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

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You keep pointing to Taibbi on this, so I'm going to explain why I think his argument is lame. Basically, he says that the media overplayed the Mueller investigation. He doesn't really deal with what Mueller did find, so let's not dwell on the criminal convictions of the President's National Security Advisor and campaign manager, and the many times the President tried to obstruct justice. When you try to figure out what Taibbi thinks the media actually got wrong, it's very hard to say, because he makes sweeping claims but doesn't quote anybody for more than a few words. Ah, but you say, he quotes a lot of people in that article! He does, but only for ancillary stuff, not for the stuff he says the media got wrong. And when one bothers to click through, there's no there there. For example, one sentence with a bunch of links says:



The first "turning point" links to a Vox article (note: not major media by anyone's standards) which contradicts Taibbi.(1)

The second "turning point" links to a piece in The Nation (note: not major media, or a news source) which also contradicts Taibbi.(2)

And then I stopped checking his sources, because life is short. He starts the article by ostentatiously quoting the AP, the NYT and the WaPo as if he is going to deliver the goods on them, but then he hides his sources so that you have to find that his quotes are instead from Vox and The Nation, and they don't even say what he says they said.

Someone certainly needs to apologize for counterfactual, histrionic reporting. Hand Taibbi a mirror. And get Rolling Stone some editors.



(1) Vox: "Which of these, if any, will result in further charges remain unclear. It’s also not known for sure whether Mueller is preparing some sort of lengthy report on President Trump and Russian interference — perhaps to be sent to Congress for potential impeachment — or whether the next step is more indictments.

But Manafort could know a whole lot about any of these avenues of investigation. ... Manafort could be very helpful for whatever Mueller has in mind.

So now we wait for the special counsel’s next move."

(2) The Nation piece ends: "In the wake of Tuesday, Robert Mueller and the New York US Attorney’s office will continue down their methodical, principled path. But the special Counsel can’t solve what is at bottom a political problem for the country. However many of the president’s associates go to jail, Donald Trump will remain in office until the country musters the moral clarity of a pro-Trump juror who, MAGA hat in her car, could still follow the evidence."

As Madeleine Albright said, there is always room in the world for mediocre white men.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Update from Facebook: I believe Spanky is now counsel for a cannabis company.

The grift of choice these days.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's like you like you try to keep topping the stupid with every next post. Attacks on the FBI may motivate people who are already in Trump's camp, but there are *no* undecided voters who are going to vote against Democrats because FBI agents too zealously tried to protect the country. If Republicans are going to pick an institution to destroy in the name of motivating their base, I wouldn't have thought it would be the FBI, but Trump's ego is a tricky thing.

Wellness check time?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

As Madeleine Albright said, there is always room in the world for mediocre white men.

I've met her. Had I known, I'd have thanked her for coining the axiom that's facilitated your ability to pay your mortgage for so many years.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's like you like you try to keep topping the stupid with every next post. Attacks on the FBI may motivate people who are already in Trump's camp, but there are *no* undecided voters who are going to vote against Democrats because FBI agents too zealously tried to protect the country. If Republicans are going to pick an institution to destroy in the name of motivating their base, I wouldn't have thought it would be the FBI, but Trump's ego is a tricky thing.

I'm not suggesting how the GOP's tactic is aimed at bringing in new voters. I agree it won't do so. The move is defensive. By making a quagmire of the debate using the Horowitz Report's findings, the GOP intends to blunt any adverse impact to Trump otherwise caused by impeachment hearings or sustained discussion of possible impeachment hearings.

If you want my conjecture, I think this is wise on the GOP's part, but likely unnecessary because I don't think impeachment hearings will change a single vote in either direction.

You should read more carefully, without assuming I'm writing from a party-supporter perspective. Recall, I honestly don't care very much. My axe to grind on this subject, and so many others, is with our media. But I do very much enjoy the chess element of the thing, particularly where the players are so confused and the moves so unpredictable. I hate to mix metaphors, but this is like watching run and gun politics. I can't recall anything like it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The grift of choice these days.

The heartache among the people spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy medical licenses is going to be severe.

You can look them right in the eye and say, "Long term, where's the barrier to entry?" And they've no answer.

Running with the herd and timing sale near top is an effective investing strategy with this stuff. But buying into the industry as a small business person is insane. The runway is minimal. You're a trojan horse for the recreational market that follows which eliminates even the suggestion you've a barrier to entry.

I think a few players will make some cash using weed as an opioid replacement/intervention device. But that's niche, and those contracts are going to be gobbled up by the huge players best positioned to withstand enhanced regulation and attract significant financing, which for good reason is skittish about this industry.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm not suggesting how the GOP's tactic is aimed at bringing in new voters. I agree it won't do so. The move is defensive. By making a quagmire of the debate using the Horowitz Report's findings, the GOP intends to blunt any adverse impact to Trump otherwise caused by impeachment hearings or sustained discussion of possible impeachment hearings.

If you want my conjecture, I think this is wise on the GOP's part, but likely unnecessary because I don't think impeachment hearings will change a single vote in either direction.

You should read more carefully, without assuming I'm writing from a party-supporter perspective. Recall, I honestly don't care very much. My axe to grind on this subject, and so many others, is with our media. But I do very much enjoy the chess element of the thing, particularly where the players are so confused and the moves so unpredictable. I hate to mix metaphors, but this is like watching run and gun politics. I can't recall anything like it.

You need a debate or report to figure out that the Trumps are a bunch of crooks?

Nobody is muddying anything up here, they're just trying to use technicalities and smoke and mirrors to delay the inevitable and con the gullible.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

You keep pointing to Taibbi on this, so I'm going to explain why I think his argument is lame. Basically, he says that the media overplayed the Mueller investigation. He doesn't really deal with what Mueller did find, so let's not dwell on the criminal convictions of the President's National Security Advisor and campaign manager, and the many times the President tried to obstruct justice. When you try to figure out what Taibbi thinks the media actually got wrong, it's very hard to say, because he makes sweeping claims but doesn't quote anybody for more than a few words.

I'm going to pull the William A. Henry card here (certain views, even though evidence can be adduced to support them, are simply not allowed to compete with others... See: Climate Change debate). We cannot debate whether the media was significantly anti-Trump. There must be a laddering of conclusions on this subject in which the argument that the media is not largely biased against Trump is thrown into or near the sphere of deviancy, many rungs below the obvious reality that, yes, the media is biased against Trump, and most other Republicans, and the only valid issue to debate is to what degree.

And no, that the media helped Trump by giving him free press is not a rebuttal to that issue. The media did assist him, while also detesting him. He was and remains their greatest pinata. Hoist him up, whip him, all roll in the ratings!

Ah, but you say, he quotes a lot of people in that article! He does, but only for ancillary stuff, not for the stuff he says the media got wrong. And when one bothers to click through, there's no there there.

Ah, but I didn't say that. Thus your argument that follows is in your head. Decide on that as you like. I'm not pro hac'd in the jurisdiction

The first "turning point" links to a Vox article (note: not major media by anyone's standards) which contradicts Taibbi.(1)

Vox is very much major media. It's widely read and widely cited in all sorts of media, both major and small.

The second "turning point" links to a piece in The Nation (note: not major media, or a news source) which also contradicts Taibbi.(2)

Agreed. That's not major media. But like Vox, to a lesser extent, however, it is widely cited.

And then I stopped checking his sources, because life is short. He starts the article by ostentatiously quoting the AP, the NYT and the WaPo as if he is going to deliver the goods on them, but then he hides his sources so that you have to find that his quotes are instead from Vox and The Nation, and they don't even say what he says they said.

I'll refer you back to my opening statement here. If you argue that WaPo and NYTimes are not biased against Trump (and NYTimes biased against Republicans generally) you're in the sphere of deviancy. Taibbi is not making this argument up out of whole cloth. It's admitted even among the media itself that WaPo is in a cold war with Trump. And the NYTimes punishes Trump in both its OpEd pages and the slant of its news stories almost daily. As it punished Bush II almost daily. (Krugman is a celebrity because he decided to leave economics and bash Bush for eight straight years.) Taibbi does not have the burden of proof. His argument, obvious as it is, holds a position five or six rungs above yours. Using Henry's measurement - that ideas must be scored from elite to lunatic - Taibbi's is within the lower end of the elite category. Yours is in the "we could do just as well to ignore this as humor it" zone.

Taibbi is blunt because he can afford to be, because anyone reading his assessment is aware of the obvious volumes of evidence supporting it. He needn't repeat the obvious. You've had to parse considerably to find a way to attack it.

But I will credit you this criticism of Taibbi. He steps too far when he asserts that Russiagate was a hoax from the start. That's not true. I disagree with him there. The evidence shows Museller's investigation was initiated based on valid concerns. Where Taibbi is unassailable is in stating that the press took this investigation and hyperbolized it more than any other story in recent memory. Which is the same point I've made elsewhere, several times.

Trump will be found in all things he does to be a bungling villain of sorts. He cannot help but be so. It's his essential character. And he is so here. But if we let the press off the hook for pumping this into something it never was, for cynically whipping the easily persuaded into thinking this was Worse than Watergate, we're letting a far more diabolical villain off the hook.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The heartache among the people spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy medical licenses is going to be severe.

You can look them right in the eye and say, "Long term, where's the barrier to entry?" And they've no answer.

Running with the herd and timing sale near top is an effective investing strategy with this stuff. But buying into the industry as a small business person is insane. The runway is minimal. You're a trojan horse for the recreational market that follows which eliminates even the suggestion you've a barrier to entry.

I think a few players will make some cash using weed as an opioid replacement/intervention device. But that's niche, and those contracts are going to be gobbled up by the huge players best positioned to withstand enhanced regulation and attract significant financing, which for good reason is skittish about this industry.

It's crazy town out here in recreational land. Weed is as cheap or cheaper than it was when I was in high school, and instead of "you holding?", I can choose from a candy store's variety of high-quality flower. Plus concentrates, edibles, etc. And I can get high at our holiday party with partners, staff, and my COO. Good times!

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Taibbi is blunt because he can afford to be

Taibbi is blunt because he thinks he's far smarter than he is, having adduced truth where others see nuance. It's a dope's game, served up to bigger dopes.

Kinda like the "media bias" thing. The media is critical of Trump because does and says things that are outrageous to normal people. Things that 3 years ago were outside polite discourse and, to most people, still are. Only you - and the right wing that wants to normalize it - would call that bias.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The heartache among the people spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy medical licenses is going to be severe.

You can look them right in the eye and say, "Long term, where's the barrier to entry?" And they've no answer.

Running with the herd and timing sale near top is an effective investing strategy with this stuff. But buying into the industry as a small business person is insane. The runway is minimal. You're a trojan horse for the recreational market that follows which eliminates even the suggestion you've a barrier to entry.

I think a few players will make some cash using weed as an opioid replacement/intervention device. But that's niche, and those contracts are going to be gobbled up by the huge players best positioned to withstand enhanced regulation and attract significant financing, which for good reason is skittish about this industry.

For some reason the med places are centered on 8 Mile Road. The other day driving about 10 miles I saw a dozen. One was out of business. A guy selling cannabis went out of business?

We are working with oil extraction machine manufacturers. There's the dollars.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm going to pull the William A. Henry card here (certain views, even though evidence can be adduced to support them, are simply not allowed to compete with others... See: Climate Change debate). We cannot debate whether the media was significantly anti-Trump. There must be a laddering of conclusions on this subject in which the argument that the media is not largely biased against Trump is thrown into or near the sphere of deviancy, many rungs below the obvious reality that, yes, the media is biased against Trump, and most other Republicans, and the only valid issue to debate is to what degree.

And no, that the media helped Trump by giving him free press is not a rebuttal to that issue. The media did assist him, while also detesting him. He was and remains their greatest pinata. Hoist him up, whip him, all roll in the ratings!



Ah, but I didn't say that. Thus your argument that follows is in your head. Decide on that as you like. I'm not pro hac'd in the jurisdiction



Vox is very much major media. It's widely read and widely cited in all sorts of media, both major and small.



Agreed. That's not major media. But like Vox, to a lesser extent, however, it is widely cited.



I'll refer you back to my opening statement here. If you argue that WaPo and NYTimes are not biased against Trump (and NYTimes biased against Republicans generally) you're in the sphere of deviancy. Taibbi is not making this argument up out of whole cloth. It's admitted even among the media itself that WaPo is in a cold war with Trump. And the NYTimes punishes Trump in both its OpEd pages and the slant of its news stories almost daily. As it punished Bush II almost daily. (Krugman is a celebrity because he decided to leave economics and bash Bush for eight straight years.) Taibbi does not have the burden of proof. His argument, obvious as it is, holds a position five or six rungs above yours. Using Henry's measurement - that ideas must be scored from elite to lunatic - Taibbi's is within the lower end of the elite category. Yours is in the "we could do just as well to ignore this as humor it" zone.

Taibbi is blunt because he can afford to be, because anyone reading his assessment is aware of the obvious volumes of evidence supporting it. He needn't repeat the obvious. You've had to parse considerably to find a way to attack it.

But I will credit you this criticism of Taibbi. He steps too far when he asserts that Russiagate was a hoax from the start. That's not true. I disagree with him there. The evidence shows Museller's investigation was initiated based on valid concerns. Where Taibbi is unassailable is in stating that the press took this investigation and hyperbolized it more than any other story in recent memory. Which is the same point I've made elsewhere, several times.

Trump will be found in all things he does to be a bungling villain of sorts. He cannot help but be so. It's his essential character. And he is so here. But if we let the press off the hook for pumping this into something it never was, for cynically whipping the easily persuaded into thinking this was Worse than Watergate, we're letting a far more diabolical villain off the hook.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Am I the only one alive who doesn't watch this show?

I wanted to watch it, but then I got behind after a few episodes, and Breaking Bad, Mad Men and others filled the space and I never got back to GOT.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

For some reason the med places are centered on 8 Mile Road. The other day driving about 10 miles I saw a dozen. One was out of business. A guy selling cannabis went out of business?

We are working with oil extraction machine manufacturers. There's the dollars.

Ain't wise to invest in a product one can grow in his yard.

Good move on repping the oil extraction tech. The cbd oil is proven to work in studies, unlike a lot of the other alleged therapeutic uses.

(I've a friend who uses oil on his knees and says it brings down swelling and pain better than pills.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Taibbi is blunt because he thinks he's far smarter than he is, having adduced truth where others see nuance. It's a dope's game, served up to bigger dopes.

Kinda like the "media bias" thing. The media is critical of Trump because does and says things that are outrageous to normal people. Things that 3 years ago were outside polite discourse and, to most people, still are. Only you - and the right wing that wants to normalize it - would call that bias.

Right. What about the media's bias toward Bush? Reagan?

The media tilts left and is more critical of Republicans. It's also more critical of hawks. Hillary got criticism as a perceived hawk.