leh-nerd skin-erd

You keep bringing it up, Tibs. Let it go.

I understand that you may be incapable of juggling multiple thoughts at the same time, but others can. To break it down so you understand— by you, I mean you. By others, I mean me (and others).

You sent a link over, I read the link, read up on the guy and offered thoughts on the situation as he described it. You’re not restricted from discussing nuances—well, you might be because you’re a simpleton taking marching orders from your betters. I’m not. It is ok to think deeper, dig deeper, and have conversations. This is how we learn, and it may have helped you avoid losing your shirt when you went all in with your Beanie Babies investment at the top of the market.

You sound like a politician with your talk of 'headwinds'. What he actually seems to say is that onerous governmental regulation in NY and NJ has impacted his ability to thrive, and that seemingly was a problem before Trump was elected. Add to that a change in consumer preference, it sounds like he was on a downhill roll before the tariffs were levied. I wonder if, absent the issues he was already facing, the tariffs are less of a concern.

Gloves back on! Apologies in advance retroactively! I’m sorry for tomorrow, too!

I read up a bit on VOS Selections and Schwartz’s concerns. I certainly can feel for the guy, he worked hard, built a business and the uncertainty with the tariffs has got to be very difficult. In one interview, he also mentioned that his margins were already very thin due to the regulatory situation in NY and NJ. His business is required to post pricing for his product a month in advance, and with product/market conditions fluctuating, things turn south. He also mentioned that consumer habits are shifting away from wine consumption, or maybe at least the services he offers. It sounds like he’s got an uphill battle regardless of the outcome of the tariff discussion. I wonder what he thinks about the political situation in NYC, and if things get better or worse even if he prevails in this case.

Did anyone have the camera pitched at an odd angle, shooting up into the bottom of their nose? That’s always pleasant.

I can only share what I think and how I feel, it's up to you to interpret how you feel about how I feel using your Official Lens of Virtue and ACME Purity Decoder ring.

You just indicated there were “skeletons” and now you’re not sure? Here’s the problem for you—-I’m applying your standards to you, and it seems to bother you. In that regard, you’re no better than the person who proudly declares “I’m a Christian!” while filching from the collection plate, stealing cable from the house next door, and keeping a little side hustle across town. You’re Jerry Swaggart (Jimmy’s cousin from Mississauga) hitting the strip clubs and calculating how much you can drink to stay just below the legal limit. I vote for the candidate who offers a platform overall that is in the best interest of me and my family. That’s pretty much it. I don’t pretend they are holy, pure or above reproach as you do. I’m not interested in lying to myself. That leads directly to where we are now, with you stumbling around trying to cross reference your evolving positions to limit the appearance of hypocrisy.

Your original declaration: 1. It is 100% wrong and potentially illegal to lie by any politician. Then, when pressed, you run with the less liarly liar argument as expected. Then, predictably, the old honest "as far as you know" approach, with only a few "skeletons" that you are personally comfortable overlooking. We already did this, and your argument was as pedestrian then as it is now.

Sounds like we're on the same page. Vote. Donate to your cause. Don't storm buildings. Follow the law. Don't threaten people. This is what you do in a democracy. The extreme left is dangerous. The extreme right is dangerous. When you voted against Trudeau, were your candidates pure as the driven snow? Were they ever accused of exaggeration or manipulation? Were any controversial or misleading statements made when considered from the position of all stakeholders? Kindly advise.

You fretting over whether or not a President has the power to pardon, then doubling down with silly conspiracy theories is not a debate. There are times I have hope that somewhere deep inside your completely oblivious self, there is a slightly less stupid person screaming to be heard. This isn't one of those times.

Certainly nothing precludes you from making a sign for your next Silver Sneakers Protest and Turkey Shoot. Beyond that, what you favor is pretty much irrelevant. If ignorance was criminal, you would have to register as a felonious bumpkin. Say hello to the fam for me.

Years 1-10 of the Trudeau era…what did you do about it? With regard to Trump, you’re covering ground we have already covered. It’s not illegal for a President to pardon a convicted criminal.

Belated apologies in advance. Now I’ve seen everything.

Well, time will tell. The people have spoken.

You’re incorrect. He’s The President, it’s 100% defensible.

Let’s use a real world example. Let’s say Biden’s son avoided paying his fair share of taxes, and that he violated laws regarding ownership of firearms….that sort of thing. I’d think he should be prosecuted. At the same time, if Trump’s son committed the same types of crimes, I’d think he should be prosecuted as well. Now, I believe that some people are above the law, and have said that for a long time. It’s unfortunate, it’s not fair, but it is the way it is. Let’s say thereafter, the opportunity for Joe Biden to pardon his son arises. I don’t think he should pardon his son, but I understand he’s absolutely, positively going to do that. If Trump was facing the same situation with his son, I believe he would do the same thing. I think lots of people, Fergie, Tibsy, Justin Trudeau, and you maybe would see the Biden situation differently than the Trump situation and support it while becoming outraged if Trump did it. I think since it goes both ways, it’s sorta silly to get too wound up over it.

I cannot speak for you, but I actually know these things to be true: 1. Trump acknowledged pardoning CZ; 2. . Trump's statement from the interview: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/03/trump-60-minutes-binance-cz-pardon.html “I don’t know the man at all. I don’t think I ever met him,” Trump went on. “I have no idea who he is. I was told that he was a victim, just like I was and just like many other people, of a vicious, horrible group of people in the Biden administration.” 3. You typed these words, about me: ...pretending that ugly maga truths don't exist or aren't worthy of discussion... This is patently and demonstrably false. Whether you struggle with comprehension, the truth (well we know that already), or lose focus I cannot say. Maybe see a doctor about that.

I think the fact that the Biden DOJ sought three years, and he was ultimately sentenced to 90 days is pretty interesting as it relates to what the guy did, or didn't do. Typical white collar crime on a large scale. No need to remind me on Trump's comments, it was yesterday. I've already addressed that. I'll take it one step further--I do not think, generally, that a President sits, reviews, and deeply considers the ramifications of every pardon they grant or decline. I don't think they are round-tabled, that victim impact statements are sought or considered. I think recommendations are made, political relevance and the greater good for candidate and party are taken into consideration, and off we go. I think people tend to look very closely at things like this, but only when it's the other guy doing it.

Thanks for the extended explanation. As an average citizen, trying to trust that justice is blind and not partisan, I can only look at outcomes relative to what we are told. From my perspective, it looks pretty bad for the Biden DOJ's assessment of what he was accused of v what the outcome was. Maybe that's just a marketing problem. The pardon seems exactly like what might happen in that sort of case. I literally discussed it. Multiple times. With Frank. With NB. With you. The record is clear, and stop trying to steal my insults!

I'm happy to review any of my past comments where I suggested Biden lying was an "unimaginable, even impeachable action". I have stated, emphatically, that Biden has lied the entirety of his career in office. And, that he's made racially insensitive statements during his time in office. And, that he was pretty handsy with many of the ladies in his orbit. I even recall speaking with you about that---ooops, wait, it may have been another poster, Bob in Mich. Perhaps you know of him? I always considered him an intelligent, left leaning thinking person. Anyway, my premise has long been that righteous indignation that Trump lies was neither righteous nor true indignation, simply that you guys like your liars from a different political party. On the issue of impeachment...probably the greatest travesty of the Biden years was raiding Trump's house, taking material unrelated to whatever investigation they were doing, and leaking selectively to the press to shape a narrative. I assumed, correctly as it turned out, that most politicians at that level would have a fair amount of classified/top secret documents in their possession. I also suggested part of the problem was at that level, classified/top secret seemed to be handled as "Do whatever you want". Still, my point of view was that these people play at the "Above the law" level, that's just the way it is. I'd have been fine with Biden did it, Trump did it, Clinton did it....a little humble pie, a few delicious soundbites, whatever. However, when the Biden DOJ escalates, the R party needs to respond in kind when they are in charge.

It's referred to as "Pulling a Fergie". Nothing new. No thoughts on the 3 mos sentence for CZ?

That was already addressed upthread a bit. I believe Trump knows who he pardoned and utilized the power of his office for political purposes. It happens with regularity, so I don't really care. I do wonder, and asked Frankish for his feedback--how this supposed threat existential threat to our national security ended up being sentenced under the Biden admin to a whopping 90 days. What are your thoughts on that? To me, it seems reasonable to consider that the guy was pursued politically by the Biden DOJ. 90 days? 36 months sentence for being a threat to our country? By the way, NB suggested that the Trump admin would use a Biden auto-pen. That's demented, too.

It seems clear to me you didn’t think this one through. It happens. As a gentleman and citizen of the world, I’ll move on.