leh-nerd skin-erd

In the interest of transparency, I’m sick to death of “stay tuned.”.

You’re shameless and your speculation shows where your head is at. You’re creepy.

No, I don’t wonder about any of that. I do wonder why the Biden admin had access to those files, were attempting to put Trump away for life and hid the files from you and I. I wonder why Harris didn’t reveal the truth about Trump during the run up to the election—she had an international audience at the debate. I wonder why Jack Smiff didn’t uncover/release evidence of wrongdoing, and how Mueller missed it when he dug through Trump’s garbage cans. I wonder lots and lots about the entire sordid affair, and who may/may not be involved. I wonder if you wonder if they are all in on it? I also wonder if you have had a series of head injuries over the course of your life.

Dems giving aid and comfort to Epstein himself? Don’t tell Tibsy, he’ll spontaneously combust.

I’m confused here. Schumer declares that the intelligence community has six ways from Sunday to get you. He doesn’t suggest legal means, he doesn’t speak of thorough, legal investigations. His messaging is quite clear here, and he’s one of the most powerful people in our government, and by extension, the world. Wouldn’t the IC be “the real people”, working at the behest of those who run the world?

Me too. One of the byproducts of my education was to think freely and pay attention. I’m not certain history looks kindly on 1960s Catholic Institutions and moral dilemmas, as painful as that is for me to acknowledge.

He’s one of the faces of the Democrat party, a Harris ally, a guy who tells Democrat voters how to vote, and to do so in large numbers. The interview shouldn’t be with him, he probably hasn’t cigared an intern is quite a few years. The interview really should have been with Harris, who obviously knew what you knew before you knew. I don’t think the behavior, documents or photos are remotely a problem for Harris, Walz or any Democrat.

I don’t think the miscreants in the Epstein saga was limited to men, it’s too big. As for the rest, fair enough. I went to Catholic school as well, tgise nuns ran a tight ship.

There’s a lot to unpack here, but i get the gist of what you’re saying. I’m reminded of this exchange between Chuck Schumer and liberal host Rachel Maddow. I found it chilling on many levels, especially in light of the Mueller probe and the insertion of the 51 former intelligence experts into the Biden laptop scandal. Here’s a NY Senator proudly declaring that the IC has multiple ways to “get” someone, and a the dopey commentator nodding right along with him. Is this the sort of thing you’re referencing?

Because I find the human element of these discussions interesting——how people rationalize hypocrisy (or in your case, the outright fabrication in your posts) especially when it comes to politics. Why did you lie about what I said? You keep using this phrase. Use your words to describe what “aid and comfort” mean to you.

I took the part that you put in quotes, but edited my post my post to add in the full sentences you posted. I am not sure that matters, but I certainly don't want to project the way I feel you and Tibs have. I now understand that you think I was equating Biden pardoning certain people with the horrific nature of Epstein's crimes. I have no idea how you arrived at that, whether you thought I was writing in secret code, or if I just typed the wrong words and you noodled it all out. That's for you to figure out---I didn't mention Epstein. I did not assume the people Biden pardoned are involved with Epstein in any way, shape or form. I would have said that if I did. I didn't. I hope that is clear to you now. Though, now that you (not me) have brought it up, it would not surprise me if any of those people pardoned--his brother, dopey son, Faucci---were involved with Epstein, who seems to cater to wealthy and famous people. Other notable wealthy and famous people I am not assuming are involved, but would not surprise to hear that they were: You know what, I started typing names and it's easier to just say the following: -Any A+ list actor or celebrity; -Any upper echelon politician from any party; -Any member of the UN; -Any powerful manager of money -lots more people

You didn't ask me to clarify that at all, you wad. Read what you wrote, as I've suggested multiple times when you've lied or flailed at making a point you seem completely incapable of making. With regard to your latest iteration, I'm happy to clarify (or dumb it down to a level you can follow) for you. Given Andy's outrage that the 'rich and famous...can do...what...[they] ...want..." and 'projection onto...political opponents and strategy' is evident here, yet he's oddly silent when his people are behaving in a similar fashion. Thus, Andy's logic and outrage are dependent upon the situation he is speaking about, and he turns it on and turns it off in a partisan fashion.

Ah, you only wanted to grandstand on the one issue, not realistically assess how things actually work. Biden granted a full and unconditional pardon to those receiving his most favored status, presumably for any/all federal crimes that might have been committed. That seems sufficiently broad to me to include exactly the types of crime you addressed, but I'm only trying to be realistic about how those things work. As for the depth and depravity of Epstein's crimes, we agree on that issue. However, let's not pretend pardoning/granting clemency to people convicted of murder is a walk in the park. I see you attend classes with Tipsy at the New School of Stupidity Projected. You grandstanded on an issue, apparently don't like honestly discussing matters of "logic" when it goes against the World According To Andy. For me, Andy, here's what you just said: As you seem to equate the two issues here it sounds like you’ve come to the position of “if he did assault some girls with Epstein, it’s not that big of a deal because look at what Clinton and the Biden’s have done”. Please feel free to point out where I said anything even remotely close to that. I know each word you typed, the context in which you typed them, and certainly could have strung them together as you dod. When you cannot point out that connection, I'll assume you just had a little mental block because while you may be a bit of a virtue signaler and grandstander on some issues (and not others), you've never struck me as intentionally dishonest.

Nope, this was you, too. Why are you babbling on about Biden and aid and comfort? It’s weird, man.

No, you said that. Read what you wrote, ya moron.

Well, your guy and your crew just preemptively pardoned family members, associates, hangers on and syndicate members, Andy. All rich, all famous. Seems that horse has left the barn? Or, maybe it’s just that logic and outrage are situational?

Sadly, much less hair to flip then when I was younger. I consider myself lucky to have gone a good part of my life with flippable hair, now I keep that which remains is cut short. Oh, and on that note, they come up with a pill to restore hair absent major side effects, I’m taking it. I may even go full Walking Dead on the line in, jabbing poor Tibsy or Feega in the leg to slow them down so the zombies get them while I get to the front of the line. On the important stuff, Mup, I think it’s important to push back in a format like this if you disagree, that’s dialogue. I am the same guy here as I am off the board. I believe what I believe, still believe I can learn from listening to others with diff opinions and occasionally still do. #believewithoutquestion simply does not resonate with me. At the same time, it is indisputable that historically, female victims of abuse were treated horribly, with a system tilted against them. I’ve mentioned in the past a liberal friend, well-connected politically who said to me one day—“You and I could fix all this.” and it’s certainly not because of any brilliance on my part (My friend, on the other hand is wicked smaht). We disagree on some things, but on others—many important things—we agree.

I don’t know if Trump did what he is accused of or not. The outcome of a civil trail on an allegations decades in the past doesn’t move me one way or the other. In a different, less liberal part of the world, then outcome of the same trial where Trump prevails leaves in the same spot. Oh, and if Trump is successful in his fight to overturn the verdict, I still won’t know one way or the other….and you’ll still believe. However….when money, power and politics collide, I am very naturally cynical of who is saying what, and why. In that regard, Mup, I think I’m pretty much middle of the road on how most people view these things. As for believing woman who allege sexual assault, I agree with you. I don’t agree 100% of the time, and again, I view criminal v civil differently. At the end of the day though, it still seems an awful lot to me like people are willing to look past the glaring issues of their own party while passing judgement on the opposition. Did Harris partnering with Clinton cause you to sit on the sidelines? I’m betting no, and I don’t judge that, I just find it sort of interesting. Oh, and I SMDH!

Everyone has a right to an opinion, and we all know that even with the higher standard of a criminal trial, there are times when innocent people are convicted of crimes they did not commit. The civil justice system is the best we can do, but not all civil cases in all jurisdictions work the same. The term “ambulance chaser” did not come about because it was based on purity and virtue. Broadly speaking, the ability for victims to have their day in court for deeds that took place decades ago can be applauded. The fact that a victim of abuse at the hands of a person in a position of authority (clergy, teacher, scoutmaster etc) can seek some sort of relief is a good thing. However, it’s also fraught with potential for abuse and manipulation. I think that’s maybe why, generally, the statute of limitations isn’t 10, 20, 30 or 50 years. Getting to the bottom of who did what and when and why becomes increasingly difficult with the passage of time. In this case, we obviously have different points of view on the situation, plaintiff and defendant. I respect that, but if the jury incorrectly decided the outcome, Trump is 100% justified in pursuing every recourse available to him, as is his right in the same civil system that awarded the plaintiff a sizable sum of money. Again, a step back. Trump says the plaintiff is lying, opts not to settle and takes his chances with a jury. He then decides to fight the verdict for as long as necessary, regardless of cost. Liberal people are stunned, can’t believe that others cannot see what is painfully obvious to them. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris partners with Bill Clinton, who opted to pay a victim who claimed he sexually assaulted her $800k. She also partnered with JB, after she stated that she believed the women who accused him of taking liberties with them. This, of course, after she sought to reinvent SC Justice Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook entries. She was the chosen one to be President by millions, after gropey Joe, and after Clinton’s wife who stood by her hubby and victim shamed the people who accused him. SMH indeed.

Muppinator….he was not convicted of sex crimes. He lost a civil case. There is a difference, and it’s substantial.

Sorry Mup, but you and I are on different ends of the argument and that’s unlikely to change. Common sense tells me that Trump doesn’t push for the release of files he would know he would be in. If he’s in them, he lays low and people move on. Additionally, given the scorched earth policy undertaken by the Dems v Trump under the Biden years, I assume if he’s in the files, it’s released. With fanfare. Unless of course Harris, Biden, Obama et al are in there too. Nope, I wasn’t talking about that. I was talking about powerful people corrupting/leveraging/conspiring for power/politics/gain. If US Senator X son is involved in bid rigging or money laundering, President Y and/or US Senator Z assists in burying the story and favors are owed. As for predators generally, Mup, I’d point out that one of the faces of the American Left during the most recent election was WJ Clinton, who actively settled with a woman who accused him of violent sexual assault. This after #metoo. That ain’t smoke, that’s a fire burning for a couple decades and a good portion of the country thought it wise to put his enabling spouse in the WH. That’s before even mentioning interns. I guess we get what we get. We agree this is a concern. If it happened, we’ll never know. Fear?

The immunity question aside, I think the reality is that sort of thing is not at all uncommon. Which brings me back around to maybe anything that may have been there is long gone, deep sixxed by whomever for whatever reason. Intelligence community? Or, maybe there isn’t/wasn’t all that much in there to begin with.

The biggie question imo is why anything involving Epstein was hidden/redacted/confidential to begin with, outside of the victims involved. As for Trump, the flip side of the argument is why he would demand release of the files if he knew he was in them. Some people are just above the law.

Joe really looking forward to a beer, borscht and wingos with Leonid Brezhnev.

Personally, I think it was symptomatic of a much bigger issue, and that’s a fundamental lack of trust in our elections/leadership. I believe that the events of 1/6 were set in place when leadership of the Democrats party referred to Trumps election as illegitimate, a Russian op, a coup and more. I believe that set the stage for all sorts of nefarious and shady dealings by the Dems looking to stifle the Trump agenda. I most definitely believe Trump supporters saw that whole 4 year debacle and took it personally. So, when Trump loses the election, he started on his version of stolen and illegitimate elections. I think some people believed it, it motivated them to action. I think some people probably didn’t believe the election was stolen yet figured if the Dems did it, might as well support the cause and turn out. Then of course, there were the hyper aggressive people in the crowd who like to see sh$t burn and things spiraled from there. I think people are manipulated into believing all sorts of things— illegitimate elections, stolen elections, classified document raids, “slippage”, and mostly that most political inquiries are completed to uncover the truth.