leh-nerd skin-erd

Obviously...that's the way lesser men respond. I knew that--I'm at notch 9.

Now you have it. I can move you up a notch on the Less-Lesser man list, but even after that, you're only at notch 2. There are many, many notches.

You'll be fine, everyone will be fine.

Trump's done so much bad ***** that cocaine is cool again!

On cue, a lesser man revealed.

Clarence Thomas is an incredible man, ridiculed and scorned by lesser men who see him as a threat to their vision of the status quo. It’s pretty simple, really. Supreme Court nominee Thomas laid it out in straightforward term 30+ years ago.

And what is the typical response from those on the left and media pundits? I’ll give you a hint….they blame law enforcement for being heartless and cruel. Based on what we know now, seems to me this guy was absolutely off his rocker. The video from the shooting should tell us all we need to know.

I called him but yeah, the real deal.

We have no evidence John is in Riverside, or that his name is John! criss cross…trust no one.

@Andy1 https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/08/07/trump-gag-order-is-likely-given-his-online-attacks-pence-jack-smith-legal-experts-say.html This article takes a deeper dive into the question we discussed the other day. True, it seems a bit hyperbolic on the importance of words in capital letters, neglects to mention that Trump has actually been the victim of political persecution according to many people in the know, but overall...why should his speech be limited beyond highly sensitive or protected information, when the govt has no such restraint? Gag orders are usually only imposed when the fairness of a trial is seen to be at risk, legal experts said. The judge will have to weigh First Amendment concerns against the need to prevent attempts to tamper with witnesses or taint the jury pool. later... In a filing Monday evening, Trump's attorneys argued that the Department of Justice's proposed protective order was too broad. The defense attorneys proposed a narrower order that they said would shield "only genuinely sensitive materials from public view." and... In a social media post earlier Monday, Trump claimed that a protective order in the case "would impinge upon my right to FREE SPEECH." In the same post, Trump said that Smith and the DOJ should be bound by such an order, claiming they are "leaking" information. Again, I understand the malice and disgust directed at Trump, but think the defense raises a valid point about being muzzled unreasonably.

A wise man once said: You could look your post from a very positive point of view, that this country is built on freedom and self-expression and that any "protest" is a strong indication of a healthy, free democracy; and their actions can be viewed as someone who believes the country could indeed be even better. In fact, you may even ask yourself, if they feel so strongly then perhaps we should listen to what they have to say. You don't have to ultimately agree, but you should feel comfort in their ability to say it. It's a soccer game. When someone ruffles feathers, feathers get ruffled. That's the point. I'm ok. You're ok. We just disagree. Personally, I don't care if they win or lose. I have no interest in soccer generally, but where I used to love the aspect of amateur athletics and the pursuit of glory, these super teams of well-compensated individuals doesn't hold much interest to me. It seems more like a sponsorship deal than anything else, though I can see young fans being inspired to be great as well.

I'm just a humble observer, but considering the totality of the board that seems extreme. I'm not just speaking about here, where people getting tagged often upsets the fragile amongst us, but even on the main board, there's some mean-girl posting that goes on. I'm not sure who Chris is, but he sounds like a scoundrel. I'd start a petition to Free Irv, but honestly it seems like a lot of work.

@Irv is a beauty school dropout. Missed his midterms and flunked shampoo. It happens.

I don’t think they play it under these circumstances.

Thanks B. Context is important of course. I was speaking to BillSy on that issue, especially as it relates to the film industry generally and the Hollywood establishment specifically. It seems logical to me that many of the players in Hollywood--big stars, studio heads, producers had to know about Harvey Weinstein's predilection(s). I haven't heard back from BillSy on that note, just wondering what your thoughts are?

For as bad as she allegedly was, Hillary Clinton earned nearly as many votes as Barrack Obama 4 years earlier. Biden earned nearly 16,000,000 more votes than either—agenda clearly matters. But, I agree, Trump outperformed Clinton on the campaign trail.

The system is established to serve the system. It’s not all that complicated. It’s not even bad, it just is. Though, come to think of it, the country burned brightly not all that long ago under the theory that the system established to serve the system is inherently corrupt. The one consistency is that many people pledge absolute trust in the system when it supports their world view, and seek to tear it down and remake it when it doesn’t.

Ah, I misunderstood and jumped to a conclusion. My bad. Would Hollywood defending and protecting Harvey Weinstein for decades be typical liberal behavior, in your opinion, consistent with your feelings on typical MAGA behavior and this movie?

You’re in the nobody knew nothing about Weinstein camp? Seriously? It’s much more likely that most major players in the industry knew what he was doing, with whom it was going on with, and maintained silence in solidarity and/or for personal benefit. It’s a dirty business.

But we won’t hear everything, that not the nature of a trial. It’s a carefully scripted presentation by skilled orators who consider everything from jury makeup to how they sit/stand dress, to when they object, tone of voice and human psychology. In fact, it seems pretty clear you’ve already made your mind up, and I’d be surprised if that’s not due in large part to that which has been said and leaked to the media. That brings me back to the hypothetical….is a gag order fair? I’ll move on, doesn’t matter much one way or the other. Have a good night.

This is the story formally sensible democrats like to hold their nose and tell themselves. Trump was a very electable candidate pre-COVID, in spite of the false claims about his partnership with Putin, and election deniers top to bottom in the Democrat party. The economy was humming, people were working, and corporations were hiring. Post COVID, the democrat party spread vaxx misinformation up to, and including suggesting a vaxx under Trump should not be trusted. They encouraged and often participated in the very behavior we were assured would spike the death count during the height of the pandemic. Death and despair were very good for the democrats. Additionally, the dem leadership shifted the “rich guy target” from $250k to $400k, and floated the student loan forgiveness program to include many, many well-off Americans happy to get the assistance. The intelligence agencies intervened, of course, to limit exposure to Team Biden and his very sketchy relationship (financially, anyways) with his son. In doing so, they positioned Team Trump as involved in spreading Russian information. Certainly, Trump’s style contributed to the loss, but this idea that Biden was anything but the favorite in large part because of his agenda is fantasy.

Illegal or not, it happens, Andy. To be candid, I’m really struggling to understand how you can go from “Trump’s comments = threat” to “Gee, I don’t know why certain things are leaked”. You know why those photos were leaked, and I know why those photos were leaked. We can debate whether it was some low level flunky trying to look important or Merrick Garland himself. We can debate whether it was some malicious and malevolent force trying to divide folks like you and me, or some well-intentioned patriot who truly felt Trump is a threat to all mankind and figured “Screw my ethics”. What is beyond debate is that the photos were leaked to influence opinion. Back to the point. The government holds all the cards here. No budgetary constraints. No limitations on personnel working the case. No personal financial skin in the game whether Smith wins or loses. A one-sided process to return an indictment. The game is played on their home court. They gave unlimited opportunity to leak information and the protection of anonymous sourcing to shape the narrative as they see fit. The defendant, on the other hand, has none of that. If the case Smith is bringing is so strong—-and it likely is—-what’s the harm in sharing/releasing data so long as no significant national secrets are in play (we can even use the Biden Benchmark—anything sensitive enough that it can’t be stored next to a corvette 30 years or older is off limits) and no one is in harms way? I’ve gotten to the point where I realize there’s far too much secrecy in our system, too many people protecting others, too much hidden under the cover of National Security. I remain uncertain about the protective order, but the fantasy that what Trump tweeted is beyond the political pale simply doesn’t hold water with me. That and worse occur daily in Washington.

Pillow talk! What always amazed me was Maddow just nodding along, not a question to be found.

We can pretend for a minute that politicians and activists don’t use incendiary language on an almost daily basis, or that politicians and activists accusing their opposition of being guilty of treason or being an illegitimate president is way cool and not at all dangerous, or senators ominously stating the intelligence community will come for you in any way, shape or form if you cross them. If that makes you feel good,Andy, let’s pretend that. The question was about gag orders. Short of revealing national security issues and exposing individuals to harm, why is it acceptable for the govt to leak as they see fit without recourse, and the defense required to stand down when it benefits them. Again, I’m torn, I’m not sure how I feel about that. If the prosecution is malicious—as has obviously happened with some regularity since the founding of our county, wouldn’t you want to see evidence of same? Assume Trump is not the defendant.

So, Andy, I’m torn by all this. As a law and order guy, I completely understand and appreciate the need to protect our institutions, processes and the people who run them. On the other hand, the simple reality seems to be that the prosecution can leak like a sieve, using the media to create a narrative, and the defense is handcuffed and bullied into silence. I have used the photo of allegedly classified files strewn about on the floor of Mara Lago. These photos were released for effect, and of course, we have no idea what the contents of the file represent. On the other hand, we have no release from DOJ sources of files strewn about in Biden’s garage, office, or any of his homes. So, I’m asking you as a Trump hater. Is a gag order really in the best interest of the public, assuming no lives endangered?