leh-nerd skin-erd

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.

It’s a weird dynamic to be sure. On the other hand, it does show exactly what the franchises view as an unacceptable risk to reward ratio.

It seems each time someone makes a claim, and a politico says “We should listen”, the next big thing that happens is…nothing.

It makes you wonder if they can’t figure it out, or don’t want the problem solved. When one controls water supply….

This is the problem with hyper partisan politics, the inability to see beyond the improvement in one’s personal situation. The market is adjusting to socio and economic unrest. “Biden the unifier” was a myth. Biden is who he always was, an incompetent boob similar to the guy you see at the local market, telling you all the great things he is an has done, trying to charm the pretty girls at the register as he walk by with toilet paper hanging out the back of his pants. Your democrat ancestors knew it—that’s why he was shown to the curb previously by your parents, grandparents and great grandparents. It really took a whole lot of foolish offspring to elect him, and we’re seeing the results. Everything is not his problem, but the guy’s idea of leadership is blustering to some guy about how many push-ups he can do. All that was before the sudden onset of his stutter, the one that manifests itself with symptoms of dementia.

No doubt. In addition, there’s a massive leadership void in the US. You place an old man with cognitive difficulties in the White House, have junior interns shepherding him around like Great Grandpa at a picnic, and uncertainty follows.

I’d be surprised if the bastion of fact-checker truth, where some people became extraordinary wealthy supporting politically motivated causes, would have any sort of issue with under-estimating the number of fake accounts. That might impact value of the company.

Is the suggestion that 100% of the time, police officers arrest and incarcerate the drunk and disorderly guy, or the guy with no shoes? 75% of the time? 15%? I think the police would be completely behind the outsourcing of mental health issues to non-police associates. Domestic disputes as well. In spite of the narrative, I think the overwhelming majority of law enforcement professionals want to do their job, help some folks out, and go the &$** home without being shot, stabbed, spit on or cursed at, and do so without shooting or taxing anyone.

Well, no, not if you're a student of history, Alf. The Whitewater investigation took six years from the initial DOJ referral that the Clintons were potential beneficiaries of illegal activity, and quite a bit more than that from start to finish. The Mueller probe took two years from the date the Special Counsel was appointed to clear President Trump, and that was a solid 3+ years whatever didn't happen was alleged to have happened. The Dems 1/6 Committee is ongoing 16 months after the breach of the Capital. When taken in context, the dems first suggested Trump was an illegitimate President, elected in a coup, and 6 years later we're still waiting on proof. You might be correct--though you clearly have no faith in the ability of the SC to objectively analyze that which might come before them ----but a wait and see approach is always best.

It would certainly reduce the number Americans traveling to Edmonton for medical treatment, that’s for certain.

No, it’s on me. I misread “medical community” as “god”.

It didn’t read like that was your point originally.

I suppose it depends on the context. I looked the outcome of the Mueller investigation and thought, geesh, all that time, money and partisanship and they got nothing. Then I was told the real evidence was hidden in what wasn’t released. Then I looked at the outcome of the Stormy Daniels saga, what with her attorney/dem media darling going to jail, and the outcome of her legal troubles. Then I was told that Stormy musta had something really big on DJT, presumably in addition to the restitution bills of $300k+. This guy is strange to be sure. Seems unhinged at times. However, I agree with Frankish that you can’t throw a stone and not hit a creepster in Washington. When you think about it, most of the history of the current polis of either side has yet to be written. Who knew JFK and RFK were taking concurrent liberties with MM, and maybe working with the mob back in the day? Some folks think the allegations of our current President sexually assaulting a woman are quite credible, in addition to his acknowledgement that he was pretty handsy with the ladies when people were actually in the room?

You liked it because you’re a fat cat rich money guy. You’re part of the work 40+ years saved and invested in his own future lottery clique. I bet you even paid off your own debts, ya selfish bastage.

I get the feeling the Dems liked it when everyone stayed home and hunkered down.

I don’t share your perspective. I suppose if I did I’d wonder why the medical industrial complex allows this scourge to perpetuate. Money, I’d bet, if I did. Don’t even get me started on male pattern baldness if that’s the next great mystery brought to the table.

Huh. The advances in reproductive health over the decades have been nothing short of amazing. In addition, the advances in mental health treatments for people who have suffered through that event are amazing as well. If you believed in God, your perspective might be different.

Don’t shake your head at me Playa, I believe in a woman’s right to choose, up to a point in the pregnancy where things transition from medical procedure to… ghoulish. (Sexual assault, woman’s life at risk is another issue entirely). The way I see it, you and I see things the same way. In the end, we agree that at some point during a pregnancy, choice should perhaps no longer be an option. Now you may say, with hesitation due to your Christian faith…”Ugh, I don’t like it, but the law has to be clear that a woman can abort up to the time a baby is born”. I might feel the law has to address things by 3 or 4 months, but fundamentally, we have the same general view about abortion. As for pregnancy and govt telling people what they can and cannot do with their bodies, that ship has long since sailed. The reality is the govt has all sorts of rules on bodily autonomy. In fact, once a child is born, there are all sorts of rules and regulations about what a man must do financially to support the child. I think the ultimate measure of a man (or one of several key metrics) is how he treats his children. I support those laws generally, but they sort of date back to the patriarchal days of old, no? Why is a man compelled to support a child he may have not wanted? Who is the govt to dictate terms that go against the free will of a human in that case?

Because it had nothing to do with the post I sent. If you think about it, there’s lots of stuff I didn’t include that I could have: Strawberries have seeds on the outside. The Kentucky Derby, wow! Exciting! I wasn’t a fan of disco, but I wish I learned to dance. Pay Attention, Buttinski.