leh-nerd skin-erd

Then as surely as the sun rises and sets, you and yours shall prevail. I remain uncertain as to why you are speaking out against pursuing a constitutional right, but that just me opining about you exercising one of yours. We’re at day 6, 5 really when you figure in the chaos that surrounded the election. There is plenty of time to see it through. LS was one of the first bands I ever listened to, and among the first albums I ever purchased. For whatever reason I always liked the creativity of “pronounced leh-nerd skin-erd” and when thinking of screen names i went with it even though it was 30-35 years in the past. One guy called me a redneck because of it, that was worth its weight in gold. If only people knew. Anyway I note Coach T is off line, and that means...yup, you guessed it Tuesday’s Gone. Good night Albany!!

If he’s losing it—He’s not, btw, but assuming you’re right where sir is your compassion? Why not leave him be? You’ll have plenty of time to collect on your debt if things play out as you believe they will. Again, with due respect, who the &$#@ do you think you are waxing philosophically about a smooth transition and precedence? The precedent established with your people—Obama, Clinton, Biden et al dates back to McCarthyism. Destroy through innuendo, bring massive federal pressure upon the subject and count on the fanciful imagination of overly anxious citizens and they’ll believe just about anything. Hookers urinating on a bed? The sitting president a Russian spy? People are dumb enough to believe just about anything—and history shows that. As for trust in general? Schumer said it best—the shadow government has “six ways to Sunday to get you”. That’s not too ominous, huh Transpy? Personally, I believe him. I believe there is malfeasance afoot. I believe votes can be impacted and tally’s changed. I believe that when something as odd as a virus is unleashed in the land of an enemy and devastates our economy, it could be pure dumbq luck, or could be one of the six ways. I believe Biden believes folks like me are a threat to the status quo, and believe AOC when she talks about lists of people that need to be destroyed moving forward. I’m uncertain as to whether you—personally Transplant, would stand for me if AOC gets her way. Seems like all of us have questions. So, anyway, let’s see what happens. I’ll always tell you what I think, and right now I think you’re asking for answers to questions you haven’t earned the right to ask.

I was 50/50 you would tell me to stuff it. 😇

No one is crying, Transpy, except maybe you in your post above about mean treatment. What’s that all about? Your style on the other board is deceitful at times. You claim to support the right to pursue legal remedy and then repeat same tired “but..,” line over and over. It’s obnoxious, and I think I know a bit about being obnoxious. Anyway, we’ll see. Damn Snaf, that’s why you have to stay around. The double ban is something I never thought of. This almost feels like Transpys safe place.

Why would DJT concede he lost the election if he’s pursuing legal remedy? Why would a supporter of his concede the election under these circumstances? Did Al Gore concede early in the battle? This is foolishness. You’re starting to sound an awful lot like Eddie Haskell. “Hey guys, over there, that bad boy who got kicked out of gym class was really mean to me.”. Sack up.

Yes, I think it’s the very definition of status quo. I’m complicit in nothing other than speaking the truth. I’m torn between double-dittoing you (or reverse dittoing it you find the other term toxic and offensive) and just forgiving you for your attempt to shame me. I think you have a good heart and thus forgive you. Now, you forgive me.

Fat shaming isn't a thing Mupptown Girl, it's an illusion, a farce, another meaningless Kardashian-esque phrase designed to give overwrought individuals another label to hang on someone they disagree with. She's not a party to the conversation, I couldn't shame her if I actually tried. Where did I ever even remotely suggest she should be embarrassed for her physique? You conveniently left out the positive personal characteristics I mentioned about her--strong female, her innate sense of self, capable of handling herself, prepared to swing at and with her opponents. She's a formidable woman and certainly does not need to be portrayed as someone so weak as to have people suggest she has anything to be ashamed of. I respect her enough to speak honestly. You're putting her in the box. You're suggesting there's something she should be embarrassed about. Even in this thread, you decided to target me and skip over the part where @Doc Brown weighed in. Was that accidental? Why hasn't he suffered the fat-shame wrath of the Mupster? Also--do me a favor and send me the post where you chastised your fellow posters for shots taken at the current Prez for his physical appearance. Limit it to the last 30 days because we don't want the list to be too long. Have you accused any of Cheetoh-Shaming? To be completely honest, I'm disappointed in you. We've interacted in the past and it's been civil. Now, you're actually shaming me by suggesting I'm fat-shaming her. I'm the victim here.

I do not acknowledge that, and most races are over before they start and the media does what the media does before, during and after an election. I reject the notion that members of his party are too scared to say anything, in fact, the challenge for him is that political figures jump ship quickly based on the ebbs and flow of public opinion and what's in their own best interest. As to your second point, if you're correct, there should be no harm in pursuing legal remedy. I'm uncertain as to why people have an issue with that notion. As they said during Russiagate--if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't worry about your door being kicked in.

That's all I was saying. Unfortunately I've got a Wacky Zebra and a guy coded for War looking for me for pointing it out. I don't like Stacey Abrahams. I think she's a divisive politico who would trample me dead if she could. She's not the only one on either side of the aisle that can be said about. Be that as it may, it's foolish and pandering of the highest order to feign indignation on her behalf.

No, that's the point Gary the Zeeb, I'm not and thankfully was never convinced I was. I know who I am. Do you think SA does not know who she is? Do you think when she lobs personal, intentional grenades at her political rivals she is unprepared for a retort? BTW, everyone knows Zebras are the dimwits of the striped animal world.

Don't be emotional. Stacey Abrahams is a strong woman who swims in murky waters. She's capable of handling herself. She knows the rules. She swings hard and often, takes personal shots at people as well. I'm saying what I said about a national political figure.

You're a reasonable guy. I don't call anyone --male or female--fat, short, tall, pimply, angular, orange, or anything else in my everyday life. It's certainly not a topic of conversation I would pursue on a personal level. I've never mentioned it previously, but this is a message board and to call a poster out over this particular comment is weak. It would take 30 seconds to pull multiple posts about the physical appearance or characteristics of national political players from a variety of the posters here. I'd be stunned to hear that this particular woman who happens to be fat is so soft as to be sensitive about it.

I'm not sure where you're going with the 'male' thing. You hit the nail on the head for the rest of it w/ respect to the things said about DJT for 5 years. We don't achieve political equality as practiced the past few years by pretending a lady doesn't shop in the Plus size aisle. It's silly.

I disagree. As Chris Cuomo said to the NJ pizza owner's lamenting the government shutting them down in spite of stringent COVID standards met--she's a 'political combatant.'. She speaks the language of division, knows the political game and plays it well. You do her a disservice by treating her as anything other than a political warrior. Plus, she knows she's fat, it's not a secret.

I started responding yesterday and decided to take a minute and think it through. On a local level, I think we (us v them, whomever us or them is in this case) find unity quickly and decisively. I think we each speak our peace, acknowledge the feelings of the other and go about our business. We both probably walk away thinking nothing changed, but we had a nice dialogue. The tale of Reagan and O'Neill is oft-told and is inspirational. However, it was a story that played out in the early 1980s. In those days, the stench of McCarthyism was still hanging around as it had been only 30 years or so since the infamous Red Scare. We were still only 40 years removed from WW2, not much more than a decade off of Vietnam, and the world was different. Had Tip O'Neill accused RR of being a Gorbachev Stooge, had the FBI launched a bogus probe against ties to Red Russia, the electorate would have met these allegations with a very jaundiced eye. It simply would not have flown. Likewise, allegations near and far from politicians and the media that RR was a glorified Nazi would have caused a massive outcry from the men and women who lived and lost loved ones during that era. In my humble opinion, the reason the word 'Nazi' is thrown around these days is because there are very, very few people left to stand up and say "Are you &^%$ing people crazy??". Bush and the American people's response to 9/11 was also inspirational. Nothing like an attempt to destroy us all to bring folks together. However, by the time W had done his time, let's not pretend that he was not excoriated by Obama/Biden as basically a war criminal who sent American soldiers to die in a trumped up war-for-oil scheme. Magically, of course, once the election was done, nothing further comes of it. In fact, now the W Bush family and the Hussein-Obama families are quite close. Imagine that--the war criminal and the man who called him out are buddies. In fact, looky looky--now W is all about the decency of jb. No concerns about jb's wandering mind, no concerns about his racial insensitivity of pawing of women in the era of #metoo (which makes sense, given that old man HW Bush liked to cop a feel like rich elitist old men are prone to do)--just "He's a decent man.". I ask you OMF--given our similarities--did W Bush think Trump a Russian stooge or a victim of a take down? Did he support FISA abuse, like one might assume a War-for-Oil president probably would? Did he support the Comey approach to derailing a president? Did he support Obama's arrogance as he suddenly, without notice, caused an international incident by expelling a couple dozen Ruskies in the closing days in office? Now, here we are. Election chaos, a push by the media to steamroll a candidate into submission. It would work on a Mitt Romney or Jeb W Bush--they are soft as butter and were born without nuts. Trump, however, is different and has chosen at this point to see it through. Whether that builds unity or not really depends on your point of view--- I think there is nothing more American than pursuit of legal remedy through the court system. There is no downside, no real room for debate as it's a foundational principle of our country. On the flip side, declaring someone prom king in some dopey media push is silly and divisive, mostly because it means nothing. It's divisive, it's presumptuous and it's unnecessary. If Biden prevails, the strategy changes because it has to. Unity has nothing to do with it--he didn't seek it out in the race, he didn't seek it out in the 4 years Trump was in office, and imo he offers nothing of value to me as a citizen.

Apologies for losing you, and I’m sorry your dog can’t hunt. Get a lab. 😇 I’m socially liberal on many issues, conservative on others. Labels are less relevant than they have ever been. The former director of the Obama CIA accused him of treason. AG Barr said what happened to him was one of the greatest travesties in American political history. Mueller and his gang of door kickers dug though just about everything and returned nothing. 0.00. I speak only for myself, though I’d bet a large percentage of the 70m who voted for Trump say the same—thank you, not interested in coming together on the terms as dictated.

This Is a valid and perfectly rational response in a normal election cycle. I would be standing besise you if most of what occurred had not. Trump = petulant child. Sure, if the opposition had a modicum of decency in the fight, Trump would be an outlier. What I saw was the normalization of destruction of people, starting with the accepted narrative that DJT was a racist-assaulted etc etc. It was said and published as fact, though DJT rubbed shoulders with these people for decades, he ran his Beauty Pagent show, The Apprentice and chummed around with Washington royalty. If Trump were Romney (the most glaring Cuckhold in American politics), he hedges, he calculates, he ruminates and stews all the way back home to Utah. The thing is, Trump ain’t Romney, in fact, he’s a lot like Biden when Biden was 100% Biden—he swings back hard and punches until he’s down or you’re down. Put another way, when someone calls you the horrible things that the Dems did, and they expose you and your family to the dangers associated with being branded a traitor, you fight or die. AS for the SC, the three on the court don’t swing me one way or the other. At some point, you have to be pragmatic. Assuming there was substantial fraud, will a jurist like ACB expose families and businesses across the spectrum to the mobs we’ve seen this summer? Would she expose her family? Or, do they collectively take the easy road and just give it to em, betting the rage and hostility from those on the right will be the better alternative? Whatever the outcome, it is what it is and I’ll acknowledge it: I had no issue with the politicization of Trump as a womanizer, tax cheat, whatever. Treason though, that was my line. You gotta knock him out if that’s your angle. Chuck Schumer infamously said that the intelligence community will find “six ways to Sunday to get you.”. Can you find me a mainstream article or top Dem politician calling on him to walk that back? Note, not that they will get you legally and lawfully, just that they’ll get you one way or the other. Ominous but no one on the other side thought twice about it. I think they found the way. As for going forward, the personal destruction angle is all that is left. That’s the game, and while it bothers me to feel this way, it seemed to work quite well for the Dems in 2020. If Trump loses as is likely to occur—-honestly in the media it’s like there is no ongoing battle at all—-i hope he’s an effective ambassador to punch at Biden for the next 4 years. Speak loudly and often of energy independence, relationships in the Middle East etc. Criticize everything and portray the sell out of the American people in real time.

Wrongo.

Nope, that’s Trump’s guy. Who has Biden installed in his cabinet-elect? I’m betting George C. Patton.

I’ve been agreeable to just this sort of thing for most of my 58 years. I sat down and waited while Obama did his thing, was prepared to hold my tongue when Clinton was heiress and was pleasantly surprised when she went down like a presidential intern. That reminds me, too, that I really hated the Clinton impeachment saga at the time, feeling that poor bill just got a hummer so what’s the big deal? That started to change for me when friends and neighbors of mine sat like expectant schoolchildren for the “Don is a Russian” report. I have been doing some work on a property I bought and found in the attic a Newsweek from 1956. It’s got Nixon on the cover, and in it the story is all about him characterizing Adlai Stevenson as. A commie $&@$. You could simply change some names and you have the abortion we just went through. There are no new ideas, just different cycles and new dimwits to fleece. I even could have forgiven that, I’ve been dim witted at times you see, but the reality is you people didn’t really care that it went nowhere, and probably still would have supported removing him from office in spite of it. When Trump suggested that Obama wiretapped Trump Towers, as a conciliatory and good natured conservative I was outraged, explaining to my conservative friends and family how damaging that sort of thing would be to the Republic. Well, a couple years later a good old fashioned wire tapping would have been garden variety political *****, what went down was much worse and you’re cool with that too. When you follow the Kav saga, the way it played out was that a henchman took a fabulous and fanciful Game of Thrones type-tale (power, corrupted morals, alcohol and sizing sexploitation) with no verifiable facts and attempted to destroy a guy who actually seems like a good and decent man (unlike Biden and for that matter, DJT or any other of these scummers in Washington). Was that the unity and togetherness you’re pining for, the part where you say a guy is a serial rapist because there is literally no fallout for doing so? Seems to me it is, because you gave that crowd the stamp of approval with you vote, yes? Trump feels compelled to see this through, and suddenly we’re supposed to forgive and forget? I say hard pass, and while you might well be a good and decent person that would be great to have a beer with and talk the Bills, politically speaking and with the utmost respect to you as a voter I say go &$&$ yourself and your appeal for unity NOW, suddenly, as if by magic. Whatever happens, happens. I’m confident that calls for unity of the sort your looking for will fall on deaf ears. Some folks will get back in the bus and sit in the back with a vacant stare and an “Oh well”, but many will not.

What always amazes me about the mind of the liberal voter is that they’ll see corruption—groundless, alleged or otherwise— and conspiracy across the board in private enterprise and scream about it. Yet, in an election involving 150m votes after the 4 years of Russia hoax, The attempted destruction of Brett K , Ukrainamania and the like, they’ll look dumbfounded when you suggest they lack credibility. That ship long since sailed. It’s not just the 4 illegal votes that you're confident maxes out the wrongdoing—and I’ll bet it was more but I’m a crazy conspiracy guy who thought the FB ads didn’t change the world—it’s structural changes that deal with when and how votes are tabulated and which body is responsible for overseeing that issue. Besides, if there is nothing to worry about and 149,999,996 of the 150,000,000 are legit, then A little extra scrutiny is good for us all. If it goes up to the SC like many on our side hope it will, we can all rest comfortably knowing a job well performed is a job well done even if we don’t like the outcome. And to be completely honest, I think you could have substantial evidence of criminal wrongdoing and voter fraud but otherwise sage conservative judges would side with Biden. I think the calculation would be there was too much downside in terms of rioting, death and destruction to doing the correct thing legally. Who is the Defense Secretary-Elect? That’s critical here.

I don’t visit the board much these days, but stop by specifically for your thread. I’ve always enjoyed reading it and especially did tonight. As Will Ferrell said in Old School...Keep on keepin on...

Did Virgil date your mom?

This duck idea...let me know when you’re looking for investors. Something about it sounds like it’s got legs.

The better, non-controversial question for a liberal senator would have been—“With respect to her own deeply held beliefs on climate change, did Ruth Bader Ginsburg stay on the court too long?”. Serious question. It seems clear that RBG was failing over the past several years, and we can presume she was disappointed in the election of DJT. Do you think it would have been impactful had she retired a year or two into his term, and actively stumped for a nominee of her choosing?