Offhand, I would consider that a poor choice.
It appears she sees it otherwise.

He could have used the word "invest" and meant exactly the same thing but better appealed to an Objectivist audience, I agree, but Cruz wasn't targeting an Objectivist audience. He used the common vernacular for sacrifice, which (as XenokRoy put it above) is to give up something now for something better later.

Well said.

The Rand community uses several words ("sacrifice", "selfishness", etc.) very differently than the rest of the world. To apply Objectivist definitions to non-Objectivist speakers and comments is disingenuous.

I agree with your assessment. His track record duing this campaign of which we are aware via the news, even the news that loves him, is that is underhanded and proud of it. Good thing he has his bible to save his sorry soul (joke).

What I find interesting about Ted Cruz is: I was once a team member of his until November 2015, I was working to try to keep the N-B-C conversation quiet [until I found Ted's Canadian legal team's findings]. I questioned Mr Cruz about it saying he needs to get Senate certification of being N-B-C as the only way to stop any questions staying around of his non-Natural-Born American status..He said not to worry about it and in the end said He would not attempt to get certified...

At that point, I had to make a decision and I did; I left.

His Canadian lawyer Stephen Green, former Chair of the Canadian Bar Association for Immigration and Naturalization found that indeed Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz is a Natural-Born-Canadian Citizen [findings in 2013], his mother it seems denounced her citizenship in 1968, she could because she spent more than 5yrs in the U.K. between 1961 and 1968. Her healthcare for Ted's birth was covered under Alberta Healthcare which would be impossible for a non-Canadian citizen.

It amazes me that no Major news organization will report on this; it has been sent and reported to them multiple times.

Just thought you should know.

that is the weirdest story I have heard in the Gulch. short term political questions are always the lesser of two evils. You don't have unlimited choices, only some choices. If you hold out for an Objectivist candidate-you'll never vote. If you don't want to vote-then don't.

When we promote our ethical and political principles, we are evoking people’s mental images as we attempt to appeal to their rational faculties. If two words or phrases mean substantially the same thing, I choose the one that is most likely to evoke the desired mental image in the listener’s mind. Using terms in a manner that is unfamiliar to our listeners unnecessarily make it harder for our arguments to gain traction.

This is an anecdotal observation, but Cruz appears to me to be very sneaky and power hungry and will just do or say anything to get that power, including trying to destroy Trump if he can.

I would never vote for Cruz, even if he is the repub nominee. He would never beat Hillary anyway.

The essence of any religion is that you simply "believe" rather than think. It doesnt really matter which version of "god" you believe in either.

No evangelical Christian is a fan of Ayn Rand. No one can sustain that level of contradiction. They don't know one or the other. A friend of mine was having an affair with a Priest. I gave her AS and she loved it at the start but half way through she realized she could not read the book and have the affair so she gave up the book.

Yes, I saw that. He must not have grasped Rand's definition of sacrifice: giving a thing of value for a thing of lesser value, or a nonvalue. He must be using the conventional definition of "sacrifice": buying a thing, or merely a chance at a thing, at great price.

A leopard does not change its spots, and ol’ lyin’ Ted doesn’t either.

He may or may not be Lyin' Ted, but he certainly is Beggin' Ted.

If we want to communicate at all what we know, we cannot let opponents/those who don't know be the ones perpetually defining our terms. Please don't sanction most people's failure to distinguish sacrifice from exchange. You EXCHANGED (not "sacrificed") your TV time for something you value more. Why not SAY so — in public, not only in the Gulch?

To most people the term sacrifice means giving up something you want for something you want more.

We know that is not what the word really means, but I am more than willing to give up something I want to get something I want even more. I have done it many times in my life. I give up TV time to get more reading/study time to learn something new. I am not sacrificing my TV time, but making a choice.

To most people that would be sacrificing TV time.

Applying our definitions to others who do not view the word the same way never makes much sense.

https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...