leh-nerd skin-erd

I get a nice stipend for the work I do with people like LaRon. It’s a win-win, and I’m grateful he’s appreciative. That’s enough for me.

I’m pleased—under my tutelage you’ve moved past denials and at least see firecrackers. That’s a step forward!

First, to clarify, I believe JB believes what he said--certain Americans are "garbage" because they don't agree with him. I think that's indicative of the hard left view of citizens in general, and of course all that pre-dates the comment by the comedian by a decade plus. It's consistent with the Clinton appeal to the darker instincts of the far left--borne of arrogance, hubris and a vast overestimation of one's own self-worth. In that regard, you're no different than the far right, you just throw stones at different targets. Second, one person was 'slinging the insult'. Attack the guy who did, attack the RNC or Trump for allowing it to happen on their watch, but like most things in life--some things aren't complicated. Some will find the humor offensive. Some will find it funny. Some will find it stupid. Most won't think of it again after hearing about it--including the whole bunch of outraged liberals who will not seize the opportunity to dig into their pocket and send a donation to help the needy in PR. JB of course misses the subtle aspects of life, maybe because he's a politician, maybe because he's dumb as stump, maybe because he knows he can rile people like you up. Third, I thought having the guy appear and deliver that monologue was pretty dumb. Not because edgy comedy doesn't have its place (and it does, even with you softies who pretend it doesn't), but because it's unnecessary and that wasn't the place. Finally, my only real suggestion here is don't be so obviously full of sh*t in a forum like this. You like your brand of insults, you like your brand of denigrating others, you like your brand of politics and it's not about unity or decency.

This thread has been an interesting read, and the responses have been entirely predictable. There are ugly people in the world, some are here. The people outraged by a candidate lying and telling half-truths were very pleased to vote for a candidate lying and telling half-truths for nearly 50 years. The people outraged by a candidate allegedly assaulting women were very pleased to vote for a candidate who acknowledged and admitting assaulting women. The people outraged by a president maintaining classified material were very pleased to support a candidate who took, maintained and shared classified documents as a senator...VP..and private citizen. The people outraged by a phony allegation of a candidate partnering with Russia walked in lockstep to support a president with business ties to China. The people outraged by phony allegations of foreign election interference were thrilled to line up and vote for a candidate who benefited greatly from documented domestic election interference. The people outraged by a candidate who they suggest has cognitive/psychological issues were dumbfounded to find their candidate was unable to string a cohesive sentence together during an internationally televised debate. And so on. The only question I have here is whether or not Biden's comments came about as a result of his continuing cataclysmic decline, or simply the loss of yet another filter as happens to the elderly. His comments are entirely consistent with democrat strategy, and certainly in line with past comments that saw him booted from the race for the president.

Here we go: Yes, Kamala does the same thing. Of course she does. As for Trump breaking the standard politician mode, I'm not always comfortable with the way he does things. He seems most at home in times of chaos, and I'm not a chaos guy. At the same time, much of the chaos stems from breathless reporting about things that seem to be very mainstream, and I find that manufactured. Example: Comedian makes stupid jokes about Puerto Rico a couple nights ago. Media analysis: "Racist, crude, hurtful, egregious". Example: Harris/Biden/Clinton call ordinary Americans "racists, white supremacists, nazis" for nearly a decade. Media analysis: ordinary citizens at rally--white, black, brown, gay, christian, jew, straight etc are "racists...crude...nazis...".

So..you don't know. Ok.

And that’s the thing Frank—I don’t ever feel like I hear grand policy design in any of these formats, but especially during debates. 🤷‍♂️

I listened to the interview over the past couple days. I'm not a huge fan of listening to canned answers at debates, and the problem in media circles is the tendency toward sound bite management to sway the way people think. I wasn't planning on listening but was doing some work around the house and I can only listen to so much 70s/80s classic rock. This format works very well for Trump, and I thought Rogan did a good job asking questions, allowing Trump to answer, and trying to keep him on track. I got the feeling he was trying to avoid any appearance of endorsing Trump, or disavowing Harris. Rogan was quite clear on his feelings about the government being weaponized against Trump, the media supporting that generally, and rhetoric that lead to the two assassination attempts. I'd think if reasonable people listened to the podcast, they take away an opinion quite different than that portrayed 24/7/365 by the mainstream press.

When was the vote?

I'm center on many issues, and really have never moved off that whether Tump was in office or anyone else. I have never believed that being center left or center right means you abdicate common sense or reasoned analysis. You and I disagree on the state of the country, though I certainly prefer we go in one direction v the other. Still, if Harris wins, onward. Ultimately, I'm an optimist. We'll figure it out. And don't even try that name thing on me, Mr. Michael Hunt!

It's weird the things people think might keep others awake at night. It's not Jeff Bezos, and it's certainly not some preachy newspaper editor who wouldn't give a **** about me one way or the other, except maybe to consider me deplorable or irredeemable because I don't think like they do. I worry about a commercial enterprise like the Washington Post at about the same level I worry about what;s shaking out at the local Taco Bell. Though, yes, I think a move back towards the center and away from your preferred version of political activism is a good thing.

Shhhh——i heard this whole thing was staged.

So the editorial board has never made a decision based on the best interests of the newspaper or themselves? Their collective personal bias never factored into the decisions? Your perspective is not disingenuous, it’s absurd. Btw, on the resignation of a couple board members…a couple of old timers resigned in disgust—disgust I tell you—but will continue working at the WaPo because while standards are important, so is the cash. This idea of newspaper endorsements is kind of silly to begin with. Bezos has recognized frustration with the for-profit politicking at places like the Post, realized it’s offputting for people who don’t need some dopey pipe smoking bureau chief (sponsored by AT&T) telling you what he thinks you can’t figure out yourself.

Why would “government contracts” matter to a free and independent press? At the same time, are you suggesting that the editorial board tilted to Biden/Harris (and other presidential candidates in the past) in order to benefit financially? Bezos recognizes the fundamental problem in play here. It’s really that simple.

The bigger issue here would seem to be with Bezos. Perhaps a strongly worded letter suggesting he offer a mea culpa for speaking his truth is in order.

If it’s anonymous, who discovered the alleged connection to the alleged guy in allegedly Rochester? Anyway, based on your analysis, it’s unlike Jussie Smollete “sham” because of the legalities of filing a police report—and more like the allegations by members of the Obama admin about the filmmaker? Or DNC allegations of hookers n’ urine? Statements obviously untrue, designed to influence simpletons, unethical but legal? I appreciate you ratcheting back the rhetoric a bit.

I'm offering olive branches and you're making things up and lobbing hand grenades filled with schoolboy angst, wild rhetoric and pink baby powder. Someone is always making things up, Frank, including your preferred candidate(s). Some might say "especially" your preferred candidates. Sure, someone will believe the claims. Sure, some will not believe them. Most though will never even know about them. I've cited a couple examples here of much, much more brazen political misdirection by people in leadership positions and you're stomping around here complaining about some guy allegedly in Rochester like he's that guy who made the film that some said lead to the deaths of American citizens in Benghazi. Let's stay on track here. I do not support a congressional committee investigating anything on this whistleblower story at this time. We agree there. For now, let's keep bird-doggin this and see where it goes, but let's too keep the channels of communication open. This could be another Jussie Smollette story, or one following the path of young Nicholas Sandmann.

The classic cut/copy/paste from the Harrassian left! Take what was said, mish mash it up, ignore the context of what was written...but most importantly, play dumb and imply this is something new in political circles. ThumbyChiGoose did that the other day, too. And...if it turns out that some gentleperson from Rochester (we don't say "weirdo" anymore, Frank, you probably missed the memo) misunderstood, incorrectly cited, or made it all up, well, let's try and look into the 'why' of all this. We'll be better for it collectively.

We cannot say for sure that it was not not manufactured, or speak specifically about who bit on what. Paraphrasing the once alive Harry Reid, the seriousness of the charges warrants further investigation. The problem is that with the ever-growing list of potentially manufactured scandals and suckers of all political stripes biting like zombies on The Walking Dead, it takes time. Were you aware the GW Bush has yet to be brought to account for lying/manufacturing intel that lead us into a war that killed a million+? Were you aware his VP at the time now supports Kamala Harris, and how grateful she is for his endorsement? We've got a lot of ground yet to cover here, Francis. Let's stay the course.

"No one cares". -Frankish, usually, but not in certain cases Let's just agree that if there is a Whistleblower, our collective hope is that he/she is ok.

Fascinating. The current VP spoke quite directly about her belief that JB assaulted several women, during a time when she was championing victim's rights. Now she's partnering with Bill Clinton, and we know his story. What a fascinating place, the American media.

These things take time, Frank. We should know more by mid-November.

What’s your plan for increasing wages to teachers? What does that look like? A federal standard? Minimum starting salary of $125k? $150k? In NYS, for example, would you advocate for eliminating pensions/retirement benefits in exchange for higher starting/ongoing salary?

Oh boy, you were drunk posting again.

You're problem seems to be you're small-minded. Kamala Harris career accomplishments don't simply boil down to her imaginary time spent cooking pretend McNuggets for fictional children. That was just one non-existent step along her journey. Let's not forget she also a very successful almost author, sharing words of wisdom shared previously by people apparently smarter than she only in the sense they wrote the words first. The hard, dirty work came when she decided to lift the words and not change a damn thing. Joe Rogan's Fear Factor days were 20 years ago, and he's been incredibly successful since then. Besides, what issues do you have with a person--any person, asking questions of a presidential candidate? Are we really pretending that some recorded/copied/cut/pasted interview with a dinosaur like Leslie Stahl offers some sort of insider view? Or that what passes for 'reporting' isn't just someone else's narrative based on a soundbite or two, often taken out of context? You pointed out something you didn't like--'so so many things'. That alone provides value for you, though it might not necessarily be of importance for someone else. Let's all just be grateful that we live in a land where we can debate, agree, disagree and vote without fear of being eaten by cannibals, the fate that befell JB's late uncle, Stu Biden.