leh-nerd skin-erd

If Obama expelled 'murderous spies' there would be nothing to discuss, though I would think expulsion at the 11th hour of his 8 years in office would be way down the list of legal action against 'murderous spies'. I think we can move on.

You're being presumptuous, and you have no right to ask that of me. I understand how you feel, I think you're wrong. I don't think it's even particularly close, and these issues extend beyond the classic Biden simple faux pas.

Maybe...maybe not, but it's an interesting perspective. On the other hand, maybe you should think your posts through before you say silly things like 'remember when..' if they make no sense. The question remains: Was expelling the red horde on 12/29/2016 in the waning days of the Obama administration, creating a major mess for the incoming administration in dealing with a foreign adversary an example of doing what's right for the country? It was your point, not mine.

What's ironic? Tibsy wrote "...Remember when--before Trump--we all at least could do what was good for the country..." and I reminded him that he forgot to remember the last election cycle. His reply was to ignore it, and reference Trump's punkishness. Punkish or not--and I still don't see where Biden provided any specifics as he raged on--the facts are a matter or record. In fact, it wasn't a week or two after he expelled Rooskies that he and Biden were briefed on the Clinton's fingerprints all over the Steele dossier. First, I'm not sure who 'we' is. Second, 'like' has nothing to do with it. I don't like Obama, Clinton(s), Pelosi, Schiff, Mitt Romney, Lindsay Graham 4 days out of 7, and scores of others. You go ahead and feel free to link prior comments I've made about their mental acuity. Second, I received speech therapy for a stutter as a child (to the extent there was speech therapy for a stutter back in the day), and have great empathy for people with those struggles. Imo, you do a disservice to those that truly struggle when you write off some of Biden's obvious miscues to a problem with stuttering. I understand why Biden plays that card, he's a politician who will say just about anything to win the vote. I understand you wanting to dismiss his issues--you voted for the guy and in spite of Trump's flaws, I'm surprised that you would not demand a better candidate than this old husk of a man. The best way to rationalize it may be to fall back on a stuttering problem to explain some things flat out unexplainable. Finally, while I won't commit to ignoring issues with his cognitive decline, I will attempt to clean up some of the one liners like the one I included above. It didn't add to the point I was making, but was otherwise harmless. Biden is a shell of the man he was four short years ago, and even more substantially impaired relative to his debate with Paul Ryan 8 years ago. That's fair game and shouldn't bother you in the least if you're stalwart in your defense of his mental capacity.

What’s not new is that your partisanship is showing. I’ve read a couple different sources and all I can find is Biden complaining about certain agencies with no specifics. Given his issues with mental acuity we cannot even be certain if he was actually at the right meeting. I provided commentary about Obama expelling diplomats 22 days or so before an incoming admin took over because you talked about membering how awesome presidents always are. We cannot heal if you’re not introspective.

I actually had a Moog ring back in the day. I And seriously—Harry Chaplin? I was introduced to his music after his death when I went to college in 1982ish. He had played the year or two before and most of my new friends (and my future wife) had seen him and said it was a great show. Love that stuff.

It sounds like Biden is screaming at some local kids to get off his lawn. What specifically is he yelling at George about? Because now that you mention 'membering...member 4 years ago tomorrow when Barrack and Joe B expelled Rooskies and created an international incident for the incoming admin? I do. That was some stone cold munchin. Joe will be fine. He's been an insider since '73 when Elton first told us about the Crocodile Rock.

How about that! Btw, notable alum, I see William Sadler, he of Shawshank Fame is a Buffalo guy. I’ve seen him many, many movies. Very cool, and another reason to like Shawshank. Fauci is a name I’ve heard once or twice—👍

https://cornellbigred.com/sports/wrestling/roster/yianni-diakomihalis/47967 I won’t do the heavy lifting to google other notable alum, but pre-COVID this young man was in his way to a shot at his third straight NCAA Wrestling championship. Rochester area young man—nice kid and tough as nails.

Jesus you’re getting dumber (politically speaking) as we speak. Trump was guilty of treason but a half dozen career prosecutors and the former director of the FBI couldn’t find it over a 3 year slug??🤣🤣🤣 As for your side voting, I’m torn on why many of you voted that way. I know many voted as you did because they saw Mueller et al’s inability to charge DJT with so much as an overpaid parking ticket as clear evidence he’s guilty of treason. That makes a perverted kind of sense, just as you laid out above. No treason is the obvious treason of all. I’ve come to believe a large percentage of his supporters probably gave less than a crap about that though. Biden’s obvious ties to China are problematic, but folks like cheap foreign goods and don’t much care whether it costs other American jobs, the cheap goods come at the expense of worker rights/child labor or corporate espionage. I mean Tibsy Junior has to have the latest Nikes to hoop like a star, right? I think a substantial percentage of woke white middle class voters were drawn in by the forgive-a-debt gambit. The impact of making someone else accountable for your lifestyle choices and financial mismanagement has to be pretty intoxicating for some. I read somewhere here a lament that someone’s choices with respect to higher Ed was impacting his ability to do other stuff he really wanted to do, and that wasn’t right. In the end, it doesn’t matter I suppose whether the vote was cast because no treason actually means treason, or Joe can wipe away some really inconvenient financial obligations with a swipe of a pen. I recall you saying you earned your education through military commitment, which was kind of cool to see. Anyway—you’re 100% correct—you all done worked to help Biden prevail over George.

I think what I told you I thought. You anticipated Trump’s head on a stick with Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi and Schumer standing around Heinz Mueller with tons of evidence strewn about for all to see. To be honest, if I was as easily to manipulate as you are, I’d have expected the same. When that didn’t happen, you have a dilemma. Acknowledge your gang soft-tugged you to get you on the treason train only to make you look the fool, or shift the narrative to convince yourself that you weren’t duped at all—that Trump was actually exceptionally clever in partnering with ———- (insert strongman name here) and flew just below the radar in conspiring to steal the election. They hit you with the Russian angle because it feeds into Cold War fears from not all that long ago. It’s an old story, but as we’ve come to see, people are very susceptible to the old adage of spies hidden in the forest just over the hill. I think history teaches us people can be manipulated in doing things they would acknowledge were wrong if only they weren’t knee deep in the wrongdoing. McCarthy had his sycophants—its probably the most relevant example given the subject matter. It’s hard to step out of the shadows and into the light and acknowledge “Hey, that didn’t go at all as they implied it would”. Don’t fret, there are millions like you.

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.