PDS

No, it is you who is in top form again.* So good to see. *With apologies to 9th Dr.

Hmmm. Isn't the lawyer who makes $400 per hour acting on behalf of another--assuming no guns are pointed at anybody--acting on behalf of himself? This implicates the Randian concept that there are no conflicts of interest among rational beings. I have never understood the dilemma some Objectivish folks see in that.

Yes sir. Trial lawyer. If Hank R were sued for sexual harassment, he would want me to handle the case.

Agreed. His energy certainly unclenched after that line...

Come to think of it, you may be right. If he weren't so obviously craven, this move could have spring-loaded the comeback you mention. I have my doubts that such a comeback will occur...

Yeah, that's actually what makes my comment so witty.

My wife and watched about 30 minutes of the speech and simply turned it off because we were tired of his shouting.

I don't think the proposed oath is substantively different. When Rand uses the verb "live" for the sake of another man, she is essentially saying "act" for the sake of another man. The subset of actions Rand had in mind is virtually coequal with the her idea of living. Great topic, by the way. And thank you for not bring up Trump!

Thanks for your instructions. Next time you tell me to do something, please use the word "please." I'm not the neighbor kid walking on your lawn, we're not neighbors, and this isn't your lawn. One of the disadvantages to jumping into a conversation and then issuing proclamations of this kind is...pretty obviously demonstrated here. As I said at least three times above, the pledge is moral, not legal. Kinda like where you say above "It isn't a legal matter." As such, a non-binding pledge can be withdrawn: kind of like when Trump withdrew what he obviously viewed as a non-binding pledge in the video I posted above. I notice you left out the word "Trump" in your examples of those who know what the pledge means. In other words, moral pledges have moral implications. This being an Objectivish website and all, I would think this would be intrinsically more interesting to discuss and consider in any event. I still believe Cruz owed Trump, and his voters, a better explanation of why he didn't keep the pledge. If it will make you feel better, I'll expressly agree he owed it to the RNC too.

No. You wouldn't have an excellent argument. I'm trying to be kind here. Let's just say I've been doing this kind of litigation for almost exactly 29 years now. Your argument doesn't fly. By the way, make sure to let us know if you ever hear of the RNC filing such a lawsuit and making your argument. It really is okay to cede an inch of ground once in a while. Nobody will revoke your Trump-loving-privileges for doing so.

If the pledge Cruz signed is the same pledge Trump signed, then there are not "two parties" to a "contract". Priebus signed it as a witness, not a party. The RNC didn't agree to anything in the pledge. Again, the pledge is moral, not legal.

You're missing the point. A party to a contract (in this case it's a "pledge") can be released from its obligations under the contract if the other party repudiates the contract first. Or breaches the contract first. Or indicates that it has no plans to abide by the contract. Not trying to score a point here. Just pointing out that there is no legal basis ("law school 101") for Cruz having to honor his pledge. The basis is moral--as I mentioned twice above. That is sufficient in this context.

I don't recall the Republican Party "blatantly stealing the election" from Trump. And, when you say "the party was letting [nasty things] evolve," I have no idea what you are talking about, or how such things should have been prevented from evolving. You're actually wrong about the law school 101 stuff. Look up the doctrine of "anticipatory repudiation" as only one example of why you are wrong on that. With that said, I still think Cruz should have honored the pledge, even though Trump indicated he wouldn't. Or, he should have had the cajones long ago to say that he wasn't planning to honor the pledge.

Possibly. Or maybe because of this:

Here's what I find troubling about Cruz: he signed a pledge to support the nominee. He didn't do that. He owes/owed Trump (and people who voted for him) an explanation for why he didn't do so. It took big balls to do what he did last night, but it would have been even more strong if he had explained why he was reneging on the pledge.

So, can you tell me what Cruz specifically said this morning that you found contemptible? Anything specific?

Too bad nobody ever invented a contraption that might carry people through the air for long distances, landing them safely and mostly on time. Then maybe Sarah might have actually said something in person at this convention. But, alas, Alaska is a long ways away from Cleveland. MSK: why do you suppose Sarah was not one of the people who actually said something at this convention?

Mikee: I'm curious: from what you watched this morning, what did Cruz say that was contemptible?

Besides all that, why would we want a president whose father may have been in on the assassination of John F. Kennedy? Or whose wife doesn't look like a super model? Or who is "in the pocket" of Wall Street because he has a history of loans with certain banks?

My wife and I watched the Trump/Pence 60 Minutes interview last night. Painful to watch, I tell you. Pence looked like somebody had a shiv to his ribs. Trump treated him like a teenager at his first job interview, with dad watching his every answer and sometimes interrupting. Trump was in "charming, somewhat crazy Uncle Donald" mode, which would be far more entertaining if he didn't have about a 42% chance of becoming President.

MSK: your prescience regarding Trump has only been exceeded by your obeisance regarding Trump.

Bob doesn't even sound like he believes what he is saying. He is trying to convince himself of something and failing, right before our eyes...

KD: what do you think the Pence pick says about Trump's principles as they relate to issues that have led you to support him? I have noticed a strange silence around here from the Trump fans about his picking a pro-war, pro-NAFTA, establishmentarian, Elitist-type.

No, you gotta live with it. This is one of the worst choices possible. It allows Hillary to use Pence's long, long record to mitigate every one of Trump's effective lines of attack. A truly clownish choice, and confirms that Trump doesn't know what he's doing. At least Trump is raising a lot of money to combat the negative ads he's being hit with...Oh wait, maybe not.