The 2020 General Election Thread

[jamil]

Ok, so: you _do_ get the more relevant argument presented; you're just choosing to ignore/discount it, because it doesn't square with the less-charitable narrative you've selected to assign to your "opponent."

Of course I knew you were smart enough to understand what you were sidestepping. Apparently you just needed a little encouragement to fully own it.

Now that it appears his pathway back to a government moneymaking position is (at least temporarily) blocked, I guess we'll have to wait for "The Book" to see who was right about him.

You accused me of being selective in addressing the criticisms of Sessions. You keep saying I'm sidestepping. Side stepping what? Make a compelling argument with some valid points. It's not up to me to make your argument for you. Whatever I'm dismissing, I'm dismissing with cause, and explaining the cause. The problem is, the "more more relevant point" isn't relevant. It's an excuse you guys pivoted to when the original point failed. If it that were really the most relevant point to you guys, why lead with "he didn't have a valid reason to recuse himself"? Why not lead with "it was unprofessional for him to take the job because he knew he was going to be put in the position to have to recuse himself."

Nevertheless, so that you don't think I'm sidestepping _the best you have_, even though I addressed that point in my last post. We'll go there again. You could say your point another way. Sessions was indeed being a professional in executing the job that's in the job description for AG. But that's not what you expected of him, and that's not what Trump expected of him. He didn't take the AG job to be Trump's protector, and that's the disappointing part for you and Trump. He took the job to be the US AG, which is in service of the people, and not the president's personal protector.

I suppose you might have a reason to feel slighted by if Trump had said to Sessions up front, hey, I expect you to use your position as AG to protect me. And then if Sessions said he would, and then he didn't, I guess you could think of Sessions as a traitor. But then that would make Trump more like a mob boss than a POTUS. If there was unprofessionalism involved it was on the part of Trump assuming that Sessions should be his protector rather than doing the actual job of the AG.

 

[BugI02]

You accused me of being selective in addressing the criticisms of Sessions. You keep saying I'm sidestepping. Side stepping what? Make a compelling argument with some valid points. It's not up to me to make your argument for you. Whatever I'm dismissing, I'm dismissing with cause, and explaining the cause. The problem is, the "more more relevant point" isn't relevant. It's an excuse you guys pivoted to when the original point failed. If it that were really the most relevant point to you guys, why lead with "he didn't have a valid reason to recuse himself"? Why not lead with "it was unprofessional for him to take the job because he knew he was going to be put in the position to have to recuse himself."

Nevertheless, so that you don't think I'm sidestepping _the best you have_, even though I addressed that point in my last post. We'll go there again. You could say your point another way. Sessions was indeed being a professional in executing the job that's in the job description for AG. But that's not what you expected of him, and that's not what Trump expected of him. He didn't take the AG job to be Trump's protector, and that's the disappointing part for you and Trump. He took the job to be the US AG, which is in service of the people, and not the president's personal protector.

I suppose you might have a reason to feel slighted by if Trump had said to Sessions up front, hey, I expect you to use your position as AG to protect me. And then if Sessions said he would, and then he didn't, I guess you could think of Sessions as a traitor. But then that would make Trump more like a mob boss than a POTUS. If there was unprofessionalism involved it was on the part of Trump assuming that Sessions should be his protector rather than doing the actual job of the AG.

Sometimes I think you're being deliberately obtuse here. Sessions was nominated in November 2016, confirmed in February 2017 and recused himself in March 2017. It seems disingenuous to me to believe that he didn't know, after the bruising campaign, that the job would entail fighting to enact Trump's vision for the way forward. He had at least 3 months to realize that private meetings with Kislyak at the Mayflower were a problem for the job he was needed for and tell Trump that if confirmed he would be compromised and have to recuse himself. Or he could have been bright enough, having been in the senate for a while, not to ever put himself in that position. Barring that, IMO he could have resolved to tough out the media ****storm to come and still do the job, but his idea of 'tough it out' was apparently to roll over immediately.

IMO he wanted the job without the responsibility, and by not giving Trump all the facts he deprived him of the chance to appoint someone untainted to be AG - a crucial cabinet post in the new administration. By not allowing an alternate choice he also made it much more difficult to replace him after he became useless, because the confirmation process would feature Democrats with even more entrenched positions, seeking to maximize the disarray and drag out the process

I see it as like your company hired a new head of legal or project engineer, gets him all processed and badged, and after working a couple of weeks he says 'BTW, I was diagnosed with cancer a couple of months ago. I'm going to need at least the next 6 months off for chemo, maybe longer' You wouldn't approve of such behavior in the workplace, Trump shouldn't have to either

 

[Twangbanger]

Sometimes I think you're being deliberately obtuse here. Sessions was nominated in November 2016, confirmed in February 2017 and recused himself in March 2017. It seems disingenuous to me to believe that he didn't know, after the bruising campaign, that the job would entail fighting to enact Trump's vision for the way forward. He had at least 3 months to realize that private meetings with Kislyak at the Mayflower were a problem for the job he was needed for and tell Trump that if confirmed he would be compromised and have to recuse himself. Or he could have been bright enough, having been in the senate for a while, not to ever put himself in that position. Barring that, IMO he could have resolved to tough out the media ****storm to come and still do the job, but his idea of 'tough it out' was apparently to roll over immediately.

IMO he wanted the job without the responsibility, and by not giving Trump all the facts he deprived him of the chance to appoint someone untainted to be AG - a crucial cabinet post in the new administration. By not allowing an alternate choice he also made it much more difficult to replace him after he became useless, because the confirmation process would feature Democrats with even more entrenched positions, seeking to maximize the disarray and drag out the process

I see it as like your company hired a new head of legal or project engineer, gets him all processed and badged, and after working a couple of weeks he says 'BTW, I was diagnosed with cancer a couple of months ago. I'm going to need at least the next 6 months off for chemo, maybe longer' You wouldn't approve of such behavior in the workplace, Trump shouldn't have to either

Last year I extended an offer to a seemingly-ideal candidate who turned out to have a string of felony DUI convictions, one of them still pending with a court date that same week (so we weren't talking about ancient history). And beyond just the basic creepiness of that, he knew operating a company vehicle was part of the gig. The chapping point for me was, that I passed on other qualified candidates during the time that whole offer/discovery process was playing out. By the time I got the report, the other candidates had accepted other positions. The event horizon of my choices was irreversibly changed by that. He was like, "It was not represented to me that the company vehicle thing was a make-or-break aspect of the position" (!).

Getting back to the Sessions subject, it comes down to the interpretation aspect of what people consider the job description to be. I guess the real thing we need to nail down here, is: "Do you expect the AG, as part of his duties, to recuse himself from _any_ investigation involving his boss?" I get the sense Jamil feels, "Duh," the world should have understood Sessions would have to recuse himself from _any_ investigation involving Trump, and to expect otherwise constitutes "demanding a protector lackey" and is contrary to all correct thought.

Swinging back around to Jamil, if that's your personal definition of "not being a loyal protector lackey," then I could see how you hold your position. I don't think that way. I do not believe the AG needs to recuse himself from "any" investigation involving his boss. Just the ones where the AG has a specific personal extenuating connection with the case. I think it's unreasonable to expect your AG candidate to be bound by an unwritten code that he will never participate in any dealings of potential legal benefit to his boss. If the investigation against the President is an unapologetic political witch hunt, I have no problem with the AG curbing that, and I have no problem with any President expecting his AG to do so.

 

[jamil]

Last year I extended an offer to a seemingly-ideal candidate who turned out to have a string of felony DUI convictions, one of them still pending with a court date that same week (so we weren't talking about ancient history). And beyond just the basic creepiness of that, he knew operating a company vehicle was part of the gig. The chapping point for me was, that I passed on other qualified candidates during the time that whole offer/discovery process was playing out. By the time I got the report, the other candidates had accepted other positions. The event horizon of my choices was irreversibly changed by that. He was like, "It was not represented to me that the company vehicle aspect was a make-or-break aspect of the position," as if _we_ were the ones who had expectations we failed to convey.

Getting back to the Sessions subject, I guess the real thing we need to nail down here, is: "Do you expect the AG, as part of his duties, to recuse himself from _any_ investigation involving his boss?"

If that's your definition of "not being a loyal protector lackey," then I could see how Jamil holds his position. I don't think that way. I do not believe the AG needs to recuse himself from "any" investigation involving his boss. Just the ones where the AG has a specific personal extenuating connection with the case, other than the general fact he's employed by the person being investigated. I almost get the sense Jamil feels the world should have understood Sessions would have to recuse himself from _any_ investigation involving Trump, and to expect otherwise constitutes "demanding a protector lackey."

Imagine then, any of the other many reasons that jamil might hold this position, other than just the one you think exclusively exists.

Here's a pretty big one. One that you guys have sidestepped all along. I expect the AG to recuse himself from any investigation which may include himself in the investigation. Period. That was the case here. And again, to address the main point that you guys insist is even more relevant than the one you led with, let me ask you this. Was Sessions as sure back in November 2016, when he accepted the nomination, as you are in hindsight, that there would be an investigation of the Trump campaign kicked off the next year?

About your employment problem. There are services that can provide background screening, including up-to-date criminal history, before you even call the guy in for an interview. If you can afford it some services offer continuous screening of employees. So after hired, if they get a DUI yesterday, you'll be notified. Not just DUI, but if they're arrested for anything. It's way worse than Big Brother. It's Big Data. Next on the horizon? Your political affiliation.

 

[jamil]

Sometimes I think you're being deliberately obtuse here. Sessions was nominated in November 2016, confirmed in February 2017 and recused himself in March 2017. It seems disingenuous to me to believe that he didn't know, after the bruising campaign, that the job would entail fighting to enact Trump's vision for the way forward. He had at least 3 months to realize that private meetings with Kislyak at the Mayflower were a problem for the job he was needed for and tell Trump that if confirmed he would be compromised and have to recuse himself. Or he could have been bright enough, having been in the senate for a while, not to ever put himself in that position. Barring that, IMO he could have resolved to tough out the media ****storm to come and still do the job, but his idea of 'tough it out' was apparently to roll over immediately.

IMO he wanted the job without the responsibility, and by not giving Trump all the facts he deprived him of the chance to appoint someone untainted to be AG - a crucial cabinet post in the new administration. By not allowing an alternate choice he also made it much more difficult to replace him after he became useless, because the confirmation process would feature Democrats with even more entrenched positions, seeking to maximize the disarray and drag out the process

I see it as like your company hired a new head of legal or project engineer, gets him all processed and badged, and after working a couple of weeks he says 'BTW, I was diagnosed with cancer a couple of months ago. I'm going to need at least the next 6 months off for chemo, maybe longer' You wouldn't approve of such behavior in the workplace, Trump shouldn't have to either

Eh, I can say the same. It seems disingenuous to me to believe that he would know in November that Trump's campaign--WHICH INCLUDES HIMSELF--would be investigated and that he would have to recuse himself.

I think if he wanted the job without responsibility he'd have just played the wing man. There's no real responsibility in that. Just blind loyalty. Use the AG office to protect the president being the responsible thing? Nah. The responsible thing to do is uphold the legal purpose of the office. And it seems to me that because of fierce loyalty, you guys are blind to that. I suppose you could accuse me of being a "nevertrumper", and that I just can't see it as you do because you think I'm a Trump-hater. Dude, I'm going to vote for him in November. I hope he wins in a YUGE landslide. I'm still not a big fan, though, but he turned out to be okay in terms of handling the duties of the President. He's more authoritarian than I want. And I'll damn sure call him out whenever I think it's deserved.

I think I have a better vantage point than you do to see reality more clearly. You can't even see that your analogy misses the important components to make it better represent all of reality, not just the parts you like. I'm not burdened with a sense of loyalty to Trump. So I don't think it's anything like an engineer who takes a job and then says, BTW, I got cancer, so yer ****ed. In your analogy you're quite certain that he knew he had cancer before he was hired. You also don't include the part where the thing that's expected of him is to use his position to protect the boss, when that position isn't meant for that. You also didn't include the part that is analogous to Sessions having to recuse himself because he can't investigate himself. Put ALL the components into your analogy, not just the ones that preserve your loyalty.

And if you don't, don't sweat it. I think it would be extraordinary to override that kind of sense of loyalty. I don't expect you to. I didn't expect this conversation to become as contentious as it has. I certainly didn't expect TB to get ****ty with me. This conversation started out because I was curious why you guys act like Sessions is a traitor. If you'd (collectively the Trumpers) have said well, we think Sessions should have known that he'd have to recuse himself and probably should have taken his name out of the hat, I'm not sure I'd have even replied back to that. That's just a subjective thing. But you guys said something that just wasn't true, that Sessions did not have a legitimate reason to recused himself. That's just something I'm gonna reply to.

 

[Alpo]

 

[jamil]

I am a patient man. I can do this indefinitely.

 

[BugI02]

Eh, I can say the same. It seems disingenuous to me to believe that he would know in November that Trump's campaign--WHICH INCLUDES HIMSELF--would be investigated and that he would have to recuse himself.

I think if he wanted the job without responsibility he'd have just played the wing man. There's no real responsibility in that. Just blind loyalty. Use the AG office to protect the president being the responsible thing? Nah. The responsible thing to do is uphold the legal purpose of the office. And it seems to me that because of fierce loyalty, you guys are blind to that. I suppose you could accuse me of being a "nevertrumper", and that I just can't see it as you do because you think I'm a Trump-hater. Dude, I'm going to vote for him in November. I hope he wins in a YUGE landslide. I'm still not a big fan, though, but he turned out to be okay in terms of handling the duties of the President. He's more authoritarian than I want. And I'll damn sure call him out whenever I think it's deserved.

I think I have a better vantage point than you do to see reality more clearly. You can't even see that your analogy misses the important components to make it better represent all of reality, not just the parts you like. I'm not burdened with a sense of loyalty to Trump. So I don't think it's anything like an engineer who takes a job and then says, BTW, I got cancer, so yer ****ed. In your analogy you're quite certain that he knew he had cancer before he was hired. You also don't include the part where the thing that's expected of him is to use his position to protect the boss, when that position isn't meant for that. You also didn't include the part that is analogous to Sessions having to recuse himself because he can't investigate himself. Put ALL the components into your analogy, not just the ones that preserve your loyalty.

And if you don't, don't sweat it. I think it would be extraordinary to override that kind of sense of loyalty. I don't expect you to. I didn't expect this conversation to become as contentious as it has. I certainly didn't expect TB to get ****ty with me. This conversation started out because I was curious why you guys act like Sessions is a traitor. If you'd (collectively the Trumpers) have said well, we think Sessions should have known that he'd have to recuse himself and probably should have taken his name out of the hat, I'm not sure I'd have even replied back to that. That's just a subjective thing. But you guys said something that just wasn't true, that Sessions did not have a legitimate reason to recused himself. That's just something I'm gonna reply to.

Your reasoning is just as clouded as you feel mine is. Sessions didn't have to recuse himself because he helped manage Trump's campaign, he had to recuse himself because he had undisclosed private meetings with Sergey Kislyak at a private, non-official venue - and that was undisclosed to Trump as well as everyone else.

And I may be misunderstanding you here , but the bit about Sessions not knowing ahead of time that the campaign would be investigated is ridiculous. Should he be doing anything as the AG designate that he has to worry about being found out on? Is it only questionable if he's caught?

You wanted people to explain why there isn't any Sessions love and we're trying to do that, only to have you try to tell us what our reasons really were. Is it another case of wanting to hear your opinions coming out of our mouths? Because IMO you're either saying that we're either consciously lying or fooling ourselves. I reject both hypotheses

 

[jamil]

Your reasoning is just as clouded as you feel mine is. Sessions didn't have to recuse himself because he helped manage Trump's campaign, he had to recuse himself because he had undisclosed private meetings with Sergey Kislyak at a private, non-official venue - and that was undisclosed to Trump as well as everyone else.

And I may be misunderstanding you here , but the bit about Sessions not knowing ahead of time that the campaign would be investigated is ridiculous. Should he be doing anything as the AG designate that he has to worry about being found out on? Is it only questionable if he's caught?

You wanted people to explain why there isn't any Sessions love and we're trying to do that, only to have you try to tell us what our reasons really were. Is it another case of wanting to hear your opinions coming out of our mouths? Because IMO you're either saying that we're either consciously lying or fooling ourselves. I reject both hypotheses

It's a fair point that he should have disclosed that he had a private meeting with Klslyak. But his own stated reasoning for the recusal was because the campaign was being investigated, and because he was a key part of that campaign, he would be one of the subjects of investigation. That's clearly a conflict.

About the meeting, I don't think the meeting with Kslyak was inappropriate for the AG designate to have. There was nothing untoward revealed about it other than that he should have disclosed it.

You guys act as if Sessions committed treason against Trump. And the first reason you (collectively 'you' give when i asked about it was you think he didn't have a good reason to recuse himself, along with what sounded to me like the idea that he didn't protect Trump. It sounded to me like you're mostly pissed because you see Sessions as not loyal to Trump. But if you tell me right now that it has nothing at all to do with loyalty, nothing at all to do with that he didn't protect Trump like you thought he should. Fine. I'll accept that.

 

[BugI02]

For me it is not about failure to act as a wingman, although I think as a cabinet member his first loyalty (after the constitution) should be to the goals and programs the administration wants to advance. I also think, in the event of a witch hunt and after due diligence, he should be willing and able to call bull**** - unless prosecutorial discretion is only for the comparatively little people

What tore it for me is he caused unneeded, unforced issues for the administration he was joining at a time when they could least afford it and, wittingly or not, aided and abetted the resistance. The tell is being stupid enough to take secret, undisclosed meetings with the Russian ambassador in private at a non-official event and non-government location. This guy was a senator? He must not have been on any committee that mattered. You would think being raked over the coals and denied confirmation as a federal judge when Reagan nominated him would have made him a bit less reckless - esp since foreign policy was not to be his purview and national security only tangentially

For me it is about someone letting the team down through behavior off the field, not failure to 'take one for the team'

More Thomas Eagleton, less Elliot Richardson

 

[jamil]

Maybe you should have answered for the team.

 

[BugI02]

Maybe you should have asked people why they did something before you concluded why they must have done so. Horse, then cart

 

[jamil]

Maybe you should have asked people why they did something before you concluded why they must have done so. Horse, then cart

I did. That’s how we got here.

 

[Leadeye]

I have to wonder what the DNC is paying President Obama to prop up Joe, that's got to be a big check.

 

[jamil]

I have to wonder what the DNC is paying President Obama to prop up Joe, that's got to be a big check.

Not sure. But money may not always be the currency people are paid with.

 

[JettaKnight]

Not sure. But money may not always be the currency people are paid with.

Sexual favors?

 

[jamil]

Sexual favors?

Well. If you're planning to sign with any University of Louisville sports team, yes.

 

[mmpsteve]

It's a fair point that he should have disclosed that he had a private meeting with Klslyak. But his own stated reasoning for the recusal was because the campaign was being investigated, and because he was a key part of that campaign, he would be one of the subjects of investigation. That's clearly a conflict.

About the meeting, I don't think the meeting with Kslyak was inappropriate for the AG designate to have. There was nothing untoward revealed about it other than that he should have disclosed it.

You guys act as if Sessions committed treason against Trump. [STRIKE]And the first reason you (collectively 'you' give when i asked about it was you think he didn't have a good reason to recuse himself, along with what sounded to me like the idea that he didn't protect Trump. It sounded to me like you're mostly pissed because you see Sessions as not loyal to Trump[/STRIKE]. But if you tell me right now that it has nothing at all to do with loyalty, nothing at all to do with that he didn't protect Trump like you thought he should. Fine. I'll accept that.

Sessions didn't commit treason against Trump - he committed it against the AG position itself. One of the duties of the AG is to guide DOJ investigations, pushing those with merit, and snuffing out fraudulent or corrupt ones. He neglected his duties in that respect. The fraud started as early as July 31, 2016, when the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane. If he had not recused himself, he could have changed history by doing his job.

.

 

[OakRiver]

Good news everyone, Biden has a plan to tackle China: https://twitter.com/i/status/1291070009452703744

 

[BugI02]

Does he even understand "China' is not a person and 'tackle' is a figure of speech?