"Oh, like you want to pay more for strawberries"
"I’m not sure we would though"
Synthesis: yes we would, and we *should* pay more for strawberries and all our food.
It's a very strange conceit that both sides want food prices lowered via illegal immigration, but take diametrically opposed positions on why it's good.
No my friend, don't read the analogy as anything other than getting people out of their priors. I'm not making a both-sides argument.
I'm saying that it's quite possibly in Team Blue's best interest to have done that ... the analogy is to show how the polarization issue doesn't really play.
Nobody would primary Bob Good for 'nuking' AOC. No one would primary AOC for 'nuking' Matt Gaetz. Much less folks in the middle.
I'm not sure I agree... I agree that the polarization is real, but honestly wouldn't see a downside to -- let's hypothesize -- AOC and the Squad holding Jeffries hostage over a Green New Deal and Republicans gleefully walking in the door she forgot to chain shut.
It would be that kind of polarizing anti-polarizing move. It probably hurts Jeffries more.
It's not a vote on an actual ideological Bill, just a vote to prevent people from gluing their hands to the artwork.
Heh, but there are lot's of scenarios - Jeffries could lead a symbolic cadre just to keep the House functioning (for a few concessions public or private).
I get why a party would take a 'clean up your own mess' approach to the Speakership. In ordinary times with ordinary internal squabbles.
But part of me wonders if it's not simply better, more aggressive politics, to thwart a particular faction that is in the business of subverting politics. Like honestly, having Team Red join Team Blue roflstomp an extreme Team Blue faction that has no viable agenda would be a good use of a vote. Like coming together to remove activists from closing down roads for no benefit to anything.
I suppose we'll just have to see how the Speaker issue is resolved internally by Team Red; if it's just a clown car for a few days that's one thing; if it impacts, say, shutdown prospects to the benefit of Gaetz and his squad of 8, then that's another.
In the foreseeable future it would seem so. Although I suppose if the House Speaker was of the same party as the President, an opposing senate might prefer a VP from the other party to the Speaker from that party being next in line. Theoretically.
5D Chess, hold the vacancy open a year (secretly promise to Kamala)... see how the election goes, and if Biden wins and D's have majorities replace Kamala with (Gavin).
But then why would she do that? The 'upside' would be pulling her from re-election campaign by 'promoting' her to the Senate.
Alas, will probably be a boring insider Cal Dem person getting a sinecure for past services. Been done lots of times... I remember reading about the perqs that come with being a Senator if only for a few months.
As a matter of practical strategery I would simply appoint a black woman and talk about how great it was that I appointed a great black woman.
Me saying that I 'should' appoint a black woman before I've done so has all the downside of not appointing a black woman without any of the upside when I do appoint a black woman.
However, the 25th Amendment presents a 4D Chess problem
Section 2.
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Dude! That's what I'm asking... you can't outflank me on reforming the system... are we finally cleaning Fraternity Row of all their shenanigans or do we just hate Delta House so much we're willing to use the law but not enforce the law?
"More importantly, the Court disregarded the viewpoint of those actually involved in the loan transactions who testified that there was nothing misleading, there was no fraud, and the transactions were all highly profitable."
Did the insurance companies sue? It's implied that he got better rates... I believe it. What's the math on the better rates as paying less per unit on more units is usually a wash or worse (e.g. you pay $0.08 on $100, but $0.06 on $200) -- unless you actually cash in on inflated values -- which would then have a victim and a crime. Was there such an event?
Reminds me of the various accounting fictions that our entire economy is based on... like colleges (from a recent report from AEI):
"The gap between notional and real revenues has made a mess of college tax filings, too. To use the Beloit example, the college reports its revenues as though every student pays full tuition. In 2019, Beloit reported about $75 million in total revenue on its IRS Form 990, even though $35 million of that money was never asked for and never paid. To fill the gap between fantasy and reality, Beloit's Form 990 reports "Grants and similar amounts paid: [$]35,469,256." To be clear, Beloit never had $75 million in revenue; that number is an accounting fiction derived from the school's published tuition, which is based on nothing whatsoever. Beloit also did not "pay" $35 million in grants and similar amounts: It simply marked down a price that was never real."
Me: To be clear, loans or grants that students received to pay the remainder *are* the income the college received. The 'Markdown' is funded with internal 'grants' that are entirely 'fiat' in that they are created as they are created and constitute a discount, not a transfer of internal funds. This happens at every college I know S/M/L. It has a lot of distortionary effects, and probably should be 'illegal'.
I'm perfectly willing to believe that lying and fraud are endemic to Trump and the entire program of NYC land development; is this Case #1 of cleaning up all the fraud in NYC? I hope so. But I suspect not.
My position, to avoid misconstruelization, is that I'm sure this sort of 'fraud' occurred... but I'm genuinely confused as to whether we think it is unique to Trump and if it's not --- and there's no entity that loaned Trump money or insured his assets that's bringing the case (is there?) -- then how is this not basically an indictment of BAU in NYC and who's next in the clean-up?
Heh, it never does. The 'class irony' play here is that 'signalling' he's a common man doesn't entirely work for the large swath of people who not only have dress codes but types of uniform they must don at work. NOT wearing appropriate clothes for the job is the height of privilege that my class of Tech White Collar slobs get to invoke. And even then? Not so much.
I certainly wouldn't wear a banker's suit... and haven't for years. And I'm not sure that 'dress codes' are a great thing for precisely that reason... I don't think ties and dark suits are magic.
That said, I think Fetterman's dress on the edge of the floor reflects poorly on him (has he actually broken the code barrier yet?). There are a lot of things he could wear as a 'big guy' that doesn't require coat/tie and still be on-brand and appropriate. Not rising to that minimum is poor form but it's on him. I wouldn't waste national cycles on it, but if I were campaigning directly against him, I think it would be possible to use it against him.
It's Philip's assertion that's been previously made here that Jared traded influence for $Billions. I connected the dots that he's referring to the Saudi dealings we've discussed.
I'm *agreeing* that it's plausible that Jared (who's already very rich) traded influence for $B because we know that relatively less rich members of congress will trade influence for $M.
Heh, is this like shoplifting? You're only interested above a certain threshold? My point is that everyone selling influence / trading information should be prosecuted. Start wherever you want.
Yeah, it's just a mystery how Politicians make it to DC as middle class lawyers and end up millionaires. That Millionaires get to DC and parlay that into Billions is another mystery.
Like there's an entire side business of, what would we call it?
Concurrence:
T-Imp 1 bears similarity to B-Imp 1 in that they are/were fishing expeditions on things that seem like they should be true based on scant but salacious material.
T-Imp 2 was justified on [narrow] grounds that Exec Branch incited Riot against Legislative Branch.
Read some conservative inside baseball stuff a couple weeks ago on possible impeachment and their take was that the investigation is peeling back some leads to follow, but premature to impeach. Ironically they gave McCarthy high marks for restraint. The loons forcing McCarthy's hand is par for the course.
For full disclosure, my trending opinion is that the influence peddling by Hunter (and his Uncle as a family business) was indeed 'supported' by Joe. My hunch (hope?) was that the quid-pro-quo never quite materialized because the goal was the retainer(s), not the pay-off. The illusion of influence was valuable in itself. Now, a little favor here or there to keep the sparkle on the illusion? What's a quick passport renewal or an H1B going to the top of the line (for example) in the grand scheme of things? Feels very old-school like Joe. Letter of the law with low security plausible deniability approach. Nothing fancy like a Global Foundation. Impeachable? Not without an actual quid-pro-quo ... this is the level of corruption we want: petty personal enrichment for small personal favors.
On “Open Mic for the week of 10/2/2023”
"Oh, like you want to pay more for strawberries"
"I’m not sure we would though"
Synthesis: yes we would, and we *should* pay more for strawberries and all our food.
It's a very strange conceit that both sides want food prices lowered via illegal immigration, but take diametrically opposed positions on why it's good.
On “Kevin McCarthy Ousted As Speaker of the House”
No my friend, don't read the analogy as anything other than getting people out of their priors. I'm not making a both-sides argument.
I'm saying that it's quite possibly in Team Blue's best interest to have done that ... the analogy is to show how the polarization issue doesn't really play.
Nobody would primary Bob Good for 'nuking' AOC. No one would primary AOC for 'nuking' Matt Gaetz. Much less folks in the middle.
"
I'm not sure I agree... I agree that the polarization is real, but honestly wouldn't see a downside to -- let's hypothesize -- AOC and the Squad holding Jeffries hostage over a Green New Deal and Republicans gleefully walking in the door she forgot to chain shut.
It would be that kind of polarizing anti-polarizing move. It probably hurts Jeffries more.
It's not a vote on an actual ideological Bill, just a vote to prevent people from gluing their hands to the artwork.
"
Serenity NOW!
Heh, but there are lot's of scenarios - Jeffries could lead a symbolic cadre just to keep the House functioning (for a few concessions public or private).
"
I get why a party would take a 'clean up your own mess' approach to the Speakership. In ordinary times with ordinary internal squabbles.
But part of me wonders if it's not simply better, more aggressive politics, to thwart a particular faction that is in the business of subverting politics. Like honestly, having Team Red join Team Blue roflstomp an extreme Team Blue faction that has no viable agenda would be a good use of a vote. Like coming together to remove activists from closing down roads for no benefit to anything.
I suppose we'll just have to see how the Speaker issue is resolved internally by Team Red; if it's just a clown car for a few days that's one thing; if it impacts, say, shutdown prospects to the benefit of Gaetz and his squad of 8, then that's another.
On “From NBC News: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a trailblazer in U.S. politics and the longest-serving woman in the Senate, has died at 90.”
That's dimensional GO levels of strategery.
"
InMD is mooted: "the chaos thrown on the GOP from having to navigate an election with a despised one of their own technically being the incumbent"
Which I took to mean the scenario where an empty VP and a Biden exit = McCarthy as the despised incumbent.
"
In the foreseeable future it would seem so. Although I suppose if the House Speaker was of the same party as the President, an opposing senate might prefer a VP from the other party to the Speaker from that party being next in line. Theoretically.
"
Dysentery.
"
Depends on the date of the last heartbeat... the incumbent President isn't automatically on the ballot.
"
5D Chess, hold the vacancy open a year (secretly promise to Kamala)... see how the election goes, and if Biden wins and D's have majorities replace Kamala with (
Gavin).But then why would she do that? The 'upside' would be pulling her from re-election campaign by 'promoting' her to the Senate.
Alas, will probably be a boring insider Cal Dem person getting a sinecure for past services. Been done lots of times... I remember reading about the perqs that come with being a Senator if only for a few months.
"
As a matter of practical strategery I would simply appoint a black woman and talk about how great it was that I appointed a great black woman.
Me saying that I 'should' appoint a black woman before I've done so has all the downside of not appointing a black woman without any of the upside when I do appoint a black woman.
"
Ah, the Josh Barrow 3D Chess scenario...
However, the 25th Amendment presents a 4D Chess problem
Section 2.
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
One heartbeat from President McCarthy.
"
As an advance directive, if I'm on a sales call in the morning and die of old age later in the day: please arrest my caregivers.
Unless I'm Pope, then carry on with the protocols.
On “NY Judge Overseeing New York AG Lawsuit Finds Trump Committed Fraud”
Dude! That's what I'm asking... you can't outflank me on reforming the system... are we finally cleaning Fraternity Row of all their shenanigans or do we just hate Delta House so much we're willing to use the law but not enforce the law?
"
Just wait until we get into the "shall be" vs. "will be" legal arguments....
"
Who was defrauded?
"More importantly, the Court disregarded the viewpoint of those actually involved in the loan transactions who testified that there was nothing misleading, there was no fraud, and the transactions were all highly profitable."
Did the insurance companies sue? It's implied that he got better rates... I believe it. What's the math on the better rates as paying less per unit on more units is usually a wash or worse (e.g. you pay $0.08 on $100, but $0.06 on $200) -- unless you actually cash in on inflated values -- which would then have a victim and a crime. Was there such an event?
Reminds me of the various accounting fictions that our entire economy is based on... like colleges (from a recent report from AEI):
"The gap between notional and real revenues has made a mess of college tax filings, too. To use the Beloit example, the college reports its revenues as though every student pays full tuition. In 2019, Beloit reported about $75 million in total revenue on its IRS Form 990, even though $35 million of that money was never asked for and never paid. To fill the gap between fantasy and reality, Beloit's Form 990 reports "Grants and similar amounts paid: [$]35,469,256." To be clear, Beloit never had $75 million in revenue; that number is an accounting fiction derived from the school's published tuition, which is based on nothing whatsoever. Beloit also did not "pay" $35 million in grants and similar amounts: It simply marked down a price that was never real."
Me: To be clear, loans or grants that students received to pay the remainder *are* the income the college received. The 'Markdown' is funded with internal 'grants' that are entirely 'fiat' in that they are created as they are created and constitute a discount, not a transfer of internal funds. This happens at every college I know S/M/L. It has a lot of distortionary effects, and probably should be 'illegal'.
I'm perfectly willing to believe that lying and fraud are endemic to Trump and the entire program of NYC land development; is this Case #1 of cleaning up all the fraud in NYC? I hope so. But I suspect not.
My position, to avoid misconstruelization, is that I'm sure this sort of 'fraud' occurred... but I'm genuinely confused as to whether we think it is unique to Trump and if it's not --- and there's no entity that loaned Trump money or insured his assets that's bringing the case (is there?) -- then how is this not basically an indictment of BAU in NYC and who's next in the clean-up?
On “The Fetterman Fight”
Heh, it never does. The 'class irony' play here is that 'signalling' he's a common man doesn't entirely work for the large swath of people who not only have dress codes but types of uniform they must don at work. NOT wearing appropriate clothes for the job is the height of privilege that my class of Tech White Collar slobs get to invoke. And even then? Not so much.
"
I certainly wouldn't wear a banker's suit... and haven't for years. And I'm not sure that 'dress codes' are a great thing for precisely that reason... I don't think ties and dark suits are magic.
That said, I think Fetterman's dress on the edge of the floor reflects poorly on him (has he actually broken the code barrier yet?). There are a lot of things he could wear as a 'big guy' that doesn't require coat/tie and still be on-brand and appropriate. Not rising to that minimum is poor form but it's on him. I wouldn't waste national cycles on it, but if I were campaigning directly against him, I think it would be possible to use it against him.
On “Thursday Throughput: Decongestant Edition”
We just call them the 'pink pills' and know that using them means the day is over.
On “Kevin McCarthy Goes Fishing”
It's Philip's assertion that's been previously made here that Jared traded influence for $Billions. I connected the dots that he's referring to the Saudi dealings we've discussed.
I'm *agreeing* that it's plausible that Jared (who's already very rich) traded influence for $B because we know that relatively less rich members of congress will trade influence for $M.
Could you not follow that?
"
You know, you're right. I've elided Russia/Mueller/Obstruction/Ukraine/Obstruction/Impeachment in my head. So many attempts.
The parallel follows more of a Steele Dossier / Hunter Dossier / Special Counsel / Impeachment for anything that looks plausible model. My mistake.
"
Heh, is this like shoplifting? You're only interested above a certain threshold? My point is that everyone selling influence / trading information should be prosecuted. Start wherever you want.
"
Yeah, it's just a mystery how Politicians make it to DC as middle class lawyers and end up millionaires. That Millionaires get to DC and parlay that into Billions is another mystery.
Like there's an entire side business of, what would we call it?
"
Concurrence:
T-Imp 1 bears similarity to B-Imp 1 in that they are/were fishing expeditions on things that seem like they should be true based on scant but salacious material.
T-Imp 2 was justified on [narrow] grounds that Exec Branch incited Riot against Legislative Branch.
Read some conservative inside baseball stuff a couple weeks ago on possible impeachment and their take was that the investigation is peeling back some leads to follow, but premature to impeach. Ironically they gave McCarthy high marks for restraint. The loons forcing McCarthy's hand is par for the course.
For full disclosure, my trending opinion is that the influence peddling by Hunter (and his Uncle as a family business) was indeed 'supported' by Joe. My hunch (hope?) was that the quid-pro-quo never quite materialized because the goal was the retainer(s), not the pay-off. The illusion of influence was valuable in itself. Now, a little favor here or there to keep the sparkle on the illusion? What's a quick passport renewal or an H1B going to the top of the line (for example) in the grand scheme of things? Feels very old-school like Joe. Letter of the law with low security plausible deniability approach. Nothing fancy like a Global Foundation. Impeachable? Not without an actual quid-pro-quo ... this is the level of corruption we want: petty personal enrichment for small personal favors.