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

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I was referring to the ethics rule. .

No, you were arguing that the ethics rule is not needed because staffers can sue their bosses for harassment under existing laws. As Ty pointed out, this is not true (ETA: or I should say that's my understanding but I haven't looked).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The people he's attacking essentially see things the way TM does, based on what he's said here about Biden. He doesn't love Biden, but fears that there are voters who will vote for Biden and not for someone more progressive like Warren or Sanders, and fears that those voters will be dispositive in key states.

Nice try, but I ain't having any of that.

TM advocates supporting Biden because he wants to see Trump out of office and he thinks Biden is the candidate most likely to defeat Trump, as you note.

The people Nolan cites in his piece, as he explicitly states, are the "Democrats" who are happy to have Biden in the White House, but are appalled at the idea of Warren or Bernie. That's why Nolan states, and he's right, a big number of these "Democrats" will vote for Trump if forced to choose between Trump and Bernie or Warren. These people are effectively "Democrat Lite" tax voters. They're a lot like me, actually - socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Except they're not just afraid of paying more in taxes, but scared that their entire industries (mostly FIRE, HC, and Education) will be upended by Bernie and Warren. Trump is socially awful, and they don't care for that one bit. But Bernie and Liz actually hit them in the long term pocketbook. Bernie and Liz can change the trajectory of these "Democrats"' economic lives.

Don't even try to lump these "Democrats" in with people like TM (or Icky or Hank). Those people just want Trump out of office. If Warren or Bernie could do it, TM, Icky, and Hank would vote for them. But there's a good chance Warren or Bernie would lose to Trump. And do you want to know why, partly? Because a lot of the "Democrats" who'd vote for Biden (or any corporate Democrat) to retain a status quo that fattens their wallets would not only withhold endorsements and votes from Bernie or Warren, but probably also privately, in the the voting booth, pull the lever for Trump. And then lie about how they voted later.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

No, you were arguing that the ethics rule is not needed because staffers can sue their bosses for harassment under existing laws. As Ty pointed out, this is not true (ETA: or I should say that's my understanding but I haven't looked).

Nice catch. My bad.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Lots of high profile people have been victims of revenge porn. The difference here is hers was married with an allegation that she violated some "ethics rule."

The difference is that she has to run for re-election next year in a swing district and her ex-husband was leaking the revenge porn to Republicans who were using it against her. I very, very much doubt that the ethics investigation would have removed her from office. I do not doubt at all that what her ex and the Republicans were doing would have made it impossible for her to win re-election.

I was referring to the ethics rule.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Also, what Adder said.

The ethics rule is a moronic zero tolerance policy (using moronic there seems redundant, but it seems some people actually think zero tolerance policies make sense). The only time an investigation should be triggered is when the staffer complains that she's been victimized.

I categorically do not like zero-tolerance policies, but you are confusing a rule with a policy about how the rule is enforced. You can have a rule against chewing gum in elementary school classes, but if the teacher enforces the rule by scolding the kid and saying don't do it again, that's not a zero-tolerance policy. An ethics rule that says, don't have romantic or sexual relationships with people who work for you, is not a zero-tolerance policy. It's a rule against getting into a kind of relationship which is often coercive and fraught. If the penalty for such violations were summary execution, that would be a zero-tolerance policy.

And the idea that there's no problem unless a staffer complains simply ignores the coercive potential for the relationships, which is the whole problem. People who are being coerced often have strong reasons not to complain. Cf. Volodymyr Zelensky.

Not in a consensual relationship such as this one. Hill and the staffers she fucked both made the same choice there - to engage in a consensual relationship, as adults do.

Yes, Hill didn't rape anyone, so far as a I know, but she made a decision to enter into a consensual relationship with someone who worked for her, paid by taxpayer dollars. That was an ethically problematic choice. Consider, e.g., what it's like for other staffers. But I suspect it would have gotten her the equivalent of a slap on the wrist if the staffer said it was entirely consensual and was not upset.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

I saw a rumor that a GOP operative claimed to have 700 images.

George Papadopoulos appears to have had advance knowledge of the scandal.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The people Nolan cites in his piece, as he explicitly states, are the "Democrats" who are happy to have Biden in the White House, but are appalled at the idea of Warren or Bernie. That's why Nolan states, and he's right, a big number of these "Democrats" will vote for Trump if forced to choose between Trump and Bernie or Warren. These people are effectively "Democrat Lite" tax voters. They're a lot like me, actually - socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Except they're not just afraid of paying more in taxes, but scared that their entire industries (mostly FIRE, HC, and Education) will be upended by Bernie and Warren. Trump is socially awful, and they don't care for that one bit. But Bernie and Liz actually hit them in the long term pocketbook. Bernie and Liz can change the trajectory of these "Democrats"' economic lives.

I don't know who those people are, and complaining about them seems silly. Among other reasons, the next President will need 50 Senators and the Vice President to pass legislation, as has been the case ever since 1959. If there's someone who holds those views openly, argue with that person about what they say.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

This place was so much more entertaining when people talked to each other instead of pointing out all the ridiculous bullshit in Sebby's unending stream of dumbass posts.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't know who those people are, and complaining about them seems silly. Among other reasons, the next President will need 50 Senators and the Vice President to pass legislation, as has been the case ever since 1959. If there's someone who holds those views openly, argue with that person about what they say.

There are tons of moderate Ds (and some moderate Rs) who are scared Joe is going to crater and Warren will get the nod. This will force them to weigh their economic interests against their social interests. They won’t have the luxury of money and virtue.

The folks you know with tons of money don’t care. They can afford Warren. The loaded and greedy and the upper middle class fear her. “They’re going to fuck it up and we’re going to get Warren v. Trump... We’re fucked,” is a very common refrain.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This place was so much more entertaining when people talked to each other instead of pointing out all the ridiculous bullshit in Sebby's unending stream of dumbass posts.

TM

Put a pin in that for November of next year.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This place was so much more entertaining when people talked to each other instead of pointing out all the ridiculous bullshit in Sebby's unending stream of dumbass posts.

Big news today is that John Bolton is going to testify.

Also, this:

In terms of reading tea leaves, the fact that the NSC Russia director announces he is leaving his post “imminently” two days before scheduled congressional testimony seems like maybe not great news for Trump.

@Susan_Hennessey

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There are tons of moderate Ds (and some moderate Rs) who are scared Joe is going to crater and Warren will get the nod. This will force them to weigh their economic interests against their social interests. They won’t have the luxury of money and virtue.

The folks you know with tons of money don’t care. They can afford Warren. The loaded and greedy and the upper middle class fear her. “They’re going to fuck it up and we’re going to get Warren v. Trump... We’re fucked,” is a very common refrain.

You and Donald Trump display a strange penchant for projection. In his case, it's narcissism and a failure of imagination.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You and Donald Trump display a strange penchant for projection. In his case, it's narcissism and a failure of imagination.

You and Trump are neck and neck in number of times you’ve admitted when you’re wrong or full of shit. He beats you by a hair. But with therapy I have confidence you catch him before he dies.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You and Trump are neck and neck in number of times you’ve admitted when you’re wrong or full of shit. He beats you by a hair. But with therapy I have confidence you catch him before he dies.

Thanks for helping with my projection point, brother.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Thanks for helping with my projection point, brother.

You missed your calling as a therapist. You could debate with patients for 20 minutes and they’d think arguing with their spouses was actually productive.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You missed your calling as a therapist. You could debate with patients for 20 minutes and they’d think arguing with their spouses was actually productive.

I'm not debating with you. I'm sure there are voters like what you describe. You just have an odd fixation on that particular constellation of views, and they shine much brighter in your firmament. Just a coincidence that their views so resemble your own? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.