leh-nerd skin-erd

As I said, Joe McCarthy says “Hey girl hey”.

It’s pretty simple really. When you accuse the duly elected president of treason and treasonous behavior, it’s on you knock him out and remove him from office. When you have a team of partisans at your disposal with ungodly power to investigate with no limitations, no budgetary constraints, and no timeline to price your case and come up with nothing but your d*ck in your hand, it’s obvious you had nothing to begin with. The wild card really was all the people like you who still buy it. Fritz Mueller and his band of merry men could have told you Trump was born Ivan Drago in Leningrad to highly placed KGB agents and raised a super spy but they....just....couldn’t...prove it and you would believe it. I don’t think Joe McCarthy in his wildest dreams could have ever hoped for such a pliable populace to manipulate.

Had no idea he was a WNY guy. Thanks!

I ignored your question because it was a dumb question, Chief. It was accusatory by design, and thus gets moved to the trash can immediately. Based on your second paragraph, I’m assuming you’ve seen the complaint detailing the two counts you’ve outlined. I have not but will assume you’re on it. As for you final question, there is nothing for me “to fall back on”. I’m not being sued, I’m not suing anyone, and have no idea what did or did not happen in a dressing room or anywhere else in what appears to be a roughly 25 month period 25 or 30 years ago. Generally speaking, in a civil case, I defer to common sense and a standard that can be best be summed up as “is it reasonable?”. It’s common knowledge that the success or failure of a civil lawsuit often hinges on who makes the best witness, which side tells the best story, the makeup of the jury and the venue in which the case is heard. When you factor in the exorbitant sums of money involved, it’s often difficult to determine who the actual victim is. So, assuming DJTs DNA is present on the dress, there are a few different scenarios that come to mind. Consensual sex. Non consensual contact. Mutual *****. Violent sexual assault. A scheme perpetrated to defraud the defendant. The dress belongs to someone else. In these scenarios, all I can do is watch and wait to see what happens. Certainly, the time factor, the lack of recall on when the assault was alleged to occur, any reporting to the police and or hospital visit will factor into the way I view this sort of thing. That should all come out in the trial. As for the first allegation, that Trump said he never met her, well, that’s easy enough to explain. Would you hold him accountable for neglecting to recall the key grip on the second season of the apprentice? Well, I know you would, but would reasonable people consider in his 70+ years as a businessman, real estate magnate, presidential candidate and TV star that he recalls every person he ever met? Frankly, he might actually recall her and chose to say he didn’t. On the obvious follow up point, with the number of females he’s likely bedded or had some level of relations with, is it reasonable he remembers them all, or even that he wants to admit he remembers them all? I don’t think so, and would apply the same logic to George Clooney, Mick Jagger, most pro-basketball players and even the Indian from the Village People. This is pure speculation on my part, but on the allegation that Trump raped her, it’s entirely possible there will be definitive proof she will supply to prove her case. If she does, I’m 100% supportive of a jury verdict in her favor. If the argument alone is [dress/jizz/obviously rape occurred] she doesn’t meet a reasonable standard for me to vote on her behalf. That said, what I think will happen is that the case will follow the Kavanaugh mold. There will be gaps in the story, recollection of key dates and events will be sketchy, there will be no physical evidence of violent assault, and we’ll hear that the plaintiff told a trusted confidant at some point later on in life. That model works. We’ll be told that victims of sexual assault often follow similar patterns, and I believe that to be true. Unfortunately, it’s also the pattern followed by fraudsters and scam artists as they pursue paydays in the civil system where it boils down to little more than he said/she said and which attorney is better on his/her feet than the other. He could be guilty and win; He could be innocent and lose; She could be the biggest scam artist in history and prevail; She could be as trustworthy as Mother Theresa and get steamrolled. It also could be somewhere in the middle. On the other hand, maybe DJT sees the canonization of a Kobe Bryant post-assault allegations and opt to buy her out. That’s probably his safe play. It’s hard to say really. That’s the problem with the civil justice standard, sometimes it’s all about feelz.

Settle down Skippy. You’re confusing two separate issues. The allegation has been made that DJT is the defendant in a “rape lawsuit”. I haven’t read anything that suggests that is accurate. What I have read is that the plaintiff in a civil matter is seeking damages for defamation of character. I didn’t take the time to try and find the original S&C, but if you have it send me a linky dinky do. So, yes, I am interested in gaining understanding as to what you and yours are alleging specifically with regard to this case. If you allegation is that DJT sexually assaulted this woman, and that DJT is under criminal investigation/has been arrested for same, stop $&$#ing around with this dipshittery and get it on the table. I will say that when I asked @Warcodered for details to substantiate his statement about a “rape lawsuit” he didn’t respond. My assumption is that in spite of his biases, he comprehends what he reads.

Well, if acknowledging the legality of a president to issue pardons is tripping you up, someone is probably to blame someone for your inability to apply reason to everyday events. It isn’t me.

Don’t apologize to me, it’s a waste of time for both of us. The last four or five years of dem ‘leadership’ reflects neither ‘norms’ nor anything close to ‘the rule of law’. Russia and accusations of treason isn’t anything new, Joe McCarthy ran the same game not all that long ago. The difference today is that the status quo folks like you seem willing, and more problematic, eager to stand in line behind the accusers without a second thought. You’re easily manipulated because you’ve been conditioned to think like a victim. The larger problem is that it works, and as a result, the game continues to be played as such, albeit more aggressively each cycle. You asked for it, so buckle up. Thanks. When did he allegedly rape her?

See, the silliness of your logic starts with “No previous POTUS...”. You’re myopic to a fault, sir. Change the seat, change the pardoned individual and someone else just like you is saying exactly the same thing. From there, you supersize the silly with “has so blatantly abused the pardon power...”. If you’re making the point that what he is doing is illegal, make that point. The fact is simple: he exercised the presidential pardon power, the fact that it torques your walnuts doesn’t make it an abuse of anything. As for the pardoning of his political allies, man, I’m personally hard-pressed to do anything but applaud him for his decision there. No need to revisit the Russia inv, but from my perspective it’s pretty simple—those folks got caught up in a political $hyt show the likes of which we’ve never seen before. Pardon all, pardon often. It’s the way it works in politics so why fret over it?

Disappointing. The Fox News angle is the stuff of the small-minded, especially in light of the outcome of the “law and order” Mueller Witch Project. Surely we can hope for more from the apparatus than a confused old man babbling in front of Congress, seemingly unfamiliar with the content of the report written on his behalf. This was not the Christmas miracle I had hoped for.

The amazing part is that he didn’t pardon any of the folks targeted during the no-holds barred partisan 4 year investigation into every aspect of his personal and political life. oh, wait....

Amen Brother—good to hear from you and I hope you are well. Merry Christmas Boyo.

Talk to me G money. What’s a rape lawsuit? Please be specific on the case your talking about—time date place and litigants.

Thanks for the acknowledgment about fiber. I do have it friend, you might be surprised to find that I’m a good and decent human being. Russia = Trump = Treason was flat out bull####. Those who bought it did so in large part because they’re gullible and emotional souls. In this regard, the con man (your words) was the victim of politics run amok. Why you and yours cling to the narrative is anyone’s guess.

I wasn’t arguing. I was saying if you think presidents and parties don’t maximize use of pardons for personal political gain, you’re a fool. Thank you for the clarity, you went with the ...”not to this extent” argument that’s so fashionable for liberal voters these days. Sound reasoning. Thanks for clarifying your point on ‘sneak’. That’s most definitely a thing, done all the time. Oh yeah, but only because of the “extent” rule. When Biden was accused of sexual assault by Tara Reade, I think the argument was that while he was alleged to have forcefully penetrated her with his fingers, it wasn’t to the “extent” that it mattered because as a non-Biden supported she was disposable.

Compelling stuff Buf. Edge of the seat observation. I hadn't thought of a presidential pardon as political in any way/shape/form in the past. This is the first time ever, and of course goes along with @transplantbillsfan and @Bob in Mich theory that no president has ever lied about anything ever. It's pretty shocking. Of course you're right --all the pardons that went before were those issued out of the goodness of presidential hearts to right wrongs and set the wrongly accused free. I am curious though--How would he "sneak" the Maxwell pardon in? Are you suggesting that there are secret pardons beyond the 65 that cause you such olfactory distress?

Russia was a hoax as sold to the American public, especially to the most gullible that walk amongst us. We now know, for example, that the CIA briefed the Obama admin as early as 2016 about the origins of the Steele dossier and the Clinton campaign's fingers in that pie. Yet...throughout 2016...2017...2018...not a peep from the Obama peeps, the former director of the CIA, nor Biden hisself. So, that little gem is kept secret as you and your couch potato barbarians are screaming for blood and agonizing over the future of the republic. In fairness, Biden may have forgotten about it, and maybe Dr. Jill didn't mention in during the canasta game(s) from 2-3:30 m/w/f. Regardless, media outlets like das VaPo with all it's inroads and deep sources missed all of that. Certainly, it could be rank incompetence, or deceptive sourcing from those that shall not be named, but the point remains the same. Drink deeply from the media = untouchable well, my brother. Certainly history is on your side that people in the propaganda business can be trusted implicitly.

Pardons are always an issue, just depends on who ya voted for.

Oh my, I've awakened the sleeping media apologist of Mililani Mauka! So, if I read you right--one of the 'central problems of the last 4 years' is me responding to a posting that someone else here cherry picked, offering perspective on 'anonymous sourcing' with no context v including a direct quote from 117 hours earlier and I'm the 'central problem'? Thats high level tom foolery, my man, but kudos to you for charging up the hill on this particular issue. As an aside--I think it's telling that you would place this type of interaction at the top of the problem chart over the past four years--and especially over the past 12 months. It speaks volumes about your particular situation v the struggles others might be having, but again, that's simply because you're part of the system and the system always get fed well. If I'm understanding you right--this issue boils down to: The media is always right; When the media is not right, it's a typo. I'll be real witcha too---blind trust in your media gods is foolish. Always. Blind trust in anonymous sourcing from 'deep within' makes the believer a dimwit. Always. You always have the right to demand more. You precious media conglomerates are profit-driven enterprises by nature, it's acceptable to call them out on crap like this. You won't lose your lib card, and you may still walk away believing the double secret secretary's cousin's friends uncle who says Trump ain't leaving, but I'm not sure why you're picking this particular topic to draw a line in the sand? By the way, it's not just a media thing, you shouldn't blindly trust anyone: bankers/cell phone providers/attorneys/school teachers/priests/insurance salesmen/police officers/seamstresses/government employees and so on... See on your side, someone daring to question the status quo is the problem. To me, it's the solution. In this case, you went out of your way to paint me as a conspiracy theorist when I simply replied to a post about DJT refusing to leave the White House (in a thread entitled If Trump Loses and Refuses to Leave). I included a link to bolster my claim that the article was either intentionally manipulative or woefully lacking in providing the reader with relevant information. That makes me the problem? GTFOH! As for Trump v Media--it's not even close. Stack the media v the 48 months of the US of Trump and the media fails miserably. You know that, I know that, and my boy @Bob in Mich knows that as well. I've long said that while the media with it's highly placed sources missed on virtually every significant report on Russia Russia Russia, I don't always know if it's due to incompetence or malfeasance. I mean I do, but let's pretend you're right and there's an alternate explanation. You wrote it off as 947 bad reporting days in a row, I think you go out of your way to explain away troubling behavior just as you did with a certain presidential candidate. But here's the cool thing--in spite of your heart-wrenching angst over Trump and lies--and man, this was powerful emotional stuff here--you were able to suck it all up and get a 5 decade liar of your own into the WH. On the other hand--you made me laugh today, Transpy, and laughter is good for the soul in the troubling times that some of us face. In the end, I simply reject your fundamental belief system of "WaPost Uber Alles'. Found this picture from your 'Transpy Loves Joe and the Media' folder

Focus. This isn’t about Trump, it’s not about me, it’s about you. You’re so turned around you’re pointing to people you despise to validate your thought process. As for your voyeuristic tendencies, I’m a little creeped out, but I admit it’s nice to be noticed.

Put aside your hatred for 20 seconds. The story uses anonymous sources to create a narrative. In essence it’s a rumor backed up by nothing concrete whatsoever. I certainly understand if it flips your trigger—that’s the reason they write stories like that to begin with—they manipulate those willing to be manipulated due to hatred, naïveté, or their own personal bias. On the other hand, there is a statement from the subject of the hit piece less than 60 days earlier that paints an entirely different picture. They chose not to cite that statement, and one if left to wonder why. Well, I don’t wonder why. It’s psychological grooming 101, I’m just surprised people fall for it in 2020.

Are you thinking they go after him under the Sleeping Dog Doctrine or the Finger Lift Statute? Both are aggressive plays for sure, and would turn Washington on its ear.

Not really. It’s just that Josh wasn’t born until the 139th trimester.

And, the reality is that there has been no rhyme or reason to lockdowns beyond the consistency of inconsistency. As near as I can tell, according to some here, DJTs statement should have been something like this: We're entering an unprecedented time in American history, where a novel virus has arrived at our nation's doorstep. For some, especially those with underlying health issues and the elderly, the virus will be devastating. For many of us, the virus will make you sick but you'll recover, and for the vast majority the impact will be negligible. In order to protect the most vulnerable, tens of thousands of our citizens must be willing to sacrifice their freedom and their livelihood. Businesses will fail by the scores. Many of you without a safety net will be cast into a pit of despair, but rest assured it will be for the greater good. Along the way, many will thrive. Big Box retailers like Home Depot and Lowes will enjoy unprecedented prosperity as despite the pandemic, it is vitally important that Americans be able to buy their petunias in the spring. Amazon will thrive. The list of winners will include workers in the public sector asked to sacrifice by doing less than ever before at salaries guaranteed by decree; without a hint or irony I suggest the losers will include the millions of citizens mandated by law to contribute what little money they will have left to "Government first" under threat of seizure of property. Rest assured that your suffering will be appreciated, though not alleviated in the form of suspension of tax obligations or a temporary suspension of penalties for those who need just a bit more time. Please understand...the Government must be fed, and the beast must thrive. Along the way, mistakes will be made. We will find that the leaders of many of our States were woefully--some will say criminally--unprepared for this pandemic. Our elderly and those most at risk will die in large numbers. Severe restrictions that limit freedom will need to be enforced under threat of imprisonment and massive civil penalty. We will hear that small family gatherings, and gatherings at your house of worship must be eliminated, but that gatherings at strip clubs and liquor stores must not. We will be witness to great hypocrisy as those that follow the guidelines watch as elected officials and leaders in medical field do not. We will be told by some that gatherings in the tens of thousands are miraculously/probably/maybe immune to the virus, but a Thanksgiving gathering with 3 people from 4 different addresses will likely kill someone you love. This virus will test our will, test our strength and test our belief in our elected leaders. Our faith in media will be shaken, our economy destroyed and people will suffer and die by the scores due to depression, suicide, and overdose. Through it all, just remember these words "If you question anything, you'll be branded a heretic.". God Bless you all, and may God Bless what is left of America in 2021.

God Bless you, you crazy old man fan!!

See , this story to me is 'enemy of the people' type propaganda. Or at least, it's enemy of reasonable thought and easily accessible information. Here's a story from November: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/27/trump-says-he-will-leave-white-house-if-electoral-college-votes-for-biden.html So, on the one hand, CNN runs a story that reads like a bad National Enquirer story, complete with frustrated "aides" dropping f-bombs and but seemingly powerless to leave their position followed up with anonymous sources purported to opine about whether or not DJT will attend Biden's swearing in. On the other hand you have a direct quote from the president from a press conference stating that he will leave, yet that doesn't make it into the CNN story.