In my personal experience, and in what I remember from reading history, people who label dissidents and critics as "dangerous" instead of welcoming free and open discussion (1) often turn out to be the bad guys and (2) lose in the long run. You just can't manage public debate in that way.
In my personal experience, and in what I remember from reading history, people who label dissidents and critics as "dangerous" instead of welcoming free and open discussion (1) often turn out to be the bad guys and (2) lose in the long run. You just can't manage public debate in that way.
I wish people could stick to one topic at a time. If every time you don't like where a conversation is going you just pick something else to talk about, well we have an endless grab-bag of issues and nobody can spend all day here.
Also, I'm not going to debate with people who can't express themselves without insults. It is glaringly obvious that this is a very difficult challenge with two valid, decent sides. As far as I'm concerned, recognizing that is the price of entry.
I don't want to limit it at all. I don't think anyone else does, either. We're saying talk about it ALL here, this is the space to do that safely. ABC isn't mining Bulwark newsletter comments for content. For example, many of us have been wondering if Harris isn't the stronger candidate. And some of us have mentioned that we didn't get to cast a vote in the primaries because the other candidates withdrew so early.
In my personal experience, and in what I remember from reading history, people who label dissidents and critics as "dangerous" instead of welcoming free and open discussion (1) often turn out to be the bad guys and (2) lose in the long run. You just can't manage public debate in that way.
You say dissident.
Great!
What's your solution?
Because people who cause trouble for the sake of trouble aren't dissidents -- they provocateurs.
Or people stuck in junior high school mode.
Bill Kristol throws out too old, needs to be replaced FOUR MONTHS from the election, after the bulk of the primaries have been recorded.
He's definitely in junior high school.
I wish people could stick to one topic at a time. If every time you don't like where a conversation is going you just pick something else to talk about, well we have an endless grab-bag of issues and nobody can spend all day here.
Also, I'm not going to debate with people who can't express themselves without insults. It is glaringly obvious that this is a very difficult challenge with two valid, decent sides. As far as I'm concerned, recognizing that is the price of entry.
The topic is you think we should be having "free and open discussions" about what exactly?
Joe Biden is too old.
But not about what you want to offer instead of Joe Biden? But not about how we throw out all of the primaries?
Please explain how much you want to limit this topic.
I don't want to limit it at all. I don't think anyone else does, either. We're saying talk about it ALL here, this is the space to do that safely. ABC isn't mining Bulwark newsletter comments for content. For example, many of us have been wondering if Harris isn't the stronger candidate. And some of us have mentioned that we didn't get to cast a vote in the primaries because the other candidates withdrew so early.
I would not assume MSM is not reading Substack.
Harris is great as long as we have enough voters who don't think women are incompetent.
What did we learn in 2016?
Anyone else remember the media harping on Hillary's health and the Clinton Foundation?
BillтАЩs been saying it for two yearsтАФand he was right.