In case you thought the Lincoln Project deserved to be taken seriously, here you are.
And I don't want to hear "strange times make for strange bedfellows" excuse. That isn't excuse enough for them, give the Republicans they're going after. And yet they endorse *Seth Abramson*.
If you thought Trump endorsing the "Demon semen" lady was egregious (it was!) there is zero excuse for you letting Steve Schmidt, who speaks as the head voice of The Lincoln Project, endorse Seth Abramson. Same thing, different reflections in the mirror. You know the score now.
Hypocrites, grifting hypocrites desperate for bucks and bucks and bucks, all the way down. I'm willing to bet you that they don't even really dislike Trump, they'd work for him if they thought he was a winner. I know Weaver and Schmidt would, that's for sure.
The Lincoln Project would endorse "Ricky Vaughn" and tell America to #GetOnGab if they thought the scales balanced out to bringing more money into John Weaver's financially distressed pockets.
It will never fail to amuse me that neither David Bowie nor Queen thought the song "Under Pressure" was really much good at the time, and it actually only got to #29 in the US charts. "Ice Ice Baby" & Mercury's death seemingly revived its rep.
The video for "Under Pressure," which I remember from my VH-1 youth, burned itself into my memory banks the first time I saw in a way few other videos ever did ("Once In A Lifetime" is another obvious one). Neither Queen nor Bowie appear in it. It's all intercut images. Haunting.
Okay, that cinches it; you goofballs have altered the course of this thread for the night, in which we're now just going to post the rock videos that rerouted our brains (in a good way, nothing ugly plz) when we were kids. As always, to start:
I hate that song, and Stephen Stills was a notorious cad and drug-addled megastar, but here's something else to note about Stephen Stills: the guy could play guitar damn well, loved playing with blues, R&B, and soul giants, would do it for free, and was *thrilled* by this cover.
NORMIE TAKE: Stephen Stills? The CSN guy? That hippie shit is so lame.
GALAXY BRAIN TAKE: Stephen Stills was the proto-John Mayer prove me wrong the beats all fit right down to being an actually technically wonderful player.
But, and here's the thing: Stills actually wrote a bunch of great songs. Which Mayer did not, and could not. Both great players (Mayer has the conservatory chops), but only Stills wrote "Bluebird" or "Suite: Judy Blue Eyes" or "Carry On."
10th century Arab geographer Ibn Hawqal wrote an entire book, sadly lost to us, about how disgustingly ignorant peasants of Palermo were during the period of the Arab conquest of Sicily. Apparently they couldn't carry on logical argumentation and primarly grew & ate onions, raw.
If you know anything about me, you know that I too would have hated 10th-century Palermitans.
"One does not find in this town any intelligent person, or skillful, or really competent in any scientific discipline, or animated by noble or religious feeling"
- Ibn Hawqal on Palermo, and also Washington.
I am going to do something foolish, and attempt persuasion on the internet. I will try to explain to the partisan or inexperienced why Alito's interview is a huge deal, and why it cannot really be gainsaid.
First of all: SCOTUS Justices do not give interviews freely, or lightly. They know every word of theirs is under scrutiny. This was not a street-corner interaction caught on a bystander's iPhone. This was a carefully arranged WSJ interview held for weeks before publication.
So it must be read as a Very Carefully Crafted Statement. Maybe *you* don't manage your personal interactions with journalists in this way, but I guarantee you that Supreme Court justices do!
I hope everyone understands there is a centrally coordinated campaign against the legitimacy of SCOTUS behind this rash of phony stories about purported financial conflicts (ones actual lawyers know are BS). I mean, approve or disapprove, I don't care. But know that's it's an op.
For example, I'm being told now that it's a "scandal" (?) that John Roberts' wife works in legal placement and recruiting.
Uh. Why? Why is that a scandal? Only idiots or the dishonest would think that a problem. (Lawyers all know: no conflict.) Should she have quit her job?
The point is, of course, to just create a cloudburst of stories whose substance doesn't have to be accurate: instead, it just creates a 'stink' around the court and activates the "where there's smoke there's fire" instinct in the average Joe. That's the play. Smart but cynical.
I am not attuned to the paranoid style of politics, but it strikes me that signing off on legislation so potentially and immediately abusable by the state is like setting the welcome mat out for Dracula along w/a fresh pint of blood & an invitation to come on in and sit a spell.
Truthfully, I don’t just hate TikTok b/c it’s a transparent Chinese op. I hate it b/c it's an ungated cloaca of demotic sludge, spewing forth brain-warping infinite content and lulling its participants into the belief that this—highly mediated, algorithmic—world is the real one.