PeepinGoodArgs

The animating concept behind the Trump campaign will be chaos. This is what history shows us fascists do when given the chance to participate in democratic political campaigns: They create chaos. They do it because chaos works to their advantage. They revel in it, because they can see how profoundly chaos unnerves democratic-republicans—everyone, that is, whether liberal or conservative, who believes in the basic idea of a representative government that is built around neutral rules. Fascism exists to pulverize neutral rules.

So they campaign with explicit intention to instill a sense of chaos. And then comes the topper: They have the audacity to insist that the only solution to the chaos—that they themselves have either grossly exaggerated or in some cases created!—is to vote for them: “You see, there is nothing but chaos afoot, and only we can restore order!”

You better watch out You better not cry You better not pout I'm telling you why, Santa Claus is coming to KICK THAT ASS!

War is natural; war, or its threat, is normal. Peace is an aberration imposed by temporarily overwhelming force which, by its nature, dissipates and cannot endure. Therefore the question is not whether the United States of America can escape from war—it cannot. Nor can it impose a “perpetual peace.” The real question is where and how America will fight.

Minding the Campus's About Us:

Minding the Campus hopes to change that by fostering a new climate of opinion that favors civil and honest engagement of all ideas, offering an engaged debate for readers concerned with the state of the modern university and the society it serves.

They are, in short, a more conservative take on education issues and policy.

Quote from the article:

When race becomes an issue in a public forum in the United States, we almost always embrace the motives fallacy. It’s an embarrassing display of national ignorance. Other cultures have variations of this, but it’s our peculiar mania to accuse others of racism in order to end debates. We no longer need to think about the reasonableness of an idea or policy because somebody affiliated with it has been deemed guilty of the most egregious sin we can imagine. Someone is morally flawed beyond repair by way of the accusation alone. At best, we’re now arguing about the charge of racism, and the accuser has won the original debate by default. In that still puritanical corner of our national consciousness, if someone is morally flawed, it means their idea or policy is wrong, no matter how universally beneficial it might be, and no matter how many people it helps, no matter how antiracist it is.

But if an idea—in this case, the governing structure known as the United States of America—is a good one, then why should the nature of its origins matter?

True, it appears that Santos is a liar who cheated campaign donors out of thousands of dollars so he could fund a tacky, degenerate lifestyle buying luxury clothes and subscribing to online pornography. (Yes, Santos paid for something that is free, but I’m not defending him as a genius.) He’s been charged with serious crimes, and he’s probably someone I’d never let near my kids or borrow a ten-spot. But he hasn’t been convicted of anything. And Republicans, with a 14-seat majority, are in no position to be shedding votes. What’s the rush? Santos is up for reelection in a year anyway. Until then, why not just hold off on any votes related to OnlyFans?

...Haley might be able to consolidate 30 or 35 percent of the party, but the path to actually winning would be closed. Which could make her ascent at DeSantis’s expense another study in the political futility of anti-Trump conservatism, its inability to wrestle successfully with the populism that might make Trump the nominee and the president again.