domain:city-journal.org
What do you suppose America's worst and dullest are doing right now, presuming you're right that they're dumber and more impulsive than illegals?
People in this thread are claiming that the shooter is a Blue, given that he appears to have been appointed to office by Tim Waltz and possibly by other Democratic politicians, with one of the victims being a democrat who recently voted with the Republicans on an important issue, resulting in much criticism from her own party. Also, he apparently had a stack of No Kings flyers in his vehicle. This seems quite premature to me.
I'm going to bet that the motivations for this assassination end up red-coded. Per CNN, the shooter is apparently a devout Christian, with him being caught on video "pointedly questioned American morals on sexual orientation". I've seen reports that he had a target list of pro-choice politicians and abortion providers. And not to put too fine a point on it, but he just shot two democrats.
Apparently the police have a manifesto, so we'll probably know the truth soon enough.
But your hunting club has norms, not to mention careers and families that they would potentially sacrifice if they had to go hot.
I think the demonstrated WILLINGNESS to start killing is the factor we're seeing here.
Not clear that your hunting club would actually start killing unless REALLY pushed.
The democrats lost the popular vote for president and pretty clearly don't have the general support of the populace.
October 23? what happened 16 days after the terror attack?
Upvotes and downvotes really have no place on a political discussion site like this, as all they do is add unnecessary heat and a "boo outgroup" button for partisans to click. ... Forcefully ignoring the upvotes has made the site much more tranquil in my eyes.
That's a fair take and I respect it, but it's different than my experience. I am often surprised which of my posts get upvoted and which are controversial or unremarkable. I find the feedback kind of interesting, although I don't update on it much.
The mods on this site, while better than on many sites, are still pretty arbitrary and capricious. It's not uncommon for them to modhat leftists or centrists for things right-leaning commenters get away with all the time.
For any site above tiny the modding can never be perfectly even. I disagree with your judgment on balance, though I'm sure there are valid examples, and evaluating their salience is kind of subjective.
One thing I have noticed is that long-time quality contributers do sometimes get more slack than most. But I think this applies regardless of one's political and social positions. Darwin got at least as much slack as Hlynka did.
I had also heard that and believed it, but recently I heard a different story. I wish I could remember the source. I want to say it was Substack essay from about 1-2 years ago. I'll see if I can find it.
You can’t credibly sell that as a premium product to avoid traffic, though.
I think the red states are growing faster than blue the blue states, which given how close elections have been and how often the results follow the EC over the popular vote, that could be huge.
In a mere 20 days from starting Ozempic, I've lost 35 kilos.
... Or the cheap Chinesium weighing scale I bought off Amazon is badly miscalibrated. I'm not sure how it's even possible to screw one of those up so badly.
Oh well, maybe I can donate it to the clinic and ask that it's reserved for the worst cases of anorexia. It'll cheer those girls right up, I tell you.
In Japan the wee hours is when most local road work gets done, so as not to disrupt day traffic.
I mean that’s how power works. If you read ancient history really up until the late 19th century, violence was very much a part of the politics of the era. I don’t see why our era is different other than a fairly stable system in which power could and did change hands often enough to make all voices feel heard more or less. If that changes, or the elites leading the major factions believe that they will be disempowered for a long period of time, I think you’ll see a return to older and less civilized versions of politics in which shooting a political enemy is a viable way to force your way to a seat at the table.
Power games between the elite are how power is distributed in any society. If they can’t get there by peace, we’ll have wars.
What is that supposed to mean? Illegal immigrants can't vote, so the "importing voters" theory doesn't hold up so well, and their mere existence alienates the xenophobe vote, so it's hard to call it a winning electoral strategy. Even if you think they're wrong, you should probably take immigration advocates at their word when they offer humanitarian and economic justifications for supporting immigration.
Come on man you know that the dems explicitly don't want the xenophobe vote. Why should I take you at your word if you are being dishonest?
Because the Cybertruck speed limit would be 1/10 the speed limit for a Honda goldwing assuming equal momentum limits.
How far left are we drawing the line to get to this "minority faction"? If mainstream Dems, then I would argue that it is quite clearly not a minority and essentially equivalent with Republicans as the dominant political force. Presidential elections are won by a few percentage points at the widest margin, for example.
build trains (not busses) going from commuterville to the downtowns everyone actually works in
You're forgetting that downtowns are dying. Prominent transit critic Randal "Antiplanner" O'Toole has proposed for several cities bus plans that have many small hubs rather than one big hub.
Ah, thanks. This event happened in Minnesota, and the victims were Minnesota State Senators. Not sure how I goofed that up after linking to the Minnesota senate.
Whatever you call that option, having it compared to not having it is freedom.
They can't (legally) vote, but they do count towards apportionment.
If you want Americans to suddenly start taking mass transit, build trains(not busses) going from commuterville to the downtowns everyone actually works in
Of course this requires that you have that hub and spoke system. Once you have a significant number of suburb to suburb commutes, you can't even do that.
Well except subways (or streetcars, or even buses if done well) which you have a great example of across the Hudson.
Not really, no. The subways in Manhattan work because it's a long and skinny island with very high density. Once you're outside Manhattan there are large areas poorly served or unserved by the subways even in NYC.
I agree it’s complicated. My area is in fact building, if slowly, and localizes said building to defunct industrial zones. I certainly don’t oppose that, and even certain renovations to older areas. Obviously it’s better than unending penury for people on the margin. And just as obviously, new things need to be built for realistic amounts of money. You have my full deference on these points.
But it gets on my nerves a little, the YIMBY assertion that these population shifts are just a fait accompli, that there’s nothing to do but adjust. Because from my perspective, there are large companies which have an easy time justifying investment and expansion in these specific major areas which have generated the crisis as a side effect of their operations. Which, you know, I get, it’s just how things go, the strong will crush the weak without noticing, it’s just a matter of size, and at that scale you can’t care about every little feeling. Believe me, I get it. But at the same time, I expect more of our leaders, you know?
There’s one software company, out in WI, whose founder decided to just stick in the area. So they have, and have pulled money in. There’s a town close to me, fairly cheap, lots of universities, where you could probably stick a cool tech campus. Pull in some kids out of college for reasonably cheap, do good work. Short train ride from the big city. Why don’t we have that here? Is it just that this one founder was part of the Ubermenschen and everyone else is stuck with Last Men? Don’t we deserve more? Actually, don’t answer that last one.
I appreciate the conversation, by the way. You were respectful on the differences, brought receipts, and read what I wrote over just using it as a way to launch into polemics. It’s very much noticed and appreciated.
So what's the deep, unresolved tension surrounding keeping noncitizens in the country?
The competing interests and preferences of nativists, anti-nativists, employers, consumers, etc... combined with a deadlocked political system that effectively leaves immigration policy up to the caprices of executive discretion.
Is there any reason other than "it helps us win elections?"
What is that supposed to mean? Illegal immigrants can't vote, so the "importing voters" theory doesn't hold up so well, and their mere existence alienates the xenophobe vote, so it's hard to call it a winning electoral strategy. Even if you think they're wrong, you should probably take immigration advocates at their word when they offer humanitarian and economic justifications for supporting immigration.
I mean, we then have to compute 'how many illegal children are in public schools'.
I'm totally willing to believe illegals are consuming more in taxes than they pay in. Just want to point out that the math hasn't been done.
At a bare minimum, they can use it as a wedge issue, as with abortion or gun control.
Like they're doing now.
If there was minimal illegal immigration to speak of, what would be their case for increasing it.
More options
Context Copy link