leh-nerd skin-erd

You apparently stopped maturing in middle school, so I can see why you would think that.

I don't care one way or the other. I do think on this topic: Barrack O makes sense certainly. Hillary is a world class enabler of such behavior, had some issues as Sec State of course, lost absolutely winnable election in historic fashion, though i can see why she would be a speaker as well. Bill Clinton would qualify as a predator by any standard today, in the era of female empowerment.

Hmm. Barrack O makes sense certainly. Hillary is a world class enabler of such behavior, had some issues as Sec State of course, lost absolutely winnable election in historic fashion, though i can see why she would be a speaker as well. Bill Clinton would qualify as a predator by any standard today, in the era of female empowerment.

This isn't over.

On this, yes, and of course it extends beyond rioting. Think of all those comments about irredeemables, deplorables, uneducated, racists, cultists, authoritarians and you can see how we get here. The ‘riffraff’ and ‘rational actor’ theories are constant, but who espouses them depends on the nature of the riot Forging group identities requires what sociologists call an “Other” — an enemy who helps define your own group

Which brings us back to the constant, underlying theme of our political discourse. People will complain candidates for lying/misrepresenting details of their life, but typically only when it's the other guy. Another poster and I discussed this the other day, and the sum total of his argument seemed to be he liked his liars more than mine. Whether people will care about Walz's obvious deception on his military service will be directly tied to the agenda he's associated with. If there is something in it for them, it's no big deal. If it's the other agenda, it's a huge issue. In the big picture of politics, you hang it around his neck like an anchor and hope it works.

The question of the duties of a CSM and Master Sergeant isn't the point. I think the point is that one should not represent himself to be one if he is the other. I haven't paid much attention to the issue with Walz, but I think this is pretty basic stuff even in a highly politicized world. I mean, most people don't know the details involved with passing the NYS bar, and who does or doesn't, but likely care when a guy claims to be an attorney but lacks the credentials. Btw an old business friend of mine was married to a CSM. Haven't seen them in years, but I'm uncertain if he would mind being called a Private First Class, or had business cards printed that listed his status as Chairman-Joint Chiefs of Staff?

What are the ramifications of his speech, Andy?

You may be wasting good dream time there, Frank.

Oh gosh, carve your own path L. They were your words, chosen by you to express what you believed to be true. There’s no grand conspiracy afoot to make you say things you don’t believe. You’re upset, the conspiracy talk may have you amped up. If it helps you to think of me as a princess, that’s your journey. I don’t know these people, but sure, some people see minor transgressions as major catastrophes and maybe even conspiracies.

The US cases described above were addressed in the civil justice system, not the criminal justice system. The argument from free speech advocates isn’t freedom from consequence, it’s freedom from overzealous law enforcement and authoritarian policing. People were not concerned that Amber Heard was going to be tazed coming out of the LA Fitness because of her issues with Captain Jack. I understand we have different systems and you’re obviously supportive of yours. You’ve expressed that the targeted individuals represent the lowest rungs on humanity, and that may be the case. I’ve never been quite sure how to address ours here. I would be against our local town issuing a permit for a nazi gathering, but the very real question is where lines are drawn. The “day in court” issue is something to discuss as well. There are many ways for overzealous law enforcement to crush undesirables. One is to arrest and imprison them, force them to seek counsel, expose them to public ridicule and loss of employment and bury them in legal fees. In our system, a defendant can win and lose at the same time.

I had forgotten that L Ron came up with that gem about Biden not lying, just making things up. He was pretty adamant about that one. Instant PPP classic. In our discussion today, I was pretty close to giving him credit for acknowledging there was something fishy about the Harris assault on Kavanaugh, but then I realized he chalked the accusations of violent sexual assault against a judge with decades of public service off to a cheap stunt—leading me to believe L Ron’s top three hysterical cheap stunts are: 1. Jumping out and yelling “Boo!” when someone comes around the corner; 2. Tying a friends shoe laces together when he falls asleep at his desk; 3. Savaging a man in front of the nation and his wife and two young daughters by accusing him of gang rape and general, sustained sexual deviance when he was in high school; Many, many people confuse going to a 7-11 for Mountain Dew in Duluth with carrying a weapon in a war zone in Iraq. It’s pretty common.

Yeah, you think a politician/justice on the other side of the aisle from you is corrupt. Tell you what--let's agree that an independent, non-partisan committee investigates the personal finances of all Supreme Court justices from the past 30 years--book deals, private speaking engagements, free concert tix, vacations with billionaires, and lets extend what we look at to include the actions of past professional/corporate relationships, spouse, siblings and parents. That will provide a complete snapshot of who is corrupt, who is pure as the driven snow, and who should recuse from what and why. Consider, as an example, HRCs relationship with Steele and a foreign element hostile to our free and fair elections. The fact that she lost the election in no way reveals that she wasn't trying to intentionally and fraudulently impact our free and fair elections, and we know after the Mueller case post mortem that the leadership of the Dem party knew as early as Trump's inauguration of that particular attempt to steal the election. Let's get it all out, instead of reacting to bogus stories and political opinion pieces about one particular justice without context of what really happens. Tough to yawn when you're typing a reply, playa.

L Ron, that you like your liars, sexual abusers, character assassins, influence peddlers, vaccine deniers, authoritarians and the like to be of the democrat variety is completely within your purview as a partisan and citizen. Don't feign indignation when someone points it out to you. Go figure, again.

Yeah, but the impeachment was launched by the opposition party, the AG pursuing subsequent cases is from the opposition party, judge(s) unfavorable to conservative causes, the Russia inv started by a hostile director of the FBI who's actions were questionable, and your biggest issue with the Supreme Court is you didn't like the outcome. Add to that his troubles in NY came about as a result of reimagined statutes and personal animus against Trump, his civil suit judgement a result of temporary changes to statutes of limitations, and so on. In this regard, you're just another partisan with partisan views.

Ah, I see. I’m always interested when I see things like this, especially in context of divisiveness and issues in our country. A US Senator launches an all out character assassination on an enemy, a guy with an excellent track record of public service. She accuses him of running rape trains, violent sexual assaults and generally committing horrendous crimes against young innocents and is supported and is applauded by her party and base. The media swoons over the story, reporting breathlessly on allegations impossible to prove and of course impossible to disprove. That Senator earns your vote because she just ran with a “cheap political stunt”, like pulling signs off lawns. Trump says something stupid about a guy legendary for his political savvy and certainly willing to insult/debase his opponents, that’s a show stopper for you. Go figure.

What was the “cheap political stunt”? Harris re: Kavanaugh? Harris re: Biden believing the women accusing Biden of assault? Biden acknowledging the inappropriate touching? Harris advocating for women and then partnering with the guy they accused of wrongdoing?

I don't ignore anyone, that's a limitation on your thinking, not mine. Here's where we stand: Harris/Walz may win, meaning Trump/Vance lose; Trump/Vance may win, meaning Trump/Vance lose; The election is 90 days out. Harris has been in the game for a month. Walz has been in the game for 20 minutes. "Anyone but Trump" voters are part of the dem base and have been since 2016. "New" adherents may well be a factor, and part of their decision-making may involve student loan forgiveness/higher taxation on other citizens, whatever. It's a great play to appeal to anyone with debt looking to have it relieved. We'll know in 90 days.

Trump's comments about McCain's service were egregious, though I personally think McCain was a horrible senator and a bad guy generally. I didn't always feel this way, but as I stopped to consider the problems at the border-from the victimization of travelers, the involvement of the cartels, and the power he had as a Senator...I believe he was complicit in a whole lot of pain and suffering because he benefited financially from it. I think that's the general trend in DC, btw. Were you appalled at Harris' treatment of Kavanaugh? Her comments about JB and his groping of women, or JB's acknowledgement of inappropriate touching?

I think history has shown it's largely irrelevant. Her predecessor, JB, was falling off the cognitive cliff over the past 4 years, and supporters bought into the theory that he was still pretty darn sharp. Had he stayed in the race, they would be buying it still, pushing forward and voting the party line. There's history here--for all the cult talk and OJ chatter, Biden has a rather rich history of lying and it was ignored, a dark history of being very touchy feely and creeping women out (it was Harris who stated emphatically she believed the allegations of assault agaisnt JB), Biden and classified documents, slippage, interpretation of the laws regarding classified documents on the fly, and Harris spreading vaccine hysteria when the world was supposedly on the precipice....none of it really mattered. JB blows a gasket, the word goes out that Harris is the heir apparent, they simply crossed out Biden and wrote Harris in crayon. If the race is to be won by DJT, it's going to come at ground level, convincing the American independent that the Harris/Walz ticket results in a bad outcome for the country. How that happens, why that happens remains to be seen. It's a tall order, for example--one of the central themes of today's modern dem party is to encourage their base to get up, get out, roll up their sleeves and get to the hard work of finding someone else to pay school debt, in spite of constitutional limitations. When you factor in independents seeing a path to having their debt load lightened, it's hard to walk away from the free stuff.

Biden has the remote work-from-home schedule of 5 Gen Zers.

Indeed. A good laugh is a good laugh.

Tibs said it was a news conference, I was just trying to be helpful. Stop spamming me bro.

News. It's in the title, duh.

This is a darn good thread with some pretty funny lines. Hetero-sectional was a great start.