I agree with Jonah: I’m not going to abandon my principles just because he is “a winner”:
The “people have spoken” is not some abracadabra phrase that can change my opinions, never mind my convictions. If “the people” vote that I must hate dogs, I’m not going to start hating dogs. If a plurality of Republican primary voters tells me I have to like blue cheese, I’m not going to start liking blue cheese. And even if 99.99 percent of Americans tell me that I should shed my opinions of Donald Trump, I’m not going to do that either. New facts or some new argument — in theory — could make me change my mind. But crowds, mobs, twitter trolls, bullying hacks, eye-rolling apparatchiks – or even voters can’t just because they all shout at once. Why? Because I am not a politician.
There is no quantity of inevitability about Trump as the nominee that will win my support for such a disaster.
Why #NeverTrump remains relevant. Yes, it wasn’t about denying him the nomination, per se. It’s about preserving what few limited-government principles the party had left.
I was surprised. When I heard that late deciders had been going for Cruz, I saw it as a good sign going forward. I can only think that his CA donors told him to give it up.
Another reason not to use it. I’d provide a quote, but the copyright policy at the site won’t let me. But my suggest to the last graf: Instead of “mitigating the compounds,” switch to healthy butter and lard.
That would be the way to bet, absent some dramatic change in attitude on the Hill.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Speaking of which, one of a very long series of essays (including a lot of history) on why SpaceX will settle Mars. Because it’s a priority for Elon Musk, but not for the federal government.
The latest Rasmussen. Put me with “someone else” (particularly given that I don’t vote in a swing state).
As I’ve been saying on Twitter for months, my concern with a Trump/Clinton match up isn’t that Clinton will win, but that one of them will, and both are terrible. I’d like to see a poll with some specific names (e.g., Cruz, Ryan, Mattis, Gary Johnson) as “other.”
The amount of unconscious junk science in this NYT article is staggering.
Note the underlying assumption: that calorie counting is useful, that burning calories (i.e., exercise) is useful, and that the type of calories you consume is irrelevant. And it’s all about the weight (they didn’t mention BMI, but I’ll bet they were measuring it). Did any of them do strength training? Because exchanging muscle for fat will increase metabolism.
