The analysis of the effect of a single person voting is of course correct. And the inference that voting makes some of us feel good is also correct. From this, I draw a different conclusion. My voting for Trump will make all the left-wing idiots I tell about it so angry that someone doesn't agree with them, that it will make me very happy! [I voted for Johnson in 2016, told my left wing colleagues about it, and they didn't get angry. I sat out 2020 in a deal with my daughter, who stated she would also not vote, for Trump in my case, or Biden in hers. She reneged: I caught her wearing an I voted sticker! This time, they'll be angry.]
On the merits of policies, I would think that the Democrats give us economics and Kulturkampf [reality is a social construct, after all] with certainty and -- I agree -- Trump is more of a gamble. I'll take the gamble.
Do you think it is impossible for someone to both be a decent human being and do unethical things? The evidence for corruption is that companies who Biden, as VP and as President,, was in a position to do favors for, paid large amounts to his son. I don't think there is evidence that he actually did favors for them that harmed America, although it is possible. He may have taken bribes to do things he would have done any way. He may have been selling the appearance of influence.
The "evidence" thing is really unclear there. Are we talking about "evidence" in legal sense, like enough proof to substantiate a conviction? No, there's no such thing, and likely never will be, because it doesn't appear by itself and any effort to unearth and collect it will be sabotaged and suppressed. Are we talking about "evidence" in a more mundane, common language sense - facts that suggest it may be happening? We know he got money from foreign agents, we know he pressured Ukrainians to abandon investigating corruption related to his son. I do not think top Chinese or Ukrainian or Romanian business moguls are stupid - if they paid millions for something, they surely got something in return. We may not know now what exactly that "something" was, but I don't think that's necessary to be sure that what he was doing was both immoral and illegal.
Of course we could, if we try really really hard, to believe that he just pretended to be corrupt but unlike 100% of other corrupt people, he was different and he wasn't really corrupt, he just pretended. But on what grounds would we make such exception personally for him? I see absolutely none. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and takes bribes - then it's a corrupt duck.
On top of that, he is also a serial fabulist and is constantly lying about his past (and his family's past), even when there's no pressing need to do so. To me, this is not a sign of a decent man. And there are even darker themes there, into which I don't want to wade because frankly I have enough without them and they make me depressed when I think about them.
> For what makes me think he might be a decent human being
I am sorry but that story is less than convincing. Surely, I can believe he loves his son. Most people, no matter how corrupt and delinquent otherwise, love their progeny. It's practically a biological imperative, and while humans are certainly capable of violating it, most people don't. However, there are myriads of ways - especially for the person who has been rubbing elbows around US centers of power for decades until becoming arguably the most powerful man on the planet - for a father to help his son beyond making him carry bribes. A lot of sons and daughters of powerful people end up in the corridors of power, and one would be supremely naive to suppose their ancestry played no role. There are a million ways to love your son, and among them Bidens chose the way of becoming criminals together. I am sorry, but I do not see how that makes the father a decent man. I would say the opposite, he's likely responsible for what Hunter has become, and his moral corruption led to his son's degradation. Kids usually see their parents without the trappings of power and layers of makeup, and when the outside picture of honorable statesman vividly contradicts the actual picture the child observes, it can break him. Maybe that's what broke Hunter.
> I don't think there is evidence that he actually did favors for them that harmed America, although it is possible. He may have taken bribes to do things he would have done any way. He may have been selling the appearance of influence.
That is almost exactly what Secretary Fall said about his role he played in leasing Teapot Dome.
It's also what Plunkett said about being bribed, with votes not money, to vote in favor of a bill that he was expected to oppose but actually favored .
Another example of Biden hypocrisy: He signed a bill to ban TikTok if it doesn't meet certain conditions, and federal employees are banned from using it at work. The reason for this is an alleged national security threat. However, he used a TikTok account for his campaign, and now Harris is doing the same. If they believe the TikTok threat is real, that's a horribly irresponsible thing to do.
You may not like either Trump, Biden or now Harris. I don't either but what I believe is very important are the different policy trajectories that a Democratic president will put us on (or has put us on) vs a Republican president. I personally believe those differences have expanded recently and ought to override questions of style and personality. What stands out for me on the Democratic side are hugely expensive climate mandates that cannot be justified by any semblance of cost/benefit analysis. Even more disturbing though is their increasing use of executive power to legally harass and even imprison their political opponents along with the imposition of censorship for what they often incorrectly define as misinformation or "harmful" content. Arbitrary cancelation of student loan debt is a lesser example of executive overreach and pales when compared to an abdication on border protection. It's difficult to imagine what Trump could do to top this.
The “get Trump” lawfare could best be described as a partisan effort initiated by Democratic DA’s in a number of jurisdictions simultaneously. In the Stormy Daniel’s case a highly partisan Democratic judge was able to drag a very weak case across the finish line through combination biased calls throughout the trial combined with some very creative instructions to jury. The link to the Biden justice department became apparent when Michael Colengelo took leave from the federal department to revive the Bragg prosecution which had stalled due to lack of credible evidence that a crime of any kind had been committed. Colengelo with the help of the above mentioned Judge were ultimately successful in gaining a conviction gifting the Democrats a “convicted felon” campaign slogan that will last through the election until an appeal is held. The Fani Willis led prosecution team in Georgia held closed door meetings in the white house. The Jack Smith prosecution is on behalf of the Biden justice department. In summary my concerns about lawfare are directed at the Democratic Party in general whose members seem to have decided that using the power of their offices for partisan ends is justified to prevent Republicans from gaining power. Although it’s reasonable to assume this was happening with White House approval there’s only limited evidence that the White house staff are coordinating. In any event something has to be done to fix this. I would only add that the prosecutions against Alexei Navalny, Evan Gershkovich, and others perceived to be threats to Putin’s hold on power were also prosecuted, tried, and convicted through the court system.
Living in a Blue State, i have spoken to many people who usually vote for Democrats, but say they will not vote for Harris and will vote for Trump. That perhaps unsurprisingly includes a number of Jewish women who seem to fear Harris more than Trump.
I don't get this "Trump is a loose cannon" thing that gets repeated over and over. Trump was a president for 4 years. Sure, he had his failures (along with his successes) but even though his presidency included some spectacularly unpredictable events (like COVID and the whole George Floyd mess) I can't remember anything specifically loosey-cannony that he really did that went out of what would "normal", non "loose-cannon" presidents do. In fact, if anything he were more meek and subdued than I expected - he pretty much gave the whole COVID thing to his (technical) subordinates - which didn't seem to take his opinion into account at all, and he let the whole Russian collusion hoax to run for years, being propped up and perpetuated by people who technically are supposed to be in his employ and serving at his pleasure - without much pushback beyond some loud words. Sure, he sometimes provided some soundbites that nobody else would say, but beyond talk I don't see how he's more "loose cannon" than anybody else. To me, it sounds like just lazily buying hostile press propaganda with no substance under it. Is there any substantiation to this "loose cannon" thing?
Trump is indeed a "loose cannon" in the sense that he doesn't listen to the technocratic civil servants who are the people who have actually been running the country since FDR.
Even that is not entirely correct. While he was able to defeat the Deep Swamp at some places, the same "technocrats" (which is actually not a good name since their driving force is not the development of technology but the lust for power and radical ideological reformatting of the society) were running his COVID policy, for example. He had pretty much zero influence on them, and arguably that cost him the election. Same with finances - he made pretty much no dent in how US finances were and are being run. Same with medical reforms - pretty much all proclamation about how the GOP is going to throw out Obamacare and do whatever they wanted to do led to pretty much nothing, Trump or no Trump. For a cannon, he doesn't seem to have much of a bang.
It is true that he is not entirely 100% head to toe in the pocket of the Deep Swamp, as many other politicians from both parties are, but I don't think this is enough for the "loose cannon" designation.
There's a lot of examples where Trump supposedly tried to do something extreme, and those around him were able to restrain him. For example, trying to pull out of NATO is pretty loose cannon-y. Maybe the reports are wrong (I'm sure a lot or even most of them are), but I am concerned that he will be surrounded more with sycophants and be more likely to do something extreme (like pull out of NATO) than in the previous administration.
> There's a lot of examples where Trump supposedly tried to do something extreme, and those around him were able to restrain him.
Or, described in a less sensational and hostile manner, Trump discussed something with his advisors and took the advice that appears to be prudent even to his hostile observers. I am not sure you're proving your case here.
> For example, trying to pull out of NATO is pretty loose cannon-y.
Except he didn't try pulling out of NATO. Please do not confuse sensationalized reporting from the hostile partisan press with actual actions. Can you name any action that Trump did to pull out of NATO?
> Maybe the reports are wrong
They are. Or, more precisely, the sensationalist and hostile partisanship covering the facts in those reports is. If you want to get to the truth, you will have to peel it off.
> I am concerned that he will be surrounded more with sycophants
What basis is there to suppose his second term would have more sycophants than his first one? He's got his measure of sycophants on the first one - and his measure of vehement hashtag-resistance too - and yet nothing loosey-cannony happened, quite the contrary. Isn't there a time to update your priors?
> be more likely to do something extreme (like pull out of NATO)
Again, he never did anything like that, so suggestion he might do something like that is completely baseless, and can be equally applied to any politician, and thus can represent no basis for claims that Trump is a loose cannon. Please provide some argument that is not circular "Trump is loose cannon because he might do something extreme, and I know he might do something extreme because he's a loose cannon". That's not an argument, it's a mantra.
I too live in California. There's another reason to vote: it used to be, maybe still is, that if a party got enough votes, they were guaranteed ballot access next election without having to collect petition signatures.
I've voted Libertarian for many elections now, but the last two while holding my nose; Weld for VP? And Jo what's-her-name who praised BLM? And now a Democrat whose main claim to fame seems to have been a spoiler who may have turned an election to the Democrats, and who can't seem to articulate any real understand or policies? No thanks.
I haven't got much use for either party now. If my vote were the decider, I'd hold my nose and vote GOP just to stay as far away from climate pseudo science, woketry, and Magical Money Theory. I used to think Trump was the economic ignoramus of the last century, but Biden just copied and doubled down in his tariffs, and Harris seems bound and determined to triple down. Again, if my vote were the decider, I'd choose Trump just to stay away from Harris, but not with any great expectations except being a little less bad.
> The function of voting, the only thing it accomplishes for very nearly everyone in a presidential election, is the same as what cheering at a football game accomplishes — making you feel good.
The main thing I accomplish by voting libertarian is adding one to the number of libertarians in the voting results. Voting against either of the major party candidates only serves to add one to the number of their opponents' votes. No one reading the vote totals in the week following the election tries to figure out how many of the D or R votes were votes "against" the other candidate, they're all interpreted as votes for one of the major parties.
Antisemitism. I wish it was possible to discuss this rationally. It seems to be suggested that if one opposes the actions of the government of Israel, then one is antisemitic. I can see why suggesting this is convenient for the state of Israel, but why do we put up with it?
From a news report: "A student at UniversityX walked by protests against the war in Gaza and felt his Jewishness to be attacked." So the protesters are anti-semitic? The only person we are given information about is the student. The only thing we know anything about is the student. What are the protesters saying? Who even knows?
Oh it's not a huge secret what the "protesters" are saying. They are fully supporting what Hamas is doing to the Jews, and fully support destruction of Israel and extermination of its Jewish population. They said so many times, in their own voices. They think murdered Israelis and the hostages deserved it, for being "while colonialists" and the violence against them is "legitimate resistance of the oppressed people". It's not hard to find it out - they are not hiding it at all. And yes, they instituted checkpoints in campuses to deny access to students of Jewish origin, and attacked students of Jewish origin - this is not criticizing Israeli government, none of those students could possibly have anything to do with Israel policies. This is antisemitism, pure and simple, and if with the abundance of information available on it you still pretend to not know it, I think it's legitimate to ask a question - are you really interested or "just asking questions" without any intent to learn the truth?
It IS odd that you contrast Trump to Biden as election choices, now that Biden is out, rather than to Harris, Biden's DEI understudy gone uncontested nominee, particularly in subsequently going on to discuss Claudine Gay, another, even more embarrassing, DEI hire. I'd reverse the judgement on Biden, incidentally: relatively competent in governance, whether you like the policies or not (we mostly don't), but always corrupt. Remember the Kinnock plagiarism and the Anita Hill takedown from the past and the mendacious race pandering at Howard University recently. However: not an out-and-out criminal who will either win the election or declare fraud but never concede the fairness of an election unless he gets to conduct one in the manner of Maduro and Putin. I applaud anyone who thinks the rule of law, the separation of powers, and other related matters are overrated but who is willing to stay home or vote libertarian.
Do you think there are deontic constraints to voting for libertarians (of the kind that think most of what either major party would do constitutes impermissible rights violations)?
Suppose that your vote indeed determined the winner (between the two major parties). On one account, since your vote would institute a government guaranteed to violate many rights, your implicit participation in the rights-violations appears to deontically constrain you into abstaining (unless perhaps you knew one party to be overwhelmingly superior, which is often not the case). On another view, voting is analogous to a trolley problem, in which case it seems permissible to "flip the switch" for the party you perceive to be superior, regardless of how small the perceived difference.
I think that the choice to be a resident and thus financial supporter of a government that violates rights would be more of an issue than voting one way or the other, so if it's deemed OK to be a tax-paying resident of a particular government, it should also be OK to vote for it.
"The fundamental problem is the existence of ideological orthodoxies enforced across the campus, at Harvard and elsewhere. Underlying that is the attitude that that anyone who disagrees with the current orthodoxy must be ignorant or evil." - spot on. Totally agree!
Theory below subtitle "Rice Christians" was very interesting. Thank you!
The analysis of the effect of a single person voting is of course correct. And the inference that voting makes some of us feel good is also correct. From this, I draw a different conclusion. My voting for Trump will make all the left-wing idiots I tell about it so angry that someone doesn't agree with them, that it will make me very happy! [I voted for Johnson in 2016, told my left wing colleagues about it, and they didn't get angry. I sat out 2020 in a deal with my daughter, who stated she would also not vote, for Trump in my case, or Biden in hers. She reneged: I caught her wearing an I voted sticker! This time, they'll be angry.]
On the merits of policies, I would think that the Democrats give us economics and Kulturkampf [reality is a social construct, after all] with certainty and -- I agree -- Trump is more of a gamble. I'll take the gamble.
> Biden may possibly be a decent human being
> He is quite obviously corrupt
I am having hard time reconciling these two. How does it work?
Do you think it is impossible for someone to both be a decent human being and do unethical things? The evidence for corruption is that companies who Biden, as VP and as President,, was in a position to do favors for, paid large amounts to his son. I don't think there is evidence that he actually did favors for them that harmed America, although it is possible. He may have taken bribes to do things he would have done any way. He may have been selling the appearance of influence.
For what makes me think he might be a decent human being, see the second part of: https://daviddfriedman.substack.com/p/two-stories
The "evidence" thing is really unclear there. Are we talking about "evidence" in legal sense, like enough proof to substantiate a conviction? No, there's no such thing, and likely never will be, because it doesn't appear by itself and any effort to unearth and collect it will be sabotaged and suppressed. Are we talking about "evidence" in a more mundane, common language sense - facts that suggest it may be happening? We know he got money from foreign agents, we know he pressured Ukrainians to abandon investigating corruption related to his son. I do not think top Chinese or Ukrainian or Romanian business moguls are stupid - if they paid millions for something, they surely got something in return. We may not know now what exactly that "something" was, but I don't think that's necessary to be sure that what he was doing was both immoral and illegal.
Of course we could, if we try really really hard, to believe that he just pretended to be corrupt but unlike 100% of other corrupt people, he was different and he wasn't really corrupt, he just pretended. But on what grounds would we make such exception personally for him? I see absolutely none. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and takes bribes - then it's a corrupt duck.
On top of that, he is also a serial fabulist and is constantly lying about his past (and his family's past), even when there's no pressing need to do so. To me, this is not a sign of a decent man. And there are even darker themes there, into which I don't want to wade because frankly I have enough without them and they make me depressed when I think about them.
> For what makes me think he might be a decent human being
I am sorry but that story is less than convincing. Surely, I can believe he loves his son. Most people, no matter how corrupt and delinquent otherwise, love their progeny. It's practically a biological imperative, and while humans are certainly capable of violating it, most people don't. However, there are myriads of ways - especially for the person who has been rubbing elbows around US centers of power for decades until becoming arguably the most powerful man on the planet - for a father to help his son beyond making him carry bribes. A lot of sons and daughters of powerful people end up in the corridors of power, and one would be supremely naive to suppose their ancestry played no role. There are a million ways to love your son, and among them Bidens chose the way of becoming criminals together. I am sorry, but I do not see how that makes the father a decent man. I would say the opposite, he's likely responsible for what Hunter has become, and his moral corruption led to his son's degradation. Kids usually see their parents without the trappings of power and layers of makeup, and when the outside picture of honorable statesman vividly contradicts the actual picture the child observes, it can break him. Maybe that's what broke Hunter.
> I don't think there is evidence that he actually did favors for them that harmed America, although it is possible. He may have taken bribes to do things he would have done any way. He may have been selling the appearance of influence.
That is almost exactly what Secretary Fall said about his role he played in leasing Teapot Dome.
It's also what Plunkett said about being bribed, with votes not money, to vote in favor of a bill that he was expected to oppose but actually favored .
Another example of Biden hypocrisy: He signed a bill to ban TikTok if it doesn't meet certain conditions, and federal employees are banned from using it at work. The reason for this is an alleged national security threat. However, he used a TikTok account for his campaign, and now Harris is doing the same. If they believe the TikTok threat is real, that's a horribly irresponsible thing to do.
You may not like either Trump, Biden or now Harris. I don't either but what I believe is very important are the different policy trajectories that a Democratic president will put us on (or has put us on) vs a Republican president. I personally believe those differences have expanded recently and ought to override questions of style and personality. What stands out for me on the Democratic side are hugely expensive climate mandates that cannot be justified by any semblance of cost/benefit analysis. Even more disturbing though is their increasing use of executive power to legally harass and even imprison their political opponents along with the imposition of censorship for what they often incorrectly define as misinformation or "harmful" content. Arbitrary cancelation of student loan debt is a lesser example of executive overreach and pales when compared to an abdication on border protection. It's difficult to imagine what Trump could do to top this.
I agree that Democratic policy has been bad, but trying to imprison opponents has been done via the court system, not executive power.
The “get Trump” lawfare could best be described as a partisan effort initiated by Democratic DA’s in a number of jurisdictions simultaneously. In the Stormy Daniel’s case a highly partisan Democratic judge was able to drag a very weak case across the finish line through combination biased calls throughout the trial combined with some very creative instructions to jury. The link to the Biden justice department became apparent when Michael Colengelo took leave from the federal department to revive the Bragg prosecution which had stalled due to lack of credible evidence that a crime of any kind had been committed. Colengelo with the help of the above mentioned Judge were ultimately successful in gaining a conviction gifting the Democrats a “convicted felon” campaign slogan that will last through the election until an appeal is held. The Fani Willis led prosecution team in Georgia held closed door meetings in the white house. The Jack Smith prosecution is on behalf of the Biden justice department. In summary my concerns about lawfare are directed at the Democratic Party in general whose members seem to have decided that using the power of their offices for partisan ends is justified to prevent Republicans from gaining power. Although it’s reasonable to assume this was happening with White House approval there’s only limited evidence that the White house staff are coordinating. In any event something has to be done to fix this. I would only add that the prosecutions against Alexei Navalny, Evan Gershkovich, and others perceived to be threats to Putin’s hold on power were also prosecuted, tried, and convicted through the court system.
Living in a Blue State, i have spoken to many people who usually vote for Democrats, but say they will not vote for Harris and will vote for Trump. That perhaps unsurprisingly includes a number of Jewish women who seem to fear Harris more than Trump.
I don't get this "Trump is a loose cannon" thing that gets repeated over and over. Trump was a president for 4 years. Sure, he had his failures (along with his successes) but even though his presidency included some spectacularly unpredictable events (like COVID and the whole George Floyd mess) I can't remember anything specifically loosey-cannony that he really did that went out of what would "normal", non "loose-cannon" presidents do. In fact, if anything he were more meek and subdued than I expected - he pretty much gave the whole COVID thing to his (technical) subordinates - which didn't seem to take his opinion into account at all, and he let the whole Russian collusion hoax to run for years, being propped up and perpetuated by people who technically are supposed to be in his employ and serving at his pleasure - without much pushback beyond some loud words. Sure, he sometimes provided some soundbites that nobody else would say, but beyond talk I don't see how he's more "loose cannon" than anybody else. To me, it sounds like just lazily buying hostile press propaganda with no substance under it. Is there any substantiation to this "loose cannon" thing?
Trump is indeed a "loose cannon" in the sense that he doesn't listen to the technocratic civil servants who are the people who have actually been running the country since FDR.
Even that is not entirely correct. While he was able to defeat the Deep Swamp at some places, the same "technocrats" (which is actually not a good name since their driving force is not the development of technology but the lust for power and radical ideological reformatting of the society) were running his COVID policy, for example. He had pretty much zero influence on them, and arguably that cost him the election. Same with finances - he made pretty much no dent in how US finances were and are being run. Same with medical reforms - pretty much all proclamation about how the GOP is going to throw out Obamacare and do whatever they wanted to do led to pretty much nothing, Trump or no Trump. For a cannon, he doesn't seem to have much of a bang.
It is true that he is not entirely 100% head to toe in the pocket of the Deep Swamp, as many other politicians from both parties are, but I don't think this is enough for the "loose cannon" designation.
There's a lot of examples where Trump supposedly tried to do something extreme, and those around him were able to restrain him. For example, trying to pull out of NATO is pretty loose cannon-y. Maybe the reports are wrong (I'm sure a lot or even most of them are), but I am concerned that he will be surrounded more with sycophants and be more likely to do something extreme (like pull out of NATO) than in the previous administration.
> There's a lot of examples where Trump supposedly tried to do something extreme, and those around him were able to restrain him.
Or, described in a less sensational and hostile manner, Trump discussed something with his advisors and took the advice that appears to be prudent even to his hostile observers. I am not sure you're proving your case here.
> For example, trying to pull out of NATO is pretty loose cannon-y.
Except he didn't try pulling out of NATO. Please do not confuse sensationalized reporting from the hostile partisan press with actual actions. Can you name any action that Trump did to pull out of NATO?
> Maybe the reports are wrong
They are. Or, more precisely, the sensationalist and hostile partisanship covering the facts in those reports is. If you want to get to the truth, you will have to peel it off.
> I am concerned that he will be surrounded more with sycophants
What basis is there to suppose his second term would have more sycophants than his first one? He's got his measure of sycophants on the first one - and his measure of vehement hashtag-resistance too - and yet nothing loosey-cannony happened, quite the contrary. Isn't there a time to update your priors?
> be more likely to do something extreme (like pull out of NATO)
Again, he never did anything like that, so suggestion he might do something like that is completely baseless, and can be equally applied to any politician, and thus can represent no basis for claims that Trump is a loose cannon. Please provide some argument that is not circular "Trump is loose cannon because he might do something extreme, and I know he might do something extreme because he's a loose cannon". That's not an argument, it's a mantra.
I too live in California. There's another reason to vote: it used to be, maybe still is, that if a party got enough votes, they were guaranteed ballot access next election without having to collect petition signatures.
I've voted Libertarian for many elections now, but the last two while holding my nose; Weld for VP? And Jo what's-her-name who praised BLM? And now a Democrat whose main claim to fame seems to have been a spoiler who may have turned an election to the Democrats, and who can't seem to articulate any real understand or policies? No thanks.
I haven't got much use for either party now. If my vote were the decider, I'd hold my nose and vote GOP just to stay as far away from climate pseudo science, woketry, and Magical Money Theory. I used to think Trump was the economic ignoramus of the last century, but Biden just copied and doubled down in his tariffs, and Harris seems bound and determined to triple down. Again, if my vote were the decider, I'd choose Trump just to stay away from Harris, but not with any great expectations except being a little less bad.
> The function of voting, the only thing it accomplishes for very nearly everyone in a presidential election, is the same as what cheering at a football game accomplishes — making you feel good.
The main thing I accomplish by voting libertarian is adding one to the number of libertarians in the voting results. Voting against either of the major party candidates only serves to add one to the number of their opponents' votes. No one reading the vote totals in the week following the election tries to figure out how many of the D or R votes were votes "against" the other candidate, they're all interpreted as votes for one of the major parties.
Antisemitism. I wish it was possible to discuss this rationally. It seems to be suggested that if one opposes the actions of the government of Israel, then one is antisemitic. I can see why suggesting this is convenient for the state of Israel, but why do we put up with it?
From a news report: "A student at UniversityX walked by protests against the war in Gaza and felt his Jewishness to be attacked." So the protesters are anti-semitic? The only person we are given information about is the student. The only thing we know anything about is the student. What are the protesters saying? Who even knows?
Oh it's not a huge secret what the "protesters" are saying. They are fully supporting what Hamas is doing to the Jews, and fully support destruction of Israel and extermination of its Jewish population. They said so many times, in their own voices. They think murdered Israelis and the hostages deserved it, for being "while colonialists" and the violence against them is "legitimate resistance of the oppressed people". It's not hard to find it out - they are not hiding it at all. And yes, they instituted checkpoints in campuses to deny access to students of Jewish origin, and attacked students of Jewish origin - this is not criticizing Israeli government, none of those students could possibly have anything to do with Israel policies. This is antisemitism, pure and simple, and if with the abundance of information available on it you still pretend to not know it, I think it's legitimate to ask a question - are you really interested or "just asking questions" without any intent to learn the truth?
It IS odd that you contrast Trump to Biden as election choices, now that Biden is out, rather than to Harris, Biden's DEI understudy gone uncontested nominee, particularly in subsequently going on to discuss Claudine Gay, another, even more embarrassing, DEI hire. I'd reverse the judgement on Biden, incidentally: relatively competent in governance, whether you like the policies or not (we mostly don't), but always corrupt. Remember the Kinnock plagiarism and the Anita Hill takedown from the past and the mendacious race pandering at Howard University recently. However: not an out-and-out criminal who will either win the election or declare fraud but never concede the fairness of an election unless he gets to conduct one in the manner of Maduro and Putin. I applaud anyone who thinks the rule of law, the separation of powers, and other related matters are overrated but who is willing to stay home or vote libertarian.
Do you think there are deontic constraints to voting for libertarians (of the kind that think most of what either major party would do constitutes impermissible rights violations)?
Suppose that your vote indeed determined the winner (between the two major parties). On one account, since your vote would institute a government guaranteed to violate many rights, your implicit participation in the rights-violations appears to deontically constrain you into abstaining (unless perhaps you knew one party to be overwhelmingly superior, which is often not the case). On another view, voting is analogous to a trolley problem, in which case it seems permissible to "flip the switch" for the party you perceive to be superior, regardless of how small the perceived difference.
I think that the choice to be a resident and thus financial supporter of a government that violates rights would be more of an issue than voting one way or the other, so if it's deemed OK to be a tax-paying resident of a particular government, it should also be OK to vote for it.
"The fundamental problem is the existence of ideological orthodoxies enforced across the campus, at Harvard and elsewhere. Underlying that is the attitude that that anyone who disagrees with the current orthodoxy must be ignorant or evil." - spot on. Totally agree!
Theory below subtitle "Rice Christians" was very interesting. Thank you!
Biden withdrew from the race two weeks ago. It’s now Kamala Harris vs Trump.