leh-nerd skin-erd

Ok, on this I’m intrigued. What’s the hook on “I got land for sale in Florida for you” reference?

No Tibs, I get the point. As you have pointed out, HRC won the popular vote and absent the Electoral College, would have been President. Rumor is people on the left were outraged OUTRAGED I tell you, and calls for abolishing our electoral system followed. She was mad popular. That’s one example. Biden threatened to take DJT behind the library like the old days, and only two things happen behind the library, most assume he was threatening with physical violence, not the other thing. It was Biden who suggested certain the Rs were going to enslave people, and that non-believers are a threat to democracy. Harris is all about derisive and divisive language, as previously pointed out. As for whataboutisms, I answered Andy’s inquiry and offered context based on his question to me. Mean-spirited and harsh rhetoric is a part of life as inconvenient as it may be for you here. Prayers for enlightenment.

What will happen in November will happened in November. History has shown us the polls can be accurate or not, that some issues are hot button and others or not, and things like the Dean Scream can derail a campaign overnight. X is just a platform, she does it or doesn’t.

Or on X, a platform with massive reach and one of the most popular platforms on the planet. She could sit for the interview, explain her agenda and speak to Trump’s cognitive issues and stroke. Having partnered with Biden during his obvious decline over the past few years, she’s uniquely qualified to explain what she witnessed and how she dealt with it. When she confronts EM on his change of perspective on issues, he can ask her to explain hers. From my perspective, I’m more concerned with that sort of thing than the thoughts of a private citizen.

She can call for that during the X interview?

Seems like a reasonable offer. It would give Team Harris the opportunity to explain how her agenda might be different than Team Biden to address inflation, the border etc in real time.

Please, call me Leh-n. Only my mother calls me….wait, that’s not right. Never mind. To answer your question, no, I wouldn’t tolerate that at my place of employment. I’d think a derogatory comment on that level results in HR involvement and punitive action, a supervisory rebuke, or in some cases a punch in the face. However, the national American political arena is completely different than most workplaces, with different rules of conduct and vastly different outcomes for participants. You might as well ask me if I’d tolerate a co-worker launching himself at me like Terry Tate, office linebacker, you know, like the NFL workplace. Andy, in your workplace, would you tolerate an individual referring to you and members of your family as “irredeemable” or your mother or sister as “deplorable” because they had different points of view than your co-worker? Would you tolerate an individual in your workplace ruminating on claims you were involved in sexual assaults as a high school senior? What about the co-worker who suggests you are a threat to democracy? Or, that if you get promoted, you’ll put certain people back in chains? That sort of political hostility will get you canned and referred to a therapist to work out the ugliness in you these days. Politics isn’t real life as far as you and I are concerned….and sure as ****, you’ll be wondering how “Republicans…tolerate” as you enter the ballot booth to cast your vote for the pristine souls that exist only in your mind.

What does the top of the GOP ticket have to do with Clinton speaking to the adoring masses at the Dem convention? The “vote for an abuser if they support your view” crowd did that with W Clinton twice, and his wife was very popular as well. Theres no moral decency standard here. That ship sailed a long time ago. I simply would have thought the Dems would foster the illusion they weren’t hypocrites for the base. Joe Biden as a speaker.…sure. Limit him to 5 minutes, guide him on, guide him off and off into the sunset.

@JaCrispy and, Harris believed the women who made allegations against Biden for inappropriate touching/fondling. This of course was during a pivotal time when accusers were encouraged to share their stories of pain and heartache--then opted to partner with him when given the chance to elevate her position in the party.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, Tibs.

You apparently stopped maturing in middle school, so I can see why you would think that.

I don't care one way or the other. I do think on this topic: Barrack O makes sense certainly. Hillary is a world class enabler of such behavior, had some issues as Sec State of course, lost absolutely winnable election in historic fashion, though i can see why she would be a speaker as well. Bill Clinton would qualify as a predator by any standard today, in the era of female empowerment.

Hmm. Barrack O makes sense certainly. Hillary is a world class enabler of such behavior, had some issues as Sec State of course, lost absolutely winnable election in historic fashion, though i can see why she would be a speaker as well. Bill Clinton would qualify as a predator by any standard today, in the era of female empowerment.

This isn't over.

On this, yes, and of course it extends beyond rioting. Think of all those comments about irredeemables, deplorables, uneducated, racists, cultists, authoritarians and you can see how we get here. The ‘riffraff’ and ‘rational actor’ theories are constant, but who espouses them depends on the nature of the riot Forging group identities requires what sociologists call an “Other” — an enemy who helps define your own group

Which brings us back to the constant, underlying theme of our political discourse. People will complain candidates for lying/misrepresenting details of their life, but typically only when it's the other guy. Another poster and I discussed this the other day, and the sum total of his argument seemed to be he liked his liars more than mine. Whether people will care about Walz's obvious deception on his military service will be directly tied to the agenda he's associated with. If there is something in it for them, it's no big deal. If it's the other agenda, it's a huge issue. In the big picture of politics, you hang it around his neck like an anchor and hope it works.

The question of the duties of a CSM and Master Sergeant isn't the point. I think the point is that one should not represent himself to be one if he is the other. I haven't paid much attention to the issue with Walz, but I think this is pretty basic stuff even in a highly politicized world. I mean, most people don't know the details involved with passing the NYS bar, and who does or doesn't, but likely care when a guy claims to be an attorney but lacks the credentials. Btw an old business friend of mine was married to a CSM. Haven't seen them in years, but I'm uncertain if he would mind being called a Private First Class, or had business cards printed that listed his status as Chairman-Joint Chiefs of Staff?

What are the ramifications of his speech, Andy?

You may be wasting good dream time there, Frank.

Oh gosh, carve your own path L. They were your words, chosen by you to express what you believed to be true. There’s no grand conspiracy afoot to make you say things you don’t believe. You’re upset, the conspiracy talk may have you amped up. If it helps you to think of me as a princess, that’s your journey. I don’t know these people, but sure, some people see minor transgressions as major catastrophes and maybe even conspiracies.

The US cases described above were addressed in the civil justice system, not the criminal justice system. The argument from free speech advocates isn’t freedom from consequence, it’s freedom from overzealous law enforcement and authoritarian policing. People were not concerned that Amber Heard was going to be tazed coming out of the LA Fitness because of her issues with Captain Jack. I understand we have different systems and you’re obviously supportive of yours. You’ve expressed that the targeted individuals represent the lowest rungs on humanity, and that may be the case. I’ve never been quite sure how to address ours here. I would be against our local town issuing a permit for a nazi gathering, but the very real question is where lines are drawn. The “day in court” issue is something to discuss as well. There are many ways for overzealous law enforcement to crush undesirables. One is to arrest and imprison them, force them to seek counsel, expose them to public ridicule and loss of employment and bury them in legal fees. In our system, a defendant can win and lose at the same time.

I had forgotten that L Ron came up with that gem about Biden not lying, just making things up. He was pretty adamant about that one. Instant PPP classic. In our discussion today, I was pretty close to giving him credit for acknowledging there was something fishy about the Harris assault on Kavanaugh, but then I realized he chalked the accusations of violent sexual assault against a judge with decades of public service off to a cheap stunt—leading me to believe L Ron’s top three hysterical cheap stunts are: 1. Jumping out and yelling “Boo!” when someone comes around the corner; 2. Tying a friends shoe laces together when he falls asleep at his desk; 3. Savaging a man in front of the nation and his wife and two young daughters by accusing him of gang rape and general, sustained sexual deviance when he was in high school; Many, many people confuse going to a 7-11 for Mountain Dew in Duluth with carrying a weapon in a war zone in Iraq. It’s pretty common.

Yeah, you think a politician/justice on the other side of the aisle from you is corrupt. Tell you what--let's agree that an independent, non-partisan committee investigates the personal finances of all Supreme Court justices from the past 30 years--book deals, private speaking engagements, free concert tix, vacations with billionaires, and lets extend what we look at to include the actions of past professional/corporate relationships, spouse, siblings and parents. That will provide a complete snapshot of who is corrupt, who is pure as the driven snow, and who should recuse from what and why. Consider, as an example, HRCs relationship with Steele and a foreign element hostile to our free and fair elections. The fact that she lost the election in no way reveals that she wasn't trying to intentionally and fraudulently impact our free and fair elections, and we know after the Mueller case post mortem that the leadership of the Dem party knew as early as Trump's inauguration of that particular attempt to steal the election. Let's get it all out, instead of reacting to bogus stories and political opinion pieces about one particular justice without context of what really happens. Tough to yawn when you're typing a reply, playa.

L Ron, that you like your liars, sexual abusers, character assassins, influence peddlers, vaccine deniers, authoritarians and the like to be of the democrat variety is completely within your purview as a partisan and citizen. Don't feign indignation when someone points it out to you. Go figure, again.

Yeah, but the impeachment was launched by the opposition party, the AG pursuing subsequent cases is from the opposition party, judge(s) unfavorable to conservative causes, the Russia inv started by a hostile director of the FBI who's actions were questionable, and your biggest issue with the Supreme Court is you didn't like the outcome. Add to that his troubles in NY came about as a result of reimagined statutes and personal animus against Trump, his civil suit judgement a result of temporary changes to statutes of limitations, and so on. In this regard, you're just another partisan with partisan views.