VoxelVexillologist
πΊπΈ Multidimensional Radical Centrist
No bio...
User ID: 64
I have known at least a few women in my life that have described expectations of revealing women's clothing as at least akin to "oppressive" (I don't recall whether that specific word was used). "I don't want to go swimming because everyone will look at me weirdly if I don't wear almost nothing like everyone else" is not, like, a completely unsympathetic take to me, at least. Conformity in any direction is plausibly coercive.
What if Mike Pence or Mitt Romney or J.D. Vance of Pete Hegseth showed up like this?
I'm sure Romney's wife was also wearing magic underwear, and I don't recall that ever being a serious debate during his campaign. I could maybe see some devout Christian woman who is also a public figure (ACB? She doesn't seem that trad) adopting the traditional-in-some-communities practice of veiling, but I doubt that it'd make much of a splash. For better or worse, I don't know that the leftists are wrong that concern about headscarves is from seeing Muslims (especially observant ones) as an outgroup. IMO face covering is a bit different, but I'd bet there are hair covering styles that wouldn't seem too out of place in everyday life from the Christian traditions: hats are pretty normalized.
he was sworn in on Thomas Jefferson's Quran.
I always found this one funny because it mostly glosses over the reason Jefferson owned a Quran: he, too, as president was sending troops across oceans two centuries ago to fight Muslims engaging in what would today probably be called "terrorism".
Maybe in two centuries someone will find that George W. owned one too, and try to use that similarly.
Sure, but the fact that we "eventually swallowed all that capacity" in network infrastructure doesn't mean Cisco was a good investment in 2000.
I've heard it's quite a valuable relationship at the federal level, but I was wondering if that still holds for a less-active legislature like the Texas system. Do Texas legislators make those calls when they're not in session, and do the civil servants feel responsible to pick up?
The left is going to really enjoy getting the guy they've wanted to get
This smells to me like misinterpreting the political mandate in the same way Trump seems to have: our recent election cycles seem to be "which do you dislike less?" to the median voter (they are to me, at least). Reading the election outcome as embracing left-wing, as opposed to left-center or even just not-right-wing, views is just going to repeat the cycle. Voters still don't want no enforced immigration laws, even if they voted against maximal jackbooted enforcement.
To wit, I think various attempts at prosecuting Trump during the Biden administration was a huge self-own that drove the 2024 cycle. Did "37 felonies" on rather, uh, Trumped-up charges win them votes they didn't have already? It certainly let Republicans argue they were being politically targeted, and that anyone who fell out of the progressive line would be next.
Current politics is just Mean Girls without the adults.
I assume the plan was to repeat the Venezuela gambit: a sudden decapitation strike, then a negotiated agreement with the remaining leadership for political realignment. When that failed, they iterated it a few times on new leadership and infrastructure threats, before pivoting to the blockade.
If it'd have worked, I think we'd be talking about it very differently. But it didn't, presumably because at least many of the Iranian political caste are earnest in their philosophy regardless of risk to life.
You need a relationship with your local state rep
I'm curious how valuable those are in Texas, given that its legislature meets only 6 months every two years (plus whenever the governor calls a special session). Could go either way.
I think the AI buildout will probably not stop, although it will have to reassess.
I'm not necessarily sure this is a bad thing: the buildout plans were so large that I didn't really think they were practical anyway. Were we really going to grow grid capacity by 300% in under a decade? I buy that it'll be game changing in lots of ways, but is the demand really there to pay for infinite tokens? The models have gotten both better and more efficient recently, too: do we need as much compute as we thought?
Slowing over-eager investment in boom-bust cycles could be stabilizing, even.
Does political spending really correlate that well with outcomes? Beyond that, can we show causality in the right direction? Presumably popular, charismatic candidates are good at both raising money and getting votes even before they spend anything, and even generate much more organic, unpaid promotion.
I only once knew Robert's Rules (related, but not the Senate rules) loosely, but is it germane to bring a rules change to the floor spontaneously? When they've done it before, it was raised as a point of order to the ongoing filibuster. It's not obvious to me you can just move to nix it at any other time, unless you put it on the agenda.
All it would have taken was him deciding he was too old and lazy and just wanted to golf all day or something.
I am moderately convinced that "leaving the interns in charge" was precisely the main issue with the Biden administration. Voters elected an old man expecting old-school policies and got, well, whatever that was.
I'm not completely convinced that isn't an issue for the current administration, either.
There was that weird incident in the Gulf War (1993) where Iraq was launching missiles at Israel trying to goad them into the war, on the basis that their involvement would make all the (closer) Gulf State members of the Coalition nope out of fighting on the same side as The Jews.
Things get weird sometimes.
We used to give outlandish focus to issues in Iowa (E85!) because of its not-a-primary process. Is this that much worse, do you think? I'm not sure, but I see the pattern you're looking at.
I think abortion is more subtle an issue than many commentators give it credit for. There are die-hard partisans on both extremes, but my understanding of polling data is that most voters were uncomfortable with the trimester timelines of Roe (28 weeks, IIRC), and would generally prefer "legal until 12-16 weeks for any reason, and for serious health reasons after", which largely matches the range of laws in other Western nations. I will admit to somewhat begrudgingly matching this description.
The cases since Roe mostly chipped away at what were rather maximal abortion rights in the US. But overturning it enacted a bunch of "if the courts ever let us, abortion is banned" laws on the books in red states from a time when they were largely performative. As such, there are a bunch of red states with abortion laws far to the right of the median voter: it's not surprising to see some normalization there. Note that the Senate had the votes to force a national law on the issue after Dobbs, but there wasn't a consensus on where to put the line.
I recall reading a good argument a few years back that Roe largely kept the normal democratic process from establishing a stable consensus like happened elsewhere, and I think there is some wisdom in that.
I feel like Trump hasn't helped your case here: the red team has made plenty of promises of one-party rule in his time, and he's been prosecuting his political enemies too. If he didn't already have the court majority, I'm sure we'd be hearing about packing it too. IMO if your claim is fear of your opponent doing something, I'm not very convinced as a voter if you do the same thing too.
I even agree in principle here, but "vote against parties that do this" has me voting, I dunno, Libertarian.
People want food, housing, medical care, and some luxuries, without spending the majority of their awake life on an intolerable job.
IMO this isn't a complete take. Material needs like these certainly exist, but I think the real crisis is that happiness isn't really related to them. I don't feel qualified to speak for the entire human condition, but people want to feel valued, and that is much harder than "3 hots and a cot". I don't think NEET-dom is the pinnacle of existence, but at the same time some jobs really do suck and we'd be better off mechanizing them.
Everyone wants to make lattes on the commune, but automated baristas exist, but we still have humans driving trash trucks. Maybe our AI overlords can fix that, but how do we build a world with meaning for everyone?
They do make their own tanks, not just licensed copies, and have for decades. Also some cutting-edge missile defense hardware.
They also have their own variants of fighter jets, but I have no clue how much those are different from the US models, and they are still US-built.
And we've renamed everything "America" for convenience. Gulfs, lakes, you name it.
It feels relevant that we've been mostly unable to elect presidents not born in the mid 1940s, and that the culture has been stuck cosplaying 1955-1970 the entire time, even if the world has moved on in lots of ways. Maybe only in the last few years have we started really considering otherwise, and even that hasn't won out much yet. I'm not sure what to expect that will bring.
Despite otherwise swinging very blue by double digits, Colorado and Washington passed propositions against trans girls participating in school sports, and Colorado additionally to ban gender surgeries for minors. Not sure which way to say the wind is blowing on those.
I mostly buy the "gas prices" argument, but current pump prices aren't out of line with plenty of moments in the Biden and Obama years, and even the late Bush administration.
But I'm not sure people were happy with those at the time. Is diesel a big factor? That does seem to be at all-time highs. I also drive an efficient car and don't put that many miles on it.
It's hard to remember who "unstoppable" incumbents were so long ago to compare, but the Republicans in 2010 won the Senate seats vacated by Ted Kennedy and Barak Obama.
Last night might have been bigger (hard to decide history today), but not completely out of pattern.
Never get involved in a land war in Asia.
Somehow the past couple administrations got away with a few: there were literal boots on the ground in Syria, for example, and in Iraq against ISIS after we otherwise withdrew. But for that one pilot rescue mission, that is more than we have in Iran, for example. Reagan bombed Iran (and sold them weapons under the table, it was a different time), and the Gulf War is generally considered a win.
Of course the point of the rule isn't that it bites you every time ("unless you are the Mongols"), but that it can.
- Prev
- Next

I think his public history with negative-sum investment antics against whole nations seems relevant (see Black Wednesday and others). I can see how it makes skepticism of his political donations easier: does someone willing to tank the UK economy for personal gain really have citizens' best interests at heart? Gates is at least easier to find earnest.
Although largely I think he's just the best foil to Koch, and now Musk.
More options
Context Copy link