leh-nerd skin-erd

Biden wasn’t the problem Andy, it was Democrat voters and leadership. He was going south cognitively prior to the 2020 election, they told you he was the only man who could save the party and the country. You bought it. He got progressively worse in office, voters were lead around by their noses and you got what you got. When they told you he was good to go, you bought it again. Then, when he imploded spectacularly at the debate, your leadership told you what was going to happen, how it had to be that way, and you ran a candidate democrats rejected 4 years earlier. Blaming Biden, the guy in cognitive free fall, seems unsporting. His fall was inevitable, you should have demanded more. Btw, Trump has done the weave as long as he’s been running. Most politicians are good at that—bouncing around pretending to say something while saying nothing. He’s not particularly good at that, I generally don’t watch his debates or interviews. I’ll keep an eye on Trump moving forward, and will consider whether or not R generally will have the courage to do what Dems did not. That cat story is nuts!

I think your beef is with Andy, he’s the one who mentioned Biden. Go easy on him though, he may not know the “You can only talk about individuals on Tibsy’s pre-approved people list” rule, it’s rather obscure and buried in the terms of service under the “Rules made by morons” appendage. Trump’s mental state now seems fine. Thanks.

I was going to suggest you go by Meow, but couldn't figure a good hook as to why I was going feline. Age limits, term limits are all well and good, but it can't just be a conversation when the other guy is in office. Biden, for example, was sold as the true North, savior of the party and True North. At that point, he was clearly slipping, though maybe he was 45% of the man he once was v 10-15% by the end. In addition, we put into place age limits and we get...well, there are quite a few names that someone will have a beef with.

Ah! It was you, Andy1, who knew Biden was declining during his time as President! Most liberal voters here, and tens of millions nationally thought he was sharper than ever, tack-like, clear-eyed and dialed in. A real Jimmy Jack, they said. Rumor was there was one liberal out there, one who saw things clearly! You are a 🦄, The One, like Neo in The Matrix.

Cycles change. Opinions change. If people feel they are in better hands with Trump et al come next summer through the midterms, it goes one way. If they don’t it changes. Either way, the world keeps spinning, people with extreme views accuse everyone not with them of being in a cult, or being nazis or whatever. Tho we can probably bet if @4th & long declares it’s over, or times up, or whatever, it will go the other way. I will say, however, that I believe you are quite incorrect on the message sent with the R resurgence last election. It seems obvious that the outcome reflected a repudiation of the persecution (real, perceived, or political) of Trump. The liberal left was never moving, but damn if the A team didn’t pick up some voters.

It is the height of foolishness to retroactively judge generations past based on the standards of today. What we can do, however, is look at people who declare things like a 'pandemic of whiteness' and know with absolute certainty that regardless of time and place, they would consistently be on the wrong side of debates on unity, tolerance and justice.

And yet complaints and concerns about the decisions rendered by the SC rage on, year in, year out. And, of course, there is the matter of Clarence Thomas, an Ivy Leaguer, and complaints from white liberal racists who see him as not the right kind of Black for their liking.

She's an accomplished lady. Kudos to her on her success. Mike Davis is quite accomplished as well. Neither is above criticism.

It’s not a matter of you being right or wrong, imo it really just boils down how one behaves in otherwise civil conversation. It’s a skillset, not everyone has it.

I'm in so deep I'm apparently blocking it out. Damn them, but more importantly, damn me more. I asked nicely, twice. If that was an unreasonable request from your perspective, that's fine, I can only be responsible for myself. Seems a weird flex to be dismissive and then feel the need to offer suggestions on how people cope, but I just figured asking was the way home. Have a nice day either way. And VPN, obviously. I always thought I was more Jason Bourne, but it turns out I'm Stevie Wonder? What a day.

@JDHillFan Can you help me out here? I'm obviously missing something 'uge.

Thank you for the vote of confidence, but it's misplaced in this case. I wouldn't have asked, but you seemed to be enjoying whatever it is that is.

Whatcha watching? What damage control? What reality?

I updated my post but don't really think I addressed this particular incident. At a minimum, I'd think race-baiting sells, sells well and ultimately he's a salesman. Let's be realistic, a boring news anchor or talk show host doesn't sell, but getting some information out there that is controversial moves the needle. So, he declares the 1/6 guy is white because it's consistent with the rest of the 1/6 crowd and understands he can walk it back later when he wants to do that. Appeals to the race-baiters, gets criticized by the right for lying and misrepresenting, which generates clicks and outrage, then walks it back....which satisfies his base (He screwed up, big deal, he made amends) and outrages his critics who find it hard to believe he accidentally completely botched the skin color of the guy who was arrested.

I've mentioned before--a few decades ago, I received some media training for the company I worked for at the time. It wasn't intended for anything beyond a local market presence, and I looked at it as a resume booster. The thing that was interesting was the....uh...staged aspect of things like TV Q&A appeatances, ambush interviews, and an often burning desire to get someone to say something newsworthy. So, while it would be a stretch to say there wasn't a desire to get truthful answers to honest questions at times, it wasn't at all a problem for the media if some poor soul said something unintentionally inaccurate. Or, if they raised questions outside the scope of the subject that was agreed upon to be discussed. Or, cut and paste. The training also included a review of several high-profile scenarios where the 'free and independent' press sure seemed a lot more like a well-oiled corporate machine looking to push agendas, sell advertising and make some $$$. I can understand people like @Trump_is_Mentally_fit fawning over Leslie Stahl and 60 Minutes, and fully buying into "We asked her a question and took the best answer as we saw it" because they have the slick studio, lighting, camera angles and polished production, but there is really no reason to cut and paste beyond seeking to publish a narrative. Or, during the Trayvon Martin coverage, one of the networks cutting out the 911 operators question about a description of the subject and making it seem like Zimmerman volunteered "he's black" completely on his own. It happens for a reason. In other words, it's a bit like speaking with the police. If you go into it thinking there is nothing to hide, and not agenda beyond a simple Q&A, you can find yourself in a pickle pretty quickly. That you "have nothing to hide" can be completely irrelevant to the other party. It was around this time I first became a media skeptic, and which makes me question intent and agenda when something like this happens. In the intervening decades, if anything, I've grown more skeptical of intent, truthfulness and less likely to think someone just had a bad day. Maybe that happened here...but on the whole I'm quite unconvinced. My children have Hispanic heritage as well, though a couple generations removed.