|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
|
|
On March 23 2018 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2018 01:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 23 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote:I know this thread is new, but we should have more posts like Mohdoo’s above, which is in the running for best post so far. A good read and better for discussion that most of the garbage we post here.  I'm trying really hard to see past the "My Trip to the Zoo" feeling of the post, and I'm just not a fan of "the blacks" type talk, I prefer black people/communitie s/culture s/etc... So I'm just going to let that settle down and read it again later and see how I feel about it then. I can tell he was trying though so I'll do my best. Edited my main post to reflect the language you described. Thanks for your feedback. I honestly wrote my post with you in mind because you've often argued in favor of a lot of the ideas I feel I am trying to present. I thought you'd be interested to hear about the experience of someone who hadn't really had much insight into black culture and suddenly got an injection of it. Show nested quote +On March 23 2018 02:41 crms wrote:On March 23 2018 00:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:I guess we'll know if it's true in a few hours. John Dowd resigned Thursday as President Trump's lead attorney in the Russia inquiry, according to several reports, in a major shake-up of the legal team defending the president in the special counsel's investigation.
The New York Times first reported Dowd's resignation, according to "two people briefed on the matter." The Washington Post also subsequently reported the news, citing "three people familiar with the decision."
Dowd and Ty Cobb, another attorney for the president, did not immediately respond to requests for comment from BuzzFeed News.
Dowd's resignation comes five days after he had to walk back comments he made to the press saying he and the president wanted Acting Attorney General Rosenstein to shut down special counsel Robert Mueller's inquiry in light of Attorney General Jeff Sessions firing former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. Although he initially told the Daily Beast he was "speaking on behalf of the president, in his capacity as the president’s attorney," Dowd later said he was not speaking for Trump.
Earlier this month, Trump denied reports he was unhappy with his legal team. Source Seems confirmed at this point. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/us/politics/john-dowd-resigns-trump-lawyer.htmlI'm sure his new lawyer that he plucked off of Fox News will be ready to tackle the upcoming challenges. If I were a guessing man, one of two situations occurred: 1. Trump made a request of Dowd that he could simply not agree to 2. Trump is insisting on taking action that Dowd does not think he can protect Trump from the effects of As I understand, lawyers in these situations either actively do things or protect their clients from the things their client does. A lawyer bows out when they either feel unable to protect or unable to comply. It doesn't seem common for a lawyer to quit because of bad chemistry or something. They seem to serve much more of a tool purpose.
Trump has consistently stated (and again now recently) that he wants to testify to Mueller (He probably thinks he can lie his way out). I bet Dowd knew he couldn't protect Trump if he did, and resigned.
Btw, while we're on Mueller:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/3/21/1751042/-Mueller-Grants-Immunity-to-Organizer-of-Seychelles-Back-Channel-Meeting-Calls-Him-Back
This guys is an absolute human piece of garbage. There is only one possible reason that Mueller would want to give him immunity, and that is if there's a much much bigger fish to fry.
|
On March 23 2018 01:12 Mohdoo wrote:
Forgive me if this post is a bit long. I don't think it quite justifies its own thread, since my main point is regarding black representation in US politics. This was just a really cool experience and I wanted to share:
I had an interesting experience in Chicago recently. I spent most of my formative years in Oregon, an extremely white state. Before moving to Oregon, I lived in significantly more diverse areas, but I didn't have the same level of awareness of society and all that sort of stuff. In Oregon, we have black people, and some of them "act more black" than others, but I don't know how to quite put this, but being in Chicago, I was given an extreme amount of insight into why black people have such a difficult situation in Oregon and Washington.
In Chicago, it felt to me like there were essentially 2 parallel societies and cultures. One of them black, the other everything else. And it's not like it was a low income sort of thing, like poor vs rich. Whether wealthy or poor, there was a common social link between black people in Chicago. There is just an extremely well developed, full, vibrant black culture in Chicago. Everything from how they talk, where they eat, what they do was a complete story. In Oregon/Washington, it is like black people are caught in between. There are not enough black people to form their own culture/society, but they plain and simply do not naturally meld with "other" cultures. To me, it feels like black people naturally gravitate into their own distinct culture and this culture is only able to fully flourish when there is a high enough % of the population that is black. It was really wonderful to see and made me realize just how poorly represented black people must feel in the pacific northwest. It's not like they are some foreign alien race, just kind of different. And in a really great way. Their culture was so vibrant, fresh and energetic. I'm not sure if I am doing a good job at describing this. Probably not since it is early in the morning. But I was just really interested to see why black people so often feel like outcasts in white dominated areas. For more than just racism, too. It's like they have to put on a mask every day. But in Chicago, everything about black culture felt very natural and fluid. They all seemed legitimately happier and and more comfortable. In Oregon, it always feels like black people are (understandably) uncomfortable living in a society that simply does not reflect them.
It also added a lot of credit to many things GH says about the democratic party. But I am not entirely sure how that would ever be fixed other than just cramming a bunch of black people into the party leadership. It feels like there is some critical threshold that must be crossed in order for blackness to be "actually" fully expressed and appreciated within a society or group of people. It makes sense why black people would feel so poorly represented. It's like there is this natural tendency for culture which is just not the same as white culture. I hope what I am saying doesn't come across as racist. Maybe it is bad to say there is something distinct there, but I am trying to say this distinctness should be appreciated and respected. It is a really, really, really good thing in Chicago and it makes me sad to realize black people in the pacific northwest do not get this same feeling of community and belonging as they do in Chicago.
It's not just that black interests aren't properly represented. Their culture isn't properly represented either, and the effects of that are probably a lot more widespread than I realize. In summary, I would say the feelings of "otherness" that black people feel is often understated and underappreciated. I think it is important that people understand black culture is worthy of acknowledgement in itself. Seeing the difference between Portland and Chicago was just fascinating. I feel like I still don't fully understand what I learned. All I know is I had no idea previously. A lot to ponder. There is an entire black culture that just doesn't get represented or appreciated nearly as much as it should be in "mainstream media".
"black people naturally gravitate into their own distinct culture?"
come on dude. how is that edited? GH emphasized the plurality in his post already, and I would emphasize the contingency. if you dont want it to sound like a trip to the zoo dont talk about other people like they are just animals enacting instinctual plans in a given ecosystem.
|
On March 23 2018 02:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2018 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:
If I were a guessing man, one of two situations occurred:
1. Trump made a request of Dowd that he could simply not agree to
2. Trump is insisting on taking action that Dowd does not think he can protect Trump from the effects of
As I understand, lawyers in these situations either actively do things or protect their clients from the things their client does. A lawyer bows out when they either feel unable to protect or unable to comply. It doesn't seem common for a lawyer to quit because of bad chemistry or something. They seem to serve much more of a tool purpose. The chemistry between lawyer and client, particularly in the type of role that Dowd was serving, is really important. There's room for substantial disagreement between lawyers and their clients, but the relationship is not going to work and not be productive if the attorney and client don't get along and don't see eye-to-eye on certain things.
This seems to be the case.
March 23 NYTimes
Mr. Dowd, who took over the president’s legal team last summer, had considered leaving several times in recent months and ultimately concluded that Mr. Trump was increasingly ignoring his advice, one of the people said. Mr. Trump has insisted he should sit for an interview with the special counsel’s office, even though Mr. Dowd believed it was a bad idea.
If reports are to be believed, that there are/were at least 2 major contentions with Dowd and Trump.
1) Doing an interview with Mueller
2) Firing Mueller
Trump wants to do an interview and/or fire Mueller, and Dowd believes both would be a colossal mistake. This leads me to believe we're going to get an interview, a firing or both fairly soon.
|
On March 23 2018 02:58 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2018 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:On March 23 2018 01:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 23 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote:I know this thread is new, but we should have more posts like Mohdoo’s above, which is in the running for best post so far. A good read and better for discussion that most of the garbage we post here. I'm trying really hard to see past the "My Trip to the Zoo" feeling of the post, and I'm just not a fan of "the blacks" type talk, I prefer black people/communitie s/culture s/etc... So I'm just going to let that settle down and read it again later and see how I feel about it then. I can tell he was trying though so I'll do my best. Edited my main post to reflect the language you described. Thanks for your feedback. I honestly wrote my post with you in mind because you've often argued in favor of a lot of the ideas I feel I am trying to present. I thought you'd be interested to hear about the experience of someone who hadn't really had much insight into black culture and suddenly got an injection of it. On March 23 2018 02:41 crms wrote:On March 23 2018 00:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:I guess we'll know if it's true in a few hours. https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/976845907781177347John Dowd resigned Thursday as President Trump's lead attorney in the Russia inquiry, according to several reports, in a major shake-up of the legal team defending the president in the special counsel's investigation.
The New York Times first reported Dowd's resignation, according to "two people briefed on the matter." The Washington Post also subsequently reported the news, citing "three people familiar with the decision."
Dowd and Ty Cobb, another attorney for the president, did not immediately respond to requests for comment from BuzzFeed News.
Dowd's resignation comes five days after he had to walk back comments he made to the press saying he and the president wanted Acting Attorney General Rosenstein to shut down special counsel Robert Mueller's inquiry in light of Attorney General Jeff Sessions firing former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. Although he initially told the Daily Beast he was "speaking on behalf of the president, in his capacity as the president’s attorney," Dowd later said he was not speaking for Trump.
Earlier this month, Trump denied reports he was unhappy with his legal team. Source Seems confirmed at this point. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/us/politics/john-dowd-resigns-trump-lawyer.htmlI'm sure his new lawyer that he plucked off of Fox News will be ready to tackle the upcoming challenges. If I were a guessing man, one of two situations occurred: 1. Trump made a request of Dowd that he could simply not agree to 2. Trump is insisting on taking action that Dowd does not think he can protect Trump from the effects of As I understand, lawyers in these situations either actively do things or protect their clients from the things their client does. A lawyer bows out when they either feel unable to protect or unable to comply. It doesn't seem common for a lawyer to quit because of bad chemistry or something. They seem to serve much more of a tool purpose. Trump has consistently stated (and again now recently) that he wants to testify to Mueller (He probably thinks he can lie his way out). I bet Dowd knew he couldn't protect Trump if he did, and resigned. Btw, while we're on Mueller: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/3/21/1751042/-Mueller-Grants-Immunity-to-Organizer-of-Seychelles-Back-Channel-Meeting-Calls-Him-BackThis guys is an absolute human piece of garbage. There is only one possible reason that Mueller would want to give him immunity, and that is if there's a much much bigger fish to fry.
I think the way Dowd sees it is he can try to protect Trump from Mueller, but he can't protect Trump from Trump. He can make his exorbitant hourly billing rate in a less frustrating way.
|
On March 23 2018 02:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2018 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:
If I were a guessing man, one of two situations occurred:
1. Trump made a request of Dowd that he could simply not agree to
2. Trump is insisting on taking action that Dowd does not think he can protect Trump from the effects of
As I understand, lawyers in these situations either actively do things or protect their clients from the things their client does. A lawyer bows out when they either feel unable to protect or unable to comply. It doesn't seem common for a lawyer to quit because of bad chemistry or something. They seem to serve much more of a tool purpose. The chemistry between lawyer and client, particularly in the type of role that Dowd was serving, is really important. There's room for substantial disagreement between lawyers and their clients, but the relationship is not going to work and not be productive if the attorney and client don't get along and don't see eye-to-eye on certain things.
I suppose I consider 'seeing eye to eye' as different from 'chemistry'. Disagreement on actions being taken seems 100x more likely than "we just don't get along well". I don't think this was personality, I think it was plans and actions.
|
On March 23 2018 03:00 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2018 02:58 Excludos wrote:On March 23 2018 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:On March 23 2018 01:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 23 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote:I know this thread is new, but we should have more posts like Mohdoo’s above, which is in the running for best post so far. A good read and better for discussion that most of the garbage we post here. I'm trying really hard to see past the "My Trip to the Zoo" feeling of the post, and I'm just not a fan of "the blacks" type talk, I prefer black people/communitie s/culture s/etc... So I'm just going to let that settle down and read it again later and see how I feel about it then. I can tell he was trying though so I'll do my best. Edited my main post to reflect the language you described. Thanks for your feedback. I honestly wrote my post with you in mind because you've often argued in favor of a lot of the ideas I feel I am trying to present. I thought you'd be interested to hear about the experience of someone who hadn't really had much insight into black culture and suddenly got an injection of it. On March 23 2018 02:41 crms wrote:On March 23 2018 00:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:I guess we'll know if it's true in a few hours. https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/976845907781177347John Dowd resigned Thursday as President Trump's lead attorney in the Russia inquiry, according to several reports, in a major shake-up of the legal team defending the president in the special counsel's investigation.
The New York Times first reported Dowd's resignation, according to "two people briefed on the matter." The Washington Post also subsequently reported the news, citing "three people familiar with the decision."
Dowd and Ty Cobb, another attorney for the president, did not immediately respond to requests for comment from BuzzFeed News.
Dowd's resignation comes five days after he had to walk back comments he made to the press saying he and the president wanted Acting Attorney General Rosenstein to shut down special counsel Robert Mueller's inquiry in light of Attorney General Jeff Sessions firing former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. Although he initially told the Daily Beast he was "speaking on behalf of the president, in his capacity as the president’s attorney," Dowd later said he was not speaking for Trump.
Earlier this month, Trump denied reports he was unhappy with his legal team. Source Seems confirmed at this point. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/us/politics/john-dowd-resigns-trump-lawyer.htmlI'm sure his new lawyer that he plucked off of Fox News will be ready to tackle the upcoming challenges. If I were a guessing man, one of two situations occurred: 1. Trump made a request of Dowd that he could simply not agree to 2. Trump is insisting on taking action that Dowd does not think he can protect Trump from the effects of As I understand, lawyers in these situations either actively do things or protect their clients from the things their client does. A lawyer bows out when they either feel unable to protect or unable to comply. It doesn't seem common for a lawyer to quit because of bad chemistry or something. They seem to serve much more of a tool purpose. Trump has consistently stated (and again now recently) that he wants to testify to Mueller (He probably thinks he can lie his way out). I bet Dowd knew he couldn't protect Trump if he did, and resigned. Btw, while we're on Mueller: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/3/21/1751042/-Mueller-Grants-Immunity-to-Organizer-of-Seychelles-Back-Channel-Meeting-Calls-Him-BackThis guys is an absolute human piece of garbage. There is only one possible reason that Mueller would want to give him immunity, and that is if there's a much much bigger fish to fry. I think the way Dowd sees it is he can try to protect Trump from Mueller, but he can't protect Trump from Trump. He can make his exorbitant hourly billing rate in a less frustrating way.
Exactly.
Btw, here's the full list of people who have left the WH..just in the 3 months of 2018 (thanks to HandSack135 from Reddit):
Kristan King Nevins, Second Lady Chief of Staff, January 4
Mark Paoletta, Vice President Chief lawyer, January 5
Daris Meeks, Vice President domestic policy director, January 5
Shannon McGahn, Senior Treasury Official, January 5
John D Feeley, Ambassador to Panama, January 12
Majority of National Park Council, January 13
Carl Higbie, the Chief of External Affairs for CNCS, January 18
Omarosa Manigault, ?????, January 19
Taylor Weyeneth, White House liaison to the drug office, January 24
Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald, CDC Head, January 31
Robert Porter, White House staff secretary, February 7
David Sorenson, White House speech writer, February 9
Jim Carroll, Deputy Chief of Staff, February 9
George David Banks, special assistant to the president, February 14
Vivieca Wright, VA Chief of Staff, February 16
Josh Raffel, White House communications aide, February 27
Hope Hicks, Communcations Director, February 28
Gary Cohn, Economics Adviser, March 6
Rex Tillerson, Secretary of State, March 13
John McEntee, Personal Assistant to the President, March 13
Steve Goldstein, Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, March 13
Andrew McCabe, Deputy Director of the FBI Director, March 19
John Dowd, Trump Lead Lawyer, March 22
This is NOT normal guys!
|
On March 23 2018 03:04 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2018 02:55 xDaunt wrote:On March 23 2018 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:
If I were a guessing man, one of two situations occurred:
1. Trump made a request of Dowd that he could simply not agree to
2. Trump is insisting on taking action that Dowd does not think he can protect Trump from the effects of
As I understand, lawyers in these situations either actively do things or protect their clients from the things their client does. A lawyer bows out when they either feel unable to protect or unable to comply. It doesn't seem common for a lawyer to quit because of bad chemistry or something. They seem to serve much more of a tool purpose. The chemistry between lawyer and client, particularly in the type of role that Dowd was serving, is really important. There's room for substantial disagreement between lawyers and their clients, but the relationship is not going to work and not be productive if the attorney and client don't get along and don't see eye-to-eye on certain things. I suppose I consider 'seeing eye to eye' as different from 'chemistry'. Disagreement on actions being taken seems 100x more likely than "we just don't get along well". I don't think this was personality, I think it was plans and actions.
But that's the danger. You don't want a yes-men as your lawyer. You want one that will tell you "That's stupid and going to end with you in jail, do this instead and I will get you off on a technicality".
That's why I shook my head and chuckled when I saw the new lawyer Trump got. Because that's a crazy yes-man who is going to agree with what Trump wants even if it means his client ends up incriminating himself.
|
On March 23 2018 02:59 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2018 01:12 Mohdoo wrote:
Forgive me if this post is a bit long. I don't think it quite justifies its own thread, since my main point is regarding black representation in US politics. This was just a really cool experience and I wanted to share:
I had an interesting experience in Chicago recently. I spent most of my formative years in Oregon, an extremely white state. Before moving to Oregon, I lived in significantly more diverse areas, but I didn't have the same level of awareness of society and all that sort of stuff. In Oregon, we have black people, and some of them "act more black" than others, but I don't know how to quite put this, but being in Chicago, I was given an extreme amount of insight into why black people have such a difficult situation in Oregon and Washington.
In Chicago, it felt to me like there were essentially 2 parallel societies and cultures. One of them black, the other everything else. And it's not like it was a low income sort of thing, like poor vs rich. Whether wealthy or poor, there was a common social link between black people in Chicago. There is just an extremely well developed, full, vibrant black culture in Chicago. Everything from how they talk, where they eat, what they do was a complete story. In Oregon/Washington, it is like black people are caught in between. There are not enough black people to form their own culture/society, but they plain and simply do not naturally meld with "other" cultures. To me, it feels like black people naturally gravitate into their own distinct culture and this culture is only able to fully flourish when there is a high enough % of the population that is black. It was really wonderful to see and made me realize just how poorly represented black people must feel in the pacific northwest. It's not like they are some foreign alien race, just kind of different. And in a really great way. Their culture was so vibrant, fresh and energetic. I'm not sure if I am doing a good job at describing this. Probably not since it is early in the morning. But I was just really interested to see why black people so often feel like outcasts in white dominated areas. For more than just racism, too. It's like they have to put on a mask every day. But in Chicago, everything about black culture felt very natural and fluid. They all seemed legitimately happier and and more comfortable. In Oregon, it always feels like black people are (understandably) uncomfortable living in a society that simply does not reflect them.
It also added a lot of credit to many things GH says about the democratic party. But I am not entirely sure how that would ever be fixed other than just cramming a bunch of black people into the party leadership. It feels like there is some critical threshold that must be crossed in order for blackness to be "actually" fully expressed and appreciated within a society or group of people. It makes sense why black people would feel so poorly represented. It's like there is this natural tendency for culture which is just not the same as white culture. I hope what I am saying doesn't come across as racist. Maybe it is bad to say there is something distinct there, but I am trying to say this distinctness should be appreciated and respected. It is a really, really, really good thing in Chicago and it makes me sad to realize black people in the pacific northwest do not get this same feeling of community and belonging as they do in Chicago.
It's not just that black interests aren't properly represented. Their culture isn't properly represented either, and the effects of that are probably a lot more widespread than I realize. In summary, I would say the feelings of "otherness" that black people feel is often understated and underappreciated. I think it is important that people understand black culture is worthy of acknowledgement in itself. Seeing the difference between Portland and Chicago was just fascinating. I feel like I still don't fully understand what I learned. All I know is I had no idea previously. A lot to ponder. There is an entire black culture that just doesn't get represented or appreciated nearly as much as it should be in "mainstream media". "black people naturally gravitate into their own distinct culture?" come on dude. how is that edited? GH emphasized the plurality in his post already, and I would emphasize the contingency. if you dont want it to sound like a trip to the zoo dont talk about other people like they are just animals enacting instinctual plans in a given ecosystem.
Why would cultural distinctiveness be a bad thing? I'm not saying they gravitate toward some sort of bad things. I am saying they gravitate towards what feels right for them. People are not special. We are all just a bunch of dumb animals. I don't see any reason to speak of any group of humans as anything other than an object. I don't believe in elevated/transcendent human existence. It sounds like you would also be offended by sociologists trying to define mechanisms for cultural norms. I'm not saying anything is bad. I am saying the cultural difference is absolutely present in Chicago. Have you been to Chicago?
Whether they gravitate themselves because of history of segregation (which is what I believe/assume) or some other reason, the divide is extremely obvious. It was like 2 distinct worlds coexisting and it was really awesome to see. I'm not making some thinly veiled racist damnation of black people. I'm saying how cool it was to be surrounded by such a distinct, developed culture. This distinct, developed culture is nowhere to be found in Oregon or Washington. Or at least nowhere I've been.
Edit: And my point at the end of all of that is: I believe this cultural divide is one of the reasons major political parties in the pacific northwest struggle to properly represent black people.
|
On March 23 2018 03:04 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2018 02:55 xDaunt wrote:On March 23 2018 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:
If I were a guessing man, one of two situations occurred:
1. Trump made a request of Dowd that he could simply not agree to
2. Trump is insisting on taking action that Dowd does not think he can protect Trump from the effects of
As I understand, lawyers in these situations either actively do things or protect their clients from the things their client does. A lawyer bows out when they either feel unable to protect or unable to comply. It doesn't seem common for a lawyer to quit because of bad chemistry or something. They seem to serve much more of a tool purpose. The chemistry between lawyer and client, particularly in the type of role that Dowd was serving, is really important. There's room for substantial disagreement between lawyers and their clients, but the relationship is not going to work and not be productive if the attorney and client don't get along and don't see eye-to-eye on certain things. I suppose I consider 'seeing eye to eye' as different from 'chemistry'. Disagreement on actions being taken seems 100x more likely than "we just don't get along well". I don't think this was personality, I think it was plans and actions.
It's hard to explain, but what I'm really describing is chemistry as opposed to simple agreement on plans and actions. My clients ignore me all of the time when it comes to plans and actions. And that's fine. Sometimes they're right. Sometimes I'm right. Sometimes it ultimately doesn't really matter one way or the other. However, despite whatever disagreement that we may have on a course of action, our chemistry is such that we can have the frank and open discussions that we need to have to reach whatever the ultimate decision will be. If the chemistry between lawyer and client breaks down to the point where that type of discussion cannot be had, then the relationship is likely compromised and the attorney should withdraw.
|
On March 23 2018 03:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2018 03:04 Mohdoo wrote:On March 23 2018 02:55 xDaunt wrote:On March 23 2018 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:
If I were a guessing man, one of two situations occurred:
1. Trump made a request of Dowd that he could simply not agree to
2. Trump is insisting on taking action that Dowd does not think he can protect Trump from the effects of
As I understand, lawyers in these situations either actively do things or protect their clients from the things their client does. A lawyer bows out when they either feel unable to protect or unable to comply. It doesn't seem common for a lawyer to quit because of bad chemistry or something. They seem to serve much more of a tool purpose. The chemistry between lawyer and client, particularly in the type of role that Dowd was serving, is really important. There's room for substantial disagreement between lawyers and their clients, but the relationship is not going to work and not be productive if the attorney and client don't get along and don't see eye-to-eye on certain things. I suppose I consider 'seeing eye to eye' as different from 'chemistry'. Disagreement on actions being taken seems 100x more likely than "we just don't get along well". I don't think this was personality, I think it was plans and actions. It's hard to explain, but what I'm really describing is chemistry as opposed to simple agreement on plans and actions. My clients ignore me all of the time when it comes to plans and actions. And that's fine. Sometimes they're right. Sometimes I'm right. Sometimes it ultimately doesn't really matter one way or the other. However, despite whatever disagreement that we may have on a course of action, our chemistry is such that we can have the frank and open discussions that we need to have to reach whatever the ultimate decision will be. If the chemistry between lawyer and client breaks down to the point where that type of discussion cannot be had, then the relationship is likely compromised and the attorney should withdraw.
That makes sense. But in light of the new dude Trump hired, my impression is that Dowd was not nearly enough of a yes-man for Trump's taste.
|
On March 23 2018 03:12 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2018 02:59 IgnE wrote:On March 23 2018 01:12 Mohdoo wrote:
Forgive me if this post is a bit long. I don't think it quite justifies its own thread, since my main point is regarding black representation in US politics. This was just a really cool experience and I wanted to share:
I had an interesting experience in Chicago recently. I spent most of my formative years in Oregon, an extremely white state. Before moving to Oregon, I lived in significantly more diverse areas, but I didn't have the same level of awareness of society and all that sort of stuff. In Oregon, we have black people, and some of them "act more black" than others, but I don't know how to quite put this, but being in Chicago, I was given an extreme amount of insight into why black people have such a difficult situation in Oregon and Washington.
In Chicago, it felt to me like there were essentially 2 parallel societies and cultures. One of them black, the other everything else. And it's not like it was a low income sort of thing, like poor vs rich. Whether wealthy or poor, there was a common social link between black people in Chicago. There is just an extremely well developed, full, vibrant black culture in Chicago. Everything from how they talk, where they eat, what they do was a complete story. In Oregon/Washington, it is like black people are caught in between. There are not enough black people to form their own culture/society, but they plain and simply do not naturally meld with "other" cultures. To me, it feels like black people naturally gravitate into their own distinct culture and this culture is only able to fully flourish when there is a high enough % of the population that is black. It was really wonderful to see and made me realize just how poorly represented black people must feel in the pacific northwest. It's not like they are some foreign alien race, just kind of different. And in a really great way. Their culture was so vibrant, fresh and energetic. I'm not sure if I am doing a good job at describing this. Probably not since it is early in the morning. But I was just really interested to see why black people so often feel like outcasts in white dominated areas. For more than just racism, too. It's like they have to put on a mask every day. But in Chicago, everything about black culture felt very natural and fluid. They all seemed legitimately happier and and more comfortable. In Oregon, it always feels like black people are (understandably) uncomfortable living in a society that simply does not reflect them.
It also added a lot of credit to many things GH says about the democratic party. But I am not entirely sure how that would ever be fixed other than just cramming a bunch of black people into the party leadership. It feels like there is some critical threshold that must be crossed in order for blackness to be "actually" fully expressed and appreciated within a society or group of people. It makes sense why black people would feel so poorly represented. It's like there is this natural tendency for culture which is just not the same as white culture. I hope what I am saying doesn't come across as racist. Maybe it is bad to say there is something distinct there, but I am trying to say this distinctness should be appreciated and respected. It is a really, really, really good thing in Chicago and it makes me sad to realize black people in the pacific northwest do not get this same feeling of community and belonging as they do in Chicago.
It's not just that black interests aren't properly represented. Their culture isn't properly represented either, and the effects of that are probably a lot more widespread than I realize. In summary, I would say the feelings of "otherness" that black people feel is often understated and underappreciated. I think it is important that people understand black culture is worthy of acknowledgement in itself. Seeing the difference between Portland and Chicago was just fascinating. I feel like I still don't fully understand what I learned. All I know is I had no idea previously. A lot to ponder. There is an entire black culture that just doesn't get represented or appreciated nearly as much as it should be in "mainstream media". "black people naturally gravitate into their own distinct culture?" come on dude. how is that edited? GH emphasized the plurality in his post already, and I would emphasize the contingency. if you dont want it to sound like a trip to the zoo dont talk about other people like they are just animals enacting instinctual plans in a given ecosystem. Why would cultural distinctiveness be a bad thing? I'm not saying they gravitate toward some sort of bad things. I am saying they gravitate towards what feels right for them. People are not special. We are all just a bunch of dumb animals. I don't see any reason to speak of any group of humans as anything other than an object. I don't believe in elevated/transcendent human existence. It sounds like you would also be offended by sociologists trying to define mechanisms for cultural norms. I'm not saying anything is bad. I am saying the cultural difference is absolutely present in Chicago. Have you been to Chicago? Whether they gravitate themselves because of history of segregation (which is what I believe/assume) or some other reason, the divide is extremely obvious. It was like 2 distinct worlds coexisting and it was really awesome to see. I'm not making some thinly veiled racist damnation of black people. I'm saying how cool it was to be surrounded by such a distinct, developed culture. This distinct, developed culture is nowhere to be found in Oregon or Washington. Or at least nowhere I've been.
well what you think you are doing and how you write about what you think you are doing are two separate things. if you want to talk about people as objects for an audience that typically views people as subjects, dont be surprised when you look like an objectifying racist when it just so happens that you are talking about black-people-as-objects. i see your point that if you assume all humans are essentially just determined computer scripts then your comments aren't necessarily racist, but what are you going to do? put up a disclaimer every time you speak? something like: "no, no, guys, i think of everyone as an elaborate natural machine without any real choice."
what i am specifically criticizing in your post is your tendency to naturalize contingent outcomes. it sounds like you are saying black people are essentially different from white people, and will (always) naturally "gravitate" towards the formation of some distinctive entity called "black culture." whether you really mean "yeah, but i think white people do that too in their own way" is really kind of moot. youve still said something like: white people are essentially white and do white things and black people are essentially black and do black things. and no matter how cool or really, really, really good you think that is, most people see that as the dehumanizing effect of a flawed ontology
|
On March 23 2018 03:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2018 03:20 xDaunt wrote:On March 23 2018 03:04 Mohdoo wrote:On March 23 2018 02:55 xDaunt wrote:On March 23 2018 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:
If I were a guessing man, one of two situations occurred:
1. Trump made a request of Dowd that he could simply not agree to
2. Trump is insisting on taking action that Dowd does not think he can protect Trump from the effects of
As I understand, lawyers in these situations either actively do things or protect their clients from the things their client does. A lawyer bows out when they either feel unable to protect or unable to comply. It doesn't seem common for a lawyer to quit because of bad chemistry or something. They seem to serve much more of a tool purpose. The chemistry between lawyer and client, particularly in the type of role that Dowd was serving, is really important. There's room for substantial disagreement between lawyers and their clients, but the relationship is not going to work and not be productive if the attorney and client don't get along and don't see eye-to-eye on certain things. I suppose I consider 'seeing eye to eye' as different from 'chemistry'. Disagreement on actions being taken seems 100x more likely than "we just don't get along well". I don't think this was personality, I think it was plans and actions. It's hard to explain, but what I'm really describing is chemistry as opposed to simple agreement on plans and actions. My clients ignore me all of the time when it comes to plans and actions. And that's fine. Sometimes they're right. Sometimes I'm right. Sometimes it ultimately doesn't really matter one way or the other. However, despite whatever disagreement that we may have on a course of action, our chemistry is such that we can have the frank and open discussions that we need to have to reach whatever the ultimate decision will be. If the chemistry between lawyer and client breaks down to the point where that type of discussion cannot be had, then the relationship is likely compromised and the attorney should withdraw. That makes sense. But in light of the new dude Trump hired, my impression is that Dowd was not nearly enough of a yes-man for Trump's taste.
I am often told to get written approval for our client’s terrible plan. Client’s love to touch the stove. The attorney’s job it to tell them how hot it is and confirm they are aware. The problem arises when the clients either do things on their own and conceal them from their attorney or straight up lie to their attorney.
|
On March 23 2018 03:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2018 03:04 Mohdoo wrote:On March 23 2018 02:55 xDaunt wrote:On March 23 2018 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:
If I were a guessing man, one of two situations occurred:
1. Trump made a request of Dowd that he could simply not agree to
2. Trump is insisting on taking action that Dowd does not think he can protect Trump from the effects of
As I understand, lawyers in these situations either actively do things or protect their clients from the things their client does. A lawyer bows out when they either feel unable to protect or unable to comply. It doesn't seem common for a lawyer to quit because of bad chemistry or something. They seem to serve much more of a tool purpose. The chemistry between lawyer and client, particularly in the type of role that Dowd was serving, is really important. There's room for substantial disagreement between lawyers and their clients, but the relationship is not going to work and not be productive if the attorney and client don't get along and don't see eye-to-eye on certain things. I suppose I consider 'seeing eye to eye' as different from 'chemistry'. Disagreement on actions being taken seems 100x more likely than "we just don't get along well". I don't think this was personality, I think it was plans and actions. It's hard to explain, but what I'm really describing is chemistry as opposed to simple agreement on plans and actions. My clients ignore me all of the time when it comes to plans and actions. And that's fine. Sometimes they're right. Sometimes I'm right. Sometimes it ultimately doesn't really matter one way or the other. However, despite whatever disagreement that we may have on a course of action, our chemistry is such that we can have the frank and open discussions that we need to have to reach whatever the ultimate decision will be. If the chemistry between lawyer and client breaks down to the point where that type of discussion cannot be had, then the relationship is likely compromised and the attorney should withdraw.
I think you're referring to a working relationship. Trump's view of a 'working relationship' seems to be that people pretty much do as he says, regardless of their own opinions. Dowd and most people probably expect to be listened to when they're providing the legal advice they were hired to provide, vs. just being told that they're going to be wholly disregarded.
|
On March 23 2018 03:36 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2018 03:20 xDaunt wrote:On March 23 2018 03:04 Mohdoo wrote:On March 23 2018 02:55 xDaunt wrote:On March 23 2018 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:
If I were a guessing man, one of two situations occurred:
1. Trump made a request of Dowd that he could simply not agree to
2. Trump is insisting on taking action that Dowd does not think he can protect Trump from the effects of
As I understand, lawyers in these situations either actively do things or protect their clients from the things their client does. A lawyer bows out when they either feel unable to protect or unable to comply. It doesn't seem common for a lawyer to quit because of bad chemistry or something. They seem to serve much more of a tool purpose. The chemistry between lawyer and client, particularly in the type of role that Dowd was serving, is really important. There's room for substantial disagreement between lawyers and their clients, but the relationship is not going to work and not be productive if the attorney and client don't get along and don't see eye-to-eye on certain things. I suppose I consider 'seeing eye to eye' as different from 'chemistry'. Disagreement on actions being taken seems 100x more likely than "we just don't get along well". I don't think this was personality, I think it was plans and actions. It's hard to explain, but what I'm really describing is chemistry as opposed to simple agreement on plans and actions. My clients ignore me all of the time when it comes to plans and actions. And that's fine. Sometimes they're right. Sometimes I'm right. Sometimes it ultimately doesn't really matter one way or the other. However, despite whatever disagreement that we may have on a course of action, our chemistry is such that we can have the frank and open discussions that we need to have to reach whatever the ultimate decision will be. If the chemistry between lawyer and client breaks down to the point where that type of discussion cannot be had, then the relationship is likely compromised and the attorney should withdraw. I think you're referring to a working relationship. Trump's view of a 'working relationship' seems to be that people pretty much do as he says, regardless of their own opinions. Dowd and most people probably expect to be listened to when they're providing the legal advice they were hired to provide, vs. just being told that they're going to be wholly disregarded.
My best guess as to why the relationship failed is that Dowd and Trump have substantially different strategic visions for how to deal with the Mueller probe. Strategic vision is something that is very clearly up to the client to dictate. Dowd was unwilling (and potentially unable) to assist Trump in pursuing his strategic goals, so there really wasn't much point for him to stay on as legal counsel. This isn't really a "Trump wants a yes man" issue, regardless of whether Trump is right.
|
|
|
is there something about it in particular you'd like to discuss or hear thoughts on?
|
It is a 60 billion dollar tax increase on US citizens who buy those specific Chinese goods. I expect it to go over poorly once it starts hitting peoples pocket books.
|
Well, looks like it is time to revisit free trade in the age of mobile capital.
|
If Trump is interviewed by Mueller under oath, then we will approach a 100% chance he perjures himself. Losing Dowd seems to drastically increase the odds of him having the meeting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
