Профиль

Regardless of specific actions taken, it's a good indicator for Ukraine because of Trump's unerring instinct to side with the strong against the weak.

Stop in Tucumcari (like Lee van Cleef in the movie) and check out the little museum.

mandate of heaven indeed

emphasis goes on the "French"

I hear you. I found if I grabbed it quickly enough and gave it a couple days to dry out it got better

Like with Schumer, it’s not so much that she’s wrong, it’s that the reaction shows a potentially fatal case of “Before Times brain”

Very tempting to respond by getting up and preaching the word of Zoroaster

"Oh, I thought you said better *at* corruption..."

What slime. I will donate to a defamation suit against RFKJ on Fauci's behalf.

they call it viral for a reason

Well literally yes; if those are the two choices, then pick the one that gives you more runway to do something about it. That's the general election. But fortunately in reality there are more options, and more flavors of electability in the primary candidate selection

I wasn't expecting an authoritative conversion of the Odyssey as a literary work to screen, so I enjoyed it but yeah if you're a major scholar on the subject maybe you want to put some daylight between you and the film

"It's like talking to my parents"

No, but I kind of am, and wanted to point out that I'm not arguing that capitalism has to die or whatever

I agree, but like politics, buses have more than one criterion. If I find a bus that drops me a block farther away, but gets there 20 minutes earlier, I'll take that one. Just as with a candidate, I'll pick one that will do a better job selling themselves as the competent anti-corruption candidate.

Not attached enough to the party to care. "Will they win" and "will they push the country in the right general direction" is all that matters

This is not an argument for nominating a rapy guy with Nazi tattoos. It's an argument that in a world of low information voters with incoherent preferences, "electability" does not mean "is milquetoast enough that even Fox won't notice they're a Democrat"

Tom's telling us he knows better. It's worth getting him on the record on some hypotheticals that will help illustrate his wisdom. It's arguable that D's are better off for the whole Platner mess because we didn't end up with Mills.

Yes, Platner was bad, but his problem was not that he was too liberal, or too outspoken. His problem was that he was a shitty candidate (and not unrelated, an apparently shitty person). Mills was kind of a shitty candidate in other ways.

The Tom Nichols problem - as a centrist! - is that you seem to have fallen into the Yglesias trap of thinking the only measure of winnability is sounding more like a Republican. You worked for a Senator in PA. If you have a D primary today, do you prefer Fetterman or Mamdani? Fetterman or Ossoff?