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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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

If you took it that way, as opposed to a comment on the lunacy of Pelosi haters, that's on you.

Hillary was a bizarrely loathed creature among Republicans. I'm not sure why, and I'm not sure I'll ever be sure why. I don't think Republicans even understand that hatred. In the current crop of candidates, she'd effectively be a Republican.

Pelosi seems to have had that baton thrust upon her.

I don't get the hatred for her, either, but I think it's got something to do with competence. Pelosi knows how to win.

Which is why she did not want this impeachment.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Ivanka was acquiring Chinese trademarks,

This is the stupidest thing ever- and when I tell intelligent people it is stupid and they don't want to hear, cuz, TRUMP IS BAD, it really discourages me.

The narrative was Trump promised the Chinese something so Ivanka can get her trademarks granted. Of course with time we see that Trump didn't sell out to the Chinese, instead he started a trade war.

But more immediately the whole thing was nonsense. If you give me $500 I'll get you a Chinese trademark. I won't have to promise sweetheart deals from the US- they get granted routinely. If Ivanka ever got the Chinese government to enforce a trademark and seize counterfeit stuff, well that would be a smoking gun, but granting a Trademark? Please.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If you took it that way, as opposed to a comment on the lunacy of Pelosi haters, that's on you.

Dude, you wrote it that way. Your first sentence was, "Pelosi is Hillary Jr." That is a statement about Pelosi. If you were trying to make a point about the conservatives who think shit like that, you did a lousy job of posting.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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?"

I'm glad you got something out of it, but the point of the article was about a form of media bias that seems to have eluded you.

And who is trying to "squelch discussion of Hunter, Ivanka, Chelsea, or any other mediocrity with a family name cashing out?" No one but you is even interested in talking about that.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

This is the stupidest thing ever- and when I tell intelligent people it is stupid and they don't want to hear, cuz, TRUMP IS BAD, it really discourages me.

The narrative was Trump promised the Chinese something so Ivanka can get her trademarks granted. Of course with time we see that Trump didn't sell out to the Chinese, instead he started a trade war.

But more immediately the whole thing was nonsense. If you give me $500 I'll get you a Chinese trademark. I won't have to promise sweetheart deals from the US- they get granted routinely. If Ivanka ever got the Chinese government to enforce a trademark and seize counterfeit stuff, well that would be a smoking gun, but granting a Trademark? Please.

OK. I'm wrong about that. Not my practice area. But can we stipulate she's somehow cashing out, because... we know she is. They all are.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm glad you got something out of it, but the point of the article was about a form of media bias that seems to have eluded you.

And who is trying to "squelch discussion of Hunter, Ivanka, Chelsea, or any other mediocrity with a family name cashing out?" No one but you is even interested in talking about that.

Almost every single reporter I've heard, almost every story I've read, takes excruciating pains to note that allegations of ill conduct in Hunter's acquisition or retention of a Burisma board seat are unfounded. The words "cleared of wrongdoing" are repeated as if a necessary disclaimer in a commercial for medication.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Dude, you wrote it that way. Your first sentence was, "Pelosi is Hillary Jr." That is a statement about Pelosi. If you were trying to make a point about the conservatives who think shit like that, you did a lousy job of posting.

I'd say that says more about your low opinion of Hillary than about any low opinion you wrongly think I have of Pelosi. (I actually like Pelosi because, you guessed it --- she's a serious gamer. Lady knows how to win. In this vein, though I detest the man, I also have to hand it to McConnell. He knows how to win. What can I say? Some are starfuckers... I'm a savvy sycophant. [But I really do hate McConnell. He cheats too much.])

Hillary hatred was irrational. When I say Pelosi is Hillary Jr. in this context, I mean people irrationally hate her. The barb in the post is aimed at the haters, not the hated. You need to read with a less paranoid eye.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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?"

What about Trumps kids plays right into, “both sides,” though.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

OK. I'm wrong about that. Not my practice area. But can we stipulate she's somehow cashing out, because... we know she is. They all are.

It wasn't directed at you, or just you. Tons of FB peeps saying as much, with no care to hear the truth.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Almost every single reporter I've heard, almost every story I've read, takes excruciating pains to note that allegations of ill conduct in Hunter's acquisition or retention of a Burisma board seat are unfounded. The words "cleared of wrongdoing" are repeated as if a necessary disclaimer in a commercial for medication.

The problem is not that they are squelching discussion of anything, the problem is that are repeatedly debunking accusations that he did something wrong when there is absolutely no credible evidence that he did anything wrong. If they repeatedly reported that he has never been charged with molesting children, that would smear him too.

It's amazing to me that someone who is as congenitally skeptical of the ability of law enforcement to wreck people's lives as you are can be so blasé about the way that Republicans have used the government to fuck with Hunter Biden. I don't know much about Hunter Biden. By all accounts that I've heard, he's a creep. But WTF? You had sympathy for Paul Manafort, for Christ's sake, who is much creepier and has done a lot of illegal stuff. How on Earth do you explain thinking that the problem with the media is that it was too hard on Paul Manafort, calling attention to crimes that would have otherwise escaped attention and leading to his punishment for breaking those laws, but you are upset with the media for not spending enough time trashing Hunter Biden, who at least used his connections in what seems to have been a completely legal, if somewhat distasteful way?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The problem is not that they are squelching discussion of anything, the problem is that are repeatedly debunking accusations that he did something wrong when there is absolutely no credible evidence that he did anything wrong. If they repeatedly reported that he has never been charged with molesting children, that would smear him too.

It's amazing to me that someone who is as congenitally skeptical of the ability of law enforcement to wreck people's lives as you are can be so blasé about the way that Republicans have used the government to fuck with Hunter Biden. I don't know much about Hunter Biden. By all accounts that I've heard, he's a creep. But WTF? You had sympathy for Paul Manafort, for Christ's sake, who is much creepier and has done a lot of illegal stuff. How on Earth do you explain thinking that the problem with the media is that it was too hard on Paul Manafort, calling attention to crimes that would have otherwise escaped attention and leading to his punishment for breaking those laws, but you are upset with the media for not spending enough time trashing Hunter Biden, who at least used his connections in what seems to have been a completely legal, if somewhat distasteful way?

You’re conflating two distinct concepts, and I think you know it. I have no issue with the press slamming Manafort or using his ties to Ukraine to smear Trump. I had a problem with the use of prosecution and investigation as a tool to not just take him out politically, but also to take him out of society literally. He’d be free and running around in ostrich coats, like so many others who’ve done worse, but for his ego-driven decision to work for Trump.

(But I do feel a good bit of caveat emptor in regard to Manafort. Ego will kill you if you let it. Insecure man kinda getting what insecure people get. Too dumb to just enjoy the money... As if he couldn’t workout those loans.)

I’d be appalled if Trump got Barr to actually prosecute Hunter for something - even if Hunter were guilty of it - just because his dad was Trump’s opponent. That’s disgusting. But when the dirt of getting a $50k a month contract is out there, I have no problem with exploring its ickiness.

You’re mixing prosecutions and media smearing. Apples and Winnebagos.

ETA: I also have a problem with the Durham and Barr investigations of Clapper and Brennan. But then, who started all of this use-investigations-and-prosecutions-as-political-tools? Seems both parties have accepted this practice as a legitimate tool for many years. This is what you get in a shithole country, and this is increasingly a shithole country. And it isn’t because of and certainly didn’t only emerge during the presidency of Trump.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

It wasn't directed at you, or just you. Tons of FB peeps saying as much, with no care to hear the truth.

When the Crooked Media people mention it as part of the corruption, I say in my head, “Hank says that’s not worth anything.” If they ever ask me, I’ll mention it. No idea how that would happen.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You’re mixing prosecutions and media smearing.

I'm not confused about the differences, but Trump -- the man to whom DOJ reports -- asked Ukraine to open formal proceedings to investigate Biden, and invited them to work with the Attorney General. He could have smeared Biden without any of that. He was trying to kickstart a real investigation to make the smear (more) real. Do you not see any difference between that and, say, rage-tweeting?

And suppose it was just smearing. Why are you OK with government officials using their office to smear someone unfairly?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

When the Crooked Media people mention it as part of the corruption, I say in my head, “Hank says that’s not worth anything.” If they ever ask me, I’ll mention it. No idea how that would happen.

Just don’t want you socks to mention it as a thing. It is a species of rejecting nonsense in a world where we are flung a ton of it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not confused about the differences, but Trump -- the man to whom DOJ reports -- asked Ukraine to open formal proceedings to investigate Biden, and invited them to work with the Attorney General. He could have smeared Biden without any of that. He was trying to kickstart a real investigation to make the smear (more) real. Do you not see any difference between that and, say, rage-tweeting?

And suppose it was just smearing. Why are you OK with government officials using their office to smear someone unfairly?

Trump's actions in seeking to investigate for political reasons are indefensible. Seeking to imprison or fine Hunter for political gain is an abuse of the prosecutorial power, and if Barr went along with it, I think Barr would be subject to having his license suspended, and probably should have it suspended.*

Smearing is a different thing. I'm not as concerned about that. Were Trump to do it smartly, as many politicians do, by simply having intermediaries hint to foreign govt contacts that they'd really appreciate some dirt on an opponent, and such dirt were provided without an explicit quid pro quo, or any trail of written communication that could connect the request to the politician, it would be icky but fall into the "just politics" bin.

But this is Trump, and he can't do anything in an intelligent or carefully planned manner.

_______
* I think Barr is walking an ethical tightrope in going after Clapper and Brennan. But I'm not as concerned there because I think Brennan and Clapper are also unethical. Durham, Clapper, Barr, and Brennan deserve to drag each other down together. That's a Mexican standoff that ought to be allowed to move to completion.