leh-nerd skin-erd

I keep mentioning Dominion because there seems to be bilateral agreement that there was a problem with the system. I simply want the outcome to be correct. You seem to be fighting against shining a light in the corners for fear of what you might find. Besides, why would it bother you that I shared it with a guy named JaCrispy on the internet?? He asked questions, I provided food for thought. He may have some additional information from another source suggesting former Democratic Presidential Candidate Warren owned stock in a competing firm, or used to date a the CEO and they had a messy breakup, or that the problems she and others were addressed with a software patch. Internet democracy dies in internet darkness. You literally have nothing to fear on this issue, yet...

Unfortunately, the declaration about mail-in ballots lacks detail and assumes things are the way they always were (and interestingly, a quick google search of concerns about the legitimacy of mail-in voting yields hundreds of results from media sources far and wide, yet since 11/3 we've been told "OMG it's a perfect system!) . There is a difference between absentee ballots and mail-in ballots, and more importantly, there were "emergency measures' installed in many states under the guise of keeping people safe during the era of COVID. Here's a link that hilites some of the changes: https://ballotpedia.org/Changes_to_absentee/mail-in_voting_procedures_in_response_to_the_coronavirus_(COVID-19)_pandemic,_2020 In some cases, there are questions about the legalities of the changes, and by extension, whether or not the changes were appropriate. Here's a decent summary of the concern from one perspective: Adam Brandon, FreedomWorks (USA Today): "We have always had absentee voting, but it has always come with a tried and true validation process to ward off controversy. The system only works if we keep the same processes in place throughout. By changing the laws for how mail-in ballots are counted, states are paving the way for chaos and uncertainty in the weeks after Nov. 3. To change election laws this late in the game puts partisan legal teams in charge of determining the results of an election, rather than American voters." - "Don't change election laws this late: Anthony Fauci says in-person voting is safe with precautions. And widespread voting by mail could be dangerous to election integrity.," September 24, 2020. Another opinion piece on the sliding scale of authentication between in-person voting and voting by mail in an era where the rules changed very close to election: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/11/to_restore_election_integrity_end_mailin_vote_fraud.html The interesting part about all this is how quickly some folks want to move past these issues by removing DJTs lawful right to challenge the results as he sees fit. Very few on this site are suggesting that this ongoing matter be resolved for the greater good, the mantra seems to simply be "They need to stop". It really doesn't matter how many uncounted ballots are found, or irregularities pointed out--it's the very thought that a Presidential candidate other than the one they wanted chose to initiate the action. To draw a parallel, when our local DMV partially reopened after the lockdown, a friend of mine waited at the local office for 7 hours to complete a needed change. The government is not particularly adept at providing quality levels of service to begin with, and throwing a gigantic wrench in the monkeyworks just prior to the election certainly is problematic. As it relates to Dominion Software, issues have plagued the company for some time. Two former D Presidential nominees--one a long time front runner, expressed the very same types of concerns about Dominion in 2018: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democratic-senators-warned-of-potential-vote-switching-by-dominion-voting-machines-prior-to-2020-election/ar-BB1aZAYf The letter continued: “These problems threaten the integrity of our elections and demonstrate the importance of election systems that are strong, durable, and not vulnerable to attack.” I inquired about this very Trump-esque concern raised by the other side less than 12 months ago, looking for dialogue and common ground. The response can best be summarized as no response at all. Here's the question--if former Presidential frontrunner Liz Warren was extremely concerned about it, as kinda-sort-maybe Presidential Candidate Amy Klobuchaer was very concerned about it---why the rush to close it out? Gore/Bush took 58 days to resolve, and Gore really never had a chance. It wasn't close. The established rules were followed, he took a flyer and lost. The world did not end, the sun rose and set, and we moved on. If, as they say, there is nothing to worry about, then by extension there is nothing to fear from seeing it through.

I can see that perspective. However, I’m also wondering about the reporting featuring SP as part of his legal team. Were they lazy, disinterested, sloppy or what? Even now, you’ve indicated she could not outlast Scarmucci. But, she apparently never has the opportunity to. Here’s where I’m at. Nothing changes for me in the big picture. I’m reading some coverage at breitbart, the reporting is that some of her claims exceeded the ability to be proven in court. I’ve come this far, I’ll see it through with President Trump. I was at 98-2 that Biden is president on 1/21 post election, 50/50 before election, and now I’m at 99/1. Stepping sideways for a bit, but I have a question for you. Chuck Schumer said somewhere along the line that Trump was dumb for taking on the intelligence community. He said the IC “has six ways from Sunday” to bring you down. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/312605-schumer-trump-being-really-dumb-by-going-after-intelligence-community?amp What do you think he meant by that?

Yes, I’ll be glad to. As I stated, the impression given was that Sidney Powell was a part of Trump’s legal team. As I think back, I cannot recall a time when I ever heard that she was on his team either directly from her or DJT. When I performed the google search, there were multiple pages of Sidney Powell and “Trumps legal team” mostly with derogatory headlines attached. So, now my question—was she ever on his legal team to begin with? Has she been terminated from the team? If Sidney Powell was on the team, and has now been terminated, things on Team Trump appear dark. As for the Trust Tree, given our earlier interaction and lack of news coverage when I looked on google, I was concerned.

When I saw this, I searched on google (I prefer duck duck go but figure the algorithm on G would find this more quickly). My search returned 5 pages of references to Trump’s legal team, several referencing Sidney Powell as his most recent conspiracy enabler, and several photos in front of Trump/Pence signs. I visited his campaign website, drove around there for about 60 seconds and saw no press release or news article on this subject. I’ve said all along I’m trying to be as honest as possible. Are you?

Sure you do, or if you cared enough, you would have checked or inquired on the content of my post. Instead, you opted to play hall monitor and when brought up to speed, instead of stepping up and apologizing for being blissfully unaware of what transpired over a 5 post run, you’ve decided to double down and accuse me of “deflection”. Tell me, when I explained why I typed what I did, including my rationale for doing so, what exactly did I deflect? Tell me too, Shoshin the fair, when does Wide Nine get a stern talkin to?

There was nothing to respond to Homey. He tapped out, wrote a character assassination attempt on a poster and didn’t just respond to me. On the other hand, I tagged him so there was no uncertainty as to who said what. That’s mostly because there should be honor when all else fails. Speaking of honor, mediator of the good and just, when can I expect your post to Niner that says something like this: Why are you writing a character assassination attempt on a poster and not just responding to him? Feel free to copy and paste. This is an opportunity for us all to grow.

On this we agree. We are here.

This seems like as good a place as any to respond to a variety of posts. Generally speaking, I try to respond to every post where someone addresses me. A quick glance at my profile reveals that, so I’m not sure if you’re a dullard (possible), a liar (possible) or both. I answered your post, and did so with clarity and brevity. In response to a similar question a couple days back, i asked for a link in support of your position. You never provided one, which we both know means you didn’t have one. On this point, you’ve made two declarative statements on the Michigan situation, failed to provide any supporting documentation, and buttoned them up with a question mark. I repeat for the third time— instead of trying to score points with your posse, provide some context and I’ll address the issue. Until then, your characterization of what occurred is irrelevant. Now, it does score points with @daz28 aka Pete the Pumber, now famous for one of the dopiest attempted put-downs ever. @WideNine is a different story. He’s a prolific writer, a dedicated researcher and he has acknowledged a certain unseemly fascination with his own literary skills. Be that as it may, when I answered the questions on a variety of subjects, he agreed with me on Bush and the concept of President-Elect, he apologized for being kind of a dick on another, and claimed to have written voluminously on the outcome of the Mueller report. When I asked that he provide a link proving any part of his claim regarding Mueller, he patted his proverbial internet pants pockets, indicated he didn’t have the proof on him, and sourced Wikipedia in an apparent attempt to tie Mueller’s time in Vietnam as proof positive of the outcome of his report from several decades later. When I inquired multiple times thereafter, he stumbled, fumbled, and grumbled around and returned...nothing. So far, his proof lies not in the nearly 500 word Heinz Mueller report, not Herr Mueller’s testimony, not in any legal charges being pursued thereafter. No, so far it’s been a wiki article telling me that Donald Trump is a real estate investor and some people don’t like him. Now, @WideNine has gone full on “Ross n Rachel” and has declared, a bit creepily that he is “over leh-nerd”. No link to Mueller report, no citation of the aftermath of Mueller leading directly to DJT, no nothing except he’s “over leh-nerd” for using “circular logic” in asking him to demonstrate what he said he had written about but was ignored. I think when all is said and done, you’re just a crabby old guy who doesn’t have much experience in conversational English. I’ll forgive you for that, maybe that sort of thing wasn’t necessary in the work you did, but my simple request is that if you’re going to make a point where you are alleging something, come prepared. As for @WideNine, well, I’m actually pretty disappointed in watching him fall this way. I thought there might be something to learn, but in the end, it appears he’s just another empty vessel who pretends to know quite a bit but cracked when the teacher called on him.

I know how sensitive you were before when you felt I was being condescending to another poster, but in your example why wouldn’t I see the water go down the drain? I’m not sure if we’ve got a clog, my eyesight is gone, or this is all taking place during a major power outage. For now, sensing you’ve got something up your sleeve...I’m going with it didn’t go down. Final answer.

The onus is not on me to follow you down yet another Russian rabbit hole, Kempy. If you got some intel that is worth offering, now’s the time to smoke em if you got em. So far, you’ve wasted my time on this issue. I’m a very busy man.

I’m not complicated, I’m not trying to trick anybody, I quite literally have told you exactly what I think. Why is that so hard to believe? In order: At what point... If DJT taps out, I’ll acknowledge; If DJT gets the SC Algore hook, I’ll acknowledge; If DJT gets the hook, but evidence convinces me that massive fraud took place, I’ll acknowledge simply because it would be silly not to. Would you acknowledge... I would acknowledge he has not prevailed in litigation on a massive scale thus far. I would not acknowledge they are completely devoid of evidence. At what point did I acknowledge President-Elects... Pretty much the same time everyone else did. White knuckling...? I think I’ve been the calmest, most rational guy (Non-lib) in the room for the last week. @oldmanfan has been hanging in there, you’ve been awwwwwiite, @WideNine was fine then jumped the rails IMO. I again acknowledge your perspective, have never suggested that you’re way out there, crazy or anything else. I don’t believe I’ve said that about anybody. In fact, I understand why you all feel you can take a victory lap, but I’m not at all interested in submitting simply because you all think it’s time. As for your vote for Biden, well, that’s nothing I personally can respect. He’s an imbecile, and this generation of woke folk annointed a guy their parents and grandparents sent to the curb multiple times decades ago. No, I was not. I understood McCarthyism the first time I learned about it in school. It’s an emotional play, and all you need is enough people not to think independently... Find a boogeyman. Concoct a fanciful story. Sell it to the masses. Sit back and watch.

Inherent in the premise of seeing the legal challenges through is the potential for loss. Your view on what constitutes a credible challenge, while interesting on some level, is unimportant to me. This judge(s) ruling is important, obviously, but unless it exhausts legal challenges across the board, it simply is what it is. The end game is all that matters. When it’s time to acknowledge Biden, it’ll be time to move on to the next phase of the process.

I reject the first statement as speculative, unless of course you felt the dem leadership was also prepping for similar course of action given the concerns expressed by their leadership. Of course, if you do feel that way, we might as well just acknowledge that is the way the game is played and it’s silly to waste any emotion on it. The second statement is rejected because it’s hypocritical. The right to challenge is absolute, and doesn’t matter whether it’s 600 votes or 6,000,000. You’re arguing here for a different standard because you don’t like the rules, and whether you like them or not is irrelevant. The allegation, by the way, is millions of votes were impacted. Disregard the allegation, disregard the messenger, but know your stuff if you want to be taken seriously. I reject the third statement because you’ve shown an inability to make cohesive, consistent points over an extended period of time. I’ve never met DJT, care as much about his time golfing as I did about his predecessor, which is to say not at all. “Time on the golf course!” when describing politicians is the National Enquirer version of “Britney Spears Impregnated by Aliens!”. It seems like it might matter, it seems like you got something on somebody, but at the end of the day it only draws in the weak of mind and spirit. Who cares? I’ll ask you as well, so far no one has taken me up on my question. Is my approach to this discussion that of an extremist? Warmly,

And Dominion may be the best voting system ever invented, with 0.00 errors per million or a rate 100% greater than the closest competitor. If your analysis proves correct, then there is no harm in looking into it further. This isn’t a trick question— would you think including analysis of recent D presidential front runner Elizabeth Warren’s concerns about the system and the potential impact on—her words— the integrity of our elections, is a vital part of the story all Americans are entitled to hear during a discussion on election integrity? My liberal buddy on the West Coast fumbled a bit with this question— he ultimately told me he trusts the media (in his case, NBC Nightly News and the like) to weed out what citizens don’t need to hear.

At this point, I reject your characterization and allegations of coercion. Are your implying he has broken some law, and if so, can you provide a link? Jumping ahead, if it was DJT is doing is determined to be illegal, I would not be fine with that. Stepping back from that ledge for a minute, you’re a poster I avoided like the plague over the last year or two. It doesn’t really matter why, and I’m quite certain it didn’t matter to you one way or the other. Based on what I typed above, what’s unreasonable about my position? Not the part where I choose to see it through and you disagree, I’ll acknowledge you find that unreasonable.

Ah Shoshy, spoken like a true zealot. Stick to the subject, you’re wandering around like Joe Biden at a potter class. I’m fully and completely prepared to move on if your boy prevails. I just responded to another poster and remarked how angsty and emotional this all is for some, and how I was waiting for even a rudimentary legal argument that DJT has no lawful right to contest the election. I’m. Still. Waiting. While you dig that out, should the media address Trump’s concerns about Dominion and report on Warren’s concerns as well? I see no issues but several stories that could unfold: 1. They both were correct and dominion poses a threat to free and fair elections; 2. They both were wrong and we can rest assured that Dominion is awesome because xyz; 3. Warren was right, but Dominion took steps xyz to upgrade security and software; What day you? By ignoring the Warren story, is the press being honest and open?

Yet another mischaracterization, and sir, they are piling up. I never suggested that you were unhinged for your belief that Biden won the election fairly. I understand why you feel that way, perhaps if I was a Biden Boy I’d feel the same. I haven’t even gone so far as to suggest that there is proof of wrongdoing and that the outcome of the election was the result of widespread fraud. What I have said consistently from the beginning: 1. I believed Biden could win the election; 2. Upon conclusion of the election, I supported the current President’s right to pursue legal challenges vis a vis Gore v Bush; 3. That regardless of the outcome of the legal challenges, democracy and liberty are not being torn from this country before our very eyes (tearful though some may be); 4. I don’t understand what some of “you” are afraid of when you’re rock solid in your belief that nothing will change the outcome as you see it; 5. That I believe it’s highly likely that Biden will be the president come 1/21 for a variety of reasons; In response, I have received a whole buncha replies about feelings, fears, revisionist history and wiki quotes. I’ve had insults lobbed at me, been told I should be less condescending in response to a post that was crude and nonsensical, and most recently received a reply from a poster (you) referring to me as unpatriotic, a cultist, and of having blind devotion to DJT. What I have not received is any reply details illegal acts or behavior in DJTs lawful challenges. Why? Because the collective argument you have made all boil down to “it hurts my feelings”. F$&@ your feelings. There are lots of things I could say to you, in kind replies, but I chose to go with “unhinged” as we can disagree without being disagreeable. You’re being disagreeable. Point worth noting: W9 = no Mueller report x 4.

Ja, you’ve been entirely reasonable here. Your point on Sens Warren and Klobuchaer expressing the same types of concern within the past couple years would normally be enough to make people pause, but that’s not the environment we live in. Now, the mere fact that you bring it to the attention of people who would have voted for either one of those senators yields insults on a message board. The reality is, stepping away from the fact that this isn’t a CNN or MSNBC story for those into that sort of thing, an honest and impartial news organization should, when reporting on the concerns raised by DJT about dominion and the like include reports on the complaint raised by Warren and Klobuchaer. So, by pretending the concerns were never raised and failing to include that in the coverage, consumers of MSM “news” do not receive accurate information. I’m not suggesting they quote or give time to this particular guy, but when reporting on DJTs legal team, impartial news orgs would run the whole story. I would humbly suggest you follow Sidney Powell. She’s made specific comments and named key individuals that she claims are guilty of wrongdoing. She’ll have it, or not, and she’s at the right hand of DJT.

It seems to me that you are becoming increasingly agitated and slightly unhinged. You’ve made wild allegations about mysterious “cults”, odd characterizations about “pledging loyalty” apparently in some internet blood oath, you’ve offered in support of your position a passage from Wikipedia where any bugger-flicking middle schooler with an internet connection can add to the ‘facts’, chose to die on the hill of a government lifer roundly excoriated by both sides of the aisle for authoring a report that cost $31m and went nowhere fast, and trotted out strategically meaningless words like “leveraged”. If you can post the relevant parts of the 448 page report by Robert Mueller to support your wild-assed but gratuitously verbose claims, I would appreciate it. Just post the part that resulted in Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of The United States of America (according to your go-to The Wiki) being lead from office in cuffs, provided the undisputed smoking gun evidence of wrong-doing by DJT, resulted in him being removed from office immediately upon release of the report or anything else from the report you feel supports your claim. I would appreciate it if you stopped to consider the highly charged and hyper-partisan bent to the investigation, the unnecessary recusal that lead us to the point when Mueller crumbled and bumbled his way through the testimony, and the information that has been revealed about the Mueller’s investigation itself in the time since he returned to the Shady Acres Retirement Home. i would also appreciate it if you tried to steer clear of characterizations, insults and what seems to be a contrived attempt to rage like a high school cheerleader that just broke up with her bf. I understand your pain, your undying devotion to truth and Wikipedia and your assertion that in politics, R=R=R always (duh), but can you just go to the gosh-durn report? Regards.

441 more words, most from ”the wiki”. We’re up to 1262 separated entries you took the time to research, copy and paste and still refuse to pull the details of das Mueller report forward. What’s so hard about this? I’m not a military veteran, have a tremendous amount of respect for those that serve, but simply do not pledge undying respect and devotion to an individual because of that service. This is where I’d ask you about General Michael Flynn, post from the wiki, ask you to acknowledge his exemplary military status and the malicious prosecution that you likely applauded. Why bother? Let’s move on. This dialogue is going nowhere fast.

821 words, a meandering journey of accusations, innuendo, hypotheses and the state of American patriotism 2020. Why not just point to the parts in Herr Mueller’s treatise on Russian Collusion where he identifies specific acts of collusion and brings the hammer down? I appreciate the refresher on Article 1, but you don’t have to convince me—Herr Mueller surely laid it all out. Personally, I don’t recall it playing out that way—I remember the q & a of a timid old man who seemed lost at times, confused at others, and thoroughly befuddled by some basic questions that should have been anticipated and worked through in debate prep. As for smearing Harris, I simply pointed out the facts. She was chief interrogator of a man with decades of dedicated service to the America people (and to be fair, Harris herself has a reputation for service as well). I never suggested Ford recanted her story, she’s an activist who made allegations absent specificity beyond Kavanaugh...someplace...sometime. She was rewarded handsomely for her role in the scheme. Again, I’ll stipulate that you are correct in that the allegations leveled without any credible evidence were never disproven. Thank God our justice system does not require an accused person to prove something that never happened didn’t happen. For what it’s worth, I think an individual who would disqualify a highly capable person an opportunity to serve at a higher level based on the unsubstantiated, unverfiable musings of an unstable partisan is unsuitable to offer opinions regarding the patriotism of others. I do think a person so inclined would serve quite well on a tribunal in virtually every socialist country in the world.

-please provide the evidence of Russian collusion, pulled from das Mueller report. I’ll review and respond. -please provide evidence of obstruction of the crime of collusion, from das Mueller report. I’ll review and respond. -please provide supporting documentation of a gutless and spineless GOP, including rules of the senate that were violated by the GOP. Be specific so we can avoid wasting any time on discussions of the partisan nature of the congressional impeachment hearings. -please provide evidence of the aecond impeachable offense you’re referenced, and provide the documentation that supports your claim. -VP Harris was Chief interrogator on Ballsy’s unsubstantiated and unverified claim of violent sexual assault by BL. Additional salacious claims prosecuted and disseminated included accusations that BK participated in rape trains. That’s your girl there, and her reward for the destruction of a non-combatant with an impeccable record of service was VP. The rest of your post certainly tugs at my heart strings but I reject it outright as over-emotional gibberish.

Seriously--I read it. I absorbed it. I understood it. On some level, I want it to happen. I really do believe you personally hope for the best. We would likely agree on 80% of topics discussed and disagree respectfully on the other 20%. It cannot happen. Perhaps is there was a different nominee, someone looking to heal the nation, or not knee deep in attempting to steal my vote last time. The party in power, in this case, dems, can extend the olive branch all they want, but it's natural and predictable that the party out of power says "Oh, now you want to play nice? GTFOH.". We might as well get to it. If I am wrong, and we find some common ground, I'll be the first to acknowledge it. For now, I have no interest in it.

As is your right. That changes nothing.