domain:youtube.com
SnapDragon
5m ago
Definitely! I suspect being a two-time American Crossword Puzzle Tournament champion doesn't hurt, either.
anti_dan
8m ago
But to give everyone money you either have to tax at such exorbitant rates that you are going to cripple the economy, or you are going to be giving out so little that it doesn't help anyone but the very poor anyways.
So unless you are the first politician in centuries to figure out a way to tax the underclass to give some extra money to private sector upper middle class families, your redistribution program is going to be bad for society.
aqouta
13m ago
Just give the money to everyone! The trump stimmy checks were the right idea
The Trump Stimmy checks were in fact not universal.
anti_dan
14m ago
What leftist movement has been obsessed with concepts like purifying the racial makeup of the country?
This is central to the identity of Nazis for people on the left, but they had a menagerie of policies that frequently overlapped with the left.
TitaniumButterfly
26m ago
Yeah, I was going to say, Jeopardy isn't over until Hoff gets his day behind the podium.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
34m ago
He seems formidable! The puzzle-making background seems to really help him on wordplay categories, anagrams, etc.
SnapDragon
39m ago
Hey, one of my puzzle-hunting acquaintances (Paolo Pasco) is currently on a win streak!
Bartender_Venator
43m ago
Had he won the primary or presidency, I think it would have turned out very similarly to Jeremy Corbyn in the UK. Bernie has been in politics on the fringes of his party for a long time, but has no friends in high places, would face a generally unfriendly media, and is extremely weak to idpol infighting. Do I think he could have beaten Trump? No, but Trump's victory would have looked very different. Bernie is not a strong character in direct interpersonal conflict, and he would face a great deal of that from within the party before even getting to Trump. Then you'd have relentless Trump bullying, probably in a manner closer to the primaries than to his contest with Hillary - say what you want about Hillary, she's no shrinking violet - playing up all the weirdnesses of Bernie's character and platform. Trump probably runs significantly closer to the center on policy (not that that's ever affected people's impressions of him), and the Republican Party donor class falls in line behind him far faster. The election is decided more conventionally, since the outcast white working class is more divided - that's one part of this scenario I'm not sure about, the extent to which "white working class rage" is sidelined as a media topic compared to our timeline, or if an anti-both-candidates media plays it up even further. The one wild card would be the extent to which the leftist organizers and agents (in the sense of media agents) behind the rise of the Squad, Mamdani, etc. step into the limelight earlier and pull something crazy off, though they would be younger, less organized, and in a less developed social media environment.
If Sanders won, there would be a crazy three-way power struggle in his administration between the Old Left (him), the New Left (woke), and the party establishment. I really find it hard to see anything other than the Old Left capitulating as far as possible to New Left demands. Sanders himself is not really woke, but the entire activist apparatus supporting him, and anybody under 70 he could get to staff his admin, would be New Left as much as they are Old. Sanders himself was very happy to drop policy planks, like immigration skepticism, where the Old conflicted with the New. But the end result is very different for "woke", in that it becomes the flagpole of an insurgent populist movement rather than an establishment ideology. Essentially, instead of a Trumpist right against a woke establishment, you have a much weaker but still fairly powerful populist right (this is not the critical defeat for populism that a Hillary victory would have been), a bipartisan establishment, and a SocDem/woke populist left. Bernie most likely ends up a pretty ineffective and chaotic one-term President (think Trump 1, but more internal shambles and economic problems than enemy action), which also harms wokeness by association. The private sector's wokeness is bigger in some ways but comparatively muted in others, at least among upper management, since the vibe is not "us the institutions resisting Trump", but more a fearful compliance with the Administration of the type you're seeing now. The civil war we saw in news media between cautious management and woke staff kicks off way earlier. Covid finishes the Sanders administration off, and the next admin probably inherits a significantly worse economic position, ratcheting up the three-way tensions between woke/Trumpist/establishment going into the incoming Republican (Cruz?) administration.
anti_dan
47m ago
See, I think the politics are typically very similar when it is invoked. People quibbling over whether to nationalize the banks or the banks and the hospitals.
SnapDragon
56m ago
This seems remarkably inoffensive to me. Even if it's factually incorrect - and it's not clear to me we even know yet - how is this bannable? What am I missing here? I can't find further statements from him that are worse, not that I can imagine what would be sufficient for me to support his banning.
So, I agree that the quote itself seems stupidly misinformed but not horrifically bad. I watched the clip, though, and thought the whole bit was startlingly tasteless. At one point he shows Trump talking seriously with Fox about learning about Kirk's death, and then immediately segues to a mocking joke. Ick.
That said - and keeping in mind that I dislike him - I absolutely don't think Kimmel should be fired for this. Comedy is hard. Sometimes jokes go too far. Sometimes they're tasteless and don't land. This should be ok. Regardless of whether the comedians are leftist hacks or rightist hacks! I desperately want real comedy to make a comeback, and that means supporting comedians' right to gore my own ox, too.
Isn’t this just another way of saying “blue tribe supports the riots because it thinks without the riots other what they view as good things won’t come to fruition?”
Maybe you think that’s unfair, but I really struggle to understand the above thinking as it’s divorced from reality.
More options
Context Copy link