Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

An overwhelming majority of what you say strikes me as being extremely weedy. Like, blunted-off-your-ass, falling down and spilling your Cheetos weedy. Which is part of the reason I would invite you to a cocktail party. If you started talking politics, the other guests would just laugh and assume that you couldn't handle your weed.

I never talk it unless it's talked to me (sadly, since 2008, it seems inescapable). This place is my vent for it.

If it's indica, I'm good all day. Strong sativa, I'm a sketchy mess.

Vaporized is preferred. In that case, either strain is fine.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

To me, this is perfection. Better than a case decided by the Oxford comma.

No one gives a fuck about what you think.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

2. If I invite LT socks I would invite everyone because about 30% of you guys stand me up. Still an overwhelming majority of you would show up.

I'd probably should have met you by now. I wish this ocelot farm hadn't so monopolized my time.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Only my fellow New York-bubble people.

TM

Outside of my parent's friends, I can't think of anyone I know who voted for Trump. Yes, there are facebook friends who I haven't seen or communicated with in 10+ years who probably did. But that's it. Even the former managing partner at my old firm (serious R) didn't vote for him -- that one actually surprised me.

I just like to think that I have good taste.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Outside of my parent's friends, I can't think of anyone I know who voted for Trump. Yes, there are facebook friends who I haven't seen or communicated with in 10+ years who probably did. But that's it. Even the former managing partner at my old firm (serious R) didn't vote for him -- that one actually surprised me.

I just like to think that I have good taste.

It's either good taste, or you are essentially just a pile of feed corn stored for the winter.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Is he packing it at the district level or appellate level? Honest question. I don't think it really matters if he's packing it at the district level.

I increasingly think it just doesn't matter as much as partisans think it does. It matters on the margin, in a way that lawyers are particularly attuned to, but the underlying politics matter much more.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

It's either good taste, or you are essentially just a pile of feed corn stored for the winter.

I will mash myself into moonshine.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I take from your general reaction, though, that the people you know in banking are pretty sleazy.

Some yes, some no. Like I said to TM, this is an economically fucked up state. You get a lot of banged up borrowers. And a ton of self-employed, which the underwriters treat miserably.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No underlying crime by Trump himself.

I'll say it again: Putin would never directly collude with Trump. Trump is too stupid.

And I don't think collusion is a crime anyway.

Trump subordinates involved in crime? Sure. Of course.

Trump possibly involved in financial crime of some sort unrelated to Russiagate (but perhaps involving Russians and tax fraud of some kind)? Sure.

But yes, I do not think Trump himself engaged in any underlying crime he was seeking to cover up.

I guess it depends on what the collusion consists of. But I'm not going to engage on whether or not collusion is a crime (and that may make my next question moot). It doesn't really matter since what we're talking about are actions (collusion, treason, etc.) that rise to the level of requiring impeachment.

Do you consider Trump knowing about and/or instructing his subordinates to carry out crimes a crime? Seems obvious, but maybe you're one of those people that thinks that the President, by definition, can't commit crimes.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I question who you think Trump will put in Sessions or Rosenstein's office. He'll find himself a Giuliani, no?

I hear you. I think Giuliani is smart enough to realize that if he shuts Mueller down at Trump's request, it won't go well for him.

Gerrymandering. It used to be that Republicans would vote en masse for what benefited Republicans. Now there are enough safe seat lunatics to stand in the way of an impeachment conviction no matter what damage it does to others in the party at the polls. Hell, it's not a leap to think they'd be acting rationally based on who their constituents are. Almost.

You're talking about Congressmen, and I was talking about Senators. If the Democrats take the Congress in the fall, things will start to look different for GOP Senators. For one, without the Congress they can't get stuff passed. For two, many of them will be running for re-election in the presidential year of 2020, potentially with Trump on the ticket.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

I will mash myself into moonshine.

I will drink you until I'm blind.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I hear you. I think Giuliani is smart enough to realize that if he shuts Mueller down at Trump's request, it won't go well for him.

I specifically chose him because he's not smart enough. Either way, are you saying he can't find someone to do what he wants?

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You're talking about Congressmen, and I was talking about Senators. If the Democrats take the Congress in the fall, things will start to look different for GOP Senators. For one, without the Congress they can't get stuff passed. For two, many of them will be running for re-election in the presidential year of 2020, potentially with Trump on the ticket.

I don't see much of a difference between Senators and the House at this point. But I take your point re gerrymandering and Senators. I still don't think you'll be able to find enough Senators to get past that 2/3rds requirement for impeachment.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I guess it depends on what the collusion consists of. But I'm not going to engage on whether or not collusion is a crime (and that may make my next question moot). It doesn't really matter since what we're talking about are actions (collusion, treason, etc.) that rise to the level of requiring impeachment.

Do you consider Trump knowing about and/or instructing his subordinates to carry out crimes a crime? Seems obvious, but maybe you're one of those people that thinks that the President, by definition, can't commit crimes.

TM

Yes on the last question. I'm not insane.

I think Trump's dumb enough to step over plausible deniability. But I think the people colluding are sophisticated enough to have put failsafes in in place to avoid that.

The only way it gets to him is if Jared (who I understand from someone who's conversed with him on numerous occasions is actually dumber than we think) engaged Trump in a back and forth that brought him "into the loop."

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Yes on the last question. I'm not insane.

I think Trump's dumb enough to step over plausible deniability. But I think the people colluding are sophisticated enough to have put failsafes in in place to avoid that.

The only way it gets to him is if Jared (who I understand from someone who's conversed with him on numerous occasions is actually dumber than we think) engaged Trump in a back and forth that brought him "into the loop."

I think this is exactly what we're going to find. Jared, Trump Jr., hell, fucking Flynn--someone--emailed Trump who most definitely responded. Or there will be 5 or 6 people who confirm Trump ordered them to negotiate hiding something he's done or some project he wants approval for in exchange for axing the sanctions. That, combined with the financial crimes related to Russia* should be enough. In a normal world, it would be.

TM

*And there are more, with others.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

How would one "identify" Jews as voters, however?

This is where identification becomes problematic. 1 out of 4 Jews is a lot of Jews. But if we "identify" Jews as reliable D voters, we lump that 1 exception in with the rest.

I don't object to identity politics because I'm against it. Quite to the contrary, I think it has done wonders to raise awareness and start change where it applies (BLM, female wages).

But it applies only in very, very limited areas. And it's overuse, and loose usage, is maddening. You can't just throw people into groups and say, "That's how they act, and that's how they should vote." It's just... wrong.

As I recall mentioning, that's not what anyone else means by "identity politics," so you should take comfort in the idea that you have been misunderstanding people, and move on.

Relatedly, you may have noticed that many people who talk about politics have opinions about how other people should vote. If that bothers you, that's too bad.

Similarly, you can't say, "Everything Trump does is awful because he is awful." The tax cuts were on balance not an excellent thing. But that doubling of the standard deduction does help a lot of renters, many of whom are struggling.

I appreciate the contrarian impulse you have to find the silver lining in the Trump Shitstorm. Here, I'm not sure why you credit Trump for a Republican tax bill. Do you really think that Trump had a view about whether the standard deduction should have been doubled, or did anything to make it happen?

I'm seeing on the Left at the moment a lot of the same siloing I saw on the Right during Obama's terms. Now, of course, Obama is a much more normal President, and not comparable to Trump. But there isn't much difference between people on the Right howling that everything Obama did was evil, and people on the Left howling everything Trump does is evil.

Why is that you object so vigorously to generalizations about how Jews vote, but you have no problem ascribing to "the Left" some stupid thing you read somewhere from some stupid leftie? I will stipulate that you saw some leftie say something stupid, particularly if I don't have to hear about it. But the only reason for you to mention it hear, as far as I can tell, is to try to score cheap rhetorical points off any of us who identify with "the Left" more than you do, which is all of us.

And those rhetorical points are truly cheap. Christopher Hitchens would not be impressed. Tomi Lahren might go for it, and if that's the crowd you're trying to impress, you should grab the nearest bottle of scotch and bludgeon yourself with it until you stop responding.

In Obama's term, I'd hear, "Obama's a socialist!" and respond, "Yeah, how's your portfolio doing? 3X where it was in '08?" Now, I hear, "Trump is destroying the world," and while I must say he is doing a lot of damage, is it so wrong to take the contrarian pitch a little bit... to look for the silver linings here and there? Some of that tax bill does help the middle class.

I don't know about "wrong" if you can tie it to anything Trump has done. The economic indicators I see show continuity with what Obama did, making it hard for me to believe that your portfolio is loving Trump per se.

And if some of that tax bill benefits the middle class, so much of it doesn't, and -- surprise! -- it was a package deal.

I think people have to stop looking at groups and politicians' aggregate policy packages. The better way to look at everything is in as granular a way as possible -- one small item at a time. Like a buffet. "This is good... This is not so good... This is fucking awful."

I look forward to hearing you discuss policy in as granular a way as possible.

Yeah, I do hate tribalism. It's not an act. I don't like being lumped into any group, and I hate when it goads me into reflexively arguing against other people by asserting they are part of some group who all think similarly.

Right and left are fundamentally different in important ways. You repeatedly prefer to equate them as tribalist, and in dwelling on their similarities rather than acknowledging their differences. The point is to burnish your own self-image as an individualist, not part of some group. If we just agree that you are an individualist and not part of a group, can you agree to acknowledge reality?