Commenter Archive

Leaving aside that it isn't true. Lots of people publicly, and many people privately, spent more than 30 seconds on what went wrong. There were even actual, hard-copy, publicly-available books on the subject. And the proof of the pudding is that the mistakes were not repeated.

All of which is equally true of gas prices in general.

With the Electoral College system in place, close but no cigar can be interesting for the future -- there might be a way to get, say, Kansas or Texas in a few cycles -- but doesn't mean much now.

You're assuming that Philip H is trying to convince them of -- well, what, exactly? -- rather than describing how things are.

The reactions of the people to whom the term would apply if it caught on obviously figure heavily into whether it will catch on. If they don't like it, it probably won't. And that's fine.

I'm sure we'll all be equally attentive to how people want to be referred to the next time a dust-up happens.

I looked, out of perverse curiosity, and, in fact, it does.

If I were interested in refreshing my recollection of what was "normal," I wouldn't be looking there.

Why would any sane person want to do that?

So it didn't catch on. That's language for you. Tempest, meet teapot. Unless all the screechers who got their panties in a twist about it want to claim credit.

So it didn't catch on. That's language for you. Tempest, meet teapot. Unless all the screeches who got their panties in a twist about it want to claim credit.

We stand in violent agreement.

Well, yes, I agree that that's what DD thinks -- or says, since we apparently can't tell what people think. I was trying to clarify what I said. And think.
A lot of blameless people will suffer the consequences if TFG gets his way.

The "innocent" I'm referring to are the vast numbers of people who will lose out on competent, non-political government services when the non-political public servants jump or get pushed out.

You must be new around here.

Don't you think it's important to keep innocent people from suffering the consequences of other people's actions?

Well, you certainly said above what you say now. If that means you've "covered it," well I guess you've covered it.

Newsom.

I know there are lots of people who say things here. I assume that they think things somewhat related to what they say. But maybe not.

The transitive property works only if something is something, not if it is merely called something. Vance can be (really) worse than Trump without being (really) worse than Hitler. Unless you insist that Trump is, in fact, equivalent to or worse than Hitler. Now maybe you can find someone somewhere who really thinks that. In a country of 300-odd million people, some very odd indeed, there is bound to be somebody, but you'll have to look very hard and won't find very much.

When people talk about whether Harris is "qualified" to be President, I have to ask: "If that's your concern, the answer is Donald Trump?"
Now, compared to Johnny Unbeatable, she comes up short, but Johnny Unbeatable is fiction. Is any member of, say, Joe Biden's cabinet clearly better qualified and electable. (I love Janet Yellen, but come on...) There may well be governors or senators who see a President in the mirror every morning, and may even be very good, but was there any conceivable realistic process that would have thrown up somebody else on short notice without tearing the Party to pieces? Any actual candidate will always pale when compared with hypothetical alternatives, especially if the actual candidate loses.

A standard we can all sign off on.

I'm sorry, I thought when you said "Hitler," you meant Hitler. There actually is an argument for Vance being worse than Trump. And you know what it is.

A standard we can all sign on to.

Burying the lede.

I'll bet it sounded better in the original German.