[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2018-February-01, 15:23, said:

I wonder about this. I know if I were called deplorable by someone whose opinion I valued I would not get defensive but would want to explore the cause. If the name-caller were someone whose opinion didn't matter to me, I would likewise not get defensive but simply would ignore them. For someone to get defensive about Clinton's comment, it would have taken someone who had already decided to vote Fredo, and they would have used the insult to double down on a position already firmly held.

If the comment hurt, it hurt because it energized those people to actually cast a ballot. I seriously doubt if it caused anyone to change sides or an undecided to abandon her.

It isn't exactly a matter of getting defensive.

How do people choose how to vote? A big question and of course with many answers.

I want a Senator, a Representative, a President, who knows something. But we also look for someone who shares our values, at least in a general way. We look not at their highly prepared statements that are written by someone else and vetted and vetted again by PR types so that the whole thing becomes meaningless. At least partially we look for the unguarded comment.

This is not the whole of it, of course not. We, or at least I, want an intelligent resourceful and at least reasonably honest person in power. We want good judgment. And we also want to have some confidence that what we think is important is something that they think is important.

The old joke is that sincerity is critical, once you learn how to fake that you have it made. Politicians certainly try to fake it, but sometimes the truth slides out.

Anyway, defensive is not the issue. Not for me anyway. If someone insults me I do not necessarily get defensive. But I am not too likely to vote for them. If they have contempt for things that I value, then they can go their way, I will go mine. That's not defensive, that's just realism.

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2018-February-01, 17:59, said:

I understand. The point I would make that we are all surprised that there are any bonuses at all.

Do you think it would have been better if that company had not given any bonuses at all. Then they would not have been able to offend you with their self-inflation talk.

Let's try this again ***** for brains...

I don't think that there is much of a casual link between the Republican tax cut and the Walmart bonuses.

Walmart pays bonuses of roughly the same amount to its employees most every quarter.
The only difference here is that Walmart is claiming that the bonuses are related to the tax cut in order to suck up to Trump...

[cherdano]

You know Ken, after the election, there were roughly two theories about Trump's appeal

The first one was his "economic populism", promising disaffected working class voters that coal mining would return, that he'd overturn the rigged game in Washington that is played against them.
The second one was that he activated widespread racial resentment.

Since the election, Trump has done NOTHING to objectively improve the economic situation of poor working class voters, instead he has taken a lot of stop to make their situation worse (supporting large Medicaid cuts and sabotating Obamacare, weakening the CFPB, appointing a completely incompetent 24-year old to be in charge of Drug control policy, i.e. the opioid epidemic, etc.) But he has done A LOT to continue stoking racial resentment - picking twitter fights with lots of African-American public figures, turning ICE from an agency working to deport criminal immigrants to one that just makes life miserable for as many immigrants as possible, spending much of his SOTU talking about immigrant crimes.

Clearly Trump thinks that he got to victory by activating racist feelings. Sounds pretty deplorable to me.

If you personally feel better ignoring that reality, go ahead. But you shouldn't ask the rest of us to be similarly ignorant, ok?

[kenberg]

 cherdano, on 2018-February-01, 19:07, said:

You know Ken, after the election, there were roughly two theories about Trump's appeal

The first one was his "economic populism", promising disaffected working class voters that coal mining would return, that he'd overturn the rigged game in Washington that is played against them.
The second one was that he activated widespread racial resentment.

Since the election, Trump has done NOTHING to objectively improve the economic situation of poor working class voters, instead he has taken a lot of stop to make their situation worse (supporting large Medicaid cuts and sabotating Obamacare, weakening the CFPB, appointing a completely incompetent 24-year old to be in charge of Drug control policy, i.e. the opioid epidemic, etc.) But he has done A LOT to continue stoking racial resentment - picking twitter fights with lots of African-American public figures, turning ICE from an agency working to deport criminal immigrants to one that just makes life miserable for as many immigrants as possible, spending much of his SOTU talking about immigrant crimes.

Clearly Trump thinks that he got to victory by activating racist feelings. Sounds pretty deplorable to me.

If you personally feel better ignoring that reality, go ahead. But you shouldn't ask the rest of us to be similarly ignorant, ok?

Sure, it's ok. As near as I can see, you are rebutting views that I don't hold and statements that I haven't made. That's also ok. Definitely it is all ok. I am ok.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2018-February-01, 18:48, said:

It isn't exactly a matter of getting defensive.

How do people choose how to vote? A big question and of course with many answers.

I want a Senator, a Representative, a President, who knows something. But we also look for someone who shares our values, at least in a general way. We look not at their highly prepared statements that are written by someone else and vetted and vetted again by PR types so that the whole thing becomes meaningless. At least partially we look for the unguarded comment.

This is not the whole of it, of course not. We, or at least I, want an intelligent resourceful and at least reasonably honest person in power. We want good judgment. And we also want to have some confidence that what we think is important is something that they think is important.

The old joke is that sincerity is critical, once you learn how to fake that you have it made. Politicians certainly try to fake it, but sometimes the truth slides out.

Anyway, defensive is not the issue. Not for me anyway. If someone insults me I do not necessarily get defensive. But I am not too likely to vote for them. If they have contempt for things that I value, then they can go their way, I will go mine. That's not defensive, that's just realism.

Exactly. The deplorable comment did not cause Clinton to lose the election. If anything, she would have done better to double down on it.

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2018-February-01, 18:59, said:

Let's try this again ***** for brains...

I don't think that there is much of a casual link between the Republican tax cut and the Walmart bonuses.

Walmart pays bonuses of roughly the same amount to its employees most every quarter.
The only difference here is that Walmart is claiming that the bonuses are related to the tax cut in order to suck up to Trump...

Just because you don't think there is a causal link doesn't mean there isn't one. I don't know about Walmart's practices, but the other 2-3 hundred companies that have paid bonuses don't seem to do that as a regular part of their business. At least not to the rank and file employees.

And if the price we have to pay for millions of people to get bonuses is to tolerate self-puffery on the part of some companies, I say that is a price worth paying. It appears that you would prefer not to pay that price, even at the expense of all of those workers. Sad.

[cherdano]

 kenberg, on 2018-February-01, 19:24, said:

Sure, it's ok. As near as I can see, you are rebutting views that I don't hold and statements that I haven't made. That's also ok. Definitely it is all ok. I am ok.

You complained that some might think of some Trump supporters as deplorable. Clearly Trump thinks of many of them as what anyone with a sense of decency would call deplorable.

Meanwhile, among the 49 Democratic Senators, 31 are white and male. I didn't quickly find a breakdown by age in addition, but I am quite sure there aren't many 25-year olds among them. Your constant whining that the Democratic party has no place for white old men is, to be frank, quite pathetic.

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2018-February-01, 21:41, said:

And if the price we have to pay for millions of people to get bonuses is to tolerate self-puffery on the part of some companies, I say that is a price worth paying. It appears that you would prefer not to pay that price, even at the expense of all of those workers. Sad.

As usual, you are presenting a false narrative.

There is no casual link between the lies and the supposed bonuses.

If workers actually received any kind of material increase in their bonuses, we can be glad.
And, at the same time, we can condemn

• A political climate in which companies feel the need to engage in this sort of puffery
  
• The fact that thousands of firms are lying about their behaviour to favor the Republican party

And, of course, we should remember that IF our goal is actually to provide material assistance to American workers there were much much better options available that this particular tax plan.

[kenberg]

 cherdano, on 2018-February-02, 04:58, said:

You complained that some might think of some Trump supporters as deplorable. Clearly Trump thinks of many of them as what anyone with a sense of decency would call deplorable.

Meanwhile, among the 49 Democratic Senators, 31 are white and male. I didn't quickly find a breakdown by age in addition, but I am quite sure there aren't many 25-year olds among them. Your constant whining that the Democratic party has no place for white old men is, to be frank, quite pathetic.

Actually, I said I might agree with Hillary on this. Specifically I said:

Quote

Everyone's favorite example from the last election. I might even agree with Hillary that some of the Trump supporters were deplorable, but speaking of a basket of deplorables revealed a mindset. This mindset goes further toward explaining her loss than does her deplorable phrasing. The phrasing was a consequence of the mindset, and the mindset no doubt showed through with or without the phrasing. That costs.

I started this by referring to an interchange at the gym. We disagreed and we parted on good terms. This leaves either of us open to re-think and/or further discuss. I think the fact that neither of us called the other any names is useful both in keeping us on good terms and, perhaps, even for the purpose of changing minds. It is the writing off of people that I am objecting to. An old Kathryn Hepburn line from The Philadelphia Story: "The time to make up your mind about other people is never." Probably an overstatement but still it is on the right track.

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2018-February-02, 05:20, said:

And, of course, we should remember that IF our goal is actually to provide material assistance to American workers there were much much better options available that this particular tax plan.

Such as?

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2018-February-02, 10:28, said:

Such as?

Let's see...

We could spend that 1 trillion dollars on Infrastructure development
We could use that 1 trillion dollars to fund a single pay program
If you are wedded to tax cuts, we could use this money to dramatically expand the earned income tax credit

There's almost an infinte number of things we could have done with this money that would more directly benefit the work class than a bunch of corporate tax cuts that are overwhelmingly being used for stock buybacks

[Winstonm]

Another casualty in Fredo's war against non-whites:

Quote

Interim Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Mick Mulvaney is moving the powerful Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity under his direct oversight and is stripping its enforcement authority. Instead of giving the watchdog the ability to go after lenders to who change their interest rates based on race, or other discriminatory practices, the office will now focus on “advocacy, coordination, and education,” according to a memo to CFPB employees. Critics are concerned that the office’s ability to prevent discrimination in student loans and mortgages will be hindered with the change.

[hrothgar]

Interesting development

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2018-February-02, 11:42, said:

Let's see...

We could spend that 1 trillion dollars on Infrastructure development
We could use that 1 trillion dollars to fund a single pay program
If you are wedded to tax cuts, we could use this money to dramatically expand the earned income tax credit

There's almost an infinte number of things we could have done with this money that would more directly benefit the work class than a bunch of corporate tax cuts that are overwhelmingly being used for stock buybacks

Certainly, but that is all government/tax money spending. The bonuses and investments come from the private sector. But I already knew you would prefer government spending over private spending.

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2018-February-02, 13:22, said:

Interesting development

The "memo" outlines a clear case of malfeasance by the FBI/DOJ in the handling of at least one FISA warrant case. The culprits are at the high management level, not the rank and file.

Of course if you support the ability to use the DOJ/FBI against your political opponents, then go ahead and try to hide or diminish the importance of this event. If I were the president I would simply take it over and use it against my future political opponents. I assume you would support that. Welcome to your new Stalinesque dictatorship!

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2018-February-02, 13:34, said:

Certainly, but that is all government/tax money spending. The bonuses and investments come from the private sector. But I already knew you would prefer government spending over private spending.

Yes

I have always been quite consistent about my policy preferences.

Unlike you who spent a day and a half waxing rhapsodic about those bonuses Walmart claimed to be paying to its employees but rejects meaningful policies out of hand because they conflict with your religious beliefs.
I had hoped that including the Earned Income Tax Credit inside my list of policy suggestions might head off this discussion. (As I am sure you know, it was originally proposed by Arch Statist Milton Friedman)

However, if that is too oppressive for you, how about simply weighting that 1 trillion dollars towards those who make the lowest amounts of money rather than those who make the most...

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2018-February-02, 13:40, said:

The "memo" outlines a clear case of malfeasance by the FBI/DOJ in the handling of at least one FISA warrant case. The culprits are at the high management level, not the rank and file.

You are wrong on so many levels.

First and foremost, Carter Page was under investigation from the FBI as a possible Russian Agent two years before he joined the Trump campaign. The decision to monitor his predates the Steele memo by years.

Second, even if members of the FBI were biased - and I am in no way conceding that they are - this does not not constitute malfeasance
There is a good write up on this as https://lawfareblog....-releasethememo

Third, I hope that you recognize that the House Intelligence Committee is engaged in exactly the set of behavior that you accuse the FBI of...

Finally, you have multiple Republican administration officials accusing Nunes and Trump of selective leaks and biased presentation of information.

[kenberg]

 ldrews, on 2018-February-02, 13:40, said:

The "memo" outlines a clear case of malfeasance by the FBI/DOJ in the handling of at least one FISA warrant case. The culprits are at the high management level, not the rank and file.

Of course if you support the ability to use the DOJ/FBI against your political opponents, then go ahead and try to hide or diminish the importance of this event. If I were the president I would simply take it over and use it against my future political opponents. I assume you would support that. Welcome to your new Stalinesque dictatorship!

I will crawl out on what I regard as a pretty firm limb and say that when the dust settles, the Republicans will seriously regret this. I realize that John McCain has brain cancer but it hasn't eaten it away yet and he was totally unequivocal in his views. There will be others. Of course the FBI can be subject to oversight and sometimes to criticism. Same with cops. Same with professors. But this memo is not a serious investigation.

Most of us do not have access to classified information, so it is impossible to evaluate the claims in detail. And for that matter, we lack expertise even if we could probe classified documents. But the general format is despicable on the face of it. Some people think every cop is a crook, some think every cop is a saint, most of us accept that some are better than others, that sometimes we need to look closely at what they are doing. But not in this way.

This is not going to bounce well for the Republicans. It shouldn't, and it won't.

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2018-February-02, 14:09, said:

You are wrong on so many levels.

First and foremost, Carter Page was under investigation from the FBI as a possible Russian Agent two years before he joined the Trump campaign. The decision to monitor his predates the Steele memo by years.

Second, even if members of the FBI were biased - and I am in no way conceding that they are - this does not not constitute malfeasance
There is a good write up on this as https://lawfareblog....-releasethememo

Third, I hope that you recognize that the House Intelligence Committee is engaged in exactly the set of behavior that you accuse the FBI of...

Finally, you have multiple Republican administration officials accusing Nunes and Trump of selective leaks and biased presentation of information.

Keep sticking your head in the sand. The introduction of political bias in actions taken by the DOJ/FBI should scare anyone who values freedom. There is little or no recourse against a waponized DOJ/FBI, and that is what we have some evidence of. Apparently the upcoming OIG report will detail even more of the same. But if you don't mind a politicized police agency, then never mind, enjoy your short-lived freedoms.

Also, if the facts contained in the memo are accurate, and they have already been vetted by the DOJ/FBi (although the DOJ/FBI assert that their is omission of facts), then the basis for Mueller's investigation is severely questionable and any results may not withstand court scrutiny.

And with regard to the "omission of facts", I would invite the DOJ/FBI to supply the missing information.

[ldrews]

 kenberg, on 2018-February-02, 14:12, said:

I will crawl out on what I regard as a pretty firm limb and say that when the dust settles, the Republicans will seriously regret this. I realize that John McCain has brain cancer but it hasn't eaten it away yet and he was totally unequivocal in his views. There will be others. Of course the FBI can be subject to oversight and sometimes to criticism. Same with cops. Same with professors. But this memo is not a serious investigation.

Most of us do not have access to classified information, so it is impossible to evaluate the claims in detail. And for that matter, we lack expertise even if we could probe classified documents. But the general format is despicable on the face of it. Some people think every cop is a crook, some think every cop is a saint, most of us accept that some are better than others, that sometimes we need to look closely at what they are doing. But not in this way.

This is not going to bounce well for the Republicans. It shouldn't, and it won't.

This memo is not a serious investigation, it is a summary of the conclusions drawn from a serious investigation.

Would you support the declassification and release of the supporting documents? Then we could all come to our own judgments.

Quote

In a nutshell: Federal officials conspired to spy on a rival political campaign using information they had not verified from people they knew were untrustworthy. And these officials deliberately and repeatedly defrauded the judiciary by withholding key information.