Big Bird may be innocent but who can vouch for Elmo?

[lionheart]

thehill.com/homenews/senate/580426-ted-cruz-labels-big-birds-tweet-about-vaccination-propaganda

www.salon.com/2021/11/07/sesame-streets-big-bird-for-promoting-vaccine-brainwashing-children_partner/

Old thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4305074-To-filibuster-or-not-to-filibuster-Biden-needs-to-get-a-move-on-before-Doofus-Duck-waddles-back-into-the-swamp-Biden-Trump-Thread-128

Comey suggests Biden should pardon Trump.

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jan/13/james-comey-biden-should-consider-trump-pardon/

[quote lionheart]Comey suggests Biden should pardon Trump.

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jan/13/james-comey-biden-should-consider-trump-pardon/[/quote]
I think Comey has been at the Goofy Juice. Although it did seem to be a rather 'off the cuff' remark.

The difference was with Nixon the extent of his crimes vis a vis Watergate were absolutely known AND the fact is that Nixon resigned and agreed to leave politics 'for the good of the Country'. I'm sure that was part of the 'deal'. Even though he didn't stand up and say "I fucked up" everyone knew his resignation was a tacit acknowledgement of his guilt. And that he'd go away and stay away.

With Doofus, we still aren't at the bottom of his shit pile, he's still spouting his "I was robbed" lies, and he would never agree to fade into obscurity as far as politics go. Even if he did 'agree' to retire from public life he'd never keep to the agreement. He can't stomach the idea of never regaining the power he once had as POTUS. And he's shown that he is willing to tear this country to shreds to get it back. He'd rather be POTUS of a pile of smoldering ashes than 'retire' and see others take his place in a 'divided but still whole' country and have to watch them build up what he so gleefully tore down.

Pardoning Nixon was sending a naughty child to his room. Pardoning Doofus would be like giving that child a flamethrower to take with him. He'd end up burning down the whole damned house.

I think Comey would be wise to keep his head down and not remind people of what he did.

I'm starting to wonder whether the idiotic claim that storming the Capitol building and rioting there was "legitimate political discourse" may turn out to be rather the same in terms of being memorable as "basket of deplorables" was.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/hillary-clinton-emails-gop-trump-ripping-documents_n_6202c78ae4b050042433bc2f

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

I'm starting to wonder whether the idiotic claim that storming the Capitol building and rioting there was "legitimate political discourse" may turn out to be rather the same in terms of being memorable as "basket of deplorables" was.

Oh, you can be sure of that!!

But just as with 'basket of deplorables', the people that the 'political discourse PR' is meant to reach aren't going to be 'touched' by it. Just as Hilary's comment didn't change many Left-leaning hearts, few 'Righties' and NO Doofus supporters are going to change based on the GOP's statement.

Here is a story that I don't understand.

Apparently some people have been going around in a Florida housing complex altering people's party affiliations on their voting registrations, which is clearly bad behaviour and has upset a lot of people who have been changed from Democrat to Republican without their consent. So far I get it. It's illegal, too.

But I don't see why it matters, since when they actually vote in an election they will vote for whomever they want, on a secret ballot.

Are primaries massively important, and being able to vote in them essential? Is that why changing the registrations is illegal?

What I meant but didn't actually manage to say is, what do the people doing the registration-altering gain by it?

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

Here is a story that I don't understand.

Apparently some people have been going around in a Florida housing complex altering people's party affiliations on their voting registrations, which is clearly bad behaviour and has upset a lot of people who have been changed from Democrat to Republican without their consent. So far I get it. It's illegal, too.

But I don't see why it matters, since when they actually vote in an election they will vote for whomever they want, on a secret ballot.

Are primaries massively important, and being able to vote in them essential? Is that why changing the registrations is illegal?

Yes, primaries are pretty important. That's where each party selects its candidates for the actual election. Primary ballots generally have only the candidates from your party affiliation, although some states do have 'open primaries' where all candidates are listed.

My state has 'closed primaries' so if someone changed my party I would, in essence, NOT be able to vote for my preferred Dem candidate to be nominated for the general election. Of course I could vote GOP and choose a 'ridiculous' candidate if they had one or could write in Mickey Mouse or whatever. But it also affects statistics as far as someone looking to see if a district is right- or left-leaning.

I would assume they think they're 'gaining' something by just stopping Dems from voting in their primary. I suppose if they know a certain area is leaning towards a particular candidate, one who would trounce their candidate, they might target that area and think they're stopping that candidate from winning the primary.

And possibly to skew statistics. Maybe they think they'll be able to fish the unwanted GOP ballots out of the trash and falsify them.

Devious all the way.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/trump-white-house-toilet-flushed-papers_n_62052dede4b0ccfb3e51d890

'Former President Donald Trump denied a claim from a new book that he tore up White House records and attempted to flush them down the toilet.'

Thanks, Across! It just seemed such a strange law to break, to me, but you've explained a possible motive and I'll stop wondering.

Lionheart, well, that explains why he complained that people have to flush the toilet ten, fifteen times....

There's always a new low.

www.thedailybeast.com/jim-lamon-runs-ad-that-shows-him-in-shootout-with-gabby-giffords-husband-mark-kelly?via=twitter_page

Half for you and half for me.

apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-united-states-terrorism-b2743737c3286dbba95a7663615e37be?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

'WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden is expected to issue an executive order on Friday to split the $7 billion in Afghan assets frozen in the U.S. to fund humanitarian relief in Afghanistan and compensate victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to a U.S. official familiar with the decision.'

My memory suggests that the Taliban did not actually do the 11th September attacks, so I am unsure why they are being stung for compensation for that atrocity. Wasn't it done by bin Laden and his lads, a different gang from the Taliban? al-Qaeda and the Taliban were never the same group, I thought. I mean, bin Laden was with the Mujahideen against the Soviets, but all the Taliban did was decline to hand him over to the USA; they didn't actually help him commit any of his organisation's bombings.

I don't understand it.

foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/11/biden-afghanistan-currency-taliban/

WTF?

My first reaction to that is to be horrified.

I think this is an attempt to deal with the problem that it is political suicide for any US president to release money to Afghanistan (Afghanistan's own reserves, or aid money), because this will immediately be described by political opponents as "funding the Taliban" – with some justification.

Meanwhile clearly Afghans need the funds for humanitarian reasons.

I've been wondering for months how that deadlock would be broken.

I think this move is intended to square the circle. But politically I really doubt it's going to work: it's more likely to piss everyone off, rather than just some people.

And practically it's not clear it will work either. I can't read all of that FP article, but it looks like it might cause practical problems of delaying funds.

So I think horrified is also my second reaction.

Of course I also don't have anything more constructive to suggest. I can see the bind; I can't see a solution. Like the whole occupation in the first place.

I don't know--perhaps to release it in stages to ensure it doesn't get appropriated?

I think this solution is terrible.

Melania.

www.rawstory.com/melania-trump-2656643233/

'In a deep dive into how Donald Trump has turned his four years as president into a money-making machine cashing in on his renewed celebrity, the New York Times notes that Melania Trump is being scrutinized for selling tickets to a meet and greet with a portion of the proceeds going to a charity that doesn't appear to exist.'

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-shredded-documents-but-her-emails-cap_n_62084df0e4b083bd1cbf8cf1

Melania, the gold-digger supreme. She and Doofus are a match made in hell. I see each of them running around and hiding 'the biggest piece of cake' or 'the last cookie' (figuratively) from each other so they have 'more' than the other one does. Can you imagine the heartburn when one of them gets more PR or a 'better' offer for something than the other? What a way to live your life. I wish they'd both just fuck off into the sunset.

As far as the Afghan funds, at this point it's a bit over my head. I can 'see' what's being said, but I cannot fully understand all the nuances of where it's going and who should get what.

We always rather suspected it:

www.rawstory.com/donald-trump-stormy-daniels/

Melania wasn't picking up the phone when his number came up, but did pick up when it was a random number belonging to a secret service agent. Tells you all you need to know about what she thought of him at the time.

I don't understand why they want yet more money.

It is such a peculiar mindset.

Etc.,

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/melania-trump-high-tea-charity_n_62088c42e4b0e224afc848b6

edition.cnn.com/2022/02/14/politics/trump-mazars/index.html

New York (CNN)Former President Donald Trump's long-time accounting firm informed the Trump Organization last week that it should no longer rely on nearly 10 years' worth of financial statements and that they would no longer be their accountants, citing a conflict of interest