leh-nerd skin-erd

You were flipping your biscuits about Trump supporters and how they view all this. I offered commentary on why supporters of Trump might feel that the justice might be skewed here, and some of the weird stuff that accompanies prosecution from a Dem admin, Dem DOJ, and Dem leaning AGs. If you don't care, that's fine with me but why throw your hands up, close you eyes and ears when someone offers an opinion. The outcome of the DOJ case against Trump has yet to be determined, L, though the DOJ is doing its level best to shape the narrative so that people like you have already decided guilt. There is virtually always gray in the law, and the Supreme Court rendered an opinion on immunity that changed the narrative on the Smith case. If you're naive enough to think anything is black and white, that's silly. Under the assumption that a career poli like Biden somehow completely misunderstood the rules regarding handling/holding/pilfering classified documents...and the notion that special consideration is given to special individuals. By definition, someone allowed to operate outside the law..just because...is afforded special treatment and what is black and white is certainly not. Question--do you accept the SC decision on Presidential immunity the correct, black and white interpretation of the law?

What always sort of intrigues me about the Trump as Felon discussion is that like many liberal martyrs, there typically isn't a simple open/shut case in the mix. On the classified document scandal we predictably have a Washington establishment that protects people like Biden and Clinton from harsh action for complete disregard of protocol (and in Biden's case, over many years) yet prosecutes Trump with an eye toward life in prison. With the Carrol civil case, it requires the temporary reimagining of statues designed to protect the integrity of the justice system to forgo statutes and litigate issues. The Smith case leaks like a sieve. The Hur case tied up tight. Alvin Bragg launches a criminal probe that required substantial legal gymnastics to pursue, Letitia James pursues a case that flies directly in contrast with the way business is done in NYC for decades. Georgia, you have an unusually dirty bird running the show, all sorts of money changing hands, yet onward we roll. There is ample evidence that blind trust in institutions can get you killed in this country, and law enforcement has been weaponized at times against undesirables. A friend of mine is heavily involved in NYS politics, an attorney from NYC area, and he told me one time that a significant number of politicians from down that way are corrupt. You look at the stories involving Cuomo (nursing home scandal, cooked books, the SUNY Poly scandal, sexual assault), the former AG Dan Schneiderman and his dirty deeds, former Governor Elliot Spitzer...and it's really not all that big a stretch to question just about anything that comes out of DC. Whatevs.

Well, I'm not certain about that. Harris was the lead executioner on the Kavanaugh nomination, espousing support for a purportedly victimized individual to the extent it should disqualify a guy with a sterling record of public service. She was all over the place with "I believe her", including belief in the claims that Biden assaulted multiple women. Finally, she's been big on the Trump as felon, and her experience as a prosecutor. To find out her husband was violent with a woman (and as these things seem to play out, it would not surprise to hear other women come forward), and it's acceptable to her...says an awful lot about her. In fact, having gone public with her belief in misdeeds by Biden, subsequently partnering with him when it benefited her, it certainly makes you wonder why she would sell out and be complicit with abusers. Could be huge, if played correctly.

First Hillary enabling Bill and his escapades, now Harris enabling her husband. Interesting.

Of course. It's impossible for any agency to account for natural disasters, widespread damage, providing fundamental assistance to devastated communities and whatnot. Whatever is left after administrative costs is fine. On the other hand, with the bright future of the SUCK (Stackable Urban Condo Kompartments) program for better living, FEMA will know where everyone is so they can get them the $7fitty quickly.

Seems like very reasoned and reasonable analysis to this point: Let's talk about JD Vance's approach in the debate. It's it'sLet's talk about JD Vance's approach in the debate. It's it's… Starting with “soft fash” she appears to be trying too hard to get clicks, seems a bit unstable and difficult to take seriously.

“Starrz on Pavlov and Conditioning of The Ladies” —-A treatise

Well, two thoughts on that. The guy across from him had an answer for that comment, and Walzing Matilda came off as one supporter described it as, blubbering. He’s candidate for VP and doesn’t crush that point after a month of prep? Unprepared, sloppy, bad. Inflammatory accusations are part of the deal at that level of politics and everyone knows that. From Romney being a tax dodge, to Harris and her steadfast belief in the women that accused Biden of sexual assault, it is what it is. Btw, not to hijack this thread, but do you believe W Bush and crew manufactured intelligence to compel our country to a for-profit war, and all the death, destruction and injury that followed? Pundits look to skew the game in most cases, so I don’t respect many of them. I look at the most likely outcome given what benefits the party offers, and the liberals have done an excellent job of selling handouts and demonizing people above certain income levels. Student loan debt buy down, and the notion that people don’t start feasting on the system a until they make $400k (up substantially from $250k just a few short years ago) will convince a lot of people to cast votes for Dems in spite of other agenda items that may be less favorable. Cash works.

I don’t know the guy, but from what I can tell, his preparation was very sloppy, he seemed ill-suited to rise to the occasion, and when his pals and true believers in the causes offer up that he “blubbered”, it’s fair to question whether his content was truly what he believed/stands for or if he’s just making stuff up on the fly.

But we end up in the same place in both scenarios, and the words are used as a hammer against the opponent. A free and independent media would certainly be a positive in weeding through the details and flushing out the truth, but that’s a heavy lift these days. So, individuals are left to figure out what was said, why it was said, and decide what’s true. One step back, in a nonpartisan sense, for a guy chosen as the best hope to lead the nation in the event tragedy befalls the president, that’s a pretty big f***up on a subject of great importance to just about everyone.

I may have missed that up thread. You’ve got me all wrong, it is I who came here to eat crow! Well, actually I ate a delicious pasta dinner my wife made with a glass of iced tea, but a mea culpa is a mea culpa. Walz was edgy, Walz brought the crazy in a Minneapolis potato sack, and you said it was coming. Yes, sure, maybe you overreacted in responding to my question, coming in hot and taking no names. And sure maybe the whole Walz was gonna straight up munch on Vance during the debate and make Vance look like a chubby chump was overstated and kind of funny in retrospect, but those are different issues. You’re L Ronstadamus as far as I’m concerned.

Time to own up on yesterday’s discussion about Walz and the edgy things he might say that that Harris could not. You called it, L. Walz said some really, really edgy things, things that Harris can’t get away with, and if we’re being candid, probably would not even think to try. Game. Set. Match. Well done sir. 🍻

My logic was outlined in my first note to you, that implying that professional moderators require/need some sort of safeguard from raised voices because they are women is lame. Of course, when I typed that, I was under the impression those were your thoughts, not the reimagined comments of a person who posted thoughts on the internet. I still don't understand why you didn't just post her commentary, why you suggested we hear from "the ladies" v the one lady, or what massive effort was necessary to link one person's comments on a subject. Regardless, thank you for putting in the gargantuan effort to link your source, that lady is pretty clear on what she thinks. On the definition of misogyny, I'm pretty comfortable with the characterization. From your description, I'd suggest an ingrained prejudice fits the bill. In conversational English, though, this AI generated definition pretty much nails it: Misogyny A way of thinking that subordinates women and limits their power and freedom. It can be applied to individuals, societies, or cultures. Misogyny can manifest in many ways, including: Treating women differently from men in social and professional settings With respect to your thoughts on Vance and his interaction with the moderators, I'd simply suggest that your calling out of Vance reflects the same fixed mindset you've displayed here several times--the implication that because the moderators are female, there is something special or particularly unreasonable or egregious afoot. The fact that another person feels similarly doesn't change that.

Misogyny 2.0. You're assuming that since once "lady" says X, she speaks for all ladies everywhere. Second, did you that speaking on this particular lady's behalf provided more clarity or relevance to the message? Why not just post her thoughts instead of reinventing in your own words?

The challenge isn’t fact checking, it’s that inevitably, partisan political perspective is introduced into what is supposed to be two or more partisan individuals so that the citizens can look at each candidate through their lens, not the lens of a journalist with substantial skin in the game. Inevitably, certain statements are fact-checked, other statements are not, and the appearance of bias rears its head. In many cases, post-debate, the fact checkers are fact checked, context is introduced and the fact-checkers misspoke, misunderstood or were incorrect.

What a misogynistic point of view. Interesting.

Great answer.

Takeout is the worst part. The box is huge.

No, L Ron, that didn't get confusing in the least. The numbers thing is pretty simple---think of it like going to a pizza place and ordering pizza. If you had 17 pieces, well, that's a lot but it's less than 100 pieces. 100 pieces is a lot, too, but less than 150, and so on. I don't really see that as an internet fact or fiction thing, but it would be pretty consistent for you to see it that way. I didn't take Ivermectin, didn't guzzle bleach, got my 2x* vaxx and am alive and well. For every guy on the internet who got confused like you do, I'm betting there are two, three or more individuals dead from the spread of Covid from that mass gatherings that took place over that awful summer. It always fascinated me that in a worldwide pandemic, where millions of lives were at stake, massive amounts of people would gather together, spread the virus and then go home to their families, friends and loved ones...the very young, the healthy, the aged and infirmed, presumably with the mindset that the virus hovered. Thank you. *2x is more than 1x, just an fyi.

Of course I'm right. By extension, of course, you were wrong, maybe due to the emotional investment you have on these issues. Things can get confusing when people lose their cool. Can you imagine, L Ronbo, if another person was like 150x more dangerous...or 175x more dangerous...or even 262x more dangerous? That would be like, way way more for sure. On the other hand, 17x more dangerous would be less. As you say, all would still represent danger, just some more, some less.

I thought so, too. Not so much L Ron, more L Rage.

“We’re” not pretending anything, L. I asked for some clarity on your post about “edgy things” that Harris “can’t get away with”. Those were your thoughts, not mine. Unpredictably, that lead you to this…an odd (there’s that word again) monologue about Trump, bleach, your chubby chasin’ ruminations on Vance’s BMI, your preferred version of acceptable disinformation, and thoughts on weekly news cycles.

I try to keep an open mind about the response by the administration on these events, but everything is made a political event—-everything. To suggest it’s “uncalled for” belies that fact that it’s actually ALWAYS called for by those in charge and running the show. You just don’t like the target this time around. If you were an honest broker of an honest narrative, the recognition that Trump is attempting to do something—anything—-to help those in need would immediately follow your lament about politicians and media politicizing this tragedy. But instead, you offer up “Russian talking point”, Project 2025, and Trump being raised on a KGB kibbutz in Stalingrad. Pure silliness.

Huh. His position can be summed up as “Crisis?…look I don’t want people living outside in Minnesota…”? Did they move Minnesota to Texas?

Up-oh, now it's your turn. I'm not mad about anything, I just prefer a different set of outcomes when I go home at night. On the other hand, there are a whole lot of people marching in that segment, and they likely could lend their blood/sweat/tears/money to helping those dealing with crime and poverty directly.