Yeah, McMorrow's "marching band" was cringe, and centrists are freaking out over nothing

 So, Mallory McMorrow was apparently video taped dancing with a marching band as part of her campaign at the democratic convention in michigan. And some have called it cringe. And apparently El Sayed said something like "that's what you do when you don't have a message", which....*cue centrist crocodile tears*

"OMG, HOW COULD EL SAYED BE SO MEAN?! WHAT BROUGHT THIS ON? I'M SO OUTRAGED, BLAH BLAH BLAH!"

Okay, after like weeks of screaming because hasan piker campaigned with him. It's so pathetic. These guys punch el sayed all day, the second he punches back, OMG HOW COULD YOU BE SO MEAN?! I mean, F off. You guys say all kinds of crazy unhinged crap about el sayed painting him as some sort of radical, but he does one little tap back and you implode into a little ball of outrage? Like come on. 

Let's be frank. I could go for either McMorrow or El Sayed. Both are excellent candidates. I like El Sayed because I vibe with his energy and realize there's more to his policy platform than on his campaign website, and that he's the most progressive candidate. However, McMorrow is pretty decent herself. I dont think she's as charismatic, I dont think she's as progressive. And you could say, him punching right is arguably a little "mean". But again, are you really gonna pull that crap AFTER dragging El Sayed through the hell he's been putting up with this campaign cycle? Like the centrists are out to unfairly smear him and drag him through the mud and the second he retaliates at all suddenly El Sayed is a bad guy? Again, I know that itself is campaigning, but it just  seems dishonest.

Honestly, I'll be blunt. I would be happy with either El Sayed or Mcmorrow. I do think that El Sayed acting like "only i can fix it" is a bit hacky and dishonest. But so are like...95% of the attacks against El Sayed. So...yeah.

But yeah, objectively speaking, yeah, mcmorrow's marching band was cringe, the centrist outrage is ridiculous, but that doesnt make mcmorrow a bad candidate either. Like i wanna make it clear, even if im kinda taking el sayed's side, I'm NOT anti mcmorrow. I might be anti haley stevens, but mcmorrow is pretty decent. And she does have a nice platform. Let's be honest.  

What is so offensive that Hasan is saying at Abdul El Sayed's rallies?

 So...I keep hearing the more establishmenty democrats freaking tf out about Hasan Piker and Abdul El Sayed. I saw some people today claiming he was quoting Lenin at his rallies and praising Mao and blah blah blah, and honestly, I decided to queue up a recent rally and listen to what was being said. 

The rally itself was pretty tame. basically, it was "we want to do good things for the American people, do nothing democrats take money from corporate donors NOT to do that, and then they attack us as radicals, we stand by hasan, and we stand by our vision, we want to make your lives better, they don't." That's the summary of the rally. I watched Hasan speak, I watched El Sayed speak, I watched them all speak. Sure, they did do some palestine stuff, mostly condemning the genocide, and pointing out that the Israel lobby was influencing our politics to make us arm and fund their genocide. And, of course, El Sayed himself pointed out, he's not anti semitic, he supports all people of all faiths. These are just bad faith attacks.

And yeah...I walk away thinking...these ARE just bad faith attacks. Look. I don't always see eye to eye with the progressive left these days. I support a public option instead of medicare for all. I reject a green new deal in favor of a UBI. But make no mistake, I ALSO want good things for the American people, and I recognize that the biggest obstacles, other than the republicans, are corporate democrats and their donors. I fail to see what's so offensive about what's being said. They dont like centrist democrats being attacked for taking rich peoples' money and doing nothing? Oh, it offends you that we say that? That's too negative? Well, it's true. And at least our attacks against that wing of the party are TRUE. 

Here, these guys are taking most of Hasan's most extreme opinions and cherrypicking them, often out of context, to make him look bad. And when it comes to praising mao and quoting lenin at rallies, yeah, no. he did no such thing. 

Either way, we're voting (well, if you're in michigan, Im cheering from the sidelines here in PA) for El Sayed, NOT Hasan Piker. I don't care what Hasan has said on his stream. I have mixed opinions about the guy. He's a bit too far left for me, yes. I mean, I have my stances, I clearly delineate my human centered capitalist politics from the progressive left these days. They're two separate ideologies. BUT...we also have common enemies, those corporate funded do nothing democrats, and those fascist republicans. And that's why I often am so willing to stand up for these guys despite not always seeing eye to eye with them. I mean, yeah. What's so offensive here? That these guys are speaking truth to power? What's so subversive? Red scare tactics is all the establishment has. Because at the end of the day, they stand for nothing, except corporate interests that slow progress and make our lives harder.

I used to believe when I was young, that a better world wasn't possible. That things weren't fair, but this was the best we could do, because human nature, systems failing, blah blah blah. But then I got an education in political science. I looked at the problems myself. I studied the solutions. And a better world IS possible. The thing is, wealthy people have structured the system to make us slaves, and have indoctrinated us from birth into slave mentalities. All of this "a better world isn't possible" nonsense is part of that. Slaves dont push for change if their suffering is inevitable and trying makes it worse. They dont push for change if morality becomes about having a good work ethic and serving their corporate masters. They dont push for change if they're more focused worrying about the next life to care what happens in this one. 

And when I realized this, that's when I started pushing for change. And not only do I push for change, I push for specific change. Again, my vision isn't the progressive left's vision. At least not exactly. I support a UBI over jobs programs, since jobs are just more slavery. I push for a public option over medicare for all because my ideological dedication to UBI as a tool to free humanity from work trumps my specific focus on one healthcare solution. That's where i differ most from the progressive left. But again, our common enemies are the same. 

What I want people to do is to look at the facts for themselves. Figure out what they value, look at how it can be accomplished, and fight for it. We dont always have to agree on specific solutions. But right now, we gotta band together against fascist republicans and do nothing democrats. Support El Sayed, support McMorrow. We can debate some of the specifics of that. I have shown some preference for mcmorrow before going down the el sayed rabbit hole and she's pretty decent too. But...just don't support Stevens, as she's a "do nothing democrat" in my view, and don't support the republicans. 

Don't believe this nonsense coming out of the corporate funded do nothing wing of the party. They wanna turn you against people who actually do wanna make your lives better, because they want you to vote for your own continued oppression instead. Don't believe them. Make up your own mind and vote.  

Random late night shower thought: did Kamala lose because of her cringey work virtue signalling?

 So...that debate got me thinking. Did Harris lose because of her stance on work? Here me out. Because I noticed a difference in rhetoric between the union guys in the senate debate tonight and harris. The senate candidates were arguing life should be easier. Harris was arguing "we dont want it easy, we like hard work, dont we?" It came off as tone deaf. Like, that rhetoric, at least for me, killed my enthusiasm for her. Because my stance is, "duh, if course life should be made easier." And even if the union guys didnt quite...fully get it and the senate candidates aren't as progressive as I am on this issue, there was a significant opinion of "yeah, life shouldn't be this hard." Conservatives valorize life being hard and how people who want it easy are lazy and want free stuff. But centrists come in like "NO, WE DONT WANT IT EASY, WE LIKE HARD WORK!" And here I am like, yeah I think we should be lazy and want free stuff and yeah I want an easy life. Who doesn't? Idk. Maybe im projecting my own stance but it feels like Harris leaned too hard into preaching conservative narratives that were cringey while the union guys aren't quite at my point of having an "entitlement complex", but they clearly do think that yeah life should be easier. And that's a positive rhetorical shift. Even if I dont see eye to eye with union guys on everything on these issues, just admitting that's a goal makes me a lot more sympathetic and a lot less combative. Like were actually on the same page here morally. With Harris I really dont feel like I even connected with her campaign on a moral level at all. I just had a visceral negative reaction to the work virtue signalling and it killed any enthusiasm I had. I wonder if im actually alone with that. A lot of union guys abandoned the democrats after all in 2024. Not really much of a surprise when you think about it. I REALLY dont want her to run again after her 2024 campaign. Her instincts were dead wrong and she capitulated to the center on everything. And it killed any enthusiasm she had going for her imo. Dems really are the uncanny valley of suck sometimes...

Reacting to the Michigan democratic senate debate

 So...there was a debate between Stevens, McMorrow, and El Sayed. I discussed the race earlier today, but want to provide an update in how my opinions have shifted after watching the debate. The debate was in a union hall and the focus was very labor oriented. There was a lot of talk about how it shouldn't be so hard to earn a living, but also a lot of talk about job preservation as well. And look, before I even get into the debates, I wanna give my own take, since none of them did a good job here. Some of them got close, but here's my honest opinion. 

Jobs are rich people paying poor people to do things for them in exchange for their needs. At best, jobs exist to meet our wants and needs, at worst, they're slavery that we no longer call slavery. Work is at best a necessary evil, and at worst, an unnecessary one. And the core problem of why it's so hard to "earn a living" in our economy is these rich MFers don't wanna pay people. They dont. For all the talk of work and job creators, the basic social contract surrounding a job is a romanticized farce. It's something that sounds nicer on paper than in reality. Unions try to make such a contract work, but in reality, we gotta think beyond jobs. And in the age of automation, AI, and outsourcing, this problem is especially pronounced. Why are they sending jobs outside of the country? because they dont wanna pay us, that's why. And you know what? i think it's about time to say, maybe we don't wanna work. I know, that's a controversial, even heretical statement in our society. But I'm just being honest and saying what I think a lot of people wish they could say, but they're too afraid to say. Some might ask, well if we dont wanna work and no one works, who gets the stuff done? Ask the "job creators." If they have a solution, like they do with AI, fine. But if they need human labor, that's where we assert our interests, and where unions come in and say, "well do it...but you gotta pay us." But we shouldnt romanticize jobs, and romanticize work. I'm so sick of union and labor people romanticizing the social contract. It's like their entire existence is a contradiction. They recognize they gotta hold employers' feet to the fire, but they also put this weird social contract on a pedestal with this "work has dignity" bullcrap. With that said, let's discuss the debate.

Abdul El Sayed won. He was the most charismatic, and the most progressive on labor issues. he hammered home his priorities, talking about medicare for all, getting money out of politics. He supported unions and supported making things easier for people. Heck, I was arguing with the candidates/moderators in my head over how we should bring back fricking work sharing in response to AI. Then El Sayed drops a 32 hour work week. Hell yeah, brother, that's how you win me over! So yeah, withdrawing the McMorrow endorsement, I'll do El Sayed. 

Don't get me wrong though. Mallory McMorrow was a close second, and she kinda "gets it." She's around my age, she graduated from college, couldnt get a job. Ended up working minimum wage after applying to 300 jobs. She should understand that the whole concept of a job is BS based on that explanation, but went in a more moderate direction, but still, she does feel our pain and understand it's hard. And she ran for office to fix it. So with a story like that, I gotta give her props, and she gave a good performance too. I just think El Sayed was stronger here. 

Haley Stevens....eh....she was there. Like, her background doesn't enthuse me. Seeing her in person, I'm even less enthused. She's very uncharismatic and her voice is nasally. Shouldn't be a thing in and of itself. I try to take out personal characteristics when judging candidates, but I cant deny charisma plays a role in debates and given this debate was a way to inform me more on the three candidates, well, yeah. She kinda flopped here. She wasn't herself, like objectively speaking. But she is the least progressive candidate, and the least charismatic candidate. I'd easily take her over ANY republican. But honestly, definitely a third place finish. I identify more with mcmorrow and her struggles with the economy, and el sayed is just the suave charismatic "zohran mamdani" type candidate in the race. He has that kind of charisma. He's another mamdani.  

And yeah. I guess I'm team el sayed now, although tbqh mcmorrow isn't bad either and as I said, I actually think she's stronger on policy. But then el sayed has more to him than just what's on his campaign site, so...yeah. Candidates, if you want me to take you seriously, PLEASE explain what you wanna do in office. In detail. The more detail, the more I like you (or hate you if i dislike your answer). It's why I gravitated to mcmorrow first. But yeah. That's where I'm at. 

Why I'm not really for "Medicare for All" these days

 So....let's discuss my evolution on Medicare for All. 

First, I was a conservative. I was opposed to any government healthcare, believing all the horror stories about how the government is gonna institute death panels and it's SO much worse than the free market. 

Obviously, that was a bunch of nonsense. And Obama care was actually WAY too moderate of a proposal. It didn't fix the issues. it tried to expand coverage but the approach was so fragmented and flawed it never solved the problems. To this day, millions lack health insurance, healthcare is prohibitively expensive, trying to mandate all employees get healthcare just led to the proliferation of part time jobs to bypass those regulations, and many states refused to expand medicaid at all and now Mike Johnson is rolling back those protections. The ACA approach isn't working, and as I shifted away from the right to the left, and started looking at the problems with healthcare, I quickly supported medicare for all. 

El Sayed, the Michigan guy I just discussed, is actually the strongest voices to make the case for it, literally writing a book on it. And I do wanna elevate his voice here. But to discuss my own views on it, the market is so fundamentally broken that a market based approach to healthcare is not gonna fix the problems. The profit motive and the structure of markets just dont allow for an affordable healthcare system that works for the people to flourish. When you commoditize healthcare, you're basically saying "your money or your life" and people will pay exorbitant sums of money to get care, leading to the issues we have today. Even more, our work based culture insists on tying employment to jobs, which has been a failure, since, as the ACA has shown, employers REALLY dont wanna pay for healthcare. And will hire people part time to avoid regulations. Wanna know why you cant work more than 25 hours a week at one job as a service worker? Because then they gotta give you healthcare, and they dont want that. So now you gotta take multiple jobs just to survive. A well meaning regulation that made our lives better actually made it worse.

It seems obvious, based on these problems, that a Medicare for All system is the ideal solution. It would solve the access and affordability problems. it would free people from being forced to take jobs to get health insurance. It should be the ideal solution. And from 2014ish on, I've been for M4A, putting it as my second highest priority, only outranked by a basic income. 

But that's where my M4A support starts to falter. I've discussed this on the blog before, but around 2021, and you can go back to like April, May 2021 and see a lot of posts on this subject as I tried to work through the issues, my own policy platform has a significant problem of trying to afford both a UBI and Medicare for All. UBI would cost like $4.6 trillion, and M4A currently would cost $3 trillion on top of what we're already spending. That's the 2025 number, not the 2021 number, but even in 2020, 2021 as I worked through numbers, I kinda realized that we don't have unlimited money, and cant just fund everything. There is a ceiling of taxation, and UBI strains that, and M4A adds even more strain. Bernie style progressives can afford M4A mostly because they DONT embrace UBI. This gives them more economic flexibility to pursue other solutions like a massive green new deal jobs programs and M4A. 

Even for Bernie though, a lot of his numbers were a bit iffy. In working on my M4A proposal for my book, I redid bernie's numbers, and found that given the healthcare inflation that's occurred since 2020, the costs of healthcare have ballooned. A universal healthcare system would now cost $5 trillion total. And as El Sayed would point out in his book, since I read it in preparation for working on my own proposal, the cost saving mechanisms of M4A are difficult to predict. Some say it would make healthcare more expensive, some say it would save money. We really don't know. It depends on the plan.

Bernie's plan in 2020 was intended to address a world where total healthcare costs were $3 trillion total, and we only needed around $1.75 trillion more than we were currently spending. Again, we're now up to $5 trillion, and needing $3 trillion. I just can't make the math work. I tried. Here's my best math to try to make it work:
 

Current healthcare spending- $1.9 trillion

7.5% payroll tax- $971 billion

4% household tax- $732 billion

Repealing existing tax breaks for health insurance- $140 billion

Increased corporate taxes- $300 billion

Wealth tax- $275 billion

Improving tax enforcement- $230 billion

Higher estate tax- $25 billion

+_______________________________________

Total: $4.573 trillion

We need around $4.9-5 trillion here. So I'm short. It's a good attempt, but I no longer feel confident I can fund it. And keep in mind, all of this is ON TOP OF UBI, which increases the tax rates across the board bt 20%. I've just decided to shelve the idea. To make the numbers work, I'd potentially have to scale back my UBI plan to around $10,000 a person to ensure the numbers work. That's 63% of the target amount, with potential deficits (keep in mind I'm several hundred billion short of the target) possible exacerbating that.

While, in and of itself, none of this is fatal to M4A support. if I was really hell bent on doing it, I would make it work, again, if it comes at the expense of my UBI plan, that's the one thing that can make me back off. So it's not that I've become a centrist sell out or whatever. It's that I have a hierarchy of priorities, and I gotta compromise on healthcare to ensure my UBI plan has the proper amount of leeway to work. 

On the other hand, Medicare Extra for All, the backup public option plan I considered back in 2021 the last time I faced this problem, is only $300-600 billion. Now, it does this by offloading costs onto the customer instead, but still, the plan is structured not all that differently than a progressive tax would be on income. People with less money get free healthcare. Those who make more money pay more as they're able. The difference between a premium and a tax isn't that significant in practice, so it's just a different way of handling it, and would allow me to keep the accounting on the government side more free for UBI to function. 

In my healthcare draft, I also debated which would be net better for people at the end of the day: Medicare extra or medicare for all. If my UBI were cut in, say, half, each individual would lost $8,000, and your typical 2 adult 1 child household would lost $18,750. On the other hand, such a household would pay around $4,800 a year in healthcare premiums and face a maximum of $5,000 deductible. So...they'd pay at most $9,800 for healthcare per year. 

So...if we adopted Medicare for all, the typical family would lose around $18,750 in order to save around $9,800. That's a net loss of $8,950. With that said, I'd rather pursue a public option. I mean, the more I research the costs, and how I can STILL accomplish my healthcare goals via a public option like medicare extra for all, ensuring universal access and higher affordability, and ensuring that anyone who wants a government plan can have it, and it will align with their income situation whatever that may be, honestly...I've just decided to shelve Medicare for All for now. 

I'm not IDEOLOGICALLY opposed to it. I believe it's the most elegant healthcare policy we could have. But given fiscal constraints other policy priorities impose on my platform, I think it's in my best interests if I distance myself from it and pursue a public option instead. I understand this might disappoint some. It is a move similar to what yang did in his 2020 campaign. And he didnt do it explicitly because of UBI, he just believed he couldnt make the logistics of a transition work. Ironically Medicare extra for all would allow us to possibly expand into a M4A system down the road if we can swing the cost. I mean, when Harris ran on a "medicare for all" system in 2020, her plan was actually a medicare extra for all style public option that would start out as a public option, transitioning to M4A over time. 

In a way, el sayed actually discussed a lot of these possible transition options in his book. He talked about lowering the age, expanding a public option into a universal option over time. I mean, M4A is itself a flexible concept.So...idk. I mean, healthcare policy is a spectrum, really. The difference between a public option and M4A kinda blends together. I guess the big difference is whether you'd ban private health insurance. And I'm leaning toward not doing it. Someone else could do it in the future if they find it fiscally sustainable on top of my other priorities, but I'm just not gonna actively pursue that. I just wanna make sure people are covered and actually have options.

So yeah, that's why I'm no longer actively for medicare for all. I wouldn't say I've changed ideologically, I just made a fiscal compromise to make my own ideal platform more sustainable. To any progressive who wants to use this to blast me or purity test me, I'll do it back to you. What do you think about UBI? Do you support UBI? Care about UBI? I notice a lot of M4A purists arent UBI supporters and I know from 2020 when Yang ran a lot are hostile on the idea. And if that's the case, well, we just have different policy priorities and preferences. Just know this, I haven't changed or "sold out" as much as you think. I just evolved. My own priorities have always been UBI first and M4A second. I'm just acting that out as I try to translate my policy preferences into actual policy that can be implemented in the real world. You don't like what I have? You try to do a better job and then I'll purity test YOU. Like really, I have no chill toward jobist leftists who act all high and mighty on this subject when they don't even share MY priorities. I just wanted to put THAT out there before I deal with annoying purity testers. 

Weighing in on the Michigan senate race

 So I've mostly been staying out of individual senate races unless they become national news. We had Jasmine crocket vs James talarico in Texas. Janet Mills vs Graham Platner is being heavily debated in Maine. And now with Hasangate, Abdul El Sayed is being elevated in Michigan.

And I wanna emphasize that last part. El Sayed was NOT projected to win. he was straight up in THIRD most of the race and I largely ignored him, even if I like him. But beccause the centrist democrats decided to develop Hasan derangement syndrome after Hasan jumped in on El Sayed's side, well, now El Sayed is competitive to win. Congrats, centrist dems, you played yourself by Barbara Streisand effecting your worst enemies again. 

Anyway. Before we get to data, let's discuss the three candidates and their platforms. Abdul El Sayed is a progressive who doesnt have a well defined platform. His big thing is medicare for all. he literally wrote the book on it. And having read it, yeah it's pretty decent. He's kinda the M4A guy in a similar way to me being "the UBI guy." Other than that, he mostly seems to speak in platitudes. On electability, he's probably the worst of the three candidates, being R+3 vs Mike Rogers. For the record, that puts him at a 23% chance of winning. 

 Mallory McMorrow is a slightly more moderate candidate, but she seems pretty progressive herself. I'm not gonna lie, platform wise, I like her better. She has a detailed policy platform including a public option (which is more my lane anyway these days, I'm not as heavy on M4A any more due to the costs). She wants a minimum wage indexed to inflation, a child tax credit, affordable childcare. And she seems to actually have expertise. I'm actually kind of digging her over El Sayed. Like just read the platforms I presented, El Sayed has like blurbs, and McMorrow has a lot more comprehensive policy listed. Yeah, El Sayed is the M4A guy, but not gonna lie, I'll be happy with a public option these days, it's the direction I'm going in anyway. On electability, she's the second best candidate, only being R+1.5 vs Rogers. That gives her more like a 36% chance in winning. So El Sayed is at like 2 in 9, McMorrow is more 1 in 3. 

And then finally, we got Haley Stevens....who....seems....a lot less inspiring. She doesn't have much of a policy agenda. Her big claim to fame is basically working with the Obama administration on fixing the economic crisis, her big thing seems to be job creation and putting people back to work. So...honestly, you can see how that's going over with me. She basically seems like the moderate candidate, the republican lite candidate. Im guessing the hasan derangement syndrome stuff is coming from her because well, it's the most "democrat" thing you can do. Run on next to nothing then bash your opponent as being too extreme. Sadly, she's the most electable, being D+1.3 vs Rogers, and having a 62% shot at winning. That's like 5 in 8. 

So we're seeing a clear trend here. The moderate candidate does better, the progressive candidate does worse. The race is effectively a tossup. Historically, based on older data, it looked like the race was gonna be McMorrow vs Stevens with El Sayed not really having a shot, but now El Sayed seems to have gained steam, is competing directly with McMorrow, and Stevens is now in third place. Given the dualistic nature of this race, and how the electability of a candidate is proportionally inverse with their progressivism, I'm not sure how I feel about this. 

If I were to vote for any of these guys based on what I know about their platforms from their website, I'd want McMorrow. El Sayed is not bad, don't get me wrong, but McMorrow has more policy expertise and a more detailed platform that i find acceptable. And at this point, M4A doesnt give you a huge advantage over a public option. I'll discuss my shifts on medicare for all later in another post. Given the other issue propelling E Sayed to the top is basically...Israel....yeah, it's not really swaying me. I dont feel as aligned with the progressive wing of the party as I used to, when I get into the nitty gritty on policy. I'm still progressive, but there is a bit of a policy mismatch now. I definitely dont like do nothing centrists, but if youre like McMorrow with a huge but slightly more moderate platform full of economic goodies, I'm not gonna exactly crap on that. What matters to me is you try to deliver on what you promise. Im not gonna demand moral purity, especially as my own priorities on M4A shift. 

I also feel like McMorrow is more electable. I admit, polling data for the general election is pretty scarce. What we have is old, and things might have shifted since then. After all, they've shifted massively in the primary. It was a McMorrow vs Stevens race and now it's El Sayed vs McMorrow. Idk I'm currently leaning toward McMorrow, although just like with texas, I'll support whoever the nominee is. El Sayed is not a bad candidate. i do worry about his electability though and his big policy differences from McMorrow arent enough to win me over. Maybe there's more that I'm missing as Im not from michigan and not really paying close attention, but given it's getting more national attention, I wanted to weigh in. It looks like there was a debate, maybe I'll watch later and update.

But yeah, for now I'm temporarily endorsing McMorrow here.  

EDIT: In light of the primary debate, which I have now watched, I now support Abdul El Sayed. However, Mallory McMorrow is a very close second for me, and she deserves an honorable mention. I would be happy with either candidate, but I think El Sayed is a slightly stronger candidate in practice. 

Who the fudge is JD Vance to argue with the pope?

 Okay, so, I always find it hilarious when Catholics argue with the Pope. I mean, if youre protestant, you get a pass. Your religions were founded protesting the catholic church. That's why you're called protestants. And if you're non christian, you have ZERO reason to care what the pope has to say. You can take it under advisement, but you have no real obligation to follow it. but catholics? To them, the pope is God's representative on earth. He is basically speaking for God, and if you speak out against him, you're a heretic.

JD Vance is a catholic. So...yeah. he just told the pope to stick to "matters of morality" and to not discuss foreign policy.

I mean, in theory, i can kinda understand not wanting the pope to butt in to policy disagreements. I mean, I dont exactly see christianity as a "functional" basis to run the world. Like, if we all lived like Jesus, nothing would function. The dude was an apocalyptic, ascetic preacher. he thought the end times was coming, and Christianity in general was more focused on preparing for that than planning a sustainable society. It's one of the reasons Christianity is so awful to use as a model for planning society. I mean, dont get me wrong. Jesus had a lot of nice and thought provoking things to say. I'm not entirely anti Jesus. BUT....even if you respect the guy, I can see how sometimes some of the things he said don't line up with reality and politics. And sometimes you kinda gotta be "bad", or, at least, tough, harsh, in order to assert yourself on the world stage. 

Ya know? Im not always 100% lovey dovey myself on foreign policy. I understand that who has the biggest stick makes the rules, and I'm fine with us sometimes asserting ourselves to ensure we ARE the ones maintaining those rules. 

BUT...that doesnt mean we should always be swinging our stick around. it's as Teddy Roosevelt once said. Speak softly, AND carry a big stick. Basically, diplomacy first, when that doesn't work, stick. 

The problem with this current war is we got a loud and obnoxious president with a loud and obnoxious drunk frat bro as a "secretary of war", and he's not speaking softly and then swinging the stick. He's swinging the stick just because.

And the stick is killing people, including a lot of innocent people, civilians, etc. And they're supporting Israel, who is committing a genocide. And now invading a sovereign nation in Lebanon. 

And this is where I get back to defending the Pope. Sometimes, war IS a matter of morality. if your war is unjust, and unjustified, yeah. You're the devil, basically. You're evil. I mean, let me ask people this. Was hitler evil in causing WWII? I think we all know the answer to that one. And barring the holocaust, i mean, we CAN compare that to trump's ramping up of questionable deportation policies, and I have made comparisons to that in the past, but just on foreign policy. Why was hitler evil? Because he was a psychipath who invaded countries for no reason, trying to take them over. And here's the kicker...how is trump any different?

I would argue...he's not. All that justifies his actions is rank nationalism, and the idea that he has the bigger stick. This war has no valid justification. Iran was not provoking us. If anything, Israel, the country that got us involved, is doing their own holocaust against the palestinians. Are we the baddies? yeah, we kinda are. We're basically the new Axis powers. It's the Axis of Epstein. 

So if Pope Leo wants to condemn us for that, he can go right ahead. If anything, he's in the right for doing it. Congrats, donald, you're making me agree with funny hat man. But you know what? Despite my distaste of christianity, let's not forget it's the republicans' brand of evangelicalism that got me there. So if Mr Pope guy wants to condemn that and give his own take, I'm gonna sit there and nod and agree with him. Because you know what? He's FAR more moral than the BS going on within the evangelical movement in the republicans in the US. I can at least respect the pope in the modern era. Ya know? I mean, I'm gonna be dismissive of him on social issues mostly. The catholic church is kinda backwards there. Although francis and leo havent been too bad in that regard, at least not by christian standards. And on economics, yeah, they are pretty based. I actually come back around to semi agreeing with them. Because at the end of the day, they're not protestants who push the protestant work ethic. So they're for worker rights, and sometimes even UBI, and yeah. 

And on foreign policy. Anyone with any shred of morality is gonna say we're the bad guys. Even half the US realizes we're the bad guys in this war. Although one thing I will say, Iran needs to chill with their peace terms. We're NEVER going to accept half the demands they're throwing out there. Even if we started this war unprovoked, and  it's unjustified, the worst thing they can do is to...basically do what they're doing. Because at the end of the day, while I didnt want this war, if they're not gonna be compliant in ending it on reasonable terms, we have no choice but to continue fighting, and theyre gonna lose whatever moral high ground they have. And if that means more deaths, well....again. They gotta be more reasonable than an upending of the entire geopolitical world order just to make peace with them. Just because they got us by a painful pressure point doesn't mean we can't just bomb them to the stone age if we want to. We got the firepower. I really dont want us to do that. I kinda wanna end this for both our sakes. I want to spare American lives because I care about my country. I wanna spare Iranian lives because I'm humanitarian. But if Iran doesnt wanna stop tangoing, then tango we shall. 

See...that's one thing I'll diverge from the pope on here. Because again, I dont have to listen to the pope. But I still kinda respect them and that's one thing I will say to support Vance and the Trump administration. I would LOVE to be a peacemaker. But the peace has to be reasonable and if Iran isnt gonna approach it in good faith, well...guess we gotta make BF3 great again...

Still, let's be blunt. Trump started this. He was wrong in starting it. And he's totally in the moral wrong here. And the Pope is, by and large, right. And im not gonna tell the pope to butt out. Because if I disagree with the pope, I dont care what he says. He's free to his opinion, I'm free to mine.

JD Vance though? He should just stfu here, if anything, or call himself a protestant, which he is, if he disagrees with the pope.