leh-nerd skin-erd

"While the allegations made against us were false, the prosecution was malicious and the episode ruined our lives, we are ok with it because we did nothing wrong." --The Duke Lacrosse Guys

Respectfully this reads like the brain dump of a drunken pygmy goat. Not THE drunken pygmy goat, but A drunken pygmy goat.

It would be considered a by-product of work, though admittedly confiscated over a lifetime, misused by those entrusted with its caretaking, significantly underperforming and far too often means-tested for those actually planned for their future.

It’s become so painful for me to watch this sort of charade play out. This piece of trash dressed up as a member of Congress makes up a narrative for political gain, is corrected immediately yet she pushes forward even though she ended up looking like a girl who got called out in chemistry class for insisting that the atomic number of Moscovium is 5! More importantly, she’s so proud of her performance she includes it on her house account.

”Mio Dio, these Italians and their loosa leeps!!!” I think they really, really, really have Trump this time. You can’t have an AG flying off and investigating corruption.

Yet

Apologies in advance to this who have the Tibster on ignore and have yet to banish me. Tibs, while you’ve gone full Schifty crazy on this issue, I see how you got there. The Ambassador wrote 15 pages and could have summarized in the two sentences you wrote, but I agree 100% that the ambassador wanted the aid without any conditions as to investigating Ukrainian interference in our election. The argument has not been that Trump threatened to withhold aid, it’s been that he specifically targeted Hunter Biden to get to Joe B for political reasons. IMO virtually everything is political so whatevs. Given that you supported the massive investigation by our country into Russian interference, the disruption of a presidency and suppression of the votes of millions of Americans, what was your sense of the Ambassador’s reasoning for not wanting the two tied together? I’m curious as to why you think he would be opposed to tying aid into American interests abroad? Do you think he did not believe the Ukes interfered, or that it was no big deal? I think it’s aid is always about our national interest, no?

Ok, I’ll put you in the list because I’m a trusting soul. But I’m watching, always watching.

I read (former) Ambassador Taylor’s prepared statement, as printed in the Washington Post. I’m not certain it’s 100% accurate, but let’s assume it is for now. Taylor may well be an honorable American diplomat and soldier. He clearly loves the region and sees Ukraine as a valuable partner to the US. He clearly does not seem to be a fan of the current administration, and appears hostile to the Obama administration as well. Back to that in a moment. I’m thinking me, @Foxx @Deranged Rhino, and @Tiberiusare the only people left in America who do not serve as a Board Member for a Ukrainian company. I was going to add @Buffalo_Gal to the list but she seems to be traveling an awful lot, and don’t even get me started on @Teddy KGB. Anyway, Taylor advised he sat on the board of a Ukrainian company prior to returning to public service, and I wonder if we might ever stumble upon an official without financial ties to the region he is representing? Anyway, his statement is thorough and reflects his thoughts on the matter. He addresses his concerns about withholding aid for any reason, his threats to resign if the aid was withheld, and his uneasiness with tying aid to investigations into Burisma and interference into our elections. He also expressed concern about RGs involvement and informal lines of communication. One of the advantages of open testimony in the light of day would be the opportunity to hear his thoughts on other administrations and “informal or irregular lines of communication” with other countries. I am quite certain that these lines of communication exist, and that not every communication between countries goes through the ambassador directly. Anyway, beyond that, I’m not sure there is much to see here. Ultimately, he works for the President, speaks of the reassurances that there was no quid pro quo, and expressed his concerns. He threatened to resign, apparently chose not to, and seemed comfortable with no investigation at all into interference in our elections. Personally, I’d really like to hear from Ambassador To Libya Chris Stevens about both formal and informal/irregular channels of communication in general. It might help the public understand the nuances of diplomacy in general, and provide some context to Ukraine specifically.

#metoo

I’m not sure what you’re looking to accomplish here. I believe that you believe what you believe. I believe that you believe that in order, Jimmy Carter is an ethical and honest person (maybe the most ethical ever), that Sanders and Paul are honest politicians. I believe you believe that it’s incumbent on me to respect the annointed because you see things the way they do. I think that’s a reflection of your inability to accept the opinions of those that hold different views. For instance, I think your assessment of Crazy Uncle Bernie and his heartwrenching assessment of billionaires equating to childhood poverty is a great campaign slogan for simple-minded people. This is just me, of course, but with $3trillion+ running through the federal tax coffers maybe Bernie should stfu and explain why he and people like him are comfortable with waste/corruption/fraud/pay for play/benefits and the like that skims the tax dollar to a tax nickel by the time it leave Washington. But yeah, Bernies going to tackle childhood poverty by, uh, billionaire stuff. That’s before I even get to his tax plan, which says a whole lot more about skinning the middle class than it does about Messrs Bezos, Gates, Buffet, Trump and those goobers from Google. Sanders is one of the biggest posers in the race. Here’s the kicker: I believe paying tax is indeed the patriotic obligation of a citizen. I would pay more than my current “fair share” if I felt it would go to good use, or be spent even remotely akin to “wisely”. As it stands, I do my part, give to charitable causes that appeal to me, and just try to keep moving in spite of, you know, the billionaires stealing food from babies in West Virginny. Anyway, Trump is bad, you no likely. I think Trump fo/mo.

I left that out because I'm certain Honest Bernz had nothing to do with his wife and allegations of fraud. I also left out the significant gift card Vermonters are offering to folks to relocate to the (Actually Really) Green Mountain state to repopulate the with new tax stakeholders. Honest Bernz is likely mortified that his beloved socialitlst republic is going all cap-cap-capitalist and just decided to start slinging the $10k to come.

No sir, my original point dealt with Trump's accomplishments up to and including becoming the most powerful person in the world. I unleashed the liberal kracken when I mentioned the part about people who worked for him, thinking primarily about his inner extended circle, employees of Trump International and so on. With due respect to you and your opinions, anecdotal stories of Trump being the evil robber baron in a sea of God's creatures means little to me and moves me not at all. I don't swim in the murky waters of commerical real estate/unions/developers/contractors etc in NYC, but I'd bet you a wooden nickel that I'd think most of the business conducted has the stench of corruption about it. Same with the litigation, same with the allegations, and honestly the same with action by the govt as it relates to Trump and his business when viewed from the prism of the presidency. Hell, the state of NY has rules to f%$# over the most well-intentioned landlords and business owners on the books as we speak. I live that daily. If Bernie Sanders is your true north, have at it. In my opinion, he's a cartoon character who's about as full of crap as any politician ever was. He's the millionaire faux socialist speaking to the little people about xyz while he's living a separate life altogether. He's what happens when young idealogues rebelling against common sense meet a crazy old dude with a funny accent who can be fawningly paraded on late night TV. He's also the product of becoming a ward of the state (employment-wise) later in life and vomiting bull#### later on. I'd sooner vote for Barry Sanders than I would Bernie. As for Jimmy Carter, he was honest----honestly a disaster but no need to revisit the political landscape long since dead and buried. To summarize. Trump, no angel. Trump, untruthful. Trump, you no likely. Trump fo/mo for me.

Thanks for the feedback. I work in and around some small to medium contractors and developers in my area, and understand that sort of behavior is part of the process. In fact I have heard that one of the more difficult entities to deal with is the State of NY. Notorious late player, hurry up and wait and "we'll get you your money (maybe) when we get to it. I'm not under any illusion he's a saint, but imo none of the people that run for office are anywhere close to that standard. As for his accomplishments, again, he's The President. The. Appreciate the response though!

Oh for goodness sake Bob! He was 72 when elected, worked let's say 50 years give or take in a variety of professions, including hotel and property management, and you're link-a-dink-a-doiing an article about White House insiders? Side note about the article. Inflammatory language like "breathtakingly broad" means literally nothing to me, the average guy on the street. It means even less when used in context with this tidbit: But NDAs have not been widely used by past administrations outside the transition time between presidents, in part because most le NDAs have not been widely used by past administrations outside the transition time between presidents.... Do you think the journalist thought it unimportant to frame this better? NDAs are used during transition periods (though apparently unenforceable) , but some past administrations have used them? Which ones, I wonder? Lawsuits are a part of life, my man. Maybe not in the Big Sky country of Michigan, but they happen.

What’s always been sort of fascinating about DJT to me is that with as brash as he is, with as many people as he dealt with, you would think former employees would be lined up for miles willing to talk about what a horrible human being he is having cheated/lied/screwed them while they worked for him. The fact is that absent a few outliers who certainly might just be part of a money grab, a surreptitious recording of some vulgar language, that’s never really been an issue for him. As for being a self-made man, well, considering the totality of his life, I’m hard-pressed to not consider him self-made. He’s worth some variation of billions with a b, has survived and thrived in the commercial real estate market in NYC and beyond, had a successful television show and, oh yeah, defeated some of the most powerful people/political cabals on the planet to become THE most powerful person on the planet through sheer force of will. A quick google search indicates that there have been an estimated 545,000,000 people living during the period of time commencing in 1776, and 44 men have served as President (as of today, no women have been elected but one was really, really popular). Amazing.

Toxic muppetsculinity

Seems to me Lofton remarked that it may well have been on CB. Can't recall but I stopped blaming the guy I thought was in the wrong when suddenly it hit me I had no idea who was supposed to do what.

Sweet fancy Moses! Partisan? Bob, step back for a second and contemplate the meaning of the word 'partisan'. 'Partisan' is utilizing the rules of the Senate to block a nominee of the opposing political point of view when given the opportunity. Partisan is the raising of questions that everyone with a pulse knows will not be answered by a nominee because it gives the opposition the opportunity to wax eloquently as to all the hidden reasons why a nominee isn't answering the question that everyone with a pulse knows will not be answered. You've reached a point where you're comfortable with a buzzer beater allegation that has no basis in fact, that evolved over the 60 days or so it was in the public eye (and crashed and burned thereafter), and have decided as a matter of equity that Kavanaugh probably "lied" about his friziging high school days. Was it the choice of tater tots when he said he had French fries? You get the government you deserve, and in many ways, the people who stand by and wring their hands about Trumps approach and demeanor watch dispassionately as the no-holds barred public execution of Brett Kavanaugh played out have gotten what they deserve. I'd no more like to see this happen to Merrick Garland than I would Brett Kavanaugh. What Feinstein, Harris, Booker et al oversaw was horrific and amounted to the pimping of the narrative of a couple drunken cockroaches that scurried from the darkness for 30 seconds of fame before scurrying back. It doesn't have to be this way Bob, you don't have to sit by dispassionately and stretch to reconcile the incompetence of the IC and Obama admin, you don't have to accept that Trump is out-of-line pursuing American interests and that Good Ole Joe was just doing good VP work, or even that John Barleycorn Must Die. I will meet you halfway and acknowledge that the only way other than massive pallets of cash to Iran to settle up for the Obama treaty was sending the moolah for mullah 18,000,000 refundable bottles of Mountain Dew because of "sanctions", and that solution would have required more planes and the carbon footprint would have been massive. Obama is actually the hero of the pallets of cash story. Fair?

I’m still struggling with all those people giving you guff. There’s nothing worse than a section of guff givers.

Questions first: I know of no recordings where Brennan, Comey, Obama and Clinton spoke to a guy with a camear/microphone in a lapel pin and stated "So we all agree this is a coup, right?". On the other hand I never actually saw Ted Bundy murder a co-ed but believe that he did. You might require that, I see life as a bit more complicated. As for who is "they", I would suggest it's the left leaning wing of the democratic party. In this category goes Barrack Obama, Clinton Inc, Brennan, Comey and the money that funds the effort behind the scenes. The behind the scenes folks are harder to identify, but I'd primarily look at wealthy families that benefit on the March toward globalism--people like Bill Gates, Eric Schmidt, George Soros and so on. I would also look at foreign governments, and I've never been quite up to date on why planeloads of cash were sent to the middle east. Unless I'm mistaken, when I deposit $10k in cash into my bank account, all sorts of red flags are raised but maybe that's just me. I believe that the reasons for participation range from idealistic thoughts of a global government, to those who fundamentally believe they are right and everyone else is misguided to people who just don't like Trump. I don't understand your theory about "going to so much trouble on Ukraine" so I can't answer that question. I will say, however that it seems like the libs are trying to squeeze a battleship through a keyhole on the political diff between Biden as VP and Trump acting as president, but the mantra is the same: Trump is betraying our country and doing things never done before. I think it's a least common denominator argument for simpletons, but it seems to work. As for members of Congress, I'll answer a question with a question. How satisfied have you been with the evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians and is acting in simpatico with Vlad The Cad Putin, evidence brought into the light of day that is clear and obvious to all who would have upon it? Let's go with Shiff, Castro, Swallowell, Harris, Schumer, Sanders and Pelosi. Let's also go with the evidence documented and scrutinized from Brennan in his role as former CIA director. We can include Mueller as director of the FBI-KGB division who opted, oddly, not to exonerate Trump after 3 years and 30m dollars worth of door kicking and leg breaking with no other directive than to "find something". I'd add the additional members of Congress on the IC are complicit in that have access to all the material and allow this travesty to continue. I thought Muellers testimony revealed him to be a disintereted and uncomfortable hack who showed signs of dementia. Then again, maybe it was just a big misunderstanding. Questions for you: Using the Kavanaugh nomination as a microcosm of the current political climate, what are your thoughts on: Since it seems clear you're not a Trump fan, what are your thoughts on the nomination proceedings of Brett Kavanaugh? My assumption here is you would have preferred another justice, and if so, how did the nature/to be and questioning strike you? Can we desire something more than what we got as Americans, given the nature of the questions aand the tone with which they were asked? Given the totality of evidence presented against Kavanaugh by the liberal wing of the dem party, would it be fair to say that the intent was to destroy him personally, politically and financially and brand him as a serial rapist? Two more: Do you believe people like Harris, Booker and Blumenthal would have been disappointed if a person with mental health issues resolved the need for further hearings by taking the justice out of the equation, or might that have justified the means with which they attacked him? Finally, was Kavanaugh wrong to defend himself in the manner that he did? Should he have been confirmed to the sC in light of everything you have seen?

You're killing me here. You'd think there would be a lot of Bobisms to use but I've gone through em rather quickly with my friend from Michigan. I almost recycled Bob-Babaran. Where is the honor in that? I'm not bragging here but I used to be compared to Bobby Sherman back in the day, were Bobby Sherman a bit more homely and with literally no talent whatsoever.

You’re projecting here Bobby Sherman, teenage heartthrob. Lot’s of words strung together with “well if...” and “why would...” and “comey helped...”. Your faith in the governmental industrial machine is admirable. Suggesting “Comey helped Trump” in the Clinton unforced error(s) where a former Secretary of State was described by her allies as having played fast and loose with national security issues is akin to suggesting Comey helped Trump by investigating Whitey Bulger. She created her mess, she was dismissive of concerns about national security, and exposed her throat to her enemies. I’m in the camp that thinks children of a lesser god, guilty of far lesser crimes, do time and are financially ruined while the heiress apparent walks with a few hurtful words thrown her way. Comey had no choice but to opine here, not to help Trump, but to deal with a very messy situation. In a sense, he was a reluctant ******* here. The players here have access to the most sensitive information in the world. Brennan, Comey et al did not sit back and allow justice to take its course, they advanced a narrative that served the purpose of undermining the results of the election. In a sense, we were promised that the details would follow vindicating these American hero’s just looking out for our democracy. Grossly incompetent or fabricated and death by a thousand paper cuts. If they are the hero’s of your story, so be it. I don’t disagree with some of your characterizations of 45, but everybody has something to critique.

Bob, you go along for the ride if you want, and I take you at your word that you believe what you believe. In the simplest form Bob, the facts are pretty clear. The greatest intelligence gathering agency in the world simply does not miss as badly as it did on the Russia hoax. It defies logic that the opposition party would stumble into unmasking citizens, surveil members of the other party, selectively leak bad Intel through sources in the media, and start the ball rolling on the "Our President is Controlled By Russia!" Hill and have it end the way it did. If they come for the guy that 60m people believed in they better be right. When it was clear they were not, there are only two reasonable altentatives imo: 1. The IC, FBI and Obama admin was so grossly incompetent to have so totally misread the tea leaves and the players in the game that they missed spectacularly on front of the citizenry and is the laughingstock of the world; or 2. The goal was to undo the results of the election through leaks, intimidation, innuendo and a propaganda campaign that would impress Herr Goebels. In the meantime, the "investigation" would stall, impede or paralyze the administration and certainly impact the reputation of the president. 3 years in, the coup failed, though one can argue the damage done impacted the midterms and perhaps the next election. You simply do not imply a president is guilty or treason and "Ah, whoops no bigs" it when proven false. Screw that.

Well, there was a time I felt the way you did, but I’ve come to believe that the need to pay respects to someone simply because they held public office is unnecessary. IMO, many of these people work for one of the most un/underegulated ‘corporations’ in the human history. They come to live, breathe and work in their own interests as much as they ever work in the interests of their constituents, are extremely well-compensated in terms of salary, benefits and access to power. Often, when I look at net worth v. annual income, it seems there is a disconnect between what they make going in and what they take when they walk out. I reserve my moments of respect for very few in the political realm, and find myself much more impacted by the passing of folks of good character locally.