@anti_dan's banner p




0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 20:59:06 UTC


User ID: 887



0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 20:59:06 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 887

This has been brewing for a long time. I think this judge, in particular, thought it was a strong theory but didn't feel there was enough to actually pull the trigger until the Thomas concurrence gave her the cover to do what she thought was the right thing the whole time. Many people have been talking about the special counsel regulations being dubious since at least Muller, and this appears to potentially be the tipping point.

The fact is the SC is an illusion. Political cover for presidents pretending their DOJ is impartial and independent. In reality, DOJ is either in lockstep with the president (as it is now) or is in rebellion with the president (as with the Mueller era).

Okay, but why do you think that? Yglesias is pointing to the stated positions of mainstream conservative interest groups. You're pointing to what, exactly?

I pointed to congressional votes.

I understand that you're citing your own lived experience here, but maybe we can do better than that? "Woman's tears" didn't help the 13 year old who's now raising a baby. "Woman's tears" didn't make it so the woman carrying a corpse didn't have to fly halfway across the country and pay twenty-five thousand dollars to save her own life. But the people putting these policies in place were very clear that Shirley these things would not be allowed to happen. Or that Shirley, it would happen to someone else. (If you can stomach reading an advocate's view, here's Jill Filipovic explaining why abortion policy is so hard for precisely that reason.)

Is this some sort of gish gallop of cases that maybe actually happened (almost certainly exaggerated in some area)? Because I've often tried fisking abortion related sob stories. They rarely are what the media first reported.

OTOH, we have the case of Kermit Gosnell, who is not even a 1 of 1. Many of the things that abortion activists feel are "onerous" regulations are simply reaction to his practice and the revelation that a serial murderer was able to operate for decades under the guise of a medical clinic because of abortion activists shielding the entire industry from the slightest of scrutiny.

In that everyone someone left of GW Bush disagrees with gets called a NAZI and as such they are propagandized into thinking normal humans are monsters about to walk them into a gas chamber.

Crazily enough this morning's Coffee With Scott Adams featured him predicting both candidates are now at high risk of assassination attempts. He says by Democrats for both, we will have to wait and see.

I agree with much of this criticism. I also just really don't enjoy the ending, in particular the fight between Paul and Feyd. It in no way felt like 2 nobles trained from birth in hand to hand combat. There is none of the mutual respect and collegiality of the fight in the book, the great line from Paul, "Only a little acid to counter the soporific on the Emperor’s blade." Feyd's overconfidence is show well by that actor in spats, but the fight lacked any of the elegance the fight has in the book. In the end, book Paul finishes Feyd with one move, while Feyd has to cheat and claw just to be slightly behind in the fight.

I suppose. There certainly would always be a DEI candidate. The real question is when are Democrats going to figure out how to elevate a politician that people don't dislike? Who's the next Bernie? Bernie?

I think he ran in 2020 hoping to be able to pass the baton. But then by even late 2022 it was obvious there was no one to pass it to. He didn't want to be the guy who beat Trump then stepped aside only for Trump to prevail. So he correctly evaluated he was the best chance against Trump. Even now there is no obvious replacement that would defeat Trump. All the Democratic governors who have hype/juice only have it for reasons that appeal only to progressives. Whitmer and Newsom are major turn offs to anyone who doesn't think Covid lockdowns needed to be harsher and longer. Kamala has all Bidens policy problems, with the additional inability to appeal to anyone on stage.

I don't think its simply MAD or hesitation. Its that there is no consensus candidate to replace him. Lets say that Trump has a stroke right now. I think the GOP would face a similar, but less difficult position. It would clearly be Desantis vs. Haley. The people's candidate (assuming Trump is totally out) vs the establishment. Right now with the DNC we have Biden who is the candidate, and the people's candidate; Harris, the DEI candidate; Newsom, the California money candidate; Michelle Obama, the other establishment candidate; Whitmer, the fake reasonable candidate; Hillary, the other other establishment candidate; and Polis the actually reasonable candidate. We will note, there is no people's candidate right now in the running to replace Biden. He's like the only popular guy in the party. Bernie would probably beat all the people ranked ahead of him on Predictit in an open primary. That is how fractured the situation is.

Its interesting, because when you brought up the IQ meme I thought you would do the total opposite with it. So probably it doesn't apply here.

Your response is just unbounded sympathy without a real solution. Indeed, the failure mode of every unsuccessful homeless "solution" appears to be the assumption that we are failing them, rather than that they are failing us.

A built in assumption of your "problem" is that solution B is not correct. An assertion not in evidence.

Even Texas is subject to lawfare.

We know how to prevent all that sort of stuff in prisons. All activity is conducted in public. Lights out at 8. And probably a good dose of racial segregation. The costs are high because prisons now have extravagant designs full of concrete and video monitors which are all less effective than chain link and guards being able to see around corners.

Indeed. Plus, when you do meet an exceptional member of a minority group you are just as often (more in my experience) to have the reaction of, "what the hell is wrong with the rest of you?"

Long term incarceration is expensive.

Because of the same category of people who are telling us to be compassionate for the homeless! You cant cause a problem then use that problem as a reason to not solve another problem! Its disingenuous!

I think many people during the time of Mueller's investigation were sounding these alarm bells about the ridiculous and novel obstruction of justice theory cooked up by Weissman.

Sorry, can you be clearer about what you think is "false for the majority"?

On the left, it's not so much the idea that women in the 40th week can and should and would just change their minds like that, but rather that in situations like, say, this one, having the heavy hand of the government involved will just make things worse. And that narrowly written exceptions don't actually help, given situations like this.

This. I think they just really like abortion and the idea that a woman can change her mind about child rearing at any time.

I understand that you may not have seen that precise argument... but it's in the quotes upthread. “You can’t get rid of it.” “I guess I thought that, you know, he would not do this, he would not take health insurance away knowing it would affect so many peoples lives." Surely this bad thing can't actually happen.

I dont encounter this in real life. This is just a weaponization of womans tears argument. People intrinsically know hurting some people is almost always going to happen for anytime you make an optimal policy. These tears are why destructive policies like medicare and medicaid almost never get dismantled. We operate in the opposite environment than "The Shirley Exception", we live in the tear win almost always world. Even though tears are almost always wrong.

I think that the first half of your post is the very charitable explanation that I think is false for the majority.

And that Shirley exception post is like, one of the worst examples of deceptive argumentation I've ever seen and is a rebuttal of an argument I've never seen.

Yglesias is pointing out that the stated positions of conservative interest groups (e.g., no abortion even in cases of rape our incest) are sometimes really unpopular (per Gallup polls quoted by the FRC), and conservative politicians have become quite good at tiptoeing around this.

True, but he's told but half the tale. As Trump accurately pointed out on stage (to little fanfare) Biden, and the mainstream (not even progressive) Democratic position is that abortion should be legal at all points of the pregnancy, even during labor of a viable fetus. Even "borne alive" bills cant get DNC votes (although Ill admit I think this bill is unconstitutional, as would be all federal abortion bills, but that obviously doesn't factor in the voting for your average Democrat given they voted for the one above). The extreme left position seems to be something like a child acquires the right to life some unspecified time after leaving the womb, but will not specify that amount of time, and it is much longer than 1 second.

He got ousted because he pushed a bill more Democrats voted for than Republicans. The Democrats rewarded his magnanimous bipartisanship by knifing him in the back alongside the people he betrayed on his own side of the aisle.

OG Chevron was probably fine. Its extension basically eviscerated due process.

Well the caveat to the theory appears to be whether the post WWII American public's opinion is relevant to your particular political question. And I suppose precluding a total victory ala CCP 1989.

I will not discount the reality that if January 6th was the JANUARY 6TH! that Democrats pretend it to be, and thousands of armed MAGA men showed up to the Capitol, sacked it, beheaded a bunch of Democrats, proclaimed Trump God-Emperor, and the local national guard rolled in having their back, that would be actually effective street violence.

I just dont think that is something a shadowy right wing billionaire could fund and achieve. Heck, I don't think a cabal of 25 billionaires could.

Your explanation seems to not explain the relative dearth of teenage pregnancies arising out of the Catholic church sex scandals.

I think the reason few to no people do this is because it would be ineffective. Political violence in modern society benefits the other side. Israel was popular on 10/8, it gets less popular with every day it continues its counter terrorism campaign. Jan 6 is the primary thing keeping the Democratic party viable. Kent State is still trumpeted by the hippies. If anything, this plan would work best if you executed a bunch of false flag attacks and somehow werent caught out. One could argue that is what the FBI did with the Whitmer "Kidnapping attack", and that was used as a successful talking point until it collapsed. If you wanted Joe Biden re-elected probably the best thing to happen would be a failed assassination attack on him by someone wearing a MAGA hat and Alex Jones brand cowboy boots.* The problem with the false flag plan, is it only works if you dont get caught. And you probably would. Because the only kind of dumbass who takes $50k to assassinate Joe Biden wearing a MAGA hat is too dumb to not get caught, and not nearly loyal enough to not tell the investigators that he was told to wear the MAGA hat by the guy on the internet. And at that point your whole strategy is about the authorities intentionally covering up your scheme until after election day. Which they might, because they do probably lean Biden. But as the Hillary emails situation demonstrated, it only takes a few principled leakers to blow up LE's plan to cover something up until after election day.

So no, these scemes require the participation of true believers. Like Hamas, where the soldiers know they are going to die (and so do the women and children) and they understand that their deaths are a propaganda victory. Similar to how machine politics works in cities to manufacture grey and illegal votes. Its all loyal insiders who sometimes, yes, are financially rewarded, but the other motivations are stronger.

*Disclaimer, I do not know if this product exists.

In addition to hydro's point about demographics, it also is simply a bit of ideological inevitability. One of the progressive factions main agenda has always been toleration of homosexuality, including in the priesthood. The Catholic Priest abuse scandal was, overwhelmingly, a story of homosexual pederasty and/or homosexual hazing of trainees and young priests by older men. If one's orientation is to be intolerant of those acts outside of the priesthood, there is no ideological reason for you to hesitate to punish them when it happens within.

The Vatican is its own country. The Pope should use this to his advantage and place them in stockades for a year as well.