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?
"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.
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!”
I'm always perplexed by the residual "Democrats" in these polls that seemingly *want* Trump as president again. Who the hell are these 7%, 4% of whom would still want him if convicted? 🤯
Charlie, perhaps the Bulwark crew should refrain from perpetuating Trump's juvenile nicknames for his political opponents, like "Meatball Ron". DeSantis is a tasty target no doubt but it's grating that the media let's Trump set the terms of engagement and warp our political culture.
Apropos of nothing in this column -- apologies -- I was listening to the Friday podcast with Charlie and Tim. Did anyone else find it disturbing that a 40-year-old man (Tim) had never heard of the musical and culutral icon South Pacific (and others)? It keeps nagging at me -- millennials seem to be proud of their lack of historic cultural knowledge. Was something lacking in their education? As a boomer friend of mine once said, "I grew up listening to the Beatles and Stones, but I damn sure knew who Frank Sinatra and Perry Como were." OK, old man -- I'm an Xer -- rant over. LOL.
I’m an Xer and had never heard of South Pacific before reading this comment. And I even listened to the Friday podcast! I must have “blanked out” during that discussion.
In my experience, millennials and younger have about as much awareness of historic culture as the preceding few generations did. The difference is that they're far less beholden to received wisdom about *which bits* of old culture should be important to them.
This is mostly about the internet opening up and flattening out channels of cultural entry for everyone, but the mainstreaming of gay identites is also at play. The icons of the old gay cultural canon were never actually key to every individual gay person's identity, but before widespread social acceptance, and internet, there weren't as many ways to be gay *and* have gay friends and shared interests. The folks who were gay but *really* not into musical theater, etc., tended to just not register in the popular understanding of gay culture.
As a gay Boomer, I would say that I find it considerably more than merely "disturbing". If a lot of Tim's takes were all I knew about being gay in America, I'd think that Fabulousness started shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and that lesbians weren't involved that much.
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?
"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.
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.
To be fair, he did caveat that he wasn't comparing their positions or their merits.
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.
One can only hope . . .
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.
Here is the complaint filed by Disney. Quite the interesting read.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23789605-disney-v-desantis-complaint
Can't figure this is a PR stunt either.
My hot take: DeSantis is toast.
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!”
I'm always perplexed by the residual "Democrats" in these polls that seemingly *want* Trump as president again. Who the hell are these 7%, 4% of whom would still want him if convicted? 🤯
Also, that exploding head emoji kinda looks like Trump a bit; it looks like his awful hair instead of exploding head.
The bald spot that's requiring a more and more elaborate combover to fail to hide.
Charlie, perhaps the Bulwark crew should refrain from perpetuating Trump's juvenile nicknames for his political opponents, like "Meatball Ron". DeSantis is a tasty target no doubt but it's grating that the media let's Trump set the terms of engagement and warp our political culture.
I half agree: we should limit the use of Trump nicknames to his fellow deplorables. Meatball Ron does qualify, however.
Apropos of nothing in this column -- apologies -- I was listening to the Friday podcast with Charlie and Tim. Did anyone else find it disturbing that a 40-year-old man (Tim) had never heard of the musical and culutral icon South Pacific (and others)? It keeps nagging at me -- millennials seem to be proud of their lack of historic cultural knowledge. Was something lacking in their education? As a boomer friend of mine once said, "I grew up listening to the Beatles and Stones, but I damn sure knew who Frank Sinatra and Perry Como were." OK, old man -- I'm an Xer -- rant over. LOL.
I’m an Xer and had never heard of South Pacific before reading this comment. And I even listened to the Friday podcast! I must have “blanked out” during that discussion.
In my experience, millennials and younger have about as much awareness of historic culture as the preceding few generations did. The difference is that they're far less beholden to received wisdom about *which bits* of old culture should be important to them.
This is mostly about the internet opening up and flattening out channels of cultural entry for everyone, but the mainstreaming of gay identites is also at play. The icons of the old gay cultural canon were never actually key to every individual gay person's identity, but before widespread social acceptance, and internet, there weren't as many ways to be gay *and* have gay friends and shared interests. The folks who were gay but *really* not into musical theater, etc., tended to just not register in the popular understanding of gay culture.
He also proudly professed zero knowledge of The Sound of Music. That's really a head-scratcher.
As a gay Boomer, I would say that I find it considerably more than merely "disturbing". If a lot of Tim's takes were all I knew about being gay in America, I'd think that Fabulousness started shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and that lesbians weren't involved that much.