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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You spend too much time watching FOX, or something.

That came from Real Clear Politics.

ETA: No, Realclearinvestigations.com. Under section, “Trump, Russia and the Beltway.”

[Tyrone Slothrop]

From the Twitter:

PRESS: how will you pay for your plans?

TRUMP: mexico

PRESS: ok

GOP: economics

PRESS: sure

WARREN: a detailed set of reforms including a wealth tax and spending adjustments

PRESS: [lowers glasses] sounds a little uNrEaLiStIc

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That came from Real Clear Politics.

ETA: No, Realclearinvestigations.com. Under section, “Trump, Russia and the Beltway.”

"or something"

If Schiff responded to those reports in a way that validates them, he outs the whistleblower. They don't know who it is, and he does.

There is no upside for Schiff to talk about the whistleblower's identity. Republicans are doing it as an excuse to talk about something other than what the Administration did.

Not sure why you so credulously repeat conservative talking points.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"or something"

If Schiff responded to those reports in a way that validates them, he outs the whistleblower. They don't know who it is, and he does.

There is no upside for Schiff to talk about the whistleblower's identity. Republicans are doing it as an excuse to talk about something other than what the Administration did.

Not sure why you so credulously repeat conservative talking points.

Now RCP is right wing tripe? What isn’t in your world?

There’s huge upside, because if RCP and everyone else driving the narrative are correct about the WB, they’re “owning the space.” Schiff’s going to come out with testimony on the heels of a national “jury pool” already half or more biased against him.

From a PR perspective, this WB can and is being spun as a D operative. People don’t buy anonymous sources. Schiff needs to counter that.

This isn’t a conservative talking point. This is a simple assessment of strategy.

And you need to stop using that cheap comment. I think you think it works. It’s actually boring. If you want to take cheap shots, do something that interests me.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Adder was responding to an article I posted about a study released in late September. Did you read either the article or the study? It's not from Brookings.

The study he’s citing is from Brookings. I agree with your point. I do not agree with his.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Didn't know that, but now that I do I still don't understand what you were trying to say.



If you only read the first five sentences of that article, then you missed what was in the sixth sentence.

Is there not some inescapable element of coercion when one person in a relationship can have a person fired (or promoted, or given a raise, or reassigned to a job in Poland)? Is it not possible for an adult to give consent to something coercive?

The sixth sentence neither states the policy nor what violated it. Your point?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The sixth sentence neither states the policy nor what violated it. Your point?

I had a few. One was that it was hard to tell from your post whether you were under the impression that no investigation had been conducted, or whether you knew that an investigation had been conducted but were making a substantive complaint about what McDonald's did in the guise of a process complaint. Since you were being intentionally or unintentionally obscure, I said, "If you only read....," emphasis on if.

I had other points in the final sentences, the ones you quoted but ignored. I mean, it's pretty clear what the real issue is, but you keeping avoiding it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Now RCP is right wing tripe?

Dude, RCP is an aggregator. I have clicked through to see who they are aggregating here, but I will wager it's a right-wing source, since mainstream media so far is not rushing to unmask the whistleblower.

eta: Paul Sperry. Give me a f*cking break.

And I responding about "the narrative." The "narrative" is about the President's conduct. No one that I've seen has identified anything that the whistleblower got anything wrong. Anyone talking about the whistleblower as if it matters to anything is trying to change the subject.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I had a few. One was that it was hard to tell from your post whether you were under the impression that no investigation had been conducted, or whether you knew that an investigation had been conducted but were making a substantive complaint about what McDonald's did in the guise of a process complaint. Since you were being intentionally or unintentionally obscure, I said, "If you only read....," emphasis on if.

I had other points in the final sentences, the ones you quoted but ignored. I mean, it's pretty clear what the real issue is, but you keeping avoiding it.

Physician, um....

Heal thyself!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Dude, RCP is an aggregator. I have clicked through to see who they are aggregating here, but I will wager it's a right-wing source, since mainstream media so far is not rushing to unmask the whistleblower.

And I responding about "the narrative." The "narrative" is about the President's conduct. No one that I've seen has identified anything that the whistleblower got anything wrong. Anyone talking about the whistleblower as if it matters to anything is trying to change the subject.

The story is written by a guy named Sperry. Not aggregated. In-house content.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Is there not some inescapable element of coercion when one person in a relationship can have a person fired (or promoted, or given a raise, or reassigned to a job in Poland)? Is it not possible for an adult to give consent to something coercive?

Of course. But still, the relationship must be investigated to get to the truth of whether it was in fact coercive.

A policy, if this is the case, that dictates firing simply for having the relationship, is indefensible. It’s lazy - common risk minimization garbage-think created by lawyers and HR morons.

That’s not to say such a policy is ineffective. It’s very effective, in the same way making it illegal to cross the road ensures no one is struck by a car.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The story is written by a guy named Sperry. Not aggregated. In-house content.

This Paul Sperry. What is wrong with you?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There’s huge upside, because if RCP and everyone else driving the narrative are correct about the WB, they’re “owning the space.” Schiff’s going to come out with testimony on the heels of a national “jury pool” already half or more biased against him.

The whistleblower is no longer a key witness. Even leaving aside that Schiff is legally and morally obligated to protect their identity, talking about him doesn't help the Dems or impeachment in any way.

From a PR perspective, this WB can and is being spun as a D operative. People don’t buy anonymous sources. Schiff needs to counter that.

Why? You've already bought into the distraction.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Of course. But still, the relationship must be investigated to get to the truth of whether it was in fact coercive.

I'm not sure what you mean by "in fact coercive." I said there had to be an inescapable element of coercion. You agreed. So what is there to investigate?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This Paul Sperry. What is wrong with you?

I didn’t look up anything about the guy. But fuck that attacking the messenger stuff. Look at the facts cited supporting the ID of the whistleblower. It looks accurate. And the WB’s lawyers are incensed about it, which indicates he’s on the mark.

But as I said at the outset, might this be a brilliant rope a dope by Schiff?