The Bulwark starts throwing around terms like "Blue MAGA" and then they're going to act surprised that garbage like "Blue QAnon" starts showing up here.
Fair enough, I apologize. I was not being snarky; I am sincerely curious as to how you arrive at the conspiracy in option 3. This community brings together different people and I want to understand how people think.
To start, I don't view it as a conspiracy. That's the wrong framing. I'm not suggesting that all of the Bulwark writers got together in a room, wearing hooded robes, and decided that this was going to be their strategy going forward.
What I am suggesting (and, I should emphasize, I offered it as one of three options because I am truly uncertain as to which of them is the truth) is that the writers here might be hedging their bets by pulling their punches.
I read an article somewhere recently that talked about why CEOs, who are aware that Trump is completely incompetent and potentially ruinous for the economy, are so silent on the election. The conclusion of the author was that the CEOs calculated that there was no benefit, only downside, to supporting Biden. If they stayed quiet and Biden won, well, it's status quo ante for their business, because Biden and the Democrats aren't going to take retribution. On the other hand, if they vocally support Biden and Trump wins, their company could end up targeted by the new administration. I think a similar calculus could be playing out in the back of the minds of the writers here.
For what its worth, I don't think that it's only the Bulwark writers that could be making this mental calculation. I think it's entirely applicable to the upper echelons of the NYT, WaPo, and CNN among others.
Hilary, I don't think they are making any kind of calculation. Why? Because after 8 years of Trumpism, I think I have a good grasp of what a persuasive argument is, and I trust my ability to recognize one. I've listened to and read them for years. They make persuasive arguments. I trust them and I trust my perception.
You are mistrustful in a lot of situations, I suspect.
I disagree with Hilary and particularly with her Option 3. But Blue Qanon she's not.
"Blue Qanon" is way out of line. To quote JVL, "we don't do that here." You owe an apology.
Blue Qanon? oooookay.
Yeah, no, that's so offensive I'm not even going to bother answering your question.
The Bulwark starts throwing around terms like "Blue MAGA" and then they're going to act surprised that garbage like "Blue QAnon" starts showing up here.
Actually, it was Tim yesterday on his pod with David French who said "Blue QAnon" instead of "Blue MAGA". That's why it's showing up here.
Fair enough, I apologize. I was not being snarky; I am sincerely curious as to how you arrive at the conspiracy in option 3. This community brings together different people and I want to understand how people think.
To start, I don't view it as a conspiracy. That's the wrong framing. I'm not suggesting that all of the Bulwark writers got together in a room, wearing hooded robes, and decided that this was going to be their strategy going forward.
What I am suggesting (and, I should emphasize, I offered it as one of three options because I am truly uncertain as to which of them is the truth) is that the writers here might be hedging their bets by pulling their punches.
I read an article somewhere recently that talked about why CEOs, who are aware that Trump is completely incompetent and potentially ruinous for the economy, are so silent on the election. The conclusion of the author was that the CEOs calculated that there was no benefit, only downside, to supporting Biden. If they stayed quiet and Biden won, well, it's status quo ante for their business, because Biden and the Democrats aren't going to take retribution. On the other hand, if they vocally support Biden and Trump wins, their company could end up targeted by the new administration. I think a similar calculus could be playing out in the back of the minds of the writers here.
For what its worth, I don't think that it's only the Bulwark writers that could be making this mental calculation. I think it's entirely applicable to the upper echelons of the NYT, WaPo, and CNN among others.
Hilary, I don't think they are making any kind of calculation. Why? Because after 8 years of Trumpism, I think I have a good grasp of what a persuasive argument is, and I trust my ability to recognize one. I've listened to and read them for years. They make persuasive arguments. I trust them and I trust my perception.
You are mistrustful in a lot of situations, I suspect.
Thank you for sharing, Hilary.
I recall the CEO article you are referencing.