Re: And do whiteys have to identify with Robert E. Lee
 

Just so you know, this is not necessary to remind us you're alive.

Re: And do whiteys have to identify with Robert E. Lee
 

You might actually get it.

On one hand, I read a poll where 1/3 of conservatives won't vote for Trump and I think, "he's fucked." But then I look at Biden and think, "Can he survive to the general?"

And then I hear people say, "He's fucking exhausting... But the economy's good, so..."

If a progressive emerges from that field as the candidate, the economic voters are going to put Trump back in office.

I was talking with a military dude that other night who just moved back from Europe. He ranted about how disgusted he was at Trump, how embarrassing it had been to apologize for Trump to his European friends and colleagues. But who's he going to vote for? In order, Biden (because he won't do anything crazy to fuck up the economy), and if not Biden, Trump.

Never discount the pocketbook vote. Particularly where so many are so concerned about the future. That's why HC is a winning issue for Democrats, and Biden such a compelling candidate (he's associated with the ACA, of course). The people voting on social issues are already locked into their parties. If Biden goes down before general, there's a decent chance its four more years of Trump.

Re: And do whiteys have to identify with Robert E. Lee
 

You've noted the minority groups are in the minority. Thank you for sharing this wisdom.

Re: And do whiteys have to identify with Robert E. Lee
 

There is a huge disconnect happening inside your head which I don't think I will be able to fix.

Maybe I don't know what you're referring to as identity politics (even though I have explained to you more than once that whenever a person of color asks for a political fix it is for a problem that is aimed at that group of people as a group). But I can't believe that you think that people don't think that their race is part of their treatment. What you're saying doesn't make any fucking sense.

You have it completely backwards and inside out. Trump is pitching to white people exclusively. He does this by pointing to people of color who are asking to be treated fairly and saying, "See? These people are all about identity politics."

Are you serious? You pick a group of people and tell me why they shouldn't be upset about how they're being treated. Transgendered people can't serve in the military? Muslims are fucking banned? When laws and social norms treat you less than what the fuck are you supposed to do? Just because you don't have their problems doesn't mean those problems aren't important to those people. Identity politics are thrust on you. People don't jump into groups who have problems for fucking fun.

Can you not see that I am picking out one group to use as an example? Can you not apply the same analysis to any other group you keep castigating for using identity politics?

What are you talking about? How? By whom?

This is so fucking stupid. Really. Please stop it.

BLM didn't go away. It wasn't hijacked. The press stopped covering it because everything in our country is currently on fucking fire. Wokeness. If you're railing against that term it's because you don't want to deal with what it actually means--and being in tune of the types of unfairness that different groups have to endure is all it means.

I know. It's terrible. How will straight, white people ever deal with having to hear about all the issues they've never had to pay attention to before! Oh, the humanity!

Needless to say, this whole paragraph is stupid. There are surely multiple complaints. You and most white people don't want to deal with multiple complaints. Only the really big things should count. The rest is just whining. So you fixate on a shorthand description of people standing in solidarity and understanding of the many issues this country has with those who have been historically marginalized and dismiss it all. The reason why that works is because you want to dismiss the stuff you don't think is important.

It's weird to hear you say that because whenever you mention identity politics, it's always aimed at other people.

So, you.

If transgender people want to fight in the military, how is saying, "Hey! This ban isn't fair!" playing his game? He instituted a policy that affects people. They are pushing back. Others support them. What the fuck is the alternative?

Oh, well, let me alert all my woke friends!

Here's what you've done. You have prioritized what should be important. You have dismissed a bunch of other shit. You have inflated people like AOC to the position of leader of the Democrats. You ignore everything but what annoys you and you have labeled what annoys you and what you have deemed unimportant as "wokeness" and have told everyone that that term has swallowed everything thus rendering it overbroad and useless. But here's the truth: You do this because you don't give a fuck about almost all of it. And that's the magic of people, like you, who scream and yell about identity politics, and playing Trump's game, and whatever other bullshit gets you out of actually looking at the issues that matter to people who aren't like you.

The last sentence is only occurring in your head (and people like you). You are dismissing the actual asks you've listed (some of which are being proposed by actual House leadership) and blaming that dismissal not on the McConnells of the world, but on groups of people who also have asks for fair treatment. It's sickening.

It's the same analysis as when white people were up in arms over political correctness. Group a bunch of complex issues that are really affecting people into one term, cite an example of what you have deemed the most frivolous one, dismiss it all.

TM

Re: And do whiteys have to identify with Robert E. Lee
 

Sebastian is not bothered by Trump. He is bothered by people who react to Trump. Do not ask him to explain this.

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

Really good post by Josh Marshall on Rod Rosenstein, who could have been so much worse and so much better.

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

I have friends, as I'm sure you do, among the crowd who have occupied conservative justice posts over the last several administrations. In talking with them these days, while they are all horrified in various ways by Trump, they are also all still very much Republicans. Most, but not all of them, have the customary stick up their ass, they are usually pretty open elitists, and they're hostile toward everything from health care reform to voting rights. So they look at Trump and say, yes, he's a wretched crook, but he's our wretched crook. They all think various fairly nasty Republican figures of the past, from Nixon to Bork, got a raw deal. Yet, most of them play by the rules and only a few question Brown v. Board.

I put Rosenstein in that crowd. Sure, he's got his own self-defined sense of honor and he has character in the sense that he is unlikely to lie about his conduct (but don't criticize his Yale bud who tells a few racist jokes in the locker room as having any kind of stain on his character). They are people who can be much worse, even if for the most part they're not particularly appealing, though sometimes quite amusing (and actually I can think of one of them who I think has actual good character - I still can't figure out why he's a Republican). And they're mostly people who are willing to accommodate Trump even if they do so with some disdain.

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

GrumpyEsq., DM me please.

Re: And do whiteys have to identify with Robert E. Lee
 

I think the disconnect may be that:

1. I’m not terribly exercised about Trump. Nor was I about Obama or Clinton or Bush I or Reagan. The last time I sincerely cared about the President was Bush II, whom I think was worse than almost all others because of Iraq. I also truly detest Pence and Sessions because they’re hardcore social conservatives who think the govt should police morality, using their rules, of course. But they’re not Presidents. So no, I’m not viscerally invested in re Trump.

2. So I’m coming at this mostly from a strategy analysis perspective. I understand the grievances and why they’re made. I just see a lack of strategy and common sense. If progressives/liberals focus on the big issues, the little ones the right uses to characterize the people aligned behind these related movements as extreme will go away. If the victims of systemic prejudice are fairly and proportionately represented, the structures that enable such prejudice will be legislatively dismantled.

I Believe there’s a view that one must be deeply anti-Trump and incensed at the man or one is morally deficient. This is a view I find disturbing. I’m entitled to think him or any other President a clown and feel rather indifferent while pointing out errors among those aligned against him.

I’ll probably vote for Biden and regret it. Throw up a crazy progressive and I’ll stay home.

Re: And do whiteys have to identify with Robert E. Lee
 

There's no disconnect. I think I accurately described how you feel, and you don't disagree.

Re: And do whiteys have to identify with Robert E. Lee
 

But he did explain it, so there's that.

Re: And do whiteys have to identify with Robert E. Lee
 

If I can put a point on how I feel, this might do it.

I'm listening to BBC about Venezuela. This provides a teaching moment for the child, who's in the car. Immediately, I explain that the issue is complex, and what's in the media is probably as much narrative as fact. I then jump to our involvement in overthrowing countries (Allende) and supporting despots (Shah, Marcos, Hussein, etc.).

This of course raises the issue of why we're so angry with the Russians for simply adopting the playbook everyone uses. I duck that and explain that we actually have a good bit of socialism in this country and whatever happens in Venezuela, it won't be entirely good versus entirely bad, as it will surely be portrayed in the media.

So I figure that I'll let the action speak for itself. I reach the house, turn on the TV, flip to the US news networks (CNN first) and...

Nothing but stories about Trump and the Democrats. Pulp TV garbage on all the news networks. Trump this, Democrats that. All shit.

Where is Al Jazeera when I need it? (I admit, I may have it and simply not know where to find it... but that's most definitely Not The Point.)

Re: And do whiteys have to identify with Robert E. Lee
 

So stop watching that crap.

Re: And do whiteys have to identify with Robert E. Lee
 

I did. Immediately. That's the point.

I should be able to turn on the TV and see what's happening in a situation as significant as the the overthrow of a dictator in a nation in our hemisphere. I mean, the mess in Venezuela only involves Russia, China, Cuba, and us. It's just a wee bit important in terms of world affairs.

I drove an hour this morning. BBC covered Venezuela. Every other news station on Sirius covered nothing but the letter Mueller sent to Barr complaining about Barr's summary. Endless repetitive mental masturbation over what Mueller might be thinking and what a pack of dipshit Senators might ask Barr this morning.

Thankfully, Howard had Tracy Morgan as his guest. When asked about politics, Morgan gave an answer that struck me as perfect in the moment: "I don't care. Fuck them all. I don't believe in that shit."

Morgan's crazy, of course. But he's not exactly wrong.

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

Given that the Report was released, how is Barr's early summary an issue? Makes him look a toady perhaps, but that is his problem, isn't it? How were we harmed?

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

Attorneys General can be impeached too.

Re: And do whiteys have to identify with Robert E. Lee
 

I can see why you'd think that's crazy. It is. Which is why I did not and would not say that. What I said was most people don't think about race (or any other similar issue) to the extent we do here. Most people have other shit occupying their minds.

I think you have the chicken before the egg there. Trump is starting the whole thing with "MAGA," as Reagan did in 1980 (it's a borrowed Reagan slogan). He says things need to revert to an older mythical reality. That reality was cruel to minorities, so they react to that. Trump doesn't point out groups and accuse them of trafficking in identity politics. He creates them.

Each group has a right to be pissed. But when the transgendered in the military (statistically a near non-existent group) are given airtime commensurate with police murders, people are not properly prioritizing things. You're trying to break down the door where kicking it open and expanding the breach is the best approach.

If you fix what BLM seeks to fix, you'll open a dialogue on prejudice that will eventually get to the issues of the transgendered. If you take something that applies to a tiny number of people and place it alongside something like police abuse and murders, which impact millions of people, you harm the latter by giving people an argument it is of a kind with less significant or even frivolous grievances.

And that's what Trump wants.

I think Black people have a unique set of requests neglected for so long that they get to go to the front of the line. Once those are being addressed, then we can get to the rest. I understand that's discriminatory, but I think that's the necessary approach.

If the press isn't covering BLM, it has gone away. Attention is what it needs, and if it isn't getting attention, it's not being addressed. Police shootings and systemic abuses of black citizens didn't suddenly stop. The media just decided it was more fun to focus on #metoo (has a sex angle) and the transgendered (this creates a debate over gender fluidity, which is divisive). Black people being jailed? That's so... 2017.

"White" doesn't fit when you consider things like transgenderism or #metoo. There, people of all colors and backgrounds are being asked to consider grievances.

Racism has been a problem forever. So yes, it goes to the front of the line.

These people aren't in solidarity. They're groups de jour for the media to fixate upon for a period of time and then forget. BLM was first, then it was #metoo, then it was the transgendered and other truly small groups of people.

And here's what that "solidarity" - that shotgun approach where all voices, of the tiny groups, and the huge groups, of the people advocating for gender fluidity awareness and the people getting shot by cops - has achieved: A. A modest justice reform bill; B. The firing of a bunch of male execs for harrassment (to be replaced with more male execs); and, C. Arguments about who can use what bathroom in school and whether a boy can wear a dress to prom, or whether those five military personnel in transition can go into the field of battle.

I didn't vote for Trump last time and I see no reason to vote for him this time.

No. I have prioritized, for strategic advantage.

No. She is only a leader of a faction of the Democrats.

Moderate Democrats do not annoy me. I was completely happy to see Hillary win as I figured she'd be fine for the economy.

I am annoyed with people who make tactical errors. Taking Trump's bait and making this election a grievance festival of myriad groups is a tactical error on which he is banking. I think it's stupid. And I think you need to separate the strategy discussion from the defense of the people making the somewhat "niche" grievances. A person fighting against Trump's discriminatory policies has every right to do so. But as a matter of strategy, it's not the wise choice to give every person with a complaint the same level of bullhorn. It's wiser to deal with the more acute problems targeted by things like BLM first, and avoid Trump's bait and run on health care.

I'm not screaming or yelling. I'm telling you I see unforced errors being made.

Don't assume for a minute that I do not blame McConnell. I absolutely do. But I'm not writing about McConnell here. McConnell is on the other side. It's his job to make the Democrats lose. What I'm saying is, McConnell is very good at what he does. Why make unforced errors when up against such a formidable opponent?

I don't care about political correctness except as it applies to comedians and entertainment. I am concerned that we are gelding artists and political correctness risks making our entertainment suck. But personally, no, I do not care much about political correctness. I'm generally polite, so it's not usually an issue for me. Like all socially aware people, I can gauge a person's sensitivities and modulate the humor to avoid offense.

As to your second sentence, you have described exactly what Trump intends to do. He's going to wrap up all the grievances and call them the invalid complaints of people who hate "traditional" America. And Democrats are walking right into his scheme. The guy's a fool in many regards, but he knows how to bait people. Why let him do it?

TM[/QUOTE]

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

Okay, but what harm did he do? A percentage of Trump supporters closed their minds based upon the summary? I guess maybe.

Re: And do whiteys have to identify with Robert E. Lee
 

Disagree. The struggling people that you hypothesized have race on their minds in different ways, but most every day. The only possible exception, might be some white person in a 100% white county somewhere- but honestly I think 100% white counties do not exist so much anymore.

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

It's like the Russia 2016 election thing. The complaint is that by giving such a benign report, Barr created a public impression that the Democrats cannot now overcome. Had Barr not so spun things, the Democrats could push for impeachment more easily. Barr is like the Russian trolls who kneecapped Hillary with disinformation in 2015 and 2016.

The conceit at the base of the argument on Russia is that, but for Russian troll spin, the Americans who voted for Trump would have voted for Hillary. A similar conceit - that but for Barr, Americans would be incensed and cry for impeachment - applies to Barr's spinning.

However, the polls since the Barr letter indicate Americans believe Trump engaged in unethical or even illegal conduct, but are exhausted with the investigation, and think impeachment is a bad idea. This is hardly unsurprising. The man cannot speak without lying, and regarding the investigation, the media has beaten this horse to glue.

I suspect a number of Democrats are angry with Barr when they really ought to be angry with a public that doesn't share their excitability about Trump. Inadvertently, Barr may be saving them from another unforced error. Impeaching Trump only to lose in the Senate would probably infuriate the voting public the same way impeaching Clinton did.

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

This is wrong, but I can't tell you the real base of the argument because you feel I have OCD on the topic.

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

So you're ok with public officials who misbehave as long as they do it badly?

That will let a lot of Trumpsters off the hook.

Re: And do whiteys have to identify with Robert E. Lee
 

I don't know for sure, but my guess is that minorities and other marginalized groups just LOVE it when rich white dudes tell them which of their concerns are worthy and which are just silly.

Re: And do whiteys have to identify with Robert E. Lee
 

I should be able to walk from my house to a neighborhood coffee shop and a bookstore stocking Pynchon criticism, and then eat lunch next door at a Peruvian ceviche place. But instead I have to walk a mile to Starbucks and a grocery store magazine rack, and I can eat lunch at a crappy Mexican place. Sometimes you get what you want, and sometimes you get what the market gives you.

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

We know he couldn't have done anything wrong because Sebby said his reputation.

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

If he didn't do any harm in misrepresenting the report, why do you think he did it?

eta: Josh Marshall puts it well:

Re: And do whiteys have to identify with Robert E. Lee
 

I wouldn't have an opinion on that, as I think they're all worthy. What I do have an opinion on is how they should be prioritized to most effectively address them.

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

I'm still not sure he did anything wrong. Mueller's letter is unclear as he has not fleshed out what he means by confusion.

I think Mueller's letter is intentionally neutral. Confused and misled are two very different things. I'd like to see Mueller's summary. That should resolve things.

Re: And do whiteys have to identify with Robert E. Lee
 

This is why I continually resist telling Sebby his concerns are silly and instead just point out that he's a fucking moron.

Do you think I should say "fucking intellectually challenged" instead?

Re: And do whiteys have to identify with Robert E. Lee
 

I over-credited you earlier. 110, tops.

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

So much this.

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

Do you really believe any of this, or is it just your contrarian pose here? If you were talking to a bunch of conservatives and they told you how awesome Barr is, wouldn't you want to say, yeah, didn't he kinda shit his credibility by misrepresenting what Mueller said?

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

Yup. Warren is the one setting the agenda and driving party policy. Let's just vote for her.

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

Kamala Harris just taught a Master Class in how to question a witness in the Senate. The other Dems were pretty good as well. I can't wait to see debates.

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

Setting the agenda and driving policy is a great thing for a Senator to do, but it's not the most important thing for a President.

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

Still, it's great seeing candidates run on their strengths rather than attacking others.

I've said from the beginning not to underestimate Warren. I have a number of disagreements with almost every plan she comes up with, as well as places I agree, but I'm really glad for the focus on substance.

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

I love what she's doing, even when I don't agree. If another candidate turn out to run better, her work sets the agenda nonetheless, and that is valuable.

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

We're likely just vigorously agreeing, but I think it does more than set the agenda. It says we're going to focus on substance and policy, and on the real world and the problems it presents. I can't think of anyone more focused on reality right now.

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

Hillary was very focused on the real world and the problems it presents, and she was unable to sell her substance and policy in a way that motivated her supporters to turn out or the undecided to vote for her. Warren's focus on substance and policy is awesome for governing, but you don't get to govern unless you are good at persuading people to support you.

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

BTW, here is the reality the rest of us aren't ignoring:

Neal Katyal in the NYT