leh-nerd skin-erd

You believe he’s a Russian agent. You voted for Joe Biden, a man your parents, grandparents and perhaps great grandparents recognized was a boob 45 years ago. DJT will be fine either way- and your feelings shall be placed in the Feelings Box of 2020. All you’ve done here is grandstanded, lad. You’ve offered a narrow world view based on your small view of the world, positioned it as fact and believe you have deftly backed me into a corner. If the destination has been reached you wouldn’t have to say anything further, yet you did, because you’re wrong. The “reality” as you see it is nothing of the sort, there are 70m Americans patiently waiting for the answer to so many questions. His lawyers...simply not true. He has some of the most vaunted legal minds in the county working on his behalf. As you said, he has a few legal chances left and for reasons I don’t understand you want him to be able to pursue those challenges. That’s not the way our system works. As I said, rest easy. You’ve already said you know what’s going to happen—it silly to waste your breath on this with me.

In which case, there certainly is no harm in seeing it through. We’ll be where we are when we get there.

I knew who you were talking about because you told me multiple times. That was never the issue, it was your insistence on clinging to a narrative someone else likely provided you and was demonstrably false. I’m assuming by now that you’ve done some research as I suggested and are trying to save face. Seriously—there is no need for that. If it makes your pants tight to call me an idiot or an extremist, that’s your burden to carry. In the meantime, you are welcome.

I understand that you think the President has one attorney, and he’s going to be disbarred. That anyone who has paid the slightest bit of attention to American politics in the past couple years would say that out loud is what I find surprising. Thanks.

If it’s done, how could he pursue additional action?

Yes. It’s why I’ve constantly suggested the following: DJT pursuing his options within the framework of the law is his right regardless of whether or not you like it. What we hear constantly is how damaging it is to our process that he’s actually following the process. **just an fyi, I acknowledged allegations of death threats. Personally, I’m very concerned that votes seem to pop up out of nowhere as they dig deeper and deeper into the process. The question of the actual outcome in Geo is outstanding. I do not advocate Trump laying siege to Atlanta, but support his fight for transparency for as long as necessary.

Again, you can choose to believe what you wish, but it’s easily disproven if you open your eyes. Btw, one of the challenges facing those who believe in election fraud is the very real threat of violence against them and their families. It’s the same challenge we’ll face if any part of the challenge ends up at the SC— where a constitutionalist such as ACB may well be faced with the question of whether or not to apply the law v have her children threatened and harmed. But since the president has only one lawyer about to get disbarred for pursuing legal remedy, you’ll have to keep your pitchforks out in the shed for a while.

Ok, so now we know how you feel. Thankfully, we have folks pursuing the issues that folks like you see as unimportant. If “all his lawyers quit on him” you have nothing to fear. I’m uncertain where you get your intel but that’s patently false. Don’t let other people lead you around by the nose—even if they are willing to save your financial crisis by buying you off with the $75 visit to the doctor when you get the sniffles. Get out and read a book bro.

You’ll never see it. Medicare, Social Security, et al don’t work in a dollars in/dollars out sense because they are not established a such. The appeal to a jrob is the free fair stuff, someone has to give something up so he can feel good about the stuff he gets. Any program can be set up to thrive, but when you ignore actuarial principles, it never works. Medicare has been around for nearly 60 years, and it functions as it was meant to—at a massive cash defective. CBO says by 2049, the shortfall will be $44trillion. Jrobs sees more of this as a good thing while gnashing his choppers at defecit spending.

Ok jrobs, the election hasn’t been contested at all. What are you complaining about? It would not disenfranchise anyone if the vote was illegitimate. It would most definitely disenfranchise if the vote was legitimate. Is the question for me, today, or are you referencing the statement on election integrity in 2018? The statement outlines the vote switching from 2 years ago. Is that not sufficient evidence for you?

Do I think he’s pursuing legal challenges? Yes, I’ve said that all along. Do I think he should? Yes, if he feels the evidence supports his contention. Do I think it does? Yes, I’m getting there and feel it’s worth some hurt feelings on your side of things to fight the good fight. The concerns about election security predate this year. In 2018, specific concerns were raised about dominion and the integrity of elections. Was DJT OR R leadership setting the table for this legal challenge 2 years ago when this concern was raised? “In 2018 alone, 'voters in South Carolina [were] reporting machines that switched their votes after they'd inputted them, scanners [were] rejecting paper ballots in Missouri, and busted machines [were] causing long lines in Indiana,'” the letter reads. “In addition, researchers recently uncovered previously undisclosed vulnerabilities in "nearly three dozen backend election systems in 10 states." And, just this year, after the Democratic candidate's electronic tally showed he received 164 votes out of 55,000 cast in a Pennsylvania state judicial election in 2019, the county's Republican chairwoman said, "nothing went right on Election Day. Everything went wrong. That's a problem." 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 don’t see it happening. However, if it’s legal—and I question stories like this intended to rule up low information voters and overly emotional nimrods—-the process would be designed to do exactly the opposite of what you’re suggesting. He would not be overturning the election, he would simply be seeking the appropriate resolution to a hotly contested election. We’re a nation of laws, and pursuit of a just outcome is reasonable even if you feel it kicks you in the niblets. Credit to the author though for acknowledging what few here see as true, but what is obvious to the informed—Biden is the media president only at this point. It’s going to be an interesting couple weeks.

I am only repeating what is true. There is no requirement that Trump or his supporters submit simply because others want us to. If and when the time comes to transition, it will take place. The government survived nearly 4 years of “Our prez is a Russian!”. We’ll be fine.

This is the sort of thing that brings me back and keeps me engaged. You read a piece comparing Keith Richard and his addiction battle to a President seeking relief in the courts after an election? In this story—the hero is a geriatric rock star, a person who lead a life of excess most could only dream of (if so inclined), who inexplicably voluntarily chose to dance with a drug notorious its addictive qualities, a guy who likely treated thousands of insecure people as jiz receptacles over his 60 years of fame, and who should have been dead by the mid 1960s? He’s the noble fighter—fighting off those around him, refusing to succumb to his own desires and Trump the villain for waging a legal fight? Keith Richard is a dumb ass. He lived hard, developed an addiction and lived the life of an addict thereafter. That doesn’t make him a bad guy, he’s been incredibly successful playing music, but he’s just another addict dealing with addiction. The hero, if folks reading politico need such things, would be a rock star who chose not to shoot up a very dangerous drug in spite of the temptations all around. Anyway, it explains why folks like Michael brown ascend to Sainthood after attempting to ***** the life of another citizen. Some people believe anything. As for MacArthur, where is the parallel with DJT pursing legal remedy? Did you leave that part out? The better analogy is Al Gore. If you’re right, Trump will quickly fade away and be ignored but other than that, it’s an odd analogy.

And that’s why I included information dealing with election concerns in 2018. This issue predated 2020 and the end of democracy according to kemp the lesser.

The folks on this board have an increasingly odd habit of pretending to uncover great truth while regurgitating exactly what was said in the text they are replying to. me: “I think Biden would do the same thing as Trump.” kemp, the lesser: “What you’re saying is you think Biden would do what Trump is doing”. I’m saying what I said. It’s clear, unambiguous and direct. I should be applauded for keeping it under 5000 words. By the way, the current approved term is boogeyperson. I included a summary paragraph as to why I’m concerned about election issues. I’m just uncertain why it doesn’t bother you, Kemp. In other words, I’m not sure why it doesn’t bother you. Why are you not concerned about software issues form 2018?

I respect your right to hold a different opinion, but your opinion really doesn’t change anything. My question comes back to “What is there to be afraid of in pursuing lawful challenges to the process?”. For all the handwringing and raging here and online, the message point seems to be he should disregard his rights as a candidate because people think he should. DJT received the courtesy of subterfuge—nothing more and nothing less. From the innuendo of Russian collusion to the expulsion of diplomats by Obama in late December, to the targeting of his administration by the Obama DOJ. As time went on, the scheming got worse, and the attacks became more viscous. There was no courtesy, no honor, and with 70% of republican voters concerned about election fraud (as I read somewhere today), the right choice is to soldier on. Biden and his crew will be fine, as will his supporters. He’s been a VP, a senator and been dialed in to our intelligence agencies for decades.

Very sad to hear—loved my time there as brief as it was.

As a general rule, some of the most dour and uninspiring people on the planet. Btw--heard Australia is doing well with the Covid crisis. True?

I prefer Hulkamaniacs but we're all creatures in God's Kingdom.

Who's treating the SC with deference? Accusations of violent sexual assault, the implication that the most recent nominee was a colonizer, another nominee not getting a hearing, conspiracy theories around the death of one and mockery for another who stayed about 45 days too few.

What's your question? If they feel there was fraud that impacted the election, the way you put your country before party is to allow lawful challenges to proceed. Off the top of my head, both Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham support the attempt to clear things up. I think you have it backwards. I feel like you're angry about something that isn't a thing. There's time to see this through, and as I've said before, if you're right, you'll end up in exactly the same spot on 1/20/21 as you would have been without the legal challenge. These things take time.

I based my opinion on the following: He was a key figure in the attempt to unseat DJT with the Russian narrative, implying to me he's a win at all costs and leave 'em bleeding in the street liberal. It was very interesting to me to discover that Biden was fully briefed on the Clinton effort to tie DJT to Russia prior to the 2016 election--based on testimony and documentation involving John In addition, I think it's part and parcel to the Political Bloodsport of the day. I think while it's easy to target DJT because he has decided to pursue his options, I think the sentiment expressed here could just as easily have been the sort of thing Biden would fall back on had he lost: “In 2018 alone, 'voters in South Carolina [were] reporting machines that switched their votes after they'd inputted them, scanners [were] rejecting paper ballots in Missouri, and busted machines [were] causing long lines in Indiana,'” the letter reads. “In addition, researchers recently uncovered previously undisclosed vulnerabilities in "nearly three dozen backend election systems in 10 states." And, just this year, after the Democratic candidate's electronic tally showed he received 164 votes out of 55,000 cast in a Pennsylvania state judicial election in 2019, the county's Republican chairwoman said, "nothing went right on Election Day. Everything went wrong. That's a problem." 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.” Thanks for the reminder: Germany...check. 1930s...check. Dodged a bullet...check. Lies more than the liar I like...check. Causes civil unrest...check. Ignores pandemic...check. Hate...check. Prayers for a less liarly liar to save us...check. I'm so much smarter than everyone else, why can't people see that...check. The sorrowful angst of liberals. Whatchagonnado?

Germany...check. 1930s...check. Dodged a bullet...check. Lies more than the liar I like...check. Causes civil unrest...check. Ignores pandemic...check. Hate...check. Prayers for a less liarly liar to save us...check. The sorrowful angst of liberals. Whatchagonnado?

This is a fair question. I’d expect Biden to say he’s won in the same scenario, and would expect he would be following the same course of action as DJT is following now. Well, he’d be arguing he beat Bob Dole but other than that, same same.