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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If obstruction "succeeded," how would you ever know?

It succeeds all the time. It was a large part of Frank Quattrone’s case.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"That's entirely possible. That's a reasonable position. Instead of responding to it, I'm going to write a long post responding to something stupid that no one is saying."

Adder walked it back, but if you gave him support, he’d argue Trump’s obstruction concealed proof that might’ve shown the vote count had been hacked.

And my last post is a guess where I surmise much of the left and right want to go. Trump’s too dumb to curtail free speech. His opponents and their analogues on the right aren’t.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Adder walked it back, but if you gave him support, he’d argue Trump’s obstruction concealed proof that might’ve shown the vote count had been hacked.

And my last post is a guess where I surmise much of the left and right want to go. Trump’s too dumb to curtail free speech. His opponents and their analogues on the right aren’t.

I walked nothing back. You assumed that I was engaged in your nonsense when of course I wasn’t. As usual, you were talking to no one else.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I do not really know what all the report said Trump agreed to- if it was just asking Russia to fuck with Hil on social media- and that is somehow actionable, please tell us how, cuz Sebby keeps asking that. And asking Russia to help fuck with Hil on social media, while nasty, doesn't seem different than asking Israel's PM to write a letter supporting em. On the other hand, if Trump asked for a different level of "help" can someone let me know?

Trump won the game legally by engaging in the mother of all hacks. He worked indirectly with a foreign adversary and, legally, he won.

That burns the shit out of people. Understandably. They want it to be illegal, to be disqualifying, to somehow be different from the sleaze the Clintons themselves engaged in while running.

Politicians do these things. And worse. The only difference is this one does it openly.

Only a group of lawyers would find this offensive. From a business perspective, it’s just like Uber’s model — ask forgiveness later rather than permission before, and assume the price of bending the law to what you desire a cost of doing business.

Trump’s simply post-law. He just doesn’t understand that. Dumb fuck stumbled into it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I don't need your vote, I need $10,000 so I can funnel it to where it's needed.

Uh oh.

I'm unemployed. I just hang around all day on internet chat boards.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And my last post is a guess where I surmise much of the left and right want to go.

Like I said, it was a response to a bunch of crap that no one is saying.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Bullshit. We know there was no changing of votes via hacking.

Or, this.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Or, this.

The argument that we can never know if there was successful vote changing by Russians (effective and material hacking, mind you, as opposed to hacking in Illinois, where Hillary won) because Trump obstructed (despite Mueller having used the broadest possible powers to investigate Russians for hacking and indicting twelve of them for it without finding any link between them and Trump) is pretty dumb.

The argument that it's just a matter of time until we find the Russians changed votes (elapse of time + ??? = a finding Russians clanged votes) is a ticket to Crazytown.

If the Russians changed votes, Mueller'd have found it. That was just a matter of Mueller examining electronic data Trump could not preclude him from accessing. He didn't find it. He found attempts to do so which were ineffective.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Like I said, it was a response to a bunch of crap that no one is saying.

Oh, the left is going there. In a few years, I guarantee people here will be arguing for a return to the fairness doctrine, and for legislation aimed at curbing fake news.

I'm actually sympathetic to the goal of the fairness doctrine, but I think it allows govt regulators to decide free speech issues, which belong before courts.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I walked nothing back. You assumed that I was engaged in your nonsense when of course I wasn’t. As usual, you were talking to no one else.

Then why did you initially argue that Trump obstructed justice and prevented us from knowing what the Russians did in a discussion about whether Trump's election was invalid as a result of Russian meddling? I think you put a foot in the water, and if you'd found support here for the argument that Trump obstructed us from knowing things that might prove he stole the election, you'd have run with it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I travel between NY and DC a fair amount. It is neither controversial nor inaccurate to note that Philly and Baltimore, and Wilmington (don't forget it just because it's in DE) are in large part blighted cities.

Philly has enjoyed a resurgence of sorts, but NE Philly is a quasi-slum and West Philly remains dangerous. And portions of North Philly aren't even frequented by police. Baltimore is like Philly on steroids. Where at least the downtown of Philly has some development which is spreading out into surrounding neighborhoods, Baltimore remains quite challenged. And Wilmington is just a dead, decrepit city ringed by nice suburbs, 1/4 of which are inhabited by DuPonts.

Anyway, if you travel these cities regularly, the above is not at all an offensive thing to say. You can say it to people who live there and they'll generally agree.

Now, of course, Trump's comment about rats is a dog whistle. And he should be criticized for it. But why make this a discussion about him? He's just saying incendiary shit as he always does.

Why not discuss the fact that, yes, those three cities, and many other Mid Atlantic cities are, in significant part, disasters? There are numerous reasons for this, including a mix of lost jobs, redlining, white flight, affluent flight, bad tax policies, etc.

I don't expect anything useful to some out of this moment. It's a political football. But it'd be pretty awesome if somebody made a list of the five or ten big reasons Baltimore is where it is, gave that list to the candidates before the next debate, and asked each how they'd go about fixing Baltimore. I'd like to hear that. And not some bullshit about education or economic development like Baltimore's inner harbor (tourist dollars aren't a fix).

Philly is attempting to tackle some of its blight by allowing people in bad neighborhoods to take empty properties via adverse possession more quickly. Used to take 21 years. Now, if you are in a row home and take care of it for ten years (as a squatter, or a guy who lost it in foreclosure but hasn't been evicted), it's yours. This puts properties back on the tax rolls and attracts people to otherwise undesirable neighborhoods. It's akin to debt forgiveness -- giving people something without outlay of hard dollars, and making money off the investment in the future in the form of tax dollars. Baltimore should do something like that.

Instead, we'll hear about Trump. And Baltimore will rust.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I travel between NY and DC a fair amount. It is neither controversial nor inaccurate to note that Philly and Baltimore, and Wilmington (don't forget it just because it's in DE) are in large part blighted cities.

Philly has enjoyed a resurgence of sorts, but NE Philly is a quasi-slum and West Philly remains dangerous. And portions of North Philly aren't even frequented by police. Baltimore is like Philly on steroids. Where at least the downtown of Philly has some development which is spreading out into surrounding neighborhoods, Baltimore remains quite challenged. And Wilmington is just a dead, decrepit city ringed by nice suburbs, 1/4 of which are inhabited by DuPonts.

Anyway, if you travel these cities regularly, the above is not at all an offensive thing to say. You can say it to people who live there and they'll generally agree.

Now, of course, Trump's comment about rats is a dog whistle. And he should be criticized for it. But why make this a discussion about him? He's just saying incendiary shit as he always does.

Why not discuss the fact that, yes, those three cities, and many other Mid Atlantic cities are, in significant part, disasters? There are numerous reasons for this, including a mix of lost jobs, redlining, white flight, affluent flight, bad tax policies, etc.

I don't expect anything useful to some out of this moment. It's a political football. But it'd be pretty awesome if somebody made a list of the five or ten big reasons Baltimore is where it is, gave that list to the candidates before the next debate, and asked each how they'd go about fixing Baltimore. I'd like to hear that. And not some bullshit about education or economic development like Baltimore's inner harbor (tourist dollars aren't a fix).

Philly is attempting to tackle some of its blight by allowing people in bad neighborhoods to take empty properties via adverse possession more quickly. Used to take 21 years. Now, if you are in a row home and take care of it for ten years (as a squatter, or a guy who lost it in foreclosure but hasn't been evicted), it's yours. This puts properties back on the tax rolls and attracts people to otherwise undesirable neighborhoods. It's akin to debt forgiveness -- giving people something without outlay of hard dollars, and making money off the investment in the future in the form of tax dollars. Baltimore should do something like that.

Instead, we'll hear about Trump. And Baltimore will rust.

You're attempting to make lemonade out of lemons, which is fine, but best to know what you are doing. Those tweets, of course, weren't really about Baltimore per se.

Having a discussion on urban policies is a great thing. I live in a phenomenally successful city, one that has been blessed with everything needed to make it work in the 21st century, and still there are two huge problems facing our economy (forget about non-economic problems for a minute): (1) infrastructure, especially transportation infrastructure, was built for an earlier time and has enormous deferred maintenance, and (2) the economic segregation of some areas, especially majority African American and Hispanic neighborhoods in the city and increasingly working class white towns and cities around the city. These are huge problems, they require funds in the many billions of dollars to address in just one urban area. We're talking, in Boston, a $10 to $15 billion capital investment need for the subway system alone.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Then why did you initially argue that Trump obstructed justice and prevented us from knowing what the Russians did in a discussion about whether Trump's election was invalid as a result of Russian meddling? I think you put a foot in the water, and if you'd found support here for the argument that Trump obstructed us from knowing things that might prove he stole the election, you'd have run with it.

I think you're an idiot who says idiotic things and doesn't even notice when no one is engaging with them and yet keeps prattling off more idiocy.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is absolutely wrong. There is no one out there who needs to be excited to vote in the next election. If you're not excited to vote against Trump at this point, you're not getting off your ass to vote for any of these other people.

White people are the fucking key. White people are fucking this country. White people want someone "safe" to vote for. And I'm talking about the ones in Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Florida.

Excited? Jesus Christ. How can anyone be more motivated to vote in an election? If my wife were running, I'd vote for Joe Biden.

This "generate excitement" stuff is garbage. Bernie's ceiling is low. He's going to excite the same number of people as last time. Kamala is a black woman. Her ceiling is capped. Pete is gay. His ceiling is capped. Etc.

I hate that it is this way. But that is the way it is.

TM

This all day long.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Too often, however, that argument, which speaks to how Trump and the Russians manipulated voters, is used as a basis to assert his election was somehow invalid.

No it isn't, but I see that won't stop you from arguing that point as if anyone here (or anyone else besides the few people you've selected in your head represent the entire Democratic Party) has made it.

TM