Shakes
2mo ago
If Floyd ingested a gigadose of drugs then he's responsible for his own death far more than the policeman who held him down.
Shakes
2mo ago
Those are the only two options now. That's the society we made. “The question is, which is to be master—that’s all.”
Shakes
2mo ago
Apparently it can't happen without Congress approving it, so it is not in fact the government that Trump controls.
Shakes
2mo ago
This is to them, a door that hasn't been opened yet that Trump is opening now
What are we talking about? This is James Comey, he did all this to Trump first. High-profile supporters of the President have already been through being put on the no-fly list, or had their clearances threatened or pulled, or had bullshit process investigations launched against them. Comey pioneered a lot of it! They spied on Trump's campaign! And the people who did it, like Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, got sue-and-settle sweetheart deals from FBI because oh the public controversy has hurt their reputations they deserve millions of dollars in reparations.
Comey even had to break laws to do it. He had to lie and cheat. They simply cannot get him because Washington refuses to allow it.
Everything you are decrying already happened! That barn left the door, the horse is wide open. If you want to complain about weaponization of the federal government for political views let's start with Michael Flynn. You can go first.
Shakes
2mo ago
but nothing here seems unique or even too particularly culture war.
This is the exact element that makes it culture war. (I don't mean to pick on you by saying this.)
Basically, there's a moral and spiritual shift in how the right perceives crime. Violent crimes like these used to be seen as tragedies. Now they are seen as injustices. The difference is that that a tragedy is something that you have to endure and an injustice is something that cries to heaven to be addressed.
Take the murder of Iryna Zarutska. She was stabbed by a career criminal who had been let out of jail before. If this is just a tragedy, there is not much to do except arrest the perpetrator and try to put him in jail. But if this is an injustice, it's an indictment of the entire judicial system that the criminal was not already in jail. The murder isn't just something that happens but is something that was "allowed" to happen.
Anyways the divide is precisely between those who feel apathetic and those who don't. It's not a culture war divide between two opposing interpretations. The scissor statement is whether you care, or whether you don't.
Shakes
2mo ago
A skinny 18 year-old with combed hair wearing a white shirt and tie is so unlikely to be a drug addict that you have to already be profiling like a progressive to consider it. Kid is calling out that he can't breathe and that he's been stabbed while one of the officers tells him that he has not been.
The likeliest explanation is that they believed the stabber because progressive values encourage righteous fury at any accusations of racism. The next likeliest explanation is that they profiled the kid on some other class basis, which is one of those bizarre Britishisms that does come up again and again whenever Britain's new minorities attack lower-class whites. Both of those possibilities are far likelier than a simple misunderstanding.
Shakes
2mo ago
No you're right about that but it's not clear to me what that implies. The New York Times says he "temporarily" moved his family. It's not as though there was a public announcement and everything else is speculation. "What did he mean by this?"
Shakes
2mo ago
How do you know Thiel didn’t buy the mansion quietly? Is there anything backing up the assumption that this is intended to send a message?
I googled this and the news that he bought a mansion in Buenos Aires is at least a month old. A Real Estate & Investment consulting firm (presumably the one he used) tweeted about it in vague terms but terms that imply it is an investment:
https://x.com/buysellba/status/2047482125902073856?s=46
There is no indication I can find that supports any of the interpretations being gossiped about here or on Twitter. Peter Thiel bought a house in Buenos Aires over a month ago and this weekend the New York Times runs a story alleging to understand his motives while in fact offering several interpretations.
Even the New York Times is more measured in their reporting that what I’m seeing elsewhere: Thiel fleeing America because America is doomed! Insider bet against MAGA! Maybe he just didn’t think it was that big of a deal. He’s already a dual citizen of America and New Zealand and has properties all over the world. It just might not be that deep.
Shakes
2mo ago
Publicly stated? What statement? The headline is based on a story from the New York Times made up of rumors taken from "people familiar with his thinking". The Times said that Theil explicitly declined to comment. All commentary about Peter Thiel making a statement (and in fairness I've seen a lot of this kind of discussion on twitter) looks totally speculative to me.
Shakes
2mo ago
A recent acquaintance suggested to me that Argentines are hot and gay. Peter Thiel is rich and can live anywhere. Why not Argentina? That it would suit his personal tastes in some way would be much more "normal" human behavior than any deeper prognostication. Nuclear War? Does AI not accelerate in Argentina? These explanations don't really make much sense, or add much clarity. I think it all amounts to augury or haruspicy. A flock of headlines has been observed flying in a cropcircle formation, should Donald Trump postpone the invasion of Maga Graecia?
I think Trump's scandals are different from other politicians' scandals. This is why it never works when people say, "Trump was never phased by his scandals so scandals don't matter anymore." Scandals in fact routinely destroy politicians or derail sure-thing elections all the time: Roger Moore, Mark Robinson, George Santos, Anthony Weiner, Katie Hill, Katie Porter, John Conyers, Eric Adams, Bob Menendez, etc.
Half of Trump's scandals are him saying something he's not supposed to say. Voters mostly liked it. "I like heroes who didn't get caught" is supposed to be this scandal because how could you possibly criticize a war hero? But people wanted to see McCain dragged through the mud. "Blood out of her whatever," but people were tired of these feminist HR speech codes wielded by journalists like Megyn Kelly. "Until we know what the hell is going on" -- but lots of people wanted a Muslim Ban. And etc. etc. etc.
The next half of Trump's scandals are political attack weapons and treated as such. Most of them have aged poorly. We spent years embroiled in the controversy of whether Trump colluded with Russia, which would have been a real scandal if it were true. There aren't many people willing to treat it as true anymore. Same for something like E. Jean Carroll, where she could never remember even the year in which it was supposed to happen and New York changed the law so the case could go forward. I guess that's a big scandal for a lot of people, but how the story gets interpreted is clearly very divided. Likewise Stormy Daniels, Michael Cohen, "Very Fine People," etc. etc. etc. We can create however many controversies we want and as long as one side is willing to fight them they are by definition controversial and therefore even scandals. But nobody would say after i.e. Brett Kavanaugh that rape scandals aren't problems anymore. Well no it's just that lots of people didn't believe in that scandal. Rape accusations are still a great way to destroy a political career.
Then there's the third half of Trump's scandals -- well, we could debate J6 and 2020 and Covid and Impeachment and Jeffrey Epstein and Iran and those things all day. Objectively these are all very complicated with lots to interpret and dispute.
These are different in kind from, e.g., Mark Robinson calling himself a Nazi or Bob Menendez having gold bars from all the bribes he's been accepting. I suppose, actually, that to a lot of liberals these are on the same level as Trump granting pardons or owning hotels that diplomats stay at and so the "complication" as I call it is that Trump supporters are actually in a cult. But I want to defend this distinction. Scandals don't just fall out of the sky as objective controversies even if it is objective that there are controversies. Scandals are first and foremost accusations. And all accusations pass through several layers of voters or other players asking, "is this bullshit?"
The first layer is, "Is it real?" The second layer is, "How bad is it really?" Objectively, a lot of Trump's scandals are filtered out as "not real" or "not important". Perhaps, after that, there's a third layer of, "So what?" Which is where we get to the meat and potatoes of whether a scandal matters.
Brett Kavanaugh was accused of raping a drunk girl at a party 40 years ago in college. This accusation caused a lot of drama and a lot of people believed it. But, realistically, quite a lot of people thought it was bullshit. The girl could not remember key details about how it happened, Kavanaugh had solid alibis and records, and she could not establish herself as having credible moral authority that could substitute for proof. A lot of people decided it was bullshit. This doesn't mean that voters and the public don't actually care about rape anymore. "Is it real?"
George Santos lied about his professional background. He didn't tell complicated lies, they were very simple lies that were simply false. Everybody knew they were false. A comparable Trump scandal is his past as a businessman. Was he really just a conman or did his bankruptcies undermine his claim to have been a successful businessman? Those are very complicated questions to discuss (well, in one sense -- I personally think they're bullshit, and I know a lot of other people do too.) "Is it real?"
Katie Porter abused her staff and threw steaming mashed potatoes at her husband. She's probably an abusive person, and she comes off very annoying and shrill in interviews. Maybe, to your taste, the things Donald Trump says are just as bad or worse. But objectively people are more willing to tolerate Trump's flaws than Katie Porter's flaws, so the revival of her scandals has effectively ended her bid for California Governor. "How bad is it really?"
Eric Adams accepted bribes from the Turkish Government. Basically everybody admits it happened. It was also relatively small potatoes stuff. And in the scheme of New York City politics, there aren't actually that many egregious favors that can be granted to the Turks. They got some expedited building permits and exceptions and special deals. The real scandal and point of contention, in fact, was Adams relationship to other politicians. There's speculation that his attacks of the Biden administration over immigration are what lead them to investigate him in the first place. There's no doubt that his willingness to then work with Trump over ICE rose his prestige with MAGA and sank it with the left. So he lost re-election. But the scandal itself, which objectively happened, was just a pretext for other political battles it represented. "So what?"
So, Graham Platner.
He's got a Nazi tattoo. Everyone knows it would be bad if he were a Nazi. But maybe it's not real. Is it a common Nazi symbol? Could he have known it was a Nazi tattoo beyond a reasonable doubt? "Is this real?"
He's cheating on his wife. Maybe he's a sexual predator or a creep. "How bad is it really?" "Does it matter?"
The actual "scandal" here that could destroy Graham Platner's political career is his image. Liberals believe that Graham Platner is a candidate who can win Maine, so they're willing to overlook faults and flaws. If he's perceived as someone who will lose because his scandals are crippling, then there won't really be much point in defending them. If it came out for instance that he killed a kid, enough supporters would break rank that the discourse wouldn't really produce a second interpretation. But if he's "just" slimy or gross, well, maybe that's gigachad. Maybe he cheats on his wife because he's a winner. That's basically how discourse works.
My read is that Platner's scandals have taken some support away and I lean toward the interpretation that Susan Collins will outperform the polls again and Platner will lose. But none of the scandals have really been a direct hit and so far don't look poised to destroy his campaign.
Shakes
2mo ago
I believe you're thinking of the 11th edition from 1911, the last edition produced before World War I. However I've also heard that the 14th edition from 1929 is held in esteem as the true peak of the old ways before the Depression and WWII changed everything again.
Shakes
2mo ago
Sitting in Congress is still an elite job because it comes with near-infinite status. It is not just "I worked in Congress". "My father worked in Congress." "My grandfather worked in Congress." Unless you are extremely execrable you permanently graduate in life to a higher class of network and social connection. And even particularly odious congressmen can tap into status networks reserved for them. If you're too much of a pariah to go to Davos there's probably a Billionaire in Montana who loves your brand of fiery stock slop. Lauren Boebert was a welfare baby of a single mom who dropped out of high school, she's probably one of the stupidest and most infamous members of Congress, and presumably her four sons can open basically any doors they want to.
The actual work of being a Congressmen probably sucks, but mostly for tolerable reasons. The average Congressman will not exercise meaningful political power and might feel frustrated by gridlock and commute. This is probably why so many quit early. But you couldn't really solve this with increased pay or benefits. It's their own fault that Congress is so impotent. On a personal level, the average Congressman has many opportunities to help individual Americans. They can pass on military appointments and constituent services, meet with citizen-activist-lobbyists, "draw attention" to anything they choose via social media, etc. etc.
I think the implication is that Congressional turnover is bad because experienced legislators can wield power more effectively. I'm not so sure. I don't think turnover is a problem unless it reaches extremely dysfunctional levels (too much or too little). The problem is more that Congress continues to castrate itself, mostly for political reasons that are theoretically within their control. No one is making them wear the cock cage except themselves, they just prefer that the Executive Branch is responsible for everything important because it insulates themselves from the worst controversies of dealing with the public.
Most Congressmen when you meet them are somewhat decent people, they're just often much stupider than you'd expect and way in over their heads and totally captured by the DC social world. Maybe you want the Department of Education abolished, that sounds crazy to them so they won't ever even consider it. You don't know how an appropriations committee works, you don't know what a motion is or how one is advanced, you just have crazy political ideas like Medicare for All. If you knew how the sausage was made like they did then you'd surely agree with what they're doing, and sometimes they have to patronizingly protect you from your own crazy ideas because you don't know "how it really works".
Shakes
2mo ago
Massie refused to vote for BBB. BBB was the one-stop shop for Trump’s legislative agenda. Especially as far as the base was concerned, BBB meant funding for ICE and deportations. Massie knew this calculus and decided to vote against BBB anyways.
All this happened before there was much politicking about the Epstein Files. But if your theory is that American politics is run by a class of pedophiles I would ask why such evidence has yet to materialize.
Well, actually, putting it politely, at this point I regard most Epstein conspiracism as extremely unfounded. Worse than Russiagate. But I have many friends who believe things I find more plausible than stuff I’ve seen online. So if you wanted to argue, say, that there are a few Trump donors who are implicated of bad things and Trump is doing them a favor, I could agree to disagree. It’s all just a question of what we find plausible I guess. But when you say something like “exposing elite pedophiles” I really question what that means and suspect it leads to ideas I would deny in strong terms.
However in this case I think it’s a distinction without a difference. The animating force for the Republican voter is the Trump agenda, which is to say, immigration and economics. Trump for all his flaws is the best vehicle for this agenda. There is no one else promoting it. Massie’s agenda is worse to Republican voters because he is weak on immigration.
I have some good libertarian friends who insist that Massie is annoying over principled libertarian objections and that this could have been avoided. Maybe, I don’t think so.
It’s also worth wondering if Massie could have done the Epstein thing and been tough on immigration. It’s a hypothetical worth discussing. If Massie was a Trump critic perceived to be pushing the Trump agenda harder than Trump, and Trump endorsed anti-Massie, could Massie have won? To repeat the question, does the base just follow Trump’s orders slavishly or is there a logic being acted out? I think the former.
Shakes
2mo ago
-
Trump is probably more popular than the polls show. Traditionally he overperforms the polls every time he has been on an election ballot.
-
Anti-Trump Republicans are unpopular because they won’t do what Trump wants them to do. Some of Trump’s unpopularity is caused by parts of the base who believe Trump isn’t doing what Trump promised to do.
I.e. (and I don’t agree with this), many think Trump has moderated and is pursuing Israel/Iran instead of mass deportations. But the base basically wants the same coherent things. It is now using its power to chase out Republicans who find reasons why the base can’t get what it wants. It’s the same story: Indiana can’t redistrict out Democratic seats because our principles; Massie can’t vote for funding ICE because his principles; Cornyn can’t get SAVE passed because his principles. In any other system this logic is very easily understood: voters hired Republicans to do a job they refuse to do, so they are being fired.
Shakes
2mo ago
Massie was against funding ICE in the BBB. Immigration is still the most important issue to the conservative and Republican base. You can make some show of opposing the party on certain issues but Massie opposed the party on the issue it cared about most.
And ultimately the base cares more about deportations and immigration than Israel and Epstein. Those issues are still extremely online. Posters getting their ideas about MAGA from such ideas should probably recalibrate.
Shakes
2mo ago
The GOP primary voter doesn't really have any meaningful beliefs beyond "whatever Trump wants" anymore.
This is what you say when you’ve failed to model someone’s views correctly.
He did the crime of opposing Trump in trying to expose the elite pedophile ring that Epstein ran,
The irony is that this doesn’t even need an explanation. Massie making Trump an enemy is the most obvious explanation for Trump working against Massie. That’s as basic as the friend-enemy distinction gets.
Shakes
2mo ago
He ran on being a part of the swamp and therefore knowing more than anyone how to deal with it.
Shakes
2mo ago
What’s your opinion on the IRS illegally leaking Trump’s tax records in the first place?
Shakes
2mo ago
That kind of logic would go a lot farther if you could start it by admitting when your side does something bad. This conversation starts with the IRS illegally leaking Trump’s records and those of a hundred of his allies and we’re supposed to quickly trot past that so we can discuss the latest Trump Bad crying wolf.
Shakes
2mo ago
Let’s accept for the sake of argument that Donald Trump was targeted by the federal government or agents within the federal government. (This is my position.) What does a “non-corrupt” settlement look like? Money is typically what’s awarded to victims in such cases. This is not a hypothetical or meant in a sarcastic spirit: I believe that Trump and conservatives have been targeted by the federal government over the last decade, so what’s the alternative mechanism here that would make them whole that would not be labeled corrupt? Is there one? If you can imagine one I’d like to hear it. Because to me it seems that to believe that Trump was targeted makes this settlement a priori not corrupt. Unless you can envision some other settlement that threads this needle.
Shakes
2mo ago
I think I can imagine a hypothetical where the government used a thin pretext to use the power of the law against Trump
Shakes
2mo ago
Eric Holder already did this. The government sued companies over disparate impact then made them settle by paying into a DOJ slush fund they used to impose DEI rules across the private sector. For that reason your sarcasm falls flat: this post-Trump hypothetical you want to imagine is literally already the status quo. That horse left the barn ten years ago.
I think there's an important difference in kind. The state has a legitimate use on the monopoly of force.
When you rob a store the state has a duty to restrain you. The first danger to Floyd's life was caused by his own decision to swallow his own drugs. The second danger, the use of force by the state, is justified in principle. Now we're just debating how much force was appropriate.
When you're stabbed by someone the state has a duty to restrain him. The first danger to Nowak's life was caused by Digwa. The second danger was caused by the inappropriate use of state power to restrain Nowak. It's a different kind of mistake: the state did not monopolize its use of force. Digwa was allowed to use lethal force. And the state watched.
More options
Context Copy link