While wishing Trump a very "shut the fuck up", since his pandering while doing gross evil isn't worth the paper it is written on, probably Revelation 12:7–10.

Which just goes to show nobody, no matter their politics, should be happy with Cupich here.

His desire to stay chummy with powerful people is just a terrible idea.

Also, this argument was full of shit before Dobbs, since as Pope Leo recently reminded an unjust law is no law at all.

And its even dumber now the Supreme Court has held the US Constitution never did that.

No person of any intellectual integrity, who cares even in the slightest for making a coherent argument, could put these two sentences together in the same article.

But here they are together.

As did Orwell in Animal Farm - His stand in for Stalin, Nepoloean, shows courage at the last since that was a virtue Orwell recognised in an otherwise hated figure.

For their audience, I just don't think it is misleading, it clearly communicates state control of the economy (derogatory) using a term which means that for the people they are writing for.

For better or worse, English terms are defined by its usage, not their etymology.

Because State Capitalism as a concept works not just for Trump, or corporatist fascism, but arguably also for e.g. Singapore, China or even the Soviet Union.

So its all a bit more ambiguous than 8th Grade Civics might suggest.

English terminology isn't the sole possession of Marxists I'm afraid, & the hard distinction they have between State Capitalism & Socialism, can often be self-serving as well.

I'm aware.

It doesn't stop your argument being a giant non-sequitur however. Over that length of time, ambition doesn't cause people to abolish a career path, it ... makes them follow it.

This continues to make zero sense Phyllis - Its a giant non-sequitur.

If the Diaconate was viewed as an easier path to being a Bishop ... ambitious people would have just chosen being a Deacon as the better career path.

Which is the other half of the dare here.

The Allied answered the horrific question with a Yes, but the Axis had asking that question as an inherent part of their grand strategy.

Yeah, half the problem was for example Hitler didn't think Germany deserved to survive if it couldn't succeed, so he and his fanatics insisted on fighting on long after defeat was obvious.

And kinda similar with the Japanese in terms of the occupation of the home islands.

And this has been the horror of total war from the first.

Like Achilles & Lycaon in Homer's Iliad, where the escalation of the Trojan War slowly ate away at the participants' mercy, in the end it leaves only the lex talionis and death.