leh-nerd skin-erd

I guess one side of that political spectrum is off the “If he has nothing to hide, he should testify” and “if he can’t prove definitively he’s innocent, he’s probably guilty” shtick these days.

When we were younger, my wife and I were arguing and she walked out to the garage for reasons I no longer remember. I locked the door as she walked out, chuckling to myself how funny it was going to be when she realized I got one over on her, and thinking about how we would have a great laugh over it later that day. Silly me, I had forgotten she was Italian, from whatever part of Italy all them crazy women are from, and she grabbed the sledgehammer once used by her grandfather, a mason who did beautiful work in the lower Hudson Valley. She got one whack in on the metal door before I opened it up, the impression is still in the door to this day. I was like "Huh, now I know.". "B*tch be crazy sometimes" - Leh-nerd S.

I’m completely comfortable staying out of the fray on this one, there is nothing to be gained in having some message board sock puppet comparing being pro 2A with responsibility for the slaughter of innocents in Buffalo, Texas, Chicago or wherever else this madness occurs. I will say two things, however. 1. Well-intentioned people looking for some emotional release here, or other places online, are reduced to suggesting that “something must be done”, while often never quite suggesting what that means. 2. When I consider the aforementioned sock puppet mentality, coupled with the recognition that indeed something MUST be done, I can’t help but think that the same politicians are elected over, and over, and over again…and before much time passes, we face the same sort of issue all over again. In the case of the current admin, the prez has been a key player on the national stage for 5 decades. 50 friggin years as a senator, presidential candidate, VP and for the last 16 month the top dog in the land with control of the house and senate. It seems to me that electing an old man who for 50 years was unable to persuade, bargain, manipulate or demand sensible action and hoping he might stumble onto a solution is probably not setting the nation up for a positive outcome.

Tom Cruise. Lots of hypocrisy on Tom Cruise. Hollywood loved him. Then he was jumping on couches and they hated him. Now Top Top Gun is coming out, now they love him again. I wonder what the Pete Davidson thinks about all that.

If I’m reading you correctly, there would be some number, % or other, of….anticipated poverty regardless of skin tone? In other words, the black poverty rate of roughly 8% was realized, it might make sense even given past injustices? I see this today and thought it was interesting, from someone with a different perspective than I have. https://unherd.com/2022/05/buffalo-and-the-myth-of-racist-america/

I'm always interested in this thought process. In the larger picture, I don't disagree with all your thoughts on this issue. One thing I always wonder though, so I'll ask directly. With the tilting of the system toward white and away from black citizens, why do you think we have such a problem with white poverty 70+ years after the the beginning of the civil rights struggle, and 160 years after the Civil War? I understand the desire to look at percentages, it sort of isolates the humanity out of the equation, but the number is around 16,000,000 people, and that with--the argument goes anyways--the system clearly rigged in their favor. By sheer numbers, you're looking at the 5th largest state in the Union behind only Cali, Texas, Florida and NY. Why do you think these folks were left behind?

Ah, maybe you left something unsaid. You're suggesting that while the GOP "bows down to white supremacists" , the Democrats bow down to something like antifa anarchists? Is that fair? Because that wasn't what you said earlier...you went from a vague reference to AOC, on to the old WS crowd, then some nebulous comment about immigration.

This is incandescent blather, Bill, and while you're free to drink the hate-infused Kool Aid, you have no right to ask others to drink it along with you. The first step to restoring sanity to the middle is to recognize where you, personally, stand...and it doesn't seem to be where you think based on this gem.

Right—and we agree. I believe for example, that another poster here doesn’t care one way or the other on this issue, his response boiled down to whether it was criminal or not to withhold the info. I’m just trying to gauge ChiG’s feelings on this sort of thing, as he seeks understanding from folks in the Stop the Steal camp.

ChiG is new to the board, or at least seems to be, and I think the best option is always to start by establishing certain benchmarks so we gain and understanding of where we fall on these issues. There is so much evidence historically speaking that unconditional trust in such declarations as “most secure election ever!” makes very little sense in the big picture. I understand politically why it makes sense to position it as such if one is a Biden supporter, but that doesn’t move the needle for me. So, I ask the question. I don’t alway get answers, like my question on whether or not Obama/Biden, the DOJ etc should have revealed the Clinton ties to the the Steele Dossier and Russian collusion when first made aware of it—long before the conclusion of the Mueller Report. It seems that information would have put some context in place for ordinary Americans during an extremely contentious time as we argued about treason, Putin in the White House and the like. I think for the greater good and national unity, Obama, Biden and Mueller later on should have revealed that information when briefed on it.

I guess I’m not really sure why you have an issue if those in leadership (or ordinary citizens) raise concerns of legitimacy of the/an election. In the end, Biden is president, people generally don’t trust much that comes out of Washington, and the world continues to turn.

I think it’s fair to say that men, generally, are very understanding of comments where one guy compares himself to a figure of legendary, almost mythical, historical significance, and that comparison is not made in jest. One of my friends is a workout maniac, when he calls himself “…the new Schwarzenegger” most of us think, well, you’re 5’9 and 185 pounds, have seagull legs and sound like you’re from Topeka, but yeah, of course, you’re like twins! We need more undxrstanding on the baseball diamond, because that’s as real as life gets.

Well, it wouldn’t be controversial if there wasn’t a sell out on some level.

You and your friends sit around discussing the relative romance ratio of a wedding cake, Tibsy? What’s that all about? Weddings are about two people (or more these days, I suppose) sharing their lives together. Think of a jigsaw puzzle, Tibsy, a big beautiful puzzle where each piece represents the thoughts, hopes and dreams of one of the members of the union. Singularly, nothing special is revealed. When joined together, however, a beautiful tapestry of love is created and, God willing, a permanent eternal union is formed. Sometimes, though, you put all those pieces together and you get yourself a little person Trump cake. I’m fine with it, but I’m a tolerant soul.

Again, without malice, the reality is a politically motivated investigation resulted in political accusations best described as “We can’t not not say there was no guilt” with a 4 page summary revealing no collusion and no obstruction. If Mueller was frustrated, he and his investigators failed in the investigation. All this DJT Jr was too dumb to be caught, and DJT left no paper trail leads back to the same point. No collusion, no obstruction, but a whole lot of accusations and speculation to feed supporters of the tribunal. Should the connection between Steele and the Clinton campaign been revealed when the CIA briefed Obama and Biden on it early in the investigation? That was a key piece of information during some very dark days in the country.

Real nice Shaw, I just paid $13.50 for Eleven Rings on my Kindle. Don’t you dare start a thread on Titanic.

Clinton Deadpool... I say he accidentally chokes on the shoelaces of his loafers.

It took less than 4 pages for AG Barr to square the Mueller report. All the political inferences in the world can be drawn from a deep dive into the report, but the end result is simply and demonstrably what it is. Political ruminations up to, and including the old "If we knew he was innocent we would have said so" are simply an attempt to stir up hostility without an actual crime to pursue. Stepping away from that, let's assume Mueller was doing the Lord's Work and honoring the notion that the President could not be charged, did that courtesy extend to all Trump associates? I read here and in many other places of the nefarious work undertaken by his children. Surely there must have been something related to Russia and/or obstruction? You're read the report, you've done the deep dive. We know anecdotally that deals were struck, people strong-armed, threats made and swat team sent to gather up little old men under the watchful eye of CNN. We know Mueller had no qualms pressing the button on financial crimes unrelated to Russia and such, why not take out his family given the connection to the campaign and what seems to be ooodles of evidence? It seems clear now that the Clinton campaign worked with a representative of a foreign government to influence the election, and it seems clear that Biden and Obama knew of her efforts early in the election. Do you see that as acceptable just because the guy likes Bangers n Mash v Stoli straight? On that note, btw, you seem like a reasonable person. Was it incumbent upon Obama and Biden to reveal that the Clinton campaign was connected to the Steele Dossier when they were briefed on it in 2016? You'll remember of course that these were difficult times in the Republic, the country being torn apart over Red Scares and Russians in the woods. https://nypost.com/2020/09/29/cia-told-obama-of-claim-clinton-conjured-trump-russia-scandal-spy-chief/ What do you think? If the CIA knew of the plan, and Brennan read the admin in on the plan to use the falsified dossier to impact the outcome of the election, shouldn't that have been revealed for the greater good? Speaking only for me, I'm no more happy to be manipulated during an election cycle by a Brit with bad intent than I am a guy from Moscow. ---Oh, and btw, as for Sussman, man I wish we could all find some common ground on knocking some heads when people leverage their role in government and leave the rest of us fighting in the street over whose crook is better than the others. I have zero confidence that justice will prevail, that he has too many friends on the inside, including possibly the judge overseeing the matter. Such is life.

This evolving story will have something for everyone!

I think to a guy like Musk, it was a forgone conclusion that they were coming for him based on his stated desire to bring Twitter into the sunlight. I think it’s better to control the narrative from a position of strength than while in defense mode. So, offer to buy Twitter…they come for him. Offer to buy Twitter, change the business model to one where freedom of speech prevails, they come after him much more aggressively. By broadcasting his support for Obama in the prior election, having been the cause celebre of the liberal base, and declaring support for R policies, they ride harder still. He’s establishing them as the political version of The Church of Scientology, and it’s a smart play.

Welcome back 59! Hope you are well! This reminds me of another billionaire who was friendly with all sorts of liberal leaders, worked in the notoriously liberal entertainment field, and suddenly was outed as a Russian mole once the D turned to an R. It’s also noteworthy that our current president has acknowledged multiple instances of inappropriate physical contact (some call it groping) with multiple women, and his VP believed another victim when she said was violently sexually assaulted by that same guy.

Thanks for sharing this information. It's always interesting to read the thoughts of people on the other side of the issue. After reading the lawfareblog, I walk away thinking exactly what I thought at the conclusion of the Mueller investigation: The government--in this case represented by Mueller and other political animals--had the time, money and resources to crush anyone or anything in it's path. Most importantly, the notion of Trump and Russia conspiring to undermine democracy was debunked completely. It didn't happen, it was a manufactured crisis designed to appeal to supporters of Clinton and those who despised Trump regardless of party affiliation. In laymen's terms, it was an elaborate ruse. That said, it seems clear the collusion issue really just set the stage for the endgame--that being the pursuit of obstruction charges. We can see from the variety of opinions on the subject that obstruction is one of those crimes that often depends on perception. The lawfareblogger tips her hat to that, taking great care to suggest her view was contrary to the views of others. As a matter of common sense, given that Russia was manufactured, the best and perhaps only play Trump had was to fight for his political life, and fight he did. We saw the old adage repeated here many times by those supporting the Red Scare: "If there's nothing to hide, why not just cooperate?". Of course, most thinking people know that's usually the most disastrous and foolish course of action to take. As far as I'm concerned, the last word on that absurd political theater came from AG Barr in his four page summation of the Mueller report. I started to link some key paragraphs, but the reality is it's an easy read. No collusion per Mueller. No decision on obstruction made by Mueller. No intent to obstruct, especially in light of the fact that Mueller concluded there was no collusion to begin with. The reality is pretty simple--they came for him, they failed, and he walked. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html

Every action after Trump was elected was intended to sow seeds of division and create mistrust. It worked. I had forgotten about the boycott.

He’s naive at best. But that’s no different than the messaging from the Dems after Trump was elected. Literally, none. No dem leader including Clinton was calling for unity, togetherness, or rallying behind the president in the weeks and months after the election. That’s not the game at all. He was called an illegitimate President, the recipient of the White House after a coup, he was accused of treason and selling out the country to Russia and of course so much more. There’s not an “ist” that they didn’t try to hang on him. That started day one regardless of whatever lame concession was offered up. The weakness of your analysis is in seeing “stop the steal” as some new, previously in imagined leviathan that suddenly appeared out of thin air. I won’t link the statements from prime time top tier Presidential candidate(s) Warren and Klobuchar where they expressed very serious concerns about election security before Biden was elected, the facts and conclusions are easily reached and indisputable. Gore tried to flip the election. He lost, but what really was the fallout? Clinton’s shocking loss to Trump set the stage for the next logical play in the game—sew seeds of mistrust and concern about the security of our elections replete with Russians hiding in the virtual woods. Tens of Millions bought into it and the end result of the Mueller debacle was…Nothing. Next up..Trump/GOP suggests the vote was stolen. This stuff worked well for the Dems—why not play the hot hand? The reality is this allegation was coming whether Biden or Trump won.

Oh no you don’t! You can’t waltz in here and mupset the mapple cart spreading a message of common sense and unity, then close the door behind you. I’ve mentioned this before—A friend of mine, a man who refers to himself as liberal, is a very well-respected attorney in NYS government. His most common refrain when our extended group of friends gets together is how it’s amazing that folks with different thoughts politically can navigate through life finding common ground, yet rampant divisiveness is the order of the day at the state/national scene. He was no fan of Trump, obviously, but when engaged in dialogue about his side of the aisle, he’s an honest broker of issues important to others. When speaking about corruption on his side of the table (He suggested I give Eliot Spitzer a fair shake—he worked with him directly—and I did, and have occasionally asked him how that worked out), he doesn’t pretend it’s not a thing. The fact is that most of us get through life without tilting windmills and throwing punches at the other side. The history of our country reveals extremists on all sides have one thing in common—they don’t represent all sides and rarely reflect anything approaching mainstream thought.