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

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

is there a way to short Trump- take the field? If I could get odds I’d put some on that. I still think there is a chance he bows out.

Sort of. You can bet on whether the winner is a D or an R. Currently, it is -130 on a D, and even money on an R. So, you can kind of bet against Trump, but not purely. If, for example, he dies of a heart attack while eating a well done steak with ketchup, you could still lose the bet when Mike Pence ushers in a theocracy,

LessinHamburg

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don’t know. I can’t predict outcome with high confidence (I sense Trump will lose by thin margin, but the reasons for that are subject to various credible attacks). I can, however, see next chess move, and its more than likely outcome. That it happens to be a rational conclusion others agree wit is not my fault. As you’ve argued often, no one should adopt contrarian views simply to be contrarian.

And neither you nor Adder are asking me what I think will ultimately happen in election. You’re asking me what I believe in, my ideology. In politics, I don’t real have much of one. So stop asking. Nothing is more boring than people battling over whose moral code or reverence for the rule of law is superior.

What I would like you to know is that the thing you seem to find highly offensive, the thing you think ought to cause voters extreme disgust and anger, is not driving them. You’re exercised about Trump based on a belief he’s a threat to the rule of law. This is frivolous. Which I suspect you know. So below that, secondarily, you’re upset that he does not elevate the “rule of law” to the position of reverence you see it occupying. I’m saying to you that the American people don’t place it on that pedestal. Trump’s is closer to their view of the rule of law in this country than yours, particularly in politicized matters. You venerate the rule of law, hardly surprising for a lawyer. The typical American does not. He’s cynical about it. Give him a job and healthcare and he’d concede most of it.

I would not concede most of it. I don’t wish to be governed by the sentiments of Trumpists or the arrogant beliefs of know it alls frequently on display here. I think you and your Trumpist analogues are a lurid mix of the craven, brutal, silly, and naive. Armies in a battle where, if only all participants could lose together, the nation would profit immensely.

Leave me alone. That’s about all I desire. Who better to bargain with than a man like me? I’m exactly what we should be cultivating in all voters.

It's amazing how much you know about the typical American.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And neither you nor Adder are asking me what I think will ultimately happen in election.

We have been through this before. No one cares, as you're a moron.

We are interested in how you intend to vote, since, as we know from the last Presidential election, morons vote.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

It's amazing how much you know about the typical American.

The surprising thing is that most Americans don't have a cock, but the typical American in Sebbyworld always does.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I'd say the President's impact is proportional to whether your politics align with the current President, and whether the economy is strong.

Yes, people credit presidents they like for a good-performing economy and the fact that they like a particular president colors how well they believe the economy is performing.

This particular president is a good example of how little influence they actually have, though. Or I guess you can believe that the tax cut was perfectly sized to offset the trade disruptions he's causing, should you really want to believe some bs.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

They’re already leaking it. For every Dem move against Trump, a leak will be offered in response. They learned that tactic worked in 2016, so they’re sticking with it.

You keep assuming I buy all of the right wing stories. I don’t. But I’m immaterial. It’s how they play to the public generally. You can’t argue with my analysis of the effectiveness of the GOP’s game plan here, so you make it about what I think. I don’t know how that sort of non-response to me is supposed to move the conversation forward except to demonstrate that you find the GOP’s ability to use these tactics frustrating, and I find your frustration at the way the game is played to be kind of silly.

You're still suggesting the people do not care about Mueller but will care about Barr's investigation.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

I'm thinking of betting me some Warren and/or Harris.

Donald Trump +115
Joe Biden +450
Bernie Sanders +500
Pete Buttgieg +900
Kamala Harris +1300
Beto O’Rourke +2000
Andrew Yang +2000
Elizabeth Warren +3000
Amy Klobuchar +5000
Tulsi Gabbard +5000
Cory Booker +5500
Mike Pence +6600
Kirsten Gillibrand +6600
Nikki Haley +6600
John Hickenlooper +10000
John Kasich +10000
Julian Castro +10000
Howard Schultz +10000
Andrew Cuomo +15000
Ted Cruz +15000

LessinHamburg

Yang seems weirdly overrated here.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Mike Pence ushers in a theocracy,

LessinHamburg

oh oh

http://deadstate.org/christian-right...40rBXtI8McDHvA

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

oh oh

http://deadstate.org/christian-right...40rBXtI8McDHvA

Didn't you marry outside the faith, dude? You're already beyond salvation to the Christian right.

So go ahead. This won't make anything worse.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Didn't you marry outside the faith, dude? You're already beyond salvation to the Christian right.

So go ahead. This won't make anything worse.

Hell I can deal with. But I'm thinking they're talking jail time?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

We have been through this before. No one cares, as you're a moron.

We are interested in how you intend to vote, since, as we know from the last Presidential election, morons vote.

I might not vote at all. I’m not sure.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You’re asking me what I believe in, my ideology. In politics, I don’t real have much of one. So stop asking. Nothing is more boring than people battling over whose moral code or reverence for the rule of law is superior.

I think you do have beliefs, but like to pose as jaded.

What I would like you to know is that the thing you seem to find highly offensive, the thing you think ought to cause voters extreme disgust and anger, is not driving them. You’re exercised about Trump based on a belief he’s a threat to the rule of law. This is frivolous. Which I suspect you know. So below that, secondarily, you’re upset that he does not elevate the “rule of law” to the position of reverence you see it occupying. I’m saying to you that the American people don’t place it on that pedestal. Trump’s is closer to their view of the rule of law in this country than yours, particularly in politicized matters. You venerate the rule of law, hardly surprising for a lawyer. The typical American does not. He’s cynical about it. Give him a job and healthcare and he’d concede most of it.

When you say that Trump's threat to the rule of law is frivolous, you briefly hint at having your own beliefs, but then you go back to describing what you think other people think. If you actually want to have a conversation about Trump's threat to the rule of law, go for it, but I'm not sure why you think it's interesting to tell me that Joe Sixpack doesn't always agree with me, as if I didn't know that.

I would not concede most of it. I don’t wish to be governed by the sentiments of Trumpists or the arrogant beliefs of know it alls frequently on display here. I think you and your Trumpist analogues are a lurid mix of the craven, brutal, silly, and naive. Armies in a battle where, if only all participants could lose together, the nation would profit immensely.

Leave me alone. That’s about all I desire. Who better to bargain with than a man like me? I’m exactly what we should be cultivating in all voters.

What's the "Trumpist analogue" to someone who cares about the rule of law? And isn't the rule of law about enabling you to be left alone if that's what you want?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Hell I can deal with. But I'm thinking they're talking jail time?

Good point.

John Kelly is probably negotiating right now to build tent prisons to hold all connilingi.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Good point.

John Kelly is probably negotiating right now to build tent prisons to hold all connilingi.

Then they came for the recipients of unsolicited, no-strings-attached fellatio--and there was no one left to speak for me.

[LessinSF]

Have I recently expressed my adoration of John Ross of the Institute for Justice's weekly newsletter on Federal appellate court decisions? No? Well, here is a great example, from Friday's ( https://ij.org/sc_newsletter/the-pun...ngst-unicorns/ ) post:

Over a dissent, the Seventh Circuit holds that death from autoerotic asphyxiation, even if accidental, still involves an "intentionally self-inflicted injury" that can prevent a life insurance payout. The Second and Ninth Circuits disagree. (Will the Supreme Court resolve the split? Don't hold your breath.)