leh-nerd skin-erd

Mup, I’m unaware of a Youtube video, and wondering from your perspective, what it revealed? In reading the recap of the interview on ABC, I’m struck once again on how to thread the needle between horrific allegations against Araiza, the attorney’s statement that an apology/donation might have solved his problem, and what she said here.

To assume the imagery was a mistake, or his rhetoric being walked back because it was unpopular is a huge mistake imo. There are millions and millions of dollars spent on this sort of thing. Speechwriters are trained in the best way to elicit emotion, engagement, disgust, suspicion, etc. They are trained in psychology of speech delivery, tempo, building anticipation, the general ebb and flow of delivery. There are experts galore looking at data, focus groups and general sentiment of prospective voters. The photo of Biden above, looking like an enraged dictator and raising a call of action against the opposition, is anticipated, planned and expected. There is an entire industry devoted to the significance of color choice, and they used it for desired effect. Looking at the replies here, you see some Biden lifers speaking about the opposition as evil and deplorable. They are the easiest to manipulate, and those that produced the speech may not know the, by name, they know them by predisposition. Then you have the people pointing to the parts of the speech that are inane and innocuous, thinking of course, “What’s the harm in this?”. The answer is “Nothing, but that wasn’t the overriding message delivered.”. To draw a parallel, a person telling someone they like their haircut is nice, but in context, doing so after they punched them in the face 5 times makes you question the real message delivered. Interestingly, you can see a cross section of typical replies of early Trump supporters here. You recall them—those that didn’t alway like his rhetoric, didn’t always like his tone, but believed in the message he delivered. Security at the southern border comes to mind. Frankish, for example, seems content to tiptoe around the issue. He mentioned earlier he didn’t like this sort of speech, then later on compared this very unquestionably divisive speech by any account to strategizing in a typical NFL game. I suppose if the Dolphins defensive coordinator got a podium, a national audience and 24x7 coverage of everything he said and stated “The very existence of the Buffalo Bills and their fans pose a threat to our very way of life, and are coming for your soul”, I could see that parallel.

"Creative!", circa 1956.

If Brett Favre was Brett Biden, this story never woulda seen the light of day! On the bright side if he's having an affair with his dead brother's wife, it's just Mississippi burnin!

Exactly. "Illegitimate elections", "coup", and "treason" lead directly to "stop the steal". One never happens without the other. Everybody complains when the other guy does it, but loves the heck out of it when it benefits them politically, financially, or emotionally. One point of disagreement, though, is that Biden is simply "trolling" Trump. Trump trolled Clinton with 'lock her up', something that never was going to happen. Reid trolled Romney with "He doesn't pay taxes". Biden sent the FBI to his house, gathered documents clearly relevant to the issue the DOJ is pursuing, but also apparently grabbed information that was not part of the search, held it, reviewed it, and has suggested there is no need for a special master because it will impact their investigation and presumably they are beyond reproach. That's not trolling, that's using the full weight and power of the US Government in an attempt to overwhelm and destroy the target. He did that because when they surveilled his admin, colluded with a foreign national to spread disinformation, tried to have him removed from office on he heard she said her cousin told her, and a host of other issues, you all were fine with it. When that worked, he supersized. Now it's Trump and all those who voted for him. A lot of people will not pay attention to the rhetoric (he's a politician and lies regularly, they'll say), but a lot of people agree. There's nothing new here, he's following a pattern of demonizing folks that don't support him by calling them dangerous and suggesting violence might be necessary. It's worked all throughout history. The only real point to be taken from this is that that sort of governing works, and is very popular with millions and millions of people. My thought is...when the time comes in the future and the opposition needs destroying, what's that next phase going to look like? *Edit--It's possible that the DOJ is super duper concerned about the material in his possession, and that this really was an issue of national security. The problem there is after branding him an illegitimate president, in office as result of a coup, surveilled his team, colluded with a foreign national to spread disinformation to influences voters, and apparently worked with social media to deep-six stories that might impact the outcome of elections, there are serious credibility questions that must be overcome. It could NOT be political, but really, isn't everything?

In a twist that surprised no one who is a student of human nature, the man who mocks people of faith, religion and discussions of good v evil... Drinks deeply at the majestic altar of Biden, replete with pageantry, fire, brimstone, the eternal struggle of good v evil, and the desperate fight for, as Pastor Joe calls it, the very Soul of the Nation. They say you can't make this *&^% up, truth is, you don't have to.

I love this argument, it's one of my favorites. The point is that to the voting public, context usually matters. Sure, the occasional self-righteous poindexter rolls out with "I don't want to talk about that!!" when wanting to fixate on a particular subject, but when it comes to hot button issues like this, the question "What exactly is the standard criminally, civilly, and what's considered acceptable in spite of rules that may date back as far as 1776?". In context, all the hand-wringing liberals worried about Trump and authoritarian behavior have been completely comfortable with the following authoritarian behavior: Alleging collusion with Russia while being completely comfortable with collusion with a foreign national and a phony story; Expressing concern about a second or third hand retelling of an allegation of Ukrainian shakedown while being completely comfortable with an on-camera acknowledgement of a Ukrainian shakedown; The DOJ executing an armed raid on the opposition party purportedly searching for illegally held confidential+ material, while extending unprecedented courtesy to allow a candidate judged to be exceptionally reckless with confidential+ material to perform self-reported wrongdoing and delete whatever it was that she felt the FBI didn't need to see; Outrage over claims that an election was stolen by one candidate, complete comfort with allegations of treason, illegitimate elections and a president installed in a coup by their faves; The seizure of non-relevant material and documents, including allegations that material protected under attorney-client privilege was seized, in spite of the size, scope and number of agents who participated in the search; The request by the DOJ to deny Trump's request to assign a Special Master to provide additional oversight on this matter, in essence saying "Trust us, national security is at risk!" , a standard used throughout history to bamboozle the American people and potentially represent that pesky darkness where democracy is thought to die; I dunno on this one. We've been told by the highest ranking FBI agent in the land that no reasonable prosecutor prosecutes folks for sending classified+ material on the G-mail, that factual information destined to impact voter choice at a critical election was Russian intel, and that social media outlets manipulated data that might have changed the outcome as well. I think the wisest course of action is to recognize that whatever side you're on, the other side is demonstrably full of $%$# and the government should not be trusted implicitly. You n' yours should remember how it feels, you were there a couple years ago.

40 with this gem….”…the former President filed a bull### motion…”, that is, he availed himself of his rights under our system of justice. That’s not bull####, son. Next up from 40…”He didn’t turn surveillance off….obstruction” and concurrently “Why doesn’t he just submit if he has nothing to hide???”. 🤦🏼‍♂️

$100 a month x 2 x 12 x 35 years @ __%…If Tibsy’s friends don’t turn into chubby winos getting their lunch drank on regularly, they can make some headway here. They can probably save up enough to pay a lawyer if they get in another financial pickle down the road.

This has been an awesome read. S3 bloviating about whether or not something is material to a voter. 940 howling at the moon and letting the vulgarities fly like a truck driver at rush hour. I’ll answer the question posed, Chef. The number of presidents who left office and took confidential/top secret information with them is likely 100% of the presidents who left office. The number of high-ranking officials who handled classified and top secret intel inappropriately is likely quite high as well, up to and including maintaining documents at their private residence(s).

You must see the glass as half empty. When considered as a whole, the equities market has offered opportunities in abundance since 1929. The world didn’t end then, either! What I’m saying is for your friends, the low water mark (1929) was when they were besieged with debt that was clearly beyond their control. Now that the obligation has been neutralized, they can push forward and use the savings on expenditures important to them. It won’t happen overnight, of course, and it will at times be a struggle. Maybe the newest iPhone is delayed or out of stock. Maybe their favorite restaurant is booked. Maybe they want a BMW but have to settle for a Kia. All I know is they are Survivors and #studentloanstrong.

Nothing has ended the world, Tibs, yet you opine as much as anyone. I'm just glad you and your friends got out of the coal mine for lunch. Btw--I'm not certain is REM took the PPP loan option or not. I'll do some digging. https://variety.com/2020/biz/news/guns-n-roses-eagles-pearl-jam-ppp-loans-1234700398/

Hard working folks take loans. Hard working folks prefer not to pay the loans. Hard working folks catch the break thrown their way by Presidential intervention. Hard working folks immediately celebrate emancipation from obligation with booze-fueled over-priced lunch with liberal hipster friend. Just listening to their story, it's like 1929 all over again. #thestruggleisreal

If only there was a lawmaker, a man of power and principle who could have addressed the tax credits to multi-billion dollar businesses in the last 50 years…..

You are assuming MA is the only/prime target of the litigation. I'm not so inclined. I also have no idea what assets are in play, who the parties are to litigation, whether or not there are other defendants the plaintiff may add later on or anything else. If I were to assume cash grab--and I'm not--then the decision to supersize the lawsuit into a national story by involving a guy called "the punt God", the Buffalo Bills and an NFL not exactly known for championing women's rights cannot be underestimated. How do you reconcile the comments made by the plaintiff that an apology and donation may have solved the problem for Araiza? Does that make any sense to you given what has been alleged?

"In that case" are critical words in that sentence. In that case involved a plaintiff who viewed the outcome as in question, that is to say, a chance exists that a jury might determine no liability exists on Araiza's part, or on the lower end of the spectrum. If Araiza feels he's being extorted, settlement might well be to avoid "embarrassment, scrutiny and death threats", which from his perspective would be a cash grab. My point only was that in the case against Araiza, cash may ultimately be the goal. As I said, it's also possible it's not a cash grab at all, though I would wonder why the plaintiff suggested an apology and donation might have solved his problems.

That's how you read my reply? Interesting.

Point 1: It would indeed show they tried to pay to make it go away. My issue was with that being "damning" from his perspective; Point 2: It would not show that at all, though that is a possible interpretation and may be correct. However, it's also possible the plaintiff attorney is considering whether or not Araiza may avoid prosecution, it's also possible he's weighing whether or not he will be held liable for damages to his client in civil court. In that case, perhaps team Araiza offers a $10,000 settlement to avoid embarrassment, scrutiny, and death threats to simply be done with it, while plaintiff sees the cost to exit under those terms at closer to $75,000. Ah, I see you meant from the perspective of his involvement with the Bills. Ty.

What, exactly, would be "damning" about it if true?

I don’t know the details of what a college might look at in California, but a Title IX investigation by a university is completely different than a police investigation. Different training, different goals, different standards, different outcomes. If a violent sexual assault occurred, I’d think the last thing the university should be doing is investigating this matter.

This site references the US Department of Education and suggests the average Yale graduate will qualify under the Biden plan. Interestingly, the same site suggests the median student loan debt is $13,500. In that regard, the data suggests that 84% of Yale graduates were actively paying their loan v the national average of 47%. https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/connecticut/yale-university/salaries/ It’s an interesting conundrum that when applying for FASFA, household income is considered as a critical element yet family ability to repay post-grad not so much. Finally, it isn’t just Yale or Harvard, there are many high profile schools that cost a ton and have significant endowments not contributing to solve the problem. The easy bankruptcy out is another problem in the country. One of the major reasons Trump won the election was the recognition that establishment Republicans were not all that different that establishment Democrats. Lots of words, lots of talk, same old men in power. If I hear Lindsey Graham suggest one more time to “Stay tuned” I’ll vomit. Stepping back a bit, it’s common knowledge that corporations and unions have a tremendous amount of power in our system. We’ve all heard it. Pharma. Oil. Finance. Health Insurance. Somehow, though, education is talked about, raged about, emotions raw….and nothing changed. While I don’t necessarily ascribe to @Chef Jim approach to “Ah, f*** it”, he’s not wrong on the shell game aspect of it all. Some people win, some people lose.

Well, that’s pretty clear. It seems ironic that folks who have judged Arazia guilty as not yet charged would call and threaten his family members with serious injury or death. Then again, some people are absolutely nuts.

As long as the c is silent in your version, no one should have a problem with it.

Who said it’s bad publicity? That’s all in the eye of the beholder. Oh and on the “style of rhetoric”… PAGING MUPPY VAN WINKLE! PAGING MUPPY VAN WINLE! This is nothing new.

That’s part of the challenge if you’re someone interested in the facts before deciding anecdotally whether or not he should be on a football team you follow. I understand the Kennedy and Smollette families getting a pass due to influence, but does a San Diego State football team player generate the type of juice to tamp this down in 2022?