leh-nerd skin-erd

Fair points. The larger question imo was if FBI informants/undercover agents were aware of plans to lay siege to the Capital, what steps, if any, were put in place to minimize threat to human life, property and the seat of power? I’m not all that hung up on FBI personnel being in the mix one the day of the riot, or the use of paid informants in the days leading up to the event. It would be silly to assume those people didn’t exist given the history of law enforcement and use of such tactics. For God’s sake, Whitey Bulger was a glorified serial killer and the FBI used him as an informant and apparently was comfortable with everything/anything he did while so employed. There’s a fine line between information gathering and passively participating in pain and suffering and I’m not always sure that’s managed correctly. So, the question for me is if informants were deployed, what was their role on 1.6 and how did things spiral out of control so quickly? What signs were missed? Why wasn’t there more security? How are was the Capital overrun in minutes like a scene from a movie? it seems to me that in spite of the issues pointed out—people violently attacking others—the real story is how badly whomever was responsible for safeguarding the Capital was grossly incompetent or potentially complicit. On that note, it doesn’t seem like anyone in power is rushing to get to the bottom of THAT question.

I said earlier on that if the police department or DA follows their normal routine, it is what it is. If however they follow a different process for releasing body cam footage etc, or are extending courtesy due to who they are, it's understandable that people would question why.

I'm not sure who you're trying to convince. The record on Biden is clear, dates back nearly 50 years, and often flies in direct contrast to what you're saying. All I'm doing is acknowledging that in spite of his obvious issues--issues that saw him laughed out of prior presidential races, he offered tangible benefits to people and they were willing to look past his transgressions. I think a valid comparison is Kamala Harris. She knows Biden, worked with him, knows of his history with women and so much more behind the scenes. She said she believed the woman who accused him of violent sexual assault, but at the same time, Biden offered her a plum opportunity to elevate her profile. So, the victim gets kicked to the curb, Kamala gets something of tremendous value, not unlike a voter in upstate NY with student loan debt and a $20k (or more) boondoggle thrown their way, or abortion on demands, whatever. You can't erase 50 years of Biden issues just because he's your boy.

Or, that people pretend to be offended by certain things, but only up until there is something in it for them.

Your mom sounds nice, and that's good advice at times. However, she probably also should have told you that in polite society, you should be strong enough to defend your position when you make allegations. That's especially true when you initiate the conversation. Then again, even well-intentioned parents enable their children. Maybe next time have one of the other 5 nearby to explain things to you?

Who said it was suspicious? I said it was an odd domino to fall. What's up with you guys lately? When the story was initially reported, I said it was odd, and SunnyD claimed I said it was "fishy". Odd isn't suspicious, odd isn't fishy. Odd is odd. You've surmised that the reporter rushed to the front and disregarded accuracy concerns. I think that happened early on, when the reporting from some media outlets suggested two men in their underwear, a third person letting them in, and so on. In this case, the version of events reported by Miguel Almaguer was published a week after the incident and hardly reflected breaking news. It was a professionally produced and edited segment that cited sources close to the investigation. I assume that a story with that level of national interest, involving a hammer to the head of a multi-millionaire married to the Speaker of the House, would be of significant interest to the News Organization. In fact, given the initial rush to get the story out and with some of the confusion surrounding the facts, I would assume everything was vetted before the story ran. It's certainly possible that the reporter acted on his own and ran fast and loose to create some buzz, but that would strike me as odd as well. He's been a fixture at the Network for many years.

You're seeing spies in the woods, and creating a narrative from my response that doesn't exist. I said that people voted for Biden because his agenda appealed to them. You said: Give me something to vote for. I don't necessaily like the Dems solutions...but at least they are trying... You also shared your journey from pre-Clinton-era GOP voter to Biden voter and opined how I didn't consider voters like you. I said that represented presumptuous thinking on your part, which it did. I could have pointed out that your journey--while compelling in it's own right--had nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I don’t know about liking or not liking Biden, I’m really talking about his agenda and why people voted for him. Although, the hypocrisy of the voting public was on full display in 2020. Biden was an architect of the legislation targeting disenfranchised communities in the 70s, 80s and 90s, an acknowleged associate and close friend notorious senatorial lech and intern-drowner Ted Kennedy and segregationists, a guy known for lying through his feet on just about every topic imaginable, and a guy with a history of making cringeworthy racial comments over several decades. He’s also an acknowledged groper, though he phrased it a bit differently. People vote on agendas, which is what I said, and what you’ve said twice now. I would be hard pressed to think I could describe the actions of Joe Biden, remove the political affiliation from the equation and have you say “So he trashed a few minorities, and grabbed a few ladies, and hung out with the KKK…sounds like a really cool guy and awesome leader.”.

Well, there are two issues you're addressing here, and I'll handle them separately. First, it's presumptuous to assume I hadn't considered people like you. People grow, evolve, devolve, their opinions change, their political affiliations shift and yesterdays liberal is today's conservative or vice versa. For every line item addressed, there is a separate, yet equal line item that can be pointed to where the dems seem to have moved farther to the extreme. What I said, and what you seem to acknowledge, is that you voted for Biden because his agenda made sense to you. I don't see this as earth-shattering, controversial or even debatable, but do see people attempting to recast their choice as Biden's cognitive issues accelerate. The fact is simple, you voted for the guy and got the guy you wanted. Second, on the issues that bother you about the GOP, I respect your right to your opinion on all of it. Vote liberal, vote socialist, vote how you feel. However, for every line item listed, there is a separate yet equal line item of the dems moving to the extreme that bothers a fellow voter. The most extreme example recently was the allegation that the 2016 election was illegitimate, the result of a coup, and that Trump was guilty of treason. That was a major disinformation campaign, not because I don't like the messaging, but because is spite of having the dems having the full weight of the US government, an exceedingly hostile prosecution, an unlimited budget and the opportunity to coerce and intimidate witnesses, they failed to prove the election was illegitimate, or the result of a coup, or that Trump was guilty of treason. I get that the scheme worked, but I don't understand how if you reaaaalllllly feel the way you feel about Kenneth Starr, why you would accept a supersized version of it just a few decades later. More importantly, I'm not sure why you would be surprised that Trump followed suit with the stolen election claim just a year or two after the Russia game fizzled out in the nationally televised unraveling of Bob Mueller.

https://nypost.com/2022/11/15/nbc-news-reporter-suspended-over-retracted-paul-pelosi-story/amp/ So, the reporter has been suspended for this report. Yet another odd domino to fall in this story. No comment on whether his producer or editor has been suspended. It seems unlikely this story would not have been vetted by upper management at the station. This would be a great story for another media outlet to report on.

You’re saying the Biden agenda will motivate people to vote for Biden, which is what I said in my post. I was responding to BackDays comments about losing to a horrible candidate in Joe Biden. I think he lost because people like you, BackInTheDay and millions of others voted and believed in his agenda. None of the other stuff mattered—his history with women, his racist commentary, his partnering with segregationists, his decades of telling tall tales, and the obvious cognitive decline. What mattered was student loan buyout, who would qualify, abortion on demand, his tax plan, green energy scheme and so on. He sold a plan, you liked what he had to offer, and you bought it. If he runs again, in spite of his continued and frankly tragic decline, millions will vote for him again if he offers the same agenda, or more likely, supersizes the promises and give always. If, on the other hand, he tightened the belt and took those offers off the table while another candidate offered more goodies, the other candidate—Sanders for example, would be the new favorite.

I’m not certain we even disagree on this issue, that’s why I asked you specifically. I don’t know that you’re left-leaning, but I felt you were clear on the craziness of the stolen election theory based on your post. I ask the question from time to time and haven’t really ever gotten an answer. I don’t think the 2020 election was stolen, not because I think people wouldn’t manipulate the vote (they would), but because I haven’t seen proof of it occurring. I don’t think the 2016 election was illegitimate, a result of a coup, or that Trump committed treason as repeated by leaders in the Democrat party. I guess I just think it’s impossible to have a big picture conversation with people who express outrage over claims of a stolen election in 2020 when they have no concerns over claims that the 62,000,000+ votes cast, or the convincing win in the Electoral votes was illegitimate, represented a coup or that he committed treason in 2016. So, I ask in hopes I get an answer. I usually don’t.

Hogwash. Well, it’s true he lost. Biden motivated people to get out and vote based on his agenda and messaging, which included green energy initiatives, student loans forgiveness and his international expertise. The reality is he didn’t need to come out if his basement because what he sold, sells to certain people. There’s no need to reset the narrative.

I’ll ask you, Goatski, for feedback. When Trump was accused of being an illegitimate president, elected in a coup, guilty of treason…and when sitting VP Harris suggested the vaxx developed under a Trump admin couldn’t be trusted, leading to confusion and reinforcing vaxx hesitancy at a time when we all needed to be onboard—-is that disinformation and the same sort of laughable stuff as you see it? We’re 6 years post-election, the illegitimate and Russian agent stuff went nowhere, and Trump certainly didn’t personally make the vaccine in his basement. What say you on all that brand of crazy talk? I ask because context matters to me. I’m fine discussing issues involving allegations of stolen elections, and whether or not proof exists in that regard, but I also try to see the big picture. Most of the left leaning folks seem to prefer to skip that whole deal.

I see it now. Ned was right the whole time, with your chicanery, questions and Fox News.

Ned, it’s not my discussion nor my fight. However, Chef’s question was neither extreme trickery nor dumb. I think where you jumped the rails was when you didn’t answer the follow up question after accusing Chef of playing games. It gave the appearance that you were trapped in a maze of your own design, and lashed out to deflect. Submitted without comment, except of course for the comments I included. L. Skin-nerd, 2022

@nedboy7 says “The Dementors”, final answer.

You hop in a time machine, go back 20 years and remove people from office that deliberately sow seeds of doubt about the integrity of our process, about other political candidates, and you replace them with issues-based elections. It seems logical to me that the steady, constant drumbeat of messaging that boils down to “you, the voter are getting ****ed by the other guy” leads to people skeptical of the process, but only when their guy loses. One of the more troubling aspects of the Search For WMDs and advent of the Obama era….was the complete lack of accountability for W Bush, or the D leaders who claimed he lied and people died. The nation went from patriotic fervor, to the deaths of thousands of the best types of people our country has to offer, to a declaration that W Bush and his administration manufactured evidence of WMDs in order to invade and topple a sovereign nation. A few short months later, W Bush and the Obama’s are fast friends, W Bush is recast as a lovable old guy who just loves to paint and be a grandpa. No public hearings, no deep dives, no DOJ knocking down doors, just 37,000 dead or injured Americans, and as many as 500,000 Iraqis dead and countless more injured. There’s a disconnect there, and somewhere, somehow one or the other spread disinformation on a massive scale. We can pretend that’s the first time it happened in our history, or, we can be rational and cynical at the same time. So, yeah, forgive me if I don’t spend too much time worrying about 2000 Mules. Or that the other video, the one that lead to the attack on the embassy in Benghazi. My suggestion on Maricopa County would have been not to *&$# up the process to begin with, and maybe to have people in there to ensure it ran smoothly. When it didn’t, recognition that people don’t trust the system is as natural as day following night.

That’s pretty harsh, and a bit extreme. His children certainly seem to love him, his wife as well. He’s employed thousands of people, and in spite of you sitting in judgement there are people who see it differently. Be that as it may, the political arena is probably the last place you want to look for people that share your particular views on honor and values. Would a Joe Biden be the type of person with “values and virtue”? He seems to have issues pretty much across the board, no? Yet, publications, newspapers and groups pimp him as the go-to candidate. Why is this any different?

In this scenario, there is data missing to figure out if it’s why “we got into the situation we are in”. What was the original loan balance? What choices were made while incurring the debt? What school did the borrower attend, did they live at home or on campus? What degree did they pursue, and how long did it take to complete coursework if indeed they did? Are they working in their chosen field, and what are the job prospects in the area they live in? Was it reasonable to assume they would make sufficient money in their career in order to repay the debt? Were there more reasonable options to complete degree work at other schools? How much money are they making? How much money might family members be able to contribute to repayment? In addition, the government recently extended economic recovery loan offers through the SBA for small businesses at 3.5% with a 30 year repayment term. Is this a similar situation where one might wonder about the government profit motive?

Yet, smart enough to figure out the math on that whole loan thing.

That’s why need the money men/people!

Agreed. It’s not that long ago the ugly rich folk class started at $250k annual income. That’s been reset to $400k. The Dems have been quite successful reimagining exactly where folks qualify for victim status. The student loan forgiveness program likely paid huge dividends by positioning a couple making up to a quarter-million per year as needy and set-upon, and that’s really just getting started. There are people looking at a $20k windfall, and perhaps a similar windfall for their educated children, it’s understandable people would not want to walk away from that. The signs are there already pointing to “…it doesn’t go far enough” which sets the stage nicely for the next buy down. If you’re an individual making $60k as a _________ with $110k in student loan debt, that carrot of $50k+ floated by prominent Dems is would likely be pretty enticing. Add in the abortion issue and its appeal to a large portion of women, and a general sense that the American political system is pretty f’d up to begin with, people voted in their best interest. Same as it ever was.

That’s a fallacious question, and it’s less “trying again” and more “I don’t want to answer”. The real question is: Why do you as an individual feel compelled to tell me I have no right to engage in brisk, vigorous and reasoned political debate simply because you don’t like my religious views?

I already knew that, you made it clear in your original post. I also recognize that as a matter of conscience, you may support abortion up to delivery. The question is why you would suggest I shouldn’t have a seat at the table simply because you don’t like my position on when abortion should be legal or not. That sounds more like tyranny than freedom.