For sure, I can't speak to it myself though- I may have a general understanding of conservatism but I don't think I'm qualified to be able to say what would count as in or out.
Sure, it's a big state with a lot of moving parts. Trump moved a lot of parts in different ways, some in ways that they haven't or shouldn't been moved before. I certainly wouldn't describe his admin as particularly rightward if you can define the right by libertarian terms. But by the end of his term he'd moved the right trump-ward and that's probably his bigger impact. The republitarian GOP and right of my youth, already mortally wounded by W, seems more far from life than ever in my experience.
All correct but irrelevant Lee. InMD pointed out that Trump moderated the GOP message and he did. He did it by lying and then running his administration as a particularly corrupt and inept version of a standard GOP deficit exploding, tax cutting outfit when he'd claimed he wouldn't.
That doesn't change the fact that he moderated the GOP's message.
What happened happened Saul. If anything, it speaks worse of Trump that it happened because he immediately went back on that moderated message but it DID happen. Trump campaigned in 2016 on refusing to cut Social Security and Medicaid. He campaigned for the nomination in 2016 denouncing Bush W's war in Iraq. Those positions were all full on apostacy to the pre-Trump GOP. In taking those positions Trump did moderate from the normal GOP positions and it assuredly helped him greatly against HRC. Personally, I think that she would have probably beaten a standard GOP politician like a sack if they were campaigning on the old Ryanomics line.
Yes, the fisher lied about it but he did moderate the GOP's messaging. I’m baffled by your outrage here. It’s like saying Trump wore pants in 2016. He absolutely did. That did happen.
I'm certainly waiting with bated breath. On one hand Harris has a rep as being an able enough prosecutor and performing well in Senate hearings. On the other hand she hasn't done any of that stuff recently and her most recent debate performances were in '19 which were not particularly good.
Trump strikes me as more of a known factor. The only question is if he changes debate manners to address Harris. Heck I have doubts he even can. He's not shown a great command of details in the past so I'm unsure if he can bring specific talking points against Harris specifically. I also am unsure how Harris will react to Trumps word salad manner of "debating" which is its own very distinct thing.
One thing is for sure, the "Debates are meaningless and accomplish little" coterie should be considered well and truly thumped after this cycle.
He assuredly did. He may have been entirely lying about it but that was still a big change from the GOP's previous messaging. Heck, he still is now as he obfuscates and triangulates blatantly on abortion.
The PA is non-democratic and corrupt, agreed, but so are the overwhelming majority of Arab states. The Palestinians say vile things about the Israelis but so do the majority of people in Arab states. Israel treats productively with Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Quatar etc... and your tea leaf reading would say the exact same thing about an Israeli hostile government winning an election in any of those states (though, after what they've done in Gaza, I very strongly doubt that Hamas would be able to win an election in the West Bank).
None of that changes the fact that the PA administers more Palestinians and has been behaving generally quite well towards Israel for the past decade or so. Nor does it change the absolutely indefensibly (morally or intellectually) way Israel has behaved in the West Bank.
Hamas tends to "get a pass" because it is the opponent both the Israeli and American right wants. The same way that a lunatic babbling on Twitter about the most identarian nonsense gets branded, by the right, as representative of the left. To be fair the left does the same to the right- it's just that said lunatic is also the Rights' presidential nominee. Let us not forget that the Israeli right stood up Hamas in the first place to split the Palestinian movement and to provide a more "ugly" face to the Palestinians cause.
I still feel compelled to protest, Jay:
-Hamas was elected in Gaza once, subsequently discontinued elections and rules over around 600k Palestinians.
-Fata/The Palestinian Authority was Elected a few times in the West Bank, subsequently discontinued elections and rules over 3 MILLION Palestinians.
-Finally, there are estimated around 6-7 million Palestinian refugees/their descendants living in various places around the Middle East governed nominally by their host countries.
Hamas has largely been violent towards the Israeli’s attacking civilians and soldiers furiously with only intermittent pauses to regroup/rearm. The Israeli’s have responded by turning Gaza into an open air prison and, now more recently, levelling it.
Fatah, while it has a history of violence, has largely been not only peaceful to the Israeli’s, in the last decade and change, but has actively suppressed violence against Israeli’s through maintaining order in the West Bank, cooperating with Israeli security services and keeping rival militants in check (or in prison) in the West Bank. The Israeli’s have responded by alternately neglecting the West Bank, strangling the Palestinians movement in it, terrorizing Palestinian residents and slowly, steadily, expropriating their land.
Now, just to be clear, my sympathies -still- lie more with the Israeli's than the Palestinians and always have (though they have waned steadily in intensity as the years and Israeli choices have worn on them). I try, however, to be at least somewhat fair to the Palestinians. It seems to me that to talk about Hamas, which nominally governs between 16.66% or 5.66% of the total Palestinian population (depending on if you count refugees or not) as representing Palestinians in general or Palestinian leadership just strikes me as profoundly unfair and also innumerate.
I reread the comments and think my own high altitude overview remains correct. Unfortunately I also think that your prediction (which I ruefully agreed with) that the Israeli's would continue to pursue the "NuLikud" strategy also remains correct. The next inflection point is probably the Israeli elections.
Your simple description has not only flooded my mouth with saliva but also now requires that I go eat my lunch early. I love fish and chips and that sounds divine!
Sure, and why would they? To what end? Doesn't change the fact that the West Bank Palestinians haven't let themselves be governed by lunatics for quite some time now. Corrupt? sure; scholeric, Probably, Democratic? Not since 2007. But lunatic? No. Not for quite some time now.
You are, I would like to gently note, discussing the Palestinians in terms only of the minority of them who live in Gaza rather than the majority of them who live in the territories.
I agree, but even your downer comment has an upside- I don't get the vibe that anyone on the left or Dems in general thinks the current numbers are worth resting on ones laurels over.
They seemed punchy at the convention and have run a pretty assertive campaign so I would presume that Harris' team is going to continue going on the offensive going forward. So long as the numbers keep improving then I'm content- it's not a terrible place to be right now and it's a worlds' worth of difference from before.
I have to admit that, as a cynical political viewer, I found the convention very solid and bordering on moving at odd moments. The roll call/DJ blast was a fresh twist that I thought landed well. I feel like the amped up patriotism was very appropriate and I'm amused at how little caterwauling it's prompted from the usual suspects. The pitch was mostly excellent and the smooth operation of everything felt deeply reassuring.
Harris herself turned in a rock solid performance capping off a stream of excellent performances. Conventions inevitably produce a glow in the hearts of their dedicated partisans but I must confess I felt moved more than usual by this one. Competence porn? Maybe just because they tonally tacked in a very centrist direction without crossing over into right wing territory? I don't know what it is but I liked it.
It shocks you mainly because you forget that, while Defund the Police was deeply popular on the internet left, it was not a formal policy of the Democratic Party. So it's a very big change from what you imagine their policy position was but a considerably smaller move from what their actual policy position was.
I do as well. I do very much want her to engage more along those lines but, contrasting her and Walz's frenetic campaigning event pace to Trump and Vances' I don't have a lot of justification to accuse Harris of being lazy. Personally I intend to reserve judgement of her media engagement operation until after the convention/labor day. I get a general vibe and feel that their strategy is to try and roll the good vibes through to that point when voters typically start engaging more. If she tries to run dark beyond that point I'll definitely have criticisms/concerns but all indications are she's going to engage- just on her own timetable.
On “Watch And React Live: The Harris Trump Debate”
Agreed. The Dems traded up and it reflects well on all the parties and the Party involved that they were able to do so.
On “The Party of the Middle”
For sure, I can't speak to it myself though- I may have a general understanding of conservatism but I don't think I'm qualified to be able to say what would count as in or out.
"
Sure, it's a big state with a lot of moving parts. Trump moved a lot of parts in different ways, some in ways that they haven't or shouldn't been moved before. I certainly wouldn't describe his admin as particularly rightward if you can define the right by libertarian terms. But by the end of his term he'd moved the right trump-ward and that's probably his bigger impact. The republitarian GOP and right of my youth, already mortally wounded by W, seems more far from life than ever in my experience.
"
All correct but irrelevant Lee. InMD pointed out that Trump moderated the GOP message and he did. He did it by lying and then running his administration as a particularly corrupt and inept version of a standard GOP deficit exploding, tax cutting outfit when he'd claimed he wouldn't.
That doesn't change the fact that he moderated the GOP's message.
"
What happened happened Saul. If anything, it speaks worse of Trump that it happened because he immediately went back on that moderated message but it DID happen. Trump campaigned in 2016 on refusing to cut Social Security and Medicaid. He campaigned for the nomination in 2016 denouncing Bush W's war in Iraq. Those positions were all full on apostacy to the pre-Trump GOP. In taking those positions Trump did moderate from the normal GOP positions and it assuredly helped him greatly against HRC. Personally, I think that she would have probably beaten a standard GOP politician like a sack if they were campaigning on the old Ryanomics line.
Yes, the fisher lied about it but he did moderate the GOP's messaging. I’m baffled by your outrage here. It’s like saying Trump wore pants in 2016. He absolutely did. That did happen.
On “Brace Yourselves: The Debate is Coming”
I'm certainly waiting with bated breath. On one hand Harris has a rep as being an able enough prosecutor and performing well in Senate hearings. On the other hand she hasn't done any of that stuff recently and her most recent debate performances were in '19 which were not particularly good.
Trump strikes me as more of a known factor. The only question is if he changes debate manners to address Harris. Heck I have doubts he even can. He's not shown a great command of details in the past so I'm unsure if he can bring specific talking points against Harris specifically. I also am unsure how Harris will react to Trumps word salad manner of "debating" which is its own very distinct thing.
One thing is for sure, the "Debates are meaningless and accomplish little" coterie should be considered well and truly thumped after this cycle.
On “The Party of the Middle”
I was thinking that too, heh.
"
He assuredly did. He may have been entirely lying about it but that was still a big change from the GOP's previous messaging. Heck, he still is now as he obfuscates and triangulates blatantly on abortion.
On “Open Mic for the week of 8/26/2024”
The PA is non-democratic and corrupt, agreed, but so are the overwhelming majority of Arab states. The Palestinians say vile things about the Israelis but so do the majority of people in Arab states. Israel treats productively with Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Quatar etc... and your tea leaf reading would say the exact same thing about an Israeli hostile government winning an election in any of those states (though, after what they've done in Gaza, I very strongly doubt that Hamas would be able to win an election in the West Bank).
None of that changes the fact that the PA administers more Palestinians and has been behaving generally quite well towards Israel for the past decade or so. Nor does it change the absolutely indefensibly (morally or intellectually) way Israel has behaved in the West Bank.
Hamas tends to "get a pass" because it is the opponent both the Israeli and American right wants. The same way that a lunatic babbling on Twitter about the most identarian nonsense gets branded, by the right, as representative of the left. To be fair the left does the same to the right- it's just that said lunatic is also the Rights' presidential nominee. Let us not forget that the Israeli right stood up Hamas in the first place to split the Palestinian movement and to provide a more "ugly" face to the Palestinians cause.
"
Had you said Gazans instead of Palestinians you would have gotten no protest from me Jay-me-lad, sorry for being pedantic.
"
I still feel compelled to protest, Jay:
-Hamas was elected in Gaza once, subsequently discontinued elections and rules over around 600k Palestinians.
-Fata/The Palestinian Authority was Elected a few times in the West Bank, subsequently discontinued elections and rules over 3 MILLION Palestinians.
-Finally, there are estimated around 6-7 million Palestinian refugees/their descendants living in various places around the Middle East governed nominally by their host countries.
Hamas has largely been violent towards the Israeli’s attacking civilians and soldiers furiously with only intermittent pauses to regroup/rearm. The Israeli’s have responded by turning Gaza into an open air prison and, now more recently, levelling it.
Fatah, while it has a history of violence, has largely been not only peaceful to the Israeli’s, in the last decade and change, but has actively suppressed violence against Israeli’s through maintaining order in the West Bank, cooperating with Israeli security services and keeping rival militants in check (or in prison) in the West Bank. The Israeli’s have responded by alternately neglecting the West Bank, strangling the Palestinians movement in it, terrorizing Palestinian residents and slowly, steadily, expropriating their land.
Now, just to be clear, my sympathies -still- lie more with the Israeli's than the Palestinians and always have (though they have waned steadily in intensity as the years and Israeli choices have worn on them). I try, however, to be at least somewhat fair to the Palestinians. It seems to me that to talk about Hamas, which nominally governs between 16.66% or 5.66% of the total Palestinian population (depending on if you count refugees or not) as representing Palestinians in general or Palestinian leadership just strikes me as profoundly unfair and also innumerate.
"
Swap out "Palestinians" and "Palestinian Leadership" for "Hamas" and "Hamas leadership" and I would agree with you.
"
I reread the comments and think my own high altitude overview remains correct. Unfortunately I also think that your prediction (which I ruefully agreed with) that the Israeli's would continue to pursue the "NuLikud" strategy also remains correct. The next inflection point is probably the Israeli elections.
On “Complicated Starbucks Orders Is A Language I Don’t Speak None To Good”
Your simple description has not only flooded my mouth with saliva but also now requires that I go eat my lunch early. I love fish and chips and that sounds divine!
On “Kamala Harris DNC Speech: Watch It For Yourself”
Sure, and why would they? To what end? Doesn't change the fact that the West Bank Palestinians haven't let themselves be governed by lunatics for quite some time now. Corrupt? sure; scholeric, Probably, Democratic? Not since 2007. But lunatic? No. Not for quite some time now.
"
You are, I would like to gently note, discussing the Palestinians in terms only of the minority of them who live in Gaza rather than the majority of them who live in the territories.
"
This is very well put Chip and I agree with it entirely.
"
Well said Saul.
"
I agree, but even your downer comment has an upside- I don't get the vibe that anyone on the left or Dems in general thinks the current numbers are worth resting on ones laurels over.
They seemed punchy at the convention and have run a pretty assertive campaign so I would presume that Harris' team is going to continue going on the offensive going forward. So long as the numbers keep improving then I'm content- it's not a terrible place to be right now and it's a worlds' worth of difference from before.
"
I think I have to agree with Jaybird here. Once again internet sound and fury turns into meatspace teapot tempestry.
"
I have to admit that, as a cynical political viewer, I found the convention very solid and bordering on moving at odd moments. The roll call/DJ blast was a fresh twist that I thought landed well. I feel like the amped up patriotism was very appropriate and I'm amused at how little caterwauling it's prompted from the usual suspects. The pitch was mostly excellent and the smooth operation of everything felt deeply reassuring.
Harris herself turned in a rock solid performance capping off a stream of excellent performances. Conventions inevitably produce a glow in the hearts of their dedicated partisans but I must confess I felt moved more than usual by this one. Competence porn? Maybe just because they tonally tacked in a very centrist direction without crossing over into right wing territory? I don't know what it is but I liked it.
"
A monumental effort, a generational comment! Scholars of snark will study it for hours to come! Well done!
On “The DNC Republicans”
It shocks you mainly because you forget that, while Defund the Police was deeply popular on the internet left, it was not a formal policy of the Democratic Party. So it's a very big change from what you imagine their policy position was but a considerably smaller move from what their actual policy position was.
On “Is Harris Limiting Press Access Helping Her?”
I do as well. I do very much want her to engage more along those lines but, contrasting her and Walz's frenetic campaigning event pace to Trump and Vances' I don't have a lot of justification to accuse Harris of being lazy. Personally I intend to reserve judgement of her media engagement operation until after the convention/labor day. I get a general vibe and feel that their strategy is to try and roll the good vibes through to that point when voters typically start engaging more. If she tries to run dark beyond that point I'll definitely have criticisms/concerns but all indications are she's going to engage- just on her own timetable.
On “POETS Day! Useful Lines and a Favorite from Pound”
Yes, I loved them when I first read them and love them now. Thank you for the reminder.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.