? Souls don't have motors...motors are mechanical and material...and spirit is immaterial... 😕

"We're not computers, Sebastian...we're physical." -Roy Batty
"What is mind? No matter...what is matter? Never mind..."- Homer Simpson
"We are spirits, in the material world..." -Gordon Sumner

"I think, therefore, I am...I think?"
(Sorry, I'll see myself out...)

TG,

LOL...

I was only referring to the choo-choo clickety-clack audio.

Imagine Merlin not being able to sleep at night. Some people count sheep. Others listen to soothing music. And so on.

That would normally work for Merlin, too, but he can't turn off the soundtrack. Imagine the frustration when all you've got is: gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha... the whole goddamn night.

🙂

Sometimes arguing with Merlin reminds me of an anecdote given by Leonard Peikoff at a Ford Hall Forum lecture (April 12, 1987). This is currently available as "My Thirty Years With Ayn Rand: An Intellectual Memoir" in The Voice of Reason.

Quote

Ayn Rand started thinking in terms of principles, she told me once, at the age of twelve. To her, it was a normal part of the process of growing up, and she never dropped the method thereafter. Nor, I believe, did she ever entirely comprehend the fact that the approach which was second nature to her was not practiced by other people. Much of the time, she was baffled by or indignant at the people she was doomed to talk to, people like the man we heard about in the early 1950s, who was calling for the nationalization of the steel industry. The man was told by an Objectivist why government seizure of the steel industry was immoral and impractical, and he was impressed by the argument. His comeback was: "Okay, I see that. But what about the coal industry?"

On a serious note, I can't always tell when lack of understanding of conceptual hierarchies is a refusal to think or it's an actual physical prewiring of the brain, sort of like autism. I would have never said that in the past, but I changed after I had to live with a stepson who has a high functioning disability on the autism spectrum.

"So wait a minute!" I hear you nag. "If you think Merlin might have a problem like that, what the hell are you doing by ribbing him so much?"

What can I say? Guilty as charged.

I figure, Merlin hates me no matter what I do or say, and he's gonna gotcha to death and misrepresent anything I say, even the color of the font of the words I write and even when it's black, so I might as well have a little fun when he lets loose.

🙂

The truth is, Merlin doesn't like me, but I like him.

🙂

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/7/2019 at 5:57 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jon,

Drudge was great in his heyday with Breitbart.

Even leading up to President Trump's election.

There's an interview he did with Alex Jones a few years ago (Oct. 6, 2015). He just simply showed up at Alex's studio. He called Alex an "American original." He also predicted Alex getting torched by the establishment and said he was their target also. He said the person who told him this was a Supreme Court Justice. I'm going on memory because I saw it around the time it happened.

I think any speculation about Drudge has to take all this into account since it came from Drudge's own mouth years ago and is on tape. 

Here is a Breitbart article that talks about this event.

Flashback: Matt Drudge Warns Not to ‘Get Famous’ on YouTube, ‘Google’s Hell Pit’

And here is a video on YouTube that shows the interview, although it may get taken down. At least, this is the video embedded in the Brietbart article, so there may be something backstage that will keep it up. I am looking for an alternative site just for a guarantee.

I need to watch this again, but going on memory, man, were Drudge's words prophetic back then.

btw - Here is Alex today on Infowars speculating about Drudge:

Drudge Twitter Indicates Drudgereport.com No Longer Owned By Matt Drudge
Drudge’s official Twitter also announces that site is no longer based in U.S.

There are a lot of theories going around about why and how Drudge lost control of his site. Since I tend toward the positive, I think it is plausible (and this is the version I favor) that Drudge believes President Trump is blowing a major hole in the globalist plans and evil creepiness he fought so hard against over the years, he knows it's going to get ugly and violent once ruling class folks start going to jail for real, and, since he doesn't have his own army, he doesn't want to be a principal target when all hell breaks loose. His work--as one man--is done, so to speak. Now it's up to the guys with the guns.

I say, well done, Matt.

Michael

Well, well, well...lookie what we have here...
 

When does NDA expire re: DrudgeR sale to foreign entity?
Think 2020_P election +1.
[removal [blackout] coming of pro_POTUS accounts]
Win by any means necessary.
All assets will be deployed this election.
Sleepers [Pro] will shift position [Nay].
[Paul Ryan_Fox]
Q


https://qmap.pub/read/3957

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHO dunnit. A friggin' world *health* organisation involved itself in world politics, blasting the US for stopping China flights, etc., and they get cut off (for withholding virus info too, I gather).

Fantastic. The predictable anti- Trump fuss that's erupted, from all the usual altruists in social and other media in SA also,  reveals how badly the "world" needs and demands America to be its eternal cash cow. Gone are the days, I hope. A self-interested US forever!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHO defunded.  Maybe the UN next. "Climate change" being relegated to a far-back burner.

This bug is having some good results.

At a price, though, in deaths.  A price that maybe not all of those who have died or will die would have been/will be happy to pay.

Ellen

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Price implies trade , at what point is/will the cost be voluntary ?

I agree and think that some of the results are good ,  and objectively good, the deaths notwithstanding.

They aren't part of any 'deal', right ? No one set up any bargain to trade good results against death.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

WHO defunded.  Maybe the UN next. "Climate change" being relegated to a far-back burner.

This bug is having some good results.

At a price, though, in deaths.  A price that maybe not all of those who have died or will die would have been/will be happy to pay.

Ellen

Ellen,

Other recent bugs killed many more than the coronavirus has so far. Yet the climate change debacle kept going while the bugs were killing. I'm not sure those dead and dying were happy to pay the price for that, either.

🙂 

 It's kinda like the altruism Rand ranted and railed about. Once people get used to something bad, they adapt and let the bad have a place in their affairs. Then new bad things come along. And then people blame the new bad things on a new cause and ignore the bad thing they tolerated all along that produced similar results.

I don't see the connection between people dying of a virus--viruses have killed people since before recorded history--and defunding a tyrant (WHO).

Tyrants are normally deposed by warriors through violence. President Trump withheld funding through peaceful means. I suppose we could call the casualties of the virus collateral damage like any war produces, but even in that case, I just don't see cause and effect.

WHO is inept and corrupt and that's how it dealt with the outbreak. President Trump did what he always does with the inept: "You're fired!"

I'm pretty sure the virus didn't care one way or another. It killed people because that's what it does. It wasn't ordered by WHO to kill people and WHO didn't have the power to order it to stop. Ditto for President Trump. Like tmj said above, there was no trade. The virus is nature. Trade is something humans do among themselves.

I don't like the metaphor of people paying a price in death from a virus for the US to get rid of WHO and the UN. I just gave some reasons, but there's still something buried in that metaphor that is bugging me and I can't nail it yet. To use another metaphor, I suspect there's a deadly virus hidden in that metaphor.

🙂 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just occurred to me that there is a communication lesson here from President Trump. 

There's a time for a lot of analysis and a time for reassuring people.

I have been analyzing too much. 

So listen up. This is important.

It's all going to work out.

Humans will survive, and that means you in the overwhelming massively vast majority of cases.

Take precautions, but be assured. Mourn those who succumbed, but for yourself, be well and be happy. Life is important and so are you.

We shall vanquish this virus competently and thoroughly.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ellen,

Other recent bugs killed many more than the coronavirus has so far. Yet the climate change debacle kept going while the bugs were killing. I'm not sure those dead and dying were happy to pay the price for that, either.

🙂 

It's kinda like the altruism Rand ranted and railed about. Once people get used to something bad, they adapt and let the bad have a place in their affairs. Then new bad things come along. And then people blame the new bad things on a new cause and ignore the bad thing they tolerated all along that produced similar results.

I don't see the connection between people dying of a virus--viruses have killed people since before recorded history--and defunding a tyrant (WHO).

Tyrants are normally deposed by warriors through violence. President Trump withheld funding through peaceful means. I suppose we could call the casualties of the virus collateral damage like any war produces, but even in that case, I just don't see cause and effect.

WHO is inept and corrupt and that's how it dealt with the outbreak. President Trump did what he always does with the inept: "You're fired!"

I'm pretty sure the virus didn't care one way or another. It killed people because that's what it does. It wasn't ordered by WHO to kill people and WHO didn't have the power to order it to stop. Ditto for President Trump. Like tmj said above, there was no trade. The virus is nature. Trade is something humans do among themselves.

I don't like the metaphor of people paying a price in death from a virus for the US to get rid of WHO and the UN. I just gave some reasons, but there's still something buried in that metaphor that is bugging me and I can't nail it yet. To use another metaphor, I suspect there's a deadly virus hidden in that metaphor.

🙂 

Michael

The CDC is corrupt too. The virus death count seems to be grossly overstated. Don't get me wrong, if it gets in your lungs it can kill you. The death certificating has gone fraudulent. Money is involved. If someone dies on a ventilator the hospital gets $39,000 if it's a CCP virus cause on the d.c. 1/3 that if not. (My remarks here are tertiary. I got this from a secondary.)

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, tmj said:

Price implies trade , at what point is/will the cost be voluntary ?

I agree and think that some of the results are good ,  and objectively good, the deaths notwithstanding.

They aren't part of any 'deal', right ? No one set up any bargain to trade good results against death.

And trade implies exchange of value. Objective values are held hierarchically: is this worth more or less than that?

Worth *less* is making a self-sacrifice, altruism. It's not as though there, normally, is an iota of conflict between man's life and men's lives. But men and women do die, anyhow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I don't like the metaphor of people paying a price in death from a virus for the US to get rid of WHO and the UN. I just gave some reasons, but there's still something buried in that metaphor that is bugging me and I can't nail it yet. To use another metaphor, I suspect there's a deadly virus hidden in that metaphor.

🙂 

Michael

Perhaps the "something buried in that metaphor" is "consequentialism".

I'd reckon, false causation. When and if anything good emerges following the bad, the good is not necessarily contingent on the bad. WHO would have got its comeuppance, sooner or later, by a moral actor/nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I don't like the metaphor of people paying a price in death from a virus for the US to get rid of WHO and the UN. I just gave some reasons, but there's still something buried in that metaphor that is bugging me and I can't nail it yet. To use another metaphor, I suspect there's a deadly virus hidden in that metaphor.

It doesn't sit well with your core story?  

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the metaphor is it disputes the efficacy of reason, but in war reason is practical, not philosophical. If not your conflict is practical vrs philosophical as in the movie Shenandoah it's with not so good results. If you have the right ideas you can make the best practical choices given the enveloping situation.

--Brant

blood and flowers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

It doesn't sit well with your core story?  

Ellen

Ellen,

LOL...

No it doesn't.

My core story being themed on the sanctity and independence of the individual.

I get a Brazilian flavor to that metaphor. Not the Brazil of today, but from the time of the military dictatorship I lived through--back when a person in prison was once issued a death certificate giving cause of death as suicide, but he had 5 bullets in his head.

🙂

The vibe is the same. There's a bullying resonance in that metaphor I don't like. A kind of dare to knock the chip off the shoulder--accept the explanation as true or else. An implication of, whaddya gonna do about it? 

I'm not saying this was you. I am saying the metaphor conveys this vibe to someone like me. And if it conveys it to me, it probably conveys it to others.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a minute! Did the dead people put their lives on the line to get rid of WHO and the UN? Did they man the barricades? Or were they just cannon fodder or, worse, nothing at all? What we have here is lack of moral agency except by bad actors rationalizing celebrating good things from bad things. Shit stinks. Why talk about the value of night soil!

--Brant

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

Space Force!

I don't know anything about Logan Paul except that his Twitter is followed by over five million people.

Paul and others posted video they took of fast-moving lights in the sky, then U.S. Space Command Tweeted, “We've seen a massive explosion ... ”

 

 

Getting a bit weary of the "woo" in the Q- Continuum. That space command quote didn't say they saw a literal explosion...and Logan Paul is, well, he's an idiot. (He's an YouTube prankster who caused trouble in a Japanese "suicide forest" , mocking a supposed dead body...)
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Paul and others posted video they took of fast-moving lights in the sky, then U.S. Space Command Tweeted, “We've seen a massive explosion ... ”

 

 

"Then U.s. Space command Tweeted, 'We've seen a massive explosion..." is meant to link to a video of lights in the sky.
The full U.S. Space command tweet reads:

“We’ve seen a massive explosion in everything #space, at the national level & in our military. Every morning we leap out of bed & we come in & stand the watch to maintain our #SpaceDomain.” —RADM Marcus Hitchcock, #USSPACECOM strategy/plans/policy

Logan Paul's tweet is from 12:36 am, SpaceDomain tweet is 12:33 pm.

The SpaceDomain tweet was a response to this tweet:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interpreted that way it means there has been a huge expansion in the importance of everything space in national security and military operations. They are saying space is the new battlefield of the 21st century? Is that a fair summary of what they mean when they talk about the “massive explosion” we've seen?

Link to comment
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