Neither of these guys are saying anything different now than what they always said on the issue. The media is now just presenting that as a reshuffle, because they are committed to a narrative that this is what the Dems need to do and so simply now shining a light on different people.
1 Like
I want the Democrats to move to the center and become more viable to more people. Because after 2030, itâs going to get much harder for them to win elections given the demographic shifts.
So anything for any reason pushing them in that direction is good.
Unsurprisingly the troll has had no substantive reply to my briefer reply pointing out the problems.
Sure, but that is ignoring the point. Lifting up Moulton and/or Suozzi is not a case of the Dems âmoving to the centerâ it is just a case of the press finally listening to dems who say things they pretend the Dems dont actually say. furthermore, there are other ways the dems can be seen as more viable to the average voter on this issue than ceding ground to the RW smears. See Beshear in KY as an example, someone who got reelected in Trump country despite using political capital to stand up for trans people
1 Like
This is a lie. This is not an issue of debateable word choices. The facts are not in question. This is either a bare faced lie from someone who knows she is talking shit, or someone too unprepared to do her job.
https://x.com/PressSec/status/1903431827475292211
We have had entire news cycles dedicated to the fall out from official comments from Dem admin spokespeople saying things that are debateable. But this is a lie that everyone in the room knows is a lie and she will just go on as normal the next day. The double standards for what the press expect of the two parties is astonishing.
4 Likes
Nixon would be aghast; if he was president 50 years later, he wouldnât have needed to resign, and probably could have run for a third term.
1 Like
Honestly, I dont think it is unreasonable to say a significant portion of where the right is today is driven precisely by a reaction to Nixon having to resign and wanting to create a framework that would inure a future Nixon from those sorts of outcomes.
4 Likes
Democrats are hitting their lowest approval ratings in polling history. Part of that is because their own voters are unhappy. But amongst the swing voters who ultimately decide elections, theyâre losing. And thatâs because of culture war issues. Democrats win when they talk about kitchen table issues. Democrats lose when they talk about culture war issues.
Now, if the economy was good and the border was under control, would the Democrats have lost because of a they/them ad? No. They probably would have won. Ultimately, how people feel about their general state is what decides elections. But if the game is played between the 40 yard lines, marginal differences ultimately decide results. Something like 80-85% of swing voters in swing states voted for Trump because of culture war, ie gender, issues.
I only bring up trans issues because the Democratic leadership, elites and influencers have decided this is a hill theyâre going to die on even though theyâre offside with most of the American public. Having witnessed the pain and suffering of one of my best friendâs daughters going through it, I am generally supportive of treating trans people with dignity and respect. But to gaslight people by so-called experts bullshitting the public because they want to feel and be seen as inclusive and empathetic while real damage is being done to members of the general public is political malpractice.
If someone goes under the knife to change their gender, as far as Iâm concerned, theyâre whatever sex they say they are. But the far left virtue signaling political elites are telling us that we have to accept male rapists âidentifyingâ as women so they can be housed in a female jail so they can - surprise, surprise - rape women. Or that lesbians in a lesbian bar have to accept being assaulted in a bathroom because some male pervert dressed up as a woman says to the lesbian that if she doesnât have sex with him, she is âtransphobic.â Or when a man dresses up as Tinkerbell who waves his penis at a 10 year-old girl in a public washroom, and the mother complains only to be told she is a bigot for not accepting the pervert. All these things happen. But the far left has convinced themselves that we have to accept these people because, well, self-actualization matters more than anything else, even if children are harmed.
I grew up in a small Canadian city in the middle of nowhere, then wound up living in the gayest neighborhood in the gayest city in Canada. My attitudes towards gay people changed dramatically and for the better. (I got hit on by more men than women FFS.) I was a supporter of gay marriage long before it became it became acceptable. (âIâm a supporter of gay marriage. I think gay people should have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us.â)
Today I see the absolutist, maximalist support for anyone who says anything transgender related by the Democrats as completely out of touch with the American public. They are on the wrong side of this and so many other cultural issues because their activist class who get paid by the big donors advocate this.
These culture war issues harm and are vehemently opposed by the people the Democrats claim to speak for. When two-thirds of those people reject you, you donât speak for them.
It appears that maybe the American left was wrong about Covid lockdowns
I saw that one pop up, and was thinking about listening. Was it any good?
I decided not to bother. That seems like a fundamentally empirical question, yet both political âscientistsâ are really anything but, they are not in the empirical/quantitative strand at all. Very odd to have a discussion about what is basically cost/benefit without considering either the economy or epidemiology in a rigorous way.
5 Likes
I listened to it.
I was generally pro lockdown, though âlockdownâ meant something different here in Florida.
But I think itâs important that we assess the empirical evidence. And the authors do present statistical empirical evidence.
Poor Gibbs. 25 hours in an LAX holding cell and all he got is a cup of tea, which was probably made in the fucking microwave, and a Pot Noodle.
Wonder why Charlie was granted entry.
2 Likes
I would not pay too much attention to the current Democrat approval rating. A new thing needs to emerge, but there are signs it is coming. Watching AOC and Bernie pack out stadiums and bring the energy is a sign that the public is hungry for something other than corruption and oligarchy.
Yes, the Dems are low in the polls, but it will change as they get their shit together.
Meanwhile, Trump is low in the polls too. Since becoming President his approval rating has declined, and he is much worse off than his predecessors at the current stage. His economic approval rating is worse again.
1 Like
â According to the Department of Education, approximately 100 U.S. universities have reported about $375 million in contributions or contracts with Israel over the past two decades, yet the specifics of these financial engagements remain largely unknown. â
This is probably a fraction of what is actually funnelled through independent entities to circumvent reporting laws.
4 Likes
Right. About $185k per university per annum. A fraction of what has come from the Gulf states.
The biggest problem with his perspective, is that first 30 seconds where he describes the origin of his work. You could not get a better example of confirmation bias. Starting with a preconceived belief and then seeking evidence to support it, rather than generally exploring the issue.
He states something along the lines of, that he already believed liberals dismissed opposing views about abortions and immigration and I wanted to confirm they did for COVID too, and unsurprisingly, through my research I found that they did. Starting an interview like is appalling scientific communication (which is ironic given his later criticisms) . That immediately undermines his credibility because it signals he was not neutral and instead was driven by an existing narrative he wanted to confirm.
Its unscientific/flawed because:
- He starts with the conclusion instead of letting evidence shape the outcome
- It places a very American lens on lockdowns were a liberal agenda of ignoring evidence. That lockdowns happened through the spectrum of political spheres.
- There is no indication that he considered that he was wrong.
My view is that he:
Vastly oversimplifies decision making, that decisions needed to be made with incomplete data and fast. At the time politicians saw huge numbers of deaths in China, and hospitals being built. They saw hundred of old people dying in Italy. They needed to act based upon what was in front of them.
The virus itself was not static, and it evolved affecting how deadly it was, and how easily it spread. The development of vaccine was a huge success in how quickly it was achieved and lives it saved. I personally consider it one of mankindâs greatest achievements.
Public health messaging had to priorities simplicity over precision, which is a tradeoff rather not deception. (In the UK the whatsapp messages show that UK politicians were making decisions based upon the financial times information and struggled with odds and percentages). Just imagine saying we are 80% certain masks will work, yet we mandate everyone to wear them. You would have those who believe that masks are 80% effective, or those who focus on the 20% uncertainty and refuse to comply, undermining the entire effort. Public messaging, therefore, had to lean toward clarity and conviction rather than nuanced probabilities, as ambiguity would led to widespread confusion and resistance.
Its a political scientist with a narrative he wanted to confirm (and book he wants to sell) confirming what he wanted to find, leaning into areas not his expertise.
13 Likes
Just saw this. This is very concerning for US citizens as well as international travellers to the US.
I was supposed to visit my elderly auntie in Springfield Illnois in August. I guess face time is just as good. I wonât be going anytime in the future.
2 Likes
https://x.com/cwebbonline/status/1903477089405456436
Edit
https://x.com/JayinKyiv/status/1903391544834400731
5 Likes
https://x.com/marcowenjones/status/1902353167255269426?t=kbvUpzYgHEGwZEUF37IShg&s=09
No wonder the US immigration officials detain people for a few weeks rather than deport them immediately. These ICE detention centres are privately owned and it is a business. 
6 Likes