Will Howard Schultz Serve a Liberty Latte or Stale Socialist Dregs?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

22 minutes ago, Ed Hudgins said:

Actually, you’ve got some of the think tank stuff backwards.

Ed,

I'm going to tease you a little bit.

Do you think a think tank would ever do a paper on defusing a potential nuke nightmare by calling the leader of the country "rocket man" and saying our nukes are bigger than his nukes?

 

I haven't seen anything like that come out of think tanks.

But that's the way it's working in reality.

This is the area of people skills. Trump is a master of people skills when negotiating. Why? Well... there's this. If you don't negotiate with people, who are you going to negotiate with? Reports?  

Typical Trump supporters already know this about him. The anti-Trumpers on the conservative side got (and still get) really scared by it when it moves from theory and goes into practice.

Regardless, I bet you like our president when he talks about socialism and freedom a lot more now than you did during the elections. I am going to resist the urge to say, "I told you so" to the world.  

Also, I like the Heartland Institute. There are plenty of links to Heartland's stuff (and discussion of it), especially the climate change reports a few years ago, here on OL.

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

37 minutes ago, Ed Hudgins said:

Hi Michael – Thanks for your thoughtful response. Actually, you’ve got some of the think tank stuff backwards. There’s a range of think tank activities from original deep research in books and policy papers to direct public policy action. Heartland calls itself a think thank and action tank because we’re closer to the latter.

Mind you, our founder Joe Bast a dozen years ago decided a way to fight the global warming alarmism was to actually engage real scientists to counter the bad science and panic-mongering that was driving public policy. We’ve published four volumes of “Climate Change Reconsidered,” each about 1,000 pages, with contributions by dozens of well-credentialed scientists. I doubt many people have read these cover-to-cover but they are a resource along with the spinoffs, papers, conferences and the like that probably had the most to do with Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate Accords--Joe was in the Rose Garden when Trump made the announcement--and has provided foundations for much of the good on environment and energy policy from this administration.

And here’s the point. Our new Heartland president, a former Congressman, is keen as are we all to actually bring about change. He always asks, “Why are we doing this paper? Who’s the audience? Is this what need to make a difference?” That’s what I’m doing on my FDA and other projects. We have a lot of opportunities with this administration. We don’t want to listen to ourselves talk. We want to change thing.

Also, Heartland uniquely focuses at the state level, so our government relations people are always on the road, working with state policymakers or doing policy papers that show how the reforms in states A, B, and C can work in states X, Y, and Z! We sometimes hear complaints that “You’re not pure libertarian enough and should be advocating abolishing most of government!” That’s because we’re not a sophomore college bull session. There’s a place for such advocacy; I’ve done enough of it myself. But where are we after decades of such stuff? Is government rolled back? We realize you often need to change things step by step. Hasn’t the left done that, step by step undermined our liberties? I’m for moving as fast as is doable but simply writing another paper on how we need to abolish this or that government department is not our market niche.

Objectivist Living, of course, has its market niche! It's about applying the principles to one's life. I would just observe this. On many Facebook threads there will be some interesting discussants and, sadly, some obnoxious and irrational loudmouths who add no value to a conversation or your thinking, and whose unpleasant company you would rather not keep. Perhaps you find some value in the likes of Jon, but I certainly don’t.

But when I do stop by Objectivist Living, your company is always welcome! See you in my next topic post!

Regards,

Ed

Would Schultz be better than Trump?

[Brant Gaede]

22 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Aaaaand, he's logged out.

Simple question. Evaded.

It's a shame so many of his type infest our movement.

What movement?

The central locus of Objectivism is not rationality--that's lip service, but morality reduced to moralizing. That was Galt's speech. Objectivism is what Nathaniel Branden and Ayn Rand did with that trying to make philosophy out of art based on a fictional humanity. In that sense Objectivism is the philosophy of John Galt though to my recollection the word didn't make an appearance in the novel. The perfect man needed the perfect philosophy but no real man or woman is ten percent so simple.

With Rand's passage a great deal of the moral gravitas bled out of the philosophy leaving the Judeo-Christian ethos North American default.

Rand's work and the spilt blood and poverty of tyranny destroyed the intellectual and moral justification of collectivism bringing in the age of Trump and the fulmination of the now nearly brainless almost homicidal left.

I think what you see Trump doing and his supporters is your "movement" reference.

--Brant

[Jon Letendre]

12 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

What movement?

The central locus of Objectivism is not rationality--that's lip service, but morality reduced to moralizing. That was Galt's speech. Objectivism is what Nathaniel Branden and Ayn Rand did with that trying to make philosophy out of art based on a fictional humanity. In that sense Objectivism is the philosophy of John Galt though to my recollection the word didn't make an appearance in the novel. The perfect man needed the perfect philosophy but no real man or woman is ten percent so simple.

With Rand's passage a great deal of the moral gravitas bled out of the philosophy leaving the Judeo-Christian ethos North American default.

Rand's work and the spilt blood and poverty of tyranny destroyed the intellectual and moral justification of collectivism bringing in the age of Trump and the fulmination of the now nearly brainless almost homicidal left.

--Brant

Schultz is from the brainless homicidal left.

All I ever expected from the movement was people who can identify something obvious like that plainly, and then refrain from writing about him as though maybe he'd be good for President.

[Brant Gaede]

4 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Schultz is from the brainless homicidal left.

All I ever expected from the movement was people who could identify something obvious like that plainly, and then refrain from writing about him as though maybe he'd be good for President.

I added a last sentence while you were quoting me 

--Brant

[Jon Letendre]

44 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

I think what you see Trump doing and his supporters is your "movement" reference.

--Brant

No. I was giving it back to Ed.

He wrote: "Someone like Jon  makes it easy for our opponents to say "See that crazy!  That's Objectivist living. I rest my case." It is sad that after all these decades, these types are still infest Objectivist circles."

So I wrote: "Eva[sion]. It's a shame so many of his type infest our movement."

I meant what he meant, O'ist movement, object was throw "infest" back.

"Infest" what a little prick. He comes here to shill for lefties (Ayn rolling in grave) but I am the infestation?

[Brant Gaede]

Jon, I frequently disagree with with your style of presentation and I'm having a hard time getting my brain around this "Q" stuff, but you're grounded. I can deal with that. Ed declines to be grounded, he says or implies by the likes of you. I can't take it further into a broader characterization like you did for that'd be unfair to him by me which is not to say you were unfair to him. Maybe you were and maybe you weren't. But he was unfair to you. That's because he does not participate here. He floats in and floats out. That makes his rudeness to you primary and your rudeness to him secondary. Sometimes with others here your rudeness might be described as primary to primary as with Carol. (She doesn't float in and out; she walks.) 

--Brant 

[Jon Letendre]

7 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Jon, I frequently disagree with with your style of presentation and I'm having a hard time getting my brain around this "Q" stuff, but you're grounded. I can deal with that. Ed declines to be grounded, he says or implies by the likes of you. I can't take it further into a broader characterization like you did for that'd be unfair to him by me which is not to say you were unfair to him. Maybe you were and maybe you weren't. But he was unfair to you. That's because he does not participate here. He floats in and floats out. That makes his rudeness to you primary and your rudeness to him secondary. Sometimes with others here your rudeness might be described as primary to primary as with Carol. (She doesn't float in and out; she walks.) 

--Brant 

You and I have observed each other's posting for almost 15 years, I think. We have interacted little. I have always known quite well that you don't like me. And I have always also sensed clearly that you respect me. Both are almost mutual, you dislike me a little more than I dislike you. lol.

I appreciate you saying what you did above, thank you.

[Brant Gaede]

I do NOT dislike you.

---Brant

we just aren't best buds

I do like Carol (we just aren't best buds)

[Jon Letendre]

1 minute ago, Brant Gaede said:

I do NOT dislike you.

---Brant

we just aren't best buds

I do like Carol (we just aren't best buds)

Too late asshole, I already said how I really feel about you!!! ahahaha!!!

OK, just not best buds. It's great, I'm grateful for all of our interactions and mutual respect.

[Brant Gaede]

In one month and a day I'll be 75. All I have to show for it so far is a strange, to me, state of grace. I'm glad of that but it's not enough. Something else is coming on line and it will be young and grace will be hard to see as grace is what I'm doing when I'm not fighting.

--Brant          .       .  

[Jon Letendre]

3 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

In one month and a day I'll be 75. All I have to show for it so far is a strange, to me, state of grace. I'm glad of that but it's not enough. Something else is coming on line and it will be young and grace will be hard to see as grace is what I'm doing when I'm not fighting.

--Brant          .       .  

What does that feel like, the state of grace?

[Brant Gaede]

Self acceptance.

Don't confuse that with resignation.

I'm accepting of how smart and powerful I am and how I'm attuned to the world I'm living in.

I no longer live in the future so much for in a month and a day I'll be 75.

But the fight goes on.

--Brant

[Jon Letendre]

12 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Self acceptance.

Don't confuse that with resignation.

I'm accepting of how smart and powerful I am and how I'm attuned to the world I'm living in.

I no longer live in the future so much for in a month and a day I'll be 75.

But the fight goes on.

--Brant

The fight goes on.

I am about 50. On self–acceptance, I fight less now with things inside me and more with things outside me, I’ve had it with a whole lot of the bullshit in my world. And I fight against letting my spirit get old. I’ll have to post more videos soon of me going 130mph on my 1986 Honda, but for now, here is how I see myself in 25 years ... 

 

[Jon Letendre]

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Jon, I'm having a hard time getting my brain around this "Q" stuff, but you're grounded. 

--Brant 

What are you thinking about it?

[Peter]

On 2/25/2019 at 11:49 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ed,

If you know me, you know that would make me very proud.

 

Michael

Let's hum the hymn, "There will be peace in the valley." I stopped reading Jon for a while but now I am back at it. Jon, just for the record (what a bs saying) if I am drinking alcohol and posting I will stick in a "hic" somewhere otherwise my obtuseness is coming from a clear head or is that oxymoronic?  It's great having Ed post here.

[Peter]

13 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

What are you thinking about it?

If you are "grounded" you can't leave your room except for dinner.

[Brant Gaede]

20 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

What are you thinking about it?

That it's too perfect.

But so was St  Helens before it blew.

--Brant

[Jon Letendre]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

That it's too perfect.

But so was St  Helens before it blew.

--Brant

I don't understand.

[Brant Gaede]

7 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

I don't understand.

Well, by your posts I think the entrenched Trump opposition is about to blow up with legal indictments.

---Brant

[Peter]

5 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Well, by your posts I think the entrenched Trump opposition is about to blow up with legal indictments.

---Brant

Of course they will. But can any of these be proven in a court of law? No. They are trying to hamper improvements to America in the court of outlaw.

[Brant Gaede]

40 minutes ago, Peter said:

Of course they will. But can any of these be proven in a court of law? No. They are trying to hamper improvements to America in the court of outlaw.

Are you kidding me with your ignorance? You better believe they'll be provable. It's the indictments that are lacking so far, not proof. There's going to be so much evidence they'll need wheelbarrows to get it into the courtroom.

---Brant

the hardest to indict and easiest to convict sans the one juror holdout is Hillary

opps, that's Obama

Edited February 28, 2019 by Brant Gaede

[Peter]

3 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Are you kidding me with your ignorance? You better believe they'll be provable. It's the indictments that are lacking so far, not proof. There's going to be so much evidence they'll need wheelbarrows to get it into the courtroom.

---Brant

the hardest to indict and easiest to convict sans the one juror holdout is Hillary

I am bewildered. What glaringly obvious evidence of a crime have you seen? A proven and convicted lying lawyer is not credible in a court of law. Public opinion? Our President can win there too. Hearing someone boast I have crap on Hillary and saying "Great!" is not a crime.    

[Peter]

Lady Gaga will do anything to be in the news. The “news” will do anything to be in the news . . . and in your brain, Brant. Florence and the propaganda machine have been operating since Saint Hillary announced her “sure thing” when she declared for the Presidency. Remember the dead bodies that kept appearing back when Hillary and Bill were full of testosterone and running for reelection? But that hasn't happened with Trump. I am reconvening Jon’s ignore the idiots and breath freer policy. From the laughably corrupt left wing web:

Here’s a List of the Crimes That Made Donald Trump President. Hush money. The government has set forth how the campaign finance violations occurred, and Cohen,... Hacking. Last month, special counsel Mueller indicted 12 Russian military officers believed... Internet trolling. In February, Mueller’s team indicted another 13 Russians who worked...

From Politicus USA: Donald Trump operates like a typical mob boss, in charge of an organized crime family. As events of the past week have shown, he surrounds himself with sleazy characters who live in the shadows and commit many different types of crimes, most of which they are never held accountable for. Reading the indictments written by special counsel Mueller and his team it is hard not to be impressed with just now many different crimes each person has been charged with. The Manafort and Gates indictments read like novellas, filled with plot twists, mystery and intrigue. The indictments against 12 Russian intelligence agents were incredibly detailed, showing Putin and his pals just how much U.S. intelligence agencies know — and can prove — about their nefarious activities. It’s easy to get overwhelmed with the sheer volume of evidence and accusations, but according to the Washington Post there are three primary criminal acts that made Trump president.

Hush money.  The government has set forth how the campaign finance violations occurred, and Cohen, as part of his plea deal, agreed to the government’s description of what happened. The fact that David Pecker is cooperating with prosecutors gives even more credibility to Cohen’s claims of how crimes were committed just before the 2016 election. Pecker began helping Trump bury unfavorable stories in August of 2015, just after his bid for the presidency was announced.

The first documented payment was in 2016 when $150,000 was paid to Karen McDougal. The payment was made with a commitment by Cohen to repay the money. This transaction was talked about in the recording released by Cohen and his attorney last month.

Hacking.   Last month, special counsel Mueller indicted 12 Russian military officers believed to work for the country’s Main Intelligence Directorate, or GRU. In other words, they are senior level Russian spies. These are the people who are thought to have illegally gained access to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) computer network. They are also charged with hacking into the email account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta. 

In June of 2016 many files stolen by the hackers were given to WikiLeaks, which subsequently released to the public two groups of these documents stolen from the DNC and Podesta. Many crimes were committed during this process and Mueller’s indictments say that the Russians violated several federal conspiracy and identity-theft laws.

Internet trolling.  In February, Mueller’s team indicted another 13 Russians who worked for a shady company based in Moscow called the Internet Research Agency (IRA). This is the group that created phony social media accounts and used them extensively to create discord within the United States during the months preceding the 2016 election. Several members of IRA came to the United States during the election campaign period. They hired Americans to cause trouble at campaign events.The actions taken by these people also violated identity-theft, fraud and conspiracy laws of the United States. And U.S. intelligence agencies have confirmed that all of these illegal activities had the goal of helping Trump become president.

Other crimes.  There may have been additional crimes committed that helped Donald Trump become president. We still don’t know all the details of the meeting that took place in Trump Tower on June 9, 2016 between Trump campaign officials (Manafort, Kushner, and Don Jr.) and at least one Russian. Reportedly another meeting took place in advance of that meeting, including campaign officials and the candidate himself. Crimes may have been committed before, during and after these meetings.

One thing we know for sure is that Donald Trump won the presidency — in the electoral college — by the narrowest of margins. Due to close wins in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, fewer than 78,000 votes gave Trump the presidency (0.06 percent of the  total votes cast).

We may never know if the crimes that occurred caused Hillary Clinton to lose those three states to Trump, but we do know that many crimes were committed for the express purpose of making Trump president — and it appears that the president himself has been implicated in them. 

When all the evidence has been presented and verified it will become clear that Donald Trump is both a criminal and an illegitimate president.

[Jon Letendre]

28 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Are you kidding me with your ignorance? You better believe they'll be provable. It's the indictments that are lacking so far, not proof. There's going to be so much evidence they'll need wheelbarrows to get it into the courtroom.

---Brant

the hardest to indict and easiest to convict sans the one juror holdout is Hillary

Brant, I’m not sure Peter even follows you with regard to who will be coming after whom.

Well said, all that is lacking is “go!”

I think it is a matter of clearing out the FBI and DOJ (largely completed) and the courts. People don’t appreciate that they infiltrated everything, so no cases could ever have had any hope of going anywhere. Multiple roadblocks. Also, they can  strike back, no sense winding up like JFK — they have to be further softened first. The Senate is rapidly packing the courts with new, clean judges. And the public is being informed and brought around to the reality and size of the conspiracy. That has to build high, the public has to be demanding arrests.

We’re almost there.