stevenkesslar

This is bad bad bad for Trump. Here's the redacted whistleblower letter. As one Democratic Senator said off the record a few days ago, it is in fact worse than the non-transcript "lipstick on a pig" version the White House put out: https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20190812_-_whistleblower_complaint_unclass.pdf It is going to be fascinating to see how this plays out. The memo has as much to do with the endemic corruption in Ukraine as it has to do with the endemic corruption of Team Trump. Which is to say, it is very confusing. Arguably, that works to Trump's advantage, because he can try to say it's whatever he wants it to be. More likely, I'd guess, the American people will sniff out the corruption in this, and say that if it stinks like shit, it probably is shit. It's also time to resurrect the Watergate bumper sticker: "the cover up is worse than the crime." It's probably not a headline thing, but we now know thanks to the whistle blower's letter that there was an inside effort to "'lock down' all records of the phone call, especially the official word for word transcript of the call .... White House officials told me they were 'directed' by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system..." What sounds like headline material is that a career US diplomat, Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanavitch, was recently fired because she would not "play ball" with Ghouliani and Team Trump on getting the Ukraine to target Biden for investigation - which is to say, for refusing to "play ball" in getting the country she was ambassador to to interfere in the 2020 US election. Trump Blasts Own Ambassador in Call With Ukrainian President The U.S. president said he wanted to keep Kyiv honest. So why did he fire his ambassador after she called out corruption? That's former Ambassador "The Woman Was Bad News" Yovanovitch. I can't imagine it will help Trump with moderate suburban women, among others, when it comes out gradually that he bullied and fired yet another professional woman trying to do what is right for her country.

I just laughed my ass off when I read this article. What Is CrowdStrike and Why Is Donald Trump Blabbering About It to Ukraine

My my my. We're a little bit fact challenged today, aren't we? I guess you are going for a daily double. Fact challenge one: Clinton was not "re-elected" in 2000. He was, of course, re-elected in 1996. But that was way before any impeachment drama. So if your argument is that impeachment will help Trump get re-elected, just like it helped Clinton get re-elected, news flash: it didn't. Fact challenge two: Nancy Pelosi is not a socialist. Nancy Pelosi’s Life in the 0.1 Percent You can attack Nancy Pelosi for being one of the richest members of Congress, and for being a capitalist fat cat - which is sort of what that 2015 article from the conservative National Review above does. That's fair game. Liberal hypocrisy, blah blah blah. But that then pretty much disqualifies you from calling her a socialist. It will be really interesting to see how the Republicans try to put a lipstick on this pig of socialism if Warren is the nominee, and Pelosi is the Speaker of the House. (Warren's net worth is estimated to be about $8 million or so, I think - including her husband's wealth). Now I'll go off into Fantasyland for just a minute. Professor: Dems need to impeach Trump to win 2020 Professor Allan Lichtman, who correctly predicted the last nine presidential election wins, says Democrats will only have a chance at winning in 2020 if they impeach President Donald Trump. Lichtman is interesting. On the fact of it, his system of "keys" sounds like crystal ball and Abracadabra. Except that it is an empirically verifiable fact that he used his "keys" to correctly predict who would win the Presidency in the last nine of nine elections. In Fall 2016 I was paying close attention, because he was saying - loudly - that unless something changes, Trump is probably gonna win a narrow race. He of course turned out to be right. His system makes common sense. At core, it kind of like, "It's the economy, stupid." So of course it will matter if we tip into a recession, or even into a near recession, in the next year. Lichtman's point recently has been that the Clinton impeachment did "work" for the Republicans. Had Clinton been impeached, who would have been the President? I believe the name is Al Gore. Instead, Gore ran for President in 2000, and lost. Even Gore has said the taint of Clinton scandal and Clinton fatigue were contributing factors to his loss. Lichtman would agree. I think Lichtman's argument is common sense. The economy is okay, like it was under Obama. But it's not booming. For 6 months now we've had a reduction in net non-farm payrolls in 10 states, including key ones like Michigan and Pennsylvania. So that could go either way. There's a good argument to be made that adding a big scandal to this is not likely to help Trump in 2020, just like the Clinton impeachment didn't end up helping Gore.

Thought I'd add these polls: 1. Even when Watergate started to get serious, support for impeaching Nixon was mostly in the 30's 2. Support for impeaching Trump last month was actually slightly higher than support for impeaching Nixon at the beginning of the Watergate scandal 3. And this poll, fresh off the press, really blows my mind NEW POLL SHOWS MAJORITY OF AMERICANS SUPPORT TRUMP IMPEACHMENT IF PRESIDENT SUSPENDED UKRAINE AID OVER BIDEN INQUIRY The number not in that brand new poll is where Independents come down. But my guess is you can kind of back out of the numbers and probably Independents are around 50/50, or maybe even slightly in favor of the idea of impeachment. The key number to me in this poll is that 55 % of voters are open to the idea .... IF. The "IF" here is obviously huge. But now that the transcript is out, I think we know enough to say that something relating to Biden, Barr, and Ghouliani was going on in that phone call Trump made. Which is to say, my guess is 55 % or more will say it is at least a legitimate and in fact important thing to look into. We all know Trump won't be convicted, anyway. So the real question comes down to the political benefits and costs of looking into it. 55 % is in the ballpark of the percentage of voters that disapprove of Trump in any of the poll averages in any particular month. It's hard for me to imagine that any Democrat running for President will get more than 55 % of the vote next year. In fact, 55 % is obviously a big stretch - unless we are deep into a recession. So it's not clear from these numbers that Democrats have a lot to lose, at least at the Presidential level, by moving forward. The people who are adamantly against this appear to be the one quarter to one third of Americans that are the hardcore Trumpians, anyway.

So what do people think about the idea that we are now definitely headed into an "impeachment inquiry"? Will it help the Democrats? Hurt the Democrats? Neither? Or is it too early to tell? A PLAN TO WIN THE IMPEACHMENT FIGHT That's the best article I have read about the political logic of impeachment. In fact, it might be more accurate to word it this way: of the dozens (if not hundreds) or articles I've read on impeachment, this is about the only article I've read that really makes sense to me. The article was written this May, and is now being republished in light of what just happened. So it does not include Ukraine. But that doesn't really matter, because the basic strategy it outlines doesn't change at all. Other than Ukraine provides one more possible nail in the coffin. I've been with Pelosi on this issue all along. Which is to say that for the last year or so, I've been tilted against it - at least as something to rush into. Now that she is in, I'm sort of right in the middle. It a high risk move that could have a high payoff, or could come at a high price for Democrats. I don't have a strong feeling about that one way or the other. I do think the Ukraine thing is an appropriate tipping point, for one reason. Everything about Mueller was essentially pointing a rear view mirror at the 2016 election. Even I mostly felt, "It's history now. Let it go." Particularly given that Trump's easy response to "obstruction of justice" is "No. It's called me doing my job." Whatever you think about the politics of Trump asking a foreign leader to work with his Attorney General and personal lawyer to investigate his most likely opponent in the 2020 election, it definitely does one thing. It makes the debate about Trump's alleged bid for foreign interference in the 2020 election. That alone is an important difference. It's way to early to tell. But the initial silence of many Senate Republicans suggests they get that most Americans don't feel the job of the leader of Ukraine is to interfere in the 2020 US election. What I like best about that article is that I think the real political issue is not whether the Democrats try to impeach, but how well they do it. I strongly agree with the author that the Democrats will do best if they can use impeachmeent to pound in simple, clear, and relentless messages. (Ironic, I know, that I would say that.) Just to prove I am capable of it, if I had to boil it all down to one word, it would be: CORRUPTION. If I could add a phrase, it would be: TRUMP AND HIS CRONIES ARE IN IT FOR THEMSELVES. My guess is that maybe 10 % or so of the electorate is up for grabs. The other 90 % won't change their mind, even if you could prove that Trump is Jesus Christ, or the Devil Incarnate. I might up that to 15 to 20 % if the economy really changes. Meaning recession. A chart in a recent issue of The Economist shows that in the last six months, net non-farm payrolls actually fell in 10 US states. Including Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia. You may have noticed the headlines saying Trump's average national approval rating right now is at a two year high. That said, it is at or under 45 % in almost all the swing states, including most of the key ones he won in 2016. There's no doubt a variety of reasons. But economic softness is probably one of them, whether we are technically in (or headed into) a recession or not. So even if there is not a recession, his economic leadership could be a vulnerability. Which is why the combo of impeachment and Warren hammering away on how Trump and his cronies are corrupt fat cats who are only in it for themselves could be a winning political formula, I think. At the end of the day, I'll stick with the idea that maybe 10 % of the electorate is really up for grabs. And maybe we will in fact find out things we don't know as a result of an impeachment inquiry. More likely, though, I think what it really will come down to is how well Democrats and Trump can control the message about what we do pretty much know already. In that regard, I'm tempted to say Trump has the upper hand, simply because he alone has the bully pulpit of the Presidency. (And in this case, I mean bully literally.) That said, this also makes a subtle change about the relative merits of who we nominate. It makes it a little harder for Biden, since his family is now smack dab in the center of corruption allegations. It also slightly changes the context of Warren's favorite word: CORRUPTION. I'll close with the question I started with. Do others thinks this helps the Democrats, hurts them, makes no difference, or it's just too early to tell. And why?

I've wondered about that, too. In particular, I have wondered about the difference between Mexican Americans in California, and Mexican Americans in Texas. You could also throw Florida in, but then it gets more complicated because you get the older conservative Cubans, and now the anti-Socialist refugees from countries like Venezuela. The Texas Hispanic Vote Is No Guarantee for Democrats. Here’s Why. That's not a particularly good article, but I haven't found a particularly good article that explains the differences between Texas and California. There's two factors that are obvious ones to me. One is social conservatism, which this article talks a lot about. The other is perceptions of economic opportunity, which this article does not really discuss. Suffice it to say that Mexicans who immigrate to America seeking opportunity tend to like Republicans like Schwarzenegger (also an immigrant) and even Trump, to the degree that these Republicans are perceived as speaking the language of universal economic opportunity. I've seen polls (this is years ago) that say when you control for income, Latin Americans are essentially White. In my mind, why would a Mexican American be different than an Italian American was, or a Polish American was, when they had immigration waves a century or more ago, and were viewed by many as the trash at the bottom of the ladder? For that matter, how about German Americans or Scottish Americans - Trump's ancestry? (Let's leave Melania out of this.) One obvious difference is skin color. My hunch is that the darker a Latino you are, the more likely you are to be a Democrat. I was surprised when I started going to Mexico and watching TV there to learn Spanish, and noticed that most Mexicans on TV are somewhat Whiter than most Mexicans in a grocery store. So they have their own thing with skin color. And of course, at least in the 21st century, Mexico is no longer a one party state. There are a variety of political ideologies. So I assume when they immigrate, they bring their political leanings along. If anything, my bias would be that immigrant Mexicans moving to seek economic opportunity might be marginally more conservative and/or business-oriented. If so, that's an obvious reason why we should be welcoming them, not building walls. I've wondered whether part of the difference between Texas and California is what part of Mexico people immigrated from. Some areas are more liberal, some more conservative. But I've never seen anything that suggests that is a factor. The thing that I think is huge is how Mexicans are treated when they arrive. The turning point in California was under Governor Wilson, when the perception was that the Republican Party went to war with Mexican immigrants. If you buy that (I do), it explains why most Mexican Americans in California view the Republican Party as hostile. The difference in Texas and Florida can be partly understood this way: That's Jeb, not George. By all accounts, Jeb speaks Spanish much better than his brother. Of course, it helps to have a wife from Guanajuato. That's political symbolism rather than substance. I don't follow state politics in Texas or Florida very closely. But I think it's fair to say that Republicans in Texas and Florida have not done stupid shit like Republicans in California did, that were perceived as all out declarations of war against immigrants. In Florida in 2018, DeSantis had a Latina running mate. Rick Scott can speak Spanish almost as poorly as I do. Meanwhile, Democratic Senator Nelson just sounded old, White, and English speaking. The interesting theory is this: as goes California, so goes the nation. That has not been an idea I would ever bet against. And there is reason to think that Trump is to the United States as former Governor Pete Wilson was to California. Meaning, these are Republicans who are defining their party as being hostile to the basic interests of Mexican Americans - unlike the Bushes, for example. There is some evidence from 2018 that Mexican Americans in places like Texas are taking it that way. (DeSantis cleverly ran around that problem, I think, in various ways.) One way I think we could win a fight on decriminalizing prostitution is by being really loud and factual about the fact that the real focus should be on the trafficking of women and kids, for both sex and labor. And if it were me, I'd start by screaming loud every day that Donald Trump has declared war on just about every Latina woman and child, be they from Mexico or the Triangle countries. We don't need to get into decriminalizing prostitution here. My point in bringing it up is that I think the political implications of Trump's war on Latin women and kids could be broad, deep, and enduring.

If it were 2016, I'd take the bait and talk about Bernie. But I won't now, since the trend is that he is sort of (barely) holding on, and Warren is rising. So it is more interesting to talk about her. First, she pretty much stops Trump's best zingers in their tracks. Examples: Trump says. "You're Pocahontas." Warren says, "Thanks, and you just proved you're a racist." Trump says. "I'm a capitalist. You're not." Warren says, "Funny thing is, I'm a capitalist, too. Perhaps you mean you're corrupt, and I'm not." If you watch that clip above of Warren at a committee hearing, it explains how I think she calls people into the trenches and wins. It's not that she's against capiatlism. It's that she wants capitalism (and banking, and the mortgage industry) to work for everyone - not just the fat cats. Having flipped a few homes that I sold to low-income families (one was White, one was Black, and both famiies should have over $100,000 in equity today, if they did not use the home as a piggy bank), I just love this example: Trump slams 'total hypocrite' Elizabeth Warren So it's clear, that article is from May 2016, before Trump was elected. You just got to love it. After Trump U and all the bankruptcies and law suits and fair housing complaints, Trump is going to go after Warren for being scammy on real estate? Give me a fucking break! I won't go any more into the details, other than to say I pray Trump makes this a campaign issue. The more you get into it, the more you learn that, "Duh! She's a capitalist." Just not one that loves to rip people off.

Interesting article. I've now completely moved this thread off Beto. But I'm posting it here because it involves a discussion of the same swing states discussed above where both the Presidency and the Senate could be up for grabs. It discusses a strategy of winning those states and The Presidency funded by rich women, and based on organizing women and people of color. These wealthy Democratic women have a plan to beat Trump at his own game The progressive group Way to Win was co-founded by an heiress to a Texas oil fortune.

Krystal Ball: Democrats on track to nominate Warren, lose to Trump So it's happening. There's another article I read on The Hill prior to the one above. I won't post it, but it was all about how everybody in DemocratLand is buzzing because at least one reputable poll in Iowa shows Warren out front in the first state that will actually vote. The Biden Bubble may be beginning to pop. I'm posting the article above because it's part of the buzz. So it's clear, it is written by a progressive (I'm guessing a Sanders supporter). So it's not an attack from Biden allies coming from the center. Bernie and Elizabeth so far are honoring their agreement to take the high road together. But it's fair to say Warren will now have people coming at her from both the left and right, saying she's a disaster waiting to happen. You can sum up the "progressive" argument by just using the buzz words: Wine track. Government bureaucrats with plans. College grads who knows shit about blue collar workers who lost a factory job. Cultural snobs. And (cover your ears, children) Pocahontas! In fairness, the argument is that Pocahontas is a symbol of inauthenticity. Warren is a phony. A Harvard snob pretending to be a working class Mom from Oklahoma. I think this probably defines the next phase of the Democratic primary. Warren will either rise to the occasion, or this may be where she stumbles and falls. I think she will rise to the occasion, and here is why: To put it in context, that's a clip from a town hall in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Two of the four people Warren is seated next to were Trump voters in 2016. In a prior clip, which is interesting but which I won't post, Warren goes through her plans for a two cent wealth tax on mega-millionaires, and how she'll use it to invest in a green economy and green manufacturing jobs. What is fascinating to me about this clip is that it deals with the next question: yeah, you have all these great plans. But why should we believe a word you say? And even if we believe you, why should we believe for one minute that any of this shit is actually going to happen? In some ways, it's actually more interesting to watch this by turning down the volume and just looking at these people's faces, and eyes. It speaks to hopelessness, disbelief, cynicism, being lied to, maybe just being ready to throw in the towel. And at one point Warren says to Chris Hayes (at about 9:30), "We can give up. You're right. We can just totally give up and say, "Hey, let 'em (the fat cats) have it." The next part of what she says is I think what makes or breaks her: "Or we can say that this is the moment we fight. I am in this fight all the way." The audience exploded in applause. You know who she reminds me of? Donald Trump! Make America Great Again! One thing I give him credit for is that Trump sold hope. But is was hope based on the idea that some rich fat cat who knows everything and always wins (sorry, that's a lie) is just gonna take care of it for you. Trust me. Call me biased, because I spent decades organizing in communities like this. But my gut feeling is that people know there's a reason why Trump has not delivered as promised. And they know in their hearts that Warren is right. You're never going to get anything unless you fight for it. I posted that lead article because I think "Krystall Ball", the author, has a shitty crystal ball. What defines Warren is not that she is a Harvard professor, or a wine sipper. Or that she is imperfect and she fumbled on the beer video and Pocahontas. What defines her is that she has spent her whole life getting back up on her feet, and fighting, and winning. And we know who she fights for. People who can't pay medical bills. People losing their home. People being screwed by banks and rich fat cats. And now, people being screwed and lied to by Donald J. Trump. I think this is what is going to make her or break her. Can she convince America that it is time to jump in the trenches and fight, together, for the country we actually want? And now the real test begins.

I will. That's the best book written on the financial crisis, I think. McLean is a former WSJ reporter, if I recall right. Her reporting and detail is just incredible. It is an intentionally top down look, so she focuses more on the CEOs and politicians than the grass roots. And it is a horrible indictment. And it comes down to a three letter word: EGO. And actually maybe another four letter word: MALE. She's a smart woman (her book on Enron, who I personally spent 4 years organizing against, and winning, was called The Smartest Guys In The Room). So the question is: why would incredibly powerful and rich men like Stan Greenberg and Angelo Mozilo actually destroy the companies they built from the ground up? McLean's answer: because they were big men, with big egos. They all thought their shit didn't stink. And all these people under them made shit loads of money. She says there was a saying at the time: IBG, YBG. I'll be gone, you'll be gone - when the shit hits the fan. That explains it all, I think. Bill Clinton and Bob Rubin and Alan Greenspan belong on the list of big guys with big egos. That's Brooksley Born, who was a Clinton appointee who ran the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) from 1996 to 1999. That is the agency that, in theory, could have been on top of all this incomprehensible shit happening with derivatives of mortgages being traded around Wall Street and the planet. And she was pushing for tougher authority to stop exactly the kind of bad shit that ended up happening in the next decade. McLean, who I think is a centrist feminist, describes a key meeting in the Clinton years where Greenspan and Bob Rubin were in the room. (Clinton wasn't.) Rubin, who had a reputation as Mr. Nice, is the one who knee capped Born. It's not clear from the reporting that Clinton even knew about that knife fight. He offered to reappoint Born. She apparently felt if she wasn't going to be allowed to do her job, it wasn't worth it. Again, this is why we need somebody like Elizabeth Warren in the White House. She knows how to fight with knives and win. In fairness, can you blame Clinton for crimes committed in 2004 and 2005 and 2006 and 2007? Even if Born had gotten everything she wanted, some Republican would have been running the CFTC under W's watch. Just like they ran the Fed, the FDIC, the OCC, the Treasury, everything. As Michael Moore said, they were not interested in enhancing the rule book. They were interested in throwing the rule book out. What would have happened if this had all come down on Clinton's watch? We'll never know. But the point is: it didn't. You can't blame what happened in 2008 on what he did in 1998. You have to blame it on what W. tolerated, perhaps even with the best of intentions, in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007. Will Elizabeth Warren tolerate this happening on her watch? Call me naive, but I think she's the last fucking person in the world who would.

Sorry to pry. But is your friend named Sean Hannity? This is a perfect example of why Fox News is the Fake News capitol of America. Sean Hannity doesn't have a fucking clue what he is talking about. And it's worth talking about, because it's also a perfect example of the cruelty and ignorance that Trump is using to march his party off a cliff. Just like the Republicans led off us a cliff with Iraq and subprime a decade ago. And on this one, I know my shit. I could post the books and Pulitzer Prize winning series I have been quoted in on the history of racial redlining. So let's start with this. Sean fails at Journalism 101. It's not The Community Investment Act, which would be CIA. It's the Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA. The distinction matters, since the concept is that banks have an "affirmative obligation" to reinvest in the communities they take money out of. This isn't gifts to poor criminals. This is reinvestment in working class communities. In your words, this is capitalism. (Remember, now. Elizabeth Warren knows this issue inside out, like I do. And she's a capitalist, bless her heart.) Michael Moore did great. His first point is spot on. If a law passed by a moderate like Bill Proxmire in 1977 forced the government to make home loans to people that couldn't afford them, why did the crash not happen in 1978, or 1979? Sean has no answer for that. The irony is if Sean was speaking the truth - which he is not - this interview happened 32 years after the CRA was passed. Do the math. Most people get 30 year mortgages. So even if Sean was correct, which he's not, the people that banks were forced to give bad mortgages to in 1977 or 1978 or 1979 would have had their loans paid off by right around 2009. Mortgages don't fail when people finally have their mortgages paid off. That dog won't hunt, Sean. I once was quoted by media that used AP all over the country because I had a great zinger at Congressional testimony. "Your chances of being a bank that fails a CRA exam are smaller than your chances of dying in a plane crash." So Moore is right on that, too. Nothing happened under Reagan and Bush 1 because the law was not enforced. Which goes to my whole point in this thread, about what Presidents can do if they have a will to. In some ways, that was good news, in retrospect. I think of community organizing and community development as a form of capitalism. So during the 80's I was organizing against folks like GE Capital and Fannie Mae and the Mortgage Insurance Companies of America. Which eventually led to multi-billion dollar community reinvestment partnerships. And they worked. So at the grassroots, we were being like Elizabeth Warren. We were coming up with plans, and figuring out what worked. Clinton's timing was perfect. By the time he took power, a lot of really good work had been done, and a lot of really good partnerships had been built. In one week in in the late 1980's, I recall me or my boss going to speak at press conferences on pilot programs with Dick Gephardt, George Voinovich, and Dan Rostenkowski. If I recall right, my boss actually got to fly in a private jet with Rostenkowski to announce this program. With the CEOs of Fannie, GEMICO, etc. It was a big deal. And that was just one piece of many - the piece I know best. So Clinton built on all that and nationalized it. And it worked great, as the chart I posted above showed. So the question is: if this is Clinton's fault, why did it blow up at the end of W.'s second term? If you understand mortgage financing, the biggest risks come in years 3 to 5. If you add a recession into the mix, that makes a difference. The biggest reasons you lose your home are job loss, or divorce. So having a recession in 2001 was a real stress test for working class Blacks and Hispanics and Whites that bought homes in the Clinton years - like 1997 or 1998 and 1999. And you know what? Mostly, people sailed through. Home prices sagged a little, but they didn't plummet. I can tell you why, from personal experience, not only as an organizer but as a landlord. I bought my first two rentals homes for about $100,000 each in 1997, using mortgage financing that would have been considered "subprime" at the time - meaning edgy, but not crazy. By 2001, I had some equity. There were months when I struggled to make the mortgage payments, like if the rent was late. But I did whatever it took (hey! I became a world class whore!), and I got by. Even if I couldn't pay the mortgage, I could have avoided foreclosure by selling. By 2007 when the shit really hit the fan, those two homes were worth well over twice what I bought them for - because of the bubble. They both went down in value about 30 % during the crash. But they never got close to what I bought them for, let alone what the mortgage was for. What really went wrong is that in 2004, 2005, 2006 you had predators running amok making predatory loans. And they were more home equity loans than purchase loans. Warren is right on that, too, if you listen to her and want to knows the facts, as opposed to Fox Fake News. The predators saw an opportunity to steal the money. And they did. I think it's fair to blame Democrat Barney Frank a little, since he chaired the House Banking Committee up to 2004. To me, he sounded willfully ignorant. Democrat Chris Dodd, who chaired the Senate Banking Committee, should have gone to jail. He was a "Friend Of Angelo's", meaning the CEO of Countrywide Mortgage, which was ground zero for predatory lending. But most of these loans were made when Republicans controlled the White House, the Senate, the House, the Fed, the FDIC, the OCC, HUD, and all the other federal regulatory agencies. So my view is it is fair to say they are the ones that let the predators run amok in 2004 and 2005 and 2006 and 2007. Again, it takes 3 to 5 years. It's no shocker that loans originated in 2005 or 2006 went bad in 2008 or 2009. Even more so when you set the mortgages up to fail, like Moore stressed, with teaser rates and balloons. It was utter and total fraud, and lots of bankers should have gone to jail. Warren is right about that, too. And she was right to fight like hell for a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which hopefully (unless it's run by Mick Mulvaney) will stop this from happening again. Ironically, the problem is more like the opposite of what Fake News Sean Hannity said it was. This was not about bad people that the government forced banks to give bad loans to in 1977. This is about good people who bought homes in 1997, under Clinton, like me. And by 2007, if the predators were able to, they conned some of those people out of their money and their home. Now, in fairness, Sean is right about one thing. Nobody forced these home owners to take out predatory home equity loans. Again, I can speak to this from personal experience. At one point in Sacramento 3 of my 4 tenants were all former home owners who had lost their homes to predatory lenders. One was a Black family, one was a Hispanic family, one was a White family. It hit working class and middle class people of every race. When the Black tenant told me she was in a short sale when she filled out the rental app, I went liberal and said something about how I felt the banks had really screwed people bad. That was enough to start her sobbing, because the pain and humiliation went that deep. So you can call her stupid, or whatever. But she was a wonderful church woman, and a great tenant. The White couple had bought their home back in the 90's, like when I did if I recall right. So I was confused. I asked, "You must have had equity? If you couldn't make the mortgage payment, why didn't you sell?" The answer went something like this: "Remember all those lenders that called you up, or knocked on your door, and asked you if you wanted to take that trip to Europe, or buy that boat or that vacation home? Well, we did." It didn't help that the predatory loan had a teaser rate that made it doomed to fail from the day it was originated. But the government was run by Republicans then, and they let the predators just make a gazillion doing it. This is exactly why we need somebody like Warren in the White House. I'm 1000 % sure the predators will try to do it again, if we let them. And you think Fake News Sean and Bankruptcy King Donald or Mick Mulvaney or Steve Munchkin are gonna stop them? Give me a fucking break, Sean.

Me too. Like I said, I was sending her money every month last year for her House race. It's the only House race I gave to outside California, and I did it mostly because her message and her persona was so fresh and likable. Her husband is a Republican, and she's a bad ass warrior who bombed bad guys and fought to be one of the first women pilots. She seems like a poster child for how we get beyond the current obstructionism. And since McConnell is credited by many as being the architect of that obstructionism, starting from the night Obama was elected in 2008, taking him out could be a twofer. Out with Mr. Gridlock, in with Ms. Compromise. That said, one thing she has in common with Beto is there's a sloppiness to both of them, or perhaps better stated a lack of seasoning. They are both making avoidable errors. None of these errors are fatal. But in a place like Texas or Kentucky, where there pretty much is no margin for error for a Democrat, you just can't afford to make many mistakes. Did Mitch McConnell Recruit His Opponent? I always enjoy reading the author of that piece, AB Stoddard, who is a pragmatic centrist. If McGrath is rubbing her wrong, that's not a good sign. That said, this surprised me: https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/surveys_statistics/politics/2019/five-state-prescription-drug-survey-annotated-questionnaire-KY.doi.10.26419-2Fres.00335.003.pdf That was one of five state polls that came out last week from the same pollster, Fabrizio Ward LLC, that showed Trump behind Biden from anywhere from 4 to 9 points in four key states: Colorado (9 points), Maine (6 points) Arizona (5 points), North Carolina (4 points). Kentucky was the only one of the five where Trump is ahead, by double digits. This poll shows Trump whopping Biden by 53 to 41 in Kentucky. So this is mostly bad news for Trump. And if the nominee were Warren or somebody else, recent polls show she's doing about as well as Biden in these head to heads with Trump. If Trump loses Arizona or North Carolina, it is of course game over. The really surprising thing is that in all five states, voters are saying they are more inclined to dump the Republican incumbent than to keep them. All five incumbents (McSally, Collins, Tillis, Gardner, McConnell) have low favorable ratings. So I think it's fair to say they are all vulnerable. And McConnell has the worst numbers of all five. 62 % of people in Kentucky said they want a "new person" in the Senate seat. Only one third say they think McConnell deserves re-election. Those numbers are significantly worse than for the other four Republican Senate incumbents. And the most surprising thing is that in the same poll that shows Trump clobbering Biden in Kentucky, McConnell and McGrath are essentially tied, 47/46. If you assume Stoddard's article is at least partly correct, and McGrath got off to a rocky start, it is not bad news that she is still in a statistical toss up. By all rights in this political environment and in a red state like Kentucky it seems like she should just be a lamb waiting for slaughter. So just like Beto probably benefited from a blue wave and the unpopularity of Ted Cruz last year, as well as his own freshness and enthusiasm, McGrath might have the same shot in 2020 in Kentucky, for many of the same reasons. So now I will circle back around to Beto and close with this point. What may end up helping both of them in the long run is that even if they have flaws or make fumbles, they are both likable people. Having watched both of them for about a year now, I'd say Amy wears better than Beto. She comes across as a woman that would do anything for her kids and her country. I still think Beto comes across as having a big ego. That said, I agree with you that there is nothing that has happened so far that precludes him making a comeback in the future.

This is a really fascinating series of articles. (And it's also even more long-winded and detail-oriented than me!) Arguably, it solves the problem of what happens if we elect a Democratic President, and we end up with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The Day One Agenda This kind of policy and political strategy would be tailor made for a President Warren in particular. One of the reasons I like her is she has the biggest Rolodex in Washington. And it works two ways - up and down. She can and does go up to the ivory towers and talk to the legal eagles and policy experts and ask, "How does this work in theory?" And she can and does go down to the grassroots Black female activists who actually work in the grassroots and ask, "How will this actually work in practice?" Bernie and Pete and Kamala might be willing and able to pull off versions of this. I don't think Biden would even be interested. There are supposedly 30 individual essays on each of these good ideas. I could only find two in the "Day One" series: one on student loan forgiveness, and one on banking and corporate reform. I'm only going to post the one on Wall Street and banking reform, because I don't think the stuff on student loans would be as of much interest here. But I hope they are going to do a whole series of these. Loads of good ideas. Overhaul the Business of Wall Street This particular article on Wall Street is itself an argument for a Warren Presidency, I think. She did overcome all odds to "mother" the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, including navigating political opposition by what I view as the "bank whores" within the Obama Administration itself. I actually believe that if somehow we could redo history and we had a President Warren from 2000 to 2008, we'd be living in a very different United States. First, there would not have been an Iraq War. Second, there would not have been a predatory lending crisis that led to a Great Recession. I was present at the creation of some things in the 1980's. I helped organize lobby days on Capitol Hill to fight for and defend the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which is mentioned in the article above. I organized the "hit" on Fannie Mae where about 1000 people took over their DC corporate headquarters and forced them to negotiate what turned into, initially, a $1 billion Community Home Buyers Program. What Bill Clinton did in the 1990's was a case study that the central thesis of this series is right. What Presidents can do using their own authority for the good is amazing. He took all these things that had been happening at the grassroots, centered around fights with banks over the CRA. And he turned them into a national home ownership and wealth creation strategy. It worked brilliantly. Even in the peak of growing Black home ownership, the net worth of Blacks was a pittance compared to the net worth of Whites. But depending on what statistics you look at, as a result of what Clinton did - pushing home ownership - Black net worth as much as doubled. Again, that's easy to do when you are starting from a very low place. If you want to hear Warren at her best, listen to her take on what the predatory lenders did. She is absolutely right. You can't blame any of this on Clinton, because it didn't happen until 2006 or 2007. We had a recession in 2001, and people who bought homes in the Clinton years pretty much sailed through just fine. (I bought my first two rental homes in 1997, so I know this from personal experience. If you can get through the first five years, you are usually okay.) What Warren talks about is how the predators came in in the early 2000's and started making shitty home equity loans to people that were pretty much set up to fail. And if you look at when it really got out of control, it was after 2004 - when the Republicans controlled the White House, the Senate and House Banking Committees, and all the regulatory agencies. It's a bit too black and white to say it this way, but my view is the Republicans told the predators, "Do whatever you want. Make big gobs of money at their expense." If you go back, Warren (and Bob Shiller, by the way) were two of the academics arguing at the time that this was going to end very, very badly. And they were right. So two points. Smart people did see it coming. And we should not underestimate the ability of a President to do harm, or to do good, simply by using the authority the American people give to them.

Agreed. He was one of about half a dozen Senate candidates I sent money to every month last Fall. Ideologically, he is a good fit for Texas Democrats. Which is to say he is a moderate. Interestingly, almost all my "winners" last Fall were on the House side - like every single Democrat in California running in a relatively suburban district to take a seat from a Republican. Almost all my "losers" were moderate Senate candidates - O'Rourke, McCaskill, Heitkamp. The one exception in the "loser" column was Amy McGrath, a moderate veteran who ran for a House seat in Kentucky in 2018 and lost. She'll be McConnell's opponent for US Senate in 2020. My point is that it seems pretty clear there is huge open space for moderation in "purple" (you could say suburban) areas of blue states like California. In a state like Texas, where there are a lot of those "purple" areas (again, you could say suburbs like around Houston and Dallas) a moderate Democrat can win eventually, I think. In red states that are predominantly rural or small town, forget it. As much as 2018 was mostly a blue year, it was also an incredibly polarized year. White men in states like Missouri and North Dakota said pretty clearly, "We don't want your God damn moderation. Take your center-left Democratic women like Heitkamp and McCaskill and shove em up your ass." (That's actually being generous, I think. I know a Republican who kept insisting Claire McCaskill was one of the most liberal members of the US Senate. In fact, she was one of the most conservative Democrats, which she had to be to win in Missouri.) McGrath will be interesting to watch in 2020. She's an unseasoned candidate, running against an extremely shrewd and vicious political animal, McConnell, who is wildly unpopular even with his own constituents. It's as red as red states get, so I don't have much hope for her. That said, if there is a strong wave and if a lot of moderate women swing Democrat, it's possible that the women running for Senate seats in both Kentucky and Texas could win. Which is why I think having a very energizing woman (that's spelled W-A-R-R-E-N) at the top of the ticket could turn out to be a plus. As far as Beto himself goes, I'm now glad he is not running for Senate. I was very disappointed when Beto announced for President. The question last Fall was whether Beto was going to be the next John Tower, who worked very hard over several election cycles to become the first Republican Senator elected from Texas in a long time. There were lots of older Texans that compared Beto to Tower. (Tower ran against LBJ when he was a Senator and lost. Then the seat opened when LBJ became VP, and Tower won that special election. He was the first Republican Senator elected in Texas in almost a century.) I think if Beto had doubled down and run against Sen. Cornyn in 2020, he could have won. Had he doubled down and ran again after a close call last Fall, that would have in and of itself been a way of saying, "I will persist." People love underdogs and fighters. I think the Beto brand is now toast. That's partly what that quote above says to me. He's just not going to be taken seriously anymore. Mostly because it seems like it was all an exercise in ego for him. He just had to run for President, even though his failure seemed not only predictable, but certain.

I just had to post this. It is toward the end of a serious but uninteresting article about which Presidential candidates might in fact be running for Veep. When I got to the part about Beto, I just could not stop laughing my ass off. Sorry to all you Beto fans out there. But it is wicked funny. VEEPSTAKES 2020: WHICH DEMOCRATS ARE SECRETLY RUNNING FOR SECOND PLACE?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/few-americans-want-u-s-forces-to-defend-saudi-arabia/ So it's clear, that is just a "polling bite" I read out of a longer article on 538. That is super bad news for Working Class Joe. For a month or two I've been noticing that the percentage of the primary vote that is for Warren and Sanders combined is higher than the percentage that Biden gets, in almost every poll. And this "progressive" slice of the Democratic primary pie just keeps slowly growing as Warren and Sanders do their tag team schtick. As of this week Warren is now tied to or slightly ahead of Biden in Iowa. It's all pretty much bullshit until people start voting. But Iowa is now not really that far away. So this does not look good for Biden, either. But that ranked choice thing is really bad news for him. It's the first thing I've seen anywhere that suggests that if you skim off everybody else, including Sanders, that Warren may equal or best Biden on her own. As others continue to throw in the towel, there's reason to think Warren will benefit more than Biden. If you pull back the camera and look at the entire chess board, that could be significant for some other reasons, as well. The #1 best reason for a Biden candidacy all along for me has been this concept: Democratic Senate majority. That's speculation. And it's a subset of the concept that Biden is, in fact, the most electable candidate. That's always been a big question, and it is becoming a bigger one by the day. But I think it's objective to say Biden is the most moderate of the top tier. So it doesn't surprise me that Doug Jones from Alabama, for example, would much rather run on a ticket with Biden at the top. All year I have thought a Warren/Sanders or Sanders/Warren ticket could be a good idea. It is now very clear they draw in unique voters. Warren might be better with suburban women who gave Trump a try in 2016. Sanders might be better with working class men who gave Trump a try. But the problem with both is that their Senate seats would be filled by a moderate Republican Governor if either wins, at least until special Senate elections could be held in Massachusetts and Vermont. So even if Democrats picked up 4 Senate seats and had a 51 vote majority the day after the 2020 election, a winning Warren/Sanders ticket would take that down to 49. At least for much of 2021 until there was a special election, presuming that a Democrat won in both races. For most of 2019, Warren has done marginally worse than Sanders or Biden in these horse race match ups with Trump in the Rust Belt/Midwest "blue wall" states Democrats need to win - Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. And that's what Biden's folks are really hitting hard right now. Even in Massachusetts, for example, they claim Warren just doesn't do well with the "Joe Six Pack" types. That said, even that idea seems to be shifting rapidly. There's lots of examples of that, but here's one: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/pennsylvania/ Three months ago, a poll by Firehouse showed Biden a little ahead of Trump, Sanders a little behind Trump, and Warren getting clobbered by Trump in Pennsylvania. Now the same poll shows Warren and Sanders both ahead of Trump by 2, and Biden ahead by 4 in Pennsylvania. The same trend seems to be playing out gradually in Michigan and Wisconsin. Any relative advantage Biden (or Sanders) had over Warren in a horse race poll against Trump seems to be disappearing. Another important thing that seems to be emerging in the latest polling is Warren does better than Sanders, and pretty much as well as Biden, in some other key states. Like Arizona, where both Biden and Warren are in a statistical tie with Trump but Bernie is 8 points behind Trump in one recent poll. In the latest Florida poll, Warren is even with Trump, whereas Biden and Sanders are both one point behind. That's basically a statistical tie. But my point is that Warren is doing no worse than Biden, and she may be doing better than Sanders, in terms of being able to beat Trump in what are emerging to be the swing states, like Arizona and Florida. My hunch is these are states where the suburbs and women are the key, and Warren just seems to be doing better in those areas than Sanders. While the "blue wall" states may be the minimum required to win back the White House, they have almost nothing to do with the race for the US Senate. Those key states are Iowa, Maine, Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, and if I really cross my fingers and hope maybe even Texas or Kentucky. Those odds do not seem awful. If you count that as eight possibly winnable seats, Democrats could pick up 4 and have a functioning majority - even if Warren's Senate seat is temporarily filled by a Republican until there is a special election. So it's all very crystal ball to speculate about the impact of Warren on Senate races in those states a whole year from now. But my growing sense is that she is connecting with college-educated professionals and/or women more and more by the day. And like in 2018, they seem to be the swing voters that are most likely to call the shots. Like I said, the only really good reason I've been able to think of all year to seriously consider Joe Biden is my mind can't escape the idea that he could be the best one to lead the ticket if we want to win the Senate. But I'm not very confident of that anymore. If I had to name the single thing I find most fascinating about Warren right now, it's the way she deflects questions about how - for much of her life - she was a registered Republican. Like her evasiveness on taxes for Medicare For All, you could argue the silence is practically deafening. When asked about why she was a Republican, the stock answer seems to be a smile and a shrug and something like, "Geez. I don't know. That's just what folk like me from Oklahoma did. Didn't really think about it much." And she has gotten away with it, so far. Which is interesting. Bernie gets perpetually crucified for being a democratic socialist, even though he has always, always, always voted with the Democrats since he was elected to Congress. So how exactly is it that a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination gets away with not have to say almost anything about why she was a Republican for much of her life? My point is that I strongly suspect that she knows exactly what she is doing. Or, to use the new buzz words, she has a plan. If she does win the nomination, I suspect next Fall she will start to unpack why she shifted. And I suspect it will be Reagan in reverse. Meaning it's not that she left the Republican Party and capitalism. It's that she's still just a Main Street capitalist, really, and it's the Republican Party and corporate capitalism that left her (and America) behind. If any of that is true, she may be exactly what we need if the goal is to drag women running for Senate seats in places like Maine, or Texas, or even Kentucky over the finish line.

I just have what I think is a pretty simple legal question for you legal eagle type guys out there. I'm about 90 % sure I will vote for Elizabeth Warren for President in the CA Democratic primary. Is there a way I can do that and still vote for Chasten Buttigieg for First Lady? Chasten Buttigieg goes from opening act to fundraising star

Thanks Oz. Both for the compliment, and for pulling this thread back to what Adam obviously originally intended. I would like to make a whole bunch of additional comments, with the same forward-looking and hopeful spirit your post embodied. And sorry. I'll be very long-winded. You can't seriously discuss political strategy on decriminalizing prostitution in Trump-sized tweets. Realistically, there are two ways in which I can see something real happening. The bad news way would be if we all wake up tomorrow morning and DHS or DOJ or some other federal or state or local agency shut down Rentmen, or Daddy's, or this website. The good news way would be if Warren or Sanders or Harris (or maybe someone else, like Mayor Pete) were elected, and that created an opportunity to push legislation with a "friendly" President and Congress. I've read the article Adam posted repeatedly, plus many other recent ones. If you read what the Democratic Presidential candidates like Warren and Sanders and Harris actually said about decriminalization, I have my doubts about how serious they are. Which was, of course, Adam's initial point. And it is ironic. Because if there is anyone who should be open to decriminalizing prostitution, it is our current President. He seems to have a habit of hiring them (or at least hanging around with strippers and porn stars). And of hanging around with men who hired them or even helped traffick them, like Jeffrey Epstein. I'm not holding my breath on Trump getting on the side of women and children being trafficked. So to create any real political momentum, I think it means either something really bad has to happen, or we elect a Democrat and then use that as a springboard to propose legislation. Again, there are threads on Guy's right now based on really good WSJ reporting that indicate the problem of trafficking of prostitutes has not gone away. And websites have moved overseas where it is actually harder to do anything about it. The Feds are still basically flailing around. At best they are playing "whack a mole", and at worst they are doing stupid shit that everybody predicted - correctly - would make the real problems even harder to get a handle on. In my mind, it fits perfectly with Trump's "Wall" bullshit. Big talk, lots of flailing around, but no real solutions. To the degree that Trump has made progress, like by forcing women and kids seeking asylum to live in tents in Mexico, the principle boils down to this: let's take women and children whose lives are already unimaginably miserable, and try to figure out how to make their lives total hell. Let's turn the victims into the people we blame. Let's make them suffer. Maybe that sounds like a slam on Trump. And it is. But it's more than that. Timing and context matter. As Gay men, I think we are in a better position than we were even a few years ago. Because if you look at the big picture of what the federal government is doing to combat either prostitution or trafficking, it is not working. It is a fucking national nightmare. Assuming we are now past character attacks and on to a positive discussion of the issue, there's a couple things I avoided saying that I'd like to really stress. Had I used the language about "80 year olds" I think I would have been, and probably should have been, attacked. First, it's not true. I know Guy's website better than this one. But I doubt the average person reading this is 80 years old. Second, even if you are 80, who cares? Trump and his three leading opponents are all in their 70's. There was an ageist undertone to several posts above that implied (although, to be clear, didn't state) that older Gay men are over the hill geezers who have nothing better to do than sit around and look at pictures of hot young muscle guys, and maybe hire them if they feel up to it. That stereotype is bullshit, and I think everybody knows that. One of the reasons DHS fucked up on their first crack at taking down Rentboy is their complaint read like an attack on older Gay men as being sex perverts, who have nothing better to do with their time then smell the gym shoes and piss-infused jock straps of young guys. DHS did clean their act up after a lot of criticism. So by the time Jeffrey was dragged into court the focus had shifted to maybe a few Hungarian male escorts being trafficked, or maybe Rentboy doing lax age verification of Asian "boys". (I don't think any of the few allegations about trafficking or underage prostitutes made were ever actually proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt. Jeffrey folded because they took all his money, and the community did not really rally behind him.) So I will say it again. The reason I dragged Ollie and Eppie and community leaders like them into this discussion is that if we are ever actually going to try to do something, it is EXACTLY people like them that would need to get involved. Period. And we would need to intentionally create as many options as possible, both public (like in the media) and private (like in small meetings with Congressional staff) to do so. The people who come to the pool party, or who post both on this website or Guy's website, are EXACTLY the kind of people I would want walking into a room with me if I were going to meet with a US Senator or their staff. They are liberals, moderates, conservatives, Gay and out, closeted, retired school teachers, retired Republican state officials, retired millionaire tech investors. These are respected and respectable US citizens who can make a case about how nothing we do is criminal, or should be perceived in any way as criminal activity. So if the starting point of discussion is that we are going to magically conjure up the notion that everybody here is a "retired 80 year old", let's not bother. And if anyone truly believes that the work should be done by mythical stallions - you know, all the "young firebrands" with sharp brains and huge muscles and endless energy and, I daresay, extremely well hung penises - you should be reading the porn section, not the politics section. It's a fantasy. There is a corollary principle. When I actually was a hot young organizer in my 20's, an organizer friend of mine teased me by putting a Chinese fortune on my "in" box where dozens of people in our office could see it. The fortune read: "In youth and beauty, wisdom is rare." There is much truth to that. So now let me tell a specific story that makes a point. When Jeffrey got busted, by DHS, I looked up the members of the House and Senate oversight committees that regulated DHS. Maybe about half the House members were from big cities or urban areas where I could personally name either male escorts or clients, or both, who live in or near the district. It is a long shot to think we could walk into a meeting with a US House member or their staff and win by saying something like this: "What the hell is this about? The Gay community is outraged about this attack! The federal agency you have oversight over is taking down an innocent Gay man. They are exposing the financial records and past times of lots of Gay men, many of whom likely contribute to your campaigns. We understand the problem you are trying to solve, but you are only going to make it worse. What the hell was DHS thinking?" Like I said, it's a long shot. But I personally thought it was worth a try. And at least we would have had a history, where we could now actually say years later that the problem was not solved. It just shifted overseas, and it is actually is therefore marginally worse. One of the members of the House oversight committee at that time was Rep. Loretta Sanchez, who represented a suburban LA district. Her Orange County district actually was and is a hot bed for the trafficking of Latin American women. So I called up a male escort I know in LA who is active in the Sex Workers Organizing Project (SWOP). A few general points. I really respect the work SWOP has done in various communities, based on things I've read. And I understand that I don't know shit about actually organizing on this issue. I was a successful lobbyist at the federal and state level, and I've worked with many Members of Congress and their staff to get laws passed. But I can't say I know the ins and outs of this issue. Finally, to avoid getting attacked again, I won't name the escort I had this discussion with. But I will say if we want to be effective, these are exactly the kinds of debates we should be having - openly. I spent an hour on the phone with this escort. And after I got off the phone I just wanted to beat my head against the wall. The basic idea I heard was that meetings with someone like Rep. Sanchez are a waste of time. Or worse, it will just give them more reason to hate us. The cops and the politicians are against us, period. They won't listen. It is useless. I'll repeat what I already said. Maybe this guy is right. I've never actually tried it, although I would have been happy to try. I can say that when FOSTA/SESTA was happening there were a few other SWOP chapters in other states that were posting online reports about meetings with Members of Congress, basically saying things like: They want to hear from us. They are listening. If you care about this issue, go meet with them now. Here's something funny, given my alleged "turning on" Ollie and Eppie. You know who the first person I called was when I got off the phone with this sex worker? Epigonos! We both pride ourselves, hopefully not too naively, on being good political whores. So I think I said something like, "Can I just whine about a phone call I just had?" And his message to me was somewhere in the ballpark of: "What the hell did you expect? These people don't have a clue what they are doing." And he was too polite to say, "Really? You really think you're going to walk into Sanchez's office and they will listen to you?" I know he doesn't particularly admire her, either, for a different set of reasons. And, as I already said, he had made it clear that he had no personal desire to get involved. So if somebody reading this wants to say I am turning on Epigonos, go ahead. In fact, I called him because he is someone I view as a smart political whore, which is what I like to think I am. And if we have any hope of doing anything, these are exactly the types of discussions we need to have. Openly, and respectfully. As it turns out, I'm now in a better position to do something in Orange County than I was a few years ago. Last year I sent $100 a month all Fall to Rep. Levin, Rouda, and Cisneros. They are all House Democrats who won close elections for US House seats, and will be running for re-election in close races for 2020. So I could tell them I'm a male escort. But I'd be more likely to say something like this: "I'm a Gay man who gave to your campaign and will give in 2020. And some Gay men would like to come meet with the Rep or his staff to talk about an issue of great concern both to Gay men and to immigrant communities that are being horribly victimized." I think something in that ballpark would be a good start. Especially if half a dozen other male escorts and professional Gay men who hire escorts who live in the district (there are many to choose from) walked into such a meeting with me. My larger point is that for anything to work, I think it would likely have to involve something like two-thirds clients, one-third escorts or sex workers. Some of that has to do with age. Older clients would be able to talk about the fact that they are not sex perverts, and they are respected and decent Gays professionals. It would also matter that they are the kind of people who vote, and give money to political campaigns. And some of it also has to do with math. I will keep repeating that this is a lot like same sex marriage at its core: we have more power than we think we have. We are present, and could be organized, in almost every Congressional district in the US. And if you look at it that way, there are way more clients than escorts in those Congressional districts. Having a federal lobby day like Survivors of SESTA did in DC last year, where "three dozen" sex workers showed up, is not going to cut it. On the other hand, I'm quite sure we could organize private meetings with Members of Congress or their staff in three dozen Congressional districts. And, eventually, in 300 Congressional districts. If we really wanted to. If we had a President saying she or he was open to decriminalization and wanted to focus law enforcement on fighting sex and labor trafficking, that would help a lot, too. Just to really drive home this point, let me tell another story that will sound like bragging, about two meetings I had with a top aide of a leading Democrat in the California state legislature. The politician I am referring to is now the Mayor of a large city, and the aide I met with was himself a Gay man. The first meeting happened during a huge lobby day about a decade ago at the state capitol in Sacramento, when we were pushing to get a law passed to move the ball along on same sex marriage. So I'm in a large hearing room with maybe 50 people, and we were supposed to be meeting with our State Senator from San Francisco. There was a fuck up, and the guy who walked in the room was a top aide to a Democratic Senator from some other part of the state. Like I said, he's Gay. And he has a partner. So he is totally on our side. But everybody is confused because we're all just volunteers on a lobby day. And we thought we'd be meeting with our Gay Senator, not this dude. So there's just this awkward couple of minutes where nobody knows what's going on. So I stood up and took over and thanked the guy for his boss's leadership, and pivoted the discussion for the next 30 minutes or so to talking about what we can all do as individuals to really light a fire under this issue and move the people who are not in the room, and who are opposed to us. It was a good discussion. And maybe it is just my dementia, but I swear to God that I recall at one point the Gay Senator's aide referred to me as "the handsome and articulate young man." So I got a call from this guy about two months later. Which is a little weird, seeing as how he didn't know my name, and I hadn't given him my phone number. He was actually calling Steven Kesslar. He did use his real first name. And we talked enough that I figured out pretty quickly who he was. I figured if we got together he would likely recognize my face, and might feel uncomfortable. So I felt like I should tell him that I knew who he was, and we'd actually been at a meeting together recently. His reaction was completely nonplussed. We got together anyway, and had a good time. So to make the point obvious, here it is. If we actually tried to organize on this issue, and went and met with Members of Congress or their staff, we have no idea who these people really are. We do know that there may have been a very handsome and muscular Member of Congress who is Republican, and secretly Gay. (At least from the pictures of him shoving his hand down some guy's crotch at Coachella). We do know there was a Republican US Senator who got busted for coming on to guys in airport bathrooms. Gay men allege sexual contact with Senator Craig I look at this way. Even in a deep red state like Idaho, we have at least one older gentleman (he's 74 now) who could make a really good lobbyist for decriminalization. Putdowns of real closet queens aside, I can tell you this based on personal experience, both as a former lobbyist and male escort. We would meet lots and lots of friends, and make lots of allies along the way. Again, I think we have more power than we think we have. We have never won by hiding in the closet. I see no reason to feel we have to hide in the closet on this issue. I feel very comfortable in my own skin, whether I am a volunteer for a political cause or someone on one side or the other of the male escort "profession". You should, too. There is no reason to be ashamed, or afraid. There is another thing I will repeat, because it is very basic to this discussion and I think needs to be beaten to death. The thing that is most easily used against us is the idea that we are breaking the law, we are perverts, this is morally wrong, this is evil, we are up to no good - blah blah blah - or any variation of those themes. Part of what we have going for is is that all those stereotypes are just wrong. To paraphrase Lucky, most people are simply not inclined to look at an "80 year old" Gay man as a criminal mastermind, simply because he likes the companionship of a handsome young college student who spends a lot of time at the gym. I don't really know what message would work on this issue, because we have made zero effort as a community to test it. I know many of the best LGBTQ organizers in the country. I know what ended up working on same sex marriage could be summarized by The Economist this way: "Hearts, not heads." Appeals to principles of fairness or "basic rights" worked okay. But what ultimately worked better was appeals from the heart. Anybody who had a Gay son or a lesbian aunt could relate to the idea that we all just want to be able to fall in love and get married, Gay or straight. Heads and hearts: What victorious gay-marriage campaigners can teach others I'm just a dumb and unprincipled whore, so I may be wrong. But I at least have a theory of how we could win on this issue. Rule # 1 of community organizing is you always have to be prepared to fight David and Goliath battles. A more intellectual way of saying that is that you have to figure out how to use the power of the system against itself. Right now, I'd argue, Elizabeth and Bernie are giving master classes on what that means. Which is why in every poll their percentage of the vote combined far exceeds what Joe Biden is getting. It's going to come down to a vote for the system, versus those who want to change the system. And the people who want to shake up the system are winning, bigly. But that's a different post. In our case, the power of the system boils down to cops who bust men who hire prostitutes, and the Moral Marys who defend those cops. And certainly a lot of elected officials, some of whom are utter hypocrites - like our President, and Sen. Craig, and the always lovely and perpetually confused Rep. Shock. I think the bumper sticker for our fight goes like this: 1) Gay men are not the problem. 2) Gay men can and should use what we learned on same sex marriage to focus the country on the real and growing problem: the massive and inhumane victimization of innocent women and children. Every year, countless women and children are trafficked, forced into prostitution or labor, raped, beaten, and even murdered. Again, read the Senate floor debate on FOSTA/SESTA. It all came down to a heart wrenching story about an underage Black prostitute who was trafficked, raped, and murdered. Shutting down Rentboy and enacting FOSTA/SESTA did nothing to solve the real problem. Arguably, they actually made the problem worse, by driving websites overseas where they are harder to control under US law. I did enough homework to know that Rep. Sanchez was a strong advocate of women and kids in her former district who were being trafficked. My guess is that the US Reps in Orange County I helped elect feel a lot like she did about this issue. What do Gay men have to do with this? Number one, websites like this one do not contribute to this national nightmare. Number two, we know a thing or two about how to move people to focus on real problems that lead to real solutions. I could go on and on and on about how brave leaders like Senator Paul Wellstone and his wife Sheila knew what it would really take. And it was no coincidence that Paul was a mastermind organizer, and Sheila was a profoundly moral woman with a heart of gold. Their genius was to know that what they had to do was empower the women and kids as best they could. You help them rat out the evil men who are raping, abusing, and even killing them. You give them T-visas. You hook them up with law enforcement and social services. That is why Paul and Sheila's Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) was and still is the best piece of federal legislation to deal with both prostitution and trafficking of women and kids. What do Gay men have to do with this? Pretty much nothing. Except that we have a self interest in not having our websites and hobbies and reputations attacked. And whether we are 80 or 30, it actually turns out that we are really decent people, who make good organizers and good allies. Like I said, I don't have a clue. But if we ever choose to fight, I for one would have a hell of a lot of fun. And I think this is somewhere in the ballpark of how we could actually win.

You are more than welcome, @Lucky. You know me. Always trying to help out a friend. I checked with Elizabeth, and she is quite pleased to let you have the last word, too. She did say that if she does decide to move forward with the talk about decriminalizing prostitution, she would welcome a debate about that on this website, as well as other male escort websites. As opposed to focusing the discussion on a much more boring topic, which is what a horrible, selfish, unprincipled, wildly unpopular, unsuccessful, ugly, small-cocked, old, and tragically stupid male escort I was. Oh, and super long-winded. (I mean, I'm just going for honesty here, okay?) I'm with Elizabeth. Hopefully someday we can have a discussion about why or how to push for decriminalization. (And between us, guys, I'm gonna go with the idea that Elizabeth, who is 70, still counts as a young firebrand.)

I know you are doing your level best to drag this further into the gutter. So before somebody else steps in and says, "Hey guys, get a room. Or at least get an alley," how about if we just end it at that? The discussion about decriminalizing prostitution is going nowhere. To go back to the subject the OP started this thread about, you've proven my point, as far as I am concerned. Warren and Sanders voted for FOSTA/SESTA, as did every other Democratic member of Congress running for President. I see no particular reason to wish or hope they would be the champions of decriminalizing prostitution. More important, were they or anyone running for president to actually embrace such a position, that would raise this question: are any of us willing to "jump in the trenches with them" (my words) or be "activists" (your way of putting it)? It seems pretty clear the answer is NO. The history when this has come up over a period of years is pretty much: NO! Plenty of good people, including people I have built close friendships with and respect, are simply not willing to fight. You've now explicitly said you don't want to be an activist. Your answer is: NO! I actually don't hear anybody saying they want to be an activist. That's fine. I respect that people get to decide what they will fight for for themselves. If Sanders or Warren did announce tomorrow that they wanted to decriminalize prostitution, I'm saying loud and clear I am willing to jump in the trenches and fight with them. I would hope that this website and Guy's website would be a good place to organize such activism. Or, for that matter, if Rentmen was shut down next week, or Daddy or Oz were arrested next month, I would hope the same. You've now made it clear that your response will be to take out your verbal AK-47 and start firing it at the guys like me, who are willing to jump in the trenches and fight. Geez, thanks Lucky. Bernie and Elizabeth, if you are listening, my advice is you might want to give this one a pass. Focus on health care and corruption in politics instead, I'd say. In closing, and in a gesture of good faith and comity, I would like to show my warmth and affection for you, Lucky. I would like to award you a well deserved honor, given your reputation for cooperation and courage in our community. Please accept my nomination for you as the recipient of the 2019 Eric Swalwell "Pass The Torch" Award For Political Courage. In my view, this thread proves you have earned it.

I get it that for some reason you are extremely dedicated to taking a thread about decriminalizing prostitution - in which I have tied in efforts to defend Rentboy or turn around FOSTA/SESTA or protect Daddy's website or this website, as well - and turn it into a character attack on Steven Kesslar. Good for you, Lucky. You're not particularly good at this, Lucky. You can go check out the years-old threads on the Rentboy bust and the organizing and legal defense efforts on Daddy's when that was happening, and read some of the vicious personal attacks that were aimed at a whole bunch of clients and escorts that defended Jeffery and Rentboy. Some of them were really mean. So I get the idea. You don't engage the substance of the issue. You do turn it into a personal attack. That is what you are doing. I edited this out of my long-winded post above, but this is a good place to say it. One of the unsung heroes I admired in the Rentboy debacle was Kurtis Wolfe. I think he gave more to the Rentboy defense fund than anyone, including me. But he didn't try to organize anyone, or make a public case for Rentboy, as far as i know. He just gave. In retrospect, that was probably a really smart thing to do. Because he was probably smarter than me, as far as realizing that he'd just get attacked for wanting to help. There's a couple logical fallacies in your argument that I feel like I have to address. The less important one is that not every person here is 80 years old. And for that matter, last time I checked, people who are close to 80 are running for President. And I am retired, too, from escorting. Which means, like many people, I have more time to do things I care about. The only thing you said that I strongly agree with is that "not everyone is an activist." Bingo! Which is, yet again, the reason I dragged Ollie and Eppie into this. They are great guys But they are not activists. That is one of my basic points. In order to decriminalize prostitution or defend Rentboy or Rentmen or Daddy or Oz, people who hire escorts would have to decide whether they are willing to be activists - or, in my lexicon, to jump in the trenches and fight. You obviously are not the type. That is your call, and I respect it. But it is a legitimate matter for public discussion on a website like this, and on a thread like this. The fact is, as I stated already, the Rentboy shutdown and FOSTA/SESTA created huge amounts of concern among many clients and escorts. I'll repeat again. People were talking both publicly (on websites) and privately about whether websites like this or Daddy's would be shut down, or whether people like Oz and Daddy would end up in jail. Or even whether or how we could have pool parties or hire escorts, for that matter. Don't blame me for what happened, or attack me for the fact that I tried to do something. Or that I listened to the very large group of people voicing those concerns. I will say it again. If all those people spoke up - even in private - I think we have way more power than we think we have. But I respect that people have the right to speak for, and decide for, themselves. I gather you think these kinds of discussions are inappropriate. And that escorts should be seen, but not heard. We completely disagree. The more important logical fallacy is that you are saying you should be able to attack my character - as a person or friend, not an escort - all you want, and I should not be able to defend myself. You can attack me for being a disloyal money grubbing whore, but I can't defend myself by saying I was trying to be a loyal and empathetic friend. Even if we were talking about actual escort activity, nobody - Hooboy, Oz, or Daddy - agrees with that dumb idea. I never had anything other than about 90 glowing reviews as a paid escort. But when escorts got trashed, they always had the right to defend themselves. The thing is, though, your character attack on me wasn't about something I did as an escort. Perhaps you thought it was, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt. You accused me of "turning on" former clients, when I was in fact trying to organize and rally close friends around attacks on our community. Those are two completely different things. In your effort to paint me as a disloyal money grubbing whore who "turned on" Ollie and Eppie, by asking them to donate money to the legal defense of websites they looked at every day - or whatever else you think my crimes are - you failed to mention a few things. For example, you failed to mention that I hosted the party for several years - at their request. I was not paid to do so, and so of course I don't regard it as part of my paid escort activity. So you seem to want to argue Ollie and Eppie are these wonderful human beings who hosted or bought food or alcohol for pool parties, that I am turning on. And I am a disloyal money grubbing whore, because I hosted or bought food or alcohol for pool parties. Sorry, Lucky, but that dog don't hunt. I would not regard hosting a pool party and buying lots of tequila or serving margaritas as this awesome example of community service. Mostly, it was a hell of a lot of fun for Ollie, Eppie, and Kessie. I'll say it again. I wish all of you many, many more years of such fun. I think the fundraising I did for Daddy or Jeffrey was a better example of things I did to try to give back to the community or fight for my community. But your attack characterized Ollie and Eppie as these wonderful community servants, and me as a disloyal money grubbing whore. It is untrue, unfair, and mean. During the years this happened, the three of us we were peas in a pod, doing something we all really enjoyed that lots of people appreciated. And now you are trying to piss all over that. I could go into way more detail than this, but I see no reason to. When I stopped and thought back about what I did, and why I did it, it actually made me feel very good. So thanks for that, Lucky. But if you don't feel like I should have to talk about this, I completely agree. So stop mischaracterizing what I did and attacking me. Then I won't have to bring up facts to defend myself from your ignorance. I said earlier in this thread that I assumed your attack was based on ignorance. Maybe you thought Oliver was paying me to host the party. I don't know what you thought. I brought up the fact that he was sick and I invited him to stay at my house for a month and get well to defend myself from your claim that I am money grubbing escort turning on former clients. Again, that is untrue, unfair, and mean. After I informed you, you should have known better, and just dropped it. Apparently, you won't. So now I am more inclined to think this is not about your ignorance. This is simply about you being mean. This does not surprise me, Lucky. One of the two years I hosted the party, you appeared briefly at my house, as best as I recall. If memory serves, I approached you to welcome you to my house and the party, and maybe ask you if you wanted a drink. You did your grumble grumble grumble, bark bark bark thing. You made it clear you were there to pick up your partner, and you didn't want to be at a party to which Daddy has been invited. Perhaps you had noticed he was having a really good time. So you just sort of pissed in my pool a little (rhetorically, not literally), grumbled, barked, and left. I could go on about several more examples like this, where I felt like the victim of your grumbling and barking, that I did not really appreciate. If you keep attacking me, I will keep defending myself by doing so. If your goal was to deflect this thread from a serious discussion about how we might work together to decriminalize prostitution, or how we might even defend the kind of websites you claim to care about, you have succeeded Just like the guys who attacked any clients or escorts that donated to or defended Jeffrey and Rentboy. Congratulations. The threats are still quite real. I will repeat what I said above. There is an active thread on Daddy's website right now about how DHS and the Feds appear to be targeting other escort websites. A former client and friend who will be staying at my house next month (as a friend, not for money, so please don't attack me again for having good friends who used to be clients) made a very intelligent comment about how Rentmen has perhaps exposed themselves to risk by virtue of the "poor" job they do of checking on their advertisers. That's the kind of thing that got Rentboy in trouble. So as much as I very much hope that the waters stay very calm, me wishing that does not make it so. Sorry. I will thank you again, Lucky. Adam started a thread about an issue that I feel strongly about. He has made a series of well-intentioned comments about something that I obviously believe should be a matter of concern to this community. All you have done is come out with your ax swinging, to engage in personal attack and stop discussion. You've made it very clear to me that I have no interest in trying to organize with guys like you. So thank you for that.

Oops. Sorry. Me and my verbal diarrhea. I hadn't looked at Guy's website for several months. Obviously from the post above I just did, in regards to commenting on a thread relating to the 2020 pool party. After I hit the "post" button, I went back and looked again, and noticed a long thread based on A WSJ article about how DHS and the Feds appear to again be targeting certain escort websites based on trafficking concerns. I won't repeat the content of the WSJ article or the thread, since it's all over there. I will comment on it, since there's several points that are both sad and funny. 1. As predicted, the bad guys - or the alleged bad guys - just moved their websites overseas, to places like Cyprus. Why am I not surprised? Isn't this what everybody predicted? 2. Because of this and many others reasons, trafficking and horrible things have not stopped. They just shifted. Again, just like everybody predicted. I cited Paul and Sheila Wellstone's federal anti-trafficking law in the post above. If we ever want to deal seriously with trafficking as a nation, that so far has proven to be the best tool to do it. Meaning make it as easy as possible for the women and kids, mostly, who are being trafficked to fight the men who are trafficking, exploiting, raping, abusing, or killing them. Trump's policy is essentially to do the opposite: he has turned the women and kids who are being trafficked and exploited into the enemy. 3. It does not appear that any Gay websites are under the microscope, at least for now. But another one of my former client/current friends made a cogent comment about how Rentmen does a "poor job" verifying the identity of advertisers. This could ultimately expose them to concerns about trafficking, which is what DHS used to take Rentboy down.

A postscript. If anyone is actually reading any of this stuff. You can tell where people are at on this issue just by doing a word count of two different threads on two different websites. On this website, and on this post, you have a whole bunch of words. But they are mostly written by one person. Me. And, thanks, Adam. I've won every major David and Goliath fight I have ever fought - including against Enron, the American Bankers Association, Fannie Mae, and I don't know how many huge banks. And part of why the organizations and coalitions I was working with won is because I knew a little something about planning and organizing and teamwork. That said, no one else seems to be writing or thinking about this. Which, again, is fine. If you check at Guy's forum, there is already a post on the 2020 Palm Springs Pool Party. I did not literally do a word count. But I'm pretty sure there are more words posted on that thread than there are on this one. Except, on that thread, it's by a whole bunch of people who've been coming to the pool party for years, and who are already really excited about planning the 2020 version. Good for them. I'll repeat what I said above. I hope the waters stay calm for a very, very long time. Have fun guys. I actually had a long part two to my long ass post on decriminalization, believe it or not. As I said, I spent a few days updating myself on what has been happening recently on decriminalization. I knew a group called Survivors of SESTA formed, and was going to have a national lobby day last Summer. Around when that happened, I looked around to see if I could find any news reports about what happened. I couldn't. The last of the three articles I posted above, about the fact that ALL the 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates in the US Senate and House supported FOSTA/SESTA, reported that the national lobby day was attended by "three dozen sex workers". I've both organized and attended lobby days at the federal and state level that drew in thousands of activists. If anyone has a question about why we're not winning on these issues relating to male escorts and websites like Rentboy, or even being taken seriously, we now have an answer. Three dozen sex workers? If 3000 escorts and their clients went and met with their Senators and Reps, that would be news. Three dozen sex workers just isn't. To really drive home the point, three dozen is less than the number of people who attend Oliver's pool party any year I've hosted it, helped organize it, or attended it. And by the way, I am happy to see it is being planned a year in advance. Here's another bitchy little secret that sort of undercuts Lucky's narrative about me. Eppie and I were the ones who pushed Oliver to announce it a year in advance, rather than months in advance. Ollie resisted a little, and then gave in. (As an escort, I knew he would. He is a bottom, of course.) Most people say the party keeps getting better, and better attended, every year. So it tells you something about what people are really interested in, and what they are willing to plan around. Pool parties? Yes. Decriminalization of prostitution? No. That is not a compliment or a criticism, just a statement of fact. My sense is that we'll revisit this issue if and when some website is shut down, or if and when some new and horrible law passes. Or maybe when somebody like President Warren or President Sanders proposes decriminalizing prostitution. But quite honestly, I'd worry about that. As far as I can tell, it is a fight very few of us want to think about, or prepare for. That leaves me personally in a happy position. I'm ready and eager to dive in - whether it's political activism, or just a warm pool.

So I take two things from that. You're a good guy, and you are not a big fan of Warren. So could I ask a really big favor? I've never lent anyone my penis, but I have been known to lend out my pinkie from time time. Could I borrow your pinkie? That way I can actually ask for two pinkie promises from Elizabeth. (I promise one of them will be to decriminalize prostitution, if she's elected.) I know. I know. It's very selfish of me. But since I have a reputation as a greedy whore, anyway, I figured I might as well use it to my advantage.