Another contradiction is the increasing anti-semitism of the party whose staunchest members have historically included Jews. The party seems dedicated to pissing off the largest possible number of its own members. Losing the center is a side effect.
It's not that simple. If you've ever been involved with pro-Palestine groups in the West (I have), you'll know that the ranks of the most fervent activists include huge numbers of Jewish people. There is an enormous anti-Zionist Jewish population, much as BLM and other anti-white organisations have huge support from a certain type of white person.
This is not new. Jews have historically been activists in political movements that hated Jews.
There were Jewish activists who helped bring Hitler to power. They thought they would be exempt from the killing.
Jewish activists were prevalent bringing Communism to power in Russia. The Spanish Expulsion, the French Revolution, 1848 revolutions in Europe, I could go on.
Or let's snap forward again to present day, self hating Jew Bernie Sanders' closest allies in the "squad" are all virulently anti-Israel and anti-Semitic. Jewish billionaire George Soros not only funds anti-Israel politicians, he was exposed for funding multiple NGO's in Israel whose sole purpose was to fabricate false accusations against Israel. They all collapsed when Israel passed a law forcing NGO's to declare their funding sources and surprise, they were all Soros. He withdrew the funding when that happened, and they all collapsed, the number of false stories about Israel that appeared in the news fell precipitously.
What is amazing to me about Jewish history is not that they survived. Its that the survived despite themselves.
The middle east currently is in turmoil, the direct result of foreign policy of the Biden administration who foolishly lifted Trump's sanctions on Iran and so indirectly funded Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. Walk through the list of Biden appointees that had a hand in those policies, many if not most are Jews.
What will be most interesting about the Jewish vote is the 2028 election. Trump will have had four years to get Iran under control, expand the Abraham Accords, address the endemic Jew hatred on US campuses and more. I predict that he will do more for both Jews and Israel and peace than anyone thought possible. Will the Jewish voters develop some sense of self preservation as a result? Thousands of years of history suggest not. I feel like this time will be different, and here's a shocker of a prediction for you. Not only will the Jewish voters lean Republican, but the Arabic voters too. Substantial progress on peace is good for everyone except that fringe that wants to impose their belief system on everyone else, or for whom hate is so deeply rooted its become their whole persona. Trump's going to make their lives very difficult.
If your definition/theory requires an argument that most Jews are self-hating anti-semites, probably worth revisiting the theory. There is a difference between anti-semitism and political views on the Middle East/Israel.
It is absolutely a minority that get the full self hating moniker, but there's a surprisingly large number of them. But that still leaves the majority of Jews who may not be politically active, but still vote, and vote on other issues than what's in their best interest as Jews. They cannot conceive of their neighbours rising up to kill them because they are Jews. So they ignore the best interest of Jews and vote on other issues. This is the cycle of history for Jews. They run from pogroms or inquisitions or whatever, find a place that takes them in, get comfortable because they think "it can never happen here"... and then it does. This is the road Canada and the US and Europe are on now. Will there be a course correction? Probably, hopefully. Am I going to keep a bag packed? Yes. Am I going to vote in my best interest as a Jew? Yes. Am I representative of the majority of Jews? No.
Trump has definitely swam in anti-semitic tropes about loyalty, money, etc. more than any Democratic politician of comparable stature. And he has had more suspect bedfellows from the white nationalist crowd.
There are 10 Democratic Senators who are Jewish, 0 Republican. 25 Jewish members of the US House, almost all of them Democrats. Why haven’t Republicans been able to develop as many Jewish leaders and/or attract Jews to their coalition, especially if the opposing party is so much more anti-semitic?
BECAUSE LIKE I TRIED TO EXPLAIN USING SMALL WORDS, JEWS DO NOT VOTE IN THEIR SELF INTEREST AS THEIR HIGHEST PRIORITY.
As for you claims about Trump and Jews, you are living in some kind of alternate universe. You need to get your information from a wider range of sources.
Although there is post-election data about the voting trends of nearly every demographic group you can think off, nearly all of which moved right, I can't find any reliable data about the so-called "Jewish vote". All I can find are wildly varying estimates. Has anyone seen any reliable data on that?
Its hard to pin down because the Jewish community is quite diverse by both population concentration as well as how religious they are.
So Reform Jews voted heavily for Harris, Conservative Jews in the middle, but Orthodox Jews swung hard toward Trump. Secular Jews are all over the map. But you also have to consider geography. Large Jewish population in New York and many of them Orthodox. Lots of Jews in Florida, most of them retired, few of them Orthodox. Lots of Jews in California, many of them far left.
Very hard to pin down a general number when the population itself is so diverse.
At a high level, Jews tend to be white, urban and well educated - among the demographic that swung the least toward Trump. So if your prior was that Jews basically voted the same way they did in ‘20 you’d probably be largely correct.
Thanks for that explanation. It makes total sense to me and I hadn't read about it or heard about it in that model. My intuition is totally on board with that concept. Just curious... Is there any data about that mix and voting pattern?
BTW... That is not much different from the way "the coasts" (I was brought up in a very deep blue coastal state and lived there until I moved to the southwest many years ago) used to think about the "Religious Conservatives", primarily from the Southeast. Out of curiosity, I studied that group and discovered they were far from homogeneous. Yes, it was true that some big majority (not nearly all) were against abortion and some of the extreme left wing social ideas. Many served the country in the military and it seemed nearly all had great respect for those people. Most were classically patriotic. But, beyond that, when it came to the issues that were important to them and influenced their voting patterns, it was more or less the same as the rest of the country: the economy and those they believed would best serve their personal interests.
That was all from my "academic study". In real life, the Southeast was primarily fly-over country for me. But, later in life I had the opportunity to do a few relaxed driving trips through that part of the country and met dozens of individuals. Most recently, I did a Route 66 driving trip from Nashville to Bowling Green to St Louis (where we picked up Rt 66) and then West. We took a few weeks and stayed in several places for a couple of days. A very large part of the trip was through the part of the country we Easterners refered to as "The Bible Belt". We met dozens of people along the way. We had impromtu lunches and dinners with people we'd just met. We visited with people at every stop.
Our real-world experience confirmed my previous "academic study". Some of the nicest people we'd ever met. And although their political views were partly influenced by their religion, their strongest issues were economics and a classic view of patrotism.
In terms of actual hard data, no, but from having followed the issue intensely, the anecdotal evidence seems consistent.
I've done camping trips right across Canada. Huge diversity. But in the rural and small towns, you find the salt of the earth people regardless of their politics.
Funny anecdote about this: This past year I attended Yom Kippur services at a very reformed/humanist/woo congregation. At one point during a less-structured part of the ceremony, a shouting match erupted between pro- and anti- Israel factions of the congregants.
Thoughts About Stuff... It is possibly true that there are some Jews that are part of fundamentally anti-semitic organizations. So what? That doesn't diminish by one iota the bombings and drive-by shootings and a 600% increase in anti-semitic hate crimes in Canada. If you are the victim of an anti-semitic hate crime in Canada (or the U.S.) are you supposed to say, "Oh, it's OK that they bombed my temple, cancelled my career and threatened my family or it's unsafe to walk the street, because some other Jews are members of that group". Is that the logic you are trying to promote?
A 600% increase off a very low base is still a very low number. Also it’s possible incidents that never got reported previously got reported this year amid heightened sensitivity (which would imply the increase is even less).
Obviously as a Jewish person I would prefer no antisemitism, but I can genuinely say I personally have felt no less safe over the past year.
The stats I saw showed that although there was a rightward shift among Jews the large majority still voted for Kamala. Something about liberal politics just jives with Jewish voters.
What I am beginning to notice with this new rise in anti-Semitism in the West since the Oct. 7th attacks is that there really is deep-rooted anti-Semitism in the West and especially in European countries that I was completely ignorant to as an American. The most recent example are the comments I saw from the police following the attacks of Israeli soccer fans in Amsterdam blaming the Israelis because of their chant before the game.
If you read Bari Weiss" "The Free Press" (here on Substack) today's article's include an in-depth and documented analysis of the anti-semitism that now seems imbedded into the daily life in Canada. Hate Crimes against Jews in Canada have increased 600% in the last year, and appear daily, including firebombings and drive-by shhootings. It's not only Europe.
If you are Jewish, it is downright scary to be a Jewish Canadian now.
In fact, if you are Jewish, there is not a country in the developed world that now offers a safe place to live -- except Israel. I would love to hear something contradictory that points out specific countries that a Jew might choose to live in peace.
As a Jewish person I firmly disagree. According to the most recent statistics I can find, around 1,000 Israeli civilians have died since October 7. I can count the number of American Jews killed due to antisemitism in that time on my fingers.
Statistically Israel is much safer that the US, even including those civilians who died. Of course, a lot of the US deaths are inner-city gang violence and not necessarily a risk for everyone.
The lack of acknowledgement and attempt to rectify this stuff by Trudeau and other Western government leaders, whom are mostly left on the political spectrum, shows that anti-Semitism is more than just the loud progressives in the street. Either they have hidden biases and support it themselves or they kowtow to the progressives in the street too much.
My guess is that the Dems either have an issue they can't reconcile among their coalitions, or they think the Jewish vote is safe for the most part. I think they are mistaken if they believe the latter.
I think you are making the mistake Nate is telling you not to make. There is no antisemistism in the Democratic Party. There are some people on the left who are antisemitic. It’s not the same (and in any event I’d note far more antisemitism still comes from the right.)
Not true. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib are members of the Democratic party. The party even lets them sit on committees. And they are very clearly antisemitic.
How do you feel about President Musk’s support of the AfD party in Germany? He has a little more power than a fledgling representative from MN or MI, neither of whom has any real influence.
The vast majority of antisemitism today seems to come from Muslims transplanted to Western democracies who have exported medieval views on women, Jews, and who have no democratic traditions (lower case d). Aided by leftists who are essentially anarchists.
The anti-Semitic wing of the Republican party is a sliver at best. The Dems have a huge and growing anti-Semitic wing and they moderated they pandered to them during the election.
History shows that anti-Semitism thrives on the left, which then blames the right. The Nazis for example were socialists. But they are portrayed today as far right extremists.
Okay... I can't take you seriously anymore. The Nazis were very much NOT socialists; they co-opted the word because it was popular among revolutionary movements in the 1920s when they were first aspiring to political power.
"However, historian of the period Karl Dietrich Bracher has referred to the programme as “propaganda” through which Hitler gained support and then discarded once he achieved power."
So, from your own article, Hitler ran on a socialist platform in a socialist party and then seized power. He became a dictator but left the means of production in private hands. Had he become a dictator who seized the means of production he would have been a communist, like Stalin.
The article is an attempt to whitewash socialism. Once a dictator he wasn't "really" a socialist. So what? Stalin wasn't "really" a communist? No they were dictators, but it was socialism and communism that brought them to power.
But let me put a finer point on it for you. On Oct 7 2023 we saw the horror unfold. I said Israel would have the world's sympathy for two, perhaps three days. I was wrong, we didn't even get two, the river to the sea was being chanted on campuses the next day.
I'm a news junky. So every day I watched reporting from every network. Day after day I watched the lying by omission, the outright lies, the guarded and sometimes overt hate toward Israel. BBC, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, BBC. All of them just watered down Al Jazeera, anti-Semitism with a veneer of fair reporting.
Then I turned to Fox. Wall to wall support for Israel. News anchors reporting facts. Analysts supporting Israel. Political commentators supporting Israel and tearing the biased reporting on other networks to pieces. Interview after interview with Republicans not just supporting Israel, but furious with the lies and deceit being used by the left to bash Israel. Senators, members of congress, one after the other standing up for Israel, AND ALL OF THEM REPUBLICAN, and ALL denouncing the anti-Semitic behaviour on campuses and in the streets.
How many Democrats stood up for Israel? Fetterman for one. A few others. But who did we HEAR from on the Democrat side? Rashida Tlaibe, Ilhan Omar, Cory Booker, AOC, Ayanna Pressley, Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush. Shall I go on? The far left wing of the Democrat party are socialists AND they are universally anti-Israel, spouting narratives that leave no doubt in the minds of the informed that they are anti-Semites as well.
Who are the Jew haters on the Republican side? The neo-Nazis that Trump supposedly said were very fine people? That's what everyone EXCEPT Fox reported. Fox played the whole clip including the part where he said he did NOT mean those specific people, that those ones should be condemned. There's perhaps one Senator I would consider as POSSIBLY being an anti-semite and that's it. I'm LOOKING for it, but I cannot find it. With the Dems its easy.
I challenged one of my cousins to listen to reporting on the war from BBC, CNN and Fox and then tell me if it was even the same war. She refused because Fox was "full of anti-semites". If she had watched for even a few hours, she would have known that's an outright lie. Which would explain I suppose why SHE votes Dem. Jews who get outside their liberal MSM bubble will find a whole party that embraces them and Israel.
Did you collect their ballots? Was Charlottesville a right-wing event or left-wing? Was Tree of Life synagogue killer in Pittsburgh right-wing or left-wing?
Why did 70-80% of Jewish voters go for Harris?
Why don’t they root Democrats have so many Jewish leaders in the party and Republicans so few?
Your rant here is so disingenuous and representative of leftist ideology. It is obvious to any honest broker that those who support the colonizer/victimizer view of Israel are historically part of the Democratic establishment. Really, you know it. As for Charlotttesville - yes, I would say that the hundred or so white supremacists there are probably more likely to be supportive of Republicans. See, it’s not that hard to be honest. Let’s be real though; you pulled one rally from 8 years ago with a hundred or so marchers vs. literally hundreds of thousands in the streets week after week.
So I guess in 50 years, your revisionist history will say the Trumpian moment of Republican Party dominance was actually socialism (it is accurate that Trump has de-emphasized concerns about federal deficits, any challenges to Social Security, etc.).
What is your thought process on 70-80% of Jewish vote for Democrats, several national leaders in Democratic Party who are Jewish and near absence of that in Republican Party?
If Dems are so anti-semitic, why don’t they root out their Jewish leaders and why can’t Republicans attract more Jewish voters?
If you are trying to win power, why would you root out the people who are helping you?
The left wing Labour party in the UK got so anti-Semitic that Jews finally exited en masse. That woke the party up enough that they expelled the main culprits. As for why Jews vote against their best interests, see my comments upthread.
Couple of initial thoughts...I may have more to follow.
1) The Dems tried to position the Omnicause as "something for everyone". Problem is, if you're going to apply a purity test on every jot and tittle, then that big tent will shrink really fast. Furthermore, a grab bag of ideas runs the risk of "something for everyone" becoming "nothing for anyone", even if there is a consistent theme running through it, because everyone's going to veto the olives or whatever topping they don't like on the Super Deluxe Kitchen Sink pizza.
2) When the GOP occupied the moral high ground in terms of public perception in the 80s and maybe into the 90s, it made them vulnerable to accusations of hypocrisy ("Hate Is Not A Family Value"), whether real or unfounded. Even fully acknowledging that the tu quoque is a logical fallacy (not to mention a reverse motte and bailey), those accusations can be sticky in the minds of the public especially among those primed to see things in a black-or-white, "with us or against us" fashion.
That table has now been turned on the Dems. If you're going to have some form of "Moral Majority" or "Woke Omnicause" enforcers, it opens you up to attacks on that flank.
Woke flies in the deepest blue states on the coasts. Much of the rest of the country laughs about it until the language or thought police catch up with them and the get cancelled socially or in their careers.
When you divide the world into "oppressed" and "opressors", and define Jews as oppressors and Blacks as oppressed, you get wide approval of D.E.I. and Black Lives Matter, which are two of the most racist organizations in history. DEI fires or cancels or doesn't hire anyone who doesn't exress deep fealty to the oppressed/oppressor social model. BLM focuse on a totally race-based approach to society.
Not much different from KKK or current White Supremecists or those favoring suppression and/or quota for hiring Blacks. And, BTW, not a lot different from Harvard's history of anti-semitism and quotas for admission of Jews and other minorities.
All those observations are valid in their own way, but they miss the big picture.
"Anti-Trump" was the guiding light by which the Dems have governed for four years. What ever Trump did, reverse it, don't bother to look at the positives or negatives. Whatever Trump advocates for, do the opposite no matter the cost. Consider:
1. Trumps border policies were working. Reversed because they were Trump's. Then they lied about the border being closed.
2. Trumps mid east policies were working. Reversed because they were Trump's. Iran was broke, its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis were all broke, the Palestinian Authority was about to kill its "pay for slay" polices to get US funding back. The Abraham Accords had momentum with more countries ready to sign on, Saudi Arabia was arguably next Peace was breaking out in the middle east. All that destroyed for the sole reason that they were Trump's policies. The current wars in the mid east are the direct outcome of that stupidity.
3. Strategic reserves. When the price of oil went negative, Trump said let's fill up our reserves. We get to top them up and get paid to do it. The Dems stopped it because it was Trump's idea. What kind of a moron turns down the opportunity to top up, not just any reserves, but STRATEGIC RESERVES FOR WAR TIME EMERGENCY USE and get paid to do it? Months later Biden was draining the reserves to drive down the price of oil, which now have to be bought back to refill the reserves.
4. Keystone Pipeline. Cancelled because Trump approved it. If it had been approved, there would have been a lot more Canadian and American oil on the market, far less need to drain the reserves.
I could go on, its a long list, and as far as I am concerned, each one a tragedy. But ultimately that was the undoing of the current Democrat party. They weren't focused on what was good for the country. They were focused on being anti-Trump. Next to this, the contradictions within the party are just noise.
COVID restrictions for sure. Even when science no longer supported lockdowns and other measures, Dems kept kids out of school. Several of my left-leaning friends had irrational fears about COVID. This is due in no small part to the reflexive "anti-Trump" view of many on the Left.
When you start acting this way, you're no better than the people on the right you have been criticizing. Remember when the GOP opposed Obamacare simply because it was Obama proposing it, even though it was a GOP idea and they initially signed off with their support as a compromise? I always said that Obama should have proposed removing all gun laws, a massive tax cut for the wealthiest, and eliminating the safety net. The GOP would have reflexively opposed him and he could have pushed bills through that strengthened gun laws, raised taxes, and built the safety net.
Recently someone showd me a Key and Peele skit where this played out. So it wasn't just me!
It is absolutely reflex for both parties to oppose anything and everything from the other party. Often when I dig deep though, I find a poison pill in many bills. Yes here’s this great bill to improve drug safety but it has this clause that would make baby formula classed as a drug. So the other side says no way and the proposing side gets on the media and says see, they are against improving drug safety but. I’m just making up an example here to illustrate a point. Both sides do it, both sides table bills hundred of pages long with no time to read them, both sides use ear marks to appropriate money for pet projects that have nothing to do with the bill.
But all that said, the determination to undo every Trump executive order, every policy, every strategy, was obviously and systematically carried out for the express purpose or reversing anything Trump did. In 50 years of watching American politics on a daily basis, it was the first time I’d ever seen such a thorough undoing of the previous administration. Usually there’s an evaluation of what works and what doesn’t and the stuff that’s working gets left in place. In this case I watched in utter amazement as Biden set out to erase everything Trump simply because it was Trump. I think the damage to the US and the world was substantial.
In addition to those key points. The MSM has difficulty acknowledging almost any fact which could be interpreted as pro-Trump. The lawfare was idiotic but an exception was made because it was Trump, and Kathy Hochul reassured business community that these spurious legal methods would not apply to others. More directly, Biden was unquestionably “as smart as a tack” until one day when he wasn’t. Cmon man.
I disagree strongly that WH policies were guided by the principle they must be "Anti-Trump". I don't see that being the case for a single thing you have listed - and I am not necessarily disagreeing with you that some of them were bad policies, I just don't see any evidence that the policies were guided by being anti-Trump. Policies were guided to some degree by different principles or philosophies, and to some degree due to repsonding to a different set of lobbying groups.
If one cannot attribute those policies to being anti-Trump, one would have to come up with an alternate explanation. Rank stupidity comes to mind, but nothing else.
I could list many more. Broaden your sources of information. You're living in a bubble.
I'm glad there's more pushback lately to partisans calling someone's politics "incoherent" for not lining up with a party. I once heard someone describe being prochoice and wanting better border enforcement incoherent, as if those to views were naturally at odds despite having no relation to each other.
Our parties are the ones with incoherent policies, much more so than voters. Freedom is freedom. Where is the party that believes in regulated free markets (Adam Smith-labor and capital both having a say, not monopolistic oligarchs), the benefits of capitalism to all of society, the freedom to do as one so chooses as long as it doesn't impose on others, and guaranteeing equlity of opportunity (good schools, everyone has a shot at life)? The Dems believe in perhaps a couple of the points above, the GOP none really.
In other words, what political philosophers call "Western Liberalism" and building a successful society where all benefit?
It is mentioned that Republicans have plenty of contradictions too, but I would argue that by glossing over those contradictions and talking about how the Democrats' contradictions are "more apparent" this post misses the true underlying factor behind one party seemingly being more divided than the other: the importance of leadership. In the Republican coalition under Trump, there are deep and seemingly intractable ideological divides. Trump has appealed to those who are skeptical of America's role in the world, but he also appealed to China hawks and has favored greater military spending, in the process improving his numbers with both Jewish and Arab voters. Trump has kept traditional fiscal conservatives on board by promising deregulation and tax cuts, while also making overtures to the working class with his rhetoric on tariffs and winning over the union rank-and-file by shunning Republican orthodoxy on labor unions. Trump has held onto his support with the religious right despite taking a more pro-abortion stance than most Republicans. Yet despite these contradictions, Trump has united the disparate elements of his coalition around himself. This can be partly attributed to grievances and partly due to his strong political base pressuring elites to fall in line. But it also involves good instincts and clever political posturing by Trump and his team: he has made himself the champion of the two issues (immigration and wokeness) that unite all corners of his coalition and hammered on these constantly, and he appeals just enough to each of the different factions of the coalition to convince them that a Trump presidency would at least be better than the status quo. By contrast, the Democrats don't have a leader who can navigate their party's contradictions in a similar way, and the result is groups of potential voters feeling alienated and unrepresented by the Democratic Party. I would argue that all of the most successful presidential candidates in recent times have been those who were best able to get different factions of their party who openly disagree with each other on important issues to unite around their candidacy.
The difference is the Democrats are coming out of the woods after 20 years,
and the Republicans have decided they are going into the woods for a time.
These issues that are mentioned were borne of and have existed since the Clinton era. It's really quite the scam if you can pull it off, since social issues are basically eternal and impossible to quickly reconcile, but can be assuaged with pandering and token gestures which are, cheap. The problem is that it draws air from the bread and butter issues that people needs *something ducking done about* and *won't* be assuaged with pandering.
There's a bright side for you Democrats: Like I said, you're coming out of the woods. You're side is finally talking and having those discussions that you need to have. For the most part, none of your issues are so divisive that you can't make them work if you just spend some time working on the other side.
Honestly, if the Democrats can sober up, the turn around from this election could be as mind blowing as the Republican's recovery from Nixon into the Regan Era.
The Republicans however are about to drink deep of the same poison that allowed the Clintons to run amok for 26 years. Except that Trump is a Clinton without even Bill's limited sense of moderation. He's already pulling the money out of the local states like the Clinton's did. Filling the Republican party with Nepo and VIP-hires, and building up the war chest by pumping his base dry at the cost of local races.
There are some differences of course, Billy Boy preferred to run his operation Boss Hog style, low key but with everyone giving him a nod and a share, but Trump prefers visibly making people kiss the ring and just takes the bribes in open daylight. That may speed up the clean up process once he's out of politics for good, but I was *really hoping the conservatives had got it out of their system in 2020*, but apparently the draw of a good ol' boy playing the charisma game one of those things that crosses the political isles.
Everyone is a hypocrite and inconsistent in their views to varying degrees, but the Democrats just passed a threshold that is no longer tolerable by the mass of Americans. Republicans being more transactional has it's advantage now that people are beginning to be a bit less influenced and more critical of saccharine and moral political platitudes like Hope.
This is a pet peeve of mine. I hear my political beliefs called “incoherent” all the time. Let me give you a lil rundown.
— Pro union except for public sector unions.
— Into deregulation of small businesses, though not of larger ones.
— Against abortion, against capital punishment, against euthanasia.
— View immigrants very warmly
— Think nuclear is the best way to achieve lower carbon emission goals
— Support some form of universal access to healthcare but am deeply skeptical of single-payer
— Tend to take some variation of an originalist view when it comes to constitutional questions
I could go on. Super “incoherent;” I vote third party or write in. But the thing is — it’s *not* incoherent. I’m a devout Catholic and my politics are shaped by Catholic Social Teaching which is its own whole perfectly coherent thing. (And Burke. Really into Burke.)
It annoys me because while I certainly don’t expect random interlocutors to be able to immediately make the connection on their own, then spontaneously quote JPII or something as demonstration of their understanding, I *do* think it should be more common among the chattering classes to at least understand that *political philosophies exist,* and that when someone’s views don’t make immediate sense in a two-party framework, the thought “hmmm, I wonder if there is an underlying unity here I am unfamiliar with” should come to mind way sooner than “this person is obviously incoherent because of their ignorance.”
You can be as anti-abortion as you like. You never have to get one yourself if you don't want to, and no Catholic hospital has to offer one. Removing other women's legal ability to get the abortion care they need leads to unnecessary deaths of expectant mothers, destruction of women's future fertility, and negative mental and economic outcomes for women compelled to carry to term (which then has downstream effects on other children, if they have them). Not a very pro-life stance, considering that you're also against euthanasia and the death penalty.
You’re not going to convince me or anyone else to change their mind on abortion by jumping into an unrelated conversation (I wasn’t inviting debate; I was using my positions as an example of an ideologically coherent but cross-cutting partisan set of beliefs), and especially not if the way you choose to jump in is by using lines that read as condescending and dismissive, just picking a fight, like “just don’t have one then.”
I was pro-choice for my entire life until changing my mind at age 35, and my mind changed because the pro-life people I spoke with honestly engaged me and my questions, never strawmanning or insulting my position, asking questions when they didn’t understand my stance, and generally just treating me as a human being, not as a vile godless baby-murderer or whatever.
To be fair I don’t really want you to succeed in changing anyone’s mind, because I have become deeply convinced of the immorality of abortion, but everyone’s lives are improved by an improved quality of debate, so. I would recommend you change your tactics.
Thank you for sharing your comments here. I'm Catholic too, and while I'm probably somewhat more conservative than you in general, I understand and respect your ideology. I'm guessing you're familiar with it already, but just in case, I should mention that the little-known American Solidarity Party is basically an exact match for your ideology.
Abortion policy is an interesting area of politics. My experience is that many people are pro-choice without giving it much thought, simply because they associate it with individual freedom and women's rights. I find it interesting that although the Democratic Party is associated with science and logic, pro-choice sentiment often depends on ignorance about biology.
About ten years ago, when I was newly pro-life, I joined a small group in praying outside a local abortion facility. A young man and woman stopped to talk to us; they were skeptical but curious of our stance. The woman said that she could understand opposing abortion after a heartbeat is present, but that before that it's basically a clump of cells. I said that even in that case, a heartbeat is present at about 4-6 weeks, so many abortions are after. They were both skeptical of that, and the woman said that she thought it was more like 3-4 months. The guy said that he'd look it up on his phone, and a minute later, told her that surprisingly I was correct. They both said that they'd have to give their stances some more thought based on that information and thanked me for the dialog. That experience had a profound impact on how I see the abortion debate in America.
They can't understand that any more than they would be able to understand how two people with a similar background can have a vastly different read on a 'core issue' without being politically inconsistent.
It is simple, the Democrats must find the right course and the right people to repopulate, rebuild, and strengthen Democratic presence in all 50 state legislatures and all 50 governor mansions. They have been focusing way too much on Washington and losing their roots throughout the country.
You say Biden "lied" about pardoning his son. But did he lie, or did he change his mind? I don't have any idea, and neither does Nate. But I think labelling it a lie represents a certain sensibility. I've also seen Nate say "Biden is only functional 6 hours a day, so is not capable of acting as President" based on reports from unidentified sources. I understand Nate is more of a Democrat than not, and I share some of his dissatisfaction with Biden, mostly about his decision to run again, which I'd agree with him is selfish. But I do believe Nate has some kind of bias or anger or prejudice against the guy. It's certainly entirely possible Biden would not have pardoned his son is Kamala had won. Or maybe he would have. But I think Nate is making clear a certain kind of bias. And that's OK, but he should acknowledge whatever it is
There is sourced, reputable reporting that Biden's inner circle was already discussing a plan to pardon Hunter while continuing to tell the public he wouldn't back in June. He absolutely lied about it.
You can't say "sourced, reputable reporting" without acknowledging it ain't necessarily true. Maybe it is, but it's the leap from "seems like" to "clearly this happened" is a big one. You may infer that's what happened, and you might be right, but that's as far as you can take it. The other side of this is "politician gonna politician". Maybe they did deceive the public. OMG! That's never happened before in politics, right?
He lied, but no about pardoning his son. He pardoned himself.
The pardon isn't for something he was convicted of like tax evasion or lying on a firearm application. It covers all crimes that he may or may not have committed over the period of time just before Hunter joined Burisma. It covers the time period when Hunter was evidently shaking down the Chinese. It covers the entire time "10% for the Big Guy" was going on. So now prosecutors can no longer pressure Hunter with threat of conviction to testify against his father.
Let's be clear here. In terms of crimes, it was Joe's influence that was being peddled, Hunter was just the broker. That a Vice-President of the United States may have been selling influence to enemies of the United States is horrifying. That he made himself immune from prosecution by pardoning his broker is worse.
He not only lied about pardoning Hunter he told a MASSIVE lie about why.
It isn't "Information sources". It's actual evidence, of which there isn't any unless you can put it in a reply to this email. You know, something that even a reasonable Democrat would believe. Otherwise it's just rumors
Hunter got a highly paid position on the board of Bursima despite having 0 qualifications for being on that board. A Ukrainian prosecutor was looking into corruption at Burisma and then VP Biden threatened to withhold aid unless the prosecutor was fired. The prosecutor was fired, and we know all of this because Biden bragged about it, on video, to the press. https://youtu.be/UXA--dj2-CY All of this is public knowledge. So why does Hunter's pardon start just before he joined the board, and why does it cover so many years in which Hunter hasn't been charged with anything? If he didn't do anything illegal during that time period, why cover that time period with a pardon? Obviously Joe was worried about something Hunter could be charged with, go ask him what it was.
These aren't Republican talking points. They are logic applied to known information. Its a discussion forum, not a trial in front of a judge.
You mean my "information sources" do not include wild accusations made by Rudi Giuliani? For various reasons, I have been following these issues in Ukraine for years. You provide (below) some very rough framework around things we "do" know concerning Hunter Biden, but no evidence whatsoever for a link to his father's politics. The alledged corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine was under investigations for years - we all know that corruption in Ukraine is widespread, but there is no concrete evidence linking such things to Joe Biden. Concerning Hunter, he tried to peddle his name in numerous places, but there is no evidence that it ever led to foreigners (in Ukraine or elsewhere) ever getting anything out of the US government in general, or Joe Biden specifically. Pardoning Hunter back to 2014 might also be considered logical, if you believe, with justification, that the GOP is never going to leave him alone.
That is clear! But this does not in any way directly relate to any actions taken by his father, nor even corruption. Corporate advisory boards all over the world are filled with "names" - more often than not, the people filling these positions get paid for doing next to nothing. Its sad, Hunter's life is sad and pathetic (but also filled with Trauma for which he was not responsible). It does not mean that his father had anything to do with these things, other than sharing a name.
Exactly! Prosecutors in the upcoming trial made clear they were going to introduce evidence that showed the source and destination of the funds. Not just the amounts that Hunter handled. The point was to force the defense into a plea bargain. JRB protected his and his family's reputation. This wasn't about protecting Hunter.
So they had all this damning evidence but forgot to show it publicly? Where is this evidence, that apparently nobody can reveal because of Biden's pardon? And I'm supposed to buy that because, what?"
This just sounds like Republican talking points. DO you have ANY evidence that's what happened, or just a "someone said they talked to someone who knows, and here's what they think". You act like the Repubs were just magically unable to actually show the evidence in their 10,000 committee hearings. So what did you hear?
Are you of the impression that I'm in the FBI or DOJ or some other organization that would give me access to that kind of information?
What I heard and what I saw. Hunter got a highly paid position on the board of Bursima despite having 0 qualifications for being on that board. A Ukrainian prosecutor was looking into corruption at Burisma and then VP Biden threatened to withhold aid unless the prosecutor was fired. The prosecutor was fired, and we know all of this because Biden bragged about it, on video, to the press. https://youtu.be/UXA--dj2-CY All of this is public knowledge. So why does Hunter's pardon start just before he joined the board, and why does it cover so many years in which Hunter hasn't been charged with anything? If he didn't do anything illegal during that time period, why cover that time period with a pardon? Obviously Joe was worried about something Hunter could be charged with, go ask him what it was.
These aren't Republican talking points. They are logic applied to known information. Its a discussion forum, not a trial in front of a judge.
Nothing is obvious to me at all. Pardoning him back to 2014 might simply be an action trying to stop the soon-to-be politicized FBI and other intelligence agencies from perpetually persecuting Hunter Biden. Lots of people get board jobs both domestically and internationally, for no other reason than a person's name - with all kinds of sinister motives, but it does not necessarily mean these people can "deliver" anything useful. The world is full of this nonsense, unfortunately.
News flash, they are politicized now, the backlash from that delivered a lot of votes to Trump. He's interested in cleaning that up, not making it worse. Hunter isn't even on his top 100 list.
I think it’s unambiguous that the Biden camp lied at some point about how committed they were to not pardoning Hunter. If you want to absolve Biden because he doesn’t have mental capacity that’s fine, but we do have his Press Secretary saying “Our answer [on pardoning Hunter] stands, which is no” after the election on Nov 7 and the senior deputy press Secretary saying “I don’t have anything to add to what he’s said already” on Nov. 26. The Biden camp definitely, at a bare minimum, heavily implied that they weren’t going to pardon Hunter even after the election. If Biden (or his camp) felt strongly enough to vow categorically against pardoning Hunter before and after the election them later (in one case less than a week later) “changing their mind” suggests that they lied about their commitment to that course of action.
I’m sorry, if you’re a politician and you say over and over again, without qualification, “I’m not going to do X” and your major surrogates are out there saying, without qualification “He’s not going to do X”, you’ve committed to not doing X. If you turn around and then do X, you’re not entitled to the benefit of the doubt as to whether you had a sudden change of heart (absent an act of God) because you categorically denied that you ever were going to do X.
All the while that Biden and his surrogates were vowing not to pardon Hunter, Trump’s election and the kind of nominees he would appoint were a foreseeable and highly possible outcome, Biden’s not entitled to “change his mind” based on that outcome because he categorically denied the possibility of pardoning Hunter while that outcome was plainly possible. If Biden had said “we don’t plan to pardon Hunter at this time, but…” nobody would accuse him of lying, but that would have been used against him and Kamala in the campaign, instead he trotted out his surrogates over and over again to vow that he’s not pardoning Hunter and then turned around and did it anyway. It’s one hell of a sudden change of heart to go from “Our position has not changed (from a categorical no)” to “Okay, he’s pardoned” in less than a week, which suggests that they lied when they gave that categorical no (I.e. it wasn’t as categorical as they led the American people to believe)
You can not care about politicians lying. You can think that Biden deserved to use his raw power to benefit him and his son, but Biden (or his team) lied (at the very least by implication) about being categorically unwilling to pardon Hunter.
When one looks at the available evidence and draws negative conclusions about someone based on that evidence, it does not imply that one has a bias against that person.
Based on obvious, widely available evidence, anyone can see that (1) Biden appears to be cognitively impaired, and (2) Biden appears to have lied about pardoning his son. Maybe one or both of these appearances is an illusion. But it's no indication of anti-Biden bias to believe that obvious appearances represent reality.
I mean no offense, and I am not saying that you are doing this (I have no idea of your motivations), but...Hiding behind semantics is typically how Democrats obfuscate the truth.
Here are some examples:
Inappropriately modifying the White House transcriptionist work to move a comma so they could use semantics to justify Biden's statements (in fairness, this statement probably was a case of dementia, but changing the transcripts was inappropriate and highlights the issue nicely).
"Defund the police" really doesn't mean defunding the police.
Being a "transitional" or placeholder candidate encompasses a second term for an individual well into their 80s.
The most violent protests since the 1970's were mostly peaceful.
Mass gatherings are irresponsible and even immoral, unless they are associated with racial justice
Harris was not the border czar but was instead in charge of "root causes."
Other favorites of mine (less common but uniquely dishonest) include things like:
Police funding absorbs 40% (give or take) of local general funds...true except that if you dig into the numbers this amounts to about 3.5% of state and local funding...its a great way to deceive people into thinking that police budgets are large relative to other spending when, in fact, they are minuscule.
The entire argument about mass incarceration being driven by non-violent, low-level drug users... is often followed up with numbers from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (where 45% of inmates are drug-related but are not low-level) and disregarding that state prisons, where most prisoners reside, are overwhelmingly filled with either individuals whose committed a violent to get there or individuals whose sentence was enhanced due to past violent crimes. In fairness...this was debunked by the "liberal" but basically democrats Nate mentions.
It is this massive dishonesty (again not by you but more broadly by the democratic party) that makes the many very legitimate appeals about Trump being a liar fall flat.
Trump lies, but the Democrats use these arguments to deceive. They are the only ones who buy this nonsense...and unfortunately for all of us, the typical voter decided Trump was better. However, given the argument that Biden did not lie in this case but just changed his mind, I can understand why they made that decision.
Basically, my autopsy of the Dem party is that since Clinton (who I voted for) got away with using the definition of the word "is" as in "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
Another contradiction is the increasing anti-semitism of the party whose staunchest members have historically included Jews. The party seems dedicated to pissing off the largest possible number of its own members. Losing the center is a side effect.
It's not that simple. If you've ever been involved with pro-Palestine groups in the West (I have), you'll know that the ranks of the most fervent activists include huge numbers of Jewish people. There is an enormous anti-Zionist Jewish population, much as BLM and other anti-white organisations have huge support from a certain type of white person.
This is not new. Jews have historically been activists in political movements that hated Jews.
There were Jewish activists who helped bring Hitler to power. They thought they would be exempt from the killing.
Jewish activists were prevalent bringing Communism to power in Russia. The Spanish Expulsion, the French Revolution, 1848 revolutions in Europe, I could go on.
Or let's snap forward again to present day, self hating Jew Bernie Sanders' closest allies in the "squad" are all virulently anti-Israel and anti-Semitic. Jewish billionaire George Soros not only funds anti-Israel politicians, he was exposed for funding multiple NGO's in Israel whose sole purpose was to fabricate false accusations against Israel. They all collapsed when Israel passed a law forcing NGO's to declare their funding sources and surprise, they were all Soros. He withdrew the funding when that happened, and they all collapsed, the number of false stories about Israel that appeared in the news fell precipitously.
What is amazing to me about Jewish history is not that they survived. Its that the survived despite themselves.
The middle east currently is in turmoil, the direct result of foreign policy of the Biden administration who foolishly lifted Trump's sanctions on Iran and so indirectly funded Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. Walk through the list of Biden appointees that had a hand in those policies, many if not most are Jews.
What will be most interesting about the Jewish vote is the 2028 election. Trump will have had four years to get Iran under control, expand the Abraham Accords, address the endemic Jew hatred on US campuses and more. I predict that he will do more for both Jews and Israel and peace than anyone thought possible. Will the Jewish voters develop some sense of self preservation as a result? Thousands of years of history suggest not. I feel like this time will be different, and here's a shocker of a prediction for you. Not only will the Jewish voters lean Republican, but the Arabic voters too. Substantial progress on peace is good for everyone except that fringe that wants to impose their belief system on everyone else, or for whom hate is so deeply rooted its become their whole persona. Trump's going to make their lives very difficult.
If your definition/theory requires an argument that most Jews are self-hating anti-semites, probably worth revisiting the theory. There is a difference between anti-semitism and political views on the Middle East/Israel.
At no time did I see most Jews.
It is absolutely a minority that get the full self hating moniker, but there's a surprisingly large number of them. But that still leaves the majority of Jews who may not be politically active, but still vote, and vote on other issues than what's in their best interest as Jews. They cannot conceive of their neighbours rising up to kill them because they are Jews. So they ignore the best interest of Jews and vote on other issues. This is the cycle of history for Jews. They run from pogroms or inquisitions or whatever, find a place that takes them in, get comfortable because they think "it can never happen here"... and then it does. This is the road Canada and the US and Europe are on now. Will there be a course correction? Probably, hopefully. Am I going to keep a bag packed? Yes. Am I going to vote in my best interest as a Jew? Yes. Am I representative of the majority of Jews? No.
Trump has definitely swam in anti-semitic tropes about loyalty, money, etc. more than any Democratic politician of comparable stature. And he has had more suspect bedfellows from the white nationalist crowd.
There are 10 Democratic Senators who are Jewish, 0 Republican. 25 Jewish members of the US House, almost all of them Democrats. Why haven’t Republicans been able to develop as many Jewish leaders and/or attract Jews to their coalition, especially if the opposing party is so much more anti-semitic?
BECAUSE LIKE I TRIED TO EXPLAIN USING SMALL WORDS, JEWS DO NOT VOTE IN THEIR SELF INTEREST AS THEIR HIGHEST PRIORITY.
As for you claims about Trump and Jews, you are living in some kind of alternate universe. You need to get your information from a wider range of sources.
Great post…I wish I could like it 1000 times!
Although there is post-election data about the voting trends of nearly every demographic group you can think off, nearly all of which moved right, I can't find any reliable data about the so-called "Jewish vote". All I can find are wildly varying estimates. Has anyone seen any reliable data on that?
Its hard to pin down because the Jewish community is quite diverse by both population concentration as well as how religious they are.
So Reform Jews voted heavily for Harris, Conservative Jews in the middle, but Orthodox Jews swung hard toward Trump. Secular Jews are all over the map. But you also have to consider geography. Large Jewish population in New York and many of them Orthodox. Lots of Jews in Florida, most of them retired, few of them Orthodox. Lots of Jews in California, many of them far left.
Very hard to pin down a general number when the population itself is so diverse.
At a high level, Jews tend to be white, urban and well educated - among the demographic that swung the least toward Trump. So if your prior was that Jews basically voted the same way they did in ‘20 you’d probably be largely correct.
David,
Thanks for that explanation. It makes total sense to me and I hadn't read about it or heard about it in that model. My intuition is totally on board with that concept. Just curious... Is there any data about that mix and voting pattern?
BTW... That is not much different from the way "the coasts" (I was brought up in a very deep blue coastal state and lived there until I moved to the southwest many years ago) used to think about the "Religious Conservatives", primarily from the Southeast. Out of curiosity, I studied that group and discovered they were far from homogeneous. Yes, it was true that some big majority (not nearly all) were against abortion and some of the extreme left wing social ideas. Many served the country in the military and it seemed nearly all had great respect for those people. Most were classically patriotic. But, beyond that, when it came to the issues that were important to them and influenced their voting patterns, it was more or less the same as the rest of the country: the economy and those they believed would best serve their personal interests.
That was all from my "academic study". In real life, the Southeast was primarily fly-over country for me. But, later in life I had the opportunity to do a few relaxed driving trips through that part of the country and met dozens of individuals. Most recently, I did a Route 66 driving trip from Nashville to Bowling Green to St Louis (where we picked up Rt 66) and then West. We took a few weeks and stayed in several places for a couple of days. A very large part of the trip was through the part of the country we Easterners refered to as "The Bible Belt". We met dozens of people along the way. We had impromtu lunches and dinners with people we'd just met. We visited with people at every stop.
Our real-world experience confirmed my previous "academic study". Some of the nicest people we'd ever met. And although their political views were partly influenced by their religion, their strongest issues were economics and a classic view of patrotism.
In terms of actual hard data, no, but from having followed the issue intensely, the anecdotal evidence seems consistent.
I've done camping trips right across Canada. Huge diversity. But in the rural and small towns, you find the salt of the earth people regardless of their politics.
Funny anecdote about this: This past year I attended Yom Kippur services at a very reformed/humanist/woo congregation. At one point during a less-structured part of the ceremony, a shouting match erupted between pro- and anti- Israel factions of the congregants.
Right! Honestly, Jews seem to care more about Gaza than most Palestinians do.
Thoughts About Stuff... It is possibly true that there are some Jews that are part of fundamentally anti-semitic organizations. So what? That doesn't diminish by one iota the bombings and drive-by shootings and a 600% increase in anti-semitic hate crimes in Canada. If you are the victim of an anti-semitic hate crime in Canada (or the U.S.) are you supposed to say, "Oh, it's OK that they bombed my temple, cancelled my career and threatened my family or it's unsafe to walk the street, because some other Jews are members of that group". Is that the logic you are trying to promote?
A 600% increase off a very low base is still a very low number. Also it’s possible incidents that never got reported previously got reported this year amid heightened sensitivity (which would imply the increase is even less).
Obviously as a Jewish person I would prefer no antisemitism, but I can genuinely say I personally have felt no less safe over the past year.
It's not a low number, before this past year we already experienced more hate crimes per capita than any other group (along with trans people)
Nonsense, this is like saying AfD isn't pissing off LGTBQ people because the head is a lesbian.
The stats I saw showed that although there was a rightward shift among Jews the large majority still voted for Kamala. Something about liberal politics just jives with Jewish voters.
What I am beginning to notice with this new rise in anti-Semitism in the West since the Oct. 7th attacks is that there really is deep-rooted anti-Semitism in the West and especially in European countries that I was completely ignorant to as an American. The most recent example are the comments I saw from the police following the attacks of Israeli soccer fans in Amsterdam blaming the Israelis because of their chant before the game.
If you read Bari Weiss" "The Free Press" (here on Substack) today's article's include an in-depth and documented analysis of the anti-semitism that now seems imbedded into the daily life in Canada. Hate Crimes against Jews in Canada have increased 600% in the last year, and appear daily, including firebombings and drive-by shhootings. It's not only Europe.
If you are Jewish, it is downright scary to be a Jewish Canadian now.
In fact, if you are Jewish, there is not a country in the developed world that now offers a safe place to live -- except Israel. I would love to hear something contradictory that points out specific countries that a Jew might choose to live in peace.
As a Jewish person I firmly disagree. According to the most recent statistics I can find, around 1,000 Israeli civilians have died since October 7. I can count the number of American Jews killed due to antisemitism in that time on my fingers.
Statistically Israel is much safer that the US, even including those civilians who died. Of course, a lot of the US deaths are inner-city gang violence and not necessarily a risk for everyone.
I am a Jew, I live in a developed country and this is not my experience at all.
Sadly not America.
Excuse me for being repetitious. The article I referenced is discussed and linked in another post in this specific chain.
Apparently a very large amount in Canada as well.
What is happening in Canada? Just general tolerance of pro-Palestinian marches?
https://open.substack.com/pub/bariweiss/p/explosion-of-jew-hate-in-canada-trudeau-israel-palestine?utm_source=direct&r=4ducsd&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
An example
The lack of acknowledgement and attempt to rectify this stuff by Trudeau and other Western government leaders, whom are mostly left on the political spectrum, shows that anti-Semitism is more than just the loud progressives in the street. Either they have hidden biases and support it themselves or they kowtow to the progressives in the street too much.
My guess is that the Dems either have an issue they can't reconcile among their coalitions, or they think the Jewish vote is safe for the most part. I think they are mistaken if they believe the latter.
I think you are making the mistake Nate is telling you not to make. There is no antisemistism in the Democratic Party. There are some people on the left who are antisemitic. It’s not the same (and in any event I’d note far more antisemitism still comes from the right.)
Not true. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib are members of the Democratic party. The party even lets them sit on committees. And they are very clearly antisemitic.
How do you feel about President Musk’s support of the AfD party in Germany? He has a little more power than a fledgling representative from MN or MI, neither of whom has any real influence.
I don't know why you insist on communicating with snark like that. It's just stupid. Only goes to show you don't have any actual point.
I'm sad about the antisemitism in the AfD but I agree Germany needs a strong anti-Islam and anti-immigration party.
So Musk support for AfD is “nothing to see here?”
Yes. Why, what concerns you about it
The vast majority of antisemitism today seems to come from Muslims transplanted to Western democracies who have exported medieval views on women, Jews, and who have no democratic traditions (lower case d). Aided by leftists who are essentially anarchists.
That just isn’t true. Matt Yglesias has cited this paper in the past which shows the majority is from the right: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/10659129221111081
The Democratic Party is way less anti-semitic than Republican Party, which is party of the reason 70-80% of Jewish vote went to Harris.
What utter nonsense.
The anti-Semitic wing of the Republican party is a sliver at best. The Dems have a huge and growing anti-Semitic wing and they moderated they pandered to them during the election.
History shows that anti-Semitism thrives on the left, which then blames the right. The Nazis for example were socialists. But they are portrayed today as far right extremists.
Okay... I can't take you seriously anymore. The Nazis were very much NOT socialists; they co-opted the word because it was popular among revolutionary movements in the 1920s when they were first aspiring to political power.
https://fullfact.org/online/nazis-socialists/
From your own link, and I quote:
"However, historian of the period Karl Dietrich Bracher has referred to the programme as “propaganda” through which Hitler gained support and then discarded once he achieved power."
So, from your own article, Hitler ran on a socialist platform in a socialist party and then seized power. He became a dictator but left the means of production in private hands. Had he become a dictator who seized the means of production he would have been a communist, like Stalin.
The article is an attempt to whitewash socialism. Once a dictator he wasn't "really" a socialist. So what? Stalin wasn't "really" a communist? No they were dictators, but it was socialism and communism that brought them to power.
But let me put a finer point on it for you. On Oct 7 2023 we saw the horror unfold. I said Israel would have the world's sympathy for two, perhaps three days. I was wrong, we didn't even get two, the river to the sea was being chanted on campuses the next day.
I'm a news junky. So every day I watched reporting from every network. Day after day I watched the lying by omission, the outright lies, the guarded and sometimes overt hate toward Israel. BBC, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, BBC. All of them just watered down Al Jazeera, anti-Semitism with a veneer of fair reporting.
Then I turned to Fox. Wall to wall support for Israel. News anchors reporting facts. Analysts supporting Israel. Political commentators supporting Israel and tearing the biased reporting on other networks to pieces. Interview after interview with Republicans not just supporting Israel, but furious with the lies and deceit being used by the left to bash Israel. Senators, members of congress, one after the other standing up for Israel, AND ALL OF THEM REPUBLICAN, and ALL denouncing the anti-Semitic behaviour on campuses and in the streets.
How many Democrats stood up for Israel? Fetterman for one. A few others. But who did we HEAR from on the Democrat side? Rashida Tlaibe, Ilhan Omar, Cory Booker, AOC, Ayanna Pressley, Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush. Shall I go on? The far left wing of the Democrat party are socialists AND they are universally anti-Israel, spouting narratives that leave no doubt in the minds of the informed that they are anti-Semites as well.
Who are the Jew haters on the Republican side? The neo-Nazis that Trump supposedly said were very fine people? That's what everyone EXCEPT Fox reported. Fox played the whole clip including the part where he said he did NOT mean those specific people, that those ones should be condemned. There's perhaps one Senator I would consider as POSSIBLY being an anti-semite and that's it. I'm LOOKING for it, but I cannot find it. With the Dems its easy.
I challenged one of my cousins to listen to reporting on the war from BBC, CNN and Fox and then tell me if it was even the same war. She refused because Fox was "full of anti-semites". If she had watched for even a few hours, she would have known that's an outright lie. Which would explain I suppose why SHE votes Dem. Jews who get outside their liberal MSM bubble will find a whole party that embraces them and Israel.
Those aren’t Republicans marching in the streets with kefiyahs and Hamas flags.
Not Democrats either.
Yeah they are…or they were!
Did you collect their ballots? Was Charlottesville a right-wing event or left-wing? Was Tree of Life synagogue killer in Pittsburgh right-wing or left-wing?
Why did 70-80% of Jewish voters go for Harris?
Why don’t they root Democrats have so many Jewish leaders in the party and Republicans so few?
Your rant here is so disingenuous and representative of leftist ideology. It is obvious to any honest broker that those who support the colonizer/victimizer view of Israel are historically part of the Democratic establishment. Really, you know it. As for Charlotttesville - yes, I would say that the hundred or so white supremacists there are probably more likely to be supportive of Republicans. See, it’s not that hard to be honest. Let’s be real though; you pulled one rally from 8 years ago with a hundred or so marchers vs. literally hundreds of thousands in the streets week after week.
So I guess in 50 years, your revisionist history will say the Trumpian moment of Republican Party dominance was actually socialism (it is accurate that Trump has de-emphasized concerns about federal deficits, any challenges to Social Security, etc.).
What is your thought process on 70-80% of Jewish vote for Democrats, several national leaders in Democratic Party who are Jewish and near absence of that in Republican Party?
If Dems are so anti-semitic, why don’t they root out their Jewish leaders and why can’t Republicans attract more Jewish voters?
If you are trying to win power, why would you root out the people who are helping you?
The left wing Labour party in the UK got so anti-Semitic that Jews finally exited en masse. That woke the party up enough that they expelled the main culprits. As for why Jews vote against their best interests, see my comments upthread.
So true. As a Jew, this is one of the main reasons that I voted Trump.
Couple of initial thoughts...I may have more to follow.
1) The Dems tried to position the Omnicause as "something for everyone". Problem is, if you're going to apply a purity test on every jot and tittle, then that big tent will shrink really fast. Furthermore, a grab bag of ideas runs the risk of "something for everyone" becoming "nothing for anyone", even if there is a consistent theme running through it, because everyone's going to veto the olives or whatever topping they don't like on the Super Deluxe Kitchen Sink pizza.
2) When the GOP occupied the moral high ground in terms of public perception in the 80s and maybe into the 90s, it made them vulnerable to accusations of hypocrisy ("Hate Is Not A Family Value"), whether real or unfounded. Even fully acknowledging that the tu quoque is a logical fallacy (not to mention a reverse motte and bailey), those accusations can be sticky in the minds of the public especially among those primed to see things in a black-or-white, "with us or against us" fashion.
That table has now been turned on the Dems. If you're going to have some form of "Moral Majority" or "Woke Omnicause" enforcers, it opens you up to attacks on that flank.
Woke flies in the deepest blue states on the coasts. Much of the rest of the country laughs about it until the language or thought police catch up with them and the get cancelled socially or in their careers.
When you divide the world into "oppressed" and "opressors", and define Jews as oppressors and Blacks as oppressed, you get wide approval of D.E.I. and Black Lives Matter, which are two of the most racist organizations in history. DEI fires or cancels or doesn't hire anyone who doesn't exress deep fealty to the oppressed/oppressor social model. BLM focuse on a totally race-based approach to society.
Not much different from KKK or current White Supremecists or those favoring suppression and/or quota for hiring Blacks. And, BTW, not a lot different from Harvard's history of anti-semitism and quotas for admission of Jews and other minorities.
All those observations are valid in their own way, but they miss the big picture.
"Anti-Trump" was the guiding light by which the Dems have governed for four years. What ever Trump did, reverse it, don't bother to look at the positives or negatives. Whatever Trump advocates for, do the opposite no matter the cost. Consider:
1. Trumps border policies were working. Reversed because they were Trump's. Then they lied about the border being closed.
2. Trumps mid east policies were working. Reversed because they were Trump's. Iran was broke, its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis were all broke, the Palestinian Authority was about to kill its "pay for slay" polices to get US funding back. The Abraham Accords had momentum with more countries ready to sign on, Saudi Arabia was arguably next Peace was breaking out in the middle east. All that destroyed for the sole reason that they were Trump's policies. The current wars in the mid east are the direct outcome of that stupidity.
3. Strategic reserves. When the price of oil went negative, Trump said let's fill up our reserves. We get to top them up and get paid to do it. The Dems stopped it because it was Trump's idea. What kind of a moron turns down the opportunity to top up, not just any reserves, but STRATEGIC RESERVES FOR WAR TIME EMERGENCY USE and get paid to do it? Months later Biden was draining the reserves to drive down the price of oil, which now have to be bought back to refill the reserves.
4. Keystone Pipeline. Cancelled because Trump approved it. If it had been approved, there would have been a lot more Canadian and American oil on the market, far less need to drain the reserves.
I could go on, its a long list, and as far as I am concerned, each one a tragedy. But ultimately that was the undoing of the current Democrat party. They weren't focused on what was good for the country. They were focused on being anti-Trump. Next to this, the contradictions within the party are just noise.
COVID restrictions for sure. Even when science no longer supported lockdowns and other measures, Dems kept kids out of school. Several of my left-leaning friends had irrational fears about COVID. This is due in no small part to the reflexive "anti-Trump" view of many on the Left.
When you start acting this way, you're no better than the people on the right you have been criticizing. Remember when the GOP opposed Obamacare simply because it was Obama proposing it, even though it was a GOP idea and they initially signed off with their support as a compromise? I always said that Obama should have proposed removing all gun laws, a massive tax cut for the wealthiest, and eliminating the safety net. The GOP would have reflexively opposed him and he could have pushed bills through that strengthened gun laws, raised taxes, and built the safety net.
Recently someone showd me a Key and Peele skit where this played out. So it wasn't just me!
It is absolutely reflex for both parties to oppose anything and everything from the other party. Often when I dig deep though, I find a poison pill in many bills. Yes here’s this great bill to improve drug safety but it has this clause that would make baby formula classed as a drug. So the other side says no way and the proposing side gets on the media and says see, they are against improving drug safety but. I’m just making up an example here to illustrate a point. Both sides do it, both sides table bills hundred of pages long with no time to read them, both sides use ear marks to appropriate money for pet projects that have nothing to do with the bill.
But all that said, the determination to undo every Trump executive order, every policy, every strategy, was obviously and systematically carried out for the express purpose or reversing anything Trump did. In 50 years of watching American politics on a daily basis, it was the first time I’d ever seen such a thorough undoing of the previous administration. Usually there’s an evaluation of what works and what doesn’t and the stuff that’s working gets left in place. In this case I watched in utter amazement as Biden set out to erase everything Trump simply because it was Trump. I think the damage to the US and the world was substantial.
In addition to those key points. The MSM has difficulty acknowledging almost any fact which could be interpreted as pro-Trump. The lawfare was idiotic but an exception was made because it was Trump, and Kathy Hochul reassured business community that these spurious legal methods would not apply to others. More directly, Biden was unquestionably “as smart as a tack” until one day when he wasn’t. Cmon man.
I disagree strongly that WH policies were guided by the principle they must be "Anti-Trump". I don't see that being the case for a single thing you have listed - and I am not necessarily disagreeing with you that some of them were bad policies, I just don't see any evidence that the policies were guided by being anti-Trump. Policies were guided to some degree by different principles or philosophies, and to some degree due to repsonding to a different set of lobbying groups.
If one cannot attribute those policies to being anti-Trump, one would have to come up with an alternate explanation. Rank stupidity comes to mind, but nothing else.
I could list many more. Broaden your sources of information. You're living in a bubble.
I'm glad there's more pushback lately to partisans calling someone's politics "incoherent" for not lining up with a party. I once heard someone describe being prochoice and wanting better border enforcement incoherent, as if those to views were naturally at odds despite having no relation to each other.
Our parties are the ones with incoherent policies, much more so than voters. Freedom is freedom. Where is the party that believes in regulated free markets (Adam Smith-labor and capital both having a say, not monopolistic oligarchs), the benefits of capitalism to all of society, the freedom to do as one so chooses as long as it doesn't impose on others, and guaranteeing equlity of opportunity (good schools, everyone has a shot at life)? The Dems believe in perhaps a couple of the points above, the GOP none really.
In other words, what political philosophers call "Western Liberalism" and building a successful society where all benefit?
I'm the gadfly on National Review explaining at length why I am pro-choice.
It is mentioned that Republicans have plenty of contradictions too, but I would argue that by glossing over those contradictions and talking about how the Democrats' contradictions are "more apparent" this post misses the true underlying factor behind one party seemingly being more divided than the other: the importance of leadership. In the Republican coalition under Trump, there are deep and seemingly intractable ideological divides. Trump has appealed to those who are skeptical of America's role in the world, but he also appealed to China hawks and has favored greater military spending, in the process improving his numbers with both Jewish and Arab voters. Trump has kept traditional fiscal conservatives on board by promising deregulation and tax cuts, while also making overtures to the working class with his rhetoric on tariffs and winning over the union rank-and-file by shunning Republican orthodoxy on labor unions. Trump has held onto his support with the religious right despite taking a more pro-abortion stance than most Republicans. Yet despite these contradictions, Trump has united the disparate elements of his coalition around himself. This can be partly attributed to grievances and partly due to his strong political base pressuring elites to fall in line. But it also involves good instincts and clever political posturing by Trump and his team: he has made himself the champion of the two issues (immigration and wokeness) that unite all corners of his coalition and hammered on these constantly, and he appeals just enough to each of the different factions of the coalition to convince them that a Trump presidency would at least be better than the status quo. By contrast, the Democrats don't have a leader who can navigate their party's contradictions in a similar way, and the result is groups of potential voters feeling alienated and unrepresented by the Democratic Party. I would argue that all of the most successful presidential candidates in recent times have been those who were best able to get different factions of their party who openly disagree with each other on important issues to unite around their candidacy.
The difference is the Democrats are coming out of the woods after 20 years,
and the Republicans have decided they are going into the woods for a time.
These issues that are mentioned were borne of and have existed since the Clinton era. It's really quite the scam if you can pull it off, since social issues are basically eternal and impossible to quickly reconcile, but can be assuaged with pandering and token gestures which are, cheap. The problem is that it draws air from the bread and butter issues that people needs *something ducking done about* and *won't* be assuaged with pandering.
There's a bright side for you Democrats: Like I said, you're coming out of the woods. You're side is finally talking and having those discussions that you need to have. For the most part, none of your issues are so divisive that you can't make them work if you just spend some time working on the other side.
Honestly, if the Democrats can sober up, the turn around from this election could be as mind blowing as the Republican's recovery from Nixon into the Regan Era.
The Republicans however are about to drink deep of the same poison that allowed the Clintons to run amok for 26 years. Except that Trump is a Clinton without even Bill's limited sense of moderation. He's already pulling the money out of the local states like the Clinton's did. Filling the Republican party with Nepo and VIP-hires, and building up the war chest by pumping his base dry at the cost of local races.
There are some differences of course, Billy Boy preferred to run his operation Boss Hog style, low key but with everyone giving him a nod and a share, but Trump prefers visibly making people kiss the ring and just takes the bribes in open daylight. That may speed up the clean up process once he's out of politics for good, but I was *really hoping the conservatives had got it out of their system in 2020*, but apparently the draw of a good ol' boy playing the charisma game one of those things that crosses the political isles.
Everyone is a hypocrite and inconsistent in their views to varying degrees, but the Democrats just passed a threshold that is no longer tolerable by the mass of Americans. Republicans being more transactional has it's advantage now that people are beginning to be a bit less influenced and more critical of saccharine and moral political platitudes like Hope.
This is a pet peeve of mine. I hear my political beliefs called “incoherent” all the time. Let me give you a lil rundown.
— Pro union except for public sector unions.
— Into deregulation of small businesses, though not of larger ones.
— Against abortion, against capital punishment, against euthanasia.
— View immigrants very warmly
— Think nuclear is the best way to achieve lower carbon emission goals
— Support some form of universal access to healthcare but am deeply skeptical of single-payer
— Tend to take some variation of an originalist view when it comes to constitutional questions
I could go on. Super “incoherent;” I vote third party or write in. But the thing is — it’s *not* incoherent. I’m a devout Catholic and my politics are shaped by Catholic Social Teaching which is its own whole perfectly coherent thing. (And Burke. Really into Burke.)
It annoys me because while I certainly don’t expect random interlocutors to be able to immediately make the connection on their own, then spontaneously quote JPII or something as demonstration of their understanding, I *do* think it should be more common among the chattering classes to at least understand that *political philosophies exist,* and that when someone’s views don’t make immediate sense in a two-party framework, the thought “hmmm, I wonder if there is an underlying unity here I am unfamiliar with” should come to mind way sooner than “this person is obviously incoherent because of their ignorance.”
I agree, even though some of my views are the exact opposite:
- Pro-abortion rights, pro-gun rights, pro-assisted suicide
Though I agree with others:
- Pro-nuclear, pro-immigration
Those are likewise consistent views, but of a more classical liberal variety, and I always get irritated when pundits call these views "incoherent."
You can be as anti-abortion as you like. You never have to get one yourself if you don't want to, and no Catholic hospital has to offer one. Removing other women's legal ability to get the abortion care they need leads to unnecessary deaths of expectant mothers, destruction of women's future fertility, and negative mental and economic outcomes for women compelled to carry to term (which then has downstream effects on other children, if they have them). Not a very pro-life stance, considering that you're also against euthanasia and the death penalty.
You’re not going to convince me or anyone else to change their mind on abortion by jumping into an unrelated conversation (I wasn’t inviting debate; I was using my positions as an example of an ideologically coherent but cross-cutting partisan set of beliefs), and especially not if the way you choose to jump in is by using lines that read as condescending and dismissive, just picking a fight, like “just don’t have one then.”
I was pro-choice for my entire life until changing my mind at age 35, and my mind changed because the pro-life people I spoke with honestly engaged me and my questions, never strawmanning or insulting my position, asking questions when they didn’t understand my stance, and generally just treating me as a human being, not as a vile godless baby-murderer or whatever.
To be fair I don’t really want you to succeed in changing anyone’s mind, because I have become deeply convinced of the immorality of abortion, but everyone’s lives are improved by an improved quality of debate, so. I would recommend you change your tactics.
Thank you for sharing your comments here. I'm Catholic too, and while I'm probably somewhat more conservative than you in general, I understand and respect your ideology. I'm guessing you're familiar with it already, but just in case, I should mention that the little-known American Solidarity Party is basically an exact match for your ideology.
Abortion policy is an interesting area of politics. My experience is that many people are pro-choice without giving it much thought, simply because they associate it with individual freedom and women's rights. I find it interesting that although the Democratic Party is associated with science and logic, pro-choice sentiment often depends on ignorance about biology.
About ten years ago, when I was newly pro-life, I joined a small group in praying outside a local abortion facility. A young man and woman stopped to talk to us; they were skeptical but curious of our stance. The woman said that she could understand opposing abortion after a heartbeat is present, but that before that it's basically a clump of cells. I said that even in that case, a heartbeat is present at about 4-6 weeks, so many abortions are after. They were both skeptical of that, and the woman said that she thought it was more like 3-4 months. The guy said that he'd look it up on his phone, and a minute later, told her that surprisingly I was correct. They both said that they'd have to give their stances some more thought based on that information and thanked me for the dialog. That experience had a profound impact on how I see the abortion debate in America.
I’m a member of the ASP!
They can't understand that any more than they would be able to understand how two people with a similar background can have a vastly different read on a 'core issue' without being politically inconsistent.
It is simple, the Democrats must find the right course and the right people to repopulate, rebuild, and strengthen Democratic presence in all 50 state legislatures and all 50 governor mansions. They have been focusing way too much on Washington and losing their roots throughout the country.
Easier said than done.
True
https://www.ncsl.org/about-state-legislatures/state-partisan-composition
You say Biden "lied" about pardoning his son. But did he lie, or did he change his mind? I don't have any idea, and neither does Nate. But I think labelling it a lie represents a certain sensibility. I've also seen Nate say "Biden is only functional 6 hours a day, so is not capable of acting as President" based on reports from unidentified sources. I understand Nate is more of a Democrat than not, and I share some of his dissatisfaction with Biden, mostly about his decision to run again, which I'd agree with him is selfish. But I do believe Nate has some kind of bias or anger or prejudice against the guy. It's certainly entirely possible Biden would not have pardoned his son is Kamala had won. Or maybe he would have. But I think Nate is making clear a certain kind of bias. And that's OK, but he should acknowledge whatever it is
There is sourced, reputable reporting that Biden's inner circle was already discussing a plan to pardon Hunter while continuing to tell the public he wouldn't back in June. He absolutely lied about it.
You can't say "sourced, reputable reporting" without acknowledging it ain't necessarily true. Maybe it is, but it's the leap from "seems like" to "clearly this happened" is a big one. You may infer that's what happened, and you might be right, but that's as far as you can take it. The other side of this is "politician gonna politician". Maybe they did deceive the public. OMG! That's never happened before in politics, right?
He lied, but no about pardoning his son. He pardoned himself.
The pardon isn't for something he was convicted of like tax evasion or lying on a firearm application. It covers all crimes that he may or may not have committed over the period of time just before Hunter joined Burisma. It covers the time period when Hunter was evidently shaking down the Chinese. It covers the entire time "10% for the Big Guy" was going on. So now prosecutors can no longer pressure Hunter with threat of conviction to testify against his father.
Let's be clear here. In terms of crimes, it was Joe's influence that was being peddled, Hunter was just the broker. That a Vice-President of the United States may have been selling influence to enemies of the United States is horrifying. That he made himself immune from prosecution by pardoning his broker is worse.
He not only lied about pardoning Hunter he told a MASSIVE lie about why.
I have not seen any hard evidence of what your are talking about here, whatsoever. My gut feeling is that this is complete nonsense.
My gut feeling is that you have a very narrow set of information sources and that you would do well to broaden it.
It isn't "Information sources". It's actual evidence, of which there isn't any unless you can put it in a reply to this email. You know, something that even a reasonable Democrat would believe. Otherwise it's just rumors
Hunter got a highly paid position on the board of Bursima despite having 0 qualifications for being on that board. A Ukrainian prosecutor was looking into corruption at Burisma and then VP Biden threatened to withhold aid unless the prosecutor was fired. The prosecutor was fired, and we know all of this because Biden bragged about it, on video, to the press. https://youtu.be/UXA--dj2-CY All of this is public knowledge. So why does Hunter's pardon start just before he joined the board, and why does it cover so many years in which Hunter hasn't been charged with anything? If he didn't do anything illegal during that time period, why cover that time period with a pardon? Obviously Joe was worried about something Hunter could be charged with, go ask him what it was.
These aren't Republican talking points. They are logic applied to known information. Its a discussion forum, not a trial in front of a judge.
You mean my "information sources" do not include wild accusations made by Rudi Giuliani? For various reasons, I have been following these issues in Ukraine for years. You provide (below) some very rough framework around things we "do" know concerning Hunter Biden, but no evidence whatsoever for a link to his father's politics. The alledged corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine was under investigations for years - we all know that corruption in Ukraine is widespread, but there is no concrete evidence linking such things to Joe Biden. Concerning Hunter, he tried to peddle his name in numerous places, but there is no evidence that it ever led to foreigners (in Ukraine or elsewhere) ever getting anything out of the US government in general, or Joe Biden specifically. Pardoning Hunter back to 2014 might also be considered logical, if you believe, with justification, that the GOP is never going to leave him alone.
So you admit that he tried to peddle his name, tx.
That is clear! But this does not in any way directly relate to any actions taken by his father, nor even corruption. Corporate advisory boards all over the world are filled with "names" - more often than not, the people filling these positions get paid for doing next to nothing. Its sad, Hunter's life is sad and pathetic (but also filled with Trauma for which he was not responsible). It does not mean that his father had anything to do with these things, other than sharing a name.
Exactly! Prosecutors in the upcoming trial made clear they were going to introduce evidence that showed the source and destination of the funds. Not just the amounts that Hunter handled. The point was to force the defense into a plea bargain. JRB protected his and his family's reputation. This wasn't about protecting Hunter.
So they had all this damning evidence but forgot to show it publicly? Where is this evidence, that apparently nobody can reveal because of Biden's pardon? And I'm supposed to buy that because, what?"
This just sounds like Republican talking points. DO you have ANY evidence that's what happened, or just a "someone said they talked to someone who knows, and here's what they think". You act like the Repubs were just magically unable to actually show the evidence in their 10,000 committee hearings. So what did you hear?
Are you of the impression that I'm in the FBI or DOJ or some other organization that would give me access to that kind of information?
What I heard and what I saw. Hunter got a highly paid position on the board of Bursima despite having 0 qualifications for being on that board. A Ukrainian prosecutor was looking into corruption at Burisma and then VP Biden threatened to withhold aid unless the prosecutor was fired. The prosecutor was fired, and we know all of this because Biden bragged about it, on video, to the press. https://youtu.be/UXA--dj2-CY All of this is public knowledge. So why does Hunter's pardon start just before he joined the board, and why does it cover so many years in which Hunter hasn't been charged with anything? If he didn't do anything illegal during that time period, why cover that time period with a pardon? Obviously Joe was worried about something Hunter could be charged with, go ask him what it was.
These aren't Republican talking points. They are logic applied to known information. Its a discussion forum, not a trial in front of a judge.
Nothing is obvious to me at all. Pardoning him back to 2014 might simply be an action trying to stop the soon-to-be politicized FBI and other intelligence agencies from perpetually persecuting Hunter Biden. Lots of people get board jobs both domestically and internationally, for no other reason than a person's name - with all kinds of sinister motives, but it does not necessarily mean these people can "deliver" anything useful. The world is full of this nonsense, unfortunately.
"soon" to be politicized FBI and other agencies?
News flash, they are politicized now, the backlash from that delivered a lot of votes to Trump. He's interested in cleaning that up, not making it worse. Hunter isn't even on his top 100 list.
If that were true, why not pardon him another ten years to 2004? Or 20 to 1994?
I think it’s unambiguous that the Biden camp lied at some point about how committed they were to not pardoning Hunter. If you want to absolve Biden because he doesn’t have mental capacity that’s fine, but we do have his Press Secretary saying “Our answer [on pardoning Hunter] stands, which is no” after the election on Nov 7 and the senior deputy press Secretary saying “I don’t have anything to add to what he’s said already” on Nov. 26. The Biden camp definitely, at a bare minimum, heavily implied that they weren’t going to pardon Hunter even after the election. If Biden (or his camp) felt strongly enough to vow categorically against pardoning Hunter before and after the election them later (in one case less than a week later) “changing their mind” suggests that they lied about their commitment to that course of action.
Ain't gonna say it's not true. Could be true. Politicians lie sometimes. ho-hum. But that's opinion, not fact
I’m sorry, if you’re a politician and you say over and over again, without qualification, “I’m not going to do X” and your major surrogates are out there saying, without qualification “He’s not going to do X”, you’ve committed to not doing X. If you turn around and then do X, you’re not entitled to the benefit of the doubt as to whether you had a sudden change of heart (absent an act of God) because you categorically denied that you ever were going to do X.
All the while that Biden and his surrogates were vowing not to pardon Hunter, Trump’s election and the kind of nominees he would appoint were a foreseeable and highly possible outcome, Biden’s not entitled to “change his mind” based on that outcome because he categorically denied the possibility of pardoning Hunter while that outcome was plainly possible. If Biden had said “we don’t plan to pardon Hunter at this time, but…” nobody would accuse him of lying, but that would have been used against him and Kamala in the campaign, instead he trotted out his surrogates over and over again to vow that he’s not pardoning Hunter and then turned around and did it anyway. It’s one hell of a sudden change of heart to go from “Our position has not changed (from a categorical no)” to “Okay, he’s pardoned” in less than a week, which suggests that they lied when they gave that categorical no (I.e. it wasn’t as categorical as they led the American people to believe)
You can not care about politicians lying. You can think that Biden deserved to use his raw power to benefit him and his son, but Biden (or his team) lied (at the very least by implication) about being categorically unwilling to pardon Hunter.
A shambling old man that is basically in a nursing home run by Jill in the Whitehouse or Evil Scheming Genius that tricked the whole country? 🤔
When one looks at the available evidence and draws negative conclusions about someone based on that evidence, it does not imply that one has a bias against that person.
Based on obvious, widely available evidence, anyone can see that (1) Biden appears to be cognitively impaired, and (2) Biden appears to have lied about pardoning his son. Maybe one or both of these appearances is an illusion. But it's no indication of anti-Biden bias to believe that obvious appearances represent reality.
I mean no offense, and I am not saying that you are doing this (I have no idea of your motivations), but...Hiding behind semantics is typically how Democrats obfuscate the truth.
Here are some examples:
Inappropriately modifying the White House transcriptionist work to move a comma so they could use semantics to justify Biden's statements (in fairness, this statement probably was a case of dementia, but changing the transcripts was inappropriate and highlights the issue nicely).
"Defund the police" really doesn't mean defunding the police.
Being a "transitional" or placeholder candidate encompasses a second term for an individual well into their 80s.
The most violent protests since the 1970's were mostly peaceful.
Mass gatherings are irresponsible and even immoral, unless they are associated with racial justice
Harris was not the border czar but was instead in charge of "root causes."
Other favorites of mine (less common but uniquely dishonest) include things like:
Police funding absorbs 40% (give or take) of local general funds...true except that if you dig into the numbers this amounts to about 3.5% of state and local funding...its a great way to deceive people into thinking that police budgets are large relative to other spending when, in fact, they are minuscule.
The entire argument about mass incarceration being driven by non-violent, low-level drug users... is often followed up with numbers from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (where 45% of inmates are drug-related but are not low-level) and disregarding that state prisons, where most prisoners reside, are overwhelmingly filled with either individuals whose committed a violent to get there or individuals whose sentence was enhanced due to past violent crimes. In fairness...this was debunked by the "liberal" but basically democrats Nate mentions.
It is this massive dishonesty (again not by you but more broadly by the democratic party) that makes the many very legitimate appeals about Trump being a liar fall flat.
Trump lies, but the Democrats use these arguments to deceive. They are the only ones who buy this nonsense...and unfortunately for all of us, the typical voter decided Trump was better. However, given the argument that Biden did not lie in this case but just changed his mind, I can understand why they made that decision.
Basically, my autopsy of the Dem party is that since Clinton (who I voted for) got away with using the definition of the word "is" as in "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."