leh-nerd skin-erd

I didn’t say it, it was T. L. Skin-erd. The guy is notoriously closed-minded and judgmental. I’ll take a shot at answering though. I applaud your consistency on the impeachment issue if, upon reflection, you feel it was the right position. I was not particularly politically woke during the lead up to the Clinton impeachment, and had a rather heated argument with my father-in-law in defense of Clinton and against the political shenanigans that lead up to it. I thought at the time his biggest crime was exposing his throat to his adversaries, but the perjury was a colossal mistake and impeachment-worthy. At the time, I called him the Dumbest Smart guy in the world. It seems T.L.’s last statement was just reflection on the current state of affairs with respect to impeachment, pointing out the obvious: regardless of which side of the fence you’re on, there were checks, balances and a resolution. Complaining because the desired outcome wasn’t achieved seems, well, contrary to the concept of “checks and balances”. I’m speculating of course, because not only is the guy closed-minded and judgmental, he’s not a good texter and has not replied to an inquiry on your behalf.

I think it was the great philosophizer T. L. Skin-erd who said, while quoting Bob while quoting Faber “Checks and balances” work best when you recognize the “checks” and embrace the “balances”. They should not be viewed as sacrosanct when they support your view and inconvenient when they do not.”

This didn’t start with a denial, it started with an accusation of wrongdoing by an operative, was ginned up by a politician with the intent to harm the president, and ultimately failed because it was built on a foundation of shifting sand that passes for political ethics. The fact that the same description can be used for ”Trumps taxes!”, Russian Treason! his SC nominee The Rapist! photos of “children in cages”! (from the Obama admin), and whatever is in the Democrat hopper is telling. At least the dems don’t confuse the masses by shifting the shape of the method of attack. There are no new ideas, politically speaking, just cycles. This version approximates McCarthyism.

Shane! Shane! Shane!

Sports talk Is a gateway chat. I never knew.

Good God! The witnesses are needed in spite of impossible conviction in order to find out the truth so we can agree going forward what is legal and what is illegal. You should consider a name change to Pootie Tang in Mich.

It's the American way. It's even in the song: "Above the fruitless plane..."

You're escalating the rhetoric. You started out just looking for truth, you moved on to opining he's guilty though you haven't heard from the witnesses you long for, and now he's a bank robber caught in the lobby?* How could this be given you simply cannot know the full story??! You sounds suspiciously like one of those monotone Wonderbread professors on "American Landscape" on that damn NPR channel! You should throw Fox on once in a while. *this mindset is exactly why no political party/defense team would let the enemy define the rules of the game. People fib, and their true motives are usually hidden. And here I trusted you! ?

I don't know why things would play out that way. You've already indicated that only the truth will be revealed should we set aside precedent , common sense, and basic litigation strategy for the first time in history. Regardless, I will sleep soundly knowing that you appealed for real compassion, understanding, trust and emotional balance in our system. T

We've come too far in this anonymous relationship of ours for you to toss out 'Fox News/Hannity', as a means of buttressing your argument. It's unnecessary, and if the Hanman was my source for intel, I'm not sure why that would be an issue anyways. Are we only to screen certain government-approved news sources, Das Komrade Bobinovitch? I try to gather news from a variety of sources, most certainly skew to those that match my worldview as does every other human in the country. I stomach, barely, NPR on a fairly regular basis. I pay attention to what the networks are reporting, I review NYT and WaPo articles of interest as time permits. I do not represent myself as a person with intimate familiarity on every nuance and social issue, I understand that while I think Barrack Obama was a bad president, others did not and regardless of what he did, my primary role in life was to be a good son/husband/father. I'm frail of spirit at times, but on the whole, I'm ok. I'm reasonably intelligent, I'm open-minded within reason, I can learn and evolve. I've seen nothing the compels me to evolve in this case. I know, with certainty, that the process as it is playing out in the senate is 100% appropriate given the issues, the stakes, the votes of in excess of 60m deplorable trump voters, the house process, what's been said and alleged, the holes in what has been said and alleged, and the totality of the liberal attempt to destroy Trump. I know you want to see him hauled off Guantanamo, I understand your perspective and recognize what you say about the highly partisan political attack by the dems to sully the Rs. We agree on that. You see it as them doing The Lord's Work, I see it as dangerous political wrangling. I'm torn between wanting it to happen to 'your guy' in the future, of using impeachment as a means of further eroding what little confidence is left in our system, and realizing that's just going to make me feel dirty, like a New England Patriot's fan. Tell you what though, if we want to debate thought crimes, motivation, feelings, and kicking all the doors in in the relentless pursuit of the adversary, let's get that done when your guy is in power, and your vote is impacted. I didn't like it when Mueller did it, I don't like it now.

What I don't understand, really and sincerely don't understand, why we would bother lamenting what is obviously the wisest course of action for someone to follow. The BS is spread non-stop--"If you have noting to fear, why not come talk to us?". What that can potentially mean, and certainly does in the political process is "Keep talking and we'll find something to %$#@ you up!". See Flynn, Michael. If truth, justice and the American way are what we all strive for, why the heck aren't libs screaming from the tree tops that Comey ran a con on Flynn? There is no way, ever, that sane people with exceptional legal counsel will ever voluntarily subject themselves to unnecessary scrutiny. It does not happen. The media loves to toss out Bolton, a guy now on record as taking multiple conflicting positions on the same subject. At best, he's a flip flopper and thus lacks credibility. At least, he should where removal of the president is in play. Yet, the stench of corruption is all around Hunter and Joe Biden, the optics are certainly bad, and Joe could demand the opportunity to testify at a hearing. It seems like a gigantic waste of time on a message board.

I think, Robby, it's hard for folks to grasp where you're coming from at times. I mean, I know where you're coming from, I just don't know why you would ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever think that in such a highly partisan "investigation" that any supporter of the president would push for more/extended hearings on this. See, in my opinion, it makes the most sense to avail oneself of every legal and rational argument or procedural opportunity to close this out with the knowledge that your adversary failed. I know you know the dems would follow that process, and we can both agree they already did in setting up the impeachment case to begin with. If the evidence they had was strong enough to carry the day legally, after the house had completed it's dirty work, there would be little reason not to move forward. Again, they didn't even carry their own partisan party on this issue. How the heck does that happen if they have the Trumpsta dead to rights? I get the "what were his motivations" angle, and "why can't we just talk more, where's the harm in that if you're innocent?" approach. That's a law enforcement/big government tactic used all the time. Let's acknowledge that as 'fishing', but let's also agree that has absolutely nothing--zero, nada, zilch--to do with what is in the best interest of the subject of the investigation. If the WH "blocking" witnesses is illegal, the dems should have at it. If not, just like Schiff, Biden or Biden Jr aren't out begging to testify voluntarily to help us all understand this polarizing events of days past, the R's should rightly tell the enemy to suck a nut. I do agree though, DJT is the first President/politician who did not go to the Mother Theresa Slums of Mumbai Selflessness Training Academy. I think as citizens were should all be grateful that prior to #45, we had 44 presidents (44.5 if you include Popular Vote Queen and Haffa-Prez Hillary C) who sacrificed everything for the good of all people everywhere. May God Bless them, may God Bless them all.

Outlageous. Eglegios.

Life is about acknowledging mistakes. Yiu are 100% correct.

No recollection on an unanswered Kavvie question. I'm not sure what question would cause me to rethink my feelings on that but have at it if you can. I follow your explanation on OJ. I'd accept the comparison if OJ was tried by football players only, in two separate trials with rules developed by his enemies in one case and his allies on the other, entirely unrelated to those set forth in your ypical criminal trial.. Peace out.

Sometimes it sharpens the saw for discussions. Good to know how the opposition frames the argument. Plus I ain't no sisyphean, which obviously is Greek for sissy. Nice try making it sound cool.

I don’t think it’s a failure to understand. I think it’s an acceptance of weaponization for political purposes. It’s like Pats fans accepting wrongdoing arguing it was worth it, or Oprah claiming weight loss victories when none seem to exist. @Bob in Mich writes down thread about “perspective”, and advocating for witnesses. Using a true crime analogy to match some that he referenced earlier, there was no “perspective” issue with the Brown/Goldman crime, there was simply a crime and the ensuing chaos. 3 years. $30m+. Doors kicked in. Unlimited investigative power. Mueller House Managers clearly political advocates for the candidate who lost. And....nothing splashed on Trump. The Accusers were either staggeringly incompetent (like Columbus setting off for the New World and ending up in Barcelona), or, well weaponization for political gain to gut the elected President. Not to overstate the obvious, but they’re pimping one of the chief co-conspirators as a leading candidate for pres.

To each zhe’s own.

Bolton praises Trump contact with Ukraine? Schiff says he lacks credibility? What da heck? @Bob in Mich, which Bolton do you want to hear from? https://www.foxnews.com/politics/schiff-bolton-lack-credibility-senate-impeachment-trial

Hmm. I disagree and really tried to see what Lemon thought was funny enough to laugh for two minutes straight. Why would there be a picture of crane after a random U appeared on a map? It’s gibberish. It sounds like a middle school joke from a kid on sugar overload.

Exactly. It’s political. The End.

Fair enough on the 40 replies, fair enough on the lengthy posts I send in return. I simply see these issues as all intertwined, I see a pattern, and if I did not, I might well agree with you on some of these issues. Feel free to screw up the grammar, even if I talk behind your back no one would know. OJ question--I thought the analogy was lacking and had nothing to do with the situation. That said, if OJ was charged with another crime, he should be investigated and charged as the facts played out. His acquittal in the Nicole/Goldman case should have no bearing on the investigation of a crime if they find his bloody gloves and Bruno Maglia (sp?) shoe prints at the scene of a crime in 2020. We reach an impasse on the House hearing v. the Senate. In one of your emails, you seemed to suggest the Senate should disregard precedent and all parties should seek the truth. The Rs are on record as to complaining about the House process, the heavy-handed approach to their request for consideration and their perception that that portion of the process was demonstrably unfair. Still, if you feel the Dems were fair, and followed the rules to the letter and did not selectively leak and mislead the public on key issues, that's fine. Regardless, I simply state let's do the same in the Senate. If the majority can close out without witnesses, without breaking the law they should do so. That's the beauty of the majority. And while we're at it, what happened to Brett Kavanaugh was a disgrace and you should stand with me on that issue. If not, you're supporting oppression and tyranny, and your grammar sucks. ?

I've said before, I am not an Obama fan, I thought he sucked donkey $$$$ as a pres, but these things happen in dangerous places. I render no opinion on that part of it, because what do I know. I'll take you at your word you've been there, truly, but that does not explain the manufactured story. And no, I have not been there, and never claimed to have been. It's seems a particularly vicious part of the world. Was there a "system" in place that required they misrepresent what happened? And again, the libs are freaking out over an aid package that was delivered, its lead to a full on imoeachmrlent frenzy. Every administration ever would be subject to inv for a debacle that leaves an ambassador and his protectors dead, would not you agree? Yet...no impeachment. Huh.

You missed TRUE or FALSE? C'mon Cheese Whiz I answered your questions pointedly.

Benghazi resulted from the deaths of American citizens on the watch of a Presidential candidate, involving his Secty of State and heir apparent, and involved a made up tale of spontaneous demonstrations and Korans in toilets. The lie was calculated to provide maximum cover and plausible deniability to the admin specifically to influence the vote, and would result in an investigation 100% of the time. It was a #### up on a massive scale. It did not lead to articles of impeachment. Unlike the Russia hoax, the CIA was not weaponized, foreign intelligence was not created out of thin air, the FISA court was not flim-flammed, and the media was not used to bludgeon the candidate with mindless allegations of treason. Other than that, yeah, sure.