leh-nerd skin-erd

After 7,543 disagreements on life, politics, hippy haircuts and lazy eyes, we have reached a topic we agree upon. This is a Friday I never shall forget.

Well, big picture, let’s be fair. There are only three options. Men live longer. Women live longer. Men and Women have exactly the same life expectancy. When we consider all the potential factors that can impact the numbers—lifestyle choices, genetics, evolution, environment, emotional health, and so much more, seems like this is the natural order of things. Oh, and as @muppy will likely attest, women can go on and on and on and on to the point where eternal silence seems like a pretty good deal. 😉 Yeesh. Decision making, emotional intelligence, societal norms and expectations for men v woman, and individual choices. Again, there are only three potential outcomes, and one doesn’t make much sense.

I've heard estimates as high as 153%, and of those that do, 119% love to drink straight from the box. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/women-us-are-drinking-death-research-finds-rcna96848 https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/womens-health.htm

Wait. What happened to election security is beyond reporach, and everything that happens is above-board and 100% accurate? Ps: The dems were ready last time to argue that our elections were neither safe nor secure. Turns out they didn't need to launch the "Stolen Election Part Deux" as a continuation of the 2016 fable, but it was well teed-up. https://www.warren.senate.gov/oversight/letters/warren-klobuchar-wyden-and-pocan-investigate-vulnerabilities-and-shortcomings-of-election-technology-industry-with-ties-to-private-equity

This doesn't make sense, no. Binge drinking is not exclusively a male issue. https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2023/women-without-children-at-age-35-are-at-highest-risk-of-binge-drinking-alcohol-use-disorder/

The actions of the investigators, the details and professionalism of the investigation have always been relevant to criminal trials. That’s nothing new, and critique of errors/wrongdoing is absolutely part of the dialogue. In this case, a better analogy is “this photograph of the defendant with crack cocaine in his pocket, released to the media, is not reflective of the scene. Sorry. AOC, and representations we made to the court about processes we followed, some of that was made up. We’re really sorry about that, too.”.

No, I don’t believe that, but it’s the ideal. I think much of what goes on at the upper levels of DOJ and politics in general is political and often shady. I believe there are lots of good, hardworking and decent people in the DOJ, FBI etc, but on matters this large, politics skews everything. It is interesting to me though that when people bring up concerns about behavior they see as outside the scope of justice, it’s often labeled a conspiracy theory. Your point was moronic. There’s not much more to say than that.

You see the actions of Clinton and Biden as akin to jaywalking or driving 36 in a 35? That’s your fallback? It’s moronic. 👏👏👏 🤣

No, it doesn't exonerate Trump, but it's indicative of the strategy the SC has chosen to pursue this matter. Now that it is quite apparent it was a staged photo shoot, it's fair to wonder what other funny business or misleading statements have been made. When you add in seizing tax records, information protected by attny-client privilege etc, and now mistakes on process, it's fair to wonder about motive. I said this before--in my opinion, the government should be the shiny beacon on the hill in case like this. They hold virtually all the power, and if the case is rock solid, they should behave in a way that's beyond reproach. To the extent they don't, they deserve to be criticized and their motives questioned.

You keep saying that, and that's the interpretation offered as explanation as to why law(s) can be sidestepped, ignored, or disregarded. "Electeds" don't fall into gray areas--they fall into a category where individuals are making judgement calls to let obvious transgressions pass. When you introduce the ability for individuals to forgive obvious transgressions, it's quite easy to be supportive when your guy gets a pass, and the other guy looks at life in prison. Biden's actions over multiple decades were egregious, and it simply boils down to the fact that he ignored or disregarded the controls and laws as they were.

I'm hung up imaging a world where classified/top secret documents are treated as discarded lottery tickets for some, and a life sentence for others.

Come on Frank, you're like Gumby here. The photo was staged, captured and released for maximum effect. It is completely on brand for a special counsel. You shouldn't have to 'think' about what that photo represented--that's what captions and explanations are for. The decision to not offer clarity is the decision made by those who took the photo. The 'mistake' may or may not be intentional, but as I understand it, the acknowledgment of the action was reactionary, not proactive. It's not on the casual observer or Trump legal team to accept the rather convenient explanation. The SC initially grabbed quite a bit of information outside the scope of the warrant. Seems mistakes are par for the course.

Not really, it's more a reflection of mismanagement and government at the highest levels of our country. When presidents, senators and representatives are allowed to make up their own rules, run their own game, and--as evidenced by Clinton/Biden--do pretty much as they see fit, confusion about what's right or wrong is almost certain to follow. It's human nature, just as it was human nature for those who rather naively postulated that Trump was the only one holding on to documents because their guy hadn't been outted yet. When it became apparent it would be hard for a senator/vp/president to be more guilty of reckless handling and potential disclosure....well, then came slippage. With respect to the big picture, it seems obvious that when laws are written, and selectively enforced, by definition the person who broke said law are above it, or outside its reach. Comey made a point on that issue, as I recall.

Sure Frank, after what we’ve learned about how leaders treat classified/confidential material, Walt Nauta is the problem.

Ironically the dog issue likely created a bigger problem than the Kim meeting. Met him, didn’t meet him. Does it matter?