Objectively intelligent.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Of course, I care about Trump. I never suggested that I didn’t. For example, I care about the fact that he says racist things, and has emboldened and been a catalyst for increased activity by white supremacist groups and other similar extremists. This upsets me on principle, and also because I have friends who are people of color who already have enough bullshit to deal with in the world without having a racist president. You, on the other hand, don’t care about that at all, and only worry about the potential tax implications for your real estate investments, which you curiously posture as the superior, and more “adult” position. That all said, I still am not interested in entering into any substantive debates with you because, as I have repeatedly mentioned in the past, I find debating with a chronic liar to be pointless.

Then don't. I don't have any desire to debate with you. It's you who engages me.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

E Pluribus Unum.

Brilliant. This is genius.

"The country's clearly not united. Can we count the myriad forms of irreconcilable division?"

"But Latin!"

ETA: I took a few years of Latin (required at my HS), however, so I appreciate your efforts to keep the dead tongue wagging as much as possible.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It involves politicians and benefits one over another.

Russiagate
Whitewater
Benghazi*
Clinton Impeachment*
Trump Impeachment**

All political. The investigations into Trump's taxes in NY, which would never have occurred but for who he is and who he's pissed off? Political.

Ted Stevens
Rostenkowski

Trafficant, that idiot from Ohio, is a rare exception in which a prosecution of a sitting legislator was not in part political. He was a criminal. Same goes for Sheldon Silver in NY. Those guys were engaged in racketeering.

The indictment of that DOJ lawyer for altering FISA court documents? Political.

Stone's indictment? Yup.

Manafort's? Yup. Had he not been in Trump's orbit, he'd have never been charged. In fact, a prior investigation of him for the same stuff he was convicted of had been closed without charges. (How dumb is he?)

That Obama lawyer who was put on trial by Mueller for failing to register as an agent of a foreign government? That one was really political. Disgustingly political. He was charged so Mueller's team could look tough on both sides. That one was truly outrageous.

_____
* Not criminal prosecutions, but brought by opponents purely for political gain.
** Technically defensible as Trump had attempted to shake down Ukraine, but also brought for political gain. (Had a Democrat president done that, the House would not have pushed for impeachment.)

Almost every single civil or criminal investigation of a politician will benefit another politician. The exception (which proves the rule) is Traficant, who had already been expelled from the Democratic caucus in Congress and wasn't welcomed by the Republicans, either. He was absolutely a criminal, in the sense that he broke the law, but the reason why you don't see him as political is that every single other politician thought he should go down.

What you are really saying is that as far as you are concerned, politicians are free to commit crimes, because when they do and so one finds out, politicians will disagree with each other about whether there was a crime and what should be done about it, which irrevocably taints any investigation as "political" and forces you to take sides in a debate between politicians. (We all know that you are completely above politics and would rather be caught dead than to take a political side, so by deciding that every such investigation is "political" you can exempt yourself from having to take a side, and remain above it all.)

Watergate, we all know, started when Republican operatives burglarized the DNC headquarters in the Watergate complex. No question: It was a crime, even bit as much as Traficant's taking bribes. By your view, as soon is it became clear that burglars were linked to the Administration, any investigation would become "political" -- it would involve politicians and certainly benefit the Democrats. Nixon's White House should have been allowed to burgle the opposition party's headquarters, and lie and obstruct justice, because as corrupt as that sounds, it would be worse to force you to decide that Democrats were right and that Nixon was wrong.

What you stand for is a form of qualified immunity for politicians, where they get to do whatever crimes they want unless *all* other politicians agree that it was so clearly and heinous a crime that they should be nailed. I personally think the qualified immunity doctrine we already have is bad enough, but congratulations -- you have thought up of a way to make it even worse.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Then don't. I don't have any desire to debate with you. It's you who engages me.

Awww, I love reading when you and Flower fight. It makes my conference calls seem more interesting in contrast; I know it could be worse.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Really? I'd read recently that a Dem Senate removed roadblocks that had existed, and McConnell told them they'd live to regret it. Could be complete bullshit, but there was the appearance of truth to it.

If you’d like to participate, you could try googling.

(There was a whole debate about whether the Dems should filibuster Gorsuch or wait for someone more odious, like Kavanaugh, which was ultimately rendered meaningless as Mitch wasn’t going to honor any filibuster anyway.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Awww, I love reading when you and Flower fight. It makes my conference calls seem more interesting in contrast; I know it could be worse.

You don’t have to give a fuck, and you understand politics is nonsense (which makes me wonder why you pretend otherwise).

So here’s a gift: Glenn Greenwald on the progressives’ dangerous ludicrousness (Taibbi concedes the stage, realizing Greenwald is on an epic rant). It’s amazing. I hope perhaps a person like you might enjoy it. My left and right friends scream at me if I just raise Greenwald’s name. Makes me wish I still smoked (that’s why smoking was such a pleasure... it excused one from dealing with common idiots): https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...odcast-939380/

Oh, and here’s another fun one: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/n...-taibbi-tracey

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You don’t have to give a fuck, and you understand politics is nonsense (which makes me wonder why you pretend otherwise).

So here’s a gift: Glenn Greenwald on the progressives’ dangerous ludicrousness (Taibbi concedes the stage, realizing Greenwald is on an epic rant). It’s amazing. I hope perhaps a person like you might enjoy it. My left and right friends scream at me if I just raise Greenwald’s name. Makes me wish I still smoked (that’s why smoking was such a pleasure... it excused one from dealing with common idiots): https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...odcast-939380/

Oh, and here’s another fun one: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/n...-taibbi-tracey

Dude, that you're stanning for the two most discredited people of the last four years says so, so, much.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Almost every single civil or criminal investigation of a politician will benefit another politician. The exception (which proves the rule) is Traficant, who had already been expelled from the Democratic caucus in Congress and wasn't welcomed by the Republicans, either. He was absolutely a criminal, in the sense that he broke the law, but the reason why you don't see him as political is that every single other politician thought he should go down.

What you are really saying is that as far as you are concerned, politicians are free to commit crimes, because when they do and so one finds out, politicians will disagree with each other about whether there was a crime and what should be done about it, which irrevocably taints any investigation as "political" and forces you to take sides in a debate between politicians. (We all know that you are completely above politics and would rather be caught dead than to take a political side, so by deciding that every such investigation is "political" you can exempt yourself from having to take a side, and remain above it all.)

Watergate, we all know, started when Republican operatives burglarized the DNC headquarters in the Watergate complex. No question: It was a crime, even bit as much as Traficant's taking bribes. By your view, as soon is it became clear that burglars were linked to the Administration, any investigation would become "political" -- it would involve politicians and certainly benefit the Democrats. Nixon's White House should have been allowed to burgle the opposition party's headquarters, and lie and obstruct justice, because as corrupt as that sounds, it would be worse to force you to decide that Democrats were right and that Nixon was wrong.

What you stand for is a form of qualified immunity for politicians, where they get to do whatever crimes they want unless *all* other politicians agree that it was so clearly and heinous a crime that they should be nailed. I personally think the qualified immunity doctrine we already have is bad enough, but congratulations -- you have thought up of a way to make it even worse.

Watergate was clearly a crime. The only question was how many were involved in the conspiracy.

I do not think cover ups should be charged as crimes. It’s an adversarial system. That’s just a preemptive defense (self-help as it were, or ought to be). If Johnny Law doesn’t like cover-ups, he should work harder to prove the underlying crime. Letting him charge obstruction is bullshit. It turns the playing field impossibly in his favor.

I do stand for waving the black flag, as Mencken said. It’s soulless to root for Elliot Ness. (And no one ever got laid well taking that angle). Even friends in law enforcement have that pirate streak. (They trade out and do defense work as soon as they get the pension.)

It’s bizarre for one in your business to value the rule of archaic laws designed to protect commercial guilds and an adversarial system that doesn’t allow a fair or honest fight.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Dude, that you're stanning for the two most discredited people of the last four years says so, so, much.

Your assessment they are disreputable is further proof of my point.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

If you’d like to participate, you could try googling.

(There was a whole debate about whether the Dems should filibuster Gorsuch or wait for someone more odious, like Kavanaugh, which was ultimately rendered meaningless as Mitch wasn’t going to honor any filibuster anyway.)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

Wiki, but is it not true? And assume I’ve googled before I post. Guess you don’t?

But like Ty said maybe Reid has a crystal ball and knew what McConnell would do someday? Ty, is that what your point was?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Then don't. I don't have any desire to debate with you. It's you who engages me.

Untrue. All I do is point out when you’re ludicrously wrong and transparently lying, which is all the time. Then you try to turn it into a substantive debate about whatever it is you were wrong/lying about. Because. You. Can’t. Help Yourself. You could always just not respond. But you will respond. Because it just gets you sooooo mad when I point out that you’re a liar. Next you’re going to say that you actually don’t ever get mad and you don’t actually care what I say. And then I will point out that you’re lying. Again. And you’ll get mad. Again. That’s how it is on this bitch of an earth.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Untrue. All I do is point out when you’re ludicrously wrong and transparently lying, which is all the time. Then you try to turn it into a substantive debate about whatever it is you were wrong/lying about. Because. You. Can’t. Help Yourself. You could always just not respond. But you will respond. Because it just gets you sooooo mad when I point out that you’re a liar. Next you’re going to say that you actually don’t ever get mad and you don’t actually care what I say. And then I will point out that you’re lying. Again. And you’ll get mad. Again. That’s how it is on this bitch of an earth.

I can’t help myself. I like to argue.

What you think of me? Let’s assume one of two things occur:

1. You die;
2. You announce you hit the lottery

My response would be different because I’d feel a need to say something different in each circumstance. But internally, neither would cause me to rethink my appetizer.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The filibuster is a creation of Senate rules, and can be changed at any time by changing the Senate rules. I am saying that McConnell would not have let that rule stop him from confirming a Republican appointee to the Supreme Court if he had 50 votes for it, regardless of what happened when the filibuster rule was changed before (something that has happened more than once).

If you have a pathological tendency to try to find a Democratic misdeed to counterbalance whatever Republicans are doing, seek medical help.

There’s no counterbalance. The GOP’s next move turns on a question of whether to enshrine the rule that might is right and render politics going forward an absolute and transparent zero sum game.

Is it better to go scorched earth or to live in a 5-4 world (with a bargained for moderate as the 4th liberal vote)?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Wow. RT said she wants the Senate to get rid of the filibuster. I said I think they already basically did. You now call me stupid because “the Rs would have done it anyway?”

Look at your argument from the standpoint of a professor grading an answer? Because that is what I do when I read your posts.

It's there for everything but judicial appointments.

(Also, fuck Ted Cruz in general, but also for blocking a senate resolution honoring Justice Ginsburg.)

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

Wiki, but is it not true? And assume I’ve googled before I post. Guess you don’t?

But like Ty said maybe Reid has a crystal ball and knew what McConnell would do someday? Ty, is that what your point was?

Apparently the problem wasn't Googling, it was reading (or comprehension) or something:

In November 2013, Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments, but not for the Supreme Court.[1] In April 2017, Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell extended the nuclear option to Supreme Court nominations in order to end debate on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch.[2][3][4]

As of September 2020, a three-fifths majority vote is still required to end debates on legislation