Plus: Unsubtle in Wisconsin.
Is Will Saletan JVL's father?
Did DJT really tweet "The loser one!"? It's the revolt of the spell checkers...
RE: Battle over diversity training. Have not read Young's piece yet, but quote says this noxious law '... must feel...'.
Not shall, not may, not should.
I'm still willing to bet it'll be enforced as though it read as if 'there's ANY possibility to cause...'.
Heading to Young's piece now.
Trump is right on one salient point. The Electoral College is indeed a disaster for democracy
Someone explain to RonJon that wounds fester when they're infected.
Our entire system has been infected and needs to be cleaned out, sanitized, and careful sewn back up to heal.
Drunk Uncle Ron is himself one of the toxic bacterium infecting our nation. Let's clean him out, sanitize the system with Mandela Barnes, and perhaps we can yet save our national patient.
RJ is a stinky cesspool, imho.
RonAnon? Crazy? Since when?
Brian Williams covered Trump's 2012 comments by saying that Trump was taking 'an off-ramp from the road of relevancy" or something like that. If only...
About cash bail, isn't the question really about bail and not about cash? Criminals who pose a danger to others should not be let out regardless of their ability to pay. People who do not pose a danger to others should not be held just because of their inability to pay.
When you look at political ad research and the pattern of ad buys (where and when)--and if you are someone who knows something about rhetoric and human behavior--a couple of things stand out.
The vast majority of these ads are not persuasive or effective in persuading people to switch sides--IOW, they are not shifting narratives or identity enough to have a substantive effect.
The majority of these ads are bought in markets that do not actually reach the supposedly persuadable section of the population.
While the stated intention of these adds is to persuade voters to vote for a particular group/candidate, the actual purpose of many of these ads is to:
1) Reinforce existing group identity; and (most importantly)
2) Motivate/activate marginal voters or historical non-voters of your identity group to vote... primarily through fear or anger.
Biden's speech is intended to foster that fear/anger (instrumentally if not intentionally). Much of the extremism of MAGA and GoP "advertising" and discourse has the same function. It is why you run those ads on Faux, rather than on MSNBC.
The reality is that Biden (as a Democrat) needs to be doing that type of thing. The people that he will alienate are either already alienated or were going to vote GoP regardless. The rhetoric is more likely to play positively than negatively in overall effect (if not for Biden personally, then for Democrats generally).
In another time/place the dynamic would be different--but we are no longer in that time/place). partisanship and identity levels are so high that the ill effects are now marginal.
As a person from another state I personally have no desire or care to hear what Barnes has to say. What this is about is winning seats period and this one is, for the right candidate. Charlie has fallen on his sword for helping Ron John many times. Barnes is not running in a.blue state and his views do not seem to be a good fit for WI voters.
No one should ever refer to Ron DeSantis as Trump lite. He's trump on steroids.
Trump would kill your mother, shrug and walk away. DeSantis would kill your mother and laugh. And the laugh would not be performative. The man is also wicked smart.
Correction (minor): The woman (wearing glasses) next to Mandela Barnes is Rashida Tlaib of Michigan.
Late in the night I streamed PBS's Lies, Politics and Democracy thinking I would pause, go to bed, and finish it the next day. Couldn't stop watching! Great to see the Bulwark folks becoming the go-to talking heads for political history, facts and prognosis.
Maybe I missed it, but why would elimination of cash bail be tied to the Waukesha Christmas parade murderer? That is a failure of the current bail system. Obviously the murderer was judged to not be a risk by the authorities in question (proven by the low bail amount). That is the failure point. Make the correct decision there, and the issue of cashless bail doesn't come into play.
The idea, as I understand it, is to not require cash for those the State deems to be no danger. It is a very, very small sliver of criminals we're talking about who will get misjudged by the court (low bail) and be kept in jail by that low bail. That's the only group that could be pointed to as the danger of cash bail elimination. The upside is all the people who (while accused of a crime) manage to keep their lives intact during the process of going through the legal system. Jobs kept, kids kept out of foster care, etc.
How about more of a discussion of the concept on its merits rather than just the horse-race notion of how some voters won't understand the basic concept.
"new worries about the Queen’s health" Nothing against Queen Elizabeth, but isn't she like 130 years old? What are people worried about? I wish her the best, which of course she will get. God bless her in her last years.