If Trump loses and refuses to leave

[SoTier]

19 minutes ago, TBBills said:

I meant in the interview, why not look more professional and not like an idiot who is brainwashed.

Quote

 

 

'Cuz it's the best shirt he owns?

 

I checked to see what a "gaylord box" is because from what it sounded like, it sounded like it was some kind of bin.  Gaylord boxes are pallet sized cardboard boxes with covers.    Some have integral lids and others have lids.   Who the hell ships anything without taping down covers or lids? 

[reddogblitz]

48 minutes ago, TBBills said:

I meant in the interview, why not look more professional and not like an idiot who is brainwashed.

 

you'd have to ask him that.

 

[TBBills]

23 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

you'd have to ask him that.

 

I don't ever want to talk to that guy... He is too tinfoil hat for me.

[reddogblitz]

1 minute ago, TBBills said:

I don't ever want to talk to that guy... He is too tinfoil hat for me.

 

True.  But I'm not too surprised by how people dress these days.  Society had gotten so much more casual in the last 25 or so years.   When I started on the Xerox PC hotline in1985 I had to wear a coat and tie. Now hotline people wear shorts and flip flops.

[ComradeKayAdams]

3 hours ago, TBBills said:

I don't ever want to talk to that guy... He is too tinfoil hat for me.

 

I do!!! OMG I have so many questions for him. He cleaned up a bit for the second Fox News interview, so I’d like to think he has some basic level of sartorial self-awareness. Here are just a few questions:

 

1. When I say “business professional,” what are the first clothing items that come to mind? Is a Josh Allen jersey one of them?

2. What does “business casual” mean to you? Would a Trent Murphy jersey be included in this category?

3. Were you wearing Bills Zubaz pants below for the Lou Dobbs interview? If so, were they washed beforehand? Do they contain a variety of mystery stains? If yes, what steps did you take to try and remove them?

4. When I say “put on a sports jacket,” can you describe in detail what you reach for?

5. What is your Two Bills Drive user name???

[shoshin]

1 minute ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

I do!!! OMG I have so many questions for him. He cleaned up a bit for the second Fox News interview, so I’d like to think he has some basic level of sartorial self-awareness. Here are just a few questions:

 

1. When I say “business professional,” what are the first clothing items that come to mind? Is a Josh Allen jersey one of them?

2. What does “business casual” mean to you? Would a Trent Murphy jersey be included in this category?

3. Were you wearing Bills Zubaz pants below for the Lou Dobbs interview? If so, were they washed beforehand? Do they contain a variety of mystery stains? If yes, what steps did you take to try and remove them?

4. When I say “put on a sports jacket,” can you describe in detail what you reach for?

5. What is your Two Bills Drive user name???

 

#5 is all I want to know. He is probably at the other site now but still! 

[TBBills]

41 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

I do!!! OMG I have so many questions for him. He cleaned up a bit for the second Fox News interview, so I’d like to think he has some basic level of sartorial self-awareness. Here are just a few questions:

 

1. When I say “business professional,” what are the first clothing items that come to mind? Is a Josh Allen jersey one of them?

2. What does “business casual” mean to you? Would a Trent Murphy jersey be included in this category?

3. Were you wearing Bills Zubaz pants below for the Lou Dobbs interview? If so, were they washed beforehand? Do they contain a variety of mystery stains? If yes, what steps did you take to try and remove them?

4. When I say “put on a sports jacket,” can you describe in detail what you reach for?

5. What is your Two Bills Drive user name???

#5 is @B-Man

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

I do!!! OMG I have so many questions for him. He cleaned up a bit for the second Fox News interview, so I’d like to think he has some basic level of sartorial self-awareness. Here are just a few questions:

 

1. When I say “business professional,” what are the first clothing items that come to mind? Is a Josh Allen jersey one of them?

2. What does “business casual” mean to you? Would a Trent Murphy jersey be included in this category?

3. Were you wearing Bills Zubaz pants below for the Lou Dobbs interview? If so, were they washed beforehand? Do they contain a variety of mystery stains? If yes, what steps did you take to try and remove them?

4. When I say “put on a sports jacket,” can you describe in detail what you reach for?

5. What is your Two Bills Drive user name???

I will answer as I am a Bills fan too:

 

1.  Speedo (camo) and mock turtleneck (green), NO—Josh Allen is a mythical figure half man/half god!;

 

2. Business causal means Friday afternoons off and Monday’s we flip the squawk box on by 10:30....Trick question—I think Trent Murphy sang with Pavorotti and a blind Spanish guy;

 

3. Yes Zubaz...obviously they were washed before hand they are 10 years old and still fit like a glove..No, the stains are not a mystery 😏....none;

 

4. I reach for a beer and think “This chick is bossy and I’m not sure I hate it!”;

 

5. @leh-nerd skin-erd (duh) 

[shoshin]

12 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

5. @leh-nerd skin-erd (duh) 

 

Lay off the late night Mighty Taco runs!

 

And based on the photo from the Fox interview, maybe skip the doobies every once in a while. That guy looks baked!

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 hours ago, shoshin said:

 

Lay off the late night Mighty Taco runs!

 

And based on the photo from the Fox interview, maybe skip the doobies every once in a while. That guy looks baked!

I understand you all thinking he is one of hundreds of people making up stories, and I more listened than watched.  He didn’t strike me as crazy, just a guy telling his story.  Certainly no less credible than that porker who says he heard someone say something about someone who might have heard something else about Ukraine.  
 

Interestingly I always get Mighty Taco when I go home.  Reminds me of many good times in Hs and college!  

[shoshin]

31 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I understand you all thinking he is one of hundreds of people making up stories, and I more listened than watched.  He didn’t strike me as crazy, just a guy telling his story.  Certainly no less credible than that porker who says he heard someone say something about someone who might have heard something else about Ukraine.  
 

Interestingly I always get Mighty Taco when I go home.  Reminds me of many good times in Hs and college!  

 

The issue that lead to impeachment/Ukraine ultimately rested on the record of the president's call, not Vindman who reported on it. Once Vindman reported the issue, his role in that was pretty much limited to describing his reporting about what he heard. What he said happened on the call pretty much happened. How it was interpreted, whether it was impeachable: That's another question. 

 

The Bills guy in the video is some guy who has provided no proof that any court accepts to show fraud. He's a step above Twitter-evidence but only a small step. 

 

I was never a Mighty Taco guy (a taco is a taco in my book, not an opinion I hold about wings) but I do associate it with Buffalo. 

Edited December 4, 2020 by shoshin

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

51 minutes ago, shoshin said:

 

The issue that lead to impeachment/Ukraine ultimately rested on the record of the president's call, not Vindman who reported on it. Once Vindman reported the issue, his role in that was pretty much limited to describing his reporting about what he heard. What he said happened on the call pretty much happened. How it was interpreted, whether it was impeachable: That's another question. 

 

The Bills guy in the video is some guy who has provided no proof that any court accepts to show fraud. He's a step above Twitter-evidence but only a small step. 

 

I was never a Mighty Taco guy (a taco is a taco in my book, not an opinion I hold about wings) but I do associate it with Buffalo. 

This issue reveals the divide of us v them. Vindman held out as national hero, Bills guy is disposable.  
 

Such is the world. 

[shoshin]

5 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

This issue reveals the divide of us v them. Vindman held out as national hero, Bills guy is disposable.  
 

Such is the world. 

What Vindman reported happened actually happened. We know that from the call. 
 

What Section 135 Mighty Taco said...who knows but barring it undergoing scrutiny in a court of law or at least by skeptics, dubious. He’s just a guy with a story, and those stories aren’t amount to much at this point but noise and Tweets.  

[shoshin]

 

 

[shoshin]

Are those spines I see?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2020 by shoshin

[SoTier]

3 hours ago, shoshin said:

Are those spines I see?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cartilaginous spines like in sharks at best, but spines nonetheless.

[shoshin]

2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Interesting. 
 

What aspects of the Russia investigation were particularly abhorrent to you?  You indicated “many”, but just indulge me and hit me with two or three.  
 

 

 

Moving this out of the Covid thread over here where it's slightly more relevant.

 

- Use of national security instead of subpoena to surveil Americans

- reliance on questionable to outright terrible sources to surveil Page

- relationship between Clinton campaign ad Crossfire Hurricane

 

That said, the Trump campaign ended up a long way from clean in the Russia investigation. Still, fruit of the poison tree and all that, the investigation into Trump directly (not Russia's intervention specifically) should have been dropped early, especially as all that rotten fruit was seeking to delegitimize a sitting president with almost no direct tie to him. The investigation into Trump detracted from the bigger issue that both sides agreed on: Russia is a problem.   

 

Your question dodges the issue on the table though: How can you defend Trump's attempt to undermine democracy as "his right," now to find out that his "right" is proving to be completely baseless? Once you realize that the president has sought to undermine the democratic process based on nothing more than Twitter-evidence, shouldn't you condemn in the most outraged way, what he's doing? Do you now believe, seeing that he was horribly wrong, that our sitting president almost successfully committed a near-treasonous act in trying to end run American voters? 

 

He's done this end run both through the courts, which are holding firm, and via direct calls to legislators. It stuns me that people who claim to care about democracy don't condemn this. I understand that for the politicians, they are following their master, and for many others, they have anger for Russiagate, but there's also an element of blind loyalty to Trump, and I suspect, an unwillingness to admit that support for Trump may have been misplaced. There's this thing floating around on the Internet where no one will admit their mistake. Here's a chance: What Trump is doing right now is deeply wrong and troubling. You can support him on other topics but this one seems convincingly awful. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

21 minutes ago, shoshin said:

 

Moving this out of the Covid thread over here where it's slightly more relevant.

 

- Use of national security instead of subpoena to surveil Americans

- reliance on questionable to outright terrible sources to surveil Page

- relationship between Clinton campaign ad Crossfire Hurricane

 

That said, the Trump campaign ended up a long way from clean in the Russia investigation. Still, fruit of the poison tree and all that, the investigation into Trump directly (not Russia's intervention specifically) should have been dropped early, especially as all that rotten fruit was seeking to delegitimize a sitting president with almost no direct tie to him. The investigation into Trump detracted from the bigger issue that both sides agreed on: Russia is a problem.   

 

Your question dodges the issue on the table though: How can you defend Trump's attempt to undermine democracy as "his right," now to find out that his "right" is proving to be completely baseless? Once you realize that the president has sought to undermine the democratic process based on nothing more than Twitter-evidence, shouldn't you condemn in the most outraged way, what he's doing? Do you now believe, seeing that he was horribly wrong, that our sitting president almost successfully committed a near-treasonous act in trying to end run American voters? 

 

He's done this end run both through the courts, which are holding firm, and via direct calls to legislators. It stuns me that people who claim to care about democracy don't condemn this. I understand that for the politicians, they are following their master, and for many others, they have anger for Russiagate, but there's also an element of blind loyalty to Trump, and I suspect, an unwillingness to admit that support for Trump may have been misplaced. There's this thing floating around on the Internet where no one will admit their mistake. Here's a chance: What Trump is doing right now is deeply wrong and troubling. You can support him on other topics but this one seems convincingly awful. 

Excellent and fair question.  I’ve watched the proceedings from afar, fairly certain that Biden will be President on 1/20. At that point, I advocate treating him and his families the way Trump has been treated the last four years.  Work hard to neutralize him, go after his family and his associates, and try and get the creepy old b to crack. 

 

 In the most simplistic analysis, the testimony of hundreds of people pointing to wrongdoing, the statistical anomalies being batted about, concerns about the constitutional aspects of changes to procedures to the process in Pa, and the fact that it’s all happening regardless of my feelings compels me to stay the course. 
 

I absolutely believe fraud occurred (and has occurred in past elections ), I believe that people and organizations will do just about anything when money and power is in play, and at the end of the day, it just is what it is.  
 

4 years ago...8 years ago and beyond I would have been less cynical.  I mean, people are always people, and some people are just bad.   That said, if you told me 5 or 6 years ago we would relive the modern version of commies in the woods as seen during the McCarthy era, or even Nixon/Eisenhower/Stevenson era, I’d have thought you nuts.  
 

If you would have told me an honorable man nominated for the SC would be subject to public character assassination of the worst kind based on...nothing...I’d have thought you were being overly dramatic.  If you told me an unpopular senator from California that barely registered on the candidateometer would be chief executioner AND be rewarded with the VP slot to a demented old geezer who actually publicly fondles women and children, I’d have laughed it off.  

 

Interestingly, while I was skeptical that Trump = Treason, I really assumed that the Dems would not be loading up on the treason angle when this all first broke unless they could take him out. When Trump suggested that Obama wiretapped his campaign, I was quite outraged that he would say that without evidence.  I thought it bad for the republic.  As time went on, however, I came to realize the whole shebang was all about unseating Trump and stealing my vote.  That became personal to me.  It’s personal still.  
 

I believe there was widespread fraud.  I believe a comprehensive and wide ranging review of our system would reveal it’s a clusterfuvk of corruption at worst, incompetence at best.  I also believe that the less than 60 day window to get anything meaningful accomplished means it’s highly unlikely that anything meaningful will occur.  
 

If I’m wrong, well Son, that seems to be the way the game is played.  
 

[shoshin]

6 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Excellent and fair question.  I’ve watched the proceedings from afar, fairly certain that Biden will be President on 1/20. At that point, I advocate treating him and his families the way Trump has been treated the last four years.  Work hard to neutralize him, go after his family and his associates, and try and get the creepy old b to crack. 

 

 In the most simplistic analysis, the testimony of hundreds of people pointing to wrongdoing, the statistical anomalies being batted about, concerns about the constitutional aspects of changes to procedures to the process in Pa, and the fact that it’s all happening regardless of my feelings compels me to stay the course. 
 

I absolutely believe fraud occurred (and has occurred in past elections ), I believe that people and organizations will do just about anything when money and power is in play, and at the end of the day, it just is what it is.  
 

4 years ago...8 years ago and beyond I would have been less cynical.  I mean, people are always people, and some people are just bad.   That said, if you told me 5 or 6 years ago we would relive the modern version of commies in the woods as seen during the McCarthy era, or even Nixon/Eisenhower/Stevenson era, I’d have thought you nuts.  
 

If you would have told me an honorable man nominated for the SC would be subject to public character assassination of the worst kind based on...nothing...I’d have thought you were being overly dramatic.  If you told me an unpopular senator from California that barely registered on the candidateometer would be chief executioner AND be rewarded with the VP slot to a demented old geezer who actually publicly fondles women and children, I’d have laughed it off.  

 

Interestingly, while I was skeptical that Trump = Treason, I really assumed that the Dems would not be loading up on the treason angle when this all first broke unless they could take him out. When Trump suggested that Obama wiretapped his campaign, I was quite outraged that he would say that without evidence.  I thought it bad for the republic.  As time went on, however, I came to realize the whole shebang was all about unseating Trump and stealing my vote.  That became personal to me.  It’s personal still.  
 

I believe there was widespread fraud.  I believe a comprehensive and wide ranging review of our system would reveal it’s a clusterfuvk of corruption at worst, incompetence at best.  I also believe that the less than 60 day window to get anything meaningful accomplished means it’s highly unlikely that anything meaningful will occur.  
 

If I’m wrong, well Son, that seems to be the way the game is played.  
 

 

Sad.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 minutes ago, shoshin said:

 

Sad.

You’ll get over it.