Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This can be taken either as a sign she’s doomed or she’s the black swan of this cycle. I disagree with Will on a lot of things, but I’d never call him loose with predictions: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...op_things.html

Hi, George, can you think of a name we might call a movement based on a philosophy of "stop[ping] things?"

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Hi, George, can you think of a name we might call a movement based on a philosophy of "stop[ping] things?"

I think he's distinguishing between obstructionist behavior and good faith debates over whether something should be done or to what extent something should be done.

But he's right on Warren. She's moving up in the polls because as people listen to her, they realize the dumb conventional wisdom that she is unelectable (a liberal friend of mine over the weekend complained that Warren was "great," but alienating and lacking personality and warmth) is just that. Warren is actually quite personable and knows more about household economics and the debt problems that plague Trump voters than all other D candidates combined. And she's framed herself the same way Bernie did in 2016 -- as someone injecting "fairness" back into govt. Fairness is the most important issue out there right now. It's what carried Trump and Bernie in 2016. It's a big part of what's roiling politics in Europe right now. It's what started Occupy Wall Street in 2011. And it's never been properly addressed. Obama instead offered hope and then tacked to the center. Trump promised to even the playing field for those on the losing end of the economy - those in a "rigged system" - and delivered nothing. Warren is positioned to soak up that pent up populist energy and channel it through policy that speaks not to business, not to some basket of trickle down policies, but to Main Street, offering direct relief to the little guy.

Will sees this. But he hates populism and Warren's politics so much, he cannot bear to credit her, so he instead snickers at her and her supporters by calling her "fun."

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I've talked to him a ton about Trump (early after he was sworn in). He's a Trump guy. Don't know when it happened, but he's the walking personification of the entire Republican Party.TM

Only latching onto this quote because it serves as a decent anchor.

TM and I had a great catch-up on Friday. TM now looks like a god. Yet, he envies my full head of hair.

Snark aside, we've now been friends for almost 20 years. The "kitchen" from the Board days was in 2000-2001. How is that possible

Ya'll know where to find me.

Best,
K

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

That's an excellent question. I'm going to go with: Because there doesn't seem to be an action that exists that would require the rich and powerful to face any type of consequences.

TM

WOW, we agree on something!

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think he's distinguishing between obstructionist behavior and good faith debates over whether something should be done or to what extent something should be done.

But he's right on Warren. She's moving up in the polls because as people listen to her, they realize the dumb conventional wisdom that she is unelectable (a liberal friend of mine over the weekend complained that Warren was "great," but alienating and lacking personality and warmth) is just that. Warren is actually quite personable and knows more about household economics and the debt problems that plague Trump voters than all other D candidates combined. And she's framed herself the same way Bernie did in 2016 -- as someone injecting "fairness" back into govt. Fairness is the most important issue out there right now. It's what carried Trump and Bernie in 2016. It's a big part of what's roiling politics in Europe right now. It's what started Occupy Wall Street in 2011. And it's never been properly addressed. Obama instead offered hope and then tacked to the center. Trump promised to even the playing field for those on the losing end of the economy - those in a "rigged system" - and delivered nothing. Warren is positioned to soak up that pent up populist energy and channel it through policy that speaks not to business, not to some basket of trickle down policies, but to Main Street, offering direct relief to the little guy.

Will sees this. But he hates populism and Warren's politics so much, he cannot bear to credit her, so he instead snickers at her and her supporters by calling her "fun."

Hi. Disregard the next line as being mean.

Are you that fucking stupid - no, you are not. LieAWawfa is polling upwards right now - not because of politics - because she is the "HILLARY - WOMAN -PRESIDENT" destiny vote.

And I love how the DNC saved her pathetic candidacy by putting her on the 2nd stage - she merely has to out talk the closet-homosexual Booker. They saved her, putting her on the small stage.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore

WOW, we agree on something!

My q was rhetorical and poking the D’s here, but thanks for playin!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore

Hi. Disregard the next line as being mean.

Are you that fucking stupid - no, you are not. LieAWawfa is polling upwards right now - not because of politics - because she is the "HILLARY - WOMAN -PRESIDENT" destiny vote.

And I love how the DNC saved her pathetic candidacy by putting her on the 2nd stage - she merely has to out talk the closet-homosexual Booker. They saved her, putting her on the small stage.

I’ll always loathe Will for his needless and moronic obit of Jerry Garcia, where he shit on the dead and the Dead. But he’s a smart fuck, he hangs with lots of liberals in the DC social circuit, and he’s insanely careful about protecting his brand. I think he sees what I see. She’s got legs. Put her with a sharp dressed relic like Uncle Joe and you’ve got a hit record.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore

WOW, we agree on something!

Unless you’re Martha Stewart.

The Conrad Black pardon was Trump’s Marc Rich moment, btw. Black himself seemed surprised his obsequious fawning had worked so well.

I await his Trump biography as I do the orthopedic surgery I’ve been avoiding.

(I like the r/e elements of Trump’s tax bill, and some other benefits. But you can’t really dig this cat. He’s inviting an epic response from the other side that’ll totally undo the stasis that makes this place work. The kooks he’s enabled want to screw with Roe. How’s that conservative? Compulsory birth of more wards of the state?)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore

LieAWawfa

I am continually astounded at the Trumper creativity in racism. How incredibly clever.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I am continually astounded at the Trumper creativity in racism. How incredibly clever.

Is this really the best immediate reply? To go straight for the racism accusation?

I mean, it's a defensible position. You can make the allegation. (One might ask in today's climate when such allegation cannot be made.) But given the moniker he used was clearly over-the-top irony, silly, and half laughing at himself in using it (to mirror my point about Warren, which he thought was ridiculous), why go with the heavy gun?

I'd have replied with, "At least she's moving up, unlike Brokeahontas' poll numbers." That's awful, of course, but it's a proper return for the bad joke served.

In trying to ascertain who's a Trump voter and who's not, I surmise a lot of "shy" Trump voters may be reactionary. Eighty percent of Americans think political correctness is a problem in this country. The Twitter culture police are only ten percent of actual Democrats. (I'm not re-citing the NYTimes article I cited for that proposition a million times last month.) I think it might be that a lot of hidden Trump voters are moderate Democrats and Republicans who react to the purity, certainty, and officiousness of call out culture. They vote against the hall monitor wagging a finger at them.

Dropping the heavy handed accusation of racism (however you define it, the majority of this country views it as a pretty strong allegation) too immediately could turn off potential votes against Trump. It's very difficult to support people who gift themselves the pedestal from which to immediately judge others, and judge those others quite harshly. On one hand, that approach is often absent much humor (which gives away one of the best approaches to actual racists, who don't know how to reply to being mocked or laughed at). On the other, it's a bit alienating ("Who's this crossing guard barking the definitions and judgments at us? What's his qualification to do so?").

Maybe rearrange responses to save the big ammunition of "misogynist" and "racist" for reply when necessary, rather than spending them early and unnecessarily, at cost of votes?

The Twitterverse of the Left, with its call out (and call out often) behavior, is going to cost the Democrat a few percentage points in 2020, and Democratic candidates going forward from there. It's just a question of how many, and in what states.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Is this really the best immediate reply? To go straight for the racism accusation?

I mean, it's a defensible position. You can make the allegation. (One might ask in today's climate when such allegation cannot be made.) But given the moniker he used was clearly over-the-top irony, silly, and half laughing at himself in using it (to mirror my point about Warren, which he thought was ridiculous), why go with the heavy gun?

I'd have replied with, "At least she's moving up, unlike Brokeahontas' poll numbers." That's awful, of course, but it's a proper return for the bad joke served.

In trying to ascertain who's a Trump voter and who's not, I surmise a lot of "shy" Trump voters may be reactionary. Eighty percent of Americans think political correctness is a problem in this country. The Twitter culture police are only ten percent of actual Democrats. (I'm not re-citing the NYTimes article I cited for that proposition a million times last month.) I think it might be that a lot of hidden Trump voters are moderate Democrats and Republicans who react to the purity, certainty, and officiousness of call out culture. They vote against the hall monitor wagging a finger at them.

Dropping the heavy handed accusation of racism (however you define it, the majority of this country views it as a pretty strong allegation) too immediately could turn off potential votes against Trump. It's very difficult to support people who gift themselves the pedestal from which to immediately judge others, and judge those others quite harshly. On one hand, that approach is often absent much humor (which gives away one of the best approaches to actual racists, who don't know how to reply to being mocked or laughed at). On the other, it's a bit alienating ("Who's this crossing guard barking the definitions and judgments at us? What's his qualification to do so?").

Maybe rearrange responses to save the big ammunition of "misogynist" and "racist" for reply when necessary, rather than spending them early and unnecessarily, at cost of votes?

The Twitterverse of the Left, with its call out (and call out often) behavior, is going to cost the Democrat a few percentage points in 2020, and Democratic candidates going forward from there. It's just a question of how many, and in what states.

I'm sorry, what was there to his post other than a racist jab?

Anything?

Talk to the child.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore

TM and I had a great catch-up on Friday. TM now looks like a god.

Can I take this if I convince myself your delusions are only limited to politics?

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore

Yet, he envies my full head of hair.

That's better.

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore

Snark aside, we've now been friends for almost 20 years. The "kitchen" from the Board days was in 2000-2001. How is that possible.

I bet you still have that sweater, though.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Can I take this if I convince myself your delusions are only limited to politics?

That's better.

I bet you still have that sweater, though.

TM

still, now you can say some of your best friends are trumpers

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I'm sorry, what was there to his post other than a racist jab?

Anything?

Talk to the child.

Yes.

1. The "second stage" on which Warren is located for debates is picked randomly, not by chance of getting elected.

2. Idk what he's talking about in re the DNC propping Warren. I have not heard anything about that.

3. Idk what he's talking about in re the DNC supporting her because she's female. There are four other females in the race, no? (Maybe there are 5, possibly 6 or even 10... there are so many candidates right now, I don't know.)

I'd still have gone with Brokeahontas. But I too am, not infrequently, a child.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

My q was rhetorical and poking the D’s here, but thanks for playin!

Ya both agree with me that the only real law is power. But when I raised this with you, what'd you do? You threw me under the bus, Benedict! Got on board with Ty's rebuttal in favor of some "rule of laws" being paramount.

They'll fix those tariffs soon enough and you won't have to talk your book anymore.