ByWatterson

The irony of a Biden candidacy is rather delicious. Here we have a man who appears to be positioning himself as an antidote to Trumpism, but in so doing, has essentially turned his politics into a more palatable brand of it. He's not attempting to jettison us into the future, but instead return to a past (2015?) when everything was totally fine. It wasn't fine, or at least fine enough. Yeah, better than the 1950s version of the U.S. Trump invents, but 2021 shouldn't be as good as 2015, but much better. This is why I don't see him as competitive for the nomination after a few months. He just doesn't articulate any of kind of future-looking vision.

One more thing about him: I never doubted he was in it to further what he believed to be our interests. I don't believe that about Sanders, for instance. Harris, Biden, especially Warren, yes. But Sanders engages in the same kind of grievance-driven "I win!" politics that characterizes Trumpism. That's why Buttigieg is so refreshing right now - I have zero doubt as to his sincerity.

I'd vigorously dispute Obama as an empty suit. No, he was not the messianic figure others portrayed him to be, but on health care and gay rights, in particular, he moved the Overton window so far, so fast. For instance, Obama forced Republicans to admit health care demanded a national solution. That's not gradualism to me. In a few short years after implementation (six?), we're no longer talking about whether to achieve universal coverage, but how. Even Republicans state that as their goal - liars all, but the politics have moved dramatically leftward. If Buttigieg is another Obama, who will move the window to a better place, achieve some landmark legislation, and plausibly mend the country a bit, I'm all for that, man. Sign me up.

Yeah, there's a difference between "elite" and "elitist," or "rich."

I mean, there was a plague.

Trump inherited his status, as did many of his worst players. That's not Greek aristocracy. Also, wealth != excellence. I'm simply saying that if there were a way to determine the true elites that is not about money or manipulation, I'd be for it. Buttigieg strikes me as of that class of excellence of parts - character, insight, service, honesty. I thought his answer last night on the police chief, for instance, wherein he clearly articulated why he took action, and some regrets he has, was a complete home run. In a word, I guess, I want thoughtful leaders.

I thought we were an autonomous collective?!

I have no problem with philosopher kings. Greek aristocracy, but not a plutocracy or oligarchy. As long as they're actually the best of us.

Take them both and inject them directly into your ass. Or, like, play them both. Whichever.

Correct. I can see an argument for gender identity in the 1964 CRA, as gender discrimination is generally prohibited. But I can see no honest argument for using CRA to eliminate sexuality discrimination. The law simply doesn't provide for that, and Equal Protection law is irrelevant here - CRA used Commerce Clause power to amplify Congress's power to protect citizens, as opposed to citizens having a preexisting, constitutional right against private discrimination. Final point: The success of Democrats and the left, broadly, in lawsuits like these is why they forgot by 2016 how to do politics; make the argument, build the infrastructure, win elections, pass laws. Not only does judicial legislating undermine rule of law, it also hurts the litigants' long-term goals and breeds the complacency that gave us Trump.

I'm not a political pro, but I feel like suing to keep your tax returns private is a less-than-good look.

And Germany's like, "GodDAMMIT, we just paid off our WWI debts to Britain! FACK!"

I'm discussing it in this thread because people actually died in a church, so we have a good variable and a good control. The bombings are being covered in the media, but the breathless minute-to-minute reporting is not present. The Twitter livestreams, the barrage of interviews, takes on "heartbreaking" vigils, etc. - the international pledges of financial support from all quarters! - are not happening here. I'm not attacking the board (though, to be sure, this thread is receiving far fewer responses, and most revolve around how pissed we ought to be), but the media, generally. And no coworkers have come up to me, as they did last week, their eyes shrink-wrapped in tears to say, "It's so, so sad." My prevailing thought during the Notre Dame event was that we place value in the wrong things, and lay our bias alarmingly bare. The completely assymetrical coverage of THIS event in Sri Lanka demonstrates that I'm correct.

No problem. Someone has to be the voice of reason in a media environment that masturbates over a bruised monument to what can be fairly described as the largest criminal enterprise in history (Catholic Church), and shrugs when hundreds of worshipers lose their lives in less pretty settings.

There is no such thing as an irreplaceable building. Literally all buildings are replaceable.

Their buildings aren't pretty enough, so media coverage of this will be muted compared to last week's orgy of "heartbreak" that accompanied a mere fire where no one was hurt.

......I did it. AND I'M NOT SORRY BECAUSE GUYS:

Bloodlines is so good.

Inside Gaming opened it up. They literally just ripped out the disc drive, and that's it.

Except old Cubans LOVE sending money to relatives in Cuba. LOVE it.

This seems like a move with literally no upside, diplomatic or political. But hey, John Bolton isn't crazy, right?

So, I haven't been here in a while, really. Where are the jigs of the board on this guy?

Trump is objectively an incurious buffoon. With the strange ability to perfectly channel the anger of the most powerful voting blocs in America. Intelligence != savvy. You nailed it.

Except I don't have years of evidence that I should now hate him.