Recommended Posts

One portion of President Trump’s legacy for America will be that he kept us out of wars and the following reflects how I grew up in a military family. It’s a bit of a joke with a big grain of truth. Peter

The Foo Fighters: . . . . I've been waiting on a war since I was young. Since I was a little boy with a toy gun. Is there more to this than just waiting on a war? Just waiting on a war for this and that. There's got to be more to this than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 15k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Michael Stuart Kelly

    4640

  • Peter

    1447

  • 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

Another portion of President Trump’s legacy for America will be his passion for freedom and personal and economic liberty. Here is an interesting clip from Ghs. Peter

The Tao of Strategy Part Three by George H. Smith 6/19/96 . . . . Many other things can influence conversion: a charismatic leader (Gandhi), authority figures (parents who instill libertarian values in their children), a religious text (the Tao Te Ching, by Lao Tzu), a mystical experience, and so forth. . . In such cases an appreciation for the "beauty" of liberty often occurs before a person has acquired detailed information about libertarianism or the arguments in its favor. This passional commitment creates a lasting, reflective interest in liberty, which then stimulates additional study and investigation. (A similar point was made by Adam Smith when he noted that many intellectuals are initially attracted to liberty because of its aesthetic appeal as an integrated theoretical system. Only after their interest is kindled in this way do they embark on further studies and gain understanding about the role of freedom in maximizing economic efficiency and prosperity.)

Converting people to liberty is a noble and worthwhile goal, but how many we can convert and how quickly we can convert them are highly problematical issues. Around twenty-five years ago a libertarian writer seriously proposed what I call the "checkerboard model" of strategy. If you place one grain of sand on the first square of a checkerboard, two on the next square, four on the next, eight on the next, and so on, doubling the number of grains until you reach the sixty-fourth square, you will end up with something like the Sahara desert. According to our master-strategist, if you can only convert two of your friends to liberty, and each of them can convert two of their friends, and so on -- well, I don't recall his figures, but before long we end up with a planet-full of libertarians. (One problem with this model is its assumption that libertarians have friends.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Peter said:

Another portion of President Trump’s legacy for America will be his passion for freedom and personal and economic liberty. Here is an interesting clip from Ghs. Peter

The Tao of Strategy Part Three by George H. Smith 6/19/96 . . . . Many other things can influence conversion: a charismatic leader (Gandhi), authority figures (parents who instill libertarian values in their children), a religious text (the Tao Te Ching, by Lao Tzu), a mystical experience, and so forth. . . In such cases an appreciation for the "beauty" of liberty often occurs before a person has acquired detailed information about libertarianism or the arguments in its favor. This passional commitment creates a lasting, reflective interest in liberty, which then stimulates additional study and investigation. (A similar point was made by Adam Smith when he noted that many intellectuals are initially attracted to liberty because of its aesthetic appeal as an integrated theoretical system. Only after their interest is kindled in this way do they embark on further studies and gain understanding about the role of freedom in maximizing economic efficiency and prosperity.)

Peter,

George described what I call a transcendent experience. Howard Bloom calls this experience "imprinting." Others call it a religious or religious-like conversion.

This state is one of the things I have been aiming at in my fiction writing studies. Among the experiences in reading or listening to a story, or watching a movie, I always want to include a character who achieves this experience, and I want to do it in a manner that the reader of viewer can experience it along with the character.

If that experience is the payoff in a story, for the reader or viewer to connect, the setup has to cause pressure that gets released by this emotional experience. Here are some of the setup-payoff ways I have come up with so far.

Aristotle first nailed this with pity-to fear-to-catharsis. In modern storytelling, you can add hope to the fear and do a hope-fear back-and -forth. And there are other ways to fast-track empathy for a character than pity. Save the cat is a common technique.

Next is an unanswered question that gets more and more urgent as the stakes rise for finding an answer and a countdown is put on it.

Here's one Rand was great at: a struggle against huge odds and enemies to produce something great with the release (payoff) being a feeling of triumph during a demonstration of the finished thing.

The tearjerker. I'm still working on this one, but a common situation I keep seeing for the payoff is reconnecting with someone loved that was thought lost. The tears flow. And the setup for that is the inner struggle of a character to accept the loss while not accepting it and suffering a huge amount pain during the process. Especially poignant is a moment of acceptance, which doesn't need reconnection, just connection. A person wants to be accepted by a person or people he or she values, but is not. Or the person had that acceptance and lost it and dearly wants it back. Then gets it. Tears. The tearjerk is a powerful form of catharsis.

There are others I am probing, but looking at liberty, if you can find a liberty payoff for the following setups, you can get that transcendent feeling added to the concept of liberty.

1. Start with the character suffering unfairly (causing pity in the reader) due to lack of liberty while longing for it, and then fearful of an upcoming event that will seal off his or her liberty forever and cause personal damage, with payoff of winning liberty, added to

2. Not knowing why something awful and liberty consuming is happening (a question) as the situation gets more and more dangerous and intense for enslavement and destruction, with the payoff in a reveal moment that neutralizes the threat or makes defeating it easy, added to

3. A struggle to produce something great against the lack of freedom to be able to do it, with the payoff of producing it, showing it, and having its existence throw off shackles in some form. added to

4. The loss of someone beloved that is tied to liberty, and the longing to be accepted by some person or people that is tied to liberty, with the payoff being reconnection and/or acceptance.

If you can gin up just these four setups and payoffs in the same story, I believe you cause this feeling of transcendence and emotional imprint about liberty in the audience. The result will be love of liberty and long-standing interest in it by the audience.

After all, you emotionally frame liberty with release of fear and realization of hope, the relief of finding an answer to a critical question, the feeling of personal triumph, and the flood of tears from reconnecting and/or acceptance. Hit 'em with that quadruple whammy and you have anchored liberty deep in their brains.

I think this is far more useful than thinking about people as tokens that multiply on a chessboard according to an arbitrary math formula. Leave it to libertarians (and I consider myself one to some extent) to try to control others in this manner and call it liberty. :) 

The process I described is not controlling the other from on high. The audience person has to become invested by choice for the emotional persuasion to work. He or she has to like it enough to allow themselves to transport into it.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

George described what I call a transcendent experience.

I agree. Why demote rational intelligence and emotion to less than it is?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am feeling pissed off but not yet depressed. In his second inaugural address President Bush said: From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights and dignity . . . . Across the generations, we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government." And he vowed to "all who live in tyranny and hopelessness" that "when you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. Peter

From “Imperium,” by Robert Harris: How do you conquer Rome with no weapon other than your voice? Cicero: Sometimes, if you find yourself stuck in politics, the thing to do is start a fight – start a fight, even if you do not know how you are going to win it, because it is only when a fight is on, and everything is in motion, that you can hope to see your way through.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Barack Obama won the electoral college 528 to 365 in 2008, and 538 to 332 in 2012.

Donald Trump won in 2016, 538 to 304.

Biden won 538 to 306 in 2020.  

President elect Biden’s popular vote was 81,009,468 to former President Trump’s 74,111,419 if I got that right. The stupid site I went to won’t let you cut and paste.

Jo Jorgensen of the Libertarian Party got 1,862,124 so if all Libertarians had voted for Trump it would have been closer but not a popular vote win for Donald J. Trump.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump finally spoke to journalists.

Trump plays cards close to his chest when asked about future plans

Quote

Former President Donald Trump gave nothing away about his plans for life after the White House as he dined with friends at his golf club on Friday.

“We’ll do something, but not just yet,” he told the Washington Examiner as he sat at his regular table in the Grill Room of the Trump International Golf Club. An aide to the former chief executive then swooped in and swiftly, but politely, ended the interaction.

Those marked his first words to a journalist since he left the White House on Wednesday and flew to Florida.

The rest of the article was the journalist speculating, not about much, and talking about the weather.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just listening to one of former President Trump’s worst enemies in the Senate, Mitt Romney, being interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox. To me, Mitt was barely diplomatic and had a lot of vitriol and steam to vent. Here are two interesting points that were brought up.

One: After listening to Rudy, Don Junior, and President Trump in person or on recordings, is there enough evidence of them inciting an insurrection or violence in the Nation’s capital? The New York Times has an interesting site where you can see pictures and film tagged with timelines, so make up your own mind before the newest impeachment trial gets started.

Two: Will there be Republican primaries in 2023 or 2024? Mitt laughed and said there will be and I think he meant ‘SERIOUS’ challenges to President Trump running again in 2024. What do you see happening? Peter

Notes from “The Hill.” Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) would not say during an interview on Sunday whether he will again vote to convict former President Trump in his second Senate impeachment trial, but said the proceedings are likely constitutionally sound. "I think there will be a trial and I hope it goes as quickly as possible but that's up to the counsel on both sides," he said on "Fox News Sunday."

"There's no question that the article of impeachment that was sent over by the House describes impeachable conduct, but we have not yet heard either from the prosecution or the defense," added Romney, the only Republican to vote to convict Trump in early 2020. "I'll get a chance to hear from them, and I'll do my best as a Senate juror to apply justice as well as I can understand it."

Fox's Chris Wallace asked Romney if he agreed with Republicans calling to throw out the article on procedural grounds, arguing it is unconstitutional to convict a former official. "The Democrats have the majority in the Senate and I doubt they're going to go along with that move," Romney, the Republicans' 2012 presidential nominee, answered. "At the same time, if you look at the preponderance of the legal opinion by scholars over the years  . . .  the preponderance of opinion is that yes, an impeachment trial is appropriate after someone leaves office." Wallace went on to ask the Utah senator his opinion about President Biden's appeals to unity at his inauguration. "I think it's appropriate for us to have unity of purpose, unity of heart," Romney said. "At the same time I think there are some actions that the president is taking that are going to lead to some anger and division." He specifically cited Biden's cancellation of the Keystone XL Pipeline and termination of new leases for oil, gas and coal extraction on federal land.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can’t remember if I mentioned it but I got a letter yesterday supposedly from President Trump but inside it was a request for a donation for the RNC. I don’t think the “Mitt Faction” or any others, are going to bar or keep such a huge fundraiser from The Republican National Committee.

What is “the worst” a President has ever done? Some would say Nixon (on tape) incriminating himself and then not destroying the evidence. Not smart. I don’t think President Trump should be impeached, indicted, or convicted of anything. But could / should President Trump be scolded my Chuck U. Schoomer and Nanny Pigosi for being pissed off and bloviating? Those are not federal offenses, so go ahead. Peter.

Here is some background from Wikipedia. Executive branch [edit] Watergate (1972–1973) Republican 'bugging' of the Democratic Party National Headquarters at the Watergate Hotel led to a burglary which was discovered. The cover up of the affair by President Richard Nixon (R) and his staff resulted in 69 government officials being charged and 48 pleading guilty, including 7 for actual burglary. Eventually, Nixon resigned his position.[38]

John N. Mitchell (R) former United States Attorney General, convicted of perjury.[39] Richard Kleindienst (R) United States Attorney General, convicted of obstruction, given one month in jail. H. R. Haldeman (R) White House Chief of Staff, convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury. Served 18 months in prison. John Ehrlichman (R) former White House Counsel, convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury. Served 18 months in prison. Egil Krogh (R) United States Undersecretary of Transportation, sentenced to six months. John Dean (R) White House Counsel, convicted of obstruction of justice, later reduced to felony offenses and served 4 months. Dwight Chapin (R) Secretary to the President of the United States, convicted of perjury. Herbert W. Kalmbach (R) Nixon's Personal Attorney, guilty of corrupt practices, 191 days in jail. Charles Colson (R) Special Counsel to the President for Public Liaison, convicted of obstruction of justice. Served 7 months.

Spiro Agnew (R) Vice President of the United States, pleaded nolo contendere (no contest) to income-tax evasion (1973).[40] Maurice Stans (R) United States Secretary of Commerce, pleaded guilty to three counts of violating the reporting sections of the Federal Election Campaign Act and two counts of accepting illegal campaign contributions and was fined $5,000 (1975).[41]

Link to post
Share on other sites

NEW YORK (AP) — The head of the Republican National Committee on Wednesday declined to encourage former President Donald Trump to run for the White House in 2024, saying the GOP would stay “neutral” in its next presidential primary . . . . end quote

The GOP will remain “neutral”? Nobody knows if former President Donald Trump will want to run in 2024 but we may see clues in the next year or two. Can the Rino’s stay neutral? No, but they will run into a hail storm from Trump voters, the money men (like me and millions of other small time Trump supporters) if they don’t give the OK to his return to the political arena. Let the people decide.

I can’t see Conservatives, or Rubio or Cruz dissing him either, but Mitt Romney, the McCain types, or John Kasich and others might, especially if they want to run or have themselves or a newer candidate in mind to be the next President. Ambition is good, but not if you will surely lose. I see no need for a third Party because if the Rino’s get in the way they will be squashed.   

Will Joe be as well liked as Obama after 4 years in office? Except for the Keystone Pipeline cancelation and a few other things, the majority of voters are not complaining. So far.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew it! We will not be silenced.

From Politico: Trump poll shows impeachment backlash hitting Cheney. Donald Trump’s political operation has commissioned a poll on Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney’s reelection prospects, part of an effort to punish the most high-profile Republican who supported impeaching the former president earlier this month . . . . 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peter said:

Will Joe be as well liked as Obama after 4 years in office? Except for the Keystone Pipeline cancelation and a few other things, the majority of voters are not complaining. So far.   

Oh, it's starting...Look into the Gamestop Wall Street hedgefun short-selling scandal that happened today.
I posted about in on the "Deep State Unraveling" thread just now...
 

“People don’t have to like the their rulers. But once a ruler is hated, people will start risking harm to their own good fortunes, just to fuck with them.

“If you take away people’s hops for the future and then double down by taking away any joy which can be had in the present moment, their only source of dopamine becomes actively fucking with you.”


https://gab.com/Miles/posts/105630683164809695

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Along with MAGA, Patriots, 'silent majority' maintaining a cohesive political front and directing focus on state legislatures to push for as close to paper balloting as can be done. I think it important to push back culturally also. I saw an online petition gathering signatures to pressure Bed Bath and Beyond to relent on their efforts to attack Mike Lindell. I emailed the authors of the petition with an idea I had the night before.

 

profile_mask2.png
   
   
 
 
cleardot.gif
"Dear Patriots
Here's an idea from the couch:
Organize 'shopping parties' , commercial civil disobedience parties, have shoppers fill carts take them to check out and have the items rung up, with two or so remaining items comment to the cashier " oh gosh I forget an item , I need pillows, do you by chance have My Pillows tm ?" "No? oh well then ... I 'm not going to purchase these items either "
Unfortunate outcome for the store employee, but they will have to delete , void sale ticket and management will have to resolve , multiple occurrences will gain attention and corporate will be aware.
It would be great to recruit people to start one off actions in stores and graduate to more organized assemblies. Have groups coordinate , multiple shopping parties in locations at same time, have back to back 'parties' in line at same time, even have parties feign exasperation at first group to walk out and then proceed to do it themselves.
100% nonviolent, and 1000% annoying as 'f' "
 
So many of boycott type maneuvers against right/conservative outlets and personalities have driven by the Twitterati universe and executive boards of so many corporations respond to the trolls and bots. I think what is needed is real world peaceful reaction as opposed to being cowed and remaining couch bound and bitching online, yeah ?
Hattip to That Guy for posting and reminding of Ayn Rand's Fifth Columnist letter, We do need to Do things
 
 
 
 
 
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

More fallout from the Gamestop Hedgefund scandal...

"40% of those investing themselves into the #Gamestop movement are now experiencing for the first time what it's like to be called racist, have their platforms shut down and their voices silenced. This is literally a game-changer. Talk about a Great Awakening."

https://gab.com/MajorPatriot/posts/105634599739900010

"To be clear, the problem isn't so much that THEY HALTED TRADING.
It's that these brokers HALTED BUYING ONLY FOR RETAIL INVESTORS!

"You can still SELL and drive down the price for the hedge funds of these short sell stocks if you want. Sure that's "volatility", just "volatility that favors big money"!!

"THEN, to really drive home just how corrupt America has become... The Biden admin REQUIRED brokers allow "people" (ie the hedge funds) to be able to buy stock if it is to close out short positions!!!"

https://gab.com/DocLance/posts/105634572016534812


This even has Ted Cruz agreeing with Alexandria "Occasional Cortex"...strange bedfellows, indeed...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

When I click on either of those links, I’m told that I have to sign up to Gab to read the comments.

I think the restriction just started today.  Are other people who aren’t Gab subscribers also getting a sign-up-to-read requirement?  (Maybe I'm hitting some kind of glitch.)

Dumb if the platform won’t allow non-subscribers to read comments.

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

When I click on either of those links, I’m told that I have to sign up to Gab to read the comments.

I think the restriction just started today.  Are other people who aren’t Gab subscribers also getting a sign-up-to-read requirement?  (Maybe I'm hitting some kind of glitch.)

Dumb if the platform won’t allow non-subscribers to read comments.

Ellen

Hi, Ellen. I don't know how that works re Gab, but I do try to post the relevant text/and or news links associated with the Gab links for those who can't/don't want to go there. But I assume it's like Facebook or Twitter where one has to have an account to see the content, that's usually standard, I think...

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ThatGuy said:

But I assume it's like Facebook or Twitter where one has to have an account to see the content, that's usually standard, I think...

I’ve never looked at anything on Facebook, but with Twitter links that are posted here and elsewhere I can read the associated threads of comments and other, related tweets, etc.  All that material is showing up if I click on the tweets you embedded above, e.g., from Cruz and AOC.

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I’ve never looked at anything on Facebook, but with Twitter links that are posted here and elsewhere I can read the associated threads of comments and other, related tweets, etc.  All that material is showing up if I click on the tweets you embedded above, e.g., from Cruz and AOC.

Ellen

Yeah, the Twitter links will embed here, but unfortunately, not the Gab posts. Sorry. That's why I also copy the text from the Gab post and paste it above the link.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

Yeah, the Twitter links will embed here, but unfortunately, not the Gab posts. Sorry. That's why I also copy the text from the Gab post and paste it above the link.

 

TG, we aren’t communicating.  I'm not talking about whether or not the post embeds on OL.  I’m talking about being able to read replies to the post on the Gab site.  If I click on a link to a tweet, I can read the whole thread and connected threads.  With the Gab links, I’m told that I have to subscribe to Gab in order to read responses to the post.  That’s dumb of whatever administrators instituted the policy.  Imagine if Michael made a policy here that only people who are subscribed to OL can read posts.

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

TG, we aren’t communicating.  I'm not talking about whether or not the post embeds on OL.  I’m talking about being able to read replies to the post on the Gab site.  If I click on a link to a tweet, I can read the whole thread and connected threads.  With the Gab links, I’m told that I have to subscribe to Gab in order to read responses to the post.  That’s dumb of whatever administrators instituted the policy.  Imagine if Michael made a policy here that only people who are subscribed to OL can read posts.

Ellen

Ah, sorry.

I just tried it with Gab. Yeah, it asks me to sign up/in to see replies to the post. Ce la vie. Is what it is.

 

 

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