Ojo Rojo

Yeah, I'm assuming that the GOP would not nominate someone who had zero chance of winning the general. I guess I just want really badly to put all things Trump in the rear view mirror and never look back.

We should be so lucky. I don't think he'll be in prison or in exile. Holed up in Florida, maybe. I don't see much political advantage in going after him for the Dems. Their strategy has been to cast themselves as the non-crazy adults in the room and it worked. Going after him will just make the Dems look vindictive and obsessed. I like their approach, which is "Moving along." Whether to prosecute him should not be a political decision anyway. The Trumpstains/Neocons/Fascists are not going away, but I don't see their numbers swelling either. They still represent a significant part of the GOP base, but it's not enough to win a presidential election. I think the GOP is going to have to step back from the edge of the cliff if they are going to win the presidency in the next 20 years. Trump cannot be a part of that movement.

Who thinks DT will win the GOP nomination in '24? I don't know if he'll actually run. Probably depends on how his financial situation plays out over the next four years. If he does run, I don't think he'll get the nomination. His formula worked in '16; it didn't work in '20. Politics seems to move on from its losers pretty quickly.

That's certainly the way it feels at this moment. I'd contend that it felt more like that before November 3rd. The realization that a strong majority of Americans voted to unfuck ourselves has set in slowly, in part because there's this distracting static that has been coming out of the White House, still. Anyway, as I've gotten older I've gotten some perspective on the moment and on change itself. I've much more easily adopted the mantra, "This, too, shall pass." Trump will fade away; MAGAts too. We'll find equilibrium again, and cross over it again in the future many times over until the sun explodes or we blow ourselves up. Democracy depends on politics serving the needs of the populace. There are many politicians who are trying to work for the greater good, or at least the good of their constituents. The proportion of them who are out to serve themselves or win at all costs is too high for the true needs of the people to be served. The first, and biggest, step should be to get the money out of politics. The Citizens United case was a damaging blow to our political system. Congress isn't likely to pass meaningful campaign finance reform because they'd be cutting their own throats. But that is exactly what the country needs them to do right now. The good of the country has no relation to how much money special interests can funnel to politicians. Yes. Income and wealth inequality is a huge driver of the current political situation. Not sure how to address it - increase minimum wage? Increase cap gains/estate taxes? Lower taxes on lower and middle income people? Invest in education systems that serve poor and middle class to increase their earning potential? I'd be curious to know how we measure inflation versus how it should be measured. If the government is purposefully under-counting inflation to make themselves look good that's....bad.

It's not stupidity in the sense of low I.Q. This phenomena is something else. I obviously don't actually know and I am still baffled that anyone could buy into such nonsense and that we are where we are, but I'll give my theory anyway: 1. The rise of infotainment. Some people do believe what they read and hear without questioning it. Some people believe it because it's what they want to hear and makes them feel good. Those two things have always been true, but the availability of information, be it legitimate news from traditional news sources, on one end, or straight made up bullshit on social media on the other end, is just worlds beyond what it has ever been. So, basically, the internet and then people's appetites for consumption of infotainment has just grown. 2. Politicians fueling the fire. They see people buying into the narrative of the infotainment business and they get on the bandwagon. The politicians tell people they are getting fucked by others all the time, tell people that they have the solutions for them, they are looking out for their interests, etc. Tends to get people angry and looking for someone to blame and also leads to hero worship of those who are paying lip service to them, telling them what they want to hear. What's been amazing here is how quickly the fascists/Trumpers/neocons turn on anyone who utters a word against their ethos - Barr, McConnell - their former heroes. 3. Income inequality and wealth disparity. It appears to me that the income and wealth gap in the U.S. is growing. That puts stress on society. People get angry because they don't have enough money and they look across town at rich fat cats who have what they want. The rich and powerful, those more in control of the country, have an incentive to keep the displeasure of the poor in check because if it gets too severe that leads to civil unrest, or worse. For whatever reason, maybe just the rich and powerful trying to test the limits to see what they can get away with, they are not relieving the pressure by enacting policies that would raise wages and create more wealth in the lower and middle classes.

Wow. I'm not sure what I expected - this is the remnant of Shaggy after all. I have an unpopular view of this Urban Meyer situation, that's my crime. I think you, and a lot of other people, are willing to accept certain things that have been reported as fact. My threshold is higher, I guess. I'm no kind of apologist, but I am partial to the truth.

If Urban Meyer retained a coach he knew was a wife beater on his staff because he was Earle Bruce's grandson or because he was a really good recruiter or for any reason whatsoever then he should be fired. No question. Everyone was jumping on him over the lie, which is what I was saying wasn't that big of a deal. I think you may have just agreed. That he didn't tell the truth is clear. I think it remains to be seen what went on between the Smiths, whether Zach Smith is in fact a wife beater and exactly what Urban Meyer knew and what he did about it. I'm willing to wait to condemn the man until those facts come out.

You're right. He had the opportunity to correct it at the later meeting with the reporter and he didn't and he should have. What a tangled web we weave. I still think that the first answer he just fucked it up. Then he was stuck. I have never contended that what he said about his knowledge of the 2015 incident was not untrue. He may have done it intentionally and if so then he lied. All it takes to bring a guy down who has done as much as he has is one lie about an allegation made against one of your coaches? Maybe I'm morally compromised, but I just don't think what he did is that bad.

Or maybe he lied because he knew that admitting that he was trying to help someone he cared about and believed in who was accused of domestic violence would be interpreted by the mob as condoning spousal abuse. Just as you are saying I am bearing out one side you are bearing out the other.

He was kind of forced to at that point. The situation changed when it blew up in the media. I'm just trying to discuss this and figure it out just like everyone else. I don't have all of the facts and behind the scenes information. I'm not claiming to know the truth. I'm trying to say that there is another interpretation of all of this, which is also backed up by the known facts.

Quite possible.

I'm getting negged or whatever, but that's mostly because people don't agree with my opinions or my position that Urban Meyer is not a piece of shit. That doesn't make me wrong. Again, he was asked about Zach Smith multiple times, but it wasn't clear-cut questions like, "Did you know before last night about the 2015 incident involving Zach Smith and his wife?" To which he answered, "No." I only saw one outright false statement/lie and that was when he said that he learned for the first time of the 2015 incident the night before.

You can be a non-idiot and still fuck up an answer to a question - especially one that is confusing and very sensitive. It's not binary.

I don't understand how that can happen either. He should have been better prepared to answer questions about Zach Smith. One possibility is that he would be potentially throwing his superiors under the bus. He claimed that he followed protocol, which was to escalate the issue up the chain of command. Most likely that means that he told Gene Smith, the AD, or someone else with authority about the situation and they approved the hiring and retention of Zach Smith.

Not at all. I agree with you 100%. I don't know why he didn't just come clean about the whole thing in the first place.

Does it really matter the number of times? The point is that he wasn't asked a clear and specific question "Did you know" over and over and therefore lied over and over. That's what the other poster was saying and it's just not true. And you are defending that.

How do you not get that he could have known and just given a bad answer?

I never suggested it was. It is one reporter putting out a story where the hidden headline is "Urban Meyer is a Wife-Beater Apologist." That's what reporters do these days. To my amazement many of you have bought it.

Your hyperbolic description of what you assume (incorrectly) to be my position notwithstanding, a lie requires intent. Based on the actual words he spoke, the context, the follow up and everything else, I don't think he had the intent to lie about the fact that he knew of the 2015 incident before the night before the press conference. Reasonable people can disagree about whether he had that intent or not. What I'm saying is that I find it hard to believe that a guy of Urban Meyer's stature would intentionally lie about something that was so easily provable. Maybe he did and I'm giving him too much credit. I think he just fucked it up in the moment because he was not well-prepared.

See, this is just the kind of false narrative that has been put out by the press. I actually went back and watched most of the interview. I didn't count how many times he was asked about Zach Smith, but it was 4-5 in the first half of the interview. He was not asked, "Did you know about the 2015 incident?" and he answered "No." It's not that simple. Even his answer to the first question that created the whole mess - he said that the 2009 incident, according to the information he received, did not happen the way it was reported. He seemed to say that he only got a text about the 2015 incident for the first time the night before the press conference (this is the part that turns out was not true b/c he knew before that) and that it was also "nothing," which I took to mean that it wasn't a clear cut situation of Zach Smith beat his wife. And his comment about "who makes up a story like that," which was a jab at the reporter, I took to mean that the reporter said that there was a clear-cut instance of domestic abuse when it was not clear cut at all. Not that the reporter made up the fact that there was a report of an incident in 2015.

I have never said he didn't know. He knew. That is very clear. He screwed up during the press conference and gave an incorrect answer, which doesn't make any sense because he knew there was no way he could get away with lying about knowing. He had just fired the guy over it, for Pete's sake. He should have been prepared to answer questions about it. He wasn't. It's easy to put big labels on things and ignore details and march with torches and pitchforks. This is just a big false equivalence deal, and I'm just tired of it happening all the time.

Exactly.

I read that the Meyers were involved in the Smiths' counseling and it appeared they were pretty involved with them and the situation and trying to help them. Smith was with Urban for a long time so I would think they had a fairly deep relationship. You have the Earle Bruce connection. Meyer is not an idiot. He knew what the PR implications were of leaving Smith on his staff in the face of these domestic violence issues. He stuck his neck out for the guy. We'll find out more about why he did it, but he might have thought the allegations were not as serious as they are being taken by the public or he though Smith was worth the risk either as a coach or a person or both.

That's a fair point. I don't know that it comes from a God complex necessarily. I don't like being questioned or called on the carpet either. No one does. Still, yes, he did make it worse.

Got nothing to do with the domestic violence situation, for one. And the conspiracy theory stuff - no way. The judge happened to have a tOSU degree. Lots of judges in Ohio do. Is that why Smith got the result he did?