I look forward to this blog every day. Days when it doesn't update are a little sadder for me. But I must say that many of us would like to hear more from YOU, Bari. Not all of us are podcast listeners. Can we get more essays from you, or at least transcripts from Honestly?
I look forward to this blog every day. Days when it doesn't update are a little sadder for me. But I must say that many of us would like to hear more from YOU, Bari. Not all of us are podcast listeners. Can we get more essays from you, or at least transcripts from Honestly?
FWIW, I posted a comment in one of her podcasts requesting transcription. Lo and behold, her latest Larry Summers Honestly podcast had transcription : D Did I cause that? Yah, I'll take credit ; P
Hope that's a forward moving trend for more of the Honestly podcasts. I tend to consume these things as "multi-tasking" efforts to read at my leisure rather than having to (gasp! lol) pay attention for an entire podcast ;P
A vote for transcripts from me as well. If I listen to a podcast while I work or drive, I either tune out of the podcast, or I make mistakes. Or both during the same podcast. Listening doesn't save me any time over reading.
I am like you Celia. I look forward to this newsletter every day. I agree with most of the newsletter's post and look forward to those I don't agree with. I like the exchange of ideas and wish there were more leftists posting here but I think you don't see many leftists here because hard core ideologues don't like their ideologies challenged. That goes for both right and left ideologues.
I wonder if the fact that many of the commenters here are on the Right suggests something about the willingness (or lack thereof) of people on the Left to be challenged. Admittedly, the more Right-wing among us tend to bitch a lot about the more Left-leaning articles, but most of them still show up week after week.
As a moderate, it frustrates me to see too few actually *moderate* essays. And as a English M.A., it frustrates me to see how many of the Left-leaning articles (at least half of them, if not more) are poorly written, often without any display of rhetorical skills, and especially lacking in consideration of audience. Too often, I suspect, such essays are intended for "the choir," rather than with any expectation of having to convince anyone. Maybe they were written for other publications but not accepted, or maybe they are rough drafts intended for eventual submission elsewhere.
I really hope Bari can develop a slate of sufficiently good contributors that she won't have to foist bad writers on us.
OK truth: I'm a left leaner who has wavered on this Substack, but came home because the content is too good - and many commentors are awesome, even when we disagree. It took a bit to get there, but still. I think this could truly be a place of "real discussion" absent choir think and moderation for "right thoughts".
However, I do have some suggestions for attracting a larger left leaning audience in another post, because frankly, those are the readers that need to hear this content to truly reform the left. Which does involve perhaps a bit more balanced and even handed view of the excesses of the Right and the Left, and their relative threats. I have for sure witnessed the pushback against any gentle suggestion in supposed "left leaning" contributor essays that there's issues on the Right, as well as on the Left. I think if we're going to pose as "moderates" we need to accept criticism on both sides. I've swallowed and accepted it from the Left, and largely agree. But I see few right leaning commentators willing to do the same (kudos to those who do!) - and hence the blog's direction in tilt of the narrative to meet the subscriber base. I do think this has a "depressing" effect on getting more "moderate" left/left-center even progressives to engage and subscribe. Just IMO.
See, I think that's where there's always a difficulty, M. Smarticat. Because I would-a thought Your comment reflected facts, more than opinion. That's just me.
Celia, I have posted on this topic before. I do it because I think it is important to point out censorship.
Censorship is censorship regardless of where it comes from. The Woke and PC morons are being challenged by the morons on the right and just because they are idiots doesn't mean they are not dangerous. I have asked this before. "What next? Book burning."
"I wonder if the fact that many of the commenters here are on the Right suggests something about the willingness (or lack thereof) of people on the Left to be challenged."
I would ask You to take note, Celia, how You and the Right like to be challenged. You don't like it any more than anybody else does.
And yet moderates and many on the Right are able to craft responses to being challenged that don't involve going straight to ad hominems.
My original point is that moderates and people on the Right stick around on Common Sense, even when Bari has writers who challenge us, but as you yourself observed, there aren't many people on the Left here.
Yeah. And my point is the reason the Left aren't here, in the comments, is because of You on the Right are like a shark looking for blood. A lot (not all) the comments here are a great illustration of what I'm "talking" about.
You wanna talk about willful ignorance? Hundreds of examples of people praising Trump, right? Yet You so confident about how stupid the Left is. Me? I'm Centrist.
BTW, I suspect that the number of the 200K readers that are Left is a lot more than show up in the comments, right?
When leftists manage to craft an argument that is not an ad hominem insult (orange man is a traitor, you're all Bible-thumping racist conspiracy nuts hugging your guns), it involves "compassion" towards the "vulnerable" and "making the wealthy pay their fair share". The vulnerable can be people (low income, addicts, gender-confused, non-white and non-Asian) or the planet (climate change, which is often confused with pollution).
The problem with the compassion argument is that compassion is either prohibitively expensive, as Canadians are learning with the "no private health care" and "no resource development" dogmas, or it ends up hurting the people it aims to help - addicts continue to be enabled to use drugs, gender-confused people, especially children, are mutilated, and "racialized" (ugh) people are told that they are forever victims, and they come to believe it. Meanwhile, racism is increasing.
I have never been able to carry on an argument with a leftist - they end up saying "well, you're just wrong", if they manage to remain polite. Usually it's worse. It's very difficult to break through years of indoctrination, especially when it's all around them, and those who think differently are demonised.
The "make the rich pay" argument is easier - most people realize that punitive taxes just drive money out of the country. But it continues to be made by populist leftist politicians.
I would ask people of the Right to turn their gaze inward. Like You "say:"
"It's very difficult to break through years of indoctrination, especially when it's all around them, and those who think differently are demonised."
You just demonized the Leftists, right?
Do I argue a whole *lot* against what You say? No, not a whole lot. As far as the wealthy paying their fair share, I think no right-thinking individual would complain. Warren Buffet himself agrees that he doesn't pay much in taxes. How can that be, in a country as wealthy as we are?
The problem, as I see it, is there are deductions for just about everything. Pols get paid (in campaign donations) for putting through those kinds-a things, right? To me anyway, just about *all* that should be done away with. A tax form about one page long for everybody. Very few deductions allowed. Home. Medical expenses *mebbe.* Details.
But, yeah, I agree with a graduated tax. Zero for most people, which is how much a large *number,* if not most, people pay right now, right? Just make those that pay zero be in the lower economic ranges, rather than anybody in the higher. Could probably *lower* the tax rates, if this was done and there wasn't as much cheating as goes on now.
IOW, I agree about punative taxes. I thought that was the answer at one time. And I'm not at all sure there shouldn't be *some* kind-a wealth tax, at *some* point in time, on *some* entities. I was just thinking past few days that mebbe individuals should be exempted. But corporations and Harvard and all those kinds-a institutions should mebbe be included in a wealth tax. IMO.
One thing would raise the roof, but has some, if not a lotta, merit to it, is to do away with tax-exempt organizations. For a number of reasons. Mebbe tax their wealth. That would necessarily do away with tax-exempt donations, so there's a downside. Dunno. IMO.
I don't think I demonised the leftists - I don't blame them for their own indoctrination. Certainly, there are influential people making policy that leads to the indoctrination of the masses, but I'm not talking about arguing with them.
As for taxes, I think that churches and other religious institutions should lose their tax-free status. As for a wealth tax, it is fraught. If it's implemented, Bitcoin will explode again. It's like squeezing a balloon - the air will just come out somewhere else. Taxes, I'm afraid, are for the little people who can't afford really good accountants and Caribbean tax shelters.
"When leftists manage to craft an argument that is not an ad hominem insult..."
"I have never been able to carry on an argument with a leftist..."
"...if they manage to remain polite. Usually it's worse."
"...and those who think differently are demonised."
I would say that is demonizing Leftists, but mebbe that's just IMO. There is, perhaps, some blame for people falling for indoctrination. And I would repeat that there isn't a left/right difference here.
Like I "said," I dunno I'd tax individual wealth. Mebbe just institutional wealth. And I agreed about institutions losing their tax-free status.
Also, one thing I've looked into a bit is CBDC. That stands for Central Bank Digital Currency. If the Fed implements something like Bitcoin all bets are off, right? And AFAICT, they'll do it at some point, if not sooner. China's moving in that direction, AFAIK, for just one reason.
Too bad next to nobody is thinking of the ramifications of that.
You're right about the time. Only reason I have the time is I'm retired. And only reason I dare is because I can't be canceled. But as far as typing? I usually type so fast it *always* includes typos. Plus, I rarely read what I typed. "My bad." ;-)
Not a bad idea at *all,* M. Wildstar. Sounds like it could even be a *plan.* TYTY for Your reply.
But me? Long day done. Been reading for I-don't-know-how-many hours. Read I-don't-know-how-many chapters in M. Sowell's Basic Economics. Ten pages left, but I'm played.
Would recommend the book very *highly* to anybody who wants to see how things actually *work.* In the *real* world, as opposed to the world of the *politicians.*
I believe that conservatives tend to be more educated to the positions of the left and appreciate that there are different viewpoints. The left (at least the sub 40 YO constituents, which controls social media) do not employ nuance, and are ignorant to the position of the conservatives. Their level of intolerance is, imho, what spawned cancel culture, Micro aggressions, dog whistles, and all the rest of garbage used to shut down those on the right.
I don't agree with Glenn, Matt and Bari on many fundamental political issues, but am united with them in their work to regain our Freedom of Speech, and the dangers of the Left/Media/Permanent US Govt alliance.
Substack, RCP and some podcasters (Rogan, Saagar/Krystal) are where I go for news, and with the exception of RCP, they're all quite liberal, unlike me,
The ignorance is the thing that gets me. As a moderate, I am well aware of the positions of people on both sides. And there are positions on both sides that I do not agree with. But for every person on the Right who mischaracterizes people on the Left, I see ten people on the Left mischaracterizing people on the Right. I know an insane number of Leftists who GENUINELY BELIEVE that a large number of people on the Right would love to live in a dystopia like Handmaid's Tale. I know NO ONE on the Right who would tolerate a society like that.
I know what you are saying Celia. I can only speak for myself and my close friends but we treat it like a work collaboration on a project. Or even a home remodel. A couple of people on the project look at the issue, compare knowledge of past solutions, consider current economic costs and availability and brainstorm solutions. Someone you might not want to spend dinner with comes up with an idea that is more reasonable than everyone else so even though you don't necessarily like them that much you defer to their idea because they explained it. Someone that is opposite you in political beliefs points out an external force you hadn't considered on one of YOUR ideas. You have to shift because they are right. The common theme here is EXPLAINING "why" you think something. Again speaking for myself but it seems like progressives only want to insult me for wondering and being curious instead of laying out WHY. For example I want to know why schools don't double down on math and reading and leave race completely out of things. But it seems the side that wants it will only deny its happening or call me names. When I heard the other day that Kathy Hochul was rejoicing over changing laws to have gender neutral verbiage I wanted to say "Ummmmm shouldn't that be number 762 on the list of your pressing problems?" But if I mention that calmly it would be met with calling me a violent terrorist transphobe. Really? Why can't we back and forth this? Why straight to extreme insults? If you have a great idea why not bring me around by laying it out?
I have changed my mind about a number of things due to gaining information I didn't previous know. I'm now against the death penalty, in practice (although I still favor it in theory), because of the number of people on Death Row who have been exonerated by DNA evidence.
My views on abortion have changed because I had to think through how my libertarian views actually applied in that circumstance. And I am also pragmatic enough to recognize that compromise is essential on tough issues.
People who just attack others personally because they hold the "wrong" views are not helping anyone.
I think you're right about the left leaning essays. They are written for a choir that does not tolerate dissent. So there is no need to try and convince anyone of the author's point of view, because you either agree with him/her, or you are labeled as a hate filled, anti (latest Trend/fad), racist, a phobic of some type, right winger.
Lefties don't need to go to Substack to get articles from their point of view - there's Politico, Vox, Daily Beast, the Atlantic, and pretty much every major newspaper.
We're here because the mainstream has failed us - and I, for one, am glad that it did, and so I had to go searching for writing that I could appreciate. I learned about Bari from Bill Maher's show, and even though I disagree with a lot of what he says, at least he is willing to listen to the "other side".
Substack will cause either a full revamp of mainstream media, or it will kill off most of it. CNN is just the beginning.
Celia, I always like your posts and agree with them. Let me throw you an idea, and hope you don't think it is because I am "far-right" because I am not at all: the left are unwilling to be challenged because many of their ideas would not stand scrutiny. This is the reason for the cancel culture that originated on the left. They cannot defend their position with logical arguments, so they simply cancel you. There is no way to have a civil discourse and be challenged on statements like there is no set gender or that more spending can bring down the inflation, to take just a few as examples.
That's.. not true. I've seen many cogent arguments from thoughtful left leaning commentators (hey! including me lol), excepting some of the ones that come from a (sigh) few individuals who do somewhat embody that stereotype.
I've also seen many ad-hominens and snark attacks from some "thoughtful" right wing commentators rather than engaging in the substance of what was presented. And those comments are highly rated by the readers : /
It goes both ways, but in this substack, the commentariat is overwhelmingly Republican/conservative/pro-Trump in variations. You get a "nice" community when everyone is in agreement, except for the skunks who dare to interrupt the back slapping and high fiving.
Try me though. I'll engage in lengthy debates (to the point you'll wish my laptop died) on "left" (and right) ideas. And.. you might find I also agree, to a degree, on left "woke" critique (after all, that's why I'm here). But I won't engage on "libtard' or other smears that I'm somehow "anti-American" or supportive of pedophilia "grooming" or the rest because I vote Democratic or support some measure of trans civil rights.
I would absolutely love to keep engaging with everyone on CS to discuss ideas without calling each other names and smearing on both side. People who fly off the handle and get infuriated are usually on the fringes IMO. We will not get a crowd with everyone in agreement, not now, and it was probably not realistic ever. It may be hard to even determine if you stand right or left of center or in the middle any more. I am all over the place on many issues. We are complex creatures and donтАЩt want to be painted in one color, red or blue, at least some of us, myself included. I am sure I represent a small group here, but so what? LetтАЩs discuss issues our country and the world face. Do we have to identify ourselves as belonging to a certain party before our thought are evaluated? Like: hi, I am a Democrat (Republican, Independent), this is what I think. LetтАЩs not focus on how we voted in the past, because the parties no longer represent our values, but on where we should head Am I an idealist? You bet.
I would add a thought: having a blog where we can reduce as much as possible the partisan polemics is constructive for the various "sides" to get to know each other, and reduce some of the stereotyping and "villain" attributions to those on "the other side". In my real life, I have conservative family members, friends, and coworkers. And no, I do not believe they are atavistic racists and dummies : ) But online interactions where polemics are slung all around create that perception: conservatives are nasty racists, propaganda dupes and homophobes/transphobes, liberals are nasty snarky elitists who want to "groom" children for pedophiles while decimating everything "conservative" about America from every corner. Yikes in either case! But having a "safe space" (haha to borrow some "wokeism") where folks across the spectrum can meet and discuss civily, and more importantly, maybe about things that are not about politics and/or culture wars, is super important to bridging these divides, taking down stereotypes, etc.
And I have experienced this on this blog, which made me a "stay": initially I had a fairly terse and snarky back and forth with a regular on this blog, but apologized for tone and re-explained my position, and we ended up in a very nice exchange about some politics but other stuff too... and lo and behold, we agreed on some very basic issues to boot and left the exchange warmly. Gave me a warm feeling that "dialog" is possible if we drop the memes, stereotypes and conditioned reactions to each other. Both ways : )
Therefore, I do think it's important for the comments section to "diversify" in some ways, to include more points of view and respectful disagreements and exchange, and that has to start with dropping some of the polemics in either direction. It's a start, anyway.
That's all well and good, until You bring up the subject of Trump. A lotta people around here, not to name any names, take that to be like taking a chisel to a sore tooth. And, on occasion, I take it like that after all the praise of Trump that goes on around here.
Agree. There's a massive blind spot about Trump, and is sometimes promoted by the site's authors - "Russian Collusion" was not a "hoax" for example. Trump was not being "unfairly" persecuted over that, nor over the Ukrainian driven first Impeachment. In both cases, there were legitimate fact patterns and legitimate concerns warranting investigation, and in the case of his actions in Ukraine to get "dirt" on the Bidens, an abuse of his Office. Yet, it seems like the fashion for "left critics" is to promote the "unfair persecution" propaganda as credentials to be allowed to criticize Trump in other ways, in that you have to give some to his supporters in order to have room to critique him elsewhere. In truth, no critique of Trump is valid to a Trump supporter, beyond a tepid "well the Tweets were excessive", or "he just told the truth too much" lol. As I posted in another thread we've discussed in on this board, the issues with Trump are far beyond his "personality defects". Soft pedaling his bad actions in one area doesn't buy anything other than to contribute to the "Trump persecution" narrative. Nonsense. Not a single "political problem" that Trump had didn't generate from something Trump did.
You're being disingenuous if You think people aren't gonna try to figure out what an author's bias is, in interpreting what they "say."
Everybody does it, and You do it too, I'm sure. Being an idealist has nothing to do with it. *I'm* an idealist, because I think both parties are incompetent and we'll eventually need a new one. May never happen, of course, but that's what *idealism* is.
And give me a break. IIRC (If I Recall Correctly) Your Right. You've painted Yourself in the corner by Your taking personally the suggestion that You might not realize the *fact* that the election wasn't stolen. You can, of course, write anything You want about Yourself, and claim I'm smearing You. If You want me to, I'll go back to Your original two posts, and indicate word by word why I drew that conclusion.
I'll sum it up by an old saw by an old sage. "You doth protest TOO much." Like the above.
So yeah, people just *are* gonna try to identify where on the spectrum You are coming from. You're allowed to hold opinions that go against The Narrative, but almost *nobody does.*
There's The Woke Narrative on the Left. There's The Trump Narrative on the right. That's one reason, among several, why I written lately that there are a lotta similarities between the Woke and the MAGA crowd. Granted, there are few that are 100% Pure MAGA-tites.
If You wanna be someone who sees Trump for what he *is*, I'll be glad to slap You on the back and congratulate You. Buts odds of that aren't likely to be real good. Hardest thing in the world?
Changing Your mind. Changing a habit. That's not just to You, observer. That's everyone.
Mebbe You're just young and naive. People are NEVER gonna agree on where "we" should head when they can't have any realistic conversation on where we've BEEN, right? It'd be a lot worse than herding cats, I assure You. That's not idealism. That's fantasy.
An awful *lotta* this crowd is MAGA people who go ballistic if You say negative things about Trump. Well, You've surely seen that.
Since that's most (not *all*) I got to say about Trump, I've seen it more than most. And the thing that gets me is how sanctimonious a lotta these Trump-voters are. How they hold the right, and always have, and people on the left are despicable. I had this comment, I kid You not. It was the *worst* slur. "You have exposed Yourself as a Democrat." Worse thing You could call someone here. And anybody who says things against Trump are malefactors of the worst sort. Who just don't get it. And some people will say they don't *like* Trump, but will attack You anyway.
And then blame *You* for being condescending and what all.
It's not that I haven't had a large number of very excellent "conversations" here. A *Lotta* them.
But to expect people from the Left to willingly come here and comment and take that kind-a abuse may be too much to ask for. Still, one can hope.
Yes - I've seen some really outrageous comments about Democrats and people on the left in general. Now, to be fair, I can see a lot of polemics aimed at Trump supporters in left leaning blogs as well. But again, this blog advertising itself as a "Common Sense" "moderate middle" place for those on *all sides* it's a bit disconcerting to see such a hard right tilt dominating a lot of the comments, and some serious stereotyping and broad brushed judgements aimed across the hull (and yes, again, that happens in the opposite direction in left leaning blogs too). And I do think that probably turns off some left-moderate "curious readers", and ones who want to even tepidly engage against some of the assertions being made.
Yeah, it takes a certain kind-a person to want to go up against a brick wall again and again. I'd estimate that 95% of the comments are from the Right, a lotta them mine. But since I'm (or I consider myself to be) a Centrist, I'm thought to be more Left than most here.
It does. I've mentioned before, I choose my battles I guess. It's exhausting to repeat the facts and yet continue to run up against the same claims in a subsequent thread - from the same person in many cases lol. Oi.
yeah - definitions of "left and right" are skewed when the "center" here is mostly "Republican who thinks Trump was a great POTUS but shouldn't run again"...
That last is so, So, SO funny, because it's so *true.*
I dunno how much You took in on the comments over in the Barr article. Once in a while I get sick of all the double-talk and just plain illogic of some-a the arguments. Like I "said" in a comment over there. Normally about 95% of the comments are pro-Right. And the majority of them from the MAGA crowd. "NOTHING wrong with Trump" crowd.
I wasn't having it. They come up with many arguments in favor of Trump, and a lotta them I agree with. I think he got a number of things done which were good and needed. I think he hosed up a lot, which doesn't go over to well.
But where I thought he wasn't a very good leader before, all doubt was removed with the run up to Jan. 6. I *read* the plans they made for Pence throwing the election. I don't think, in the end, they would-a *worked.* But if Pence had gone along with it... ? No tellin.
And again, I've said many times that the Rs sent a boy to do a man's job. Trump, I believe very firmly, had the character of slime mold. As I've stated. And I think a lotta Trump's actions were caused, simply, because he was a poor loser.
He convinced himself to listen to people who told him what he wanted to hear. That's one-a the oldest flaws in the book, right?
Anyhoo, short story long...
I picked my battle yesterday. And I answered *most,* if not all, the delusional thinking that I saw. And didn't get any answer, in the end, to contradict me. Puts the kabash on the idea that it's only the leftists who have no interest whatsover in reasoned, measured, thoughtful discussion, in my mind.
I have observed that, too. I write on Quora, and while there are people on both sides who go straight to ad hominem, that seems to be the default for a lot more people on the Left. If they are asked to explain WHY they think what they do, they either respond with ad hominem attacks or just don't respond at all.
You cannot logic with a fanatic, left or right. I find that most of them are intellectual light weights who because of their lack of, for want of a better word, education feel threatened if you challenge their beliefs.
It seems to me they will believe anything that someone on their side of the fence tells them and instead of researching what they were told, they repeat it as if it came from God him/herself.
We've seen the ad hominem attacks in the comment section here. Profusely. It emanates from all sides. Everyone at either point of the political spectrum has a sacred cow - and no one wants to see it gored.
I would much rather vote on specific issues. Like crime and the border. I happen to think that permissive attitudes about both have created havoc on our country. Only the Republicans seem to address these issues. So for me its not about HRC or Trump (going back) its about WHO is crafting a plan that I feel will fix these things. Respectfully, I don't feel like the Dems or the MSM want to ADMIT these are serious problems. I don't feel heard or understood by Dem Reps. I feel ignored and vilified for even daring to notice these problems. So that is just me, one person, calmly explaining the "why" of my thoughts and decisions. I would respectfully and eagerly listen if any Dem wanted to explain to me why lax policies on crime and the border are good and should continue because I understand sometimes I can miss something.
You want to have national policy governed by referendum??
That's precisely what the Founder sought to avoid, btw. Hence, governing by representation, elected democratically.
I've not seen Republican soliutions to "crime", "the border" and "inflation" versus blaming Democrats for. I'd love to see those policies. Perhaps Republicans should be campaigning with them?
As a political reality, people and parties don't ever wanna admit they're wrong.
For example, a lotta anti-abortion people don't wanna admit it's wrong to have an uncompromising attitude, do they? They know they're right, just like the Woke know they're right, right? But Ds, like most people, don't much care for one group forcing their religious views down they're throats, do they? So, if only for a *practical* matter, it would be better to compromise on the issue, right? No, wrong. *Can't* do that.
And I look at it from a longer view. What is it that's given Ds the power they've held over the decades? It's that they were the party of "the little guy." Give money to people that had no income. Feed poor kids. Be in favor of unions, and oppose the owners who ruled them. What's not to like?
Granted, starting with Obama, the Ds started shifting. They're the party of "The Elect" as Professor McWhorter called them. You think Ds see themselves that way. That'd take a major revision of how people see themselves, right?
And I blame the Rs, to a large extent. The Rs have, for the most part, been very good at explaining what they're *against.* Not so good at saying what they're *for.* Reagan being one-a the great exceptions to this rule. Trump a mixed bag in this regard.
I'll admit that anybody can, and everybody *does,* miss things.
Fairly, as the Republican Party has moved ever rightward to the extremes starting with the "Gingrich Revolution" and right wing media.. this has been a "safe space" for Democrats to occupy. Technocratic governing over emotional/reactionary governing. You cannot separate the moves of the Democratic Party to the "educated elite" from the moves of the GOP to the "party of talk radio", and recently, to the "party of Trump".
Doesn't make the Democrats all seeing and knowing, but shit, the alternatives? We badly need a center-right party not infected by the brain prions that the GOP has cultivated since the 90's between conservative media and lately its cultish wagon circling around Donny John Trump..
I think I've used this analogy before, but mebbe not.
The politics of I-dunno-how-many past decades is a house of cards. One card leans into the other card and that forms a base. Takes both cards doing opposite leaning.
And what's happened, as I see it, is now it's concrete slabs leaning almost horizontal.
It's just plain silly to try to argue who started it. Each army of the parties have moved further and further apart. And I'm not so sure it's just the views that become the platforms. It's mainly in how much hate has been ginned up to make sure nobody thinks there's any commonalities between the Ds and the Rs.
The extremes provide the energy to elect people in the primaries. Help out a lot in the general election. And, AFAIK, hatred motivates people more than love. I think it's brain anatomy. People see differences easier than samenesses.
It's still early for a a center-right party. Andrew Yang sure isn't it. May never happen or it may happen too late. At some point in some futures, the whole house-a cards just collapses.
Be both parties fault, of course. And the people in them.
Well dammit. I started typing out a decent reply and then my palm mashed the keyboard and I ended up canceling and deleting the whole post. I'll come back to it later lol.
This is true that there are people on both sides who resort to personal attacks. I take it as a sign of weakness. This place may be the last haven where most people still show respect towards opposite positions and try to use reasonable arguments. But even here, as we can see, we are too divided and too emotional sometimes to listen to one another.
I think you're right. The reason this comment section seems different to me is that people are comfortable explaining the "why" of what they believe. Like in real life people on the left tend to get defensive. When I politely say to someone I know "here is why I personally believe this. Please share why YOU think what you do" they get agitated and start getting hostile or say they won't be participating. No debate and defense of thought.
The most defensiveness I ever see in this Substack comment section is from right-wingers whenever anything critical is said of their beloved God-Emperor Trump. Holy hell do commenters ever get triggered in a hurry when they see their Orange Messiah criticized.
"Common Sense" moderates only apply to the Trump side of the aisle it seems. Look, I come here for honest critiques of the "left" I suppose I am in, but the resistance to right leaning critiques of the softest sort from the self-described "moderates" here is something to behold lol..
Miles you must not read the comments every day. I personally have commented here many times that I wish DT would step out of the spotlight and let others step in. And I have a LOT of company here. I am politely and calmly asking you to "show the work" as they say in kid's math classes. Who are you referring to in this comments section? There are a couple but for the most part it feels like the majority here would like new leadership and they mention specific policies they would like to see worked on and why. Most of the positive DT comments mention the merits of his past policies. The border policies in particular are a STARK contrast between Administrations in cause and effect. I think we can all agree that the results of the current admin are a cluster of serious problems and only appear to be getting more dire.
Even conservatives who would prefer DeSantis or whoever also insist that Trump won the 2020 election (he didn't), and threaten to cancel their subscriptions every time an article is even mildly critical of Trump.
So I have an alternate theory on election denying so please hear me out. I'm not one btw. It feels like a new trend. Like calling everything racism and misogony. HRC stills denies. Abrams still denies. Plenty of Trump fans still deny. Cheney wishes she could but is going with the super trendy "destroying democracy'" trope. Election stealing is the newest overused, diluted and pretty much worthless insult. We should stop listening just like we should with all the other over used phrases and descriptions dujoir. Please take a few minutes to consider that idea. Another idea: In person ONLY voting except very narrow exclusions and wrap things up with the ballot counting immediately. Cut out this extended stuff, make everyone show ID. That would clear this all up for all sides.
I like the 'in person' idea, and I am not a conservative. The irony, of course, is that in the state Donald Trump now calls home, mail in voting is very popular, well run, and lo and behold, he won the state handsomely.
I saw a delightful video on Twitter earlier this morning that compiled Democrat after Democrat claiming that the 2016 election was not legitimate. I guess miles and jt don't remember the whole "not my President" thing that went on for at least two years.
I have very little use for Democrats who claim that Russia bots on Facebook "stole" the election from Hillary in 2016, but are just fine with Facebook throwing their site's entire might against Trump in 2020. My dad (a lifelong Democrat) refuse to suffer hypocrites, and so do I.
If this Substack was riddled with people who insisted Abrams won that election, and threatened to unsubscribe anytime HRC was criticized in any way, I'd point that out as well.
As it happens, all the election deniers and tantrum throwers on this Substack all lean heavily MAGA.
I observe fairly closely. A couple? No, the *majority* here would most certainly *not* like new leadership.
Just count how many times DeSantis's name comes up compared to Trump. You ever heard-a DeSantis being called "THE BEST EVER"?
Nup. It's pretty much everybody-goes-ballistic-time whenever there's an article published here that doesn't go along with Trump's views. And people threatening to cancel their subscriptions? Why does that come up repeatedly?
It certainly is true. Common Sense is an anti WOKE, full free speech site that has attracted MAGAlites by the thousands, because they feel they've finally found a home, besotted as they are by the supposed liberalism of mainstream media (okay, it's liberal..). And, as you and I have discussed before, they can be as blinded by their own particular light as the WOKE Far Left that everyone deplores. Trump's actions cannot ever be criticized, and he is the eternal victim.
But we know better. Biden is worthy of criticism and most certainly Trump is, as well.
For real. Bari created a space that turned into a honey pot for right politics to hone in on ("everything we believed about woke is true, and worse") without a counter to the brain prions infecting the right. I haven posted pleas that this substack, to be considered "moderate common sense" needs a more balanced narrative and commentariat.
Pretty much, *everyone* should be upset or "offended" by some article here. Until we realize there's BS on both sides, and it's not all the times equally distributed.
The thing that bothers me most, I suppose, is that it becomes all about winning, instead-a *doing* something about the state we're in. To try to improve things. For that reason, and what You "said" above, it's the MAGA crowd that are the real RINOs.
Ummm ok. You were writing that at exactly the same time I was defending you to another poster but anyway...DeSantis enjoys immense popularity here. With me included. I would pick him over Trump. I appreciate his stand on parental rights, championing and USA first policies. I am grateful for his direction during the pandemic as far as keeping businesses and schools open. I admire that he calls out the current border policies. Willing to politely and calmly debate. What do you not like about DeSantis policies? Keeping personalities out of it what policy do you think is detrimental to the USA? Respectfully yours, S
Give me DeSantis over Trump anytime. Sure I liked TrumpтАЩs policies overall and do think he faced a hostile press and the political opposition unlike anything before or since. Having said that I saw enough things that I didnтАЩt like. With DeSantis I think we get the better qualities of Trump in a much less damaged package.
I think You're missing the point. I view DeSantis with very *high* favorable opinion. From what You just wrote.
You and me don't make up a large number-a people, tho.
As a thought experiment, in Your head, count how many times Trump is praised, and how many DeSantis. No comparison.
And read what I wrote again. Try to explain why the people here go absolutely ballistic when something against Trump is posted. Versus how wildly enthusiastic they are when something goes Trumps way.
The number of people who *don't* like Trump is even less than the number of people who *do* like DeSantis. Basically, so vanishingly small You may as well say zero and You'd be pretty close to correct, right?
I believe this is because they have been TOLD and programmed what to think as opposed to having their own well thought out ideas, that have been discussed and mulled over for some time. When you are programmed to think and say things, you can't articulate why you are saying those things, you can only say them. This is what has happened to many people on the left.
I have family members on the LEFT - when you mention Trump they blurt out that "he is an effen piece of shit"....when you ask them why they feel this way, they can't respond with anything of substance, they just repeat, "he's is an effen piece of shit."
More recently the man standing in front of Trump Tower in NYC being asked about the recent raid he said he was glad that Trump was finally being held accountable for all his crimes and then the reporter asked him, what crimes are you referring to and the man, flustered, couldn't answer and then said, he didn't want to talk about it anymore. That man doesn't know the crimes, he just knows that CNN has told him there are crimes and he has heard this since Aug 2015 and when you hear something enough times, it becomes part of your programming.
This is serious what is happening - many (not all) on the LEFT are automatons for the LEFT (we call them NPCs or non-player characters). Zombies if you will.....repeating their programming and not listening to anyone that has an opposing view points. These people are not reachable. They have been used by the MSM apparatus (Trusted News Initiative) as pawns in their WAR on society and are essentially ruined.
Selecting a random as a representative for the massive population of Americans who are opposed to Donald Trump/and or vote Democratic is a poor sample.
I can provide you with the facts on record:
1. In the 2016 campaign, Trump's campaign, with or without Trumps's direction (although Roger Stone's trial revealed "with") engaged in unethical, if not provably illegal interactions with Russian operatives to share and coordinate campaign operations.Notably, this involved the Trump Campaign's knowing involvement with the DNC hack and release of the materials - and rather than reporting foreign hacking into an American election, they lied about their knowledge and involvement with, and used it anyway. This SHOULD have been disqualifying for Trump's candidacy - a potential American POTUS engaging in the activities that got Nixon impeached, but with a foreign hostile actor. Hmmm.
2. Trump used his Office to pressure a supplicant nation (Ukraine) into participating into his 2020 campaign by producing (fake) dirt about the Bidens. The notable part of this is they only wanted the "announcement" of an investigation, not a conclusion, to use to smear Biden with. He conducted this pressure campaign through back channel "personal" envoys not appointed as diplomats and contrary to official US policy towards Ukraine, in threatening to withhold arms supplies to defend against a Russian incursion with. HMMM. Impeachment # 1.
3) Trump set up the Big Lie for the 2020 election when his Ukraine plans fell through. He was literally telling his supporters anything other than a Trump win in 2020 would be the result of fraud - almost a year before the election. He purposefully created the situation where Trump voters would avoid voting by mail to create the "suspicion" about late counted mail in votes - while having successfully pressured Repbublican officials in key states to only count mail in votes after the same day vote to support his lies.
4) Trump is the first and only POTUS to have refused a peaceful transfer of power. Full Stop. Based on not a single provable conspiracy theory to boot. He has destabilized our election systems, and trained his supporters to view anything other than a Republican win is the result of "fraud".
5) He incited a riot on Jan 6 and sat back and refused to quell it.
6) He attempted to legalize his coup attempts through state official pressures and bribes, along with attempting to subvert the DOJ and DOD leadership prior. Oh, and there's the illegal fake electors scheme he tried to use to force Pence into also engaging in an un-Constitutional (and illegal) counting of votes.
7) He absconded with classified national security data and refused to give it up after a year of the NAR and DOJ playing nice to get it back.
8) He's a genuine con artist and fraud. Every dollar you give to Trump goes to his pockets, not to "fight election fraud" or elect Republicans In His Name. He's scammed his supporters into bankruptcy and default in some cases, with that "convenient" pre-check marked "make my donation automatic" that shows he really doesn't care, do u?
9) He's a general scumbag in the private sector as well. Check his "business history"; filled with defaults to pay honest small business contractors, and the millions he defrauded (and paid in a class action suit settlement) for his fraudulent Trump University.
10) He treats women like objects, full stop, and is gross about his eldest daughter. He "buried" his first ex in a weed patch with a pauper's headstone at one if his golf resorts she never even vistited, for the favorable tax treatment as claiming that resort now as a "burial ground".
11) He has been involved with money laundering since the 80's. For the Italian mobs as well as Russian oligarchs and mobs. His businesses and money is dirty. He's a crap businessman whose entire post-bankruptcy revenue scheme was between a reality TV show that portrayed him as a fake siuccessful "businessman" , to money laundering sanctioned foreign assets through Deutsche Bank through his golf resorts, to now his biggest and best scam is his Trump PACs.
Not a zombie. Fully cognizant of who Trump was before he ran in 2016, and who he is after.
Is that enough to convince you why I loathe this individual :)
Interesting post. Not aware of all that You've posted. I know You're certain of all this, but don't know how thoroughly *documented* all this stuff is.
But gotta say TYTY for going all out and putting Yourself out there, Ma'am.
Oh, and also read "The Dark Towers" book which is more about Deutsche Bank's long and storied history into money laundering, but does highlight it's relationship with Trump, who is, as of date, the only "client" in a very special lending arm of DB that happens to be known for funnelling sanctioned money into US markets for laundering back out, in which the US real estate market and financial disclosure laws are veritable perfect shields for these transactions.
Ask yourself: after Donny's 6'th and final bankruptcy in the early oughts, how did he come up with billions in cash to purchase all those golf resorts IN CASH lol
I would add "Active Measures" documentary to your list as well.. it details both Putin's rise and Russia's election interference tactics as imposed on Ukraine before 2016 as the test case (and hey, features Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort as a key player in both! HMM) as well as Trump's long back history with Russia and money laundering for Russian oligarchs as well as for the Iranian Revolutionary Army (a massively expensive, and empty, Trump Tower was built in a war devastated region of Azerbaijahn with IRA money). It still sits empty in the surrounding rubble I believe.
TY for the recommendation and the rest. I heard-a bit about Manafort. But I just don't have the patience for a documentary. That's my failing. TY again, Ma'am.
Start with the Mueller Report, the Republican Senate Intelligence Committee's report, the Roger Stone trial for the 2016 stuff, the testimonies and documents from Impeachment #1 (and look, Trump himself released the original phone call transcript of the "Perfect Phone Call" which was laid out the entire scheme lol) transcripts as primary sources, but all of that has been well reported and documented in various news articles.
His business history is also well documented - check out (if you have it) Dirty Money on the Trump episodes. There's many other sources and documentaries about his business career as well. Plus the judgement about Trump U as operating as an illegal pyramid scheme is verifiable facts. As well as the collections and spending of his PACs.
And you're welcome : ) I do think it's important to state the reasons why Trump is disliked and why so many feel he had no business serving in the White House based on his business past alone -- and this is hardly an exhaustive list of his "sins". But it's definitely much more than his "personality" and "tone", which I think a lot of Trump supporters have comforted themselves as being the sole problems of an otherwise Super Guy ; P
Do You know why the Mueller Report didn't generate any indictments? I didn't follow it too closely. Dunno about the Roger Stone trial. Did he get charged with anything?
Knew about the phone call, and some-a his business dealings. Don't have Netflix tho, so will take Your word on that.
And TYTY again. :-) Also, with me any billionaire has two strikes against him. I know he's considered the Blue Collar Billionaire, but I don't believe that for a second. That's just me.
I don't know, maybe it's not official yet - Trump was impeached twice, really enjoys Vladimir Putin's company, likes fake electors, calls to find votes and threaten retribution after elections are certified, doesn't quell a riot when he has the time to do it, might have wanted to see his vice president attacked, doesn't like to pay taxes, doesn't fully appreciate the peaceful transfer of power..
What's not to like?
Of course, when I mention stuff like that to MAGA people, it becomes a screaming match (I try not to..)
All to say, Lori, and with all my respect, the 'programming' you describe is well ensconced on both sides.
You didn't list any actual crimes. In my opinion, if they had something on Trump that could truly damage his public image, they would have shared it already. They have been trying since 2015 to find something to ruin his image. But if he says heтАЩs against the Deep State and the Globalist and his actions align with those words, which they have, it will be hard for the Dems to compete. They know this and that is why they need to keep speaking ill of him in the public square (otherwise they might talk about the good he has done for the country) so that the public can never be swayed by him. Always keep the public questioning him. Always cast him in a bad light (blame him for things he hasnтАЩt done, cast the shadow of doubt) and they canтАЩt fall for his America First platform and then they, the Deep State/Globalists still have a chance at their plan. We all see the crowds that gather at his events and the enormous following his message has created. We have all heard firsthand stories of his rallies and how peaceful and unifying they are for the people who attend them. The DEMS have been outed as the Deep State/Globalists that they are, and the people are starting to reject them and their un-America policies. Trump predicted that the MSM would be dead in 6 years and here we are communicating on an alternative news platform.
I can't speak for all people who supported Trump, but for me personally, I like what he represented, which to me was that he wasn't part of the Deep State. He was for the American people. He was against the Globalists and all their highbrow double speak, which to me, as an average American was much needed and a breath of fresh air. Sure heтАЩs bombastic and hard to listen to sometimes, but considering the amount of work before him and opposition he would face, could we really have a soft spoken, hide in the basement type of character? I donтАЩt think so. His narcissistic character traits are well suited for this battle.
I have no loyalty to Trump specifically. We could swap out Trump for anyone else that stands on a platform of America First and defeating the Deep State/Globalist (and one that was not pushing the experimental gene therapy) and I believe they would get wide support. But they would need to have tough skin and be up for the challenge because the Dems do not mess around. They are out for blood because they are trying to destroy America.
I find myself saying things like, тАЬwell if Trump wasn't still in this the Dems would back off and things would settle down and I would like that, as I am sure everyone would. It's been crazy the past 6 years. We all need a break.тАЭ
Then I am reminded that no matter who runs against the Dems, they will continue their forward march to destroy America, and no candidate will be left alone. We aren't getting a break no matter who runs because the Dems are the Deep State/Globalists, and they will fight tooth and nail to move forward with their agenda to destroy America from within. We have been witnessing this since Biden took office. Every day some horrible policy тАУ mandating an experimental therapy, double-speak, changing definitions of words to fit agendas. All with the intention to drive us all MAD.
I ask, тАЬhow can one man (Trump) take so much and keep going? Why hasnтАЩt he given up already and gone back to his quiet, cushy life with all his money where he can be left alone? Why continue to inflict himself and family with the attacks that will not stop, ever? One should ask this question and seriously consider the answer that comes forward.
I don't know what I don't know, and I won't pretend I do. I am just watching and observing from my own place on the planet and with my own perspective. ThatтАЩs all I can do.
I am an American and I am rooting for America and whomever stands before me and truthfully professes that they too are rooting for America. I will support them.
Liking fake (fraudulent) electors is not a crime? If your idea of a crime is being convicted of one, then you are technically right.
But what did we (this country) actually see? Trump attempting to overturn sanctioned state results by either a phone call (recorded) or by agreeing to the antidemocratic attempt to install the wrong electors and to try to convince his hapless Vice President (but who has a thicker skin than Trump does) to do the dirty deed. That was an assault on our constitutional process. And if you don't agree, I suggest you read our storied Constitution.
I've noticed that a lotta people on this forum would prefer to ignore the *facts* of the matter, Sir Lee. They used-ta say that seeing is believing, but that's another old saying that's gone by the wayside in today's advanced world.
Trumps got nothing on me when it comes to rooting for America, and I am NOTHING. In fact, Trump has a lot *less* than me.
Because first, last, and foremost, Trump is for Trump.
You: "We have all heard firsthand stories of his rallies and how peaceful and unifying they are for the people who attend them."
Me? Yeah, they're unifying to the people who attend them. For the people who don't? Not so much. And You should consider that the MAGA crowd is a minority in this world. Yeah, a majority of the Rs, sadly, IMO.
You: "I can't speak for all people who supported Trump, but for me personally, I like what he represented, which to me was that he wasn't part of the Deep State. He was for the American people."
Again, he was for the American people when it suited him. Mainly out for the main chance for himself. And there's a *ton* of people who don't represent the deep state, that don't carry all the disadvantages Trump does. Which are many.
You: "But they would need to have tough skin..."
This is one-a the grand *failures* of Trump. That he'd go ballistic on Twitter and watch TV all the time to see how people reacted to him. I think it was mainly because he *didn't* have a thick skin. Sure, as long as everything is going his way. *Most* people can handle that.
When just about everybody is against You? Well, true, there aren't a lotta people would like to be in that situation. But Trump was at the end of that line, not the beginning.
You: "They are out for blood because they are trying to destroy America"
Me? Yeah, I know.. I know... To You they're subhuman. That's a problem as is the problem that they think the same as You.
You: "Why hasnтАЩt he given up already and gone back to his quiet, cushy life with all his money where he can be left alone?"
If You can't answer that question, You don't know him as well as You think You do. He loves the LIMELIGHT. He loves the POWER. He loves Trump so much that he can't stand losing the last election. So he'll try again. FOR TRUMP, a lot more 'n You.
Me? His crime? There for anybody with eyes to see. He planned to overthrow the election. Which was, frankly, to be expected from a guy like he is.
Jt, what do you think of this Deep State/Globalist thingy we keep hearing about, as in the post above?
What do you think it means? - a socialist, gay, cosmopolitan, LGBTQ++, communist, UN sanctioned, IMF sponsored satanic cult emanating from somewhere (Davos..) that's going to take over America and turn us all transgender?
To me Globalism is basically consumers like so many posters here buying 90% of their goods from China..
do they even know that?
And the Deep State are the people who'll save our asses when (not if) the next terrorist strike hits on our shores. I'm sure everyone will want the Deep Staters then..
This is a typical reply from the right. And if You believe that Trump won the election and it was stolen, then I'm afraid You're from the far-right. I dunno that applies to You tho, so there is that.
I'm not gonna take that and just let it lay, Celia. Let's look at what I actually *wrote,* as compared to what You imputed.
"This is a typical reply from the right."
Is there any question that this describes the FACTS of the matter, Celia?
"And if You believe that Trump won the election and it was stolen, then I'm afraid You're from the far-right. I dunno that applies to You tho, so there is that."
This wasn't even a comment *about* "Just an observer." It was an observation. You even notice that Celia? No, You did NOT. In fact, I stated that it was an observation that may have nothing at all to DO with him/her.
Now, given that s/he took it *personally* I'd say that it probably did apply. I'd say very *high* probability they're far-right. And I think that's why both s/he and YOU were upset by it all, right?
jt I respectfully ask that you refrain from commenting on my personal political views and attaching labels. If you are interested, you may ask politely, and I can describe where I stand on many political issues. Otherwise, let's stick to discussion that Bari initiated in her writing. BTW, I reacted personally because you replied to MY post. If you did not mean me at all but simply made a general statement, you have to say so and I will accept an apology.
"typical reply" <-- a sneer that suggests that the comment can be dismissed purely because of who wrote it.
"if You believe that Trump won the election" <-- a non-sequitur, accusing the commenter of holding a position that means they can simply be dismissed.
Walking that back with "dunno that applies to You" was weak sauce. Weasel words to pretend you did not mean to offend.
How many times do I have to repeat to you that I DO NOT LIKE TRUMP? I got upset because you went straight to the ad hominem, dismissing Just an observer's comments as worthless instead of engaging in discussion about what was actually said.
Sorry, Celia. You, per usual, are not being objective.
"Typical reply" was a very *slight* sneer, if one at all.
Like I already pointed out, I wasn't even making a comment on the poster. You can call what I write "weasel words" if You want. Doesn't make them so. I stated the fact that I didn't know if what I wrote applied to him/her.
You can say You don't like Trump all You want. And mebbe You're not MAGA. You can claim that too. How did You vote? Correct me if I'm wrong.
In 2016, I and all of the moderates I know voted for Johnson. Hillary was a no go, and Trump was impossible.
In 2020, I and my husband held our noses and voted for Trump. Ordinarily, I would have preferred a moderate Biden, but the behavior of the Democrats since 2016 demonstrated that they were far too insane and far too Woke to be trusted with anything. And as things have turned out, I wasn't wrong about that.
I'll agree that, as far as Biden goes, You weren't wrong.
As far as Trump goes, You were wrong. He was such a poor loser, he refused to turn power over to the elected President. To me and a lotta people, that undoes any possible good he managed to accomplish, which wasn't much.
He had no experience in crafting legislation, and that showed. Executive Orders don't amount to much, unless You get two terms, right? And his "Schedule F," that mebbe *might* have accomplished something? My recollection is that he put it out there 20 days before the election. *Not* a case of better late than never, right?
Disagree Dr K. jt usually seems pretty fair. Not sure what has shifted today but I'm sure he has his reasons. I'll withhold judgement till I understand more of the motivation.
ha-ha, what shifted today is I said I am not far right, and apparently it triggered jt because he had already formed an opinion about me. But I refuse to be pigeonholed.
I am absolutely for free speech. I am not suggesting you be shut off any platform. The Silence function just means that I don't have to read yours (or anyone's) free speech on any particular day. I actually seldom use it on sites that have it -- I usually like to sample all viewpoints. But there are days I would just like to skip threads -- often people just get in a mood and that is a day I wish their stuff would disappear. But I hope those who want to read it continue to be able to do so.
I read lots of threads -- sometimes I just don't want to see a rabbit hole staring at me where I know where the conversation will go; sadly I am not disciplined enough to not read it if it is there...personal failing perhaps.
Lol...I seldom do either. But having read literally thousands of threads, sometimes the ability to just make one go away will save me some grief and some days that matters -- somehow I need to get real work done. Just looking for a technical tweak of value to me that is easy to do and done many other places. But as I noted, it is a personal failing that I just cannot look away...lol. I should work on that, but always fear I will miss some bon mot.
I did not mention Trump in my post. Trump has nothing to do with the subject of our exchange. Let's not get personal here. The main reason I am subscribing is to avoid personal insults common to other social media sites. And I don't believe you are actually responding to what I said in regards to challenges left try to avoid.
I was responding to Your view that quote unquote are not far-right. Do I need to explain further?
And I think You're only partially correct on Your views of the left, at best. I dunno, but I wonder if You talk to people from the left with this view in mind. Or much at all.
I think it's not so much about the unwillingness of the Left to be challenged. I think it may have more to do with whether someone likes to enter a tank with a shark in it.
I'm sorry, but these comments have always been from the right. And the two Leftist trolls don't signify. Most people that know about them just ignore them, right?
I was wrong. I've been commenting here since before the first of the year, pretty sure. Can't say for certain when I started, so there is that. But I read before I started commenting, and like I "said..."
I probably started earlier but I didn't comment, I don't think, until first of year. In any event, it's long enough to say the right has been prevalent for a long time, for the reason I gave.
One thing I have been struck with reading the Common Sense comments is how many people describe themselves as life-long Democrats who can no longer tolerate the extremism of their party. Many of the "far right" comments seem to come from people who consider themselves left of center, but the center has moved.
I don't think anyone knows where the "center" is right now. I suspect it's now a much larger group of people who don't like the extremes of either party and don't consider themselves in the center, yet that is where they are. Might be half the country at this point.
You are right, the center has moved - in such a way it seems, that the fringes of each party appear even further away from whatever constitutes the center.
Perhaps some of us here are trying to reclaim the middle, find some areas we can agree on - and build on that.
I have been an Independent, a Democrat, and a Republican. It's all a sh*t-show masquerading as choice. These labels don't mean what they used to because society has become so absurd. These labels are used to keep society at odds and a society at odds is too busy fighting amongst itself to realize they are being enslaved and ruled over.
I see these labels and their current definitions as a gigantic obstacle that as a society we need to rid ourselves. It's not RED vs BLUE - that is so lame and silly.
They are using these and other WORDS against us. Changing the definitions of things to suit their needs and telling us we are crazy.
Very few take on the battle against the ego. IMO, You hafta meditate or pray in a meditative fashion to see the scope of the problem. Me? I'm lousy at that stuff, for the most part.
Agree. I have mentioned here before I welcome the other side's views. But ask that it stay calm and polite. Also articulate WHY you think something. If you think I am incorrect in my views about the 2 million people that have entered the country from all over the globe please share why YOU feel it is a positive development. Please by all means convince me how this benefits US citizens. Maybe you could change my mind if you actually put in a tiny effort but that's not what happens. Just insults. No one ever DEFENDS that position they just call me names for thinking it is a negative view. It often makes me wonder how many progressives are parents. I never believed in preaching to my children. I told them why I believed something and invited them to come to their own conclusions. What is wrong with that approach?
But you're right--it almost never happens that people on the Left explain *why* they think what they do. They just take their positions as an article of faith. And woe betide anyone who questions their faith!
Which is how I know that Woke-ism is a religion, because that's a normal (though not universal) reaction of the faithful (of any religion) to those who challenge their beliefs.
Echoes of John McWhorter's illuminating tome "Woke Racism." The sanctimony of Far Left and Critical Race Theory pundits he describes as a religion - far more harmful than helpful. Unassailable and beyond reproach. As in blind faith.
Why do I have a hunch you might already have read it..
I haven't. But I came to the same conclusions on my own. Largely because I was subjected to Leftists acting like Fundamentalists when I was in graduate school. I had been subjected to high pressure Fundamentalist Christian conversion tactics by my birthmother and her friends. The people around me in grad school behaved *exactly* the same way--the only difference was WHAT I was required to believe in order to be "saved."
I do both. I read some articles and others I take with me on my walks. It's nice to have the option. I wish all the articles were audio as well. I spend to much time sitting.
Exactly. My phone is used mainly as a phone, not for computing tasks, so when I listen to a podcast I feel trapped at my computer with nothing else to do.
One solution is to use a blue tooth device like wireless ear buds or wireless earphones. Perfect to let you go about your business within the limits of your home WiFi. ThatтАЩs what I do. I love to read also, because I copy and paste or share points of interest, or save segments to my digital notes.
I look forward to this blog every day. Days when it doesn't update are a little sadder for me. But I must say that many of us would like to hear more from YOU, Bari. Not all of us are podcast listeners. Can we get more essays from you, or at least transcripts from Honestly?
FWIW, I posted a comment in one of her podcasts requesting transcription. Lo and behold, her latest Larry Summers Honestly podcast had transcription : D Did I cause that? Yah, I'll take credit ; P
Hope that's a forward moving trend for more of the Honestly podcasts. I tend to consume these things as "multi-tasking" efforts to read at my leisure rather than having to (gasp! lol) pay attention for an entire podcast ;P
Absolutely agree, itтАЩs difficult for me to listen to a podcast but I love the content they have so yes please transcribe them whenever possible Bar!
A vote for transcripts from me as well. If I listen to a podcast while I work or drive, I either tune out of the podcast, or I make mistakes. Or both during the same podcast. Listening doesn't save me any time over reading.
I am like you Celia. I look forward to this newsletter every day. I agree with most of the newsletter's post and look forward to those I don't agree with. I like the exchange of ideas and wish there were more leftists posting here but I think you don't see many leftists here because hard core ideologues don't like their ideologies challenged. That goes for both right and left ideologues.
I wonder if the fact that many of the commenters here are on the Right suggests something about the willingness (or lack thereof) of people on the Left to be challenged. Admittedly, the more Right-wing among us tend to bitch a lot about the more Left-leaning articles, but most of them still show up week after week.
As a moderate, it frustrates me to see too few actually *moderate* essays. And as a English M.A., it frustrates me to see how many of the Left-leaning articles (at least half of them, if not more) are poorly written, often without any display of rhetorical skills, and especially lacking in consideration of audience. Too often, I suspect, such essays are intended for "the choir," rather than with any expectation of having to convince anyone. Maybe they were written for other publications but not accepted, or maybe they are rough drafts intended for eventual submission elsewhere.
I really hope Bari can develop a slate of sufficiently good contributors that she won't have to foist bad writers on us.
OK truth: I'm a left leaner who has wavered on this Substack, but came home because the content is too good - and many commentors are awesome, even when we disagree. It took a bit to get there, but still. I think this could truly be a place of "real discussion" absent choir think and moderation for "right thoughts".
However, I do have some suggestions for attracting a larger left leaning audience in another post, because frankly, those are the readers that need to hear this content to truly reform the left. Which does involve perhaps a bit more balanced and even handed view of the excesses of the Right and the Left, and their relative threats. I have for sure witnessed the pushback against any gentle suggestion in supposed "left leaning" contributor essays that there's issues on the Right, as well as on the Left. I think if we're going to pose as "moderates" we need to accept criticism on both sides. I've swallowed and accepted it from the Left, and largely agree. But I see few right leaning commentators willing to do the same (kudos to those who do!) - and hence the blog's direction in tilt of the narrative to meet the subscriber base. I do think this has a "depressing" effect on getting more "moderate" left/left-center even progressives to engage and subscribe. Just IMO.
See, I think that's where there's always a difficulty, M. Smarticat. Because I would-a thought Your comment reflected facts, more than opinion. That's just me.
Celia, I have posted on this topic before. I do it because I think it is important to point out censorship.
Censorship is censorship regardless of where it comes from. The Woke and PC morons are being challenged by the morons on the right and just because they are idiots doesn't mean they are not dangerous. I have asked this before. "What next? Book burning."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/conservative-activists-want-ban-400-books-library-arent-even-shelves-rcna44026
You want to censor something, change the channel or don't read things that offend you.
Gah! I agree completely!
"I wonder if the fact that many of the commenters here are on the Right suggests something about the willingness (or lack thereof) of people on the Left to be challenged."
I would ask You to take note, Celia, how You and the Right like to be challenged. You don't like it any more than anybody else does.
And yet moderates and many on the Right are able to craft responses to being challenged that don't involve going straight to ad hominems.
My original point is that moderates and people on the Right stick around on Common Sense, even when Bari has writers who challenge us, but as you yourself observed, there aren't many people on the Left here.
Yeah. And my point is the reason the Left aren't here, in the comments, is because of You on the Right are like a shark looking for blood. A lot (not all) the comments here are a great illustration of what I'm "talking" about.
You wanna talk about willful ignorance? Hundreds of examples of people praising Trump, right? Yet You so confident about how stupid the Left is. Me? I'm Centrist.
BTW, I suspect that the number of the 200K readers that are Left is a lot more than show up in the comments, right?
When leftists manage to craft an argument that is not an ad hominem insult (orange man is a traitor, you're all Bible-thumping racist conspiracy nuts hugging your guns), it involves "compassion" towards the "vulnerable" and "making the wealthy pay their fair share". The vulnerable can be people (low income, addicts, gender-confused, non-white and non-Asian) or the planet (climate change, which is often confused with pollution).
The problem with the compassion argument is that compassion is either prohibitively expensive, as Canadians are learning with the "no private health care" and "no resource development" dogmas, or it ends up hurting the people it aims to help - addicts continue to be enabled to use drugs, gender-confused people, especially children, are mutilated, and "racialized" (ugh) people are told that they are forever victims, and they come to believe it. Meanwhile, racism is increasing.
I have never been able to carry on an argument with a leftist - they end up saying "well, you're just wrong", if they manage to remain polite. Usually it's worse. It's very difficult to break through years of indoctrination, especially when it's all around them, and those who think differently are demonised.
The "make the rich pay" argument is easier - most people realize that punitive taxes just drive money out of the country. But it continues to be made by populist leftist politicians.
I would ask people of the Right to turn their gaze inward. Like You "say:"
"It's very difficult to break through years of indoctrination, especially when it's all around them, and those who think differently are demonised."
You just demonized the Leftists, right?
Do I argue a whole *lot* against what You say? No, not a whole lot. As far as the wealthy paying their fair share, I think no right-thinking individual would complain. Warren Buffet himself agrees that he doesn't pay much in taxes. How can that be, in a country as wealthy as we are?
The problem, as I see it, is there are deductions for just about everything. Pols get paid (in campaign donations) for putting through those kinds-a things, right? To me anyway, just about *all* that should be done away with. A tax form about one page long for everybody. Very few deductions allowed. Home. Medical expenses *mebbe.* Details.
But, yeah, I agree with a graduated tax. Zero for most people, which is how much a large *number,* if not most, people pay right now, right? Just make those that pay zero be in the lower economic ranges, rather than anybody in the higher. Could probably *lower* the tax rates, if this was done and there wasn't as much cheating as goes on now.
IOW, I agree about punative taxes. I thought that was the answer at one time. And I'm not at all sure there shouldn't be *some* kind-a wealth tax, at *some* point in time, on *some* entities. I was just thinking past few days that mebbe individuals should be exempted. But corporations and Harvard and all those kinds-a institutions should mebbe be included in a wealth tax. IMO.
One thing would raise the roof, but has some, if not a lotta, merit to it, is to do away with tax-exempt organizations. For a number of reasons. Mebbe tax their wealth. That would necessarily do away with tax-exempt donations, so there's a downside. Dunno. IMO.
I don't think I demonised the leftists - I don't blame them for their own indoctrination. Certainly, there are influential people making policy that leads to the indoctrination of the masses, but I'm not talking about arguing with them.
As for taxes, I think that churches and other religious institutions should lose their tax-free status. As for a wealth tax, it is fraught. If it's implemented, Bitcoin will explode again. It's like squeezing a balloon - the air will just come out somewhere else. Taxes, I'm afraid, are for the little people who can't afford really good accountants and Caribbean tax shelters.
I quote You:
"When leftists manage to craft an argument that is not an ad hominem insult..."
"I have never been able to carry on an argument with a leftist..."
"...if they manage to remain polite. Usually it's worse."
"...and those who think differently are demonised."
I would say that is demonizing Leftists, but mebbe that's just IMO. There is, perhaps, some blame for people falling for indoctrination. And I would repeat that there isn't a left/right difference here.
Like I "said," I dunno I'd tax individual wealth. Mebbe just institutional wealth. And I agreed about institutions losing their tax-free status.
Also, one thing I've looked into a bit is CBDC. That stands for Central Bank Digital Currency. If the Fed implements something like Bitcoin all bets are off, right? And AFAICT, they'll do it at some point, if not sooner. China's moving in that direction, AFAIK, for just one reason.
Too bad next to nobody is thinking of the ramifications of that.
I'm left of most of the usual commenters. I just don't have the time to comment often. (That and I'm a shit typist. :))
You're right about the time. Only reason I have the time is I'm retired. And only reason I dare is because I can't be canceled. But as far as typing? I usually type so fast it *always* includes typos. Plus, I rarely read what I typed. "My bad." ;-)
And apparently a Star BlazerтАж
We must be strong and brave
Our home we've got to save . . .
Not a bad idea at *all,* M. Wildstar. Sounds like it could even be a *plan.* TYTY for Your reply.
But me? Long day done. Been reading for I-don't-know-how-many hours. Read I-don't-know-how-many chapters in M. Sowell's Basic Economics. Ten pages left, but I'm played.
Would recommend the book very *highly* to anybody who wants to see how things actually *work.* In the *real* world, as opposed to the world of the *politicians.*
Mebbe tomorrow. Mebbe not. TY again.
I don't let shitty typing or inability to articulate get in my way :)
I believe that conservatives tend to be more educated to the positions of the left and appreciate that there are different viewpoints. The left (at least the sub 40 YO constituents, which controls social media) do not employ nuance, and are ignorant to the position of the conservatives. Their level of intolerance is, imho, what spawned cancel culture, Micro aggressions, dog whistles, and all the rest of garbage used to shut down those on the right.
I don't agree with Glenn, Matt and Bari on many fundamental political issues, but am united with them in their work to regain our Freedom of Speech, and the dangers of the Left/Media/Permanent US Govt alliance.
Substack, RCP and some podcasters (Rogan, Saagar/Krystal) are where I go for news, and with the exception of RCP, they're all quite liberal, unlike me,
Perfectly said Jon
I'm not sure how to take that :)
The ignorance is the thing that gets me. As a moderate, I am well aware of the positions of people on both sides. And there are positions on both sides that I do not agree with. But for every person on the Right who mischaracterizes people on the Left, I see ten people on the Left mischaracterizing people on the Right. I know an insane number of Leftists who GENUINELY BELIEVE that a large number of people on the Right would love to live in a dystopia like Handmaid's Tale. I know NO ONE on the Right who would tolerate a society like that.
I know what you are saying Celia. I can only speak for myself and my close friends but we treat it like a work collaboration on a project. Or even a home remodel. A couple of people on the project look at the issue, compare knowledge of past solutions, consider current economic costs and availability and brainstorm solutions. Someone you might not want to spend dinner with comes up with an idea that is more reasonable than everyone else so even though you don't necessarily like them that much you defer to their idea because they explained it. Someone that is opposite you in political beliefs points out an external force you hadn't considered on one of YOUR ideas. You have to shift because they are right. The common theme here is EXPLAINING "why" you think something. Again speaking for myself but it seems like progressives only want to insult me for wondering and being curious instead of laying out WHY. For example I want to know why schools don't double down on math and reading and leave race completely out of things. But it seems the side that wants it will only deny its happening or call me names. When I heard the other day that Kathy Hochul was rejoicing over changing laws to have gender neutral verbiage I wanted to say "Ummmmm shouldn't that be number 762 on the list of your pressing problems?" But if I mention that calmly it would be met with calling me a violent terrorist transphobe. Really? Why can't we back and forth this? Why straight to extreme insults? If you have a great idea why not bring me around by laying it out?
I have changed my mind about a number of things due to gaining information I didn't previous know. I'm now against the death penalty, in practice (although I still favor it in theory), because of the number of people on Death Row who have been exonerated by DNA evidence.
My views on abortion have changed because I had to think through how my libertarian views actually applied in that circumstance. And I am also pragmatic enough to recognize that compromise is essential on tough issues.
People who just attack others personally because they hold the "wrong" views are not helping anyone.
I think you're right about the left leaning essays. They are written for a choir that does not tolerate dissent. So there is no need to try and convince anyone of the author's point of view, because you either agree with him/her, or you are labeled as a hate filled, anti (latest Trend/fad), racist, a phobic of some type, right winger.
The left fans probably just skim (if that) to make sure its Newspeak and then give their "like"
Lefties don't need to go to Substack to get articles from their point of view - there's Politico, Vox, Daily Beast, the Atlantic, and pretty much every major newspaper.
We're here because the mainstream has failed us - and I, for one, am glad that it did, and so I had to go searching for writing that I could appreciate. I learned about Bari from Bill Maher's show, and even though I disagree with a lot of what he says, at least he is willing to listen to the "other side".
Substack will cause either a full revamp of mainstream media, or it will kill off most of it. CNN is just the beginning.
agree - it is why I stand by Common Sense and would prefer it to remain a stand-alone substack.
Celia, I always like your posts and agree with them. Let me throw you an idea, and hope you don't think it is because I am "far-right" because I am not at all: the left are unwilling to be challenged because many of their ideas would not stand scrutiny. This is the reason for the cancel culture that originated on the left. They cannot defend their position with logical arguments, so they simply cancel you. There is no way to have a civil discourse and be challenged on statements like there is no set gender or that more spending can bring down the inflation, to take just a few as examples.
That's.. not true. I've seen many cogent arguments from thoughtful left leaning commentators (hey! including me lol), excepting some of the ones that come from a (sigh) few individuals who do somewhat embody that stereotype.
I've also seen many ad-hominens and snark attacks from some "thoughtful" right wing commentators rather than engaging in the substance of what was presented. And those comments are highly rated by the readers : /
It goes both ways, but in this substack, the commentariat is overwhelmingly Republican/conservative/pro-Trump in variations. You get a "nice" community when everyone is in agreement, except for the skunks who dare to interrupt the back slapping and high fiving.
Try me though. I'll engage in lengthy debates (to the point you'll wish my laptop died) on "left" (and right) ideas. And.. you might find I also agree, to a degree, on left "woke" critique (after all, that's why I'm here). But I won't engage on "libtard' or other smears that I'm somehow "anti-American" or supportive of pedophilia "grooming" or the rest because I vote Democratic or support some measure of trans civil rights.
I would absolutely love to keep engaging with everyone on CS to discuss ideas without calling each other names and smearing on both side. People who fly off the handle and get infuriated are usually on the fringes IMO. We will not get a crowd with everyone in agreement, not now, and it was probably not realistic ever. It may be hard to even determine if you stand right or left of center or in the middle any more. I am all over the place on many issues. We are complex creatures and donтАЩt want to be painted in one color, red or blue, at least some of us, myself included. I am sure I represent a small group here, but so what? LetтАЩs discuss issues our country and the world face. Do we have to identify ourselves as belonging to a certain party before our thought are evaluated? Like: hi, I am a Democrat (Republican, Independent), this is what I think. LetтАЩs not focus on how we voted in the past, because the parties no longer represent our values, but on where we should head Am I an idealist? You bet.
I would add a thought: having a blog where we can reduce as much as possible the partisan polemics is constructive for the various "sides" to get to know each other, and reduce some of the stereotyping and "villain" attributions to those on "the other side". In my real life, I have conservative family members, friends, and coworkers. And no, I do not believe they are atavistic racists and dummies : ) But online interactions where polemics are slung all around create that perception: conservatives are nasty racists, propaganda dupes and homophobes/transphobes, liberals are nasty snarky elitists who want to "groom" children for pedophiles while decimating everything "conservative" about America from every corner. Yikes in either case! But having a "safe space" (haha to borrow some "wokeism") where folks across the spectrum can meet and discuss civily, and more importantly, maybe about things that are not about politics and/or culture wars, is super important to bridging these divides, taking down stereotypes, etc.
And I have experienced this on this blog, which made me a "stay": initially I had a fairly terse and snarky back and forth with a regular on this blog, but apologized for tone and re-explained my position, and we ended up in a very nice exchange about some politics but other stuff too... and lo and behold, we agreed on some very basic issues to boot and left the exchange warmly. Gave me a warm feeling that "dialog" is possible if we drop the memes, stereotypes and conditioned reactions to each other. Both ways : )
Therefore, I do think it's important for the comments section to "diversify" in some ways, to include more points of view and respectful disagreements and exchange, and that has to start with dropping some of the polemics in either direction. It's a start, anyway.
That's all well and good, until You bring up the subject of Trump. A lotta people around here, not to name any names, take that to be like taking a chisel to a sore tooth. And, on occasion, I take it like that after all the praise of Trump that goes on around here.
Agree. There's a massive blind spot about Trump, and is sometimes promoted by the site's authors - "Russian Collusion" was not a "hoax" for example. Trump was not being "unfairly" persecuted over that, nor over the Ukrainian driven first Impeachment. In both cases, there were legitimate fact patterns and legitimate concerns warranting investigation, and in the case of his actions in Ukraine to get "dirt" on the Bidens, an abuse of his Office. Yet, it seems like the fashion for "left critics" is to promote the "unfair persecution" propaganda as credentials to be allowed to criticize Trump in other ways, in that you have to give some to his supporters in order to have room to critique him elsewhere. In truth, no critique of Trump is valid to a Trump supporter, beyond a tepid "well the Tweets were excessive", or "he just told the truth too much" lol. As I posted in another thread we've discussed in on this board, the issues with Trump are far beyond his "personality defects". Soft pedaling his bad actions in one area doesn't buy anything other than to contribute to the "Trump persecution" narrative. Nonsense. Not a single "political problem" that Trump had didn't generate from something Trump did.
Well said!
You're being disingenuous if You think people aren't gonna try to figure out what an author's bias is, in interpreting what they "say."
Everybody does it, and You do it too, I'm sure. Being an idealist has nothing to do with it. *I'm* an idealist, because I think both parties are incompetent and we'll eventually need a new one. May never happen, of course, but that's what *idealism* is.
And give me a break. IIRC (If I Recall Correctly) Your Right. You've painted Yourself in the corner by Your taking personally the suggestion that You might not realize the *fact* that the election wasn't stolen. You can, of course, write anything You want about Yourself, and claim I'm smearing You. If You want me to, I'll go back to Your original two posts, and indicate word by word why I drew that conclusion.
I'll sum it up by an old saw by an old sage. "You doth protest TOO much." Like the above.
So yeah, people just *are* gonna try to identify where on the spectrum You are coming from. You're allowed to hold opinions that go against The Narrative, but almost *nobody does.*
There's The Woke Narrative on the Left. There's The Trump Narrative on the right. That's one reason, among several, why I written lately that there are a lotta similarities between the Woke and the MAGA crowd. Granted, there are few that are 100% Pure MAGA-tites.
If You wanna be someone who sees Trump for what he *is*, I'll be glad to slap You on the back and congratulate You. Buts odds of that aren't likely to be real good. Hardest thing in the world?
Changing Your mind. Changing a habit. That's not just to You, observer. That's everyone.
Mebbe You're just young and naive. People are NEVER gonna agree on where "we" should head when they can't have any realistic conversation on where we've BEEN, right? It'd be a lot worse than herding cats, I assure You. That's not idealism. That's fantasy.
So what's it *really* all about?
Whoa.. sounds like some history there ; P
Yeah.
You got a tough row to hoe here, Ma'am.
An awful *lotta* this crowd is MAGA people who go ballistic if You say negative things about Trump. Well, You've surely seen that.
Since that's most (not *all*) I got to say about Trump, I've seen it more than most. And the thing that gets me is how sanctimonious a lotta these Trump-voters are. How they hold the right, and always have, and people on the left are despicable. I had this comment, I kid You not. It was the *worst* slur. "You have exposed Yourself as a Democrat." Worse thing You could call someone here. And anybody who says things against Trump are malefactors of the worst sort. Who just don't get it. And some people will say they don't *like* Trump, but will attack You anyway.
And then blame *You* for being condescending and what all.
It's not that I haven't had a large number of very excellent "conversations" here. A *Lotta* them.
But to expect people from the Left to willingly come here and comment and take that kind-a abuse may be too much to ask for. Still, one can hope.
Yes - I've seen some really outrageous comments about Democrats and people on the left in general. Now, to be fair, I can see a lot of polemics aimed at Trump supporters in left leaning blogs as well. But again, this blog advertising itself as a "Common Sense" "moderate middle" place for those on *all sides* it's a bit disconcerting to see such a hard right tilt dominating a lot of the comments, and some serious stereotyping and broad brushed judgements aimed across the hull (and yes, again, that happens in the opposite direction in left leaning blogs too). And I do think that probably turns off some left-moderate "curious readers", and ones who want to even tepidly engage against some of the assertions being made.
Yeah, it takes a certain kind-a person to want to go up against a brick wall again and again. I'd estimate that 95% of the comments are from the Right, a lotta them mine. But since I'm (or I consider myself to be) a Centrist, I'm thought to be more Left than most here.
It does. I've mentioned before, I choose my battles I guess. It's exhausting to repeat the facts and yet continue to run up against the same claims in a subsequent thread - from the same person in many cases lol. Oi.
yeah - definitions of "left and right" are skewed when the "center" here is mostly "Republican who thinks Trump was a great POTUS but shouldn't run again"...
That last is so, So, SO funny, because it's so *true.*
I dunno how much You took in on the comments over in the Barr article. Once in a while I get sick of all the double-talk and just plain illogic of some-a the arguments. Like I "said" in a comment over there. Normally about 95% of the comments are pro-Right. And the majority of them from the MAGA crowd. "NOTHING wrong with Trump" crowd.
I wasn't having it. They come up with many arguments in favor of Trump, and a lotta them I agree with. I think he got a number of things done which were good and needed. I think he hosed up a lot, which doesn't go over to well.
But where I thought he wasn't a very good leader before, all doubt was removed with the run up to Jan. 6. I *read* the plans they made for Pence throwing the election. I don't think, in the end, they would-a *worked.* But if Pence had gone along with it... ? No tellin.
And again, I've said many times that the Rs sent a boy to do a man's job. Trump, I believe very firmly, had the character of slime mold. As I've stated. And I think a lotta Trump's actions were caused, simply, because he was a poor loser.
He convinced himself to listen to people who told him what he wanted to hear. That's one-a the oldest flaws in the book, right?
Anyhoo, short story long...
I picked my battle yesterday. And I answered *most,* if not all, the delusional thinking that I saw. And didn't get any answer, in the end, to contradict me. Puts the kabash on the idea that it's only the leftists who have no interest whatsover in reasoned, measured, thoughtful discussion, in my mind.
TY for "listening," Ma'am.
Ha! I just posted this 10 minutes ago in response to a CM post.
I have observed that, too. I write on Quora, and while there are people on both sides who go straight to ad hominem, that seems to be the default for a lot more people on the Left. If they are asked to explain WHY they think what they do, they either respond with ad hominem attacks or just don't respond at all.
You cannot logic with a fanatic, left or right. I find that most of them are intellectual light weights who because of their lack of, for want of a better word, education feel threatened if you challenge their beliefs.
It seems to me they will believe anything that someone on their side of the fence tells them and instead of researching what they were told, they repeat it as if it came from God him/herself.
We've seen the ad hominem attacks in the comment section here. Profusely. It emanates from all sides. Everyone at either point of the political spectrum has a sacred cow - and no one wants to see it gored.
I would much rather vote on specific issues. Like crime and the border. I happen to think that permissive attitudes about both have created havoc on our country. Only the Republicans seem to address these issues. So for me its not about HRC or Trump (going back) its about WHO is crafting a plan that I feel will fix these things. Respectfully, I don't feel like the Dems or the MSM want to ADMIT these are serious problems. I don't feel heard or understood by Dem Reps. I feel ignored and vilified for even daring to notice these problems. So that is just me, one person, calmly explaining the "why" of my thoughts and decisions. I would respectfully and eagerly listen if any Dem wanted to explain to me why lax policies on crime and the border are good and should continue because I understand sometimes I can miss something.
You want to have national policy governed by referendum??
That's precisely what the Founder sought to avoid, btw. Hence, governing by representation, elected democratically.
I've not seen Republican soliutions to "crime", "the border" and "inflation" versus blaming Democrats for. I'd love to see those policies. Perhaps Republicans should be campaigning with them?
Playing devil's advocate, Skep, Fox is MSM.
As a political reality, people and parties don't ever wanna admit they're wrong.
For example, a lotta anti-abortion people don't wanna admit it's wrong to have an uncompromising attitude, do they? They know they're right, just like the Woke know they're right, right? But Ds, like most people, don't much care for one group forcing their religious views down they're throats, do they? So, if only for a *practical* matter, it would be better to compromise on the issue, right? No, wrong. *Can't* do that.
And I look at it from a longer view. What is it that's given Ds the power they've held over the decades? It's that they were the party of "the little guy." Give money to people that had no income. Feed poor kids. Be in favor of unions, and oppose the owners who ruled them. What's not to like?
Granted, starting with Obama, the Ds started shifting. They're the party of "The Elect" as Professor McWhorter called them. You think Ds see themselves that way. That'd take a major revision of how people see themselves, right?
And I blame the Rs, to a large extent. The Rs have, for the most part, been very good at explaining what they're *against.* Not so good at saying what they're *for.* Reagan being one-a the great exceptions to this rule. Trump a mixed bag in this regard.
I'll admit that anybody can, and everybody *does,* miss things.
Fairly, as the Republican Party has moved ever rightward to the extremes starting with the "Gingrich Revolution" and right wing media.. this has been a "safe space" for Democrats to occupy. Technocratic governing over emotional/reactionary governing. You cannot separate the moves of the Democratic Party to the "educated elite" from the moves of the GOP to the "party of talk radio", and recently, to the "party of Trump".
Doesn't make the Democrats all seeing and knowing, but shit, the alternatives? We badly need a center-right party not infected by the brain prions that the GOP has cultivated since the 90's between conservative media and lately its cultish wagon circling around Donny John Trump..
I think I've used this analogy before, but mebbe not.
The politics of I-dunno-how-many past decades is a house of cards. One card leans into the other card and that forms a base. Takes both cards doing opposite leaning.
And what's happened, as I see it, is now it's concrete slabs leaning almost horizontal.
It's just plain silly to try to argue who started it. Each army of the parties have moved further and further apart. And I'm not so sure it's just the views that become the platforms. It's mainly in how much hate has been ginned up to make sure nobody thinks there's any commonalities between the Ds and the Rs.
The extremes provide the energy to elect people in the primaries. Help out a lot in the general election. And, AFAIK, hatred motivates people more than love. I think it's brain anatomy. People see differences easier than samenesses.
It's still early for a a center-right party. Andrew Yang sure isn't it. May never happen or it may happen too late. At some point in some futures, the whole house-a cards just collapses.
Be both parties fault, of course. And the people in them.
Well dammit. I started typing out a decent reply and then my palm mashed the keyboard and I ended up canceling and deleting the whole post. I'll come back to it later lol.
This is true that there are people on both sides who resort to personal attacks. I take it as a sign of weakness. This place may be the last haven where most people still show respect towards opposite positions and try to use reasonable arguments. But even here, as we can see, we are too divided and too emotional sometimes to listen to one another.
I think you're right. The reason this comment section seems different to me is that people are comfortable explaining the "why" of what they believe. Like in real life people on the left tend to get defensive. When I politely say to someone I know "here is why I personally believe this. Please share why YOU think what you do" they get agitated and start getting hostile or say they won't be participating. No debate and defense of thought.
The most defensiveness I ever see in this Substack comment section is from right-wingers whenever anything critical is said of their beloved God-Emperor Trump. Holy hell do commenters ever get triggered in a hurry when they see their Orange Messiah criticized.
Can I get a witness? Amen lol.
I call that a kind-a reply that comes from a "DTS." It's the opposite of TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome). It stands for Deranged Trump Supporter.
LOL yup :D
"Common Sense" moderates only apply to the Trump side of the aisle it seems. Look, I come here for honest critiques of the "left" I suppose I am in, but the resistance to right leaning critiques of the softest sort from the self-described "moderates" here is something to behold lol..
Yeah, as I explained elsewhere.
I just *hope* I only have a mote in my eye. Even with a plank, it would be hard to miss the planks in others eyes.
Say true :)
Miles you must not read the comments every day. I personally have commented here many times that I wish DT would step out of the spotlight and let others step in. And I have a LOT of company here. I am politely and calmly asking you to "show the work" as they say in kid's math classes. Who are you referring to in this comments section? There are a couple but for the most part it feels like the majority here would like new leadership and they mention specific policies they would like to see worked on and why. Most of the positive DT comments mention the merits of his past policies. The border policies in particular are a STARK contrast between Administrations in cause and effect. I think we can all agree that the results of the current admin are a cluster of serious problems and only appear to be getting more dire.
Even conservatives who would prefer DeSantis or whoever also insist that Trump won the 2020 election (he didn't), and threaten to cancel their subscriptions every time an article is even mildly critical of Trump.
So I have an alternate theory on election denying so please hear me out. I'm not one btw. It feels like a new trend. Like calling everything racism and misogony. HRC stills denies. Abrams still denies. Plenty of Trump fans still deny. Cheney wishes she could but is going with the super trendy "destroying democracy'" trope. Election stealing is the newest overused, diluted and pretty much worthless insult. We should stop listening just like we should with all the other over used phrases and descriptions dujoir. Please take a few minutes to consider that idea. Another idea: In person ONLY voting except very narrow exclusions and wrap things up with the ballot counting immediately. Cut out this extended stuff, make everyone show ID. That would clear this all up for all sides.
I like the 'in person' idea, and I am not a conservative. The irony, of course, is that in the state Donald Trump now calls home, mail in voting is very popular, well run, and lo and behold, he won the state handsomely.
I saw a delightful video on Twitter earlier this morning that compiled Democrat after Democrat claiming that the 2016 election was not legitimate. I guess miles and jt don't remember the whole "not my President" thing that went on for at least two years.
I have very little use for Democrats who claim that Russia bots on Facebook "stole" the election from Hillary in 2016, but are just fine with Facebook throwing their site's entire might against Trump in 2020. My dad (a lifelong Democrat) refuse to suffer hypocrites, and so do I.
If this Substack was riddled with people who insisted Abrams won that election, and threatened to unsubscribe anytime HRC was criticized in any way, I'd point that out as well.
As it happens, all the election deniers and tantrum throwers on this Substack all lean heavily MAGA.
I observe fairly closely. A couple? No, the *majority* here would most certainly *not* like new leadership.
Just count how many times DeSantis's name comes up compared to Trump. You ever heard-a DeSantis being called "THE BEST EVER"?
Nup. It's pretty much everybody-goes-ballistic-time whenever there's an article published here that doesn't go along with Trump's views. And people threatening to cancel their subscriptions? Why does that come up repeatedly?
Sorry, but it's true.
It certainly is true. Common Sense is an anti WOKE, full free speech site that has attracted MAGAlites by the thousands, because they feel they've finally found a home, besotted as they are by the supposed liberalism of mainstream media (okay, it's liberal..). And, as you and I have discussed before, they can be as blinded by their own particular light as the WOKE Far Left that everyone deplores. Trump's actions cannot ever be criticized, and he is the eternal victim.
But we know better. Biden is worthy of criticism and most certainly Trump is, as well.
For real. Bari created a space that turned into a honey pot for right politics to hone in on ("everything we believed about woke is true, and worse") without a counter to the brain prions infecting the right. I haven posted pleas that this substack, to be considered "moderate common sense" needs a more balanced narrative and commentariat.
Pretty much, *everyone* should be upset or "offended" by some article here. Until we realize there's BS on both sides, and it's not all the times equally distributed.
*Very* good job summing it up, Sir Lee.
The thing that bothers me most, I suppose, is that it becomes all about winning, instead-a *doing* something about the state we're in. To try to improve things. For that reason, and what You "said" above, it's the MAGA crowd that are the real RINOs.
They'll never see why that is, 'course.
Ummm ok. You were writing that at exactly the same time I was defending you to another poster but anyway...DeSantis enjoys immense popularity here. With me included. I would pick him over Trump. I appreciate his stand on parental rights, championing and USA first policies. I am grateful for his direction during the pandemic as far as keeping businesses and schools open. I admire that he calls out the current border policies. Willing to politely and calmly debate. What do you not like about DeSantis policies? Keeping personalities out of it what policy do you think is detrimental to the USA? Respectfully yours, S
Give me DeSantis over Trump anytime. Sure I liked TrumpтАЩs policies overall and do think he faced a hostile press and the political opposition unlike anything before or since. Having said that I saw enough things that I didnтАЩt like. With DeSantis I think we get the better qualities of Trump in a much less damaged package.
I think You're missing the point. I view DeSantis with very *high* favorable opinion. From what You just wrote.
You and me don't make up a large number-a people, tho.
As a thought experiment, in Your head, count how many times Trump is praised, and how many DeSantis. No comparison.
And read what I wrote again. Try to explain why the people here go absolutely ballistic when something against Trump is posted. Versus how wildly enthusiastic they are when something goes Trumps way.
The number of people who *don't* like Trump is even less than the number of people who *do* like DeSantis. Basically, so vanishingly small You may as well say zero and You'd be pretty close to correct, right?
I believe this is because they have been TOLD and programmed what to think as opposed to having their own well thought out ideas, that have been discussed and mulled over for some time. When you are programmed to think and say things, you can't articulate why you are saying those things, you can only say them. This is what has happened to many people on the left.
I have family members on the LEFT - when you mention Trump they blurt out that "he is an effen piece of shit"....when you ask them why they feel this way, they can't respond with anything of substance, they just repeat, "he's is an effen piece of shit."
More recently the man standing in front of Trump Tower in NYC being asked about the recent raid he said he was glad that Trump was finally being held accountable for all his crimes and then the reporter asked him, what crimes are you referring to and the man, flustered, couldn't answer and then said, he didn't want to talk about it anymore. That man doesn't know the crimes, he just knows that CNN has told him there are crimes and he has heard this since Aug 2015 and when you hear something enough times, it becomes part of your programming.
This is serious what is happening - many (not all) on the LEFT are automatons for the LEFT (we call them NPCs or non-player characters). Zombies if you will.....repeating their programming and not listening to anyone that has an opposing view points. These people are not reachable. They have been used by the MSM apparatus (Trusted News Initiative) as pawns in their WAR on society and are essentially ruined.
Selecting a random as a representative for the massive population of Americans who are opposed to Donald Trump/and or vote Democratic is a poor sample.
I can provide you with the facts on record:
1. In the 2016 campaign, Trump's campaign, with or without Trumps's direction (although Roger Stone's trial revealed "with") engaged in unethical, if not provably illegal interactions with Russian operatives to share and coordinate campaign operations.Notably, this involved the Trump Campaign's knowing involvement with the DNC hack and release of the materials - and rather than reporting foreign hacking into an American election, they lied about their knowledge and involvement with, and used it anyway. This SHOULD have been disqualifying for Trump's candidacy - a potential American POTUS engaging in the activities that got Nixon impeached, but with a foreign hostile actor. Hmmm.
2. Trump used his Office to pressure a supplicant nation (Ukraine) into participating into his 2020 campaign by producing (fake) dirt about the Bidens. The notable part of this is they only wanted the "announcement" of an investigation, not a conclusion, to use to smear Biden with. He conducted this pressure campaign through back channel "personal" envoys not appointed as diplomats and contrary to official US policy towards Ukraine, in threatening to withhold arms supplies to defend against a Russian incursion with. HMMM. Impeachment # 1.
3) Trump set up the Big Lie for the 2020 election when his Ukraine plans fell through. He was literally telling his supporters anything other than a Trump win in 2020 would be the result of fraud - almost a year before the election. He purposefully created the situation where Trump voters would avoid voting by mail to create the "suspicion" about late counted mail in votes - while having successfully pressured Repbublican officials in key states to only count mail in votes after the same day vote to support his lies.
4) Trump is the first and only POTUS to have refused a peaceful transfer of power. Full Stop. Based on not a single provable conspiracy theory to boot. He has destabilized our election systems, and trained his supporters to view anything other than a Republican win is the result of "fraud".
5) He incited a riot on Jan 6 and sat back and refused to quell it.
6) He attempted to legalize his coup attempts through state official pressures and bribes, along with attempting to subvert the DOJ and DOD leadership prior. Oh, and there's the illegal fake electors scheme he tried to use to force Pence into also engaging in an un-Constitutional (and illegal) counting of votes.
7) He absconded with classified national security data and refused to give it up after a year of the NAR and DOJ playing nice to get it back.
8) He's a genuine con artist and fraud. Every dollar you give to Trump goes to his pockets, not to "fight election fraud" or elect Republicans In His Name. He's scammed his supporters into bankruptcy and default in some cases, with that "convenient" pre-check marked "make my donation automatic" that shows he really doesn't care, do u?
9) He's a general scumbag in the private sector as well. Check his "business history"; filled with defaults to pay honest small business contractors, and the millions he defrauded (and paid in a class action suit settlement) for his fraudulent Trump University.
10) He treats women like objects, full stop, and is gross about his eldest daughter. He "buried" his first ex in a weed patch with a pauper's headstone at one if his golf resorts she never even vistited, for the favorable tax treatment as claiming that resort now as a "burial ground".
11) He has been involved with money laundering since the 80's. For the Italian mobs as well as Russian oligarchs and mobs. His businesses and money is dirty. He's a crap businessman whose entire post-bankruptcy revenue scheme was between a reality TV show that portrayed him as a fake siuccessful "businessman" , to money laundering sanctioned foreign assets through Deutsche Bank through his golf resorts, to now his biggest and best scam is his Trump PACs.
Not a zombie. Fully cognizant of who Trump was before he ran in 2016, and who he is after.
Is that enough to convince you why I loathe this individual :)
Interesting post. Not aware of all that You've posted. I know You're certain of all this, but don't know how thoroughly *documented* all this stuff is.
But gotta say TYTY for going all out and putting Yourself out there, Ma'am.
Oh, and also read "The Dark Towers" book which is more about Deutsche Bank's long and storied history into money laundering, but does highlight it's relationship with Trump, who is, as of date, the only "client" in a very special lending arm of DB that happens to be known for funnelling sanctioned money into US markets for laundering back out, in which the US real estate market and financial disclosure laws are veritable perfect shields for these transactions.
Ask yourself: after Donny's 6'th and final bankruptcy in the early oughts, how did he come up with billions in cash to purchase all those golf resorts IN CASH lol
I'm almost done with "The Dark Towers."
Oh! You don't mean the one by Stephen King, do Ya? ;-)
I would add "Active Measures" documentary to your list as well.. it details both Putin's rise and Russia's election interference tactics as imposed on Ukraine before 2016 as the test case (and hey, features Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort as a key player in both! HMM) as well as Trump's long back history with Russia and money laundering for Russian oligarchs as well as for the Iranian Revolutionary Army (a massively expensive, and empty, Trump Tower was built in a war devastated region of Azerbaijahn with IRA money). It still sits empty in the surrounding rubble I believe.
TY for the recommendation and the rest. I heard-a bit about Manafort. But I just don't have the patience for a documentary. That's my failing. TY again, Ma'am.
Start with the Mueller Report, the Republican Senate Intelligence Committee's report, the Roger Stone trial for the 2016 stuff, the testimonies and documents from Impeachment #1 (and look, Trump himself released the original phone call transcript of the "Perfect Phone Call" which was laid out the entire scheme lol) transcripts as primary sources, but all of that has been well reported and documented in various news articles.
His business history is also well documented - check out (if you have it) Dirty Money on the Trump episodes. There's many other sources and documentaries about his business career as well. Plus the judgement about Trump U as operating as an illegal pyramid scheme is verifiable facts. As well as the collections and spending of his PACs.
And you're welcome : ) I do think it's important to state the reasons why Trump is disliked and why so many feel he had no business serving in the White House based on his business past alone -- and this is hardly an exhaustive list of his "sins". But it's definitely much more than his "personality" and "tone", which I think a lot of Trump supporters have comforted themselves as being the sole problems of an otherwise Super Guy ; P
TY for Your reply, Ma'am.
Do You know why the Mueller Report didn't generate any indictments? I didn't follow it too closely. Dunno about the Roger Stone trial. Did he get charged with anything?
Knew about the phone call, and some-a his business dealings. Don't have Netflix tho, so will take Your word on that.
And TYTY again. :-) Also, with me any billionaire has two strikes against him. I know he's considered the Blue Collar Billionaire, but I don't believe that for a second. That's just me.
Crimes?
I don't know, maybe it's not official yet - Trump was impeached twice, really enjoys Vladimir Putin's company, likes fake electors, calls to find votes and threaten retribution after elections are certified, doesn't quell a riot when he has the time to do it, might have wanted to see his vice president attacked, doesn't like to pay taxes, doesn't fully appreciate the peaceful transfer of power..
What's not to like?
Of course, when I mention stuff like that to MAGA people, it becomes a screaming match (I try not to..)
All to say, Lori, and with all my respect, the 'programming' you describe is well ensconced on both sides.
You didn't list any actual crimes. In my opinion, if they had something on Trump that could truly damage his public image, they would have shared it already. They have been trying since 2015 to find something to ruin his image. But if he says heтАЩs against the Deep State and the Globalist and his actions align with those words, which they have, it will be hard for the Dems to compete. They know this and that is why they need to keep speaking ill of him in the public square (otherwise they might talk about the good he has done for the country) so that the public can never be swayed by him. Always keep the public questioning him. Always cast him in a bad light (blame him for things he hasnтАЩt done, cast the shadow of doubt) and they canтАЩt fall for his America First platform and then they, the Deep State/Globalists still have a chance at their plan. We all see the crowds that gather at his events and the enormous following his message has created. We have all heard firsthand stories of his rallies and how peaceful and unifying they are for the people who attend them. The DEMS have been outed as the Deep State/Globalists that they are, and the people are starting to reject them and their un-America policies. Trump predicted that the MSM would be dead in 6 years and here we are communicating on an alternative news platform.
I can't speak for all people who supported Trump, but for me personally, I like what he represented, which to me was that he wasn't part of the Deep State. He was for the American people. He was against the Globalists and all their highbrow double speak, which to me, as an average American was much needed and a breath of fresh air. Sure heтАЩs bombastic and hard to listen to sometimes, but considering the amount of work before him and opposition he would face, could we really have a soft spoken, hide in the basement type of character? I donтАЩt think so. His narcissistic character traits are well suited for this battle.
I have no loyalty to Trump specifically. We could swap out Trump for anyone else that stands on a platform of America First and defeating the Deep State/Globalist (and one that was not pushing the experimental gene therapy) and I believe they would get wide support. But they would need to have tough skin and be up for the challenge because the Dems do not mess around. They are out for blood because they are trying to destroy America.
I find myself saying things like, тАЬwell if Trump wasn't still in this the Dems would back off and things would settle down and I would like that, as I am sure everyone would. It's been crazy the past 6 years. We all need a break.тАЭ
Then I am reminded that no matter who runs against the Dems, they will continue their forward march to destroy America, and no candidate will be left alone. We aren't getting a break no matter who runs because the Dems are the Deep State/Globalists, and they will fight tooth and nail to move forward with their agenda to destroy America from within. We have been witnessing this since Biden took office. Every day some horrible policy тАУ mandating an experimental therapy, double-speak, changing definitions of words to fit agendas. All with the intention to drive us all MAD.
I ask, тАЬhow can one man (Trump) take so much and keep going? Why hasnтАЩt he given up already and gone back to his quiet, cushy life with all his money where he can be left alone? Why continue to inflict himself and family with the attacks that will not stop, ever? One should ask this question and seriously consider the answer that comes forward.
I don't know what I don't know, and I won't pretend I do. I am just watching and observing from my own place on the planet and with my own perspective. ThatтАЩs all I can do.
I am an American and I am rooting for America and whomever stands before me and truthfully professes that they too are rooting for America. I will support them.
Liking fake (fraudulent) electors is not a crime? If your idea of a crime is being convicted of one, then you are technically right.
But what did we (this country) actually see? Trump attempting to overturn sanctioned state results by either a phone call (recorded) or by agreeing to the antidemocratic attempt to install the wrong electors and to try to convince his hapless Vice President (but who has a thicker skin than Trump does) to do the dirty deed. That was an assault on our constitutional process. And if you don't agree, I suggest you read our storied Constitution.
Trump certainly hasn't.
I've noticed that a lotta people on this forum would prefer to ignore the *facts* of the matter, Sir Lee. They used-ta say that seeing is believing, but that's another old saying that's gone by the wayside in today's advanced world.
Trumps got nothing on me when it comes to rooting for America, and I am NOTHING. In fact, Trump has a lot *less* than me.
Because first, last, and foremost, Trump is for Trump.
You: "We have all heard firsthand stories of his rallies and how peaceful and unifying they are for the people who attend them."
Me? Yeah, they're unifying to the people who attend them. For the people who don't? Not so much. And You should consider that the MAGA crowd is a minority in this world. Yeah, a majority of the Rs, sadly, IMO.
You: "I can't speak for all people who supported Trump, but for me personally, I like what he represented, which to me was that he wasn't part of the Deep State. He was for the American people."
Again, he was for the American people when it suited him. Mainly out for the main chance for himself. And there's a *ton* of people who don't represent the deep state, that don't carry all the disadvantages Trump does. Which are many.
You: "But they would need to have tough skin..."
This is one-a the grand *failures* of Trump. That he'd go ballistic on Twitter and watch TV all the time to see how people reacted to him. I think it was mainly because he *didn't* have a thick skin. Sure, as long as everything is going his way. *Most* people can handle that.
When just about everybody is against You? Well, true, there aren't a lotta people would like to be in that situation. But Trump was at the end of that line, not the beginning.
You: "They are out for blood because they are trying to destroy America"
Me? Yeah, I know.. I know... To You they're subhuman. That's a problem as is the problem that they think the same as You.
You: "Why hasnтАЩt he given up already and gone back to his quiet, cushy life with all his money where he can be left alone?"
If You can't answer that question, You don't know him as well as You think You do. He loves the LIMELIGHT. He loves the POWER. He loves Trump so much that he can't stand losing the last election. So he'll try again. FOR TRUMP, a lot more 'n You.
Me? His crime? There for anybody with eyes to see. He planned to overthrow the election. Which was, frankly, to be expected from a guy like he is.
"Trump is for Trump." not truer words spoken.
Bravo JT :)
Jt, what do you think of this Deep State/Globalist thingy we keep hearing about, as in the post above?
What do you think it means? - a socialist, gay, cosmopolitan, LGBTQ++, communist, UN sanctioned, IMF sponsored satanic cult emanating from somewhere (Davos..) that's going to take over America and turn us all transgender?
To me Globalism is basically consumers like so many posters here buying 90% of their goods from China..
do they even know that?
And the Deep State are the people who'll save our asses when (not if) the next terrorist strike hits on our shores. I'm sure everyone will want the Deep Staters then..
Just my very humble opinion, of course.
This is a typical reply from the right. And if You believe that Trump won the election and it was stolen, then I'm afraid You're from the far-right. I dunno that applies to You tho, so there is that.
jt, you just did exactly what I described Leftists doing on Quora--jumping straight to an ad hominem!
I'm not gonna take that and just let it lay, Celia. Let's look at what I actually *wrote,* as compared to what You imputed.
"This is a typical reply from the right."
Is there any question that this describes the FACTS of the matter, Celia?
"And if You believe that Trump won the election and it was stolen, then I'm afraid You're from the far-right. I dunno that applies to You tho, so there is that."
This wasn't even a comment *about* "Just an observer." It was an observation. You even notice that Celia? No, You did NOT. In fact, I stated that it was an observation that may have nothing at all to DO with him/her.
Now, given that s/he took it *personally* I'd say that it probably did apply. I'd say very *high* probability they're far-right. And I think that's why both s/he and YOU were upset by it all, right?
jt I respectfully ask that you refrain from commenting on my personal political views and attaching labels. If you are interested, you may ask politely, and I can describe where I stand on many political issues. Otherwise, let's stick to discussion that Bari initiated in her writing. BTW, I reacted personally because you replied to MY post. If you did not mean me at all but simply made a general statement, you have to say so and I will accept an apology.
Since I don't owe You an apology, no need for You to accept one or not.
"typical reply" <-- a sneer that suggests that the comment can be dismissed purely because of who wrote it.
"if You believe that Trump won the election" <-- a non-sequitur, accusing the commenter of holding a position that means they can simply be dismissed.
Walking that back with "dunno that applies to You" was weak sauce. Weasel words to pretend you did not mean to offend.
How many times do I have to repeat to you that I DO NOT LIKE TRUMP? I got upset because you went straight to the ad hominem, dismissing Just an observer's comments as worthless instead of engaging in discussion about what was actually said.
Sorry, Celia. You, per usual, are not being objective.
"Typical reply" was a very *slight* sneer, if one at all.
Like I already pointed out, I wasn't even making a comment on the poster. You can call what I write "weasel words" if You want. Doesn't make them so. I stated the fact that I didn't know if what I wrote applied to him/her.
You can say You don't like Trump all You want. And mebbe You're not MAGA. You can claim that too. How did You vote? Correct me if I'm wrong.
In 2016, I and all of the moderates I know voted for Johnson. Hillary was a no go, and Trump was impossible.
In 2020, I and my husband held our noses and voted for Trump. Ordinarily, I would have preferred a moderate Biden, but the behavior of the Democrats since 2016 demonstrated that they were far too insane and far too Woke to be trusted with anything. And as things have turned out, I wasn't wrong about that.
I'll agree that, as far as Biden goes, You weren't wrong.
As far as Trump goes, You were wrong. He was such a poor loser, he refused to turn power over to the elected President. To me and a lotta people, that undoes any possible good he managed to accomplish, which wasn't much.
He had no experience in crafting legislation, and that showed. Executive Orders don't amount to much, unless You get two terms, right? And his "Schedule F," that mebbe *might* have accomplished something? My recollection is that he put it out there 20 days before the election. *Not* a case of better late than never, right?
He always does that. Substack needs a silence function.
Disagree Dr K. jt usually seems pretty fair. Not sure what has shifted today but I'm sure he has his reasons. I'll withhold judgement till I understand more of the motivation.
ha-ha, what shifted today is I said I am not far right, and apparently it triggered jt because he had already formed an opinion about me. But I refuse to be pigeonholed.
If You read what I wrote, literally, You would-a seen that I did *not* try to pigeonhole You.
If You hadn't been "triggered," You would-a seen that. And that I hadn't formed an opinion of You one way or the other. Nice try tho.
And You wouldn't have "respectfully" demanded I apologize. What a joke.
I suppose You one-a those "free speech" advocates?
I am absolutely for free speech. I am not suggesting you be shut off any platform. The Silence function just means that I don't have to read yours (or anyone's) free speech on any particular day. I actually seldom use it on sites that have it -- I usually like to sample all viewpoints. But there are days I would just like to skip threads -- often people just get in a mood and that is a day I wish their stuff would disappear. But I hope those who want to read it continue to be able to do so.
I read lots of threads -- sometimes I just don't want to see a rabbit hole staring at me where I know where the conversation will go; sadly I am not disciplined enough to not read it if it is there...personal failing perhaps.
That's all it takes, tho. Your choice to read, or to not-read, right?
Me? I've never found any need to not-read anything, so far anyway.
Lol...I seldom do either. But having read literally thousands of threads, sometimes the ability to just make one go away will save me some grief and some days that matters -- somehow I need to get real work done. Just looking for a technical tweak of value to me that is easy to do and done many other places. But as I noted, it is a personal failing that I just cannot look away...lol. I should work on that, but always fear I will miss some bon mot.
An ad hominem? To say that a reply that denigrates the Left is something that typically comes from the right?
Gimme a break. That's a pattern anybody who reads these replies could-a given You.
I did not mention Trump in my post. Trump has nothing to do with the subject of our exchange. Let's not get personal here. The main reason I am subscribing is to avoid personal insults common to other social media sites. And I don't believe you are actually responding to what I said in regards to challenges left try to avoid.
I was responding to Your view that quote unquote are not far-right. Do I need to explain further?
And I think You're only partially correct on Your views of the left, at best. I dunno, but I wonder if You talk to people from the left with this view in mind. Or much at all.
I think it's not so much about the unwillingness of the Left to be challenged. I think it may have more to do with whether someone likes to enter a tank with a shark in it.
A colorful analogy..
And yet the Leftist trolls have not driven people away.
The drift toward the Right among commenters has been fairly recent.
I'm sorry, but these comments have always been from the right. And the two Leftist trolls don't signify. Most people that know about them just ignore them, right?
Maybe I've been here longer than you? Not sure. All I know is that when I started commenting here, there were more moderates and fewer from the right.
I was wrong. I've been commenting here since before the first of the year, pretty sure. Can't say for certain when I started, so there is that. But I read before I started commenting, and like I "said..."
I probably started earlier but I didn't comment, I don't think, until first of year. In any event, it's long enough to say the right has been prevalent for a long time, for the reason I gave.
Good on Ya, and Lee too!
There are a few left of center people here..
:)
And IтАЩm here because, like you, I enjoy the exchange of ideas, and in our own small way, reaching across the divide.
One thing I have been struck with reading the Common Sense comments is how many people describe themselves as life-long Democrats who can no longer tolerate the extremism of their party. Many of the "far right" comments seem to come from people who consider themselves left of center, but the center has moved.
I don't think anyone knows where the "center" is right now. I suspect it's now a much larger group of people who don't like the extremes of either party and don't consider themselves in the center, yet that is where they are. Might be half the country at this point.
Extremism exists on both the left and right.
You are right, the center has moved - in such a way it seems, that the fringes of each party appear even further away from whatever constitutes the center.
Perhaps some of us here are trying to reclaim the middle, find some areas we can agree on - and build on that.
I have been an Independent, a Democrat, and a Republican. It's all a sh*t-show masquerading as choice. These labels don't mean what they used to because society has become so absurd. These labels are used to keep society at odds and a society at odds is too busy fighting amongst itself to realize they are being enslaved and ruled over.
I see these labels and their current definitions as a gigantic obstacle that as a society we need to rid ourselves. It's not RED vs BLUE - that is so lame and silly.
They are using these and other WORDS against us. Changing the definitions of things to suit their needs and telling us we are crazy.
We have a uni-party of Elites vs. Society.
The EGO vs. the SOUL.
"The EGO vs. the SOUL."
Very few take on the battle against the ego. IMO, You hafta meditate or pray in a meditative fashion to see the scope of the problem. Me? I'm lousy at that stuff, for the most part.
Right on. Well said Lori.
100%
I heard an interview with Winsome Sears this weekend sharing this very POV
We need more opposing ideas. Logical debate is healthy for a democracy.
Agree. I have mentioned here before I welcome the other side's views. But ask that it stay calm and polite. Also articulate WHY you think something. If you think I am incorrect in my views about the 2 million people that have entered the country from all over the globe please share why YOU feel it is a positive development. Please by all means convince me how this benefits US citizens. Maybe you could change my mind if you actually put in a tiny effort but that's not what happens. Just insults. No one ever DEFENDS that position they just call me names for thinking it is a negative view. It often makes me wonder how many progressives are parents. I never believed in preaching to my children. I told them why I believed something and invited them to come to their own conclusions. What is wrong with that approach?
I took the same approach to parenting.
But you're right--it almost never happens that people on the Left explain *why* they think what they do. They just take their positions as an article of faith. And woe betide anyone who questions their faith!
Which is how I know that Woke-ism is a religion, because that's a normal (though not universal) reaction of the faithful (of any religion) to those who challenge their beliefs.
Echoes of John McWhorter's illuminating tome "Woke Racism." The sanctimony of Far Left and Critical Race Theory pundits he describes as a religion - far more harmful than helpful. Unassailable and beyond reproach. As in blind faith.
Why do I have a hunch you might already have read it..
I haven't. But I came to the same conclusions on my own. Largely because I was subjected to Leftists acting like Fundamentalists when I was in graduate school. I had been subjected to high pressure Fundamentalist Christian conversion tactics by my birthmother and her friends. The people around me in grad school behaved *exactly* the same way--the only difference was WHAT I was required to believe in order to be "saved."
Yes we do. Otherwise we just preach to the choir
Transcripts would be very helpful. It takes much less time to read than to listen, much as I enjoy listening.
Agree. I never listen to podcasts. I like to read.
I do both. I read some articles and others I take with me on my walks. It's nice to have the option. I wish all the articles were audio as well. I spend to much time sitting.
Ditto.
Ditto twice.
Exactly. My phone is used mainly as a phone, not for computing tasks, so when I listen to a podcast I feel trapped at my computer with nothing else to do.
One solution is to use a blue tooth device like wireless ear buds or wireless earphones. Perfect to let you go about your business within the limits of your home WiFi. ThatтАЩs what I do. I love to read also, because I copy and paste or share points of interest, or save segments to my digital notes.
Ditto. And TYTY, M. Weiss (and et al ;-).
I want more articles turned into podcasts. ;) We can have it all! We really can.