leh-nerd skin-erd

Fair, balanced and accurate.

Are you still in Mumbai, Doc? If not, you can copy and paste your post to Google and find the answers quickly. ✌️

You're the one they are looking for. My brother is a retired teamster, votes R consistently, and believe Trump's vision for the country is better than the Biden/D version. My brother-in-law, UAW, perhaps not as pro-Trump but he sure isn't pro-Biden. My parents were both union workers and I've never had the perspective that 'anti-union' positioning was for me. Nor, on the other hand, that a non-union shop was a panacea for the employee. For me (I worked for a large company that did not have union representation) it's about balance. I view a union as nothing more, or less than a corporation focused on the best outcome for the union as a whole. To the extent it benefits workers, that's great.

People are judgy, but I'm more concerned about the potential that you've got a gambling jones. Bets on the vocal attributes of West Virginia politicians? That is crazy, you know.(?)

"The buck stops somewhere, it just ain't here.". Bradford "Bucky" Truman, Harry's cousin on his momma's side

That's the beauty of the world, Frank. You can sit in your lay-z-boy, enjoy a cup of Earl Gray and listen to the Dr. Hook LP on the console as he beckons a lady friend to consider sharing the night together (ah yeah, all right) . Someone else with a hankering for bunions and a high arch can chase their dreams with a reasonably priced subscription service in the comfort of their own home. We're all God's children. Dude, I said 24 MILLION up thread. You're with me or against me. The friend of my enemy is my friend's enemy.

Amber Rose has 24 million followers on instagram (likely 23,999,999 after school marm/prudish law school librarian @The Frankish Reich unfollowed in a puritan huff late last night) . I don’t know anything about her, but if you’re trying expand your reach to a more diverse audience, this could be one way to do it.

Oh, I’m simple, Jack. Everyone says so!

The challenge beyond that is the govt fixation on avoiding transparency at all costs. When you consider there are still unknown from the Kennedy assassination 61 years ago, what is the likelihood the Biden admin provides a truthful accounting of what happened? Given the state of his campaign, his mental state, lights out by 8 approach to leadership, and the fact that the target was his hated opponent, it’s probably more natural than not to consider a conspiracy in play.

Not overrated, just simply not practical to assume that’s an option. Stepping back a bit, SC Justice Brett Kavanaugh had a long and distinguished career before being nominated for the SC. The price he paid for his dedicated public service was character association on a massive scale, designed to destroy him in the eyes of the country, his family, his wife and children. His crime, of course was being conservative. His chief accuser was Kamala Harris, and her reward was being selected as VP on the ticket. I’ll happily acknowledge similar stories the other way, but this one comes to mind. Who, exactly are all these stalwarts of good and decent character who will expose their necks to the wolves at the door when there is quite literally no end to what they will be subjected to?

If you don’t think it’s fair, why bother bringing it up here? It’s not that it’s not fair, it’s moronic. We disagree. It’s a chronic problem because it’s allowed to be a chronic problem. It’s by design, and for every d/r/I who wanted to solve it, there have been many who benefited from it—power, money, corruption. I’m 100% in favor of sensible immigration policy and welcoming immigrants to the US in a sensible, orderly fashion. We do not have that because it gets in the way of the business of illegal immigration. Maybe, of course we’ll never know. I thought it was pretty telling though, that BO’s hand-chosen successor—the one he politicked for, reasoned for and made excuses for when confronted with reckless behavior—-went down like the Hindenburg on Election Day. Turns out he only had so much juice. That was pretty epic. You started off by talking about fear mongering, and finish by stating that Trump is a dangerous wild card and all that entails. You mentioned hate speech and yet gave HRC a huge pass. That’s interesting to me—- I guess some people just want to get their fears mongered from sources they trust?

He gets compared to Hitler because it’s catchy and campy, and citizens who lived through the era/aftermath of the Hitler era have largely died off. Had people lobbed that silliness 15-20 years ago the general response would have been laughter and a hearty GTFOH. He’s addressing the massive elephant in the room, and that’s illegal immigration. He did say lots of other stuff. Ah, the HRC version of hate speech was a “regrettable mistake”. 😂 Those comments didn’t cost her the bid, nor did her blatant disregard for national secrets. In fact, it barely caused a stir among her very fervent supporters. What cost her the election that in spite of the lift she got because she was once married to a president, she is almost mythically unlikable and quite uninspiring as a human being.

Great in theory, but I’m pragmatic if nothing else. The system is what it is, and you have to deal the hand dealt. Overrated imo. I find much more satisfaction and joy from finding grace and leadership from people in my circle.

You asked what people honestly thought about Vance(s) comments. I answered honestly. When politicians are adversaries, it gets ugly. When politicians from the same party are vying for the same spot, it's often very, very ugly. When politicians partner, it all becomes lovey dovey. When politicians retire, sometimes adversaries become good buddies in spite of some really, nasty ugliness. I don't think this is a new phenomenon, and it doesn't mean much of anything to me, really.

Trump did not vilify "immigrants", he spoke to illegal immigration...a major problem resulting in death and despair on both sides of the border for several decades. He was hardly the only politician to use strong language in that regard, there is plenty of footage of democrats discussing the vast challenges at our southern border pre-Trump. Frankly, if the combined brain trust of R/D/I politicians over the past 50 years had the common sense to establish a viable border crossing, many, many, many lives would have been spared. I did not agree with the Muslim ban, and it was subsequently corrected. Trump's call was for peaceful protest, but I can understand how a non-supporter might be willing to ignore the "peaceful" part of the equation. Reagan was an incredible, other-worldly communicator, McCain and Romney both incredibly weak candidates--if that's your standard, why bother? Good to see you think Biden is part of the problem, though you missed HRC. Calling 35-40 million Americans 'deplorable' and 'irredeemable' because they disagree with you is pretty hateful imo.

Politics, huh? https://nypost.com/2020/08/12/kamala-harris-believed-joe-bidens-accusers-until-she-didnt/ On the one hand she believers Biden to be a violent sexual predator, on the other, an excellent candidate for president as long as she was riding shotgun.

I think when you say "obvious to everyone", what you really mean is "obvious to some". Be that as it may--and I can accept you feel that way, there's a difference between "Trump and Trump alone uses hate speech" and what the OP poster implied, which is that he took hate speech that existed and bumped it to another level. All I asked for was the pre-Trump hate speech standard. @B-Man brought up putting people back in chains, for example. Was that cool?

Everyone has their own benchmark, I suppose.

When you say "he ratcheted up the hate and vitriol", what was the standard pre-Trump? What constituted hate and vitriol at an acceptable, pre-ratcheted level?

I respect that, and if all is fair across the board, so be it. I can appreciate what you're saying, but only to the extent that fairness is the standard, not the exception. In the political world, I'm sorry, but I'm less than convinced that there are not multiple fingers on the scale at any given point in time. When I hear an Andrew Cuomo state that the Bragg case was all about Trump, I have two questions: Is he correct, is it purely political; and/or Is he just out to make bombastic claims to boost his brand; Besides SC Justice Thomas thinking you're wrong, AC is an attorney too (or was), Frank, and I can't discount that. There are others as well. If I was in a pinch, and you came riding with your dopey white hat, magistrate badge, bgi city lawyer clothes and shiny white patent leather boots, speaking about fairness and equity, great. If, however, the opponent is a slippery rascal known for cutting corners, taking the short cut and breaking the rule but winning---I'm less about you and right is right, more concerned with a successful outcome consistent with how the game is played.

I wasn't sure if you would take "Poindexter' seriously or not, but figured what the heck. As for the Eastman plan as you describe it, here's the most important part: "That plan relied on finding loopholes..." and "...cynical misreading of the constitution...". I'm not all that swayed by conversations about "loopholes", because one politico's "loop hole" is another's brilliant "novel theory". What's obvious to me is this: tell me the subject of the discussion, the political sensibilities of the audience, and I'll be pretty darn accurate at predicting who thinks it's a "loophole" and who thinks "novel theory". Such is life these days. We've discussed Alvin Bragg's approach to neutralizing Trump. We've also seen a temporary reimagining of statute of limitation issues for certain civil cases significantly impact that which we traditionally considered justice. We've seen the use of Intelligence Community to make broad, sweeping declarations that turn out to be unfounded. There are quite a few other scenarios I can point to that don't make much sense to me from a fairness/equity perspective, but you might think are reasonable. I'm all for justice applied equally across the board, but in the big picture, reject hyper-fixation on one person/subject while ignoring the way business is conducted generally in Washington. Mike Pence, btw, was one of the heroes of the election process in 2020.

Welp, there's a process to consider all these allegations--baseless or otherwise.

Super.

Sounds ominous. All I can tell you is what I know to be true: Apply the law equally, and we can discuss whether or not the law is fair and just. Apply it arbitrarily, it's silly to feign outrage when people lose trust in institutions. Maybe you poindexters should, in unison, suggest that those in political power stop threading needles, bending laws, applying justice arbitrarily, and seek some level of consistency.

Frank, Chi said one day something to the effect that "the law was complicated..that's why you need lawyers". I get and accept that. On the other hand, the SC exists to render decisions and reflects the considered judgement of individuals uniquely qualified to move the country forward. Using your terminology, 'as a legal matter', Thomas offered an opinion in that capacity. He seems to think that just because things were always done a certain way does not make them fair or reasonable. As a matter of public opinion, yes--picking and choosing who can break what laws, who can ignore safeguards and who can flaunt positions of power will completely erode trust in the institutions designed to do quite the opposite.