leh-nerd skin-erd

I wasn’t arguing. I was saying if you think presidents and parties don’t maximize use of pardons for personal political gain, you’re a fool. Thank you for the clarity, you went with the ...”not to this extent” argument that’s so fashionable for liberal voters these days. Sound reasoning. Thanks for clarifying your point on ‘sneak’. That’s most definitely a thing, done all the time. Oh yeah, but only because of the “extent” rule. When Biden was accused of sexual assault by Tara Reade, I think the argument was that while he was alleged to have forcefully penetrated her with his fingers, it wasn’t to the “extent” that it mattered because as a non-Biden supported she was disposable.

Compelling stuff Buf. Edge of the seat observation. I hadn't thought of a presidential pardon as political in any way/shape/form in the past. This is the first time ever, and of course goes along with @transplantbillsfan and @Bob in Mich theory that no president has ever lied about anything ever. It's pretty shocking. Of course you're right --all the pardons that went before were those issued out of the goodness of presidential hearts to right wrongs and set the wrongly accused free. I am curious though--How would he "sneak" the Maxwell pardon in? Are you suggesting that there are secret pardons beyond the 65 that cause you such olfactory distress?

Russia was a hoax as sold to the American public, especially to the most gullible that walk amongst us. We now know, for example, that the CIA briefed the Obama admin as early as 2016 about the origins of the Steele dossier and the Clinton campaign's fingers in that pie. Yet...throughout 2016...2017...2018...not a peep from the Obama peeps, the former director of the CIA, nor Biden hisself. So, that little gem is kept secret as you and your couch potato barbarians are screaming for blood and agonizing over the future of the republic. In fairness, Biden may have forgotten about it, and maybe Dr. Jill didn't mention in during the canasta game(s) from 2-3:30 m/w/f. Regardless, media outlets like das VaPo with all it's inroads and deep sources missed all of that. Certainly, it could be rank incompetence, or deceptive sourcing from those that shall not be named, but the point remains the same. Drink deeply from the media = untouchable well, my brother. Certainly history is on your side that people in the propaganda business can be trusted implicitly.

Pardons are always an issue, just depends on who ya voted for.

Oh my, I've awakened the sleeping media apologist of Mililani Mauka! So, if I read you right--one of the 'central problems of the last 4 years' is me responding to a posting that someone else here cherry picked, offering perspective on 'anonymous sourcing' with no context v including a direct quote from 117 hours earlier and I'm the 'central problem'? Thats high level tom foolery, my man, but kudos to you for charging up the hill on this particular issue. As an aside--I think it's telling that you would place this type of interaction at the top of the problem chart over the past four years--and especially over the past 12 months. It speaks volumes about your particular situation v the struggles others might be having, but again, that's simply because you're part of the system and the system always get fed well. If I'm understanding you right--this issue boils down to: The media is always right; When the media is not right, it's a typo. I'll be real witcha too---blind trust in your media gods is foolish. Always. Blind trust in anonymous sourcing from 'deep within' makes the believer a dimwit. Always. You always have the right to demand more. You precious media conglomerates are profit-driven enterprises by nature, it's acceptable to call them out on crap like this. You won't lose your lib card, and you may still walk away believing the double secret secretary's cousin's friends uncle who says Trump ain't leaving, but I'm not sure why you're picking this particular topic to draw a line in the sand? By the way, it's not just a media thing, you shouldn't blindly trust anyone: bankers/cell phone providers/attorneys/school teachers/priests/insurance salesmen/police officers/seamstresses/government employees and so on... See on your side, someone daring to question the status quo is the problem. To me, it's the solution. In this case, you went out of your way to paint me as a conspiracy theorist when I simply replied to a post about DJT refusing to leave the White House (in a thread entitled If Trump Loses and Refuses to Leave). I included a link to bolster my claim that the article was either intentionally manipulative or woefully lacking in providing the reader with relevant information. That makes me the problem? GTFOH! As for Trump v Media--it's not even close. Stack the media v the 48 months of the US of Trump and the media fails miserably. You know that, I know that, and my boy @Bob in Mich knows that as well. I've long said that while the media with it's highly placed sources missed on virtually every significant report on Russia Russia Russia, I don't always know if it's due to incompetence or malfeasance. I mean I do, but let's pretend you're right and there's an alternate explanation. You wrote it off as 947 bad reporting days in a row, I think you go out of your way to explain away troubling behavior just as you did with a certain presidential candidate. But here's the cool thing--in spite of your heart-wrenching angst over Trump and lies--and man, this was powerful emotional stuff here--you were able to suck it all up and get a 5 decade liar of your own into the WH. On the other hand--you made me laugh today, Transpy, and laughter is good for the soul in the troubling times that some of us face. In the end, I simply reject your fundamental belief system of "WaPost Uber Alles'. Found this picture from your 'Transpy Loves Joe and the Media' folder

Focus. This isn’t about Trump, it’s not about me, it’s about you. You’re so turned around you’re pointing to people you despise to validate your thought process. As for your voyeuristic tendencies, I’m a little creeped out, but I admit it’s nice to be noticed.

Put aside your hatred for 20 seconds. The story uses anonymous sources to create a narrative. In essence it’s a rumor backed up by nothing concrete whatsoever. I certainly understand if it flips your trigger—that’s the reason they write stories like that to begin with—they manipulate those willing to be manipulated due to hatred, naïveté, or their own personal bias. On the other hand, there is a statement from the subject of the hit piece less than 60 days earlier that paints an entirely different picture. They chose not to cite that statement, and one if left to wonder why. Well, I don’t wonder why. It’s psychological grooming 101, I’m just surprised people fall for it in 2020.

Are you thinking they go after him under the Sleeping Dog Doctrine or the Finger Lift Statute? Both are aggressive plays for sure, and would turn Washington on its ear.

Not really. It’s just that Josh wasn’t born until the 139th trimester.

And, the reality is that there has been no rhyme or reason to lockdowns beyond the consistency of inconsistency. As near as I can tell, according to some here, DJTs statement should have been something like this: We're entering an unprecedented time in American history, where a novel virus has arrived at our nation's doorstep. For some, especially those with underlying health issues and the elderly, the virus will be devastating. For many of us, the virus will make you sick but you'll recover, and for the vast majority the impact will be negligible. In order to protect the most vulnerable, tens of thousands of our citizens must be willing to sacrifice their freedom and their livelihood. Businesses will fail by the scores. Many of you without a safety net will be cast into a pit of despair, but rest assured it will be for the greater good. Along the way, many will thrive. Big Box retailers like Home Depot and Lowes will enjoy unprecedented prosperity as despite the pandemic, it is vitally important that Americans be able to buy their petunias in the spring. Amazon will thrive. The list of winners will include workers in the public sector asked to sacrifice by doing less than ever before at salaries guaranteed by decree; without a hint or irony I suggest the losers will include the millions of citizens mandated by law to contribute what little money they will have left to "Government first" under threat of seizure of property. Rest assured that your suffering will be appreciated, though not alleviated in the form of suspension of tax obligations or a temporary suspension of penalties for those who need just a bit more time. Please understand...the Government must be fed, and the beast must thrive. Along the way, mistakes will be made. We will find that the leaders of many of our States were woefully--some will say criminally--unprepared for this pandemic. Our elderly and those most at risk will die in large numbers. Severe restrictions that limit freedom will need to be enforced under threat of imprisonment and massive civil penalty. We will hear that small family gatherings, and gatherings at your house of worship must be eliminated, but that gatherings at strip clubs and liquor stores must not. We will be witness to great hypocrisy as those that follow the guidelines watch as elected officials and leaders in medical field do not. We will be told by some that gatherings in the tens of thousands are miraculously/probably/maybe immune to the virus, but a Thanksgiving gathering with 3 people from 4 different addresses will likely kill someone you love. This virus will test our will, test our strength and test our belief in our elected leaders. Our faith in media will be shaken, our economy destroyed and people will suffer and die by the scores due to depression, suicide, and overdose. Through it all, just remember these words "If you question anything, you'll be branded a heretic.". God Bless you all, and may God Bless what is left of America in 2021.

God Bless you, you crazy old man fan!!

See , this story to me is 'enemy of the people' type propaganda. Or at least, it's enemy of reasonable thought and easily accessible information. Here's a story from November: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/27/trump-says-he-will-leave-white-house-if-electoral-college-votes-for-biden.html So, on the one hand, CNN runs a story that reads like a bad National Enquirer story, complete with frustrated "aides" dropping f-bombs and but seemingly powerless to leave their position followed up with anonymous sources purported to opine about whether or not DJT will attend Biden's swearing in. On the other hand you have a direct quote from the president from a press conference stating that he will leave, yet that doesn't make it into the CNN story.

Agreed. It’s one of the reasons we have to sit through the exchange between the congressperson and ICE director above. They spend long days batting around issues like national security and never really getting anything accomplished. Its not an R thing or a D thing, it’s a ‘power corrupts’ thing.

Hold on Back, I agreed with you, I even mentioned the shared mutual respect of all stakeholders! It's fairly obvious that nothing at all is going on, it's just a blip on the radar. A riot blip if you will. The devoted servants to the public now being tied to this mythical 'defund the police' conspiracy theory are the true victims here. You're probably correct on letting go the officers currently on the force--trying times call for bold action.

Agreed. I think the most important thing here was that in spite of some tough negotiations, all stakeholders felt validated and respected. I also think the story unfairly paints these two noble civil servants as advocates of defunding the police simply because they espoused sentiments like “Defund the police!”. Plus, there were riots, and crimes committed during the riots are unfairly glomped in with crime statistics.

Sure, he's been kept in a sensory deprivation tank since March. I'm surprised anyone even knows his name.

Based on what we have been told, it's not that the protests 'contributed', it's that they would have served as giant incubators of the disease--a rolling, roiling boiling mass of COVID. Again, I understand your desire for data based on your background, but I'm a simple humble businessman wondering where the %$#@ Tony Faucci was on this issue. The way I see it, this issue is as much a failure of science and media complicity as anything else. https://abcnews.go.com/US/dr-fauci-voices-concerns-coronavirus-spreading-amid-nationwide/story?id=71171103 Here's the guy and the write up from ABC news. Just offering my opinion, I read this and think "What kind of bull#### is this?". The way I see it: We're all going to die if we don't stay home; If we can't stay home, we're all going to die if we don't wear masks, social distance, and stay out of church; Yet, massive gatherings of tens of thousands present from across the fruited plains: "When you get congregations like we saw with the demonstrations," he continued, "that's taking a risk." What the heck is this? I take a risk standing in line at the Bills home opener. Where the %$#^ is this: "Listen, people will become infected, and people will die from events like this, it's inevitable. STAY THE %$## AWAY!".; In this article, the reporter seems to want to bend over backwards to minimize the risk. Why? Political gain; Anyways, my point is simple--if you want skeptics to take you seriously, be bold and be serious. He was serious, but tepid and impotent. As for Trump, I understand your perspective and certainly he shares blame for messaging. However, had he been screaming from the top of his lungs for a lockdown, and then I witnessed the lack of any serious response to massive protests, I'd have same concerns about bullshyt that I have today. You're a data guy, I'm an observer of human behavior. The messaging we're getting is all over the page, and while Trump was vocal about opening the economy, others were sounding alarms about what I might do while encouraging and supporting behavior that went against the grain.

One issue that some folks here refuse to engage in is the hyperfixation on 'political rallies' v large scale protests and mass gatherings in support of political causes. In spite of my disagreements with @oldmanfan, I think he's a good dude and a genuine rock star contributor here. I read what he says, I assume he's a legit science PhDude. Still, when we discussed these gatherings, his fall back is 'data'. I get that, I really do, but it defies any logic at all that large scale gatherings that violate every recommendation to prevents the spread would not contribute to the spread of the virus on a massive level. People comingling and not adhering to social distancing recommendations; Generally speaking, these are events predicated on emotional responses to injustice and social issues, by definition people are animated and engaged; Folks from all walks of life come together in large numbers, from cool zones, hot zones and everywhere inbetween; People do not spontaneously appear at these events, they all come from somewhere, and all come bring the shared commonalities of life--they enagage with others. Yet--silence, or better yet..."it's hard to say without the data about those specific events'. If we take that to the extreme, there has not been one study done that correlates the activity at my specific local church with super spreader events. Not one. No data exists, thus, it's impossible to say what might happen if I attend midnight mass in a week or two. Same with my local hotspot and watering hole--not one data set from that locale. It's one of the great mysteries of the pandemic. To be completely honest, I wonder if the reason there was very little pushback on those sorts of mass gatherings, why Dr. Faucci was not railing against these massive super-spreader events was to encourage transmission of the virus.

You take that back, you sick rat bastard!

Are you suggesting that language offended Billy Bush? Or, are you implying consensual activity between two adults (a grabber and a grabbee) is similar to a VP making women very uncomfortable by his ***** hugs? It’s not a question of intellect, it’s a matter of power. In fact, that’s the old adage used to excuse behavior— I’m the _______ of NY, why would I be so stupid as to harrass anyone???

I think the point is that power corrupts, and powerful people crush the powerless. That’s just people. In this case, it may well be that So decided to label the victim as a liar without thinking it all the way through.

Agreed. Textbook.

I see that potential, but burying the story based on anonymous sources and selective leaks doesn’t seem like a good resolution at all. In fact, it’s exactly how the powerful would bury a story.

Master of your Domain is awesome, and the Kramer scene exceptional. I liked Bookman as well, and just saw the Maestro the other night so it was too of mind. The look on his face when Elaine called him “Bob” was priceless. I think on the Dr issue, you’re pretty reasonable for an egghead (apologies to my friend @I am the egg man).

No, I don’t think a reporter would necessarily want to break this story. Timing is everything, and positioning important to people in that field. I mentioned a while back that I heard a local reporter (Times Union, again as I recall) talking on a local radio show. It was after Scheidernan resigned in disgrace. The reporter shared how it was common knowledge in circle that the former AG had serious cocaine problem. To me, just an average citizen, that’s a huge story for a number of reasons. I think some reporters would love to break the story, others would use it for leverage, others still to pursue a political agenda one way or the other.