leh-nerd skin-erd

Ah, I see. I’m always interested when I see things like this, especially in context of divisiveness and issues in our country. A US Senator launches an all out character assassination on an enemy, a guy with an excellent track record of public service. She accuses him of running rape trains, violent sexual assaults and generally committing horrendous crimes against young innocents and is supported and is applauded by her party and base. The media swoons over the story, reporting breathlessly on allegations impossible to prove and of course impossible to disprove. That Senator earns your vote because she just ran with a “cheap political stunt”, like pulling signs off lawns. Trump says something stupid about a guy legendary for his political savvy and certainly willing to insult/debase his opponents, that’s a show stopper for you. Go figure.

What was the “cheap political stunt”? Harris re: Kavanaugh? Harris re: Biden believing the women accusing Biden of assault? Biden acknowledging the inappropriate touching? Harris advocating for women and then partnering with the guy they accused of wrongdoing?

I don't ignore anyone, that's a limitation on your thinking, not mine. Here's where we stand: Harris/Walz may win, meaning Trump/Vance lose; Trump/Vance may win, meaning Trump/Vance lose; The election is 90 days out. Harris has been in the game for a month. Walz has been in the game for 20 minutes. "Anyone but Trump" voters are part of the dem base and have been since 2016. "New" adherents may well be a factor, and part of their decision-making may involve student loan forgiveness/higher taxation on other citizens, whatever. It's a great play to appeal to anyone with debt looking to have it relieved. We'll know in 90 days.

Trump's comments about McCain's service were egregious, though I personally think McCain was a horrible senator and a bad guy generally. I didn't always feel this way, but as I stopped to consider the problems at the border-from the victimization of travelers, the involvement of the cartels, and the power he had as a Senator...I believe he was complicit in a whole lot of pain and suffering because he benefited financially from it. I think that's the general trend in DC, btw. Were you appalled at Harris' treatment of Kavanaugh? Her comments about JB and his groping of women, or JB's acknowledgement of inappropriate touching?

I think history has shown it's largely irrelevant. Her predecessor, JB, was falling off the cognitive cliff over the past 4 years, and supporters bought into the theory that he was still pretty darn sharp. Had he stayed in the race, they would be buying it still, pushing forward and voting the party line. There's history here--for all the cult talk and OJ chatter, Biden has a rather rich history of lying and it was ignored, a dark history of being very touchy feely and creeping women out (it was Harris who stated emphatically she believed the allegations of assault agaisnt JB), Biden and classified documents, slippage, interpretation of the laws regarding classified documents on the fly, and Harris spreading vaccine hysteria when the world was supposedly on the precipice....none of it really mattered. JB blows a gasket, the word goes out that Harris is the heir apparent, they simply crossed out Biden and wrote Harris in crayon. If the race is to be won by DJT, it's going to come at ground level, convincing the American independent that the Harris/Walz ticket results in a bad outcome for the country. How that happens, why that happens remains to be seen. It's a tall order, for example--one of the central themes of today's modern dem party is to encourage their base to get up, get out, roll up their sleeves and get to the hard work of finding someone else to pay school debt, in spite of constitutional limitations. When you factor in independents seeing a path to having their debt load lightened, it's hard to walk away from the free stuff.

Biden has the remote work-from-home schedule of 5 Gen Zers.

Indeed. A good laugh is a good laugh.

Tibs said it was a news conference, I was just trying to be helpful. Stop spamming me bro.

News. It's in the title, duh.

This is a darn good thread with some pretty funny lines. Hetero-sectional was a great start.

My post wasn't intended to imply you didn't have bona fide credentials, I was simply asking. I wasn't defending Sherpa, I was simply pointing out that he's shared his experience/experiences over time. One of the reasons I frequent the board is to get other perspectives, and often those perspectives are unvarnished and removed from the pesky civility of everyday life. That can be painful if one is a sensitive soul, feelings can get hurt, or posts misinterpreted. I don't think you fit into that category, it's just a general observation. I have no military training, no deep understanding of military capability or technological advances, nor much to offer on the obviously complicated relationship between citizens of Ukraine and citizens of Russia. I do, I believe, have a pretty decent understanding of human nature and have come to realize that when our nation's leaders suggest "Country X is good!", "Country Y is bad!", we may not be getting the full, accurate story. Thanks for the response. At first blush, my thought is that the experience you've outlined here loosely translates to 'informed in a manner similar to the way people on the main board offer commentary about players, schemes, coaches and GMs'. That's not a knock, just an observation--but your commitment to learning what you can, and the time invested is admirable. I haven't done that, likely won't anytime soon, and in that regard, Star > Leh-nerd. True, I know how to spell 'patriot', but how many times is that going to carry the day in a debate?

Sherpa has been forthcoming on his experience, consistently over time, and over several different topics on the main board and ppp. I may have missed your background if you shared, do you have military training, background in leadership/planning?

Or the couch’s of producers, directors, actors, actresses and those who supported them for, like, ever. Super weird.

Ah, check your privilege—-the topic is weirdos /weird. Andy1 commented on the subject and suggested someone was in a “cult”, which is kind of weird in and of itself given what bothered him on Rosanne’s post (which is weird). I replied with a question about another celebrity figure, who most definitely exhibited very weird behavior and who partnered with well known politicians of a different stripe. I skipped the National Enquire-esque conspiracy theories about cults and secret societies (unlike Andy, I might add), and asked what he thought about that? See, it seems to me you’re not advocating for keeping things on topic, it seems you’re intolerant of the opinions of others and think everyone should think like you, which, maybe isn’t weird but a bit odd. I cannot oblige.

Well, let’s look at some other Hollywood celebrities and their proclivities. Harvey Weinstein…weird or no?

Would the US government do that, do you think?

I've been reading your posts, thanks for sharing your thoughtful comments. I'm probably not a centrist, likely more center right and can understand the character concerns about Trump. Full disclosure, it seems to me as a nation we're all sorts of comfortable with all sorts of politicians who lack moral character and fail at leadership tests (we've had perjurers, predators, politicians who sent American soldiers to be brutalized/die in war(s) over false pretenses, presidents who completely disregard the law regarding safe-keeping of classified documents, who have propped up dictators in foreign lands, misinformation, deception and a whole lot who seem to have a disconnect between what's really true and the truth as they spin it). Personally, I think the 'character' discussion is a great philosophical argument, but falls apart when reality comes into play. You've indicated that Trump divided the nation. The reality as I see it is that after the election of 2016, the nation should have been unified. The electorate considered the successes/failures of the previous admin, considered the hand-selected successor v the outside the beltway candidate, and delivered an unquestionably decisive victory to the new president. What is more American than that? A clear winner chosen, a chance to start anew, and a chance to move forward together. That didn't happen. Quite the opposite occurred. From any reasonable perspective, they supersized division and made it a centerpiece of their platform moving forward. Did you see an attempt at unity from the democrats commencing in January, 2017 when Trump was inaugurated?

I've roundly and routinely criticized the actions of 1/6 participants since 1/6. It was a horrible day, and those that broke the law should have expected to be punished. For those who participated peacefully, they no more were looking to overthrow the government than you. For BLM/Geo Floyd protests, for those who participated peacefully, I support their right to do so, though the actions of participants surely resulted in significant spread of COVID and the pain, suffering and death that went hand in hand with the protests. I've never understood why people in government supported and encouraged that behavior knowing full well the pain and suffering it would cause, but hey, people are complicated. Not all protests were peaceful, however, and in spite of your obviously flawed analysis, people were victimized, assaulted and murdered. Neighborhoods were burned, property destroyed, and stores ransacked. That is not in dispute, even for a cracker jack patriot like you. Finally, I did not suggest the talking points of the destruction in Minneapolis was a winning point, I simply pointed out that if the R leadership can successfully tie the civil unrest to the Harris VP, it may influence voters who are not true believers like you and Roundy. Sure, but when you're running with the old "You spelled ____ wrong" play, it's pretty funny.

Patriotic. There’s another I in there you missed. This is awkward— I have to take back the gold star.

It’s not about you, Roundy. We already know where your allegiance lies. Your point here is a good one, even if you stumbled upon it accidentally. 1/6 will be part of the dialogue of the election, though Washington DC is fine today, and many, many of the perpetrators on that day have been tracked down, arrested and imprisoned.

I believe it is @Roundybout 's contention that death/destruction/violence/arson is not happening today, it's not part of the dialogue.

You're in the true believer crowd, but you have earned a gold star for participation in your permanent record.

1. Tara Reade story was no less/more fishy than the tale told by EJ Carroll or the Blasey Ford accusations against Brett Kavanaugh. The main difference is that her allegations were against someone you support v someone you do not. 2. I don't know what that means. 3. I'd think the free lunch thing is probably not on the list of things they will be focusing on. However, this story from NY would be one way to address the issue. How do you like them apples? https://nypost.com/2024/08/04/us-news/nycs-doe-accepts-offer-for-nearly-5-6m-worth-of-apples-leaving-most-to-rot-ridiculous/ 4. Trump would be part of the patriarchy. Harris would not, though she certainly partnered with the poster boy of the Washington patriarchy for the last several years. 5. Oh, let me clarify. Poor wording on my part. You're a true believer, that wasn't meant to be about "your", as in you. I meant from the perspective of independent voters or those not convinced that the Harris/Walz ticket is the best path forward. Btw, a quick search reveals that crime in Minneapolis is approx 150% higher than the national average.

You didn't care about the Tara Reade situation, or the 10 or so women who were uncomfortable that he groped them, or his acknowledgement that he groped them, but only in the nicest way possible. The same standard would apply to Shapiro, it would be a non-issue for the base. Sanders is the biggest poser in the senate, a caricature of a politician made famous for his crazy hair and old guy accent. Meanwhile, he's made himself a tidy sum of money while fighting for the little guy. We do agree that the modern democrat party needs to have him at the table to run progressive causes. As for his time as governor, his record will show what it shows. It won't matter to his base, but if the Rs can target his weaknesses there's a shot they can turn off some independents. He's an old white guy and part of the patriarchy. The play here is to out him as an extremist, and tie what happened in the riots as that which is coming to your neighborhood if he and Harris get in.

Cheatle sounds a bit like Denzel in Training Day.