Exercising cancellation provisions does require payments for work ordered (as well as the creation and execution of wind-down plans) so it's different from "WE SAVED ALL Y'ALL A ZILLION DOLLARS, (trumpet fanfare)"
It's the same deal as people who watch Judge Judy and think they know how to handle a courtroom (or think they know everything about business negotiation because they watched "Shark Tank" a whole bunch of times).
Yes, that's the chief argument against strategic missile defense; that it's actually destabilizing because a defended nation can survive a counterstrike and therefore has no incentive not to attack (or, more correctly and as the story points out, it makes the undefended nation think that the defended nation could survive and therefore has no incentive not to attack, and that the only logical responses are immediate capitulation or an immediate all-out attack in hopes of catching the defended nation before its defenses are fully operational.)
The same criticism on a smaller scale was applied to Israel's Iron Dome, the idea being that the only thing stopping Israel rolling over Gaza was the threat of a mass rocket attack, and that Iron Dome negating that rocket attack meant it was only Israel's daily choice to not attack that kept Gaza in existence. (which...yeah, turns out that was exactly how it worked!)
Like, if Trump were announcing "we're going to develop a missile defense system and we're also going to eliminate our strategic nuclear arsenal", that's one thing, but he is very much not saying that.
(I'm not super worried because the reasons Strategic Missile Defense didn't work in the 60s and didn't work in the 80s still apply, and all Trumps' idea will do is spend another few billion dollars confirming it.)
"But, as one example, health care reform – done right – is genuinely unifying. If you can combine reformist fervor with technocratic competence and deliver a health plan that works, people will want at least that part of what you’re selling."
The problem here is, what's "health care", what's "reform", and what's "done right"?
Or, rather, the problem is "when you've decided on the definitions of 'health care' and 'reform' and 'done right', what do you tell the people who think that you haven't gone far enough in their preferred direction"? If there's someone who will die without Treatment X and your reform plan won't pay for Treatment X, how do you handle that?
And, it's a problem that Democrats don't seem to have any interest in solving in general. Their answer to "how do you deal with that" is similar to their answer to "how do you handle right-wing criticism", which is to scoff derisively at the notion that anyone might not think your idea is the best one.
"Set those folks at $100,000 apiece (probably lowballing, you pay intelligence assets well so they don’t defect), and you’ve saved 10 million dollars. Ca-ching!"
...you do need to re-hire people to replace them, Kim. The work doesn't stop needing to be done just because you got your rocks off.
(There's a lot of sailors who don't really have a job until a Kh-22 hits the engine room. Until then, they mostly just polish decks and iron uniforms.)
"What is this conversation _even about_? What is the point you think you are making?"
That all the various Really Rotten Things will be reverted as soon as someone finds out about them, except for DEI stuff which is all that Trump voters really cared about anyway?
That hardly seems like a controversial take or something that should trigger you.
In 2022 I said "the endgame for this is that Russia gets the land bridge to Crimea that was their original goal, and the rest of the fighting is just about exactly how much of a salient there will be in Northeastern Ukraine", and nothing about that has changed so far, and nothing about it seems like it's going to short of Ukraine somehow generating a Clone Army.
Scientists: "why would dolphins do this?"
Literally Any Guy: "I know exactly why dolphins would do this."
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/dolphin-aerial-urine-behavior
"And any part of it that that industry would object to, like a public option, was off the table to start to start with."
the public option was in the bill until they needed one more Democrat vote (Lieberman).
"But there have been massive problems that absolutely no one has tackled that would be incredibly popular, but there are large entrenched interests sitting opposed to."
so healthcare reform was a massive problem that nobody had tackled that would be incredibly popular, but there were large entrenched interests sitting opposed to tackling it, and the Democrats under Obama finally got around to tackling it, and their method of tackling was to give the large entrenched interests a massive revenue guarantee, and you see that as a good thing? (Like, those were your words, "a good thing", I didn't make up that you said that.)
Or maybe I misunderstand who you think the "large entrenched interests" were in this case.
"[T]he Republicans blocking the way cannot explain why they do not get out there and try..."
Because they don't think it's a problem that doctoring costs what it costs.
"I’m still wondering what the breaking point is that will cause the bigger and wealthier blue states to start taking on responsibilities previously done by the federal government."
Multiple Supreme Court cases have firmly established that doing this is very nearly treason, and certainly not something that a sensible Federal government ought to permit.
"Something I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months is the difference between the typical Trump voter in 2016 and 2020 vs the typical Trump voter in 2024."
They've been the same people all along; they've just realized that they can stand up in public and say "I voted for Trump" and not lose their job over it.
The only demographic that didn't vote more for Trump in 2024 than in 2020 (and more in 2020 than in 2016) was College-Educated White Males. Everyone else went more for Trump, both times.
I think it's worth not getting into a situation where we need to find out whether the Judicial Branch has a way to enforce its decisions that doesn't involve the Executive Branch.
I think people have forgotten how interesting Clinton was found simply because he was so young. Clinton was forty-six when he was elected. The last time we'd had a President younger than fifty was 1963. (The last time we'd had someone under sixty was Carter.)
I'd be entirely willing to accept moderation decisions of "this is a Mega Shit Starting Subject that will destroy the forum and we will not have that happen here".
"To what part? The cheating on her boyfriend? I believe that she never did."
That was one of the most interesting parts of the thing to me, that she (and everyone else) agreed that she did indeed have sex with a bunch of people and the anger was over the accusation that she'd gotten some benefit in exchange for it. "We agree that she's a slut but how dare you call her a whore," sort of thing.
That, and a healthy dose of "yeah sure maybe she gaslit her nominal boyfriend into staying celibate while she fucked her way through the Seattle gaming-journalism scene, and maybe she spun that into multiple glowing reviews of her walking-simulator game that had nothing to distinguish it from a thousand others, and maybe she's a graduate of the Something Awful Being A Piece Of Shit Online Forum and she's putting those skills to good use, but he's the real jerk here because he told everyone about it". A real mid-2010s approach, same deal as Clinton's Emails; the rebuttal being not "that's a damn lie" but "you're a sneaky snoop".
Why waste our time? You clearly have a much more comforting version of the story in your own head, and you obviously aren't interested in hearing anything that challenges your worldview.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “SCOTUS Does Not Exist to Please You, Especially Amy Coney Barrett”
Exercising cancellation provisions does require payments for work ordered (as well as the creation and execution of wind-down plans) so it's different from "WE SAVED ALL Y'ALL A ZILLION DOLLARS, (trumpet fanfare)"
On “The Real First 100 Days”
Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_ID" on null in /home/ordina27/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 851
https://ordinary-times.com/commenter-archive/#comment-"> to
Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_author" on null in /home/ordina27/public_html/wp-content/plugins/otx-sotd/state-of-the-discussion.php on line 1060
*shrug* I remember 2008 when it was pretty clear that's the kind of thing people wanted from a President. Hope And Change, Yes We Can.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/3/2025”
Or you could just ban people.
"
These posts should be shut off, because they're just doomscrolling at this point.
On “Group Activity: President Donald Trump Address to Congress”
was that actually Kim?!
"
It's the same deal as people who watch Judge Judy and think they know how to handle a courtroom (or think they know everything about business negotiation because they watched "Shark Tank" a whole bunch of times).
"
Yes, that's the chief argument against strategic missile defense; that it's actually destabilizing because a defended nation can survive a counterstrike and therefore has no incentive not to attack (or, more correctly and as the story points out, it makes the undefended nation think that the defended nation could survive and therefore has no incentive not to attack, and that the only logical responses are immediate capitulation or an immediate all-out attack in hopes of catching the defended nation before its defenses are fully operational.)
The same criticism on a smaller scale was applied to Israel's Iron Dome, the idea being that the only thing stopping Israel rolling over Gaza was the threat of a mass rocket attack, and that Iron Dome negating that rocket attack meant it was only Israel's daily choice to not attack that kept Gaza in existence. (which...yeah, turns out that was exactly how it worked!)
Like, if Trump were announcing "we're going to develop a missile defense system and we're also going to eliminate our strategic nuclear arsenal", that's one thing, but he is very much not saying that.
(I'm not super worried because the reasons Strategic Missile Defense didn't work in the 60s and didn't work in the 80s still apply, and all Trumps' idea will do is spend another few billion dollars confirming it.)
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/3/2025”
"But, as one example, health care reform – done right – is genuinely unifying. If you can combine reformist fervor with technocratic competence and deliver a health plan that works, people will want at least that part of what you’re selling."
The problem here is, what's "health care", what's "reform", and what's "done right"?
Or, rather, the problem is "when you've decided on the definitions of 'health care' and 'reform' and 'done right', what do you tell the people who think that you haven't gone far enough in their preferred direction"? If there's someone who will die without Treatment X and your reform plan won't pay for Treatment X, how do you handle that?
And, it's a problem that Democrats don't seem to have any interest in solving in general. Their answer to "how do you deal with that" is similar to their answer to "how do you handle right-wing criticism", which is to scoff derisively at the notion that anyone might not think your idea is the best one.
On “Musk vs Gore”
Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_ID" on null in /home/ordina27/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 851
https://ordinary-times.com/commenter-archive/#comment-"> to
Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_author" on null in /home/ordina27/public_html/wp-content/plugins/otx-sotd/state-of-the-discussion.php on line 1060
"Set those folks at $100,000 apiece (probably lowballing, you pay intelligence assets well so they don’t defect), and you’ve saved 10 million dollars. Ca-ching!"
...you do need to re-hire people to replace them, Kim. The work doesn't stop needing to be done just because you got your rocks off.
"
Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_ID" on null in /home/ordina27/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 851
https://ordinary-times.com/commenter-archive/#comment-"> to
Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_author" on null in /home/ordina27/public_html/wp-content/plugins/otx-sotd/state-of-the-discussion.php on line 1060
(There's a lot of sailors who don't really have a job until a Kh-22 hits the engine room. Until then, they mostly just polish decks and iron uniforms.)
"
"What is this conversation _even about_? What is the point you think you are making?"
That all the various Really Rotten Things will be reverted as soon as someone finds out about them, except for DEI stuff which is all that Trump voters really cared about anyway?
That hardly seems like a controversial take or something that should trigger you.
On “Group Activity The Full, Unedited Trump, Zelenskyy, and Vance Video”
In 2022 I said "the endgame for this is that Russia gets the land bridge to Crimea that was their original goal, and the rest of the fighting is just about exactly how much of a salient there will be in Northeastern Ukraine", and nothing about that has changed so far, and nothing about it seems like it's going to short of Ukraine somehow generating a Clone Army.
"
Brother, if it's gonna be drugs, I think I'd rather go with coke (and get the Eighties) than Ketamine (and get the Twenties).
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/3/2025”
Scientists: "why would dolphins do this?"
Literally Any Guy: "I know exactly why dolphins would do this."
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/dolphin-aerial-urine-behavior
"
Yes, well. not being "Republican Lite" hasn't seemed to be working for anybody, has it?
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/24/2025”
"And any part of it that that industry would object to, like a public option, was off the table to start to start with."
the public option was in the bill until they needed one more Democrat vote (Lieberman).
"But there have been massive problems that absolutely no one has tackled that would be incredibly popular, but there are large entrenched interests sitting opposed to."
so healthcare reform was a massive problem that nobody had tackled that would be incredibly popular, but there were large entrenched interests sitting opposed to tackling it, and the Democrats under Obama finally got around to tackling it, and their method of tackling was to give the large entrenched interests a massive revenue guarantee, and you see that as a good thing? (Like, those were your words, "a good thing", I didn't make up that you said that.)
Or maybe I misunderstand who you think the "large entrenched interests" were in this case.
"[T]he Republicans blocking the way cannot explain why they do not get out there and try..."
Because they don't think it's a problem that doctoring costs what it costs.
"
"I’m still wondering what the breaking point is that will cause the bigger and wealthier blue states to start taking on responsibilities previously done by the federal government."
Multiple Supreme Court cases have firmly established that doing this is very nearly treason, and certainly not something that a sensible Federal government ought to permit.
"
Surprised to find you taking the Republican position that healthcare reform is bad, but *shrug*
"
"Something I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months is the difference between the typical Trump voter in 2016 and 2020 vs the typical Trump voter in 2024."
They've been the same people all along; they've just realized that they can stand up in public and say "I voted for Trump" and not lose their job over it.
The only demographic that didn't vote more for Trump in 2024 than in 2020 (and more in 2020 than in 2016) was College-Educated White Males. Everyone else went more for Trump, both times.
On “Supreme Court issues Stay”
I think it's worth not getting into a situation where we need to find out whether the Judicial Branch has a way to enforce its decisions that doesn't involve the Executive Branch.
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/24/2025”
"Well, ACTUALLY..."
"
I think people have forgotten how interesting Clinton was found simply because he was so young. Clinton was forty-six when he was elected. The last time we'd had a President younger than fifty was 1963. (The last time we'd had someone under sixty was Carter.)
"
I'd be entirely willing to accept moderation decisions of "this is a Mega Shit Starting Subject that will destroy the forum and we will not have that happen here".
"
"To what part? The cheating on her boyfriend? I believe that she never did."
That was one of the most interesting parts of the thing to me, that she (and everyone else) agreed that she did indeed have sex with a bunch of people and the anger was over the accusation that she'd gotten some benefit in exchange for it. "We agree that she's a slut but how dare you call her a whore," sort of thing.
That, and a healthy dose of "yeah sure maybe she gaslit her nominal boyfriend into staying celibate while she fucked her way through the Seattle gaming-journalism scene, and maybe she spun that into multiple glowing reviews of her walking-simulator game that had nothing to distinguish it from a thousand others, and maybe she's a graduate of the Something Awful Being A Piece Of Shit Online Forum and she's putting those skills to good use, but he's the real jerk here because he told everyone about it". A real mid-2010s approach, same deal as Clinton's Emails; the rebuttal being not "that's a damn lie" but "you're a sneaky snoop".
"
Why waste our time? You clearly have a much more comforting version of the story in your own head, and you obviously aren't interested in hearing anything that challenges your worldview.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.