Why? The professionals have made their decision-- and it is their decision --- and are content with the results. And I'm OK with that. Whoever you think you're arguing with, it isn't me.
You misunderstand. SportsWorld is suffused with bullshit right-wing politics pretending it isn't politics. I have no interest in trying to change that, let alone introducing bullshit politics more to my taste. I'm enough of an adult to understand that not every minute of an hours-long sportscast will or should appeal to me and I don't whine when something doesn't. SportsWorld, however, is the toy store and screaming kids are a fact of life.
There's an old adage: if you want to get the maximum amount of rubble into a dump truck, load the boulders first, then the big rocks, then the small rocks, then the pebbles, then the gravel, then the sand. Some people, though, just seem to like shoveling sand.
And this is a particularly bad example, even from the perspective of sand-shovelers. The Harris campaign reached out to a demographic they wanted to reach, sports fans, that were not inclined to vote for her. Maybe it wasn't Joe Rogan, but it was a fine piece of sand shoveling.
But it didn't work, and predictably so. When people whine about not wanting politics in their sports, what they really object to is someone else's politics in their sports: Colin Kaepernick keeling is politics; denouncing Coin Kaepernick for kneeling isn't, dammit. And as any significant consumer of sports and sports media can tell you, the prevailing tilt of sports politics is rightward. Just last week, for example, when I made my 15-minute drive to the train station with sports talk radio on, I spent an entire ride hearing nothing about sports and tuning out the drive-time host's rant about Daniel the subway choker Penny. And I'd bet he thinks he hates politics in sports.
If we wanted "God's discernment " we would look to someone who has a credible claim to knowing what it is. But if the point is that none of us has such a claim, there's nothing more to be said about it.
And slim v. none on some good stuff outweighs all the bad stuff? Is there any other candidate for any other office to whom you would apply such a standard?
Predicting is an actual thing, for which there can be varying degrees of justification. And people necessarily act on predictions all the time.
Do you actually dispute the prediction that RFK Jr. will not be allowed in a Trump administration to pursue the things some of us think he is right about?
If not, do you think that Colorado Springs Man supports RFK Jr.'s doomed attempt to defy his boss is sufficiently likely to matter to take on all the other baggage that RFK Jr. brings?
Or is this just rationalizing distaste for people who don't like RFK Jr.?
Neither RFK Jr., nor anyone else acceptable to a Trump administration, will do a damn thing about Big Food, Big Pharma, and Big Agriculture, even if so inclined, because Donald Trump won't let them. So that's a wash. That just leaves us with how much you care about, oh, everything else. If you care about everything else, it's much better not to have RFK Jr.
It’s likely that a sane person will be much smarter about what he’s going to pursue. Unlikely to tilt against something that he has no chance of winning against.
Why that is supposed to be less preferable? In your scenario, the new candidate won't pursue a bunch of stupid s**t that RFK Jr. would and would make fewer ineffectual noises than RFK Jr. about stuff that is not stupid s**t but that neither of them would be allowed to pursue. And in either case, the support of people who would like those windmills tilted at -- damn few of them Trump supporters -- would be politically meaningless in a Trump administration. Your hypothetical, which you seem to think problematic, is, on the contrary, a net gain for sanity.
Why support "him" rather than whatever he happens to be right about? He, himself, whether right or wrong on a particular issue, is an inconsequential whackjob who has no business being put up for the job he hopes to hold. Especially when he will not be allowed to pursue those things he is right about. Those who share his views on Big Food, Big Pharma, and Big Agriculture have been advocating them despite the handicap of being associated with RFK Jr. and will probably continue to do so.
The RFK Jr. sanewashers tout a couple of things RFK, Jr. (fun fact, we sat in the same room to take the bar exam) is right about. The problem is, he's right about the problems of Big Food, Big Pharma, and Big Agriculture, big Republican constituencies he won't be allowed to touch in a Trump administration.
What's not disputed is that some of the frightened passengers were telling Penny to ease up and that Neely was subdued and choking. If Penny were merely "holding him down," then there would have been no trial even if it were 12-15 minutes because Neely wouldn't have died. But you can easily choke a man to death in 3-5 minutes; Penny had been trained how to do that.
None of which was legally relevant to the negligent homicide charge, which was presented on the theory that Penny didn't do anything wrong at the beginning of his intervention, but only when he continued choking Neely long after he was effectively subdued and was, in fact, dying.
This is a lot simpler and more plausible than the eleventh-dimensional chess scenarios. They won't ask for or accept pardons. In any sane world, they will not be prosecuted for anything because they haven't done anything for which they can be prosecuted. If Trumpworld isn't Saneworld and they get prosecuted, I expect they will fight on the merits. If they are asked to testify before Congress, they will do so because nothing they could truthfully say would incriminate them.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “From Semafor: Kamala Harris’ digital chief on Democrats ‘losing hold of culture’”
With whom, exactly, do you think you're disagreeing?
"
If you pick both sides' arguments for them. you can't lose.
"
Why? The professionals have made their decision-- and it is their decision --- and are content with the results. And I'm OK with that. Whoever you think you're arguing with, it isn't me.
"
You misunderstand. SportsWorld is suffused with bullshit right-wing politics pretending it isn't politics. I have no interest in trying to change that, let alone introducing bullshit politics more to my taste. I'm enough of an adult to understand that not every minute of an hours-long sportscast will or should appeal to me and I don't whine when something doesn't. SportsWorld, however, is the toy store and screaming kids are a fact of life.
"
Thanks
"
I tried again because I saw this comment come up. Didn't work.
"
There's an old adage: if you want to get the maximum amount of rubble into a dump truck, load the boulders first, then the big rocks, then the small rocks, then the pebbles, then the gravel, then the sand. Some people, though, just seem to like shoveling sand.
And this is a particularly bad example, even from the perspective of sand-shovelers. The Harris campaign reached out to a demographic they wanted to reach, sports fans, that were not inclined to vote for her. Maybe it wasn't Joe Rogan, but it was a fine piece of sand shoveling.
But it didn't work, and predictably so. When people whine about not wanting politics in their sports, what they really object to is someone else's politics in their sports: Colin Kaepernick keeling is politics; denouncing Coin Kaepernick for kneeling isn't, dammit. And as any significant consumer of sports and sports media can tell you, the prevailing tilt of sports politics is rightward. Just last week, for example, when I made my 15-minute drive to the train station with sports talk radio on, I spent an entire ride hearing nothing about sports and tuning out the drive-time host's rant about Daniel the subway choker Penny. And I'd bet he thinks he hates politics in sports.
"
For some reason, my comment isn't going through. I sent it twice, thinking I screwed up the first time. I like the second better.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/9/2024”
Maybe we need a comic sans typeface here. Or you do, anyway.
On “Asian Voters Abandoned Democrats in Droves and Might Not be Coming Back”
There doesn't have to be a reason for San Francisco to be on the bingo card. But it is.
On “Thursday Throughput: RFK Jr Edition”
No, it's not. You didn't ask anything. I'm not sure you said anything either, but that's another matter.
"
If we wanted "God's discernment " we would look to someone who has a credible claim to knowing what it is. But if the point is that none of us has such a claim, there's nothing more to be said about it.
"
That was clear enough. Thanks for playing.
"
Well, you thought wrong. So answer the questions. Or don't. Just make it clear that you aren't going to and save our time.
"
And slim v. none on some good stuff outweighs all the bad stuff? Is there any other candidate for any other office to whom you would apply such a standard?
"
Well, yes, the dang gummint won't let the dang gummint do what the head of the dang gummint doesn't want done.
Your point is?
"
Predicting is an actual thing, for which there can be varying degrees of justification. And people necessarily act on predictions all the time.
Do you actually dispute the prediction that RFK Jr. will not be allowed in a Trump administration to pursue the things some of us think he is right about?
If not, do you think that Colorado Springs Man supports RFK Jr.'s doomed attempt to defy his boss is sufficiently likely to matter to take on all the other baggage that RFK Jr. brings?
Or is this just rationalizing distaste for people who don't like RFK Jr.?
"
Neither RFK Jr., nor anyone else acceptable to a Trump administration, will do a damn thing about Big Food, Big Pharma, and Big Agriculture, even if so inclined, because Donald Trump won't let them. So that's a wash. That just leaves us with how much you care about, oh, everything else. If you care about everything else, it's much better not to have RFK Jr.
"
It’s likely that a sane person will be much smarter about what he’s going to pursue. Unlikely to tilt against something that he has no chance of winning against.
Why that is supposed to be less preferable? In your scenario, the new candidate won't pursue a bunch of stupid s**t that RFK Jr. would and would make fewer ineffectual noises than RFK Jr. about stuff that is not stupid s**t but that neither of them would be allowed to pursue. And in either case, the support of people who would like those windmills tilted at -- damn few of them Trump supporters -- would be politically meaningless in a Trump administration. Your hypothetical, which you seem to think problematic, is, on the contrary, a net gain for sanity.
"
That's not what "sanewashing" means. But you knew that.
"
Why support "him" rather than whatever he happens to be right about? He, himself, whether right or wrong on a particular issue, is an inconsequential whackjob who has no business being put up for the job he hopes to hold. Especially when he will not be allowed to pursue those things he is right about. Those who share his views on Big Food, Big Pharma, and Big Agriculture have been advocating them despite the handicap of being associated with RFK Jr. and will probably continue to do so.
"
The RFK Jr. sanewashers tout a couple of things RFK, Jr. (fun fact, we sat in the same room to take the bar exam) is right about. The problem is, he's right about the problems of Big Food, Big Pharma, and Big Agriculture, big Republican constituencies he won't be allowed to touch in a Trump administration.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/9/2024”
What's not disputed is that some of the frightened passengers were telling Penny to ease up and that Neely was subdued and choking. If Penny were merely "holding him down," then there would have been no trial even if it were 12-15 minutes because Neely wouldn't have died. But you can easily choke a man to death in 3-5 minutes; Penny had been trained how to do that.
"
None of which was legally relevant to the negligent homicide charge, which was presented on the theory that Penny didn't do anything wrong at the beginning of his intervention, but only when he continued choking Neely long after he was effectively subdued and was, in fact, dying.
"
This is a lot simpler and more plausible than the eleventh-dimensional chess scenarios. They won't ask for or accept pardons. In any sane world, they will not be prosecuted for anything because they haven't done anything for which they can be prosecuted. If Trumpworld isn't Saneworld and they get prosecuted, I expect they will fight on the merits. If they are asked to testify before Congress, they will do so because nothing they could truthfully say would incriminate them.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.