leh-nerd skin-erd

Yes! Now you know how Trump, the moderators and the rest of the world with television felt like watching Biden last night! You're welcome, and lay off the sauce--you're cranky today!

With regard to the über rich, I think the argument is often dialed down to the least common denominator. If an extremely wealthy taco heiress, let's call her Taquito Muppito, earns income directly, Taquito Muppito is taxed accordingly. If she has income related to the sales of investments, capital gains, dividends, offsets with losses, she is taxed accordingly. If she lies, she is supposed to be caught. if she calls it straight, she's not finding loopholes, she's following tax law. On one other note, try and get this story straight in the context of wealthy politicians going to bat for the little guy: https://www.therobinsonadvocacygroup.com/the-passing-of-senator-dianne-feinstein-estate-plan-lessons-for-blended-families A judge has ordered the dispute to be resolved in private mediation.[1] While this could keep the final resolution outside public view, the legal drama offers lessons illustrating the need for careful estate planning in blended families. Do you think, Mup, that Diane Feinstein called it straight and looked out for the little people along the way? When push came to shove, she had infinite wealth, took advantage of the planning option with some of the finest minds in the world, dodged tax wherever and however she could, and wanted all her vast wealth spoken for on her death. It's malarkey, Mup, and all the Joe Bidens, Hillary Clintons and Liz Warrens in the world aren't changing that. So, I stay in my lane, mostly.

Hi Mup, I didn't watch much, I find debates to be mostly a waste of time. In any presidential debate at any time you'll find facts mixed up, misremembered, lies and manipulation. Then, you have the debrief where others tell you what you should or should not think about what was or was not said. This debate, however, was special in the fact that it was the televised implosion the image of a presidential candidate on a foundational level, though the image was obviously false based on an sensible look at the man in question. We've had dialogue on this...you should vote your heart and it's not my place to suggest otherwise. Since you reached out, however, I'll share what I think about what you think, and hope no hard feelings ensue thereafter. Many people feel there is some existential threat (that's the phrase they use, sounds ominous) if either of these guys wins. I don't think that. It's an election, some will be happy with the results, others not. Some policies will hurt some people one way or the other. Trump implied we're doomed one way, Biden claimed it was the end of democracy the other. Whatever. If you mourn for Biden that Trump suggested he "encouraged" Russia to invade Ukraine, it's a wasted emotion. Biden blamed Trump for the same thing. What I can tell you is that countries in that neck of the woods tend to fare poorly when Democrats are in office. Crimea. Ukraine. And lots of money passing through a few hands thereafter. Very few candidates, if any, answer questions. I expect very little in that regard. If Trump's tax policies bother you, vote for Biden. He's as completely full of **** as anyone else. Between inflation, taxation and government spending, a dollar doesn't stretch very far on his watch and he's in the pocket of billionaires and multi-millionaires just like everyone else, though some of his are apparently from China. On election results, this question and subsequent argument is overly simplistic. If you think that the dems "accepted" the results of 2016 because of HRCs "concession", we disagree. We only disagree because the democrats launched a systemic and sustained misinformation campaign claiming the election was illegitimate, which where I come from means "not legitimate". Consider, btw, this letter from Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and others suggesting the lead up to 2020 was not paved with guarantees of the freest, fairest, and what has come to be known as THE ELECTION NOT TO BE CONTESTED: https://www.warren.senate.gov/oversight/letters/warren-klobuchar-wyden-and-pocan-investigate-vulnerabilities-and-shortcomings-of-election-technology-industry-with-ties-to-private-equity Election security experts have noted for years that our nation's election systems and infrastructure are under serious threat, but voting machines reportedly continue to fail and breakdown across the country, as vendors fail to innovate, improve, and protect voting systems, putting U.S. elections at avoidable and increased risk. Bottom line--2020 was going to be contested as unfair or illegitimate or stolen any way you slice it.

There are bars near the cave? That’s unusual.

@Tiberius has heard rumors that JB simply didn’t “deliver”, like when the pizza guy just shows up a house or two over. Not sure where he heard this as it seems he lives in a cave near Tallahassee without internet, tv, newspapers, or people wandering by talking about what actually happened last night.

Don’t sell @Doc short—he’s got a usefulness about him!

Did you consider flipping the image upside down? That’s the new thing, as we saw last night with a reports of a vigorous and dialed in JB ready to reveal strength and character…and hearing tall tales about inflation, the loss of soldiers, and him taking Medicare out behind the school for a beating. Down is up, up is down?

You’re correct here, of course. We can revisit his history, but that’s been done ad nauseum. While his decline was open and obvious for all the world to see last night (and well before that for sensible people) , let’s not forget that as he failed, he knew he was failing. He would have known his memory was untrustworthy, that his mind was playing tricks on him with people and dates, he was declining physically, and that he was not up to the task of the most difficult job in the world. That’s world class hubris on the scale of Icarus.

Based on the last two elections, it’s highly likely the losing party criticizes the results across the board.

Roundy…you’re off the rails. The people that shop at Tractor Supply often represent the best we have to offer in this country. Hard-working, loyal, active in their communities, and tough enough to make it through difficult times. Mocking their faith makes you look small, tbh. I have no issues with your ideology that basically involves stacking people in an urban environment, but history seems to indicate that many times, chaos and disorder quickly ensue when the lights shut off for 20 minutes. Live and let live.

Absolute failure on every level. It's strange, too, because when a citizen travels to a foreign land, the exit/return is pretty well set in stone. Stay in your assigned seat on your plane. Stand down until directed. You can't deplane until cleared through customs, you can't get out and stretch your legs, catch a breath or fresh air, or run over to the air conditioned bathroom as an alternative to the stuffy closet restroom on the plane. Once off the plane, of course, you're herded to a waiting area, directed to stand in lines small and large, step to the uniformed/armed customs official, and directed to present your papers. We have very detailed processes for the compliant.

stoner.

Let us, too, remember the words of the great Les Emmerson (RIP), who wrote: And the sign said "Anybody caught trespassin'...will be shot on sight". So I jumped on the fence and I yelled at the house "Hey! What gives you the right to put up a fence to keep me out but to keep Mother Nature in? If God was here, he'd tell you to your face 'Man, you're some kind of sinner'"... Are you, Frank? Are you "some kind of sinner"?

No, I don’t think he should have been prosecuted. I think that there is precious little faith in elected officials and the institution represented by Washington, DC generally. If you want to see a generalized shift in belief in the decency of those in power and the righteousness of people represented by a Merrick Garland and a Jack Smith, change the administration. My thinking has been that Trumps stolen election claim of 2020 was bad for the country—divisive, unsettling, and fed into the natural distrust of Washington and politics in general. However, the Dems claims of illegitimate elections/stolen elections/coup and all that bs that followed in 2016 did exactly the same thing. That one followed the other was completely predictable. To take it one step further—I believe that were the roles reversed, you as an individual would be lamenting the assault on decency and the American way if Biden was the target. So, recognizing most of these people can be targeted by the opposition for illegal/unsavory activity, I think what’s going on with Trump is bad across the board. What’s going to determine which future heads roll will be which party is in power.

“Ticky tack” tells the tale, thanks.

Your post reminds me--tonight is spaghetti night. As I pick through it... Jack Smith is prosecuting a case. The accusations are damning, but ignoring the obvious questions that arise given all that we know is foolish. Proceed in that regard as you see fit. You didn't take a position on Andrew Cuomo's comments. Do you think he was telling the truth or not? You're not on trial here, you're among friends. What do you think? Yes, hold everyone accountable, but you seem to feel that's accomplished by selective prosecution. I don't. You didn't take a position on the intelligence agents. Do you think they acted nefariously, that their collective declarations was the result of well-meaning incompetence, or that they absolutely nailed the issue? You're not on trial here...what do you think? I think they made the declaration to sow doubt and provide cover for a story during an election. I'm comfortable managing the talking points and other facets of my life, but all feedback is welcome. Well, not all, but this seems harmless enough. Fair enough.

Understandable, and I wanted to be sure I addressed it correctly. I didn't want to speak for you. Ok, again, fair enough. It was a weak case, based on a sh*tty premise, specifically targeted at the one individual but it's not a political hit because he got away with other crimes? That's the justice system in action? Someone claims someone says someone else did something he wasn't charged for, never had a chance to answer to, but it's ok because of make up justice? Ok, but wow. You wonder why people are cynical and don't trust the system?

All of that is fine, but I hesitate to put blind faith in any institution. It occurs to me that the court filings prepared by the prosecution might well be misleading, untruthful or manipulative. There is ample evidence of that sort of behavior historically, and when politics are involved my spidey senses tingle. I may be a bit turned around in my head, but last night, @The Frankish Reich acknowledged that prosecutorial leaks were not uncommon, and indicated he felt my perspective was fair. Thereafter, you shared court filings and his perspective changed. My only issue there is--would the Smith team acknowledge leaking material? What exactly would they say? Julie Kelly is not the only game on the block. Stepping back from this--do you agree with Andrew Cuomo that the Bragg case against Trump was überpolitical? That, to paraphrase, it was the use of the justice system to destroy an individual? Quick question: Was the commentary from the 50+ intelligence agents meant to mislead the public, or a simple misunderstanding on a grand scale?

I would submit that the acknowledgement of selective prosecution, and the indication that "...we did not consider every circumstance m which criminal charges against a former president or vice president for mishandling classified information may be warranted..." doesn't move the needle for me in the least, and certainly seems to be problematic from a trust perspective. In fact, it's quite similar to the crafted speech by James Comey in deep-sixxing the investigation into HRC, where he said: "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions." What would have moved the needle for me is clear and convincing evidence that the DOJ, Congress, Senate and Executive displayed some sort of fiduciary discipline in the handling, storage and retention of classified material. We clearly don't have that--so the handwringing over who had what and when seems silly. Instead we get some gobbledeegook about a guy with 50 years experience dealing with national security clearly and repeatedly violating the law over decades, and being reassured it's really no big deal. Or, that there was absolutely no wrongdoing involved, and then we could skip past the junior high school girl deep analysis of 'the fundamental interests of society'. Btw, I'm with @Doc on this issue--common sense suggests that prosecuting (persecuting) high ranking politicians over issues like this is bad form, and most definitely bad for the country. i'd suggest politicians for decades have handled this stuff under the theory of mutually assured destruction. Still, we deal with the cards as dealt.

I took it that way, but no need to apologize. I respect your feedback even when I disagree with your take, and take nothing said here personally. If you’re correct, then at worst it’s fodder for political discussion. It would not be the first time, nor will it be the last.

Look at you—you’ve spun quite a tale of smoke screens, right wing propagandists, rogue judges, echo chambers and cults. That’s nice.

Chi, we’re living in a world where clear, obvious and intentional disregard of the laws involving top secret/classified morph to protect some while destroying others. It’s possible everything said and done by the SC is above board with no political animus. It simply seems unlikely to me, and if that represents bad faith to you, I can live with it.

I know we talked about this recently, but I cannot square the actions here to the theory of justice, blind and true. Chi has opined at times about leeway given to 'electeds' when it comes to Biden's clear and obvious disregard for laws and regulation. That extends, of course, to anyone who handled the classified documents that ultimately ended up in his possession. In fact, it apparently extended to the ghost writer who destroyed material relevant to the case, and the flagrant disregard for security. On the other hand, we have the government, an armed raid, the rejection of a special master, items taken that were outside the scope of the information to be gathered, the news that they staged leaked photos, and whatever comes next...and surely something will come next. I then go back to the theory offered by Andrew Cuomo, which is that the Bragg action was purely political and designed specifically for one individual. Chi states that had Trump simply turned the material over, nothing further happens. I reject that based on the history of Trump as candidate, and president. So, for me...trust is an issue, even beyond the concern I have about selective leaks to shape a narrative.

To be fair, though, it seems as if the DOJ didn't really care much one way or another what was classified at this level, who was handling it, or where it was stashed for a couple hundred years +/-...until suddenly we were in the midst of a full blown classified document crisis centering around one individual. What's weird is that one individual wasn't the guy with a documented history of seizing/maintaining classified documents over several decades, and where classified information was shared and evidence destroyed by a third party, with no rhyme, reason or sensible security standards applied. To boot, the story goes the photos leaked by the SC/DOJ office were staged and included cover sheets prepared by the government with files strewn about on the floor, and the only reasonable explanation is that this is how the process works? I know this is crazy talk, but why not run with 'no leaked photos of staged documents and imported cover sheets' to avoid the appearance of impropriety?

Jimmy Kimmel, the barometer of a righteousness. 👍