leh-nerd skin-erd

Well, your guy and your crew just preemptively pardoned family members, associates, hangers on and syndicate members, Andy. All rich, all famous. Seems that horse has left the barn? Or, maybe it’s just that logic and outrage are situational?

Sadly, much less hair to flip then when I was younger. I consider myself lucky to have gone a good part of my life with flippable hair, now I keep that which remains is cut short. Oh, and on that note, they come up with a pill to restore hair absent major side effects, I’m taking it. I may even go full Walking Dead on the line in, jabbing poor Tibsy or Feega in the leg to slow them down so the zombies get them while I get to the front of the line. On the important stuff, Mup, I think it’s important to push back in a format like this if you disagree, that’s dialogue. I am the same guy here as I am off the board. I believe what I believe, still believe I can learn from listening to others with diff opinions and occasionally still do. #believewithoutquestion simply does not resonate with me. At the same time, it is indisputable that historically, female victims of abuse were treated horribly, with a system tilted against them. I’ve mentioned in the past a liberal friend, well-connected politically who said to me one day—“You and I could fix all this.” and it’s certainly not because of any brilliance on my part (My friend, on the other hand is wicked smaht). We disagree on some things, but on others—many important things—we agree.

I don’t know if Trump did what he is accused of or not. The outcome of a civil trail on an allegations decades in the past doesn’t move me one way or the other. In a different, less liberal part of the world, then outcome of the same trial where Trump prevails leaves in the same spot. Oh, and if Trump is successful in his fight to overturn the verdict, I still won’t know one way or the other….and you’ll still believe. However….when money, power and politics collide, I am very naturally cynical of who is saying what, and why. In that regard, Mup, I think I’m pretty much middle of the road on how most people view these things. As for believing woman who allege sexual assault, I agree with you. I don’t agree 100% of the time, and again, I view criminal v civil differently. At the end of the day though, it still seems an awful lot to me like people are willing to look past the glaring issues of their own party while passing judgement on the opposition. Did Harris partnering with Clinton cause you to sit on the sidelines? I’m betting no, and I don’t judge that, I just find it sort of interesting. Oh, and I SMDH!

Everyone has a right to an opinion, and we all know that even with the higher standard of a criminal trial, there are times when innocent people are convicted of crimes they did not commit. The civil justice system is the best we can do, but not all civil cases in all jurisdictions work the same. The term “ambulance chaser” did not come about because it was based on purity and virtue. Broadly speaking, the ability for victims to have their day in court for deeds that took place decades ago can be applauded. The fact that a victim of abuse at the hands of a person in a position of authority (clergy, teacher, scoutmaster etc) can seek some sort of relief is a good thing. However, it’s also fraught with potential for abuse and manipulation. I think that’s maybe why, generally, the statute of limitations isn’t 10, 20, 30 or 50 years. Getting to the bottom of who did what and when and why becomes increasingly difficult with the passage of time. In this case, we obviously have different points of view on the situation, plaintiff and defendant. I respect that, but if the jury incorrectly decided the outcome, Trump is 100% justified in pursuing every recourse available to him, as is his right in the same civil system that awarded the plaintiff a sizable sum of money. Again, a step back. Trump says the plaintiff is lying, opts not to settle and takes his chances with a jury. He then decides to fight the verdict for as long as necessary, regardless of cost. Liberal people are stunned, can’t believe that others cannot see what is painfully obvious to them. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris partners with Bill Clinton, who opted to pay a victim who claimed he sexually assaulted her $800k. She also partnered with JB, after she stated that she believed the women who accused him of taking liberties with them. This, of course, after she sought to reinvent SC Justice Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook entries. She was the chosen one to be President by millions, after gropey Joe, and after Clinton’s wife who stood by her hubby and victim shamed the people who accused him. SMH indeed.

Muppinator….he was not convicted of sex crimes. He lost a civil case. There is a difference, and it’s substantial.

Sorry Mup, but you and I are on different ends of the argument and that’s unlikely to change. Common sense tells me that Trump doesn’t push for the release of files he would know he would be in. If he’s in them, he lays low and people move on. Additionally, given the scorched earth policy undertaken by the Dems v Trump under the Biden years, I assume if he’s in the files, it’s released. With fanfare. Unless of course Harris, Biden, Obama et al are in there too. Nope, I wasn’t talking about that. I was talking about powerful people corrupting/leveraging/conspiring for power/politics/gain. If US Senator X son is involved in bid rigging or money laundering, President Y and/or US Senator Z assists in burying the story and favors are owed. As for predators generally, Mup, I’d point out that one of the faces of the American Left during the most recent election was WJ Clinton, who actively settled with a woman who accused him of violent sexual assault. This after #metoo. That ain’t smoke, that’s a fire burning for a couple decades and a good portion of the country thought it wise to put his enabling spouse in the WH. That’s before even mentioning interns. I guess we get what we get. We agree this is a concern. If it happened, we’ll never know. Fear?

The immunity question aside, I think the reality is that sort of thing is not at all uncommon. Which brings me back around to maybe anything that may have been there is long gone, deep sixxed by whomever for whatever reason. Intelligence community? Or, maybe there isn’t/wasn’t all that much in there to begin with.

The biggie question imo is why anything involving Epstein was hidden/redacted/confidential to begin with, outside of the victims involved. As for Trump, the flip side of the argument is why he would demand release of the files if he knew he was in them. Some people are just above the law.

Joe really looking forward to a beer, borscht and wingos with Leonid Brezhnev.

Personally, I think it was symptomatic of a much bigger issue, and that’s a fundamental lack of trust in our elections/leadership. I believe that the events of 1/6 were set in place when leadership of the Democrats party referred to Trumps election as illegitimate, a Russian op, a coup and more. I believe that set the stage for all sorts of nefarious and shady dealings by the Dems looking to stifle the Trump agenda. I most definitely believe Trump supporters saw that whole 4 year debacle and took it personally. So, when Trump loses the election, he started on his version of stolen and illegitimate elections. I think some people believed it, it motivated them to action. I think some people probably didn’t believe the election was stolen yet figured if the Dems did it, might as well support the cause and turn out. Then of course, there were the hyper aggressive people in the crowd who like to see sh$t burn and things spiraled from there. I think people are manipulated into believing all sorts of things— illegitimate elections, stolen elections, classified document raids, “slippage”, and mostly that most political inquiries are completed to uncover the truth.

Of course.

I wasn't implying anything, Teef. I stated how I view these issues generally, and this issue specifically.

I'm not certain I could have been more clear in my reply.

If life has taught me anything, it's that you cannot count anyone out on anything. Of course, that includes everyone in the food chain that has something to gain from this sort of thing. The overwhelming likelihood is that it's a story designed to do lasting political damage to the opposition party leader.

Just hopping in for a moment in your dialogue with @teef. For my money, very well done dialogue between you guys and I appreciate it. My only add here is that in spite of overwhelming data at the fingertips of most Americans, it’s less about the “morons” and more about people who just don’t understand some basic math. When you add in a compulsion for immediate gratification, the lure of easy money (at a substantially elevated interest rate), the failure to understand the notion of being “upside/down” on a vehicle that depreciated rapidly….and the notion that personal bankruptcy is no big deal, it’s a recipe for disaster. In this regard, while we can bash Dems or bash Rs, it’s a failure of our education system at a minimum.

He was able to extract a Moratorium on Mischief, which was Harris-esque in scope and importance. I heard somewhere he was looking for Abeyance on Azzholery but just couldn't pull it off because the elections snuck up on him. At the airport, somewhere in American, an annoucement shall soon be made: HIS ROYAL NIBS....THE FRANKISH REICH, HE WHO SHAN'T BE DISRUPTED...

Well, if you're going down this road, isn't it really the greedy homeowner who is the problem? He/she could certainly direct the property be sold at a certain level that would encourage homeownership for local families, yes?

You’ve made a pretty compelling case as to how it might play out. I’m going to commit right now to not voting for him if this whole ‘cannot be elected’ but can be “serving 3rd terms” comes to pass. The only thing that could get in the way if he is successful in his bid to convince Canada to become North Idaho. I’m against all that talk as it’s disrespectful, but I feel like Niagara Bill has been really mean to me lately and it hurts my feelings.

I’ve previously pointed out the elements of wealth redistribution in the American system as it exists. That was your original hot button issue. In regards to tax generally, I’m a supporter of progressive tax policy, which by design increases contributions as income increases. It has nothing to do with some silly concept like “fair share”, just a recognition that things must be paid for. I’d sure love the tax rate to be adjusted downwards, and would love to see an overhaul where we had some reason to believe waste and abuse wasn’t a problem, but that’s a different discussion. By applying your theory as outlined here, I would have been for the abolishment of all tax or redistributive programs. That’s silly, as silly say as a Canadian citizen declaring the system the best in the world, while private paying for life-changing or life-saving treatment in a foreign land. Carry on.

I agree this is a very bad idea, favoring shorter term mortgages of 10-15 years. Or, in some cases, a 30 paid down over a much shorter period of time. That said, part of the problem we have is many people undervalue the notion of $150/ month saved over an extended period of time, and adjusted periodically as wages grow. Interestingly, the same $150/mo at 7% over that period of time exceeds $700k. At 8%, the hypothetical buyer has over a million in the account. Inflation is a huge factor, of course.

Oh goodness….you’re spiraling with this talk of devils and kings. Take a breath, secure in the knowledge that after every 936 posts about your neighbor to the south, you come up with a tepid criticism on politics in your own country. In that regard, Trudeau may be the biggest a$$ in Canadian history, but you seem determined to make a run for the title. Godspeed.

I think you’re confused. You specifically mentioned Canada and policies unique to your country several times. Canadian carbon tax. Canadian rebates. How Trump hated Trudeau. Canada and d food stamps. I mentioned Canada and its socialist approach to Haitian refugees. Just like the Canadian people don’t seem to want food stamps, they don’t seem to want Haitians. That’s odd, because Socialist governments would typically embrace immigrants, but maybe they have to be the right kind of immigrant. Anyway, you don’t want to talk about, I can understand. Yes, there are elements of our way of life that involved redistribution of wealth. Taxes. Foreign aid. That sort of thing.

You mentioned Canadian carbon tax. I assumed you rejected the Haitians (partly) because of their carbon footprint on the way from their to your country.

@muppy I am NOT, repeat NOT down with this.

You don’t have many Haitians either. https://www.sfltimes.com/news/haitians-facing-deportation-flee-to-canada-but-are-turned-away#google_vignette “There are limits,” Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney told reporters. “We have to be human, but realistic. Canada can’t accept everyone.”