leh-nerd skin-erd

Assuming it’s resolved by January 20th, it’s just another day. It’s the end of one thing, the beginning of another any way you cut it. Had DJT prevailed decisively at the ballot box, the battle to unseat him and nullify the votes cast for him would not have been over. It would be silly to think that. If Biden prevails, your thinking that it’s over is just as silly. The numbers suggest many Americans think there was fraud in play during the election, and that’s likely to get worse as any but the hard core lefty’s see that time after time the argument is “Yeah, that’s bad, but it wasn’t enough...” or “but what about a NY?”. In the end, this robust debate is good for your side as well as ours. To look at a world where virtually every walk of life has been hacked or corrupted, it’s the height of naïveté to presume our incredibly complex and diverse election laws are above reproach. Using the broken bone analogy, one cannot heal without identifying and addressing the fracture first.

Not really. The DOJ took a second look, offered an alternative as to whether or not the charges should have been filed, and wanted the case dropped. It didn’t happen, the only way to pursue without the potential extended political persecution was to pardon him. Everybody wins (except General Flynn, of course). As you said, he opted to plead guilty based on his view of the situation he faced. When he realized things were hinky, he attempted to undue what had been done. It’s a cautionary tale. General Flynn is an American hero. He served with honor, ended up on the wrong side of the wrong administration, and assumed everybody was playing above board. He was wrong. Now, it’s time to heal.

The simple answer is it’s good political business to pursue endless investigations. Money is made, “journalists” can report for the good of the party, and nitwits can run about complaining about a person complaining about being targeted by his political rivals. I think what’s typically prevented this sort of thing is the concept of mutually assured destruction as the target has access to all sorts of details about the government and it’s activities many citizens might find unsavory. We’ll see if that continues, but it would be a heck of a spectacle. I’d bet a high percentage of Biden voters would tell you that the Pelosi Impeachment gambit would have ended with Trump being escorted from office in cuffs. I’d bet a higher per engage would tell you it occurred over Trump’s role as a special envoy for the KGB. Most of us walk by the National Enquirer rack at the local food store, but far too many glance back and wonder if Elvis and Jim Morrison really are alive and well in an outpost at the Arctic Circle.

He’ll be pleased, time for him to move on as well.

Amen. It would have been nice to see it close out with the charges dismissed but the system is what it is. An American hero can get on with his life.

Very nicely done Ja. Exceptional recap. Btw I obtained a copy of the 1956 Newsweek celebrating Ike’s victory over Adlai Stevenson. Looking through it, there are more than a few recognizable names..Prescott Bush and Al Gore Sr to name two. In another issue, Richard Nixon goes full “red scourge” in describing Adlai Stevenson. Interestingly, you could change a couple names, change a couple words and you’ve got the Trump = Russian story. There are no new ideas, only new people to be duped.

The only thing I find telling is the liberal white vote for a Biden presidency. Beyond that, it seems likely that Donald Trump’s supporters have to acknowledge Biden is the president of the United States. That time is drawing closer, but thank goodness to day is not that day. Such is life.

I'll check that out. Thanks. Everything involves bias, I'm afraid, so I'll proceed with caution.

I'm really just speaking about entry level civics issues. I'm amazed that I've been criticized for my position multiple times, when it's really pretty simple: DJT should be afforded the right to see things through. I find it the least controversial thing written on this board. For that, I've been accused of being unpatriotic (1x), treasonous behavior (1x), condescending (multiple), of applying circular logic (1x), of deflection (multiple times) of having limited intellect (multiple), attempting character assassination (1x), gift-wrapping horse poop and running some odd science experiment where I can't see water draining from a tub after I removed a plug. The point on Sidney Powell was an honest response to an honest question (I've been accused of not answering questions-multiple times). It may not matter at all, and I concur wholeheartedly with @shoshin that Sidney Powell was front and center at Trump Fight 2020 Pressers, but it is quite odd that multiple news sources referenced her as a member of the team multiple times over an extended period of time. At a minimum, that's sloppy journalism in an era of sloppy and imo partsan journalism. Such is life for a simple conservative soldier amongst the tolerant left.

Thank you.

None this explains why you advocate suppressing information with another poster. Information is not your enemy, nor is it necessarily my ally, it's just information. If you believe in the law, kindly refrain from attempting to dictate what is shared and in what capacity it it shared. It's presumptuous. If you do not, carry on.

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,