This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Thursday's Presidential debate revealed to the world that President Biden is mentally incompetent and that an unelected and unaccountable group of people is running the country, and likely has been running the country for some time. This unavoidable truth has likely doomed Biden's 2024 campaign. However, it has likely also struck a crippling blow against the Democrat Party's primary value proposition: "Democracy."
The Democrat's have made "Democracy" the party's core identity, its primary rhetoric, and indeed, its very reason for being. The Democrats insist that the right to vote for one's representatives is sacrosanct, that voting is "Democracy," that the country is "Democracy," and that the Democrats are "Democracy." Directly or indirectly preventing or diminishing the right to vote for the representative of one's own choosing is, according to the party, fundamentally anti-democratic. Moreover, they loudly and repeatedly insist that a vote for the Republicans is a vote "against Democracy" and will "end Democracy" in the United States. The rhetoric is existential, black and white, and leaves no room for maneuver.
Thursday's debate transformed the party's "Democracy" rhetoric into a mortal wound. If Joe Biden is mentally incompetent, then the only value of his candidacy lies in the proposition that the party will wield Biden's executive power without his knowledge or control. But, according to the Democrats, being forced to vote for an unnamed, unelected cabal of unaccountable lobbyists, bureaucrats, and special interests is no vote at all. Indeed, it is anti-democratic according to the party's own terms.
The Democrat's only argument is that "if we don't run the country anti-democratically, it will be the end of Democracy!" This is rhetorical checkmate. The Republicans and left-leaning, dissident democrats will turn the Democrat Party's super-weapon against them and there will be no escape. By jettisoning every other value but "Democracy" from the party, the Democrats have left themselves nowhere to retreat. The Republicans will use the last decade of the Democrat's own histrionic statements against them, rightly painting them as tyrants perpetrating a coup. Dissident, left-leaning Democrats will do the same, and claim the mantle of genuine "Democracy" for themselves.
Its actually, literally Joever.
Rhetorically, this might be true, but if you look at the actual comments on the issues, "democracy" seems to get quickly pushed aside in almost every instance I can think of where a democratic vote doesn't lead to the "correct" outcome. Look at the reaction to California's Proposition 8 in 2008 where the state voted to ban same-sex marriage: did Democrats adhere to the will of the people expressed at the ballot box? Or the reaction to Dobbs, which wasn't rallying the democratically-elected (blue!) majority in Congress to pass an abortion rights bill, but to largely rally around the idea that such rights are absolute and don't even deserve codification by the legislature. Or the entire Russia-gate thing, which seems to have been largely based on the idea that a bunch of questionably-funded internet ads might sway naive voters to the extent that we should question the validity of their counted ballots.
But I think it's really only true rhetorically: in practice it seems to be far more pragmatic questions of what power can let them get away with.
More options
Context Copy link
I agree that Biden’s in no shape to be president, but you’re catastrophizing. The “unelected and unaccountable group of people running the country” are the west wing staff, same as always. Staffs are elected and accountable as extensions of their respective candidates. Like in this election it’s looking like voters will boot Biden and his people.
More options
Context Copy link
The whole defending democracy meme is both an incredibly potent and incredibly sad choice of strategy for Dems. In this age of partisanship, it was entirely predicable that if the Dems become the party of democracy, people on the other side will reflexively drift toward being explicitly against democracy. I find myself going that direction. If the current establishment is synonymous with our new definition of democracy, well, I’m not for that.
Democracy isn’t fundamental to the USA. “Western Liberal Democracy” is only 30 years old. The postwar system is only 70ish years old. And universal sufferage only 100 years old.
They couldn’t resist using it though. And as I said, it seems potent with a certain type of person. I agree with comments here that say that reelecting Biden despite any handicap is consistent with their definition of democracy. They’ve totally redefined the term to be consistent with rule by the “adults in the room”.
Suffrage without respect to class is significantly older in this country and glimmers of it date back through initial settlement.
More options
Context Copy link
I've said multiple times on here and the old site that "democracy" is best understood as rule by the managerial elite - if Trump won with a majority of the popular vote, then got disqualified and replaced with the Clinton caretaker government by the CIA, that would count as a victory for democracy as the term is used.
Exactly the same point I keep making as well.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's kind of like the difference between equality and equity isn't it. Whereas equality means "equality of opportunity", equity means "equality of outcome".
In the current progressive mindset, democracy doesn't necessarily mean every citizen gets a vote and we determine the winner. It means getting the correct result at the end of the process. Voting for Trump is "undemocratic" and therefore unelected leaders must deny people the ability to vote for him by taking him off the ballot.
To be fair, the only time Trump has accepted the outcome of an election he was involved in was when the election went in his favor. Say what you will about HRC, but she did not contest the outcome of the election for the next four years.
I think keeping Trump of the ballot is bad because one of the advantages of democratic elections is that they are a means of avoiding armed confrontations within a country. The deal with democracy is that everyone gets to vote for their guy, and if your guy did not win this time, the best path forward is to try to convince more people of your point of view next time. If your guy is not on the ballot, you might decide that the best way forward is armed resistance, and get utterly crushed by the federal government.
There are situations where it is a good idea to keep an enemy of democracy off the ballot. Kicking the NSDAP off the ballot in 1933 would have been worth however many shootouts with their Sturmabteilung that would have resulted in, because the Weimar republic was fragile, with a lot of the government apparatus not sold on democracy and very willing to help Hitler along.
But Trump 2024 is not Hitler 1933. If he is elected and has a majority in Congress, he will still not be able to transform the US into a Fuehrerstaat. The SCOTUS may be friendly to him, but they are not his minions. And unlike Weimar, the US is full of bureaucrats who are very invested in the status quo. They might gerrymander a bit here and leak a bit of embarrassing info there for partisan reasons, but they will not dismantle democracy.
Well, Hillary never stormed the capitol with her army of fanatical HillDawgs(tm), but she (and the mainstream media) did spend four years strongly implying that Russia had rigged the elections in Trump’s favor. An argument that they kept on using until about a day after Biden’s victory in 2020, after which the argument that any American election had ever been stolen immediately became a laughable conspiracy theory. Twenty years of carping about dimpled chads in Miami Dade county also suddenly went down the memory hole.
The inauguration riots (DisruptJ20, not HillDawgs) have been memory holed by the media.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is probably excessively pedantic, but despite winning several states, he withdrew from the Reform Party primary for president in 2000 with a fair amount of drama, but not denying the outcome of the elections.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I see people saying this, but I don't see it. I don't get why this really makes much of a difference; many of the scenarios I see circulated and speculated about in many of the other places I frequent are of the sort that won't be affected by this.
Except, as I've noted before, many on that side tend to define "Democracy" rather differently than what you imply. The people voting for whatever representative they want — whether approved by elites or not — is "populism," which is the greatest threat to Our Democracy; "Democracy" meaning rule by an intellectual vanguard party of elite technocrats who are the only people with the smarts to enact the Rousseauan "general will," which is what the masses would vote for were they all properly educated and enlightened enough to know what's truly good for them, instead of being loaded down with ignorant bigots and bitter clingers, vulnerable to exploitation by the next Hitlerian populist demagogue.
Do you have a citation for this, because I've only seen the reverse — people on the left arguing that "being forced to vote for an unnamed, unelected cabal of unaccountable lobbyists, bureaucrats, and special interests" is the very definition of Democracy.
Yes, which, via redefinitions of "Democracy" along the lines of places ranging from Germany to Ukraine to China, will work just fine — because "if we don't run the country
anti-democraticallyinsulated from people who vote wrong, it will be the end ofDemocracyrule by those who know best."(I can't find it via a quick search, but I remember back in 2016 over at the subreddit linking to a professor who argued for stripping the franchise from Trump voters, on the grounds that it's legitimate — the right thing for democracy, even — to remove the vote from those who've demonstrated that they will misuse it by supporting an unacceptable candidate.)
Again, we saw once and for allwhat happens when you let the people vote for whoever they want — instead of from a carefully-curated menu of elite-acceptable figureheads for the "unnamed, unelected cabal of unaccountable lobbyists, bureaucrats, and special interests" — and let said representatives have actual power… in 1930s Germany. "Never again" means never again.
There are things like that:
https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2024/01/states-are-well-within-their-rights-to-take-trump-off-ballots/
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I find it odd how reluctant Democrats are to defend the concept of democracy. Of course they say how important democracy is, but do they ever explain why? Their rhetoric assumes the correctness of democracy, as though it is an end in itself and not simply a means to an end.
Is this cope? Crimestop? Much like other taboo topics, thinking too hard about the issue leads to the possibility that deeply-held convictions could be wrong. You can't build your argument for democracy out of the wisdom of crowds. Half of the population will demonstrably vote for Donald Trump. Either you're wrong about the wisdom of crowds, or you're wrong about Trump. You can make an argument that democracy is good. You can make an argument that Donald Trump is bad. But it is quite hard to make an argument that democracy is good and that Donald Trump is bad at the same time.
It really isn't. Democracy is about letting people have a say. They may be wrong, they may vote for candidates I think are stupid. They may hold ideas I think are harmful. But democracy isn't about making the best decisions. There is no wisdom of crowds in this situation. Thats not why democracy is good.
It's about ensuring everyone has a buy in and a stake in society. Their choices may well be awful. Doesn't matter in the slightest. IQ 90 voters get just as much say as IQ 140 voters. Because they have to live in society too. And giving them a say in how it is run helps societal stability. Whether their choices are good or bad is orthogonal to the value of democracy.
Now I don't think Trump is all that bad really. But even if he were, the fact many people would vote for him doesn't mean democracy is bad. People should be allowed to make bad choices, and those choices should impact the society they live in, if enough people make the same one. If everyone wants to ban cars, we should ban cars, even if objectively it's a stupid idea. We get to decide what is important to us. That is the value of democracy.
That's one way of defining democracy. But it's very different from the Rousseauan view (particularly the Jacobin variety), wherein "democracy" becomes about government acting in accord with Rousseau's "General Will" — which is not the same thing as the will of the majority. As you note, the latter can be wrong, while the former is always correct by definition.
Yes but Rousseau seems to be entirely incorrect. His claim basically is that individual men of simplicity will by deliberation in small groups find that the common good will be so obvious that only common sense is required to identify it. Likewise he believes that such simple folk cannot be fooled or confused by stratagems.
Looking around I see that conception to not actually tally with reality. So whether there is such a general will may be irrelevant, even in small groups making the right choices is not clearly obvious. And even if it were it only applies in small groups (groups of peasants making decisions around an oak tree being his rather picturesque vision), given that is not the type of democracy we are operating in even Rousseau wouldn't think it could apply here. The General will is simply not available to us at this scale.
I agree, but it doesn't stop people from invoking concepts from his work… or, more specifically, Jacobin-derived interpretations thereof.
Here, the people I've read break from Rousseau, in that it's not the simple peasants who identify the common good. Instead, it is only elite technocratic experts who have the right mix of talent and education to work out the correct choices, and it is by "deliberation in small groups" of these rare people that the General Will can be divined. And thus, "democracy" is when these experts become the intellectual vanguard of the ruling elite, and the greatest threat to "democracy" is the "populist" who would unseat them by appealing to the superstitions and prejudices of the less-enlightened masses.
We're a representative democracy, and the elected officials are to represent the people. Well, to quote from a previous comment of mine:
Generally, it seems to me like many have come to hold two apparently contradictory propositions:
Liberal democracy is the only legitimate form of government. Our governments are democracies, and it is from this that they draw their legitimacy.
The masses are too ignorant, misinformed, bigoted, and superstitious to generally know what's in their own best interest; nor to determine which potential representative would be most skilled at determining what that societal best interest is; and thus the government cannot afford to allow their input much weight on how it governs them.
One way to square these is to simply ditch #1 — this is the Moldbug "formalist" position. Tell people our "Brahmin/Elf" elite caste are legitimate rulers not because of "consent of the governed," but because they're literally the only people with the smarts and know-how to be capable of governing a complex modern society.
Of course, this runs against centuries of deeply-ingrained cultural mythology, particularly in the US. I mean, we're coming up on the 4th of July. Freedom, democracy, the Founding Fathers standing up to King George, et cetera. Many wouldn't take such an ideological u-turn very well (hence Yarvin's cryptographic weapon locks, VR, and so on).
But then, we notice that #1 and #2 are only actually incompatible if we define "democracy" in #1 to mean something that includes "the masses having significant input on how they are governed." And, like Carroll's Humpty-Dumpty noted, definitions are flexible; modern academia has made an artform of playing games with the definitions of words. Thus, one can resolve the paradox by adopting a definition of "democracy" wherein the influence of the electorate plays little role, a “stage managed” “defensive democracy” where the voters are free to choose… among a strictly-limited menu of elite-acceptable choices. And if you look at the methodologies used by many of the "democracy indices" that purport to measure how "democratic" various countries are, you'll see something that puts a lot more weight on 'does it have these various things left-leaning technocrats like?' and less on 'how responsive to the electorate is it?'
In short, we're definitely still a democracy… where "democracy" means whatever our unaccountable elites say it does.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I can see, perhaps, an argument for benefit to social stability by everyone having buy in. "Stupid, terrible things will happen if enough people can be convinced they should happen, and that's the value of democracy," seems like the strongest argument against democracy.
That being said, it seems like the trend line for social stability is pointed in only one direction, so the argument that we should have democracy to keep things stable is looking pretty weak these days as well.
Contrarily of course, "Amazing, great things will happen if enough people can be convinced they should happen" would then be the strongest argument for democracy no?
And whatever the trend line of democracies might be, communism, feudalism and the like appear to be worse. We are not in a vacuum here, some kind of method of governance will be in place.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What's disturbing me is that the conversation around this isn't "is Biden fit to lead" it's "does Biden look presidential enough?" Competence at the top of a ticket should pale in comparison to competence as President. The country should be considering the 25th Amendment, not just the ballot. The punditry seems more concerned with the appearance of the thing than the thing itself, and that thing is that Biden maybe shouldn't continue to serve in the current moment - far less the next four years.
What constitutes "competence" for a president? How much does he need? How much "competence" does King Charles III need to do his job?
Why not? He seems to be doing his job quite well — said job being a powerless figurehead while the unelected "deep state" permanent bureaucracy does all the actual governing.
More than you’d think. We’ve had bad kings before. Bad princes too (looking at you, Harry).
Sure, but how much more power did the monarch wield back then?
I was thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdication_of_Edward_VIII
Who was basically forced to resign (so not much power) but like Harry was incapable of keeping it in his pants when confronted with beautiful American divorcees.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Ironically, the ability to convince people that he's in charge even though he is not.
The kayfabe is the thing in itself.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I doubt it. The central thrust of the "Donald Trump wants to destroy democracy" critique is that Donald Trump tried to seize power when he lost in 2020, and nothing has changed on that front.
I mean, Trump hasn't, but the alternative to him at least somewhat has. Trump did lawfare to try to overturn an election. Colorado did lawfare to try to fix an election. So, well, okay, Trump wants to destroy democracy*, but if the alternative to him also wants to destroy democracy*, that's not really much incentive to vote against Trump, is it? It's just, shit, guess democracy's getting destroyed.
*Both Trump and the Democrats legitimately believe their antidemocratic actions are justified attempts to save democracy. They are both wrong. I wouldn't use the phrase "wants to destroy democracy" to describe that state of mind, but I'll echo your word choice for now.
More options
Context Copy link
Can we please stop with this? This type of claim is just absurdly bad faith.
Trump attempted to use some esoteric lawfare to force a debate about the merits of election interference claims.
Until such time as Trump's supporters unstorm the capitol and Trump didn't try to have his VP declare him the winner despite losing, it seems entirely reasonable to say that Trump tried to seize power. "It was to force a debate" is just another flavor of Trumpist cope deploy to reconcile the gap between their self-image as patriotic Americans and the reality that they prioritize loyalty to their wannabe caudillo.
Trump did not try to have Pence declare him the winner.
John Eastman may have suggested to Pence that he had the authority to do this (although as far as I can tell this is hearsay), but the plan was to have Pence reject some of the electoral slates, and force a debate within the house over the merits of the fraud claims.
It has been nearly FOUR YEARS since this happened. The evidence for this is well documented, and the plan has internal coherence.
Please just spend a few minutes reading about this and try to read it with the context that the people involved aren’t stupid, and their plan wasn’t lifted from a children’s cartoon.
If the election is thrown into the House because neither side gets a majority in the Electoral College, that is the opposite of "forcing a debate over the merits of the fraud claims". The process for forcing a debate over the fraud claims is an objection to a State certificate under the rules set out in the Electoral Count Act. Such objections were made, in the cases of AZ and PA debated, and rejected in Congress on January 6/7 2021. (It was during the AZ debate that the rioters entered the Capitol building and forced an adjournment.)
The contingent election that Eastman was trying to use isn't a procedure for debating who won the Electoral College vote - it is an alternative procedure specified by the Constitution for use when it is clear that no-one won the Electoral College vote. Consistently with most of Trump's strategy, it isn't an attempt to litigate the counting of the votes cast in November, it is an attempt to throw them all out and decide the election without reference to them. (In this case, a party-line House vote with unequal weighting of votes). In fact, the simple, obvious reading of the Constitution is that it doesn't even allow a debate - the Constitution says that the House should vote "immediately".
More options
Context Copy link
What should I read?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
He was aiming for more than a debate, I think. He wanted to overturn the election because he thought it was stolen from him. If it was, that is a reasonable position to hold!
But saying he just wanted to force a debate seems to ignore his own words. That's not how Trump operates. He is pretty straightforward on things like this. Thats why he put pressure on Georgia and Pence. To recognize the election was stolen and act accordingly.
Calling him a danger to democracy is hyperbole, but claiming he just wanted to force a debate on the merits, seems plainly wrong. He didn't want a debate, he wanted action.
The difference between “Jack slandered Jill” and “Jack warned the community about Jill” is evidence of Jill’s misdeeds.
The difference between “Don stole the election” and “Don rescued the rigged election” is evidence that the election was rigged.
Claiming the election had been stolen would’ve been reasonable if there’d been compelling evidence for it. Doing so without evidence is the same thing as trying to stealing the election. If Trump had succeeded in overturning the election, it would’ve been stolen. Like if Jack’s convinced everyone that Jill is wicked without evidence, he’s slandered her.
Sure, I don't believe Trump is correct. Which is why I said "if it was".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'd say the real intent on J6 was to deliberately engineer a constitutional crisis, the Capitol mob was just a convenient, possibly useful tool Trump didn't intend (but also didn't have strong feelings about, thus sitting back and letting it play out until it failed). The original effort, we must recall, was this: pressure directly from Trump and abetted by what courts have determined to be lies, onto Mike Pence, to take what scholars also consider a plainly illegal action, which pressure was cynical and self-serving. For what it's worth, I happen to think that this effort would fail. Most Dems seem to think that the SC would obviously side with Trump, against the law, simply because they were selected by him, but I don't think this would have been the case. However, triggering a constitutional crisis on purpose is, in a word, bad. Especially the reason why. It was not some big important issue worth fighting for... it was just self-interest, pure and unadulterated.
But yes, Democrats making it about "democracy" is also a little bit cynical, and a bit misleading. The core message is actually "We can't trust Trump's morality with power". Said morality might threaten democracy. Probably does. Just not as directly. The other parallel that needs to be mentioning is the view that Republicans have been trying to subvert the actual election mechanics as well, via gerrymandering, VRA-violating discriminatory efforts, and general denialism to question turnout. I think the objective record of Republicans on this front is mixed. I don't think it's an existential-type threat.
Thus, the calculation to call it an attack on democracy itself is a political ploy, and somewhat dangerous. On balance, I'd rate it as less dangerous than election denialism (one of the worst poison pills), but still dangerous in practice to the stated goal of actually preserving democracy. Now, part of this rests on a key assumption: Would the SC actually have sided with Trump? If yes, the concern is at least logical/understandable but you can also see how the seeds of devaluing the system in a misguided attempt to defend it are laid.
Indeed, the supreme court chose not to when Trump's favorite state AG sued Pennsylvania over allegations they were certifying a fraudulent election.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The esoteric legal theories were one thing.
The actual evacuation of Congress during the process was another, and you can't possibly call that lawfare.
Notably J6 harmed his esoteric legal theories. Now maybe you think Trump is a dumb dumb. But if his lawfare had any chance of working, J6 riot killed it.
More options
Context Copy link
That's the other half of the statement: I can very easily deny that "Donald Trump tried..." to do that.
He's not a charismatic genius that can manipulate a crowd into doing his bidding with veiled statements and subtle insinuations. He didn't ask for people to storm the capital, so I have a hard time believing that he tried to get people to storm the capital.
Oh I agree. I don't think he asked for anyone to storm the capital.
Then again, Biden and Bernie didn't ask anyone to try to torch a Federal Courthouse.
I happen to think we ought to hold we hold political leaders responsible for their factions. It is their job not only to represent, but also to channel and restrain, their supporters. And I think the left should have done much more do during BLM and the right should have done much more so than 1/6.
That all said, a consistent belief that political leaders aren't responsible in such a way is palatable too. But after all all the ink spilled on why the Dems wouldn't take responsible for BLM, I'm skeptical.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Trump had literally nothing to do with that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You can describe almost any attempt to seize power this way. The Reichstag Fire Decree was just some esoteric lawfare to force a debate about the dangers of communists. Nobody thought the 12th amendment was vague prior to 2020.
You can go both ways. My tax deductions are an attempt to topple the united states government by depriving them of necessary capital to fund the work they are doing.
Driving to the grocery store in my ICE vehicle is an attempt to melt the polar ice caps and flood the coastal cities and cause massive deaths.
Golf is me trying to kill all of the bald eagles by hitting them with golf balls.
etc.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, yes, obviously. But so what? In a weeks time everyone will have selective amnesia about what they saw. Come November there will have been enough sparse yet selective Biden encounters where he appears at least as lucid as he has minus the debate that people will find convenient rationales to ignore it. There have been dozens of "surely normies and partisans will wake up now" moments in the last 7 years, and yet nothing ever changes. The crimes against our republic, our nation, and our civilization which the uniparty has wraught are too terrifying to contemplate. So they largely continue with broad support.
I'm not so sure. The NYT editorial board has pulled out the knives.
And next month those editors could have lost their jobs for their hateful and agist rhetoric. Thats what happened after an editor was foolish enough to publish the Tom Cotton piece. Or they could recant and grovel and publish 3x the editorials about how wrong they were.
The entire editorial board?
Probably not, but they could pick a scapegoat. I suspect more likely that if Biden isn't replaced they'll just pretend it never happened, when they endorse him.
For once I agree with you- the NYT editorial board in October will endorse Biden on the groups of Trump being the kind of maniac he wasn't last election.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Happy to make a bet if you really think that checks notes the entire editorial board of the NYT is going to lose their jobs over writing this editorial.
Why would i take that bet when my assertion wasn't that some specific event would happen, but that a multitude of possible events could rendering this "normies wake up" editorial utterly meaningless.
Happy to make a bet about the NYT editorial board recanting this oped as well.
The bet I would make is that come November Biden is the nominee, and the New York Times is full throatedly endorsing him. I won't bet on the specific events or causes between here and there, because the whole point of my post is that anything could happen, but that is the destination. I don't know how we get there, but there is where I am sure we are heading.
If he's the nominee, obviously they're going to endorse him. It's not much of a prediction to say that the nyt will not endorse the orange man.
I do expect them to say something like "despite biden's cognitive blah blah orange man is worse".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link