16 thoughts on “Mutually Assured Idiocy–March 31, 2017”

  1. Is there a reason why you all chose to ignore the Russia investigation? Feels an awful lot like a dodge.

    1. Why do they need a reason other than they wanted to talk about the issues they decided to talk about?

      1. And because they have not written on it for the last two weeks…despite it being the primary and most-covered news story.

      2. “Elephant in the room” implies a genuine problem that is being avoided. As of now, I see no real evidence, none, that the Russia investigation is anything more than an annoyance at this point.

        Practically everyone (including Trump) agrees that Russia meddled in the election to the extent that it hacked the DNC, etc. But there is no evidence, none, nada, that Trump actually colluded with Russia to change election results or manipulate voter numbers. The evidence simply isn’t there.

        If actual evidence surfaces on this front, then I will expect just as much as anyone else attention to be given to this topic. Until then the Russia “story” is not much more than butt-sore Democrats and shell shocked liberal media personages trying to explain why they lost, and, I might add, probably doing exactly what Putin really wants them to do, undermine Trump’s legitimacy.

  2. Nathan,

    Your comments suggest that you are uninformed about the developments regarding Russia.

    An annoyance? Really? Perhaps to you, but not to many observers on both sides of the aisle.

    “Butt-sore Democrats”? Really classy there, Nathan. As if this is merely about partisan politics, about my team vs. your team.

    It is NOT.

    This blog–made up of a bunch of conservative Republicans who think very much alike (so much for diversity)–is making a point NOT to cover the major news story. The question is why?

    Because they support conservatism more than they support informing their student readers? Because they want to cover issues that are less embarrassing to Republicans?

    That is what it seems to be, to some of us here.

    1. Anonymous,

      Why would this be a dodge? They are not spokespersons for the Trump administration or the Republican party (though I’m sure Jeff would incessantly allege otherwise). You say it is the primary news story, that is your opinion and on certain networks it might be. Personally I’d say it’s the Gorsuch nomination right at this time. But those are each of our opinions. As Nathan said, when actual evidence comes there would be more information with which to write or discuss it.

      Jeff,

      So, his opinion about the matter suggests he is uninformed? Please. It just means he has a different point of view than you do. Last time I checked that is not the definition of uninformed.

      “‘Butt-sore Democrats’? Really classy there, Nathan. As if this is merely about partisan politics, about my team vs. your team. It is NOT.”

      As if you are the definition of classiness. You never use demeaning terms, terms way more demeaning than “butt-sore”, in reference to politicians? What a hypocrite.

      “Because they support conservatism more than they support informing their student readers? Because they want to cover issues that are less embarrassing to Republicans?”

      Either this is a flat out lie or you are very uninformed and have predetermined bias toward the bloggers. I’ll assume the best and say the latter.

    2. Jeff,

      If you think I need more information, why don’t you give me a link from a credible source that proves there was illegal collusion between Trump and Russia? Give me a source that proves that Russian interference altered vote counts in the battleground States? So far, I haven’t seen any, but if you know where it can be found, then by all means, share it.

      But so far, there has been no credible evidence of Trump colluding with Russia so until/if such evidence comes out, it is simply a waste of time to engage in conjecture when there are plenty of other things, like SCOTUS, healthcare, etc. to talk about.
      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/04/02/adam_schiff_there_is_no_definitive_proof_of_any_trump-russia_connection.html

  3. On the topic of news items not being discussed, I have heard and seen plenty on the news recently about defunding sanctuary cities. That topic hasn’t been discussed in any length, if any, on this forum so I guess the bloggers must have some ulterior motive for deliberately dodging that issue as well, hmmm?

  4. To Jeff Adams & Nathan
    I choose not to blog on it, believe it or not, because I don’t think I have anything meaningful to say about it. I agree it is interesting and an important topic, but I don’t think I have anything particularly value-added to say. I’m sure many of our readers think that I don’t have any value-add on my other posts, but alas I think I do. And I’ve been quite busy. I would really have loved to take the time to blog about CA’s pursuit of the pro-life video tapers, and other things. Alas no time.

    No need for a conspiracy here; just too busy, and in my case, nothing meaningful (especially since I don’t have time to dig deeper right now).

    1. Just to clarify, my post about sanctuary cities was meant to be sarcastic. I was just using it as an example of a high profile news story that has been little discussed here.

      I understand perfectly that you all do not always have the time to address everything everybody might want talked about.

      And just an additional note for Anonymous and Jeff. I do not mean to trivialize the Russia story. When I referred to the investigation as an “annoyance”, I was specifically referring to its impact on Trump. “Annoyance” as opposed to “actual big problem”. But I think Dr. Haymond said it well that “I choose not to blog on it, believe it or not, because I don’t think I have anything meaningful to say about it.”

    2. How’s this issue sitting with the Bereans six weeks later?

      For any regular reader of this blog, it’s apparent that the lingering specter of potential collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign (particularly in the Comey firing) raises a crucial tension for the Bereans. Which is more important: a) your cautious but relentless optimism towards the Trump administration or b) your expressed reverence for the constitutional norms of our democracy?

      It’s your prerogative to address that tension directly, or not. But at some point, the unwillingness to do so suggests its own answer.

  5. Great VLOG, professors! When will it become a subscribe-able podcast?

    It was good to see some of you a few weeks ago.

    On Pence: I tend to agree that general response to Pence’s principle was hyperbolic. I also understand Dr. Haymond and Dr. Clauson’s back-to-back responses. However, I think those two initial comments were a bit extreme given the situation Pence presented.

    If I understood correctly, he wasn’t referring to private meetings behind closed doors; he was referring to meetings as public as restaurant lunches. Doesn’t the public nature of that sort of meeting significantly diminish the risk you’re referring to? Also, how would you respond to those concerned about how principles like these limit the opportunity of women to develop meaningful professional relationships with their male superiors and mentors?

  6. I like the new way of communicating on Bereans at the gate… VLOGs not instead of BLOGSs! I enjoyed how there were many different opinions being tossed around because there was a group of you as opposed to just one person writing a blog. I really enjoyed this new way and thought the topics were very interesting.

  7. Still appreciate the VLOGs, truly. It’s a good medium for ya’ll; keep it up.

    But guys, this Pence discussion is cringe-worthy. Folks don’t find Mike Pence’s policy ridiculous and unseemly simply because it strikes them as prudish (though there are definitely conflicting moral systems at play). They’re also troubled by a practice that so patently assumes and perpetuates systems that dramatically over-represent men in positions of power/influence. Like a presidential cabinet & Congress that are still over 80% male, for example. Or CU’s social science faculty for another.

    I’m not surprised this didn’t figure in your discussion, but a even a cursory glance at the opening screenshot suggests it’s a huge (if totally unspoken) part of the conversation. Political, social, theological assumptions aside, your discourse can do so much better than this!!

Comments are closed.