Absurdus
@AdAltum
Followers
348
Following
11K
Media
280
Statuses
6K
As so often, there was more to the story.
NEW🚨: Pro-life operatives tell @DailySignal there's more than meets the eye here, as HHS may have had no choice but to restore Planned Parenthood funding. HHS withheld funds before amending a rule about when the gov't can cut grants early, so HHS would have lost the ACLU's
3
10
108
There is a real sense in which politics is NOTHING BUT the art of compromise. Politics is the science that orders all the others for the common good; if that didn't mean sometimes compromising one good for the sake of another, there would be no need for politics at all.
1
1
0
Totally dishonest. The "psychological importance" he's referring to is the POLITICAL psychological importance, i.e. everyone else's psychology. Whether you agree or not, it's absolutely not how Feser is representing it.
The mask drops, and the true motivation is admitted. Everything he says the U.S. needs to own Greenland for can be done without owning it. Yet he stubbornly insists on owning it, to the point of threatening war against an ally who has done us no harm – which would amount to
3
0
4
@FeserEdward He doesn't even know what Trump actually wants, only what Trump says (and he should realize by now that what Trump says for rhetorical effect does not always match his actual goals). He doesn't know what he doesn't know. But he has no excuse to not at least know that.
2
0
0
@FeserEdward
https://t.co/u1sLPZbrqd This for instance is a totally baseless claim. What does he know about Russia's strategic plan? What does he know about the actual relationship of Greenland to Russia (not just what statements are made publicly)? Nothing. Like the rest of us, he's guessing
@HAHazony This is sophistry. We would in that scenario be defending Greenland in part precisely because it is in our interest as well as theirs. You speak as if the only way for us to defend our interests against Russia and Chine is to take over Greenland. It simply isn't true, and no one
1
0
0
@FeserEdward "You can't go to war just to obtain resources." Even if those resources are being used to an anti-American communist regime less than 100 miles from your shore? If those resources are necessary for a foreign power to fuel its expansionist plans? These aren't irrelevant questions.
1
0
0
For instance, @FeserEdward can make a very intelligent analysis of just law theory. But in his application of it to Venezuela where does he mention China? Iran? Is the fact that Hezbollah was operating in Venezuela relevant?
1
0
0
(2) The most well-informed people are the least likely to speak with total certainty, because they know there's always the possibility of some hidden variable that could completely change the result.
1
0
0
A reasonably smart person can (sometimes) say something reasonably smart about domestic issues. But with foreign policy there are so many hidden considerations that even very smart people are as likely as not to get things not only wrong, but backwards.
1
0
0
This is a common trend among immigrant diasporas who are right-wing because of anti-Communism (other examples: Venezuelans, Cubans, Vietnamese, Soviet Jews). For example, all of the surnames with the biggest generational R => D shift are Vietnamese.
The “based” immigrants’ children are voting for Mamdani. If this shocks you, you’re not gonna make it.
31
178
2K
This is exactly why TDS is a thing. They can't bring themselves to believe that a fast-talking, over-the-top New York real estate mogul is actually a smarter politician than them. Even when they agree with his policies their ego won't let them admit it.
I’m starting to think Trump knows more about being the President of the US than me
0
0
1
This, btw, is an example of why the political supercedes the legal. All theories of proper legal process rest upon the existing political reality that underlies it. The legal assumes the political, it doesn't form it.
Riddle me this. Four major Big Law firms are counted on the side that thinks men have a legal right to play in women's sports. There are zero major firms on the other side. Some good boutiques, no doubt, but oddly these small firms are even representing multiple amici in the
0
0
0
This holds whether you agree with the tradition or not. E.g. Thomists who don't read Kant all end up Kantians without knowing it.
0
0
0
This highlights a very important point: that those who intentionally ignore tradition and "start from scratch" are actually far LESS able to tell which of their assumptions are historically conditioned. Not knowing your tradition makes you more derivative, not less.
I find Scott’s vision of parenting both very Rousseauvian, and very au courant. I wonder if he thinks this is a coincidence? Generally not knowing the history of ideas, rationalists are very susceptible to passing off culturally transmitted beliefs as derived from pure logic
1
0
0
Here we see the usefulness of the willfully naive. Does this man, a Catholic priest, support cynically using Plato to undermine the traditional view of gender? Because that is exactly what the professor wants to do.
The philosophy professor at A&M has decided to replace the readings from Plato…with the New York Times article about how he had to replace the readings from Plato. My gosh, I hope one day I can be that level of curmudgeon
0
0
0
The government in Minneapolis could have prevented the recent shooting simply by allowing state and local police to assist ICE in their lawful mission. They could be used for crowd control, setting up a cordon, etc, and we wouldn’t have armed federal agents playing traffic cop in
256
541
6K
It's bad enough for this lady to die for a Hitler resistance fantasy but imagine how indefensible it would be if we were honest about it having more to do with keeping door dash cheap
2
11
176
Believing in law and order doesn't mean you have to submit to whatever made-up rules your opponents invented to keep you from being effective.
0
0
0
"I like what Trump did but don't like that he just went ahead and did it" really does sum up the "principled conservative" reaction to Trump.
That about sums it up.
2
0
1
The President does not have to get congressional approval to take executive actions, nor does he need to run his plans by philosophy professors.
I agree with this, but the point is that (a) the administration had a duty to set out its plan for ensuring that the transition goes well *before* the fact, not leave us crossing our fingers about it after the fact, and (b) it should have gotten congressional authorization first.
0
0
0