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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

This is where the dynamic is heading now. Expect the Bernie Bros to go all out to attack Warren. Sky rockets in flight, myosogynists delight. If he doesn't bring her down, he'll drop quickly as votes start coming in.

It’s more than misogyny. Bernie has developed a cult of personality like Trump’s.

I think he tapped into a frustration among younger voters with lack of candor. Bernie's a rhetorical sledgehammer. Opponents can’t carve around his arguments. He’s uniquely skilled at making people look like liars. That resonates.

The screwballs who are Bernie or Bust are significant in number, but not nearly as large as the group who’ll look at Warren and think, “She’s saying all the same stuff he’s saying, she’s not shy about bluntly calling out opponents and exposing their bullshit, and she’s got a real chance.” I think the majority of Bernie fans will get behind Warren. Where they may be lost is if Warren is Veep, rather than Pres. The Bernie crowd probably won’t like that. Neither will some of the Warren crowd.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It’s more than misogyny. Bernie has developed a cult of personality like Trump’s.

I think he tapped into a frustration among younger voters with lack of candor. Bernie's a rhetorical sledgehammer. Opponents can’t carve around his arguments. He’s uniquely skilled at making people look like liars. That resonates.

The screwballs who are Bernie or Bust are significant in number, but not nearly as large as the group who’ll look at Warren and think, “She’s saying all the same stuff he’s saying, she’s not shy about bluntly calling out opponents and exposing their bullshit, and she’s got a real chance.” I think the majority of Bernie fans will get behind Warren. Where they may be lost is if Warren is Veep, rather than Pres. The Bernie crowd probably won’t like that. Neither will some of the Warren crowd.

When Bernie was mayor (of, where, Burlington?) he did a weekly show where he walked around interacting with citizens. When he was with kids, and IIRC, one episode with black kids, it is cringe worthy. He was nuts from the start.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

When Bernie was mayor (of, where, Burlington?) he did a weekly show where he walked around interacting with citizens. When he was with kids, and IIRC, one episode with black kids, it is cringe worthy. He was nuts from the start.

Yeah, I have a long personal history dealing with him. He went from promising progressive to adulation hungry but amusing nut job pretty quickly back in the 80s. Then he helped Vermont get a Republican governor and stopped being so amusing.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It’s Biden/Warren. It can only be Biden/Warren.

Harris just lost me with her cal to impeach a Supreme Court justice.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Harris just lost me with her cal to impeach a Supreme Court justice.

Lawyers are too risk averse to lead. Obama turned out all right because he fell into a time when risk aversion was needed. And he wasn't really a lawyer. He hadn't practiced and acquired the bad software that fills one's head after years of actually plying the trade. Same with Biden and Bill Clinton.

Nixon is more a true lawyer. Neurotic, scheming, control-obsessed.

Harris is very much a real lawyer, and has also been a prosecutor. She's corporate, bureaucratic, politically Machiavellian, and can't speak without five or six tactical adjustments. I'd sooner elect that lady who thinks we can pray away hurricanes.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Harris just lost me with her cal to impeach a Supreme Court justice.

I'm actually mildly surprised that is getting some traction. I figured it'd be yet another article that comes out about how fucked up this whole administration has been and it'd get swept away like all of the others.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Harris is very much a real lawyer, and has also been a prosecutor. She's corporate....

What?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

What?

Who do you think fills white collar/regulatory/corp investigation practices in big firms that represent corporations?

Do you think being a prosecutor and being corporate are two different things? That's a revolving door like any other. Usually, however, it only turns once, when the prosecutor cashes out in the private sector, or when he or she runs for higher office and seeks corporate money to do so.

Harris has hoovered up a ton of Wall Street money. She claims she's going to put in a financial transaction tax, but that's up there with Trump's promise to bring back manufacturing jobs.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Who do you think fills white collar/regulatory/corp investigation practices in big firms that represent corporations?

Not her?

Do you think being a prosecutor and being corporate are two different things?

Yes. Yes I do. I could explain. How long do you have?

That's a revolving door like any other. Usually, however, it only turns once, when the prosecutor cashes out in the private sector, or when he or she runs for higher office and seeks corporate money to do so.

Maybe you are unfamiliar with revolving doors, and the difference between revolving doors and other kinds of doors.

Harris has hoovered up a ton of Wall Street money. She claims she's going to put in a financial transaction tax, but that's up there with Trump's promise to bring back manufacturing jobs.

I'm not saying that your reaction to Harris is wrong, but you haven't found the right words yet to explain what you're thinking.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Yes. Yes I do. I could explain. How long do you have?

I only did a few years in white collar crime, but I found it to be filled with ex-prosecutors who seemed thrilled to be using past experience to do corporate bidding. YMMV.

Maybe you are unfamiliar with revolving doors, and the difference between revolving doors and other kinds of doors.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the term "usually." There are instances in which it turns a few times. In DC, for instance, it can turn many times.

I'm not saying that your reaction to Harris is wrong, but you haven't found the right words yet to explain what you're thinking.

I think it's early where you are and the coffee hasn't yet triggered the thesaurus portion of your brain.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I'm actually mildly surprised that is getting some traction. I figured it'd be yet another article that comes out about how fucked up this whole administration has been and it'd get swept away like all of the others.

It's getting traction. Not the kind the Times wanted, but traction: https://www.mediaite.com/news/new-yo...fensive-tweet/

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I only did a few years in white collar crime, but I found it to be filled with ex-prosecutors who seemed thrilled to be using past experience to do corporate bidding. YMMV.

OK. But the other thing you said does not follow from that.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the term "usually." There are instances in which it turns a few times. In DC, for instance, it can turn many times.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Kamala Harris, who to my knowledge has worked for Alameda County, the City and County of San Francisco, the State of California, and as a U.S. Senator, but not in private practice. She hasn't left by any door, revolving or otherwise.

DC is full of revolving doors, but usually for political positions. Almost all prosecutors are career people. They tend to move between government service and private practice once, when they leave the former for the latter. That's a turnstile, not a revolving door. I was one of the few exceptions to that rule.

I think it's early where you are and the coffee hasn't yet triggered the thesaurus portion of your brain.

You are totally welcome to dislike her, and I'm sure you have many excellent reasons. But "corporate" is not the word you're looking for.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Kamala Harris, who to my knowledge has worked for Alameda County, the City and County of San Francisco, the State of California, and as a U.S. Senator, but not in private practice. She hasn't left by any door, revolving or otherwise.

This is what I wrote:

"Do you think being a prosecutor and being corporate are two different things? That's a revolving door like any other. Usually, however, it only turns once, when the prosecutor cashes out in the private sector, or when he or she runs for higher office and seeks corporate money to do so."

You're asserting that working for corporate interests as a Senator is not "corporate." OK. Technically, it's not. She remained and if elected President will remain a public official. But I'm comfortable characterizing someone who is soliciting corporate cash (she, Buttigieg, and Biden are top corporate fundraisers, despite her saying she would not accept corporate money), which involves telling corporate donators how your policies will be friendly toward them, as corporate.

DC is full of revolving doors, but usually for political positions. Almost all prosecutors are career people.

In the past two years alone our TV stations have been inundated with stories about Barr and Mueller, two prosecutors who've been back and forth several times.

At state level, where Harris worked, the revolving door spins even more frequently. It's highly common for a local DA to jump into private practice, then get called to run some agency for a few years, then jump back into private practice again. It's an accepted form of resume building.

They tend to move between government service and private practice once, when they leave the former for the latter. That's a turnstile, not a revolving door. I was one of the few exceptions to that rule.

I think you're less unique than you think.

You are totally welcome to dislike her, and I'm sure you have many excellent reasons. But "corporate" is not the word you're looking for.

Yuck. I thought she was a bullshitter, an operator of sorts. I didn't think she was a nihilist/law 'n order psycho.

My adjectives stand adjusted. "Corporate" leanings are the least of her flaws. I think I'll focus on "authoritarian" and nihilistic in the future.

God, she seriously fucking sucks. That reads like something about a right wing Republican.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This is what I wrote:

"Do you think being a prosecutor and being corporate are two different things? That's a revolving door like any other. Usually, however, it only turns once, when the prosecutor cashes out in the private sector, or when he or she runs for higher office and seeks corporate money to do so."

You're asserting that working for corporate interests as a Senator is not "corporate." OK. Technically, it's not. She remained and if elected President will remain a public official. But I'm comfortable characterizing someone who is soliciting corporate cash (she, Buttigieg, and Biden are top corporate fundraisers, despite her saying she would not accept corporate money), which involves telling corporate donators how your policies will be friendly toward them, as corporate.

No, I'm asserting that it's odd to describe her as "corporate" since AFAIK she has never spend a day working for a corporation. Sure, as a Senator she has taken money from people who work for corporations, but that doesn't really distinguish her from, say, any other Senator. She is my Senator, so you don't have to tell me what she's like. I'm not defending her -- I just think your choice of words is not right.

In the past two years alone our TV stations have been inundated with stories about Barr and Mueller, two prosecutors who've been back and forth several times.

Yes, and they are both political appointees and in DC. If you care to peruse what I wrote again, you will find that I was not unaware of people like Barr and Mueller. I, too, own a TV. It is not common for federal prosecutors *without* political appointments to do that, both because DOJ tends to hire from law schools and because once people start making money and building a practice, they don't chuck both to go back into the government.

At state level, where Harris worked, the revolving door spins even more frequently. It's highly common for a local DA to jump into private practice, then get called to run some agency for a few years, then jump back into private practice again. It's an accepted form of resume building.

I don't doubt that it's common for a local DA, which is usually an elected office, to go back into politics. I think it's much less common for line prosecutors to go to private practice and then return to government employment. Not saying it never happens. It's just much less common.

At any rate, even if you have found in your personal journey that there are "corporate" lawyers who were formerly prosecutors, that's *not* what Kamala Harris did, so it's odd to call her "corporate." Most prom queens were in kindergarten once, but that does not mean you would describe anyone who was in kindergarten as a prom queen.

I think you're less unique than you think.

As Walter Sobchak says to Arthur Digby Sellers, and a good day to you, sir.

Yuck. I thought she was a bullshitter, an operator of sorts. I didn't think she was a nihilist/law 'n order psycho.

My adjectives stand adjusted. "Corporate" leanings are the least of her flaws. I think I'll focus on "authoritarian" and nihilistic in the future.

God, she seriously fucking sucks. That reads like something about a right wing Republican.

I'm happy we could spend this little time together and that I could help you get in touch with your true feelings.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I'm actually mildly surprised that is getting some traction. I figured it'd be yet another article that comes out about how fucked up this whole administration has been and it'd get swept away like all of the others.

It's meaningless in the current Senate. Better to focus on Susan Collins.