Always amazing those who take a concrete view and promise fealty are so easily corroded when necessary--like the tide rolling in and drowning in his own crap is a real danger. Ross is an unapologetic Catholic and I believe he sees no real harm in pederasty as long as Mother Church can whisk it under the rug. The sly communicator his objectivist mask of personal preferences takes not a high IQ to read between, over and under this newsprint. Ben, as you say is the more dangerous as he appears in more media--and is remarkable vociferous driven to aggressive positions - too often the guy with the big vocab so convinced he"ll take up arms if needed. I believe that's a reason his righteousness attracts followers. He who screams the loudest and all that attracts a crowd. I despise his squeezing HIS interpretation of selected passages of the Talmud to guide his family--and thinking by narrowing the scope of this children's visions he will produce 'better' offspring. Who knows - but they will not be prepared for the dangers of random real world events where assaults (verbal and physical require on the spot thinking and action). While on a martial kick, I hope he prepares them with a course in Krav Maga. To him I direct this tasty bit: "There's a man with a sharp wit, better take it away before he hurts himself." Do I ever miss Christopher Hitchens, he'd be so delightfully busy with topics inspiring mighty scrawling and debating that only the brilliant mind can construct.
Ben and Ross Douthat need their brains revoked . So serious are they both with most energetic reasoning have blown a fuse, tied themselves to DC current to make a case for Trump. But there is no case to strong enough to provide a new house for Don and his criminal enterprise he calls a family. There is a word for their behavior... um...ah... yeah, HYPOCRITS!
Wow! Tim Scott got put in his place last night by Trump. I hope that blowjob of an endorsement he gave Trump was worth it. After being treated like that, I wonder if he'd like to take his endorsement back? Probably not because he wants to remain a Republican Senator.
That piece in Politico that Michael Kruse wrote and was published over the weekend and Charlie talked about in his podcast on Tuesday lays out exactly why Trump is such a threat. He's a master of playing the legal system.
The Trump Hive Mind is in full effect. And it has roped in the supposed pundits and sharp wits of ‘conservatism,’ which in fact no longer exists in the Republican Party. Trump hacked conservatism to death with his sharp tongue, and now all that’s left are gimpy supplicants to the psychopathic bully. Who could not have done any of it without them. They made him, as he remade them. The question is, have enough Americans became disgusted enough of Trump and all who kowtow to him, to finally put him in the dustbin of history, as a hideous footnote and warning to future generations. Does it have to get worse - meaning Trump elected - before it gets better? No Ben Shapiro, it does not. We can end this menace with one heroic push to the polls.
How many of the people voting in the Republican primaries are voting to try to prevent Trump from being the Republican nominee? Who will they vote for Biden in the general - or will they just stay home? How many of them are so turned off by Trump's anti-democratic plans that they will vote for Biden?
If there is a true ceiling on Trump's support among Republicans, it's hard to see how Biden loses in November - unless another 2016-style Electoral College anomaly occurs. Is the 2024 election going to be enough like the 2020 election in the swing states to make that anomaly possible?
1) A quote from one of the linked articles: “But 2024 is different. Trump is not making his pitch to voters as a first time candidate. He is a known quantity who is being judged by the electorate not for the conduct of his current campaign so much as his time in office. And that, political veterans warn, makes it much harder for him to win back the people he’s alienated, including those once willing to vote Republican.”
This is just a different way of saying what I have been saying for some time – that one of Trump’s biggest liabilities in 2024 is that he can’t sneak up on people any more. I believe that one of the biggest reasons that Trump won in 2016 was that few people (not in the cult) thought that he could. That gave them “permission” to vote for a third party or not to vote at all.
This gives me the biggest hope of all – that, in the end, all those people who are pissed about a Biden – Trump rematch will realize the danger of reelecting Trump and vote for Biden. They won’t be happy, but that’s what they’ll do.
2) That same article quoted a guy who “couldn’t vote for Trump” and so wasn’t going to vote at all. It’s always been a source of amazement to me that people act as if voting for “the other party” will condemn them for all eternity. I mean if you think that Jill Stein would really make the best President, then great – vote for her. But those that voted for her because they didn’t like either of the major party candidates need to reassess their priorities (and their thinking skills). One of those major party candidates was going to be President so the only justification for voting for a third party when you don’t like the major party candidates is if you don’t see any difference between them.
And then there are the politicians. George W. Bush didn’t vote for President in 2016 and voted for Condoleeza Rice in 2020. So here is the former President acting like this whole Presidential thing is a big game and he’s not going to play if he doesn’t get the choices that he wants. Am I really supposed to believe that he can’t see any difference between Clinton or Biden and Trump? Please. And his father voted for Clinton. Just another example of how the father had the wisdom and grace and decency that the son never had.
I like Romney, but he voted for his wife in 2016. How childish – and disappointing.
3) Read Ben Shapiro’s explanation from 2016 for why he will never vote for Trump. He complains that the “Republican Party insists that victory matters more than principles” and that “victory without principles isn’t just meaningless, it’s counterproductive”. Now ask yourself what it is in that explanation that isn’t true today. Clearly the GOP abandoned the principle that the party is more important than any one person when it failed to even produce a platform (which is supposed to outline their principles) in 2020. And even the anti-Trumpers in today’s GOP are only basing their opposition to Trump on his electability, not on the principle that the President shouldn’t act like a three-year-old child (I am assuming that they believe in that principle, at least they did in the years before Trump). So even there, they are putting victory ahead of principle.
I recommend one small change to title of Charlie Sykes' article - " The Herd of Independent Minds Stampedes Off the Cliff", with the addition of word "former", changing title to more accurate - " The Herd of former Independent Minds Stampedes Off the Cliff".
Hewitt/Shapiro/Douhat OhMygoD. What idiots. And I bet none of them believe what they wrote anymore. Except maybe Douhat. That one seems genuinely DUMB.
I think it's time for Bulwark folks to PLEASE stop lamenting the death of "Reagan Republicanism", all the more so coming from Will Saletan who knows better. Reagan was clearly a precursor to Trump, and his political rhetoric in no way matched his policies:
1) Remember Iran-Contra? Dude literally disregarded acts of Congress to supply anti-Democratic forces in South America with weapons. Multiple people in his administration went to jail for that, and you'd be a fool to think Reagan wasn't into it up to his eyeballs.
2) Small government? Fiscal responsibility? Regan BLEW UP the deficit, and ginned up the military industrial complex.
3) Racial resentment? Remember his counter-factual "welfare Queen" screed?
It just occurred to me why the other former GOP candidates are endorsing Trump...other than the obvious...that they want a cushy job in his Administration, but it's also the FACT that if Trump isn't the nominee...he's definitely going independent which would finish off the GOP. None of those GOP guys want that.
Sometime soon after Feb.8 we will have good evidence of whether Hewitt is or is not correct that the Constitution precludes an authoritarian President. On Feb.8 the Supreme Court is to hear oral argument in Trump v Anderson, Trump's challenge to the Colorado Supreme Court's decision that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars Trump from future office--and thus from Colorado's ballot-- because he engaged in insurrection against the Constitution leading up to and on 1/6/21. Most commentators in the media have shown little interest in really understanding the strength of the Sec.3 case for Trump's disqualification and generally portrayed it--as Trump and his apologists do--as "anti-democratc". If Hewitt is correct, Trump, those commentators and, I suspect ,Hewitt, may well be stunned when we get the Supreme Court's decision. If Hewitt's faith in the Constitution is well founded the Court WILL rule that Trump is indeed disqualified by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (tho I expect Hewitt will be disappointed that his faith in the Constitution has been vindicated and Trump's hopes for returning to the White House and escaping jail dashed). Those who have dismissed the Colorado decision as "quirky" or "undemocratic" and surely to be reversed by the Supreme Court with its majority comprised of 6 Republican appointees including the 3 Trump nominees ought dig into the legal arguments. A very good place to begin would be the brief filed in the Colorado case by Constitutional scholar Mark Graber of the University of Maryland Law School who has been researching and writing for years about the 14th Amendment, including Sec.3. The next place to look is the amicus brief submitted January 18 to the Supreme Court in Trump v Anderson by Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar and Law Professor Vic Amar. The former is among the premier Constitutional scholars, has authored numerous books on the Constitution and has been cited in Supreme Court decisions more often than any other living scholar. Graber and the Amars make it absolutely clear that "originalists" must conclude that Sec.3 disqualifies Trump. And, of course, retired U.S. Appeals Court Judge Michael Luttig, an icon for decades in conservative legal circles, has been telling us for months that the Colorado Supreme Court's opinion is "masterful" and that Trump is a "clear and present danger" to our country. So: IF Hewitt is correct that we can trust the Constitution to protect us from an authoritarian takeover then the U.S. Supreme Court with its "originalist" majority can find in the record more than ample proof that Sec.3 of the 14th Amendment as understood and intended by its framers requires that Trump be disqualified from office.
Ben Shapiro’s argument is you should let the arsonist burn your house down because he can only do it once. What he forgets is that you’ll then be homeless.
Hugh Hewitt is the exact reason why a Trump is dangerous. He will surround himself with people like Hewitt who will contort themselves in an effort to never stand for principle and to excuse every crime. He’s the very poster boy for why we should be alarmed.
Ben Shapiro's comments have certainly aged like milk.
Always amazing those who take a concrete view and promise fealty are so easily corroded when necessary--like the tide rolling in and drowning in his own crap is a real danger. Ross is an unapologetic Catholic and I believe he sees no real harm in pederasty as long as Mother Church can whisk it under the rug. The sly communicator his objectivist mask of personal preferences takes not a high IQ to read between, over and under this newsprint. Ben, as you say is the more dangerous as he appears in more media--and is remarkable vociferous driven to aggressive positions - too often the guy with the big vocab so convinced he"ll take up arms if needed. I believe that's a reason his righteousness attracts followers. He who screams the loudest and all that attracts a crowd. I despise his squeezing HIS interpretation of selected passages of the Talmud to guide his family--and thinking by narrowing the scope of this children's visions he will produce 'better' offspring. Who knows - but they will not be prepared for the dangers of random real world events where assaults (verbal and physical require on the spot thinking and action). While on a martial kick, I hope he prepares them with a course in Krav Maga. To him I direct this tasty bit: "There's a man with a sharp wit, better take it away before he hurts himself." Do I ever miss Christopher Hitchens, he'd be so delightfully busy with topics inspiring mighty scrawling and debating that only the brilliant mind can construct.
Ben and Ross Douthat need their brains revoked . So serious are they both with most energetic reasoning have blown a fuse, tied themselves to DC current to make a case for Trump. But there is no case to strong enough to provide a new house for Don and his criminal enterprise he calls a family. There is a word for their behavior... um...ah... yeah, HYPOCRITS!
One last thing. When do we stop calling it the REpublican Party and start calling it what it is, the Trumpian Party? Asking for friends.
Wow! Tim Scott got put in his place last night by Trump. I hope that blowjob of an endorsement he gave Trump was worth it. After being treated like that, I wonder if he'd like to take his endorsement back? Probably not because he wants to remain a Republican Senator.
That piece in Politico that Michael Kruse wrote and was published over the weekend and Charlie talked about in his podcast on Tuesday lays out exactly why Trump is such a threat. He's a master of playing the legal system.
The Trump Hive Mind is in full effect. And it has roped in the supposed pundits and sharp wits of ‘conservatism,’ which in fact no longer exists in the Republican Party. Trump hacked conservatism to death with his sharp tongue, and now all that’s left are gimpy supplicants to the psychopathic bully. Who could not have done any of it without them. They made him, as he remade them. The question is, have enough Americans became disgusted enough of Trump and all who kowtow to him, to finally put him in the dustbin of history, as a hideous footnote and warning to future generations. Does it have to get worse - meaning Trump elected - before it gets better? No Ben Shapiro, it does not. We can end this menace with one heroic push to the polls.
The link to the Jonathan Chait article is broken, I really want to read it. Help?
How many of the people voting in the Republican primaries are voting to try to prevent Trump from being the Republican nominee? Who will they vote for Biden in the general - or will they just stay home? How many of them are so turned off by Trump's anti-democratic plans that they will vote for Biden?
If there is a true ceiling on Trump's support among Republicans, it's hard to see how Biden loses in November - unless another 2016-style Electoral College anomaly occurs. Is the 2024 election going to be enough like the 2020 election in the swing states to make that anomaly possible?
A few comments….
1) A quote from one of the linked articles: “But 2024 is different. Trump is not making his pitch to voters as a first time candidate. He is a known quantity who is being judged by the electorate not for the conduct of his current campaign so much as his time in office. And that, political veterans warn, makes it much harder for him to win back the people he’s alienated, including those once willing to vote Republican.”
This is just a different way of saying what I have been saying for some time – that one of Trump’s biggest liabilities in 2024 is that he can’t sneak up on people any more. I believe that one of the biggest reasons that Trump won in 2016 was that few people (not in the cult) thought that he could. That gave them “permission” to vote for a third party or not to vote at all.
This gives me the biggest hope of all – that, in the end, all those people who are pissed about a Biden – Trump rematch will realize the danger of reelecting Trump and vote for Biden. They won’t be happy, but that’s what they’ll do.
2) That same article quoted a guy who “couldn’t vote for Trump” and so wasn’t going to vote at all. It’s always been a source of amazement to me that people act as if voting for “the other party” will condemn them for all eternity. I mean if you think that Jill Stein would really make the best President, then great – vote for her. But those that voted for her because they didn’t like either of the major party candidates need to reassess their priorities (and their thinking skills). One of those major party candidates was going to be President so the only justification for voting for a third party when you don’t like the major party candidates is if you don’t see any difference between them.
And then there are the politicians. George W. Bush didn’t vote for President in 2016 and voted for Condoleeza Rice in 2020. So here is the former President acting like this whole Presidential thing is a big game and he’s not going to play if he doesn’t get the choices that he wants. Am I really supposed to believe that he can’t see any difference between Clinton or Biden and Trump? Please. And his father voted for Clinton. Just another example of how the father had the wisdom and grace and decency that the son never had.
I like Romney, but he voted for his wife in 2016. How childish – and disappointing.
3) Read Ben Shapiro’s explanation from 2016 for why he will never vote for Trump. He complains that the “Republican Party insists that victory matters more than principles” and that “victory without principles isn’t just meaningless, it’s counterproductive”. Now ask yourself what it is in that explanation that isn’t true today. Clearly the GOP abandoned the principle that the party is more important than any one person when it failed to even produce a platform (which is supposed to outline their principles) in 2020. And even the anti-Trumpers in today’s GOP are only basing their opposition to Trump on his electability, not on the principle that the President shouldn’t act like a three-year-old child (I am assuming that they believe in that principle, at least they did in the years before Trump). So even there, they are putting victory ahead of principle.
I recommend one small change to title of Charlie Sykes' article - " The Herd of Independent Minds Stampedes Off the Cliff", with the addition of word "former", changing title to more accurate - " The Herd of former Independent Minds Stampedes Off the Cliff".
Hewitt/Shapiro/Douhat OhMygoD. What idiots. And I bet none of them believe what they wrote anymore. Except maybe Douhat. That one seems genuinely DUMB.
Re: Monday Podcast with Saletan
I think it's time for Bulwark folks to PLEASE stop lamenting the death of "Reagan Republicanism", all the more so coming from Will Saletan who knows better. Reagan was clearly a precursor to Trump, and his political rhetoric in no way matched his policies:
1) Remember Iran-Contra? Dude literally disregarded acts of Congress to supply anti-Democratic forces in South America with weapons. Multiple people in his administration went to jail for that, and you'd be a fool to think Reagan wasn't into it up to his eyeballs.
2) Small government? Fiscal responsibility? Regan BLEW UP the deficit, and ginned up the military industrial complex.
3) Racial resentment? Remember his counter-factual "welfare Queen" screed?
4) Unqualified entertainer turned President? Nuff said.
Just STOP with this nonsense that Reagan was some sort of Conservative deity. He wasn't.
It just occurred to me why the other former GOP candidates are endorsing Trump...other than the obvious...that they want a cushy job in his Administration, but it's also the FACT that if Trump isn't the nominee...he's definitely going independent which would finish off the GOP. None of those GOP guys want that.
Sometime soon after Feb.8 we will have good evidence of whether Hewitt is or is not correct that the Constitution precludes an authoritarian President. On Feb.8 the Supreme Court is to hear oral argument in Trump v Anderson, Trump's challenge to the Colorado Supreme Court's decision that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars Trump from future office--and thus from Colorado's ballot-- because he engaged in insurrection against the Constitution leading up to and on 1/6/21. Most commentators in the media have shown little interest in really understanding the strength of the Sec.3 case for Trump's disqualification and generally portrayed it--as Trump and his apologists do--as "anti-democratc". If Hewitt is correct, Trump, those commentators and, I suspect ,Hewitt, may well be stunned when we get the Supreme Court's decision. If Hewitt's faith in the Constitution is well founded the Court WILL rule that Trump is indeed disqualified by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (tho I expect Hewitt will be disappointed that his faith in the Constitution has been vindicated and Trump's hopes for returning to the White House and escaping jail dashed). Those who have dismissed the Colorado decision as "quirky" or "undemocratic" and surely to be reversed by the Supreme Court with its majority comprised of 6 Republican appointees including the 3 Trump nominees ought dig into the legal arguments. A very good place to begin would be the brief filed in the Colorado case by Constitutional scholar Mark Graber of the University of Maryland Law School who has been researching and writing for years about the 14th Amendment, including Sec.3. The next place to look is the amicus brief submitted January 18 to the Supreme Court in Trump v Anderson by Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar and Law Professor Vic Amar. The former is among the premier Constitutional scholars, has authored numerous books on the Constitution and has been cited in Supreme Court decisions more often than any other living scholar. Graber and the Amars make it absolutely clear that "originalists" must conclude that Sec.3 disqualifies Trump. And, of course, retired U.S. Appeals Court Judge Michael Luttig, an icon for decades in conservative legal circles, has been telling us for months that the Colorado Supreme Court's opinion is "masterful" and that Trump is a "clear and present danger" to our country. So: IF Hewitt is correct that we can trust the Constitution to protect us from an authoritarian takeover then the U.S. Supreme Court with its "originalist" majority can find in the record more than ample proof that Sec.3 of the 14th Amendment as understood and intended by its framers requires that Trump be disqualified from office.
Ben Shapiro’s argument is you should let the arsonist burn your house down because he can only do it once. What he forgets is that you’ll then be homeless.
Hugh Hewitt is the exact reason why a Trump is dangerous. He will surround himself with people like Hewitt who will contort themselves in an effort to never stand for principle and to excuse every crime. He’s the very poster boy for why we should be alarmed.