leh-nerd skin-erd

Who said it did?

My most recent post was dedicated to pointing out your lack of self-awareness. Initially, I didn't suggest you were changing the subject, that was you directing criticism at me. I had no issue with your suggestion we move past the Immunity conversation, I just didn't want to do that. With respect to the entire process, I've shared my thoughts. I understand yours and L Rons. I was under no illusion I would change any hearts or minds.

I didn't, and it is what it is, as it was when I typed the response.

I responded to a post about Trump supporters, and my thoughts on the odd set of circumstances that seem to surround the cases involving Trump. Here's my disclaimer: I don't care one way or the other how L Ron, Starr, you or anyone else feel about that, I was simply communicating how I feel to another poster. I asked about the SC and immunity to that particular poster because I was interested in thoughts on the SC decision. I'm not a Rubix cube, not the DaVinci Code, not an enigma wrapped in a riddle. To his credit, @L Ron Burgundy answered the question apparently of his own volition, with no undue or harsh pressure exerted upon him to compel his reply. We all can rest easy tonight on that issue. Now, maybe you can help me with your perspective on thoughts shared by another poster. Do you feel a case involving a driver going 49 in a 40 is directly relevant to a case involving a Special Counsel, an armed raid of a private dwelling, charges lodged, decisions made, Supreme Court involvement, the handling/mishandling of classified documents, and the impact on a presidential election? I don't recall seeing the '49 in a 40' precedent in the Smith filings.

Most sensible people would have to work hard to put together a post so unabashedly self-aware as this one, Starr, but kudos to you for setting the benchmark. L. Ron: "I think some things are black and white...Trump supporters never think he lies..etc etc..." Leh-nerd: "I think this...because of that...everything in not black and white...what are your thoughts about the SC and immunity as it relates to the subject of Trump/Smith...etc etc". Starr: "LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT AND IMMUNITY AS IT RELATES TO TRUMP/SMITH AND BLACK AND WHITE ISSUES AND THE FORMER PRESIDENT." Leh-nerd: I understand you don't want to discuss that, Starr, but I do. Your terms are unacceptable to me. Starr: YOU'RE CHANGING THE SUBJECT. THIS IS ABOUT TRUMP/SMITH AND NOTHING ELSE! IT'S AN AFRONT TO CIVILITY AND DEBATE TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT! Starr, 12.3 seconds later: Now, let's talk about vehicle and traffic law and how it applies here... 🤫

God bless the negotiators who were able to keep the increases under 65%, while delaying the strike a full 90 days. That’s cold as ice.

I’d generally give a pass to an administration in the early stages of this type of event. There are many, many moving parts to disaster relief and I’d think the overwhelming sentiment to on-the-ground relief workers is to help as many people as possible as quickly as possible. It’s a tragic situation. However, I think the juxtaposition between aid to people in these areas as opposed to tax dollars directed to all things illegal immigration is as reasonable as any other discussion on priorities. I’m also taken aback by stories of officials shutting down rescue/aid efforts by locals in these areas when aid is slow to come from official sources. Of course, as with virtually every other situation, it’s a political talking point and just the way it goes. The admin in charge bears the weight of the charges of incompetence and slow response times.

You too, Frankish.

I understand you would prefer to bypass SCOTUS, but I prefer not to do that. This is the second time a poster used a speeding ticket analogy, and it’s as silly now as it was the first time it was raised. I do agree that law enforcement picks and chooses winners and losers in the game of life, and in politics, pretty much all bets are off when it comes to ethics, behavior and who gets pursued for what and when. Following your logic, allowing members of the political class in power to break the law without consequence, while attempting to place another in jail for life is the problem. Excellent, you concur with the SC decision. A jury may well end up coming to the conclusion you’ve jumped to, time will tell. Or, perhaps not.

You were flipping your biscuits about Trump supporters and how they view all this. I offered commentary on why supporters of Trump might feel that the justice might be skewed here, and some of the weird stuff that accompanies prosecution from a Dem admin, Dem DOJ, and Dem leaning AGs. If you don't care, that's fine with me but why throw your hands up, close you eyes and ears when someone offers an opinion. The outcome of the DOJ case against Trump has yet to be determined, L, though the DOJ is doing its level best to shape the narrative so that people like you have already decided guilt. There is virtually always gray in the law, and the Supreme Court rendered an opinion on immunity that changed the narrative on the Smith case. If you're naive enough to think anything is black and white, that's silly. Under the assumption that a career poli like Biden somehow completely misunderstood the rules regarding handling/holding/pilfering classified documents...and the notion that special consideration is given to special individuals. By definition, someone allowed to operate outside the law..just because...is afforded special treatment and what is black and white is certainly not. Question--do you accept the SC decision on Presidential immunity the correct, black and white interpretation of the law?

What always sort of intrigues me about the Trump as Felon discussion is that like many liberal martyrs, there typically isn't a simple open/shut case in the mix. On the classified document scandal we predictably have a Washington establishment that protects people like Biden and Clinton from harsh action for complete disregard of protocol (and in Biden's case, over many years) yet prosecutes Trump with an eye toward life in prison. With the Carrol civil case, it requires the temporary reimagining of statues designed to protect the integrity of the justice system to forgo statutes and litigate issues. The Smith case leaks like a sieve. The Hur case tied up tight. Alvin Bragg launches a criminal probe that required substantial legal gymnastics to pursue, Letitia James pursues a case that flies directly in contrast with the way business is done in NYC for decades. Georgia, you have an unusually dirty bird running the show, all sorts of money changing hands, yet onward we roll. There is ample evidence that blind trust in institutions can get you killed in this country, and law enforcement has been weaponized at times against undesirables. A friend of mine is heavily involved in NYS politics, an attorney from NYC area, and he told me one time that a significant number of politicians from down that way are corrupt. You look at the stories involving Cuomo (nursing home scandal, cooked books, the SUNY Poly scandal, sexual assault), the former AG Dan Schneiderman and his dirty deeds, former Governor Elliot Spitzer...and it's really not all that big a stretch to question just about anything that comes out of DC. Whatevs.

Well, I'm not certain about that. Harris was the lead executioner on the Kavanaugh nomination, espousing support for a purportedly victimized individual to the extent it should disqualify a guy with a sterling record of public service. She was all over the place with "I believe her", including belief in the claims that Biden assaulted multiple women. Finally, she's been big on the Trump as felon, and her experience as a prosecutor. To find out her husband was violent with a woman (and as these things seem to play out, it would not surprise to hear other women come forward), and it's acceptable to her...says an awful lot about her. In fact, having gone public with her belief in misdeeds by Biden, subsequently partnering with him when it benefited her, it certainly makes you wonder why she would sell out and be complicit with abusers. Could be huge, if played correctly.

First Hillary enabling Bill and his escapades, now Harris enabling her husband. Interesting.

Of course. It's impossible for any agency to account for natural disasters, widespread damage, providing fundamental assistance to devastated communities and whatnot. Whatever is left after administrative costs is fine. On the other hand, with the bright future of the SUCK (Stackable Urban Condo Kompartments) program for better living, FEMA will know where everyone is so they can get them the $7fitty quickly.

Seems like very reasoned and reasonable analysis to this point: Let's talk about JD Vance's approach in the debate. It's it'sLet's talk about JD Vance's approach in the debate. It's it's… Starting with “soft fash” she appears to be trying too hard to get clicks, seems a bit unstable and difficult to take seriously.

“Starrz on Pavlov and Conditioning of The Ladies” —-A treatise

Well, two thoughts on that. The guy across from him had an answer for that comment, and Walzing Matilda came off as one supporter described it as, blubbering. He’s candidate for VP and doesn’t crush that point after a month of prep? Unprepared, sloppy, bad. Inflammatory accusations are part of the deal at that level of politics and everyone knows that. From Romney being a tax dodge, to Harris and her steadfast belief in the women that accused Biden of sexual assault, it is what it is. Btw, not to hijack this thread, but do you believe W Bush and crew manufactured intelligence to compel our country to a for-profit war, and all the death, destruction and injury that followed? Pundits look to skew the game in most cases, so I don’t respect many of them. I look at the most likely outcome given what benefits the party offers, and the liberals have done an excellent job of selling handouts and demonizing people above certain income levels. Student loan debt buy down, and the notion that people don’t start feasting on the system a until they make $400k (up substantially from $250k just a few short years ago) will convince a lot of people to cast votes for Dems in spite of other agenda items that may be less favorable. Cash works.

I don’t know the guy, but from what I can tell, his preparation was very sloppy, he seemed ill-suited to rise to the occasion, and when his pals and true believers in the causes offer up that he “blubbered”, it’s fair to question whether his content was truly what he believed/stands for or if he’s just making stuff up on the fly.

But we end up in the same place in both scenarios, and the words are used as a hammer against the opponent. A free and independent media would certainly be a positive in weeding through the details and flushing out the truth, but that’s a heavy lift these days. So, individuals are left to figure out what was said, why it was said, and decide what’s true. One step back, in a nonpartisan sense, for a guy chosen as the best hope to lead the nation in the event tragedy befalls the president, that’s a pretty big f***up on a subject of great importance to just about everyone.

I may have missed that up thread. You’ve got me all wrong, it is I who came here to eat crow! Well, actually I ate a delicious pasta dinner my wife made with a glass of iced tea, but a mea culpa is a mea culpa. Walz was edgy, Walz brought the crazy in a Minneapolis potato sack, and you said it was coming. Yes, sure, maybe you overreacted in responding to my question, coming in hot and taking no names. And sure maybe the whole Walz was gonna straight up munch on Vance during the debate and make Vance look like a chubby chump was overstated and kind of funny in retrospect, but those are different issues. You’re L Ronstadamus as far as I’m concerned.

Time to own up on yesterday’s discussion about Walz and the edgy things he might say that that Harris could not. You called it, L. Walz said some really, really edgy things, things that Harris can’t get away with, and if we’re being candid, probably would not even think to try. Game. Set. Match. Well done sir. 🍻

My logic was outlined in my first note to you, that implying that professional moderators require/need some sort of safeguard from raised voices because they are women is lame. Of course, when I typed that, I was under the impression those were your thoughts, not the reimagined comments of a person who posted thoughts on the internet. I still don't understand why you didn't just post her commentary, why you suggested we hear from "the ladies" v the one lady, or what massive effort was necessary to link one person's comments on a subject. Regardless, thank you for putting in the gargantuan effort to link your source, that lady is pretty clear on what she thinks. On the definition of misogyny, I'm pretty comfortable with the characterization. From your description, I'd suggest an ingrained prejudice fits the bill. In conversational English, though, this AI generated definition pretty much nails it: Misogyny A way of thinking that subordinates women and limits their power and freedom. It can be applied to individuals, societies, or cultures. Misogyny can manifest in many ways, including: Treating women differently from men in social and professional settings With respect to your thoughts on Vance and his interaction with the moderators, I'd simply suggest that your calling out of Vance reflects the same fixed mindset you've displayed here several times--the implication that because the moderators are female, there is something special or particularly unreasonable or egregious afoot. The fact that another person feels similarly doesn't change that.

Misogyny 2.0. You're assuming that since once "lady" says X, she speaks for all ladies everywhere. Second, did you that speaking on this particular lady's behalf provided more clarity or relevance to the message? Why not just post her thoughts instead of reinventing in your own words?

The challenge isn’t fact checking, it’s that inevitably, partisan political perspective is introduced into what is supposed to be two or more partisan individuals so that the citizens can look at each candidate through their lens, not the lens of a journalist with substantial skin in the game. Inevitably, certain statements are fact-checked, other statements are not, and the appearance of bias rears its head. In many cases, post-debate, the fact checkers are fact checked, context is introduced and the fact-checkers misspoke, misunderstood or were incorrect.

What a misogynistic point of view. Interesting.