"One of the points that I clearly could not make understandable in my responses to your last post."
Haha, you were actually one of the people I was thinking of as I wrote this. We've had a few conversations over the years. I think we're aligned ideologically and politically in quite a few ways. Indeed, most of your criticism of the Democr…
"One of the points that I clearly could not make understandable in my responses to your last post."
Haha, you were actually one of the people I was thinking of as I wrote this. We've had a few conversations over the years. I think we're aligned ideologically and politically in quite a few ways. Indeed, most of your criticism of the Democratic Party are my criticisms too. And one of the reasons I started writing about politics and race is that I saw how the extreme negative rhetoric coming from the left was slowly radicalising people. So far so good.
But the switch I missed was how ostensibly reasonable people like yourself would get to a point where you'd say "so what?" about right-wing influencers being paid by Russia to spread propaganda to the American people. Where you'd claim, without evidence, that the Democrats are calling Trump, Hitler, but be unmoved by the fact that his own vice-president elect did the same thing.
It's also the different standards by which you judge Left and Right. I wonder, for example, if you can express what the issue with Hunter Biden's laptop was, or why the story has so enraged people. I bet almost everybody talking about the suppression of the story (where, again, we are able to agree the suppression is bad with neither of us saying, "so what?") has no real idea what was ON the laptop or whether it was criminal or really much of anything other than DEMS BAD.
So the shift I'm talking about in that case of people like yourself is that you're mostly the same as you've always been in the case of your criticism of the Democrats, maybe a little more hyperbolic, but you are willing to give a near-unlimited pass to Trump and his cronies. And I say "near-unlimited" not because I've seen any evidence that there *is* a limit, but because if I don't tell myself that there is a limit somewhere, I'll give up all hope.
Though honestly, where that limit could lie if Jan 6th wasn't enough is a mystery to me.
I used to laugh at the videos of Trump's supporters being asked "what could Trump do to lose your vote," and see them admit that there was basally nothing. But that seems to be becoming a majority view.
I certainly did miss that shift.
p.s. thanks for the links, I’m knee deep in analysis of the election and will add these to the list. Curiosity really is my overriding feeling.
Hi, Steve, thanks for keeping that link to UnHerd, column written by David Samuels. I have just subscribed. If you haven't read it, his take on Barack Obama as an "eminence grise" or Shadow President is the term he used, behind Kamala Harris's presidential bid is an eye-opener.
"his take on Barack Obama as an "eminence grise" or Shadow President is the term he used, behind Kamala Harris's presidential bid is an eye-opener."
I might be losing my mind here, but could you point to a single line in his piece where he actually makes the case that Obama was the "shadow president"? I read this one first as you singled it out, and I've now read it twice, and I'm reeling that it ever got past the scrutiny of a halfway decent editor.
Where is the evidence that Obama "ordered" Biden out? As the article claims repeatedly. Where is the evidence that Obama was running the government Biden was too senile to run? Samuels openly admits that the "$500 million to $1 billion" estimates of Obama's wealth are unfounded rumours, but then hangs some kind of conspiracy about Obama "having it both ways" on this rumour.
Then there's the paradox of accusing a man whose catchphrase during the election cycle was literally "Don't boo, vote," of wanting to "protect democracy from American voters." Especially in defence of a man, the only man in history, who tried to forcibly overturn a democratic American election.
Even the idea that it's "strange" that Obama stayed in Washington after his presidency was over ignores the crucial detail his daughter was still in school in Washington after the end of his term, so it made sense for the family to stay in the city they'd been living in for eight years.
I'm asking sincerely, could you tell me what you found compelling about this take on Obama?
"One of the points that I clearly could not make understandable in my responses to your last post."
Haha, you were actually one of the people I was thinking of as I wrote this. We've had a few conversations over the years. I think we're aligned ideologically and politically in quite a few ways. Indeed, most of your criticism of the Democratic Party are my criticisms too. And one of the reasons I started writing about politics and race is that I saw how the extreme negative rhetoric coming from the left was slowly radicalising people. So far so good.
But the switch I missed was how ostensibly reasonable people like yourself would get to a point where you'd say "so what?" about right-wing influencers being paid by Russia to spread propaganda to the American people. Where you'd claim, without evidence, that the Democrats are calling Trump, Hitler, but be unmoved by the fact that his own vice-president elect did the same thing.
It's also the different standards by which you judge Left and Right. I wonder, for example, if you can express what the issue with Hunter Biden's laptop was, or why the story has so enraged people. I bet almost everybody talking about the suppression of the story (where, again, we are able to agree the suppression is bad with neither of us saying, "so what?") has no real idea what was ON the laptop or whether it was criminal or really much of anything other than DEMS BAD.
So the shift I'm talking about in that case of people like yourself is that you're mostly the same as you've always been in the case of your criticism of the Democrats, maybe a little more hyperbolic, but you are willing to give a near-unlimited pass to Trump and his cronies. And I say "near-unlimited" not because I've seen any evidence that there *is* a limit, but because if I don't tell myself that there is a limit somewhere, I'll give up all hope.
Though honestly, where that limit could lie if Jan 6th wasn't enough is a mystery to me.
I used to laugh at the videos of Trump's supporters being asked "what could Trump do to lose your vote," and see them admit that there was basally nothing. But that seems to be becoming a majority view.
I certainly did miss that shift.
p.s. thanks for the links, I’m knee deep in analysis of the election and will add these to the list. Curiosity really is my overriding feeling.
Hi, Steve, thanks for keeping that link to UnHerd, column written by David Samuels. I have just subscribed. If you haven't read it, his take on Barack Obama as an "eminence grise" or Shadow President is the term he used, behind Kamala Harris's presidential bid is an eye-opener.
"his take on Barack Obama as an "eminence grise" or Shadow President is the term he used, behind Kamala Harris's presidential bid is an eye-opener."
I might be losing my mind here, but could you point to a single line in his piece where he actually makes the case that Obama was the "shadow president"? I read this one first as you singled it out, and I've now read it twice, and I'm reeling that it ever got past the scrutiny of a halfway decent editor.
Where is the evidence that Obama "ordered" Biden out? As the article claims repeatedly. Where is the evidence that Obama was running the government Biden was too senile to run? Samuels openly admits that the "$500 million to $1 billion" estimates of Obama's wealth are unfounded rumours, but then hangs some kind of conspiracy about Obama "having it both ways" on this rumour.
Then there's the paradox of accusing a man whose catchphrase during the election cycle was literally "Don't boo, vote," of wanting to "protect democracy from American voters." Especially in defence of a man, the only man in history, who tried to forcibly overturn a democratic American election.
Even the idea that it's "strange" that Obama stayed in Washington after his presidency was over ignores the crucial detail his daughter was still in school in Washington after the end of his term, so it made sense for the family to stay in the city they'd been living in for eight years.
I'm asking sincerely, could you tell me what you found compelling about this take on Obama?