leh-nerd skin-erd

I’m not sure I understand you here. You don’t care about that you don’t understand the differences in the two programs, or you don’t care that socialism is ok in certain scenarios? I guess I’m confused, too, about the characterization of people as peasants and them not receiving a dime. It stands to reason, and is extraordinarily likely that many, many, many people who would stand to benefit from the Biden forgiveness program benefited directly—and significantly from PPP. My recollection is that the calculation was roughly 10 weeks of salary was passed loaned to business owners to protect paychecks of employees during the lockdown. So, I don’t know, an individual making $115k would stand to receive around $24,000, and his partner making $97,500 would receive around $20k. I didn’t look up the parameters, so maybe I’m 10% high on my assessments. You support socialism (I think), but would have preferred the people in desperate need of student debt relief not get the $45k during the government shutdown, just because Biden is having trouble figuring out how relieve student loan debt without tripping over constitutional issues?

Before we get to Rep Jayapal, do you know the difference between the two scenarios she's upset about?

Things are becoming a bit clearer to me as you continue to share thoughts about "nuts", their "naked man" talk, "conspiracies" and this being the "board" versus, I assume, some other place that isn't sane. I think now I can understand why someone like you would feel the need to take a stand against all these...conspiratorial factions...and places....and all these disturbing things said there. I do want to tell you that The Matrix was a movie, and my name is not Neo. I also want you to know leh-nerd skin-erd is not my real name, and I don't use that to try and trick anyone or imply that I wrote or sang "Free Bird". Just to be crystal clear, in the event it comes up, I have sung along to Free Bird quite often, mostly in the car or at a party. I'm just not the person you hear when it plays on the radio. Godspeed, son, on fighting this good fight against nuts, real or imagined, here on the sane board, or wherever it is the non-sane board lurks.

You didn't call out garbage, you created a narrative the didn't exist, took more positions than are detailed the Kama Sutra, and eventually when you ran out of rope you suggested I said something was "fishy" when I said it was "odd". Why did you do that? You are scoundrel, sir, and as we're about to see below, unwilling to back up that which you claim. The world is full of small-minded, straight line, and fixed mindset people. I don't know if you're one of them generally, you might be a real hoot at neighborhood game night on a Friday in the suburbs. I do know you show all the signs of having such limitations here, on this part of the board. I've addressed Donald Trump being charged, found guilty and convicted. I've addressed alternate outcomes based on facts known and unknown. I don't know what the outcome will be, because I know I don't have all the facts. That hardly makes me an apologist, but it most definitely shows the wisdom of recognizing there are several potential outcomes to this as yet unresolved political theater. To close one's mind and completely disregard potential outcomes is the sign of a dullard, and I think that describes you quite well. Look before you leap, Sunny, and remember that fools rush in.

This is gibberish, much like the nonsensical conspiracy post you spun on the Pelosi reporting. Trump created his own mess by taking/keeping data he should not have. The DOJ is not his friend, the democrat majority is not an ally, and by allegedly taking material that he should not have. As a result, he should have assumed that at some point, armed agents in tactical gear would raid his home and seize property contained therein. When the DOJ decided to raid his home, they sent a large squad of officers in tactical gear, they reportedly instructed people at the home to shut off security cameras. They allegedly took material covered by the subpoena, and a substantial amount of material they should not have seized. That data is reported to have included tax records and a trove of attorney-client material. There have been multiple leaks attributed to people involved in the investigation about what may/may not have been there. Some of these reports are in conflict. The DOJ took the time to photograph files and documents purported to contain material that was confidential+ and released it to the media. The DOJ, upon seizing documents that they should not have seized (allegedly), claimed to the court that the need for an independent party to look at the material and protect the interests of all parties would jeopardize national security and besides, they could sort through the material and be trusted to do the right thing. If Donald Trump was trading in top secret and confidential information, he should be charged, convicted and jailed in accordance with the laws of the land that are applicable. If his actions were not nefarious, and a matter of what he may/may not have been able to declassify, and it turns out the DOJ was acting in a partisan political fashion, those that authorized the raid and seizure should be held accountable. If, when applying current law and standards to the situation he violated a law that is a law, but one of those laws that isn’t really acted upon, like one that is law-ish or law-like but not really law-law, it should be handled as such. Now, tell me where we disagree, tell me how I’m apologizing for the actions of DJT, and try to use words in sequence that make sense.

Poor form. On this board. Where people are subjected to all sorts of nastiness on a daily basis. Best wishes to Mr. Pelosi on his continued recovery, best wishes to Miguel Almaguer on his career, but on a scale of 1-100 that sort of dark humor is a 4 imo.

I would evaluate my performance as compared to expectation of my employer, consider if the salary/benefits offered were in line with the job, consider other job prospects available to me as it relates to points 1 and 2, and go from there. This messaging in and of itself wouldn’t bother me. That said, I’m self-employed and i would not send share this messaging in this way, but he certainly stepped right past the corporate bs that folks often complain about.

I’ll jump in here. Tread carefully, as soon, this man may be your boss.

That's fine, too, but I am neither as trusting nor as inclined to believe it's all just the work product of an honest day's work. No problem, and I have considered the agenda of players and attempted to suppress my own innate bias. This doesn't push the envelope in the direction you suggest in my opinion. The Benghazi Committee issued a subpoena on March 4, 2015. Between March 25-31, 2015, 30,000 emails were deleted from the servers, seemingly in violation of the subpoena. The story goes that folks in the Clinton orbit knew of the subpoena, but somehow misunderstood what it all meant. And that the technician who deleted the files in defiance of the subpoena misremembered forgetting to delete 30,000 emails from a year earlier, and decided unilaterally to delete files covered by the subpoena, subsequently received immunity from prosecution because...something...and later on refused to provide testimony as his right under the constitution. Hillary Clinton was never going to jail, and they were never going to lock her up. She is too big to fail, with too many friends in high places. I believe, however, that the average guy on the street deleting a whole sh-t trove of emails addressed by a court order would be thrilled beyond belief to have the courtesy extended to Clinton extended to his situation. https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/298272-fbi-no-evidence-clinton-ordered-deletion-of-subpoenaed-email-archive/ I'm no Clinton fan, but am not interested in hanging accusations around her neck that are untrue or malicious. However, it seems exceedingly unlikely that she and her team simply had an oopsie-daisy three weeks after a court-order was issued to retain documents, that 30,000 were deleted with extreme prejudice, especially in light of the fact that this was a story that had international significance and was the subject of endless, non-stop scrutiny. I most definitely feel 100% comfortable in saying the story as spun makes very, very little sense outside the fact that in Washington, weird sh*t happens and powerful people get benefits the average guy does not.

I’m not inclined to take the allegations in an affidavit in a case like this at face value . In my opinion it like reading a review of a Broadway play written by the actor who starred in the production. That’s not to say the affiant is lying or lacks credibility, I just as soon wait for the whole story to be told. You’ve said this before, and I’ll respond as I have previously. They sent armed agents in tactical gear to beach the security of the home and seize documents they were authorized to seize and apparently many they were not. There have been numerous leaks about what was taken, said leaks coming from those inside the investigation, and alms initial reports may/may not be accurate. The Garland DOJ sent a clear message, and it was anything but on the downlow. That was my point on the slam dunk aspects of this case…there is so much we don’t know. I’m not sure if this is a stylistic thing or not, but this comes off as a tad condescending and offputting. Actually, more than a tad but whatever. That’s always possible. I’m happy to consider feedback but remember, I’m but a simple country bumpkin who gets his legal analysis from the Local Pennysaver. Dumb it down for me. 😎

That's the narrative, but there have been no charges filed, no testimony given, no questioning of witnesses in a court room setting. It remains to be seen if the laws governing this sort of alleged behavior are those a reasonable prosecutor would pursue, and/or whether or not a reasonable prosecutor is making the determination. What we do have is a cascade of anonymous DOJ sources, some apparently in conflict with others, as is par for the course when the the government squeezes an individual. As I indicated---it was an unforced error on his part, it didn't need to happen, and there was no need to expose his throat to a wolf he surely knows is lurking nearby. Do you think we're in disagreement here? That changes nothing with respect to Hillary Clinton, which was part of the post I replied to.

I'm not a prosecutor, I do not have access to case law or precedent, nor do I have the ability to do a deep dive into the relevance of case law to the Clinton situation. I don't know what, if any similarities exist between that and prior cases, or whether there were subtle differences between Clinton's actions and those of defendants past. I do believe that the practice of law and prosecution/defense work involves creative thinking and is as much of an art as a science. I think when someone in a position of authority, overseeing an investigation with massive political implications, declares something to be true, it's reasonable to question their motives. Given the behavior of James Comey during the earliest days of the Trump admin and later on as it came to the IG report on his leaking of self-serving documents, I think it's critical to consider everything said or done from a political perspective. In addition, I don't know that if Prosecutor A decides not to pursue charges, that Prosecutor's B, C and D would agree. These things are subjective. In the Clinton case, an individual with access to our nation's secrets was described as extremely careless in her role, and the FBI seemed to extend substantial, perhaps unwarranted courtesy to her by allowing her to delete potentially incriminating evidence from her server. In the end, as a citizen, it boils down to one exceptionally powerful individual giving special consideration to another exceptionally powerful individual, and I really don't see any other walk of life where the average person would say "Yeah, that makes sense.". If there were a hundred documents marked classified, it certainly appears worse than if there were 10, so there was every incentive for this extremely reckless individual to clean up her mess before Comey finished his report and ultimately scuttled any chance of prosecution by saying it wasn't reasonable. As for Trump, it's on him to know the rules and make the right decision. He certainly should understand the Garland DOJ would stop at nothing to destroy him, so it's an unforced error to give them the opportunity.

Sure, I agree on all that but am pretty confident Trump was not trafficking in classified information in any way, shape or form. It would seem unlikely that if he were, the intelligence community would not get wind of it. I also understand your position on Hillary Clinton, but as a citizen, the notion that a Sec of State could be described as careless, reckless, extremely reckless with classified information on a sever, and still be allowed to clean up her own mess without oversight is much more troubling to me. That 60,000,000 people thought an extremely reckless and careless woman was the right choice for president but suddenly develop standards when the DOJ executes an armed raid reminds me that some people have standards only when it’s politically convenient.

One would think with him hiding the nuclear secrets near the box of microwave popcorn, he might have grabbed some files that paint his enemies in a not-so-flattering or unsavory light. Given that his enemies include just about every establishment politician from either party and the FBI/DOJ, it could be an interesting show.

There is a long journey filled with twists, turns and unforeseen peril between where we are today and a slam dunk jury verdict. What we don’t know about the case, strategy, potential allegations of misconduct, procedural missteps, prosecutorial misconduct, and the emotional side of prosecuting and convicting a former president could fill a warehouse. That’s why we moved away from lynch mobs, playa.

Maybe, maybe not. Who really knows what's going on behind the scenes, and when people testify under oath.

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.