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

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm not sure Adder agrees. He suggested that but for obstruction, we might have learned information that rendered Trump illegitimate. He can correct this if he likes.

Here was the exchange:

Me: It's not a crime to bullshit voters.

Adder: It is a crime to obstruct justice. Having actively obstructed the investigation, none of us know what might have been revealed without the obstruction.

Am I reading too cynically in thinking he's suggesting there was some act taken by Trump beyond welcoming the Russians' bullshitting voters (which is all the Russian disinformation campaign really did)? Maybe. Or maybe not. And what would that "other act" be? In the context of a discussion about how Trump and the Russians worked to win the election, there seem to be only two ways this could have been done: (1) Disinformation; and, (2) Actual vote changing. The latter didn't happen, but Adder seemed to be suggesting (he walked it back later) that obstruction may have rendered us unable to learn of the latter... which is loony.

I think the point he is making is that if the witnesses weren't instructed to lie and stonewall, and they actually cooperated, evidence of criminal conspiracy (the equivalent of what we all think of as "criminal collusion") would have led to actual criminal conspiracy charges (or provided a clear path to impeach based on that evidence).

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I think the point he is making is that if the witnesses weren't instructed to lie and stonewall, and they actually cooperated, evidence of criminal conspiracy (the equivalent of what we all think of as "criminal collusion") might have been proven.

TM

That's entirely possible. That's a reasonable position.

Too often, however, that argument, which speaks to how Trump and the Russians manipulated voters, is used as a basis to assert his election was somehow invalid. These are two different things. If Trump committed a crime by working with Russians to spread fake news to gullible voters, the crime is the technical violation of a statute. The manipulation of voters is not a crime. Nor is there a fruit of the poison tree argument to be made. What the voters do, based on whatever rotten manipulation is applied to them, is their choice and theirs alone. If Trump and the Russians can bullshit you, you deserve to be bullshitted. Good for them, bad for you. (As to the bullshitted Trump voters, not those who knew what he was and wanted to elect him.)

This is an important distinction because if we allow the argument to take hold that because voters were underhandedly manipulated, Trump is illegitimate, then:

1. Voters are off the hook, and not responsible for their actions;
2. Which invites an argument about whether we should apply rules to what voters may see and not see, or worse, who may vote.

Number 2 is taking place in the EU right now, where some countries are taking action to shut down "fake news." They've effectively infantilized their voting public -- deemed them too dim to know what's best for them. We have too many tools for this sort of soft electronic totalitarianism here. Imagine if the officious twits in DC who think everything can be fixed with simply more regs or laws decided to start regulating "fake news." You can throw freedom of speech right out the window. And the right and the left would abuse such laws and regs with abandon.

The voters are at fault for Trump. There's a portion of this country, a damn big one, that likes him and what he says. Those who argue the Trump voters were all mere dupes do nobody any favors. That they're lying is obvious, and this lie invites a curtailing of free speech that should scare the shit out of every American.

People have a right to lie to voters, and that right is sacred to the Republic, and voters have a duty to educate themselves or be duped. No nannies. No censorship in the name of "fake news prevention." We are not the EU.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

"Former Vice President Joe Biden widened his lead in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary to 19 points over second-placed Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), according to the latest Quinnipiac poll released Monday."

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...MAxTwKyeuc-DE8

If you need someone to excite, make that person Biden's running mate.

TM

I literally don’t recall when last I saw or heard from Biden (was it the debate?). A candidate who does best when he he’s avoiding attention sounds like a problem. Nominating Biden is the closest possible replay of 2016. I don’t share your confidence that the outcome will be different this time, especially because Joe not meaningfully better at connecting with people than Hillary. Is not being a woman enough?

Of course, he’s also not a Clinton, but I don’t think 45 will have any trouble painting Joe as an establishment insider.

I just don’t have any faith that the white people you have in mind will pick any Dem over 45’s racism. We need someone who is selling more than “let’s go back to 2015.”

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That doesn't speak to the issue.



Is Trump a duly elected President with authority to administer his office? Answer that.

Yes. Are you dim?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm not sure Adder agrees. He suggested that but for obstruction, we might have learned information that rendered Trump illegitimate. He can correct this if he likes.

Here was the exchange:

Me: It's not a crime to bullshit voters.

Adder: It is a crime to obstruct justice. Having actively obstructed the investigation, none of us know what might have been revealed without the obstruction.

Am I reading too cynically in thinking he's suggesting there was some act taken by Trump beyond welcoming the Russians' bullshitting voters (which is all the Russian disinformation campaign really did)? Maybe. Or maybe not. And what would that "other act" be? In the context of a discussion about how Trump and the Russians worked to win the election, there seem to be only two ways this could have been done: (1) Disinformation; and, (2) Actual vote changing. The latter didn't happen, but Adder seemed to be suggesting (he walked it back later) that obstruction may have rendered us unable to learn of the latter... which is loony.

I was ignoring your nonsense. Bcs it is self evident nonsense.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I agree with you completely. Joe Biden is a white man. He makes white people comfortable. He's also leading when it comes to the black vote, apparently. He's crushing Trump in every fucking poll. Trump needs to be absolutely crushed. And the reality is that the more people pulling the lever up and down the ticket Dem because they see a white man who isn't a complete piece of shit, the more likely Dems retake the Senate. And for God's sake, retaking the Senate is a must. Going through another four years of McConnell rejecting every single piece of legislation and declining to affirm Democratic judges would be a fucking disaster.

I feel like Warren, Harris, Pete, Booker would all be great. But this is not about anyone's fucking feelings. This election needs to be over-fucking-whelming.

TM

So agreed but I think the Dems in charge are too full of themselves to see this.

Is it wrong? Of course, we should be making these decisions on merit. But. We. Need. To. Win.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

So agreed but I think the Dems in charge are too full of themselves to see this.

Is it wrong? Of course, we should be making these decisions on merit. But. We. Need. To. Win.

There is pretty much universal agreement that we need to win the disagreement is how.

Maybe the old white guy who nobody really liked until Obama picked him is the way, but I’m not sold.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is absolutely wrong. There is no one out there who needs to be excited to vote in the next election. If you're not excited to vote against Trump at this point, you're not getting off your ass to vote for any of these other people.

White people are the fucking key. White people are fucking this country. White people want someone "safe" to vote for. And I'm talking about the ones in Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Florida.

Excited? Jesus Christ. How can anyone be more motivated to vote in an election? If my wife were running, I'd vote for Joe Biden.

This "generate excitement" stuff is garbage. Bernie's ceiling is low. He's going to excite the same number of people as last time. Kamala is a black woman. Her ceiling is capped. Pete is gay. His ceiling is capped. Etc.

I hate that it is this way. But that is the way it is.

TM

Hope I'm wrong, but I don't think the key is persuading swing voters, like working-class whites in mid-western states, to vote for a Democrat. I think it's about tapping and motivating Democrats to turn out. Ideally, a gifted candidate does both, speaking to swing voters one way and the potentially disillusioned in another.

BTW, this exchange is one you see moderates and progressives having. I don't see it that way. A progressive like Bernie could bore a lot of people into staying home, and a moderate like Harris could inspire a lot of Democrats.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Shmuck, I was addressing whether his obstruction succeeded.

If obstruction "succeeded," how would you ever know?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That's entirely possible. That's a reasonable position.

Too often, however, that argument, which speaks to how Trump and the Russians manipulated voters, is used as a basis to assert his election was somehow invalid. These are two different things. If Trump committed a crime by working with Russians to spread fake news to gullible voters, the crime is the technical violation of a statute. The manipulation of voters is not a crime. Nor is there a fruit of the poison tree argument to be made. What the voters do, based on whatever rotten manipulation is applied to them, is their choice and theirs alone. If Trump and the Russians can bullshit you, you deserve to be bullshitted. Good for them, bad for you. (As to the bullshitted Trump voters, not those who knew what he was and wanted to elect him.)

This is an important distinction because if we allow the argument to take hold that because voters were underhandedly manipulated, Trump is illegitimate, then:

1. Voters are off the hook, and not responsible for their actions;
2. Which invites an argument about whether we should apply rules to what voters may see and not see, or worse, who may vote.

Number 2 is taking place in the EU right now, where some countries are taking action to shut down "fake news." They've effectively infantilized their voting public -- deemed them too dim to know what's best for them. We have too many tools for this sort of soft electronic totalitarianism here. Imagine if the officious twits in DC who think everything can be fixed with simply more regs or laws decided to start regulating "fake news." You can throw freedom of speech right out the window. And the right and the left would abuse such laws and regs with abandon.

The voters are at fault for Trump. There's a portion of this country, a damn big one, that likes him and what he says. Those who argue the Trump voters were all mere dupes do nobody any favors. That they're lying is obvious, and this lie invites a curtailing of free speech that should scare the shit out of every American.

People have a right to lie to voters, and that right is sacred to the Republic, and voters have a duty to educate themselves or be duped. No nannies. No censorship in the name of "fake news prevention." We are not the EU.

"That's entirely possible. That's a reasonable position. Instead of responding to it, I'm going to write a long post responding to something stupid that no one is saying."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Hope I'm wrong, but I don't think the key is persuading swing voters, like working-class whites in mid-western states, to vote for a Democrat. I think it's about tapping and motivating Democrats to turn out. Ideally, a gifted candidate does both, speaking to swing voters one way and the potentially disillusioned in another.

BTW, this exchange is one you see moderates and progressives having. I don't see it that way. A progressive like Bernie could bore a lot of people into staying home, and a moderate like Harris could inspire a lot of Democrats.

A man of color has been able to convince midwestern white people to vote for him IIRC? 2016 overly educated dems decided third party was the answer. You lot need to straighten that shit out.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

A man of color has been able to convince midwestern white people to vote for him IIRC? 2016 overly educated dems decided third party was the answer. You lot need to straighten that shit out.

Hope and change, yes. Go back to when things weren’t so bad, no.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

A man of color has been able to convince midwestern white people to vote for him IIRC? 2016 overly educated dems decided third party was the answer. You lot need to straighten that shit out.

You have my vote, Hank.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Are you asking a serious question or being Hank? Because I honestly can't tell if this is serious.

TM

Look, I'm head in the sand- I don't know what all he did with Russia- other than they met with Russia and asked for (or were offered) help- if the help isn't illegal what is the difference from just asking for help from another gov? Did Trump et al sign on to Russia hacking the Dems?

I do know this- a shit ton of people are of the mind set that Trump got elected because Russia interfered, but if you ask what exactly Russia did they don't know. And what I think Russia did is convince people like them (maybe actually some of them) that voting for Hil would be a waste. That is, people posting about how stupid Trump supporters are don't realize educated Dems were the ones fooled.

I'm not weighing voting for Trump- Hitler could run against him and I'd vote for Hitler, thinking maybe he's at least grown over the years. But I want to know facts, and i don't.

And in this whole shit storm the thing that everyone has to do is learn to distinguish FaceBook memes from facts- cuz FB memes gave us Prez Trump it seems.

Early on in Trump's time a FB meme started up "Ivanka granted Chinese Trademarks, Trump grants China something or other." And when people I know
posted it, I'd say, "you know, Trump is evil and I would not put it past him to sell us out, but this isn't it. If you give me $1500 I'll get you a Chinese Trademark. They hand them out, they aren't enforceable, but I can get you one. Keep focus on the actual bad things and dismiss this one." But no one wanted to hear it. They all knew Trump was selling us out.

If thinking people dismiss a Trademark attorney, whom they know hates Trump, telling them this, what will make them think about the shit thrown in 2020? We need people, as many as possible, to question.

I do not really know what all the report said Trump agreed to- if it was just asking Russia to fuck with Hil on social media- and that is somehow actionable, please tell us how, cuz Sebby keeps asking that. And asking Russia to help fuck with Hil on social media, while nasty, doesn't seem different than asking Israel's PM to write a letter supporting em. On the other hand, if Trump asked for a different level of "help" can someone let me know?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You have my vote, Hank.

I don't need your vote, I need $10,000 so I can funnel it to where it's needed.