I’ve unfortunately felt constrained to ban a number of regular commenters who have insisted on maintaining that the opposition to genocide in Palestine—as manifested in college campus demonstrations—is simply the expression of “leftist brats”, or that these demonstrations are somehow equivalent to the previous BLM and Antifa excesses. As commenter mistcr pointed out early on, the big difference is plain to see: These almost uniformly peaceful demonstrators
Why ban commenters? Especially if they are not being rude or disrespectful, but simply disagree with you? The inability to tolerate and discuss opinions which differ from our own creates an echo chamber. I find the Israel/Gaza conflict confusing and multifaceted, so I have not yet formed my own opinion. However, I enjoy hearing from people on BOTH sides who are perhaps better informed than I. Perusing comments and essays on both sides allows me to make up my own mind, bc I suspect that the “truth” (whatever that means) lies somewhere in the middle.
I enable comments primarily for my own benefit--to learn from a community of generally like minded thinkers--not as an arena for a free for all of opinions. That's why I read each and every comment, which is a time consuming process. I don't have time for people who choose to impose upon my time by disrupting that process.
Truth is the agreement of the mind with reality, within the limits of human abilities. I disagree in principle with your notion that truth is a middle ground" between reality and unreality, and I disagree in principle with your expressed skepticism. You and others who may not agree with everything I say are still welcome to read and comment, but not to be disruptive of my goals.
Thank you for your response. Responding to each and every comment is indeed a heavy burden, and likely tiresome if people don’t agree with your position. I read an interesting article about this by Hannania recently- let me see if I can find it and send it on.
Well said Mark - and I agree with what you say about the genocide. Unfortunately this war is existential for both Israelis and Palestinians so I can’t see it ending well for either of them. I read somewhere that Israel being destroyed is part of the next phase of global totalitarianism, and it would line up with Deagal forecast which sees massive declines in population (including Israel by a third) in 2025.
1. The current Neocon war on the world is existential for the US in a systemic sense re constitutional order. This has been building since the Clinton years.
2 "Israel being destroyed is part of the next phase of global totalitarianism" if you can make sense of that statement I'd be interested to see it.
3. Re Trumpenstein, the author has his points but also makes fundamentally stupid statements, primarily re Pence. "Were the evangelicals going to vote for Hillary without Pence on the ticket? He also lost how ever many gay votes he was going to get." The point is not that Hillary would ever draw voters away from Trump. The point is that Trump could only win by goosing Republican turnout like never before. And he did. He obviously did something very right and probably got that boost by a combination of picking a Red state governor identified with broadly religious people and by making his pledge re appointment of federal judges--showing a list.
I urge everyone to listen to Jordan Peterson’s podcast interview with Mosab Hassan Yousef ( Yousef’s father was one of the leaders of Hamas). He explains his wretched childhood and the violence of the West Bank. We can learn much from his experience and insight.
As for a "pretty faced" Governor, I sure hope Kristi Noem is off the table. The story of executing a 14 month old dog for being too excited during a pheasant hunt isn't going to win a single Independent vote and will be splashed all over the media 24/7 if she is the VP pick. Please, please, Trump, do NOT pick Noem. Romney only put a dog on top of a car (in a carrier) and he was crucified as an animal abuser. People love their dogs (as do I) and this story from Noem is a career ender in national politics.
That wasn't the full story. The dog was jumping & killing pheasants on the hunts. Ok, no hunting for you, Scooby-Doo. Next, the dog killed the neighbor's flock of chickens in a single murderous rampage & bit Noem when she tried to retrieve it.
Putting it down was a sound decision from a rural farming perspective, but there are still many of the metropolitan "My dog is my child" perspective complaining she didn't rehome that loose cannon.
I agree, Noem's political career is dead, but it's for all the wrong reasons. So sick of manipulative press & the general population's unwillingness to acknowledge that there is often more than one perspective and/or solution to the same problem.
We can argue about whether what she did was okay. I'd say it wasn't but that isn't the point. The point is that she is TOXIC now. If Trump picks her for VP, he'll lose.
I think that Trump whispered in MJ’s ear to reverse course on Ukraine/funding bill purely because of election calculus: (1) the upcoming debacle in Ukraine is 100% Zhou’s problem, and as suggested on the Duran, almost all of the money merely reimbursed American MIC for weapons already sent or pays to replenish stocks here - so no new weapons (Ukraine fails) and no sense stiffing the MIC for an unpaid bill; and (2) Gaza is Zhou’s problem too, and Rs need not stick their neck out at this time since the American opinion tide is turning massively - with the help of the college demonstrators - and it will hurt Zhou first and foremost (note of caution here as to MW’s warning about Rs needing to be on the right side of this issue so some sort of fix has to show up that side). The best way to handle? Of course not, but the election calculus said take those issues off the table, run on borders (still unsolved) and economy.
Despite good intentions, it is quite narcissistic and naive in and of itself, to think protesting as such will change policies in the middle east simply because they demand it, whether they be on the side of perceived right or wrong. Baning is anti-free speech, and wrong. Paying no attention to what bothers you, and not commenting, is a right more people should exercise. A right that you and they should both defend. My 2 bits. Cheers
Flynn no good. He seems to be the mothership coordinator for weirdo paytriot social media influencers. They sell shirts, hopium and grift off givesendgo and I've found them to be odious and divisive. Mind you, I don't believe the political system can be saved.
Look at the state of the both sides of politics. Nary a decent person among them. Essentially, it's a uniparty, not just bad actor RINO's. During Trump's reign, I looked at the shit show that was a constant theme for him. His picks stabbing him in the back. At what point is that bad luck or incompetence? Remember Bill Barr?
BBC:
'US Attorney General William Barr says his justice department has found no proof to back President Donald Trump's claims of fraud in the 2020 election.'
The 2020 election theft was another blow to the American people. It was a coup. Where were the system checks to step in and call it for what it was? The corruption is so bone deep endemic, how can one person cure it? The cancer is terminal.
The 2030 agendas are on the march. You can't vote your way out of what's coming, just gird yourself, your family and friends for the inevitable. A technocratic tyranny. The more people who opt out of the system believing it will save them, the better. It only survives due to belief in it. Take that belief away, let people see the true nature of what faces them.
Voting a dead end. Bidenissimo will wreak his scripted havoc to collapse what remains anyway.
Interesting discussion about the VP pick in the comments. How about someone with experience with downsizing things? Find someone who will trim the federal workforce. One interview question could be ‘What do you think about a workforce reduction of ten percent?’ The correct answer comes in the form of a question: ‘How about 30%?’
I was referred to an interesting article recently regarding the forces behind the political tides. It posits that the same money/power is running behind *both* sides of the political spectrum in order to manipulate the mostly clueless people on the ground. It fits well with “No matter who you vote for you always end up with John McCain.” It offers some theories about things I”ve never been able to get a handle on. Who is behind this perpetual craziness? Who wants this? I’d be interested to hear people’s thoughts.
My aim isn't to be heavy handed, but I don't want this to descend into unfocused bickering. The fact that I try to stay involved means that I have to exercise more control. I could go hands off, but then it would end up unfocused and I would lose more valuable input. Can't please everyone.
Staying focused on the prevention of global war in the nuclear age is great. We are at the dawn of massive proliferation and our ‘leadership’ is still unserious about developing missile defenses. How well are the 50 year old Minutemen doing? Exactly how long will it take to build the new Boomers and how much of them will have the ‘Made in China’ stamp? And so on. Our society is distracted by many things from what we need to focus on: survival, deterring war, and avoiding a calamitous global conflagration that we are in no way prepared for. As for the conservative movement what Whittaker Chambers said still holds: he joined the dumb party. What is required to win against people who will end your civilization from within? Dispassionate analysis and focus on: does this help us win political power or not?
Read a blog from "The Free Press" This is Bari Weiss publication since she left the NYT and contributed to the "Twitter files". One of her writers spent some time earlier in the week on the Columbia U grounds and offered this. The writer is Olivia Reingold.
Bari can be obnoxious. This isn’t her, but someone (Olivia Reingold) writing on the same site. I couldn’t get much out of it since it is behind a paywall. Perhaps the OP could summarize?
1. Any one not of the Left (Mega, Conservatives, Libertarians, questioning Covid, questioning lockdowns, etc), gets banned due to supposed threats of violence, of if they do have an event are labeled racist and the event is disrupted, and the local authorities ignores the disruption issue, or makes some virtue signaling. Or the group putting on the event is heavily infiltrated (see Malcom X death with how many police / fbi informants?). The offenders are not punished. Yes, I am still VERY upset about what happened to the Trump Rally Attendees in San Jose, they were assaulted, police stood by, and the only results 2 years later was a lousy apology from the City. And that is not even mentioning Jan 6.
2. BLM - Celebrated and allowed to do basically anything. If in a Blue Area or on campus, it allows the administration to virtue signal by showing their support. If there are any arrests, lots of legal support that has resulted in very few charges.
3. Gaza - Treatment depends on the campus. A combination of 1 & 2. And the treatment depends on the judge, so in many areas arrests are just theater. I was surprised at what happened at Pomona College in Claremont and at Google.
4. Pro Israeli - Told not to protest due to safety issues at some campuses.
In Riverside, the BLM protests had 4,000 people per a local paper. The Gaza protesters I have seen in Riverside have 20-30 people.
Protesting for the Left, and training for it, has become a part of the Democratic Party. There are also people that feel strongly on the Gaza Issue. I am shocked there would be snipers on a roof, that is just insane and so over the top. Protesters including the hectoring vote, on many college campuses have been allowed to get away with so much (except if you are conservative), that any push back is a shock to them. My guess there is a bit of Soros and Leftist funding, and a bit of Leftist Brats protesting the latest issue of the day to gain more woke points. There are also a bunch of Middle Eastern students, paying full tuition I assume, that are protesting. Along people that feel strongly on the issue. All my guesses, unless you are actually at an event, it's hard to know what is actually happening and who attended, since news media is full of censorship, mis-information, and biases. A breakdown of attendees by major, age, sex, race, nationality, and parents income would be interesting.
Mark - Your blog and rules, but please be lenient on the banning. Measure twice, cut once. Gaza is obviously an issue you have strong feelings on. I just got a DM from a Long term reader that regrets they will no longer be subscribed to your substack due to being banned.
I get your concerns. I thought long and hard about these two bannings, because I do want readers to have the opportunity for give and take. I decided that those commenters had gone off the rails. This is part of why I don't accept money and why I continue to read each and every comment. There are lots of other places to go and persistently offer simplistic and ill informed comments, but I don't want that stuff cluttering up the space here. Informed disagreement is fine but I am looking for commenters who can help advance and develop what I'm trying to get across.
Where do we go who believe both sides are wrong? It looks to me as if the Israelis do want to flatten Gaza, get everyone out, and take the land. I am appalled when I hear about the behavior of the Israeli military and the way they treat non Jews. At the same time, the behavior and aims of Hamas are not supportable. To say the least. And it just wrong to blame all Jews for the actions of the Israeli state. At the same time, Israelis seem to blame everyone in Gaza for the actions of hamas and seem fine with the deaths of non combatants. How is there a good side? I can’t see it. Both sides seem to endorse wiping out the other.
The VP job is mostly ceremonial, and having that sweet looking Hawaiian that has embarrassed both Kamala and Hillary, would help the Orange Man's elections prospects. Tom Loungo's analysis makes sense.
I don't see Tulsi as "sweet looking". She looks like a tough cookie to me--especially if placed next to the usual GOP suspects. That's not an endorsement at all, just sayin'.
I just have a hard time trusting her. She said some pretty shitty (and dumb) things about Trump during his first term: “unfit for office,” “stirring up racial tensions,” etc. Although she abstained in the first impeachment vote, she did so out of concern for what impeachment “would do to the country” not because she saw through the bullshit. In fact, if I recall correctly, she indicated that she actually considered him guilty of something nefarious. I get people can change, but until I hear her acknowledge (and apologize for) the above positions, I don’t trust her.
As I said, I wasn't endorsing her, nor suggesting that Trump trust or pick her, just comparing her to the usual GOP squishes--usually senators and governors--and suggesting that she's more manly than most of those backstabbers.
Thanks, Mark. Probably shouldn’t have posted my comment as a response to yours. It looks like i am implying you endorse her. I know better and should have made that clear. I also don’t disagree with your comparison. Her apostasy from the Democrats and the Left more generally these days stands out as remarkably gutsy. Gutsy and savvy. I think she knows the political winds are shifting and is changing tack accordingly. Bottom line (and again, this is something you’ve said many times already): she is, if nothing else, not merely gutsy and savvy, but very ambitious. Which makes her potentially useful or potentially dangerous.
Patrick Bet David read her own words back to her in the context of a discussion of her prospects as a Trump VP pick. I was expecting her response to be: “I was wrong.” But no. She essentially responded with a campaign pitch. After PBD’s damning recitation of her record on Trump, I keep wondering why Trump would trust her. Start at 3:00 min mark:
This election will not hinge on Israel and Gaza. Not from the right.
The issue is whether the constitutional republic can be restarted. Everything else is piffle.
Why ban commenters? Especially if they are not being rude or disrespectful, but simply disagree with you? The inability to tolerate and discuss opinions which differ from our own creates an echo chamber. I find the Israel/Gaza conflict confusing and multifaceted, so I have not yet formed my own opinion. However, I enjoy hearing from people on BOTH sides who are perhaps better informed than I. Perusing comments and essays on both sides allows me to make up my own mind, bc I suspect that the “truth” (whatever that means) lies somewhere in the middle.
I enable comments primarily for my own benefit--to learn from a community of generally like minded thinkers--not as an arena for a free for all of opinions. That's why I read each and every comment, which is a time consuming process. I don't have time for people who choose to impose upon my time by disrupting that process.
Truth is the agreement of the mind with reality, within the limits of human abilities. I disagree in principle with your notion that truth is a middle ground" between reality and unreality, and I disagree in principle with your expressed skepticism. You and others who may not agree with everything I say are still welcome to read and comment, but not to be disruptive of my goals.
Thank you for your response. Responding to each and every comment is indeed a heavy burden, and likely tiresome if people don’t agree with your position. I read an interesting article about this by Hannania recently- let me see if I can find it and send it on.
Well said Mark - and I agree with what you say about the genocide. Unfortunately this war is existential for both Israelis and Palestinians so I can’t see it ending well for either of them. I read somewhere that Israel being destroyed is part of the next phase of global totalitarianism, and it would line up with Deagal forecast which sees massive declines in population (including Israel by a third) in 2025.
On Trump: I found this article on Lew Rockwell interesting if depressing! https://www.lewrockwell.com/2024/03/no_author/trumpenstein-and-the-death-of-politics/
1. The current Neocon war on the world is existential for the US in a systemic sense re constitutional order. This has been building since the Clinton years.
2 "Israel being destroyed is part of the next phase of global totalitarianism" if you can make sense of that statement I'd be interested to see it.
3. Re Trumpenstein, the author has his points but also makes fundamentally stupid statements, primarily re Pence. "Were the evangelicals going to vote for Hillary without Pence on the ticket? He also lost how ever many gay votes he was going to get." The point is not that Hillary would ever draw voters away from Trump. The point is that Trump could only win by goosing Republican turnout like never before. And he did. He obviously did something very right and probably got that boost by a combination of picking a Red state governor identified with broadly religious people and by making his pledge re appointment of federal judges--showing a list.
All valid points. I also can’t understand why Trump would volunteer to be ‘Trumpenstein’ and commented accordingly to the author of the article.
I urge everyone to listen to Jordan Peterson’s podcast interview with Mosab Hassan Yousef ( Yousef’s father was one of the leaders of Hamas). He explains his wretched childhood and the violence of the West Bank. We can learn much from his experience and insight.
As for a "pretty faced" Governor, I sure hope Kristi Noem is off the table. The story of executing a 14 month old dog for being too excited during a pheasant hunt isn't going to win a single Independent vote and will be splashed all over the media 24/7 if she is the VP pick. Please, please, Trump, do NOT pick Noem. Romney only put a dog on top of a car (in a carrier) and he was crucified as an animal abuser. People love their dogs (as do I) and this story from Noem is a career ender in national politics.
That wasn't the full story. The dog was jumping & killing pheasants on the hunts. Ok, no hunting for you, Scooby-Doo. Next, the dog killed the neighbor's flock of chickens in a single murderous rampage & bit Noem when she tried to retrieve it.
Putting it down was a sound decision from a rural farming perspective, but there are still many of the metropolitan "My dog is my child" perspective complaining she didn't rehome that loose cannon.
I agree, Noem's political career is dead, but it's for all the wrong reasons. So sick of manipulative press & the general population's unwillingness to acknowledge that there is often more than one perspective and/or solution to the same problem.
We can argue about whether what she did was okay. I'd say it wasn't but that isn't the point. The point is that she is TOXIC now. If Trump picks her for VP, he'll lose.
I agreed that her political career is dead - for all the wrong reasons.
https://twitter.com/karaokecomputer/status/1783976397834490239
I think that Trump whispered in MJ’s ear to reverse course on Ukraine/funding bill purely because of election calculus: (1) the upcoming debacle in Ukraine is 100% Zhou’s problem, and as suggested on the Duran, almost all of the money merely reimbursed American MIC for weapons already sent or pays to replenish stocks here - so no new weapons (Ukraine fails) and no sense stiffing the MIC for an unpaid bill; and (2) Gaza is Zhou’s problem too, and Rs need not stick their neck out at this time since the American opinion tide is turning massively - with the help of the college demonstrators - and it will hurt Zhou first and foremost (note of caution here as to MW’s warning about Rs needing to be on the right side of this issue so some sort of fix has to show up that side). The best way to handle? Of course not, but the election calculus said take those issues off the table, run on borders (still unsolved) and economy.
Despite good intentions, it is quite narcissistic and naive in and of itself, to think protesting as such will change policies in the middle east simply because they demand it, whether they be on the side of perceived right or wrong. Baning is anti-free speech, and wrong. Paying no attention to what bothers you, and not commenting, is a right more people should exercise. A right that you and they should both defend. My 2 bits. Cheers
My short list is JD Vance, Tulsi, & Vivek. Critical that they could sustain the MAGA populist movement.
Hard no on Tim Scott, Desantis, Pompey, and that ilk.
Devin Nunes ok too. Prefer him and Flynn for CIA and Nat'l Security Advisor.
https://twitter.com/Brookltnwilliw/status/1781575991837556855?t=SYpG2ato3KjwSX2SxZdYtg&s=19
Flynn no good. He seems to be the mothership coordinator for weirdo paytriot social media influencers. They sell shirts, hopium and grift off givesendgo and I've found them to be odious and divisive. Mind you, I don't believe the political system can be saved.
Look at the state of the both sides of politics. Nary a decent person among them. Essentially, it's a uniparty, not just bad actor RINO's. During Trump's reign, I looked at the shit show that was a constant theme for him. His picks stabbing him in the back. At what point is that bad luck or incompetence? Remember Bill Barr?
BBC:
'US Attorney General William Barr says his justice department has found no proof to back President Donald Trump's claims of fraud in the 2020 election.'
The 2020 election theft was another blow to the American people. It was a coup. Where were the system checks to step in and call it for what it was? The corruption is so bone deep endemic, how can one person cure it? The cancer is terminal.
The 2030 agendas are on the march. You can't vote your way out of what's coming, just gird yourself, your family and friends for the inevitable. A technocratic tyranny. The more people who opt out of the system believing it will save them, the better. It only survives due to belief in it. Take that belief away, let people see the true nature of what faces them.
Voting a dead end. Bidenissimo will wreak his scripted havoc to collapse what remains anyway.
Flynn:
1. Yes, he was railroaded, perhaps especially because at DIA he blew the whistle on US involvement with al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria,
2. Sadly, still not a good choice for a responsible position.
Interesting discussion about the VP pick in the comments. How about someone with experience with downsizing things? Find someone who will trim the federal workforce. One interview question could be ‘What do you think about a workforce reduction of ten percent?’ The correct answer comes in the form of a question: ‘How about 30%?’
https://twitter.com/Megatron_ron/status/1783963495379153148
I was referred to an interesting article recently regarding the forces behind the political tides. It posits that the same money/power is running behind *both* sides of the political spectrum in order to manipulate the mostly clueless people on the ground. It fits well with “No matter who you vote for you always end up with John McCain.” It offers some theories about things I”ve never been able to get a handle on. Who is behind this perpetual craziness? Who wants this? I’d be interested to hear people’s thoughts.
https://pamho.medium.com/the-new-progressive-world-order-or-rage-against-the-deux-ex-machina-983e73905f9b
(By the way, I’d avoid banning commenters with ugly viewpoints unless they are absolutely destroying the discussion for everyone else.)
I for one appreciate Mark's heavy hand on the ban button. It keeps things on topic. This is his stack, you can run yours however you please.
My aim isn't to be heavy handed, but I don't want this to descend into unfocused bickering. The fact that I try to stay involved means that I have to exercise more control. I could go hands off, but then it would end up unfocused and I would lose more valuable input. Can't please everyone.
Staying focused on the prevention of global war in the nuclear age is great. We are at the dawn of massive proliferation and our ‘leadership’ is still unserious about developing missile defenses. How well are the 50 year old Minutemen doing? Exactly how long will it take to build the new Boomers and how much of them will have the ‘Made in China’ stamp? And so on. Our society is distracted by many things from what we need to focus on: survival, deterring war, and avoiding a calamitous global conflagration that we are in no way prepared for. As for the conservative movement what Whittaker Chambers said still holds: he joined the dumb party. What is required to win against people who will end your civilization from within? Dispassionate analysis and focus on: does this help us win political power or not?
Tounge-in-cheek wording on my part.
I subscribe to enough stacks with freewheeling comment sections full of unfocused bickering. This one is, for me, a nice change of pace.
I imagine Tulsi is the only one who comes to mind for me to fit this mode they talk about.
The biggest problem with her is her cult background. In terms of personal qualities she's probably well ahead of the usual squishes.
I don't quite trust her.
I’ve never heard anything about Tulsi Gabbard being involved with a cult. What are you referring to?
I’m not challenging you, by the way, just asking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard#Personal_life
She currently presents herself as a sort of mainstreamish Hindu, but there are articles out there that paint a different picture.
Read a blog from "The Free Press" This is Bari Weiss publication since she left the NYT and contributed to the "Twitter files". One of her writers spent some time earlier in the week on the Columbia U grounds and offered this. The writer is Olivia Reingold.
I offer it as a perspective to be shared.
https://www.thefp.com/p/camping-with-columbia-communist-coachella?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Sorry, I don't read Bari Weiss.
Bari can be obnoxious. This isn’t her, but someone (Olivia Reingold) writing on the same site. I couldn’t get much out of it since it is behind a paywall. Perhaps the OP could summarize?
So now we have 4 standards for protests:
1. Any one not of the Left (Mega, Conservatives, Libertarians, questioning Covid, questioning lockdowns, etc), gets banned due to supposed threats of violence, of if they do have an event are labeled racist and the event is disrupted, and the local authorities ignores the disruption issue, or makes some virtue signaling. Or the group putting on the event is heavily infiltrated (see Malcom X death with how many police / fbi informants?). The offenders are not punished. Yes, I am still VERY upset about what happened to the Trump Rally Attendees in San Jose, they were assaulted, police stood by, and the only results 2 years later was a lousy apology from the City. And that is not even mentioning Jan 6.
2. BLM - Celebrated and allowed to do basically anything. If in a Blue Area or on campus, it allows the administration to virtue signal by showing their support. If there are any arrests, lots of legal support that has resulted in very few charges.
3. Gaza - Treatment depends on the campus. A combination of 1 & 2. And the treatment depends on the judge, so in many areas arrests are just theater. I was surprised at what happened at Pomona College in Claremont and at Google.
4. Pro Israeli - Told not to protest due to safety issues at some campuses.
In Riverside, the BLM protests had 4,000 people per a local paper. The Gaza protesters I have seen in Riverside have 20-30 people.
Protesting for the Left, and training for it, has become a part of the Democratic Party. There are also people that feel strongly on the Gaza Issue. I am shocked there would be snipers on a roof, that is just insane and so over the top. Protesters including the hectoring vote, on many college campuses have been allowed to get away with so much (except if you are conservative), that any push back is a shock to them. My guess there is a bit of Soros and Leftist funding, and a bit of Leftist Brats protesting the latest issue of the day to gain more woke points. There are also a bunch of Middle Eastern students, paying full tuition I assume, that are protesting. Along people that feel strongly on the issue. All my guesses, unless you are actually at an event, it's hard to know what is actually happening and who attended, since news media is full of censorship, mis-information, and biases. A breakdown of attendees by major, age, sex, race, nationality, and parents income would be interesting.
Mark - Your blog and rules, but please be lenient on the banning. Measure twice, cut once. Gaza is obviously an issue you have strong feelings on. I just got a DM from a Long term reader that regrets they will no longer be subscribed to your substack due to being banned.
RE: Gaza above... not the judge at issue... https://www.texastribune.org/2024/04/25/ut-austin-palestinian-arrests-criminal-cases/
Hope we didn't lose Cass...
I get your concerns. I thought long and hard about these two bannings, because I do want readers to have the opportunity for give and take. I decided that those commenters had gone off the rails. This is part of why I don't accept money and why I continue to read each and every comment. There are lots of other places to go and persistently offer simplistic and ill informed comments, but I don't want that stuff cluttering up the space here. Informed disagreement is fine but I am looking for commenters who can help advance and develop what I'm trying to get across.
Where do we go who believe both sides are wrong? It looks to me as if the Israelis do want to flatten Gaza, get everyone out, and take the land. I am appalled when I hear about the behavior of the Israeli military and the way they treat non Jews. At the same time, the behavior and aims of Hamas are not supportable. To say the least. And it just wrong to blame all Jews for the actions of the Israeli state. At the same time, Israelis seem to blame everyone in Gaza for the actions of hamas and seem fine with the deaths of non combatants. How is there a good side? I can’t see it. Both sides seem to endorse wiping out the other.
Trump's VP has to be more than a pretty face, non doubt. Hopefully Trump will listen to Melania and not pick a sweet-lookkng Hawaiian either.
The VP job is mostly ceremonial, and having that sweet looking Hawaiian that has embarrassed both Kamala and Hillary, would help the Orange Man's elections prospects. Tom Loungo's analysis makes sense.
I don't see Tulsi as "sweet looking". She looks like a tough cookie to me--especially if placed next to the usual GOP suspects. That's not an endorsement at all, just sayin'.
I just have a hard time trusting her. She said some pretty shitty (and dumb) things about Trump during his first term: “unfit for office,” “stirring up racial tensions,” etc. Although she abstained in the first impeachment vote, she did so out of concern for what impeachment “would do to the country” not because she saw through the bullshit. In fact, if I recall correctly, she indicated that she actually considered him guilty of something nefarious. I get people can change, but until I hear her acknowledge (and apologize for) the above positions, I don’t trust her.
As I said, I wasn't endorsing her, nor suggesting that Trump trust or pick her, just comparing her to the usual GOP squishes--usually senators and governors--and suggesting that she's more manly than most of those backstabbers.
Thanks, Mark. Probably shouldn’t have posted my comment as a response to yours. It looks like i am implying you endorse her. I know better and should have made that clear. I also don’t disagree with your comparison. Her apostasy from the Democrats and the Left more generally these days stands out as remarkably gutsy. Gutsy and savvy. I think she knows the political winds are shifting and is changing tack accordingly. Bottom line (and again, this is something you’ve said many times already): she is, if nothing else, not merely gutsy and savvy, but very ambitious. Which makes her potentially useful or potentially dangerous.
Patrick Bet David read her own words back to her in the context of a discussion of her prospects as a Trump VP pick. I was expecting her response to be: “I was wrong.” But no. She essentially responded with a campaign pitch. After PBD’s damning recitation of her record on Trump, I keep wondering why Trump would trust her. Start at 3:00 min mark:
https://youtu.be/RZS7IAgD1II?si=rvHdBE80Wq-uQ8aG&t=180
I'll take a "tough cookie" next to the usual GOP suspects any day and twice on Sunday.