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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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?

Inescapable means one cannot help but perceive coercion. Inescapable is not a synonym of “proven.”

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

The whistleblower is no longer a key witness.

Why? You've already bought into the distraction.

1. Only if you accept the D framing. You think the Senate will do that?

2. I’m talking about the WB. I’m not buying anything. The people who’ll do the buying or not buying are senators and the voters who would ostensibly pressure them.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Inescapable means one cannot help but perceive coercion. Inescapable is not a synonym of “proven.”

Inescapable because it's always there. If you're screwing your boss, you're getting screwed by your boss.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I didn’t look up anything about the guy.

Obviously.

But fuck that attacking the messenger stuff.

Yes! Completely! Don't attack my messenger! Attack the other messenger! It's very important to ignore where hearsay is coming from, unless you are choosing to make a deal about where hearsay is coming from!

This is the board equivalent of stepping on a rake. I love it.

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.

I looked. There are no facts there that show that this poor guy is the whistleblower. But if you are in the White House, that hardly matters.

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

That is truly a stupid thought, but I suppose that if you have no idea who Paul Sperry is, it makes a certain ignorant sense.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Neither side here seems to be terribly competent.

This sums up every single post you've ever written no matter how shitty, incompetent, or outright evil either side has been.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

1. Only if you accept the D framing. You think the Senate will do that?

How do you figure? The whistleblower reported having heard, second hand, about the things he blew the whistle on. Since then, people will first hand knowledge have testified, under oath, to what he reported. He is no longer a key witness.

2. I’m talking about the WB.

Yes, you're allowing yourself to be distracted by the right wing's strategy of talking about the whistleblower like his ID matters.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Biden may not be electable, but damn it if he isn't still leading.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/u...ren-polls.html

I hold out hope that the more people hear Warren the more people will fall in love with her. But if she manages to win the primary and lose the fucking election, I will burn this country to the ground with my mind. And if she ekes out a Presidential win and the Republicans hold the fucking Senate, I will blame each and every one of you on this board and will be as annoying as fucking Hank is with everything here until the end of time.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Biden may not be electable, but damn it if he isn't still leading.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/u...ren-polls.html

I hold out hope that the more people hear Warren the more people will fall in love with her. But if she manages to win the primary and lose the fucking election, I will burn this country to the ground with my mind. And if she ekes out a Presidential win and the Republicans hold the fucking Senate, I will blame each and every one of you on this board and will be as annoying as fucking Hank is with everything here until the end of time.

TM

Why do you think Biden is a better bet to take the Senate? (And what are you blaming me for? I will vote for either. If I don't and they lose California by a single vote, take me out to the shed.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Biden may not be electable, but damn it if he isn't still leading.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/u...ren-polls.html

I hold out hope that the more people hear Warren the more people will fall in love with her. But if she manages to win the primary and lose the fucking election, I will burn this country to the ground with my mind. And if she ekes out a Presidential win and the Republicans hold the fucking Senate, I will blame each and every one of you on this board and will be as annoying as fucking Hank is with everything here until the end of time.

TM

Being a Boomer (OK?), I remember (just barely) when we elected Jimmy Carter because Dems wanted a centrist who could win after the McGovern fiasco. That was cool, it was great to win, except we got... Jimmy Carter.

I like Joe Biden. I'm waiting, though, to see who the next Dem to step it up and come into the frontrunner pack is. It won't surprise me if it's none of the current top three who make it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

WTF, Bernie (from the Guardian):

Sen. Bernie Sanders slammed Apple on Monday for announcing a $2.5bn pledge to create affordable housing.

The 2020 presidential candidate said the announcement is an effort to frame its entering the housing industry as altruism.

“Apple’s announcement that it is entering the real estate lending business is an effort to distract from the fact that it has helped create California’s housing crisis – all while raking in $800 million of taxpayer subsidies, and keeping a quarter trillion dollars of profit offshore, in order to avoid paying billions of dollars in taxes,” Sanders said in a statement.

Apple said it will devote $1bn to affordable housing investment fund and $1bn to a mortgage assistance fund fund for first-time homebuyers. The company will also create a $150m fund to distribute long-term “forgivable loans” and grants to affordable housing projects.

The commitment of $2.5 bn represents less than 4% of the $65 bnApple made in revenue in quarter four alone.

Apple hasn't helped create California's housing crisis. Californians did that all on their own. Apple has done about a $2.5 bn pledge worth to help more than Bernie has, from what I can tell.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Inescapable because it's always there. If you're screwing your boss, you're getting screwed by your boss.

If it's a power game, you're both miserable sorts. And if you're losing, shame on you.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

WTF, Bernie (from the Guardian):

Apple hasn't helped create California's housing crisis. Californians did that all on their own. Apple has done about a $2.5 bn pledge worth to help more than Bernie has, from what I can tell.

I think he's trying to articulate:

"You've built a $205 bil. cash reserve by paying Chinese serfs in gulags to make your phones rather than pay US workers to do so and instead amass only $120 bil. in cash reserves."

It's a point a lot like NYC's rejection of Amazon. It's complex, because blame is on both sides.

Oops, I did it again.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

How do you figure? The whistleblower reported having heard, second hand, about the things he blew the whistle on. Since then, people will first hand knowledge have testified, under oath, to what he reported. He is no longer a key witness.

We're both lawyers, as opposed to Senators gobbling up any possible political cover they can to acquit. Schiff's a liability in this regard. He should be removed from the team. But I suspect Pelosi isn't eager for that. He owns this, like he owned the build-up to Mueller. Nancy needs him to throw under the bus when the vote comes down in the Senate.

She's already getting ahead of the train wreck that 2020 is looking to become.

Yes, you're allowing yourself to be distracted by the right wing's strategy of talking about the whistleblower like his ID matters.

I'm not distracted by it. I'm seeing it, and seeing that it's working, and I'm suggesting that Schiff is fucking up. Never leave a vacuum. He's leaving a vacuum.

I see his strategy. It's not entirely unwise, not malpractice, but I think it's a loser. He thinks if he frames the narrative on facts alone, and avoids discussion of the whistleblower's possible motives, he can avoid talking about the whistleblower. This actually just makes the whistleblower more interesting. You know how in direct, you get the ugly facts out first to blunt the other side's using them in cross? Schiff has to do that now.

Also, he assumes a jury interested in facts. The Senators don't care about facts. They care about their political futures. This means they'll follow what they think are their constituents' leanings. Their constituents are not rational actors. Their constituents will want to hear "the full story," and the full story will include the whistleblower.

Schiff brung the kid to the dance. Got to take him out on the floor.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Jimmy Carter.

Whose only sin was offering the mother of all mic drops -- which still, still to this day -- is the greatest and most honest political speech of our lifetimes:

https://millercenter.org/the-preside...fidence-speech

Some wonder how one might laugh and mock those freaking out about Trump. The truly confused cling to the idea Trump is more problem than symptom. And some will hide what they truly think, because an accurate assessment would compel them to say to themselves, "I'm not really interested in equity, honesty, or fair and honorable government unless it's of a sort that won't gore my ox... a happy Biden/Clinton sort... or a moderated and controlled Warren sort*... but never a Bernie sort."

Carter, I suspect, looks at Trump and thinks, "I told ya so."

______
* She's being bent right now by the party "realists" (read Clinton wing), and I fear she's quite bendable.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Yes! Completely! Don't attack my messenger! Attack the other messenger! It's very important to ignore where hearsay is coming from, unless you are choosing to make a deal about where hearsay is coming from!

This is the board equivalent of stepping on a rake. I love it.

I'm not attacking your messenger. I'm attacking Schiff's decision not to get ahead of the attacks on your messenger.

Buy a leaf blower.

I looked. There are no facts there that show that this poor guy is the whistleblower. But if you are in the White House, that hardly matters.

The report is filled with facts supporting the allegation. That's why I stated, even if Sperry is right wing, is he wrong in ID'ing this person? In some regards, the ID appears so easy, I couldn't believe it. Hence I assumed Schiff was offering up a red herring. Yes, that's conspiracy thinking, but also yes, the RCI piece was strong enough to render this its only immediately sensible rebuttal.