leh-nerd skin-erd

Fair on both counts, though it seems to me that would be obvious to the impeachment managers and part of the discussion. I could be reading too much into the other poster's thoughts, but the implication was that Trump became involved and overrode the vetoed permit with obvious nefarious intent. It would matter to me, personally, if evidence existed to that end. On the payment issue, I recall seeing stories about Trump and his org doing just that. I will say it seems quite fashionable for large businesses and many state governments to handle billing and payments in the manner outlined. It seems in the often seedy world of real estate development, developers are well known for contracting work and then ducking/dodging and stringing along vendors long after the work is completed. In some cases, payment is never rendered. I know from first hand accounts it's fairly common for NYS to contract work and get around to paying it whenever, or in some cases, never as administration and priorities change. If I'm not mistaken, Los Angeles County is currently evaluating what/who they can deny payments to for services rendered.

My son likes the Warriors and a couple times he has encouraged me to watch with him. The rainbow three pointers from way out are kinda cool, but the rest of it seems to be "squeak squeak squeak dunk pass dunk" and then in the last couple minutes it's "squeak squeak squeak pass foul squeak foul pass foul steal foul". In fairness I tapped out on baseball when I was a kid. I wish I could get into these games more, but they bore me to tears. It's probably me.

Ah. Newsmax. Fox. MyPillow. All in response to a polite inquiry and discourse about evidence beyond what you have decided in circumstantial evidence, in a political venue, where a significant portion of the participants have expressed concerns about the proceedings.

Settle down--there's no daytime emmy for best dramatic posting on a football website. The argument has been made by the democrats in the house and senate. It is on the organizers and leadership cabal of that party to produce the evidence. I understand how you feel about the loss of life, and my disgust for the capitol rioters lead me to conclude early that they should have been dealt with harshly and swiftly when they breached the capitol. These people needed to be put down, and at least in one case, they were. The series of arrests that followed were appropriate and necessary. I felt the same way when rioters set upon hapless citizen and the police this summer, and morons in the house, senate and populace seemingly encouraged the behavior with their incendiary language and apathy. Given what you and others have shared here, I would think the dems will prove their case with ample circumstantial and smoking gun evidence and the senate will vote in simpatico to convict. When that occurs, I'll gladly stand with you on your soapbox. As for my standing in life, I do the best I can to be a decent human being. I don't judge myself on the standards imposed by some simpleton on the internet who is a generation or two removed from being the most bloodthirsty member of the tar and pitchfork crowd. I likely did what?

Of course it's an issue, though it's not THE issue here. As a citizen, it's entirely and perfectly reasonable to question the motives of political parties and to consider that actions of the past may shade opinions on actions of the present. I'm not playing games S3, and it's silly to argue about guns and bullets to the skull in a case that involves neither. The lack of smoking gun evidence certainly does not prove innocence, but it's 100% accurate to say that in many cases, no smoking gun exists because the alleged perpetrator is not guilty of the crime that he/she is accused of. Going back to my initial point, I have no doubt that house impeachment managers and experienced political operatives can make an impassioned and one-sided argument that DJT was the second guy through the Capitol doors and a large segment of the population would immediately think "That makes sense". That's quite literally a characteristic of a very good politician. Our system of justice often comes down to who(m) tells the better story than the other party. I'll sit tight for the smoking gun part of the trial.

I saw the edit--thanks for that clarification. I still wonder why a permit for peaceful demonstration would be denied to begin with.

Daz28 = hater. I'm not really interested in your interpretation of what happened/didn't happen in real time. I'm not trying to be rude, but your view has little to do with evidence that is clear and obvious and being presented in the senate. I'm interested in the smoking gun that leads a trail directly from DJT to the several hundred rioters who stormed the Capitol. Given that it's fairly clear law enforcement was well aware that there was the potential for this to occur, I'd think it would be fairly clear that there must be some sort of smoking gun evidence that is irrefutable. The dems have said they have it. They said they had the goods on Russia.

1. Why was the permit originally denied? 2. Why did they stop payments to the organizers?

Ok, but imo you're a hater. That's fine here, it only serves as context for me personally. I'm not really looking for feedback in that regard, any more than whomever "Seth Abramson" is and what his compelling thoughts are on the listening habits of sneators on record as saying this is a farce. Though, perhaps the liberal left can investigate the removal of Graham, Cruz and Rand &^%$ing Paul on the grounds that they were melodramatically not-listening listeners. My bet is Mitt would vote to remove if it would assure him of good standing and continued employment in the senate. As for 'bi-partisan', there is bi-partisan and there is 'we picked up a few weaklings along the way'. On an issue as thoroughly important as this ultimately might be on the issue of constitutionality, this doesn't cut it for me personally. It's political theater at its worst--though not necessarily if they are bring legit, non-controversial documentation to the table. I'm all for hearing about smoking guns--emails in support of insurrection, phone logs, western union and the like. I would think we would have already heard about that by now, but, you know, like Lindsay Graham always said when he was trolling for benjies pre-election--"stay tuned".

I wouldn't notice. I've never understood that while the size of the average male b-ball player evolved from 5'6" in 1890 to 6'5" in 2021, the hoop remains at 10'. I get that there can be some periodic excitement--and one of the few things I've actually witnessed was LeBron's rejection off the backboard a few years ago that was epic, but I'm surprised that the average score doesn't run around 175-200.

Dynamite is something material that leaves a casual observer with no question about what occurred. It's not subtle, and it's pretty easy for simple folk to describe. I'm like many people in the stands--largely disinterested in what seems to be yet another elaborate game of partisan political theater. Still, I recognize I may be wrong, and there may well be tangible, significant evidence that connects the dots between DJT and the assault on the capital...or perhaps even to the many and varied assaults on freedom, people and property this past summer. What have you seen thus far that falls into the/a 'smoking gun' category?

It's my understanding that there was no specific scientific assumption that could ever, ever, ever be drawn tying transmission to specific behavior at specific events (not involving motorcycles, political parties represented by elephants, religious worship or Great-Grandma's legendary home cooked Thanksgiving ShooFly Pie) clearly and obviously ignoring both mask and social distancing guidelines that would lead any reasonable person to conclude that participation in such events posed any sort of risk of transmission. As such, it's best to remain silent on such matters. Admittedly it's a mystery--this levitation/hover phenomenon and how the people in the mass gathering instantaneously and miraculously appear having no record of travel/food consumption/rest room use/or other specifically defined high-risk interpersonal human contact, but if science can't science it I have to assume it is so. Plus, if everyone else double-masks, it seems logical that it would offset any non-masked harm that might occur, like a John Kerryesque carbon offset.

This screen name sleight of hand googly-moogly has me convinced that jeffreallyISmagic.

This is why we can’t have nice things. Nothing happens in a vacuum, and what comes before matters as to what happens after. I even showed my softer side and didn’t mention how the liberal left and Dems in general sat cheering wildly while reigning VP Kam Harris played Commodus attempted to eviscerate Judge Kavanaugh. Her payoff was the number 2 seat in the world. What we learned is that rage and rioting in the streets with the political left encouraging death and destruction is what passes for noble when it’s politically expedient and convenient on the left. Besides, my version was just a fanciful reimagining of the days after the vote was Barracked.

That’s patently absurd. Let’s say Obama won, twice, and there was no coordinated and concerted effort to destroy him and by extension, invalidate the votes of tens of millions of his supporters. Then let’s assume people who were not pro-Obama didn’t sit around in a gigantic circle jerk while Obama was painted as treasonous in a coordinated smear campaign complete with a bunch of partisan hacks performing a multi-year colonoscopy on an international scale that included swat teams tipping off reporters to early morning raids. Then let’s assume when that attempt to destroy Obama AND invalidate the results of an election failed, miserably, the anti-Obama crowd, crestfallen because they had been duped, were offered a second attempt to destroy the opposition using innuendo and he-heard-that-he-said-that-she-saw speculation to remove him from office. Let’s assume at the same time that a tape emerged of Obama’s opponent, the heir apparent, on tape bragging like an aging frat boy about how he, personally, strong-armed a foreign government to alter the outcome of an investigation that might have been harmful to his child, and by extension his own political aspirations. Let’s assume again, the anti-Obama crowd was perfectly comfortable with that new, improved program called DestrOy Obama 2.0. Then let’s assume a global pandemic was unleashed by a foreign and often hostile adversary, and on Obama’s watch, as he balanced shutting down the economy and destroying the lives of millions of Americans, the opposition screamed that shutting down the country and destroying the lives of millions of Americans they screamed that the only caveat was that protesting in the streets by millions of pre-infected, post-infected, and in the throes of being affected citizens was apparently the ONLY COVID-immune act that might be safely undertaken. Finally, let’s assume that all along the way, as the opposition to Obama lobbed charges of treason and criminality, they also waged a 5 year long call for violence and insurrection using words like “treason”, “coup”, “illegitimate”, “get in their faces”, “burn it down”, and “the intelligence community has six ways to Sunday” to take you out. Oh, and let’s pretend that a full year of allowing and encouraging rioting, death and destruction in the streets including routinely targeting law enforcement specifically had absolutely no impact on the crazy anarchist element that is, was, and likely always will be part of the fabric of society. Oh, let’s pretend too that Obama’s calls for peaceful demonstration were actullay painted as calls for insurrection and violence, and the calls by the opposition party for death destruction and violence were painted as peaceful American politics. Of course, none of that happened, because the people that opposed Obama sat about by the tens of millions, patiently waiting for the opportunity to cast a vote for another candidate. On the flip side, the tens of millions of Biden supporters sat by willingly allowing the dem party to create something, anything to wrest power away. The emboldened anarchist is directly tied to the leadership of the modern democrat party and the citizens who begged for release on issues like treason that were never there.

I agree. For example, in your post above, a multi-year-no-holds-barred-no-expense-spared-kick-in-doors-bribe-people-to-flip-while-threatening-with-harsh-prison-sentence investigation that leads to dem puds in hand and zero charges leaves us at “conjecture”. If they only had more time. 🤣

Donald Trump has denied sexually assaulting any woman at any time. He’s never denied chasing as many as he can get. Your awakening on Trump and allegations started in 2015, roughly the time he went from cause celebrë, political and media darling to public enemy number one. That happened for one reason and one reason only— he ran as a R. You keep believing what you must to convince yourself, but that’s the fact Jack. Be that as it may, let’s again assume that Donald Trump rose at night to prey on socialites and wannabes and no one in the media world knew it, or that the most powerful politicians in our country who scrambled to be near him were blissfully unaware—-that still doesn’t explain why you, W9, chose to elevate an acknowledged predator like Biden. That was your decision, not mine, and the only conclusion I can come to is that you feel women are as disposable as the powerful men that surround them. We’ve come full circle. Your defense of the Biden vote seems to be that your comfortable with 8 or 9 women being victimized because it’s less than whatever Trump number you’ve chosen to believe. You said something telling at the end btw— the tax haven issue. Is it the tax committment that brought you into the Biden fold? Not a dollar more from you and yours?

Yeesh. That’s your standard? If they can assemble a staff you’re ok with them assaulting women and mocking people of color? You’re a throwback to the days of Boss Tweed. Who knows though, maybe someone on his senate leadership team did tell him grinding on minors and perfecting his Braille technique on any woman within reach was not a good idea at least once over the past 40 years or so. Oh, the irony indeed. 👍

But you felt that way before Biden was elected, and this issue is about Biden’s leadership. You made the claim singing his leadership praises. My question is what did Biden offer you to make you overlook all his baggage? Why not demand better? Of all the complaints I had about Obama, they didn’t involve groping women or making racially insensitive comments over a several decade plan, lying about who he was or challenging people to push up contests. To my knowledge Obama never had a serious allegation of sexual assault. Again, you just cast a vote for your version of the worst elements you feel about Trump. Why? I’ll give you a hint: status quo. Progressive politics from white liberals is about appearance while staying safe in the coccoon. The historic employment records for people of color is threatening to some voters when it gets too close to their neighborhood. For all the dialogue about racially sensitivity these days, Biden represents your ability to champion inclusion with just an embarrassed “Ah that’s just Joe, he doesn’t mean it!”. As for the women he’s groped and assaulted, again, whatever he offered you clearly allows you to overcome and disregard their victimization. They become disposable— but the again— he “owned” his aberrant behavior (at age 76, well past his prime, when it really mattered and he was largely kept out of the public eye). So, let’s assume Trump suddenly became a serial sexual abuser after decades of being in the public eye, and that some women don’t actually seek out and engage in wealthy and powerful men for sex for any number of reasons, and that all his powerful friends on politics and entertainment were blissfully aware of his tendencies——how does that have anything to do with you and millions of others stumping for Joe Biden? Yup, it’s all anyone ever talks about.

I see your original post was edited to include more detail. I can see your point— that your experiences dictate how others should navigate their own journey. Your single-mindedness aside, Biden’s significant mental decline is obvious and debating it seems like a silly line to draw. You do you. It seems a foregone conclusion. But that’s not the question, the question is why those who voted for Biden wanted Harris in the likely event his steep mental decline continued. This really is just a matter of math.

The stage was set for both parties to complain because it works. The country was turned upside down and an administration hamstrung over fb posts and Russian boogeymen. Nevermind the subject to the alleged treason out behavior was one of the must recognizable faces and personalities in the world, and that he had been friend and ally to most major political figures over the past few decades and a major player in the entertainment industry for longer still. Emotionally underdeveloped people fall for that sort of thing every time. I think the Time magazine article makes a much more nuanced argument on how the manipulation of the electorate occurred. The art of spreading propaganda and disinformation, and hiding the faults of political leaders is nothing new. But absolutely, at the core, the left screamed “stolen election” and “coup” from the top down in 2016, then “OMG how silly” in 2020. It’s the same pattern they are using with the whole insurrection play now. For 5 years they ramble on about interference and Trump, illegitimate presidency, using words like treason and coup, rapist and abuser, and look to destroy people at every corner. Now, suddenly, the very fabric of our society is in peril. It won’t change until liberal voters push back, but they are irrational and overly emotional people by nature in many cases.

You’re going backwards. Life is about pushing forward. Biden’s cognitive decline is not some sort of conspiracy theory, it’s obvious to any honest broker looking to have dialogue. One of the marked examples of it was when comparing his capacity in the Trump-Biden debates to Biden-Ryan debates. In the Ryan debate, he was combative, interrupting frequently and in control. In the first Trump debate—when Trump went full Joe Biden in him, he was overwhelmed and confused frequently. The sad aftermath was watching the media and his supporters defend his performance and implying Trump was too mean to him. If you think it’s bs, you’re not paying attention.

Well, you were exceptionally rude, postured as if to speak for the group, and when called on it, acknowledged that what you said was complete nonsense. If my intervention on your behalf comes off as moody on my part, I can accept how you feel. Consider this my validation of your unique you-ness.

If you knew that some posters actually cared about the post, why did you go all Khloe Kardashian in the first place and suggest otherwise? Wacka offered thoughts on Biden’s mental state based on his personal experiences. Analyzing the mental and emotional competence of candidates and politicians is an everyday thing and occurs across the spectrum. You do it routinely, you dog faced pony soldier. You should speak to someone about these mood swings.

Actually Chief, I give a **** about his experiences and what he comes to share. Life has a way of humbling us all, and some of the lessons learned come during times of personal hardship and tragedy. You’re free to speak for yourself, though your outburst seems to imply you actually do care what @Wacka has to say, but try and stay in your lane. Thanks as always for sharing Wacka.