The lack of faith demonstrated by this approach is breathtaking.
Only, I think, to the faithful.
Like, if religion is mostly about providing a sense of community and social connection in an increasingly materially comfortable, but atomized and individualistic, society, faith is not necessarily going to be a huge priority.
The central mythology of Christianity is going to immensely comforting when you are looking for reassurance that things can get better despite all evidence to the contrary. I wonder how relevant it is when you're looking for reassurance that things that seem to be kind of OK now won't get worse.
There is some fairness to the first--the party as a whole probably fell in behind Hillary more quickly than they should have, and a more vigorous primary would have been for the best.
Not much to be done about the second--it took a lot to force Biden out/make him realize he had to drop.
I don't see any evidence Harris is really bad at running besides the fact that she's not polling way ahead of Trump, and I'm of the opinion that reflects more on Trump's (extremely bad) candidate quality than hers.
Most complaints about her boil down to "just another politician" stuff.
He used the "Lock her up!" language much more, but has superseded it with claims that he will use force against the supposed Leftist "vermin" and "enemy within", which is not a shift I find entirely reassuring.
Against prosecuting Trump for actual crimes, we have Florida threatening to prosecute TV stations for airing ads opposing abortion bans, and the Governor of Texas pardoning a neo-N@zi for gunning down a law-abiding BLM protestor in the street.
Really doesn't seem balanced at all on that front, no matter what the sufficiently clueless might think.
This time around he will be less constrained by his staff, his cabinet, the safeguards on the federal bureaucracy, and the Courts.
This doesn't, I believe, get us to Liz Cheney in front of a firing squad, but it will get us a lot more investigation and prosecution of political enemies.
Between stuff the Trump Administration set up during his first term, the planning done by policy entrepreneurs from the Heritage Foundation and Peter Thiel's orbit, and the permission structure the Right has built around "lawfare" (i.e., prosecuting Trump for criming) and the "stolen" 2020 election, I think things will be much worse this time.
There's also been a much stronger focus on vengeance in his rhetoric, and a lot of promises to use military force against enemies within, coupled with characteristic fascist vagueness about what, precisely, constitutes an enemy within
FWIW my problem is less with the essay and more with the essayist. I accept the editors want to have some representation of Trumpist and anti-anti-Trumpist points of view, and would surely have read a Trump endorsement written by, e.g., Pinky with considerable interest and then argued about it for dozens and dozens of comments.
This is one of those times where I think Jaybird's framework for thinking about those listeners, especially the 35% who don't self-identify as Team Blue or Team Red, means there's room for improvement.
Some might hear Harris and decide, "Sure I can vote for her," and others would hear her and decide, "Well, maybe I won't vote for her, but she sounds personable and sane (if a bit dorky) so I don't need to vote against her."
I think there would have been an upside and evidently the Harris camp did as well. Just not enough of an upside to justify the disruption to her schedule.
In a less degraded political environment, merely being interviewed by Tucker Carlson would be a campaign-ending blunder.
Of course, we're going to see a lot less outrage over this than we are over Kamala Harris suggesting that Trump might be fascist, just like people took to the fainting couches over Biden supposedly calling Trump supporters "garbage" despite months and months of Trump calling Biden and then Harris supporters "the enemy within" and "vermin".
Rogan is, as far as I can tell, too popular, and too popular with people who shy away from politics, for this to be true.
Getting unearned media from someone who has millions of listeners, many of whom are likely low propensity and low information voters who the other guy really needs to show up, has some obvious upsides.
The question is really whether those upsides outweigh the opportunity costs of giving up a day of other campaign activities in the home stretch.
Win or lose, I doubt we'll ever have enough information to say they do, and should Harris lose, I think we'll have to look elsewhere for the tactical blunders we'll desperately need to find in order to exonerate the Republicans and the legacy media for Trump's return to power.
If I'm reading the chart correctly, it's this: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
I'm not sure the deal for any profession is ever, "I do set policy here, up to and including ignoring criminal statutes!" and I really don't think it would be a good idea if it were otherwise.
Ok but I'd be surprised if the original death would be picked up in a study of abortion-related deaths. Overall maternal death rate, sure--and there the picture from the '80s is much less rosy--but abortion related?
I'd be surprised and would have to actually read the original publication to know one way or another.
To use your (already pretty terrible) analogy, this would be like if you were talking about a murder committed by an undocumented immigrant, and Chip responding by talking about how multiple myeloma death rates had fallen since the '80s.
How is, "My job is more important than your life," in any way, shape, or form a restatement of, "We'll let innocents suffer as part of a protest action against political decisions we don't like?"
Uh, OK, so... why do you think abortion deaths are relevant to the discussion here?
The death here--precipitated by the bloody-minded misogyny of the Texas Republican establishment--would probably not even be counted as an abortion death, though I'd have to see the actual source of the statistic to be sure.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Final Thoughts Before November Fifth”
I'm guessing that the parents dropping $65k a year are getting exactly what they're paying for her.
"
Only, I think, to the faithful.
Like, if religion is mostly about providing a sense of community and social connection in an increasingly materially comfortable, but atomized and individualistic, society, faith is not necessarily going to be a huge priority.
The central mythology of Christianity is going to immensely comforting when you are looking for reassurance that things can get better despite all evidence to the contrary. I wonder how relevant it is when you're looking for reassurance that things that seem to be kind of OK now won't get worse.
On “Open Mic for the week of 10/28/2024”
There is some fairness to the first--the party as a whole probably fell in behind Hillary more quickly than they should have, and a more vigorous primary would have been for the best.
Not much to be done about the second--it took a lot to force Biden out/make him realize he had to drop.
I don't see any evidence Harris is really bad at running besides the fact that she's not polling way ahead of Trump, and I'm of the opinion that reflects more on Trump's (extremely bad) candidate quality than hers.
Most complaints about her boil down to "just another politician" stuff.
"
Yup--good people to talk to directly, generally speaking.
"
Also Silver kind of gets at this, but if you have absolutely no idea what is going to happen, the safest guess is a 50/50 split.
"
Three words: Daniel Perry pardon.
Handed down by Greg Abbot, who is notably not Donald Trump.
"
He used the "Lock her up!" language much more, but has superseded it with claims that he will use force against the supposed Leftist "vermin" and "enemy within", which is not a shift I find entirely reassuring.
"
depressed +1
"
Look just because the worst national security failure in Israeli history happened on his watch doesn't mean he's not also a gigantic crook.
"
I think he started there and ended up at firing squad, with customary word Trumpist word salad in the middle.
This could be intentional ambiguity (like he does with the "enemy within") or, more likely, it's because his brainworms have brainworms.
"
Against prosecuting Trump for actual crimes, we have Florida threatening to prosecute TV stations for airing ads opposing abortion bans, and the Governor of Texas pardoning a neo-N@zi for gunning down a law-abiding BLM protestor in the street.
Really doesn't seem balanced at all on that front, no matter what the sufficiently clueless might think.
"
This time around he will be less constrained by his staff, his cabinet, the safeguards on the federal bureaucracy, and the Courts.
This doesn't, I believe, get us to Liz Cheney in front of a firing squad, but it will get us a lot more investigation and prosecution of political enemies.
Between stuff the Trump Administration set up during his first term, the planning done by policy entrepreneurs from the Heritage Foundation and Peter Thiel's orbit, and the permission structure the Right has built around "lawfare" (i.e., prosecuting Trump for criming) and the "stolen" 2020 election, I think things will be much worse this time.
There's also been a much stronger focus on vengeance in his rhetoric, and a lot of promises to use military force against enemies within, coupled with characteristic fascist vagueness about what, precisely, constitutes an enemy within
"
FWIW my problem is less with the essay and more with the essayist. I accept the editors want to have some representation of Trumpist and anti-anti-Trumpist points of view, and would surely have read a Trump endorsement written by, e.g., Pinky with considerable interest and then argued about it for dozens and dozens of comments.
"
This is one of those times where I think Jaybird's framework for thinking about those listeners, especially the 35% who don't self-identify as Team Blue or Team Red, means there's room for improvement.
Some might hear Harris and decide, "Sure I can vote for her," and others would hear her and decide, "Well, maybe I won't vote for her, but she sounds personable and sane (if a bit dorky) so I don't need to vote against her."
I think there would have been an upside and evidently the Harris camp did as well. Just not enough of an upside to justify the disruption to her schedule.
"
Also, it's not like, "It's fine to gun down our political opposition in the streets," is anything but a mainstream Republican position at this point
"
In a less degraded political environment, merely being interviewed by Tucker Carlson would be a campaign-ending blunder.
Of course, we're going to see a lot less outrage over this than we are over Kamala Harris suggesting that Trump might be fascist, just like people took to the fainting couches over Biden supposedly calling Trump supporters "garbage" despite months and months of Trump calling Biden and then Harris supporters "the enemy within" and "vermin".
"
I think this is unlikely.
Rogan is, as far as I can tell, too popular, and too popular with people who shy away from politics, for this to be true.
Getting unearned media from someone who has millions of listeners, many of whom are likely low propensity and low information voters who the other guy really needs to show up, has some obvious upsides.
The question is really whether those upsides outweigh the opportunity costs of giving up a day of other campaign activities in the home stretch.
Win or lose, I doubt we'll ever have enough information to say they do, and should Harris lose, I think we'll have to look elsewhere for the tactical blunders we'll desperately need to find in order to exonerate the Republicans and the legacy media for Trump's return to power.
"
the dove sidekick is pretty adorable ngl
On “What If Kamala Wins?”
If I'm reading the chart correctly, it's this: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
On “Open Mic for the week of 10/28/2024”
what are you even talking about anymore
"
I'm not sure the deal for any profession is ever, "I do set policy here, up to and including ignoring criminal statutes!" and I really don't think it would be a good idea if it were otherwise.
"
Ok but I'd be surprised if the original death would be picked up in a study of abortion-related deaths. Overall maternal death rate, sure--and there the picture from the '80s is much less rosy--but abortion related?
I'd be surprised and would have to actually read the original publication to know one way or another.
"
But these aren't even the same numbers!
To use your (already pretty terrible) analogy, this would be like if you were talking about a murder committed by an undocumented immigrant, and Chip responding by talking about how multiple myeloma death rates had fallen since the '80s.
"
How is, "My job is more important than your life," in any way, shape, or form a restatement of, "We'll let innocents suffer as part of a protest action against political decisions we don't like?"
"
Uh, OK, so... why do you think abortion deaths are relevant to the discussion here?
The death here--precipitated by the bloody-minded misogyny of the Texas Republican establishment--would probably not even be counted as an abortion death, though I'd have to see the actual source of the statistic to be sure.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.