leh-nerd skin-erd

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.

The SC office(s) did nothing to quell the notion of bias, if anything, it exacerbated those feelings.

Agreed, not purely one-sided, but on the political spectrum the percentage is quite high. Dangerously high, I would say, if the goal is to approximate a free and fair independent press worthy of the phrase “Democracy dies in darkness”. Thank you though for acknowledging and the piece on Vance. Recent history suggests there may be a price to pay for taking ones time and being one’s own person. Joe Biden was never a civil rights politician—he was the guy blue collar families looked to as the guardian at the gate to keep neighborhoods safe and the right people on the outside looking in. He morphed, of course, into BOs VP, the jocular tough guy who bridged the gap between the old and New Democrat party. That worked out well for a guy laughed out of a couple WH runs for his general dunderheadedness and penchant for saying/doing dumb things. Kamala Harris was widely rejected as a serious candidate for president, viewed as unlikable generally, yet sits now where one bad Biden stutter after another has her positioned to be the savior of the Democrat party. Vance with Trump in 2024 could well lead to Vance and running mate in 2028. Let’s not forget that in spite of handwringing and some low info d voters seeing Russians in the WH, Trump was very well positioned for reelection pre-COVID.

It’s not about consuming material offered by the MSM, it’s about identifying agenda-based reporting and calling out reporting (or lack thereof) that is untrue, one-sided, or manipulative. Of course, word is that some see the much bigger problem as the “scum” not in the msm. Regarding sycophantic tendencies—isn’t that really the role of the VP, to abandon autonomy and fall in line with the president they hope to serve?

Recognition of your challenge is the first step in overcoming it. You are your own hero, Tibsy!

I don’t about that, but it’s interesting that the defense was successful in arguing the prosecution was not transparent and withheld evidence from the defense. I was surprised because it seems when discussing novel cases, suspension of statutes of limitations, political hearings and subcommittees, that sort of thing never happens.

When my children were young, one of their teachers told us bluntly that public education was not designed with boys/young men in mind. He had boys of his own, had been doing research for years to offset the challenges of the system. I do not recall all the details, but it had to do with sitting for extended periods of time, the tendency for boys to learn through action v passive learning, and a general intolerance (unintentional but systemic) with that natural tendencies of young men. Bottom line, it worked well for girls/young women, less so for boys/young men. My humble observation is that was probably accurate. When you consider 6-7 hours per day for 12 years in an environment that doesn’t suit your style of learning…. @Orlando Buffalo thoughts? My conversations date back 15+ years ago.

Her room is a mess.

Sounds like a new hybrid....Introducing the all new Hyundai Explian.