PDS
-
Posts
2,011 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by PDS
-
-
4 minutes ago, merjet said:
PDS, I asked if you were a lawyer since I thought a lawyer should see a big difference between Galt's Oath and the second oath (with "act" instead of "live"). A lawyer acting on behalf of his/her client would violate the second oath, but could do so without violating Galt's Oath. Ditto for other occupations, allowing for a suitable substitute for "client".
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.
-
On 7/22/2016 at 9:50 AM, merjet said:
PDS, you said on another thread that you've been doing litigation for many years. Are you a lawyer?
Yes sir.
Trial lawyer. If Hank R were sued for sexual harassment, he would want me to handle the case.
-
On 7/22/2016 at 11:25 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
I'm going to frame this...
Michael
-
7 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Peter Thiel's speech at the convention:
When he said the following, he brought down the house:
I was expecting a gasp when he said, "I am proud to be gay," seeing this was a Republican convention and all, but that didn't happen. That was exactly when he started bringing down the house. To my mind, he even looked a little surprised.
Michael
Agreed. His energy certainly unclenched after that line...
-
14 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
David,
I don't think Cruz owes anyone an explanation. He defines his public persona as a man who keeps his word, a man of conviction and integrity. He decided not to keep his word on something very, very simple, where he even bound himself by signing a pledge before the entire world. Regardless of what he explains or how he explains it, these words will come off as political yawp, blah blah blah, to most people.
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...
-
25 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
David,
Not to worry. You brought him up.
Michael
Yeah, that's actually what makes my comment so witty.
-
3 hours ago, merjet said:
Galt's Oath: “I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.”
An alternative oath: "I swear that I will never act for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to act for my sake."
Note that the essential change is "live" to "act."
1. Are these substantively different, and why or why not?
2. Would you take the alternative oath, and why or why not?
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!
-
9 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:
There's nothing for Michael to cede.
*****
Everyone knows what the pledge means, including you, Steve, Preibus, Ted. You should cede.
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.
-
35 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
David,
So do you have the one with Cruz's signature beside Trump's?
I didn't think so.
Therefore Trump and Cruz are not parties to contract with each other.
If this ever were to be litigated for real for whatever reason, I would argue that the pledge was made to the Republican National Committee since it was made on the stationery of the same, it dealt with the Republican nomination for president, and the pledge was formally accepted by the RNC by being witnessed and dated by the RNC's chairman. I think I would have an excellent argument.
So, yes, two parties to the contract. With 17 separate contracts.
Michael
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.
-
8 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
David,
OK.
What other party?
When did the Republican Party repudiate its agreement with Ted Cruz?
Cruz had no agreement with Trump. He had an agreement with the Republican Party where Trump's role could have been any of the other candidates.
That's what I'm talking about. You are arguing as if there were only one agreement and the parties to contract were Trump and Cruz. That's totally wrong. There were 17 separate agreements with identical wording and one party to contract that was the same in all 17 (the Republican Party).
Cruz should have endorsed Trump not because he promised Trump he would. He promised the Republican Party he would endorse the winning candidate irrespective of whoever it was. It just happened to be Trump.
Cruz's obligation, as per the agreement (pledge), was to the Republican Party, not to Trump. So, in terms of party to contract, it didn't matter what Trump did. He had his own separate agreement with the Republican Party, just like all the candidates did.
Michael
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.
-
26 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
David,
I never studied at law school, but I certainly translated enough of this stuff (a few thousand pages).
So... Since, according to you, law students don't learn about parties to contract until after "anticipatory repudiation," when do they learn in law school that binding agreements have parties?
Michael
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.
-
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
David,
That was in response to the Republican Party being complicit in blatantly stealing the election from Trump. Back then there were all kinds of nasty things flying around and the party was letting them evolve. However, the Republican Party was more than fair to Ted Cruz all down the line.
Don't forget, the pledge was to the Republican Party, not to any one person. Cruz did not pledge to Trump. He pledged to the Republican Party on RP stationary.
If I have any criticism of Trump in that video, it is that releasing Cruz from his obligation (albeit not legal obligation) to honor the pledge was not his decision to make. It was the Republican Party's.
Notice that Trump's beef was with the Republican Party as one side of an agreement he saw defaulting on its own obligations. He was very vocal when he signed it that he expected to be treated fairly like any other candidate. So he said if the Republican Party was defaulting, he would default, too. In other words, since the Republican Party was sanctioning processes and backroom deals to steal the election from him in the face of massive votes, he did not feel bound to a thief. But note, once the Republican Party stopped defaulting (it did clean up its act), Trump went back to his commitment. This is on video somewhere.
Cruz's beef was with Trump and it was personal. How does that give him the right to default with a third party? At a breakfast this morning, Cruz even said Trump "abrogated" the obligation by insulting his family (see here). That's tortured legal thinking and I'm being generous.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if you could stop paying a mortgage to a bank simply because a different client of the bank insulted your wife and father? That a third-party insult canceled the debt?
You're a lawyer. Shit, this is law school 101 stuff, getting the parties to an agreement right. Cruz knows better, but he did it anyway.
If you want to see a clear way of how Cruz would govern as opposed to Trump, there you have it.
Michael
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.
-
19 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
David,
You mean like explaining he was powerful disappointed he lost and was gambling to jazz up a run in 2020?
Michael
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.
-
14 minutes ago, Mikee said:
The blatant hypocrisy. His pretense of being greatly offended by Trump's "attack" on his wife Heidi. His own dirty tricks during the campaign, notably against Ben Carson were underhanded to the extreme which is why I started calling him "Crafty Cruzy", a play on "Tricky Dicky". He does not have the integrity of character to run for any office in my opinion. And his camp through PAC's, which he denied having any control of but did not try to at all in any perceptible way to control or censure, were the source of the original attacks on Trump's wife which caused the reaction of Trump in a Twitter message which Trump pulled fairly quickly and apologized for. Trump was rightly offended and angry at Cruz's dirty tricks and responded in kind which was unfortunate because Trump has gotten a lot of criticism for it, unfairly in my view. Cruz brought the GOP campaign into the gutter and should be blamed for it. Contemptible, he's dead to me. I had every reason to support him because I was an early and strong supporter of Carly Fiorina, and a strong critic of Trump. Cruz says some of the right things about issues I care about but its a character issue. I wouldn't trust Cruz with power, whereas I believe Trump will find good advisors and will listen to them and make good decisions, good for the country and consistent with the principles most people in this country love living here for.
So, can you tell me what Cruz specifically said this morning that you found contemptible? Anything specific?
-
50 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
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?
-
12 minutes ago, Mikee said:
Just watched Cruz this morning. A contemptible man... Hopefully the last I'll see of this man on the national stage. "Crafty Cruzy", his lies and dirty tricks during the campaign were much worse than Trumps comments after his own wife was insulted. Cruz, in his heart, is gutter low life and mean spirited. Trump got him right.
Mikee:
I'm curious: from what you watched this morning, what did Cruz say that was contemptible?
-
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Steve,
You mean like signing a pledge during a contest, then deciding you don't need to honor it, you can just change those conditions because you didn't win and now see a better deal for 2020?
That kind of "no reason to believe"?
That's exactly what Cruz did. He didn't hide it. The better deal he's thinking about is not going to work out, but that's beside the point. Cruz betrayed his word to his party for what he perceived as a better deal. If he can't keep his simple word on a simple pledge like that, how can anyone believe he would keep his word on swearing an oath to uphold the Constitution?
I honestly believe America dodged a bullet by not electing Cruz as nominee. I have no doubt his fundamentalist religion would take precedence over his political convictions if he ever got executive power. And God (or his father) would tell him what laws he should obey or not. Those folks believe in a concept called the "end time transfer of wealth." Look it up if you don't know what that means.
With executive power in hand, people who don't respect the oaths they take but believe in their divinely anointed privileged status could easily see it as their mission to help God along a bit with His plans... It starts with a little fudge, then a bigger one, then on and on until they have a royal stinking quagmire of oppression and corruption witnessed by a string of incompetent and failed projects. That's the way power works with true believers.
Anyway, try building a skyscraper with a betray-everyone-and-everything-for-short-term-gain way that is now Cruz's hallmark way of competing. The damn thing would fall down, not get done, turn into a mess, etc. (Kinda like government projects in general.
)
Trump's buildings don't fall down. They're big magnificent structures, one after another. And they're done on the capitalistic market through entrepreneurship. Not just in America, but the world over. There's a moral lesson there if you want to see it... I recall Rand writing a book or two about that moral lesson...
Michael
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?
-
On 7/16/2016 at 1:00 PM, KorbenDallas said:
I think it's a safe pick, Pence being someone that won't steal the spotlight, but when he gets to the podium he does a good job and an eventual yes-man if he isn't already. This pick seems to be more about Trump than anything else, so I don't think Trump's policy principles will be affected much, but it does seem to illuminate more of Trump's egotistical side (some would say narcissistic side).
Pence is almost a non-pick pick..
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.
-
12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
I already pardoned the crows and let them out of the aviary. So I'm not going to go back on my word.
See? I'm a nice guy...
But aren't any of the obligated crow-eaters from the bet last year gonna thank me for letting them off the hook? After all, if Trump were not nominated, I have little doubt they would be twisting the screws on me right now.
(Actually, Marc capitulated some time ago, and still does off line--he thinks I'm a genius, so he doesn't count...
)
Michael
MSK: your prescience regarding Trump has only been exceeded by your obeisance regarding Trump.
-
16 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Bob,
You sound like a politician answering a simple question.
What's worse, that question is from a couple of years ago, so you've had time to think about it...
Michael
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...
-
2 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:
Trump has shown he take on big projects, take on big people, and now he wants to take on big government--so far in his bid he has taken the steps to get there...
And to think, if you exercise your Liberty and Volition to cast that vote, you wouldn't even have to jump out of any airplanes
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.
-
33 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
At least it's defined.
Now we gotta live with it.
Michael
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.
-
In this--Trump's first tangible (i.e., non-blowhard) action as a potential President--it is good to see he didn't pick an establishment, elitist, Pro-Iraq War, Pro NAFTA type.
Pence is going to take the Endless War Machine, grab it by the throat and...
Michael: you have been right all along!! Trump truly is a man of principle!!!
Trumporama -- the morning after
in Stumping in the Backyard
Posted
No, it is you who is in top form again.* So good to see.
*With apologies to 9th Dr.