Re: Immigration
 

this is not correct.

Re: Bully Ball
 

If Trump makes this personally about Mueller and sacks him, the rest of his team keeps plugging away. Getting rid of Rosenstein seems more promising for Trump, but at some point Rosenstein's successor has to hear from Mueller what he's got and then tell him to walk away. That exchange may destroy that person's reputation (which would matter to a lot of people who might take that job) and could get Trump impeached.

I'm just not sure. If Democrats win Congress big, at what point do GOP Senators start to distance themselves from Trump? If he is not backing down, will they really want to run with him at the top of the ticket in in 2020?

Re: Immigration
 

Kind of. I think all the evidence comes out. I just think it won't matter. Does that mean he's nailed? Probably not.

If Democrats win either side of Congress this year, it will drag on forever because they know they can't get an impeachment conviction, but will use it to drag the Republican Party down at the polls.

But, yeah. This guy has already packed the judiciary. And he's going to continue to do it--damage that will taken decades to undo.

I agree to a degree. The question is, if Dems take one or both of the House and Senate, can they leverage the fuck out of the findings for practical political gain or will they fuck it all up by saying shit like, "We didn't like when Republicans were mean, so we won't be"?

TM

Re: Immigration
 

What's not correct? As much as I want it to happen, I don't think Mueller takes Trump down.

Re: Immigration
 

When he says that, he doesn't mean that the resistance is monolithically or even generally masturbating in that fashion. Sebby hates that kind of overstatement. He was trying to say something much more nuanced.

Re: Immigration
 

Is he packing it at the district level or appellate level? Honest question. I don't think it really matters if he's packing it at the district level.

Re: Immigration
 

Up until now, no one said all. No one disputes not all. 7 of 10 is more than enough for a group tendency.

Re: Bully Ball
 

I question who you think Trump will put in Sessions or Rosenstein's office. He'll find himself a Giuliani, no?

Gerrymandering. It used to be that Republicans would vote en masse for what benefited Republicans. Now there are enough safe seat lunatics to stand in the way of an impeachment conviction no matter what damage it does to others in the party at the polls. Hell, it's not a leap to think they'd be acting rationally based on who their constituents are. Almost.

TM

Re: Immigration
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_Donald_Trump

TM

Re: Immigration
 

Nope, none of them. And I have a lot of Asian friends.

Re: Immigration
 

What I expected. Vague and non-responsive.

Re: Immigration
 

He's not correct that people are under the delusion that the Mueller investigation is going to result in taking Trump down.

Re: Immigration
 

Mueller gets to send a bunch of people to jail, we don't yet know who. I'm betting it goes beyond the administration and includes some legislators.

The only way trump gets taken down is if there is an overwhelming wave in November that makes it clear Americans are sick of him. It's a political issue, not a legal one. It's unlikely, though, that the wave will be that big.

Re: Immigration
 

How would one "identify" Jews as voters, however?

This is where identification becomes problematic. 1 out of 4 Jews is a lot of Jews. But if we "identify" Jews as reliable D voters, we lump that 1 exception in with the rest.

I don't object to identity politics because I'm against it. Quite to the contrary, I think it has done wonders to raise awareness and start change where it applies (BLM, female wages).

But it applies only in very, very limited areas. And it's overuse, and loose usage, is maddening. You can't just throw people into groups and say, "That's how they act, and that's how they should vote." It's just... wrong.

Similarly, you can't say, "Everything Trump does is awful because he is awful." The tax cuts were on balance not an excellent thing. But that doubling of the standard deduction does help a lot of renters, many of whom are struggling.

I'm seeing on the Left at the moment a lot of the same siloing I saw on the Right during Obama's terms. Now, of course, Obama is a much more normal President, and not comparable to Trump. But there isn't much difference between people on the Right howling that everything Obama did was evil, and people on the Left howling everything Trump does is evil.

In Obama's term, I'd hear, "Obama's a socialist!" and respond, "Yeah, how's your portfolio doing? 3X where it was in '08?" Now, I hear, "Trump is destroying the world," and while I must say he is doing a lot of damage, is it so wrong to take the contrarian pitch a little bit... to look for the silver linings here and there? Some of that tax bill does help the middle class.

I think people have to stop looking at groups and politicians' aggregate policy packages. The better way to look at everything is in as granular a way as possible -- one small item at a time. Like a buffet. "This is good... This is not so good... This is fucking awful."

Yeah, I do hate tribalism. It's not an act. I don't like being lumped into any group, and I hate when it goads me into reflexively arguing against other people by asserting they are part of some group who all think similarly.

Re: Immigration
 

James Earl Jones (Narrator):

He is that stupid.

Re: Immigration
 

Since Dodd Frank, it takes longer to close, and it's harder to qualify for mortgages. You know title people, and bankers. Ask one how much longer it takes, and how much more detailed underwriting has to be.

So, to make it simple, remove every part of Dodd Frank that slows down closings, and relax the ability to repay guidelines to allow more buyers into the market without having to select federally backed loans.

Quite literally, ask your compliance person to list every time consuming duty he or she has, identify the reg that is responsible for it, and remove it.

Is that weedy enough?

Re: Immigration
 

I know you're not a litigator, but imagine hearing this argument on a jury:

"Ladies and gentlemen, I can offer with 75% certainty, the defendant is liable."

Or, try this:

"Hey mom! Look at my report card! I got a 71 in history!"

Or, for you:

"It's almost three fourths of the way to average penis size. That's good enough, no?"

Re: Immigration
 

Win an election by more than 3 or 4 percent and you've got a landslide.

I'm sure you think that typing a lot of words will help, but each word is just proving to everyone here that you're a moron.

Re: Immigration
 

Then why the is everyone jerking each other off about it? Shouldn't people be focused on the stacking of the benches? Or the rollback on renewables just announced yesterday?

Is it, perhaps, because people are caught up in the Cult of Trump, more fixated on the person than the issues and the armies of little bureaucrats (or lawyers, like McGahn) who are effecting real on-the-ground changes?

When people think in tribal manners ("All Trump bad") they apply tribal fixes ("We kill Trump!"). Maybe the better idea is to go policy by policy, or judge by judge, and fight battles, which can be won, rather than an attempted grand coup, which will be lost.

Re: Immigration
 

If anyone here starts to agree with me, I'll be concerned.

If you start to agree with me, I'll be suicidal. You agreed with me the other day and I actually did fall into sincere self doubt.

Re: Immigration
 

I'd love to have that proof, not in criminal law, but in civil. Would you let that be overwhelming?

Black people vote D by 90%. That still isn't enough for "beyond a reasonable doubt," but it is really really big.

And 70% is smaller, but still over whelming. Again, as ggg says, most elections are within a few % points.

Re: Immigration
 

Come on. How do you talk about the evil of generalizations in one post and then write this in the very next?

People want to know what exactly is going on with Russian collusion, obstruction of justice, and whatever financial crimes will be uncovered. To act like (i) people can only focus on this while they ignore the damage of his appointments or policies (especially when Democrats do not have the ability to block appointments or affect the implementation of a whole host of his mind-numbingly stupid policies) or (ii) it's not perfectly natural for people to be concerned about what Trump has succeeded in doing to the office and our system of checks and balances is ridiculous. And if you can't hear people upset about and trying to get politicians to focus on his asinine policy initiatives (and foreign policy failures), then you are intentionally not listening so you can say that people are just objecting to Trump's cult of personality.

Finally, the fact that you refer to impeachment proceedings for crimes uncovered by a respected republican independent prosecutor based on actual evidence as a "grand coup," completely undercuts any point you're trying to make.

TM

Re: Immigration
 

Yeah, but we're not talking election margins, which sounds like an apt analogy, but is actually a very poor one (for reasons pretty obvious). We're talking about the accuracy of saying, "Jews overwhelmingly vote D." I'd agree with "a solid majority of Jews vote D." Overwhelmingly is up in the 85% and up range.

You'd never argue 71% likelihood to a jury. If we assume preponderance of the evidence starts at 51%, you're in coin flip territory. You have to at least get up over 75% to dare to make that assertion.

Re: Immigration
 

No idea who the "everyone" is you are talking about. There's a lot of work being done as an organized response -- registering voters for 2018, finding ways to challenge gerrymandering, addressing judicial appointees by means of legal challenges, etc. Mostly grassroots-funded groups. It kind of sounds like you are talking out of your ass and haven't looked into what is actually going on. Whether any success comes out of all this is anyone's guess, but people aren't just sitting around unfocused.

Re: Immigration
 

Wages have genders now. OMG we have gone too far.

Re: Immigration
 

He's talking about 70% of the people he encounters at cocktail parties.

TM

Re: Immigration
 

I can't believe I'm doing this, but 71% is not "coin flip." It's a stupid hypo, because it would never happen,but if I had actual proof or 71% for a preponderance issue it would be malpractice not to put it in. Plus half my issues are clear & convincing.

And election margins are the best relative test. Americans as a whole toggle between 55/45 or closer. So 70% is pretty high, but if it takes 85% for you to see overwhelming, okay.Would you agree that the D/R split among Jews is 400% of the typical margin in elections? To me that is overwhelming.

Re: Immigration
 

Why do you think that's bad? Before Dodd Frank, it was much too easy. Why do you think we've gone too far?

So we just assume that if it takes time it has no value? Isn't that missing half the analysis?

Re: Immigration
 

Only in your head. "A solid majority" is 55-60%ish. You see, it's a well into a majority but still just majority territory.

Overwhelming is more than that. But if you want I'll let you call 71% "nearly overwhelming."

I'd also point out that you are arguing something really fucking stupid rather than just accept that your example was wrong.

Re: Immigration
 

I've no issue with the investigation. Trump stepped in shit when he fired Comey and he deserves what he gets.

I have a problem with all the people salivating over it and focusing so much anger into it. It has all the attention for the moment, while Trump is nominating judges who the ABA can't even verify as qualified lawyers. He just rolled back investments in renewables yesterday. The article was on Page 10 of most papers.

What's Trump's weakness? He can't get into policy. He hates getting into details. His people hate getting into details (read about Mnuchin's clipping the Russian enemies list from Forbes). Schumer and Pelosi have shown us that you can whip Trump's ass with procedure and detailed policy negotiations.

Schumer had it right in his initial instinct to give Trump the wall which would never be built. Horse-trading with Trump on policy, where he doesn't understand the true value of the "assets," or the potential procedural impediments to their application, is where Trump is easily beaten.

I get Trump hatred. I get wanting to see him perp walked. But it seems to be playing his game. And if he skates, which he probably will, it's all for what? I say let Mueller do his job and focus on fucking Trump with obstructionist measure, as McConnell and the Rs did to Obama for years.

You don't want Trump gone. You want him there as a reminder, of how nuts the GOP has become. And you really don't want Pence. He's a "true believer," and he'll get really bad things done.

I call it a coup because any time you put a head of state in the cross hairs for something like obstruction of justice, or perjury over a blow job, you're opportunistically capitalizing on an attempted cover-up. In both Clinton's and Trump's cases (yes, I believe this as to Trump, himself), the only "crime" was the attempted cover-up.

Re: Immigration
 

This was actually the point I was making when I said "you are completely incapable of seeing facts that might undermine your scathing rebuttals of the ignorant, sheltered generalizations that nobody here is actually making."

Re: Immigration
 

I'm still guessing at what provisions you're thinking about.

Dodd-Frank increased the capitalization requirements for Banks, which made a lot of banks, especially banks that were on the edge, become much more selective. That may be the thing that most impacted people's ability to qualify for mortgages, because banks making fewer loans will tighten up their criteria. Securitizing normal loans also became a bit harder, and securitizing junk loans became much, much harder, because banks used to fill up their pools with the loans they never should have made anyways.

Dodd-Frank also increased some of the closing process for junk loans - if you're getting a loan at more than 6.5% of prime (in other words, you're a really bad credit risk and probably have collateral that is of questionable value), the bank has some additional warnings and processes that they have to go through. That might impact the closing process, but only for junk and predatory loans. I cannot think of what would impact the closing process from Dodd-Frank for a good loan, once the loan decision is made.

At the bank I know best, the good customers get their loans in the same time it always took. There's nothing in Dodd Frank that slows down a good loan to a good customer made on the bank's own base. There are some added costs from it, particularly because that bank has raised capital in order to stay in the top tier of well-capitalized banks, and that's threshold has moved higher. There are also some added benefits from it, since some of the weak banks doing crazy-assed shit got reined in, so there's less competition from dumb money. The bankers I know, when really pressed, would admit that the weak banks that screw stuff need all this regulation and more but would also want exceptions in every case for the strong banks who wouldn't make those loans anyways.

I take from your general reaction, though, that the people you know in banking are pretty sleazy.

Re: Immigration
 

Think about this. You're throwing a cocktail party. You decide to invite Sebby.

Who are you and who are the other guests at the party?

Re: Immigration
 

That's an even less convincing way to state it.

I'd say "just shy of three out of four Jews vote D."

And I'm sorry, but no way am I voting for liability if you offer me 71% probability. I'm not holding anyone accountable for anything with numbers like that. And I can think of endless arguments to make to a jury to dismantle evidence showing a 71% probability.

Re: Immigration
 

I got to say, I've been protesting shit and working in elections for about 40 years, and this resistance crowd may be the nicest, most sincere and thoughtful group of people I've hung with. Really. Not a lot of nasty sectarians or hard-core ideologues. They're all much, much nicer than I am.

Re: Immigration
 

I would invite Sebastian to my cocktail party. Legit.

Re: Immigration
 

Sorry. I read everything else you wrote intently and was going to respond, but this swallowed the rest.

Are you saying that he has been trying desperately to cover up something that you don't consider a crime? Or that there is no actual underlying crime? I'd like you to be specific, because when it all comes out and you say, "I always thought Trump was dirty," I want to have a post that I can refer to.

TM

Re: Immigration
 

Preponderance is 51%. Is it more likely than not that x infringed the patent. Say it turns on the meaning of one word, and 3 of the 4 possible definitions (all equally common) result in my guy winning*. You think I'm not telling the jury that, you're nuts. "4 possible meanings, 3 go my way, Sebby's guy wins with the fourth, but also take into account blah blah blah." Mal. Pract. Ice. Not. To.

*earlier this week GGG hosted me having a dep about whether a mark in a Japanese patent is a hyphen or a negative sign. How can this be my life?

Re: Immigration
 

Only my fellow New York-bubble people.

TM

Re: Immigration
 

2. If I invite LT socks I would invite everyone because about 30% of you guys stand me up. Still an overwhelming majority of you would show up.