leh-nerd skin-erd

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.

I think you've hopelessly romanticized the good old days when everyone loved country and the free press was free. One critical difference between then and now is the access to information (and of course the proliferation of disinformation). Back in the day, the flow of information was much more restricted. Btw--I'll have to see if I can find it, but I have an old Newsweek magazine from the late 1950s. Millhouse is quoted in there about certain politicians in an attempt to connect them to the Commies. There are no new ideas, just recycled controversies.

Tibsy is a scaredy-cat.

She was an insider candidate, a beltway figure, who most certainly was meeting with designers for the redo of the Oval Office well before election day. Who can blame her? She had survived a reputation as a classic enabler, server scandal, the death of a diplomat and the controversy surrounding the attempt to blame some poor b*stard for causing that, and the fact that her closest allies described her as reckless and careless with national security. Again--that wasn't her detractors--focused more on the legalities of what she did or didn't do--those were key members of Dem entrenched leadership singing loudly that a Secretary of State playing fast and loose with matters of State wasn't a big deal. She was the heir apparent. On some level, no doubt, she sees herself as a better candidate than Bill, Barrack or Biden. She's a narcissist, most of these people are, and the stage was set for the coronation and all the first Female President of the free world. The election of DJT, and the obvious animosity and self-loathing that followed, broke her. I don't think it's a stretch to say she was completely devastated by it all, completely unaware of how millions of people viewed her as a human and a candidate. That is to say, in the world of politics, where average folks see sleaze, grift and corruption as part of the DNA of these people, there was a special level of disdain for her. Trump is an entirely different type of human being. Hate him or not, he has a prodigious ability to withstand assault from every direction, to take the shots, deal with the fallout and respond with a hearty "FU" while laughing directly in the face of the those who seek to take him down. He's a fascinating human being in that regard. If you think he's in denial, or more aptly put, if you think he's behaving as such because he sees himself as a victim, you haven't been paying attention.

She's accused him of being an illegitimate president and has claimed the election was stolen from her. She was an integral part of the Russia collusion narrative, partnering with an agent of a foreign government to spread disinformation about the entire campaign. She has not acknowledged, and never will, her role in promoting a conspiracy theory about illicit ties between Putin and Trump which fractured the nation for the last 5 or 6 years. Class? Not at all.

I feel like I know where you stand on when you feel anarchy is appropriate, but thank you, I’ll allow it.

I don’t completely disagree with you w/r to the riots v 1/6, but you disavow any similarity between the anarchy across the country and the anarchy at the Capitol?