HaroldWilson
12hr ago
It's loser establishment Republicans who continue to defect!
They aren't 'defecting', they simply consider the 'outsider' picks like Tulsi and Gaetz fundamentally unfit to hold office, and it would be a dereliction of duty to not oppose them if they believe so.
Yeah, it's a big cabinet, there are lots of things going on, coalitions need to be managed
Literally any combination of picks could be rationalised in this way. Tulsi especially seems like a ludicrously ill-thought through choice. She won't pass the Senate, her position on Ukraine is way off the reservation even by Trump/isolationist Republican standards, she's proven herself to be politically unreliable and unpredictable etc. etc. If the response to this is that, as you say, she has a 'grudge' against the institutions and will disrupt/destroy (parts of) them, she doesn't have the political chops for that. Her only political experience is as a backbencher and later twitter poster - not really the sort of person to 'take on' any deeply embedded institution.
HaroldWilson
13hr ago
I'm not denying he was sacked because of the things he said in the memo, but rather that the thing that got him sacked was very specifically his statements on women's biological disposition to neurotic behaviour, less drive to succeed etc. Which it's hard to blame them for - it would seem less than conducive to a healthy working environment to know that your colleagues consider you naturally predisposed to neurotic behaviour, by virtue of being a woman.
He could easily have made the case against any of the specific policies without that element.
HaroldWilson
1d ago
Do I really care about rainbow flags everywhere and trans activists in the workplace sending out multiple emails every month about the importance of PRIDE!!!! and allyship and diversity?
Maybe I just can't see the forest from the trees because I myself am very left-liberal and agree with the implied politics of 'pride', but this description is pretty alien to the workplaces/institutions I've been in, but as I say perhaps I just don't notice it.
"Why do we need yet another Pride event? Nobody is harassing you here, of all places. (And why do we need entire full-time positions just to support and affirm you?)"
I think this would meet with a negative reaction partly because people who rock the boat in this way are perceived, rightly or wrongly, as tiresome and trouble-making, in a way that doesn't really have anything to do with LGBT issues specifically. People don't like people who won't go along to get along. I appreciate it's easier to say this when what I'm going along with aligns with my politics anyway, but the politics of workplace pride is usually pretty banal. 'Unnecessary' is one thing, but I don't think a rainbow lanyard implies support for a particular regime of gender identity law, more just an interpersonal respect thing.
I think a good analogy would be some scheme or event or whatever for veterans. A lot of Western workplaces (esp. the US federal government) do have some such schemes, which I have nothing against, but even if you are virulently isolationist/anti-Western in your foreign policy views, anyone who objected to such schemes would probably find themselves written off as a tiresome bore, not because anyone cares that much about veterans but because it would make that person seem self-righteous and self-important. Such pontification implies you think other people care what you think, which probably isn't the case.
like say, a James Damore
I think this illustrates the point - Damore really wasn't being personally imposed upon in any meaningful way. His objections were to firm-level hiring practices in relation to diversity. Obviously he's entitled to think they're unfair or whatever (and the mere fact of that objection doesn't seem to be why he was sacked), but on a personal level there was nothing he himself was being asked to do that might have run contrary to his beliefs. Not to say I agreed with all the backlash, much of which was a bit hysterical, but he certainly wasn't being asked to 'celebrate' anything.
"Why yet another Pride event?"
All of which it to say, I don't think saying this occasions objection or even outrage just because of the literal message of the words but because one wonders why you would bother to say something like that. The social rule you'd break wouldn't be anything to do with progressive orthodoxy, but rather the general rule of 'if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing'. Clearly some people like it and find it meaningful/valuable, so good for them and anyone who doesn't can ignore it and move on with their lives. Don't people have better things to do than complain?
HaroldWilson
1d ago
Why are you looking around the room to see who stops clapping first?
harassing and abusing other people for being insufficiently affirming is appropriate.
I would imagine this kind of behaviour, to the extent that it exists at all, is displayed by a vanishingly small proportion of the overall population to the point it's not worth thinking about. I live in an pretty left-liberal bubble, but unless you sought it out you would literally never be called upon to 'celebrate', or indeed make any comment at all, upon these kinds of issues.
HaroldWilson
1d ago
totally arbitrary foppsical and whim
How else does one account for nominating someone with a known scandal, then pulling the plug when people inevitably started talking about said scandal. How did he not see that coming?
grudges against the bureaucracies they will lead, or who plan to destroy those institutions
How does this square with Rubio, Burgum, Turner, Chavez-DeRemer and any number of other picks which seem basically ordinary Republican picks - Chavez-DeRemer even has decent/sympathetic relations with trade unions, especially by Republican standards!
HaroldWilson
8d ago
Find four mainstream television shows that show intact, loving, and competent families
Well good television (and possibly all storytelling) thrives on conflict and problems - there are a zillion films and television shows set in wars, whether real or fictional, but that doesn't mean we all love war and want more of it, it's just a compelling backdrop for engaging media. Troubled families are simply more interesting than 'intact, loving and competent' ones.
HaroldWilson
9d ago
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1182/vote_118_2_00048.htm
Is Trump stupid enough to give them a chance once more?
I think Trump has lost a lot of leverage. In 2026 there's probably going to be a lot more mileage for Republicans in distancing themselves from Trump, not sticking to him.
HaroldWilson
10d ago
I mean the last two charismatic nominees the Democrats put up won two terms and by pretty handy margins in all four cases.
HaroldWilson
10d ago
A much worse echo chamber than I remember
An odd criticism to make on here of all places. Pots, kettles etc. Not that there isn't lots of disagreement on here, but you'll find that on places like /r/neoliberal too - but in both places it tends to occur within pretty narrow confines.
HaroldWilson
10d ago
If we're going down that road of calling things stolen you can call any election stolen if you were so inclined. 2016 was stolen by Comey reopening the emails investigation, 2004 was stolen by the swiftboat lies (ok that one probably didn't tip the balance but probably neither did the Hunter Biden laptop), 1856 was stolen by Democrats claiming Fremont was a Catholic and would a lead a slave rebellion, etc. etc. 'Stolen' is a pretty extreme word that I think in common parlance would only apply if you thought there was something nefarious about the election/voting process itself.
HaroldWilson
10d ago
Not because of that, just that she is pretty far off the reservation as far as apologia for Putin, Assad etc. goes, even relative to Trump, having blamed America for the invasion of Ukraine. Seems unlikely the more hawkish Republicans are willing to swallow this one.
HaroldWilson
11d ago
Seems a bit of a moot point as there is surely no way she gets through the Senate.
HaroldWilson
13d ago
There’s nothing inconsistent in thinking that those laws exist for a reason, and seeing the Trump case as a good example of why those laws exist, noting that they clearly aren’t having the desired deterrent effect, and then saying we need to do something about that.
Fine, that's a legitimate point (which I completely disagree with but let's leave that for one second), but it's still probably a bad idea to have a sitting President be the one to make that case. If there is one person with reference to whom we probably ought to err on the side of freedom of speech as regards libel, it is the President. If libel laws really should be broader, it should be very easy to make that case without having to centre it around a politician who dislikes what his media opponents say.
What accusations/lies against Trump from mainstream media figures do you think Trump is currently prevented from taking libel actions against that he ought to be able to if and when an 'opened' libel regime took effect (and that represents some higher/more sinister plane of lying that any previous President did not have to deal with)?
HaroldWilson
13d ago
No, your story breaks the laws of physics and anatomy
Not sure what you mean by this.
but we will just change your testimony to 'fingers' instead of 'penis' and then pretend that doesn't have implications on the reliability on the rest of what you said.
In the first place she did testify that Trump penetrated her digitally - yes, as you say she also testified as to penetration by his penis, but there was other evidence presented in the trial such that the jury might have been able to be confident of the former but not the latter. I can't see into their mind nor know what was presented and how, but it isn't ipso facto an absurd conclusion. Plus, I don't think their judgement means they don't think he did rape her, just that the evidence there presented was insufficient to prove it, so it needn't hurt her overall credibility.
It's not semantic to say that there is a crucial standard of evidence lacking that would have been required in a criminal conviction.
True enough, the semantic point is how you use the word 'proven', and whether it applies to the standard of proof here (a preponderance of the evidence) or only to the criminal standard. I'm agnostic on the matter but in common parlance I can definitely see that one might use the word 'proven' to describe the former standard.
The explanation is part of the denial. It shouldn't be libel to provide an alternative explanation when someone is accusing you of something.
Sure but this is totally irrelevant to the logic of the jury, because they found that his denial was false in the first place, so his 'alternative explanation' was by extension wrong and, further, defamatory and malicious. If they had found that he had not sexually abused Carroll, they presumably would have not awarded any damages
HaroldWilson
13d ago
This is a pretty revealing answer, since it indicates that the real grievance isn't actual libel, it's the overall hostile media landscape, and it's pretty chilling for a President to suggest that laws be changed in order that he can lash out against media outlets that don't like him. If he's that sensitive to partisan or negative coverage, he shouldn't be in politics.
HaroldWilson
13d ago
A federal abortion ban (not going to happen)
I agree this almost certainly won't happen now because the margins in the Senate and House probably don't allow for it, but in the world in which Republicans made a more convincing sweep of both chambers it wasn't off the table, surely. Certainly, had a ban reached Trump's desk I doubt he'd have had the guts to defy most of the Republican party by vetoing it.
HaroldWilson
13d ago
Most liberals take this libel suit as evidence that Trump has been proven of rape in court.
I suppose this depends on the semantics of 'proven'. But the jury did in fact find that Trump had sexually abused Carroll (though not raped her), so in that sense he has been proven of sexual abuse (and of actual malice in his statements) in (a) court.
https://www.scribd.com/document/644110955/gov-uscourts-nysd-590045-174-0-1
But if I was also publicizing a book at the time, then you could reasonably infer that I made up to sell the book.
If you want to make the case that Trump was reasonable to accuse her of lying, fine, but that's not the argument @WhiningCoil was making, who said that Trump had merely denied the accusations and that counter-accusation of lying was merely something people had read into his initial denial, not something he had explicitly done himself. However that would be merely a critique of the factual findings of the jury, not of their logic or of that of the trial/libel laws/judicial system themselves.
HaroldWilson
13d ago
Likewise, libel and slander laws exist. Why shouldn't Trump avail himself of them same as people have against him?
He doesn't just want to use existing laws, he said he wants to 'open up' libel laws. It's also just pretty pathetic - did Obama ever threaten to sue Birtherists for libel, much less threaten to 'open up' the laws to get at them?
HaroldWilson
13d ago
for denying he raped a woman
Only in the most tortured interpretation of events. He actually lost the case for calling Carroll a liar, saying she was only accusing him to get publicity for herself and sell books, implying that she was working for the Democrats and/or that she was paid and suggesting she should 'pay dearly' for her accusations. It wasn't some legal trickery by which his denial was construed as implying she was a liar, he literally said she had made it up to sell books.
HaroldWilson
15d ago
(The popular cope is that the markets were reacting to a decisive result, not nessesarily to Trump himself. This is cope.)
If this 'cope' isn't true, why did Biden get a similar boost in 2020?
HaroldWilson
15d ago
In all the exit polls the economy and 'state of democracy' dominated top issues, with abortion and immigration important secondary issues and small slivers for other things like foreign policy. Transgender issues didn't feature anywhere. Could have been an ancillary issue for some? Very possibly, but it's odd that if it was an issue of even secondary/tertiary significance to many voters that it would have appeared nowhere in all the exit polls.
HaroldWilson
15d ago
His big brag in 2016 was ultimately that he had herded towards 50/50 harder than anybody else.
That isn't what herding means. Herding doesn't necessarily imply putting the finger on the scale towards a close race, it implies marshalling your results towards the average of other pollsters. After all, if everyone else is predicting a blow-out win and you predict a close race, you still look not only stupid , but exceptionally stupid if it is in fact a blow-out, whereas if you follow the crowd and predict a blow-out you only look as bad as everyone else if it turns out close.
Nate was doing the opposite of herding, if anything, in 2016. If Hillary wins that election very easily, Nate (possibly unfairly) looks stupid for constantly warning people about the significant possibility of a Trump victory. He looks good from 2016 precisely because he didn't follow the crowd of other modellers and gave Trump better odds than anyone else.
HaroldWilson
15d ago
Everyone on the left seems to call it for their guy with high confidence every election
Plenty of right-wing figures do this too, and got resultant egg on their faces in 2018, 2020 and 2022. It's hard to quantify but there are definitely a lot of left-wing pessimists and I don't think partisan boosterism is more prevalent on one side compared to the other.
In fact on twitter there were a lot of big right wing accounts predicting a Kamala win (legitimately or otherwise) shortly before the election.
HaroldWilson
15d ago
He admitted well before E-day that anything more than a very crude real time projection needed far more resources than he had - he borderline told people to just go and look at the NYT needle, and probably only did his thing because it wasn't known until the last minute whether the needle would be active.
I think the real lesson from 2012 is that pundits are wont to proclaim realignments, because they desperately want to live in interesting and historic times. But seldom is it really so. The last realignment happened slowly over the course of several decades and is still ongoing.
Something approximating the left-right divide has now been with us for approaching a century, and it's not going away easily. This is something I think the reality of another term of Trump governance will expose. Left-disposed 'outsiders' are mostly not going to like what they get, which will probably consist of the usual Republican fare with the exception of tariffs, which will probably be as haphazard and anti-climatic as his first effort, and a higher degree of meaningless culture war bluster. Maybe he does meaningfully roll back support for Ukraine, but plenty of 'outsiders' are actually pretty pro-Ukraine, including the vast majority of former Bernie supporters.
More options
Context Copy link