@zignacio
RTR VP IT Risk Mgr, 28 Yrs w/WFB & Co +2 w/Levi Strauss & Co…. Septuagenarian of leisure blessed with 3 Beautiful Grandchildren *No DMs* “To all that follow, you honor me—Thank You.” #WWIIBoomer #EPluribusUnum
2/2
We must not pick and choose when to follow the process; adherence to the rule of law is itself part of our commitment to decency & honor.
As Americans, our choices reflect that commitment. Vote, organize & demand accountability—do not abandon the principles that hold our republic together—WDYT
1/2
Hello, Alexander Dale… (SMILE)
In a democracy, I’d like to think shared rules of decency and the rule of law are what sustain our freedom.
The alternative—something more dystopian—means lives ruined or people left to suffer in unjust incarceration. Although tempting in this case…
3/3
That kind of commitment cuts across eras; it feels more real than polished spectacle and still resonates today.
This is merely my sincere impression of such an extraordinary singer—a small tribute to how deeply she can move me, as only music can in my twilight years… (SMILE)
2/3
…a performance‑as‑confession: pure, unfiltered delivery.
She dissolves into the music, letting feeling lead where looks cannot.
Appearance fades and emotion sculpts every phrase. The result trades glamour for truth — unguarded, intimate, and brave.
1/3
Humm…
Barbra Streisand surrendering to a song so completely that appearance falls away and feeling becomes the performance—that’s transcendent vulnerability.
Call it emotive surrender, unselfconscious honesty, embodied storytelling, affective immersion…
music.youtube.com/watch?v=N4MS...
Humm…
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune—in this case it’s ending surly sucks… (SMILE)
To Kristi; while wearing her Cowgirl outfit, “Don't squat with your spurs on…”—Will Rogers
10/10
Summary
Dual candidacy is legal in many states but perceived unevenly across regions. The table allows a manageable optics with tailored messaging, early party outreach, and a clear operational plan.
“Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.”— Albert Einstein … (SMILE)
9/10
Media Vulnerabilities
Typical negative frames include “hedge,” “vacation from responsibility,” or pure ambition. Preempt these by framing runs as service‑driven and issue‑focused, and using rapid rebuttals and authoritative spokespeople.
8/10
Party Dynamics
Parties balance electability against unity. Local leaders may pressure candidates to choose; in low‑concern states parties often tolerate dual bids, while in high‑concern states they may withhold endorsements until a decision is made.
7/10
Messaging Fixes
Provide a clear resignation timeline if elected, a concrete transition plan, distinct policy priorities for each role, and consistent talking points about commitment and purpose.
6/10
Why Optics Matter
Perception affects fundraising, endorsements, turnout, and primary dynamics. Even where dual candidacy is legal, poor optics can cost votes and party support.
5/10
Situational
Legality and optics depend on which offices are at stake (federal vs. state), timing, and local norms. Perception can flip based on party posture or media framing. Examples: NJ, CO, OR, NM, NV.
4/10
High Concern
Dual bids can read as opportunistic or unserious.
Media and rivals may exploit mixed signals; endorsements and primary support can evaporate. Candidates need a strong, defensible rationale. Examples: CA, NY, MA, IL, WA.
3/10
Moderate Concern
Dual runs raise caution. Voters and party operatives may question whether the candidate can fully focus on either role; campaigns should address commitment and succession plans. Examples: PA, MI, NC, VA, WI.
2/10
Low Concern
Dual runs are often routine—especially when an incumbent seeks higher office while standing for re‑election.
Voters tend to prioritize familiarity and continuity over perceived ambition. Examples: TX, FL, OH, GA, AZ.
1/10
Humm…
Due to character limitation, allow me to try.
The attached table shows how running for two offices at once is commonly perceived (“optics”) in each state, grouped by typical public and political reaction.
Local context and the specific offices involved can change perceptions sharply.
Humm…
Indeed, consistently & habitually inept… (SMILE)
8/8
Anything less risks either abandoning security or sacrificing the rule of law—both dangerous outcomes.
Judge the facts, demand accountability & insist decisions be made openly & within the law.
This is precisely why we need both House & Senate Democratic Majority this November—E Pluribus Unum
7/8
What should guide us?
Transparency, clear legal authority, rigorous intelligence scrutiny, & a public debate that weighs risks, alternatives, & long-term consequences.
6/8
* If leaders act without legal or moral clarity, they undermine constitutional checks & public trust.
* If outside actors (like allies or former officials) press for escalation, the pressure can push decisions that are legally & ethically questionable.
5/8
…be made for decisive action provided it follows legal constraints & minimizes harm to Americans & regional stability.
The real conflict isn’t just about right or wrong. It’s a tragic dilemma:
* If leaders do nothing, Americans & allies could remain at risk.
4/8
So how do we reconcile these claims?
On one hand, a president who orders military action without Congressional approval or clear lawful grounds is in the wrong.
On the other hand, if credible national-security experts argue that Iran poses an immediate & sustained danger, a case can…
3/8
…decades, funded proxies, supplied weapons that killed Americans in Iraq & elsewhere, & supported violent groups across the Middle East!
From their perspective, Iran has been actively hostile for 47 years & poses a persistent threat that, they argue, demands a strong response.
2/8
Add to that intense pressure from Israel, which views Iran as an existential threat & the situation becomes even fraught.
Now add another layer: former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, along with other senior national-security voices, arguing that Iran has, for...
1/8
Humm…
What if this whole affair is effectively an invasion of Iran — launched without a clear legal mandate from Congress & without a compelling public justification?
That would make the president culpable for acting outside constitutional limits.
4/
If these pieces fit together, the consequences will be systemic, not limited to one person. If they’re ignored, public trust in our institutions will only erode further…
3/
This is not a personal attack; it’s a matter of following the facts. Watch the full presentation, review the evidence, and judge for yourself.
2/
At first the details read like coincidences: meetings, money, messages.
But traced together, a pattern emerges—one that points beyond a single individual to a broader network of influence tied to Russian interests; basically, Putin.
1/
Humm…
Senator Whitehouse lays out a careful, document-by-document case on the Senate floor.
This 40+ mins. presentation isn’t gossip—it follows records, timelines, and survivors’ testimony.
youtube.com/watch?v=1V8o...
2/2
Moral:
Power that reverses natural order—honoring the old, protecting the young—corrupts itself; true leadership preserves life and legacy, not trade them for advantage.