Strictlylogical

Grrrr!!!!

Why not get thousands of voters to join the suit or start their own using the same evidence?

How can Truth also BE Parody? It cannot, but it is... I'm so confused.

ok maybe they are encrypted... and PS I am not suicidal.

Hmm Maybe he should reinstate Epstein’s dead account… I mean publish his dms or pms… are there dms or pms in twitter?

The setup/redirection -to punchline, is sublime.

He should ditch the prevalent big tech model of offering cheaper (or free) stuff to tie down consumers... and go back to a good old exchange of value with no strings. AND Elon should keep the free flying bird motif... and expand from there... into everything... with a theme of offering products and services which enable... Freedom

I think we may be having two different conversations. You seem to be more focused on a live person's sounds and mannerisms, whereas I was focused on the written word. Statesmen throughout history have been known to shout in rage ... but leaving that aside, the eloquence and tone I was referring to had nothing to do with extemporaneous delivery, speaking volume, or quality of voice, physical ticks, pacing, arm waving, fist pumping or fist slamming or the like. My main focus is the words, the text, the substance, and the tone or eloquence they have. I was referring to the conceptual and psychological (and perhaps emotional) content of the words, explicit, or implicit. I have read many speeches which have a very distinct tone and eloquence and the substance of the words (along with their overtones and rich meaning) comes through without having to deal with any physicality of theatrics, wind and fury or sound.. i.e. neither soft-spoken nor spittle-laden. I do not expect a citizen to be "stately" but I expect a representative in office who purports to protect my individual freedoms to. That means first that the person must arise to the station of office and in their official capacity embody that office and all that implies (primarily that it only be carried out consistent with the constitution) and not to act or pronounce anything in that capacity which lowers or personalizes that office. They must to the best of their ability leave their personal biases and baggage at home. Again, physical volume has nothing to do with anything. I can judge tone solely by your choice of the word "dainty". Can you judge my tone of this (somewhat lengthy post) by the words I am using completely absent any auditory or visual cues? I would hope so. There is a long cultural tradition which originates from England, starting with the Magna Carta and culminating in the The Founding Father's Constitutional instruments. They fought a war for freedom, there is nothing dainty about their greatness of character and the nobility of their cause. They knew that, and I would hope you know it too. ? Again, a citizen need not embody a role... no one has entrusted to him any role or office to represent them and protect their rights. He has not been entrusted to be and he should not volunteer to be his brothers' representative or keeper, he owes it to himself to have his voice heard and hold those actual representatives to account. The speech is not stately, it cannot be, no part of the state is speaking... it is a person. The speech is, in its own way eloquent and persuasive. The tone of the text is perfect for a concerned citizen addressing those who have betrayed their role, and yes it is full of righteous rage as it should be. Citizens have had a great impact in the past, as you will recall Thomas Paine's pamphlets were very popular and crucial in getting the American Revolution going. I have nothing against citizens speaking up against oppression, in fact I wish there were more of it. I think it would be unfair to drop Washington into such a vastly changed world and expect him not to bat an eye. Had Washington been given a second life after his first (with all his faculties and experience intact) to experience the past 40 years, he would have learned enough about the modern world to know how to deal with them, or certainly he would have had the courage to act as he felt most effective. You should remember this man fought the war of independence and defeated/fended off a vast and powerful, dare I say, Global, English Empire. He was incredibly rich, with land, and mansions, and slaves, and could have lived a life of leisure, his only requirement would have been to continue to be accessory to a system of oppression and to pay tribute to his overlords in England. Yet, he left his home and commanded the armies, and NOT always from some comfortable safe distance, he PERSONALLY led his men on horseback often in rather dangerous situations. He strode forth and laid it all on the line. This is something we should keep in mind whenever we hear all the blustering and emotional words of a modern day so-called "warrior" from EITHER the left or the right. And now again we veer into foreign territory, "demeanor", "sounds"... and then effectiveness of deed... So yes, deeds are used to judge a person, and certainly so to assess how effective they are at discharging their duties as statesmen, and in the case of America, at representing individuals and protecting their rights. I have not here in any case, dealt with Trump's policies or actions as the President while in office. I am making no statements as to that. Again I was referring to his text about (and ostensibly to the Supreme Court) only, and the tone of it. Maybe I'm old school, but style (personal physical presence) really does not mean anything in ANY context to me. You may be more in tune what the kids call post-modern politics, all the sound bites, memes, burns, speaking points scored against the other side, and the like. I find politics has shifted farther from a contest based on merit, for the one best suited to discharge the office as best possible, towards (and yes it had always been somewhat so) too much only a contest of personality, a popularity contest, a striving of cults, rather than of appointment by the people the best for the highest (read most consequential) of roles in the government. I come from a culture of roles and offices as in the long line of English tradition which is the birthplace of the modern age of freedom and democracy (you better believe it... although I do credit Greeks with the first). In the proper tradition government officials are representatives of office and not stand ins for big Papa or Mama, nor the Big Bossman... the lack of the personal and big personality is purposeful and necessary for the person to act AS the representative they are to be, and not merely as big personalities stepping in as the boss. IMHO

agreed

I think that is overstating it, if “having conversations” does not count as “deeds”. I have had some indication of what type of person I am dealing with from multiple conversations. Perhaps the best and most reliable indications are deeds ie actions, but they are not the only indication of the kind of person you are dealing with.

I think it is very important that taxes are shown on receipts to show what part of your interaction is the exchange between private parties and what part is imposed by government. Elon should do the same with twitter in backwards countries: 1. Censor no one at the behest of countries. 2. Let the countries have a redaction power - to black out tweets or portions of tweets. 3. Allow the tweets to be retweeted without interference as redacted by government with an indication of which Government redacted it and where it cannot be viewed. 4. For clarification, governments cannot censor content shown in other countries even when it originated from that country... they can only censor in their own country... and their citizens will know about it. Finally, if a country wants to ban twitter, do not help them, let them cyber-forcefully do it... let them force their own companies and citizens to refrain from getting and using the app... but make it available worldwide.

I will review some of my favorite books and get back to you on it. I think there is a difference between what type of person someone appears to be, and how a person of a certain type appears, if you get my meaning. In one case a person (of any type) only appears to be a certain type, in the other case a person of that type appears a certain way. A judge wearing robes appears as he is when learned and just, yet a judge wearing robes only "appears" to be an arbiter of justice when the robes are worn by a traitor to his station. So too, when someone speaks right ideas honestly and eloquently, the words belie the greatness of the person, but those selfsame words or an attempted imitation thereof by a scoundrel are an illusion obfuscating the truth underneath them.. and the scoundrel in some sense has not made an appearance at all. Appearances can be deceiving indeed, especially when used for deception.

No, not at all. There was something about the quality and choice of words by George Washington, so that when I read them, I see more a giant of a man embodying an ideal, a station, a sacred institution. I never get the sense of the personal or the mortal man from his speeches or pronouncements. Ronald Reagan was a shadow yet an echo if this. Neither appeared soft or diplomatic, when it came to what America and freedom was about. George Washington certainly was no turncoat or softie. Trump may be doing things for all the right reasons, but his personality and his words sometimes get in the way of that. I do not think he has consciously and introspectively undergone the personality transition, the spiritual transformation from big swaggering bossman, to president of what was once the freest nation on Earth. George Washington and some other early presidents (John Adams comes to mind) knew, that the office was bigger and higher than the man... I'm not as certain Trump really has consciously and to his core, really embraced that idea. Perhaps he has, and he is only using a persona... but again that strikes me as doublespeak somehow.. used to appeal to those whom a George Washington might not impress. and that would be sad.

I am perplexed and disturbed by this also. He doesn't really mean that, does he? It's true that the standing of the Court has fallen in public opinion, but that doesn't mean he isn't proud of his three appointees. I wager ... Shame it came to this. But I am unsure whether I am uncomfortable with how this has been said rather than the truth which is in there (note how the Constitution has been extremely eroded from the bench over the last century) or even in the potential reaction by people in the public sphere? It has an unstately and personal tone.... yet, should we as individuals not react personally to how our individual rights are treated? Also it is hard to tell if he is attacking the people or the institution... does he want to grab multiple audiences, those who think one thing AND those who think the other? Is this a kind of doublespeak? Is it necessary? Is it good?

Is it better for anyone for Kamala to step in?

Point taken… “poetry” might not be the best term to use, it is not merely literary device I am experiencing, her work says to me: The essence of the morality of life, is the fact of death. Symbolic, metaphorical, literal, ironically paradoxical, and something playful all at once…. it speaks to me… it’s meaningful? profound? There is more in it than simply the words as written and simply read. oh well.

I'm not sure if Rand would have spoken to this point, (perhaps someone more like a Joseph Campbell.. in the context of the Buddah) ... but Rand's identification of essence here is incredibly poetic .. and almost paradoxically so. She identifies the essence of a thing, with the thing it defies and yet relies upon, the thing it escapes from but is pulled back by... i.e. something is identified with (perhaps defined by?) its compliment with which ... yes... it dances. Astutely you will note this is somewhat of a misdirection, because although we use the term "dance" as a verb, as in what a human does, "Dance" does not only include those human leaps that defy gravity, but also include the prep for landing and repeated leaps and rolling etc. all which relies upon gravity, and indeed includes the floor and environment as well as the gravity. Gravity forms part of Dance and is that which ultimately makes it possible. The interplay, the dance, is between the human effort, action, form and the physical environment of gravity and earth or floor, each is a required partner. I find this notion of saying the essence of something we usually associate with an upward escape, instead with the force which imposes an interplay, almost a struggle... incredibly poetic from Rand. I do not believe Rand has quite expressed a similar poetry of a notion like the essence of life being suffering, such as we might hear of Joseph Campbell. Her philosophical views (in some contexts) that suffering, pain, the negative, or the absence of the positive, are in some senses metaphysically (and spiritually) insignificant plays too strong a role in her upward view of what Man is and should be. Although there are hints of a thread of poetry in her works that "life is effort", it is perhaps less poetically presented than the notion that productivity has in its essence struggle, which does come through more strongly in The Fountainhead. An interplay between "holy sacrament, Indian torture, and sexual ecstasy" seems to point, again quite paradoxically, to the same kind of poetry. Such a poetic and bold idea of Rand's...and one which offers much food for thought... that the essence of dance is gravity, is indeed something I really like.

YES: Part of 5D chess - Make true statements which are unpopular and "plausibly deniable" short term, yet inevitably undeniable long term. The more unpopular/political and seemingly outlandish the truth, the more illegitimate the deniers/media are revealed to be, and the more RIGHT, Trump will inevitably and (plausibly) undeniably - become.

First, your arguments do not serve to show a conflict of the concept of IQ with a blank slate view. 1. IQ is about the ability to learn. A baby being a blank slate or not has nothing to do with its ability to learn. There can be slow and fast blank slates. IQ would measure both what has been written thus far on the slate and how quickly at any point in time it may be further written upon. Race, statistics, and the question of nature or nurture say nothing of the blankness of slate (of ideas) with which Rand believes we all start. 2. This does not present a reason Objectivists doubt IQ. It merely states purported facts and correlations between IQ and so-called success in societies people find themselves in. 3. This says nothing about IQ, and does not constitute a reason an Objectivist would doubt IQ. 4. I cannot tell if you are arguing Objectivists are for or against nature or nurture? and what it has to do with whether Objectivists believe in actual IQ. You also do not identify the real doubts Objectivists might have. I suspect it is not with the existence of something like an IQ which measures intelligence but with the current measures and standards developed for testing it.

mean? What? Make them mean what? something … or anything I suppose….

We’re not there yet, but if it comes to it, I would hope it plays out a little like this: Elon: No, Mama! Mama Musk: There’s no hope for it now, Elon. It’s suffering. You know we’ve got to do it. Elon: Yes, Mama. But it was my company. I’ll do it.

aaaand... plebs speaking and voting... yep.

I can agree with something like that Careful, you are tottering far down mind-body dichotomy lane…. a body without a mind is a corpse and a mind without a body is a ghost… there are no non-physical thinkers or any supernaturally caused consciousness… the physically natural system is and is thinking. Generally if we strongly believe in individual rights we need to decide what makes an individual… and the Constitution is to be upheld by all branches in the execution of their proper roles.

?? Ok "Off topic... but similar to the Communist Revolution...." I don't buy it. Start a new thread please.

My very old slightly left leaning father once called FOX News nothing but Rhetoric. I wonder if instead of hyperbole this is closer to the truth than I was willing to believe, for different reasons. What if the thing does not want a single narrative ? what if a dynamic is more behaviourally useful to them? what if the Thing is playing all sides? What if Fox news IS the kindling and the smoking tinder, priming part of the population to react to the barbed wire? What if the Thing has one hand in left media and the other pupetting the Right media … both to nudge and agitate from both directions? The individuals need not even know why they are allowed or not allowed to push certain things … as long as it is orchestrated properly it creates the right dynamic. Useful idiots speak and protest and act… the dominos fall into place.