jkf
1yr ago
He's not saying to fire democrats; he's saying 'fire bureaucrats who won't take direction from the executive'. 'Disobeys the boss' is grounds for firing literally everywhere.
jkf
1yr ago
The importance of that issue is also relative to the fact that it's a completely taboo topic in political and cultural discourse. So it's an extremely important issue to Culture War
You will find that topics absent from the discourse are much more commonly so for reasons of being completely unimportant/uninteresting to anyone than vice versa...
jkf
11mo ago
it's a completely taboo topic in political and cultural discourse
...
The topic is certainly not absent from the public discourse
Make up your mind, guy.
No, it looks like someone who is ritualistically submitting to Jewish influence
Nobody gives a shit though -- except for a handful of obsessives such as yourself.
Assumption: when he says "our people", it means Republicans in 9 out of 10 cases.
So you're assuming he means that, and I'm assuming he means all the people who slow-walked Trump's initiatives last time -- do you really think that Vance will be going around checking party cards?
jkf
11mo ago
This seems like a sane-wash. Vance did not say "fire bureaucrats who won't take direction from the executive". I agree that doing that would be proper (and presumably legal). He says "fire every single midlevel bureaucrat", which doesn't seem to suggest leaving in place those who do take direction.
That seems like kind of an in-sane wash to me -- do you really think Vance plans to fire tens of thousands of people?
(and replace them with other people -- to be clear there are probably quite a few mid-level bureaucratic positions that could be eliminated altogether a la Millei)
jkf
11mo ago
Your suggestion that a consensus among political and cultural elites indicates a topic is unimportant or uninteresting
That's not what I'm suggesting at all -- I'm suggesting that the consensus amongst virtually everyone in North America, with the exception of yourself an perhaps a not-quite-enough-to-fill-an-average-high-school-gym contingent of fellow travellers, is that this question is not only uninteresting and unimportant -- but profoundly silly and/or boring.
A total nullity.
jkf
11mo ago
As I said several posts ago, the odds are typically on the former -- it's certainly not indicative of the latter! (unless you are also suggesting that we should be imagining Flat Earthery to be intrinsically important since more-or-less nobody thinks it's even worth talking about?)
If you want to make the case for why your brave fringe is right and everybody else is wrong, then make it -- but 'check it out, nobody is talking about this!' is a really weak case.
jkf
11mo ago
You aren't doing it though -- European anti-semitism is kind of lindy I guess, but it doesn't exactly stand on its own. What's exactly your issue with the jews? Like, what's wrong with them?
jkf
11mo ago
So that's what you're going to go with? "Nothing has changed since the Middle Ages, Jews are bad m'kay"? This is not a convincing platform.
jkf
11mo ago
I've known smart Jews, dumb Jews, interesting Jews and tiresome Jews -- are you proposing that they are interesting for HBD reasons, due to disproportionate population prevalence of smart/interesting? I'm not very interested in that either.
jkf
11mo ago
Your commentary is mostly quibbles about the mechanics of various Nazi policies AFAIR -- maybe the odd other historical digression?
What is bad about the Jews in the here and now? Why should I be concerned?
jkf
11mo ago
Why wouldn't I believe it?
Because it would be kind of impractical to fire/hire literally every position upon taking office, and Vance does not appear to be mentally retarded?
jkf
11mo ago
I do not agree with the right of cognitively impaired people to censor interests of others.
Good News -- I don't care about your interests either! Like, go nuts man.
Today I was astonished (not) to discover that Libs of TikTok, this completely unsinkable, obsessed juggernaut of anti-wokery, itself immune to any cancellation, is ran by an Orthodox Jewish woman. That part, however, is pointedly not interesting. Got it.
I mean, what's so interesting about it? To the extent that this person is interesting, would she be less interesting if she were a WASPy housewife? (as I'd also assumed)
I think you are definitely over-pattern matching if you are suggesting that culture warriors are in general particularly Jewish -- it's not clear to me, is that what you are suggesting? If so it's pretty easy to find a chinese cardiologist non-Jewish counterpart to LoTT -- is our own TracingWoodgrains evidence of the relevance of "the Mormon Question"?
I'm pretty interested in CW, and not unamenable to thoughts of something like a Jewish conspiracy to the extent that there is indeed a remarkable solidarity there (particularly among Israeli-born Jews) in terms of supporting each other in business & politics -- I think you will need to do a lot more work than "even LoTT is a Jew!" to get from there to "the Jews are to blame for the Kulturkampf".
jkf
11mo ago
I think perhaps the point of this pick (if we allow Trump at least 2d chess) is that in his next administration "I cannot spare this Man; he Fights" will be more important (to Trump) than "can he make deals".
jkf
11mo ago
It's somewhat noteworthy that CNN happened to be livestreaming the thing, which apparently is not their normal practice for Trump rallys (probably because there are a lot of them); one would want to check what percentage they have been doing lately.
Also... intriguing is that the NYT sent a multiple-Pulitzer photographer (Doug Mills) who seems to 'get the shot' no matter what (including the 'Bush informed of WTC being hit by jets' one, which is itself the result of a pretty low-percentage assignment) to cover this podunk rally -- now he gets another Pulitzer for capturing a bullet whizzing past Trump's head, but I'd imagine the alternative-timeline photo would have been quite the career capstone as well.
jkf
11mo ago
Eh, that's where conspiratorial thinking starts to assign malign meaning to everything. What would be the theory here, that CNN and the NYT somehow were tipped off beforehand that someone was going to take a shot at Trump, and the photographer even knew where and when to point his camera?
I mean yeah -- to be clear I'm not endorsing the conspiracy here, but if we are hypothesizing that somebody knew enough to short Truth Social in advance it doesn't seem like much of a further stretch that CNN/NYT were tipped off that this would be a good rally to cover.
Honestly, I am kind of surprised the photographer hasn't been dragged yet. That photo he took of bloody Trump raising his fist is the sort of iconic image that defines an era and has already hugely boosted Trump's image. If we assume the photographer is not a Trump fan, this was certainly not an effect he intended when he took the shot.
I think he did some self-dragging along those lines in an article where (as I recall) he kind of said "well if you look at the rest of my photos he looks kind of drained, not so heroic at all!"
The photo is too good to pass up though, regardless of how helpful it is for Trump.
jkf
11mo ago
This has been my tack in response to the "we need better marksmen" kind of comments (which I am indeed hearing IRL from various Trump-hating relatives/acquaintances) -- "OK great -- I guess you are not in favour of gun control anymore either, and BTW I also know of some people that could use some shooting".
It actually seems to land with them a bit -- in-person discussions are pretty different from online in this regard though.
jkf
11mo ago
Having fat women do this job is just an obviously stupid idea whether she personally screwed anything up this time or not.
Given the "meatshield" aspect of the job, I suppose a case could be made that this lady is not fat enough...
(j/k, i think)
jkf
11mo ago
She's not nearly fat enough to shield the President other than from a narrow attack vector though -- I'm thinking a crew of 4-5 Lizzo lookalikes surrounding him as he speaks would make it very hard to snipe from any angle. (especially if twerking)
The headshot is still open, but as we see this is harder than it looks.
jkf
11mo ago
The gunman was what over a 100 yards away with a rifle on a roof, having her side arm out doesn't help.
If they were expecting an Iranian attack, they need to be assuming a team with layered offense, not a lone wolf. (and probably should be at least considering that regardless -- isn't this the whole point of the close protection part of the team?)
(I think the Iran think is some weird lie personally, but you never know I guess)
jkf
11mo ago
Nonono, they are clearly following Best Practices (tm) -- after, they have Crowdstrike!
jkf
11mo ago
The most likely scenario seems like returning to the pre-debate status qu
I would probably agree, other events excepted -- now that ~30% of America probably thinks that the Deep State tried to have Trump offed, and the undecideds literally just saw him putting his life on the line for (his conception of) America on live TV, I think Generic D would have issues, and Uncharismatic Nobody D will struggle hard.
I would think that the plan would be to fire them based on lack of merit?
More options
Context Copy link