Someone explain to RonJon that wounds fester when they're infected.
Our entire system has been infected and needs to be cleaned out, sanitized, and careful sewn back up to heal.
Drunk Uncle Ron is himself one of the toxic bacterium infecting our nation. Let's clean him out, sanitize the system with Mandela Barnes, and perhaps we can yet save our national patient.
Brian Williams covered Trump's 2012 comments by saying that Trump was taking 'an off-ramp from the road of relevancy" or something like that. If only...
About cash bail, isn't the question really about bail and not about cash? Criminals who pose a danger to others should not be let out regardless of their ability to pay. People who do not pose a danger to others should not be held just because of their inability to pay.
When you look at political ad research and the pattern of ad buys (where and when)--and if you are someone who knows something about rhetoric and human behavior--a couple of things stand out.
The vast majority of these ads are not persuasive or effective in persuading people to switch sides--IOW, they are not shifting narratives or identity enough to have a substantive effect.
The majority of these ads are bought in markets that do not actually reach the supposedly persuadable section of the population.
While the stated intention of these adds is to persuade voters to vote for a particular group/candidate, the actual purpose of many of these ads is to:
1) Reinforce existing group identity; and (most importantly)
2) Motivate/activate marginal voters or historical non-voters of your identity group to vote... primarily through fear or anger.
Biden's speech is intended to foster that fear/anger (instrumentally if not intentionally). Much of the extremism of MAGA and GoP "advertising" and discourse has the same function. It is why you run those ads on Faux, rather than on MSNBC.
The reality is that Biden (as a Democrat) needs to be doing that type of thing. The people that he will alienate are either already alienated or were going to vote GoP regardless. The rhetoric is more likely to play positively than negatively in overall effect (if not for Biden personally, then for Democrats generally).
In another time/place the dynamic would be different--but we are no longer in that time/place). partisanship and identity levels are so high that the ill effects are now marginal.
As a person from another state I personally have no desire or care to hear what Barnes has to say. What this is about is winning seats period and this one is, for the right candidate. Charlie has fallen on his sword for helping Ron John many times. Barnes is not running in a.blue state and his views do not seem to be a good fit for WI voters.
I don't put much faith in polls these days as evidenced in the elections of the last 2-4 years. Biden and others were polling pretty well in 2020 and look how that turned out. What I do see is urban dems not doing well with swing voters. For the record I am a Democrat in a rural area that does not vote party lines and other than sharing a state have very little in common with the urban dems in my state.
And as far as Charlie falling on his sword… well I would rather him pick up the sword and use it in service of fighting the enemies of democracy. I think him interviewing Barnes could help him persuade at least a few of his fellow Wisconsinites to consider voting for him over Johnson.
Barnes will appeal to the blue voters but the question is how many swing voters will go his way or hold their nose and vote for RJ. I will leave the decision up to Charlie on whether or not to have him on. I would take whatever he had to say with a grain of salt since he is in the middle of a campaign.
No one should ever refer to Ron DeSantis as Trump lite. He's trump on steroids.
Trump would kill your mother, shrug and walk away. DeSantis would kill your mother and laugh. And the laugh would not be performative. The man is also wicked smart.
Late in the night I streamed PBS's Lies, Politics and Democracy thinking I would pause, go to bed, and finish it the next day. Couldn't stop watching! Great to see the Bulwark folks becoming the go-to talking heads for political history, facts and prognosis.
Maybe I missed it, but why would elimination of cash bail be tied to the Waukesha Christmas parade murderer? That is a failure of the current bail system. Obviously the murderer was judged to not be a risk by the authorities in question (proven by the low bail amount). That is the failure point. Make the correct decision there, and the issue of cashless bail doesn't come into play.
The idea, as I understand it, is to not require cash for those the State deems to be no danger. It is a very, very small sliver of criminals we're talking about who will get misjudged by the court (low bail) and be kept in jail by that low bail. That's the only group that could be pointed to as the danger of cash bail elimination. The upside is all the people who (while accused of a crime) manage to keep their lives intact during the process of going through the legal system. Jobs kept, kids kept out of foster care, etc.
How about more of a discussion of the concept on its merits rather than just the horse-race notion of how some voters won't understand the basic concept.
Cuz moderate voters hear about a crime committed by a out-on-bail defendant, and they think "make it harder for these guys, not easier." No details, just the knee-jerk thought upon casual perusal of the news.
I would love to see more discussion of cash bail. I live in NY where it's a very contentious policy, so I've heard some arguments for and against. But never in a real discussion. Lee Zeldin insists cash bail is the devil, NYC progressives insist it's actually making NY safer. Both sides put forward different studies that conflict each other. The more I research, the more confused I get.
I think there are a lot of angles to it, and there would definitely be some unintended consequences (judges getting more conservative on who they let out).
Here's an example of the problem with cash bail:
***Browder was a 16-year-old boy from New York City. He was accused of stealing a book bag, and even though he was 16, he was sent to the notoriously violent adult jail, Rikers Island, while awaiting a court decision on his case. Kalief has not deemed a danger to society and was granted bail, but as he came from a poor family who did not have the money to pay his bail, he had to sit for three years inside of Rikers Island on pretrial detention awaiting the court’s ruling. While incarcerated, Kalief was beaten numerous times – by guards and other inmates, and placed in solitary confinement, where depression and anxiety started to consume this young man. He was ultimately found not guilty, but by then, the damage had been done. Kalief came home struggling with depression, anxiety, and PTSD from his experiences in Rikers Island. Two years after release, the lasting weight of that negative experience became too much to bear and he took his own life.***
"new worries about the Queen’s health" Nothing against Queen Elizabeth, but isn't she like 130 years old? What are people worried about? I wish her the best, which of course she will get. God bless her in her last years.
I am 70 years old, and have never lived in a world without QE II. My Very British Grandmother worshipped her as Representative of All That is Best about Britain. I will miss her.
"new worries about the Queen’s health" Nothing against Queen Elizabeth, but isn't she like 130 years old? What are people worried about? I wish her the best, which of course she will get. God bless her in her last years.
.
Is Will Saletan JVL's father?
.
Did DJT really tweet "The loser one!"? It's the revolt of the spell checkers...
RE: Battle over diversity training. Have not read Young's piece yet, but quote says this noxious law '... must feel...'.
Not shall, not may, not should.
I'm still willing to bet it'll be enforced as though it read as if 'there's ANY possibility to cause...'.
Heading to Young's piece now.
Trump is right on one salient point. The Electoral College is indeed a disaster for democracy
Someone explain to RonJon that wounds fester when they're infected.
Our entire system has been infected and needs to be cleaned out, sanitized, and careful sewn back up to heal.
Drunk Uncle Ron is himself one of the toxic bacterium infecting our nation. Let's clean him out, sanitize the system with Mandela Barnes, and perhaps we can yet save our national patient.
RJ is a stinky cesspool, imho.
RonAnon? Crazy? Since when?
Brian Williams covered Trump's 2012 comments by saying that Trump was taking 'an off-ramp from the road of relevancy" or something like that. If only...
About cash bail, isn't the question really about bail and not about cash? Criminals who pose a danger to others should not be let out regardless of their ability to pay. People who do not pose a danger to others should not be held just because of their inability to pay.
When you look at political ad research and the pattern of ad buys (where and when)--and if you are someone who knows something about rhetoric and human behavior--a couple of things stand out.
The vast majority of these ads are not persuasive or effective in persuading people to switch sides--IOW, they are not shifting narratives or identity enough to have a substantive effect.
The majority of these ads are bought in markets that do not actually reach the supposedly persuadable section of the population.
While the stated intention of these adds is to persuade voters to vote for a particular group/candidate, the actual purpose of many of these ads is to:
1) Reinforce existing group identity; and (most importantly)
2) Motivate/activate marginal voters or historical non-voters of your identity group to vote... primarily through fear or anger.
Biden's speech is intended to foster that fear/anger (instrumentally if not intentionally). Much of the extremism of MAGA and GoP "advertising" and discourse has the same function. It is why you run those ads on Faux, rather than on MSNBC.
The reality is that Biden (as a Democrat) needs to be doing that type of thing. The people that he will alienate are either already alienated or were going to vote GoP regardless. The rhetoric is more likely to play positively than negatively in overall effect (if not for Biden personally, then for Democrats generally).
In another time/place the dynamic would be different--but we are no longer in that time/place). partisanship and identity levels are so high that the ill effects are now marginal.
As a person from another state I personally have no desire or care to hear what Barnes has to say. What this is about is winning seats period and this one is, for the right candidate. Charlie has fallen on his sword for helping Ron John many times. Barnes is not running in a.blue state and his views do not seem to be a good fit for WI voters.
But Barnes is out polling Johnson so maybe they are a good fit?
I don't put much faith in polls these days as evidenced in the elections of the last 2-4 years. Biden and others were polling pretty well in 2020 and look how that turned out. What I do see is urban dems not doing well with swing voters. For the record I am a Democrat in a rural area that does not vote party lines and other than sharing a state have very little in common with the urban dems in my state.
Wisconsin is a purple state.
And as far as Charlie falling on his sword… well I would rather him pick up the sword and use it in service of fighting the enemies of democracy. I think him interviewing Barnes could help him persuade at least a few of his fellow Wisconsinites to consider voting for him over Johnson.
Barnes will appeal to the blue voters but the question is how many swing voters will go his way or hold their nose and vote for RJ. I will leave the decision up to Charlie on whether or not to have him on. I would take whatever he had to say with a grain of salt since he is in the middle of a campaign.
No one should ever refer to Ron DeSantis as Trump lite. He's trump on steroids.
Trump would kill your mother, shrug and walk away. DeSantis would kill your mother and laugh. And the laugh would not be performative. The man is also wicked smart.
Correction (minor): The woman (wearing glasses) next to Mandela Barnes is Rashida Tlaib of Michigan.
You would think that RonJohn's ad agency would also have a photo of Ayanna Pressley included, thus showing the full Squad.
As an aside: Pramila Jayapal is chair of the CPC so I would guess that she could probably fill in for Ms Pressley in a pinch.
Late in the night I streamed PBS's Lies, Politics and Democracy thinking I would pause, go to bed, and finish it the next day. Couldn't stop watching! Great to see the Bulwark folks becoming the go-to talking heads for political history, facts and prognosis.
That’s on our must watch list. Sounds like we need to move it up to the top. 
Maybe I missed it, but why would elimination of cash bail be tied to the Waukesha Christmas parade murderer? That is a failure of the current bail system. Obviously the murderer was judged to not be a risk by the authorities in question (proven by the low bail amount). That is the failure point. Make the correct decision there, and the issue of cashless bail doesn't come into play.
The idea, as I understand it, is to not require cash for those the State deems to be no danger. It is a very, very small sliver of criminals we're talking about who will get misjudged by the court (low bail) and be kept in jail by that low bail. That's the only group that could be pointed to as the danger of cash bail elimination. The upside is all the people who (while accused of a crime) manage to keep their lives intact during the process of going through the legal system. Jobs kept, kids kept out of foster care, etc.
How about more of a discussion of the concept on its merits rather than just the horse-race notion of how some voters won't understand the basic concept.
Cuz moderate voters hear about a crime committed by a out-on-bail defendant, and they think "make it harder for these guys, not easier." No details, just the knee-jerk thought upon casual perusal of the news.
I would love to see more discussion of cash bail. I live in NY where it's a very contentious policy, so I've heard some arguments for and against. But never in a real discussion. Lee Zeldin insists cash bail is the devil, NYC progressives insist it's actually making NY safer. Both sides put forward different studies that conflict each other. The more I research, the more confused I get.
Hard to argue that NYC is getting safer when homicide rates have increased. But the end of cash bail didn't apply to violent felonies.
Maybe @cjaysykes could have someone on his show to talk about it and educate us. Someone like… Mandala Barnes?
I think there are a lot of angles to it, and there would definitely be some unintended consequences (judges getting more conservative on who they let out).
Here's an example of the problem with cash bail:
***Browder was a 16-year-old boy from New York City. He was accused of stealing a book bag, and even though he was 16, he was sent to the notoriously violent adult jail, Rikers Island, while awaiting a court decision on his case. Kalief has not deemed a danger to society and was granted bail, but as he came from a poor family who did not have the money to pay his bail, he had to sit for three years inside of Rikers Island on pretrial detention awaiting the court’s ruling. While incarcerated, Kalief was beaten numerous times – by guards and other inmates, and placed in solitary confinement, where depression and anxiety started to consume this young man. He was ultimately found not guilty, but by then, the damage had been done. Kalief came home struggling with depression, anxiety, and PTSD from his experiences in Rikers Island. Two years after release, the lasting weight of that negative experience became too much to bear and he took his own life.***
https://stoprecidivism.org/blog/why-are-more-states-than-ever-passing-laws-for-no-cash-bail-and-pretrial-detention/
If the family could not afford bail there would seem to have been an Eighth Amendment issue.
Surprising that the lawyer the family had on retainer didn't make that case.
That shame and guilt mentioned above...add sorrow and a kind of rage...
"new worries about the Queen’s health" Nothing against Queen Elizabeth, but isn't she like 130 years old? What are people worried about? I wish her the best, which of course she will get. God bless her in her last years.
The Queen has died. God save the King!
96.
She lived a long and productive life. Fun fact: my mother's china was the Wedgewood pattern designed for the Queen's Coronation.
I am 70 years old, and have never lived in a world without QE II. My Very British Grandmother worshipped her as Representative of All That is Best about Britain. I will miss her.
She was a fortunate woman. She lived a long life filled with loving children and grandchildren and millions of people who admired her greatly.
"new worries about the Queen’s health" Nothing against Queen Elizabeth, but isn't she like 130 years old? What are people worried about? I wish her the best, which of course she will get. God bless her in her last years.