State of the Discussion

It seems silly to go back and relitigate 2016 every time the left loses an election but one thing that strikes me as being a major mistake (with perfect hindsight) that I did not notice at the time was the branding of support for Bernie as being sexist.

The "Berniebros". Remember that? Supporting Bernie not because of Socialized Medicine or because of the millionaires and the billionaires but because they hated women.

And this messaging stuck with a bunch of people. Remember the picture of Bernie sitting outside at the Biden inauguration? Wearing those mittens? That picture was used as evidence that Bernie held Harris in disdain.

Ah, good times.

Anyway, to run with what you've said, I think that movement to the left might be a good play if it is done in such a way that it allows for, for example, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez to remain firmly in the "NOT ME!!! I'M A MODERATE!!!!" camp.

Slade: we’re not allowed to differentiate between criticism of Israel and anti-semitism.

A lot of the criticism of Israel involves reasoning we never use against non-Jews.

Urban warfare is "genocide" if Jews do it, but not if anyone else does. Israel shouldn't be an ethnostate because ethnostates are bad, however all non-Jewish ethnostates get a pass. Israel should put up with terrorism that non-Jews would never tolerate. Israel is expected to deal with a generational Right to Return.

I'd say the big issue that we'd apply in normal situations is it's lack of defined borders. It should just announce what land it considers it's own and be done with it.

Chris: I still see no evidence that Khalil supported 10/7,

True. It's "guilt by association" at the moment. However the margin of error is large and the idea of him supporting terrorism looks a lot more reasonable than it did at the start of this thread.

Chris: Would supporting armed resistance in Palestine generally be grounds for deportation?

Faict, the "armed resistance" groups in Palestine are resisting the idea of Jews and a Jewish state in the Middle East. That's why they target civilians, it's why their charters read the way they do, and so on.

So the answer to your question is going to be "yes". Normal rules apply. Supporting terrorism is grounds for deportation.

The Palestine/Israel debate is a special case, I'd posit. For whatever reason (usually cynicism), we're not allowed to differentiate between criticism of Israel and anti-semitism. Until that happens, we're just talking in circles.

So I still see no evidence that Khalil supported 10/7, but let's say he did -- I don't know anyone who supports the killing of civilians, but I do know people personally who won't criticize Hamas for 10/7, so it's probably not outside of the realm of possibility that he falls into that category -- is that grounds for deportation?

Would supporting armed resistance in Palestine generally be grounds for deportation?

I do not see any evidence that most, or even more than a few, of the protestors supported 10/7.

Shrug. Enough did to make it into wiki, whatever that's worth. The better question is whether he personally said or did something along that line or whether the group he was leading did so.

We don't have specific information. However we've managed to draw a potential line from him to legal deportation. Whether the gov can do that in court is a different question.

Protesting(*) is legal but supporting terrorism is not. Israel was at war with an openly genocidal terror organization. Opposing the war without supporting the terror organization requires clear thinking on an emotional topic.

(*) There are a good number of things that "protesters" can do in the name of protesting which also crosses lines. They don't have the right to shut down education or harass random people even if they are Jewish and so on.

Incidentally, the next time I point out that the markets are incoherent gibberish that have absolutely no bearing on the value of companies, everyone needs to remember it took 4 months for the stock market to realize what was actually happening.

Literally nothing that is going on here is new or isn't what Trump promised. This was obviously going to happen the moment Trump got elected. The stock market is just full of hallucinatory morons who have just now noticed, cartoon style, that they've been standing in mid-air for four months

Trump has started hurting The Money.

Everyone should start expecting Democrats to suddenly and instantly grow a spine and start standing up to him, some Republicans too.

RE: genocide denialism

If the number of deaths is less than the number of births then is very hard to claim that Israel is killing everyone it can.

Given the Palestinian refusal to admit how many of the dead are militants, we're stuck with various estimates which suggest the Israeli Army's civilian kill ratio was pretty normal (or even good) for urban combat.

RE: the protests, where in the Wikipedia page does it say they supported 10/7

In fall 2024, activist groups including CUAD had begun to use rhetoric in support of Hamas and the October 7 attacks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Columbia_University_pro-Palestinian_campus_occupations#May_31%E2%80%93June_2,_2024:_Alumni_weekend_encampment

Oh wow. I remember when he announced his cancer, and that it was terminal, saying he was going to stop blogging, but then seeing him like a year later and thinking, "Wow, hope that means he beat it." Then I saw his stuff occasionally for the next decade, and I forgot about the cancer. RIP.

I like Balko and his three suggestions strike me as fodder for the choir, not the heathen.

I see why the choir would like them... but we're trying to get people back. I'd give Koz a similar speech about how this isn't about people who voted for Trump either.

The one thing I might incorporate from his suggestion might be a little contrition "okay, we got over our skis... we understand why we were a less attractive choice and we've changed. Here's how."

"Look at how awful Donald Trump is!" might not work because I'm not sure that what you see as awful will resonate. Seriously, have Jamie Raskin come out and talk about DEI?!? Are you trying to get Vance elected?!?

But the town halls idea is good. Dems should do that.

There's a guy who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination twice, whose message seems to be really resonating, based on the size of the crowds throughout the Midwest, and his general popularity. I'd go with what he's saying and work out from there.

Kamala Harris did run on economic growth in as much as she celebrated the success the Biden Harris administration had pulling our nation back from the brink after the pandemic. A great many people - you included - panned that growth. So you will forgive us leftists if we don’t believe you actually want Democrats to do this.

Still plowing through Monster Hunter Wilds with my wife. As somebody who was disappointed with the previous game in the series, Rise, I have really been enjoying this one. A big complaint is that the game is easier than previous games. A lot of people excuse it with "that's because you have played before," or "that's just low rank," and I am sure those are contributing factors, but I think the game is easier regardless, as somebody who has been playing since the 3rd generation. OTOH, it is probably more accessible for new players than previous games in the series. If you have a computer that can run it, and if you have ever been curious about the series, this is probably a good time to jump in.

Fights are fast and fun. There are a lot of new tricks for dealing with monsters and ways to use the environment to your benefit. Older games really benefitted from memorizing monster patterns and learning little tells to predict what a monster was about to do. Playing at a high level (better than I could manage) really required anticipating what a monster would do to be in the right place to hit without getting hit. Wilds is a lot more reactive. The monsters tend to have more distinct tells, and the big attacks are typically well-telegraphed. Fights reward paying attention and require less memorization.

The series has always had a story (at least as far back as 3), but there is much more focus on it in the newer games, sometimes to the detriment of gameplay, especially if you are trying to play through with somebody else. But if story is important, this one is pretty good. Nothing deep or nuanced, but entertaining.

Overall, as a long-time fan of the series, who had some reservations about this game, I have really been having a good time. We still have to finish the high rank story, then I will see if the endgame keeps me coming back. The new games also tend to be supported with Title Updates that add new monsters and features to the mix, so I have that to look forward to.

Yeah yeah yeah this is all bullsiht, at a fundamental level. This is more clear when you look at the Radley Balko link below together with Jaybird's comment to see the full panoramic sense of the failure of lib in America.

At this point in his career, Radley Balko is a certified grade A TDS mouth-foamer, and Jaybird is well, Jaybird. But in this case they share the same bad intention. That is, we should be inclined to create scenarios where Demos _lose_, not where they win. _That_ is in the best interest of America, and maybe at some level the best interest of Demos as well.

To strategize in favor of the Democratic Party now, is to empower libs' contemporary corruption: that the larger populace and voting base is reduced to be a target is libs' message manipulation, instead of the final authority of legitimacy that all factions must be accountable to.

But beyond that, this premise is simply objectively wrong as well. Ie, the idea that it's the libs who really have the real clue as to what's going on the Trump Administration whereas the actual voters are mindless NPCs, it's simply not true.

As it relates to trans, as it relates to southern border migrations, as it relates to inflation, Middle East, Biden's cognitive decline, Kamala's emptyheadedness, in each of these things in addition to being sovereign the voters were also just plain right and the libs were and are wrong.

Therefore, in order to imagine the legitimate rebirth of Democratic Party and the mainstream American leftism associated with it, libs should not be talking about what they should do or say in order to improve their standing in public opinion. Instead, they should be thinking about who they should _be_ in order to be a legitimate vessel of public trust.

And to that end, they need to have a real public accounting of all the distortions and misrepresentations they have been a part of, going back to at least one full Presidential cycle.

"I, as lib, misrepresented the extent of President Biden's fitness in office and I am sorry. As a consequence the voters fairly and accurately repudiated my representations and my candidate."

Rinse, lather, repeat.

Speaking of Video Games, it looks like Ubisoft's talks with Tencent have stalled.

The CFRA has downgraded it from "hold" to "sell". Assassin's Creed Shadows releases in a little over a week. If the game underperforms, it will be bad. They've had a good month but a bad 12 months and an atrocious 60 months.

I'm with Saul and inMD. There should, absolutely, be a wall of No from the Dems right now. If ever the McConnel strategy was justified from the Dems it is absolutely, undeniably justified right fishing now. Until the Muskrats are reined in, normal constitutional order is followed on spending/cutting and, preferably, unless Trump pulls his head from his posterior on tariffs the Dems should be in full opposition mode. The GOP has their trifecta- let them own their policies in full if they can pass them.

A big problem here is that the Democratic Party does not really have a base and every constituent group of the Democratic Party considers itself the true base. To the extent the Democratic Party has a based, it is probably black women of a certain age and/or the dreaded In This House winemom.

Ever since I was a college student, the most liberal parts of the Democratic Party insisted they were the real base and they seem to light their hair on fire every time a Democratic politician does something they dislike. Now this part is the terminally online.

You can see this on bsky every time a Democratic politician announces "we can't just be the party of no, we have to be for something."* Will Stancil** and others will run around in circles screaming and refuse to realize that Slotkin probably has half her voters telling her that she needs to be for something.***

*This does seem to be pathological and my guess is that it is because they don't want to be Republicans who just say no.

**To his credit, he did attempt to run for office so he puts his ideas into practice.

***Though my understanding is that 2/3rds of Democrats at least now want a total wall of no from their electeds. Democrats have gotten better on this but not completely. There are too many Senators being wishy-washy about the CR which allows Musk and Co to proceed with their rapid and rabid cuts because they are demoralized and think any concessions will just be ignored.