leh-nerd skin-erd

Interesting question. I don't feel as if the American way of life is in peril, and ultimately change is inevitable. There are some very positive things that stem from these changes, and in some cases, the change impacts individuals negatively. Before proceeding here, what would you consider an example of an extremist on the right or left? I think most of us would agree that the people that stormed the Capitol were extremists, but what about the people that attended the rally and did not partake in violence, destruction or the breach? I think most would assume that those protestors who rioted and burned federal facilities and small businesses are extremists, but those peacefully protesting are not? Certainly there are people that feel as you have described, but it's important to know what you view as an extremist as a starting point.

The “impeachment managers” were the political equivalent of the manager outside the ring in a long WWE match. They were in a venue where they had the numbers, the power, the senior position, video of the horrific event at the Capitol and whole nut load of scared politicians willing to encourage violence when off in the heartland but not so cool when it comes to them. Even with all the cards, it failed. Political rhetoric is what it is these days. Everyone knows it. The country raged, people died, businesses burned out, parts of cities occupied and lawless— all supported and encouraged by political leaders for the last 5 years. The liberals went a long way toward creating what happened at the Capitol. When rioting, death and destruction goes mainstream for a noble cause, well, it’s the height of stupidity to assume other rioters and miscreants will model the same behavior. As for McConnell, he’s a career politician with one main goal— to stay in power. In this case, he’s Tom Brady— fiery, cantankerous, competitive but in the end, his staying power is based on avoiding the big hits. Trump is disposable, and let’s not pretend he was a Trump supporter early on. He got on board when it suited his agenda, got off when it made sense and feigned outrage when Pelosi and her crew attempted to unseat Trump for the first three years of his presidency. Trump was acquitted because it was a case based on emotion, appealing to folks drawn to emotion, and ended the way it always was going to. Now, they can rage at the senators who voted their conscience, call them complicit in the insurrection etc etc. As to witnesses, we’re talking about the allegation of an attempt to overthrow our government. There would be absolutely no reason not to calm witnesses in that setting with the fate of the free world in the balance. They didn’t want witnesses because it would be impossible to defend the actions over the past 4 years when confronted with their words. It would be exceptionally damaging to the dem case to hear from politicians and law enforcement about who knew what, who was briefed on intelligence and how the $&@8 they were caught off guard here. Witnesses were the death knell of a case built on “everyone knows what he meant”, and that’s only if you feel the trial was on life support when it stated. Finally, if you’re correct and “everyone knows it”, it should be decided in court, not is some fake court show trial.

I think you generate more “just go away” responses than anyone. I’m sorry to hear about your aunt. One of my friends lost her 90 year old father, and a friend told me today that’s friend of hers died at 58. Happened over 3 or 4 days. I don’t necessarily agree with the premise of the thread btw. The blame for COVID rests primarily with the Chinese govt, and our political system certainly did not lend itself to a quick recovery on a virus of this nature. It is fair, however, to hold Biden accountable for his actions and comments preCOVID (complaining about Xenophobia and the like, failing to speak out about the inherent dangers of massive protests throughout the summer etc), and he certainly benefited from the massive efforts by the Trump Admin and private enterprise in having vaccines at the ready when he took office. It sounds as if there is dysfunction in his delivery system, and he had plenty of time to plan his federal response in that regard.

Your overly emotional characterization that “...republicans are always against anything things popular” aside, the question itself is fair. The obvious response for me on your citation that 50% favor it is: perhaps. Hard to say given the ability of pollsters to manipulate data. As for why I personally don’t support it while my neighbor might? It’s a costly proposition, and from what I’ve read it’s less forgiveness and much more a reassignment of debt to a third party. That’s problematic IMO. It rewards the people who make poor financial decisions, and in many cases, also rewards the parents who participated in the poor decision to begin with. Again, the obligation doesn’t disappear, it simply gets shifted ultimately to many many folks who chose a wiser path. IMO, it’s classic victimization politics, where the person who receives valuable goods and services in exchange for a promise to pay is portrayed as the innocent victim set upon by, what in this case, Big Education? Never mind that community colleges, virtual learning, SUNY schools, military benefits, trade schools and the like have all been readily available for decades. It’s discriminatory and creates yet a new class of winners and losers in our country. The citizens that chose a wise path get boned, the citizens who funded college and higher Ed get boned, and lower socioeconomic groups where college was not an option get boned as well— while other citizens—ironically allegedly more intellectually advanced, benefit greatly and immediately. I don’t see where all stakeholders are held accountable for their complicity in the creation of the crisis. Many of the schools that preyed upon the unfortunate educated victim class benefited massively. High paying jobs, prestige, benefits and massive endowments with hundreds of billions of privately controlled dollars. Harvard maintains nearly $40,000,000,000 alone, Boston College nearly $4,000,000. The reality is that this money, if utilized collectively and for the greater good, could put a large dent in debt obligation you believe in excess of 50% of the population want to see transferred. Finally, in my case, my wife and I made the personal financial decision to assist and fund our children’s education. We availed ourselves of the readily available information about college costs, the trials and tribulations of student debt, and found a way to make it happen. We fought through the “I want to go to ——— at $50k per year because ———-“ and cautioned restraint and the need to meet ones obligations. This college debt thing isn’t new, the challenge simply seems to be that parents who lived it themselves often perpetuated the problem with their own kids. In the end, if Biden Inc is planning to create a pop pop popular “Debt be gone” magic potion, I would personally favor something that doesn’t benefit the perpetually entitled Ivy League crowd first, rather, those struggling to make ends meet with car payments, rent, housing or, ya know, food. But, that doesn’t compel often the wealthy and highly educated to vote for a dithering old gropey geezer. The plan was to sweeten the pot by promising goodies, giveaways with a really nice soup kitchen where the educated can feast in peace. In that regard, convincing people to become glorified wards of the state was a stroke of genius. You’ve become a favorite poster of mine. I agree with this pretty much across the board.

Sorry Doc, I could not disagree more. One of the major challenges with the impeachment process is that it is by definition political. McConnell’s response was as well. As I understand it, he could have allowed the impeachment to begin while Trump was in office and chose not to. He could have voted with the gang of Romney rhinos, but chose a calculated strategy of expressed indignation and outrage while voting against impeachment. Besides, the senate vote was what it was. All senators voted, Trump was acquitted, no smoking gun evidence was ever presented, and the dems folded like a cheap suit on the issue of witnesses testifying under oath. One would assume with the heart and soul of the nation on the line, and declarations of clear and convincing evidence (again) going nowhere fast (again), the spectacle died with a whimper as we all knew it would. Bi-partisan review lead to a clear acquittal. You are correct on the loss. However, I’d add Trump, the Chinese government, death and pandemic, the failed Russia hoax, the first nonsensical impeachment and a desire for a return to status quo politics all conspired to put the new old geez in the WH. That student loan debt promise played a huge part as well.

No apology necessary. I appreciated your candor, sincerity and willingness to attempt to educate me on the subject. My feedback was sent in the spirit of mutual enlightenment. My phone doesn’t have an auto-incorrect feature, but technology can be a fickle mistress indeed. Perhaps there is an app for that. I believe we can move on. There was that, but I was playing the long game.

Then let’s get to the courts where this can be addressed, witnesses and be called, timelines established, and the actions of all players considered. We can agree on this, yes? This sort of deep dive into the mundane is what would make you such a formidable foe on Jeopardy. Of course, you would want to clean up your understanding of “your” and “you’re” in case one of the categories is “Confounding Contractions Covered in 3rd Grade”. It may help to remember this old saying, also from the Latin: Sine scientia ars nihil est. Loosely translated, I’m told it means “Without knowledge, skill is nothing.” Stay humble.

Ah, well, in that case, thank you for your service.

Yes, most partisan impeachment(s) in the history of the country, and both failed in/at the senate because of it. Are we arguing?

Perspective is a strange thing. Trump, a guy folks have criticized as bombastic, ignorant, shoot from the hip and a say anything guy, complains loudly and bitterly about a stolen election. The Dems in power— the leaders of the liberal crowd complained loudly and bitterly of an illegitimate presidency set up by the Rooskies in 2016, using at time far harsher rhetoric to inspire their supporters. The Dems lost both times they impeached, and the one time they set the power of the govt out to crush some ties. As so often happens with Trump, the argument seems to be that suddenly Trump is so keenly brilliant and cunning, that he conspires with fringe elements to storm the freaking Capitol, using code words like “peaceful” and leaving no apparent direct evidence of his involvement. Then, in a move you really could only write in a Hollywood script, he’s taken to task not in a court of law for the OBVIOUS call to storm the Capitol (as claimed by Dems), they decide to press the issue in a largely symbolic gesture that ultimately means..nothing. The story now seems to be that politics only came in to okay during the vote, and that the senators who voted to acquit are co-conspirators a d also wanted the Capitol breached. It’s preposterous. History will show that in two clearly partisan attempts to suppress the votes of millions of non-dem voters, with virtually all the cards in their hand, they failed. History will show that I the multi-year Mueller inv, with incredible power, and unlimited power and very few restrictions, they failed. I know you consider yourself an independent distrust of both parties, and I respect that. I can understand hated of Trump but allowing the party in power to destroy by innuendo is not the answer and assures only more of the same. I can understand wanting Trump out. I’ll say again what I said to some of my frenemies here— if there is evidence of Trump conspiring, aiding or abetting the terrorists who stormed the Capitol, handle it in the court of law away from cameras, politicians then hallowed halls of Congress where back room deals and screwing the public is the soup du jour. Prosecution. Defense. Witnesses. Juries. This was an explosion in the freak show at a circus, for the second time.

The riots that started this issue occurred less than 45 days ago. The matter was “investigated”, proceeded through the house and senate, sidestepping questions of constitutionality, the absence of the Chief Justice of the SC, does not follow the processes associated with our criminal court system, and the Dems control the house, senate and executive branch. Just prior to the acquittal a hubbub and stir is created about witnesses—call em, don’t call em, if you call yours we’ll call a hundred!— like a middle school mock trial. But sure, the acquittal, long a forgone conclusion, is THE bad politics. 🤣 0-2 for obvious reasons.

That’s a lot of words for “acquitted”.

Her comments were typical throwaway stuff. It’s an example of an otherwise educated person not using common sense in the appropriate venue, and it’s a non-issue for me. Besides, on a scale of 1-10, the sitting president has acknowledged groping 8 women, taken to task only because of his extreme hypocrisy on #istandwithher which in his case was actually #igottosecondbasewithher. If liberal voters support that sort of thing as they clearly do, it would be extremely hypocritical and discriminatory to shame this simply tone deaf female attorney.

Did you reference cotton in your first post to me because you think I'm Tommy Hilfiger?

You have to live your truth. I understand.

This is really fascinating to me, this sort of post. The record shows that Obama bounced ambassadors on the eve of his departure, participated in surveillance on a political rival, trashed Trump as a vile human being, and the evidence shows he knew an awful lot about the Steel dossier in early January of the year Trump took office. What he was briefed on was huge news, and certainly would have gone a long way towards assuaging the fears of the that nation that Steele offered anything of credible or of value. In the meantime, the dem leadership pounded the table on an illegitimate election, a coup, threats and calls to violence against rs and their reporters. If a photo op of an outgoing pres is enough to convince you that the peaceful transition of power took place in spite of the 48 months that have passed, then I'd suggest the kind note left to Biden, as described by Biden, is indicative of Trump's peaceful transition of power.

One of the fundamental rules of successfully navigating the internet is to avoid clicking on links from sources deemed untrustworthy. Given your predilection for silencing dissent, you are in that category.

Not going to happen Vanilla Ice, but thanks for reminding me.

It's become unfashionable to request that 'open/obvious/everyone can see it' evidence be provided by those in full froth. Here's the way it plays out: them: It's quite obvious there was incitement. reasonable people: Why do you think that? them: Well, calls for peaceful protests are obvious dog whistles to breach the Capitol. rp: Do you have anything more than pretend dog whistles? I'm willing to listen. them: What else would we need. We're liberals. Everyone can see it. Anyone who cannot is a complicit co-conspirator. rp: Righto, but what else do you have? It seems if 'peace = violence' this should take 5 minutes. them: No, that's enough. We can't have some people calling for peaceful protests using pretend dog whistles. Don't be obstinate. rp: No, seriously. Are you at all concerned this is political theater run amock? them: No. There are no politics in play at all here. These dems are legit and pure. rp: So are you anticipating a conviction and 100% vote on guilty? them: No. Some in attendance are consciously unlistening. Conviction is highly unlikely. It's all political. rp: They are acting politically, but the other side is not? them: Yes. You don't understand. Every crime ever committed has been decided on circumstantial evidence and has been committed by Trump. There literally is never any evidence. rp: Every crime ever is Trump's fault? them: Yes. Both the existence of evidence and the lack of evidence are indicators of guilt. When you think about it, there was no evidence that Trump was involved in the Brown/Goldman murders, but who else could it have been but Trump? rp: So you can do nothing at all and be guilty? them: Of course. That's how it works-- we accuse someone of something and they are guilty. Look at Russia. rp: That doesn't sound right. What happened to Trump after the Russia investigation? them: Nothing. That's the point. Nothing isn't anything, it's something. Duh.

Every zealot and true believer follows your calculated approached to inter-personal interaction. It reveals your personal limitation on thought and reason, which is your problem, not mine. As you fumble about for examples to buttress your argument, like a pimply faced adolescent working to solve the mystery of the front latching bra in 1982, you move farther to the fringe while demanding others see the world through your own pair of rose colored glasses. I decline, and agree that no further discussion is warranted.

There has been more opportunity to find common ground on this board in the last several posts from @oldmanfan, @SoCal Deekand @All_Pro_Bills then there has been in a long time. While the conclusions differ on DJT, his actions and the charges against him, the reality is that we all agree that congress is the last place in America that we might want to look for anything approaching fairness, decency and people acting in the best interest of We The people. My epiphany came post W Bush. I won't bore you with the details, but I've been a centrist and get-along guy my whole life. It's not just a political thing, I'm the middle child of a close family and you learn early on that together, everyone achieves more (TEAM for those of you in Rio Linda). In non-internet settings I have perfectly reasonable conversations about Trump/Pelosi/Biden/McConnell/Obama and the like. While my friends/associates and I disagree on some substantive issues, it's hard to argue facts rationally. The reality is that Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct, the same reality that reveals that Biden has been as well. Trump makes off the cuff comments that make you shake your head, tis true, but 15 seconds and an internet search reveals some whoppers from Biden as well. Anyway--back to W. The dealio was that he claimed that SH was pursuing/had WMD, and he prosecuted a war on that basis. Ultimately, the argument was that W lead the USA into that war under false pretenses, that he sent young men and women into battle to fight and die for oil--something I believe any reasonable person on this board would consider a massive deal-breaker when it came to fostering/establishing/maintaining a close personal relationship with the man (and his sycophants like Cheney) in the future. Yet, in spite of that stinging accusation, post W, look at what we get. Obama/Bush together, all lovey dovey. The Chosen and The War Criminal hand in hand, sharing cough drops and getting photographed at the inauguration of another supporter of the war for oil, Joe Biden. Cheney's daughter, a senator herself, sitting in judgement of Trump while her father--allegedly the architect of the war fro oil and shooter of people's faces, he's off living a life of privilege, nary a thought or accusation since the day he left office. There is one major political party in this country, with slight variations on the fringes, and it runs on the 'keep the folks in steerage arguing' platform. Back to Trump. It's obvious by now that I concur with the assessment as laid out by All Pro, but I would be among the first to acknowledge there may be facts I am unaware of. Personally, I would discount virtually any slightly controversial fact as alleged by the impeachment tribunal much like I would have cautioned my daughter to avoid believing rumors from cross-town rivals in the local cheerleading competition. I would assume folks on the left would do the same, mostly because they have over the past 4 years. For my efforts at being open-minded on this issue many claim is slam dunk, btw, I've been labelled by a sometimes rational poster as head of the local My Pillow Guy Fan club and a supporter of the abhorrent assault on the Capitol. If there is solid, conclusive evidence, the logical place to vet the accusations is in the court of law, not some hopped up kangaroo court. The players simply cannot be trusted, we all know it, and they all stand far too much to gain or lose to be considered credible or ethical. I support the oldman/deek ticket, and allpro for AG. Let me know where to send the check.

If the evidence is there, he should be charged with specific crimes, the case prosecuted and the outcome left to a jury. I’d support that, assuming the evidence supported the charges. Given the significance of the assault on the Capitol, and the seriousness of the allegations, why do you suppose that hasn’t happened? It certainly would be very early in the investigation, unlike political impeachment where they can convict, allege, investigate and set up the gallows in less than 10 days, but there doesn’t even seem to be any appetite for pursuing this very logical process. Instead, this seems a glorified campaign event where the prosecutor and head tribunalist come from the political party able to manipulate virtually all the levers, with an incredible amount of upside in the event of victory. If the evidence is clear and convincing as many of the weekend lawyers here have been told, given the leverage and power the dems have, it seems it should be a slam dunk conviction with no defectors.

There is clearly a difference in the two scenarios offered, though the paucity of facts offered on the hypothetical POW scenario concern leave me uncertain as to how I feel about the soldiers actions. Perhaps he’s the hero, perhaps a co-conspirator in some sinister plot involving drugs or human trafficking and suffering. Be that as it may, given the limitations of the two choices you have offered, what say you about gang bangers/rioters who kill the security guard/shop owner or police officer in the street. Would you characterize the perpetrators as the American soldier or Adolph Hitler? Here’s a story about a man murdered during riots/protests from over the summer: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/03/us/david-dorn-st-louis-police-shot-trnd/index.html

No BLM members could be opportunistic criminals? Some member is the protest for equality fired bottle rockets, bottles, molotov cocktails at law enforcement officers huddled in groups of ten or 20. People, including LEO, were beaten savagely across the country. People were murdered at various locations throughout the summer. The perpetrators were all political agnostics who huddled within the mother breast of the crowd? I guess I'm struggling with how you get to murder is murder but some murder is worse. It just sounds as if you find certain murders palatable while others abhorrent.

Holy cow. So, you're a single mom working as a clerk at an appliance store, or as a security guard at night. 10,000 people are peacefully protesting outside, bringing attention to their cause. A splinter 10 or 15 opportunist/gang bangers see the TV section, realize that nothing defines unity like a 52" Sanyo 4D, they break in, shoot the security guard in the head and the single mom in the stomach. These murders are better than the other murders?