I'm really confused that people who I *know* happily voted for Obama in 2008 despite his opposition to same-sex marriage are so hostile to making peace with the electorate on the sports issue where opinion is more lopsided and the case on the merits much weaker.
I was there and so was Roberts in 2008 when *everybody* understood why Democrats wouldn't run on a position that was supported by 40 percent of the public.
Now everyone wants to die on a hill that impacts many fewer people and is much less popular.
Does it serve the interests of transgender Americans to lose elections to people who want to run them out of all spheres of public life because we are unwilling to adopt a mainstream view of what the purpose of sex-segregated sports teams is?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Vice President is one of the smarter and more articulate people in politics — he's written some very good articles and a pretty good book over the years — so I have to say I find the quality and quantity of the evidence he has produced here to be pretty disappointing.
I think it's notable that military spending as a share of the economy was lower at the end of the Biden administration than during any year of the Bush, Obama, or Trump administrations.
We could keep it up indefinitely, I believe.
Now sometimes you hear that the objective of the Trump administration's Ukraine policy is to try to force Europe to shoulder a larger share of the financial load so that we can focus more on China.
Democrats are a center-left party that support progressive taxation, a safety net, and reasonable regulation.
Most business owners will likely always prefer Republicans. But if some are a bit more broad-minded or culturally liberal than average and want to be Dems that’s good!
There are good regulations and there are areas where rules should be stricter, but it’s also transparently the case that lots of regulations are anti-competitive and don’t serve the public interest and if you can work with business partners to change that — that’s good!
A lot of the discussion from the Tech Right about how impressive Elon Musk is totally elides the question of goals.
I 100% believe based on his record that he is hyper-competent with skills that apply across multiple domains.
But what is the evidence that he cares about me?
Cutting nutritional assistance and medical care for tens of millions of poor Americans to partially offset a corporate income tax cut might get a rocket to Mars faster but … is that good? Is that what I want?
I’m not against going to Mars, SpaceX is really cool.
But I’m not a monomaniac about it — I think PEPFAR and Medicaid expansion and NATO are also pretty impressive, and reiterating how *capable* Musk is just makes me more alarmed that he doesn’t share my values.
Critics of “woke” politics tend to focus on the most superficial manifestations because they are trying to proceed cautiously, but then counter-critics — like Traister here — counter that such superficial stuff can’t possibly matter.
The dialogue eventually needs to pass into the less superficial issues that are genuinely in play — the rise of extremely simplistic disparate impact analysis as a controlling consideration in progressive policy.
Allowing respect for trans people’s freedom, dignity, and equality to start squelching out any room to acknowledge the reality of significant sex differences.
To both agree and disagree with @ddayen's take, what happened is that Jake Sullivan, for national security reasons, tapped a bunch of people who reject conventional economic analysis to run domestic policy — but the people he platformed don't share his national security goals!