More of the "burn it all down" mentality is the last thing we need. It's not at all necessary to repudiate Trump, and it would empower policies that conservatives do not believe are best for our nation: /2
Yes, I wish that GOP senators had displayed historic courage and voted to remove an unfit, corrupt man from the presidency. But we have acknowledge what, exactly, we were asking: /3
Moreover, character matters, but so does policy. It matters a great deal. It's not everything. It's not so important that it trumps fitness and character, but it's still vitally important: /4
And if you think it's just obvious that GOP Senators are grossly morally deficient, ask yourself the question below. Some can say yes, but how many? And how many politicians of either party can say the same? /5
Yes, I completely understand that Democrats and many, many independents will be voting to wipe out the GOP. I do not agree with the argument that Trump's unfitness means that conservatives should join the quest to burn the party to the ground. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'm leaving Twitter, for the indefinite future. The reason is simple: this site is becoming more like Gab every day. It's a font of hatred, lies, and harassment. And while it's never been great, at least it had its uses. No longer. At least not for me. /1
The constant hatred and malice on this site is bad for the soul. The tsunami of lies and misinformation is bad for the mind. There was a time when Twitter still gave me some value. It helped me find some of the smartest and wisest voices in public life. /2
But now it repeatedly boosts the worst and most thoughtless. I just can't stay here in good conscience. I don't begrudge anyone staying. People can certainly draw different lines, and I will miss Grizzlies twitter, but . . . /3
I’m in Kyiv with an outstanding group, organized by my friends at @Renew_Democracy, and the attack last night was a jolting reminder of two realities. First, the Russians fight gloves-off, while we restrict weapons to Ukraine to keep their gloves on /1 nytimes.com/live/2023/05/1…
Think of the international hand-wringing over the mysterious, small, drone attack in Moscow, yet Russians bombard Kyiv with their most potent conventional weapons routinely. But our limits on supplying Ukraine helps Russia preserve its territory as a giant safe haven. /2
The aggressor nation sleeps soundly while citizens of Ukraine spend night after night under air attack, all part of an effort to exhaust the population and destroy civilian infrastructure. /3
This is a question I get quite a lot from folks outside the church--why the extreme emphasis on some biblical commands in the public square and an almost total disregard of others?
I propose that we're much more eager to talk about "they" problems than "we" problems. /1
The problems that are rife in the church--porn, adultery, gluttony, and even abuse are often discussed in terms of "struggle" or "brokenness."
Other sins, including lying and cruelty, are excused or overlooked for the sake of an alleged greater good or higher cause. /2
But if the sin is largely *outside* the church (there aren't a lot of drag queens in the pews on Sunday morning, for example), then the empathy/sympathy "struggle" language largely disappears, and it's replaced by language that revolves around threat. /3
Lots of folks on this site don't understand how individual liberty generally works in American law and how it protects dissenters from majoritarian sentiment, including on matters of speech, faith, parents' rights, etc. /1
The common mistake is they take a general proposition like, "No right is unlimited," and then look at existing narrow, recognized limits to liberty and then try to expand them until the exceptions start to swallow the rule. Let's take free speech, for example. /2
In the university speech code era, it's not like universities generally said, "We oppose free speech." Instead, they argued that their speech codes fit into pre-existing speech limitations. "We just prohibit fighting words," they'd say. "Or we just prohibit harassment." /3
I am 100 percent on-board with much-delayed introduction to the smart phone for teens, but there's also a major collective action problem. As we witnessed with our youngest, there is a social isolation component when you're the last friend without the phone. /2
Also, we spend a lot of time thinking about rising teen depression/anxiety of late and less time thinking about rising adult depression/anxiety. Yet kids take cues from parents. It's hard for kids to be happy when parents are visibly depressed/anxious. It upsets their world. /3
Thread: This excellent piece by @asymmetricinfo raises a vitally important point--basic civil liberties cannot be casualties of our culture war. Free speech and parents' rights are bedrock elements of our civil society. Tossing them aside is wrong and dangerous /1
In the absence of actual evidence of abuse, parents are far better equipped to raise their kids than the state. Let's begin, for example, with this basic fact--parents love their children more than the state (and its agents) ever will. /2
How do we sort through the most profound disagreements in a diverse and pluralistic culture? Through a marketplace of ideas that permits debate and dissent even on the most hot-button ideas. If you believe you're right, you should welcome debate, not seek to suppress it. /3