leh-nerd skin-erd

In some ways, I never really moved past 7th grade humor. Apologies are in order. Sorry, Frank, you are not an independent dork.

An independent dork maybe.

Top 3…. Nikki Hailey Ron Desantis Tim Scott or RFK Jr Bottom 3 The crypt keeper Christie

Jeebsus…it looks like Biden may have imagined a different truth in telling this particular tall tale about Strom Thurmond and Civil Rights glory to enhance his reputation and mislead the public. The second time in his life, some say.

Do you know any independents, John?

The "innocent" reference refers to Biden's apology, not your comments. As far as I can tell, no, you didn't suggest everything is relative though perhaps you shared that with another poster. I agree though, of course everything is relative. The acceptance of a candidate(s) lies, plagiarism, half-truth, illegitimate/stolen election etc is all relative to the agenda the candidate offers the voter. If a promise or platform solves a problem or puts money in the pocket of a voter, they are significantly more like to rationalize or forgive a lie than if it doesn't.

You should take it up with the complaint department at Cali dude. In the meantime, if you have JB down for one innocent act of plagiarism, that can be your truth.

No, I won't do that. His efforts in this regard are well-documented.

The same standard applies to liberals and dems voting for Biden, of course. The guy was bounced out of prior races for telling tall tales and lying with conviction. Ironically, the children and grandchildren of old school democrats who laughed him out of prior races came around to his messaging in spite of his challenges. Offer people something of value, they'll look the other way on that sort of thing.

Reasonable people have reasonable dialogue on this subject all the time. This falls into the category generally denoted as “Everyone knows this!”. Let’s consider for a moment the approval rating of Congress generally. It’s really, really bad all things considered. Here, we spent a lot of time debating who it was about and what the guy was saying, and whether or not he was a whiner or a fraud. I think for liberals shouting “this isn’t a conservative anthem!” and conservatives yelling “Biden is a lifer!!”, both are a little right and missing the bigger picture.

How do you square your statements defending politicians spreading propaganda about illegitimate/stolen elections v a guy in the media doing it? If it’s acceptable in pursuit of service in higher office, why is it a problem here?

Sure, like maybe posting threatening and incendiary photos of a bloody head post-decapitation, threatening to blow up her home and all its occupants, or threatening to punch her out…amongst others. It’s good to care and be outraged John, even if it’s only in 4-8 year cycles.

I’m inclined to agree. We would have heard by now. Edit: Maybe a couple Burisma bros, just for kicks.

No, not at all. The long story short would be context matters.

Ah, replacing the windows provides better protection for those inside. They already have metal detectors, armed guards etc at these places, and I’d think after the events of 1/6 and the massive riots in DC and across the country, beefing up security make sense. It just seems odd that suddenly bullet proof glass is a hot button issue. I’ve never been to a political rally, but it seems to be a reasonable request to leave guns not be permitted into a rally.

The article reveals that the windows being replaced are old, leaking and not energy efficient. The new windows are environmentally friendly and have additional security features necessary in todays world. To my knowledge, there are no rules against a home or business owner using similar material in buildings they own. Seems like a net win for all.

See, there’s the trouble. The cheaters from my perspective would be the Rich Men North of Richmond, hence my reply. The cheaters from your perspective were quite a different lot. The context I was referring to was all about your statement that “cheaters should be prosecuted”. I’m a realist, I don’t think every cheater should be prosecuted, and some people are definitely above the law. They tend to be wealthy and powerful, and some live north of Richmond. On the other stuff in your post, pull yourself together and stop being a jacka$$.

There's a lot packed in there, Pretend Fergie. I like the idea of hard work, like the idea of good schools, not certain what you mean about transportation to work, and think take your lazy getting the scraps at face value. I'm also completely in favor of food. As for cheaters being prosecuted, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I think some cheaters get prosecuted, others are not, and one size doesn't fit all. I've mentioned G W Bush a few times here but I can't seem to gain traction. The story goes from Obama on down that W manufactured and fabricated intelligence to provoke a war. That war resulted in the deaths of a million +, traumatic and life altering injuries too many to count, plus the destruction of a country or two. He wasn't prosecuted. He's actually become pretty chummy with his chief accuser, post presidency. What say you, Fergie For? Eliot Spitzer, well he seemed kinda cheaty. He was moving call girls across state lines, spending all sorts of dough on criminal enterprises, and nearly choked out a Russian prostitute, how ironic is that. He wasn't prosecuted. Whatcha think, Fegulicious? Hunter Biden...well it sure seemed like his cheaty cheatness was going away, but that may be rectified. Hillary kinds cheated on her obligations, Joe B too, slippage or no. I think context matters, Fergo.

YOU CAN GO TO HEL...wait... What? 👍

It's funny, a while back I was talking with a guy who is a teacher about pay and benefits, relative to the income earned by a UPS driver. We had some mildly contentious discussions, but my recollection is I shared the thought that being a UPS driver was a difficult job--long hours, demanding employer, road time--etc and that the drivers were paid commensurate with duties. His response was that they were basically pizza delivery men. ***disclaimer--he may have been responding to a jab I took at him, and his response may have been to jab at me***. Anyway, good for the UPS drivers. Sh*t gets moved by those folks.

Don’t ruin this moment for us, John. “Lock her up” was a campaign slogan, and sprung from the fact that as Sec of State, she handled top secret and classified data in an extraordinarily reckless and potentially criminal fashion. Your collective response to that was that it was no big deal, and in fact, made her presidential material. Your collective response was to rally to her defense, 66 million strong sending the message that it didn’t matter. This is where it gets weird, John, because after all that defending and rallying to her defense, move up a few years and a guy not of your liking is extraordinarily reckless with national security and suddenly, as if by magic…..it’s so vital to our nation that you and yours support life in prison. To make matters weirder still, your new fave has been pilfering classified documents for decades, leaving them every place he ever visits, but that version of the big pilfer is acceptable because slippage. Hillary Clinton was never going to jail, just like Bill Clinton wasn’t going to jail for perjury, or GW Bush going to jail for fabricating intelligence to start a war, or Eliot Spitzer, or countless others. They know your price point too, John.

Johnny, if the bottom line was as simple as Hillary saying the election was rigged then heroically conceding the next day, we wouldn’t even be talking here. But, it’s not and your recap borders on infantile. Be that as it may, I want to acknowledge a very subtle movement on your part towards an honest accounting of your party’s actions in their effort to unseat the people’s President of 2016. Taking the first step is often the hardest, and if you’ve acknowledged Clinton’s false statements, you’ll surely acknowledge all the others made by your leadership team for several years after the election. What we can derive from that is you support propaganda in whatever form it takes so long as the winning candidate is one you support. Claims of stolen elections, illegitimate presidencies, treasonous behavior and so on all work for you, you just want your guy to prevail. It’s not pretty, or particularly noble of you, but it’s good to know your price point. In related news, politicians study, run focus groups, float ideas, poll and generally know your price point, even if you don’t. Anyway, good for you taking the baby step.

And I heard the others, loudly, proclaiming tha Trump stole the election of 2016, that he was an illegitimate president, and that he was guilty of treason. That of course lead to Mueller, doors kicked in, people getting squeezed, leaks that turned were phony and attempts to force the lawfully elected president from office. Why did you support all that, John? Why would you be upset the next guy tried it when it worked so well for the democrats?

La casa de verano de Muppito

BillSy, it’s completely relevant to thinking folk. We know this for a few reasons: a. They chose to intervene in issues surrounding the elections, when they could have exercised restraint; b. The guidance provided was extremely favorable for one candidate and came at the expense of the other candidate; c. Ultimately, it was determined that the information and guidance shared, by supposed experts in their field, was false; The IC interference was a major issue during the election, and precisely what Schumer was alluding to when suggesting the IC had six ways to Sunday to get someone. In fact, the interference was much, much more significant than what the Russians ran with. In addition, by tamping down the controversy after tying Trump to Russia, it solved a problem for Joe Biden. He was struggling to make sense on the teleprompter, but speaking without a script he was a disaster. He also has a penchant for aggressively confronting people who ask questions he doesn’t like, and struggled to keep track of the comings and goings of his family. It was highly likely he would confuse Beau and Hunter, or worse. If it wasn’t relevant or necessary, they keep their collective mouth shut.