Vice President Kamala Harris wasn’t performing well in softball interviews as her sugar high faded in September and early October. But if she wanted to expand her support — and she needed to — she would have to expose herself to tough questioning
Then the article talks about how Rogan more or less refused to meet with Harris. Because reporters never want exclusives with potential Presidents.
But fine, let's ignore Rogan's incentives all seem to be stacked the other way and assume that's true.
Rogan isn't the only reporter/podcaster/news source/etc.
What non-softball interviews did Harris do instead?
If the answer is "Harris never did hard interviews, ever", then the issue probably wasn't that everyone who could conceivably give a hard interview was on a fishing trip on every day between September and the election.
DavidTC: I would like a single bit of evidence that Democrats made a bigger issues of trans people than Republicans did this election.
The GOP was clearly making a bigger deal of this than Team Blue.
The better question is whether the GOP was nut picking or whether they were attacking something Team Blue backs but main street doesn't. If it's the later then Blue knows the general public doesn't back Blue activists but they can't/won't disown them... and don't want to talk about it.
If we're going to say that the prosecution can't introduce them having a bad character, then are we also banning the defense from claiming her character is great?
RE: Immigrants not being citizens at birth.
Bad idea from multiple angles. Lack of birthright citizenship has worked out horribly in the places that have tried it. Our method is one of the big assimilative strengths of our society's Borg tendencies.
The problem with DEI is the criticism of the mainstream DEI seem to be correct. That's not an "activist" problem, that's a "the fish is rotten" problem.
The core idea that all differences are a result of discrimination is simply wrong. The antisemitism it encourages is a symptom of that problem but there are lots of others. Trump is correct in trying to get rid of it.
There have been various efforts to get rid of DEI before at various levels, and it's like trying to get people to get rid of their religion. (Maybe exactly like that).
For example when Michigan voters outlawed Affirmative Action, the Universities' still ended up with the same student bodies. The process got a lot harder to understand but they magically found a way to make the Black "C" equal to a White "A" or Asian "A+".
I'm hard pressed to see why giving up DEI would be "breaking the law" when it's already breaking the law to discriminate based on race and a lot of this DEI stuff is clearly doing that.
One of the issues is DEI does a lot of mount bailey. We're all against discrimination but the definition of "discrimination" is changed to "outcomes that aren't perfectly equal".
So you need to engage in discrimination in order to end discrimination.
An order to end DEI is going to need teeth because it will encounter push back from people who really do believe in their religion.
There is a strong suggestion that Trump made a deal with Netanyahu where the US would back Israel's settlements in the WB. I.e. that the cost of ending the war (no, I won't call it "genocide") was the Palestinians will lose land.
If that's the case I expect "voting the way they did was the right choice" won't age well.
let’s start with the 2023 rate of one reported violent incident for every 280,000 rides. Then imagine that you take the subway about 10 times a week, resulting in 500 rides per year. Also assume that you can see 20 riders whenever you take the train – if anything, a conservative assumption. Finally, let’s say you keep in regular contact with about 30 people who live in New York and have the same subway ridership habits.
You still have a low probability — about 1-in-500 — of being a victim of a reported violent crime yourself... You have a 1-in-30 chance of seeing a violent crime unfolding on the subway over the course of the year. And across your community of 30 people, there’s about a two-thirds chance that someone you know will have seen or experienced a violent crime unfolding on the train.
RE: it looks like he got away with committing felonies.
Yes.
Look at it from the Judge's point of view. He can order Trump jailed, but that puts the legal system in a direct conflict with the newly elected sitting President. So we're instantly in a Constitutional crisis, where we'll end up with the legal system needing to rule that the President is above the law.
Or the Judge can fold his hand.
It's not a perfect world, the system system's failures reflect that.
My experiences with mental illness has been varied. I've seen "a sanity pill a day makes them normal" two or three times.
I've also seen "there is no pill because that's who they are. They're determined to burn their life down while claiming it's everyone else who has a problem".
We can have most of the mentally ill respond well to treatment but also have that not mean much for the homeless because of selection bias.
This issue resists broad generalizations and is probably multiple groups with different issues being inappropriately merged.
DavidTC: Israel withdrawing from Gaza resulted in a massive dip in violence, or at least death, as Hamas... had to resort to extremely inefficient rocket attacks,
Pointing to rocket attacks as an example of "violence decreasing" is self conflicting. For that matter pointing to Israel turning Gaza into a prison to prevent suicide attacks is close to the same.
DavidTC: ...violence _by the IDF_
This takes us to whether or not the state has a monopoly on the use of violence. We normally give the state a pass on that, especially in the context of fighting terrorism.
The Palestinians literally can't make peace. If Israel makes a peace agreement the IDF will enforce it. Israel would still have these lone wolf actors but in theory each is a one off.
The Palestinian equiv of those lone wolves is Hamas and various other groups.
Both of them, however, are ‘governments’. So it’s somewhat hard to see the difference.
A big difference is the number of Jews who can live in areas Hamas controls is zero where about 20% of Israel is Arab.
The United States exists and would respond harshly to violent efforts to destroy it. It's supported by it's citizens. That reality soundly trumps any argument over who "should" control the land and/or various religious narratives.
DavidTC: The Glenn Amendment is an amendment to the Arms Export Control Act that allows the President to impose sanctions on non-nuclear weapon states that detonate nuclear weapons...
Two problems:
1) "Allows" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. The President doesn't have to do this and has waved this law for India.
2) "that detonate nuclear weapons" is also an issue. According to Google's AI, Israel hasn't officially tested nukes. It is suspected of having a test in 1979 around South Africa but that's never been confirmed.
DavidTC: There is no possible waiver
Let me just quote your quote: if the U.S. government were to conclude Israel detonated a nuclear explosion after 1977, the law, unless waived,
I don’t think it was a particular failure prior to 10-7.
I disagree.
To counter 911, the USA got better doors for every cockpit and told pilots to not open them. The resource cost was almost zero per plane.
You are drawing a line between the WB and 10-7, but it wasn't a matter of resources. Israel thought Hamas wasn't willing to drop all of Gaza into a woodchipper.
Given an unlimited amount of time and the resources of a country, a ruthless Hamas will be able to do this again. That's over and above the "tens of thousands of rockets terrorizing random civilians" issue which was also a failure.
The solution is to not let them have an unlimited amount of time and resources.
That implies if it pulls out, Israel will still need to be willing to put Gaza and/or the West Bank through a woodchipper even before 10-7.
I find it hard to picture the world being comfortable with that.
This is an argument that Israel's Gaza policy was a failure on 10-7.
However was it a failure before that? Is the world really ok with Israel having a serious war with Gaza just because it's arming up and sending the occasional rocket?
If the answer is "no", and imho it is, then Israel is expected to live not only with terrorism, but with a genocidal army getting ready just outside it's borders.
the Palestinians, were Israel to do this, would be very unhappy about the ultimate map and outcome.
And does the world allow this? The UN will proclaim it "illegal" and insist (like they already are) that the "right to return" is a thing.
Worse, what Israel learned from Gaza and Lebanon is they can't let these terror camps arm up. That they should have gone to war with them much earlier.
I don't see a lot of world wide support for what Israel is doing in Gaza right now outside of the USA. Would even the USA have backed the Gaza war before October 7th?
It's not bad if it's the American version of "flood [country] demographically". Everyone gets new foodstuffs to consume. We see people wearing funny hats but don't care enough to ask what they're called.
The Middle East "No Israel, No Jews" version is serious about the "No Jews" part. We have seen that repeatedly (and currently) showcased. For that matter we have also seen that spelled out black letter in various charters and verbalized.
My paraphrase is brutal and direct but imho it's useful to reduce the desire to it's core. Using flowery words "this is only our land" doesn't change the intent.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/27/2025”
Vice President Kamala Harris wasn’t performing well in softball interviews as her sugar high faded in September and early October. But if she wanted to expand her support — and she needed to — she would have to expose herself to tough questioning
Then the article talks about how Rogan more or less refused to meet with Harris. Because reporters never want exclusives with potential Presidents.
But fine, let's ignore Rogan's incentives all seem to be stacked the other way and assume that's true.
Rogan isn't the only reporter/podcaster/news source/etc.
What non-softball interviews did Harris do instead?
If the answer is "Harris never did hard interviews, ever", then the issue probably wasn't that everyone who could conceivably give a hard interview was on a fishing trip on every day between September and the election.
"
DavidTC: I would like a single bit of evidence that Democrats made a bigger issues of trans people than Republicans did this election.
The GOP was clearly making a bigger deal of this than Team Blue.
The better question is whether the GOP was nut picking or whether they were attacking something Team Blue backs but main street doesn't. If it's the later then Blue knows the general public doesn't back Blue activists but they can't/won't disown them... and don't want to talk about it.
On “SCOTUS Grants Reprieve to ‘Slut Shamed’ Woman on Oklahoma’s Death Row”
If we're going to say that the prosecution can't introduce them having a bad character, then are we also banning the defense from claiming her character is great?
On “Trump Doesn’t Have a Monopoly on Lawlessness”
RE: Immigrants not being citizens at birth.
Bad idea from multiple angles. Lack of birthright citizenship has worked out horribly in the places that have tried it. Our method is one of the big assimilative strengths of our society's Borg tendencies.
RE: Greenland
It's a small beer distraction.
RE: DEI
This is the big issue and the big win.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/20/2025”
The problem with DEI is the criticism of the mainstream DEI seem to be correct. That's not an "activist" problem, that's a "the fish is rotten" problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity,_equity,_and_inclusion#Criticism_and_controversy
The core idea that all differences are a result of discrimination is simply wrong. The antisemitism it encourages is a symptom of that problem but there are lots of others. Trump is correct in trying to get rid of it.
"
You can't beat something with nothing. Harris ran as an empty suit and Clinton ran on "it's my turn".
Get a charismatic governor.
"
There have been various efforts to get rid of DEI before at various levels, and it's like trying to get people to get rid of their religion. (Maybe exactly like that).
For example when Michigan voters outlawed Affirmative Action, the Universities' still ended up with the same student bodies. The process got a lot harder to understand but they magically found a way to make the Black "C" equal to a White "A" or Asian "A+".
I'm hard pressed to see why giving up DEI would be "breaking the law" when it's already breaking the law to discriminate based on race and a lot of this DEI stuff is clearly doing that.
One of the issues is DEI does a lot of mount bailey. We're all against discrimination but the definition of "discrimination" is changed to "outcomes that aren't perfectly equal".
So you need to engage in discrimination in order to end discrimination.
An order to end DEI is going to need teeth because it will encounter push back from people who really do believe in their religion.
On “Reports: Isreal and Hamas Agree To Cease-fire Deal”
There is a strong suggestion that Trump made a deal with Netanyahu where the US would back Israel's settlements in the WB. I.e. that the cost of ending the war (no, I won't call it "genocide") was the Palestinians will lose land.
If that's the case I expect "voting the way they did was the right choice" won't age well.
"
Not sure "afraid" is the right word. Israel has accomplished everything that it reasonably can so it's looking for an excuse to go to the next phase.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/6/2025”
If we're making genii like wishes then I want super powers.
"
did so from a morally corrupt and cynical position, a statement now backed up by empirical fact.
Female genital mutilation doesn't affect many people in the US. Ergo opposition to it must be "morally corrupt and cynical".
Adults making serious and permanent changes to the genitals of children seems like something that should get a lot of attention.
"
From your own link, about 3% of youth self identify as trans. "Youth" implies 43 million people.
Thus the potential "size" of this issue is 1.3 million people.
On “Re-Open the Asylums: A New Take”
I suspect strongly that you can't do all of those things at the same time.
"Involuntary" is a massive trade off because there will be people who insist on making bad choices.
You can treat everyone if you have "involuntary", or you can not have involuntary and accept some people will refuse to make good choices.
"
It doesn’t happen every day.
let’s start with the 2023 rate of one reported violent incident for every 280,000 rides. Then imagine that you take the subway about 10 times a week, resulting in 500 rides per year. Also assume that you can see 20 riders whenever you take the train – if anything, a conservative assumption. Finally, let’s say you keep in regular contact with about 30 people who live in New York and have the same subway ridership habits.
You still have a low probability — about 1-in-500 — of being a victim of a reported violent crime yourself... You have a 1-in-30 chance of seeing a violent crime unfolding on the subway over the course of the year. And across your community of 30 people, there’s about a two-thirds chance that someone you know will have seen or experienced a violent crime unfolding on the train.
https://www.vitalcitynyc.org/articles/how-rare-is-crime-on-the-subway
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/30/2024”
RE: it looks like he got away with committing felonies.
Yes.
Look at it from the Judge's point of view. He can order Trump jailed, but that puts the legal system in a direct conflict with the newly elected sitting President. So we're instantly in a Constitutional crisis, where we'll end up with the legal system needing to rule that the President is above the law.
Or the Judge can fold his hand.
It's not a perfect world, the system system's failures reflect that.
"
My experiences with mental illness has been varied. I've seen "a sanity pill a day makes them normal" two or three times.
I've also seen "there is no pill because that's who they are. They're determined to burn their life down while claiming it's everyone else who has a problem".
We can have most of the mentally ill respond well to treatment but also have that not mean much for the homeless because of selection bias.
This issue resists broad generalizations and is probably multiple groups with different issues being inappropriately merged.
On “Joe Biden Agrees that Some People *DO* Deserve the Death Penalty”
DavidTC: There are parts that cannot be waived, and those have to do with supplying weapons.
India is openly a nuclear power and we sell weapons to them, because we've waved the parts you claim can't be waved.
"
DavidTC: Israel withdrawing from Gaza resulted in a massive dip in violence, or at least death, as Hamas... had to resort to extremely inefficient rocket attacks,
Pointing to rocket attacks as an example of "violence decreasing" is self conflicting. For that matter pointing to Israel turning Gaza into a prison to prevent suicide attacks is close to the same.
DavidTC: ...violence _by the IDF_
This takes us to whether or not the state has a monopoly on the use of violence. We normally give the state a pass on that, especially in the context of fighting terrorism.
The Palestinians literally can't make peace. If Israel makes a peace agreement the IDF will enforce it. Israel would still have these lone wolf actors but in theory each is a one off.
The Palestinian equiv of those lone wolves is Hamas and various other groups.
Both of them, however, are ‘governments’. So it’s somewhat hard to see the difference.
A big difference is the number of Jews who can live in areas Hamas controls is zero where about 20% of Israel is Arab.
"
You're over thinking this.
The United States exists and would respond harshly to violent efforts to destroy it. It's supported by it's citizens. That reality soundly trumps any argument over who "should" control the land and/or various religious narratives.
"
DavidTC: The Glenn Amendment is an amendment to the Arms Export Control Act that allows the President to impose sanctions on non-nuclear weapon states that detonate nuclear weapons...
Two problems:
1) "Allows" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. The President doesn't have to do this and has waved this law for India.
2) "that detonate nuclear weapons" is also an issue. According to Google's AI, Israel hasn't officially tested nukes. It is suspected of having a test in 1979 around South Africa but that's never been confirmed.
DavidTC: There is no possible waiver
Let me just quote your quote: if the U.S. government were to conclude Israel detonated a nuclear explosion after 1977, the law, unless waived,
"
I don’t think it was a particular failure prior to 10-7.
I disagree.
To counter 911, the USA got better doors for every cockpit and told pilots to not open them. The resource cost was almost zero per plane.
You are drawing a line between the WB and 10-7, but it wasn't a matter of resources. Israel thought Hamas wasn't willing to drop all of Gaza into a woodchipper.
Given an unlimited amount of time and the resources of a country, a ruthless Hamas will be able to do this again. That's over and above the "tens of thousands of rockets terrorizing random civilians" issue which was also a failure.
The solution is to not let them have an unlimited amount of time and resources.
That implies if it pulls out, Israel will still need to be willing to put Gaza and/or the West Bank through a woodchipper even before 10-7.
I find it hard to picture the world being comfortable with that.
"
you shouldn’t redivert your defense forces
This is an argument that Israel's Gaza policy was a failure on 10-7.
However was it a failure before that? Is the world really ok with Israel having a serious war with Gaza just because it's arming up and sending the occasional rocket?
If the answer is "no", and imho it is, then Israel is expected to live not only with terrorism, but with a genocidal army getting ready just outside it's borders.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/23/2024”
Jimmy Carter is dead at age 100.
https://www.wbaltv.com/article/jimmy-carter-dies/37305624
On “Joe Biden Agrees that Some People *DO* Deserve the Death Penalty”
the Palestinians, were Israel to do this, would be very unhappy about the ultimate map and outcome.
And does the world allow this? The UN will proclaim it "illegal" and insist (like they already are) that the "right to return" is a thing.
Worse, what Israel learned from Gaza and Lebanon is they can't let these terror camps arm up. That they should have gone to war with them much earlier.
I don't see a lot of world wide support for what Israel is doing in Gaza right now outside of the USA. Would even the USA have backed the Gaza war before October 7th?
"
Why is this a bad thing?
It's not bad if it's the American version of "flood [country] demographically". Everyone gets new foodstuffs to consume. We see people wearing funny hats but don't care enough to ask what they're called.
The Middle East "No Israel, No Jews" version is serious about the "No Jews" part. We have seen that repeatedly (and currently) showcased. For that matter we have also seen that spelled out black letter in various charters and verbalized.
My paraphrase is brutal and direct but imho it's useful to reduce the desire to it's core. Using flowery words "this is only our land" doesn't change the intent.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.