leh-nerd skin-erd

Some days I realize I'm not all that deep. I want Tulsi Gabbard to be President. I'd support Kristi Noem for VP too. Or, vice versa. Honestly they could both be president at the same time. Screw the wall.

I'm starting to wonder. She'll be president in 12 months, has bypassed the entire bully beatdown and drudgery of the election run up. She wouldn't do it if she was his sub for 4 years...but. .

Michele Hussein Obama. Book it.

This clip reveals really what a poser Biden has always been. He certainly spoke as if he expected no one to question him, and he was so condescending as he spoke about how smart he was, you almost wanted to knock the smile off his face. But, he's a hero to the left and THE only guy for President for so many like @transplantbillsfan and @Tiberius. They can't get enough of the guy.

She's been in congress for 3 years, and were she still an officer, would be shouted at, spat upon, had bricks thrown at her and fireworks shot at her face by your people. Assuming she hasn't lost her ethical center, I'm thinking she might be an interesting choice to help lead the narrative on reform. At one point, she saw the need to defend the police from criticism in hostile and dangerous situations, though that may not fly anymore. When you think of it, she could be perceived as selling out by police, and as selling out by partnering with a guy with as much racial baggage as Joe Biden. From police officer to congressperson to VP for a guy widely acknowledged as very unlikely to complete his term--thus President in 4-8 years. Wow.

Well, he knows her intimately.

But the rioting and lawlessness clearly contributed to the COVID crisis. I think the city of Seattle needs to figure this out on their own. It'll be empowering.

One thing for certain, we'll know last week.

We agree on this--Biden (when he's coherent) truly believes in his vision. He's show no growth at all on racist rhetoric, on groping and fondling and the like, and 1975 Biden made the same type of incendiary and condescending comments about people of color as does Biden 2020. That happens because people like you continue to align behind him., driven forward to vote for a guy who should have been out of a job 3 decades ago. That has nothing to do with Donald Trump, he's been a thorn for only the past 3 or 4 years. Suggesting that you're simply enabling no longer makes any sense. Your personal brand of intolerance and keeping people under the boot of the government makes it all the troubling. It's insidious.

I did no such thing, I simply commented about the nature of humans in regards to a mini-op-ed you posted about silliness and the like. If you perceive that as a 'whatabout Biden' that's your limitation, not mine. I also would concur that while your characterizations about people you disagree with added little to a thread entitled "The next pandemic...", the fact is that you opined and I replied. Finally, if we're really being sincere, your unsubstantiated and purely anecdotal comments about having clients in Sweden (pop: 10,000,000+) add little to the dialogue, unless of course your Swedish clients total in the millions. Taking it one step further if, for example, a poster cited a similar experience and we later discovered they sold school supplies to teachers across the country, their experience certainly would not be indicative of what might be happening in other sectors of the economy.

No sir--shame on you. You're preparing to vote for a 1970s Biden, who really represented 1950s America, likely because it makes you feel safer in your bubble. You can pretend your boy Biden didn't align with racists and lecherous politicians like Byrd and Kennedy, you can pretend he doesn't make racially insensitive comments on an almost daily basis, you can pretend he doesn't have a long history of very questionable behavior with respect to women and children, you can pretend he hasn't been accused of a violent and predatory assault on a woman, and you can pretend a vote for Biden is a vote for progress. It doesn't make it so, and there's oodles of readily available media that suggests that your vote sets us all back 40+ years. These are the words and actions of the predator you choose to enable, while accusing others of doing exactly what you're doing.

I wasn't aware we were suddenly using Robert's Rules of Order for the COVID (or any other) thread. Besides, it wasn't about Trump's comments, it was about your characterization of supporters as follows: The backbending to defend this by comparing it to chemotherapy is silly. It is not the end of the world that he did this. It was just one of his gaffes borne of his world class narcissism that makes him think he’d know more than the scientists and suggest something that is actually pretty moronic. Since you opined about silliness, since you opined about gaffes, since you opined about world class narcissism, I thought I would reply in kind. That's the nature of interaction.

Maybe, but then again supporters of presidents in general defend their guy, or in Hillary’s case, their popular vote presidentress. One of the prime examples of this was one former president who struggled with the exact number of states in the union. Or that it was impossible to using the international banking system to transfer assets to a hostile regime. Another would be supporters of current candidate Biden. It’s just a thing.

And yet...the salty tears of liberal voters flowed like sweet nectar from above. One of my regrets is that we will never see that sort of thing again. From arrogance to overconfidence to premature celebration to concern to panic to crestfallen to crazed was just awesome. It was like a kick a$$ ride at Universal Studios.

“Everything there is need to know we already know.” -Every generation, ever

90 years of mismanagement and misappropriation of funds from Social Security. Joe Biden was the c$ck of the walk in the senate for almost 50 of those years, and was the second most powerful man in the world for nearly a decade of that time. Where was Joe all that time? Feeding at the trough. Yet...he spent that time focusing on segregation, getting into bed with China, &$#@ing around with Ukrainian politics and treating congressional staffers like bowling ball. But yes, giving the people suffering the most from the coronavirus shutdown that isn’t a shutdown more money in their paychecks is THE problem with SS. The money taken out of the paychecks is stepped on more times than cheap Bolivian cocaine, with so many players getting their beaks wet before whatever pittance is left makes it way back to the people. The solution is simple—redirect taxpayer funded aid internationally to the taxpayer first.

What was your perspective on media bias and juggernauts? You never said.

I dunno Muppalito. It’s been a long time since my religious days (for whatever that means), but it seems to me it’s not really an either or, or that the score is kept like in a rousing game of Skeeball. With enough love in your heart, both are possible. I can’t recall any suggestion that 100% faith and love in God means you can only love your fellow man 52%.

That’s no less controversial imo, but probably only to people who don’t see it as you do, and maybe a guy like me who thinks it’s unreasonable to judge someone else by your standards. I truly don’t know why you would care to think it controversial, but the point is—Fromm disagrees with you., and Fromm answered. For those that truly honor God, that’s the hierarchy. By the way, I couldn’t tell you scripture from Scrabble, and I think it’s splitting hairs one way or the other.

The flip side of “how dare you attack his religion” is “how dare he shove his religion in my face”. It’s always been a contentious issue, always will be. I tend to default to the middle—really, who cares what either of them think? There is nothing all outrageous about what either of them think, and honestly we don’t know what really in their heart either way. Besides, how much can one glean from a young guy who gets shots to the head on one side, and a guy who writes about the shots on the other? As for the pages written, I’m as guilty as anyone else. I was interested, opined and off I go. In my defense, this may be what middle age looks like when you have some time to kill.

Agreed—the team likely dictates availability. They are unable to dictate performance, tone, verbiage, comfort, trepidation and trust of the inquisitor. With the little media training I have had personally, the best piece of advice is always “Be wary, trust no one.”. In addition, some people are very comfortable with the media, some suck at it. We may well have seen a different Fromm had he not created a major mess for himself in trusting the wrong people with dopey jokes, memes, edgy content or even his personal beliefs. I certainly agree he could have said more, I just don’t see all the hubbub that he didn’t say more. A year ago, he was just a guy. Now, he’s a lightning rod, at least on a regional level. Copping out, IMO, is “I don’t want to get into that.”.

I know you’re fielding multiple inquiries so I’ll bow out with this. I’m not here to debate the relative merit of his views on religion, only to try and understand how him sharing his deeply held beliefs ultimately became unacceptable to someone else and their deeply held personal beliefs, and why it even matters as it relates to a “cop out”. He answered the way he wanted to answer. He hurt no one, offered no controversial take on the world (except, I suppose, for those who aren’t fans of Bible beaters), and quite likely will be even less forthcoming in the future.

Congrats on your awakening. On the last episode of your podcast, “Transplant on Media”, you were pitching that a simple misreading of the tea leaves and 90 anonymous sources lead the Bezos Enquirer to miss the boat on the Russia narrative for 46 months in a row. As to your question, I want to be an honest broker in our conversations. You gave me something to think about, and I appreciate that. I considered a variety of outlets, the usual suspects, but that got me thinking less about where the story begins, but how it’s delivered. I also considered the relative impact on the world/USA, specifically as it related to the ability to influence opinions, attitudes and to shape the world. In that vein, and considering “juggernaut” I’d probably cite two non-traditional contenders: Google Facebook In the more traditional sense of the word, I’d probably go with the Associated Press or Reuter’s. The network established over the decades is impressive and evolving—from print to broadcast to internet and beyond. The AP really created the concept of mass marketing the business of news, in a sense, Amazon for media outlets before there was Amazon. Finally, it would be impossible to have any serious dialogue on “media” without considering the role played by the DOJ and all its iterations. While not a media outlet per se, the highly functional and strategic system of creating stories and funneling through “anonymous leaks” and at times “whistleblower complaints” has a massive impact on our daily lives.

I’ve seen this posted a few times here. Would you be willing to share what you mean by this? What, exactly is he copping out from? Did he not want to share his stories of personal growth because it was just that-intensely personal and private? Or, are you of the mind he experienced no personal growth at all, and thus had nothing to share and chose not to be honest? I suppose I’m struck by the fact that a young man who nearly decapitated his career before it began would ever speak to any reporter, ever. There is very little upside for him.

I think "sermon on the mound" is a movie that one might find in the same aisle as "On Golden Blonde" and "Romancing the Bone". The "Sernon on the Mount" is different. Fromm's response was just that, his response to a question. The reporters response show's he as judgemental as most. If you don't know want to know what people think you should not ask them.