https://archive.ph/JcWUC

They have been.

YOur memory is faulty then. Harris reversed herself on Fracking (switching from wanting to ban it to supporting it); she reversed herself on decriminalizing border crossings (switching from supporting decriminalizing it to saying there should be consequences for illegal border crossings and the laws on the border must be enforced); she reversed on electric vehicle mandates (in 2020 she wanted to require 100% carbon neutral tech on vehicles by 2035, in 2024 she stated she didn't support an electric vehicle mandate); she reversed herself on Medicare for All (in 2020 she supported it, in 2024 she only campaigned on strengthening existing medicare but ditched the M4A plank). Likewise she ran a convention that could have been lifted from the GOP in the 90's full of Americanism and promised a lethal military.

So, you're just misremembering it, sorry. As for the scum and chuds who started stuff when it got dark in 2020; the media who pantingly apologized for it and the government that oversaw the lockdowns (reminder: that was under Trump or, after 2020 a bunch of localities, none of whom reported to the Federal Dems); none of them were running in 2024. Harris did compromise, reverse herself etc... just not enough or not with enough finesse.

So we agree that Harris, Biden and the Dems did compromise- they just didn't capitulate. So why is it only they are responsible for Trump? Could it be possible that the GOP and the right might, maybe, possibly, have any scintilla of responsibility for the candidate they nominated and elected?

Uh yes, Jay, I did say that the allegation is that Harris compromised too little. But she did compromise. She walked back from her 2020 positions, deemphasized or reversed herself on them and generally stood down. Not enough. Not visibly enough likely and certainly not with any finesse but she did do all that.
So... now we've switched from "Why don't the Dems compromise??" to "Why don't the Dems compromise enough??" And we still haven't answered why only the Dems have agency.

There's a webtool that bypasses their paywall. I'll post a link sometime when I get home.

If I understand my party (and I think I do) the awkward problem for the Deluzio brand Dems is they are not very pro-free trade so the Trump nonsense is kind of a monkeys paw wish. They want to oppose Trump but they don't want to/believe in embracing free trade market fundamentalism. I think theyr kind of dippy but I'm a neoliberal shill so I would.

This might, maybe, make sense if that kind of name calling were new or unusual or anything else but it is, of course, as old as the hills, older than you and I and entirely bipartisan. Though I, being left of center, would note that calling Obama an Islamic Marxist monster or Hillary all the things they called her was language that was coming from the actual GOP party actors whereas the Desantis=Hitler chatter was largely twitter twaddle and social media pap by my recollection.

And if that language is how we got Trump then is there some magical reason that the name calling of the right by the left absolves the right of responsibility for nominating Trump (and lets' not even talk about how libertarians actors online have almost en toto sold their souls to Trump)? Or why the left gets no credit for NOT nominating a left-wing Trump despite endless name calling from the right? I mean how is this not just Murcs' law all the way down to the bones? *bursts into flames for using an LGM term here*

It's funny, a lot of centrist writers are wringing their hands because Dems aren't issuing a libertarian embrace of market fundamentalism right now. Chait frets about it over at the Atlantic right now.

I mean that is trump in a nutshell. The four P's that the right stands for: Pollution, Poverty, Plague and Plutocrats.

Jay, me lad, going for Desantis instead of Trump isn't compromising- it's capitulating. DeSantis was running as Trump in thigh high waders.

Compromising would be sticking with your candidate and pushing them to moderate on language and policy which, let us note, Both Biden and Harris did on immigration, identity issues and many other things. I think one can say they compromised too late (Biden) or too little (Harris) since they lost but one can't pretend they didn't compromise.

That belies all political and electoral history. Biden presided over a soft landing but the voters still handed his party still got handed an L because inflation* and bad vibes from Covid occurred during his watch. Do you think those same voters are going to talk about "wringing out the rot" when Trump induces a recession, inflation and tanks their 401k's? The politically engaged Trump voters -might- babble that cope. But with just them Trump and his party will go down in a landslide.

*And to some degree his spending levels too but mostly Covid.

OK how about it's just nonsensical? We finally put the "well this is what you get for not abandoning Obama and being so mean to Romneybot in 2012" and now we're on to "Well this is what you get for not abandoning Clinton/Biden in 2016/2020 and being so mean to Rubio/Cruz/Desantis"?!

I'd say that's a very accurate summation.

That would be a fine feat considering they don't own anywhere near 5 trillion in US treasuries.

I mean even in math terms it's knee slappingly idiotic.

I don't know, I have doubts. This is the whole legacy media system writ large. The distribution pipe this is all going through is rotting through- not rotted through yet but not being renewed. It's all running on theaters that were established on economic theories that no longer apply. I suspect/fear the whole thing is just going to vanish in time. At least in journalism the new things (social media mostly) still depends on the legacy zombie journalism media for stuff to steal so some degree of money pumping into Reuters and actual news gathering has to somehow occur. I am not sure the streaming model needs theaters at all. Movie making will just shift to making movies for streamers on TV rather than theaters.

Oh yes, no denying that the GOP is way deeper into the deranged mindless right wingism that the Tories ever got.

I agree- I think the movie theater model is deep into the death spiral now. The masses aren't turning up which is jacking up the ticket prices which is making going to the theater even less appealing. Theaters were descending pre-covid but Covid just accelerated the process a lot.

Yes, all true. There's a bit of a structural element in that Lettuce Head Liz Truss was, effectively, the Speaker of the House in American contexts and, thus, Trump would be a lot harder, functionally and procedurally, to ditch. The underlying point, though, that tanking the economy is going to reduce Trumps power is a good one though- it should and will.

It is hard to imagine much more that Trump would do if he were actively working for the Chinese or Russians. I don't believe he is (he's just an elderly idiot) but it remains a daunting mental exercise.

Well done.

Precisely.

Yes, other writers have observed that Trump has made protectionist mouth noises for decades.

While stupid and clueless probably covers a lot of ground there's also an angle that Trump was simply psychologically unable to simply take the accomplishments of the man who whupped him in 2020 and not try and destroy them. Other writers have also pointed out that Trumps protectionist impulses have a long pedigree in what passes for his thoughts.

Which is all somewhat besides my point that Yishans' analysis is just as incoherent as Trumps policy.

It's just... he just... like... it's such a blizzard of bull that I'm hesitating on where to even start. Like you noted, outlawing private tutoring simply means that it went underground. And characterizing China's "strengths" as strengths... well I am trying not to call the guy a contrarian or a fool.

But even his last summary- that Trump is trying to bring supply chains back into the US. This ignores that Trump is tariffing everything. He's tariffing the parts you'd need to make the US into an more industrial society. He's tariffing the steel and bauxite and aluminum that the US doesn't and, by and large CAN'T make itself (you can't tariff bauxite deposits or the relevant coal and iron deposits into existence). So even if we take him at his most sane washing best; everything he's saying remains deranged. He seems to me to just be a guy, on twitter, trying to hack out Trumps antics into some kind of industrial policy like a housecat trying to barf out a volleyball sized hairball of steel wool.

He's assuming an entire drawer full of can openers and also ignoring pretty much the entire field of economics so it's basically just rather vapid "what if there's some deep deranged method to the authoritarian madness" post.