david brooks vs. thomas friedman vs. ross douthat

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

vote for the 'best reason to never sign up for nyt paywall'

Poll Results

OptionVotes
friedman 12
brooks 9
douthat 8


iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:24 (six years ago) Permalink

hard choice but got 2 b friedman

flopson, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:27 (six years ago) Permalink

^^^

mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:32 (six years ago) Permalink

I actually find him the least worst of these three

iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:33 (six years ago) Permalink

this is like choosing b/w bullshit, pigshit and chickenshit.

a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:35 (six years ago) Permalink

hate to say it but friedman is the least bad of the three. at least he occasionally bothers to make an actual argument. reading brooks is like trying to get day-old caramel out of your teeth.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:38 (six years ago) Permalink

seriously, it's really b/w Friedman and Brooks. Douthat is awful, but he's awful b/c he's pretty upfront about being a wingnut. Brooks has his fake centrist nonsense -- and he's a Mets fan -- but only a complete pinhead who's spent the last decade or so locked in a closet can't see through his schtick at this point.

so Friedman it is.

a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:38 (six years ago) Permalink

i assume that brooks and douthat have a sinister purpose behind everything they write, so while i no doubt disagree, it at least makes sense.

friedman just seems clueless and is a terrible writer. 'my cab driver in cairo' etc good lord.

mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:39 (six years ago) Permalink

well the clueless head in the clouds thing is what makes it marginally more defensible, like he's just this crazy guy talking to you on the bus

iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:41 (six years ago) Permalink

Friedman the crazy guy on the bus talking nonsense whilst drooling on his overcoat also has the ear of the President and a shockingly large number of Democratic movers and shakers. that's why i voted for him.

a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:44 (six years ago) Permalink

I'll be the contrarian and say Douthat, the only one who creates the blip of an impression that he's read other things besides editorials and policy statements. Also, I saw him in the queer part of Dupont Circle in 2009 in the company of what looked like a Provincetown bartender.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:45 (six years ago) Permalink

^^^ sounds like infidelity

also, aren't we voting for the worst?

mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:46 (six years ago) Permalink

yes

iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:47 (six years ago) Permalink

Friedman's latest column is a masterpiece of cowardice and stupidity:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/opinion/friedman-one-for-the-country.html?_r=1

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:47 (six years ago) Permalink

I'll vote for Friedman as worst because he's taken most seriously. The right wing doesn't even take Brooks seriously.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:47 (six years ago) Permalink

voted Douthat cause i hate the way he couches intolerant/ugly sentiments in the deceptive rhetoric of "reason" and "balance"

demolition with discretion (m coleman), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:48 (six years ago) Permalink

alfred OTM on what makes Friedman the worst of this entire sorry lot.

a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:50 (six years ago) Permalink

Brooks would win on photos alone

http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/wp-content/uploads/David-Brooks.jpg

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:50 (six years ago) Permalink

ross is "known" in conservative circles for his impeccable sense of style

http://images.nymag.com/news/intelligencer/encounter/encounter120326_250.jpg

demolition with discretion (m coleman), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:56 (six years ago) Permalink

douthat's face def bothers me the most

iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:00 (six years ago) Permalink

brooks is the worst. friedman is ok minus the globalization shtick.

bnw, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:04 (six years ago) Permalink

Douthat looks like a late 30-something version of Paul Dano's character from the extra man.

a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:06 (six years ago) Permalink

Douthat still thinks it's 1995.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:07 (six years ago) Permalink

Jonah Goldberg has the same delusion.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:07 (six years ago) Permalink

i was hoping this thread title was something that happened.

goole, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:10 (six years ago) Permalink

what is douthat's shtick, as compared to brooks' red/blue staters are like *this* and friedman's absurd metaphors that lead nowhere?

mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:10 (six years ago) Permalink

He's a Christian whose hands shake at the suspicion that libs might think he hates gays and women.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:13 (six years ago) Permalink

he's not one of those republican extremists - heavens - tho he takes pains to diplomatically point out how liberals/women/gays/muslims/etc bring problems on themselves

demolition with discretion (m coleman), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:18 (six years ago) Permalink

that's right

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:23 (six years ago) Permalink

a concern troll then; how innovative

mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:25 (six years ago) Permalink

if forced at gunpoint to read one of the three every day for the rest of my life i'd still choose douthat

friedman... just pull the trigger

yologram (J0rdan S.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:26 (six years ago) Permalink

your doppelganger

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:26 (six years ago) Permalink

while we also talk about their merits as writers, how about we also turn this into a MFK thread?

yologram (J0rdan S.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:27 (six years ago) Permalink

when i was working a (very good and non-depressing) temp job at a financial planning group, the well meaning 50 something jewish libs frequently discussed friedman columns in reverent hushed tones... first time i'd ever heard anyone irl bring dude up as a serious columnist

yologram (J0rdan S.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:29 (six years ago) Permalink

voted Douthat cause i hate the way he couches intolerant/ugly sentiments in the deceptive rhetoric of "reason" and "balance"

― demolition with discretion (m coleman), Thursday, April 19, 2012 8:48 PM (43 minutes ago)

^^

pleural eff u son (k3vin k.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:34 (six years ago) Permalink

i still find that less distasteful (or at least more garden variety) than friedman's schtick

yologram (J0rdan S.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:36 (six years ago) Permalink

all three are vile of course

NYT doesn't really have any 'very good' writers as columnists. i mean krugman's always worth a read but even following charles m blow on twitter has tempered my like of him

pleural eff u son (k3vin k.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:37 (six years ago) Permalink

krugman is a very good writer

iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:38 (six years ago) Permalink

i'd heard that 'from beirut to jerusalem' was good, but find it a little hard to credit now -- perhaps the subject matter restrained him from making it an archetypical global fable, as with everything else?

mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:38 (six years ago) Permalink

yeah i changed my mind after i wrote his name and didn't bother to change my first statement haha xp

pleural eff u son (k3vin k.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:39 (six years ago) Permalink

charles m blow seems ripe for display name puns, now that i think of it

pleural eff u son (k3vin k.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:39 (six years ago) Permalink

The late William Safire was the only one who could occasionally write a sentence I'd read twice.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:45 (six years ago) Permalink

i agree that krugman is worth reading and i always do but i am often smh at the way he seems to be preaching to the choir, he takes such a hard line that even though he's right he sort of paints himself into an ideological corner that just inflames the right instead of engaging him

obv that's not entirely or even largely his fault but i feel like he's wielding a battle axe when should be using the rapier

the late great, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:46 (six years ago) Permalink

lol ross douchehat

i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:47 (six years ago) Permalink

brooks is like the bill gates looking dude in the back of newsweek who even though i am on the other side of the political spectrum i find myself agreeing with or at least appreciating the differing view cause his tone is measured

really love the loyal opposition guy though

the late great, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:49 (six years ago) Permalink

Krugman has given up on trying to talk w/ the shit-throwing baboons who call themselves conservatives these days. i don't blame him at all, it's really the most sensible approach.

i'll also stan for Nicholas Kristof.

a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:52 (six years ago) Permalink

Krugman is a classic example of a pundit with whom I agree often but whose prose is pedestrian at best (boy, does he love his rhetorical questions).

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:53 (six years ago) Permalink

douthat = least stupid/ most hateful

it's smdh time in America (will), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:57 (six years ago) Permalink

krugman = shrill
brooks/douthat = reasonable

does this perception hurt k-thug or not?

mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:57 (six years ago) Permalink

yeah that makes sense

the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Tuesday, 13 September 2016 17:17 (two years ago) Permalink

Oh boy:

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Clinton’s Samantha Bee Problem
963
SEPTEMBER 21, 2016
Ross Douthat
Ross Douthat
When the histories of the Trump era are written from exile in Justin Trudeau’s Canada, they will record that it was none other than Jimmy Fallon who brought down the republic.

Or so you might have thought, at least, listening the furious liberal reaction to Fallon’s willingness to treat Trump like any other late-night guest last week: kidding around with him, mussing up his combover and steering clear of anything that would convey to late-night television viewers that Trump is actually beyond the pale.

But the Democratic Party’s problem in the age of Trump isn’t really Jimmy Fallon. Its problem is Samantha Bee.

Not Bee alone, of course, but the entire phenomenon that she embodies: the rapid colonization of new cultural territory by an ascendant social liberalism.

The culture industry has always tilted leftward, but the swing toward social liberalism among younger Americans and the simultaneous surge of activist energy on the left have created a new dynamic, in which areas once considered relatively apolitical now have (or are being pushed to have) an overtly left-wing party line.

On late-night television, it was once understood that David Letterman was beloved by coastal liberals and Jay Leno more of a Middle American taste. But neither man was prone to delivering hectoring monologues in the style of the “Daily Show” alums who now dominate late night. Fallon’s apolitical shtick increasingly makes him an outlier among his peers, many of whom are less comics than propagandists — liberal “explanatory journalists” with laugh lines.

Some of them have better lines than others, and some joke more or hector less. But to flip from Stephen Colbert’s winsome liberalism to Seth Meyers’s class-clown liberalism to Bee’s bluestocking feminism to John Oliver’s and Trevor Noah’s lectures on American benightedness is to enter an echo chamber from which the imagination struggles to escape.

It isn’t just late-night TV. Cultural arenas and institutions that were always liberal are being prodded or dragged further to the left. Awards shows are being pushed to shed their genteel limousine liberalism and embrace the race-gender-sexual identity agenda in full. Colleges and universities are increasingly acting as indoctrinators for that same agenda, shifting their already-lefty consensus under activist pressure.

Meanwhile, institutions that were seen as outside or sideways to political debate have been enlisted in the culture war. The tabloid industry gave us the apotheosis of Caitlyn Jenner, and ESPN gave her its Arthur Ashe Award. The N.B.A., N.C.A.A. and the A.C.C. — nobody’s idea of progressive forces, usually — are acting as enforcers on behalf of gay and transgender rights. Jock culture remains relatively reactionary, but even the N.F.L. is having its Black Lives Matters moment, thanks to Colin Kaepernick.

For the left, these are clear signs of cultural gains, cultural victory. But the scale and swiftness of those victories have created two distinctive political problems for the Democratic Party.

First, within the liberal tent, they have dramatically raised expectations for just how far left our politics can move, while insulating many liberals from the harsh realities of political disagreement in a sprawling, 300-plus million person republic. Among millennials, especially, there’s a growing constituency for whom right-wing ideas are so alien or triggering, left-wing orthodoxy so pervasive and unquestioned, that supporting a candidate like Hillary Clinton looks like a needless form of compromise.

Thus Clinton’s peculiar predicament. She has moved further left than any modern Democratic nominee, and absorbed the newer left’s Manichaean view of the culture war sufficiently that she finds herself dismissing almost a quarter of the electorate as “irredeemable” before her donors. Yet she still finds herself battling an insurgency on her left flank, and somewhat desperately pitching millennials on her ideological bona fides.

At the same time, outside the liberal tent, the feeling of being suffocated by the left’s cultural dominance is turning voting Republican into an act of cultural rebellion — which may be one reason the Obama years, so good for liberalism in the culture, have seen sharp G.O.P. gains at every level of the country’s government.

This spirit of political-cultural rebellion is obviously crucial to Trump’s act. As James Parker wrote in The Atlantic, he’s occupying “a space in American politics that is uniquely transgressive, volatile, carnivalesque, and (from a certain angle) punk rock.” (The alt-right-ish columnist Steve Sailer made the punk rock analogy as well.) Like the Sex Pistols, Parker suggests, Trump is out to “upend the culture” — but in this case it’s the culture of institutionalized political correctness and John Oliver explaining the news to you, forever.

Trump’s extremism also limits his appeal, of course. But if liberals are fortunate to be facing a Johnny Rotten figure in this presidential campaign, they are still having real trouble putting him away … and if he were somewhat less volatile and bigoted and gross, liberalism would be poised to close its era of cultural ascendance by watching all three branches of government pass back into conservative hands.

Something like this happened once before: In the 1960s and 1970s, the culture shifted decisively leftward, but American voters shifted to the right and answered a cultural revolution with a political Thermidor.

That Nixon-Reagan rightward shift did not repeal the 1960s or push the counterculture back to a beatnik-hippie fringe. But it did leave liberalism in a curious place throughout the 1980s: atop the commanding heights of culture yet often impotent in Washington, D.C.

By nominating a Trump rather than a Nixon or a Reagan, the Republicans may have saved liberalism from repeating that trajectory. But it remains an advantage for the G.O.P., and a liability for the Democratic Party, that the new cultural orthodoxy is sufficiently stifling to leave many Americans looking to the voting booth as a way to register dissent.

(Pasted in full b/c fuck their paywall)

One of the better responses to this is from mr Andy Richter

(rocketcat) 🚀🐱 👑🐟 (kingfish), Wednesday, 21 September 2016 18:41 (two years ago) Permalink

When the histories of the Trump era are written from exile in Justin Trudeau’s Canada, they will record that it was none other than Jimmy Fallon who brought down the republic
When the histories of the Trump era are written from exile in Justin Trudeau’s Canada, they will record that it was none other than Jimmy Fallon who brought down the republic

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 21 September 2016 18:47 (two years ago) Permalink

Richter tweeted a link to Douthat’s article on Wednesday morning, calling it “a tub of horses—”

andy is very good at succinct summary

dr. mercurio arboria (mh 😏), Wednesday, 21 September 2016 18:59 (two years ago) Permalink

Douhat seems concerned about something, but I'm damned if I can figure out what kind of a problem he is trying to define that needs to be solved, other than that Hillary Clinton and the democratic party are not as reactionary as much of the electorate and he kind of wishes they'd pander more to voters who feel asphyxiated by granting equal rights to blacks or gay people.

a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Wednesday, 21 September 2016 19:02 (two years ago) Permalink

imo the problem is people who uncritically follow one news source and sit there sharing that as the only perspective, even if it's a comedy show that is based on commenting on news and politics, not being a primary reporter

it's an issue among many groups but pointing at a single comedy central show is even more reductive than pointing at fox news

not even going to attempt to imagine someone who only bases their opinion on douthat articles

dr. mercurio arboria (mh 😏), Wednesday, 21 September 2016 19:07 (two years ago) Permalink

Hey Ross

http://www.census.gov/popclock/

Anacostia Aerodrome (El Tomboto), Wednesday, 21 September 2016 19:09 (two years ago) Permalink

sadly just a stupid fallon "satire"

Mordy, Friday, 23 September 2016 21:11 (two years ago) Permalink

david thomas vs. brooks friedman

a confederacy of lampreys (rushomancy), Friday, 23 September 2016 21:21 (two years ago) Permalink

I follow Ross on twitter now, and it's fun. He's eminently clownable but less hateable than the other two.

the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Friday, 23 September 2016 21:26 (two years ago) Permalink

two months pass...

FRIEDMAN: Mr. President-elect, I came …

TRUMP: So right now I’m in very good shape, but

FRIEDMAN: I came here thinking you’d be awed and overwhelmed by this job, but I feel like you are getting very comfortable with it.

TRUMP: I feel comfortable. I feel comfortable. I am awed by the job, as anybody would be, but I honestly, Tom, I feel so comfortable and you know it would be, to me, a great achievement if I could come back here in a year or two years and say — and have a lot of the folks here say, ‘You’ve done a great job.’ And I don’t mean just a conservative job, ’cause I’m not talking conservative. I mean just, we’ve done a good job.

iatee, Wednesday, 23 November 2016 14:12 (two years ago) Permalink

ball 1

Thus Sang Freud, Wednesday, 23 November 2016 14:38 (two years ago) Permalink

one month passes...

Oh boy, lookee who wrote up a reading list:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/opinion/books-for-the-trump-era.html

THE SKURJ OF FAKE NEWS. (kingfish), Sunday, 25 December 2016 01:57 (one year ago) Permalink

everybody should definitely give that publication some money
like Planned Parenthood

a Warren Beatty film about Earth (El Tomboto), Sunday, 25 December 2016 02:21 (one year ago) Permalink

three months pass...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8QzeViWAAASff4.jpg

mookieproof, Friday, 31 March 2017 17:15 (one year ago) Permalink

thats it the worst possible tweet, shut it down

lag∞n, Friday, 31 March 2017 17:18 (one year ago) Permalink

lol

Οὖτις, Friday, 31 March 2017 17:18 (one year ago) Permalink

he also tweeted this at elizabeth bruin, referencing pence dinnergate

https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT/status/847507297651707905

"Care to discuss them over dinner?"

Ross is thirsty.

-_- (jim in vancouver), Friday, 31 March 2017 17:58 (one year ago) Permalink

i thought maybe ross would call for watergatesque sabotage of trump

welllllll

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/9f/a1/7f/9fa17fce0ef1e6911470562b9df4cec7.jpg

Dogshit Critic (m coleman), Friday, 31 March 2017 18:12 (one year ago) Permalink

Kind of enjoying Douthat now that he's apparently realized that his political views have no relevance to our current reality but he can get paid to write whatever he likes.

JoeStork, Friday, 31 March 2017 18:22 (one year ago) Permalink

elaborate fantasies about corporate dystopias

lag∞n, Friday, 31 March 2017 18:22 (one year ago) Permalink

weird seeing a conservative in the current american milieu advocating for the singaporean health care system (which is universal healthcare)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/opinion/sunday/make-america-singapore.html?_r=0

-_- (jim in vancouver), Friday, 31 March 2017 18:23 (one year ago) Permalink

(even if it's a weird universal healthcare with large elements where the individual has to pay)

-_- (jim in vancouver), Friday, 31 March 2017 18:25 (one year ago) Permalink

one year passes...

Okay what the fuck has Douthat done this week

Glower, Disruption & Pies (kingfish), Friday, 4 May 2018 16:03 (seven months ago) Permalink

signal boosted incel worldview garbage and took it at face value

Simon H., Friday, 4 May 2018 16:12 (seven months ago) Permalink

I didn't think most of his analysis was that terrible but it was in service of a terrible end.

FWIW I think there isn't enough contemporary left analysis of how the capitalist/consumerist paradigm shapes our ideas about sex.

Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Friday, 4 May 2018 16:33 (seven months ago) Permalink

sex is theft

lag∞n, Friday, 4 May 2018 16:35 (seven months ago) Permalink

plausible

valorous wokelord (silby), Friday, 4 May 2018 16:40 (seven months ago) Permalink

i found that piece just unconscionable. his - completely nonsensical - combination of social conservatism and libertarianism sees him equate redistributive economic policy with the idea of forcing people to have sex with incels - if you can distribute resources why can't you distribute sex, a thing completely different from a resource which results from the consensual physical congress of individuals? asks the millionaire columnist in the paper of record.

simultaneously he blames the sexual revolution for the existence of incels, as if the "halcyon days" when every man's wife was a maid he was allowed to rape and beat were preferable to the modern day sexual politics, and as if bitter sexless men didn't exist back then.

harkens back to the argument of houllebecq's protagonist in "Extension du domaine de la latte":

"The thesis is that the sexual revolution of the Sixties created not communism but capitalism in the sexual market, that the unattractive underclass is exiled while the privileged initiates are drained by corruption, sloth, and excess."

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Friday, 4 May 2018 16:45 (seven months ago) Permalink

Extension du domaine de la latte

damn you autocorrect

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Friday, 4 May 2018 16:46 (seven months ago) Permalink

him and brooks seem to take turns trying out dumbass each other on a biweekly basis

The Desus & Mero Chain (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Friday, 4 May 2018 16:48 (seven months ago) Permalink

He's still trying to explain today

I think one mistake was assuming readers would recall that I want *ban porn* in assessing whether I really favor sex robots.

— Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) May 4, 2018

Ned Raggett, Friday, 4 May 2018 16:50 (seven months ago) Permalink

(Of course, giving the phrasing, it sounds like he wants some subset of porn called 'ban porn,' the hottest porn of all.)

Ned Raggett, Friday, 4 May 2018 16:50 (seven months ago) Permalink

lmao

lag∞n, Friday, 4 May 2018 17:07 (seven months ago) Permalink

suggest ban porn

WilliamC, Friday, 4 May 2018 17:12 (seven months ago) Permalink

oh yea baby!

lag∞n, Friday, 4 May 2018 17:15 (seven months ago) Permalink

that would be some fetish

Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Friday, 4 May 2018 17:31 (seven months ago) Permalink

i found that piece just unconscionable. his - completely nonsensical - combination of social conservatism and libertarianism sees him equate redistributive economic policy with the idea of forcing people to have sex with incels - if you can distribute resources why can't you distribute sex, a thing completely different from a resource which results from the consensual physical congress of individuals? asks the millionaire columnist in the paper of record.

I don't think he takes this line of thinking seriously, I think he saw it as a reductio argument, like "Ok, if you accept these ideas about sex, then guess what the logical conclusion is"

simultaneously he blames the sexual revolution for the existence of incels, as if the "halcyon days" when every man's wife was a maid he was allowed to rape and beat were preferable to the modern day sexual politics, and as if bitter sexless men didn't exist back then.

But yeah this seems right.

Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Friday, 4 May 2018 17:33 (seven months ago) Permalink

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DcPbyczV0AERINN.jpg

lag∞n, Friday, 4 May 2018 17:58 (seven months ago) Permalink

three weeks pass...

Remember the single stupidest statement from pro-Trump commentators after the election? It was: “The media took Trump literally but not seriously. But his supporters took him seriously but not literally.”

Actually, some of us took him seriously and literally — our only mistake was not taking him literally enough. I assumed that a candidate who lied so casually and so often in the campaign would also do so as president; I just didn’t think he would literally utter 3,001 false or misleading claims in his first 466 days in office. I feared Trump would indeed, as he vowed, tear up the Iran nuclear deal, withdraw from the Paris climate accord and start a trade war with China; I just didn’t think he’d literally do them all at once with so little expert input.

I figured Trump would try to destroy Obamacare; I just didn’t think he’d literally do it without having a better alternative — any alternative — in place. I figured Trump would seek to tighten the border with Mexico; I just didn’t believe that he’d literally ask Congress for $18 billion to extend the border wall. I knew we needed to “drain the swamp” of Washington; I just didn’t think the drain would literally have to start in Trump’s White House and the offices of his cabinet secretaries.

lol friedman

also, what is with his twitter / nyt profile pics?

https://i.imgur.com/ORGqSkZ.jpg

obviously DLC (Karl Malone), Wednesday, 30 May 2018 01:46 (six months ago) Permalink

did someone digitally add his nyt suit?

obviously DLC (Karl Malone), Wednesday, 30 May 2018 01:47 (six months ago) Permalink

lmao looks like it that is very odd

sprout god (lag∞n), Wednesday, 30 May 2018 04:26 (six months ago) Permalink

Karl, can you overlay them?

I was really trying to figure out when you tweeted that whether it's a weird modified pic, or if he really makes the exact same pose for every photo

(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻ (mh), Wednesday, 30 May 2018 16:34 (six months ago) Permalink

its def the same photo look at the hair, moustache

sprout god (lag∞n), Wednesday, 30 May 2018 16:36 (six months ago) Permalink

what if he just keeps one of those photos by his mirror and shaves and combs his hair exactly the same every day

(lol they're totally the same pic)

so someone modified the NYT one to have a suit, and he also had his personal one modified to darken his hair? wild

mh, Wednesday, 30 May 2018 16:42 (six months ago) Permalink

six months pass...

Why We Miss the WASPs
Their more meritocratic, diverse and secular successors rule us neither as wisely nor as well.

. . . I think you can usefully combine these takes, and describe Bush nostalgia as a longing for something America used to have and doesn’t really any more — a ruling class that was widely (not universally, but more widely than today) deemed legitimate, and that inspired various kinds of trust (intergenerational, institutional) conspicuously absent in our society today.

Put simply, Americans miss Bush because we miss the WASPs — because we feel, at some level, that their more meritocratic and diverse and secular successors rule us neither as wisely nor as well.

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/57407228/what-do-you-mean-we-white-man.jpg

mookieproof, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 15:34 (one week ago) Permalink

i posted this extremely good and very persuasive piece on the George H.W. Bush - Classic or Dud thread earlier fyi

We're in 2009—it's time to take risks, (bizarro gazzara), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 15:36 (one week ago) Permalink

loved this piece, Pulitzer worthy imo

Your sweetie-pie-coo-coo I love ya (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 15:58 (one week ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.