leh-nerd skin-erd

Settle down Pippy Longstocking. You exposed yourself as a limited thinker a long time ago, and you’re not helping your case here. Pardons, last minute legislation and judicial appointments in the waning days of an admin are common, which makes the furor over SC Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment all the more humorous. Chuck Schumer was just complaining about the ongoing judicial appointments by Mitch McConnell as November/December roll on in partisan political fashion. I’ll ask you directly so as not to confuse you—the decision to push forward with ACB and other judicial appointments was correct especially in light of a looming Biden victory, yes? If I had an issue with that, I’d have included that so take a deep breath. I’m not trying to trick you here. If you see the expulsions of Russian diplomats as an admin clears out, or the demonization of a presidential candidate as an agent of the KGB as late night tomfoolery, I really do understand your vote for Joe. God bless you, Pippy.

Considered. Rejected as argumentative. Why are we spending time on “My dog is cooler than your dog!”? Lame duck shenanigans? I say to you what I said to my friend. Politically speaking, “Get the &$#@ outta here!”. I support it across the board. You’ll be fine.

Fair question. My liberal friend on the West Coast, was lamenting the lack of civility just the other day (after attempting to deflect on the over the 4 years of hostility towards DJT with the patented “I don’t want to talk about that!) and remarked how Obams had DJT to the WH for a meet and greet. I asked about the sudden expulsion of Russian diplomats on 12/29/2015, 7 weeks after the election and a mere 23 days before DJT was inaugurated. He didn’t know so much about that, and didn’t have much to offer. I see it as pretty simple, it was an action designed to cause chaos and international strife as the new President was settling in. I asked about the head of Obama’s FBI team attempting to destroy incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn in January 2017. Again, my perspective is that Obama’s FBI was looking to create process crimes designed to create chaos and confusion for the incoming administration. I asked about the CIA Director Brennan briefing to Obama and his team where he advised that the Clinton campaign was closely tied to the story attempting to paint Trump as a Russian agent. https://news.yahoo.com/dni-releases-cia-documents-hillary-204337457.html He wasn’t so sure on all those, but most def saw the photo op with Obama and Trump and drank deeply from the well. To me, the peaceful transition of power does not include these sorts of things. In fact, I see it much more in line with Michael Corleone appearing to have a peaceful conversation with his rival before going to the bathroom and grabbing the gun hidden behind the toilet. Biden should be kept in the outside fir as long as possible, and if it comes to pass, with luck DJT has an December surprise or two for him as well.

i also see dead people. does that make me weird(er)?

😂 I have no such pedigree—The closest we got to ND was watching the college games on the television because my Dad was a huge Irish fan for all the usual reasons. Oh, and in Boston one night last year, my wife (Mrs Skin-erd if you will) and I ducked into a bar in Boston. Busy as hell, this group of ND alumni were watching a/the game and offered us seats at the table. Had a blast and if you and Mr Mup were in the crowd, cheers!! As for part one—yup, I agree. If the allegations are true, we’re in deep. Btw, one other thing—i am struggling as to why a couple wealthy players on the team— Sidney Powell and Lin Wood, would wade so deep into serious accusations if they had absolutely nothing to go on. Both are quite wealthy, well-regraded and they aren’t shooting spitballs, they’re lobbing grenades at this issue with Dominion. Again, just chatting here, given the concerns expressed by Elizabeth “Dances with Beers” Warren about major challenges with the program, I’m intrigued.

I appreciate the effort put forth and have very few issues with what you post. I do not accept everything you say as factual, and feel like I do not need to. The other day, you quoted from Vox, and referenced a book that was titled something like "Trump is the most horrible human being ever". I started to reply and thought, geesh, what's the point? A guy wrote a book, you believe it's an accurate representation of the world and that's fine. I really enjoyed the novel "It" back in college, but I don't think there are clowns in the sewer. Your argument is irrefutable--human error occurs when human's are involved. Your second statement--"for the most part these are caught and corrected...." is conjecture. Pure conjecture, as in, just because you say it doesn't mean it is so. Bernie Madhoff did amazing things as an investment guru for many, many people, until he didn't. I'm skeptical by nature, and cynical as well. I'll share some general thoughts about people and systems: I believe that systems can be hacked, and that algorithms can be manipulated to effect a desired outcome. Since I believe that generally, when an allegation is made that malfeasance occurred, I consider the source and continue on; I believe in the innate goodness of many people, and the corruption of people in power. You and yours sit here, day after day, year after year, howling about DJT, believing incredible stories of hookers and urine (pee pee), screaming about corruption and then suggest "NOTHING TO SEE HERE--Trust me!". I don't care--seriosuly--don't care what you think, and I certainly do not trust those in power anymore than your trust Trump; I believe that people will, if possible, attempt to influence the election through just about every form of illegal activity known to man. Software. Pipe breaks. Mail fraud. Dead people voting. Keeping poll watchers at bay. Intimidation. Harrassment. Murder. It's simply the human condition. The interesting part to me is that you believe it too, you just target the other guy. And, to be fair to you--I really don't know if you're the one true angel left in the world who believes that the election system is beyond reproach, but id you are God bless you. Here's where I'm at: Thousands of ballots have been recovered in Georgia, previously uncounted, potentially disenfranchised voters. We can write it off to incompetence, or wonder if there is something else afoot, and I'm not ready to write it off as pure incompetence; I've read reports of severe and substantial issues with Dominion software, including a very concerning letter written by Sens Warren and Klobuchaer in early 2019. The sum and substance is--this thing sucks, its easy to manipulate and the integrity of our election is at stake. The oft-cited report of vote tallies being shut down with Trump far ahead, a sudden spike in votes for Biden...troubles me. There may be a perfectly legitimate reason for the spike--and yes, I've read stories purporting to debunk the idea of fraud, but I'm not yet convinced. Since I'm not convinced, I say fight on; The story out Wayne County, Michigan involving the certification process troubles me. It seems to me that intimidation and coercion played a large part in decisions made there, and it validates my thought that while lots of people are good, many are not. I'm interested in the outcome of the Wisconsin recount. The entire system for counting votes in Pennsylvania seems odd to me. The allegations made today are that there were violations of election law, and unequal protection under the law as it related to city v rural areas. When all is said and done, I've been clear that I think Joe Biden will be president of the country on 1/20. I'll likely arrive at that point convinced there was substantial chicanery (funny business) that aided him along the way. Still, I see absolutely nothing wrong with DJT pursuing litigation and telling the story they feel needs to be told along the way. Thanks for the clarification, too, btw, but I know what the word 'posit' means. I went to Catholic school, received an excellent education(schoolin) and read, you know, books 'n such. Peace out.

So, I'll just mark you down as not having the link to Tibsy's post, either?

Division works. In an us v them world, you simply have to choose us. In fact, even if you're them, you would choose us.

I always feel I owe it to myself to at least try and participate in the dialogue. Here's the way I see this most recent dialogue: Tibs: "It's blue, and it's always been blue. How can you possibly defend that?" LS: "I don't know what you mean, can you explain?" WC: "What's your problem? He couldn't be clearer--he said 'blue'. Everyone knows 'blue'!" Everyone laments the other guy's echo chamber, but does their level best to create their own.

Clarity is subjective, and I feel the question was quite leading and devoid of facts or substantiation. I’m always happy to provide a reply but need for intel. Send a link if you have one. Thank you.

What are you asking me. Use your words.

I appreciate your acknowledgement of Bush as President-Elect. I began to feel like I was driving through crazy town before you ask Shosh stepped up. I’m not an attorney but I’m comfortable learning as we go here. As for Bush Gore, one could argue the entire question was an attempt to upset the apple cart and unseat the lawfully elected president. Be that as it may, we know that emotions ran high both before and after the matter was resolved. Let’s move on secure in the knowledge we had this brief moment in time where we agreed.

Good for you and I appreciate your honesty on Bush being President-Elect. I had no interest in spending time on that, but other board members took issue with the discussion. Other than you, no one chose to address the question I asked, presumably tapping out on what seems obvious to you and I. Again, I acknowledge stating the Trump has some of the most vaunted legal minds in the country on his team. I gave you two names and you rejected their credentials. Old man fan did the same. I feel like I’m arguing who the best running back in NFL history is, and I’ll acknowledge your thoughts and call it a day.

Yes, I considered that possibility, outlined clearly in the paragraph that you took the time to reply to. I assume you have some type of reading comprehension issue, or a disorder that causes you to regurgitate information blissfully unaware of the context of the original text. Either way, it’s pointless to engage further if you don’t follow basic concepts.

The myth of an orderly transition of power is just that. Biden will be fine if he gets in--he's waxed eloquently on his COVID plan, he can normalize relations with the Chinese, he can get more cash to the Iranians as soon as January 22, and he's a 50 year diplomat. Rumor has it he's getting all sorts of briefings on the downlow. I'm wondering what December surprise DJT might have for him. Does he expel the Chinese "diplomats" or those of another nation intent on doing us harm? I think it would be pretty interesting to see how Biden responds to that sort of thing. Still-I pass on your request.

Interesting. We went from being compelled to submit because the very nature of our republic is at stake, to being compelled to submit because we are coddling a misbehaving child. Powerful stuff. The solution according to OMF---surrender your rights. comply, and let's get the functioning adult who triumphed over a stutter and his opponent George Bush. It's incredibly presumptuous to presume you have any right to ask me to get behind you in line. I decline.

You don't have to speculate, I was clear on what I said and who I consider a significant member of his team. As for those who chose not to continue, I personally believe that it's a mistake to assume they moved on simply because of the merits of the/a case. That's certainly a possibility. However, based on the level of hatred and death threats leveled at participants, it's certainly a possibility that folks withdrew due to fear of retaliation and treats to them or their family. It's a cottage industry these days.

How does that change what I said? I'm open to any reasonable reply.

It would be the height of foolishness to suggest that Al Gore didn’t have excellent representation during the failed attempt to win the presidency through the legal decree in 2000. I’m not that foolish. The narrative here has been DJT has one lawyer and it’s Rudy Giuliani. Hop on the train if you like, it makes you appear no less foolish than those who are pushing the narrative.

Sometimes, we have an opportunity to find some common ground. It requires some introspection and willingness to apply common sense to a subject. I'll give it a try here: The original knock on my position was that I called Biden the media President. Multiple people took issue with that characterization, and you posted on that topic. You asked me some questions specifically about the treatment Biden received relative to other presidents. I went back 20 years, referenced Bush v Gore, and linked a news article from the NYT dated 11/27/2000. That was 20 days after the election, and one day after Florida officials publicly declared Bush the winner of the state. Here's another swing at it: https://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/26/politics/bush-is-declared-winner-in-florida-but-gore-vows-to-contest-results.html In this case, the Times acknowledges the results of Florida's certification process, giving W Bush 271 EC votes. As I said yesterday, partisanship aside, and recognizing the unofficial nature of the term "President-Elect", George W Bush was THE President-Elect. It's not debatable. At the risk of repeating myself, had Gore been successful in his challenge, George W Bush would have no longer been President-Elect. I acknowledge your comments regarding the nature of Gore's complaint-which were largely impotent, but that doesn't change anything with respect to the concept of President-Elect. Here's my question for you--are you willing to set your hostility aside for a bit and answer the question---was George W Bush the "President-Elect' as commonly used in media publications when Florida certified their election and gave him the 271 EC votes? I'll ask @WideNine, @jrober38 and @shoshin the same question. Updated to include @oldmanfan to the list. I can’t be accused of discriminating against the elderly. Oh Shohsy, I get it. DJT has one lawyer and no one on his team that has any legal skill. They should have tried to get that guy who won that Sandman kid all that money.

Sure, here are two: https://www.federalappeals.com/attorneys/sidney-powell/ https://www.linwoodlaw.com/attorney/l-lin-wood/

The problem is that the “free press” is not necessarily free, nor press. I don’t agree with DJT on the “enemy of the people” comment, but I strongly believe that media types are often the enemy of accurate information. I’ve tried to pay attention to the business side of reporting—driven by advertising and circulation, appealing to a certain crowd that has certain biases. I try to pay particular attention to the use of anonymous sources, and have had lengthy and often hostile debate about verification and trustworthiness of such sources. As a former journalism student, I understand the need to protect some sources, but the danger of blind trust in journalists using anonymous sources is extremely troubling to me. To boot, having had some media training, it’s important to note that not all stories are created equally. There are friendly interviews, hostile interviews, blind interviews, stories that are copied/clipped and pasted out of context—-all under the guise of “trust the free and independent press!”. One of the more frequently used techniques is for a reporter or journalist to report on a story interpreting what was said/done using words or phrases specifically for effect. This allows for the appearance of neutral reporting while there is a substantial effort to shape the narrative. That doesn’t work for me anymore. So, I seek out alternate source, attempt to cross reference where possible, and routinely disregard anonymous sources as it relates to controversial stories about DJT.

“President-elect” is a ceremonial term. It’s important and descriptive when everyone is in agreement as to who won the election, but at the same time, it doesn’t really mean all that much at all. For example, if the term President-Elect bestowed upon the honoree all privilege and power of the Presidency, folks on your side would not have to kvetch and moan about Biden being kept out of intelligence briefings. In 2000, the dispute indeed boiled down to one state and 600 votes when all was said and done. While true, it’s also true that Florida had certified the election results and declared Bush the winner of the race. In that sense, and understanding that the phrase means an awful lot to some, but not a heck of a lot to all, W Bush was THE President-Elect as the phrase is commonly used. Disputed? Yes. Contested? Yes. Just a regular guy—no. Had Gore prevailed and the script flipped, he would have been President-Elect and W Bush would have relinquished the imaginary crown. No, the situations are not “totally the same” nor did I claim they were. In W Bush’s case, the media often acted as partial arbiter, at least insofar as the commonly accepted standard for an unofficial designation. In Biden’s case, the rush to coronation was deliberate and fierce.

My reaction would be the same as it is now, the same as it was when Al Gore went to court. The difference is that as Trump supporter, I’d look at the legal process with concern that it might be successful because just about anything can happen. I’d not be wailing about the end of democracy, the assault on freedom, dictatorships and despots. On the other hand, I’m not a soft as butter liberal. As for my suggestion at this time that Biden is the media president, I’m not sure what your beef is with that. He’s not the president, the media refers to him as the president elect based on their interpretation of the race(s), but he’s yet to be certified and his opponent has contested the race. So, the media calls him X, what else is he? Maybe Future President Biden? Not Yet Certified President Biden? Soon to be Certified President If Trump Fails Biden? It’s a media term, applicable at times, not at others. As for R and D presidents past, you don’t have to wonder...the other side conceded the race because they did not contest it. Trump/Prom Queen: uncontested/conceded, the race was over Obama/Handsome Nutless Dan: same Obama/McCain same Bush/Kerry same Bush/Gore: well looky looky: Check this out..NYT article from11/27/2000. Florida had certified W Bush as winner of the state, the only one in doubt, but “VP Gore” contested it, and thus the entire race...and not one reference to “President-Elect” Bush. https://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/27/politics/gore-lawyers-file-challenges-to-contest-election-results.html I wonder what the difference was THEN?

Everyone’s feelings go in the Feelings Box of 2020, that’s the point of the box. We used to use a Feelings Bag, but with the emotional upheaval over DJT not following then script many demanded he follow, there been an uptick in submissions. Btw what’s an example of a non-crazy lunatic?