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

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Can someone give me something to read about why the Ukraine would know anything?

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...n-and-ukraine/

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Know anything about what? Trump was inviting them to bring bogus charges. The idea that Biden has some scandal here is completely bogus.

This is a weird one. Here's an article looking at some of the political gains and losses to both Trump and Biden accruing from the Ukraine thing: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...-biden-1507051

At first, I thought Trmup really fucked up this time. Then I thought, is this a trojan horse? Will we ultimately find this whistleblower is assisting Trump? Is this a strategy to get the media to run with a story that winds up fucking Joe?

No, Trump cannot think that far ahead.

But could some of his people? Maybe?

Or... Is it possible Trump wants to be impeached so badly - thinks he needs to be impeached to win - that he stoops to this?

Then I thought I may be thinking too much, and so I gave up thinking about this and applied Occam's Razor: Trump's just being Trump. He's using blunt force to squeeze Ukraine. But as he did with Michael Cohen, he'll have said nothing that conclusively proves the necessary elements of whatever charge/allegation/whatever-the-fuck-is-needed-to-nail-him. Here we go again.

Wait until the Hunter Loves Blow and had a relationship with his dead brother's widow stuff starts emerging. Trump is going there. Just like the W coke and DUI scandals.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Can someone give me something to read about why the Ukraine would know anything?

The bet is that they are sufficiently corrupt to play ball, not that there's anything real there.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Here's an article looking at some of the political gains and losses to both Trump and Biden accruing from the Ukraine thing: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...-biden-1507051

What's it like to carry around that emptiness inside you?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

What's it like to carry around that emptiness inside you?

What? That's the best article on the issues. Axelrod is cited in it.

What you're actually saying is, "How can you not embrace my view? How can you not feel what I feel?"

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

What? That's the best article on the issues.

No, that article is horseshit political analysis. It says nothing of substance, it will be obsolete shortly, and no one will ever think of it again. It's journalistic cotton candy.

I will grant you that if the only thing you care about horserace coverage, that article is a fine example of the genre. But there is no horserace without horseshit.

Axelrod is cited in it.

Aw, it's hard to stay angry at you when you mock yourself so ably.

What you're actually saying is, "How can you not embrace my view? How can you not feel what I feel?"

No, what I'm actually saying, "How come there is a void in your soul that prevents you from having a substantive opinion here, and instead compels you to talk about horserace coverage? Why do you skip over questions like, is it a good idea for the Trump to use taxpayer dollars to pressure a foreign government to smear a political rival? I would kind of prefer that you have a different view on the issues here, since then we could have an interesting conversation. When I refer to your emptiness, I'm not suggesting that you disagree with me, but that you seem incapable of even that.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No, that article is horseshit political analysis. It says nothing of substance, it will be obsolete shortly, and no one will ever think of it again. It's journalistic cotton candy.

I will grant you that if the only thing you care about horserace coverage, that article is a fine example of the genre. But there is no horserace without horseshit.



Aw, it's hard to stay angry at you when you mock yourself so ably.



No, what I'm actually saying, "How come there is a void in your soul that prevents you from having a substantive opinion here, and instead compels you to talk about horserace coverage? Why do you skip over questions like, is it a good idea for the Trump to use taxpayer dollars to pressure a foreign government to smear a political rival? I would kind of prefer that you have a different view on the issues here, since then we could have an interesting conversation. When I refer to your emptiness, I'm not suggesting that you disagree with me, but that you seem incapable of even that.

How interesting is my opinion? As interesting as yours. As interesting as anyone's. By which I mean, not very interesting.

Sincerely, what a person thinks about the right and wrong or impropriety of a thing simply isn't terribly fascinating stuff. Do I think it's okay for Trump to pressure a country to give him political dirt on an opponent? No. Do I think it's icky for for Hunter to get on a board - at $50k a month - on which he has no business being, and has only been placed for the purpose of having a political contact? Sure. But as Joe Biden said of Hunter's gig: "He's an adult. He can make his own decisions." (paraphrased)

What is interesting to to try to guess how this thing unfolds, and whether there is some strategy in Trump's camp. I conclude there isn't, but sometimes I have to wonder... How in the fuck can someone so dumb be so lucky?

Trump's blundering through the system, the way the system checks him and doesn't check him and changes and responds, is fascinating. Politics is fascinating like a football game is fascinating. It's my opinion Penn State should always win, and Notre Dame should always lose. And I of course hate Clemson and Alabama. But who the fuck cares about that? You don't watch a game to see your opinion of who ought to win validated. You watch a game to see how the plays are executed and be surprised at how the score often doesn't match your opinion.

You want me to have a back and forth with you about how terrible something is? How far does that go before it leads to the horserace conversation? Not long. Why? Because the latter is the naturally interesting conversation. I'm just cutting to the action.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Politics is fascinating like a football game is fascinating. It's my opinion Penn State should always win, and Notre Dame should always lose. And I of course hate Clemson and Alabama. But who the fuck cares about that? You don't watch a game to see your opinion of who ought to win validated. You watch a game to see how the plays are executed and be surprised at how the score often doesn't match your opinion.

This is the most white privileged thing you have ever written. I hope that statement doesn't trigger you.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

How interesting is my opinion? As interesting as yours. As interesting as anyone's. By which I mean, not very interesting.

If you don't have anything to say, don't say it.

Sincerely, what a person thinks about the right and wrong or impropriety of a thing simply isn't terribly fascinating stuff. Do I think it's okay for Trump to pressure a country to give him political dirt on an opponent? No. Do I think it's icky for for Hunter to get on a board - at $50k a month - on which he has no business being, and has only been placed for the purpose of having a political contact? Sure. But as Joe Biden said of Hunter's gig: "He's an adult. He can make his own decisions." (paraphrased)

What reptilian instinct of yours compels you to address the propriety of what Trump has just done and what Hunter Biden did several years ago as if they are somehow two sides of the same coin? Never mind, don't bother trying to answer that.

What is interesting to to try to guess how this thing unfolds, and whether there is some strategy in Trump's camp. I conclude there isn't, but sometimes I have to wonder... How in the fuck can someone so dumb be so lucky?

If you are really interested in trying to guess how this things unfolds, you should eschew Politico's horserace journalism and think a little more about the substance of the stories, because the latter will keep driving the former.

As for what drives Trump, if you find that interesting then why are you reading Politico?

Trump's blundering through the system, the way the system checks him and doesn't check him and changes and responds, is fascinating. Politics is fascinating like a football game is fascinating. It's my opinion Penn State should always win, and Notre Dame should always lose. And I of course hate Clemson and Alabama. But who the fuck cares about that? You don't watch a game to see your opinion of who ought to win validated. You watch a game to see how the plays are executed and be surprised at how the score often doesn't match your opinion.

You want me to have a back and forth with you about how terrible something is? How far does that go before it leads to the horserace conversation? Not long. Why? Because the latter is the naturally interesting conversation. I'm just cutting to the action.

Where you see "the action" is like the most boring part of the whole thing. This is like saying that you don't need scouting reports or color commentary when you're watching college football because what's naturally interesting is the play by play in the moment. If you have money to invest, do you want to hear someone breathlessly telling you whether the stock market is up or down in the last hour? No, you want to know a little more, because it's not just a game.

If you think politics is just a mindless diversion from the rest of your life with winners and losers who just go on to play again the next weekend, everything else you say makes perfect sense.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

If you don't have anything to say, don't say it.

I do have something to say. I'm trying to assess what's happening. You're the one with nothing to say. Does anyone need to have the following said:
"If Donald Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden by threatening to withhold aid, this is amazingly stupid, or amazingly brazen, or both, and an impeachable offense." No shit. Who the fuck doesn't know that?

What reptilian instinct of yours compels you to address the propriety of what Trump has just done and what Hunter Biden did several years ago as if they are somehow two sides of the same coin? Never mind, don't bother trying to answer that.

They are the two horses in this political race.

If you are really interested in trying to guess how this things unfolds, you should eschew Politico's horserace journalism and think a little more about the substance of the stories, because the latter will keep driving the former.

What? OpEds decrying Trump? Which of the 10,000 per week should I start with?

As for what drives Trump, if you find that interesting then why are you reading Politico?

Because Politico is relatively unbiased.

Where you see "the action" is like the most boring part of the whole thing. This is like saying that you don't need scouting reports or color commentary when you're watching college football because what's naturally interesting is the play by play in the moment. If you have money to invest, do you want to hear someone breathlessly telling you whether the stock market is up or down in the last hour? No, you want to know a little more, because it's not just a game.

You've mixed two very different concepts there.

As to 1, you're not citing scouting reports. You're citing articles stating that Trump is guilty of something and Giuliani is spinning. Both may be true, but they are not dispositive as to the political outcome of this debacle. Just because you're darn sure someone committed an impeachable act does not mean he will be impeached.

As to 2, actually, yes, because most investing today is herd investing. Unless you're seeking those magical asymmetrical returns, you might as well just watch CNBC.

If you think politics is just a mindless diversion from the rest of your life with winners and losers who just go on to play again the next weekend, everything else you say makes perfect sense.

I think for purposes of interesting conversation it is. Should my only reply to you to be to defend Trump or agree and re-verbalize your view that Trump Has Done Something Awful and So Has Giuliani? Uh, again, probably, no shit? How often are they doing awful things? A lot. So should I either decide to echo you or play devil's advocate? Those are my only choices? How incredibly fucking boring.

Do you think writing things on chat boards is an act of consequence? It's an act of entertainment, perhaps enlightenment. It's a way of exercising the brain a bit. An act of consequence would be something like devoting your time to the candidacy of someone against Trump. This place is just talking about stuff. And I can't think of anything less compelling than a conversation in which I am forced to either argue against your point or commiserate with you about the awfulness of the awful thing you're citing.

The only question that matters, as well put in Fear and Loathing, with the narrator assessing a fiasco that might serve as a proper analogue for numerous scandals of this Presidency is, "Next?" What happens next?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

This is the most white privileged thing you have ever written. I hope that statement doesn't trigger you.

Umm, no. “I’m voting third party” is.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I do have something to say. I'm trying to assess what's happening. You're the one with nothing to say. Does anyone need to have the following said:
"If Donald Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden by threatening to withhold aid, this is amazingly stupid, or amazingly brazen, or both, and an impeachable offense." No shit. Who the fuck doesn't know that?

Thus far every elected R.

[Replaced_Texan]

Well, this is turning out to be an interesting week.

I really didn't think that THIS would be the issue. I guess it finally snowballed. We'll see how far this goes.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Thus far every elected R.

They know it. They have made one, two, or all three of the following calculations:

1. I could lose my elected position if I break ranks.
2. Whatever impact Trump has on the country, it is a lesser evil to that which a Democratic Party in charge of two branches would effect.
3. Trump’s impact is positive for conservatives even if it’s not really conservative, as it violates norms and embraces populism, so I can live with it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think for purposes of interesting conversation it is.

Your inability to find interest in things other than horserace journalism is what I was commenting on in the first place.

Should my only reply to you to be to defend Trump or agree and re-verbalize your view that Trump Has Done Something Awful and So Has Giuliani?

I am telling you that you should pay more attention to stores about what Trump (and Giuliani and Pence and others) have actually been doing, and less attention to political journalists bloviating about how the narrative will help and hurt Trump and Biden. When I refer to the substance, I'm talking about the former, as opposed to horserace journalism. Not sure why it's so tough for you to see that.