leh-nerd skin-erd

I always feel badly for people like you. I’m not sure if it was the failing of the people who cared for you, your role models or that you got off track somewhere along the way. If my thoughts offend you to the point that you come up with forced analogies involving horse droppings, gift boxes and wrapping paper, you should stay off the sauce and stay in the echo chamber. Bitterness keeps you from flying, lad. When you’re ready to have dialogue stop back by.

I think there are a couple different classes of folks that fall into the category you outlined: -Far left (or right) partisans. They want the system dismantled and rebuilt, and have taken a long haul approach to breaking it down. There are a few of those people represented her. -People unable or disinterested in taking the time to do research beyond the tidbits they glean from sources like Brian Jennings, Geo Stephanopoulos and Lester Holt. They’re busy with kids, a sick mom, work it whatever. So, if the narrative on Biden never makes it to them, by extension it didn’t occur, and lovable old Joe is the elder statesman. I have a friend who, when we discussed Joe and DJT’s mental decline as it were she inquired as to why I was targeting Joe for his “stutter”. This is a politically active woman somewhere between the two classes here. She’s honest, but really, no idea that Joe thought he was running against a guy named George and had robbed corrected by his wife? -Those that benefit from the system built, who remain perpetually shielded and protected from the ebbs and flow of economic policy. In this election, with the stakes so high, what is the likelihood a teacher, federal or state worker votes R? Deregulation, cutting back of services and eliminating red tape is not in their best interest. My friend Transplant makes the same money if he’s in the classroom or carving up a wave off the beach, 100% insulated from real world problems. In fact, one can argue he and his people will benefit from COVID-related policies as the cry for MORE money has already begun. It’s crazy but as people cry to defund law enforcement, our school systems saw absolutely no fiscal benefit from being shut down, and running at reduced capacity for nearly a year. Same with the state govt. Massive facilities, shut down, busses sit idle and it costs more. This really has been a windfall for folks in that situation. Anyway, we know a vote for Joe was a dog whistle vote for 1980s dem policies. It is what it is.

While your input is duly noted, your thoughts are your own and not indicative of the processes we have in place to address these issues. If they are “wrecked in court”, you and yours shall prevail. I’m still struggling to understand why you and many of yours are speaking out en masse in favor of suppressing the right to due process. As for DJT spending his money, and by extension average, hard working Americans choosing to contribute to the cause to make the world a better place, that’s politics man! Why would you want that suppressed or mocked? Anyway you cut it, this debate is good for America. Lets see how it goes.

Agreed. I’ve had this argument with Transplant for 3 years. He’s a partisan liberal and works very hard to support Bezos and his people, and that’s fine. I generally like to get a sense of another poster’s opinion on an issue like this. I don’t know @daz28 political ideology, he could be in the same boat as Transplant, so I ask. In this case, a liberal poster linked to an article that was flat out untrue. The article was published in one of the large MSM outlets, and the subject of their erroneous reporting came out quickly and refuted the story. It’s yet another story quickly disproven that sows division among the electorate. There is no reason to run this story without accurate fact checking and source verification. A simple call to the guy they have decided to target resolves the issue. It’s very similar to the false story written on the young man vilified for wearing a red hat and treating a crazy man with respect. Daz’s response is to take a shot at the subject of the erroneous report, not the publication that used National Enquirer tactics to create a false narrative. This is an extremely important issue, certainly an issue of our times, and so vitally important that the Washington Post fact-checked and ran with it. I would like to hear his reasoning. Obviously, I think it’s deliberate misrepresentation to shape a narrative to those easily molded. I’m not certain why he’s blaming what appears to be the victim here.

If you didn’t give a **** about the Russian issue, it’s odd that you’d give a **** about investigations and litigation surrounding the election results. Seems to me you’re a big part of the problem.

When you’re ruled by emotion, you’re easily manipulated by emotional content. We can go back to the day before the election—literally one day prior— to find people they put their faith in expressing concern about the fairness of the election process. It’s fascinating, really.

It’s been less than 10 days. Why are you carrying water for the Washington Post? This is one of the mist important stories of our time any way you slice it— If the election was clean, you win and trust is restored in the system, at least to the level that existed the night before the election when prominent dem leaders screamed “Concede nothing!”. If all the allegations of fraud are exposed as shenanigans, we can all have faith that all politicians are in fact noble public servants. On the other hand, messing with the US Mail at election time is an issue that raises serious concerns about our trust in the political system specifically and yet another government institution. Why would the Washington Post publish a story that is false? Was it incompetence or designed to further a narrative that shapes public opinion?

If she was a dingo I would gladly be the baby. *if a female dingo is a dinga, Mods, feel free to update.

Thank you for your civil response. My friend across the aisle @transplantbillsfan is an emotional soul and things get off track sometimes. Yesterday was not judgement day. Today is likely not judgement day. In my humble opinion, many, many things that happen in/around and because of Washington politics go against the grain of the Constitution. This particular issue has yet to be adjudicated and is remarkably fluid. We should all agree that legal votes should be counted, illegal votes or votes that did not meet statutory guidelines should not. I’ve seen no less than 5 different issues that give me pause to question validity of the process. I do not hang my hat on so-called experts or media-analysts who tell me I should trust them and that there no gosh-durn way the election could ever be tampered with. That defies logic, defies human nature and defies common sense. If you are right, you and yours shall prevail. Let’s see what happens.

“Shut up already”? Easy Transpy, I’m not one of your students. This isn’t study hall. Pull it together. There is nothing to agree on politically. You summarized it perfectly, and we return to where we started. “Joe Biden is a man who’s got good intentions who has made mistakes...”. Of course you know what I’m going to say—you’ve defended him every step of the way. He’s like your uncle. He was never aware of the culture of toxic sexual exploitation of lecherous politicians in Washington described in the article you sent me, where women were afraid to get on a friggin elevator for decades. He never lied about his education, never bullied any of the ordinary citizens who dared to question him on his policies. Anyway, your defense of your boy Biden is legendary, your innate ability to lose it over Trump while elevating this hair-plugged dimwit to sainthood simply reveals your emotional immaturity and lack of creative thought. Your defense of Schumer and his comments, well that’s something darker. Anyway—good chat, take a breath, cool down a bit and let’s talk more as this shakes out.

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.