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

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Mulvaney's statement was simply a further flag in the earth that Trump could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue. And, unfortunately, it seems to remain true. Reagan was porcelain compared to Trump"s teflon.

LessinTurkmenabat, Turkmenistan

Surely we have some more high-tech nonstick coating than teflon?

Yup. Sometime the NYT should ask both of those rustbelt-old-white-people-in-diners they interview all the time a few questions like "would you be ok if Trump shot Nancy Pelosi in the West Wing?" or "you don't really care who he screws, do you, you just like seeing him screw people?"

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If you are suggesting that I am giving credit to Giuliani, you are mischaracterizing what was written.

Incorrect. I am not mischaracterizing what you are saying about Ukraine or the possibility of a quid pro quo because I did not actually read what you wrote, either last night or at the time you wrote about it. Instead, I vaguely recalled that you had a kind of nothingburger attitude about the whole thing, so I just made up something that I thought would be like something you would say.

I find that it is easier to argue with someone if you do not constrain yourself to arguing against things they actually say. I learned it by watching you!

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

He was performing for Trump, not for anyone else, and he knows that Trump loves it when his people say, "You don't like what we're doing? Suck it."

I don't know, because he tried to walk it back later in the day. Hard not to think no one in that building has any clue.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

I don't know, because he tried to walk it back later in the day. Hard not to think no one in that building has any clue.

He pissed off all the other people in the building who cared about the substance of what he said rather than the performative aspects.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Incorrect. I am not mischaracterizing what you are saying about Ukraine or the possibility of a quid pro quo because I did not actually read what you wrote, either last night or at the time you wrote about it. Instead, I vaguely recalled that you had a kind of nothingburger attitude about the whole thing, so I just made up something that I thought would be like something you would say.

I find that it is easier to argue with someone if you do not constrain yourself to arguing against things they actually say. I learned it by watching you!

Look at the ETA to my post, which ETA was written hours before your post in reply.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Look at the ETA to my post, which ETA was written hours before your post in reply.

How many PLFs does it take to win an argument with Sebby? Dunno, but 1 certainly isn't enough!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by hank chinaski

how many plfs does it take to win an argument with sebby? Dunno, but 1 certainly isn't enough!

1/2

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

How many PLFs does it take to win an argument with Sebby? Dunno, but 1 certainly isn't enough!

There's no argument between us. It goes like this:

1. I write something;
2. He finds some contradiction or fuckup within it to poke fun at, or criticizes in a sort of angry but also sarcastic and detached way;
3. I write something insulting back;
4. He writes something insulting in reply;
5. Rise/wash/repeat.

These back and forths don't get to substance, which is typically required for an argument. This is my fault as much as his, because I'm not really staking a position. We're like a pair of Lester Bangses arguing politics.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Serious Query:

Who answers polls?

I got a package of docs over the weekend as thick as a legal pleading, asking me to answer a complex poll on govt policies. Who on earth answers that kind of thing?

Same goes for the phone calls. I have an otherwise unused land line into a copier/printer/fax machine in the home office. Occasionally, I'll check the list of calls. I see numbers from research firms. Who takes a poll call? Does somebody say, "Sure, I'd love to take five minutes to answer all of your fucking questions. Shoot!"

If I see a poll on a website, I skip it. If it's required, I assume the site is bogus, filling my computer with invasive cookies, and so I close it.

Does any normal person answer a poll? Where do they find these mythical thousand or so random respondents cited in each of these polls?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Serious Query:

Who answers polls?

I got a package of docs over the weekend as thick as a legal pleading, asking me to answer a complex poll on govt policies. Who on earth answers that kind of thing?

Same goes for the phone calls. I have an otherwise unused land line into a copier/printer/fax machine in the home office. Occasionally, I'll check the list of calls. I see numbers from research firms. Who takes a poll call? Does somebody say, "Sure, I'd love to take five minutes to answer all of your fucking questions. Shoot!"

If I see a poll on a website, I skip it. If it's required, I assume the site is bogus, filling my computer with invasive cookies, and so I close it.

Does any normal person answer a poll? Where do they find these mythical thousand or so random respondents cited in each of these polls?

If it's a poll on a website, it is worth shit.

I did a fair bit of polling once upon a time, and you'd be amazed how many people will spend a half hour on the phone doing a detailed poll. It gives them a sense they have some input in to the process. The key is to adjust your numbers afterwards because you may get 80% of those over 70 or under 25 willing to answer, but only 40% of those in the 40-60 we're too damn busy paying tuition to talk age group.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Serious Query:

Who answers polls?

I got a package of docs over the weekend as thick as a legal pleading, asking me to answer a complex poll on govt policies. Who on earth answers that kind of thing?

Same goes for the phone calls. I have an otherwise unused land line into a copier/printer/fax machine in the home office. Occasionally, I'll check the list of calls. I see numbers from research firms. Who takes a poll call? Does somebody say, "Sure, I'd love to take five minutes to answer all of your fucking questions. Shoot!"

If I see a poll on a website, I skip it. If it's required, I assume the site is bogus, filling my computer with invasive cookies, and so I close it.

Does any normal person answer a poll? Where do they find these mythical thousand or so random respondents cited in each of these polls?

If it's an actual poll - and not push polling - I'll answer. Polling influences people and policy, why wouldn't you want to be part of that?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Surely we have some more high-tech nonstick coating than teflon?

Yup. Sometime the NYT should ask both of those rustbelt-old-white-people-in-diners they interview all the time a few questions like "would you be ok if Trump shot Nancy Pelosi in the West Wing?" or "you don't really care who he screws, do you, you just like seeing him screw people?"

Pelosi is Hillary Jr. I stepped in a third rail with some ardent "conservatives" recently by suggesting she was a moderate. (She very much is in the current political climate.) Holy fuck. You'd swear I was advocating abortion be legal until two years post-birth, or that Reagan molested a page to death during a black mass on the filled-in pool in the basement of the West Wing.

These same people have no idea who Steny Hoyer is.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Pelosi is Hillary Jr. I stepped in a third rail with some ardent "conservatives" recently by suggesting she was a moderate. (She very much is in the current political climate.) Holy fuck. You'd swear I was advocating abortion be legal until two years post-birth, or that Reagan molested a page to death during a black mass on the filled-in pool in the basement of the West Wing.

These same people have no idea who Steny Hoyer is.

It's odd to me that you tell this story as if it's about Pelosi, rather than about your ardent conservatives.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Who does this remind you of?

Biden campaign letter to the NYT, reported here:

In recent years the Times has become a leading perpetrator of one of the most corrosive trends in modern journalism—“savvy” reporting that prizes the identification of disingenuous political tactics at the expense of focusing on the facts that voters need to know. This unfortunate tendency was visible in the days the scandal that has led Trump to the brink of impeachment broke, as the Times rehashed this hateful and disproven conspiracy theory as though it hadn’t been put to bed. Two of our staff members, when discussing the Trump news with a pair of Times reporters, were stopped as they tried to outline how disproven the smear Trump wanted to pressure Ukraine into fomenting was, being told that this piece wasn’t about the facts of what happened and instead had to do with trying to forecast how it might play in the Democratic primary.

From that article:

New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen has, for several years now, alluded to a reporting paradigm he calls “the savvy” or “savviness.” He explained the concept in a 2011 speech:

In politics, our journalists believe, it is better to be savvy than it is to be honest or correct on the facts. It’s better to be savvy than it is to be just, good, fair, decent, strictly lawful, civilized, sincere, thoughtful or humane. Savviness is what journalists admire in others. Savvy is what they themselves dearly wish to be. (And to be unsavvy is far worse than being wrong.)

Savviness is that quality of being shrewd, practical, hyper-informed, perceptive, ironic, “with it,” and unsentimental in all things political. And what is the truest mark of savviness? Winning, of course! Or knowing who the winners are.

Read the whole thing, as they say.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Who does this remind you of?

Biden campaign letter to the NYT, reported here:



From that article:



Read the whole thing, as they say.

I liked this quote:

"The allegations about Hunter Biden could, indeed, impact the primary race. This is in part because mainstream media outlets spend time discussing them. When we read political reporting—perhaps when we read much of the news in general—we are looking to an independent variable for announcements about dependent variables. "

This suggests perhaps we should not discuss the fact that a VP's kid received $50k per month for nothing. We should, as many media outlets are engaging in handstands to do right now, preface every discussion of that situation with, "but all evidence of any wrongdoing is completely artificial, totally made up by Trump, and there is nothing at all to see here..."

Yes, there is something to see here. The Trump kids are obviously milking their positions for gain. Ivanka was acquiring Chinese trademarks, god only knows what sort of Saudi loan guaranties Kushner has obtained, and Erik and Don Jr. are surely using the office to gain entree they'd never otherwise enjoy (their father being a joke in serious R/E circles).

But that doesn't mean there's nothing worth discussing about Hunter or Joe's brother, particularly where Hunter has admitted in an interview that he got almost all of his jobs based on his name. Would Chelsea Clinton be raking in the cash she is without famous parents?

Nothing is illegal about nepotism. But it is fair game for political campaigns. Just as Bush's alleged DUI and coke use were used in the 2000 campaign. In fact, I'd say nepotism is even more important than past libertine adventures. Ted Kennedy killed a woman and hot away with it, but that's a one-off if ever there was a one-off. What's more lurid than that is why that family persisted in politics based on... genetics?

Fuck the media for trying to make everything a controversy. But also, fuck the media for trying to squelch discussion of Hunter, Ivanka, Chelsea, or any other mediocrity with a family name cashing out. It's not illegal. Hell, we'd all do it too if our last name was Clinton, Trump, or Biden. But it is worth discussing.

The proper response to accusations against Hunter isn't "How dare you!" It's, "Are you fucking kidding me? Have you looked into Trump's kids' activities?"