leh-nerd skin-erd

What did she say? I just saw pictures. I think with all he’s got in his plate, they should drop these three letter monikers and just go with one. FBI = F, ATF = A, and since we’re talking Biden here, CIA would be “Prinzinpopper...”.

In reality, a truly evolved society should want the worst offenders among us to be given the consideration that which an innocent person should be given. It goes contrary to emotional logic but it’s true. It amazes me, but when you look at the “he’s guilty!” crowd in the bleachers, it’s the same “string em up” crowd you saw pre-civil rights. The target may be different, and at times much more reprehensible, but people love to leap before they look.

Those statements were made by the foremost authority in the world, a man with decades of service in his field. They also took place several months after China was already dealing with the virus. As the virus unfolded, turns out maybe his initial thoughts were correct. It seems to me that the top dog in the world would have been better prepared to address this topic and not look a hospital candy striper playing doctor. He speaks in absolutes, waffles on important issues like protests, and takes very little responsibility. The guy is a chump. Maybe he’s been in the game too long.

@Gene Frenkle says “flappers and jazz”.

I think if the libs in office, in the media, and at the CDC had been honest about the superspreader protest events we saw all last summer, we would have flattened the curve early on as projected and the death count would have been far, far less. The desire to protest on behalf of social issues is an important part of the fabric of our nation, but the silence was deafening as people ignored just about every guideline recommended by the CDC. On top of that, the hypocrisy of the approach lead many folks to question the true nature of the lockdown as the govt chose winners and losers.

I’m sure the average Georgian sits around just wondering what well-meaning non-Georgians worry about on their behalf, and the counsel they can offer. 🙄

Impossible. No way. Can’t happen. User error. Harmless oversight. Voter suppression. Incidental. Republicans. MOST SECURE ELECTION EVAH!

You’re onto something here. In spite of hundred of years of evidence that people are moved to carry themselves based on their own experiences, it’s easy to rile up the masses by segmenting into skin color, gender etc. Even well-intentioned people fall for it, so those running the game can’t really lose. It’s actually pandering of the highest order, and reveals how emotions can trump intellect and reason virtually every time.

“Can’t even say”? I don’t have any idea what this means, especially since I already said what I said, which is the opposite of not even saying which is what you said.

I’m not a scientist or a data analyst, but I’m pretty good at recognizing tendencies with respect to human behavior. I inquired about specific data—memos, files, notes, documents, anything—on the Georgia law you claim disenfranchises black voters in areas, and how that data buttresses your deeply held personal belief that Trump lies lead to where Georgia is today. You forwarded a press release from a political insider dealing with an audit of the 2020 election that I haven’t contested in thought, word, or deed. I don’t need a PhD in Biomechanicalethoquantamphysical Engineering to know that one of these things is not like the other. I learned that on Sesame Street.

It seems strange to me that you’re passionate enough to watch the trial and develop an opinion but would be comfortable with “anything”, but see racism if acquitted. Anyway, thanks.

What kind of friend would I be if I didn’t drop a little Brady Bunch logic on you now and again? The question you don’t seem to want to answer is “guilty of what?”. I’ll try. I’m not splitting hairs with you here, I’m trying to ascertain what level of conviction that you would be comfortable with. The story sickens me and I have no desire to follow it in detail. I think Chauvin showed a depraved indifference to the well-being of a suspect in his custody. I think it’s beyond foolish to think that GF’s drug use could not have contributed to his death in that moment at that time, and that’s something a jury has to consider. I think we’ll hear from “experts” that yield different “expert results”. I’d think the manslaughter conviction is probably where it should end up from a legal perspective, and I think that’s why the prosecution included that count. I think the jury will convict on the murder charge because it’s a highly emotional, highly charged, racially important trial and I’d be hard pressed to imagine anyone would want to deal with the scrutiny and threat to self that comes with the conviction on a lesser charge here. Chauvin is an easy defendant to despise.

There is a trend here. I’ll just take it on faith you don’t rely on hard, factual data when it doesn’t suit your position. It’s like that old expression, leap before you look.

I am not arguing fraud and the election. As I said yesterday, whatever my personal thoughts are on shenanigans, Biden is president. For whatever it’s worth, I’d think the notion of ‘fraud’ was never, ever going to be decided in the 60 days +/- after the election. If fraud, malfeasance or problems with election security is afoot—as suggested by both parties over the 5 years—a thorough forensic review of problem areas would be required to uncover irregularities. Hell, it took 60 days to crack the Jussie Smollette case. Some posters here are ready to tar and feather a congressman based on anonymous sources and the feds are apparently only on month six of an investigation. This is about the Georgia voting issue. My question is where is the data set that ties Georgia law to Trump lies and voter suppression? That’s your contention. There must be documentation, not just feelings, yes? In one post you mentioned the targeting of black voters, but given the nature of a class of folks being designated a “minority”, wouldn’t that affect non-minorities as well? I’m just looking for the smoking gun, like you did with COVID spread, virus hovering over social causes and Trump. Don’t tell me about the pregnancy, show me the baby!

Maybe I’ve been asking the wrong questions because you seem to the one doing the math here. Where are the rulings of the courts, the notes, memorandums, letters, forensic review, and litigation that ties the bill in Georgia directly to the/a “lie that Trump promulgated”. That would be the data set here. Up until now, it seems you’re emotionally overreacting. There’s history here. I recall a discussion about mass protests and your hesitancy to criticize with respect to the spread of COVID. I pointed out that when considered as a whole, all the dangerous activities we were advised would hasten the spread—-lack of social distancing, multiple people from different households in close proximity, travel from point A to point B, use of public transportation, animated social interaction, lack of mask discipline etc were replicated tens of thousands of times over in each protest. You initially insisted on a data set to review, then ultimately indicated that maybe the protests might contribute to the spread. So, enough with the conjecture—you’re the data guy. Where’s the data set? No emotion required.

I’m told a young Tibsy first became fascinated with the law after one Mr. Mike Brady cracked a case wide open when he threw his briefcase on the floor, causing a loud noise that resulted in a shady plaintiff turning his head sharply after claiming his range of motion was severely restricted. I tried to tell Tibsy that while the ploy was brilliant, that was in California and everyone knows that anything goes in Cali. Leisure suits. Perms. Johnny Bravo. And yes, the briefcase gambit. I told him straight up that that dog don’t hunt in Minnesota, but he won’t listen.

Watching the trial on the telly is dramatically different than being empowered to decide the fate of the accused. That’s why we don’t do trial by television with a button on your remote. Be that as it may, thanks for the reply. I was just trying to gauge what your thoughts might be if he was convicted on the least severe charge, in this case manslaughter. That would carry a sentence of 10 years (likely to be sentenced to 4 according to one legal site I looked at) v 40 for the most severe murder charge. Sounds like you’d be in favor of murder but would be comfortable justice was served with the manslaughter charge. I’m not sure why acquittal = racism in your mind, mostly because juries do weird things all the time. I don’t recall people screaming that the jury in the Casey Anthony trial were in favor of murdering children.

F the NFL. It’s obscene calls like this that impact the outcome of a game, after 58 minutes of mugging, holding, head shots and evil Blackspidermen officials descending from the bleachers that have folks thinking the fix is in. Defending the call and fining the player shortly thereafter reinforces the notion, and an irrelevant “oops” in a post-mortem long after the fact is irrelevant.

You wrapped that outrage in Trump’s actions regarding the recent election, and cited Clinton’s concession as something meaningful relative to the 2016 election. Then, you called me naive. You skipped over 5 years of American history and in that regard, you don’t sound particularly independent. Anyway, it is what it is.

We know race and subjectivity can influence court cases, we know juries are selected to maximize the likelihood of a favorable outcome on both sides, it seems silly to debate that. So, conviction on any count is sufficient for you? in other words, a conviction is righteous and just? On the flip side, if, say one of the members of the jury vote to acquit, it’s a farce even if that member of the jury is a person of color?

Ah, so in your mind, Clinton conceding the election is THE standard for decency and virtue post-election and I’m naive? That’s awesome! In fairness, if we ignored virtually every other action undertaken by democrat leadership over the past 5 years meant to subvert the faith and confidence in our election process—from Trump-Putin to Trump-Ukraine to comments on the illegitimacy of the election, to Trump-not-Putin-but-obstruction, to Kavanaugh-a-serial-abuser—-then yes, your Clinton tapped out data set is valid. Nothing happens in a vacuum my man. You seem inordinately comfortable with political wrangling and allegations of treason/wrongdoing when directed at certain folks, but get squeamish when the spotlight gets focused on your people. Worst case scenario, Trump’s comments about a stolen election are on par with the dem coordinated and tactical approach to destroy the process. It makes sense, actually, because it worked. Obviously. Because of Jim, Jim Crow.

You’ve done nothing of the sort. You’ve regurgitated talking points cloaked in some notion of virtue, purported the talking points to be evidence of something that flipped your particular trigger, and think by harkening back to days long gone think you’re making a point. The point to me is you point to data when it suits you, emotion when it does not. As for Trump and hissy fits, the reality is that complaints about rigged and fraudulent elections has been mainstream for several years and is nothing new to American politics. Obama, Biden, Pelosi et al set about destroying faith in the process as early as 2015, and tens of millions of folks—maybe you, maybe not—bought it. I won’t bother arguing about election results and the ability for outside parties to influence the election. It doesn’t matter. Biden is president, all that really boils down to is your flavor of enabled scumbag is in charge v somebody else’s. Big picture, of course elections can be impacted, of course powerful people would change the outcome illegally if possible, and it’s silly and naive to think otherwise. To be candid, I have a much greater problem with 4 years of dem and media propaganda destroying faith in the system and impacting 2020 than anything that happened in November. So, if all you have is feelings and talking points, best to leave the folks in Georgia to their process.

@oldmanfan is a study in contrast. On the one hand, he’s an ardent proponent of data and the complicated simplicity contained therein. On the other hand, when the emotional circuit breaker in his heart trips, data becomes far less important and you end up with a post like the one you replied to.

I don’t know Ben Shapiro’s stance, I don’t know Jack Posobiec, and I’m not sure how you go from a post to a Twitter account to wrestling the bald headed champion (lightweight division) in public, but your journey is uniquely yours. I think you’re out of line, but that’s just me. I didn’t watch the testimony, but what was your takeaway? Second question, if a conviction on a lesser charge is the outcome—or the jury chooses to acquit, will you accept the verdict as fair?

But we’ve got a really, really, really, really big family and as you yourself pointed out in a Niagara Billerly fashion, it seems we are not doing such a great job of taking care of numero uno. When you factor in the Canadian business model with respect to health care, as you pointed out, it’s hard not to come to the conclusion we’re being taken advantage of. The Canadian govt has convinced everyone that their process works really, really well until, voila, suddenly it doesn’t when people get sick— which is part of the reason drugs and health care are important. Personally, I’m happy to see neighbors helping neighbors, but it is kind of ironic. It strikes me an awful lot like the smarty pants who saved all sorts of money on health insurance but was amazed that when he developed cancer companies were unwilling to take on the risk.