Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, July 30, 2018

OTP 2018 July 30: Now Running for Office, Adam Greenberg. You May Remember His First At-Bat.

Greenberg dug in for the first pitch, slightly bending his knees. It was a 92-mile-an-hour fastball.

“You get three-tenths of a second,” Greenberg said. “The first tenth I’m thinking don’t bail because if it’s a curve I look stupid, and it’s strike one. The second tenth I realized the ball wasn’t breaking. By the third tenth, my only thought was to get out of the way, and the only thing I could do was to turn into the catcher.”

 

In the end, Greenberg did go back to the minors — for eight more years. It was a struggle. He had suffered a concussion from the beaning and was then left with vertigo symptoms and vision issues. He did not play baseball the rest of that season and, a year later, with him back in the minor leagues and flailing, the Cubs made the decision to release him.


(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

 

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 30, 2018 at 08:22 AM | 1266 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: beaning, cubs, off topic, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 13 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
   101. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 30, 2018 at 07:53 PM (#5718186)
Mueller Has Trump and Giuliani Chasing Ghosts

I am not an expert on how the Department of Justice typically works and there’s nothing typical about having an office of special counsel investigate the president, but it seems to me that Robert Mueller has performed a cunning bit of jujitsu on Donald Trump. Mueller declined to directly investigate Michael Cohen’s role in paying off the president’s mistresses or evidence that Cohen may have committed crimes related to his taxi business. Instead, he passed off what he had learned to prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. Something similar happened in the case of suspected Russian spy Maria Butina who was indicted by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Mueller didn’t initiate or execute the searches of Cohen’s or Butina’s properties, and he isn’t going to court in either of their cases.

This seems to have completely confounded Trump and his attack dog Rudy Giuliani. They want to call this all a witch hunt and that’s precisely what they are doing, but their words don’t make any sense.
   102. greenback slays lewks Posted: July 30, 2018 at 08:01 PM (#5718189)
If you're a doctor living in Ontario, you're free to set up a private clinic, not accept public health insurance, and charge through the nose. Living there for 30 years, I never met a single person who used such a doctor (I mean, that told me about it. Jesse Barfield signed my baseball when I was ~3 - he probably did use such a doctor. But he didn't bring it up.)

Don't those kinds of patients just go to the United States?
   103. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 30, 2018 at 08:04 PM (#5718192)
So the best news ever! My North Korea summit coin arrived in the mail today and it is as gloriously tacky and horrible as I had hoped. One of the best purchases I have made in a long time!
   104. Srul Itza Posted: July 30, 2018 at 08:05 PM (#5718193)
DMN: I lived and studied/practiced law in NYC from 1977 to 1989. My recollection of Giuliani is that he was not known as being any kind of a great lawyer; he was the US Attorney for SDNY, but that is as much as a political appointment as anything else. He was known for these splashy Wall Street arrests and perp walks, followed up the Defendants getting off.

As far as his success with organized crime went, most of the work was done by specialized organized crime strike forces, career prosecutors, and the extremely high caliber of young lawyers that SDNY was able to take its pick from, as a result of being one of the top such offices in the country.

Okay, Giuliani was on the top, so he gets some credit, but not as much as he repeatedly claims.

Is your recollection any different -- or is this before your time?
   105. greenback slays lewks Posted: July 30, 2018 at 08:05 PM (#5718194)
This thing with North Korea doesn't sound good.
   106. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 30, 2018 at 08:07 PM (#5718199)
So the best news ever! My North Korea summit coin arrived in the mail today and it is as gloriously tacky and horrible as I had hoped. One of the best purchases I have made in a long time!


Pics or you got a “Carter Quarter” and the Trumpkins are laughing at you.
   107. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 30, 2018 at 08:12 PM (#5718202)
Pics or you got a “Carter Quarter” and the Trumpkins are laughing at you.


Link
   108. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 30, 2018 at 08:14 PM (#5718203)
Clapper, #97:
In 2012 polling, Obama was favored to win the White House by a safe margin (and did). The Democrats were favored to lose House seats (but didn't).

You're equating running a bit ahead of lousy polling with "doing well". They're not the same. In 2008, Obama was elected and House Democrats won 257 House seats. In 2012, Obama was re-elected and House Democrats won 201 seats. Obama did well in both elections, House Democrats only in 2008. Would you similarly say the GOP will have "done well" in 2018 if they end up with 201 seats? I wouldn't.

The other examples in #92 are equally unpersuasive. Parties "do well" in elections for the House of Representatives when they obtain/retain a majority or pick up a significant number of seats. Democrats did neither in 2012.


Noooo, Clapper, you are abandoning your own response in #81 in search of greener pastures.

You made a rebuttal against Nate Silver's analysis of the House generic ballot's weak spots (posted in #72). But your counterclaim was wrong. So now you'd like to switch to a different argument in which you helpfully provide a new measurement for what Nate Silver should have meant, so that he can become wrong and you can be right.

Towards that purpose, you also want to scrap the House generic ballot entirely-- which, again, was merely the specific thing Silver was talking about and the specific thing you were responding to. (At first, anyway.) As you accidentally acknowledged, "they're not the same." The reason you'd like to ditch the generic ballot is because you want to transmute "less than Dems hoped to achieve" (your words) into "actual election results." But that'd just be a dull sequel to your desire to choose the "historical average." So, good luck with your different topic, but no thanks.

Silver's correct comments were taken from his Twitter account. Maybe you should go there, and bother him with your feelings about what the word "well" really ought to mean.
   109. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 30, 2018 at 08:30 PM (#5718207)
Pics or you got a “Carter Quarter” and the Trumpkins are laughing at you.

Link


Pics of yours you muppet. Maybe even one of you holding it over your head like a manhole cover.
   110. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 30, 2018 at 08:57 PM (#5718221)
From today's Morning Joe yakfest on MSNBC:

JOE SCARBOROUGH: "Do you think that members of Congress have been obstructing justice in the Russia investigation?"

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CAL): "They're stopping justice in the Russia investigation. We saw that when we would bring people in like Don Jr. or Michael Cohen, and we would ask them direct questions about the Trump Tower meeting. And Don Jr. would refuse to answer. You know in a Congressional investigation you have subpoena power, and you don't have to take the refusal. But each time we would say 'Make Donald Trump Jr. answer,' the Republicans would say, 'Well, no, we're here under a voluntary interview scheme.' That's a voluntary scheme they set up, because they didn't want to subpoena them and bring them in. So they protected them at every single stop. And since they ended their investigation, we've learned about Cambridge Analytica, we've learned about Roger Stone's extensive contacts, and we're now learning more and more about Michael Cohen. It's never too late to do the right thing, but these guys are going to learn the hard way in November, I'm afraid."
......
SCARBOROUGH: "Is it not fair to say that after Mueller's last round of indictments a couple of Fridays ago, where the United States government actually identified Russians that were trying to undermine American democracy, that at this point if you're trying to stop Mueller's investigation, you're not just a dupe for Donald Trump, you're a dupe for Vladimir Putin? And you are getting in the way of an investigation that's trying to get to the bottom of how the Russians tried to undermine American democracy?"

[FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR] DANIEL MURPHY: "That indictment set forth how the Russians went forward, at least in one way, to infiltrate our election. What Bob Mueller has not done, at any point -- and I think this is intentional-- he has not included any evidence of American involvement in any of what we call collusion. 'Collusion' is a shorthand for conspiracy to defraud."

SCARBOROUGH: "And why hasn't he done that?"

MURPHY: "I think for a couple of reasons. One is what we talked about with Michael Cohen. He doesn't want to let the public or other witnesses know what evidence he has. And two, I think he wants to wait and make a very complete measured and complete decision as to whether, and to what extent Americans were involved. So he's going to keep it all confidential because there may be people that aren't charged that should not be named in public. Or there may be people who will be charged. But he's basically gathering all of the evidence and doing what a professional prosecutor would do. And then he's going to make a final decision as to who is going to be charged, and with what. And he's not going to leak anything, and he's not going to let anything out there. But I do think he's going to indict people. I think when that indictment drops, it is going to be a bombshell."
   111. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 30, 2018 at 09:04 PM (#5718224)
Noooo, Clapper, you are abandoning your own response in #81 in search of greener pastures.

Gonfalon is just making stuff up. Again. This is my entire post #81 (with the quoted material from Silver in italics):
2012 is a good example; the GOP had *lots* of incumbents after 2010, but Dems did very well in competitive races.

That's a funny definition of "doing well". Democrats only gained 12 seats [as corrected in #91, actually only 8 seats] in 2012, far less than they had hoped to achieve while winning the White House.

Democrats only won 201 House seats in 2012. That's not "doing very well", unless you think the GOP would also be "doing very well" if they were to win 201 seats in the 2018 election. I don't recall any 2012 post-election commentary by pundits or analysts suggesting House Democrats "did very well", and would challenge Gonfalon to find anyone other than the hapless spokesperson for the DCCC making a claim that House Democrats "did very well" in 2012.
   112. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 30, 2018 at 09:07 PM (#5718225)
DMN: I lived and studied/practiced law in NYC from 1977 to 1989. My recollection of Giuliani is that he was not known as being any kind of a great lawyer; he was the US Attorney for SDNY, but that is as much as a political appointment as anything else. He was known for these splashy Wall Street arrests and perp walks, followed up the Defendants getting off.

[...]

Is your recollection any different -- or is this before your time?
It overlaps with my time (EDIT: my time in the NY area, I mean; not my time in the legal profession), and yeah, that's about the way I saw it. I mean, to be fair, USA is an inherently political position, but some make it more obvious than most that the job is a stepping stone to elected office. (Where he was also overrated; he got lucky that he succeeded Dinkins.) Those perp walks were obviously just premature campaign ads, and yeah, they fell apart down the road. I mean, you don't get to be USA for the SDNY if you're the buffoon that he has been recently, but I don't recall people thinking of him the way they do, say, Mueller. Or even Chris Christie. He was obviously the political connections guy at Bracewell & Giuliani.
   113. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 30, 2018 at 09:10 PM (#5718226)
Re: #111--
If you just repeat "doing very well" twenty or thirty times, Nate Silver and his actual explicit premise might dissolve into ash. So keep going, Clapper! You're sure to win!

And even if you don't, replacing Silver's "well" with your wishing "well" has got to be more pleasurable than grappling with all the other midterm election data in #71, #71, #73, #74 and #75.
   114. Walks Clog Up the Bases Posted: July 30, 2018 at 09:12 PM (#5718228)
Surely it's a sign of THE DECLINE that I wasn't positive that the link in #93 was going to send me to The Onion.
   115. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 30, 2018 at 09:16 PM (#5718230)
I'll take #113 as an admission that Gonfalon was unable to find any 2012 post-election commentary suggesting House Democrats "did very well" that year, which was my point.
   116. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 30, 2018 at 09:24 PM (#5718234)
Amusingly, Yankee Clapper has argued in the past FOR the very same contextual considerations that Nate Silver was explicitly writing about in #72-- how many seats are held by the respective parties, how many candidates are running unopposed, how many seats are genuinely competitive? Silver said these things are structural blind spots in the House generic ballot, and when you adjust for them, you get a more accurate picture of what happened. Again, Clapper has made these same points himself, with the same kinds of examples.

But now? Clapper's simply-- very simply-- not feeling "well."
   117. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 30, 2018 at 09:29 PM (#5718235)
My point in #81 was straightforward - no matter how much you spin the 2012 results to "provide context", that wasn't a good election for House Democrats. Why Gonfalon wants to suggest otherwise, and talk about everything other than what I actually said, remains a mystery. Well, maybe not.
   118. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 30, 2018 at 09:40 PM (#5718238)
Monotonous, repetitive and wrong is no way to go through life, son.
   119. Zonk is Just the Right Amount of Wrought Posted: July 30, 2018 at 09:48 PM (#5718242)
Clapper's points are always very straightforward.

Always four legs good, two legs bad... until a certain pig convinces him it's really four legs good, two legs better. But of course, it's still the same point just with different words.
   120. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: July 30, 2018 at 09:49 PM (#5718244)
   121. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 30, 2018 at 10:05 PM (#5718258)
As noted on page 1, it was a wild day of TV chatter for Bat Boy:
On collusion:
"And let me make one slight amendment. When I say 'the Trump campaign,' I mean the upper levels of the Trump campaign. I have no reason to believe anybody else [colluded]. The only ones I checked with were obviously the top four or five people."

“I have been sitting here looking in the federal code trying to find collusion as a crime. Collusion is not a crime. ....I don’t even know if that’s a crime — colluding with Russians. Hacking is the crime. The president didn’t hack. He didn’t pay for the hacking.”

“If you got the hacked information from the Russians here at CNN, and you played it, would you be in jeopardy of going to jail? Of course not.”



On the accusation that Mueller is biased because he has a "nasty business relationship" with Trump:
"I can't tell you. I'm not sure exactly what the conflict is. I have a good idea of what it is, it's one that would have kept me out of the investigation. ...It's Mueller who possibly hasn't disclosed the conflict."

"Mueller, stand up and be a man."



On Michael Cohen:
"I have to say sorry, I made a mistake, the guy is unethical, he's a scumbag, he's a horrible person. ....I'm not denigrating Michael Cohen's character. I've practiced law for a long time, if you tape record your client and lie to your client about, you have no character. You forfeited your character."



On the Russia meeting nobody even knew about until Guiliani brought it up to deny it:

GUILIANI: "There was another meeting that has been leaked but hasn’t been in public yet. That was a meeting, an alleged meeting, three days before, according to Cohen ...He says there was a meeting with Donald Jr., with Jared Kushner, with Paul Manafort, with Gates and possibly two others, in which they ― out of the presence of the president ― discussed the meeting with the Russians. ...That meeting never, ever took place. It didn’t happen. It’s a figment of his imagination.”

FOX NEWS HOST MELISSA FRANCIS: “Why are you saying the president wasn’t at the meeting? I understand those two meetings that you just set out there but that doesn’t explain why you’re saying he wasn’t there. Who asked if he was there? No one asked if he was there.”

GIULIANI: “Cohen is alleging the meeting took place. We’re making it clear the president wasn’t at that meeting. Cohen doesn’t even allege that. To cut it off.”

FRANCIS: “It’s different to say that meeting didn’t happen. But to say he wasn’t there implies that it happened.”

GIULIANI: “[chuckles] Oh no. As alleged by a liar, as alleged by Cohen.”
   122. Jay Z Posted: July 30, 2018 at 10:40 PM (#5718273)
This thing with North Korea doesn't sound good.


It is for North Korea!

We elected a fool. Shouldn't we expect to pay the price?
   123. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 30, 2018 at 11:25 PM (#5718295)
2. If he did nothing wrong then whichever he was -- independent contractor or agent -- is irrelevant to Hillary's culpability or lack thereof. And so your tortured respondeat superior analogy is a distraction. If you actually believed that Steele did nothing wrong then do you know what your argument with respect to Hillary would be? It would be that even if she knew what Steele was up to and/or was controlling him it doesn't matter; since _he_ did nothing wrong then even if she knew of it or controlled it _she_ did nothing wrong.

Example which shows this in practice: I think the Don Jr. meeting is a nothingburger and that the campaign did nothing wrong by taking the meeting. So I have argued on these pages -- maybe Baravelli can find it -- that it doesn't matter whether Trump Sr. knew or didn't know about the meeting because knowing about or directing a nothingburger meeting is itself a nothingburger.

You haven't argued that w/r/t Clinton-Steele. Why not? One wonders
.


You simply repeated your same fallacious argument over again. (FLTB is rubbing off on you on substance, and Andy is rubbing off you on style. When you say something wrong, and someone refutes it, then simply repeating it doesn't actually advance the discussion any.)


That's all well and good except in cases in which the original point was strong and the "refutation" was weak. As here. In these cases repetition of the original point is one of the few tools available to try to make the person learn, as futile an effort as it may be.

Example:

"Shooting and killing a person for stealing a case of beer a person for stealing a case of beer is murder."
"No it isn't!"
"Yes, it is. You aren't allowed to shoot a person for stealing a case of beer. If you do and they die, it's murder. If you do and they live, it's attempted murder."

Not only that, but your fallacious argument is based on an incorrect premise, as I have repeatedly said that there's nothing wrong with what Steele did.


And yet, implicit in your defenses of Clinton is that there was indeed something wrong with what Steele did. Once more: If the defense for Clinton is that Steele did nothing wrong and so it doesn't matter what she knew or did, then one simply says that and stops there. One does not try to confuse the issue with not-really-impressive-sounding legal terms such as respondeat superior.

   124. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 30, 2018 at 11:27 PM (#5718299)
and your "hey, well, maybe they weren't acting on behalf of the Russian government" is just rank speculation on your part -- unfounded, and unable to outweigh the way Steele described his own sources.

It doesn't need to "outweigh" anything, because the way Steele described them in no way contradicts what I said. And it's not at all rank speculation; it's informed deduction.


The way Steele described them "in no way contradicts" that they were aliens from outer space pretending to be Russians.

It's rank speculation.
   125. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 30, 2018 at 11:31 PM (#5718302)
In which case I return to this: if the Russians wanted to get out misinformation about Trump (or true information, for that matter), then why secretly provide it to a random guy in the UK? That hardly seems like the best way to ensure that people learn about it. (I'm not sure what their motive would be for any of this -- but if it's the "sow chaos" theory, then that only bolsters my question. Why not push it on Twitter or FB or Wikileaks?)

Just like the Clinton Campaign, the Russians may have valued Steele's reputation to bolster the surface credibility of the dossier's material.


Now, now, YC, it's ridiculous to assume that the Clinton campaign even knew about Steele.

(Has the Clinton campaign denied knowing about Steele? To my knowledge they have not.)
   126. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 30, 2018 at 11:37 PM (#5718303)
The thing about it is that Rudy narrative is insane. An emissary of the Russian government wants to meet with Trump Jr. to give him dirt on Hillary to help Trump win. Trump Jr. says "I love it," and recognizes that it's important enough to require the time of both Kushner and Manafort, two of the campaign's inner circle. And yet they don't have a single advance meeting to discuss it? Yeah, right.

I mean, it is plausible that Trump Sr. wouldn't be in the meeting (though not that he wouldn't know about it). But to not have such a meeting at all?


You spend two years telling us these people are idiots and then you wonder how they could possibly not act rationally.

In any event your conclusion that it's not plausible that Trump Sr wouldn't have known about the meeting is unsupported. Objective people would say we don't have enough evidence yet to conclude whether Trump Sr. knew. These are the facts as I understand them:

1. Sr said he didn't know.
2. Jr both told investigators and testified under oath that Sr didn't know.
3. Other Trump staff members and lawyers have said Sr didn't know.

On the other hand we have:

1. Cohen had previously told both investigators and Congress under oath that Sr did not know.
2. Cohen (apparently) now says that Trump not only knew but approved the meeting.
3. Cohen (apparently) now also says that Cohen can name other people in the room when Trump was told of the meeting and gave his approval.

Thus Cohen has told both stories. He impeaches his own credibility. How people cannot see that Michael Cohen is worthless as a witness unless he can independently verify everything he says is a mystery.
   127. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 30, 2018 at 11:48 PM (#5718308)
93. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 30, 2018 at 06:38 PM (#5718154)

Giuliani Insists Breaking The Law Not A Crime


That is literally the defense that Hillary Clinton's supporters used for her in the server inquiry.

They argued that the gross negligence prong of 18 U.S.C. 793(f) should be read out of the law and that the intent prong was the only relevant prong. Some argued that gross negligence prong was unconstitutional. James Comey said that he based his decision not to recommend charging her on the fact that he couldn't find similar fact patterns that were prosecuted and that in her case intent was necessary to charge her and was missing.
   128. Traderdave Posted: July 30, 2018 at 11:49 PM (#5718309)

Thus Cohen has told both stories. He impeaches his own credibility. How people cannot see that Michael Cohen is worthless as a witness unless he can independently verify everything he says is a mystery.



For those keeping score at home, the above was uttered by a man who worships the most prolific liar in the world.
   129. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 30, 2018 at 11:59 PM (#5718314)
I mean, you don't get to be USA for the SDNY if you're the buffoon that he has been recently, but I don't recall people thinking of him the way they do, say, Mueller. Or even Chris Christie. He was obviously the political connections guy at Bracewell & Giuliani.


IIRC from The Best Defense, although it's been 20 years since I read it, that Dershowitz (yes, snark all you want but he wrote it in 1981) spoke respectfully of Giuliani's skill as a lawyer and US Attorney.

Mind you as a lawyer Giuliani's a joke now, as he shows little understanding of the legal issues he's defending Trump on, but he's sort of just doing the court jester role. Someone who actually understands the legal issues -- such as Jay Sekulow -- does better on tv but nobody can defend Trump on tv regularly and come out looking good because the picture changes so frequently and Trump is about as nightmarish a client as one can have.
   130. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 31, 2018 at 12:00 AM (#5718315)
Thus Cohen has told both stories. He impeaches his own credibility. How people cannot see that Michael Cohen is worthless as a witness unless he can independently verify everything he says is a mystery.

For those keeping score at home, the above was uttered by a man who worships the most prolific liar in the world.

Aw, don't be so hard on the boy. He just thinks that once Trump came out with his 3000th lie he qualified for a lifetime exemption from truth telling. If only Ray could re-compose his thoughts into pithy sound bites he might qualify for a hosting job on Fox News, where he and Hannity could share a desk together.

(And with separate chairs, Ray, separate chairs! Nobody's calling you and Sean a pair of love birds, not that there'd be anything wrong with that.)



   131. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 31, 2018 at 12:04 AM (#5718322)
Silver is right.


I assume this wasn't written about the time period from June 16, 2015 to January 27, 2016.
   132. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 31, 2018 at 12:09 AM (#5718323)
Thus Cohen has told both stories. He impeaches his own credibility. How people cannot see that Michael Cohen is worthless as a witness unless he can independently verify everything he says is a mystery.

For those keeping score at home, the above was uttered by a man who worships the most prolific liar in the world.


The same applies to Trump. I've said so many times.

Trump v. Cohen would turn on who has the burden of proof and what the standard of proof is.

But it's... interesting that you and Andy think Cohen's word alone has any value.
   133. tshipman Posted: July 31, 2018 at 12:21 AM (#5718324)
In any event your conclusion that it's not plausible that Trump Sr wouldn't have known about the meeting is unsupported. Objective people would say we don't have enough evidence yet to conclude whether Trump Sr. knew. These are the facts as I understand them:

1. Sr said he didn't know.
2. Jr both told investigators and testified under oath that Sr didn't know.
3. Other Trump staff members and lawyers have said Sr didn't know.

On the other hand we have:

1. Cohen had previously told both investigators and Congress under oath that Sr did not know.
2. Cohen (apparently) now says that Trump not only knew but approved the meeting.
3. Cohen (apparently) now also says that Cohen can name other people in the room when Trump was told of the meeting and gave his approval.


Keep in mind that law enforcement has access to more information.

They also have:
Jr's phone records (boy would it be dumb to lie under oath if he called Trump's phone and lied about it)
Rick Gates' statements from several months ago (before Cohen made this claim)
   134. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 31, 2018 at 12:37 AM (#5718327)
Ray, #131:
Silver is right.

I assume this wasn't written about the time period from June 16, 2015 to January 27, 2016.

Oofah. Ray, are you sure you want to call attention to regrettable words posted online in the summer of 2015?

Of course, Nate Silver has acknowledged his.
   135. Zonk is Just the Right Amount of Wrought Posted: July 31, 2018 at 12:44 AM (#5718328)
With so many lies being told by so many accomplished liars in so many opposing directions, I wish there some way to divine truth from fiction.

Hey, I know... how about if we just assume any statement by any of these various liars benefiting Trump is the truth while any statement to his detriment is a lie?
   136. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 31, 2018 at 12:48 AM (#5718329)
Hey, I know... how about if we just assume any statement by any of these various liars benefiting Trump is the truth while any statement to his detriment is a lie?


Plenty of straw in Zonk's Canada I see.
   137. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 31, 2018 at 06:26 AM (#5718337)

And yet, implicit in your defenses of Clinton is that there was indeed something wrong with what Steele did.
You've now repeated the same fallacious argument for a third time. That is not implicit. It is not explicit. It is completely and utterly wrong.
   138. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 31, 2018 at 06:28 AM (#5718338)
The way Steele described them "in no way contradicts" that they were aliens from outer space pretending to be Russians.
Uh, yes, that's true. And yet...
It's rank speculation.
...I don't think it's "rank speculation" that they were not aliens from outer space pretending to be Russians. I think it's informed deduction. And I'll bet you agree. So, uh, you've managed to beclown yourself here.
   139. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 31, 2018 at 07:09 AM (#5718339)
These are the facts as I understand them:

1. Sr said he didn't know.
2. Jr both told investigators and testified under oath that Sr didn't know.
3. Other Trump staff members and lawyers have said Sr didn't know.
For the record, Trump Jr. has never testified under oath. He was 'interviewed' by the Senate committee, but was not under oath.



EDIT: Er, I mean that he has never testified under oath about collusion; there may have been some other lawsuits out there in the course of his lifetime in which he was deposed.

On the other hand we have:

1. Cohen had previously told both investigators and Congress under oath that Sr did not know.
What? Since when has Cohen testified under oath, or at all? What are you talking about?
   140. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 31, 2018 at 07:33 AM (#5718342)
He didn’t say what oath.
   141. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 31, 2018 at 07:45 AM (#5718344)

IIRC from The Best Defense, although it's been 20 years since I read it, that Dershowitz (yes, snark all you want but he wrote it in 1981) spoke respectfully of Giuliani's skill as a lawyer and US Attorney.
Oh, I don't think there's enough snark in the universe to possibly do it justice.

And Giuliani is only mentioned twice, in passing, in the book -- the second time, protecting a dirty cop. (Thanks, Amazon's Look Inside the Book!)
   142. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 31, 2018 at 07:47 AM (#5718345)

Keep in mind that law enforcement has access to more information.

They also have:
Jr's phone records (boy would it be dumb to lie under oath if he called Trump's phone and lied about it)
Unless they have a recording of the call, I don't see the issue there. What would it prove to show that Jr. called Sr.? A son calling his father is not exactly a smoking gun.
   143. BrianBrianson Posted: July 31, 2018 at 08:14 AM (#5718348)
If you're a doctor living in Ontario, you're free to set up a private clinic, not accept public health insurance, and charge through the nose. Living there for 30 years, I never met a single person who used such a doctor (I mean, that told me about it. Jesse Barfield signed my baseball when I was ~3 - he probably did use such a doctor. But he didn't bring it up.)

Don't those kinds of patients just go to the United States?
   103. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 30,


There are at least a couple of clinics that don't accept public health insurance in Ontario. Some people may travel internationally for some things (to the US, or wherever else - it's often cheaper to travel to Europe or whatnot, so long as you're spending medical treatment money.

Though, the conclusion is the same - once you have access to public health insurance, the market for private health insurance becomes exceedingly niche. If everyone could get F150s, Civics, Grand Caravans, and Grand Cherokees for the taking, there'd still be a market for cars ... but it would be exceedingly small.
   144. Howie Menckel Posted: July 31, 2018 at 08:40 AM (#5718355)
hmm

Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
36m36 minutes ago

I am looking into 3-D Plastic Guns being sold to the public. Already spoke to NRA, doesn’t seem to make much sense!
   145. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 31, 2018 at 08:46 AM (#5718357)
But it's... interesting that you and Andy think Cohen's word alone has any value.

I'm not saying that Cohen's word alone seals any deals, but when it's anyone's word against Trump's, you'd be wise to put your money on anyone.
   146. . Posted: July 31, 2018 at 09:03 AM (#5718362)
Dear lord, GB is still continuing his declarations of ersatz victory.

Words elude.
   147. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 31, 2018 at 09:11 AM (#5718363)
These are the facts as I understand them:

1. Sr said he didn't know.
2. Jr both told investigators and testified under oath that Sr didn't know.
3. Other Trump staff members and lawyers have said Sr didn't know.


For the record, Trump Jr. has never testified under oath. He was 'interviewed' by the Senate committee, but was not under oath.

...

On the other hand we have:

1. Cohen had previously told both investigators and Congress under oath that Sr did not know.


What? Since when has Cohen testified under oath, or at all? What are you talking about?


I'd have to go back and check the facts. I was relying on Turley's summary::

Trump has long denied prior knowledge of the Russian meeting. That position was supported by his son Donald Trump Jr. who spoke both under oath and to investigators. Trump Jr. was closely questioned on this very point, including possible calls to his father before or immediately after the meeting. Other Trump staff members and lawyers have repeated this denial. Yet, Cohen now alleges that Trump not only knew but approved the meeting. He reportedly said further that he could name other people in the room when Trump was briefed on the meeting and gave his approval.Trump today repeated his own denial and tweeted that “I did NOT know of the meeting with my son, Don jr. Sounds to me like someone is trying to make up stories in order to get himself out of an unrelated jam (Taxi cabs maybe?). He even retained Bill and Crooked Hillary’s lawyer. Gee, I wonder if they helped him make the choice!”

It was a curious jab at Cohen for hiring Davis, since Trump has hired former Clinton lawyer Emmett Flood as his own counsel. However, the denial could not be more clear. In other words, someone is lying. Indeed, Cohen’s new role as a truth teller seems to have triggered a self-destructive impulse. This is a type of “mutually assured destruction” (MAD) strategy with a twist. Usually you make such a threat to avoid the actual MAD move.

Here, Cohen is going MAD in the hope, perhaps, of post-apocalyptic survival through a deal with special counsel Robert Mueller. The new account seems to contradict Cohen’s prior statements to Congress and investigators when he was specifically pressed on this very question. Even if Mueller gives him a deal, it will not protect him from state charges and it could involve a guilty plea, as with former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn.


   148. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 31, 2018 at 09:14 AM (#5718364)
But it's... interesting that you and Andy think Cohen's word alone has any value.

I'm not saying that Cohen's word alone seals any deals, but when it's anyone's word against Trump's, you'd be wise to put your money on anyone.


That's nice, Andy. That's not how criminal trials work. The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. And the prosecution has the burden of proof.

--

See you folks tonight.
   149. Zonk is Just the Right Amount of Wrought Posted: July 31, 2018 at 09:16 AM (#5718366)
That's nice, Andy. That's not how criminal trials work. The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. And the prosecution has the burden of proof.


That's nice, Ray. That's not how crimes committed by Presidents and the remedy for it work. The standard is whatever the #### congress wants it to be.
   150. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 31, 2018 at 09:23 AM (#5718368)
I am looking into 3-D Plastic Guns being sold to the public. Already spoke to NRA, doesn’t seem to make much sense!
As always, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. It’s already illegal to sell them to the public. The issue is posting online the files that can be used to make them.
   151. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 31, 2018 at 09:29 AM (#5718370)
Dear lord, GB is still continuing his declarations of ersatz victory.

Words elude.
Wow. That’s almost as shocking as a guy still pretending to be a lawyer still continuing to say “concession accepted” every single time he loses an argument.

Almost.
   152. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 31, 2018 at 09:33 AM (#5718372)


I’m surprised, given all the people here who follow the election-related minutia, that people haven’t yet mentioned the Kochs’ announcement that they aren’t backing Heidi Heitkamp’s GOP challenger because he’s too Trump-aligned.
   153. Zonk is Just the Right Amount of Wrought Posted: July 31, 2018 at 09:36 AM (#5718374)
I’m surprised, given all the people here who follow the election-related minutia, that people haven’t yet mentioned the Kochs’ announcement that they aren’t backing Heidi Heitkamp’s GOP challenger because he’s too Trump-aligned.


I was going to!

That said, the ND ia so cheap for advertising - not sure it really matters one way or another... except to send a message to the GOP.
   154. BDC Posted: July 31, 2018 at 09:44 AM (#5718376)
ND is so cheap for advertising


I'm imagining some guy standing in downtown Fargo and yelling.
   155. DavidFoss Posted: July 31, 2018 at 09:49 AM (#5718379)
I'm imagining some guy standing in downtown Fargo and yelling.

Useless trivia break. The Fargo area is home to the famed KVLY-TV mast. The tallest structure in the world until 2008. I imagine you could broadcast political ads to most of ND's 750k residents from there.
   156. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 31, 2018 at 10:15 AM (#5718390)
I'd like to imagine it broadcasts nothing but Al Swearington's profane rants from "Deadwood".
   157. tshipman Posted: July 31, 2018 at 10:16 AM (#5718391)
Unless they have a recording of the call, I don't see the issue there. What would it prove to show that Jr. called Sr.? A son calling his father is not exactly a smoking gun.


JR denied that he spoke to his dad about it, he calls the "blocked" number before and after the meeting, and was evasive when asked by congress.

I mean, it's not a smoking gun, but it's certainly a piece of evidence pointing to the idea that he spoke to Sr.
   158. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 31, 2018 at 10:20 AM (#5718394)
I’m surprised, given all the people here who follow the election-related minutia, that people haven’t yet mentioned the Kochs’ announcement that they aren’t backing Heidi Heitkamp’s GOP challenger because he’s too Trump-aligned.


President Fatass went on another Twitter bender this morning, calling the Kochs (((globalists))) and proclaiming the genius of fellow thrice-divorced fatass Rush Limbaugh.
   159. stig-tossled, hornswoggled gef the typing mongoose Posted: July 31, 2018 at 10:38 AM (#5718400)
it's often cheaper to travel to Europe or whatnot,


"Medical tourism" is apparently a big thing in India because of the comparatively very low cost of high-quality surgery & the like, though the foreign visitor evidently runs the risk of contracting all sorts of diseases.
   160. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: July 31, 2018 at 10:43 AM (#5718403)
hmm

Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
36m36 minutes ago


Yes, hmmm indeed. I think we can all agree that "hmmm" says it all.


edit....oh wait, you said "hmm", not "hmmm". Now I'm not so sure what you mean by that.
   161. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: July 31, 2018 at 10:52 AM (#5718409)
It's rank speculation.
Sorry, OTP HIC RDP (CTL), the DHU is SOL. Valiant effort, though.
   162. Swoboda is freedom Posted: July 31, 2018 at 11:01 AM (#5718413)
"Medical tourism" is apparently a big thing in India because of the comparatively very low cost of high-quality surgery & the like, though the foreign visitor evidently runs the risk of contracting all sorts of diseases.

My wife and I did that with South Africa. We were having trouble conceiving our second child and we had run out of insurance money. We found we could do the IVF in Cape Town for cheaper than in the New York region, plus we got a trip out of it. (Actually all in with hotels et al, it was the same cost all in)

It ended up not working there, but later it did work. My youngest daughter is now 11.
   163. Swoboda is freedom Posted: July 31, 2018 at 11:04 AM (#5718417)
Useless trivia break. The Fargo area is home to the famed KVLY-TV mast. The tallest structure in the world until 2008. I imagine you could broadcast political ads to most of ND's 750k residents from there.

I actually went to see the Polish tower (in Warsaw) that was the highest structure before it collapsed in 1991. As of the early 90's, it was still lying on the ground rusting.
   164. stig-tossled, hornswoggled gef the typing mongoose Posted: July 31, 2018 at 11:08 AM (#5718420)
It ended up not working there, but later it did work. My youngest daughter is now 11.


Belated congrats!
   165. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: July 31, 2018 at 11:14 AM (#5718423)
117

My point in #81 was straightforward - no matter how much you spin the 2012 results to "provide context", that wasn't a good election for House Democrats.


Oh, FFS, who the fcuk cares? Why are you arguing 6 year old results? What happened happened and what didn't didn't. Why does it offend your delicate sensibilities so much that Silver says the Democrats did "very well," even if it is a mischaracterization -- which I don't think it is?

Are you THAT much a snowflake?
   166. baravelli Posted: July 31, 2018 at 11:36 AM (#5718437)
Re the plausibility that Trump didn’t know about the Veselnitskaya meeting ahead of time:

- Tue June 7 2016 - Rob Goldman sends e-mail to Trump Jr. scheduling the meeting for Thursday June 9
- Same day, Trump Sr. announces that “probably Monday” he’s going to give a speech “discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons.”

IANAL but on Law & Order I think they call this sort of thing “circumstantial evidence.”

I’m not going to argue this meets a legal standard of proof. However, just from a layman’s point of view, between this and the general implausibility that the head honcho wouldn’t know about an “I love it” meeting that three of his top advisors - including his son and son-in-law - were going to, it’s much, much more believable that he knew about the meeting than he didn’t. Yes, this is the gang that couldn’t shoot straight, so maybe they wouldn’t tell the head guy, but my admittedly visceral impression is that Jr is eager for Daddy’s approval over anything so again it’s just kinda hard to believe Sr didn’t know.
   167. dlf Posted: July 31, 2018 at 11:36 AM (#5718438)
Continuing my one-man news feed about the CFPB, the Bureau just lost another case, this one against a debt collection firm in Ohio. The CFPB alleged that the firm, by sending out demand letters on firm letterhead was defrauding debtors because firm attorneys hadn't spent enough time reviewing each individual debtor's file. The firm was using the exact same demand letters and process it used when it had been hired by Richard Cordray, then Attorney General of Ohio, to collect debts for the State. But years later, then Director Cordrary decided to bite the hand that fed him and sue the firm. He lost. Link
   168. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: July 31, 2018 at 11:39 AM (#5718440)
   169. OCF Posted: July 31, 2018 at 11:42 AM (#5718442)
Capital gains and inflation have become a thing.

I’ll tell you what my opinion was 10 or 20 years ago, and it hasn’t changed. Capital gains should be indexed to inflation. Some one size fits all measure, no segmentation by sector. And capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income, at full rates. That is a package deal, you have to have both sides.

Doing that woul encourage long range thinking, at the expense of speculators.
   170. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: July 31, 2018 at 11:43 AM (#5718444)
I’m not going to argue this meets a legal standard of proof.


That's the Dancing Monkey fall back. No proof. Everything is circumstantial. Everything is coincidental. Nothing to see here, ever. All of the charges are no big deal. He's being persecuted by Mueller, not prosecuted.

The Dancing Monkeys are imbeciles or evil, or both.
   171. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 31, 2018 at 11:43 AM (#5718445)
Oh, FFS, who the fcuk cares? Why are you arguing 6 year old results? What happened happened and what didn't didn't. Why does it offend your delicate sensibilities so much that Silver sais the did "very well," even if it is a mischaracterization -- which I don't think it is?

Are you THAT much a snowflake?


It's all he's got left.
   172. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 31, 2018 at 11:45 AM (#5718447)
He's more of a cornflake.
   173. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: July 31, 2018 at 11:47 AM (#5718449)
This monkey is more clever and entertaining than our Dancing Monkeys.

I monkey throwing its own feces directly into your own face, is more entertaining and clever than our Dancing Monkeys.
   174. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: July 31, 2018 at 11:50 AM (#5718451)
He's more of a cornflake.


Waiting for the van to come?
   175. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 31, 2018 at 11:52 AM (#5718452)
Continuing my one-man news feed about the CFPB, the Bureau just lost another case, this one against a debt collection firm in Ohio. The CFPB alleged that the firm, by sending out demand letters on firm letterhead was defrauding debtors because firm attorneys hadn't spent enough time reviewing each individual debtor's file. The firm was using the exact same demand letters and process it used when it had been hired by Richard Cordray, then Attorney General of Ohio, to collect debts for the State. But years later, then Director Cordrary decided to bite the hand that fed him and sue the firm. He lost.

Since there are some here who appear to think the party of the appointing president is the only significant thing about federal judges, I'll just note that the decision was issued by Senior Judge Donald C. Nugent, a Bill Clinton appointee.
   176. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 31, 2018 at 11:56 AM (#5718455)
I agree with #169. Both or neither and I am on board. I suspect it is not pro-rich enough for the GOP though.
   177. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 31, 2018 at 11:57 AM (#5718457)
Why are you arguing 6 year old results?

Why are you objecting to correcting a mischarecterization? Smaller errors are noted here all the time.
   178. Traderdave Posted: July 31, 2018 at 11:59 AM (#5718458)
I also agree with 169, which makes me a minority in my profession, which worships, indeed fetishizes, capital gains.
   179. . Posted: July 31, 2018 at 12:05 PM (#5718463)
None of it matters because there was nothing remotely criminal about the Trump Tower meeting. TDSers are obsessing about it and it’s taken in a life of its own in their heads because it’s really all they have substantively, but absent some bombshell about what was actually discussed, it’s the definitive nothingburger. Now if someone wants to argue that in context it was poor form to take the meeting, knock yourselves out. I guess you could make that argument with a straight face, but then of course even then there’s the Steele collusion. And Mueller really isn’t properly or actually empowered to investigate poor form.
   180. Zonk is Just the Right Amount of Wrought Posted: July 31, 2018 at 12:07 PM (#5718466)
I’m not going to argue this meets a legal standard of proof. However, just from a layman’s point of view, between this and the general implausibility that the head honcho wouldn’t know about an “I love it” meeting that three of his top advisors - including his son and son-in-law - were going to, it’s much, much more believable that he knew about the meeting than he didn’t. Yes, this is the gang that couldn’t shoot straight, so maybe they wouldn’t tell the head guy, but my admittedly visceral impression is that Jr is eager for Daddy’s approval over anything so again it’s just kinda hard to believe Sr didn’t know.


Considering legal standards are moot until after the dumbass is impeached, I often struggle to understand why the two bobsy twins waste so much time insisting it BE the center of discussion.

Oh wait, no... that's wrong. I don't wonder why at all.
   181. Zonk is Just the Right Amount of Wrought Posted: July 31, 2018 at 12:11 PM (#5718467)
We may have an answer to why the NRA's From Russia Lovely wasn't indicted by Mueller...

McClatchy says it's because that particular investigation predates Mueller by 6 months.

Drip drip drip, Trumpkins.... drip drip drip drip.
   182. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 31, 2018 at 12:19 PM (#5718472)
Since there are some here who appear to think the party of the appointing president is the only significant thing about federal judges,


Um, that would be you.
   183. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: July 31, 2018 at 12:21 PM (#5718473)
177

Why are you objecting to correcting a mischarecterization? Smaller errors are noted here all the time.


I'll ask again: who cares?
   184. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 31, 2018 at 12:22 PM (#5718474)

I’m not going to argue this meets a legal standard of proof. However, just from a layman’s point of view, between this and the general implausibility that the head honcho wouldn’t know about an “I love it” meeting that three of his top advisors - including his son and son-in-law - were going to, it’s much, much more believable that he knew about the meeting than he didn’t.
Look, both Trump Jr. and Trump Sr. deny it. What more do you need?
   185. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 31, 2018 at 12:37 PM (#5718484)
Capital gains and inflation have become a thing.

I’ll tell you what my opinion was 10 or 20 years ago, and it hasn’t changed. Capital gains should be indexed to inflation. Some one size fits all measure, no segmentation by sector. And capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income, at full rates. That is a package deal, you have to have both sides.

Doing that would encourage long range thinking, at the expense of speculators.


Couldn't agree more with both parts of your proposal.
   186. dlf Posted: July 31, 2018 at 12:48 PM (#5718492)
I’ll tell you what my opinion was 10 or 20 years ago, and it hasn’t changed. Capital gains should be indexed to inflation. Some one size fits all measure, no segmentation by sector. And capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income, at full rates. That is a package deal, you have to have both sides.

Doing that woul encourage long range thinking, at the expense of speculators.


The stock market as a whole has outstripped inflation over the long haul by quite a lot. This proposal would result in increasing the taxes on capital and thus result in a move from saving to spending. I might be willing to get behind a proposal that instead of a yes/no choice between short and long term capital gains, have a sliding scale that provides benefit to keeping capital in the market for even longer than the one year presently provided for. But I'm against action that discourages folks from saving and investing.
   187. BrianBrianson Posted: July 31, 2018 at 01:01 PM (#5718500)
You want folks, especially rich folks, to be spending. Move money through the economy as fast as possible.
   188. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 31, 2018 at 01:02 PM (#5718502)
Look, both Trump Jr. and Trump Sr. deny it. What more do you need?


Not only do they deny it. They strongly deny it. You don't get better proof than that.
   189. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 31, 2018 at 01:03 PM (#5718504)
#186. There is not exactly a shortage of capital in the economy. Arguably we need more spending from the wealthy and less savings.
   190. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 31, 2018 at 01:20 PM (#5718515)
Continuing my one-man news feed about the CFPB, the Bureau just lost another case, this one against a debt collection firm in Ohio. The CFPB alleged that the firm, by sending out demand letters on firm letterhead was defrauding debtors because firm attorneys hadn't spent enough time reviewing each individual debtor's file. The firm was using the exact same demand letters and process it used when it had been hired by Richard Cordray, then Attorney General of Ohio, to collect debts for the State. But years later, then Director Cordrary decided to bite the hand that fed him and sue the firm. He lost.
The judge apparently allowed the defendants to call Cordray as a witness, but they ultimately decided not to do so. But because this was a bench trial, the judge was well aware that Cordray had approved these exact letters in the past.

This was an FDCPA case. The FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) was enacted to prevent collection agencies from abusing debtors (such as by calling them in the middle of the night, or calling their friends or employers, or calling them 50 times in a row, or the like) or tricking them into paying things they don't owe. But it was written incredibly vaguely and broadly, and so is used primarily by attorneys as a moneymaking venture. Whether a communication from a debt collector is misleading is supposed to be measured by the "least sophisticated consumer," but it's actually ironically the opposite: only a very sophisticated consumer (or an attorney) could come up with the arguments that are routinely made about such communications being misleading. This case is a perfect example (although brought by the CFPB rather than a private attorney): there is no allegation that any specific consumer was misled about anything material. It's just a generic claim that it's misleading for a law firm to send out a debt collection letter because people might mistakenly think that lawyers have reviewed the letter. But even if they did, so what? There is no evidence that any consumer has ever cared about that issue. ("I got this collection letter from a law firm. I don't care whether I owe money; whether I pay the debt depends on whether I believe there was meaningful involvement by an attorney from the firm in drafting the letter," said nobody ever.)
   191. Traderdave Posted: July 31, 2018 at 01:20 PM (#5718516)

The stock market as a whole has outstripped inflation over the long haul by quite a lot. This proposal would result in increasing the taxes on capital and thus result in a move from saving to spending. I might be willing to get behind a proposal that instead of a yes/no choice between short and long term capital gains, have a sliding scale that provides benefit to keeping capital in the market for even longer than the one year presently provided for. But I'm against action that discourages folks from saving and investing.


I took OCF's original post to mean that CG should be taxed as ordinary income AND be indexed to inflation. That's what I took "package deal" to mean. If that's what OCF meant, I still agree.

I also agree with 189: the economy has no shortage of capital. POS equity deals float easily, CCC rated corps can borrow at the drop of a hat.
The economy needs more spending power outside the 1%, whose spending mainly serves to increase asset inflation rather than wage & productivity growth.
   192. Chip Posted: July 31, 2018 at 01:37 PM (#5718534)
The economy needs more spending power outside the 1%, whose spending mainly serves to increase asset inflation rather than wage & productivity growth.


You’re saying the sale of $100M condos in 57th Street sliver towers WON’T generate a rising tide to lift all boats? I’m stunned.

Isn’t there an economy boost in the shadowing of larger and larger swathes of Central Park throughout the day?
   193. dlf Posted: July 31, 2018 at 01:46 PM (#5718543)
The judge apparently allowed the defendants to call Cordray as a witness, but they ultimately decided not to do so. But because this was a bench trial, the judge was well aware that Cordray had approved these exact letters in the past.


The trial was only sorta a bench trial. They utilized something I knew existed but had never seen before: an advisory jury. The jury returned its findings but the judge was free to follow or ignore them.

But as to the specifics, not only was he aware, the judge expressly noted that in the decision:

The evidence showed that Richard Cordray, who was the head of Plaintiff, CFPB when this lawsuit was filed, was the Ohio Attorney General when Defendant Weltman was hired to collect those state debts. When collecting for the State of Ohio, Attorney General Cordray, the same person ultimately responsible for the filing of this lawsuit, directed Weltman to use the Ohio Attorney General's letterhead on Weltman's demand letters for the state. He also required Weltman to state in the letter that they were "special counsel," and to use the words "Attorney at Law" and "collections enforcement special counsel" on the demand letter.

This was an FDCPA case. The FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) was enacted to prevent collection agencies from abusing debtors (such as by calling them in the middle of the night, or calling their friends or employers, or calling them 50 times in a row, or the like) or tricking them into paying things they don't owe. But it was written incredibly vaguely and broadly, and so is used primarily by attorneys as a moneymaking venture.


Yep. The statutory damages available for an aggrieved borrower - even assuming truly improper conduct rather than something like the CFPB alleged here - are not significant for most collection companies, but the attorney fee provision can make these cases very lucrative for the borrower's attorney. In my experience, the only ones who do well in FDCPA actions are attorneys for plaintiff AND defendant while neither party comes out well at all.

Edit: not exactly the same, but the Colorado Attorney General brought an action against a foreclosure firm for, allegedly padding its foreclosure fees through affiliated parties. Not only did the State lose, it had to pay the Castle firm nearly $2m because its case was so frivilous.
   194. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 31, 2018 at 01:48 PM (#5718545)
You’re saying the sale of $100M condos in 57th Street sliver towers WON’T generate a rising tide to lift all boats?


But you see hippie, the Job Creators who purchase those apartments will need a host of services that can only be provided by swarms of peasantry - laundry, maid service, replacement human organs, front line fodder for the economic growth brought about by wars of adventure, and a host of other opportunities to provide value.
   195. DavidFoss Posted: July 31, 2018 at 01:52 PM (#5718548)
But you see hippie, the Job Creators who purchase those apartments will need a host of services that can only be provided by swarms of peasantry - laundry, maid service, replacement human organs, front line fodder for the economic growth brought about by wars of adventure, and a host of other opportunities to provide value.

A lot of them aren't even there. They just hold it and leave it vacant. It might be more of a problem in Manhattan than in Toledo, but they're trying to incentivize people to at the very least sublet these. I read an article when I was there last month but the term for these types of owners is escaping me...
   196. dlf Posted: July 31, 2018 at 01:53 PM (#5718549)
The economy needs more spending power outside the 1%, whose spending mainly serves to increase asset inflation rather than wage & productivity growth.



You’re saying the sale of $100M condos in 57th Street sliver towers WON’T generate a rising tide to lift all boats? I’m stunned.


It seems that the argument is the opposite - by taking money out of the stock market, it will encourage luxury purchases by those 1% rather than retain the capital in businesses allowing business investment whether through capital acquisitions, R&D or otherwise.
   197. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 31, 2018 at 01:55 PM (#5718551)
A lot of them aren't even there. They just hold it and leave it vacant. It might be more of a problem in Manhattan than in Toledo, but they're trying to incentivize people to at the very least sublet these.


Get the government out of the way and legalize squatting.
   198. Traderdave Posted: July 31, 2018 at 02:19 PM (#5718567)
It seems that the argument is the opposite - by taking money out of the stock market, it will encourage luxury purchases by those 1% rather than retain the capital in businesses allowing business investment whether through capital acquisitions, R&D or otherwise.


Inflation indexed taxation would not likely take money out of the stock market. Removing a large chunk of the taxation of nominal returns is not a big incentive to liquidate.
   199. Count Posted: July 31, 2018 at 02:20 PM (#5718569)
Did not read the article, but some people are intimidated by lawyers, and debt collectors are awful. I do find it very plausible that plaintiffs’ and defendanfs’ lawyers are the only ones who make money from the class actions, but that’s often the case and the benefit is that it prevents debt collectors from engaging in he worst practices.
   200. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: July 31, 2018 at 02:23 PM (#5718571)
I got my swim trunks...
Page 2 of 13 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Ghost of Sox Fans Past
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 2018 2018 Nov 5 - The Trump dilemma hits the Boston Red Sox amid a wave of White House boycotts in sports
(2333 - 11:36pm, Nov 12)
Last: Ray (CTL)

Hall of MeritMock 2018 Today’s Game Hall of Fame Ballot
(29 - 11:21pm, Nov 12)
Last: Dr. Chaleeko

NewsblogNo MLB rule changes likely until eve of spring training
(28 - 11:16pm, Nov 12)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(2134 - 10:57pm, Nov 12)
Last: . . . . . .

NewsblogJoe Mauer Retires After 15 Seasons
(58 - 10:40pm, Nov 12)
Last: Sweatpants

NewsblogOT - November* 2018 College Football thread
(164 - 10:27pm, Nov 12)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (November 2018)
(106 - 9:32pm, Nov 12)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogRed Sox: Bill James “is not an employee nor does he speak for the club”
(180 - 8:47pm, Nov 12)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogDodgers release Utley to facilitate retirement
(42 - 8:27pm, Nov 12)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogReport: Nationals Ownership Rejected Bryce Harper Trade to Astros
(21 - 8:06pm, Nov 12)
Last: Adam Starblind

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (2018-19 season begins!)
(1189 - 7:26pm, Nov 12)
Last: Mefisto

NewsblogIt's not just the worst teams not spending money in baseball free agency — it's the richest, too
(41 - 7:02pm, Nov 12)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogOT Gaming: October 2015
(914 - 3:18pm, Nov 12)
Last: Zonk is Just the Right Amount of Wrought

NewsblogMLB owners expected to unanimously approve extension for Rob Manfred next week, report says
(14 - 2:44pm, Nov 12)
Last: shoewizard

Gonfalon CubsNow what?
(216 - 2:28pm, Nov 12)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

Page rendered in 0.7171 seconds
46 querie(s) executed