leh-nerd skin-erd

Some see it as part of the solution. Release the list. Get some light on it. Problem solved, and perhaps next time an Epstein wants to Epstein, they don’t.

There is a part of me that feels bad for her, but this isn’t why. One look at the history of American politics reveals that yeah, she would be held to a higher standard than those who run for president….the senate…Congress. If, in her interview for the job, she fabricated stories of jobs never held, bragged about class position never achieved, spoke about how colleagues she groped simply didn’t understand her, and spoke of how she kept and lost track of highly sensitive corporate documents she was never supposed to have (but good news—one box was kept pretty close to her classic 1991 Mazda Miata) —she would not have gotten the job. But…Trump, so we pretend that’s not part of the legacy of politics. The part that feels badly for her is that in spite of representing one of the premier educational institutions in the world, she was woefully underprepared for her hearing. She came across as one dimensional, evasive and dismissive.

Upthread, @Tiberius acknowledged that Hill is a bad seed. While he was a bit late to that party, kudos to him for finally seeing it. I did ask him if he felt betrayed by BO and Joe B pimpin HRC for pres, but no reply yet.

I see nothing controversial about releasing these names, beyond protecting the victims as necessary. You gotta wonder who he's worried about getting pulled out of the shadows. Biden? Kamala?

On this, Israel agrees with you.

Actually, you raise an interesting point on Clinton. As you say--she's a bad person, yet was prominently endorsed by Obama/Biden, two of the most powerful people in the world. With unfettered access to CIA/FBI and DOJ, it is obvious both of those men would have known of the connections between Epstein and the Clinton family. I assume we agree both would be complicit in advocating a 'bad person' tied to sex trafficking and that they, themselves would be bad people. How does that make you feel, Tibs? This is why it's important to get to the bottom of this mess, and have powerful people answer for criminal behavior. As for voting for Trump specifically due to crossing path(s) with Epstein, that in and of itself would not impact my decision.

It's been widely reported they crossed paths. It's been widely reported that Bill Clinton crossed paths as well, as did his wife, former Sect'y of State and Dem Pres candidate Hillary Clinton did as well. When, and if, names are released, I'd assume we will see Biden(s), Schumer(s), McConnell(s), and so many more on the list. I say let's get to it. I also say that fixating on what is already known seems sort of silly.

I have to echo @Warcodered and his comments from a while back. Forget political affiliations, forget turning a blind eye to some of the unsavory accusations against the candidate or party of your choosing, or rationalizing relative degrees of behavior. Epstein is widely acknowledged as a very wealthy guy, who engaged in abhorrent criminal activity, and did so with the acknowledgement and partnership of some very powerful people. How the #### are so many--or any-- names redacted/unknown/protected in 2023?

I think some people are past the point of caring, and have decided it’s better to push forward and deal with it in court then let this kaleidoscopic horse f%ckery go on, unchecked, unresolved forever. The simple reality seems to be that the border is a border mostly for the compliant, the federal govt—whatever that leviathan actually represents in this scenario—is complicit in the incompetence or at best completely overmatched in the role entrusted to it. So, Abbott busses people to liberal cities and the liberal cities break in what amounts to 20 minutes when considering how long this problem has been a problem. Now, Abbott picks a fight with feds, they say “We’ll sue” and he says…See you in court, we have some things to talk about. I’d be surprised if that message point didn’t resonate with many, many voters across the spectrum—white, black, brown and liberal, conservative and independent.

Probably so, but the reality likely is there are very powerful people getting very, very wealthy along the way.

Another reason to lose faith in the system, and to recognize that certain people are above the law.

Seems like a very reasonable request given the nature of the inquiry and the current political landscape.

You’re correct, of course, on the reasons the other folks left and started their own board. I liked interacting with those folks and think the board is diminished by the absence, but I’m a creature of habit. Whats interesting to me is how often a reference to the other board or board members comes up here by people supposedly glad to see them gone. The latest is Fergie, claiming to have run people off and going on about his old screen name. It’s odd. Sorry to hear about your mother in law and hope you and your wife are ok.

Based solely on your inability to make your point until prodded by a well-intentioned poster, basic literacy should be a stretch goal for you. Ah, interesting. You used the term "prank" to describe something you don't see as a prank at all, because "some people" use the term to describe something that isn't, is. I'm re-evaluating your stretch goal. I'm not certain you're capable of making a point without proper guidance, let alone a nuanced point based on your philosophical view on police response. You're like Matthew McConaughey's little brother here, assuming his little brother was a stoner. A child with a toy gun shot by a police officer is always tragic, and should be investigated thoroughly to figure out what happened and why. If criminal charges are warranted, they should be pursued. A couple questions arise here. Would you classify the hypothetical actions of karen a prank? The loud neighbor embellisher, is that a prank in your eyes? I'm asking you, not your projection of what some people (other than you) might say. I think generally, "police running around like lunatics" is a problem when they begin to run around like lunatics. However, since your question is ill-formed and lacks clarity and specifics, it sounds sort of like it may have been asked by one of the karen people you know. Well, let's address your insinuation. Who is the rich conservative? What is the fact pattern and what discretion was given? Who are the "others" not afforded discretion, and what is the fact pattern in that scenario?

Look, Whitey, you went on a rather long and involved tirade and never actually got around to stating whether or not you thought it was problematic. How would I know what's in your heart? You seem ornery enough to support that sort of thing, or to rationalize how it might be necessary in pursuit of social justice and karen people. I'm grateful that I was able to help you sort through your emotional baggage and get you to actually spell it out. Now, we disagree here, but I don't view an individual calling 911, reporting that a violent crime is taking place and someone is being held hostage, or has been murdered, as a "prank". Good news though, we agree that the police breaking the door down to the wrong house, and everything leading up to and after that is a very, very bad thing.

You've contributed two posts, worked in "Karen" (good one!), drug dens, the relative leniency of law enforcement with respect to maga voters, and calls to emergency lines advising the police that people were murdered, shot, or under threat of serious harm as a "prank" call. Are you pro-Swatting, White?

@John from Riverside would also like to add for consideration: shoplifting and shoplifters, X formerly known as Twitter, the Hindenburg tragedy, and Enos, the first chimpanzee to orbit the earth in 1961 to the discussion on swatting.

Thanks for the feedback. I suppose if I try to see things through your lens, I can understand your perspective. I mentioned my observations on the anti-Trump crowd here, and what I tend to see. I used the phrase 'chicken little' because it evokes imagery that reflects what I see, and indicated that tended not to be my experience when people aren't crouching behind a key board hidden in the shadows. I also indicated a 'tendency', not an exclusivity. There are a number of posters I disagree with on topics where the chicken little terminology would not apply. In fact, quite the contrary, I read what they offer and take what I can use from it. When all is said and done, I'd prefer there be no divisive language used by politicians of any stripe. However, that's not the way the game is played. Taking it one step further, I would have preferred that the silliness of the Trump colluding with Russia narrative never have occurred, and never been a lynchpin of the democrat push to regain the White House. Politics is a cyclical and dirty game, the damage to the national psyche was extensive, and it set the stage for what surely would come next. Anyway, have a good night, John.

It sounds more like colonialism, but maybe there is some crossover.

You don't have to tell me anything, John, it will play out however it plays out. I'm not anti-Smith, I'm just a citizen watching this incredible thing play out. I agree with you on federal prosecutors, but that goes back to my original point about selective leaks, the rush to judgement and a setback on something like this. Virtually every card that can be played in held by the government with no real downside to whether or not Smith wins or loses. As a result, when he "loses"on an issue like that, I think it's reasonable for people to question his motives.

I'm not sure what broad brush you're referring to, John? My comments on the chicken little posters? My comments on Fergie's wealthy friends having an ability to do more? My thoughts on ex-pats and tax payments? On the bright side, if you play your cards right, some day soon you'll have a million dollar view at fitty cents on the dollar and a housekeeper you pay 0.11 cents a day!

In the world of imaginary wins, it's huge, Joe.

I'm not surprised. This is what happens when you live life in the negative. You're allegedly sitting in a beautiful house, in a beautiful country, fully prepared to take advantage (literally) of all it has to offer, and you're ruminating about debates and fancy yourself a soldier in the Great Message Board War of 'Twenty-ought-23. Consider crab-crawling down to the local beach, have a native youngster fetch you cold cerveja, and flip 'em a nickle for the effort. It'll make their day to know there's plenty more where that came from from the rich American doctor! Also, if you're a person currently in a foreign land, considering a move, greatly enjoying debates and war, boa viagem!

For you, maybe, but not for me. This is what I wrote: As far as I'm concerned, once a person decides to be an ex-pat, settles up with the tax man as required by law, I wish 'em well. Their political ideology really has nothing to do with that. If you decide to move to Portugal because Trump is elected and that makes you uncomfortable, I wish you well. If you decide to move because you like the weather better, I wish you bon voyage. If you decide to move because you're tired of the tax situation here in the states, I wish you godspeed. If you decide to move to leverage the poverty in another country with the rules allowing you to improve your standard of living, I think you should try and give more to help the less fortunate (you have a real opportunity to impact lives), but if you don't, I wish you safe travels. I'm all about positivity.

The wealthy here (in Va and beyond) could do more, too. It's not exclusive to ex-pats saddened by the wealth disparity in their adopted homes, but not saddened enough to act. Hell, they already do that here, don't they? What I tend to see here is the chicken little anti-Trump crowd. They tend to feed off the energy of a Bobby Deniro, Alec Baldwin, MSNBC screamin' "NAZI" crowd. I don't find that to be an issue when I converse with people on a regular basis. As far as I'm concerned, once a person decides to be an ex-pat, settles up with the tax man as required by law, I wish 'em well. Their political ideology really has nothing to do with that.