leh-nerd skin-erd

In context, RedTailTonyHawk was asking about Obama and his comments. There’s no way I’m letting you glom onto my Nobel, Doc. I ain’t noways tired, I done come too far from where I started from to let that happen!

What’s the point? That people find some things more interesting, more compelling than others? Here’s what I think….if there were two stories running simultaneously, one about the loss of lives on the migrant ship, the other the loss of lives on the sub, some people would follow one, some people would follow the other. It makes neither group (nor the media reporting) bad or heartless. Now, if both those stories were running concurrently, and a large cross-section of Bills/Chiefs fans was driving to the stadium for game day, virtually all would switch to the pre-game coverage of their preference when that option presented itself. Or—if you will, if a compelling story about an NBA championship run came on, Barrack would focus on that instead of option 1 and 1a. DM me if you’re on the Nobel Peace Prize committee. I’m onto something here, and it’s powerful.

John is apparently Amish and enjoying his rumschpringe. He seems to have seen nothing, ever, about anything.

Durham was very critical of the FBI, not limited to missteps. Because it’s irrelevant to the conversation, and adds nothing to the dialogue. If there is something you would like to offer or declare in that regard, have at it. I have told you I am of the opinion that the question is silly, twice or three times, and yet here we are. 🤷🏼‍♂️

Your question on the definition of "cult" was dumb, even by the standards we follow here. To avoid offending future sensibilities, any follow up questions on the definition of cacophony, menstruation, photosynthesis and pizza would also fall into the dumb category. It's weird, though, that when you state that the FBI has made 'mistakes', you don't see that as declaring the FBI as your enemy. Did the FBI make any mistakes in the handling of the Russia investigation?

With the dialogue that passed between us, incorrect characterizations about how I feel about various topics, my response to those characterizations, and this is the question you wish to ask? No response to comments on the rhetoric of Hillary Clinton vis a vis Dan Bongino, no response to past controversies involving the FBI? That's interesting to me. On the other hand, your question is not of interest to me, and I don't see it as a test in any way, shape or form.

If the straw man could actually speak, he would spout this sort of gibberish. John stated the following: The DOJ and the FBI are not your enemy. Had John suggested that 'many MAGAs' view the FBI and DOJ as enemies, my response likely would have been different, but that's all conjecture at this point. Don't forget to remind me to tell John about the straw man thing.

Two things: The straw man argument, if one chooses to pursue said argument, would actually be John's argument that because I disagree with him, I see the FBI and DOJ as "the enemy". Please remind me to tell John that "straw man" while not an insult per se, falls to number three on the list behind cult and conspiracy theorist. Have a blessed day.

I'm capable of expressing that sentiment if that was my feeling, John. Your problem here is a limitation of creative thought and application of historical perspective. See, you seem to think that because I don't outright dismiss Durham as a right wing loon, you know how what I think and feel generally. The FBI is an incredible organization that when appropriately managed and directed, is a gift to all Americans. The DOJ falls into the same category. Neither should be wholesale dismissed, nor wholesale embraced. That does not mean I have to hit my knees and pledge unquestioned fealty to either organization. Blind trust in any organization is foolish, John, and binary choices that boil down to "FBI Awesome Always!" and "FBI Enemy" is pure silliness. FBI...DOJ...were they the heroes of the MLK/NAACP surveillance story? Waco, Texas? Ruby Ridge? Whitey Bulger? J Edgar Hoover? The Durham investigation is simply an extension of an age-old dilemma. As I said above, you simply prefer different boogeymen. No declarations of loyalty or independence are necessary with me. You don't sound at all independent to me, but I view the world through my prism, not yours. Btw the second weakest insult on the planet today is to label someone a 'conspiracy theorist'. It's right behind declaring someone a member of a 'cult'. This is your right as an American, John, and I completely understand that. I don't think I'm the closed-minded one here though.

It's tough to judge context on this forum, but I assure you what I am about to say is meant to be respectful and absent malice. I don't think you're open to be educated to any great degree, and I'm not looking to educate anyone. I have blind spots, I make mistakes, and sometimes I'm closed-minded. Last time you and I interacted, I got a heavy vibe that you're a "....I don't want to talk about that...". That leads to one-sided conversations imo, and basically leads to a giant waste of time for all. That said, I'll always try to answer reasonable questions. We may have had different perspectives on your issue with Bongino's tweet. I viewed the tweet as a whole, I did not focus on the use of ***** exclusively. I won't bother searching for a liberal politician using ***** in a tweet, it doesn't matter to me. If that's your only concern about his post, you are welcome to that moral high ground. I considered the rhetoric as a whole--aggressive, adversarial, etc. I'm neither defending nor supporting the tweet. My point was that when a Hillary Clinton refers to 35 or 40 million American citizens as 'deplorable' and 'irredeemable', it's as aggressive, insulting and condescending as anything Bongino wrote. Personally speaking, it doesn't make it worse if she said 30 to 40m hard working, tax paying, family raising, neighbor friendly people who didn't see her as the heir apparent were ******irredeemable or ******deplorable.

The funny part is that a guy like John believes exactly the same thing, he just has different boogeymen. We see that repeatedly, widespread distrust in systems and institutions followed by unwavering belief in systems and institutions favorable to them. All you need to do is change the players.

What you see from Bongino is standard fare across the board. Right wing, left wing, MSM, presidential candidates use this sort of inflammatory rhetoric. As for concerns about the results of the Durham report, here’s the deal. He reported what most conservative believe, which is, high ranking officials at the FBI created a narrative, trampled on the laws designed to safeguard citizens, and acted in a wholly partisan way to influence just about everything including his ordinary Americans interact and who gets elected for what. The anger comes with the realization that in spite of what he found, nothing changes. No one is brought to account. The system protects wrongdoers as it always does. What Durham said yesterday is yeah, it sucks, but that’s life.

I really don’t trust anyone anymore, that probably should be said. However, Gaetz laid a wallop on him when Mr. Durham said “I don’t know if you’ve ever investigated a crime…” to which Gaetz replied “ I don’t know that you have!”. Excellent timing and delivery.

Thank you for abandoning the whole “collusion is misrepresentation” silliness, sadly you followed up with the “spin” narrative. Isn’t this beneath us? I am aware that Mueller wrote a strongly worded letter to AG Barr’s parents after the sad saga concluded. I am also aware that he had unlimited power for nearly 2 years, wielded it aggressively, coordinated with media outlets to leverage the strength of investigation, the full support of tens of millions of democrat loyalists thirsty for blood, completed a 400 page report and had the opportunity to provide sworn testimony before Congress and the American people about all the evidence his team uncovered proving Trump criminally conspired with Russia. There’s definitely some spin doctoring afoot here, you just seem completely incapable of identifying the source.

I used "collusion" the way most Americans not threading a nickledick needle tend to use it. If you see my choice of language as a misrepresentation, it's not material to the matter at hand and not of particular concern to me. What I can tell you is this...the facts and outcome are clear. From AG Barr's summary of the Mueller report: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html ...the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses. Summary: Lots of people with lots of juice knocked on doors, shook down perps, tried to flip witnesses, shook the trees and really, really tried to find evidence of collusion oops criminal conspiracy. Later on, AG Barr had this to say: The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Summary: The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russians. It seems to me that disregarding the entirety of the report, the exceptionally thorough and extremely broad scope of the investigation, the follow up by Barr and his team, and referring to some Illuminati-esque 'bad actors' reflects poorly on those who choose to follow that path. It also indicates to me that while you are no doubt intellectually up to the task of reviewing the Mueller report in its entirety, perhaps emotionally you stopped somewhere after page 10.

Some people believe that Mueller stating Trump and his campaign did not collude with the Russians means he did, and that an official declaration that Trump was politically persecuted means he clearly was not. The narrative is what matters, as does using a tactical approach to rolling out allegations to have maximum effect at the voting booth.

It matters to the extent people feel it matters. We’re not sentencing, nor are we negotiating plea deals. In fact, there are very few people involved in that part of the equation. We’re on the emotional side of the ledger, where we look at information available, we figure the relative value and what it means to us, and figure how it moves us to vote/opine one way or the other. Think the Russia-lusion dealio here, Chi. Back when Mueller said he wasn’t able to not unsay that Trump was or was not unguilty of, people applied emotion to whatever message he was trying to deliver. As for gun control, well the message has been sent that it ain’t all that big a deal.

#slippage

That’s why I’m here, to point it all out for you. You. Are. Welcome!

I don’t know, who said the law is fair? I’ve always said people are above the law. Arguing otherwise is naive or purposefully obtuse. I’ve always said you like your inequity, your president who lies and gropes women, your “election was stolen” better than the Trump version, you’re “my guy only pilfered documents over decades and hid them in different spots” better than the other guy. It simply means you’re as full of cr@p as anyone else. I was just pointing that out. Glad we agree. It’s all good.

Hunter is a stooge, a rich kid from an entitled family. He dodged taxes on a million + that we know of, and broke gun laws at a time when gun violence is top of mind and heads roll for exactly this sort of thing. He and his father were protected by the IC when his laptop was discovered, a favor to an extraordinarily powerful and wealthy man. Meanwhile, he’s “painting” and being paid exorbitant figures for his work by immensely wealthy individuals and donors. So…he abuses the system, does all the rich guy things you guys are always complaining about (when not involving a liberal), f&@&s around with firearms, avoids jail time an average person would not and is financially whole or better. Yeah, liberal justice is truly colorblind. You gotta wonder why all this happens repeatedly, huh? 🤣

4 years wasted by the democrats trying to prove the 2016 Election was stolen, the country in turmoil as BillSy and his crew worry they have to learn Russian and drink Stoli straight, and these guys get ants in their pants after a week. Let's all settle down, let the politicians and seekers of truth do their job(s). As citizens we're now catching up on all this information previously unknown to us.

That's silly. I never suggested Biden was president when he acted in Ukraine, I'm not certain that he's president now. The reality is the twists and turns of this sad saga continue and there is an ongoing investigation into the matter. New information is being revealed almost daily. Time may well prove you right, and if so, we'll be a better nation having had the dialogue about Vice-President Vice-President Vice-President Biden's unusual actions in Ukraine. I don't understand your angst here.

Chi, an hour or so ago, conjuring up a narrative on the Trump/Zelensky conversation that seemed clear, concise and cordial: Also, I would remain skeptical of why the leader of a small country in an existential struggle against a larger invader would be cautious not to in any way implicate or insult the head of the country poised to give it the aid it needs to survive. Kudos, though on the use of 'existential struggle' to give it a distinct Tom Clancy vibe.

You literally stumbled upon the reason Biden flexing his muscles to help his son makes so much sense.....the leader of a small country in an existential struggle...in desperate need of aid for the survival of the country...would certainly not insult Joe Biden by declining to bend to his will and fire the prosecutor sniffing around his son. Taking it one step further, Biden flexing his muscles with the EU, to play ball, and all it cost was one measly prosecutor to place Ukraine back on the road to redemption. "I need you to back me on this, pal" is all it would take. And still, the EU seems to have decided to sit this one out, though they maybe sent a strongly worded letter. Btw--by comparison, when I go down the list of countries traditionally perceived to be corrupt, we seem perfectly comfortable with sending aid without and strings attached. This is middle school stuff, Chi. "Why would I steal your lunch when I have my own lunch?". We're talking about a billion dollars, plus whatever money may have flowed behind the scenes. I'm of the mind that the story needs to be pushed farther so we get to the bottom of it. If it turns out that it's just a series of unfortunate events and a big misunderstanding, these things happen. That's on Biden for personally handling this issue with an obviously huge conflict of interest.