leh-nerd skin-erd

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?

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.”