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

I don't think that. You do. That was my point.

I think the following:

A majority of voters in states that matter in the Electoral College don't care for the impeachment, or the battling between Trump and the Democrats.

I labeled them moderates. You said the only people who fit that definition were conservatives. I could be wrong, and you likely are wrong, as you've now noted.

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

I'm not sure what is wrong with you. Here's what I said:

I was not talking specifically about impeachment and I was not talking about swing states in the Electoral College -- I wasn't talking about your "definition" at all. I was talking about your propensity to spew things that GOP strategists say on cable TV all the time as if you just thought of them yourself.

Just for a second, let's think about the notion that there are key swing voters who don't like "the battling between Trump and the Democrats." How do Democrats win those people over? By giving in to Trump until he's happy? If you were a Democratic strategist, what would you do to win those people over?

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

Seems like a pretty smart rule to me, rather than attempting to parse which relationships between powerful elected officials and their generally younger, underpaid staff people are uncoerced.

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

Want some fun? Go on youtube and find Don Rickels and Ozzy on Letterman.

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

Spoken like a truly clueless lawyer.

Life involves risk. It involves bad things, abuses, and people fighting back against abuses, and it's a constant push and pull.

Some shithead saying, "Let's pass a law..." is the autistic flag waver channeling traffic down that road to hell paved with good intentions.

You cannot effectively bar people from fucking via policy. All this does is put people in horrible situations. If a person in power is forcing himself on others, those others have avenues to make complaints. They can bring down the careers of such abusive people, as we're seeing every day (and get nice settlements in the process). Having some twit lawyer craft a zero tolerance rule precluding people from fucking it is both embarrassing and disheartening. And it did no favors for Katie Hill, who does not deserve to lose her job because her bitter spouse ratfucked her with revenge porn.

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

Every company I've ever worked for has had a policy against superiors and subordinates having a relationship. Why is this any different? The rule (and it's a rule, not a law) doesn't prevent such relationships (let alone preclude people from fucking), as everyone knows and this case shows, but it shifts the incentives to deter the subordinate from exploiting the work relationship in the personal relationship, which seems like a good thing. Just because there's a rule doesn't mean that Katie Hill was going to lose her seat,* and it seems to me much more likely that she quit because of the revenge porn, which the ethics rule had nothing to do with.

* I.e., to my understanding the rule doesn't impose any particularly penalty for violations.

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

Why is every company you've worked for an example of how things ought to be done?

Unless you're Katie Hill, in which case it becomes the authority on which "news" websites trafficking in revenge porn can claim there's been an ethics violation.

But for the ethics violation, the allegation against her would be that she engaged in a consensual relationship with two other people. It would seem to me that sort of thing is arguably... noncontroversial? No one's business?

Adults need no intervention on questions of who they may or may not fuck beyond the laws barring people from forcing it upon subordinates and allowing victims to sue for damages and lawyers' fees. This "ethics rule" is an example of the Death of Common Sense.

Immaterial. It's the authority by which she's being forced out for nothing. (Well, except the tat, which is quite questionable.)

If Trump is an authoritarian driving us to fascism as the paranoids claim, chances are I'll be in the gulag quickly. But as I oddly do know a number of people near him, it's unlikely but also possible I could also find myself offering some policy prescriptions. And if that odd scenario were to occur, mine might by offered on a postcard (to return our little back and forth to your first comment):

Any man who argues "We should pass a rule..." in immediate response to an issue shall be exiled to Bouvet. Or shot. Em can choose.

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

ty has been fired by entities in every walk, gov, Corp, big small. If we can take an accounting of all the places that have fired ty I think we can agree he can extrapolate rules across the board? I mean if we can discount dismissing his views due to the grounds for all the dismissals?

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

I'd certainly not want to argue his review with him. "Oh, for fuck's sake already... Here's a blank check. Fill in your bonus. Just stop telling me why the review was wrong. You're also part-- no... managing partner!

...Now please excuse me while I open the window and dive onto that bus 30 stories below."

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

I can't find it. Link?

Rickles was a God. Cat had mad speed. One of the few who could still fire off edgy barbs into his dotage. Rodney also held onto it for a long time, but his last five or so years were pitiful. Rickles was tight to a year or two before he died.

Peaky Blinders is using old Sabbath tunes in the soundtrack. Perfect fit. Deep cuts, too - from the first record. If you're not watching that show, you need to do so.

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

No one expects that you can. People will still fuck. This situation aside, it will largely only come up when there's a problem. The rule simplifies the response, defaulting to the less powerful person is the victim and the more powerful person could have made the choice to avoid the situation.

Nah. The horrible situation is when your congresscritter boss forced you to blow him but you can't tell anyone about it because he's a powerful committee chair who will not be held accountable. We have a long history of that happening. It's certainly happening right now.

That empathy thing gets you every time. You can imagine being wrongly accused but not being victimized.

On Corporate Democrats (Ouch)
 

Dude used to write for Gawker. He's upped his game for the Guardian:

When something has been done one way for many years, and when doing things that way has made a certain group of people fat and happy, it is natural that that group of people will want to continue doing things that way. It is also natural that the much larger group of people who have been hungry and neglected for all those years as a result of the way things have been done will want to do something different. Eventually, the larger group, full of righteous anger, will win. But the fat and happy class will cling tightly to what they have for as long as their swollen fingers can hold on. This is essentially what’s happening within the Democratic party right now. The weak grip of the old guard is being broken, one finger at a time.

. . .

Four decades of growing inequality and a class war by the rich that has been too successful for its own good have pushed Americans toward political positions that would have been considered fringe back in the carefree 1990s. The extremities have waded into the mainstream. You don’t need to be a genius to understand this basic fact...

. . .

People’s patience with the status quo has worn away. Americans themselves understand this instinctively. Political polls confirm it. Donald Trump revels in it. The only ones who don’t seem to grasp it are the wizened establishment figures of the Democratic party, who are making calculations based on a picture of the world that no longer exists.

The last thing that the centrist Democratic party establishment, a power structure still rooted in the triangulating ideas of the Clinton era, wants are policies suited to our current reality, because the radicalism of such policies would necessarily place the old guard in the trash, at last. And so the old guard must desperately pine for a savior. And we all must endure months of pathetic casting about for a nonexistent Centrist Jesus to rescue the Clinton wing of the party from its inevitable fate. It is like watching a fish fruitlessly trying to flop out of a bucket before it suffocates.

[T]here are the also-ran candidates at the back of the current pack, who are eyed like meat by wealthy donors musing over whether they can be effective Trojan horses for Goldman Sachs. Is Mayor Pete clean-cut enough? Can Klobuchar knife Warren while maintaining a sweet midwestern grin? The desire for some alternative to leftism is so powerful that even Michael Bennet, a man with no demonstrated constituency and the charisma of a cardboard box, is still lurching along, serving no purpose except to pipe up in off-hour cable interviews about how impractical Medicare for All is.

. . .

The core concern of those who consider themselves “moderate Democrats” is not really that Trump might win – it is that Warren or Sanders might win. This is a political faction that finds itself caught between its aesthetic distaste for Trump’s social policies and its distaste for wealth taxes, public healthcare, and other policies contrary to their ambition to afford that lake house.

For decades, the Democratic party has been effectively controlled by the sort of people who work at an investment bank but also support gay marriage (at least when the polls say that it’s safe to do so). These people are almost as responsible as Republicans for our current political predicament. Even if they didn’t start the war on terror or the war on the poor, they utterly failed to stop them. The time has come to pay up for those mistakes.

. . .

[T]hey can suck it up, make peace with the leftists, and pay more taxes, like responsible humans. Or they can take the mask off and vote for Trump. Either way, their disappointing time atop the Democratic party is over.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...rist-candidate

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

I didn't say they were, but since it's a pretty common practice, it suggests that Adder is not "clueless."

There was an ethics violation. But did that really matter? In your world, are there a lot of people looking specifically for revenge porn involving ethics violations?

Isn't the allegation that she abused her authority by sleeping with a subordinate? Or when you say "but for the ethics violation," do you mean "If we assume there's no problem when a manager gets involved with someone working for him or her"?

Re: On Corporate Democrats (Ouch)
 

God grant me the courage to go after the party that's not in power as fiercely as this dude does.

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

Fair enough.

In the actual world, if there's no ethics violation, Hill can argue, "This is my private life," and she'd get some sympathy. Smoking weed is not a crime in CA, and having a three person relationship is not a crime anywhere. But because there's a technical violation, a grotesque use of revenge porn (illegal in some states, btw) is now an ethics issue. A non-story, a wretched hit job by a psycho ex, is now elevated to a credible allegation of official impropriety.

There is no allegation that she abused her authority. She clearly did not. The people in these relationships have not asserted that at all, even now, when they've been outed and have nothing to lose.

The standard that you and Adder advocate - that a relationship between a boss and co-worker should be assumed coercive until proven otherwise - treats adults like infants. These people are all adults. We have laws on the books that allow subordinates to sue sue bosses when pressured for sex. We do not need a zero tolerance policy that turns a 24 year old staffer into a child, unable to think for herself. And that's exactly what this ethics rule does. It assumes an adult fucking her boss (and her boss's husband) is presumed to be doing so under pressure. How fucking patronizing is that?

When you're 24, you're long into adulthood. You're assumed to have made choices for yourself unless that's proven otherwise, not the other way around.

Re: On Corporate Democrats (Ouch)
 

Are the "Democrats" discussed by Nolan in that article really Democrats? I'd say he's firecely attacking a group of people who are probably going to vote for Trump if Bernie or Warren gets the nomination. How Democratic is that?

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

Again, so what? IMO, expressed multiple times now, she quit because there was no end in sight to the revenge porn, not because of the ethics issue.

As a technical matter, I do not believe those laws apply to Congress, so all you have here is that ethics rule. I also believe that a relationship between a boss and a co-worker should be assumed coercive until proven otherwise, because it's usually at least somewhat true.

I don't think any of that is true. If there were no revenge porn, just an allegation by the malevolent ex that she had an affair with a staffer, that could have been investigated by the Ethics Committee which could have heard from the staffer and decided that there was no coercion or real problem. Hill quit before that happened.

The ethics question is about Hill's choices, not the staffers.

Re: On Corporate Democrats (Ouch)
 

The people he's attacking essentially see things the way TM does, based on what he's said here about Biden. He doesn't love Biden, but fears that there are voters who will vote for Biden and not for someone more progressive like Warren or Sanders, and fears that those voters will be dispositive in key states.

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

Lots of high profile people have been victims of revenge porn. The difference here is hers was married with an allegation that she violated some "ethics rule."

I was referring to the ethics rule.

The ethics rule is a moronic zero tolerance policy (using moronic there seems redundant, but it seems some people actually think zero tolerance policies make sense). The only time an investigation should be triggered is when the staffer complains that she's been victimized.

Not in a consensual relationship such as this one. Hill and the staffers she fucked both made the same choice there - to engage in a consensual relationship, as adults do.

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

I saw a rumor that a GOP operative claimed to have 700 images.

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

No, you were arguing that the ethics rule is not needed because staffers can sue their bosses for harassment under existing laws. As Ty pointed out, this is not true (ETA: or I should say that's my understanding but I haven't looked).

Re: On Corporate Democrats (Ouch)
 

Nice try, but I ain't having any of that.

TM advocates supporting Biden because he wants to see Trump out of office and he thinks Biden is the candidate most likely to defeat Trump, as you note.

The people Nolan cites in his piece, as he explicitly states, are the "Democrats" who are happy to have Biden in the White House, but are appalled at the idea of Warren or Bernie. That's why Nolan states, and he's right, a big number of these "Democrats" will vote for Trump if forced to choose between Trump and Bernie or Warren. These people are effectively "Democrat Lite" tax voters. They're a lot like me, actually - socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Except they're not just afraid of paying more in taxes, but scared that their entire industries (mostly FIRE, HC, and Education) will be upended by Bernie and Warren. Trump is socially awful, and they don't care for that one bit. But Bernie and Liz actually hit them in the long term pocketbook. Bernie and Liz can change the trajectory of these "Democrats"' economic lives.

Don't even try to lump these "Democrats" in with people like TM (or Icky or Hank). Those people just want Trump out of office. If Warren or Bernie could do it, TM, Icky, and Hank would vote for them. But there's a good chance Warren or Bernie would lose to Trump. And do you want to know why, partly? Because a lot of the "Democrats" who'd vote for Biden (or any corporate Democrat) to retain a status quo that fattens their wallets would not only withhold endorsements and votes from Bernie or Warren, but probably also privately, in the the voting booth, pull the lever for Trump. And then lie about how they voted later.

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

Nice catch. My bad.

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

The difference is that she has to run for re-election next year in a swing district and her ex-husband was leaking the revenge porn to Republicans who were using it against her. I very, very much doubt that the ethics investigation would have removed her from office. I do not doubt at all that what her ex and the Republicans were doing would have made it impossible for her to win re-election.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Also, what Adder said.

I categorically do not like zero-tolerance policies, but you are confusing a rule with a policy about how the rule is enforced. You can have a rule against chewing gum in elementary school classes, but if the teacher enforces the rule by scolding the kid and saying don't do it again, that's not a zero-tolerance policy. An ethics rule that says, don't have romantic or sexual relationships with people who work for you, is not a zero-tolerance policy. It's a rule against getting into a kind of relationship which is often coercive and fraught. If the penalty for such violations were summary execution, that would be a zero-tolerance policy.

And the idea that there's no problem unless a staffer complains simply ignores the coercive potential for the relationships, which is the whole problem. People who are being coerced often have strong reasons not to complain. Cf. Volodymyr Zelensky.

Yes, Hill didn't rape anyone, so far as a I know, but she made a decision to enter into a consensual relationship with someone who worked for her, paid by taxpayer dollars. That was an ethically problematic choice. Consider, e.g., what it's like for other staffers. But I suspect it would have gotten her the equivalent of a slap on the wrist if the staffer said it was entirely consensual and was not upset.

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

George Papadopoulos appears to have had advance knowledge of the scandal.

Re: On Corporate Democrats (Ouch)
 

I don't know who those people are, and complaining about them seems silly. Among other reasons, the next President will need 50 Senators and the Vice President to pass legislation, as has been the case ever since 1959. If there's someone who holds those views openly, argue with that person about what they say.

Jesus H. Christ
 

This place was so much more entertaining when people talked to each other instead of pointing out all the ridiculous bullshit in Sebby's unending stream of dumbass posts.

TM

Re: On Corporate Democrats (Ouch)
 

There are tons of moderate Ds (and some moderate Rs) who are scared Joe is going to crater and Warren will get the nod. This will force them to weigh their economic interests against their social interests. They won’t have the luxury of money and virtue.

The folks you know with tons of money don’t care. They can afford Warren. The loaded and greedy and the upper middle class fear her. “They’re going to fuck it up and we’re going to get Warren v. Trump... We’re fucked,” is a very common refrain.

Re: Jesus H. Christ
 

Put a pin in that for November of next year.

Re: Jesus H. Christ
 

Big news today is that John Bolton is going to testify.

Also, this:

@Susan_Hennessey

Re: On Corporate Democrats (Ouch)
 

You and Donald Trump display a strange penchant for projection. In his case, it's narcissism and a failure of imagination.

Re: On Corporate Democrats (Ouch)
 

You and Trump are neck and neck in number of times you’ve admitted when you’re wrong or full of shit. He beats you by a hair. But with therapy I have confidence you catch him before he dies.

Re: On Corporate Democrats (Ouch)
 

Thanks for helping with my projection point, brother.

Re: On Corporate Democrats (Ouch)
 

You missed your calling as a therapist. You could debate with patients for 20 minutes and they’d think arguing with their spouses was actually productive.

Re: On Corporate Democrats (Ouch)
 

I'm not debating with you. I'm sure there are voters like what you describe. You just have an odd fixation on that particular constellation of views, and they shine much brighter in your firmament. Just a coincidence that their views so resemble your own? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Re: Jesus H. Christ
 

Sometimes it takes good ole T a while to come around to my positions, but he always does get there.

Re: Jesus H. Christ
 

Hank: No sebby, Warren is not a lock, look here is a poll showing it is a dead heat, and really she cannot lose Pa.

Sebby: I'm pretty sure we will get the third party over 7% THIS TIME and then, wait til you see!!!!

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

Could that "GOP operative" refer to Arthur Schwartz? I can email him for the photos if you want.

LessinBhutan

Re: Jesus H. Christ
 

Yeah, but it's a break from real life, where we point out all the ridiculous bullshit in the Republicans unending stream of dumbass stuff.

Re: Jesus H. Christ
 

I've wondered whether Bolton would be the witness that breaks things, thinking that he will be difficult for the GOP to ignore, but they seem so far go that I doubt it now.