311–320 of 483 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. They whipped the mob into a frenzy with lies and bullshit so they could use its power to get what they wanted. Then they lost control of it. It is the loss of control they regret, not whipping it up in the first place.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I posted last time this came up, the problem to him is that the Tea Party they backed went out of their control. They wanted a nice biddable anti-government party. They got chaos. They've not come to Jesus on global warming, they're upset they lost.
Exactly. They whipped the mob into a frenzy with lies and bullshit so they could use its power to get what they wanted. Then they lost control of it. It is the loss of control they regret, not whipping it up in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s actually not very much compared to someone like Bloomberg.
The interesting aspect here is not so much the amount as it is the one-sidedness. It shows Koch is still very actively making the same mistake.
This reminds me of George Wallace’s famous realization that his long term institutionalization of racism in Alabama was wrong when he was getting close to death’s door. It was kind of nice to hear, but lots of damage was done.
Too little, too late.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The tragedy of Emmitt Till's murder wasn't just his death, but that it was representative of a corrupt and violent White Southerner culture that lasted despite the horror of what was done to him (and the loss of face the Deep South experienced when it was exposed). She spent 70 years standing by her lie. About 4 years into it, she was old enough to start making it right and didn't.
Further tragedy: the two men accused of his murder admitted in 1956 that they'd done it but since they'd already been acquitted they were immune from further prosecution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>typically when the court is tilted, side-switching magically appears For people like me, I don't care what "side" a justice is on. The justices literally choose which cases they accept... Of course there will be some debate on them. What I find absolutely horrid is that the courts are packed with nominees hand selected by a group of US senators who not only cannot represent the majority of the US population/citizenr…
"Packed" is a loaded term in the context of the courts. I assume you just mean there are a lot of Republican apointees. Part of the job of the Senate is to represent the minority. They typically aren't the starting place for major legislation, but often slow down or heavily amend it. You could argue that the minority should have no power at all, I suppose. Democrats used a similar argument to remove the judicial fili…
Sure, this is a lesson about democracy. It's a lesson about how to subvert democracy.
It's more like political divestment, as the costs of polarisation have increased.
His actual values - basic libertarianism like open borders and free trade and limited government - haven't changed at all. That's precisely why he never backed Trump, and instead continued plugging the values he espoused even as that drew fire from Republicans.
For instance: note that he donated a lot more to Rep candidates than to Dem candidates, but it was almost exclusively where the relevant contest involved a pro-markets versus anti-markets debate.
As Republicans have moved away from markets into populism, his spending is less and less partisan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The article would have been improved by giving some insight into what changed his mind. The article would have been improved by at least proving he has changed his mind. Charles Koch is 85. There is a decent chance he is not going to live long enough to see another Republican administration. It would be in the best interest of maintaining some political influence and making some more change for him to change his pu…
How can an article "prove" that someone has changed their mind?