|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 22 2017 05:53 Sermokala wrote:
I know it's a dead horse and the argument petered out a while ago but hillary didn't have the statistics behind her to be a winning canidate. It's shitty to say it but being a woman was a net negative and her favorabilities were pretty poor. She lacked a positive message to sell herself and didn't have any defining positive legislative initiatives. She also didn't represent any coalition or electoral positive like being from a swing state and like people say she was a statis quo canidate when she needed progressive voters and when populism was on the rise.
LL keeps harping on her electability beacuse it was a joke then and is a bad joke now. Nothing she did helped her be more electable during the campaign and you can't expect people to just be happy voting for the lessor of two evils.
Every red flag in the book was waving as to why Hillary was the wrong choice to go up against Trump, hell she was losing to practically every other Republican in polling long before she wrapped up the nomination. If Democrats weren't so wrapped up in her bs they would recognize how obvious it was that she was a bad choice this cycle. They just ignored how terrible she did/how well Bernie did outside of the Democratic party and wanted everyone else to follow them. They failed. Now we all get to enjoy the fruits of their failure.
The only reason this comes up is because people outside of Hillary's camp know she's not actually done, she's not irrelevant like she should be, and will probably be running in 2020. If she wasn't, she wouldn't still be so quiet on controversial issues that she cares about. She's still obviously meticulously choosing what she talks about (still ignoring NoDAPL for example) so she clearly intends on trying to run for something.
On February 22 2017 05:58 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2017 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 22 2017 05:44 zlefin wrote:On February 22 2017 05:33 Velr wrote:
She has just 0 abillity to inspire people, she probably never had. If obama told us one thing, then that inspiring people is paramount.
Hillary didn't even try to fire up people, she tried to be as electable as possible and it hurt her bad. it's one of the fundamental problems with democracy, it tends toward selecting people who inspire, rather than a focus on actual results/capabilities. admittedly the latter are harder to measure than the former. but it often feels like democratic selection pressures favor used car salesman (as per the stereotype). we really need to do more work to build structures that fix the known problems in democracies. I'm annoyed I don't hear more from our leaders on that. Democracy is hard work, the people who regularly contribute here are barely engaged enough to even make superficial judgments on the merit of folks contributions (myself included). Our politicians intentionally let our population reach a point where a Trump could find success, then everyone looks around like "how could this happen!?!?" For decades people watched as they saw common folks not be able to even recognize their representatives, and everyone just chuckled along. We should have recognized at least 20 years ago that our democracy was in trouble if we didn't do something massive to correct our comprehension gap regarding civics. Of course Trump won, both sides have spent 40+ years trying to prepare the public for someone like him. That's why the complaints from Hillary's camp about voters ring so hollow, she was as much a part of what led to Trump as Republicans. Remember, she and her camp intentionally elevated Trump I think you overestimate the degree to which people were historically good at civics. but indeed democracy is hard work, and most people don't want to put in the effort for it. one of the problems with democracy really, it requires an amount of effort from the public that is not worthwhile to an individual for their own utility.
Not saying that they used to be good at it, just that we should have recognized how bad we were and how dangerous of a trend that was.
|
On February 22 2017 05:47 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2017 05:38 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2017 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 22 2017 05:22 Nevuk wrote:
Hope his friends (presuming he has any) put him on suicide watch, such a rapid fall. Ironically over some comments that people are definitely misinterpreting (though they are still plenty questionable). Not sure Milo can breath without attention though, so should be interesting what he does with this. I remember reading an interview where he openly admitted to preferring to have no friends. He was almost proud of it, which made it more depressing. I remember this because I almost felt bad for him for half a second. He certainly takes a unique approach to friendship.
I forgot about that article. Some of his old stuff from the Kernel was just weird or an insight into how much he disliked people. It is hard to understand what it would like to wake up as him every day.
|
There's an active shooter at a Houston hospital right now.
|
On February 22 2017 05:44 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2017 05:33 Velr wrote:
She has just 0 abillity to inspire people, she probably never had. If obama told us one thing, then that inspiring people is paramount.
Hillary didn't even try to fire up people, she tried to be as electable as possible and it hurt her bad. it's one of the fundamental problems with democracy, it tends toward selecting people who inspire, rather than a focus on actual results/capabilities. admittedly the latter are harder to measure than the former. but it often feels like democratic selection pressures favor used car salesman (as per the stereotype). we really need to do more work to build structures that fix the known problems in democracies. I'm annoyed I don't hear more from our leaders on that.
As much as I agree with this it's a fundemental trait of democracy to pander to the people's wills and that will only get expressed by people who represent an idea more then the ability to deliver.
I can see an interesting campaign for electing "the people's administration" by electing a secretary or clerk as commander in chief. The most purely competent people at management was one that's only experience was being a mother of 6 and another who was a secretary her whole life.
|
On February 22 2017 06:17 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2017 05:44 zlefin wrote:On February 22 2017 05:33 Velr wrote:
She has just 0 abillity to inspire people, she probably never had. If obama told us one thing, then that inspiring people is paramount.
Hillary didn't even try to fire up people, she tried to be as electable as possible and it hurt her bad. it's one of the fundamental problems with democracy, it tends toward selecting people who inspire, rather than a focus on actual results/capabilities. admittedly the latter are harder to measure than the former. but it often feels like democratic selection pressures favor used car salesman (as per the stereotype). we really need to do more work to build structures that fix the known problems in democracies. I'm annoyed I don't hear more from our leaders on that. As much as I agree with this it's a fundemental trait of democracy to pander to the people's wills and that will only get expressed by people who represent an idea more then the ability to deliver. I can see an interesting campaign for electing "the people's administration" by electing a secretary or clerk as commander in chief. The most purely competent people at management was one that's only experience was being a mother of 6 and another who was a secretary her whole life.
it is indeed a fundamental trait of democracy, which makes it also a fundamental problem.
which is why we need to devise systems which counteract that effect, and/or do more research to develop newer, better forms of government.
I suspect funding in research into government design is lower than would be optimal. with the size of our government overall, research findings that would improve the efficiency or efficacy of it would have substantial payoffs.
gh -> ah, ok, I can agree to that. or maybe some people were pointing out but they were ignored, that often happens too. one of the common problems in democratic governance, kicking the can down the road rather than dealing with a problem.
|
|
|
On February 22 2017 05:47 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2017 05:38 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2017 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Hope his friends (presuming he has any) put him on suicide watch, such a rapid fall. Ironically over some comments that people are definitely misinterpreting (though they are still plenty questionable). Not sure Milo can breath without attention though, so should be interesting what he does with this. I remember reading an interview where he openly admitted to preferring to have no friends. He was almost proud of it, which made it more depressing. I remember this because I almost felt bad for him for half a second. He certainly takes a unique approach to friendship.
He makes this subjective nonsensical quantitative ranking system, yet calls Nate Silver a "data hack" in that article. Lol.
|
On February 22 2017 06:17 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2017 05:44 zlefin wrote:On February 22 2017 05:33 Velr wrote:
She has just 0 abillity to inspire people, she probably never had. If obama told us one thing, then that inspiring people is paramount.
Hillary didn't even try to fire up people, she tried to be as electable as possible and it hurt her bad. it's one of the fundamental problems with democracy, it tends toward selecting people who inspire, rather than a focus on actual results/capabilities. admittedly the latter are harder to measure than the former. but it often feels like democratic selection pressures favor used car salesman (as per the stereotype). we really need to do more work to build structures that fix the known problems in democracies. I'm annoyed I don't hear more from our leaders on that. As much as I agree with this it's a fundemental trait of democracy to pander to the people's wills and that will only get expressed by people who represent an idea more then the ability to deliver. I can see an interesting campaign for electing "the people's administration" by electing a secretary or clerk as commander in chief. The most purely competent people at management was one that's only experience was being a mother of 6 and another who was a secretary her whole life.
The problem is governing isn't management, unless you have a totalitarian society. (a god emperor in control of a horde of 100% obedient police+military robots.. about 5 per human)
Governing is mostly persuasion. So it makes perfect sense to get a used car salesman... if he can persuade me to "buy" this idea maybe he can persuade others.(the issue is there needs to be enough people in the other parts of the government, or among the voters who can tell the lemons from the steals...of course those are partially value questions where there isn't an accepted 'best')
Management is what the "governed" ie the 'mid level' bureaucrats/lobbyists/etc. do... The ones on top persuade them, and they come up with the management (who should be hired fired given to taken from where and when)
Research into government design is not something one can easily say has an "optimum"
Optimum for what...
A certain government + a certain society will tend to produce certain results.....
But whether those results are good
-according to the current society (and what parts of that society)
-according to the current government (and what parts of the government)
are perhaps the more important questions
|
Kind of surprised it was this that did Milo in, but I guess it was off the deep end of non-PC humor.
|
On February 22 2017 07:01 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2017 06:17 Sermokala wrote:On February 22 2017 05:44 zlefin wrote:On February 22 2017 05:33 Velr wrote:
She has just 0 abillity to inspire people, she probably never had. If obama told us one thing, then that inspiring people is paramount.
Hillary didn't even try to fire up people, she tried to be as electable as possible and it hurt her bad. it's one of the fundamental problems with democracy, it tends toward selecting people who inspire, rather than a focus on actual results/capabilities. admittedly the latter are harder to measure than the former. but it often feels like democratic selection pressures favor used car salesman (as per the stereotype). we really need to do more work to build structures that fix the known problems in democracies. I'm annoyed I don't hear more from our leaders on that. As much as I agree with this it's a fundemental trait of democracy to pander to the people's wills and that will only get expressed by people who represent an idea more then the ability to deliver. I can see an interesting campaign for electing "the people's administration" by electing a secretary or clerk as commander in chief. The most purely competent people at management was one that's only experience was being a mother of 6 and another who was a secretary her whole life. The problem is governing isn't management, unless you have a totalitarian society. (a god emperor in control of a horde of 100% obedient police+military robots.. about 5 per human) Governing is mostly persuasion. So it makes perfect sense to get a used car salesman... if he can persuade me to "buy" this idea maybe he can persuade others.(the issue is there needs to be enough people in the other parts of the government, or among the voters who can tell the lemons from the steals...of course those are partially value questions where there isn't an accepted 'best') Management is what the "governed" ie the 'mid level' bureaucrats/lobbyists/etc. do... The ones on top persuade them, and they come up with the management (who should be hired fired given to taken from where and when)
The problem that comes up is that no matter how persuasive a person is, a bad idea is a bad idea. Just look at Jim Jones. It gets even worse when the salesman flat-out tells you the black spots on the window are "special protective features" or that you will only pay more to put "magnetic paint" on your car that will prevent car accidents, and you believe him but your wife doesn't.
|
On February 22 2017 07:02 Doodsmack wrote:
Kind of surprised it was this that did Milo in, but I guess it was off the deep end of non-PC humor.
Well what he discovered is that there are something that are practically universally taboo in society... you can only be "politically incorrect" if some other people agree with you at least partially. Otherwise you are just exiled.
On February 22 2017 07:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2017 07:01 Krikkitone wrote:On February 22 2017 06:17 Sermokala wrote:On February 22 2017 05:44 zlefin wrote:On February 22 2017 05:33 Velr wrote:
She has just 0 abillity to inspire people, she probably never had. If obama told us one thing, then that inspiring people is paramount.
Hillary didn't even try to fire up people, she tried to be as electable as possible and it hurt her bad. it's one of the fundamental problems with democracy, it tends toward selecting people who inspire, rather than a focus on actual results/capabilities. admittedly the latter are harder to measure than the former. but it often feels like democratic selection pressures favor used car salesman (as per the stereotype). we really need to do more work to build structures that fix the known problems in democracies. I'm annoyed I don't hear more from our leaders on that. As much as I agree with this it's a fundemental trait of democracy to pander to the people's wills and that will only get expressed by people who represent an idea more then the ability to deliver. I can see an interesting campaign for electing "the people's administration" by electing a secretary or clerk as commander in chief. The most purely competent people at management was one that's only experience was being a mother of 6 and another who was a secretary her whole life. The problem is governing isn't management, unless you have a totalitarian society. (a god emperor in control of a horde of 100% obedient police+military robots.. about 5 per human) Governing is mostly persuasion. So it makes perfect sense to get a used car salesman... if he can persuade me to "buy" this idea maybe he can persuade others.(the issue is there needs to be enough people in the other parts of the government, or among the voters who can tell the lemons from the steals...of course those are partially value questions where there isn't an accepted 'best') Management is what the "governed" ie the 'mid level' bureaucrats/lobbyists/etc. do... The ones on top persuade them, and they come up with the management (who should be hired fired given to taken from where and when) The problem that comes up is that no matter how persuasive a person is, a bad idea is a bad idea. Just look at Jim Jones. It gets even worse when the salesman flat-out tells you the black spots on the window are "special protective features" or that you will only pay more to put "magnetic paint" on your car that will prevent car accidents, and you believe him but your wife doesn't.
In some cases a "bad" idea is a bad idea*. The problem is the "used car salesman" is always going to win anyways, its not a unique to democracy problem**.... If he can sell it to both the voters AND the other branches of government... he'd be able to sell it to an empress, a conclave of cardinals, or the local warlord.
(basically society is always run by the 'used car salesman v. person with gun'... used car salesman just has to persuade enough people with guns to do what he wants..and person with gun just has to shoot enough of the used car salesmen she disagrees with)
* the problem is what is a 'bad idea' depends on the person...I am 100% certain that even if you exclude people who are directly part of the X administration that there are plenty of people who will enjoy the result of X's administration compared to most likely alternatives
**It might be uniquely bad in a pure democracy where all people have equal power, as opposed to democracies where a portion of the population is given much more power (and so will spend more effort trying to use it/deal with people persuading them to use it)
|
On February 22 2017 07:01 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2017 06:17 Sermokala wrote:On February 22 2017 05:44 zlefin wrote:On February 22 2017 05:33 Velr wrote:
She has just 0 abillity to inspire people, she probably never had. If obama told us one thing, then that inspiring people is paramount.
Hillary didn't even try to fire up people, she tried to be as electable as possible and it hurt her bad. it's one of the fundamental problems with democracy, it tends toward selecting people who inspire, rather than a focus on actual results/capabilities. admittedly the latter are harder to measure than the former. but it often feels like democratic selection pressures favor used car salesman (as per the stereotype). we really need to do more work to build structures that fix the known problems in democracies. I'm annoyed I don't hear more from our leaders on that. As much as I agree with this it's a fundemental trait of democracy to pander to the people's wills and that will only get expressed by people who represent an idea more then the ability to deliver. I can see an interesting campaign for electing "the people's administration" by electing a secretary or clerk as commander in chief. The most purely competent people at management was one that's only experience was being a mother of 6 and another who was a secretary her whole life. The problem is governing isn't management, unless you have a totalitarian society. (a god emperor in control of a horde of 100% obedient police+military robots.. about 5 per human) Governing is mostly persuasion. So it makes perfect sense to get a used car salesman... if he can persuade me to "buy" this idea maybe he can persuade others.(the issue is there needs to be enough people in the other parts of the government, or among the voters who can tell the lemons from the steals...of course those are partially value questions where there isn't an accepted 'best') Management is what the "governed" ie the 'mid level' bureaucrats/lobbyists/etc. do... The ones on top persuade them, and they come up with the management (who should be hired fired given to taken from where and when) Research into government design is not something one can easily say has an "optimum" Optimum for what... A certain government + a certain society will tend to produce certain results..... But whether those results are good -according to the current society (and what parts of that society) -according to the current government (and what parts of the government) are perhaps the more important questions
even without finding global optima one can find many local optima and make incremental improvements.
the basic question is simply what the rate of return on the research is, and what the current spending levels are.
there's certainly some need for persuasive people given the needs to persuade others; but the question is what are they persuading people in favor of? I get the feeling that you'd want some persuaders in the communications dept and such, but you don't want them in charge overall for best results. the inherent problems with persuaders of course is that a good persuader can persuade you you should choose them regardless of whether they're actually good or not. it's very hard to sort out lemons; ironically, from what i've heard, the people best able to sort out the lemons are other elites, which means that inserting more democracy in the form of things like primaries can actually lead to worse results potentially.
|
On February 22 2017 07:01 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2017 06:17 Sermokala wrote:On February 22 2017 05:44 zlefin wrote:On February 22 2017 05:33 Velr wrote:
She has just 0 abillity to inspire people, she probably never had. If obama told us one thing, then that inspiring people is paramount.
Hillary didn't even try to fire up people, she tried to be as electable as possible and it hurt her bad. it's one of the fundamental problems with democracy, it tends toward selecting people who inspire, rather than a focus on actual results/capabilities. admittedly the latter are harder to measure than the former. but it often feels like democratic selection pressures favor used car salesman (as per the stereotype). we really need to do more work to build structures that fix the known problems in democracies. I'm annoyed I don't hear more from our leaders on that. As much as I agree with this it's a fundemental trait of democracy to pander to the people's wills and that will only get expressed by people who represent an idea more then the ability to deliver. I can see an interesting campaign for electing "the people's administration" by electing a secretary or clerk as commander in chief. The most purely competent people at management was one that's only experience was being a mother of 6 and another who was a secretary her whole life. The problem is governing isn't management, unless you have a totalitarian society. (a god emperor in control of a horde of 100% obedient police+military robots.. about 5 per human) Governing is mostly persuasion. So it makes perfect sense to get a used car salesman... if he can persuade me to "buy" this idea maybe he can persuade others.(the issue is there needs to be enough people in the other parts of the government, or among the voters who can tell the lemons from the steals...of course those are partially value questions where there isn't an accepted 'best') Management is what the "governed" ie the 'mid level' bureaucrats/lobbyists/etc. do... The ones on top persuade them, and they come up with the management (who should be hired fired given to taken from where and when) Research into government design is not something one can easily say has an "optimum" Optimum for what... A certain government + a certain society will tend to produce certain results..... But whether those results are good -according to the current society (and what parts of that society) -according to the current government (and what parts of the government) are perhaps the more important questions
Problem is that persuading a lay person is far more difficult than an expert. And in the case of governing, the expert is the person making the laws or implementing your ideas, not the average Joe that cast a ballot.
|
On February 22 2017 07:17 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2017 07:01 Krikkitone wrote:On February 22 2017 06:17 Sermokala wrote:On February 22 2017 05:44 zlefin wrote:On February 22 2017 05:33 Velr wrote:
She has just 0 abillity to inspire people, she probably never had. If obama told us one thing, then that inspiring people is paramount.
Hillary didn't even try to fire up people, she tried to be as electable as possible and it hurt her bad. it's one of the fundamental problems with democracy, it tends toward selecting people who inspire, rather than a focus on actual results/capabilities. admittedly the latter are harder to measure than the former. but it often feels like democratic selection pressures favor used car salesman (as per the stereotype). we really need to do more work to build structures that fix the known problems in democracies. I'm annoyed I don't hear more from our leaders on that. As much as I agree with this it's a fundemental trait of democracy to pander to the people's wills and that will only get expressed by people who represent an idea more then the ability to deliver. I can see an interesting campaign for electing "the people's administration" by electing a secretary or clerk as commander in chief. The most purely competent people at management was one that's only experience was being a mother of 6 and another who was a secretary her whole life. The problem is governing isn't management, unless you have a totalitarian society. (a god emperor in control of a horde of 100% obedient police+military robots.. about 5 per human) Governing is mostly persuasion. So it makes perfect sense to get a used car salesman... if he can persuade me to "buy" this idea maybe he can persuade others.(the issue is there needs to be enough people in the other parts of the government, or among the voters who can tell the lemons from the steals...of course those are partially value questions where there isn't an accepted 'best') Management is what the "governed" ie the 'mid level' bureaucrats/lobbyists/etc. do... The ones on top persuade them, and they come up with the management (who should be hired fired given to taken from where and when) Research into government design is not something one can easily say has an "optimum" Optimum for what... A certain government + a certain society will tend to produce certain results..... But whether those results are good -according to the current society (and what parts of that society) -according to the current government (and what parts of the government) are perhaps the more important questions even without finding global optima one can find many local optima and make incremental improvements. the basic question is simply what the rate of return on the research is, and what the current spending levels are. there's certainly some need for persuasive people given the needs to persuade others; but the question is what are they persuading people in favor of? I get the feeling that you'd want some persuaders in the communications dept and such, but you don't want them in charge overall for best results. the inherent problems with persuaders of course is that a good persuader can persuade you you should choose them regardless of whether they're actually good or not. it's very hard to sort out lemons; ironically, from what i've heard, the people best able to sort out the lemons are other elites, which means that inserting more democracy in the form of things like primaries can actually lead to worse results potentially.
Well I'd agree that more democracy is generally a bad thing.
However, the issue is that 'lemons' are not the biggest problem you have in society. Generally all the things you get are something that has passed by a section of the elites (who still make a lot of big mistakes, but at least do them thought fully). The bigger problem is judging which of two results is better. That will depend on the person involved in the judging.
ie "The Ones who walk away from Omelas"
Essentially it is a philosophical question and unless you want to set up an explicitly X philosophy society, it doesn't make sense for 'management' to be your biggest concern.
(it is a concern, but mostly solved by having some type of a multi step process where multiple people look at the plan)
The fact is it is harder for a used car salesman to sell a bicycle as a 6 person vehicle than it would be for them to sell a minivan as a 6 person vehicle...ideas that are definitely better are definitely easier to sell... and once you have to sell them to other elites, then you can't deal as much with the simple tricks. (unless all of the elites are agreeing on selling the bicycle instead of the minivan)
|
i'm not so sure that ideas that are definitely better are easier to sell. it sounds like it might be one of those things that sound reasonable, but turn out to not be true upon thorough empirical testing.
especially once the complicated feedback loops involved in society are accounted for; as well as the known fallacies in human thinking (which may not better depending on how you define an idea being "better")
|
On February 22 2017 07:02 Doodsmack wrote:
Kind of surprised it was this that did Milo in, but I guess it was off the deep end of non-PC humor.
Well if you watch the video in question, you can see that, in fact, it's not "humour" that he's being raked over the coals for. He DOES make a joke about being taught early (he was sexually abused as a young teenager by a priest) and that's why he got so good at giving head, but his overall argument was a serious one and included statements and claims such as 13-year-olds being "sexually mature."
Even in his statements and explanations he still hasn't clarified what his current stance is regarding adults having sexual relationships with young teenagers. He is a person who makes the distinction between pedophilia (sexual attraction to children who have not yet hit puberty) and hebephilia (sexual attraction to young teenagers who have entered puberty), and has only repeatedly denounced "pedophilia." Given that he is a person who makes that distinction, it's telling that he omits the specific issue he's being brought down by in his statements.
I imagine some of it has to do with him not wanting to believe or accept that he was abused as a young teenager, and most of it being that he still believes his original statements.
|
Yeah, that's lights out for Milo. In that video, he is clearly making a distinction regarding why his position is somehow sensible. He throws in bits of "humor", but his conclusion is pretty well laid out. We'll see how many places still want to have him visit as a speaker. CPAC, book deal and Breitbart is too much for him to come back from. His idea of reaching a broad audience is dead.
|
On February 22 2017 08:38 Mohdoo wrote:
Yeah, that's lights out for Milo. In that video, he is clearly making a distinction regarding why his position is somehow sensible. He throws in bits of "humor", but his conclusion is pretty well laid out. We'll see how many places still want to have him visit as a speaker. CPAC, book deal and Breitbart is too much for him to come back from. His idea of reaching a broad audience is dead.
The kind of college republicans that invited Milo to Berkeley will continue. He'll take a financial hit but otherwise be just fine.
|
On February 22 2017 08:38 Mohdoo wrote:
Yeah, that's lights out for Milo. In that video, he is clearly making a distinction regarding why his position is somehow sensible. He throws in bits of "humor", but his conclusion is pretty well laid out. We'll see how many places still want to have him visit as a speaker. CPAC, book deal and Breitbart is too much for him to come back from. His idea of reaching a broad audience is dead.
I'd be very surprised if this was the end for Milo. He's a creature of his own creation with his own massive following. He's not dependent upon Breitbart or any other media platform. He's going to get his book out, and it's going to be a bestseller. Milo's free speech message is too important and too alluring for him to simply fade away. This is only the beginning for him.
|
On February 22 2017 08:38 Mohdoo wrote:
Yeah, that's lights out for Milo. In that video, he is clearly making a distinction regarding why his position is somehow sensible. He throws in bits of "humor", but his conclusion is pretty well laid out. We'll see how many places still want to have him visit as a speaker. CPAC, book deal and Breitbart is too much for him to come back from. His idea of reaching a broad audience is dead.
Milo's got a following who will chase him anywhere, this is anything but the end for him. He doesn't need Breitbart to spread his message, he can go indie and still find some audience. It's probably a coup to his finances and reputation, but knowing him, he'll come back in a few weeks or so, and plenty will still listen to him and give him attention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
