While I largely agree about the physical invasion of countries being a danger for Europe I gotta say that a ‘soft’ invasion has already been underway via unfettered immigration.
Blasphemy laws under the cover of Islamophobia seem to be followed in many European countries.
I think most people would agree but if you are going to compare apples to apples here as Vance did, then the larger threat is obviously the aggressive, revanchist country with the gigantic nuclear stockpile.
I'm not sure that's true for the Western European countries where these Islamist attacks seem to happen most often. Obviously a nuclear attack is a problem, but that could come from a country like China, and I doubt Russia would be willing to conventionally attack France. I see catering to a minority culture to the detriment of the rest as very bad, so I don't see one as astronomically worse than the other, but I could be wrong here.
But I think it’s worth remembering that Vance wasn’t just talking to Western Europeans. There were Ukrainians and other Eastern Europeans at this conference who find themselves in Russia’s crosshairs.
Also, further Russian aggression will create more refugees who will try to flee to Western Europe. And I interpreted Vance’s comments about Brexit as an expression of concern about mass migration beyond just Muslims.
Also also, Russia propped up the Assad regime, prolonging the Syrian Civil War and exacerbating the refugee crisis (though I’ll admit this cuts both ways).
I understand Eastern European countries being concerned, that makes a ton of sense given Russia's entire history, especially recently. And I do think that's the downstream effects of the war could have a greater impact in totality. I'm not in total agreement with Vance on this, but I just don't think it's out of pocket to worry about internal threats as, or more, much as external.
We have civil problems from immigration here as well. And yet if China invaded the country and occupied several of our states for two years I think the distinction would be clear which thing is the bigger problem.
I'd say it's more like us being more worried that Brazil is taking over Colombia, or maybe even Panama, since many of these countries are not being attacked directly, but are facing downstream effects.
I guess it depends on how you're carving up Europe, but I think I'm more on the Welch side of that equation. Once we inch past Ukraine into Moldova and Poland, we're not just talking about Eastern Europe which you may or may not want to count.
And it's not like the argument works the other way, either. People in the MAGA orbit are very concerned about NATO encroachment on Putin's border -- wouldn't they be equally concerned in the other direction, if this was some kind of principled stance?
In any case the question was, which is more threatening between internal strife caused by things like immigration and bad downstream policies or a literal invading military force. No amount of squinting changes the obvious answer for me.
I am concerned about the war and national independence, and I don't buy into the "they made him do it narratives," so I don't want to be misconstrued. I just think that countries in NATO and the EU (which consists of most of the continent) are far more protected from this threat from Russia, given the cost to them if that Rubicon is crossed and the US gets involved with full force.
My contention that it would be hard for me to say one is obviously worse. They are also apples and oranges, I suppose. One is a clear enemy who, once defeated, is no longer a direct threat, the other has woven its way throughout society and upset many cultural traditions.
Alas, it is probably easier to agree to disagree here. As an American with no actual dog in this fight, perhaps it's best to leave it there
I really bristle when people use the word “invasion” to describe immigration, but in the interest of being open minded, why do you think that’s the appropriate term to use?
Because the group of immigrants I’m referring to are not leaving their countries and going to Europe or America (legally or illegally) to start new lives there and integrate as much as possible. They aim to install models of life (under the banner of religion) which are mostly banned or frowned upon in their countries of origin. If you want to stretch it perhaps that’s fine (it’s not) amongst themselves. But to then expect the host countries to respect and/or aid & abet these customs is a bridge I won’t cross.
I say ALL of this as the daughter of immigrants. Half of my family who lives here in America are immigrants, many of whom still don’t speak English even though they’ve been here for an age. I can assure you that my views on this topic are mild compared to them. When you voluntarily left your home you should make every effort to respect and/or adapt to the new environment.
I appreciate your response. I'm going to respond in two separate posts with thoughts on the situation in Europe and America because I think the context is different.
Your description of (I assume) Muslim immigration to Europe doesn't completely line up with my understanding of the situation, though I may be poorly informed. I thought the vast majority of recent Muslim immigrants to Europe were refugees fleeing the Syrian Civil War and ISIS (with the consent, sometimes enthusiastic, of European governments), not people who were trying to set up Islamic governments and got kicked out of their home countries as a result. If they are still Islamic fundamentalists that want to live under Sharia law then maybe it's a distinction without a difference, but this brings me to my next question (and it's an honest one; I don't know the answer)...
Are recent Muslim immigrants the ones trying to enforce anti-blasphemy laws? Are there Muslim legislators passing these laws? Muslims cops harassing people? Muslim prosecutors going after people? Muslim judges interpreting the laws in certain ways?
Or is it left-wing legislators, prosecutors, and judges that are enforcing hate speech laws (in response to a growing constituency, no doubt, but it matters who has power here) because they think they are acting on behalf of an oppressed minority? Sort of like how the majority of pro-Palestinian protesters are progressive white kids from upper middle-class families?
Again, maybe you think it's a distinction without a difference, but I don't. In the first scenario maybe the use of invasion is justified. In the latter scenario, the call is coming from inside the house, so to speak. If that's the case, stemming the flow of migrants probably won't solve the underlying problem of illiberal attacks on free speech. The left wing people leading those attacks will just find another group of victims to use as justification. (I understand that this underlying illiberal streak is part of what Vance was talking about, but in this comment I'm trying to hone in on the use of the term invasion to describe migration).
Push factors are sorely missing from most Western discussions of immigration, be it from Latin America to the US or MENA into Europe.
Too many people complain about immigration while supporting policies to deliberately collapse the governments and economies of countries that people are fleeing from. And then the countries they flee to usually fail to manage their changing demographics and the disruption that leads to.
The left, and I count myself largely in that camp, needs to start focusing on the first part of that rather than the second. Start with doing no further harm. Overthrowing governments, no matter how odious, usually makes things worse. Sanctions don't work. As somebody who was yelling about "root causes" long before Kamala was given that thankless job, it's immensely frustrating to see this same predictable cycle play itself out over and over again.
First of sorry for the late response but I really don’t have much free time to dedicate to online discussions.
I understand that what’s really bothering you is the use of the word invasion. I’m not married to the term but the effect is the same. At least from what I can see.
Secondly I have no fixation on Muslims. It’s their religion and I have no issue with it. Half or more of my neighbors are of the Muslim faith and we’ve lived in close proximity for over 20 years. Islamists are a different kettle of fish. My concern or complaint is with immigrants of any nationality or creed who migrate with the expectation of the host nation bending to them.
As I said, viewed from the outside, a big percentage of my family is not integrated. Some don’t even speak English even though they’ve worked & lived here for over 30 years. Their ethos, if you will, is “render unto Caesar …” and that’s all that’s asked of the new immigrants.
Migrate legally or regularize your situation ASAP, follow the laws of your host country and … that’s it.
As for the activist class you’re likely correct about the rank & file but in case we can’t accept customs that counter liberal democracy regardless who is trying to enact them or for the benefit of whom.
I was surprised that you focused on Muslim (again, I assume...correct me if I'm wrong) immigration in the US context. The Trump administration has started using the term invasion in reference to the situation on the southern border where, as far as I know, the primary concern is immigrants from Central and South America and the accompanying economic and social impacts, along with drugs. That's not to say people from other continents aren't also crossing the southern border, but that hasn't seemed to be the main focus to me.
The question of integration is an interesting one. I used to think that the "melting pot" description of immigration was accurate, but now I'm not so sure that the situation of the past wasn't all that different from today. My great grandparents did anglicize their names, but they also had their own churches (my great grandfather started one of the Russian Orthodox churches in his area), their own social clubs (we still went to the Slovak Club with my grandparents when we were going up), kept their own traditions, etc. And we have places called Little Italy and Chinatown in most major US cities for a reason. Did native-born Americans walk through those neighborhoods and think they were being invaded? Maybe! And yet, one or two generations removed those neighborhoods had become a kind of tourist attraction and the descendants of the original inhabitants were/are thoroughly American.
Again, maybe you think this is a distinction without a difference, but I worry that the use of the term invasion to describe US immigration is being/will be used to justify an increasingly militarized response to what should be seen as a law enforcement, governance, and social issue.
Seconded. Invasions are usually organized. And goal oriented. Immigration has an invisible hand type social effect guiding it but not really a “ethos or goal”.
I’ve been waiting for this episode to drop just so I can wish JD Vance a Matt Welch Special - fuck him in the face with a mean penis. A mean, European left-wing penis.
The Fifthfom is well aware of Europe’s anti-free speech laws and their difficulty integrating immigrants, but Vance claiming that those problems are a bigger threat to democracy than Russia is fucking disgusting.
Russia invaded two European democracies (let’s not forget about Georgia) and is murdering Ukrainians en masse, along with their own political dissidents at home and abroad. Russia itself was a European democracy, or at least aspired to be, within Vance’s lifetime. How has that worked out?
Maybe Vance would feel differently if it were his kids being murdered by Russian missiles in Kiev and Kharkiv, or if he himself was being poisoned or thrown out a window for being in the political position.
He’s smart enough to know better but apparently not honorable enough to care. Fuck off. What a disgrace.
I think we heard different speeches. Also a European, albeit a liberal not lefty one. Not to say everything he said was perfect, but the general point is one the leaders on our continent needed to hear. Above all, the question of why we're doing everything we're doing and what it's for. If not to protect the unique in human history levels of freedom and openess, then what? The USA stems from our continent's experiments with forms of government, legal systems, and society that hadn't ever existed before in the history of our species. They have many issues that I hope they too can overcome, but we have an ever rotting core in our own body politic and an external intervention to hold up a mirror was long overdue and to many of us welcome. I didn't hear a prevarication vis à vis Russia's actions being less menacing than the increasingly illiberal turn within Europe. Though if I missed something concrete that you believe implied as much, I'd be curious to go back and watch again.
“ the threat that I worry the most about vis-a-vis Europe is not Russia, it’s not China, it’s not any other external actor”
“ Europe faces many challenges, but the crisis this continent faces right now, the crisis I believe we all face together, is one of our own making”
(note the terms “challenge” vs “crisis”)
“And of all the pressing challenges that the nations represented here face, I believe there is nothing more urgent than mass migration”
I don’t know if the Ukrainian delegation was present for the speech but they were at the conference. I assume representatives from the Baltics and Finland, who have reason to fear Russian aggression, were also there.
I also don’t think you can view this in isolation. The Trump administration seems to have preemptively conceded some Russian demands while sidelining Europe and, it seems early on, Ukraine itself, in the start of negotiations to end the war. Taken together it looks to me like the administration is a lot more sympathetic to Russian authoritarianism than European democracy.
Weird distinction to make when discussing the future of a country that is very literally fighting AGAINST an invading army right now.
He also talked a lot about basically being against mass migration, so I wouldn't characterize his speech as outlining anything he is for. It was a clinker and not appropriate given the circumstances, broken clock bits notwithstanding.
I did like how Matt had a kind of "yeah an invading country is worse" this should be obvious kind of response. Appreciate Kmele trying to steelman but a lot of people need to just be slapped into sobriety with that simple point.
Every European leader in that room does not agree with the Fifthdom regarding europe's illiberal speech laws. Vance calling them out for that to their faces was correct, appropriate and long overdue. UK Labor sent people over to campaign for Harris FFS, spare us.
The biggest threat to European stability is the inability of the Cold War-era NATO countries' governments to stand up to external threats. This comes from internal weaknesses that were the target of Vance's speech. This has manifest itself in Russia recognizing it's ability to take the actions that it took without fear of consequences from those countries. They were right.
How do you plan on kicking Russia out of Ukraine and restoring it's pre-2014 sovereignty (or even pre-2022)? How do you plan to stop the missiles from falling on Kiev? I didn't hear or read of a single person in Munich who answered that question. There's a reason, and therein comes the speech.
How many Frenchmen and Germans are waiting to volunteer for the march to retake the Donbas, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia and Crimea? Dozens! Their leaders are waiting on the Americans to do it for them. Again. That's not going to happen. So the missiles keep falling.
I think you're conflating separate issues. Europe's inability to stand up to Russian aggression absent US leadership isn't a result of anti-free speech laws and mass migration. I'm in favor of handing off more responsibility for European security to European countries, but I think that should happen in a collaborative way that maintains strong trans-Atlantic alliances. That's not what I've seen happening in the first month of the Trump administration.
At this point I think re-establishing the pre-2014 borders is unrealistic absent external involvement. There may have been opportunities (no guarantees) to at least recapture parts of the Donbass and to squeeze Crimea enough to force Russia into further concessions during/after the successful Ukrainian offensives, but the Biden administration, to their discredit, slow-rolled a lot of aid out of fear of Russian escalation.
But the Trump administration still shouldn't be making preemptive concessions to Russia on NATO membership and borders. For one thing, it's not the place of the US to make those concessions , certainly not unilaterally. But also, Ukraine still has a large segment of is 18-25 year-old population that hasn't been drafted, and the US and Europe haven't exhausted the aid they can provide. I'm not necessarily advocating for pursuing that strategy, but if nothing else, the threat of further escalation could be used as a negotiating tactic.
They're not separate issues. Europe's learned helplessness, unserious leadership and undeserved expectation that the rest of the world must follows its lead are what underpin all of this. Meet the new boss, in no way, shape or form like the old boss.
Is it your contention that if Europe had taken primary responsibility for its security after the end of the Cold War that there would be less censorship and no refugee crisis? How does that work? I’m not asking for a detailed alternate history of the last 30 years, but give me the broad outline.
And if Europe being dependent on the US for its security is connected to censorship and the refugee crisis, how do you explain our immigration problems and the erosion of free speech norms in the US?
Yes, if European leaders had opted for a pro-enlightenment republican direction instead of a post-modern globalist direction, if they'd exercised greater caution regarding Russia from Schroeder onward, if they'd honored their commitments to the NATO alliance instead of depending solely on the US for security, if they'd listened more to their people than their plutocrats regarding refugees, then yes, it is likely that censorship and refugees, as well as Ukraine, would not be the enfeebling issues that they are for them today.
I think you're engaging in a bit of a motte and bailey argument, now.
You originally made a narrow claim that the internal weaknesses that Vance targeted, i.e. censorship and mass migration, are the root cause of Europe's inability to counter external threats (in this context, Russia).
Now you're basically saying that if Europe had followed a totally different political and economic track for the last 30 years then Europe wouldn't face the specific challenges they face now. I agree with that, but it's bordering on tautological.
At any rate, I'm happy to continue down this path, but I'm also happy to let you have the last word and just agree to disagree.
You see them as concessions; I see them as acknowledgements to get people to the table today and end the stalemate. Russia is not going to accept Ukraine in NATO, and they're unlikely do more than exchange parts of the territory they have gained. That sucks, but that's war - a war resulting from Europe's (and Biden's) weakness and lack of resolve. Thus, Russia is unlikely to even discuss talks without those pre-conditions. The Biden slow-rolling you are talking about is the path that the Europeans at Munich were suggesting going forward. Simply put, Europe's position is that if the status quo is to be altered, the US should pay for it, but Europe should approve it. Meanwhile they just talk, while others die. It's the EU way - talk, without resolve. Maybe they would have more resolve if it was their kids dying, as you said above.
I would like Ukraine to be involved in the talks, but they're in no position to make demands on the United States. It is absolutely the place of the US to dictate terms, unilaterally if they must - sorry, that's the string for the past 100 years. Ukraine doesn't have to accept them, it's true. As far as collaborating in the transfer of European security, we've been doing that for those 100 years now, with little collaboration from one side, chiefly for the past 40. Maybe now they'd like to take a turn, instead of doing nothing but tell us what we should or should not do..
Good luck finding someone who despises Russia more than this guy. But this war needs to end, and we need to retrench - and I'd be very happy if the strategic direction was to reclaim for Ukraine all that they have lost at some point in the future. But that time is not now, and the US cannot take the lead on this. Our focus is needed elsewhere - principally, in the Pacific. Europe should take the lead - but they won't, until they sort out their shit, and act like adults instead of the children they've been since The Wall came down.
I think you might be overestimating Russia's strength at the negotiating table. Neither side can go on like this forever. Yes, I know, people have been predicting Russia's collapse since the first few months of the war. I don't think it's imminent, but one has to think in terms of probabilities. Is Russia confident enough in it's ability to hold out that they won't even come to the negotiating table without the US accepting certain terms? I don't know, maybe, but I have my doubts. I think it's more likely that the Trump administration is showing its sympathies towards Russia's position.
I agree wholeheartedly that we need to focus on China and the Pacific. That's actually one of the reasons why I've been so disappointed with Trump's approach to Europe and Ukraine. Our ability to deter China takes a significant hit if we can't present a united economic front with Europe. And while I think it's unlikely that NATO gets directly involved in a hot war with China (outside of the UK, maybe), the Biden administration was actually making progress towards getting the alliance to pay attention to China. At the very least, it adds an extra variable that the CCP has to take into consideration.
I also think that we would just flat out lose a hot war with China without a strong Pacific alliance, particularly Japan, the Philippines, and Australia (and even then it would be a tall order). So maintaining, strengthening, and growing those alliances is a critical aspect of deterrence. I think we're making that harder by calling into question our commitments to our European allies and potentially shutting out Ukraine from negotiations (trade wars don't help, either, but that's a separate topic). It may be satisfying to lecture the Europeans like children, but others are watching.
At any rate, I think you and I share a lot of the same concerns and probably mostly disagree on the best strategy for addressing them.
I'd argue that what Trump is calling into question, and attempting to extract is NATO's commitment to us, the alliance, and themselves, not ours. Clearly our commitment to alliances in the recent past has been relatively one-sided - what I find maddening is the emphasis on pointing out Trump's "lack of commitment" to such a degree while glossing over the actions of the rest of the room. To repeat myself - what did the Europeans have to say about a course of action to end the war?
I think Russia's negotiating strength is that they have a greater capacity to continue the war than the Ukrainians do. China is fence-sitting, but can always play this to extend it - or sweep in to be a mediator when it looks good for them. Russia is historically surprising stability-wise, but I'd say they can endure the status quo as long as Putin's health holds up.
Me, I'd just like to see the killing stop. To be honest, I'm also fine with the concessions now because I have no faith that Russia will honor the terms in the long run, and alliance or not, I'd immediately settle a few EU-NATO brigades in Ukraine shortly after the dust settles, along with a nice military airfield. Then I'd run the Ukrainian Army thru Graf, CMTC and Munster.
But Europe needs to stop buying Russian energy. Now.
Love the pod cast and I am a faithful listener however this episode reveals to me what conventional thinkers you all are. Not a mention of the Billions and billions and billions going to NGO’s that work to destabilize foreign governments perhaps even our own. You guys didn’t even say NGO. I found the usually funny Bed Sty smugness of the gang to be insufferable in this episode. Comparing Elon to a freshman poly sci student was particularly dare I say “elite”. Politics is complicated but it’s not rocket science or neuroscience either. What is simple to understand is the American people have been ripped off long enough and it’s over and it being done in a fashion that may ruffle the feathers of conventional political thinkers and without thier permission.
M.M. seems to confuse fandom with will of the voters.
Literally mentioned in show how some of us have been writing about USAID corruption for decades, which I guess I’ll have to link to in the Firehose (along with links to previous episodes where we talk about stinky USAID projects) in order to not be accused of conventionality every time we spend 57 minutes not saying the apparently obligatory safe word.
The dissing of Elon almost never comes without also praising his abilities/accomplishments, and rooting for his DOGE work to be good and meaningful. I will happily diss his shit Twitter output regardless, because his Twitter output is shit.
In your defense, you acknowledged him as the one of the smartest people on the earth before providing your (very valid) criticism, perfect example of why I love you guys. Meanwhile AOC is saying he’s dumb 🙄. Sorry but when people do that they lose any credibility of a good faith argument.
“Politics is complicated but it’s not rocket science”
I like to draw a distinction between what I call reducible and irreducible complexity.
Rockets are complex but they can be broken down into smaller physical and logical components that follow well understood physical laws.
Politics involves balancing the often competing wants and needs of millions of people, who don’t follow well understood physical laws, with lots of nonlinear interactions that can’t be understood in isolation.
Applying expertise from one type of complexity to the other is what Hayek warned about when he talked about scientism.
Aw man! They made fun of Elon!? Blasphemy! Don’t they know he cured cancer, colonized mars, balanced the budget, and all while playing stairway to heaven on a steel guitar one handed while speed running super Mario bros 3 with the other hand!
He’s so brilliant! Beyond reproach really! God all the profound philosophy he “memes” on twitter blows me out of the water with not just its depth but breadth!
He truly is someone who has spent his whole life talking about these issues!
Could the DOGE thing been done less messily? Of course, which is why I was a DeSantis supporter. All I can hope for is that at least some of DOGE's efforts stick once all the smashing is done.
All I can think of when I hear people whining about the methodology of all of this is, "Ok, where was all of your brilliant planning for how to take this on n years ago?". The interest on the debt now roughly equals defense spending. If something can't go on forever, it won't, and it'll be fucking ugly when it ends.
I saw something in my school the other day that is something Michael has mentioned in regards to his experience with his daughter in schools. there are pictures on a wall facing out and the pictures are always diverse. This was something for black history month yet there were no men ie James Baldwin, booker T Washington, thurgood Marshall. No instead it was all women, a couple from history who I don’t remember but it also included the actress Issa Rae, Stacy Abram’s and Nikole Hannah Jones.
Also it’s interesting that this is the part of the school where the school aids are (who are predominantly white women). It’s not a high traffic area for staff/students.
I’ll have to snap a photo (we’re on break) but I just eyerolled.
I sometimes do outreach in a low income area and a couple of things. 1) my last name is hilarious to high schoolers so that's a problem 2) nicer facilities than anything I had in high school 3) Obama and Kamala murals.
I wonder what the ratio would be of Kamala books to, say, Clarence Thomas books in the libraries in every public school in the country? 100:1? 10,000:1? Infinity?
Thank you for the memory - sort of - of the 100 shots of beer in 100 minutes game. In Australia in the 90s it was called Centurions, and it just about killed me at the age of 17.
The version I've heard of (and definitely never done) is the "power hour", with a shot of beer every minute for 60min. I think it's like 6 - 7 beers in an hour? Can't imagine 100 lol
I love the idea of a little mid-season international tournament, but having a championship game when you only have four teams playing in a round robin is a bit odd. Got to get that TV revenue, though.
Yeah it seems weird to have these 4. I’m guessing they have the most players in the NHL. But is Russia not a factor anymore? I was under the impression they have a lot of players but I’ll admit I’m at best a very superficial fan.
It was great meeting y'all. My Welch-signed Don't Step on Snek sticker has been added to my guitar case already.
Thankfully I saw Moynihan while wandering around looking for the lecture room because, despite going to UF for undergrad and my MBA, he had a better idea where to go. It's a gigantic campus (like 2000 acres) and I feel like I only saw maybe 30-35% of it during my years there.
Wonderful bonus was meeting Nancy Rommelmann (who I only realized it was Nancy Rommelmann like 4 hours in), Bryan Caplan, Jim Harper, and Zach Weissmueller in person.
UF's Hamilton Center and the Law School are doing a great job going against the grain of progressive dominated academia, hosting events like this. I thought the guy that referenced Chomsky might try to fight Bryan Caplan, but I think it was relegated to an internal rage and probably a 50k word facebook post. I hope the Hamilton Center follows it up next year with something just as good. It was great seeing some other Fifth subscribers as well, one of which, a Hamilton Center Professor and Fifth subscriber, was the provider of the Snek sticker.
Do try and tone down your TDS a bit, I can get that from a million sources without having to pay for it. Take him seriously but not literally, not the reverse.
What level of criticism are they allowed to engage in without being diagnosed with a dismissal? TDS is a great description for all those people who can't talk about what they would do, while hyperventilating about what Trump will do. But I'm increasingly seeing it used as a means to dismiss all criticism.
I'm so tired of Trumpsters repeating "take him seriously, not literally"... As if it's my job to post date all the Trump checks and only asses his words and actions after they've been echoed and impacted the world. Why does he get this special status? His words have intent but we've all seen enough to understand that his intent is not always the result. This is part of Trump's marketing playbook where he's "never wrong" because he always changes the rules & moves the goalposts (aligns his original intent to current reality) after the fact. If recognizing this is TDS, then what's it called when you don't see it?
I was surprised to read your comment, because when I listened to the episode this morning, I thought The Boys were very balanced. They most definitely critiqued Trump & some of his current activities, but more than once they gave him credit for doing or saying something worthwhile. Considering that TFC has a kind of mandate to call out whatever the current administration is getting wrong, I was pleased to hear them give the president and his people a bit of credit for getting a few things right.
Not everything is TDS. I’ve seen this really overused. A lot of
Now I understand that the man is a moral paragon! A brilliant philosopher. A true family man beyond reproach. His eyes have never cheated let alone his body! He’s simply friendly with all types of people. Even Jesus hung out with hookers! His fatherhood is truly something that books could be written about! The ability to run all over the globe like he does yet still find time to be a present and worthwhile father is second to none!
While I largely agree about the physical invasion of countries being a danger for Europe I gotta say that a ‘soft’ invasion has already been underway via unfettered immigration.
Blasphemy laws under the cover of Islamophobia seem to be followed in many European countries.
I think most people would agree but if you are going to compare apples to apples here as Vance did, then the larger threat is obviously the aggressive, revanchist country with the gigantic nuclear stockpile.
I'm not sure that's true for the Western European countries where these Islamist attacks seem to happen most often. Obviously a nuclear attack is a problem, but that could come from a country like China, and I doubt Russia would be willing to conventionally attack France. I see catering to a minority culture to the detriment of the rest as very bad, so I don't see one as astronomically worse than the other, but I could be wrong here.
But I think it’s worth remembering that Vance wasn’t just talking to Western Europeans. There were Ukrainians and other Eastern Europeans at this conference who find themselves in Russia’s crosshairs.
Also, further Russian aggression will create more refugees who will try to flee to Western Europe. And I interpreted Vance’s comments about Brexit as an expression of concern about mass migration beyond just Muslims.
Also also, Russia propped up the Assad regime, prolonging the Syrian Civil War and exacerbating the refugee crisis (though I’ll admit this cuts both ways).
I understand Eastern European countries being concerned, that makes a ton of sense given Russia's entire history, especially recently. And I do think that's the downstream effects of the war could have a greater impact in totality. I'm not in total agreement with Vance on this, but I just don't think it's out of pocket to worry about internal threats as, or more, much as external.
We have civil problems from immigration here as well. And yet if China invaded the country and occupied several of our states for two years I think the distinction would be clear which thing is the bigger problem.
I'd say it's more like us being more worried that Brazil is taking over Colombia, or maybe even Panama, since many of these countries are not being attacked directly, but are facing downstream effects.
I guess it depends on how you're carving up Europe, but I think I'm more on the Welch side of that equation. Once we inch past Ukraine into Moldova and Poland, we're not just talking about Eastern Europe which you may or may not want to count.
And it's not like the argument works the other way, either. People in the MAGA orbit are very concerned about NATO encroachment on Putin's border -- wouldn't they be equally concerned in the other direction, if this was some kind of principled stance?
In any case the question was, which is more threatening between internal strife caused by things like immigration and bad downstream policies or a literal invading military force. No amount of squinting changes the obvious answer for me.
I am concerned about the war and national independence, and I don't buy into the "they made him do it narratives," so I don't want to be misconstrued. I just think that countries in NATO and the EU (which consists of most of the continent) are far more protected from this threat from Russia, given the cost to them if that Rubicon is crossed and the US gets involved with full force.
My contention that it would be hard for me to say one is obviously worse. They are also apples and oranges, I suppose. One is a clear enemy who, once defeated, is no longer a direct threat, the other has woven its way throughout society and upset many cultural traditions.
Alas, it is probably easier to agree to disagree here. As an American with no actual dog in this fight, perhaps it's best to leave it there
I really bristle when people use the word “invasion” to describe immigration, but in the interest of being open minded, why do you think that’s the appropriate term to use?
Because the group of immigrants I’m referring to are not leaving their countries and going to Europe or America (legally or illegally) to start new lives there and integrate as much as possible. They aim to install models of life (under the banner of religion) which are mostly banned or frowned upon in their countries of origin. If you want to stretch it perhaps that’s fine (it’s not) amongst themselves. But to then expect the host countries to respect and/or aid & abet these customs is a bridge I won’t cross.
I say ALL of this as the daughter of immigrants. Half of my family who lives here in America are immigrants, many of whom still don’t speak English even though they’ve been here for an age. I can assure you that my views on this topic are mild compared to them. When you voluntarily left your home you should make every effort to respect and/or adapt to the new environment.
I appreciate your response. I'm going to respond in two separate posts with thoughts on the situation in Europe and America because I think the context is different.
Your description of (I assume) Muslim immigration to Europe doesn't completely line up with my understanding of the situation, though I may be poorly informed. I thought the vast majority of recent Muslim immigrants to Europe were refugees fleeing the Syrian Civil War and ISIS (with the consent, sometimes enthusiastic, of European governments), not people who were trying to set up Islamic governments and got kicked out of their home countries as a result. If they are still Islamic fundamentalists that want to live under Sharia law then maybe it's a distinction without a difference, but this brings me to my next question (and it's an honest one; I don't know the answer)...
Are recent Muslim immigrants the ones trying to enforce anti-blasphemy laws? Are there Muslim legislators passing these laws? Muslims cops harassing people? Muslim prosecutors going after people? Muslim judges interpreting the laws in certain ways?
Or is it left-wing legislators, prosecutors, and judges that are enforcing hate speech laws (in response to a growing constituency, no doubt, but it matters who has power here) because they think they are acting on behalf of an oppressed minority? Sort of like how the majority of pro-Palestinian protesters are progressive white kids from upper middle-class families?
Again, maybe you think it's a distinction without a difference, but I don't. In the first scenario maybe the use of invasion is justified. In the latter scenario, the call is coming from inside the house, so to speak. If that's the case, stemming the flow of migrants probably won't solve the underlying problem of illiberal attacks on free speech. The left wing people leading those attacks will just find another group of victims to use as justification. (I understand that this underlying illiberal streak is part of what Vance was talking about, but in this comment I'm trying to hone in on the use of the term invasion to describe migration).
Push factors are sorely missing from most Western discussions of immigration, be it from Latin America to the US or MENA into Europe.
Too many people complain about immigration while supporting policies to deliberately collapse the governments and economies of countries that people are fleeing from. And then the countries they flee to usually fail to manage their changing demographics and the disruption that leads to.
The left, and I count myself largely in that camp, needs to start focusing on the first part of that rather than the second. Start with doing no further harm. Overthrowing governments, no matter how odious, usually makes things worse. Sanctions don't work. As somebody who was yelling about "root causes" long before Kamala was given that thankless job, it's immensely frustrating to see this same predictable cycle play itself out over and over again.
First of sorry for the late response but I really don’t have much free time to dedicate to online discussions.
I understand that what’s really bothering you is the use of the word invasion. I’m not married to the term but the effect is the same. At least from what I can see.
Secondly I have no fixation on Muslims. It’s their religion and I have no issue with it. Half or more of my neighbors are of the Muslim faith and we’ve lived in close proximity for over 20 years. Islamists are a different kettle of fish. My concern or complaint is with immigrants of any nationality or creed who migrate with the expectation of the host nation bending to them.
As I said, viewed from the outside, a big percentage of my family is not integrated. Some don’t even speak English even though they’ve worked & lived here for over 30 years. Their ethos, if you will, is “render unto Caesar …” and that’s all that’s asked of the new immigrants.
Migrate legally or regularize your situation ASAP, follow the laws of your host country and … that’s it.
As for the activist class you’re likely correct about the rank & file but in case we can’t accept customs that counter liberal democracy regardless who is trying to enact them or for the benefit of whom.
See you in the comments. When I have time.
Part two...
I was surprised that you focused on Muslim (again, I assume...correct me if I'm wrong) immigration in the US context. The Trump administration has started using the term invasion in reference to the situation on the southern border where, as far as I know, the primary concern is immigrants from Central and South America and the accompanying economic and social impacts, along with drugs. That's not to say people from other continents aren't also crossing the southern border, but that hasn't seemed to be the main focus to me.
The question of integration is an interesting one. I used to think that the "melting pot" description of immigration was accurate, but now I'm not so sure that the situation of the past wasn't all that different from today. My great grandparents did anglicize their names, but they also had their own churches (my great grandfather started one of the Russian Orthodox churches in his area), their own social clubs (we still went to the Slovak Club with my grandparents when we were going up), kept their own traditions, etc. And we have places called Little Italy and Chinatown in most major US cities for a reason. Did native-born Americans walk through those neighborhoods and think they were being invaded? Maybe! And yet, one or two generations removed those neighborhoods had become a kind of tourist attraction and the descendants of the original inhabitants were/are thoroughly American.
Again, maybe you think this is a distinction without a difference, but I worry that the use of the term invasion to describe US immigration is being/will be used to justify an increasingly militarized response to what should be seen as a law enforcement, governance, and social issue.
Seconded. Invasions are usually organized. And goal oriented. Immigration has an invisible hand type social effect guiding it but not really a “ethos or goal”.
I’ve been waiting for this episode to drop just so I can wish JD Vance a Matt Welch Special - fuck him in the face with a mean penis. A mean, European left-wing penis.
The Fifthfom is well aware of Europe’s anti-free speech laws and their difficulty integrating immigrants, but Vance claiming that those problems are a bigger threat to democracy than Russia is fucking disgusting.
Russia invaded two European democracies (let’s not forget about Georgia) and is murdering Ukrainians en masse, along with their own political dissidents at home and abroad. Russia itself was a European democracy, or at least aspired to be, within Vance’s lifetime. How has that worked out?
Maybe Vance would feel differently if it were his kids being murdered by Russian missiles in Kiev and Kharkiv, or if he himself was being poisoned or thrown out a window for being in the political position.
He’s smart enough to know better but apparently not honorable enough to care. Fuck off. What a disgrace.
I think we heard different speeches. Also a European, albeit a liberal not lefty one. Not to say everything he said was perfect, but the general point is one the leaders on our continent needed to hear. Above all, the question of why we're doing everything we're doing and what it's for. If not to protect the unique in human history levels of freedom and openess, then what? The USA stems from our continent's experiments with forms of government, legal systems, and society that hadn't ever existed before in the history of our species. They have many issues that I hope they too can overcome, but we have an ever rotting core in our own body politic and an external intervention to hold up a mirror was long overdue and to many of us welcome. I didn't hear a prevarication vis à vis Russia's actions being less menacing than the increasingly illiberal turn within Europe. Though if I missed something concrete that you believe implied as much, I'd be curious to go back and watch again.
These are the quotes that stand out to me
“ the threat that I worry the most about vis-a-vis Europe is not Russia, it’s not China, it’s not any other external actor”
“ Europe faces many challenges, but the crisis this continent faces right now, the crisis I believe we all face together, is one of our own making”
(note the terms “challenge” vs “crisis”)
“And of all the pressing challenges that the nations represented here face, I believe there is nothing more urgent than mass migration”
I don’t know if the Ukrainian delegation was present for the speech but they were at the conference. I assume representatives from the Baltics and Finland, who have reason to fear Russian aggression, were also there.
I also don’t think you can view this in isolation. The Trump administration seems to have preemptively conceded some Russian demands while sidelining Europe and, it seems early on, Ukraine itself, in the start of negotiations to end the war. Taken together it looks to me like the administration is a lot more sympathetic to Russian authoritarianism than European democracy.
He said he wanted to talk about what was worth fighting for, not against. A very clear distinction.
Weird distinction to make when discussing the future of a country that is very literally fighting AGAINST an invading army right now.
He also talked a lot about basically being against mass migration, so I wouldn't characterize his speech as outlining anything he is for. It was a clinker and not appropriate given the circumstances, broken clock bits notwithstanding.
I did like how Matt had a kind of "yeah an invading country is worse" this should be obvious kind of response. Appreciate Kmele trying to steelman but a lot of people need to just be slapped into sobriety with that simple point.
no one is invading germany
no country is invading Germany.
Every European leader in that room does not agree with the Fifthdom regarding europe's illiberal speech laws. Vance calling them out for that to their faces was correct, appropriate and long overdue. UK Labor sent people over to campaign for Harris FFS, spare us.
The biggest threat to European stability is the inability of the Cold War-era NATO countries' governments to stand up to external threats. This comes from internal weaknesses that were the target of Vance's speech. This has manifest itself in Russia recognizing it's ability to take the actions that it took without fear of consequences from those countries. They were right.
How do you plan on kicking Russia out of Ukraine and restoring it's pre-2014 sovereignty (or even pre-2022)? How do you plan to stop the missiles from falling on Kiev? I didn't hear or read of a single person in Munich who answered that question. There's a reason, and therein comes the speech.
How many Frenchmen and Germans are waiting to volunteer for the march to retake the Donbas, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia and Crimea? Dozens! Their leaders are waiting on the Americans to do it for them. Again. That's not going to happen. So the missiles keep falling.
I think you're conflating separate issues. Europe's inability to stand up to Russian aggression absent US leadership isn't a result of anti-free speech laws and mass migration. I'm in favor of handing off more responsibility for European security to European countries, but I think that should happen in a collaborative way that maintains strong trans-Atlantic alliances. That's not what I've seen happening in the first month of the Trump administration.
At this point I think re-establishing the pre-2014 borders is unrealistic absent external involvement. There may have been opportunities (no guarantees) to at least recapture parts of the Donbass and to squeeze Crimea enough to force Russia into further concessions during/after the successful Ukrainian offensives, but the Biden administration, to their discredit, slow-rolled a lot of aid out of fear of Russian escalation.
But the Trump administration still shouldn't be making preemptive concessions to Russia on NATO membership and borders. For one thing, it's not the place of the US to make those concessions , certainly not unilaterally. But also, Ukraine still has a large segment of is 18-25 year-old population that hasn't been drafted, and the US and Europe haven't exhausted the aid they can provide. I'm not necessarily advocating for pursuing that strategy, but if nothing else, the threat of further escalation could be used as a negotiating tactic.
They're not separate issues. Europe's learned helplessness, unserious leadership and undeserved expectation that the rest of the world must follows its lead are what underpin all of this. Meet the new boss, in no way, shape or form like the old boss.
Is it your contention that if Europe had taken primary responsibility for its security after the end of the Cold War that there would be less censorship and no refugee crisis? How does that work? I’m not asking for a detailed alternate history of the last 30 years, but give me the broad outline.
And if Europe being dependent on the US for its security is connected to censorship and the refugee crisis, how do you explain our immigration problems and the erosion of free speech norms in the US?
Yes, if European leaders had opted for a pro-enlightenment republican direction instead of a post-modern globalist direction, if they'd exercised greater caution regarding Russia from Schroeder onward, if they'd honored their commitments to the NATO alliance instead of depending solely on the US for security, if they'd listened more to their people than their plutocrats regarding refugees, then yes, it is likely that censorship and refugees, as well as Ukraine, would not be the enfeebling issues that they are for them today.
I think you're engaging in a bit of a motte and bailey argument, now.
You originally made a narrow claim that the internal weaknesses that Vance targeted, i.e. censorship and mass migration, are the root cause of Europe's inability to counter external threats (in this context, Russia).
Now you're basically saying that if Europe had followed a totally different political and economic track for the last 30 years then Europe wouldn't face the specific challenges they face now. I agree with that, but it's bordering on tautological.
At any rate, I'm happy to continue down this path, but I'm also happy to let you have the last word and just agree to disagree.
You see them as concessions; I see them as acknowledgements to get people to the table today and end the stalemate. Russia is not going to accept Ukraine in NATO, and they're unlikely do more than exchange parts of the territory they have gained. That sucks, but that's war - a war resulting from Europe's (and Biden's) weakness and lack of resolve. Thus, Russia is unlikely to even discuss talks without those pre-conditions. The Biden slow-rolling you are talking about is the path that the Europeans at Munich were suggesting going forward. Simply put, Europe's position is that if the status quo is to be altered, the US should pay for it, but Europe should approve it. Meanwhile they just talk, while others die. It's the EU way - talk, without resolve. Maybe they would have more resolve if it was their kids dying, as you said above.
I would like Ukraine to be involved in the talks, but they're in no position to make demands on the United States. It is absolutely the place of the US to dictate terms, unilaterally if they must - sorry, that's the string for the past 100 years. Ukraine doesn't have to accept them, it's true. As far as collaborating in the transfer of European security, we've been doing that for those 100 years now, with little collaboration from one side, chiefly for the past 40. Maybe now they'd like to take a turn, instead of doing nothing but tell us what we should or should not do..
Good luck finding someone who despises Russia more than this guy. But this war needs to end, and we need to retrench - and I'd be very happy if the strategic direction was to reclaim for Ukraine all that they have lost at some point in the future. But that time is not now, and the US cannot take the lead on this. Our focus is needed elsewhere - principally, in the Pacific. Europe should take the lead - but they won't, until they sort out their shit, and act like adults instead of the children they've been since The Wall came down.
I think you might be overestimating Russia's strength at the negotiating table. Neither side can go on like this forever. Yes, I know, people have been predicting Russia's collapse since the first few months of the war. I don't think it's imminent, but one has to think in terms of probabilities. Is Russia confident enough in it's ability to hold out that they won't even come to the negotiating table without the US accepting certain terms? I don't know, maybe, but I have my doubts. I think it's more likely that the Trump administration is showing its sympathies towards Russia's position.
I agree wholeheartedly that we need to focus on China and the Pacific. That's actually one of the reasons why I've been so disappointed with Trump's approach to Europe and Ukraine. Our ability to deter China takes a significant hit if we can't present a united economic front with Europe. And while I think it's unlikely that NATO gets directly involved in a hot war with China (outside of the UK, maybe), the Biden administration was actually making progress towards getting the alliance to pay attention to China. At the very least, it adds an extra variable that the CCP has to take into consideration.
I also think that we would just flat out lose a hot war with China without a strong Pacific alliance, particularly Japan, the Philippines, and Australia (and even then it would be a tall order). So maintaining, strengthening, and growing those alliances is a critical aspect of deterrence. I think we're making that harder by calling into question our commitments to our European allies and potentially shutting out Ukraine from negotiations (trade wars don't help, either, but that's a separate topic). It may be satisfying to lecture the Europeans like children, but others are watching.
At any rate, I think you and I share a lot of the same concerns and probably mostly disagree on the best strategy for addressing them.
I do think we mostly agree.
I'd argue that what Trump is calling into question, and attempting to extract is NATO's commitment to us, the alliance, and themselves, not ours. Clearly our commitment to alliances in the recent past has been relatively one-sided - what I find maddening is the emphasis on pointing out Trump's "lack of commitment" to such a degree while glossing over the actions of the rest of the room. To repeat myself - what did the Europeans have to say about a course of action to end the war?
I think Russia's negotiating strength is that they have a greater capacity to continue the war than the Ukrainians do. China is fence-sitting, but can always play this to extend it - or sweep in to be a mediator when it looks good for them. Russia is historically surprising stability-wise, but I'd say they can endure the status quo as long as Putin's health holds up.
Me, I'd just like to see the killing stop. To be honest, I'm also fine with the concessions now because I have no faith that Russia will honor the terms in the long run, and alliance or not, I'd immediately settle a few EU-NATO brigades in Ukraine shortly after the dust settles, along with a nice military airfield. Then I'd run the Ukrainian Army thru Graf, CMTC and Munster.
But Europe needs to stop buying Russian energy. Now.
Love the pod cast and I am a faithful listener however this episode reveals to me what conventional thinkers you all are. Not a mention of the Billions and billions and billions going to NGO’s that work to destabilize foreign governments perhaps even our own. You guys didn’t even say NGO. I found the usually funny Bed Sty smugness of the gang to be insufferable in this episode. Comparing Elon to a freshman poly sci student was particularly dare I say “elite”. Politics is complicated but it’s not rocket science or neuroscience either. What is simple to understand is the American people have been ripped off long enough and it’s over and it being done in a fashion that may ruffle the feathers of conventional political thinkers and without thier permission.
M.M. seems to confuse fandom with will of the voters.
Literally mentioned in show how some of us have been writing about USAID corruption for decades, which I guess I’ll have to link to in the Firehose (along with links to previous episodes where we talk about stinky USAID projects) in order to not be accused of conventionality every time we spend 57 minutes not saying the apparently obligatory safe word.
The dissing of Elon has a little "get off of my lawn" vibe lately.
The dissing of Elon almost never comes without also praising his abilities/accomplishments, and rooting for his DOGE work to be good and meaningful. I will happily diss his shit Twitter output regardless, because his Twitter output is shit.
In your defense, you acknowledged him as the one of the smartest people on the earth before providing your (very valid) criticism, perfect example of why I love you guys. Meanwhile AOC is saying he’s dumb 🙄. Sorry but when people do that they lose any credibility of a good faith argument.
But I do want him to get off my lawn.
“Politics is complicated but it’s not rocket science”
I like to draw a distinction between what I call reducible and irreducible complexity.
Rockets are complex but they can be broken down into smaller physical and logical components that follow well understood physical laws.
Politics involves balancing the often competing wants and needs of millions of people, who don’t follow well understood physical laws, with lots of nonlinear interactions that can’t be understood in isolation.
Applying expertise from one type of complexity to the other is what Hayek warned about when he talked about scientism.
Elon has literally been quoting Hayek.
Aw man! They made fun of Elon!? Blasphemy! Don’t they know he cured cancer, colonized mars, balanced the budget, and all while playing stairway to heaven on a steel guitar one handed while speed running super Mario bros 3 with the other hand!
He’s so brilliant! Beyond reproach really! God all the profound philosophy he “memes” on twitter blows me out of the water with not just its depth but breadth!
He truly is someone who has spent his whole life talking about these issues!
Or maybe he’s just a guy. Ya know?
Could the DOGE thing been done less messily? Of course, which is why I was a DeSantis supporter. All I can hope for is that at least some of DOGE's efforts stick once all the smashing is done.
All I can think of when I hear people whining about the methodology of all of this is, "Ok, where was all of your brilliant planning for how to take this on n years ago?". The interest on the debt now roughly equals defense spending. If something can't go on forever, it won't, and it'll be fucking ugly when it ends.
Hegseth having Jack Posobiec on a trip…. What a goon!
I saw something in my school the other day that is something Michael has mentioned in regards to his experience with his daughter in schools. there are pictures on a wall facing out and the pictures are always diverse. This was something for black history month yet there were no men ie James Baldwin, booker T Washington, thurgood Marshall. No instead it was all women, a couple from history who I don’t remember but it also included the actress Issa Rae, Stacy Abram’s and Nikole Hannah Jones.
Also it’s interesting that this is the part of the school where the school aids are (who are predominantly white women). It’s not a high traffic area for staff/students.
I’ll have to snap a photo (we’re on break) but I just eyerolled.
Stacey Abrams and NHJ? Seriously?
I sometimes do outreach in a low income area and a couple of things. 1) my last name is hilarious to high schoolers so that's a problem 2) nicer facilities than anything I had in high school 3) Obama and Kamala murals.
I wonder what the ratio would be of Kamala books to, say, Clarence Thomas books in the libraries in every public school in the country? 100:1? 10,000:1? Infinity?
I doubt they have a single book by a conservative black author. Less out of disdain and more just unfamiliarity
If breaking things in a smash room works, my hat is off to them, but it doesn’t seem like a great strategy!
Insufficiently Black - Kmele's band name?
Thank you for the memory - sort of - of the 100 shots of beer in 100 minutes game. In Australia in the 90s it was called Centurions, and it just about killed me at the age of 17.
We called them power hours and they were 60 minutes. And still awful
The version I've heard of (and definitely never done) is the "power hour", with a shot of beer every minute for 60min. I think it's like 6 - 7 beers in an hour? Can't imagine 100 lol
Elon is never going to shut up until he really pisses off trump then it’s gonna be a shitshow.
I’m awaiting the inevitable catfight with Bannon.
The autist vs the tramp, street brawl rules. Going to be wild
Bannon or Barron?
Bannon, of course. He & Elon are a right pair of bitchy little girls.
Need Moynihan’s reaction to the US 4 Nations win tonight
And Sweden’s losses
It’s still anyone’s shot to make the finals, although the sicko in me would find it hilarious if they win in OT Monday and get bounced
I love the idea of a little mid-season international tournament, but having a championship game when you only have four teams playing in a round robin is a bit odd. Got to get that TV revenue, though.
Better than the all star game
Yeah it seems weird to have these 4. I’m guessing they have the most players in the NHL. But is Russia not a factor anymore? I was under the impression they have a lot of players but I’ll admit I’m at best a very superficial fan.
But as a Pens fan, it sure is nice to root for a team that can play defense. That third period was something else.
Edit: And that has great goaltending.
It's the second Miracle on Ice
It was great meeting y'all. My Welch-signed Don't Step on Snek sticker has been added to my guitar case already.
Thankfully I saw Moynihan while wandering around looking for the lecture room because, despite going to UF for undergrad and my MBA, he had a better idea where to go. It's a gigantic campus (like 2000 acres) and I feel like I only saw maybe 30-35% of it during my years there.
Wonderful bonus was meeting Nancy Rommelmann (who I only realized it was Nancy Rommelmann like 4 hours in), Bryan Caplan, Jim Harper, and Zach Weissmueller in person.
UF's Hamilton Center and the Law School are doing a great job going against the grain of progressive dominated academia, hosting events like this. I thought the guy that referenced Chomsky might try to fight Bryan Caplan, but I think it was relegated to an internal rage and probably a 50k word facebook post. I hope the Hamilton Center follows it up next year with something just as good. It was great seeing some other Fifth subscribers as well, one of which, a Hamilton Center Professor and Fifth subscriber, was the provider of the Snek sticker.
This was a nice littol way to start my Sunday. ❤️
Do try and tone down your TDS a bit, I can get that from a million sources without having to pay for it. Take him seriously but not literally, not the reverse.
Not taking orders, thanks.
Not from the Selective Service, and not from you lot. 😉
*the outrage is high, but I'm assuming I just enjoy it more when you're annoyed with Biden
What level of criticism are they allowed to engage in without being diagnosed with a dismissal? TDS is a great description for all those people who can't talk about what they would do, while hyperventilating about what Trump will do. But I'm increasingly seeing it used as a means to dismiss all criticism.
I'm so tired of Trumpsters repeating "take him seriously, not literally"... As if it's my job to post date all the Trump checks and only asses his words and actions after they've been echoed and impacted the world. Why does he get this special status? His words have intent but we've all seen enough to understand that his intent is not always the result. This is part of Trump's marketing playbook where he's "never wrong" because he always changes the rules & moves the goalposts (aligns his original intent to current reality) after the fact. If recognizing this is TDS, then what's it called when you don't see it?
I was surprised to read your comment, because when I listened to the episode this morning, I thought The Boys were very balanced. They most definitely critiqued Trump & some of his current activities, but more than once they gave him credit for doing or saying something worthwhile. Considering that TFC has a kind of mandate to call out whatever the current administration is getting wrong, I was pleased to hear them give the president and his people a bit of credit for getting a few things right.
Agreed. And, love your use of "The Boys" . :) Also, The Boys agreeing to Kmele's "every president is uniquely terrible" is a good indicator of no TDS.
Not everything is TDS. I’ve seen this really overused. A lot of
Now I understand that the man is a moral paragon! A brilliant philosopher. A true family man beyond reproach. His eyes have never cheated let alone his body! He’s simply friendly with all types of people. Even Jesus hung out with hookers! His fatherhood is truly something that books could be written about! The ability to run all over the globe like he does yet still find time to be a present and worthwhile father is second to none!
I love the Fifdom, I don’t need to post, I just scroll & like, scroll & like, and so on.
What’s a bigger problem: the number of federal government employees or all the NGO funding provided by the federal government?
Yes.
As a meme I saw the other day put it so succinctly, if the NGO can't exist without government funding, then it's not an NGO.