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

[Icky Thump]

They brought a young associate around for me to show the ropes.

I keep saying Mr. Corrigan looks familiar . . .

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

This is an oxymoron.

This is madness. There are nice lace ups. There are nice boots. There are nice loafers.

Personal preference? I’m a busy guy. I don’t have time for laces.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

At the firm I was at for that shift, the battle was between the partners who were concerned about what their clients would think if the lawyers were wearing business casual, and the lawyers who were afraid about what their clients would think if they weren't.

Suits in business settings and court are fucking silly. They should entirely dispense with all formal dress.

But as long as the geriatrics and stiffs demand them in court, under the pretense courts are sacred, and one gets any more “justice” than he can pay for, I’ll play the game. If you have to appear in a joker’s cathedral, at least signal to the other clowns: I had it tailored better than yours.

...And I’ll live long enough to see efficient people dispense with this brand protection uniforming, old man.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

"[T]he fight was fixed/The poor stay poor, the rich get rich..."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donna-...against-bernie

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

"[T]he fight was fixed/The poor stay poor, the rich get rich..."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donna-...against-bernie

The fundraising agreement was public and offered to all candidates on the same terms.

The reason Bernie lost is clear from a different article in da beast yesterday giving one of his classic quotes: "we have got to take on Trump’s attacks against the environment, against women, against Latinos and blacks and people in the gay community, we’ve got to fight back every day on those issues. But equally important, or more important: We have got to focus on bread-and-butter issues that mean so much to ordinary Americans." He lost the damn thing himself, he has no one else to blame, fuck 'em. I'm sick of mediocre white dudes blaming everyone else when they don't come out on top.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The fundraising agreement was public and offered to all candidates on the same terms.

The reason Bernie lost is clear from a different article in da beast yesterday giving one of his classic quotes: "we have got to take on Trump’s attacks against the environment, against women, against Latinos and blacks and people in the gay community, we’ve got to fight back every day on those issues. But equally important, or more important: We have got to focus on bread-and-butter issues that mean so much to ordinary Americans." He lost the damn thing himself, he has no one else to blame, fuck 'em. I'm sick of mediocre white dudes blaming everyone else when they don't come out on top.

Hey, I don’t know about all that angry shite. But what I do know is Donna Brazile, not a white male, wrote an article that popped up in my news feed stating Bernie got fucked.

I think he’d have lost anyway. But that isn’t the point.

The point is just, well, what Brazile said. Maybe it’s a big deal. Maybe not. Res ipsa loquitur.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The fundraising agreement was public and offered to all candidates on the same terms.

Not sure what you have in mind, but something was very rotten in the state of Denmark.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think he’d have lost anyway. But that isn’t the point.

The point is just, well, what Brazile said. Maybe it’s a big deal. Maybe not. Res ipsa loquitur.

2

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Not sure what you have in mind, but something was very rotten in the state of Denmark.

Yes, politico has a lot more detail. This looks different that the fundraising memo both candidates were offered. I'm going to have to set up a lunch with someone to find out more, because this doesn't look Kosher.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Yes, politico has a lot more detail. This looks different that the fundraising memo both candidates were offered. I'm going to have to set up a lunch with someone to find out more, because this doesn't look Kosher.

It's almost as if the party was ignored by Obama and then run as a shell for Hillary's benefit. Like Sebby, I don't think it made a difference between Clinton and Sanders, but it doesn't seem like anyone involved was all that interested in trying to build a party or win back Congress. It would have been nice to have some real Democrats involved.

eta: Looks like the party functionaries were enriching themselves. If you're going to be a Republican, be a Republican -- they do this kind of thing better.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's almost as if the party was ignored by Obama and then run as a shell for Hillary's benefit. Like Sebby, I don't think it made a difference between Clinton and Sanders, but it doesn't seem like anyone involved was all that interested in trying to build a party or win back Congress. It would have been nice to have some real Democrats involved.

eta: Looks like the party functionaries were enriching themselves. If you're going to be a Republican, be a Republican -- they do this kind of thing better.

The party was undoubtedly ignored by Obama after he won his second term, and maybe before then. I think the Obama team theory was the House and Senate dems should run it, because they still had skin in the game and he didn't need to run for reelection again, but one of the problems of separating out DCCC and DSCC operations from the party is that it takes the legislators eyes away from the National Party because they don't need it.

I don't think hiring consultants constitutes enriching party functionaries unless there is some relationship between the two, and that's not yet posited here. Sometimes people hire consultants because they're lazy and don't want to expend the energy to build an operation or they're time crunched and don't have the time to build an operation, so they hire one pre-built. Of course, my view is that both may be fine reasons for a candidate to hire a consultant but they're lousy reasons for a party to hire one.

But the idea of a candidate approval for selecting staff prior to a primary is loony toons for a party operation.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The party was undoubtedly ignored by Obama after he won his second term, and maybe before then. I think the Obama team theory was the House and Senate dems should run it, because they still had skin in the game and he didn't need to run for reelection again, but one of the problems of separating out DCCC and DSCC operations from the party is that it takes the legislators eyes away from the National Party because they don't need it.

Your first sentence was right -- you should have stopped there. It was Obama's party, and once it got him elected he did not spend his time or energy to build and maintain it. There was so much potential in O4A and it was totally squandered. We are now paying the price.

I don't think hiring consultants constitutes enriching party functionaries unless there is some relationship between the two, and that's not yet posited here. Sometimes people hire consultants because they're lazy and don't want to expend the energy to build an operation or they're time crunched and don't have the time to build an operation, so they hire one pre-built. Of course, my view is that both may be fine reasons for a candidate to hire a consultant but they're lousy reasons for a party to hire one.

You are taking a narrow view of the fundamental corruption involved here. Seem people hire consultants because they can, and because they don't actually care a whole lot about what the party ostensibly stands for. If nothing else, this whole episode shows that Hillary's commitment to political reform was skin-deep.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Your first sentence was right -- you should have stopped there. It was Obama's party, and once it got him elected he did not spend his time or energy to build and maintain it. There was so much potential in O4A and it was totally squandered. We are now paying the price.

Traditionally, yes, the view of Presidents has been that it is "their" party when they hold office, but, in reality, at all times it ought to be the party of it's members, not of any one elected official. I think we agree, though, on the lesson, which is, we can't have a President who is not paying attention to the funding and maintenance of the Party. It's just a bad idea.

You are taking a narrow view of the fundamental corruption involved here. Seem people hire consultants because they can, and because they don't actually care a whole lot about what the party ostensibly stands for. If nothing else, this whole episode shows that Hillary's commitment to political reform was skin-deep.

The elements I see here where I'd suggest wrongdoing is involved are not pulling in Party officers where they are supposed to be, not reporting to the full DNC body when they're supposed to, and cutting deals with candidates that aren't being vetted by the officers in particular. Those seem like pretty clear allegations of wrongdoing. What I don't see here (and it may be this is a "yet") is an allegation that someone improperly profited by this - this looks more like a power game than a money game.

Ultimately, fixing the party is going to be on the DNC members, the state parties, and the key elected officials, because they're what we've got. Want to run for DNC?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

The cul de sac into which we’re headed? https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...istemic-crisis

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Traditionally, yes, the view of Presidents has been that it is "their" party when they hold office, but, in reality, at all times it ought to be the party of it's members, not of any one elected official. I think we agree, though, on the lesson, which is, we can't have a President who is not paying attention to the funding and maintenance of the Party. It's just a bad idea.

He was the party's leader, and he abdicated that role. I am a huge fan, but that was a huge fuck-up.

The elements I see here where I'd suggest wrongdoing is involved are not pulling in Party officers where they are supposed to be, not reporting to the full DNC body when they're supposed to, and cutting deals with candidates that aren't being vetted by the officers in particular. Those seem like pretty clear allegations of wrongdoing. What I don't see here (and it may be this is a "yet") is an allegation that someone improperly profited by this - this looks more like a power game than a money game.

Spoken like a lawyer. The wrongdoing is that they raised money from Democrats and wasted it on consultants instead of building the party. If you think of the party apparatchiks and consultants as a class of cronies, the money was spent to enrich those insiders rather than to do get anything done.

Ultimately, fixing the party is going to be on the DNC members, the state parties, and the key elected officials, because they're what we've got. Want to run for DNC?

In the abstract, sure, but not with my current life.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

So, the new tax bill contains a "bubble bracket" where a 45.6% rate will apply while the benefit of the 12% bracket is recaptured. When you combine that with losing the interest deduction on more than 500K and the cap on SALT, I'd say big city lawyers are going to join the folks in the bottom half of the income brackets in ponying up to fund the tax cut for billionaires.