Them: THE PRESIDENT IS A PSYCHOPATHIC NAZI AND CANNOT BE TRUSTED WITH THE UNLIMITED POWER THE SUPREME COURT JUST HANDED HIM THIS IS THE END OF OUR DEMOCRACY AND PEOPLE WILL DIE AND THERE WILL NEVER BE ANOTHER ELECTION!
Me: Would you join me in reducing Presidential power?
Them: HA YOU WISH! OUR NEXT PRESIDENT WILL USE THESE POWERS TO PUNISH YOU AND PEOPLE LIKE YOU. PREPARE FOR YOUR DOOM!
You can run with this premise and the conclusion remains absurd.
The UK has rapidly decarbonised already. It has made no difference, because the UK's share of carbon emissions was already statistically insignificant — which is only becoming more true over time.
We could hit Net Zero. We could hit negative carbon. Nothing would change, because China and India exist, and they do not give a damn about our political gestures.
(This is evidenced by their emissions increasing almost as quickly as our political gestures have proliferated, and over the same timeframe.)
No amount of decarbonisation in the UK will make any difference to summer temperatures. This is not an ethical or an ideological point - I like the environment, I dislike excessive heat - it is a mathematical one.
All it does is make us poorer and less able to adapt to the new reality.
A policy of increasing carbon emissions would, paradoxically, improve our climate resilience, because we'd be able to afford basic infrastructure like air conditioning while adding nothing of note to global emissions.
The only reason this is not widely accepted is that political environmentalism is a virtue cult. It has no interest in climate science, it has no interest in tangible outcomes, it is entirely concerned with allowing mediocrities to play act saving the world.
Democracy is literally dying in America unless Democrats can draw congressional districts based on race, count illegal aliens in the census, and end requirements to show an ID to vote.
My take on the current discourse about the Christian man with the formerly “promiscuous” wife is that many of the comments towards the man and his wife have been uncharitable, cruel, and certainly un-Christian, but also that Christians these days often tend to be far too eager to tell the entire world about their past sins, which in most cases shows a lack of discretion and a certain lack of the sort of shame one should feel even for repented sins.
Also, as a parent, I strongly believe that you generally should avoid telling your kids about your own wayward youth, because the kids will take such stories as an indication that they too can go off and have fun sinning and things will turn out okay, just as they did for you. Also you undermine your own moral authority when you instruct your children not to do the very things you have admitted to having done yourself.
Finally, the man’s line about how his wife “is more pure than most virgins” is prideful and shows a kind of competitiveness and vanity that should simply not ever appear in any Prodigal Son style testimony. Imagine if the Prodigal Son had returned and announced himself not only repentant but “more pure” than the brother who stayed? It would kind of destroy the point of the story.
So in summary I basically disagree with everyone on this.
This is a great example of the failure of credentialism. Random people have to explain basic political science to a so-called “Professor of Political Science.”
The Strait of Hormuz issue is the perfect “allies” test. The United States has very little direct interest in the strait, as almost none of its ships or energy flows pass through there. So before the United States starts doing all the heavy lifting, it is the ideal moment to ask those who actually benefit from the strait being open what they are willing to contribute.
The fact that they all said nothing is proof of what Trump has been saying all along, that supposed “allies” are really just freeloaders. So this was never about whether the Europeans could actually help with a handful of dilapidated frigates. It was a test, and they all failed.
It's so weird to see the narrative shift from "MAGA wouldn't love Alysa Liu if they knew her politics" to "We hate the American hockey team for no reason whatsoever except that our political enemies like them"
@CoachD178 Who decides what’s legitimate for NIL, and how would that legally be enforced? Otherwise we’re just back to pre-NIL days. You’re mocking “smart” people but this is obviously the challenge.
More important for Yormark to take a shot at ND than to fight for the teams in the conference he's in charge of. Doesn't help his schools, but it'll get a lot of people some nice engagement metrics.
We've heard for a good two months schools like USC and Miami say they are considering dropping Notre Dame because it doesn't benefit them, and now people want to virtue signal about a bowl game? A literal exhibition? Clutching pearls over bowl practices? Alright.
If you don’t count the blowout loss at the start of the season and the blowout loss at the end of the season, Alabama’s resume does look pretty good, if you don’t count the loss in the middle of the season.
Week 1 mattered to Notre Dame and Miami.
It didn’t matter to Alabama.
CCG mattered to drop BYU.
It didn’t matter to Alabama.
You don’t hate ESPN and the CFP committee enough.