Re: Godwin does say we can call a fascist a fascist
 

Related: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-orban/591697/

Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 

So am i, that's no excuse.

Re: Godwin does say we can call a fascist a fascist
 

The rabbit hole the links in that article took me down is a seriously scary place.

But the article alone is also quite unnerving. Thankfully, they’re a minority, but the “social conservatives” there have moved from demanding the right to be intolerant (which they already have, btw) to demanding a total victory where they are able to “enforce their orthodoxy” on others. (That’s from another Ahmari piece quoted in the article.). That puts one on a continuum with the Inquisition and Al Queda.

I think these “conservatives” watch too much TV and don’t work hard enough on creating conservative institutions which would compete with the “liberal establishment.” There’s no reason conservative academies can’t exist alongside liberal ones. And whatever success these “conservatives” have in enforcing their orthodoxies via govt, it will only come at a monstrous economic cost. Nobody is clamoring to invest in a theocracy.

The “conservative” man has done a fine job developing his own media. He can develop his parallel institutions. He doesn’t need to own the govt and dictate his views to other men. Unless of course he’d comfortably swap the title “conservatism” for “despotism.”

Warren
 

This can be taken either as a sign she’s doomed or she’s the black swan of this cycle. I disagree with Will on a lot of things, but I’d never call him loose with predictions: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...op_things.html

Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 

That's an excellent question. I'm going to go with: Because there doesn't seem to be an action that exists that would require the rich and powerful to face any type of consequences.

TM

Re: Warren
 

Hi, George, can you think of a name we might call a movement based on a philosophy of "stop[ping] things?"

Re: Warren
 

I think he's distinguishing between obstructionist behavior and good faith debates over whether something should be done or to what extent something should be done.

But he's right on Warren. She's moving up in the polls because as people listen to her, they realize the dumb conventional wisdom that she is unelectable (a liberal friend of mine over the weekend complained that Warren was "great," but alienating and lacking personality and warmth) is just that. Warren is actually quite personable and knows more about household economics and the debt problems that plague Trump voters than all other D candidates combined. And she's framed herself the same way Bernie did in 2016 -- as someone injecting "fairness" back into govt. Fairness is the most important issue out there right now. It's what carried Trump and Bernie in 2016. It's a big part of what's roiling politics in Europe right now. It's what started Occupy Wall Street in 2011. And it's never been properly addressed. Obama instead offered hope and then tacked to the center. Trump promised to even the playing field for those on the losing end of the economy - those in a "rigged system" - and delivered nothing. Warren is positioned to soak up that pent up populist energy and channel it through policy that speaks not to business, not to some basket of trickle down policies, but to Main Street, offering direct relief to the little guy.

Will sees this. But he hates populism and Warren's politics so much, he cannot bear to credit her, so he instead snickers at her and her supporters by calling her "fun."

Turd in the Bowl
 

Only latching onto this quote because it serves as a decent anchor.

TM and I had a great catch-up on Friday. TM now looks like a god. Yet, he envies my full head of hair.

Snark aside, we've now been friends for almost 20 years. The "kitchen" from the Board days was in 2000-2001. How is that possible

Ya'll know where to find me.

Best,
K

Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 

WOW, we agree on something!

Re: Warren
 

Hi. Disregard the next line as being mean.

Are you that fucking stupid - no, you are not. LieAWawfa is polling upwards right now - not because of politics - because she is the "HILLARY - WOMAN -PRESIDENT" destiny vote.

And I love how the DNC saved her pathetic candidacy by putting her on the 2nd stage - she merely has to out talk the closet-homosexual Booker. They saved her, putting her on the small stage.

Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 

My q was rhetorical and poking the D’s here, but thanks for playin!

Re: Warren
 

I’ll always loathe Will for his needless and moronic obit of Jerry Garcia, where he shit on the dead and the Dead. But he’s a smart fuck, he hangs with lots of liberals in the DC social circuit, and he’s insanely careful about protecting his brand. I think he sees what I see. She’s got legs. Put her with a sharp dressed relic like Uncle Joe and you’ve got a hit record.

Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 

Unless you’re Martha Stewart.

The Conrad Black pardon was Trump’s Marc Rich moment, btw. Black himself seemed surprised his obsequious fawning had worked so well.

I await his Trump biography as I do the orthopedic surgery I’ve been avoiding.

(I like the r/e elements of Trump’s tax bill, and some other benefits. But you can’t really dig this cat. He’s inviting an epic response from the other side that’ll totally undo the stasis that makes this place work. The kooks he’s enabled want to screw with Roe. How’s that conservative? Compulsory birth of more wards of the state?)

Re: Warren
 

I am continually astounded at the Trumper creativity in racism. How incredibly clever.

Re: Warren
 

Is this really the best immediate reply? To go straight for the racism accusation?

I mean, it's a defensible position. You can make the allegation. (One might ask in today's climate when such allegation cannot be made.) But given the moniker he used was clearly over-the-top irony, silly, and half laughing at himself in using it (to mirror my point about Warren, which he thought was ridiculous), why go with the heavy gun?

I'd have replied with, "At least she's moving up, unlike Brokeahontas' poll numbers." That's awful, of course, but it's a proper return for the bad joke served.

In trying to ascertain who's a Trump voter and who's not, I surmise a lot of "shy" Trump voters may be reactionary. Eighty percent of Americans think political correctness is a problem in this country. The Twitter culture police are only ten percent of actual Democrats. (I'm not re-citing the NYTimes article I cited for that proposition a million times last month.) I think it might be that a lot of hidden Trump voters are moderate Democrats and Republicans who react to the purity, certainty, and officiousness of call out culture. They vote against the hall monitor wagging a finger at them.

Dropping the heavy handed accusation of racism (however you define it, the majority of this country views it as a pretty strong allegation) too immediately could turn off potential votes against Trump. It's very difficult to support people who gift themselves the pedestal from which to immediately judge others, and judge those others quite harshly. On one hand, that approach is often absent much humor (which gives away one of the best approaches to actual racists, who don't know how to reply to being mocked or laughed at). On the other, it's a bit alienating ("Who's this crossing guard barking the definitions and judgments at us? What's his qualification to do so?").

Maybe rearrange responses to save the big ammunition of "misogynist" and "racist" for reply when necessary, rather than spending them early and unnecessarily, at cost of votes?

The Twitterverse of the Left, with its call out (and call out often) behavior, is going to cost the Democrat a few percentage points in 2020, and Democratic candidates going forward from there. It's just a question of how many, and in what states.

Re: Warren
 

I'm sorry, what was there to his post other than a racist jab?

Anything?

Talk to the child.

Re: Turd in the Bowl
 

Can I take this if I convince myself your delusions are only limited to politics?

That's better.

I bet you still have that sweater, though.

TM

Re: Turd in the Bowl
 

still, now you can say some of your best friends are trumpers

Re: Warren
 

Yes.

1. The "second stage" on which Warren is located for debates is picked randomly, not by chance of getting elected.

2. Idk what he's talking about in re the DNC propping Warren. I have not heard anything about that.

3. Idk what he's talking about in re the DNC supporting her because she's female. There are four other females in the race, no? (Maybe there are 5, possibly 6 or even 10... there are so many candidates right now, I don't know.)

I'd still have gone with Brokeahontas. But I too am, not infrequently, a child.

Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 

Ya both agree with me that the only real law is power. But when I raised this with you, what'd you do? You threw me under the bus, Benedict! Got on board with Ty's rebuttal in favor of some "rule of laws" being paramount.

They'll fix those tariffs soon enough and you won't have to talk your book anymore.

Re: Warren
 

So you're saying I could have pointed out he was ignorant rather than racist? OK, I'll take that as a friendly amendment.

Re any derogatory name based on race: come on, dude.

Re: Warren
 

Do you see what he is doing here? Sebastian inserts this faux-quote in the middle of a screed in which he is barking the definitions and judgments about when it's o.k. to use the words racist and misogynist, causing us to question what his qualifications are to do so. Completely. Straight. Faced. This kind of next-level posting used to be the norm here, before the endless political squabbling turned the entire board into a well of infinite banality. Let's up our game.

Re: Warren
 

Yes. I saw it but figured he was in the sauce.

I think the name was a bit of trolling. He was fucking with me, as he does when I make predictions some think are nuts.

But I don't think I'm nuts about Warren. That "fairness" angle has a lot of bite to it. And she matches it with policy. And can explain it in simple terms. Which is why she uses "fairness" instead of the nebulous "inequality." People get into talking about inequality and develop a mouthful of marbles rather quickly, often ending with some dense riff on Piketty. Joe Voter isn't reading Piketty. He hasn't even read Adam Smith. But he gets getting fucked. And 2008 and what followed still feels like a dry ass-fucking. Bernie's resonating with that voter, but he's all about free college. Warren's talking about debt forgiveness for the forgotten, and how she's going to fuck all the people that have been unfairly making all the money and getting bailouts while Joe Voter lost his ass. Revenge is a compelling argument in the blue wall states, and Warren's the only one offering it.

Postcryptical Envelopment
 

I'm post post next level. It's like Escher's "Relativity," all levels and angles at once.

Or just cycling through the flat circle of time - coming, coming, coming around, and around.

Re: Turd in the Bowl
 

Don't buy Sebby's bullshit. One of my partners (he's not a lawyer and he's a friend I grew up with in the city and have known for 40 years) is hardcore Trump. Another close friend I've known since junior high is a Trump idiot. And that's just a few of the people I know and actually like who voted for that piece of shit. Also, I'm surrounded by partners at work (here and Boston) who would sooner vote for Hitler than a Democrat.

It amazes me that anyone thinks people who live in NY (or any big city), surrounded by all different types of people from all over the world (which includes the South and Midwest)--rich and poor, all colors, all political stripes, LGBTQ, etc.--are somehow the ones who live in a bubble. The only bubbles that exist in this country are in the South, the Midwest, and apparently a disturbing number of suburbs. Hell, I drove through an area of Texas (not far outside of Dallas) where if you didn't belong to a mega church, you might as well stop talking to people altogether.

TM

Re: Turd in the Bowl
 

You'll have to be clear about which bullshit I was allegedly selling. I wasn't even part of this exchange.

Visit DC. Most of the town thinks that what goes on in the beltway is the only reality of any consequence. My own family that lives there thinks that. There are all sorts of bubbles all over the country. It just depends on what criteria you're using. And "bubble" isn't even right word for this phenomenon. These places aren't shielded from outsiders. They just have inhabitants many of whom think their city or town or whatever mirrors reality elsewhere. It doesn't. I was just in two cities which, while located fairly close to one another, both over four or five (maybe more) hundred years old, and having people predominantly of similar backgrounds, could not have been more different.

Philly is not NY. NY is not DC. San Fran is not Boston. Peoria is not South Bend. Each place is filled with a certain number of people who think, however, that their unique town mirrors the rest of the world. In fact, cities, towns, villages, are all to a significant extent sui generis.

The "bubble" is in a person's head, not a function of the locale.

Re: Warren
 

"I would mock her for having Native American family, but why are people so quick to raise racism?"

Re: Warren
 

I was talking about making fun of Trump, you humorless drip. https://www.inquisitr.com/5433856/br...maher-twitter/

Re: Turd in the Bowl
 

I think it's fairly clear that I was talking about politics, given the rest of the post. It's surprising that you don't get it, given how often you repeat how so many of us need to remove ourselves from our bubbles while at the same time touting your unique position of moving in and out of all sorts of political circles and cocktail parties.

Sure thing. I'll schedule that now. What should I do first on my 30th time there?

Pure brilliance.

I don't know why I do this to myself.

Focus. I am talking specifically about how cities generally consist of many different types of people who are all exposed to many different types of people as well as ideas, and are forced to adjust to one another--at least way more so than huge fucking swaths of the country. And it's the people who inhabit those huge swaths who are the ones who like to point at those of us who live in cities and talk about the bubble we live in. It's fucking ridiculous.

Bullshit.

TM

Re: Warren
 

Maybe a familiarity with Bill Maher's oeuvre is table stakes for your set, but he is neither interesting nor funny. "_____ahontas" doesn't seem like a funny thing to call anyone, but whatever.

Re: Warren
 

Well it’s “funny” with hate and payback baked in. Howard Stern was saying any Dem candidate has to call him something, “private parts grabbing Donald,” something. I hope we don’t need to get to that- that we just turn third party voters (hi Sebby!) and get the man out.

I’m not sure ahontas is the way to go, but if there is traction rave on! Note from my 23 and me I’m about the same Native American % as Ms. Warren. For that matter I’m 2.1% African, so I may start giving you all feedback there too.

Re: Warren
 

Who, Precious, pissed in your Cheerios this morning?

I loooooovvvvve Maher. Love him.

Re: Warren
 

I’m a mutt from Sweden down to Ireland to outside Moscow. And apparently I robbed a mini mart in 1987.

I’m not calling that girl in Ackron. She can find her own way to pay for beauty school.

Re: Warren
 

I'm so sorry. I think they have better treatments now.

Re: Warren
 

Along with Howard, Chris Rock, Seinfeld, Silverman, and few others who believe in true free speech including the right to offend if they feel like it in the name of humor, Maher is one of the last few sane men standing.

Rushdie, Hitchens (past, sadly), and countless politicians and even conservatives who know he’ll abuse them haven’t done his show for no good reason. They know he gets an audience who laughs at the objections you have to him.

You can assert Maher is a boring Carson clone (his delivery is stolen from Johnny), but you can’t say he offends you without also saying this: You’re oversensitive and need to grow a thicker skin.

Re: Warren
 

Again! Here, he vehemently defends the rights of people who say offensive things to SAY WHATEVER THEY WANT, while at the very same time saying that other people need to police their speech and avoid challenging or making hurtful accusations that might trigger the people who say offensive things. Because he considers doing so to be offensive. It's sort of a meta-Dadaist paradox. When's the last time that any of the rest of you wrote anything thing that could be remotely considered meta-Dada? Not since the incessant political bickering turned this board into bomb cyclone of ennui. Let's up our game.

Re: Warren
 

The last meta-dada was my Guernica post, or maybe when I used to reply to ggg by equating his post to a Gilligan’s Island episode summary? But then Thurgreed attacked me{sad face} in his defense, he didn’t knee jerk call me racist or sexist, but he did say I “wasn’t funny.”

Re: Warren
 

The Gilligan's Island posts were Dada. But meta-Dada? Agree to disagree.

Re: Warren
 

Why do you always go straight to the worst “ Hank you ain’t meta you’re some rich white guy?” Why can’t you attack the substance of my my post without resorting to these cheap slurs?

Who's the one made you the crossing guard barking the definitions and judgments at us? What's your qualification to do so?"

Re: Turd in the Bowl
 

I mean...it kind of is.