The Frankish Reich

Ask your wife, or your daughter.

Biden strikes me as being in Leonard Cohen's final stage of the Six Stages of Man. You get so old you're actually cute/harmless. The Viagra'd-Up Trump is stuck at Stage 5. There's a difference. Y’know I was talking with some of the guys . . . some of the guys in the band are kind of over the hill. And they were talking about the various stages that a man goes through in relation to his allure to the opposite sex. It was not a scientific evaluation . . . just something that arose over a cup of coffee. It went something like this: You start off irresistible. And, then you become resistible. And then you become transparent – not exactly invisible but as if you are seen through old plastic. Then you actually do become invisible. And then — and this is the most amazing transformation — you become repulsive. But that’s not the end of the story. After repulsive then you become cute – and that’s where I am.

Oh, I agree. We have a formerly ulta-liberal governor who (like all governors and senators) seems to think he's presidential (vice presidential?) material. So he's been weirdly, unexpectedly moderate so far. He handled COVID remarkably well - I traveled to both anything goes red states and ultra liberal blue states during COVID, and I thought he threaded the moderate needle here perfectly. He's also stopped the state legislature from enacting some of their more wacko ideas. But if he's gone, then what?

Thank God. We are crowded enough.

I live in Colorado, a blue state with 2 Democratic senators, Democratic control of both state houses, and a (gay) Democratic governor. And somehow people keep coming. Too many people; they should have shut the door after I arrived. But on the larger scale, it's a pretty well-run state. Relatively low state taxes (a flat 4.4%), pretty efficient government services, etc., etc. No, we are not California. The whole "disaster area blue states losing people, well-run red states gaining them" is painting things with far too broad a brush.

He chairs the committee. The Republicans control the House. They promised hearings. Let's have a hearing! Put up or shut up.

Good for you. I understand there's a poster just north of you who might be interested in exchanging back slaps and high fives whenever you post a right wing Twitter comment. Sounds like fun. I'll be here if you decide you want to actually debate a point. None of that "look at me, I'm blocking you" stuff from me.

I've been around my fair share of the Flag Code Absolutists in my career. The "Old Glory must be in the dominant position" and even "an indoor flag should be fitted with an approved flag spreader so as to display the stars and stripes in a manner consistent with it flapping in the breeze." I even had someone try to explain why the flag I had was all wrong because it did/didn't have the yellow fringe around it. I can't remember what the rule was. There's more important things to think about. Just don't be an idiot and stick the Bills flag or the Pride Flag on top of the American flag, and don't use the flag on a pole as a battering ram.

There we go. It's the "everbody knows" explanation. This is just as silly as the other side saying Russian collusion/Russian-funded misinformation was the cause of Trump's 2016 victory. It was "rigged" in some abstract way that doesn't correspond with anyone's definition of what "rigged" means. In other words, Russian misinformation/Mainstream Media misinformation caused people to cast votes in a certain way, as if voters are mere automatons.

^ a friendly reminder. So ... rigged, but not by hack/fix of voting machines, and not by voter fraud. Just ... rigged. If I seem to be having trouble understanding, maybe these two quotes are the reasons why. Did you have some kind of epiphany between 6 hours ago and 13 minutes ago?

No. It's because you believe - without evidence - that there was voter fraud sufficient to change the results of the 2020 presidential election. A belief that is not supported by evidence is on the order of a religious belief, an article of faith, not of logic. You may support DeSantis, but that's not the point here. If you believe Trump does, in fact, talk nonsense for no reason, then at some point you have to admit that your belief that voter fraud turned the election is predicated on precisely that same nonsense.

Thank you for agreeing that TRUMP JUST SPOUTS BS AND YOU EAT IT UP WILLINGLY. B-Man, you read all the pro-MAGA Twitter feeds. Please point me to the one that includes the video Trump referenced, you know, the one where someone voted 28 times in 28 different polling stations, casting 7 ballots in each one. When you do that, I will happily admit I'm wrong, and I will happily stop "bothering" all of you.

And still not what any conservative philosopher would recognize as conservatism. You have described hardcore libertarianism, an outgrowth of classic liberalism.

To un-hijack the topic - it's crime. There was a point in my life - maybe the late 80s/early 90s? - when it would have been fair to call me a pretty hardcore libertarian. As such, I was skeptical of the police state. I don't know if I said it, but I certainly nodded in approval when people said things like this: "we can't arrest our way out of this." You know what? We can arrest our way out of this, or at least out of the worst of it. Almost all western U.S. cities are plagued by a horrific drug epidemic; some eastern cities too. We have the laws on the books. California? It's even a crime to "use or be under the influence of" an illicit drug. And it's a more serious crime to possess an illicit drug, and a really serious crime to sell an illicit drug. I'm not thrilled about the prospects of mass incarceration, but it did help bring about the end of the crack epidemic, and I see no reason why it wouldn't do the same thing for the even more destructive fentanyl (and associated methamphetamine) epidemic. Because what we're doing now sure as hell ain't working. Libertarian? Of course not. I've seen too much to be a purist anymore.

exacerbated I hear skool performance is down in Orlando? EDIT: I know, I know, prolly spell check. Just too easy ... sorry.

So there is no video of someone voting 28 times at 28 different locations, casting 7 ballots each time? You mean Trump made it up? And even though, when given a national cable TV platform, the only evidence he could come up with regarding election fraud was something he made up? And you still "believe" there was election fraud? When Biden says Beau died in Iraq, you say this is evidence of senility. Maybe so. So what is this evidence of? Senility? Being a compulsive liar? Being a snake oil salesman with a line of gullible buyers, a line you are proud to stand in?

There actually is an irrational hatred of cyclists in some people. I bike to work in good weather. It's about a half hour each way. I get in an hour total of a workout during what otherwise would be a sedentary car commute while enjoying some beautiful summer/spring/fall scenery. Most drivers are fine with sharing the road. I get a lot of "go ahead" waves from people who get that stopping/starting on a bike is a lot tougher than in a car. But some are just a-holes. In Colorado it is legal for a cyclist to stop briefly at a red light, check for traffic, and then go. I get people yelling out of windows at me, like it bothers them that they have to wait out the light while I can just treat it like a stop sign. The reason we do this: we want to get the hell out of your way. If I'm on the shoulder next to a line of cars and I can just go before the light turns, I can avoid that uncertainty about how to space yourself in a line of cars. They can see me, I know where they are, I won't get in their way, they won't run into me by making a sudden right turn into a street or a driveway, etc. So is there a "hatred of bikers?" Yes, among some people. Go ahead and hate on the spandexed groups who take a perverse joy in causing traffic jams. But that's not me or most cyclists - just let me get the hell outta your way and we can both arrive safely.

Oh, I've tried to get people to think about such things in this thread, the point at which the state should be allowed to override parental decisions. Take a look. You'll see no attempt by the "it's a transurrection!" posters to think that through.

That will be some railroad. He should put Gavin Newsom in charge of the project.

And this is from the man who was at one time on the same offense as Kyle Orton?

So there's no pee tape. Agreed. Where's the "person votes in 28 separate voting booths, casting 7 ballots in each one" tape? Do you agree there's no such thing?

I asked a specific question: where is the video Trump referred to in his CNN Town Hall? The one where voters are voting in 28 different voting booths, casting 7 ballots each time? No "straw man" unless that's the new term for the Orange Man. (You mean it doesn't exist, but still you believe?)

A telling choice of words. You don't believe that election machines were rigged or hacked. You presumably don't believe this because there was no evidence to support it, and because, in fact, the claim was litigated right up to the trial date, and the evidence brought forward in discovery simply failed to support any such belief. You believe that the election was "rigged" because: - "rigged" is necessarily an amorphous term, meaning whatever you want it to mean - you simply can't believe (as apparently Trump can't believe, or pretends that he can't believe) that he lost to this 80 year old who didn't hold glorious campaign rallies like Trump, and besides, pretty much everyone you know voted for Trump. There is an arguable point about voter fraud and mail-in/drop-off ballots aiding Biden more than Trump, but again ... no proof of that. It's a belief, or more accurately a feeling. So on that point, quote this from Trump's CNN Town Hall: TRUMP: We have elections that were horrible. If you look at what happened in Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, if you look at what happened in Detroit, Michigan, if you look at what happened in Atlanta, millions of votes, and all you have to do is take a look at government cameras. You will see them, people going to 28 different voting booths to vote, to put in seven ballots apiece. I mean, and they’re all on camera. So I ask: show me the evidence of this. Apparently there is video evidence of people "going to 28 different voting booths to vote, to put in seven ballots apiece." Seems pretty damning. Trump mentioned it in his Town Hall after a year and a half of his (and his supporters') intensive investigation. Show me the evidence. (Not conjecture about how they could have done this, or how some clerk in Atlanta moved a box containing ballots around ... evidence of THIS specific example of clear voter fraud.) One person, 28 different "voting booths," 7 ballots in each one. Show me. EDIT: John 20:29.

You haven't addressed the lack of internal logic in Tucker's Ep. 3 that I pointed out. You've instead reverted to the old conspiracy theories: they were out to get JFK, they are out to get Trump. Trust no one. X files crap. I pointed out that Tucker makes various unsupported assumptions: We overclassify, most classified documents don't really include information that would be gravely damaging to national security, hence we can assume that the classified documents "found" in Trump's Private Collection would not be gravely damaging to national security, hence this prosecution isn't based on the purpose of the Espionage Act (protection of national security information), hence we may assume it is being done for political reasons only. You have been seduced by Tucker's wiles. A man crush is not an argument. Here we go again. Because, as Trump says, "everybody knows." They just know. No evidence, they just know. His own AG says there's no evidence, but still ... they just know.