Donald Trump

[Roger Bissell]

21 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Roger,

I mocked Cruz for that?

Where?

I can tell you already it didn't happen.

I do recall saying that many Objectivists tend to sell out cheap. All they need is words, like someone reading AS in the Senate, and they won't bother looking at deeds. They'll rewrite history (which they love to do, anyway  ). They're like puppy dogs wagging their tails because they got petted. But that was not mocking Cruz. That was mocking those Objectivists who think in kneejerks. 

I'm glad Cruz likes Rand. If he gets more power than he has, I hope her ideas have a strong influence on him. (I actually think some will.) 

I just don't like his character, I don't like his resume of achievement, and I don't like is love of dirty tricks. I especially don't like the money strings that go back to the neocon Bushes...

Michael

 

Well, sorry to be collectivist and imprecise about it, but somewhere in the past 214 pages of this thread some of you Trumpenproletariat mocked Cruz for doing it and/or some Objectivists for appreciating it. I don't know if there are Objectivists supporting Cruz because he read AS in the Senate -  more likely because he has consistently taken good pro-liberty positions (at least on the economy) and that he also called attention to one of the most important pro-liberty, pro-reason pieces of fiction ever written in America. Even if Cruz doesn't get within a mile of the White House, ever, he has done reason and liberty a big favor by calling attention to the book. Which is a damn sight more than any of the other candidates have done, Rand Paul excepted.

So, you don't Cruz's resume? I dunno - I read the section of his Wikipedia entry on his legal career, and it's pretty damn impressive to me. Maybe you see neocon and/or evangelical schmutz clinging to his achievements, in which case please enlighten us. I have personally accepted grant money to do editorial work for a project supported by the Koch Brothers. Does that make me a neocon or neocon profiteer? It's my understanding that the excessively crowded GOP field for this Presidential cycle was their brainstorm for offering the best assortment of possible candidates from which the best choice would eventually result. Maybe they should have butted out and let the Establishment (aka the Bushes) run the process?

REB

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

18 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

... more likely because he has consistently taken good pro-liberty positions (at least on the economy)... 

Roger,

You mean like working to put US sovereignty under a multi-nation court in trade agreements? That kind of pro-liberty on the economy?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

21 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

Well, sorry to be collectivist and imprecise about it, but somewhere in the past 214 pages of this thread some of you Trumpenproletariat mocked Cruz for doing it...

Roger,

I participated in all 214 and I don't recall a single instance, not out of me, not out of anybody.

The left has mocked Cruz for reading AS on the Senate floor, but no one in O-Land that I am aware of has.

btw - You are not being collectivist or imprecise about it. It's much simpler.

You are wrong.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

24 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

Maybe they should have butted out and let the Establishment (aka the Bushes) run the process?

Roger,

When I look at a statement like this, then look at a graveyard filled with young soldiers from Endless War for profit, or look at Wounded Warriors, I have no sympathy for it.

The elder Bushes made their money making weapons, then doing hidden deals with the Nazis.

Is it any wonder their progeny favor Endless War for profit? It has to be Endless War (meaning the USA jumps around fighting half-assed wars with primitive countries and can't ever win), because big wars don't happen any more.

All that blood of all those young soldiers just so these bastards can live the Life of Riley.

And those are the people you want to continue to run the US election process?

Not me.

Hell no.

But Cruz doesn't mind. Neil Bush is his fundraiser and Jeb endorsed him. He married Heidi while they were both working for a Bush. Man do my warning antennas jiggle all over the place...

Michael

[Peter]

What does a leader say? Follow me!

Michael wrote: But Cruz doesn't mind. Neil Bush is his fundraiser and Jeb endorsed him. He married Heidi while they were both working for a Bush. Man do my warning antennas jiggle all over the place... end quote

That “Bush war” was started by 911 which in its mind numbing severity was similar to Pearl Harbor. No profiteering Americans started that war to plunder federal funds.

Peter

The brilliant Ted Cruz would understand the following. Trump would harrumph and get nothing out of it.

Notes. From Understanding the Global Crisis: Reclaiming Rand’s Radical Legacy by Chris Matthew Sciabarra . . . . Berman wonders who, in the West, will defend liberal ideas against its enemies. Those who admire Ayn Rand know the answer. Rand fought against the mystics of muscle and the mystics of spirit; she fought for a passionate integrated view of human existence that triumphed over the false alternatives of mind and body, reason and emotion, morality and prudence, theory and practice. She fought for reason, but not against spirituality, for productive purpose, but not against creativity, for self-esteem, but not against a humane society of voluntary cooperation and shared values.

But the power of Rand's vision is two-fold: It enunciates broad epistemological and moral principles that guide us in the rational pursuit of rational goals. At the same time, it provides an engine for contextual analysis, which enables us to understand the factors that thwart both moral means and the pursuit of moral ends. Objectivists have been very vocal in stressing the principles of Rand's vision, while often failing to grasp the comprehensive critique that Rand offered of the statist enemies in our midst.

end quote

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

59 minutes ago, Peter said:

That “Bush war” was started by 911

Peter,

The war in Iraq you are talking about? Where we got rid of a dictator because of weapons of mass destruction (somebody said), spent a fortune on nation building, then gave the country back to the bad guys, including massive amounts of equipment?

That was due to 9/11?

Funny how the cronies made out like bandits...

They always do, don't they?

The bad guys--ISIS in fact--got craploads of brand new US humvies and ordinance to kill Americans with, gobs and gobs of it, but I guarantee you, the old Bush cronies got paid every over-budgeted penny for it. (Don't think Obama doesn't have a slice of that pie, too.)

If Cruz gets in, he's got a place at that table. Seeing how he's now on the Bush payroll, I have very little doubt he will sit down and eat when the time comes. And wage more Endless War for profit (while calling it something else).

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

btw - The Afghanistan take-down was cool.

Not only did the cronies get to sell lots of equipment to the Defense Department, they got a corner on the heroin trade to boot (through surrogates, of course).

Too bad they didn't get Bin Laden for years...

But the cronies got paid on time, every time...

Michael

[william.scherk]

In reply to REB!

1 hour ago, Roger Bissell said:
No, Cruz's reading Atlas may have been a purer statement of principles he likes than the sum total of his Senate votes might indicate, but it is very similar to his stand in Iowa against ethanol subsidies. He is willing to go into the lion's den, as few others are, and to say what he's for or against and not back down. When he says he wants to eliminate subsidies, and he is willing to forego the votes of the constituents for subsidies, that means something very important to me.

Can I switch policy poles out here, Roger?  I could be impressed that Cruz spoke against ethanol subsidies, and yet still have the same doubts on issues as I do with Drumpf. For example, the border, trade, immigration 'deals' a Cruz administration would punch out, the 100 days priorities list, which will presumably include his policies on gay marriage and religious freedom. And kind of hanging in the background like a wraith, his tup-thumping no-exceptions abortion intentions. These are kind of indicative things for me in my political context, not derived from Randian precepts.

I don't think we need guess wildly at Stephen's cut-off for support. 

How do you approach a stance on Cruz and his presidentiality through a 'social libertarian' lens -- or without the lens, more pragmatically. Or how will a Cruz presidency satisfy you on the social issues he seems intent to muck in on. Does anything stick up for you, any obvious red flags on his policy field. 

Think of me as an unconvinced would-be voter. .What makes me choose Cruz over Johnston, Third Party Surprise or Clinton?  I have in mind our Stephen in the booth. I don't know where you are going, Reb!

1 hour ago, Roger Bissell said:
This is why when Cruz says he wants a flat tax and to abolish the IRS, I believe him. I take this as being on the same or higher level of believability as I did Nixon's (Quaker-faith-supported) promise to abolish the SSS (draft). I hope he gets the chance to campaign on this promise in the fall. Drumpf hasn't shown me anything faintly worthy, by comparison. Cruz is the only remaining GOP candidate who is even 50% acceptable to me. If he's not nominated, I'll definitely be voting (write-in) for Gary Johnson (assuming the Libertarian Party nominates him) - and speaking out on his behalf, as well.

I must be uninformed. Isn't a Johnson appearance on ballots a given this year?  Surely the actual ballot access can be accomplished by the wonks of the party.  But, maybe I can steer you into a more critical stance on Cruz, Roger.  It looks like you are doing some horse-trading in your head, and that you figure Cruz will rate out well on your favoured economic and honey-I-shrank-the-government indices. 

What about the soft, squishy, human indices. Are you still above the hold-yer-nose-and-vote line?

57 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:
I don't know if there are Objectivists supporting Cruz because he read AS in the Senate -  more likely because he has consistently taken good pro-liberty positions (at least on the economy) and that he also called attention to one of the most important pro-liberty, pro-reason pieces of fiction ever written in America. Even if Cruz doesn't get within a mile of the White House, ever, he has done reason and liberty a big favor by calling attention to the book.

If it is not much more than a cultural touchstone, like rubbing Buddha's belly, and less an indicator of good, solid, conservative economics, I will agree. Shower him with rose petals. I still have a gut-level feeling of disquiet most sharpened when he goes all whack Christian.

 

57 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:
Maybe you see neocon and/or evangelical schmutz clinging to his achievements, in which case please enlighten us.

I do see hardline Christian schmutz built-in to his policies and I don't see that stain being removed. He is not going to spin secular, is he? Can he? Maybe I am reading wrongly.   It is the biggest iffy-ness and ick factor, however much I josh about him being my sentimental favourite. Among my Canucki friends, the hands-down first choice of descriptor is ...  wait for it ... creepy.   As in creepy pastor.  I just cannot dissociate Cruz the campaigner/speaker/TV actor from the desire to lead to a more Christian world, via legislation, via a newly Christian-infused court. 

As for his foreign policy wigginess, I will return to it for our next round, Roger.

[Roger Bissell]

Hey there, Mr. Scherk - I hear you, or your robot British guy voice, or whatever. You asked for me to explain to you, a possible, would-be Cruz supporter why I think Cruz is the best candidate for President, and you asked that I do so not just in regard to the economy, but also in regard to civil liberties and foreign policy - or at least to provide some reassurances that Cruz would not commit some gross evil in the latter two areas that would offset whatever good he might do in regard to the economy. Or something like that.

Well, predicting what a Democrat or Republican will actually do once in office is a pretty risky matter, especially if they've not even held office before. But even the regular politicians, with actual track records, do not always keep going down the same path they were or campaigned on before elected to the Presidency. FDR is a good example. So is Bill Clinton. For better or worse, I guess you could say.

I've finally gotten around to comparing Ted Cruz's website to Donald Trump's, which I looked at several months ago. Cruz has provided a great deal of material on his track record as well as details of policies and actions he will carry out if elected. Here's a link: https://www.tedcruz.org/issues/. I guess there's plenty there that libertarians or Objectivists could hate or be worried about if he were to be elected, as well as a lot of good things. I'd start there, just to see how reasonable or scary he sounds in detail.

It might be fun to do a "report card" on his record of achievements and on his proposals, just to see how the things he's proud of doing or planning to do match up with your or my own standards. I tossed out a careless figure of 50%, which probably implied that I think Cruz meets that threshold of acceptability. I'm not really sure whether he does, and one thing I'll be doing shortly is to go through all that material and making some kind of overall rating, as well as identify any serious problem areas in which he might be likely to do more harm than good.

I know that avoiding unnecessary war and defending civil liberties are important to libertarians, and I know that there is some concern as to whether Cruz would be a hawkish theocrat, which would be a bloody, godawful mess for all of us if he were. I personally do not think he would, but hey, FDR and LBJ campaigned against war, and look where voting for them got us. But I have no doubt that he would defend the Constitution and push to reduce the size of government taxation, spending, and regulation and in general free up the economy.

Beyond that, I'm guessing and hoping like a lot of folks - mainly hoping he would have his priorities straight and not spend a lot of time and energy trying to overturn Roe v. Wade or a lot of precious lives in the meatgrinder of the Middle East (or anywhere else).

REB

P.S. - I made a little file of the 9 issues areas on Cruz's website, and it's attached here. It may be a handy reference tool to print out and mark up, as you figure out whether supporting Cruz over the other GOP and Democrat candidates would make the most sense.

 

Ted Cruz for President.doc

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Drudge tweaked his front page:

 

btw - On his Facebook page, he made a congratulatory comment to the Boston Globe for their fake front page. He said it reminded him of an April 1 college newspaper prank.  

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a Trump retweet on the Colorado mess.

"@TimeHasCome1: @WayneDupreeShow @ThePatriot143 Trump needs to hold a massive protest rally in Colorado. He'd get 100k & own the news cycle"

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 11, 2016

That's not a bad idea a few days before a major primary state vote like California.

And if he retweeted it...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Peter,

The war in Iraq you are talking about? Where we got rid of a dictator because of weapons of mass destruction (somebody said), spent a fortune on nation building, then gave the country back to the bad guys, including massive amounts of equipment?

That was due to 9/11?

Funny how the cronies made out like bandits...

They always do, don't they?

The bad guys--ISIS in fact--got craploads of brand new US humvies and ordinance to kill Americans with, gobs and gobs of it, but I guarantee you, the old Bush cronies got paid every over-budgeted penny for it. (Don't think Obama doesn't have a slice of that pie, too.)

If Cruz gets in, he's got a place at that table. Seeing how he's now on the Bush payroll, I have very little doubt he will sit down and eat when the time comes. And wage more Endless War for profit (while calling it something else).

Michael

itI know nothing about "elder Bushes" and Nazis but this ad hominem doesn't seem germane or supportive of a rational statement.

The two Bushes who became President had long ties to the oil industry. Does Ted Cruz because he's a Senator from Texas?

As I recall BushI was indecisive about how to respond to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait until Margaret Thacher's encouragement. What were her oil industry ties?

I could elaborate on what I've put up so far--pause and back fill--and then go on to BushII and the 2003 invasion, throwing in he was pissed at Hussein for trying to kill Daddy and his Christian fundamentalism, but there's no point. The subject deserves a book and perhaps one has already been written. (Let's not forget ignorance and stupidity.) I am interested in how the oil industry benefited and I'm sure you can explain, but I'm not so sure about what other industries did to the point of effectively encouraging the actual invasion and conquest of Iraq with the most powerful man on earth as anybody's puppet. I do see a lot of self-puppetry, blockheadedness, ignorance, failure to learn.

--Brant

Cruz wants to be the most powerful man on earth qua power--I think Trump wants power in a much more superficial sense and Sanders, unlike Clinton, isn't evil, just a stupid ignorant, know-nothing

The United States is much too big for its britches--its britches being rational governance

[Peter]

Brant wrote: Cruz wants to be the most powerful man on earth qua power--I think Trump wants power in a much more superficial sense and Sanders, unlike Clinton, isn't evil, just a stupid ignorant, know-nothing. The United States is much too big for its britches--its britches being rational governance. end quote

I agree that Cruz is the guy to slim down government instead of buying bigger britches, but I do not think he is a man who lusts after power. Would Hillary, Cruz, or Donald, be more likely to leave the Presidency richer through crony capitalism? You need not pick just one. 

Here is a topic to discuss as regards supposed war machines, war mongers, and an opportunist and narcissist like Donald Trump: The morality of a profiteer and ticket scalpers. I am not trying to be funny, and I am discounting the conspiracy theory that the mythical Daddy Warbucks can start wars. I think the same morality is in play with profiteers and ticket scalpers. Self interest is there of course, but is it the timing that is immoral?

Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

itI know nothing about "elder Bushes" and Nazis but this ad hominem doesn't seem germane or supportive of a rational statement.

Brant,

That's a statement, I suppose.

It doesn't sound rational to me.

Tit for tat.

So there.

btw - Roger Stone is not popular among neocons and leftists, but he does have great sources. See if you can get a copy of this book, then hunt down the sources he mentions to verify them. Jeb! and the Bush Crime Family: The Inside Story of an American Dynasty by Roger Stone and Saint John Hunt, Forward by John LeBoutillier.

I only read the first few chapters so far (still concerning Jeb), but it's an eye-opener, even discounting Stone's agenda.

Or don't look at the book or any such information and keep talking about ad hominems...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Drudge tweaked his front page again:

 

Now Drudge is getting into the covert stuff.

Too on the nose for maximum effect, but still...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And a comment by Stephen Miller:

RCPV page here: Trump Advisor Stephen Miller: Cruz Doesn't Win With Voters, He Wins GOP Insiders.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

Brant wrote: Cruz wants to be the most powerful man on earth qua power--I think Trump wants power in a much more superficial sense and Sanders, unlike Clinton, isn't evil, just a stupid ignorant, know-nothing. The United States is much too big for its britches--its britches being rational governance. end quote

I agree that Cruz is the guy to slim down government instead of buying bigger britches, but I do not think he is a man who lusts after power. Would Hillary, Cruz, or Donald, be more likely to leave the Presidency richer through crony capitalism? You need not pick just one. 

Here is a topic to discuss as regards supposed war machines, war mongers, and an opportunist and narcissist like Donald Trump: The morality of a profiteer and ticket scalpers. I am not trying to be funny, and I am discounting the conspiracy theory that the mythical Daddy Warbucks can start wars. I think the same morality is in play with profiteers and ticket scalpers. Self interest is there of course, but is it the timing that is immoral?

Peter

?

Presidents can and have started wars.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

That's a statement, I suppose.

It doesn't sound rational to me.

Tit for tat.

So there.

btw - Roger Stone is not popular among neocons and leftists, but he does have great sources. See if you can get a copy of this book, then hunt down the sources he mentions to verify them. Jeb! and the Bush Crime Family: The Inside Story of an American Dynasty by Roger Stone and Saint John Hunt, Forward by John LeBoutillier.

I only read the first few chapters so far (still concerning Jeb), but it's an eye-opener, even discounting Stone's agenda.

Or don't look at the book or any such information and keep talking about ad hominems...

Michael

Thanks for the heads up. I did some reading. I found out about Bush war profiteering, but not how the Bush family started WWI and WWII or how the ancestors of two Presidents infected their offspring with nature or nurture or both n and n war making proclivities.

Issues of criminality center on who did what after Pearl Harbor. There are additional pre-war (WWI and WWII) moral issues.

Jeb Bush? Say he's a criminal and Samuel and Prescott Bush were too. Does that justify throwing in the two Georges and calling theirs a criminal family? I'm sure it helps sell books since they were both President. Are things such that any President must be a criminal, de facto if not de jure? Morally if not legally? I say legally, at least, for gross constitutional violations. In fact, we have a criminal ruling--not just elected--class, mostly bureaucrats. Big money always buys big advantages but the biggest money is already in the state or available to its operators and is constantly sucked into the deep state. If the book doesn't go into that too, too bad.

--Brant

[Selene]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,Forward by John LeBoutillier.

I only read the first few chapters so far (still concerning Jeb), but it's an eye-opener, even discounting Stone's agenda.

Or don't look at the book or any such information and keep talking about ad hominems...

Michael

John goes way back with our movements beginnings in NY City.

What does he have to say Michael? 

I always liked him.

A...

[Peter]

A sneak attack could start a war. A fired nuclear missile could start a war. A mistake could start a war. But could a liquored up on tequila, President Donald Trump, go to the Mexican border in San Diego, grab a stick by his own self, Andy, and with a few Secret Service men trying to protect him, attack the Mexican gate guards, thereby starting a war? Oh, sure it could happen, but stop tickling me.

What I dispute is that a person or a group of manipulators can decide to start an international conflict to improve their financial situations. I know nabobs and newspaper magnates like William Randolph Hearst tried to start conflicts but it takes Congress to declare war. It takes warriors willing to do their bidding.

Peter

[Roger Bissell]

18 hours ago, Roger Bissell said:

18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Roger,

I mocked Cruz for that?

Where?

I can tell you already it didn't happen.

I do recall saying that many Objectivists tend to sell out cheap. All they need is words, like someone reading AS in the Senate, and they won't bother looking at deeds. They'll rewrite history (which they love to do, anyway  ). They're like puppy dogs wagging their tails because they got petted. But that was not mocking Cruz. That was mocking those Objectivists who think in kneejerks. 

I'm glad Cruz likes Rand. If he gets more power than he has, I hope her ideas have a strong influence on him. (I actually think some will.) 

I just don't like his character, I don't like his resume of achievement, and I don't like is love of dirty tricks. I especially don't like the money strings that go back to the neocon Bushes...

Michael

 

 

 

Well, sorry to be collectivist and imprecise about it, but somewhere in the past 214 pages of this thread some of you Trumpenproletariat mocked Cruz for doing it and/or some Objectivists for appreciating it. I don't know if there are Objectivists supporting Cruz because he read AS in the Senate -  more likely because he has consistently taken good pro-liberty positions (at least on the economy) and that he also called attention to one of the most important pro-liberty, pro-reason pieces of fiction ever written in America. Even if Cruz doesn't get within a mile of the White House, ever, he has done reason and liberty a big favor by calling attention to the book. Which is a damn sight more than any of the other candidates have done, Rand Paul excepted.

 

 

OK, so it wasn't on THIS thread. It was over on page 7 (heh) of the Cruz Nuz thread, which I have conveniently reposted there on the leading edge of today's posts. Turns out the mockery was by some obscure poster who runs a backwater quasi-Objectivist website that some have mocked as being the place where enemies of Objectivism go to die, or something like that.

Anyway, here it is again, along with a little follow-up that you chose not to reply to. Enjoy.

REB

On 4/3/2016 at 4:46 PM, Roger Bissell said:

On 4/3/2016 at 4:14 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ted Cruz SAYS he is more consistent with Objectivist Politics than anyone else and he throws a bone to Objectivists by reading passages of Atlas Shrugged out loud.

What he DOES in the Senate and backstage is a crapload different... Notice that anything he DOES that is antithetical to Objectivist Politics gets done (crony trade agreements anyone?). Anything he DOES to support Objectivist Politics dies (Don Quixote monologues anyone?).

I realize that is not an important distinction to SAYS people, but it is critical to DOES people.

If you're a SAYS kind of guy, Cruz is near perfect. (Note, most ortho-Objectivists are talkers, not doers.) 

If you're a DOES kind of guy, you will seek out productive doers like Trump.

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cruz campaigned in Iowa taking a stand against ethanol subsidies, which are supported by the Establishment GOP and crony capitalists there. Yet, he came out the winner. Was taking that politically risky stand SAYING or DOING? (Fans of the fallacy of the false alternative will recognize that it was both SAYING -AND~ DOING.)

REB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is wrong in so many ways. First of all, this is what I was referring to over on page 39,413 of the Trump thread as MSK and others "mocking" Cruz for reading AS on the floor of the Senate. If this isn't mocking per se, it's certainly attempting to reduce it to insignificance and hypocrisy. Secondly, as noted below, Cruz both SAYS AND DOES on many issues. No, he's not completely consistent, but he's not just a TALKER-NOT-DOER, nor are most ortho-Objectivists. (I don't know where one would get such information about ortho-Objectivists to base such a claim on, anyway.) I know quite a few Objectivists supporting Cruz, ortho or otherwise, who are both TALKERS-AND-DOERS, like Cruz. I'm sure there are Trump-supporters who qualify for each of the talk-action categories. So, why attack the character of people you don't even know? And more importantly, why FALSELY attack Cruz's character and record?? Go to his website and read the voluminous details of the things he has DONE, not just the things he has SAID. I've read Trump's web pages on policy twice and see NOTHING on what he has DONE to support the policies he proposes except TALK. Unfortunately, he sometimes says conflicting things on issues two or three times the same day (like on the abortion issue, recently). This is preferable to Cruz? Really? I wonder how Trump would govern. I wonder, I wonder...well, no, I don't wonder. He would no doubt continue to utter 3 contradictory things every alternate Thursday, and 6 on Sunday. (See below for more.)

On 4/3/2016 at 6:33 PM, Roger Bissell said:

On 4/3/2016 at 5:06 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

SAYING.

I didn't see Cruz DO anything about ethanol except talk.

Don't tell me you think just because a politician SAYS one thing during an election, he will DO it. If so, I have a bridge... (you know the rest...  ).

 

 

 

 

He has consistently (I'm not sure of any lapses) VOTED against subsidies in Congress - is that SAYING or DOING? To me, it's both. It's not just SAYING you're against them, it's DOING something against them, namely, voting against them.

Similarly, in the Iowa caucus campaign, he remained consistent with what he DID in Congress, by continuing to oppose subsidies - when he could have gotten more votes by changing his position, as some others did.

On 4/3/2016 at 5:08 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Speaking of Iowa, here's what I saw Ted Cruz DO.

He had his staff tell voters Ben Carson was no longer running right at the caucuses and right at voting time.

Of course, he SAYS that's not what he did, but he did it. Seven Mountains or not.

 

 

 

 

So, maintaining consistency in SPEECH and ACTION about subsidies is NOT doing. But "having your staff" SAY something is DOING?

Sounds to me like you're mangling and reversing the distinction between Cruz's DOING and SAYING when it exists in a rather unclear situation, and ignoring his overall DOING ~AND~ SAYING consistently about subsidies, when the evidence is very clear-cut and first-person.

On 4/3/2016 at 5:08 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I wonder how he would govern, I wonder, I wonder...

That's really funny, coming from a supporter of the candidate who has a different position on issues each day of the week - and sometimes more than one position on a given day, or even in a single hour. 

REB

 

 

 

I didn't notice a response to this post. I guess MSK was too busy stomping and stomping Robert and the governor of Wisconsin. (Feel better now, MSK?)

Reb!

[Selene]

59 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

I didn't notice a response to this post. I guess MSK was too busy stomping and stomping Robert and the governor of Wisconsin. (Feel better now, MSK?)

Reb!

Wow Roger, wouldn't it be easier to just wipe the egg off your face?

                                                                                              

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

44 minutes ago, Selene said:

Wow Roger, wouldn't it be easier to just wipe the egg off your face?

Adam,

I guess not. He copy/pasted the same post on two different threads.

Here is my answer to him on the other thread.

The gist is that I used the term  "Don Quixote monologue" and he took that to mean me mocking Cruz for reading AS on the Senate floor. Cruz's monologues are publicity stunts and they are a hell of a lot longer than what little he read from Rand. I mentioned if he did one of these publicity stunts only reading Rand, I would cheer.  Even if he got absolutely nothing done, as his normal monologues are designed to do.

Cruz's actual votes, however... His DOING, well, there is where he gives up US sovereignty, legalizes illegal aliens and the like. (Cruz has most recently adopted some of Trump's ideas--see here, so there is a discrepancy between what he has done in the Senate and what he now says...)

In other words, Cruz DOES little, but in his doing he keeps inside the good graces of the corrupt establishment (like the Bush machine, but others, too). Cruz SAYS a lot through publicity stunts that get nothing done other than good press, so there is no threat of consequence to the corrupt establishment.

I repeat, I did not mock Cruz for reading AS on the Senate floor, nor do I know of anyone here on OL who has done so. Roger is wrong about that and it stings.  

I do want to quote a thought from my post on the other thread: "That doesn't mean I'm mocking him for reading AS. I didn't even mock him for reading Green Eggs and Ham. I'm mocking the kneejerk Objectivist and libertarians who get all fluttery moon-eyed and turn into mush when he mentions Rand in public."

 

As to voting against corn subsidies, that would impress me if Cruz were not working to undermine US trade sovereignty along with it. I used one metaphor on the other thread (curing a cold while amputating one's legs needlessly), but let me come up with a new one for this post.

Hmmm...

Cruz's stance against corn subsidies in light of his other votes is like painting the tool shed out on the lawn as you burn the house down--then go around bragging about what a great house painter you are. Let's say, I'm not impressed.

Trump actually builds stuff. Trump DOES things, he does productive things, and he does them right, on time and under budget. Gobs of them.

Anywho, notice that my post here is not copy/pasted (except for one thought), but gives my position all the same for whatever that's worth. 

I probably could have jiggered the egg on face metaphor into this, but now I want to write something else...

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On another issue about Cruz and Trump, I just went to TheBlaze.

Where are all the friggin' Cruz stories all of a sudden?

Beck should be crowing about Colorado right now, about how God's hand is moving the earth to establish Cruz as King of America, and he isn't.

Hmmmmm...

I recall a day or two ago, Beck said there was one thing Cruz could do that would make him no longer believe Cruz was the man he imagined. It would be if Cruz made a deal with Trump and became his VP or even vice-versa. In other words, if Cruz made a deal with Trump, period.

(That actually would seal the deal for Trump's nomination and Cruz's presidency 8 years down the road and I. for one, hope it happens.)

Today, Beck's coverage on TheBlaze is no longer screaming the glories of Cruz. (I don't know about his radio or TV shows since I no longer tune in--I gave up my subscription.)

Is this a coincidence and soon it will get back to normal--or is it a sign?

All I can say right now is...

Hmmmmmm...

Michael

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Selene said:

John goes way back with our movements beginnings in NY City.

What does he have to say Michael? 

I always liked him.

Adam,

It's about Jeb's drug dealing business in college and the later whitewash.

Michael