leh-nerd skin-erd

I've heard estimates as high as 153%, and of those that do, 119% love to drink straight from the box. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/women-us-are-drinking-death-research-finds-rcna96848 https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/womens-health.htm

Wait. What happened to election security is beyond reporach, and everything that happens is above-board and 100% accurate? Ps: The dems were ready last time to argue that our elections were neither safe nor secure. Turns out they didn't need to launch the "Stolen Election Part Deux" as a continuation of the 2016 fable, but it was well teed-up. 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

This doesn't make sense, no. Binge drinking is not exclusively a male issue. https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2023/women-without-children-at-age-35-are-at-highest-risk-of-binge-drinking-alcohol-use-disorder/

The actions of the investigators, the details and professionalism of the investigation have always been relevant to criminal trials. That’s nothing new, and critique of errors/wrongdoing is absolutely part of the dialogue. In this case, a better analogy is “this photograph of the defendant with crack cocaine in his pocket, released to the media, is not reflective of the scene. Sorry. AOC, and representations we made to the court about processes we followed, some of that was made up. We’re really sorry about that, too.”.

No, I don’t believe that, but it’s the ideal. I think much of what goes on at the upper levels of DOJ and politics in general is political and often shady. I believe there are lots of good, hardworking and decent people in the DOJ, FBI etc, but on matters this large, politics skews everything. It is interesting to me though that when people bring up concerns about behavior they see as outside the scope of justice, it’s often labeled a conspiracy theory. Your point was moronic. There’s not much more to say than that.

You see the actions of Clinton and Biden as akin to jaywalking or driving 36 in a 35? That’s your fallback? It’s moronic. 👏👏👏 🤣

No, it doesn't exonerate Trump, but it's indicative of the strategy the SC has chosen to pursue this matter. Now that it is quite apparent it was a staged photo shoot, it's fair to wonder what other funny business or misleading statements have been made. When you add in seizing tax records, information protected by attny-client privilege etc, and now mistakes on process, it's fair to wonder about motive. I said this before--in my opinion, the government should be the shiny beacon on the hill in case like this. They hold virtually all the power, and if the case is rock solid, they should behave in a way that's beyond reproach. To the extent they don't, they deserve to be criticized and their motives questioned.

You keep saying that, and that's the interpretation offered as explanation as to why law(s) can be sidestepped, ignored, or disregarded. "Electeds" don't fall into gray areas--they fall into a category where individuals are making judgement calls to let obvious transgressions pass. When you introduce the ability for individuals to forgive obvious transgressions, it's quite easy to be supportive when your guy gets a pass, and the other guy looks at life in prison. Biden's actions over multiple decades were egregious, and it simply boils down to the fact that he ignored or disregarded the controls and laws as they were.

I'm hung up imaging a world where classified/top secret documents are treated as discarded lottery tickets for some, and a life sentence for others.

Come on Frank, you're like Gumby here. The photo was staged, captured and released for maximum effect. It is completely on brand for a special counsel. You shouldn't have to 'think' about what that photo represented--that's what captions and explanations are for. The decision to not offer clarity is the decision made by those who took the photo. The 'mistake' may or may not be intentional, but as I understand it, the acknowledgment of the action was reactionary, not proactive. It's not on the casual observer or Trump legal team to accept the rather convenient explanation. The SC initially grabbed quite a bit of information outside the scope of the warrant. Seems mistakes are par for the course.

Not really, it's more a reflection of mismanagement and government at the highest levels of our country. When presidents, senators and representatives are allowed to make up their own rules, run their own game, and--as evidenced by Clinton/Biden--do pretty much as they see fit, confusion about what's right or wrong is almost certain to follow. It's human nature, just as it was human nature for those who rather naively postulated that Trump was the only one holding on to documents because their guy hadn't been outted yet. When it became apparent it would be hard for a senator/vp/president to be more guilty of reckless handling and potential disclosure....well, then came slippage. With respect to the big picture, it seems obvious that when laws are written, and selectively enforced, by definition the person who broke said law are above it, or outside its reach. Comey made a point on that issue, as I recall.

Sure Frank, after what we’ve learned about how leaders treat classified/confidential material, Walt Nauta is the problem.

Ironically the dog issue likely created a bigger problem than the Kim meeting. Met him, didn’t meet him. Does it matter?

Are you a chubby chaser, Frank?

This is why we must have mitigation banks. The energy is mitigated by the existence of the bank. No bank, no mitigation.

She also spoke about the aggressive nature of the dog as it related to people/livestock. I am not passing judgement here, it just strikes me that someone who lived off the land in the manner you have indicated would have more in common with KN than not. I don't know anything about that lifestyle, I get queasy when I see "epic falls and fails" on social media. Thanks for responding, I appreciate it.

I am certain that some of our socially conscious brethren/sisters here have made virtual deposits into their Emotional Mitigation Bank. That’s where the magic happens.

I think so. We haven't even talked about Dakota Fanning yet. She's the third Dakota. You can talk about me, 4th. I 'm just working my way through the process. Dickley just described his uncle as an experienced hunter/trapper. Are we to believe he only hunted sick cows and trapped wounded pigs? That snare traps and the like are 'humane'? I'm not a hunter, but he described the exact sort of action(s) that Kristi Noem took but rationalized she shouldn't have talked about it. Now you're here lionize his uncle for his heroism and referring to KN in a derogatory fashion. Sounds to me like they have the same mindset in life.

I get you on the political side. Anything you say, do, think is attacked, questioned, manipulated, misconstrued or used as a bludgeon against you--it's a dirty business. I think your response is interesting, given your background. I think you're taking some liberties on the definition of what may/may not be 'humane' where it comes to the actions of your uncle the experienced 'hunter/trapper'.

How did you put your dogs, and other animals down? I’m assuming a visit to/from a vet?

I thought we already had two Dakotas?!

Excellent product placement by the Depot. This is like the National Championship of D1 intercollegiate protests.

Got into the hooch a bit, and in spite of an abundance of riches things ended badly for him. As for your wife, she ended up with the Keith Partridge of doctors, so she wins!

It’s a real shame Keith Partridge is unavailable. He would have a lot to say.

It just clicked Tibsy. Commander is a metaphor for Biden’s approach to crime. A dangerous animal owned by an entitled family was allowed to viciously attack bystanders, at will, with virtually no consequence. The family is likely shielded from liability, the victims unable to recoup damages for pain and suffering, and the dog is returned to the house 24 times. Above the law, I guess.