Julio Gonzalez makes an excellent point regarding Progressive-Democrat Party Presidential candidate and Senator (D, CA) Kamala Harris’ attitude about voters.
Kamala Harris says her campaign is failing because people aren’t ready for a woman of color to be president.
The funny part is, this is the primary, not the general election.
So the people she is accusing of racism are Democratic primary voters.
To which I add: Harris is projecting.
From the October jobs report as summarized by The Wall Street Journal.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), though, says these positive data
offer[] further evidence that the Republicans’ disastrous special interest agenda is hollowing out the middle class while enriching the wealthy and well-connected.
Do we really need someone so disconnected from reality in the people’s House?
Or is it that her impeachment hysteria is clouding her ability to interpret simple economic data? In which case: do we really need someone whose judgment is so easily confused in the people’s House?
That’s what that icon of the Left, Juan Williams, says.
The reality is that [Facebook CEO Mark] Zuckerberg doesn’t seem to understand, from my perspective, that he’s undermining his brand by allowing political lies to be put on his platform. That, to me, lessens the trust that the consumer has.
Because censoring speech—especially politically speech—is the way to win the hearts and minds and trust of the consumer.
Certainly, controlling speech and allowing only that which the Left approves—what Juan Williams personally approves—can be a tool for winning controlling the hearts and minds of citizens, but trust? No. Censorship destroys trust.
But, hey—the Left doesn’t approve. Juan Williams doesn’t approve. That makes it all OK.
Williams had this gem, too, accusing folks who disagree with him on this—Conservatives—of flip flopping:
I remember when the right was always on Facebook, “Oh, you’re trying to silence…conservatives.” Now it’s like, “Oh, yeah, put Trump’s lies there, please.”
Because objecting to censorship is flip floppery. And that last bit: the Right Reverend Juan Williams is the arbiter of lies, distortions, and facts because us ordinary Americans are just too grindingly stupid to make the discriminations for ourselves.
This is another example of the Left’s—the Progressives’—utter contempt for those who don’t agree with them.
The Chicago Teachers Union struck Chicago (closing out the children of the city from 11 days of education; although, that may have been a net benefit for the kids, given the lack of education the city’s public education institution provides), and it got everything it demanded.
More money, more union jobs (more dues money), less cost, and especially less competition from those embarrassingly successful charter schools.
Rik Moran thinks Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot abjectly surrendered to the union. I think she’s in cahoots with it. The 11-day strike just provided a fresh layer of snow to cover that Chicago dirt.
The Wall Street Journal led off one of its Wednesday editorials with this gem.
The great counterfactual of the Trump Presidency is how much faster the economy would be growing without the damage of his trade protectionism.
Never mind that the great counterfactual of the FDR and Wilson Presidencies (among others) is how much better off the nation would be without the damage of their warfighting.
Once again, WSJ Editors choose to misconstrue the nature of tariffs as tools of international diplomacy and conflict with the nature of tariffs as protectionism. International conflict unavoidably involves domestic damage.
The real consideration is whether today’s temporary damage from deploying tariffs as tools is worth the long-term gain. Was the damage suffered in those wars worth avoiding the damage of abject surrender to brutal conquerors, worth the gains from winning those wars?
Would these Editors prefer abject economic surrender to the PRC, the payment of our intellectual property and technological advances to the PRC as tribute, to be followed inevitably by political subjugation after the collapse of our economy, to the long-term gains of getting a more honest trade regime?