The Scouts Honor Twitter feed thread

[Wrestleknownothing]

To save time you can just stream your feed here rather than spam every thread with your feed.

[Scouts Honor]

It’s one thing if Harris came out and explained why she’s radically shifted from her entire 2020 platform. Then voters can decide for themselves if they believe her. It’s quite another for random campaign leaks to frame her as a moderate with completely different positions and then, while she refuses to answer any questions, for the press to just pretend the previous positions she herself adopted don’t exist and all that matters is the leaks. In fact, the refusal to do interviews and answer questions should be treated as evidence that she hasn’t shifted at all and is just trying to deceive the public about her actual positions. Especially since if she gets elected there will be no pressure on her to maintain the more moderate positions since she was never forced to publicly defend/explain.

[Scouts Honor]

you dont like differing points of view? 

[Scouts Honor]

it's not happening

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ohio-identifies-597-noncitizens-voted-registered-recent-elections-113032019

[Offthemat]

5 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

you dont like differing points of view? 

It’s a low T attempt at padding the resume for forum moderator application. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

7 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

you dont like differing points of view? 

I do, but just copy / pasting from your twitter feed is unoriginal and dull.

 

2 hours ago, Offthemat said:

It’s a low T attempt at padding the resume for forum moderator application. 

And then there is an unoriginal dullard.

[headshuck]

Does this spell the end of the “Twitter is better” thread?

[Offthemat]

2 minutes ago, headshuck said:

Does this spell the end of the “Twitter is better” thread?

Isn’t it xitter now?

[headshuck]

Twix?

[ionel]

8 minutes ago, headshuck said:

Twix?

Xiwt

[Offthemat]

I recommend reading the entire interview @https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/08/guest-dialogue-political-philosophy-in-the-age-of-trump.php

but here are a few excerpts:

 

Klingenstein: Claremont folks, unlike most in the conservative movement, favored Trump early. They still are more favorably disposed than most conservatives. What is it about Claremont thinking that explains this?

Ellmers: Well, we are students of American history, and so we are aware of how tumultuous and often violent American politics has always been — starting from our founding in a Revolution, then the Whiskey Rebellion, the extremely nasty election of 1800, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Civil War of course, the bombings by communists and anarchists in the 1920s, and other such episodes. So we are less likely to be alarmed or surprised by things. The hysteria about Trump as the Orange Hitler mostly comes from people who live very sheltered lives in comfortable suburbs, and have almost no conception of how chaotic politics usually is — around the world, and in our own history.

We are also students of… get ready for it: political philosophy! We’ve studied in some detail the origins of the modern bureaucratic or administrative state, where it came from, how it rejects the principles of the founders’ constitutionalism, and what a serious threat it poses, both politically and intellectually. Trump is the only politician since Richard Nixon to confront this problem directly. (Reagan was, necessarily, preoccupied with winning the Cold War.)

Put these two together, and I’d say the scholars at the Claremont Institute are less likely to blow Trump’s vices out of proportion, and more likely to appreciate his important virtues.

 

Klingenstein: What did the founders think of Trump-style populism?

Ellmers: They were opposed to demagoguery, but Trump is not a demagogue. He could have an easy, comfortable retirement playing golf all day. Instead, he is risking his life and putting in grueling days on the campaign trail. He has nothing to gain personally, so the only explanation is that he really wants to save the country from imminent collapse. The founders admired and exemplified such self-sacrificing patriotism and thought the country depends on it.

As for populism, that’s become a loaded word. But don’t forget that the whole point of the American Revolution was to establish the sovereignty of the people. We are not supposed to have a privileged aristocracy in this country. If populism means the people have the right to alter or abolish government, rather than the government altering and abolishing the people, then the founders were populists.

[Scouts Honor]

10 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I do, but just copy / pasting from your twitter feed is unoriginal and dull.

 

And then there is an unoriginal dullard.

so a post from someone that isn't my point of view isn't a differing point of view and not an original thought? 

or you are saying I should take credit for another person's work?

how very democrat of you

[Wrestleknownothing]

58 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

so a post from someone that isn't my point of view isn't a differing point of view and not an original thought? 

or you are saying I should take credit for another person's work?

how very democrat of you

A couple thoughts.

That is not the gotcha you think it is.

By definition, posting someone else's thoughts is not an original thought. That should be obvious. But, so what? We all do it. But you do it at a volume that makes it dull.

[Scouts Honor]

i just post food for thought.  AND IT IS an original thought, THEIR original thought. I don't feel comfortable stealing that as my own.

thinking can be hard. and it can make one angry, b/c one has to think about things that they initially disagree with 

 

but hopefully...

 

and the volume? I am constantly being told that there is no evidence for a, b or c... yet i post this YUGE volume of stuff.. 

must not be enough.

I know. I will redouble my efforts 

[mspart]

22 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

Especially since if she gets elected there will be no pressure on her to maintain the more moderate positions since she was never forced to publicly defend/explain.

Yeah, we saw that with good ol' moderate Joe.   Just after taking the oath, he became the most divisive left leaning President the country has known.   Of course Kamala will not change her positions.   She is the most radical candidate we have ever had, even more so than McGovern back in the day.   She picked Walz specifically so he could be the left wing whackadoo while she tried to have her minions spin her to the center.  

She has not gone on record with any of the more moderate positions.   And if pressed on those, she would screw up that situation.   She cannot do interviews and doesn't want to answer questions because it will easily show the lie that she is now perpetrating on the US citizens.  

mspart

[Offthemat]