Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 502064)

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 502065)

Antitrust law is an area where the government generally deals with problems not by passing rules, but by bringing enforcement actions to block business conduct that goes too far. The political appointees who get jobs in the DOJ and FTC generally have significant private-sector experience. I personally think this works pretty well, but you don't usually see people holding antitrust up as a model of good government. I suspect that this is because the people who complain about process are really interested in the substance, and will never be satisfied. The people who complain that regulation is onerous mostly have strong interests against government regulation, and vice versa ideologically on the other side (although there are fewer of them and they are much less like to have a financial interest).

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 502068)

I think this is an excellent example. I'll also say I have worked with both very conservative and very liberal anti-trust counsel over the years, people with experience under Bush and experience under Clinton, and found they all work well together.

Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 502069)

Um, rookie mistake.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 502070)

That's why I farm the shit out.

I will say, I have rarely found antiTrust counsel who wasn't overly persnickety about matters of form rather than substance; this seems to be an occupational hazard, whether they are of the right-, left- or center- wing variety.

Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 502071)

Knowing the car part names saves you from getting ripped off at the mechanic.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 502030)

The best of this excellent piece is where the author discusses personal responsibility. And it focuses on what I think is, strangely, the most positive element of a very bleak story. In voting for Trump, these lost souls are choosing to take their chances rather than bet on expansion of the safety net to sustain them. My knee jerk reaction is the same as Thomas Frank's ("these rubes are voting for a plutocrat who's going to screw them"). But that's elitist, and it's narrow-minded. What these simple people are doing is throwing a hand grenade at a system in which they no longer have a place. Perhaps that's anti-social, and it's probably foolish. But I have to admire the sentiment... "I'd rather possibly blow it all up than fade away, forgotten." Can't fault a man for that.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 502074)

Bad shit coming.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 502075)

On the one hand, I think we're on the way to a Hillary landslide that will make any alleged shenanigans impossible to reasonably view as determinative.

On the other hand, I can see Trumpists believing that the landslide was the result of a rigged election.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 502075)

On the one hand, I think we're on the way to a Hillary landslide that will make any alleged shenanigans impossible to reasonably view as determinative.

On the other hand, I can see Trumpists believing that the landslide was the result of a rigged election.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 502074)

Bad shit coming.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 502077)

But even if it were close, half this country is going to view whoever wins as illegitimate.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 502079)

Nah. Not even half of voters. But still, it's a lot of people.

Not sure about Obama calling for republicans to repudiate Trump. I mean, they won't in any great numbers, so it will be fine, but I image that if they did, it would be Ex. A in Trump's "the establishment rigged the election against me" whine.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 502080)

Whichever candidate wins, Daesh will get the war it desires.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 502073)

I think it is just as elitist and narrow-minded to describe this demographic as "simple people" who are lashing out at The System that has no more use for them. Sure, there may be some of that. But where you see a desperate underclass that has been forced to turn to nihilistic violence rather than become completely irrelevant, I instead see a lot of people whose willingness to blame Muslims, Mexicans, and various other groups for many of their problems has been validated and cynically exploited for political ends. Maybe the latter is just the vocal minority, but I definitely don't admire the sentiment.

I do admire a funky bass clarinet riff, though. The Daily Dose is some Headhunters funk. If You Got It, You'll Get It:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz4kUvHAIBg

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 502079)

Nah. Not even half of voters. But still, it's a lot of people.

Not sure about Obama calling for republicans to repudiate Trump. I mean, they won't in any great numbers, so it will be fine, but I image that if they did, it would be Ex. A in Trump's "the establishment rigged the election against me" whine.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 502083)

One interesting aspect if you really dig into some of the more recent polling data, the CBS one in particular, is that if Trump were pulling in a comparable percent of self-described conservatives as McCain and Romney, he would likely be up for a comfortable win. However, he is currently pulling in roughly 20% fewer of such self-described conservatives, and the difference exceeds the margin he is behind Hillary.

My favorite Trump happenings of the day are Trump kicking the baby out of his rally (To his credit, he didn't offer to pay the legal fees for someone to rough up the baby (and then not pay)) and Trump adding the endorsement of Robert Mugabe to his one from Putin.

Oh, and Trump repeatedly dissing the NYT because "they don't write good".

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 502085)

So, I think this place has isolated me from how stupid lots of people are, in some ways-

On FB I never ever go Political (hi Sidd!), but after the d-man insulted the fallen soldier's mom, I posted "You have to give Trump this, most candidates after getting the nomination try moving to the center, but Donald has no interest in moving away from the extreme."

A young Muslim guy i know posted "we shouldn't give him anything." and I Pm'd back saying I was being clearly sarcastic, and he knows I hate DT. But as I'm typing a tea party "friend" liked my post. Like people think I admired that DT kept his insanity going.... I deleted. {sad face} ain't no room for sarcasm this cycle.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 502086)

To be fair, Republicans have long applauded crap like the swift boating of John Kerry and the Benghazi nonsense - it's hard to keep straight when someone has gone too far for you guys.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 502073)

I think it is just as elitist and narrow-minded to describe this demographic as "simple people" who are lashing out at The System that has no more use for them. Sure, there may be some of that. But where you see a desperate underclass that has been forced to turn to nihilistic violence rather than become completely irrelevant, I instead see a lot of people whose willingness to blame Muslims, Mexicans, and various other groups for many of their problems has been validated and cynically exploited for political ends. Maybe the latter is just the vocal minority, but I definitely don't admire the sentiment.

I do admire a funky bass clarinet riff, though. The Daily Dose is some Headhunters funk. If You Got It, You'll Get It:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz4kUvHAIBg

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 502088)

Following up on the first part of this post, this video is indicative of why, when I look at Trump supporters, I don't see a desperate downtrodden man lashing out at the Establishment that has its foot on his neck. I just see hatred. Maybe it is hatred that is fueled by being forgotten or discarded by the System or whatever, but it is hatred nonetheless, and Trump's calculated cultivation of this hatred for political ends is nothing short of scary. This is true even if the people depicted in the video are just a tiny screaming minority in a movement that is mostly made up of peaceful, anti-globalist populists.

http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/poli...T.nav=top-news

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 502089)

I think hatred oversimplifies it a bit. It's hatred coupled with a belief that Trump's victory will lead to a license to act on that hatred. I think a lot of th rednecks in the Trump camp think that they will be set free to prey on the objects of their hatred, or that Trump himself will have the State take care of them. If Trump wins, I fear Election Night will make Kristallnacht look like a Flower Power gathering in Golden Gate Park circa 1965.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 502087)

Has anyone done a chart of what despicable things are ok and what aren't?

Like, you know, maybe set up some categories, like "endorse wholeheartedly", "endorse but criticize", "criticize and don't endorse". Lying about Hillary would be an "endorse wholeheartedly" for all the Rs, while something like "Swiftboating Kerry" would be an "endorse wholeheartedly" only when done by surrogates and an "endorse but criticize" when done by the Bushes.

"Criticize Paul Ryan", of course, would be the only "criticize and don't endorse" I've spotted so far as far as the Republican leadership is concerned.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 502092)

Kerry held his service up, so attacking it was not wrong per se. The attacks may have been based upon inaccurate information (or not), but if wrong they were only wrong for being contrived. The same with attacking the Hil.

Attacking the mother of a fallen soldier though, that takes you out by Westboro Baptist territory. The closest political equivalent I can think of is Rush attacking Michelle Obama's anti-obesity campaign by saying she was overweight. First, she wasn't, but second even if she was, how could the party of "family values" attack the build of a woman with two youngish children? It's just a sickening thing to hear.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 502093)

See, this helps.

Any attack on a Democratic candidate, no matter how pernicious, ok for all! Even if based on service, even if based on lies!

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 502091)

The only reason I can see for Kelly Ayotte to be losing is Trump.

I differ with Ayotte on many, many issues, but can concede that absent the dynamics in the Republican party today she's the kind of Republican Democrats can work with. And she is running a pretty good campaign (as is her opponent).

But right now, it looks like Trump is going to take her down.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 502034)

One could say that about Black Lives Matter, and he'd be guilty of the same failure to adequately analyze the situation.

Nobody's angry without reason.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 502090)

Wow, dude, that's a dark vision, but I hear ya.

So, that Jimmy McGriff funk tune yesterday had me exploring his catalogue a bit, and I stumbled across this little gem with that funk guitar wah wah that I immediately recognized as having been sampled by Cypress Hill. The Daily Dose is "The Bird":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6C6doGJnvM

Here is the Cypress Hill song, which also explores dark themes. The sample is slowed up just a bit to give it that blunted Cypress Hill ambiance!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L35_HSkl9mo

Finally, Phife Dawg is getting his own street!

http://pitchfork.com/news/67216-a-tr...-in-his-honor/

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 502096)

This right here is some dumb shit. There are plenty of people who are angry for no good reason. Angry that a Kenyan Muslim is President. Angry that they are suffering from reverse racism. Angry that they have to put some effort into calling people what they want to be called instead of how white people used to define people. Angry at the government because their company moved their jobs to Mexico so that stockholders could increase their return on investment, which is taxed at a lower rate.

Yeah. There's always a reason, but that's not saying anything when those reasons are often demented.

Also, after your criticism of Obama's "lack of action" on imbalanced drug laws, your silence on this is telling: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016...itional-people

TM

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 502102)

A little Maceo for the Daily Dose. "Soul Power '74" is basically the James Brown Soul Power if it were written to be an extended sax solo. The Bootsy bass keeps things tight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEYgSuIWPTs

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 502104)

The face of anger today is a purported Billionaire married to a model with a private jet who has made a fortune while repeatedly bankrupting his businesses.

I am sorry whitey (orangey?), but before you sing the blues, you have got to live the blues.

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 502110)

In all seriousness, I wish Teddy White was still around to write "The Making of the President - 2016." And while I think that Hunter Thompson's "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail 1972" is his best work, I think that Teddy's Everyman style would probably make for a better read on this saga.

Instead we'll just get something like "Game Change 3 - The Wrath of Khan" by Heilemann and Halperin, filled with breathless awe and after the fact self-justifications and rationalizations. (John, why do you hang out with that idiot?) Maybe someone will ask Elizabeth Drew will write a book again.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 502111)

I've been thinking about writing up my recollections of a youth on the campaign trail. I mean, think of all the colorful, exciting stories I could share about being on the campaign trail with the likes of Fritz Mondale and Mike Dukakis....

Yeah, we'll keep that one in the drawer.

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 502110)

In all seriousness, I wish Teddy White was still around to write "The Making of the President - 2016." And while I think that Hunter Thompson's "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail 1972" is his best work, I think that Teddy's Everyman style would probably make for a better read on this saga.

Instead we'll just get something like "Game Change 3 - The Wrath of Khan" by Heilemann and Halperin, filled with breathless awe and after the fact self-justifications and rationalizations. (John, why do you hang out with that idiot?) Maybe someone will ask Elizabeth Drew will write a book again.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 502092)

The closest political equivalent I can think of is Rush attacking Michelle Obama's anti-obesity campaign by saying she was overweight. First, she wasn't, but second even if she was, how could the party of "family values" attack the build of a woman with two youngish children? It's just a sickening thing to hear.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 502111)

I've been thinking about writing up my recollections of a youth on the campaign trail. I mean, think of all the colorful, exciting stories I could share about being on the campaign trail with the likes of Fritz Mondale and Mike Dukakis....

Yeah, we'll keep that one in the drawer.