Jump to content

leh-nerd skin-erd

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

710 Excellent

About leh-nerd skin-erd

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

689 profile views
  1. Seriously, these simple but accurate tweets are awesome. Makes me wish I was on twitter...almost.
  2. Interesting approach. It's like going to someone's newly purchased home, stating emphatically "Man, this place smells like crap!" and quickly following up with "How do you like the neighborhood!". I'm thinking you skipped Dale Carnegie seminar day at school? Be that as it may...I think your question reflects your own limitations on this issue. First, the decision on your part to accept the first "conspiracy theory" (Trumpavonavich is a Russian asset), and maybe the second "conspiracy theory" (Trump may not be Russian asset but he's a real douche for the way he went about disproving conspiracy #1) or even conspiracy theory #3 (his decision to allow the American people to know the ins/outs of the investigation is "un-American") is fine, but understand it's the same conspiracy cesspool as anything you might read here. The only difference is your position has been discredited. As for your second question, I'll respond based on what seems to be human nature: The past couple years have outlined the path that political leaders must now tread. If the other team will accuse you of treason, and shake everyone down in your inner circle, and weaponize intelligence, what choice do you have other than to respond in kind? When the actions of the other side are revealed to be based on fraud and political animus designed to neutralize the vote of an Anerican citizen, and once revealed, the allegation is that attempting to investigate how the whole thing got started to begin with is "unAmerican", I don't know how a political party does not respond as forcefully and directly as possible. When the political operatives on the other side accuse your supreme court nominee of sexual assault and being a serial rapist, and attempt to crush the nominee and destroy his life, it seems naive to think there will not be some equal and in-kind reaction. I'd prefer to see our political leaders be as above board as possible, but seriously, if you, for example, cast your vote in support of these dirty politicians, it takes a special kind of innocence to pray that we all suddenly get along for the good of the country. If it goes as you would hope, I'd pray DJT lawfully declassifies everything necessary to reveal wrongdoing by anyone in the mix. Obama. Biden. Clapper. Comey. Clinton. Pelosi. Bush. Bush. McCain. Nadler. Brennan. Schiff. And so on. And if there was nothing further to reveal, that's fine too. Let's get this ship back on track, but as to your suggestion that we heal by moving on because your guy got in and he/she is less of a liar than the other guy-- I vote hells no, and shame on you for asking. Go in peace, my man.
  3. Btw, it still amazes me that President Trump has the liberals in a froth over oversight and transparency of secretive agencies like the FBI & CIA. The people who bring you the notion that law enforcent is generally populated by jack-booted storm troopers who hide in the shadows and need to be dragged into the light....are themselves screaming about bringing these issues into the light to let the people decide. It's like they have no value system, and it reminds me of a line from the Charlie Daniel's song "Uneasy Rider". "I had 'em all out there steppin and fetching like their heads were on fire and their asses were catching". Perfect analogy for Trump v libs.
  4. Ah, now it makes sense. The Attorney General investigating a multi-year sting based in part on the wild accusations of a disgraced foreign national, the potential question of fraud being perpetrated on the FISA court, countless Dem politicians providing sound bite after delicious sound bite guaranteeing the American people they have personally seen damning evidence of Trumplusion, which results in the tearing apart of the fabric of America and faith in its government, which ends up with a big fat goose egg on the underlying investigative question---THAT is unAmerican. This guy is a disgrace, a political sociopath who need to be relieved of his duties.
  5. The philosophy outlined here is part of the reason we are constantly dealing with the garbage we get from elected officials of all shapes, sizes and stripes. "I have nothing to hide, I have no problem showing mine to anyone." That's not really the issue. The question really is if your political enemies--people willing to accuse you of sedition, theft, tax fraud, sexual assault, conspiring with foreign governments, spousal abuse, crimes against women and children- had a platform to intimidate you publically day in, day out with no fear of retribution, well what's the fallout of that? By design, it's 100% NOT your business to know what's in the tax returns of another citizen, and in the case of DJT, he was elected by the people to lead the nation after he opted not to release his returns. The fact that his decision to withhold might be a reason you would not cast your vote for him is absolutely your right, and you should proceed accordingly. We are in historic times. We're witnessing the unraveling of a scheme to weaponize the intelligence community and corruption at the highest levels of our government, and ordinary citizens are sitting back and thinking "Well, if they have nothing to hide, what's the big deal?". The disproven allegation of Russian collusion ensnared many, many members of Team Trump and his family. The allegation was not that DJT took a briefcase of cash from Vlad on the midnight train from Milan to Minsk, it was an alleged conspiracy with players inside his family and out. To really analyze this matter, wouldn't we--the people---need to see the tax returns of every family member and every high ranking official in a president's extended circle? And why on earth would we limit the request to 3 years? Certainly, we would not be so foolish to stop at the election, either. I'd think we, the people, would have the right to see the tax returns, family trusts and estate plans post-admin, for the duration for every admin official to make sure our interests are served long after they leave their post. I'd think we would want the from everyone, for the life of the candidate plus, 10 years. I'd think if people have have nothing to hide, they would embrace this type of scrutiny for the greater good. If they choose not to, they should not pursue a career in the public sector, and not be related to someone who does. How do we know those Obama girls have not benefited financially from those pallets of cash sent over to the Middle East? Are we so foolish to believe that only adult children like DJT jr can be co-conspirators or worse, unwitting dupes to a massive scheme to defraud the American people? Or, we could let the appropriate tax authorities do what they do, even for the candidates you might favor and I might despise. I'd think the near-limitless power of the IRS provides a reasonable deterrent to crimes, and after 70+ years on this earth and 50+ in the public eye, I'm thinking DJTs financial situation was looked at prettty thoroughly.
  6. No doubt about it. Life is hard sometimes, and since people raised by their biological parents can struggle, the same applies to adoptive parents and the children who were adopted.
  7. I'd be interested in seeing a study of those individuals given up for adoption to see how the decision emotionally impacted them over the long haul.
  8. It's hard to get the truth out but when you're limited to 30 months, $30 mill, investigatory power the KGB would die for, a 400+ page summary, and a plethora of powerful prosecutors on your payroll. You really need Jerry Nadler aka Jerry Nads aka Jerry Baggy Pants aka Jerry the Fat aka Slimfast Jerry to coax out the detail of what would have been written on pages 401-407.
  9. Some people need nuclear detonation, a really loud boom to get their attention. They would need something along the lines of a top-down govt-wide conspiracy, with the termination of someone like an FBI director, or a former head of the CIA implicated. It would be helpful to them if the US Attorney General expressed concerns about malfeasance at the highest levels of our govt, but how often does that all happen?? In fairness, too, it's like trying to find your old pal John Smith in an old style phone book. Once they see "Q", or anything with a q in it, it's game over.
  10. Blitzkrieg and the Frogman look very uncomfortable in this shot. Not "tie him to the sidecar and drag him down Rte 66" uncomfortable, but something...something.
  11. Essayist #15 "Judges who send children to prison in exchange for $1m deserve a bullet to the back of the skull..." ---some anonymous message board guy
  12. Great read and thanks for the summary. For me, I'm just a guy trying to get by and raise a family. I don't need someone in the media telling me how crazy some entity is, I don't much listen to politicians because just off the top of my head, 50% is pure BS. I mentioned Kavanaugh hearings, and do frequently because I cannot reconcile the attempt by supposedly 'good people' to destroy another human being for fun and profit. That was one of those ugly moments in our history where I watched, considered, tried to place myself in the shoes of someone who might feel different than I...and walked away thinking that the 'leaders' of the opposition are literally scumbags of the highest order. I consider what is offered in some media outlets, but I read/watch/listen and consider the agenda being proffered. I reserve the right to look at all sources, consider what makes sense to me, and consider what information is lacking that seems to be common knowledge. I consider placement of a story in a newspaper, the language carefully chosen during a newscast (This TRADE WAR could hit AMERICANS hard on EVERY ITEM IN THIS SHOPPING CART!"), and anything else I can think of. This brings me to Q. I don't actively search anything out on the Q phenomenon, don't know where I would look to begin with, but review what I see here. That makes me vulnerable, in a sense, because for all I know, you could be Sybil from the old high school novel and have 4 different computers and 4 different screen names for the 4 different voices on your head that really don't seem to like each other. On the other hand, I'm a natural skeptic so I plug on, mindful of the spies in the woods dressed as pine trees. So, as to Q--I think you make some excellent points, and I think Trump's obvious plan to brand his message, in his way, via twitter certainly lends credence to your theory. Honestly, I really don't see it as all that different than the supposed insiders that leak all sorts of %$#@ that Lester Holt tells America about on the evening news. A little more theatrical, a bit more colorful and cryptic...but what old Lester does, really is say this: Source in WH...connected...powerful Eyes 2 SC being fired. 45 2 consider. Consequences = crisis of consti2shun When...If? Stenny Hoyer? He dresses it up a bit, throws it on a teleprompter, and for that they give him an Emmy. Q does it and it's something to be mocked...and your point on "Why only Q" makes a lot of sense. Oh, I think Stenny Hoyer is a funny name, so I Qed him up.
  • Create New...