I agree with every word of this. When Biden was elected I didn't fully expect but I certainly hoped that he would put together a committee to take all of the harms Trump had done this country one by one, from day one through to the end, and address each one with some careful remedy. I did not hope, but wished that Biden, while he had the…
I agree with every word of this. When Biden was elected I didn't fully expect but I certainly hoped that he would put together a committee to take all of the harms Trump had done this country one by one, from day one through to the end, and address each one with some careful remedy. I did not hope, but wished that Biden, while he had the House and Senate, would expand the SCOTUS. I grew increasingly exasperated while a certain opinion writer I subscribed to counseled us to be patient because Merrick G was about to do something any day now... he's just being canny about this... he's waiting for this or that condition and that's for the best in the long run... ad nauseam. Eventually exasperation became disgust and I chopped the writer off my reading list. When Jack Smith came along, we had renewed hope. Here was a real go-getter. Then the case was assigned "randomly" (hm... we were assured that was entirely possible...) to Judge Cannon and didn't attempt to claim she should have recused. We were frequently counseled to wait patiently because (over and over again) the next clearly biased action on her part would be the one that provided the Guaranteed adequate proof needed to request the case be reassigned.
It is not engaging in a conspiracy theory to note there is a network or layer of those with power, money, friendships and favors and other avenues of influence who cheat and take bribes and lie and steal with impunity because every time someone finally gets into a position to bring them to justice, the legal system suddenly becomes torturously slow and encumbered with hurdles, hearings, and the need for levels of proof (Did he Know? Can we prove it?) unnecessary when sentencing one's cousin Benny for probably having been one of those who robbed that chain store. Those on the prosecuting side slow down and begin to lose interest and eventually fold and retire. "I left it for the next guy in this office to complete. For some reason I'm no longer feeling it, but it's almost all right there"...
When I read "The immediate fate of Trump’s criminal case in Georgia largely hinges on whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, a Democrat, is disqualified from prosecuting the matter after her prior romantic relationship with a fellow prosecutor" I think of Clarence Thomas who not only was not disqualified due to a legally binding (marriage) romantic relationship with Gini Thomas, a proven though not charged (gee, I wonder why) insurrectionist, but was not even required to recuse himself from cases in which she was involved. It pays to be one of the in crowd.
An excellent comment, I agree with everything. I know who the opinion writer you mention is, personally. Unfortunately, I am not expecting to see a notice about the sale on fricasseed crow over there anytime soon. After a conversation this week, probably never.
TCinLA Thank you, but also maybe not you guys. You may be talking about where I got shadow banned for questioning the Gaza response early on. Me - whose every word is gold (or at least respectful?) and I'm still on that one because I'm thick skinned, understanding, and think good work has to carry on. I just don't seem to need the head pets that, as a ghost person, I no longer get. Here's a thing: I sometimes ignore someone, I often respond at least once in case someone just needs to hear things phrased differently, and if someone wants to bring new perspectives to me I at least am willing to listen and question or counter so the only point in shadow banning is to preserve one's own sanity and emotional health and I doubt I really challenge that for anyone. I certainly try to bolster those, along with sound thinking, instead of bring harm. BTW, my grandfather brought a crow to my mother-in-law to cook so he could eat it when he needed to do so, and they claim it was decent, but then again she always Could cook.
I agree to your point of view, Tom. And I am not asking you to name the writer. But frankly, to some of us, or maybe just me because I am dumb, It is not crystal clear who the writer is. Even so, please no names. I can live with the mystery.
I agree with every word of this. When Biden was elected I didn't fully expect but I certainly hoped that he would put together a committee to take all of the harms Trump had done this country one by one, from day one through to the end, and address each one with some careful remedy. I did not hope, but wished that Biden, while he had the House and Senate, would expand the SCOTUS. I grew increasingly exasperated while a certain opinion writer I subscribed to counseled us to be patient because Merrick G was about to do something any day now... he's just being canny about this... he's waiting for this or that condition and that's for the best in the long run... ad nauseam. Eventually exasperation became disgust and I chopped the writer off my reading list. When Jack Smith came along, we had renewed hope. Here was a real go-getter. Then the case was assigned "randomly" (hm... we were assured that was entirely possible...) to Judge Cannon and didn't attempt to claim she should have recused. We were frequently counseled to wait patiently because (over and over again) the next clearly biased action on her part would be the one that provided the Guaranteed adequate proof needed to request the case be reassigned.
It is not engaging in a conspiracy theory to note there is a network or layer of those with power, money, friendships and favors and other avenues of influence who cheat and take bribes and lie and steal with impunity because every time someone finally gets into a position to bring them to justice, the legal system suddenly becomes torturously slow and encumbered with hurdles, hearings, and the need for levels of proof (Did he Know? Can we prove it?) unnecessary when sentencing one's cousin Benny for probably having been one of those who robbed that chain store. Those on the prosecuting side slow down and begin to lose interest and eventually fold and retire. "I left it for the next guy in this office to complete. For some reason I'm no longer feeling it, but it's almost all right there"...
When I read "The immediate fate of Trump’s criminal case in Georgia largely hinges on whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, a Democrat, is disqualified from prosecuting the matter after her prior romantic relationship with a fellow prosecutor" I think of Clarence Thomas who not only was not disqualified due to a legally binding (marriage) romantic relationship with Gini Thomas, a proven though not charged (gee, I wonder why) insurrectionist, but was not even required to recuse himself from cases in which she was involved. It pays to be one of the in crowd.
An excellent comment, I agree with everything. I know who the opinion writer you mention is, personally. Unfortunately, I am not expecting to see a notice about the sale on fricasseed crow over there anytime soon. After a conversation this week, probably never.
TCinLA Thank you, but also maybe not you guys. You may be talking about where I got shadow banned for questioning the Gaza response early on. Me - whose every word is gold (or at least respectful?) and I'm still on that one because I'm thick skinned, understanding, and think good work has to carry on. I just don't seem to need the head pets that, as a ghost person, I no longer get. Here's a thing: I sometimes ignore someone, I often respond at least once in case someone just needs to hear things phrased differently, and if someone wants to bring new perspectives to me I at least am willing to listen and question or counter so the only point in shadow banning is to preserve one's own sanity and emotional health and I doubt I really challenge that for anyone. I certainly try to bolster those, along with sound thinking, instead of bring harm. BTW, my grandfather brought a crow to my mother-in-law to cook so he could eat it when he needed to do so, and they claim it was decent, but then again she always Could cook.
Scant doubt about who the writer is. There may be a decline in readership, possibly subscriptions as well.
Shouldn’t one name this mystery writer? It’s not libel. And shame is cathartic. One would be doing this writer a favor.
Not from me, I have enough ego minefields to navigate.
I agree to your point of view, Tom. And I am not asking you to name the writer. But frankly, to some of us, or maybe just me because I am dumb, It is not crystal clear who the writer is. Even so, please no names. I can live with the mystery.
Intercourse him