Yeah there's not often a formal repudiation, just a kind of awkward reluctance to talk about it, a refusal to step up to defend what used to be passionate and now are defunct positions and a general eagerness to change the subject.
Unless someone can dig up a video of Harris leading a night time mob into a target with a burning torch or something I think the 2020's less peaceful minority events will have limited salience- so long as she, de minimis, sticks to Bidens lines on this.
I don't think Kamala was actually in charge of any jurisdictions when the summer of Floyd happened. She said plenty of dumb stuff while running for the 2020 nod but, in theory, if she says different-opposing things now that should mostly ameliorate it. It helps that I get the distinct vibe that the further left is quietly chastened by the worst excesses of 2020's events- not enough to actually vocally renounce it, mind, but enough to not want to talk about it and, thus, not get exercised if Kamala defects in a centrist direction on most of those subjects.
Yeah I probably should have worded it as the right has the unique capacity to make hay out of nothing. The DUI event, at least, actually happened so that'd be a comparatively easy subject for them to work with.
It's the argument from the Congress in 2010 all over again and I think it cuts in favor of the left. Yes the ACA was passed. Yes they lost their majority. The ACA endures and is even popular now and the majority has been regained and lost a couple times since.
The summer of Floyd happened. Two things can be true at once:
-The massive daytime protests were overwhelmingly peaceful.
-Then when it got dark bad actors, both among the protestors; among the cops supporters and especially the opportunistic dirtbags who sensed that the Law was on hiatus; caused no small amount of damage and trouble.
Walz was in charge when the initial troubles cropped up and the right will, no doubt, try to rag on him for it to varying effect. It will be complicated slightly by the fact that the police unions and worst police actors are/were unabashed right wing Trumpists.
Walz also was in charge when everyone got sick of it and the National guard and police got sent back in to put paid to the disorder. The left could rag on him for that but, thankfully, in the intervening times the idiocy of the "property violence is the righteous cry of the oppressed" minority got thoroughly shellacked so I suspect there won't be much heart behind it. Note that Walz and Mayor Frey ultimately squashed the misbehavior in the cities very firmly and both got easily re-elected.
But absolutely I'd expect that the right will go after Walz for 2020. I'm not sure it's a good idea for them because Kamala is a Kop and the sting on the left has mostly been excised from that so they'd be basically lobbing a slow pitch over the plate for her to repeat Bidens position on the whole matter.
First I've heard of it. The Right certainly has the capacity to try and make hay out of anything but this doesn't sound like it'll get legs outside the already decided bubble.
Walz is, in some ways, a mini-Biden. He got a narrow trifecta in MN and then enacted a truck load of policy changes using it. He's overseen legalizing pot which is a significant win not just on policy but also on politics- MN has had two sock puppet Pot legalization parties propped up by the right to split the left vote on pot grounds which have long been a drag and now, with pot legalized, are basically defunct.
Walz has vulnerabilities- his policies are kryptonite for libertarians and some brands of Trumpist populists and he was Governor during the 2020 summer of Floyd.
Personally I'm a fan. Picking Walz was the safer bet compared to Shapiro who is less vetted, less tested and carries more risk (both upside and downside risk). Walz is a party man, a folksy mid westerner and also seems to have some good political instincts. He's a formidable pick but not an inspired one.
Oh yes, I'm not remotely unhappy about things. It is entirely plausible that Harris' vetters said "no bueno" and that was that- I was trying to suggest as much when I mentioned that Shapiro had more downside as well as upside risk.
So Reagan wouldn't have met this criteria. Bush HW would have. Neither Clinton, Carter, Obama or Trump would have met this criteria. So basically only HW Bush in the past forty some years is that right?
Walz is a pretty strong pick but, agreed, also the safer one. Shapiro had more upside and downside risk. I've certainly thought quite well of Walz as my Governor but I'd have never guessed he'd be a contender for veep. With how vital PA will be I'd have leaned in the Shapiro direction myself but Shapiro has more vulnerable attack surfaces on him (not the Israel thing though, he's indistinguishable from the other candidates on that).
I will admit that I had been feeling a dreary malaise since the debate that lifted when Biden stepped aside. What an incredible thing for him to do (for whatever reasons he did step aside- a venal man faced with a strong push to oust him would have said "fish you" and taken us all down flaming with him out of sheer spite),
Also saw this flick recently so glad you reviewed it. Some points.
-The 4th wall breaking stuff, especially when they castigate the MCU for most of their post end game work was quite remarkable. Doubly remarkable when you recall that Feige is very much elbow deep into this film.
-Cassandra Nova was incredible- powerful, scary, beautifully acted, deranged but also volatile and an absolute marvel on screen.
-Agreed on Reynolds and Jackmans chemistry. Also the fight scenes were so very vintage wolverine. The pounces, the furious claw stabs, etc. Jackman did incredible work.
-a Tom Hiddleston cameo wouldn’t have worked in my opinion since he is functionally the Yggsdrasil of the multiverse now and, thus, couldn’t easily be dipping into the stories willy nilly. I was not particularly fond of the Loki miniseries but they made some tolerable use of its material.
Nodding back to the fourth wall breaking stuff I wonder if this is forecasting a better approach to future MCU films? Because they savaged the more recent MCU stuff and, frankly, it has deserved savaging.
I know Freddie himself isn't representative of the left but when he waxes at length on this subject he's singing from a pretty standard berniesta-leftist songbook. A rare moment of venn overlap with the leftists whom he often criticizes.
Those folks, Freddie assuredly among them, remain bitter about Sanders not winning the nomination in 2016 and 2020 regardless of the fact that he got outvoted both times (and outvoted worse in 2020 than in 2016).
I think it was Jared Bernstein who said that a political parties core priorities are, in order of importance:
#1 assembling coalitions of voters and agreeing on a platform of policies that addresses the various coalition members principles while not directly violating the other members principles.
#2 selecting nominees who will adhere to the parties platform.
#3 selecting nominees who will win elections .
A lot of people tend to forget that #3 is mostly useless if you don’t achieve #1 and #2.
Regarding Hillary collapsing at the 9/11 event would you concede, now 8 years roughly on from that event with Hillary alive and well, that your various alluded criticisms of people saying her collapsing was not indicative of any serious health problem, were wrong?
You and I don't particularly disagree. The Presidency is big and, set up with competent staff and a specific vision, could run pretty well with little further input from the CVO as you put it.
How about this. To remain president once you are one you only need an absence of evidence that you're incapable. The onus is on opponents trying to force you to resign or to invoke the 25th to provide affirmative evidence of incapacity. To be a presidential candidate, however, requires more of the candidate. Affirmative evidence of capability is required otherwise, well, what happened this last month can happen. (well, at least if you're a member of a living functioning political party)
The Dems are risk averse, that's among the reasons why she got the veep nod in 2020 and why she's the presidential nominee now this year. I do not think they, or she, would be eager to run a 2 woman or a 1 woman and 1 gay man ticket (which is why I doubt Buttigieg is being seriously considered). A two woman ticket strikes me as daring in a year the Dems are not at all in a mood to be daring. Harris herself ticks all the boxes a woman Veep would tick- I wouldn't bet we'll see a two woman show.
On “Tim Walz Tapped to be VP Kamala Harris Running Mate”
Yeah there's not often a formal repudiation, just a kind of awkward reluctance to talk about it, a refusal to step up to defend what used to be passionate and now are defunct positions and a general eagerness to change the subject.
"
Unless someone can dig up a video of Harris leading a night time mob into a target with a burning torch or something I think the 2020's less peaceful minority events will have limited salience- so long as she, de minimis, sticks to Bidens lines on this.
"
I don't think Kamala was actually in charge of any jurisdictions when the summer of Floyd happened. She said plenty of dumb stuff while running for the 2020 nod but, in theory, if she says different-opposing things now that should mostly ameliorate it. It helps that I get the distinct vibe that the further left is quietly chastened by the worst excesses of 2020's events- not enough to actually vocally renounce it, mind, but enough to not want to talk about it and, thus, not get exercised if Kamala defects in a centrist direction on most of those subjects.
"
Yeah I probably should have worded it as the right has the unique capacity to make hay out of nothing. The DUI event, at least, actually happened so that'd be a comparatively easy subject for them to work with.
"
It's the argument from the Congress in 2010 all over again and I think it cuts in favor of the left. Yes the ACA was passed. Yes they lost their majority. The ACA endures and is even popular now and the majority has been regained and lost a couple times since.
"
Is that a policy they're pushing? Deaf people can't be allowed to drive?
"
The summer of Floyd happened. Two things can be true at once:
-The massive daytime protests were overwhelmingly peaceful.
-Then when it got dark bad actors, both among the protestors; among the cops supporters and especially the opportunistic dirtbags who sensed that the Law was on hiatus; caused no small amount of damage and trouble.
Walz was in charge when the initial troubles cropped up and the right will, no doubt, try to rag on him for it to varying effect. It will be complicated slightly by the fact that the police unions and worst police actors are/were unabashed right wing Trumpists.
Walz also was in charge when everyone got sick of it and the National guard and police got sent back in to put paid to the disorder. The left could rag on him for that but, thankfully, in the intervening times the idiocy of the "property violence is the righteous cry of the oppressed" minority got thoroughly shellacked so I suspect there won't be much heart behind it. Note that Walz and Mayor Frey ultimately squashed the misbehavior in the cities very firmly and both got easily re-elected.
But absolutely I'd expect that the right will go after Walz for 2020. I'm not sure it's a good idea for them because Kamala is a Kop and the sting on the left has mostly been excised from that so they'd be basically lobbing a slow pitch over the plate for her to repeat Bidens position on the whole matter.
"
I don't recall saying both sides don't do it.
"
First I've heard of it. The Right certainly has the capacity to try and make hay out of anything but this doesn't sound like it'll get legs outside the already decided bubble.
"
Walz is, in some ways, a mini-Biden. He got a narrow trifecta in MN and then enacted a truck load of policy changes using it. He's overseen legalizing pot which is a significant win not just on policy but also on politics- MN has had two sock puppet Pot legalization parties propped up by the right to split the left vote on pot grounds which have long been a drag and now, with pot legalized, are basically defunct.
Walz has vulnerabilities- his policies are kryptonite for libertarians and some brands of Trumpist populists and he was Governor during the 2020 summer of Floyd.
Personally I'm a fan. Picking Walz was the safer bet compared to Shapiro who is less vetted, less tested and carries more risk (both upside and downside risk). Walz is a party man, a folksy mid westerner and also seems to have some good political instincts. He's a formidable pick but not an inspired one.
On “Tim Walz announced as Kamala Harris’s running mate”
Oh yes, I'm not remotely unhappy about things. It is entirely plausible that Harris' vetters said "no bueno" and that was that- I was trying to suggest as much when I mentioned that Shapiro had more downside as well as upside risk.
"
Fair enough.
"
Yeah I missed the 8 years governor part in the first read through. Though Walz is a six year Governor and was in the military prior to that.
"
Probably so. I don't know if Walz is in the Tim Kaine level of safety choice or not. It occurs to me that I haven't seen Walz debate.
"
I mean, Walz specifically has been 6 years as Governor and was military prior to that so he doesn't seem particularly outside your criteria.
"
So Reagan wouldn't have met this criteria. Bush HW would have. Neither Clinton, Carter, Obama or Trump would have met this criteria. So basically only HW Bush in the past forty some years is that right?
"
Walz is a pretty strong pick but, agreed, also the safer one. Shapiro had more upside and downside risk. I've certainly thought quite well of Walz as my Governor but I'd have never guessed he'd be a contender for veep. With how vital PA will be I'd have leaned in the Shapiro direction myself but Shapiro has more vulnerable attack surfaces on him (not the Israel thing though, he's indistinguishable from the other candidates on that).
On “The Problem of Political Commentary”
I will admit that I had been feeling a dreary malaise since the debate that lifted when Biden stepped aside. What an incredible thing for him to do (for whatever reasons he did step aside- a venal man faced with a strong push to oust him would have said "fish you" and taken us all down flaming with him out of sheer spite),
On “Deadpool & Wolverine: A Nerd Buffet”
Also saw this flick recently so glad you reviewed it. Some points.
-The 4th wall breaking stuff, especially when they castigate the MCU for most of their post end game work was quite remarkable. Doubly remarkable when you recall that Feige is very much elbow deep into this film.
-Cassandra Nova was incredible- powerful, scary, beautifully acted, deranged but also volatile and an absolute marvel on screen.
-Agreed on Reynolds and Jackmans chemistry. Also the fight scenes were so very vintage wolverine. The pounces, the furious claw stabs, etc. Jackman did incredible work.
-a Tom Hiddleston cameo wouldn’t have worked in my opinion since he is functionally the Yggsdrasil of the multiverse now and, thus, couldn’t easily be dipping into the stories willy nilly. I was not particularly fond of the Loki miniseries but they made some tolerable use of its material.
Nodding back to the fourth wall breaking stuff I wonder if this is forecasting a better approach to future MCU films? Because they savaged the more recent MCU stuff and, frankly, it has deserved savaging.
On “None Dare Call It A Conspiracy, Because It Wasn’t”
I know Freddie himself isn't representative of the left but when he waxes at length on this subject he's singing from a pretty standard berniesta-leftist songbook. A rare moment of venn overlap with the leftists whom he often criticizes.
"
Those folks, Freddie assuredly among them, remain bitter about Sanders not winning the nomination in 2016 and 2020 regardless of the fact that he got outvoted both times (and outvoted worse in 2020 than in 2016).
I think it was Jared Bernstein who said that a political parties core priorities are, in order of importance:
#1 assembling coalitions of voters and agreeing on a platform of policies that addresses the various coalition members principles while not directly violating the other members principles.
#2 selecting nominees who will adhere to the parties platform.
#3 selecting nominees who will win elections .
A lot of people tend to forget that #3 is mostly useless if you don’t achieve #1 and #2.
"
Regarding Hillary collapsing at the 9/11 event would you concede, now 8 years roughly on from that event with Hillary alive and well, that your various alluded criticisms of people saying her collapsing was not indicative of any serious health problem, were wrong?
On “President Biden Addresses the Nation Regarding Not Seeking Re-election”
You and I don't particularly disagree. The Presidency is big and, set up with competent staff and a specific vision, could run pretty well with little further input from the CVO as you put it.
How about this. To remain president once you are one you only need an absence of evidence that you're incapable. The onus is on opponents trying to force you to resign or to invoke the 25th to provide affirmative evidence of incapacity. To be a presidential candidate, however, requires more of the candidate. Affirmative evidence of capability is required otherwise, well, what happened this last month can happen. (well, at least if you're a member of a living functioning political party)
On “Kamala’s Veepstakes”
You must surely be chuffed at the prospect? The Dems have broken their string of east of the Rockies nominees.
"
The Dems are risk averse, that's among the reasons why she got the veep nod in 2020 and why she's the presidential nominee now this year. I do not think they, or she, would be eager to run a 2 woman or a 1 woman and 1 gay man ticket (which is why I doubt Buttigieg is being seriously considered). A two woman ticket strikes me as daring in a year the Dems are not at all in a mood to be daring. Harris herself ticks all the boxes a woman Veep would tick- I wouldn't bet we'll see a two woman show.