leh-nerd skin-erd

I think the Holler is one of those institutions that people of a certain mindset can count on to prescreen news/media/entertainment/politics for truth and accuracy. The sports journalism department originally broke the story about Pro Wrestling being scripted. Wasn’t it BillSy who used to say “Trust the Holler, for news you can Swoller!”.

I’m not certain how you get where you got, but I’m confident in my ability to navigate the journey (treacherous as it may be to other people) between entertainment and reality. For example, I enjoy watching Denzel Washington in The Equalizer but understand he didn’t actually kill any of the movie characters in the movies. I like most Leo DiCaprio movies but recognize he’s not actually a police officer under deep cover in Boston, or a guy killing off family members in that dreadful movie about murders of wealthy indigenous people in the 1920s. I used to enjoy DeNiro movies, but I was rooting for anyone but The Irish after watching the absurd flashback scene where an 80 year old DeNiro was supposedly curb stomping a thug in the street. I use a similar skill set when considering the relative importance of a guy from the entertainment industry pouring his heart out long after the show is off the air, a couple weeks out from the election, so caught up in his angst that he thinks somehow his reality show changed the world. It makes me wonder what the studio execs of the 50s would say about “Leave it to Beaver” and its impact on the politics in the 1970s. However, I understand you might feel better with someone previewing televisions shows, actors and studio execs for content and message points. Godspeed on your search, Starr.

Tibsy doesn’t like this question, Ja. It’s inconvenient.

I recall a couple of those Tommy Hearns fights. He threw some bombs and was an exciting guy to watch. Good to see he’s still around! God bless the studio executive who retroactively expresses regret for making boatloads and boatloads of money on a reality tv show featuring one of the most recognizable people on the planet. Our family enjoyed the show. Now, how does he feel about studio execs, starlets, the casting couch, drug abuse and the cutthroat entertainment business?

I understand strategy, relative risk, political calculation. I understand the undeveloped and immature knee jerk response is to scream “They’re afraid!”, so I tried to reach you where you are, at the schoolboy level. In the bigger picture, Trump has appeared at two debates for the office against the revolving door of Dem candidates, and campaigns like he’s running for office. He’s an open book. I assume he saw the 60 minutes opportunity for what it was—and decided it was irrelevant. Based on the complete lack of fallout from any sources beyond the “He’s scared!” crowd, he was clearly right and made the correct call. Harris recognized a downside to appearing at the Catholic group (there is a trend there), likely that it would turn off hard line lefties and she would perform badly in that settting. That’s not a knock, some people are good in that arena and some flounder. Harris or her handlers likely surmised she would founder. That doesn’t make her dumb, feeble or scared, it simply reflects a strategic approach to campaigning. Harris recognized an opportunity in interviewing with Fox/BB, tried but failed to stick the landing. She seems to have failed quite badly given all the mop up the MSM has done in cleanup, but that happens sometimes. That’s about it.

I understand your hypocrisy, and I accept that is part of who you are.

Trump opts out of the traditional 60 Mins interview, Tibsy rages! Harris refuses to attend the traditional A Smith Dinner, Tibsy whistles and looks the other way! This is why people think you go both ways, Tibsy.

Yes, the old watch, wait, partner with a foreign national to spread disinformation, launch a multi-year investigation that yields nothing, impeach, make accusations of treasonous behavior, surveil political opposition, impeach, reimagine statues for political purposes, create a singular prosecution absent victim or victimization, and send an armed swat team to seize control of a private residence holding documents the current president had been holding onto for decades, and that a former presidential candidate had in her possession just a few years earlier. Chill af, the Dems. 🤣 Plus, you’ll never leave. You’re the Rosie O’Donnell of our little merry group here.

Wrong type of people, in the wrong place, at the wrong time says Presidential candidate Harris. History repeats.

Weird. Divisive.

Filed alphabetically, several spaces behind “Illegitimate Election” (available in English or Russian)

I’m skeptical of Skeptical, but he could be right. Or wrong. I guess I’m skeptical and ambivalent at the same time.

Yes, why?

The countries adjacent to Ukraine have to be dreading another Dem administration. Israel as well. Bad sh:t just coincidentally happens when the Dems are up.

You probably did. Lots of people develop instantaneous Debate Parkinson’s. Scientists think it comes from toilet seats, or perhaps pre-debate candy snacking on green Skittles.

Yes, thanks for the opportunity to clarify. Non-hostile, friendly interviews with talking heads who share the agenda of the guest would typically not be contentious or hostile. Harris sitting down with BB would likely not fall into that category. Yet, she seemed ill-prepared to answer basic questions about her administration’s struggles.

Trump has done two debates with the Democrat candidates. The first was with the Original Chosen, who turned out to be a confused and befuddled old man although you were assured (and convinced) he was fine n feisty. When the democrats told base they were blindsided by Joe’s decline, that they made a mistake and pulled the old swictheroo, he debated the next candidate. If they pull the old switcheroo again, he’d have to weigh that out as well. As it stands, I think the analysis by the Trump team is he gains nothing from a third debate (the second for Harris for those keeping track), and potentially loses if things go sideways. Smart play imo.

But that’s always the case. The interviewer sets the tone, interrupts and fact checks (sometimes fairly, sometimes not) with a behind-the-scenes team offering the assist. If it’s a contentious interview it goes that way. If it’s a friendly interview it goes the other. To me, she seemed unprepared for simple softball questions about her performance over the past 4 years, questions that should/would come up every time in an honest discussion. Add to that, it appears she was unprofessional, unable to meet the time obligation and her team of handlers were quite disruptive and unprofessional as well.

I’m focused, calm and in search of understanding. Your challenge is you follow a script that is chaotic and inconsistent. It’s ok, I’m just here to observe and opine.

You should take that up with Gampy Frank, it was his characterization. Though..what does the network have to do with her performance?

I couldn’t do desperate if I tried. What will be, will be. I just thought after you were fussin like a toddler about traditions, fear and your beloved 60 Minutes you might stumble into some form of consistency. But, on the bright side, you’re amazingly consistent on your inconsistency.

Why is she afraid to do what amounts to an open mic night and free rein to say whatever? You’re the staunch traditionalist with a thing for Leslie Stahl, yet here, you’re suddenly not? This is your Tibaylor Swift Hypocrisy era.

This sounds like what a grandpa might say to his granddaughter after a 11-0 drubbing to a much better field hockey team in middle school. “You gals were feisty, and did fine!”. I do agree though that there really was nothing she could do or say to change the mind(s) of her base. Politics is like that.

Did you catch the news about Harris dodging the Alfred Smith dinner? First democrat candidate to skip in 60 years. What is she afraid of??!

tion-of-lebanon-ceasefire-plan-shatters-ties-with-biden-tv-report/amp/ Yikes--sounds like Team Biden really missed the mark on this, stating the Israelis were in agreement when they pretty obviously were not. Did they lie, do you think, or make a statement in an attempt to create outrage and to force Israel to capitulate? Or, did Netanyahu set them up, attempting to embarrass the Harris/Biden admin? I think it seems clear they probably would prefer a Trump presidency given the treatment received from the current Washington crowd. Seems to me the most reasonable resolution would be for Hamas and the Palestinians to agree to release all hostages, living or dead, and turn over any people responsible for murder, torture or barbaric treatment while in their custody. Once safely returned, Hamas stands down, then the Israeli's follow suit. Sensible, yes?