leh-nerd skin-erd

I'm not much of a betting man. What I said to friends a while back is that ultimately, when the government looks to crush a person, it usually does. Whether you like or hate the guy, that Trump is still standing is a testament to his "I don't give a ****" attitude.

You asked me this question a while ago, in virtually the same format. It was a ham-handed attempt to bolster your argument last time, no less so today. I mentioned Mueller today in response to your carefully crafted an exquisitely delivered "Hyperbole" thesis on the election of 2016. I think it's relevant, you don't. Who cares? This new angle of shadowy, highly biased tv personalities working in concert with William Barr 'n Vlad is interesting though. Cool story. "Hyperbole", that's a nice word, kinda catchy, like a new band you might catch at a club over across the bridge in Canada. Straight from Guelph...it's Hyperbole! I see it differently and call it what it was. It was a propaganda campaign, built on implications of treason and lies of Russians in our midst, and most certainly designed to encourage the average American to b highly distrustful of our election process. It worked very well, probably better than those in dem leadership imagined, but in fairness they had a very thirsty and axious base struggling for an explanation as to why HRC lost. And, it set the stage for what came next. Yes, Republicans lie. Democrats lie. Independents lie. Joe Biden though, there's a paragon of virtue. I see the j6 (let's call it that) participants as much, much more like you and the other far left commentators I see here. It's as simple as changing a couple names at the top, someone telling you the election was illegitimate, and you're off in an ostrich suit protesting something, maybe setting fire to a police car, whatever. Actually, you all looked to him as the ONE MAN who could save democracy. In fact, just about everything you've said on any topic is why I know this to be true. Don't run from it, embrace it.

I disliked the movie so much, I am angry at you for making me think about it again. Who knows, maybe on a different day, or a different time, i would have enjoyed it more. I generally enjoy just about any DeCaprio movie, so I was really interested in seeing it. I always like DeNiro in films, but admittedly his off-screen tirades have taken a toll on me wanting to spend money to see his performances. I was looking forward to it--my wife and I like going to movies--but part of me wished that when that house blew up in one scene, shrapnel from the blast might have blinded me and the percussion wave from the blast might render me deaf to the onscreen yammering.

We saw years of handwringing about Russians, and Bernie supporters really were the icing on that cake.

I already corrected you. You asked for feedback of political matter, specially about people on one side of the aisle, and then pretended that wasn't your question. If you're incapable of framing a question without losing track of the subject, you should consider consulting with someone intellectually capable of assisting you. As for the rest of your post, I'm capable of analyzing and considering multiple events, including but not limited to timing, historical events that might be similar, what people said then, what people say now, the role of the media, accuracy of the media, the role of the government, the potential for government overreach and quite a few other factors. In fact, if you sum up the events and outcome of the period of time from 2015-2020 as political 'hyperbole', I gave you far too much credit in previous posts. It was MCarthy-esque in nature, and the only way I'm not sitting here today saying "Jesus L. Ron, the dems treated you like a simpleton" is if/when Robert Mueller established clear and convincing evidence of Trump engage in a criminal conspiracy with Putin. We know how that played out, so Jesus, L. Ron the dems treated you like a simpleton. Post election 2020, I accepted that Biden was president, thought the 1/6 riot was disgraceful, supported the office who shot an unarmed protestor, support criminal charges against trespassers/rioters and those who assaulted police. However, I think serious questions remain unanswered and think criticism of the process is fair. I didn't support any of Trump's post election activity beyond questions initially raised about potential fraud. I felt those questions needed to be answered, and that widespread fraud was certainly a possibility to content with. So did just about everyone else in the country, some just were really really really really certain the fraud was in 2016 and any question of wrongdoing beyond the pale in 2020. 2016 and 2020 were different in application and scale, but if you're proud of 2016, you're much more likely to be caught up in a fascist fervor than am I. The top secret comparison...I can't help you there. Yes, I consider the argument that Joe Biden is your poster child for classified document righteous bordering on infantile. I believe Trump acted foolishly in his version of classified documents, knowing full well the dems would burn the country to the ground on non-existent 'collusion', he should have returned the documents.

This is a personal observation, obviously, and I recognize some people may have enjoyed it. I found the characters to be the equivalent of white rice, in a white bowl, with a side of wonder bread and mayonnaise. They were there, and I acknowledge seeing them, but beyond that I found the performances sorta bleh. I found nothing particularly interesting in any of the characters, and Deniro--one of the great actors of his generation, was nothing special. I'm being serious when I tell you the fire alarm at the theater went off with about 20 minutes left in the movie, and my wife and I were sorta grateful for the opportunity to exit.

Imo, Bernie was the biggest poser in the race. A caricature of a candidate popular because he's an old guy who combed his hair with a pillow, had a funny accent and flirted with Soviet style politics before trading revolutionary thoughts for a cushy life of power and wealth. He may also have traded his ideals when his candidacy was scuttled by dem leadership, but hey, that's politics. Still, I have to respect the commitment on your part.

“Horrible candidate” doesn’t really say much though. If she was a horrible candidate, and you voted for her regardless, the natural question that follows is would you do it again? If HRC was the nominee in 24, would you vote for a POS again? Why did I ask John a question? Because I’m interested in his response.

What about Hillary, John? POS? Did you vote for her?

What exactly was inaccurate and lazy about mentioning politics in response to your post citing the comments of political figures, acting as members of a specific political party, about other political figures, where you asked about uproar from one side of the political spectrum? Then, after flipping your gumbo about lazy and inaccurate, you proceed to comment on political parties and politicians. When you go to one of your Michelin restaurants, and the waiter asks you if you would like a drink, do you go on a screed about waiters of restaurants past who forgot to bring you bread? Do you encumber him with your opinion on like, all the worst….restaurants…eveeeerrrrrrrr.? Observationally, sentences 1 and 2 of your reply, no uproar noted. Sentences 3-7, you sounded uproared, a little, just a bit. Maybe. I think.

I understood what you meant, Doc, because I'm a center-right voter. Of course this was horrific, of course people suffered greatly, of course fires raged, of course there were injuries and deaths. What I think @John from Riverside actually meant to say was he didn't really want to talk about this because he doesn't care about any of that.

No uproar from me. Washington politics. Play on. Are you uproared?

It’s weird, because not that long ago PUTIN was one buzzword for some people and RUSSIAN OLIGARCHS was another. Partnering with CHINA was a problem, and MSB was evil and needed to be DEALT WITH. Now, people who were outraged aren’t so outraged about the close ties our current president and his immediate family has with RUSSIA, OLIGARCHS, CHINA and MSB. People justify, consider cleaning up your own house before worrying about mine.

Yeah, I would have thought so too, until, you know. “Provably intentional” has been revealed as the most recent legal weaslese to convince people that some folks possessing, maintaining and treating classified material with reckless abandon is really not a big deal when certain people are involved. Here’s the way it really plays out: taking, possessing, holding, hiding, slinging, flipping and bouncing top secret and classified information that could jeopardize sources and methods, and get some people killed, is a glorified speed bump for the right type of people. There is the law, the lofty goal, the trust placed in those responsible for our greatest secrets, and then there’s the guy who possessed all sorts of material from all sorts of stops and stashed them near the recyclable can in his lake house. His defense…”Geesh, how would I know? Not my fault!”. In theory, serious. In practice, no big deal.

I said I’d take a stab at it, and I will. Before doing so, I have to tell you that I have no idea what you mean by “tote the political party line”. My core principals are conservative, though I’d consider myself liberal on many issues. Very generally— I would prefer a candidate that believes in a smaller, more effective federal government, resolving mess at the mess at our southern border, work toward a sensible immigration policy that takes into consideration all that might want to come, reduction in federal income tax rates, and a healthy balance between onerous regulation, a sensible approach to growth/business and protecting the environment. If that candidate was a one legged person of color LBGTQ+ democrat today, I’d vote for them. So, if Trump is elected (and I would prefer he not run), convicted and pardoned himself….it would have no impact on my core beliefs. I don’t “tote a political party line” now John, I just vote like every other American who chooses to do so. If that means that someone else somehow feels compelled to castigate or criticize me for my choice, well, I’m not inclined to care.

What’s your question, Johnny? I’ll take a stab at it.

Not true. Withholding classified documents is arguably a run of the mill non-event, regardless of how and why they were taken into possession, regardless of whether or not classified material was potentially accessed by people without clearance, whether the handling was reckless or items vital to our national security are lost track of, and whether or not a pattern of behavior can be assumed when material are removed over multiple years from multiple different locations, so long as the Sergeant Schulz defense is raised.

Well, maybe you're right there, and they think their impact is greater than it is. For me, the term 'puffery' comes to mind. I just find it dreary and boring to listen to. In fact, I think of the Ricky Gervais commentary at the awards ceremony a few years back and how spot on it was. Harmless imo, but the pomposity is off the charts.

I listen to this painful dialogue and wonder what everyone is really thinking. The interviewer is apparently trying to find the greatest cosmic message in the 154th retelling of a Star Wars movie. For the director, do you really think she really thinks her dopey Star Wars movie is about social change from the perspective of the audience? Is there a patriarchy disclaimer between the dancing French fry ads and the “Hey Doosh turn off your phone!” Message? It’s a movie about frazoopians fighting castaloogians. The main focus is to get people to give money to see it.

Quick summary, compliments of some good fellas:

Anonymous sources that provide bad intel; Anonymous leaks to shape a particular narrative; Activist journalists; Biased new organizations; All of the above.

Joe Biden counted among his best friends a very wealthy guy who flipped his car into the drink, escaped and left a young woman to die, alone, terrified and submerged while he bought time concocting an implausible cover story. Why? Because she was a booty call to him, no more, no less. Biden counted as among his very best friends a known segregationist with an appetite for hate. Biden supported the person you quite literally described as a “bad person” who shouldn’t be president. You relied on that, cast your vote and found out you may have been hoodwinked later on. Biden has partnered closely with the leader of Saudi Arabia, a guy just a short while ago you felt was a very bad guy (before he became good again when Biden worked with him, ironically by being simultaneously bad because he partnered with JJ) lining his pockets with massive amounts of taxpayer money. Tiberius is conflicted, again ™️

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.