leh-nerd skin-erd

@Bob in Mich Thanks for sharing this Promo. My m-I-l is dealing with dementia and in reading this, you wonder what the future might look like for loved ones and friends dealing with these and similar issues.

Thanks for sharing. I’m no brainiac, but I’ve long thought climate science is much more about redistribution models and much less about Mother Earth. I also think the science of climate religion is making some very powerful people some major coin. I do know that nothing is Biden’s fault. That needs to be said here.

I’m not convinced 100% convinced there is such a thing as a “public grand jury faze”. I am 100% convinced you made that up. Be that as it may, why not just answer honestly? I have come to expect these absurd shenanigans from BillSy, but what do you gain from this silliness? You asked me questions. I asked for additional clarification, respected the process when you declined to do so, and answered to your follow up question. There is no trickery involved in my question. Do you think the DOJ has this previously unknown secret documentary evidence that reveals in explicit detail the criminality of DJT? If so why haven’t we seen it? Do you feel the DOJ was waiting for the committee to do the screening before acting?

Cool. I'd suggest you can stop at "A lack of charges at this time obviously does not imply that Trump is guilty.". Beyond that is speculation, and why bother? I have faith in leadership in the DOJ only to a point. I believe that political prosecution can be the byproduct of life in Washington, that power can corrupt, and that even well-intentioned prosecutors may act irresponsibly if they are convinced their actions are for the greater good. Having said that, I'm happy to cross that bridge if it ever comes to it, but at this point, there ain't a body of water in sight. I think having faith that the DoJ would not manipulate, leak, strong-arm, communicate with the press, misrepresent evidence and destroy a reputation is admirable, but defies conventional wisdom and logic.

Yes, I understand that and have factored that into my analysis. I'd invite you, if you were so inclined (I believe you are not)to find any place in my posts where I declared DJT or anyone else innocent of anything. How the heck would I know? What I can state emphatically and with purpose, is that the lack of criminal charges does not suggest that Trump is guilty of anything. I can also state, emphatically and with purpose, that simply because there is a political hearing of this nature it does not mean that criminal charges are imminent or pending. Still, when Tibsy is screaming in my ear that I stood with the Crown in 1776 among many other purported transgressions, and lobs accusations without source documents, I feel I am the aggrieved party.

Ok Tibs, this seems like a good time to ask. Andrew Rainbow sends out a tweet referencing a film crew purported to have evidence that makes Watergate look like jaywalking. Wouldn't that particular stunning development that proves criminality on the part of DJT have been shared with the DOJ, FBI etc? Wouldn't they act on that? Why all the cloak and dagger here? The VCR film screening, the dramatic build up? It sounds like more 1/6 flat earth truther material, no? Or, are is the thinking that the film crew is actually part of the cabal? Are they in on it, and the DOJ couldn't break them, so they put Schiffty on it?

Again, Tibsy, you're confusing your characterization of events and actions with mine. I already indicated I didn't think there was any criminal behavior. I asked you for specifics, you don't have any. None at all. You're an empty vessel of nothingness adrift on an ocean of beige in this regard. So, I couldn't care more if a president was actually fighting to overturn the will of the people, it would be a major source of concern for me! All I am asking of you is to point me in the direction of anything beyond you stating something is clear when it obviously is not. Why don't you care that there are no charges filed? It's been nearly 2 years. Just to be clear--I was not around in 1776, but I was rooting for Mel Gibson against that limey %$#@ in The Patriot.

I could care less—this is true. These are important issues, but your allegations without substantiation do not move the needle for me one way or the other. Don’t keep me in suspense though….where have the criminal charges been filed? I see no evidence of this type of activity.

I would rather sit through a marathon lecture by Professor @Tiberius held down at the local VFW post entitled "Trump-A Conspiracy Too Far Question Mark" that combined hard-hitting socio-political commentary with an opportunity to learn safe driving habits and save me 10% on my insurance than watch those pudniks rattle on. Some folks love the wonkiness of all that stuff. I'm just not one of those people.

I can not be any more clear than I have been.

When charges are brought under the more (hopefully) rigorous standards associated with our criminal justice system, I'm happy to revisit these and any other alleged activities. In the interim, I have precious little interest in watching political politicians politicking politically under the rules and guidelines of congressional committees. You've mentioned along the way that there are difference aspects to these committee hearings, including one that's looking at the lack of security that day. That was pretty clearly a problem (though Colbert's puppet team people Mission Impossibled the %$#@ out it too) imo, but it seems to me that to get to the bottom of that, the last thing I would want to see is a bunch of amateurs long on wind and short on experience trying to figure anything out at all. I realize it's done, it just seems silly to me. Just add it to the list.

I think a president (senator, congressperson etc) is afforded protection under rules and guidelines that are different than those that apply to regular folks like you and me. Some of those protections are the result of the laws on the books, some are due to political affiliation and the power structure in Washington (or any state in the Union) at given point in time. I do not think that "trying to steal an election" is done by everyone. I've never attempted to steal an election. To my knowledge, @B-Man has never tried to steal an election. I don't believe you have attempted to steal an election, Tibsy. I could go on but while I don't know everyone, I know more than a few somebodies.

No.

What episode are you referring to, Tibs? Holding the rally? Suggesting the election was fixed? Attempting, and failing, to use the legal system to review the outcome of the election? If you can be specific, I'd be happy to respond.

I didn't suggest you needed to be open-minded, I just replied to a post where you offered your views on character and such. In my experience, if I start shunning people with d-bagish tendencies I have to cut out many folks, including actors, musical artists and the occasional professional football player. It's not that I don't ever shun, I just selectively manage according to things that interest me, and try not to judge those who may have a different perspective. In many cases, I find discussions with people who disagree with me enlightening or at a minimum, interesting. As for Jauronimo's post, I read and replied to it. As an observation, in reading your last two posts, this beloved television character came to mind: It's a shame when it gets nasty.

To the larger point, I agree. It would be nice if the bs was eliminated. I do think the view that politicians of old were above it all is hyper-glamorized. That is to say, I don’t think such animals roamed the earth in anything approaching large numbers. It’s a nasty, ugly business and has been since before the infamous Burr-Hamilton duel.

That’s interesting. I find differences in perspective pretty cool, and find people to be pretty relatable if I hold myself accountable to being open-minded.

Lots of people are frightened when the other guy is in office, it’s the nature of the beast. People have different reasons for being concerned, but it’s actually a pretty pedestrian human emotion. “Oh no…” the heart claims “this guy is so freaking out there the **** is going to hit the fan!!!”. Then of course, it’s 15 months later, the guy in the Clan of the Cave Bear costume is dealt with, and the guy some are convinced was the moronic yet incredibly cunning and secret genius behind it all is golfing at Pebble Beach (again). Anyway, your point on Mitt Romney. Mitt comes around in 2024, a new improved scandal unfolds. My guess would be “complicit in 1/6 insurrection/secret co-conspirator”. Personally, I think he’s an empty suit, a bobble head who lacks the intestinal fortitude to play the game on the level it must be played. Here’s an example: Mitt Romney, Republican, claims he would have voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh and says the confirmation process is “awful”. https://nypost.com/2018/10/10/romney-calls-supreme-court-confirmation-process-awful/ “Awful”. Wow, there’s a deep, intellectual and visceral response to a group of opposition senators painting a distinguished jurist with decades on the court as a serial sexual predator. The opposition leadership attempted to destroy the man, his reputation and his family simply for being a conservative. Me? I use “awful” to describe the service when the server brings my Reuben out and it’s cold and the bread is soggy on the plate. Mitt is the most presidential looking guy of the group, but he’s soft as butter and inspires no confidence from the base. He did at one time, but that ship has sailed.

I'm always willing to stop the game, but after the 4+ years of Russia and things like the Kavanaugh debacle, I simply say "Let's stop the game and work toward unity....but you first.". Not you specifically, but, well, you know. "Good for the party"...I'm don't know. I didn't think he was good for the party to begin with--and in spite of his flaws I enjoyed the persona, The Apprentice etc. I was driving near Springfield, Mass when he announces and thought it was just classic Trump with the rebrand. At the same time, I was disillusioned with R leadership and the thought of Jeb Bush being the nominee sickened me. Another Clinton was a non-starter for me..and I was at the point where I viewed the D/R leadership as just one big party with a few special interests one way or the other. So, I think people underestimate the Trump effect. In spite of 5 years of hammering about what a treasonous person he was, he garnered nearly 75,000,000 votes. I would think the 1/6 issue will cost him very few of those voters, and that all other thing being equal, Biden might drive many, many more to vote for him. The truth is, before COVID, he appeared to be in a very good position to win re-election. The economy was humming, money long held offshore due to onerous tax law was being repatriated, and there was optimism in spite of his own antics, and the intention of the mainstream media outlets to tie everything bad with the world to him. I think there may be a better way to go about things moving forward. I don't claim to know a ton about DeSantis, his legendary status and his 'he's the demon seed' reputation are likely both vastly overstated. I think a more well-disciplined candidate, with a reputation for cutting through the b*llshit, calling out his enemies and throwing shots back at them is a better answer at this point given Trump's age at that point. I do know that regardless of the choice, the dems will attempt to savage him/her with every accusation under the sun. A buddy of mine is a believer in Clinton, a hater of Trump, and suggested that he never really hated Bush the W. The reality is that he did, he used to drip with scorn discussing him, how America "looked" on the international stage, etc etc. It wasn't until W morphed from a war criminal as President to lovable old Gampy Bush, painter in retirement that the edge came off.

I would suggest the same approach should apply to allegations of criminal behavior by Donald Trump, but really, who would listen? It seems like those riots were about anarchy, just like a lot of riots these days. As for DJT, so much can happen in the next year or so that it is premature to assume that Biden's obvious inability to lead will result in changing hearts and minds of the undecided. I see it like this...play it out through the midterms. The dems will have no shortage of ideas to scuttle the R wave a few months out. Loan forgiveness, some cooked up scandal, whatever. If the Rs can take the house and senate, flip the switch and pursue impeachment/scorched earth against Biden, Pelosi etc if the mood warrants it. Slow walk it in the lead up to the election. With regard to Trump, I would prefer he not run, though that has little to do with his 4 years in office. He's too old at that point, time to sit aside and just lob verbal shots at the dems.

It's all anyone talks about these days, obviously.

Other than those. I think L'Ron mean riot riots, not just riots. 🤯

You've made a compelling case here. Maybe not rationally, or unemotionally, but most definitely in a John Hinkley sorta way.

They are consistent though, you have to give them that. One of the additional sad realities of the summer of 2020 was the abject disregard of COVID protocol with massive gatherings across the country, and the spread that surely followed. Tens of thousands of people were coming together week after week--traveling to/from all across the country and bringing the virus home with them. Still, it was hard to find a liberal or a dem in leadership who spoke in favor of common sense, and in reality encouraged the behavior and the spread. So, while huddled in bunkers of their own choosing, supporting shut downs and lockdowns for the masses, they watched in blissful ignorance as the virus spread.

I didn’t run a simulation, but I did read the tea leaves. Major players in the dem arena raised the concern of election security a year before the election. Sens Warren and Klobuchar are not low level players in the game. To boot, the election came 5 years after the constant drumbeat of Trump being an illegitimate president propped up by Russia. It was a highly effective strategy in spite of the fact that the nebulous claims of collusion were disproven. The only question was which side was making the claim.