In this house, we don't celebrate fake holidays from murdering commies. Good reminder for me to say that on an 6 hour drive so we can have our yearly fight about Kwanzaa today
I was seated on the left side at the debate. Next to a fellow TFC'er, who claimed to be an original gangster (I only started listening in 2020). Nice guy.
Given how the debate went, I had little interest in engaging The Bulwark crowd (especially because I think they put their thumb on the scale by dishonestly saying "Not Sure" in the pre-poll). They struck me as an intolerant (at least of someone with my views) bunch.
Matt and Nick marshalled evidence and examples. The Bulkwark duo a) resorted exclusively to "orange man bad," and b) actually agreed with Math and Nick that you don't have to pick sides in politics! The best version of their claim is that even though you generally don't have to pick a side, in the 2024 presidential election, there was a clear choice, which every decent person had to make. I guess I'm not decent.
Finally, Tim was a joke. He said nothing serious the entire evening. Sarah is smart (maybe?), but she was such a scold that I found myself -- as I have many times since 11/5 -- feeling really, really, really good about my vote, even though I cast it at the time with ambivalence. People like Tim and Sarah do make me want to pick a side (whatever side they aren't on). I will, however, work hard to maintain my independence because Matt and Nick are decidedly right.
Oh it was after the debate? I wish they’d publish their “on tour” dates and locations so we can see if there’s ever an intersection. I’m not really ever on the east coast though so I think I miss just about everything.
AOC speaking reminds me of my ex-girlfriend when she clearly didn't know what she was talking about, but she had learned enough pseudo-professional jargon in college to try and backfill with bullshit. And yes I had that realization while I was dating my ex.
Listened to the first bit about reading and wanted to chime in.
I tried reading "The Road" and struggled to get into it. My interest in reading it came from Kmele gushing about it in a much earlier episode (around when I started listening, some years ago). But the fact it was just this guy and his son annoyed me at the time. Then I saw the movie some time ago with Viggo Mortenson and it made a lot more sense. It hit me a way I didn't expect. I will give it another try (the Book) sometime, especially since I love gritty post-apocalyptica though like Kmele said, it really is about those you love. Also, I am pretty sure the makers of the Fallout video game saw that book as a major influence.
On the subject of reading this is something I have done a lot more of. COVID got me out of the habit since idk, I was home all the time and just wanted to go out. Whenever I listen to a podcast, this one or "The Rest is History" and I hear a host mention a book, I take out my phone and make a note on a long list of books I want to read. Then I check my Libby app via the library to see if it's available. I can recall Kmele mentioning a Jon Meachem book, and so I looked for a book by him and found one.
Currently reading "American Lion" by Jon Meachem. It's about Andrew Jackson's Presidency and like Welch pointed out in his example (which is a book I am interested in), this is a subject I thought I knew but really I am finding I didn't. I know about the Indian Removal Act & the Bank War, but this book made me appreciate the extent to which the USA stood on the brink of Civil War w/the South, nearly 50 years prior to the actual Civil War. All because of tariffs, ironically. Again, this is something I kind of glossed over when teaching Jackson, but going forward will be something I will spend more time on when covering Jackson. Beyond that, the internal scandal of the "Petticoat War" that took place in his first administration was something I just did not know. (And is really an interesting commentary on how women in positions close to power can be very petty, enough to convince a president like Jackson, who was absolutely a tour de force, to make drastic changes to his cabinet in his first term).
I have a system now where when I get on the subway, I put on headphones, get a seat (usually I can), throw on some classical music and read. Really makes the trip go by much faster and I feel like it improves my understanding of history. I loathe the statement "history repeats itself" but do think it is interesting to note some similarities and differences from prior 19th century presidencies and consider them in light of today's.
Same thing happened to me the first time I tried to read The Road. I gave it another try a few years ago and I'm really glad I did. I ended up finishing the book on a return flight for a business trip. I was fighting back tears for the last few pages. Honestly, the book really is as simple as "this guy and his son", and after finishing it, I remembered just how special that relationship is.
Here is what you need to know about healthcare regulation and the power of markets.
I recently had a doctor recommend I get a CT scan of my heart. He said my insurance wouldn't cover it, and it was the kind of thing that is mostly cash only.
Great I thought, there is going to be a $1,500-2,000 price tag and I am going to have a hard time making a decision.
Nope it was $100. They called me and made an appointment for just two days out, had free parking, and I was in and out of there in maybe 15 minutes. Got my results later that day.
Why why is this the one part of my healthcare experiences that wasn't a hellscape I hate? Why is it not horribly overpriced? Because it is a pure fee for service model where actual markets can function. Literally everyone I ask about what they think it would cost guess at least $1,000.
Check out the EconTalk ep with Keith Smith of the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, a cash-only medical facility that charges at a fraction of the intentionally-inflated, kickback-generating pricing model of the standard hospital+insurance system. It's several years old but I recently revisited it and the discussion remains relevant and honestly shocking at times.
That's fair enough, but there are a lot of situations in healthcare that this does not work for. In an emergency, maybe you might have a choice of which ER to go to (typically not a ton of choices in this market). If you need something very specialized, there might only be one person who can do it in your area (or a handful if you're in a big city, or nobody if you're out in the rough). If you're poor, you might just stumble into whatever free clinic will take you.
It's also very difficult to shop back and forth to have your regular doctor be out of private practice and your specialist being in a different healthcare system. Don't get me wrong, people do it, but the lack of ability for EMRs to talk to each other makes it tough.
Don't get me wrong, I think there are areas of potential deregulation that could create more market forces in healthcare, but it's always going to be a long way from a pure free market.
Oh I agree entirely, I just think we have a bad compromise right now, ad need to move wildly to markets where we can, and then more firmly and honestly towards socialization where we think we cannot (say emergency care).
Fair enough, but we have free unlimited emergency medicine now (EMTALA), and that is not without its problems.
I felt like Australia was rare among countries with universal healthcare in that it actually had a pretty robust private healthcare system, and both the private and the public side were better for it. Then again, they have more wallabies than people and their borders are secure, so they can afford these kinds of things.
RE: the discussion about The Road at the beginning: it reminded me of one of me and my wife’s favorite songs Holy Shit by Father John Misty. The album it’s on, I Love You, Honeybear, is a wedding gift to his wife, but the song Holy Shit is pretty much “the world seems to be falling apart and it’s a scary place, but I fail to see what that’s got to do with you and me.” It’s a beautiful song on an incredible album. Father John Misty rocks
At the beginning of Moynihan’s Honestly episode with the journalist who was held prisoner in Syria, there’s a clip of a Syrian woman that I’m convinced is just Moynihan doing a slightly tweaked version of his Melania imitation. About two minutes in:
My ears twitched when I heard Matt reference David Samuels and his piece in Tablet. This because, a few hours earlier, I read Andrew Sullivan's link to the piece, which he termed "an essay built on Samuels' pathological hatred of Barack Obama." I followed the link, but the essay proved too long for me to read at that time. Will get back to it. Since Matt suggested the boys might have Samuels on, I look forward to that discussion. As a subscriber, from issue #1, to County Highway, I am a bit familiar with Samuels, the editor, and cofounder along with Walter Kirn. And writer, the most recent number has his essay "Soothsayers Begone! on page one. It is termed a "jeremiad", seems right, and I am a bit perplexed about how seriously to take the guy. But he can flat-out write. Wondering about Kirn as well, after his unhinged, to my mind, take on Luigi and the United Health CEO murder. Time will tell on that one, I hope. Lots of good stuff in this episode, guys, thanks!
Has Sullivan done a retrospective on why he thinks Obama is worthy of the praise that he lauds on him (and from an actual policy perspective and not a personal affinity)?
If he has, I haven't seen it. Your question is well worth exploring. I voted for Obama, twice, but without enthusiasm, residing as I do on a further left perch. I rarely comment on Sullivan's blog, perhaps this will motivate me to do so about this.
Yes. For me the only question is how that disappointment will stack up against that of the Biden administration. The manner of disappointment will surely be different, which will make it difficult to compare.
Matt's point that a chief Dem problem is that they believe in the virtue of "the noble lie" is a good one. The noble lie is at the heart of the disappointment (to put it mildly) that turned me from an enthusiastic HRC voter in 2016 to someone allergic to the Dem's.
The subtlety of the noble lie is not something that we will experience from the Trump world.
In any case, I'm expecting plenty of disappointment of various kinds. I hope it is tempered by a few welcome changes from the Biden-Administration approach to various issues and governance.
If you think the "administrative cost" is just executives you need some medical care immediately for your brain damage. That covers the whole backend staffing generally.
Facilites/IT/HR/Operations/etc. Executives are a line in there, but I would honestly be surprised if it was even a 1/10 of total admin costs.
Find another talking point, this one you got from somewhere on twitter/bluskee is broken and false.
Medicare spends @4% on admin in comparison. And judging by the fact that executives makes 100s of times more than other employees would make that lines significance a little more substantial than you seem to think it is. Whatever though, I really don't care what you think about anything so your little insult means nothing to me. Have a nice holidays.
Not on Twitter or blusky or any social media so try again, maybe I have options I come to on my own unlike a lot of people who troll others comments like you.
What made their argument incoherent was that they fluctuated between this tautological argument stating that of course one doesn't have to literally choose a side in the sense that you could just not vote, an obvious statement that is not worth debating, and this silly argument that to choose a side means giving up all integrity and turn into a partisan hack. Their argumentation completly fell apart because it was obvious that Matt and Nick do engage politically and they do advocate for and choose sides in politics, but by their own definition it doesn't count because to them choosing a side means you must abandon all principles in favor of team and they don't do that. Huh? Obviously this is not what is meant by choosing side and it was especially ironic trying to pin this position on the bulwark people, who famously abandoned their party allegiances when the party abandoned their principles in favor a demagogue. People who engage in politics and vote inevitably choose a side based what best matches their values and opinions, while still not abandoning all principles in favor of a candidate or party. They bent over backwards to pretend this is an impossible proposition in the most silly ways. Matt pretending that for him theoretically advocating for and voting for Milei is somehow not him choosing a side and Nick pretending he just flat out can't understand this concept when asked directly by an audience member.
As far as matt shifting momentarily to the argument of saying journalists should remain neutral in their political opinions, I think there's an argument to be made there, but it was beside the point. It was also ironic for him advocate for this because that is not what he or the people at reason do. They are an explicitly an ideological publication who advocate for positions and make a point of showing their political hand. Throughout the debate matt and nick undercut their own points, would try to shift the premise of the debate and never really settled on a coherent idea between the two of them of what they were arguing for.
I think the bulwark unequivocally won the debate because their argument made sense. To vote means to pick a side that best fits your interests and values, and of course you can do so without just becoming a partisan hack. Also I think the bulwark demonstrated that in doing so they are better able to evaluate between party option than the reasons folks, who insisted on drawing a false equivalency between the parties throughout the debate.
I guess I'd say that Matt and Nick argued in favor of the reasonableness of voting third party, abstaining, and/or voting for a candidate reluctantly without endorsing him or her. Bulwark argued that doing so is inappropriate. I heard the Bulwark saying that you have to plant a flag, and I don't think they made a good case for that. I think their argument boils down to, "If there is a fascist on the ballot, you have to pick the other side," which is quite is reasonable; I just don't think Trump is a fascist; therefore, I think it was o.k. to not choose a side.
Regarding neutrality, if there were a news item regarding Trump, wouldn't you trust Matt to report on it more objectively than The Bulwark, given that The Bulwark has explicitly chosen a side and wants to convince as many people as possible to join them?
I agree that is better proposition to debate, but i disagree that is what they were debating. I can assume what reasons position would be on this proposal, but I don't really know what the bulwark's position would be. I think it would be a good debate in light of a Trump election.
As far as trusting reason/Welch over the bulwark to cover Trump because they haven't "chosen side", i fully reject this. I reject that Welch doesn't have a side on the issue and reject further that he has better perspective on the actual risks posed by Trump and his administration.
His side in this matter is not simple as a partisan allegiance to Trump. I believe him when he says he doesn't like Trump. However, he has adopted the side of someone who believes Trump and the democrats are essentially equally terrible, but not unique threats and the real threats come from people's reactions. Although I think there is validity to worrying about over reactions, I think his view is generally very misguided and largely driven by bias. It is not partisan bias, but strong bias against the establishment and further against the left. Of course criticisizing the left is a worth while endeavor, but in my view his strong anti left bias has pretty corrupted his view on the matter and caused him to down play Trump and exaggerate the threats from the left. Additionally, I don't think his positions reflects a thoughtful, principled take with him being libertarian. As a libertarian you would think he would absolutely recognize the authoritarian risks Trump poses and react appropriately, but instead his reactions reflects more his anti left bias than his libertarian principles. I am less familiar with bulwark admittedly, but I respect that they abandoned the republican party when it abandoned it principles and they have not lost sight of the risks posed by Trump.
Happy to leave the debate here, as I think we've arrived at first principles: was the debate about taking sides generally or right now? For myself I have to stack the potential for Trump II badness against the actual badness of Trump I and the actual badness of the past four years (Covid policies, collusion with tech on censorship, trying to get Trump kicked off the ballot using trumped up charges and other shenanigans, etc.) Yes, I am "bothsidesing," though that doesn't mean equating.
In other words you seem to see the authoritarian threat as 100-0. I don't, and I think it explains most of our major differences.
Me: Cool new TFC! Let’s throw the AirPods in before getting the 3 month old from his nap and feeding him.
Me ten minutes later, child in arms: God dammit Kmele.
"Everything you've ever loved, you'll lose". Thanks Kmele, really needed that as I clean poop out of my kids hair.
Enjoy it while you can, they say.
Bro that’s what ear buds are for
I was wondering why Bari hosted the latest Honestly with Sam Altman and not MM... Oh right...
I always wonder if MM is gonna host when I see a new Honestly episode drop but as soon as I saw it was Altman I figured Bari would field that one.
Merry Christmas and happy Hanukkah, all!
No love for Kwanzaa?
In this house, we don't celebrate fake holidays from murdering commies. Good reminder for me to say that on an 6 hour drive so we can have our yearly fight about Kwanzaa today
I only celebrate holidays created by the WRONGFULLY convicted
You know I’m racist
Unpossible; race does not exist
I mean, you are a huge fan of the man whose op-ed literally endangered the lives of the NYT’s black employees . . .
You mean President Cotton, sir
Even his name is racist.
Do we get Danish Butter Cookies? I'll celebrate any holiday where we get Danish Butter Cookies.
A FESTIVUS MIRACLE! I have 15 hrs of driving in next 3 days. Thank you thank you lads
You even got a name drop
I'm honored! Matt was extremely gracious to all of us degenerates with drinks in our hands
What was the setting, where/how did this happen? Matt was going to go into it but got cut off and the subject got changed
There was an after party at the bar next door. No drama, but the reason supporters and the bulwark didn't seem to mingle too much.
Just a really good conversation with a few fifdom people. I think I invited Matt to Baltimore at some point...
I was seated on the left side at the debate. Next to a fellow TFC'er, who claimed to be an original gangster (I only started listening in 2020). Nice guy.
Given how the debate went, I had little interest in engaging The Bulwark crowd (especially because I think they put their thumb on the scale by dishonestly saying "Not Sure" in the pre-poll). They struck me as an intolerant (at least of someone with my views) bunch.
Matt and Nick marshalled evidence and examples. The Bulkwark duo a) resorted exclusively to "orange man bad," and b) actually agreed with Math and Nick that you don't have to pick sides in politics! The best version of their claim is that even though you generally don't have to pick a side, in the 2024 presidential election, there was a clear choice, which every decent person had to make. I guess I'm not decent.
Finally, Tim was a joke. He said nothing serious the entire evening. Sarah is smart (maybe?), but she was such a scold that I found myself -- as I have many times since 11/5 -- feeling really, really, really good about my vote, even though I cast it at the time with ambivalence. People like Tim and Sarah do make me want to pick a side (whatever side they aren't on). I will, however, work hard to maintain my independence because Matt and Nick are decidedly right.
Oh it was after the debate? I wish they’d publish their “on tour” dates and locations so we can see if there’s ever an intersection. I’m not really ever on the east coast though so I think I miss just about everything.
But do you have an aluminium pole?
Yes but it's filled with uranium
Graphite gang represent
😂
AOC speaking reminds me of my ex-girlfriend when she clearly didn't know what she was talking about, but she had learned enough pseudo-professional jargon in college to try and backfill with bullshit. And yes I had that realization while I was dating my ex.
Basically every college freshman who thinks they’re politically aware.
Listened to the first bit about reading and wanted to chime in.
I tried reading "The Road" and struggled to get into it. My interest in reading it came from Kmele gushing about it in a much earlier episode (around when I started listening, some years ago). But the fact it was just this guy and his son annoyed me at the time. Then I saw the movie some time ago with Viggo Mortenson and it made a lot more sense. It hit me a way I didn't expect. I will give it another try (the Book) sometime, especially since I love gritty post-apocalyptica though like Kmele said, it really is about those you love. Also, I am pretty sure the makers of the Fallout video game saw that book as a major influence.
On the subject of reading this is something I have done a lot more of. COVID got me out of the habit since idk, I was home all the time and just wanted to go out. Whenever I listen to a podcast, this one or "The Rest is History" and I hear a host mention a book, I take out my phone and make a note on a long list of books I want to read. Then I check my Libby app via the library to see if it's available. I can recall Kmele mentioning a Jon Meachem book, and so I looked for a book by him and found one.
Currently reading "American Lion" by Jon Meachem. It's about Andrew Jackson's Presidency and like Welch pointed out in his example (which is a book I am interested in), this is a subject I thought I knew but really I am finding I didn't. I know about the Indian Removal Act & the Bank War, but this book made me appreciate the extent to which the USA stood on the brink of Civil War w/the South, nearly 50 years prior to the actual Civil War. All because of tariffs, ironically. Again, this is something I kind of glossed over when teaching Jackson, but going forward will be something I will spend more time on when covering Jackson. Beyond that, the internal scandal of the "Petticoat War" that took place in his first administration was something I just did not know. (And is really an interesting commentary on how women in positions close to power can be very petty, enough to convince a president like Jackson, who was absolutely a tour de force, to make drastic changes to his cabinet in his first term).
I have a system now where when I get on the subway, I put on headphones, get a seat (usually I can), throw on some classical music and read. Really makes the trip go by much faster and I feel like it improves my understanding of history. I loathe the statement "history repeats itself" but do think it is interesting to note some similarities and differences from prior 19th century presidencies and consider them in light of today's.
Same thing happened to me the first time I tried to read The Road. I gave it another try a few years ago and I'm really glad I did. I ended up finishing the book on a return flight for a business trip. I was fighting back tears for the last few pages. Honestly, the book really is as simple as "this guy and his son", and after finishing it, I remembered just how special that relationship is.
Great episode, thank you guys. Can I also ask you to objectify men as well for us straight women listening to the pod?
Here is what you need to know about healthcare regulation and the power of markets.
I recently had a doctor recommend I get a CT scan of my heart. He said my insurance wouldn't cover it, and it was the kind of thing that is mostly cash only.
Great I thought, there is going to be a $1,500-2,000 price tag and I am going to have a hard time making a decision.
Nope it was $100. They called me and made an appointment for just two days out, had free parking, and I was in and out of there in maybe 15 minutes. Got my results later that day.
Why why is this the one part of my healthcare experiences that wasn't a hellscape I hate? Why is it not horribly overpriced? Because it is a pure fee for service model where actual markets can function. Literally everyone I ask about what they think it would cost guess at least $1,000.
Nope $100.
Check out the EconTalk ep with Keith Smith of the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, a cash-only medical facility that charges at a fraction of the intentionally-inflated, kickback-generating pricing model of the standard hospital+insurance system. It's several years old but I recently revisited it and the discussion remains relevant and honestly shocking at times.
That's fair enough, but there are a lot of situations in healthcare that this does not work for. In an emergency, maybe you might have a choice of which ER to go to (typically not a ton of choices in this market). If you need something very specialized, there might only be one person who can do it in your area (or a handful if you're in a big city, or nobody if you're out in the rough). If you're poor, you might just stumble into whatever free clinic will take you.
It's also very difficult to shop back and forth to have your regular doctor be out of private practice and your specialist being in a different healthcare system. Don't get me wrong, people do it, but the lack of ability for EMRs to talk to each other makes it tough.
Don't get me wrong, I think there are areas of potential deregulation that could create more market forces in healthcare, but it's always going to be a long way from a pure free market.
Oh I agree entirely, I just think we have a bad compromise right now, ad need to move wildly to markets where we can, and then more firmly and honestly towards socialization where we think we cannot (say emergency care).
Fair enough, but we have free unlimited emergency medicine now (EMTALA), and that is not without its problems.
I felt like Australia was rare among countries with universal healthcare in that it actually had a pretty robust private healthcare system, and both the private and the public side were better for it. Then again, they have more wallabies than people and their borders are secure, so they can afford these kinds of things.
RE: the discussion about The Road at the beginning: it reminded me of one of me and my wife’s favorite songs Holy Shit by Father John Misty. The album it’s on, I Love You, Honeybear, is a wedding gift to his wife, but the song Holy Shit is pretty much “the world seems to be falling apart and it’s a scary place, but I fail to see what that’s got to do with you and me.” It’s a beautiful song on an incredible album. Father John Misty rocks
Banger. On form. In your lane, moisturized and thriving. Excellently executed. The true Xmas miracle.
At the beginning of Moynihan’s Honestly episode with the journalist who was held prisoner in Syria, there’s a clip of a Syrian woman that I’m convinced is just Moynihan doing a slightly tweaked version of his Melania imitation. About two minutes in:
https://open.substack.com/pub/bariweiss/p/jolani-rebels-tortured-journalist-now-rule-syria?r=y4an&utm_medium=ios
Glad to know I wasn't the only one who had that fleeting thought.
My ears twitched when I heard Matt reference David Samuels and his piece in Tablet. This because, a few hours earlier, I read Andrew Sullivan's link to the piece, which he termed "an essay built on Samuels' pathological hatred of Barack Obama." I followed the link, but the essay proved too long for me to read at that time. Will get back to it. Since Matt suggested the boys might have Samuels on, I look forward to that discussion. As a subscriber, from issue #1, to County Highway, I am a bit familiar with Samuels, the editor, and cofounder along with Walter Kirn. And writer, the most recent number has his essay "Soothsayers Begone! on page one. It is termed a "jeremiad", seems right, and I am a bit perplexed about how seriously to take the guy. But he can flat-out write. Wondering about Kirn as well, after his unhinged, to my mind, take on Luigi and the United Health CEO murder. Time will tell on that one, I hope. Lots of good stuff in this episode, guys, thanks!
Has Sullivan done a retrospective on why he thinks Obama is worthy of the praise that he lauds on him (and from an actual policy perspective and not a personal affinity)?
If he has, I haven't seen it. Your question is well worth exploring. I voted for Obama, twice, but without enthusiasm, residing as I do on a further left perch. I rarely comment on Sullivan's blog, perhaps this will motivate me to do so about this.
Honeymoon period for Elon ended real quick.
Elon is already stealing the attention away from DonDon! The honeymoon phase will be ending soon.
We’re going to be really really disappointed with this incoming administration, aren’t we?
Yes. For me the only question is how that disappointment will stack up against that of the Biden administration. The manner of disappointment will surely be different, which will make it difficult to compare.
Matt's point that a chief Dem problem is that they believe in the virtue of "the noble lie" is a good one. The noble lie is at the heart of the disappointment (to put it mildly) that turned me from an enthusiastic HRC voter in 2016 to someone allergic to the Dem's.
The subtlety of the noble lie is not something that we will experience from the Trump world.
In any case, I'm expecting plenty of disappointment of various kinds. I hope it is tempered by a few welcome changes from the Biden-Administration approach to various issues and governance.
Profit margin 3% but 20% administrative cost (executives). Tell the whole story. Stop with the strawman arguments on everything, it's boring.
If you think the "administrative cost" is just executives you need some medical care immediately for your brain damage. That covers the whole backend staffing generally.
Facilites/IT/HR/Operations/etc. Executives are a line in there, but I would honestly be surprised if it was even a 1/10 of total admin costs.
Find another talking point, this one you got from somewhere on twitter/bluskee is broken and false.
Medicare spends @4% on admin in comparison. And judging by the fact that executives makes 100s of times more than other employees would make that lines significance a little more substantial than you seem to think it is. Whatever though, I really don't care what you think about anything so your little insult means nothing to me. Have a nice holidays.
If you don’t want to be insulted have better ideas.
Sad little person. I feel bad for you.
Not on Twitter or blusky or any social media so try again, maybe I have options I come to on my own unlike a lot of people who troll others comments like you.
What made their argument incoherent was that they fluctuated between this tautological argument stating that of course one doesn't have to literally choose a side in the sense that you could just not vote, an obvious statement that is not worth debating, and this silly argument that to choose a side means giving up all integrity and turn into a partisan hack. Their argumentation completly fell apart because it was obvious that Matt and Nick do engage politically and they do advocate for and choose sides in politics, but by their own definition it doesn't count because to them choosing a side means you must abandon all principles in favor of team and they don't do that. Huh? Obviously this is not what is meant by choosing side and it was especially ironic trying to pin this position on the bulwark people, who famously abandoned their party allegiances when the party abandoned their principles in favor a demagogue. People who engage in politics and vote inevitably choose a side based what best matches their values and opinions, while still not abandoning all principles in favor of a candidate or party. They bent over backwards to pretend this is an impossible proposition in the most silly ways. Matt pretending that for him theoretically advocating for and voting for Milei is somehow not him choosing a side and Nick pretending he just flat out can't understand this concept when asked directly by an audience member.
As far as matt shifting momentarily to the argument of saying journalists should remain neutral in their political opinions, I think there's an argument to be made there, but it was beside the point. It was also ironic for him advocate for this because that is not what he or the people at reason do. They are an explicitly an ideological publication who advocate for positions and make a point of showing their political hand. Throughout the debate matt and nick undercut their own points, would try to shift the premise of the debate and never really settled on a coherent idea between the two of them of what they were arguing for.
I think the bulwark unequivocally won the debate because their argument made sense. To vote means to pick a side that best fits your interests and values, and of course you can do so without just becoming a partisan hack. Also I think the bulwark demonstrated that in doing so they are better able to evaluate between party option than the reasons folks, who insisted on drawing a false equivalency between the parties throughout the debate.
You laid out your opinion nicely here.
I guess I'd say that Matt and Nick argued in favor of the reasonableness of voting third party, abstaining, and/or voting for a candidate reluctantly without endorsing him or her. Bulwark argued that doing so is inappropriate. I heard the Bulwark saying that you have to plant a flag, and I don't think they made a good case for that. I think their argument boils down to, "If there is a fascist on the ballot, you have to pick the other side," which is quite is reasonable; I just don't think Trump is a fascist; therefore, I think it was o.k. to not choose a side.
Regarding neutrality, if there were a news item regarding Trump, wouldn't you trust Matt to report on it more objectively than The Bulwark, given that The Bulwark has explicitly chosen a side and wants to convince as many people as possible to join them?
I agree that is better proposition to debate, but i disagree that is what they were debating. I can assume what reasons position would be on this proposal, but I don't really know what the bulwark's position would be. I think it would be a good debate in light of a Trump election.
As far as trusting reason/Welch over the bulwark to cover Trump because they haven't "chosen side", i fully reject this. I reject that Welch doesn't have a side on the issue and reject further that he has better perspective on the actual risks posed by Trump and his administration.
His side in this matter is not simple as a partisan allegiance to Trump. I believe him when he says he doesn't like Trump. However, he has adopted the side of someone who believes Trump and the democrats are essentially equally terrible, but not unique threats and the real threats come from people's reactions. Although I think there is validity to worrying about over reactions, I think his view is generally very misguided and largely driven by bias. It is not partisan bias, but strong bias against the establishment and further against the left. Of course criticisizing the left is a worth while endeavor, but in my view his strong anti left bias has pretty corrupted his view on the matter and caused him to down play Trump and exaggerate the threats from the left. Additionally, I don't think his positions reflects a thoughtful, principled take with him being libertarian. As a libertarian you would think he would absolutely recognize the authoritarian risks Trump poses and react appropriately, but instead his reactions reflects more his anti left bias than his libertarian principles. I am less familiar with bulwark admittedly, but I respect that they abandoned the republican party when it abandoned it principles and they have not lost sight of the risks posed by Trump.
Happy to leave the debate here, as I think we've arrived at first principles: was the debate about taking sides generally or right now? For myself I have to stack the potential for Trump II badness against the actual badness of Trump I and the actual badness of the past four years (Covid policies, collusion with tech on censorship, trying to get Trump kicked off the ballot using trumped up charges and other shenanigans, etc.) Yes, I am "bothsidesing," though that doesn't mean equating.
In other words you seem to see the authoritarian threat as 100-0. I don't, and I think it explains most of our major differences.
By matt recording my recommendation, am I now a podcaster?!?! Do I need to start "ask a nuclear engineer"?