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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Nice response to a cease-and-desist.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

1. It is a technique. The whole point of the piece is protests are a neglected technique that ought to be used.

Only if you use the word "technique" in a strange way. Google suggests to me that the word means, "a way of carrying out a particular task, especially the execution or performance of an artistic work or a scientific procedure." Calling mass protests a "technique" seems to me to miss or obfuscate the point, since the term has connotations that are antithetical to the idea behind mass protests, but knock yourself out.

2. I explained why it’s not neglected but actually rejected. If people were going to use it, to effectively (emphasis there) protest any policy of Trump, we’d have seen tons of it. Outside the govt employees defying Trump, we’re not seeing much in the way of protests. As you and I note, people don’t know, care, and are too busy.

And Yglesias points to 2017. Maybe you were asleep that year and then skipped over that part of his piece?

3. If not mass, what sort of effective protests would work? A small protest is nearly an oxymoron. (You even admit Yglesias is suggesting that “mass” protests can work, btw.)

Not only do I admit it, his actual point is that they can work. He doesn't just suggest it -- he says it pretty explicitly. (Does he say that "they're going to succeed in removing Trump"? Again, no.)

4. The distinction between saying mass protests can work vs. will work is a frivolous one to raise. Clearly, Yglesias desires them to work and thinks they can.

Yes.

That is not even close to likely unless Trump does something truly extreme or we have a significant recession.

I understand that you think this, because you said it before. Thank you for repeating yourself to avoid confusion. If at some point you would like to explain why you think that, that would be swell. If you don't want to bother, that's fine too.

5. On the last point, one man’s lawlessness is another man’s battle against the establishment.

Do you really believe that both are equally true here? Of course not.

The victimized savior narrative is worn by few more effectively than Trump. This impeachment helps him more than it hurts. Nancy knew this, and among all the Ds who find ways to lose, she’s an annual 20 game winner.

In what way does he "wear" that "narrative" effectively? In what way does impeachment help him? Since Nancy's smart, what can we learn from her decision to move on impeachment?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Only if you use the word "technique" in a strange way. Google suggests to me that the word means, "a way of carrying out a particular task, especially the execution or performance of an artistic work or a scientific procedure." Calling mass protests a "technique" seems to me to miss or obfuscate the point, since the term has connotations that are antithetical to the idea behind mass protests, but knock yourself out.

This is Spanish Inquisition level word torture. If you have to go to this level, skip the point. (I won't flag you for not addressing every argument.)

And Yglesias points to 2017. Maybe you were asleep that year and then skipped over that part of his piece?

Yeah, the year of the pink hats. Those protests will be recalled right next to Kent State. Next?

Not only do I admit it, his actual point is that they can work. He doesn't just suggest it -- he says it pretty explicitly. (Does he say that "they're going to succeed in removing Trump"? Again, no.)

Um, okay... then why did you raise the distinction?

I understand that you think this, because you said it before. Thank you for repeating yourself to avoid confusion. If at some point you would like to explain why you think that, that would be swell. If you don't want to bother, that's fine too.

I explained in my first reply to you, to which you could only muster, "Thanks for that postcard from America."

It's not a postcard. It's an educated assessment based on facts observed. Were he writing today, de Tocqueville would have said the same. He'd have assessed Yglesias well meaning but delusional.

Do you really believe that both are equally true here? Of course not.

Yes. What do think "drain the swamp" meant? Trump's followers love the idea of defying the Establishment. And most moderates think "a pox on both their houses." I think almost everyone secretly desires a scenario where both sides can lose badly and be replaced.

In what way does he "wear" that "narrative" effectively?

I'm in a purple state. If I'd a dollar for every time I've heard, from moderates, "This guy's an ass, but they people after him are as bad, if not worse," I could buy a decent case of champagne. YMMV. But your state doesn't matter in this election, so no one cares what the average voter there thinks.

In what way does impeachment help him? Since Nancy's smart, what can we learn from her decision to move on impeachment?

He's got the fight he wants, instead of discussions of policies, where Ds would do better. He loves the red meat arguments and loses when it comes to actual plans.

Regarding Nancy, she was pushed into it. She's been left with no choice. If you think she wants this, you're delusional beyond all help.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Why must Katie Hill resign? There’s no suggestion even that she used a position of authority to force subordinates to sleep with her.

These are adults in their 20s. They can make choices. And having a consensual relationship with one’s boss and her husband is a choice. We do not assume coercion until proven otherwise. We assume a consensual relationship until proven otherwise.

(Insert every sneering comment Mencken offered about the remnant Puritan sensibilities in American society here.)

Apparently there's a "new" house ethics rule that strictly forbids relationships with staffers, although I haven't followed it closely enough to know if she actually had one. I thought she contested that point.

Otherwise, yeah, I don't know why she can't have whatever consensual relationships she wants, take whatever pics she wants and not expect that her ex could successfully attack her as he apparently has.

Hank's right about the tat, though. What's the deal with that?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Apparently there's a "new" house ethics rule that strictly forbids relationships with staffers, although I haven't followed it closely enough to know if she actually had one. I thought she contested that point.

Otherwise, yeah, I don't know why she can't have whatever consensual relationships she wants, take whatever pics she wants and not expect that her ex could successfully attack her as he apparently has.

Hank's right about the tat, though. What's the deal with that?

I suspect she is resigning because her ex-husband keeps leaking revenge porn to conservative outlets that are all too happy to run it, and she thinks it'll doom her re-election chances, not to mention make her miserable for the next year.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I suspect she is resigning because her ex-husband keeps leaking revenge porn to conservative outlets that are all too happy to run it, and she thinks it'll doom her re-election chances, not to mention make her miserable for the next year.

Well when you put it that way...

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This is Spanish Inquisition level word torture. If you have to go to this level, skip the point.

It's a pretty fundamental choice, not just a question of technique. If you think like a lawyer, they don't accomplish anything, but (as Yglesias points out) mass protests have accomplished quite a bit, in the US in 2017 and elsewhere. Is there some guarantee that they'll work? Of course not. But if you start from the premise that Trump is corrupt, the alternative is to work within the system on the Hill, building a case and hoping to persuade enough Republican Senators to put principle over party, something you have previously announced will be futile.

One of the GOP talking points that you have internalized is that whatever it is, it's always good news for Trump, and now the Democrats have gone and thrown him in the briar patch again. I don't buy it. For one thing, Trump really seems bothered by impeachment. Also, I don't get which voters might decide that they don't like him, but are going to go back to him because we spend several months talking about how he used the government to smear Joe Biden. The way this trick works is, Trump does x, and someone like Nancy Pelosi does or says y in response, and the GOP talking head shifts the focus from x to y and says, you know, voters really don't like it when Pelosi overreaches. It plays to the stereotype of the centrist disengaged voter guy who doesn't much like Washington at all, and the implication is that Democrats should just shrink into the wallpaper until voter guy votes them back into office. There are voters who don't like it when Democrats do things. They're called conservatives.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Apparently there's a "new" house ethics rule that strictly forbids relationships with staffers, although I haven't followed it closely enough to know if she actually had one. I thought she contested that point.

Otherwise, yeah, I don't know why she can't have whatever consensual relationships she wants, take whatever pics she wants and not expect that her ex could successfully attack her as he apparently has.

Hank's right about the tat, though. What's the deal with that?

That's a brilliant rule. Very measured, enforceable, and realistic. What fresh out of law school staffer with his head securely stuffed in his colon authored that?

Re the tat:

1. Motorhead fanatic?*
2. Distorted picture?
3. She's a Napoleonic War buff? (Iron Cross is a 1800s symbol.)

_______
* Perhaps the person here who knew him can answer this: Why'd Lemmy dig Nazi and Civil War gear? The band was virulently anti-war and socially liberal. Was it just a permanent version of Bowie's "Dictator Chic" phase (where he dressed in military garb and gave fascist salutes)?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's a pretty fundamental choice, not just a question of technique. If you think like a lawyer, they don't accomplish anything, but (as Yglesias points out) mass protests have accomplished quite a bit, in the US in 2017 and elsewhere. Is there some guarantee that they'll work? Of course not. But if you start from the premise that Trump is corrupt, the alternative is to work within the system on the Hill, building a case and hoping to persuade enough Republican Senators to put principle over party, something you have previously announced will be futile.

One of the GOP talking points that you have internalized is that whatever it is, it's always good news for Trump, and now the Democrats have gone and thrown him in the briar patch again. I don't buy it. For one thing, Trump really seems bothered by impeachment. Also, I don't get which voters might decide that they don't like him, but are going to go back to him because we spend several months talking about how he used the government to smear Joe Biden. The way this trick works is, Trump does x, and someone like Nancy Pelosi does or says y in response, and the GOP talking head shifts the focus from x to y and says, you know, voters really don't like it when Pelosi overreaches. It plays to the stereotype of the centrist disengaged voter guy who doesn't much like Washington at all, and the implication is that Democrats should just shrink into the wallpaper until voter guy votes them back into office. There are voters who don't like it when Democrats do things. They're called conservatives.

I can shorten this for you.

"The majority of voters in this country are conservatives, not moderates. Conservatives don't like it when Democrats do certain things."

That's really your point. All you're effectively doing is taking my statement that most moderates do not care for impeachment, and dislike both parties, and saying those same people are actually conservatives.

I don't think they are, but that's an immaterial dispute. What's material is they are a majority of voters who matter in the Electoral College.

ETA: Re Trump being bothered, when is Trump not bothered? Trump exists in a bubble of perpetual bother. He's a tension ball of such proportions I can't even guess at his blood pressure. He's also way out of his depth, without a clue as to the strength or fragility of his situation. His impression of where he is is no indication of where he actually is. Recall, he's the guy who thought his conversation with the President of Ukraine was "perfect."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I can shorten this for you.

"The majority of voters in this country are conservatives, not moderates. Conservatives don't like it when Democrats do certain things."

That's really your point.

No, but if you think that then you've internalized more GOP talking points. Conservatives are a minority, and they are very conscious of it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No, but if you think that then you've internalized more GOP talking points. Conservatives are a minority, and they are very conscious of it.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

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

One of the GOP talking points that you have internalized is that whatever it is, it's always good news for Trump, and now the Democrats have gone and thrown him in the briar patch again. I don't buy it. For one thing, Trump really seems bothered by impeachment. Also, I don't get which voters might decide that they don't like him, but are going to go back to him because we spend several months talking about how he used the government to smear Joe Biden. The way this trick works is, Trump does x, and someone like Nancy Pelosi does or says y in response, and the GOP talking head shifts the focus from x to y and says, you know, voters really don't like it when Pelosi overreaches. It plays to the stereotype of the centrist disengaged voter guy who doesn't much like Washington at all, and the implication is that Democrats should just shrink into the wallpaper until voter guy votes them back into office. There are voters who don't like it when Democrats do things. They're called conservatives.

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?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That's a brilliant rule. Very measured, enforceable, and realistic. What fresh out of law school staffer with his head securely stuffed in his colon authored that?

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

_______
* Perhaps the person here who knew him can answer this: Why'd Lemmy dig Nazi and Civil War gear? The band was virulently anti-war and socially liberal. Was it just a permanent version of Bowie's "Dictator Chic" phase (where he dressed in military garb and gave fascist salutes)?

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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

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.

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.