Hotter, Badder, and Unpopularer Takes

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Here’s a good one:

Prince Harry is a douche.

[brucejoel99]

Here’s a good one:

Prince Harry is a douche.

Maybe in his younger days, but he's definitely seemed to mature over the last number of years.

[Del Tachi]

Here’s a good one:

Prince Harry is a douche.

Maybe in his younger days, but he's definitely seemed to mature over the last number of years.

Why do Americans care about these people, again?  They should be evaluated by the same standards of any Kardashian or Osbourne type celebrity family

[brucejoel99]

Here’s a good one:

Prince Harry is a douche.

Maybe in his younger days, but he's definitely seemed to mature over the last number of years.

Why do Americans care about these people, again?  They should be evaluated by the same standards of any Kardashian or Osbourne type celebrity family

It derives from America's common heritage with that of the UK & the fact the "Special Relationship" truly is special. Our countries share so many common values that we naturally take an interest in our neighbors across the pond.

In terms of the interest in monarchy itself, I think Edmund Burke touched upon this when he discussed the beauty of the Sublime (which can include monarchy).

[Donerail]

In terms of the interest in monarchy itself, I think Edmund Burke touched upon this when he discussed the beauty of the Sublime (which can include monarchy).

Please just go look at some mountains. We have so many of them. No need to read tabloids about some inbred family in some other country

[Antonio the Sixth]

In terms of the interest in monarchy itself, I think Edmund Burke touched upon this when he discussed the beauty of the Sublime (which can include monarchy).

Please just go look at some mountains. We have so many of them. No need to read tabloids about some inbred family in some other country

Yeah

lmao, the idea there's anything "sublime" about these out-of-touch rich doofuses

[Grassroots]

Feudalism is essentially anarcho-fascism with a king.

[Bidenworth2020]

The reason Trump is likely to win again is very simple. Although he lost the popular vote last time, he had a rather decisive victory in the electoral college. Presidents up for re-election in recent years typically win similar states their second time around. For example, Obama gave up the marginal wins of Indiana and North Carolina on his 2nd try, but otherwise the 2012 map was very similar to 2008. Similarly the 2004 map was almost the same as 2000.

It seems to me people against him are pinning their best first hopes on flipping Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. This is going to be tough because many working class white voters who were part of the core Democratic base (such as those in Luzurne, Co.) are gone for them. Trump has a new coalition in these states that even Ronald Reagan did not have.

But let's be generous and say that Trump has a 50% chance of losing each of these states, even though he won them all in 2016. If nothing else changes from 2016, he would still have to lose all three to go under 270. The compound probability of three events is:

50% x 50% x 50% => 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.125 or 12.5%. In other words, while Biden is likely to flip at least one of the states, the odds of him flipping all three states are very low. Trump's has at least an 87.5% chance to of retaining at least one states even if he is favored in none of them, thus being reelected.

Now let's be even more generous to Biden and say he's favored with 65% odds in all three states.

65% x 65% x 65% => 0.65 * 0.65 * 0.65 = 27.5%. In other words, even if Biden is twice as likely to win each of Pennsylvania, Michigan AND Wisconsin, Trump still had about a 73% chance to win at least one.

Now while the odds of winning a given state is by nature somewhat idiosyncratic and random, you could argue that I'm being too easy on Trump by not taking into account potential correlation between the odds. That is, if we know he loses Pennsylvania, then it likely means something bad about his overall popularity and thus his chances in Michigan. Fair enough. Let's say Biden has a 65% chance to win Pennsylvania, and if we know he wins Pennsylvania he has an 75% chance to win Michigan, and we know if he wins both Pennsylvania and Michigan he is a near lock of 90% to win Wisconsin too.

65% x 80% x 90% => 0.65 * 0.8 * 0.9 = 44%. Even in this case, Trump is still favored to win at least one.

What does this tell us? That Biden almost certainly needs another 2016 Trump state to win. And what will this state be? North Carolina, Georgia and Texas are trending D, but only North Carolina has recently gone Dem (once), in the Obama +9 landslide of 2008, and then only by a paper thin margin.

That leaves Arizona and Florida. Arizona has polls showing it competitive, but no Republican presidential nominee has lost there since 1996, and that was with Ross Perot acting as a spoiler. Yes, Kyrsten Sinema won, but only running as a Manchin-style centrist, and in a D +8 year she still only barely squeaked by against a horrible opponent.

Then there is Florida. I've never heard any Democrat having much hope about Florida.

In sum, it looks like the Democrats are overconfidently pinning their hopes on PA + MI + WI but their odds of denying Trump at least one win of the three are very low. (Yes I've made some simplifying assumptions here by keeping other states the same as 2016 but it gives a general picture.) They are saying stuff like Trump needs Florida (which he can lose and still win overall, if that's the only state that flips) more than Biden needs Arizona when the opposite is true.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The political matrix should go from being a square to being a diamond. It's deranged otherwise.

Is the idea that one can be extreme on one-dimension, but not on both? 

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The political matrix should go from being a square to being a diamond. It's deranged otherwise.

Is the idea that one can be extreme on one-dimension, but not on both? 

The way it is set up now, “upper left”, or “authoritarian left”, is actually just authoritarian on both axes. And “libertarian right” has the same problem. “Authoritarian right” is just Reaganism on steroids and “libertarian left” has the equivalent problem. The compass should be rotated 45 degrees to the right, so “authoritarianism” on both axes stands at the top. The geographically farthest right position would thus be right-wing on both axes, the same for the left, and so on. “Authoritarian” and “libertarian” modifiers to right-wing and left-wing would them occupy top right, top left, bottom right, and bottom left—between pure right, pure left, pure auth, pure lib. I can post a picture later if this is confusing but googling the Nolan Chart would be instructive in terms of the visual layout if not the specifics.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The political matrix should go from being a square to being a diamond. It's deranged otherwise.

Is the idea that one can be extreme on one-dimension, but not on both? 

The way it is set up now, “upper left”, or “authoritarian left”, is actually just authoritarian on both axes. And “libertarian right” has the same problem. “Authoritarian right” is just Reaganism on steroids and “libertarian left” has the equivalent problem. The compass should be rotated 45 degrees to the right, so “authoritarianism” on both axes stands at the top. The geographically farthest right position would thus be right-wing on both axes, the same for the left, and so on. “Authoritarian” and “libertarian” modifiers to right-wing and left-wing would them occupy top right, top left, bottom right, and bottom left—between pure right, pure left, pure auth, pure lib. I can post a picture later if this is confusing but googling the Nolan Chart would be instructive in terms of the visual layout if not the specifics.

Conceptualizing politics as being primarily about the amount of power you want the state to have is in and of itself buying into libertarian presuppositions. Nobody who's given serious thought to political theory cares about "big" vs "small" government, because it tends to obfuscate the real issues rather than clarifying them.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The political matrix should go from being a square to being a diamond. It's deranged otherwise.

Is the idea that one can be extreme on one-dimension, but not on both? 

The way it is set up now, “upper left”, or “authoritarian left”, is actually just authoritarian on both axes. And “libertarian right” has the same problem. “Authoritarian right” is just Reaganism on steroids and “libertarian left” has the equivalent problem. The compass should be rotated 45 degrees to the right, so “authoritarianism” on both axes stands at the top. The geographically farthest right position would thus be right-wing on both axes, the same for the left, and so on. “Authoritarian” and “libertarian” modifiers to right-wing and left-wing would them occupy top right, top left, bottom right, and bottom left—between pure right, pure left, pure auth, pure lib. I can post a picture later if this is confusing but googling the Nolan Chart would be instructive in terms of the visual layout if not the specifics.

Conceptualizing politics as being primarily about the amount of power you want the state to have is in and of itself buying into libertarian presuppositions. Nobody who's given serious thought to political theory cares about "big" vs "small" government, because it tends to obfuscate the real issues rather than clarifying them.

I mean, you hopefully know me well enough to understand that I agree. But as long as one were to even use the political compass, I say it's 45 degrees tilted to the left and I have beef with that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The political matrix should go from being a square to being a diamond. It's deranged otherwise.

Is the idea that one can be extreme on one-dimension, but not on both? 

The way it is set up now, “upper left”, or “authoritarian left”, is actually just authoritarian on both axes. And “libertarian right” has the same problem. “Authoritarian right” is just Reaganism on steroids and “libertarian left” has the equivalent problem. The compass should be rotated 45 degrees to the right, so “authoritarianism” on both axes stands at the top. The geographically farthest right position would thus be right-wing on both axes, the same for the left, and so on. “Authoritarian” and “libertarian” modifiers to right-wing and left-wing would them occupy top right, top left, bottom right, and bottom left—between pure right, pure left, pure auth, pure lib. I can post a picture later if this is confusing but googling the Nolan Chart would be instructive in terms of the visual layout if not the specifics.

Conceptualizing politics as being primarily about the amount of power you want the state to have is in and of itself buying into libertarian presuppositions. Nobody who's given serious thought to political theory cares about "big" vs "small" government, because it tends to obfuscate the real issues rather than clarifying them.

I mean, you hopefully know me well enough to understand that I agree. But as long as one were to even use the political compass, I say it's 45 degrees tilted to the left and I have beef with that.

Yeah, that's why I was surprised to see you make these arguments. But fair enough, I see the value of working within that framework and improving it.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The political matrix should go from being a square to being a diamond. It's deranged otherwise.

Is the idea that one can be extreme on one-dimension, but not on both? 

The way it is set up now, “upper left”, or “authoritarian left”, is actually just authoritarian on both axes. And “libertarian right” has the same problem. “Authoritarian right” is just Reaganism on steroids and “libertarian left” has the equivalent problem. The compass should be rotated 45 degrees to the right, so “authoritarianism” on both axes stands at the top. The geographically farthest right position would thus be right-wing on both axes, the same for the left, and so on. “Authoritarian” and “libertarian” modifiers to right-wing and left-wing would them occupy top right, top left, bottom right, and bottom left—between pure right, pure left, pure auth, pure lib. I can post a picture later if this is confusing but googling the Nolan Chart would be instructive in terms of the visual layout if not the specifics.

Conceptualizing politics as being primarily about the amount of power you want the state to have is in and of itself buying into libertarian presuppositions. Nobody who's given serious thought to political theory cares about "big" vs "small" government, because it tends to obfuscate the real issues rather than clarifying them.

I mean, you hopefully know me well enough to understand that I agree. But as long as one were to even use the political compass, I say it's 45 degrees tilted to the left and I have beef with that.

Yeah, that's why I was surprised to see you make these arguments. But fair enough, I see the value of working within that framework and improving it.

It's less of anything philosophical or humanitarian or righteous and more just my annoyance at abuse of terms.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

I am a student of and love classic country music but nothing uniquely musically defines  the South like Delta Blues of the likes of Leadbelly, Robert Johnson, Blind Lemon Jefferson, etc.

[Deblano]

liberal boomers on twitter are more annoying than conservative boomers on twitter

[morgankingsley]

Perot was not a good candidate

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

I agree with this:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/imagine-is-a-bad-bad-song/ar-BB152gKl?ocid=spartanntp

[Badger]

Perot was not a good candidate

Whoever said he was?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I am a student of and love classic country music but nothing uniquely musically defines  the South like Delta Blues of the likes of Leadbelly, Robert Johnson, Blind Lemon Jefferson, etc.

I'm a huge fan of Old Timey music and regularly attend bluegrass festivals. I'm really into the Carter family as of late, though Bob Dylan, The Dead, and The Band are my all time favorites.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Starting to come around to the opinion that the fingerwagging that happened over people breaking social distancing a month ago happened because people were scolding what they viewed of as poor and trashy white people, but lots of elites are more sympathetic to breaking social distancing with the Floyd protests because they are populated and supported by college-educated people.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Most “free speech”/ “pc colleges are killing freedom” personality figures tend to take their position because they either actually agree with said controversial statement or are not targeted by the controversial figure thus they don’t care. For example, Bari Weiss and Brett Stephens are two of the biggest “free speech” warriors yet they have well documented examples of freaking out of personal criticism   

[It’s so Joever]

You're racist if you look down on Asian cultures for eating dog meat.

Because racism is worse than torturing an animal

This but unironically.
Besides, we torture animals in the US all the time, it’s pretty universal imo.

[It’s so Joever]

Since we are talking about this...
There is nothing morally wrong with eating/wearing the fur of any non-endangered animal (not humans of course) It doesn’t matter how cute they are, if they can be safely seared to perfection and aren’t endangered, go ahead. The only issues are health related (aka, bats)

I mean, consider how sacred cows are to certain cultures, and now compare that with how we see animals such as dogs and horses.

As long as the source is safe for human harvesting, is done so with decent regulation, and is not an endangered animal, it is perfectly fine.

Unfortunately the current ways in which meat is farmed are both unsustainable, and dangerous. This applies more so to the taboo sources, but even to conventional meats such as beef and chicken.

[Nightcore Nationalist]

Mike Pompeo would actually make a great president, at least from a foreign policy/relations standpoint.

Trump has had some great cabinet members including Pompeo, DeVos, Barr, Mattis, and Haley.  One of his biggest failings is driving his best employees away.

I would probably vote for Joe Biden if he named Andrew Yang as VP and Joe let him influence policy.

I would unironically support a Tucker Carlson political run.


The free speech debate on the internet is a big deal when Google controls 90% of what people see, and quite frankly when you have a platform monopoly as Twitter, YouTube or Facebook have, it's extremely easy to engage in electoral interference and malfeasance, and if/when that happens heads should roll.  What smooth-brained takes like "a PrIvAtE cOmPaNy CaN dO wHat ThEy WaNt" ignore is that it's not 2006 anymore.  The internet is not a decentralized wild-west (as it should be) and hasn't been for several years.  That logic made sense 10 plus years ago but it's a different world now, you have to change the policy to a changing world.

I disagree with repealing 230, which people like Biden and O'Rourke also want.  The solution, if monopolies aren't willing to be truly neutral, is Anti-Trust.  And Google should be the main target.