Re: Is this new for America?
 

Are you kidding? Who has two thumbs and cares about naked FFM pictures? This guy!

Eta: sorry, but that tat is a deal breaker, naked or otherwise.

Re: like the original one
 

Yup. We're renting a house in the country near where my sister is. Between us, we only have room for 20-25 people, and we're not inviting the racists.

I think this is the first holiday in about 3 years where we won't have to deal with them. Just a huge relief.

Re: like the original one
 

Yeah, I'm advocating this approach for Christmas - just us and the kids. But I'm not going to win. I'm sure we'll have to deal with trumpers for Christmas.

Re: like the original one
 

I banned talk of politics. But you have to stay vigilant. It sneaks back into the conversation thru so many angles.

Thankfully, we’ve no Trumpers. Just angry old mainstream Republicans.

Last year a vicious fight erupted over who was the greatest classic rock vocalist. Swearing, personal insults, people being told to leave. Insane.

I also banned champagne before noon.

Re: like the original one
 

Janis Joplin. No question.

Re: like the original one
 

Freddy Mercury.

Re: like the original one
 

Bye Bye Baby Bye Bye

Re: like the original one
 

Ozzy or Lemmy.

LessinTashkent, Uzbekistan

Re: like the original one
 

Bryan Ferry.

Re: like the original one
 

Nanci Pelosi calling to protect the Trump whistleblower despite her prior position to prosecute Snowden. Pretty classic and she is of the age.

LessintheDubaiAirport

Re: like the original one
 

Wasn't aware that the Trump whistleblower stole a bunch of classified materials and gave them to reporters before fleeing to Russia.

Not sure I favor prosecuting Snowden, but there's a pretty big difference between what he did and making a report to IG (even if it was after consulting with House Intelligent Staffers about the right thing to do).

Re: like the original one
 

There is an obvious difference, which is that the Trump whistleblower has followed legal channels and has not released information to anyone outside the government, so far as we know, unlike Snowden. Which is to say that Pelosi is calling to follow the law, controversial as that is in this day and age.

Re: Good argument for requiring lawyers to retake the bar exam once a decade
 

Umm, and what would the whistleblower be prosecuted for?

Yes, classic, Les. Classic.

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

Hmm. I fear Yglesias is right...

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

He may be right that hitting the streets is necessary, but your efforts, reading blogs all day then posting nonsense, that's important too! Thank you for your service.

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

This a rather muddled article. There really isn't any reason to cite Watergate, as Yglesias himself acknowledges when he reminds us how different the political climate of today is from the political climate of 1974.

What brought Nixon down in 1974 could very well bring Trump down in 2020. But that has little to do with protests, and everything to do with political maneuvering.

I think Yglesias is attempting to argue that protests might enable politicians to act against Trump. Specifically, that'd be a number of GOP senators, as they are the only political actors who matter in the impeachment. This is a bit fanciful. Those people are only going to be swayed by their voters primarily, the existence of really bad facts (I mean seriously bad), and the lack of a credible defenses. The standard most R senators will apply will be something far above beyond a reasonable doubt. It will be more along the lines of, "guilt absolutely proven, without any other plausible explanation."

Protestors are not going to move the dial with these senators any more than Occupy moved the dial on Wall Street malfeasance or wealth inequality.

First, the voters at issue are dispersed. For an R senator to think he or she were in peril, significant unique protests would have to take place in each of their states. That's impossible to organize.

Second, not enough people care about this issue to even protest in significant numbers in Washington. Occupy and Vietnam protests recurred and grew because people had skin in the game. People's economic futures and the possibility of dying in a mindless foreign war are compelling. On the other hand, marching to unseat a "lawless" President? You'll get a few hundred thousand once or twice. The typical pros who show up to protest things. But beyond that, few are going to invest the significant time and travel required. Of the small minority of the public educated enough to understand the situation, most look at it cynically, assuming its just politics, and it'll will work itself out. These people also have other shit to do. They have schedules. People who go to protests have a thing a typical successful educated person does not: Free Time.

I'm not going to list the reasons successful protests in Spain and Iceland differ from the protests Yglesias contemplates. I assume those are obvious. What I will say is that most protests do not succeed. Even the most noble ones seeking to unseat truly repressive regimes, like the Green Revolution in Iran, and Tianenmen Square, tend to fail. Hong Kong is a happy example of one that has succeeded, but again, there the people had serious skin in the game. The Chinese sought to defy the intent of the "two system" structure and send people to the mainland for criminal trials.

To Yglesias, Trump's an existential threat. Maybe he's right. But not enough people agree with him to spend the time and energy to protest at the level needed. Yglesias is a smart guy, and he's writing to informed people. But I think for those reasons, he's in a bit of a bubble. He grossly overestimates the percentage of Americans exercised about Trump's malfeasance and sophisticated enough to even understand why Trump may be impeached. This could change, of course, if something like Roe's overturning, or Trump asking for re-institution of the draft, were to occur, or if some horrible 2008 scenario replayed. Then, faced with immediately loss of their own money, or rights, people would protest. But mass protests for the nebulous concept that a President must face justice for abusing his power for political advantage? That's not going to happen at anywhere near the level required to make a difference.

Re: Good argument for requiring lawyers to retake the bar exam once a decade
 

So you and Pelosi also supported the prosecution of Daniel Ellsberg?

LessinKathmandu, Nepal

Re: Good argument for requiring lawyers to retake the bar exam once a decade
 

I don't know about Nancy, but I've been around a long long year. I shouted out "Who killed the Kennedys" when after all it was you and me.

Re: Good argument for requiring lawyers to retake the bar exam once a decade
 

Kennedys killed as many Kennedys as everyone else.

Re: Good argument for requiring lawyers to retake the bar exam once a decade
 

These are the best Kennedys: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xV97NB2v6aQ

(It’s disheartening that most of their stuff would be horribly misunderstood these days, and they would be deemed insensitive, if not flat out bigoted. Which is 180 degrees from their actual message.)

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

In other words, voters are just like you, in that they don't really care. Thanks for that postcard from America.

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

Yglesias suggested a technique to force out Trump. I commented on the likelihood of its success based on facts.

A reasonable view of the facts compels recognition that Trump can be removed through careful political maneuvering. The Ds have to throw a perfect game, and they have to get a lot of R help, but it can technically be done. A reasonable assessment of the facts leads to the conclusion that protests, OTOH, are not likely to succeed, or to even occur to a significant extent.

Just because you feel very strongly about removing Trump for his efforts to solicit information from foreign powers does not mean anywhere near a majority of Americans agrees with you. We both know this sort of information is acquired by politicians through back channels all the time. What do you think opposition research is? The only difference here is Trump is so dumb, he tried to make a trade for it. And since he has no access to discreet back channels, rather than wash such a transaction as skilled politicians and research providers would, he had a fool like Giuliani out there soliciting the information.

I see in Trump, and I suspect this is a majority view of voters, the living embodiment of the nation, "It's not necessarily being criminal, but being dumb, that gets people in trouble." Trump is dumb. He sounds dumb. He speaks like a child. He has ludicrous hair. It's impossible not conclude he's just a blundering thug, exposing himself where others would have gotten away with things. I don't think people march against buffoons.

The closest analogue for Trump's recent malfeasance is the Iran Contra situation. Do you recall marches congealing around collective upset at Reagan having funneled weapons to a nation that had just years earlier held 50 of our State Department employees hostage? No. That never happened. And if it didn't happen there, why on earth do you think it'll happen in response to an allegation Trump held up foreign aid to a nation most Americans still think is called "The Ukraine" to get dirt on Biden?

Schiff is an ex-prosecutor. I think some of those guys think people are as doggedly interested in pursuing all "wrongs" as they are. This is a delusion. I think even the simplest grasp that life is complex, systems are complex, and the letter of the law and ethical considerations are more malleable than perhaps we'd like them to be.* And that sometimes, a fool is elected President.

_______
* ETA: If not for there being "ways things are actually done" separate and apart from the way the rules, and certain of their stewards, assert things "must be done," the world would grind to a halt. Even at this age, I'll read an agreement literally only to later find "industry practice" deviates from its terms. If you've plead out a criminal case, you've seen the divergence between the law and "what happens" in its most stark relief. I'd suspect that 59% of Americans polled saying they support impeachment of Trump are doing so not because they're incensed about what's been alleged, but because anything that might get the guy off their televisions sounds great to them. (Shit, I'd love to see him impeached and removed if not for the fact that we'd then have President Pence for a few months.)

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

I re-read his piece to understand how one could take from it the idea that he's suggesting a "technique" but I still don't get it.

Yglesias and I disagree. Re-read.

Did you read his piece? Maybe not.

Did you read his piece? Maybe not.

You've said this to me so many times -- if you don't think I've ever understood before, why do you bother repeating yourself? Conversely, does it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, I have some understand that in my preferences are not always shared?


I guess I have a higher opinion of the nation.

That's not a close analogue at all. Maybe there is no good precedent for a lawless President leading a polarized party, and we have to find a new solution to a new situation.

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

Maybe you need to recognize where you're wrong. I understand I have a capacity to write in manner that compels one to disagree with me even when he's kind of agreeing with me, but you need to develop a capacity to admit when you're on thin ice, or just flatly wrong.

You're just doing the "Ty being haughty" default here. You cited an article where someone suggested that protests in conjunction with impeachment might succeed in ousting Trump. I explained why I think Yglesias is way off in that assessment. In response, you first whined and called me a cynic. I replied, evenhandedly, and you now accuse me of not having read the article.

Look, I'm happy to go back and forth with you on this. But you're not offering much. Maybe you don't have time. OK. Reply when you do. I've a meeting in 30, so I might not reply until tomorrow. But if you must insist Yglesias is on to something in suggesting protests are needed and could work (contrary to the tacit admission he's wrong which you coughed up in calling me a cynic), explain why. Tell me why we're going to see mass protests and they're going to succeed in removing Trump.

(I'm also interested in how Iran Contra is not far worse than what Trump has done. Here, a novice is fucking up. There, a group of pros subverted Congress and gave weapons to an enemy. Were the people involved in that actual conspiracy not "lawless"? I think some were actually convicted of crimes.)

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

RIP John Conyers. In the 1990s I flew to DC every other week for work. Due to a certain fact I was always able to fly First Class. Congress gets free upgrades so I was always around Congress people (Senators get free upgrades too but they were aware of the optics and sat in coach). Anyhoo, congress people, Dems and R's both, seemed the most self-absorbed grand standing asses, working the Crowd- then I saw I was sitting next to Congressman Conyers and he was next to what I assumed was his grandson (found out later likely his son, but still). He was in the moment being with the young man, oblivious to the crowd, not a second of grandstanding. I certainly didn't agree with many of his positions, but he just seemed this real human being- very rare in that job. I was impressed.

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

I'm wrong all the time.

Look, you did not "explain" anything. You're under no obligation to respond to his article at all. You have every right to say you disagree. You certainly may be right. But if you mischaracterize what he says ("technique") and assert in a few sentences that what he says in several paragraphs is not right, don't pretend that you have "explained" why you think he's way off. There are obvious answers to what you've said in what he says, which shows you are not engaging with him. Again: maybe you're right and he's wrong. But you haven't bothered to explain it.

Well, he doesn't say that "we're going to see mass protests" and he doesn't say that "they're going to succeed in removing Trump."

Here's the paragraph that (I think) captures his thesis:

Here is some of his explanation of why he thinks mass protests can work:

Does he say that "we're going to see mass protests"? No, and he points out that institutional Democrats are uncomfortable with them. Does he say that "they're going to succeed in removing Trump"? No, but he offers reasons to think that they have promise.

I think the problems with Trump go far, far beyond "a novice fucking up." Among other things, he rejects any oversight or obligation to be bound by the law. (He literally just argued to a federal court that he could shoot someone and be immune to prosecution or investigation while he is President.) If there are mass protests, they won't be protesting the hold-up in military aid to the Ukraine. Try asking yourself, what will they be protesting? How is it different from Iran-Contra?

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

Sergino Dest FTW!

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

1. It is a technique. The whole point of the piece is protests are a neglected technique that ought to be used.

2. I explained why it’s not neglected but actually rejected. If people were going to use it, to effectively (emphasis there) protest any policy of Trump, we’d have seen tons of it. Outside the govt employees defying Trump, we’re not seeing much in the way of protests. As you and I note, people don’t know, care, and are too busy.

3. If not mass, what sort of effective protests would work? A small protest is nearly an oxymoron. (You even admit Yglesias is suggesting that “mass” protests can work, btw.)

4. The distinction between saying mass protests can work vs. will work is a frivolous one to raise. Clearly, Yglesias desires them to work and thinks they can. That is not even close to likely unless Trump does something truly extreme or we have a significant recession.

5. On the last point, one man’s lawlessness is another man’s battle against the establishment. The victimized savior narrative is worn by few more effectively than Trump. This impeachment helps him more than it hurts. Nancy knew this, and among all the Ds who find ways to lose, she’s an annual 20 game winner.

Re: I was so much older than, I’m younger than that now.
 

Why must Katie Hill resign? There’s no suggestion even that she used a position of authority to force subordinates to sleep with her.

These are adults in their 20s. They can make choices. And having a consensual relationship with one’s boss and her husband is a choice. We do not assume coercion until proven otherwise. We assume a consensual relationship until proven otherwise.

(Insert every sneering comment Mencken offered about the remnant Puritan sensibilities in American society here.)

Re: I was so much older than, I’m younger than that now.
 

Iron Cross tat?

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

Nice response to a cease-and-desist.

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

Only if you use the word "technique" in a strange way. Google suggests to me that the word means, "a way of carrying out a particular task, especially the execution or performance of an artistic work or a scientific procedure." Calling mass protests a "technique" seems to me to miss or obfuscate the point, since the term has connotations that are antithetical to the idea behind mass protests, but knock yourself out.

And Yglesias points to 2017. Maybe you were asleep that year and then skipped over that part of his piece?

Not only do I admit it, his actual point is that they can work. He doesn't just suggest it -- he says it pretty explicitly. (Does he say that "they're going to succeed in removing Trump"? Again, no.)

Yes.

I understand that you think this, because you said it before. Thank you for repeating yourself to avoid confusion. If at some point you would like to explain why you think that, that would be swell. If you don't want to bother, that's fine too.

Do you really believe that both are equally true here? Of course not.

In what way does he "wear" that "narrative" effectively? In what way does impeachment help him? Since Nancy's smart, what can we learn from her decision to move on impeachment?

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

This is Spanish Inquisition level word torture. If you have to go to this level, skip the point. (I won't flag you for not addressing every argument.)

Yeah, the year of the pink hats. Those protests will be recalled right next to Kent State. Next?

Um, okay... then why did you raise the distinction?
I explained in my first reply to you, to which you could only muster, "Thanks for that postcard from America."

It's not a postcard. It's an educated assessment based on facts observed. Were he writing today, de Tocqueville would have said the same. He'd have assessed Yglesias well meaning but delusional.

Yes. What do think "drain the swamp" meant? Trump's followers love the idea of defying the Establishment. And most moderates think "a pox on both their houses." I think almost everyone secretly desires a scenario where both sides can lose badly and be replaced.

I'm in a purple state. If I'd a dollar for every time I've heard, from moderates, "This guy's an ass, but they people after him are as bad, if not worse," I could buy a decent case of champagne. YMMV. But your state doesn't matter in this election, so no one cares what the average voter there thinks.

He's got the fight he wants, instead of discussions of policies, where Ds would do better. He loves the red meat arguments and loses when it comes to actual plans.

Regarding Nancy, she was pushed into it. She's been left with no choice. If you think she wants this, you're delusional beyond all help.

Re: I was so much older than, I’m younger than that now.
 

Apparently there's a "new" house ethics rule that strictly forbids relationships with staffers, although I haven't followed it closely enough to know if she actually had one. I thought she contested that point.

Otherwise, yeah, I don't know why she can't have whatever consensual relationships she wants, take whatever pics she wants and not expect that her ex could successfully attack her as he apparently has.

Hank's right about the tat, though. What's the deal with that?

Re: I was so much older than, I’m younger than that now.
 

I suspect she is resigning because her ex-husband keeps leaking revenge porn to conservative outlets that are all too happy to run it, and she thinks it'll doom her re-election chances, not to mention make her miserable for the next year.

Re: I was so much older than, I’m younger than that now.
 

Well when you put it that way...

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

It's a pretty fundamental choice, not just a question of technique. If you think like a lawyer, they don't accomplish anything, but (as Yglesias points out) mass protests have accomplished quite a bit, in the US in 2017 and elsewhere. Is there some guarantee that they'll work? Of course not. But if you start from the premise that Trump is corrupt, the alternative is to work within the system on the Hill, building a case and hoping to persuade enough Republican Senators to put principle over party, something you have previously announced will be futile.

One of the GOP talking points that you have internalized is that whatever it is, it's always good news for Trump, and now the Democrats have gone and thrown him in the briar patch again. I don't buy it. For one thing, Trump really seems bothered by impeachment. Also, I don't get which voters might decide that they don't like him, but are going to go back to him because we spend several months talking about how he used the government to smear Joe Biden. The way this trick works is, Trump does x, and someone like Nancy Pelosi does or says y in response, and the GOP talking head shifts the focus from x to y and says, you know, voters really don't like it when Pelosi overreaches. It plays to the stereotype of the centrist disengaged voter guy who doesn't much like Washington at all, and the implication is that Democrats should just shrink into the wallpaper until voter guy votes them back into office. There are voters who don't like it when Democrats do things. They're called conservatives.

Re: I was so much older than, I’m younger than that now.
 

That's a brilliant rule. Very measured, enforceable, and realistic. What fresh out of law school staffer with his head securely stuffed in his colon authored that?

Re the tat:

1. Motorhead fanatic?*
2. Distorted picture?
3. She's a Napoleonic War buff? (Iron Cross is a 1800s symbol.)

_______
* Perhaps the person here who knew him can answer this: Why'd Lemmy dig Nazi and Civil War gear? The band was virulently anti-war and socially liberal. Was it just a permanent version of Bowie's "Dictator Chic" phase (where he dressed in military garb and gave fascist salutes)?

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

I can shorten this for you.

"The majority of voters in this country are conservatives, not moderates. Conservatives don't like it when Democrats do certain things."

That's really your point. All you're effectively doing is taking my statement that most moderates do not care for impeachment, and dislike both parties, and saying those same people are actually conservatives.

I don't think they are, but that's an immaterial dispute. What's material is they are a majority of voters who matter in the Electoral College.

ETA: Re Trump being bothered, when is Trump not bothered? Trump exists in a bubble of perpetual bother. He's a tension ball of such proportions I can't even guess at his blood pressure. He's also way out of his depth, without a clue as to the strength or fragility of his situation. His impression of where he is is no indication of where he actually is. Recall, he's the guy who thought his conversation with the President of Ukraine was "perfect."

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

No, but if you think that then you've internalized more GOP talking points. Conservatives are a minority, and they are very conscious of it.