Trump voters can´t be neatly pigeonholed. We´re not universally smart or stupid, humble or arrogant, fair-minded or bigoted. Knowing someone voted for Trump tells you very little about them, except perhaps that they somehow managed to escape the cult of what passes for mainstream liberalism.
That´s why I have trouble with those who say "I don´t like you because you voted against me." A person can be sympathetic towards trans youth or abortion-seeking women or undocumented immigrants and still vote for Trump because they prioritize other issues. Like, for instance, avoiding WWIII.
I love how Joy Reid ‘just wants to be left alone’ now that her ideas and party lost the election and are losing their influence over society. No ma’am, we suffered through your appalling arrogance and gaslighting for the last, what, 8 years, and now you’re going to have to hear our ideas for a while. Hopefully a long while.
She's no longer invited to my house, that's for sure. As if she knows anyone who votes for Trump... Prediction: She's going to get fired or a pay cut because of shitty ratings and then promptly cry racism.
Yale prof Timothy Snyder is the darling "intellectual" of the Left who you book on your show or ask to write for your paper so he can tell your audience that Trump is a fascist, and they'll feel like they just earned an A in a seminar on political science.
He has this remarkable ability to speak in a very soft, uninflected voice that creates the illusion of wisdom even as he's uttering nonsense and staring wide-eyed at the camera while hardly blinking.
The good professor was on MSNBC -- of course -- two weeks ago telling Ali Velshi and all 50 or so of his viewers that Trump's voters don't know what to do with themselves because they had been anticipating he would lose:
"Meanwhile, his people -- or many of them anyway -- were all geared up for the idea that he was going to lose the election and that extraordinary action would need to be taken. But wait a minute, he won the election, so maybe, so why do the rest of us have to be rounded up? Where is that energy gonna come from? What are they gonna protest? Why should they storm the Capitol? Their guy's already there."
Snyder is what happens when the comment section of a Robert Reich Substack becomes sentient.
"Snyder is what happens when the comment section of a Robert Reich Substack becomes sentient."
That's good. I can't see myself reading anything Robert Reich has to say, let alone the comments that follow, but I suspect his fans are the same people who leave lots of comments on NYT and WAPO editorials
Again and again and again, the astonishing psychological projection from the left, in this case Timothy Snyder's "A fascist (Trump) is unconcerned with the connection between words and meanings" when this basically describes the entire leftist, progressive project from it's inception.....on the other hand Walter Kirn's mainstream media "big lies" was outstanding!
“Complaining is a choice. And usually a choice antithetical to productivity. There's not much correlation between who complains the most and who has the most objective basis to complain. Mostly it’s a sign of privilege, as much as I hate that term.” — Nate Silver
This is absolutely true, but ubiquitous. In a room of one hundred people looking at an empty run down property, there will be ninety people that can tell you everything wrong and why not to buy it, ten people that can visualize the opportunity and two with the drive, determination and capability to acquire it and build it out. Then once built out, there will be ten of the ninety that maneuver to loot the property away from the two that had the productive talent to build it out.
The Democrats are all of the ten and are over-represented by the ninety. Trump and Musk are the two.
“Two weeks after winning the presidency, Donald Trump has yet to hold a press conference.” — Politico’s Irie Sentner
The bit about the press conference is hilarious, although they at least somewhat tried to push Harris to talk to the press anymore. Meanwhile my sources still can't confirm if Biden has made his way out of the jungle after his last press appearance.
No worries, his staff put one of those Apple ID tags on him. And they keep some ice cream bars handy, in case they need to coax him out from the bushes. Worst case, they have someone checking the lost and found. They have it under control.
Timothy Snyder is hilarious, doesn't he see that all he says also applies 100% to him? A real fascist doesn't care about being called a fascist, it's an accurate description. Xi Jinping wouldn't be offended at being called a marxist or communist.
“In the increasingly non-hypothetical world ruled by far-right Trumpists, the blissful servitude of women must be insured by removing their control over their bodies, and ideally, actually, by removing them from the public sphere altogether.”
Why do these women increasingly sound like they're writing some sort of fan-fiction where powerful, rich men dominate them? Sounds like Handmaids Tale or Fifty Shades of Grey to me. Are these the same types that pay black people to come to their house to berate them as racists (race to dinner)?
“Your semi-regular reminder that if your concern with trans women is that men might claim to self-ID as trans to gain access to women’s spaces and assault them, then your problem is actually with predatory men and not trans women.”
All of the sudden that self-ID becomes invalid if we're talking about a predator? As usual, they want to have it both ways, the same way they are quick to disavow mass-shooters LGBT+ identification. Also it's by no means certain that the "trans" predator doesn't honestly believe themselves to be a woman (penis notwithstanding).
The predator self-IDing as trans is dismissed the same way the Progs claim that failing real-world examples of socialism isn't 'real socialism.' He isn't a 'real Trans.'
Yale law professor Samuel Moyn has admitted that the Liberals were doing what the Conservatives accused them of all these years Lawfare. When do you suppose an Ivy League professor will do the math & admit that the 2020 presidential election was stolen?
One of the things apparent to me, particularly exemplified by Brad's selection of quotes, is the political sides are talking past one another and have no desire to understand the counter narrative or perspective. There are multiple reasons, here are two:
The art of debate is lost; without the discourse and airing of ideas openly we remain at odds.
The acceptance of our side’s rhetoric as gospel, without question.
The editorials and rhetoric represent the individual perspective with little to no consideration of the reasoning of the other side. Media personalities, politicians, pundits and commentators rant whatever comes to mind with no consequence or repercussion. Followers blindly accept the rhetoric and carry it forward dogmatically chanting it as truth, with little question of accuracy or intent. Coupled with the desire to get noticed and stay relevant, talking heads resort to shit posting, making outlandish assertions.
To appreciate other points of view, we must engage in discourse and discussion with people who hold opposing viewpoints. That path leads to understanding that we aren't as far apart on the issues as the media want’s us believe. At this point after the election, most of these comments are not even in public focus. Regular people are thankful for the end of the election and focus on things which matter to them. The rest of this stuff is a luxury of, to quote Sting, "poets, priests and politicians," and the occasional retired person.
"Here we are calling Republicans weird, and we’re the party that makes people put pronouns in their email signature."
This guy is toast in the Dem party, especially in Massachusetts. Maybe he figures since he's going down, anyway, by mentioning he doesn't want his two girls run over by a male in their sports, he may as well go all in by dissing the stupidity of "pronouns"? In my professional life, I've only come across a handful of people who actually put "pronouns" in their email signatures (and in one case it's in her address). All of them women.
Now, I admit this is weird and creepy, but forty years of a relationship makes this seemingly simple issue for these people a lot more complex than they would like to admit.
I look forward to the removal of his books from shelves, and they don't call it "book banning," but "restorative justice."
“Clearly Putin has a type. He likes narcissists and egomaniacs that he knows as a case officer can easily pander to manipulate, to do his dirty work. Russia has been using different levers — whether that’s corruption networks, in this case, it’s influencers like Donald Trump, like Elon Musk, to kind of sow discord.” — Alexander Vindman,
Well, speaking for myself, I set off a couple of decades ago listening to all my liberal friends with a goal to understand their views and be open minded about mine. I now have a self awarded PHD in "liberal studies". Here I'd what I know. They are emotive to a fault... not rational. But unfortunately they are triggered by rational people and crave power and control over them. There is no way to meet them in the middle. They just need to be isolated and kept from power and control.
I too set off on a series of discussions with a liberal relative, thinking surely we could find some common ground. I came to the same conclusion as you. They are emotive, not rational. Therefore discussion is futile. It’s unfortunate, but like everything else in life, we must acknowledge the reality of the situation. Most of these people will never be persuaded by rational discussion. They are what they are, and we never imagine otherwise.
The New Yorker's “The Pain Creating a New Coalition for Trump” contains this jaw-dropping statement: "Yes, ordinary Democrats were relieved that a coherent person could take on Trump...". *Coherent*?
Aside from that, it's a surprisingly honest assessment of the election, considering it's the New Yorker.
Edit to add: on further reflection, "coherent" probably means "not suffering from dementia". So, rather than being clueless, that statement becomes unintentionally funny.
Unfortunately, when discussing politics and culture the New Yorker has become a parody of itself. But the cartoons are often still hilarious. It is like the famous cover were everything east of the Hudson River might as well be a distant country.
A fact which is incorporated in Lionel Shriver's delightful satiric book Mania. My best friend in high school was a Jehovah's Witness, so I found Shriver's book fascinating on an additional level to that of its focus.
I religiously listened to a podcast in the aughts, called irreligiosophy.
I don’t think they are still making new episodes, but their old ones are still up. It’s got some foul language, but the obscenity adds depth. More importantly, their deep dives into various religious theories are enhanced by the guests they host, who are recovering from indoctrination in the religion on topic.
The guests give an added insight into the oppressive nature of being sold a narrow worldview, from birth, and an afterlife to go with it.
On Sharon Stones summation of Trump voters...
Trump voters can´t be neatly pigeonholed. We´re not universally smart or stupid, humble or arrogant, fair-minded or bigoted. Knowing someone voted for Trump tells you very little about them, except perhaps that they somehow managed to escape the cult of what passes for mainstream liberalism.
That´s why I have trouble with those who say "I don´t like you because you voted against me." A person can be sympathetic towards trans youth or abortion-seeking women or undocumented immigrants and still vote for Trump because they prioritize other issues. Like, for instance, avoiding WWIII.
Excellent comment.
Well said, Rainbow.
I love how Joy Reid ‘just wants to be left alone’ now that her ideas and party lost the election and are losing their influence over society. No ma’am, we suffered through your appalling arrogance and gaslighting for the last, what, 8 years, and now you’re going to have to hear our ideas for a while. Hopefully a long while.
She's no longer invited to my house, that's for sure. As if she knows anyone who votes for Trump... Prediction: She's going to get fired or a pay cut because of shitty ratings and then promptly cry racism.
Oh yes! The bullies turn into the victim in the blink of an eye. Ugh, losers. I hope all of MSNBC gets sold at garage sale prices.
Yale prof Timothy Snyder is the darling "intellectual" of the Left who you book on your show or ask to write for your paper so he can tell your audience that Trump is a fascist, and they'll feel like they just earned an A in a seminar on political science.
He has this remarkable ability to speak in a very soft, uninflected voice that creates the illusion of wisdom even as he's uttering nonsense and staring wide-eyed at the camera while hardly blinking.
The good professor was on MSNBC -- of course -- two weeks ago telling Ali Velshi and all 50 or so of his viewers that Trump's voters don't know what to do with themselves because they had been anticipating he would lose:
"Meanwhile, his people -- or many of them anyway -- were all geared up for the idea that he was going to lose the election and that extraordinary action would need to be taken. But wait a minute, he won the election, so maybe, so why do the rest of us have to be rounded up? Where is that energy gonna come from? What are they gonna protest? Why should they storm the Capitol? Their guy's already there."
Snyder is what happens when the comment section of a Robert Reich Substack becomes sentient.
"Snyder is what happens when the comment section of a Robert Reich Substack becomes sentient."
That's good. I can't see myself reading anything Robert Reich has to say, let alone the comments that follow, but I suspect his fans are the same people who leave lots of comments on NYT and WAPO editorials
Again and again and again, the astonishing psychological projection from the left, in this case Timothy Snyder's "A fascist (Trump) is unconcerned with the connection between words and meanings" when this basically describes the entire leftist, progressive project from it's inception.....on the other hand Walter Kirn's mainstream media "big lies" was outstanding!
“Complaining is a choice. And usually a choice antithetical to productivity. There's not much correlation between who complains the most and who has the most objective basis to complain. Mostly it’s a sign of privilege, as much as I hate that term.” — Nate Silver
This is absolutely true, but ubiquitous. In a room of one hundred people looking at an empty run down property, there will be ninety people that can tell you everything wrong and why not to buy it, ten people that can visualize the opportunity and two with the drive, determination and capability to acquire it and build it out. Then once built out, there will be ten of the ninety that maneuver to loot the property away from the two that had the productive talent to build it out.
The Democrats are all of the ten and are over-represented by the ninety. Trump and Musk are the two.
“Two weeks after winning the presidency, Donald Trump has yet to hold a press conference.” — Politico’s Irie Sentner
This has to be satire, right?
The bit about the press conference is hilarious, although they at least somewhat tried to push Harris to talk to the press anymore. Meanwhile my sources still can't confirm if Biden has made his way out of the jungle after his last press appearance.
No worries, his staff put one of those Apple ID tags on him. And they keep some ice cream bars handy, in case they need to coax him out from the bushes. Worst case, they have someone checking the lost and found. They have it under control.
Hopefully he's wearing his "If found please feed ice cream and return to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC" bracelet.
Timothy Snyder is hilarious, doesn't he see that all he says also applies 100% to him? A real fascist doesn't care about being called a fascist, it's an accurate description. Xi Jinping wouldn't be offended at being called a marxist or communist.
“In the increasingly non-hypothetical world ruled by far-right Trumpists, the blissful servitude of women must be insured by removing their control over their bodies, and ideally, actually, by removing them from the public sphere altogether.”
Why do these women increasingly sound like they're writing some sort of fan-fiction where powerful, rich men dominate them? Sounds like Handmaids Tale or Fifty Shades of Grey to me. Are these the same types that pay black people to come to their house to berate them as racists (race to dinner)?
“Your semi-regular reminder that if your concern with trans women is that men might claim to self-ID as trans to gain access to women’s spaces and assault them, then your problem is actually with predatory men and not trans women.”
All of the sudden that self-ID becomes invalid if we're talking about a predator? As usual, they want to have it both ways, the same way they are quick to disavow mass-shooters LGBT+ identification. Also it's by no means certain that the "trans" predator doesn't honestly believe themselves to be a woman (penis notwithstanding).
The predator self-IDing as trans is dismissed the same way the Progs claim that failing real-world examples of socialism isn't 'real socialism.' He isn't a 'real Trans.'
Yeah, also you're not really gay or trans or black if you vote for Trump.
Yale law professor Samuel Moyn has admitted that the Liberals were doing what the Conservatives accused them of all these years Lawfare. When do you suppose an Ivy League professor will do the math & admit that the 2020 presidential election was stolen?
One of the things apparent to me, particularly exemplified by Brad's selection of quotes, is the political sides are talking past one another and have no desire to understand the counter narrative or perspective. There are multiple reasons, here are two:
The art of debate is lost; without the discourse and airing of ideas openly we remain at odds.
The acceptance of our side’s rhetoric as gospel, without question.
The editorials and rhetoric represent the individual perspective with little to no consideration of the reasoning of the other side. Media personalities, politicians, pundits and commentators rant whatever comes to mind with no consequence or repercussion. Followers blindly accept the rhetoric and carry it forward dogmatically chanting it as truth, with little question of accuracy or intent. Coupled with the desire to get noticed and stay relevant, talking heads resort to shit posting, making outlandish assertions.
To appreciate other points of view, we must engage in discourse and discussion with people who hold opposing viewpoints. That path leads to understanding that we aren't as far apart on the issues as the media want’s us believe. At this point after the election, most of these comments are not even in public focus. Regular people are thankful for the end of the election and focus on things which matter to them. The rest of this stuff is a luxury of, to quote Sting, "poets, priests and politicians," and the occasional retired person.
"Here we are calling Republicans weird, and we’re the party that makes people put pronouns in their email signature."
This guy is toast in the Dem party, especially in Massachusetts. Maybe he figures since he's going down, anyway, by mentioning he doesn't want his two girls run over by a male in their sports, he may as well go all in by dissing the stupidity of "pronouns"? In my professional life, I've only come across a handful of people who actually put "pronouns" in their email signatures (and in one case it's in her address). All of them women.
This is so interesting; so revealing and perverse. The irony and hypocrisy is off the charts. WOW.
In response to the Vanity Fair article, the smear campaign against a dead man is beginning. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/28/cormac-mccarthy-vanity-fair
Now, I admit this is weird and creepy, but forty years of a relationship makes this seemingly simple issue for these people a lot more complex than they would like to admit.
I look forward to the removal of his books from shelves, and they don't call it "book banning," but "restorative justice."
I look forward to the carbon-neutral book bonfire.
“Clearly Putin has a type. He likes narcissists and egomaniacs that he knows as a case officer can easily pander to manipulate, to do his dirty work. Russia has been using different levers — whether that’s corruption networks, in this case, it’s influencers like Donald Trump, like Elon Musk, to kind of sow discord.” — Alexander Vindman,
So say’s the narcissist.
Totally unbiased of course being Ukrainian and all...
I am shocked weekly by the absolute delusion of progressives and their lack of self-reflection. Thanks Brad.
Well, speaking for myself, I set off a couple of decades ago listening to all my liberal friends with a goal to understand their views and be open minded about mine. I now have a self awarded PHD in "liberal studies". Here I'd what I know. They are emotive to a fault... not rational. But unfortunately they are triggered by rational people and crave power and control over them. There is no way to meet them in the middle. They just need to be isolated and kept from power and control.
I too set off on a series of discussions with a liberal relative, thinking surely we could find some common ground. I came to the same conclusion as you. They are emotive, not rational. Therefore discussion is futile. It’s unfortunate, but like everything else in life, we must acknowledge the reality of the situation. Most of these people will never be persuaded by rational discussion. They are what they are, and we never imagine otherwise.
Represented in fiction by the villains of Atlas Shrugged.
The New Yorker's “The Pain Creating a New Coalition for Trump” contains this jaw-dropping statement: "Yes, ordinary Democrats were relieved that a coherent person could take on Trump...". *Coherent*?
Aside from that, it's a surprisingly honest assessment of the election, considering it's the New Yorker.
Edit to add: on further reflection, "coherent" probably means "not suffering from dementia". So, rather than being clueless, that statement becomes unintentionally funny.
Unfortunately, when discussing politics and culture the New Yorker has become a parody of itself. But the cartoons are often still hilarious. It is like the famous cover were everything east of the Hudson River might as well be a distant country.
Jehovah’s Witness also demand that you excommunicate family members who leave the Church.
A fact which is incorporated in Lionel Shriver's delightful satiric book Mania. My best friend in high school was a Jehovah's Witness, so I found Shriver's book fascinating on an additional level to that of its focus.
I religiously listened to a podcast in the aughts, called irreligiosophy.
I don’t think they are still making new episodes, but their old ones are still up. It’s got some foul language, but the obscenity adds depth. More importantly, their deep dives into various religious theories are enhanced by the guests they host, who are recovering from indoctrination in the religion on topic.
The guests give an added insight into the oppressive nature of being sold a narrow worldview, from birth, and an afterlife to go with it.