If your opponent is going to let you shoot fish in a barrel, then you continue to do so as long as they let you.

HRC let her email situation drag on for a long time. She'd give a self serving explanation one week which explained everything on the table with the strong implication that this was it. Then we'd have more put on the table and she'd repeat the process.

It was like wanting to be merciful about removing your dog's tail so you'll take it off an inch at a time.

It's not the crime, it's the cover up.

Obama described this as "political malpractice". That's a good description. She managed to constantly look guilty of a cover up for a long time.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/hillary-clinton-email-timeline/index.html

3. Using a network that hackers can hack.

David: Except they just hallucinated the ‘he’s living in my house and spending every waking hour with me’

+1. That's insightful.

I've seen youtube videos on the behavior of men/women on these dating apps.

He's an extremely high status male who is young, handsome, (rich?), and not married/in-a-relationship. There is far more demand for that than supply.

Those women are used to dealing with the opposite imbalance and are horrified to find out they're the electronic equiv of groupies.

The answer is most certainly "...does not a victim make".

They're contacting other men. He's contacting other women. This is not a scandal.

Primary challenges drive the Left further to the Left and the Right further to the Right.

A sex scandal without sex. Or even meeting anyone. Or even promising to meet someone and/or date them.

Those women think a group of men should be chasing them but instead they all collectively were chasing the same guy.

Do I have comments in mod? I'd swear I replied to this.

Philip: If the political speech of neonaz.is is protected by that constitution (and they are direct enemies of the US and its citizens), then his speech is equally protected.

We don't allow people who support terrorism to come to this country. Ergo no, his speech isn't "equally protected".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_health_concerns_about_Joe_Biden

Shortly after the debate in June, "Biden declined to undergo a cognitive exam". Presumably he knew he couldn't pass it.

In Feb 2024, the special counsel said his memory "appeared to have significant limitations".

My impression is his staff knew, but if he was replaced odds were they would be too. "The Biden administration has also been criticized for allegedly gaslighting or harassing journalists who asked questions about Biden's health or age"

Team Blue waited until the last second to notice their guy was unable to talk and then replaced him with someone who managed to get zero delegate votes over two election cycles.

They/we shouldn't be picking a VP based on their group membership but rather on their ability to head the ticket.

If you're going to replace your guy, do it earlier.

If you're going to replace your guy, actually replace him. A President Harris would have looked a lot more Presidential and would have removed the conflict of running both for and against Biden. She could have showed herself righting the ship and taking charge.

Of course that assumes she actually had that ability which is unclear.

Getting opsec about the President's followers to prevent them from doing the President's will seems a little risky politically and normally unnecessary.

Law enforcement didn't realize they were going to have to deal with the President enflaming things as opposed to telling everyone to go home.

I'd say 1,2,8 & 10 were the big problems.

RE: No need to change

Team Blue had an openly unfit leader who no one dared point out wore no clothes. Then they replaced him with a women whose big abilities were her race and her gender, and who over two election cycles got zero delegates to secure the nod.

I'm thinking there's room for improvement in there somewhere.

1) Don't pick a VP unless they can head the ticket.

2) If the top guy is unfit, have him actually step down. Harris the President would have been Presidential and wouldn't have been able to run both against and for Joe.

3) Replace your guy earlier.

Sigh. One of the problems in a democracy is occasionally the voters decide/insist on bad policy.

Lee: The people screaming genocide were applying the very broadly defined Convention Against Genocide to the Israel-Hamas War.

Many of the screaming people also talk about "deliberating targeting civilians". They're using the same definition I am and don't understand they've just defined all wars as genocide.

They also don't understand that Hamas not reporting how many of it's soldiers died doesn't mean everyone was a civilian. They especially don't understand dead civilians in Gaza are morally on Hamas' ticket and not Israel's.

Lee: Hamas action on 10/7 were an attempted genocide under this definition.

Hamas killed or kidnaped every Jew they could, civilian or solider. This was their plan and their goal. That's genocide under any definition.

This is claim amounts to "Hamas is seriously underreporting the number of dead".

I also find it a little weird to always report "woman and children" as one category since there's a vast difference between a random 10 year old and a 16 year old militant.

These sorts of numbers are why I oppose believing "genocide" or that Israel is targeting civilians or even that Israel isn't allowing food in. There aren't enough dead people for any of that to be true.

We had about 60k kids born, we had more than 17k people die from natural causes. With the way Hamas plays games with numbers, those 17k are probably in that 50k.

That's not to say life there doesn't suck, but it sucks because there's a war going on and not because Gaza is a massive death camp.

Yes. That. Good summation.

One of my friends lost her job from this sort of thing inside the US and most of her department will also go so it's unclear if anyone will pick it up.

She's working on repairing reefs. Florida might pick up the project, it might not.

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/gaza-fatality-data-has-become-completely-unreliable

The difference in who and how many die between various sources is a thing.

Yet another issue is the "natural" death rate. If we assume Gaza has the USA's death rate, then we should expect about 17k people to die every year from normal causes (so roughly 25k over the course of the war).

The solution for "how to deal with" the other religion is the normal rules apply.

If it's an argument that we never use against a country that's not Jewish, then the issue is us and not them.

As far as I can tell, this cultural attitude predates not only the liberal order but the existence of Israel.

Around 1920 some high level British guy trying to make everyone happy said the Jews' first priority was getting a state but the Arabs' first priority was the Jews not having a state.

That. One of the problems is they moved so far away from the source material that there wasn't much left.

If they wanted to do a full remake and change everyone but still do female power, then copy Wicked and make the Queen Good-but-not-understood and Snow White Evil.

That upends the story but it's so obvious we'd care less about the Prince and the 7 being made into footnotes.

It would have effectively become a different story but it'd also own that.

Part of the problem is the Chinese are bad actors and can be trusted to lie if the truth would make them look bad. No, not just "lie", shout down, use intense political pressure for others to lie, and so on.

I'd say we're the ones who are being stupid. They are saying where their heads are at, and we pretend it means something other than what they say.

Yes, they're dialed up to eleven by the existence of Israel and/or the presence of Jews in the Middle East. Ergo yes, they're serious about driving away the Jews and/or destroying Israel.

That's their minimum threshold for "victory" and it's what they mean by "reasonable". Any suggestion that they let Jews keep a country is unacceptable, it's Arab land full stop.

This is what individuals on the street say during Youtube interviews.
This is what their negotiators argue for in peace talks.
This is what their charters have spelled out.
This is what they say to their people.
Whenever one of their leaders suggests a compromise short of that they have to walk that back.

This is not "Palestinians have bad leadership", this is "Palestinian leaders do what their people insist".

Yes, they're serious. It's reasonable for different cultures to have different mindsets. If they have to choose between having a better life by accepting the Jews and crushing side effects of war by not accepting them, then the people insist on the later, not the former.

All of the evidence we have supports that conclusion. All the "reasoning" which opposes it starts by assuming they're reasonable, putting ourselves into their shoes and asking why we would be enflamed.