thread--- A lot of guys like to say things like "the GOP's role is to funnel opposition into a harmless direction" and that is true in a function sense, that's what has happened. But the GOP imo has no actual role in The System. They are on the outside

The GOP has no patronage network within the government. There is no cadre of GOP-aligned bureaucrats within the alphabet soup that a GOP majority could lean on to do things. They can at best hand a bunch of democrats a list of unenforceable requests, predictable results
The GOP has no patronage network within the private sector. There is basically nobody getting a check from the government that can point directly to republicans as the reason for their bag. Other than guns, there is no material reason for most people to ever vote republican
The only patronage network that exists on the right is within the GOP universe. The GOPe controls a few billion in campaign donations and political media revenues. This is all they care about. Controlling the party. They get everything they want from this alone
So why care about ever winning a majority? They couldn't do much with it even if they got it, and they are taking care of their network already without significant access to public money. The democrats want power and the GOP doesn't want it. That's the whole story
The GOP is not in on the scam, they are staying in their lane. Trump was on the verge of taking the GOP out of their pure grift lane and into the realm of actually governing. They might have gone along with this but he first blew up the GOPe campaign finance patronage network
Trump 2016 campaign was staggeringly cheap compared to Hillary ($600 million vs $1.2 billion)
but did you know Trump 2016 spent less than Romney in 2012 ($840 million)
Just right there, Trump took a quarter of a billion dollars out of the GOPe grift network. War.
This doesn't have the final figure for Trump/Hillary but you can see the effect clearly. Remember though, gEt MoNeY OuT Of pOliTiCs
So anyway by running a cheap campaign based on being cool, getting free media for everything you do and saying things that normal people liked to hear, Trump BTFO the GOPe campaign network. If he can do this, they realized, downballot candidates can do the same but easier
because of gerrymandered districts. Candidates can simply say "i'm the trump guy" during the primaries and save $100k on consulting fees to mitch mcconnel's half-jamaican grandkids
But then Trump went even further and started to change the way the government operates. Defcon 1 situation where primaries cannot be controlled by GOPe and voters are demanding a GOP that fights the dems which the GOPe does not want to do. It's purely trying to hold onto
the cozy and fairly lucrative lane they have. You can call them controlled opposition, and its true, and that doesnt require the dems to literally tell them what to do, they are controlled by incentives - you can fight and lose (or worse, see GA post eelction car accident )
Or you can simply win the primary and do nothing. Easy call for these guys

More from All

#தினம்_ஒரு_திருவாசகம்
தொல்லை இரும்பிறவிச் சூழும் தளை நீக்கி
அல்லல் அறுத்து ஆனந்தம் ஆக்கியதே – எல்லை
மருவா நெறியளிக்கும் வாதவூர் எங்கோன்
திருவாசகம் என்னும் தேன்

பொருள்:
1.எப்போது ஆரம்பித்தது என அறியப்படமுடியாத தொலை காலமாக (தொல்லை)

2. இருந்து வரும் (இரும்)


3.பிறவிப் பயணத்திலே ஆழ்த்துகின்ற (பிறவி சூழும்)

4.அறியாமையாகிய இடரை (தளை)

5.அகற்றி (நீக்கி),

6.அதன் விளைவால் சுகதுக்கமெனும் துயரங்கள் விலக (அல்லல் அறுத்து),

7.முழுநிறைவாய்த் தன்னுளே இறைவனை உணர்த்துவதே (ஆனந்த மாக்கியதே),

8.பிறந்து இறக்கும் காலவெளிகளில் (எல்லை)

9.பிணைக்காமல் (மருவா)

10.காக்கும் மெய்யறிவினைத் தருகின்ற (நெறியளிக்கும்),

11.என் தலைவனான மாணிக்க வாசகரின் (வாதவூரெங்கோன்)

12.திருவாசகம் எனும் தேன் (திருவா சகமென்னுந் தேன்)

முதல்வரி: பிறவி என்பது முன்வினை விதையால் முளைப்பதோர் பெருமரம். அந்த ‘முன்வினை’ எங்கு ஆரம்பித்தது எனச் சொல்ல இயலாது. ஆனால் ‘அறியாமை’ ஒன்றே ஆசைக்கும்,, அச்சத்துக்கும் காரணம் என்பதால், அவையே வினைகளை விளைவிப்பன என்பதால், தொடர்ந்து வரும் பிறவிகளுக்கு, ‘அறியாமையே’ காரணம்

அறியாமைக்கு ஆரம்பம் கிடையாது. நமக்கு ஒரு பொருளைப் பற்றிய அறிவு எப்போதிருந்து இல்லை? அதைச் சொல்ல முடியாது. அதனாலேதான் முதலடியில், ஆரம்பமில்லாத அஞ்ஞானத்தை பிறவிகளுக்குக் காரணமாகச் சொல்லியது. ஆனால் அறியாமை, அறிவின் எழுச்சியால், அப்போதே முடிந்து விடும்.

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x