leh-nerd skin-erd

@Muppy what say you?

This was your chance to reassure me I’m not the dumbest bunny on the board. Your silence is deafening. 🤔 I can’t speak to that, but the other poster mentioned has an account near as I can tell. At least, his name here pops up there when the trusty @ is included.

I appreciate the feedback. I’m in the skeptic crowd, much of that driven by the utter lack of political/health leadership when folks were protesting in the streets all summer. I’m not a scientist, I consider agendas in conjunction with the data, but it is very difficult for me to take “leaders” seriously when their is a disconnect between words and action. Still, I wear my mask, respect others and socially distance.

I didn’t take the snowflakes comment personally, so no need to withdraw on my account. When someone attacks me, I have choices...ignore/swing back/mock. I like to mock—that’s my default, but in the end who really cares? The concerns expressed went beyond one poster being banned. The concerns went beyond the PPP forum, and those concerns are specific to the posters who chose to leave. No one is going to check the archives for old Len’s thoughts on banning specifically for political commentary, but my experience was that I never had any push back from a mod for what I wrote, and I shared that. The only issue I had was a warning point for a random Kiko Alonzo post way back when, and I still laugh at what prompted me to get it. With all the #%^# tossed back and forth on all parts of the board, it was silly as $&$. Things like that happen. Anyway, I’d suggest you are wrong about weak sauce, again, there are no shy posters there. In the end, those who chose to leave left for a better experience. They were wearing Nike, decided on Adidas and that’s it. Personally, I think it’s a better experience but like most, I tend to gravitate to people with similar points of view. I don’t follow you on the hidden politics board over there. I saw another poster indicated something similar and I was going to call @bull#### on that. No one will argue if I suggest I’m the dumbest bunny on the site, and I found the political forum in 3.7 seconds.

I’m not here to argue with you, but you indicated “COVID-like”, not COVID. Is that an important distinction to you? A quick search seems to indicate that “COVID-like” can include everything from a cough, shortness of breath to sore throat and beyond.

The snowflake commentary is overdone on both sides, particularly as it relates to the other board. While I was not privy to the conversation that lead up to the decision to create a separate place to dialogue, the singular reality is that like-minded folks wanted a place unencumbered by some of the partisan pushback from moderators here. As you all know all too well, there was not one 'snowflake' poster that did not push back when targeted. Imo, all that really happened is that we had a place where lots of folks with different perspectives were swinging haymakers at each other here, and now most of you don't recognize the sound of your own voice when it comes back around at you. I've always said I like to listen to the other side, it helps in real world discussions to know how the other side thinks, in particular the areas they don't want to get into. It's been incredibly helpful to me as I discuss far left ideology with a friend or associate to have an idea how deep the water is in the crazy pond. I have especially enjoyed reading the post discussing the status of the R v D party moving forward. That's very telling.

We don’t always agree Mup, but I feel like we understand each other. I’ll ask you: What exactly should unity look like in 2020? What do you mean by “the country is a divided mess right now”. What did unity look like 2016-2020?

I am just happy that everyone is ok. We can always get a new car.

This ‘education’ issue is overblown and imo manufactured to make liberals feel better about themselves and their cause. Ditto with the ‘angry white male’ narrative. Partner it with “angry white male voters tell their women what to think and how to vote” competes the trifecta or silliness that doesn’t address the 70,000,000+ votes and historic R turnout among people of color for DJT. Be that as it may, for some and likely many, traditional higher education is overpriced and overrated. It’s incredibly ironic to me that many, many Biden supporters will be out championing the collective intellect of the liberal voter while planning to be first in line when the “We’ll Make Someone Else Pay Your College Debt” program. I know many, many people who chose to follow a path that did not include traditional education who knew what many highly educated Americans do not: the choice to incur the debt associated with a $100/per hour education financed with a $25/per hour occupation is dumb as $&$&. Credit to Biden though for bumping the victimized class to those earning up to $399,999. When you offer people the choice between honoring their debt, integrity and a free payday, lots will take the free pay day.

I see it as a campaign against nearly insurmountable obstacles doing what needs to be done. Good point on the Lions. I had forgotten about their commitment to preseason excellence. The guys will always have that memory.

“He”? That’s an odd thing to say in 2020. But either way, sounds like we agree on principle that the case(s) should be pursued as the campaign feels appropriate.

The states have resources for exactly this sort of thing, and in theory the states answer to all the citizens, not just those who see things one way or the other.

1. I didn’t argue anything to the contrary with respect to the judge’s decision. If you see the State’s approach of ‘no standard is the standard’ as it relates to poll watchers, methodology of tabulating votes, purchase of voting booths etc, great. 2. Nonsense, shmonsense. You’re making declarations and attempting to suggest they came from me. I never said that poll watching was the only process employed for tabulating votes. 3. The Complaint included multiple counts, and at the risk of repeating myself, I acknowledged the decision. You allege bad faith in pursuing the action, fine. As to providing information on similar cases, if I was an attorney specializing in that sort of thing, I would have the resources to research and analyze case law and precedent specific to Pennsylvania or anywhere else. I’m not, so let’s assume it’s never been an issue. Stepping back from that for a second, I’m uncertain as to why ‘poll watching’ is even a thing in Pa (or any state with similar rules). It seems more political theater than anything else—giving the appearance of human oversight in theory but absent a standard easily written into the legislation, why bother? To be completely honest, I’d feel slightly better if, as we approached this hotly contested election in a battleground state, there was some guidance provided to the counties anticipating this sort of complaint. Instead, Thunderdome. 4. I reject your assertion that pursuing remedy is somehow abhorrent simply because you don’t like it. It’s quite literally the process. As for being disgusted, it seems to me that lots of folk are suddenly woke and screaming about the unfairness of it all. The irony is stunning. 5. This is a great question. I think the answer is clear—it’s beyond the capacity of a state the size of Georgia to establish any reasonable standard as to process, guidelines, budget or anything else. Therefore, the standard has to be...67 processes apply, and we’ll let each of y’all independently decide who you want to follow up with. Let’s be sure to limit mistakes in voting only to mail-in ballots, those pesky people who vote in person are on their own. The reality is that there are rules for reasons. I think if a vote does not meet the standards set to be counted, it should be discarded. Standards exist for a reason, and its to give the appearance the election is fair and legitimate. Choosing to provide special consideration for a select group of voters while disregarding others flies in the face of that. Why even have a ballot at all, why not just allow people to write in crayon on the back of an envelope? In the end, the voter hurt here is the one who made a mistake but wasn’t called, or chose not to be bothered because he/she assumed they were getting a call from a telemarketer and disregarded the call, or one who lived in a rural county that lacks the resources for a ‘dialin for Biden’ blitz. Finally, who checks the checkers? If I receive a call, what processes are in place to ensure that Jim from Harrisburg properly inputs my vote? 6. Then you gave nothing to worry about. 7, 8, 9. Your thoughts regarding the precious right to vote are honorable, but when you treat it like a “First F Free Friday” at a Nevada brothel, you get what you get. Pennsylvania is a perfect example. We’re long past free-for-all. 10. Ah, the disenfranchise the deplorable approach. Sweet.

Of course it’s a parody. And I don’t work for Noxema. Lighten up Francis.

Simply declaring “abuse of the legal process” does not make it so, that’s the beauty of the legal process. I offered no opinion on the righteousness of the decision, it’s irrelevant how I feel about that. I simply pointed out why it’s a relatively straight line transaction from election results to concerns of widespread and systemic problems of which you speak. I can understand why those on the left want Trump to stand down, but by flushing out these problems now, at a minimum we can fix them moving forward. Of course, that assumes there is any desire to actually fix the problems inherent in the system. In any given county for example, it seems perfectly acceptable to solicit feedback and clarity on ballots from a select group of voters. On top of that, having no guidelines about who(m) can/cannot be counted varies by county, so the process is there is no process. The potential for collusion among those responsible for ensuring accuracy county to county is substantial. It can be as simple as “call any potential Biden voters and disregard Trump voters, and next county over—don’t call anyone”. Does that make sense to you as a voter in 2020? Is this a really complicated issue, having one standard? It applies in every other aspect of life with the State. I guess what I’m saying is that when folks bemoan the assault on democracy as a campaign challenges results, it’s pretty easy to look at Pennsylvania and think “you people could &$@@ up a wet dream.”. Let’s get it all out there. There is no downside.

Not your concern boyo. Stay focused on things you have control over.

It’s interesting that two people can read the same document and come away with different conclusions. The first concerns I heard regarding Pennsylvania dealt with restricted access for poll watchers, undue limitations on accessibility and concerns about fairness. When speaking with a friend, he was quite animated about stories of poll watchers being kept 25 feet away from the “process”. Having been a more-than-casual observer of the NYS civil justice system for 30+ years, my first question was this: What are the rules established that dictate what a poll watchers can/cannot do, and what constitutes fair and reasonable access for a poll watcher? This document on an issue as simple as the activities of a poll watcher confirmed what I believed I already knew: It’s...whatever. 6’. 60’. Whatever. I’ll leave it to others to discuss and debate what’s fair or not, but this document states that voting laws and regulation in Pennsylvania amount to little more than ‘trust us, it’s fair’ while detailing that 67 different counties can choose 67 different methodologies within a broad framework of rules. A couple key points: 1. There really is no guideline for poll watching beyond the fact that they stay 6’ away from voters. So, some will be 6’, some could be 30. The law is set up to court controversy, and I’d hazard a guess that any campaign that thought they were on the wrong side of the fair access standard would have an issue with this. It’s absurd that there is not one standard established. 2. The 67 different counties have potentially 67 different standards for voter outreach in the event there are technical discrepancies in a mail in ballot. Some chose to contact voters. Some did not. The reality here is that not every county is built the same, has the same resources or the same capability for outreach. By extension a voter in one county is treated as if his vote really matters, another irrelevant. Again, how difficult is it to establish one standard instead of allowing 67? 3. The issue regarding timeliness of the amendment on page 10. The election was November 3rd, the case makes its way through the process with an amendment filed in November 15. The campaign filed the amended complaint on November 20. I thought this was interesting: It would have mooted the existing motions to dismiss and required new briefing, possibly new oral argument, and a reasoned judicial opinion within seventy-two hours over a weekend. I’m thinking that by applying that standard, the notion of a free and important election is vital to our country, but any discussion thereof certainly must be shelved on November 7,8,14,15, 21 and 22 when the justices are at fundraisers, or perhaps watching the Eagles play. What I see here is evidence of a system so &$#@ed up that it can only have been designed by public servants at the highest levels of government. It’s basically Electoral Thunderdome, and I’m not even debating the lawfulness of the ruling. What amazes me even more is that governmental agencies are famous for overreach. Virtually everything we do requires a form submitted with appropriate documentation in triplicate, and failure to properly submit results in immediate disqualification. I tried to get the enhanced Drivers License in NYS and was rejected because the DMV office didn’t like one of the forms of ID I submitted. I spoke with a supervisor, showed her the form listed on the website, she acknowledged it and said more or less “Too bad”. Where voting is concerned, as evidenced here, the proof that the process is fair lies in the fact that pretty much anyone can do anything they want. When all is said and done here, many millions of voters will be convinced that voter fraud was rampant here, and the sad fact is that in Pa, the foundation of the system was built on shifting sands just waiting to be debated.

She best be hitting that t zone with the oxy. It’s like an oil slick on an angry Amazon.

This is the problem with the little people dealing with career politicians and having short memories. Exhibit A: Eliot Spitzer; Exhibit B: Eric Schneiderman; Exhibit Cuomo: Joseph Percoco Exhibit D Joe Bruno; Exhibit E: Sheldon Silver; Exhibit F: Hillary Clinton The decisions surrounding who gets prosecuted and who does not is often purely political, with fall guys strewn about and powerful yet corrupt figures remaining untouched. There is no mythical place where the powerful are treated as average citizens. It doesn’t exist. So, if they think they can get Trump and destroy the spirit of the base and impact walk-away Dems and independents, they’ll pursue it like it was true. They’d Kavanaugh him, they’d Mike Flynn him, and I personally think some would go much further than that (the infamous “six ways to Sunday” offering by the senior senator from NY). The trade off is that Trump most definitely knows where the bodies are buried, and I think we would all agree he’s not the gentleman Willard Romney is (and by gentleman, I mean nutless weasel) where he’ll take his $$$-🤬 and ask for more. There’s also the needle to thread on when too much is too much. For all the posturing here about bogus claims of obstruction, the flip side is the AG said it never happened. In fact, he said the treatment of DJT in this sham was quite horrific, though oddly that didn’t get a lot of play in typical msm outlets. Trump supporters certain believe that by the tens of millions. Partisan lefties like W9, SoT and the like see it the other way, which sets the stage for a very interesting battle for the hearts and minds of the middle. Part of me would like to see the battle play out. I’d love to see DJT giving us access to the inner workings of the govt, the CIA, to hear stories of what folks like Brennan do when they’re not trying to manipulate our own elections. I say it doesn’t happen, or at most, happens on the basis of lots of fireworks but no real pop.

We’re getting nowhere and we should be trying to heal. Happy Thanksgiving!

Nothing changes just because you want it to, brother.

You can hide under the covers all you want, you can imagine folks on the street screaming at the moon over DJTs ongoing legal fight. You can pretend you’re correct about every single court battle being lost, you can pretend that Trump supporters are fleeing en masse as the process moves on. You can characterize me as an extremist and to be fair, I really think you think that. I can tell you 100 times that I support the process, support his right to pursue justice, and that I think ultimately Biden is the president. I can’t help you with that, you’re a product of whatever experience and traina brought you to the point where supporting the rule of law is extreme and advocating the surrender and submitting because you disagree is the middle. Nothing changes anything just because you want it to. Regards from the center right-

Maybe. And yet the battle continues. Let’s just be sure that when 1/20 comes and goes, the nation can feel comfortable with the process. Then...we start anew one way or the other.

Normally, when I encounter a poster who reveals a complete intolerance for the opinions of others I put them on ignore and move on. Normally, when a poster claims to have the deep dark goods on something as important as The Muëller Reportenstrasse, I’m willing to play it out even though any reasonable analysis must include that Mueller spent, Mueller investigated, Mueller he extraordinary police powers, and in the end Mueller rode off into his fading sunset and Trump remained exactly where he was, undaunted, ever forward on to the next ginned up scandal. I don’t know Ja, have never engaged to any great extent, but I am mildly, mildly curious as to why you even bother attempting to engage when you always end up at the same point- outraged that someone doesn’t think like you do. The other day, you played yourself off as a quasi conservative. Personably, I think you’re full of crap but if you see yourself as such, good for you. There are thousands of stories of Walk Away Dems —moderates who saw something untoward about accusing a president of something and then screwing the pooch when it came to proving nothing. To feign ignorance on this subject means you’re truly, well, ignorant, or you’re full of it (again) I love the reference to “We do play along...”. That speaks volumes about the communal approach to engaging with posters you and yours take.

Yes, I support what he’s doing as you likely already know. How is he destroying the country? Please be specific so I can understand what you mean.