Justice Thomas has allowed himself to be seduced by the lavish gifts and cozy friendships. A justice so seduced has succumbed to a mental affliction that blurs otherwise sound judgment. The unsound judgment thus instilled rationalizes not paying for one's own vacations, private air fares , and luxurious yacht sojourns, like other citizens commonly do, as perfectly acceptable behaviors.
Something I don't understand at all, so maybe those of you smarter or more schooled on this can help, but why on earth do we nominate and then confirm the appointment of justices (on both sides) that have seriously questionable character? To me it seems foolish. Do we truly not have alternatives? I know so many people personally that, while not perfect (who is), they don't have skeletons of these sizes and shapes in their closets. If it were me, I hope I'd simply pass on a person like Thomas for the highest court in the land because of those questions of character and move on to another choice. What am I missing here?
Oh she's proven herself to be an abortion extremist in her commentary.
I'd imagine he's very very happy about the stolen seats and FBI fuckery when it came to Kavenaugh as the appointments furthered her ultimate goal of making abortion widely unavailable.
"the idea that another four years of Biden could potentially result in apocalyptic problems"
For an organization devoted to communicating the proposition that another four years of Trump would result in apocalyptic problems, this shouldn't be a difficult concept to get your heads around.
The pro-Biden message for purple-state swing voters is that a second Trump term poses an unprecedented, possibly existential threat to American democracy.
This is a strong message because it is high-stakes and true.
The straightforward way for Republicans to blunt this message is to flood the zone with made-up shit about the unprecedented, possibly existential threats America would face under a second Biden administration, so that come November 2024, the purple state swing voters don't know what to believe any more, and just go with their gut feeling about which candidate seems tougher to deal with an uncertain future.
As a strategy, it's not great, but it may well be good enough.
It's interesting to see how many Republican talking points the Bulwark is repeating for a number of reasons. Insider inevitability talk being one reason, humour being a second.
Let's start with the insider-inevitability type of thinking:
This newsletter says that Biden has, "a number of vulnerabilities, including inflation, the border, crime, etc. Some bad stuff (Afghanistan) has happened on his watch. There has been a lot of spending."
I know that the intended tenor of reciting those "vulnerabilities" is short-hand for "things that Republicans could attack Biden on, whether they are true or not". So let's go through them all:
1) Inflation: As I've noted in previous posts there is literally ZERO correlation on an international level between stimulus spending during COVID, and the country's rate of inflation (e.g. Mexico provided less than 1% of it's GDP in stimulus payments and has the same inflation rate as the United States, while Japan provided more than 100% of it's GDP in stimulus payments but has lower inflation than the U.S.. These are NOT isolated examples, there is literally no correlation at play). Why is the Bulwark caving to this counterfactual talking point?
2) Border: Biden has mostly kept in place and extended the border policies of the Trump administration. Again, why is the Bulwark conceding this talking point?
3) Crime: It's a statistical fact that blue state have lower crime rates than red states. And whereas no mainstream Dem is actually calling for "defunding the police" the leaders of the Republican party are now openly calling for defunding federal police forces. Why is the Bulwark also conceding this talking point?
4) "There has been a lot of spending" Compared to Trump's freebie tax cuts that accomplished nothing? Yet again, why is the Bulwark also conceding this talking point?
There's a self-fulfilling prophesy when political commentators that don't even believe the "arguments" of the other side cede ground from the start and go with the narrative. The Bulwark contributors don't believe the above noted nonsense (with the exception of the inflation thing that seems to be a cancer in their brain despite a complete lack of evidence linking spending to inflation).
Then we turn to humour:
Dudes, why are you adopting Trump's childish insults of his candidates, such as referring to DeSantis as "meatball"? You realize that you're repeating an attack that is meant to hurt DeSantis to benefit Trump, so you're ultimately helping Trump.
Worth noting here that the Dominion lawsuit is what got Tucker fired.
Had Dominion not gotten public discovery of the texts that exposed Tucker’s comments about upper management, upper management would never had know about them and would not have fired him as a result.
I want to comment on Tim's post about Elizabeth Warren. I could not find a way to comment there so I had to comment here. I don't agree with the comparison. Elizabeth tried to do something about healthcare that was very idealistic, but only in this country. Many countries have universal health care. Yes, she lost the nomination, but she knew that her chances were not good, she is very smart after all. But she put that idea there and maybe one day we will have universal healthcare. Her idealism did not come from a fascistic point of view to hurt others. De Santis position is to hurt women, blacks, browns, gays, etc. So, please don't compare Elizabeth with Ron De Santis. It is as if you were comparing a deadly virus with an apple.
I have work to do, so I have to stop reading the replies. But, I want to say that I don’t think I have ever seen so many sharp, incisive, and some really funny, comments anywhere in the more recent past. Congrats to you all.
I've been posting this link everywhere. Michael Steel, Max Boot and other Republicans discuss the current stat and the seeds of the party's destruction. It's a very good read.
Has Ronna Romney McDaniel tried standing outside Mar-a-Lago with tears in her eyes and a sign reading, “Please, sir, I’m so sorry! Just name the time and place and questioner!”
Justice Thomas has allowed himself to be seduced by the lavish gifts and cozy friendships. A justice so seduced has succumbed to a mental affliction that blurs otherwise sound judgment. The unsound judgment thus instilled rationalizes not paying for one's own vacations, private air fares , and luxurious yacht sojourns, like other citizens commonly do, as perfectly acceptable behaviors.
Sign me up for TrumpKennedy. and while we’re at it, let’s just go max doom loop:
Secretary of state, Tucker (goodbye, Ukraine)
Secretary of Defense - Ron “territorial dispute“ DeSanctus (all will be forgiven after the nomination)
Interior - Don Jr (who better to sell off our natural resources, maybe to the Saudis)
FBI Director - Nick Fuentes “the media are the real domestic terrorists”
CIA - Gym Jordan (a clown with a flamethrower)
NSA - Charlie Kirk 
Press sec - Jesse Watters
UN - Nikki!! “thanks for fracturing the vote. Here’s your old job back”
DOJ - MTG
Stelter seems a little rosy-eyed about a Fox shift to center right. There is no center right audience except for smaller outfits like this one...
Something I don't understand at all, so maybe those of you smarter or more schooled on this can help, but why on earth do we nominate and then confirm the appointment of justices (on both sides) that have seriously questionable character? To me it seems foolish. Do we truly not have alternatives? I know so many people personally that, while not perfect (who is), they don't have skeletons of these sizes and shapes in their closets. If it were me, I hope I'd simply pass on a person like Thomas for the highest court in the land because of those questions of character and move on to another choice. What am I missing here?
Oh she's proven herself to be an abortion extremist in her commentary.
I'd imagine he's very very happy about the stolen seats and FBI fuckery when it came to Kavenaugh as the appointments furthered her ultimate goal of making abortion widely unavailable.
"the idea that another four years of Biden could potentially result in apocalyptic problems"
For an organization devoted to communicating the proposition that another four years of Trump would result in apocalyptic problems, this shouldn't be a difficult concept to get your heads around.
The pro-Biden message for purple-state swing voters is that a second Trump term poses an unprecedented, possibly existential threat to American democracy.
This is a strong message because it is high-stakes and true.
The straightforward way for Republicans to blunt this message is to flood the zone with made-up shit about the unprecedented, possibly existential threats America would face under a second Biden administration, so that come November 2024, the purple state swing voters don't know what to believe any more, and just go with their gut feeling about which candidate seems tougher to deal with an uncertain future.
As a strategy, it's not great, but it may well be good enough.
Hmmmm. Trump + Kennedy? A Trump + Carlson ticket would get more votes, but alas, still lose. These folks are too damn dangerous and crazy.
It's interesting to see how many Republican talking points the Bulwark is repeating for a number of reasons. Insider inevitability talk being one reason, humour being a second.
Let's start with the insider-inevitability type of thinking:
This newsletter says that Biden has, "a number of vulnerabilities, including inflation, the border, crime, etc. Some bad stuff (Afghanistan) has happened on his watch. There has been a lot of spending."
I know that the intended tenor of reciting those "vulnerabilities" is short-hand for "things that Republicans could attack Biden on, whether they are true or not". So let's go through them all:
1) Inflation: As I've noted in previous posts there is literally ZERO correlation on an international level between stimulus spending during COVID, and the country's rate of inflation (e.g. Mexico provided less than 1% of it's GDP in stimulus payments and has the same inflation rate as the United States, while Japan provided more than 100% of it's GDP in stimulus payments but has lower inflation than the U.S.. These are NOT isolated examples, there is literally no correlation at play). Why is the Bulwark caving to this counterfactual talking point?
2) Border: Biden has mostly kept in place and extended the border policies of the Trump administration. Again, why is the Bulwark conceding this talking point?
3) Crime: It's a statistical fact that blue state have lower crime rates than red states. And whereas no mainstream Dem is actually calling for "defunding the police" the leaders of the Republican party are now openly calling for defunding federal police forces. Why is the Bulwark also conceding this talking point?
4) "There has been a lot of spending" Compared to Trump's freebie tax cuts that accomplished nothing? Yet again, why is the Bulwark also conceding this talking point?
There's a self-fulfilling prophesy when political commentators that don't even believe the "arguments" of the other side cede ground from the start and go with the narrative. The Bulwark contributors don't believe the above noted nonsense (with the exception of the inflation thing that seems to be a cancer in their brain despite a complete lack of evidence linking spending to inflation).
Then we turn to humour:
Dudes, why are you adopting Trump's childish insults of his candidates, such as referring to DeSantis as "meatball"? You realize that you're repeating an attack that is meant to hurt DeSantis to benefit Trump, so you're ultimately helping Trump.
The R ticket is going to be Trump-Gabbard. Mark my words. He can't pass up and attractive woman who is ALSO a Putin shill.
Worth noting here that the Dominion lawsuit is what got Tucker fired.
Had Dominion not gotten public discovery of the texts that exposed Tucker’s comments about upper management, upper management would never had know about them and would not have fired him as a result.
I want to comment on Tim's post about Elizabeth Warren. I could not find a way to comment there so I had to comment here. I don't agree with the comparison. Elizabeth tried to do something about healthcare that was very idealistic, but only in this country. Many countries have universal health care. Yes, she lost the nomination, but she knew that her chances were not good, she is very smart after all. But she put that idea there and maybe one day we will have universal healthcare. Her idealism did not come from a fascistic point of view to hurt others. De Santis position is to hurt women, blacks, browns, gays, etc. So, please don't compare Elizabeth with Ron De Santis. It is as if you were comparing a deadly virus with an apple.
Having been a supplier to a Murdoch organization for several years, I would posit that it works like this:
Tucker = Net Present EBITDA Value of $X
Tucker = Cost of Salaries and Settlements of $Y
If X < Y, Terminate
If old man gets dragged through mud and personally embarrassed, Terminate with Malice
And when these people act with malice, they really get in the gutter.
I have work to do, so I have to stop reading the replies. But, I want to say that I don’t think I have ever seen so many sharp, incisive, and some really funny, comments anywhere in the more recent past. Congrats to you all.
Breaking news: I see that Disney is suing DeSantis now.
Man, this is a good time to be in the popcorn business.
I've been posting this link everywhere. Michael Steel, Max Boot and other Republicans discuss the current stat and the seeds of the party's destruction. It's a very good read.
https://newrepublic.com/article/171722/republican-party-dead
Has Ronna Romney McDaniel tried standing outside Mar-a-Lago with tears in her eyes and a sign reading, “Please, sir, I’m so sorry! Just name the time and place and questioner!”