Bozo_Casanova

No, because candidate and tactical quality were not optimized. My guess is Allred underperforms Harris by 2-3% would be thrilled to be wrong.

I never heard Tim Pool talk before. Is his voice like that all the time?

I will not be wondering. They were not.

Or, the kid could have done what Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold did, operating a couple of 9mm semi-automatics and shotguns. Keep in mind that this was during the period of the 94 assault weapons ban, and the AR-15 wasn't popular or widespread at that time. But - they were both understood to be mentally ill and violent by their families and local law enforcement, prior to the Columbine massacre and were nevertheless given access to the firearms they used to carry out the slaughter by adults. Sound familiar? I don't care about the AR platform. But the AR-15 is involved in something around 2% of all gun deaths and pursuing the fantasy discourse about a ban actively prevents workable reforms that would save lives. It's just not worth the political capital.

so much for bundling with progressive and saving i guess.

Is your mom coming?

This you?

We shouldn't. Look, I don't think there's any question that polling has moved slightly in Trump's direction in some of the swing states over the last few days, and that the Trump campaign has gotten off their back foot, and are driving the discourse in many places. That's to be expected and there's no need to sweat that. Harris has superior field organization in every swing state and at least equal enthusiasm, not to mention more positive (as opposed to negative) enthusiasm, and she can get it back with solid campaigning. But the fact is that this is an extremely tight race in the places that matter and right now there's 5-7% of potential wiggle in any given one of those places and we should expect it to show up that way in polling. I still maintain that that 5-7% who will decide this election, they will lock in as a group, as soon as the week following the debate and by the end of September at the latest, and they will harden from that point absent some kind of major exogenous event*. The debate could not be more important and will quite possibly decide the future of the Republic, not just the outcome of the election. So there's no use in talking about what would happen if the election were held today, because it isn't. * The Harris campaign and the DOJ should both be extremely vigilant about adversary state actors on this point. Surely someone is planning something.

The man who taught me not to meet my heroes.

no doubt. Great post.

There's a huge "underground" of unlicensed day cares run out of apartments and private homes, often paid by the day in cash. The parents often aren't very comfortable leaving their kids in those places and often do not have a better option. Look- there's a core of economic reality to JD Vance's weird, misguided musings about women working outside the home. I used to post on it a lot, going back to the Obama era when GOPers like Clear Lake and others would whine about "real unemployment" and the Labor Participation Rate. The advent of the dual income family and expansion of the LPR has not been an unalloyed good, as household incomes have stagnated and workers received a smaller share of the additional productivity they generated, while their costs went up. It is quite common for the lower income parent to be well beneath the minimum wage, net of the hard costs of employment - ie child care, transportation, additional prepared foods, etc.

You have no idea [/Jeremy Irons voice]

I know, it’s almost like there’s a predictable pattern here and we’ve allowed the politics of the issue to focus on a frequent detail of that pattern rather than opportunities to interrupt the pattern. To be clear here: there is nothing about the manufacture and importation of AR-15’s that would interrupt the pattern at work in mass shootings. It’s a discourse that consumes a great deal of political capital, saves no lives and prevents nothing. At some point we have to recognize that the function of that discourse is to propel our political dynamic and channel effort away from action. Any benefit or harm it does is incidental.

We’ll focus 100% on no longer manufacturing and importing the class of weapons used 2/3s of the time in 3% of annual gun deaths, while others will focus 100% on continuing to manufacture and import the the class of weapons used 2/3s of the time in 3% of annual gun deaths. Both groups will wave their arms furiously and make many mouth noises until we all forget about it, which should be by Monday. Fuck getting a teenager some help though, right?

Like everything else, there are diminishing returns for political spending past some point. We’re probably well past that point.

So many years later I’m still amazed that Leegin isn’t at the top of these lists. That’s when everyone should have seen what the Roberts court would be. They got the judges they wanted, and started lining up cases, and the entire power structure and pricing logic of the consumer economy gets upended, out of nowhere, with the stroke of a pen. All the bitching about producers role in inflation the last couple years and it seems like nobody recalls what made it possible. Insane.

How are you embedding TikTok?

@Anastasis : a live look

I know I’m not

YES. also. When I was in college I slept with a girl from Virginia who was really into James Madison. And other stuff. Not stable, though.

Come on man.

Fify

I mean, if you believe that making it harder to pass legislation=stability, sure. Fed 62 talked about it being an impediment to passing legislation. But at the end of the day it’s about sovereignty.