non-smug dem politics sites

JACOBIN IS THE WORST

lol that tracer hand greenwald parody at the top is still straight fire 100%

interesting how "dem" in thread title now means "not republican" in the discussion

what would a Dem politics site burrow into, since they don't believe in anything?

dem is the title obv always was a loose term for the left from the get-go cf the greenwald discussion up-page and the fact that even moderate-lib writers like nate silver are not dnc apparatchiks but congratulations on getting the same post you've made over a thousand times over the last decade onto yet another thread big thumbs up dipshit

lol

move to a MOVE fire

come call me names IRL, boychick, you'll depart to campaign door-to-door for Jill Stein.

ezra klein's old wonkblog is still going at washingtonpost, and puts out interesting stuff! no star power, not too many of these mayfly 'explainers'

hey, they have a weekly Larry Summers op-ed, that's some starpower

i managed to not know that

i think the thing that has hurt the sites listed upthread a lot is being wrong on trump. being that wrong on something that important is going to hurt credibility hard.

i was wrong on trump, too so i guess i don't really mind that

idk like, last repub primary ever freakshow candidate had a couple weeks at the top of the polls before it reluctantly coalesced on romney. you would have seemed like such a fool predicting HERMAIN CAIN WILL WIN THIS. and it just seemed like trump was that again until he held his lead for so long it was obvious something was up

i was wrong on trump, too so i guess i don't really mind that

― de l'asshole (flopson)

everybody who wasn't a paranoid loon was wrong on trump, but for instance fivethirtyeight's schtick was based on their prognostications being based on EMPIRICAL DATA, so i think it hurts them more than it would your random "making shit up off the top of their head" prediction.

pretty much any leftist who writes harangues about liberals which appears to be an inexhaustible source of smugness online

crooked timber comments are so bad

corey robin is a buffoon: http://crookedtimber.org/2016/07/21/check-your-amnesia-dude-on-the-vox-generation-of-punditry/

He forgets to justify his comparison between presidential candidates bluffing the use of nuclear weapons, and the US Armed Forces historical posture towards nuclear weapons usage, with a presidential candidate threatening to renege on a treaty. If that comparison can be used without explanation you could use it for anything, anytime anyone points out that something in the modern world is frightening them.

Also since our current era hasn't led up to WW3 yet then it's silly to compare it to the era that led up to WW1
just ahistorical really, you poor kids

or like one comment points out, corey fundamentally misunderstands trump's critique. trump doesn't think the US is the wrong messenger for human rights bc of guantanamo bay and the NSA. he thinks the US is the wrong messenger bc we tolerate too much civil dissent and protesting. this is a severe failing as he ends up giving apologetics for a perspective that undermines robin's supposed essential principles.

been seriously creeped out/annoyed by the spectacle of certain "left" writers trying to look daring and insightful by trying to find ways to agree w/ donald trump, or praise him for saying things that, if taken out of context and stretched about, sound vaguely like things they might agree with

Yes, v much that. Also often same people trying to minimize concern about him by superficial comparison to other politicians and simply overlooking some of the worst things Trump has said.

Complacency -- so bold and iconoclastic.

most of the comments on that post are even stupider than the original post. i don't know why so many "radicals" are inclined to sneer at ppl who are quite rightly afraid of the possibility of someone as evil and empty-headed as donald trump becoming president, to the point where they're ready to find positive things lurking in trump's speeches (if you ignore all the racism and misogyny and lying), but i find it genuinely appalling and despicable, to the point where i doubt i'll ever take any of these writers seriously again

crooked timber comments are so bad

― Mordy, Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:05 AM (3 weeks ago) Bookmark

like what is robin even trying to accomplish by arguing that reagan in 1980 was just as bad as trump today? i hold no brief for reagan but reagan's cold war belligerence was not remotely in the same category as trump's most deranged proposals.

The only thing I agree with Donald Trump on is that is daughter is hot.

https://www.facebook.com/doug.henwood/posts/10153760830506475?pnref=story

one thing that gives me comfort is that if trump wins all these smug shitheads will suffer like the rest of us

The only thing I agree with Donald Trump on is that is daughter is hot.

― frogbs

like, sarah silverman hot or some lesser variety?

Henwood = awesome

Dan Savage, now there's a Clinton-cheerleading smug shithead

drudge sirens

http://fredrikdeboer.com/2016/08/18/thats-my-time/

Henwood = awesome

― The Hon. J. Piedmont Mumblethunder (Dr Morbius), Sunday, July 24, 2016 4:10 AM (3 weeks ago)

doug henwood is an idiot who actually tried to make "whitewater" a thing again in his stupid anti-hillary article from harper's a while back

wow

He's definitely not an idiot.

link? not that i don't trust ya

"wow"

I just always wanted to have guts and tell the truth, and I did my best at both. I can live with that.

http://harpers.org/archive/2014/10/stop-hillary-2/

gimme the page, dude, i read that 20 months ago, and life is short (esp mine)

y'know, don't. I absolutely don't give a shit, all real estate is a cesspool, fuck private property.

if you can bear to get through henwood's summary of what happened, he basically says that hillary clinton didn't do anything wrong, and then blames her for being "secretive" about it

And then there were the scandals, many of them Hillary’s. The most famous was Whitewater, a word it pains me to type. Democrats love to say that there was nothing to that scandal. While it was certainly not the diabolical conspiracy Republicans made it out to be during the fevered days of the Clinton impeachment, it was not nothing. ...

But the Clintons, of course, were also investors in McDougal’s schemes. The fact that they appear to have lost money on Whitewater, and were never convicted of any criminal behavior in connection with the scandal, hardly excuses this farcical round-robin of ethical conflicts. Yet Whitewater itself is of far less interest than how Hillary handled it: with lies, half-truths, and secrecy.

http://harpers.org/archive/2014/10/stop-hillary-2/7/

What an outrage, that cur Henwood.

You can hear the Clintons' presentational gears grinding like Meryl Streep's in midperformance, always.

Bill's a better actor than RoboStreep, give him that

I don't think "ethical conflicts" = "didn't do anything wrong"

I have next to no memory of the entire Whitewater affair! i have exit velocity, launch angle and other recent baseball metrics to store in this noggin, not to mention Robin Wood's critique of Thunderbolt and Lightfoot as a queer text.

Bubba's hyperventilating at BLM was more like Rod Steiger in In the Heat of the Night

i read LGM every day but i could do without ever reading them on anything except current electoral politics and labor history ever again

case in point: erik loomis's occasional posts about a famous writer he's never read, but has opinions about:

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/11/erik-visits-american-grave-part-360