leh-nerd skin-erd

I get it, and respect your right to that opinion. In my opinion, the democrat leadership team, in chorus, that the 2016 election was illegitimate, stolen and a coup was equally unconscionable (and perhaps moreso because they did it first). From start to finish, it was a dogcrap premise, election interference and sowed the seeds of division and mistrust amongst citizens. Absent that disgrace, Stop the Steal never happens--or if it does, I'd think it loses steam quite a bit faster.

Forever in history for sure...along with AG Barr's debrief on Mueller, the raid on Trump's home, and all the other craziness that is a matter of public record over the past few years. Right up there too, of course, is the election of DJT to be the 47th President of the US by a pretty substantial margin. That would seem to imply that Stop the Steal really was just another day in Washington politics when viewed from the perspective of the voting public.

The guy leads an interesting life for sure, probably. How many people run into Appalachia Trail White Supremacist Recruitment Centers, the old swastika on the barn roof, and Cuban journalists/artists who support government censorship and exile?

I was wondering what rant I had about a valve in Cali. I never rant. ✊

Hi Mup-thanks for dropping in. I'll tread lightly to avoid dragging you into too much here, but yes, I'm ready to accept what comes our way. If the suggestion is that we somehow experienced a cornucopia of blessed and righteous leadership under Team Biden, we can agree to disagree. Peace out.

We all have our role in this game, 4th. I may not be your cup of tea, or perhaps I find things funny that you do not, but that adds to the fullness and richness of the dialogue. As a WAD, maybe you just see things differently.

Omg that’s Harris and Walz? Both? Not neither, but both? They are literally hiding in Plain Sight. Or were, at one point not too long ago.

I think you’re thinking of WAD, Witness America’s Demise. You’re in the WAD party, in/and/of all things WAD. I’m not saying you’re a WAD lover, or a WAD enthusiast, but it seems clear you’re at least WAD curious.

That was one of the stranger declarations on this board.

Report are coming out that there are no real surprises but it makes little sense that they would continue to keep mundane facts from the public.

I’d think we can all agree that the fact that there are classified documents pertaining to an assassination 61+ years ago is absurd.

DEVELOPING... My sources are telling me the envelope was addressed to Stenny Hoyer, 47th President of the Continental Congress. In related news, @The Frankish Reich says it doesn't matter.

It should be noted that the vast majority of accusations of nazism and nazi salutes by mainstream sources started after the last of the greatest generation passed on. I believe this is because the vast majority of those amazing freedom fighters—republican, democrat, independent or politically agnostic—-would have said with one strong voice: “Get the &*$# out of here with this bullcrap.”. What I see is an awful lot of small-minded people trying to leverage the courage and trauma of the “greatest generation”.

A rising tide lifts all boats, Frank.

Interesting analysis, thanks. I thought the law addressed a person here illegally, charged with a violent crime (or crimes that have markers/predictors of future violent behavior), and trying to remove dangerous individuals from the population. The second part of my question dealt with whether or not “poorly thought out/knee jerk reaction laws” were unique to victim-inspired legislation? Or, is it pretty common that language is at times ill conceived, not-thought-out, subject to attack by states etc? I am not an expert of course, but it sure seems like the problem extends beyond the Laken Riley Act.

Such as? And assuming you’re correct, is “Ill-considered” unique to victim-named laws?

I don’t know. I would think that allowing the families of victims to author/write/vote on laws would be a mistake, but at some point you have to trust the rule of law. Written, debated, voted on….boom it’s done.

I think when you look at the big picture, young men are being relegated to second class citizenship. Issues like 'toxic masculinity', societal trends toward demonizing males and empowering females, and the overall addiction to victimization all contribute to the challenge. I do agree with @The Frankish Reich that video games are purposely addictive and contributing to the problem. To clarify, btw, I have a daughter and fully support empowerment and educational initiatives for women. My main goal in life as a father was to let her know that women face challenges that men do not, but that her success was not predicated on demonizing all men. Some men, most definitely. Nice to have you here.

To be honest I'm playing the long game here. I may need to borrow a few bucks some day, and I'm keeping my options open. 💸 Having come off a long 4 years with JB, I'm looking forward to the Trump era. It will be imperfect, of course, but maybe we see some positive changes that benefit all Americans. Another 4 years of JB and Roundy may have gotten what he wanted---all of us warehoused like veal in McPartments with a full and vibrant life so long as you live it traveling no more than 15 mins north, south, east and west.

Had you said that, I probably would have moved past it. I, too, worry about the impact of healthy and unhealthy behavior and shared my thoughts on that issue with another poster recently. It was unsolicited and basically the response was "**** off", plus or minus, more or less. It hurt me but I press onward. What you said was: BillsFanNC doesn’t have a job. This is his entire life. That seems a bit unhealthy too.

This is getting silly. In your post, you didn't say "anything about how much time he spent here", nor did I say you did. I just mentioned what seems obvious--he likes fact checking. @BillsFanNC responded separately to me and seemed to be perfectly fine with what I wrote. Odd.

The man wants to fact check the fact checkers, why do you guys care? Just yesterday a poster who shall remain nameless was pushing back against a perceived narrative that he spent too much time here. “Let this be a lesson to all y’all. Just be yourself, that’s what’s really cool.” -David Starsky 2004

You’re killing it today B. You said you went to school with Henry Ford, correct? He was a year behind you?

Thankish, Frankish. Assuming you're correct, this is why I simply follow the mindset that voters tend to be very strident when they feel the other party is guilty of wrongdoing, yet quite comfortable when it's their guy pimping the agenda they prefer. So, that brings me to the notion that after the last 4 years of unprecedented legal action by JB against one man, he (JB) would be quite foolish not to unconditionally pardon family members/business associates etc in the future. Trump should follow suit, of course as/if the political landscape changes. This raises another question imo, for a Pres/DOJ(assume Trump here)--assuming wrong-doers (Biden family members or close associates) cannot "be got" due to pardons, does an aggressive prosecutor look for second tier targets for political gain? For example, they look into/around Jill Biden for example, make a case and push forward. Or, they revisit wrongdoing by someone like Hillary Clinton...Ashley Biden (Assuming she wasn't preemptively pardoned of course). It's been ugly the past 4 years but could get much uglier still.

Nice write up, thanks. I'm not so sure I understand "...long-understood limits to presidential authority". I've had a couple conversations with you and Chi about the soft, squishy middle of ethical/legal behavior. Chi famously has suggested that in certain circumstances, "...special rules electeds", carry the day. That sounds an awful lot to me like those in power just make crap up as they go based on the standards they choose to follow in the moment. Put another way, when HClinton was screwing around with classified docs and Comey suggested her behavior was illegal but no 'reasonable prosecutor' would prosecute, the thought that occurs to me that which Merrick Garland (and I realize he was not AG at the time) sees as reasonable is likely quite different than what Pam Bondi might. That gives the impression that justice is malleable (it is) and different rules are applied to different people(they are). It sounds to me like you're suggesting what Obama started was unconstitutional and beyond the scope of his powers as president.