- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
I think, a bad election result will give bad consequences, there is no downward limit.
Especially if it pertains to the future of We The People in a Constitutional Republic traitors hate and seeks to destroy.
Trump is a fighter and I'd rather go down fighting than to ever give up.
I'll never give up voting even though I know there will always be an unfair cheat that can hopefully be at times possible to beat.
We are driving the AI, the chips, the consumption.
And while China has better planners, they have far worse "CCP corrupted people" who do not care if the building is 80% sand or 80% concrete, whatever lets them steal more.
as we fail, it will downward spiral. And it will likely extend beyond my life.
We could still fix things. But the people who control every lever of power would be against it. And they have ALL of the INK, and if you thought 2016 was a flame war on Trump... You only saw them "afraid"... and not "Scared for their lives!"
No, the notion of splitting the country, or at least making it much less centralized, can't happen if Harris wins. It would require someone like Trump to roll back Biden's changes, but then to see that coexistence with the far-left can't be stable.
Throughout the years, he appears to have a proper identification of the nature of his endeavor, playing the cards he's dealt. More than any past politician, however brash, Trump calls it as he sees it within his known knowledge. Be it the emotional motivations of political correctness, the lies of the "fake news," the embedded corruption, the recognition of good and evil on the world stage, the parasitical nations that feed off our teat, etc., etc... For the most part, the transparency of his thoughts has been unmatched and not hidden behind political speak, spins, alternate agendas, backroom deals, or deceit. It is what it is.
Dr. Jerome Huyler noted, "Trump has the sense of life of an individualist. His common sense - born of decades of experience as a businessman and dealing with politicians - tells him that taxes and heavy-handed regulations destroy economies. It is true, as Rand said, that common sense is the child's method of thinking. But it is born of empirical experience," the basis of knowledge acquisition.
We should champion his "America First" mantra. Rand had always said America will never regain its greatness until it changes its altruist morality, and "America First" is just that. It's not some blind German nationalism but an attitude that America's interests need to be selfishly upheld, which is an admirable start, recognizing a necessary fundamental to our ethics. He has attempted to keep open discussions with everyone based on trade and fair exchange. Rand had said, "The trader and the warrior have been fundamental antagonists throughout history." His movement away from aggressive wars, political globalism, and multi-lateral agreements keeps our self-interests paramount. It's the application of the trader principle.
Lastly, his counter-punch mindset and approach align with our moral rightness of retaliation. He may prod or poke but does not usually pull the proverbial trigger until he's attacked with words or actions.
While Trump may not be able to articulate his principles with the scientific factuality of Stephen Hawking or the eloquent philosophical consistency of Rand, he still appears to have an "intuitive" common sense, not only of practicality but also of right and wrong. One needs to look at his children to realize some form of proper values is present. His productivity and financial success must be seated in appropriate fundamentals instead of a chaotic, unprincipled achievement, luck, or theft. And many, if not all (including his adversaries) that have personally engaged with him have echoed his likability, exiting acknowledging he's not how he is portrayed.
A dire threat is facing our country today with the abuses and power of the ingrained bureaucracy weaponized for political purposes. All Americans must unite, led by the voices of reason, to identify and expose this fundamental threat to freedom. It's not about the false alternative of Trump or never Trump; it's about the American system and government's fundamental role, purpose, and responsibilities, regardless of one's political persuasion.
As Objectivists, we need to continually apply our principles in the real world of what is, slowly moving it to where it should be. We need to descend from the "ivory tower" to the first floor of reality and integrate our values with the ever-changing daily events. With proper context and hierarchy, there should be minimal daylight between the abstract and concretes. Are not what's mentioned above consistent with our most basic and broad fundamental beliefs as Objectivists?
It appears that we may have lost the very objectivity we find so sacrosanct.
What other man in America could have gone through what they have put Trump through, and come up fighting? John Galt shrugged. Trump didn't.
Nor can communism or even socialism work unless everyone believes the same thing, and for the same reasons as the above. Communism therefore, MUST be totalitarianist in its methods: banning free speech, concealing truth in various and sundry ways, eliminating truth in history, and creating a history that would satisfy the concepts of Marx.
There was an RT poster who asked me, in a discussion of means and end, where I had stated that anytime and anywhere communism has been imposed, the murder of millions of people had to occur. Her question was: Isn't the object more foundational than the manner in which it is obtained?
I told her that was a 'dialectical cop-out'; if to realize an objective requires the imposition of immoral or even criminal actions and behavior (lies and murder), then the object itself is immoral or criminal. In other words, the means and the end must be both the same. They both must be moral.
When the USSR collapsed, the Russian Federation could no longer be in control of the 'internationalists.' The amount of time and energy the Left, the Jewish Left in particular, spent trying to prevent the RF from succeeding as a new democracy. Jeffrey Sachs, the economist who compiled the framework for the transition to private ownership of property, failed miserably in his task. I don't think it was intentional on his part, but perhaps he was put in that position by others who knew his economics and methods.
China and Xi are now in that same position. China seems to be 'transitioning' to a more capitalist and productive economy; will they or even are they, going to be isolated because they cannot be controlled?
And the other point I want to make, is that internationalism vs nationalism has been around for a long time. Since the late 19th century, at least. Rosa Luxemburg, a Polish Marxist, migrated to Germany and began at once to criticize the culture of the Germans, and attempted to install a sense of internationalism in the people. And look what happened.
So is that what it is really all about, on a deeper and more profound level?
I was in a hurry. Sorry.
I am not fooling myself into thinking that Trump is an objectivist either. He is substantially conflicted intellectually, and harbors a number of inconsistent positions.
1) Immigration. I do think IF we are going to have a country, we have to have borders and immigration rules as far as citizenship- so Trump is right on this IMHO.
2) Tariffs- Trump wants huge tariffs to "bring back manufacturing to the USA", I think returning manufacturing to the USA would cause substantial inflation in pricing as companies spend more for the items that they now get from china and other countries. Plus, many things just arent made here anymore, so paying the huge tariffs to "help with the budget deficit" would cause a lot of inflation next year. Trump is just OUT TO LUNCH on this one.
3) Reducing taxes is great to get votes, but if not part of reducing expenditures, its NOT great. Just means more deficit spending and money printing. Trump is OUT TO LUNCH on this one also.
4) Foreign affairs is a positive for Trump. Other bad actors will not want to risk problems with the USA with Trump in power. Also, he will NOT get us into useless wars, but will end our participation in current wars in Ukraine and Middle east.
5) The left will cause legal issues for Trump on essentially anything he tries to do. But he will SLOW down the progression of the left for the next 4 years, which they will HATE.
6) Hopefully Trump will release the Epstein client list as well as the P Diddy client lists to show the inner working of the elites.
7) Trump will print money instead of STOPPING deficit spending. He is conflicted on this one. There should NOT be deficit spending.
I read Reason regularly too. It astonishes me how many Libertarian Trump-negative articles there are. Unless you live in a completely Blue state, like NY, MA or CA where you vote is completely irrelevant, voting for a Libertarian candidate is stupid and spiteful.
Not in any others, red or purple.
1. They took her ideas and used them without attribution. When mentioning her they sometimes misrepresented her. A questioner at Ford Hall Forum demanded that she show support for them, phrased of course as a question. "Why don't you [support we who agree with you]?" Her response was vitriol.
2. Libertarians include (whether they know it or not) Communists. Rand could always recognize them. Why would Commies join the LP? "The end justifies the means," so it's okay for a Commie to pass himself off as a peaceful Libertarian.
3. The LP serves to dilute the Republican vote.
4. The enemies of the republic that is the United States want to set us against each other. "Let's you and he fight."
Perhaps there is a "plan" behind what ARI is doing. Why did Rand's strikers leave ruin everywhere: Wyatt's Torch, Francisco's silver mines, etc? Those who follow "Q" suggest that Trump is part of a greater plan, a plan that included having Joe Biden as President.
Perhaps Rand is genuinely one of Trumps heroes. He has read The Fountainhead, and has said (in an interview) “It relates to business (and) beauty (and) life and inner emotions. That book relates to … everything,”
Why would ARI scorn Trump? I'm waiting to see what happens next.
The basic reason for a republic instead of a democracy is to prevent the lowest denominator of people from taking over as they are right now.
verbal syncretism: lack of interest in the details of logical correspondences or in the 'how' of causal relations.
Syncretism of thought: 1) It is non-discursive and goes straight from premise to conclusion in a single intuitive act, without any of the intervening steps of deduction. This happens even when thought is expressed verbally; whereas in the adult, only invention has this intuitive character, exposition being deductive in differing degrees.
2) It makes use of schemas of imagery and
3) Of schemas of analogy, both of which are extremely active in the conduct of thought, yet extremely elusive because incommunicable and arbitrary.
This syncretism is generally marked by a fourth characteristic to which we have already drawn attention, vis., a certain amount of belief or conviction enabling the subject to dispense very easily with any attempt at demonstration.
And it is pre-causal and ego-centric.
This type of conceptualizing is called 'pre-causal'.
I have to treat the source as rhetoric until something substantive, such as recorded video commentary, without soundbite editing, is produced.
I won't dismiss this. I've seen some publications that put ARI in questionable status, objectively. Nothing conclusive, yet caused me to focus more on the passages.