BOT

 https://www.instagram.com/reels/DdOPWbZim6J/

It's interesting that Maher frames this as "moral confusion".  When the positions he criticizes are precisely the positions held by Mr Moral Compass himself, Dan.   Maher is right on this, and Dan (and his ilk) are wrong.   Watching Western progressives advocate for Hamas and against Israel is one of the greatest moral failures of recent memory.  

https://www.facebook.com/share/1EyATg9d4x/?mibextid=wwXIfr

 https://www.instagram.com/reels/DdOPWbZim6J/

LIBERAL WOMEN:  The hormones that hit after giving birth can turn us into killers and there's nothing we can do about it.  

ALSO LIBERAL WOMEN:  If women ran the planet, wars would disappear and we'd finally have world peace.

   

 

 https://www.instagram.com/reels/DdNnQXSKXq1/

Maher acknowledges that Trump was right about something.  

 https://x.com/lecontempiateur/status/2099015721250431479?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 "Socrates had warned that democracy was dangerous because crowds prefer comfort to Truth... He never wrote a single book. Yet, more than 2,400 years later, his critique of democracy continues to pose a deeply unsettling question. For him, the problem wasn’t simply about giving a voice to the people. The problem was considering that all opinions are equal when it comes to making complex decisions. The expert and the ignorant have the same vote. The one who has devoted their life to understanding a subject weighs, in the ballot box, exactly as much as the one who knows almost nothing about it. Socrates and Plato illustrate this idea with a particularly simple analogy: if you are seriously ill, you don’t hold a vote to choose your treatment. You seek out a doctor. Someone who possesses the necessary knowledge, experience, and competence. So why imagine that governing a city would be any different? Because there is another problem, perhaps even more dangerous: truth is not always popular. A crowd doesn’t necessarily reward the one who is right. It can reward the one who speaks the best. The one who reassures. The one who promises. The one who turns extremely complex problems into simple and seductive answers. And it is at that precise moment that democracy becomes vulnerable to the demagoguery of the people. A sufficiently charismatic speaker can play on fear, anger, ego, or hope. They can say exactly what people want to hear and defeat someone far more competent simply because their speech provides more comfort. Popularity can then replace competence. Emotion can replace reflection. Persuasion can replace truth. And the story of Socrates ends with an almost perfect irony. The man who spent his life questioning certainties, urging others to think, and defending the critical examination of our own convictions was himself condemned to death in Athens following a trial decided by citizen-jurors. It is obviously necessary to contextualize this Athenian democracy in its time: it was very different from our modern representative democracies. But the psychological mechanism he questioned remains troublingly relevant today. Because in the end, his critique throws back at us a question far more uncomfortable than “is democracy good or bad?” What becomes of a democracy when the ability to convince becomes more important than knowledge, when opinion becomes more powerful than expertise, when ideologies become more important than reality, and when what we want to hear to reassure ourselves ends up mattering more than what is true?"

Yet the ASPL demands democracy.  

 https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/2098900961888509971?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 "A few years back, a friend of mine looked into the 2018 American National Election Study pilot, and he found that every racial group felt warmth towards members of their own race, except for White liberals I wanted to see if that replicated and expand on it. #1: It replicates...

 (read the whole thread.