leh-nerd skin-erd

As usual, I'll answer, you'll realize you didn't think through your questions, and off we go. What came first? The decision to incur the debt. Some incur $0. Some incur modest amounts. Some incur significant amounts. Some incur excessive amounts. These facts are indisputable, but I encourage you to dispute them. Rising cost or borrowing? The cost of higher education has been rising for decades. The decision to borrow money (from $0 to excessive) is made on an individual level. Some decide to incur $0 debt. Some decide to incur modest amounts. Some decide to incur significant amounts. Some decide to incur excessive amounts. These facts, too, are indisputable, but have at it. I don't believe 'only the wealthy have a shot at a good education', making this a silly question generally, and indicative of the victim mentality I referenced previously. There are many, many, many options for people from humble means to pursue an education. While anecdotal, I know of hundreds, if not thousands of people who attended college and did not come from wealthy families. You're probably getting confused because you're a blue blood, while my people were blue collar. Near as I can recall, I haven't stated that JB "took bribes", and I believe I would remember that. Maybe you have me confused with another poster? Be that as it may, since you asked, I have no idea if JB took bribes. I don't know with certainty that he did anything illegal, crafted policy in exchange for money, or peddled influence to enrich himself, his relatives, or his dopey son. I know an investigation is ongoing, and that members of Congress have stated quite loudly that JB is dirty, and I tend to believe them. On the other hand, he could end up being pure as the driven snow. I think the best course of action is to pursue this matter vigorously and thoroughly, with testimony under oath, and that JB and fam should submit all the financial records requested by the committee. The best thing that can come from this is JB gets a little dinged up and huffy for having to comply, but we find out that he's an OK Joe. It'll be cathartic, you know?

Maybe. Ironically, if all goes as planned, contributing to paying off student loans for the well-heeled debtor class.

Between 2009-10 and 2019-20, those who chose not to incur debt for higher education had zero debt associated with higher education. Those individuals saw a 0.0% increase in their monthly payment of $0.00. You're wrong, as usual, spectacularly so in this case.

We can disagree on this one, that's fine with me. In my opinion, it's absolutely the role of the government to provide for infrastructure and provide for the health and well-being of the less fortunate. That's not to suggest that it's solely the government's job, but it's part of the process in civilized society. The problem is always scale. I start with this concept--paying taxes is the patriotic thing to do, and I have no fundamental problem with a progressive tax burden. I seem to recall you're a flat taxer, and that's fine too, but my problem is that the tax burden is too great, that government spending is out of control, and there literally can never be enough money to be spent, much of it yours and mine. I do not think that income tax in and of itself is a problem. I'll steer clear of any lengthy discussion on Constitutional authority, I'm just telling you the way I see it.

A decision to incur debt.

There is nothing inherently wrong with wealth/income redistribution on the appropriate scale. The problem is always scale, and the democrat party typically looks for ways to push massive amounts of people to rely on the government, expanding government, and wetting its beak along the way. A microcosm of the problem is the current crisis with respect to immigration and NYC. Again, nothing wrong with the notion of providing sanctuary for people in need (other than on Marthas Vineyard, where they need to disappear those people before peak season). However, what quickly became apparent was that there was no consideration as to what exactly that phrase meant. What it turns out it meant was that the good leaders of NYC were completely comfortable with compassion and caring so long as the burden associated with it was carried elsewhere. Thereafter, it took about 15 minutes for the good leaders of NYC to send a clear message that while everyone has a story to tell, it was best that many of these folks tell their story walking. A quick search indicated 43 million people carry student loan debt. It's not a sideline issue, it was a simple yet brilliant political strategy that encourages people to see themselves as a victim, in spite of what boils down in many cases to poor planning, and put some money in their pocket to boot. Money moves people.

Some folks say you don’t answer a door with a pen in your hand.

Seems more likely the allure of student debt forgiveness moved the needle, coupled with the shifting of the tax burden away from the base, to higher income Americans. Universal health care isn’t the sexy beast it was a few years ago. There are lots of people who’ll stay in bed on Election Day thinking their vote doesn’t matter, or based on apathy in general. However, dangle $10,000+, per couple, no questions asked, people will get up for that.

When the appropriate price point was reached.

Would it? This scenario involves the leader of the free world. We would need a deep dive into every aspect of his and the good doctor’s financial records, by an organization capable to that sort of forensic investigation. What you’re suggesting would be a great place to start, and JB certainly has nothing to fear by providing all these records if he’s clean. This is why it’s important to pursue Hunter aggressively. Perhaps if he faced real time in jail, he would consider exchanging information for a reduced sentence. If there’s nothing to share, no harm or foul.

Endocrinologist humor….no you di’int!

Chi, as seen through the eyes of Red. actual photo of Red.

I’m glad you’re learning new things, Red. You could learn some manners from Chi, too, lad. You asked me a dopey question on something that never happened, asked for an opinion on something that ever happened and never will, and I answered using…words. Words seems to trip you and yours up these days. Onward.

Assuming you’re correct, and I don’t assume that, nothing about a simple country lawyer misunderstanding the big city ways of US prosecutors is at all extraordinary.

I think this is a silly question, mostly because the DOJ investigated everyone in Trump’s orbit throughly in the Mueller probe and beyond, with an eye toward bringing charges whenever and wherever possible. Rumor is they tossed Manafort into isolation for his run of the mill crimes, likely to break his spirt. Be that as it may, it’s obvious to any objective person, that like Biden, that Kushner would have been afforded the very best counsel, they would have sought the very best deal, and bent the law to maximum effect for his benefit. Trump would have participated in that, likely would have misrepresented his association with his son’s business ventures, just like Biden did, and you’d have lost your fool mind.

Exactly, the appointment of a Special Counsel is very rare, especially in an average case with an average guy and your average multi-year fed/state income tax evasion gun charge amnesty for the son of a sitting President. No, according to the AG the circumstances became “extraordinary” when the judge felt justice was not served by that particular plea deal. From there, a couple weeks later, Garland decides special handling is required. I understand the concept of serving at the will of the President, but that’s irrelevant here, as is the mindset of anyone described as MAGA. This is a Hunter Biden/Joe Biden quagmire. The rest is a red herring. As for whether or not it makes sense to bring in someone not pre-inclined to offer a benefit-rich deal subsequently scuttled upon review, well that’s exactly the reason to bring in fresh eyes. In fact, that deal was so sweet that any notion of altering it even slightly in favor of the good citizens of the US was flat out rejected by the guilty party. Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it.

Again, thanks. That makes very little sense to me given everything that transpired. HB has been the son of one of the most important and polarizing figures in the world for the entirety of his life. He’s a multi-millionaire businessman who operated in an historically corrupt nation, his father known for exerting his influence at a time when his son was dealing with issues there. He’s caught the attention of 51 intelligence experts, every one of which would be associates of his father, every one of which turned out to be incorrect in their assessment. His father, in his role as president, has made conflicting statements about their professional and personal relationship, and the Weiss team surely knew the truth about that years ago. Whistleblowers have been attacked by associates of his father. None of that rose to the level of extraordinary? If a simple rejected plea deal constitutes “extraordinary circumstances” in a case where just about everything about it is extraordinary, it makes zero sense to keep the same team in place. Unless, of course, the desire is to continue to show the world that some people get special treatment and those people are above the law.

Look, I can be closed minded like everyone else. It’s August 13, 2023. It’s been 950 days since the assault on the Capitol. The rioters, malcontents and wrong doers have been investigated, charged and in many cases incarcerated. The answers to who completely screwed the pooch on security (and there are many possibilities, none of whom are named Trump), why or how it was allowed to happen, and how to avoid something similar in the future remain unanswered. When questions of that nature remain unanswered, theories abound.

Thanks. I think you’re dealing with the process that will be followed. I’m looking at the actions of the AG. This was the statement I was referring to: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/merrick-garland-david-weiss-hunter-biden-probe_n_64d660e1e4b00842fd10d0b1 “Upon considering his request, as well as the extraordinary circumstances relating to this matter, I have concluded that it’s in the public’s interest to appoint him as special counsel.” The investigation has been ongoing for several years, with Weiss seemingly straddling the divide between gun charges, allegations of tax evasion, and state and federal law. My question is what circumstances made it extraordinary after all this time that prompted Garland to act, or Weiss to request? It seems sort of extreme to me. Biden is who he is, but part of this is a tax evasion case. A guy in that case typically takes a plea or goes to trial. Same with the gun charges. Everything shifted when the plea was rejected, in spite of all the unusual things that happened along the line (independent experts in the IC inserting themselves into the discussion, President Biden speaking about his son’s innocence, First Lady Dr. Biden doing the same, dem senators casting doubt on the trustworthiness of whistleblowers), the timing and circumstances seem odd. What suddenly made the circumstances extraordinary?

I’d go so far as to say that if 20% of that sort of interaction occurred at ArtPark at a Beach Boys/ Jan &Dean “We ain’t (all) dead yet!” reunion tour, with an average age of participants of 74, heads would have rolled. What are they doing, McCarthy et al? Well, old Mitch is all a’flutter on the impeachment of JB, I’d hazard a guess that they want to return to business as usual….a Venn diagram of old school R$ and old school D$, where they meet in the middle to let stuff that upsets their apple cart fade away. It’s bad for business. Btw, in London has Fallen, the bad guys are identified, all co-conspirators are brought to justice. Not so much in Washington.

I’ve watched coverage of calls to defund the police, political leaders making disparaging and incendiary comments and the fallout that comes with it, and congressional leaders huddled in their offices during the 1/6 riot, likely hoping against hope that some…..law enforcement personnel would come, willing to pay the ultimate price and shield them from harm in spite of the often hateful things they say. I also watched the clip of AOC being harassed by a comedian, and her complaining that there wasn’t….law enforcement nearby to come and drag the guy off to jail. I agree with you—it’s impossible to separate fact from fiction here.

Hmm…you’re asking a lot here in hoping for reasonable discourse. The idea here is that Trump, a man the world was assured would not leave office without a fight, would call for martial law, who talked about stolen elections for two months, would be allowed to provide security for the Capitol on Inauguration Day is just plain silly. That’s after, of course, thinking the office of the President is responsible for developing an action plan to secure the Capitol and Washington generally. We know all that we need to know when we realize we don’t know how the heck the Capitol was overrun and the government paralyzed 3 years after Biden took over, and after the 1/6 committee pledged to get to the bottom of it. Btw, I watched London Has Fallen last night, and through the lens of a fictional action movie it’s easy to suspend common sense and reality for a couple hours while the terrorists execute a highly skilled and stunningly executed plan to kill 5 world leaders in 6 minutes, cripple London in 9 minutes, and bring down the escaping President’s helicopter in 11. In real life, not so much.

Word layering is an existential threat to our nation. You take that back!

I can understand why my history of using words presents a challenge for you. Well, actually, I can’t but everyone has a challenge of one sort or another.

Lol you’re easily manipulated. 🤣