I think it's safe to say her pop-nietzschean attacks on xtianity and her related flouting of "mom and apple pie" values(eg. even most right-wingers don't consciously view selfishness as a virtue) could alienate the God-fearing among the Republican base.
The ones who don't have a problem with Trump's embrace of sin and evil?
I think it's safe to say her pop-nietzschean attacks on xtianity and her related flouting of "mom and apple pie" values(eg. even most right-wingers don't consciously view selfishness as a virtue) could alienate the God-fearing among the Republican base.
The ones who don't have a problem with Trump's embrace of sin and evil?
Evil has unfortunately been redefined. Indifference to poverty, a sin for which Jesus reserved his strongest criticisms, has been downgraded and concern about poverty has been classified as communism.
Trump certainly embraces sin and evil, as those terms have been classically understood. And his supporters seem to embrace him for the way he does it. I've been a Christian for well over half a century and I find it very difficult to get my head around Christian support for Trump. What Jim Wallis has described as the privatisation of Christian values certainly explains some of it, but hardly explains the indifference/blindness to Trump's personal immorality.
I've been a Christian for well over half a century and I find it very difficult to get my head around Christian support for Trump.
Consider the many other horrible people and fucked up things Christians have supported over the centuries. The awful popes. The horrific monarchs. The wars of conquest. The crusades. The wholesale destruction of non- Christian peoples and their cultures. There were plenty of Christians in the US who supported chattel slavery not all that long ago.
I think it's safe to say her pop-nietzschean attacks on xtianity and her related flouting of "mom and apple pie" values(eg. even most right-wingers don't consciously view selfishness as a virtue) could alienate the God-fearing among the Republican base.
The ones who don't have a problem with Trump's embrace of sin and evil?
They don't consciously view Trump as embracing evil.
And I think you've made my point for me in your reply to @Barnabas62. All the people who did those "fucked up things" over the centuries almost certainly believed that they were going to Heaven for doing the work of God.
In any case, Ayn Rand wasn't like the Inquisitors or the KKK, ie. a professing Christian who nevertheless advocated messed-up anti-Christian practices. Her books openly attack Jesus Christ and Christianity, hence my speculation that Rand Paul might not want his Christian supporters to know he's named after her.
Human beings have an amazing capacity for cognitive dissonance. It explains the attachment to Trump quite well, ISTM, and also the fact that people can appreciate Ayn Rand and Christianity at the same time.
...people can appreciate Ayn Rand and Christianity at the same time.
Some people can, and I don't think it's neccessarily cognitive-dissonance to like a particular political writer, while thinking that they're wrong about some issue or other, as Rand Paul evidently does with Ayn Rand. But that's not gonna be most conservative Christians in the USA, glancing at a book that explicitly says Christianity is wrong.
I still strongly suspect Rand Paul's father named him after ghastly "Virtue of Selfishness" advocate Ayn Rand. Ugh.
I could easily believe it, but I've seen interviews with Rand in which he pretty casually denies the claim, and gives some alternate explanation for his name.
I could go either way on the plausibility of that, but it seems odd that, if he WERE named after Ayn Rand, he would bother denying it, since in the same interview he also expresses admiration for Ms. Rand.
His name is Randal. As a child, he went by Randy, then it got shortened to Rand.
I've been a Christian for well over half a century and I find it very difficult to get my head around Christian support for Trump.
Consider the many other horrible people and fucked up things Christians have supported over the centuries. The awful popes. The horrific monarchs. The wars of conquest. The crusades. The wholesale destruction of non- Christian peoples and their cultures. There were plenty of Christians in the US who supported chattel slavery not all that long ago.
I don’t defend any of the historical examples you quote. Are you observing that I shouldn’t be surprised by the support Trump gets from 21st century Christians in the USA because of the historical precedents? I’ve observed elsewhere that the “marriage” between the evangelical right and the GOP has probably damaged both. Reflecting on my own surprise, maybe you’re right? I guess I thought there were limits and Trump would be outside them. It’s still hard for me to see why he isn’t.
Almost 9 years after Trump first declared his candidacy for president, I'm weary of people saying they don't understand how anyone can support him. There's been plenty of time and plenty of exploration of the subject.
Why do you think there are limits? Alabama spent 20 minutes torturing a man to death last night. The governor of Texas is pleased to kill migrants in the river at the border. A majority of Americans think the death penalty is morally justified in cases of murder. 10 states have rejected the Medicaid expansion available to them through the Affordable Care Act; the governor of Mississippi has made it clear that it isn't the cost of the 10% matching funds the state has to put up to get federal dollars - he just doesn't want to provide healthcare access to the working poor (source: https://mississippitoday.org/2023/10/01/tate-reeves-medicaid-expansion-costs/).
There are American Christians supporting these things. Why on earth do you think there are limits?
There were peace-loving Mennonites in South American countries who supported right-wing dictators because they spouted nice sounding stuff about agrarianism and so forth.
Heck, you don't have to look far to find links between the Nazis and wholesome outdoor pursuits like rambling and youth hostelling.
It’s a tangent. How does that fit in with economic globalisation? Which by its very nature involves interaction with the economies and cultures of other nations. That’s what I don’t understand. International trade and its growing influence is a fact of life. And the US position as both a reserve currency and a major mover in the financing of international trade seems to me to reduce isolationism to an irrelevance. A thing of the past.
It’s a tangent. How does that fit in with economic globalisation? Which by its very nature involves interaction with the economies and cultures of other nations.
I think it generally implies being fine with international trade, but not trying to change the world through any application of force.
I still strongly suspect Rand Paul's father named him after ghastly "Virtue of Selfishness" advocate Ayn Rand. Ugh.
I could easily believe it, but I've seen interviews with Rand in which he pretty casually denies the claim, and gives some alternate explanation for his name.
I could go either way on the plausibility of that, but it seems odd that, if he WERE named after Ayn Rand, he would bother denying it, since in the same interview he also expresses admiration for Ms. Rand.
His name is Randal. As a child, he went by Randy, then it got shortened to Rand.
Yep, just confirmed that via the YouTube video. He says it was his wife who shortened it to "Rand", but that neither of them thought about the possible connection with the writer's name. Which strikes me as somewhat odd, since "Rand" is not at all a common name, and since he states she was one of his favorite authors, you'd think it would at least pass through his head.
I don’t know. I know a UK family, less than 100 miles from Liverpool, whose surname is Rigby, and who named their new daughter Eleanor.
Do they actually not know of the song? Or they know the song, but mistakenly understand its story as being a happy one? Or they know the story, but for some reason are undeterred by its tragic narrative?
I still strongly suspect Rand Paul's father named him after ghastly "Virtue of Selfishness" advocate Ayn Rand. Ugh.
I could easily believe it, but I've seen interviews with Rand in which he pretty casually denies the claim, and gives some alternate explanation for his name.
I could go either way on the plausibility of that, but it seems odd that, if he WERE named after Ayn Rand, he would bother denying it, since in the same interview he also expresses admiration for Ms. Rand.
His name is Randal. As a child, he went by Randy, then it got shortened to Rand.
Yep, just confirmed that via the YouTube video. He says it was his wife who shortened it to "Rand", but that neither of them thought about the possible connection with the writer's name. Which strikes me as somewhat odd, since "Rand" is not at all a common name, . . . .
Nah. To this American Southerner, a name like “Rand” doesn’t sound the least bit unusual.
It’s a tangent. How does that fit in with economic globalisation? Which by its very nature involves interaction with the economies and cultures of other nations.
I think it generally implies being fine with international trade, but not trying to change the world through any application of force.
How does that work? One may wish that international entrepreneurs refrain from using their financial power exploitatively I suppose but that isn't going to stop it happen. I may be wrong but I don't think.advocates of isolationism are also advocates of applying moral restrictions to free international trade.
It’s a tangent. How does that fit in with economic globalisation? Which by its very nature involves interaction with the economies and cultures of other nations.
I think it generally implies being fine with international trade, but not trying to change the world through any application of force.
How does that work? One may wish that international entrepreneurs refrain from using their financial power exploitatively I suppose but that isn't going to stop it happen. I may be wrong but I don't think.advocates of isolationism are also advocates of applying moral restrictions to free international trade.
In the contemporary era, Pat Buchanan would be the quintessential example of what is is traditionally meant in the American context as an isolationist. Against overseas military endeavours outside America's direct sphere of interest(eg. supporting Somoza good, supporting Israel bad), and favouring restrictions on trade in order to protect American industry and workers, but nothing more "moral" than that.
IOW Buchanan in his heyday wanted to stop US companies from outsourcing to the third-world, but didn't give a crap about how they governed themselves on eg. the environmental front, at home or abroad.
And FWIW, I think that Donald Trump at the beginning of his political career was basically a socially liberal version of Pat Buchanan, until the powers-that-be in the Republican Party made it clear to him that neither social liberalism nor isolationism was gonna fly in their party anymore.
And FWIW, I think that Donald Trump at the beginning of his political career was basically a socially liberal version of Pat Buchanan, until the powers-that-be in the Republican Party made it clear to him that neither social liberalism nor isolationism was gonna fly in their party anymore.
Where did you get that idea? Trump and his father were cited for violated the fair housing laws of New York very yearly in his career as a real estate landlord. In 1989 he called for the summary execution of five young men who were accused of raping a white woman in Central Park, Those five young men were later exonerated through DNA evidence--only after serving time for a crime they did not commit. He is known to renege on paying workers a fair wage--if he pays them at all.
At one time the Republican party was a rather moderate party. It all changed in the 60s with the introduction of civil rights laws--which Trump opposed. That's when Roger Ailes came up with the Southern Strategy during the Nixon candidacy in 1967 to draw in the white Southern Vote. Over the years, the Republican Party moved more to Trump's liking.
Trump has never changed. He describes himself as a White Nationalist. His whole career confirms that.
The Trump brand is multinational. Not a Big Player multinational of course. But it raises two points for the 2024 election. Firstly, the Big Money players will move heaven and earth to stop Trump getting into the White House if they really believe Trump represents a danger to their interests. Secondly, whatever he says in his political games, I think he probably knows that,
And FWIW, I think that Donald Trump at the beginning of his political career was basically a socially liberal version of Pat Buchanan, until the powers-that-be in the Republican Party made it clear to him that neither social liberalism nor isolationism was gonna fly in their party anymore.
Where did you get that idea? Trump and his father were cited for violated the fair housing laws of New York very yearly in his career as a real estate landlord. In 1989 he called for the summary execution of five young men who were accused of raping a white woman in Central Park, Those five young men were later exonerated through DNA evidence--only after serving time for a crime they did not commit. He is known to renege on paying workers a fair wage--if he pays them at all.
At one time the Republican party was a rather moderate party. It all changed in the 60s with the introduction of civil rights laws--which Trump opposed. That's when Roger Ailes came up with the Southern Strategy during the Nixon candidacy in 1967 to draw in the white Southern Vote. Over the years, the Republican Party moved more to Trump's liking.
Trump has never changed. He describes himself as a White Nationalist. His whole career confirms that.
I was refering to his erstwhile positions on abortion, marriage equality, and mixed-gender washrooms, which are the sort of issues I think come under the rubric of "social liberalism". Law-and-order issues(like the Central Park Rape) I tend to think of as a separate category.
And I never said he was an ethical landlord or a good employer.
The Trump brand is multinational. Not a Big Player multinational of course. But it raises two points for the 2024 election. Firstly, the Big Money players will move heaven and earth to stop Trump getting into the White House if they really believe Trump represents a danger to their interests. Secondly, whatever he says in his political games, I think he probably knows that,
Going into 2016, it was pretty obvious to me that the GOP establishment, if not the political establishment generally, was not gonna go along with Trump's promises to significantly halt outsourcing or reduce the US troop presence overseas. It was tragicomic to listen to those voters who got hoodwinked into thinking all that was gonna happen.
It’s a tangent. How does that fit in with economic globalisation? Which by its very nature involves interaction with the economies and cultures of other nations.
I think it generally implies being fine with international trade, but not trying to change the world through any application of force.
How does that work? One may wish that international entrepreneurs refrain from using their financial power exploitatively I suppose but that isn't going to stop it happen.
Sure, but there's nothing to say that one needs to then go and fix thing militarily.
Military force backs up economic empire, either by threat or execution. And as a great chess player one put it, the threat is more powerful than the execution.
On stetson’s point, it shows how short memories are amongst the Trump faithful. Loyalty combined with stupidity.
And on another tack, the conspiracy theorists are claiming that the Super Bowl is rigged this year so that Taylor Swift, Travis Kelce’s girl friend, will support Biden publicly. The theory has left the nutty internet sites and has become a news item.
I like Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce. For their talent! Never expected this turn of events.
Military force backs up economic empire, either by threat or execution.
It can, sometimes, and the exercise of it can still be short of invading the enemy of the moment every few years.
Besides, international trade tends to drive its own dynamic, as both parties have an interest in a relatively benign environment (see Chinese efforts at diplomacy recently).
And on another tack, the conspiracy theorists are claiming that the Super Bowl is rigged this year so that Taylor Swift, Travis Kelce’s girl friend, will support Biden publicly. The theory has left the nutty internet sites and has become a news item.
I like Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce. For their talent! Never expected this turn of events.
If you don't know the answer to this question, that's fine, but...
How do the conspiracists think that Kansas City winning will increase the likelihood of Swift endorsing Biden? She rushes onto the field to give her a boyfriend a congratulatory hug, grabs the microphone and yells "Four more years!"?
And on another tack, the conspiracy theorists are claiming that the Super Bowl is rigged this year so that Taylor Swift, Travis Kelce’s girl friend, will support Biden publicly. The theory has left the nutty internet sites and has become a news item.
I know you can't reason with conspiracy theorists, but if the idea is that the playoffs were fixed to produce a championship for the Kansas City Chiefs in order to raise the public profile of Taylor Swift, wouldn't a simpler approach have been to just book her as the halftime show?
Absolutely. Mind you, it’s hard to think of a couple in the US with a higher profile than Swift and Kelce. Apparently the extra publicity from the relationship has been worth millions to the NFL
Trump doesn’t like to think of anyone more in the public eye than him. Swift has said things which suggest she hates racism. Kelce did publicity shots to promote COVID vaccinations.
I suppose if you’re paranoid you might worry that their current extreme popularity and visibility could constitute a threat? I doubt whether that’s anything they intend, but as you say, how can one reason with motivated conspiracy theorist?
Tomorrow (3 February 2024) is the Democratic primary in South Carolina. This is the first official primary contest of the Democratic presidential primary and the first in which Joe Biden's name will appear on the ballot. (He won New Hampshire in a write-in campaign.) Biden is expected to win this contest easily.
South Carolina's Republicans won't be holding their primary until three weeks later (24 February 2024). The next primary contest for the Republicans is actually Nevada, which is holding a primary election on 6 February 2024 and a caucus on 8 February 2024. Haley but not Trump is running in the primary and Trump but not Haley is running in the caucus. All convention delegates from Nevada will be awarded via the caucus.
Do now. Didn’t know you are in Washington. Don’t know American geography. Assumed from what you wrote that you were saying Idaho neighbours Mississippi. Didn’t know that was wrong. ‘My neighbouring state…’ would have been clear. What you put was not.
Haven't you heard me praising Washington apples or potates in the past? In the first post of the thread now closed, I said "Our neighboring state...:" I just thought most people knew I lived in the Evergreen state. I know I have said Go Cougs every so often.
"Go Cougs"? Awwww, I thought you might be a Huskies fan. Sigh. 🤣
Do now. Didn’t know you are in Washington. Don’t know American geography. Assumed from what you wrote that you were saying Idaho neighbours Mississippi. Didn’t know that was wrong. ‘My neighbouring state…’ would have been clear. What you put was not.
Haven't you heard me praising Washington apples or potates in the past? In the first post of the thread now closed, I said "Our neighboring state...:" I just thought most people knew I lived in the Evergreen state. I know I have said Go Cougs every so often.
"Go Cougs"? Awwww, I thought you might be a Huskies fan. Sigh. 🤣
Well, I have been known to sneak over the state line to cheer on the Vandals from time to time.
Today (6 February 2024) is primary day in Nevada for both parties. The Democrats will be voting on the distribution of 36 national convention delegates. The Republicans are holding both a primary (today) and a caucus on Thursday (8 February 2024). This is because a new state law requires parties to hold a primary election if more than one candidate files to run. So the Republicans are holding a primary that will assign no convention delegates and two days later a caucus to assign 26 delegates, because to Republicans the anti-democratic aspects of the caucus process are a feature, not a bug.
In a Republican primary that did not feature former President Donald Trump, “none of these candidates” — a protest choice unique to Nevada — is projected to receive more votes than former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley. The result shows a significant sign of weakness for the lone major GOP challenger to Trump, who is set to sweep the Nevada GOP caucus Thursday.
“None of these candidates” received more than 60 percent of the vote, while Haley received roughly 33 percent, in early returns released Tuesday evening. Other well-known candidates who appeared on the primary ballot but have dropped out of the race — former Vice President Mike Pence and Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) — received 4.2 percent and 1.3 percent of the vote, respectively, while a slew of other lesser-known candidates received about 1 percent combined.
Haley’s margin of defeat was especially high in populous Clark County, home to Las Vegas, where out of more than 28,000 votes reported in the first returns, she received 30.9 percent of the vote — less than half as much as the “none of these candidates” option at 62.5 percent.
Under state law, if “none of these candidates” receives the most votes in an election, the next highest vote-getter is considered the winner. Voters have now chosen the “none of these candidates” six times in state history, most recently in the state’s 2014 Democratic primary for governor.
But even if Haley had won the primary, the victory would have been symbolic, as the state GOP has opted to award delegates to the party’s national convention based on the results of Thursday’s caucus. There, Trump faces just one long-shot candidate, Texas pastor and businessman Ryan Binkley, and is expected to cruise to victory.
Coming in second in what is essentially a one person race has got to be embarrassing.
It seems to me that this, will not help Biden’s campaign. Specifically:
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
Is anyone challenging Biden for the Democrat nomination ?
It seems to me that this, will not help Biden’s campaign. Specifically:
Mr Hur's report says that it would be difficult to convict Mr Biden of improper handling because "at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".
Is anyone challenging Biden for the Democrat nomination ?
That sounds like absolute drivel though. Because it probably is.
What he's actually saying is "I have no credible evidence against Mr Biden, at all, so here's a cheap political shot, instead..."
I'm unclear on the significance. Presumably, anyone who thinks Biden is a crumbling old man has already made up their mind.
Is anyone challenging Biden for the Democrat nomination ?
Marianne Williamson suspended her campaign two days ago (7 February 2024). That leaves Dean Phillips as Biden's only semi-plausible challenger. Of the 91 Democratic convention delegates awarded so far, Phillips has won 0.
That sounds like absolute drivel though. Because it probably is.
What he's actually saying is "I have no credible evidence against Mr Biden, at all, so here's a cheap political shot, instead..."
It's also pretty clearly against Justice Department policy. If you're not bringing charges you're not supposed to use your platform to editorialize about what a bad person the the guy you were investigating is. (cf. James Comey)
I'm unclear on the significance. Presumably, anyone who thinks Biden is a crumbling old man has already made up their mind.
The only reason it's not a complete fucking nightmare is that it's February, not October, so there are still a lot of people not paying attention to the presidential campaigns and a lot of things will happen between now and when people start to vote. If it weren't significant, Biden wouldn't have been so supremely pissed off that he called a press conference Thursday night on about 15 minutes' notice, at which he referred to "the president of Mexico, Sisi," when talking about humanitarian aid for Gaza. He has called world leaders by wrong names several times just in the last week. Sure, everyone does this -- Trump recently mixed up Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi -- but this is already a huge part of the narrative about Biden, and it hurts him to do this when a few minutes prior he had claimed, "My memory is fine."
It pushes the issue of Biden's age and mental acuity to the top of the news, making it harder for his people to make the campaign about Trump's unfitness for office. There are people with doubts about Biden who will decide he's no longer up to the job, and there are people who would have voted for Biden who will just not vote. It also means Trump can say he's running against Kamala Harris as much as or more than he's running against Biden because Biden will die or become incapacitated before 2029. Which isn't crazy.
One of the things about Mr. Hur's statements is he pitched it in such a way that an over-eager press would do his dirty work for him.
We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview with him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory. Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him - by then a former president well into his eighties - of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.
In other words, Hur is discussing courtroom strategy and the likely self-presentation of the potentially accused (something any prosecutor has to consider), but what the press heard and wanted to go with (as Hur doubtless knew they would) is "Joe Biden is old and has a bad memory". I can understand why lifelong Republican footsoldier Hur would do this. I'm less certain why the American political press keeps letting themselves get played like this. Probably because they're still pissed at Biden for taking away their war.
Comments
The ones who don't have a problem with Trump's embrace of sin and evil?
Evil has unfortunately been redefined. Indifference to poverty, a sin for which Jesus reserved his strongest criticisms, has been downgraded and concern about poverty has been classified as communism.
Trump certainly embraces sin and evil, as those terms have been classically understood. And his supporters seem to embrace him for the way he does it. I've been a Christian for well over half a century and I find it very difficult to get my head around Christian support for Trump. What Jim Wallis has described as the privatisation of Christian values certainly explains some of it, but hardly explains the indifference/blindness to Trump's personal immorality.
Consider the many other horrible people and fucked up things Christians have supported over the centuries. The awful popes. The horrific monarchs. The wars of conquest. The crusades. The wholesale destruction of non- Christian peoples and their cultures. There were plenty of Christians in the US who supported chattel slavery not all that long ago.
They don't consciously view Trump as embracing evil.
And I think you've made my point for me in your reply to @Barnabas62. All the people who did those "fucked up things" over the centuries almost certainly believed that they were going to Heaven for doing the work of God.
In any case, Ayn Rand wasn't like the Inquisitors or the KKK, ie. a professing Christian who nevertheless advocated messed-up anti-Christian practices. Her books openly attack Jesus Christ and Christianity, hence my speculation that Rand Paul might not want his Christian supporters to know he's named after her.
Some people can, and I don't think it's neccessarily cognitive-dissonance to like a particular political writer, while thinking that they're wrong about some issue or other, as Rand Paul evidently does with Ayn Rand. But that's not gonna be most conservative Christians in the USA, glancing at a book that explicitly says Christianity is wrong.
I don’t defend any of the historical examples you quote. Are you observing that I shouldn’t be surprised by the support Trump gets from 21st century Christians in the USA because of the historical precedents? I’ve observed elsewhere that the “marriage” between the evangelical right and the GOP has probably damaged both. Reflecting on my own surprise, maybe you’re right? I guess I thought there were limits and Trump would be outside them. It’s still hard for me to see why he isn’t.
Why do you think there are limits? Alabama spent 20 minutes torturing a man to death last night. The governor of Texas is pleased to kill migrants in the river at the border. A majority of Americans think the death penalty is morally justified in cases of murder. 10 states have rejected the Medicaid expansion available to them through the Affordable Care Act; the governor of Mississippi has made it clear that it isn't the cost of the 10% matching funds the state has to put up to get federal dollars - he just doesn't want to provide healthcare access to the working poor (source: https://mississippitoday.org/2023/10/01/tate-reeves-medicaid-expansion-costs/).
There are American Christians supporting these things. Why on earth do you think there are limits?
There were peace-loving Mennonites in South American countries who supported right-wing dictators because they spouted nice sounding stuff about agrarianism and so forth.
Heck, you don't have to look far to find links between the Nazis and wholesome outdoor pursuits like rambling and youth hostelling.
But yeah.
Ortho-fascism is a thing too.
Vigilance is always required.
I guess it may be a potential new thread.
I think it generally implies being fine with international trade, but not trying to change the world through any application of force.
Yep, just confirmed that via the YouTube video. He says it was his wife who shortened it to "Rand", but that neither of them thought about the possible connection with the writer's name. Which strikes me as somewhat odd, since "Rand" is not at all a common name, and since he states she was one of his favorite authors, you'd think it would at least pass through his head.
Do they actually not know of the song? Or they know the song, but mistakenly understand its story as being a happy one? Or they know the story, but for some reason are undeterred by its tragic narrative?
How does that work? One may wish that international entrepreneurs refrain from using their financial power exploitatively I suppose but that isn't going to stop it happen. I may be wrong but I don't think.advocates of isolationism are also advocates of applying moral restrictions to free international trade.
In the contemporary era, Pat Buchanan would be the quintessential example of what is is traditionally meant in the American context as an isolationist. Against overseas military endeavours outside America's direct sphere of interest(eg. supporting Somoza good, supporting Israel bad), and favouring restrictions on trade in order to protect American industry and workers, but nothing more "moral" than that.
IOW Buchanan in his heyday wanted to stop US companies from outsourcing to the third-world, but didn't give a crap about how they governed themselves on eg. the environmental front, at home or abroad.
Where did you get that idea? Trump and his father were cited for violated the fair housing laws of New York very yearly in his career as a real estate landlord. In 1989 he called for the summary execution of five young men who were accused of raping a white woman in Central Park, Those five young men were later exonerated through DNA evidence--only after serving time for a crime they did not commit. He is known to renege on paying workers a fair wage--if he pays them at all.
At one time the Republican party was a rather moderate party. It all changed in the 60s with the introduction of civil rights laws--which Trump opposed. That's when Roger Ailes came up with the Southern Strategy during the Nixon candidacy in 1967 to draw in the white Southern Vote. Over the years, the Republican Party moved more to Trump's liking.
Trump has never changed. He describes himself as a White Nationalist. His whole career confirms that.
I was refering to his erstwhile positions on abortion, marriage equality, and mixed-gender washrooms, which are the sort of issues I think come under the rubric of "social liberalism". Law-and-order issues(like the Central Park Rape) I tend to think of as a separate category.
And I never said he was an ethical landlord or a good employer.
Going into 2016, it was pretty obvious to me that the GOP establishment, if not the political establishment generally, was not gonna go along with Trump's promises to significantly halt outsourcing or reduce the US troop presence overseas. It was tragicomic to listen to those voters who got hoodwinked into thinking all that was gonna happen.
Sure, but there's nothing to say that one needs to then go and fix thing militarily.
On stetson’s point, it shows how short memories are amongst the Trump faithful. Loyalty combined with stupidity.
I like Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce. For their talent! Never expected this turn of events.
It can, sometimes, and the exercise of it can still be short of invading the enemy of the moment every few years.
Besides, international trade tends to drive its own dynamic, as both parties have an interest in a relatively benign environment (see Chinese efforts at diplomacy recently).
If you don't know the answer to this question, that's fine, but...
How do the conspiracists think that Kansas City winning will increase the likelihood of Swift endorsing Biden? She rushes onto the field to give her a boyfriend a congratulatory hug, grabs the microphone and yells "Four more years!"?
I know you can't reason with conspiracy theorists, but if the idea is that the playoffs were fixed to produce a championship for the Kansas City Chiefs in order to raise the public profile of Taylor Swift, wouldn't a simpler approach have been to just book her as the halftime show?
Trump doesn’t like to think of anyone more in the public eye than him. Swift has said things which suggest she hates racism. Kelce did publicity shots to promote COVID vaccinations.
I suppose if you’re paranoid you might worry that their current extreme popularity and visibility could constitute a threat? I doubt whether that’s anything they intend, but as you say, how can one reason with motivated conspiracy theorist?
South Carolina's Republicans won't be holding their primary until three weeks later (24 February 2024). The next primary contest for the Republicans is actually Nevada, which is holding a primary election on 6 February 2024 and a caucus on 8 February 2024. Haley but not Trump is running in the primary and Trump but not Haley is running in the caucus. All convention delegates from Nevada will be awarded via the caucus.
"Go Cougs"? Awwww, I thought you might be a Huskies fan. Sigh. 🤣
Well, I have been known to sneak over the state line to cheer on the Vandals from time to time.
In the Republican primary (which did not include Donald Trump) Nikki Haley finished second, behind "none of these candidates".
Coming in second in what is essentially a one person race has got to be embarrassing.
(I'm blaming the hot summer, but it could be old age.
Is anyone challenging Biden for the Democrat nomination ?
Not meaningfully. I also wouldn't set too much store by Hur's editorialising, given his political leanings.
That sounds like absolute drivel though. Because it probably is.
What he's actually saying is "I have no credible evidence against Mr Biden, at all, so here's a cheap political shot, instead..."
I'm unclear on the significance. Presumably, anyone who thinks Biden is a crumbling old man has already made up their mind.
AFZ
Marianne Williamson suspended her campaign two days ago (7 February 2024). That leaves Dean Phillips as Biden's only semi-plausible challenger. Of the 91 Democratic convention delegates awarded so far, Phillips has won 0.
It's also pretty clearly against Justice Department policy. If you're not bringing charges you're not supposed to use your platform to editorialize about what a bad person the the guy you were investigating is. (cf. James Comey)
The only reason it's not a complete fucking nightmare is that it's February, not October, so there are still a lot of people not paying attention to the presidential campaigns and a lot of things will happen between now and when people start to vote. If it weren't significant, Biden wouldn't have been so supremely pissed off that he called a press conference Thursday night on about 15 minutes' notice, at which he referred to "the president of Mexico, Sisi," when talking about humanitarian aid for Gaza. He has called world leaders by wrong names several times just in the last week. Sure, everyone does this -- Trump recently mixed up Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi -- but this is already a huge part of the narrative about Biden, and it hurts him to do this when a few minutes prior he had claimed, "My memory is fine."
It pushes the issue of Biden's age and mental acuity to the top of the news, making it harder for his people to make the campaign about Trump's unfitness for office. There are people with doubts about Biden who will decide he's no longer up to the job, and there are people who would have voted for Biden who will just not vote. It also means Trump can say he's running against Kamala Harris as much as or more than he's running against Biden because Biden will die or become incapacitated before 2029. Which isn't crazy.
In other words, Hur is discussing courtroom strategy and the likely self-presentation of the potentially accused (something any prosecutor has to consider), but what the press heard and wanted to go with (as Hur doubtless knew they would) is "Joe Biden is old and has a bad memory". I can understand why lifelong Republican footsoldier Hur would do this. I'm less certain why the American political press keeps letting themselves get played like this. Probably because they're still pissed at Biden for taking away their war.