The Walls be Closing

[Kemp]

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

You inquire about trust in government but don’t want to talk about trust in government. Weird.
 

Anyway…I’ll forgo linking body language analysis in the meeting below.  International politics in a very complicated game, but one thing seems certain—this interaction reflects mutual respect, deference and friendship: 
 

 

 

Obviously, Dems sent a message to Barrack about partnering with a notorious foreign adversary.  It’s quite likely ten, maybe twenty Dems nationally stayed home on Election Day to protest this partnership:

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/245803/preliminary-results-of-the-popular-vote-of-the-2012-presidential-election/

 

 

President Obama has won the election with about 65.9 million votes from the population. His opponent Mitt Romney could gather about 60.9 million votes.

Then, a short time later, of course, Putin annexed Crimea.  Perhaps this was the flexibility promised by BO and approved by 65,900,000 supporters: 

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-annexes-crimea-away-from-ukraine-with-signature-from-vladimir-putin/

 

 

Was all this a disqualifier for you?  

🤷🏼‍♂️

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's try again.

 

Did Trump take Putin's word over the word of the American government?

 

Since the only possible answer is yes, why? 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

8 hours ago, redtail hawk said:

trump is getting bottom feeder lawyers.  He has been for some time...Legal eagles?  agree?  They never seem to weigh in x section C3,  Are they demurring or disagree?  I can't tell.  I'm not gonna explain the judges comment.  You seem to have at least avg intelligence.

 

You’ve made quite a case here. Compartmentalized, yet fully engaged.  Expansive, yet convertibility stringent.  Much to think about.  

 

[Doc]

9 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

There’s certainly an argument for incitement. And if it wasn’t the President of the United States, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was charged. 
 

So while I remain skeptical that Trump will actually be charged with incitement, here is what the argument would look like:

 

1. Trump’s team claimed that they won the election despite reality. 
2. Trump’s team hired consultants to find election fraud but they could not find evidence that he had won

3. Trump was told that he lost by his advisors 

4. Trump pushed the idiotic theory that the VP can decide an election 

5. Pence proved that he has like two brain cells to rub together and the idea that the VP decides elections is stupid as hell. 
6. Upon learning this, Trump tells his followers to come out because it “will be wild”

7. When Pence does his actual job, Trump tweets that he failed and the terrorists decide that they want to hang Pence and sack the Capitol. 

8. During the terrorist attack on the Capitol, the only person who potentially has the power to stop it is Trump and he refuses to do so for hours. 
 

So the proposed case is that Trump fomented a situation to create violence in the hopes that the violence would end to his benefit. 
 

It’s probably factually true but fairly difficult to prove in a court of law. It is definitely not a slam dunk. The documents case is the definition of a slam dunk. Incitement is a very different story. 

 

As you like to say, they'll have to prove he told them to get violent, much less break into the Capitol.  They can't so they won't.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

40 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

As you like to say, they'll have to prove he told them to get violent, much less break into the Capitol.  They can't so they won't.

so you think he's a swell guy and law abiding citizen who should be president again?

Edited July 24, 2023 by redtail hawk

[Joe Ferguson forever]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

You’ve made quite a case here. Compartmentalized, yet fully engaged.  Expansive, yet convertibility stringent.  Much to think about.  

 

thank you.  You write somewhat eloquently but reason weakly.   It's almost as if you don't actually believe what you write.  "convertibility stringent"?  like barbies car with stiff suspension?

Edited July 24, 2023 by redtail hawk

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 minute ago, redtail hawk said:

thank you.  You write somewhat eloquently but reason weakly.   It's almost as if you don't actually believe what you write.

Thank you, too.  I think part of the challenge is I actually understand what I write, but your last couple contributions do not make much sense to me.  If I reason weakly, I submit it's on you to provide clarity. 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Thank you, too.  I think part of the challenge is I actually understand what I write, but your last couple contributions do not make much sense to me.  If I reason weakly, I submit it's on you to provide clarity. 

Well, then I splain it to you when asked.  convertibility stringent?  Fortunately for me, our minds work nothing alike.

Edited July 24, 2023 by redtail hawk

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, Kemp said:

 

Let's try again.

 

Did Trump take Putin's word over the word of the American government?

 

Since the only possible answer is yes, why? 

If you see that as the only possible answer, then the only pertinent question in my opinion is why would you need validation?  

[Joe Ferguson forever]

6 hours ago, John from Riverside said:

Ditch problem with the arguments that come out of trumps mouth is that they play well with his bass but they don’t work well in court. He is now hiring lawyers that just go on to Fox News and repeat what he says. These are not arguments that are going to work in court. 
Trump and his team tried so hard to push the documents case pass the election and that is not even going his way with a judge that he selected

That trail is going to go on right in the middle of Trump trying to run for election and his base will come out for him and vote twice if they could but that’s not gonna work with the rest of the country

Fast forward to 2023 and Trump will be complaining that he didn’t get a fair shot at being elected because of the trial

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 minute ago, redtail hawk said:

Well, then I splain it to you when asked.  convertibility stringent?  Fortunately for me, our minds work nothing alike.

I thought after you started discussing weigh-ins and x factors, we were just stringing words together to create content.  You know, institutional barbarism. 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

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

If you see that as the only possible answer, then the only pertinent question in my opinion is why would you need validation?  

therefore, anyone stating a fact is seeking validation?

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

x factors

x is medical short hand for "except".  old habits die hard. plus it's convenient.

Edited July 24, 2023 by redtail hawk

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

29 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

therefore, anyone stating a fact is seeking validation?

I cannot speak to that. 

 

29 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

x is medical short hand for "except".  old habits die hard. plus it's convenient.

Ah, that makes a lot of sense when one knows medical shorthand. Sidebar: It only takes 22 days to create a new habit, one that might improve understanding for all st/hœdrz.*

 

*st/hœdrz is company s/h** for stakeholders

**s/h is company shorthand for s/h

Edited July 24, 2023 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[Joe Ferguson forever]

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

*st/hœdrz

which industry/profession invents an abbreviation that's as long as the actual word?  That's just dumb.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

42 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

which industry/profession invents an abbreviation that's as long as the actual word?  That's just dumb.

I guess.  I'm self-employed and was trying to think outside the box.   Don't get me wrong, that whole œ thing is a pain in the a$$ as well.  I also added 911 to speed dial to our speed dial, it's *4357*.   I created a simple jingle to help my employees remember:

 

Dial star four three five seven star,

It spells HELP wherever you are!

 

We've only lost 2 people so far.  

 

 

 

[BillStime]

 

[Kemp]

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

If you see that as the only possible answer, then the only pertinent question in my opinion is why would you need validation?  

 

Give the other possible answers.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

5 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

Give the other possible answers.

You are mistaking me for someone else, I fear.  

[Kemp]

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

You are mistaking me for someone else, I fear.  

 

Considering our two messages are one after another, try again.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

11 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

Considering our two messages are one after another, try again.

No, I'm quite certain I'm correct here.  Have a good day though. 

[Kemp]

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

No, I'm quite certain I'm correct here.  Have a good day though. 

 

You wrote "If you see that as the only possible answer, then the only pertinent question in my opinion is why would you need validation?"

I asked you for other possible answers.

Are you saying someone logged in as you and you're unaware of what your account wrote?

Really?