leh-nerd skin-erd

He also said something that Fergs was unable to hear due to the crowd numbering in the tens to low twenties. It could have been “Wow, I’m really low on gas” or something sinister like “Get a grip.”. Best to assume it was more menacing dialogue. That one is pretty funny.

Oh boy, you've spun quite a tale here. You're a regular Robert Pudlum. Anyway, the record is clear. You chose fealty over common sense, weaponization over free and fair elections, and in the end, left the country weaker for your effort. The bright spot is that sensible and fair-minded people ultimately got wise to the game and pushed back. Had anyone in your camp paid attention to the masses, dialed down the Biden...Mueller...Smith...Willis...Brag coordination, chances are pretty good Trump isn't a player in 2025. Admittedly, he might still have had a shot when you simpletons hitched your wagon early to JB. Yikes.

“It will be different, next time.”

Is months misspelled as minutes?

There's nothing to acknowledge other than you see politics afoot when you don't like the result, and purity when you do. I used your standard--professionals with experience dealing with questions of obstruction reviewed the Mueller report in detail, considered the options and made a decision. No obstruction. No need for a grand jury. Time to move on. That you wanted more political theater is understandable, but the issue was resolved and that particular silliness was laid to rest.

You didn’t initially mention the menacing nature of the “Get a life” commentary, but in this retelling he sounds quite bloodthirsty and seems to be a regular scoundrel. It’s interesting that he was run off by a successful lady who blew him a kiss, but I guess that’s kryptonite to menacing pick up truck drivers. Don’t underestimate the impact of taking the timid and moderates out to the local Dairy Queen after a long day of protesting fascism. You get ‘em a choc/vanilla twist in cherry dip, they’re voting Kamala 2028.

I think you're occasionally full of baloney, making up stories to fit a narrative. That's your MO. It's possible I'm wrong, of course, but your pickup truck story seems likely to fall into this category. It's in the details of the story---the obligatory pickup truck, the angry man yelling "Get a life", your apparent literal interpretation and declaration that she actually has a life...and the successful lady blowing a kiss causing the the guy to "floor it" out of there. Sounds like a bad screenplay from a 1970s B movie. If I'm incorrect, kudos to her for having a life. The commentary offered by the pickup truck guy was pretty banal and harmless, but certainly resembles liberal tendencies about people being in cults and worshipping orange people. Glad everyone made it out safely.

Understandable-all the great protests in the past came after a minimum 5 days planning and occurred on sunny days with temps running between 55-62, wind out of the south-southwest at 5 mph or less. Glad to hear you had fun, but your story about the guy in the truck sounds…implausible. This fellow in the truck, let’s call him Earl, his big gotcha was “Get a life!”, and blowing him kisses caused him to “floor it” Dukes of Hazard style? What does her being quite accomplished and successful have to do with the story? How would he know that?

Of course, if AG Barr had written all that, we wouldn’t need you to create your own painfully flawed analysis of what he actually wrote. In the meantime, we can just roll with what he shared publicly. He is, after all, a “lawyer who does this stuff” on quite a high level. Yet, here we are, the good and decent people of the country having access to information rejected just about all you claim to know and think, the heavy-handed politicization of the type of government you support, and the silliness of the Russian narrative. No obstruction. No coordination. No collusion.

I’m not a lawyer, nor have I claimed to work on obstruction cases. I do believe that lawyers have different opinions, different motivations and justice isn’t always just. What do you think these words mean? “After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.” Spoiler alert: They are not from “Twitter”, which hasn’t been “Twitter” in quite some time.

These are weasel words, designed to target influence low information voters. It worked.

I do not believe Mueller was a beacon of integrity, to quote nedleyboy. I see a political fabrication and ultimately nothing to support attempting to destroy the integrity of a legitimate election where your person lost. I believe Bill Barr was 100% correct on the political persecution angle, believed it then, believe it now. Given the information released thus far on wrongdoing by Obama/Clinton/Buden and the rest, I’m surprised you’re still clinging to your version of political religion. You align nicely with the corruption crowd that wants to move to authoritarian rule. #myopic

I absolutely understand why you would not trust Trump, and he’s not a beacon of integrity. I simply pointed out when Putin moved, and who was in office at the time. Your response is typical of the liberal response to that issue. It’s an inconvenient truth.

@Niagara Bill When we were kids, we had a lot of trouble getting over the Peace Bridge on the weekends with all the traffic. This invasion is going to take forever if we haven’t seen an increase in accessibility in the last 50-60 years. Citizenship? US, we’re not MAGA tho. Where are you going today? Toronto, maybe Ottawa, eventually. Reason for your visit today? Stones Concert. Anything to declare? 25 guys in camo in the back, buncha M1s, M26s, some surface to air missles, the usual stuff. Fruit….you have any fruit back there? That’s a berry fair question—we appleslootly have no fruit in the vehicle lol. We don’t do fruit humor, sir. We’re Canadian. Sorry, no. No fruit. Have a nice day.

It doesn’t seem that long ago that folks in your camp believed the hype that Putin wanted Clinton to lose, that the Russians were instrumental in her loss, and I recall some folks pointing out Russian state media reports as gospel on a variety of issues. It’s bizarre to think anyone would trust Putin/Russian media on anything said or done, but let’s face the facts. Putin moved on Crimea and Ukraine at specific times, under the watch of specific admins. It seems bizarre to think that coincidental, and that Putin/Russia did not take into account who was in the WH each time. Don’t trust Putin, and of course, it would be wise to extend skepticism to widely reported stories coming from the US intelligence community. See the US, 2015 to current. In fact, probably a good idea to roll that 2015 way, way back as well.

Hey PTR, welcome back. Good to hear some other voices from time to time. I'll repeat what I've said along---it seems to be, when considering a number of different voices (conservative to liberal, politician to average citizen) that have weighed in on the matter, is that violent crime is of considerable concern to many DC residents. It's not an outlier, it's a fairly big deal and sure, Trump has chosen it to show he's tough on crime. That the dems are generally viewed as soft on crime, and maybe even crime friendly, probably not a horrible plan. The thing about blue v red states is that there are plenty of r, d, i and apathetic citizens in every state. At the same time, the intellectual exercise about per capita crime is fine, but how actual crimes are viewed has an awful lot to do with the relative proximity to the individual. https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/08/fact-yes-d-c-crime-is-out-of-control/ There were 29,348 crimes reported in Washington, D.C. last year, including 3,469 violent offenses, 1,026 assaults with a dangerous weapon, 2,113 robberies, and 5,139 motor vehicle thefts. I'm fairly certain that the victims of that sort of crime don't say "Hey, at least I'm not in Boise.".

Agreed--saw The Who/Clash/David Johannsen at Rich Stadium in 1982. A little crazy, and I'm sure there was a scuffle or two somewhere but nothing when of note. Looking back now, and seeing the pictures of the stadium that day is pretty amazing.

This is where you declare that criminals actually commit their crimes at a much lower level than non-criminals who don’t criminalize, I think?

I was never much of a KISS fan back in the day. The makeup and antics just didn’t appeal to me, though I bet the shows were probably pretty cool when viewed through the eyes of a teenager in the 1970s. There was also that whole Knights in the Service of Satan rumor/angle and I was not down for eternal damnation in the least. It’s been interesting seeing the evolution of the business side of all that though, and we used to watch the Gene Simmons reality show, the guy has vision.

Section C; 3. Indeed.

I will admit that you didn’t have to admit it because I read your posts.🍺 Beyond that, I think you’re spot on with your thoughts here. I’ll repeat something I haven’t said in a while—in my day to day, I interact with all sorts of people with all sorts of political views and we get along just fine. No shouting matches, no major hostility, and certainly no one declaring I’m in a cult. I’ve mentioned I met former NYS Governor David Patterson—who struck me as a good and decent guy who felt the way he felt and told me why. No deep politics discourse, mind you, just a guy telling me his thoughts because I asked. I watched a clip from the Scarborough this morning. I don’t think crime is under control in DC, and read a separate account of a lady who was sexually assaulted who was advised certain crimes are not reportable unless they meet a threshold. I would not be surprised in the least to hear the books are cooked, not unlike your concerns that Trump is using the crime issue as a political tool. When in doubt, I’ll lean toward safety of citizens. Have a good day, Andy!

Throwing out platitudes like 'fair share' works in a room of like-minded liberals, but it means nothing, says nothing, and actually accomplishes nothing. Weasel words, nothing more. You want someone else to shoulder your burden. I understand that. You use the language of one who sees themself as a perpetual victim, I don't understand that. Instead of jawing around here with me, you could be doing more for the middle class, paying more toward the greater good, or appealing to the super wealthy who use the same phony language as you do to dig deeper and pay more. Yet...you fair share truthers never seem to get around that.

That sounds completely Tiberian.

Let’s get to it!