Whether you're talking about Democratic partisans during the Bush years, or Donald Trump during the Trump years, unhinged people have always been willing to compare Republican Presidents to Hitler!
I mean FWIW it looks like it boils down to showing no gender split among younger white voters, with both men and women being split evenly. With the sample sizes in question (~300 apiece for white men and women) the difference between 43/43 and 40/44 doesn't amount to much.
Definitely. The Rightwards who I tend to agree with most frequently now--like Messrs Matter and Thornton--probably would have driven me the most crazy c. 2005.
One irony is that the analogy is bad because, no matter where you put China, you actually have the Russians using Iranian drones in Ukraine, alongside actual North Korean troops supporting the Russians [1], and of course Russians and Iranians have been cooperating closely for ages to support their shared client in Syria.
They actually are acting like an axis, which makes them very much unlike the "Axis of Evil" that David From assembled in the Oughts in one of the more shameless and successful bouts of policy entrepreneurship in US history.
Michael Ledeen, one of the more overtly imbecilic neocons, put it thusly: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business."
I place virtually no stock in the polling for a number of reasons that I'd be happy to explain, and as a result have a very similar belief about our chances as I would if I believed them.
Yes, the problem is that the American conservative movement is fundamentally depraved, with a fascist mainstream and a center-right fringe, but everybody--from the New York Times on down to most of the OT commentariat--is committed to the politically correct proposition that there are very fine people on both sides.
Because InMD is probably right--a normal-ass Republican would likely be killing it right now. But the GOP didn't nominate such a candidate because the GOP actively likes and wants Trump. He's a dishonest bigot who muses wistfully about being a dictator, and thus is the perfect embodiment of the American Right.
Sure, knowing this isn't helpful in trying to figure out how to beat Trump at the ballot box, but I'm not sure I see the point in dancing around that particular truth either.
What all this whistling along playing bigotry finder general, as if that is the end all be all of everything, is actually doing is implicitly arguing for turning the country into not much more than a big free trade zone.
That's the local optimum as long as Trumpists have enough Senate votes to filibuster.
No actual reform, compromise, or balancing of interests is going to happen as long as people whose views are, "Deport tens of thousands of Haitians to Venezuela or nothing!" control key veto points in our veto-point-rich system of government.
And while I say "Trumpist", anti-immigration rejectionism has been an insurmountable obstacle to legislative reform for much longer than Trump has led the anti-immigration movement and the GOP.
That's not Chip's fault, and folks on the Left just kicking our feet up and staying silent while white nationalists try to (re-)take power so they can really bring the full force of state and paramilitary violence down on their enemies is not actually going to promote any useful reform.
The "punching up"/"punching down" distinction is generally frivolous.
Then again, we didn't go from shitposts about Vance to Kamala Harris telling 67 million debate viewers that Vance boned a couch, followed by Tim Walz doubling down and saying that Vance also sodomized a divan, with high-profile Democratic think-tankers promising to pay thousands of dollars for video of Vance getting frisky with the upholstery.
Loomer's pretty friendly with Nick Fuentes (there's recent video of her toasting the "hostile takeover of the Republican Party" with him) and there's older video of her at an alt-right party trying to pick up a dude there by bragging about her "Ahshkenazi IQ"... so yeah not so sure she'll really be keeping the Holocaust deniers at bay.
Yeah, and I would contend that when a major party nominee, who regrettably still has a shot at being President and actually getting broad latitude to implement immigration policy, is using actual literal neo-N*zi lies [1] to justify insane and illegal persecution of a group of immigrants, while his acolytes disrupt local government with terroristic threats, "blood libel" is a justified charge.
And none of that depends on the Haitian community in Springfield being figurative angels, or there not being serious flaws with the immigration system. I do think meaningful and robust reform--i.e., more than muddling through based on unilateral executive decision-making sometimes blunted by court intervention--is essentially impossible as long as Trump remains the de facto leader of the Republican Party
[1] Recent reporting has traced the "eating dogs" thing to a local neo-N*zi group called "Blood Pride", who either fabricated the charge themselves or popularized it. The more I read about this the worse it gets
Many or maybe most in Springfield OH entered the country illegally then were granted a special designation to stay on an indefinite basis, due to how backed up the immigration courts are.
My understanding is that this is not correct, as the TPS for Haiti dates back much earlier than the current expansion of parole for asylum claims, and dates back to 2011 due to political instability in Haiti (which is not exactly something that's stopped now, 13 years later). It's also independent of the asylum claims and asylum process.
Not a lawyer, much less an immigration lawyer--this is based on current news reporting and some quick googling. I apologize, as usual, for not including links due to the way they always send my posts to moderation.
That said, I believe you are correct that the Executive can, through DHS, unilaterally revoke TPS.
Nonetheless, Trump has since clarified that his deportation plan is truly lawless, as well as basically insane, as he has provided the additional detail that the Haitians will be deported to Venezuela.
But once again we’ll lead off with the crazed crank off his rocker grandfather making outrageous claims about immigrants eating pets versus rejoinders about whether this constitutes a ‘blood libel’ (as oppose to mere ignorant idiocy), because as we all know every individual resettled is immediately and fully assimilated, sinless and free of corruption as the Virgin Mary.
We can't do anything but lead off with the crazed crank because the crazed crank off the rocker grandfather is a major party nominee for President, and he made the outrageous claim in the middle of a nationally televised debate watched by more than 60 million people.
And since then, the position of that major party has been that the policy response should be the deportation of 10-15 000 Haitians, who are in the country legally.
And I dunno, I gotta say that when you're telling gross lies about a bunch of people to justify lawlessly expelling them from the country, maybe "blood libel" is perhaps not such an unfair term after all.
So no, not really seeing any symmetry between the two "silly camps" here.
Also that meeting with the pro-life Democrats signals room for policy concessions in ways that touting the Cheney endorsement doesn't.
Some time ago (up to the early-to-mid '10s I'd say) the signaled policy concession started having much less political upside, and much more political downside.
I think this is even clearer when you compare what's happening with Team Blue (pro-life Dems don't get the time of day) and Team Red (where Trump has been fighting to get the pro-life albatross off his campaign's neck).
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Open Mic for the week of 10/21/2024”
Whether you're talking about Democratic partisans during the Bush years, or Donald Trump during the Trump years, unhinged people have always been willing to compare Republican Presidents to Hitler!
"
I mean FWIW it looks like it boils down to showing no gender split among younger white voters, with both men and women being split evenly. With the sample sizes in question (~300 apiece for white men and women) the difference between 43/43 and 40/44 doesn't amount to much.
Still pretty cracky, NGL.
"
Yeah that's a very what the fishy result.
On “Ukraine and the Axis of Evil”
Definitely. The Rightwards who I tend to agree with most frequently now--like Messrs Matter and Thornton--probably would have driven me the most crazy c. 2005.
"
Ugh, David Fr*u*m. Stupid autocorrect. Stupid edit window.
"
One irony is that the analogy is bad because, no matter where you put China, you actually have the Russians using Iranian drones in Ukraine, alongside actual North Korean troops supporting the Russians [1], and of course Russians and Iranians have been cooperating closely for ages to support their shared client in Syria.
They actually are acting like an axis, which makes them very much unlike the "Axis of Evil" that David From assembled in the Oughts in one of the more shameless and successful bouts of policy entrepreneurship in US history.
[1] Supporting them well? Perhaps not so much.
"
Michael Ledeen, one of the more overtly imbecilic neocons, put it thusly: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business."
On “From The Atlantic: Trump: ‘I Need the Kind of Generals That Hitler Had’”
I place virtually no stock in the polling for a number of reasons that I'd be happy to explain, and as a result have a very similar belief about our chances as I would if I believed them.
It's kinda weird.
"
Yes, the problem is that the American conservative movement is fundamentally depraved, with a fascist mainstream and a center-right fringe, but everybody--from the New York Times on down to most of the OT commentariat--is committed to the politically correct proposition that there are very fine people on both sides.
Because InMD is probably right--a normal-ass Republican would likely be killing it right now. But the GOP didn't nominate such a candidate because the GOP actively likes and wants Trump. He's a dishonest bigot who muses wistfully about being a dictator, and thus is the perfect embodiment of the American Right.
Sure, knowing this isn't helpful in trying to figure out how to beat Trump at the ballot box, but I'm not sure I see the point in dancing around that particular truth either.
On “Ukraine and the Axis of Evil”
It's not remotely surprising that MAGA supports reactionary dictatorship over liberal democracy.
On “Campaign Scratchpad: Known Unknowns”
My 50/50 is an uninformed prior, since I’ve concluded that polling and polling aggregators are very weak evidence of anything this cycle.
Perhaps ironically the polling aggregators mostly seem to agree with me.
"
The guy whose closing argument is, “A dead professional golfer had a huge cock!” has a 50/50 chance of winning a Presidential election.
On “Missing the Forest for the Trees on Springfield”
Huh? What are you even talking about?
"
Followed up by the inevitable backpedaling: "Maybe JD Vance didn't screw a couch, but we have video of Tom Cotton sitting on a bench!"
"
Trump, Vance, et al. aren't lying about their opponent.
On “Open Mic for the week of 9/9/2024”
That's the local optimum as long as Trumpists have enough Senate votes to filibuster.
No actual reform, compromise, or balancing of interests is going to happen as long as people whose views are, "Deport tens of thousands of Haitians to Venezuela or nothing!" control key veto points in our veto-point-rich system of government.
And while I say "Trumpist", anti-immigration rejectionism has been an insurmountable obstacle to legislative reform for much longer than Trump has led the anti-immigration movement and the GOP.
That's not Chip's fault, and folks on the Left just kicking our feet up and staying silent while white nationalists try to (re-)take power so they can really bring the full force of state and paramilitary violence down on their enemies is not actually going to promote any useful reform.
On “Missing the Forest for the Trees on Springfield”
The "punching up"/"punching down" distinction is generally frivolous.
Then again, we didn't go from shitposts about Vance to Kamala Harris telling 67 million debate viewers that Vance boned a couch, followed by Tim Walz doubling down and saying that Vance also sodomized a divan, with high-profile Democratic think-tankers promising to pay thousands of dollars for video of Vance getting frisky with the upholstery.
"
Loomer's pretty friendly with Nick Fuentes (there's recent video of her toasting the "hostile takeover of the Republican Party" with him) and there's older video of her at an alt-right party trying to pick up a dude there by bragging about her "Ahshkenazi IQ"... so yeah not so sure she'll really be keeping the Holocaust deniers at bay.
On “Open Mic for the week of 9/9/2024”
Yeah, and I would contend that when a major party nominee, who regrettably still has a shot at being President and actually getting broad latitude to implement immigration policy, is using actual literal neo-N*zi lies [1] to justify insane and illegal persecution of a group of immigrants, while his acolytes disrupt local government with terroristic threats, "blood libel" is a justified charge.
And none of that depends on the Haitian community in Springfield being figurative angels, or there not being serious flaws with the immigration system. I do think meaningful and robust reform--i.e., more than muddling through based on unilateral executive decision-making sometimes blunted by court intervention--is essentially impossible as long as Trump remains the de facto leader of the Republican Party
[1] Recent reporting has traced the "eating dogs" thing to a local neo-N*zi group called "Blood Pride", who either fabricated the charge themselves or popularized it. The more I read about this the worse it gets
"
My understanding is that this is not correct, as the TPS for Haiti dates back much earlier than the current expansion of parole for asylum claims, and dates back to 2011 due to political instability in Haiti (which is not exactly something that's stopped now, 13 years later). It's also independent of the asylum claims and asylum process.
Not a lawyer, much less an immigration lawyer--this is based on current news reporting and some quick googling. I apologize, as usual, for not including links due to the way they always send my posts to moderation.
That said, I believe you are correct that the Executive can, through DHS, unilaterally revoke TPS.
Nonetheless, Trump has since clarified that his deportation plan is truly lawless, as well as basically insane, as he has provided the additional detail that the Haitians will be deported to Venezuela.
"
We can't do anything but lead off with the crazed crank because the crazed crank off the rocker grandfather is a major party nominee for President, and he made the outrageous claim in the middle of a nationally televised debate watched by more than 60 million people.
And since then, the position of that major party has been that the policy response should be the deportation of 10-15 000 Haitians, who are in the country legally.
And I dunno, I gotta say that when you're telling gross lies about a bunch of people to justify lawlessly expelling them from the country, maybe "blood libel" is perhaps not such an unfair term after all.
So no, not really seeing any symmetry between the two "silly camps" here.
On “Debate Recap: Harris Played the Tune and Trump Danced To It”
My Google News feed is now full of articles about the "civil war" over Loomer in MAGA world.
Absolute Dumbest Timeline stuff, with a cameo by Marjorie Taylor Greene as the voice of moderation and sanity.
On “Anatomy of a Conspiracy Theory”
Can you imagine if Joe Biden &c.?
On “Open Mic for the week of 9/9/2024”
That's a solid burn.
"
Also that meeting with the pro-life Democrats signals room for policy concessions in ways that touting the Cheney endorsement doesn't.
Some time ago (up to the early-to-mid '10s I'd say) the signaled policy concession started having much less political upside, and much more political downside.
I think this is even clearer when you compare what's happening with Team Blue (pro-life Dems don't get the time of day) and Team Red (where Trump has been fighting to get the pro-life albatross off his campaign's neck).
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.