Achilles

Agreed. It was nowhere near their best, but it was definitely worth watching.

I remember Sarah Palin railing against government spending on fruit flies. Her audience boo'd on cue and she smiled at how clever she was. Never mind that fruit flies are the cornerstone of biological research. This seems like a "cut off my nose to spite my face" argument. The market won't do anything until it can profit from it. This is fine in some cases, but in others the work either needs to be done or should be considered important anyway. In those cases the right tool for the job is government. Hating government and loving markets is like hating saws and loving hammers when you're trying to build a house. So, I have the text of the bill up. I did a search for "hot tub" and came up empty. I read through the table of contents and didn't see anything that explicitly mentioned hot tubs or studies related to stress. Same goes for "reptile", "reptile joints", and "joints". Also, "Tunisia" Without context, I can't speak to whether or not this is good use of taxpayer money. My guess is that there are probably lots of riders in the bill and that a fair amount of them were probably necessary to secure votes. That's how bills get passed; with votes. Good news is that you aren't being taxed without representation :) Politicians, like all people, do what they are incentivized to do. When they are incentivized to change, they change. Voting third party does nothing to create that incentive, hence why some people might consider a third party vote wasted. The problem that you and I keep running into here is a scale. You argue in terms of parties and I'm generally thinking in terms of individuals. You can't change a party from the outside and you can't do it without moving individuals. My 2 cents anyway.

"Don't hate your enemies. It clouds your judgement" Hate's all well and good, but I'd rather change something than sit on my ass and be mad at it. From your link (emphasis mine): This is the original video of a shrimp on a treadmill that became an Internet sensation and continues to serve as an example of fake news. Repeatedly cited as a waste of government spending, the treadmill was actually built from spare parts costing less than $50, paid out of researchers pockets — and it helped scientists examine the impact of ocean pollution on America's food safety.

Argument that I heard and found convincing is that it makes life difficult for Mitch McConnell, who deserves payback after asking his caucus not to challenge the EC results.

No, that wasn't my question at all. My question was: how do I reconcile the various positions you've staked out on this particular topic? I'm assuming one of them best represents your actual views, but unfortunately, they each at least partially contradict other positions I've heard you take. This isn't judgement; there's absolutely room for nuance, but some clarification is needed.

Which part of my post is this in reference to?

Yup :( Again, I'm just trying to square this against other things I hear you say. Or to put it another way, I can tell that you care deeply about corruption in government. What I'm hearing is that, when framed as a values question, if put in a position where we had to weigh rooting out corruption against supporting individual freedoms, individual freedoms comes first. In which case, it would seem that we should just accept that a certain amount of corruption is inevitable. When framed as a legal question, we should just trust that norms will be respected and that "bright lines" will be identified when crossed. When framed as a logistics question, what "should be" is maybe less important that what can practically be accomplished. Interestingly, it seems to me that this last one should afford you some insight into the minds of those who consider third party votes as "wasted".

I don't understand. There are only 2 Godfather films.

Actually I don't. You're arguing it as a legal question and I'm proposing that it's an ethics question. It's not uncommon for managers within an organization to be subject to "blackout" dates, during which they cannot make certain types of trades - usually their own company stock, but in some cases with stocks related to their industry. It's accepted as a normal part of the role and a safeguard against any claims of impropriety. Is there a good reason why this is wisdom in the business sector but not in congress? Lastly, I guess I'm just trying to square the "they're all corrupt" talk against the "it's only corruption if they cross this very specific line, otherwise they are private citizens and any move to curb that is government overreach" talk. Do you see how these might seem like contradictory viewpoints? P.S. Except Trump, right?

1) Except Trump, right? 2) Not sure you answered the question

Is it reasonable to have a rule which states that people who are in a position to influence markets are not able to personally benefit from doing so? Especially if they voluntarily put themselves in that positions under the guise of serving others and not themselves? Once upon a time, it was legal to purchase another person with your own money. Was the government wrong to make that illegal?

Have you seen The Rover? Or Good Time?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22545857-the-worm-at-the-core https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365215/

^^^^ Almost finished with Promised Land. Wondering when volume 2 will be released.

Another book for your list EDIT: I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but it looks like he put a talk together that addresses Trump

Outlaw King and Hell or High Water were good. Not sure I've seen him in anything else that impressed me.

I really enjoyed The Fifth Risk. It's a short read that you could probably crank out in an afternoon. I know that our taste in books often align, so I'd be interested to hear your take on it.

Have you read any of Michael Lewis' work? If so, do you tend to enjoy his books?

I don’t think Paul Mitchell risked much by writing this letter now, especially since he’s already said that he won’t be seeking re-election. I think it’s a mistake to confuse this with bravery. Regarding the other point in your post, I guess I’m curious why you think it matters or what you would do with such information. If Amash was the one good man in Gomorrah, what would your next step be?

Profiles in Courage

Interesting take. "Trump as an unintended consequence" isn't exactly the same thing as "Trump as an accidental byproduct". I mean, this isn't news. Except it will be. The party isn't an monolith. It's *always* changing and each iteration is the "end of the Republican party as we know it".

I'm a big fan of his bible

It's interesting to see how parties change over time. I think your post does a good job of illuminating the danger of becoming too attached to them Who can say no to the "Taste of Trump" sampler?

Sounds perfectly reasonable.

Well said Well, you're not playing, but that's ok. I think that the point I was hoping to make is buried in the subtext of your response and that we're in agreement